Why you should buy music directly from the artist.

[TalkingDog]

[msongs]

1. today's mantra is nobody makes anything off music, it should all be freeeeee lol nt

[TalkingDog]

5. Given this graph, I think it might not be free, but very low cost

if you bought it directly from the folks who created it.

[Romulox]

6. Boohoo for creepy old record company execs.

:shrug:

[Edweird]

18. If you had any experience in the recording industry, you'd understand.

The record labels saddle you with so much 'debt' that you don't see a dime from record sales unless you are the 'next big thing'. And even then, your royalties are so ridiculously low that you will likely end up owing money. You make your money off touring and merchandising.... as long as your music doesn't suck. Of course, if your music does suck, you are free to whine about how nobody is buying your crappy songs. Which you wouldn't get any revenue from *ANYWAY* since you aren't Sting or Metallica.

[el_bryanto]

2. Fascinating chart. Kind of sad

I wonder if we will get anybody on here defending piracy.

Bryant

[Romulox]

3. Record co's are adding very little value of late.

I recently bought a CD that was sold as "on demand" via Amazon.com--presumably the publishing co. is ultimately Amazon.com? :shrug:

[laconicsax]

4. Artistshare

www.artistshare.com

[TalkingDog]

7. Thank you. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

8. Can I download directly from Green Day? I would if I could.

[fascisthunter]

9. Radiohead tried something like that

and it was a sucess from what I have read. People were allowed to download an album for free or for a price people felt it was worth. On average I think most paid about 7 dollars... and most PAID! That's how honest people really are... as for buying cd's in stores, what the fuck did they expect. You buy a cd with 15 songs, and out of those songs only one is decent. People are being screwed for garbage...

iTunes and stores like that have the right idea I think... but buying straight from the artist is the way to go, if you can!

Almost forgot: the album I speak of is called "In Rainbows"

[percussivemadness]

10. what a ridiculously skewed chart ... a question for you....

How many of the slices of the pie would be interested in the artist if it wasn`t for the label spending big bucks to market him? I don`t disagree with your basic premiss, however, there is far more to be taken into account in a complex process before you reduce it to simplicities as above. What the above also fails to calculate is the vast revenues made by bands on the road, which until the recent 360 deals, the label didn`t get to touch.

Its all well and good attacking major labels, but, a manager takes on average 25% plus expenses. Excluded rather conveniently out of the above chart is the following, booking agents, CPAs, tour managers et all.

The demonization of record labels is all well and good, but demonize them for correct reasons, such as the failure to spend money on developing new artists, the failure to explore new music and so on. Of the above chart, I would argue that it is the following that need to be slammed in the following order of priority

Manager:
Studio:
Agent:
Producer
Label
Lawyer...

In fact I would argue a lawyer is a necessity, therefore if you including him as an expense in the above, you may as well include things like tour busses, hotels and much more...

[TalkingDog]

11. Granted, it is skewed. But I'm no CPA

So I can't give you a breakdown on the actual slices of the pie. And unfortunately I didn't make the chart, so I can't amend it.

You seem to know a lot about it, please provide a more accurate summary.

There are a few independent artists who do all the legwork, advertising and so on. The ones I know are making a modest living.

I guess it comes down to whether you want to play music or you want to be a household name.

[percussivemadness]

13. Well I think the labels serve a very useful purpose

However, it is trendy to knock them because of what they make and it is not a school of thought to which I subscribe. To develop an artist properly, that takes a huge investment without any guarantee of a return. Many of the major bands still thriving today were established before the social networking scam that has destroyed the music industry. There are many many examples of major acts who don`t sell records any more, however due to the work done by the labels when they were establishing themselves, can earn at least a couple of million a year from touring, of which the label sees virtually nothing.

The labels have become lazy and unadventurous, however we must not forget, without major label investment, many of the great bands from the last 50 years would probably never have seen the light of day.

As I said, I agree with your basic premiss, buy directly from the artist if possible, however, in the case of bands such as Buckcherry, once they hit a certain sales level, the majors will step in and move them to the next level.

Majors serve a purpose and a very important one, however, they have lost faith in the marketplace and the consumer, primarily because the consumer demographic of 14-30 believes it has a right to download music for free. This is a result of social networking and the sociological change in attitudes to bands (friends versus fans). As a result, a&r budgets have been drastically reduced, which is why whereas 40 years ago a label would take a risk on a Hendrix, nowadays they play safe, which ultimately results in watered down version of similar artists.

The beauty of the social networking scam, is that labels have been sold to its validity.Bands move entire fan bases onto sites like Myspace, for free. Myspace is then sold for 500 billion dollars. How much money do you think they pay the bands? That is the real scandal out there, yet by cleverly diverting attention to labels and painting them as the bad guys, sites like Myspace continue using music for free, engendering a lack of respect for not only that music, but all music in general.

I could go on for days :)

[metapunditedgy]

12. It's not just the money. Wonder why so many good artists die young?

I read a Hendrix bio recently. Sounds like his managers fed him drugs, money, etc., until he died. Meanwhile, he had trouble getting his mind together enough to ask what was even in his "contract." It's hard to even know how much money Hendrix made for his managers; it all got siphoned off.

Explains a lot about the entertainment industry if you think about it....

[percussivemadness]

16. Only a very small percentage of "good artists" die young

I agree its a loss when someone like a Hendrix dies, but the myth that "so many" good artists die young is exactly that, a myth.

However if you want a great book to read, may I suggest "Take A Walk on the Dark Side" by R.Gary Patterson. Absolutely stunning read and deals very well with the fascinating subject of "the curse of Buddy Holly".

[dana_b]

14. hell yes! and if one can afford it, go see the live shows

it's a blast and that's where artists can really make the $$ too.

[progressoid]

15. So where does this information come from?

A generic pie chart is meaningless without some actual data to support it.

[percussivemadness]

17. :)

nt

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Source? Link? nt