Internet vs artists

[Reeltarded]

If you want a glimpse into the world I live against, this is the education you seek.

http://thetrichordist.com

You don't have to be an industry peep to see how you yourself have probably played into being a useful tool along the way.

Google spider, See me now. We are coming for you and our money.

[vibratoking]

I always knew I was a tool, just not a useful one. Google is inadvertantly building my self worth. Thank you Mr. Google whoever you are.

[NickC]

Build a better mouse-trap and the world will beat a path to your door ............... and eat all your mice.

[lord preset]

Whiners.

Google says they are not evil. Why would they lie?

[Reeltarded]

Yeah.. billions of dollars, I guess.

David Lowery got $100 for 1,000,000 Spotify spins of "Low" by Cracker as a recent example of what is going on.

I personally stopped my taking residuals when the checks showed up for less than $20 in a quarter. I haven't made money in music since 1997.

[JazzGuitarGimp]

I seem to recall, from my recording classes in college (mid 70's), that a 3 cent royalty was collected for every radio play. Of course, none of that made its way into the artist's pocket: according to the labels, that money was used to pay back advances and other expenses. But by those standards, 1,000,000 plays should generate $30K in royalties. The times, they are a'changin'.

[Reeltarded]

The times always change. It's miserable when you end up here from there though.

Long. Thoughtful. Perfect.

http://thetrichordist.com/2012/04/15/me ... full-post/

Google makes all their money from theft. They are scanning every published work. They want to own all previous rights and all future rights in perpetuity. They serve the government and lobby it for the laws they want. They follow those laws to the letter. Those laws were written for them.

They rape me all day every day. DMCA is a joke.

[Leo_Gnardo]

I seem to recall, from my recording classes in college (mid 70's), that a 3 cent royalty was collected for every radio play. Of course, none of that made its way into the artist's pocket: according to the labels, that money was used to pay back advances and other expenses. But by those standards, 1,000,000 plays should generate $30K in royalties. The times, they are a'changin'.

If I'm not mistook, USA airplay royalties topped out early 90's at just over half a buck a play - on thousands of radio stations. And in the UK, not so many stations but in exchange, somewhere beyond 50 quid a play on BBC. After recouping advances, recording costs, etc, there was occasionally enough money to send a handsome check to the artiste. Of course, all that's magically gone away now... along with most reasons to sign up with any record company.

Your best bet is getting your song picked up for use in a film, TV show, or advertising. My happiest customers (with their own careers) are the half dozen or so that write-to-order, jingles mostly.

OTOH there's one who's constantly dejected, a BIG songwriter, has hundreds of songs he's recorded to pro standards at his home studio. Hasn't sold one yet. Oh no, his music is only for the BIG rock stars, which is why he doesn't have a toe in the water yet after 30+ years of writing and recording & pitching. I'd be happy to get a song used for a dog food commercial, feminine hygiene products, public service announcement, ANYTHING but show a no-sale after 30 years of faffing around.

[Reeltarded]

No way. 3 cents per minute. Madonna got 6 for a minute for a minute.

In normal deals the artist would get about 25% of net before expenses. My producing fees were 3% on smaller things, 1.5 on larger things.

[skyboltone]

I read a book once about headhunters in the Venezuela rainforest. The author got out there amongst them. Living off the land. Traipsing through the forest; lost most of the time.

He was talking to an old timer about his early years when he enjoyed killing his neighbors for sport and profit. The interviewer/author asked him something like; "Do you miss it?"

The old boy replied "yes of course" but then opined that the truly worst effect of the prohibition on killing was that "the forest has suffered for it".

Is it any wonder that radio music is so bad these days? What we're talking about here you know? The music has suffered for it.

I have no idea what that means.

[Reeltarded]

Quite profound.

[NickC]

I was watching an episode of Later .... With Jools Holland the other night. A bunch of acts with lead singers that couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. Obviously, no pitch correction employed. So, no Milli Vanilli going on. That's an improvement, right?

But I digress, this conversation is about the music business .... which has more to do with exploitation than talent. The record business in America, early on, was controlled by organized crime looking for legal, profitable avenues of exploitation. They learned they could make MORE filthy lucre stealing via recording contracts than armed robberies. Hungry, young (i.e. inexperienced, uneducated, delusional) musicians signed on the dotted line and got an education from the school-of-hard-knocks. Some of them wised up and began treating it as a business. Some (Led Zeppelin) hired their own bully/thug to manage getting their cut of the big money (even by gunpoint if necessary) before the suits got theirs. A relative few got rich. Many more ended up like Chet Baker, tragically dead geniuses.

It has always been a filthy, dirty business.

Hunter S. Thompson said it best:

The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.

The best way to make money in the music-biz is like Dick Dale explains here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AJxc3Lxn4o

Yep, Mr. Dale nailed it.

[skyboltone]

Good for Dick. It's probably easier than eating the bastards and spitting out the bones.