Huh. This is enlightening.
Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)Um, yeah. I can certainly see room for improvement if that parenthetical statement is accurate. I can hear the discussions now: "Dammit, the cover of the CD is a simple portrait shot! How much can that possibly cost?"
Today's musical pick is lighthearted AM pop from the late 1960s-early 1970s...Golden Grass, the original hits collection from The Grass Roots. The band had a history of personnel switches, and it didn't last long, but the music was good while it lasted. It was influenced by folk-rock, but it had elements of R&B and Motown as well (horn arrangements for "Midnight Confessions", for example). "Let's Live for Today" and "Where Were You When I Needed You" were also fine examples of the band's work. Some of the original members reformed to catch the oldies tour craze in the mid-1980s.
Posted by Linkmeister at September 14, 2003 09:34 AMTh thing to keep in mind is that a record deal is a kind of loan. The company gives you X amount of dollars (say, $100,000) to hire the musicians, producers, engineers, rent the studios, buy new equipment, hire handlers and business staff, and then you pay through the nose (cheapo studios I've worked/recorded in routinely charge a minimum of $50/hour) to record it over a period of usually months, hire photographers and layout people, and otherwise put the package together.
The first $100,000 that record makes goes right back to the record company so they can recoup their costs.
Posted by: Scott at September 14, 2003 10:34 AMSo it's similar to a book advance. Well, that makes more sense. Then the label has a huge interest in promo/marketing to sell enough copies to recover the cost. Thanks, Scott.
Posted by: Linkmeister at September 14, 2003 10:55 AMRight. The problem is that the way things work now the record labels are simply shooting in the dark for a single hit, rather than a coherent album with good sales. And so they dump cash all over the place for new artists, 1/100 of them produce a hit, and then that revenue is able to recoup the cost of the other experimentation.
This is why things like mp3.com scared the labels to death, to some extent: while it did make A&R recruiting easier for people, it also made it more difficult for the labels to control/manufacture/predict the next big thing, and thus made it difficult for them to make good investments.
If that makes any sense.
Posted by: Scott at September 14, 2003 11:18 AMGood research. thanks for the enlightenment
Posted by: Cassie-B at September 14, 2003 12:21 PMSo, when are authors of books going to go after libraries????
Could you imagine the books that could be bought if there were no libraries???
This whole thing is so stupid. And I really need to download some mp3's, but I am afraid the hugh fines will kill me!!!
Re: Grass Roots
Love,Love, Love "Live for Today" was it '68 or '69??
Heard it was one of the most requested songs during the Vietnam War...
Also reminds me of one hot summer night in '69 (or was it '68?) with Joe L......
but that's another story................. ;--)
1969, I think.
Posted by: Linkmeister at September 15, 2003 07:50 PMI've been looking for this link since you posted this and JUST found it: The Problem with Music
Posted by: Scott at September 24, 2003 06:37 AM