Really? Many big bands sell their tickets below what the market would bear to keep fans happy. Tickets to see Tool, The Rolling Stones or Fleetwood Mac are often only slightly more expensive than much much younger bands that have only been popular for 6 months or so. So how does that only benefit ‘heritage acts’?

Your record can go gold, and you still owe the record company money. A deal where the artist gets between 8 and 12 percent of the revenues — and expenses comes out of that — while the record company gets between 88 and 92 percent looks like the worst sort of exploitation to me.

The politicians I have spoken with all believe that musicians make money from album sales, and think that I am lying to them when I say that this is not true. Or perhaps ‘all _good_ and
_popular_ musicians’ make money from record sales. The few who look at figures I have been able to find a pretty shocked about the true state of affairs. I’d like more data to show them.

I think we could build a pretty nice movement around ‘We do not value our musaicians by preverving the system that exploits them’.

Our copyright laws could be scaled back considerably and creative arts would still flourish. Whether or not anyone is making money doesn’t really matter, though I am happy to see artists are working it to their advantage.

These bands or musicians will always exist. They will not stop making music. They’re not making money now, they will not make money if copyright did not exist.

but if somehow an obscure band manages to become internet famous it will sell tickets, much harder do it the other way round.

His band has made more money(merch sales) playing High Schools and Hot Topics than playing shows at Universties and clubs. There’s clearly more money in the teen/tween fanbase.

We’ve recorded some of the top names in jazz, so name recognition is not the issue. A lot of the problem is that there just aren’t any record stores anymore. People who buy jazz tend to be the types who like to go to the record store and spend a couple of hours browsing and talking to the schlubs who work at the store. (I used to be one, so that’s not a knock.)

The internets have been ok to us. Through our own website, Amazon and iTunes, we’ve sold a few hundred copies. But it doesn’t begin to cover the cost of paying the top guys, studio time, manufacturing and promotion.

My partner and I are very uncertain about the future. We’d be pleased to break even. As it stands, there’s only so much money we can stand to lose before we have to throw in the towel. It would be a shame because we do love the music.

This does not suit everyone. Musicians without the energy for touring, or the inclination, or who make music that’s less suited for live performance, will still face declining incomes from albums – for whatever reason – and so hard choices about whether to continue making music.

If the artists self-release and put it on itunes, a significant portion of the money does end up in the artists’ pockets.
Best place to buy mp3s, though, from self-released artists (and there are many great ones) is CDbaby.com Artist gets more money, about same price as itunes and the mp3s are higher res than itunes’.

8 per cent of retail value is what you mean. For the label to keep 92 per cent of retail -

- the pressing plant makes the CD for free

- the distributor carries the CD in a truck for free

- the store sells the CD for free

all those businesses have bills to pay and staff. Your maths is funky

It’s pretty obvious who’s pocket that ten ends up in.

Why do we still make 3 cents on the dollar to the record company’s 97 cents? Even taking production, distribution and advertising into account, it isn’t costing them anywhere near this gargantuan share. This is what record labels dislike about Internet sales and free downloads; it’s bumping into their insanely huge profit. They never should have received this much in the first place. I realize this is technically a different subject, but it’s directly related to the ‘whys’ of this article.
Also agree with M’s comment. Copyright has nothing to do with success, but everything to do with protecting your own songs/musical pieces.

Quite so! This is also very true of the author/publisher relationship. Publishing houses have also outlived their usefulness, with the coming of the Internet age. Anyone can self-publish using the very same services and distro networks (Lightning Source for printing, Ingrams for distribution, etc.) All you need to do is buy a block of ISBNs and hire a freelance editor and maybe a designer. You do have to go on the road to promote your work–but most publishers expect you to do so anyway, on your own dime.

The upshot is you can make the same margin on *far* fewer books sold (and at a lower list price), because there’s no middleman, AND you retain all your rights.

The Internet is changing the game. I suspect a lot of these publishing/media companies are going to go the way of the whip and buggy makers of old.

None of the above. Copyright is to protect the original author of the piece from being ripped off by others for their own benefit, whether he or they are successes or not. It’s not about anyone’s success.

Our small local venues continue to host tons and tons of shows and every one I go it is super crowded. For the most part that’s not really obscure bands though, stuff like Gogol Bordello and Reverend Horton Heat.

I’m not sure you can be a mega- seller without a label. Somebody has to put up the promotion money, don’t they? But I’m not convinced we need mega sellers. What we need are good musicians and good songs and good albums (which are still rare. Bono’s quote still stands)

I am not convinced there is much money to be made for the kinds of bands who might attract 40-50 people along to a club (ie. most bands at the bottom end).

As others have said, these types of bands have never really made money. I can speak from experience. You basically have to sell CDs after the show and haggle with the clubs/promoters over your chunk of the door/bar, which can vary wildly. Mostly you’re just lucky if you recoup your expenses (food, drink, gas, equipment maintenance, etc.)

These types of bands usually just do it because they love to play, and hope to spread the word and widen their fan base or get ‘noticed’. But for the most part you’re not delusional. You never expect to suddenly start making a handsome salary and get offers to play at the Hollywood Bowl out of the blue. Would be great, but not necessarily likely.

I think the real money is still being made exclusively by “artists” who are owned wholesale by labels and rightly deserve the moniker “artist” since they don’t know a damn thing about music.

Sorry. Bitter, actual musician rant.

I’m not so sure many bands are better off giving away music for free for example

I’m not seeing costs sheets at all

Travel
Gas
Food
Auto cost
Insurance
Maintenance on equipment
Maintenance on Auto
Equipment cost
Clothing

And the list goes on

All I’m hearing and seeing is, “we made money”

I am not seeing a balance sheet from any musicians online, not one, not one describing debt versus profit versus expenses.

Until I see more of that, all I can say is musicians are just verbal blogging