Thorin Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 But that's the point, he said 'artists in the charts'. Absolutely... because if they're not in the charts they must be crap right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 That's like saying 'all Arabs are millionaires'. Of course a few are, they are the ones you see. What about the millions of them on the poverty line? O RLY? Oh noes, you've shattered my illusions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 The problem extends to small record labels too unfortunately has they have virtually no price negociation powers with their distributor(s). Often distris buy at a fixed price from all small labels and offer the same T's and C's on a "take it or leave it" basis. I've been there, I used to run a record label a few years ago, only releasing vinyl (500 to 1000 copies per single) and it was a nightmare dealing with distis. As a matter of fact, each vinyl (1000 copies heavyweigh 180gr) including CMYK cover print, including mastering, shipping and everything was about £1.60 to produce. Distris buy them at 2.50 and shops sell them £6. So, label gets 90p, artist gets half (usually on small labels) plus some mechanical reproduction royalties if the label is honest enough to pay them to the MCPS/PRS. CD's are an even greedier business as they cost a fraction of the price to produce comparing to vinyls (no metal mastering and CD mediums are dead cheap). Most record companies made a s***load of money in the 90's and if they failed to recognise digital medium as a threat early enough, I say too bad for them. So all in all, I think 90p per track and global exposure is a fair deal Some sense at last. I have been running my labels for 20 years now and today I have just seen yet another of our distributors go bust which has cost me thousand of pounds and I have to take that on the chin. If people think this business is alive with cash then they are wrong. Just because wnakers at the top of the tree like Elton John etc splash their cash does not mean it filters down, there are 1000s of labels struggling to survive, and if it means 99p for a download then that is cheap for a song that would well have cost thousands to produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Absolutely... because if they're not in the charts they must be crap right? Spot on. I mean, if they're making such quality music why the hell should they slum it?! Look at Billy Ray Cyrus.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Absolutely... because if they're not in the charts they must be crap right? No they just don't cater to the tastes of 14 year old girls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Look at Billy Ray Cyrus.... I'd rather not. No they just don't cater to the tastes of 14 year old girls Maybe that's where they're going wrong then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I'd rather not. He'll be upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 He'll be upset. Oh go on then. http://www.bransoncourier.com/articlephotos/article_552_Billy__Ray_Cyrus_Web.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 *furiously rubs legs* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.