bigbladerob Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Quote: Live ticket prices are shooting up because no one buys albums anymore (dont say they arent cheap, Little Boots (im not a fan personally) has her album available at a 5'er! Source? And correlation does not imply causation. Labels dont invest in artists for the long term anymore as no one buys the recorded material. artists need to recoup recoding costs, touring costs, production, promotion etc. no label support for touring leaves a big hole in the budgets. ticket price goes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbladerob Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 more from a legally bought download yea. dont get me wrong, im not against downloading, just wish people wouldnt expect it for free as its punishing the artist. Major labels cutting jobs and all sorts so its not too great. i dunno, i guess everyone has a different take on it, i just cant get my head around people presume music should be free. an interesting debate for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbladerob Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 thats what the radio and spotify and we7 are for though. to hear music. bands still get paid this way... haha, this could run all day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Quote: Labels dont invest in artists for the long term anymore as no one buys the recorded material. artists need to recoup recoding costs, touring costs, production, promotion etc. no label support for touring leaves a big hole in the budgets. ticket price goes up. Just repeating what you said previously doesn't make it any more valid, do you have a source or is this pure conjecture on your part. And by the sounds of it you know very little about the way the industry works. artists need to recoup recoding costs...production, promotion etc. Signed artists tend not to pay for for recording costs, the label usually does, further more the label tend to use one of their studios. So artists don't need to do a thing the labels do. And again, production, promotion all things the label does. Have you ever seen a professional recording contract given to a band? Essentially the band is given a retainer as in the band are given a lump sum of money, and they don't get a penny back from their album sales until it's paid back, then the split happens. Production, promotion etc all covered by the labels not the band. touring costs[/Quote] What about them? Sponsorship, digital licensing, not to mention the revenues of live shows have increased over time check the PRS website for figures if you don't believe me. Secondly if what you were saying is true, then one would expect to see a disparity in the change of ticket price raises between classical performances and that of those "afflicted" by downloading such as popular music. To my recollection there isn't any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbladerob Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 indeed. but the performer still gets a royalty cut too even if they dont own the publishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 As for the moral question; yes it's immoral, whatever spin you put on it. Most people just neutralise by saying 'it's too expensive' 'only the greedy capitalist record companies lose out' etc. Actually, I moralise it by the fact that I want to listen to something before I buy it. Most of it remains unbought, but also never again listened to again. No one loses anything. But every thing that I do listen to, like and subsequently buy, after borrowing a copy from a friend, downloading, etc, is a purchase I would never have made had I not broke some sort of copyright rules. In fact one could argue that it is the music industry that is acting immorally by trying to force us to buy product we might not like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Hate to tell you this, but the costs of promotion etc are usually "loaned" to the artist until they start to sell records, at which point it is taken out of their royalties. The only ione that is not regularly is the studio time, but sometimes this is also included. The instances of contracts I have seen it was covered by the label. But I will be happy to accept as not everything is the same it is loaned to sum artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbladerob Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 and if no one buys their record the label have lost a fortune so they wont invest... the label advance the artist to cover their costs of recording etc and will recoup it in record sales. unless, like more and more are trying to do, they sign a 360 deal where the label get a cut of everything, pushing ticket prices up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbladerob Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 its an interesting idea for sure, but they dont have the marketing and presence as bigger labels. im not 100% behind major labels but they do have a purpose! Bandstocks is a good idea, fans invest and become shareholders of the group, pretty interesting but still no real direction and influence of the majors but its a great concept! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffield_uk Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Funny how they keep producing cheaper cd/dvd media and burners for everybody to download...and keep making broadband faster... Then say `dont download` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.