I dont know if anyone here knows about this site but for you mp3 lovers its a great site. www.mp3shock.net They have a section called full albums and they update it alot. They come out with albums before they hit the stores. One trick to it is when you are done downloading the song you have to change it to .mp3 ------------------ President of the Moochie Norris FAN CLUB
Ok, let me get in on this. As a musician, let me give my view on this one. Metallica is in an unfortunate position because they do make millions, however, the internet availability of songs MUST be addressed. Period. The problem is not with guys like Metallica but with up and coming bands. I don't know how much you guys know about the salaries of bands/musicians but the contracts are not good. Record sales account for only a small amount of their total revenue. For breakdown purposes, here are the primary revenue steams for musicians: 1. Album/Single Sales - this is usually 2 to 3 points (percentage of net sales) minus the cost of making records and videos which can run into the millions. In other words, the record company pays for pressing the CD, promoting and distributing it but NOT for recording it (usually $50 to $100K) and NOT for the making of videos (anywhere from $100K to $2 mill) which, arguably, are the most important parts of the process. The record companies pay for it initially but then take it out of the money made off the records. An artist will NOT receive royalties until those debts are paid off AND they may even owe if the record company gives them a signing bonus which they only keep if they profit. Bottom line is that they need to sell MILLIONS of records to turn a profit from album sales. 2. Performance Royalty - artists are usually members of organizations like ASCAP and BMI. They charge royalties of radio stations, stores, tv stations, etc that play songs and then distribute those royalties based on the percentage of airplay. This is why a song that is played often on stations can make an artist decent money for a very long time. However, this is mostly pennies on the dollar and is more a long-term investment than an immediate payoff because royalties aren't paid until after about a year so a song on radio today won't be paid off on until next summer. 3. Publishing - at the moment, an artist that writes his/her own material (which isn't terribly often unfortunately) or the songwriter recieves $0.28 per album (generally, some are slightly more or less) per album sold. So, if an album sells 100,000 copies, the songwriter gets $28,000. Publishing can be received from any sale - video, album, single, compilation and soundtracks. Many times, this is split between 2 or 3 people because there are multiple writers and, unless they do their own publishing (which is VERY VERY rare), they will usually split that amount with a publishing company 50/50. 4. Live Performance - this used to be the most lucrative income for artists. It is not any longer because of dwindling fans coming to live shows. By way of comparison, an artist in the 80's could sell 500,000 albums with little airplay and still sell out a 15,000 seat arena. Today, an artist can sell 5 million records, get tons of airplay and still struggle to sell out 10,000 seats per night. This has alot to do with rising tickets costs, the lost art of live playing ability and the fact that live sound is lagging far behind digital recorded sound. 5. Merchandising - sales of t-shirts, buttons, banners, posters, etc can be the most lucrative part of an artist's income if they do it right. Of course, they still have to pay distributors, etc. In short , this is not an easy business for artists. Only a VERY small percentage (let's say 1/10th of one percent for argument sake) are able to parlay their songs and talent into millions of album sales and only one in say 100 million reaches the plateu of Metallica, Madonna, etc. Here's a breakdown for an artist who writes his/her own material and is essentially a solo artist (say like Sarah McLaughlin) that sells 1 million records: Recording & Video Costs: $500,000 Record Sale Income: $13,500 (remember that the $500,000 comes off the top) Publishing Income: $140,000 Performance Royalty (hard to figure, but we'll assume that there is one top 20 song on the album to make it sell 1mill copies, so I'll make an estimate): $50,000 Live Playing: $42,000 ($1500 at 28 shows - that is after paying the band, roadies, venue costs, etc) Merchandising: $25,000 (show sales estimated after costs) That's 207,500. Now take out 60% of that for promoters, expenses and management which leaves roughly $83,000. Now, consider that this amount will have to last them for 2 to 3 years unless they spend ALL of it on the road or record non-stop. That also is assuming that they continue to sell well after this. I know that we all like to complain about the millions people make, but be careful to criticize. Metallica's battle is more or less a battle for other bands and not so much for themselves. Other artists who do not have the resources they do will benefit from this in the future by defining how they earn their income from the internet. Thanks for letting me vent this. Sorry for the length. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
Thanks for the info. I guess I kept wondering why VH-1 would tell me that an artist lost $100,000 after selling a million records. That confused the crap out of me. Last night, they said the same thing about the Goo-Goo dolls and the goo's said they were considering leaving the business completely because it was a joke. TLC had the same kind of problem. MC Hammer too. Shocking. I'm just wondering how some artists do so well while others end up losing. What's the difference and why can't everyone follow in a "financially sound" artist's footsteps. It's all mindboggling to me. I mean, if you know what it costs (as listed above) then why can't you safely cut a deal that would net you a decent profit. Where do they all go wrong...that's all I want to figure out. If it's poor decision making there should be some kind of mandatory guidance counseling for musicians before they sign a deal. Like NBA rookies, make them take a class or something. I'm not saying it wouldn't be easy to get ripped off, because everyone wants a piece of you if your successful, but maybe if they had some help things wouldn't end up like this ALL the time. ------------------ humble, but hungry. [This message has been edited by PhiSlammaJamma (edited May 26, 2000).]
No offense to my bretheren musicians but they aren't the smartest people in the world in general. In addition, 99% of them don't get into this for the money. They do it for the love of it, so they don't care about it. Add in the age factor (no one gets a record deal in this business if they are over 30) and you have a dangerous situation. In all honesty, the record companies could care less about the future financial stability of the artist. All they want is for them to sell records and every shark in the water smells blood as soon as a bunch of 20-something kids are dropped in the water. Billy Joel said it best: "This is a tough business. I mean, it ain't the boy scouts." Read "Hit Men" for more info on this. It chronicles the mafia and big business involvement in the music business. Astonishing stuff. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
My point was nothing concerning what you stated in your quote above. I never said it was right or wrong for Dre to be pissed. All I said was that I thought it was inredibly ironic, if not hilarious, that he can rap about killing people and then get his panties in a wad when someone steals his work via mp3. If you don't find any irony or humor in that, then we've got nothing further to discuss. ------------------ ?
LOL! I nearly laughed myself out of my chair. Here poor Rocketman95 is trying to take the high road with his Miltonian epic of a post and ol' Francis3 comes along and slaps up another illegal site for everyone's viewing and downloading pleasure. Oh man... Rocketman, I feel for ya bud. ------------------ ?
Rocketman, you dissapoint me greatly. I, like Jeff, am a musician. Metalica has more money than they know what to do with (thats why they want to fight this in court)Napster is just the beginning of a new revolution where no-name bands have a chance of being heard. It has been my experience that the best music is the least known music. The reason for this is simple. Music is an art, not something for some guy in an office to say wheather its good or bad. Whats the difference in taping a song off the radio as opposed to downloading it from napster? Do you realize how hard it is to get any kind of radio airplay? The internet is the perfect way for unsigned bands to be heard. Metallica, obviously, is milking this for all the publicity they can. They are not dumb. The time for change in the music industry has arrived. Either you climb on board or get left behind. ------------------ You just want to be on the side thats winning.
Like I said, if an artist gives his/her/their consent, then by all means, download them. But it's obvious that Metallica and some of the record companies, no matter how greedy they are, don't. It's their music, they own it, you don't have a right to get it for free if they don't want you to. I think this whole deal is good for struggling bands. It's a good way to get your music heard. Taping it off the radio is not nearly the quality of MP3s. You wouldn't settle with a song from the radio like you would a song downloaded from the computer. ------------------ Get your proper swirve on...visit www.swirve.com (coming in mid-June, for now visit www.eesite.com)
Dr. Dumpster Yep....you have your opinion and I have mine ------------------ [This message has been edited by MoonDogg (edited May 26, 2000).]
Hey Clutch, would you be mad if someone stole the exact designs of this site, without your permission? Just wondering. What's the point of buying books? Shouldn't we be able just to print them off the internet and not have to pay the author or publishing company anything? It's ridiculous that they would want to be compensated for their work. And electricity, cable, phone service, shouldn't all that be free? What are those CEOs thinking? They want money in exchange for their services? Greedy bastards. How many of you have jobs? What if your boss decided that he didn't want to pay you for your services? Would you be upset? Would you sue? I bet you would. But just because Metallica and Dr. Dre have been lucky enough to make money selling music doesn't mean that they shouldn't be compensated for their work. IMO, unless the artist gives his/her/their consent, MP3 downloading is stealing. Bob Finn*, don't you think Metallica pays the original artist some kind of royalty, or at least gains their permission before using their song to make money? Remember that crappy "Bittersweet Symphony" song by The Verve? Well, turns out they stole some music from the Stones, and the Stones ended up getting all the royalties of the song. DOD, what's your point? Dr. Dre, despite the contact of his lyrics, deserves compensation for his product. His gangsta rap has nothing to do with it. ------------------ Get your proper swirve on...visit www.swirve.com (coming in mid-June, for now visit www.eesite.com) [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited May 26, 2000).]
