that two people could agree that radiohead releases music within the popular music framework is a mindboggler to me that rivals any david lynch film. how to you listen to kid a or amnesiac and come away thinking, "oh yeah, radiohead, they release music within the standard music formula"? Wait...huh?
additionally postal service, and iron and wine, josh radin, william fitzsimmons etc... all released huge albums, some of the most important albums of the decade and all, with the exception of the last 2 iron and wine albums were about lo fi, hushed vocals.
the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?
that two people could agree that radiohead releases music within the popular music framework is a mindboggler to me that rivals any david lynch film. how to you listen to kid a or amnesiac and come away thinking, "oh yeah, radiohead, they release music within the standard music formula"? Wait...huh?
You guys are on drugs or something.
no one said that. it's pop music whether you like or not though. that doesn't mean it's not unique. i think you are just confused with what popular music is.....see you have a few major categories, classical, jazz, world, pop etc. radiohead is pop. fact.
and your whole argument about bon iver and whatnot....how many frickin artists do you think try and do the same thing and fail? thousands. just cause justin vernon pulled it off, doesn't mean it should be the standard buisness model. he got lucky, and that's a big part of what it takes to break through. that is a great album though.
you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.
That kind of release suits Bon Iver as it does with XX but it won't work with every band and style. Not everyone can just release some music for free and then make it big.
It looks like subscription based models will be the next thing and I think that might be good way. Pay a flat rate and you can listen to all the music you desire. You then just buy what you want to have in your car or ipod. If people have access to as much music as possible then maybe you can get people interested in it more but the industry still needs the money too. These record companies are the ones who invest in research and development of new sound, recording techniques, speakers, headphones ect. There has to be a balance somewhere. The record companies need to realise that they can't charge stupid prices for their cds that they are doing now, they need to adapt as well. I want muisc to keep getting better and better in terms of sound and quality.
Free musis is not a viable model but your right neither is charging £15 for a cd. I think you just need to step a little away from the mind set that all record companies are evil entities that eat babies and devours the musicians soul. There are some really good companies who are pushing some great music out there, look around.
the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much of what you are saying.
the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much that you are saying.
i know your a fan of the national, broken social scene, arcade fire right? all are p4k favorites.
you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.
That kind of release suits Bon Iver as it does with XX but it won't work with every band and style. Not everyone can just release some music for free and then make it big.
It looks like subscription based models will be the next thing and I think that might be good way. Pay a flat rate and you can listen to all the music you desire. You then just buy what you want to have in your car or ipod. If people have access to as much music as possible then maybe you can get people interested in it more but the industry still needs the money too. These record companies are the ones who invest in research and development of new sound, recording techniques, speakers, headphones ect. There has to be a balance somewhere. The record companies need to realise that they can't charge stupid prices for their cds that they are doing now, they need to adapt as well. I want muisc to keep getting better and better in terms of sound and quality.
Free musis is not a viable model but your right neither is charging £15 for a cd. I think you just need to step a little away from the mind set that all record companies are evil entities that eat babies and devours the musicians soul. There are some really good companies who are pushing some great music out there, look around.
a subscription based model died in 1999. back when napster first appeared this is exactly what all the record labels should have done. made it like the tv and internet bill. every month you would be charged 10 bucks and you could download as many songs as you wanted. thats what should have happened when napster hit. but instead the labels fought it and treated downloaders as criminals.
now the vast majority of people download. billions of people download. every single computer/laptop that a college freshmen brings to his or her dorm room is equipped with a CD burner.
Subscription based ideas wont fly. too many people get music for free now. Youd merely siphon off maybe 1 percent or 2 percent of the people. The rest would just download it for free. Who would pay 20 or 10 bucks a month to download music, when they can get it for free now?
Would have worked in 1999, but now its a silly idea, no offense to you intended, but thats the reality
i agree not all record labels are bad. i like merge, sub pop, among others. but none of the big 4 or 5, EMI, Sony, Arista etc... are good or even moral. If you are telling me not all majors are bad, i'd have to seriously disagree. all are bad. but i;d also argue most indies are good.
the other people on this forum who still listen to alt rock radio, thats one thing, but you of all people tiki, you obviously read p4k and we share alot of the same musical taste as far as indie music. so how you could tell me, or tell anyone that radiohead releasing music online is not viable for other bands is beyond me. You not following the indie scene anymore tiki? Thats obviously fine, but you seriously read p4k, and stereogum and brooklyn vegan and can tell me the bands that are the huge things in indie, p4k's best new music and what not, all wouldnt be huge or viable if they released their music for free online?
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much that you are saying.
i know your a fan of the national, broken social scene, arcade fire right? all are p4k favorites.
yep. three of my favorite bands. i'm familiar with pitchfork, but i don't read or follow it. they piss me off. they shit on a lot of my favorite artists every time they release an album for some reason. i think it's cause they don't like old established acts. i don't know. pj, and wilco in particular. and most recently bright eyes. for wilco, they gushed over yankee, and then panned everything since. i think it's a usefull site they got over there, pretty cool to hear about new artists and stuff, and occassionally they'll have interesting articles....but their reviewers tend to rub me the wrong way.
sure some labels pay for studio time but nowadays alot of bands just spend their own cash to record as well. additionally i think its naive to suggest the labels are the people who promote diversity, and new and exciting advances in musical expression and sound. i;d say the majors are the anthesis of this idea. its not the label that created the latest sound crazes and advances it was the artists.
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much that you are saying.[/quote]
i know your a fan of the national, broken social scene, arcade fire right? all are p4k favorites.[/quote]
yep. three of my favorite bands. i'm familiar with pitchfork, but i don't read or follow it. they piss me off. they shit on a lot of my favorite artists every time they release an album for some reason. i think it's cause they don't like old established acts. i don't know. pj, and wilco in particular. and most recently bright eyes. for wilco, they gushed over yankee, and then panned everything since. i think it's a usefull site they got over there, pretty cool to hear about new artists and stuff, and occassionally they'll have interesting articles....but their reviewers tend to rub me the wrong way.[/quote]
i agree. i dont agree with all the reviews, but i'd say they are way more representative of my own musical taste and preferences than RS, Spin or any other media outlet. I trust them. And in terms of wanting to know about the newest indie band, newest sensation, their site, the best new music section specially really is essential if you want to know anything about modern day music.
you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.
That kind of release suits Bon Iver as it does with XX but it won't work with every band and style. Not everyone can just release some music for free and then make it big.
It looks like subscription based models will be the next thing and I think that might be good way. Pay a flat rate and you can listen to all the music you desire. You then just buy what you want to have in your car or ipod. If people have access to as much music as possible then maybe you can get people interested in it more but the industry still needs the money too. These record companies are the ones who invest in research and development of new sound, recording techniques, speakers, headphones ect. There has to be a balance somewhere. The record companies need to realise that they can't charge stupid prices for their cds that they are doing now, they need to adapt as well. I want muisc to keep getting better and better in terms of sound and quality.
Free musis is not a viable model but your right neither is charging £15 for a cd. I think you just need to step a little away from the mind set that all record companies are evil entities that eat babies and devours the musicians soul. There are some really good companies who are pushing some great music out there, look around.
a subscription based model died in 1999. back when napster first appeared this is exactly what all the record labels should have done. made it like the tv and internet bill. every month you would be charged 10 bucks and you could download as many songs as you wanted. thats what should have happened when napster hit. but instead the labels fought it and treated downloaders as criminals.
now the vast majority of people download. billions of people download. every single computer/laptop that a college freshmen brings to his or her dorm room is equipped with a CD burner.
Subscription based ideas wont fly. too many people get music for free now. Youd merely siphon off maybe 1 percent or 2 percent of the people. The rest would just download it for free. Who would pay 20 or 10 bucks a month to download music, when they can get it for free now?
Would have worked in 1999, but now its a silly idea, no offense to you intended, but thats the reality
Ever heard of Spotify? emusic? Seems to be doing pretty well for itself. Just because people can get music for free doesn't mean they don't want to pay for it. I would rather take the cd or pay for a download then steal it.
Plenty of people on here still buy vinyls and cds with a passion but it must be said that downloads doesn't equal lost revenue, that is where the industry went wrong from the beginning. And yes downloaders are crinimals you can label it any way you want but thats the reality and i'm not going to say I haven't done any myself but they didn't know how to deal with it and it is costing them.
I have to say that I agree with the notion that having a built-in fanbase helps with In Rainbows/The King of Limbs release methods, but I'd say that that kind of model should be emulated more so than the traditional record your CD, have five months of promotion, and then sell it at your local FYE model. To be frank, no matter what you do, you're likely not going to make much money off of CD sales. Most of the money from CD sales goes to the record companies as recoupment for the money they give bands to record their records. Until that recoupment is paid off, bands won't make any money from CD's. For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales. So I think that by releasing CDs themselves, or through less greedy indie labels, they will actually end up making more money in the end.
It's the tradeoff that we made at the turn of the millennium. We have access to all of this music, but apart from your Lady Gaga and Eminem-types, nobody is making much money off of record sales. It's clear that touring is where the money lies now.
its more than not knowing how to deal with it. from the start they dealt with it as if anyone who downloaded was a criminal worth fining up to 1.6 million dollars and even serving some time in jail. thats ridiculous.
the labels didnt consider any other option. the majors are clueless. absolutely and completely. the advances and changes in the music industry since 1999 have not altered their mindset or outlook. they still view that college student that downloads music in his or her dorm room as deserving of million dollar fines.
the majors ignorance on these issues is stunning.
Ive said it before but music and art is one of the only things i care about. my life has been rough these past few years and music keeps me going. my entire life's course has been altered by a song, or by an album. music is a spiritual experience to me. It has altered my fabric of my being. if i was to walk up to a major label CEO and tell him this they frankly wouldnt care about that. thats sad and disturbing to me.
I have to say that I agree with the notion that having a built-in fanbase helps with In Rainbows/The King of Limbs release methods, but I'd say that that kind of model should be emulated more so than the traditional record your CD, have five months of promotion, and then sell it at your local FYE model. To be frank, no matter what you do, you're likely not going to make much money off of CD sales. Most of the money from CD sales goes to the record companies as recoupment for the money they give bands to record their records. Until that recoupment is paid off, bands won't make any money from CD's. For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales. So I think that by releasing CDs themselves, or through less greedy indie labels, they will actually end up making more money in the end.
It's the tradeoff that we made at the turn of the millennium. We have access to all of this music, but apart from your Lady Gaga and Eminem-types, nobody is making much money off of record sales. It's clear that touring is where the money lies now.
It's the tradeoff that we made at the turn of the millennium. We have access to all of this music, but apart from your Lady Gaga and Eminem-types, nobody is making much money off of record sales. It's clear that touring is where the money lies now.
Yeah very true. How long will it be before companies try and get a slice of that pie? I know some already do. It is sad that you make more money these days by getting a song on an advert or tv show then from selling a shed load of records.
I think it will just come down to there not being a single model that will dominate anymore. There will always be a decent percentage that want physical media so you can expect high prices, some people won't support anything by just illegally downloading everything and some will pay for downloads / subscriptions. It may just take a while for the dust to settle and to see what balances and what doesn't.
Putting out a cd is now no longer the only way to get noticed or 'make it big'. For some it will be distributing their music for free, others it will probably be something of a youtube phenomanon, tv show/adverts, word of mouth.
I have to say that I agree with the notion that having a built-in fanbase helps with In Rainbows/The King of Limbs release methods, but I'd say that that kind of model should be emulated more so than the traditional record your CD, have five months of promotion, and then sell it at your local FYE model. To be frank, no matter what you do, you're likely not going to make much money off of CD sales. Most of the money from CD sales goes to the record companies as recoupment for the money they give bands to record their records. Until that recoupment is paid off, bands won't make any money from CD's. For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales. So I think that by releasing CDs themselves, or through less greedy indie labels, they will actually end up making more money in the end.
It's the tradeoff that we made at the turn of the millennium. We have access to all of this music, but apart from your Lady Gaga and Eminem-types, nobody is making much money off of record sales. It's clear that touring is where the money lies now.
agree 1000 percent with this.
i am for the artist. i think musicians deserve our money. music makes my life worth living. i mean that in the literal sense. after a soul draining day at work and feeling like life is spinning out of control and things are as bad as they could get, i turn on an album and is comfort to me that few other things could provide. thats worth something. but i just think bands are as clueless as the labels really. i go to a ton of shows, and still hear bands saying "pick up our cd at the merch table" or "on itunes". The idea of physical cd's to me is just so bizaare nowadays. it just seems so counter intuitive to me. bands make little money on cd sales, and this isnt some hidden fact. its common knowledge. so they spend tons of man hours on creating this physical cd sold at stores. that time could be better spent doing any number of things. i file share, but i also attend concerts like a madman. And i have maybe 30-40 t shirts of bands that i reguarly wear. I feel for the bands, but i dont understand this idea of doing things like this was 1997 or something. doing the long drawnout press junket to promote the album, selling the album in a store, all that. it just seems so unneccesary.
Im an artist myself, painting, writing. Ive never submitted my work for publishing or in an art store. i work at main job, one i hate, and spend my days hoping to break into the scene. and i;d love more than anything to not have to go to my main job, and just be paid for my art and live off that the rest of my life. I;d love to spend the rest of my days painting and writing and getting paid for it. I get it, I get it more than anyone. But the fact is, they wouldnt make any money reguardless if all of us bought the cd in stores. cd sales amount to such a small cash flow its insigninficant.
I have to say that I agree with the notion that having a built-in fanbase helps with In Rainbows/The King of Limbs release methods, but I'd say that that kind of model should be emulated more so than the traditional record your CD, have five months of promotion, and then sell it at your local FYE model. To be frank, no matter what you do, you're likely not going to make much money off of CD sales. Most of the money from CD sales goes to the record companies as recoupment for the money they give bands to record their records. Until that recoupment is paid off, bands won't make any money from CD's. For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales. So I think that by releasing CDs themselves, or through less greedy indie labels, they will actually end up making more money in the end.
It's the tradeoff that we made at the turn of the millennium. We have access to all of this music, but apart from your Lady Gaga and Eminem-types, nobody is making much money off of record sales. It's clear that touring is where the money lies now.
agree 1000 percent with this.
i agree with this too.....but, if you're not going to go the typical route in releasing your music, you need to have the backing to promote it. a lot of bands that need that promotion won't have a choice in how they release their music because they will be under contract with somebody. what we should really be talking about i suppose, is why record-companies aren't following this lead, not the bands. there must be a reason, wouldn't you think? i don't know what that reason is, but i would assume the people in that line of work know more about the industry than me, and are trying to do whatever they need to do to maximize their profits.
its more than not knowing how to deal with it. from the start they dealt with it as if anyone who downloaded was a criminal worth fining up to 1.6 million dollars and even serving some time in jail. thats ridiculous.
the labels didnt consider any other option. the majors are clueless. absolutely and completely. the advances and changes in the music industry since 1999 have not altered their mindset or outlook. they still view that college student that downloads music in his or her dorm room as deserving of million dollar fines.
the majors ignorance on these issues is stunning.
Agreed. The fines are ridiculous. I wonder what the penalty would be if you stole a physical cd from a store?
They are just using these court battles as an excuse to recuperate lost revenues from bad business and dragging their heels with a changing market. I have no problem with major record companies going bust from it but I think record companies are still a great way of finding talent. It used to be a filter to stop bad musicians from putting out cds but thats just not the case anymore.
It's the tradeoff that we made at the turn of the millennium. We have access to all of this music, but apart from your Lady Gaga and Eminem-types, nobody is making much money off of record sales. It's clear that touring is where the money lies now.
Yeah very true. How long will it be before companies try and get a slice of that pie? I know some already do. It is sad that you make more money these days by getting a song on an advert or tv show then from selling a shed load of records.
I think it will just come down to there not being a single model that will dominate anymore. There will always be a decent percentage that want physical media so you can expect high prices, some people won't support anything by just illegally downloading everything and some will pay for downloads / subscriptions. It may just take a while for the dust to settle and to see what balances and what doesn't.
Putting out a cd is now no longer the only way to get noticed or 'make it big'. For some it will be distributing their music for free, others it will probably be something of a youtube phenomanon, tv show/adverts, word of mouth.
i'd go one further, those who are looking for the new best thing, whether thats some silly American Idol show interested in pop talent, or whether thats p4k, or some obsessive indie music blogger,whatever you think of the site their love of music is undeniable and what theyve done for the scene and getting people excited about it is very exciting and important. But the point is the last place to get your music heard about is via the traditional methods of RS, Spin, radio play, music videos or album sales.
and thats all im saying. there are a million ways to get noticed and get signed and get your music and art seen and heard. to waste the precious time we have, doing some of the things that are so traditional, like talking to MTV, or trying to get on the radio, its just so silly. If you want your band to be heard, i'd say the traditionaly methods should be ones very last option.
I do wonder how much longer it will take before the record companies start changing their ways.
Right now it's kind of an awkward mix of the old method, which has stagnated to such a degree that CD stores are closing down everywhere, and the new method, which isn't exactly making a lot of money either but is at least exciting and forward-thinking. I read somewhere that the best idea going forward is an "entertainment like water" service, where you pay for it like you would a household utility. Pay a set fee each month and you get to hear pretty much whatever you want, watch your favorite shows for free, rent movies. But how would the individual artists gain money from that? It seems that with each new method proposed there's a negative side to it. I don't know if there's one set model that could work for everybody. It'll be interesting to watch how it all eventually plays out.
I do wonder how much longer it will take before the record companies start changing their ways.
Right now it's kind of an awkward mix of the old method, which has stagnated to such a degree that CD stores are closing down everywhere, and the new method, which isn't exactly making a lot of money either but is at least exciting and forward-thinking. I read somewhere that the best idea going forward is an "entertainment like water" service, where you pay for it like you would a household utility. Pay a set fee each month and you get to hear pretty much whatever you want, watch your favorite shows for free, rent movies. But how would the individual artists gain money from that? It seems that with each new method proposed there's a negative side to it. I don't know if there's one set model that could work for everybody. It'll be interesting to watch how it all eventually plays out.
Yeah thats kind of what I was suggesting. There has been a few interesting articles over the past year or two about this way and even suggesting that record companies make a deal with ISP about music and movies. It is no coincidence that muisc sales have dropped and more people are getting broadband and download traffic has increased.
its more than not knowing how to deal with it. from the start they dealt with it as if anyone who downloaded was a criminal worth fining up to 1.6 million dollars and even serving some time in jail. thats ridiculous.
the labels didnt consider any other option. the majors are clueless. absolutely and completely. the advances and changes in the music industry since 1999 have not altered their mindset or outlook. they still view that college student that downloads music in his or her dorm room as deserving of million dollar fines.
the majors ignorance on these issues is stunning.
Agreed. The fines are ridiculous. I wonder what the penalty would be if you stole a physical cd from a store?
They are just using these court battles as an excuse to recuperate lost revenues from bad business and dragging their heels with a changing market. I have no problem with major record companies going bust from it but I think record companies are still a great way of finding talent. It used to be a filter to stop bad musicians from putting out cds but thats just not the case anymore.
i agree. the punishment doesnt fit the crime. if you download the new bruce album, what is acceptable punishment? The mother fined 1.6 million downloaded 22 songs. or basically 2 albums. Its clear the fines and lawsuits are about one thing, money. well two things, making an example out of the downloaders. they are trying to scare people away. Downloading illegally also seems to be a main way people in their teens and in their twenties get their music. youth. kids. new adults. what punishment fits the age of those people.
i also think the labels are reaping what they've sewn. ive said it multiple times before. LP's, records came out when? So people bought all their music in the 1960's and 70's on viynl. Then the 8 track came and they bought the same music, all the new music and all the old music that they previously played on a turntable, now it was playable and buyable on 8 track. So the customer was charged twice for the same music. The casettes came out. What did people do? They bought all the bands and albums they owned previously on Vinyl and 8 track, now they bought tapes. So they were charged now 3 times for the same music. Finally, cd's came, and what did people do they bought the same music they had on viynl, 8 track, cassette. So they were charged 4 times for the same thing. And then labels did the thing where they remastered or reissued albums with the same content. So people now bought the same music 5 times.
I think people are just fed up with labels. Artists are fed up. And customers are fed up.
I cant relate to people who dont understand art as being a fundamental aspect of the human experience. Labels and their ceo's think this is foreign.
I do wonder how much longer it will take before the record companies start changing their ways.
Right now it's kind of an awkward mix of the old method, which has stagnated to such a degree that CD stores are closing down everywhere, and the new method, which isn't exactly making a lot of money either but is at least exciting and forward-thinking. I read somewhere that the best idea going forward is an "entertainment like water" service, where you pay for it like you would a household utility. Pay a set fee each month and you get to hear pretty much whatever you want, watch your favorite shows for free, rent movies. But how would the individual artists gain money from that? It seems that with each new method proposed there's a negative side to it. I don't know if there's one set model that could work for everybody. It'll be interesting to watch how it all eventually plays out.
i dont think they will change their ways, which is sad. i said they are clueless and meant it. music history provides our answers. the first blues musicians and true architects of rock music, the ones whom we may never know their names, were ostracized, cheated out of money, exploited, harassed and were flat out taken advantadge of by racist and greedy labels. the early rock music scene in the 50's is litered with musicians, black, who wrote great songs, that languished in obscurity. only when some white doo wop group covered the song, did the song become huge and a hit. well guess who got the money? It wasnt the black blues musician who created the song. It was the doo wop group the record label. The music industry has ALWAYS been about money, and exploitation and greed. and it always will be.
The fact is in 2011, the racism and eploitation may not be as extreme but its still there. most bands dont own their master recordings. most make a buck off every album sold, which is absurd when the albums cost 15 bucks to buy. And of course the industry is still based on the label wanting hits immediately. and what happens if the band does hit it big? If they release the new Wonderwall tomorrow, who on the label will talk to the band and help them deal with the pain and the rocky road that is fame and money and all that? Its the same thing, its just called a different name.
the new model, needs to favor the artist. the artist needs and deserves the majority of the profit from their art. that means if an artist releases music they deserve more than 1 dollar if their music is being sold for 15 bucks. the new model needs to favor the customer, us the fans as well. overpriced music should not be allowed either. fair prices. i dont want to be taken advantadge of and exploited by labels either, as a customer. i want a quality product. i want art.
i think the new model should be about providing the bands, each member of the band, at the labels expense with therapy and a counselor and whatever it takes to deal with the stresses of the road, of fame, of pressure, of all that. This should be part of the contract.
finally, i think the new model needs to factor in the reality as it exists. to compose a new system that denies that a majority of people our age download illegally and have done for a decade is ignorant. The facts are that many millions download. this should be taken into account.
Very good points. Many record companies are only in it for their own gain. I'm not saying it's bad to want to make a profit, since that's the point of running a business, but they're de-valuing art, and it's sickening to watch. Another example of how greedy they can be is when they refuse to spend money to promote a record if they deem in "uncommercial". There have been many cases where bands have lost lots of money because their new record didn't sell, and the record companies barely spent anything on promotion for them. But then they still want their recoupment money.
I do wonder how much longer it will take before the record companies start changing their ways.
Right now it's kind of an awkward mix of the old method, which has stagnated to such a degree that CD stores are closing down everywhere, and the new method, which isn't exactly making a lot of money either but is at least exciting and forward-thinking. I read somewhere that the best idea going forward is an "entertainment like water" service, where you pay for it like you would a household utility. Pay a set fee each month and you get to hear pretty much whatever you want, watch your favorite shows for free, rent movies. But how would the individual artists gain money from that? It seems that with each new method proposed there's a negative side to it. I don't know if there's one set model that could work for everybody. It'll be interesting to watch how it all eventually plays out.
the entertainment like water is an interesting idea, but as i said, downloading illegally is so commonplace and natural nowadays for so many people, the most any of these could hope to attract is maybe 1 to 2 percent of the downloading public. I know i wouldnt pay a monthly fee. the only reason the netflix idea has taken hold, is that the majority of torrent sites for movies, are still crap for the most part. with illegally downloaded music you can get a 320kps sounding mp3 collection of the new grizzly bear album, whereas, you can torrent and download a bootlegged copy of someone sneaking a camera into the theater to see Avatar, the day its released in theaters, but the quality is still crap and thats all it is, is some guy holding a camera up to a screen. the illegal downloads are at least of a quality that is listenable. Your choice for movies is limited. there are no video rental stores anymore. so thats why netflix is a huge hit. the illegal downloaders of movies havent provided a good product as of yet. You cant go into a movie theater with quality recording equiptment without causing concern on the part of the theater staff. plus the downloaded movie takes up more space than a 12 song cd.
of the college kids and the twenty year olds, and the teens who download illegally now, how many would have the money to pay a monthly fee for downloads, and who would want to? Its not a question to me. If i can get all the newest music for free now, or pay 10 bucks a month to do the same thing, is there even a debate?
Very good points. Many record companies are only in it for their own gain. I'm not saying it's bad to want to make a profit, since that's the point of running a business, but they're de-valuing art, and it's sickening to watch. Another example of how greedy they can be is when they refuse to spend money to promote a record if they deem in "uncommercial". There have been many cases where bands have lost lots of money because their new record didn't sell, and the record companies barely spent anything on promotion for them. But then they still want their recoupment money.
i agree there is nothing bad about making money off art, to a certain extent, but most contracts favor the label, in terms of percentage of profit goes. thats not right. its not fair or just either. labels should get some money, but the way it exists now its overwhelmingly going to the label. that 1 dollar thing we keep citing is the perfect example. how crazy is it that an artist/label sells the album for 15 bucks and the artist gets 1/15 of that. thats beyond sickening. even factoring in the label spending money on the recording, and "promotion" that number is still absurdly low. Labels should promote i agree, but the label doesnt or shouldnt get the money based off that. So a label promotes a collection of songs a band created, so the label should get the money for that? Just seems so crazy to me.
And yes the uncommercial aspect is true. The latest example is lupe fiasco. a very popular exciting rapper. he raps about real stuff and deep stuff. and he has been in a battle with his label for years. his third record was delayed for years because of his label. and he just released his new record. i havent heard it but people are saying its crap. Lupe himself says the album isnt what he wanted. he says he was pressured to make it and to record these songs for the label. and even says his label told him to not be as deep and wordy and intelligent in this third record. kind of stunning actually. considering his 2nd album has a song with lyrics "dumb it down lupe", which i assume was based on the labels pressuring him to dumb down his music and this was for his 2nd record.
For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales.
No, that means if they sell half a million albums they just made half a million dollars with the leverage of a record label. They don't pay back the record label with their own out of pocket earnings, they pay it back through the record label's share of royalties. Every buck earned per CD sale goes into the pockets of the band.
It's interesting how everyone posts about being so indebted to making sure the band gets their fair share from the record label, then once they hit the submit button they go onto megaupload and illegally download all their music.
Who has more of a right to take a share of a band's royalties, someone who loans them $500,000 to get the album out....or someone who likes their music a lot?
For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales.
No, that means if they sell half a million albums they just made half a million dollars with the leverage of a record label. They don't pay back the record label with their own out of pocket earnings, they pay it back through the record label's share of royalties. Every buck earned per CD sale goes into the pockets of the band.
It's interesting how everyone posts about being so indebted to making sure the band gets their fair share from the record label, then once they hit the submit button they go onto megaupload and illegally download all their music.
Who has more of a right to take a share of a band's royalties, someone who loans
them $500,000 to get the album out....or someone who likes their music a lot?
because buying the album changed nothing. i can go today to the store and buy an album of an artist, but they get 1 dollar out of the transaction. thats it. or they get nothing if i download illegally. 1 dollar is measly. the downloading is stealing argument is a one track argument and illogical because it assume that by buying the physical cd you are actually financially supporting the artist. but if you buy it you only are giving the artist a dollar, which is not enough. The real problem is the label and the contract. i dont have the power to give the artist more than a dollar. the label does. i cant write a contract. the label does. buying a cd does nothing, except to further the exploitative and racist and corrupt system that has existed since the beginning of rock music. i feel no responsibility to further that legacy. in fact i see it as my duty to bring it down and to cause its demise. any system like that is not worth preserving.
on the flip side. if you go to a concert, the artists gets way more of the profit or way more of the percentage of the sales of that, than they do cd sales. it may not be 50/50 venue-band, but its way more than the 1/15 factor that cd sales give the artist. merch sales are almost all the artist. you buy a t-shirt with the national on it, the band gets the majority of the profit. its much more useful to buy tickets, spread the word to friends and to buy a t-shirt at the show than the buy a cd. in fact I do the former exclusively.
Comments
You guys are on drugs or something.
no one said that. it's pop music whether you like or not though. that doesn't mean it's not unique. i think you are just confused with what popular music is.....see you have a few major categories, classical, jazz, world, pop etc. radiohead is pop. fact.
and your whole argument about bon iver and whatnot....how many frickin artists do you think try and do the same thing and fail? thousands. just cause justin vernon pulled it off, doesn't mean it should be the standard buisness model. he got lucky, and that's a big part of what it takes to break through. that is a great album though.
That kind of release suits Bon Iver as it does with XX but it won't work with every band and style. Not everyone can just release some music for free and then make it big.
It looks like subscription based models will be the next thing and I think that might be good way. Pay a flat rate and you can listen to all the music you desire. You then just buy what you want to have in your car or ipod. If people have access to as much music as possible then maybe you can get people interested in it more but the industry still needs the money too. These record companies are the ones who invest in research and development of new sound, recording techniques, speakers, headphones ect. There has to be a balance somewhere. The record companies need to realise that they can't charge stupid prices for their cds that they are doing now, they need to adapt as well. I want muisc to keep getting better and better in terms of sound and quality.
Free musis is not a viable model but your right neither is charging £15 for a cd. I think you just need to step a little away from the mind set that all record companies are evil entities that eat babies and devours the musicians soul. There are some really good companies who are pushing some great music out there, look around.
i don't read any of that stuff actually. where did you get that from? the only time i really read pitchfork is if i'm linked there for an article or something. i'm not into any scene really. i love a lot of the "indie" music, i love all kinds of music, but i don't agree with much of what you are saying.
i know your a fan of the national, broken social scene, arcade fire right? all are p4k favorites.
a subscription based model died in 1999. back when napster first appeared this is exactly what all the record labels should have done. made it like the tv and internet bill. every month you would be charged 10 bucks and you could download as many songs as you wanted. thats what should have happened when napster hit. but instead the labels fought it and treated downloaders as criminals.
now the vast majority of people download. billions of people download. every single computer/laptop that a college freshmen brings to his or her dorm room is equipped with a CD burner.
Subscription based ideas wont fly. too many people get music for free now. Youd merely siphon off maybe 1 percent or 2 percent of the people. The rest would just download it for free. Who would pay 20 or 10 bucks a month to download music, when they can get it for free now?
Would have worked in 1999, but now its a silly idea, no offense to you intended, but thats the reality
yep. three of my favorite bands. i'm familiar with pitchfork, but i don't read or follow it. they piss me off. they shit on a lot of my favorite artists every time they release an album for some reason. i think it's cause they don't like old established acts. i don't know. pj, and wilco in particular. and most recently bright eyes. for wilco, they gushed over yankee, and then panned everything since. i think it's a usefull site they got over there, pretty cool to hear about new artists and stuff, and occassionally they'll have interesting articles....but their reviewers tend to rub me the wrong way.
i know your a fan of the national, broken social scene, arcade fire right? all are p4k favorites.[/quote]
yep. three of my favorite bands. i'm familiar with pitchfork, but i don't read or follow it. they piss me off. they shit on a lot of my favorite artists every time they release an album for some reason. i think it's cause they don't like old established acts. i don't know. pj, and wilco in particular. and most recently bright eyes. for wilco, they gushed over yankee, and then panned everything since. i think it's a usefull site they got over there, pretty cool to hear about new artists and stuff, and occassionally they'll have interesting articles....but their reviewers tend to rub me the wrong way.[/quote]
i agree. i dont agree with all the reviews, but i'd say they are way more representative of my own musical taste and preferences than RS, Spin or any other media outlet. I trust them. And in terms of wanting to know about the newest indie band, newest sensation, their site, the best new music section specially really is essential if you want to know anything about modern day music.
Ever heard of Spotify? emusic? Seems to be doing pretty well for itself. Just because people can get music for free doesn't mean they don't want to pay for it. I would rather take the cd or pay for a download then steal it.
Plenty of people on here still buy vinyls and cds with a passion but it must be said that downloads doesn't equal lost revenue, that is where the industry went wrong from the beginning. And yes downloaders are crinimals you can label it any way you want but thats the reality and i'm not going to say I haven't done any myself but they didn't know how to deal with it and it is costing them.
I have to say that I agree with the notion that having a built-in fanbase helps with In Rainbows/The King of Limbs release methods, but I'd say that that kind of model should be emulated more so than the traditional record your CD, have five months of promotion, and then sell it at your local FYE model. To be frank, no matter what you do, you're likely not going to make much money off of CD sales. Most of the money from CD sales goes to the record companies as recoupment for the money they give bands to record their records. Until that recoupment is paid off, bands won't make any money from CD's. For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales. So I think that by releasing CDs themselves, or through less greedy indie labels, they will actually end up making more money in the end.
It's the tradeoff that we made at the turn of the millennium. We have access to all of this music, but apart from your Lady Gaga and Eminem-types, nobody is making much money off of record sales. It's clear that touring is where the money lies now.
the labels didnt consider any other option. the majors are clueless. absolutely and completely. the advances and changes in the music industry since 1999 have not altered their mindset or outlook. they still view that college student that downloads music in his or her dorm room as deserving of million dollar fines.
the majors ignorance on these issues is stunning.
Ive said it before but music and art is one of the only things i care about. my life has been rough these past few years and music keeps me going. my entire life's course has been altered by a song, or by an album. music is a spiritual experience to me. It has altered my fabric of my being. if i was to walk up to a major label CEO and tell him this they frankly wouldnt care about that. thats sad and disturbing to me.
agree 1000 percent with this.
Yeah very true. How long will it be before companies try and get a slice of that pie? I know some already do. It is sad that you make more money these days by getting a song on an advert or tv show then from selling a shed load of records.
I think it will just come down to there not being a single model that will dominate anymore. There will always be a decent percentage that want physical media so you can expect high prices, some people won't support anything by just illegally downloading everything and some will pay for downloads / subscriptions. It may just take a while for the dust to settle and to see what balances and what doesn't.
Putting out a cd is now no longer the only way to get noticed or 'make it big'. For some it will be distributing their music for free, others it will probably be something of a youtube phenomanon, tv show/adverts, word of mouth.
i am for the artist. i think musicians deserve our money. music makes my life worth living. i mean that in the literal sense. after a soul draining day at work and feeling like life is spinning out of control and things are as bad as they could get, i turn on an album and is comfort to me that few other things could provide. thats worth something. but i just think bands are as clueless as the labels really. i go to a ton of shows, and still hear bands saying "pick up our cd at the merch table" or "on itunes". The idea of physical cd's to me is just so bizaare nowadays. it just seems so counter intuitive to me. bands make little money on cd sales, and this isnt some hidden fact. its common knowledge. so they spend tons of man hours on creating this physical cd sold at stores. that time could be better spent doing any number of things. i file share, but i also attend concerts like a madman. And i have maybe 30-40 t shirts of bands that i reguarly wear. I feel for the bands, but i dont understand this idea of doing things like this was 1997 or something. doing the long drawnout press junket to promote the album, selling the album in a store, all that. it just seems so unneccesary.
Im an artist myself, painting, writing. Ive never submitted my work for publishing or in an art store. i work at main job, one i hate, and spend my days hoping to break into the scene. and i;d love more than anything to not have to go to my main job, and just be paid for my art and live off that the rest of my life. I;d love to spend the rest of my days painting and writing and getting paid for it. I get it, I get it more than anyone. But the fact is, they wouldnt make any money reguardless if all of us bought the cd in stores. cd sales amount to such a small cash flow its insigninficant.
i agree with this too.....but, if you're not going to go the typical route in releasing your music, you need to have the backing to promote it. a lot of bands that need that promotion won't have a choice in how they release their music because they will be under contract with somebody. what we should really be talking about i suppose, is why record-companies aren't following this lead, not the bands. there must be a reason, wouldn't you think? i don't know what that reason is, but i would assume the people in that line of work know more about the industry than me, and are trying to do whatever they need to do to maximize their profits.
Agreed. The fines are ridiculous. I wonder what the penalty would be if you stole a physical cd from a store?
They are just using these court battles as an excuse to recuperate lost revenues from bad business and dragging their heels with a changing market. I have no problem with major record companies going bust from it but I think record companies are still a great way of finding talent. It used to be a filter to stop bad musicians from putting out cds but thats just not the case anymore.
i'd go one further, those who are looking for the new best thing, whether thats some silly American Idol show interested in pop talent, or whether thats p4k, or some obsessive indie music blogger,whatever you think of the site their love of music is undeniable and what theyve done for the scene and getting people excited about it is very exciting and important. But the point is the last place to get your music heard about is via the traditional methods of RS, Spin, radio play, music videos or album sales.
and thats all im saying. there are a million ways to get noticed and get signed and get your music and art seen and heard. to waste the precious time we have, doing some of the things that are so traditional, like talking to MTV, or trying to get on the radio, its just so silly. If you want your band to be heard, i'd say the traditionaly methods should be ones very last option.
You just dont get discovered that way in 2011.
Right now it's kind of an awkward mix of the old method, which has stagnated to such a degree that CD stores are closing down everywhere, and the new method, which isn't exactly making a lot of money either but is at least exciting and forward-thinking. I read somewhere that the best idea going forward is an "entertainment like water" service, where you pay for it like you would a household utility. Pay a set fee each month and you get to hear pretty much whatever you want, watch your favorite shows for free, rent movies. But how would the individual artists gain money from that? It seems that with each new method proposed there's a negative side to it. I don't know if there's one set model that could work for everybody. It'll be interesting to watch how it all eventually plays out.
Yeah thats kind of what I was suggesting. There has been a few interesting articles over the past year or two about this way and even suggesting that record companies make a deal with ISP about music and movies. It is no coincidence that muisc sales have dropped and more people are getting broadband and download traffic has increased.
i agree. the punishment doesnt fit the crime. if you download the new bruce album, what is acceptable punishment? The mother fined 1.6 million downloaded 22 songs. or basically 2 albums. Its clear the fines and lawsuits are about one thing, money. well two things, making an example out of the downloaders. they are trying to scare people away. Downloading illegally also seems to be a main way people in their teens and in their twenties get their music. youth. kids. new adults. what punishment fits the age of those people.
i also think the labels are reaping what they've sewn. ive said it multiple times before. LP's, records came out when? So people bought all their music in the 1960's and 70's on viynl. Then the 8 track came and they bought the same music, all the new music and all the old music that they previously played on a turntable, now it was playable and buyable on 8 track. So the customer was charged twice for the same music. The casettes came out. What did people do? They bought all the bands and albums they owned previously on Vinyl and 8 track, now they bought tapes. So they were charged now 3 times for the same music. Finally, cd's came, and what did people do they bought the same music they had on viynl, 8 track, cassette. So they were charged 4 times for the same thing. And then labels did the thing where they remastered or reissued albums with the same content. So people now bought the same music 5 times.
I think people are just fed up with labels. Artists are fed up. And customers are fed up.
I cant relate to people who dont understand art as being a fundamental aspect of the human experience. Labels and their ceo's think this is foreign.
i dont think they will change their ways, which is sad. i said they are clueless and meant it. music history provides our answers. the first blues musicians and true architects of rock music, the ones whom we may never know their names, were ostracized, cheated out of money, exploited, harassed and were flat out taken advantadge of by racist and greedy labels. the early rock music scene in the 50's is litered with musicians, black, who wrote great songs, that languished in obscurity. only when some white doo wop group covered the song, did the song become huge and a hit. well guess who got the money? It wasnt the black blues musician who created the song. It was the doo wop group the record label. The music industry has ALWAYS been about money, and exploitation and greed. and it always will be.
The fact is in 2011, the racism and eploitation may not be as extreme but its still there. most bands dont own their master recordings. most make a buck off every album sold, which is absurd when the albums cost 15 bucks to buy. And of course the industry is still based on the label wanting hits immediately. and what happens if the band does hit it big? If they release the new Wonderwall tomorrow, who on the label will talk to the band and help them deal with the pain and the rocky road that is fame and money and all that? Its the same thing, its just called a different name.
the new model, needs to favor the artist. the artist needs and deserves the majority of the profit from their art. that means if an artist releases music they deserve more than 1 dollar if their music is being sold for 15 bucks. the new model needs to favor the customer, us the fans as well. overpriced music should not be allowed either. fair prices. i dont want to be taken advantadge of and exploited by labels either, as a customer. i want a quality product. i want art.
i think the new model should be about providing the bands, each member of the band, at the labels expense with therapy and a counselor and whatever it takes to deal with the stresses of the road, of fame, of pressure, of all that. This should be part of the contract.
finally, i think the new model needs to factor in the reality as it exists. to compose a new system that denies that a majority of people our age download illegally and have done for a decade is ignorant. The facts are that many millions download. this should be taken into account.
the entertainment like water is an interesting idea, but as i said, downloading illegally is so commonplace and natural nowadays for so many people, the most any of these could hope to attract is maybe 1 to 2 percent of the downloading public. I know i wouldnt pay a monthly fee. the only reason the netflix idea has taken hold, is that the majority of torrent sites for movies, are still crap for the most part. with illegally downloaded music you can get a 320kps sounding mp3 collection of the new grizzly bear album, whereas, you can torrent and download a bootlegged copy of someone sneaking a camera into the theater to see Avatar, the day its released in theaters, but the quality is still crap and thats all it is, is some guy holding a camera up to a screen. the illegal downloads are at least of a quality that is listenable. Your choice for movies is limited. there are no video rental stores anymore. so thats why netflix is a huge hit. the illegal downloaders of movies havent provided a good product as of yet. You cant go into a movie theater with quality recording equiptment without causing concern on the part of the theater staff. plus the downloaded movie takes up more space than a 12 song cd.
of the college kids and the twenty year olds, and the teens who download illegally now, how many would have the money to pay a monthly fee for downloads, and who would want to? Its not a question to me. If i can get all the newest music for free now, or pay 10 bucks a month to do the same thing, is there even a debate?
i agree there is nothing bad about making money off art, to a certain extent, but most contracts favor the label, in terms of percentage of profit goes. thats not right. its not fair or just either. labels should get some money, but the way it exists now its overwhelmingly going to the label. that 1 dollar thing we keep citing is the perfect example. how crazy is it that an artist/label sells the album for 15 bucks and the artist gets 1/15 of that. thats beyond sickening. even factoring in the label spending money on the recording, and "promotion" that number is still absurdly low. Labels should promote i agree, but the label doesnt or shouldnt get the money based off that. So a label promotes a collection of songs a band created, so the label should get the money for that? Just seems so crazy to me.
And yes the uncommercial aspect is true. The latest example is lupe fiasco. a very popular exciting rapper. he raps about real stuff and deep stuff. and he has been in a battle with his label for years. his third record was delayed for years because of his label. and he just released his new record. i havent heard it but people are saying its crap. Lupe himself says the album isnt what he wanted. he says he was pressured to make it and to record these songs for the label. and even says his label told him to not be as deep and wordy and intelligent in this third record. kind of stunning actually. considering his 2nd album has a song with lyrics "dumb it down lupe", which i assume was based on the labels pressuring him to dumb down his music and this was for his 2nd record.
No, that means if they sell half a million albums they just made half a million dollars with the leverage of a record label. They don't pay back the record label with their own out of pocket earnings, they pay it back through the record label's share of royalties. Every buck earned per CD sale goes into the pockets of the band.
It's interesting how everyone posts about being so indebted to making sure the band gets their fair share from the record label, then once they hit the submit button they go onto megaupload and illegally download all their music.
Who has more of a right to take a share of a band's royalties, someone who loans them $500,000 to get the album out....or someone who likes their music a lot?
because buying the album changed nothing. i can go today to the store and buy an album of an artist, but they get 1 dollar out of the transaction. thats it. or they get nothing if i download illegally. 1 dollar is measly. the downloading is stealing argument is a one track argument and illogical because it assume that by buying the physical cd you are actually financially supporting the artist. but if you buy it you only are giving the artist a dollar, which is not enough. The real problem is the label and the contract. i dont have the power to give the artist more than a dollar. the label does. i cant write a contract. the label does. buying a cd does nothing, except to further the exploitative and racist and corrupt system that has existed since the beginning of rock music. i feel no responsibility to further that legacy. in fact i see it as my duty to bring it down and to cause its demise. any system like that is not worth preserving.
on the flip side. if you go to a concert, the artists gets way more of the profit or way more of the percentage of the sales of that, than they do cd sales. it may not be 50/50 venue-band, but its way more than the 1/15 factor that cd sales give the artist. merch sales are almost all the artist. you buy a t-shirt with the national on it, the band gets the majority of the profit. its much more useful to buy tickets, spread the word to friends and to buy a t-shirt at the show than the buy a cd. in fact I do the former exclusively.