Fallacies about Music CDs

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Patrick Dunford, Jul 10, 2004.

  1. I don't agree with the copy protection rows, but you might want to think
    about some of this: "only about 16% of CDs sold make enough money for the
    publishers to break even. The ones that do make enough money have to pay
    for the rest. For the recording artists, only about 3% sell enough music
    to get any royalties." (CDR Faq)

    "...if you're convinced that record companies and artists are raking in
    huge piles of cash from every CD they sell, you might want to take a look
    at an Electronic Musician article that talks about where the money comes
    from and where it goes. See:
    http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=33&releaseid=9554
    &magazinearticleid=132835&SiteID=15
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:43:21 +1200, Patrick Dunford
    <> wrote:

    >I don't agree with the copy protection rows, but you might want to think
    >about some of this: "only about 16% of CDs sold make enough money for the
    >publishers to break even. The ones that do make enough money have to pay
    >for the rest. For the recording artists, only about 3% sell enough music
    >to get any royalties." (CDR Faq)
    >
    >"...if you're convinced that record companies and artists are raking in
    >huge piles of cash from every CD they sell, you might want to take a look
    >at an Electronic Musician article that talks about where the money comes
    >from and where it goes. See:
    >http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=33&releaseid=9554
    >&magazinearticleid=132835&SiteID=15
    >




    Yes SONY gets it all.

    Are you that Stupid Patrick..?
    The GHOST of WOGER., Jul 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Patrick Dunford

    Robert Cooze Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > I don't agree with the copy protection rows, but you might want to think
    > about some of this: "only about 16% of CDs sold make enough money for the
    > publishers to break even. The ones that do make enough money have to pay
    > for the rest. For the recording artists, only about 3% sell enough music
    > to get any royalties." (CDR Faq)
    >
    > "...if you're convinced that record companies and artists are raking in
    > huge piles of cash from every CD they sell, you might want to take a look
    > at an Electronic Musician article that talks about where the money comes
    > from and where it goes. See:
    > http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=33&releaseid=9554
    > &magazinearticleid=132835&SiteID=15
    >
    >

    A lot of Musicians are dissilusioned with the big Plubisher approch and
    have started building Cheep Ass recording studios and doing it them self
    as well as the distrubution. They make much more money that way. It is
    cheep to get your own cd's pressed. Serveral of the non money spinning
    Musicians I use to follow in the 80's are basicly doing this they are
    making more money than they have ever made from the companeys the fans
    are happy as they get the music they want cheeper.

    --
    http://cooze.co.nz home of the RecyclerMan aka Robert Cooze

    / __/ / / / / /__ / / ___/ / __/ / / / |/ / /__ /
    / / / /_/ / / /_/ / _-' / __/ / / / /_/ / / /| / _-'
    ___\ ____/ ____/ /___/ /____/ /_/ ___\ ____/ /_/ /_/ |_/ /___/
    Robert Cooze, Jul 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Patrick Dunford

    theseus Guest

    Robert Cooze wrote:
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    >> I don't agree with the copy protection rows, but you might want to
    >> think about some of this: "only about 16% of CDs sold make enough
    >> money for the publishers to break even. The ones that do make enough
    >> money have to pay for the rest. For the recording artists, only
    >> about 3% sell enough music to get any royalties." (CDR Faq)
    >>
    >> "...if you're convinced that record companies and artists are raking
    >> in huge piles of cash from every CD they sell, you might want to
    >> take a look at an Electronic Musician article that talks about where
    >> the money comes from and where it goes. See:
    >> http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=33&releaseid=9554
    >> &magazinearticleid=132835&SiteID=15
    >>
    >>

    > A lot of Musicians are dissilusioned with the big Plubisher approch
    > and have started building Cheep Ass recording studios and doing it
    > them self as well as the distrubution. They make much more money that
    > way. It is cheep to get your own cd's pressed. Serveral of the non
    > money spinning Musicians I use to follow in the 80's are basicly
    > doing this they are making more money than they have ever made from
    > the companeys the fans are happy as they get the music they want
    > cheeper.


    There are two distinct copyright agreements for music.
    There is one for the song, the music and lyrics, and one for the recording.
    Royalties are calculated for each on a different basis for every artist,
    according to complex and confusing contracts designed to maximise the amount
    of income recouped against actual advances and costs and invented and
    inflated costs before royalties are paid out. The technique is to pay out
    the least royalties and sign up the artist for the longest period on the
    lowest deal.
    Quoting royalty distribution rates as demonstrating the altruism of artists
    or record companies is spectacularly naive.
    This is a system devised by the record companies for the record companies,
    who had a lockin on the physical media distribution chain.
    It isn't as profitable in the face of changes in technology that have
    produced a virtual media distribution chain
    theseus, Jul 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Patrick Dunford

    Divine Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:24:59 +1200, theseus wrote:

    > There are two distinct copyright agreements for music. There is one for
    > the song, the music and lyrics, and one for the recording. Royalties are
    > calculated for each on a different basis for every artist, according to
    > complex and confusing contracts designed to maximise the amount of income
    > recouped against actual advances and costs and invented and inflated costs
    > before royalties are paid out. The technique is to pay out the least
    > royalties and sign up the artist for the longest period on the lowest
    > deal.
    > Quoting royalty distribution rates as demonstrating the altruism of
    > artists or record companies is spectacularly naive. This is a system
    > devised by the record companies for the record companies, who had a lockin
    > on the physical media distribution chain. It isn't as profitable in the
    > face of changes in technology that have produced a virtual media
    > distribution chain


    something which Shit-for-brains Dunford seem to have overlooked is:

    How did those record companies get to be so huge if their industry was so
    unprofitable and they were hardly ever making money from recordings?

    And frankly, if recording studios are said to allocate $US200,000 per
    album for studio costs, then those artists would be better off buying and
    leasing their own gear and recording their album themselves.

    Perhaps that is why there has been the huge proliferation in project
    studios over the last two decades.


    Divine

    --
    "Microsoft don't need any moral right to be a hypocrite. It's an oxymoron.
    They will do what they can get away with. Of course this makes it difficult
    for their advocates to occupy any high moral ground."
    Divine, Jul 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Patrick Dunford

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
    |I don't agree with the copy protection rows, but you might want to think
    |about some of this: "only about 16% of CDs sold make enough money for the
    |publishers to break even. The ones that do make enough money have to pay
    |for the rest. For the recording artists, only about 3% sell enough music
    |to get any royalties." (CDR Faq)

    Actually, I believe the record companies are entitled to try and protect
    their investment. I don't like copy protection, but I'll live with it
    provided that it doesn't impact on my ability to protect *my* investment.
    The expected lifespan and durability of a CD are well established in the
    public mind. These... things... currently being sold are not CDs, as the
    record companies take pains to point out. But in the public mind they are
    manufactured with the same process and should have a similar life and
    durability to CDs. Since they don't. they should be sold at a lower price to
    match the lower life expectancy. We accept (grudgingly) lower quality
    consumer goods (CD players etc) with a shorter expected life in exchange for
    them being cheap enough to replace more often. The same should apply to
    these discs. The record companies are banking on us not knowing any better
    and expecting the same life from these... things... as from CDs, and
    expecting a handy increase in sales from increased replacement purchases.
    Wise up, people. You're being ripped off.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
    national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
    software and decent hardware support."
    Don Hills, Jul 11, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:43:21 +1200, Patrick Dunford
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I don't agree with the copy protection rows, but you might want to think
    > >about some of this: "only about 16% of CDs sold make enough money for the
    > >publishers to break even. The ones that do make enough money have to pay
    > >for the rest. For the recording artists, only about 3% sell enough music
    > >to get any royalties." (CDR Faq)
    > >
    > >"...if you're convinced that record companies and artists are raking in
    > >huge piles of cash from every CD they sell, you might want to take a look
    > >at an Electronic Musician article that talks about where the money comes
    > >from and where it goes. See:
    > >http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=33&releaseid=9554
    > >&magazinearticleid=132835&SiteID=15
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes SONY gets it all.
    >
    > Are you that Stupid Patrick..?


    Certainly not as much as you, READ IT
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 11, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <r0_Hc.7199$>, says...
    > Robert Cooze wrote:
    > > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >
    > >> I don't agree with the copy protection rows, but you might want to
    > >> think about some of this: "only about 16% of CDs sold make enough
    > >> money for the publishers to break even. The ones that do make enough
    > >> money have to pay for the rest. For the recording artists, only
    > >> about 3% sell enough music to get any royalties." (CDR Faq)
    > >>
    > >> "...if you're convinced that record companies and artists are raking
    > >> in huge piles of cash from every CD they sell, you might want to
    > >> take a look at an Electronic Musician article that talks about where
    > >> the money comes from and where it goes. See:
    > >> http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=33&releaseid=9554
    > >> &magazinearticleid=132835&SiteID=15
    > >>
    > >>

    > > A lot of Musicians are dissilusioned with the big Plubisher approch
    > > and have started building Cheep Ass recording studios and doing it
    > > them self as well as the distrubution. They make much more money that
    > > way. It is cheep to get your own cd's pressed. Serveral of the non
    > > money spinning Musicians I use to follow in the 80's are basicly
    > > doing this they are making more money than they have ever made from
    > > the companeys the fans are happy as they get the music they want
    > > cheeper.

    >
    > There are two distinct copyright agreements for music.
    > There is one for the song, the music and lyrics, and one for the recording.
    > Royalties are calculated for each on a different basis for every artist,
    > according to complex and confusing contracts designed to maximise the amount
    > of income recouped against actual advances and costs and invented and
    > inflated costs before royalties are paid out. The technique is to pay out
    > the least royalties and sign up the artist for the longest period on the
    > lowest deal.
    > Quoting royalty distribution rates as demonstrating the altruism of artists
    > or record companies is spectacularly naive.
    > This is a system devised by the record companies for the record companies,
    > who had a lockin on the physical media distribution chain.
    > It isn't as profitable in the face of changes in technology that have
    > produced a virtual media distribution chain


    The fact is, a lot of music is not profitable even for record companies.
    A small percentage of recordings that sell well cover all the costs for
    the large percentage that don't.
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 11, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <pan.2004.07.11.01.10.02.128695@TRACKER>,
    says...

    > How did those record companies get to be so huge if their industry was so
    > unprofitable and they were hardly ever making money from recordings?
    >
    > And frankly, if recording studios are said to allocate $US200,000 per
    > album for studio costs, then those artists would be better off buying and
    > leasing their own gear and recording their album themselves.


    Sure, if they actually have the skills to produce a recording themselves.
    The costs are obviously made up from equipment, facilities and the
    professionals that do the work, plus of course the time factor.

    A commercial grade recording by the likes of say U2 isn't all that likely
    to have been recorded by an artist playing all the instruments himself
    into a 4 track tape machine.
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Patrick Dunford

    Divine Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:03:06 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > A commercial grade recording by the likes of say U2 isn't all that likely
    > to have been recorded by an artist playing all the instruments himself
    > into a 4 track tape machine.


    Shit-for-brains, Who was talking about a single artist playing all
    instruments into a four-track tape recorder?


    Divine

    --
    /'_/)
    ,/_ /
    / /
    /'_'/' '/'__'7,
    /'/ / / /" /_\
    ('( ' Yo,' _~/' ')
    \ Fool ! ' /
    '\' _.7'
    \ (
    \ \
    Divine, Jul 11, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <pan.2004.07.11.04.22.46.753879@TRACKER>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:03:06 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > > A commercial grade recording by the likes of say U2 isn't all that likely
    > > to have been recorded by an artist playing all the instruments himself
    > > into a 4 track tape machine.

    >
    > Exalted master, Who was talking about a single artist playing all
    > instruments into a four-track tape recorder?


    No-one, but that's one way that garage artists / low budget recordings
    have been produced typically.
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 11, 2004
    #11
  12. Patrick Dunford

    Divine Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:05:43 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    >> Shit-for-brains, Who was talking about a single artist
    >> playing all instruments into a four-track tape recorder?

    >
    > No-one, but that's one way that garage artists / low budget recordings
    > have been produced typically.


    Shit-for-brains, who was talking about "garage artists"?

    Project studios use DAT and ADAT recorders, or similar.


    Divine

    --
    /'_/)
    ,/_ /
    / /
    /'_'/' '/'__'7,
    /'/ / / /" /_\
    ('( ' Yo,' _~/' ')
    \ Fool ! ' /
    '\' _.7'
    \ (
    \ \
    Divine, Jul 11, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <pan.2004.07.11.09.32.08.259706@TRACKER>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:05:43 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > >> Exalted master, Who was talking about a single artist
    > >> playing all instruments into a four-track tape recorder?

    > >
    > > No-one, but that's one way that garage artists / low budget recordings
    > > have been produced typically.

    >
    > Exalted master, who was talking about "garage artists"?
    >
    > Project studios use DAT and ADAT recorders, or similar.


    Doesn't matter what gear they use, they need people that know how to run
    it. It could sound the same with a DAT, four track, computerised,
    whatever.
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Patrick Dunford

    Divine Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:01:29 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    >> >> Shit-for-brains, Who was talking about a single artist
    >> >> playing all instruments into a four-track tape recorder?
    >> >
    >> > No-one, but that's one way that garage artists / low budget
    >> > recordings have been produced typically.

    >>
    >> Shit-for-brains, who was talking about "garage artists"?
    >>
    >> Project studios use DAT and ADAT recorders, or similar.

    >
    > Doesn't matter what gear they use, they need people that know how to run
    > it. It could sound the same with a DAT, four track, computerised,
    > whatever.


    Shit-for-brains, you've completely missed the point.

    But, given that you have Shit for brains, that is not surprising.

    For $US200,000 you can buy a lot of very expensive (if you want expensive)
    gear, and can learn how to use it well, and CAN have a good studio sound
    without the expense of paying for the one-off use of a professional studio.

    You can choose whatever accoustics you want, whatever venue you want,
    whatever microphones you want to buy.

    I mean, with $US200,000 you can produce your recording and still have the
    equipment for using again, and again and again.


    Divine

    --
    /'_/)
    ,/_ /
    / /
    /'_'/' '/'__'7,
    /'/ / / /" /_\
    ('( ' Yo,' _~/' ')
    \ Fool ! ' /
    '\' _.7'
    \ (
    \ \
    Divine, Jul 11, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <pan.2004.07.11.10.11.52.166706@TRACKER>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:01:29 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > >> >> Exalted master, Who was talking about a single artist
    > >> >> playing all instruments into a four-track tape recorder?
    > >> >
    > >> > No-one, but that's one way that garage artists / low budget
    > >> > recordings have been produced typically.
    > >>
    > >> Exalted master, who was talking about "garage artists"?
    > >>
    > >> Project studios use DAT and ADAT recorders, or similar.

    > >
    > > Doesn't matter what gear they use, they need people that know how to run
    > > it. It could sound the same with a DAT, four track, computerised,
    > > whatever.

    >
    > Exalted master, you've completely missed the point.
    >
    >
    > For $US200,000 you can buy a lot of very expensive (if you want expensive)
    > gear, and can learn how to use it well, and CAN have a good studio sound
    > without the expense of paying for the one-off use of a professional studio.
    >
    > You can choose whatever accoustics you want, whatever venue you want,
    > whatever microphones you want to buy.
    >
    > I mean, with $US200,000 you can produce your recording and still have the
    > equipment for using again, and again and again.


    Yeah sure, and just how do you buy the years of experience and the
    credibility of working with the biggest bands in the world?

    When the record companies put aside their $200,000, they are buying the
    best in the world. Like I just said, it doesn't matter what gear you have
    or how much you spend on it, it's the experience and skills of the people
    operating that matter the most.
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 11, 2004
    #15
  16. Patrick Dunford

    Divine Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:50:20 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > Like I just said, <blah blah blah>


    Shit-for-brains thinks he knows all about the recording industry.

    I don't pretend to know all about the recording industry, but this I do
    know:

    The reality is that much, arguably a majority, of "popular" recorded music
    today is produced in high-tech low cost project studios at the hands of
    the artists themselves and their associates - not in dinosaur studios
    more suited to recording big bands and orchestras.

    IMHO, the demise of recorded music as an acoustic art started with the
    advent of MIDI.

    Divine

    --
    /'_/)
    ,/_ /
    / /
    /'_'/' '/'__'7,
    /'/ / / /" /_\
    ('( ' Yo,' _~/' ')
    \ Fool ! ' /
    '\' _.7'
    \ (
    \ \
    Divine, Jul 12, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <pan.2004.07.12.06.09.50.369267@TRACKER>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:50:20 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > > Like I just said, <blah blah blah>

    >
    > Exalted master thinks he knows all about the recording industry.


    No, do you?

    Does anyone care?
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Patrick Dunford

    theseus Guest

    "Divine" <> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.07.11.09.32.08.259706@TRACKER...
    >
    > Project studios use DAT and ADAT recorders, or similar.
    >


    Not for years now.
    Usually G4, Protools LE, Digi interface, portable firewire drives.
    Tape's obsolete.
    theseus, Jul 12, 2004
    #18
  19. Patrick Dunford

    Divine Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:24:31 +1200, theseus wrote:

    >> Project studios use DAT and ADAT recorders, or similar.

    >
    > Not for years now.
    > Usually G4, Protools LE, Digi interface, portable firewire drives. Tape's
    > obsolete.


    OK - so add computers into the range.

    I have seen computers used as the on-location means of recording
    accoustic instruments using the sound field microphone.

    Probably quite normal nowadays.

    Divine

    --
    "Outlook is the security equivalent of wearing condoms with the ends cut
    off - for greater comfort and ease of use."
    Divine, Jul 12, 2004
    #19
  20. Divine <> wrote:
    >
    > IMHO, the demise of recorded music as an acoustic art started with the
    > advent of MIDI.
    >


    Recorded music as an acoustic art is not dead,
    take it from me dahling, I'm in the trade ;-)

    besides midi just can't hack the pace of modern
    electro-acoustic music, only 1000 events per second?
    J.Random Luser, Jul 13, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nick Worley
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    376
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Sep 14, 2003
  2. [    Doc Jeff    ]

    Ripping music from my CDs

    [ Doc Jeff ], Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    474
    [ Doc Jeff ]
    Dec 24, 2003
  3. Nsagio

    Burned music CDs won't play anymore

    Nsagio, Sep 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    776
    EricP
    Sep 3, 2004
  4. Vic

    Playing music CDs

    Vic, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    447
  5. Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    Re: Focus Fallibility: Lens Test Fallacies

    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    276
    Matt Ion
    Jun 22, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page