this is kind of a strange update. i was thinking about the way in which movies are deemed successful as opposed to the way in which records are deemed successful. movies are successful when they have a big gross income. records are successful when they sell a lot of copies. why aren’t records talked about in terms of gross income, too? my theory is that if musicians knew how much money is generated by record sales that they might want more royalties. for example, assuming that the global list price of a cd is 20 dollars, then a record that sells 5 million copies has generated gross sales income of 100 million dollars. and think of it in terms of corporate profitability…a movie that generates gross income of 100 million dollars probably cost around 40 million dollars to make, or even more. a record that grossed 100 million dollars probably cost around 1 million dollars to make, or possible a lot less. not to mention the fact that the promotion involved in selling a record is a lot cheaper than the promotion involved in selling a movie(when was the last time anyone saw extensive television ads for an album? or billboards and ubiquitous posters for a new cd?) and, generally, artists are usually paid somewhere around one dollar for every record they sell. but then almost all of the expenses incurred in making and promoting the record are paid for out of the artists royalties. so you can have an artist sell 5 million records and end up broke because of the fact that they’ve paid for the advertising and marketing of the record. it’s been said a million times by a million people, but that doesn’t sound too fair, does it? i’m not complaining personally, i have a fair deal and i’m signed to two record labels(mute and v2)who are honest and scrupulous. but a lot of musicians aren’t so lucky, and they end up getting shafted. and here’s another sad irony…after the musicians end up paying for the recording/marketing/ advertising/promotion/etc, the record companies end up owning the recordings. so even though the musician has paid for the recordings, the record company owns them. i would be curious to know the record company position on this. i’m just stating my perspective and opinion based on the facts as i know them. but it is interesting that a record can sell 5 million copies worldwide, generate 100 million dollars in gross sales, and leave the band/artist with nothing… and one other thing…after working hard and making money for the big corporations, most musicians have no health insurance…the people who work for the big media corporations have health insurance, but the people who actually create the product that these big corporations sell have no insurance. i think that every single record contract issued from here on in should guarantee health insurance for life to the musicians involved. and it’s not uncommon for musicians who are signed to big corporations to be on the verge of starvation and living in terrible apartments while the record company execs have $1,000 dollar dinners and stay in the four-seasons(very expensive hotel, for those who don’t know). ah well, just offering my perspective… -moby
Category: Journal