Not if the "talent" in question wrote the material - they still get royalties based on that. I think.Originally Posted by musicegbdf
mm a bit, it depends how you negotiate. They will try to use "cross collateralization " this means they take from all sources , including "360" (Merchandising , etc) .
Yes the $25k per track is the whole master. It includes travel for several people from the UK to LA , accommodation, producer , studio, etc etc. He is a multi grammy winning producer as well , and worked on some of the very top current tracks including last year a certain lady from London who is running at the top of her game right now. So seems the right ballpark.
I think the performing rights is actually very important as far as royalties are concerned , get an Ad or film then big money can come....
no worries
Theres no need to spend hundreds of thousands on things like production these days , times have changed dramatically concerning production costs since the 80's ,computers have slashed the costs as well as sped up the whole recording process . Lawyers fees can be around £6k - 8K depending on dissagreements which will always rack up costs but all in all if you treat set up costs inline with your current size and artistic profile then over stretching your self on recoupable expenses boils down to a lack of sense towards the value of money . Its probably premature to hire a manager early on before your making considerable turnover but by the time a project starts to turn over above £30,000 gross a year it makes sense to spend 20% on a management company that can double your net income .
Any record company that wants a cut on merch is just preying on green 1st timers i.m.h.o
Last edited by TheThingThatShouldNotBe; 9th March 2013 at 06:28 PM.
3 friends of mine was signed by Warner, they had 2 top 30 singles and recorded an album. After poor sales of the third or fourth single the album release was canned and the group effectively put on hold. Trouble wise because they were signed to Warner they couldn't put out anything themselves, so basically that was the end of that.
In terms of making money from music these days I think it's all about playing live. On a good month I can do 8 gigs which is enough for a basic wage once it's supplemented with a few other music based earns like mixing, recording etc. You can sell CD's in small quantities directly at the gig too which is probably better than the small cut you would get from iTunes if you sold a download.
Nobody values any album if they can download it but people do seem ok with paying quite a lot for a ticket for a live gig.
This is where lawyers fees start to rack up . People take risks during the initial contract phase because they fear that their one and only chance will totally dissapear once they try to negotiate the deal . In some cases this is true and the record company will stop responding to phone calls and emails unless its signed . Once signed they can take advantage of the powers the agreement gives them . You should only seriously consider deals that are in a state of evolution ,dont be drawn into waiting games , play that game your self and line up alternatives .
Until its signed you can use the internet to give you all the advice you need . You may like to try disclosing parts of the contract online for free advice . They cant touch you for that but they wont like it ....
Last edited by TheThingThatShouldNotBe; 10th March 2013 at 01:57 AM.
Yes it is tough. It is stacked against you. The lawyers wanted £3500 just to look over a simple 8 page agreement.
The deals are usually stacked against you, and you may find yourself in debt.
I understand even for people that "make it" they rarely go much further than 2 albums. Then that begs another question. Is the age of the album over ? So if we accept that it is hard to make a living from "recording" , the only way forward must be live performance. Interesting that big names say tours don't make money , yet the ticket price is usually at the limit most people can afford , and then we get onto the subject of those legalized ticket touts like Ticket master.... A whole other subject !
I wonder if it will come full circle ? We have DVD's for small prices , Movie streaming , but going to the Cinema is still strong.... maybe music will go the same way ..let's hope so. The upside to me is that if an artist has to perform live , even in these days of autotune they have to "perform". I get the feeling that more people are going to see live bands than a few decades ago..
no worries
Being a strong live performer is probably the trump card of any project . If all else fails a band still has that to fall back on . Im in favour of licencing record companese to release material in certain territories as apposed to being signed exclusivley . Your then basically paying your own costs up front but more importantly controlling them . A management company can handle the P.R and promotion and those costs will be less crafted towards keeping you in debt which is what a record company will over charge bands for in order recoupe as much as possible in a short period . I dislike the banks for a similar reason . They always find a way of adding a charge to something so its best that they only handle specific tasks .
You have to keep the nominated agents on a short leash and not give them too many things to do. Again a good manager will make sure everyone is working together .Its poor management that kills off bands more than anything else .
Last edited by TheThingThatShouldNotBe; 11th March 2013 at 01:01 AM.
Well, that's how it all started IIRC - records were always just a promotional tool to get people to turn up to live shows. It'd be great if it went back to that, I think; it would certainly level the playing field, and there would be many more proper venues. However, there's a limit to the number of venues around, so the signal:noise ratio would actually be mostly in favour of "signal" relative to the current situation.
Newer artists will make all their money from live performances and publishing. Labels shouldn't be taking a cut of publishing or merch.. If your kid gets a song in the charts she'll be able to smash out the £2k club PAs straight away. That's why live performance is so important these days and why booking agents are so important.
Corporate gigs are where pop artists make money. I've seen the invoices for some of the "name" pop artists I play for. £20,000-£30,000 for 4 songs. Usher and Mariah were £400,000 when I've spoken to people who've booked them.
That is interesting , though I note most label deals have that covered as well and can offset the income from this and everything else as well . They call it the 360. In fact her production deal they eve take 5% of 360. I have been reading the books recommended on this here forum, and it is a minefield. So far she is not too exposed, the best part is I am keeping her acting ringfenced. As all of this is happening in the US , have been checking US law. The people she is working with seem genuine and have already introduced her to a film production company in LA even though they have nothing financial to benefit.
I get the impression if she farts someone will take 20% ! So far they are keeping up the deal and she meets every week with them, and they are booking 3 weeks studio time in July. So far she has written 78 songs and still going strong....
Her friend has a number of chart hits in the UK , including No 1's and has asked her to sing 5 numbers at a "invited Audience" Gig tomorrow in London. She has also offered to introduce her to her own management. We are holding off until we have the songs "in the can" . As she will own 70% of the masters we will have something to negotiate with.
no worries
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote