Bonjourmate:The numbers on the Radiohead download will never be accurate. I, for one, got my copy via torrents. Why the hell would I pirate something I can have for free? Because everyone was trying to get it from the official place at launch and so it moved incredibly slow. There were just as many people pirating it as any new album by a popular band so this system of distribution didn't cut down on piracy at all (is it still piracy if it's free?). I generally pay nothing for music. I will, on the other hand, gladly pay to see a band play live.
The numbers on the Radiohead download will never be accurate.
I, for one, got my copy via torrents. Why the hell would I pirate something I can have for free? Because everyone was trying to get it from the official place at launch and so it moved incredibly slow. There were just as many people pirating it as any new album by a popular band so this system of distribution didn't cut down on piracy at all (is it still piracy if it's free?).
I generally pay nothing for music. I will, on the other hand, gladly pay to see a band play live.
Well I did the math and they roughy made $2,736,000 is that Pounds???not sure, I dont know what their overhead was but a nice tidy sum money.
A large portion of people never paid for music ever I can remember having friends record thier vinyl to cassette for me many times.
I`d say its a good indicator for a lot of things. But yeah most people want it free and don`t care thats the way its always been.
More and more music is a DIY thing.......I dont know if I would ever want to be signed anymore....AHC has a great story to tell about that.
hey guys, what did i miss? Radiohead has a new album?
the thing that nobody has mentioned yet is the expenses going into a Radiohead calibur album...they started writing in in 2005 and had serious producers in on the recording:
"In Rainbows was recorded in Somerset, Wiltshire, London and Oxfordshire with producers Mark Stent and Nigel Godrich. Radiohead worked on In Rainbows for more than two years, beginning in early 2005."
suppose the band made $2.2 million. now subtract a good $250,000 - $1,000,000 for world-class producers. let's call it an even $500,000. now let's subtract studio time. i know they have their own studio but i'm not sure where they recorded In-Rainbows...
let's assume they used their own studio (THIS IS A BIG AND EXPENSIVE ASSUMPTION!)
they're now at $1.7 million. that's ~$340,000 per band member. divide that by 3 years and you get ~$110,000 / year.
that's a lot of money for most musicians but you have to consider the fact that they are as famous and good as they get (in my opinion). take the top people / performers in the entertainment industry and they are smoking $110,000 / year.
i have to agree with Owen on the fact that peoples' lack of financial support is disappointing. i hear where Daryll is coming from but i think Daryll is an exception to the rule because he is a true music lover and industry insider.
this model is dead on arrival for anyone who can not get at least a million people to download/consider purchasing. to get that many people aware of you requires a lot more money than most of us dream of having...i know cuz i'm in advertising.
-V
thestallion: hey guys, what did i miss? Radiohead has a new album? the thing that nobody has mentioned yet is the expenses going into a Radiohead calibur album...they started writing in in 2005 and had serious producers in on the recording: "In Rainbows was recorded in Somerset, Wiltshire, London and Oxfordshire with producers Mark Stent and Nigel Godrich. Radiohead worked on In Rainbows for more than two years, beginning in early 2005." suppose the band made $2.2 million. now subtract a good $250,000 - $1,000,000 for world-class producers. let's call it an even $500,000. now let's subtract studio time. i know they have their own studio but i'm not sure where they recorded In-Rainbows... let's assume they used their own studio (THIS IS A BIG AND EXPENSIVE ASSUMPTION!) they're now at $1.7 million. that's ~$340,000 per band member. divide that by 3 years and you get ~$110,000 / year. that's a lot of money for most musicians but you have to consider the fact that they are as famous and good as they get (in my opinion). take the top people / performers in the entertainment industry and they are smoking $110,000 / year. i have to agree with Owen on the fact that peoples' lack of financial support is disappointing. i hear where Daryll is coming from but i think Daryll is an exception to the rule because he is a true music lover and industry insider. this model is dead on arrival for anyone who can not get at least a million people to download/consider purchasing. to get that many people aware of you requires a lot more money than most of us dream of having...i know cuz i'm in advertising. -V
Most probably aren't "smoking" that if they aren't touring.
Cooper:Most probably aren't "smoking" that if they aren't touring.
i can probably name 500 actors who made more than $110,000 for much inferior products than In-Rainbows.
hell, Obama made $850,000 for his book. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/books/09obam.html)
thestallion: Cooper: Most probably aren't "smoking" that if they aren't touring. i can probably name 500 actors who made more than $110,000 for much inferior products than In-Rainbows. hell, Obama made $850,000 for his book. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/books/09obam.html) -V
Cooper: Most probably aren't "smoking" that if they aren't touring.
I thought you were talking about bands and/or musicians. This comparison doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Hell, I'm pretty sure Emmit Smith made more for butchering the English language for ESPN, but I'm unsure how this is relevant to a discussion about Radiohead releasing an album on a "pay what you want" basis.
You also have to figure costs for site developers, lawyers, accountants, administrative staff...I believe the $110,000/year per musician is a bit high.
On the other hand what about money made from touring and merch? That is where the real money is even when you're that big.
They are headling Lollapalooza this year, wonder what they agreed on for that compensation.
I thought they make 4.8 million pounds thus far? for 1.2 million copies of an album I think they made out ahead by not being signed. I doubt they would have made 4 lbs per album from the record company.
So this raises a good question:
What should be the annual salary of a musician?
I'm managing a band called STRATUS who will be releasing their album with the same business model.
19 horn players and 12 drummers....I think people will love it though.
Born of black wind, fire, and steel
Sawbones
Kwang
Me
Cooper:I thought you were talking about bands and/or musicians. This comparison doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Hell, I'm pretty sure Emmit Smith made more for butchering the English language for ESPN, but I'm unsure how this is relevant to a discussion about Radiohead releasing an album on a "pay what you want" basis.
i said that people across the entertainment industry make a lot more for their products than $110,000, when they are as good and famous as Radiohead. for example Vin Diesel made $2,000,000 for "The fast and the furious" in 2000.
maybe it's apples and oranges but the point being that if Radiohead can only get $100,000 / piece / year off their incredibly large and loyal following then this model does not apply to joe shmoe independent musician. we would have to spend millions to draw the kind of traffic needed to survive...
Crappin' Beyond:I'm managing a band called STRATUS who will be releasing their album with the same business model. 19 horn players and 12 drummers....I think people will love it though.
I'd check it out.
Bottom line on the Radiohead issue is that they made a lot more by selling their album this way than they would have if they'd still be on a major. Are they rich from this? No, not from this, but I'm pretty sure they were already wealthy anyways. Touring is where big bands make money.
thestallion: Cooper:I thought you were talking about bands and/or musicians. This comparison doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Hell, I'm pretty sure Emmit Smith made more for butchering the English language for ESPN, but I'm unsure how this is relevant to a discussion about Radiohead releasing an album on a "pay what you want" basis. i said that people across the entertainment industry make a lot more for their products than $110,000, when they are as good and famous as Radiohead. for example Vin Diesel made $2,000,000 for "The fast and the furious" in 2000. maybe it's apples and oranges but the point being that if Radiohead can only get $100,000 / piece / year off their incredibly large and loyal following then this model does not apply to joe shmoe independent musician. we would have to spend millions to draw the kind of traffic needed to survive... -V
I disagree. You have to figure in touring. That's the biggest chunk of money that signed artists earn. Radiohead would have made less money if they had solely had a label release. You also aren't factoring in royalties from their other releases that are certainly giving them something.
In regards to movies, the obvious advantage is that it can be shown on a ton of screens throughout the country within the same day and even the same time. Obviously a band cannot be in multiple places at once. Even if the movie is a turd it can still have a great opening weekend and justify, I guess, paying a crummy actor with popular apeal the sum of money that they do.
I think you're making a poor argument.
I understand your frustration when you see Vin Diesel making more money than Radiohead but you have to figure it comes down to market value for products.
I'm frustrated the teachers don't make more money than lawyers and that college football coaches make way more than professors. However that is the nature of the beast. Not everything in this world has to make sense.
The old model (major label signs band, advances money for production/distribution/marketing, recoups expenses and shares profits) was hardly more profitable for musicians than this. What Radiohead missed out on was the traditional mega-contract that superstars traditionally signed near the end of their useful lives (e.g. REM signed for $80 million in 1996). Otherwise, musicians have always depended more on licensing and touring for their income...
The Manvalanche: REM signed for $80 million in 1996).
REM signed for $80 million in 1996).
Someone made a mistake.
Cooper:I disagree. You have to figure in touring. That's the biggest chunk of money that signed artists earn. Radiohead would have made less money if they had solely had a label release. You also aren't factoring in royalties from their other releases that are certainly giving them something. In regards to movies, the obvious advantage is that it can be shown on a ton of screens throughout the country within the same day and even the same time. Obviously a band cannot be in multiple places at once. Even if the movie is a turd it can still have a great opening weekend and justify, I guess, paying a crummy actor with popular apeal the sum of money that they do. I think you're making a poor argument.
perhaps we're talking past each other. obviously touring is a big money maker. i'm refering to compensation for an album, which is a commodity just like a movie. an album can be played on radio stations across the country and purchased from thousands of stores, so i'm not seeing your argument regarding movies vs. albums...
Radiohead has shown that because people want free stuff, the use-your-conscience model of distributing an album will not work for most independent artists...
Think of it this way, A movie on DVD is like a CD, the actual box office draw is like a supporting tour. Then you have merch etc....
Toddah:I understand your frustration when you see Vin Diesel making more money than Radiohead but you have to figure it comes down to market value for products. I'm frustrated the teachers don't make more money than lawyers and that college football coaches make way more than professors. However that is the nature of the beast. Not everything in this world has to make sense.
i guess i'm arguing in a roundabout way that the music industry is rigged against the musician in a way that is unparalleled in the entertainment business. but looking at numbers, The Fast and the Furious made ~$144 million in the US and i believe i read that Radiohead has sold ~9 million albums in the US, so the total revenue of all Radiohead album sales would probably match TFATF. question is how much Radiohead has earned overall, which could exceed Vin's $2 million but probably not per member of the band...
thestallion: Cooper:I disagree. You have to figure in touring. That's the biggest chunk of money that signed artists earn. Radiohead would have made less money if they had solely had a label release. You also aren't factoring in royalties from their other releases that are certainly giving them something. In regards to movies, the obvious advantage is that it can be shown on a ton of screens throughout the country within the same day and even the same time. Obviously a band cannot be in multiple places at once. Even if the movie is a turd it can still have a great opening weekend and justify, I guess, paying a crummy actor with popular apeal the sum of money that they do. I think you're making a poor argument. perhaps we're talking past each other. obviously touring is a big money maker. i'm refering to compensation for an album, which is a commodity just like a movie. an album can be played on radio stations across the country and purchased from thousands of stores, so i'm not seeing your argument regarding movies vs. albums... Radiohead has shown that because people want free stuff, the use-your-conscience model of distributing an album will not work for most independent artists... -V
Your argument would make more sense if you were comparing DVDs to CDs. Frankly I think Radiohead did pretty damn well with this experiment.
I just hope this model can be as successful money-wise for more little-known bands like the Rolling Stones and The Eagles.