FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


New way to sell albums?





wellerchap
I've just got the new Ray Davies cd, given away free with "The Sunday Times" newspaper....it's a brand new release, so seems strange it's being given away free of charge.
Is it now the case, in the "download" era, that artists get more money for signing a contract to help sell newspapers/magazines, than they could expect to get by selling their albums through regular outlets?
I suppose artists like Davies would struggle to move the quantity of units, so sign a contract with a newspaper, thus guaranteeing an income from it.

liljp617
Artists have always made extremely little for album sales. They only make like 8cents on the dollar if that much..the rest goes to the record company. Bands make their money from shows and people buying their fan merchandise. Not a whole lot of it comes from album sales.
_moo_
An excellent cd I should add.


But yeah, artists usually don't make a huge amount from sales, the record companies do, artists earn by touring.

Great idea, and reached people who wouldn't have bought the cd (like me)!

It has now been released in the shops too with some extra tracks. Wink
wellerchap
It is a very good album, with some really poignant lyrics.
The guy still has points to make and knows how to make them.
The more I look at the recording industry now, I see they must've taken a real kicking from free/illegal downloads etc, and must now try t re-invent the way music is marketed, but I can't help thinking they have themselves partly to blame for making far too much money in the past....there won't be too many tears shed for them, I don't think.
liljp617
wellerchap wrote:
It is a very good album, with some really poignant lyrics.
The guy still has points to make and knows how to make them.
The more I look at the recording industry now, I see they must've taken a real kicking from free/illegal downloads etc, and must now try t re-invent the way music is marketed, but I can't help thinking they have themselves partly to blame for making far too much money in the past....there won't be too many tears shed for them, I don't think.

When you produce and promote the junk on MTV/VH1/Radio, people are going to be wary to spend $15-18 on a CD that may be incredibly terrible like most music today. Instead, they download it to see what it's like (a lot of people will go out and buy the CD if they know it's good). Not that that makes it right to dl illegally, but the record companies can't blame the consumers. What happened to the days where they produced nothing but amazing albums that still sell more copies than most of today's music (acdc, zeppelin, pink floyd, etc.)? =)
deStructuralized
Quote:
that still sell more copies than most of today's music (acdc, zeppelin, pink floyd, etc.)? =)

Happened

liljp617 wrote:
What happened to the days where they produced nothing but amazing albums

Never happened
The Mitchell
deStructuralized wrote:
Quote:
that still sell more copies than most of today's music (acdc, zeppelin, pink floyd, etc.)? =)

Happened

liljp617 wrote:
What happened to the days where they produced nothing but amazing albums

Never happened

haha that last bit made me laugh. there were never days when they produced nothing but good albums every era had shit. i had an interesting discussion the other day though about how the last 20 years the music industry has become much more open to all. Anybody can now create or upload music to the internet which i find more often than not means there is less off a screening procss to the music industry. hence often when no computers were around only the cream managed to make it. nowadays its a very different industry
liljp617
deStructuralized wrote:
Quote:
that still sell more copies than most of today's music (acdc, zeppelin, pink floyd, etc.)? =)

Happened

liljp617 wrote:
What happened to the days where they produced nothing but amazing albums

Never happened

Okay let me reword it then. What happened to the time when they produced more than 2 good albums a year? The only good albums that come out these days are by bands who have been playing for 20-30 years. The point I was trying to make was companies don't produce the good music anymore...at least not in near the quantities they used to.
mattchun
I'd rather believe that it's a promotion. I think your friend will have to buy the CD if you recommand to them.
Seiji
By signing contracts wouldn't they get signing bonuses like sport players? Since downloading music has hurt album sales they still have concerts and performances. I'm also pretty sure they get paid to appear on television shows or become a guest speaker. So I assume your right, its better for them to just make contracts and do concerts.
liljp617
Seiji wrote:
By signing contracts wouldn't they get signing bonuses like sport players? Since downloading music has hurt album sales they still have concerts and performances. I'm also pretty sure they get paid to appear on television shows or become a guest speaker. So I assume your right, its better for them to just make contracts and do concerts.

Again, the artists of the music get like 5cents per album sale. That may add up if you sale like a million copies but it's hardly significant for a career salary. The rest of the money goes directly to the record companies. Artists have never gotten the bulk of their money from record sales.

And, if you care to look into it, downloading hasn't even made a dent in album sales.

http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

"Even in the most pessimistic version of their model, they found that it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/technology/05music.html?ex=1396497600&en=71b2898a5d0c0b03&ei=5007

There are many more sources for this. Most of the people who download the music wouldn't buy the album even in the absence of file sharing...so it really doesn't hurt album sales and definitely not in a significant way.
blinx
Yeah, Prince recently did something like this.
I suppose it gives out a postie message to potential fans...
ddukki
liljp617 wrote:
Artists have always made extremely little for album sales. They only make like 8cents on the dollar if that much..the rest goes to the record company. Bands make their money from shows and people buying their fan merchandise. Not a whole lot of it comes from album sales.
This is why the record companies are able to do whatever they want to with their profits. Sure, some of them say that their in it for the creativity and the thrill of new music; but how many record companies really give back to their artists, besides the over-paid mainstream floozies? I'm just glad that some artists are smart enough to stay indie or make their own albums.
misterXY
Also another way of selling it is by mobile [cellphones] is a growing trend
Japan is booming with 1%higher then cd sales
http://eurotechnology.com/mobile_music_japan/index.html
it was off BBC News also but lost the article Sad
dacode
Hi all,

I think albums are still the best way to promote music.
Not *everyone* has a connected computer to download music (be it legally or not).

It's the whole process that has to be re-think.

What is the "usual" way to progress, as an artist (who wants to make a living out of it) ?

You write music, compose, play it. Whenever it moves people you eventually get a chance to gain the interest of a manager, or a label. Then you have to record something so that it can be played for a wide audience, so you'll be able to reach bigger stages, and so on. At this step, it costs a lot. Of course there are affordable home studios that can produce good quality albums. But they tend to all use the same effects, the same affordable racks, and in the end it just sounds like the rest.


Quote:
Quote:
that still sell more copies than most of today's music (acdc, zeppelin, pink floyd, etc.)? =)


Why ? These bands rock. And the sound engineer, at that time, didn't try to make it sound like the band super-powered. I mean, bands like Korn, when you listen to their albums, the sound is incredibly Huge, same with Deftones and the likes. But on stage, that's all different. Like everything nowadays, the trend is to go "wow !!!", to impress, visually, and with the sound, to have a big rush at the first second.

I mean, I like all these bands, but they obey the new rules, they follow the same format : wall of sound, catchy melodies, huge maketing... It has little to do with the 60's or 70's ways to play, sell and record music.

Nowadays, a successfull band should sell CDs, and sell its music to other markets : soundtracks for videogames, advertisings, etc and eventually tour. Because you have to reach a minimum level to tour otherwise you just play in small/mid venues. That's okay if you're in a niche market, otherwise it's endless.
Nutteloos
I'd like to see more bands trying the 'radiohead' approach - making their albums available for download at any price. (even 0.00) Of course a CD version needs to be available too, if only to please the fans, but this way can get you a lot more listeners and possibly even make more cash than the 'regular' method.
liljp617
dacode wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
that still sell more copies than most of today's music (acdc, zeppelin, pink floyd, etc.)? =)


Why ? These bands rock. And the sound engineer, at that time, didn't try to make it sound like the band super-powered. I mean, bands like Korn, when you listen to their albums, the sound is incredibly Huge, same with Deftones and the likes. But on stage, that's all different. Like everything nowadays, the trend is to go "wow !!!", to impress, visually, and with the sound, to have a big rush at the first second.

I mean, I like all these bands, but they obey the new rules, they follow the same format : wall of sound, catchy melodies, huge maketing... It has little to do with the 60's or 70's ways to play, sell and record music.

Nowadays, a successfull band should sell CDs, and sell its music to other markets : soundtracks for videogames, advertisings, etc and eventually tour. Because you have to reach a minimum level to tour otherwise you just play in small/mid venues. That's okay if you're in a niche market, otherwise it's endless.

? I was saying older bands still sell more copies than modern bands. And there's a reason for that; they put their heart and soul into it. Their music is more technical, they CARED about the music they made, they loved it, they were purely passionate, they used it to move people and send social messages. Music was much less about entertainment back then and more so about sending a message. Yeah, there are some modern day bands who do this, but there's hardly as many and those who do don't really begin to compare to the legendary classic rock bands. Sound quality hardly has anything to do with it. It was feeling and passion within the music that connected with so many people and was a part of so many people's lives.
ptolomeo
What a very interesting topic. In this networked era have appeared ways of selling and commercing that were unthinkable some years ago. The trade of goods is changing shape rapidly and changing also the direction. The diversity of products and the shortening of thimes a given product remains in the market makes the commerce a highly dynamical fenomena.

What you say about ways of selling a cd is an example of all this. Many people buy the newspaper to get the cd and a lot many people has as primary interest to buy the newspaper. Obviously both the cd producer and the newspaper producer are gaining in this trade, but the customer is not so favoured, because both the cd or the newspaper alone are cheaper than both together. So it is a biased trade, not so equilibrated. Do you think like that?
dacode
[quote=liljp617]Sound quality hardly has anything to do with it. It was feeling and passion within the music that connected with so many people and was a part of so many people's lives.[/quote]

Well, I agree with that, but don't you think that the trends and the technology have an impact ?

For insyance, play an old record from The Cramps, Led Zep or else. Try to act AS IF you didn't know who plays the part. Would you, today in 2008, pay attention more than 1mn to that recording ? Maybe, if you're not 15 or 20, but unless that, I'm afraid not. I mean, with all the love and respect I do have for these 60's and 70's bands (or even 80's), I reckon that lot of audio materials are of poor quality, and when I play it on my stereo I realize that back when I was a teenager it sounded cool, because everything around had that "recording means".

As for the rest, I hope that nowaday's bands also play with their souls, with feeling and passion.

But they are so many of them, that over-numerous offer makes it way harder than 15 years ago to stay on the top for a band.

Quote:
that still sell more copies than most of today's music (acdc, zeppelin, pink floyd, etc.)? =)


I also think that we (30 something music fans) BUY there records. We know the stuff, and we earn money because we have jobs. Thus we can afford it.

Youngsters tend to download. Or else, they listen to their parents's stuff. And discover oldies, and the song remains the same...
Related topics
US Supreme Court rules against file swapping
Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie
Avril Lavigne who likes her
New Sig - Hoping To Get Feedback
How about my new sig - need ur advice Rotengel !
Very old news...but Michelle Branch writes angry letter
The Strokes' new Album : First Impressions of Earth..
EMPIRES NEW GIMP STORE!!!
The new crustacean
New Fear Factory's album --> Transgression
Rock and Roll
Your online routine
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
new Albums to listen to!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Sports and Entertainment -> Music

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.