TAXI.com

It's much more sad than funny. And it also helps explain why I avoid buying obscure singles from bands that might have only put out one CD/album. It's because the money made on that single probably doesn't go to the band, it goes to the record company as part of the recoup contract. Why buy a single if it's not supporting the original artist? I'd rather go see the artist play live than pay a record label...

Bob Lefsetz blew a fuse about it today. He also used this as an opportunity to show why real news travels faster on social media like Twitter, than anywhere else. I'm learning a lot about the Social Media stuff.SourceQuote:But if you’re a musician, if you’re a dedicated follower of music, this Too Much Joy post was pure gold. Proof that the major labels’ business paradigm is theft. Plain and simple.Tim Quirk just wants what is owed to him. A statement.Warner can’t even deliver that. And when the company does, it’s inaccurate.Furthermore, Tim reveals the fallacy of recoupment. It’s not dollar for dollar, but based on your royalty rate. So, you might still be underwater, but your company can be rolling in dough!

Sad, and not funny at all.

Here is another one:http://www.negativland.com/albini.htmlStuart

Yes, Albini's famous rant is mentioned in Quirk's original post. I think everyone who's desperate to sign a major label deal should read it. (if they're not afraid of a few F-bombs) Sad how both posts point out the folly of old-school music biz; give the lion's share to an egotistical self-aggrandizing greed junkie, he'll pick your pocket for the rest of it, but give it to an artist, and he'll show you a better way to live your life: http://sivers.org/trust

You know, I tend to think if you like the music, you should buy it. Showing support for an artist you enjoy is not exclusively monetary. Even if the money gets split six ways and the artist gets little to nothing, they get the credibility of the sales, and that gives them better negotiating power on the next go round so that a bigger piece of the $ from their next project will go to them. The more sales, the more notoriety/fame/recognition for the artist, no matter where the money goes. Personally, as an artist, I want consumers who like my stuff to buy it, not get lost in a maze of political concerns about where money goes. I mean, I'm in it for the music first, and touching people with it, and the money comes a distant second. I figure if I can do the first, more likely that the second will come in time.

I'd rather send an artist $20 privately now than give any more money to labels.

mariemarienyc wrote:You know, I tend to think if you like the music, you should buy it. Showing support for an artist you enjoy is not exclusively monetary. Even if the money gets split six ways and the artist gets little to nothing, they get the credibility of the sales, and that gives them better negotiating power on the next go round so that a bigger piece of the $ from their next project will go to them. The more sales, the more notoriety/fame/recognition for the artist, no matter where the money goes...

Exactly. As a business person (by day) that monitors sales and volume and $$$ and everything else you can imagine on the several products I deal with, I can tell you that the sales, even if it doesn't go directly to the artist supports their credibility to the business people who support them or in the case of an artist "past" will supply fuel for a second chance if enough support is shown. Like Marie said, if you like it, buy it.