How much $$$$ do you think musicians deserve to make?

People talk a lot about the unfair pricing on music, but how much do people think it is fair for musicians to make? Certainly there are a lot of musicians who ask for free work from everyone around them when they are getting paid, but there are also tons of talented musicians striving in obscurity, hoping for the big break that is possible. The carrot of the possible big recording contract keeps them going. And the music industry machine of course takes a cut of the money consumers pay for music, but they wouldn't know about that music and want it without that machine. Even big stars who have tried to go it alone harnessing the power of the the internet found it just didn't work.

from the voice of obscurity: we musicians basically get treated like crap until we're famous. considering what it is costing me to put out a CD, I'll be lucky if I break even on the deal. so the few who make the good money..at least imo..certainly deserve it.

theplague

Musicians should make more than they do, that much is certain. More and more of the profits tend to go to the bureaucracy as you move higher up the ladder, which pisses me off in all known instances of it happening, in and out of the music scene.

With the band I'm in, we do all of the managerial crap ourselves, which saves us a bundle. We're obviously not going anywhere any time soon, but that's fine with us. The problem, as I see it, is that nobody will buy your stuff if it doesn't have a major label plastered on it. But you have to pay through the nose (and perhaps other bodily orifices, as appropriate) to get the label in the first place, and even then they keep most of what you make.

How do people reconcile the notion that musicians should be paid more and music should cost less?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

People talk a lot about the unfair pricing on music, but how much do people think it is fair for musicians to make? Certainly there are a lot of musicians who ask for free work from everyone around them when they are getting paid, but there are also tons of talented musicians striving in obscurity, hoping for the big break that is possible. The carrot of the possible big recording contract keeps them going. And the music industry machine of course takes a cut of the money consumers pay for music, but they wouldn't know about that music and want it without that machine. Even big stars who have tried to go it alone harnessing the power of the the internet found it just didn't work.

---

I can't say I'm fond of the music industry. The problem being: they control all the promotion and distribution. (btw the "cut" being 90%+ of what the albums make)
I know of indy bands who do make a decent living, but really I'd say it was a cutthroat game. They should and will make as much money as they possibly can. I disagree that all bands are in it for the money, tho.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

How do people reconcile the notion that musicians should be paid more and music should cost less?

---

The only way they could would be to buy indy records only. Like I said, 90% goes to Warner etc.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

How do people reconcile the notion that musicians should be paid more and music should cost less?

---

All that needs to be done is to cut out the greedy pigs that don't even really do anything; that alone will cut music prices down by more than half, including sending more money to the people that did something for it.

I also find it completely fucking ridiculous that a CD costs twice as much as a tape with the same music on it, and yet it costs a lot less money (and takes a lot less time) to press a CD and put music on it than it does to assemble a tape and put music on it. I simply refuse to pay $20 for a shiny piece of plastic that can cost less than two to make.

I'd love to think the money I spend to buy an album goes to those behind it but since it does not...it's hard to much care how one scores music anymore. The fact remains their should be as few middle men between MY money and the artist or band I would like to support...expeses are one thing...but given so much goes to utter crap or to fund massive ad campeigns for lame ass pop stars...it simply feels wasteful.

i think musicians should make at least %50 of profits from record sales with the rest going to the producers, marketers, managers etc. and yes records should cost less because right now most money made from record sales by major labels goes to execs who have nothing to do with music ad drive feraris

For me it's not about what the music costs, but why it cost what it does. I live under the notion that art of any sort is worth what the artist can get for it. If a musician tells me his album is worth $20 then I will decide case by case if I agree. Sure I would like music to cost less, but I will happily pay the price if I think the album is worth having.

The problem isn't what I pay for music, but why I pay that much. Price fixing, airplay manipulation, ect. If you can get someone to pay $20 for your CD, I say good job. If you can get me to do it, even better. But when you are using your industry power to artificially inflate the price as opposed to your popularity, whole different game.Unfortunately, change takes work and sacrafice. Since I can't give up some of the major label bands I like, I just hope new distribution systems push the major labels into obselecence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

For me it's not about what the music costs, but why it cost what it does. I live under the notion that art of any sort is worth what the artist can get for it. If a musician tells me his album is worth $20 then I will decide case by case if I agree. Sure I would like music to cost less, but I will happily pay the price if I think the album is worth having.

The problem isn't what I pay for music, but why I pay that much. Price fixing, airplay manipulation, ect. If you can get someone to pay $20 for your CD, I say good job. If you can get me to do it, even better. But when you are using your industry power to artificially inflate the price as opposed to your popularity, whole different game.Unfortunately, change takes work and sacrafice. Since I can't give up some of the major label bands I like, I just hope new distribution systems push the major labels into obselecence.

---

Well thought out good post. I agree.

I think the problem lies with consumers who will like whatever fakeass lame product they are told to. If the big record labels can get that sort of person to buy whatever they are told to, there is no reason to work with artists who want a bigger cut no matter how good they are. Because fundamentally the music company makes the CD worth $20 in this situation and not the performer.

I think here at Blue Blood, we are a more sophisticated audience in general and I think we tend to actually like what we like, rather than what we've been told to like, but that is definitely not the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

How do people reconcile the notion that musicians should be paid more and music should cost less?

---

Unfortunately, the price a CD sells for at your local record store has little to do with the amount on $$ the band or artist sees. There are sooooo many people who get "their cut" that by the time the band sees anthying, theres nothing left. People think that because a band has a contract that they're rich, but most of your new artists need a "day job" when they arent on tour.

lol,
The Dirty Dancing Soundtrack was on sale for 18 Euros this christmas....

I believe that musicians - that is the normal man and woman in the orchestra who work their guts out for the sounds which make the pop stars great - should be paid much better.

Pop stars I don't really care about; they're going to make their money on royalties; perhaps some should make a little less or those with massive fortunes already should lower concert ticket prices.