Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing?

magick

magick

magick

Soldato
Joined
11 Apr 2004
Posts
4,413
This is the graph the record industry doesn’t want you to see.

It shows the fate of the three main pillars of music industry revenue - recorded music, live music, and PRS revenues (royalties collected on behalf of artists when their music is played in public) over the last 5 years.

We’ve broken each category into two sub-categories so that, for any chunk of revenue - recorded music sales, for instance - you can see the percentage that goes to the artist, and the percentage that goes elsewhere. (In the case of recorded music, the lion’s share of revenue goes to the record label; in the case of live, the promoter takes a cut etc.)

Hopefully, this analysis - and there’s more on the nuts and bolts of our method below - sheds some factual light on the claims and counter-claims that are paranoically sweeping across the music industry establishment, not least that put forward by the singer Lily Allen in this paper recently - and the BPI - that artists are losing out as a result of the fall in sales of recorded of music.

The most immediate revelation, of course, is that at some point next year revenues from gigs payable to artists will for the first time overtake revenues accrued by labels from sales of recorded music.

Why live revenues have grown so stridently is beyond the scope of this article, but our data - compiled from a PRS for Music report and the BPI - make two things clear: one, that the growth in live revenue shows no signs of slowing and two, that live is by far and away the most lucrative section of industry revenue for artists themselves, because they retain such a big percentage of the money from ticket sales.

(It’s often claimed that live revenues are only/mostly benefitting so-called ‘heritage acts’. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t shed any light on this because live revenues are not broken down by type of act, gig size or ticket price.)
Click to expand...

See the graphs at http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/...-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/
 
I've always thought that they would simply because of people trying before buying if that makes any sense. I mean a good high quality rip as opposed to a poor quality stream e.g. on Amazon's music section.

This doesn't apply to mainstream pop artists, just those that don't release albums in all countries or are foreign.
 
Last edited:
Raikiri said:
What's stupid about it?
Click to expand...

Well, how about the fact that the vast majority of the money made by live concerts is taken by a tiny handful of massive bands - e.g. U2 etc. So the stats are completely skewed to look like bands can just make their money from playing live.

In actual fact, it's only really bands that have been around for years (and usually ones who have benefited from massive record contracts in the past) that can actually make money doing this.

Most gigging bands struggle to cover their costs when they tour. So to suggest that we shouldn't worry about declining record sales, or the affect of piracy on those sales, because live music is making more money than in previous years is just a nonsense for the vast majority of musicians.
 
tedmaul said:
Well, how about the fact that the vast majority of the money made by live concerts is taken by a tiny handful of massive bands - e.g. U2 etc. So the stats are completely skewed to look like bands can just make their money from playing live.

In actual fact, it's only really bands that have been around for years (and usually ones who have benefited from massive record contracts in the past) that can actually make money doing this.

Most gigging bands struggle to cover their costs when they tour. So to suggest that we shouldn't worry about declining record sales, or the affect of piracy on those sales, because live music is making more money than in previous years is just a nonsense for the vast majority of musicians.
Click to expand...

Most bands make their money playing gigs, thats always been the case, records have always had a huge chuck going to the record lables. Small bands that struggle to make money gigging, are the same bands that used to struggle selling albums, a decent band has no trouble gigging nor selling music and their money still is made from playing live.

LIkewise U2 always made the bulk of their cash from touring back when album sales were supposedly higher, and now, they still make most of their money from touring.

The only people losing out, "supposedly" are record lables, considering so many bands set themselves up as their own lables as soon as they have any cash, its because they get a ridiculous chunk of their sales taken, a percentage thats so stupid they go out on their own.

Record lables have lost more money from artists setting themselves up on their own, than people downloading illegal music. If record lables were less greedy most big bands wouldn't bother with the hassle of running their own lables and they'd be making a heck of a lot more cash. The entire industry is completely mismanaged by a bunch of greedy idiots, its been going downhill for decades for them, not just since the internet and now they are running around grabbing at straws.

How much would record lables have made off say most of the rap artists around if they were slightly less greedy and kept 10% of all of their sales rather than insist on 60-70%, and lose all their clients as they have done.

They've got no one to blame, the record industy is essentially dying and aren't required in any way at all for music to continue being made and musicians making a living. Why anyones helping to support utterly idiotic greedy morons who have only themselves to blame I don't know.
 
tedmaul said:
Well, how about the fact that the vast majority of the money made by live concerts is taken by a tiny handful of massive bands - e.g. U2 etc. So the stats are completely skewed to look like bands can just make their money from playing live.

In actual fact, it's only really bands that have been around for years (and usually ones who have benefited from massive record contracts in the past) that can actually make money doing this.

Most gigging bands struggle to cover their costs when they tour. So to suggest that we shouldn't worry about declining record sales, or the affect of piracy on those sales, because live music is making more money than in previous years is just a nonsense for the vast majority of musicians.
Click to expand...


If a gigging band can't sell out a small venue what makes you think people are buying their songs?

And, had you read my other comment music sales aren't declining. In fact single sales have increased.

Illegal file sharing has been one of the largest factors in introducing legal alternatives, such as iTunes that give us a much easier way to access much more music. Particularly for obscure, unsigned bands.
 
Raikiri said:
And, had you read my other comment music sales aren't declining. In fact single sales have increased.
Click to expand...

According to the article this thread is about, music sales are declining (sorry, i assumed you had read it). Revenues are down for both the artists and the record labels, as you can see in graph 1. That's the point of the article - musicians are not worse off because the money they lose from declining record sales is made up by live revenues.

My point was that those live revenues only benefit a small number of artists. What about all the musicans who don't play live at all, for example?
 
Last edited:
tedmaul said:
According to the article this thread is about, music sales are declining (sorry, i assumed you would have actually bothered to read it). Revenues are down for both the artists and the record labels. That's the point of the article - musicians are not worse off because the money they lose from declining record sales is made up by live revenues.

My point was that those live revenues only benefit a small number of artists. What about all the musicans who don't play live at all, for example?
Click to expand...

Well if they don't play live they don't deserve the extra money surely?
 
Do digital downloads of a "single" track count as a single or something separate?

If they do that would account (partially) for both the decline in album sales and the increase in single sales. As people now simply buy a large number of "singles" rather than the whole album.
 
Surely this would be more suited to the music forum?

Anyhow, as an unsigned artist, the internet is a great way to promote yourself for free, without the need of label backing. you still won't have the promotional clout of a major label however, so being signed to a major still has it;s benefits....

However, it also gives the music industry a nice scapegoat also, so they can blame illegal downloads when their latest overproduced pop-sensation does not sell millions on the first week...
 
Last edited:
Of course they don't. Without illegal downloading people would spend more money on average. You would get some which would refuse. But most would end up paying. The whole try before you buy is stupid. Lots of legal ways to listen to music through streaming.

However legal downloads help unsigned acts out a hell of a lot, it is now easy to get your music on sale or distributed for free. Without the need for a record label.
 
tedmaul said:
That's just singles though. Not overall revenue to artists and labels. Which is what is shown in the article quoted by the OP - it covers all recorded music and shows that overall revenues are down.
Click to expand...

But that article says they;re all making more money?


 
tedmaul said:
That's just singles though. Not overall revenue to artists and labels. Which is what is shown in the article quoted by the OP - it covers all recorded music and shows that overall revenues are down.
Click to expand...

I imagine that's due to declining profit margins, not sales. They can't charge £12 for an album or £4 for a single any more, people won't (for the most part) pay it.
 
Just to throw something into the pot that tedmaul posted.
For many years it was fact that big bands didn't make money from touring and I can still remember headlines in a music rag saying 'Blue Oyster Cult - The only band to make money on a tour'.
T'was back in the 80s though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom