Arctic Monkeys only get £900 a month! WTF

SexyGreyFox · 1 Feb 2006 at 07:10

Weebull said:
That's probably not far off. From what I remember the last time I properly read up on it, artists make about two or three pence at the most per pound from album sales, and the songwriters get about that again. So that's maybe 50p an album for most of the band.

These figures ring a bell. I seem to remember reading something a few years ago that one major artist had negotiated a deal of either 5p in the £ or 5 cents in the $ which was a pretty big move at the time.

daz · 1 Feb 2006 at 08:58

Arcade Fire said:
Advertising, recording, engineering, production, mastering, promotion, photo shoots, tourbus, fuel, food, manager, agent... do I need to go on?

So what did the record deal offer you? Just distribution?

Sanzy · 1 Feb 2006 at 09:29

I make £10 an album on my sales .... to bad i have none

Garp · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:28

daz said:
So what did the record deal offer you? Just distribution?

I don't think you quite followed that one...

Those bits mentioned are what the record label handles for you, BUT, they do charge you for it.

From square one.

Putting you massively in debt to them. Profits from the sales of CDs and Merch etc. go towards paying the debt off. Until its paid off the band won't make much money.

The Darkness, like 'em or loathe them had the better idea. Their debut album "Permission to Land" was one they paid to be recorded. Cost them something in the region of £10k~£20k. Most tracks on there were single takes, and the entire album was recorded in two weeks. They got big underground on the strength of that album, until they had labels desperate to sign them up. They did the sign up on their own terms, retaining the publishing, performance and songwriter rights to the album. Because of that they've made an absolute fortune from the album, raking in a nice tidy amount per album sold.

William · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:35

A band like the arctic monkeys could easily rake in around £80k a night from one gig.

Stellios · 1 Feb 2006 at 18:12

Gilly said:
Thats just royalties. I assume they're touring already?

Yeah they are, my mate went to see them last week IIRC. I also believe they are coming back around this area or something. Infos taken from one of my mates sites.

http://www.mardy-bum.com/

The important news announcement made today is a full Arctic Monkeys UK tour.
From arcticmonkeys.com:
The dates will go on general sale at 6pm on Thursday 2nd February.

All tickets cost £14 except London where tickets are priced at £15. Advance tickets are subject to a special discounted booking fee of £1. A maximum of 4 tickets per person can be purchased. Special Delivery Postal Charges will apply.

Click HERE to visit the Arctic Monkeys online box office.

daz · 1 Feb 2006 at 19:48

Garp said:
I don't think you quite followed that one...

Those bits mentioned are what the record label handles for you, BUT, they do charge you for it.

From square one.

Putting you massively in debt to them. Profits from the sales of CDs and Merch etc. go towards paying the debt off. Until its paid off the band won't make much money.

It depends on the exact terms of what they offer you, obviously. I'm not sure on the "standard" contract a major label will offer, I'll have to ask my step-father.

nero120 · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:48

I have looked into this subject a lot and it is one shrouded in mis-information, emotion and confusion.

On the one hand, the artists say: "Its not fair, the record company takes all of our cd earnings", but on the other hand, the record company has to put up lots of money before the band have even made anything! Think about how much it would cost to 'keep' the band (food, rent, etc), as well as pay for travel, rehearsal rooms, recordings, producers, roadie crew, hotels, etc, etc, etc - that is a lot of dosh, and the band have even made a dime for the record company! And they dont even know if they will be successful, its all speculation.

I have known bands that have gotten deals, and blown their advances on drugs, drink, not rehearsing, are generally crap and not talented, and then they complain and the record company! Wake up mate! You were crap, no one liked seeing you live, your songs were boring and poorly written - why should you be given success just because the record company took a gamble with you and lost?

Artists need to understand that they have to earn their success, and that doesnt even start until the deal is signed and the record is out and they are touring - no one even cares about before that! They are not guaranteed success just cos they got a deal, if anything thats when the real hard work starts. You have to edicate yourself utterly to getting out there and making a name as a good band. Think about all the bands that are out there - 90% are crap and will not write any decent, memorable music in their lives. The record companied still have to sign them though, as they cant always find the special bands with real potential but still have to sell cds. They are a business, not a charity.

Record companies have a bad rep in this area, yes, and they are ruthless. But they are not usually stupid. If you really are a great band with lots of great songs and ooze energy and exitement then there is no reason why you cannot be successfull, the record company will certainly not stop you as they will benefit!

Final words - remember most of these stories you here are from failed bands or their friends who blame the RC for not promoting them enough, messing with their sound, blah blah blah, etc. The simple truth is people did not want to hear their music or watch them live, and they cant accept that so they blame the nasty record company. Of course, like there is this conspiracy in the music industry to stiffle decent music and only sell crap. Riiiiiggggghhhhtt.

Chronos-X · 2 Feb 2006 at 21:00

Garp said:
The Darkness, like 'em or loathe them had the better idea. Their debut album "Permission to Land" was one they paid to be recorded. Cost them something in the region of £10k~£20k. Most tracks on there were single takes, and the entire album was recorded in two weeks. They got big underground on the strength of that album, until they had labels desperate to sign them up. They did the sign up on their own terms, retaining the publishing, performance and songwriter rights to the album. Because of that they've made an absolute fortune from the album, raking in a nice tidy amount per album sold.

The version I read said that they held off for the highest bidder as you say, and therein sold the publishing to them for a few mil each, never having to work again.

Dan (and to a lesser extent, Justin) will still get their royalty just like any other normal band.

Songwriting's where its at though, as the old adage goes, its why "Noel's house is much bigger than Liam's".

Cookie-Monster · 3 Feb 2006 at 16:51

just once can someone manage not to post to that article by Albini every time a record company / royalties thread comes up please.

o.k. so they have had most of their royalty income withheld for 12 months, who cares.

touring revenue/merchandise advances/record contract advances.

they wont be short of a penny in the mean time, and in all honesty with the amount of origination costs then they would be unlikley to see a penny in royalty for the first 6-12 months anyway.

but hey, if you really want to know how it works get a job with a record company, or get a record contract, rather than whining on their behalf.

SexyGreyFox · 3 Feb 2006 at 17:45

Chronos-X said:
Dan (and to a lesser extent, Justin) will still get their royalty just like any other normal band.

Until a recent Radio 2 interview I thought that Justin did all the work.
He said that Dan does all the magic in the studio and he just comes in and adds the glory bits.