

Courtney Love does the math (2000) - dmor
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/singleton/

======
dmor
For those turned off by the title TL;DR musician Courtney Love eloquently
walks through the math of the recording industry for an artist, details some
serious pain and problems in the system, calls out the RIAA for blatant theft
of copyright and laws passed in the middle of the night, and explains why
she's stepping out of major labels.

~~~
rhizome
...and plagiarizes Steve Albini:

<http://www.negativland.com/albini.html>

~~~
basugasubaku
I don't see it. Can you point out similar passages?

~~~
rhizome
Well, for one, compare Love's entire first section to the table at the end of
Albini's essay.

------
Tyrannosaurs
My main issue with the maths as outlined here is the costs. I don't dispute
that bands spend $500,000 recording an album or making a video but I do
dispute that they should.

I have a friend who is a producer / musician who has been in a successful (top
10 singles) band. He'll tell tales of spending a day in the studio sampling a
snare drum sound. One day, one snare drum sound. Given the cost of studio time
that's just obscene.

Now maybe that's what the highest production standards demand, but I think we
need to view the $500,000 album and the $500,000 video as a luxury, not the
norm. If those costs come down (and that's perfectly realistic) then the maths
potentially looks very different.

The issue here is (surprise surprise) most likely with the record company.
After all the better the production the more likely the record is to sell
(arguable but it's probably not going to hurt) and the record company don't
care whether the money goes to the band or to the studio / producer.

But bands do need to take some responsibility for how THEIR money is spent. In
the scenario outlined there is meant to be a scramble for this band. If that's
the case then bands need to argue for more control rather than just more money
as money seems to be pointless without it.

Makes me think about the contract the Wedding Present signed when they moved
to a major label. They gave up a load of cash to have complete control over
studio, producer, artwork and so on and if the label didn't like the resulting
record, to be able to take it to someone else. More bands need to think in
those terms.

~~~
saddino
My indie band's self-produced CD cost us only $16K in 2001 (we were signed to
a small label), but to be completely candid, we cut corners all over the
place: 1) We dropped two tracks because the live lay down (which we used as
the base for all overdubs and re-tracking) just didn't click. We recorded live
over three days and we just got burnt out. If we had been signed to a major, I
would have appreciated the ability to spend a whole day on each track until
the vibe felt right. 2) Overdubs and re-tracking were done quickly and
efficiently, but again, felt rushed in order to save money. 3) Multi-tracked
vocals, guitars and percussion were sparse. We had played these songs for
years (true for most "debut" albums) and it was hard to experiment in the
studio without feeling we were going broke. Add a jangly 12 string playing
double stops ping-ponging in stereo over the changes? Sounds great we'd tell
the engineer, but we can't afford it. 4) Mixing (which took 50% of the total
studio time) was painful. The permutations -- even considering the sparse
tracks we had -- all begin to sound the same after a while. Ideally I'd like
at least a week to mix each song: producing variations that we could
collectively listen, get used to, and then debate.

So, although 500K sounds like a lot, I think the studio wants to rightfully
allow the artist enough freedom to track, experiment, and mix without worrying
about hitting their budget ceiling.

Oh, shameless link to our CD: <http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/future-
perfect/id4478315>

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
The studio and the band can want that but the numbers seem to suggest that
it's unsustainable even at music buying's peak. I'd also ask that given that
by and large it's not the studio's money (as it comes out of the advance) so
is their view that significant?

I'm not saying that bands have to produce an album in three days but you could
have had maybe six times the time you spent (which I'm guessing would have
removed plenty of pressure and allowed a little time to experiment) and still
be coming in at under a quarter of half million dollar figure which seems to
be seen as reasonable. I'm guessing that If someone had said to you your
budget is $100,000 you'd have been absolutely convinced you could do something
that did the music justice.

The question isn't about what would be nice, we're talking about commercial
realities so it's about it's about what is feasible. From the band's
perspective (and it's ultimately them paying) the figures Albini and Love put
forward suggest that $500,000 is a long way from it.

------
Matt_Rose
Steve Albini said it in the early 90s.
<http://www.negativland.com/albini.html>

------
ethank
This article is from 12 years ago. A lot of the math doesn't apply anymore.

Labels will rarely front that much money for recording costs unless justified
by past success. The days of million dollar videos are over (in just the last
5 years), and the 360 deal racket is the last great hope of recorded music
labels.

The biggest problem with recorded music isn't the label, its the corporate
parent. Labels are trying to make good on the promise of 360 by staffing for
360. They can't do so because of resource constraints and resource
consolidation at the very top.

Also, blaming labels is one easy thing for artists to do. They should also
blame themselves and their managers and lawyers for signing crappy deals to
begin with.

I've been at many contract signings (in fact, one artist did the photo-op in
my office because of the computer screens), and I never saw a gun held to a
hand as they signed what I think everyone knows was an inevitable small
disaster, and the small potential for success.

As for Ms. Love: the last 12 years she's been bailed out a lot by people that
played in the system she abhors. I personally like Courtney. I've met her many
times, and we share common friends, but a 12 year old article does little to
comment on today's climate, and in situ it wasn't even that great either.

I'd much rather see what Troy Carter, Scooter Braun, Ken Hertz, Peter Mensch,
etc, or producers like Dr. Luke would write about recorded music as a business
today. It'd be a lot more interesting.

A few other points:

The RIAA should not be a metonym for recorded music.

Labels are rarely to blame for the problems they are blamed for, their
corporate parents usually are.

Artists have the power as a creator which is much stronger than a
representative body in 2012. Use it.

------
b1daly
Courtney Love my have done some math but it adds up to an empty argument. She
conveniently leaves out the fact that most records, major and otherwise, sell
virtually nothing and leave the label holding the bag on costs. So they
structure the contracts to get the bulk of the revenue so they cover the cost
the money losing releases. This objective reality, it's just how the business
(has) to work. Really there are few viable alternative music business models.

As an indie musician this is frustrating. I've actually produced a pretty good
record. It's available as a free download on my site:

<http://sunshinefortheblind.com>

Like many musicians I'm driven by love, if I could figure out how to make
money with it that would be swell; as it is I just want people to listen:)

I would guess similar tensions must exist in the tech/VC space where a few
hits got to cover the costs of the losers for the VCs. I would expect a
similar disproportion in the way the individual deals would appear weighted in
favor of VC against the companies they invest in. Im not familiar with how the
investments are structured though.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Doesn't that just make it more absurd? If I were the record company I'd be
slapping down $500,000 recording costs.

If you can record an album yourself and afford to give it away free, it would
seem to suggest that it's possible to do it cheaper than half a million
dollars (though what do I know, you could be a .com millionaire...).

~~~
b1daly
They are slapping down recording costs, and they definitely less than in the
nineties. However the marketing costs remain very high. I'm a full time music
producer and have my own studio. That cut some of my out of pocket costs but
the true cost of my album (it's eight songs) is probably $30-40k which I
experience as opportunity cost (i.e. I'm not working on paying projects) and I
stretched it over a couple of years. It's not a rational use of resource for
me by any measure, I'm just obsessed. The cost of production can categorized
in different ways; time, money, talent, effort. At a certain point one seems
to reach a limit that can't be breached. Music is organized information, it
takes a lot of fighting against entropy just to make it competent, never mind
good. It's like some kind of law of information entropy dynamics! Seriously,
if you compare any commercial release against the ocean of self produced music
(like you find on MySpace)the amature stuff is not listenable and the
commercial releases are, and they cost a lot.

------
aycangulez
I strongly believe that the following excerpt from the article directly
applies to any line of work including software development:

"I don’t know if an artist can last by meeting the current public taste, the
taste from the last quarterly report. I don’t think you can last by following
demographics and carefully meeting expectations. I don’t know many lasting
works of art that are condescending or deliberately stupid or were created as
content.

Don’t tell me I’m a brand. I’m famous and people recognize me, but I can’t
look in the mirror and see my brand identity.

Keep talking about brands and you know what you’ll get? Bad clothes. Bad hair.
Bad books. Bad movies. And bad records. And bankrupt businesses. Rides that
were fun for a year with no employee loyalty but everyone got rich fucking
you. Who wants that? The answer is purity. We can afford it. Let’s go find it
again while we can."

------
veyron
Reminds me of the Darth Vader that was never compensated because every year
Star Wars showed a loss. Anyone have a link?

~~~
poglet
[http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-
re...](http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-
the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit/)

------
nattyackermann
These are exciting times. We are in the midst of a technological revolution
and recording companies should stop wasting their efforts in trying to cripple
the internet and fight change in a scramble of keeping their money. They
should find that being able to download music over the internet allows the
spotlight back on the artist and allows them to gain more fans and exposure.
It allows a more personal connection with their audience which is good because
consumers buy a record because of the artist not because of the record company
producing it.

"Why aren’t record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren’t they
trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they
like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new
demand? What’s the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s?
Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their
profits."

Even those recording companies with selfish motivations should be able to
recognize the amount of profit that could be gained from this change so that
they are able to prepare and adapt to this new environment if they want a good
chance in becoming forerunners in their market.

Scratch your old business models and start doing market research.

------
bhoung
I found the article on Neal Stephenson to be more interesting. A link to it
appears in the second last para.

<http://www.salon.com/1999/05/19/stephenson/>

~~~
brk
Neal is one life's greatest hackers. Not technology, but life in general.

------
rawrly
Excellent article to bring up with recent events. This rant happens time and
time again, the record companies double dip and screw over the artists and
their customers repeatedly. When is enough going to be enough?

To whomever can revolutionize the music/media industry with stewardship for
the arts you deserve these profits for your work.

------
tomkin
Last time I read this article, I remember my perspective of Courtney Love
shifted from "Possible Murder Suspect Courtney" to "Underdog Courtney" in only
a few minutes. I found the psychology of it pretty fascinating.

At the time of writing, Napster was still very much in consciousness, so, if
you've become famous for something negative, get known for something people
care about. She should have hammered at this drum a little louder and for a
lot longer.

------
andrewfelix
Long, but awesome. Love her tone.

------
brewmster
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a huge artist like Adele ditched her current label
and just went with a Humble Bundle style one? Imagine paying what you want for
an album and allocating the money between artist, hosting, and the artist's
favourite charities. It would be a lovely way to cut out these dinosauric
middlemen.

------
damncabbage
Thanks for posting this; it's a good and timely read.

Could you put a [2000] in the title, please?

~~~
dmor
Yep sorry, fixing

~~~
masonlee
Great post!

------
larrydag
Great line from the article that pertains to today.

"It’s piracy when the RIAA lobbies to change the bankruptcy law to make it
more difficult for musicians to declare bankruptcy."

------
fufulabs
Is this also true for startups & VCs?

~~~
oldstrangers
The person putting up the money will always assume that they deserve more than
they do. Wave 8 figures at any young founder and they can't help but say yes,
regardless of how ridiculous the terms are. Look what happened to Eduardo
Saverin, and he's someone that by all means should've known better.

------
neutronicus
I had no idea Courtney Love was so articulate. Great article!

------
shingen
12 years ago, and more meaningful today than ever.

Fortunately musicians are starting to (finally) get a few more options to
escape The Cartel.

Much like Universal attacked MegaUpload regarding their self produced YouTube
video, I have to wonder how much effort would be directed at killing new
independent digital publishing venues via bogus claims using SOPA / PIPA style
laws. The answer is probably: a lot.

~~~
andrewfelix
What's great is that the cartel is so late to the digital game. They've fucked
themselves, and the only thing left to do is do what they've always
done...lobby.

But it's too late. It's game over for these jerks. Whether it takes 5 or 15
years, they're on the downward slope in terms of control.

