conversationpc wrote:No clue. My guess is they make pennies compared to what the music companies get for them. From what I've read, the markup on CDs is pretty high, so I'm sure they make a good profit.
The problem I've seen discussed is that bands now often have to sell an enormous amount of albums in order to get out of the red because they have to pay for studio time, videos, etc. It doesn't make sense to me that the bands pay for the studio time unless they're on their own independent label. It would make sense to me that the labels ought to foot the bill for the studio time. Of course, I guess maybe that's an incentive for the artists to get in the studio and get the job done instead of wasting months or even years to get it right (ala Boston).
Well either the hardware is incredibly expensive or hard to operate, but why doesn't a successful band build their own studio and hire people to help them when it's time to record?
I think the label does front some money for the recording sessions, but then your are bound to putting out 3 albums in as many years, and with that kind of pressure, the product may be hurried and suffer.
Boston, one of my favorite bands and such an economy of music they put out. All because Tom Scholz is a painstaking perfectionist and nearly impossible to work with. He never needed the money either, so he kept the guys in a lurch because of all of the court battles with labels. He couldn't satisfy their quota. It's a wonder any of the guys stuck with him.
Right back at ya!