Basilisk Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 It's a simple poll, really. How much do you think is fair payment for an artist releasing one track on a compilation? Think of the average case, neither new nor a veteran... what do you think is fairly standard? I wonder if the listening public has much of an idea of what some artists ask for one song on a compilation. Let's say the funds are in U.S. cash. What's your guess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 It all depends of quality. Best tracks these days I think should give the artist at least 1000€. But I'm really no one to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antic Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I voted 500$ on average, but most of the tracks on todays comps are not worth that cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cosmogenesis Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 It depends of the quality of the track and which artist has produced it. You know, for a track like Hallucinogen "LSD", 2000 dollars aren't enough! One million dollars are a more appreciated price! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 It depends of the quality of the track and which artist has produced it. You know, for a track like Hallucinogen "LSD", 2000 dollars aren't enough! One million dollars are a more appreciated price! 446043[/snapback] I was also thinking how much is LSD worth! I think it would be quite hard to give numbers for such all time classic. I wonder how much Pleiadians got from their first album...hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phobium Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Now this is a great poll. I'm looking forward to checking the results when more people have voted. You should have added another option aswell, 0. A lot of artists (mostly new) get nada for a track on a compilation by Another Bedroom Records Label. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it sure does happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisk Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Now this is a great poll. I'm looking forward to checking the results when more people have voted. You should have added another option aswell, 0. A lot of artists (mostly new) get nada for a track on a compilation by Another Bedroom Records Label. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it sure does happen. 446058[/snapback] Definatly... it can't be the average though, can it? I think it's bullshit that the artists get paid nothing at all and the label still sells the compilation at a profit. Of course I'm all for free releases, and artists donating tracks, but this poll is about commercial releases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Full On artists should pay for people listening to their music the others.. atleast 500€ a track + some percentage of sales Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furthur Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 i voted for 300 on average Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTP Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 $ 500 - AVERAGE. That means bad tracks get $0, nothing at all, but really really perfect ones can get up to $ 1000. I'd hardly ever pay so much though! So I'd more or less say $ 500 average ... actually would depend on a percent rate that I like the track ... many tracks of nowadays I don't like more than 25% actually though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HQN Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I was also thinking how much is LSD worth! I think it would be quite hard to give numbers for such all time classic. I wonder how much Pleiadians got from their first album...hmmm... 446049[/snapback] Well when they were getting released noone could tell they will be such classics...by definition there has to be some time elapsed before one can conclude a song or an album is a classic... I'd say a reasonable average in our scene that has way too many labels for the size of the market is $200 to maybe $300 per song. The average can not be determined from the "quality" of the song since tastes are different, but from the artist's reputation and experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 10$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest djnemo Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 15% of the sales, after the costs of pressing etc. Thats a good deal for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Well when they were getting released noone could tell they will be such classics...by definition there has to be some time elapsed before one can conclude a song or an album is a classic... I'd say a reasonable average in our scene that has way too many labels for the size of the market is $200 to maybe $300 per song. The average can not be determined from the "quality" of the song since tastes are different, but from the artist's reputation and experience. 446190[/snapback] good words. however, I wasn't really thinking the moment LSD got released, more like this moment. With that reputation... how much would the track be worth (I know, obscure question as you don't pay artists 12 years after the release of a track. And also cause music quality is always something subjective. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phobium Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I know, obscure question as you don't pay artists 12 years after the release of a track. 446212[/snapback] If you get royalties, you do. If the track still sells/gets airtime that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 If you get royalties, you do. If the track still sells/gets airtime that is. 446216[/snapback] yeah, that's true. I didn't think about it... maybe Simon is still getting so much royalties that he doesn't have motivation for hallu-3 (the manmademan's track remix was bollocks! *sob*) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HQN Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 If you get royalties, you do. If the track still sells/gets airtime that is. 446216[/snapback] yeah, but the catch is the contract terms are finalized before the track is released....including royalties, unless of course circumstances change such as the label ceasing to exist and the rights being returned to the artist who can re-negotiate a better deal with someone else.... One problem with that, if it happens, is the track has already been released, so the market may already be saturated and mp3 file sharing networks flooded with it which would lead to leverage loss while nagotiating a new deal even if the track is a bona fide classic. It makes no sense for a newbie to ask for tons of cash because he thinks his track is great and can't provide more intangible value (such as a known name) that will translate into sales...In most cases a label will give more money to an established artist than someone new and unknown even if a newbie sounds as good as the veteran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmtree Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 maybe if the payment was higher, the artists would put more time and effort into making better tracks.. i remember Penta was saying that it's not worth his effort to put hours and hours of work into a track and then sell it for $200 or even less.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qa2pir Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I'm not sure how you mean, do you mean the artist should get 500 (or whatever) for participating on a cd with a track, or that much in total for each track, all compilations and album and stuff counted? Anyway, making a song is not that big of a job really... I don't say it's easy but it's not like going out in the wood and cutting 50 trees down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuser Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I voted $800, actually i don't really know how much time can an artist spend to make a track. If it is 2/3 weeks on average, then something like $800 would be appropriate? it alos depends on its repetutation of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HQN Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I voted $800, actually i don't really know how much time can an artist spend to make a track. If it is 2/3 weeks on average, then something like $800 would be appropriate? it alos depends on its repetutation of course. 446278[/snapback] I don't think the time spent should be too much of a factor. If someone is still learning his/her equipment it could take longer while someone experienced may take a lot less time. What matters is the end result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxx Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 between 300 1000 i think is reasonable amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmtree Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Anyway, making a song is not that big of a job really... I don't say it's easy but it's not like going out in the wood and cutting 50 trees down 446270[/snapback] you are aware that, say, professional web designers and animators get upwards of $50 an hour for their work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cangrejo Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Music is made for listening, it's a pleasure to do music, not a line of work. Fuck off anyone who says that it should be worth more than $0. I'm saying this offensive because as long as there is any money to be made doing music lots of shit producers won't make music. It's not a fucking career, it's not a job. It's a way of expressing yourself. I love internet and the freedom of information that it's brought with it. I don't know why anyone would take money from people for listening to their music. Sure, if you wanna pay great artists for putting lots of work, blah blah blah. "People won't make music if there's nothing to be made from it" That's bullshit, there was music long before there were any money. Music that existed for the sole purpose of enjoying it. Not for making money off of it. Have I made myself clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaft Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Music is made for listening, it's a pleasure to do music, not a line of work. Fuck off anyone who says that it should be worth more than $0. I'm saying this offensive because as long as there is any money to be made doing music lots of shit producers won't make music. 446322[/snapback] Unfortunately, making music comes at a price. You have to pay for all the gear, which is a few thousand dollars. Then you have to support yourself whilst you are making that music. I would totally agree with you if I could make music for free. But after those initial costs of buying equipment to make my music heard, where is my incentive? I might as well burn that money then, as I won't see it back. I think the artist deserves 15-20% of the royalties once the initial costs of mastering, artwork, pressing etc are paid for. I think time and effort into something should be rewarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.