Josef wrote:potatojunkie wrote:Is it morally justifiable to exploit people if they don't mind being exploited? This is what it comes down to, I guess. It's an old question.
Agreed. I sympathise with both sides here, I suppose; I just had my back put up slightly by the pro-pro argument put up earlier. But there's still a discussion to be had on what constitutes exploitation.
potatojunkie wrote:Josef wrote:And the cost of promo photos for a band will almost invariably come off the band's bottom line rather than the record company's. The vast majority of professional musicians barely scrape a living.
See, there's a great community in Glasgow at the lower end of the scale. People are happy to donate time to things they believe in and enjoy. By the time you're selling out the ABC main hall or the Carling Academy, though, you ought to be paying the people who are working for you.
You'ld be surprised. Possibly. JohnR posted a link somewhere to an article (John? Please? ) on band economics written by a well known muso (Dave Grohl, possibly?) which went into detail on the example of a (typical) band which sells 250,000 albums, but ends up with the band members earning barely the minimum wage yet still in debt to the record company.
Apologies for the diversion.
The Problem With Music - Steve Albini. This is a must read.
http://www.petdance.com/actionpark/albi ... music.html
I have worked with some very successful groups and it is generally the case that it is the record company and manager who profit most from groups in the short to medium term. I recorded with one successful group who had several top ten singles and they were still living on a basic allowance 2 years into their success. They did achieve financial stability later but only after the record company recouped costs.