>In fact, we've put up streams to our shit PLENTY of times.
>Nothing wrong with a free listen.

Of course but this is pretty different, people can basically listen, to music (everywhere) for free with those websites. Would you agree to make your music available on one of those websites for a fix ammount of money ? How much ?

>>As for the artist getting paid ? Don't they get paid before
>>they actually released their album ?
>
>nope. and I have NO idea where you're getting that from. If
>you're talking about an advance, then that has to be paid
>back. An advance is just a loan from the record company
>against future earnings.

I don't know, I must have read it somewhere on the web, Im ill informed on those things.

> How much of that album
>>sales money really finish in their pocket ?
>
>not a whole lot. Which is why we're having this discussion. If
>an artist gets a dollar per unit ( and I'm talking about
>albums here), then he's luckier than average.

OK, good to know.

>GROSS revenue. And like we KEEP saying. out of that 100k,
>sold, lets say the artist has a 'good' deal and gets 1 dollar
>per unit. He's getting $100k. Your manager gets 10%. Right off
>the top. And what if you have an agent too? that's another
>5-10% Don't forget, You gotta pay taxes on it. and remember
>those videos you wanted? and the big ass poster in Times
>Square? Guess who pays for that...
>
>oh, and we're talking about a solo artist. If you're a band,
>you're gonna split all that shit by 5. Good luck with that...

How much can you with a small gig (less than 100 people) ? In a 500 people venue ? How do you get those gigs ? I mean do you really have to prove that you sold x amounts of albums ?

>nobody's arguing against that. We're talking about the notion
>that artists don't need to be paid for releasing music.
>Re-read the original post.

Then I disagree with him. you should be pay in a way (buy the album, go to the show, make people go tio their show) if you like their music.