Glad you came to this point.

The amount a label hands over is not really the be all and end all. 14,000 doesn't include promotions, doesn't include shows, doesn't include endorsements and doesn't include an ongoing distibution of cds which will last for years to come as on-the-side income.

14k is only the tip of the iceberg.

I'm with adidass, those figures don't show it all.

The upside to big labels however, is that it often leads to a bands mainstream success... And labels or not, bands DO make a good deal of money off live concerts, even though there are touring expenses... Thats how many bands really make their money anyway, but the more records a band sells, the more people that will go to their concerts... Though there are exceptions for some bands, like Phish.

Well it`s not really the point.It`s just showing you an example of the basic return from an album that sells 250,000 after one year & how easy a band can get into debt from the record company.
Obviously there are other factors involved such as radio play . songwriting , etc etc.And even then everybody takes their cut from those too.
It`s not fact , it`s just a guide to show you where all the money goes.

^ It does suck doesn't it.

yes, poor bands on big labels....i pity them...i really do...my heart bleeds for them in fact....

Yeah heaven help any band that wants to spend a bit of time & money making the best album they can with the best people they can :rolleyes:

I read this at least 3 years ago. You're a tad late.

but buying their CDs really isnt gonna help them that much the only way to get a bit of extra cash to a band without going through the label is by walking up to them and handing them a handful of cash.

its the band's own fault signing the deal.

interesting article. the verbiage is mostly spot on and a great read for any new band... the math is a bit sketchy tho as it doesn't include so many other factors involved...

Just as I said before , whats wrong with wanting to spend time & money on an album and get the best people involved?

I realise that you are pro independent to the point of extreme but the fact is some bands are better suited to indie labels & some to major labels.You make it sound like a stigma to be on a major , but why shouldn`t a band aspire to be something better? You think Radiohead could have had the time & the money to make something like OK Computer on a small label? I doubt it somehow.Nick Cave has been recording in indie labels for over 25 years , his last album was his first on a major & it`s the best thing he`s done in well over a decade as well as one of his most ambitious musically.
There`s good & bad to signing to both types of labels and it`ll take a bit more than saying 'oooh sony are evil' to convince me otherwise.