RE: Courtney, Labels, Ticket prices, Digest V9 # 153 & By Numbers & It's Hard

["Nigel Morton" <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to lewinski@icanon.com (Joe Lewinski) for his nice remark about my
last posting.

In the digest referred to above there were a couple of postings that just
got to me.  Courtney Love - well, what she said in her remarks about the
industry I think are really pretty spot on.  A point a number of people seem
to have missed is that once an act has repaid back to their label any
advances for recording, because the record has sold well, they, the act,
still DO NOT OWN the recording the label does.  So, for a loan which could
admittedly be called a "high" risk, the lender not only gets it paid back
but also becomes the legal and rightful owner of what has been produced from
the loan.  And, in return for that the "creator" will only recieve a minimal
proportion of any and all profits after recoupment.  This is the point
argued by a number of acts over the years.  I certainly have no problem with
a label retaining ownership while a debt still exists but surely once that
debt has been cleared then I believe ownership should transfer to the
creators even if this is after an agreed "collection" time for the label.
Remember also that any advance a label gives an act this is a RECOUPABLE
advance NOT a repayable advance.  In other words the investor (the label)
recoups it's investment from sales of the product.  If there are no sales or
they are insufficient then they lose as well as the artist.  However, if
sales are remarkable they'll recoup and then it's profit all the fucking
way!

I was disappointed to read that a listee described Courtney as a whore
junkie.  Knowing who she was managed by I believe that there's every, every
chance that she or her lawyers DID read the contract.  However, what she and
others are now trying to do is make public the highly restrictive practices
that exist within the recording industry.  Personally, I never really liked
her band Hole and I don't think she was the greatest influence upon her now
deceased husband.  But, despite these things I could never ever bring myself
to call her or any other person, male or female, a junkie whore just because
they're trying to improve there circumstances, albeit retrospectively or
because I think she's crap generally.

There was also an entry that amused me about ticket prices and how much an
act can expect to get.  Most deals are structured - agreed guarantee to act,
agreed costs to put on act to promoter or venue, agreed percentage split on
any balance remaining after all costs covered and this is usually higher in
favour of the act than the promoter / venue.  I have posted something
similar to this previously.  The calculation / equation usually works out
this -

Band Guaranteed fee = # 20,000
Promoter / Venue costsing = # 10,000 - for hall hire, advertising, riders,
built in promoter's profit which is usually calculated as being anything
between 5 - 30% of the amount paid as the performers basic guarnatee.
Total costs = # 30,000

Venue Capacity = 3,500
Ticket price = # 25.00
Total gross = # 87,500
Less VAT on tix @ 17.5% = #15,312.50
BALANCE REMAINING = # 72,187.50

Minimum break point is reached at #30,000 divided by #20.63 (this being the
actual tix price after tax removed) = 1,454 paying audience members.

Take the venue gross after tax as being = # 72,187.50
Deduct costs of putting on show = # 30,000
Balance remaining = # 42,187.5
As the percentage split always favours the artiste @ for example 80% of net
balance = # 33,750 further in fee to act on top of the band guarantee of #
20,000 = total earnings of # 53,750.  Thus leaving for the promoter / venue
a balance of # 8,437.50 + their costs of # 10,000 = # 18,437.50 which works
out at around 18 -19% of the venue gross potential.

I think this illustrates that an act can usually expect to get around 70 -
80% of a ticket price and not one third as believed in another posting.
Obviously, the acts earnings increase as they sell more tickets and the
buyer takes a heavy risk load if the show doesn't do the business!

Have been digging thru assorted Who stuff recently and I'm having another
great run through two highly underated, IMHO, albums - Who By Numbers and
It's Hard.  There really are a number of hidden treasures on both of these
discs and I'd implore anyone to go back and really re-listen to them.
Accepted, neither are your usual blasting loud and in your face albums, but
Townshend clearly matures in front of our eyes and ears as a lyricist and
performer.  Yep, I still have a major problem with Kenney Jones, but, hell,
I ain't gonna let that sour my enjoyment of the very greatest rock n roll
band that has ever existed.  OK?  Have a great w/end y'all!

NM