"the artists"? (Score 3)

I had a fledgling band that took a brief run with the major labels a few years back. One thing that was patently clear at the time was that the bulk of the profits generated by the artists went to support the corporate structure that is the music industry. It always amazed me that, despite our contract which, at the time, seemed like the break of a lifetime, every bozo in the cubicle at the company skyscraper made more than we did.

The only artists who benefit from the system are those that sell massive numbers of albums and, through that process, increase their leverage with the record companies and thereby negotiate higher percentages of the gross income. The majority of artists, however, make next to nothing -- from their meager 8 to 10 percent, the company deducts marketing costs, tour bus rental, etc. etc. In spite of the contract, these bands end up depending upon ticket sales at concerts and shows for income.

So, I guess it's no wonder that it's the fat cat artists like Metallica that have weighed in against Napster. I would guess, however, that most of the artists/bands out there would love to do away with the system as it stands. Several bands took a successful end-run around the record companies in the pre-Napster era -- fugazi and ani de franco come to mind -- but with Napster and Gnutella on the fly, the mechanism is finally in place for artists to connect with appreciative fans without the financially cumbersome middleman of the record company sucking up the profits and working the payola. In other words, I think Nap/Gnu will be a good thing for artists as well as the audience -- only the companies stand to lose...