I'm sorry but 27 cents a song comes out to just under $3 for a 10 or 11 song album at only moderate digital sound quality. With no physical costs involved (ie case, artwork, shipping, etc.) for the label or artist beyond making the digital files available. Would they like to get more? I'm sure they would. Would they rather people not hear their songs than get them for that cost? If so it seems pretty shortsighted if you ask me. Emusic is pretty much one of my primary sources for music now. I want to pay artists for their songs rather than using something like soulseek, but I refuse to by DRM copies from itunes. And I don't have a cd player so why would I need the physical copy. It's their right, but it's far from forward thinking.

Between this and the Radiohead numbers, are we learning the market value of 160-192 MP3 files sans artwork?

0-$3 - lower quality files, no art
$5-$10 - higher quality with art
$12-$15 - best quality, physical copy with art
$15-$20 - vinyl

40 pounds - discbox?

This looks about right to me. I realize emusic uses a 192 bitrate, which really isn't "lower quality," but this roughly corresponds to the Saul Williams pricing model as well (192 = free, $5 = lossless or 320). I personally use eMusic as a means to explore my whims while compensating the artist. A Drag City record I might have downloaded on emusic just to check out is not something I'm throwing down $10 for. If they are happy with this, then so am I, but from the artist's perspective, it might make more sense to get the record out cheaply and create demand for your live shows.

"I'm sorry but 27 cents a song comes out to just under $3 for a 10 or 11 song album at only moderate digital sound quality. With no physical costs involved (ie case, artwork, shipping, etc.) for the label or artist beyond making the digital files available. Would they like to get more?"

You really need to consider the whole picture here - the cost of putting out a record from all aspects in more costly than 27 cents per song. Production of the record, licensing, tour support costs(that the label typically supplies), etc. All of these costs add up. It's not always about the cost to distribute a final product. It's the entire package, which essentially is more costly than the average consumer might think.

It's really disheartening to hear people say "$10 for a shiny disc and jewel case? That probably cost 20 cents to make." Little do they know it probably cost even the smallest of indie bands thousands and thousands of dollars to put their music on that shiny little disc.

yes eric. very true. the amount of money that goes into a release, down to where that fucking CD gets placed (even at indie stores) on the rack---all paid for, often "staff picks" is paid for too. it's pathetic and sad and depressing that people will buy two 5 buck beers and then scoff at buying an album for 10 bucks, and that's not even taking into consideration all the time and effort the artist took to write and record the album....

i miss the days when it was ok to just be in a band and make music and maybe you'd record some songs and share it with some friends and play some basement gigs and that was that... no b.s. about putting out commercial product and marketing it... that's what more indie bands need to do; what's up with "careerism" in underground music these days??? the only place i can find truly unadulterated noncommercial music anymore is obscure message boards of obscure genres... indie music doesnt neccessarily suck these days, but it definitely BLOWS HARD

It's the label model that's broken, fellas. Time to suck it up and try something new to bring in the revenues and cut costs.

Here's what's for certain:

1. There'll always be great music being created, because that's the nature of art - people don't do it to make a career.

2. There'll always be people who want to hear great music. And my experience tells me that there's more people passionate about great music now than ever.

"Keep your eye on the bottom line, and if it doesn't make sense, don't do it," That statement is PERFECT. Does sinking as much money into a project as you would've when CDs were selling well now make sense? Does removing your catalog from eMusic, a service which the Music Consumer is wildly enthusiastic about, make sense?

If it's not making sense to your bottom line, it's time to reconfigure WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO THAT BOTTOM LINE. Recorded music is worth less than it was. Period. Now, as a business, what value proposition(s) are you going to replace that lost value with?

I'm sorry, I work for an indie label, but actions like these from Drag City & Victory are the equivalent of throwing temper tantrums. Fix the broken business model. Stop whining and fix it.

i won't scoff at paying $10 for a record or even $20-30 for something special. It's just that I won't pay that for every record. Why is that sad and depressing?

I tend to drink cheaper beers as well, at least when I'm out on the town, so a $10 album is more in the range of 4 beers. Think of the time it takes to drink those 4 beers, or who would you invest that time in drinking those 4 beers with. Not every band is worth that. And yes, some bands would have to buy me beers to get me to listen. That's just the price of exposure.

I was the first post in this thread, and in response to the comments about there being more cost to it than just the cd case and artwork, I do know that. I've been in bands and put out records before. The only actual cost that is fixed any more is studio time, mastering, etc. All the rest of the stuff people listed are completely optional and there are examples of all sorts of artists at all sorts of levels of popularity and fame and money eschewing some or all of them and what have you. If an artist feels its my job to pay for him to be in a store that asks them to pay for particular shelving and they'd rather put the money towards that which may or may not generate a sale, rather than towards an excellent music service which gives more people the ability to take a chance on their music at a more affordable price then that's definitely their prerogative. It's just dissapointing. As a consumer I'll definitely treat artists whose priority is having people hear their music differently than artists whose priority is to make a living at music. More power to them if they can do it but it's not my responsibility to get them to that point. It's really not.

btw, that article is by otis hart -- the guy who runs dusted magazine.

RE: Nick's "Fix the broken business model. Stop whining and fix it."

Amen.
but we gotta realize that "fixing" means different things depending on the different "ideal" business models that different indies are drifting towards... so i can actually understand why certain labels chose to fix their problems by pulling out. the profit margin owed to the label and their artists keeps getting slashed by retailers who think they know best... but those retailers are just as responsible for the current mess as any one else!!!

ok i'm off to listen to obscure music that doesnt matter and will never sell and i will be lovin it