SickthingsUK

Pitkin wrote:Who does get the money from the meet and greet then?

Surely that is a private matter?

Robbie wrote:Pitkin wrote:Who does get the money from the meet and greet then?

Surely that is a private matter?

Aren't we being a bit ridiculous here? I asked a simple question. I am genuinely curious. If it's not the artist then who? Does the venue take a cut of the meet and greet?

pitkin88 wrote:

Robbie wrote:Pitkin wrote:Who does get the money from the meet and greet then?

Surely that is a private matter?

Aren't we being a bit ridiculous here? I asked a simple question. I am genuinely curious. If it's not the artist then who? Does the venue take a cut of the meet and greet?

Is it really that hard to figure out that the company handling the m&g is going to get a cut?

Beyond that, it's NOYB.

RemarkablyInsincere wrote:

pitkin88 wrote:

Robbie wrote:Pitkin wrote:Who does get the money from the meet and greet then?

Surely that is a private matter?

Aren't we being a bit ridiculous here? I asked a simple question. I am genuinely curious. If it's not the artist then who? Does the venue take a cut of the meet and greet?

Is it really that hard to figure out that the company handling the m&g is going to get a cut?

Beyond that, it's NOYB.

I didn't know there was a company handling the meet and greet. Thank you for letting me know.

pitkin88 wrote:I didn't know there was a company handling the meet and greet. Thank you for letting me know.

http://www.groundctrl.com

As with all money I would assume it gets split up in percentages. There are the costs for the merchandise, the promotion company, staff to arrange it all, someone to organise it at shows (Karen at the moment). I believe in some cases the venues even insist on a security guard(s) to be present which has to be paid for even though they don`t want it.

It's never as simple as £450, thank you very much. Everyone needs to be paid before "Alice" gets his share.

Pitkin88 wrote:"Aren't we being a bit ridiculous here?"

I wasn't being personal Pitkin. Was just trying to say that if even a small percentage of the profit from meet and greet goes to Alice then surely his income is a private matter?

Robbie wrote:Pitkin88 wrote:"Aren't we being a bit ridiculous here?"

I wasn't being personal Pitkin. Was just trying to say that if even a small percentage of the profit from meet and greet goes to Alice then surely his income is a private matter?

It is, but in this case I don`t think Pitkin was asking for specifics, more generally about how such money would be split up.

digitaledge wrote:I've heard that artists generally get about $1.25 per album and $0.03 per single (although it varies depending on the contract), so unless an album has large sales, artists don't really get an awful lot of money from them in comparison to what they get for their live shows

but because a song like School's Out still gets media exposure there is still a lot of money coming in, I can tell you that the publishing for UK performance royalties for School's Out is split 50% Carlin Music Corp, 25% Alice Cooper and 25% Michael Bruce even though the Mechanicals (record sales) is 100% Carlin Music Corp.

This is why when an artist has a big song it is often referred to as a pension fund and just because some want to download a song for free doesn't make it right.

Artists like Alice Cooper are financially secure but the principle of paying for music protects artists that have fallen on hard times.

Did you know that half of Marc Bolan's royalties go to a fund to support PRS members that have fallen on hard times as artists, what a superstar that guy was!

Si wrote:

Robbie wrote:Pitkin88 wrote:"Aren't we being a bit ridiculous here?"

I wasn't being personal Pitkin. Was just trying to say that if even a small percentage of the profit from meet and greet goes to Alice then surely his income is a private matter?

It is, but in this case I don`t think Pitkin was asking for specifics, more generally about how such money would be split up.

That is correct.

steven_crayn wrote:

digitaledge wrote:I've heard that artists generally get about $1.25 per album and $0.03 per single (although it varies depending on the contract), so unless an album has large sales, artists don't really get an awful lot of money from them in comparison to what they get for their live shows

but because a song like School's Out still gets media exposure there is still a lot of money coming in, I can tell you that the publishing for UK performance royalties for School's Out is split 50% Carlin Music Corp, 25% Alice Cooper and 25% Michael Bruce even though the Mechanicals (record sales) is 100% Carlin Music Corp.

This is why when an artist has a big song it is often referred to as a pension fund and just because some want to download a song for free doesn't make it right.

Artists like Alice Cooper are financially secure but the principle of paying for music protects artists that have fallen on hard times.

Did you know that half of Marc Bolan's royalties go to a fund to support PRS members that have fallen on hard times as artists, what a superstar that guy was!

I thought the band wrote " School's Out " the single so how could the split be that way?

>though the Mechanicals (record sales) is 100% Carlin Music Corp.

I suspect that is false (and yes I know that as a composer yourself, you have access to certain information, but that doesn't mean it's correct).

>I thought the band wrote " School's Out " the single so how could the split be that way?

The credits as listed can be incorrect, even on the actual albums.

A_MichaelUK wrote:>I thought the band wrote " School's Out " the single so how could the split be that way?

The credits as listed can be incorrect, even on the actual albums.

Hmnn that is interesting especially as this was the
" Glen " song. I guess the only way we could know for sure would be to ask one of the band.

>Hmnn that is interesting especially

Don't you believe me that published credits can be incorrect?

>as this was the " Glen " song.

It was his riff - they all contributed to the actual composition.

>I guess the only way we could know for sure would be to ask one of the band.

Feel free. You don't even need to do that though. There's about a billion interviews out there where they have discussed the writing of it.

A_MichaelUK wrote:>Hmnn that is interesting especially

Don't you believe me that published credits can be incorrect?

>as this was the " Glen " song.

It was his riff - they all contributed to the actual composition.

>I guess the only way we could know for sure would be to ask one of the band.

Feel free. You don't even need to do that though. There's about a billion interviews out there where they have discussed the writing of it.

I never said I didn't believe you I said it was interesting. I know the song was a band song which it makes it all the more odd what Steven Crayn is saying regarding the split.

I think its been said a few times that the original album credits are all over the place with Glen especially not getting as much credit as he should have done.
In a recent interview Dennis described a typical song as something Michael would come in with, a really good fun/love song which the others (including Ezrin) then ripped apart and rebuild into a proper song for Alice Cooper.
In that sort of situation it's very hard to go back later and decide who added what to what song for publishing.

Si wrote:I think its been said a few times that the original album credits are all over the place with Glen especially not getting as much credit as he should have done.
In a recent interview Dennis described a typical song as something Michael would come in with, a really good fun/love song which the others (including Ezrin) then ripped apart and rebuild into a proper song for Alice Cooper.
In that sort of situation it's very hard to go back later and decide who added what to what song for publishing.

I totally get that Si. I'd just like to know who is actually credited ( not sure if legally is the right term )for the publishing etc if the album credits are wrong.

>I said it was interesting

But you followed that up with "I guess the only way we could know for sure would be to ask one of the band." So even though I kind of knew you believed what I wrote was accurate, you sort of muddied the waters with that last part of your sentence.

>In that sort of situation it's very hard to go back later and decide who added what to what song for publishing.

That's all totally correct. However, it doesn't explain the credits which steven_crayn referred to. The 'official' credits are those that appear on the releases that came from the country of origin and anything different to that is more than likely a mistake (and is an entirely different issue to who owns the actual publishing rights to a composition).