I think there is no universal figure and and it all depends. Heck there have been artists back in the day who barely made any from their big singles.
Whereas in “Goldfinger” James Bond remarks that drinking Dom Perignon '53 above 38 degrees Fahrenheit is every bit as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.
Not everything about music is taste and opinion. The Beatles wrote their own songs and played their own instruments and their songs hold up musically to this day. That will have an effect on how much it costs to make an album, and how hard it is to sell their music.
The article to which you link describes a process of using teams of music and lyric writers, session musicians, and coaches of various kinds to manufacture a song, in a process akin to development of a new model of car. And the song is sold using a celebrity/dancer/model to front it, and a massive campaign based primarily around recognition and face than any assumption whatsoever that the quality of the song will sell itself.
The latter has to be more expensive.
And you don’t think they spent a lot of money to promote the Beatles?
I wonder how much the calculations change for artists who have major hits without support from the formal recording industry?
Lisa Loeb’s “Stay (I Missed You)” (1994) and Macklemore + Ryan Lewis’ “Thrift Shop” (2013) both hit #1 on Billboard’s US Hot 100 Singles chart without the artists being signed to a record label. Loeb and Macklemore/Lewis were the sole songwriters (well, Macklemore & Lewis split the songwriting royalties 50/50). They also produced their hits themselves (Loeb sharing production credits with her boyfriend). Macklemore and Lewis did have a very artist-friendly distribution deal with the Alternative Distribution Alliance, a division of the Warner Music Group.
So anyway, with “Stay (I Missed You)” and “Thrift Shop” it seemed like the artists didn’t have to pay out big percentages to hardly anyone else. I wonder if those particular hits were essentially winning lottery tickets for the artists?
People act like $1 singles are a new thing. I remember buying 99 cent cassette singles when I was a kid. Sure, I had some vinyl singles (even in the 2000s-) when I was kid too but I don’t remember the pricing. And yeah, inflation. Anyway, there have always been singles artists and cheap or free ways to own a copy.
With digital at least the costs are down, and it’s feasible to go directly to iTunes and keep the bulk of the profits. There’s no manufacturing and physical goods cost. Someone mentioned 10 cents to iTunes, I thought it was 30, but either way that’s the biggest cost involved. I know of plenty of artists who self-release or license music and make adequate sales. As far as big hit singles go, with a record label involved, I’m sure the artist cut is lower, but nothing like a penny. Many probably have a 50/50 or at least the 10-20% deal that was typical during the CD era. But a lot of these digital hit singles are also selling in the millions and provide other revenue opportunities to the artist.
Macklemore was mentioned. He’s had multiple hit singles. Just going by RIAA certs in the US and a brief search of his most recent single, he’s sold at least 14 million singles over the past couple of years. I wouldn’t be surprised if he made 30-50 cents per download. Plus he actually sold close to 2 million album units which I’m sure he made multiple dollars per unit. As a traditionally signed artist, probably $1-2 per album unit, but he has a more favorable arrangement. Plus the first huge single allowed Macklemore, who was previously an underground rapper barely on the radar of most independent hop-hop fans, to play huge shows much larger than any of his contemporaries.
Another thing to look at would be the Blurred Lines lawsuit… wasn’t the judgment based in part on the total earnings of the single, and weren’t the earnings of each artist mentioned in the court proceedings? IIRC, even T.I. made a couple million off that.
Playing private parties for billionaire tech corps like Microsoft is a wonderful way to pull in big bucks.
There are all kinds of people who don’t have to get a cut of the fee. The artist might even be able to negotiate a cash deal and find lots of ways to cut corners.
It may not happen very often. But even the Rolling Stones were willing to fly over the pond to do a gig for Bill. So there has to be lots of money there.
That can be a lot, depending on how frugal they were. Being signed to a major usually means having a recording budget of tens of thousands. It’s generally loaned by the record company and expected to be used; they want a product that’s made well, and throwing money (that the artists have to pay back) at it is the only way they know to ensure it. Twenty-five years ago, you could almost always hear the difference in a $30K recording and a $1K one. But, it didn’t necessarily make the record any better or push any more units.
These days, you can easily get a $1K recording that’s within normal tastes of sounding like the $30K one, especially if you have simple audio needs (not a large, loud band) and know what you’re doing. So, there’s $29K or so you’ll have in your pocket from the start.
If you are on a minor that already has a major distribution deal (or are easy to find by some method in the d/l world), every bit of promotion and bookkeeping you can do yourself leverages that further without putting you financially in debt. At the extreme end of things, there’s Ian Mackaye, who’s never had a hot 100 song that I can think of, but has worked and stayed in control of his music for decades, and is supposedly worth tens of millions. Now, he actually owns the record label - but since Fugazi never sold T-shirts as a matter of principal, and they’re the kings of cheap good clean fun - I doubt he’s screwing the bands over. But then again, he doesn’t really seem to be in it for the money.
Good observation! The first episode of Silicon Valley showed Kid Rock playing at some big tech party (and getting ticked off because no one was paying attention to him). The fact that the show was satirizing this idea means that it must happen a lot in real life.
Sure but good music is an easier sell than something that no one would listen to if it weren’t for a commercially created campaign.
Here’s a nice infographic of How much do music artists earn online?.
To get their foot in the door, TLC signed a downright predatory contract and, at the height of their 90s fame, were pulling down about $40K/year each. I don’t think anybody ever retired rich on the strength of one hit alone.
I have an anecdote about an early '80s musician with one big hit who basically did exactly this. When I knew him many years later, he was financially secure and showed no particular need to work again. He loved music and continued to do a little writing, producing, and performing, but all his real money came from that one hit. He saved most of his earnings, invested prudently, and spent carefully, but he didn’t really want for anything in this world.
It’s not an anecdote if you don’t tell who it is; it’s a secret.
I remember many years ago when I was doing live sound hearing that a songwriter was guaranteed to make at least $100,000 in royalties for any single that even just hit the top 10.
Here is a more contemporary accounting of that The Music Business and Recording Industry: Delivering Music in the 21st Century.