 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm always reading that this and that isn't released because it's too expensive.
Expanded movie scores only getting a limited release.
Movie scores released not being complete.
And so forth.
And I am always wondering why that is. The music has already been recorded for the film. How great is the effort to take those digital recordings and put them on a disc?
I understand the effort for old scores getting a new release, when everything has to be found in obscure archive location, dusted off, cleaned up and remastered. But scores from the digital age?
When I look at the most recent score I bought, which was Star Trek: Nemesis for $29.95 and a Limited Edition of 5000 copies, the entire sales volume is around 150k, isn't it? So the costs to produce such an album (more than ten years after the movie's release) need to be somewhere below that line?
Forgive my absolute ignorance in this area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalties, re-use and licensing costs are probably the most prohibitive stumbling blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time -- not too long ago and many here will remember it painfully -- when many, many soundtrack releases from the past would have been prohibitively expensive to release because of the re-use fees. So they were not released AT ALL.
Basically, paying re-use fees for soundtrack release were so expensive that it was often cheaper to fly all the way to Europe and record the score anew with an orchestra. (Which was done often for then current movies, but no feasible for all but a handful of older movie soundtracks.
These re-use fees are also the reason many soundtracks from the 1980s and 1990s were no longer than 30 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to two posts by MV:
Economics 101:
Project costs $10,000 to produce. You sell cd at an average of $7 per unit. For a release like this, one that is months after the fact, you might be lucky to move 1000 to 2000 units. If you move 2000, you make $14,000 gross. Of course, when you factor in royalties you might walk away with $2,500 - $3,000 profit. Now, this is not accounting for the 1000 cds you will most likely receive as returns a year later from vendors like Tower, Virgin, etc. . . So, you have actually lost money on the project.
Perhaps some day another company will release it as a limited edition cd if Mr Despalt's star continues to rise. Hell, in a few years I might even do that! I'm a fan of his work, but to release the cd now is hardly worth it to appease a few hundred people.
Now, if I can get a slew of you to want a release of this, I might second think the project. This is similiar to Blade:Trinity. We were considering doing it, but there wasn't enough interest, so we passed.
and
I can't speak for others, but when you get right down to it $20 is just about as low as we can go.
Between artist royalties, mechanical royalties, afm fees, sag fees (for choir), transfer costs, mastering costs, producing costs as well as manufacturing costs a company's out of pocket fees go well into the 10's of thousands on some projects. Other projects, are not as high, but those ones usually are not as much in demand.
We try to give customers a break from time to time (sale prices on older titles or sale prices on new ones -- like now: Buy Dragonslayer and get Eraser for $14.98).
Plus, something to also keep in mind is when we sell these cds to other stores we sell them at a wholesale rate, so our profit diminishes anywhere from $5 to $10. Only Varese has the cajones to sell their wares at full retail price to the wholesale marketplace. LOL
Believe me, if we could sell these cds cheaper and still make a good profit we would.
And that's all I gotta say about that.
MV
Also, Doug over at Intrada said this:
The following are just some of the costs to us that have increased. I am not referring to the musician fees because thankfully the historic rates have made these albums actually possible now. And I am not counting postage fees as those we factor into our retail shipping rates. Anyway, onwards.
Here's what costs have increased since our first $19.99 CD went out our door: The advances to acquire the license. The royalty rates to the studio. The mechanical licensing fees. (Yes, every time we add another track to an album, not only do we pay a higher rate, but we pay that rate so many more times over, too.) The costs of transferring the original elements. The costs of mixing, editing and mastering the music. The costs of licensing the artwork and stills for the packaging. The costs of manufacturing a disc. The costs of printing a booklet. And - of course - the labor costs at all levels of production and manufacturing and filling of orders and all that overhead stuff. And my point here?
Some 25 years later, we still retail these discs for $19.99
Just something to ponder. Don't fear a price increase or some other yucky development at this time. But maybe, just maybe, be kind of happy that you are seeing these albums come out against such challenging odds. It gets pretty crazy sometimes.
--Doug
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Upside of Anger".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but also consdier they get paid for material that otherwise, would just sit there and cost them money; related housing costs of all sorts (lighting, air conditioning, property taxes for the storage building, security guards, maintenance, water/sewage, trash, etc.).
What amazes me is the low-information buyers who, even when you use the exact quotes or your own wording of it, still think the prices are too high, when a two or more disc set comes out.
I remember one instance in particular where this two CD set came out and was about $30.00. Some low-information buyers complained that it wasn't like $16.98. No matter what I said, he didn't get it/refused to get it. The ironic part is, if the set was split into two seperate CD's and cost $16.98 each and he bought both, he'd be paying MORE than $30.00 dollars (in fact, more when you factor in shipping).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 7, 2014 - 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Perhaps, but also consdier they get paid for material that otherwise, would just sit there and cost them money; related housing costs of all sorts (lighting, air conditioning, property taxes for the storage building, security guards, maintenance, water/sewage, trash, etc.).
Yes, but there are costs, too. Contracts must be drawn up, clearances approved, paperwork filed, tapes unearthed, etc. Granted, if a restoration is required, the studios get that done for them, and can then use those tapes for home video, music downloads, etc. Even so, it's pretty much the equivalent for them of seeing a nickel on the road while they drive by in their car. How often do you pull over to get a nickel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on how slowly I'm driving. ;-)
Plus, now that I think of it, a label also benefits the studio: how often have labels like Intrada, FSM, LLLR's, turned up missing master tapes, or parts of scores that were lost or thought destroyed? These findings can lead to better music quality for DVD/Blu-ray release.
Generally speaking, since I don't have numbers, I got to think there must be some profit, no matter how small, some thing that benefits the studio enough where they'd even want to do this. "For the sake of art" doesan't pay the lawyers, after all.
And imagine (I'm speaking in general, not to any specific user) -- we're talking about now; the costs, AFM re-use fees, etc., where higher back in the day. What it must have taken financially for labels like Varese Sarabande and Prometheus Records, back in the day, must have been shocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(If I were on a game show and had to guess, I'd guess lower.)
I like this line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
