Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
The Britney thing is a great example of HORRIBLE music forced on us by people willing to dump money into total shit until it makes it's money back. 
I know it costs big money, but even if it costs 20, 50 or 100k or even a million.. It still doesn't even come close to the cost of a Movie.. well, most movies.
Or maybe if we look at movies they know will make it vs. singers they know will make it. Both big time... I don't have exact numbers but I'm pretty sure nobody boasts about the cost of making a Music CD or even the overall costs of the Music Videos...
Not like Movies at least. |
I would disagree. Most labels spend about 200-500K per video shoot and if they think an act is going to make it big they will often shoot 2-3 videos before the album even comes out. Add in a million plus to hire promoters to get you on the radio and the cost of flying the act anywhere and everywhere they can to promote it and it adds up really fast.
The thing about both industries is that there is no sure thing. You can make a movie with big name people and an idea you think will be a hit and it bombs and then you have a small movie come out of nowhere and do huge business. The same can be said for music.
Britney Spears is a great example, to me, of what the music industry has done wrong. They have gotten away from selling art and are selling a "product." She has fans and they love her. I don't like it, but millions do for whatever reason. That said, the success of Britney will allow that record label to sign a dozen other acts and try to develop them. Maybe they will be successful, but most of them will fail. It is that way in movies too. A movie does huge numbers and it helps support the dozen other movies that don't turn a profit.
In the end the costs are not the same, but they are different mediums. To distribute a movie you have to make a few thousand prints and get it in theaters. For music it is on the radio and people can "consume" it while driving down the road or walking on the treadmill. No they are not comparable when it comes to how much it costs to make them, but I guess it still boggles me why that should be relevant to how much you are willing to pay for it. To me art is art and the format of it shouldn't determine the price.