Eagles Mentions in the Press (2006 - 2017)

[Henley Honey]

As part of this interview, Azoff relates the tragic story of how the Eagles only got half a million dollars in royalties over five years from iTunes.

I cry.

http://www.thewrap.com/music/column-...58991?page=0,0

One Hundred Thousand Dollars a year in Royalties from iTunes seems pretty low. I'd be curious to see how much iTunes made off them vs. what they paid them in royalties.

Additionally, consider the fact that any royalties earned and any proceeds from live shows go into a collective pot that is the Eagles Corporation -- whatever the name may be. From that, deduct: The cost to lease or rent the venue, musician's salaries, roadies salary (and propably their medical insurance which is astronomical) security staff, lighting and sound guys, production people, Irving's cut, TAXES, behind the scenes support staff, travel expenses for everyone, liability insurance, etc. . . The costs go on and on and they are staggering.

It's not like Glenn is stuffing half a million dollars in his guitar case and running out the stage door with an evil grin on his face.

Then consider the additional individual expenses of the Principle band members after they are paid -- or their respective Corporations: Attorney fees, accountants, insurance costs, personal and corporate employee salaries and benefits, taxes and all other expenses incurred by a successful business -- not to mention wives, children, parental support, charitable contributions/foundations, etc . . .

As far as ticket prices go, they're a reflection of what people are willing to pay. If they charge $230. and nobody is buying, they'd have to adjust prices accordingly. That doesn't seem to be the case. They consistently sell out every venue they play.

Will they be in the poor house any time soon? Doubtful. They have worked long and hard for their success and I for one don't begrudge them a dime. JMHO.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I agree that $100,000 grand a year is not a lot of money when you consider their overhead costs. By the time you factor in those expenses and divide the remaining amount among the members, it doesn't figure out to be much at all. And if the Eagles are only making this amount, imagine what lesser artists are making. I also agree with HH that the Eagles may not need the money, but the majority of artists are struggling to make enough money to survive in the music business.

I've said this many times before whenever this topic comes up - bands like the Eagles set the standard for ticket prices for other struggling artists. As HH said, it's all about supply and demand ... a.k.a. capitalism.

[sodascouts]

I'm unsure of whether that figure was net or gross, which makes a big difference. I can only imagine how much these guys have to pay in taxes alone!!

Even if it's net, though, it's still certainly chump change to the Eagles.

I've said elsewhere they charge what the market will bear. It would take more altruism than most people possess to deliberately charge less than what you know you can get. A few artists do this, but not many.

While the Eagles are typically top earners, I'm not sure that's the case for iTunes. I think that younger artists probably fare better on iTunes than the Eagles. While many of us on here enjoy using iTunes, the majority of the Eagles' fans are not as keen on music in digital format as are the fans of, say, Lady GaGa or Adele. I imagine they outpace the Eagles considerably in iTunes sales.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

While the Eagles are typically top earners, I'm not sure that's the case for iTunes. I think that younger artists probably fare better on iTunes than the Eagles. While many of us on here enjoy using iTunes, the majority of the Eagles' fans are not as keen on music in digital format as are the fans of, say, Lady GaGa or Adele. I imagine they outpace the Eagles considerably in iTunes sales.

I agree that this is probably true, Soda. But Lady Gaga and Adele are still the exception. I think the difference is that back in the day, an artist didn't have to strike it rich to make a decent living in the music industry. Nowadays, unless they become a superstar, it seems that most artists struggle to make enough money to support themselves.

[sodascouts]

I think the difference is that back in the day, an artist didn't have to strike it rich to make a decent living in the music industry. Nowadays, unless they become a superstar, it seems that most artists struggle to make enough money to support themselves.

That's what the record companies are saying and many people believe it. However, I've read the opposite - that without the gatekeeping of the record companies and through digital distribution services like iTunes, more musicians are earning money off of their work.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovat...business.shtml

It's true that there's less potential for them to be a mega-star, but then most musicians never did become mega-stars. Many a starving artist of yesteryear quietly packed up his guitar and left Los Angeles because he couldn't get a record deal and had no other way to get his name out there. Now that guy could put his music on iTunes. He won't get rich, but he'll get more than he would've gotten back in the day - which was nada.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I think the current average percentages from Apple are 35/65. Apple gets 35% and the label gets 65%. Each contract with each label might be different, and I'd read those numbers back in the 2007/2008 time frame. Each artist has a different deal with their label on what the cut is after that, and it could be different for each album.

I've often wondered two things:
1 - If an artist has a different contract for different albums, which would be the best deal for an artist, an MP3 from the original album or an MP3 from a greatest hits album? Regardless of the artist, if I'm paying $0.99 for a song and have a choice of which album to buy it off of, I'd like to pick the one that's the best deal for the artist. I would assume for most artists, the new the contract, the better it is, but who knows?

2 - There's a lot of talk about Apple (and others) being yet another entity that stands between the artist and the consumer. I wonder what the percentages were before the advance of MP3s. When you consider the manufacturing, etc, of albums and cassettes and CDs and the retail cut of the record stores, I wonder how the Apple ratio compares to that.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

That's what the record companies are saying and many people believe it. However, I've read the opposite - that without the gatekeeping of the record companies and through digital distribution services like iTunes, more musicians are earning money off of their work.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovat...business.shtml

It's true that there's less potential for them to be a mega-star, but then most musicians never did become mega-stars. Many a starving artist of yesteryear quietly packed up his guitar and left Los Angeles because he couldn't get a record deal and had no other way to get his name out there. Now that guy could put his music on iTunes. He won't get rich, but he'll get more than he would've gotten back in the day - which was nada.

Soda, it took me so long to type mine in I missed your last post with the link. What that article says is exactly what I was trying to say last week or so in the UMG/EMI thread we started. A big entity going after Apple and others to lower the percentage rate Apple gets means Apple will 'innovate' and find a way to go after artists independantly rather than through major labels for new music. It might take a while, but eventually, the concept of a major label will go away IMO. They'll make money off of existing contracts and that's it.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well - who knows what the real truth is here. When we hear statements from Irving such as the one below, I presume he knows what he's talking about, having been in the industry for so long. I don't believe he or Glenn would lie about such a thing.

"It's way different now. It’s way more difficult,” Azoff told the crowd. “The odds are stacked against you.”
"In an earlier age, a hit record would help you sell out three days in Los Angeles, he said. Now you can't get a hit, and if you do, you open for someone in a club."

And artists probably are making more money now, but I wonder if they are getting a higher percentage? I realize that the record companies were/are far from perfect, but I would think their artists do benefit quite a bit from the record company's marketing and promotion of their records. As we often say, the real truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[sodascouts]

VA - I agree, and I don't think it's a bad thing.

It will be hard for the old guard to adapt, especially those who thrived in the old system like Azoff. Of course he's not going to embrace change, and he's going to complain. However, you can't stop progress.

And dreamer, Henley's op-ed on SOPA that was riddled with factual errors and bad stats he got from the RIAA showed me that even our guys are capable of being misled by record company propaganda.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well - I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. As I said, I would think that both sides have their version of the truth. The guy in the article that you posted earlier certainly has a bias and an agenda to push as well. I will give both sides the benefit of the doubt and say that they both have some valid points.