Corey Smith Clarification: Not $4.2 Million; Just $4 Million

from the cleared-that-right-up dept

We recently wrote about Corey Smith, a musician who had gone from a weekend amateur to supposedly earning $4.2 million last year. We took that number from our source, though some folks in the comments questioned it. Bruce Houghton was kind enough to republish my post, and there was some skepticism in the comments there as well. So, Smith's manager stopped by Hypebot to clarify: it turns out that Corey grossed $4 million last year, not $4.2 million. Specifically, it was $3.5 million in touring and $0.5 million in merchandise. He also clarifies that these are gross, not net, numbers, but I don't think anyone was assuming otherwise. Even if we assume (for sake of argument only that the margins on all of this is 10%, he still did damn well, and I'm guessing the margins are significantly higher. One point that I did want to clarify, which Corey's manager didn't do directly, but which led to some confusion in my initial post: while he does offer $5 tickets to his shows, it does not mean that all tickets to all of his shows are $5. That may help to explain some of the discrepancy as well.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Norm, Feb 4th, 2009 @ 4:33am

    What this PROVES?

    Mike in your original comments on this story you mention how his story PROVES that free music helps this business model.

    No argument, but the point you KEEP MISSING is that it should be the choice of the musician. You keep touting this as why musicians should stop whining about their music being swapped for free (aka stolen - and yes - stolen just as ideas and information can be stolen).

    An interesting point you mentioned was that when he removed his free tracks from his website iTune sales went down. Don't you think that is because so many iPod owners don't know how to get music on their iPods other than using the iTunes store?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Monarch, Feb 4th, 2009 @ 4:59am

      Re: What this PROVES?

      Norm, you must not read many of Mike's articles, because he has quite often pointed out that these business models do not work for everyone. So he hasn't missed the point that it's the musicians choice. And, at this point in time, at least in the United States, music and ideas can not be stolen. Copyrights can be violated though.

      Just remember, once an idea or song or music is shared, it is no longer owned, as it is impossible to take it back from the one it was shared to. At least medical science has no way of wiping it from the memory of the one it was shared to. So once it is shared, it is owned by everyone it was shared with. Only a government sanctioned monopoly, such as copyright law, can give any one person the right to that idea. Unfortunately, in todays world, it is not the musician that even retains the copyright, but the record label they signed with. So even the musician quite often does not have the right to make a choice of giving their songs away for free.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      eclecticdave (profile), Feb 4th, 2009 @ 6:10am

      Re: What this PROVES?

      ... it should be the choice of the musician.

      Norm, there is a very simple way you can make absolutely sure you retain absolute control over your music. Play it in the privacy of your own basement and never, ever let anyone else listen to it!

      Think of it like a secret. Let's say you have a secret about yourself that you have never told anyone else. As long as it says that way you have full control over that information. The moment you confide in someone else, you lose some control over that information. Hopefully you gain something in return, perhaps mutual trust or friendship.

      Music works the same way. You can *choose* to retain full control by not releasing it. Alternatively you can *choose* to relinquish some of that control in return for money or some other gain. Think of it not in terms of selling the music, but in terms of selling the *control*.

      It's always been this way really. When you sell your house or your car, it's always really about selling your control over that property - the property itself is just an inert object! Selling music works in exactly the same way.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      chris (profile), Feb 4th, 2009 @ 8:02am

      Re: What this PROVES?

      the point you KEEP MISSING is that it should be the choice of the musician. You keep touting this as why musicians should stop whining about their music being swapped for free (aka stolen - and yes - stolen just as ideas and information can be stolen).

      you can choose to jump off a bridge, to eat rat poison, or to share heroin needles, that doesn't make it a good idea. some choices are better than others.

      embracing the fact that you can't stop piracy is a good choice. figuring out how to make money from that fact is an even better choice.

      or you can choose to keep fighting piracy. you can choose to waste your money on lawyers, and p2p spies, and digital rights management. you might as well take that money and throw it out the window for all the good it will do you.

      you will lose because piracy can't be stopped.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike (profile), Feb 4th, 2009 @ 9:59am

      Re: What this PROVES?

      Mike in your original comments on this story you mention how his story PROVES that free music helps this business model.

      No. That's simply not true. I said it proves that free music *can* help the business model, if implemented correctly.

      No argument, but the point you KEEP MISSING is that it should be the choice of the musician.

      The point you keep missing is that business models are not decided on by the producer, but the market. If you choose a business model that doesn't work, you go out of business. The market is making it quite clear that it prefers these models that involve free music. So, sure, musicians can choose not to participate -- and I've never said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you imply I have. It's just that when they do choose otherwise, they're likely to go out of business.

      And, that's exactly what we're seeing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2009 @ 7:35am

    Choice

    Right now musicians do not really have choices about how their music is shared.

    If the recording industry had its way the only music distribution system would be the CD. Their threats of lawsuits have shut down a lot of open mike nights, even the ones where artists had to agree to play only original music. Then there is streaming music. There are a lot of musicians who would love to have their music streamed at not cost, and there are lots of sites that would love to do that. But instead the sites have to pay prohibitive fees even if they only stream free music.

    So please don't complain that Mike wants to take away musicians choices. This forum is about opening up choices and exploring new models. The recording industry is the one that wants to limit musicians' choices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This