Does anyone know why he left out the $300,000 advance from the final calculation on how much the artists make? I'm not sure if that was just an oversight or if there was a valid reason for it.
Even so, for a 5 member band, assuming they took the whole advance, (no manager fees, etc) they've earned $60,000. Which considering there's usually 2-4 years between albums, and they still owe the label money, that's a pretty shitty wage of $15k - $30k P/A.
Sure, but in the meantime the label made the band famous, which is worth a lot of money. They have a much larger audience at concerts, can sell merchandise and possibly have other sources of income. And, when the record contract expires, they can negotiate better terms.
No question, any band will tell you that record sales is their least significant income source, for most merch is the big earner.
What bothers me most about this situation is that musicians would exist without labels, where as labels would not exist without musicians, the balance of power is all wrong.