[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by Vickip

Thanks for the clarification .. and yes I have a feeling it has to do with cost.

That is bizarre.

I did a little more research to try to find the royalty rate reference and couldn't, but I know I read it someplace. What I did find is that record companies will often put a cap on royalties paid per record, based on the rate paid for 10 or 12 songs, for example (or whatever is agreed upon). In other words, if the going rate is 9.1 cents per song, (as it is currently, though it's more for longer songs), that puts a maximum of $1.09 paid on a 12-song album. If you put 14 songs on said album, each song only receives 7.8 cents, instead of 9.1. I believe this is what Meat means when he says the extra comes out of his pocket (which it does).

Now, this would be mitigated if Meat wrote or held the publishing on his own songs, since he would in effect be paying himself. Interestingly, though, a lower rate is paid to singer/songwriters, presumably because they make up the difference elsewhere.

I suspect the Wal-Mart limit is related to the royalty cap as well- I read that sometimes retailers pay the royalties as well.

As to digital downloads, it appears royalty rates are the same as for physical CD's.

Originally Posted by Elijah's way

Lol I don't think I've ever known of someone bitching about a future album having to many songs....

I can think of a specific example (not here)of people bitching that an existing album has too many songs.