Let me ask you something concrete. In 2022, a standard single LP from a major label artist cost around $25. Now it's $35 to $40. Artists still get the same mechanical royalty, roughly a dollar or two per record. Who pocketed that extra $15? The label, the distributor, the pressing plant — not the musician. So here's my simple yes or no question for you: if raising the price by 60 percent already failed to put more money in artists' pockets, why would raising it another 20 percent suddenly work?

Here's a number for you: on a forty-dollar vinyl record, the artist takes home roughly a dollar fifty in mechanical royalties. Under four percent. So when you say supporting artists keeps them making music you like, I have to ask—which artist are you actually supporting? The one holding the pressing contract, or the one eating ramen on tour? You called it a personal matter, but this isn't about feelings. It's about where the cash lands. My question from round one still stands: if the last fifteen-dollar price hike went nowhere near the musician, why would five more fix that? Yes or no—can you name one artist whose rent gets paid by a vinyl price increase?

You keep defending the label’s cut like discovery justifies it. But the question isn’t whether labels help careers — it’s whether raising vinyl prices puts food on the artist’s table. It doesn’t. The label takes the price hike, the artist gets the same dollar-fifty. So here’s my yes-or-no: do you actually believe the label shares that extra revenue fairly with the musician? Because if the answer is no — and we both know it is — then charging fans more is just a tax on loyalty that lines suits, not artists. Give me one honest yes or no: does the money reach the artist?

Last Record Store Day, a limited colored pressing sold for seventy-five dollars. The band posted they still owed the label money. That's your "compounding sales" — sales that compound the debt. You say the label made the artist famous; fine. But does that justify a system where raising the price never raises the artist's share? Yes or no: can you name one musician whose rent depends on vinyl price hikes? If you can't, then asking fans to pay more is just charity with extra packaging.

You're right that a label can get an artist heard—I'll grant you that. But that's about fame, not income. You keep asking why artists don't leave the label; the real question is why fans should pay more when the label's contract says the artist's share never moves. So here's my yes-or-no, one more time: does the extra money from a higher vinyl price go to the musician? If yes, show me the contract. If no, you're just asking fans to donate to a company. Which is it?