Music is not a loaf bread

[Caleb]

All jokes aside, I actually liked some of the things he had to say.

I like the idea of giving people free downloads of music. Maybe not all of it but a reasonable portion.

Regardless of the eventual price of an album you create, it's not going to make money for you if it doesn't have an audience. You need your music circulating - you need people to hear it, enjoy it and want to hear more and maybe learn more about you as an artist.

And then you hope some of those people want to support you (financially or in other ways) in creating more music for them to enjoy.

I love this concept of working.

Put music out, get feedback, have discussion, attract people to your art, maybe subsidise the cost of production or make a little profit, listen to people, improve your skills, put out more music, reach a wider audience, perhaps make a little extra money from people who would like to show support.

Maybe get some offers to perform live somewhere or work on a small independent movie project, or write a small article on how you do what you do.

It's not like getting a 3 record deal and a bag full of money to be the puppet of a record company marketing department for a few years, and it's not even close, but has that really appealed to most people in this forum in particular?

Caleb

[shamann]

I agree with you Caleb.

I posted this link about a month ago, but I think it got passed over then. You'll probably appreciate what Jeff Harrington has to say here, too.

In truth, there are thousands of people like us, who make music outside of the major industry and who are likely to remain that way. Following Harrington's point, in some ways it seems crazy to alienate most of your potential audience by asking for fees in the same manner that the major labels do, when you likely will never make more than a couple thousand dollars out of it.

I've long thought that musicians in our position had a lot to learn from open-source software business models. Companies give the product away, then charge for service/support/customization. Many companies do quite well under that model (not all mind, but that's life). Magnatune's a step in the right direction, so is the Creative Commons licensing, but more will have to follow. De-commodify music as a product, give the product away and sell your services as performer/multimedia licensing/etc.

Hard to do, though, especially when everything in the world is geared to support commerce. People are just too used to spending their money as a means of validating their opinions. I'm as guilty of it as anyone.

Look at music magazines and check to see how many free downloads get reviewed. How many cover stars of The Wired, which is supposed to be a reflection of the underground, offers their entire back catalog as free mp3 downloads? Would Fennesz be so embraced by the indy press if he didn't have something to sell?

Look at those official web charts just launched in the UK. How many of the tracked download sites are just giving all their product away for free? Zero. Hundreds of netlabels giving some of the best music around away for free for several years, and it takes iTunes to get the daily newspapers to even look up. Sad also to think that those on the netlabels are only putting in their time until they find a way to get signed to a commercial label.

Recently a fellow Cafe poster informed us that he wouldn't be posting any more tracks for free as he'd just been signed to an indy label. I was happy for him as it seemed like good news, but all I could think was "why would you do that?" It's not like most people are getting rich off being on an indy. Why turn your back on the audience you've just spent months trying to build, just to sell a hundred CDs? But so many unsigned musicians seem happy to play by a set of rules designed to benefit others more.

There now I feel better. Thanks Caleb, had to get some of that out of my system. Music is not a loaf bread (but it might a piece of pie, or some such).

Cheers,
Steve

[dystonia_ek]

It's not like most people are getting rich off being on an indy. Why turn your back on the audience you've just spent months trying to build, just to sell a hundred CDs?

You can make a quite decent living signed to a supportive indie with good distribution - contracts tend to be much more generous. Rich is rare, but it beats a 9-5. Whereas the majority of bands signed to majors end up OWING the label money much of the time, then getting dropped for unprofitability.

For a telling breakdown of the average experience of musicians with the majors, see http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

[Karbon L. Forms]

It's not like most people are getting rich off being on an indy. Why turn your back on the audience you've just spent months trying to build, just to sell a hundred CDs?

You can make a quite decent living signed to a supportive indie with good distribution - contracts tend to be much more generous. Rich is rare, but it beats a 9-5. Whereas the majority of bands signed to majors end up OWING the label money much of the time, then getting dropped for unprofitability.

For a telling breakdown of the average experience of musicians with the majors, see http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Hey. Good link! But what the f**k are those "points" he talks about alongside fees?

[dystonia_ek]

It's not like most people are getting rich off being on an indy. Why turn your back on the audience you've just spent months trying to build, just to sell a hundred CDs?

You can make a quite decent living signed to a supportive indie with good distribution - contracts tend to be much more generous. Rich is rare, but it beats a 9-5. Whereas the majority of bands signed to majors end up OWING the label money much of the time, then getting dropped for unprofitability.

For a telling breakdown of the average experience of musicians with the majors, see http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Hey. Good link! But what the f**k are those "points" he talks about alongside fees?

Refers to royalties.

[Karbon L. Forms]

It's not like most people are getting rich off being on an indy. Why turn your back on the audience you've just spent months trying to build, just to sell a hundred CDs?

You can make a quite decent living signed to a supportive indie with good distribution - contracts tend to be much more generous. Rich is rare, but it beats a 9-5. Whereas the majority of bands signed to majors end up OWING the label money much of the time, then getting dropped for unprofitability.

For a telling breakdown of the average experience of musicians with the majors, see http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Hey. Good link! But what the f**k are those "points" he talks about alongside fees?

Refers to royalties.

Oh right. How do they work then? Never heard of them.

[dystonia_ek]

It seems to be, essentially, a set percentage per unit sold/radio airplay instance/video broadcast instance.
'Name' producers tend to get a pretty big share.
I've only recorded for smallish independents, and I've always produced my own recordings, so I'm not the most knowledgeable in this area in terms of standards - maybe there's someone around here who has recorded for a major who can explain more precisely?

I can say that my first indie contract (in the early 90's) gave me a sales royalty of $2 (US) per unit sold.
I've never heard of a major label offering that kind of royalty.