Naming a band, as simple as it may seem, can sometimes become a huge pain in the ass. In marketing, naming your band is synonymous to branding.
The name of your band can either make or break your career. It's supposed to lead you to opportunities and endless possibilities. So it's important to note that it should be thought out well.
I hope to share three basic pointers...
1) Coin a band name that delivers insignificant meaning to you or to anyone.
Great band names like U2, The Police, Weezer, The Beatles, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, The Cure worked because the names didn't convey anything related to music.
What does U2 stand for? It's a German submarine used in World War I. The Police? Cops don't sing. Weezer? What's that? The Beatles? What's that? Pearl Jam? Nirvana? Yeah I know what this word means but it's not about music. The Cure? Weird name but it worked.
As a result, instead of the band contriving to brand their music by its name to build their career, it worked the other way around. The music that emanated from these giants instead effortlessly shaped the band.
The effect of this subliminal branding strategy now allows a prospected fan to identify a Coldplay track by simply listening to their music. How brilliant is that?
2) The alliteration approach.
Your band may have a better chance of recall with this method. Alliteration is when using two words sharing the same first letters of each.
This approach has proven to be very effective in cartoon characters - Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Woody Woodpecker. Alliteration works because it makes memorization easier especially when there are only few syllables used.
3) Check the internet.
Just recently, three local bands are on sabbatical simply because they discovered in the internet that another band shares the same name as they do gigging and selling their albums (yes they released more than one) somewhere in this planet.
A name is very important. Period.
Therefore it is very important not to take for granted such opportunities as googling just to check if your band's name is already taken or not. Uniqueness can be an advantage - or if not, at least a name that's a little different from what is popular sounding at the time.
One important suggestion is that if you think you incidentally coined a good band name, that no other band is sharing it with you, and most importantly, the domain name is available - buy it. Period.
Showing posts with label indie bands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label indie bands. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Some Things To Understand About CDs
Will CDs go extinct? I suppose not. Not any time soon that is.
While the music industry is slowly realigning and reinventing itself for the internet being a new income stream anchored on virtually unlimited possibilities, bands still prefer CDs. Many still ask about CD replication - cost, contact information, copyright concerns - as opposed to a more direct profit source from digital distribution.
It may still be a fact that CDs are magnets to music collectors.
Even with the dramatic decline of CD sales over the years, owning a piece of a band's latest masterpiece may still be a treat to a significant few.
This media format could probably stay in the market for the next 10 years or so. The advantages and disadvantages are now diversified depending on which side of the fence you are standing.
If you are running an indie label, you would probably opt for digital distribution as a preliminary strategy. After which CDs can be replicated at a limited number of copies for your artist's tour. Recent surveys revealed that CD sales are faster in gigs.
On the other hand, if you are an unsigned band, online distribution is a lot cheaper. Think about it. For an investment of P 1,390 ($ 29) a year, your album can be in 4 major digital music storefronts - iTunes and Rhapsody being 2 of these front liners.
At the end of the day, it's not really the sales that matter. At the beginning of a band's career exposure is more important. The more popular a band gets, the better chance for CD sales - yet there is still no guarantee.
Because whether the CDs stay or not, be it in any format, music will always be there.
In my opinion, the best option for now is to release advanced copies of an album in digital format. From here, there is already copyright ownership and one does not have to worry about too much paperwork.
CDs are now just a second option and are decided on a case-to-case basis.
While the music industry is slowly realigning and reinventing itself for the internet being a new income stream anchored on virtually unlimited possibilities, bands still prefer CDs. Many still ask about CD replication - cost, contact information, copyright concerns - as opposed to a more direct profit source from digital distribution.
It may still be a fact that CDs are magnets to music collectors.
Even with the dramatic decline of CD sales over the years, owning a piece of a band's latest masterpiece may still be a treat to a significant few.
This media format could probably stay in the market for the next 10 years or so. The advantages and disadvantages are now diversified depending on which side of the fence you are standing.
If you are running an indie label, you would probably opt for digital distribution as a preliminary strategy. After which CDs can be replicated at a limited number of copies for your artist's tour. Recent surveys revealed that CD sales are faster in gigs.
On the other hand, if you are an unsigned band, online distribution is a lot cheaper. Think about it. For an investment of P 1,390 ($ 29) a year, your album can be in 4 major digital music storefronts - iTunes and Rhapsody being 2 of these front liners.
At the end of the day, it's not really the sales that matter. At the beginning of a band's career exposure is more important. The more popular a band gets, the better chance for CD sales - yet there is still no guarantee.
Because whether the CDs stay or not, be it in any format, music will always be there.
In my opinion, the best option for now is to release advanced copies of an album in digital format. From here, there is already copyright ownership and one does not have to worry about too much paperwork.
CDs are now just a second option and are decided on a case-to-case basis.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Make Your Music Stand Out
A common question among bands who have stayed in the local music scene for quite some time now (say 5-6 years) is how do you make your music get attention?
There are a thousand and one ways to skin a cat.
If one is patient enough to count the ways maybe success can just be right under one's nose. Unfortunately, cats according to some have 9 lives only, reducing the option from 1001 to 992 (just trying to be funny).
Making your music stand out is a bit challenging especially if you're part of the group yourself. I suppose it's because one has to be vain somewhat to make things work - of course not in all instances.
One thing for sure though is that, if all other bands are doing emo for example, rehash - do a derivative mix. If all bands are doing reggae, you can experiment on a new genre under this blend. Death reggae perhaps (trying to be funny again)?
Observing around, many bands I find sound the same. Most of them scream in the middle of a song. Many start with slow intros and builds up to heavy riffs and "powerful" drum beats. Some vocalists sing on "forced voice quality" trying to sound like Vedder, Stapp, or Weiland - at least by how it sounded to me.
Nothing wrong with the above. It's just that if you hope to get people to listen to your music, consider these mentioned as symptoms to failure.
One wise qoute says "I succeed when I dare to fail." Instead, many of the local bands tend to take the safer route and play what is commonly accepted by the masses. What is scary is that they're usually not even aware of it.
When the E-heads got hype, all of a sudden the rest of the band population sounded like "Pare Ko". When Slapshock was king, bands mimicked screaming at the top of their lungs without even knowing why. Bisrock community filled huge parking lots yet the quality of their demos didn't seem to improve (nothing personal).
So how do you make your band's music stand out?
Try not doing what other bands are doing. Listen to the music you want to play from your heart and not from what you hear on the radio. Remember that music is an extension of one's personality - see if you can bring that good character in you out as music.
This is not an absolute statement but I must say it's worth one's consideration and trying out.
There are a thousand and one ways to skin a cat.
If one is patient enough to count the ways maybe success can just be right under one's nose. Unfortunately, cats according to some have 9 lives only, reducing the option from 1001 to 992 (just trying to be funny).
Making your music stand out is a bit challenging especially if you're part of the group yourself. I suppose it's because one has to be vain somewhat to make things work - of course not in all instances.
One thing for sure though is that, if all other bands are doing emo for example, rehash - do a derivative mix. If all bands are doing reggae, you can experiment on a new genre under this blend. Death reggae perhaps (trying to be funny again)?
Observing around, many bands I find sound the same. Most of them scream in the middle of a song. Many start with slow intros and builds up to heavy riffs and "powerful" drum beats. Some vocalists sing on "forced voice quality" trying to sound like Vedder, Stapp, or Weiland - at least by how it sounded to me.
Nothing wrong with the above. It's just that if you hope to get people to listen to your music, consider these mentioned as symptoms to failure.
One wise qoute says "I succeed when I dare to fail." Instead, many of the local bands tend to take the safer route and play what is commonly accepted by the masses. What is scary is that they're usually not even aware of it.
When the E-heads got hype, all of a sudden the rest of the band population sounded like "Pare Ko". When Slapshock was king, bands mimicked screaming at the top of their lungs without even knowing why. Bisrock community filled huge parking lots yet the quality of their demos didn't seem to improve (nothing personal).
So how do you make your band's music stand out?
Try not doing what other bands are doing. Listen to the music you want to play from your heart and not from what you hear on the radio. Remember that music is an extension of one's personality - see if you can bring that good character in you out as music.
This is not an absolute statement but I must say it's worth one's consideration and trying out.
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Benefits Of Working With A Record Producer
My sister once said that no one in his/her right mind would ever admit that he/she is ugly (or at least to that effect). I suppose this is true. I mean who would want to be ugly? Do you? More so admitting it. Would you?
So one day my curiosity lead me to a little fun-filled, less scientific yet empirical experiment hoping to satiate my sister’s theory. True enough, those that were relatively “unattractive” – well, to me at least (and I have this insecurity too), compensate beauty on confidence – a great deal of it in fact.
But what does this have to do with music and bands?
Because many bands don’t agree that their music sucks. Many bands don’t agree that their quality of recording isn’t good enough (yet). Many bands don’t agree that the song and musical arrangement needs polishing. That the vocal tracks were badly laid in. That the guitars are louder than everything else. That the lyrics was poorly written. That the band’s album in general sounded like an Urbandub wannabe.
Many bands don’t want to hear these comments.
Why is that?
Because it most often hurts to know the truth… and my theory is that most band members have egos bigger than their heads. You probably won’t feel that in normal situations but trust me, it blows out of proportions in the studio (and on stage).
The point of what I’m driving at is that, recording a song isn’t just about putting the tracks in. It isn’t just about being part of the current band wagon and in that “popularity spectrum”. Recording is an art. It’s about putting a musical concept in print.
Recording is also about the continuous and never ending learning of your songs and your creative songwriting as well. Surely you can do this on your own. But optimizing a song’s potential is another story. Every serious band needs a record producer…
Brain Eno did U2’s breakthrough on Joshua Tree. Ric Ocasek shaped Weezer’s dorky debut album Blue. Desmond Child magically moved the world in Bon Jovi’s Slippery When Wet. And so on… so...
Every immortal hit song involved a record producer’s creative input.
Record producers are somewhat like music consultants and project managers for an album. They work closely with the band manager (presuming your band has one), recording engineer, the songwriters, and of course the band. If a band is about to sign a record deal, then record executives and producers transact a lot. They also keep track of logistics on time, cost, and quality.
They define and redefine the sound of a band… enhance it, reduce some, add some, reinvent some, and other creative out-of-the-box ideas they could think of. All for a good cause. It’s always for a good cause.
Ultimately, the goal is always to bring a musician’s new creation into the mainstream - or at least acceptable enough for an average listening person - hopefully to convert one purist into an avid fan. All for a good cause. It’s always for a good cause.
Another good reason why a record producer is essential in the studio is because when conflicts of ideas come, which happens inevitably by the way, he/she levels things up, stands on a neutral ground, and leads everything back on track.
Not many bands see this benefit I suppose. In my experience, conflicts in the studio can be emotionally exhausting.
But it’s all for a good cause. It’s always for a good cause.
Anyhow…
Unlike people, recorded songs cannot be equally compensated with confidence. A band may be able to pull off its act in live performances but not the record…
Never.
Why?
Because sound recordings are audio prints of concepts, ideas, philosophies, whatever intellectual field you may classify it with. That record will be played over and over again… perhaps forever if the song’s powerful enough to last that long. The best defense to everlasting enjoyment of the record is by doing things right the first time. Record producers are one of those right-things-for-you in the list. I must say there are still so many great and exciting things a record producer can do for your band or your songs. As I said if you’re serious about your music, look for that guy who can help you.
Get a record producer.
Cut a deal with him (and it doesn’t have to be monetary all the time).
Next time you do a record, work things through with someone who knows more in this field and discover what you both can do and improve on.
Lastly, when someone tells you again that your song sucks, trust that remark and be grateful someone was honest enough to tell you. In the process, this may hurt a bit but it’s actually a good sign.
So one day my curiosity lead me to a little fun-filled, less scientific yet empirical experiment hoping to satiate my sister’s theory. True enough, those that were relatively “unattractive” – well, to me at least (and I have this insecurity too), compensate beauty on confidence – a great deal of it in fact.
But what does this have to do with music and bands?
Because many bands don’t agree that their music sucks. Many bands don’t agree that their quality of recording isn’t good enough (yet). Many bands don’t agree that the song and musical arrangement needs polishing. That the vocal tracks were badly laid in. That the guitars are louder than everything else. That the lyrics was poorly written. That the band’s album in general sounded like an Urbandub wannabe.
Many bands don’t want to hear these comments.
Why is that?
Because it most often hurts to know the truth… and my theory is that most band members have egos bigger than their heads. You probably won’t feel that in normal situations but trust me, it blows out of proportions in the studio (and on stage).
The point of what I’m driving at is that, recording a song isn’t just about putting the tracks in. It isn’t just about being part of the current band wagon and in that “popularity spectrum”. Recording is an art. It’s about putting a musical concept in print.
Recording is also about the continuous and never ending learning of your songs and your creative songwriting as well. Surely you can do this on your own. But optimizing a song’s potential is another story. Every serious band needs a record producer…
Brain Eno did U2’s breakthrough on Joshua Tree. Ric Ocasek shaped Weezer’s dorky debut album Blue. Desmond Child magically moved the world in Bon Jovi’s Slippery When Wet. And so on… so...
Every immortal hit song involved a record producer’s creative input.
Record producers are somewhat like music consultants and project managers for an album. They work closely with the band manager (presuming your band has one), recording engineer, the songwriters, and of course the band. If a band is about to sign a record deal, then record executives and producers transact a lot. They also keep track of logistics on time, cost, and quality.
They define and redefine the sound of a band… enhance it, reduce some, add some, reinvent some, and other creative out-of-the-box ideas they could think of. All for a good cause. It’s always for a good cause.
Ultimately, the goal is always to bring a musician’s new creation into the mainstream - or at least acceptable enough for an average listening person - hopefully to convert one purist into an avid fan. All for a good cause. It’s always for a good cause.
Another good reason why a record producer is essential in the studio is because when conflicts of ideas come, which happens inevitably by the way, he/she levels things up, stands on a neutral ground, and leads everything back on track.
Not many bands see this benefit I suppose. In my experience, conflicts in the studio can be emotionally exhausting.
But it’s all for a good cause. It’s always for a good cause.
Anyhow…
Unlike people, recorded songs cannot be equally compensated with confidence. A band may be able to pull off its act in live performances but not the record…
Never.
Why?
Because sound recordings are audio prints of concepts, ideas, philosophies, whatever intellectual field you may classify it with. That record will be played over and over again… perhaps forever if the song’s powerful enough to last that long. The best defense to everlasting enjoyment of the record is by doing things right the first time. Record producers are one of those right-things-for-you in the list. I must say there are still so many great and exciting things a record producer can do for your band or your songs. As I said if you’re serious about your music, look for that guy who can help you.
Get a record producer.
Cut a deal with him (and it doesn’t have to be monetary all the time).
Next time you do a record, work things through with someone who knows more in this field and discover what you both can do and improve on.
Lastly, when someone tells you again that your song sucks, trust that remark and be grateful someone was honest enough to tell you. In the process, this may hurt a bit but it’s actually a good sign.
Sell Songs Not Albums
Recently in the past weeks, I had been approached by bands asking about where, how, and the what-to-do-next questions on CD replication and distribution.
My presumption is that these questions were asked not because these bands don’t believe that the CD industry is dying but perhaps because they lack faith in online distribution. Or at least, they don’t understand the commercial and economic advantages of it completely.
I don’t blame them. This is Cebu and we are in the Philippines.
From what I have observed, it appears to be a bit more difficult to just digest the concept overnight of considering online distribution more than pressing CDs if one’s perspective and intention to sell music is limited only to a national audience.
But let me try and display in words the new basic platform in today’s behavior in music buying.
It is a fact that today’s fans do not buy albums in the same way as they did in the past decades. This is because today’s technology allows bands and fans to share or sell singles first before ever bringing the entire album out.
This not-so-new trade becomes an easy deal between the artist and fans.
While it is important in any endeavor to set goals (and foresight is king), it is also important to acknowledge that things change all the time. Because of the internet and media players like iPods and mobile phones, the buying habits of people changed with it.
The constant here however, is adhering to the idea of bringing forth one song at a time. Yes – one song at a time just as how the singles in the 60s and 70s were done in vinyl records.
Unless if you have a huge fanbase, music buyers generally remember songs not albums. Sometimes, they don’t even care about the artist at all.
So why spend money on pressing CDs if you can launch the entire album online? This way, you are making multiple ends meet – (1) you have an album, (2) you don’t spend that much, (3) it removes the trouble of shipping costs and labor, (4) and most importantly, you are allowing your fans the option to buy on a per song basis – a huge plus.
Another advantage with singles is that if you’re an unsigned band, you can now freely move around for gigs without having to carry CDs with you. Just play and tell the audience your songs – I repeat SONGS, not album – can be found online.
Or how about bringing a laptop in your gigs and have someone take charge. Tell the people who may be interested in your songs that they can have a free MP3 transfer to their media players.
Another option is by giving out CDs with say 3 of your songs for free in your gigs. Put the URLs in the CD jacket so people could check out the rest of your music online. Of course this involves cost.
There could be more innovative ideas. Be bold. Be brave. Be creative. Be always open to options. If one idea fails, move on to the next. If it succeeds, embrace it. I think this should be the indie mantra.
The consumer’s general priority today is to know first the value of what they hope to buy.
Globalization is about retail. Singles are retail goods from the album. Sell them piece by piece. Heck you can give these singles for free if you want to. Your fans will love it and you'll get the biggest smile at the end of the day.
Some may think that perhaps giving out your songs for free may seem like you are stealing your own music. Perhaps your fans will do the same. But just because people can steal music doesn’t mean you cannot sell them anymore.
My presumption is that these questions were asked not because these bands don’t believe that the CD industry is dying but perhaps because they lack faith in online distribution. Or at least, they don’t understand the commercial and economic advantages of it completely.
I don’t blame them. This is Cebu and we are in the Philippines.
From what I have observed, it appears to be a bit more difficult to just digest the concept overnight of considering online distribution more than pressing CDs if one’s perspective and intention to sell music is limited only to a national audience.
But let me try and display in words the new basic platform in today’s behavior in music buying.
It is a fact that today’s fans do not buy albums in the same way as they did in the past decades. This is because today’s technology allows bands and fans to share or sell singles first before ever bringing the entire album out.
This not-so-new trade becomes an easy deal between the artist and fans.
While it is important in any endeavor to set goals (and foresight is king), it is also important to acknowledge that things change all the time. Because of the internet and media players like iPods and mobile phones, the buying habits of people changed with it.
The constant here however, is adhering to the idea of bringing forth one song at a time. Yes – one song at a time just as how the singles in the 60s and 70s were done in vinyl records.
Unless if you have a huge fanbase, music buyers generally remember songs not albums. Sometimes, they don’t even care about the artist at all.
So why spend money on pressing CDs if you can launch the entire album online? This way, you are making multiple ends meet – (1) you have an album, (2) you don’t spend that much, (3) it removes the trouble of shipping costs and labor, (4) and most importantly, you are allowing your fans the option to buy on a per song basis – a huge plus.
Another advantage with singles is that if you’re an unsigned band, you can now freely move around for gigs without having to carry CDs with you. Just play and tell the audience your songs – I repeat SONGS, not album – can be found online.
Or how about bringing a laptop in your gigs and have someone take charge. Tell the people who may be interested in your songs that they can have a free MP3 transfer to their media players.
Another option is by giving out CDs with say 3 of your songs for free in your gigs. Put the URLs in the CD jacket so people could check out the rest of your music online. Of course this involves cost.
There could be more innovative ideas. Be bold. Be brave. Be creative. Be always open to options. If one idea fails, move on to the next. If it succeeds, embrace it. I think this should be the indie mantra.
The consumer’s general priority today is to know first the value of what they hope to buy.
Globalization is about retail. Singles are retail goods from the album. Sell them piece by piece. Heck you can give these singles for free if you want to. Your fans will love it and you'll get the biggest smile at the end of the day.
Some may think that perhaps giving out your songs for free may seem like you are stealing your own music. Perhaps your fans will do the same. But just because people can steal music doesn’t mean you cannot sell them anymore.
Preparing A Good Set List
Performing live is an experience that can be totally unique each time. But I think the most challenging part for almost every band is keeping the audience interested.
I’d like to share one aspect I learned in delivering a good show in the years that I’ve played in a band - and that is how to prepare a good set list. For the sake of this article, I’ll present it in three chronological parts.
1) Launch your set with a song that allows the audience to forget about the artist that played before you.
The first song in your set list must create that first impression. Wearing fancy wardrobes and cool shirts may not be enough. Your vocalist’s good enunciation and grammar may not be enough.
Play a kick off number that breathes a powerful intro – something that should catch everyone’s attention. When you get there, keep it that way.
Some pros do this with a fast groove as a start up number. Others do the soundcheck approach – playing a chord progression over and over until all members are musically in place (volume, tone, balance, etc.).
Don’t rely too much on gimmicks. They can be superficial.
If your band plans to stage one, it's better to do it in the middle of your set. An audience’s attention span is short so always remember to start with a catchy intro.
Believe me, you don’t want to waste that moment.
2) In the middle of a set, never fail to communicate with the crowd.
At this point, it should be the vocalist’s job to bring your fans’ attention back up to a perky level by talking to them. In other words, don’t be a snob.
The “celebrity” attitude and the rock-and-roll-image may help you get somewhere (superficially perhaps) but it is important to remember that the very reason songs are written is because we try to satiate our need to communicate.
It is also important to remember to never think that you’re smarter than the audience. To communicate means to "speak the language" that your listener speaks.
Be extra friendly to your fans.
Try not to be too much of an artist when you’re in between songs (and not playing). Be a person to them. Just because you’re on stage doesn’t make you any better than anyone. Your fans are people and should be your friends too.
3) Your finale song should be something that leaves a mark for your band and your music.
While the first song is the scene stealer, the last should be the memory maker. Your last song must be distinct enough to qualify for the LSS (last song syndrome) contest.
Play something that you think people can dance to, sing with, or talk about on their way home. I know this is not easy but it’s not impossible either. If your band has a well received single that's currently enjoying airplay, you may use this as your finale piece.
So there… the three basics to consider when drafting your set list for the gig. Play as if it’s your last gig (but don’t overdo it). Don’t get too drunk when you play (and if it helps, don’t get drunk at all).
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Starting Up A Band
A friend is putting up a new band. His last update was that he has three musicians who expressed their interest. He added that what he’d like to do first was to start off with cover tunes and then move up to songwriting before finally recording them. Sounds like a good plan.
I got an email from him a week ago. He was asking for help. I wasn’t really sure what he wanted me to do but I suppose he was asking some inputs on how to start his new band (or whether his plans would work). This is probably the most difficult question I’ve ever been asked of. I didn’t know exactly what to say.
In all tasks, the most challenging part is usually the first few steps. But then, those steps lead to another series of steps leading to another first step and so on. One time I consulted Mr. Junks Muaña, one of the owners of The Outpost, on what I need to do first when putting up a business. He simply said “Just start with whatever you have and you will learn from there. Everything else will follow.”
I’m still hanging. All of a sudden, it got me thinking - if I were to start up a real live band today, what should I do first? What should I next? What do I need to get myself from point A to point B. Barred by these preliminary FAQs, I allowed my mind to teleport to 1990, the year when my first band in college was formed.
My selective memory showed me images of a laundry room (our practice studio for a time), a karaoke, two acoustic guitars, and a wooden box. Just like any start up band, we didn’t have any money and our options were only limited to these tools so we decided to improvise.
We would plug the microphone jack into the karaoke and the other end into one of the acoustic guitars. The amplified strings would serve as our bass. There were four of us - Blair Kriekenbeek, Antonio Mesa (Oniot), Mitchello Simbajon (Mich), and me.
I insisted that I play the bass. Oniot was still new to the 6-string instrument and at that time couldn’t get the notes right. Later, Oniot and I decided to change places (today he’s one of the finest bass players I know). Mich sat on the box and provided the beat. Blair, with his strong and powerful baritone voice married with that good diction, became the musical voice.
We tried jamming (still with improvised tools) in other places like Mich’s aunt’s house in Maria Luisa village. Sometimes we would just hang out at the “Bukid” (yes for those who grew up with us during these years, you know where this place is) and all we would do was talk, play, talk, play, write, talk, play, write, and beer.
Our little sacrifices and late night sessions lead us to Las Piñas recording studio wrapping up the very first ditty Blair, Mich, and I wrote together. The song was “Desolate” and we called our band The End. Our song enjoyed heavy rotation in Y101's airplay back then.
Today, with the many great and talented bands sprouting like weeds in a playground, the challenge is steeper and the goals are higher.
I guess my college band worked because we all share the same passion. We all wanted to do the same thing. Apart from that, Blair had a fetish for high standards. One time he said, “I will not play on stage or sing a new song if we feel we have doubts about it.”
It all started with me looking for souls who may be interested in making good music with me. Now I’m thinking… if I were to put a band together today, how will I do that? Where do I start?
I guess an important thing to look into is not to look too much on the skills of a potential band mate (although this is a huge plus). Me? I usually look more on the level of interest and the personality (and someone that understands discipline). Skills can be developed and when that happens, talent will surface.
What makes a good band is not how good the musician plays. A good band comes when there is the understanding that one musician is not any better than the other. Good music is made because each musician allows their personalities to merge.
Music is an extension of one’s personality. There is greater output when every musician in the band listens soulfully to what the other member is playing. We become better musicians with teamwork. Everyone must compliment each other. We become a great rock 'n' roll band when we start understanding the benefits of a collective effort. That’s how I think a good band is formed.
In any start up band, there are no clear-cut rules. But there’s always the drawing board in your head. A vision of what you need to happen, how you would like it to happen, and what you would like to see happening in years to come.
I guess the next thing to do is stay firm with that vision of your band and keep an open mind. Oh and keep your music as honest as you can – meaning keep it close to your soul.
I got an email from him a week ago. He was asking for help. I wasn’t really sure what he wanted me to do but I suppose he was asking some inputs on how to start his new band (or whether his plans would work). This is probably the most difficult question I’ve ever been asked of. I didn’t know exactly what to say.
In all tasks, the most challenging part is usually the first few steps. But then, those steps lead to another series of steps leading to another first step and so on. One time I consulted Mr. Junks Muaña, one of the owners of The Outpost, on what I need to do first when putting up a business. He simply said “Just start with whatever you have and you will learn from there. Everything else will follow.”
I’m still hanging. All of a sudden, it got me thinking - if I were to start up a real live band today, what should I do first? What should I next? What do I need to get myself from point A to point B. Barred by these preliminary FAQs, I allowed my mind to teleport to 1990, the year when my first band in college was formed.
My selective memory showed me images of a laundry room (our practice studio for a time), a karaoke, two acoustic guitars, and a wooden box. Just like any start up band, we didn’t have any money and our options were only limited to these tools so we decided to improvise.
We would plug the microphone jack into the karaoke and the other end into one of the acoustic guitars. The amplified strings would serve as our bass. There were four of us - Blair Kriekenbeek, Antonio Mesa (Oniot), Mitchello Simbajon (Mich), and me.
I insisted that I play the bass. Oniot was still new to the 6-string instrument and at that time couldn’t get the notes right. Later, Oniot and I decided to change places (today he’s one of the finest bass players I know). Mich sat on the box and provided the beat. Blair, with his strong and powerful baritone voice married with that good diction, became the musical voice.
We tried jamming (still with improvised tools) in other places like Mich’s aunt’s house in Maria Luisa village. Sometimes we would just hang out at the “Bukid” (yes for those who grew up with us during these years, you know where this place is) and all we would do was talk, play, talk, play, write, talk, play, write, and beer.
Our little sacrifices and late night sessions lead us to Las Piñas recording studio wrapping up the very first ditty Blair, Mich, and I wrote together. The song was “Desolate” and we called our band The End. Our song enjoyed heavy rotation in Y101's airplay back then.
Today, with the many great and talented bands sprouting like weeds in a playground, the challenge is steeper and the goals are higher.
I guess my college band worked because we all share the same passion. We all wanted to do the same thing. Apart from that, Blair had a fetish for high standards. One time he said, “I will not play on stage or sing a new song if we feel we have doubts about it.”
It all started with me looking for souls who may be interested in making good music with me. Now I’m thinking… if I were to put a band together today, how will I do that? Where do I start?
I guess an important thing to look into is not to look too much on the skills of a potential band mate (although this is a huge plus). Me? I usually look more on the level of interest and the personality (and someone that understands discipline). Skills can be developed and when that happens, talent will surface.
What makes a good band is not how good the musician plays. A good band comes when there is the understanding that one musician is not any better than the other. Good music is made because each musician allows their personalities to merge.
Music is an extension of one’s personality. There is greater output when every musician in the band listens soulfully to what the other member is playing. We become better musicians with teamwork. Everyone must compliment each other. We become a great rock 'n' roll band when we start understanding the benefits of a collective effort. That’s how I think a good band is formed.
In any start up band, there are no clear-cut rules. But there’s always the drawing board in your head. A vision of what you need to happen, how you would like it to happen, and what you would like to see happening in years to come.
I guess the next thing to do is stay firm with that vision of your band and keep an open mind. Oh and keep your music as honest as you can – meaning keep it close to your soul.
Which Is Better? CDs or Downloadable MP3s?
The very first medium used in music distribution and sold to the public was just music sheets in the 1800s. These sheets were sent out to entertainment production outfits and performed in variety shows called vaudevilles. More than a century later, music’s physical medium had evolved into plastic formats we commonly refer to as compact discs.
More than a decade today, it’s evolved into intangible digital downloads.
Now, a band from Cagayan de Oro emailed me a couple of weeks ago asking about my opinion on the pros and cons between CDs and downloadable MP3s. I decided to post a huge portion of that email below (verbatim):
Which would you rather prefer?
Artists selling their albums at a more expensive price with a superior CD quality (i.e. pressed CDs/printed CDs)?
or
Artists selling their albums at a least expensive price but with a lesser CD quality (i.e. CDRs/burned CDs) but with an album full of songs that would use up the entire 80min CDr?
My take for this one is that in the advent of MP3 players and Ipods, people usually just rip the CD's songs to MP3 formats and play it in their mp3 players, leaving the CD in their cabinets gathering dust. So in my opinion, less and less people will be using the CDs. So having a superior quality CD is no longer important if this would be the case. People would just rip it, transfer it in their Mp3 players.
I am asking this question because we have plans in releasing a new album. And we are thinking of using this line of positioning. More Songs for a lesser price but using CDrs only. Cds would be sold maybe around P150-200/CD. Compared to pressed CDs which are now being sold at P280-300/CD.
Answer : I don’t see the point why one should give out music of inferior quality. The listeners ergo the fans want good quality music. Period. Give them what is for them and what makes them happy. Why compromise the quality when you can provide the best?
Today, I think what is most important to the music fans is not the album but the songs. If you are a music collector, I’m sure you have experienced buying an album with 14 songs worth and only 1 or 2 fit in your eardrums. (Labels have learned this painfully over the years and yet they lose nothing because it's always charged back to the artists against their royalties).
A perfect example here is Extreme’s worldwide hit “More Than Words” in the late 80’s. When the song hit the airwaves, the album moved into music players and up the charts. The bad news was that the consumers discovered the chartbuster as the only good track in the album. In fact, the rest of the tracks didn’t “gel” with the single.
Buyers of that album returned the merchandise to the stores and the store owners shipped it back to the label's warehouse (some record stores even posted a note on their wall saying WE DO NOT ACCEPT RETURNS OF EXTREME ALBUM - it must've been that bad).
You see, before you even think about putting more songs in a CD, deciding between a pressed format and a burned CDR, think about the quality of your music inside and out first. Since ultimately, it's the fans who have the control in deciding on buying your songs (IF they like it), you now have an opportunity to understand how your music should be presented to them.
I understand that your band is also acting as your own record label. Since this is the case, one of the ways to build a strong and huge fanbase is to give your fans what they like to hear, not what you want them to have. You are right - a CD may collect dust in the end. But still, do not compromise quality.
Now people would just say why not purchase the song via download? I think if you download 1 song, it would cost you around P20-30/song. And as an artist, i still can't find a way to reconcile how we would be able to monitor the downloads and be assured that we are getting the right numbers from the dowloading service providers. But if we are selling the CDs, then we would be able to keep hold of our physical inventories and our number of units sold. And if we would be consuming the 80min CDr, then that would give us around 17-18 songs which if you would compute it by the price of the CD that we are selling, it would cost you something like P11-12 per song. So still very much cheaper than what the downloading service providers are giving.
Answer : The quality between CDs and music downloads are, unless all fans have trained ears, practically the same. In fact, no matter what medium – vinyl, CD, cassette tapes – the consumer’s experience is enjoyed because of the song, not because of the medium. The medium is just the material aspect being made available to the public at a time.
Whichever medium you choose to distribute, the consumer ultimately decides whether they like your song or not. It’s another decision for them whether to buy your songs or not. And then another decision whether to buy the entire album. Bottom line is it’s not your role to worry about how much the consumer can spend.
I sense that the issue here is more about financial investment. In which case, and if I am correct about this presumption, I’d recommend that you sell your music via TuneCore.com. Believe me, it works. Just make sure you read the FAQs religiously.
If you worry about inventories, believe me, it’s probably the most boring and the most gruesome task in any distribution business. That's what labels are for. It's one of their main services. Unless you are willing to compromise your time for creativity, you wouldn’t like it.
Another thing is that by producing CDs instead of just having it available for downloads, we are giving graphic designers/Artists a chance to promote their works by giving them an opportunity to design our album's packaging.
Answer : Hmmm… this is a good point to consider. Or maybe it would be more fun if the artists that work for you work on a voluntary or for-the-love-of-it basis instead of promising them promotional benefits. It can be difficult not to build expectations around your goals and vice versa so if you can, try to keep everyone away from this probable negative outcome.
So there… I guess my general answer is that it’s really up to you. When the CD medium was first introduced, there was resistance but eventually it caught up. Now, they are fast becoming obsolete (but maybe I’m wrong).
The evolution of music was from paper to tapes to vinyls to tapes to plastic compact discs to MP3s...
Today, professionally pressed CDs cost about P35,000 - P60,000, and maybe even more - just to make for 500 pcs excluding shipping cost (since you are in Cagayan de Oro).
While downloadable MP3s are apparently becoming the new music business model. No frills, no shipping hassles, less cost, etc. All you have to do is simply trust the website you are working with... now that's another issue isn't it?
More than a decade today, it’s evolved into intangible digital downloads.
Now, a band from Cagayan de Oro emailed me a couple of weeks ago asking about my opinion on the pros and cons between CDs and downloadable MP3s. I decided to post a huge portion of that email below (verbatim):
Which would you rather prefer?
Artists selling their albums at a more expensive price with a superior CD quality (i.e. pressed CDs/printed CDs)?
or
Artists selling their albums at a least expensive price but with a lesser CD quality (i.e. CDRs/burned CDs) but with an album full of songs that would use up the entire 80min CDr?
My take for this one is that in the advent of MP3 players and Ipods, people usually just rip the CD's songs to MP3 formats and play it in their mp3 players, leaving the CD in their cabinets gathering dust. So in my opinion, less and less people will be using the CDs. So having a superior quality CD is no longer important if this would be the case. People would just rip it, transfer it in their Mp3 players.
I am asking this question because we have plans in releasing a new album. And we are thinking of using this line of positioning. More Songs for a lesser price but using CDrs only. Cds would be sold maybe around P150-200/CD. Compared to pressed CDs which are now being sold at P280-300/CD.
Answer : I don’t see the point why one should give out music of inferior quality. The listeners ergo the fans want good quality music. Period. Give them what is for them and what makes them happy. Why compromise the quality when you can provide the best?
Today, I think what is most important to the music fans is not the album but the songs. If you are a music collector, I’m sure you have experienced buying an album with 14 songs worth and only 1 or 2 fit in your eardrums. (Labels have learned this painfully over the years and yet they lose nothing because it's always charged back to the artists against their royalties).
A perfect example here is Extreme’s worldwide hit “More Than Words” in the late 80’s. When the song hit the airwaves, the album moved into music players and up the charts. The bad news was that the consumers discovered the chartbuster as the only good track in the album. In fact, the rest of the tracks didn’t “gel” with the single.
Buyers of that album returned the merchandise to the stores and the store owners shipped it back to the label's warehouse (some record stores even posted a note on their wall saying WE DO NOT ACCEPT RETURNS OF EXTREME ALBUM - it must've been that bad).
You see, before you even think about putting more songs in a CD, deciding between a pressed format and a burned CDR, think about the quality of your music inside and out first. Since ultimately, it's the fans who have the control in deciding on buying your songs (IF they like it), you now have an opportunity to understand how your music should be presented to them.
I understand that your band is also acting as your own record label. Since this is the case, one of the ways to build a strong and huge fanbase is to give your fans what they like to hear, not what you want them to have. You are right - a CD may collect dust in the end. But still, do not compromise quality.
Now people would just say why not purchase the song via download? I think if you download 1 song, it would cost you around P20-30/song. And as an artist, i still can't find a way to reconcile how we would be able to monitor the downloads and be assured that we are getting the right numbers from the dowloading service providers. But if we are selling the CDs, then we would be able to keep hold of our physical inventories and our number of units sold. And if we would be consuming the 80min CDr, then that would give us around 17-18 songs which if you would compute it by the price of the CD that we are selling, it would cost you something like P11-12 per song. So still very much cheaper than what the downloading service providers are giving.
Answer : The quality between CDs and music downloads are, unless all fans have trained ears, practically the same. In fact, no matter what medium – vinyl, CD, cassette tapes – the consumer’s experience is enjoyed because of the song, not because of the medium. The medium is just the material aspect being made available to the public at a time.
Whichever medium you choose to distribute, the consumer ultimately decides whether they like your song or not. It’s another decision for them whether to buy your songs or not. And then another decision whether to buy the entire album. Bottom line is it’s not your role to worry about how much the consumer can spend.
I sense that the issue here is more about financial investment. In which case, and if I am correct about this presumption, I’d recommend that you sell your music via TuneCore.com. Believe me, it works. Just make sure you read the FAQs religiously.
If you worry about inventories, believe me, it’s probably the most boring and the most gruesome task in any distribution business. That's what labels are for. It's one of their main services. Unless you are willing to compromise your time for creativity, you wouldn’t like it.
Another thing is that by producing CDs instead of just having it available for downloads, we are giving graphic designers/Artists a chance to promote their works by giving them an opportunity to design our album's packaging.
Answer : Hmmm… this is a good point to consider. Or maybe it would be more fun if the artists that work for you work on a voluntary or for-the-love-of-it basis instead of promising them promotional benefits. It can be difficult not to build expectations around your goals and vice versa so if you can, try to keep everyone away from this probable negative outcome.
So there… I guess my general answer is that it’s really up to you. When the CD medium was first introduced, there was resistance but eventually it caught up. Now, they are fast becoming obsolete (but maybe I’m wrong).
The evolution of music was from paper to tapes to vinyls to tapes to plastic compact discs to MP3s...
Today, professionally pressed CDs cost about P35,000 - P60,000, and maybe even more - just to make for 500 pcs excluding shipping cost (since you are in Cagayan de Oro).
While downloadable MP3s are apparently becoming the new music business model. No frills, no shipping hassles, less cost, etc. All you have to do is simply trust the website you are working with... now that's another issue isn't it?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Questions About Free Music Downloads
My good friend Tonet, a music fan herself popped me a series of questions about The Charlatans' move to having their music downloaded for free. Thanks bai for approving my request to post this.
Here goes:
pinayangel899: bai question
ian_zafra00: go :)
pinayangel899: the charlatans released their new album...
pinayangel899: and you can download it for free
pinayangel899: what do they get out of it?
ian_zafra00: based on ur question, nothing
ian_zafra00: better and larger fanbase i guess
pinayangel899: eh diba malaki ren ang gastos ng recording
ian_zafra00: good question
ian_zafra00: well nowadays recording really comes cheaper everyday
ian_zafra00: if the band has their own equipment already and if they have a good software, PC, professional speakers and microphones... they can do the recording anywhere
ian_zafra00: i guess that solves their problem on the cost of recording
ian_zafra00: so now they can afford to give it away for free
ian_zafra00: that's just my guess bai
ian_zafra00: based sa questions mo
pinayangel899: another thing...if its a really good album, sayang naman if they're just giving it away.
pinayangel899: honestly, nasabi ko "what were they thinking?!"
pinayangel899: weird lang. ikaw, would you do something like that? full album? curious lang.
ian_zafra00: i dont have the exact answer to that question but this is my guess
ian_zafra00: perhaps the band isn't aiming for albums sales anymore
ian_zafra00: they're sort of "pirating" their own music in the hope of translating it to ticket sales instead of CDs
ian_zafra00: because the truth is that even when the artist sold 4 million copies, the label would still claim that they had to recoup the cost
ian_zafra00: so what's the point of sale?
ian_zafra00: bands go for live performances these days i suppose
ian_zafra00: and they can sell CDs there for the CD collectors
ian_zafra00: i suppose that's the new music business model every band and their management is adapting
pinayangel899: sabagay. pero parang here in pinas, it's hard to do that. or siguro hindi pa ready ang pinas for that.
ian_zafra00: i wouldn't know... nobody tried
ian_zafra00: or maybe nobody wanted to at least risk the possibility of bankruptcy
ian_zafra00: because finding a good band can be difficult too
pinayangel899: madaming reasons. madami din factors.
pinayangel899: yeah isa pa yan
ian_zafra00: surprisingly A&R's don't sign up bands that had been in the music scene for a long time
ian_zafra00: A&R's may think that it's either the band has no market value or there really is something wrong with them because they haven't succeed in any way
ian_zafra00: that's why many bands would opt for indie
ian_zafra00: unlike before na limited lang talaga ang mga A&R's ngayon, andami na bai
ian_zafra00: and they compete between labels too
ian_zafra00: unlike before when A&R's would just go to bars to look for fresh talents, ngayon they sign up bands because of their already established fanbase
pinayangel899: easier for them
ian_zafra00: yes
pinayangel899: less work for promotion
ian_zafra00: yes
pinayangel899: napansin ko ren yun
ian_zafra00: but then technology has been good to all of us
ian_zafra00: so hence the recording comes cheaper
pinayangel899: si clem owns a macbook
pinayangel899: he does his demos dun
ian_zafra00: bands don't need advanced royalties anymore to record
pinayangel899: i asked him if he plugs his guitar sa computer
pinayangel899: hindi na daw pero ang ganda ng tunog pa din
pinayangel899: pero pwede nga yung sinasabi mo with his computer
ian_zafra00: yes
ian_zafra00: record labels are basically entities that grant loans to artists (that is if they qualify) in the form of advanced royalties
pinayangel899: ang hirap din pala if you're signed up
pinayangel899: kasi parang mas madami yung hati hati tapos mas mahal ata ang tax.
pinayangel899: tama ba?
ian_zafra00: uh... maybe
ian_zafra00: the money is supposed to be used for recording
ian_zafra00: kasi before (and because of this system)... bands believe that the major record companies are the only ones who can do the record for them
ian_zafra00: not anymore
ian_zafra00: because everything else comes cheap
ian_zafra00: the charlatans is a relatively established band with a good following and i think that's where the band is investing themselves into
ian_zafra00: they want to satisfy their fans
ian_zafra00: because one of these days, they want to go them and play
ian_zafra00: and that's probably where thay can earn later on
ian_zafra00: just my guess
ian_zafra00: bai question
pinayangel899: sabagay yeah
pinayangel899: ano yun?
ian_zafra00: would you mind if i post this in my blog?
pinayangel899: which one?
pinayangel899: ah
pinayangel899: no
pinayangel899: ok lang
ian_zafra00: this entire talk
ian_zafra00: what no? hahaha
ian_zafra00: or ok lang?
pinayangel899: ok lang
pinayangel899: i dont mind
ian_zafra00: sige sige thanks bai
pinayangel899: http://www.xfm.co.uk/news/2008/download-charlatans-new-album-for-free
pinayangel899: may interview ren kasi
ian_zafra00: sige sige thank you talaga :)
ian_zafra00: this is gonna be a big help to some bands
Here goes:
pinayangel899: bai question
ian_zafra00: go :)
pinayangel899: the charlatans released their new album...
pinayangel899: and you can download it for free
pinayangel899: what do they get out of it?
ian_zafra00: based on ur question, nothing
ian_zafra00: better and larger fanbase i guess
pinayangel899: eh diba malaki ren ang gastos ng recording
ian_zafra00: good question
ian_zafra00: well nowadays recording really comes cheaper everyday
ian_zafra00: if the band has their own equipment already and if they have a good software, PC, professional speakers and microphones... they can do the recording anywhere
ian_zafra00: i guess that solves their problem on the cost of recording
ian_zafra00: so now they can afford to give it away for free
ian_zafra00: that's just my guess bai
ian_zafra00: based sa questions mo
pinayangel899: another thing...if its a really good album, sayang naman if they're just giving it away.
pinayangel899: honestly, nasabi ko "what were they thinking?!"
pinayangel899: weird lang. ikaw, would you do something like that? full album? curious lang.
ian_zafra00: i dont have the exact answer to that question but this is my guess
ian_zafra00: perhaps the band isn't aiming for albums sales anymore
ian_zafra00: they're sort of "pirating" their own music in the hope of translating it to ticket sales instead of CDs
ian_zafra00: because the truth is that even when the artist sold 4 million copies, the label would still claim that they had to recoup the cost
ian_zafra00: so what's the point of sale?
ian_zafra00: bands go for live performances these days i suppose
ian_zafra00: and they can sell CDs there for the CD collectors
ian_zafra00: i suppose that's the new music business model every band and their management is adapting
pinayangel899: sabagay. pero parang here in pinas, it's hard to do that. or siguro hindi pa ready ang pinas for that.
ian_zafra00: i wouldn't know... nobody tried
ian_zafra00: or maybe nobody wanted to at least risk the possibility of bankruptcy
ian_zafra00: because finding a good band can be difficult too
pinayangel899: madaming reasons. madami din factors.
pinayangel899: yeah isa pa yan
ian_zafra00: surprisingly A&R's don't sign up bands that had been in the music scene for a long time
ian_zafra00: A&R's may think that it's either the band has no market value or there really is something wrong with them because they haven't succeed in any way
ian_zafra00: that's why many bands would opt for indie
ian_zafra00: unlike before na limited lang talaga ang mga A&R's ngayon, andami na bai
ian_zafra00: and they compete between labels too
ian_zafra00: unlike before when A&R's would just go to bars to look for fresh talents, ngayon they sign up bands because of their already established fanbase
pinayangel899: easier for them
ian_zafra00: yes
pinayangel899: less work for promotion
ian_zafra00: yes
pinayangel899: napansin ko ren yun
ian_zafra00: but then technology has been good to all of us
ian_zafra00: so hence the recording comes cheaper
pinayangel899: si clem owns a macbook
pinayangel899: he does his demos dun
ian_zafra00: bands don't need advanced royalties anymore to record
pinayangel899: i asked him if he plugs his guitar sa computer
pinayangel899: hindi na daw pero ang ganda ng tunog pa din
pinayangel899: pero pwede nga yung sinasabi mo with his computer
ian_zafra00: yes
ian_zafra00: record labels are basically entities that grant loans to artists (that is if they qualify) in the form of advanced royalties
pinayangel899: ang hirap din pala if you're signed up
pinayangel899: kasi parang mas madami yung hati hati tapos mas mahal ata ang tax.
pinayangel899: tama ba?
ian_zafra00: uh... maybe
ian_zafra00: the money is supposed to be used for recording
ian_zafra00: kasi before (and because of this system)... bands believe that the major record companies are the only ones who can do the record for them
ian_zafra00: not anymore
ian_zafra00: because everything else comes cheap
ian_zafra00: the charlatans is a relatively established band with a good following and i think that's where the band is investing themselves into
ian_zafra00: they want to satisfy their fans
ian_zafra00: because one of these days, they want to go them and play
ian_zafra00: and that's probably where thay can earn later on
ian_zafra00: just my guess
ian_zafra00: bai question
pinayangel899: sabagay yeah
pinayangel899: ano yun?
ian_zafra00: would you mind if i post this in my blog?
pinayangel899: which one?
pinayangel899: ah
pinayangel899: no
pinayangel899: ok lang
ian_zafra00: this entire talk
ian_zafra00: what no? hahaha
ian_zafra00: or ok lang?
pinayangel899: ok lang
pinayangel899: i dont mind
ian_zafra00: sige sige thanks bai
pinayangel899: http://www.xfm.co.uk/news/2008/download-charlatans-new-album-for-free
pinayangel899: may interview ren kasi
ian_zafra00: sige sige thank you talaga :)
ian_zafra00: this is gonna be a big help to some bands
You Don't Need Them Labels
Last Feb. 6, music analyst Bob Lefsetz wrote an entry in his blog that I find very empowering for bands these days. Read on (and Bob, if you Googled this, I hope you won't mind me posting the entire article in my blog. Thanks much in advance.)
We can argue over the mechanical rate, and lament that whatever it is, the major labels will negotiate it downward, but one thing's for sure, in the future acts will own their records.
The traditional deal was we find you, we pay you a bunch of money, and we own everything. Is this fair? Maybe if the record stiffs, but certainly not if it's successful. The act pays for the album yet the label owns it? In what alternative universe does this make sense?
In the world of major label accounting. Which is also undergoing a transformation. Because of transparency. If there's no pressing, no manufacturing, and you just get a statement from your digital distributor, where do you perpetrate the fraud? That's how labels make their money, via fraud. They sell a certain amount of product and pay you..? Which is why powerful lawyers and managers extract such huge advances, because they don't trust the royalty system. But these big advances have brought EMI to its knees. For if the album is a failure, or doesn't meet expectations, the money guaranteed is out of whack. EMI wants a more equitable deal. And part of this deal will involve the act owning its masters.
Oh, that's not the driving factor, the huge advances, but the transparency is key. Today recording contracts are no longer a mystery. Even fans, business experts after Napster, know that the act pays for the record yet doesn't own it. Light has been shed on this heinous practice. And therefore, it won't be able to exist.
You write a book, you own it.
Direct a movie and you don't own it. Because the film is so damn expensive, there's such a risk involved.
Recording is no longer that expensive, it certainly doesn't have to be. Sure, if you're a superstar and want to spend a million dollars, be my guest. Then again, where are you going to sell all this product, in a world where no one goes diamond not because of piracy, but the inability to reach the masses combined with infinite choice?
Recording costs are coming down. In many cases close to zero. Which in this case, is under 50k. Hell, let's just say under 25k. And if you can't lay your hands on 25k, you don't deserve to be a successful artist. Go to your parents, go to your friends, your fan base, work on the road, your day job, if you can't figure out a way to buy the computer equipment required to make a record, and pay for basic tracks in a big room, you don't have the passion or desire to make it.
That's what records are made on now, computers. And I don't want to argue with engineers what is required for ultimate sound (interestingly, to be heard as MP3s via earbuds). It's just that everybody is making records for less money. The label wants you to record vocals in a home studio. So, if costs keep going down, what is the rationale for the label to own the record?
The rationale used to be that you couldn't do it on your own, couldn't make it on your own. You needed the label to be a bank. But now you can record on your own, and the label can't do much for you. Can't get you on television or on the radio. Why should you give up ownership? The business proposition just ain't that good!
Oh, if you're the new Alicia Keys or Whitney Houston, a high concept act requiring money and time to expose and break you, the label is going to extract concessions, you can't do it without them. But if you're a band and your tracks are on MySpace (which Universal won't allow), and you're playing club gigs, why take almost no money and give up everything to an entity that just can't do much for you? Other than take you to lunch and bill you for the privilege?
360 deals? Where is it written that the labels will be all powerful in the future? I just don't see it. They're desperate. They want to recoup income. Who says acts have to give it to them? And each act is an individual entity, negotiating on its own. There's no WGA forcing everybody to agree. You can't keep acts in line.
Which brings us back to mechanicals. If you own your own master, and you're the label and you're gaining all the revenue, who gives a shit what the mechanical rate is? Oh, if you get a cover you care, but do you write the kind of material that's going to be covered? But what about your publisher, and his big advance? Well, do you need that publisher? And, once again, if you own the label...
But publishers advance monies based on airplay, based on hits. Are there going to be hits in the future? Let's put it this way, will it be a hit-driven business? Shit, the Eagles sold triple platinum, and the success of "Long Road Out Of Eden" had almost nothing to do with hits. There was airplay on one song. But, a brand name and visibility and a cheap price. The Eagles didn't need the major label system.
And neither did Radiohead.
The new Radiohead wouldn't break on MTV. Utterly impossible. So what does the new Radiohead need to make a heinous deal with a major label for? Look to the U.K., where majors license product, for a brief period of time, just to feed the pipeline... That's more representative of the future than the all powerful label of the 1980s or 1990s.
I'm not saying songwriters shouldn't fight to get paid more. I'm just saying that the big label is no longer the bogeyman. The big labels are fighting ridiculous battles that don't matter. If you're a developing act you want your complete song on MySpace, and you want file-trading. If you're not on the radio, how in the hell else are people going to discover you? You want to give now to get later. You don't want people to have to pay a lot to get in on your scene, you want to develop.
The desires of the acts and the major labels no longer square, they're at odds. The label wants to pay little for an incredible upside, which it owns lock, stock and barrel. The acts used to have no choice. Now they do.
Will there be labels in the future? Sure. But they won't look like and won't have the same names as the big four companies today. Because the new labels will be about building acts and maximizing revenue in all areas of exploitation. They'll be about transparency. They'll be run by geeks as opposed to mini-mafiosi. There will be a level of trust between performer and businessman. All things today's majors abhor, which will contribute to their marginalization.
Don't give up ownership of your records anymore. You don't have to. Whether you license for a brief term or get the masters back at a certain sales level or both...this is now a negotiable point, just tell the labels you're going to go indie... They'll no longer laugh. They need you. They know indie can now deliver. They'll negotiate.
Source: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2008/02/05/ownership/
We can argue over the mechanical rate, and lament that whatever it is, the major labels will negotiate it downward, but one thing's for sure, in the future acts will own their records.
The traditional deal was we find you, we pay you a bunch of money, and we own everything. Is this fair? Maybe if the record stiffs, but certainly not if it's successful. The act pays for the album yet the label owns it? In what alternative universe does this make sense?
In the world of major label accounting. Which is also undergoing a transformation. Because of transparency. If there's no pressing, no manufacturing, and you just get a statement from your digital distributor, where do you perpetrate the fraud? That's how labels make their money, via fraud. They sell a certain amount of product and pay you..? Which is why powerful lawyers and managers extract such huge advances, because they don't trust the royalty system. But these big advances have brought EMI to its knees. For if the album is a failure, or doesn't meet expectations, the money guaranteed is out of whack. EMI wants a more equitable deal. And part of this deal will involve the act owning its masters.
Oh, that's not the driving factor, the huge advances, but the transparency is key. Today recording contracts are no longer a mystery. Even fans, business experts after Napster, know that the act pays for the record yet doesn't own it. Light has been shed on this heinous practice. And therefore, it won't be able to exist.
You write a book, you own it.
Direct a movie and you don't own it. Because the film is so damn expensive, there's such a risk involved.
Recording is no longer that expensive, it certainly doesn't have to be. Sure, if you're a superstar and want to spend a million dollars, be my guest. Then again, where are you going to sell all this product, in a world where no one goes diamond not because of piracy, but the inability to reach the masses combined with infinite choice?
Recording costs are coming down. In many cases close to zero. Which in this case, is under 50k. Hell, let's just say under 25k. And if you can't lay your hands on 25k, you don't deserve to be a successful artist. Go to your parents, go to your friends, your fan base, work on the road, your day job, if you can't figure out a way to buy the computer equipment required to make a record, and pay for basic tracks in a big room, you don't have the passion or desire to make it.
That's what records are made on now, computers. And I don't want to argue with engineers what is required for ultimate sound (interestingly, to be heard as MP3s via earbuds). It's just that everybody is making records for less money. The label wants you to record vocals in a home studio. So, if costs keep going down, what is the rationale for the label to own the record?
The rationale used to be that you couldn't do it on your own, couldn't make it on your own. You needed the label to be a bank. But now you can record on your own, and the label can't do much for you. Can't get you on television or on the radio. Why should you give up ownership? The business proposition just ain't that good!
Oh, if you're the new Alicia Keys or Whitney Houston, a high concept act requiring money and time to expose and break you, the label is going to extract concessions, you can't do it without them. But if you're a band and your tracks are on MySpace (which Universal won't allow), and you're playing club gigs, why take almost no money and give up everything to an entity that just can't do much for you? Other than take you to lunch and bill you for the privilege?
360 deals? Where is it written that the labels will be all powerful in the future? I just don't see it. They're desperate. They want to recoup income. Who says acts have to give it to them? And each act is an individual entity, negotiating on its own. There's no WGA forcing everybody to agree. You can't keep acts in line.
Which brings us back to mechanicals. If you own your own master, and you're the label and you're gaining all the revenue, who gives a shit what the mechanical rate is? Oh, if you get a cover you care, but do you write the kind of material that's going to be covered? But what about your publisher, and his big advance? Well, do you need that publisher? And, once again, if you own the label...
But publishers advance monies based on airplay, based on hits. Are there going to be hits in the future? Let's put it this way, will it be a hit-driven business? Shit, the Eagles sold triple platinum, and the success of "Long Road Out Of Eden" had almost nothing to do with hits. There was airplay on one song. But, a brand name and visibility and a cheap price. The Eagles didn't need the major label system.
And neither did Radiohead.
The new Radiohead wouldn't break on MTV. Utterly impossible. So what does the new Radiohead need to make a heinous deal with a major label for? Look to the U.K., where majors license product, for a brief period of time, just to feed the pipeline... That's more representative of the future than the all powerful label of the 1980s or 1990s.
I'm not saying songwriters shouldn't fight to get paid more. I'm just saying that the big label is no longer the bogeyman. The big labels are fighting ridiculous battles that don't matter. If you're a developing act you want your complete song on MySpace, and you want file-trading. If you're not on the radio, how in the hell else are people going to discover you? You want to give now to get later. You don't want people to have to pay a lot to get in on your scene, you want to develop.
The desires of the acts and the major labels no longer square, they're at odds. The label wants to pay little for an incredible upside, which it owns lock, stock and barrel. The acts used to have no choice. Now they do.
Will there be labels in the future? Sure. But they won't look like and won't have the same names as the big four companies today. Because the new labels will be about building acts and maximizing revenue in all areas of exploitation. They'll be about transparency. They'll be run by geeks as opposed to mini-mafiosi. There will be a level of trust between performer and businessman. All things today's majors abhor, which will contribute to their marginalization.
Don't give up ownership of your records anymore. You don't have to. Whether you license for a brief term or get the masters back at a certain sales level or both...this is now a negotiable point, just tell the labels you're going to go indie... They'll no longer laugh. They need you. They know indie can now deliver. They'll negotiate.
Source: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2008/02/05/ownership/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)