Jeff,
It was not my intention to put anybody on the
defensive or to go on and on in an attempt to support
an attitude and methodology that is in practice today
and is working for many artists. I simply wanted to
point out that there are alternatives. My experience
with majors and big studios (which is more extensive
than you may be aware of) has been that they can often
be wasteful. The music industry is changing
drastically and I wanted to make an effort to touch on
some of the ways in which that's happening. Here's a
link to an article that is somewhat more eloquent than
Ms. Love"s. Although Albini can be a bit caustic (an
understatement for sure), he hits it on the head
concerning the seductive nature of big labels/reps,
etc.
http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/albini.html Now, I know a few of these folks in the article
and I definitely don't recommend getting into a
pissing match with Mr. Albini. That's all on this
subject from me. I'd rather save my energy for my
clients. My apologies if I've prattled on or
exacerbated anything.
Peace.
-Jack
---
jeffc@netaxs.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jack Younger wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> > I realize you guys have put the subject to
> bed,
> > but these notions of the way the industry is are a
> bit
> > antiquated. As you said, there were more majors
> than
> > there are today. The music "industry" is only a
> tiny
> > subsection of represented music that floats along
> the
> > top like slag. The better, more creative product
> is
> > something to hunt for on the net, in bars and
> > basements, anywhere it's being made. It is
> apparent
> > that the kids getting into the business today are
> > rejecting the old values in droves. They are
> saying
> > no, and the industry is suffering. Fine. A major
> > label deal is like a credit card. You don't need
> one,
> > but one becomes severely hampered without one.
> > Artists are changing what they need from their
> careers
> > as a result. The expectation of becoming a "star"
> > just isn't important any more. More and more
> artists
> > are doing it for the creative release and the
> simple
> > fulfillment of the artistic impulse.
> > As an example, I asked some of my clients about
> the
> > following statement:
> >
> > > the label has many things to offer an artist
> that
> > > the artist would never
> > > have otherwise, that are part of what you DO get
> > > when you sign to a
> > > label:
> >
> > The responses were as follows:
> >
> > > an art department
> >
> > The band usually can come up with better artwork
> that
> > is more appropriate to the product, isn't messed
> up as
> > often and isn't over-priced or "padded". There is
> a
> > difference between an artist, and a commercial
> artist.
> > Art departments try to sell, artists represent
> and
> > support.
>
>
> perhaps, but how many bands have the expertise to be
> knowledgeable in things like spot colours, flood
> fills,
> bleeds, and all the other technicalities involved in
> modern printing. just making something that looks
> nice
> in photoshop does not a beautiful finished product
> make.
> and it takes further expertise to craft an entire
> marketing scheme tying things together into the
> posters,
> postcards, ads [yes - you get ads in real magazines
> at
> reduced rates that the individual could NEVER get]
> and
> all the little things that make up a band's 'brand'.
> these people are well-trained professional artists
> also.
> and this 'padded' thing is, i think, something that
> is a myth, like being charged for the paperclips.
> you pay for qualified personnel and you get
> professional
> work. there is no 'padding'. and they take their
> jobs
> very seriously and spend qiality time with a bands
> entire image, from lyrics and influences to likes
> and dislikes. i think you hear things about labels
> that are just not true.
>
>
> > > a pressing plant
> >
> > There are so many more options on a private basis
> and
> > a small distribution deal will provide duplication
> > without taking publishing or other hunks of the
> > artists' souls. Many even press vinyl!
>
>
> economics of scale.
> this DOES provide a major label artist with a
> reduced
> cost per unit to manufacture. in some cases, a HUGE
> discount compared to the 5,000 or whatever an
> individual
> would be paying for by themselves. unless you really
> did mean 'duplication' [which would be a CDR] and
> not
> what is done with commercial CDs which is
> 'replication,
> involving a glass master and stamping. and yeah, you
> can
> get vinyl too. AND you can get a mastering engineer
> that
> has a clue how to master FOR vinyl.
>
> a 'small distributiuon deal' hardly competes with
> major
> distribution, now does it?
>
> please clarify 'without taking publishing'.
> mechanical royalties are paid TO the publisher for
> the
> right to mechanically reproduce the work [in this
> case,
> a pressed CD]. i just don't grok your point here.
> the
> label is not, in most cases, the publisher. not the
> same thing at all. i do not mean to question your
> knowledge, but do you know the difference?
>
>
> > > a printing plant
> >
> > Again, there are other options with more control,
> less
> > screw-ups and less expense. Some release via the
> web
> > and need no duplication or printing. Others do
> the
> > same and provide collector's copies made in
> limited
> > numbers for the hardcore fans. Radiohead just did
> > this.
> > > distribution
>
>
> less screw ups?
> the band [or in many cases, management] approves
> EVERYTHING.
>
> less expense?
> again - economy of scale.
> have you ever seen what is charged on a royalty
> statement
> for printing? and what a printing plant will charge
> an
> individual to 'fix' improperly submitted work? and
> why many insist onm charging you for a [damn - i
> can't
> remember the term they use] finished sample, in
> order to
> verify that you are happy with the actual finished
> and
> done product, rather than deliver you 5,000 posters
> that have awful skintones? i have. it's very ugly
> indeed.
> [i remembered the word - it's a 'proof', and without
> one
> you absolve the printer from any mistakes, but
> people
> do not like to spend the couple hundred bucks, and
> they
> then live with their posters of the martian band
> that
> sort of looks like them... sort of...]
>
> oh - so you are talking about MP3s?
> we need to be clear here what it is we are talking
> about, and not just randomly substituting apples
> and oranges whererever it's convenient for your
> case.
>
>
> with all due respect, and i do not want to start a
> pissing contest here, but it seems like you are
> trying
> to make a case without real hard factual numbers.
> ask one of your clients to show you an actual
> royalty
> statement from a major label. they are, in reality,
> quite straight forward and clear, if you have all
> the
> needed 'decoding' information. [these are NOT some
> voddo
> thing - these are the various expense codes and
> income
> codes that make the cumputerization of it all
> possible].
> and, if you are willing to pay for it, you are
> allowed
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ