|
<< prev | goto page
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:37 am 
conundrum66 wrote: The problem with "making it big" is that you don't make money that way unless you sell an absurd amount of records. When you are small you can sell like 10,000 records and make just as much money as someone on a major who sells 750,000. Unless you are planning to be a multiplatnum artist, you'll make more money AND have more control on an Indie. You're only talking about mechanical sales (records sold). When you "make it big" with a major label, so much of the revenue comes from performance royalties, licensing and other sources. The record sales only account for a portion of the income. Generally, the more exposure you can get, the more opportunities there are for revenue from other sources. At the same time, I know where you're coming from. There are certain acts that would be better off with an indie label, both financially and artistically. _________________ Website - Myspace - Facebook |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 11 Nov 2003 | Posts: 112 | Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:01 am
please read this article by steve albini. he knows what he's talking about (after all, he did produce nirvana): http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 07 Jun 2004 | Posts: 2497 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:44 am
Pw3nd. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004 | Posts: 199 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:46 am
brian_nguyen wrote: MoreOfTheSame wrote: Exactly. I'm not aiming to be a rock star and have the #1 video on TRL, and I do all of my promotion through things like MySpace and message boards. The MySpace profile allows people to listen without having to download anything and provides a nice sampling as well, so it works really well as a method of introduction. And as I've done entire EPs without a budget (the advantages of doing music entirely on computer), there isn't really any financial strain to release something. The bottom line is that I have complete control over every aspect of the band. All writing, recording, promotion, and distribution is entirely my responsibility. I can basically do whatever I want whenever I want without any regard whatsoever to other parties. That's a kind of freedom you can't get while being on a label. Not Exactly. It depends on what your goals and aspirations are for you and your music. It's whether your music is just a hobby or more. Yeah, it's easy to tell a band (that are serious about their music careers), "music is not about the money, it's not about being big". But when you have to have money to pay for the food you eat everyday, to pay for your rent, to pay for the clothes you wear, for your transportation, and etc... Not so easy anymore is it? Making it big and making money from your music allows you to spend more time on your music, instead of spending your time on your other job, or figuring out how to put food on the table for you, or maybe even your family. What about your education and future? What about your family's wellbeing? Wow... not so simple anymore. All this stuff about "freedom" in your music is somewhat a load of crackers. You can always make the song you want and listen to ourself... or let the close ones to you listen to it. But we're talking about selling your music here. That's why you sign with a record label in the first place. They have the experience. They have the connections. They have resources and capital to do all the promoting and distributing and selling, so you can focus on your music. While I don't disagree with the fact that you're allowed to work on your music more when your well being is based on it, the very fact that you're basing your well being upon what you create is limiting in itself. Because your income is based entirely on what you create, you're more suseptible to releasing, and even writing material, that you believe would be more successful as opposed to something more challenging and creative. This is part of why you have bands who's new records sound exactly like thier previous albums (see bands like Creed and 3 Doors Down) or bands with members who hate the music thier band plays. I get the impression that you believe that every artist on a major label is successful because they are on a major label with massive amounts for capital, and that isn't the case at all. Hell, even the RIAA admitted early in the file-sharing war was that a contributing factor to a decline in profits was because of the number of artists signed weren't successful. Just look at groups like Semisonic, who had a hit single ("Closing Time") and a steady-selling album (Feeling Strangely Fine). You would think that such success would bode well for their follow up album, but Chemistry didn't even sell 50,000 copies. Also consider Nina Gorden, who was generally successful with her band Veruca Salt, but had a solo album released on Warner Bros. in 2000 that completely tanked. I also get the impression that you believe that solely having more time to work on music, financial security, and a lack of responsibility towards the buisness aspect of the music industry means that artists will create masterpieces, which isn't true at all. More often than not that lack of buisness responsibility is why you have bands and artists that get royally screwed by record labels and end up on the brink or filing for bankruptcy (eg TLC, Semisonic, The Vines, ect). Just because an artist has more time available and a greater ability to focus on music does not mean that they will. Just look at MC Hammer. On the other side of the coin, great albums have been created under circumstances that go completely against the idea that music can only be created when one has no worries and a secure well being. Just look at what went on during the recording of Loveless by My Bloody Valentine, which is regarded to be a groundbreaking album. The band was living on 50 quid a month, several members were squatting and had no permanent residence, Colm O'Coissig (the drummer) spent much of the recording of the album in the hospital for severe physical and mental health problems, Kevin Sheilds had become a complete recluse, the band (Kevin in particular) were constantly fighting with Creation Records head Alan McGee, there was almost no budget for the recording of the album (which resulted in entire sessions wasted because they could not pay for the master tapes at the end of recording), sessions tended to go incredibly slowly with the band unable to figure out why, and by the time the album was complete the dynamic of the band had been completely thrown into question (all of this was taken from numerous interviews between 1991 and 2004 with Kevin Shields and the band as a whole). Despite ALL of that, the band put out the best album of their career. I will wholeheartedly admit that my music is not on my mind 100% and that I have other concerns relating to my job, finances, and my personal life in general, I believe that, at the very least, my music does not suck wildly all of the time. Honestly I am perfectly happy where I am now. So while I agree that it depends on what your goals and aspirations are for you and your music, I disagree completely with about everything else. _________________ Coprophiliacs make sh*tty lovers. Flickr Transvaal IV - Myspace : Virb Deep Thoughts About Shallow Subjects |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 02 Sep 2003 | Posts: 2455 | Location: Grapevine, TX
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:53 am
ryan fisher wrote: please read this article by steve albini. he knows what he's talking about (after all, he did produce nirvana):
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html thats a good article but i wished it ended with a description on the right way to do it. _________________ "Religions have started on lesser revelations" - investor on MarketWatch.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 01 Jul 2003 | Posts: 4403 | Location: Dallas
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:55 am
it seems the right way to do it would be to not bother with a major label |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 07 Jun 2004 | Posts: 2497 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 10:02 am
I seem to remember reading something by Billy Corgan that said if you are signed to a major label you better know how to produce, and how to secure your song writing royalties. He cited Jimmy Paige as being an example of knowing how to work the system. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004 | Posts: 199 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 11:42 pm
MoreOfTheSame wrote: While I don't disagree with the fact that you're allowed to work on your music more when your well being is based on it, the very fact that you're basing your well being upon what you create is limiting in itself. Because your income is based entirely on what you create, you're more suseptible to releasing, and even writing material, that you believe would be more successful as opposed to something more challenging and creative. This is part of why you have bands who's new records sound exactly like thier previous albums (see bands like Creed and 3 Doors Down) or bands with members who hate the music thier band plays. Yes. But not every band who signs with a major label faces these problems. Quote: I get the impression that you believe that every artist on a major label is successful because they are on a major label with massive amounts for capital, and that isn't the case at all. I never said I did. Just that the potential to get bigger is greater with a major label than going off on your own, currently, even with the power of the Internet. There are stars and dogs in almost any field. You have stars in sports, stars in management, stars in science, and stars in music. My assumption is that a lot more stars in the music industry come from major labels than indie labels (or wholly independent bands), and not that every band who signs with a major label is going to be a platinum selling artist. Quote: Hell, even the RIAA admitted early in the file-sharing war was that a contributing factor to a decline in profits was because of the number of artists signed weren't successful. Just look at groups like Semisonic, who had a hit single ("Closing Time") and a steady-selling album (Feeling Strangely Fine). You would think that such success would bode well for their follow up album, but Chemistry didn't even sell 50,000 copies. Also consider Nina Gorden, who was generally successful with her band Veruca Salt, but had a solo album released on Warner Bros. in 2000 that completely tanked. Yes, but then take a look at all the bands that "don't make it" who are signed with Indie labels or who are wholly independent. They just don't make the news when they "don't make it". Quote: I also get the impression that you believe that solely having more time to work on music, financial security, and a lack of responsibility towards the buisness aspect of the music industry means that artists will create masterpieces, which isn't true at all. More often than not that lack of buisness responsibility is why you have bands and artists that get royally screwed by record labels and end up on the brink or filing for bankruptcy (eg TLC, Semisonic, The Vines, ect). Just because an artist has more time available and a greater ability to focus on music does not mean that they will. Just look at MC Hammer. Never said that either. Just that when you are signed to a label, my assumption is that you expect them to help you out a bit, using their expertise, so you don't go it all alone yourself the first time through. Just because you have a buttload of time dedicated to writing your music doesn't mean your music will be any good to other people... But you damn well sure probably won't get a better batting average when you have barely anytime to focus on your music. And signing with a major label, you'll still have to do a lot of the grunt work yourself... But my assumption is that you will now through it entirely alone. Quote: On the other side of the coin, great albums have been created under circumstances that go completely against the idea that music can only be created when one has no worries and a secure well being. Just look at what went on during the recording of Loveless by My Bloody Valentine, which is regarded to be a groundbreaking album. The band was living on 50 quid a month, several members were squatting and had no permanent residence, Colm O'Coissig (the drummer) spent much of the recording of the album in the hospital for severe physical and mental health problems, Kevin Sheilds had become a complete recluse, the band (Kevin in particular) were constantly fighting with Creation Records head Alan McGee, there was almost no budget for the recording of the album (which resulted in entire sessions wasted because they could not pay for the master tapes at the end of recording), sessions tended to go incredibly slowly with the band unable to figure out why, and by the time the album was complete the dynamic of the band had been completely thrown into question (all of this was taken from numerous interviews between 1991 and 2004 with Kevin Shields and the band as a whole). Despite ALL of that, the band put out the best album of their career. You're trying to pull out needles in a haystack here. Of course there are success stories, from Indie labels, from bands who are totally independent... My assumption: The bands that are most successful in terms of record sales, revenue, and making it "big" are usually signed to a major label or a large indie label. Not that every band who signs with a major label will be successful... but the same can be said about indie labels and being totally independent. And in the end... It isn't just the label who an artist is signed to that will tell you if they're successful or not. The artists themselves... matter too. Which I believe he understood quite well: conundrum66 wrote: I seem to remember reading something by Billy Corgan that said if you are signed to a major label you better know how to produce, and how to secure your song writing royalties. He cited Jimmy Paige as being an example of knowing how to work the system. Quote: it seems the right way to do it would be to not bother with a major label Tell that to the artists who "made it" when signed with one of the countless labels under the big 5. It's not just black and white. If you could atleast agree to that... I'll rest my case. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2005 | Posts: 472 | Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> General -> Sign with indie or major?
Page 3 of 3 << prev | goto page
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
