Giving away your music, c/d?

And I guess it's tied into annoying issues about money = value, like if it's free well then it can't be any good, and worrying if people pick up a free CD-R at a show they'll just assume it's shit and not listen to it or if they listen to not take it seriously just because it doesn't have a glossy cover and a barcode, even if the music inside is the same.

And I understand the impulse to make back the money you spent on recording and printing and everything else, but wouldn't the prudent business decision be to estimate how much money you think you're going to make off of the album and then limit your recording and printing costs to that amount? Like if you're only going to sell 100 CDs, maybe you should just break out the four-track or GarageBand instead of shelling out thousands of bucks to record in some fancy-ass studio?

I mean, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

WHERE DO YOU GET OFF?

But if you give it away for free, what are they going to buy when they come to your show and get drunk? T-shirts?

handjobs. or rather, "bandjobs". they're the new currency in rock n' roll.

If people want to buy me drinks, I won't refuse.

If you're not getting free drinks at yr gigs already, I would worry about that first.

(lol @ bandjobs)

Being able to produce your own music product cheaply was such a dream for musicians 30 years ago. I'm amazed that there are musician's today that frown on CDr's as somehow not 'legitimate' releases. I just want to tell them, "Don't you realize we are living the music distribution dream?"

The $12-$14 price range for a CDR is an arbitrarily contrived standard I think. Sell it for $5-$6 or something. If that's too cheap, just make it a shorter EP rather than an album and sell two of those for the same price range.

If it's a small run self-release, and it's good enough, you always have the option of a small label reissuing a 'proper' (i.e. non-CDR) release of the material later on.

Whether or not you 'give it away' becomes less of a practical concern as the cost of production continues to get cheaper, and it becomes more of an ego concern. And ultimately only the band themselves address the ego concern of 'giving it away' like some harlot.

xpost Nevermind all that Jordan OTM.

Hi, Nick.

So the label that I'm not on, but which is attached to the pseudolabel that my new CD is out on, won't put out an album unless the band is committed to doing something like 8 weeks of touring during the year, a certain amount of which has to be around the time of release. Otherwise, it won't make money. And you guys just don't tour that often or that far. So it's not too surprising, I guess, that your CDs didn't sell as much as they should have.

But that said, there was also this moment where I thought, you know, if we press this, then we'll have a nice looking object that I can give to people, and if there are about 300 people who'd love to get a copy of the album -- which is I think about right, if you combine our handfuls of fans with other curious friends and people who would just generally like to hear what we're up to -- anyway, it works out to a litle over $3 per person, plus postage in some cases. And would I spend $3 on people who want to hear my music? Yeah, why not. They deserve it. And I'm in a financial position where I can do that every very often, and hopefully they'll do it in kind, etc., etc.

So a lot of people are getting free copies of the new album. It'll still be available for purchase in stores (or Amazon at least) (and iTunes) (and whatnot), and that's great, and I won't turn money down from people who think it's important to pay for such things -- because, you know, I'm hardly rolling in it -- but yeah.

So basically our plan right now is some CDR albums/EPs, some download-only albums/EPs/"singles", and some pressed CDs for the shiniest stuff. Mostly, I don't personally want to burn any more CDRs, but my friends with CDR labels who are into that sort of thing can burn as much as they want!

Oh but: If you don't pay for something, it is worthless. Some people still get a consumerist charge.

Btw, our current business plan:

-record 4 song EP in actual studio (for once)
-burn cd-r's
-sell hundreds at summer festivals
-make enough money to record/press full-length cd (including the songs from the EP, which is basically half the record)

So it'll kinda pay for itself, hopefully?

Oh but: If you don't pay for something, it is worthless. Some people still get a consumerist charge.

;_;

Who the hell charges $10-12 for a CD-R anyway? My feeling is that $8 should be the ceiling for CD-R and that's only if you spent money to record it and/or did something nice with the packaging. And if it's a really cheaply packaged, home-recorded thingy it should be no more than $5.

But I'm in favor of charging, even if you're asking for $1. It symbolizes a kind of bond between artist and listener, I think, and also a recognition that even if the music didn't cost much to make it did take work and energy and thought and it isn't just something that grows on trees for you to pick.

"bandjobs"!

Here's the thing: In this country, music is something that more or less grows on trees for you to pick. You think trees don't put a lot of effort into making fruit? But there are so many trees, and so much fruit, and so much of it is tasty.

Charging small amounts is the way forward. I mean, £2 to £5 (I suppose with the exchange rate, that's $5 - $10) somehow legitimises the deal. I don't usually even listen to free CDs unless I know the band. But if a band I like has something on sale, I'll pick it up and give it a spin. I know that's odd, but it is a psychological trick.

I found out after the fact that Shimura Curves were in the top 5 merch sold at Truck on the back of a self-produced Xerox and hand coloured CDR mini-album that we sold for £5. It paid for the petrol home!

Yeah, the psychological trick does work - if a band gives me a free CD I feel like they're pushing some crap on me, even if I wanted it.

with no sunk cost there's no incentive to actually go to the trouble of listening. as opposed to the high sunk cost of crazy j-imports, right, where you feel like you damn well better learn to enjoy this record, it was like the same as buying a whole lot of alcohol. the challenge for the music business is to find the minimax point between those two, which is why the new amazon.com mp3 store with variable price points should be totally hilarious.

but anyway giving your music away is for foolios, five bucks is five bucks, a gallon of gas or a bottle of beer.

with no sunk cost there's no incentive to actually go to the trouble of listening.

And this doesn't seem... you know, like some sort of mental problem to you? That capitalism is some sort of fetish for cultural enjoyment?

What's the difference between getting a free CD and downloading a CD illegally?

And this doesn't seem... you know, like some sort of mental problem to you?

Well, whether or not it's a problem seems subjective, but I definitely agree with TOMBOT that it's a reality.

What's the difference between getting a free CD and downloading a CD illegally?

To be honest, I probably value the music I download illegally less than the music I actually pay for. Meaning that since it's free, I'm more likely to give it a cursory listen and dismiss it then give it a chance.

And this doesn't seem... you know, like some sort of mental problem to you? That capitalism is some sort of fetish for cultural enjoyment?

You don't necessarily have to exchange a CD for legal tender... Maybe they can have a CD only after they have passed a series of physical challenges and/or solved some riddles. Not so much a merch table as a "merch quest arena". If I procured a CD in this way, I would have a higher likelihood of enjoying it.

It's not a matter of capitalism - the money is just a symbol of value in this case. It would be no different if you bartered something for the CD or helped load equipment in exchange for it.

Maybe they can have a CD only after they have passed a series of physical challenges and/or solved some riddles. Not so much a merch table as a "merch quest arena".

I like this idea.

It's the way forward.

Face members of the band in an American Gladiator-style gauntlet.

I'm thinking something a little more Double Dare.

my thinking is this: recording your songs well and getting an actual
pressing of your album made, including a vinyl run, is kind of a
band's end of that ol' listener-band dynamic. i mean, i'm not dogmatic
about this, 'cause there are obviously bands who subvert this logic
and should keep on doing what they're doing. but as much as i love
live music, the heroic act of finding enough scratch and exerting
enough blood, sweat and tears to put something down in a proper studio
where you really feel the end product is the fully realized vision of
what you're doing seems like more or less the whole point. by that i
mean, i don't care if it makes me a reactionary or a luddite, but
making beautiful albums and perfect recordings still seems like that
main point and goal of being in a band to me, even if it takes a
sustained effort to make it happen. and all of this takes money, so it
seems lazy not to ask for money back in return.

that being said, it seems like making really small, realistic runs of stuff rather than tons of CDs and records you feel like have to sell seems smart.

and, of course, i'm biased, since i want to listen that perfect fictions lp even if it kills you to make it.

and speaking of which, i'm gonna start a new thread about...starting a record label

It's not a matter of capitalism - the money is just a symbol of value in this case.

Well maybe I am using the term "capitalism" too loosely. What I'm specifically suggesting is that money should maybe not be a symbol of value for certain things.

But then again I also tie music in with friendship a lot more than most people seem to; most of the music I choose to listen to these days is by people I know, because it's more interesting and just seems to make more sense.

Someone mentioned D0ugl@s in the other thread, which just reminded me that DBC's free-3"-CDRs-for-your-album-covers dealio was one of the greatest ideas ever.

3" CDRs are terrible now though bcz I don't think they fit in a lot of computers!

Yes I hate them.

Torturing yourself over whether to charge a few paltry dollars for your music: dud. Charge. Claiming how one mostly listens to music made only by friends: even worse. You don't expect anyone to believe such horseshit, do you?

I believe it because I do the same thing.

It helps being friends with Linda Ronstadt and Busta Rhymes, but yeah

And you guys just don't tour that often or that far. So it's not too surprising, I guess, that your CDs didn't sell as much as they should have.

We don't tour that often or that far, either, and we've sold, I dunno, 700-800 copies of the album. Maybe because there's six of us, so we know more people. But: Is the album available in stores? On CDBaby and iTunes? Have you sent copies to bloggers to write about (and thus guarantee future sales)?

God, I hate talking about my band on ILX, which is why I never visit this board.

Is the album available in stores? On CDBaby and iTunes? Have you sent copies to bloggers to write about (and thus guarantee future sales)?

Yes, yes and yes. But I'm not sure that bloggers writing about your album "guarantees future sales," Mr. Blogger.

Anyways, that's not what this thread is about.

It doesn't guarantee future sales. I regretted the word "guarantee" as soon as I posted it. I meant "holds the potential for."

I guess the ultimate question is: How successful do you want to be?

Because I think we only give away CDs if it's to someone who "holds the potential" to make things happen for us down the road: i.e., people in the industry (critics, labels, booking agents, other bands). We want to get the album in as many of these people's hands as possible. But we also want to have the money to be able to keep recording and touring, so we can't really afford to give away the album to anyone who wants one.

That said, our first EP sold out (as in, there's literally no more copies left), so you can download the whole thing on our website. And you can stream the whole full-length, too, because everyone should at least get to hear it, especially if it means that they'll like it enough to buy it.

The subtext of that post was that we are, for better or for worse, trying to "be successful," i.e. get signed to a label, go on tour for weeks at a time, etc. If that's not your ultimate goal (and I don't actually know what your ultimate goal is: I think you once said that it was to be well-respected within the scene after a number of years), then I think there are probably other strategies.

I'm hating myself more with each post, btw.

What this thread needs is a stream of that part of 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' were Cameron is lieing in bed to Go Down Moses and mulling over whether or not he's going to get up for the day.

Don't hate yourself, jaymc. I think you are OTM-tastic.

And I understand the impulse to make back the money you spent on recording and printing and everything else, but wouldn't the prudent business decision be to estimate how much money you think you're going to make off of the album and then limit your recording and printing costs to that amount? Like if you're only going to sell 100 CDs, maybe you should just break out the four-track or GarageBand instead of shelling out thousands of bucks to record in some fancy-ass studio?

-- n/a, Monday, May 21, 2007 6:34 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Link

Not to restate what Jay said, but I think this attitude is definitely not, uh, success-oriented. (ok, now I'm going to start hating MYself) First of all, you can't possibly estimate how much your CD is going to sell, unless you plan on it not doing very well, which is basically what it sounds like you're doing. No offense, but it sounds defeatist. One of my bands sold somewhere around 800 copies of our CD - granted it took time, but we definitely covered the cost of the studio and the fancy digipak, and that was with no label, little college radio and only a couple of short tours and a handful of out of town shows.

Obviously it all depends what you want from your band - if you just want it to remain a local thing where you stay within your local scene, no reason to lay out bigger bucks for a better recording and nicer packaging, and in turn no need to charge much for the home-recorded CD-R you made. But I could carry that a step further and ask why you're bothering to make a recording if you don't care if it sounds good.

But I could carry that a step further and ask why you're bothering to make a recording if you don't care if it sounds good.

Oh man, someone please get really offended by this so we can have a big argument about it.

Just kidding, I don't feel like doing that. But I agree with Hurting.

But I could carry that a step further and ask why you're bothering to make a recording if you don't care if it sounds good.

to look at it a different way, there's the question "what is the best microphone to record with?" and the classic answer being "the one you have." there are plenty of great albums recorded under not-so-great conditions. sometimes recordings are about capturing the moment and that moment might mean the band's flat broke. hell, the first half of the SST catalog sounds like it was recorded through a tin can and it's some of the best music ever.

any band worth its salt is going to strive to get access to better facilities, but I do see some pragmatic logic in n/a's thinking. I've seen hopeless bands spend sick amounts of money in recording studios. I also know that I've done much more satisfying recordings at home than in the wrong studio, or with the wrong engineer.

Oh absolutely, and I didn't mean to suggest studio is always better than shitty home recording. In fact for an unsigned band with little money, there's a good chance that if you just pick whatever random cheap studio you can afford it's going to come out worse than what you could do on a four track. I just meant I don't think it's ever a smart "business decision" to start from the assumption that something isn't going to do well and to take no risk at all. So if you do have some awesome engineer friend who's willing to record you for $15/hr and no one in your band is particularly adept at home recording (and the whole band thing isn't just a hobby) it's more worth your while to get the money together, produce something you'll be happy with, and then charge a reasonable amount for it.

you plan on it not doing very well, which is basically what it sounds like you're doing. No offense, but it sounds defeatist

This is a valid point. I do tend to undersell my belief in my bands and act like I don't care, plus I come from the punk/indie background where success is seen as evil, so that's all tied up in this too. There's a constant battle about how "professional" we want to be, mainly me battling with myself. But I do think some amount of realism is important.

I don't really want to get into the home recording vs. studio thing, that's a whole other can of worms.

You make it sound like it's a chore to see or hear your "bands." Audiences, if any, presumably reflect it.

Does everyone regret this thread yet?

:)

Yeah, Groke OTM, although I feel a little like I'm spouting something out of some self help book. I guarantee you that most of the *indie/punk* bands you like best either didn't really have as much of an anti-success ethic as you think or were lucky enough to have some other party that made sure their music got heard anyway.

If you look at a band like Fugazi, a band synonymous with the ethic of not charging a lot for things and being anti-commercial, at the same time they're even more driven and entrepreneurial than most of the people on the pop charts right now.

"people pay to see others believe in themselves"
- kim gordon

actually, that whole article is worth reading...

http://www.fodderstompf.com/ARCHIVES/REVIEWS/gordonritz.html

Whereas in the club scene of the past there have been what were called "Fuck Rooms," now the atmosphere in clubs is often designed to be more one of sublimation, to the point of a sterility that has become a new sort of non-sexual eroticism

Not exactly. This thread remains stubbornly embedded in the ideology that making music ought to be an unprofitable and joyless chore thing. All right now people, write some more about your band living up to it.

Oh wait, I just realized I typed "Groke" instead of "Gorge"

Giving away your music for free by streaming it: no problem
Giving away your music for free in mp3 form: not my idea of a great idea, but it can work in your favor
Giving away your music for free on CD/CDR/whatever: almost always a really terrible, bad idea.

People expect physical media to have inherent value, and assume that if you're handing it out for free, you don't find it terribly valuable, so why should they?

This is one of those threads that may be worth revisiting in a few years, with the benefit of hindsight - if we're all still alive, of course.

Claiming how one mostly listens to music made only by friends: even worse. You don't expect anyone to believe such horseshit, do you?

I live in Portland, where the average person seems to be in two or three bands. I listen to probably no more than 30 minutes of music per day on average (that is, music that I choose to listen to -- not counting whatever's playing in the supermarket or in a tv show or whatever) -- probably far less than that. That barely gives me enough time to keep up with my friends' music. I don't listen to the radio. I haven't bought a CD (other than from friends -- hi, Nick!) in three or four years, and mostly stopped downloading stuff when I realized I never listen to it. Etc., etc.

It doesn't seem that unreasonable, but you're not the first person who thinks it's "horseshit". Also people have thought it was some sort of purism thing, that I went out of my way to only listen to friends or something, but that's not it at all; it was surprising when I realized my listening habits had gone that way. Though now it makes more sense to me.

People expect physical media to have inherent value, and assume that if you're handing it out for free, you don't find it terribly valuable, so why should they?

This is sort of missing a step in the whole equation. If I don't know who you are, then yes, you'll be asked to pay the $10 for the CD. But if you're willing to pay the $10 for the CD, then I am curious who you are. And once I know who you are, once we have some sort of relationship, then I'd probably be happy to just give you the CD.

But then, the best thing about music-making, for me, is making the personal connections with people, making friends and meeting people who are "on my wavelength" -- though there's certainly not a one-to-one correspondence between friends and fans, or anything.

Ramble ramble...

You avoid CDs but keep up only with your 'friends' music, like homework, as part of the local-art-as-duty sham Calvinist ideology or something a Rabbinical scholar might recommend? Did you employ an egg-timer serially or a stop watch to arrive at the thirty minute number? Rhetorical questions, obviously.

Listening only to friends' music seems about as worthless as reading only friends' books or watching only friends' films.

Listening to any music is worthy?

Think i read that the A.Monkeys gave alot of thier stuff away for free at the beginning, is this a myth?

Actually, I remember reading that Dave Matthews owes some of his success to giving away lots of CDs for free. But I think there's a difference between a mass campaign of distributing free CDs, like tossing them out into the audience and handing them out on the street and such, and just "yeah, sure dude, you can have one."

Hmmm

Charge money if you can. It's just human nature that many people value something more if they have to pay for it.

A friend's band used to play on the street and give away cd-r's with 2-3 songs and a gig schedule, then sell the full album at the gig.

one of the other members in the band i play in started up a small record label (before he joined our band, actually) and pressed up a sampler CD that has 3 of our songs on it + 2 or 3 songs from each of the other artists on the label. he pressed up 1000 copies to give out as promotional items and they're all gone at this point. to be honest, i'm not sure how well it's worked out for us. we put the 3 songs that people seemed to favor the most on it and i get the feeling that a lot of people who got the comp just figure that they don't need to buy the actual album since they already got the 2 or 3 songs they really wanted. i like the idea of the sampler, i would just advise being careful about song selection. save a couple of nuggets for later discovery

max where is that record label thread?

because you know how i feel about that plan

my band has a new album coming out in april, and i'm really proud of it and i want a lot of people to hear it. we're getting a smallish run of cds made and it would be nice to recoup our expenses on those but my primary goal is getting as many people as possible to listen to the album. i think a big way to do this is to make the music available to listen to for free in some form online. which of these possible plans do you think is the best?

a. stream the entire album for free for the month leading up to the release date, then take down the stream once the album is officially released (might be good for getting people to come to cd release show)
b. stream the entire album for free starting on the official release date and leave it up indefinitely
c. a + b
d. stream shorter samples of the songs (like maybe 60 seconds of each song) prior to and after the release date

(by stream, i mean provide in a format that people can listen to but not download)

whichever one we do, we'll probably put a couple of songs up for free download as well.

a & b

any option that is not d. 60 second samples are more irritating than useful.

actually, i'd vote c specifically. I think streaming music is a near perfect promotional tool for bands.

well, unless it's a terrible band, in which case their best promotional tool is surprise.

roffle

haha, that was A+ pithiness

haw ... looks like we're going to stream a selection of the songs (like maybe 5 or 6) prior to cd release and then the full thing after.

How to stream? Since Myspace has increased the number of tracks you can have up it seems a lot of bands are using that to stream albums, which is useful, but a lot of the time the player's just a pile of crap.

MERCH QUEST ARENA!!!!

I went with b for myself, although c is good too. There are free flash players out there that you can use for streaming, but I didn't make my own web site so I don't know all the details. I'd think you'd want something outside of myspace though.

How to stream? Since Myspace has increased the number of tracks you can have up it seems a lot of bands are using that to stream albums, which is useful, but a lot of the time the player's just a pile of crap.

The Last.FM player seems OK to me (we went with option b.)

i like the song players that dusted mag and the av club have in their reviews, maybe something like that?

someone must have already said this above (i haven't read the entire thread), but what about getting paid for one's ART??? even if you produce your music on garageband (which has suited me just fine, incidentally), doesn't the idea of giving away one's music for free devalue oneself as an artist?

ps, write at cryfok_at_gmail_dot_com if you still haven't been able to locate a copy of short fables.

doesn't the idea of giving away one's music for free devalue oneself as an artist?

Accidentally, it wound up doing so to Radiohead after almost everyone had predicted just the opposite.

The Eagles, on the other hand, did not give their music away for free. Indeed, they stuck it exclusively into a venue where it was less likely to find "consumers" able to take advantage of digital purloining. And it worked out pretty good for them.

How 'bout the guy who has the most downloaded guitar shred video on YouTube? He's allegedly "famous" worldwide, if one believes what's written in Lex-Nex, but virtually no one goes to his gigs.

I doubt there's a hard and fast rule. But if one gives away their music for free, I've seen no solid indications that they get practical charity points for it or are more likely to be taken seriously than those who insist on payment.

wtf

Coincidentally, from today's newspaper -- Pennywise is giving away their new album for two weeks on-line through MySpace Records. Additional comment in the story has a band member saying he doesn't have any use for downloading himself but if it's what the fans want...

In same newspaper, comic by Ted Rall on opinion page.

First panel: "It's the new economy -- goods and services YOU sell are FREE. Goods and services you BUY are EXPENSIVE. Everyone will keep working the same job they do now. The law will force them to do it for free. How will we survive? T-shirts! Smart people will sell really clever T-shirts..."

then what happens in the second panel?

Punchline: "Everyone will subsist by redeeming discarded cans for the deposits and selling their organs to aging T-shirt billionaires.

"Next: Why this is something to look forward to. Really."

huh. kinda wish we had just done our last album as a free online-only thing after all. as it is, we have put all of our back catalogue up for free streaming on our website and free downloads of our first album and EP, and our next release is going to be a free online-only deal. we've basically decided to stop charging money for our music. i've been thinking about writing an essay/article about why we're doing so but it would probably just be boring

I'd forgotten how much I liked the Ted Rall cartoon.

i would read that essay, because i've been thinking about this a lot and i'm not at all sure how i feel about things.

I'd like to read it too!

maybe i'll write it when i'm not in the middle of writing 800 retarded papers for school

does anyone actually sell "download coupons" or whatever at shows (not counting including one w/vinyl)? it's kind of an interesting idea, not sure of the mechanics or if it would work though.

http://bobostertag.com/writings-articles-professional_suicide.htm

good essay, thanks

we put out a free online EP in january and another one last week. the first one got a few blog mentions, the newest one so far has gotten almost no attention at all (though yeah it's early). it's really frustrating trying to figure out how to get people to pay attention to music, even when it's free. my thought is that putting it up for free and making it easy to stream would make more people listen, since it requires almost no effort, but that doesn't seem to be the case. who knows, maybe people just don't like it or maybe lots of people have listened and just no one's saying anything.

basically: lol internet promotion when you don't know what you're doing

thanks for linking that essay, milton parker

i really do think that people value music less if it's given away free (which is different from stealing it, or giving it away free with an option to donate $, etc.).

http://wondermark.com/c/2009-04-21-509horn.gif

I listened to both, but I guess I never said anything. Totally my bad. They were awesome.

I do think those annoying value issues come into consideration, since ... well, I think traditional music press has a hard time covering anything in a way that goes beyond "here is an item you can find in a store of some sort, as of this date" (even free/online releases by big names are treated as a sort of odds-and-ends novelty or promotional stopgap -- to be fair, they often are) and I think blogs, weirdly, seem to follow that lead a lot of the time; they want to be talking about some kind of official product that everyone else has had to notice as well.

I actually think someone could clean up -- and without even that much work involved -- by sorting through actual under-known bands with online releases, free CD-Rs, etc., and actually blogging new bands at ground level (rather than what lots of blogs do now, which is to pretend to be the ground-level "grass roots" buzz for stuff that's actually really well set up and headed toward bigger labels anyway).

I mean, okay, to be fair to actual music press, the sheer volume of music in any genre makes it useful to have this sort of minimum bar of like "full-length, for sale, widely available," just to narrow things down, because no one wants to claim they're making tasteful choices from out of all music everywhere

People expect physical media to have inherent value, and assume that if you're handing it out for free, you don't find it terribly valuable, so why should they?

einh. i have gotten alot of free CD-Rs at shows, and in every case made a point of listening to them the next morning. all of them have been really bad; is that just because i'm assuming they have no value? i don't think so. if someone handed me free music and i listened to it the next morning and it kicked ass i would start following the band. right?

Maybe you just go see too many shitty bands?