Digital-only Releases C or D? (nuance appreciated) [cont.'d from sandbox]

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

ORIGINAL QUESTION:

People are doing 'em. Is this the future?! (yeah, yeah, Fatback reference...)

Really what is up with this? Obviously, no one can make any money selling actual records anymore so is this what is left? How does a label actually "promote" a digital-only release (to radio in particular or is that just obsolete too?)?

How does this affect the artists? Are they left cow-towing to the relative few labels that have really excellent worldwide digital distribution and what role are those labels meant to play (if any) in attempting to gain exposure for them (and how do they go about it)? What is their obligation on that count? Just put em out and see how many DL's they get?

Any thoughts on the topic? (actually seems a bit of a rip-off to me).

What rationales exist for or against? and how the hell does it work?!

I see but I don't see. (Not sayin, jus sayin)

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

Answers:

Dud, because I still haven't gotten around to hearing that LCD/Nike thing and may never do so. (Besides, I can't convince myself to pay for digital music.)

-- The Reverend shines like a lighthouse (rodneyjgreene@hotmail.spam), February 21st, 2007.

(It seems like a rediculous thing to do.)

-- The Reverend shines like a lighthouse (rodneyjgreene@hotmail.spam), February 21st, 2007.

Dan Selzer to thread...

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), February 21st, 2007.

How does a label actually "promote" a digital-only release (to radio in particular or is that just obsolete too?

For the radio...depends on the scope. Labels can press a small number of CD-rs, or simply send selected high-quality files to radio stations. As far as press, I believe this is in the hands of the press, I think it's up to them when they want to decide when the "CD" or "record" review section becomes a "release" section. I believe as more labels and artists release interested online-only releases, the press will review them as any other release.

How does this affect the artists? Are they left cow-towing to the relative few labels that have really excellent worldwide digital distribution and what role are those labels meant to play (if any) in attempting to gain exposure for them (and how do they go about it)? What is their obligation on that count? Just put em out and see how many DL's they get?

It's REALLY easy to get excellent worldwide digital distribution. There are many aggregator companies offering these services. The difference is in the promoting. Just because you can get your CD in every Borders and Best Buy in the world, doesn't mean anyone will buy it. I think the label's job will continue to be tastemakers of some sort, curators, a usefull guide. There's also money to invest in pre-production (remastering and such) if not production (no CD manufacturing) and money to invest in PR, which have always been and continue to be services the labels are good for.

The label has no obligation beyond what service they offer to the artist. If they offer nothing, then artists should just find an aggregator and/or do it themselves. But it doesn't really cost a lot of money to press some CDs either. The question is, what can the label do. If a label was only ever good for manufacturing thousands of CDs and shipping them around the world, then forget it because that service is going to be irrelevant. Like I say above, I think it's in the promotion. A label could just put em out and see how many DL's they get, but so could the artists.

Any thoughts on the topic? (actually seems a bit of a rip-off to me

A few! I've thought a lot about it, and don't know how it's going to go. We'll have to see.

What rationales exist for or against?

I've pretty much rebuttled every rationale I or anyone I know can think of against it. The only real problem I see is competition from file-trading and mp3 blogs.

and how the hell does it work?!

You see there's this series of tubes...

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

But actually it ISN'T all that easy to get really good digital distribution. I am told that 95% of applicants to IODA and Orchard are rejected (and that isn't even "excellent"). The artists themselves DON'T actually have access to these things.

Agreed, you can have your CD everywhere and not sell any and obviously lose a boatload of cash in the process (and even the stores lose out there).

And most radio stations will (for obvious reasons really) NOT take CDRs (if they did, they would have to sift through every bar band with an inkjet and a burner).

You see there's this series of tubes...

Aaah, I am starting to understand!

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

Didn't know about the rejection ratio of IODA, that's really interesting. As far as radio stations taking CDRs, I think again that its a case of the label and it's relationship to the stations it services, or the servicing companies. A CD-r would probably have as good a chance of getting the attention of a college radio station music director as a professionally manufactured, designed and printed CD that came with t-shirts and a frisbee. I know, I was a music director for 3 years. But when your station gets a CD-r from a particular label or promoter they trust/respect, then the label/promoter is doing a service. I've already gotten downloads from these guys:

http://prohibitiondj.com/

Forget CDs, they're distributing new release downloads to "top DJs".

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

The role of the reviewer will be interesting as well -- I'm waiting for the AMG to formalize how they will handle digital-only releases. I still think the likes of me would have a role (I hope!).

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), February 21st, 2007.

OK, scenario... you are SUB POP. You get 1000+ demos per week. You tell each band (or the few you can stomach) that you are exploring different more cutting edge models of distribution and that while you cannot offer them a contract for a CD pressing, you will take them on as a digital-only member of your roster, with options that you will hold for future, possibly physical, releases.

You cover your ass by putting whatever crap they give you about their band on your website (in a special ghetto-ized section of course) and tell them that their royalties will be based on their ability for you to recoup your investment (which in point of fact is NOTHING) but which you dress up to include promo costs, whatever, etc.

You promise them that while you offer nothing substantive in the way of actual promotion, that they will be gaining the advantage of the Sub Pop BRAND and hence the digital sky's the limit.

It beats a straight deal with some aggregator, if you are lucky enough to even get one, so you do it. If it takes off, it's because you had the Sub Pop brand. If not, it's because you suck and no one is interested.

C or D??

(I have actually noticed a trend of "profitless aggregators", which pleases me for the moment, if only because I have not figured out their angle).

Forgive the Sub Pop analogy, just a hypothetical, nothing against them. They are too busy still trying to answer for the Fluid.
-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

I think they long since stopped worrying about that situation.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), February 21st, 2007.

the hypothetical sounds fine to me.

-- esoj@w3rk (electricsound@hotmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

Classic if you consider this....what if the label doesn't dress up the promo costs? You don't have to pay a PR person to get the music out there...you can try and do it without print or web advertising. You can keep those costs way down and still offer a service. The Sub Pop brand and all it's associations, the space on the Sub Pop site, the effort Sub Pop would make to get the music to reviewers, radio etc, blogs, viral marketing, posting on ILX. None of that really has to cost anything. I don't see that as nothing substantive in the way of actual promotion. I see that as a lot of work that can occasionally be effective.

Who are these profitless aggregators? I know aggregators who take a much smaller cut than IODA, their claim being that they're just charging you a service charge, and not promising you all this futuristic digital marketing that IODA promises.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

and in case people haven't seen it yet:

http://www.anthologyrecordings.com/

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

you can make money selling actual records if you're good enough!

-- friday on the porch (lf@am.edu), February 21st, 2007.

maybe not

-- friday on the porch (lf@am.edu), February 21st, 2007.

You are still not picturing this in the hands of someone evil!

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

Every small label owner I know is talking about this, and having a harder and harder time making money. And these are some of the good ones. But what about the great releases that will never make money due to demand? Wouldn't it be nice for everyone not to lose money?

And in a few years you'll all have thrown out the CDs and Vinyl will be on the wall. Sad but true.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

i'm convinced that the future is just gonna be people paying a bill every month and listening to as much as they want. thru whoever or whatever service does it best. same with movies. the little labels are gonna have to do one HELL of a job to get people to come to their sites and pay for one album at a time. especially when tons of people have loads and loads of free stuff up everywhere you look. i think small niche/genre folks should keep selling physical artifacts. it makes sense for them to do it. limited editions. cool packaging/art. that's what little guys are good at!

-- scott seward (skotrok@earthlink.net), February 21st, 2007.

i think anthology is cool! it's a great-looking site too. when they make a deal with Sundazed to put out vinyl, lemme know.

-- scott seward (skotrok@earthlink.net), February 21st, 2007.

i think small niche/genre folks should keep selling physical artifacts. it makes sense for them to do it. limited editions. cool packaging/art. that's what little guys are good at!

Yeah, labels like Time-Lag and Foxy D. are going to be just fine, and that's just a small tip of the iceberg from my own perspective.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), February 21st, 2007.

soooooooo many cool little metal labels. thanks to the internet! and they know they aren't gonna get rich selling a hundred copies of some crazy collectable, but they love it to death and so do i. (even if i don't buy them all. i just love that they are doing it.)

-- scott seward (skotrok@earthlink.net), February 21st, 2007.

the little labels are gonna have to do one HELL of a job to get people to come to their sites and pay for one album at a time

The services that supply tons of stuff for a monthly fee have to get the content from somewhere. The labels will still serve a purpose there.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

yeah, definitely.

-- scott seward (skotrok@earthlink.net), February 21st, 2007.

And in a few years you'll all have thrown out the CDs and Vinyl will be on the wall. Sad but true.

OTM... I think I said in another thread, I live in NY and have been paying like $1000 per month for like 20 years to house all my CDs, records and yes tapes. I am thinking about moving and NOW all the stuff isn't worth half of what it might have been if I had ebayed it just a few years ago.

My worry with regard to this thread is principally the people who will get taken advantage of by this model, not the inevitability of the process itself.

But what I am getting is that Digital-Only releases are CLASSIC, yes?

That is very interesting I think.

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

btw, I hadn't realized that posting on ILX was an accepted form of promotion... All indications appear contrary to that.

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

It's totally not accepted, unless perhaps you're a regular poster and manage to slip your promotion in with a wink and a nod. Did you know I'll be djing the backroom of Union Pool in Williamsburg this saturday? (THAT'S TONIGHT PEOPLE! -- saxby) At midnight and it's free.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

As a weirdo audiophile, or something, I weep.

-- Sick Mouthy (njsouthall@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

Mark my words, within a few years we'll all be streaming 96khz 8million bit super hi-def digital audio into our homes and directly into our brains. It doesn't seem well publicised, but there's already a service or two that specializes in downloading lossless audio, and I'm assuming more will emerge soon.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

About time too.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), February 21st, 2007.

As a weirdo audiophile, or something, I weep.

i agree with dan that super hi-def files will eventually be fed into our brains like air and water. but i don't weep for the world's weirdo audiophiles now, and i won't weep for them then. normal people always have, and always will, choose convenience over fidelity. this explains 8-track tapes and the walkman and the ipod and pretty much every other form of dominant listening formats ever. and getting music is in fact getting more convenient and easy every day. i cheer for this.

-- fact checking cuz (factcheckingcuz@hotmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

vinyl + download certificate is the best imo.

-- just m@tt he1g3s0n (matt@[remove]gameinformer.com), February 21st, 2007.

agreed.

Merge had the best thing, sell vinyl and include a CD-r. Even better, sell vinyl and include a code for DL or something. A lot of my friend's labels are talking about doing limited edition vinyl and download only.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

i'm with you there!

-- scott seward (skotrok@earthlink.net), February 21st, 2007.

i got a kick out of albini including a loose CD of the last shellac album along with the vinyl box of the album. just kinda thrown in there like it was nothing.

-- scott seward (skotrok@earthlink.net), February 21st, 2007.

Classic if you have the patience to rip stuff to CD-R and file with your regular CDs (like I do).

-- Whiney G. Weingarten (christopher@paperthinwalls.com), February 21st, 2007.

I used to do that but now I barely ever take the CD's off the shelf

I agree that it will be digital-only sooner rather than later

the two things I worry about are --

1) future format incompatibility
2) hard drive crashes

I mean, I back my shit up, but still.

-- dmr (dmr3345@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

i know lots of people in small labels and small bands, and they've been saying vinyl now outsells cds when yr out on tour by far...

-- just m@tt he1g3s0n (matt@[remove]gameinformer.com), February 21st, 2007.

1) future format incompatibility
2) hard drive crashes

There is a debate that will rage regarding whether you want to have all the files yourself, or have them streamed. Being in various digital media industries, it's something that comes up. I can see a point where my entire music collection isn't even in my house, it's on several servers owned by some huge company who can afford both the security and redundancy to have my media on their hard-drives in some fire-proof, weather-proof building somewhere. Think about it, I already do it with my email. The chances of Yahoo losing my email are probably a lot less then losing it myself when my harddrive fails.

This all depends on bandwidth, of course. Untill it's good enough, the benefit of having the media in your house is the ability to use it when you want and not wait for it.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 21st, 2007.

i know lots of people in small labels and small bands, and they've been saying vinyl now outsells cds when yr out on tour by far...

How does the digital sell for them at shows?

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 21st, 2007.

not well.

-- just m@tt he1g3s0n (matt@[remove]gameinformer.com), February 21st, 2007.

that's a concern brought up in some new newsletter by the dude who runs discmakers. Some artists don't tour. Some artists don't even make music anymore! The idea that record labels only means of survival is selling music at shows is a depressing one.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 22nd, 2007.

The idea that record labels only means of survival is selling music at shows is a depressing one.

I know a certain artist on a certain very famous label that was the largest single distributor of their records, selling 1200 of them for the famous label in question. This particular artist was buying them for $8 each too, so the label was making a huge profit!

I find that very depressing too...

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 22nd, 2007.

does anyone know if perlon is profitable? they do NO digital stuff.

-- friday on the porch (lf@am.edu), February 22nd, 2007.

super lame if the artist has to pay wholesale for their own CDs! Maybe that's how it's always done? What do I know.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 22nd, 2007.

i've seen that happen quite a bit with local bands, esp those on real or fake-indie major labels

-- esoj@w3rk (electricsound@hotmail.com), February 22nd, 2007.

*cough* KILL ROCK STARS

-- Saxby D. Elder (saxbydelder@gmail.com), February 22nd, 2007.

xcuse me are you sexy dancer

-- friday on the porch (lf@am.edu), February 22nd, 2007.

sexy dancer is usually more enigmatic then this.

-- dan selzer (danselzer@yahoo.com), February 22nd, 2007.

― Saxby D. Elder, Saturday, 24 February 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

xcuse me are you sexy dancer

Well I have been told that I am quite fetching out there on the dance floor...

― Saxby D. Elder, Saturday, 24 February 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

You bet you look good on the dancefloor, do you?

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 24 February 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)

haha, I ain't been on a dancefloor since 1985!

― Saxby D. Elder, Saturday, 24 February 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

one year off from a artic monkeys reuinion...

― wesley useche, Saturday, 24 February 2007 20:59 (eighteen years ago)

Couldn't you have been bothered to obscure those email addresses in some way?

― libcrypt, Saturday, 24 February 2007 21:22 (eighteen years ago)

I did as I was told, sorry if that wasn't the right way to do it. That was the way the thread appeared before, what's your damage?

― Saxby D. Elder, Saturday, 24 February 2007 21:54 (eighteen years ago)

You're both right, I realize -- libcrypt is noting something I forgot, namely that now the e-mail addresses are able to be read by unregistered users (like, say, spambots). At the same time most everyone just puts up a generic e-mail address these days, I think.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 24 February 2007 21:57 (eighteen years ago)

I always just use that yahoo address. it's my main address and has been used so often is so many public places that I'm pretty confidant no more damage can be done to it. Meanwhile, Yahoo's spam filtering is pretty good to me.

― dan selzer, Saturday, 24 February 2007 22:24 (eighteen years ago)

I did as I was told, sorry if that wasn't the right way to do it. That was the way the thread appeared before, what's your damage?

Don't take it personally, but there was an email address munger on ILX 1 that prevented this sorta thing from occurring when posts are quoted, or any email addresses, for that matter. I'd be glad to patch it again myself, but I don't really want to step on any programmer toes by putting it in the wrong place.

― libcrypt, Saturday, 24 February 2007 22:56 (eighteen years ago)

OK, I won't. :-)

Anyone can do anything they want with this thread, no one fucking cares anyway.

― Saxby D. Elder, Saturday, 24 February 2007 23:03 (eighteen years ago)

Dud. And not the future. Just like video never quite killed the radio star.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 25 February 2007 00:14 (eighteen years ago)

i am thinking of buying harold budd's new perhaps digital-only release. it would be my first digital purchase ever. do i have a choice if i really want it? no.

mainly from a consumer pov:

pros
1) it's cheaper (the budd is 6 quid)
2) takes no space in the cd shelve
3) i don't have to go anywhere to get the music, it's faster!
4) the artist gets a bigger share of the revenues

cons
1) what happens if my harddisk crashes? ok i could burn a cd but that would eliminate 2) from above
2) no nice coloured artwork
3) sound quality is still worse
4) security issues concerning giving credit card details to many small probably not always well-protected online shops

― alex in mainhattan, Sunday, 25 February 2007 00:55 (eighteen years ago)

3) sound quality is still worse

I'm still convinced that won't be an issue within a few years.

4) security issues concerning giving credit card details to many small probably not always well-protected online shops

You don't have to give cc info to little online shops when their product is carried by (insert your favorite trustworthy online retailer)

Geir's analogy has absolutely no relevance to the discussion though.

― dan selzer, Sunday, 25 February 2007 01:03 (eighteen years ago)

i'm still curious about perlon's profitability. they only do vinyl and vinyl/cd for full lengths and comps. apparently they will never do mp3.

― lfam, Sunday, 25 February 2007 01:09 (eighteen years ago)

oh, and they are hot!!!

― lfam, Sunday, 25 February 2007 01:09 (eighteen years ago)

The most important con is and remains:

An album is always a more complex and sophisticated art form than just a single.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 25 February 2007 02:59 (eighteen years ago)

And good popular music - like all other music - is supposed to be a work of art.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 25 February 2007 02:59 (eighteen years ago)

I'm still convinced that won't be an issue within a few years.

"We're talkin about a time called now!"

m4a's suck apples. I don't think we need a thread for that. Joint Stereo SUX ASS. A few years from now, we will indeed probably all have chips implanted in our heads and we will all be able to recite the works of Shakespeare verbatim, as well as stream whatever crap we want and maybe even remember all of our pin numbers and passwords.

I am wondering about digital-only releases NOW. Who says artists get a bigger share of digital? Most of the record deals these days are "profit-split" deals, which essentially means the artist's share can be concealed in any manner of trickery, if the matter even comes up, which it seldom does due to the lack of involvement of attorneys or other artist's advocates and to "handshake" agreements which tend to ignore all of the governing country's statutory requirements for mechanical royalty payments, which are not subject to recoupability but merely must be paid, if you are to be in compliance with government statutes to protect the artist. But all the "cool labels" DON'T comply with this.

Even Merge, who are well-meaning nice people with a top-notch label, do not pay mechanical royalties (as I understand it), but rather work off of what I can only hope and imagine is a pretty legit profit split paradigm.

There are a lot of business and artists rights issues here and it is all down to what you negotiate. If two parties agree to ignore a federal statute, that takes precedence over the statute. In the U.S., in a rare display of statutory compassion and sense, you are supposed to actually minimally be paid 9.2 cents per track, regardless of how your "profits" are faring.

I started this thread to talk about these issues.

I am tired of the supposedly "cool" labels getting a free ride on this. Getting charged ABOVE dealer price for your own physical product in order to then be the primary distributor of it is just insult to injury. So what the fuck about "digital-only"?

Even a well-meaning label with a nice deal with a top aggregator cannot be certain of the accounting statements they themselves get as to digital sales. It could be all bullshit!! Even in the best case, how can they be sure the artist is getting their share? That's what the fuck I'm talking about.

― Saxby D. Elder, Sunday, 25 February 2007 05:12 (eighteen years ago)

1. Geir. It is REALLY easy to sell just the album as a digital download and not allow singles songs to be downloaded. If an artist cared that much about the integrity of their ALBUM vision, they'd chose to sell the music that way. It's up to them and the label. Not the site hosting the music, and not the purchaser.

And you know what? I can name some really shitty albums and some really great singles.

2. Saxby...m4a is good enough for a lot of people. It's good enough for me. And it'll get better, in the future, but now, the music i've paid to download sounds fine on my ipod when I'm going to work.

All your talk about business is issues is based on the idea that labels are inherently evil and artists inherently stupid. And how can anyone be sure of anything? Digital is just that much messier, so like, let's all not bother with it, right? These "cool" labels getting a free ride, artists getting charged above dealer price, take it up with the people who are doing this, don't act like it's all a given for every relationship.

― dan selzer, Sunday, 25 February 2007 09:08 (eighteen years ago)

I will never understand why anyone would pay for an mp3/wav/aac/[insert digital media file type]. Seems like a major rip off to me.

― The Brainwasher, Sunday, 25 February 2007 09:14 (eighteen years ago)

Brainwasher OTM.

When I pay for an album I might have downloaded for free, I do it because I get an album cover, maybe a CD with a nice design, and better sound quality

And I don't have an mp3 player, so whatever I download I have to burn into a CD-R anyway.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 25 February 2007 14:44 (eighteen years ago)

All your talk about business is issues is based on the idea that labels are inherently evil and artists inherently stupid.

That just isn't true. I purposely mentioned Merge, for whom I have a lot of respect and who I believe are nearly the opposite of evil. In the business, you can't just look at what happens, you have to look at what MIGHT happen, as for example in the hands of someone evil. I am not going to bother with a more full-blown discussion of what I consider to be an interesting topic on the level of business, though, because clearly the interest doesn't exist on this board to support such a discussion, however interesting I might find it to be.

I will say that I never said that all labels are evil and all artists are stupid, although any responsible agreement between such parties would allow and provide for those possibilities. Also, just as most label owners (and most guitarists) don't know how to finger an augmented 9th chord, most artists do not have a solid understanding of the statutory rights that their governments are trying to give them. They also, nearly by definition, if they are practicing, writing, playing, touring, etc., don't have the level of understanding of the business to qualify them as a "sophisticated party" capable of entering into an agreement with a label, and in fact in many cases don't have much more than a rudimentary understanding about the business at all.

As to m4a, they might sound good enough while you are down in the subway, but it's a crap format even compared to mp3 and anyone who downloads a lot of stuff and listens to it at home on a real system will tell you that they will much sooner grab something off of Oink that is at least an mp3, rather than an m4a. That is clearly reflected in the "snatch" numbers there. Additionally, even assuming that they were as good as mp3s, which also vary greatly in quality as to how they are encoded, you are still talking about paying 99¢ per track for something which doesn't really even exist and that you don't own-- you couldn't sell it or give it to a friend-- and is also a not even a terribly good facsimile of that which you are ostensibly buying, i.e. the album in question.

These "cool" labels getting a free ride, artists getting charged above dealer price, take it up with the people who are doing this

OK, so instead of attempting to foster a discussion about it on a forum such as this, you are suggesting that I spend my free time contacting every artist and label in the world to discuss this with each on an individual basis?

I am afraid I have really misjudged this place.

― Saxby D. Elder, Sunday, 25 February 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

wow. You've really misjudged this place? Jesus, relax. That is ONE PERSON'S (mine) RESPONSE.

regarding m4a vs. mp3...I don't know about Oink, I do know when I finally got iTunes I A/Bd mp3 vs AAC and found AAC vastly better. 128 AAC is way better then 128 MP3, maybe even higher MP3s as well. My system at home, fwiw, is my computer through a Motu 828 and a pair of Event Audio 20/20 powered monitors. And it sounds fine to me. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go out of my way to get the best quality stuff, or to supply the best quality stuff, or to research which online retailers use the highest quality. There are already sites offering lossless audio and will be more soon. I don't mean the distant crazy cyberpunk future, I mean SOON.

And I'm sorry, sure, I feel sorry that artists don't know everything about the business and what the government is doing for them, but how about hiring an entertainment lawyer? I mean, this isn't just true in music you know! People are getting ripped off in every industry and every walk of life and usually the only answer is...do some research and hire a lawyer...(and hire a lawywer to check on that lawyer...)

The reason why I was dismissing that aspect of the argument in this thread is because I don't find those issues especially relevant to digital only releases, they're the same with standard releases, and have been more than happy to discuss my feelings about why it's worth releasing and paying for digital downloads. Just because I don't have any in depth respsonse about that aspect, particularly about the dealer price thing, something I don't know anything about and I'm not sure how it's relevant to this thread, you really shouldn't feel like you've "misjudged" the place!

Geir...when you pay for an album for the album cover, guess what? YOU'RE PAYING FOR THE ALBUM COVER! The printing of the booklet is more expensive then the manufacturing of the CD. If we're talking about the physical product, a CD is worth maybe 2 bucks. The rest of the money is packaging and paying so the artist makes money, as does the label and the distributor and the store. If you're fine paying more money then a CD is worth with the idea that the money is paying the artist for their hard work, then it's the same thing when you buy the download. But if sales are equal then the profit should be greater for everyone around, as their is no manufacturing cost, no shipping cost, no printing cost. Sales aren't equal and won't be for a long time, of course. And if you're downloading albums for free, something most people myself included, have done, you do so with absolutely no ethical ground to stand on. It's fine to get the music for free but if I'm getting it on a shiny plastic disc with a nice booklet I'll pay 14 dollars for it?

But if you don't have an mp3 player, then I suspose you're not the demographic for people selling digital downloads, are you?

― dan selzer, Sunday, 25 February 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

(I am really enjoying this discussion! Not the sharper edges, I admit. But please keep going, everyone, it's a helpful learning curve for me.)

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 25 February 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

Hiring a lawyer to negotiate a deal where you might sell 400 records is just not realistic, so THEORETICALLY the "dumb artist" is in a position to get ripped off by the "evil label" with a handshake deal that promises to share half of what little profit might exist, without any mention of the statutory rates for music publishing which kick in on the sale of the very first unit, and not after the recoupable items have been written off or the "profits" split.

And, yes, I am disappointed when someone tells me in a forum to "take it up with the people who are doing it". That's just asinine.

― Saxby D. Elder, Sunday, 25 February 2007 17:19 (eighteen years ago)

The reason why I was dismissing that aspect of the argument in this thread is because I don't find those issues especially relevant to digital only releases, they're the same with standard releases

See, that's the whole thing... You couldn't be more wrong about that.

In the traditional realm of physical product, it is very clear that the label is making a sizable investment in the manufacturing of your record. Their investment deserves some respect and while not any legal wiggle room, then at least certainly some moral high ground as to profit sharing.

In digital-only deals, there is no investment beyond that which the label might have made to procure their deals with the aggregators in the first place (usually by having a physical product and/or promotional track record).

After that it is pure profit for the label. That is why the statutory rate for music publishing should figure prominently in those types of deals, instead of the "profit-split" model, wherein, as I have already demonstrated, you have a wide variety of parties with wildly differing levels of sophistication. Even a lot of the labels these days are just kids in their parent's basement, they are not even sophisticated parties. There is a lot of good faith cooperation between some artists and their labels. You just have to view on a much more paradigmatic basis for the purposes of a discussion like this.

I am glad that at least Ned is enjoying this, which is really the only really I bothered to respond, because this is clearly not something people here care (or know) about.

― Saxby D. Elder, Sunday, 25 February 2007 17:31 (eighteen years ago)

It's important to discuss these issues, and debate is essential -- I'm wanting to weigh in all aspects of the arguments from those who have a deeper involvement or knowledge (which why I'm very glad Dan is both passionate and clear about his stances, since he's grappling with things head on). As this is the future and the future is now, everything from rhetoric about the medium to the many legal aspects are up for review or reinterpretation -- this always happens with new developments in any field, granted, but I think it's especially important now (it also ties in with my increasing interest in documenting 'the great shift,' for lack of a better term, via the popularized Internet in terms of how media is understood and consumed).

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 25 February 2007 17:37 (eighteen years ago)

because this is clearly not something people here care (or know) about[/i}

Where are you getting this???? Like, 5 people have probably even noticed this thread!

And, yes, I am disappointed when someone tells me in a forum to "take it up with the people who are doing it". That's just asinine.

I'm sorry, but that aspect of the conversation, I didn't even know what you're talking about! Somebody mentioned artists being forced to buy their own CDs to sell at shows...I said I thought that was lame and crazy. I didn't see how that related to the thread and don't have any answer. Yes, it sounds like a bad thing! Is there more we can discuss about it?

[i] In digital-only deals, there is no investment beyond that which the label might have made to procure their deals with the aggregators in the first place (usually by having a physical product and/or promotional track record).

Yes and no. Some labels still pay for recording. Some still pay tour support. Some pay for mastering, remastering, audio transfers, promotion. It's in the labels (and the artists) best interest to keep those costs down, but there are costs. And even when there are no costs, the label should be expected to offer some service beyond aggregator, even if it's just a great deal of sweat equity that actually gets the music out there and deserves a cut off the profits. That's always been a major part of what labels do, they don't just exist because the artist can't afford to manufacture CDs, because now more then ever, artists are manufacturing their own CDs...and are still hoping to get signed to a label. I know many labels can be evil, but there are also labels who invest a lot of time, energy and yes, money, because of their love of music.

Now, as far as the statutory rate issues you discuss. I'm unfamiliar with them. I'm not going into details in a public place about personal business affairs, but I've been involved in both royalty per sale and profit split details. I don't handle the legal/business end of things, but I'm confused about what you're saying. Above you mention Mechanical Royalties being statutory at the first sale and now you mention Publishing. Is it the case with both? And neither have anything to do with a recoupable advance? Discussion is healthy but maybe someone should start a website or do something to educate the artists about their rights. Educate labels well, because decent labels don't knowingly rip off their artists.

The issue of knowing about this is a different one from "evil" labels, and I hope that I can't speak for the latter.

― dan selzer, Sunday, 25 February 2007 19:04 (eighteen years ago)

sorry about the bad tags.

― dan selzer, Sunday, 25 February 2007 19:04 (eighteen years ago)

Again, the point is not that all labels are evil. I think that's a myth that has been perpetuated for far too long to begin with. They are mostly LOSING MONEY and DOING IT FOR LOVE, everyone should know that! The point is that you have to allow for a wide range of moralities, agendas, expertise and sophistication in speaking broadly about this topic, with regard to any of the parties that might be involved, including I guess even the aggregators themselves. I gather that you have a label-- I didn't know that. I don't mean to put you on the defensive or lump you in with the proverbial "evil" ones. I am sure that you deal with your artists on a good faith basis and I never meant to imply otherwise, not the least reason for which is that I didn't know you had a label.

Anyway, as I pointed out, there are varying degrees of sophistication on the label side, which would account for your "ignorance" (not meant in the pejorative sense) of the federal statutes governing mechanical royalties (which is the same as "music publishing").

I think that these statutes must date back to the really predatory days of the music business, when people like "Hesh" (if you watch the Sopranos) (or Morris Levy if you don't) ran the business and were essentially cynical evil people who were blatantly trying to sell as many records as they could (back when that was still an option!) while paying out the least to the artist as they could.

Archetypically, this would include signing the proverbial illiterate blues or R&B singer to an absolutely atrocious deal, where they would get nothing (compared to the income that was being generated, particularly going forward in the case of, say, a Chess Records, where all their acts made the most amount of revenue for the company many years down the line from when their particular "race records" were released, marketed and sold).

Anyway, at some point the government stepped in and basically said "hey, you have to give these people some sort of standard royalty rate" and the "statutory rate" (an unfortunate phrase I realize) was developed. (btw, I am just writing this extemporaneously on a broad level and not from wikipedia or anything). That is why you had people like the fictitious Hesh taking a songwriting credit, because it would cut in half what was necessary to be paid out.

This statutory rate is now 9.2¢ per song and is the current "mechanical royalty" I refer to. This is the circle c or © (if you can read that) that you see on records. By statute, this rate applies to the very first copy of the record sold and is different from the "artist royalty" that you hear much more about and which is classically paid out in the form of an advance (which many people fail to grasp is short for "recording advance"), against which said rate can be "recouped". The recording agreement can then be structured numerous ways, among which is to agree to add other items which may also be made recoupable, such as posters, tour support, hiring of promo firms, etc.

The bottom line is that even with the U.S. statutory rate in place (sorry, I don't know how any of this plays out in each individual country, perhaps I should take time out and ask each of them!), TWO PARTIES CAN SIGN A BINDING AGREEMENT FOR BASICALLY ANYTHING (except things like slavery, murder-- things that are criminal). This means that you as Label and Artist can ignore/disregard the statutory rate as long as you both agree to that. It is arguable that in the absence of any language which addresses this, many indie labels who offer (in good faith and practice even) a profit split deal with the artist, are STILL liable for making these payments and this could be actionable down the line (i.e. someone could hire a lawyer and rightfully claim that you didn't make them aware of this statute and claim the monies owed).

In theory, it doesn't matter if you withheld the information from the artist in the most prototypically evil manner, or just didn't know about it. That is why I bring up the issue of a "sophisticated party". Most artists can claim, in bringing about a claim like this, that they are not a sophisticated party and in most cases would be awarded a judgment. Since you (and your label) clearly didn't KNOW about this whole topic, perhaps even this thread will help document that you yourself were not a sophisticated party either, which might mitigate your outcome somewhat, although monies owed are monies owed.

It is actually quite conventional to address the mechanical royalty rate in a recording contract but to agree to different modifications of it, as is your privilege as two parties in your right minds. For example, who would want to pay 9.2¢ per song for that crazy Red Krayola album with all of the one-second songs on it?! Or, how about this latest Joanna Newsom album that only has like seven songs on it? Those are things you can work out in your agreement, or in side letters if they crop up within long-term deals where a master that has been delivered doesn't fit the statutory paradigm that has been agreed upon.

I have seen contracts, and in fact these are common, which offer to pay, say, 3/5 of the statutory rate or ones that offer (I think fairly) an "aggregate cap" of say 12-14 songs, meaning you only have to pay for the number of songs for an average album and not above that. There are also statutory provisions for "extra runtime" so your E2-E4 type of record is actually addressed in the statute. It is not uncommon to agree that you will not pay the statutory premium for "extra runtime" tracks (again, I think fairly, except in cases like E2-E4.

Getting back to the original issue of digital-only releases, I myself have not heard of any labels offering TOUR SUPPORT for a digital-only release, but am fascinated at the concept and would love to hear about it, particularly about any success stories to do with it. Obviously, the labels do plenty of sweating and talking up records, but again I don't know of any that hire expensive promotion firms to promote digital-only releases but am equally interested in that and curious as to whether that is indeed the future of the industry.

There is in fact an excellent website that everyone should read: http://www.futureofmusic.org

It isn't updated as often as I would like to see because they are busy lobbying for artist's rights in Washington but it is good. Also, it's a bit dated too but trying googling "albini rant" and that shows how the majors used to roll back in the day.

― Saxby D. Elder, Sunday, 25 February 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

TWO PARTIES CAN SIGN A BINDING AGREEMENT FOR BASICALLY ANYTHING.....This means that you as Label and Artist can ignore/disregard the statutory rate as long as you both agree to that. It is arguable that in the absence of any language which addresses this, many indie labels who offer (in good faith and practice even) a profit split deal with the artist, are STILL liable for making these payments and this could be actionable down the line (i.e. someone could hire a lawyer and rightfully claim that you didn't make them aware of this statute and claim the monies owed).

If the label and artist chose to ignore the statutory rate in an agreement, how can they be liable down the line?

When I mentioned labels paying for recording/tour support etc, I meant conventional labels who make CDs, meaning to suggest that labels offer more then the cost of manufacturing/shipping. I didn't mean to suggest there are digital only labels offering tour support and whatnot. I can't imagine anybody doing that right now, only because I don't think there is enough money in the digital-only thing to make it worth it. Maybe someday.

And all things considered, as a label I don't see spending the same kind of money on promotion for downloads as CDs, but I hope to more then make up for it with sweat equity...which I don't mind so much as our recent experiances have shown that personal connections and smart viral spreading of information accounts for more success than sending even more CDs to even more publications and hiring an expensive firm to do that...especially when the expensive firm knows less about your music...and doesn't even have your contacts. And by "smart viral spreading", I don't mean to make it sound so machiavellen. Coming to ILX and chatting about music I've worked on, even on threads I didn't start, I consider extremely valuable promotion, and ethically, I feel like I do it as a fan, and I've chatted up as many projects I don't have a stake in projects I do (the amount of "promo" the Homosexuals got from me, not to mention setting up a NY show, well, I wouldn't be so arrogant to say it was valuable, but it certainly didn't hurt, and all I got out of it was a free CD, the chance to hang out with Bruno Wizard, and the hope that more people got to hear some great music, which is all I ever asked for).

This goes back to that comment above I made about "promoting on ILX". When Ned wants to tell us about his column for Stylus, or Dan Bunnybrain talks about a show, or Drew Daniel discusses the latest Matmos release...none of it is necessarily done with the attitude "this is MARKETING", and nobody get's upset. The line is crossed of course when somebody who is not a member of a community shows up and promotes some random thing.

Which brings me to something I thought about...what about starting a PR company where you create fake names/acccounts on dozens of message boards...and actively participate in them for months and years untill you're accepted as a valuable contributor, then you start dropping sly promo bombs and nobody complains!

But as discussed above, the concept of the label will obviously shift in the digital era, but they'll still serve some valuable purposes.

― dan selzer, Sunday, 25 February 2007 22:02 (eighteen years ago)

It is arguable that in the absence of any language which addresses this, many indie labels who offer (in good faith and practice even) a profit split deal with the artist, are STILL liable for making these payments and this could be actionable down the line (i.e. someone could hire a lawyer and rightfully claim that you didn't make them aware of this statute and claim the monies owed).

If you agree on something regarding it, then you're cool. If it isn't in there, it could be actionable. If it was explicitly dealt with verbally, you might even be OK. Thing is, no one really knows anything about this stuff, so it'll probably never come up to bite you in the ass, unless your act is picked up by a major publishing company or something.

What I was really looking to get at (and back to even) with this thread is what are the ethics and practicalities of a digital-only label? Agreed, you offer up your BS&T for an artist, but I was trying to figure out myself-- which is why I asked the opinions of the people here-- is it basically a smarmy thing to do? Or is it just the future? I really am wondering. Will labels just be sub-aggregators to the aggregators? It seems great on the one hand because then you can really sign all the bands that you really like but would normally have to pass on because you don't have the money to manufacture their stuff. But in the wrong hands, which was my original point, that could mean just sign anyone that you are friends with in myspace and throw them through your Orchard account. Why not? It is better than them being out there with no digital and being rejected by all of the aggregators. And believe me, that is the trend. You would be doing them a favor! (even if you did absolutely nothing to promote them, at least you will have put them into the system).

It might have been easy even six months ago to waltz into an aggregator but they can't afford all of the administrative costs of looking after thousands of private bands that sell like 2 DL's and then break up or whatever. These places have websites, encoding people. They need your album cover jpg and your metadata. It isn't cost-free at their end, there are loads of administrative, programming and legal costs. They are now and/or will soon only be dealing with stable entities like labels that have some sort of track record.

As a label, would you give an advance to an artist for a digital-only release? I mean, what if it makes like 5¢ and you have given them $1000? I am asking anyone this. Is it cool or uncool? C or D?? As an artist, are you better off taking a nothing-upfront digital deal, or wait around (maybe forever) for a "real record deal"?

― Saxby D. Elder, Monday, 26 February 2007 00:00 (eighteen years ago)

The most important con is and remains:

An album is always a more complex and sophisticated art form than just a single.

Geir Hongro on Sunday, 25 February 2007 02:59 (17 hours ago)

Always? I think you could get away with "is always longer than a single", as long as you're referring to the "5 minutes is pushing it" type of single, and not a single, 30 minute recording from an experimental recording artist.

What about all the formulaic albums out there? I would argue that there's not much complexity and sophistication in the "ballads sandwiched by singles" or "opening with a bang and closing with a ballad" type of formulas. It seems like in many cases songs are not so much composed with the whole album in mind and are simply ordered for effectiveness and mastered for continuity.

It also seems like artists feel compelled to have a unifying theme to their work, but because their vision is short or too common, or because it is an afterthought in the song-writing process, it ends up being tacky. I'm also thinking of all the times I've heard artists answer the question "is this a concept album" with "sort of"...I don't want to get off topic, but I think that in expecting albums from music artists, we have subjected them to a very difficult demand - one that yields some great works but many more short-of-the-mark and even more total disasters.

I also am a champion of the notion that a single song can be so intricately composed or so meaningfully performed that its sophistication and complexity are on par with many great albums. I imagine that most people were drawn into music by a single song, and not an album. Not to dismiss the power of albums, but I think there is room for greater appreciation of singles by music fans.

To be on topic, I think that digital releases will take off the pressure to make albums from artists, which may lead artists to refocus on making great, individual songs. If digital releases are cheaper than printing and distributing physical albums, and are only limited by the schedule and creative cycle of the artist, the recording costs, and the promotional costs, we might see faster release rates - a tendency to release smaller batches of material more frequently. Without the crutches that albums provide (songs don't have to stand up on their own in an album), artists may be forced to record more potent singles in order to keep their audience's attention. I can imagine that the frequent release of material will bring a greater sense of excitement among fans of artists who adopt this pattern - they won't be disenchanted by long periods in between album sessions.

For less keen listeners of an artist or for those who want physical releases but don't want dozens of singles and EPs, artists might also release compilations more frequently than is the current trend for "best of's" or singles compilations. As long as they did it without overlapping material or creating nightmares for record collectors (assuming they released physical copies or that collectors collected digital releases), they'd be keeping all medium preferences and fan levels satisfied.

There definitely are holes in this approach - it doesn't seem tailored to all types of artists (ex - touring artists for whom it's more convenient to spend a period in the studio, then spend the rest of their time supporting the release by playing live). I can also imagine the headache record labels would get trying to figure out how to promote 10 singles a year from one artist. But I can see the climate supporting a breed of artist along these lines, especially if the artist was completely diy.

― Faisal Shennib, Monday, 26 February 2007 00:30 (eighteen years ago)

As an artist, are you better off taking a nothing-upfront digital deal, or wait around (maybe forever) for a "real record deal"?Depends. I'm part of a group looking for either of these options to come up so I can relay the questions that come to my head: Just how bad is the upfront digital deal? Are you really not going to get any money from it? Do we need the money or can I survive and thrive by continuing to balance my non-recording jobs? What are the chances that I'd get a real record deal? In my case, slim to none since we don't play live.

So as long as we could't figure a way to promote ourselves better than this credible label, and didn't mind losing whatever rights to our songs, and also were not tied in for an unreasonable amount of time (which the label probably wouldn't want anyway) we'd probably go for that.

― Faisal Shennib, Monday, 26 February 2007 00:39 (eighteen years ago)

But in the wrong hands, which was my original point, that could mean just sign anyone that you are friends with in myspace and throw them through your Orchard account. Why not? It is better than them being out there with no digital and being rejected by all of the aggregators. And believe me, that is the trend. You would be doing them a favor! (even if you did absolutely nothing to promote them, at least you will have put them into the system).

The issue there may be as simple as...how much of a cut does that label deserve for doing just this? I'd say less then if they were actively doing anything of worth. A subjective matter of course.

As a label, would you give an advance to an artist for a digital-only release? I mean, what if it makes like 5¢ and you have given them As a label, would you give an advance to an artist for a digital-only release? I mean, what if it makes like 5¢ and you have given them $1000? I am asking anyone this. Is it cool or uncool? C or D?? As an artist, are you better off taking a nothing-upfront digital deal, or wait around (maybe forever) for a "real record deal"?000? I am asking anyone this. Is it cool or uncool? C or D?? As an artist, are you better off taking a nothing-upfront digital deal, or wait around (maybe forever) for a "real record deal"?

I would always try to avoid giving an advance, as that's not in our best interest. Artists are free to drive whatever bargain they think is fair. I do think, sure, plenty of labels put out records as a labor of love and don't expect to make any great profit, but they hope to at least make some or all of their money back. And they still have PRODUCT to show for it. Right now people are so quick to not take digital releases seriously, that I personally feel you'd have to be pretty brave to sink a lot of money into it. Anthology Recordings and such are doing great things, my plans are more baby steps. I think the more confidant that we'd make our money back, the more confidant we'd be with an advance. But the flipside of course is that to make your money back, you have to sell less downloads then you would have to sell CDs...so that would work out for everybody.

When you talk about small labels, whose to say the artists have the choice you mention...many are eager and would be happy with a nothing upfont "real record deal" for what it's worth.

― dan selzer, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:43 (eighteen years ago)

If a release is digital-only, I'd prefer it in good quality (i.e. flac, high bitrate mp3, etc) but I might end up picking it up anyway if the price is right. I'm probably far in the minority of ILX here, but I've started regularly buying digital releases, initially as a quick fix when I wanted something that'd be considerably more costly, but more often now since I'm comfortable with the format.

More than likely, this means high-bitrate (192+ vbr, or 320kbps preferred) mp3s or lossless files from sources like bleep, beatport, kompakt-mp3, and the like, and the occasional iTunes purchase, but usually only for singles or one-off purchases.

This isn't to say I have completely stopped buying albums. I'll do so when there's nice packaging, the online release is of low quality, or it's more economical to buy it in person (and then possibly regift the CD or record itself when I'm done copying it off). I feel like I've overconsumed on CD and vinyl buying in recent years and I'm just creating an unnecessary paper and plastic trail for future generations to truck off.

― mh, Monday, 26 February 2007 04:09 (eighteen years ago)

The issue there may be as simple as...how much of a cut does that label deserve for doing just this? I'd say less then if they were actively doing anything of worth. A subjective matter of course.

I think this is OTM, more like taking a 25-32% distro fee, or else 50/50 if you are putting your heart and soul into it.

many are eager and would be happy with a nothing upfont "real record deal" for what it's worth.

but will they give up on this dream for its digital equivalent? Nothing upfront, now you're digital type thing?

― Saxby D. Elder, Monday, 26 February 2007 04:20 (eighteen years ago)

...regift the CD or record itself when I'm done copying it off.... I feel like I've overconsumed on CD and vinyl buying in recent years and I'm just creating an unnecessary paper and plastic trail for future generations to truck off.

Nice idea! :-)

― Saxby D. Elder, Monday, 26 February 2007 04:23 (eighteen years ago)

i buy lots of digital singles - i've probably bought nearly 100 songs over the last couple of years - albeit usually digital versions of stuff i have on 7" (so the label/artist gets twice the royalty out of a sucker like me). a couple of these labels have offered FLAC in the past but now do not, to my slight irritation.

― electricsound, Monday, 26 February 2007 04:35 (eighteen years ago)

so you have bought FLACs directly from the label's shops? Just wondering...

― Saxby D. Elder, Monday, 26 February 2007 04:52 (eighteen years ago)

Nothing upfront, now you're digital type thing?

For me, the goal has been to state in some way....yes, part of the benefit of doing this is that we can take more of a chance, i.e., I don't think we can sell 5,000 copies of this...BUT...I don't see this as "you're not worth a CD", I see the CD as a future relic, I see too many CDs that have been unavailable except at import prices, gone out of print, become collector items, filled landfills. Forget it, let's put this music up in the manner that I truly believe all music will be distributed by within a few years, let's present this as very special.

― dan selzer, Monday, 26 February 2007 05:01 (eighteen years ago)

so you have bought FLACs directly from the label's shops? Just wondering...

yes. a couple of the labels in question are static caravan and gargleblast.

― electricsound, Monday, 26 February 2007 05:05 (eighteen years ago)

BUT...I don't see this as "you're not worth a CD"

I hear you and I appreciate what you're saying but I think that basically IS essentially what you are telling the band when you avoid doing the CD, only to offer the digital. If the CD were really going to make money, then you would do it, right?

I DO like the part about how this opens you up to work with more artists than you have the money to manufacture but what about the promotion?

I'm telling you, this topic is crazy complicated...

― Saxby D. Elder, Monday, 26 February 2007 05:23 (eighteen years ago)

If the CD were really going to make money, then you would do it, right?

When we first started talking about this, absolutely...but I've had like, a religious conversion on this, to the point that if a favorite artist of mine came and said "put out this CD" and we knew it'd sell 1,000 copies and likely make it's money back, I'd say, "what about just doing it digitally? Not because it'll save money or be less of a risk, but because it's the future and I want to get people on board....but if you are set on a CD release and don't feel so positively about downloads, then sure, let's do a CD, and I'll still put my 100% into it." This really isn't hypothetical, this is something I've said a lot lately. Other times it is as you say...nobody is going to make a dime, the artist has a better chance making money with downloads because you'll never make back the CD manufacturing cost. I look around and see lots of small labels putting out the most awesome and obscure music and maybe they're marketed brilliantly, maybe they've found their audiences, maybe they skimped on production or licensing costs, maybe they have a trust fund, maybe they're ok with losing a bit of money to keep a label going, for the love of music. More power to them. We could keep doing that forever as well. But I truly believe the CD is dead, and I want to move on. That doesn't mean I'm gonna sell the hell out of the CDs we're working on right now, nor would I pass up a CD that I thought could seel 5,000+, but goddamn if I'm not more psyched to reissue that 2 song 7" single as a download, something that would never sell 10 CDs.

― dan selzer, Monday, 26 February 2007 05:53 (eighteen years ago)

that doesn't mean I'm NOT gonna sell the hell out of the CDs...

― dan selzer, Monday, 26 February 2007 05:56 (eighteen years ago)

two years pass...

Hey everyone. Anybody know of any digital only albums I should buy with an iTunes gift card? I want to get the best use out of it... so if a physical copy is hard to come by, then its more worth it. Thinking of getting Pale Saints or something. Maybe an old digital only Slumberland release... not sure.

― Evan, Monday, 1 February 2010 02:35 (fifteen years ago)

Help me out here. Ideas?

― Evan, Monday, 1 February 2010 23:04 (fifteen years ago)

the raveonettes had a couple nice itunes EPs, a regular one and an xmas one

― i get mines the fast way, the balaclava way (M@tt He1ges0n), Monday, 1 February 2010 23:09 (fifteen years ago)

uhmmmm

in terms of stuff that is digital only (or only otherwise available on vinyl or cassette) i know that a lot of the very early 4AD singles are on itunes. totally worth it imo. 4AD have put heaps of OOP stuff up in recent times.

plenty of slumberland singles are up there too..

― a place to bury st edmunds (electricsound), Monday, 1 February 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)

great EPs by both Arthur Russell (Let's Go Swimming) and Mission Of Burma (Snapshot) are the only two things I ever bought from iTunes, because they were exclusives. That may no longer be the case, but they are both excellent.

― sleeve, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 06:29 (fifteen years ago)

i bought a itunes collection of "new indie electronica" or something right off the rack (ie. it was a premade, apple-made collection of songs right off the front page of the itunes store "indie" section or something) a while ago and i loved it - i knew maybe 2 of the bands already, everything else was new to me and it was a cool little comp, i played the hell out of it for months.

― messiahwannabe, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 07:49 (fifteen years ago)

btw looking back at the posts from 2 years back, this was an interesting discussion - what's the new thinking along these lines these days?

i got a free $5 gift certificate from amazon (due to a $100 xmas gift certificate for kindle books) so i chose some random band i'd never heard of and "bought" their album. the downloader only downloaded half the songs then crapped out fr some reason. then when i went back to get the second half of the album a week later the link/license/whatever had already expired... i was like "wtf, it's not like i cant just get this for free in the first place!" considering this gifted $5 album was an obvious "try our wonderful service, first one's free" kind of promotion, it kinda discouraged me from spending further money on mp3's from amazon in the future, tell you that much.

― messiahwannabe, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 08:21 (fifteen years ago)

MGMT did it and then released the album physically with a major and went on to massive sales. I guess it's not all dud

― Emily's Cheese, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 08:22 (fifteen years ago)

http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/rema-rema/id273777475

― dan selzer, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 08:39 (fifteen years ago)

not going to re-read what I wrote above but...

I wonder still how to promote digital only releases, esp. with reissues and artists who don't tour or whatever.

And I still want to see more people taking advantage of media downloads. When you sign up with a lot of these companies that host your music and give you a code and/or a card that you can slip inside the vinyl or just sell or hand out, that code allows the purchaser to download the music...but it also allows them to download any other data that's hosted there. So that's what I'd like to do. You buy an LP, and with it you get a code and you enter the code and you get the download AND a video AND a PDF of the booklet etc etc. Or the same thing minus the LP.

It's also occuring to me that the iPad (yes, I'm bringing that into this conversation), or any tablet is the one form where it would really make sense to have a nice big digital booklet/artwork/interactive media or whatever. Like if I'm riding the train listening to a "record" I may not be inclined to read on my iPod/iPhone the whole time, but to have the iPad in my lap and I'm turning pages with lyrics and band histories etc.

33 1/3 should sell their books as eBooks along with the actual album.

So many great ideas! Somebody should give me a job.

― dan selzer, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 08:44 (fifteen years ago)

I second the Rema Rema!

― Jacob Sanders, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 09:04 (fifteen years ago)

It's also exciting that more of these rare 12"s are being sold in a place like itunes. What will come of music blogs that post out of print music when it's avaible for download but not in a reissue on a cd or record?

― Jacob Sanders, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 09:10 (fifteen years ago)

places like Mutant sounds and the like.......

― Jacob Sanders, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 09:14 (fifteen years ago)

I've seen dedicated OOP blogs pull old posts because the band or label get in touch and say they're planning a digital reissue

― see also cockfarmer fanbases (sic), Tuesday, 2 February 2010 09:30 (fifteen years ago)

Thanks everyone! Didn't have to be iTunes exclusive by the way, just looking for stuff I wouldn't feel bad about not getting on vinyl or CD. Among your suggestions, I'm thinking of the new Real Estate EP, since Mexican Summer tends to over price their EPs. They say they are limited, but still...

― Evan, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 18:38 (fifteen years ago)

^get the steve moore single on Mex Summer as well, it are great

― a place to bury st edmunds (electricsound), Tuesday, 2 February 2010 22:04 (fifteen years ago)

yeah that mission of burma one is a great set

― i get mines the fast way, the balaclava way (M@tt He1ges0n), Tuesday, 2 February 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)

I wonder still how to promote digital only releases, esp. with reissues and artists who don't tour or whatever.

^^^

― rinse the lemonade (Jordan), Tuesday, 2 February 2010 23:16 (fifteen years ago)

on a slightly related subject, the promo CD with booklet of my newest release, out March 9th, was just found in the used bin of one of New York's wonderful record stores. I should go see if it's been posted in it's entirety yet.

― dan selzer, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 00:07 (fifteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.