> I agree, I think that of course, there's an attachment to vinyl or a > physical object because of the artwork + packaging.I think there's
it's much deeper than that. the content/nature of the object is essentially irrelevant, from a more abstracted pov. objects accrue considerable value simply by existing -- call it archaeological, or view it as a cultural time capsule, call it "soul", whatever -- but objects, like people, absorb and reflect their surroundings (time, place, culture, etc -- context). it may be hard to imagine with contemporary records/cds, oblivious as we are to how the present will be appreciated in the future. i am confronted with obvious examples of this every day, dealing with ancient records as my business. sure, vernon dalhart sucks (trust me, he do), but still, you can sense some sort of cultural/archaeological value in his records. if things go all digital files, that information, the weight of the information/experience carried by the physical object, vanishes. imo, this should be an especially salient point for detroit techno fans, at least for those of us who view the music as a combination of futurism/technology, and soul/earthiness. > this would be great; I was actually thinking the opposite; selling > vinyl with one-time only download codes for digital quality WAV / AIF > masters; however I think I'm in the minority on this one.. i've thought about that too -- but i have no idea how to implement it. i guess print up individual stickers/inserts with different codes for every single record or something? but then people could still just jack the codes in the record shop, and all it takes is one person to post it on a website and...bzzzt. hmmm. digital info is hard to wrassle down. > > economical issues. The cost of a record is about 2€ / 2.5 € > > depending on > > manufacturer+mastering price / quality for around 500 copies. So i'd say 2 euri each is pretty easily do-able for 500 copies if you don't splurge on full color packaging or full-covers. those are our costs. we master in the usa and press in europe and decent quality places imo. > Artists: in the past, _needed_ labels to get their music out there, > in the stores, on the air, in the hands of the right DJs; now they > finally have a way to side-step the need for a label [like Prince, > Radiohead, etc.] and do it themselves; however realizing how tough of not really. only established artists can sidestep labels because they've already got a fan base, they don't have to develop one. only established labels/artists can easily get hooked up directly with major download sites -- unless you have a contact or know the right people. we were completely ignored by all digital sites until after the convextion album proved itself as a seller -- the only way we could get access before then was through a 3rd party digital aggregater/distrib, and that just makes the totally sketchy/nebulous digital market even more sketchy/nebulous (there is no way to keep track of "stock" in the digital world..anyone anywhere along the digital supply line can fudge numbers and there's essentially no way to know that they have..it is a really undeveloped market/system, still in it's infancy, technically!). the answer to getting your music out there without labels, when you don't already have a fan base/market, is to build it up from myspace, i guess. blech. > a market it is to run a small label; I think most artists who sell > say, less than 5-10k of anything already know that releasing records > is more like an expensive greeting card; it reminds people you're i don't know quite what you mean here. you might as well not bother because the money you make is small beans? uhhh...wha? we sold about 2200 copies of the convextion album, and it was definitely not profit to sneeze at. gerard could buy a very nice used to-yota or a few high-class hookers with his share, and we could get a big fish tank with a few sharks in it put into our label offices with ours. that ain't not bad. seriously, the numbers aren't so dire. there are much less financially rewarding ways to peddle to your art. > Even C2, just nominated for a Grammy for "like a child" knows that > the "dance album" often turns into something that we might not want; > an accessible, for the masses album suitable for either lounging at > home, or playing at a restaurant, or background music for some ID on > MTV [I'm thinking of Justice or Daft Punk]. Unless there's words to > be heard; you have a slim chance in hell to have your music reach the > rest of the world when making dance music. in the immediate sense, yes. luckily art doesn't have an expiration date and new people could potentially still be discovering it decades, perhaps centuries down the road. > yes, I know how that feels -- it sucks]. So we have to make as much > money on the advance; and then DJ / tour to make up for the fact that > we rarely see royalty checks worth anything. i used to find advances hard to resist. the thing is...taking a sizeable advance (say, your expected total royalties), unless you are dealing with a massive label, means the label has less money to put towards promotion, packaging, etc, which in some cases means you are hindering the sales chances of your dealie right off the bat. you, of course, have to trust the label will pay you on the back-end to feel safe doing this, and not be so hard-up for cash that you NEED the advance. you usually get a better deal with big labels if you turn down the advance -- you can negotiate a higher ppd etc. the only time i think it is good to take a considerable advance anymore is when you are suspicious the advance would surpass your actual cut of the royalties. then it's sort of charity anyways, so i don't see any reason to complain there. > Unfortunately, having it on vinyl isn't really supplementing one's > career as a musician. We're in the business of making music; not hmm i think that statement needs more meat. creating any sort of cultural artifact -- especially physical -- gives your creation more weight in the long-term -- literally and figuratively :P i think people tend to be very short-sighted, easily seduced by the attractive benefits/progress that new technology brings, and forget to think about what is being lost beyond the immediate/obvious. people forget how the old ways of thinking and experiencing even were eventually...not that that's bad necessarily, but when we are talking about limiting the ways in which we can appreciate and experience art, i think it is. i am not against change, but the reality and inherent value of physical objects is pretty intractable.. > manufacturing it. The cost of the delivery medium often makes it > impossible for everyone to see their checks in the end if you're > manufacturing less than 3,000 records; If a distributor gets returns, pfff, in a bad deal maybe! indy labels are better than major labels these days, for dance music i think. you don't need to sell many records to turn a profit, especially if you're an american right now, thanks to the weakness of the $. press 500 at $1500 bucks total, and then sell at standard selling price to distrib at 2.95 euros. considering the euro = ~1.5$ right now, consider extra costs like shipping and the copies you keep for yourself and the artist, that's at least $500 profit to split off only 500 records. and the profit margin increases dramatically when you press/sell more. i am not making this chit up, these are our numbers. > Digital distribution, thankfully allows for a more just way to pay i don't think there's any sort of morality or justice going on, it just allows for fewer production costs = bigger profit _margins_. depending on what music you are releasing, there may or may not be considerably less profit to make with digital files at this point in time, which makes it a bit of a moot point. > I don't think this is a losing battle; just another period of change > we have to contend with [format wars have been the case for the last > 50 years, no?] Personally, I'd rather make books and DVDs with [my] not really. vinyl has an unrivaled legacy because of it's combination of the most satisfying tactile and visual feedback -- saying nothing about the argument that vinyl sounds better than anything short of 2" wide tape reels or DAT, which i do not intend to make! @MEK the only labels that might make enough profit to be able to afford such a thing are also the labels that are run as serious businesses, and thus would never spring for such dangerous marketing tactics. besides, i don't know of any really successful dance labels that are now selling digital files only, they all still do vinyl...of course i imagine there are some clubby house labels doing just that, but who cares, they're the mcdonald's to our....olive garden? jt
