TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- those who want to make it alone in the edm world.
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Interesting points of view, I'll have to think that one over

the reason i wrote this post was due to knowing it was possible to write,produce and sell all your own work.
due to being in a digital age and with a huge range off software at our finger tips. the possibility's seem endless!

and i think also with this vast array of software and hardware ect. sucks you in to believing "banging out good tunes" will lead to greatness.

I've been given more to think about and thank you to those who have posted this far.

quote:

Originally posted by owien no my main agenda is to have my tunes played out in clubs. only my concern is that without a label putting my tunes out, will only lead to well nothing.

If this is your biggest goal then a label can do nothing but help you. If they sign a track they're going to promote it, which promotes you. Artists usually don't like to give tracks out that they have signed to labels, but you can send them out at your own risk. The label isn't going to care as long as the tune isn't getting leaked.

If I was you, I would submit demos to labels and if they're interested ask for a detailed explanation on how they plan to market your music. I've signed multiple tunes to my label, and not many have asked how I planned to promote their music, although I am promoting the hell out of it and much more so than other labels in my opinion. Not only have I harvested tons and tons of personal, direct emails to the big guns, but I also have hunted down companies (Coca Cola, Pixar, Mitsubishi, Abercrombie, etc) to submit music to. We're currently talking to two snow board companies right now interested in licensing some tracks.

Again - A label can only help you in my opinion. Do your best to get them interested and ask for a detailed explanation on the promotion process and go with your gut. Don't be afraid to ask for any stipulations in the contract. All they can say is no.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Wiley If I was you, I would submit demos to labels and if they're interested ask for a detailed explanation on how they plan to market your music. I've signed multiple tunes to my label, and not many have asked how I planned to promote their music, although I am promoting the hell out of it and much more so than other labels in my opinion. Not only have I harvested tons and tons of personal, direct emails to the big guns, but I also have hunted down companies (Coca Cola, Pixar, Mitsubishi, Abercrombie, etc) to submit music to. We're currently talking to two snow board companies right now interested in licensing some tracks.

Seeing your posts around this forums kinda shows me that you are really hard working to get your thing from the ground. I think you can expect one of my newer tracks anytime soon!

i think some of you are very narrowminded when saying that the industry will flood from too many labels releasing too much shit, yes it will happen but so what? Its already alot of shit music from the big labels flooding the industri and it has been since late 90s. The only thing u gain by having fewer labels with more artists is less creative freedom for the artist. The more labels the more likely is that u get through and with more music comes also more good music (and more shit music but as always u need to search to find gold, no one will give it to you). Yes it will be harder to make money in this industry but I dont think its impossible. Who it will be hard for is formal label owner who haved lived for free in a decade now stealing money from artists like Lolo (who should have had alot more looking at his disco). Theres no reason for big labels to exist imo, they dont do shit for you anyway, yes the track might be playd in a club but it will anyways if its good enough. Djs or their management do actually listen to alot of the promos they get and if its good enough it will be playd, no mather what label it belongs. Another thing that people seems to forget is that 95-99% of buyers dont care what label the music is from, most of them dont even know or want to know, they only care about the artist name. In the end its about making a name for yourself and your releases and that can just as good be done with your own label, its probably even easier as you will have total control of everything yourself. Pluss its really fun and stimulating.

How many artists had a release on a big label and then went on to create a label of their own? I think the answer would be alot. I guess you have to get raped by a label first...and then you can start your own.

Labels don't have to be a buffer to the audience. You make it that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Bayou Boy I think the answer would be alot. I guess you have to get raped by a label first...and then you can start your own.

u just know u are getting screwed in the behind when signing a 14 page contract u dont understand shit about and when asking they only say its a standard contract, dont worry about it. wish i never did that. and i did it twice and now I have to ask them each time I plan to release anything on my label with those artist-name beacuse they have options for two more releases. fuck em im just gonna make another alias.

I find labels are the best way to release music and have it heard on a large scale. It does seem pointless at times, to sign away your music for a mere 40 units sold. Most unknown artists that give tracks out for free, remain unknown. If you are a real go-getter, you might be able to bypass a label and do the promotions yourself. This would be the rare person though, who has the ability to network and hit the streets, clubs, ect.

Once you make a name for yourself through labels, then maybe you can give tracks out for free and the masses will download them. If a label or advertising company wants to liscense a track, you could get a music lawyer to deal with that.

I think we all want to be "label free", but we need labels, at least in the beginning. They are a great staring point.

Remember, a lot of the tracks you get signed will end up on the torrent sites. So if you sell 50, you can bet 100,000 will be downloaded from the torrents. It's a double edged sword, of course you don't want your tracks being pirated, but on the other hand you are getting free mass exposure. It's almost like you are giving them out for free.

quote:

Originally posted by zodiac9 Remember, a lot of the tracks you get signed will end up on the torrent sites. So if you sell 50, you can bet 100,000 will be downloaded from the torrents. It's a double edged sword, of course you don't want your tracks being pirated, but on the other hand you are getting free mass exposure. It's almost like you are giving them out for free.

this is true.. .
talking from the djing side here..

so many dj's wouldnt play the songs they play if they had to pay for everyone of them...

picture.. in a club..
a dj is playing a song he got for free of a blog ...
if the song is good ... ppl go up to the dj and ask what song it is..
write it in there phone.. download it the next day when they're scattered...

then the next week they show their friends.. listen to this song i downloaded... la la la and it goes on..
i think its GREAT for exposure..
because.. well talking from australia here...
SOOO many song wouldnt get played out if dj's had to pay for them..

this isnt just because of the money side..
heaps of songs always have that restriction shit on beatport...

Cybernetika Doesn't have a label [all his music is free], And his albums have been on bitorrent before. I wonder what that says about him? [And no, he didn't but them there]

quote:

Originally posted by johncannons1 talking from the djing side here.. so many dj's wouldnt play the songs they play if they had to pay for everyone of them...

Or you could just turn it around. If they had to pay for each and every track there would have been a lot less dj's and I would have been a gazillion times more likely to be booked and make some extra $ and have more fun in making music.

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Or you could just turn it around. If they had to pay for each and every track there would have been a lot less dj's and I would have been a gazillion times more likely to be booked and make some extra $ and have more fun in making music.

Its a bit ironic that those who actually plays the tracks and makes money playing them are the ones that are getting them legally for free.

I have a bit of insight who does receive my music for free and ironically I don't see them playing my music that often at all . I don't make really popular/mainstream music anyway.

What's even more ironic, if a dj makes a bit of money of the gig chances are he got his music illegaly. Especially if it's a local dj. In my entire circle of close friends who dj only 1 besides me gets his music from legal sources the others all download it from certain websites.

In the end you can't do much about it and I'm just being a bitch here but it's really screwed up to see so many people upholding the wrong morals when it comes to obtaining music.

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller I have a bit of insight who does receive my music for free and ironically I don't see them playing my music that often at all . I don't make really popular/mainstream music anyway. What's even more ironic, if a dj makes a bit of money of the gig chances are he got his music illegaly. In the end you can't do much about it and I'm just being a bitch here but it's really screwed up to see so many people upholding the wrong morals when it comes to obtaining music.

Its kinda like that pollution moral, everyone is throwing their garbage in the nature thinking that it doesnt harm anything since their the only ones doing it.
Personally i smile when i see my music being torrented, and smile even more if it has a good amount of downloads.
But in the long run its not good for anyone, i think alot of the best producers in the scene throughout the years stopped making music because of the low income.

quote:

heaps of songs always have that restriction shit on beatport...

This is a "minor detail" that often seems to get overlooked when discussing the business of electronic dance music. IMO "territory restrictions" just might be the #1 thing that's f*cking up this industry the most!

I read an article somewhere that said the average DJ/EDM consumer is actually more likely to buy a track instead of illegally downloading it than the average music consumer in general!

I wonder if people really realize how much more potential money there is to be made producing EDM if you just...( now here's a radical revolutionary business concept............ ready? ) LET YOUR CUSTOMERS PAY YOU FOR YOUR PRODUCT!!!

Its just amazing how so many labels spit in the face of a huge percentage of their customer base and then in the same breath complain about illegal downloads!!!

I can't think of any other industry that follows the business model of punishing the customer for having the audacity of trying to give you money for your product!!!

The most important thing to consider if you're a label and/or artist who wants to make money and not piss people off is LICENSE YOUR MUSIC in the major EDM buying countries!!! It just blows my mind that soooo many labels (who are in the business of making money) refuse to accept my hard earned money! I mean its one thing not license your music in a bunch of small obscure countries, but IMO if you're not competent enough to license your music in the US, UK, Australia, Germany etc.. then you shouldn't be in business at all in the first place!

One last thing, I think some of the blame goes to the artists too... IMO you should never sign a track to a label that refuses to accept money from certain "territories"(especially the major EDM buying countries). If you do, then as far as I'm concerned you have no right to EVER complain about your music getting illegally downloaded.

/rant

Of course territory restrictions are irritating but do you even know what you're talking about? They have nothing to do with competence of either a producer or the label.

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Of course territory restrictions are irritating but do you even know what you're talking about? They have nothing to do with competence of either a producer or the label.

they have nothing to do with the competence of a label? its the label's responsibility to license their own music right? And as far as the artist is concerned, like I said IMO they should make sure the label they are signing with isn't refusing to sell their track in the major EDM buying territories.

edit: also I would say that territory restrictions are worse than just "irritating"... its causing a lot of labels and artists(who put their heart and soul into what they do) to miss out on a lot of potential profits and alienating a large percentage of the customer base.

It's just business. Most labels that do territory resticted releases have to do so because a certain contract forces them to do so. If they could get the better end of the deal and get a global release of course they would. But that's not always that easy.

Most artists won't miss out on $ either, what's a 10er on a 100$ (which is just about what the average release makes). Of course a producer has put in heart and soul but all of them should realise there isn't any $ left in this business. Most of the times releases are territory restricted because the label involved has licensed the tracks themselves and the actual owner of the master-rights doesn't allow them to sell globally. That's just protecting part of their own investment which I would say is a thing that one would need in order to be(come) a competent company. The others just have to deal with it.

As far as saying artists are alienating their fanbase is a total non-argument. A can say I've been annoyed by territory restrictions, but only rarely. It hasn't stopped me from looking up those artists at all.

"It's just business."
what kind of business is that that punishes the customer(and the artist) for having the audacity of trying to give you money for your product!!!

"Most labels that do territory resticted releases have to do so because a certain contract forces them to do so."
no they don't have to. they can choose not to alienate a huge percentage of their customer base.

"If they could get the better end of the deal and get a global release of course they would. But that's not always that easy."
I can't think of any scenerio where a global release wouldn't be the best most profitable option.

"Most artists won't miss out on $ either, what's a 10er on a 100$ (which is just about what the average release makes)."
Yes they will miss out on $! I disagree with your premise that the average release only makes 100$ and that if the track was released globally the producer would only make an extra 10er.

"Of course a producer has put in heart and soul but all of them should realise there isn't any $ left in this business."
There is a LOT more money to be made if you would just LET THE CUSTOMER PAY FOR THE MUSIC!

"Most of the times releases are territory restricted because the label involved has licensed the tracks themselves and the actual owner of the master-rights doesn't allow them to sell globally."
doesn't the label own the master rights (and therefore control) their own music? As far as I'm concerned if a label gives up rights to their music to an entity that won't sell it globally(or at least in the major EDM buying territories/countries) then that label is incompetent (at best). Again I can't think of any scenario where a label (or any business) would make more money by selling a product to a only a small percentage of potential customers.

"That's just protecting part of their own investment which I would say is a thing that one would need in order to be(come) a competent company."
Isn't the whole idea of an investment to get the greatest return for your investment?
edit: btw, how does a label protect their investment by limiting the territories/countries they choose to release it in? what are they protecting it from?

"The others just have to deal with it."
thats a great attitude. unfortunately thats pretty consistent with many EDM labels these days...

"As far as saying artists are alienating their fanbase is a total non-argument. A can say I've been annoyed by territory restrictions, but only rarely. It hasn't stopped me from looking up those artists at all."
you've got to be kidding me. so let me get this straight... you're cool with the fact that you have to go through the hassle of searching for a way to illegally download it because you had the audacity of trying to give the label and artist money for their own track? That doesn't make you feel alienated? I know nothing pisses me off more than auditioning an amazing track I just have to have and then getting the "territory restricted" message when I try to buy it!

quote:

Originally posted by Stealth This is a "minor detail" that often seems to get overlooked when discussing the business of electronic dance music. IMO "territory restrictions" just might be the #1 thing that's f*cking up this industry the most! I read an article somewhere that said the average DJ/EDM consumer is actually more likely to buy a track instead of illegally downloading it than the average music consumer in general! I wonder if people really realize how much more potential money there is to be made producing EDM if you just...( now here's a radical revolutionary business concept............ ready? ) LET YOUR CUSTOMERS PAY YOU FOR YOUR PRODUCT!!! Its just amazing how so many labels spit in the face of a huge percentage of their customer base and then in the same breath complain about illegal downloads!!! I can't think of any other industry that follows the business model of punishing the customer for having the audacity of trying to give you money for your product!!! The most important thing to consider if you're a label and/or artist who wants to make money and not piss people off is LICENSE YOUR MUSIC in the major EDM buying countries!!! It just blows my mind that soooo many labels (who are in the business of making money) refuse to accept my hard earned money! I mean its one thing not license your music in a bunch of small obscure countries, but IMO if you're not competent enough to license your music in the US, UK, Australia, Germany etc.. then you shouldn't be in business at all in the first place! One last thing, I think some of the blame goes to the artists too... IMO you should never sign a track to a label that refuses to accept money from certain "territories"(especially the major EDM buying countries). If you do, then as far as I'm concerned you have no right to EVER complain about your music getting illegally downloaded. /rant

A lot of good points.

quote:

Originally posted by Stealth lots of words

Allthough some of your points maybe valid, it IS JUST BUSINESS. You're really incredibly naive and show little knowledge about the actual business part. .

Of course worldwide licensing is more profitable in pretty much every case. But that does not guarantee the involved parties will agree on doing so. That's the way business works. Get real, deal with it. Getting angry over this is understandable but will not get you anywhere unfortunately.

I'll take some time on this one quote below, I made clear how I feel on the others and still stand by those statements.

quote:

Isn't the whole idea of an investment to get the greatest return for your investment? edit: btw, how does a label protect their investment by limiting the territories/countries they choose to release it in? what are they protecting it from?

Example #1:
Artist
Label A signs track worldwide
Label B gets a territorial restricted license from Label A.

Label A wants to make as much as possible, so label B would likely pay either a fixed fee or a percentage based on sales.
In case of a fixed fee the artist has royalty rights over the sales from Label A as well as B or he gets a large percentage from the licensing, all parties happy.
In case it's a percentage the following would apply: label A makes more on direct sales through their own label (and thus the artist does as well!). Restricting the territory on the license for label B would ensure a significant part of the sales will run through their own label thus increasing revenue.




Example #2:
Artist
Label A signs track from artist with territory restriction on artists request.
Label B signs track from artist with terriry restriction elsewhere.

2 labels involved. Double promotion and possible double advances for the artist, possibly extra (re)mixes and extra exposure. This happens. Unfortunately this setup is quite likely to have different release dates per label, which could be counter-productive on sales or the second release could keep interest up on the track boosting it's overall sales in both territories.

Please don't answer in bold, it's really annoying and made me read only half your post

quote:

Originally posted by Theran Please don't answer in bold, it's really annoying and made me read only half your post

+1

First of all thanks for providing some real world scenarios. Speaking as a consumer and fan of EDM and as someone who eventually plans on starting a label someday I really am genuinely curious about this whole territory restriction dilemma...

quote:

Example #1: Artist Label A signs track worldwide Label B gets a territorial restricted license from Label A. Label A wants to make as much as possible, so label B would likely pay either a fixed fee or a percentage based on sales. In case of a fixed fee the artist has royalty rights over the sales from Label A as well as B or he gets a large percentage from the licensing, all parties happy. In case it's a percentage the following would apply: label A makes more on direct sales through their own label (and thus the artist does as well!). Restricting the territory on the license for label B would ensure a significant part of the sales will run through their own label thus increasing revenue.

The points I made in my previous posts don't apply to this scenerio because in "Example 1" a customer from any territory/country worldwide is actually allowed to pay $$$ to the artist and label (directly through Label A). You see my whole problem is with the labels who don't give any legal option to the consumers from certain countries to buy their music (which in my experience is 99% of labels with territory restrictions).

quote:

Example #2: Artist Label A signs track from artist with territory restriction on artists request. Label B signs track from artist with terriry restriction elsewhere. 2 labels involved. Double promotion and possible double advances for the artist, possibly extra (re)mixes and extra exposure. This happens. Unfortunately this setup is quite likely to have different release dates per label, which could be counter-productive on sales or the second release could keep interest up on the track boosting it's overall sales in both territories.

So in this scenerio would there still be some territories excluded or would all territories end up being covered by either one license or the other? I have absolutely no problem with the licensing being divided up for extra promotion and advances as long as all territories/countries are covered(or at least the major EDM buying countries). But, again my whole rant is against labels who don't give any legal option of buying their music if you happen to be in a certain territory/country...


...so I ask again to you Storyteller(sorry don't mean to pick on you) or any other label/industry person who might be reading this: how can it be more beneficial/profitable to NOT give consumers(who want to do the right thing by paying the label & artists) from certain countries any legal option to pay for the product?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.