Tuesday February 9, 2010
I've got some shocking news for you today - "deal" is not a dirty word. All a deal is a work/money exchange agreement, and, even in the music industry, people deserve to be paid for the work they do. In other words, if you're a musician, contrary to the impression you might sometimes get, everyone who asks you to pay them for working on your music is not trying to hustle you or spirit away all of your rights.
On the other hand, some deals are JUST like that. Some deals are very cynical and calculated rights grabs, and other deals are just kind of ridiculously overpriced non-opportunities created by people who have no hope of pulling off what they're advertising (heck, half the time what they're advertising is just plain old impossible).
It isn't just musicians who get taken by bad deals, either. Many a label has gotten caught up in a really bad distribution deal, many a manager has been dumped by a band on the cusp of the payoff of years of hard word, many a promoter has been left holding the bag when a band bails - you get the picture.
The best any of us can do is to try to be reasonable with our expectations, fair in the deals we pitch to our colleagues - and to demand the same for ourselves. To that end, do you know a good opportunity versus a bad deal when it comes your way? Here are a few scenarios to consider. Have a few of your own to share? Have at it!
Related Articles:
Monday February 8, 2010
Booking a tour is a balancing act of dates, geography, finances and must-hit destinations. That last one - deciding WHERE you should tour - is not always easy. Sometimes, there may be obvious answers - you've got a label in city A or you know you have a decent fanbase in city B - but other times, there's nothing really pushing you in one direction or the other. In the latter case, you want to consider things like cities with venues that are friendly to out of town, small touring acts (maybe some place you can land a gig swap) and of course where can you reasonably afford to travel without this little tour sending you into years of debt.
That last point is an important one - and not only because going way, way over budget on a tour will leave you with little extra cash to spend on other things like promotion, rehearsal space, etc. Consider, for instance, a California band who wants to play Savannah, GA. They may go to Savannah and have the show of their lives. However, the further you travel from your home court, the more expensive touring becomes. Travel expenses increase, accommodation and incidental expenses increase - it adds up fast. When you are at the stage when you're getting paid very little to play and may even end up out of pocket at the end of your tour, it is very difficult to effectively take advantage of these far afield audiences. Realistically, by the time the CA band could afford to hit the East Coast again, the audience that loved them the first time will have moved on. Sure, the internet helps make the world a smaller place, and they could work really hard with their net presence keeping those Georgia fans interested, but in terms of bang for your touring buck, the internet is a poor substitute for building a regional following on the back of mini-tours you can afford to repeat again and again.
What else should you keep in mind when choosing cities for a tour? Find out.
Related Articles
Sunday February 7, 2010
- So, ASCAP decides to a sue a pub Manhattan, decides that it is Bruce Springsteen that the pub is ripping off and goes ahead and names him as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. And you know, since Bruce Springsteen is so busy and all, they decided that they wouldn't bother him with the whole messy affair and go ahead and act on his behalf in a lawsuit without his knowledge. Cue newspaper headlines about big, mean Bruce Springsteen suing a little Irish pub. Cue Bruce Springsteen finding out through the press that he is suing said pub. Cue Bruce Springsteen releasing an angry statement about ASCAP and making it clear that he had zero involvement in this lawsuit, and if they would have asked him, he would have said no. He also demanded to have his name removed from the lawsuit. ASCAP, this is just getting embarrassing. Get more from Techdirt. (If you are an ASCAP member, you must be wondering who you've sued lately by now.)
- Despite seeing their musical fortunes recover just a little bit, EMI has reported a whopping $2.4 billion dollar loss. They need $160 million pronto, or they're going to default on their loan. How can they be so far in the whole when their music division actually saw profits rise? Well, according to Hypebot, it is simply that the private equity firm that bought the lable paid waaaaaaaaay too much for it. Read more.
- "Let's try cutting album lengths in half and call it a Six Pak- you know, like beer, but with no "c", because it's cool!" I am trying to imagine the conversation at Warner that led to this idea. I mean, fair enough, but don't we already have shorter albums? Aren't they called EPs? Well, I'll guess we'll see how this goes. My prediction - not particularly well.
- I just plain old love this article by Sa'id on BeatTips about modern beat makers failing to dig through the treasure trove of music past for inspiration. Great stuff - check it out.
- The Pop Tarts Tumblr page collected a series of tweets with advice for both music PR people and music journalists. Great (and funny) stuff all around. Definitely worth a read.
Friday February 5, 2010
Let's talk some basics today - licensing versus distribution. Now, the word "licensing" can have a few different applications in the music realm, but let's take it in the sense of licensing as a flipside/alternative to getting a distribution deal.
First, you're right - digital distribution options like Tunecore make a lot of these considerations outdated for many musicians. If you've got physical product, however, this is something you will want to understand. Plus, as your career progresses - well, you just never know. It pays to be informed, as they say (someone says that, right? It sounds like something "they" would say.)
So then, caveats cleared up - licensing versus distribution. You've got distribution for your music in the US. You want your music to be distributed in the UK (for example). What do you do? Do you try to establish a distribution relationship with a partner there? Or do you try to license your music to another label there? Licensing the music essentially means that for a flat fee, that label acts as THE label for the release in that territory. They get distribution, they handle promotion, etc, etc.
There are pros and cons to each approach. If the music is a big hit in that territory, distribution could potentially be more lucrative than licensing. On the other hand, a licensing partner likely knows their territory better than you do, so they are in a better position to make things happen. Deciding which one is right for you is more of an art than a science and depends very much on your resources, your knowledge of a territory, your cashflow needs - to name but a few considerations. Learn more about licensing versus distribution and the pros and cons of each.
Related Articles:
