Sell Off Music

Music Sales by Way of Digital Distribution

Pure Solo

TAGS: None

PureSolo

PureSolo.com is a site and free downloadable software that enables musicians to play along to a wide variety of professional, original and well-known music tracks, then record and share the music.

According to the press release, PureSolo.com was founded by a mixture of entrepreneurs who included ex-Goldman Sachs financiers, and a professional trumpeter who has played with everyone from Ray Charles, to Kylie, and albums like Pet Shop Boys ‘Very’ and Tina Turner’s ‘Simply The Best’.

What do you think? Are these the backing tracks you’ve been looking for? Go to the site, download the software, mess about with it - and come back and report!

______________________________

Pure Solo

Related posts

PS: There’s a bit more to this

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A campaign lobbying for blanket extension of copyright for performers produced this very effective video, which is an open letter to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Filmed at Abbey Road Studios in London, it features professional session musicians who put their case.

I happen to disagree with it - but not because I don’t want those people to earn money. I disagree with it because simply making the laws we have apply for a longer period of time overlooks one very important fact: the laws we have do not do the job they are supposed to do, and in large part the reason for that is that the technological environment has changed.

Copyright law needs to be completely re-written.
There’s no use extending laws in blanket fashion when those laws are completely faulty in the first place. Extending copyright indefinitely (which is what they’re essentially asking for) might be financially good for them (though actually it’s not as simple as that) and may satisfy their sense of entitlement for the time being, but it’s not good for culture at large.

Now, I should try and make this bit absolutely clear: If the recordings are being used for commercial purposes, then I have no problem with those artists being paid.

I’ve explained this at length in the past. I’ve been willfully misunderstood and misrepresented on that point, and I suspect I will be here again too - but such is life. That said, I’ll try again:

I am on the side of the musicians in this video. I want for them to continue to earn money - and I think that, for the most part, they should earn more than they currently do. I believe that the argument they are mounting misrepresents the actual problem of copyright, undermines their actual goals, and is bad for culture, society and music in general.

I am not anti-copyright. I think it is so important that to merely patch and extend as they suggest is to reinforce all of the inherent problems it currently has. However, when you’re considering a position from the point of view of personal financial gain, but arguing it from the point of view of morality and fairness, its very easy to dismiss alternative positions as outrageous and unfair.

So - to clarify - let me highlight THREE problems here:

1) This plea from musicians is not about copyright extension. This is about BLANKET copyright extension. It would apply to all recordings whether they are commercially available or not. Copyright is about permission. This extension would further prevent permission to use the works even being sought (let alone being granted) in the case of MOST music.

2) Existing copyright law fails to recognise and indeed criminalises many of the kinds of activity that many people - predominantly young people - use internet technologies for. Existing copyright is digital media illiterate. I refer you to this video for further explanation.

3) Copyright extension fails to recognise that most recorded works are not available to the public in any way. It privileges only those musicians whose works are currently commercially available, and does not in any way consider what’s good for culture and the general public.

So - it’s one thing to say ‘I spent an afternoon playing guitar on a Mannfred Mann song one day 45 years ago, and I think I should still be earning for that afternoon’s work in 50 years time’ (which, actually, I’m more than fine with) but quite another to lock ALL music up for 100 years and make it illegal to do anything with it (sampling, remixing, mash-ups, re-issues of public domain works) regardless of whether people are actively earning from it or not.

Saying no to blanket copyright extension is just the first step.

It’s not a refusal to let these people earn. It’s an admission that our existing copyright laws don’t work and that public access to culture is important too. But it’s no good leaving it there. This just affirms the status quo.

The next step is copyright reform
Rewrite the laws from scratch to acknowledge and respect the rights and responsibilities of composers, performers, publishers, record labels, consumers and - most importantly - citizens.

One of the musicians invokes Obama in the plea to Brown. I think they’re in for a surprise there. Of all the leaders of state making decisions about this over the next few years, Obama seems most likely to recognise the full extent of the issue and instigate a genuine review of copyright law - rather than merely make the old, problematic laws we do have apply for a much longer period of time.

So yes, Mr Brown. Please do consider the rights and the earning capacity of these professional musicians. But please don’t ignore everything and everyone else and end up locking down culture indefinitely in the process.

Thanks to Andrew Cowie for sending me the video link.

______________________________

PS: There’s a bit more to this

Related posts

When should I put my music online?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are so many musicians putting their music on the internet these days. Some of them are consummate professionals who have high production values and years of experience and practice behind them. Some are posting YouTube Videos entitled Me, Learning to Play the Guitar - Day 2.

Prior to the internet, the finished recording was the minimum standard for releasing material to the general public via media platforms. You could always take your guitar into the street and play it at passers-by, but if you wanted people to hear your music in their living rooms, there was an automatic selection process and fairly stringent entry criteria.

Punk taught us that you don’t need to be a virtuoso to play music to other people. But with no real barriers to access to a lot of musicians getting their stuff out there (and, let’s be honest, some truly awful stuff out there) - how do you know when to start letting people hear what you’re working on?

As usual - it depends
There can be a strong case made that encourages musicians to let audiences get a glimpse behind the curtain and see the music in development. Songs that spring up partially formed can be worked into full-blown masterpieces in full view of the public eye.

I would suggest that this is actually a great strategy on one condition: that you have a confidence in your professional ability (and, preferably, a track record) as a creator of music that other people want to listen to.

Beginners
Now, let me not discourage you from posting your early experiments up on YouTube. If you’re just starting out, getting to see yourself play, and showing others can really help - but by God, you’re going to need a thick skin. YouTube commentators can be a vicious, unforgiving, nasty, and frequently illiterate bunch.

Do not expect constructive criticism and enthusiastic support, as a rule. You may well get that, but it will generally be interspersed between dismissive remarks by people who, it must be said, do not have your creative path and artistic personal development at heart.

Pros
Hey - why the hell not? Refer back to my earlier post about creating narrative and character development. The story behind an album can be a really interesting journey (assuming you edit out all the long hours in the studio trying to get the right kick drum sound). If audiences can get a taste of how something comes together, it can be a really interesting way to engage with the record and start to have some sort of emotional stake in its successful fruition.

Of course, this is fraught with difficulty. People can get attached to earlier, acoustic versions of songs that they may think have been ‘over-produced’ in the studio. It can also be very difficult revealing that much of yourself in the process. But it is something to consider.

By and large, the answer to ‘When should I let people hear my music?’ is when you’re ready. That may or may not be when the music is crystallised into its final, idealised form. That’s entirely up to you… and I suspect that opinions may diverge on this.

What do you think?

______________________________

When should I put my music online?

Related posts

What’s a Netlabel?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

records

There seem to be three main approaches that independent artists take to the idea of record labels these days.

The first is that record labels are the best way to get your music out to the public. The internet is all well and good, and we are in favour of it, but people in record labels know what they are doing, they understand marketing, they have things like connections, promotion strategies, radio pluggers, PR, graphic design, branding, distribution, chart registration, barcodes, licensing, finance, and deals on pressing all sorted out. We’re going with them. 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

The second is that we live in a post-label world. We are all about DIY. There may be artists signed to record labels and that’s fine for them, I suppose… but this is a brave new era and we’re going to self-release. We’re not unsigned - we’re independent. We have all of the tools at our disposal to record, release, distribute, promote and make money from our music on our own terms, beholden to nobody, keeping all of the intellectual property and making all of the profits ourselves. We’ll do it on a tight budget, but we’ll do it because we are empowered to do so.

The third can be broadly categorised thus: We’re going to release through a Netlabel. As soon as we can figure out what a Netlabel is, that’s what we’re going to do.

There’s no such thing as a Netlabel
While there are quite a few organisations that call themselves Netlabels, by and large there is very little consistency between them in terms of what roles, functions and tasks they fulfill. Nor is there much in the way of consistency in terms of the terms and contracts.

There are some organisations calling themselves netlabels that simply act as middlemen between you and a digital aggregator like The Orchard or IODA. Some of them add little more than an unnecessary fee, and an unfair percentage cut for doing something your drummer could have done in half an hour and a link to TuneCore.

There are other netlabels with a significant roster of other artists that bear a strong connection to your music, and with whom it would make sense to be grouped. These labels are frequently run by people who are very good at marketing, know all the ins and outs of online publicity and PR, and can work out a deal that gets your music to the right people, without taking you to the cleaners in the process.

But in effect, what most netlabels will offer you is an alternative - frequently a more accessible one - to having somebody do most of unpleasant, difficult or baffling administrative aspects of releasing a recording - and they will tend in most instances to only release digitally (though, of course, some netlabels do actually release CD and vinyl - go figure).

Netlabels and copyright
Some netlabels are what you might call ‘progressive’ in terms of their approach to copyright. Some embrace Creative Commons licences. Others will encourage you to make your music available for free under certain conditions. Still more will take a much more traditional stance on copyright, but may divide royalties up in a much different way to that which you might expect from traditional labels.

Some netlabels even refuse outright to take any ownership in the master recordings, whether or not they fund the making of the tracks. Often, these labels will simply recoup their costs first, split the remaining proceeds 50/50 and let you keep the masters.

By and large, that’s a pretty good deal. Keeping ownership of the recording means you’ll have an asset at the end of all this.

Netlabels are streamlined businesses
Personally, I’ve never actually understood how record labels have been allowed to own the masters. It’s a bit like going to a bank to borrow money to buy a car, paying back the loan, and then the bank owns the car. As far as I can tell, there is no other industry that works this way.

I know why record labels do that - I just don’t really know how this has become an accepted reality.

However, it’s fair to say that traditional (that is, physical) record releases require high fixed costs at the outset, followed by comparatively small marginal and ongoing costs. Digital-only releases, by contrast, require much lower initial fixed costs (especially if you’re bringing them a finished product), and near-zero marginal costs.

The only real costs of putting out a record via a netlabel is the cost of actually doing business. Hosting, electricity, wages (if such things are paid), marketing costs, administrative costs, and so on. It’s not free by any stretch - but nor are you manufacturing, pressing, printing, assembling, storing, shipping, or dealing with returns and over-runs.

So - all going well, what you’re getting from a netlabel is brand association and expertise. If the brand is known to be strong in a particular area (and it’s one that suits you) and if they have expertise that will help you use your recordings to make money (which may or may not be the same thing as selling recordings), then a netlabel may well be good option.

It is, of course, important to understand what you’re agreeing to before you sign anything. If you don’t get proper, qualified legal advice before signing a record deal - even with a netlabel, even (perhaps especially) if it’s just a matter of ticking a box on an online form… then you’re a bloody idiot.

______________________________

What’s a Netlabel?

Related posts

MP3 Insider 125: New Zune news

Tags: , , ,

Enter our MP3 Insider contest to win a new 120GB Zune (Gears of War 2 Edition), courtesy of Microsoft.(Credit: Donald Bell/CNET Networks) Donald and Jasmine discuss Zune price drops and a Zune Pass deal that may put some pressure on other...

-

Related posts

Last.fm Artist Royalty Details

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Last.fm banner

A disclaimer: Although I often write about how much money my band receives from various digital retailers and subscription services, I sincerely hope it doesn't come off as tacky or an obsession with my music "income." The actual dollar amount is usually small enough that it's an academic discussion at best.

Our first statement from Last.fm's artist royalty program definitely falls into the "interesting numbers but not a significant amount" category: For the third quarter of 2008, we received less than one dollar. However, we're only collecting "on demand" royalties directly from Last.fm for a three-song Christmas EP, which was definitely out of season during the second quarter of the year. CD Baby delivered our first two albums to Last.fm, so any on demand royalties for those tracks will appear in our CD Baby account. While CD Baby takes 9% cut from those royalties, it reportedly negotiated a higher royalty rate, enough so that artists will receive more that they would directly from Last.fm. (I'll post those details as soon as I see them.)

Last.fm pays royalties for two types of online plays -- on demand plays of individual tracks and a digital performance royalty for radio plays. The latter is the royalty collected (in the U.S.) by SoundExchange, so it's only paid directly to artists who haven't signed up with SoundExchange. Plays by Last.fm members of their own digital files or CDs are included in the totals plays for each artist, but they obviously don't result in any royalty income.

Here's what the numbers looked like for our third quarter report:

Free on demand: 0.5 cents per stream

Premium on demand: no royalties received

Premium radio: 0.1 cents per stream

Free radio: .057 cents per stream
The details:

On-demand plays: Last.fm pays out separate rates for free on-demand plays and premium on-demand plays (by subscribers). Last.fm's FAQs stipulates a payment of 30% of net ad revenue for each free on-demand play. We received 1/2 a cent for each play, which implies that Last.fm is receiving 1.67 cents in net ad revenue per play, though there's no way to be certain if that's the actual amount. Last.fm could be paying more than 30% to boost the artist payout level, if it believed that 30% of the actual ad revenue was an insufficient amount to keep artists/labels in the program. There were no premium on-demand plays for us in this statement. (We actually received the stipulated payment for premium on-demand plays for our free on-demand plays, so maybe Last.fm is using that amount as a minimum payout rate...)

Radio plays are paid at two levels -- premium radio (paid Last.fm subscribers) and free:

Premium radio: Last.fm promises the greater of 10% of net ad revenue or 1/20th of a cent for each premium radio play. We received 1/10th of a cent for each premium radio play, which would translate into net ad revenue equal to one cent for each radio play.

Regular radio: For our free radio plays, we received .057 cents per play -- a little more than 1/20 of a cent. Last.fm promises a 30% cut of the net ad revenue for these plays, implying net ad revenue of .19 cent per track. Again, though, it's certainly possible that Last.fm chose to pay out more than the required minimums.

tags:

Related posts

Microsoft Takes Aim at Apple with Zune Price Cuts, Software Push

TAGS: None

Microsoft cuts Zune prices and pushes Zune 3.0 software for PCs as part of its Holiday 2008 marketing strategy

This holiday season, Microsoft is taking aim at arch-rival Apple's iPod - and its companion iTunes software. This week, Microsoft cut the retail prices on 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB Zunes as well as on the Car Pack, Home/AV Pack, and Dock Pack. With the 8GB Zune now selling for $139 (was $149) and the 16GB model now selling for $179 (was $199), Microsoft is undercutting the price of comparable Nanos by $10 (8GB) and by $20 (16GB). The 4GB Zune anchors the lineup at $99, down $30 from its old price.

The Car Pack now sells for $69 (was $79), but the Home/AV Pack, also formerly $79, is now just $59. The Dock Pack is also cheaper at $39 (was $49).

To help PC users get more interested in Zune hardware, Microsoft has borrowed a page from Apple's use of its iTunes software to drive customers to iPods. In a new video ad, Microsoft plays up the Zune's PC software companion, Zune 3.0.

Will Microsoft's one-two hardware-software combination be enough to make significant inroads into Apple's market dominance? Only Black Friday and the rest of the holiday shopping season will tell.

What do you want under your Christmas tree? An iPod, a Zune, or a third-party media player? Hit Comment and tell us what's on your wish list. 

Related posts

MP3 Insider 124: From firmware to concepts

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A new firmware update to the Zune allows you to indulge in two-player games by linking two Zunes over Wi-Fi. Donald and Jasmine discuss the latest Zune firmware, as well as their opinions on the current state of Bluetooth technology. Also this...

-

Related posts

Monday Odds and Ends: Lala, Verizon, and an Innovative Pre-Sale

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The very first payouts from Lala.com showed up in our CD Baby account last week. We received 1/2 a cent per stream after CD Baby's 9% cut, meaning Lala paid out about .55 cents per stream. That's slightly more than we received for free "on demand" streams from Last.fm. (Look for a detailed post on Last.fm royalties later this week.) No revenues have shown up yet for Lala's 10-cent web songs, however.

We also had our very first Verizon sales (one song, that is!), which paid out at 85 cents, before CD Baby's commission. No indication here if the purchase was online or a wireless phone purchase.

And Chicago's Umphrey's McGee is conducting a fairly successful pre-sale campaign for its next album, due in January. The interesting twist here is that they're giving fans a reason to encourage others to buy the presale. From band manager Vincent Iwinski:
The gist of the concept: We give away more free content the more pre-orders we receive. The fans "unlock" levels of content by getting more fans to pre-order. The goal is to give the fans incentive to spread the word, post our widget on their Myspace and Facebook pages, blogs, etc. In just over a week, we've sold out of our 1000 deluxe packages, and have taken more pre-orders than any release in our 11 years as a band.
More details here.

tags:

Related posts

Is localism important?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Swn

As part of Swn Festival (pronounced ‘Soon’) in Cardiff this weekend, I was on a panel discussing independent and DIY music business in the digital age. One of the questions asked (and it comes up a lot) was about whether localism and local scenes still play an important role in music.

It had been a very orderly and polite seminar up until that moment, and so when the music-manager-for-bands-you’ve-heard-of answered in the negative, citing the globalising impact of the internet as his evidence, I took the opportunity to be a bit provocative, and piped up with “you’re very wrong”.

But before I get to my main point, I’d like to tell three short stories of recent live music events and how a little bit of local knowledge changes everything.

1) Here we are - where is everyone?
A band from my homeland of New Zealand turned up to play in Birmingham. Amazing band, amazing gig and they put on a show that would have delighted a stadium, a festival or a packed large venue.

The venue capacity was only a few hundred - and there was something like 60 people in the audience.

All of them had a great time - but it could have been much better with a big crowd in the room.

Now, I have to say - this band really appreciated their crowd, thanked them (especially the Brits) for turning up to support them - shared their bottle of vodka from the front of the stage and gave their all. It was superb showmanship all around, but in the grand scheme of things, it was mostly hidden from view.

The point is that this was not a failure of marketing and promotion - but the lack of one important piece of information that only a local could really have told them.

They are not a band for an inner-city venue in Birmingham. They belong in Kings Heath - a smallish village in South Birmingham, but with massive support for bands of this ilk. A night at the Hare and Hounds would have been utterly packed to the rafters, well supported, profitable and laser-accurately targeted.

It would also have started a buzz about this band that would have spread like wildfire through the city.

2) Where are we everyone?
As it happens, another band from my homeland of New Zealand played in Birmingham the following night. These guys are far more established internationally and are pretty much guaranteed to pack out any venue you care to put them in throughout Europe.

There’s a gag that our fellow countrymen Flight of the Conchords use in their live performances. In front of a packed theatre crowd, Jemaine calls out “Good evening…” (looks at the back of his guitar) “…New York!”

That’s kind of funny, right? Sadly, this particular band didn’t take those precautionary steps - and addressed the Birmingham crowd as ‘Hello Bristol!” (yikes…).

We’re a forgiving lot, us Brummies - but some towns would have taken great offense at such a slight. I mean - easy mistake to make when you’re touring the world playing venue after venue, night after night - but not a good mistake to make. Like calling out the wrong name during sex - only, y’know, in a live music situation.

Even when you’re in venue after venue, night after night - the simple fact is that to everyone facing towards the stage, this is the one concert they’re attending. It has to feel like the most important night of the tour - the favourite city.

3) Here we are, everyone!
I attended the Swn Festival in Cardiff, Wales this weekend. A lot of bands I’d never heard of. A couple I had. Some good, some great and some really amazing.

But the ones who really made a mark were not necessarily the most competent or most polished bands. In fact, one of my favourites were a teen punk band that just threw everything they had at what they did (watch out for The Stilletoes).

But equally, there were some acts who turned up, knew they were buzz of the industry and played to rooms full of scene kids and A&R men. And good on them. But they were just doing what they do.

And then there were the bands who weren’t just performing - they were performing in Cardiff.

English bands who learned how to say ‘Good evening Cardiff!’ (Noswaith dda Caerdydd!) or ‘thanks very much!’ (diolch yn fawr iawn!) in Cymraeg. Bands that made local references in their banter. Bands that had clearly been working the local fanbase through their MySpace, website, mailing list and contacts.

And then there were the bands who won the crowd over with their unique brand of Welsh-ness.

Derwyddon Dr Gonzo - a nine-piece ska/afrobeat/klezmer/funk band primarily consisting of a horn section, and singing exclusively in the Welsh language - were clear crowd favourites. I’m hoping to see them at festivals further afield.

The music is universal - but the band is part of a local pride and a local scene (supported by local radio, which is important - but that’s a rant for another day) that guarantees an enthusiastic and grateful crowd that blows us out-of-towners away.

And that’s significant - because besides the local residents, music lovers and gig-goers - city festivals like Swn also draw influential music industry types from elsewhere (in this case, notably, London).

Is localism important?
People make sense of music in a number of different ways. Of course, genre is important. But music is also often tribal: clothing, piercings, the bars you go to - all of these things speak to identity. See a teenager on the street, and you’re likely to be able to take a decent guess about what they have on in their headphones.

And scenes develop in places. Just as the South Birmingham scene I mention in my first example embraces a mix of reggae, soul, funk, hip hop, and related genres of music, other areas of the city organise around different sorts of music - without being restricted to a specific single genre.

Music - particularly (though not exclusively) live music - is a social affair. People share tastes, they see each other at the same events and start to develop friendships - or at least that kind of recognition that says ‘you’re one of us’. Scenes have opinion leaders and taste makers, focal points (eg: particular venues and record stores) that may not be immediately obvious to the outsider.

Audiences are not large numbers of individuals that act individually - they are groups of people that act as groups. Understand them, treat them well - become part of them - and they will be a far more powerful support and advocate than any single ‘user’.

Moral of the story: If you have, or are part of, a local music scene - feed it. Make it a key part of your activities, and the backbone of your outreach as a music enterprise.

If you are going to another town, make an effort to learn about local scenes. Do a bit of research. Find record labels, independent record stores, other artists that may be able to offer advice and insider tips that will help you understand the unique characteristics of the town you’re turning up in.

Tune your performance to the local scene. Get some local knowledge behind you - a spot of language, a point of local pride or topical item to drop into your banter. Anything that will make the audience get that you care.

Appeal to the group’s sense of its own scene - and you’ll make a lasting impression on whatever town you find yourself in.

And yes, of course you can use the internet to do this sort of research and make these kinds of connections. That is what it’s there for.

______________________________

Is localism important?

Related posts