I already feel kinda sick spending half of this morning defending
digital music for DJs.. but, anyway...
In regard to memory and recognition of objects - I would imagine
that the
more factors you have to help with recall the better.
You don't have time for auditory so we pretty much have only some
sort of
visual recognition to rely on.
Symbols (artwork/logos, etc), colour (artwork, center labels,
etc.), and
text all help
I'm not a neurologist but I'd assume that the more "flags" you are
given to
use as tools of memory the easier and faster, an possibly more,
recall you
will have
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
plenty of artwork that either misses the mark, or perhaps
"incorrectly" allows for judging a book by its cover. Either because
of age, limited resources, or general disregard for design /
marketing / packaging; some people care more about it than others.
There's plenty of labels that have succeeded by merit of it's cover
art [sometimes alone], and those who have done the least amount of
work as possible [4th generation photocopies from some crap at
Kinko's] that have music that'd run circles around the highest
designed sleeves.
Which might be better suited in a design gallery, the pages of Grafik
[as they usually are] or an Art Director's Club book. I've bought
records just on the merit of their covers alone, only to find that's
it's not worth playing the record anyway..
The lack of attention to these things becomes the aesthetic; non-
design becomes a form of design. Why fetishize over these things when
our previous argument was about the "sound of vinyl" -- clearly a
stronger argument than "liking the pretty [ugly] pictures"..
If you've seen Titonton, you know that he has a disregard for both
the record sleeves and "quality", if we define it as "superior
fidelity, scratch-free" vinyl quality; He hasn't a record cover in
his bag, and rarely has any paper sleeves either; only going by
paper labels alone; not to mention that everything is so incredibly
scratched, that the quality gain from playing vinyl is deteriorated
by playing records with scratches, pops, and diminished high-
frequencies..
On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Benoît Pueyo wrote:
Currently involved in a (free) netlabel, I have in focus to launch its
vinyl brother.
My initial concept was to sell music on the web and provide (for free)
the vinyl copy to the 500 first ones that have bought the EP in mp3.
After having talked with some professionnals the main issue is that an
online mp3 store wont give you the IDs of the buyers and their
address,
as for them keeping secret all this data is very important for their
business.
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..
But that's not the point of your dicussion, as you were asking for
economical issues. The cost of a record is about 2€ / 2.5 €
depending on
manufacturer+mastering price / quality for around 500 copies. So
theoritically it is economically possible to press some records once
sold the same amount of 'digitial record' meaning at least 2 tracks /
record @ 2 € each one.
This business model has its limit when :
- The label / the artists wanna earn money. This may be important for
'prfessionnals'.
#1 most heated topic;
Labels: want / need to make their money off artists' sales; whether
it be via digitally or physical sales; licensing, or touring; labels
have no business if there's no artists making them money.. view the
relationships of Warp and Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Autechre, etc;
they have other avenues to peddle their music, but Warp stands behind
their decisions as artists and both benefit greatly from the
situation; same with Ghostly and Matthew Dear; I think the label's
commitment to Matthew shows in his publicity and ubiquity with the
press and fans; if Matthew wasn't around, it might be a different story.
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
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
still around and that you are available to DJ / play live, or do
remixes.
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.
Many artists that I know say that at this point, it really is about
"by any means necessary" -- whether you sell vinyl, CDs, MP3s,
licensing, touring, remixing. Thankfully I make a living doing
something else; but if I were running a label, with average sales of
600 to maybe even 5,000 units, I couldn't afford to live in NY,
London, Paris, Tokyo, etc.. without using a career as a full time DJ
or producer / remixer for hire to make ends meet.
So what happens to the new talent you just signed for your startup
small / net label? Think they are going to be happy with a "pat on
the back, here's your check for $83 from Beatport"? Doubt it. [and
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.
If your audience isn't behind you [and they often aren't, despite
what you'd love to believe], you have consider selling tracks for
videogames, commercials, ringtones, etc.. effectively making this
music a part of everyday life.
Unfortunately, having it on vinyl isn't really supplementing one's
career as a musician. We're in the business of making music; not
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,
or even closes down; the artist is the one in the end that gets
screwed the most. They probably won't recoup their advance, if they
got one, and the label might hold them accountable for their losses.
Digital distribution, thankfully allows for a more just way to pay
artists without a physical cost [just costs associated with hosting +
storage which is pittance compared to vinyl lacquer pressing +
manufacturing]. As we know file sharing is a problem, but there's
also the fact that you could make a vinyl / CD rip and then sell your
vinyl or CDs; how many people have done that since getting an iPod?
Maybe for once the medium is commensurate with the content; as
disposable as some music can be, the need for pressing vinyl may beg
the question, Is it worth it anyway?
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]
music as a soundtrack, than just "another" 12" that's hot this month
and shelved next month..
but that's another story..
+odd
--
- Most of the distribs are not interested in small selling labels and
have really bad money deals with them. So 'do it yourself' sounds
to be
the best (or knowing some trustable distrib).
- Sending yourself records can be very expansive, like 2 to 10 € a
single record (depending on location and service). Which makes the
model
reliable when having sold more than said above and sending at cheapest
price. Otherwise you can sell the pressed records, to other people
that
have bought mp3s, but that needs some demand (over 500 digital +
500 vinyl).
Conclusion: first thing is to sell over 500 on the web. This is not
reached at all by most of the ones I know... (Probably the 'big' like
M-nus and otehr do taht, but selling vinyl was not their problem
anyways...)
my two (euro) cents =)
--
Benoît.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Regarding this - and slightly diverting the topic - for those that
work
at/operate/own labels or sell your music via download (and forgive
me for
being ignorant/naive about this)
does the sale of downloads ever generate enough revenue to allow
you to
press up limited numbers of vinyl?
I would imagine we would see more limited (500+/-) copies of download
releases in order to:
1) satisfy some of the vinyl enthusiasts
and
2) create a collectable artifact
and
3) kick it old skool for us Luddites
I know that some of the income from the download sales have to go
to things
like web/server maintenance and general artist income
but you upload a tune and it can sit there forever generating
sales without
using physical resources
I could imagine that some of that could be turned around into
dazzling runs
of 250 red and purple marbled reverse cut double grooved vinyl
with full
colour triple gatefold die-cut sleeves and a poster and iron on
patches to
boot ;-)
is this the way techno/house/etc labels are operating now?
MEK
