CD Prices

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by SuperNova *
World Eater, obviously it is difficult for artists to get notices initially, especially without a record label.

Agreed.

**

However, I maintain that established artists can succeed without one. I don’t know how good this comparision is, but I think it is sort of like NBA player Ray Allen working right now without an agent. He still gets endorsments and a great contract. But he has only a few lawyers handled to work the details, and doesn’t fork over 10 Million to an agent every year. Now more of the well-established players are following his lead**

Sure, just keep in mind that many agents would most likely get a better deal then the player themselves. I do agree with the general idea of what you are saying here though.

**

I just think there needs to be a band to be the first to try it. No one is willing to take the chance. But any band with a set fan base would still be able to succeed without a record label.**

But established people are doing it. As I mentioned before, Pearl Jam and Prince have recently broken free of industry shackles. IIRC Hootie did as well. None of them are doing too well from a records sold standpoint, which doesn’t mean you need a label to do well, but it makes you think.

**

As for your comment about starving artists seeking a record label to get noticed, I am forced to disagree. I know my local music pretty well. Many artists that sign with labels never become popular. **

I’m talking about getting noticed on an international level, not locally in Cleveland or something.

**

However, there are many local bands in my area that have acquired a pretty impressive following. **

Actually to get signed by a label, you need to have a fairly decent local fan base already. Pretty much everyband that gets signed has to play a “showcase” for the label, and packing the house is very important. Labels will rarely invest in someone no one has heard of.

**

The biggest question is whether this can translate into national success without a label, and that’s a question I can’t answer. No bands have succeeded at it, but I don’t know any who’ve really tried. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done. **

National success without a label? Possibly, but why?

If you are so popular that you are making huge waves and wouldn’t need a label, well, that’s fantastic. However mixing that popularity with the promotional might of a label may even be a better deal. In fact, it may be such a good deal that you will still come out better (even with the label screwing you in many ways) then if you went at it alone. Take for example Korn. Korn basically drove around the country for a year, playing anywhere they could and selling their CDs out of the back of their van. They played anywhere they could, and slowly built up a national fanbase, and after grinding away on the road for over a year, they were creating a buzz. Finally some smart label swooped in, snatched them up, and well, the rest is history.

Now should Korn have stayed independent? Who the hell knows? By signing with the label they gained promotion, financial support, and industry contacts. If they had stayed independent, they would have complete control of their ship, and less fingers in the pot. If I was in their shoes I would have done the same thing and signed with the label.

It’s like a good college basketball player vs a good NBA player.

Regional recognition vs international recognition

**

And finally, Jackson’s 30 million to record an album is a VERY extreme example. Recording studios aren’t that expensive to rent. I know, because I know people in bands who have recorded their own CDs. And fairly high quality. For under 5K. I would guess even higher end studios wouldn’t be far more than 30-40K. The technology is getting cheaper and cheaper. **

Yes, MJ was unique. Sure, the cost of recording is getting cheaper, but the recording studios are generally charging the same. (the same studio isn’t charging less every year as better equipment gets cheaper). Plus, producers like P Diddy, Dre, and the Neptunes ain’t getting any cheaper.

[erislover]

I do everything in my power to only support indie bands and local music stores. First, because I think the music is better, but second, because I don’t think art + big business = good idea.

I remember dropping Def Leppard like a stone the first time I heard the Misfits. I had no idea you could do that with music. Songs could be about anything, and they could sound any way the musician wanted them to. By them only appealing to smaller fanbases you are pretty much guaranteed to find music that directly appeals to you, and the few that are like you, rather than a much broader but less substantial appeal.

Now, hey, I love pop music, light rock, etc. I just plain old love music (no country or rap, please). But I respect indie, even indie pop which in some cases has shown me a depth I didn’t think was possible in pop music, lyrically or musically.

If not for illegal copying over the years, I would never, ever have heard any of these bands. I do delete mp3s of music I don’t own and don’t intend to. I do make purchases based on the music I’ve illegally obtained.

Music is not a normal commodity, so analogies to various market forces at work are not always appropriate. There’s no window shopping. Without big business, there is only word of mouth, private exhibition, and illegal copying. I’ve noticed some indie bands just putting their mp3s up at their website. A local favorite of mine Mistle Thrush has entire albums up for grabs. They want you to hear their music, they want you to purchase the CDs, they want you to come to their shows.

Good for them. Will they ever be “big”? Probably not, at least not without “selling out” (a term I don’t agree with ever) and changing their sound. But can they make excellent music? Well, to these ears it sounds so.

My advice: buy from the label. If the label’s prices aren’t that cheap, you’re probably not getting what you’re paying for, and instead are simply contributing to advertisement.