"Bono calls for control over internet downloads"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yeah, you don't know much about labels do you? Loans come with interest and monthly payments, labels come with advances, PR, access to equipment, etc...


So why did they sign? Yes the Artic Monkeys are the exceptions, there are exceptions to every rule, but think about that for awhile, look at whatever industry you work for, do you want the exception to become the rule? Most of the time, not... They had big support by the BBC, would a band in the states have the same forum? I can't think of one.

I'm well aware of what record companies offer, and it isn't generally the rosy picture you paint. Advances need to be paid back and to do so normally takes almost all of the income derived from selling music until the debt is paid. Paying back a loan at least gives you the option of paying it back while earning, a record company advance immediately cedes control of all money earned through selling music to the record company, who'll give you some once your debt is paid. Really, what's better especially now that record companies are getting very interested in the live performance rights of bands (so they'll be able to sequester that income as well)?

The Arctic Monkeys signed because they managed to get a fantastic deal, a deal that almost no other unsigned band could get, one that allowed them to keep their publishing rights. There's not that many other bands out there following the same route, because the lure of 'easy' money is too great, most bands get to a certain size, the record companies get wind offer them easy 'money' which they take to grow quickly. I reckon a few could take their time and grow without record company 'backing' but at the end of the day it's currently easier to take an advance for most, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to do without record company support. Hell a lot of independent record companies like Sub Pop were basically distributors and although provided contact networks and aided physical production and distribution didn't go down the advance route and bands self funded records.

The Arctic Monkeys organically grew via internet publicity and good old live performance to a size where they could dictate terms to prospective record companies, proving that there is another way. The BBC outside of their local BBC radio station had little to do with it, and really only became involved with them when they were already huge in Northern England. There are a number of unsigned bands in the Glasgow area who regularly sell out 800-1200 venues who are pretty much following the same route, although I imagine. The Fratelli's were playing mid size venues around Scotland before getting signed, Travis (another Scottish band) self funded an EP and a single years before getting signed and again played in some pretty big venues before getting a deal.

At the point the Monkey's signed, they could have remained independent (and Turner has said they were thinking about doing so), but ultimately the record company route was less risky as they were sure they could sell enough from their existing fanbase not to run into debt.
 
that is a shame... i mean, dance and theatre companies are able to apply for funding from government and arts councils etc so why not bands? (ha ok so they do! just saw your other post - cool!)... a couple friends of mine are constantly applying for funding and they swear you just need to be really really good at filling in forms and selling your project from a "business" angle... they also have sideline activities to fund their projects though, as in workshops in the community and schools...

how does it work for "composers" in the classical field? are they mainly commissioned i wonder?? there's funding for classical music surely?

also how about a "book-deal" approach for new musicians? how do book publishers do it?

Yeah, despite what that article said, i still don't think it's *that* common, or that the amounts are great enough for most bands to pay anything but a minimal portion of a recording or a tour. And like you said, forms and business plans mean everything, and many musicians don't have a clue about things like that.

Interestingly, that was the only article I found on the subject of rock bands, and it was published in the US, in the NY times. The only article I found published in Canada was one about grants to jazz festivals, where many musicians and the public in general thought the funds were misspent - on paying big name American acts to perform at free festival concerts, and to attract tourism to the events. Sounds like very little or none of the money went to support the Canadian musicians. Meanwhile, regular jazz venues and musicians were left to their own devices to struggle. That's government arts funding for you.
 
I'm well aware of what record companies offer, and it isn't generally the rosy picture you paint. Advances need to be paid back and to do so normally takes almost all of the income derived from selling music until the debt is paid. Paying back a loan at least gives you the option of paying it back while earning, a record company advance immediately cedes control of all money earned through selling music to the record company, who'll give you some once your debt is paid. Really, what's better especially now that record companies are getting very interested in the live performance rights of bands (so they'll be able to sequester that income as well)?
I'm not painting a rosy picture, just a necessary one for most bands. Advances don't come with interest, payments or come out of pocket, but it does come with PR and support, banks don't do that. It's not paid back, it's money "earned" that's why it's called an advance. Trust me unless you are guanranteed an income where you can live AND pay off the loan before time's up a loan is a not the way to go.

The Arctic Monkeys signed because they managed to get a fantastic deal, a deal that almost no other unsigned band could get, one that allowed them to keep their publishing rights. There's not that many other bands out there following the same route, because the lure of 'easy' money is too great, most bands get to a certain size, the record companies get wind offer them easy 'money' which they take to grow quickly. I reckon a few could take their time and grow without record company 'backing' but at the end of the day it's currently easier to take an advance for most, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to do without record company support. Hell a lot of independent record companies like Sub Pop were basically distributors and although provided contact networks and aided physical production and distribution didn't go down the advance route and bands self funded records.
You just proved my point, even the exception found a better route with a label.
The Arctic Monkeys organically grew via internet publicity and good old live performance to a size where they could dictate terms to prospective record companies, proving that there is another way. The BBC outside of their local BBC radio station had little to do with it, and really only became involved with them when they were already huge in Northern England. There are a number of unsigned bands in the Glasgow area who regularly sell out 800-1200 venues who are pretty much following the same route, although I imagine. The Fratelli's were playing mid size venues around Scotland before getting signed, Travis (another Scottish band) self funded an EP and a single years before getting signed and again played in some pretty big venues before getting a deal.
This is quite revisionist...

You haven't helped your argument.
 
Does anyone actually think a musician could walk into a bank and ask for a loan to help them release a record or finance a small tour? Really??

No bank that I work with would even consider that remotely.
 
I'm not painting a rosy picture, just a necessary one for most bands. Advances don't come with interest, payments or come out of pocket, but it does come with PR and support, banks don't do that. It's not paid back, it's money "earned" that's why it's called an advance. Trust me unless you are guanranteed an income where you can live AND pay off the loan before time's up a loan is a not the way to go.


You just proved my point, even the exception found a better route with a label.

This is quite revisionist...

You haven't helped your argument.


An advance typically needs to be recouped before the artist sees a penny. At least with a loan you'd have control over your income over the repayment, and shock horror you'd actually get a lot more than the 15% royality a record company will offer if you are lucky (more like 5% on digital sales). PR companies can be hired and a decent manager and booking agent can help with the expertise, it's not as if the record companies offer that PR for free is it? As I said, at the moment it's simply easier for a band to accept 'easy' money upfront, it doesn't mean it's impossible or outlandish to organically grow a band as a business without such things. A loan requires paying interest, an advance requires signing over more than 85% of any money your music makes.

At the end of the day, if your smart about it you can make decent money gigging (at least you can in the UK) which affords you the opportunity to grow your fanbase, recording isn't prohibitively expensive so EP's can be self funded and the internet can be used to sell it (there are numerous website for unsigned bands to sell music, hell you can even get on itunes)A record company is simply a shortcut, they were a necessity when radio playlists were locked down and you needed to get your record into the shops, and only, but again over in the UK, the BBC don't have a problem playing unsigned bands.
 
An advance typically needs to be recouped before the artist sees a penny. At least with a loan you'd have control over your income over the repayment, and shock horror you'd actually get a lot more than the 15% royality a record company will offer if you are lucky (more like 5% on digital sales). PR companies can be hired and a decent manager and booking agent can help with the expertise, it's not as if the record companies offer that PR for free is it? As I said, at the moment it's simply easier for a band to accept 'easy' money upfront, it doesn't mean it's impossible or outlandish to organically grow a band as a business without such things.
:doh: You really don't understand how this works... If you have an advance then the artist has already seen a penny, that IS part of their income, you aren't even making sense. And PR is built into that income like vacation or retirement contributions.

No one is arguing that it's impossible, just not the norm, it's the exception.

At the end of the day, if your smart about it you can make decent money gigging (at least you can in the UK) which affords you the opportunity to grow your fanbase, recording isn't prohibitively expensive so EP's can be self funded and the internet can be used to sell it (there are numerous website for unsigned bands to sell music, hell you can even get on itunes)A record company is simply a shortcut, they were a necessity when radio playlists were locked down and you needed to get your record into the shops, and only, but again over in the UK, the BBC don't have a problem playing unsigned bands.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. I've never argued that recording is expensive...:banghead: Touring is expensive(very), and required to make a living now that recordings don't sell. That's what this whole damn talk has been about... If you can find a way to fund your tour and not go in debt, more power to you but that is very very difficult for unsigned bands, and this is why we'll see less and less Pearl Jams and Radioheads, bands that have talent, strong live acts, but don't want to sell their music to commercials, TV, etc... If PJ started tomorrow, we would never hear about them for they would fail.
 
If PJ started tomorrow, we would never hear about them for they would fail.

You're right, people who want to follow that career path with the same limitations will likely not make it in the Industry as it is today.

The Ford Edsel didn't make it either.

Things have changed.

This just in - It's not 1992 anymore.
 
You're right, people who want to follow that career path with the same limitations will likely not make it in the Industry as it is today.

The Ford Edsel didn't make it either.

Things have changed.

This just in - It's not 1992 anymore.

If you wanted more compromise in your artists then cheers:beer: that's what you created.
 
Back
Top Bottom