Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Remind me, who are the pirates?
And that was written in the (very) good old days, before the companies toughened up on the terms of recording contracts. Those old terms seem positively philanthropic next to some of the stuff that new acts are asked to sign now. Fortunately more and more are just saying no and looking elsewhere.
The industry also forgets that it was created by pirates and rogues. A huge part of why it's in the shit now comes down to the passing of the reigns from those rogues to the accountants who jumped in to lap up the vast profits from the CD boom, thinking that it would last forever. That it hasn't and it's reverted back to the 'it's tough to make a hit and a dollar from music' reality of the pre-CD era drives the bullshit that RIAA and the others are spouting as much as any P2P issues.
-
I had some spare time and wanted to walk to the Auckland Art Gallery but couldn't remember where it was. So asked the hotel receptionist - who had no idea, never heard of it (and she was a local), and so she asked all the rest of the available staff. No one had any idea but eventually another tourist gave me directions.
I have to say that's truly bizarre. I'd wager that pretty much every Aucklander I know would be able to place it without much trouble. Maybe we're the exception but I don't think so, especially when one considers it's placement in the central traffic flow.
-
From Arrington:
No longer will the labels be tied to revenue limited to sales of master recordings
It's hard to take him seriously when he spouts stuff like this. Admittedly the mistake is common, but sales of recorded music has only ever been a portion of the income a copyright owner receives, often a small portion. Sure sales of physical have declined but alternative forms of income have rocketed
by then most or all artists will be under 360 music contracts that give the labels a cut of virtually every revenue stream artists can tap into - fan sites, concerts, merchandise, endorsement deals, and everything else.
Uhhhh, only in the dreams of major label boards. There has been massive resistance to this at just about every level for a multitude of pretty convincing reasons. Personally I think most acts would be nuts to hand over these sorts of things, and I think that's a pretty common philosophy from what I'm reading and hearing. Why would you hand over such a massive part of your income stream to someone who made such a mess of their core business. And the whole concept of your label owning your management is just ludicrous.
-
company registration in nz, I don't know how that works internationally. you're right about the cost though.
To protect it you need to use the various trademark protection facilities offered under the Madrid Convention. It takes a wee while and the price varies depending on the number of territories you want protection in.
one letter difference propeller records
Nope, same spelling (the correct way). These guys actually wrote to me about 10 years back and asked if I minded. I said I saw no likelihood of any confusion so I was happy for them to use the name.
On Discogs it's just identified as Propeller.
-
Let's talk before then and use PA to get some hype behind it. It'll be fun.
Thanks Russell, I will indeed. I'm back in NZ for a month in June / July (Box / Cause Celebre 20th anniversary gig...well 19 1/2) so It's a priority.
-
But it ignores the economic imperatives of the process. if you do that then you ain't going to be doing the next recording cos you're essentially burning your money.
is 15 cents a track a viable prices to get?
It's a hell of a lot better than the alternative, which is likely nothing. Really, you have to get your stuff out into as many outlets as possible and when digital is such a massive part of the pie in 2009, and going to grow I can't ignore, and I'd say neither should you, the outlets that will get to to an audience millions of times larger than that corner dairy equation you used earlier.
That's one of the things that fucked the music industry, thinking they could get more all the time. In 2000 they were offered a massive cut of Napster, with 26 million fans already tied in to it and they, especially Doug Morris, the head of Universal, were greedy and lost the lot, until Jobs came along and offered iTunes, by which time they were thorough freaked out and rolled over without a fight. All that stuff is the real story of how the recording industry fucked it, not tilting at piracy windmills.
My old stuff will be up on eMusic mid year-ish...and iTunes and a few other places.
I'm working on a few bits which I don't really wanna go into, but mostly I'm an observer with a few vested interests, and a bit of an understanding, like you, of how it works.
Most of the income I get comes from sync, performance and comps but then that's way much catalogue income is derived even for the big boys. Selling a CD is nice but that CD is often no longer the valuable part of the equation, which Greg Cotmore doesn't get at all.
-
if they're charging 30 cents a track that's how much for the artist/label?
I think that the artist has the right to expect that you will offer their product to as wide an audience as possible (almost as a use it or lose it philosophy as the Europeans are currently proposing). A few CDs here and there in this digital world doesn't really count (and yes I know I'm still guilty of that but geographic issues are my excuse...like you I want to present the best possible audio quality). Myself, I think you almost have an obligation to take a catalogue to somewhere like this. It's pretty hard to complain about piracy if it ain't on offer
Plenty of sites offer a 320kbs option to the purchaser too, but most people are satisfied with the 192kbs offered by eMusic.
-
oh god, please stop with the cliches. this is ridiculous rubbish. he has no idea what is involved in a recording project.
Pretty much what I was thinking.
-
It makes the same mistake as a lot of the reaction to Shepherd's piece, in that it supposes that he is still running Flying Nun, which I don't think he has since Warners bought Festival.
Roger has been out of FN since the mid 1990s.
Myself, I think the piece is far more flawed than Roger's and far more naive. Whilst I didn't agree with much of Roger's argument there is substantive life left in the recording industry. Somebody still has to make and market those records he wants to listen to and plenty of acts who are profitable recording wise. What's changed is not that a label can't make money, it's that it can't expect to exist and exploit it's properties as it has for decades, but to say
In a digital world, this is kaput.
Is just twaddle. It's a very ill informed rant.
I wanted to have a browse but you have to give your credit card to look through the site.
Not in my experience. I'm a subscriber but I've browsed it on other computers several times. Gotta say Rob, I'm amazed you've not had a look at eMusic. It's perfect for what you do.
-
its the same cut.
So what, show me a business where a distributor / agent doesn't take a cut.
going through an aggregator and a retailer is exactly the same as going through a distributor and a retailer, just different processes but same role essentially.
And show me a retailer that will, with one hit, get you into millions of homes and, now, phones, and I'll agree, until then, it's light years away.
if the beatles have to think twice about not using itunes because people won't bother going to their store then thats a worrying trend.
If the Beatles opened a retail store in 5th Ave, they'd not get 20% of the sales that they'd get from being in Best Buy further down the street. It's not a trend, it's a retail fact...catalogue sales of music is more often than not driven by impulse. For the Beatles to add a major barrier like the need to destination shop is a huge negative for them.
what if itunes aren't into your stuff, don't like your politics etc.
Then you go to Beatport, eMusic, Amazon and a whole lot more, where you should be anyway...and you turn iTunes refusal to stock it into a marketing angle.