in this age of unavoidable mp3 downloads and internet/computer ubiquity

[Xtokalon]

why aren't (more?) musicians setting up paypal "donate" options on their websites?

seems like it would be a good idea if on their webpage artists can start "asking" fans or visitors for money and suggesting a monetary donation of any amount for the music that's been enjoyed while perhaps unpaid for. record labels may not like it since if a guy makes a small donation of 5 dollars perhaps in lieu or in the interim of purchasing artist's album, artist would be getting the money wholesale. fan shows his appreciation, artist gets the money, perhaps fan will purchase album later -- mp3s are simply there donation or not. i don't see why this would be illegal, unless record contracts or whatever begin stipulating "no donations on website" clauses.

your thoughts?

one thing you might say in response is that well if a fan is willing to make a donation why doesn't he simply buy the album? well, perhaps it's a matter of psychology. 20 dollars might seem a lot and if you're ordering online, there is always that wait period before an album reaches a house, which can be deterring. while a smaller unspecified amount given and contributed immediately and directly to an artist might be more appealing for the fan who casually enjoys x band's music but who doesn't intend to hard purchase the entire oevre of band's music. so really this thing would be set up and ideal for the casual listeners. they can make random and easy donations and everybody is happy.

music is much more about the intangibles anyway- the cd's and such are mostly unimportant. the intellectual data the dimension of such products that have no dimension matter. so why should musicians proceed on this narrow avenue of "make tangible cd, sell and distribute tangible cd, have people buy tangible cd" kapoot. makes no sense.

i think artists should go with the shift. btw, this thread is inspired by bittorrent sites. the music selection is like huge, it's like the digitial equivalent of walking into a music store. you see something you like, simply click and in 5 minutes or less you have yourself a full and perfect album to enjoy. that is either immensely cool or fucked up depending on your standpoint.

 

[capeda]

Well, if you go against the record label and encourage people to just download music and donate cash... well, it doesn't work! You gotta factor in the whole reason that labels exist... they promote the band (far more than bands can do themselves, assuming they're not rich) and they set up and fund tours, etc. If no label, than the band remains totally underground and only does local shows.

If the band IS on a label and they receive inconsequential album sales, then the same conclusion is reached. Less promotion, fewer tours, and band is doomed to obscurity.

 

[Xtokalon]

i wouldn't though consider this such an either/or scenario, unless you're saying that legally it is one.

 

[capeda]

I'm not proposing an either/or scenario that I know of... if a band signed to a RECORD label doesn't sell RECORDS, the label don't push a band. Simple as that. It's not debatable.

A band really doesn't need a label to get it's music circulated, no, but they DO need label support to get their album recorded (if they care about quality), to fund tours, and to promote their albums. Putting music up for download on a personal site could potentially damage sales and negatively affect relations with the label, and yeah. It's NOT a good idea if you actually think about it (unless, as I said, you WANT the band to remain obscure and underground).

 

[capeda]

...or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make?

 

[mindspell]

Capeda is right. However I must add that the internet downloading business model is one that can work. It is entirely possible for a label to offer the album online in high quality mp3 or FLAC and sell it to the people who want to. Phish and Primus do it for their live shows right now and it appears it is working well, you pay 14$ for 3 hours of music which is a pretty sweet deal.

I try to often buy my CDs as close as possible to the artist because I think the rewards are meant to go to the artist and not three shipping companies and three distributors. On the other hand the idea to go without the middle man of the label is something that is not possible in the music business as we know it today. Perhaps a new business model will appear in the future but right now the label is a necessary evil. They do all the promotion, marketing plan, pay for manufacturing and studio time, and without all of that you are doomed to obscurity as capeda said.

Notable exception: Tzadik, they really don't do any promotion, they leave that to their artists. Something I wonder though is how envolved was Tzadik in the financial aspect of the recording of Choir of the Eye?

 

[avi]

i read an interesting article on the future of record labels recently on how they have to start focusing on manaing other aspects of a musicians career such as touring, promotion etc, not just selling records. the digital age is changing a lot of the ways people are doing things and no one's really figured out the perfect way to do it yet.

 

[YaYo]

i don't see why this would be illegal, unless record contracts or whatever begin stipulating "no donations on website" clauses.

Well, once you sign a record contract i think you sign some of such rights away, you've said to the record company "This is now yours to sell, not mine". I'm not sure exactly how many contracts are like this, but i'd guess most. So in the eyes of the law i imagine it's the same as you or me setting up a download site for Kayo Dot's music and asking for money for it! I've never had a record contract so i'm not sure exactly what rights the artists do retain (or how different it is between commercial music and the more underground side of things), maybe some people here can shed some light on this.

And yeh, at the least the record company would not be a happy chappy and could stop supporting you, and the consequences of that have already been explained. I think it'd have to be done BY the record company, with the same share of profits going to them as in the case of a CD sale.

 

[FuSoYa]

While there are some things to be expected in contracts, when you're talking about indie labels the variables are more apparent. With our old label, they saw it as since they paid for the recording, they should actually *own* the recording, meaning that it wouldn't be legal to go behind their backs with (these recorded versions of) that music. In that case, we didn't have to pay back the money that the label spent on the recording. However I think that if we were asking for donations and made clear on the site that the donations were not in exchange for good/services (the mp3s) then that would be legally legit.

In our new situation though we were given recoupable money, meaning that the label gets paid back what they spent out of royalties. They, in turn, do not own the recordings and we could in fact offer mp3s of it digitally in exchange for money.

However, selling albums is important simply because there's a lot more to it than money. For example, you want the label to feel you're a worthwhile investment so they will continue to support you. The reason label support is beneficial is because they can focus on and are connected with all the important channels of the business that you as a musician could better spend your time on actually making music. Labels (should) have distribution, an aspect which certainly can make or break an artist. Distributors often won't work with artists without a label because there actually is a lot of money involved.

 

[S4R]

What are common situations with merchandise? I imagine many commercial bands wouldn't be able to print shirts of their own accord and sell them through their website.