Self releasing CD's: do you prefer EP's or full length CD's?

[quadrajet]

I've found myself in this quandry so I thought it would be a fun issue to debate.

Assuming you have enough material for a full length CD, do you find it preferable to release a CD that is a full length (assume 8 to 12 songs) or an EP (say, 4 to 6 songs)? There are tradeoffs to both - for EP's, on the plus side they take less time to record, cost slightly less to produce, you can sell them for less thus moving more total units potentially, but on the downside you make little profit on them. For full lengths, the upside is they only cost a little more to produce and the mark up is higher, but you take a chance that the casual listener may not be willing to invest the extra cash on music from an artist they are not familiar with.

This of course assumes you have enough material written/recorded to decide between them. My theory is that people pay closer attention to EP's because there is less to digest and as a consumer, I only listen to 4 or 5 of my favorite songs on most commercially produced full lengths anyhow. Also, the big time artists seem to try harder on mini albums becuase there is less room to make an impression so they only put their best foot forward.

So whats your take?

1) GO WITH A FULL LENGTH! If you've got the songs, why keep them on your hard drive? Get the material out there to be heard.

2) GO WITH AN EP! Pick what you feel are your absolute best songs and get them in more peoples stereos!

[Dillon]

I would release the full CD. I'd rather pay $10 or so for a full-length CD, than $5 for 4-6 songs. If you're selling the CDs at clubs when you play, I would just play my best songs and mention that you're selling CDs after the show or whatever.

[BentRabbit]

It's going to cost me the same in replication for 1000 EP's as it does for full length...
Just to recoup those costs, full length is what we did.

[glynb]

It's a case of which is the best product for what you want to achieve?

EPs are not better or worse than an EP, each has its function.

If you just want to put out a sample of your work, to sell at shows or give to record labels and journos etc, and have one or two killer songs, then an EP is fine.

If you want to put your music out to the world, for its own sake, as an 'artist' then an album format is the way to go, assuming of course that you have at least 12 great songs ready!

Cost wise there isn't much in it I beleive, so money shouldn't really come into it. In fact you can probably charge more for an album and therefore make a bigger margin oin each one sold, but I'm assuming here that you recorded all the stuff at nil cost at home. If you used a pro studio to record an album's worth of tracks then of course the production costs are much higher for the album.

So you need to ask yourself what is the purpose of the prioduct? Why are you putting something out? To get famous? To interest record labels? DJ's? To sell and make a profit for the band?

Or maybe just 'for its own sake' because you want the world to hear your great music and perhpas making money isn't so much of a consideration?

Personaly, I'm going for an album this year as I have enough material, I'm not interested in impressing record lables, I won't be selling it at shows, and there's little money to be saved by not doing an album as compared to an EP, so why the heck not!

You seem to have a handle on the pros and cons, you need to know why you're doing it?

[noisefan]

Some people think they are getting a better 'deal' by buying a full-length. Others may think it's better to get cheaper discs so they can sample more music.

I'd rather listen to an EP full of outstanding songs than a full-length with only five or so good songs. The real question comes down to how much stellar material do you have?

[crosstudio]

i said full length... however, thats not to say you shouldn't do an EP.

we did an EP and started letting DJ's and club promoters get hold of it. based on their reception we've decided to go forward with the full length knowing that the songs on the EP were good enough to get us gigs and some local radio play.

[COOLCAT]

EP's, I always liked singles! A/Bside.

Some albums are just, they ruin the buzz or get
de-focused. Like my son said,
hates it when a Metal Band is thrashing then the next tune
is frhkng cry,baby boohoo sht.

the track change gets used more on Albums.

[David Hooper]

LP makes more sense from an economic standpoint as everything but your recording costs will be the same and you'll be able to charge a lot more money for it.

[Dani Pace]

Why not do both? Go ahead and do a full length, then after a couple of months of feedback from your listeners pick out the best or most requested four or five songs and release them as an EP. Meanwhile keep working on album number two.

[glynb]

Originally Posted by Dani Pace

Why not do both? Go ahead and do a full length, then after a couple of months of feedback from your listeners pick out the best or most requested four or five songs and release them as an EP. Meanwhile keep working on album number two.

Cost! Unless you've money to burn it's too expensive to put out two products containing the same songs. I'm talking here of unsigned bands playing a few shows putting out independent product on low budgets, sales revenues will be low, the product will be a promotional tool, for most of them it is a choice of either or, not both. The money involved in putting out the second product would finance the production of the second album (not including additional recording costs of course).

[quadrajet]

Originally Posted by Dani Pace

Why not do both? Go ahead and do a full length, then after a couple of months of feedback from your listeners pick out the best or most requested four or five songs and release them as an EP. Meanwhile keep working on album number two.

...Actually, that would be album number 3, but who's counting?

I probably should've specified I'm talking short run here, like around 500 initially and if necessary (hopefully) more later. Also, I'm kinda hoping for a little help from using digital distribution in which case the physical product is a non-factor.

As for doing both, there is some merit to that argument in my case if you reverse the scenario -- right now, I record entirely on my own, every sound recorded is created by my sick mind and capable hands. Say I generate a little buzz with a mini-album and put a band together later to promote it (i've done this before). The band is now gigging with a product already in hand to sell at shows AND the possibility of doing a full length featuring the songs from the EP plus about 5 more down the road featuring the musicians from the whole group opens up.

Just a ran-dumb thought. Probably doesn't apply to many. Anyway, I see we're at a dead heat right now in the voting.....

[the edzell]

One band I was in started out with the idea of recording a two song demo to take to clubs. We’ll to make a long story short it went from two to four to 8 to 12 when the studio owner informed us probably 8 songs is all we would have the time and budget for if we wanted to do things right.

I got someone who had been in the music industry to listen and he said that we should just release our four best songs. However the band got into a pissing match with some of the other local bands and decided to release all 8. The four he picked ended up getting the best reviews while the other four were the skippers. (tracks people skipped to get to other songs)

In hindsight with our budget we probably should have worked on polishing up the four best tracks and having them come out as killer than have 8 “good” tracks that weren’t bad but there was definitely room for improvement with editing or adding a few elements.

But then again… all we wanted was a demo tape to give club owners.

[glynb]

Originally Posted by the edzell

One band I was in started out with the idea of recording a two song demo to take to clubs. We’ll to make a long story short it went from two to four to 8 to 12 when the studio owner informed us probably 8 songs is all we would have the time and budget for if we wanted to do things right.

I got someone who had been in the music industry to listen and he said that we should just release our four best songs. However the band got into a pissing match with some of the other local bands and decided to release all 8. The four he picked ended up getting the best reviews while the other four were the skippers. (tracks people skipped to get to other songs)

In hindsight with our budget we probably should have worked on polishing up the four best tracks and having them come out as killer than have 8 “good” tracks that weren’t bad but there was definitely room for improvement with editing or adding a few elements.

But then again… all we wanted was a demo tape to give club owners.

That last sentence sums it up. If all you wanted was a demo to give to club owners then the advice you were given to polish your best 4 songs only was correct. In your example an EP is the way to go. Know what it is you want to achieve and choose the best format to fit.

If you have 12 top songs, some of which are not instant but require a couple of plays to appreciate, this is your 'life's work' not just a demo to impress club owners and get gigs, this is your work tyhat you want get out there for people to listen to, not as a sample to get attention of a record label or whatever, then put out a full length album as your 'statement'.

Just wait long enough so to be sure you have enough 'good' material, not some good plus a bunch of fillers (leave that to the major labels to do!).

[the edzell]

I guess my real point is to stick to your guns and don’t let outside influences distract you from what your focal point should be. As I said it started out as a 2 song demo but as soon as we heard other bands were planning to head into the studio to record an album we wanted the same prestige.

Funny thing is out of 8-10 bands we were competeting with only 3 actually made an album despite the fact most bragged about working on one. (as I said before it was a pissing match to impress the other bands as much as the fans) Of the three (including ourselves) one was never really finished before the band dissolved over creative differences, the other was a two man band who recorded theirs on a 4 track while we went to a “studio.”

Sad thing is while the music quality was much better on our “album” we didn’t put as much time as we should have into the outside of the record because we wanted to get it out ASAP. Really no thought on the cover art, liner notes, pictures. We did the thing in black and white because of our budget contrasts. Instead of planning things the way we should have (doing something artsy with black and white instead of having a cover that looked like it should have been in color but wasn’t) we just threw everything together.

The other band was always taking pictures and their artwork blew ours out of the water. (They had one of the best band pictures I ever saw: the two members with their guitar cases crossing a street with a snowy older downtown framing the background.) So a lot of people thought their work was better despite the fact we spent the majority of our money on studio recording and mixing.

So my advice would be to frame your project well. Don’t put the majority of your budget into recording and production while spending little time and money on the artwork, because that is what people see first and usually judge you on. (see Iron Maiden ) Consider your time and budget: a well done EP will always be better than half assed album.

[quadrajet]

I once told an ex-girlfriend of mine who was ashamed that she worked at McDonalds that the only job to be ashamed of is a job not well done. Cliche, yes - but true...

In neither of the above scenarios do I plan on stuffing filler on a CD. I believe that an unsigned artists competition isn't the other band down the street, but rather the big label backed giants that everyone already knows about. No matter how many songs are on a disc, I don't think there is any room for people like us to put filler in to take up space. Filler belongs in donuts, not independent releases.

Anyhow, even though I prefer to buy EP's as a consumer I probably am going to go with a full length because I already have drum and guitar tracks finished for 7 of 9 songs and choosing between them is like choosing which child to leave behind in a fire. Also, some of these songs aren't really EP friendly since they are kinda long - one imparticular clocks in at around 7 minutes!

One of my favorite EP's of all time was Therapy's "Hats off to the Insane". 6 songs and all of them absolutely kicked @$$. I wasn't all that familiar with the band before I bought it but I was so impressed I ran out and bought one of their full lengths called "Nurse". Thing is, "Nurse" was absolutely horrible. Didn't even sound like the same band.

Where am I going with this? Uh....actually I'm not really sure.....but I will say this - of the 9 songs I am polishing up, 2 are acoustic (but not syrupy love boo-hoo crap like an earlier post mentioned) and maybe this contrast is making me apprehensive to include them since the rest are all doom/stoner rock sounding. Still, everytime I think they don't belong, I think of what the early Sabbath albums would be like without stuff like "Orchid", "Laguna Sunrise", "Don't start too late", etc.

[glynb]

Originally Posted by the edzell

I guess my real point is to stick to your guns and don’t let outside influences distract you from what your focal point should be. As I said it started out as a 2 song demo but as soon as we heard other bands were planning to head into the studio to record an album we wanted the same prestige.

Funny thing is out of 8-10 bands we were competeting with only 3 actually made an album despite the fact most bragged about working on one. (as I said before it was a pissing match to impress the other bands as much as the fans) Of the three (including ourselves) one was never really finished before the band dissolved over creative differences, the other was a two man band who recorded theirs on a 4 track while we went to a “studio.”

Sad thing is while the music quality was much better on our “album” we didn’t put as much time as we should have into the outside of the record because we wanted to get it out ASAP. Really no thought on the cover art, liner notes, pictures. We did the thing in black and white because of our budget contrasts. Instead of planning things the way we should have (doing something artsy with black and white instead of having a cover that looked like it should have been in color but wasn’t) we just threw everything together.

The other band was always taking pictures and their artwork blew ours out of the water. (They had one of the best band pictures I ever saw: the two members with their guitar cases crossing a street with a snowy older downtown framing the background.) So a lot of people thought their work was better despite the fact we spent the majority of our money on studio recording and mixing.

So my advice would be to frame your project well. Don’t put the majority of your budget into recording and production while spending little time and money on the artwork, because that is what people see first and usually judge you on. (see Iron Maiden ) Consider your time and budget: a well done EP will always be better than half assed album.

You seem as much concerned about what other bands are doing and trying to get one over on them than on your music!

This is music, it's art, it isn't competitive sports, get your music right and it doesn't matter what some other band are doing or not doing! Bands form and split, come and go, what remains is great music not getting into some 'who has the biggest one' competition with other local bands.

Packaging is just that, if the music is great it will overcome poor packaging, and if the music is rubbish no amount of fancy packaging will convince people to like it. if you have great songs to start with then wrap them in good packaging, bonus, good stuff.

It could be that the other band you spoke of had some excellent songs, and whether or not they recorded in an expensive studio or on a four track, if the songs are great and resonate with people then quality of recording doesn't matter so much.

[lykwydchykyn]

The older I get the more I wonder why we independent musicians feel the need to mimic the forms of the record industry. I mean, EP? LP? The question is, how many good songs do you have recorded? Who says you can't slap 8 songs on a disc and sell it for whatever you want? Who says you have to call it an EP and only put 5 songs on it? Who says you have to have 10 songs for an album?
I have a friend who has tons of material he's recorded over the years, so he made a CD in "mixed mode", so that it plays 10 of what he felt were his best recordings normally as audio, but then if you put it in your computer there are like 40 mp3's on there, some video, etc. That may be overkill, but I'm just using that as an example of unconventional thinking that we indy artists have the luxury of doing.

I tried to read jay gould's "guerilla marketing"; didn't get very far, but one thing I got from the book is that as an individual or small business, the biggest advantage you have is the ability to get creative and flexible with your business model. If you don't do that, you're just trying to take on a multimillion dollar industry on its own terms. Good luck.

[quadrajet]

Originally Posted by lykwydchykyn

The older I get the more I wonder why we independent musicians feel the need to mimic the forms of the record industry. I mean, EP? LP? The question is, how many good songs do you have recorded? Who says you can't slap 8 songs on a disc and sell it for whatever you want? Who says you have to call it an EP and only put 5 songs on it? Who says you have to have 10 songs for an album?
I have a friend who has tons of material he's recorded over the years, so he made a CD in "mixed mode", so that it plays 10 of what he felt were his best recordings normally as audio, but then if you put it in your computer there are like 40 mp3's on there, some video, etc. That may be overkill, but I'm just using that as an example of unconventional thinking that we indy artists have the luxury of doing.

Actually I like your rationale here...
One of the biggest influences on my songwriting lately has been the Melvins. Talk about unconventional marketing...they have a CD called "Lysol" but you wouldn't know that becuase it doesnt say it anywhere on the album. It has 5 songs on it, but you wouldn't know that either because there is not song list and the CD actually reads in your CD player as just having one long song.
Bottom line - it rocks so who cares? You make some great points....

[distortedrumble]

the rap project i'm doing now i figured would work if i had 10 songs on the cd and a 5 song ep i'd give out for free of the stuff i couldnt make money off of seeing as how i wasnt paying royalities to pdiddy and the rest of the beatmakers i "borrowed from". but the guy i'm working with is so hellbent on putting them online for free download that i dont see a point in making cds at all. the solo project will be more profitable...i hope

[glynb]

Originally Posted by lykwydchykyn

The older I get the more I wonder why we independent musicians feel the need to mimic the forms of the record industry. I mean, EP? LP? The question is, how many good songs do you have recorded? Who says you can't slap 8 songs on a disc and sell it for whatever you want? Who says you have to call it an EP and only put 5 songs on it? Who says you have to have 10 songs for an album?
I have a friend who has tons of material he's recorded over the years, so he made a CD in "mixed mode", so that it plays 10 of what he felt were his best recordings normally as audio, but then if you put it in your computer there are like 40 mp3's on there, some video, etc. That may be overkill, but I'm just using that as an example of unconventional thinking that we indy artists have the luxury of doing.

I tried to read jay gould's "guerilla marketing"; didn't get very far, but one thing I got from the book is that as an individual or small business, the biggest advantage you have is the ability to get creative and flexible with your business model. If you don't do that, you're just trying to take on a multimillion dollar industry on its own terms. Good luck.

Excellent points. I agree.
In addition as an independent if you approach your project creatively, and do something cool and unusual and innovative, it's more likely to grab attention, gain recognition, and therefore more chance of getting the atttention of labels, if that is a goal too.

[fonz]

We are on the brink of putting our first CD out in the open.
We've got about 12 songs in total now, but we're not going to put them all on it. Also these tracks are not played by our whole band. These are the sketch-versions, played by our guitarist (he did guitar, bassguitar and programming drumloops) and vocals added by me. Probably 8 of them will make it to the final list, because they are, as a whole, a good representative of what we do. So, 8 songs wich lead to about a total playing time of a little less then 30 minutes. Considering the totla playing time and the fact that these songs are sketch-versions, it would be very odd to call it an album.
But it also does not feel right to call it a demo. I would condsider it a demo if there were just 2 or 3 tracks on it, mainly intended to try to interest record companies. Conclusion: we will call it an EP!

PS You can allready listen to 5 of the forementioned tracks on our site:

http://www.sonicbullet.com/music.htm

Greetz,
Fonz

[quadrajet]

Well, I guess another question related to all of this would be what is a fair price to charge for a CD that isn't quite what some would consider a full length? What exactly are people willing to pay? How do you determine that?

I'm curious to see how other indie artists determine this. Do you take cost and mark up by a fixed percent? I've been working with the formula of $1 for each song, plus $1.50 to the final total, but who knows if thats any good. I mean, Pink Floyd's "Animals" only has 5 songs on it but it's 40 minutes long so they price it like a full length. Conversely, Slayer's "Undisputed Attitude" has 14 songs but is only 30 minutes. I know someone is going to say it's not the length that matters, but rather the quality, but none of my girlfriends ever bought that argument either LOL!

I priced my last 10 song full length "Animosity in Human form" at $9.99 which seemed a little low, but I figured no one really knew who I was at the time. It must've been fair because people are buying it. Just curious how you guys determine your pricing in situations like these....

[fonz]

Given the fact that we are just starting out to expose ourselves to the public with our first CD/EP (or maybe we'll just call it an AM - AudioMedium), we surely don't want to ask a lot for it. At this stage we will be very happy if anyone at all would take the trouble to buy it. We will probably put a price on it so that in the end will get close to break even (depending on how many we're going to manufature and estimated sales figures).
Most importantly, we want to make it as easy for people as possible to access our music without too much trouble and too much costs. Therefore the selected tracks will also be available to download for free on our website, inlay-artwork included. If one would take the trouble to buy a copy, it will be additioned with extra's (we are thinking about a videoclip or something).

Greetz,
Fonz

[lykwydchykyn]

Let me clarify that I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a release and "ep" or "lp" or "album" for marketing purposes and to position in a certain way to the consumer. But feeling like you have to adhere to some strict definition of what an "ep" or "album" is makes no sense. Put your 8 songs on the CD and call it an EP, maybe even put an asterisk next to the last 3 songs with a note that says "bonus track". Sell it for $5 and it seems like a great deal.

I've been brainstorming a bit about how to sell the project I'm working on at the moment. Some of them might require the help of a good programmer. Here's a few I'm contemplating:

1. The CD would have some kind of software key or code that would unlock a "members only" area of the artist website, where people could download bonus materials (extra mp3's, pictures, printable sticker logos, video, leadsheets, etc).
2. Optionally, people could buy a "subscription" to the site and download all the tracks and bonus materials they want. This could be pretty cheap, like maybe $4 for a year of access or something. Keep in mind they can keep what they download indefinitely.
3. You could have an .iso file of the CD which people could download for a nominal fee, like $3-$4. It'd be a big download, but at least they'd have the mastered CD quality tracks just as if they'd bought the real deal.

I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that you just need to get stuff out there. Don't worry about charging what pro CD's cost, don't worry about piracy or people sharing files with their friends. Just get it out there and make sure your name is on it. And sell stuff as cheap as you can without 1.) lowering the perceived value of the product and 2.) losing money on a sale. After all, I've never met anyone who got rich from sales of an independent project. But I've known people who sold enough product on their own to get attention from labels and other business entities. I think that's what it comes down to as an indy: moving product.

Just a theory, though...

[fonz]

[QUOTE=I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that you just need to get stuff out there. Don't worry about charging what pro CD's cost, don't worry about piracy or people sharing files with their friends. Just get it out there and make sure your name is on it. And sell stuff as cheap as you can without 1.) lowering the perceived value of the product and 2.) losing money on a sale. After all, I've never met anyone who got rich from sales of an independent project.[/QUOTE]

Exactly my thoughts........