Egg and chicken question

killthepixelnow

Do it right or dont do it
Hey guys, I'm in a dilemma right now and have so many questions I don't know where to start. Well, our band had independently recorded a second full-length album, which is ready for replication. This time we would like to approach a label and try to expand our music.

My plan is to prepare nice promo packages including a cover letter, our album, a one-sheet, and a page with reviews of our first CD. Here surfaces the first problem, only the vocalist and me remains active members of the "band" (I recorded both the guitars and bass parts, and programmed all the drums; my friend did all the vocals.) So, do you think the fact that we're a duo will scare labels? I think it's better to tell the true and avoid lying of the absence of other members. What do you think?

Here's my second question: wouldn't it be better to send promo packages to magazines and blogs to gain reviews and use that information to have better chances to get a deal with a label? I thought that was a good idea. However, what happens if the label wants the exclusivity of the release and knowing that we distributed the material prior to a formal arrangement pull out the deal? It is also important to note that some publications indicate if the album is gonna be released independently or with a label. If we send the album before signing with a label they'll mark the album as an indie record. So, this is an egg and chicken question. What should I do first? Magazines or labels? Labels or magazines?

Any help on these matters will be greatly appreciated.

:confused:
 
First off, there is no reason for you to mention anything about what members are active in the band. If the music is there then members can be replaced.

Second, good luck finding a worthy record label that will even read your bio if you do not already have substantial sales numbers and already have a fan base or any type of income or youtube viral video.

Market via any way you can. From my experience (which is limited though long term) you will not get anything from anyone unless you are something to many. You might be able to find a small indie label that will distribute-and that is cool, but to get someone to invest the big bucks is a thing of the past. Unless you have already established yourself or you are so incredibly amazing and more marketable than any other band that there is no choice but for someone to scoop you up.

Are you scoopable? :)
 
And no offense at all here. It is just a different market these days. Even those who are established already have no where near the income they used to.

A friend of mine has written/produced multiple top 100 Billboard songs in the last few years for 'signed' bands, and he is not rich. His ability to write via his publishing contract gives him a decent living. Even with those credits and a song from his personal band on 'Rock Band' video game, he has not a record deal for his own project. Well, he had one but it is not all that it is cracked up to be as we used to know back in the 80's as Greg mentioned. It is a totally different industry now.

Not to bring you down here, as there are exceptions. You may be one. I have not the insight to give you any opinion of your music, but, reality is that it is really tough to get any type of 'record deal' these days. Most likely if you do, it will just put you in debt. More of an investment loan from any 'major or indie label contract' that you will be paying way too much for when you can just do it yourself anyway. It is easy to find a indie label that can get you just a distribution deal. Hell, I could get you one by making a phone call if you are good. It is of no use if you have not already established a market and fan-base. Ability to sell product in Best Buy or WallMart is only worthy if there is something in place already that makes it worth buying. Nobody buys CD's anymore, so the market is there for you to do this on your own via online sales.

If you want to make it big. You have to be really fucking good and do the marketing yourself.

Anyway, I have blah blah'd too much.

Best of luck to you. Things may just go your way like you would wish. Just have realistic expectations of how the music industry is now. At the least, enjoy being a musician and make some great music because you enjoy it. :)
 
Thanks to you both, your thoughts are right. There's something else I didn't mention: money is not my goal here. Basically, what I need is a distribution channel and I my first thought was a label that could do that.

If you want to make it big. You have to be really fucking good and do the marketing yourself.

If marketing is the clue, I should 'move' my music first, and then look after a label (no matter if it's big o small). That kinda solves the chicken and egg question, isn't it? Magazines and blogs first, spread the music, building up a decent fan base and then, hopefully, negotiate something with a distro.
 
OP,

You can get distribution without a label. If I'm not mistaken, the label doesn't do distribution anyway. It is a third party who handles it.

If you can find a publicist, that person will take some of the money, but that should be the deal. The publicist gets a percentage. That person should know distribution people, outlets, etc. A good manager or publicists is where you could probably get the most traction.

You say you're not doing it for the money, but if you want to do it full time, there has to be money. A more reasonable approach is to try and market locally, play see if you can get with college radios, independent back water stations (Clear Channel doesn't go for the small guys), and work it that way. If you can get 10-20K people listening and buying, you may be able to sustain it.

Back to the basics, write, play, charities, city events, etc. Exposure is what you're after. As much as the Internet is free, it is also crowded and hard to cut through the noise.

Good Luck.
 
Then why bother? Money is the only reason to "get your music out there".

You're a funny guy! You know Greg, it might sound as a contradiction by I want to have a fan base of people interested in my music. I'd be happy if I could release an album every two years as a studio band (concerts don't cut for me.) Money *ahem* will only be necessary to cover recording and production costs. Ah, the eternal dilemma of a musician...
 
You're a funny guy! You know Greg, it might sound as a contradiction by I want to have a fan base of people interested in my music. I'd be happy if I could release an album every two years as a studio band (concerts don't cut for me.) Money *ahem* will only be necessary to cover recording and production costs. Ah, the eternal dilemma of a musician...

I see. So you want fans, but not money, and you want to release recordings, but never play live. That's about as ass backwards as it gets, and I love it. I really do. My own preferences pretty much line up with that. Except for the fans. I don't care about that, but I get it. Too bad it's not gonna work at all.
 
Since the only way for a band to make money is to play live now, not habing a band will be a problem.

The label won't do much for you that you couldnt do yourself. If you are only interested in making enough money to fund your next effort, you can do that without having to split the income 80/20 with a label.
 
I see. So you want fans, but not money, and you want to release recordings, but never play live. That's about as ass backwards as it gets, and I love it. I really do. My own preferences pretty much line up with that. Except for the fans. I don't care about that, but I get it. Too bad it's not gonna work at all.

That's the reason I appreciate you Greg! You got my point. By the way... no fans, no money... no money, no records... no records, no music... no music, no fans...
 
That's the reason I appreciate you Greg! You got my point. By the way... no fans, no money... no money, no records... no records, no music... no music, no fans...

That's not true. In today's landscape, fans are the least necessary part of recording music.

So really, you're only "goal" is to just have people like your music enough to buy it without any hope of seeing you actually perform it.

You don't need any kind of "label" for that.
 
Without playing live, I don't see how you can really build anything. Even the record labels understand that. The music itself has so little value anymore in the eyes of fans. The live performance is where it is at. Maybe that is a good thing. This will force people to leave autotune and play.

Getting a following without playing, while it can be done, I don't see it working that way for the 99.9%. Maybe the more global we are, the more local we become.
 
As far as I'm concerned, artists earn money with tours, not with records. Unfortunately, since we're a two piece band we're not able to play anymore... but we still like to compose and record our music.
 
I see. So you want fans, but not money, and you want to release recordings, but never play live. That's about as ass backwards as it gets, and I love it. I really do. My own preferences pretty much line up with that. Except for the fans. I don't care about that, but I get it. Too bad it's not gonna work at all.

Defibrillators = no money, no performances, no fans (except for my mum). We're onto CD number 9 with absolutely nothing to show for it. But we sure are enjoying ourselves.
 
Well, it all goes to motivation, right? I make music because I like to play, and I record it because I want to left something behind (call it a legacy if you like). Since we play death metal, chances are no more than 100 people will be really interested in our stuff, but that thought make me happy. When we were a four-piece band, we played on some shows on some smokey dungeons... it was great but recording is a much more pleasant experience to me. So, I still want to release albums, hopefully on vinyl too.
 
Back
Top