'MAKING IT BIG' or not?

[jay_isaacs]

I may well be alone on this one but I thought I would throw it out there!

Basically, I have been writing music for a while and have just started recording and producing my first demo. A lot of my friends who have already done this seem to spend there time and hard worked demos hounding companies and record labels to try and 'Make it big'

Whilst there is nothing wrong with this and 99% of artists choose this direction, I was just wondering if there were any other artists out there who like me aren't bothered about making a lot of money or being superstars but would like as many people as possible to hear their music and would like to find a company whose goal isn't to just find mega artists who will market well but is to take the work of these artists and help them acheive their goal.

Does such a company exist or are they all in it for the money? To me music is an expression of somebody's personality and feelings which should be enjoyed and shared by as many people as possible. The feeling you get when a song moves you to tears or makes you crack a smile - can you really put a price tag on that?
This is just my opinion and I wondered if i was alone in this respect.

 

[Mindset]

I may well be alone on this one but I thought I would throw it out there!

Basically, I have been writing music for a while and have just started recording and producing my first demo. A lot of my friends who have already done this seem to spend there time and hard worked demos hounding companies and record labels to try and 'Make it big'

Whilst there is nothing wrong with this and 99% of artists choose this direction, I was just wondering if there were any other artists out there who like me aren't bothered about making a lot of money or being superstars but would like as many people as possible to hear their music and would like to find a company whose goal isn't to just find mega artists who will market well but is to take the work of these artists and help them acheive their goal.

Does such a company exist or are they all in it for the money? To me music is an expression of somebody's personality and feelings which should be enjoyed and shared by as many people as possible. The feeling you get when a song moves you to tears or makes you crack a smile - can you really put a price tag on that?
This is just my opinion and I wondered if i was alone in this respect.

So.

Whats your goal?

I feel the same way with music. So do many many people, including "mega artists".

However you are describing the actual 'product', which is fine, but for price tags, most definitely. For MANY facts of life, companies need $$ to survive. So do individual people too. You can't put a price tag on the feelings you get from listening to the music. But you can damn sure put a price tag on the production, recording processes, marketing, mediums, services, employees, etc.

Now, there are MANY labels etc out there that's only goal is to find artists. Actually, personally, finding an artist is about last on my list of goals. Creation is one of the main goals.

but we all got to eat.

or go find jobs & do music as a hobby.

 

[Erockrazor]

Whilst there is nothing wrong with this and 99% of artists choose this direction, I was just wondering if there were any other artists out there who like me aren't bothered about making a lot of money or being superstars but would like as many people as possible to hear their music and would like to find a company whose goal isn't to just find mega artists who will market well but is to take the work of these artists and help them acheive their goal.

99%? You must think musicians are a bunch of tools. What kind of music do you listen to that gives you this perception? Only pop on z100?

When someone is playing a style of music that isn't commercially accepted, they almost have to be playing for the "feeling" of the music and the passion. It in my opinion, is more honorable to play regardless of commercial recognition or fame. And as Mindset says, many superstars as well are not concerned with their fame.

My favorite music comes from people who are not relatively famous. And many people agree. One example is indie rock, doing everything yourself for your own satisfaction. I have put out 2 albums well aware that they will receive little or no airplay and get barely any listens. Still, I find it very gratifying to create my own music, record it, and publish it.

Also, I'm an aspiring media composer. I want to make a living off of what I believe is my talents. I want to be able to support myself with my music .. but also even here, I have no intentions of becoming well known or even rich .. just comfortable and enjoying it.

I'm glad you take that stance with your music. That is the best stance to have in my opinion. Focus on the music and what you enjoy about it. Don't listen to what other people tell you if it doesn't work for you. Music should feel perfect to the person making it. I just want you to know that you're not alone. Actually very few people on this board seem to be highly concerned with fame and fortune. I just want you to be aware that there are huge groups of people determined to make music for the love of it. And don't get me wrong, you can still make pop music without intentions of fame!

Hope I don't come off too rough. Good luck, Eric

 

[Bristol Posse]

A business has to make money, It needs to cover it's costs, pay it's employees and pay its stock holders. businesses that don't do that don't stay in business long
Even a charity needs to take in as much as it spends whether it be from grants donation or sales of second hand tea cosys if it wants to keep going so it has to be aware of it's target audience and what they want/expect in terms of a tangible output.
So your not going to find a label that just wants to put music out without worrying about marketability of artists and generating sales

All of that said. I saw from my sound click page that a couple of my songs have had more than 450 listens. If I take out my immediate friends and family and my own up load checks that means over 350 people I don't know have heard a least a portion of one of my songs.

That gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling (I don't know if it did the same for them ROFL) and I'm kind of amazed because 10 years ago that would have been impossible without hitting the streets with a big box of cassette tapes. so the internet and shameless self promotion can get your music out there although to a limited extent

I do have a secret hope that I will eventually sell one mp3 so I can delcare 17 cents of income from music on my tax return and then tell everyone I am a professional musician ha ha ha.

 

[jay_isaacs]

Long Post!!!!

All points considered - and agreed.

It's an obvious fact that you don't get something for nothing. My point is that I think the music scene has been ruined especially for smalltime artists (like myself and others on this forum) by placing so much focus on marketability. I think if all artists were treat as equal, the music scene would become an amazing world!

Think about it - the charts would no longer be dominated by artists who sell a million records, radio airtime would become varied and more interesting and musicians like us would stand more of a chance thus giving us more enjoyment from the thing that we love by seeing more people react to our labour of love.

My hopes of this dream becoming reality were increased when some of the let's say big time artists began working independantly of record labels and releasing their music for free! thus putting them on the same level as us small time musicians.

I guess what I am trying to say is - Is it possibleto be succesful without having to be famous? I suppose many of us will have varying definitions of the word succesful in relation to our music. But I would say that ultimately we all have the same goal - to create music that embodies our feelings/emotions or just our love of the art and see it touch as many lives as possible whether that brings positive or negative reactions.

 

[Mindset]

All points considered - and agreed.

It's an obvious fact that you don't get something for nothing. My point is that I think the music scene has been ruined especially for smalltime artists (like myself and others on this forum) by placing so much focus on marketability. I think if all artists were treat as equal, the music scene would become an amazing world!

Think about it - the charts would no longer be dominated by artists who sell a million records, radio airtime would become varied and more interesting and musicians like us would stand more of a chance thus giving us more enjoyment from the thing that we love by seeing more people react to our labour of love.

My hopes of this dream becoming reality were increased when some of the let's say big time artists began working independantly of record labels and releasing their music for free! thus putting them on the same level as us small time musicians.

I guess what I am trying to say is - Is it possibleto be succesful without having to be famous? I suppose many of us will have varying definitions of the word succesful in relation to our music. But I would say that ultimately we all have the same goal - to create music that embodies our feelings/emotions or just our love of the art and see it touch as many lives as possible whether that brings positive or negative reactions.

Have you really asked yourself the question why they sell a million? Other than the $$ put in from the label, fans buy albums,mp3's or whatever media. Fans keep the music industry alive, even through recessions. I doubt I will ever see a music chart based on sales, have small time artists flooding it. Top 40 today, all artists sell 15 copies, and at number 1 spot, XXX with the hit single XXX, selling 17 copies..... no it wouldn't work for one.

As for labels... You better believe that my whole team, are involved in the creative process, as well as the same manpower in marketing.

Look at it at this view...

All independent artists, are treated equal.
All major artists are discrimiated against.

And

Lastly

Yes it is possible to be successful without being famous. In every industry this is possible... Particularly music, the answer is still yes, even platinum selling artists tend to be less "famous" than the next, but neverless successful.

Nice thread btw. You've got answers from independent musicians, and record labels.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

...I was just wondering if there were any other artists out there who like me aren't bothered about making a lot of money or being superstars but would like as many people as possible to hear their music and would like to find a company whose goal isn't to just find mega artists who will market well but is to take the work of these artists and help them acheive their goal.

Does such a company exist or are they all in it for the money?

No. Record labels are businesses. Businesses have two objectives which both serve a higher one; keep expenses down and maximize cash inflow in order to make a profit. Finding a "mega artist" and signing them is going to make a label a LOT more money than finding an artist who just wants to be happy.

But, there's really no money in being a "mega artist" either these days, unless you become a Britney or a Justin or their ilk - I know a guy in a multi-platinum band who makes less a year than I do, and I'm not THAT well off.

My advice? If you just want to make music and "achieve your goals" and be heard, start your own label and release it yourself. It's more work, since you have to do the production and promotion, but it puts you in total control of the process and if any income IS generated, then you get it all, instead of handing 90% over to your agent and your label.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

All points considered - and agreed.

It's an obvious fact that you don't get something for nothing. My point is that I think the music scene has been ruined especially for smalltime artists (like myself and others on this forum) by placing so much focus on marketability. I think if all artists were treat as equal, the music scene would become an amazing world!

Think about it - the charts would no longer be dominated by artists who sell a million records, radio airtime would become varied and more interesting and musicians like us would stand more of a chance thus giving us more enjoyment from the thing that we love by seeing more people react to our labour of love.

Um, do you understand how the music industry works?

The person with the #1 single happens to be ranked #1 because they've sold more singles than anyone else that week.

Labels focus on marketability because if they don't think an artist is marketable enough, then it's unlikely they'll be able to generate a large enough return on their investment to pay back the costs associated with signing them.

It's a business. It's not some touchy-feely artist's commune. You don't have to like it, and there are alternatives (release your music yourself, strive for local sucess rather than national, etc), but wishing it was some utopian paradise won't change anything...

To be fair, that's actualyl what I miss the most about the heydays of Napster and Audiogalaxy - there was a TON of music out there that I would never have discovered outside of the filter of corporate rock radio, and it was way more demographic. If you want to pursue your utopian dream of "musical equality," then either go local or go to the internet. However, the music industry is an industry and always will be - you can either buy in or opt out, but you can't change it.

 

[Nandoram]

All points considered - and agreed.

It's an obvious fact that you don't get something for nothing. My point is that I think the music scene has been ruined especially for smalltime artists (like myself and others on this forum) by placing so much focus on marketability. I think if all artists were treat as equal, the music scene would become an amazing world!

If marketability means that the record companies are saying "we will only sign future artists who look like the Jonas Bros, or that sound like the Jonas Bros"... then I agree, that kind of thinking is bullshit.

But come on... not all artists deserve to be treated as equal. I'm not going to intentionally bash someone who sounds terrible... I would point them in the right direction... but I wouldn't want to associate myself with people who have what I consider to be substandard music: poorly written, poorly performed, poorly recorded, poorly designed, etc.

Think about it - the charts would no longer be dominated by artists who sell a million records, radio airtime would become varied and more interesting and musicians like us would stand more of a chance thus giving us more enjoyment from the thing that we love by seeing more people react to our labour of love.

I think a lot of us agree that the charts don't mean a damn thing. And radio... with it's payola structure... hasn't meant anything to me in the last ten years.

My hopes of this dream becoming reality were increased when some of the let's say big time artists began working independantly of record labels and releasing their music for free! thus putting them on the same level as us small time musicians.

Didn't NIN do that already? I'm not sure if he used ADS, but he had a DONATE button.

What's stopping you (or others) from creating a website... where you provide your songs free to the world.... and you make your survival money off the ads?

I guess what I am trying to say is - Is it possibleto be succesful without having to be famous? I suppose many of us will have varying definitions of the word succesful in relation to our music. But I would say that ultimately we all have the same goal - to create music that embodies our feelings/emotions or just our love of the art and see it touch as many lives as possible whether that brings positive or negative reactions.

I know I don't give a damn about being famous. I do my music because I feel it enriches my life. I do it because I LOVE music. I do it because it's a challenge. I also do it because it gives me an avenue to communicate with others.

If I can pay off my house with it... then I could die happy.

 

[jay_isaacs]

This is really interesting getting both sides of the story here.

Labels focus on marketability because if they don't think an artist is marketable enough, then it's unlikely they'll be able to generate a large enough return on their investment to pay back the costs associated with signing them.

And that is the main problem. That is why you never hear of any of the masses of talent that the music world has to offer and we are dominated by trashy manufactured clones. No wonder it is so hard for small time artists to get a foothold in the music industry because at the end of the day if you as an artist are not interested in being marketable your on your own.

But come on... not all artists deserve to be treated as equal. I'm not going to intentionally bash someone who sounds terrible... I would point them in the right direction... but I wouldn't want to associate myself with people who have what I consider to be substandard music: poorly written, poorly performed, poorly recorded, poorly designed, etc.

Agreed but surely that is a better filter than having the big shots say to someone with talent - 'well your not going to make as much money as XXXX so get lost!' and leave them to find their own way if they even have any motivation left!

Basically if your an artist who is out just to make music for the enjoyment but want a vast audience with the possible chance of a modest return on your work - There is no-one out there who wants to know or help you. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[gecko zzed]

Basically if your an artist who is out just to make music for the enjoyment but want a vast audience with the possible chance of a modest return on your work - There is no-one out there who wants to know or help you. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong?

There's something weird about the music industry.

I write and record my own stuff, and have done so for many years. I do it because I enjoy doing it, and like others around here, I'm not that attracted by public acclaim or commercial success (though I wouldn't turn a lucrative offer away).

Nevertheless, I appreciate that there are many fine talented acts around that don't enjoy the public recognition they might otherwise hope for. I also understand that this lack of recognition is often attributed to the industry itself, with their fostering of 'clones', the perception of 'payola', and other factors that work against the budding artist. And I sympathise with their plight.

But, for all that, I find myself sitting on the same side of the seesaw in this debate as the record labels.

There are a number of reasons for this:

I don't think that the reasons often given stand up to close scrutiny. I agree that there is a lot of dross being played. But it is only dross in my opinion. It is not dross in the opinion of the many thousands of people that buy it. But even so, there is a lot of other stuff played as well; indie, alternative, non-mainstream material. In Australia there are many mainstream radio stations, but there are also a not insignificant number of alternative stations (e.g. Triple J). It is all not one way.

In any record store you will see the top 40 racks, but there are also shelves full of alternatives.

Recording and distributing records is a risky business, and there is, I expect, an inherent conservatism in company boardrooms that causes them to go with what they know works (and (a) keeps the company going, and (b) generates a profit). However, all fashion industries (and music, in my view, is definitely a 'fashion') know that they cannot rely on their staples forever, because tastes change. So they need to be on the look out for acts that will provide their stable of future staples. Each year we hear new acts. Some are accepted (by the public) and prosper. Others fade back into obscurity.

But here is why I think the music industry is weird. In any profession you care to mention, reputation is profoundly important. Highly sought-after doctors, lawyers, golfers, racing car drivers command big fees. They are sought after because of their reputation. Those reputations are earned by them excelling in their vocations. It is a hard slog building a reputation. For example, Alex Hamilton burst onto the Formula 1 circuit a couple of years ago. Everybody said "wow, where did he come from!". But he's been racing for years . . . starting with go-karts.

Too often we see only the flare of a meteorite in the sky, without realising how far it has gone before it so fleetingly burns up in the atmosphere. The Beatles, for exampe, struggled for years as The Quarrymen in Liverpool, and in Hamburg, before they captured the world's imagination. The top 40 charts, for all the disdain me might show them, have featured the best acts in the world over the years, acts whose graft in obscurity was finally rewarded.

So how is it, that in the music industry, some performers (not necessarily those in this forum) seek fame and fortune without realising that hard work to establish a reputation is needed, and that people have to want to listen to them? (Actually, the music industry is not the only one with these characteristics; the arts industry is rife with them.)

I think that the best advice has already been given in this thread. If people want to make themselves heard more widely, then they can accept the risk themselves and start their own label and do their own distributon. If they believe that they really have something to offer, well . . . they have nothing to lose, do they?

 

[joeym]

"making it big" is an illusion....I've said it before.
like believing in Father Xmas or chasing rainbows.....
Music should be something to suit your soul, so you do it first for yourself. If other people like it, fine.
If you wanna start paying off your mortgage out of making music, it's damn hard work and you've gotta be ready to forget family, social life, whatever, it's a 24 hour job. Besides being a mine-field.....
The magic word here is "connections". It's who you know that's more important, not what you know. And be ready to face, hardship, disappointment, falseness, lies and heartbreak. Yeah, baby, but then you'll be a star.......

And if you believe that record companies do it out of love for music, think again.......

 

[true-eurt]

As I am not skilled enough or driven enough, to *make it big*...an answer of "Fame and Fortune mean nothing to me", would seem shallow in context to your question..and since I've never been rich and famous, I lack knowledge and experience of how that would actually effect me. I can only speculate on it.

Fame has never been a goal of mine, but honestly the money does have appeal..not due to greed, but necessity. For my family and friends as well. Who wouldn't enjoy making money doing something they love?...but..I suppose, if ambition of money or fame were a priority in my life, then I would long ago applied myself to that very purpose.

I write and play music for my love of it....and for self-expression of things I hear in my head and the need to get them out of my head!

I'm also hindered in verbal communicating skills, tending to express my thoughts, with an utterance of sounds, whether vocal or instrumentally. Sometimes my utterance of sounds are music to others ears...sometimes just cacophony without purpose. For me, it is audible communication, even if it is one-sided.

Then there is the art form...I love painting pictures within someone's mind, with the colors of my soul, reflecting my heart to theirs, in a language of it's own...and leaving it to their own interpretation.

Without the expression of music, I become melancholy and unproductive..feeling trapped within my own emotions.

I'll never stop the music, for it is the heart of the force within me, whereas fame or fortune merely be a by-product of that force...

Making it big...or not...obviously notta problem!

 

[true-eurt]

Yeah, baby, but then you'll be a star.......

I go here to get my REAL star fix....https://homerecording.com/bbs/forumdisplay.php?f=15

 

[DrewPeterson7]

And that is the main problem. That is why you never hear of any of the masses of talent that the music world has to offer and we are dominated by trashy manufactured clones. No wonder it is so hard for small time artists to get a foothold in the music industry because at the end of the day if you as an artist are not interested in being marketable your on your own.

So, let me ask you a correlary question - if a label doesn't think you're "marketable" enough to make a profit on, why should they invest their time and money in you?

 

[Nandoram]

Basically if your an artist who is out just to make music for the enjoyment but want a vast audience with the possible chance of a modest return on your work - There is no-one out there who wants to know or help you. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong?

Good point. What we are looking for DOESN'T EXIST. We are looking for a place (a website? record company? community?) that will, arguably, help separate the wheat from the chaff, but not only strategically focus on teenybopper marketing. One that focuses on good music. I would give anything to discover a great new band nowadays that really inspires me. What I hear in the current marketplace doesn't inspire me.

I believe the current market alienates the "teenys" once they grow up. They move on to attracting the newest batch of kids because they are "the only ones buying music and cds." But how about marketing to the ones that have GROWN UP and now have disposable income? They are missing out on keeping customers for the long haul, in return for the quick buck. Once you have a love of music... a true love... you will always yearn for more of the same. For example, if you liked NKOTB 20 years ago, you may think nostalgic about them now, but you don't just listen to NKOTB. You have grown up, and your tastes have changed. But what is being marketed to you? The most recent version of NKOTB, which is now the JONAS BROS..

This is why the record industry is in such disarray now. Because people are tired of being dictated, and they want to take control. This is why NAPSTER, MORPHEUS, and their ilk became so popular. People want what THEY want, not what the record company tells them. We are in the midst of a musical market correction, and the companies still don't get it.. they're too busy complaining about what people are doing. Suing some mom in the Midwest for file sharing 24 songs.

What I've been thinking about is just going the free route... creating a website with free original music, and just making money off the advertising on said website. The more people come to it... the more money I make. Of course, the music has to attract the people... there has to be some kind of marketing to get people to know it exists. There has to be some kind of buzz about it. But... I can kind of see this happening.

The other thing I think can help is that a new company is created.... kind of like IMAGE COMICS (from the comics industry), where they give artists a chance to release their music for a fee (by providing distribution, marketing, etc.). But there have to be certain restrictions in place to keep out the chaff (bad songwriting, bad performances, bad productions). A kind of editorial board, I guess. But one that doesn't cater to the latest teenybopper's wants... but instead caters to the ones that have grown up and are looking for good music.

I don't know... I'm just throwing this stuff out as I'm thinking about it.

 

[jay_isaacs]

Nandoram - You have hit the nail on the head. I am all for putting my music out there for free. I would just like as many people to hear as possible and find out what they think whether that is good or bad. However, if you want to do that, like you say, to reach as many people as possible is so hard. No wonder there are so many talents that go unheard of. Forums like this are a great utility though for that sort of musician. How many users on this forum have discovered other talented users who they would most likely never have heard of otherwise. I'm not trying to slate the music industry in any way - hell if we didn't have them where would we be?! I just think they should spend an equal ammount of time helping out the little guys as they do the big guys. I don't mean they should pour millions of pounds into who may never make it or have no interest in being 'marketable' but helping them make their music available would be a huge beneficial step for the music scene in general as there would be so much more variety. Perhaps one route would be for record companies to take on artists like this BUT let them market themselves through the company thus giving them exposure to some valuable contacts. Essentialy you would have an independant artist, under the umbrella of an influential company with no expectations from artist or company but the artist has the opportunity to expose themselves to a valuable audience and the company gets the benefit of being connected with a possible talent. The question then is really, would any of the major players going to be willing to do that?

 

[Erockrazor]

Your music will be heard if it's good. You can do things on your own to get people to listen to your music. I have released two free albums. You can promote them on websites where there can be like minds, who may like your music.

You want to be heard by the masses but (from the way you're talking), I doubt that you make music that the masses will like.

This being said, you have to target your audience. If you are truly good and "inspiring", people will listen to you. Not because your music will fall from thin air because of it's heavenly quality .. but because of the people who do like it, will tell others. In underground music scenes, you become "known" by the people from that scene because of word of mouth. That would be the product of good music but not marketable.

The fact is, you're not going to be heard by the "masses". But if you pay attention to how you're "marketing" your great music, you can have people who actually care, listening to it.

What you want exactly doesn't exist. Plus, it doesn't make sense to exist really.

It's like me getting independent romance films shoved down my throat. I dont like romance films but in order for the independent film maker to be seen by the masses, they have to shove it down everyones throat.

If you want to be heard by the masses, get on a major label.

If you want to be respected by your peers and music lovers, play music because you love it, with disregard to public appreciation.

If these options dont work for you, play the bugle in a regionally acclaimed marching band.

 

[BentRabbit]

Some of you may have read this before, but for those that haven't, it's a timeless piece by Kerry Livgren about the music industry and the 'artists' it caters to...

Kind of a long read, but worth it...

http://www.numavox.com/seeds.htm

 

[Nandoram]

Nandoram - You have hit the nail on the head. I am all for putting my music out there for free. I would just like as many people to hear as possible and find out what they think whether that is good or bad. However, if you want to do that, like you say, to reach as many people as possible is so hard. No wonder there are so many talents that go unheard of. Forums like this are a great utility though for that sort of musician. How many users on this forum have discovered other talented users who they would most likely never have heard of otherwise.

I'm not trying to slate the music industry in any way - hell if we didn't have them where would we be?! I just think they should spend an equal ammount of time helping out the little guys as they do the big guys. I don't mean they should pour millions of pounds into who may never make it or have no interest in being 'marketable' but helping them make their music available would be a huge beneficial step for the music scene in general as there would be so much more variety.

Perhaps one route would be for record companies to take on artists like this BUT let them market themselves through the company thus giving them exposure to some valuable contacts. Essentialy you would have an independant artist, under the umbrella of an influential company with no expectations from artist or company but the artist has the opportunity to expose themselves to a valuable audience and the company gets the benefit of being connected with a possible talent.

The question then is really, would any of the major players going to be willing to do that?

PUTTING MUSIC OUT FOR FREE ON A WEBSITE, YOU MAKE MONEY ON THE ADS: The only problem with this is... the costs involved in getting the word out. Of course, you would have to map out where you will advertise... strategically hit the places where the people that would like your music go... both real places, and internet sites. But this will cost you real money... to take out (lets say) some banner ads on websites. You could also hit some big message boards, and hope you are not banned as "spam." Take out a one page ad in Rolling Stone, GUITAR PLAYER magazine, and so forth... you are out thousands of dollars. Try to get some local press folks to do a story on you and your website.... that could work. Send out press kits and hopefully, some of them are run as stories. That could work.

But the important thing is to get those hits... to substantiate to the advertisers on your website (it could be BEST BUY, AMAZON, GOOGLE, whatever) that they are getting something out of being on your free music website.

RECORD COMPANIES HELPING OUT...
I don't know... my idea of an IMAGE COMICS-style record company doesn't exist, but there's no reason why it can't. Somebody just has to do it. IMAGE COMICS has its brand that they have been nurturing for over 15 years now. They don't accept crap (hence, here is the "board of directors" I was talking about that separates the "wheat" from the "chaff"). Therefore, for your independent comic to come out with the IMAGE logo on it... that's a safety net for the comics retailers who are ordering the comics. They know it's going to be up to a certain quality. Esentially, if you have a comic book that you have independently produced.. you can submit it to Image comics. If they accept you (they look at quality, marketability, and so forth), then you make a deal that allows them to release the book. How it goes from there is unknown to me... I think they print the book, place ads in the retailer's ordering catalogs... and they either deduct this from your money when you get paid by the distributor, or you pay them ahead of time. I'm sure they also make a certain percentage from the book (15%? unknown). I'm not sure how they do it. But they basically help you with the printing of the book (they get better discounts due to bulk printing), and with advertising. They give you a shot at selling with the majors, in the same catalogs.

Something like this... but in the music industry... could be a boon. The same type of thing could be designed for the music industry... by a major record company. It wouldn't be exactly like the comic book thing, but it could take the best of that model and tailor it for the music industry.

SOMETHING ELSE... WOULD LIKE FEEDBACK ON THIS...

Now, the comics industry also has a non-returnable policy. If you are a retailer, and you order comics/books/toys/videos from the distributor... then what you order is non-returnable. So whatever they order they are stuck with. I don't think this is the case with the current music industry. If WAL MART doesn't sell 20,000 of your albums... then they can return them to the distributor, who in turn returns it to you. Now.. what would happen if someone created a music distribution system whereby the products were NON-RETURNABLE? Would this be a boon for the record labels (who when they get their orders, would know EXACTLY how many copies were sold)? Would it be bad for the consumer who would not find stuff he/she wants when they hit the record stores because the owner doesnt want to take a chance on something?