P.S.- An example of label chicanery is the transfer of the breakage risk, uncollectable accounts, and promotional items to the artist from the label.
The manufacturing costs shouldn't be borne by the band (container charge) unless it's allowed by contract.
For example, we recoup art fees above and beyond a standard art cost. We also recoup certain costs related to certain formats, for the same reason. Everything else is borne by the label.
Also, keep in mind that things that are recouped by the label are actually paid for up front by the label and recouped from future sales, so it's not as if the band is physically paying for recoupable costs.
P.P.S.- Listening to this video while typing and I think there's a few problems with it. Glacial Concepts pointed the issue of the definition of reserves. I'll have to go back and listen to the video again because he wasn't making any sense.
About the SRLP & the $20 million starting place in the video: No sane label or band will see 1,000,000 sales and assume that all of the SRLP is being paid to the label.
Everyone knows that the label ONLY gets the wholesale price for each sale, just like in any other business that works on a distributor model (food, automobiles, clothing, other consumer goods, etc).
It sucks because I appreciate any easy-to-understand primer on the ways that record labels can fleece the unprepared. I wish he'd started at the wholesale price ($10,000,000 in his example) instead.
Hi, as an actual record label head (albeit a small indie one), I want to offer the following details/corrections/explanations.
1. SRLP (Suggest Retail List Price) is often much higher than the realistic list price. In the 90s & 00s major label CD SRLPs were as high as 19.98 for a major artist. A consumer would have to hunt for a record store that was silly enough to sell the CD for that much, but on paper that meant that each sale was worth $20. It makes all of the numbers more impressive. (2 examples: "We sold $10 million worth!" or "Pirates cost us $10 million!")
2. I've seen contracts with royalties based on both wholesale price AND SRLP. I don't know which is more common, but both certainly exist for at least small to mid-sized acts & their labels.
3. Reserves are basically a % of the prospective sales that have occurred within a pay period that are held over until the following pay period (or for 2 pay periods, or more, depending on the contract).
In this case, a "sale" is a release sent to a store or distributor on consignment. They can still return it and it ceases to be a sale. On a balance sheet, the "sale" is a positive addition and a "return" is a negative addition.
The understandable and to me, acceptable justification for this is: Every new release has a huge burst of sales when it is first offered. In the 2nd 6 months of a record's life cycle (sometimes earlier if it's a smaller release, sometimes later if it's a larger release) there is a sudden influx of returns from stores and distributors. This happens because the stores and distributors have a limited return window for releases and if a record's just sitting there, they'll return it for credit & order something else.
A lot of times, a release will have a large initial sales period that shows "sales" of $$$. Then, the subsequent returns will wipe out the vast majority of those "sales" and if the label didn't hedge its bets by taking out a reserve for that first pay period, it would've paid $ to the band for sales that didn't actually happen. (It's one of the few places where a band has an advantage over a label)
Thing is, if a release DOES have such a backlash of returns and the label has paid the band for phantom sales, that release is usually pretty dead in the water and the label may show that overpayment for years or even forever. The fabled "long tail" can be pretty fucking long!
Here's an example of what I'm talking about
Key: month, sales in that month, returns in that month (total sales):
1st month 500
2nd month 250 (750)
3rd month 200 (950)
4th month 200, -100 (1050)
5th month 10, -400 (660)
6th month 30, -250 (440)
7th month 25, -50 (415)
8th month 25, -5 (435)
9th month 20 (455)
10th month 20 (475)
and so on... if the band & the label are lucky, it turns into a catalog title that clicks over steadily, maybe with bumps as the band tours or gets more well known. Usually, the long tail becomes really really long.
Please note: I am not in any way excusing or explaining the bookkeeping tricks of the major labels, or even the larger indie labels who use those tricks.
... the movie's surprisingly good! I bought an overseas copy (thank you all-region DVD player!) and it's a keeper. I've seen a lot of atrocious, intentionally "bad" films and it's much much better than 99% of them.
Of course, I like a lot of questionable films. Death Race 2000, the Dead Or Alive series, and the Scorpion series w/ Meiko Kaji are all faves.
Besides running a record label, I'm also an elected member of the Berkeley Rent Board and have been active in the local Green Party & other progressive organizations for years.
It drives me batty when political allies & friends who are otherwise on target start going on about the health effects of cell towers or- this is the new one in California- SmartMeters. These are new electric meters that the local, rapacious, corrupt power company (PG&E) have begun to install. (I'm fine with people attacking them because of possible PG&E chicanery- it's just the health aspect that bugs me)
I try to swallow my snark & deal with it firmly but diplomatically in public. Science is science, and fear & unquantifiable rumors are quite another.
P.S.- I used to work w/ Environmentally Ill (EI) people and the most affected (those who are home-bound & have extreme health effects) are totally open about their belief that yes, their environmental sickness is at least part mental. These folks are generally reacting more to man-made toxic chemicals in grooming & cleaning products than RF.
... I'm shocked by the NRA's push for this bill. Seriously, whatever happened to "safety first"?
A doctor has NO legal force over what a parent does, unless there are physical signs of child abuse. Owning a gun does not qualify as child abuse, not even here in Berkeley, ha ha ha...
This is a classic case of small-government right-wingers pushing big government directly into our private lives. Others have mentioned the cognitive dissonance above, so just cut and paste those comments here.
Really? Complain about REAL NYT missteps, not this.
Couple points:
1. 16 minutes = old news? Not everyone's tethered to twitter. I caught the breaking story on 24-hour cable news shows. If you add in commercials it was the 21st Century equivalent speed of smoke signals.
2. I think this post misses the point. Helene Cooper CONFIRMED the news story DIRECTLY with a source (and altered her already-written 2 paragraph story from "apprehended Bin Laden" to "killed Bin Laden").
The other NYT reporter was just re-broadcasting someone else's tweets & hadn't confirmed the news themselves.
3. Also, the Public Editor's essay says that all kinds of NYT reporters & photographers were e-mailing back and forth about this from around 10pm on, and describes a NYT photographer's interaction w/ a White House source in that 1st half hour.
Me, I am VERY GLAD that the NYT had a direct source confirm a breaking news story BEFORE posting it on their site.
If I want rumors, I'll pay attention to twitter. I can wait 16 minutes to get news that's been sourced by a journalist.
This is an excellent stand that the NLRB is taking.
It is in line with the purported overarching theory of discipline in the workplace: employees should be judged on their performance of their specific job, not whether they're a particular race, if they have big boobs, if they bitch about the boss outside of work, etc.
Discipline/terminate someone based on their job performance, not on their personal opinions. The slippery slope here is obvious and I'm actually kind of surprised that Mike & others aren't 100% behind this.
"If they resent your business/company they will go elsewhere when there's viable option."
Exactly. We work hard to keep a personal & political & social connection with our label's fans. We know that as soon as we release something, it's available, somewhere, for free.
(I'm the GM of indie record label that sells physical & digital formats of audio recordings)
That the BBC released the new episode within a few hours of the UK release over here in the US. I'm so bummed when my European friends talk about the latest episodes, while I know that I won't be able to see it for months.
This time around, I went to my cable services on-demand function and whammo! Watched the 1st episode within hours of its release.
About frickin' time.
Next task: slashing the prices of the Tom Baker DVDs. I would buy all of them IF they weren't $25+ a pop. Fuggedaboutit!
You all DO know that when your cell phone rings, you aren't required to answer it, right? You can even (gasp!) see the number of the caller in most cases.
(Me, I'm another confirmed call screener. If it's important, they'll leave a message or get ahold of me via text or e-mail)
Call me crazy ("You're crazy!"), but like the music industry, news uses aggregators/filters. The filters all used to be physical papers, but now there's all kinds of media outlets on-screen and on-line too. That's fine by me.
It's a problem of trust- while I always read between the lines of ANY news source- I do trust that the NY Times journalistic standards are much higher than that of the Daily Mirror or the Weekly World News (Batboy excepted, of course). They make mistakes, but they're also much more open about them when they happen (see the on-going Public Editor columns) than most other "reputable" news sources. Blogs & partisan sites rarely reach an equal level of self-examination & self-correction.
I'm sure the information will probably "surface," but will it be noticed in the same way as the gov't wiretapping scandal was in the US a few years ago if it's on some tiny-yet-accurate blog? Even if it's picked up and repeated by a high-traffic aggregator like Drudge Report or Huffington Post?
Those sites are rightfully seen as obviously partisan. The NY Times DEFINITELY has its own leanings, but its newsgathering is much less shaded by its editorial page. For instance, would you trust either of those aggregation sites to present a reasonably even-handed report of a partisan issue? No, and why should they?
I pay for 1 newspaper subscription, 1 news magazine, & my cable bill.
That's not the profile of a rich snob by any stretch. Recognizing that I like to read a paper paper isn't snobbery either, it's a information-delivery preference. (Isn't this what it's all about?)
As I wrote above, the NY Times is a primary news source. Personally, I'm a subscriber. Losing it would be a huge blow to information gathering and news reporting.
The number of excellent internet-based journalism projects like http://www.newsdesk.org (disclosure: I'm on the board of the 501(c)3 that oversees Newsdesk) are too few and way too underfunded to even begin to replicate the Old Grey Lady's breadth and depth of reporting.
I don't like the paywall, and I better get free access as a subscriber. BUT... linking to NY Times articles is a great way to inform on-line discussions about current events. Losing that or relying on 3rd party sites is a crap way to go.
Did they assume that having a paywall sans ads wasn't enough of a draw? Personally, I don't care about ads, so I wouldn't pay, but others here clearly would.
What method of monetizing the site would be acceptable? Is there any acceptable method? Does this even "need" to happen?
1. The 2 SF papers (The Chronicle & The Examiner) were hammered by the advent of the internet (see: Craigs List) and hampered by their JOA (Joint Operating Agreement) and their ownership troubles. The Examiner was sold to a very politically connected family who proceeded to make it a thin, shrill tabloid. The Chron eviscerated its news department in favor of flabby Life features. It wasn't a world-class paper beforehand, but it was a close 2nd to the formerly excellent San Jose Mercury News.
I don't think a paywall in 1998 would've saved either paper. Forcing the JOA to be split and putting the resources into one or the other paper would've.
2. I love the NY Times. I've been a subscriber for many years. They are a primary source for news (the Chron often takes many of their articles for their denuded news sections). As such, the Times is vital for in-depth extended reporting.
Do they get it "right" all of the time? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that without them, we will be a lot more information-poor.
3. The Mike-bashing is boring and, as someone else pointed out, inaccurate. THIS particular revenue-stream is not well-thought out, not ALL revenue-streams.
Actually, the good record stores all had (& the surviving ones often still do) turntables and CD players where you could listen to the record or CD before paying for it.
You had to buy based on cover art in the crappier stores, especially if you were buying a non-mainstream album in a genre like punk, since the clerks often knew nothing about it.
Everything else idiotic about this crap musician's statement has already been said in the comments before this one.
They DO notice actual letters written/typed by humans, not e-mails.
If us little people DIDN'T make a stink a few years ago, no one except readers of blogs like this one would have even HEARD of "Net Neutrality," let alone have it covered by Presidents and Congress and major news outlets.
Ditto the Low Power FM movement that grew out of pirate radio in the 1990s that the FCC finally had to admit existed and changed the rules to allow for LPFM stations across the country. That took lots of letters from all kinds of people. (Did it end up perfectly? No, but it's a lot better than it was)
I'm not saying that corporate lobbyists don't have an inherent advantage, I'm saying that we have some juice IF we choose to use it.
Cynicism is safe and often much funnier and entertaining than actually doing something constructive- I know from personal experience!
That's key. Everyone with brains and/or who are small enough to be flexible is adapting. We are (Alternative Tentacles). We're also a smaller company in terms of staff then we were even 3 years ago.
We know that people can find our music for free. We work with our fans and engage them and people reciprocate & pay for the music because they want to support the bands and outspoken art/music.
Record labels (in general) are still important- as gatekeepers/filters. A label's identity & connections are important. For instance, people know when they see our bat logo that Jello Biafra loves the record they're holding enough to put $ behind it. In the 1990s, people knew that Lookout meant Green Day/MTX/Queers/Screeching Weasel pop punk. They know that Anticon means quality independent-minded backpack hip-hop, Dischord means thoughtful post-punk/acoustic (and blazing hardcore punk early on) backed by Ian MacKaye, etc etc.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself in these kinds of threads, so I'll end this post here.
As a band member & label manager, I agree that it's all in the details. I'm a Donnas fan too, as it happens, but I'm still kind of puzzled about what decisions fans would be voting on.
Very curious about how this will turn out... Jesse
On the post: Connecting With Fans: Paul Simon Invites Fan On Stage To Play Song After She Yells That She Learned Guitar To It
Re: Green Day
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
Re: Couple of details...
The manufacturing costs shouldn't be borne by the band (container charge) unless it's allowed by contract.
For example, we recoup art fees above and beyond a standard art cost. We also recoup certain costs related to certain formats, for the same reason. Everything else is borne by the label.
Also, keep in mind that things that are recouped by the label are actually paid for up front by the label and recouped from future sales, so it's not as if the band is physically paying for recoupable costs.
P.P.S.- Listening to this video while typing and I think there's a few problems with it. Glacial Concepts pointed the issue of the definition of reserves. I'll have to go back and listen to the video again because he wasn't making any sense.
About the SRLP & the $20 million starting place in the video: No sane label or band will see 1,000,000 sales and assume that all of the SRLP is being paid to the label.
Everyone knows that the label ONLY gets the wholesale price for each sale, just like in any other business that works on a distributor model (food, automobiles, clothing, other consumer goods, etc).
It sucks because I appreciate any easy-to-understand primer on the ways that record labels can fleece the unprepared. I wish he'd started at the wholesale price ($10,000,000 in his example) instead.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
Couple of details...
1. SRLP (Suggest Retail List Price) is often much higher than the realistic list price. In the 90s & 00s major label CD SRLPs were as high as 19.98 for a major artist. A consumer would have to hunt for a record store that was silly enough to sell the CD for that much, but on paper that meant that each sale was worth $20. It makes all of the numbers more impressive. (2 examples: "We sold $10 million worth!" or "Pirates cost us $10 million!")
2. I've seen contracts with royalties based on both wholesale price AND SRLP. I don't know which is more common, but both certainly exist for at least small to mid-sized acts & their labels.
3. Reserves are basically a % of the prospective sales that have occurred within a pay period that are held over until the following pay period (or for 2 pay periods, or more, depending on the contract).
In this case, a "sale" is a release sent to a store or distributor on consignment. They can still return it and it ceases to be a sale. On a balance sheet, the "sale" is a positive addition and a "return" is a negative addition.
The understandable and to me, acceptable justification for this is: Every new release has a huge burst of sales when it is first offered. In the 2nd 6 months of a record's life cycle (sometimes earlier if it's a smaller release, sometimes later if it's a larger release) there is a sudden influx of returns from stores and distributors. This happens because the stores and distributors have a limited return window for releases and if a record's just sitting there, they'll return it for credit & order something else.
A lot of times, a release will have a large initial sales period that shows "sales" of $$$. Then, the subsequent returns will wipe out the vast majority of those "sales" and if the label didn't hedge its bets by taking out a reserve for that first pay period, it would've paid $ to the band for sales that didn't actually happen. (It's one of the few places where a band has an advantage over a label)
Thing is, if a release DOES have such a backlash of returns and the label has paid the band for phantom sales, that release is usually pretty dead in the water and the label may show that overpayment for years or even forever. The fabled "long tail" can be pretty fucking long!
Here's an example of what I'm talking about
Key: month, sales in that month, returns in that month (total sales):
1st month 500
2nd month 250 (750)
3rd month 200 (950)
4th month 200, -100 (1050)
5th month 10, -400 (660)
6th month 30, -250 (440)
7th month 25, -50 (415)
8th month 25, -5 (435)
9th month 20 (455)
10th month 20 (475)
and so on... if the band & the label are lucky, it turns into a catalog title that clicks over steadily, maybe with bumps as the band tours or gets more well known. Usually, the long tail becomes really really long.
Please note: I am not in any way excusing or explaining the bookkeeping tricks of the major labels, or even the larger indie labels who use those tricks.
On the post: From Two Nude Nuns Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits Down To None
Actually...
Of course, I like a lot of questionable films. Death Race 2000, the Dead Or Alive series, and the Scorpion series w/ Meiko Kaji are all faves.
On the post: European Politicians Look To Ban WiFi In School... For The Children
Re: Re: Oh geez, this is one of my pet peeves...
Just pointing out that it's not just right-wingers who are afraid of flouride in the water, the Illuminati, and wear tin-foil hats.
Providing balance. Carry on being anonymous, buddy.
On the post: European Politicians Look To Ban WiFi In School... For The Children
Oh geez, this is one of my pet peeves...
It drives me batty when political allies & friends who are otherwise on target start going on about the health effects of cell towers or- this is the new one in California- SmartMeters. These are new electric meters that the local, rapacious, corrupt power company (PG&E) have begun to install. (I'm fine with people attacking them because of possible PG&E chicanery- it's just the health aspect that bugs me)
I try to swallow my snark & deal with it firmly but diplomatically in public. Science is science, and fear & unquantifiable rumors are quite another.
P.S.- I used to work w/ Environmentally Ill (EI) people and the most affected (those who are home-bound & have extreme health effects) are totally open about their belief that yes, their environmental sickness is at least part mental. These folks are generally reacting more to man-made toxic chemicals in grooming & cleaning products than RF.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
As a gun owner...
A doctor has NO legal force over what a parent does, unless there are physical signs of child abuse. Owning a gun does not qualify as child abuse, not even here in Berkeley, ha ha ha...
This is a classic case of small-government right-wingers pushing big government directly into our private lives. Others have mentioned the cognitive dissonance above, so just cut and paste those comments here.
On the post: NY Times Ignores Its Own Reporter's Key Tweets In Patting Itself On The Back Over Speed Of Its Bin Laden Coverage
Really? Complain about REAL NYT missteps, not this.
1. 16 minutes = old news? Not everyone's tethered to twitter. I caught the breaking story on 24-hour cable news shows. If you add in commercials it was the 21st Century equivalent speed of smoke signals.
2. I think this post misses the point. Helene Cooper CONFIRMED the news story DIRECTLY with a source (and altered her already-written 2 paragraph story from "apprehended Bin Laden" to "killed Bin Laden").
The other NYT reporter was just re-broadcasting someone else's tweets & hadn't confirmed the news themselves.
3. Also, the Public Editor's essay says that all kinds of NYT reporters & photographers were e-mailing back and forth about this from around 10pm on, and describes a NYT photographer's interaction w/ a White House source in that 1st half hour.
Me, I am VERY GLAD that the NYT had a direct source confirm a breaking news story BEFORE posting it on their site.
If I want rumors, I'll pay attention to twitter. I can wait 16 minutes to get news that's been sourced by a journalist.
On the post: Labor Board Continues To Warn Companies Not To Fire People Based On Tweets
Good!
It is in line with the purported overarching theory of discipline in the workplace: employees should be judged on their performance of their specific job, not whether they're a particular race, if they have big boobs, if they bitch about the boss outside of work, etc.
Discipline/terminate someone based on their job performance, not on their personal opinions. The slippery slope here is obvious and I'm actually kind of surprised that Mike & others aren't 100% behind this.
You learn something new every day!
On the post: Deconstructing Reasons To Buy
Re: EXACTLY!!!!
Exactly. We work hard to keep a personal & political & social connection with our label's fans. We know that as soon as we release something, it's available, somewhere, for free.
(I'm the GM of indie record label that sells physical & digital formats of audio recordings)
On the post: TV People Realizing That The Internet Is Global
I'm so stoked!
This time around, I went to my cable services on-demand function and whammo! Watched the 1st episode within hours of its release.
About frickin' time.
Next task: slashing the prices of the Tom Baker DVDs. I would buy all of them IF they weren't $25+ a pop. Fuggedaboutit!
On the post: Phone Calls Are So Last Century
I'm shocked...
(Me, I'm another confirmed call screener. If it's important, they'll leave a message or get ahold of me via text or e-mail)
First world problems FTW!
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re:
It's a problem of trust- while I always read between the lines of ANY news source- I do trust that the NY Times journalistic standards are much higher than that of the Daily Mirror or the Weekly World News (Batboy excepted, of course). They make mistakes, but they're also much more open about them when they happen (see the on-going Public Editor columns) than most other "reputable" news sources. Blogs & partisan sites rarely reach an equal level of self-examination & self-correction.
I'm sure the information will probably "surface," but will it be noticed in the same way as the gov't wiretapping scandal was in the US a few years ago if it's on some tiny-yet-accurate blog? Even if it's picked up and repeated by a high-traffic aggregator like Drudge Report or Huffington Post?
Those sites are rightfully seen as obviously partisan. The NY Times DEFINITELY has its own leanings, but its newsgathering is much less shaded by its editorial page. For instance, would you trust either of those aggregation sites to present a reasonably even-handed report of a partisan issue? No, and why should they?
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re:
That's not the profile of a rich snob by any stretch. Recognizing that I like to read a paper paper isn't snobbery either, it's a information-delivery preference. (Isn't this what it's all about?)
One size doesn't fit all.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
NY Times- what's a better solution?
The number of excellent internet-based journalism projects like http://www.newsdesk.org (disclosure: I'm on the board of the 501(c)3 that oversees Newsdesk) are too few and way too underfunded to even begin to replicate the Old Grey Lady's breadth and depth of reporting.
I don't like the paywall, and I better get free access as a subscriber. BUT... linking to NY Times articles is a great way to inform on-line discussions about current events. Losing that or relying on 3rd party sites is a crap way to go.
Did they assume that having a paywall sans ads wasn't enough of a draw? Personally, I don't care about ads, so I wouldn't pay, but others here clearly would.
What method of monetizing the site would be acceptable? Is there any acceptable method? Does this even "need" to happen?
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re:
1. The 2 SF papers (The Chronicle & The Examiner) were hammered by the advent of the internet (see: Craigs List) and hampered by their JOA (Joint Operating Agreement) and their ownership troubles. The Examiner was sold to a very politically connected family who proceeded to make it a thin, shrill tabloid. The Chron eviscerated its news department in favor of flabby Life features. It wasn't a world-class paper beforehand, but it was a close 2nd to the formerly excellent San Jose Mercury News.
I don't think a paywall in 1998 would've saved either paper. Forcing the JOA to be split and putting the resources into one or the other paper would've.
2. I love the NY Times. I've been a subscriber for many years. They are a primary source for news (the Chron often takes many of their articles for their denuded news sections). As such, the Times is vital for in-depth extended reporting.
Do they get it "right" all of the time? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that without them, we will be a lot more information-poor.
3. The Mike-bashing is boring and, as someone else pointed out, inaccurate. THIS particular revenue-stream is not well-thought out, not ALL revenue-streams.
On the post: Bon Jovi Thinks Steve Jobs Killed Music; More Old Rockers Shooing Those Darn Kids Off Their Lawn
Buying music based on the cover art
You had to buy based on cover art in the crappier stores, especially if you were buying a non-mainstream album in a genre like punk, since the clerks often knew nothing about it.
Everything else idiotic about this crap musician's statement has already been said in the comments before this one.
On the post: How To Get Elected Officials To Actually Hear Our Worries About Censorship: Speak Up!
Yes, write letters!
If us little people DIDN'T make a stink a few years ago, no one except readers of blogs like this one would have even HEARD of "Net Neutrality," let alone have it covered by Presidents and Congress and major news outlets.
Ditto the Low Power FM movement that grew out of pirate radio in the 1990s that the FCC finally had to admit existed and changed the rules to allow for LPFM stations across the country. That took lots of letters from all kinds of people. (Did it end up perfectly? No, but it's a lot better than it was)
I'm not saying that corporate lobbyists don't have an inherent advantage, I'm saying that we have some juice IF we choose to use it.
Cynicism is safe and often much funnier and entertaining than actually doing something constructive- I know from personal experience!
On the post: Moby Says The Major Record Labels 'Should Die'
Adapt or die...
We know that people can find our music for free. We work with our fans and engage them and people reciprocate & pay for the music because they want to support the bands and outspoken art/music.
Record labels (in general) are still important- as gatekeepers/filters. A label's identity & connections are important. For instance, people know when they see our bat logo that Jello Biafra loves the record they're holding enough to put $ behind it. In the 1990s, people knew that Lookout meant Green Day/MTX/Queers/Screeching Weasel pop punk. They know that Anticon means quality independent-minded backpack hip-hop, Dischord means thoughtful post-punk/acoustic (and blazing hardcore punk early on) backed by Ian MacKaye, etc etc.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself in these kinds of threads, so I'll end this post here.
On the post: Crowdfunding Makes Sense... But Does Crowd Creative Decision Making?
Interesting...
Very curious about how this will turn out... Jesse
Next >>