Forgive me if I've totally missed the topic elsewhere, but what is the protocol with labels releasing hard copies of releases and then also featuring the same recordings on their Bandcamp account for indefinite sales. Personally, I'm starting to realize I only ever see my artist hard copies.
Some questions:
- Do some of the labels here keep track of the Bandcamp sales and offer the artist something like quarterly 20% payments of the money they've made as a royalty?
- Do some artists here refuse to let the labels feature the hard copy releases online?
- Do some artists simply post the same release from another label on their own personal Bandcamp page?
I'm not trying to start anything to show up at someone's house like the other industry I work in, but simply wanted to see what most people do about Bandcamp royalties, etc.
I've noticed cases of the latter two scenarios - leaving Bandcamp for digital-only and relegating physical copies to email-based mailorder just for the sake of simplicity, and I've known of plenty of releases featured on label BC profiles which were also on the artist's personal BC, often times with different artwork etc. And there are of course instances I've noticed where a label will sell both downloads and physical copies off BC, as well as the artist doing the same with their copies.
I can't speak to the royalty factor but I would imagine there are cases of profit going to artists and likely some artists who simply want the profits to go the label's future efforts.
Edit: I should add I plan to release some stuff by a few projects other than mine in the near future and I will probably leave it up to the individual artists as to whether or not their stuff is featured on my BC page.
Hope that kinda helps.
Quote from: THE RITA HN on April 17, 2018, 03:40:55 AM
- Do some of the labels here keep track of the Bandcamp sales and offer the artist something like quarterly 20% payments of the money they've made as a royalty?
They'd bloody well want to. Sound is sound and sales are sales, hard copy or download. It's something I've thought about as well.
I don't use bandcamp, nor will I ever - but I have looked into it in the past. Running a label account rather than an artist account costs, and I can't see it being a profitable venture if you're promoting art with a very fringe audience ie the small noise/industrial label. For someone like Cryo Chamber, Cold Spring or Tesco it may be different story though.
I do encourage anyone I work with to maintain their own page though if they so wish to.
I authorized only two labels to use my stuff on bandcamp, at least for paid copies.
I upload some stuff on my own releases, because it would be difficult to trace and split costs with other units, other labels, etc.
I think it is criminal to sell digital copies without sharing the even scarce revenues with labels.
Sam I suggest you to contact every label and ask for either what they owe you or remove the records.
I think you can easily understand by checking who supported each release.
I am not against digital albums, and considering uploading more stuff in future, but this should never be done on the work of other people.
I personally think that artists should have all money of digital sales. Not only "royalty". Unless there is some unusual effort put into whole project behalf of label. Lets say, label spends XXX USD to pay studio, mastering, artwork or such. Rather uncommon in noise. But in such case, one would think label gets something from digital sale of material it enabled to be done.
In typical case, where artists does basically everything, and label is the one who's job is just to manufacture and ship items - if there is no manufacturing, shipping and promotion at all, just "bandcamp page" where people pay - I'd say there is no label involvement to such degree it would justify even cut of money. Rules of the mainstream business is totally different, as labels pay the bills and make investments and recoup vast amounts of money spent in advance. Digital noise sales would be entirely different thing.
But after all, when you really look at it, then how big could be digital sale income of noise? I recall great story of one higher profile noise artist getting paid for the royalties of iTunes sales and after time consuming calculations of what items sold and who gets what and the change thrown into envelope wasn't worth of stamp to deliver him cash. For reason or another, couldn't take transfers at the time.
I, as label, don't care. Every band is free to use their album at their own bandscamp or throw into youtube as full album if they feel like it. I don't have time or energy for such. Not for calculating who gets what and not even uploading things. Even uploading any of my own works seems bigger task than "releasing cd".
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on April 17, 2018, 09:37:29 AM
if there is no manufacturing, shipping and promotion at all, just "bandcamp page" where people pay - I'd say there is no label involvement to such degree it would justify even cut of money.
Absolutely, and unless the artist has signed anything over, the music still belongs to the artist, not the label. Trust and ethics allow the "20% artist copies as royalties" system to work most of the time, but I see uploading an artists work to sell
without even discussing the terms with the artist a clear violation of these ethics. And as if the artist is stuck in the caveman era and won't notice?
No Bandcamp for Death Continues Records, hard copies only.
If you think a significant amount of purchases might have been made then there's no harm in writing to the labels and posing this very question directly. Up until now it might not have been something anyone thought about and hopefully all sides will be amenable to finding a fair outcome. I have always checked with labels uploading to bandcamp whether they mind me doing the same on mine and the answer is always 'it's your music, you're in charge'. That said, I usually make this stuff available for free.
This is going to be an increasingly important thing for people to get ironed out prior to submitting work to labels. Bandcamp has moved quickly from being a convenient way to digitally represent music to a primary means of music listening for many. I suspect we have a fair few digital agnostics on this board but I know of many, many experimental music 'consumers' who love bandcamp both for its ease of use and as a way to directly support artists.
Nice topic. I am not an artist neither have a label but my opinion is that a label shouldn't sell on Bandcamp other's people music unless arrangements have been made and permission is given. Also, artists shouldn't sell on Bandcamp or giving files for free till the physical release sold out from the label -at least-. It's matter of mutual respect, to other's work, time and money.
When i put releases online from my old label i always explicitly asked the artists for their permission. Bandcamp digital sales are to the extend that the amount is fewer than the paypal fee you'd pay when giving artist royalties. Of course this was a small diy hc/punk/metal label. I can see the matter being more relevant when selling a lot.
Quote from: Force Neurotic on April 17, 2018, 04:03:31 AM
I've noticed cases of the latter two scenarios - leaving Bandcamp for digital-only and relegating physical copies to email-based mailorder just for the sake of simplicity, and I've known of plenty of releases featured on label BC profiles which were also on the artist's personal BC, often times with different artwork etc. And there are of course instances I've noticed where a label will sell both downloads and physical copies off BC, as well as the artist doing the same with their copies.
I can't speak to the royalty factor but I would imagine there are cases of profit going to artists and likely some artists who simply want the profits to go the label's future efforts.
This is the way that I have been doing things the last few years, after getting a constantly escalating number of emails everytime something would be released requesting emails with digital versions, or having people YouTube uploading tape rips of things anyway. Free digital versions included in most releases, and I give an even split to the artists, and also don't care if they have their own digital sales as well. This is actually much less of a relevant topic for noise releases, and applies more to post-Techno industrial artists, people who are friends of mine that ask me to release their music on tape format but also require me to pay for it to be mastered so the digital versions can be played in clubs. Amount of people willing to pay for a digital of noise releases is super small in my experience. For example highest payout I've done for something like this is about 35€ to Puce Mary \ Sewer Election for 2 years of digital sales
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on April 17, 2018, 09:37:29 AM
I personally think that artists should have all money of digital sales. Not only "royalty". Unless there is some unusual effort put into whole project behalf of label. Lets say, label spends XXX USD to pay studio, mastering, artwork or such. Rather uncommon in noise. But in such case, one would think label gets something from digital sale of material it enabled to be done.
agree on this fully
if label is involved in the release itself somehow (for example wrath on my c031 tape or iops on c031 bachelorette), I think it is even the label supports can share this.
It is also possible for labels to upload music on Bandcamp and prevent it from being downloadable. Labels could do that. I don't know if a label ALWAYS has to cater to every specific need of a potential customer. A label puts out records. That's what they should focus on. Digital sales amount to such a small amount of money in the noise/industrial/yaddayadda scenes that the music should either be shared for free by the artist if they want to (after an agreement with the label, or once the physical release is sold out), or only through the physical media chosen by the artist and label in my humble opinion.
I refuse to accommodate lazy consumers who don't want to appreciate the efforts I make to put out something good and that is meant to be a full-package "product" (music + art + medium.) Whatever I put out isn't meant to be stored in a 2 tera hard drive and forgotten 5 days later. I mean, considering the time we invest in those things we do, I actually find those demands insulting. But then, to each their own...
This is a genuine question, maybe someone with a bandcamp-page can answer - does anyone actually pay for downloading stuff from these sites? I have never done it, i recently did download a "digital only" release that was free (but have yet to figure out how to put it on a cd so i can listen to it - yes, stuck in the caveman age for sure). Even if it´s not for me personally it seems like a good idea, no expensive shippingcost, no waiting for weeks for stuff to arrive etc - but does it work?
Quote from: magnus on April 17, 2018, 09:18:29 PM
This is a genuine question, maybe someone with a bandcamp-page can answer - does anyone actually pay for downloading stuff from these sites? I have never done it, i recently did download a "digital only" release that was free (but have yet to figure out how to put it on a cd so i can listen to it - yes, stuck in the caveman age for sure). Even if it´s not for me personally it seems like a good idea, no expensive shippingcost, no waiting for weeks for stuff to arrive etc - but does it work?
People do occasionally on mine but it's primarily used for streaming/free download so things get listened to if not paid for. So far that's not a problem for me but I might consider setting a small minimum download fee for future things rather than offering it for free or donation.
I also play in a comparatively straight up but no less underground/non mainstream guitar band and the sales are noticeable and regular in that case. While my solo bandcamp produces little more than a few pounds off my next discogs order the band stuff has filled up the car with petrol on more than one occasion. Lots of variables in the age, listening habits and format preference between either audience but it's still interesting to note these differences with regards to two scenes which really aren't a million miles apart in many ways.
Continuing Duncan's comment, I've found that while my Bandcamp was more populated, I had both more sales of downloads as well as requests for availability of actual items than since I've not really wanted to devote the extra effort (it's fucking tedious). This made me aware that there were others outside this particular bracket of interests that were looking for new sounds and were willing to pay for them, and like Duncan, I've occasionally made enough to get extra groceries, order other music (including downloads from others' Bandcamps when I couldn't get the CD or tape), even pay part of a bill on one occasion.
I appreciate the additional revenue but like Remi said, I sometimes wonder how many times these folks will listen before moving on and forgetting. It's interesting to speculate about these folks who'd be otherwise unaware of what I do, but at the end of the day, it's easier just to have a handful of tapes available, even if some of them linger for a bit.
Quote from: magnus on April 17, 2018, 09:18:29 PM
This is a genuine question, maybe someone with a bandcamp-page can answer - does anyone actually pay for downloading stuff from these sites? I have never done it, i recently did download a "digital only" release that was free (but have yet to figure out how to put it on a cd so i can listen to it - yes, stuck in the caveman age for sure). Even if it´s not for me personally it seems like a good idea, no expensive shippingcost, no waiting for weeks for stuff to arrive etc - but does it work?
People do pay for downloads. I've stepped back a bit from Bandcamp in recent years and not really kept on top of it - as part of a general stepping back from anything beyond just making music - but i've managed to buy new microphones and new audio interfaces solely on the back of bandcamp sales.
If you keep your page updated and have a variety of releases some money will come your way.
As far as bandcamp ettiquette goes if someone else has one of my releases on their page it's because i've explicitly allowed them to do it (i think Iron Lung Records is the only label i've given permission to put digital files online) and i have asked several labels to take down my releases when i see they've put them up. Generally it's a smart idea to expressly forbid labels doing the digital end of things upfront these days and on the rare occasion that i release music by someone else i don't upload it, that's for them to decide how to treat it digitally.
Yes, some people will pay for downloads, especially if they are significantly cheaper or if through Bandcamp is tape+download on the same price as tape. But more will pirate the downloads, waiting one of the buyers to share it in P2P, torrents, wherever. I am guilty of that as well, downloading. -Sorry guys, my needs are more than my available money- . One might say the same will happen with the rip of a physical copy. Sure, but there is a quality difference. Ripping can be seen as a fan work, i like a release, want more people to listen it, i take time to rip it for uploading or sharing. With digital downloads that looks like i threw the files in my drive.
No analog rip has stopped me to buy a release. No matter how good it may is / sound. I can't say the same with digital files -or CD rips- . Having digital master wav files of a tape, well, i ll prefer to buy something else from that artist or label. There are only few exceptions. I can't say i like this consumer behaviour of mine, but that's how i operate anyway, kinda like "survival" instinct. Don't buy what you already have in "better" or "same" quality. I understand that a release is not only about the sound and it's about the whole thing. True. I stand by this. But, sound is the most of it. You wouldn't buy something you knew it sucks just for it's cover, would you ? If so, then we don't talk about musical release but for a painting.
That said, FUCK Bandcamp and digital platforms. For things that can't be released, for live performances etc. is fine. Maybe for old sold out material that noone cares to reissue too. But if you have something released then why the need for digital downloads too ? Then why you submitted demo or accepted label's offer at first , and you didn't say i ll do it myself, i ll upload the files on Bandcamp ha ! One might say, not everyone has a deck, not everyone has a turntable, not everyone has a CD player etc. OK, then question the medium you are releasing on at the first place and decide which you want. I agree with that being said before that a label or an artist isn't and shouldn't be to please everyone needs.
I've never had a problem with this; I have some releases available on Bandcamp in full and some excluded. I just cleared matters with the respective labels before posting anything - job done. None of the labels I've worked with maintain their own Bandcamp presences, but if they did I would certainly have no objection to them keeping any funds that come their way - more power to them.
With my punter hat firmly on, I have purchased quite a few "download only" releases from Bandcamp.
I drive a lot for work so often burn CD's for listening while travelling.
The bonus with a lot of bandcamp releases is the chance to buy physical (vinyl / cd / tape) and also get the download/streaming capability. Purely for convenience, it gives me the opportunity to listen to stuff a variety of ways which would definitely have the edge over purchasing say just a record or tape that I currently would get limited opportunities to listen to.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like labels are digitally releasing work without consent? That's surprising. It **IS** a format. A tape + bandcamp = two formats. It seems like it should be obvious that one would request permission and have that conversation. Strange that it begs to be said.
Thanks - i was of the notion that most people considered downloads as something you got/tock for free, but happy to be wrong on that. I actually would say it´s a pretty ideal form for cd-releases, buy the sound and sleeve to print and save on the middleman end of things - and also no problems with the post (which here in Sweden now is a pretty major concern). Sometimes wish i could be more of a rational person and embrace something like this, but alas.
I'm the sort of person that would never pay for a download and am baffled (yet accepting) of others willingness to do so. I don't understand how to disallow this sort of thing on bandcamp so I price stuff intentionally high with the expectation that no one will buy it. However if I did sell anything I feel like that's as relevant as a physical sale. But I have no interest in doing that. I will say it's a nice perk to receive a free download when I buy a physical release as I'm the sort of person who listens to music on my phone, often.
I don't know if this is relevant to the conversation or not, but discounted "full catalogue" deals are probably a smart angle. I know I've taken advantage of it. If you have 10 releases available for $10 each, but if you buy them all, they're $60 total. However, I do think you have to be smarter about it than just throwing out a percentage. I've seen labels with $340 for their entire catalogue. They might have 100+ releases, but I have my doubts whether that matters when $340 is about to be charged to your credit card. Selling music is a volume situation. Considering you lose nothing with a digital sale , other than a potential customer, make the discount big. Getting the $60 is better than selling one at $10 and them going to torrent the other 4 they want. Business is a dance. Try not to be stubborn and get in your own way.
Quote from: holy ghost on April 19, 2018, 01:21:04 AM
I'm the sort of person that would never pay for a download and am baffled (yet accepting) of others willingness to do so.
The difference between paying for a download and for a physical item is that one is paying for the actual sounds themselves. No plastic or cardboard, no postage rates. If there's something I want and I can get it by download I'll go for that first, regardless of what other formats it's on. Because it makes sense. Cheaper and no waiting for a mail delivery that, as we all know, may not always arrive.
There's also the fact that when artists have their own work online that I'm paying them directly.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on April 19, 2018, 05:08:27 AM
Quote from: holy ghost on April 19, 2018, 01:21:04 AM
I'm the sort of person that would never pay for a download and am baffled (yet accepting) of others willingness to do so.
The difference between paying for a download and for a physical item is that one is paying for the actual sounds themselves. No plastic or cardboard, no postage rates. If there's something I want and I can get it by download I'll go for that first, regardless of what other formats it's on. Because it makes sense. Cheaper and no waiting for a mail delivery that, as we all know, may not always arrive.
There's also the fact that when artists have their own work online that I'm paying them directly.
Instant receipt of music creating by someone, somewhere else on this planet VS international postage costs and waiting....
I would also add that I have seen a couple of labels (including https://loveloverecords.bandcamp.com/ ) who have priority physical / digital sale of goods for a year, then they seem to allow the individual artists to also offer download sales through their own bandcamp pages.
Quote from: Zeno Marx on April 18, 2018, 07:32:42 PM
It seems like it should be obvious that one would request permission and have that conversation.
That's the main issue here. Whether digital files uploaded or not, free DL/streaming/selling, who gets how much of digital sales, etc. is all fair game for discussion between label and artist, but the discussion beforehand is the important part, and not making assumptions,
especially when it comes to collecting money for a digital file. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that since it's "relatively new" ground (though not really that new), some people haven't fully thought it through or talked about it yet, but that grace period is just about over in my book.