Heartland

The Mumbles are thinking about going into the world of digital distribution. From what their website says CD Baby (www.cdbaby.com) would allow us to have our music on iTunes, etc. and set the prices we want for a small fee.

Has anyone used this service (or any similar ones) before? What was your experience with them like and are there any disadvantages to watch out for?

Also, how much would you pay for an album consisting of 10 songs from iTunes?

no idea, I haven't bought an album digitally online yet. It depends on the encoding. It would have to be flac. for that I'd pay about a tenner.

And no DRM either, but that boat seems to have sunk thank goodness.

you missed an option out of your poll rob: sweet fanny adams. we're talking mp3's without hard media or packaging right? can't see an incentive to be honest.

I think incarcerating the owners of The Pirate Bay is fundamentally wrong

absolutely. for starters, most of the torrents i've d/l'd to make audio cd's from are of lp's i already own on vinyl.

I wouldn't download it, I'd wait for the pressed CD/LP

EDIT: Which isn't a very helpful answer. Though I personally wouldn't download it, from the point of veiw of your potential audience make it cheaper rather than more expensive - you're trying to build up an audience, make it an easy choice for them.

Varies. For something I already own I'm with Lee - sweet FA (I think this is actually supported by our constitution). For 10 new tracks by a band I'm massively into, 7 to 9 seems fair to me. Even if it's MP3, if this is the distribution format of choice for the band, and if I think they're good enough to deserve some of my money, well yeah, 7 to 9.

Considering the fact that the better known musicians recieve about one or two percent of the price payed by the customer (The rest of the money goes into the wallets of all the folks that distribute and sell and all) I'd think it's a good idea not to ask for more than that of one's own works.
When talking about downloads, they usually are in lossy formats and so on.
When remembering that supply and demand make a price it seems a good idea to start with a lower price as to encourage the quick distribution. Mainly to bring on the band's name.
If you receive three or four quid out of an album I guess you can be sure Madonna will be pretty jealous. I've no idea how much the distributor claims as fee, but target at a gain of 3 or 4 poundies per download seems a decent plan to me.

If you're just looking for digital distribution, have you tried Tunecore? Although they do charge you for the privilege of storing your music, IIRC...

Maisey wrote:I wouldn't download it, I'd wait for the pressed CD/LP

Exactly, I wouldn't download it, either.

30 free songs + audiobook from eMusic:

www.emusic.com/observer

just remember to cancel!

I just acquired a roy montgomery album I've had my eye on for a while

Ive heard good things about tunecore as well, they get your music into itunes among other places too. CDBaby i think would be better if you're releasing it in a "hard" format.

Another site worth checking out would be bandcamp...its very well set up, and you can use a pay-what-you-want or set price option...again, something they have integrated very well into their site.

Personally, if im looking at a net release from a band ive never heard of (ive heard of you guys through this forum, im speaking generally) i dont think i would pay $10 unless i had already heard and REALLY liked it. If you had a donate or pay what you want option, if i liked it i would be more inclined to throw some $'s your way out of appreciation.

Having just been through all this myself its very fresh in my mind. We ended up doing it all free, but the next release which ill be starting on in a few months will have the PWYW option.

for an mp3 album 3 are a good deal, i think

Snakes wrote:Ive heard good things about tunecore as well, they get your music into itunes among other places too. CDBaby i think would be better if you're releasing it in a "hard" format.

Another site worth checking out would be bandcamp...its very well set up, and you can use a pay-what-you-want or set price option...again, something they have integrated very well into their site.

Isn't bandcamp the one where you can also chose between all the varying file formats?

Out of curiosity, got a link to your Bandcamp page?

http://music.colddivide.com/album/grand-manipulations

One of the other guys set it up, i havent had much time to get too familiar with it, but i think we'll be using it heavily for the next release.

Snakes wrote:http://music.colddivide.com/album/grand-manipulations

One of the other guys set it up, i havent had much time to get too familiar with it, but i think we'll be using it heavily for the next release.

Cheers man. I'm impressed, very impressed.

I've looking around the bandcamp site and I'll be using for The Hated Reign's digital releases. They are the ones I was thinking of re. being able to choose the file format for download, I just couldn't remember which bloody site it was. Cheers man

Really use Tunecore instead, Rob.

FGG is onnit as well, best one around, very helpful forum and team, AND the biggest revenue I know!

IZ.

no offense
Any fool can write a music but it takes real genius to sell it.*
stolen form Ballard

that's for me modern music (ind.)

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Really use Tunecore instead, Rob.

FGG is onnit as well, best one around, very helpful forum and team, AND the biggest revenue I know!

IZ.

Thanks for the advice Izzy. Looks like we'll be using them for the time being!

I'd go for 7-9, but on the condition it was a lossless download & none of that shoddy aac, mp3 malarkey.

I don't really follow the "music for free" camp.
I mean it's all very well NIN & so on whacking their wares up on 'tinterweb for nothing, but isn't it kind of setting a precedent?
How's an emerging artist supposed to earn money from their work if everyone expects it to be buck shee?
I certainly don't go to work for nothing. I have to eat, drink & all that jazz.
Why not musicians too?

Pista wrote:How's an emerging artist supposed to earn money from their work if everyone expects it to be buck shee?

The same way The Sisters do? Gig tickets and merchandise?

*Edit:

I think actually that the reason people were so against paying for downloads for so long was the DRM, not the actual payment. If, as soon as mp3 had appeared, all the record companies had put their catalogues online as high-bitrate mp3, no DRM, for a reasonable amount of money (maybe 50p per track) then the culture of illegal downloads might never have happened.

But the record companies were stupid, they tried crap like the Sony rootkit to hold back the tide. A business model predicated on artificial scarcity of information in the Internet era (bits are free man!) is doomed to failure.

Sure, people might have swapped round a few mp3s between themselves, but things like Napster and PirateBay just might not have happened.

Pista wrote:I'd go for 7-9, but on the condition it was a lossless download & none of that shoddy aac, mp3 malarkey.

I don't really follow the "music for free" camp.
I mean it's all very well NIN & so on whacking their wares up on 'tinterweb for nothing, but isn't it kind of setting a precedent?
How's an emerging artist supposed to earn money from their work if everyone expects it to be buck shee?
I certainly don't go to work for nothing. I have to eat, drink & all that jazz.
Why not musicians too?

Music shouldnt be free, but for all intents and purposes, these days it is. For an emerging artist i think its better to at least get your material heard, then focus on building a core fan base who are in it for the long haul, people who wont mind paying a reasonable amount for a reasonable product and feel "invested" in the act.

NO-ONE knows where the industry is heading, but i think the above is certainly a better way to go about it initially than desperately trying to get signed to a label who will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye.

It is very early days for these emerging strategies, and its hard to tell how its going to pan out. I can say though, that bands if they have half a brain are better off forging ahead on their own, then looking towards distribution methods and licensing...a few of my friends have been in signed bands here in Australia and they ALL would have been better off getting a loan and outsourcing web/marketing people when/if needed. They are all basically back to square one now, with the labels losing interest or closing, or being run by dipshts basically.

Emerging artists dont make bugger all at the beginning anyway, but at least if you present yourself with some integrity and are committed to developing and evolving in your craft you may stand a chance of attracting like minded fans...better than the spam myspace, fake account plugging, yesterdays cool haircut scattergun approach.

Just my two cents anyway.

markfiend wrote:

Pista wrote:How's an emerging artist supposed to earn money from their work if everyone expects it to be buck shee?

The same way The Sisters do? Gig tickets and merchandise?

*Edit:

Good point, but you have to get people to go in the first place. Bit "chicken & egg" really.
The only way you'll do that is by getting to support someone of a similar ilk playing to a decent crowd.
Oh, & to not fcuk up the songs

Clicky