|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
51.6.82.133
I heard anecdotally from a successful solo musician the other day a report that DG are asking for around 10% of touring revenue from their newly signed artists, and expect a new artist to submit finished CD-ready recordings for release, which the artists pay for themselves. Not sure the actual origin of this information or if it's verifyable.
If this is true, looks like you have to invest a substantial sum to get released..... survival of the well-off.
This surprised me - anyone familiar with the deals currently being made by classical labels? I imagine there is some variation depending on the stature of the artist.
Follow Ups:
I imagine DG will pay a LOT more artist revenue for the privilege of releasing such offerings, minus their
hefty percentage for imprinting it with their stellar brand?Considering the release might actually sell.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure
Edits: 08/11/16
Ya can't play in a subway station these days without some recently recorded CDs to sell.
AND manufacturing the CD so you can sell the finished product playing the music from it in the subway.
'Taint an easy life.
DG doesn't seem the least bit interested in making it any easier either.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
But I heard he was not so well recieved in the subway. If only he had CDs to sell....
had CDs available for sale to prove their chops!
Artists that are "successful" and get gigs as soloists must have support like agents/lawyers etc. capable of setting up digital sales. Seems to me they would be better off just selling their self-produced recordings on their own label at concerts and on-line at vendors like Amazon. Cd/digital sales are not money makers whether thru a label like DG or the musician's own independent label. So what's the big benefit DG offers (if what you posted is accurate)?
Edits: 08/11/16
Just for the record, all the releases on my JMR label were funded by me, and zero by the artists.
The "benefit" DG offers is that THEIR name is on the CD, too. DG is not setting up shop to start putting out recordings by anyone who can scrape up the money to get a master file recorded and mastered. (Florence Foster Jenkins, Part 2,134)
One presumes and one presumes that the potential customers will assume that because an artist is being put before the public by the legendary label DG, that there has been a "gatekeeper" function, and that the artist has to be top-drawer, top-shelf, or at least top-something.
If that gatekeeper function breaks down (or is in effect non-existent), then, we can expect two things:
(1) Critics and listeners will eventually catch on; and
(2) Norman Lebrecht will dance the hornpipe nude, on DG's grave.
ATB,
JM
If that is what DG is thinking they are wrong or are just selling proverbial swamp land. I can't imagine any legit classical artist falling for this scam. and it is a scam. All the money in classical music is in playing concerts. Why would any legitimate soloist pay DG 10% of their concert money? There is no way this deal pays off for any artist on any level in the business. No artist sells enough CDs to make it worth them fronting production costs and giving up 10% of their real source of income. And any artist that will sell a substantial number of CDs won't be settling for this deal. I'd say DG is acting like predatory lenders leading up to the housing market collapse.
I doubt DG would be able to convince anyone to both front production or marketing costs AND pay out a portion of concert revenue. As you say, the money is in performing. The recording is mostly a marketing and promotion tool. But if DG sinks production and marketing money into a classical recording, they need to make it back somehow.
Most classical recordings today are very much vanity projects. Our last CD cost us about 60K. Taken at a live performance, this was paid to the recording engineers (Sound Mirror), venue, our union orchestra, artists, and the label itself.
We may sell enough CDs by 2216 to cover our costs but it is important for the image of the company and also helps in other fundraising efforts.
"[I]t is important for the image of the company and also helps in other fundraising efforts." So it isn't just vanity, is it? ;-)
Indeed. One would think that the model would be to make their money back by selling CDs and now days LPs and downloads. If they can't do it that way they will eventually go out of business or at least stop new production. But this new model aint going to hunt. They may sucker a few artists into it but I am sure it will be seen by most for what it is, a very very very bad deal.
Who are these artists paying to work?
But the original post claims DG is getting 10% of their new artists' fees for live performances. And *that dog* won't wont hunt. Any soloists or conductors paying that to DG or Naxos made a dumb ass deal.
Next time, don't bother asking. I'm sure not going to bother to respond.
So why ask me to go on some easter egg hunt when I ask about the actual relevance of something you brought into the discussion? If you have relevant information relating to something you brought into the conversation please free to fill us in. I'm not going looking for it. This dog won't hunt either.
A record label can be a negative for an aspiring artist. DG orchestral recordings have long been on my "do not buy" list because of their multiple microphone mixed down style of recording. Their solo and chamber recordings are OK.
If DG went out of business tomorrow, I'd be delighted.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
SFS recordings are Multi-Mic'd, and sound great, esp recent ones.
The Tempest by Paul Chihara, on Reference Recordings, one of Keith Johnson's first.
Modified Stereo Mic and RtoR recorder.
It came out on CD on 45 RPM LP.
Probably not available anymore.
This would be a mistake in the case of the Shostakovich recordings in Boston.
The former major labels are really only brand names now, cashing in on their past glories. These days, even very small labels can be excellent "gatekeepers", putting out a high quality product even if the musicians are lesser-known.
And I think the "major" labels will have less and less significance, even as brands, in the coming years.
John, with utmost respect, your label seems more a labor of love than a money-generating big business. But there is a tradition for that, too -- as with Everest and Vanguard.
Major labels like DG (or Bluenote in jazz) have been putting out plenty of mediocre or worse recordings for decades, and independent labels have released plenty of excellent music for decades. I guess some people still buy recordings released on particular labels due to a consistent and specific type of music/sound (a la ECM). But assuming what's in the OP is true, even labels' characteristic sound would no longer be in evidence - which of course could be an improvement in some cases.
The advantage big labels had was distribution. But since record/cd stores are damn near non-existent that advantage has been greatly diminished. Anybody can set up digital sales now at various vendors as well as their own sites, and if "classical" is anything like other idioms independent labels can also get their releases reviewed. Doesn't really matter much, since hardly anybody except rock/pop stars make a dime from recordings, especially if self-produced.
Even a hallowed brand name like Deutsche Grammophon is fast losing its impact.
I've never heard of taking artist's money from live performances, but budding jazz artists are virtually guaranteed to have to pay for their own first record or two at least, even if it's "on a label". It's been that way for a long time now.
dh
Klaus Heymann famously promoted the self-financing concept for classical recordings for his Naxos label. As he points out in a 2012 Washington Post article linked to the Naxos site, CD sales and even downloads do not produce enough revenue to finance the records. (Interestingly, 75 percent of the revenue they do produce comes from youtube hits.)
I think his successful model has been influential on a number of labels. I don't know what DG usually does, but obviously there must be some form of self-financing.
Some classical musicians have thrived with this model. Notice the large Naxos discography of Marin Alsop. That is largely due to her success at raising money -- not necessarily for the Baltimore and Sao Paulo Symphonies or any of the other ensembles she has directed, but for herself and her recording projects.
Edits: 08/11/16
And here is the Washington Post article I mentioned above.
When I first read Andy's post, I was thinking, "That's just what Naxos does." So, as you suggest, the practice might be spreading to other labels.
Yes -- Notice that according to the Washington Post article, Decca has moved in the same direction. And Decca is part of UMG, as is DG. So I guess that suggests an answer to Andy's question.
UMG may be calling the shots here for Decca or DG.
It seems to me that record companies see themselves as vehicles of "promotion" for the artists, and the 10% cut is on that basis. As long as Decca and DG have a stable of major artists, it will certainly help an upcoming artist to be seen to be signed to a major label. Maybe the major labels have some kind of back door deal with other managers and agents, who are all working to promote the artist. It's all about credibility.
The guy who gave me this information also talked about how important promotion was for new artists, and how they might take out a year long contract with a PR company to promote them. He said this did generate results and was becoming increasingly common.
Think of all this as "promotion". Promotion generates revenue. Unfortunately it's the artist in the end who has to pay percentages to a lot of people for this promotion.
Percentages are common in the popular music business. Producers routinely ask for a percentage of the songwriting rights even if they don't actually write any of it - it's just how they take their cut.
Soloists and conductors make their names on stage first. And that happens through management. Managers are scowering the major music schools to discover the next potential star soloist and are signing management contracts with them often while they are still in school. It almost reminds me of high school and college athletes going pro and being recruited by high profile sports agents. And once management signs them they are looking to book them in major venues. This often happens when established artists have to cancel and someone has to fill in last minute. Then once an artist has a few major concerts under their belt and some good reviews. Then the career starts to gain momentum. Publicists and recording deals follow. they don't come first. And this is why the DG deal makes zero sense for the artists. Classical musicians make their money off playing concerts. There is no record deal worth 10% of that income under any circumstances. Concert goers don't care if an artist is a DG artist or not. The concert fees an artist gets do not go up by 10% by virtue of being a DG artist. It would be 10% for nothing. A bad deal no matter how one spins it.
If this is the deal that DG and other major labels are offering, then they wouldn't do it if there wasn't some take-up. It's as simple as that.So even if theoretically you could say that "it doesn't make sense" for the artists, it has to make some kind of sense if they are taking the deal.
The truth is that there aren't any really good deals for artists these days - musicians or writers are good examples - unless you are absolutely top tier and can dictate terms. We've gone over this ground often enough.
Publicity and credibility is everything when you are trying to climb that slippery ladder, and being signed by a major label is one of the ways to get a step up. Not the only way and maybe not even the best these days. You can win competitions and you can be a Youtube hit and you can also be a bit of a media celebrity if you're good looking or distinctive - there are various ways of doing it. But doing nothing about publicity isn't really an option in this media saturated world.
Add to that the fact that there are other factors involved other than "a good deal". I'm a published author - 5 books. My advances and royalties have been completely slashed since 1994 when I first published - that's life for authors these days. I'd probably make more money if I self published, but I carry on writing for publishers like HarperCollins and Methuen. For a start, it's simpler and they have good editors and I'm not ashamed to admit that there's a degree of vanity involved.
It doesn't have to be "the best deal" for artists to take it - it just has to be a deal they want for their own reasons.
Edits: 08/14/16 08/14/16
Who on the DG label is covering the cost of recording and paying DG 10% of their concert fees? I personally know one person who absolutely is not.
I would be very surprised to find out that *any* of DG's marquee artists are paying anything to DG for either recording costs or a percentage of their concert fees.
And then what's left? Newbes and wannabes? Which of them have the cash sans an established career to finance a DG recording session?
I am skeptical of this scheme. I am skeptical that it would work for the artists in any way and I am skeptical that anyone other than a few suckers who were badly represented by their management or didn't have management in place took this deal with DG.
And if they did manage to sucker any artists into this lose lose deal i am confident that it would be a one and done. No resigning.
All I can say is that my source is a a concert artist who is close to a lot of things in the music business. I have no difficulty in believing him. If you don't believe any of this that's entirely up to you, though I don't buy a lot of your reasoning at all.
As I said all along, this is about new artists and not established DG artists. I have no difficulty in believing they're on different terms entirely, especially the big names.
I just think it's such a crap deal for artists that it's bordering on being a scam and I doubt that any artists of note would take this deal. If DG has suckered some new artists with this deal those artists have my deepest sympathy and I wish them a quick financial recovery.
It would be a shame for any artist to pay for recordings that will likely never recoupe their costs and then give up 10% of their real income to do so with little hope of getting anything out of it
I know a few DG artists personally. They are not paying DG for recording costs and they are not paying DG any percentage of their concert fees.
what reasoning are you not buying and why?
I know a few DG artists personally. They are not paying DG for recording costs and they are not paying DG any percentage of their concert fees. > >If you were accused of stealing a sheep and one witness saw you do it, how useful would it be to produce 25 people that didn't see you do it?
Edits: 08/15/16
Got anything more than that? I hope....
if the label is demanding 10 percent of concert fees, they are probably acting as the artist's agent for those appearances. Otherwise, that would be a very difficult agreement to enforce. The WP article I linked to only suggested that the labels are routinely requiring artists to pay the upfront production costs.
BTW, Decca and Deutsche Grammophon are now really just brand names owned by UMG. So a Decca business policy would also be a DG policy.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: