What type of company would you want to sign with?

Freddy-Bl00D

I'll explain my question with a example.

Say you are in a band and have a few songs on reverbnation and you're doing some shows at your local venues and you are getting quite a following.. A company approaches you and wants to sign your band. What would you want the company to do for you?

-Supply a recording studio and distribute your music online + in stores.

-Organise gigs and tours.

-Shoot music video.

-Market the bands music and gigs.

Would you want a company that does all of the above or only certain jobs? Are there something extra you would like them to do?

Personally i would like to be in control of the recording of the album.. I feel marketing and gig organisation is the biggest weakness in most young bands and a type of management company would be best to sign with.

Another idea i've had is branding a collection of bands and letting them work together..
Lets say you have 5 rock bands and you give the collection of the bands a name and a logo. The 5 bands together you call "the all stars" for example. Each band manages itself but at each gig they organise they must invite atleast two of the other bands to play earlier slots at the club.
All the bands promote gigs with the 'All Stars' logo aswell as the band names. The bands get more gigs and the entire "all stars" brand gets publicity and builds a reputation.

Would a group like that have a better chance of making it in the industry? Would it make life easier for each individual band?

Bob-Dubery

The five band collective seems like a poor idea to me. At some point one band is going to assert that they bring the most fans and the others need them much more than they need the others and so they want a bigger take, even when they're nominally supporting the others.

DonovanB

I reckon a good band manager would be able to help a band grow.

I remember the first (and only) contract I was part of. I remember being very put out that the company were looking to make their money back from the investment into the studio. but it makes so much business sense when you actually think about it.

Chocklit_Thunda

I'd like if the Manager/company did all of that but didn't try to control your work and productions too much.
As a musician you'd still like to maintain control of which songs and styles you use especially in bands or solo acts where the musician writes their own songs and music.
I'm also sure that most guys wouldn't want to be overworked, with constant tours, gigs and, when that's not happening, being forced into a studio to record new stuff...
The marketing and music video thing is a plus for me though... What better way to let people know you're there than getting airtime on the radio or having them see how sexy you look with your guitar when your video plays on MK or something similar ?

As for the 5 band idea, that could work very well if done properly.
Think Van-F*kKing-Tasties (Van Coke Kartel, "Die PolisieKarre", aKing :bopping: , Die Heuwels Fantasties and occasionally Thieve)
They're all related somehow, sharing members or just friends, and they are all established, independent bands with different sounds and tour dates but every so often they all come together and throw a big gig with all of them performing. It works for them. Those events sell out fast! I think the key is to give them independence and don't force them to constantly work together... Rather, market them as an all star supergroup, a few gigs all together then "set them free", let them build up their own fan base(From all the marketing and music vids), occasionally pair a few together for gigs under the "All Star" brand name, then throw a big jam with all of them using the brand name. This brings all the different fanbases together. Fans of "The Freddy-Bl00D Band" ? hear the "X-Rated Bobs" and "The Bob's" fans hear some of the "Don Banks Project" and they all like what they hear. Now with the fanbases mixed all the bands involved's fanbases increase in number. Bob's fans are now Don's and Don's are now Freddie's etc etc etc... and now with careful tour planning form the manager's side, these shared fans will go to all your gigs because none of the gig dates coincide. When one plays in PE the other has a jam in CPT and another is playing in Joburg town and they rotate in such a way that they aren't going to ever have overlapping gigs and dates. Rinse and Repeat.

Bob-Dubery

Chocklit_Thunda wrote I'd like if the Manager/company did all of that but didn't try to control your work and productions too much.
As a musician you'd still like to maintain control of which songs and styles you use especially in bands or solo acts where the musician writes their own songs and music.

Lots of folks want that, but they don't all get it. Once the label pays for the studio they might also impose their own choice of producer on the proceedings to make sure it sells well. He might reject some material, insist on changes, want certain effects... Also once the studio pays for the recordings they own the recordings and they can use them, license them and so on as they see fit. It's hard to retain total control.

I'm also sure that most guys wouldn't want to be overworked, with constant tours, gigs and, when that's not happening, being forced into a studio to record new stuff...

Then have another source of income! The guys who are pros, have recording contracts etc but whose income is not quite in Eagles territory spend a lot of time touring, writing and then going into the studio. It's what they have to do to keep the wolf from the door.

A friend of mine in the USA interviewed Bruce Cockburn a few years ago. One question was something like "You're 60 now, but you still tour a lot, make new records... what keeps you going?" The answer was something like "I have bills to pay, just like you and everybody else does."

Chocklit_Thunda

The question was about what you'd want them to do for you though. Or at least that's how I saw it

Once the label pays for the studio they might also impose their own choice of producer on the proceedings to make sure it sells well. He might reject some material, insist on changes, want certain effects... Also once the studio pays for the recordings they own the recordings and they can use them, license them and so on as they see fit. It's hard to retain total control.

I understand that this happens a lot but I interpreted the question as being your ideal signing. More a dream than reality. (I'm sure we'd all like to start work at 10 and end at 2 ? but that's never gonna happen for the vast majority of us) Same with this.
I feel it's a problem in the music industry where the producers and labels control so much that the final outcome is nothing like the original... Meaning that the product isn't a true representation of the band or musician.

It's like making Kings of Leon play Fenders...
Handing Jimi Hendrix a Keytar and telling him that that's what the people want to see...
Making Gordon Ramsay do style/makeover shows because cooking shows aren't that popular anymore.... ☹ ("What Not To Wear with Trinny, Susannah and Gordon"..... Would you watch that? ? )

Freddy-Bl00D

Thanks for the replies guys.. Appreciate your insight. Most artists are scared of labels due to creative control but beggers can't be choosers but i am talking about the ideal contract or company you would like to sign with.

On the topic of creative control and labels who of you still believe you can make money out of album sales? My band and most of my friends in bands paid for our albums ourselves and placed it online for free download. With the hope that more people will get it and we will be making more money at shows.

So what if you get a company to do everything for you but they place the album online for free and takes 50% of your gig income until the album is paid off (lets say the album was done at a very reasonable price) and after the album is paid off the company takes between 10% - 20% from your gigs depending on the size of the gig as a managers payment (if its bigger gigs they take a smaller %).

All Marketing, promotional costs etc. will be part of that 10% - 20%

Will that be seen as a reasonable deal?

Bob-Dubery

Freddy-Bl00D wrote On the topic of creative control and labels who of you still believe you can make money out of album sales? My band and most of my friends in bands paid for our albums ourselves and placed it online for free download. With the hope that more people will get it and we will be making more money at shows. g

I think that albums CAN make money, but it's not guaranteed. They may work better for some artists than others. A mate of mine used to work for a major CD retail chain. He believes that the shops and the labels are aiming at the wrong markets. He gave me the example of the teenager who buys a R175 Britney Spears album and the guy who comes in wanting you to order some obscure John Martyn album and willing to pay R300 for it. The former is buying a fashion piece and knows it, and also knows that there are two or three good track on it and the rest is filler - so they are making a grudge purchase. The latter will take the disc home, play it on a decent sound system (not as MP3s on an ipod through ear buds) and will want to listen to the album as an entirety and has an expectation that he will be able to do that. The former resents the purchase and will download everything they can and share their disc with all the friends. The latter will pay a good price. You do better to sell to the old guy, but the shops cater for the youngsters.

THOUGH that changes now with itunes and the like because customers can download individual songs. Or they can use services like spotify and never actually buy anything and treat it all as disposable flim flam.

So it CAN make money, but mostly it doesn't.

Interviews etc that I read suggest that the two surest income channels in this day and age are live work and songwriting royalties. But albums still cost money to make, and ideally you want to at least break even on the album, even if it's not your surest revenue stream.

So what if you get a company to do everything for you but they place the album online for free and takes 50% of your gig income until the album is paid off (lets say the album was done at a very reasonable price) and after the album is paid off the company takes between 10% - 20% from your gigs depending on the size of the gig as a managers payment (if its bigger gigs they take a smaller %).

I'm not convinced. You still end up paying back the same amount. The question is whether or not giving the recorded work away will put more bums on seats. I'm not convinced. A give away track may work as a teaser for an album, but giving it away will amount to handing your disk over to lots of people who will treat it as disposable goods. Where I think you can make money out of albums is through direct sales at gigs - if your label will allow that.

All Marketing, promotional costs etc. will be part of that 10% - 20%

Can't be. Those costs get incurred ahead of the gig, indeed ahead of the tour.