[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Looper CD



I admittedly haven't been following this thread too closely, but the prices
estimated seem pretty damn high to me.  $1200 for 500 CD's?  You can get
them for a lot less, do cheap but creative packaging and stay well below a
thousand.  The $100 per person seems pretty steep to me.  Maybe the
administrator type can shop around for good deals and then split the cost
among the participants.

Also, does the $100 insure either a batch of CD's back or some money from
sales?  If we're gonna do this like a standard indie release, that would
seem logical and fair.

-Jesse

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Cavaleri <cavaleri@simi-valley.ate.slb.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Looper CD


>
>                Just a thought.
>
> Although I may not be able to contribute at this time. A fair way to
determine
>cost per looper may be $'s per minute. If a run of 500 CD's cost $1200 and
>the total run time per CD is approx. 70 min. each person would be charged
>$17.00 per min.
>
>        One reason for this is like most people on this list I "assume"
that
>most loop generated music tends be be of greater length then three 
>minutes.
>
>
>                        Anyway my two cents.
>
>
>
>                                        joe
>
>
>
>At 08:37 AM 12/2/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>> From: Henry Throop <throop@bogart.Colorado.EDU>
>>
>>> o Submissions were limited to one per person, and mostly fixed at 3
>>minutes.
>>>   Everyone who sent in a tape ended up on the CD.  Most of the people
>>>   on the disc ended up bought multiple copies, so there was no
additional
>>>   'submission fee.'
>>>
>>> o ~ 500 discs were pressed at first and sold for $15 each, to
>>list-members
>>>   and through a music store one member runs.  I believe they're all 
>sold
>>>   out now.
>>
>>Who ended up paying for the CDs since no money was collected up front?
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>