Re: What does it mean to you, to "release a record"?

["Per Boysen" <perboysen@gmail.com>]

>> Well, how about adding the category "D: Indie artists."
>

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Buzap Buzap <buzap@gmx.net> wrote:
> I was focusing on the aspect of making a living. The indie artists I 
>personally know usually don't make enough money based on record 
>sales/broadcasting to pay i.e. their rent. Rather it seems to me they 
>have a mix of incomes along with playing gigs, contract work, teaching 
>enrollment, recording sessions, other projects etc.
> I understand people want to be in charge of their own material/rights 
>and are careful not to get ripped off.
> With record label contracts, people I know also seem to prefer having a 
>European contract rather than an American. I just wonder how many indie 
>artists out there can really i.e. pay rent with CD sales/royalties etc?


It is not the recording deal that causes money to rain over some
artists. It's the record label that seeks them out and signs them up
to refine their "money-making capacity"!  ;-)

"Indie" artist is short for "independent" artist, which means that the
artist is not licensing away his/her rights to a partner record label.
If you look around a bit further you may notice that many artists stay
indie because they make more money that way. Many list members sort
under this category, just go back and read the post history for the
last ten days! Don't make the mistake to think that "indie"means "not
very talented and too lazy for making money on your own" ;-)  There
will always be people who do not make music with the goal of creating
the best sounding or most unique brew and since these people never get
signed by record labels, while still making noise in as indie artists,
it can falsely seem to be the case that record label deal signed
artists make more money. I think the truth rather is that record label
signed artists would make money as indies too.

Myself I made more money when in a record deal with a major record
label, but an important point is that the first money you earn in a
major label collaboration is not generated by CD sales. The up-front
money on a recoding deal comes from advances payed by other labels
that want to buy local territorial release rights from the main record
label. Similar logistics are also active in the publishing business
and can generate even more money when splitting the publishing rights
with local co-pub partners. One can also sign up with a really big
company that does everything, called "putting all your eggs into one
basket", but I've never tried that. Anyway, my point here is that such
income is temporary - based on expectations, like "buying options". So
if no commercial hits are scored within a year or two the investors
will lose their money and you, the artist, will not get any more
money. You will be left on your own devices after many years with a
music outlet that was created to fit you, your label and the market
targeted by your label. This leads into the conclusion that it might
be as good, even better, to start out indie and stay indie all the
way. I left my record label deal and the commercial side of music for
artistic reasons and today I am still in the process of developing a
music that I can accept making money from. If making money turns out
impossible within my musical style I will at least still make good
music according to my own taste. For me the music comes in the first
place, which obviously can't be the rule within a record label deal
(due to the nature of business).

Greetings from Sweden

Per Boysen
www.boysen.se (Swedish)
www.looproom.com (international)
www.ubetoo.com/Artist.taf?_ArtistId=6550