3 ms·

This is highly off-topic but I can't really think of a better place to solicit feedback for this idea: The more I think about it, the more I'm interested in th

by danhak 17y ago

This is highly off-topic but I can't really think of a better place to solicit feedback for this idea: The more I think about it, the more I'm interested in the implications of a YC-style investment model for promising young bands. E.g. identify hot, unsigned talent; invest $20K + $5K/member for them to use as they please (studio time, instruments, tour van rental, fliers etc.); claim X% of their earnings from concerts, merch and royalties; lather; rinse; repeat. Has anybody in "the music industry" discussed such a model?

aaroneous 17y ago
You do realize that this is pretty much what record labels do, right? Only they call the investment an advance and wrap it up in a 360 deal. Within the past ~5 years, this has also increasingly become what artist managers do.
leviathant 17y ago
I'm not sure if you're making a joke here or not, but that sounds like the traditional model of signing a band, more or less. Thing is, most bands that can make money are probably already making money or on their way to making money, without having to sign away rights to their output, or percentage points to a label. "Studio time" isn't quite what it used to be - anyone with a computer (doesn't even have to be a decent one), a fairly inexpensive multichannel sound card ($150-$500), and (unfortunately, typically pirated) audio software can put together a mix with high enough fidelity that most people would be happy with. Bands already invest in their own equipment, so use the mics they have, the equipment they own, and you've got a 'studio' for maybe $1000 more than what the band already owns on account of being a band. Distribution is easy, post your music to Bandcamp and iTunes. Then you need promotion. This is the one remaining area where traditional labels still have a decent amount of control, but that doesn't mean you can't hire your own publicist. Just like the labels do. The method you propose is more conducive to launching the 'career' of a pop star who burns out after one single. You don't need to hire instruments, but you will need studio time with session musicians, and will have to hire songwriters and a costume department, and all kinds of things to put enough flash on ultimately uninteresting music in the hopes that you trick enough people into buying the album so you can at best break even, which only happens because you're scamming the original 'artist' from the start.
- danhak 17y ago
  No, I wasn't joking but thanks for your edifying and interesting response. I guess my stereotype of how the record biz works involves a lot more micromanaging/execs dictating every move and decision the artist makes.
krakensden 17y ago
That was their model, for a long time anyhow. The problem was that recording was very expensive (you can do OK on a shoestring now), and it's a very blockbuster driven industry- it's hard to make much money off modest touring.

by danhak 17y ago

aaroneous 17y ago

You do realize that this is pretty much what record labels do, right? Only they call the investment an advance and wrap it up in a 360 deal. Within the past ~5 years, this has also increasingly become what artist managers do.

leviathant 17y ago

I'm not sure if you're making a joke here or not, but that sounds like the traditional model of signing a band, more or less. Thing is, most bands that can make money are probably already making money or on their way to making money, without having to sign away rights to their output, or percentage points to a label. "Studio time" isn't quite what it used to be - anyone with a computer (doesn't even have to be a decent one), a fairly inexpensive multichannel sound card ($150-$500), and (unfortunately, typically pirated) audio software can put together a mix with high enough fidelity that most people would be happy with. Bands already invest in their own equipment, so use the mics they have, the equipment they own, and you've got a 'studio' for maybe $1000 more than what the band already owns on account of being a band. Distribution is easy, post your music to Bandcamp and iTunes. Then you need promotion. This is the one remaining area where traditional labels still have a decent amount of control, but that doesn't mean you can't hire your own publicist. Just like the labels do. The method you propose is more conducive to launching the 'career' of a pop star who burns out after one single. You don't need to hire instruments, but you will need studio time with session musicians, and will have to hire songwriters and a costume department, and all kinds of things to put enough flash on ultimately uninteresting music in the hopes that you trick enough people into buying the album so you can at best break even, which only happens because you're scamming the original 'artist' from the start.

danhak 17y ago
No, I wasn't joking but thanks for your edifying and interesting response. I guess my stereotype of how the record biz works involves a lot more micromanaging/execs dictating every move and decision the artist makes.

krakensden 17y ago

That was their model, for a long time anyhow. The problem was that recording was very expensive (you can do OK on a shoestring now), and it's a very blockbuster driven industry- it's hard to make much money off modest touring.