3 ms·

> Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music? You mean release on https://bandcamp.com https://bandcamp.com ?

• throwlogon 6y ago
  Exactly this. Bandcamp's straightforward, egalitarian deal is exactly what any artist below the superstar level needs. Put your stuff out, set your price, handle your own publicity, Bandcamp takes their cut. That's it.
• dds-dds 6y ago
  Except that generally labels fork out the cost (invest) in their artists releases, good labels do anyway. I'm not convinced a Silicon Valley company with a turnover of $$$Million should be the most recommended option for labels and artists who aren't at superstar status. BC's investment in any artist releasing there is negligible, yet they cream off 15% from everyone for basically that zero investment (servers aside), a killer business plan. If it wasn't for labels searching, investing, risking actually, a hell of a lot of musicians would not be exposed or have the chance to be heard thus far. This shift to a generic form, or marketplace, also helps removes any choice of personal curation, of which good labels and shops build their reputation on, and in my experience is invaluable. Though as a listener if you prefer being spoon fed by an algorithm, and as an artist being lost on a supermarket shelf, then go for it. Though BC very kindly offer the odd days off from their %, because most of us lowly non-superstar artists have just lost our main source of income with CVD-19 dismantling the infrastructure. The odd day off, yeah thanks. Egalitarian? maybe, zero investment and pure profit? Definitely. That smacks of other online monopolies to me.