Backing a recording artist/band
Discussion
sider said:
Anyone on here ever backed/funded a recording artist/band/group?
Could do with some words of wisdom!
Unless it's some kind of tax write-off, don't even bother. It's possible that it's illegal even as a tax write-off, so don't even bother with that either unless you've got a very good accountant. Could do with some words of wisdom!
It's extremely unlikely that a new band will make back the advance you give them, and a proven successful act will be able to get the money from the regular sources. If you're very lucky your several tens of thousands of pounds might get you a free album and a backstage pass to steal all of the crisps when they're on tour.
I've got a 2:1 in Commercial Music Production from a red brick uni.
My thesis was the viability of an independent record label. That was published in 2000.
By 2003 my assertions were made pointless. I can give you some illustrative example of how the income is decimated (or worse), but suffice to say, there is no money in this game.
Feel free to PM me though if you have a particular band in mind.
My thesis was the viability of an independent record label. That was published in 2000.
By 2003 my assertions were made pointless. I can give you some illustrative example of how the income is decimated (or worse), but suffice to say, there is no money in this game.
Feel free to PM me though if you have a particular band in mind.
JustinP1 said:
I've got a 2:1 in Commercial Music Production from a red brick uni.
My thesis was the viability of an independent record label. That was published in 2000.
By 2003 my assertions were made pointless. I can give you some illustrative example of how the income is decimated (or worse), but suffice to say, there is no money in this game.
Feel free to PM me though if you have a particular band in mind.
Did you consider "360" deals back then? My thesis was the viability of an independent record label. That was published in 2000.
By 2003 my assertions were made pointless. I can give you some illustrative example of how the income is decimated (or worse), but suffice to say, there is no money in this game.
Feel free to PM me though if you have a particular band in mind.
If the deal involves all revenue and not just record sales it changes the complexion of things but it's still a daft investment.
Funnily enough, at that time the zeitgeist was going in the opposite direction.
At the time, everyone (apart from me it seems) was bleating about how great the internet would be, envisioning a musical utopia where by Joe Bloggs and his band can record in the bedroom and bypass record labels and sell online.
As you can see now, the top ten is not full of Joe Bloggs playing his guitar in his bedroom. At all. In fact most people could not even name a single song in the top ten.
A good friend of mine was halfway up the rungs at Universal at the time, and recounted to me a focus group with teenagers where they named artists and asked them how much they would pay for a single or an album.
Their response, which floored the staff running the test was:
"What do you mean 'pay' for music? We don't pay!"
Months later, 60% of staff were made redundant.
The reality is that it is even more difficult for an independent now because of the 360 deals. The major labels used to be run to similar proportions to this:
30 artists signed over say a 2 year period. Each would have between £100k and £500k invested in them depending on how far they went before being dropped.
10 of those would make it to releasing a single or two.
5 of those would release an album
2 of those would release a second album.
1 of those would be the big 'cash cow' artist who ends up recording numerous albums and makes good money out of touring.
Touring for everyone else up the ladder is not a money making exercise, it was in fact a costly promotional investment in order to get album sales and justify more spending.
To give a comparison to the monies involved, then and now, a label might invest £300k (£400k in today's money) getting a good recording completed, marketing and a video or two, and take a 'punt'.
Today, if you sell 20,000 singles on iTunes, you are all but certain to be top 3 if not number 1 in the UK sales charts. That was a great accolade 20 years ago. Today, iTunes give you a cut of about 30p for each sale.
So, you'll make six grand total, as a record label. Out of that you have of course to pay for the recording and promotion costs. Oh, and of course give the artist their 15%.
Yes, 360 is the only way forward, but is that good? Artists are tied in, and instead of labels developing a large number of artists and letting the public and sales define which ones get more investment, they'll just invest on the 'sure things' and simply develop a handful.
For an independent record label, you've even less hope than you had 20 years ago. I'm sure that there are people out these doing it for pennies and for the love, but it's not a money making exercise.
In fact, you'd be better off investing in a wedding singer type covers band. £4k of equipment, and you'll rake in £1500 minimum most Friday and Saturday nights.
At the time, everyone (apart from me it seems) was bleating about how great the internet would be, envisioning a musical utopia where by Joe Bloggs and his band can record in the bedroom and bypass record labels and sell online.
As you can see now, the top ten is not full of Joe Bloggs playing his guitar in his bedroom. At all. In fact most people could not even name a single song in the top ten.
A good friend of mine was halfway up the rungs at Universal at the time, and recounted to me a focus group with teenagers where they named artists and asked them how much they would pay for a single or an album.
Their response, which floored the staff running the test was:
"What do you mean 'pay' for music? We don't pay!"
Months later, 60% of staff were made redundant.
The reality is that it is even more difficult for an independent now because of the 360 deals. The major labels used to be run to similar proportions to this:
30 artists signed over say a 2 year period. Each would have between £100k and £500k invested in them depending on how far they went before being dropped.
10 of those would make it to releasing a single or two.
5 of those would release an album
2 of those would release a second album.
1 of those would be the big 'cash cow' artist who ends up recording numerous albums and makes good money out of touring.
Touring for everyone else up the ladder is not a money making exercise, it was in fact a costly promotional investment in order to get album sales and justify more spending.
To give a comparison to the monies involved, then and now, a label might invest £300k (£400k in today's money) getting a good recording completed, marketing and a video or two, and take a 'punt'.
Today, if you sell 20,000 singles on iTunes, you are all but certain to be top 3 if not number 1 in the UK sales charts. That was a great accolade 20 years ago. Today, iTunes give you a cut of about 30p for each sale.
So, you'll make six grand total, as a record label. Out of that you have of course to pay for the recording and promotion costs. Oh, and of course give the artist their 15%.
Yes, 360 is the only way forward, but is that good? Artists are tied in, and instead of labels developing a large number of artists and letting the public and sales define which ones get more investment, they'll just invest on the 'sure things' and simply develop a handful.
For an independent record label, you've even less hope than you had 20 years ago. I'm sure that there are people out these doing it for pennies and for the love, but it's not a money making exercise.
In fact, you'd be better off investing in a wedding singer type covers band. £4k of equipment, and you'll rake in £1500 minimum most Friday and Saturday nights.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff