Exclusive Rights to Label?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Milesy303

Historically where?

No label was interested in signing hip-hop in the beginning, nor punk, or house music and techno.
The music came out of people's garages, hole in the wall clubs and on white label records and cassette tapes passed from person to person.
Historically speaking, record labels and well known dj's have done nothing to foster ground breaking new music....... until they finally understood the ground swell of popularity which is usually created by the artists themselves.....and their friends.
We have diverse and interesting music because ordinary people took a different route, a route that wasn't popular with those in charge of 'quality control'.
Otherwise we'd still be listening to Jefferson Starship and Boney M.

[msl]

Originally Posted by chrisso

My experience is that most will take as much as they can off you if you let them.
Contract signee beware.

So true.

[grantlandau]

Originally Posted by rhythmtech

^^like he said. no label is going to take a track on non-exclusive in digital land.

it works slightly differanly in physical products where two labels may join up to work differant territories though.

moodgadget, a sublabel of ghostly, releases everything non-exclusively (and almost only digital) and they are getting a LOT of love right now. percentages favor the label in most cases, but who cares, you can get attention for your tracks and sign it over to a real label whenever.

[rhythmtech]

Originally Posted by chrisso

No label was interested in signing hip-hop in the beginning, nor punk, or house music and techno.
The music came out of people's garages, hole in the wall clubs and on white label records and cassette tapes passed from person to person.
Historically speaking, record labels and well known dj's have done nothing to foster ground breaking new music....... until they finally understood the ground swell of popularity which is usually created by the artists themselves.....and their friends.
We have diverse and interesting music because ordinary people took a different route, a route that wasn't popular with those in charge of 'quality control'.
Otherwise we'd still be listening to Jefferson Starship and Boney M.

i think you're getting slightly mixed up with how a lot of us are using the term "quality control"

im not saying that some dj working for a download site should decide whats good and whats bad music but there needs to be a certain amount of control over the production end of things. there are some crap tracks that are well produced on beatport and they have every right to be there because my saying they're crap is only my opinion on the actual music, and thats subjective.

but quality of production isnt subjective at all really. not saying every track has to be pristine but there are tracks up there that actually sound like they've just come out of some kids bedroom. what exactly is wrong with getting music engineered? have peoples egos gotten so big that they think they're good enough to engineer a track because they know their way around *insert sequencer name*?

dance culture has historically been built around a do-it-yourself punk ethos as you quite rightly stated and releasing tracks without the help of a label has always been a big part of that BUT of all the old DIY releases that i know of (early stayupforever, havok etc) the quality was ALWAYS there on the production end. these records, while sounding a touch dated style wise, still hold their own thru a soundsystem.

[rhythmtech]

Originally Posted by grantlandau

moodgadget, a sublabel of ghostly, releases everything non-exclusively (and almost only digital) and they are getting a LOT of love right now. percentages favor the label in most cases, but who cares, you can get attention for your tracks and sign it over to a real label whenever.

one of the few i would say? if it works for them then more power to them, personally i wouldnt do it with my label. what happens if the track in question gets picked up on a bigger label (for a compilation or dj mix)? do you lose all licensing? if you've released the track and put the work in to get sales then its a bit of a kick in the nuts to lose it to the big boys.

[rhythmtech]

Originally Posted by Drone

There needs to be a sort critical safegaurd to ensure an adequate knowledge of equalization, compression, limiting, noize reduction etc is reflected through the work. Since many of these releases are intended for louder settings like club play,
I think there's a real responsibility here to the masses. If you're playing on a large PA system or playing in a pair of I-pod ear buds, tracks with poor mastering service could be down right dangerous at high decibels.

I've heard tracks on beatport where the high frequencies were ear piercing. To me this is unacceptable.
The other problem is there's too many variations of loudness within a single compilation or even on an individual track !
I talked to a few labels lately that actually took offense because I questioned who would take care of the mastering.
-The expectation now is that you take care of it yourself & I think very few have the knowledge nor the tools to handle this responsibility.

[Milesy303]

Even back when I was in the 90s hardcore era in the UK.... most of this stuff was produced in bedrooms, and small studios.... yet almost all of it had been mastered - you pretty much had to in order to press it. Even the tracks which were poor musically usually had the typical "Simon @ The Exchange" etc engraved on the record. So they may have not been good tracks but had been produced to a well enough quality that they were playable on turntables and on clubs PAs.

I agree with what has been said. There is a hell of a lot of talent out there, but a lot of records which are not remotely playable on most decent club system, and definately not playable on something like a Funktion One system.

I have done a little home mastering, just to allow me to road test stuff in the club in the past, but it has not sounded anywhere near good enough, and once I get a few good tracks put together they are getting sent to The Exchange for mastering hopefully

[rhythmtech]

Originally Posted by Milesy303

Even the tracks which were poor musically usually had the typical "Simon @ The Exchange" etc engraved on the record.

or nilz! you remember the little etching messages they used to scratch into the run out.. always had fun reading them

[msl]

Anything I'm going to have released gets mastered professionally, and so should everybody. But as Chrisso says I don't want to go back to the way things were in the 90's, and the difficulties of getting released then. I agree that there is a lot of substandard tracks coming out, however a lot of this has to do with new small bedroom labels which personally I don't think will be around for long. I doubt they have the will, commitment and money to continue. Beatport specifically hit 7000 labels last summer and put a freeze on all new additions, and have started deleting some. There will be a shake out of these labels, times are hard and getting harder, just ask anyone who runs a small label.

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by timbreman

Is it normal for a Label to ask for exclusive rights to my music if they are going to be selling on beatport?
I dont know enough about how labels commonly handle rights so anyone signed to a label giving me some info on it would be appreciated.

1. yes, it is normal.

2. should you grant exclusive rights, just to get a track up on beatport? this is another question entirely.

[Beermaster]

The reason the likes of beatport and others are full of fairly shite music is because of one simple thing: Not many people have 'IT' - Learning how to slam some loops together and play in a moronic bass line then compressing to sound punchy is a piece of piss - learning about the MUSIC and how to advance beyond two bar looped riffs is quite another thing.

There's more shite now a days because everyone and their brother has access to the facilities to make music on their computers. Owning a set of paints doesn't make you and artist.

[chrisso]

The moaning about Beatport just tells me there is a space on the scene for someone to create a better quality outlet from where you guys can find your tracks.
I imagine it hasn't already happened because there's very little money in it...... and a tremendous amount of work involved to set something up. I also imagine that's why Beatport is the way it is, they've attracted thousands of acts and allowed them on their site because that's the only way they can pay their bills.

[timbreman]

What is a normal cut for an artist? 50/50 ?

[Acid Hazard]

If i remember right, i get 50% on one of the labels i'm on. I'll have to double check though =o]

[msl]

For small labels yes it's usually 50/50 on royalties and 50/50 publishing. For bigger more established indy labels 30/50 royalties, and 50/50 publishing. If you sign to a major from what I know your looking at anywhere between 5-15% royalties.

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by Acid Hazard

If i remember right, i get 50% on one of the labels i'm on. I'll have to double check though =o]

What labels are you on? I dont think I have ever heard any of your tunez.

[Acid Hazard]

Originally Posted by timbreman

What labels are you on? I dont think I have ever heard any of your tunez.

Communique' Records
Acid Allstars
Acid Jack
Revival Records of Sweden
Napalm Enema
Aciiieeed!
Alien Imprint
Urbanground Records

You can find me on Beatport under the name Computer Controlled, and DJ Frantik.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by Milesy303

In many ways the digital market is too saturated. With vinyl at least many records (not all) had to go through some sort of mastering process, and distribution deal, which in the day filtered out a lot of crap. It's great that people can get their tracks out there, but there should definately be some sort of filter in place for getting tracks onto respected digital mediums.

Even on Beatport, I always find myself searching releases by label. Thus, the same filtering effect that the A&R had when selecting what a label would invest in (pressing and marketing) during the most cost-intensive vinyl era still pertains.

I like that if I have some extra time I can go off the beaten path and follow weird alleyways into unknown artist/label territory and occasionally find something great. It would be a shame if Beatport arrogated to themselves a filtering/A&R function that kept some artists/labels out of Beatport's "marketplace".

On the other hand, all of the points about mastering quality etc. are very well stated.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by Milesy303

Historically where? I have been a working DJ for over ten years, and I miss the days of quality control. The impracticality of so many labels and artists makes my job so much harder. I dont physically have time to listen to thousands of artists.

that is true enough.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by Beermaster

learning about the MUSIC and how to advance beyond two bar looped riffs is quite another thing.

RAM is cheap; thus, we're up to about 16 bars nowadays!

[mattyc]

Originally Posted by Milesy303

Historically where? I have been a working DJ for over ten years, and I miss the days of quality control. The impracticality of so many labels and artists makes my job so much harder. I dont physically have time to listen to thousands of artists.

I think when there were less labels it also pushed producers to work harder to get that "ive made it" first release, and thus they improved their skills a lot more
These days every second punter has a record label, and new producers will sign to some crappy label run by a guy no one has ever heard of and think they have reached the pinnacle of dance music production and get slack

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by mattyc

I think when there were less labels it also pushed producers to work harder to get that "ive made it" first release, and thus they improved their skills a lot more
These days every second punter has a record label, and new producers will sign to some crappy label run by a guy no one has ever heard of and think they have reached the pinnacle of dance music production and get slack

It's certainly an interesting argument. However....
Years ago I had the pleasure of knowing a rock/metal band that I considered more talented than most of the crap I hear these days. They were never signed to a label because they were most likely not considered marketable by the labels that were available at the time. It was rather sad considering how talented they were and how great their music was. They eventually broke up and their music will most likely never be heard. I find this sad.

That being said I cannot even listen to the radio anymore simply because of how much canned garbage I hear coming from major labels. For example a hot female is much more marketable with mediocre music because of "image" than a moderately unattractive artist is with brilliant music.

The simple fact of the matter is that complaining about having to sift through tons of music to find something decent is simply a statement of laziness. Sure you could complain that it takes too much time but then essentially what you are saying is you would prefer let the big record labels dictate what is good and bad.

I would rather be given many options and have the oppurtunity to discover good music on my own than being told what is good by someone who is more concerned about image then they are about quality music.

[rhythmtech]

Originally Posted by timbreman

I would rather be given many options and have the oppurtunity to discover good music on my own than being told what is good by someone who is more concerned about image then they are about quality music.

where exactly are people getting the idea that we're talking about the music here

whether music is good or crap is a matter of personal taste but production is another thing altogether. if it sounds like its been produced by a 10 year old then i really dont want to waste my time with it.

as for laziness, personally speaking ive been buying vinyl, cd, tapes, downloads for the last 15 years, i cant even begin to imagine the amount of shite ive sifted thru the years just to find a gem so im afraid your generalisation is a little wrong timbreman.

[crufty]

I don't understand why one would give up 50% just to have a song on digital distribution.

If all a label was going to do was take my track and upload it, maybe run it thru waves / t-racks 'mastering', I'd expect a much larger percentage. I'd want to know what a label was doing to promote my track, what dj mixes they think they can get it on, what media streams they expect it to play on etc. What kind of push can they generate? What top-50 charts can the get it on? What live shows do they think they can place me?

I look at it like this: A track sells for $1.00-$2.00. Half goes to service provider, half goes to track owner. If a track sells 200 copies, that's only $100. If all I am getting is digital download exposure, I'd want a bigger chunk.

Now, vinyl pressings, actual album distr incl shelf space, cd compilations, decent mastering options, good promo oppty, good relationship with major djs or multiple clubs in multiple cities, different story.

But just to get a track on beatport, give up $0.50 while the label just sits back and collects 50% whenever someone stumbles on your work? I'm not sure I understand that. I'm sure it makes sense somehow, but I don't see it. Then again, I'm in no danger of having to figure it out so what do I know?

[rhythmtech]

Originally Posted by crufty

I don't understand why one would give up 50% just to have a song on digital distribution.

If all a label was going to do was take my track and upload it, maybe run it thru waves / t-racks 'mastering', I'd expect a much larger percentage. I'd want to know what a label was doing to promote my track, what dj mixes they think they can get it on, what media streams they expect it to play on etc. What kind of push can they generate? What top-50 charts can the get it on? What live shows do they think they can place me?

I look at it like this: A track sells for $1.00-$2.00. Half goes to service provider, half goes to track owner. If a track sells 200 copies, that's only $100. If all I am getting is digital download exposure, I'd want a bigger chunk.

Now, vinyl pressings, actual album distr incl shelf space, cd compilations, decent mastering options, good promo oppty, good relationship with major djs or multiple clubs in multiple cities, different story.

But just to get a track on beatport, give up $0.50 while the label just sits back and collects 50% whenever someone stumbles on your work? I'm not sure I understand that. I'm sure it makes sense somehow, but I don't see it. Then again, I'm in no danger of having to figure it out so what do I know?

well a label with a good repuatation and loyal fanbase can do a lot for an artist and sell a few copies (not many mind)

but most importantly a label is the only way of getting your tracks on the sites were people go. unfortunate as it sounds, most people still regard free (non-commercial) music as something inferior. i think humans inherently need a monetary value attached to a product to make it feel more "pro"

[crufty]

Originally Posted by rhythmtech

well a label with a good repuatation and loyal fanbase can do a lot for an artist and sell a few copies (not many mind)

but most importantly a label is the only way of getting your tracks on the sites were people go. unfortunate as it sounds, most people still regard free (non-commercial) music as something inferior. i think humans inherently need a monetary value attached to a product to make it feel more "pro"

Well, I'm not arguing against all labels, just couldn't see giving up 50% to a lazy one at the low dollar values we're talking about. I would view a label an easy way to get noticed, and ones that get their tracks in front of the buying audience are the ones I'd try to court.

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by crufty

Well, I'm not arguing against all labels, just couldn't see giving up 50% to a lazy one at the low dollar values we're talking about. I would view a label an easy way to get noticed, and ones that get their tracks in front of the buying audience are the ones I'd try to court.

I dont think 50% is terribly outlandish as long as the label is honest and spends time to promote you. Problem is finding someone you can trust in this day and age.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by rhythmtech

where exactly are people getting the idea that we're talking about the music here

whether music is good or crap is a matter of personal taste but production is another thing altogether.

Production is also a matter of taste.
Many hugely successful records have a slightly weirdly produced sound. Some hits have been made in bedrooms on $500 worth of equipment.
A majority of the early punk/new wave, house music and hip hop records were made by inexperienced people in cheap or home studios.
These are the records that have shaped the scene we have now.
I just don't get this I know production better than you argument.
Nearly everyone on this forum is 'every second punter'.....
I say get over the variable quality of Beatport, or start your own service based on your own taste filter.

[Beermaster]

Originally Posted by rhythmtech

where exactly are people getting the idea that we're talking about the music here

whether music is good or crap is a matter of personal taste but production is another thing altogether. if it sounds like its been produced by a 10 year old then i really dont want to waste my time with it.
n.

Have to strongly disagree !

You can cover a turd in chocolate but its still a chocolate covered turd.

I can forgive a bad recording if the music is good. I can't give any respect for well produced track with no 'musical' content.

Back to the subject of assignment of rights to 'labels' - we really have come full circle with the old methods of record deals being made and labels promoting tracks and artists using promotion, ads and marketing as they always did. The simple truth being that the net is flooded with average and below par tracks all competing for sales and recognition. The only way to stand out form the crowd is with high end expensive promotion and placement.. something that can only be obtained with the help of a label and backing of money and experience.

100% of nothing is 0. 50% of something is better. It makes total sense and its the only way it can realistically work.

Beer

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by Beermaster

Have to strongly disagree !

You can cover a turd in chocolate but its still a chocolate covered turd.

I can forgive a bad recording if the music is good. I can't give any respect for well produced track with no 'musical' content.

Back to the subject of assignment of rights to 'labels' - we really have come full circle with the old methods of record deals being made and labels promoting tracks and artists using promotion, ads and marketing as they always did. The simple truth being that the net is flooded with average and below par tracks all competing for sales and recognition. The only way to stand out form the crowd is with high end expensive promotion and placement.. something that can only be obtained with the help of a label and backing of money and experience.

100% of nothing is 0. 50% of something is better. It makes total sense and its the only way it can realistically work.

Beer

Well put.

A friend brought up an excellent point of making sure once exclusive rights are signed over to a label to make sure there is a clause in the contract that states the exclusive rights are only for a set period of time.