News on recording policy

[matt the fiddler]

a little thing that might interest you guys....

John, NC's manager, indicates that an official taping policy will
definitely be in place before the fall record release tour. Things are a
little more complicated, because NC just signed a deal with a major label
for worldwide distribution (Sugar Hill is still the label in the US)... and
with a major label comes more complicated policies regarding taping... so
it's taking time.

It's probable that the final policy will be somewhat similar to the
informal policy now in place, but it may be somewhat more restrictive as
far as distribution and such due to the new major label deal... but John
and the band are supportive to the notion of continuing to allow fans to
tape shows, and it sounds like something reasonable will be worked out.

The worldwide distribution deal means that Nickel Creek fans outside the
US will have a much easier time finding their music... and also means that
NC will start to get airplay and maybe even television coverage on the
foreign equivalents of MTV... the current record is being promoted in
Europe as a rock record... so I'm guessing we'll see a pretty dramatic rise
in NC's popularity over the next few months!!

If you have comments or input on taping policy, please append to this
thread and we'll make sure that comments get communicated to NC's management.


Matt the Fiddler

[tonyfelice]

I really hope that they continue to allow taping and trading. For bands like NC that vary their setlists and are improvisational in their playing I think that it is a huge asset to the band and their fans to be able to collect live shows.

The Grateful Dead was the one of the first commercially successful bands to allow taping and it did nothing but help to grow their fan following. Bands like Phish, String Cheese Incident and countless others have followed in the Dead's footsteps regarding taping and it has also been beneficial to them as well.

[mandoBob]

I too hope they continue to allow and encourage taping and trading. I have distributed copies of the show we taped, and everyone who listens is just blown away. Word of mouth is a good way to spread the good news of good music, but sharing the actual music is so much more powerful. Now lots of my friends are compelled to buy their CDs and go to a show.
I think taping is also good for fan loyalty in these fickle times. It's hard to argue with the loyalty of the jam bands Tony listed. Perhaps it's the demographics of their fan-base, but I've got to believe that it's got something to do with their encouragement of tapers. For example, Phish set aside a tapers section at all their shows (a very nice touch for them and every one else at the show). They got almost NO radio play, yet they had a TON of fans at every stop on their tours.
As far as distribution restrictions go, I get a little jaded when record execs blame taping, downloading and/or cd burning for declining sales. I think if it's good music (and it IS), the more it gets out, the more fans you'll get, the more for your bottom line. Am I being too simplistic here?

[matt the fiddler]

it is kinda wierd with the policy and all... jsut remember that with most recoring deals, not only studio stuff... but every recording made by the band duing the time of the contract belongs to to the recording company, not the artist.. so it is more a control issue with really big companies- they see it as you passing something that belongs to them, and they don't always like that.

many artists have their own recordings that they recorded in small labels that got mergerd.. and now 10 years down the road, their own cd is locked in policy, unable to have anythign done to it... because of the record company




again- we have high hopes that the current assumed policy will be pretty close to what will auctually come out.

matt

[mandoBob]

perhaps this is best left to another thread, but that kind of policy makes me see why good folks like Gillian Welch start their own record labels, and it also convinces me to not want to try to attain commercial success with any music I happen to make in my life.
anyway, here's hoping for a good begining, middle and end to NC's commercial escapades, taping or no. guys (and gal), if you're reading this PLEASE beware of the love of money, not only in yourselves, but in those around you.

[pyxilillymon]

Wait a sec.........did i read that right? a rock record?!! hahaha Wow. Europe must be really different, i guess.

[Chip]

Originally posted by mandoBob
if you're reading this PLEASE beware of the love of money, not only in yourselves, but in those around you.

Hey, Bob...

Chris, Sean and Sara have told us they generally don't read the forum (Sean has said he doesn't it want to color or influence his composing), but one thing that I've noticed... everyone the band has attracted (their personal manager, tour manager, and other team members) are rare birds in the field... genuinely caring and thoughtful people who, from everything I've seen, have a level of integrity and positive outlook that's pretty unusual to find in this industry.

I would be pretty thunderstruck if the NC team ever decided to do something that put money in front of integrity and spiritual beliefs... and that's something I can't say for most of the other people I know in the business...

[jjlock181]

:confused: I just have this bit of cobwebby information running through my head about how much profit actually goes to the artist when we fans buy the cd's.
I do not belong to any file sharing group, but totally understand why they were designed. I have heard time and time again that artists get less than 10% of the sale of the cd. That they travel and work hard touring to gain any profit.

any comments??[think har

[katiekind]

Yes--it's true that direct profit to a recording artist is not large (royalties can be anywhere from around 8% to 16% after the record company recoups their advance).

As with other products, everyone along the way gets a piece of the pie (the record company, the distributor, the record store, the songwriters etc). Note in the case of Nickel Creek, some of the songwriting royalties from the album would come to them, and that's usually a very important income stream for artists that do their own songwriting. (As well as for professional songwriters.)

On the other hand there are many indirect benefits to an artist and that is why many artists will very willingly sign a record contract.

For example, most artists could never afford to pay for the kind of marketing campaign that a record company can afford--nor would most artists want to have to spend their time figuring out and implementing a marketing strategy, mailing out a single and promotional materials to a gazillion radio stations and then following up to encourage them to play it, making sure that the album is in stores in regions where the artist is popular (and tracking all that), and all that other stuff that is handled by the record company.

Of course they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts but when they have success with it, that does create some income for the band (the royalties I mentioned) and opens many other doors, including allowing a band to command higher performance fees and/or sell out larger venues.

Now I've rambled so much I can't remember the question! ;-)
Oh well.

[Chip]

[Apparently Katiekind and I were both composing responses at the same time... please excuse any duplication of content in my message...]


Well, there's no set deal on how much an artist gets from CD sales, but, grossly oversimplifying all of the complex calculations in a typical record contract, the 10% number is not uncommon for a large label deal... it can be less or more, depending on how established the artist is, how well the negotiations go, whether other labels are competing for the same artist, etc.

THat said, it's also not fair to characterize that as 90% to the label and 10% to the artist... because there's a wholesale distributor and a retail music store in the mix, and after those guys take their cuts, the record company sees a gross of somewhere between $6 and $9 for each record sold, and they have to pay composer's royalties and performance royalties, plus, of course, the cost of manufacturing the disc and packaging, marketing and publicizing it, and all of that. On an 'NSync record that sells 8 million copies, the record company (and hopefully the artist) does fine. On an obscure folk record that sells 15,000 copies, it's hard to make a living, for either the artist or the label. At 500,000 copies (where NC's album was, last I heard), both NC and the label should be doing pretty darn well.

For a small label like Sugar Hill, things often work a bit differently, and sometimes the artist can get a somewhat better deal. I have no knowledge of NC's deal with the label, but I do know that Sugar Hill has a reputation for honest dealing, and that Nickel Creek was given complete artistic control over their music... something which is extremely unusual for a new artist signing to a well-known label... so supporting the label and the band is something that we, as fans, can feel comfortable with.

Once again, my not-guaranteed-accurate and unofficial comments :)