I disagree. I'm a license-fee paying Brit, and don't give a damn if the rest of the world gets to freeload. In fact, I'm happy for them. Call it our gift. And cross our fingers it goes some way towards making up for the stupid wars Blair keeps following Bush into.
My last job began being hired as a temp when a previous guy left. They had 6 months funding for the temping post, so they said: in these 6 months, please streamline and automate all tasks so that by the time you leave, we don't need to hire a replacement.
So that's what I did.
And at the end of the six months, they said: hey, you're fitting in pretty well, do you want a permanent full-time position on 150% of the pay you had as a temp?
I said, "sure". Obviously, by that point, I had reduced the workload of the post to about 2 hours per week, like they asked me to in the first place, but if they're too stupid to notice, that's really not my problem. So I took the job. At first I was keen, and tried to make up the "missing" workload by coming up with new ideas - but after several times where these ideas just got taken into endless meetings with no outcome whatsoever, I pretty soon had that enthusiasm ground out of me.
Instead, I just pocketed the money, and spent 80% of the last year on the internet. Of course, I got all my work done, so my boss thought I was a great employee. Now I've left and they're looking for a replacement.
The real irony? This place is a business school, which boasts about having experts in "Strategic Human Resource Development". But they're still too f*cking dense to notice when they hire people for jobs they explicitly told people to render unnecessary.
Frankly, I have no idea why posts like this are moderated funny, and this is moderated 3, interesting. Both should be 5, insightful imho.
Work is, for the vast majority of the population, a stupid, pointless clock-watching waste of their life.
Actually, I think I recently read a report about an animal which could grasp negative numbers. The concept was basically X objects go behind a screen, Y come out, animal identifies X-Y. Where Y > X it seemed to correct use negative numbers?
Unfortunately my memory is hazy and I can't find anything on google. Can anyone confirm or supply a link?
That seems silly. There are plenty of people inside the UK who haven't paid a license fee, and no doubt plenty of people outside the UK (travelling businessmen, holidaymakers etc, perhaps even ex-pats) who have paid a license fee.
Your Red Dwarf example is very well chosen, but you don't even land the killer blow;-)
Having upgraded their budget for later series, they went back and "digitally remastered" the early series for the DVD release - replaced the cheesy model FX shots with CGI equivalents, and so on.
The fans complained, and now the early series you buy on DVD (or see repeated on TV) are back to the original, "charmingly shabby" versions.
It's ironic that a socialist funded network can innovate faster than our great and mighty capitalist free market media can
Ironic? Er, not really. Irony requires an element of "working against expectations", so it would only be ironic if it was a given fact that 'free market capitalism' was better than 'socialism'. (Both terms in inverted commas since nowhere that I'm aware of actually has free market capitalism, let alone the USA, and the BBC isn't socialist, but nevermind).
You might take it as a given fact but I would be hard pushed to think of any reason for you to think this, other than "believing the hype".
If you actually approach it with an open mind as to which forms of organisation produce what sorts of results, I fail to see why it should be "ironic", and not "illuminating", that the BBC consistently outdoes the entire corporate TV/media sector in terms of objectivity, reliability, diversity, accessibility, quality, etc, etc.
I wonder what Beethoven you've been listening to!?
In other words, I do know what you mean, but I find it odd you include Beethoven in that group. I don't really put him alongside Vivaldi and Handel. I can agree that some classical forms have (sadly) become rather twee and pompous sounding, I can't but Beethoven in there. His stuff is seriously daring, the harmonies and chord movements are cutting-edge, they were shocking then and they can still be shocking now. Beethoven was light years ahead of his time, I consider him very much alongside Debussy, over a century later, in smashing through boundaries of acceptible harmony.
Obviously, though, Beethoven is very wide-ranging. There's the inevitable debate as to whether you file him as the last classicist or the first romantic - either way his career roughly seems to bridge the two, so there are Vivaldi-esque and Handel-esque compositions in there for you to dismiss if you want, but there are also genius works you could see as proto-Mahler, proto-Rachmaninoff - so if you're writing Beethoven off completely I think you might be missing some delights.
Re:traditional channels for creative artists
on
Wil Wheaton Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So, what I would say to the grandparent is this:
Who cares how he got his foot in the door? He's not selling out or cashing in,
I wasn't suggest that he was! Or suggesting that how he got his foot in the door affects the quality of what he's doing now.
All I was doing is pointing out that, that is how he got his foor in the door. A lot of people see people like Wil, or Prince (and yes, I know, they're on very different levels in terms of megastardom) going DIY successfully, they naively suppose that the same thing can automatically apply to a complete unknown. Just trying to point out that creation + distribution also need to be accompanied by marketing of some form, if commercial success is expected - and in the absense of the major label/studio route, the weight of marketing work falls on the artist...
Re:traditional channels for creative artists
on
Wil Wheaton Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hi Wil, thanks for replying!:)
For the most part it seems like we're very much on the same plane so I'll only pick up on one part...
It would be disingenuous to deny that some part of the audience initially came to my blog because they'd seen my work on Star Trek. But two years elapsed between the launch of my blog, and the release of my first book. And my books aren't about Star Trek. They're not Star Trek fiction, and they're not Star Trek bios. I feel like you're implying that my involvement with Star Trek is the only reason anyone read my books, which I find a little offensive.
Im' sorry if I gave that impression with the wording of my post - not intended! I should have made it clear that I wasn't belittling your 'DIY route' success with that observation, trying to go so far as to suggest "oh he only sells books because he's cashing in on Star Trek" - not my intention at all. I was just pointing out that it (along with your other prior through-the-normal-channels work) was a kind of "leg up" for your general visibility - a wee head start, if you like. If you're a general "nobody" who starts a blog or website, puts a book or DIY movie or whatever, the fact is you need an awful lot of promotional legwork to get anyone paying attention at all. Already having your name in the minds of your likely audience is undoubtedly a boost on that front, which, out of the key trilogy of (creation, distribution, marketing), is currently the hardest aspect for the DIY-er, AFAICS.
I can see from your post that you do accept that point so really all I'm saying is: that was as far as my point went. No denigratory implications were intended:)
If you are not famous and want to go the independent route, you need to do a lot of work in order to get your name out there.
That's exactly it in a nutshell!:)
Hell, my post proved the point - I got a sale from this kind slashdot user. I (we) wouldn't have got that sale if I hadn't put 20 minutes into writing an advertisment-disguised-as-slashdot-comment;)
he didnt just capitalized on past fame, but, maybe more cleverly managed to ride a wave that is not as high as fame, but is more rewarding in term of self respect, of self confidence and of personnal independance.
Absolutely. That's exactly what he did. All I was doing is pointing out that he did have the wave to ride;) Whereas it's a lot harder when you have to make the wave yourself.
No negative intent in pointing that out, I totally respect him (in 'ethical' terms) for making that choice and for the success he has had with it:)
Your music is not, well, the kind of music that would turn out to be popular. That is not to say you guys don't have talent (which I can't judge from one song), or that you don't work hard (again, I can't tell if you guys do or not). But you're dealing in drum 'n' bass played by a live band. That's not the broadest possible genre,
Well, you're dealing with a narrow sample:)
The "drum and bass" thing is misleading in many ways. Come to a show or listen to the whole album, and you'll realise the mixture includes breakbeat/dnb, rock, funk, jazz, folk, trance/techno/house, salsa/latin and a few other bits and bobs. It's really "all genres and no genre, all the time".
The "live drumnbass" tag is really just something we settle for in promotional material, because saying "we play all genres" isn't informative, listing 30 looks stupid, and we're sorta trying to cash in on the recent mini-fashion for live dnb bands in the wake of London Elektricity.
Our gigs arent restricted to a dnb audience - in fact they're more often not - we play at live band showcases with rock bands, funk bands, hiphop bands, etc. We play festivals with a folk/roots/world focus. We've done club nights with a 4/4 techno focus. And people have dug it all over the place. So I dont think its really a very narrow niche as you say - the band seems to appeal to pretty much anyone into electronic dance music of any kind, because we give them bits of that, but with a live performance they're not used to in the scene - as well as fans of jam bands, and all sorts.
What you guys have to do is try and connect with the audiences that might see you. I'm sure you know of all these names, but look at artists like Greyboy (and Greyboy Allstars), the New Mastersounds, LTJ Bukem, Disco Biscuits, and other artists that are in a similar genre. Find out where they play live and follow them there. Play in that same club.
Actually, I don't know those names, except Bukem. I guess its a US/UK divide. I will check em out.
This is something we're already doing - we've played on the same bill as drumnbass djs like Mickey Finn, Nu:Tone, Cyantific, London Elektricity; breakbeat acts like Lo-Fi Allstars, General Midi; bands like the Ozric Tentacles... We're working on it:)
(I just looked on your site and you have one show in June and one in July --- you need to have two a week at least).
So true, and we all know it. The trouble is we've been geographically disparate for the past few years - some right up in Newcastle, some way down in London. Right now half the band is moving house so we're united in London, and can gig much more regularly.
Blogs aren't the end-all and be-all...
I can't stress live shows enough. Over here in the US, if you "make it" as a DJ, you are making money off of live shows, not CD sales.
Preaching to the choir my friend:)
One of the main intentions of my post was to point out say that we sell a lot more CDs in person at gigs than we do online. In fact I'd guess we sell more at any ONE of our gigs than we ever do from the combined weight of a website/blog, internet radio, sharing it on p2p, etc, etc, for 6 months. And that's just comparing CD sales online vs IRL. As you say - the actual money from the gigs themselves (ticket sales, etc) is often better than the CD sales again. So it's definitely all about the real world, and the internet is really just PR backup.
That's what I'm getting at - the internet won't "save the music industry", and magically put money into artist's hands. It's technologically POSSIBLE today, sure, but it's not quite happening now, and it won't suddenly happen overnight. The real game still lies in the touring.
Which is all well and good for a live band like ourselves, but it raises trick
Re:traditional channels for creative artists
on
Wil Wheaton Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But it is not at all clear that you would make any more money. After all, all the expenses of that promotion (and expenses they just make up) come out of your end, and increasingly they're taking the profits from your t-shirt and concerts too. So you could work for years for them and only get those advances they hand over when you sign.
That's a very good point, and another reason why we haven't been rushing after major label attention even though the DIY online distribution doesn't earn us anything.
I definitely agree that the major label route is no panacea, I was just ensuring people don't get carried away with naive utopianism, and think internet/direct/p2p methods are in itself a panacea either.
It has its own drawbacks, which include the promotion issue. In time, I hope to see new internet/technology-driven "recommendation mechanisms" take root alongside the content creation and distribution tools. Perhaps del.ic.io.us style tagging, or building p2p systems with inbuilt content-rating system and social-networking with decaying 'trust' in those content ratings. I don't know... But I'm looking forward to it, cos its better than RIAA+Clearchannel diktats, that's for sure.
Good score for a night's posting - a +5 AND a new customer;-)
But seriously - thanks a lot, it means a lot to us. Right now we've nearly sold all of our first 1000 run, and we can't afford to press up the next 1000 because we have been using CD profits to subsidise low-paying but high-exposure touring. So every bit of financial support is hugely appreciated!
Not at all mate, very constructive throughout and much appreciated!
One problem is working out how to buy. It looks obvious to you, but I got to the site, read what I could see "above the fold", then clicked around, and went to "Shop" to see how much the CD was, then couldn't find it there. I stumbled across it eventually, but, yes, most users are as dumb as I am. The "buy" link is not underlined and is in tiny text, which makes it even less obvious.
Hmm, yeah, the shop link in the top-bar is kinda misleading, it's outdated really, I really should just get rid of it. I'll also tweak the "timestorm" page to make the "buy!" link even more prominent.
Furthermore, I'd say you should also have the album available to buy in dollars. I know PayPal does dollars, but Americans are touchy when it comes to other currencies
Fair point, why not? Ultimately it would mean me picking an arbitrary fixed exchange rate, which may work out worse for US buyers (someone said it converted to $18.61 so I might round up to $20, for example). It'd be interesting to see whether, despite that, the friendly presentation of a native US current price would increase US sales.
Also, buying a physical CD will put a lot of people off (myself included, I'm afraid), as nowadays we'd rather pay a little less and get some high quality MP3 files. All CDs I'm forced to buy end up getting ripped then thrown on the trash pile anyway. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of us.
Cheers for the feedback. We're considering MP3 sales, but I don't want to leap into the work & money that setting up the infrastructure would take, if I don't know we'd get a reasonable number of buyers. So, basically, the more people who express an interest in that format, the more likely we'll do it!
Anyway... I have just downloaded a couple of your tracks and will now check them out.. from the text description it sounds right up my alley!:)
You do not need the so-called traditional channels of distribution to get your work to an audience, and you'll probably be happier and more successful by not going through those channels. I've done it both ways, and self-publishing and distributing was more fun, more creatively satisfying, and much more financially rewarding
You seem to miss one big point in this answer. You already had some "fame" gained from a time working through the conventional distribution channels to leverage when going DIY.
It's the same as when I hear people talk about Prince releasing his albums himself to his fanclub or whatever. "Just sell it direct, then you don't pay the label/studio a huge chunk of YOUR income, you don't lose creative control, etc".
Well... yes. But the thing is, the traditional channels don't just distribute, they promote. It's rather hard to compete with that. Prince doesn't have to: he's already a global megastar when he blows off his label and goes DIY. Everyone into funk-type stuff is already aware of Prince when he puts his new album for sale on his website. Hell, he's still famous enough that the newspapers talk about it for him.
Somewhat similarly, your market with your blog and books was (internet-enabled) geeks, pretty much all of whom are already well aware of your name from your Star Trek appearance alone.
So, yes, I agree the technology (Openoffice and Final Cut and Cubase and Paypal and whatnot) is there to produce and distribute creative works, but that still leaves the promotion.
You can have a product for sale as much you want, but thats not enough - people won't buy it by magic. I know this, how? Well, look at my sig. I have an album for sale, self-funded, self-produced, self-distributed. How many do we sell via paypal? Not many, and most of them we DO get are people who saw at as a gig anyway!
The sad fact is, very few people are prepared to buy a creative product online from a "nobody", without the newspapers telling them to. Slashbots like to talk about "free samples", "word of mouth" or "p2p". Well, our free sample is the all time #1 download on a major mp3 blog, with more downloads than Bjork. That exposure didn't noticably affect our paypal sales one iota. We've been featured on endless internet radio stations, podcasts and playlists - again - no payoff in sales. I've had it shared on eMule and soulseek - I'd love to believe in p2p as a means of spreading unsigned talent (that's honestly what I use it for, in both directions) but the sad truth is very few people download it, and I've yet to see any download -> purchase trend.
Ultimately from where I'm standing you just can't argue with the media saturation that only major labels/studios can afford buy. So unless you're in that position where you've enjoyed a spell of major-league media exposure, and THEN taken control and gone DIY, I would refute your "more financially" successful claim.
I would however completely agree with your "more satisfying / rewarding" claim, which is why we still persist in doing it this way, regardless.
This is racist garbage and would instantly be at -1 if it was talking about America.
I'm absolutely disgusted. Pro-US, anti-world bigotry is so common on slashdot, I've had enough of it and really don't think I will be bothered to visit much in future.
Slashdot Mirror
Link or STFU ;]
I think Impeachment, Conviction and Death Penalty would be more appropriate.
Genuine question: why do they need to lift off in daylight?
What fucking planet are you on!?!?!
(Disclaimer: it's all opinion, yours is just as valid as mine, etc, etc)
That's simplified to the point of complete innaccuracy.
I disagree. I'm a license-fee paying Brit, and don't give a damn if the rest of the world gets to freeload. In fact, I'm happy for them. Call it our gift. And cross our fingers it goes some way towards making up for the stupid wars Blair keeps following Bush into.
My last job began being hired as a temp when a previous guy left. They had 6 months funding for the temping post, so they said: in these 6 months, please streamline and automate all tasks so that by the time you leave, we don't need to hire a replacement.
So that's what I did.
And at the end of the six months, they said: hey, you're fitting in pretty well, do you want a permanent full-time position on 150% of the pay you had as a temp?
I said, "sure". Obviously, by that point, I had reduced the workload of the post to about 2 hours per week, like they asked me to in the first place, but if they're too stupid to notice, that's really not my problem. So I took the job. At first I was keen, and tried to make up the "missing" workload by coming up with new ideas - but after several times where these ideas just got taken into endless meetings with no outcome whatsoever, I pretty soon had that enthusiasm ground out of me.
Instead, I just pocketed the money, and spent 80% of the last year on the internet. Of course, I got all my work done, so my boss thought I was a great employee. Now I've left and they're looking for a replacement.
The real irony? This place is a business school, which boasts about having experts in "Strategic Human Resource Development". But they're still too f*cking dense to notice when they hire people for jobs they explicitly told people to render unnecessary.
Frankly, I have no idea why posts like this are moderated funny, and this is moderated 3, interesting. Both should be 5, insightful imho.
Work is, for the vast majority of the population, a stupid, pointless clock-watching waste of their life.
Very pleased to see this post got the "funny" moderation it deserved :)
Unfortunately my memory is hazy and I can't find anything on google. Can anyone confirm or supply a link?
That seems silly. There are plenty of people inside the UK who haven't paid a license fee, and no doubt plenty of people outside the UK (travelling businessmen, holidaymakers etc, perhaps even ex-pats) who have paid a license fee.
Having upgraded their budget for later series, they went back and "digitally remastered" the early series for the DVD release - replaced the cheesy model FX shots with CGI equivalents, and so on.
The fans complained, and now the early series you buy on DVD (or see repeated on TV) are back to the original, "charmingly shabby" versions.
Ironic? Er, not really. Irony requires an element of "working against expectations", so it would only be ironic if it was a given fact that 'free market capitalism' was better than 'socialism'. (Both terms in inverted commas since nowhere that I'm aware of actually has free market capitalism, let alone the USA, and the BBC isn't socialist, but nevermind).
You might take it as a given fact but I would be hard pushed to think of any reason for you to think this, other than "believing the hype".
If you actually approach it with an open mind as to which forms of organisation produce what sorts of results, I fail to see why it should be "ironic", and not "illuminating", that the BBC consistently outdoes the entire corporate TV/media sector in terms of objectivity, reliability, diversity, accessibility, quality, etc, etc.
Try "Stalin".
Historians' estimates for Hitler: 11 million.
Historians' estimates for Stalin: 20-40 million.
In other words, I do know what you mean, but I find it odd you include Beethoven in that group. I don't really put him alongside Vivaldi and Handel. I can agree that some classical forms have (sadly) become rather twee and pompous sounding, I can't but Beethoven in there. His stuff is seriously daring, the harmonies and chord movements are cutting-edge, they were shocking then and they can still be shocking now. Beethoven was light years ahead of his time, I consider him very much alongside Debussy, over a century later, in smashing through boundaries of acceptible harmony.
Obviously, though, Beethoven is very wide-ranging. There's the inevitable debate as to whether you file him as the last classicist or the first romantic - either way his career roughly seems to bridge the two, so there are Vivaldi-esque and Handel-esque compositions in there for you to dismiss if you want, but there are also genius works you could see as proto-Mahler, proto-Rachmaninoff - so if you're writing Beethoven off completely I think you might be missing some delights.
Who cares how he got his foot in the door? He's not selling out or cashing in,
I wasn't suggest that he was! Or suggesting that how he got his foot in the door affects the quality of what he's doing now.
All I was doing is pointing out that, that is how he got his foor in the door. A lot of people see people like Wil, or Prince (and yes, I know, they're on very different levels in terms of megastardom) going DIY successfully, they naively suppose that the same thing can automatically apply to a complete unknown. Just trying to point out that creation + distribution also need to be accompanied by marketing of some form, if commercial success is expected - and in the absense of the major label/studio route, the weight of marketing work falls on the artist...
For the most part it seems like we're very much on the same plane so I'll only pick up on one part...
It would be disingenuous to deny that some part of the audience initially came to my blog because they'd seen my work on Star Trek. But two years elapsed between the launch of my blog, and the release of my first book. And my books aren't about Star Trek. They're not Star Trek fiction, and they're not Star Trek bios. I feel like you're implying that my involvement with Star Trek is the only reason anyone read my books, which I find a little offensive.
Im' sorry if I gave that impression with the wording of my post - not intended! I should have made it clear that I wasn't belittling your 'DIY route' success with that observation, trying to go so far as to suggest "oh he only sells books because he's cashing in on Star Trek" - not my intention at all. I was just pointing out that it (along with your other prior through-the-normal-channels work) was a kind of "leg up" for your general visibility - a wee head start, if you like. If you're a general "nobody" who starts a blog or website, puts a book or DIY movie or whatever, the fact is you need an awful lot of promotional legwork to get anyone paying attention at all. Already having your name in the minds of your likely audience is undoubtedly a boost on that front, which, out of the key trilogy of (creation, distribution, marketing), is currently the hardest aspect for the DIY-er, AFAICS.
I can see from your post that you do accept that point so really all I'm saying is: that was as far as my point went. No denigratory implications were intended :)
That's exactly it in a nutshell! :)
Hell, my post proved the point - I got a sale from this kind slashdot user. I (we) wouldn't have got that sale if I hadn't put 20 minutes into writing an advertisment-disguised-as-slashdot-comment ;)
Absolutely. That's exactly what he did. All I was doing is pointing out that he did have the wave to ride ;) Whereas it's a lot harder when you have to make the wave yourself.
No negative intent in pointing that out, I totally respect him (in 'ethical' terms) for making that choice and for the success he has had with it :)
Well, you're dealing with a narrow sample :)
The "drum and bass" thing is misleading in many ways. Come to a show or listen to the whole album, and you'll realise the mixture includes breakbeat/dnb, rock, funk, jazz, folk, trance/techno/house, salsa/latin and a few other bits and bobs. It's really "all genres and no genre, all the time".
The "live drumnbass" tag is really just something we settle for in promotional material, because saying "we play all genres" isn't informative, listing 30 looks stupid, and we're sorta trying to cash in on the recent mini-fashion for live dnb bands in the wake of London Elektricity.
Our gigs arent restricted to a dnb audience - in fact they're more often not - we play at live band showcases with rock bands, funk bands, hiphop bands, etc. We play festivals with a folk/roots/world focus. We've done club nights with a 4/4 techno focus. And people have dug it all over the place. So I dont think its really a very narrow niche as you say - the band seems to appeal to pretty much anyone into electronic dance music of any kind, because we give them bits of that, but with a live performance they're not used to in the scene - as well as fans of jam bands, and all sorts.
What you guys have to do is try and connect with the audiences that might see you. I'm sure you know of all these names, but look at artists like Greyboy (and Greyboy Allstars), the New Mastersounds, LTJ Bukem, Disco Biscuits, and other artists that are in a similar genre. Find out where they play live and follow them there. Play in that same club.
Actually, I don't know those names, except Bukem. I guess its a US/UK divide. I will check em out.
This is something we're already doing - we've played on the same bill as drumnbass djs like Mickey Finn, Nu:Tone, Cyantific, London Elektricity; breakbeat acts like Lo-Fi Allstars, General Midi; bands like the Ozric Tentacles... We're working on it :)
(I just looked on your site and you have one show in June and one in July --- you need to have two a week at least).
So true, and we all know it. The trouble is we've been geographically disparate for the past few years - some right up in Newcastle, some way down in London. Right now half the band is moving house so we're united in London, and can gig much more regularly.
Blogs aren't the end-all and be-all... I can't stress live shows enough. Over here in the US, if you "make it" as a DJ, you are making money off of live shows, not CD sales.
Preaching to the choir my friend :)
One of the main intentions of my post was to point out say that we sell a lot more CDs in person at gigs than we do online. In fact I'd guess we sell more at any ONE of our gigs than we ever do from the combined weight of a website/blog, internet radio, sharing it on p2p, etc, etc, for 6 months. And that's just comparing CD sales online vs IRL. As you say - the actual money from the gigs themselves (ticket sales, etc) is often better than the CD sales again. So it's definitely all about the real world, and the internet is really just PR backup.
That's what I'm getting at - the internet won't "save the music industry", and magically put money into artist's hands. It's technologically POSSIBLE today, sure, but it's not quite happening now, and it won't suddenly happen overnight. The real game still lies in the touring.
Which is all well and good for a live band like ourselves, but it raises trick
That's a very good point, and another reason why we haven't been rushing after major label attention even though the DIY online distribution doesn't earn us anything.
I definitely agree that the major label route is no panacea, I was just ensuring people don't get carried away with naive utopianism, and think internet/direct/p2p methods are in itself a panacea either.
It has its own drawbacks, which include the promotion issue. In time, I hope to see new internet/technology-driven "recommendation mechanisms" take root alongside the content creation and distribution tools. Perhaps del.ic.io.us style tagging, or building p2p systems with inbuilt content-rating system and social-networking with decaying 'trust' in those content ratings. I don't know... But I'm looking forward to it, cos its better than RIAA+Clearchannel diktats, that's for sure.
Good score for a night's posting - a +5 AND a new customer ;-)
But seriously - thanks a lot, it means a lot to us. Right now we've nearly sold all of our first 1000 run, and we can't afford to press up the next 1000 because we have been using CD profits to subsidise low-paying but high-exposure touring. So every bit of financial support is hugely appreciated!
Not at all mate, very constructive throughout and much appreciated!
One problem is working out how to buy. It looks obvious to you, but I got to the site, read what I could see "above the fold", then clicked around, and went to "Shop" to see how much the CD was, then couldn't find it there. I stumbled across it eventually, but, yes, most users are as dumb as I am. The "buy" link is not underlined and is in tiny text, which makes it even less obvious.
Hmm, yeah, the shop link in the top-bar is kinda misleading, it's outdated really, I really should just get rid of it. I'll also tweak the "timestorm" page to make the "buy!" link even more prominent.
Furthermore, I'd say you should also have the album available to buy in dollars. I know PayPal does dollars, but Americans are touchy when it comes to other currencies
Fair point, why not? Ultimately it would mean me picking an arbitrary fixed exchange rate, which may work out worse for US buyers (someone said it converted to $18.61 so I might round up to $20, for example). It'd be interesting to see whether, despite that, the friendly presentation of a native US current price would increase US sales.
Also, buying a physical CD will put a lot of people off (myself included, I'm afraid), as nowadays we'd rather pay a little less and get some high quality MP3 files. All CDs I'm forced to buy end up getting ripped then thrown on the trash pile anyway. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of us.
Cheers for the feedback. We're considering MP3 sales, but I don't want to leap into the work & money that setting up the infrastructure would take, if I don't know we'd get a reasonable number of buyers. So, basically, the more people who express an interest in that format, the more likely we'll do it!
Anyway... I have just downloaded a couple of your tracks and will now check them out.. from the text description it sounds right up my alley! :)
Good stuff ;)
You seem to miss one big point in this answer. You already had some "fame" gained from a time working through the conventional distribution channels to leverage when going DIY.
It's the same as when I hear people talk about Prince releasing his albums himself to his fanclub or whatever. "Just sell it direct, then you don't pay the label/studio a huge chunk of YOUR income, you don't lose creative control, etc".
Well... yes. But the thing is, the traditional channels don't just distribute, they promote. It's rather hard to compete with that. Prince doesn't have to: he's already a global megastar when he blows off his label and goes DIY. Everyone into funk-type stuff is already aware of Prince when he puts his new album for sale on his website. Hell, he's still famous enough that the newspapers talk about it for him.
Somewhat similarly, your market with your blog and books was (internet-enabled) geeks, pretty much all of whom are already well aware of your name from your Star Trek appearance alone.
So, yes, I agree the technology (Openoffice and Final Cut and Cubase and Paypal and whatnot) is there to produce and distribute creative works, but that still leaves the promotion.
You can have a product for sale as much you want, but thats not enough - people won't buy it by magic. I know this, how? Well, look at my sig. I have an album for sale, self-funded, self-produced, self-distributed. How many do we sell via paypal? Not many, and most of them we DO get are people who saw at as a gig anyway!
The sad fact is, very few people are prepared to buy a creative product online from a "nobody", without the newspapers telling them to. Slashbots like to talk about "free samples", "word of mouth" or "p2p". Well, our free sample is the all time #1 download on a major mp3 blog, with more downloads than Bjork. That exposure didn't noticably affect our paypal sales one iota. We've been featured on endless internet radio stations, podcasts and playlists - again - no payoff in sales. I've had it shared on eMule and soulseek - I'd love to believe in p2p as a means of spreading unsigned talent (that's honestly what I use it for, in both directions) but the sad truth is very few people download it, and I've yet to see any download -> purchase trend.
Ultimately from where I'm standing you just can't argue with the media saturation that only major labels/studios can afford buy. So unless you're in that position where you've enjoyed a spell of major-league media exposure, and THEN taken control and gone DIY, I would refute your "more financially" successful claim.
I would however completely agree with your "more satisfying / rewarding" claim, which is why we still persist in doing it this way, regardless.
This is racist garbage and would instantly be at -1 if it was talking about America.
I'm absolutely disgusted. Pro-US, anti-world bigotry is so common on slashdot, I've had enough of it and really don't think I will be bothered to visit much in future.
That was probably MI5 HQ (or is it MI6 - can't remember offhand - but either way - I'm not surprised!)