The post “Ask Graham Anything” Music Biz Meet, Greet and Q & A Event appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

First of all, be aware that some venues prohibit recording without their express permission, and will post a notice to that effect on the premises. (In such case, even you might need permission from them to have a videographer capture your performance on your behalf.) They may even require it be stated on your tickets or any printed concert program.

On occasions where you also don’t want people filming, such a venue policy serves your interests as well. Nevertheless, some people might simply disregard the warning notice and record you regardless. Thus, a venue-imposed prohibition isn’t sufficient protection in and of itself. You should reinforce the venue’s policy by making it clear to those in attendance that you also want them to abide by the house rules. This serves the dual purpose of laying the blame for the no-filming policy at the feet of the venue operator, which should help to placate fans who might otherwise have been pissed off at you for not being allowed to video you, and gives you additional legal ammunition should you later feel compelled to take legal action against someone who you found out did it anyway.

Reinforce the venue’s policy by mentioning it on stage prior to your opening song (this can be one of the duties of the emcee, if there is one) and again at some point during your show for the benefit of late-comers. Ditto, in situations where the venue operator has no prohibition on filming but you do.

If you do have any kind of policy on others recording at your gigs, certainly do your best to inform everyone who comes by mentioning it onstage, but also consider placing the info on the website(s) where you are promoting the event, as well as somewhere on the tickets. For tickets purchased online, you could also include it within a terms of sale agreement. Consider posting a sign at the entrance and on your merch table as well.

If your policy is absolutely no filming, your notice needn’t be more than a few words. If you are OK with people videoing, let them know but also outline the conditions under which you grant that permission. This will strike a balance between allowing them to capture your performance and protecting your interests regarding what they may do with those recordings afterwards. Some who do choose to video might even be OK signing a waiver at the gig limiting their usage rights. Your merch table would be a good place for that.

The more informed people are of your policy on recording, the less likely they will be to violate it; the more proof you have that you made a reasonable effort to dispense that information to those in attendance, the better protected you will be under the law.

While it is important to inform and be clear with whatever message you have for those who would possibly record at your event, it is equally important to present your position in a way that doesn’t risk alienating your fans. Some may take it for granted that they have a right to video you and post the thing on the Web by virtue of their just having shown up to support your act. Others may not even intend to record anything but be taken aback by the tone of your message.

Obviously, you’re not in this business to create enemies, so be diplomatic in the way you present the information. Reinforcing how important they and their support are to you will also go a long way towards helping get them onside. At the same time, be prepared for any possible negative comment about the policy by having a reasonable-sounding, non-inflammatory response at the ready, just in case a disgruntled individual does confront you on it at the gig or later takes to social media.

One more thing: If you are having your performance filmed, make sure you’ve read the fine print in any contract you have with the concert promoter or venue operator. They may want not only a piece of your other merchandise sales at the gig, but also a share of any proceeds you get from the video–perhaps even things like YouTube ad revenue and future use in any commercial. If that should be the case, it’s fair to limit such share strictly to purchases by fans who order and pay for it at the show, whether via their smartphone or at the merch table.

As a final note, general principals and precautions to do with ownership and control of sound recordings apply equally to live music videos. Keeping this in mind while you pursue your career will very possibly save you some serious headaches down the road.

The post Scary Movie 2–Preventing Unauthorized Filming and Use of Your Live Concert appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I like to see bands set themselves up for success, and in this regard I’ve always been a big proponent of prioritizing having a band partnership agreement in place. It should be one of the first orders of business for any group that is serious about getting out there and making waves. One of the most important reasons for this is this matter of songs. A written band agreement will go a long ways toward addressing this issue by covering the subject of writing credits, ownership, division of any publishing revenue and the administration of such publishing.

As I see it, there are basically two approaches to dealing with song credits and ownership in a band: One sees the actual writers retaining all writing credits and copyrights; the other distributes those credits and/or ownership equally amongst the band members. At first glance the former seems pretty straight forward and the logical way to go–i.e., the people who write the songs deserve those credits and ownership. A second look at this may give one cause to reconsider.

Take the situation where a band member comes up with a song idea and presents it to the group. They like it and have a hand in developing it to completion for performing and recording purposes. Did the other members just help arrange it, or was their contribution also compositional? And who gets to determine this? Or, what if the person who started the band has a real thing about pushing his own songs on the group but is reluctant to share in any of the credits and ownership?

These are examples of circumstances where song creation and usage can easily become fodder for dispute, tension and dissension within a group, which is the reason why some bands opt for each member having an equal share of ownership of all songs. That way, everyone gets a piece of at least the publishing side of song income. Some bands go further and give everyone equal writing credits, too, regardless of any individual member’s contribution, although it is perfectly understandable why the one(s) with most of the creative juices in the group might have a problem with that.

I’m not advocating this kind of egalitarian approach, simply pointing it out as an option to consider. If you do go in this direction, you will need to set up a publishing company for the band material unless the band decides to find an existing publishing firm to handle its song-related business affairs. Your band agreement should stipulate whether or not the band partners agree to create such an entity, the administration rights and duties that such a company would have, and the criteria that would have to be met for a song to fall under its control.

If you opt for the first approach, then it is important that the person who brings a song idea to the group have the other members sign off on their sole rights to the composition, in the way that a music producer working with an artist on an album project might be asked to do.

Speaking of being remiss, it’s been way too long since I last wrote about something specifically pertinent to bands. I promise to mend my ways, so keep an eye out for more musings about bands on this site in the coming months.

[bitcointips]

The post Who Writes The Songs? Why Some Bands Are Singing The Blues appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

We’re all aware that things have changed considerably in this industry over the past decade or two, and there’s little doubt more flux and flummox is in store. In this regard, the digital scene is spawning all types of new critters related to the music scene, including one enterprising Internet-based species we’re starting to see more of: the faux label.

These outfits may call themselves labels, but be clear: they aren’t really record companies. They’ve launched on the relentless digital wave that’s seen by many as the sounding of the death knell for the traditional industry, on the premise that the old label model should be viewed as dead. Having taken the liberty to recreate the label concept in their own image, some now tout themselves to the unsigned as today’s real deal.

Well, I’m sorry, but digital marketing does not a record company make. Sure, that’s part of the package one would expect nowadays from a label, and having all the in-fashion social networking “follow us” and “share” buttons on the home page looks really cool. But a label’s mandate is much more than simply improving an artist’s presence in social media circles, placing music with online retailers, pushing merch on their “Store” page, and launching campaigns in collaboration with music community platforms.

In most cases, I’d classify such “label” players as little more than self-glorifying service companies at best, and scoundrels seeking to milk unsuspecting artists at worst.

Here are some clues you can pick up from a website that, individually or collectively, may help you determine whether you have probably sighted such an animal:

> no physical address or phone number

> ads unrelated to their activities

> a rather fuzzy description of what they do

> little information on who’s involved (or none at all)

> fees to get on board with them

> no track record to speak of

Happy hunting.

The post The Imposters – Spotting the Pretend Record Label appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

But what if you should have a change of heart, perhaps because one or more of those live music videos showed you in a poor light or you decide to monetize your own “official” video of the same or similar concert?

Importantly, in Canada and a number of other countries, the soundtrack and visual images together in a music video are deemed one composite entity. The music itself is considered a separate entity only when used in another context, such as on an album.

This means that if some party approaches you and you agree to let them film your performance, you probably would not be considered under law to have any ownership rights to the video or control over its broadcast and distribution unless you have a written agreement to the contrary with them or you paid them to film it–even though you were the feature performer and it was your music that was performed! At best, you would be considered a joint owner of the video with the person who shot it; but even then, they, as a joint creator of the recording, would have the power to grant a non-exclusive license to others for use of any portion of it because a joint owner can license or use any segment of a joint work without infringing its copyright.

Notice that we’re talking here about anybody who films your performance, whatever their interest may be in doing so. Sure, it could be an individual fan who just wants a personal keepsake of the event. But it could also be one who is eager to circulate it on the Web, or perhaps a professional freelance videographer who intends to shop it for money, or someone from an outfit that broadcasts or sells videos of live concerts. The question for you then becomes what recourse you might have when, against your wishes, people decide to freely disseminate a video they’ve made of your concert or are exploiting it in some way for financial gain.

Don’t want that recording of your performance up on video streaming sites or social media pages? Not keen on it been available for download on peer-to-peer sharing services? Good luck getting it pulled. You might be able to get a court of law to hold the owner of the video responsible for paying you fair compensation for their use of your copyrighted song material and performance in it, but that isn’t the same thing as a court-issued cease and desist order. Yet, if what’s happening with the recording is not to your liking, having it yanked from circulation might be much more important to you than the money. Getting it’s owner onside with you could be extremely difficult, not to mention policing all the possible sites it might be on and soliciting their co-operation. If you go the route of petitioning the courts for help, it would boil down to how the judge views the intent of the party (whether there was malicious intent to harm your reputation, for example) and their fair rights to use their recording.

You might wonder if the circumstance would be different if the person videoing you didn’t bother to ask your permission. Possibly, but absent any effort on your part to inform those in attendance about your policy on recording the concert, you might find yourself in the same position as I’ve described above. It really depends on the particulars of the situation and whatever legal precedent exists that a judge would find relevant. Indeed, in most jurisdictions, if the performance takes place in a public setting (busking on a sidewalk, for example) people don’t need your permission to film you, it’s their right.

The long and the short of all this is that once a video of your performance is out there you could end up having no legal (let alone practical) way to get what’s happening with it stopped.

All this said, when it comes to others filming at your concerts and what happens afterwards, there are steps you can take that will go a long way towards preventing things from getting out of your control. I’ll be getting into that very important subject next in an upcoming blog. Stay tuned!

The post Scary Movie: The Live Music Video Turned Horror Show appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

In this regard, some people in the industry no longer see it as the manager’s responsibility to be concerned, short term or long term, with actively trying to get their client signed to a label. For them, the bugle sounds not as a call to parlay an act’s assets into a label deal but to storm the market by continually building the currency of the brand and an ensuing direct revenue stream. It is instructive to look at what might underlie such reasoning.

It could be founded in the belief that an artist’s brand today can be better built, and faster, going it alone. To me, the truth of that really depends on the particular label. Certainly, many acclimated poorly to a fast-changing landscape during the Web’s emergent period. Yet, others adapted reasonably well, and some that floundered eventually got their footing. Labels born in the digital age can also be some of the most cutting edge when it comes to branding and marketing. A label that really gets the whole digital thing could be a huge advantage for an artist (provided they are the right fit in other important ways), especially when you factor in all the other things a record company potentially brings to the table.

It could also be based, in part at least, on the notion that a direct revenue stream is always preferable to the indirect. In other words, because the middleman can be eliminated he should be eliminated. As I show more than once in my upcoming book, it is not always the case. Having the right party as a component in the revenue chain can lead to a much bigger pie for all to share.

It is possible, too, that it might be rooted in a “build it and they will come” mentality around getting signed, the philosophy being that the right label will come knocking at the right time with the right deal once the brand is well established. The problem with this is that, even if the brand should ever reach critical mass, the field of eligible suitors will not be what it could have been had there been a concerted search campaign in place. More choices creates more leverage, and that means a better chance of landing that great deal with a top candidate.

It might even have its origins in a particularly bad experience the manager once had with a label, perhaps as an employee of the company or when acting in some other capacity in the industry.

Whatever the case, implicit in the “forget the label” reasoning is an assumption that the artist is on the same page or, if they aren’t, that the manager knows best. Now, the artist may well be in agreement. But even so, how many actually put enough thought and research into the whole label issue before arriving at that place, carefully weighing all the pros and cons?

I don’t get why a manager, or an emerging artist for that matter, as an article of faith would reject the whole label thing. This is, after all, a critical decision related to career direction that has all sorts of ramifications. It has to be made by an artist when they are up to the task. Not all are prepared adequately for it, and a responsible artist personal manager will refrain from pushing his client too hard too soon to adopt his philosophy around labels or, conversely, from deferring unduly to the artist who may be naive in the matter.

If I were an artist shopping for a manager, I’d consider it a real plus to have one on board who is versed in business development. But, I’d also want somebody with an open mind who would insist on a level-headed discussion around the whole subject of labels, with everything laid out on the table so that each party understands where the other is coming from and just what is at stake.

The post The Artist Personal Manager in the Digital Age appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Today, many publishers have broadened aspirations, assuming roles that in former times were not typically their domain. For example, publishers are more interested than they used to be in writers who are also performing/recording artists, since there is a greater inherent potential for such a writer’s songs to get recorded and released into the public sphere.

Through their connections in the industry and because of their desire to see the song material gain exposure, a publisher may even arrange performance showcases for an artist-writer at industry events, assist them with things like online promotion and marketing, or perhaps finance a recording project and help them get a label deal. They may even have a record label division of their own.

If you are a singer-songwriter or band and believe you need help in the area of developing your market as an act, then think about looking for a publisher who is inclined toward taking on that role. Some do, but many don’t. Those that do will see it in their interest to get you and your album(s) out before the public because they earn royalties from your songs they control.

Some publishers will even go so far as to help the artist in the area of talent development if they believe the act has significant merit beyond songwriting, taking on a singer-songwriter or “baby” band and helping develop them to the point where they are ready to be presented to a major label or prominent independent. That can be a big advantage for the act because a respected publisher will commonly have more clout than either the artist themselves or their manager in terms of getting the serious attention of a record company.

Having said all this, unsigned writers face a rather stark reality these days in the publishing world: many of the established players in the field are just not that hungry for new songwriters, however talented.

At a Vancouver Music Festival & Conference I participated in not too many years ago, a representative of one of the World’s biggest independent publishers proffered that at most they sign only one or two writers a year in Canada. I suspect that her company’s level of interest in taking on new writers is reflective of the general attitude in many countries of most, if not all, of the upper-tier publishing firms.

So, if a lot of the bigger publishers these days aren’t signing very many new writers, what does that mean for you if you seek a publishing deal but have no track record to speak of? Well, your situation is not unlike that of the relatively raw unsigned music act searching for a label deal. It probably doesn’t make much sense to focus your expectations and efforts on soliciting interest from the big boys–certainly not to the exclusion of the newer, sometimes more aggressive and innovative kids on the block who are helping to fill the void.

I welcome your comments and questions.

The post Music Publishers and the New Songwriter appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Some labels think that because they ultimately control the online marketing for the artist, other things pertaining to the Web besides his music should properly fall under their exclusive authority too. This might include not only his website, but his name and persona as well.

It’s one thing for them to take over (or build) and run the site, which in itself has to be a concern for any artist going into the relationship in terms of the level of competency, creativity and passion they will bring; it’s quite another to demand exclusive use in the digital arena of his name (including ownership of the associated Internet address), career-related images and quite possibly any logo he’s using. This is particularly problematic for the artist if he has things he wants to do independently of the record company, such as flog his own merchandise on his site or through apps, freely interact with fans, and be part of the blogosphere and general music community without risk of having to endure suffocating oversight from some anally retentive label type tasked with monitoring and editing every little thing he posts.

If you must give up control of your website and its address, try to get agreement that, upon termination of the contract for any reason, the label automatically relinquishes ownership to you of the domain name and provides you the email addresses and other information they’ve collected on everyone who signed up to the email list(s) associated with you and your music. You should also ask for the option to acquire the website itself when the relationship ends. It might be a tough go getting them to agree to hand that over without some form of compensation for whatever effort they put into building or enhancing the thing, and you certainly don’t want to put yourself in the position of having to take it off their hands should they indeed want to charge you for the privilege, but at least having the option gives you the choice of utilizing it as an alternative to starting over from scratch with a new site.

Whatever you may decide about the website, you do want that email list and you absolutely must get the domain name back because it’s your most important online marketing asset. Be aware, though, that domain name registrars are pretty strict about what they need before they will facilitate a switch in ownership. Ask yours what they require from each party. If they need an official letter in writing from the label authorizing the switch, get it written into the record contract that the label agrees to supply the document upon termination. Even so, you could still run into a snag if your split with the label isn’t amicable (or they are caught up in bankruptcy proceedings) and it isn’t forthcoming with that letter. Also keep in mind that by the time you have to deal with an ownership change the registrar might have tightened up their policy, causing you to have to go through more hoops and frustration than expected.

The best thing, of course, is to retain ownership of your domain name. As a component of your initial contract bargaining position, ask for that along with non-exclusive rights to anything persona-related, plus future rights to the email list data and website. If they resist, let them keep the website, but insist on everything else (let them keep a copy of the email data for their own use too if that’s what it takes). If they still don’t salute and you have to move to the fall-back position on the domain name to get their OK, you’ve still done pretty well.

The post Record Deals: The Website Grab and other Label Shenanigans appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I bring this up during Christmas week of all times because this is, after all, the season of giving and I’ve been wondering for a while now whether streaming music services are, on balance, a positive or negative for artists. There is a fair amount of controversy in the music industry around this and, as with many things involving money and multiple parties, the answer has much to do with who is getting what.

The enriched majors seem happy, with Spotify at least, as do members of the public and certain types of clients in industry who are using streaming-based music services in greater numbers than ever. But many content creators aren’t, and neither are a lot of labels that lack the muscle to wrestle favourable terms out of such services. The truth is, streamings are a miniscule source of revenue for almost all artists and labels. Take my company’s situation, for instance: Streamings currently make up over 99 percent of its digital track activity, yet they account for less than 30 percent of its online sales revenue.

Now, I’m the first to admit that I’m happy when money comes in from any source; but it’s clear that, all other things being equal, unless fees from streaming services increase considerably, revenue overall from digital music sources for independent labels and artists is going to continue declining if streamed music continues to grow at the expense of downloads. That’s a pretty sobering prospect, and one that hasn’t escaped the attention of a disparate group of musicians and others who have recently banded together to form a new organization known as the Content Creators Coalition, the purpose of which is to give an industry voice to artists and writers. They understand that to survive in this business harnessing the tools of the Internet, however smartly and aggressively, just isn’t enough; you also have to have a degree of control over the circumstances in which your music is disseminated by others, and along with it the level of compensation. Clearly, they don’t see existing forces within the marketplace, including the established rights organizations, as the whole answer.

The advent of digital technology is a blessing in many respects, but like any double-edged sword it cuts both ways. It’s imperative that content creators who aspire to make a living in this business gain a proper perspective on it. One veteran artist/writer with a lot of interesting things to say on this whole subject is David Byrne of the Talking Heads. Check out this Brit’s recent fascinating Guardian newspaper article The Internet Will Suck All Creative Content Out of the World and some of the 1200-plus responses it’s garnered. Though he’s definitely come down on one side of this issue, it’s a good read for anyone with a stake in the future of music.

The post Streaming Music Services – The Gift That Just Keeps Giving? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

If you have no clue what I’m talking about, you’re not alone. Here’s a quick and dirty primer of sorts on Bitcoin.

Wikipedia describes Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer digital currency that functions without the intermediation of a central authority. It is, indeed, the world’s first completely decentralized digital currency. It’s relatively new on the scene, having been created in 2009, but is now seeing a surge in usage (and value) around the world. It is used as a medium of exchange for the payment of goods and services, can be traded for many other currencies, and, like a precious metal, is a finite resource (i.e., it has been set up so that at a certain point no more bitcoins can be produced) that can be “mined” (exactly how that’s done is a bit beyond my grasp as of yet and outside the scope of this blog).

Currently, use by speculators far exceeds that of merchants and others in the marketplace; but that is changing as more and more vendors accept Bitcoin, in part because transaction fees are substantially lower than what services like PayPal and the credit card companies charge. I also like to think some are adopting it out of some kind of moral indignation, springing perhaps from libertarian or counter-culture roots.

Whatever the case, many are referring to the arrival of a functional digital currency as a financial revolution. In actuality, though, it’s neither conventional nor revolutionary. In one very real sense it heralds a return to very ancient times when money first appeared as a means to more easily facilitate peer-to-peer trade. Then, as now with Bitcoin, money served as a more efficient alternative to barter, taking the form of things that were the most useful, convenient and reliable, with no intermediary involved. In a sense, then, we’re going full-circle with the employment of bitcoin in this digital age, the difference today being that this new currency is also an alternative to other forms of money controlled by governments in collaboration with the banks.

And therein lies the rub. There wasn’t any intervening authority in the earliest days of money determining what it would be or setting laws and regulations as to its use, no central body deciding how much would be allowed to circulate, and no cabal of power brokers behind the scenes rigging the system for their own gain. As Bitcoin continues to make inroads, it threatens to shake the very foundation upon which our financial system is built. That, I think, will be a good thing. How others who fear a change in the status quo will respond is another matter.

Fasten your seat belt. These are interesting times.

The post Bitcoin, Then and Now appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Copyright laws vary somewhat from country to country, but for songs the general rule is that the right lasts for the lifetime of the author (or last surviving author if there is more than one involved) plus a certain number of years past their death.

Likewise, copyright in masters exists for a limited time. In the U.S., for recordings published (i.e., released) prior to 1977 it is 95 years; for post-1976 recordings it is the actual recording artist’s life plus 70 years. In Europe, however, it is substantially shorter. This is where things have begun to get really interesting in the last few years.

Until very recently, for sound recordings sold in Europe copyright existed for just 50 years from the date of publication. Thus, under European copyright law, Elvis’ track “That’s All Right” fell into public domain on January 1, 2005. As of that date, anyone could copy and release that sound recording in those countries without paying royalties to the owners of the master or the track’s performers/performers’ heirs (although they still have to pay a license fee for use of the song).

I remember the subject of lapsing master copyrights being all the buzz at that year’s Midem music conference in Cannes, France. Some there, like the major labels that own a lot of old masters, were sweating bricks while others that specialized in issuing re-mastered versions of out-of-copyright recordings rubbed their hands in glee. Most of us, at least many from this side of the water, were totally surprised by the whole thing. It felt almost surreal.

Every year since in Europe, more and more recordings that define rock and roll have come into public domain. The major record companies, seeing chunks of their catalogue fall out of their control in the territory, fought to have copyright protection extended. But it wasn’t until the UK government woke up to the fact that a valuable piece of British heritage–i.e., music from the “British invasion” era–was about to become fair game for poachers that a concerted push was made to extend life in master copyright throughout the region.

Finally, after much hand-wringing and squabbling, the European parliament approved a 20 year extension. It became effective November 1, but not before a fair number of modern era hit recordings had already become public domain. Unfortunately for the labels, and the performing artists who had been earning public performance (a.k.a. “neighbouring rights”) royalties on those vintage tracks, the legislation is not retroactive. A good number of old war horses, including a few early Beatles hits, have already slipped through that door and are out of the barn.

The post Europe Reins In The Music Master Poachers appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

If you don’t quite get what this publishing thing is all about, you aren’t alone. It is a core yet enigmatic piece of the career matrix that extends into pretty well every aspect and level of the industry. In conjunction with the subject of copyright, which is inextricably tied to publishing, it is arguably the most complex matter for anyone in this business to grasp and presents lots of challenges, sometimes unforeseen.

I’m going to have more to say about the ins and outs of publishing in the future, but for now I’d like to pose a few things for artists to think about, both for those who are convinced they should keep their material and those who are open to handing it over to another party to represent.

Publishing companies, in acquiring rights to songs from writers or other publishers, obtain full or partial copyright ownership of the songs. Full ownership means a big piece of the revenue pie and almost full control over what, if anything, happens to the songs.

So, why would you sign a deal with a publisher when you could promote your material yourself or hire another type of representative (i.e., a song “shopper”) for less and still retain ownership of your material? Good question, to which the following might help you come to terms with what is best for you:

• Unlike song shoppers, publishers handle all the ins and outs of song administration and are set up to do so. That’s a plus for writers who don’t have the time or wherewithal to do it themselves.
• Publishing deals typically are for a considerably longer term than song shopper agreements and involve a bigger basket of rights as well as obligations. A shopper-artist arrangement will likely offer you more flexibility, both to work the material yourself and get out of the relationship.
• Overall, publishers tend to be much more widely connected in the industry than song shoppers (certainly more so than artists) and, if they are doing their job, promote material to all types of users in order to get as many placements for the material as possible. They may already have well-established relationships with many such users. A good percentage of song shoppers (like music producers and entertainment lawyers, for example) undertake the activity as a sideline, and any leads they might already have for potential placements may be limited to one or another area of usage.
• Users sometimes prefer to go to one or another publisher catalogue they believe has a good chance of having what they are looking for, rather than putting a call out for submissions or spending valuable time scouring the Internet for material.
• Most users want to deal with a party they know they can depend on to seal the deal properly and promptly. That usually means the party who has all clearance and signing rights, which copyright ownership automatically provides. If they have to deal with a writer they don’t know or, worse yet, an intermediary and the writer, they may immediately think “obstacle” and “delay”. This is especially critical when it comes to sync deals, which often need to be consummated within a matter of days (sometimes hours).
• Publishers take a bigger cut than shoppers; on the other hand, that makes for a greater financial incentive to put effort into working the material and perhaps helping you in other ways with your career.
• The responsible publisher helps the writer improve in their craft, or at least offers insights into how they can do so.

Food for thought. I welcome your comments and questions.

The post Going The Publisher Route With Your Songs appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

The guide profiles four, what it calls “major”, aggregators and does a reasonable job of listing many of the services they offer and the fees involved. Two of these aggregators, TuneCore and Indie Pool, are Canadian-based, and two, Reverbnation and CD Baby, are headquartered south of the border. Unfortunately, the guide neglects to mention a number of other established aggregators in the field that might be good options for some artists and independent labels.

As SOCAN’s guide makes pretty clear, aggregators come in all stripes and may offer to take on a multitude of roles for artists, so here are a few tidbits of information that might prove to be important considerations in your quest for the right distribution partner.

Fees: some aggregators will waive up-front setup fees, whether as a general policy or on a case by case basis. If there is a setup fee, it doesn’t hurt to ask them to forgo charging it. You might be surprised how willing they may be to bend on this, especially if they know you are considering other options. Many also don’t charge any periodic admin or account fees, instead relying for their income primarily or entirely on the revenue derived from placements they get for their clients’ music.

This means it makes sense to choose an aggregator that offers services you actually need and that they can deliver reasonably well, so you aren’t regularly pouring money into a black hole, paying for things that aren’t working for you or aren’t particularly relevant to you. One has to wonder, actually, about the efficacy of utilizing a pay-up-front-per-service distributor as against one that survives by sharing in a percentage of the client’s revenue stream they help create. I’m sure there are some artist success stories out there connected with the former type, but I would hazard a guess that the bulk of artists using such companies probably feel they aren’t getting much in the way of results for the money they have to keep shelling out. This takes us to the next topic, the level of service.

Service: the smart ones in the digital distribution field know that happy customers are their best source of new clients. Conversely, things like lousy service, not delivering on promises, an inadequate online client platform and sloppy accounting can poison the artist-distributor relationship in fairly short order. Bad news travels fast in this business. So, as SOCAN mentions, it pays to do your research and check out what other artists and small labels have to say about their experience with their current or former aggregator. I’d add to this that one shouldn’t put much weight, if any, on sales figures. It really isn’t fair to hang the responsibility for an artist’s poor sales on a distributor, unless they’re lacking somehow when it comes getting music up on sites–it’s fundamentally the artist’s job to garner fan interest and deliver the goods in terms of product appeal.

Song licences: if you cover other people’s songs, or think you may do so in the future, the following is relevant to you.

As with many other matters to do with copyright and licencing, the U.S. marches to its own drummer when it comes to song digital licences. Unlike in Canada and elsewhere where the individual digital retailers are each required to obtain a digital licence from the song owner or mechanical agency that represents the owner, in America the party who controls the track is responsible for ensuring that the digital licence is obtained.

Problem is, almost all songs out there are represented in the U.S. by one or another mechanical rights agency (“collective”) and only a party located in the U.S. can apply for a digital licence from such an organization. Thus, a Canadian artist with covers must assign a U.S.-based party to obtain these licences. This can be problematic, both in terms of the cost and ongoing administration. A company like Limelight, for example, will clear the licence for you for a fee, but leaves you responsible for certain things, like tracking the number of online retailer streamings and for actually paying copyright owner(s) the royalty on those streams. Not only that, you have to pay royalties on a minimum number of downloads and ringtones in advance when you acquire the licence and keep track of how many you do sell so that you know when to renew your licence (another fee!). What a hassle.

Fortunately, a few U.S. aggregators have assumed this licencing/administration role for their clients, and will do it for a nominal fee or even for free (if they normally charge and you talk nicely to them or mention the possibility of taking your music elsewhere, they might even waive that fee for you). This relieves you of all the associated paperwork, as well as any tracking and the submitting of royalty payments (they pay them for you and deduct the amounts from your digital revenue). If they charge for this service, try to have your agreement call for their main track placement service fee to be based on revenues that are net of the digital royalty, otherwise they will end up double dipping (i.e., charging a fee on a fee). Also, always check your statements to make sure they aren’t deducting publishing royalties in error on songs you control.

So, if you’re considering an aggregator and you’ve got tracks of third-party material, ask if they can provide this service. Even if you haven’t any covers currently, it may pay to factor this issue into your decision in case you decide to record some down the road. Without the required licences you may find your album(s) up on U.S. retail sites minus those songs, or you could one day have a publisher or their collective on your proverbial doorstep demanding back royalties and/or notifying the digital retailers to take down the offending tracks.

Revenue reporting: let’s face it, for a significant number of independent artists the revenue from online sales isn’t going to amount to much until their career shifts into a higher gear. That’s understandable, but doesn’t alter the fact that an aggregator should be expected to deliver informative, on-time reports, preferably in a spreadsheet format; so much the better if they provide an online client dashboard that provides the artist 24/7 access to current data. If you are associated with a publisher or other artists or songwriters with whom you are obligated to share a portion of your income from some of your material, easy-to-understand reporting with easy-to-extrapolate data will make your life a lot easier.

Public domain material: if you record classical material, iTunes has just made your life more difficult. Not long ago this powerhouse in music retail instituted a strict (some would say unduly anal) protocol related to classical music metadata, like the names of albums, tracks and composers. The styles, standards and conventions guide my company was told to reference is incomplete and inconsistent, yet you are supposed to know or find out exactly what is and isn’t acceptable for every piece of classical music out there. If your aggregator isn’t prepared to work with you closely on this, it can lead to rejection after rejection and long delays in getting your album(s) onto the online store sites.

Thankfully, music uploaded prior to the advent of these new rules is exempt, as long as it isn’t re-submited for any reason. My company, which works with two aggregators that each represent a portion of our catalogue, ran into this metadata problem recently with a re-submitted classical release. After several months of failed attempts to fully satisfy the new data standards, I decided to hand the album over to our other aggregator, simply because they offer a more hands-on, personalized service, which can greatly help in certain situations.

Activities: different aggregators have different focuses when it comes to activities that lie beyond the core role of distribution to online retailers. It probably goes without saying that each also has their strengths and weaknesses. Two such activities that have paid big dividends for my company and for which we haven’t had to fork out a dime in up-front fees have been track placement in visual media and distributor-developed digital-only compilations. One of our aggregators is more active in the former, the other in the latter. These are good examples of why it is prudent to find out as best you can just how active (and successful) the aggregators on your short list are in the supplementary activities that are most important to you.

I’d like to hear from artists and small labels whose experience with their aggregator has been satisfactory or even exceeded their expectations, or if you have more questions about this subject. Add a comment to this blog or drop me a line.

The post Digital Music Distribution – Choosing An Aggregator appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I admit I’m pretty passionate about protecting the interests of the independent artist, and maybe that’s clouded my ability somewhat to see the forest for the trees on this particular subject. But I believe that, while retitling does have pitfalls, it also has its place, and as this business evolves I see the indie artist-writer needing to utilize it even more in order to survive.

In my earlier blog I discussed one type of circumstance in which it could well make sense to consider retitling a song. That involves working with an end user who refuses to use the song track unless the artist is willing to hand over their song publishing. For example, it is not unheard of for a music supervisor to ask for (or demand) a piece of the publishing of an indie artist-writer’s song they plan to use, and in such circumstance they will sometimes accept a retitled version (or even suggest that the owner retitle it) in order to give the artist a comfort zone around signing over ownership. While it is true that some music supervisors shy away from using retitled works, that’s in no small part because of the dubious practices of some music libraries that handle retitled material. They don’t necessarily view independent writers, or all music libraries for that matter, in the same negative light.

Here are some more circumstances where artists who write their own material can potentially use retitling to their advantage, retaining some control over what happens to their songs and maintaining certain publishing revenues for themselves that they don’t feel others deserve:

1) working with music libraries that can legitimately offer increased opportunities for placements, but that insist on a piece of the publishing;

2) working with Web-based licensing services that need sufficient controlling rights to facilitate getting placement deals done but that don’t warrant sharing in publishing revenues derived from usages they have no hand in getting;

3) licensing tracks of material already registered with a mechanical and/or performing rights organization (i.e., a “collective”) to niche companies that, for whatever reason, are not prepared to deal with any licensing collectives;

4) when the song is already registered with one or more collectives, placing a non-registered re-titled version on websites that provide visitors opportunities to discover, listen to and perhaps download music by new and unsigned artists, but which only accept material under a Creative Commons type of license arrangement. Be sure to inform the site that it is a retitled version of a previously registered song; if they accept it, make sure that fact is written into your CC agreement or you have some other form of written proof that you did inform them, in case they do run into a problem with a collective in their country;

5) obtaining publishing representation with smaller publishing outfits that are willing to work with the writer on a less than all-or-nothing basis. They are the sort of upstart players in this business that are often eager to work with relatively obscure writers who the more established publishers won’t even lend an ear to, let alone sign. At the same time, the writer may feel the need for a comfort zone around getting into bed with such a company, wanting to protect some of the publishing revenue sources they already have and retaining an ability to continue to actively promote and place their songs themselves. Retitling can go a long ways toward serving this need.

Let’s be real here: none of the bigger publishers or established hit writers need the kind of opportunities outlined in the above list, and most could care a hoot about the fortunes of the uncharted artist-writer who aspires to make a living with their craft. Unfortunately, based on some of the negative rhetoric emanating from some of the collectives out there, when it comes to the benefits of retitling it would seem that certain such organizations that claim to represent the best interests of all their writers and song owners really don’t care much either. It makes one wonder whose interests those particular collectives are likely to prioritize when it comes to other matters that may affect one class of member differently from another.

Now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t give some of the naysayers out there their due. Under certain circumstances, there can indeed be negative ramifications for having given your song more than one name. Retitling shouldn’t be undertaken without forethought and acting prudently after the fact. It also wouldn’t hurt to discuss your intention beforehand with any collective you belong to, if only to hear their side of the story and perhaps pick up some helpful advice you can apply when retitling.

After retitling a song or signing rights to a retitling company like a music library, inform any party that later wants to use (or acquire publishing rights to) the song under its original title that there is an alternate-named version out there. To not do so is irresponsible, both to that other party and yourself. If they find out later that you kept this from them, it could be a disaster for your relationship, not to mention your reputation.

The post Renaming Your Songs–Retitling Can Be The Indie Artist’s Friend appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

At its root, the crowdfunding concept is very simple. You post your project idea on a website that is set up to accept contributions, spread the word about it any way you can, and hope people become interested enough in it to contribute.

There are several general types of crowdfunding models, but only three that seem at all relevant for the independent artist–the donation model, the investment model, and the micro-rights model.

The donation model runs on the premise that contributors give to a project without expecting any financial return, although some other form of incentive to donate is usually offered (a perk such as a personal letter of thanks from the creator, updates, previews, or whatever). Indeed, bigger incentives are very often provided to induce larger donations.

This model commonly involves the majority of money flowing from many donors providing relatively small contributions. For the music artist, donations would usually be towards an audio or video recording project, or a tour, or something the artist needs to acquire in order to pursue their career, such as a piece of equipment. While no two crowdfunding services of this ilk operate in exactly the same way, they typically allow for the project creators to keep all money raised over the lifespan of the campaign, minus a relatively small commission.

The investment model is one in which money is provided in return for a promise of something of equivalent or greater value in return. These can take several forms, the most common being lending arrangements and advance purchases of the item, but may also including a share of ownership.

The micro rights model allows artists with a music product (or tour) in the works to raise money by selling single-purpose rights (a “micro” licence) to individuals or organizations willing to promote the item (or upcoming performance) in their locality in return for a share of the income on eventual sale of product (or tickets) that they pre-order. These may be entrepreneurial types who are looking to earn money for themselves, or non-profits wanting to raise funds for their organization or a cause, and they might be inclined to go so far as to actually organize a performance event for the artist.

Currently, the donation model is the most popular approach in crowdfunding, with well over half a billion dollars being raised this way in 2011. For the artist it is a significant innovation, in that it is a true departure from the traditional patronage model of earlier times when it was almost exclusively the wealthy who supported creators of artistic works. The other models are arguably less innovative than adaptive, more or less fitting pre-existing financing concepts into the networking environment of the Websphere.

All sorts of variations on, and even combinations of, the above models exist; and policies, procedures and features vary from site to site. For example, some do not release the funds to you unless a designated monetary target is reached, and will refund everyone’s money if it isn’t; others permit you to keep whatever is raised. Some offer both options.

Thus, before committing to a particular site, you should assess both your own particular needs and the merits of the site in order to determine which model, and which of the multitude of third-party platforms out there, is the best fit for you. In this regard, it helps to understand and evaluate such things as the site’s track record of success, what other complementary services they may offer, their system’s functionality, the artist’s obligations, their privacy policy, their protocol and terms of agreement, whether safeguards are in place to protect contributions from misappropriation while under their administration, and so on.

Interestingly, there are artists who have chosen to bypass these crowdfunding “middlemen” altogether and deal directly with the public, relying on their own website, social media, and whatever other means they can to drum up support. In such case, an extra level of trust must form between the artist and potential contributors than would be the case if they were sourcing through an established third-party site. The upside is that there are no commissions to pay and you set your own rules of engagement; plus, all the time and effort you spend marketing your project will be drawing people to your website, not that of some third-party. Crowd sourcing this way has worked quite well for some acts.

Some people carry the misconception that raising money through crowdfunding sites is pretty well a slam-dunk, similar to the rather naïve “just build it and they will come” attitude some have about their own website. Truth is, you need to have a sound strategy around raising money this way and be diligent about implementing it in order to make it work for you. In this respect, crowdfunding is no different from other methods of fundraising—it takes effort and having something about you or your music that attracts.

I have one final thought on this whole subject, which has to do with the potential legal implications of facilitating financial transactions through a third-party crowdfunding site.

Ideally, due diligence should be undertaken by the artist to ensure that he/she is protected against (and indemnified from) any misrepresentation, negligence, misappropriation of funds, and copyright/patent infringement by the site. For example, consider the possible consequences if a crowdfunding site an artist was using were to be sued by another site over a patent infringement issue. If the defending site were to lose, or a cease and desist order issued by the court, that might put the site out of action for some time and the artist’s funding efforts in limbo. It could even jeopardize already contributed funds still held by that site. To my point, at the time of this writing, Kickstarter just happens to be embroiled in a significant legal dispute with ArtistShare over the possible infringement of ArtistShare’s crowdfunding patent. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

The post Crowdfunding – What Every Music Artist Needs To Know appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to be part of this workshop because I think it’s essential for independent artists to gain a much better understanding about what this IM thing is really all about and why so many aspiring acts aren’t getting much traction with their online promotional efforts. We heard from a guest speaker about the social media management part of it, but I had a few things to say myself about some other key elements of online marketing that I’d like to summarize here.

First, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. It involves more in the way of method and is more nuanced than you probably know. But the good thing is, it’s not rocket science–it’s something all of you can do. However, if you’re going to make the most of your efforts, you’re going to need a plan and probably some help along the way, especially getting yourself started and into a groove with it. It’s a powerful tool for artists, but few independents are using it at all effectively.

Second, there really isn’t any point in committing time and effort to it unless you have something worthy of the public’s attention and the industry’s interest. This means that, for some of you at least, the reality is that you aren’t ready yet to implement a concerted IM campaign. If that describes you, it doesn’t mean you’d be wasting your time starting on the path now to understanding how it works. Far from it. Familiarizing yourself ahead of time with the techniques, tools and tactics involved will help you get a better perspective on it and better prepare you for when you are ready to take the plunge.

Third, successful IM for music artists is fundamentally the same as it is for any other profession or business and, while there are some things that may be particular to online marketing for the musician, band or singer that don’t apply to people in most other occupations, one common denominator is the need for a website.

Any IM coach worth their salt will tell you that you absolutely have to have your own piece of real estate on the Web. I’m not talking here about a Facebook page, a SonicBids account, a presence on an artist community site like Reverbnation, or any things of that nature. I’m talking your very own website that you own. The reasons for this are many, which I won’t go into here, but suffice it to say that if you have already started trying to build a fan base and/or sell music via the Web and don’t have your own site, you’ve already started off on the wrong foot. In fact, you’ve made your biggest mistake when it comes to online marketing. If you are serious about your career pursuit and don’t have a site, start thinking about it now.

I encourage you to dig into the topic of online marketing to find out more, or contact me if you want more direction and help in getting your strategy in place. To start you off on your quest for deeper insights, check out this link to an informative blog on why email campaigns originating from your home on the Web trump social media postings as the cornerstone of any artist’s Internet marketing strategy.

The post Some Basics About Internet Marketing for Music Artists appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Right off the bat, it’s important to know just what it is that a personal manager (a.k.a., “artist manager”) does, how they work and expect to be compensated for it, and what they will be expecting of you. Perhaps you aren’t even ready yet for a manager. From my experience, a lot of artists don’t have a really good handle on this, which can lead to undue expectations, misunderstandings and disappointment. That’s a recipe for a failed relationship and bad experience.

It’s also critical to know what to look for in an individual who is going to be representing you in this role. Is his/her manner of approaching people in the industry going to reflect well on you, or even be effective in achieving the results you want? Are they reliable? Will they be easy and readily available for you to communicate with? Are they well organized? Do they have connections that have the potential to bear fruit? Are they going to be able to make the kind of commitment in time and effort to your career that you want of someone in this role? Do they really relate to your music and have a vision for you? All these questions and more should be going through your head when you are considering any candidate.

The other major consideration that comes into play is the management contract itself. This document is critically important, because it not only spells out each party’s rights and obligations, if properly constructed it will be designed to best protect each party’s interests and help each hold the other’s feet to the fire. Thus, all types of scenarios that could possibly occur during the relationship have to be broached before the deal is sealed. The ramifications of not looking carefully at every aspect of the contract and every element of the relationship that it is intended to define are potentially huge.

Relationships evolve as time goes on. People’s agendas can diverge and interests conflict. This is why it is crucial to understand what it is you are getting into when you bring an industry member as important as a manager on board and to have a carefully crafted agreement with them in place.

The post The Management Deal – Caution Is The Order Of The Day appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

In a landmark decision, the court ruled that the copyright board had erred in classifying paid and unpaid downloads as “communications” (a.k.a. “broadcasts”), entrenching technological neutrality as a copyright principle and, thus, putting the kibosh on Socan’s efforts on behalf of publishers to collect a performance royalty every time part or all of a song is downloaded from the Web. The court also ruled that streaming song previews up to 90 seconds in length constituted fair dealing for research purposes, meaning that such clips should not be included in a communication tariff targeting online music services.

I’ve been a bit of a contrarian in the music industry around the idea of applying the broadcast concept to such digital disseminations ever since it was first conceived, arguing that it is misplaced and deleterious to the overall interests of most of us in this business.

Before I relate the main reasons why I think July 12 was a good day for the bulk of artists and independent labels in Canada, let’s step back a bit to look at how we got to this place. I wrote about some of this a couple of years ago in a blog related to what was happening in the U.S., but with this recent Canadian judicial decision I think it bears repeating.

Mechanical reproductive rights organizations in many nations around the world paved the way over a decade ago when they fought and won the battle to get approval for “mechanical” licenses and tariffs on digital phonorecord deliveries (DPDs). Good on them, for it’s hard to argue against the principle behind such a license requirement. These “collectives” aggressively and effectively promoted their case to their respective copyright boards, legislators, industry and the general public, arguing that digital retailers would otherwise profit unfairly at the expense of what should rightfully be going to song owners and writers.

True to form, the performance royalty collectives (PROs) followed the trail blazed by their mechanical counterparts and loudly beat a similar drum, mainly at the behest of the larger publishers and established writers. They managed to convince copyright boards and legislators in many countries that the very act of electronically supplying a digital file of music over the Internet, whether paid for or as a free sample, constitutes a performance (i.e., “communication”) of the music, regardless of whether the file can be heard during the supply process.

That’s where the logic and justification for applying a communication license tariff to each and every digital download was lost on me. Essentially, the definition of “performance” had been warped from “presentation” to “supplying.” Now, I could see the merit of their argument when it was applied to streamings. Likewise for ringtones, and music used as background to enhance a website’s appeal. But for simply transferring a file from one medium to be stored and used on another? That didn’t compute. It’s one thing to call it a communication when it is offered for listening over the Internet or mobile phone; it is quite another when it is not.

A few years ago, after I got wind that Socan was planning to follow the lead of other PROs in the world and push for this kind of tariff, I voiced my concern to one of the organization’s vice presidents. He seemed quite defensive, and I got the very clear message that he really wasn’t interested in hearing what I had to say. Indeed, voices like mine went largely unheeded as publishers and their representatives lobbied for its implementation. I feel a kind of vindication by the court’s decision, although my main concern was with how this tariff would end up hurting the little guy in this business and less with its dubious merit on technical grounds. Here’s part of what the court said:

“In our view, the Board’s conclusion that a separate, ‘communication’ tariff applied to downloads of musical works violates the principle of technological neutrality, which requires that the Copyright Act apply equally between traditional and more technologically advanced forms of the same media….The principle of technological neutrality is reflected in s. 3(1) of the Act, which describes a right to produce or reproduce a work ‘in any material form whatever’. In our view, there is no practical difference between buying a durable copy of the work in a store, receiving a copy in the mail, or downloading an identical copy using the Internet. The Internet is simply a technological taxi that delivers a durable copy of the same work to the end user.”

How does this court ruling benefit the little guy?

First, it lifts a potential financial burden from the myriad of websites out there that are helping artists and indie labels expose their music to the world by offering the public and industry downloads and streaming previews (note that the court ruled that non-preview streamings are subject to a communication license and tariff).

Some site owners feared they wouldn’t be able to afford such a tariff and, in anticipation of it’s pending implementation, removed some or all of their promotional clips and saleable files from their sites. Socan was unable to give them or anyone a clear idea as to precisely who the proposed tariff would apply to or how and how much they’d be charged, and they didn’t want to take any chances, especially since the proposed tariff was to be retroactive. Pulling music from sites certainly doesn’t help promote music or the artists who make it.

Second, it keeps money in the pocket of countless thousands of independent track owners. How so? Well, when it comes to almost any type of digital tariff, ultimately it’s the party who controls the track that ends up paying it. How’s that, you say?

Unfortunately for artists, digital retailers like iTunes typically don’t raise their price to the consumer to cover a tariff they are required to remit to a collective, nor do they absorb it themselves out of their cut of the sale price. They simply pass the cost of that tariff on to their suppliers–i.e., the track owners–by deducting the tariff amount they remit from their remittance to the supplier. That’s a hit of the wrong kind for artists covering other people’s songs, and one more reason for them to quit recording such material as publishers relentlessly push for more and higher tariffs on song usages. That’s unfortunate, because unestablished artists can often really benefit from having some familiar tunes in their repertoire to help attract new listeners.

You would think that the party “communicating” the track, in this case the online retailer, should be the one paying for the tariff out of their profits. After all, isn’t this digital tariff based on a license to broadcast? Indeed, the broadcast concept is the very basis for the rationale that collectives used in their lobbying efforts to get this particular tariff established.

But our PRO, like others around the world, didn’t go to bat for the average artist or small labels to protect them from being hit with this tariff. They didn’t lobby for regulations to ensure that digital retailers would behave like any other broadcaster in this respect and not be able to just pass this tariff on down the line to track owners. Evidently, independent artist-writers are not who PROs see as their most important constituency, despite the fact that they make up the bulk of their membership. In fact, as I understand it, in most countries where a digital communication tariff is in place there’s nothing set up to prevent artists from getting whacked with a tariff on their own song material, although if self-published they would eventually get almost all of it back from their PRO.

And don’t get me going on the ethics of online retailers who not only subtract the tariff amount they have to remit to collectives from what they send to the track owner, but base their commissions on 100% of their gross sale price, including the tariff, which is outrageous when you think about it.

As useful and important as collectives like PROs may be, they can sometimes end up behaving in a way that in the view of some people both inside and outside of the industry represents an abuse of their powers, actually influencing the structure of the market so as to weaken the degree of competition and growth.

Indeed, collectives seem to have a penchant for monetizing every last usage of music, adopting a “fear of loss” attitude in reaction to the advent of digital, which is not unlike that of the major publishers and record labels. On the other hand, many smaller independent labels and self-published artist-writers, seeing the writing on the wall when it comes to the reality of ongoing rampant file sharing and the borderless digital world, moved beyond that mode of thinking long ago. In fact, for their very survival they see it as absolutely necessary to embrace what is happening and turn it to their advantage.

Allowing music to be accessed by consumers without impediments, sometimes even for free, has become a mantra of sorts for many independents as their traditional world of distribution, promotion and marketing has been turned upside down by digital technology. They see the Internet and mobile platforms more as an avenue for increasing exposure and creating demand than as a primary direct revenue source, and are inclined to rely on things like touring, off-stage sales of CDs and other merchandise, sync placements, endorsements, sponsorships, and anything else that cannot be digitally rendered, to generate money.

Yes, the independent label and artist-writer can sometimes end up on the short end of the stick when copyright regulations bear the stamp of a collective’s lobbying efforts made primarily on behalf of bigger players in this industry. There are some situations in the arena of music licensing where theory can be seen to diverge from reality and common sense. In my view, slapping a communication tariff on downloads and streaming previews was one of them.

The post Score One For The Independent Artist Against The Big Boys appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I’m not going to argue one way or another for signing or not signing with a label. That has to be the artist’s decision based on their particular circumstance and goals. But I do believe it is worth taking a look at some of the things that an artist ought to think about when coming to this important decision.

To start off, when an artist or band gets saddled with a lousy contract or ends up in a toxic relationship with their label, the first thought that comes to my mind is what role the artist had in it bringing that about. There’s a proper way to going about finding a label for yourself and establishing the relationship, and there’s the ignorant way. I’d lay odds that, in most situations where an artist finds themselves in deep doo-doo with their label, they chose the latter.

There are all kinds of things you as an artist need to do to vet a label before you even sit down to discuss the nuts and bolts of a deal with the company. Then there’s the matter of the contracting process itself, and making sure the agreement you end up signing is fair and reasonable to both parties and protects your interests. That is an art and a skill in and of itself. And, after the deal is signed, you want to make sure you are in a position to be able to hold the label’s feet to the fire. Just about everybody who’s come to me over the years with a tale of woe about their label didn’t do any of those things well.

Labels come in all shapes, sizes and types–as do label deals. Regardless, what in heck does an artist need any kind of label for anymore anyway, when it is so easy with today’s technology to sell and promote direct to the public? Good question. Besides, an act going it on its own clearly makes a much bigger percentage of the pie when it doesn’t have to share it with a record company. Serious food for thought.

At the workshop I held, I shed some light on this fundamental question by using the example of American artist Ed Sheeran. He spent years of hard work building his career as an independent, eventually garnering the number two spot on the iTunes charts with one of his songs, achieving significant radio play, and getting millions of hits on one of his song videos. This, all without the help of a record label. Even so, he finally decided to sign with Warner’s Atlantic/Asylum. Why? He had already proven that he and his long-time producer had what it took in drive, talent and expertise to make it. But he knew he needed the support system and connections/weight in the industry that a label could bring to the table to get him and his music out to even more people and obtain media coverage, placements and so forth. Those things are not so easy to do for an independent. The kicker was that, having proven that what he and his long-time producer did worked, he was able to sign a deal that provided them incredible latitude to do what they wanted musically, because the label had such confidence in them.

Labels have teams of people to deal with marketing, the media, radio, accounting, administration, distribution…not to mention their connections and financial wherewithal.  As an artist, you can’t avoid taking into account the matter of money, time and effort that staying independent will take away from what you really want to be doing, which is being creative and making music. And do you really want the hassle?

Besides all that, if you sign with a label on your home turf, you have a better chance of getting the interest of foreign labels, which could be crucially important if you have your sights set on making an impact abroad. That’s because you automatically have a certain amount of credibility in their eyes if you’ve already got a label on board–almost any kind of label. Plus, they will see your label as a valuable intermediary and support system that will serve to keep you and your efforts focused on what’s necessary in order for them to be able work their market successfully on your behalf.

Yes, much as we might want to gripe about them, labels still have a place. Having said that, I recognize that I haven’t mentioned any of the pitfalls of working with a label, or some of the notable examples of acts that have eschewed the label route and done very well remaining independent. It just helps to know that if you plan on following their lead, you’d be wise to take a reality check on the whole matter to get a good sense of what’s in store.

The post Do Record Labels Matter Anymore? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

This is great for you if you’re an artist, because it means that the agent relieves you of a lot of the business grunt work and uncertainty that is involved in gigging. And, because he works on a commission basis, he has a built-in incentive to work toward a successful outcome, not only in terms of the match between performer and venue, but in terms of the size of financial reward you receive. This means it is incumbent upon the agent to see to it that you get what you are supposed to in terms of amenities, equipment, sound check, money, and so on. The flip side of this, of course, is that before he will take you on board, you have to prove you can and will deliver when called upon.

How much do agent’s take from your earnings? A typical agent cut is 10% or slightly higher, but in some scenarios like special one-off gigs involving a high-calibre event or where there are substantially more expenses involved for the agent they might demand as much as 20%.

Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the agent who books you into a gig to make sure you get paid. In reality, though, situations can occur in which the performing act is asked to collect the fee from the hiring party and reconcile later with the agent. But what if the agent tells you to collect the money at the gig and the hiring party short-changes you or even refuses to pay? To protect yourself, your contract with the agency should require that they compensate you fully if you deliver and the hiring party doesn’t come through with the money. After all, you placed your trust in the agent and fulfilled your end of the bargain. In this regard, it is always a good idea at the end of every gig to get some form of written verification from the hiring party of any amount paid and that your services were satisfactory.

Your contract with the agent should also call for you to be compensated to some degree, if not in full, if you commit to a gig and it is cancelled within a certain number of days prior to the scheduled date. The rationale here is that you’ve given up other potential opportunities to perform that day by making that commitment.

Note that, if you have an arrangement with an agent that provides them exclusive rights relating to certain types of gigs, when an opportunity for such work comes your way through no effort of theirs you will be required to refer the interested party to the agent. Without such arrangement the agent is excluded from receiving commissions on work you get yourself, or through other sources, that lies outside their mandate.

Be aware, too, that if the artist has a personal manager, the manager will do most of the dealing with the agent. That’s the way it should be. So, if you have a manager, let him earn his cut and leave things up to him/her except in extenuating circumstances. It is unprofessional for an artist to make a habit of circumventing the agent-manager line of communication and can create unnecessary complications.

No agent I’ve ever met will actually guarantee you work. They might lead you to believe they will be able to get it, but they won’t put that into the contract. You don’t want to be stuck with a non-producing agent in an exclusive arrangement, so how do you protect yourself from that happening? Build a performance clause into any exclusive agent arrangement for which the term is longer than, say, a year. This lets you opt out of the contract if the agent doesn’t perform to a minimum standard. On the other hand, while it is true that the artist (or their personal manager) must approve all gigs, you can’t expect an agent to want to continue a relationship with you if you unduly limit your availability for work. So, expect to see something in the contract to the effect that the agent can exit the relationship should you develop a pattern of unreasonably or frequently refusing to accept engagements.

This is my third blog on the subject of booking agents. To read the earlier ones, click on the “Live Music and Performance” category.

The post Dealing With A Booking Agent And Protecting Your Interests appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

When I mentioned this to a good friend of mine, he chirped something to the effect that Jobs was a genius who turned a whole generation into social misfits. We had a good laugh over this, but then I started to think about what he said and how the digital revolution has changed the way a lot of people, particularly the teens and twenty-somethings, interact with each other and the rest of society. It’s kind of ironic, perhaps telling, that Jobs established his amazing company on a people-friendly premise, and in an era when the capacity of technology to separate us from each other, as well as connect us, was in its infancy.

There’s been a lot written, I know, about how human beings relate in the digital era, but it hits you in the face every time you walk into a public space, visit the mall, get on public transit, or even go to a ball game. Everywhere you turn it seems, people are choosing to isolate themselves from those around them, preoccupied with their smart phones, iPods, or whatever electronic item they have in their possession.

Are we so bored with our own kind that an electronic gadget holds more fascination than the stranger next to us? There’s no more complex organism on this planet than the human being, each with a different story to tell, yet so much of the possibility that exists for experiencing the little joys of discovery and emotional connection with other people remains untapped when we close ourselves off physically from each other. Yes, we can make contact via the digital universe, but there are many subtle and not so subtle aspects of human contact that cannot be easily or at all conveyed by technological means.

Technology is seductive, there’s no two ways about it, and I’m the first to admit that I get lost within it’s grip more than I probably should. And yet, when I stop to think about the experiences in a day that had made me feel alive and warm inside, it’s most often the ones involving other people in close proximity–the smile lighting up the face of a lone security guard or weary cashier with whom I initiated a chat; witnessing a gesture of kindness; experiencing a courtesy from a fellow driver; engaging with the friendly dog walker on the street.

This is not just about what we receive; it’s as much about what we give. When we open up to somebody else we are offering something of ourselves. However little it may seem to us, it can be huge for the other, perhaps even life-changing. I probably get way more out of dropping a loonie in a panhandler’s palm most times than the panhandler himself. But there have been incidents, I know, where my willingness to reach out and connect with somebody on the down and out has sparked a light within them, perhaps renewed their faith in their fellow man, if only for a brief time.

I’m no Jack Layton. I have to frequently remind myself that I am not better than the next person, just different in some ways. But our similarities are as important as the differences. We all need a roof over our head and a meal in our belly. We all need hope, we all need love, and we all need to feel a sense of worth. We all need food for the soul and nourishment of spirit. Sometimes it’s just not in us to be able to find that within ourselves. Sometimes it takes the goodness of someone else to help make it happen.

Best of the season and a great New Year to you all.

The post Steve Jobs Takes Me Into The New Year Pondering Our Future appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Google Music is both a music player app and an online music retail site (called “Android Market”) for anyone to use with desktop browsers and mobile devices, and it is connected with a cloud-based digital locker service where you can store all your music files, not just the ones you buy through Google Music. It allows users to store and play up to 20,000 songs for free. There are some limitations, which I won’t much get into too here, but you can check that subject out further in Michael Muchmore’s November 16 article about Google Music on PCmag.com.

An interesting twist is that when you purchase a track or album through Google Music, you can share those tracks through Google+, which is their social networking and identity service. The person you share the track with can listen to the track without purchasing the song, but only once, and then after that they will be prompted to purchase it. Google’s stated objective is to continue to develop the sharing and connecting functions of Google Music within the Google+ app. Apparently Google seems to get that increasing ways for the public to interact with artists and music is really important.

Additionally, something they call the “Google Magnifier” blog (magnifier.blogspot.com), which is dedicated to Google Music, will promote some of Google Music’s Indie content on the retail site and there will be a synergy with YouTube so that YouTube promotions will coincide with promotions on both the retail site and the blog site.

According to Google, they will be gradually integrating Google Music with all the other aspects of the “Google experience” as well.

Interesting times. Let’s watch and see how the advent of this new service and Google’s push to make it stand apart impacts what other online music retailers like Amazon and iTunes do with theirs, not to mention what happens to their share of the online music market.

Comments on this? Please contribute by sharing your thoughts in the comments function of this post or send them to me via my contact email address (available at grahamway.ca/blog/contact).

The post Google Music Launches In U.S. – Look Out iTunes? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

What your summary and check list will end up looking like will be based on your aspirations, your self-acknowledged limitations and your self-imposed limits. Keep in mind that wherever you answer “yes” on your check list, you have to be sure your answer is realistic and in keeping with your personal priorities. For example, you may like the idea of touring, but if you have a young family you may only be able or willing to go on tour for short stints and not during peak festival circuit time in the summer when school is out and important family activities are planned. If you are in a band, the situation is more complicated because any one member’s limited availability will impinge on the whole group’s ability to accept gigs, unless the member is not considered indispensable and a temporary replacement can readily be found whenever necessary.

Now that you’ve completed this first step, it’s time to turn your focus to finding prospective agents. Compiling a list is a fairly straight forward process. You can start by looking through relevant directories, both physical and web-based. Also talk to artists and others in the biz to get leads and valuable insights. Something many artists neglect to do that can be really useful is to make enquiries with venues, event organizers and others who hire acts. Find out which agent(s), if any, that they use, and why. In this regard it’s important to know that some venues and event organizers only book acts through agencies. In fact, some will only book through one specific agent with whom they have an ongoing relationship. So, you can forget about getting work at such places and events unless you are a client of an agent they will deal with.

As I inferred in the opening paragraph, it is critically important to come up with a short list of potential agents that are actually relevant for your needs and your overall situation. Here’s a few things to consider about the agents you’re looking at:

1) What’s their level of experience in this area of activity?

2) Do they already have a fair number of acts in your genre and are they keeping most of those acts happy? If so, all other things being equal, you probably stand a better chance with them than many others of getting more gigs or a decent tour. That’s because they know the ropes and have the necessary contacts. As well, there is a reasonable possibility that you could get opportunities to be an opener for one of their other acts, perhaps even on a tour.  Of course the flip side of this is that, as the newcomer, if they have a substantial number of acts it is possible you could end up not getting the attention you hope to get from them.

3) Are they well-connected? If you are an un-established act, it can be a big plus to be with a well-connected agent because they can sometimes persuade venues to try you out even though you are inherently more risky to the hiring party than one of the agent’s other proven acts. Such an agent may also be able to get you a spot as an opener for a more well-known act that’s not on their roster.

4) Are they insisting on also representing you in some (or all) other areas of work (film, commercials, song shopping, etc.). If so, try to set the relationship up so that their role is to find work for you in the particular types of jobs that you have determined they are good at getting and that you are capable and desirous of filling. Besides limiting their role to what is best for you, you can reject any and all gigs they offer that lie outside the scope of your agreement without having to worry that such refusal or finding such work through other avenues could provide them reason to claim breach of contract.

5) Do they want you to sign an exclusive arrangement with them? As I talked about at greater length in my previous blog on agents, not all require exclusivity. You may, in fact, prefer to work with more than one and be better off for it.

6) Do they want you to agree to have them represent you in places quite distant from where they are based? Check out how hard they work a particular province, state or country before deciding on whether to include that area in your agreement.

7) Do they have a good reputation in their field, both with hiring parties and artists?

8) After your first meeting, did you get a good feeling in your gut from them? If not, it’s probably not worth the risk of signing on, despite other things in their favour that might have you thinking of getting on board with them.

Keep an eye out for my next blog on agents, in which I’ll discuss the realities of working with one and include some pointers on the agency contract you could be asked to sign.

The post Finding An Appropriate Booking Agent appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Navigating the intricate world of Internet marketing and social media is far more challenging than driving, so when an innovative tool comes along that promises to make our digital lives easier and more productive we are apt to want to adopt it, especially if it’s free.

One such tool that has drawn a lot of accolades and users is the type known as the social media communications publisher (a.k.a. “social media dashboard”), offered by numerous relatively new outfits like Hootsuite, Seesmic and Threadsy. These Web or desktop based applications automatically post your blogs, tweets etc. (and in some cases other file types like images, music and videos) to the various social media sites you have a presence on, helping you manage one very important aspect of your social media campaign more efficiently. Sound good? You bet. Unfortunately, the reality may not match the expectation.

Besides the very real concern that, in their rush to get their apps to market, some of these services may fall short on functionality and/or reliability (even their paid version(s), let alone the bare-essentials free option), there is now some disheartening news that’s come out of a recent U.S. study suggesting another reason why such tools may not be quite the blessing they are made out to be. The study, by EdgeRank Checker, shows that posting to a social media site by means of such third-party tools is not nearly as effective in gaining fan engagement as posting directly (i.e., manually) or using an app that is proprietary to the particular site.

Why might this be? There could be a number of reasons.

One is that social media sites want people to use their particular site’s “official” apps, i.e. those controlled by them. So, they could lower the “weighting” of postings facilitated by third-party tools, resulting in less fan engagement and interaction. Another is that relying on an app’s pre-set scheduling can negatively impact the usefulness of posts that are time-sensitive. As well, a spray gun approach to posting doesn’t allow tweaking or personalizing of the post for each particular site–what’s ideal for Facebook may not be optimal for LinkedIn, and so on. In addition, having the exact same item in numerous places on the Web may cause Google to flag it and lower its search engine ranking. These are just some of the possibilities.

This brings me to the point that I really wanted to drive home with this blog, and that is this: it’s far better to reach fewer people with real effect than many without much of any. Building a fan base should be about building relationships, not about sacrificing effectiveness for the sake of expediency. True loyal fans who support you over the long-haul are among your most valuable assets. Treat them that way and they’ll be like money in the bank. Besides, driving a manual transmission can be a lot more fun.

To learn a lot more about truly effective online marketing for music artists go to my Artist Special Resources page at grahamway.ca/blog/artist-special-resources.

The post First By The Post – Manual vs. Automatic Transmission to Social Media Sites appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Friday was an overnight viral hit early this year, punching its way onto Billboard’s Hot 100 chart. It got covered by Justin Bieber and even made its way onto the monster TV show Glee. All very good and fine, until things began to unravel between Black and the company that owned the studio she had recorded it in.

Black and the studio, which is also a record label, apparently did have some sort of contractual arrangement. But, when the song hit big, the proverbial doggy doo began to hit the fan. According to her, the song’s sudden success surprised everyone and, almost immediately, the company went about exploiting both it and her name in ways that she claims it had no right to do. Letters from lawyers started to fly, with accusations of this and that involving master rights, copyright infringement, unlawful exploitation of publicity rights and so on.

It is evident that both she and the company were woefully unprepared for the eventuality of success. Her situation illustrates perfectly what often happens when unfettered assumptions, lack of scrutiny, inadequate forethought and sloppy business practices mix with newfound success. It’s an explosive combination that frequently results in parties suddenly acting with divergent interests, often leading to disillusionment, bitterness and a highly stressful legal mess.

The kind of experience Rebecca Black is currently going through is incredibly common in this business, so much so that I’ve felt compelled to make this particular subject one of the key topics in the music biz program I teach at Douglas College near Vancouver. Along with providing loads of nuts and bolts information on numerous things like who does what in this industry and how to promote yourself with smarts in the age of Internet marketing, I examine in depth how to choose the right parties to work with, how to protect yourself from problems with them down the road, and what you can do to foster long-term productive relationships.

If you believe in yourself and the potential of your music, then you owe it to yourself to prepare adequately for future success. Take every opportunity you can to participate in local industry-related seminars, workshops, courses and conferences, get some good books on the biz out of your public library and check out some of the informative websites, blogs and forums out there. You need to get a grasp on the nuances of this business to give yourself the best chance to survive and thrive in it.  Just as important, don’t be shy about communicating with industry people. You’d be surprised how accessible many of us are.

I’d like to hear from you about where you’re at with your career pursuit and how you’re planning for success. Drop me an email or post a comment on this blog.

The post Yanked From YouTube – A Lesson For Independent Artists appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

In the music business, the terms “press kit”, “promo kit”, “promo pack” and “PK” are all terms for the same thing. They refer to an act’s information package that also includes one or more samples serving to demonstrate the act’s artistry. Normally, it is intended for entertainment industry members or the media.

An “EPK” (“electronic press kit”) describes a PK that is digitalized, whether presented for review on a website or made up of electronic files contained in an electronic file folder that is available to be downloaded online or provided to the recipient via email or on a disk or memory stick. This is in contrast to the “hard copy” PK that traditionally comes in a physical folder containing sheets of paper and one or more discs of music and, nowadays, commonly a video. I’m going to talk here about the hard copy PK, but much of what I’m about to relate applies equally to the EPK.

When it comes to PKs, probably the most important general rule of thumb to remember is this: less is more. Let’s start of with the folder it’s presented in.

A super-fancy five-dollars-a-pop presentation folder is unnecessary. In fact, it’s over-the-top. It doesn’t give industry people any sense of how good you are. The same can be said of expensive specialty stationery paper. Truth be told, many of us industry veterans are pretty jaded, too often having been thoroughly underwhelmed by the talent presented in such immodest packages. The only thing this kind of extravagance really tells us for sure about such acts, other than that they aren’t very prudent with their money, is that they think mighty highly of themselves.

When I receive a PK that appears ostentatious, my initial reaction isn’t eager anticipation, it’s dread. Even when the talent’s there, more often than not I’ve found the artist to be a little too full of him/herself and a pain to deal with.

When it comes to the contents, personally I respond well to straight goods delivered in a well-thought-out manner. This means keeping the hyperbole to a minimum. Most of the best acts and writers I’ve encountered are relatively humble people who don’t go overboard trying to convince me of their merit.

Be aware, too, that industry people don’t need more than one or two photos of you or your band to see what you look like, or an album-length demo of songs to get a sense of the level of musical talent or song craft. As well, dispense with lyric sheets, unless you are a songwriter targeting a publisher or the party you are submitting to specifically asks for them. And lose the testimonials from the likes of ‘anonymous’ or fan Jane Doe of Little Rock, Arkansas. You want meaningful statements from people who matter to the industry; i.e., those who you’ve worked with or for.

Reviews are a plus, but choose only the most power-packed excerpt from each and put them all on one sheet, limiting the number to around a half dozen. Industry people are simply not inclined to read entire reviews, which translate into pages of unnecessary clutter.

Radio play will impress, so list the stations that are giving you some rotation. But, if you’ve been aired on your local commercial station’s 1:00 AM “new music” hour or occasionally by a public broadcaster like NPR in the U.S. or CBC in Canada, don’t make a big deal of it. In most people’s books such kinds of placements are not milestone achievements.

Limit any category of item to one sheet and, where possible, consider including more than one type of item on a single page. For example, a list of important gigs you’ve played could be on the same page as a handful of your best testimonials, or a photo can be incorporated into the bio. In fact, for certain purposes you can fit all of the material germane to certain recipients on a single 8.5 x 11 sheet, often called a “one-sheet”. But, that’s a topic for another blog.

All this is especially pertinent to new acts, who should always lean toward sticking to the essentials, meaning the who, what, where, when and why. Once you’ve grown in stature you can add other relevant items of interest, such as a noteworthy anecdote or two.

This blog is one of a number I’ll be writing on the subject of what it takes to get the attention and serious interest of industry players. If the topic of PKs is of particular interest to you, keep an eye out for an upcoming post in which I’ll relate some additional important principles that should be followed for your PK submissions.

The post Press Kits For Music Artists: The Number One Rule appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

So, here’s a few tips that could help you increase your chances of landing the kind of gigs you want.

Make sure that hiring parties, or your agent if you have one, can get ahold of you readily. Check your communication devices frequently for messages–at least twice a day–from parties you’ve made submissions to or who might be contacting you cold to see if you’re available. If you aren’t prompt getting back to the person, they are just as likely to move on and try somebody else as wait around patiently for you to reply.

Take an appropriate attitude into all your dealings with the party. Don’t be full of yourself or act like you are at a level you are not. Be honest, full of enthusiasm, reliable and professional. You want that person to come away with the impression that you can and will in all respects successfully fulfill the mandate they set out for you.

If you are asked to audition, it stands to reason that you want to prepare for it as well as you can. In most cases, however, hiring parties don’t consider holding auditions convenient or a good use of their time. That’s where the live performance promotional video comes in. If you are anything other than a background music act, make sure you have one available. It needn’t be more than a few minutes in length (you can use relatively short, impactful clips from different songs) or anywhere near broadcast quality. But, ideally, what you include should be representative of the range of your repertoire that is appropriate for the kind of gig in question and the performance should reflect well on you in terms of your on-stage professionalism and your ability to connect with an audience. That means you don’t record it in your garage or use clips showing you in front of a sparse or unengaged audience.

In most popular genres, cover acts have more live performance opportunities than original music acts. It’s just the way it is. So, if your main shorter term goal is to make money and perform lots, consider building up a substantial repertoire of well-known songs. This really helps to not only get into clubs and other similar venues, but you open the door much wider for lots of other types of paying gigs as well, like weddings, conventions, cruise ships and special events. If you do write original material, hopefully you will land at least some such gigs where you can still sprinkle in the odd original song here and there.

There’s certainly more that goes into the mix when it comes to increasing your chances of getting paid performance opportunities as well as getting asked back. I’ll have additional things to impart about this in a future blog, but let me finish by saying this: with any gig that you really want to get, don’t give up easily if the hiring party doesn’t respond or turns you down. Be persistent by following your initial effort with periodic tactful attempts at getting them on board. If nothing else, they’ll be impressed with your tenacity and eventually may well accede to giving you a try.

The post Improving Your Odds Of Getting Live Gigs appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

A band entails teamwork, so the first thing you want to be sure of is that all of you are on the same page when it comes to the general objective. In other words, be clear as to whether it is a hobby band or a serious career band. If it’s the latter, money should not be any member’s primary reason for getting involved. It ought to be the music–creating, playing and recording. If these matters aren’t out on the table and addressed right from the beginning, there’s high risk of a quick demise. It can take a long time to start making a good living at this band thing.

Equally important is to spread the work load around. Letting one person take on the bulk of the work is a recipe for disenchantment, even if they are willing to do it. Have one person administer your website, have another work on getting gigs, get everybody in on putting your promo material together but have one person do the copywriting and correspondences, set up a bank account and assign one member to take care of the banking and bookkeeping, and so on. It’s also not a wise idea to let one member shoulder the majority of the financing while the band is getting its act together.

Without a reasonable balance of work and financial commitment among members, some might not take their commitment as seriously and that can breed resentment or lead to one person wielding too much power over the others. That can result in the original common agenda getting lost in the shuffle as each member starts focusing more on their own, and the group eventually flying apart.

All that said, it is critical for any band to have a leader. If someone is not the obvious leader of the group, which might well be the case if no one particular individual had the original vision, choose a nominal leader who would have the final say on certain matters. Otherwise, things can get out of hand as ego-fed anarchy takes over around stupid things like individual volume levels and protocol during practices, let alone important issues such as how the band should spend the pooled cash. It should be someone who has the balls to take charge, the sensitivity to listen to legitimate concerns, and the ability to mediate. This doesn’t mean everyone else should just shut up and leave it all to him/her. Speak your mind, voice your concerns and provide your opinion, otherwise things will just fester and boil over sooner or later.

I’ll have more to say about what goes into the making of a successful band in a future blog. In the meantime, check the rest of my blogsite for more on bands and lots of other juicy stuff on the music biz.

The post The Band: It’s A Team Thing appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

So, this means that before you start recording or even consider booking that recording studio it’s wise to step back and think about what purposes(s) you want the project to serve.

If your main reason for doing it is to get gigs, you’d be better off recording your act live, whether at an actual public performance, at home or in the studio. That’s going to be far less expensive than doing a multi-track production, especially for a band, and very probably a truer representation of what your music would be like when performed at gigs, which is what booking agents and hiring parties want to hear. And the neat thing is that you only need representative samplings from your repertoire. Most acts could get away with a three or four-minute demo consisting of relatively brief excerpts from a few songs that reflect the range of material they do. Of course, when it comes to most types of acts, agents and hiring parties also need to get an idea of how they come across on stage, so you’d likely want to have a companion live performance video as well, but that’s the subject for another article.

Who else might not require studio-quality productions and need just a few songs from you to perk their interest? Publishers whose main focus is acquiring song material for other artists to cover; managers and labels that work with raw talent; the music producer who needs to evaluate you and your song material before deciding whether to work with you on that upcoming album project you’re planning; production companies that provide newbie artists a basket of services; the music supervisor who has a call out for song material that he intends to re-produce for a specific project…well, you get the idea.

For most situations you don’t need a full album of material. For industry people a two or three-song demo of your best songs (not necessarily your latest) is usually enough to give us a sense of whether the artist or writer is potentially of interest. Radio doesn’t need it, online retailers selling digital files of music don’t need it, and even fans at gigs will be happy going home with an EP.

If, however, after careful consideration you’ve decided for whatever reason to do a studio-quality production of an album’s worth of material, then you will need to hire a producer. You may not want to or think it necessary, but unless you’re content seeing the final product limited to off-stage sales and CD Baby, that’s pretty much the truth of it. And I’m going tell you the reasons why in an upcoming blog on the music producer.

The post The Recording Project – How Many Songs And How Much Money appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Nonetheless, music industry agents do come in all variety of shapes, sizes and colours. For instance, a booking agent might also handle some of the logistics for promotion of a gig, although that is commonly left to up to the hiring party, and some may take an even greater role with certain performers by finding such things as endorsement and sponsorship opportunities or song placement/work in commercials.

It is worth noting that in some jurisdictions, such as certain provinces and states in Canada and the US, regulations have been enacted to protect artists from the practice of “double dipping” by representatives, whereby the party takes one commission as agent for booking the engagement and a second fee as manager out of the artist’s general earnings. This eliminates a major financial incentive for one party to act as both agent and manager. However, where for whatever reason that isn’t a factor, the agent may cross over into the management realm and may be more open to helping with such things as talent development, choosing song material, offering advice regarding elements in the performer’s show, promoting and publicizing the artist, and so on.

Some agents deal with gig opportunities primarily or exclusively in their local region while others deal nationally or internationally. Some specialize in one genre of music, others work in several and still others just about any style. They range in size from one-person operations to sizable staffed enterprises.

In light of the above, if you are an artist you should check out well any agent you are considering before committing to any particular one. Indeed, many don’t require an exclusive arrangement. So, you might find yourself in a position where it is possible and, indeed, most appropriate, to be working with more than one.

Why would an agent not want to tie you up to an exclusive arrangement? The reasons are mainly twofold:

1) the agent wants to build as large a list as possible of available artists in order to reduce the likelihood of situations occurring where they would not be able to fill the needs of their hiring party clients. For most agents, requiring an exclusive would significantly reduce the number of acts willing to sign with them; and

2) the agent isn’t prepared to accept the higher level of commitment to obtain work that would be expected of them by the act in a relationship based on an exclusive arrangement.

Regardless, the basics that any agent will want to know about you are: the number of people in your act, your availability, your repertoire, your stage presence and how you conduct yourself, both on and off stage.

I’ll have more to relate concerning this particular industry player in future blogs, including the realities of working with an agent, more about what they do and how they do it, things to consider when looking for one, how to find an appropriate one and what your agreement with them might look like. I welcome your questions and comments.

The post Booking Agents – What They Do And Working With More Than One appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

A couple of years back Universal Music tried to use a legal truncheon against a lowly eBay re-seller who was trying to make a few bucks re-selling promotional copies of CDs he got ahold of that were never intended for sale. The court ruled against the record company and an Appeals Court has just upheld that ruling, kiboshing the argument that simply slapping something on a copyrighted work like “For Promotional Use Only, Not For Sale”, which is the kind of wording you often see on promo copies, is legal grounds for prohibiting resale. The Court had some interesting reasons for its decision, which I don’t have room to go into here (click here for the full ruling), but this is a win for music lovers, used record stores, flea market venders and so forth who obviously don’t want to be under constant threat of a lawsuit over something so patently trivial in the larger scheme of things.

But, another news story with greater implications caught my attention the other day.

The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing an unusual price fixing suit initiated by consumers against the major labels and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to go ahead. It revolves around the setting of prices for music sold on the Internet some years back via two digital music services the majors set up called MusicNet and Pressplay.

The claim is that the labels colluded in order to charge buyers unreasonably high fees for songs and set in place unjustified restrictions on the use of the music and the transferring of the songs to portable players. If the plaintiffs win the case, I see a couple of possible consequences that could affect Joe consumer.

The Court could require that consumers be reimbursed for what they were overcharged and perhaps compensated as well for their loss of ability to enjoy fair use of what they had bought because of unreasonable purchase terms and inhibiting digital rights management (DRM) tools embedded in the tracks. Just how the Court would arrive at a formula for compensation and the dispersal of the money boggles the mind, but as we all know there’s never a shortage of high-priced lawyers eager to answer such call of duty.

The other more significant consequence is the moderating effect it could have on the behaviour of these lumbering industry behemoths going forward. It might be too much to expect, but we can only hope.

The post Major Record Labels Brought Down To Earth By The Courts appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

My position has always been that going to the trouble of incorporating a retail component in a site doesn’t really make much sense until the artist has generated a certain level of traffic to the site or unless the artist has at least a few other items of merchandise to flog as well. My students countered that it’s not all that difficult these days to set your site up for selling and that they’ve done so because by cutting out the third-party retailer they get to keep almost 100% of what the consumer pays for their music.

This exchange of viewpoints got me going on a subject I think would be valuable to share with you as well, and that is the importance of keeping the bigger picture in mind when focusing on what to do with your music tracks on the Web.

When it comes to sound recordings, I believe too many artists attach too much importance to monetizing their music and not enough to other potential value their tracks can bring to the table.

Drawing people to your site is key and one of the best ways to accomplish this is to offer one or more free tracks to visitors. Yes, it does mean giving your music away. But, the trick is to do this with smarts by getting something of value from the downloader in exchange–in this case we’re talking very useful information consisting primarily of their name, email address and locale.

Why? It’s simple–to build your email list and base of loyal followers. Once they are on your list you can proactively reconnect with them again and again with other offers and news about upcoming gigs, tours, new releases and so on. Sure, you can add to your list each time you sell a track, but a far more effective means of getting downloads in significant numbers and growing your list fast is to entice people to your site with the offer of free track give-a-ways, making sure that when they opt in for a freebie they are required to provide that important information I referred to. I know of acts that have planned and executed highly successful tours almost entirely around the email list they’ve built in this way.

Remember, your home on the web is not a “destination” site and until your buzz is really happening it is unlikely to get a high volume of traffic. So, why not put the horse before the cart. Utilize social media and any other means at your disposal to pull people to your home on the Web with an attractive incentive and watch your list mushroom in size.

Listen, I’m not telling you anything that savvy Internet marketers don’t already know and have been doing for years now with tremendous results. And speaking of Internet marketers, there’s one I’ve discovered recently who focuses on online marketing specifically for musicians, singers and bands. John Oszajca is a former major label artist who has developed a ridiculously inexpensive video-based course designed especially for artists who need help building their buzz, fan base and sales. If this describes you, I encourage you to read more about his “Music Marketing Manifesto” on my home page.

The post Offering Downloads From Your Site – Money Isn’t Everything appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Recording artist John Oszajca has spent a lot of time and money learning the ins and outs of Internet marketing and how an artist can apply it to drive lots of traffic to their site, build their email list fast and successfully sell their music online. Now he’s sharing his knowledge, tips, strategies and secrets through the Music Marketing Manifesto, an in-depth online course designed to make it easy for anyone to benefit from all he’s learned. Incredibly, he’s currently offering everything in one big package for less than a hundred bucks! I think this is really important stuff for the independent artist who doesn’t have the industry machine behind them. This deal isn’t likely to remain available indefinitely, so to find out more click on the above banner to watch the introductory video and connect with John.

Also, check out the membership opportunity in John’s new Music Marketing Insider Circle on my Special Artist Resources page.

The post Music Marketing Manifesto appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Problems arise with things that fall into grey areas or through the cracks or with relationships that are created without clear understandings, and they most commonly only rear their ugly heads after a project or relationship is well under way, often once serious money is beginning to be made. Take the recording project, for example.

If you consider yourself (or your band, if you’re in one) to be the legitimate “maker” (i.e., owner) of the project and you also want the ownership/writing credits to any of your original material to remain with you, then you should get ALL hired hands, including non-band musicians and singers, the producer, arranger and even the engineer, to sign a proper release form waiving any claim to writing credits AND ownership/controlling rights to the master(s). The master issue is especially important if they provide any part of their service for free or at a reduced rate (I would even get one from the studio in that case too). How the courts would view any competing claims can vary from country to country, but you can never be too careful in this age of rampant litigiousness. And never forget that anyone’s mindset can change down the road. That unspoken understanding you thought you had with that person you thought you could trust can all too easily disappear when their life situation changes or they want a piece of your newfound success.

Take that outside musician who provided his talent for free on a song track that ended up breaking big time. Might he come back to knock on your door with his hand out for a royalty share claiming that he performed for no charge on the sound recording with the understanding that it was never intended for commercial release but only as a demo project? Possibly. And what about that producer, arranger or musician whose role in working with you on a song crossed over into the realm of co-writing, at least in their mind. If they brought the issue up during the project you’d be faced with a dilemma: do you give them shared writing credits or do you not use their changes to the song or, worse case scenario, do you feel compelled to scrap the song entirely. If they bring it up after the project’s done and released, that could prove even more problematic.

Circumstances like these do happen. Things are not always so cut and dried as you might think. And when an artist is caught up in the machinations of planning and executing something as challenging and involved as a recording project it is very easy for them to get overwhelmed and lose sight of these sorts of things.

A properly constructed contract with the producer and properly executed release forms for everybody involved will go a long way toward protecting your interests. That means getting help from someone with expertise when it comes to legal documents. The good news is you don’t always need an entertainment lawyer to deal with constructing contracts. Consider finding a template for the kind you need and then seek out someone you know who’s familiar with that type of arrangement and get their advice on your particular situation. Or find an industry pro who does consulting on the side–they will charge a lot less than a lawyer. Then have a lawyer review the final draft before signing.

And, while it’s true that a musicians release agreement is not needed for fellow band members, if you are part of a band you MUST have a well thought-out-band partnership agreement. In fact, that should be in place early in the band’s history regardless of any plans to head into a studio. I’ll have more to say about band survival and protecting your own interests as a band member in future blogs.

The post The Recording Project – Enter At Your Own Risk appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

When it comes to the 360 deal’s monetary appeal to labels and music artists, a common phenomenon is driving opposing forces. With album revenues declining owing to falling sales and prices, both parties are increasingly looking to other revenue sources. Labels have been especially impacted because their revenue base has traditionally been heavily reliant on record sales. Their inability to effectively control consumer access to free digitized music certainly has only accentuated their problem. Most of the other sources, like merchandise and touring, have typically been the domain of the artist, so it is no surprise that many in the industry see the 360 deal as a money grab by labels.

The 360 deal inherently reduces the record’s customary pivotal role in the money picture. The bigger labels argue that it frees them from the imperative of the blockbuster hit, allowing them more financial room to develop the artist and his music, so that they can focus on building the fan base over time rather than just blitz-marketing the CD. Others in the industry, however, question whether they have the manpower and financial resources to follow through on such an agenda in this prolonged era of cutbacks and downsizing, or even the ability to do it right. Indeed, some major artists who took the bait have come to question their record company’s ability or desire to hold up their end of the deal, in some cases feeling compelled to take steps to hold the label to its commitments and even pushing to reacquire rights.

Allowing the record album to take the proverbial back seat does open the door for certain types of acts to get signed when they otherwise might not have been. The hard-touring jam band, for example, used to be an anathema to big labels because their popularity generally didn’t extend to getting much mainstream radio play or blockbuster hit singles. Yet, their loyal fans eat up the merchandise and pay good money to see them perform. A downside is that labels may be forced to reduce their rosters in order to devote the resources needed to help develop all these extra revenue streams. That could mean a furthering of the trend toward shorter term deals (and short leashes) for artists who aren’t signed to a 360 deal.

Additionally, an act without a solid fan base or sufficiently honed skills might be prematurely force-fed to the market through something like a tie-in with a product brand or a TV show. Instant fame (or infamy, in the case of a derided product or a flop TV show that’s widely panned) can play both ways–the act could just as easily fall flat on its face with its potential audience as break big and, in this business, there is rarely a second chance with the public. Then, lots of buzz in the blogosphere would not be a good thing.

Signing a record deal with other than a bona fide label brings with it an additional level of uncertainty. What does a film company know about tour management, a concert promoter about music publishing or a management company about running a successful label?

Label or no, the party may not be very savvy to and experienced in all such things. In fact, they may be intending to job out some or most activities to third parties. If that is the case, you might well ask why an artist wouldn’t be better off signing activity-specific agreements with such parties himself. Good question. That certainly is a real option unless he doesn’t have the wherewithal or inclination to want to seek out appropriate parties to fill all those roles. But, then again, that’s what a manager is for and if he doesn’t have one he’s probably not doing himself a service by considering anything like a 360 deal in the first place if he’s got no one by his side to hold their feet to the fire.

I say this because there is no shortage of opportunists out there looking to acquire revenue streams without expending much effort or even the intention or ability to fulfill promises made. It’s one thing for legitimate labels to try to make a case as to why they might need many of these sources of revenue; parties whose primary business is not label-related should be held to an even higher standard of proof.

In a future blog I’ll talk about some ways to improve your position in a 360-type deal with any party.

The post Is The 360 Deal Just A Money Grab By The Record Labels? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Well, there’s an awful lot that I could talk about (it could fill a book, which it will, by the way), but it didn’t take me more than a moment to decide on what it would be. Here’s a snippit for my blog readers. There’s a bit of tough love to follow here, so if you happen to be an artist or that’s your aim, please do take it personally.

This business is really all about relationships and I believe there is something more critical to the establishment and maintenance of productive, satisfying long-term industry relationships than even things like your current level of talent, how much money you have to spend or who you know. It’s called character–that mix of personal qualities that makes for who a person is and how they operate.

One of the elements of this mix is motivation. I’ve personally witnessed incredible performing talent wasted on people who have everything going for them except motivation. Success in this industry is not the realm of the hobbyist or the spoilt brat who thinks they are entitled. If it is a hobby for you, fine, but treat it that way and temper your expectations accordingly. The industry is not going to come knocking on your door and, if they did, they wouldn’t be staying very long.

But motivated for what? It has to be the music and connecting with the audience. Industry professionals know that if you are driven by the correct level and type of motivation there is a greater chance you will stay the course until success arrives.

The second element is attitude. It means being willing to listen to others. It means respecting not only your colleagues and associates but also your audience. It means believing strongly in yourself and your future, but it also means leaving your ego at the door when appropriate. Industry professionals look for artists who are grounded in the right ingredients. Impulsiveness, unfocused energy, fickleness, short attention span, disrespectfulness, unreliability, arrogance and other such deleterious traits are not qualities that will endear you to them.

The third element is commitment. For the artist aspiring to a full-time performing/recording career, the flip side to the rapture associated with that dream is that everything else has to come second–your girl/boyfriend, family, hobbies, academic pursuits, or whatever. Not that you can’t have any of that, you can. But tours, rehearsals, training, meetings, administrative work, promotion and marketing, coming up with the cash, and everything else entailed in building a career are incredibly demanding and will relegate, for a few years at least, things like starting a family and working in Africa for CUSO to an unfulfilled wish list.

If you can’t wrap your brain around devoting most of your waking hours to your career, making the required financial investment, continually upgrading your skills through training and learning as much as you can about the music business, then maybe you should consider lowering your sites or changing your focus. There is a wealth of different types of opportunities in this business and lots of different definitions of success. It certainly doesn’t always have to equate with stardom. Regardless, if an artist isn’t willing to commit to acting responsibly within every industry relationship they have, there isn’t much of a long-term future for them in this business no matter what industry niche they pursue.

There you have it. For someone with lofty goals as a recording/performing artist, input like this might just be what they need to hear at this point in their career pursuit.

The post What Could Be More Important Than Your Talent? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

This person is basically the bridge between the independent artist and all media, including the web. He/she is the one who gets the word out for an act, so they can be critically important for the building of a fan base and industry recognition. They answer to the act’s manager, or the act itself if it has no manager.

An adept publicist will do more than simply get the message out to media. They will arrange media appearances or other special promotional appearances, co-ordinate the radio-play strategy with in-store promotion and your tour planning, come up with an angle that makes your story appealing, and so on.

This is where it becomes key for you to have a defined identity in terms of a genre. It is vital that the publicist is able to direct their efforts to the appropriate media outlets and any other parties appropriate to your genre, whether it be radio, zines, the web, stores, distributors or whatever.

It is a huge plus if the publicist actually specializes in your genre, or is at least very familiar with working in it and also digs your music, for they will then know all the roads to the right places without having to go through a learning curve at your expense, and they’ll be enthusiastic to boot.

Look for one who seems confident and professional, but who also wants to take the time to get to know your act, your goals, your wishes and needs, so that they can best relate to others what your act is all about. They should listen to you, but you need to pay attention to them too, because they know the business of publicity and marketing a heck of a lot better than you. At the same time, you don’t want to see stuff going out there that doesn’t reflect who you are, so don’t be afraid to speak up if there is something you don’t like about a piece of material intended for the industry or the public.

How do they charge, and how much? That depends on a number of factors, including the time required to meet your needs, their experience level and status in their field (which usually translates into how in-demand they are), their business overhead (a fancy office space needs to be fed!) and what you can negotiate. A well-connected publicist who has lots of established contacts and credibility is a real plus, but will probably come at a premium. Perhaps somebody straight out of college could meet your needs at substantially less cost.

It’s important to be aware that you only really need one when you have an important project happening or about to launch. Most often they work on a per-project basis, although a per-month arrangement is not unheard of in cases where they are being retained for an extended period. If it’s a tour, they might even charge you on a per-date basis. Depending on factors such as those I mentioned above, you could be paying anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars. A single project fee would be based on the amount of time the person anticipated would be involved. If they insist on billing you by the hour, make sure their invoices clearly itemize how they’ve spent their time and the make-up of any extra expenses that they’ve charged you for.

Whichever the billing method, they will almost certainly charge you for any out-of-pocket expenses they incur on your behalf (travel beyond their locale, mail-outs and so forth), much like a lawyer or manager does, and they may require a “retainer” deposit up front.

As an important liason between you and a world of companies and individuals out there, the publicist’s job requires a special and varied skill set. It is a pressure-packed and challenging role involving a constant weight of demands and looming deadlines. Considering how much you may be shelling out for such a person, it is therefore incumbent upon you to be as well-prepared as you can to meet their needs during the relationship so that you can help them do their job most efficiently and effectively.

The post Finding A Music Industry Publicist appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I teach a music biz course at a local college and I drum into my students the importance of taking a reality check on all aspects of themselves, their music and their act. This includes their stage show. But, it wasn’t until I took the time a little while back to attend, as an observer, a workshop facilitated by American live music producer/performance coach Tom Jackson that I came to realize just how much that even I wasn’t aware of that goes into making for a compelling, dynamite performance.

One of the things that continually confounds me about artists is how little value most place on the importance of certain critical factors that make for an act’s success in this business. One is the acquisition of a strong knowledge base about the music biz itself, something that is obviously of special interest to me, but another is the art of live performance. It’s one thing to put time, effort and money into honing your vocal skills or musicianship, it is quite another to learn how to deliver that artistry effectively.

When you think about it, it doesn’t really make sense to develop your instrumental or vocal talent without putting some serious effort into learning how to reach your audience. It’s a bit like building yourself a wonderful sailboat but not bothering to learn how to sail it.

As an artist, your live show is going to be key to your success. Standing before an audience stiff with nerves and fumbling with a mike you don’t know how to use properly isn’t going to make for a great performance. That should be fairly obvious. But what a lot of artists don’t get is that simply recreating the recorded versions of their songs doesn’t cut it either, because a lot of what a live audience experiences is on the visual and visceral levels. Putting out on stage entails getting your mind, heart and body “into” the music and connecting with the audience through your material, your instrument and/or voice, your physicality, image and staging. This applies even to the solo act sitting on a stool alone with a guitar.

Now, it’s true there are some things you can pick up by observing other more seasoned acts, but good personal coaching can speed up the learning and assimilation process and will teach you other important things, such as how to build up a song both musically and visually, how to read an audience, develop charisma, be spontaneous, engage the crowd with patter between songs, avoid performance no-no’s and even how to approach rehearsals.

One of the things that Tom drilled home to everyone at that event was that, while artists have a significant amount of control over things like the development of their promo kit, their recording project and most everything else related to their career, very few exert much of any control over what happens with their audience. I was floored by what he imparted in just a couple of hours that can go towards making the difference between a forgettable performance and one that has the crowd absolutely wowed. And these were all very simple things that, once you saw them demonstrated, made eminent sense. I came away from that workshop more convinced than ever of the value of a good performance coach to a live artist’s potential for success. Visit Tom Jackson’s site and learn about all the valuable training tips and products he offers.

I’ll have a lot more to say about coaching and coaches, training and developing/defining your act in future blogs and articles, subjects I also get into in my music biz program.

The post Creating A Dynamite Live Music Show appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

In the music industry there are two opposite camps when it comes to the matter of unpaid access to music. On the one hand sit the bigger labels, publishers and the royalty collection organizations that represent them who seem to have a penchant for monetizing every last usage of music, adopting a “fear of loss” attitude in reaction to the advent of digital. On the other are many independent labels and self-published artist-writers who, seeing the writing on the wall when it comes to the reality of ongoing rampant file sharing and the borderless digital world, have more comfortably moved beyond that mode of thinking. In fact, for their very survival they see it as absolutely necessary to embrace what is happening and turn it to their advantage.

Allowing music to be accessed by consumers without impediments, often even for free, has become a mantra of sorts for many independents as their traditional world of distribution, promotion and marketing has been turned upside down by digital technology. They see the Internet and mobile more as an avenue for increasing exposure and creating demand than as a primary direct revenue source and are inclined to rely on things like touring, off-stage CD sales, sales of other merchandise, sync placements, endorsements, sponsorships and anything else that cannot be digitally duplicated to generate money.

Chris Anderson of Wired provided this perspective at the Midem music conference in Cannes: “Piracy is the wrong word for what we are seeing online and we should not stigmatize it. Artists want to be heard and 99.9% of them are not well served by the current system, which serves the minority of successful artists. The enemy for most artists is not piracy but obscurity. Anything that gets them exposure is a good thing, even if it does not convert into dollars and profit.” [Midem News, January 22, 2007]

Collectives, in concert with some bigger publishers and labels and partly as a response to unauthorized commercial websites disseminating music tracks for free or next to nothing, have been trying for years to come up with digital rights management tools that can ensure that no one receives and uses any music for free.

Thus it is that you have two polar-opposite philosophies that have made for some fractious interchanges between the camps and, depending on which side of the fence you sit on, counter-productive initiatives.

Some stakeholders, myself included, think that publishers, labels and collectives should be employing carrots instead of sticks, incentives rather than restrictions, to get people on board with the idea of paying for music, utilizing initiatives that treat the consumer as a valued client instead of the enemy. Good on you, France.

The post Dealing With Music Piracy In The Digital Age appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I will acknowledge that collectives in general face a tough task in their continuing battle to create some semblance of orderliness, fair play and efficiencies in the realm of rights licensing and royalty collection. The advent of the Internet and digital technology has only made it more challenging. The situation regarding certain types of song uses in the digital scene is still a work in progress, some would say chaotic, in many countries.

But back to the issue that prompted this blog.

As some of you may know, mechanical reproduction rights organizations, like CMRRA and Harry Fox in North America, have fought and won the battle to get approval for licenses on digital deliveries of music by online retailers. Good on them, for the principle behind such a license requirement is not easily argued against. However, the self-serving song and dance they employed in aggressively promoting their case to their respective copyright boards, industry and the general public–namely, that the retailers would otherwise profit unfairly at the expense of what should rightfully be going to song owners and writers–is.

The reality is that the cost of digital licenses doesn’t come out of the retailer’s pocket at all, or even the consumer’s. It’s ultimately paid for by the sound recording owner in the form of a deduction by the seller in what they remit to the owner. Retailers commonly neither raise their sale price to cover such additional imposed fee costs nor absorb them–they simply pass them on down the line of supply.

True to form, the performing rights collectives have followed the trail blazed by their mechanical counterparts and loudly beaten the same drum. They, and their larger publisher clients, have managed to convince regulators that the very act of electronically providing a customer with a digital file of music, whether paid for or as a free sample, constitutes a performance of the music, regardless of whether the file can be heard during the supply process. That’s where the logic and justification for applying a performance license to each and every digital download is lost on me.

Essentially, their argument warps the definition of a “performance” from that of a “presentation” to the act of “supplying.” Streamings, yes, I can see the possible merit there. Using music as background to enhance a website’s appeal or for ringtones? That too. But for simply transferring a file from one storage medium to another? Not in my book. It’s one thing to call it a performance when the file is listened to over the Internet or a mobile phone, it is quite another when it is not.

So, all you independent recording artists, another fee is going to be deducted from your earnings on other people’s songs you record (and quite possibly even your own originals) that you put up for sale digitally, because the retailers will be passing the PRO fee on to you, the track supplier.

But wait…is that the bugle call of the cavalry I hear?

By gosh, it is! The U.S. Appeals court may be coming to the rescue, with a recent decision that appears to rule solidly against the notion that music downloads of a song constitute a “public performance.” This will probably throw the whole matter into flux once again down south, and it will be interesting to see how this new development might affect how things ultimately play out in Canada.

For some insights and opinions on the present and future in Canada regarding digital licenses, you can go to various websites like that of SOCAN, CRIA and SODRAC. I’ll also have a lot more to say in my upcoming book and webinar series about why things aren’t always quite what they seem in this and other areas of interest when it comes to collectives.

The post U.S. Court Reins In The Performing Rights Organizations appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Give music lovers what they want for free and get advertisers to pay the bill. That was an intriguing idea when it first sprouted in the digital music scene a few years back. Eliminate the piracy, capture all those music fans who are averse to paying for music and still generate income for both the retailer and the music rights holders. Seemed like a slam-dunk.

Yet, high-profile digital retailers like Ruckus, Spiral Frog and Imeem that adopted this model have shriveled and died. Another, European-based Spotify, in an apparent attempt to stay viable, is employing both free music and paid models. But they seem to have painted themselves into a corner with this strategy. To wit, they’re currently trying to launch a paid subscription-based service in America but are having one heck of a time getting any of the big U.S. labels on board. It seems the majors are less than enthusiastic about the company’s prospects of getting their consumers who are used to getting music for nothing to start paying.

What happened, then, to that mini love-in within the industry that occurred just a short time ago around ad-supported music sites?

I think a number of factors have come into play.

First, while music fans may have become used to artists “selling out” and pimping for major brands, they aren’t keen on having to listen to or watch commercial messages before grooving to their favourite rapper or indulging in a little saccharine pop. Kind of spoils the experience. Duh!

Second, it’s pretty clear that at least some of these online enterprises have been poorly run. It’s not uncommon for entrepreneurial types to get caught up in the excitement around a new business concept and see things through rose-coloured glasses. Trivial matters such as having a responsible financial plan in place, setting a realistic time-frame for reaching profitability and the simple concept of bouncing your idea off of your potential customer base by means of sound market research can get lost in the shuffle. Not to mention in this case failing to factor in how vulnerable an ad-supported business model would be in a faltering economy.

On top of it all, more and more consumers are actually getting used to paying for music online. I. E. Market Research recently came out with a study that predicts a doubling in the number of paying digital music users over the next five years, with digital revenues quadrupling in the same period. While I think that’s perhaps a tad optimistic, the trend toward public acceptance of paying for music is definitely real.

It all adds up to the ad-supported music service being another .com flash in the pan. It surely won’t be the last.

The post Whither The Ad-supported Free Music Sites? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

In broaching this topic it is instructive to make a subtle but important distinction between the terms “record label deal” and “record contract”. The former implies a deal with a label; the latter not necessarily so. This distinction is a significant consideration for today’s artist because these days just about every type of player in the music industry, and even some parties outside of it, are jumping into the fray to sign artists. Which begs the question: Why this trend?

Simple. Money…. Surprise!

Thar’s gold in them thar hills, pardner.

A lot of business people have been waking up to the fact that music rights are a potential goldmine. And these folks understand that maximum profit is derived by way of the most efficient means of extraction, which in this industry entails having sufficient controlling rights to enable ready and profitable exploitation of any opportunity that may arise for the artist and his music.

It was Robbie Williams’ extraordinary all-inclusive £80 million deal with EMI back in 2002 that really brought this phenomenon into the spotlight. Prior to that, record deals were, by and large, record deals, with perhaps one or another revenue source thrown into the package for the benefit of the company, such as some publishing or merchandise rights. Williams’ deal gave EMI a share of pretty well every revenue stream from his career.

Such all-in deals are becoming more and more commonplace for big name acts. For artists of this ilk to agree to this kind of deal, the companies certainly have to up the ante with such things as higher advances and royalty rates. But now, more and more new artists are also being courted with 360-type record deal proposals by majors, independent labels and others like film companies, artist management firms, concert promoters, entertainment lawyers…the list goes on. Which brings us back to that important distinction I made at the beginning. The meat of the matter for the artist is whether the party proposing the deal has capabilities in all or most of the areas for which they want rights and, as I shall discuss in my next blog on this subject, “Is The 360 Deal Just A Money Grab By The Record Labels?”, what kind of mindset they bring to the table. Stay tuned….

The post The 360 Record Label Deal – Bane Or Boon For The Independent Music Artist? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

I had the pleasure of being an industry guest at TNMC this week, my first visit to this monthly event, and it was indeed a pleasure. There were some fine acts, interspersed with a few relatively unpolished ones. The place was full and, for the most part, the sound was amazingly good considering that the sound man had to deal with everything from solo artists to four-piece bands as well as an on-for-three-and-on-to-the-next format. Many of the patrons seemed to be having a good time and I sensed the performers were too.

Now, here’s the best part for you local artists: you get to network with other performers and industry people, play in front of a lot of people who’ve probably never heard you or even heard of you before and get paid a little to boot. True, to benefit financially you do have to bring some paying customers to the club, but that’s not an unreasonable trade-off.

On the industry guest list this time around were producer/engineer Ryan Clark, photographer Chris McKibbin, yours truly, and Ray Ray Star and Steve McCarthy of the live music Internet TV show Twenty Three Code. It’s a different guest line-up and a mostly new crowd every month. It was especially neat for me to see Ray, who was in my YCIM music biz program last winter, and discover that in just a few months he’s turned what seemed to be an uncertain career (as an artist) into something new and exciting involving music and media. I like to think the upbeat approach I take in my music biz course about staying positive, keeping an open mind and being aware of the myriad of opportunities out there available for people who want to stay in this business played at least a little part in him opening up to receiving something new and satisfying into his life.

TNMC was great to experience on another level for me, too. This recurring event, sponsored by the Spencer Welch Vocal Studio, has been happening for almost two years. That’s quite a track record for an experimental live music format in downtown No-funcouver. It’s nice to see something grassroots like this thrive. Singer Barron S manages the event and I suspect her vibrant and warm personality has a lot to do with its ongoing success.

All in all it was an enjoyable night, even after working all day from six in the morning on my rental property on the Sunshine Coast and arriving pretty exhausted and in need of a good night’s sleep. Hey, but staying up late is part and parcel of the music biz for most of us, and I wouldn’t trade it for…um, well, maybe Richard Branson’s island…?

The post Who Says The Live Music Scene Is Dying In Vancouver? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

“There were massive egos, and success only made them bigger. When I joined BS&T there was already a lot of political infighting, and by 1969 we had the number one album in the world–throw $20 million into the mix, and love beads and flower power go out the window. There were nine guys in the band, and each one had a girlfriend or family telling him, “You’re the real star, you don’t need those other guys.” Another issue was that a few of us were making a lot more money than everyone else. I was the principal songwriter, so I was making royalties off the songs I’d written, like “Spinning Wheel”, and two others owned the band’s name, so they were really the owners of a corporation and getting a bigger cut. Everyone else only made money if we toured. Because the band was run like a democracy, the majority was always voting to tour–it was their only way to make a living. Touring like that was very hard on my voice, and while a trumpet player could take a break and they’d bring someone else in, the lead singer has to go on every night. In 1972, I quit because I just couldn’t take it anymore.” [from “On the implosion of Blood Sweat & Tears”, Kate Fillion, Maclean’s, August 30, 2010]

This band had all the creative and performing talent in the world, yet it’s demise, which came sooner rather than later, was inevitable.

Contrast that to the situation with U2, a band that’s been together for over three decades and consider themselves family. They set it up from the beginning that each member is an equal in terms of decision-making and most of the revenue sharing and writing credits. While one member, Bono, is the lead in the act and unquestionably has more prominence in the public eye, and each member has a degree of freedom to engage in music-related projects unrelated to the band, the group is structured to survive. It doesn’t hurt that they like each other as people as well.

There are lots of things a band can and should do to protect each member’s interests as well as go a long way to ensuring that the band survives long-term. I’ll have more to say on this in a future blog.

The post Why Most Bands Don’t Last appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you don’t have a publisher. Along comes a company that wants to use your song for a particular purpose, but there’s a catch: they won’t use it unless they can have a piece of the publishing, or maybe even 100%. It could be a film production company, for example, or even a music producer or record label. You may not feel comfortable with that scenario, especially if they’re not a bona fide publisher and you don’t sense they have the wherewithal or inclination to promote the song much, other than in conjunction with the particular use they plan to make of it.

There’s a simple solution to this, and that is to give your song an alternate second name. In other words, let the party use the song under a new title. Changing the name can be as simple as adding something like “Version 2” to the end of the original title. In such case, you would keep the original title for your use, maintaining your full publishing rights and any existing royalty collective registrations intact, and let the other party have sole right to use, promote and register the song under the second title.

If you feel a little queasy about doing this, then just do a relatively minor re-write of the song for them. You’ve every right to create as many variations on your song as you like, because you own it. Then all you have to do is give that second version a new name. You can do what you like with that version, including signing all the publishing over to another party, without impacting your copyright or registration status with the original version. Assigning more than one name to a song is not as uncommon a practice as you might think, and it is perfectly within your legal right to do so.

Now, just between you and me, some royalty collection organizations frown on song owners attaching more than one name to the exact same musical work, and in some cases if they know that’s what you’re doing they may refuse to register the titles independently as two separate registrations, forcing you to have the second title as an “a.k.a.” of the first. In such case, in our example of the party demanding some or all of the publishing, you would take the route of doing a simple re-write of the song as I suggested in the previous paragraph.

Why wouldn’t royalty collectives want to accept two registrations of the same song? What other scenarios might present themselves as reasons to consider giving your song an alternative title or a re-write?

Stay tuned for some more on this in a future blog. If you live in the greater Vancouver area you can join my music biz program where we’ll be getting into all kinds of neat stuff about this business that you probably never knew about.

The post Giving Your Song Multiple Personalities appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.

While MySpace itself has been struggling to retain its relevance in the social network milieu, losing the battle big time to sites like Facebook and Twitter for the hearts and minds of the critical teen to 30-something demographic, its MySpace Music offspring has never lived up to its promise of becoming an entertainment hub.

Morphing itself into some kind of Facebook wannabe and losing heaps of money in the process obviously wasn’t the answer for MySpace. To add injury to insult, because they’ve lost ground with Web users to other sites their ad revenue from Google Ads is likely to go way down once their current deal with that Internet behemoth runs out later this summer. And the ad-supported online music service option they might have considered, in which users are forced to endure advertisements before being able to stream or download “free” song files, is probably a non-starter given that virtually every site that’s tried such a model has failed and disappeared.

So, now they figure they’ve got a better chance to gain traction by replacing MySpace Music with a subscription service? Well, good luck to them (not really).

While I don’t give them much chance of success whatever route they take, the good news for all music loving plebes, both in and outside the industry, is that MySpace Music is a non-essential piece of the digital music landscape. And if, as is promised, they keep the social networking aspect of Mother MySpace intact and continue to give artists the ability to stream file samples and video clips to users for free, then all will be right with at least one corner of the digital world.

The post No More Free Tunes on MySpace? appeared first on Graham Way's Blog.