This morning, Chad Clark of Beauty Pill, the excellent Dischord Records post-rock band, tweeted:
“[W]ondering about budgets behind entirely electronic records in 2012. The economic framework has to be different than rock music.”
and
“If Tape Op hasn’t done a piece on this topic, they should. Or maybe a cool topic for @TrustMeScience? Get on it, Justin! CHOP CHOP!”
Chad knows that I’m borderline obsessed with the intersection of arts and economics.
Now, in addition to having a good excuse to mention Beauty Pill’s recording-studio-as-art-installation-project, Immersive Ideal, I also have a good reason to say that this week, I began conducting interviews with some NYC most significant true indie labels. And it’s questions like these that I love most.
There’s a lot of confusion these days about what is and is not an indie label. Too often, labels that seem indie are, in reality, boutique imprints owned by major conglomerates.
Dischord Records, which is owned by Ian MacKaye of Fugazi and Minor Threat, is not one of those fake indies. Neither is the first subject of my new series on labels for SonicScoop: NYC’s Frenchkiss Records.
As far as production costs for this (mostly rock) label are concerned, label head and Les Savy Fav bassist Syd Butler told me last night:
“We basically give the bands some money, and tell them they can use it to go make a record… or not.”
“Sure, we expect them to deliver an album, but they can pretty much use [the advance] on whatever they want. Some of the bands are pretty good on Pro Tools and end up doing a lot of that at home, and some of them use that money to help pay a producer and a studio.
“Then, there are sometimes bands who’ve completed everything themselves and don’t want us to own the masters, but they’ll license it to us instead. In that case, we’ll basically rent the rights to sell the album for ten years. There are a lot of ways it can work.”
If this is any indication, I have a feeling we’ll find as many ways of working as there are labels. Some companies may end up fronting full production costs. Smaller imprints may get involved solely on the distribution and PR end. And then there are labels like Frenchkiss, who refuse to make that distinction.
It’s also worthwhile to remember that even when production costs are low, artists with uncommon levels of talent and dedication will always be rare and valuable. The same can be said of their followings.
My sneaking suspicion is that regardless of the genre and the upfront production costs, labels of any means will always be willing to do whatever they can to attract the artists they really believe in. Chances are, someone else out there will believe in them too.
(PS – Why do I care about this stuff so much? For that, I’ll link to an article I first caught wind of thanks to Chad: 13 Ethical Mom-And-Pop Brands That Are Actually Owned By Giant Corporations)
“We basically give the bands some money, and tell them they can use it to go make a record… or not.”
“Sure, we expect them to deliver an album, but they can pretty much use [the advance] on whatever they want. Some of the bands are pretty good on Pro Tools and end up doing a lot of that at home, and some of them use that money to help pay a producer and a studio.
“Then, there are sometimes bands who’ve completed everything themselves and don’t want us to own the masters, but they’ll license it to us instead. In that case, we’ll basically rent the rights to sell the album for ten years. There are a lot of ways it can work.”