Getting Signed

Can I know the channel?

Sign away the rights to your music to some jew, then delete system 32 on your computer

>>72513161

I'll probably want to keep it private, desu. I browse this place way too much to feel comfortable having the channel bleed into it.

>>72513170

On it!

But for real, well aware that record label deals can be a buttfucking for the artist most of the time. Our mindset was that we have a pretty solid foundation but it would be nice to work within something slightly more structured, since both myself and I bandmate have full time work outside of music.

>>72513207
It's ok, I understand.
Really wanted to hear something though.

>>72513252

Sorry desu =( Maybe in the future if things work out

>>72513364
It's ok man, good luck :)

A word of warning - my flatmate's (at the time) up-and-coming band was offered a record deal, it was a five year contract with a £5,000 advance plus studio time and promotion. They knocked it back after failing to negotiate a shorter contract term, fuck knows why.

That was eight years ago and they've got nowhere since, and with their type of music they never fucking will get anywhere beyond a few thousand fans. I'm pretty confident they could have done quite well for themselves too.

>>72513122
why would you want to be owned by a label?

>>72513519
*their type of music relative to their age, I mean. They're too old to be the hip new Glasgow indie band now.

>>72513519

That is incredibly unfortunate man- really sorry to hear that. Stories like these are a dime a dozen, and we're definitely trying to be reasonable and level-headed as we approach this.

The whole "how to get signed" title will probably do better for responses than something much more in-depth, but it's really nice to hear from others. I would say that part of the reason my bandmate and I feel like we're in a pretty good spot is we got to 20K fans in about a year and a half, and we've only been able to devote one day a week to music in the last two weeks given both of our careers. We feel like we'd be able to accomplish a lot more if it was our full-time gig now.

>>72513537

The idea, more than anything, is to have a relatively decent foundation with a label. We see ourselves as pretty hard-working, and I don't think our business sense is lacking. Funding tours/albums ourselves seems pretty crazy, and when you take a look at the lay of the land of musicians who are (seemingly) making a living doing music, they've usually got some sort of backing system put in place before they can be self-sufficient. That was the strategy, more than anything.

>>72513688

Additional note, the goal is really to make a decent living off of music. If I could be a "full-time musician" and make 40/45 grand a year, I'd be happy. Obviously, the ideal scenario would be making that kind of money while performing and building a solid fanbase.

Plz halp /mu/ ;_;

File: logo_think_edu.gif (31KB, 465x220px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 465x220px

>>72513519
>ract with a £5,000 advance plus studio time and promotion. They k

$5,000? who could be bothered?
between 4 people? Woohooo! going places. work in MaccyD's the evening they'd raise that much.

>>72514142
At the time it was closer to $10,000 (thanks Brexit), but that's not my point anyway. The fact is they would have had their albums published, promoted, got better gigs and potentially could have become a semi-successful if not successful band.

File: 1486509721887.gif (42KB, 400x380px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x380px

>>72513711
>. If I could be a "full-time musician" and make 40/45 grand a year, I'd b
you need special powers for that kind of life. Some bands get hot so that they are batting off label offers. You are not. So. . . what is the label going to do for you?

and why should they bother?

even if you're "we are once in a century lifetime amazing band" even then they may not be interested. I don't get it. what is it you are offereing and want?

>>72514218
bruh nowadays semi-successful artists pull 20k for a show ocersees

>>72513921
It sounds like you've gotten further than most of us who post in Bandcamp and soundcloud threads so there isn't really a lot of help we can give.
I think presskits are still very much a thing, at least that's what Sonicbids and The Future of What have lead me to believe. I think you should try doing live shows or getting in with your local scene, maybe test your online fanbase by selling a collection of originals and see how well they eat it up.

File: 71874d488b5dccd9c3a88692af4667dd.jpg (16KB, 236x273px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x273px

>>72514218
>act is they would have had their albums published, promoted, got better gigs and potentially could have beco
for €10,000? just as likely they would release 1 record then been thrown away. Thee wasn't another three labels also interested? does not sound epic already.

File: nylon11_3.jpg (93KB, 300x500px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 300x500px

>>72514306
>in with your local scene,
fuck your local scene unless it's greater Manchester or The Whole East Coast or something

yeah, press kits.

you want the labels dribbling saliva over when they can rape you for money. that is what you have to solve

>>72514257
You do realise what an advance is, right? It's not just a golden handshake, it's also a credit agreement. They were a little-known band and were offered a contract that would allow them to become better known, receive more income from gigs, receive money from record sales, get studio time and receive royalties. Had they flopped and the record company not recovered the money, they'd owe it back anyway - so if anything the lower the amount, the lower the risk for both parties.

In other words, it's not about the money, it's about the promotion and what comes with it.

>>72514307
It's not my band, I'm not saying they're epic (I hate indie anyway), I'm saying they had a chance and they fucked up due to greed. The only reason I'm telling this is to say if you get a chance don't blow it as it's not that easy to come by.

File: DaveGrohlImage.jpg (20KB, 295x295px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 295x295px

>>72514351
>re offered a contract that would allow them to become better known, receive more income from gigs, receive money from record sales, get studio time and receive royaltie
they could do all of that themselves

take out a £5,000 loan, sell the car , borrow of uncle fred. all record sales are theirs, studio time would be paid

it sounds liek a total waste of time UNLESS the label and the act were exceptionally niche

>>72514255

Is that much money a year for an entertainment position really that far-fetched? I'd say with a pretty solid grounding it isn't the most impossible thing.

I am well aware that some bands get hot enough to have labels competing for them, but to have that amount of buzz is a bit difficult to pull together (especially if you aren't in a city with a solid music scene, like myself and my bandmate are). I would say that a whole lot of stars have to align to get that amount of buzz, whereas with what we do have, which granted isn't the "world" by any means, is a pretty solid fanbase that we've been able to pull together in a relatively short amount of time, solid praise for it as well as for our original stuff, which I think at the very least puts us in a spot where we can at least attempt to reach for an opportunity.

Knowing that many labels may just not be interested period, the point of the thread was to go about reaching out in the best way to all of them just to give it a proper go.

>>72514306

Our local scene is quite sparse, to be honest. Would love to be schooled if I'm wrong about this, but from my experience, Vancouver really doesn't have that much going on.

File: download (14).jpg (7KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 299x168px

>>72514502
>entertainment position really that far-fetched? I'd s
I would say for performing original material , per person it is unusual for a band. Unless the person is known in their field. There are bands in UK that are almost household names and they aint got dick

like, they were hot in the 80s or 90s, had a piss up, no no-one gives a mokeys. slogging it out on the Uni circuit again.

to earn 40-45k a year till death, and not teacing or prostituting or topping up with drugs then I dunno , top 15% do you think?

File: wenn22513949-500x532.jpg (57KB, 500x532px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x532px

>>72514502
>bout reaching out in the best way to all of them just to give it a proper go.

somehow I would engineer it so that you were uinder the labels nose, you know? turn up on the door with a CD? Presskit? it goes in the bin it's a X against your name. get em smaked up. send your girl friend to do something wierd on them.

hmmm like, maybe you being where you are is a good thing. you';re true to your self . OR maybe you should move to city an exploit it. Maybe you cshould find the next cultural wave and get a hair
cut. IOr keep at whay you do .

I dunno man.

File: dave-grohl.jpg (45KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 620x413px

you know when you get drunk and you're pissing in the wardrobe? anyway , ah dear.

>>72514667

Completely fair. I'm referring to this more as the ultimate goal some years down the line, as opposed to this happening immediately. Additionally, and I should've noted this before, but we'd hope to hit that number through Youtube integration as well (monetization, sponsorships, Patreon - when our channel gets a bit larger). So, more a package deal than just from the label.

>>72514757

Yeah, it's definitely tricky! The funny thing is I work as a Recruiter for a well-known film studio, so I am aware that generally the method provided by a studio is what you should follow (ie. sending physical copies when no one wants them will only serve to piss people off). The hope was to do something aligned with what labels expect/want, but doing the best version of that.

I know for the big three major labels, you need some sort of agent/music manager to be a liason of sorts. Was wondering if anyone had any info on the best way to contact them, etc,?

>>72514809
Jesus man, stop posting Dave Grohl, you're even worse than a tripfag.

>>72513207
As interested as I am, right course of action

File: dave-grohl-vacation.jpg (171KB, 634x1061px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 634x1061px

>>72514924
>ugh Youtube integr

I do not know. Because a label may have their own channel on youtub. Does youtub make you much money alreay? Hmmmm Yo either need to be exceptional or you've gotta have the numbers, one of the two if not both.

Covers? well unless they're jazz standards that is load of rubbish as well, and even then it can get you in trouble.

You're driving me nuts thinking about this. I would throw eeverything you've done away. Chuck the freaking cxhannel. Grop hug the band, start again with "how the fuck do we be fucking amazing"

>>72514924
>as a Recruiter for a well-known film studio,
now I'm swearing. You know this more than me then man,

it's whatever makes it work, some people it's under the subway, somepeople it's their dad who works for them. Your probaky in a greeat spot to exploit it already. So if it's not working hrow it away anbd start again

>>72515055

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with part of your approach.

In general, I've found the "how the fuck do we be amazing" mindset for musicians to have a very short shelf-life. I'm sure most of the people here have been making music for a very long time. I myself have been writing songs since I was a kid, and around five years ago, I was convinced I had written the "best batch of songs I had ever done". Five years removed from that, having learned a lot more, I can see some glimpses of good material and a whole host of underdeveloped stuff. I'm much more level-headed with the stuff that we churn out now. I can definitely say that I think it is solid, and the attempt is to make it as enjoyable and unique as possible while staying true to what we're trying to achieve with the sound, but thinking that you're writing the next best thing every time you sit down is sure to start a rude awakening.

In terms of everything else, covers generally don't get you in trouble unless you are monetizing them without permission. In our case, most of our cover videos are unmonetized, but through Loudr we are able to make money selling them legally (a cut going to the copyright owners and to Loudr), etc.

This has been an awesome dialogue by the way, thanks for giving me so much to mull over.

File: dave-grohl-john-paul-jones-led-zeppelin-photo-bomb-guy-passed-out-them-crooked-vultures-backstage.jpg (72KB, 600x441px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x441px

>>72515182
>"how the fuck do we be amazing" mindset for musicians to have a very short shelf-life. I'm sure

well you know more than me, it is what I would do. I'm thinking about Oasis' first gigs, That freshness, "we're here" attitude that steam rolls through. Yeahj sure your music writting will get better but you want that magic thing.

as soon as I read monetizing MCNs you sound dull. I'mn not wet

Bamp

>>72513122

Just follow what each label's website says, dude

Signing on with a label in 2017 is retarded. Write, produce, distribute , and promote your own material like Clutch!

Your losses will be minimalized compared to a record deal, and in the event of success, that shit is ALL YOURS.

>>72518380

Getting as far as we have by ourselves has been tricky enough as is. We could definitely stick it through but that is a lot of hell to deal with only two people. Most bands that are known at this point have some sort of machine behind them. We're totally fine with giving them a cut (even a sizeable one) if it means we're able to devote our lives fully to making music.

Basically just have a lot of friends working in labels, it's the only way

>>72518587

Would this actually work? I can't see being friends with them being that lucrative if you aren't relatively good live w/ good songs and some semblance of a fanbase.