Hmm… interesting idea. I like it! Here are a few
thoughts that may aid in developing the idea.
Basically put, having people invest in a band’s
“stock” is replacing the advance(s) that a record company
gives a band when they are signed. Investors would then become a collective recording company in a sense. Would this give
stockholders leverage in the development of the band
as far as image, sound, and overall marketability?
Also, would they get a cut-in of any future mechanical
or performance royalties the band receives as part of
their investment return? Is there ever going to be a
record company involved to promote and distribute the
music, possibly trying to cut into the stockholders
investments? If the band gets a publishing deal, will they be free to transfer the copyright to the publisher, consequently transferring the investors stock to a different company? I think that there are many ways of getting around these issues and I like the idea of having a more grassroots approach to recording, but I thought I would start the critique to possibly stimulate a “storm of brains.” Ideally people would just donate money to a band with no strings attached, but this won’t happen on as large of a scale monetarily speaking as giving them the possibility of making money… and no matter how much we hate it, it’s all about the money! Cheers…
nbierdeman
Apr 20 2005
06:21 pm
Hmm… interesting idea. I like it! Here are a few
thoughts that may aid in developing the idea.
Basically put, having people invest in a band’s
“stock” is replacing the advance(s) that a record company
gives a band when they are signed. Investors would then become a collective recording company in a sense. Would this give
stockholders leverage in the development of the band
as far as image, sound, and overall marketability?
Also, would they get a cut-in of any future mechanical
or performance royalties the band receives as part of
their investment return? Is there ever going to be a
record company involved to promote and distribute the
music, possibly trying to cut into the stockholders
investments? If the band gets a publishing deal, will they be free to transfer the copyright to the publisher, consequently transferring the investors stock to a different company? I think that there are many ways of getting around these issues and I like the idea of having a more grassroots approach to recording, but I thought I would start the critique to possibly stimulate a “storm of brains.” Ideally people would just donate money to a band with no strings attached, but this won’t happen on as large of a scale monetarily speaking as giving them the possibility of making money… and no matter how much we hate it, it’s all about the money! Cheers…