I was just talking to a friend of mine who is a music business major, and he agreed that you are onto something. Recently there was a reformed business model released by two students involved with the music business groups at Harvard and Berklee. Overly generalized, it stated that the relationship the artist should hold with the record company should be a 40/60 agreement. There are so many problems with that idea. As it does allow for a fairer way of doing business, it still doesn’t give the artist any artistic freedom. The record company can still dictate the final product, and only then will they give the artist their 40% share. The reason I am sharing this is because I believe that your idea, Grant, if it can be properly executed, would allow the artist total artistic freedom, relieve their financial burden involved with recording, and still allow the artist to be open to large scale possibilities, consequently enticing investors to invest more money. However, no matter how great of an idea I think it is, there are still a lot of gaps to be dealt with, especially those of a legal nature.
I don’t know if you are interested in music business resources, but if you are, you should check out the book, “All You Need to Know About the Music Business,” by Donald S. Passman. It is an amazing resource revealing the intricate workings of the music industry. It actually put a lot of music business lawyers out of business when the first edition was released! Also you might want to check out the Berklee Music Business Journal. I always find the articles very stimulating. The website is www.thembj.com. Which reminds me of the question about mechanical royalties. Mechanical royalties (mechanicals) are the “monies paid to copyright owners for the manufacture and distribution of records… The rights to reproduce songs in records are known as mechanical rights.” (Passman)
Oh, and by the way, your response to my question regarding publishing is absolutely on target. I forgot about the age-old trick of walking down to city hall, paying $30 to the nice clerk, and registering your business as “My Awesome Publishing Company,” allowing the performing rights societies (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) to cut the check directly to yours truly.
So if the band breaks up, the investors loose their money. That’s business; it’s full of risks. But here’s a thought in the form of a loosely stated question. How would the band guarantee financial responsibility to its investors? That would really destroy the peoples’ confidence by investing their money just to watch the band walk away with it in their pockets (does Enron ring a bell). I guess a prenuptial accord could insure the “marriage.” I haven’t given it much thought, but maybe releasing financial statements to the investors would satisfy their worries. What do you think? From what I am gathering, basically the band’s way of doing business should just mimic any other business out there that has stockholders?maybe the work is already done for us! Too bad there isn?t a hotline we could call to contact all of the venture capitalists in the world. That would make the job of finding investors a lot easier!
Keep it up because it’ll pay you back someday. Until next time?
nbierdeman
Apr 21 2005
11:35 pm
I was just talking to a friend of mine who is a music business major, and he agreed that you are onto something. Recently there was a reformed business model released by two students involved with the music business groups at Harvard and Berklee. Overly generalized, it stated that the relationship the artist should hold with the record company should be a 40/60 agreement. There are so many problems with that idea. As it does allow for a fairer way of doing business, it still doesn’t give the artist any artistic freedom. The record company can still dictate the final product, and only then will they give the artist their 40% share. The reason I am sharing this is because I believe that your idea, Grant, if it can be properly executed, would allow the artist total artistic freedom, relieve their financial burden involved with recording, and still allow the artist to be open to large scale possibilities, consequently enticing investors to invest more money. However, no matter how great of an idea I think it is, there are still a lot of gaps to be dealt with, especially those of a legal nature.
I don’t know if you are interested in music business resources, but if you are, you should check out the book, “All You Need to Know About the Music Business,” by Donald S. Passman. It is an amazing resource revealing the intricate workings of the music industry. It actually put a lot of music business lawyers out of business when the first edition was released! Also you might want to check out the Berklee Music Business Journal. I always find the articles very stimulating. The website is www.thembj.com. Which reminds me of the question about mechanical royalties. Mechanical royalties (mechanicals) are the “monies paid to copyright owners for the manufacture and distribution of records… The rights to reproduce songs in records are known as mechanical rights.” (Passman)
Oh, and by the way, your response to my question regarding publishing is absolutely on target. I forgot about the age-old trick of walking down to city hall, paying $30 to the nice clerk, and registering your business as “My Awesome Publishing Company,” allowing the performing rights societies (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) to cut the check directly to yours truly.
So if the band breaks up, the investors loose their money. That’s business; it’s full of risks. But here’s a thought in the form of a loosely stated question. How would the band guarantee financial responsibility to its investors? That would really destroy the peoples’ confidence by investing their money just to watch the band walk away with it in their pockets (does Enron ring a bell). I guess a prenuptial accord could insure the “marriage.” I haven’t given it much thought, but maybe releasing financial statements to the investors would satisfy their worries. What do you think? From what I am gathering, basically the band’s way of doing business should just mimic any other business out there that has stockholders?maybe the work is already done for us! Too bad there isn?t a hotline we could call to contact all of the venture capitalists in the world. That would make the job of finding investors a lot easier!
Keep it up because it’ll pay you back someday. Until next time?