Paying netlabels?

pheek · Post by **pheek** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:46 am

How would you react if netlabels decided to make you pay if you want their releases (ex. 10$ for 12 mp3)?

Or would you pay for better quality version?

What would you suggest to economically help out the netlabels you love (besides the paypal donations, that obviously don't work)?

...

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:52 am

I'd definitely pay for releases that I like, especially if that were the only way of getting ahold of the tracks.

Whenever I hear the word 'netlabel', I also think 'free', but I guess that doesn't necessarily have to always be the case. Gotta pay the bills sometimes.

diss0nance · Post by **diss0nance** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:15 am

yeah i'd certainly pay per-track or per-release for netlabel music.

as far as high-quality (or lossless) versus low quality, imo the free tracks would have to be distributed @ 64-96kbps. 256kbps CBR MP3 still sounds good enough for live DJ playback.

Maybe give away 96k copies and charge for 256kbps+ or FLAC, also offering different options ($1/track or a discounted rate for a full release in zip format)?

corpid · Post by **corpid** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:32 am

i wouldnt pay for netlabel releases, as I'm of the opinion that most netlabel dont have the quality of vinyl releases. I mean, I would pay if netlabels had the quality of Kompakt, Traum/Trapez, Dial or Playhouse - but that's not the case yet

.kavo. · Post by **.kavo.** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:26 am

edit: .....

Dave Martin · Post by **Dave Martin** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:24 pm

corpid wrote:i wouldnt pay for netlabel releases, as I'm of the opinion that most netlabel dont have the quality of vinyl releases. I mean, I would pay if netlabels had the quality of Kompakt, Traum/Trapez, Dial or Playhouse - but that's not the case yet

I disagree, I think that there is some stuff out there on netlabels that's much better quality than half of the vinyl releases out there. You've named some pretty big labels there but I think that there's releases on netlabels that are better than a lot of releases on the labels you've mentioned.

Some thing's that spring to mind in the past month are the Ryan Crosson EP on Archipel, the Barem and DissOnance on Unfoundsound, the Machines do it better on YOTM and the Troy remixes on Mo's Ferry. There's loads more as well. So I guess yes I'd pay.

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:06 pm

Just a thought: Do you think netlabels would get more boring if they charged money? I think maybe the labels might start caring more about releasing things that will keep the money flowing than new and unique sounds.

pheek · Post by **pheek** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:29 pm

brianc wrote:Just a thought: Do you think netlabels would get more boring if they charged money? I think maybe the labels might start caring more about releasing things that will keep the money flowing than new and unique sounds.

Exactly, the motivation would be totally on a different level.

Happy label = happy artist = better music.

As music, for all of us, is not about money but when you pay to do music and everyone else benefits of it for free, then there's something wrong. I've been checking all the things my music & label cost me and some morning I wake up and really wonder why I do all this.

I won't name anyone, but there's a lot of talks at the moment between netlabels to go into paying mode. I don't think it would be 100% for money but maybe something like you pay for better quality files.

Now don't get scared, there's nothing confirmed or about to be done... enjoy the free music