The Barenaked Ladies are offering their latest album, “Barenaked Ladies Are Me,” as a download from their website without digital rights managment. All audio downloads are available in the popular MP3 format, encoded at 196kbps. Some audio has also been made available in FLAC file format, which is a lossless format. The files are not encrypted with digital rights management or copy protection software. Artists are slowly migrating to distributing their own content via the internet. This seems like a great idea and should scare the RIAA more than any college student downloading a pirated song. BNL also is offering live recordings from their concert tours. An album is sold for $9.99 for mp3 and $12.99 for FLAC lossless files. Essentially you are paying $12.99 for a CD, which is a better deal in my opinion than iTunes (due to lossless files).
More importantly, BNL has been very successful, topping $970,000 in gross sales from “intellectual property” during the first week following the release of “Barenaked Ladies Are Me,” according to thedigitalmusicweblog. One thing to keep in mind is that the band makes more money than selling albums through more traditional channels, with artist run labels making almost $5 per album.
I really like this business model. I think it is good for the artist and the consumer. We should really support bands that branch out like this. I think this is the best way to send a message to the RIAA and even Apple. It should be noted that the album also is available on Emusic. I was able to download the album as part of my $9.99 subscription.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:54 am
On the other hand, the reason that the band was able to sell nearly $1 million of DRM-less tracks in one week was because of the years they spent as part of the recording industry, and particularly the large amounts of money and connections that were used making them a household name. Your article suggests that the business model is:
1. Band makes great album.
2. Band sells great album directly to consumer.
3. Profit!
It’s more fair to say:
1. Band struggles to establish themselves.
2. Band signs on to record label.
3. Band receives small amount of money from label but gets significant promotion.
4. Band separates from label and makes great album.
5. Band sells great album directly to the consumer.
6. Profit!
This isn’t to say that there aren’t abuses and things that could improve in how labels treat their artists, but to pretend that any talented band can simply make large amounts of money with no involvement from record labels is very, very unlikely.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:06 am
Touring and radio play both combine to make a band popular, which in turn drive their albumn sales.
A band doesn’t need a recording contract for either of those things.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:40 am
This kind of distribution seems to be on the rise these days, and I love that. It will put the content mafia^W^Wrecording industry out of business.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Dinosaurs will die!
October 24th, 2006 at 11:24 am
It seems there is a lot of this going around. I love it. Down with the dinosaur record companies and up with the music.
DM
October 24th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
nice one, would have been nice if you put a link to their site don’t you think.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
“nice one, would have been nice if you put a link to their site don’t you think.”
Never heard of Google?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
This is really how it should be - I like X band’s music, I should be able to go to http://www.x-band.com (or whatever their site is) and download the album. Simple - easy - awesome.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
tony,
You are right about the link. I have added it to the article.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Joe,
With respect, you are wrong about the order of events for most bands. Typically, record labels exploit the years of labor that a band has put into their own reputation via touring and self-promotion.
Record labels have always profited from what is essentially indentured servitude. Whatever you might think of Courtney Love as an artist or as a person, her take on the music industry is well-grounded in reality.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
Best regards…
October 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I just got my tickets, comps, for the Halifax show.
Can’t wait!!!
October 24th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I’ve been saying this for a while -
http://theembarrassment.blogspot.com/2006/09/kill-middlemen.html
There’s no reason a small unknown band couldn’t do the same thing on a much smaller scale:
Old model:
Fan hears about band on radio/concert/word-o-mouth
Fan goes to record store to buy CD
Most $$ –> Record company
New Model:
Fan hears of band on MySpace/Pandora/Internet Radio/Word-o-mouth
Fan goes to band’s website and downloads tunes
Most $$ –> Band.
What’s missing is some simple server software indie bands can use to sell digital downloads for a small fee. Anyone know of such a thing?
-J
http://www.thejennifers.com
October 24th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
If BNL really wanted to “stick it to the recording industry” they would release their album in vinyl formay only and denounce this digital garbage. The album would not be available for purchase online either. It would be reasonably priced at under $10. Their fans, and presumably a whole new generation, would have the opportunity to buy a real record at a real record store, one of the great pleasures of life. Just because we have the technology, doesn’t make it better. The music listening and music acquiring experience was far, far superior 25 years ago.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Rob, the band did release the album on vinyl for people like you that prefer it. However, their main focus is getting the music to the fans, not sticking it to the recording industry. Your way would not only make it inaccessible to the majority of the music buying public, but would also be financial suicide. It’s hard to feed your kids on principles. They like food.
It’s fine to wish that we can go back in time– but we can’t.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Jonathan,
I am speaking with a dozen years of experience working for and with small and medium level artists. My point one was covering the time that bands develop their own reputation. The magical number that most large regional/small national acts can sell by themselves is around 50,000 units over a year or two. To get above that involves having a substantial amount of money and time spent pushing the band to the major market, which is what the labels do.
Courtney Love can complain all she wants, but the only reason she’s known as anything other than the addicted widow of Kurt is that a record company spent a lot of money changing her public image.
Her example article cites $2 million in video production cost, $200K in tour support, $300K in radio promotion, and $2.2 million in misc. promotion in order to sell 1 million units. How many indy bands can front that kind of money?
Recording Industry practices are well known and documented. Large Indy bands can make the choice to stay at the ~50K units level (that’s generally $500,000 profit for the band) or try to move up to the next level by signing with a label. I have clients who have gone both ways and failed and suceeded. There’s no one answer and there’s no easy answer.
But to pretend that an unknown bands can move ~100K units per week is just silly.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Hey Rob –
BNL did press BLAM on vinyl. However, with the demise of Tower/Virgin, it’s getting harder to find a store willing to sell it. So they make it available online and sell it at their concerts. It’s a little more than $10. I’m sure the technology is a little pricier now given the decrease in demand for it.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
You can’t play vinyl on an mp3 player.
You can’t rip vinyl to mp3s very easily.
Very few people own record players.
Do you still think it’s a good idea to release an album on vinyl?
October 25th, 2006 at 4:21 am
I think this is a great idea… as well as many other s have already noted. I’m not a fan of BNL, however talented they may be, but I’ll buy it anyways for my wife. At least this way she can move it around without any DRM issues.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:06 am
vinyl? oh please.. don’t confuse nostalgia for a better listening or gathering experience. I remember the vinyl days - just because it was more difficult does not mean it was better then. I can uderstand having greater appreciation back then for the music since listening time and searcing was far more limited. Ok, I get the fun of talking to other people shopping and listening to Alan Parsons in a dark room with friends. But there’s nothing precluding anyone from doing that now - minus the driving and limited store hours (unless you count that as important - in which case traffic must be a turn on). If you make the same effort to do that in today’s environment as trudging through a winter storm to go to Tower in 1978, you just might make some new memories worth talking about 20 years from now. The technoology still hasn;t hurt the discovery, sharing, and listening. The how may have changed, but the what still is there.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:42 am
I’m with Joe on this one. Without years of record label backing/promotion Barenaked Ladies wouldn’t be succesful at this.
It’s a nice story, but it’s hardly a business model that’ll translate well for unsigned acts.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
@Joe
You must be new.
In 1990, BNL were busking in the street for pocket change. In 1992, before they signed a record contract, they had gone platinum on an EP tape (the Yellow Tape) that they produced and sold themselves.
BNL still do more for their own promotion than any record label has done.
Much like almost all of the Canadian music that the US is so enamoured with, these artists have paid their dues over and over and over again - in almost all cases, continuing to pay a different kind of dues to the Canadians who supported them first in the form of “you bastard sellout” being yelled at them while at home.
I’d rather see the people who did the work get the money. I haven’t yet met a coke addicted record executive who worked as hard in his life as these guys (and hundreds like them) work just to ensure that 20 new people know their music.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
You guys should get your story straight. BNL uses Nettwerk as their promotion and marketing company (who also pushes a number of top-tier acts including Sarah MacLaughlan and Avril Lavigne) but BNL is responsible for their own distrobution and delivery. Hence, they get into the regular channels insofar as advertising and promotion is concerned but they own their own masters and make way more per album than any regular act.
Perhaps if an artist makes 5x the amount on each disc sold, then they only need 1/5th the audience to make the same amount of money. If that can be done as an independent then who wouldn’t?
October 25th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
There’s another major factor to consider.
The process of recording an album is *extremely* expensive. At least if you want to have a viable, professional sounding recording, the amount of time and money required is enourmous.
As far as the consumer goes, a song that is produced on a small budget is extremely unappealing because (much like high definition television) the lower quality “consumer end” level of recording is simply not good enough to the average person.
This being said, without being independently wealthy to begin with, a band needs significant capital investment just to have ANY recordings to market.
—-
As far as touring is concerned, most venues (and certainly any venue that pays) want to hear a recording of the band prior to hiring them.
You need money to make a recording and a recording to play shows and you need to play shows to sell records and build a fan base…
I’m sure you can see where record companies fit in! Now, I’m not arguing that record deals aren’t abusive, they certainly take more than their fair share of an artist’s money.
But it’s invaluable for an artist, from producing and album to having a marketing budget to getting shows/tours booked.
Hell, the internet is great for independent promotion of your content.
But what does it matter if you can’t afford to *create* your content in the first place?
October 26th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Robare:
That’s not really true.
>>The process of recording an album is *extremely* expensive. At least if you want to have a viable, professional sounding recording, the amount of time and money required is enourmous.>As far as the consumer goes, a song that is produced on a small budget is extremely unappealing because (much like high definition television) the lower quality “consumer end” level of recording is simply not good enough to the average person.>This being said, without being independently wealthy to begin with, a band needs significant capital investment just to have ANY recordings to market.>As far as touring is concerned, most venues (and certainly any venue that pays) want to hear a recording of the band prior to hiring them.>You need money to make a recording and a recording to play shows and you need to play shows to sell records and build a fan base…>But it’s invaluable for an artist, from producing and album to having a marketing budget to getting shows/tours booked.
October 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Well, the page just ate the hell out of my long as crap and detailed reply to Robare. Main points were:
With some knowledge, experience, and less than $10K, you can setup a pretty good home studio in which you can spend as much time as you want and do some pretty good recordings. Praise be to computers.
Even if you want to go the analog in-studio route, check out http://electrical.com/ , home of Steve Albini, who has recorded, among others, Nirvana, PJ Harvey, and Mono. If you practice ahead of time, you can lay down an album for just several thousand.
Booking small gigs typically requires a recording, yes, but not a major studio quality one. And booking bigger gigs requires guarantees that you can bring enough people, which depends more on your resume of sorts (”I’ve filled this and that venue”) than a recording.
An unsigned artist can do absolutely everything a major label can do, but they have to do it themselves. Most opt not to. But some do.
Major props to the BNL. Their success with this is based largely upon their past success, which was aided by a major label. That label, however, was not necessary for them to get this far.
I also think this works as a business model for any artist, unsigned or no. However, if you’ve only got a fanbase of 100, you’re not going to gross what they did. You’ll probably still have to sweat, bleed, and tour, tour, tour.
October 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
I like the band and can’t be bothered with them at the same time. They are condescending to fans while touting themselves as “social saviours”. I met them in person at a meet and greet they clearly wanted nothing to do with. I knew they would be like this because of the docu-ego trip they took a few years back. So bravo to taking out the middleman, but hone up on the people skills, especially Tyler.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:39 am
“Touring and radio play both combine to make a band popular, which in turn drive their albumn sales.
A band doesn’t need a recording contract for either of those things. ”
Whoops! Radio play requires a label. Labels even pay radio stations to NOT play unsigned artists. When was the last time you were driving down the street listening to all-indie bands playing their music? Not here. Not in most places either. Until we break radio stations of this habit, a business model like BNL’s won’t become widespread. Of course, if the stations break this deal with record companies, then they lose all the Metallica’s out there who love their labels for the money they make them. Whore on, Metallica, whore on.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
now we are fussing and now we are fightin. Nurit Hailey.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:13 am
The music industry is stuck on their old business model. Props to these guys for taking a stand… when will the others follow?