As in:

“(c)**date** , Your Name (or the ‘name’ you chose as your music’s ‘tag’(i,e., ‘Publishing Name’: “It’s Mine” Music, Inc.)”

“Lyrics and Music By—” This one is simple. ALWAYS credit yourself, or whoever wrote the song. Not only is it proper respect, but it’s a ’safety measure’ against ANYONE who would record it and call it their own.

“Label Exclusive”: for all of us ‘unsigned artists’, dig this: You are your OWN ‘Label’ (especially if you have more than one song). Examples could be ‘Your Name records’ or ‘Your Publishing Name records.) This also works if you’re ’signed’: Said ‘Major Label’ must also include your tag–meaning you can take your songs ANYWHERE you see fit (Example: David Bowie’s MAINMAN Prod. Originally signed to RCA, Bowie took his catalog WITH HIM when he left in 1985, because he owned the rights. MAINMAN Prod. only used RCA to distribute the records–get it?)

Finally, and most important, is this phrase:

“All Rights Reserved.” Meaning, if someone wants to record your song, they’ll have to either credit and/or contact you to get the go ahead (and PAY you ‘royalties’ if you hook up with BMI or ASCAP.).

So, to put it simply, by ‘Siging Your Song’, it should look like this:

SONG TITLE: Yours
ARTIST:You
LYRICS AND/OR MUSIC: You
(c): Whatever year written and/or recorded
‘PUBLISHER’: You (’publishing name’, if you choose)
‘LABEL’: Your ‘Label name’
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

And, that should just be the basics. You ONLY need a Lawyer when you get signed by some huge conglomerate. But, for us small guys, this alone is security.

Hey What do you mean by “sign” your songs? I think I get the idea but I’m wondering if you know something I don’t know. Thanks

Well, as ANY of us on Broadjam.com know first hand, it’s HARD to get new music out there. And it’s not for a loss of trying. It’s just this ‘corporation’ or that ‘conglomerate’ spoon-feeding everyone what ‘we must hear’/'we must have’/'we must want’/'we must get’—–

you know where I’m going with this, don’t you?

Then, there are those who, like me, have held onto our master tapes (be they Studio Pro, or home cassettes) and want to release them whenever they see fit. I have held onto MY cassette masters for over 20 years–just releasing them now on Broadjam!–mainly out of frustration for not having anyone to give me a chance back-in-the-day, but at the same time because it’s something I accomplished.

It may be too late to make some serious money off of these tracks, but if I do, then great. If I don’t, but folks download them out of curiosity, then even better. Why? Because, it’s exposure. And that’s more important than worrying about anyone who’s gonna steal your music.

To solve that problem, you must ‘Sign’ your songs(always with Songwriter/Composer, ‘Publisher’-which is YOU, and ‘Label-exclusive’–also YOU!). It’s a little trick I learned back in the day. After all, that ’sound’ is yours.

I appreciate the thoughts and I found them interesting although it’s apples and grapes to compare giving away cars to giving away music. You give away music to promote yourself in hopes to make money in other ways. Companies will give free beta versions of products, you can even get a car for free if you are willing to drive one around with advertisments on it and attend a few promo events in it per year. This is not for acknowledgement, obviously. It’s called promotion.

It’s also sort of a catch 22 because once money and music get mixed the quality of music goes down as well. Has anyone listened to the radio or watched MTV lately?? But at the same time we need to “Feed the Bulldogs” so as artist we are sort of stuck.

My thoughts

In the ’80s, a musician by the name of Keith Green went to his record label and asked them if he could be released from his contract. He told them he felt like he needed to give away his records (vinyl back then, folks! Hasn’t been that long ago. . .), and his contract wouldn’t allow him to do that. They released him from his contract, and he started his own label, PRETTY GOOD RECORDS. They were available on a whatever-you-can-afford basis. Even if it meant free. I think giving away your music is a revolutionary idea, and so in January of this year, I started making my CDs available at my concerts for whatever people could afford. Sure, I’ve given away tons of CDs this year for free, but I’ve also had some generous souls slip me a $100 bill for one CD and say, “Hey, man. I appreciate your generosity. Makes me want to give more and support you!” This is the age of self-promotion and self-production in the music world. I believe our music has been in the hands of the record labels for too long now. If the fans are truly on our side, they will support us financially, even if we end up giving a lot of music away. At the same time, we need to be extremely vocal about piracy and warn people every chance we get that when they download or copy music without permission, they are stealing and breaking the law. I’ve got lots of friends who don’t feel any qualms at all about continuing to download music illegally. Interestingly enough, I read a column by Stephen King in Entertainment Weekly several months ago that really burned me up. He was bragging about some great tunes that he had heard. He then went on to reveal that with all the new technology, it is now easy for him to burn copies of his favorite music and give out mix CDs to his friends. Okay. This is the same guy who shut down his online book THE PLANT because people weren’t paying for the chapters. I wonder how Stephen would feel if his fans started photocopying his books and putting them in loose-leaf binders to give to friends? Anyway, I’ve rambled long enough. Thanks for the opportunity to sound off!

As non- performing songwriter who won’t get an opportunity to recoup production costs through ticket sales and merchandise, this is a very good
debate. While some musicians are gifted with technological expertise, and can take advantage of the home studio craze, there are some of us who must rely on a producer for decent sounding demos. Bottom line is- a good production will always boost your song and good productions cost good money. I think it’s just great that anyone, including publishers or artists can go to my site and listen to a fully produced, industry standard demo.
In my case, I have several songs with publishers for consideration. Consideration takes time. What happens if I make my songs available for digital download and the phone call comes that says ‘We want it”. How does having a downloadable song impact my potential deal?
As the music business model continues to evolve in this digital age, there are a lot of questions to be answered.
While the need to be heard is the prime reason for creating music, the writers can’t shoulder the whole burden of cost.
I am a fan of the 99 cent song. No one can argue that.

Two quick comments:

The first relates to the ongoing thread above related to selling or giving your music away, copyrighting, piracy, etc. As usual, I think the truth isn’t black or white, but in the grey between. My point being I think it makes the most sense to give some of your music away as a loss leader, while still attempting to sell the rest. This works even if you are ‘just a studio musician’ working on audio for video. In this case you don’t get ‘paid back’ through tickets and merchandise, but instead through the results of your marketing, which includes giving away some music.

The second thought is just an idea for a ‘tweak’ to the broadjam site, which is currently my favorite such digital download site by the way. I think where ever the songs are listed (on the artists home page and download pages, for example), the primary genre should be shown after the song title. I think this would be very useful, for people checking out songs by an artists who records across many different genres.

this is an interesting debate. ‘peepznrg’ - while I appreciate the sentiment of copyright and the protection offered - it does not, I’m afraid “take care of all the potential problems” - if it did there would be no court cases!

If your music is available for download for free

Thanks to John Croissier for his thoughts. Personally and ideally, I agree with John. We started selling downloads on Broadjam last Wednesday. Almost every day since our launch I have bought music from our artists, simply because I want to support them. Not because I can’t get it for free, as most of the artists would probably provide it if I asked. I, like John, believe that all artists should be compensated for their work. This is where the technology side of my brain clashes with the artistic side. At times I feel that when I make this suggestion it’s contradictory to selling music on Broadjam and I still question myself as to whether or not I should even bring it up. But it’s not for me to determine what you should do with your music. My job is to help you do what you want with it. The reason we are selling downloads on Broadjam is because our artists asked for it and I believe that many of their fans will buy their music at a fair price for years to come. I am pleasantly surprised and very encouraged by the number of download sales we have had in a week. I do believe that most people will support independent artists and buy their music online. I believe that most people aren’t thieves. If I, and many of our artists, didn’t believe this, Broadjam wouldn’t be selling downloads and allocating the highest payout to artists (that we know of) on the web.

Realistically, the music world is moving to the web and at this point in time there is nothing anyone can do on any website to prevent illegal copying. As I said, files can be protected, but audio cannot. It’s marketing departments that are creating this myth that your music is protected on the web. It isn’t protected anywhere - Radio, TV, the web, CDs, cassettes, albums, etc.

As I mentioned earlier, promoting your music using the “free” or “lost leader” method is something only you can decide. The web simply makes it easier to access music for free. However, every time we hand someone a CD or transfer an Mp3, there is a risk it will be copied and some unscrupulous person will put it on a file sharing network or on another CD. I am certainly not condoning this, I’m simply saying it’s real and it’s probably the future of music. I believe at some point in my lifetime, access to music will be free. I also believe that artists will be compensated more fairly than they are now.

How is that possible?

Google recently announced that they are providing free Internet access to anyone in the San Francisco area. I believe this will change our industry in years to come. It’s possible that at some point in the future they will not only provide Internet access, but content as well. If I were a Telco or a big entertainment company, I would be wondering about the future of my business. This could open huge doors for indie artists as advertising dollars will certainly be generated and hopefully artists will be compensated more fairly than they are now.

I’d love to hear your opinions and suggestions, so keep your thoughts coming. If you’re uncomfortable posting in this public blog, you can email me directly at Roy@broadjam.com.

Roy

The fact is there are plenty of people buying independent music (I’ve even sold a few on Broadjam already!!!!)

The “being greedy” theory just does not compute with me…taking music when it’s given to you or even a free ticcket does not make you greedy and that just sounds silly when I say it out loud. There are plenty of ways to support an artist besides buying an Mp3 or paying for a ticket. You can tell your friends about this band, you can burn a copy and spread the music around, you can put out fliers for the show or you can do a million other things that don’t cost a thing to support this band. If the band is ungrateful for these things then well they will lose support of their fans. Nothing pissed me off more than Metallica suing their fans for liking there music…they have lost my support completely for a lack of class.

The movie score people on this blog I thought had some good points until I realized that copywriting their music would take care of all the potential problems that were brought up.
I honestly don’t have the answers as to how to utilize the internet to effectively market my music but the way it used to be didn’t have any advantages for indies, so I feel at least things are getting better. Any marketing tips are appreciated!

David Goodall made some interesting points in support of the non-performing composer. He has pointed out that this blog has been primarily focused on the performing musician. What about the songwriter or film composer? Believe it or not, access to placement for composers is available through TAXI and other companies like them. The web has increased the number of these opportunities significantly for writers and will probably enable more to make a living in the future.

As David says, there are numerous loopholes, but I don’t believe and/or know anyone in this business who would knowingly acquire music for commercial use without the proper licensing. If they did, their “you-know-what” would be handed to them in a sling by the copyright holders. Most publishers and song pluggers would stay away from them because of this. In fact, most companies will not accept unsolicited material for fear “similar melody” complaints might be filed. I agree the performing rights societies have done a great job at preventing the exploitation of songwriters. They are on top of it.

Years ago, I think it was Todd Rundgren that suggested or possibly even had a subscription-based system for buying his music. If it wasn’t Todd, my apologies to him and the artist I’m forgetting. Basically, it worked like this: you pay $25 a year, and you get a song every month and other merchandise as well. It’s an interesting concept and as Judith points out, if you don’t tour then recouping production costs becomes more difficult. She suggests giving away a song on a regular basis and this is not far off from the “Rundgren” model. I think only you as the artist can make that decision for your music, but you might want to think about it. Although most of this discussion and concept are only relevant to touring artists, this might be something you try if you’re composing and you want to sell music to the public.

Some intersting comments and a very creative idea
to look at the piracy issue and come up with a marketing strategy to counter it.

I however see things from the perspective if something was created /made by an artist
and a consumer is entertained by the artists work regardless how much easier some may think it is to produce music with the new technology. An artist should be compensated.
profit is not a dirty word In my opinion. How I have supported an artist is to purchase their work and or pay to see them at a live show.

I even turn down the “can you get me in for free list from artist I know.

I see this as “being greedy” only thinking of your
self and why should I pay like others do when I can get for free.”you could tell the artist -I love your music however not enough to give 99 pennies or pay for a ticket to your show.

In addition I must after understanding how it is impossible to protect your music on the web. It seems rather odd if not commical to even consider signing up to sell your music on broadjam. muchless continue the web site especialy after some individuals download and record your music to there hard drive then burn copies to further insure others from purchasing your music.

I quess your idea promoting your band sounds good however some of us produce music for film and television and selling online would have been a great extra income.

It doesn’t sound like selling your music online more like display your music for for free downloads to the public. I hope I am wrong and there is a high percentage of people out there that want to truly support artist. At least the way I think it should be done. Just one persons opinion.

Thanks for bringing this subject up for comments.

JC.

It’s an interesting point about the ability to produce music at a high-quality level for little cost. And when you think about it, we are still only 10–15 years into the music software revolution. For years I was involved with companies that make great cost-effective tools to make great music (Ensoniq and Sonic Foundry). The quality of these tools and others have enabled artists who don’t have the cash to create great music. When I started Broadjam, (I must admit) I thought that a high percentage of the music uploaded to us would have poor to average arrangements and productions. Boy was I wrong! Artistic opinions aside, a large percentage of the music on Broadjam is well produced. As Potentialfire pointed out, the production process is getting easier and the output is getting better. With each passing day, it’s more about the art and not neat studio tricks that most can’t afford.

One of my favorite quotes on this blog so far is from Potentialfire: “…despite the vast resources of the internet, people still can’t find all the music they want.” I spend hours every day poking through our site, and other sites, looking for that next great song or artist. A couple of days ago we launched download sales on our site and it forced me to dig into Broadjam even further. Since Wednesday, I have purchased music from the following artists on Broadjam: Threebag, Shadows of the Vague, Kelly Collins, Jonathan Geer, Helen Allen, Naste, Beth Stalker, John Thomas Oaks, Derrick Procell, Steve and Tracy Adams, Joe Vitale Jr., and Fred Kimmel. Aside from Adams, Vitale and Kimmel, I have never met any of these artists or seen them live. I simply bought their music because they are good and one or two of their songs have hit my sweet spot. It had nothing to do with their look, history or marketing package. It’s all about the music for me, and nothing else.

Another great quote that I’ll probably borrow comes from Cojo. “I should be so lucky that there are people out there who WANT to steal my music.” As I mentioned in the past, I have worked on numerous software products. One of the marketing methods for us and other companies was to give out lite versions hoping that the customer would upgrade. Maybe we could look at the way software companies market their products and learn a little from them. Love this quote.

As Tspoon said, artists do have more power now and it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Many agree with Tspoon and think the big labels will become less important in the big picture and they may never really recover from this evened-out playing field. I don’t ever count big money and their marketing machines out. I know a lot of intelligent people who work at labels and I’m sure they’re cookin’ up something…

Buffcode makes an excellent point as well. If the music isn’t good, no one’s buying or even stealing it for that matter. You still have to make great music. It’s so hard to listen to our own music and be objective. The best objective way to find out if people want it is to give them access to it. Whether it’s for sale or free, we need to know if they want it.

Another great observation came from Peepznrg: Artists actually get rich and famous from being talented. What a concept! To expand my horizons and my musical tastes, I used to buy every album that made the Top 10 on Billboard and forced myself to listen to the entire thing. I usually had to buy one or two albums a week. Now, I couldn’t even tell you who is in the Billboard Top 10 because I’m more interested in good original, untouched music. I don’t care what the market demands, I know what I want. With all of the great independent music sites in the world—Garageband, CD Baby, Pure Volume, (hopefully I can throw Broadjam in there as well)—I don’t have to go far to find something that meets my specific tastes. And now I don’t have to listen to what someone else has prescribed for me. I can now support the artists for being talented and not for just being signed.

I think there are valid points here, but they do come from one corner of the music world. I agree that money can be made from ticket sales and merchandising, but there are legal hurdles to check before leaping.

As a film & TV composer