Avoid.

[Bass Reflections]

As a somewhat new label "owner" i can testify to the difficulty of getting new artists without paying an arm and a leg up front for everything. It also really pisses me off that people like this are the reason I have such difficulty gaining trust of artists i've never worked with.

THANKFULLY I have great relations with Access Denied and Mars, both of which would gladly vouch for me. Without the help from these guys and their word of mouth to fellow Eastern-European producers I'd still be on my 5th release instead of my 50th.

Also, any new labels out there... keep up the good work guys, it is tough but it gets better as time goes along

[plazadefunk]

Welcome to the exciting world of the music biz!!

I've had some good experiences and some pretty shit ones with regards to royalty payments, the worst two have been doing a remix for labels run by people who I thought were "friends" - and never seeing a contract back or any money ( we had agreed on 50/50 share of units sold). Mind you that was a few years ago, lesson learnt - meaning I never do remixes unless I get a flat fee these days.

Overall I've had the pleasure of meeting some very honest people though - Ian I do believe it's the principle that counts.
If you run a label professionally, as with every other thing you do, you have to get everything right. I would say failing to pay your artists, and to let them know how much they are entitled to, is a pretty important aspect, even if the payment amounts to 5 pounds.

[edb]

i know several who have had issues with him.. but tbh unless your release did really well (top 20 or so), you've probably not lost out on much money.

bill & adrian (i'll use you 2 as an an example) - is it a substantial amount of money that you are not being paid, or is it say 50 american, which translates to like 30 quid? is it such an amount that shaming him in public is really worth it? i realize it's the principle of the matter and all, but how much are we talking here?

that said - tbh, i've heard from someone who's tune went to #1 that they never saw anything, and were given a shit reason as to why.

just general curiosity here.

somehow though, that makes it even worse. I've dealt with (plenty of) unscrupulous characters in the music business over the years, and personally I'm not the sort of person that would take it public, although I have total sympathy for those who do.

It winds me up that this is the dance music scene, it's small, it's insular, we should be working FOR each other not trying to rip each other off. So when I see people ripping artists and DJs off, of course it's massively frustrating - that's what the major labels are for FFS, not some bellend who runs a tiny label - but even then, I can kind of understand if it's a reasonable amount of cash. You know, a thousand pounds or something could be a reasonable incentive to some people to bin friendships, trust, standing in the industry and all that.

But yeah, people will do you for 50 quid which is just unbelievable to me. To risk your reputation in a very public scene, to make enemies out of former friends and business partners, to guarantee that the people you worked with will be phoning their friends and telling them not to work with you, for the sake of a few quid - fuck it. Anyone who is not only crooked but also that petty, that prepared to cast aside their dignity and scrabble in the dirt, fuck them, call them out. Cunts.

[daniella downs]

i often wonder if glen really thought about the future funk squad name and how shortened it's the same thing as for fuck's sake.

maybe he did that on purpose.

sorry for the sidetrack, i just think that every time i see someone say FFS and not talking about him.

to play devils advocate - i dont argue with what plaza or you (ed) are saying at all, but on the flip of the coin, and this may or may not be a different argument - do you feel that some producers think they are worth more than they actually will bring back realisitically on the upfront fee thing?

tbh, and this is kind of along the same point as the drew down thing - bill/adrian - have you asked to see the sales sheets? i've shown ours to anyone who's asked. if their release didnt make any money - they got nothing (although tbh, i have paid out of my own pocket on occasion in those situations so that they did get something)

[Bass Reflections]

(although tbh, i have paid out of my own pocket on occasion in those situations so that they did get something)

I've done this as well. Some people put in some great effort and sometimes just don't earn any sales. I'd rather give them a little instead of send them home all torn down and distraught. I'd much rather give up some of my own cash if they're doing it right.

[shaman]

it shouldn't matter how much it is that is owed should it?

this is a business in which you do lots of little jobs, so if everyone decides it's not worth bothering writing a cheque, you get jack shit.

i have a problem when a shop tries to tell me they don't have enough change, so they want to short-change me 1p.

don't matter to me whether it's 1p or a ten pound note.

[edb]

i often wonder if glen really thought about the future funk squad name and how shortened it's the same thing as for fuck's sake.

maybe he did that on purpose.

sorry for the sidetrack, i just think that every time i see someone say FFS and not talking about him.

to play devils advocate - i dont argue with what plaza or you (ed) are saying at all, but on the flip of the coin, and this may or may not be a different argument - do you feel that some producers think they are worth more than they actually will bring back realisitically on the upfront fee thing?

that's a difficult one, because sales are dropping across the board and most producers are worth less, sales-wise, than they were a year ago. so I think people can be forgiven a little bit for asking high prices - we do have to eat too. But yeah, I'd say in general, producers ask a bit more than they're worth, labels offer a bit less than the producer is worth, and ideally we meet somewhere in the middle.

But also there's the non-financial side of things too - it's not all sales. There's a million new labels out there these days, all looking to boost their visibilty, and I don't think it's always entirely realistic for them to ask remixers to lower their fees just because the label lacks credibility and profile - which they'll hope to increase by getting some 'names' on board. Producers are always being told they should take a financial hit 'for the exposure', and I think perhaps labels should be prepared to do so too - if they want the exposure that a 'name brand' might bring, maybe they should have to fork out a little bit for it...

[Mike Darkfloor]

it shouldn't matter how much it is that is owed should it?

this is a business in which you do lots of little jobs, so if everyone decides it's not worth bothering writing a cheque, you get jack shit.

i have a problem when a shop tries to tell me they don't have enough change, so they want to short-change me 1p.

don't matter to me whether it's 1p or a ten pound note.

likewise. Principles do matter.

[Home Alone]

it shouldn't matter how much it is that is owed should it?

this is a business in which you do lots of little jobs, so if everyone decides it's not worth bothering writing a cheque, you get jack shit.

i have a problem when a shop tries to tell me they don't have enough change, so they want to short-change me 1p.

don't matter to me whether it's 1p or a ten pound note.

totally

[plazadefunk]

i often wonder if glen really thought about the future funk squad name and how shortened it's the same thing as for fuck's sake.

maybe he did that on purpose.

sorry for the sidetrack, i just think that every time i see someone say FFS and not talking about him.

to play devils advocate - i dont argue with what plaza or you (ed) are saying at all, but on the flip of the coin, and this may or may not be a different argument - do you feel that some producers think they are worth more than they actually will bring back realisitically on the upfront fee thing?

that's a difficult one, because sales are dropping across the board and most producers are worth less, sales-wise, than they were a year ago. so I think people can be forgiven a little bit for asking high prices - we do have to eat too. But yeah, I'd say in general, producers ask a bit more than they're worth, labels offer a bit less than the producer is worth, and ideally we meet somewhere in the middle.

But also there's the non-financial side of things too - it's not all sales. There's a million new labels out there these days, all looking to boost their visibilty, and I don't think it's always entirely realistic for them to ask remixers to lower their fees just because the label lacks credibility and profile - which they'll hope to increase by getting some 'names' on board. Producers are always being told they should take a financial hit 'for the exposure', and I think perhaps labels should be prepared to do so too - if they want the exposure that a 'name brand' might bring, maybe they should have to fork out a little bit for it...

+ 100, this is how major labels work these days

Virgin for instance always have high profile dance remixers for their pop tunes, and they get paid EXTREMELY well

do the remixes make the money back? no. does the label gain credibility in a world where they wouldn't even know where to start advertising? very much so.
instead of paying for a page in mixmag, they pay a "trendy" remixer that will boost their artist's name in a different market.

Of course in the dance music world, the fees and the budgets are much smaller.
I see it this way, and totally agree with Ed: these days labels are an extremely easy business to set up, with practically no overheads if you are running digital only.
Now, if you don't even want to fork out the money to pay a remix fee to boost your label's profile by having a "name" remix - unless you have a MONSTER original it's not very likely to be a success story, is it?

[daniella downs]

that's a difficult one, because sales are dropping across the board and most producers are worth less, sales-wise, than they were a year ago. so I think people can be forgiven a little bit for asking high prices - we do have to eat too. But yeah, I'd say in general, producers ask a bit more than they're worth, labels offer a bit less than the producer is worth, and ideally we meet somewhere in the middle.

But also there's the non-financial side of things too - it's not all sales. There's a million new labels out there these days, all looking to boost their visibilty, and I don't think it's always entirely realistic for them to ask remixers to lower their fees just because the label lacks credibility and profile - which they'll hope to increase by getting some 'names' on board. Producers are always being told they should take a financial hit 'for the exposure', and I think perhaps labels should be prepared to do so too - if they want the exposure that a 'name brand' might bring, maybe they should have to fork out a little bit for it...

yes and no. there's a techno producer that jamie sapien and i really like. he aint cheap, and wont come off his price that, to be honest, is more than we've paid anyone upfront. we really want it, so we're willing to take the potential hit on it even tho (in my mind, and i could be wrong) - i dont know if he'll bring it back. we're willing to do it because we love his stuff, and having a mix of his would be good for the label, but in that situation, it's definitely us taking the risk and the potential financial hit.

this isnt meant as a dickish thing to say at all - so hopefully it won't be taken that way. most label workers (heads/managers/etc - people who put the money in upfront for tunes/remixes/mastering/etc) - have real jobs aside from this, because, as you said - we have to eat as well, and we're realistic that breaks alone just aint gonna put food on our plate right now. is it unrealistic to think that it is? let me ask you this ed (and this whole paragraph is really me just playing devil's advocate - doesn't mean i agree or disagree - cuz i see your point 100%) - have you gotten gigs/prs money/etc as a result of things you've done for labels and have not been paid for that the people running the label have not?

[Bass Reflections]

Edit: fuck the business discussion. The main point of this thread was PAY YOUR ARTISTS.

[daniella downs]

im not disagreeing with that, just up for some spirited discussion.

[daniella downs]

ed/plaza - it's only 10:37 here. if you could hurry up and answer me so i can write a paragraph long response that will hopefully eat up another 15 minutes of my workday, that'd be awesome.

[Bass Reflections]

im not disagreeing with that, just up for some spirited discussion.

Hehe yeah, i'm not saying you guys shouldn't continue. I typed a long winded rant about this stuff and decided to edit it out and that was the only good line i could come up with

Continue on gents!

[edb]

that's a difficult one, because sales are dropping across the board and most producers are worth less, sales-wise, than they were a year ago. so I think people can be forgiven a little bit for asking high prices - we do have to eat too. But yeah, I'd say in general, producers ask a bit more than they're worth, labels offer a bit less than the producer is worth, and ideally we meet somewhere in the middle.

But also there's the non-financial side of things too - it's not all sales. There's a million new labels out there these days, all looking to boost their visibilty, and I don't think it's always entirely realistic for them to ask remixers to lower their fees just because the label lacks credibility and profile - which they'll hope to increase by getting some 'names' on board. Producers are always being told they should take a financial hit 'for the exposure', and I think perhaps labels should be prepared to do so too - if they want the exposure that a 'name brand' might bring, maybe they should have to fork out a little bit for it...

yes and no. there's a techno producer that jamie sapien and i really like. he aint cheap, and wont come off his price that, to be honest, is more than we've paid anyone upfront. we really want it, so we're willing to take the potential hit on it even tho (in my mind, and i could be wrong) - i dont know if he'll bring it back. we're willing to do it because we love his stuff, and having a mix of his would be good for the label, but in that situation, it's definitely us taking the risk and the potential financial hit.

this isnt meant as a dickish thing to say at all - so hopefully it won't be taken that way. most label workers (heads/managers/etc - people who put the money in upfront for tunes/remixes/mastering/etc) - have real jobs aside from this, because, as you said - we have to eat as well, and we're realistic that breaks alone just aint gonna put food on our plate right now. is it unrealistic to think that it is? let me ask you this ed (and this whole paragraph is really me just playing devil's advocate - doesn't mean i agree or disagree - cuz i see your point 100%) - have you gotten gigs/prs money/etc as a result of things you've done for labels and have not been paid for that the people running the label have not?

yeah, although of course no PRS money from remixes. I do get gigs, and I do get a small amount of PRS money, but I'm more inclined to consider it as part of the long-term work that I've done, rather than any particular track. I've put out <counts> 74 tracks so far, and with it I've gradually built my profile to the point where I get a few gigs too. I wouldn't say any one track has particularly account for any one gig, and I've done a lot of work and DJ mixes and online PR to get there too. I'd say they bring in - on average - £3 each per year in PRS, so again, it's handy but it's not going to pay my rent, and I don't think it's worth dropping my fee by 50% to do such a remix.

but no, I don't think it's realistic for anyone to expect to make a living solely from breaks right now, or indeed since 2008ish. I've got a number of side-projects which may or may not work. I'll also be self-releasing a lot more stuff from now on!

if you could hurry up and answer me

[daniella downs]

there's no prs money for remixes?

as far as i know, we dont have prs or an equivalent in the states (well, we do technically i guess, but it's so much fewer and far between that i dont even bother with it)

[plazadefunk]

there's no prs money for remixes?

as far as i know, we dont have prs or an equivalent in the states (well, we do technically i guess, but it's so much fewer and far between that i dont even bother with it)

Nope, the original is registered in the original artist's name and that's the person who gets the prs.

Isn't the US equivalent of PRS Ascap/Bmi? It's a huge organization that hands out plenty of money as far as I know...

[edb]

there's no prs money for remixes?

as far as i know, we dont have prs or an equivalent in the states (well, we do technically i guess, but it's so much fewer and far between that i dont even bother with it)

there is, but it goes to the person who produced the original track! I know you guys have an equivalent in ASCAP but I don't know the first thing about them....

[daniella downs]

Nope, the original is registered in the original artist's name and that's the person who gets the prs.

Isn't the US equivalent of PRS Ascap/Bmi? It's a huge organization that hands out plenty of money as far as I know...

what i mean is there are so many less stations that play dance music here than there.

correction - so many less stations that play the type of music we put out than there.

why does it go to the original producer if it wasnt their arrangement of that got the radio play? that makes no sense to me. especially considering half the remixes out there are a brand new tune!