Anthony Flack wrote:Google has decided I'm worth a go and has started to bombard me with ads for small-run vinyl pressing. Thanks for your concern, Google.Haha oh no!I am still settling with this new trend of websites begging me to not block ads. Eventually it'll just show ads anyway while asking to show more ads.Boombats wrote:Digital is for the people

losthighway wrote:We've concluded that 200 records is actually perfect for us. It pretty much comes down to 40- 60 are sold the week it comes out, which is mainly at a release party. The same amount is sold over the following year. Then the last chunk could take another 3-5 years. i think that is a great approximate of what any decent band can expect. which adds another variable to the equation - will your band last another 3 to 5 years? if not, you're limiting yourself to the sales from the first year.again, if you have unlimited funds or enjoy losing money, do the vinyl with a download card in addition to a digital download. however, if you can't stand losing money, think long and hard before you decide to go the vinyl route.

andteater wrote:i think that is a great approximate of what any decent band can expect.It really depends where you live and how big the music scene is.

Google has decided I'm worth a go and has started to bombard me with ads for small-run vinyl pressing. Thanks for your concern, Google.

Streaming: Bandcamp, Spotify etc. Digital (mp3 for convenience and lossless for hifi)Vinyl records: for when you have the budget and want a cool physical format to sell. I have a stack of tapes and CDs on my shelf that people have given me. Some of them are unopened. I don't have anything to play them back on and I hate both formats.

Vinyl is for the collectors. Digital is for the people. Vinyl is for the old and/or privileged enough to have a space where you can set up a record player, and time to hang out in peace enough to experience an album. Many people do not have that privilege, and so vinyl is not relevant to them. However if you are only putting out dad rock, nurdmusik or ikeacore, then your target demographic is bespoke and curated and artisanal and all that shit, so yeah vinyl is as relevant as the rest of your home decor.

Personally, I think the format are the people, as someone already said (very well) above.It makes more sense for your band (or you as a solo artist) to get with nice people who have access to more people. That may very well mean releasing a tape these days, deal with it, make it your friend. If you reasonably have that option and the choice is between releasing a tape on a platform that will reach a couple more people (if you make a little effort to find one among the many out there) or press an LP yourself and push it on your Facebook and lug it to your (relatively few) shows and on tourettes, I think you're a little nuts. Then I think, probably justifiably, that you are more hung up on your vanity item that proves something esoteric to you than you are interested in people you don't yet know learning about your music.EDIT: a general comment not directed at the post above.

Anthony Flack wrote:There's lots more I want to comment on later, but I have never seen a painter sell their work for less than the cost of materials. Even dodgy amateurs rate themselves higher than that.I'm not against the idea of people doing loss-making pressings. But I like to look at these things in an unromantic way.One thing hopefully everybody can agree on is that boxes of unsold records sitting in basements are pointless, so whatever you do, you should try not to end up with that. How does everybody feel about paying people to take your record?That's assuming that every painting is sold. But the point was less about the economics of it, but instead about how the cultural/artistic experience supersedes the nickels and dimes for a lot of people, but obviously not everyone. I agree though about the count on pressings. Since my current band can't feasibly tour for serious we're limited to local shows and distro to ardent collectors who follow the label. We've concluded that 200 records is actually perfect for us. It pretty much comes down to 40- 60 are sold the week it comes out, which is mainly at a release party. The same amount is sold over the following year. Then the last chunk could take another 3-5 years. Our first record is half a decade old and it topped out around 200 copies sold, but we pressed 300. The newest one we cut down to 200, and didn't think too hard about the incredibly low profit margin we get per unit with the unavoidable expenses of mastering, plating, setup costs etc.If you're not associated with a cultish collector genre (this is where metal bands, old school hardcore bands, old school punk bands and a few other genres seem to excel) you can only expect your reach to go so far if you're not promoting the shit out of yourself.

jimmy spako wrote: or press an LP yourself and push it on your Facebook and lug it to your (relatively few) shows and on tourettes, I think you're a little nuts. Then I think, probably justifiably, that you are more hung up on your vanity item that proves something esoteric to you than you are interested in people you don't yet know learning about your music.EDIT: a general comment not directed at the post above.I don't take it as a jab directed at me, but it's generally true, and I think actually true of me.If you dig, the entire process is about hang ups on esoteric ideas. I think the fact that we have to make choices about how we release pre-recorded music inevitably pushes into that territory.I own a studio, if I want to record something, I can pay someone a bit to master it and make it sound nicer, do the design myself and throw it up on Bandcamp/facebook/youtube. It could be released within a week or two of completion, and for little-or-no money. Anyone who may be interested can click 'play' and listen, some might actually download. This is already an aspect of what we do, but it's not how I personally interact with music the majority of the time. To put something on vinyl means you (perhaps vainly as you suggest) are hoping someone puts the needle down and lets the whole side play in whatever room they're in, that they might take out the insert and read the lyrics, that they might scrutinize the 12" x 12" graphic design that was intended to accompany the sounds they are hearing.This is perhaps an outdated idea of what it means to consume music, but it's arguably different from an online experience. Again, to call to another art-form, it's like how photographers might shell out the cash for nicer prints to put up at a show at some financial risk because first and foremost they aren't wholly satisfied with a website hosting their passion as some digital ephemera. Or perhaps why some indie filmmakers indulge in a theater tour with their film, when they could let it stream digitally as far as they could reach. The cultivation of a specific experience of the art form is inherently vain, but it's also valuable.

Bernardo wrote:Personally, I'd see no advantage in the fact that there is something exclusive about it, it'd be more about having no alternative to get the damn record other than paying 5 dollars more than if 500 copies were made.Thinking waste-wise here. My bandmate has an old 7" label with maybe a half a dozen 'in print' releases in his basement. From mostly broken up nobody bands. Hopefully that plastic gets recycled one day and not end up in a dump.I don't mean annoying collector 'limited' stuff that sells out in 5 minutes either (must be a nice problem to have, stoner rock and hardcore labels..). Press enough for the people who really want it and some new fans along the way but don't be delusional.It also means I eventually WILL be able to get a copy of the Lardo record.For the record there are now 3