dubstepforum.com
worldwide dubstep community

Not sure where to post this...
I am considering putting together a dubstep influenced comp. The concept is this:
50 or so minutes of individual tracks, Plus 50 or so min. mix of these tracks in MP3 (CD extra). The CD would also be offered at retail MP3 sites. The 50 minute mix (not beatmatched, but nicely mixed) would be given away as a free track (where possible). I am not looking for cookie-cutter dubstep, but anything dark, slow with alot of bass with a groove - anything from Burial & Boxcutter to Scorn and Techno Animal. Tempo does not have to be 140. I am not against vocals, but I would probably not opt for ragga or hip-hop unless its really good.

I wanna see how this goes, see if anyone is interested.

FINANCIALS:
No required submission funds, although hard copies of CDs will be $3.50 (+ shipping, see contract). 50% of net profit made will be returned to the artists through paypal (if Artist share exceeds $20).

REQUIREMENTS:
The submission *must* include a signed copy of the contract. http://www.uncoiledloops.com/Dubstep-contract.txt
Please turn on word wrap before printing - any ledgable font size will work. Initial each sheet. Submission can be digital (email link of song and legibly scanned contract). Contact headaque@yahoo.com to submit digitally or for address to ship CD (be sure to include "Dubstep comp" in the subject). Liner notes section MAY be edited for content.

TRACK FORMAT REQUIREMENTS:
Submissions must be the final version (i.e. no rough drafts). Submissions must be at a MINIMUM 44.1hz 16 bit files. Mailed CDs must be in data format. FLAC or SHN or MKW zipping acceptable. Mastered versions required. No EQ edits will be made, only volume changes. I recommend shooting for -12 dB RMS for best results.

Any questions email me at headaque@yahoo.com - be sure to include "Dubstep comp" in the subject.

I have refreshed my interest in doing this - I currently have 3 interested parties. I also am looking into licensing a track from a known artist. Please e-mail me or PM me if you have interest.

all looks a bit formal, with contracts and everything

i can give you tunes, but i'm not printing out bits of paper and sending them snail mail (no have scanner)

why not just state what you're going to do and then stick to it? its not like i'm going to sue someone off the internet who could be in any country of the world so what use are the contracts to us really?

you can check out my sounds on the links in my sig, if you want tunes let me know [no contract]

yea i see nothing in that contract covering the writers share in digital sales, licensing, mechanical royalties etc, or anything other than the cd sale pyramid scheme deal being sold directly to artists to resell themselves, and even that doesn't specify a clear cut profit share besides that 50% net split which is very vague.
that and saying you have the right to sub license a non-exclusive right work wouldn't work either.

wow, sounds like you actually read it!

boomstix wrote:wow, sounds like you actually read it!

i'm no stranger to the world of contracts

Deadly Habit wrote:the cd sale pyramid scheme deal being sold directly to artists to resell themselves

so what ur saying is, this makes money for the label only cos the impoverished artists buy CDs of their own music back again (so they can sell them or use them for promo)? or u weren't quite going that far?

do ppl do this? just put out CDs knowing they aint gonna bother promoting or anything, sure in the knowledge that they'll make a few hundred $ just by selling a few CDs back to the artists?

not saying that this what's happening here, cos ive really no idea, but i got to say that the bit about "considering" and "refreshed my interest" sound pretty halfhearted. and if a label were really serious about selling a compilation then I wldve thought that licensing "name" artists tracks was essential, rather than something to "look into". a bunch of unknowns off a dodgy forum aint exactly a good investment if u really gonna try and market this.

shit dick

Mico Viejo wrote:

Deadly Habit wrote:the cd sale pyramid scheme deal being sold directly to artists to resell themselves

so what ur saying is, this makes money for the label only cos the impoverished artists buy CDs of their own music back again (so they can sell them or use them for promo)? or u weren't quite going that far?

do ppl do this? just put out CDs knowing they aint gonna bother promoting or anything, sure in the knowledge that they'll make a few hundred $ just by selling a few CDs back to the artists?

not saying that this what's happening here, cos ive really no idea, but i got to say that the bit about "considering" and "refreshed my interest" sound pretty halfhearted. and if a label were really serious about selling a compilation then I wldve thought that licensing "name" artists tracks was essential, rather than something to "look into". a bunch of unknowns off a dodgy forum aint exactly a good investment if u really gonna try and market this.

lets just say that the price listed for an artist to get a copy of this comp is about 2x the price per unit it would cost to duplicate 500 cds with printing, inlays, case, and shrink wrap and that's not including shipping...

Yes, the terms in addition to the year lapse between the start of this thread lead me to believe:

1. The original poster is inexperienced and this record wont be released or promoted well.
2. He really isn't that passionate about it, I mean, a year...?

I don't mean to discourage anyone, just pointing out some read flags.

Sure, for an artist well established this comp is not for you. I don't want to make any promises that I wont keep (in terms of getting named artists) so yes, just "looking into it." if it happens I'll let you know.

the main thing to remember:
no purchase nescesary, no minimum to buy.

So if no one buys any I'm footing the whole bill. In my experience, not many people are buying CDs anymore. I'm hoping to do a little co-op to cover some costs, but if it doesnt work out, I'm willing to get the thing going anyhow.

I know many people don't like contracts, but its getting pretty difficult to even press CDs without the artists signature.

The reason I need to sub-license is because I have no outlet to put music on i-tunes without sublicensing (tunecore would be a sublicense).

I've actually been spending some time on putting out other music, I just hadn't had any bites here, but elsewhere I've found some interest in a dubstep comp recently so I'm back interested.

So tell me why, if you have tracks on some random website for free download already, wouldn't this comp be of interest?

Eops wrote:

Deadly Habit wrote:

boomstix wrote:wow, sounds like you actually read it!

i'm no stranger to the world of contracts

Watch and learn - YOU GOTS TO READ THE CONTRACT!

i hear that!

@OP,

what you said makes sense, do you have any links to other stuff you've done?

hEADaCHE wrote:Sure, for an artist well established this comp is not for you. I don't want to make any promises that I wont keep (in terms of getting named artists) so yes, just "looking into it." if it happens I'll let you know.

the main thing to remember:
no purchase nescesary, no minimum to buy.

So if no one buys any I'm footing the whole bill. In my experience, not many people are buying CDs anymore. I'm hoping to do a little co-op to cover some costs, but if it doesnt work out, I'm willing to get the thing going anyhow.

I know many people don't like contracts, but its getting pretty difficult to even press CDs without the artists signature.

The reason I need to sub-license is because I have no outlet to put music on i-tunes without sublicensing (tunecore would be a sublicense).

I've actually been spending some time on putting out other music, I just hadn't had any bites here, but elsewhere I've found some interest in a dubstep comp recently so I'm back interested.

So tell me why, if you have tracks on some random website for free download already, wouldn't this comp be of interest?

just some of the things in the contract contradict each other
like non exclusive and sub licensing

I guess I'm not sure what you find contradictory, the writer (lets say you) are licensing non-exclusively your work to me, meaning you can also license it elsewhere, and I (as uncoiled loops) reserve the right to sub-license the tracks to another entity such as I-tunes.

Let me know if this is what you are talking about. I suppose its possible there is a mistake in there somewhere, I can't guarantee I'm perfect (although I did pour over it!)

Right now I have 8 interested parties, I'd like to have 10.