CDBaby new covers policy - good or bad?

[richardmac]

You can now EASILY and legally record a cover tune and put it on iTunes, via CDBaby. It costs 15 bucks, plus an extra 10 cents per song.

 

So for $17.50 I can put up a cover song on iTunes and that covers royalties for the first 25 downloads. Then if I get additional downloads I can pay essentially 10 cents per track. Of course, iTunes takes an additional cut, as does CDBaby. Haven't done the math but let's round and say you keep 50 cents of every buck made or 50%. It's probably a little more.

 

From an artist's standpoint, this is pretty cool. If your cover track gets attention and downloads, you make money plus it can make people curious about your original music.

 

From a fan's standpoint, uh... maybe not so cool? Now I'll get to wade through 40 cover versions of a track to get to the original recording? Or, "Just what the world needs - more cover tunes."

 

So what do you think? Good idea or bad, and would you consider releasing a cover on iTunes?

 

I think I'd do it if it could help me gain attention. You're not out a whole lot of money if it doesn't work.

[fatusstratus]

 

From an artist's standpoint, this is pretty cool. If your cover track gets attention and downloads, you make money plus it can make people curious about your original music. From a fan's standpoint, uh... maybe not so cool? Now I'll get to wade through 40 cover versions of a track to get to the original recording? Or, "Just what the world needs - more cover tunes." So what do you think? Good idea or bad, and would you consider releasing a cover on iTunes?

 

 

 

I think it's just another instance of the "how do we filter?" question

and might just come down to how search results are ordered and filtered

by popularity, by rating, maybe something tiered by some sort of classification, that sort of thing.

 

How it'll play out for the original must...dunno, It'll probably vary a lot.

 

sometimes if I hear a clever cover, I'm going to be interested in the performer just generally, and sometimes it just makes me more interested in their cover treatments - like what other covers or standards do they have a take on - but not really so much about their songwriting.

Especially if they hang out their shingle as the singer/songwriter type (where their focus is pretty solidly on their songwriting, the covers don't advertise that to me)

[flatfinger]

THe real issue is this; Is doing a cover going to yeild any fans?? In general , the greatest majority of covers tend to be very bland and carbon copy style mimickry. It is'nt anywhere as easy to shange the tempo , key , or genre inorder to really make something different .

 

I Once bought a CD that was puy together by Garth Brooks and it was ( of all things ) a compilation of kiss covers by different artist. They were mostly O.K. but the only one that I really remember was the group that took "I wanna rock 'n roll all night and party every day " and countryfied it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Slowed down the tempo massivley and twanged it up {censored} kick'n style:thu: and I thought it was sick !! ..

 

So I guess i just think you should try and show originality no matter what ,; even when doing covers !!

[Toku]

I think it's a great idea to try and do a cover, and I think it's a great thing that it's not easy and legal to get those covers on iTunes.

 

Everyone has their own take on cover songs, but there are a great many arrangers/orchestrators who take pride in re-arranging and re-orchastrating music. I don't claim to be any sort of pro at this, but it's definitely something I enjoy doing - and it's something I enjoy listening to as well.

 

Take bands like Pomplamoose (youtube'em), for instance. I think that their covers are amazing. So good, in fact, that I checked out their original stuff, and ended up buying it all on iTunes.

 

Bottom line: Yes, I think doing covers is a great idea, and yes, I think putting them on iTunes via CDBaby, and even on Youtube (which is currently completely free) is also a great idea.

[RickBeall]

It's a win win win situation.

 

The original authors get paid, the cover band gets to take a shot at doing the cover, and the public gets more music.

 

The big innovation is that it is easy for the cover band.

[paulz]

 

It's a win win win situation. The original authors get paid, the cover band gets to take a shot at doing the cover, and the public gets more music.

 

 

I think Richardmac brings up the interesting concern of is it a win-win-win (composer-performer-consumer).

Yes, the consumer gets more choices, but is that necessarilly a good thing?

does it empower the consumer or just lower the signal-to-noise ratio?

 

I don't have an answer and it seems like it is a specific instance of a more general question that people are wrestling with currently, but it is a concern worth examining

(not being a cdbaby user myself, i can't really comment on how the searching, recommending and selecting takes place on that system - any thoughts on that? could it mitigate the potential problems)

[flatfinger]

It's already like trying to find a paticular needle in a stack of needles...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covers that are mostly mimicry won't help things much .

[rocket888]

Does this mean that the royalty payments for a song is also covered when that song is sold on one's website, and on Amazon, or, for that matter, anywhere else than cdbaby and iTunes?

[daddymack]

probaly not...just covers them...

[richardmac]

Yeah, just on iTunes. But iTunes is the biggest online music store.

[BuildingCastles]

Interesting. I did my own version (a mixture of my own work with some of their tracks) of Linkin Park's new single The Catalyst for a contest and I actually like it better than their version (which seems sort of bland). I'm going to look into submitting this.

[richardmac]

Here's the URL:

 

http://members.cdbaby.com/moreservices/limelight.aspx