Opinions on digital subscriptions to labels

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

How does everyone feel about these? I'm very much in favor of them. Whether they're a good idea for labels or not, I don't know. But they benefit me in my situation.


Here's why I personally like them...

I'm just straight-up done with trying to buy tape releases, because the rate at which I go through cassette players (even new ones) is ridiculous. If something's on vinyl and I want to listen to it on that, then I'll buy it. CD's are something I have too much of and as someone with poor health who lives alone, I just can't deal with a large amount of physical media (which is why I keep my vinyl collection small). If my rent goes up too much, I have to move. When I have to resort to buying a CD, it's just so I can rip the files to my computer and upload them to online storage. My laptop and cellphone are how I mainly listen to things. For the reasons I already stated, I don't really care if a "purist" has an issue with my doing that. Digital releases (typically via bandcamp) are what I resort to and something like a subscription for one help me save a lot of money. All of that said, I realize that my situation is unique.

[Zalhietzli]

Interesting question !

First, I think we're all in unique situations when it comes to listening music. I prefer CDs nowadays because I can listen to them in the car, or I can rip them on my computer. Whereas the tape and vinyl players are at the other end of the house when I'm on my computer (which I am at like 80% of the time, I work mostly from home), so it doesn't make for a great listening experience.

As for your actual question, I am not sure I would really enjoy a digital subscription to a label. I am more to used to finding new music rather than having it fell on my lap. Like, the few artists or labels I follow on bandcamp I never listened to an album for which I received a notification by mail. That may sound dumb, but it feels spammy (although I did subscribe to these labels) as it seems I never get the email at a time I am available to check the music.

That said, I have been buying digital music more frequently this past months, and I purchased a couple labels full discography at a discounted price. I subscribed to the WCN podcast on patreon. I used to think "digital music = free, physical music = paid" but my opinion is changing as I am recognizing that it's the artist and label work that is worth money, not the slab of plastic it came packaged in. So I think digital subscriptions do make sense and more labels or artists should try it.

As a side note, I really wished more labels would include download codes inside the album packaging, especially for tapes or vinyl (in regard of my personal listening habits).

[Residual / RT]

Always thought since flac became a thing that CD's are useless. I would much rather buy the files with like a small art book or a t-shirt or w/e than a CD. I do love album covers and crazy packaging, but the CD itself is just useless. Give me a small run of tapes, other merch (people should start doing more art zines) and just files. Vinyl is cool but too expensive nowadays. No comment on the actual topic tho, I don't think I'd be interested in a digital only subscription. I want a physical object of some kind for my money, be it a tape, art booklet or a t-shirt.

[adult human]

I don't and have never had a problem with digital listening and certainly when I was studying and moving house all the time I listened to everything from my computer including my own rips of CDs and tapes. I'd also find rips on blogs of vinyl I bought at that time. Now, however, I'm in a position where most of my listening is done on a hifi with physical media which makes streaming or listening to mp3s on my computer a bit less of a convenience. It's just a matter of practicalities.

As far as subs or Bandcamp go I have quite mixed feelings. There is no doubt that Bandcamp is a really great platform that solved many of the problems involved with what used to be available. I really love it as a means to listen to albums or snippets of things in order to get a sense of what they are before potentially buying/downloading. I don't care what anyone says - being able to check out a recording before you buy it is a great thing. There are a tonne of fantastic labels and artists who have uploaded long sold out releases from years back onto Bandcamp and this just absolutely rules. Also, it benefits me as an artist and someone with a label to have this central place to host things. Money I get from label downloads is stuff which all goes back to the artists after costs are recouped and I know this can be helpful to some people. What I don't enjoy about Bandcamp is that it has become a monopoly. It's framed by many as this great way for artists to directly benefit from sales, which is definitely true if your alternative is the Spotify model, however the cuts they take can feel quite egregious at times, particularly when you consider PayPal fees on top and the way percentages of physical sales are levied against future downloads. This is on top of the monthly fees they collect for 'pro' accounts which you need to sign up for in order to do some pretty basic things. Regardless, people seem to go in for it anyway. I've sold things on Bandcamp with huge, uppercase letters right in the product description saying 'THIS WILL COST YOU £18 HERE BUT £15 IF YOU WRITE ME AN EMAIL' and still people choose the easy button clicking method. It's depressing. Ultimately I think the ease and ubiquity of Bandcamp is a real double edged sword and is demonstrably leading to a real watering down of what a lot of artists do and what a lot of audiences get. Sadly I think this kinda thing is represented in the subscription service or Bandcamp Friday. As principles on their own they're great ideas and clearly it works for OP which is excellent, I'm sure there is plenty out there of worth and for many people it's a good way to listen to things. However what I observe is how quickly it has produced a culture of releases being created to regular monthly deadlines. It's a real and demonstrable shift to art as online content - based in monetising fleeting surges of quick engagement via bespoke products unique to the platform. I do directly know some people who struggle financially and having the opportunity to make some money on a Bandcamp Friday has really helped them out in some tough spots so I can't write it off entirely...but the speed with which the circulation of even niche, underground art has been funnelled into a monthly digital flea market on a single privately owned website is icky to me. The subscription service feels very similar in that it forces artists to keep creating new content in order to satisfy and justify the financial contributions of their patrons. I'm happy for anyone who benefits from it as a user or seller but I think these problems are legitimate.

[-NRRRRK-]

From an artist point of view I had no interest in setting up something like an subscription service or similar. On the one had I'd feel like put under pressure to release more (or maybe anything at all) to give something back to my subscribers. Which would make me feel horrible. There a times when I record almost every day. Or at least work on some material (editing, artwork etc.). But then there might be periods in which I do not do anything at all. Be it because there simply is no inspiration for me or because I spent my time on other music projects or whatever.

I think subscription models, as well as putting releases on (algorithmic driven) streaming platforms might be pretty dangerous, because those mechanisms seems to favor a lot of smaller releases (f.e. singles for mainstream music) released much quicker, than f.e. albums, which are only released every other year. So instead of being able to choose freely which kind of format might be apt for a certain release or project, artists are driven to the kind of format which is prefered by the technology of the platforms or the expectations of the subscriber. This might be feasible for mainstream-culture, but I think it is highly unhealthy for a minor niche-subculture like noise.

From a consumer perspective there is not much to like for me too. It is way too much of a "convenience"-thing for me, which there is already way too much of. I enjoy actively looking out for new stuff when I feel to need to have something new, be it through forums, zines, podcasts. I enjoy to learn of projects which usually not "my cup of tea", because often it lead me some wonderful stuff I would not have encountered if I would have stayed in my comfort zone.

[chryptusrecords]

I was thinking about this the other day re: patreon and podcasts. Why doesn't this work exactly for musicians? I think because podcasts (and most digital subscriptions) can turn out more, longer episodes than a musicians can release albums. maybe if a musician is using subscription service for early access, peripheral or exclusive material, extras and so on, it would balance out. music on the other hand seems to have a special quality, that we imprint the rest of our experience onto it, or it sits alongside the rest of our lives in an emotionally involving way. the moment of initial approach is crucial. i am not a physical purist either, and most of my listening these days is digital, but even so, there is a special connection created when you find the music in certain ways. a subscription models implies a certain amount of consistent activity, which isn't always appropriate.

[Exclusionzonedayton]

I don’t have much interest in that. I’ve always tended to lose files or disorganize them away. I have a fair amount of free downloads and some paid. In your situation I see the appeal. I listen to a lot of music in my car and CDs work well for me

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

Those are some really good points. I'm gonna hafta think about them.

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

Btw I was mostly thinking about this in regards to labels who put out a lot of stuff regularly, like Helicopter.

[-NRRRRK-]

I was thinking about this the other day re: patreon and podcasts. Why doesn't this work exactly for musicians?

I think the concept of the podcast in itself is the key. It is built around episodes that will be published regularly, like once a week or a month, so a subscription-based payment-model is really well suited for such a medium.

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

I should mention that the only noise label I know who does this is deathbed tapes.

https://deathbedtapes.bandcamp.com

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

Found a couple other noise artists doing the subscription thing now...

Daniel Menche ($25/year)
https://danielmenche.bandcamp.com

Aaron Dilloway ($60/year)
https://aarondilloway.bandcamp.com/

[Lead Lozenges]

Francisco Meirino (30 Euros/year)
https://franciscomeirino.bandcamp.com/

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

The reason I like these so much is that I'm on a limited budget and there's a CONSTANT flood of new releases by artists I follow closely. Ones for Phage, Helicopter, Tesco (yeah, like that'll ever happen...), and Hospital would be interesting to see.

Anyhow, here are some more...

Kevin Drumm ($25/year)
https://kevindrumm.bandcamp.com

Straight Panic ($5/month)
https://straightpanic.bandcamp.com

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

Bizarre Audio Arts ($5/month)
https://bizarresdigitalantientertainmen ... /backstage

Swollen Gargantuan Fecal Fetus Records ($5/month)
https://swollengargantuanfecalfetus.ban ... /backstage

[33033]

It's not a bad idea. I just don't know how many I can keep up with!

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

Yeah, I feel like it's only something for really prolific labels or artists with dedicated fanbases. Like for example, one of the two labels I just posted (I think BAA?) has a TON of Macronympha releases. But along with new stuff, you only get access to a certain amount of back catalog releases from them. They have around four hundred releases, though, so that makes sense. Who could possibly listen to all of that? Even the amount you do get is incredible (over a hundred!!!). In that case, I think it's more or less a promotional tool.

[xIncorruptibleCorpse777x]

Oxidation has a deal where for $6/month, you get access to 98(!!!) releases...

https://oxidation.bandcamp.com/subscribe

[Thomas_B]

I once subscribed to a few of these, Deathbed Tapes, Straight Panic, Kevin Drumm, and although they aren’t expensive subs, $5/mth here and there adds up. I just don’t devote as much attention to digital releases as I do physical. There is still something special to me about obtaining a physical thing, and sitting down to listen to it while considering the whole package, imagery, concept, etc. so I decided I’d rather have that subscription money freed up for physical editions I consider desirable. Nothing against digital releases - I’ve made plenty of my own; however, when it comes to spending $$ I prefer to end up with something tangible.

[ChicagoAnimal]

I think doing subscription services for music from a specific artist, particularly in noise, is a bit strange and would personally find the $5/month should go to, like, a cup of coffee or something. *Most* of the artists I see doing this release far too much music anyways and this form of "releasing" music is far too disposable in a genre that has long-acknowledged issues with disposable music.

I feel different for entities like White Centipede where the content being created is largely not artistic (I am referring to the Pod and surrounding media) and the extra support is needed for the infrastructure for something bigger than the artist/person/creator in question.

[WCN]

In most cases, I don't think the format of digital audio subscriptions really appeals to me aesthetically as a way to "consume" noise, but it potentially could, depending on how it was designed. However, I totally support the idea of it, and it brings me to a wider topic that I think is becoming increasingly relevant:

I would love to see much more of the spirit of generosity and material (=financial) support within our scene, rather than that of frugality and economizing towards artists, labels, etc. - our peers and friends. Why do people inherently balk at the idea of giving an artist they like and probably know $5 per month to support their work, but at the same time will unquestioningly give a large business ran by strangers well over $5 per day for impermanent treats, like a cup of coffee, booze, fancy food, etc.? Or will have no problem paying monthly subscription fees to media super corporations like Spotify, Netflix, or Disney, but have a hard time coming up with a few dollars per month to support a podcast focused on an extremely niche genre of underground music they are a part of? Or bitching about entry fees to noise shows when they creep over the $5-10 threshold?

The real world economy seems to be becoming increasingly centralized, where the money we throw at it is a drop in the bucket for those who already have tons, and we usually get nothing special in return. A fraction of that money can make a huge difference in the life of someone you value in the noise scene, in simply helping them be able to make something vital and singular (a.k.a. NOISE). Hell, it might even slightly alleviate the real world financial burden on their shoulders, or even go so far as to simply reward them for their work. Why don't we love to see that? While I don't think it's malicious, there is a certain selfishness has become prevalent, combined with the attitude that anyone making noise should also be taking a vow of poverty surrounding it. Maybe the latter part is connected to old-school underground roots, but I think it's out of touch and doesn't do anyone involved any good.

This is a very small scene. Most of us know each other, and even like and admire each other. Many are doing incredibly work that defies the logic of this increasingly soulless world, and that will go down as absolutely anomalous treasure in the book of time, even if very few people ever know about it (a.k.a. NOISE). Everyone needs money to exist. All of us have some, and most of us don't have much. We should all be more intentional about where we spend it, and we should move it around amongst ourselves as much as possible. Personally for me, it's always an honor when I can send a label a bunch of money for a distro order, or when I can pay a door fee that might help a band eat good and get to the next city, or support a podcast that is doing a valuable service in documenting and disseminating rare culture. It should be an honor to send an artist you love $5 per month for a digital subscription, even if you don't need all the digital files. In short: SUPPORT THE UNDERGROUND!!!

[holy ghost]

Digital subscriptions don't interest me in any way but if it works for the artist I hope it's a viable model. How much of getting a record goes to fees, postage, packing supplies, printer paper, tape, etc?

I'm lucky enough that I'm able to send Taylor the bulk of my noise cash (AKA disposable income) as he stocks pretty much everything I'm interested in. I also buy direct from Sam M quite frequently as well - unfortunately anyone outside of Canada the postage and the shit canadian dollar makes it unfeasible.

I don't really go to shows anymore but I think $5 is an unsustainable business model. I didn't think anyone in this day and age would be balking at paying 10+ dollars - I remember people talking about it being outdated twenty years ago.

Anyway, I agree with our friend Oskar here that supporting this scene is important.

[Thomas_B]

. Why do people inherently balk at the idea of giving an artist they like and probably know $5 per month to support their work, but at the same time will unquestioningly give a large business ran by strangers well over $5 per day for impermanent treats, like a cup of coffee, booze, fancy food, etc.? Or will have no problem paying monthly subscription fees to media super corporations like Spotify, Netflix, or Disney, but have a hard time coming up with a few dollars per month to support a podcast focused on an extremely niche genre of underground music they are a part of? Or bitching about entry fees to noise shows when they creep over the $5-10 threshold?

Oskar makes some good points, and asks some difficult to answer questions; for instance, why do we prioritize certain single-use luxuries over supporting a community we actually participate in? I don’t really know the answer to that, but it did get me thinking about what more I can do to support the artists and labels I appreciate. The other thought I had after reading Oskar’s post is, and I’m not saying it was his intent to do so, I don’t think people should be made to feel guilty for being unwilling to offer an automatic $5 per month in support of a label or artist. Everyone has their reasons - circumstances, finances, etc. Personally, I’d love to spend more money on noise, be it attending more shows, or upgrading to the next WCN supporter tier but I have a pretty limited budget for noise these days and I’ve decided to prioritize buying choice physical editions such as cassettes, vinyl, or CDs. Sure, I have a household Netflix subscription that I could personally do without, but if I cancelled it and pumped that extra $17/month into noise, saying my family members would be pissed is the understatement of the century. Even if you‘re a noise freak who doesn’t have a Netflix addicted family to worry about, it’s okay if you want to prioritize binging the latest shitty true crime docuseries over instant access to the latest noise podcast, noise rant, or the 100th King Cobra album on Deathbed Tapes, or whatever. Also, I don’t get where this notion that noise people must live in poverty comes from - some of the biggest names in noise right now seem to have enough funds to mine discogs for their all-time noise grails, and the G.R.O.S.S. back catalogue isn’t cheap these days, and I think we all celebrate that. Circling back to the conversation about how fans should support the scene, would you argue that individuals’ money would be better spent on the current scene and not opportunistic Discogs marketplace sellers?

[WCN]

I know I may have sounded quite judgemental or even bitter, but I'm really not trying to attack anyone, advocate for charity, or complain about my personal situation, which I am very grateful for. I'm just reminded that we should see underground support not as just another expense with the same expectations and conditions as all our other daily expenses, that it has an intrinsically elevated value that is intangible. The digital subscription format is a somewhat modern extreme that puts this idea to the test, but I think it should be considered as a good solution for some, at least in theory. I liked what Housepig Bill wrote somewhere here in another thread, that he really likes buying from artists on Bandcamp, because then he knows the money actually goes directly to them, instead of most of the money you pay for a record going to pay the pressing plant, printer, fees, postage etc. etc. etc., as holy ghost also pointed out.

Of course everyone has their own complicated budgets to work out, and we're complex human beings and not just noise listeners. It's none of my business to judge how people dictate how to do that, but I would gently advocate that we occasionally reconsider our priorities beyond what is handed down to us from modern society at large. And if you really love and appreciate something that is so inherently commercially inviable, as most real art is, remember to throw some money at it from time to time when you can, because you're the only one who will. Ultimately, the real are going to continue doing what they do simply out of compulsion, regardless of support and interest from the outside world, which always comes and goes. I do however believe that it improves the landscape for everyone if we consciously keep our machine as well lubricated as possible.

Circling back to the conversation about how fans should support the scene, would you argue that individuals’ money would be better spent on the current scene and not opportunistic Discogs marketplace sellers?

Again, that's not for me to decide for people, and it's an issue I hadn't really thought about too much and kind of a whole other can of worms topic, but absolutely yes.

[Thomas_B]

. I'm just reminded that we should see underground support not as just another expense with the same expectations and conditions as all our other daily expenses, that it has an intrinsically elevated value that is intangible. The digital subscription format is a somewhat modern extreme that puts this idea to the test, but I think it should be considered as a good solution for some, at least in theory.

I totally get this, yet I also understand why people might be less inclined to sign up for something that doesn’t offer something tangible because the value in the digital sub format may not be immediately apparent, and we’re all programmed to seek out instant gratification and reward.

Circling back to the conversation about how fans should support the scene, would you argue that individuals’ money would be better spent on the current scene and not opportunistic Discogs marketplace sellers?

. Again, that's not for me to decide for people, and it's an issue I hadn't really thought about too much and kind of a whole other can of worms topic, but absolutely yes.

As for this bit, I agree that buying secondhand stuff from a marketplace like Discogs doesn’t necessarily kick money right back at the scene, unless it’s a distro/label/artist one is buying from. If there is such a thing as a noise economy, I think it’s more often better served by spending $$ on a new reissue rather than chasing down a scarce original press.