Since I started textilesounds I have been looking for ways to release music quickly and cheaply. Unfortunately, neither has come to pass. The first release, a clear, 180 gram vinyl 12" in a clear vinyl bag was just about the most expensive and extensive route to take. However, it was important to make the first release count. With the second and third releases I went with a stock sleeve design that was then letter-pressed with the name of the band and the title of the release. The purpose of a stock sleeve however is that it may be used for any release. It usually identifies the label and nothing else and is quite popular for dance music labels. I had intended to have stamps made and to stamp the covers but the allure of the letterpress went right to my wallet. So now I have a closet full of "stock sleeves" that are specific to their releases. Duh. In retrospect, I might have been able to do a combination of stamps and letterpress and then had blank sleeves left over for future releases. But it occurred to me as those releases were being made that vinyl was just too expensive for me to continue to do in spite of my efforts to economize.
This realization came despite the fact that I managed to press two vinyl 12"s at the same time, cutting both editions in half. 250 were pressed of TS002 and TS003 thus constituting a pressing of 500 which is a magic threshold resulting in cost per unit reductions. Unfortunately, the mastering cost and the master plates from which the vinyl copies are stamped out have to remain per release. These costs are not insignificant. Basically, it is difficult to release a vinyl 12" for under $2,000 which is the magic threshold for releasing a four-sided digipak compact disc. As long as one is going to blow the big money you might as well get more tracks and more chances that a potential future owner will be able to listen to those tracks.
Therefore TS004 was a four-sided digi-pak compact disc. Don't get me wrong, I love vinyl. I will continue to buy vinyl for my home listening enjoyment and I will continue to press vinyl on textilesounds. However, there is a large portion of the population, let's call them the majority, who don't care one jot about vinyl. If they can't get a compact disc then basically the release doesn't exist to them. The same theory blots out the sun of the future: an all digital release.
Textilesounds is very fortunate to have digital distribution through IODA. This means that all textilesounds releases, vinyl included, are sent to the IODA offices where they are digitized and then made available to most if not all of the online music stores and digital download services. It is possible for me to release a collection of tracks completely digitally without ever pressing a CD. While this is may seem ideal on the surface the problem for a small label is exposure. IODA is a distributor, just like toneVendor and Revolver are for the physical products. However, none of them have the time to push my releases. That's where a very expensive publicist would come into the picture. Or an equally expensive advertising "blitz" possibly managed by an independent marketer (if you meet their invisible criteria).
While advertising, reviews, and word-of-mouth are important to any release, they would be absolutely critical to a digital-only release. Textilesounds and the bands on the label are not known to even the independent music crowd at this point, never mind the average iTunes Music Store surfer. None of the acts can really tour to support the releases due to work and family responsibilities. In addition, I cannot justify spending a lot on advertising as the return on investment is poor.
More importantly, there is no critical review of digital-only releases. Very few of the online music stores provide any kind of editorial input. No online or brick and mortar publications are covering digital-only releases in any meaningful way (I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this). Thus the same glut of ill-conceived and cheaply produced 7"s and EPs that drowned out any worthwhile indie rock in the early 90s haunt the digital emporiums of the present.
Not that a physical artifact really buys a label or a band all that much. It does however give you something you can give away for free to a bored and stilted music press. But I'll save my derision for that branch of the industry for another installment. At any rate, digital-only is out which leaves: CDR.
After a little research I discovered that:
With this knowledge, the decision was simple. CDRs are cheap, can be made at home, and can be used without too much hassle by the average consumer. Yes, some folks still own older players that may reject a CDR but chances are fans of textilesounds have a second player or a computer (at home or at work) that will accept a duplicated disc.
An unfortunate side effect of this decision is the lack of distribution for CDR releases. Revolver would not agree to carry them as they presumably represent a hassle if someone does have an older player that rejects the disc. Also, the price paid per CDR is less than a replicated CD. I'm not sure why exactly but supposedly the public isn't willing to pay the same price. This is a down side I'm prepared to live with. Folks will eventually come around to CDR releases. In the meantime, it gives those of us unwilling to perpetually lose money an alternative format.
Next time: packaging.