David Runnion wrote:

>Kevin Sutton wrote:
>
>>The New York Times recently reported on a new record label in which the
>>artist retains ownership of the recorded material while the label sees
>>to the distribution and manufacturing process.
>
>There are a bunch of these labels popping up.  I think it's great.
>With super-low production costs they can afford to do whatever
>repetoire strikes their fancy, and the collaboration between artist
>and label is close.

I would like to add our label into the mix.  We are tax exempt and the
way we work is that I do the layout, design, recording and mastering as
needed...and depending on the financing, if the artist pays for pressing,
they get back 85% of net until they are fully reimbursed, then we split
50-50.  If we finance pressing, we get it all until we make back cost,
then the split is 50-50.  While we some restrictions designed to maintain
continuity in our releases, the artist can have a great deal of lattitude
in things like the sound quality, notes, layout, etc.

Since I give my time and don't get paid, it has to be a project that
interests me, hence we aren't looking for any standard repertoire, unless
the performance has something distinctive about it...in short, unless I
really like it!

It has been interesting giving the musician control of much of it.  What
I find most fascinating, is how aware they are of what sort of sound they
want.  This especially relates to another current topic on this list,
equalization.  It can become such a subjective issue.

Karl (Pierian Recordings)