Cash or Publishing?

[randyripoff]

I think one thing people need to look at is the situation of the OP. If he/she has a day job that covers all expenses and he does music for fun, then I think taking the royalties is the way to go. However, if that $600 is a large part of your income and you need it to pay bills/buy groceries etc. then the upfront payment is much more attractive.

 

[Nephilymbass]

Id take the cash. That way you don't have to deal with them later or worry about how many are copied for free or put up on the Internet for free. If it's a local act they probably won't have a decent way to keep records of what they sell and will likely give away the music for free to some extent also.

 

[esa372]

Id take the cash. That way you don't have to deal with them later or worry about how many are copied for free or put up on the Internet for free. If it's a local act they probably won't have a decent way to keep records of what they sell and will likely give away the music for free to some extent also.

Yep - it's already on ReverbNation. I'm glad I took the dough.

 

[Omega Monkey]

I think you made the right choice IN THIS CASE. Typically though I would suggest a blended mix of x amount upfront and x% of sales/publishing/whatever. That way you're covered both ways.

But man is that a midrangey mix. Bordering on unpleasant. Maybe better on good speakers, I was listening on decent headphones. And all that guitar hum! It makes it sound a lot less professional than it probably cost (considering that $600 was spent just on the bass performances). And that can't be good for sales and interest. Also, considering all the music seems to be electric and band oriented, I would ditch the "bro with acoustic guitar" pic and get something a little closer to the actual music (ie a picture of the actual band, or at least the one dude with an electric). All that really has nothing to do with you, just some observations of the final product. Bass lines are pretty solid though.

 

[esa372]

I think you made the right choice IN THIS CASE. Typically though I would suggest a blended mix of x amount upfront and x% of sales/publishing/whatever. That way you're covered both ways.

Good idea.

But man is that a midrangey mix. Bordering on unpleasant. Maybe better on good speakers, I was listening on decent headphones. And all that guitar hum! It makes it sound a lot less professional than it probably cost (considering that $600 was spent just on the bass performances). And that can't be good for sales and interest.

Yeah, I'm not happy with the way they mixed it at all; but, I was just paid to play the bass. Oh, well... we sound MUCH better when we play live, anyway.

Also, considering all the music seems to be electric and band oriented, I would ditch the "bro with acoustic guitar" pic and get something a little closer to the actual music (ie a picture of the actual band, or at least the one dude with an electric). All that really has nothing to do with you, just some observations of the final product.

"bro with acoustic guitar"!
That photo is from his previous album, entitled "What's The Rush?" (the last 6 songs in that list). It was more acoustically-based, though not entirely. The cover of this new album is a 3/4 full moon (for some reason).

Bass lines are pretty solid though.

Thank you.