The cost of downloadable songs original artists vs. covers

[Ghengiscahn]

I am not going to complain about the cost I actually think it's reasonable. My beef is that at 1.99 I think you should get the original artists song and if its a cover it should be 99 cents. A big chunk of the downloadable songs are covers which I would be fine paying 99. Put it this way the people who would buy the downloads would be fans of the music and little subtle differences are very noticeable to fans. Compare the david bowie pack, one of the songs is actually Bowie and the other two are not, the difference was very apparent to me. The metallica pack was the best so far its amazing and totally worth it those were the songs I grew up with. But the David Bowie pack was a little dissappointing for the price. Maybe I am out of line let me know what everyone else thinks.

[perricoach]

Good comments, and I agree. It'll never happen, but I like the idea!

[SoulScreme]

Yeah, I would at least like to hear the cover before buying. I mean, covering Sabbath is no easy task vocally.

[Bakkster]

I think the reason covers aren't necessarily cheaper is twofold:
1) The artists are highly sought after, and as such may ask higher royalty payments, even for covers.
2) Covers cost more money to make.

I will agree though that the "worth" of the track may be somewhat diminished, but unless I'm sure the cover is horrible I don't think it would be a deal-breaker to me. Especially compared with GH1 and 2 which had largely pretty good covers, and only a few that I would consider worth appreciably less than the original.


Yeah, I would at least like to hear the cover before buying. I mean, covering Sabbath is no easy task vocally.

I'm planning to wait to see a few YouTube videos of this pack before I buy it. I'd rather not get bit for being an early adopter. I can wait a few hours ;)

[Deeznutzs27]

If you are not a fan of the covers is $1 going to make that much difference in your mind?
I personally think $1.99 is an amazing price for what we get. I actually find the covers very well done. Go back and listen to the covers from GH1 & 2. They really upped their quality. Maybe too good in the "What I like about you" Lawsuit.

[SoulScreme]

Depends on the cover. The vocals for Mississippi Queen in RB are not nearly as good as those in GH3.

[Deeznutzs27]

2) Covers cost more money to make.


QFT.... I wish that would end the covers should cost less theory but we both know it wont.

[Mushroom]

Which Bowie Songs are covers?

[Deeznutzs27]

Which Bowie Songs are covers?

Heroes and Queen *****

[Mushroom]

Cheers, now if only I could remember the third one.

[Deeznutzs27]

Depends on the cover. The vocals for Mississippi Queen in RB are not nearly as good as those in GH3.

See its a matter of opinion.. Mississippi Queen on GH3 was one of my top 5 songs yet I like the vocals on RB better. I have some classic Mountain Live concerts and the RB version reminds me more of those.

[Apples]

Just as on the retail disc, master tracks are not always available for a variety of reasons--such as age, recording methodology, and licensing.

As has been previously stated, masters are prefered, but preferred does not mean 100% likely.

For me personally, I'd rather see a good cover song than see the song ignored altogether.

[DesiredFX]

Cheers, now if only I could remember the third one.

The song in the Bowie pack that uses the original master is Moonage Daydream.

[SoulScreme]

See its a matter of opinion.. Mississippi Queen on GH3 was one of my top 5 songs yet I like the vocals on RB better. I have some classic Mountain Live concerts and the RB version reminds me more of those.

Which is why we need previews...

[Bakkster]

Which is why we need previews...

I'd rather wait a few hours (maybe a day or two) for full videos to reach YouTube than get a series of 30-second clips that I can only watch on my 360. I mean, the previews are nice, but I don't mind them being missing.

[toefer]

I think the reason covers aren't necessarily cheaper is twofold:
1) The artists are highly sought after, and as such may ask higher royalty payments, even for covers.
2) Covers cost more money to make.


Not sure if this applies, but on a master track, aren't their two licenses to acquire? The rights to the written song (or whatever you want to call it) and the license to the actual recording? If so, wouldn't it follow that if you are doing a cover track, you only need one license, and may end up saving money there, though you'd have to spend it on the cover band artists.

[Bakkster]

Not sure if this applies, but on a master track, aren't their two licenses to acquire? The rights to the written song (or whatever you want to call it) and the license to the actual recording? If so, wouldn't it follow that if you are doing a cover track, you only need one license, and may end up saving money there, though you'd have to spend it on the cover band artists.

I'm not sure, to be honest. I do know that for simple audio, anyone can do a cover, and a fixed amount of the profits (10%, I believe) goes to the copyright holder. I'm sure this is different when it comes to a derivative work like a game "level".

My guess is that any difference in cost isn't appreciable enough to warrant covers being cheaper.

[DesiredFX]

There are two different kinds of licenses for music. Unfortunately, I can only remember what one of them is called.

The Mechanical License is the licensing of an actual recording of the song, whereas the other license means you're licensing the song but not the recording of it.

For master tracks, the Mechanical License applies--the band gets a higher fee because they're licensing both the song and the band's recording of it.

Now where this gets sticky for me is when a band does a song and then someone comes along and does a cover of it. How does the money split when big names like David Bowie and Mick Jagger do their spin on Dancin' in the Streets? If you want the mechanical license, it's because you want Bowie and Jagger, so do they get a bigger cut, even though the song isn't theirs, per se?

And in the GH games and Rock Band, we get into something even weirder--we get covers of songs that are done using a band's arrangement of the song, such as the Van Halen version of You Really Got Me. Obviously, Ray Davies of the Kinks gets his cut one way or another, but since arrangements can't be copyrighted, does Van Halen get even a penny for that?

[WiredRacing]

The licensing can be two fold.

To perform a cover, you need rights from the authors (writers) of the song.

To use a master you need rights to the performance of that song (aka Recording).. I think these are usually refered to as publishers rights.

As said, masters in many cases aren't being used here because they're unavailable (can't find them, poor quality, maybe the guitar or vocal or drum tracks arn't separated properly, etc..etc...) but they are, for all intents and purposes much more labor intensive to recreate (cover).

[Strutter]

I don't mind paying the 2 bucks for covers, as long as they're decent covers. Some so far haven't been( My Sharona, Bang a Gong, etc), which is disappointing. I really like some of these songs immensely, and have heard them literally tons of times, so I can't help but notice the differences...

[Bluvox]

As said, masters in many cases aren't being used here because they're unavailable (can't find them, poor quality, maybe the guitar or vocal or drum tracks arn't separated properly, etc..etc...) but they are, for all intents and purposes much more labor intensive to recreate (cover).

Depending on the house band, especially on payroll, the labor costs of mastering a new song *could* be less than the licensing of the original recording. Comes down to the agreements reached and the individual cases.

Although, the renting (creating?) of a studio appropriate to record the session to get each individual track together, the mixing of the parts, and everything.. I'd say covers aren't the cheapest things to put out, unless you can control some of those costs and bring them in house - such as building an appropriate studio, and keeping the band and sound guys on-staff doing other things as well as recording.

[Bakkster]

Depending on the house band, especially on payroll, the labor costs of mastering a new song *could* be less than the licensing of the original recording. Comes down to the agreements reached and the individual cases.

Although, the renting (creating?) of a studio appropriate to record the session to get each individual track together, the mixing of the parts, and everything.. I'd say covers aren't the cheapest things to put out, unless you can control some of those costs and bring them in house - such as building an appropriate studio, and keeping the band and sound guys on-staff doing other things as well as recording.

According to this article (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/11.21.07/cover-guitarhero-0747.html) (which is a thought-provoking read, IMO) the cover artists make about $300 per song, or about $100-150 per hour. So the musicians cost about $1,200-1,500, plus the overhead cost of the studio, recording, and production. Obviously the cover itself doesn't cost a lot, but enough to not be negligible. I would still venture to say the the license is the primary cost for all of the songs. It would be interesting to see leaked cost reports of the songs.

[erickOnasis412]

different prices for covers and masters? very good point actually!

[Xero314]

I don't mind paying the 2 bucks for covers, as long as they're decent covers. Some so far haven't been( My Sharona, Bang a Gong, etc), which is disappointing. I really like some of these songs immensely, and have heard them literally tons of times, so I can't help but notice the differences...

Yeah Really Bang-a-Gong sounded nothing like Power Station. Way to ruin a good tribute to the late great Robert Palmer.

[Ghengiscahn]

Well I really don't think either could cost that much or it wouldn't be worth it for the company, I believe that in a press release they were talking about songs ranging from 99 to 1.99 or 2.99. So what are these 99 cent songs. It couldn't possibly be more to cover the song because after guitar hero was a success all the artists came running for their share if you wrote the song you get more of the money. Therefore making the master recording 1.99. I am actually in a band and when we recorded our cd we covered a ramones song and that song cost us 80 bucks to cover for 1000 copies. I am sure if we just put their song on our cd it would be more. Studios aren't that costly any more and if they have the band all set up I am sure they have made the money back on the costs of the studio so the cheapest part would be recording. The high costs would have to come in the programming, which they have to do anyways and if they are recording it right there it is a whole lot easier than remastering something and bringing up parts and making a song that has been recorded for over 40 years rock band or guitar hero worthy. I am kind of confusing myself now I hope people follow what I am talking about. anyways thanks for the responses,



Note to Haters(not that there is any): I probably don't know what I am talking about and i realize that these are just my thoughts so tell me why I don't know what I am talking about, I really want to know about those 99 cent songs though.

[tbradshaw]

While it's a neat idea, I don't think that we're going to see different prices based on cover/not-cover. The cover or the master are both the absolute best gameplay experience that can be delivered in Rock Band on that track, with all of the formalities of business kickin' up the price.

Instead, I'm pretty sure we're going to see the $0.99 price point used for independant artists that don't go through a label for Rock Band. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see a lot of the great tracks from Harmonix bands, for example, at the $0.99.

[tbradshaw]

Note to Haters(not that there is any): I probably don't know what I am talking about and i realize that these are just my thoughts so tell me why I don't know what I am talking about, I really want to know about those 99 cent songs though.

Ha ha! It's all good man. The cover/master split was a good guess for what would qualify for the $0.99 songs. Like I mentioned in the previous post, my guess is that "unsigned" means possible $0.99. I guess we'll both find out whenever we got some songs at the cheaper price point.

[Ghengiscahn]

yeah I could see smaller artists going for the 99 cent price that makes a lot of sence, I would love to see how the breakdown goes for the cost of a single tune, and then alternately see how many songs they sold the first week. I am not trying to hate myself I really enjoy the game(or will more fully when I get my replacement guitar and drumpedal)
But as a fan I think part of the draw of the game is to be able to be a part of these songs that you love. Maybe I am the only one that notices the covers are not up to the same standard. How could they be they are trying to recreate what magic already exists in the original. So when i hear that one of my favorite bands (black sabbath) the opening bass solo is missing from the new version it makes me question if i want to pay the same price as what i payed for say metallica songs that I believe are the best songs of the game. Anyways I guess we will see as time goes on I think things could change many different ways depending on how successful they are with the downloads.

[Vengeance]

I say they should make all songs cost the same but after a month they should make the songs free like what gears of war did with the map pack

[Ghengiscahn]

that would just be to amazing I think alot of people would be waiting a month for songs.

[Bakkster]

I say they should make all songs cost the same but after a month they should make the songs free like what gears of war did with the map pack

Thing is, my understanding of the licensing for DLC is that it is on a per-download basis. This means that a licensed song costs more for every download. So if they make $10k on a song, then make it free, they people who download it for free could push their profit back down to $0 or even result in them losing money.

Unfortunately, it's an idea that can't really work with licensed music. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

[Xero314]

Thing is, my understanding of the licensing for DLC is that it is on a per-download basis. This means that a licensed song costs more for every download. So if they make $10k on a song, then make it free, they people who download it for free could push their profit back down to $0 or even result in them losing money.

Unfortunately, it's an idea that can't really work with licensed music. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

That depends on the licensing agreement. Some music is licensed for a single cost and others are licensed as a percentage of sales and some are per instance. Single lump sum and percentage of sales would both allow for eventual free downloads. But I can pretty much assure you that there will not be many, if any free downloads (Special promotions, unsigned bands, etc).

[DesiredFX]

Yeah Really Bang-a-Gong sounded nothing like Power Station. Way to ruin a good tribute to the late great Robert Palmer.

I really, really hope that was a joke.

I mean, really.

Really, really.

[mxmarks]

I say they should make all songs cost the same but after a month they should make the songs free like what gears of war did with the map pack

That would never happen because the whole point of DLC is that you buy what you like and what you want.

If it was free, althought it would be people's OWN FAULT for downloading it, you'd get a MILLION "How do I delete this song!?" threads and comments because people would end up downloading things they hate playing -- just because it was free.

I have no problem paying for packs of songs I like, and not buying stuff I don't.

[Bakkster]

That depends on the licensing agreement. Some music is licensed for a single cost and others are licensed as a percentage of sales and some are per instance. Single lump sum and percentage of sales would both allow for eventual free downloads. But I can pretty much assure you that there will not be many, if any free downloads (Special promotions, unsigned bands, etc).

I seem to remember them saying that they paid the same amount per song download as iTunes paid the labels. That to me says that it's impossible to do free downloads without a specific agreement with the band and/or label.

[Xero314]

I really, really hope that was a joke.

I mean, really.

Really, really.

I would assume that if it was a joke you would have laughed. Were you laughing?

[Hanover]

You're also getting the video content for the song as well....don't forget about that. I wonder if they end up having to do a motion capture for every song they put out for Rock Band?

[Hanover]

The Power Station version was a cover of the song by T. Rex. The version you hear in Rock Band is the T. Rex version of it...

Still, on the subject of Robert Palmer...Addicted to Love would be an awesome tune to play...nice drum part in that too.



Yeah Really Bang-a-Gong sounded nothing like Power Station. Way to ruin a good tribute to the late great Robert Palmer.

[Xero314]

The Power Station version was a cover of the song by T. Rex. The version you hear in Rock Band is the T. Rex version of it...

Would my intent have been more clear if I mentioned how I felt about how badly they massacred Tia Carrere's vocals on Ballroom Blitz?

[Rokkstar]

1.) Actual songs should be $1.49 - $1.99
2.) Covers should be $0.89 - $0.99 (Previewable first)

[RX King]

Previews should most definitely be included. It would assist greatly in choosing what songs to download.

[Xero314]

Previews or freebies will become more important if/when they open up to independent or unsigned bands. RB would be a great way to promote new bands, though I worry about bands starting to make music that would be "fun to play" and not necessarily good music.

[hoff_57]

didnt read all of the forum but if someone reads this DO NOT GET JUKE BOX HERO by foreigner, the cover is the worst thing i have ever heard. it is a disgrace to foreigner. i deleted it as soon as i heard it. it was THAT BAD. the singing is wrong the guitar sounds nothing like it . the closest thing that they had was the drums. and WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS CANT MAKE A COVER OF A F*****G DRUM . that doesnt even sound the best either.




lets end this on a good note though and say that fortunate son is a definite buy for all u CCR fans.

i feel better. but i cant even play it cuz my stuff is broken:(

[jlc510]

So far the best covers have been Black Sabbath's NIB and War Pig's that I've played. I haven't downloaded their other song the was put up. It might be a good idea to put up a review section just for DLC for those who've downloaded songs to tell the others how well they've been done.

[Hanover]

No, putting something to reinforce the sarchasm into your post would have helped...like I use "*sarchasm*" to clue people in.

There are just too many people on here who would actually think that. :)


Would my intent have been more clear if I mentioned how I felt about how badly they massacred Tia Carrere's vocals on Ballroom Blitz?

[tbradshaw]

That depends on the licensing agreement. Some music is licensed for a single cost and others are licensed as a percentage of sales and some are per instance. Single lump sum and percentage of sales would both allow for eventual free downloads. But I can pretty much assure you that there will not be many, if any free downloads (Special promotions, unsigned bands, etc).

While I know where you're coming from, these two types of licensing agreements are from an interview on the licensing process for the main disk, not for DLC.

To our knowledge, all DLC is royalty based.