..so the odds are that Vinnie Paul owns the rights to pre-groove pantera. give him a try at least its not warner label
..so the odds are that Vinnie Paul owns the rights to pre-groove pantera. give him a try at least its not warner label
This is what I still don't get - what's "elsewhere"? With GH out of the picture, is RBN just competing with regular DLC? I don't see Rock Band competing with the use of songs in commercials or whatever.
I can see the argument that RBN for the most part doesn't include the PS3 and Wii. Why exclude 40% of the market (roughly, according to http://rockbandscores.com/popularity.cgi?showdlc=on&showrbn=on)?
I don't think the sales numbers are particularly different between RBN and DLC anymore - probably because only the faithful are still playing Rock Band.
Is the 30% RBN cut less than the DLC cut? Is the 30% just unable to overcome the overhead of labels' attorney fees?
Just grousing I guess. I'm glad RBN has introduced me to so many indie bands. I was just hoping things would be different, and I'd be able to help polish the songs I really wanted to play in Rock Band.
I'm guessing they look at the non-zero amount of effort that's required in preparing and sending the stems, and they look at what would appear to be an unfavorable profit-sharing split, and decide to just do nothing.
You're not wrong, but I doubt the labels know enough about the rhythm games market to understand it that way. They will most likely see RBN as just another money spinner, and from that point of view a 30% cut (or less, with some of it going to the author or with a fee up front) doesn't seem like a good investment compared to licensing songs in a more conventional manner, or simply selling through something like iTunes.
http://www.rockgamerstudios.com
They won't do it because 30 percent isn't enough for the major labels. They're so used to getting grossly unfair and near-crippling licensing fees in their contracts with music startups (using their near monopoly on music copyright and lawsuits as leverage) that they'd rather refuse and make no money at all then compromise and set a precedent by licensing their music at such a "low" rate. They'd probably be much more interested if their cut was closer to 70 or 80 percent.
The thing is, it kind of IS competing with songs in commercials, movies, etc., at least from a licensing perspective. These are the biggest labels in the business and they would simply rather spend their time looking into more profitable endeavors. There's just not enough profit involved with the RBN to make it worth their time in their eyes.
http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32421
Seriously, I'm not taking the link out of my sig until we've got Dethklok.
Perhaps we need to ask the artists instead of the labels. The artists are more for spreading their music instead of the money.
But the labels have the rights to the artists' music.
[] Dizzy Mizz Lizzy [] Dover [] Guano Apes [] More Miley Cyrus
[] The Rasmus [] The Veronicas [] More Volbeat
Why was this revived? We get it, you want Pantara, but the label doesn't want to comply, so we can't do s***.
Addicted to bad movies since 2008