do you guys want to start a REAL co-op?

[danthemjfan23]

i'd be willing to handle things (obviously with some help from a couple people) if you guys want this to happen for real.

i think the idea behind the co-op was awesome, but clearly it wasn't executed properly. is this something you guys would be interested in trying again? if enough people are into it, we should definitely do it.


Team Fuck Yeah!: 66 = $3,960
Adam Christensen
Adam Hudson
Alan Williams
Alex Biese
Andrew Motley
Antoine Boulet
Becca James
Bill Leary
Billy Stringer
Bradley Cornforth
Brandon Benscoter
Brian Kurtz
burntwolf
Charles Haug
Christopher Kenneth Lee Lintner
Cody Veals
Craig Wainwright
Dan DeRosear
Dan Jones
Dan Wallach (<------------ that's me)
Dan Weckwerth
Daniel Mitchell
David Anthony
David Di Maggio
Eddie Obrien
Edson Soares
Elliott Fowler
Errol West
Evan Makris
Garry Lee
Greg Mitchell
Greg Sinchak
Jaime Shelato
Jason Novak
Jeremy Waterman
Joe Andolena
Joe Proffit
Joe Willage
Jordan Noel
Josh Adams
Manish Patel
Matt Clark
Matt Kempf
Matt Miller
Matt in Boston
Matthew Kelly
Michael 3000
Michael Benson
Michael Radke
Michael Siegrist
Mike Fontaine
Mike Ian
Mike Jones
Nikki Beaman
Patrick Jaicomo
Paul Korolenko
Regina Cilli
Richie Parkinson
Sam Hoffman
Santiago Rodriguez
Stephen Schenk
Steven Tangent
Tom MacGregor
Travis Peacock
Wayne Stahl


Team Maybe: 21 = $1,260
Andrew Pryor
Andy Vazquez
Brandon Campbell
Chris Stinnett
Craig Heiter
Dan Bartolucci
Dave Oliverio
Ed Grega
Erik Heraldez
Gabriel Mauch
Graig Sergiano
Harrison Quick
Jason Polevoi
Mike de los Santos
Mike Smail
niku
Paul Frost
Ryan Leary
Scott E. Dagger
Tim (timpopkid)
Trevor Joseph Pitruzzello


*if your name looks like this, it means i need an e-mail address for you. or, you know, your real name.



if you're from overseas, you are absolutely more than welcome to be a part of this co-op. however, when the time comes to ship records out to you, i'm going to have to ask that you pay for the cost of shipping. i know this kind of sucks, but i hope you understand.

once we get 100 definite "YES!" answers, i'll start getting the ball rolling with sending out e-mails and stuff like that. i think with 100 members we would have enough money to put something out. obviously, we'd like as many people as possible to get in on this, though, to give us a little more headroom financially. we'll cap it at 200 members, if we get there.

also, if you don't want me to put your name up on this public list, just PM me and let me know. i'm only trying to keep track of everybody and give others an idea of how much interest there is. maybe if somebody on the fence sees a bunch of people they like/trust willing to get involved, they'd be more likely to as well. but if you don't want your name here, i totally get that. just let me know and i'll take it down.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

count me in.

[ryno]

best joke thread of the new board!

[eddiexmercury]

Yeah, this could NEVER go wrong. Count me out!

[googlemyass]

Count me in as well.

[eddiexmercury]

ALSO

Jan 1, 2011 21:07:23 GMT -5 danthemjfan23 said:

i'd be willing to handle things (obviously with some help from a couple people) if you guys want this to happen for real.

i think the idea behind Communism was awesome, but clearly it wasn't executed properly. is this something you guys would be interested in trying again? if we can get enough people, i think we should do it.

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Jan 1, 2011 21:09:40 GMT -5 googlemyass said:

Count me in as well.

[danthemjfan23]

this is actually not a joke thread. the problem with the co-op was that it was run by somebody who was terrible at communicating, and had to juggle too many other things (especially financial problems) that it had no chance to reach its full potential. when the funds for the co-op started getting mixed with the funds for SH/VC, it was all downhill from there.

neither of those things would happen if i were in charge.

[eddiexmercury]

Jan 1, 2011 21:11:46 GMT -5 @Castro said:

this is actually not a joke thread. the problem with communism was that it was run by somebody who was terrible at communicating, and had to juggle too many other things (especially financial problems) that it had no chance to reach its full potential. when the funds for People started getting mixed with the funds for defense/government, it was all downhill from there.

neither of those things would happen if i were in charge.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

also, if this does happen, lets keep owner ship of the board/co-op seperate. i think minimizing the possibilities of a VC appocylpto 2.0 is a good idea. not saying that anyone is going to pull a virgil or anything, but lets keep our bases covered here!

[ryno]

geeeezzz eddie.


i was not trying to be negative, but i have no doubt that all co-ops are initiated with good intentions. it sucks that a bunch of folks lost out on some cash from VC, and it seems like doing the same thing(no matter how great the intentions, or how much integrity one or a couple people have) would be going down the same path. i feel like i am vicariously jaded for all of the VC peeps.

[danthemjfan23]

agreed (with errol).

[d34f]

maybe. the co-op did press one of my favorite bands, The Jealous Sound.

[Lorenzo Von Matterhorn]

I honestly never knew what the co-op was. All I knew was that there was trouble, and to stay far far away from it. Anybody want to fill me in on what happened there, and if you're serious about starting one what that would incorporate?

[James]

the first co-op failed because virgil was expecting profit without spending any of his own money or time.

it honestly seems like it would just be a headache. plus, which bands would trust another co-op to efficiently release a record now? virgil fucked up this business model for the current generation of bands.

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Jan 1, 2011 21:33:36 GMT -5 James said:

the first co-op failed because virgil was expecting profit without spending any of his own money or time.

it honestly seems like it would just be a headache. plus, which bands would trust another co-op to efficiently release a record now? virgil fucked up this business model for the current generation of bands.

If we have the right people involved, bands will want to be involved. Besides, it should be about getting some new band's music out there as opposed to making quick $$$ licensing something safe that's guaranteed to sell...imho.

[danthemjfan23]

here's the basic rundown of what happened with the original co-op, which was run by virgil:

200 people chipped in 60 bucks to buy a "unit of involvement". this assured them of getting the most rare copy of every release that the co-op would ever put out.

the 200 people were divided into "teams," each of which had a "team leader." the team members sent in a list of releases that they'd like to see pressed on vinyl. the team leaders compiled the submissions and created a list of releases that everybody could vote on.

after the voting took place (it was based on a points system), the top 15 vote-getting releases were made top priority of the co-op to try to license and press.

there were certain rules for what releases could be voted on, such as:
- max legth of 44 minutes (i believe this was the time limit). that way everything would be on a single 12" or less, theoretically keeping the money on the right track.
- nothing that is owned by a major label. that way it wouldn't cost a million bucks to license.
- nothing that had ever been pressed before.

things were pressed in quantities of 1,000 copies (333 on the rare color - 200 of which automatically went to the shareholders - and 667 on the common color).

that's the basic premise of the co-op, and it's a model i would mostly stick to. i think some changes could be made to assure that things ran smoothly and on time, but we'll cross that bridge if/when we get to it.

[googlemyass]

I agree.

[onlettingjoe]

i would definitely be into this..i haven't been on the boards as long as most of you guys but i'd be interested for sure.

[James]

Jan 1, 2011 21:37:13 GMT -5 Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:

Jan 1, 2011 21:33:36 GMT -5 James said:

the first co-op failed because virgil was expecting profit without spending any of his own money or time.

it honestly seems like it would just be a headache. plus, which bands would trust another co-op to efficiently release a record now? virgil fucked up this business model for the current generation of bands.

If we have the right people involved, bands will want to be involved. Besides, it should be about getting some new band's music out there as opposed to making quick $$$ licensing something safe that's guaranteed to sell...imho.

oh, i completely agree about getting a new band's music out. but if i was in a band and knew about the co-op fiasco and someone approached me and basically explained to me what happened, i would just think it sounded like co-op 2.0.

i like and respect the people who are discussing running this co-op 2.0, so i won't be shit talking it, but i doubt i'll be buying in.

[michael]

interesting

[jhdave]

Jan 1, 2011 21:45:32 GMT -5 James said:

Jan 1, 2011 21:37:13 GMT -5 Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:

If we have the right people involved, bands will want to be involved. Besides, it should be about getting some new band's music out there as opposed to making quick $$$ licensing something safe that's guaranteed to sell...imho.

oh, i completely agree about getting a new band's music out. but if i was in a band and knew about the co-op fiasco and someone approached me and basically explained to me what happened, i would just think it sounded like co-op 2.0.

i like and respect the people who are discussing running this co-op 2.0, so i won't be shit talking it, but i doubt i'll be buying in.

That's something I could get behind. Helping a great band get a non licenced out release out.
1. It takes a ton less money to put out a new release as opposed to licencing one
2. It helps new bands
3. Minimal involvement with the bands "official" label, (if they have one)

I think it would be an all around less headache. The licencing part is the hugest hurdle to overcome. If that is taken out of the equation, things would so much more relaxed and enjoyable.

The vc co-op was stupid, I never got involved in that shit. Recipe for disaster before it was even started.

[danthemjfan23]

i agree with the concept behind that idea, dave (and james), but wouldn't that also be much harder to convince 200 people to get behind a certain band? everybody would have to listen to 50+ new, "unheard" bands and become familiar enough with all of them to make an intelligent decision as to which one they'd like pressed.

i'm all for any ideas, but wouldn't this be nearly as big of a headache as the original co-op? let's discuss this.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Jan 1, 2011 22:07:54 GMT -5 jhdave said:

Jan 1, 2011 21:45:32 GMT -5 James said:

oh, i completely agree about getting a new band's music out. but if i was in a band and knew about the co-op fiasco and someone approached me and basically explained to me what happened, i would just think it sounded like co-op 2.0.

i like and respect the people who are discussing running this co-op 2.0, so i won't be shit talking it, but i doubt i'll be buying in.

That's something I could get behind. Helping a great band get a non licenced out release out.
1. It takes a ton less money to put out a new release as opposed to licencing one
2. It helps new bands
3. Minimal involvement with the bands "official" label, (if they have one)

I think it would be an all around less headache. The licencing part is the hugest hurdle to overcome. If that is taken out of the equation, things would so much more relaxed and enjoyable.

The vc co-op was stupid, I never got involved in that shit. Recipe for disaster before it was even started.

i like this idea a lot.

[danthemjfan23]

i'm totally open to suggestions on this. it will be OUR co-op, so we can make it whatever we want. we should come up with some ground rules for the first couple releases once we figure out what direction we want to take things, but i am also very flexible and reasonable, and realize that if things aren't working after a release or two or five, we should re-visit things and figure out a different approach to make things work better.

[jhdave]

Jan 1, 2011 22:11:22 GMT -5 danthemjfan23 said:

i agree with the concept behind that idea, dave (and james), but wouldn't that also be much harder to convince 200 people to get behind a certain band? everybody would have to listen to 50+ new, "unheard" bands and become familiar enough with all of them to make an intelligent decision as to which one they'd like pressed.

i'm all for any ideas, but wouldn't this be nearly as big of a headache as the original co-op? let's discuss this.

hmm...
your right.
I just was thinking this. I think this a ton more complicated than the concept behind it seems.

[danthemjfan23]

the other issue i see arising in that scenario would be the sales. i think maybe after the new co-op gets a few strong releases under its belt and starts to gain a following, then we could re-visit the idea of putting out unheard of bands. but i think sales would dramatically suffer if some unknown label put out some unknown band's record.

what made the co-op work as long as it did was the fact that the first couple releases sold out, which made the project enough money to put out the next record. the initial investment of the shareholders pays for the first record or two, but what keeps the project continually moving forward is the hopes that its releases sell well, generating enough revenue to put out the next release.

again, i'm totally open to suggestions and an honest discussion about this idea. let's talk about it and see what everybody thinks would work.

[googlemyass]

Jan 1, 2011 22:21:35 GMT -5 danthemjfan23 said:

the other issue i see arising in that scenario would be the sales. i think maybe after the new co-op gets a few strong releases under its belt and starts to gain a following, then we could re-visit the idea of putting out unheard of bands. but i think sales would dramatically suffer if some unknown label put out some unknown band's record.

what made the co-op work as long as it did was the fact that the first couple releases sold out, which made the project enough money to put out the next record. the initial investment of the shareholders pays for the first record or two, but what keeps the project continually moving forward is the hopes that its releases sell well, generating enough revenue to put out the next release.

again, i'm totally open to suggestions and an honest discussion about this idea. let's talk about it and see what everybody thinks would work.

This is true. It would be good to establish the label first and foremost, then take risks (a lesser known band's album) afterward. Unless it's an amazing record.

[controlthebleeding]

the co-op is a great idea in theory, but in actuality it doesn't work very well unless everyone involved enjoys the same form of music. i personally woundn't mind putting out some pop-punk or kbd stuff, but i'd also be into putting out a hardcore/pv/crust record too. maybe even a hip/hop album like Imortal Technique's - Revelolutionary VOL 1. (since he'd most likely do it for next to nothing)

if one genre's music takes precedence over stuff i'd like to put out from time to time, i'd be pretty soured. hence why i didn't care for the original coop after a point. I think maybe i'm just like every other record label owner. I want to put out music by bands i like (but not everyone else in the majority likes). I'm not saying i'd just want to put out the bands i like, but i'd like to put out something i like on occasion and help others put out shit they like too. ya know.

Hell if i could i'd put out a BLACK CONGRESS record in the quickness, i would.

[danthemjfan23]

i don't think there's any reason that tons of different genres/bands couldn't be covered by a project like this. that's what the voting process would be for.

the only pitfall in that is the fact that the co-op was started on a punk rock/alt rock/folk punk/etc message board, so of course the majority of the releases nominated would fall into that category. we may run into the same issues here, but as long as everybody knows up front that we're open to ANY suggestions, then i think it may work in a fashion similar to what you'd like it to be, mike.

should i put you down in the "may be interested" list??