Music Indsutry in Death Throws or Renaissance?
I guess it depends on who you're speaking to.
I was thinking a lot over the weekend about where we're currently at in the music industry. What the roles of record labels are, should be and how music is going to be consumed over the next few years. This biggest change I've seen since getting into music (which wasn't long ago) is the shift in earning power through distribution and lower costs.
If you want to make your living, or at least some cash from being an artist, you need three things a product, market and a vehicle to get one to the other. Previously to do this required a fair amount of investment, not only in cash but in expertise and time. Also, when I say product I don't just mean an album. You've got your touring, merchandise, publishing revenues and any other way you can think of to make some cash.
Traditionally, and still today, artists get 'signed' you get an advance against future earnings to record your album and live on for a while so you can concentrate on being an artist. Once mixed and mastered promotion starts in anticipation of the release after it's inclusion into the label's release schedule. A successful campaign primes the market for the product release which includes radio, online campaign, sometimes TV, press etc etc. The product is released through various retail and online channels and the artist/band support the album through touring and other promo activities.
However, in recent months especially, I have seen some interesting examples of changes in this model. There's one guy I know who's been playing for years. I rate him highly and have presented his work to the labels in the past. However, rather than gunning for a deal, he's been playing several times a week for ages. He has a reasonable online fanbase but not huge.
What he has done though is ask for people to invest in his album. A nominal investment gets you the album once it's finished, larger investment get's a profit share with an agreed return dependent on the products success. Through the quality of his music he has won over several radio DJ's. So once the product is out he will get radio support as well as his online marketing activities. Great stuff, so where does that leave the labels?
Radiohead's recent 'honesty box' model is nothing new either. I've heard of artists selling singles online asking their market to pay what they can for the track. Magnatune has been doing this since 2003 and is a model that works for a lot of new artists. So with music practically being given away and hefty cash being made elsewhere how are labels to make money?
With the first example I think the first thing to consider is who is running the project and creatively in control. It's a lovely concept to think of an artist in complete control of every aspect of their product from beginning to end, however it's not necessarily best for the end product or the artist. What would Blood Sugar Sex Magik have sounded like without Rick Ruben, or who would have the album got to without Warner Bros marketing activities and distribution? Obviously the world is a very different place since 1991 but the principles of making a great product are still the same.
Good A&R people have an idea for the direction of an album from the very beginning and work closely with the artist for those concepts to manifest. They know the right producers, studios and mastering engineers to make it happen. They also spend hours listening and deciding on mixes straight from the studio. Plus they work on the track order to help create a feeling of continuity/journey through the album.
Distribution is also easier than ever. You could set up a SnoCap or indiestore widget in your Vox blog and distribute but again could you create enough of a market with the time you have available to make it really pay? I know artists who spend 80% of their time online promoting rather than writing, recording, gigging etc. Is this the right balance? It has to be if you want to continually build your online profile but what is the end result of your creative output? I can't remember who said one in ten tunes your write is any good and one in a hundred might be a hit, so would you have time to work the odds?
Up until fairly recently I was very much pro-artist, DIY etc. But for truly great albums and for artists to develop from album to album I think they need the right people around them. Great marketeers, producers, A&R, graphic designers, film-makers etc. Those who all work together as a catalyst to the artist's creativity and allow them to be an artist, rather than an online campaign specialist.So how is the industry going to be making money? The term 'record company' for me reflects a time that is now passing us by. Where a company's only or main revenue is generated from selling recordings. I think the term 'music company' would be closer to the mark.
For a label to be desirable to an artist they need to be able to offer services beyond what they can manage on their own, as described above. Publishing, touring and merchandise are hugely important to an artist and a valuable source of income. To participate in these areas of an artist's career labels need to offer them a valuable service and strike up a share of the revenues that is fair to both parties, or the artist can simply take these rights elsewhere.
For the industry it's time to stop trying to patch a leaky bath and go straight for where the tap is. Money is still being generated from music, in different ways, areas and on a different scale/timescale. The key is balance of investments and strategy. The indsutry needs to be wary of reactionary, knee-jerk strategies which can be costly and shift the focus/resource from their core purpose. However, in the past record companies have shown their skills for creativity, development and responses to market trends. They simply need to concentrate on evolving rather than trying to hunker down, fortify and defend older models of business. I think rather than the industry being in its death throws we're about to be pushed into a period of diverse creativity not seen in music for decades.
Though I could be wrong. :-)
What do you think?
Comments
it's great... the mass communication now available to an artist really opens things up for new ways to get music out there, it really opens things up for imaginative ways to progress with your audience... it's forcing the business into new areas and anything that gets music heard in new ways can't be a bad thing. I never could have imagined five years ago getting my tracks accessible all over the world... it's great! :)
It's excellent to read the thoughts of someone in the business having such a healthy idea of the role of the label & its relationship to the artist, and such a forward-thinking attitude about the possibilities for creative freedom in the coming musical climate.
Your comments about the amount of time an artist is expected to spend promoting themselves I find especially pertinent. I personally find it completely absurd that an artist who wants to be recognised for his talent must first become an expert in promotional IT. It's no secret nowadays that any idiot with a guitar and an internet connection can get noticed if they spend enough time and energy promoting themselves - but then what about the genuine artists who dedicate themselves to perfecting their writing and performing skills and simply have no interest or ability in self-promotion? Think of all the incredible music we could all be missing out on because the "independent" scene, which supposedly allows greater creative freedom, actually acts as a kind of quality-control bypass. I personally spend basically all my time on songwriting and performance and maybe half an hour a week checking messages on here and on myspace, because I have this old-fashioned idea that if the material is good enough it speaks for itself and simply demands to be heard and talked about.
The possibilities for a really great, well-matched team of an artist who can spend their time and energy on their craft, with a creative and resourceful label team who can handle the promotional side etc., could yield really exciting results.
As always happens in the world of (big) business, the squeeze gets put on creative output. We know that product works so why look for a new one, hence the proliferation of nu-rave bands that all sound like each other. Or the Britpop phenomenon a couple of years ago. As soon as labels see one type of artist sell big, they then sign up loads of other artists that sound exactly the same to cash in. Nothing wrong with that if you're a shareholder but what happens if you make music that sounds different to anything else out there?
It's kind of like the big four in the Premier League, year after year we suffer the promise of a Tottenham or a Man City dislodging one of the big four, year after year, the big four finish in the top 4 spots. We hear that crowd attendances are down in the Premier league year on year, so how to inject excitement again?
I remember an old mate who did a business course telling me that when it comes down to it, all companies compete on one of two things: value for money or differentiation. As all CD's / downloads / records / memory sticks etc cost the same, the only way to compete is to make yourself different, yet all I see in the mainstream press is Beyonce / Britney / Christina / Justin / Take That / clones or maybe for the 30-something Guardian reading crowd LCD Soundsystem clones (CSS / Justice etc). I have to think back about 5 years to the last time I heard anything genuinely original.
So what would it take for a record company to take a chance on something that is genuinely original? Or at keast different enough that it doesn't sound like anything else out there at the moment? It always seems like some indie label gets to take a chance then all the majors follow suit. Now we hear the majors are in trouble - 'attendances are down' - so instead of investing £1 million in some jazz pop toss or talking up some decidely average bands, how come big companies don't sign loads of artists who all sound different from each other and focus on promotional support rather than financing vastly expansive debut studio albums?
Would majors prefer to sign 10 bands on £50k each or give one band half a million. Which has the better chance of success?
Come to think of it, who actually makes music to get signed anyway? Surely if you can touch that one person at some gig that 30 people show up to then that makes it all worthwhile?
I couldn't really trust someone who can't spell, it may be industry not 'indsutry', but, there's the rub, because it is a bit like 'insult-ry' at the minute - like Morrisey said 'modern life is rubbish', and the music industry is reflecting that - its quite funny really, the occassions I do have to meet record biz people and publishers, I almost want to throttle them they are so cliched, brainless, and so caught up in numbers and sales... when the heart come back in music, with support for talent and songs, thats when the industry will recover... the great thing at the moment is that bubbling under is something much more serious in Urban landscapes across the UK that white A&R middle class wankers like yourself are so out-of-tune with, it is going to rear up and rip all your heads off when you're all sipping your cappachinos in Camden Town... like punk you won't know what's hit you... you obviously haven't been reading my blogs otherwise you would know better than to ask my opinion.....ROCK AND ROLL IS DEAD , LONG LIVE ROCK AND ROLL!! at see my blogs at:
http://marshallstar.vox.com/library/post/thats-all-youre-getting--i-saw-shane-ward-in-my-local-pizza-hut---serving-double-cheese-bases.html
http://marshallstar.vox.com/library/post/yes--theyre-buying-up-the-planet---protest-now-before-everything-is-eerrrr-lost.html
http://marshallstar.vox.com/library/post/samanda---its-a-travesty.html
http://marshallstar.vox.com/library/post/bang-the-drum.html
http://marshallstar.vox.com/library/post/radiohead---1p-yes-please.html
http://marshallstar.vox.com/library/post/swinging-blue-jeans.html
and whilst ye at it I-B my opinion doesn't come cheap so the Invoice is in the post
www.marshallstar.co.uk
Really interesting post mate. Got me thinking about the future, and consequently how I should go about achieving where I want to be in 12months.
It's interesting you mentioned that chap that has never really gunned for a deal, but gigged shitloads and asked fans to invest in his album. A friend of mine from Leeds did just that exact same thing, he's done alright (won Leeds Bright Young Things, played Leeds Fest etc.) but now seems to have hit a stone wall. He's always had a fairly good following, but finance is a massive issue. He has little money, and fans do contribute, but it hardly covers the cost of the studio rental. Getting to gigs is a problem and life is freakin hard for him and always a little hit and miss!
However, i've also got another friend whose band got dropped from a major few years back, so they went independent - Leeds based 'Four Day Hombre'. They set up their own label and asked fans to contribute to produce their next album. Yet, they did it as a massive marketing campaign and were really clever about it; they targetted a few key investors that were millionaires (who were happy to 'donate' to the cause to avoid taxation of their fortunes!) Clever bastards! They managed to raise £80,000 via fans and a couple of key investors to record, promote, etc the album that they always wanted to record with their favorite producer. So they were successful, but have now also started to hit a wall as finance has now run dry. Time for another ingenious marketing campaign, or maybe they should entice labels again and get a bigger budget for publishing, touring and merchandise etc - As you point out these are 'hugely important to an artist and a valuable source of income.'
Personally, I have always wanted to aim for the financial backing of a major simply to avoid working my ass into a hole like my fellow Leeds-based muso friends! I could promote for hours and build a fanbase but it means shit today in my opinion - i'd rather hanker A&R and work on my material. A label with contacts and finance could gain my entire lifespan's fanbase in seconds of advertising (not coz i think i'm shite) but because finance pays a team. Like you comment, a great 'record' is more often than not the product of a team effort - 'Great marketeers, producers, A&R, graphic designers, film-makers etc. Those who all work together as a catalyst to the artist's creativity and allow them to be an artist'. I couldn't agree more. I've slowly but surely been building my team, have some interest from labels and now feel pretty confident that there's a market for my product and its unique selling point (a string quartet based singer-songwriter). I feel like i'm ready to present my project and my team (producer/manager etc) to a suitable label and am planning such atm.
Re: 'They simply need to concentrate on evolving rather than trying to hunker down, fortify and defend older models of business.' Yeah it amazes me how long it has taken labels (generally speaking) to react to the recent advances in technology over the last few years with digital downloads etc. I don't think a lot of the majors know what to do with themselves, and are simply relying on 'cash cows' and bands that sound-the same and acts that they know they already have a market for. The thing is, new rave and acts that are NME cool appeal to a young generation that download their music illegally, and generate a short, often stunted burst of income. They are often fish and chip wrapping within months and have cost the label vital finance.
So where's all this going in the future? What's next for labels and music retailers? I work in HMV so i've got a pretty good grounding in customer trends. In the short-term I think Radio 2 markets are quite important for labels, supported by the recent influx of singer-songwriters and jazzy-singers (bailey-rae, cullum, melua).
Thus, my manager and i have discussed heading more towards a straddle between the Radio 1 and the Radio 2 market with my own music - Radio 2 is mega buks with middle aged people with secure jobs, a regular income and a pride in purchasing a tangible product. It spells PROFIT! I'm all for selling-out. This is a business afterall.
The future? I wana go into HMV (or anywhere for that matter) and purchase an ablum infra-red. Simple easy transfer. No fuss. Simply type in my Bank Pin and have the music zapped onto my pod. Hate fannying around on my mac wiv itunes it pisses me off. Who's the first band/company that's gonna do it? We'll see...
Peace out, Ashmeister x
P.S. Thanks for your input marshallstar, i'm sure your music's great. You sure know how to get people to listen to it
Yes, spelling isn't my strong point, and of course I read your blog. Otherwise I wouldn't have invited you to comment. There's no point in inviting people who agree with me. :-)
India 99,
Very good piece Indieboy. I wonder will your boss be happy reading it, though he is aware of it no doubt.Theres nothing in your piece that he doesnt already know,alongside every other ceo of major record companies. In a way whether you know it or not you are advocating the 'independent route' as a more viable route.I think you should rename the article to
'Fuck the major record company when you can do it all yourself'
There is a strong element of 'reconsidering your position' attached to your piece i feel. I think the day of the major recompnay is gone.
As you mentioned your pal has made a decent living out of doing the 'independent route', which brings me to my point. I think record companies now are going to find it too difficult to evolve now as technology, the internet, home recording have come on so far that artists technically dont need a major company anymore. If they are willing to put in the effort they can reap the rewards.
Consider the irish band 'The frames'. Signed to warner for years, got nowhere. Parted from the major, went down the independent route and now are one of the biggest original bands in ireland alongisde damien rice, paddy casey. When they play in america now they sell out major venues.
Everything they have done has been to do it the independent way, why??because they can!!!theres nothing out there nowadays stopping artists in making professional videos, cds, recording and selling (without the record company), all themselves,
No offence I think in 5 years times major record companies will be dwindling even more in number. Cant really see them evolving into something else.In ireland 5 years ago there were approx 5 a&r men/women working for majors here. Now there is 1 part timer for sony, and 1 part timer for atlantic. That says it all for me as to where to industry is heading
India 99
It's true that artists now have the resources to pretty much create each piece of their product, and many artists have varying success with this. At a grass roots level I think this is essential and there are a minority who can hold a market together for their stuff. Though they often struggle after a few years and hit a ceiling market-wise.
I come very much from the DIY camp and have worked with other artists who take this route.
However, I know that the albums I was involved in making and those of my peers wouldn't be anywhere near as suncessful if they had the people involved who's job it is to create great albums and leave the music to the artists. Don't get me wrong, there have been some great DIY'ers out there but I do think they're exceptions to the rule and more often do it out of necessity than choice.
I'd much rather be in a studio with someone like Mike Hedges or Craig Silvey than someone I knew who was just fairly good. The same with artwork, I'd hate to be sat in front of Photoshop titting around with substandard images trying to get it right. Again, there are those with graphic design talent too but when it comes from the product end to end you need good people involved. There are so many talents required to launch, develop and maintain a career in music.
I heard a comparison today that made me think a lot. There are a lot of parallels between the music and film creatively. However, would a group of actors, with their own film equipment, editing studio and talents be able to make a fully fledged feature film? In 99% of cases, no is the short answer. They could create something of artistic merit, interest or representative of themselves. But they could not possess what is required for a truely landmark production. Cult status and development is a different matter, again in the minority.
Obviously, not everyone wants to be in the business of trying to make 'important' or landmark albums. But I do think most would prefer not to use their own money and have the best chances at success.
When talking of making a living at music, again it is possible going it alone. The the actual % successful at doing so long term is very low. Plus with the sheer amount of self releases floating about, it's actually raised the bar somewhat on quality, increased competion for attention and in-turn increased the need for higher investment in recording, promo, gigs etc.
Like it or not, music companies will always exist. They will be more involved in other areas of music and at different levels rather than just the top %. At the lower levels of the market it will be more like a services indsutry for developing artists with those further up gaining investment. At the same time their relationships with artists will probably be more of a partnership than a commission/employment due to the recent empowerment and control given to artists through the technology you mention.
Thanks for the insight into the Ireland market too.
IB
Without label development, investment, support, and the various producers, engineers, promoters, etc. that these artists were given access to, they would have no fan base to sell to, and would not be able to 'break free' of anything.
Did the labels take more than their fair share, and screw the artists in as many ways that they could think of? Most likely. But labels have contributed to the development of the greatest artists in the world. Would they have made it without label support? Unlikely.
Musicians are a funny lot, myself included. Sometimes they don't realize when their music is shit. Many operate under the misconception that all music is great, it just needs to find its niche. Sure, there are great artists that get passed over, but they are the minority, drowning in a sea of mediocrity. But even great artists and musicians need guidance, support, direction, and help to reach greatness, whether it comes from the label or anywhere else. Like the Chilis with Ruben, where are U2 and the Joshua Tree without Eno and Langlois? Where are the Beatles without Sir George? Where are the Stones without the Beatles? Why do artists who reach greatness release such crap? Because, like so many of the unsigned, but for different reasons, they've no one to guide them and tell them if something needs work or is substandard.
Nobody does it entirely on their own. Under the right circumstances, label support can equal freedom from day-job interference and financial worry, freedom to write and create non-stop, help with promotion and marketing, and access to all of the people and things that an artist needs to free his or her time to simply be an artist. We're not all on here to thumb our noses at the poor, failing label; we want the deal. I'd take it right now. The technology that empowers can also be the technology than enslaves. When you're doing all of the jobs for yourself that a label would do for you, because the internet enables it, you have less and less time to do what you are supposed to be best at: making music.
Indie boy stated :
""I heard a comparison today that made me think a lot. There are a lot of parallels between the music and film creatively. However, would a group of actors, with their own film equipment, editing studio and talents be able to make a fully fledged feature film? In 99% of cases, no is the short answer. They could create something of artistic merit, interest or representative of themselves.""
What about the blair witch project????????????????
yep indie boy 99% you are right and im only winding you up, 99% of the times actors cant.And despite blair witch project being the exception to what you have just said, you could still tell it was a budget film.
There are comparisions with the music industry and film. However you cant make a 'lord of the rings' type film if you are a load of arty budget students, but you can create a song that can merit a beatles orchestral slice of wizardery in your own bedroom.
That is one point i would defintely agree with you on is that the true icing on the cake is to work with a serious producer such as mike hedges. And lets face it the only way a young band coming through is going to get that chance is if they are signed to a major label, so theres a few score points for the record company
the next 5 years will be interesting though.
My vote's for renaissance - viva la revolution.
IB, This is by far the greatest post I have read on your page so far!
(no offense to your postings of course)
Self-promoted artists seem to be the wave of now, but there's sooo much a record company, or music company (as you put it) can do to improve an artists project, and get the artist, and everyone involved paid. NO artist is "so great" that they could honestly say they did everything themselves, and become a "Led Zepplin" without the knowledge and backing of a music company and or crew of some sort doing things for them.
For a single artist to have to do all of the online work, while balancing their writing/recording time equally can be an overwhelming task as it is, and with all of that effort, still probably wind up next to nowhere without the company's help and expertise in there somewhere.
Personally, I haven't even considered merchandising. And, why should I? Hell, I can't even GIVE AWAY my songs, much less sell a t-shirt.
I'm not sure of the whole ball of wax that is the music industry, but I know that nothing is as it appears on the surface.
That being said, what would a music company think about (rather than any standard contract) offering grants in exchange for some sort of future payback?
For example: A music company were to give an artist a grant of oh, say $25,000 USD, to use for new gear, schooling, hire more artists, etc. with the stipulation that in return, that artist will do something promotional for said music company and/or pay back in a few years with a little interest, or offer a similar grant to a future artist when they begin to earn better?
I just think there has to be a better way than with everyone wearing a "ball and chain" in the end.
I'm sure the industry is having it's issues, but I'd say they're nowhere near being in "death throws", as you put it.
I say renaissance. A little change never really hurt anyone.
Nice Post. The industry needs acts that will capture the interest of the buying public to a degree that they gain their backing from the fan base. The acts that still sell 'records' or 'units' are the ones that have the heart of the public.
A longevity is needed, there are so many throw away pop bands these days, one hit and they are gone. we also need to be a lttle tougher on illegal downloading sites.
Great to be here.
Indieboy
this is evolution perhaps as you might put it, you'll find this interesting
http://www.rte.ie/arts/2007/1017/madonna.html
India99
I read about this in the metro the other day. It's pretty much par for the course over the next few years as '360' deals are now being negotiated here and there. It's not the first of it's kind that's been signed though. It's just the first massivehugesuper artist that's done it.
Madonna can sign with a concert promoter like that as Madonna is as recognisable a brand as Pepsi, Nike or McDonalds. It's a tour that will sell itself, they just have to say where an when and people will turn up.
There's probably about 15 artists in the world who could manage that to varying degrees, the Stones, U2 etc. The vast sums of cash generated will happily pay for new albums but I wonder how much new stuff she'll do with them or if they'll concentrate on live DVD's and such.
Also, if they do record a new original album what sort of product they would create. Would it be another 'Ray of Light' or 'Confessions on a Dance Floor'? Unless the essentially build a label around her I think not as they know whatever they'll release will sell and support the tour. Luckily she's got two albums left of her commitment with Warner.
Again, I'm making this up as I go so I could be wrong.
The indsutry has tried with varying success of being tougher on illegal file sharing. But it doesn't sit right with me that people are being sued and made an example of in hopes of scaring others into not doing it and behaing like music consumers of ten years ago.
It's more important to understand why people do it and how we can pull them back into a method of consuming our music in a way that is appealing to them and still keeps the industry afloat.
Do you download music? Don't worry, I wont shout at you but if you've tried it you know how annoying it is, slow, and ultimately not really as rewarding as getting good product or getting closer to your artist. Not every download is a lost sale and it can act as a brand building excecise which generates indirect revenue elsewhere. Again, something which is now being understood.
Of course, I'd prefer a method that's legimate, delivers good product and encourages growth in the market and I think it's easily achievable. I reckon the subscription model may be the preferred method, any takers?
not into all this personal message stuff, I need help, I need assistance to get my record distributed, I need money to buy more gear for my studio... I need a good PR company to help get press for my new album, I need a good live agent to help me with college dates in the USA... Just can't see the point of what you do - just seems a waste of space and time to me... when you can help me get in touch - you already know my opinion that major labels need to be more egalitarian in their approach to talent and small independent labels... if you can't help me fuck off and leave me alone...
M*
www.marshallstar.co.uk
Here are two situations.
Elton John could walk into almost any venue in the country, write down a price and a time on the back of a napkin and he would have himself a gig.
If you are a star of the caliber of Radiohead, Madonna or Sir Elton, why do you need -anyone- helping you with distribution? Keep in mind that by going solo you have the benefit of keeping almost everything that you earn and the freedom to hire a PR firm to do some of the legwork for you. Even if you make less money (in an absolute sense) because you can't be everywhere at once, you are -earning- a comparable amount. Not only tha, but you now have much more control over what you do and when you do it -- which is a benefit in and of itself.
The second scenerio.
Sarah Parker lives in Podunk, Indiana in the year 1989. She has never heard of Sting, until one day when she is introduced to him from a mixtape given to her (illegally?) by one of her friends. She goes on to become a huge fan. She goes concerts, promotes his music everywhere and invests hundreds of times more money into Sting than the price of that illegal tape she heard back in '89 (which she would never have purchased to begin with).
If you move the timeline forward to 2007, little Sarah Parker could be liable for several hundred thousand dollars worth of damages if she did the same thing, over a filesharing network, that she did in '89. If the recording industry is trying to maximize profit, why not do everything possible to expose listeners to their stable of artists?
I've asked myself these question, and I hope someone at your label is reading this because I think that ego and inertia is getting in the way of business sense. Here are a few thoughts.
1. The industry isn't dying or being reborn, it's in its awkward adolescence. It's used to getting its own way and is only now realizing that, "The times, they are a'changin." What needs to be done is for someone with enough clout to realize that it's a brave new world and it is time to reevaluate business models.
2. I love music but I work primarily with web technology and startups. What I've learned is that the most fundamental goal of business is to be able to adapt to changing market conditions. The majors need to stop reading all those overblown memos from their legal team telling them how great the war on piracy is going, and instead look at the people who consume music as distribution channels. Everyone who listens to a song (no matter how it is obtained) can become an evangelist. If they promoted this sort of evangelism instead of creating an atmosphere of fear, they would open up entirely new industries. The first major to really recognize this will change the entire landscape.
2. In this new world the recording industry needs artists, not the other way around. People who really love to perform can find distribution channels. The web has reduced those barriers to almost nothing. You could argue that only a tiny fraction of them will ever become "truly famous," but isn't that how the game has always been played? How many people submit music to labels and how many actually get signed? If you run the numbers, I don't think they are too much different than digital distribution.
3. The best thing the industry could do for its artists is to support each and every site and service out there that is trying to help distribute their music. I am not saying that they should release their catalogs for free, but they have to be more willing to make deals. If they waste time worrying about whether their catalogs are locked down with the shinest new DRM schemes they are missing opportunities. It is entirely possible that one of the dozens of distribution networks out there will find a way to market music better than they can. Why waste so much time when you could just work with the companies that are trying to market for you?
Here's the bonus round,
The music industry needs to get over its sense of entitlement and get back to their real business.
They will never sell physical media until they can add enough value into a CD that your average consumers sees it as better than a download.
They won't restore artist confidence if they are fighting them at every turn. Given just a tiny bit of savvy, almost any band can get their name out to a huge number of people. Just like every business does not need venture capital, every musician does not need a label to make it work.
They need to be looking for means to create evangelists, monetize the cottage industries surrounding bands, and saturate the market with their music.
This might be a little more expansive than you were hoping for, but thanks for inviting me out to this discussion. If you need anything else, you know how to reach me.
@ Freddy: Amen to that. Spot on as far as I'm concerned. I was thinking, if you look at the history of the whole thing, music has always worked the same way, right back to the classical composers. If Beethoven and the rest of them hadn't had patrons giving them money to live off, commissioning new compositions, organising recitals & concerts etc, we simply wouldn't have all those symphonies, sonatas and so forth. I know times have changed and all, but I think the idea of music company as "patron" - essentially a fan of yours who's got the resources and enthusiasm to get your stuff out there and make new fans - is an interesting point of view to take.
I also think we're hitting on an interesting point about the supposed artistic validity/integrity of the indie vs. signed musician. The stereotype is that the artist signed to a major label is somehow whoring themselves out, willing to make changes to their art to satisfy the commercialised demands of the record company - but if you think about it, But if you think about it, the independent artist is the one having to spend more time whoring themselves out to all and sundry to become well-known, while the time spent on their art languishes.
I know it's not as simple as that and I'm exaggerating to make a point, but if it's a new way of looking at things then it's worth a moment's thought. India 99's comment about the Irish music scene makes me think about the situation in Northern Ireland where, to the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely NO music industry whatsoever, which is absurd considering the ridiculous wealth of incredible musicians we've got over there, some of whom I've been working with recently and finding that they too have very strong ideas about independence (in every sense of the word), but often seem short-sighted in denying themselves a wider audience, and in turn denying that audience their great music.
Incidentally, regarding the music downloading thing - I downloaded Radiohead's new album the other day and gave it a cursory listen but found myself not really paying attention to it, because it didn't feel like an album as such - just a bunch of songs I'd downloaded. I don't think an album can be really separated from its physical form, the packaging, the artwork etc. Remember the original "Sticky Fingers", by the Stones, with the zip-fly album cover? That's something you simply can't download. So maybe taking more care in the physical presentation of an album, taking pride in making it into a work of art in itself, would be a step forward in the download issue.
Just a thought