Music Business Future In Flux

  • Thread starter Thread starter crawdad
  • Start date Start date
....all of these are very valid points. What will we do if there is no grand scale organized business of Music? Would a lack of big business labels, and label distribution hurt music?
Im not sure how any type of music business could exist without major labels and distribution. It seems that if the entire business of music was not proprietary in any way, and music was internet based, the available selection of truly talented artists would become so diluted that no individual or band could ever get world wide exposure and recognition like they do now. I guess it would be exactly what independent music is supposed to be, ...... minus the revenue that could be created by large scale popularity. Would everything become so click related, that music popularity would vary greatly from city to city? Would a band's ability to tour be limited to just playing clubs popular to their favorite bbs? ........i dunno. :confused:
(great thread!)
 
Re: On the positive side of things . . .

chessrock said:


I was about to post this very statement, but I got beat to it. :)

I totally agree. The bands of tomorrow that survive will do so by performing live. Artists will also be forced to look in to other avenues to generate revenue; Merchandise deals will be a major factor: Think Britney Spears lunch boxes, action figures, etc. :) Also, I'm sure they may even get a lot more in to public speaking, product endorsements, radio talk shows, guest appearances, etc. Think of all the various ways athletes make money besides the time they spend playing.

So in other words, bands that put on stunning live performances will be survivors in the industry's darwinistic shakeout. Not a bad thought. Also, the musicians who make all this outrageous money will actually be forced to do outside activities - in other words, they'll actually have to WORK for their money. Imagine that. Still, not a bad thing.

Plus, with the increased ability to download and try music for free, a lot of lesser-known acts will actually have people hear them. Think about it. Maybe some people will get a free ride on their tunes, but a lot of paying customers will be piggy-backing who may never have heard of the band, otherwise. So what may be bad for the bigger-name artists will be a blessing for the lesser-known.

And if the lesser-knowns have a strong live act to back it all up . . .

So to review, we got a means for unknown acts to be heard. Only the guys with a strong live show will survive. Musicians having to earn their money. Doesn't sound so bad to me. The only negative I can see are what will most assuredly be escalating ticket prices to the shows that are in demand. But you have to consider a lot of bands are under-charging right now as it is.
Click to expand...


Dude, that last paragraph is what scares the shit outta me... Look at the well-publicized fight between Ticketmaster/Ticketron, & Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder. It all but destroyed what may well have been the so-called "grunge" movements greatest band. I say "so-called", 'cos if any of you out there who read this are at least my age or older, then you remember a little Saturday morning cartoon called "Scooby Doo, where are you?". Those cats were grunge before the kids who made the term grunge popular were ever even born. But back to the subject at hand... If by some quirk of fate my band ever became a major act, I wouldn't give a f**k less if our album was downloaded, or not. Who gives a shit? Anyone with any knowledge at all about the record industry as a whole knows that recording artists who make $$$ don't make the bulk of their $$$ from album sales, they make it by touring. Also, you have the whole merchandising thing going on, that's a significant $$$-maker. Our bass player is actually a music-biz attorney during his "real" job, he & I have had many lengthy discussions on this very subject. Believe me, inside of 15 minutes, the anal-retentive bastard will have you crying for the music companies, talking about how piracy "robs the artist of creative freedom & personal financial gain". But he also feels the way I do on a personal level of who cares if the record industry goes tits-up? LIVE PERFORMANCE is the $$$ maker for any music artist, no matter who it is. The only difference is how much $$$ they make. Yes, Garth Brooks will make more $$$ for a 3-hour show than my band will, but then again, how many songs will "Barf" Brooks play in that 3 hours? 25-30 songs? The last time I saw Aerosmith play live, I paid $40 for seats in the nosebleed section to hear 22 songs by one of my favorite bands. My band plays all classic rock, no originals, & we can do enough material for 5 hours of music, that's around 60 songs. 4 sets electric, 1 set of acoustic material, with a 15 minute break between sets, and an average of 12 songs per set. I'm not bragging, just stating a fact. We make pretty decent $$$ when we play out, not to mention a lot of noise for just 4 guys beating the crap out of our instruments... Anyway, my point is, live performance is where it's at, nobody gives a damn if the record industry goes tits-up (the big 5), & does anybody know of any gigs in the tri-cities area of Eastern Tennessee? Thanks for letting me rant & rave, but I have no illusions that anyone gives a damn what I think...
PS- When you see a trickle of blood coming out of my ear, turn the volume up just one more notch... :D
 
Well, I once had a hit song that has made me close to $200,000 in performance and mechanical royalties. I just wrote it-somebody else recorded it--I didn't play it. Oh, and that was a 50-50 split with the publisher. I split the writers share with my writing partner, so my share was 50%, or a total of 25% of the total income generated by the song ($800,000).

If you write songs for your band and keep the publishing and have three hits off one album, you just made a lot of money. Record sales might or might not make you any money, depending on the numbers, but the songs and performance royalties could set you up for life.

The royalty rates for internet and cable tv/radio are small compared to radio and television now. I guess what I am trying to say is that if the music busness should decentralize, every successful band and artist is going to lose out big time. Check out the rates for internet play as currently proposed sometime.

I care about what you think. I hope you understand that I'm just giving you a different picture. Whos gonna know who you are if there is no national company promoting you? Who's gonna come to your gigs of nobody knows who you are? If the big five go belly up, your chances of really doing well financially are going to be much slimmer. The world does not beat a path to the doors of musicians, unfortunately.

I think the record companies need to be made to be more ethical and fair, for sure. To lose them all together is gonna be bad for everybody.
 
Buck-62--If XM stays commercial free or even 75% of the channels are, and they keep at it long enough, they can put radio as we know it under. So, I think you are half right. Once they bury radio, then they'll whip out those money making ads! And we'll be back to where we started. They'll be paying a much cheaper royalty rate too. So all us writers out here just got the shaft and didn't even know.

It will be a good time to buy radio stations soon. For very cheap.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe things will just stay the same except everybody will get all their music for free and bands will pay to play everywhere. Of course why would they, if there is no incentive?
 
Just wanted to put my 2c in on pirating

Pirating has been around for years. All the internet did was give the record companies a way to put a number to a bitch and moan. Don't let tose corporate fucks lead you to believe that they're loosing all this money, they were never gonna get it anyways.
THe bottom line is that there are two types of music listeners- the ones that go out and Buy CD's, and the one's that wait for the homies to buy it so that they can dub it. It's been that way since cassette. The same battle went on when cassette came out, but maybe not on such a large scale. Ok so There was a decline in CD sales for the first time EVER last fscal quarter. NEWSFLASH WE'RE IN A RECESSION, EVERYTHINGS ON THE DECLINE. I'd also argue that music pirating has the tendancy to rise (only slightly though relatively speaking) during recession years. Are artist's getting fucked out of their money? You betcha. Is it because of pirates? Not really. Point (at least part of) the finger at Independant Promoters in bed with large corporate Radio Station Conglomerates who continue to escalate their prices on what they charge the Record Company to add a single song to a local station playlist. Some of these songs don't even get played, yet the Record Company is charged for it

"- Bandanna Covers My Eye/ I'm scopin through the room/
I see Killers and Theives/ Mob Bosses and Goons."
- Naz "Gangsta Tears"


PS. Oh yeah, as far as P2P? check out this little ditty on how the record companies are dealing with that. They admit to putting bogus files on P2P networks in this article here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/06/0229236&mode=thread&tid=141
But my guess is they're perpetuating certain viral infections common in P2P networking as well. I'd bet money on it (I'm worth about $2.85 at the monment so hedge your bets accordingly..)
 
The more you dig, the sicker it gets. When I was a young whippersnapper, Payola was a scandal and the government cracked down on it. Now, apparently, its the "cost of doing business".

The problem is that the music business has become so big and so concentrated, the independents have very little--if any--chance of being competitive. When the music, the stations and all the media outlets are controlled by a few corporations, two things happen.

First, small labels can't compete because payola, er....the cost of doing business is too steep. Whatever happened to radio playing what it decided was good? Sure ain't happening now.

Second, great artists who deserve to be heard and played, don't get the chance. The big boys are only interested in multiplatinum, no matter how they try to preserve their heritage and image by keeping a few Dylans signed. Everybody else is screwed. At this point.

I view the five major labels as one big monopoly. They control the music world just like Microsoft controls computer software. At one point in time, this would have been an outrage. Seems nobody cares now. The only recourse is steal their products by downloading for free. Very revolutionary except that the artists--the ones already getting screwed by the major labels, are getting screwed even worse. I happen to like artists and what they contribute to the world. Unfortunately, it takes about ten artists to equal one pawn in the large scheme of things.

I wish I knew what had to happen to create public outrage for the travesty that the music monopoly has thrust upon us. I understand the odds of the territory and I think they should make money for what they do, but I think its all gotten out of hand. CDs cost too much. The lack of support for important artists who can't sell multiplatinum is a crime. I thought radio was supposed to follow guidelines of public service. Or is it really all about pay to play?

From what I've seen, people aren't passionate about most of the music that gets released these days. They see it for what it is--an emperor with no clothes. And its a monopoly selling crap based on shock tactics.

When I grew up, music was important to people. There was folk, rock, Motown, Stax, English rock, blues, jazz, classical, pop, country, r&b and a bunch of other stuff. We got to hear the best of what was offered. Todays offerings are much less revered by the listeners. Now, we get what the monopoly and the radio stations (probably another arm of the same) want to try and shove down our throats. I'm sick of it. I'm not buying any more CDs from the majors. It will be all independent small labels cause thats where the real music is anyway. I hope the big guns all go belly up. maybe it can start over. If not, it was fun for a while.
 
crawdad - Where do you get to find the music. How do you know which artists are good in the independant. Any tips?

I'd like to discover unknown good artists but I just don't know where to check.
 
C-daddy-
I hear where you're coming from, & you make a lot of sense (something I'm rarely able to do...;) ), but I ask you this on the subject of the big 5 going tits-up: If that happened, & yes it would initially be bad for everybody, would that change the fact that a band still has to build a following in its geographical area, whether it's a radius of 5 miles, or 500, within its home region? I don't think it would, & while performance royalties are a SWEET chunk 'o' change, would you rather sit on your ass not playing & drawing a check, or would you rather go out & entertain & get paid for it? If this country fell into a depression similar to the '29 crash, nothing will change the fact that people still have some very basic needs. Outside of food, water & air, which makes every asshole on the planet the same, we still need shelter, & we also need entertainment. Do you think for one second that I won't be out there with my open case & acoustic, playing for pennies if need be? It will still make me $$$, I'll still be doing something that I love, & people will still make room in their budget for entertainment. Plus, I still get to feed my family. My assh...uh, opinion is that whether or not the record companies succeed or fail is not the ?, rather, are musicians, regardless of musical style still willing to go out & work for their keep? I play music because I love it, & I try to treat it as a gift rather than taking it for granted. Whether I ever make millions off of it, or pennies, is not the ? for me, but whether I'll be able to play & get as much enjoyment out of it when I'm 90, God willing, as I do now at the age of 33. I play simply 'cos I love to, & I really couldn't give a shit less if I get paid or not. What's your take?
Peace, brutha! :D
 
Groovejivey--Joni Mitchell wrote a great song a long time ago called "For Free", in which she compared her career to a guy who just went out on the street and played for the fun of it. I have no problem with either. Some people are great at anything and some are only good at one thing. For the former, they can always jump into another enterprise if music fails to support them. Others, its all they were born to do. If you've ever seen a VH1 'Where Are They Now" documentary, you realize that life in the big time can be a relatively short experience.

To cut to the chase, what you describe is the way it was before the music biz became the biz. I suppose my comments are for those who make their livelihood in music alone. It is disturbing to me to see how the avenues that have sustained artists in the past are getting comprimised, twisted and practically given away. Musicians and writers work damn hard to create their intellectual property. They devote their lives to it--many, anyway. The compensation they have had is essential to their survival and I think thats important to note. Put simply: no money=no music. Work 8-12 hours a day in another job and you don't exactly have a lot of fresh ideas and energy when you come home.

Here in Detroit, you won't make any money on the streets from November to April--its too damn cold! Maybe your band would develop a following but what would they be working for? Theres no record deal or gold paved road. They'd have to do it for the love of it. 99% of the musicians I know got real jobs when 'for the love of it' stopped paying the bills. Not that there aren't a bunch great weekend warriors out there. Bottom line is people gotta eat and that costs money. It gets complicated. The carrot and the stick theory says that if musicians expected to make a Burger King salary, a lot of them wouldn't even bother. Its the hope and the promise of reward that keeps them fueled up--if they are doing it as a career. As long as the possibility of making a killing exists, there will be bands trying to make it. IMHO
 
My 2 cents

I've read everyone of these posts and just confirms what I beleive, that playing live is where it's at.
Speaking for all the bandsters and wanna bees, All this speculation about what is to come is not gonna get us out there making a decent living at it.
Get your kick ass live show going and forget about all this spaghetti mess out there.
I think of bands like String Cheese Incident and the Grateful Dead,...they and industry do not really get along. They make their money from live performance and if an artist can't do that, they are not worthy of receiving the bennie$ that come with it.
Just get out anf play and if you're good, someone in the industry will take notice, but if yall make this a goal, you are bound to not last. Make the music and it's greatness and classic uniqueness your goal. The rest should take care of itself. If not, then keep working at it and if still not, then you suck....get off the stage...................
p.s. a little musical predjudice here.
I can't wait till the damn fad of guitar shedding and obnoxious guitar distortion is out and sweet , smooth guitar soloing is back in. This is 3 dimentional....todays fad guitar is 2 dimentional. Get some damn depth in your guitar playing you little shredder!
 
If only the record companies had thought of this before cd burners had come out, they might have not lost so much money...

However, it is my personal opinion that things like morpheus and kazaa are GREAT for people that are just trying to get there name out there, not for the "metallica" people.

-DAN
 
What's happening is a decentralization and de-corporation, and therefore a localization of the music. Witness comments above concerning the importance and impact of live music (which I applaud).
Add to that the PA (patron of the artist) program at nowhereradio, and a picture of the future begins to develop. Variety begins to supplant homogeny. Cultural diversity flowers, corporate sameness withers.
The public benefits, and if it is willing to patronize the artist, the artist flourishes. The artist will still be under the same pressure; that is, deliver quality or starve. The competition for discretionary dollars will still be as fierce, maybe even more fierce.
But the template will be in place for easy access to the public ear. What happens after that will be up to the quality of the work primarily.
Tumult at present, but a better situation ultimately, in my opinion.

Mark
 
I'd love to see sales based on talent. I'd love to see MTV and music videos wiped out forever. I'd like the grapevine to be radio and the internet and see all deserving artists have a chance. I'd love to see the end of corporate created artists and groups who do nothing more than feed the tabloids and teen magazines. I'd like to see all artists get paid for their music. I would love it if piracy could be stopped cold forever. I'd love to see CD's with a ceiling price of $8. I'd love to see more great live acts and I'd like more small venues that would host them. I'd like to see the end of $300 tickets for anybody.

Who knows, eh?
 
If you are talking to me, yes, I guess you could say I'm an insider.

Watch the news and you can see it for yourself!

W.
 
If true, that is pretty bad news, not only for people who use the net a lot, but especially for people and companies that have made businesses based on it.
 
internet radio

Hi folks first post here. Great discussion. With regard to the "death" of internet radio, maybe it's just a transformation. The RIAA is saying to the webcasters that they have to pay to broadcast major label music. Doesn't that imply that they're encouraging internet radio to become the place of independent artists? As artists we likely have no problem giving webcast rights to our music. Enterprising webcasters could sift through the independent stuff and put together compelling and original programming. Maybe the ironic result of the RIAA action will be that people discover internet radio - independent music - is much better than the major label stuff.

-Jorge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top