Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Musicians Have Many Money Options Online, Says Talking Head

Posted by Zonk on Sun Dec 30, 2007 02:24 AM
from the i-want-money-lots-and-lots-of-money dept.
Businesses Media Music The Almighty Buck The Internet
Time Slows Down writes "Scottish born musician and former record label owner David Byrne says the future of music as a career is wide open and identifies six different distribution models now available to musicians in an article in this month's Wired magazine. At one end of the scale is the 360, or equity deal, where every aspect of the artist's career is handled by producers, promoters, marketing people, and managers. At the other end of the scale is the self-distribution model, where the music is self-produced, self-written, self-played, and self-marketed."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Now Musicians Have Options Says Talking Head by pickens (49171)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Musicians Have Many Money Options Online, Says Talking Head 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It's the same as it ever was.

    • It's the same as it ever was.
      Yes, it's kind of like how it was when the lucky users had 2400 baud modems and gopher was hot shit in that .... ??

    • Re:So what he's basically saying is... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by edwardpickman (965122) on Sunday December 30 2007, @02:56AM (#21854634)
      Not exactly it's easier than it ever was which is a double edged sword. Now almost anyone can release an album. That severely dilutes the market. I saw this happen in independent film. Low budget horror films virtually turned into a non profit industry because everyone with a video camera started making them and Blockbuster and other vendors starting accepting crappy ones because they could pick them up cheap. I used to be a fan of the genre but I don't even bother to rent them anymore because they're all bad. It used to be that if you were going to shoot a film you needed half a mill to a mill so you had to maintain a certain quality or no one would touch it. Now large numbers are made for 10K to 50K and a 100K to 500K are considered real budgets. It's going to get harder and harder to get recognized as the market floods. Lets says there are 10X as many bands that now can get their music out there. In five years it'll be 100X and in ten years it'll be a 1000X. There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of garage bands in this country alone. How many hours a day do you have to listen to music? Yes some of the good ones will shine through but the irony is it probably just got radically harder to succeed. People may find it easier to hear your music but it's going to get harder to make a living at it and instruments and recording equipment cost money.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ghyd (981064)

        Now almost anyone can release an album. That severely dilutes the market.

        So far so good then?

        I saw this happen in independent film. Low budget horror films virtually turned into a non profit industry because everyone with a video camera started making them and Blockbuster and other vendors starting accepting crappy ones because they could pick them up cheap.

        Could it be: I saw this happen in film. Low budget films virtually turned into a non profit industry because everyone with a video camera started making them and Blockbuster and other vendors starting accepting crappy ones because they could pick them up cheap.
        Or just that cheap horror films are made so because people don't really want to see them anyway. Cheap horror movies seem more like a cinematographic "meme" than a side effect of technology.

        I used to be a fan of the genre but I don't even bother to rent them anymore because they're all bad.

        Or that the greatest part

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        That severely dilutes the market.

        No, it only "severely dilutes" the market for the very lucky few who made it to the top, like Mr. Byrne.

        Yes some of the good ones will shine through but the irony is it probably just got radically harder to succeed. People may find it easier to hear your music but it's going to get harder to make a living at it and instruments and recording equipment cost money.

        That is just so much bullshit. It's no harder than it ever was for your rank and file musicians to make a living.

        • you'll notice that the Wired magazine article didn't mention any recent hit records
          I missed the memo that requires an artists has to have continued commercial success to be considered relevant. Uh, when was the last successful Stones album? How about the Boss (outside of his core, not a mainstream success since 1984)?

          So I should be listening to what Britney Spears has to say about the industry instead?

      • This is business as usual.

        Industries rise and fall to the winds of technological advances. Textiles, horse-pulled carriages, ice for refrigeration. All intangibles, like software, books, music and movies are next. No surprise at all.
      • Reminds me (a real graphic designer) of when html crashed our design party in the mid 90s. Suddenly anyone with an Internet connection was a "graphic designer". And we all know about the quality of Joe Random on the Internet.
    • "This is not my beautiful song!"

    • my favorite quote:

      . . . gives them the right to exploit their work in mediums to be invented in the future -- musical brain implants and the like.
  • I guess he's Byrne-ing down the RIAA's house.

    sorry...

  • Talent is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday December 30 2007, @02:44AM (#21854588)
    Unfortunately you have to have some actual talent to make it on your own, where with labels all you need to do is suck the right cock and you'll get plastered all over the tv and have a song written for you and have your voice digitally smoothed out.

    no wonder peopel still sign with labels, your soul for some easy money.

    • Ha ha. If only that were true. I would be rich.
    • You also have to have "talent" at self-promotion, music-distribution, and at whatever your previous job was, because you'll need a lot of money in order to make a decent career for yourself. You may also need talent at surviving below the poverty line if you happen to fail and lose your investment. Or, I guess, you could have a talent at working two (possibly three) jobs simultaneously.

      Yeah, bunch no-talent hacks can't make money off REAL music. Those damn punks taking the easy road just because it's easier
    • There are plenty of talented bands who have stuck with the old way of doing things. It's what they now, it makes them tons of money, and it lets them have time to conduct the self-destructive behavior they have all grown to love. You can't assume that GREAT musicians don't use the old model, just because there are new and exciting ways to promote yourself. You also can't assume if an artists "sells-out" that their music will automatically be worse than if the self-manage. It may be the case in 99% of po
  • Great article. Especially with the dig at Pete Doherty towards the end. I think he is making an important point with that example.

  • next up: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `erauqssemitelcric'> on Sunday December 30 2007, @02:53AM (#21854624) Homepage
    movies

    seriously, the internet is seriously fucking with the music and movie industry in some really important and earth shattering ways

    i for one look forward to a fracturing of culture: where before there were a few number of portals where people can find new music/ movies (a few radio stations, a few movie houses), now we will see a million online portals for all sorts of subgenres

    in a way its interesting how this will also reshape culture and a sense of identity: you belong to group a, because everyone in that group shares your interests and knows the same media you consume. everyone knows seinfeld jokes, everyone knows star wars references. whereas in a more fractured world, more subcultres are created, and more borders between groups of people not knowing commonalities between each other evolves

    interesting time folks. i look forward to it

  • Almighty Institute of Music Retail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Sunday December 30 2007, @03:04AM (#21854656) Homepage

    The Almighty Institute of Music Retail [almightyretail.com] cited in the article actually exists. It's like the marketing and promotion part of a record label, but without the label.

  • Who would have thought... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thegrassyknowl (762218) on Sunday December 30 2007, @03:13AM (#21854676)
    ...that (actual, talented) musicians could actually be successful without a record label!
    • And they can be successful by using the labels as well. You can't infer the correlation that you are trying to infer, in that good artists do it themselves, and crappy sell-out artists use the labels. I kinda get tired of the whole, "the industry is evil". If it is so evil, then the musicians should stop using them. If the other options are so good, and the industry so evil, then there really would be no reason for any artist ever to use the label route. Yet, thousands of artists become filthy stinking

      • You can't infer the correlation that you are trying to infer, in that good artists do it themselves, and crappy sell-out artists use the labels.
        I didn't get that. I simply heard that good artists can succeed regardless of what they do while bad artists can't succeed without the studios pumping out their drek. Which means the sooner the studios die the better for all music lovers.
      • You'd hope the relics would wither but instead they are rallying politicians and passing more draconian laws to further protect their interests (indefinite copyright is one).

        These people/labels have realised that they are on the way out and they are setting themselves up to protect their income for at least their lifetimes. They don't give a shit what happens after that.

        I shouldn't really say on the way out because that is not true. There will always be a majority element of popular society who buys into
      • OK, the thing that you need to understand about the music industry currently is that the focus is the end product, not the means of production. Music is no longer the one man (or one band) show that it was. There are a variety of people who collaborate, not least the performer, to produce a piece of music to sell. Like it or not, that's the way things are right now. It certainly does not mean that you don't have to have talent, it just means you don't have to do every job in the music creation process. You

  • I didn't see this option (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Sunday December 30 2007, @03:13AM (#21854678) Homepage
    I scanned through the article, and didn't see mention of this option:

    A subscription and/or ad based supposed set of central sites where artists post their music to from $0 and up, or as I preferred with AllofMp3, per unit of bandwidth -- with multiple codec options. And then said artists play music at concerts, small performances etc... ie. play for their supper. This may reduce the number of hummers that some artists can purchase, but I think it would be worth the loss. Maybe I could actually find new music that I like again.
    • What if subscription/ad-supported music production won't be enough to fund a particular endeavour? What if a piece of music being downloaded for bandwidth cost (plus small margin) can't be adequately performed? What about the people who actually like the options you're clearing away just because you haven't found new music that you like?
  • And I know a lot of wierd things about his music, like his collaboration with Fatboy Slim - A Musical about Imelda Marcos

  • Not an Apple Fanboi, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bennomatic (691188) on Sunday December 30 2007, @05:04AM (#21855016) Homepage
    ...I have just one issue with the thing he mentioned about bands making less from iTunes than from a normal CD. I understand how the numbers work and I've seen the argument before, but there's one thing that he (and Weird Al et al) are missing from the equation.

    And that is that iTunes (and their ilk) brought the power of the single-song purchase to millions of people who did not have it before. Before iTMS came out, I had not bought any music in several years, close to a decade. Mostly, because, while I love the concept of whole albums--I cut my teeth on Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here, for example--a lot of what comes out from the majors these days is indeed one or two good songs on an album of cr@p.

    So since iTMS came out, I have bought at least 100 songs from albums that I never would have purchased. So those artists aren't getting $1.40 instead of $1.60 because I bought their album on iTMS; rather, they are getting $0.09 instead of $0.00 because I bought a song.

    I know my $0.09 isn't much, but neither was my $1.60. And if there are millions of people like me--or even hundreds of thousands--I would guess that the introduction of the a la carte $0.99 song has been a boon for lots of artists.

    Another thing to think about is that iTMS doesn't just sell artists from the majors; they also sell independents (search for "Cousin Isaac", a buddy of mine who sells a couple of albums via iTMS). I don't know the details of how that works, but it seems like there are opportunities for artists in some of Byrns' "control your own destiny" plans to take advantage of that infrastructure.

    • Case in point: me. I don't buy CDs. I occasionally buy tracks from the ITMS. Thus artists do not make more money from my CD purchases than from my digital purchases - it's a comparison between "nothing" and "something". The ITMS is infinitely more profitable for the artist if buying behavior like mine is the norm.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fortunato (106228)
      I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I would add that I think the whole point of his article is that there is a massive shakeup going on in the industry, as anyone who reads Slashdot knows, and he was basically pointing out just some of the various new ways a musician has at his/her disposal to distribute their music. He broke it down into six, but I don't really think his intention was to make his six examples the only options. Those were just the biggest options right now. It's way too soon to sa
    • I agree. If Mr. Byrne is correct, and the artist makes about the same in royalties from a cd as the artist does from a download (because Apple eats up the 30% normally taken by distro and other costs of regular cds), the Artist will come out ahead eventually. Why? Because the cost to the consumer is less for the same amount of music, freeing up more money for the consumer to buy MORE music from the artists.
    • I believe that you are misunderstanding his point. It was not that the iTunes sales are bad for the artist. It is that the artist loses out on the potential available from the lower costs associated with online sales. The label is giving the artist a percent of a lower total, rather than the same or better royalty in absolute terms. The benefits of lower costs are being shared by Apple, the consumer, and the label - but the artist is typically taking home less money per unit. Not to mention the standar

  • More creative business models for musicians (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thbb (200684) on Sunday December 30 2007, @07:43AM (#21855520) Homepage
    David Byrne's article is well thought out, but quite unimaginative. There are many other ways to produce music and make a living with it.

    For instance, since 2001, Einstuerzende Neubauten [neubauten.org] has been exploring new ways to produce records and interact with their public while producing the album. Their last 3 albums were produced by a subscription (like Mozart used to do in the 19th century!). As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!

    They've been fairly successful so far, though they still want to polish their formula. There is a nice interview about their latest album and the issues they face in going "label-free" [re-public.gr].

    • There are many other ways to produce music and make a living with it.
      Undoubtedly there are more ways than Mr. Byrne stated, but to be fair, he was merely walking us through the business as it stands right now, limiting his response to just those realistic paradigms that are available.

    • (like Mozart used to do in the 19th century!)

      Ummm, Mozart spent the entire 19th Century decomposing.
  • I don't know where he got those charts from but they're very informative, assuming they are accurate.
    They're going to be great input into our cube discussions at work (that occur while we're meant to be working).
    • Jeez. In 1985, I was [doing things that I don't want described in detail on the Internet] and going to midnight showings of the Talking Heads concert movie, "Stop Making Sense." Is it possible that people born that year can now legally drink? Holy heck.

      Seriously, though, go get a copy of the "Stop Making Sense" soundtrack. It's great music. "Burning Down the House" is one of the all-time great songs. The early eighties might have been rife with strangely dressed cookie-cutter synth bands, but a few

    • Mod me totally off topic, but this post highlights EXACTLY why the current state of music is where it is (from a pop quality standpoint). Even if you are only 20, how can you have NOT heard of the Talking Heads? Bands like The Talking Heads are what make me right when I argue that 80s music is better than 2000s music.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)

      But he should talk to all the singers, songwriters and musicians out here that want to do "different" things - like have a real string quartet or chamber orchestra, or a really good gospel choir, or record the interplay between a great jazz drummer and an insane guitar shredder, or do an HD video release of the recording session, etc. etc.

      When I was at school, my Young Enterprise company put out a CD containing recordings from the school orchestras and bands. The entire cost, including getting the CDs professionally duplicated and paying for performance rights to the in-copyright songs was around £3-4 per CD for an hour of music selling 200 copies (I think; these figures are from memory).

      Note that this was around a decade ago. Costs have gone down a huge amount since then.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.