An Artist's View of the Modern Music Biz 210
An anonymous reader writes "A member of the band OK Go wrote an interesting open letter giving an artist's perspective on the current state of the music business and how labels finance producing, distributing, and marketing music and music videos. A very insightful perspective of 'both sides': the argument that music and music videos are meant to be heard and, in the case of the latter, seen by a wide audience; and the argument that the money needs to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, the letter doesn't address the perspective outsiders have of outlandish salaries in the music labels, but it is interesting nonetheless." Their new video is not bad either.
COMMUNISM IS THE FUTURE! (Score:-1, Insightful)
Capitalism sucks! COMMUNISM! COMMUNISM! COMMUNISM! For a Soviet America!
Should Have Grown Organically (Score:5, Insightful)
So what’s there to do? On the macro level, well, who the hell knows? There are a lot of interesting ideas out there, but this is not the place to get into them.
So where is the place to get into that sort of brainstorming?
... the smug assholes who ran labels, who’d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats?
Ah, that's where it will be decided. I have low expectations for what comes out of that.
I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain. If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement. I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it. Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI. The obvious answer is that's a harder route for the big acts. It takes more work, like you actually have a job forty hours a week. And the attitude toward that option is:
We're a rock band, and it’s a great gig. Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England (we do), but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff.
But in the end we all suffer from bands 'selling out' to labels. I personally think no one suffers more than the bands. Some fans can comply with the ridiculous terms but you lose a lot. I would point to this small milestone in Ok Go's career as something of note to new musicians. If you believe in yourself, don't rely on a label to grow. If it doesn't work at least you weren't artificially installed singing someone else's music putting together an executive's vision.
If only Ok Go could decide that their new video is embeddable, most would have watched it on Slashdot right now instead of the 1/2 of us that clicked on the link. Unfortunately they already sold their soul to the devil so it doesn't matter what they think is good for them now. The funny thing about this is that I'm vacationing in Grand Cayman right now and while I own every single album and EP and even vinyl records from Ok Go, I can't see this video on account of what they wrote in their post:
This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country.
Good luck guys. I think you traded early growth that would have came naturally for some control over what you love. It's sad but it's the way it is now.
Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity
And it's Just. That. Simple!!
Re:Should Have Grown Organically (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label. That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you. So at that point, why sign? If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.
Your choices in summary:
1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit
2. don't sign, get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profits
If you're all that good, you're gonna make way more money at #2. If you're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of #1, believe me, the label will find a way to claw that money back from you.
Re:Should Have Grown Organically (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain. If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.
Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.
The difference between a bank loan and a record company advance is that the record label is taking some of the risk. They can do it because they aggregate it across many acts, most of whom will fail, a few of whom will succeed well enough to fund the rest. Unfortunately we see that bands typically build up a debt to their record company, and that's a shame.
I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it. Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI.
But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video? There's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output. It's record companies' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.
I guess there are some organic successes out there (Jonathan Coulter?) - but they'll remain the exception rather than the rule.
One post worth a million RIAA's (Score:5, Insightful)
If the music industry had people who could write like that speaking for them, they would be a lot better off. I mean, the whole thing with the music business isn't even the idea of copyrighted content. It's that, they are such jerks. How well you interact with the plug is indescribably valuable in an age where everyone can know how you really act. If they were making the soft sell, if they were leading out with "we gave Madonna millions of dollars and she's been a total bust since she got old", rather that suing college kids or octomoms, then, people would be more receptive to their arguments. I mean, Google's "Don't be evil", is nice and all, but for a lot of businesses, its really, "don't be such a dick".
Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere" (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand how a library operates. The books don't just appear out of thin air and Librarians don't volunteer their time. It all costs money. In this case, taxpayer money.
Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere" (Score:3, Insightful)
The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.
In an increasingly virtual world, what physical items are you going to be selling? Food and shelter?
Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere" (Score:3, Insightful)
The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again. Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more. Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.
The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales. Instead, it sold more records. The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies. They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened. The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.
The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.
If giving it away meant that you couldn't sell it, Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list. Besides libraries, you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website. The forward to Little Brother explains this far better than this slashdot comment; I urge everyone to read that book, or at least the forward.
So, what you're saying is that you support DRM? Because that's what a library is. It's a place to temporarily get your hands on content, consume it, and then give it back. You have no rights to copy/distribute the work you BORROWED. That is what a DRM'ed DVD or MP3 is. You borrow that content. People really need to stop using libraries as some sort of "proof" that free access to content does not deprive money from the creator of the content.
Re:Should Have Grown Organically (Score:5, Insightful)
If the label is keeping most of the money to themselves via Hollywood accounting or what not then what's the benefit again? That more people will buy albums and merch that goes in to the label's coffers that you still won't get a decent piece of?
All of your 'point' seems to come down to "the label will make you a hit faster so you can retire early without needing a standard 30-40 year career like everyone else".
To an extent that's right. As much as super-rich bands like U2 etc. are the exception when it comes to major label acts, I can't think of a single indie act that's raked in megabucks.
Becoming a hit faster sounds like a facile aim - but pop music is an ephemeral thing. A certain kind of act - and acts I personally value - are all about the performers' youth and vigour. If you give them 5 years to build up a grassroots fanbase, they'll have faded out before anyone's heard of them.
Classy of you do demean my 'point' by putting quotes around it.
Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
If people have X disposable income that they're willing to spend on music then you'll likely not see much of a decrease in terms of the industry as a whole. But that money will be far more spread around, and more of it will be going directly to the artists.
The problem with his thinking is that the money doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's a person's, potentially a fan's, money, and as long as you don't try to sell them more music than they can reasonably listen to they will pay for it.
It wouldn't be this way in the beginning, however. Because fans are so used to inflated prices there'd probably be an orgy of grab everything you can because you're getting something for nothing mentality. Eventually, though, people will realize that they can and should support the artists of the music they're listening to, especially when it's easier to give the money directly to the artist.
Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing you cover - but sort of miss on - is the money. Marketing? Yes - tons of agencies. Just give them a check that won't bounce. CD's - sure, again that check that won't bounce. These things would be very expensive for me to attempt. I don't know about others. I guess you can incorporate and take out a small business loan? Maybe? Anyway, if you just want to be a band that has day jobs and puts some free stuff on the internet - sure - cheap. No problem. But "it takes money to make money" and the labels give them a way to do that (hate them or not, that's what they do).
Re:Um, what was that argument again? (Score:4, Insightful)
After having watched the video linked to from OP, I have to ask: why did that video take a music label to finance it, film it, produce it, distribute it?
It was a frigging marching band, for Grid's sake! They could have gone to a sizable local high school, recruited the cooperation of the band director, and done this entirely by themselves -- including distributing it on YouTube -- for only a few bucks. And they wouldn't have to worry about distribution restrictions, because they wouldn't be owned by a label! And the band would be happy to cooperate if given credit, because they would be famous, if only for a little while.
The video is decent, but there is nothing there that requires any fancy label support or financing. I have seen more impressive shows by high school bands, and I mean that quite literally and sincerely.
Sorry, but the actual product does not back their arguments. I call bullshit.
Others are doing it successfully. If OK Go can't... well... I won't lose sleep over it.
1) Cameras, 2) Camera crews, 3) studio engineers, 4) distribution of video, 5) promotion and marketing and licensing of the video (which involves slashdot's favorite group of people: lawyers), 6) production of the song, 6a) studio engineers, 6b) hired musicians to complement some tracks, 6c) cd/vinyl pressings, 6d) distribution of album.
Do you actually need a label to do all this? No, of course not. But you need money. You need capital to invest. Where will you get it? previous comments have pointed out that banks aren't going to loan musicians money to make an album, but labels will.
Things you might need a label for (Score:3, Insightful)
I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.
You need a label to get phonorecords* of your work into stores because the labels have relationships with the stores' buyers, especially if your genre is more popular among people with no PC, people with a PC and no Internet, or people with PC and dial-up. (Country music and pop standards come to mind.) You need a label because the recognized experts in record marketing work for labels. In certain genres, you need a label to help clear the samples you may have used. You may even need a label to help make sure that you didn't make the same mistake George Harrison and Michael Bolton made of unintentionally making their own songs sound too much like a song that was on the radio a decade ago.
* Legalese for copies of a sound recording.
Re:A non-story. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're somewhat right - but I thought since all kinds of people are putting in their two cents, I may as well. A bit of context - my father is a professional musician, and I spend a lot of other professionals - from moderately recognizable artists on big labels to the 20 year olds working their ass off gigging in crappy bars with crappy patrons trying to do better.
There are two sides to the music business, and surprisingly most people know which direction the business is going. I've had extended conversations with managers that got this amazingly well. Oddly enough, this article doesn't get it.
The music industry is reverting to a performance-based system. You won't make money on CDs. You won't make money on music videos. The only people that don't want to admit this is the higher-ups in the labels, because that is the ONLY place where the labels make money. Artist make their money off of performance. Labels CAN still exist - in fact, they should. But they're an advertising and marketing company - and they should work for you like one. Why the hell does an advertising company want to STOP its content from being seen?
Once you admit that, then everything starts to get easier. Labels, CDs and videos exist only to promote performances - and the performances get easier. Better venues, higher cover charges, people actually there for your music instead of the beer.
Oh. And the article seems to make out that the labels are hurting. They're not, amazingly. Trying to solicit sympathy for the poor corporations that exist to exploit your creative works ... why are you doing this? In other words, my comment to OK Go, tell your label that their restrictions on embedding are costing you performance revenue. And stop defending a multi-billion dollar industry that cannot seem to adapt to change.
I prefer non-embedded videos. (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact if I see an embedded video, I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.
Why?
1. I get to see comments and related videos directly.
2. If I want to share the video, I have to extract the link anyway.
Don't do <embed>, do <a target=_blank ...>.
RIAA gradated response plan (Score:3, Insightful)
I concluded 7 years ago that there was really no hope for the current music industry, and that the only rational thing to do was to wait for it to crater. Nothing has changed, except the smell of desperation is ever more palpable. Yesterday, I heard Steve Marks of RIAA talked about their graduated response [arstechnica.com] plan. He denied it was a "3 strikes plan," which of course means that it is. It is no more likely to work than any of their previous plans.
Someone asked me afterwards why the industry continues to be so disastrously stupid. All I could come up with is that the people executing the stupidity are getting paid, and paid well, for continuing to hold out hope to the old men running the business that things can get put back the way that they were. As long as the people in charge have such delusions, and as long as they still have something to be in charge of, nothing will change,
Of course, bands like OK Go are basically serfs in this process. As they admit, they have no actual power whatsoever, and are just along for the ride.
How do I make sure I haven't plagiarized? (Score:4, Insightful)
so then hire a lawyer and fight it out in court
How can someone growing organically afford what a lawyer charges?
or don't make music that sounds too much like someone else's music.
If I've written and recorded a song, how do I check my song against the millions of songs controlled by the major performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) before I publish my recording?
Re:Should Have Grown Organically (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly recommend the movie Anvil before you make these kind of ridiculous claims again. The problem with these claims is they assume that bands have the time and skills to be marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants. Oddly enough it's possible the musicians might NOT be good at one or more of these thing.
Re:Should Have Grown Organically (Score:3, Insightful)
When the music pays for 100% of your time to work on the music... what are you signing up with a label for?
I know at least one band who does everything on their own. They're happy doing what they're doing, and as long as they're happy together, make enough money to pay for their touring, their rent and their groceries, they consider themselves to have "made it".
If the "product" doesn't have that kind of demand, the only thing a record label could do would be to change your image, change your sound and change your gigs. What if you *like* visiting Bob and Julie up in that little town every year? What if you enjoy hanging out with the musicians in that little town in Ireland? Are you a musician or a business person? Is it about music or profit?
If you need an accountant or sound person, you can always hire one. Ditto for studio time, vocal coaches etc. It's just part of being a "pro" musician.
Re:Musicians need labels to become famous (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the day, musicians often had patrons. Bach, for example, was subsidized by his church, and Mozart got paid by various high muckety-mucks to writes pieces for them.
These days, very few people have the funds to exclusively subsidize a musician or artist. But we can all subsidize artists a little bit by purchasing their CDs— a little more if we purchase them directly. For example, we buy CDs directly from Devin Townsend, from Canada, thanks to the magic of the Internet. I don't know if he makes a complete living from his music sales but he does well enough to make it more than a hobby. (He's also decently well-known from his label days, on his own and as a member of other bands.)
Personally, I think individual sites or clearinghouse sites are the answer that will eventually come out on top, but I hope a little bit of the subsidizing sticks around.
Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere" (Score:4, Insightful)
If I give my local corner shop a thousand pounds a month, and they agree to let me help myself to sweets whenever I feel like it, I don't think those sweets are costing me nothing just because I don't have to pay him cash each with each transaction...
Bigger problem (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The music industry has become a leach. They started out as doing three things - producing, marketing and distributing. Distributing was the hard work and where the customers were willing to pay big money for (transporting delicate wax tubes was very dificult, vinyl was slightly better but breakage was still a big problem. Tapes and CDs were lighter and sturdier, but still heavy.) But a better producer and marketer made more money, so they THOUGHT they were being paid for producing and marketing. No. They were being paid for distributing, and that market has vanished the way the buggy whip and the horse drawn carriage market has. They still try to charge as if they are distributing, but they are not.
2. Musicians still need Producing and Marketing, but those are worth only about 20% or MAYBE 30% of sales, not 80% that the big labels have. But the existing monoplies (that grew up charging 80% for distribution) make it hard to break in to the Producing + Marketing (no distribution). This problem will eventually go away, but it will take time.
3. The old distrubution system was so big and powerfull that it evolved into THE methods of transferring money to the musicians as well as the way to transfer music out. The ease of distrubtion has created a ton of tiny producers and removed the old 'gateways' that funnelled money and goods to the succesfull ones. We need a new SYSTEM, not of distrubtion, but of funneling money.
What we need is a breakthrough in marketing. Something that lets low level musicians earn a living wage, and gradually increases as they gain more fans. Note there may never be a band as big as the Beatles or Elvis or M. Jackson, ever again because of the greater range of music that should be available without the gateways. Also, musicians will likely never again be able to make money without performing live. People will always pay more to see live music than they will for a recording because honestly, recordings are commodities.
Perhaps music clubs could form in large cities where people pay a set fee, similar to a gym membership. Each night the club offers live music performed. Membership lets you in for free AND lets you download the music for free whenever you want from any oif the club's bands.
Or maybe somethign far better than what I can think of.
Re:A non-story. (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect when artists lose money through concerts.
It used to be - and may still be - quite common for venues to charge acts for the opportunity to play in front of an audience.
Fine, I guess, if you're performing for the fun of it.
Re:Should Have Grown Organically (Score:2, Insightful)
For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party. Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party? I assure you, he would not. Likewise, no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.
As to your argument about a "huge reduction in your personal profit," that simply isn't true. While the percentage is certainly lower, 40% of a million dollars is far greater than %80 of $100,000.
As to your argument about "get the promotion your music warrants on its own," I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the Internet, you're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard. If you're talking about booking your own radio tours, making your own posters, etc ... when do you have time to make music? Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion. I may have totally missed your point here though.
Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Buy a mike, some foam, learn to be an sound engineer or get one to join the band, pay someone for hosting your website or pull out a 486 and learn how to host it yourself. Sell yourself to everyone you know, and give your music away for free.
OR, promise 90% of all revenue you ever generate, give up ownership of your works, sell out to a label so they can deal with all that business stuff, and you can simply get a check.
Re:A non-story. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And Another From 2000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that Love has spent most of the last decade in legal wrangling over the very copyrights she seems to decry (copyrights she's now apparently the sole holder of thanks to a heavy dose of herion, a shotgun, and entertainment lawyers that sided with her over the guys that were you know, actually in Nirvana, not thanks to her own work), then leveraged those evil nasty copyrights into a cushy 30 million dollar deal that lets us all enjoy Kurt Cobain as part of Madden...er...guitar hero 17 while she can afford that bohemian lifestyle of earning tips from grateful listeners that she so lovingly describes in the article.
Couple that and the fact that she cites Sonny "I let Disney shoot their load all over my back while calling me princess so they didn't have to worry about losing Steamboat Willie until 2092" Bono as a defender of artist rights, and I'm just gonna go ahead and give that article the same credence that I'd give a dissertation on the importance of the 4th amendment from George W. Bush, or a lesson in fiscal responsibility from Carly Fiorina.