Slashdot Mirror


Musicians Have Many Money Options Online, Says Talking Head

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."

24 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. So what he's basically saying is... by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the same as it ever was.

    1. Re:So what he's basically saying is... by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:So what he's basically saying is... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do realize that the GP was a Talking Heads/David Byrn song reference, don't you?

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:So what he's basically saying is... by ghyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 of creativity period of the genre has passed. Like Peplums, Westerns, Buster Keaton and alt genre movies, etc. No music, movie, painting genres are forever, none of them. Cheap horror movies could rather be the tail of the genre than any cause in itself to its demise. And frankly, wasn't the great era of horror movies made from "Evil dead" and "Bad taste" ? or "The Exorcist" and "The Sixth sense". I don't sense here the kind of pattern that you are invoking.

      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.
      Most movies in this list haven't been made with nearly that much money: http://www.amazon.com/Best-of-Low-Budget-Cinema/lm/17HEU9NSRSU95

      Now large numbers are made for 10K to 50K and a 100K to 500K are considered real budgets.
      Like the bugdet of Monty Python's movies you mean, surely. Those movie sucks because they are so cheap. I'm exactly following you there.

      It's going to get harder and harder to get recognized as the market floods. As a part time bedroom composer, I've had my first disinterested listeners thanks a recent Digg-like music site. As a musician, I therefore highly disagree with you, as people have used their social site points to bump my music which is the best thing to happen to my music since my last track and until the next :p

      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? Lets says there are 10X as many online shops that now can get their stuff 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 artisan's sites in this country alone. How many hours a day do you have to search for stuff?
      See what I did ^^ ? frankly, that's the point of Internet, to organize a whole lot of stuff. No need to spend more time that you want, you'll find something for you quick enough (a proverb by here: "the perfect is the enemy of the good", read: you're not supposed to find the BEST stuff everytime, and because you do will not make or break the day of the person on the other side).

      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. I have lots of relatives or friends (including a band of about 15 persons) that have very good recording equipment (much better than anything that helped to produced great music 30 years ago) AND a dayjob. Go figure.
  2. well, by onion_joe · · Score: 2, Funny
    I guess he's Byrne-ing down the RIAA's house.

    sorry...

    --
    sig sig sig siggy sig
  3. Talent is the problem by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:Talent is the problem by locokamil · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was about to say the same thing, but then I remembered that I already sold my soul for Grateful Dead tickets back in 1978,

    2. Re:Talent is the problem by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Funny
      Where do I sign?

      Suck cock first, sign later.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Talent is the problem by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Funny

      He said talent, not ego.

  4. next up: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. Almighty Institute of Music Retail by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  6. Who would have thought... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...that (actual, talented) musicians could actually be successful without a record label!

    --
    I drink to make other people interesting!
  7. I didn't see this option by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  8. Not an Apple Fanboi, but... by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...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.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:Not an Apple Fanboi, but... by fortunato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 say which models will be the "new" models in the future. But this was an excellent start and a great introspective into what exactly is going on from the business side. I personally can't wait to see what the new models end up being in the long term and I have no sympathy for the greedy machine that the music industry has so obviously become. They made their bed and now they get to sleep in it. Maybe their really IS such a thing as karma.

  9. More creative business models for musicians by thbb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 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".

    1. Re:More creative business models for musicians by stewbacca · · Score: 2

      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.

  10. I'm totally off topic, but I gotta say... by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. more like we-already-knew-that dept. by LowEndTheory · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from the article:

    "Recording costs have declined to almost zero. Artists used to need the labels to bankroll their recordings. Most simply didn't have the $15,000 (minimum) necessary to rent a professional studio and pay an engineer and a producer. For many artists -- maybe even most -- this is no longer the case. Now an album can be made on the same laptop you use to check email."

    As much as I used to like the Heads, Mr. Byrne, like most of his ilk, exists in a vacuum. (Not his fault, really)

    If one defines "album" as a collection of "sound organizations" (or songs), then the above is certainly true. 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.

    Not to say there aren't lots of really great things that actually are produced on a laptop (I've heard some really cool stuff on MySpace, believe it or not), but there are still about as much costs involved if one really needs to take one's endeavor "to the next level" (ugh - I hate that phrase, sorry)

    1. Re:more like we-already-knew-that dept. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:more like we-already-knew-that dept. by LowEndTheory · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, true, anyone can make anything very cheaply, I try to do that myself all the time!

      I also know that it didn't used to cost "hundreds of thousands" necessarily. That was the domain of the over-inflated mega-rockstar budgets. I've worked on many albums that had those kinds of budgets. Most of that money went to food, hotels, airfare, transportation, "handlers", personal chefs, etc., all of a very lavish nature. (Not begrudging them either, I think people should have fun with their money). But it would have been possible even in the 70s to go into a studio with a well-rehearsed band of people that could actually play and sing and crank out ten songs for less than 5000 bucks.

      Also: use a cheap ($100) mixer and "a little bit of imagination" is not a guarantee of really great sound. Mic'ing is most definitely a science and an art. I don't for the life of me know how the really good engineers in the world do it. And very cheap mixers have too little dynamic headroom. Not to mention that a really good chamber orchestra costs an awful lot (especially in the US).

      But there is quite the spectrum however. And that's what I love about music - it covers the entire range of end users, from the guy in the old Buick playing his music through a little 2-inch speaker to the HD home theater buffs.

      And having said all that (gasp), an old adage: If the singer is amazing, it doesn't matter what microphone you use. If the singer is lousy... well.. it doesn't matter what microphone you use.

    3. Re:more like we-already-knew-that dept. by LowEndTheory · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your absolutely right, the costs for those particular things has definitely come way down, thank god.

      It's a bit different for a band or singer-songwriter these days. I could do an album right now, for free, with the technology we have today. As long as I have the software. Which could range from free (very poor choice), cracked or stolen (even poorer), a couple of hundred dollars to about $10,000. Oh, and a good mic if I want to actually sing. I should also have a couple of backup drives (200-300 bucks), because if my main hard drive crashes, I have to start over again. And that would mean more time, which actually does equal money. (I am excluding other things like good pre-amps, plug-ins, cost of a computer powerful enough to run the software, etc). Oh, and a couple of hundred dollars if I want to actually put it on a CD and distribute it at my shows, as well as the time that it will take to actually burn all those CDs. Hmm, should probably have some kind of artwork, I suppose.

      Or I could use a replication house, like Discmakers. Actually a pretty good deal, 1000 discs for about $1000, artwork, jewel case and labels included.

      Maybe I'll just forget CDs altogether and distribute Internet-only. Cool, 99 cents for every song! Minus, of course what CD Baby and iTunes takes from that. But it's still way better thhan what major labels used to screw artists with.

      But how do I distinguish myself from the 30,000 other artists out there who did the same thing?

      and so on...

      The most beautiful and the most frustrating thing about music is that it is by far the most abstract and invisible of all the arts, shrouded in one of the most opaque and cloudy business models ever.

      Whee!

    4. Re:more like we-already-knew-that dept. by zig007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also know that it didn't used to cost "hundreds of thousands" necessarily. No, of course you are right, that is a completely insane level if one were talking about the cost of making a single recording for the normal band.
      I must have thought about the costs of the buying studio equipment then vs now, because people were talking of purchasing computers and gear.

      I remember though, in the old days, when a 16 or 24 channel 2 inch recorder(+controller gear and Dolby NR units), a then requirement for any serious mainstream recording studio to compete, could cost from 20-30 000 dollars to much, much more to purchase. And tape costs were actually high enough to constrain the productions.
      The same equipment would nowadays equal some pretty ordinary multichannel sound cards(ok, maybe not totally ordinary then).

      Of course nothing is a guarantee of great sound, mic'ing is still an art, or maybe more of a science... However, now, at least, people can afford to try(and maybe fail).

      My point is anyway that what you are talking about is quite large productions(i mean, choirs?), most are not like that, they are 5 weird dudes and a tape recorder that want a better sound than what they got recording using one mic during rehersals. And that whats he talked about, if I understood, TFA correctly.

      You're right about the singer. What sucks, sucks even worse when you hear it better.
      It's a horrible revelation for some bands....always fun to watch....moaaahaa :-)
      --
      Baboons are cute.
    5. Re:more like we-already-knew-that dept. by LowEndTheory · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For a studio owner? Oh yes, life was (and still is) brutal. Those huge Neve or SSL consoles are a million or more. That, along with the cost of everything else, drove strong men to weep and lose their sanity on a regular basis. Huge nut every month...

      I think in a weird way it's way cheaper and just as expensive these days to produce music. The lines are definitely blurring between artist/label, or artist/engineer, labe/distributor, artist/distributor/road manager... it's freaky, it's really cool - just a pain in the ass to sort out and impossible to put in neat little boxes.

      The real boon, I think, is that more and more people (including the "5 weird dudes with a tape recorder" - love it!) are able to jump in and try the music-making game. It might be that as more and more people get to achieve fairly good results for very little money, they will begin to recognize that the old-style "big mega-stars" are not in fact, gods, and that what really counts actually is talent and hard work. I'm hopeful that it will induce "professional" musicians, artists and maybe even the "Industry" (ugh) to stop putting out so much garbage.

      Ah, such is the glory and mystery of music. Well, that and Britney Spears on the MTV Video Awards. I mean, a little garbage is okay... :^)