Slashdot Mirror
An Artist's View of the Modern Music Biz
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.
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.
My work here is dung.
David Byrne (of Talking Heads fame) did a fantastic article for Wired a few years ago about this. He discusses (with details!) how the music industry works, some of the "models" of releasing music, and the economics/incentives to each one. Great read.
On a semi-related note, it's also worth looking at Steve Albini's now classic essay "The Problem With Music", which showcases how horrible the modern music industry is to musicians. It was written before the whole "digital revolution", but it helps remind me why I don't feel sympathy for suits in the music business.
There's another old article going as far back as 2000 from Courtney Love. Although I find her and her music distasteful she sure does open up a lot of numbers that -- although larger -- probably work the same way today. If that isn't condemnation of the music executives milking artists like animals and then dumping them, I don't know what is.
My work here is dung.
What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity
And it's Just. That. Simple!!
In the spirit of making it without a major label and needing a little exposure for my own work, here are four free tracks off the ambient album I'm working on: http://www.livingwithanerd.com/music. These are 100% DRM and cost free. Enjoy!
Living With a Nerd
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".
This is my sig.
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.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
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.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Speaking as an amateur musician who hosts his own music for free on the internet.
.. but I'm happy to make music I like - which you are free to listen to and not have to like or pay for.
If music is "good" (opinions will vary according to taste) people will listen to it repeatedly, word will spread, and people will become fans of the creators of that music - wanting to own something to demonstrate their fandom: A CD, an MP3, a t-shirt, a ticket to the next gig etc... This is what makes getting fans more important than "selling cds" to most artists. Fans are LOVE followed by INCOME (You're not going to stop a year old girl from buying the next Hanna Montana, for example).
Distributors (most labels), on the other hand, are only interested in those revenue streams they can tie up for shortterm income - which creates one-hit-wonders, mediocre boybands, and starves out 99% of musicians - as well as actually alienating real fans and bands - driving a wedge between them. (for example: many record companies hold the rights to most full times bands music - and can override a bands decision on how they want to get their material out to fans, as exemplified in the article above).
Now: If it's not "good" music to begin with -. people won't listen to it -despite whether it is freely available or not. People *might* check it out out of curiosity - but won't return, and certainly won't put money into it if the y have a choice. If they did already they will feel burned.
Professional distributors promote very much according to a "pay-to-try policy: they limit access to the extra songs on albums, demand roylaties from indy web radio stations..control the airwaves and promote airplay for only the (most commercial track) single across any medium (radio, itunes etc) that will take it. This is why so much "Bad music" gets aired - in case you wonder why the charts are filled with shite (But you already knew that cos its a conspiracy theory and this is Slashdot).
Anyway: The income generated from "good music" by fans is largely independent of this supersale effort by the labels.... so arguably the best model for these bands, as exemplified by bands like Radiohead and 9-inch... is to actually give the shit away for free: They can recoup the "first sale" profit by attracting more fans. Ironically most musicians have dreamed of "The record deal" since they were 5 years old... so usually they are actually the most reluctant to risk this sales model - preferring the safety of servitude to a label over the risk of pushing "valueless music" (if its free it aint worth much, right?).
Also: as this model starts to become more popular.. a lot of smaller bands will get lost in the noise. Maybe less millionaires will get made, but in the long run this is a much better world to play music in. I like it anyway.. but then I found a day job.
Shameless plug: My music (with money goes mouth) is available at Stabbing Pixies/ it will never hit the Billboards
I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success. To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven? The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today. Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience. Today, that's nearly impossible.
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.
.
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 ...>.
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?
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...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your example is obviously flawed - libraries do not cost each person $1000 a month in taxes, besides the fact that it would be pretty difficult to eat $1000 worth of sweets in a month (by yourself), meaning the value proposition is so low that no one would take up that offer.
It's not really necessary and I doubt anyone will even read my post, but I've always wanted to do a slashdot style back-of-the-envelope calculation... so here goes.
Let's assume the previous post was correct, and libraries cost $1.1 billion a year. To keep it simple I'll use state taxes only, which is listed as $895 million. Wikipedia says total state tax revenue (in 2007) was $749,785,186,000 ($750 billion). So, 0.001% of state tax revenue was spent on libraries. Very likely there are local/city taxes that could be significant, but the previous poster showed that states provide the largest source of library funding.
In 2005, at $38,206 per capita the average state tax rate was 9.8% (source). So, about $3,750 in taxes was paid per person, on average, to the state(s) where they did business (these numbers include taxes from states besides those the person resides in, such as sales tax on out-of-state purchases, but doesn't include federal taxes). 0.001% of that is 4 cents, and that's for the whole year... 0.3 cents/month.
Let's assume my math and the figures I used are bad, and it's actually significantly higher. Say, one hundred times higher... $4 a year is still a heck of a good deal for everything that libraries provide to those who use them, and if you never ever use the library, you can write off the expense (pun intended), considering how small it is, as part of "buying civilization" as the well-known slashdot sig goes, just like you probably don't directly use a lot of the other things state, local, and federal taxes pay for (and you don't get to pick and choose what your money goes toward).
Your sweets example is obviously different, because sweets can't be almost endlessly re-used like books and DVDs from the library can (I suppose you could try with sweets, but...) That's why, of course, such a pre-payment scheme as you suggest wouldn't work for food (although all-you-can-eat buffets are an interesting thing to consider), but why the original point stands... you are pre-paying for the library, but it's a minuscule amount that more or less equals nothing, especially when compared to the value it potentially provides to you.
I'm all for live performances, but ticket prices lately have gotten insane. A stadium that can seat 50k and yet they still charge $100 a ticket like many acts do? No thanks- that is greed pure and simple. I have no problem dropping $10-$20 to see a good band, but thanks to greed and Ticketmaster, live music seems just as much a scam as the recorded stuff.