digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

People Still Don't Get That Music Labels Are Dead

runningwithfoxes.com — It's the economic law of gravity powered by competition, be it from legal or illegal sources. Music labels used to have a monopoly over distribution, but digital distribution has ensured that's no longer the case.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • meruru, on 10/11/2007, -2/+114Correction: Dying, not dead.
    • hellathatguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19i'll be the first to piss on their ashes and have a drink with radiohead and nine inch nails.
      • mywhitenoise, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7for the last ***** time, In Rainbows WILL be released on a major label, and will be found in stores.
        And indie bands need labels to survive, there's way too much competition, and they need the representation and advertisements for their shows.
      • Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Radiohead is Radiohead because some marketing executive decided to sell them as The Beatles of the 90's and The Future of Rock. Nine Inch Nails is Nine Inch Nails because some marketing executive decided to sell underground industrial music to angst-ridden high school students.

        If the songs on OK Computer and The Downward Spiral were recorded on laptops and dumped on some generic Myspace music site, without a marketing and promotional budget, they would languish amongst the thousands and thousands of other Myspace band sites, indistinguishable from the pack, appreciated by a very small fan base. They became popular only because the major labels decided to spend a lot of money making them popular. That mental real estate isn't everything, of course (those are great albums), but it has more to do with our perception that most of us would like to admit.

        So yes, established acts that have already benefited from a multi-million marketing push, and accumulated lots of mental real estate via the traditional major label widget factory, can free themselves from the shackles of an industry that has made them filthy rich. But how many established acts are still making relevant music? The existing system that arbitrarily pretends to find diamonds in the rough will be a necessary tool for aspiring mainstream artists for some time to come.
        • nouns, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4So? No more Megabands. That's fine. Most groups that "make it big" go to hell because they're rich and can't sing about every day life. Most artists do their best works when they're small (yeah, there are exceptions). Besides, music has been pretty stagnant for a while. Maybe this leads to something that shakes things up a bit...
    • div2n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wouldn't "irrelevant" be a far more accurate word than even that?
    • EbilPhish, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Main problem is that most of them will go out throwing a legal tantrum like SCO did with the Linux stuff
      Hopefully more of them will pull an EMI or find alternative ways to screw over people.
    • danarama, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2MAJOR labels are dying...the industry as whole is changing
    • willynilly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Music is all systematically destroyed with dynamic compression anyway, yes thanks to these ***** labels... but are we ever going to roll back quality to the way it was at its peak, in the early '90s? Doubtful.

      THANKS FOR KILLING MUSIC, ASSHOLES!
  • The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -5/+36Multi-million dollar marketing pushes by overpaid middle men don't make sense in a world where anyone with a computer and a microphone can release an album worldwide. We don't need more formulaic "Making the Band" projects. Let the music speak for itself.

    Successful artists only need the ability to write great music, and nurture/participate in a mutually beneficial relationship with their fans.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -4/+35I can give you a huge list of outstanding musicians that don't sell a lot of records. Selling music is all about marketing and selling a personality and image. Only the already very popular bands can possibly maintain themselves without new marketing. That's called living off the marketing capital.
      • fnaqzna, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Don't understand why you're being dugg down. The inverse is also true. Crap artists that sell lots of records simply as a result of marketing.
      • oldhick, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Selling records is not ALL about image and personality. Selling records to ignorant people is all about image and personality. I can give you a huge list of outstanding musicians that don't care about selling a lot of records. Rather, they prefer to work on their terms and perfectly comfortable.
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Your personal experience doesn't quite support your argument.
          • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not sure I follow. Can you help me out?
          • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You argue that selling records is not all about image and personality and then offer a huge list of musicians that don't care about selling a lot of records and apparently do not but are still content. Do you see the disconnect?
      • deepinside, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ok, give me the list!
    • artemus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Well said, WB. The industry is far too commercial as it is.
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39Is someone under the massive misconception that distribution is the only element to doing business?
    • Tyr7BE, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Agreed. The description is far from accurate. The poster may not like it, but that's the way it is. The fact remains that big labels are very good at surviving. They have done so for decades and will continue to do so.
    • ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13What else do labels do besides distribution and payola? In fact, the artist has to pay that back. That's not a label, it's a bank with a PR dept.
      • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Management, promotion, advertising, deal-making and negotiation, accountancy, technical and musical assistance.... need any more?
        • VictoryGin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Management: as if bands want to be told where to go and what to do.

          Promotion/Advertising: can be done by the band, or by hiring a PR company for much less than the label does it.

          technical and musical assistance: not really necessary these days, as recording has become much easier to do.

          Accountancy... all money goes to the band... done....

          and deal-making and negotiation, Wilco self produced their latest album and licensed six songs off of it to Volkswagen without a major label....

          so, yes... i need some more
    • roseap, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There will always be a music business, but the labels in their current form are going away. The business will be forced change. Itunes and others are serving the distribution need, and they already have what it takes to push back against the labels (for example, the labels wanted to charge more, Apple wanted to keep it at 99 cents). As the old business model fizzles out, the current companies will adjust or fail. Other smaller companies might be able to squeeze in. Ideally, it'd give a chance for more music companies, more competition, meaning more options for the consumer.
  • phioust, on 10/11/2007, -29/+6So theives rob the business of their money and this is something we should look up to? Not saying I agree with the business, but anyone who steals music is a thief and should be jailed.
    • natedouglas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14From whom did you steal that analogy?
    • yelofnivek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4RTFA. it doesn't say that we should look up to illegal downloading.
    • oldhick, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10If you think that stealing MP3's is whats killing record labels then you probably shouldn't take part in this discussion.
    • mrjit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Ah yes, the music I just downloaded from an indie band without a label wanting to become more popular by word of mouth was definitely theft
    • freezerburn666, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5JAILED lol...
      • phioust, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Should you not be jailed for stealing?
    • arbulus, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11Downloading/sharing music files IS NOT STEALING. If anything, legally, it violates copyright/trademark/or intellectual property, which is NOT stealing.

      If you went to a car dealer and drove off with a brand new Charger, leaving nothing in its place, that's stealing. But if you went to that dealership, drove off with that Charger, but somehow and exact copy of that car remained in its place, would you consider that stealing? No, you wouldn't, because it's not stealing. You've not taken anything that has prevented someone else getting it.
      • BurnTees, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5so
        retarded
      • BurnTees, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5so
        retarded
      • solid12345, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1If downloading music is not stealing then go walk into a Best Buy and take a bunch of CD's and say you are not stealing.
        • arbulus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You completely missed my point. That's not even remotely in the same ballpark. Those physical rules don't apply in the digital realm. If you go into Best Buy and take a bunch of CDs, those CDs are no longer in the store and they've lost the sales those could have generated. Conversely, in the digital world, you are making a COPY of a file that can be copied infinitely. There is nothing lost. You've not stolen anything. What you've done is violate the distribution monoply that record labels have. You've not stolen anything.
    • FongoBongo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5So by your logic, almost everyone on Digg would be in jail....right
      • phioust, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1If everyone is stealing music then yes
    • Shandooga, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Government lackey. Go lick a Bush.
      • phioust, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1So because I do not break the law im a "bushie" ... good logic liberal retard
    • mageofdeath, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I want you jailed for stealing a minute of my life while reading your comment...
  • rfalloon, on 10/11/2007, -13/+17Dugg down for inaccuracy. Of course they're not dead.. and won't be for a long, long time.
  • cphelps, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Anything like this that has been a part of an industry that is as large as music will take a very long time to go away. Especially when you have a large number of morons who think the labels are a good thing.
  • mt2k3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24DISCLAIMER: IM NOT A MUSICIAN...

    I was always under the impression that the label paid for the studio time, got the producers, etc, booked the tour, paid for the merch to be made, did the marketing...

    Yeah, you can gain fans online and stuff, I'm not saying you can't at all...I just that the labels did much more than distribution, and yet it seems lately everyone has been saying "the labels are dead"

    yeah...bands like BNL, NIN, and Radiohead don't need labels because they can say "here is our new album buy it at our website" but they are established bands...they already have capital for studio time, merch, touring, and a LOYAL fanbase...the same isn't typically true for joe-new-guy
    • hellathatguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15I definitely see what your saying but this just means that bands are going to have to work 100% harder and make more original music to get on top, which I think is a good thing. no more clones of clones of ***** music for the masses.
      • mt2k3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Im with you 100% on that...my point was really moreso an observation more than anything :)
      • BurnTees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3go tell that to some band that's out trying to get signed...tell them that the 100% effort they're putting in isn't enough.
      • reed311, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It doesn't matter how hard you work. You'll never afford the millions it costs to promote and produce yourself into the mainstream. The record companies will always be around. Maybe not the same ones we have today, but artists will always need a group of people who can fund and are skilled in promoting music. They can't do it all on their own. They'll be busy touring and making music.
        • The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You're absolutely right about needing professionals to promote the artists, but I see a future where it's the bands employing the management, and not the other way around. Think about sports agents. The bands are the players.. many of them won't be good enough for the mainstream. You have to earn your dues and work hard from the bottom up. Then you hire an agent when your talent has been fine tuned. The problem with the industry now is record companies back millions on manufactured performers who haven't paid dues.
    • ttiwguitar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I am a musician and I think for the most part you're absolutely right. It's extremely hard to get anywhere without at least an independent record deal these days... sure you can record an album at home, but then you have to actually get people to HEAR it. I think of record labels as banks (poorly managed ones, sometimes)... they'll front you money for things like recording, tours, merchandise, etc. and almost all of it has to be "recouped" through your record sales. That's why most bands don't see a cent until their recoupable fees are paid off. It's almost a necessary evil for artists trying to get to some level of fame.
    • ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The label lends you the money for studio time, producers, and merch. You must pay it back with successful record sales. They call the shots, you do all the work, and if they make a mistake, then you get nothing but deep debt and loose your copyrights.
      • BurnTees, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2not true. if you get a 100K advance and it doesn't recoup, it's your gain and their loss. the music business is a high risk business....most artists lose money for the label.
      • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You never lose your copyrights to the songs you wrote. You might lose the mechanical copyright, but all that means is you have to re-record your songs as the record company owns the masters.
        • dinostabOMG, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Doesn't that depend on the contract? I think it's entirely possible for an entity to buy all rights to something - isn't that what "all rights reserved" means?
    • onlyclave, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15DISCLAIMER: I AM A MUSICIAN

      Your impression is correct if the "product" being sold is a label creation (any boy band, Britney Spears, etc) where the label does pay for the studio time, the producer, the engineer, the studio musicians, the mix engineer, the mastering engineer, etc. etc, books the tour, does the marketing and makes millions of dollars. The studios love that ***** because the product is so completely vertically integrated and the studio owns and controls everything.

      If you are any other type of musician, the studio loans you some money for the studio and all of the aassociated costs and your album sales go to pay that off. This is why ticket prices are so expensive and those cheap piece of ***** t-shirts and belt buckles cost $45. The musicians (don't call them artists. A lot of them aren't) still have to eat and support their families and also everybody else that is working on the tour.

      If you are a smart musician it is possible to record your own record in your living room with a laptop and some good microphones for VERY cheaply compared to the way things used to be. You can draw your own cover art and have your CDs replicated for $3 a piece in lots of 1000, do you own marketing, promotion, distribution agreements and for the most part call all of the shots.

      Being in the music business requires a lot of the "business" aspect. This is the reasons labels exist, average Joe guitar player can't do these things and so they pay very dearly to have someone else do it for them.
    • megadan76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
  • chubbymidget, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Because blogging about it doesn't make it so.
  • Richandler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Who are people?
  • Jerim, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Jesus f*ing Christ! If there is one thing we don't need it is another "music revolution" hype article. Despite what people think, music companies aren't going under. The only thing that is happening is that the delivery method of music is changing. Just like when we changed from cassettes to CD's. Everyone is dancing around acting like music is fixing to become 100% free as the big evil corporations fall into the ocean. Maybe crappy music, but you will always pay one way or another for good music.
    • mrjit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I have plenty of "good music" that indie bands put out. If you think mainstream, label pushed music is "good music" then your tastes need some revision.
  • rabidmonkey1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1http://duggmirror.com/business_finance/People_Stil ...
  • tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Music labels ARE NOT dead or dying. The big 4 labels will likely get a slap in the face and be forced to chance their business plan or suffer, but record labels as a concept will never go away - and that's not a bad thing! I wish people wouldn't equate record label == RIAA, because they're different.

    Despite what diggers like to think, artists need record labels as much as record labels need artists. Record labels are the ones skilled at promotion, advertising, publishing, finances etc. Most artists aren't going to want to manage all that themselves, no doubt they just want to play music. This this misconception that bands can be become successful from zero, by putting videos on YouTube. Sure, perhaps a couple of bands have, but generally that's just not reality. In reality, record labels are the ones with the expertise to get bands going places, making a name for themselves and their music in stores.

    There are thousands upon thousands of record labels out there, most of them with the artist as their primary concern. Don't lump them all in with EMI, Sony, Universal and WB, it's not fair to the indie labels who do good for their artists.
    • puto, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Music now a days sucks.

      • mywhitenoise, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3That's because you're not looking for good music. There's MILLIONS of bands out there, and tons of great ones.
    • wiraqcza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I still think it's easier for a band to get attention through youtube or myspace than sending demos to the record labels.
  • FongoBongo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3The sooner record labels realize their "monopoly" over music distribution is over, the sooner they will (a) roll over and die or (b) reinvent their structure to somehow continue to exploit artists and consumers. I'm hoping for option (a).
    • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You think the US constitution is going to change?
  • mollerade, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Doctor: The prognosis isn't very good. I'm afraid the infection has entered the vital organs, and they are shutting down one by one. We've done all we can at this point in time...
    Patient: How long do i have?
    Doctor: we will be able to keep you on life support for a few years, but the reality of the situation is that unless something new comes along, you are simply delaying the inevitable.
  • elvisjulep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The problem with labels is not that they're dead or unnecessary - it's merely that the labels have utterly refused to adapt to the changing paradigm of music distribution. Had they embraced the technology back when mp3s were just becoming available or when Napster was on fire, they could be well suited to become a viable force in 21st century entertainment. Yet the archaic culture is so ingrained that they have thrown a considerable amount of resource at vainly trying to rebottle the genie. If they keep suing single moms and college students, they're just going to fan the flames of their own destruction.

    There will be labels for some time to come, but they will continue to diminish in power and presence, with those choosing to give the consumer more freedom and choice being the only ones with a snowball's chance to avoid going the way of the buggy whip makers.
    • solid12345, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thing is labels had no reason to adapt.

      People forget there is an enormous market of middle-aged to older people who still prefer to go to brick and mortar stores and buy CD's. They do not want to be bothered with services like Itunes if they are not very computer literate.

      Most of the people downloading music are teenagers, teenagers with little money of their own which is why they download. No point in trying to cater to this crowd.
  • Shandooga, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Lawsuits=life support. Music labels are (and always have been) brain-dead. Die, music labels. Die.
  • dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2For the most part, in order to make it big, you need a label. Do your mandatory time for a few years, gain popularity, then break away and sell music independently. That's how it works until independent labels find a way to attract talent away from the big 4.
  • beargrylls, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5If I see another article on the recording industry I'm going to carve my eyes out with a spoon.
  • Nat3r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4whoa whoa.
    Prosthetic Records, Victory Records, Relapse Records
    all my favorite bands are under them, and these labels are doing a DAMN good job promoting these bands...yes Tower Records may be doing *****, but let me tell you, these independent labels are doing fine
    and considering some metal doesnt exist on p2p networks, than i just have to go and get the CD...which im proud to do
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't know who's on Prosthetic or Relapse (that's probably a good thing), but I do know that Victory holds nothing but ***** screamo bands like Thursday and Taking Back Sunday. Yuck.
  • arizonagroove, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4"People Still Don't Get That Music Labels Are Dead"
    Possibly that's because they are still very much alive.
  • InterpolFan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1This has been coming for a quite a while.
  • hydrodev, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2There are so many web 2.0 sites out there, were artists can basically control their own success. Why shouldn't the labels die?
    I Invite you all to the next evolution of the music industry. Artist control their sales. Artist control their Distrobution. Artists control themselves.
    http://www.rocksites.com.
    • angelgrl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No doubt!! Any musicians out there who haven't started posting themselves on a website and selling their own music digitally, need to take the step! Artists and fans are finally in control, not just the fat cat producers who never should have had the say they did! They've dictated our music too long!! I urge you musicians and fans to take this next step!! From one music fan to others, thanks to people like hydrodev for helping give the control back to the artists!! It's their music, ***** the labels.
      • solid12345, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And I have never heard of the top 20 bands on this site. Internet distribution is doomed to failure. Not one indie band has ever become famous through the internet alone. They need television and radio support.
  • Malarie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Thats is so great in a way that we will see pure talent rise from the masses. No more Britney Spears and the like. No more musical dictature from greedy bastards sitting in their office deciding what the masses should listen.

    The music is becoming social. Next step, Movies :) Its gonna be hard though, i wont download a 25GB HD movie :S

    • JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Thats is so great in a way that we will see pure talent rise from the masses."

      Karl Marx thought pretty much the same thing. History shows that it never really quite worked out the way Karl invisioned. I doubt that your vision has any better chance of success than his did.
  • mwalker05, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6dead? they will never die. they will just change the way they do business by offering online downloads of their albums
  • playerZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4People still don't get that the big 4 aren't the only form of "music label". If McDonald's came under threat, would you declare restaurants dead? If Wal-Mart came under threat, would you declare retail stores dead? Sensationalism is obviously alive and kicking. Labels aren't dead; *major* labels are under intense threat, and they seem unable to adapt. Which, for the record (groan), makes me really, really happy.
  • scottburton11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3There are still a few other important features of the "Old Record Biz".

    One is the additional structures that service the business - recording studios, instrument & equipment vendors, rental & cartage companies, etc. The music service industry is still important to artists, but labels (for better or worse) helped to spread the costs around a bit with liquidity - in the form of recoupable artist advances and "tour support". The home studio revolution hasn't changed the fact that good-sounding records are expensive to produce, and artists are typically more cost-sensitive in DIY mode than labels are. The result is a chicken-and-egg shortfall: no bank would offer to loan an artist the required capital to duplicate an 80's style label advance, even if recoupment is a crappy deal.

    The other valuable feature of the old business is - and I hate to say this but - A&R. Artists in the new music paradigm can gather an audience on MySpace, but it doesn't mean they understand their audience. The best label A&R guys were good at developing artists and funneling their output into an existing audience. Sure, this practice had its horror stories. Plenty of miscues. Lots of good artists went neglected. Some made unwelcome changes to gather an audience. But it still resulted in a degree of artist success that would have been hard for artists to duplicate on their own.

    And along those same lines, there are still great labels that provide a great service to fans, by (re-)introducing them to records they should have heard but didn't. Rhino, Sugaroo, Mosaic, someone mentioned Relapse. Boutique and re-issue labels were never major players in the biz but they're likely to remain when the dust settles.

    Basically, just because audiences can download anything they want, doesn't mean they know what to download. They still primarily steal music that was introduced to them by payola radio play. And just because artists can market directly to their audiences doesn't mean they know how to, or even want to. There's a lot more to the business than mixing a track in Garageband and hoping for the best.
  • nouns, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2When the winds of change start blowing, some people build shelters. Others build windmills....
  • Kronos6948, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Who's gonna pay for the tours for the bands that no one knows about?
  • scottburton11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2saijm, almost no one self-finances films of any reasonable scale. In fact, it's the oldest axiom in Hollywood - "never invest your own money". Also with respect to staring with a bad deal and building up to something better, it doesn't happen in the music industry unless you have Madonna/Michael Jackson type clout. Most royalty deals in the music biz are fairly cookie-cutter. Unfortunately, the labels' woes are shared by artists today because the current situation hasn't provided artists with much more bargaining power than they had in the old days.
  • kusursuz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1http://www.ircsohbet.com
  • JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"People Still Don't Get That Music Labels Are Dead"

    Translation:

    Another Myopic Geek Don't Get How the World Works
  • solid12345, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2More sensationalism.

    Do you really want to go to an online only world where music is ONLY available online for purchase through a credit card? I don't.

    I along with many others still like going to the stores, looking at the aisles of CD's and picking out stuff, looking at the packaging and having something physical. And some of us still want to pay with cash that we have on hand or in the bank. This is a scary move towards a cashless society, and with so many digg users believing in the new world order conspiracies you should be against this.
  • Fracture98, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1When thinking of the big record labels, I think of the opening scene in Gladiator.

    Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
    Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?

    They've been doing what they do for so long, they know little else. They're doomed to die fighting.
  • MetIncome, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Do record companies suck? Of course.

    Is stealing music ethical? Of course not. It's wrong no matter how you try to rationalize it.
    • thunderclap, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Last Time I checked stealing sound vibrations themselve was impossible. Now infringing on the copyright that the labels have by sharing the music isn't ethical. But you can't steal something that isn't tangible.
      • adooga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Artists also hold copyrights. Many artists hold all their copyrights. Stop screwing artists.
  • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3When Radiohead dumps their record label and releases an album themselves, they've essentially become their own record label. Record labels will exist as long as copyright laws exist and are enforced.
  • LNx2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think the story by freakonomics (linked to by this article) is the much more interesting read.
    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/w ...

    To be dugg here: http://digg.com/music/What_s_the_future_of_the_mus ...
  • jimbomanatuga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0seriously, those that are saying: "oh yeah, we, the internet people are winning. we're moving toward free music, thats how its supposed to be." are you serious? its not like musicians are doing things for fun. they're doing it to pay their bills; its just a job for them, just like your IT job, or whatever job you can hold. the only thing you're doing by hurting the music labels is hurting the musicians that work for them
    • thirteenthcor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0You'd like to think so, but you'd be wrong! :)
  • enforcerpsu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Dinosaurs will die.

    In a world without significant digital distribution record labels played a huge part in a band's success. Using the label to PUSH your sound was one of the only ways to be heard, outside of constantly playing live. The internet has revolutionized exposure. Yes, it also floods the scene with so much a band can be lost in the masses, but the talented and unique bands will still make a name for themselves. There is no reason mega-bands can't exist without the record label.

    One other point I want to make. I hope the lot of you do realize that record labels PUT BANDS TOGETHER. They are pre-packaged and designed to sell. Since the record labels have such a hard time adopting to the new age of distribution, the complete garbage they try to shove down our throats isn't the instant success it used to be. I, for one, am glad to see this. Screw studio bands.
  • adooga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The major labels are big, slow moving, set in their ways. They've also screwed their artists and customers for too long and are definitely becoming less relevant every day.
    The same can't be said of the thousands of smaller independent labels who are usually run by artists, are close to the fans (in fact ARE fans), care about long term relationships with the customer and ultimately will fill the void left by the dying major label dinosaurs.
    Interesting times.
  • thirteenthcor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0While we are on the subject of big music, and how awful they are (yes you, RIAA, labels etc) I would like to take this time to remind and reassure everyone that the folks over at the Pirate Bay are doing their best to develop an even better torrent file tracker program. Kudos for them, because as it stands, the bad guys are still having issues tracking torrents as it is!

    Ah... Sweden



  • JMellissa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1While I agree with the core precept of this article, I would like to point out that there are a myriad of small labels that are indeed viable and the product(s) they sell are worth buying. My opinion is that they operate much more like record labels USED TO operate, not like the mega-giants who rely more on hype than quality of content.

    I would like to see a music industry modeled more like open-source software, such that MP3's can be shared freely with "source-code" (Tablature and Lyrics) for collaboration in the public arena. A sort of GPL would require giving proper author and performer credit.
    CD's and DVD's for sale would be value-added items that could include HTML pages with photos, back-story, and even easter eggs of otherwise unpublished material.

    Sell Tee-shirts, not Hype!

    I want a "(insert the name of your favorite artist here) Kicks Ass" Tee-shirt and I'm ready to buy!
    I want a matching coffee mug too!

    Putting a price tag on the music soils it in my opinion. Creativity comes to us freely from the spirit of the muse,
    and selling it is like pimping out the spirit.

    Please feel free to disagree with me.

    Thanks for letting me share, I'll keep coming back ~{;o)
  • astrotrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What do you expect... these are the same folks who think they are buying a song from iTunes, and fail to realize they are only "Renting" it while they have an itunes account. Soon as they cancel, they loose all their licensing and the hundred or so music files they "think they own" are now worthless garbage on their system.

    "Wake up and smell the coffee, Mrs. Bueller, it's a fool's paradise. He is just leading you down the primrose path." - Principle Rooney
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.