What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
115 Comments
- meruru, on 10/11/2007, -2/+114Correction: Dying, not dead.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39Is someone under the massive misconception that distribution is the only element to doing business?
- 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.
- 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. - 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/+19i'll be the first to piss on their ashes and have a drink with radiohead and nine inch nails.
- 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. - 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.
- inactive, 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. - 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.
- natedouglas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14From whom did you steal that analogy?
- 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, -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.
- 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. - 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.
- chubbymidget, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Because blogging about it doesn't make it so.
- 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.
- div2n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wouldn't "irrelevant" be a far more accurate word than even that?
- Kronos6948, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Who's gonna pay for the tours for the bands that no one knows about?
- 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.
- 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. - Richandler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Who are people?
- 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
- 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.
- tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You're talking about the big record labels and the big movie studios. Look outside your box and see what else is out there. There's thousands of record labels who DO look at music as an art form and not just to make money. There's independent film studios who make good films on a small budget.
People seem all too quick to wish away the mainstream stuff to make way for 'art', without realising that by looking a bit further, there's art to be found already. - jwaycuilis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Soylent Green
- 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 - 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. - freezerburn666, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5JAILED lol...
- 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.
- 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.
- Sail3, on 08/04/2009, -1/+5If I see another article on the recording industry I'm going to carve my eyes out with a spoon.
- 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
- 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.
- 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 - mt2k3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Im with you 100% on that...my point was really moreso an observation more than anything :)
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Lawsuits=life support. Music labels are (and always have been) brain-dead. Die, music labels. Die.
- spectre_25gt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If it was that easy, it would have happened. What people are seeing is that there is an opportunity for indie musicians to stay away from labels and still get noticed. I haven't heard anyone say they know exactly how yet.
As much as I hate it, Myspace seems to be doing a good job at helping musicians network and get people interested in their music. Places like Last.FM have even more ability to help the industry along. Eventually I can see something like venues booking on contingency depending upon how many listeners bands have on a site like Last.fm. In the end, though, I don't think anyone really knows how this is going to end up except for the fact that decreased cost of distribution and multiple avenues for exposure have rendered labels unnecessary. - 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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 - 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.
- inactive, 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...
- JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"I think a lot of good intentioned people will create independent online distribution networks for indie musicians only to have it become a joke filled with Spears clones."
And if these online networks show any hint of success, the record labels will simply copy them while the networks themselves will slowly start to look and act more like the record labels. Eventually, they will all meet somewhere in the middle and emerge as a new and improved "music industry". - deepinside, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ok, give me the list!
- 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. - 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?
- 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is