New analysis: Did downloads really kill the record labels? (1 Viewer)

[BrianB]

No I did not, but I have suggested that he pay lesser staff more money to build more loyalty. That's another problem. Mid-level label staff and lower are often on poverty-like wages and they work in high dollar cities like NYC and Los Angeles. Record producers are almost always millionaires.

So you've asked him to cut into his profits by spending more on wages. I thought you wanted CD costs to come down, not up!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

So you've asked him to cut into his profits by spending more on wages.

If turnover goes down and productivity rises, there will be more profits for everyone.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If you are looking for ways to decrease the end price of CDS, paying staff more isn't one of them, although I don't disagree with the concept.

Jeff, you are making a leap of faith and putting words onto the page out of context. I was responding to a specific inquiry about my friend, a record producer, and what I suggested he do.

I did NOT say that this was my general prescription for the industry's solution as you implied.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Sorry, but this is rediculous. For entertainment value, CDs have to be one of the best investments. For the price they offer far more replay value and are more versatile (you can't watch movies while driving) than DVDs, and compared to live entertainment are a steal.

I am not so sure. A DVD of a movie is moving closer to the price of a CD quickly. And that comes with a cohesive storyline and lots of expense ($50mm+ to create movie) and usually very nice supplemental features.

While there are some great CDs, like the SACD of JT I have been listening to, many pop and rock titles have 2-3 good songs and the remaining 10-14 tracks are crap.

That's a very poor value proposition for the consumer.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I think the government should embrace crime because it will happen anyway.

They already do, depending on who you ask

 

[mike_decock]

This is an interesting dicussion. We all gripe about the price of CDs and the RIAA.

One thing I wonder is how many people would be upset or how upset would people be if the RIAA and the major labels/retailers bit the dust?

What would happen in such an event?


-Mike...

 

[Carlo_M]

What would happen in such an event?

I'm not sure (and I don't have a crystal ball) but I wouldn't mind finding out. The demise of major record labels might make it harder to have national distribution, but then again, maybe not. We wouldn't have all this advertising shoving the latest/greatest thing down our throats. We wouldn't have price collusion. We wouldn't have exclusive contracts and/or heavy pressure for radio stations to play what the companies want them to play.

Who knows, there are going to be some drawbacks to their demise, but I think that I won't miss them at all if they go away.

 

[Chuck L]

Part of the big issue though is what has been discussed in the last post on this thread.

If the big labels were to go away...maybe we would hear 'real' music talent again. The major studios are only concerned about the flavor of the day, therefore that is the music that we are constantly force-fed.

On the other hand, there are lot of independant artist, both old and new, that would kill for a radio station to pick them up. One of the best tools of the trade for them is online downloading.

For me, it almost goes back to the early days of Metallica, I am pointing them out since they are one of the biggest foes of the online music sources, when they were willing to have their recordings bootlegged to get around. Once they hit it big, it was time to end that.

Yet Cyndi Lauper's latest release Shine is doing well on the independant charts, simply due to the fact of artist exposure with her fanbase and her touring with Cher. It is scary to think of how many artist there are on these charts, that will never reach the mainstream simply due to the lack of a major label.

In this same light, there are artist such as Pat Benatar who is currently producing one of the best sounding albums of her carreer and is doing it without the assistance of a major label. Why? Because an artist does not want to be told or controled by a label to make music that is against what they feel. I have to applaud artist like her that are willing to make music not only for the fans, but for themselves. Will this music make it on the radio...only time will tell. Will it be music that the artist is proud of to have in their catalog, you bet.

Basically, it isn't about the art. It is the same with the film industry, how much money can we make above all things. Regardless of artistic merit, a performer can now rank in the top earners of the year chart with 60+ million dollars, while there are, for a lack of a better pun, starving artist out there.

Getting rid of the an online server for music swapping keeps those people that are already in the limelight in the limelight. It would keep those people that use it for the exposure damage, not only in the hope of being a star, but to their art as a whole.

Now...I know that most of these artist are not the ones that are being downloaded. It is the big time stars that are...again, it is because of the exposure. If that is all that you know, that is all that you look for. Most of the music buying public aren't willing to try out a new artist. Why? They haven't heard of them in most cases or because radio says they aren't 'cool.'

I honestly have to admit that this year I have only purchased four albums: Cher's "Living Proof," The "Jason X" soundtrack, Martina McBride's "Greatest Hits," and a techno collection for a birthday gift. In the past, I have bought many CD's even on the event of hearing the first single. Not anymore. Since the onslaught of DVD, I have more places to spend my money than on a CD.

Another example...I USED to be a huge Madonna fan. Her last studio album "Music" failed to light any sparks in me (I did buy this album!), and the Greatest Hits Volume 2 release contained nothing new...other than radio edits of hits. It is the first album in here two decades of music that I have not purchased. Even if there had been one or two new tracks, I would have been willing to support it. Therefore, there is one sale there that was lacking from the overall money...I am sure that I wasn't the only one.

Another big drawback to the money flow of the record company's are the big ass advances and contracts that they will give to an artist, the artist makes the album, and it tanks. Mariah Carey is a great example. Michael Jackson's latest release is another. Had they maybe taken time out of their hectic schedule and given an independant release a listen, and signed that artist, they could have had a breakthrough.

In conclusion, I believe that all these aspects are what have hurt the music industry. Downloading, while I won't say is innocent, is the prat-fall in a long line of reasons that are truly what has taken music down the current road it is on.

 

[Brian Perry]

One thing I wonder is how many people would be upset or how upset would people be if the RIAA and the major labels/retailers bit the dust?

Well, I guess if you were a fledgling artist, you would have to take out a mortgage to pay for the recording of your album, then you'd have to figure out how to pay for the duplication of thousands of CDs and cassettes, then you'd have to have someone build a website for you to sell your products, and so on. My guess is that for every artist that thinks he or she is getting screwed by the system, there are a hundred that are grateful that they didn't have to risk their own money to get started.

As I said in an earlier post, I think the inequity in the system is due to the fact that successful acts have to carry the load of the unsuccessful acts. It's not due to record company "greed" as far as I can tell.

 

[Mike Broadman]

, I think the inequity in the system is due to the fact that successful acts have to carry the load of the unsuccessful acts

I would argue that it has more to do with what is considered "successful."

100,000 record sales- is that successful? For major labels who spent gazillions promoting the new N'Sync album, it is a failure. For an independent label, it may be enough to keep the band going and turn a profit.

Under the current business model, a band with a loyal but not so huge fan base is considered a "failure." This is a problem.

NP: Cassandra Wilson, Blue Light 'Til Dawn

 

[mike_decock]

Well, I guess if you were a fledgling artist, you would have to take out a mortgage to pay for the recording of your album, then you'd have to figure out how to pay for the duplication of thousands of CDs and cassettes, then you'd have to have someone build a website for you to sell your products, and so on.

Think of all the garage bands in the 60's. They would build a local fan base playing local events. That's where the bulk of their income would come from. If they scraped enough money together for a few hours in the studio, they could cut a single or even a record to sell themselves at their shows. Local record stores would carry local labels. If a local radio station got enough requests, they'd play the single.

These days it's even easier to record and mass produce your own music.

If you combine that kind of "local" mentality with this new communication/distribution tool called "The Internet", you may have a very workable way to get beyond a local fan base and build a national/worldwide following.


-Mike...

 

[TheLongshot]

Think of all the garage bands in the 60's. They would build a local fan base playing local events. That's where the bulk of their income would come from. If they scraped enough money together for a few hours in the studio, they could cut a single or even a record to sell themselves at their shows. Local record stores would carry local labels. If a local radio station got enough requests, they'd play the single.

And local bands do that now. I see them all the time, giging, distributing CDs, trying very much to get a following. Going to the "Battle Of The Bands" here has been educational. The bands who have been successful in the competition have done a good job of building their local fanbase and sometimes have garnered huge turnouts. All of this while being an unsigned band.

I'll always think that small labels will have a reason to exist. It is good to have a brand that means something to people, that they know that there are similar types of artists on the same label. It is something the majors have lost as they have gotten bigger. What label a band is on is pretty meaningless when you get to the major labels.

Jason

 

[mike_decock]

But not all bands benefit from being in the mainstream.

Once upon a time there was a local band called "The Gin Blossoms". They had a big following in Arizona, got a major label deal and now they're superstars... well.. not really... I haven't heard a darn thing about them since they "made it big".

I always felt that, more often than not, artists get worse when they get too popular.


-Mike...

 

[Carlo_M]

Excellent points above. Also realize we aren't calling for the demise of all record companies, that would be ridiculous! But we could do away with the giants that control radio airwaves, publicity and billboards, etc. and just go back to many small labels. That way they are more accessible to artists, if one doesn't pick you up you've got quite a few more to shop your wares to.

And yes, it hardly costs a mortgage to record your album these days. A friend is doing it all inhouse and he's in college!

Sure if you want the London Philharmonic to play on your album, and the Tabernacle Choir to do backups you might have to shell out some cash, but doing the standard 4-5 piece band + overdubs is not that expensive if you want to buy decent equipment and split it, or to share the costs for studio rental time.

If you think the big labels are helping out the little indie artists and making it easy for them to get their music out...let's just say I have a differing opinion (and a bunch of local artists that I've had the pleasure to see live and meet in person to back me up).

 

[Brian Bunn]

Apparently you are right, Carlo, about it not costing an arm and a leg to record an album. I am by no means that much in the know on these things but I do know of a fellow up in Lancaster Mass that recorded a fantastic pop/rock album in his home recording studio, distributed it out of his home initially, on his own record label, and through word of mouth and reputation of earlier stuff he had done with his band I believe it sold pretty well. Steve Ward is his name. The guy is a pop genius of sorts. And that little album he created at home is outstanding...blows away most of the big budget major label stuff that is being put out these days IMO. You can now buy it on Amazon.com. Granted one will more than likely not become a multi-millionaire going this route, but if you have that kind of talent...to write, perform, record, and distribute a product as good as the stuff Steve Ward puts out...there is a good chance you can make some decent money doing something you love to do.
Goes to show ya you don't need the majors to do your thing. Sure you have to have the funds to set up a recording system of some sort but I don't think it costs nearly as much as it would have even 10 years ago. Setting it up is the easy part. Having the talent to do good things with it is an entirely different matter altogether, of course.
If you put out a good product like Steve Ward does (and many others like him I am sure) it will get noticed by people. And through the internet word will get around.
What does all this mean to the main topic of this thread? Well, yeah, I believe downloads have hurt record labels pretty bad...but mainly it is only hurting the majors that distribute the teeny bopper and rap stuff that kids, teenagers, and early twenty somethings are downloading like crazy. The independent artists on the indie labels are probably not effected by all this much at all. Most of these artists probably welcome people having access to downloads of their stuff because it gets their product out there and those interested in their product are much more likely to buy the product after downloading a song or two if they like what they hear. As opposed to the younger crowd that ONLY download a song or two from an album and have no intention of ever buying the actual product.
The independent artist is in fact probably getting a boost in sales through all this, whereas mainstream artists are surely taking a big hit.
All this is serving to put more money in the pockets of the indie labels while taking away from the majors...a Robin Hood effect of sorts in the music industry...if you will. And I for one don't think this is a bad thing at all. Although the long term affect is harder to predict it is definitely leading to a change in the music industry business model.
There is some fantastic stuff being put out by the indie labels and talented individuals like Steve Ward on their own. You just have to be willing to search for it. And it is changing the music industry for good...and for the better.
Check out Steve Ward's siteLink Removed

 

[mike_decock]

Granted one will more than likely not become a multi-millionaire going this route

Is becoming a multi-millionaire the only worthwhile reason for putting out music?

It's kind of my gripe with the industry. Talent is one thing, but inspiration usually comes out of hardship and strife. Once you make millionaires out of your talent, you take away their inspiration.

-Mike...

 

[Brian Bunn]

Mike--I wasn't implying that becoming a multi-millionaire should be the main reason for putting out music. Not at all. I believe many artists, like Steve Ward, aren't in it to become millionaires. They just love what they do and are probably just ecstatic that they have the talent to do it. Of course if they happen to make a lot of money in the process then all the better, but I don't think the money is really what it's all about for guys like Steve Ward and many other indie artists. Most such artists probably have day jobs...the music being pretty much a hobby done in their spare time...I would bet. All of which probably leads to more passion, integrity, and inspiration in what they do and the music they write/perform. And all this may go a long way in explaining why most of the best stuff is released on independent labels and self-released.

 

[Iain Lambert]

If you're going to discuss the relative prices of DVDs and CDs, then I'd highlight the way that for a number of films its cost me more to buy the soundtrack album (£15.99) than it has for the film itself (£14.99). Some of these even had the full score (as in full score, not the less than half you often get on the actual CD) on the DVD as an isolated 5.1 track!

 

[Mike Broadman]

Once you make millionaires out of your talent, you take away their inspiration.

Baloney. The whole "suffering artist" thing holds for some people, but not all. Not every musician has to be starving to be inspired.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If you're going to discuss the relative prices of DVDs and CDs, then I'd highlight the way that for a number of films its cost me more to buy the soundtrack album (£15.99) than it has for the film itself (£14.99).

Interesting and valid observation!

It all gets back to consumer utility. What do consumers get the most bang for the buck from?

I think on many occasions, a cell phone may offer more utility than music.