How The Economics of the Music Industry Affects Culture
Soundclick
Lawrence
cc Mixter
CD Baby
GarageBand
Pure Volume
Craigslist
Aquisition
Sign Here Online
This is what music had gotten to before Napster came along:
By 1992, after over 4 decades of seeing 20-30 varied and exciting number one hits, we were down to a dozen #1 hits a year by artists like Boys II Men, Mariah Carey and MJ, who dominated the charts throughout the decade.
Who dominated the 50's - Elvis, the 60's - The Beatles, the 70's - Elton John, the 80's - Michael Jackson, the 90's - Mariah Carey.
These label execs want us to believe that without them to find this precious talent we will have to suffer along with crappy music. Well, look at what they've offered up as they've consolidated power - puppet songbirds and enuchs. I'll take a Pip over this.
The truth is that there are thousands of talented and dedicated artists out there who are prevented from finding an audience because of the lack of venues, the lack of emphasis on live music due to an overinflated emphasis on recorded music, something caused by the labels themselves, and the lack of access to distribution, also caused by the labels.
In addition, the labels are notorious for doing everything and anything possible to obstruct every single new technology that has moved the cause of entertainment distribution & recording forward. They aggressively fought cassettes, VHS, CDs, and, of course, Napster and all the P2P sites.
If these labels stopped doing us this huge favor of finding us that one in five thousand band we would start looking for sites to help us find some live music in our area or a band's website that we might enjoy (see all the great sites above). Don't worry folks, we won't suddenly live in a society devoid of good music and art.... quite the opposite. We would start enjoying the creativity around us & within us.
There will always be artists that dominate a given year or several years...why? They have talent. Will people stop having talent without our treasured execs? I don't think so.
So, where does the label money go? Some of it does go toward cultivating young talent. They add experienced producer talent, and lots of high-tech hardware & software, which sometimes helps and sometimes doesn't depending what kind of sound you're going for. I mean, the White Stripes have a drum & guitar, nothing digital & lots of folks think they sound great.
They do put money into promotion & trying to make these acts polished, often "not getting it back". Meaning profit above their overhead, right? Well, let's take a look at that overhead. There is no ignoring the overinflated cost of all that, which the bands must pay before seeing a cent. So, the label does get it back, they get paid first, along with the lawyers, the ones who are supposed to be working for the bands.
It's the band that stands last, and ends up with nothing but an overly produced album that sounds little like them or their original identity. If they're lucky, it does well and they can get a better deal next time, but, that's rare and the second deal usually looks like the first.
And if they're really "lucky", and it turns out their song is a hit... say goodbye to what should have been your nest egg for life, cause the label owns it now. So, where does the money go - to the highest level in the music business, the ex-musicians who would rather sit behind a mixing board than a keyboard, telling other bands how to "make it" because their own creativity stalled out.
Society is more invigorated artistically when the younger generation is calling the shots.
Labels need to stop advancing to bands, as Steve Jobs has said, and Hillary Rosen says is happening. The key is, there needs to be a way for bands to do that, make actual money by playing music!!. That's why it's so important to have the infrastructure and cultural conditions that will allow that... small but viable venues, a public interested in seeing live music and willing to use the internet to find music, as well as good sites that will help people find live and recorded music that they will enjoy.
When the bands are cutting those checks, then you will really see things start to change. What the public needs to do is put their cash toward the bands, not the labels.
In the label system the winners subsidize the losers, who usually "don't make back their advance" (no profit after paying in house cost). And that is a correct flow. The problem is the reason they have to. It's because it's winner take all in the music business. Here's why: (and this is my major issue with the record industry): efficiencies of scale/volume.
If you order T shirts printed, they'll charge you $100. to make 100 & $200. to make 1000, whatever, why? Most of the cost is in setting the press. The labels do not want 100 albums selling 100 units each. They want 1 album selling 10,000 units.
Even in this internet age, where we can finally shake ourselves free of the CD (o)pressor, they still want that one in five thousand artist, the Eminems, Britneys, Ushers (see my AMA post). It's all about creating that big superstar name, or brand.
First, for efficiency and second, because once the celebrity gets to a certain visibility level, there's a snowball effect and you get all sorts of free promotion. The big names have press on them 24/7 and the labels love that. In contrast, selling too many albums, which all do, say 100k units, gives you lots of mid-level acts, it creates more of a musician middle class.
The powers that be prefer a smaller (thus, more controllable) group of very influential, now owner class, elite musicians. They provide the role model and impetus to drive early-stage musicians...."look how far you can go in music". At the same time, they tout the company line, like Madonna & Eminem.
I'm not a fan of unions, at all. But, you know, it has protected a lot of actors from being totally exploited. Why is there no musician union?
So, those are some of the reasons music got so bad in the 90's, but, Napster (and to an extent, Cobain) really started to change things and, it is getting better out there. I believe that within the next few years we will see a true cultural revolution, a renaissance.
As the US Empire transitions out to the Chinese, we will, hopefully start using our technologies instead of just inventing them. We'll learn how to express ourselves with them and that will propel us to consume more varied and personalized entertainment. It will drive a huge market and those poised to exploit it should do quite well.
This time, the new boss may not be the old boss.
Lawrence
cc Mixter
CD Baby
GarageBand
Pure Volume
Craigslist
Aquisition
Sign Here Online
This is what music had gotten to before Napster came along:
By 1992, after over 4 decades of seeing 20-30 varied and exciting number one hits, we were down to a dozen #1 hits a year by artists like Boys II Men, Mariah Carey and MJ, who dominated the charts throughout the decade.
Who dominated the 50's - Elvis, the 60's - The Beatles, the 70's - Elton John, the 80's - Michael Jackson, the 90's - Mariah Carey.
These label execs want us to believe that without them to find this precious talent we will have to suffer along with crappy music. Well, look at what they've offered up as they've consolidated power - puppet songbirds and enuchs. I'll take a Pip over this.
The truth is that there are thousands of talented and dedicated artists out there who are prevented from finding an audience because of the lack of venues, the lack of emphasis on live music due to an overinflated emphasis on recorded music, something caused by the labels themselves, and the lack of access to distribution, also caused by the labels.
In addition, the labels are notorious for doing everything and anything possible to obstruct every single new technology that has moved the cause of entertainment distribution & recording forward. They aggressively fought cassettes, VHS, CDs, and, of course, Napster and all the P2P sites.
If these labels stopped doing us this huge favor of finding us that one in five thousand band we would start looking for sites to help us find some live music in our area or a band's website that we might enjoy (see all the great sites above). Don't worry folks, we won't suddenly live in a society devoid of good music and art.... quite the opposite. We would start enjoying the creativity around us & within us.
There will always be artists that dominate a given year or several years...why? They have talent. Will people stop having talent without our treasured execs? I don't think so.
So, where does the label money go? Some of it does go toward cultivating young talent. They add experienced producer talent, and lots of high-tech hardware & software, which sometimes helps and sometimes doesn't depending what kind of sound you're going for. I mean, the White Stripes have a drum & guitar, nothing digital & lots of folks think they sound great.
They do put money into promotion & trying to make these acts polished, often "not getting it back". Meaning profit above their overhead, right? Well, let's take a look at that overhead. There is no ignoring the overinflated cost of all that, which the bands must pay before seeing a cent. So, the label does get it back, they get paid first, along with the lawyers, the ones who are supposed to be working for the bands.
It's the band that stands last, and ends up with nothing but an overly produced album that sounds little like them or their original identity. If they're lucky, it does well and they can get a better deal next time, but, that's rare and the second deal usually looks like the first.
And if they're really "lucky", and it turns out their song is a hit... say goodbye to what should have been your nest egg for life, cause the label owns it now. So, where does the money go - to the highest level in the music business, the ex-musicians who would rather sit behind a mixing board than a keyboard, telling other bands how to "make it" because their own creativity stalled out.
Society is more invigorated artistically when the younger generation is calling the shots.
Labels need to stop advancing to bands, as Steve Jobs has said, and Hillary Rosen says is happening. The key is, there needs to be a way for bands to do that, make actual money by playing music!!. That's why it's so important to have the infrastructure and cultural conditions that will allow that... small but viable venues, a public interested in seeing live music and willing to use the internet to find music, as well as good sites that will help people find live and recorded music that they will enjoy.
When the bands are cutting those checks, then you will really see things start to change. What the public needs to do is put their cash toward the bands, not the labels.
In the label system the winners subsidize the losers, who usually "don't make back their advance" (no profit after paying in house cost). And that is a correct flow. The problem is the reason they have to. It's because it's winner take all in the music business. Here's why: (and this is my major issue with the record industry): efficiencies of scale/volume.
If you order T shirts printed, they'll charge you $100. to make 100 & $200. to make 1000, whatever, why? Most of the cost is in setting the press. The labels do not want 100 albums selling 100 units each. They want 1 album selling 10,000 units.
Even in this internet age, where we can finally shake ourselves free of the CD (o)pressor, they still want that one in five thousand artist, the Eminems, Britneys, Ushers (see my AMA post). It's all about creating that big superstar name, or brand.
First, for efficiency and second, because once the celebrity gets to a certain visibility level, there's a snowball effect and you get all sorts of free promotion. The big names have press on them 24/7 and the labels love that. In contrast, selling too many albums, which all do, say 100k units, gives you lots of mid-level acts, it creates more of a musician middle class.
The powers that be prefer a smaller (thus, more controllable) group of very influential, now owner class, elite musicians. They provide the role model and impetus to drive early-stage musicians...."look how far you can go in music". At the same time, they tout the company line, like Madonna & Eminem.
I'm not a fan of unions, at all. But, you know, it has protected a lot of actors from being totally exploited. Why is there no musician union?
So, those are some of the reasons music got so bad in the 90's, but, Napster (and to an extent, Cobain) really started to change things and, it is getting better out there. I believe that within the next few years we will see a true cultural revolution, a renaissance.
As the US Empire transitions out to the Chinese, we will, hopefully start using our technologies instead of just inventing them. We'll learn how to express ourselves with them and that will propel us to consume more varied and personalized entertainment. It will drive a huge market and those poised to exploit it should do quite well.
This time, the new boss may not be the old boss.
posted by Intervision at 9:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home