RS Top 50 Moneymakers
IPac beat me to the punch about the RS list with a nice post about the label's "Woe is me" campaign. It seems like often the response from, I don't know what we're calling ourselves these days...communists, commonists, reasonable human beings who like music, whatever... is this sort of denial mode, oh, you're not really losing money. Maybe that's for legal reasons...damages? What damages? If we ever get to that one, I should go back to practicing law for sure, cause it'll take plenty of lawyers to make sense of those books.
My response is a bit different. I don't give a flying fuck if they're losing money. I think they are. I hope they are. They don't deserve to have much money unless they deliver something the public wants or needs. I'm sick of subsidizing people who watered down our culture with, yes, as IPac reminded me....boy bands. Anyway, (watch this smooth segue) at least we don't see any on RS's top 50 earners of '04.
They say they've done lots of in-depth interviews to get all these numbers. So, even though their sources can't identify a good song to save their lives, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt cause, it's exactly what I would expect. I can't remember how much depth I've gone into before about how to make money playing music, probably 100 times, but it usually goes something like this..."play for your fans, they will come, they will pay, they will buy T-shirts, they will love you, they will support you, they will show you the money"
Evanescence was the only band in the top 50 to earn more from recording than touring. Now, I'll grant you that most top earners are established acts that did build up audience largely through the label system. Now they're more powerful than RIAA & Clear Channel (again, recently subpoenaed by Spitzer!) combined because they are the name that brings people in the door, spending $100. - $500/person for the evening, there's parking, ticket fees, food, souvenirs... it's all overpriced and it adds up. I'm much happier to pay roadies, back-up singers, ticket-takers etc. than some slick sell-out label shill, whose new job is seeding music blogs with praise from supposedly legit fans.
Top artists are commanding $1. per album and pennies per recorded song sold. Prince gets $2. Most get far, far less. In fact, some 98% never see a cent past their advance and end up owing the label money for lots of high priced, useless service that bands can and should be performing for themselves or contracting out at reasonable prices. Even Madonna couldn't make back her advance from the last album. Recorded music should continue to be marketed as it always has been, to some extent, promotion for bands who you will then pay to see live.
When it comes to dollars, the American public is smarter than it looks. Aside from Green having its Day at the Grammy's, green is having it's way with our RIAAdicoulous friends. While CD sales continue to shrink, more and more folks download their music, most freely, but are increasingly looking for ways to pay something reasonable to the artist. See all the links to the right; Magnatune, Dmusic etc., which let listeners pay artists fairly directly for the download.
But, as film buffs are going increasingly from theaters to the better experience of DVD flexibility and bonus features, the big money and trend in music is in performance, and for similar reasons, people are looking for a better and different entertainment experience. Madonna (#2) took the philosophy, put on a great show, charge for it, it worked. $300. is more than B'way, but, she put on a great show & she's Madonna. She lost money on her recorded music and deserved to after her little fuck-you's to her P2P fans. I don't care how much she dances or what she did for female artists, you don't give your fans the finger, like fucking Metallica, who came in right behind her. The reason, as RS points out, is that Metallica renegotiated its contract with Elecktra in the mid-90's and now commands a highly unusual $3./CD.
We're willing to buy music on DVD's, sales of which now outpace box office receipts by some 40%, and music DVD sales doubled last year. The new DualDisc's are popping up all over (CD on one side, DVD on the other). This is the first sensible response from the recording industry, trying to provide some sort of value to its customers, instead of marketing through intimidation. They're one of the few bright spots the labels have now so expect to see more concert footage, hopefully with good commentary. With most now coming in Surround Sound, those with nice home theaters can hear five speakers, making it sound just like the concert. Or, as they put it, now it sounds like the guy shouting Freebird is behind you, not on stage.
In Silicon Valley, where money is made largely through innovation, we sometimes forget how the big economic engines move. It's based on the repetitive, day to day activities of life. What's the biggest company today? Exxon. We have to drive every day. The other big engines have to do with soap, food, clothes, entertainment, drugs. What big business looks for is to get the consumer on their IV drip. We have to eat, wash, drive every day. That's why they love food, soap & gas. Now cars they could make to last forever, drugs, they could be looking for cures, but, they're not, they want you on a drug you have to take every day.
This is the explanation for the Napster-to-Go model they keep trying. From Pressplay, Rhapsody on the industry wants us on this ever-dependant model of pay every month, get used to it, if you want music. Blockbuster has me where they want me, a direct monthly feed through my Visa. Now that they can't sell CDs, they want us to forget this concept of owning music. I thought this debate between Barry Ritholtz and Cody Willard was very interesting. At a certain point, Cody, was left with only one argument that he had to keep reiterating, the music isn't yours, it's stealing, it's wrong. It kind of reminded me of trying to argue with my kids when they were toddlers, "honey, just because you're holding the toy doesn't mean it's yours". It's like the first bank robber on the scene complaining that the next one is taking some of their loot.
Remember how Marx talked about the lynchpin of Capitalism being ownership of the means of production? In the record biz, that's the distribution networks which they built up through the mob, and the recording studios. Well, the internet and ProTools changed all that. Turns out their product was capable of being digitized. Their basic position is, we have it, it's ours, if you want it, you deal with us.
I saw this same attitude when I was involved in fundraising for Palo Alto schools. The Board of Education, responding to whining about unfairness, told the district's schools they could not use PTA funds for staff. A central fundraising organization was formed, I helped, or tried to, it wasn't easy. There were some on there who took the position that since we now held the monopoly on staff, all we had to do was simply ask for money. It was actually put out there like, "If they want staff, they pay us".
In their arrogance, they sometimes forget that even with monopolies, there are always other options. Some people will go to private schools, or give their kids private lessons, or just buy lots of playground equipment... or download music or buy DVD's or go to concerts, or use open source etc. etc. Organizations, public or private, with that attitude forget what Steve Forbes reminds us is the first rule of business; the customer comes first, and, monopoly or no, they'll pay a price for that.
The recording industry came into being as a result of a technological breakthrough (funny, they always forget that part) and will leave the same way... most industries do. I saw some of Network again yesterday, it's astounding how accurately it predicts reality television and discusses larger issues having to do with the media and societal trends. The climax of the film is when the President of the big conglomerate seats the seemingly discerning dupe at the end of the runway/Board table and exhumes Oz-like pronouncements about how the world doesn't care about nations, the lingua franca is green, that is the ebb and flow (or, as I would put it yin/yang) and Beal has "meddled with the inexorable forces of nature".
Well, technology is the Tsunami. You can try to hold it back, but, not for long, the only constant is change, Einstein proved that. The money may measure the change, but it is not the engine. The engine is the inexorable nature of humans, created in God's image, to strive and change and make things better.
OK, I'm rambling, and I usually try to keep these pretty tight, so, let me tie it all up here. When it comes to earning money in music, it's all about the playing. And, if you want to make money off music in an ancillary way, do it by legitimately helping people find music they will like, or by perfecting a medium by which to enjoy it, not by stripping and ripping artists and then trying to profit off the multiples as you search for commodities and rely on government granted help to do it.
If music be the food of love, play on.
Twelfth Night 1:1
My response is a bit different. I don't give a flying fuck if they're losing money. I think they are. I hope they are. They don't deserve to have much money unless they deliver something the public wants or needs. I'm sick of subsidizing people who watered down our culture with, yes, as IPac reminded me....boy bands. Anyway, (watch this smooth segue) at least we don't see any on RS's top 50 earners of '04.
They say they've done lots of in-depth interviews to get all these numbers. So, even though their sources can't identify a good song to save their lives, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt cause, it's exactly what I would expect. I can't remember how much depth I've gone into before about how to make money playing music, probably 100 times, but it usually goes something like this..."play for your fans, they will come, they will pay, they will buy T-shirts, they will love you, they will support you, they will show you the money"
Evanescence was the only band in the top 50 to earn more from recording than touring. Now, I'll grant you that most top earners are established acts that did build up audience largely through the label system. Now they're more powerful than RIAA & Clear Channel (again, recently subpoenaed by Spitzer!) combined because they are the name that brings people in the door, spending $100. - $500/person for the evening, there's parking, ticket fees, food, souvenirs... it's all overpriced and it adds up. I'm much happier to pay roadies, back-up singers, ticket-takers etc. than some slick sell-out label shill, whose new job is seeding music blogs with praise from supposedly legit fans.
Top artists are commanding $1. per album and pennies per recorded song sold. Prince gets $2. Most get far, far less. In fact, some 98% never see a cent past their advance and end up owing the label money for lots of high priced, useless service that bands can and should be performing for themselves or contracting out at reasonable prices. Even Madonna couldn't make back her advance from the last album. Recorded music should continue to be marketed as it always has been, to some extent, promotion for bands who you will then pay to see live.
When it comes to dollars, the American public is smarter than it looks. Aside from Green having its Day at the Grammy's, green is having it's way with our RIAAdicoulous friends. While CD sales continue to shrink, more and more folks download their music, most freely, but are increasingly looking for ways to pay something reasonable to the artist. See all the links to the right; Magnatune, Dmusic etc., which let listeners pay artists fairly directly for the download.
But, as film buffs are going increasingly from theaters to the better experience of DVD flexibility and bonus features, the big money and trend in music is in performance, and for similar reasons, people are looking for a better and different entertainment experience. Madonna (#2) took the philosophy, put on a great show, charge for it, it worked. $300. is more than B'way, but, she put on a great show & she's Madonna. She lost money on her recorded music and deserved to after her little fuck-you's to her P2P fans. I don't care how much she dances or what she did for female artists, you don't give your fans the finger, like fucking Metallica, who came in right behind her. The reason, as RS points out, is that Metallica renegotiated its contract with Elecktra in the mid-90's and now commands a highly unusual $3./CD.
We're willing to buy music on DVD's, sales of which now outpace box office receipts by some 40%, and music DVD sales doubled last year. The new DualDisc's are popping up all over (CD on one side, DVD on the other). This is the first sensible response from the recording industry, trying to provide some sort of value to its customers, instead of marketing through intimidation. They're one of the few bright spots the labels have now so expect to see more concert footage, hopefully with good commentary. With most now coming in Surround Sound, those with nice home theaters can hear five speakers, making it sound just like the concert. Or, as they put it, now it sounds like the guy shouting Freebird is behind you, not on stage.
In Silicon Valley, where money is made largely through innovation, we sometimes forget how the big economic engines move. It's based on the repetitive, day to day activities of life. What's the biggest company today? Exxon. We have to drive every day. The other big engines have to do with soap, food, clothes, entertainment, drugs. What big business looks for is to get the consumer on their IV drip. We have to eat, wash, drive every day. That's why they love food, soap & gas. Now cars they could make to last forever, drugs, they could be looking for cures, but, they're not, they want you on a drug you have to take every day.
This is the explanation for the Napster-to-Go model they keep trying. From Pressplay, Rhapsody on the industry wants us on this ever-dependant model of pay every month, get used to it, if you want music. Blockbuster has me where they want me, a direct monthly feed through my Visa. Now that they can't sell CDs, they want us to forget this concept of owning music. I thought this debate between Barry Ritholtz and Cody Willard was very interesting. At a certain point, Cody, was left with only one argument that he had to keep reiterating, the music isn't yours, it's stealing, it's wrong. It kind of reminded me of trying to argue with my kids when they were toddlers, "honey, just because you're holding the toy doesn't mean it's yours". It's like the first bank robber on the scene complaining that the next one is taking some of their loot.
Remember how Marx talked about the lynchpin of Capitalism being ownership of the means of production? In the record biz, that's the distribution networks which they built up through the mob, and the recording studios. Well, the internet and ProTools changed all that. Turns out their product was capable of being digitized. Their basic position is, we have it, it's ours, if you want it, you deal with us.
I saw this same attitude when I was involved in fundraising for Palo Alto schools. The Board of Education, responding to whining about unfairness, told the district's schools they could not use PTA funds for staff. A central fundraising organization was formed, I helped, or tried to, it wasn't easy. There were some on there who took the position that since we now held the monopoly on staff, all we had to do was simply ask for money. It was actually put out there like, "If they want staff, they pay us".
In their arrogance, they sometimes forget that even with monopolies, there are always other options. Some people will go to private schools, or give their kids private lessons, or just buy lots of playground equipment... or download music or buy DVD's or go to concerts, or use open source etc. etc. Organizations, public or private, with that attitude forget what Steve Forbes reminds us is the first rule of business; the customer comes first, and, monopoly or no, they'll pay a price for that.
The recording industry came into being as a result of a technological breakthrough (funny, they always forget that part) and will leave the same way... most industries do. I saw some of Network again yesterday, it's astounding how accurately it predicts reality television and discusses larger issues having to do with the media and societal trends. The climax of the film is when the President of the big conglomerate seats the seemingly discerning dupe at the end of the runway/Board table and exhumes Oz-like pronouncements about how the world doesn't care about nations, the lingua franca is green, that is the ebb and flow (or, as I would put it yin/yang) and Beal has "meddled with the inexorable forces of nature".
Well, technology is the Tsunami. You can try to hold it back, but, not for long, the only constant is change, Einstein proved that. The money may measure the change, but it is not the engine. The engine is the inexorable nature of humans, created in God's image, to strive and change and make things better.
OK, I'm rambling, and I usually try to keep these pretty tight, so, let me tie it all up here. When it comes to earning money in music, it's all about the playing. And, if you want to make money off music in an ancillary way, do it by legitimately helping people find music they will like, or by perfecting a medium by which to enjoy it, not by stripping and ripping artists and then trying to profit off the multiples as you search for commodities and rely on government granted help to do it.
If music be the food of love, play on.
Twelfth Night 1:1
posted by Intervision at 9:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home