7 ms·

Steve Albini's essay really illustrates how labels blaming streaming for declining album revenue is akin to the top 1% of income earnings blaming the poor for t

Steve Albini's essay really illustrates how labels blaming streaming for declining album revenue is akin to the top 1% of income earnings blaming the poor for the middle class's economic problems. The labels always come out ahead, and streaming has become an easy way for the labels to refocus musicians' attention away from the actual source of the problem.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
The labels that didn't come out ahead don't exist any more. Nobody says this: In the 1980s, you could establish the sort of relationships to get priority at CD plants and resell back catalog that was already universally known. So the people who won did that instead of so much trying to break new acts. The last gasp of a flood of new acts actually getting on radio was the SubPop ... thing in the 1990s. After that, nothing unless you followed R&B or "indie." That monoculture ended than. But to be fair, it only started in the first place because radio transitioned from being mainstream to being a "youth" market.
- robbyking 11y ago
  The labels that didn't come out ahead don't exist any more. Just one point of clarification, when I wrote “the labels,” I meant the big three major labels and their subsidiaries. As both a life long musician and avid music fan, I don't count truly independent labels as part of the "industry."
- sneak 11y ago
  Literally anyone can put a streaming app into the major app stores these days and bypass all of this. Why are the Big 3 still in this chokehold position? Is the market failing, or do they actually provide valuable services that can't be obtained elsewhere? In either case: why is that?
  - theseatoms 11y ago
    They probably own all the rights to everyone's favorite music from the last century. Disclaimer: Not an expert. Not in the music industry.
  - ascendantlogic 11y ago
    They own the rights to everything. I believe the RIAA gets paid even if music is played/streamed that they don't own the rights to, until the musicians come claim the money. Movies and music showed how much power they have over the last two decades once Napster and later torrenting lit a fire under their asses. It's not just our government that is in their pockets. The TPP is a good example of them using the US' position as economic superpower to get their wishes imposed on other countries. See also: Megaupload.
    - EGreg 11y ago
      What do you mean they get paid for music that is played which they don't own the rights to?? How does it even work?
      - justabystander 11y ago
        There are music performance licenses for venues, such as restaurants and bars. People will come up to you and threaten to sue if you don't pay for a blanket license. And they will do this even if you insist on playing completely original music. Many of these license fees are done in bulk. The same with countries that automatically collect a tax on USB sticks and optical media. You pay a volume license, but it never filters down to the artists because it's not collected based on which songs are actually stored or played. This is hardly all of it. There's a huge mass of corruption under the surface. Such as them not actually forwarding over license fees for song collections, or including songs they don't actually have the rights to include.
      - sheepleherd 11y ago
        I'm not an expert but I believe the industry gets paid a chunk for "radio play" in general (and things like radio play) on a per station/location basis, and then that chunk gets divided up not on the basis of what was actually played, but on the basis of how popular it is. Not saying it works, but that type of scheme sort of works for the hits, and much less well for obscure music, but obscure music probably does not get played too much. but anyway, something like that is how they'd get paid for music they don't own. These arrangements were worked out back when "radio" was "disrupting" the live music and recorded music industries, and people were trying to "monetize" the "eardrums"
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    Watch the movie "The Wrecking Crew". Essentially, the studio fixes the nascent tune penned by the artist, and provides studio musicians to play on the recordings. The band rarely plays, or even sings, on the album. The reason is simple, they don't play that well, or sing that well, and the studio musicians do. This is one big reason why bands/singers/artists need labels. They're not able to turn the lyrics on the back of a napkin into a credible album on their own. They often don't even write the songs - the label has a stable of songwriters to do that for them. The artist is often just a pretty face autotuned in. Even if a band can produce a CD on their own, they need promotion, manufacturing, and distribution. Who is going to get their CD in front of DJs, etc.? Who is going to set up concerts? Who is going to handle the financing? Who is going to do all the work needed to run a business?
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      While I am really familiar with that film and the players in it, I think your point is rather limited to considering "pop" music, which creates the biggest returns. None of the 'hired studio musicians / songwriters / etc' dynamic applies to a band like Muse, Coldplay or Radiohead, yet still applies to Adele and Taylor Swift. The Wrecking Crew film is a very good summary of the way 'the business' worked long ago - still does to a certain extent, say in Nashville - but the access to instruments and music now has really changed the dynamic.
      - WalterBright 11y ago
        For fun, listen to David Cassidy's work during the Partridge Family years, when the studio wrote the songs and provided musicians for him, and compare to Cassidy's post-PF work. What, you never heard of his post-PF work? :-) It's because it's awful. Ditto the Monkees. At least Cassidy could sing (and damn, he was good). The Monkees couldn't write, sing, or play without massive help.
        throwaway_xx9 11y ago
        Actually, two of the Monkees were in bands before their "acting career" and they performed live together without assistance. They broke up because of a no-holds barred fight with their producer/svengali, declining sales and an awful vanity film (think Spiceworld but much worse), but their albums still sold.
  - ssalazar 11y ago
    > Literally anyone can put a streaming app into the major app stores these days and bypass all of this. Barring circumstances of pure chance, an app needs marketing and promotion to gain any traction, and this costs money. It also usually requires deals with artists of some interest or popularity to get attention, and to ensure the service has enough content. > Why are the Big 3 still in this chokehold position? Is the market failing, or do they actually provide valuable services that can't be obtained elsewhere? My theory is that most people actually want to be told what to listen to and don't really care to leave a relatively small comfort zone in terms of music tastes. The current system "works" for consumers so the incentives for anyone to come around to change it are weak. Personally I don't consider this an inherently good or bad thing, just an observed state of affairs.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

The labels that didn't come out ahead don't exist any more. Nobody says this: In the 1980s, you could establish the sort of relationships to get priority at CD plants and resell back catalog that was already universally known. So the people who won did that instead of so much trying to break new acts. The last gasp of a flood of new acts actually getting on radio was the SubPop ... thing in the 1990s. After that, nothing unless you followed R&B or "indie." That monoculture ended than. But to be fair, it only started in the first place because radio transitioned from being mainstream to being a "youth" market.

robbyking 11y ago
The labels that didn't come out ahead don't exist any more. Just one point of clarification, when I wrote “the labels,” I meant the big three major labels and their subsidiaries. As both a life long musician and avid music fan, I don't count truly independent labels as part of the "industry."
sneak 11y ago
Literally anyone can put a streaming app into the major app stores these days and bypass all of this. Why are the Big 3 still in this chokehold position? Is the market failing, or do they actually provide valuable services that can't be obtained elsewhere? In either case: why is that?
- theseatoms 11y ago
  They probably own all the rights to everyone's favorite music from the last century. Disclaimer: Not an expert. Not in the music industry.
- ascendantlogic 11y ago
  They own the rights to everything. I believe the RIAA gets paid even if music is played/streamed that they don't own the rights to, until the musicians come claim the money. Movies and music showed how much power they have over the last two decades once Napster and later torrenting lit a fire under their asses. It's not just our government that is in their pockets. The TPP is a good example of them using the US' position as economic superpower to get their wishes imposed on other countries. See also: Megaupload.
  - EGreg 11y ago
    What do you mean they get paid for music that is played which they don't own the rights to?? How does it even work?
    - justabystander 11y ago
      There are music performance licenses for venues, such as restaurants and bars. People will come up to you and threaten to sue if you don't pay for a blanket license. And they will do this even if you insist on playing completely original music. Many of these license fees are done in bulk. The same with countries that automatically collect a tax on USB sticks and optical media. You pay a volume license, but it never filters down to the artists because it's not collected based on which songs are actually stored or played. This is hardly all of it. There's a huge mass of corruption under the surface. Such as them not actually forwarding over license fees for song collections, or including songs they don't actually have the rights to include.
    - sheepleherd 11y ago
      I'm not an expert but I believe the industry gets paid a chunk for "radio play" in general (and things like radio play) on a per station/location basis, and then that chunk gets divided up not on the basis of what was actually played, but on the basis of how popular it is. Not saying it works, but that type of scheme sort of works for the hits, and much less well for obscure music, but obscure music probably does not get played too much. but anyway, something like that is how they'd get paid for music they don't own. These arrangements were worked out back when "radio" was "disrupting" the live music and recorded music industries, and people were trying to "monetize" the "eardrums"
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Watch the movie "The Wrecking Crew". Essentially, the studio fixes the nascent tune penned by the artist, and provides studio musicians to play on the recordings. The band rarely plays, or even sings, on the album. The reason is simple, they don't play that well, or sing that well, and the studio musicians do. This is one big reason why bands/singers/artists need labels. They're not able to turn the lyrics on the back of a napkin into a credible album on their own. They often don't even write the songs - the label has a stable of songwriters to do that for them. The artist is often just a pretty face autotuned in. Even if a band can produce a CD on their own, they need promotion, manufacturing, and distribution. Who is going to get their CD in front of DJs, etc.? Who is going to set up concerts? Who is going to handle the financing? Who is going to do all the work needed to run a business?
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    While I am really familiar with that film and the players in it, I think your point is rather limited to considering "pop" music, which creates the biggest returns. None of the 'hired studio musicians / songwriters / etc' dynamic applies to a band like Muse, Coldplay or Radiohead, yet still applies to Adele and Taylor Swift. The Wrecking Crew film is a very good summary of the way 'the business' worked long ago - still does to a certain extent, say in Nashville - but the access to instruments and music now has really changed the dynamic.
    - WalterBright 11y ago
      For fun, listen to David Cassidy's work during the Partridge Family years, when the studio wrote the songs and provided musicians for him, and compare to Cassidy's post-PF work. What, you never heard of his post-PF work? :-) It's because it's awful. Ditto the Monkees. At least Cassidy could sing (and damn, he was good). The Monkees couldn't write, sing, or play without massive help.
      - throwaway_xx9 11y ago
        Actually, two of the Monkees were in bands before their "acting career" and they performed live together without assistance. They broke up because of a no-holds barred fight with their producer/svengali, declining sales and an awful vanity film (think Spiceworld but much worse), but their albums still sold.
- ssalazar 11y ago
  > Literally anyone can put a streaming app into the major app stores these days and bypass all of this. Barring circumstances of pure chance, an app needs marketing and promotion to gain any traction, and this costs money. It also usually requires deals with artists of some interest or popularity to get attention, and to ensure the service has enough content. > Why are the Big 3 still in this chokehold position? Is the market failing, or do they actually provide valuable services that can't be obtained elsewhere? My theory is that most people actually want to be told what to listen to and don't really care to leave a relatively small comfort zone in terms of music tastes. The current system "works" for consumers so the incentives for anyone to come around to change it are weak. Personally I don't consider this an inherently good or bad thing, just an observed state of affairs.