4 ms·

In other words we are now optimizing for people who have talent AND are good self promoters....rather than just talent. Record labels, at one point, excelled a

In other words we are now optimizing for people who have talent AND are good self promoters....rather than just talent. Record labels, at one point, excelled at identifying and developing talent. I’m not convinced that this brave new world for the music industry is any better.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
Artists were still expected to be self-promoters back in the pre-Internet era. I'd suggest, with only a few exceptions, the artists that got signed were the ones that knew how to play the game of self-promotion. There were artists that bucked this trend (Nick Drake springs to mind first, and I'm sure there were others), but for the most part the act of getting signed required some level of hustle. If you don't believe me, how many 20th century music artists can you think of that didn't have a distinctive appearance? As for developing talent, we may have lost the multi-album development deals that allowed artists to take risks whilst still being supported financially, but the development of artists doesn't have to be confined to music studios. Artists get real-time feedback on their music when they play live, and they can still make a living doing so. The last point I'd like to make is that the services labels used to offer are still available, and there's greater flexibility for the artist when it comes to picking and choosing which services to use. Want someone else to handle distribution? It can be done. Want someone else to handle promotion? That's possible too. Want to hire a studio and a music producer and an engineer? All fine if you've got the money. Previously, if signed to a major label (some indie labels had different business models), you gave up your song rights and part of your creative control in order to secure a loan to make an album, a loan which you'd then be obligated to work off. Nowadays you have no obligation to go into debt in order to release music, it's completely up to the artists to choose how much they engage with the labels.
pmoriarty 9y ago
"Record labels, at one point, excelled at identifying and developing talent." There's a bit of survival bias in that observation. Of course we all think the bands that we like and know about are talented. But how many among we don't know about were talented, and of those how many were passed over by record companies? For reasons of cost and access, as a consumer I certainly have the opportunity to listen to and discover far more bands myself than in the pre-internet days, and do so without needing to rely on curators and gatekeepers like record labels and reviewers. I can go directly to the source and sample the music from bands directly, without all of these middle men. I'm a much better judge of what I like than any record company could be, because my own taste in music will never perfectly match up with anyone else's. So at least as far as discovering "talent", I'd trust my own taste far more than that of any record company... as long as I make the effort to actually seek out new music.

ZenoArrow 9y ago

Artists were still expected to be self-promoters back in the pre-Internet era. I'd suggest, with only a few exceptions, the artists that got signed were the ones that knew how to play the game of self-promotion. There were artists that bucked this trend (Nick Drake springs to mind first, and I'm sure there were others), but for the most part the act of getting signed required some level of hustle. If you don't believe me, how many 20th century music artists can you think of that didn't have a distinctive appearance? As for developing talent, we may have lost the multi-album development deals that allowed artists to take risks whilst still being supported financially, but the development of artists doesn't have to be confined to music studios. Artists get real-time feedback on their music when they play live, and they can still make a living doing so. The last point I'd like to make is that the services labels used to offer are still available, and there's greater flexibility for the artist when it comes to picking and choosing which services to use. Want someone else to handle distribution? It can be done. Want someone else to handle promotion? That's possible too. Want to hire a studio and a music producer and an engineer? All fine if you've got the money. Previously, if signed to a major label (some indie labels had different business models), you gave up your song rights and part of your creative control in order to secure a loan to make an album, a loan which you'd then be obligated to work off. Nowadays you have no obligation to go into debt in order to release music, it's completely up to the artists to choose how much they engage with the labels.

pmoriarty 9y ago

"Record labels, at one point, excelled at identifying and developing talent." There's a bit of survival bias in that observation. Of course we all think the bands that we like and know about are talented. But how many among we don't know about were talented, and of those how many were passed over by record companies? For reasons of cost and access, as a consumer I certainly have the opportunity to listen to and discover far more bands myself than in the pre-internet days, and do so without needing to rely on curators and gatekeepers like record labels and reviewers. I can go directly to the source and sample the music from bands directly, without all of these middle men. I'm a much better judge of what I like than any record company could be, because my own taste in music will never perfectly match up with anyone else's. So at least as far as discovering "talent", I'd trust my own taste far more than that of any record company... as long as I make the effort to actually seek out new music.