4 ms·

This sounds naive. The people running the labels are very cynical, and the way they're compensated makes them even more so. They don't have equity. They're m

by pg 16y ago

This sounds naive. The people running the labels are very cynical, and the way they're compensated makes them even more so. They don't have equity. They're motivated by bonuses that come out of this year's revenue. So they're not interested in building stuff. They just want to extract large amounts of money, this year, from whoever they can.

ABrandt 16y ago
But why can't this change over a period of time as physcab has indicated (who by the way, works/worked for one startup leading the charge)? I believe it impossible for the industry to fail--there will always be people making music. So the big four are either going to have to get with the program (and probably significantly reduce their market cap), or get the hell out the way. This is in someways analogous to what YC, super angels, et al. have done with venture capital. Just like ~$20,000 is about all you need to get a talented founding team started, musicians today can do things on the cheap just as well. The entire system no longer hinges on the $100M home-run in either case. Everyones been focused on investing in the killer app that will bring the music industry back to equilibrium. The Spotify's and last.fm's will certainly play their part, but its a fundamental shift in capital structure that the industry needs. Making it as a musician is, never has been, nor ever will be easy. There's extremely talented people out there though that, given a little cash and a little support, have the drive and persistence to make a career for themselves. Sans record label.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
physcab 16y ago
Yes, perhaps thinking the labels changing their ways (or hoping they do) over time is naive. I'll admit that (but I'd like to say optimistic instead). What the music industry needs is a platform where unsigned artists can go to promote their music without the help of the labels. This platform could probably act like a label, but better serve the artists and users. It would have to garner a lot of eyeballs so it could effectively break artists into the mainstream. It would have to be smart at targeting a specific demographic of listeners so artists could know where to travel and know they can fill auditoriums. Lastly it would have to be a tech company, so the Platform would be in the hands of every listener. MySpace might be able to do this if they gave up on the social network thing. There certainly is room though for a new company to have this role, but it is going to be a long and painful process. And you certainly shouldn't do it for short term gain.
- jbrennan 16y ago
  What I've been wondering is why Apple doesn't pony up and do just that. They could say "Hey artists not [yet] on a label, join the iTunes Label. We're a great distribution channel, and we'll give you a 70/30 split." OK so it's a bit far-fetched, and it really depends on what iTunes-as-a-label would provide (but with GarageBand/Logic/CuBase who needs tons of financing?). Really the only thing iTunes doesn't have a great story for would be touring (but even then, what better way to sell concert tickets than through iTunes/Ping?).
  - yuvi 16y ago
    CDBaby and tunecore are pretty close I guess, they'll get you on iTunes and more (physical copies too in CDBaby's case)
  - blhack 16y ago
    Because record labels are more about promotion than distribution (anymore). Amazon, cdbaby, etc. can all already do this. Honestly, the artists don't even need those people anymore. I've seen artists who sell their music directly on their own site, and I don't see why more can't.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    IIRC, Apple is not allowed to start a record label due to one of the settlements they made with Apple Records.
    - pg 16y ago
      Who would have ever guessed at the time that would matter?
- tjmc 16y ago
  The idea of simply creating a different distribution mechanism (eg CDBaby) for unsigned artists so that they don't have to sign with a major label is popular with the tech crowd, but fundamentally flawed. It assumes that unsigned artists can all produce well recorded, popular music on their own. Most can't. A good producer can pick a rough artist or band and get something popular out of them, but it often involves both mentoring and investment in recording and promotion upfront before any opportunity of return. Note I deliberately use the word "popular" rather than "good" (which is subjective anyway) because clearly as a business "popular" is where the money is. The "long tail" theory is fiction. Music is a hits business where most of the money is made by a relatively short fat body of popular music. Many of the most popular "artists" are created from scratch by producers. Where do you think Britney and the Spice Girls came from? Like them or not, the revenue from hit music funds the production of new acts who haven't become profitable yet. Another flawed assumption is that everyone wants to listen to new music. A lot don't. So you have a large body of recorded music that the record labels will never give up or let you sample or remix without a hefty toll. And as soon as any new act gets popular, you can bet they'll be offered a seat at the "big 4" music table. It's the DeBeers business model applied to music. Personally, I think what the radio station JJJ in Australia does with their unearthed site (http://triplejunearthed.com/ http://triplejunearthed.com/) is an excellent model for identifying quality artists. The next step IMHO is a ycombinator style production startup company that invests in developing the most promising acts to become popular and then offers all the recording, promotion, management and touring services that the labels do but on just terms. Distribution is just the last piece of the puzzle.
hristov 16y ago
Also, as part of this cynicism, the labels are very good at having people that seem like the kind of people that are on your side. I.e., the kind of people that "will go to bat for the artists."

by pg 16y ago

ABrandt 16y ago

But why can't this change over a period of time as physcab has indicated (who by the way, works/worked for one startup leading the charge)? I believe it impossible for the industry to fail--there will always be people making music. So the big four are either going to have to get with the program (and probably significantly reduce their market cap), or get the hell out the way. This is in someways analogous to what YC, super angels, et al. have done with venture capital. Just like ~$20,000 is about all you need to get a talented founding team started, musicians today can do things on the cheap just as well. The entire system no longer hinges on the $100M home-run in either case. Everyones been focused on investing in the killer app that will bring the music industry back to equilibrium. The Spotify's and last.fm's will certainly play their part, but its a fundamental shift in capital structure that the industry needs. Making it as a musician is, never has been, nor ever will be easy. There's extremely talented people out there though that, given a little cash and a little support, have the drive and persistence to make a career for themselves. Sans record label.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

physcab 16y ago

Yes, perhaps thinking the labels changing their ways (or hoping they do) over time is naive. I'll admit that (but I'd like to say optimistic instead). What the music industry needs is a platform where unsigned artists can go to promote their music without the help of the labels. This platform could probably act like a label, but better serve the artists and users. It would have to garner a lot of eyeballs so it could effectively break artists into the mainstream. It would have to be smart at targeting a specific demographic of listeners so artists could know where to travel and know they can fill auditoriums. Lastly it would have to be a tech company, so the Platform would be in the hands of every listener. MySpace might be able to do this if they gave up on the social network thing. There certainly is room though for a new company to have this role, but it is going to be a long and painful process. And you certainly shouldn't do it for short term gain.

jbrennan 16y ago
What I've been wondering is why Apple doesn't pony up and do just that. They could say "Hey artists not [yet] on a label, join the iTunes Label. We're a great distribution channel, and we'll give you a 70/30 split." OK so it's a bit far-fetched, and it really depends on what iTunes-as-a-label would provide (but with GarageBand/Logic/CuBase who needs tons of financing?). Really the only thing iTunes doesn't have a great story for would be touring (but even then, what better way to sell concert tickets than through iTunes/Ping?).
- yuvi 16y ago
  CDBaby and tunecore are pretty close I guess, they'll get you on iTunes and more (physical copies too in CDBaby's case)
- blhack 16y ago
  Because record labels are more about promotion than distribution (anymore). Amazon, cdbaby, etc. can all already do this. Honestly, the artists don't even need those people anymore. I've seen artists who sell their music directly on their own site, and I don't see why more can't.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  IIRC, Apple is not allowed to start a record label due to one of the settlements they made with Apple Records.
  - pg 16y ago
    Who would have ever guessed at the time that would matter?
tjmc 16y ago
The idea of simply creating a different distribution mechanism (eg CDBaby) for unsigned artists so that they don't have to sign with a major label is popular with the tech crowd, but fundamentally flawed. It assumes that unsigned artists can all produce well recorded, popular music on their own. Most can't. A good producer can pick a rough artist or band and get something popular out of them, but it often involves both mentoring and investment in recording and promotion upfront before any opportunity of return. Note I deliberately use the word "popular" rather than "good" (which is subjective anyway) because clearly as a business "popular" is where the money is. The "long tail" theory is fiction. Music is a hits business where most of the money is made by a relatively short fat body of popular music. Many of the most popular "artists" are created from scratch by producers. Where do you think Britney and the Spice Girls came from? Like them or not, the revenue from hit music funds the production of new acts who haven't become profitable yet. Another flawed assumption is that everyone wants to listen to new music. A lot don't. So you have a large body of recorded music that the record labels will never give up or let you sample or remix without a hefty toll. And as soon as any new act gets popular, you can bet they'll be offered a seat at the "big 4" music table. It's the DeBeers business model applied to music. Personally, I think what the radio station JJJ in Australia does with their unearthed site (http://triplejunearthed.com/ http://triplejunearthed.com/) is an excellent model for identifying quality artists. The next step IMHO is a ycombinator style production startup company that invests in developing the most promising acts to become popular and then offers all the recording, promotion, management and touring services that the labels do but on just terms. Distribution is just the last piece of the puzzle.

hristov 16y ago

Also, as part of this cynicism, the labels are very good at having people that seem like the kind of people that are on your side. I.e., the kind of people that "will go to bat for the artists."