3 ms·
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 wi
by 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.
- physcab 16y agoYour analysis is flawed in that you're only assuming the popular ones are successful. Do you also think successful companies are only those that are used by millions of users? Its true that the endorsement approach only works for popular artists, but everyone else can take the Youtube approach and let their content speak for themselves. Plus, not every artist wants to be mainstream popular. A lot of artists just want to get their music heard and know more about the people who listen to them. They make their money by touring and merch just like the popular ones do. And artists don't need a lot of capital anymore. Yes, labels sink enormous sums into the production and marketing of a track in the hope they have a Lady Gaga hit, but I think you'd be surprised by how many successful artists there are that have chosen to go their own way and do just fine. Hell, I'm looking at the data right now its its quite convincing.
- tjmc 16y agoI think we're discussing different things. Clearly there are plenty of independent artists - punk rock has a long tradition of independent label publishing going back decades for example. Anyone who just wants to put their music out there now is well served by distribution providers like CDBaby. I'm talking about successful disruption of the established music industry and the oft mentioned suggestion that simply offering artists a distribution alternative will do it. It won't. We've had a decade for grassroots indy web publishing to take over and it hasn't. My point about the long tail isn't that it doesn't exist, but that it's largely irrelevant. Just as Youtube has barely scratched Hollywood, indy music publishing isn't moving the profitability needle of big music enough for them to care. They still have the back catalog, they continue to acquire the vast majority of popular artists and they're still driving the creation of the most popular music which is where the money is.