5 ms·

There are quite a few huge bands these days who owe all their success to the internet and more specifically Myspace. The Artic Monkeys are the first that come

There are quite a few huge bands these days who owe all their success to the internet and more specifically Myspace. The Artic Monkeys are the first that come to mind, but I know there are a few others I could list if I thought about it. "Third, if the recorded music industry goes down, concert sales will not grow – they will shrink" Also wrong and with no reasons why he believes this. The record industry and the concert promotion industry are separate yet complementary industries. The loss of the record industry will almost certainly have no huge effect on the concert industry. I'll be honest I stopped reading at the end of that paragraph.

ardit33 18y ago
Yep. Yelle, in france too, started with myspace. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4
hank777 18y ago
I am the article author. Actually, the arctic monkeys do not give away their music free on their website or on myspace. Second, the group is successful because along with making great music, they have a great, very hard working 15 year old label called Domino, who also have for example, Franz Ferdinand. So Arctic monkeys is not internet based despite what you may think, has a real record label that puts money and marketing efforts behind them, and doesn't give their music away free. I am not saying that artists that have websites or myspace pages cant succeed obviously. Almost all artists have myspace pages so that would be silly. I am saying you cant just put your stuff up on the net, do nothing else, and expect to make a living -- particularly if you are giving away your music which is where Arrington thinks everything should go.
- sanswork 18y ago
  The Arctic Monkeys have a label because of Myspace, they signed to Domino after achieving success not before it. Myspace was their main source of promotion in making them famous and well known not Domino. I also didn't say they gave their music away free, I said they were a band that got popular from the internet only.
  - hank777 18y ago
    Myspace is indeed effective in getting artists signed. The internet is a primary tool today for labels to find artists to sign. It is the primary A&R mechanism. That said, the definition of success here is "getting signed". They did not sell much of anything until they were signed. After they were signed they went to #1 in UK. I can tell you I never heard of the Arctic Monkeys in 2004 for example. Also you may not have said the arctic monkeys give away their music, but you were refuting my article, and my point is about giving away music on the internet. So if we are not discussing giving away music, then you are not really being responsive to the subject of the article and your disagreement is seemingly misguided. specifically, the relevant paragraph is as follows: "Second, there is no evidence at all that free music on the Internet is an effective (i.e. successful career building) marketing tool. There have been no blockbuster successes that have come from, for example Garageband availability. I don't think you could even count more than a handful – if that – Internet-based artists making a living from music." The arctic monkeys are not "internet based" and they certainly are not giving away their music.
    - sanswork 18y ago
      The Arctic monkeys gave away their music in the form of the Myspace player. I think your view of success in music is very narrow indeed hence where our disagreement comes from. For you a band is only successful when it sells a lot of records. Well by that standard of course the removal of the record industry will make you think no band can be successful but thats not the only measure of success.
      - hank777 18y ago
        Yes. You are absolutely right. I view everything through the lens of economics. My view of success is making money. I don't think anyone has yet been able to make money without first selling records. That may come, but it has not yet.
        sanswork 18y ago
        It's not even that because you can be economically successful as a band without selling a single record. Plenty of bands make a decent wage just by touring lots. To say no one does implies that you think of the music industry as only the top 0.01% of megabands. Unless you're a megaband negotiating an awesome contact odds are you will make most of your money from touring not CDs.
hank777 18y ago
One other thing... "The loss of the record industry will almost certainly have no huge effect on the concert industry." Name a successful touring artist that has not had a successful, label based, recording career.
- sanswork 18y ago
  Correlation does not imply causation. You're looking at it the wrong way, in the current world popular bands get signed to labels so pretty much all major touring bands will be signed to a major label. It doesn't however mean that an absence on labels will kill touring since the labels for the most part aren't into touring. It's another set of companies that handle that.
  - hank777 18y ago
    I am very familiar with how this works so I promise you I am not "looking at it the wrong way" but describing how things actually work. I am not making this up. Labels create band demand. Concert promoters do not. I promise you this is causation and not correlation. People go see shows because they have the record and know the band. I am sure you have never gone (willingly) to see a show from a band whose music you didnt already have and/or or know pretty well. The band marketing (the label) created the market environment for you to know and like their music. People do not go see artists because they saw some add in a local paper advertising an artist. It doesnt happen. Promoters only provide awareness so that if you are a fan you will know that this band you like is in town.
    - enra 18y ago
      And why free music doesn't count as advertising for the band and creating the demand?
      - hank777 18y ago
        I am not sure exactly why, but it just doesnt work. The numbers are very clear. With very young artists, free music can get them exposed enough to get a record deal, but not enough to sell performance tickets. You can of course always fall back on the "well it hasnt worked but it will" argument, but as of today, it has not worked. There is no argument at all about this. The statistics are very clear. Of course I cannot see the future, but there is little reason after quite a few years of the internet, for me to believe the economics and behavioral dynamics are going to change. Of course anything can happen but it doesn't seem like a good bet.

ardit33 18y ago

Yep. Yelle, in france too, started with myspace. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4

hank777 18y ago

I am the article author. Actually, the arctic monkeys do not give away their music free on their website or on myspace. Second, the group is successful because along with making great music, they have a great, very hard working 15 year old label called Domino, who also have for example, Franz Ferdinand. So Arctic monkeys is not internet based despite what you may think, has a real record label that puts money and marketing efforts behind them, and doesn't give their music away free. I am not saying that artists that have websites or myspace pages cant succeed obviously. Almost all artists have myspace pages so that would be silly. I am saying you cant just put your stuff up on the net, do nothing else, and expect to make a living -- particularly if you are giving away your music which is where Arrington thinks everything should go.

sanswork 18y ago
The Arctic Monkeys have a label because of Myspace, they signed to Domino after achieving success not before it. Myspace was their main source of promotion in making them famous and well known not Domino. I also didn't say they gave their music away free, I said they were a band that got popular from the internet only.
- hank777 18y ago
  Myspace is indeed effective in getting artists signed. The internet is a primary tool today for labels to find artists to sign. It is the primary A&R mechanism. That said, the definition of success here is "getting signed". They did not sell much of anything until they were signed. After they were signed they went to #1 in UK. I can tell you I never heard of the Arctic Monkeys in 2004 for example. Also you may not have said the arctic monkeys give away their music, but you were refuting my article, and my point is about giving away music on the internet. So if we are not discussing giving away music, then you are not really being responsive to the subject of the article and your disagreement is seemingly misguided. specifically, the relevant paragraph is as follows: "Second, there is no evidence at all that free music on the Internet is an effective (i.e. successful career building) marketing tool. There have been no blockbuster successes that have come from, for example Garageband availability. I don't think you could even count more than a handful – if that – Internet-based artists making a living from music." The arctic monkeys are not "internet based" and they certainly are not giving away their music.
  - sanswork 18y ago
    The Arctic monkeys gave away their music in the form of the Myspace player. I think your view of success in music is very narrow indeed hence where our disagreement comes from. For you a band is only successful when it sells a lot of records. Well by that standard of course the removal of the record industry will make you think no band can be successful but thats not the only measure of success.
    - hank777 18y ago
      Yes. You are absolutely right. I view everything through the lens of economics. My view of success is making money. I don't think anyone has yet been able to make money without first selling records. That may come, but it has not yet.
      - sanswork 18y ago
        It's not even that because you can be economically successful as a band without selling a single record. Plenty of bands make a decent wage just by touring lots. To say no one does implies that you think of the music industry as only the top 0.01% of megabands. Unless you're a megaband negotiating an awesome contact odds are you will make most of your money from touring not CDs.

hank777 18y ago

One other thing... "The loss of the record industry will almost certainly have no huge effect on the concert industry." Name a successful touring artist that has not had a successful, label based, recording career.

sanswork 18y ago
Correlation does not imply causation. You're looking at it the wrong way, in the current world popular bands get signed to labels so pretty much all major touring bands will be signed to a major label. It doesn't however mean that an absence on labels will kill touring since the labels for the most part aren't into touring. It's another set of companies that handle that.
- hank777 18y ago
  I am very familiar with how this works so I promise you I am not "looking at it the wrong way" but describing how things actually work. I am not making this up. Labels create band demand. Concert promoters do not. I promise you this is causation and not correlation. People go see shows because they have the record and know the band. I am sure you have never gone (willingly) to see a show from a band whose music you didnt already have and/or or know pretty well. The band marketing (the label) created the market environment for you to know and like their music. People do not go see artists because they saw some add in a local paper advertising an artist. It doesnt happen. Promoters only provide awareness so that if you are a fan you will know that this band you like is in town.
  - enra 18y ago
    And why free music doesn't count as advertising for the band and creating the demand?
    - hank777 18y ago
      I am not sure exactly why, but it just doesnt work. The numbers are very clear. With very young artists, free music can get them exposed enough to get a record deal, but not enough to sell performance tickets. You can of course always fall back on the "well it hasnt worked but it will" argument, but as of today, it has not worked. There is no argument at all about this. The statistics are very clear. Of course I cannot see the future, but there is little reason after quite a few years of the internet, for me to believe the economics and behavioral dynamics are going to change. Of course anything can happen but it doesn't seem like a good bet.