4 ms·

Tunecore is among the few, liberating services that provides true value for unsigned artists and I agree with a lot that's in this article. That being said, it

Tunecore is among the few, liberating services that provides true value for unsigned artists and I agree with a lot that's in this article. That being said, it's leaving out of the discussion the biggest things that labels and management still do for artists, and that's marketing, operations and financing. It is simply a very small group of artists who can not only write phenomenal music and perform on successful tours, but manage their own online presence, market their releases and shows effectively, and do them in such a way that they either need no capital to do it or generate enough revenue to invest in future promotion. Most artists, even the best ones, still need someone to manage their promotions, help them understand the state of being online, setup their tours, and fund the up front costs associated with promoting a band at significant scale. Say what you want about record labels being a gatekeeper, they are also an enabler. Take my favorite band, Tool, for instance. They record highly complex albums that take years to write, they do it in state of the art studios, and then they promote them with massive tours that have some of the most amazing light shows and animation of any live event today. Even at their size and their success level, fronting the costs of an operation like that would be near impossible for them, and just like so many entrepreneurs who start their 4th company but still raise money from good investors, it's better to risk someone else's money than your own, and leverage their network to get things done. The shape and responsibilities of labels may change. But most artists do not know how, or even want to know how, to market their own music, or figure out how to finance an extraordinary product/experience. That's assuming they could even get financing for something like a Tool tour. If someone is willing to do that for them, there will always be a place for them and artists willing to give them a percentage of ownership to have it done well and at less risk to them.

jcr 15y ago
Thanks Joey for being the voice of reason on this. Though you certainly nailed the main point, there is an additional supporting point, namely, the "easy factor." Take a look at this exchange, particularly the follow-up by potatolicious (along with the parent article): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3264289 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3264289 The tech-centric view is now, and has always been, completely unrealistic for everyone except skilled, tech-centric people. It can be pushed to absurdity very easily... "You don't know how to program well enough write your own web server?" "You don't know enough assembly to write your own compiler?" "You don't know enough VHDL to write your own instruction set?" "You don't know enough about fabrication to build your own processor (ASIC)?" Another way to look at the same "easy factor" issue is imagine you need to run a multi-million dollar online advertising/marketing campaign and companies like Google and Facebook with easy advertising platforms don't exist. Without "other" companies providing easy ways to run campaigns, the typical advertising/marketing person is essentially stuffed. They don't know how to do it on their own. Even if your favorite band, Tool, had the money to finance their operation, they would most likely be worse musicians if they were forced to learn all the other stuff they need to know. In other words, the thing they are good at, music, would suffer due to the need to invest vast swaths of their time and effort in learning everything else they would need to know. As always, specialization has many advantages, but also, preventing the need for specialization by making things easy can be very profitable.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Yeah, the same thing is said in music all of the time. You should be using social media, leveraging every possible distribution model, putting your music out there, giving it away for free, engaging your audience, designing your own shirts, crowdfunding this and that, and and blah blah. Who has time to do all of that and still practice their instrument, write new music, and carry on some semblance of a life? Tool lets someone else manage their social media and they use it almost exclusively to promote other peoples' art that they like, because they couldn't care less to promote themselves with it. They're not available on nearly any streaming service. Their best form of marketing is putting out a product that is eons ahead of other bands and they're only able to do that because a label, manager, tour manager and everybody else help them stay focused on what they do best. Everybody likes to hate on labels but the truth is that they are a resource just like anything else, and when properly aligned, can provide the necessary resources and time to focus on the music itself. I far prefer that to a world with no labels and every artist tweeting their sanity away.

jcr 15y ago

Thanks Joey for being the voice of reason on this. Though you certainly nailed the main point, there is an additional supporting point, namely, the "easy factor." Take a look at this exchange, particularly the follow-up by potatolicious (along with the parent article): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3264289 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3264289 The tech-centric view is now, and has always been, completely unrealistic for everyone except skilled, tech-centric people. It can be pushed to absurdity very easily... "You don't know how to program well enough write your own web server?" "You don't know enough assembly to write your own compiler?" "You don't know enough VHDL to write your own instruction set?" "You don't know enough about fabrication to build your own processor (ASIC)?" Another way to look at the same "easy factor" issue is imagine you need to run a multi-million dollar online advertising/marketing campaign and companies like Google and Facebook with easy advertising platforms don't exist. Without "other" companies providing easy ways to run campaigns, the typical advertising/marketing person is essentially stuffed. They don't know how to do it on their own. Even if your favorite band, Tool, had the money to finance their operation, they would most likely be worse musicians if they were forced to learn all the other stuff they need to know. In other words, the thing they are good at, music, would suffer due to the need to invest vast swaths of their time and effort in learning everything else they would need to know. As always, specialization has many advantages, but also, preventing the need for specialization by making things easy can be very profitable.

earbitscom 15y ago
Yeah, the same thing is said in music all of the time. You should be using social media, leveraging every possible distribution model, putting your music out there, giving it away for free, engaging your audience, designing your own shirts, crowdfunding this and that, and and blah blah. Who has time to do all of that and still practice their instrument, write new music, and carry on some semblance of a life? Tool lets someone else manage their social media and they use it almost exclusively to promote other peoples' art that they like, because they couldn't care less to promote themselves with it. They're not available on nearly any streaming service. Their best form of marketing is putting out a product that is eons ahead of other bands and they're only able to do that because a label, manager, tour manager and everybody else help them stay focused on what they do best. Everybody likes to hate on labels but the truth is that they are a resource just like anything else, and when properly aligned, can provide the necessary resources and time to focus on the music itself. I far prefer that to a world with no labels and every artist tweeting their sanity away.