3 ms·

The current model does not work for less popular artists, so I have trouble seeing the downside.

jfruh 15y ago
The current model doesn't work for most less popular artists. All the artists who came up through the system and are now superstars were less popular once, and the promotional machinery had a big part in making them popular (and rich). This is sort of how I feel about the traditional publishing industry. The way it's worked traditionally is that can't quite tell which authors are going to be big sellers, so you take a chance on a bunch, and the more successful ones subsidize the less successful. Now the successful ones for obvious reasons resent this and can shift to a self-publishing model. The problem is they never would have gotten successful had some publisher taken that initial chance on them. Where's the next generation coming from?
- _delirium 15y ago
  An interesting angle is that the current model actually works quite well for the least popular artists: someone else pays for the cost of recording, usually at least a small advance, and tour, and if the record ends up selling nothing and the tour is a bust, the label eats the expenses. Such people would be quite a bit worse off if they paid for the recording/tour out of pocket and it went nowhere. The people who get screwed are those who do moderately well, where the record company takes most of the profits.
  - wnight 15y ago
    But this is a symptom of one-size-fits-all solution the labels cram people into. Like VCs, they don't care at all about moderate success, anything less than phenomenal success is failure to them. So they'll burn your band/company out trying for unreasonable goals instead of helping you achieve whatever you can. Your band could have been poised to be a very successful mid-level act and have been mispositioned, because mid-level acts aren't hugely profitable, and thus seemed to be a failure in a market you weren't wanting to compete in. The small bands don't need a ton of financial support, especially these days. Recording a song can be done, professionally, for just a few thousand dollars and traveling to nearby concerts is pretty cheap. If you drop the idea of trying to sell an album in stores (payola!), and doing continent-wide tours, it's not all that expensive to spread your music to fans and enjoy a moderate return on investment.
jonnathanson 15y ago
I'm anything but an apologist for the current model. But if it disappears, we haven't necessarily made life any better for lesser-known artists. So if we are to remove one of the critical steps to success (i.e., the marketing and promotional spend of traditional labels, publishers, networks, and studios), we should hope that there's a viable replacement. Or we should try to build one. In our haste to cast out the old guard, we tend to lose sight of the fact that the old guard still fills what appears to be a necessary purpose: the breaking-out of artists. I'm confident and hopeful that their crucial role in that purpose will, eventually, weaken or fade. But for now, it's still a strong reality. Ultimately, we have yet to see indications that this new model is any kinder to small-time or nascent artists than the old model is. That's the big problem. The winners of the new model (Radiohead, Trent Reznor, Louis C.K., et al.) have first been winners of the old model. So it's very premature to say that the new model is better for the little guy. To put it in financial terms: the new model holds bigger theoretical upside (share of profits) for artists and consumers (reduced costs). But it does nothing about the downside (risk of never breaking out, financial burden of building a fanbase, etc.), and may even make the downside worse for most artists. At least the little guy in today's model has a chance, albeit extremely slim, of getting discovered and catching a big break. But will the same thing be true in a pure long-tail environment? The jury is still out.
- dmbass 15y ago
  There are lots of examples of artists blowing up without labels (though some subsequently start their own or get signed) in the past few years by distributing their music on the internet for free. See: Pretty Lights, Girl Talk, Odd Future, The Weeknd, Justin Bieber, etc. It won't be viable for every artist/band but neither is the music industry of old. You must bring something special because otherwise nobody will care.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    It's not clear the internet has actually improved the odds, though. There are plenty of examples of artists DIYing their way to at least moderate prominence decades ago as well; particularly common in punk-rock, where you've got Bad Religion, Fugazi, Crass, etc. You didn't have blogs to promote your music, but did have zines, flyers at shows, college radio, etc.

jfruh 15y ago

The current model doesn't work for most less popular artists. All the artists who came up through the system and are now superstars were less popular once, and the promotional machinery had a big part in making them popular (and rich). This is sort of how I feel about the traditional publishing industry. The way it's worked traditionally is that can't quite tell which authors are going to be big sellers, so you take a chance on a bunch, and the more successful ones subsidize the less successful. Now the successful ones for obvious reasons resent this and can shift to a self-publishing model. The problem is they never would have gotten successful had some publisher taken that initial chance on them. Where's the next generation coming from?

_delirium 15y ago
An interesting angle is that the current model actually works quite well for the least popular artists: someone else pays for the cost of recording, usually at least a small advance, and tour, and if the record ends up selling nothing and the tour is a bust, the label eats the expenses. Such people would be quite a bit worse off if they paid for the recording/tour out of pocket and it went nowhere. The people who get screwed are those who do moderately well, where the record company takes most of the profits.
- wnight 15y ago
  But this is a symptom of one-size-fits-all solution the labels cram people into. Like VCs, they don't care at all about moderate success, anything less than phenomenal success is failure to them. So they'll burn your band/company out trying for unreasonable goals instead of helping you achieve whatever you can. Your band could have been poised to be a very successful mid-level act and have been mispositioned, because mid-level acts aren't hugely profitable, and thus seemed to be a failure in a market you weren't wanting to compete in. The small bands don't need a ton of financial support, especially these days. Recording a song can be done, professionally, for just a few thousand dollars and traveling to nearby concerts is pretty cheap. If you drop the idea of trying to sell an album in stores (payola!), and doing continent-wide tours, it's not all that expensive to spread your music to fans and enjoy a moderate return on investment.

jonnathanson 15y ago

I'm anything but an apologist for the current model. But if it disappears, we haven't necessarily made life any better for lesser-known artists. So if we are to remove one of the critical steps to success (i.e., the marketing and promotional spend of traditional labels, publishers, networks, and studios), we should hope that there's a viable replacement. Or we should try to build one. In our haste to cast out the old guard, we tend to lose sight of the fact that the old guard still fills what appears to be a necessary purpose: the breaking-out of artists. I'm confident and hopeful that their crucial role in that purpose will, eventually, weaken or fade. But for now, it's still a strong reality. Ultimately, we have yet to see indications that this new model is any kinder to small-time or nascent artists than the old model is. That's the big problem. The winners of the new model (Radiohead, Trent Reznor, Louis C.K., et al.) have first been winners of the old model. So it's very premature to say that the new model is better for the little guy. To put it in financial terms: the new model holds bigger theoretical upside (share of profits) for artists and consumers (reduced costs). But it does nothing about the downside (risk of never breaking out, financial burden of building a fanbase, etc.), and may even make the downside worse for most artists. At least the little guy in today's model has a chance, albeit extremely slim, of getting discovered and catching a big break. But will the same thing be true in a pure long-tail environment? The jury is still out.

dmbass 15y ago
There are lots of examples of artists blowing up without labels (though some subsequently start their own or get signed) in the past few years by distributing their music on the internet for free. See: Pretty Lights, Girl Talk, Odd Future, The Weeknd, Justin Bieber, etc. It won't be viable for every artist/band but neither is the music industry of old. You must bring something special because otherwise nobody will care.
- _delirium 15y ago
  It's not clear the internet has actually improved the odds, though. There are plenty of examples of artists DIYing their way to at least moderate prominence decades ago as well; particularly common in punk-rock, where you've got Bad Religion, Fugazi, Crass, etc. You didn't have blogs to promote your music, but did have zines, flyers at shows, college radio, etc.