10 ms·

If the Internet was around before recorded music would we have record labels?

60 points by lewisflude 14y ago

aw3c2 14y ago
yes of course. just look at the job netlabels do at curating and caring for their (usually) consistent genre/style. as a music lover, I follow many netlabels and most provide me with stuff I like all the time.
diminish 14y ago
Or would Napster be more powerful than MPAA?
frankdenbow 14y ago
Labels play a role in artist development that is underrated, so yes. They still play a huge role in marketing and promotion, although that power wanes as we get better tools for surfacing great artists on the web.
jebblue 14y ago
I think the answer is yes but they would not be so obvious. They would be more like business developers but dedicated to the music business on the web, web music consultants which is what they should be focusing on learning how to do now.
zerostar07 14y ago
To answer the original question, we would probably have viral music videos instead of records. And judging from the current quality of viral content, the music would contain lots of fart sounds. Essentially as an artist, you need to make money As a person, you need to make money. As an artist, you need to make art. That doesn't mean you 'll get rich.
- lewisflude 14y ago
  That's very true! Many of my friends are fantastic musicians who are on the dole in London. Being a musician isn't the best idea if your aim is to make money!
  - davedx 14y ago
    Indeed, all the people I know who DJ, produce or play in bands also have day jobs. Not a single one makes enough money from music to live off it.
DrJokepu 14y ago
A false statement implies any statement. That being said, the post itself is not really about record labels or the Internet. It's actually a pretty thought-provoking article. I'm personally glad that the 1800's, the 70's or the 2000's are gone and will never return. We have something different today and it's important to understand that it will be gone by tomorrow. We never really understand the present, it's much easier to evaluate a bygone era in retrospect. We don't really know if Spotify, Facebook or RIAA has any impact on today's music (or culture in general) and we won't know until any of these won't matter anymore. So my suggestion for the author is to follow the advice of his last sentence; stop worrying and enjoy the music.
- lewisflude 14y ago
  That's the plan!
serviceanimals 14y ago
No of course. And it should be enought to realize how non sense is a Record Label to have the privilege to determine what you can do or not about something they already sold.
thirdsun 14y ago
Absolutely. Labels shouldn't be reduced to the large majors everyone has in mind when talking about the evil music industry. There are a lot more niche labels that focus on very specific genres and audiences. A lot of them are very passionate about what they are doing and are as music loving as their listeners. They act as a curator by selecting and developing artists, a ability that becomes increasingly underrated in times of services like EchoNest - while I really like what those guys are doing, as a user of various music services I tend to notice that all those discovery features provide very similar results - probably due to the fact that they are using the same APIs by EchoNest. That makes it hard to find new quality music. Therefor it's good to have a curated selection like the catalogs of small and caring labels that give a human touch to a selection process that is a refreshing equivalent to the popular "You might also like..."-feature. Of course I can only speak for my personal interest, but being on the release schedule of labels like Morr Music, Kranky, Secretly Canadian, Domino, 4AD or Sub Pop is usually a very good indicator for music I might enjoy. Surely there are examples from other genres too. Nevertheless things can also work out without labels: I'm a big fan of bandcamp which has a lot of talent to showcase and does almost everything right for listeners and artists alike. From the wide range of lossless formats to the flawless iOS audio player or the flexible pricing configurations - if you want to offer your music without a label, bandcamp is the way to go. Both approaches offer benefits and I'd like them to co-exist.
- lewisflude 14y ago
  Some of my favourite artists are on those labels you mentioned. Bandcamp is great too. I love it because it's simple.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  Why exactly do you think curated content would magically disappear from the internet? The very website you're using right now was created specifically for content curating. Content curating is an ubiquitous trend in the internet. Startups are built every day, focusing specifically on this problem. And the fact that you're posting here on Hacker News makes me assume that you think it's working. Yes, record labels also curate content. But that's so easy to replace. If curating music is the reason why you think record labels are useful. Then that's just one more evidence they're useless.
steve8918 14y ago
The thing I really regret the most about Kurt Cobain dying is that he was only a couple of years away from the Internet taking off. If any musician would have taken the Internet and ran with it, I truly believe it would have been him. He really didn't give a rat's ass about the music industry, and I think he probably would have started releasing music for free and circumvented the record labels. And since he was the biggest star at the time, circa 1994/1995, in typical fashion, other bands would have copied him and it would have changed things forever. I really do believe he would have been the catalyst for change in the music industry. Instead, we had Metallica that wanted to keep the status quo, and instead of having a music revolution, we had an emboldened RIAA suing people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading MP3s. My understanding, but far from any form of authority on the subject, is that the artists get very little from music sales these days, and most of their money comes from touring, which is why ticket prices are so high these days. I would understand a Red Hat-like model where the artists distribute their music for free, but charge a lot for performances, this would be fair. But since we're paying $1/song, and the artists aren't getting much of that, what it means is that everyone is getting screwed except for the middleman, ie. the record label.
- qq66 14y ago
  The thing about the Red Hat model is that it's a choice of a particular software company to decide which model they choose to pursue. Autodesk charges a lot of money for its proprietary products, and will sue you if you try to pirate them, and Red Hat will give you the software for free and charge you for services. The objective of the RIAA lawsuits isn't to kill the Red Hat model for music (although perhaps they would if they could) -- it's to preserve the Autodesk model for music as an option. I don't think they're going about in in the best way but I can see why they are doing it -- they believe that the Autodesk model is as economically and morally legitimate one as the Jonathan Coulton model of distributing music for free and then making money on touring.
stcredzero 14y ago
I think there's a potential problem when development and curation is attached too closely to marketing. It's analogous to what can happen in big software companies when development becomes sales/marketing driven. Separating these functions might be the big thing the Internet does/is doing for music. Why not separate out marketing, and have artists come to and pay music marketing companies? In a way, this is what already happens, with major labels getting signed artists into debt. This would eliminate conflicts of interest with artist development and curation. For that matter, separate out artist development, so big companies aren't motivated to turn everyone into a machine for producing mainstream genre music. Also, by separating out the function of curation, tastemakers can concentrate on being great tastemakers and be free of pressures from the marketing department.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
fumar 14y ago
Mainstream music, if definable, is a crazy beast. It is fickle, yet, predictable. Last year's top singles sound like today's top singles. The major record labels need to make money in a predictable fashion. It stifles creativity. It creates a barrier for entry. I have been making electronic music for almost ten years. I have participated in many netlabels in that time. I like the idea of making music and letting it spread online. I have yet to achieve any level of success. I can not compete with major acts. My marketing budget is zero. Record labels have a function. They curate music for people who do not have invested interest. I would not be happy if my music became popular. I like my little niche. I like being free of record restrictions. Some labels are amazing like Kranky. They do things differently than most, very strong aesthetic choosing. I miss Napster's community aspects. I learned a lot from sharing on Napster. It opened my ears to music that was different from my status quo. I wish it was still around. Music as a whole would be in a different place.
IsaacL 14y ago
Interesting - I wrote an article a few weeks ago exploring this very same premise: http://blog.i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-before-the-phonograph/ http://blog.i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-b... (Apologies for self quoting) Let’s try a thought experiment. Let’s say that BitTorrent, or something like it, was invented before the phonograph. Civilisation passed straight from live music only to ubiquitous copying without ever passing through the age of controllable mass reproduction. That is, every time some wandering minstrel composed a new melody on their lute, the entire world would be able to listen to it again whenever they wanted. Would people still describe that as “stealing music?” I think they wouldn’t. In fact, the whole concept sounds pretty awesome, doesn’t it? I think if we’d never passed through the copyright age we’d rightfully see BitTorrent as one of the greatest advances in history. All of human culture available for free! The only downside — and it is a big downside — is that it’s cut off the main income stream for all the people who actually produce this culture.
talleyrand 14y ago
"My dad, who was heavily into bands like The Cure, Echo & The Bunnymen and Siouxsie and The Banshees," Boy, do I feel old.
jimmytucson 14y ago
It's crazy to think music in America was actually commoditized before being distributed and consumed in recorded form. Back before record labels there were sheet music publishers. Instead of a phonograph or a CD player, people owned pianos and vocal chords. When the latest smash hit came out, you went and bought the sheet music and performed it yourself for your friends and family. That was the American popular music industry. So it's worth asking, is the thing of value here the actual sheet of paper with the music written on it, or the grooved metal cylinder, or the vinyl, or the mp3? Obviously yes, to some extent. But imagine if you were around in the 1850s and one of your buddies stops by and bangs out "Old Folks at Home" on the piano, totally by heart. And maybe after a couple of times, you kinda figure it out yourself. And then you go to somebody else's house and do the same thing. Is this the 1850s equivalent of peer-to-peer file sharing? You start to realize, a song has been bound to a physical object for so long, we've begun to confuse the music -- the actual information -- with the physical object that holds the information. Maybe back in the 1850s there were renegades who ran around teaching people Stephen Foster songs and the publishing companies took a hit and sent the sheriff after them. It seems ridiculous but that's basically what's happening today with the RIAA and file sharing.
- superuser2 14y ago
  I have never understood the idea that only "objects" can have value. 1) I'm paying for a formal education, not the books and the audio of the lectures. Those are often available for free, but the formal seal of approval of a university (not the sheepskin + ink) has market value. 2) I pay for The New Yorker, not the pages it's printed on. 3) A startup pays its programmers for software, which is really just ideas. 4) A company pays for the design of its building, not the drafting paper and pencils. 5) A company pays a manager (at least theoretically) for leadership, not for the transferring of ink to post-it-notes and calendars. 6) Millions of people pay for iPhone apps, which are not physical goods. 7) I'm paying (through insurance) for medical advice, not the negligible fraction of square footage I occupy while sitting in my doctor's office. -- Buying recordings is a voluntary transaction. If you don't find them valuable, don't participate. But you are still no more entitled to the sound of an artist's voice than your employer/customers are entitled to the value you provide. Open Source is cool. Public broadcasting is awesome. Band Camp is amazing, and I agree the mainstream record label cartel is nasty. I hope we move away from it. But just as hating Walmart doesn't make shoplifting okay; disapproval of the music industry doesn't make piracy okay. Yes, the witch-hunt is too much, but wherever did we get the idea that intellectual creation shouldn't be worth anything?
paulsutter 14y ago
The issue is "discovery" of new music. Labels use experts, and the Internet hasn't yet created a way to crowdsource the process. When it does, labels will become unnecessary. Fandalism could use competitions to select raw new music, Kickstarter could fund quality production, and Pandora could inject and A/B test the candidate songs? Manufactured stars were natural with broadcast radio. Labels and DJs could A/B test few songs, so they choose artists and songs carefully by a formula. Feedback came as phoned-in requests and sales of singles, heavily biased by the labels' initial choices. iTunes and Bittorrent haven't done much directly to improve A/B testing bandwidth. If the problem can be solved for music, the experts who choose the movies and shows that get made could be the next to be replaced.
- mertd 14y ago
  I discover far more music via online streamers (Pandora, Grooveshark, Last.fm, Stereomoood et. al) than I ever did through conventional channels. Furthermore, feedback collection is trivial. Very few of the actual listeners would ever bother to call a radio station to request a song. Online however, I give "thumbs ups" all the time on Pandora, because there is a solid incentive: it helps to train the music selection algorithm to my personal preferences.
  - paulsutter 14y ago
    Exactly! Now let's use those mechanisms to replace record labels. - How can club owners learn what new bands to book? How can they inform all the nearby fans? - How do we get the full feedback loop going all the way back to artists? - On Pandora you only year professionally produced music. How do we get music production crowdfunded effectively? Maybe Fandalism can collect that data from the streaming providers and make it available for musicians and club owners? I would spend a ton more money on concert tickets if I could always see a list of upcoming concerts by the musicians I hear on Pandora. Surely we can do a better job then record labels of getting musicians paid.
paulhauggis 14y ago
Yes. Look at Apple and the app market. They are essentially in the position of a record label. Most people that make music or write software don't have the skills or the time (or they just aren't interested) to also manage the marketing and many other of the business aspects. So there will always be a need for this sort of service.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
alexirobbins 14y ago
I have been working on a solution to exactly this issue. What we came up with is a crowd-sourcing artist discovery system that lets users find the best up-and-coming acts, keep up with their favorite artists (and buy their merch), and receive recommendations for the best shows in their area. Looks like MTV is going to beat us to it. http://www.topspinmedia.com/2012/03/topspin-mtv-artists-mtv http://www.topspinmedia.com/2012/03/topspin-mtv-artists-mtv
Tycho 14y ago
If you look at classical music, in Mozart's time and before, everything had to be heavily patronised by aristocrats, and furthermore audiences demanded to hear something new every time they went to the concert hall, or they'd feel ripped off. In Beethoven's time and onwards, when the music became more commercialised through selling sheet music and making more of an enterprise from concerts, we saw an explosion of creativity and also virtuoso talent, and audiences started to appreciate the music more as a permanent artefact, valuing the composition as well as the interpretation. Seems like commercialisation supported by copyright made for a more optimal appreciation/demand for music.

60 points by lewisflude 14y ago

aw3c2 14y ago

yes of course. just look at the job netlabels do at curating and caring for their (usually) consistent genre/style. as a music lover, I follow many netlabels and most provide me with stuff I like all the time.

diminish 14y ago

Or would Napster be more powerful than MPAA?

frankdenbow 14y ago

Labels play a role in artist development that is underrated, so yes. They still play a huge role in marketing and promotion, although that power wanes as we get better tools for surfacing great artists on the web.

jebblue 14y ago

I think the answer is yes but they would not be so obvious. They would be more like business developers but dedicated to the music business on the web, web music consultants which is what they should be focusing on learning how to do now.

zerostar07 14y ago

To answer the original question, we would probably have viral music videos instead of records. And judging from the current quality of viral content, the music would contain lots of fart sounds. Essentially as an artist, you need to make money As a person, you need to make money. As an artist, you need to make art. That doesn't mean you 'll get rich.

lewisflude 14y ago
That's very true! Many of my friends are fantastic musicians who are on the dole in London. Being a musician isn't the best idea if your aim is to make money!
- davedx 14y ago
  Indeed, all the people I know who DJ, produce or play in bands also have day jobs. Not a single one makes enough money from music to live off it.

DrJokepu 14y ago

A false statement implies any statement. That being said, the post itself is not really about record labels or the Internet. It's actually a pretty thought-provoking article. I'm personally glad that the 1800's, the 70's or the 2000's are gone and will never return. We have something different today and it's important to understand that it will be gone by tomorrow. We never really understand the present, it's much easier to evaluate a bygone era in retrospect. We don't really know if Spotify, Facebook or RIAA has any impact on today's music (or culture in general) and we won't know until any of these won't matter anymore. So my suggestion for the author is to follow the advice of his last sentence; stop worrying and enjoy the music.

lewisflude 14y ago
That's the plan!

serviceanimals 14y ago

No of course. And it should be enought to realize how non sense is a Record Label to have the privilege to determine what you can do or not about something they already sold.

thirdsun 14y ago

Absolutely. Labels shouldn't be reduced to the large majors everyone has in mind when talking about the evil music industry. There are a lot more niche labels that focus on very specific genres and audiences. A lot of them are very passionate about what they are doing and are as music loving as their listeners. They act as a curator by selecting and developing artists, a ability that becomes increasingly underrated in times of services like EchoNest - while I really like what those guys are doing, as a user of various music services I tend to notice that all those discovery features provide very similar results - probably due to the fact that they are using the same APIs by EchoNest. That makes it hard to find new quality music. Therefor it's good to have a curated selection like the catalogs of small and caring labels that give a human touch to a selection process that is a refreshing equivalent to the popular "You might also like..."-feature. Of course I can only speak for my personal interest, but being on the release schedule of labels like Morr Music, Kranky, Secretly Canadian, Domino, 4AD or Sub Pop is usually a very good indicator for music I might enjoy. Surely there are examples from other genres too. Nevertheless things can also work out without labels: I'm a big fan of bandcamp which has a lot of talent to showcase and does almost everything right for listeners and artists alike. From the wide range of lossless formats to the flawless iOS audio player or the flexible pricing configurations - if you want to offer your music without a label, bandcamp is the way to go. Both approaches offer benefits and I'd like them to co-exist.

lewisflude 14y ago
Some of my favourite artists are on those labels you mentioned. Bandcamp is great too. I love it because it's simple.
vibrunazo 14y ago
Why exactly do you think curated content would magically disappear from the internet? The very website you're using right now was created specifically for content curating. Content curating is an ubiquitous trend in the internet. Startups are built every day, focusing specifically on this problem. And the fact that you're posting here on Hacker News makes me assume that you think it's working. Yes, record labels also curate content. But that's so easy to replace. If curating music is the reason why you think record labels are useful. Then that's just one more evidence they're useless.

steve8918 14y ago

The thing I really regret the most about Kurt Cobain dying is that he was only a couple of years away from the Internet taking off. If any musician would have taken the Internet and ran with it, I truly believe it would have been him. He really didn't give a rat's ass about the music industry, and I think he probably would have started releasing music for free and circumvented the record labels. And since he was the biggest star at the time, circa 1994/1995, in typical fashion, other bands would have copied him and it would have changed things forever. I really do believe he would have been the catalyst for change in the music industry. Instead, we had Metallica that wanted to keep the status quo, and instead of having a music revolution, we had an emboldened RIAA suing people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading MP3s. My understanding, but far from any form of authority on the subject, is that the artists get very little from music sales these days, and most of their money comes from touring, which is why ticket prices are so high these days. I would understand a Red Hat-like model where the artists distribute their music for free, but charge a lot for performances, this would be fair. But since we're paying $1/song, and the artists aren't getting much of that, what it means is that everyone is getting screwed except for the middleman, ie. the record label.

qq66 14y ago
The thing about the Red Hat model is that it's a choice of a particular software company to decide which model they choose to pursue. Autodesk charges a lot of money for its proprietary products, and will sue you if you try to pirate them, and Red Hat will give you the software for free and charge you for services. The objective of the RIAA lawsuits isn't to kill the Red Hat model for music (although perhaps they would if they could) -- it's to preserve the Autodesk model for music as an option. I don't think they're going about in in the best way but I can see why they are doing it -- they believe that the Autodesk model is as economically and morally legitimate one as the Jonathan Coulton model of distributing music for free and then making money on touring.

stcredzero 14y ago

I think there's a potential problem when development and curation is attached too closely to marketing. It's analogous to what can happen in big software companies when development becomes sales/marketing driven. Separating these functions might be the big thing the Internet does/is doing for music. Why not separate out marketing, and have artists come to and pay music marketing companies? In a way, this is what already happens, with major labels getting signed artists into debt. This would eliminate conflicts of interest with artist development and curation. For that matter, separate out artist development, so big companies aren't motivated to turn everyone into a machine for producing mainstream genre music. Also, by separating out the function of curation, tastemakers can concentrate on being great tastemakers and be free of pressures from the marketing department.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

fumar 14y ago

Mainstream music, if definable, is a crazy beast. It is fickle, yet, predictable. Last year's top singles sound like today's top singles. The major record labels need to make money in a predictable fashion. It stifles creativity. It creates a barrier for entry. I have been making electronic music for almost ten years. I have participated in many netlabels in that time. I like the idea of making music and letting it spread online. I have yet to achieve any level of success. I can not compete with major acts. My marketing budget is zero. Record labels have a function. They curate music for people who do not have invested interest. I would not be happy if my music became popular. I like my little niche. I like being free of record restrictions. Some labels are amazing like Kranky. They do things differently than most, very strong aesthetic choosing. I miss Napster's community aspects. I learned a lot from sharing on Napster. It opened my ears to music that was different from my status quo. I wish it was still around. Music as a whole would be in a different place.

IsaacL 14y ago

Interesting - I wrote an article a few weeks ago exploring this very same premise: http://blog.i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-before-the-phonograph/ http://blog.i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-b... (Apologies for self quoting) Let’s try a thought experiment. Let’s say that BitTorrent, or something like it, was invented before the phonograph. Civilisation passed straight from live music only to ubiquitous copying without ever passing through the age of controllable mass reproduction. That is, every time some wandering minstrel composed a new melody on their lute, the entire world would be able to listen to it again whenever they wanted. Would people still describe that as “stealing music?” I think they wouldn’t. In fact, the whole concept sounds pretty awesome, doesn’t it? I think if we’d never passed through the copyright age we’d rightfully see BitTorrent as one of the greatest advances in history. All of human culture available for free! The only downside — and it is a big downside — is that it’s cut off the main income stream for all the people who actually produce this culture.

talleyrand 14y ago

"My dad, who was heavily into bands like The Cure, Echo & The Bunnymen and Siouxsie and The Banshees," Boy, do I feel old.

jimmytucson 14y ago

It's crazy to think music in America was actually commoditized before being distributed and consumed in recorded form. Back before record labels there were sheet music publishers. Instead of a phonograph or a CD player, people owned pianos and vocal chords. When the latest smash hit came out, you went and bought the sheet music and performed it yourself for your friends and family. That was the American popular music industry. So it's worth asking, is the thing of value here the actual sheet of paper with the music written on it, or the grooved metal cylinder, or the vinyl, or the mp3? Obviously yes, to some extent. But imagine if you were around in the 1850s and one of your buddies stops by and bangs out "Old Folks at Home" on the piano, totally by heart. And maybe after a couple of times, you kinda figure it out yourself. And then you go to somebody else's house and do the same thing. Is this the 1850s equivalent of peer-to-peer file sharing? You start to realize, a song has been bound to a physical object for so long, we've begun to confuse the music -- the actual information -- with the physical object that holds the information. Maybe back in the 1850s there were renegades who ran around teaching people Stephen Foster songs and the publishing companies took a hit and sent the sheriff after them. It seems ridiculous but that's basically what's happening today with the RIAA and file sharing.

superuser2 14y ago
I have never understood the idea that only "objects" can have value. 1) I'm paying for a formal education, not the books and the audio of the lectures. Those are often available for free, but the formal seal of approval of a university (not the sheepskin + ink) has market value. 2) I pay for The New Yorker, not the pages it's printed on. 3) A startup pays its programmers for software, which is really just ideas. 4) A company pays for the design of its building, not the drafting paper and pencils. 5) A company pays a manager (at least theoretically) for leadership, not for the transferring of ink to post-it-notes and calendars. 6) Millions of people pay for iPhone apps, which are not physical goods. 7) I'm paying (through insurance) for medical advice, not the negligible fraction of square footage I occupy while sitting in my doctor's office. -- Buying recordings is a voluntary transaction. If you don't find them valuable, don't participate. But you are still no more entitled to the sound of an artist's voice than your employer/customers are entitled to the value you provide. Open Source is cool. Public broadcasting is awesome. Band Camp is amazing, and I agree the mainstream record label cartel is nasty. I hope we move away from it. But just as hating Walmart doesn't make shoplifting okay; disapproval of the music industry doesn't make piracy okay. Yes, the witch-hunt is too much, but wherever did we get the idea that intellectual creation shouldn't be worth anything?

paulsutter 14y ago

The issue is "discovery" of new music. Labels use experts, and the Internet hasn't yet created a way to crowdsource the process. When it does, labels will become unnecessary. Fandalism could use competitions to select raw new music, Kickstarter could fund quality production, and Pandora could inject and A/B test the candidate songs? Manufactured stars were natural with broadcast radio. Labels and DJs could A/B test few songs, so they choose artists and songs carefully by a formula. Feedback came as phoned-in requests and sales of singles, heavily biased by the labels' initial choices. iTunes and Bittorrent haven't done much directly to improve A/B testing bandwidth. If the problem can be solved for music, the experts who choose the movies and shows that get made could be the next to be replaced.

mertd 14y ago
I discover far more music via online streamers (Pandora, Grooveshark, Last.fm, Stereomoood et. al) than I ever did through conventional channels. Furthermore, feedback collection is trivial. Very few of the actual listeners would ever bother to call a radio station to request a song. Online however, I give "thumbs ups" all the time on Pandora, because there is a solid incentive: it helps to train the music selection algorithm to my personal preferences.
- paulsutter 14y ago
  Exactly! Now let's use those mechanisms to replace record labels. - How can club owners learn what new bands to book? How can they inform all the nearby fans? - How do we get the full feedback loop going all the way back to artists? - On Pandora you only year professionally produced music. How do we get music production crowdfunded effectively? Maybe Fandalism can collect that data from the streaming providers and make it available for musicians and club owners? I would spend a ton more money on concert tickets if I could always see a list of upcoming concerts by the musicians I hear on Pandora. Surely we can do a better job then record labels of getting musicians paid.

paulhauggis 14y ago

Yes. Look at Apple and the app market. They are essentially in the position of a record label. Most people that make music or write software don't have the skills or the time (or they just aren't interested) to also manage the marketing and many other of the business aspects. So there will always be a need for this sort of service.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

alexirobbins 14y ago

I have been working on a solution to exactly this issue. What we came up with is a crowd-sourcing artist discovery system that lets users find the best up-and-coming acts, keep up with their favorite artists (and buy their merch), and receive recommendations for the best shows in their area. Looks like MTV is going to beat us to it. http://www.topspinmedia.com/2012/03/topspin-mtv-artists-mtv http://www.topspinmedia.com/2012/03/topspin-mtv-artists-mtv

Tycho 14y ago

If you look at classical music, in Mozart's time and before, everything had to be heavily patronised by aristocrats, and furthermore audiences demanded to hear something new every time they went to the concert hall, or they'd feel ripped off. In Beethoven's time and onwards, when the music became more commercialised through selling sheet music and making more of an enterprise from concerts, we saw an explosion of creativity and also virtuoso talent, and audiences started to appreciate the music more as a permanent artefact, valuing the composition as well as the interpretation. Seems like commercialisation supported by copyright made for a more optimal appreciation/demand for music.