5 ms·

> Artists are not forced to work with major record labels. And what were/are their alternatives? Things are theoretically different with the internet now, thou

> Artists are not forced to work with major record labels. And what were/are their alternatives? Things are theoretically different with the internet now, though I'm not sure how well well-paying outlets for artists have advanced as of yet. > the scarcity at the early stage is the set of people that can make the system work (promotion, marketing, producers)... I doubt there's a scarcity of these people. Nor do I imagine they reap a huge profit from their work anyway. And surely the whole point is the quality of the artists' work, not how well crap can be pushed to preadolescent girls a la Justin Bieber? > Once artists prove themselves not to be a commodity (i.e be stars) they reap great profits and have much more negotiating leverage over labels. I don't understand this rant. If you read TFA you'll find that this is often not the case, even the stars get screwed out of vast sums of money.

beloch 14y ago
The alternative, for artists, is not to sign with a major label. A lot of bands go it alone these days, although odds are they aren't the ones you hear on the radio (see "independent radio promotion"). They can still find an audience thanks to the internet. Yes, their music gets pirated heavily but, as Neil Young so aptly put it, "piracy is the new radio". The more their albums are pirated, the more likely at least some people will check out their live shows, buy T-shirts or, heck, even albums from their website or at concerts. As a fan of good music, I try to maximize the impact of every last dollar I can afford to spend on music. My goal in doing this is to pay as little as possible to Apple, amazon, or major record labels and as much as possible directly to artists. That means almost every album I buy is through band websites or at concerts. I make use of the "new radio" and don't feel the least bit bad about it because I make a point of supporting the bands I like in a way that sees far more of my money reach artists than comes from any "honest" iTunes user. In my view, this is the most ethical route. The record labels' "war on piracy" is really just a war on competition, and is a great example of how the letter of the law can be subverted by a greedy few to defeat the spirit of the law. Even the term "piracy" is very deliberately chosen to squash this valid new promotion channel. I really wish people would take a cue from Neil Young and call it the "new radio" because that's a far more accurate term.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  This is a naive viewpoint. It still costs money to live while you're building an audience, which was why there was some merit to a record label's advance, even if the recoupment terms were unfair. Also, you assume (as do many) that there is a living to made playing live. Not all artists want to play live; not all can attract large live audiences (eg experimental musicans or people who make ambient soundscapes, for which there may be a large enough global market to sustain a living from record sales, but not enough in any single place to make bookings reliable); not all artists work in a medium conducive to live performance (composers and film actors spring to mind).

beloch 14y ago

The alternative, for artists, is not to sign with a major label. A lot of bands go it alone these days, although odds are they aren't the ones you hear on the radio (see "independent radio promotion"). They can still find an audience thanks to the internet. Yes, their music gets pirated heavily but, as Neil Young so aptly put it, "piracy is the new radio". The more their albums are pirated, the more likely at least some people will check out their live shows, buy T-shirts or, heck, even albums from their website or at concerts. As a fan of good music, I try to maximize the impact of every last dollar I can afford to spend on music. My goal in doing this is to pay as little as possible to Apple, amazon, or major record labels and as much as possible directly to artists. That means almost every album I buy is through band websites or at concerts. I make use of the "new radio" and don't feel the least bit bad about it because I make a point of supporting the bands I like in a way that sees far more of my money reach artists than comes from any "honest" iTunes user. In my view, this is the most ethical route. The record labels' "war on piracy" is really just a war on competition, and is a great example of how the letter of the law can be subverted by a greedy few to defeat the spirit of the law. Even the term "piracy" is very deliberately chosen to squash this valid new promotion channel. I really wish people would take a cue from Neil Young and call it the "new radio" because that's a far more accurate term.

anigbrowl 14y ago
This is a naive viewpoint. It still costs money to live while you're building an audience, which was why there was some merit to a record label's advance, even if the recoupment terms were unfair. Also, you assume (as do many) that there is a living to made playing live. Not all artists want to play live; not all can attract large live audiences (eg experimental musicans or people who make ambient soundscapes, for which there may be a large enough global market to sustain a living from record sales, but not enough in any single place to make bookings reliable); not all artists work in a medium conducive to live performance (composers and film actors spring to mind).