2 ms·
I think his point is that the labels needed to risk a significant sum of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, on a band that is not obviously commercial. T
by whiddershins 13y ago
I think his point is that the labels needed to risk a significant sum of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, on a band that is not obviously commercial.
This investment had to happen for a period of years, and surely many bands that received that kind of investment ultimately failed. Labels acted like angel investors, not just in the 90s, but in the 60s, 70s, and 80s as well.
Without that investment structure, it is very hard to get anything interesting off the ground. Pop music can be profitable fairly rapidly, but more interesting music, whether it is The Doors or Pink Floyd or Radiohead, take a longer ramp up and more risk.
- _mulder_ 13y agoYes I agree with you, and the Author but I'm still no clearer as to why the Author thinks the Labels have changed their behavior. I get a feeling he's suggesting Piracy and free-music services are to blame, as these tone of posts often do. But there are many other factors that have probably influenced labels that he doesn't cover. Changing tastes for one.
- whiddershins 13y agoI think he believes it is very simple: They no longer make the profits from selling musical recordings that they used to. -why- that happened may be a topic for debate, but fundamentally, without potential revenue, they can't invest.
- sabat 13y agoWhat I understood from the article: * the author believes labels are about to go under * once labels go under, there will be fewer bands, because making music takes a lot of money, and without the labels, the money just won't be there All which is complete bullshit, of course. The labels will exist — they may be dying, but it'll be a slow death — and, more importantly, musicians don't need them. You don't need to be rich to form a band, tour, and record. Most bands don't form in order to get rich quick.