3 ms·

"As I understand it, most of the money for concerts and other distribution channels is going to the musicians themselves and newer companies. Am I mistaken here

"As I understand it, most of the money for concerts and other distribution channels is going to the musicians themselves and newer companies. Am I mistaken here?" Historically, yes. Labels generally had very little to do with concerts. These days, a lot of artists are signing "360 deals", which means that the label receives a cut of basically all the artist's revenue streams, including touring and merchandise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal

kbenson 13y ago
A (hopefully) smaller cut of everything instead of a large cut of specific revenue streams seems like it might encourage better record company behavior. Rather than highly promoting specific sections of the revenue stream to the detriment to others (overplaying on the radio causing lack of interest before the tour is done, etc), a more holistic approach may emerge, which better benefits all parties.
- kevincennis 13y ago
  I have a few friends in pretty successful bands, and most of them (and other artists they know) tend to have a pretty negative view of the 360 deal. My impression is that it's generally considered to be the only option in most cases. In certain segments of the music industry, major labels are still basically the gatekeepers. Wanna be the next Modest Mouse? Fine. You can put a few records out on a small indie label and do pretty well. Wanna be the next Taylor Swift? You pretty much need a huge label like Universal. The discovery channels for certain types of music are a lot narrower. If you're an aspiring pop singer, you need pop radio. And you won't get it without major label backing. So the labels have the power to basically say "Here's the deal we're willing to offer. You can take it or leave it". Most artists would probably be better off keeping the majority of their touring profits (since, along with licensing, I think that usually tends to be the biggest source of income) -- but if they're stuck between a bad deal and no deal, a lot of artists will take what they can get.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    I like the analogy made elsewhere in the comments about labels being like VC firms. By the same token, you don't think you need a VC firm/record label unless you plan to go big and go quick. Macklemore and others have shown that there is another path, even if it's not common (yet?). Just because we are used to teenagers and early twenty-somethings being blown up to huge proportions doesn't mean that's the best path. I imagine a world where artists slowly gain traction and following as they refine their art as a better place.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    >If you're an aspiring pop singer, you need pop radio. And you won't get it without major label backing. Adele's mega success is absolute proof that this is not true. Her label, XL, is a true independent and ushered her to multiplatinum status.

kbenson 13y ago

A (hopefully) smaller cut of everything instead of a large cut of specific revenue streams seems like it might encourage better record company behavior. Rather than highly promoting specific sections of the revenue stream to the detriment to others (overplaying on the radio causing lack of interest before the tour is done, etc), a more holistic approach may emerge, which better benefits all parties.

kevincennis 13y ago
I have a few friends in pretty successful bands, and most of them (and other artists they know) tend to have a pretty negative view of the 360 deal. My impression is that it's generally considered to be the only option in most cases. In certain segments of the music industry, major labels are still basically the gatekeepers. Wanna be the next Modest Mouse? Fine. You can put a few records out on a small indie label and do pretty well. Wanna be the next Taylor Swift? You pretty much need a huge label like Universal. The discovery channels for certain types of music are a lot narrower. If you're an aspiring pop singer, you need pop radio. And you won't get it without major label backing. So the labels have the power to basically say "Here's the deal we're willing to offer. You can take it or leave it". Most artists would probably be better off keeping the majority of their touring profits (since, along with licensing, I think that usually tends to be the biggest source of income) -- but if they're stuck between a bad deal and no deal, a lot of artists will take what they can get.
- kbenson 13y ago
  I like the analogy made elsewhere in the comments about labels being like VC firms. By the same token, you don't think you need a VC firm/record label unless you plan to go big and go quick. Macklemore and others have shown that there is another path, even if it's not common (yet?). Just because we are used to teenagers and early twenty-somethings being blown up to huge proportions doesn't mean that's the best path. I imagine a world where artists slowly gain traction and following as they refine their art as a better place.
- dublinben 13y ago
  >If you're an aspiring pop singer, you need pop radio. And you won't get it without major label backing. Adele's mega success is absolute proof that this is not true. Her label, XL, is a true independent and ushered her to multiplatinum status.