3 ms·

Music is a tough nut to crack. The industry players feel burned by every technological innovation, from the CD to Napster. The status quo rejects technology bec

Music is a tough nut to crack. The industry players feel burned by every technological innovation, from the CD to Napster. The status quo rejects technology because it undermines business models and threatens to put new people in charge. It helps to be Dr. Dre when starting up and trying to break into such a mess. Or you can sell a big chunk to the labels (Spotify) so they can feel comfortable that the latest disruption won't be the end of selling musical bytes.

IgorPartola 12y ago
Not knowing anything about the industry, why do we still need music labels in 2014? My understanding was that before digital, their primary role was to provide distribution. The artists could not afford things like burning and shipping CD's, etc. However, no anyone can set up a distribution channel on the web for extremely cheap (probably cheaper than the equipment the music is recorded on). I suppose promotion is a part of it, but where is the meritocracy? Should we all be just listening to "good music" and the artists get rewarded directly?
- untog 12y ago
  I suppose promotion is a part of it, but where is the meritocracy? Where is meritocracy anywhere? More importantly, how can you be meritocratic about something that is deeply rooted in a person's individual taste? Labels are still useful for promotion. We're a long way away from that being a solved problem.
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    Well, if meritocracy is the ideal, then sure, it's nowhere to be found. However, imagine if you put together a kick ass SaaS product that is super useful to thousands of companies small and large. Then suddenly you can't just put it out in the wild and see how it does. First, some executive somewhere has to look at it, use it for 10 minutes, then either approve or disapprove of it. And if the exec disapproves, you have no choice but to start building something brand new. Doesn't that sound like bullshit? You can be meritocratic about music, the same way you can be meritocratic about things like web browsers, or cars, or fine art. You know quality stuff when you see it. You do still need an efficient way to discover good stuff, but that's where services like Spotify, iTunes, etc. can really shine. Why do we need a label as a middleman between the artist and iTunes? What value will the label bring vs just throwing all music at iTunes and seeing what sticks? What kind of a refined musical appreciation talent do the label execs have that they can decide what I should or should not hear?
    - earbitscom 12y ago
      The truth is that labels aren't needed if you are a savvy business person as well as a musician, but most musicians are not. They need help understanding how to advertise, where to do so, and they need leverage in order to get better deals. More importantly, whether they need these things is secondary to the fact that most of them don't want to do these things themselves and it would be a massive distraction from the main goal of making awesome music.
      - IgorPartola 12y ago
        Interesting. My understanding was that Maclemore et al actually challenged this model by hiring parts of a label to do the parts they themselves could not do and in that they ended up retaining more ownership. The analogy would be that they got (paid) advisors instead of taking on VC money. The way you put it does make more sense: marketing, distribution, finding gigs is not what musicians do best, so they outsource that job and pay for it with "equity"/creative control.
        untog 12y ago
        My understanding was that Maclemore et al actually challenged this model by hiring parts of a label to do the parts they themselves could not do and in that they ended up retaining more ownership. ...which makes it sound like they have a lot of business sense. Many don't.
    - Domenic_S 12y ago
      > What kind of a refined musical appreciation talent do the label execs have that they can decide what I should or should not hear? I think you misunderstand music as an industry, and you definitely stopped reading after the GP's first sentence. Label execs have very refined taste -- for one, specific thing: finding "artists" that have broad appeal to a target demographic. And even that's a Silicon Valley-esque "lost money on 99, made money one 1" kind of situation. Music needs labels for the same reason startups need VC: they have resources, connections, and expertise not often found within (bands|founders). Yes, it is possible to bootstrap in both situations, and yes there are companies trying to disrupt that model in both spaces. But it's not the status quo.
- mikeryan 12y ago
  Distribution is a solved problem, however the promotion side can't be glossed over. Sure I can self distribute a track, but it does no good if no one ever hears it and wants to buy it.

IgorPartola 12y ago

Not knowing anything about the industry, why do we still need music labels in 2014? My understanding was that before digital, their primary role was to provide distribution. The artists could not afford things like burning and shipping CD's, etc. However, no anyone can set up a distribution channel on the web for extremely cheap (probably cheaper than the equipment the music is recorded on). I suppose promotion is a part of it, but where is the meritocracy? Should we all be just listening to "good music" and the artists get rewarded directly?

untog 12y ago
I suppose promotion is a part of it, but where is the meritocracy? Where is meritocracy anywhere? More importantly, how can you be meritocratic about something that is deeply rooted in a person's individual taste? Labels are still useful for promotion. We're a long way away from that being a solved problem.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  Well, if meritocracy is the ideal, then sure, it's nowhere to be found. However, imagine if you put together a kick ass SaaS product that is super useful to thousands of companies small and large. Then suddenly you can't just put it out in the wild and see how it does. First, some executive somewhere has to look at it, use it for 10 minutes, then either approve or disapprove of it. And if the exec disapproves, you have no choice but to start building something brand new. Doesn't that sound like bullshit? You can be meritocratic about music, the same way you can be meritocratic about things like web browsers, or cars, or fine art. You know quality stuff when you see it. You do still need an efficient way to discover good stuff, but that's where services like Spotify, iTunes, etc. can really shine. Why do we need a label as a middleman between the artist and iTunes? What value will the label bring vs just throwing all music at iTunes and seeing what sticks? What kind of a refined musical appreciation talent do the label execs have that they can decide what I should or should not hear?
  - earbitscom 12y ago
    The truth is that labels aren't needed if you are a savvy business person as well as a musician, but most musicians are not. They need help understanding how to advertise, where to do so, and they need leverage in order to get better deals. More importantly, whether they need these things is secondary to the fact that most of them don't want to do these things themselves and it would be a massive distraction from the main goal of making awesome music.
    - IgorPartola 12y ago
      Interesting. My understanding was that Maclemore et al actually challenged this model by hiring parts of a label to do the parts they themselves could not do and in that they ended up retaining more ownership. The analogy would be that they got (paid) advisors instead of taking on VC money. The way you put it does make more sense: marketing, distribution, finding gigs is not what musicians do best, so they outsource that job and pay for it with "equity"/creative control.
      - untog 12y ago
        My understanding was that Maclemore et al actually challenged this model by hiring parts of a label to do the parts they themselves could not do and in that they ended up retaining more ownership. ...which makes it sound like they have a lot of business sense. Many don't.
  - Domenic_S 12y ago
    > What kind of a refined musical appreciation talent do the label execs have that they can decide what I should or should not hear? I think you misunderstand music as an industry, and you definitely stopped reading after the GP's first sentence. Label execs have very refined taste -- for one, specific thing: finding "artists" that have broad appeal to a target demographic. And even that's a Silicon Valley-esque "lost money on 99, made money one 1" kind of situation. Music needs labels for the same reason startups need VC: they have resources, connections, and expertise not often found within (bands|founders). Yes, it is possible to bootstrap in both situations, and yes there are companies trying to disrupt that model in both spaces. But it's not the status quo.
mikeryan 12y ago
Distribution is a solved problem, however the promotion side can't be glossed over. Sure I can self distribute a track, but it does no good if no one ever hears it and wants to buy it.