3 ms·
I don't agree with the general thrust of this post, but first, some nitpicking: "Because in the end, all a label really does is market, distribute, and schedul
by mr_eel 17y ago
I don't agree with the general thrust of this post, but first, some nitpicking:
"Because in the end, all a label really does is market, distribute, and schedule tours."
No actually. For starters, touring is generally handled by the artists and their managers. Up till now, it's been uncommon to have labels involved -- although this is changing as we see majors scrabble for more money.
The author is also forgetting the actual production of the music. A label generally fronts the money for a producer, engineer and studio time. Not to mention the mastering required for distribution.
This isn't to say labels are the only avenue for funding recording, but it is one important thing that they do and that the imaginary Apple label won't.
"Digital music has reached an audience where this makes sense. 25% of all music sold in the US (physical and digital) is sold through iTunes."
That's impressive, but 25% still means there are a lot of other retailers shifting music. I can't imagine artists -- especially independent ones -- limiting themselves to just that chunk of the market. The only way around that is if Apple starts distributing music through other retailers. Not likely in my opinion.
"They’ve been hiring H&R types and artist relation managers."
A few AR and HR hires does not translate into the kind of marketing needed to support thousands of individual artists. If they did start a label, Apple may forego this, but a few hires is not evidence enough.
We should not underestimate the importance of _individualised_ marketing for artists. I have a hard time seeing Apple doing this.
"Why Jay-Z? Well, Jay-Z isn’t really on a major label."
He does run a label though. I don't think he wants to cut himself out of the loop by helping Apple launch a label.
One of the major roles a label has is to editorialise. They hunt for and preen artists. They pay for recording, they tailor the marketing and distribute the music. How can Apple do this on a large scale? If they can't do it on a large scale, why would they bother?
Is it open to all artists or are they going to pick and choose? Pick and choose means limiting the scale of the operation. Making it open risks having Apple associated with music and ideas that conflict with their tightly controlled marketing. Retail is just retail, but being a label means "blessing" the content. I can't see Apple wanting to lose that control.
I really don't think the author understands how music gets produced and sold. I know it's popular to underplay the role of a label and simply conflate them with distribution, but in reality it's more complex. Some labels are arguably leeches and some work really hard to make their artists successful. Irregardless, they're not easily replaced by some monolithic Apple label.
- tjogin 17y agoI'm not going to weigh in on the likelihood of this happening at all. But if it did, I don't see why it couldn't function like the App Store (but for artists instead of software developers): let anyone publish music, the good stuff floats to the top the same way it works for iPhone apps.
- steveklabnik 17y ago> I really don't think the author understands how music gets produced and sold. Isn't this kind of the whole point, though? The old way of music getting produced and sold is outdated. The industry will go through its own revolution, just like all the others, even if the labels don't want it to. > The author is also forgetting the actual production of the music. A label generally fronts the money for a producer, engineer and studio time. Not to mention the mastering required for distribution. Why bother paying for all of this, when (as the author mentions) you can just do it yourself? Equipment is only getting cheaper and cheaper, and as far as mastering goes, well, "MP3 is enough" (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/radiohead_guitarist_mp3s_fine_there_goes_fidelity.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/radiohead_guitarist_mp3...) > We should not underestimate the importance of _individualised_ marketing for artists. I have a hard time seeing Apple doing this. Yep, we won't, because who better to market the band than the band itself? Why pay somebody, when you can make a myspace/facebook/twitter/whatever and plaster it everywhere? Now, branding is still pretty important, but still, quite a huge part of the traditional marketer's job has been replaced by the Internet. > One of the major roles a label has is to editorialise. They hunt for and preen artists. They pay for recording, they tailor the marketing and distribute the music. How can Apple do this on a large scale? If they can't do it on a large scale, why would they bother? I don't mean to sound insulting, but it's early and I can't think of a better way to phrase this. My apologies. Have you read The Long Tail? Why bother doing anything on the large scale? This attitude reeks of the Old Way of Thinking. If you don't believe in that, then fine, but really, all of that stuff is silly. That's what the old labels do, let them keep that, go after the vast majority of music instead. Now, I don't know if Apple will actually do this or not, but it would make quite a bit of sense, and has the potential to make them quite a large bit of money. But I won't deny that I'm biased by my hatred of a backwards, self-centered, oligarchy of an industry. So, who knows? Luckily, we only have to wait a few hours to find out, right?