3 ms·

>> "They're competing with empowered independent artists, whom alot of times only have to earn a paycheck to pay themselves, who simply love music and don't car

>> "They're competing with empowered independent artists, whom alot of times only have to earn a paycheck to pay themselves, who simply love music and don't care about fame or becoming wealthy from their efforts. Most of them care about making great music and making a modest living doing so." Sorry but this is BS. 1. Independent artists are empowered in the way that they can distribute music in so many places online - getting people to listen is another matter. Even if your music is good marketing it by yourself is very, very hard. 2. Even artists who aren't part of a group (I'm thinking DJ's for example) have to pay more than themselves. They don't travel alone and every live musician usually has to pay a sound guy and probably a lighting guy. 3. I think very few musicians care about getting wealthy - they just want to make a living. They want to be able to play and make music 24/7. Even reaching that level is incredibly hard. I can't remember their name but there was a Medium article posted here a while back by a band (quite a well known indie band) who were trying to do just that. They sold out 1,000 seat theatres around the country but the costs of putting on a show caught up with them. Artists need labels. Maybe not in the form we've always known them but they are still very important. I think it's also probably in the interests of artists if one place becomes king in streaming. You can focus your efforts there instead of having to distribute your music on all these streaming services with their own social sides you must also contribute to.

eveningcoffee 11y ago
You describe that labels could provide usable service for musicians. Fine, but labels do not work like this. They work rather as investment banks and their income does not come from service fees but from speculative bets in hopes to find few musicians with very high returns. I.e. musicians do not get a product from labels but are themselves a product.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Think of it like a startup. Until they get to scale musicians make very little money. They therefore need investment. Their investment company (the label) also doubles as a marketing company. How do they get to scale without the label i.e. investors?
- danieldk 11y ago
  Fine, but labels do not work like this. They work rather as investment banks and their income does not come from service fees but from speculative bets in hopes to find few musicians with very high returns. Although some service fees would be reasonable (recording an album, pressing small batches of CDs), most other things that labels offer are simply not affordable for musicians who did not make it yet, e.g.: hiring a good producer or setting up a nation-wide or world-wide PR campaign. Although, it's not impossible to get there by slow, organic, growth, getting an investment can be much more effective if you are good[1]. It's not all that much different from starting a business. [1] Of course, these days some labels do not pick up good musicians, but pretty faces that can playback to music written by label's writers, recorded with pitch correction, etc. But that's what a segment of the general public wants.
shalmanese 11y ago
> I can't remember their name but there was a Medium article posted here a while back by a band (quite a well known indie band) who were trying to do just that. They sold out 1,000 seat theatres around the country but the costs of putting on a show caught up with them. Are you thinking of https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoose-2014-tour-profits-67435851ba37 https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoose-2014-tour-profits-... ?
chimeracoder 11y ago
> 1. Independent artists are empowered in the way that they can distribute music in so many places online - getting people to listen is another matter. Even if your music is good marketing it by yourself is very, very hard. Yes... except that the RIAA has the legal authority to collect royalties on behalf of independent artists (that's right, on behalf of artists who haven't even signed to a major label). These artists have to petition the RIAA[0] in order to collect their earnings. Success in this endeavor varies widely; many artists complain that after years of effort they have failed to receive any of their money from the RIAA. This same entity, by the way, has spent exorbitant amounts of money lobbying to (effectively) shut down Internet radio[1]. > Artists need labels. This is true. In fact, artists need major labels, not just labels. But the reason for this is a tautology: they need major labels because we have created (by fiat) a situation in which they cannot operate without the oversight of a major label, whether they want to or not, so they might as well try and enter into a formal relationship so they can actually have standing with them as a client. [0] Technically a former subsidiary that's now "independent" in name only [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange#Lobbying_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange#Lobbying_controv...
6stringmerc 11y ago
Well, I'd like to call shenanigans on your calling BS. 1. Distribution is the first step to social interest and therefore marketability. As in, until a tune gets heard by a marketing person or a film maker or Joe Q. Concert-Goer, it's relatively useless to have a recording. Fundamentally speaking, this is why Radio airplay is considered advertising and not due significant compensation. 2. The source of the money to go on tour is relevant, but not prohibitive. Willie Nelson is/was adamant that every musician needs a very good Jewish lawyer (his words). Contracts and getting paid are extremely important to longevity, whether it be licensing or crafting a tour. 3. I don't see how this point genuinely contradicts the parent assertion. Making a living in music is difficult, it always has been, and adding one additional layer of overhead - a label - is simply that - another layer of overhead. It goes back to having a lawyer / manager / publicist - sure, paying them XX% might seem expensive, but the amount of money that can be obtained as a gross sum will, hopefully, be larger on the net take-home basis. Artists don't need labels - they need publicity. Labels have traditionally worked themselves into all sorts of publicity avenues such as...deep breath...rack jobbers - payola - 360 contract deals - ghost writing / manufacturing pop stars - digital rights management - pay-for-publicity on blogs...there are plenty of examples of labels creating successes and gambling on the small timers that they want to be successful. Now, Sony and Universal Music Group will sign distribution deals with labels for which they have no fiscal kick-back. It's a lesser known process, but essential for getting sh!t on the rack @ Best Buy (see: Macklemore). No, what artists need are equitable channels for distribution and competent management for business affairs. You like Chvrches? I like Chvrches a lot. I especially dig the Soundcloud hat Martin Doherty seems to wear non-stop in gratitude for it being their big break / ability to negotiate their own terms in the modern system...but what excites me the most is what Chance the Rapper is doing along with Donnie Trumpet and the Social Experiment. No label. Free release. Now what? Time will tell.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

You describe that labels could provide usable service for musicians. Fine, but labels do not work like this. They work rather as investment banks and their income does not come from service fees but from speculative bets in hopes to find few musicians with very high returns. I.e. musicians do not get a product from labels but are themselves a product.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
Think of it like a startup. Until they get to scale musicians make very little money. They therefore need investment. Their investment company (the label) also doubles as a marketing company. How do they get to scale without the label i.e. investors?
danieldk 11y ago
Fine, but labels do not work like this. They work rather as investment banks and their income does not come from service fees but from speculative bets in hopes to find few musicians with very high returns. Although some service fees would be reasonable (recording an album, pressing small batches of CDs), most other things that labels offer are simply not affordable for musicians who did not make it yet, e.g.: hiring a good producer or setting up a nation-wide or world-wide PR campaign. Although, it's not impossible to get there by slow, organic, growth, getting an investment can be much more effective if you are good[1]. It's not all that much different from starting a business. [1] Of course, these days some labels do not pick up good musicians, but pretty faces that can playback to music written by label's writers, recorded with pitch correction, etc. But that's what a segment of the general public wants.

shalmanese 11y ago

> I can't remember their name but there was a Medium article posted here a while back by a band (quite a well known indie band) who were trying to do just that. They sold out 1,000 seat theatres around the country but the costs of putting on a show caught up with them. Are you thinking of https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoose-2014-tour-profits-67435851ba37 https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoose-2014-tour-profits-... ?

chimeracoder 11y ago

> 1. Independent artists are empowered in the way that they can distribute music in so many places online - getting people to listen is another matter. Even if your music is good marketing it by yourself is very, very hard. Yes... except that the RIAA has the legal authority to collect royalties on behalf of independent artists (that's right, on behalf of artists who haven't even signed to a major label). These artists have to petition the RIAA[0] in order to collect their earnings. Success in this endeavor varies widely; many artists complain that after years of effort they have failed to receive any of their money from the RIAA. This same entity, by the way, has spent exorbitant amounts of money lobbying to (effectively) shut down Internet radio[1]. > Artists need labels. This is true. In fact, artists need major labels, not just labels. But the reason for this is a tautology: they need major labels because we have created (by fiat) a situation in which they cannot operate without the oversight of a major label, whether they want to or not, so they might as well try and enter into a formal relationship so they can actually have standing with them as a client. [0] Technically a former subsidiary that's now "independent" in name only [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange#Lobbying_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange#Lobbying_controv...

6stringmerc 11y ago

Well, I'd like to call shenanigans on your calling BS. 1. Distribution is the first step to social interest and therefore marketability. As in, until a tune gets heard by a marketing person or a film maker or Joe Q. Concert-Goer, it's relatively useless to have a recording. Fundamentally speaking, this is why Radio airplay is considered advertising and not due significant compensation. 2. The source of the money to go on tour is relevant, but not prohibitive. Willie Nelson is/was adamant that every musician needs a very good Jewish lawyer (his words). Contracts and getting paid are extremely important to longevity, whether it be licensing or crafting a tour. 3. I don't see how this point genuinely contradicts the parent assertion. Making a living in music is difficult, it always has been, and adding one additional layer of overhead - a label - is simply that - another layer of overhead. It goes back to having a lawyer / manager / publicist - sure, paying them XX% might seem expensive, but the amount of money that can be obtained as a gross sum will, hopefully, be larger on the net take-home basis. Artists don't need labels - they need publicity. Labels have traditionally worked themselves into all sorts of publicity avenues such as...deep breath...rack jobbers - payola - 360 contract deals - ghost writing / manufacturing pop stars - digital rights management - pay-for-publicity on blogs...there are plenty of examples of labels creating successes and gambling on the small timers that they want to be successful. Now, Sony and Universal Music Group will sign distribution deals with labels for which they have no fiscal kick-back. It's a lesser known process, but essential for getting sh!t on the rack @ Best Buy (see: Macklemore). No, what artists need are equitable channels for distribution and competent management for business affairs. You like Chvrches? I like Chvrches a lot. I especially dig the Soundcloud hat Martin Doherty seems to wear non-stop in gratitude for it being their big break / ability to negotiate their own terms in the modern system...but what excites me the most is what Chance the Rapper is doing along with Donnie Trumpet and the Social Experiment. No label. Free release. Now what? Time will tell.