A new model for record labels?

[Diet Kirk]

This is a very half formed thought, but something struck me the other day about the music industry.

Musicians don't necessarily want to be rich, they just want to be able to live comfortably doing what they love.

Record labels want to be rich and therefore don't always work with the artists best interests at heart. It is a business after all.

The music industry isn't struggling because of piracy, it's struggling for I think a couple of reasons nobody talks about:

1. music is a luxury product, therefore one band/artist is not competing over another for the publics money, it is competing with everything! the cost of food, energy bills, etc, etc. In a global downturn, luxury product purchases are the first things to tail off.

2. labels no longer see themselves as curators of art, instead they focus most of their money on 1 or 2 sure things, which if they don't pan out leave them struggling. This in turn causes them to be unwilling these days to support any artists that they don't believe will guarantee them massive profits, which leads to lowest common demoninator music.


I can't help but feel like there is or should be a better way. Something like an essentially not-for profit record label. Now granted I know very little about the day to day running of a record label, but wouldn't a business model that allows the staff of the label and the artists to all make a reasonable living, operate as some kind of co-operative where they all have a stake in the businesses success, with all profits going straight back in to the running of the label and the signing of new artists, be preferable to what we have now?

The deals could be on a short term basis, with salaries for band members capped and the understanding that the success of all bands is shared. Obviously eventually if one band is having massive success and wants to start leveraging their money making ability, then having a short deal means they can move on when the time is right. Such a label could be seen as a good starting destination for young bands.

It would hopefully allow more bands to exist and sustain themselves and allow them the valuable time to hone their craft without the need for day jobs etc (Which I believe is why we lose hundreds of potential great bands).

Other arts often recieve charitable donations, or patrons who give money in order that art will continue being made. Surely there is a revenue stream out there for future musicians along these lines?

I'm just thinking out loud here, but if I had some investment money (which sadly I don't), I think something like this could be the future of record labels.

 

[larryz]

Good topic. This makes me think of the origin of the Beatles Apple Records label. Conceived in 1968 it's intent was to support artists who the Beatles deemed as good and give them a kickstart, helping them finance a recording and release. They soon found it too time consuming and costly due to mismangement and every Tom Dick & Harry trying to make a name for themselves stopping by the offices. Something to that effect. The Beatles efforts were short-lived and after a year or two the Apple label existed just for release of the Bealtes own solo projects.

Some of these Apple artists did not much of anything in the end and faded from memory. With the exception of two all-time greats - James Taylor and Badfinger.

 

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

You're right on the inherent conservatism of labels. Larger labels tend to bank on a small number of big-selling records.

In the old days, it would have come down to economy of scale. You may as well promote big, or not promote at all.

I would actually take the labels out of it all together and self-publish.

 

[eclipseownzu]

Look into Epitaph Records, that is exactly what they are (were?) all about. I think at some point they may have changed their principles a bit, but originally they were a lable for DIY bands. They would provide distribution and some tour supprt for LA punk bands and never required any multi-record contracts. All that may have changed after the Offspring made them millions, but for a while during the late 80's early 90's they were exactly what you described.

There a ton of micro labels operating today that make very little profit. Most of them are just vehicles for releasing their own bands material, but many have a few bands of a similar genre that all tour together. They are non necessarily non-profit, but they are running on very small margins and are usually run by other musicians who are not just looking to make money from the bands to improve their bottom line.

 

[Diet Kirk]

Look into Epitaph Records, that is exactly what they are (were?) all about. I think at some point they may have changed their principles a bit, but originally they were a lable for DIY bands. They would provide distribution and some tour supprt for LA punk bands and never required any multi-record contracts. All that may have changed after the Offspring made them millions, but for a while during the late 80's early 90's they were exactly what you described.

There a ton of micro labels operating today that make very little profit. Most of them are just vehicles for releasing their own bands material, but many have a few bands of a similar genre that all tour together. They are non necessarily non-profit, but they are running on very small margins and are usually run by other musicians who are not just looking to make money from the bands to improve their bottom line.

I'll definately see if I can find anything out about the Epitaph story, although like you say maybe there came a point where the principals changed due to ther urge/greed/recognition that they could chase bigger money.

The micro-label thing is definately along the right idea, although I myself was once in a band signed to one such label, which was a complete waste of time, but that is probably more particular to them rather than a slight on micro-labels in general. The main problem with them is that at that scale the musicians still struggle to exist.

Firstly a label run by a musician who'se band is also on that label sounds like a bad idea and massive conflict of interest to me. Other bands will always be there purely to further the main bands aims (unless the person running it is extremely morally minded!).

And secondly most industries and countries have minimum wage limits meaning that all jobs carry a guaranteed income. Even sessions and dep gigs and what have you for musicians employ a similar system. What if being in a young band just getting started you signed to a label and you all got paid a salary that was just above minimum wage. You got to record your first album, recieved a touring and promotion budget and that little bit of security that enables you to kick on from there. Sure if your album does really well, you don't see all of the profit, but sharing the wealth with other bands is the trade off for the leg up you recieved.

You're right on the inherent conservatism of labels. Larger labels tend to bank on a small number of big-selling records.

In the old days, it would have come down to economy of scale. You may as well promote big, or not promote at all.

I would actually take the labels out of it all together and self-publish.

Everything has gone the way of mass consumerism, if you can make a buck out of it you can guarantee someone is already somewhere!

I agree for a certain level of band self publishing is a great idea. But for a new young band wouldn't getting a little pile of help, an album recorded and a salary, be that boost that could stop more young bands not getting a decent crack at it?

Good topic. This makes me think of the origin of the Beatles Apple Records label. Conceived in 1968 it's intent was to support artists who the Beatles deemed as good and give them a kickstart, helping them finance a recording and release. They soon found it too time consuming and costly due to mismangement and every Tom Dick & Harry trying to make a name for themselves stopping by the offices. Something to that effect. The Beatles efforts were short-lived and after a year or two the Apple label existed just for release of the Bealtes own solo projects.

Some of these Apple artists did not much of anything in the end and faded from memory. With the exception of two all-time greats - James Taylor and Badfinger.

Completely suffering from their own level of success! I mean I don't know McCartney in person haha, but I am surprised that you don't hear more stories of multi-million pound musicians helping out young bands. These are the people I think should be leveraged to give a little back.

(by the way just so you all know, I'm not angling for someone to create such a label so I can get paid and get my band an album made. I'm not actually in a band anymore and am no longer 'young'!)

 

[bermuda]

Musicians don't necessarily want to be rich, they just want to be able to live comfortably doing what they love.

That's a fairly new paradigm, and not always achievable.

Record labels want to be rich and therefore don't always work with the artists best interests at heart. It is a business after all.

Well, with very few exceptions (Blue Note for Jazz comes to mind), that's always been the case

The music industry isn't struggling because of piracy, it's struggling for I think a couple of reasons nobody talks about:

1. music is a luxury product, ... In a global downturn, luxury product purchases are the first things to tail off.

2. labels no longer see themselves as curators of art, instead they focus most of their money on 1 or 2 sure things

Piracy in the digital age has certainly had a large effect, and I don't mean people trading files. People 'giving away' music has become rampant with the permissiveness of YouTube, who turns a blind eye to the tremendous amount of copyrighted material being made available for free.

But on the label level, again, very few (in modern times) are curators of any kind, they're in business.

And music is available pretty much for free - go to YouTube. Check out the labels' own video sites where they promote new vidoes - and the music - for free. Just stream away.

That's the real problem with the music business and why labels are shrinking. Nobody's buying music! First they stopped buying albums, then they stopped buying singles. If you're listening to a song on your device, what's the difference if you bought it through iTunes, or are streaming it? It's the same, so the 'kids' have stopped buying music.

And because music is 'free', artists have had to devalue what they do. Some even rationalize the new low/no-paying scenario as bringing their music back around to the 'art' of it all.

I can't help but feel like there is or should be a better way. Something like an essentially not-for profit record label.

There's a bunch of those now, though it wasn't their choice.

The deals could be on a short term basis, with salaries for band members capped and the understanding that the success of all bands is shared. ...Such a label could be seen as a good starting destination for young bands.

Salaries?? It doesn't work that way. Back in the day, a band may have received an advance, but that was majorly recupable against sales during the contract period.

I think the young bands are past wanting to be with a label, assuming they're signable. With the exception of the superstars - Beyonce, Justin, Gaga, etc. - music isn't selling. There's no incentive for a label to take on a band that isn't already achieving its own success, and can promise to rocket them to stardom.

Labels can't do what they did even 10 years ago. They're not done, but they will shrink until they become managers of legacy (catalog) product, which is also not selling because it's available as free downloads/streaming.

Other arts often recieve charitable donations, or patrons who give money in order that art will continue being made. Surely there is a revenue stream out there for future musicians along these lines?

I think there are various foundations and donors who help foster music, but it's very niche in the genres they target. But it's still not about being on a label, that can cripple a band's finances, and kill their spirit.

I don't mean to sound like I'm down on labels, or the digital age and all the very cool things it can do for us. One of those things is allowing hopeful bands to promote themselves - happily, also for free - and compete better for attention among many of the other artists & bands who've embraced YouTube, Reverbnation, etc. Indeed, any band can put their music on iTunes, Amazon, etc., where placing their music in 'stores' in the past was just about impossible if you were independent. There are some great opportunities for imaginative bands, and they will probably sell a lot less music than tyhe labels would, and they'll make the same money.

But, it won't be much. That's still reserved for the major artists, and it remains to be seen if a YouTube band can become that big.

In the meantime, the money to be made is in live performing, and that's true for the biggest artists as well.

It's an interesting time right now for indie artists, and mid-level artists who may have an opportunity to do better by breaking away from their label.

Bermuda

 

[bermuda]

It's also important to note how the labels' perceptions have had to change. A band selling 250,000 albums would be considered to be doing very well right now. Ten years ago, that band probably would have been dropped from the label for such poor sales.

There's a serious 'race to zero' going on, music and musicians are being devalued, and everyone accepts it. And it's not just the music business, or a question of companies being competitive and lowering prices/profits. Anyway, I digress.

Artists on labels whose contracts are coming up may choose to go independent. If they've been successful, they will continue to be, and if they've been struggling, they'll certainly be no worse off. They will likely pocket more from otherwise paltry record sales.

As I'd said, it's an interesting time. I'm glad that I'm with an artist whose success is established, and not really dependent on the label selling the music. The real money now is in performing live... actually playing instruments for people who want to hear the music.

I'm just not sure where today's up & coming bands will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years. Maybe careers will be necessarily shorter due to the dynamic and often ephemeral nature of the online world where they'll rely on exposure.

Bermuda

 

[Larry]

Money corrupts the music business. It is more apparent now than ever. Making money is more important than making good music, from a business standpoint. There's the horror right there. It's great that artists don't really need record labels anymore. But that benefit is nullified because only a tiny fraction of people pay for music today. Everything is so different now. The digital age has been the worst thing for the music business I have ever seen.

It will never be like it was before. Good music is hard to find anymore, and the worst music is easily had. Making a living from music will continue to be more difficult as time goes on, JMO. Mainstream music itself is so diluted as to not even be the same "product" anymore. I'm glad I make my money outside of music. Money taints music, always has. It's just so much more apparent now. The whole business just stinks, just about every aspect of it. It's scummy. It's a shame that musicians with such high ideals for music have to wade in the tarpit that is the music business if they want to make a living from it. No thank you, not for me.

The ones who do make a good living from music...guys like Bermuda....are a dying breed. Only people who were well established before the digital age are still working steady it seems. I could be way off in these statements, but this is how it looks from where I'm sitting.

I wonder what would happen if every musician in the world just stopped and refused to participate anymore until things changed. I know this is impossible but I have to wonder what would happen. Would our services go up in value? Or would that kill it forever? If the rules of supply and demand applied, then our services would go up in value. I just don't know how it would actually shake out.

 

[tamadrm]

I completely agree with Bermuda on this.Playing live,is where the money is,buy a band/artist has to achieve a level of popularity,before they can sell tickets to a large venue,where the real money is.

I had thought,the new papadigm was what the Eagles did,with their come back album.They recorded it and sold it directly through Walmart,at a reasonable price,,but with double the amount of material,so basicly,you got a double album,for a single album price.

Led Zepplin manage,Peter Grant,dealt directly with venue owners,and refused low ball offers,and also had complete control of any associated T shirts,and other merchandise.He also got paid in cash....up front

Making a comfortable living playing music is great,but you also need to have health insurance,both medical,dental and prescription drug plan..and a pension plan.How many misicians do you read about,all the time,that die from protracted illness.Musicians getting together to do benefit concerts to help with medical bill,and just give surviving family members some money to live on.

Making art is great,but like it or not,you have to look at the practical side of the business....and a business it is.

Steve B

 

[Diet Kirk]

That's a fairly new paradigm, and not always achievable.



Well, with very few exceptions (Blue Note for Jazz comes to mind), that's always been the case



Piracy in the digital age has certainly had a large effect, and I don't mean people trading files. People 'giving away' music has become rampant with the permissiveness of YouTube, who turns a blind eye to the tremendous amount of copyrighted material being made available for free.

But on the label level, again, very few (in modern times) are curators of any kind, they're in business.

And music is available pretty much for free - go to YouTube. Check out the labels' own video sites where they promote new vidoes - and the music - for free. Just stream away.

That's the real problem with the music business and why labels are shrinking. Nobody's buying music! First they stopped buying albums, then they stopped buying singles. If you're listening to a song on your device, what's the difference if you bought it through iTunes, or are streaming it? It's the same, so the 'kids' have stopped buying music.

And because music is 'free', artists have had to devalue what they do. Some even rationalize the new low/no-paying scenario as bringing their music back around to the 'art' of it all.



There's a bunch of those now, though it wasn't their choice.



Salaries?? It doesn't work that way. Back in the day, a band may have received an advance, but that was majorly recupable against sales during the contract period.

I think the young bands are past wanting to be with a label, assuming they're signable. With the exception of the superstars - Beyonce, Justin, Gaga, etc. - music isn't selling. There's no incentive for a label to take on a band that isn't already achieving its own success, and can promise to rocket them to stardom.

Labels can't do what they did even 10 years ago. They're not done, but they will shrink until they become managers of legacy (catalog) product, which is also not selling because it's available as free downloads/streaming.



I think there are various foundations and donors who help foster music, but it's very niche in the genres they target. But it's still not about being on a label, that can cripple a band's finances, and kill their spirit.

I don't mean to sound like I'm down on labels, or the digital age and all the very cool things it can do for us. One of those things is allowing hopeful bands to promote themselves - happily, also for free - and compete better for attention among many of the other artists & bands who've embraced YouTube, Reverbnation, etc. Indeed, any band can put their music on iTunes, Amazon, etc., where placing their music in 'stores' in the past was just about impossible if you were independent. There are some great opportunities for imaginative bands, and they will probably sell a lot less music than tyhe labels would, and they'll make the same money.

But, it won't be much. That's still reserved for the major artists, and it remains to be seen if a YouTube band can become that big.

In the meantime, the money to be made is in live performing, and that's true for the biggest artists as well.

It's an interesting time right now for indie artists, and mid-level artists who may have an opportunity to do better by breaking away from their label.

Bermuda

It's also important to note how the labels' perceptions have had to change. A band selling 250,000 albums would be considered to be doing very well right now. Ten years ago, that band probably would have been dropped from the label for such poor sales.

There's a serious 'race to zero' going on, music and musicians are being devalued, and everyone accepts it. And it's not just the music business, or a question of companies being competitive and lowering prices/profits. Anyway, I digress.

Artists on labels whose contracts are coming up may choose to go independent. If they've been successful, they will continue to be, and if they've been struggling, they'll certainly be no worse off. They will likely pocket more from otherwise paltry record sales.

As I'd said, it's an interesting time. I'm glad that I'm with an artist whose success is established, and not really dependent on the label selling the music. The real money now is in performing live... actually playing instruments for people who want to hear the music.

I'm just not sure where today's up & coming bands will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years. Maybe careers will be necessarily shorter due to the dynamic and often ephemeral nature of the online world where they'll rely on exposure.

Bermuda

Its definately very interesting to hear someone at the sharp end's thoughts on this, so thanks for indulging me in my panacea for the future!

I hear you regarding youtube and the like, perhaps I am under the misguided assumption that many people simply use those outlets as a means to listen to albums before buying them. Certainly streaming services are still frustrating to me, but then I still buy cds so maybe I'm not best placed to judge.

I'd love to know what the numbers are like of record sales these days in comparison to pre-itunes era.

I know the salaries angle has never been a part of the set-up, but I'm just theorizing that maybe it could/should be? Alternatively maybe everything is working out as it should and bands are perfectly happy with the new world order of things!

I just know of too many bands who whilst trying to juggle a day job with the day to day admin fight of running a band decided to jack it all in. I truly believe artists should be able to focus on perfecting their craft and writing songs, not chasing gigs and setting up crowdfunding websites to try and drive per-sales so they can actually record their album. these are the things I always assumed was the beauty of being signed to a label. I suppose I'm wondering if there isn't a way to do this without relying on the bank of mum and dad.

I used to think that the cream always rises to the top, but I just don't think thats true now. Too many good bands have fallen by the wayside, at least in the genres of music I listen to.

I totally agree with the live performance side of things and I think that is the best thing for everyone, provided young bands are smart about what they do early on, its a while discussion on its own the pitfalls of pay to play gigs etc.

You are right though its certainly going to be an interesting few years!

 

[Diet Kirk]

Money corrupts the music business. It is more apparent now than ever. Making money is more important than making good music, from a business standpoint. There's the horror right there. It's great that artists don't really need record labels anymore. But that benefit is nullified because only a tiny fraction of people pay for music today. Everything is so different now. The digital age has been the worst thing for the music business I have ever seen.

It will never be like it was before. Good music is hard to find anymore, and the worst music is easily had. Making a living from music will continue to be more difficult as time goes on, JMO. Mainstream music itself is so diluted as to not even be the same "product" anymore. I'm glad I make my money outside of music. Money taints music, always has. It's just so much more apparent now. The whole business just stinks, just about every aspect of it. It's scummy. It's a shame that musicians with such high ideals for music have to wade in the tarpit that is the music business if they want to make a living from it. No thank you, not for me.

The ones who do make a good living from music...guys like Bermuda....are a dying breed. Only people who were well established before the digital age are still working steady it seems. I could be way off in these statements, but this is how it looks from where I'm sitting.

I wonder what would happen if every musician in the world just stopped and refused to participate anymore until things changed. I know this is impossible but I have to wonder what would happen. Would our services go up in value? Or would that kill it forever? If the rules of supply and demand applied, then our services would go up in value. I just don't know how it would actually shake out.

Or is it time for a revolution driven by musicians to change the business model for young bands? Come on, it sounds like you are with me here?

Lets ignore the fact that a cede a number of points to Bermuda as to why a revolution might not even be what musicians want!

 

[Diet Kirk]

I completely agree with Bermuda on this.Playing live,is where the money is,buy a band/artist has to achieve a level of popularity,before they can sell tickets to a large venue,where the real money is.

I had thought,the new papadigm was what the Eagles did,with their come back album.They recorded it and sold it directly through Walmart,at a reasonable price,,but with double the amount of material,so basicly,you got a double album,for a single album price.

Led Zepplin manage,Peter Grant,dealt directly with venue owners,and refused low ball offers,and also had complete control of any associated T shirts,and other merchandise.He also got paid in cash....up front

Making a comfortable living playing music is great,but you also need to have health insurance,both medical,dental and prescription drug plan..and a pension plan.How many misicians do you read about,all the time,that die from protracted illness.Musicians getting together to do benefit concerts to help with medical bill,and just give surviving family members some money to live on.

Making art is great,but like it or not,you have to look at the practical side of the business....and a business it is.

Steve B

I agree to a point Steve, but the majority of these stories of how bands are adapting to the changing market are all bands that already have a name and some prestige. What about the bottom of the ladder, the young bands have are just about ready to move on from playing in their garages?

Its becoming a real issue here in London in the UK, that the cost of living is so high that artists of all types are being driven out of the capital, musicians especially are struggling, and often only those willing to sponge off their parents (ie have rich enough parents to begin with) can survive. What on earth happened to music providing a voice for the young and disenfranchised who gather together in major cities and create scenes of like minded individuals?

 

[DrumEatDrum]

To me the issue started even before the net. If you read "The Hit Men" it covers, among other things, how record labels went from being run by music men to being run for the single purpose of driving the stock price.

Some of the biggest records in history were made by bands who initially either flopped, or did very little early in their careers. Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors" sold 45 million, but it was also their 11th album. 8 of their previous 10 albums hadn't done much in sales. Journey out put 3 albums that bombed, a 4th that was a minor hit, their 5th finally turned a profit, and their 8th album made them a #1 selling band. And the examples go on and on.

But in the 90's, labels stopped developing talent over time. If you didn't have a hit out of the gate, you were dropped. If you're first album was great, but the 2nd one bombed, you could be dropped. Trends became more fickle, and A&R men were less willing to take risks on long term investments for big payoffs.

The other aspect is music is a very saturated market. In the 70's, a the average music buyer could only know about a band from the radio, or word of mouth. Money was funneled toward specific acts who got radio play. In the 80's, it expanded via MTV, and later tape trading. But still, the average music buyer only had so much to pick from, so there was a better chance of any one band selling a decent number of copies.

Today,
http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html

100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute

How much of that is original music? I don't know. Let's be conservative and say .05%, of an average song lasting 4 minutes. That's 100hours*.05%= 30 minutes, divide 1 hour by 4 minute = 7.5 songs per minute.

There are 1440 minutes in a day, which means roughly 10,800 songs are uploaded every day.

Even if you think that's high, fine, call it 500 songs a day.

Anyway you slice it, there are a lot of bands out there trying to get the consumers attention. Which means even the money spent of music gets very spread out very thin.

I was pondering making a thread on this article:
http://m.classicrockmagazine.com/blog/is-this-the-end-of-rock/

Album sales are down, festivals are headlined by an ever-decreasing pool of ageing bands, and the music industry is crumbling. Are we really looking at the end of rock music?

But an interesting number is thrown out there:

In 2011, of all the individual MP3s purchased online, 74% sold fewer than 10 copies each,

If that number is verifiable, I don't know. However:

Itunes claims to have sold roughly 5 billion songs in 2011.
They also claim to have a catalog over 26 million songs.

Which works out to an average of approximately 192 copies of any one song sold.

I still buy music. But most of the music I buy is by smaller bands, who I know do not sell that much in total. My last band didn't sell that many copies in total, but ohmygod, we sold all around the world. We got orders from Japan to Brazil to the Netherlands. We were an international sensation! To a very select group of people anyway.

So between the numbers and my personal experience, 74% of all mp3 sales selling fewer than 10 copies each is perhaps not that far off.

Kids might not spend as much money on albums as they used to, but when they do spent money, it's spread out over a much, much, much, much wider variety of bands, making it difficult for any one band to sustain themselves.

 

[bermuda]

... perhaps I am under the misguided assumption that many people simply use those outlets as a means to listen to albums before buying them.

I think being able to audition songs on an album before I buy it is great! I wish that had been around years ago when I bought a LOT of albums because I liked one song, then hated the rest. A complete waste of $5, 6, and eventually $15 just for one good song.

But auditioning a song means hearing a 30 or 45 sec sample to know what it sounds like, and Amazon and iTunes know this well. It doesn't mean streaming the entire song, like 'fans' of artists are doing on YouTube in the name of helping promote the artist. Right. At that point, why buy the song? You've just listened to it for free, and it's available anytime to stream on tour favorite internet-capable device. There's no reason to own the song, or so think the people who are beginning to view music as free, like the internet is.

I'd love to know what the numbers are like of record sales these days in comparison to pre-itunes era.

Apart from being able to pick and choose songs instead of automatically buying an album, iTtunes hasn't really hurt sales. They're not giving full songs away, and sales count towards label revenue, artist payments, and chart positions.

But record/song sales of any kind are absolutely down from where they were. Al's most recent album was his worst-seller... and his highest charting! Alpocalypse was #9 on the Billboard top-200 albums chart. Sure it's just numbers, and everyone's sales are down, but that translates into less money for everyone. I know Al would rather have sold the usual 500,000-1 million units, and landed lower on the charts. That was certainly the case in the 'old' days, and 10 out of the last 13 albums achieved gold or platinum status. Videos and greatest hits CDs too.

I know the salaries angle has never been a part of the set-up, but I'm just theorizing that maybe it could/should be? Alternatively maybe everything is working out as it should and bands are perfectly happy with the new world order of things!

Where is the salary supposed to come from? Certainly not song sales! Touring? Well, labels are typically not involved in a band's touring, and if they are, they take a cut. the band should be out playing themselves, and make the money anyway.

I'm not saying bands aren't good enough to sell records, I'm saying records aren't selling like they used to, and it's a downward spiral. And a band with a chance to sell a lot of pop records isn't likely to embrace that anyway (meaning, real artists refuse to 'sell out'.)

I just know of too many bands who whilst trying to juggle a day job with the day to day admin fight of running a band decided to jack it all in. I truly believe artists should be able to focus on perfecting their craft and writing songs, not chasing gigs and setting up crowdfunding websites to try and drive per-sales so they can actually record their album. these are the things I always assumed was the beauty of being signed to a label.

Day jobs have been around forever. And things like Kickstarter are pretty cool, I know several artists/bands who've done very well with that. It's part of the new paradigm of being independent, although there's still the competition of gettuing people to fund your band instaed of someone else's.

As for being able to pursue one's art without financial woe, if the players don't get jobs, where does that money come from? (Again, it's not the labels.)

I used to think that the cream always rises to the top, but I just don't think thats true now. Too many good bands have fallen by the wayside, at least in the genres of music I listen to.

Then that's the bands' fault for not wanting to put their art out there. If you - or they - are waiting for a label to promote them, good luck. It's essentially free to be on YouTube, Reverbnation, iTunes, etc. There's no excuse for a motivated band to not be heard. As for whether people like them, that's another story, and nothing to do with a label being able to change that.

I agree that it would be great if labels behaved the way they did decades ago when they nurtured and guided talent. They could even market artists who might not have great talent, but were able to sell records. But without record sales, the labels can't do much, and are more hesitant than ever to sign a band that needs cultivating. That's not their business anymore. They can't afford it.

Seriously, if you knew how many layoffs have been occuring at the majors over the last couple of years, you'd be shocked. It's not because they did anything wrong or are greedy. It's the music buyers that have changed it all by changing the way they get their music. They've been getting it for free thanks to YouTube members posting full songs, full albuls, TV shows, etc, with their cute little disclaimer that apparently protects them from copyright violation. It's just unbelievable.

I think YT has done more to hurt record sales than file sharing ever did, and now it's become the norm. "Hey, we're going to learn a new cover song, you can listen to it on YouTube." Jeez

Bermuda

 

[Diet Kirk]

Drum eat Drum - That article is a really good read. The question I think we need to ask though is in response to the bit in the end, the Dave Grohl quote.

I think we need to ask what is inhibiting bands being able to write music that is that good. I genuinly believe there has to be a way to provide a financial system to allow artists to be artists and have time to create without fear of not eating!

Like you point out, it takes time and nurturing to bread a band that can sell 45 million records!

 

[bermuda]

I should add a projection I've had for a few years. That is, while being signed won't be a big deal anymore, bands will vie for positioning on iTunes, Reverbnation, etc splash pages, and I suspect that a lot of people being ousted from labels will end up working with those online vendors. Basically, bands will be playing the same game with the same people, just to get better promotion online. There'll be payment plans for preferred positioning on a page, just like Google has been doing for years.

iTunes and the like will be the new labels. Perhaps there'll be room for new vendors/labels, but they won't be developing talent or paying bandmember salaries. It all still boils down to being able to sell the music, and as long as YouTube (in particular) permits complete works to be given away, music won't have monetary value.

Bermuda

 

[bermuda]

I think we need to ask what is inhibiting bands being able to write music that is that good. I genuinly believe there has to be a way to provide a financial system to allow artists to be artists and have time to create without fear of not eating!

I don't think a day job inhibits an artist from being creative. If that's all it takes to kill their spirit, they don't have it to begin with. And what about all the full-time artists who still write bad music?

Let me put it another way. I assume most members here have a day job. I know that cuts into your playing time somewhat, but is your desire to play music diminished? Maybe your passion even greater as a result of not being able to play full-time?

Starving for one's art is highly over-rated, and there's really no need for that. Players and writers and singers work day jobs all the time and are eating just fine. If being employed is all it takes to hold someone back, then they need to step aside for the person who really wants it.

Bermuda

 

[DrumEatDrum]

What's interesting is in 2012, sales were at an all time high.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/music-sales-2012-digital-physical_n_2440380.html

The report found that total music purchases (physical albums, digital albums and digital songs) totaled an all-time high of 1.65 billion units in 2012, a rise of 3.1 percent over 2011

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ard’s-2012-Music-Industry-Report#.UuvcRLTfLUA

“Overall music purchases surpassed 1.65 billion units in 2012, up 3.1% vs. the previous record high set in 2011, driven by digital music sales, which continue be a key growth element within the market,” said David Bakula, SVP Client Development, Nielsen. “Digital Album sales are up 14.1% and Digital Track sales are up 5.1%, but despite being down 12.8%, physical is still the dominant album format.

There is a bit of a contradictory information.
Every band and artist is saying their sales are down.
Yet sales as whole reached a record high in 2011 and 2012, albeit they did decline in 2013.

Bermuda is quite correct, at one point in time, sales of 250,000 copes would be considered a disappointment, and now that same 250,000 copies is considered a hit album. A hit record now sells 1/4 of what a hit record used to.

So how are sales of hit albums down to a fraction of what they used to be when total sales are up?

It appears to go back to there are just MORE bands/artists in the market place.
You don't need a label to release an album. Thus, the market is flooded with music.

 

[tamadrm]

I agree to a point Steve, but the majority of these stories of how bands are adapting to the changing market are all bands that already have a name and some prestige. What about the bottom of the ladder, the young bands have are just about ready to move on from playing in their garages?

Its becoming a real issue here in London in the UK, that the cost of living is so high that artists of all types are being driven out of the capital, musicians especially are struggling, and often only those willing to sponge off their parents (ie have rich enough parents to begin with) can survive. What on earth happened to music providing a voice for the young and disenfranchised who gather together in major cities and create scenes of like minded individuals?

I think,going from garage to success is a lot longer road.There are dues to pay,and things to learn on the road.There's a big gap that has to be filled first.Billy Joel,refused to help his Daugher Alexa ,just segway into a singing career.He wanted her to earn it.like he did.

You start small,and work at your craft,and if you stick to it,failure after failure,toughen up,and have the right stuff,then something may or may not happen for you.

I know some really talanted musicians.writers,singers,that just never made it.I've also seen people of little talent(in my opinion) go on to be stars,and make millions(JustinBeber)That's just the way of the world,and just another aspect of the music business.

Steve B

 

[eclipseownzu]

I have more insight into this argument than I wish I had. I am in an original rock band that has completely gone the DIY route to make and distribute our music. We have recorded an album ourselves, luckily the guitarist works at a studio so we basically recorded for free. We have completed the music and are in the process of figuring out the proper distribution channels.

After that NOTHING is free. Reverbnation is a great example, in order to apply for their opportunities you have to pay, to be a featured artist you have to pay, to look for gigs you have to pay, everything has a price. To get distribution on itunes, google play, spotify, you have to pay. To get gigs you have to sell tickets, so to have my wife come to my show I have to pay. Everything has a price, except the music or course, that is expected to be free.

People are still making money off musicians its just the people making the money that have changed. I can tell you that any upcoming, original band is PAYING their dues in every sense of the word!