the music industry: victim of the profit motive?

TheGroceryman

Silver Member
I've been thinking lately, since that pirating thread came up, more about the music business, and i'd like your input on something i believe pretty strongly about.

Capitalism is a great thing IMO. The ability to give people freedom to do whatever they want, how they want to do it, in order to live the American Dream is a great hope for which to strive. But can it go too far? Specifically relating to the music industry, has capitalism destroyed the quality of music? I'd say it has, unfortunately. The music industry has been a tough tough business to be successful in. This occurred from a variety of reasons (see the pirating thread...) and in an effort to get ahead in the industry I think artists have been holding back their creative edge in order to make uninspired, catchy tunes that continually sound the same. While uninspired artists gain massive popularity due to their "good" music, real talent get washed away on the local streets for the minority to admire.

Am i sounding stupid here? what do you guys think.
 
No, I don't agree with that. First off, capitalism is not at all about "giving people freedom to do whatever they want." Far from it. Capitalism is about selling products for profit, period. It's about limiting people's freedom of choice. Flood the market with your product and what choices do people have but to buy it?

As far as its impact on music is concerned I don't see that either. There are a lot of people making really good money from music these days, lots of money. They're making that money because the product they produce sells. That's capitalism, and "uninspired" artists don't have a chance in this business. You just don't get anywhere by "holding back."

Quality music, I'm not sure what that means because you have your idea of what quality music is and I have mine. But vision and intellect don't just disappear because some pop star's marketing machine is moving millions of units. Quality music is available no matter what your tastes are. It's just a little more difficult to find.

Making an enemy of the music business is a big, big mistake. Seeing it for what it is will never hurt anyone's creativity or artistry. If you want to be a star then the system is in place for you to run yourself through it, hoping for the best and listening to people who think that they might be able to make some money by backing you to some degree. If musical integrity is the most important thing to you then that's just something you need to take responsibility for. Make a good product and put it out on the market. Of course big money will always win, but that's capitalism, and money has nothing to do with music.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there's any lack of talent or good music our there. It all depends on where you source it from. My likes-to-dislikes ratio is the same as it was 10, 20, 30 and 40+ years ago.

If anyone can be blamed for the profileration of "uninspired, catchy tunes that continually sound the same" it's the youth that buys it, and that responds in-kind by reproducing said music for their peers and the next generation.

How different is it than the Beatles and other pop/rock groups in the sixties, where jazz, big band, crooner, and country lovers said basically the same thing about 'that' music?

In hindsight, we realize how indeed wonderful and timeless so much of it remains. Perhaps in 30 years, dance and rap and teen pop will viewed with the same nostalgia.

Bermuda
 
Nope.

For most the history of the music business, long term investment was still understood.

Labels were willing to invest heavily into bands for long term profit.

For example: The first three Rush albums didn't turn a profit. The 4th album made them stars. Their eight studio album made them legends.

Journey's first three albums bombed, their 4th gave them hope, their 5th album turned a profit. Their 8th studio album made them legends.

Fleetwood Mac first 8 albums were minor sellers until they struck a major hit that made them one of the best selling bands of the 70s'.

It wasn't until the late 80's, and mostly in the 90's, when labels stopped investing in long term bands. Then it just became about have a hit right away, or get off the label.

Capitalism didn't change the outlook from long term to short term, changes in corporate philosophy did. One could argue if the labels were better capitalists, they'd do better with long term investments.

As for the piracy angle, that is an issue world wide, regardless of economic structure.
 
For most the history of the music business, long term investment was still understood.

Labels were willing to invest heavily into bands for long term profit.

What labels were these that were investing long-term into bands for most of the history of the music business? I mean, big labels with that kind of money didn't exist for most of the history of the music business. It was usually one or two guys who took out a second mortgage on their houses to put records out.
 
Last edited:
What labels were these that were investing long-term into bands for most of the history of the music business? I mean, big labels with that kind of money didn't exist for most of the history of the music business. It was usually one or two guys who took out a second mortgage on their houses to put records out.

i wouldn't say that back in the late 60's record companies were doing "long-term investing" in bands per se financially, but they sure gave a lot of them time to establish their place in the business and not give them the boot because their first and/or second album didn't sell a million copies.

bands like Cream, Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Chicago Transit Authority, Blood, Sweat and Tears, and a lot of others from that era probably wouldn't be given the same chance to grow in today's business. either you get a/some hits right out of the gate or you're selling shoes in a WalMart in the near future.

today it's all about milking the cash cow for what it's worth before the udder runs dry. developing and working a band/talent is not what it used to be in this day and age. which is all the more reason why today it's the music "business" and NOT the business of music.
 
What labels were these that were investing long-term into bands for most of the history of the music business? I mean, big labels with that kind of money didn't exist for most of the history of the music business. It was usually one or two guys who took out a second mortgage on their houses to put records out.

In the examples I gave.

I.E. it was common practice in the 60s/70s/ and even part of the 80's that if a bands 1st album didn't sell, (major) labels would still invest in a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th album until the band broke and turned a profit.

From the 90s onward, if a band didn't turn a profit right away, the label would drop a band like yesterday's newspaper.

Much of this change corresponded with Mo Ostin being forced out of Warner Brothers in the 90, and the consolidation of various labels that occurred around that time, although the changes were certainly not limited to the WEA family of labels.

Granted, bands were still signed to un fair deals, some bands were signed strickly for the tax write offs with no hope of getting released, and all sorts of other problems, but at least there was still active band development.

Labels cry over lack of sales, but they don't bother to put in the effort to make those sales. Some of the biggest selling albums in history were by bands who were not particularly popular in the beggining.

The biggest example is Pink Floyd. While they had some minor pop hits around their 1st album, for the most part they released album after album that were not big sellers. But despite their relative lack of success, the label kept investing money into new recordings.This paid off with Dark Side of the Moon, one of the most popular albums of all time.

That just does not happen anymore with the majors.
 
Last edited:
Since discovering that the wildly uncommercial band, Henry Cow, are on YouTube I've been reading up about their drummer, Chris Cutler. In this interview he has some interesting things to say about the music industry.

Some quotes:

Chris: We had our own PA system, lights and a bus for us (with kitchen equipment and bunks for sleeping) and a Lorry for all the equipment. So we were completely self contained. Then we organised all our own administrative affairs, tours and finances and acted as our own management and agency. All the money that came to the group we spent according to unanimous decisions made at meetings - on necessities (like repairs).

We didn’t pay ourselves until the last two years, and then the amounts were symbolic. Eventually we even released our own records, becoming to all intents and purposes completely dislocated from the usual support networks and exploitation machines.


Interviewer: [quoting from the Rock In Opposition statement] ... 'The music industry makes all its decisions on the basis of Profit & Prestiege... they have ears only for the rustling of money, hearts which only pump with the blood of murdered.'

Do you think the climate within the industry is any different today? If not, what's needed to better the situation?

Chris: If not the same, worse - big companies don't take anyone on for musical reasons; music is an investment which has to pay back with interest. Nothing is needed to better the situation - who WANTS the industry to have anything to do with our work? Better they keep their sticky hands off. I think we can look after ourselves best. In the satellite economy we are able more or less to control without too much compromise.


Interviewer: When the punk movement sprang up, did you feel that they were suitably anti-establishment (as Cow and RIO) or were they just co-opted?

Chris: There was something real happening on the ground, but what surfaced and the way it surfaced was almost wholly and immediately coopted by a failing record industry looking for new blood to suck and new markets to create and exploit. Most 'punk' bands turned out to be middle class art students.

‘Oi’ bands - who stayed 'punk' after the fashion faded- were political fascists -that was too grim for the fresh out of college guys in the music press who ‘discovered’ and hyped up Punk to contemplate by. In other words: confusion. One the punks had kicked the door in the ‘New Wave’ rapidly colonised the opened space.

Underneath it all was a great revolution of independent production and a head clearing attitude to music - although not so much of this saw the commercial light of day. Its good effects however are still with us, and this is it’s important legacy: the moves toward independence, sexual equality and stylistic diversity. The Sex Pistols and other money hoovers had nothing at all to do with this.
 
lol. im drunk/whyatever so i cant rea;;y respond atm, i'll edit this post in the morning.. :))

do i agree? NO!


MOTHERFUDGING EDIT

we're talking about pop music. when has that ever been good? LOL. pop music was good in like the 60s/70s man, you know when musicians could actually play their instruments. actually i'm joking when i say that, in the UK chart music is quite ok, and musicians are actually amazing nowadays. it's just that the US marketplace is a festering heap of shit if i'm honest.
we have such a wide variety of stuff over here, and most of it isn't autotuned T-pain wannabes! that isn't saying that good music sells the most copies in the UK, ofcourse it doesn't, but it sells enough to sustain an artist! plus no one should be relying on album/single sales alone anymore.

there are TONS of good bands/artists right now, and they can all make decent livings for themselves. i could go into london, do a 360 degree turn in a random street and probably find 3 or 4 bands that could all be at SXSW if it actually mattered to them. all unsigned/on small indies, doing most of the work for themselves. is it hard? yes. is it impossible? no!

just because you don't hear these artists constantly on the radio doesn't mean they aren't there. infact the radio is dying. for example, in the UK the BBC is about to cutback some of its services (including the best one, 6 music - http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Save-6-Music/318069702319?ref=ts

well guess what? that group may only have 70k fans, but if all those fans then move onto a streaming site, then that is a huge source of revenue for the site operator, and for the bands involved. and that will happen, trust me! it already is as we speak! streaming will kill radio. stone cold. and it will be a good thing, because then you won't have to listen to major record company playlists!

go on last.fm , type in your favourite band , listen to their 'radio station' - it will just be tons of bands like them! and if you like the original band then there is a chance you'll like the secondary. and if you don't then it doesn't matter, you can skip the song anyway.
write them all down in a notepad, pick the top 5 bands (on personal taste/music quality NOT hits), go and watch them at a gig. if you like them then buy a t-shirt. if you really like them then buy one of their CD's from them personally.

http://blog.varsity.co.uk/entertain.../14-most-anticipated-upcoming-albums-of-2010/

the music business is a tough industry to survive in if you're mediocre. if you're a good band with a good manager and a good marketing strategy then you will be fine. if you suck? then give up now because even if all the major's burned down tomorrow it would not get any easier. infact it would be much harder for the majority of people!

i realise you're not talking specifically about the future, but i am. there will always be 'poor' quality music in the charts, but people obviously like it enough to buy it. but if you're a good band/artist/producer/DJ then people will buy your shit too!
i may have missed the point/your poin entirely, but whatever, i felt like i needed too.
 
Last edited:
Granted, bands were still signed to un fair deals, some bands were signed strickly for the tax write offs with no hope of getting released, and all sorts of other problems, but at least there was still active band development.

.

Yes, good point.
Labels will also sign a similar artist to an artist they are pushing so their preferred artist doesn't have competition. And the similar artist's career goes in the tank.

If one wants to go into the music business, I think one should get a bit business savvy and beware. Many artists, even the famous ones, have gotten themselves in trouble signing contracts early in their careers that gave most everything away.

The wonderful things about Capitalism is that it has given us a lot and a very high standard of living. And you need capital and a lot of it to do anything in music. it's an expensive hobby, as well. lol

Capitalism gives us so much music, more so than anybody needs. And most people need so little, 20-30 cds on the shelf, two or three a year is all they need. And they are very happy to turn on the radio and listen inattentively. I've met people at shows that have seen Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen or The Moody Blues over two hundred times. I don't think there is anyone I could sit through that many times. I mean I've seen those artists about a half dozen times each over the years and never need to go again. :)

The most important thing an artist can do is cultivate an audience and then really give that audience something to come back for. Your music becomes a part of their life. look at Jimmy Buffett.
 
anyone who thinks things like "band development" were not different in the 1970s versus now...is completely believing a fairy tale.

Rush is a good example....and the members themselves have been quoted often as to how a band is simply not given the same chances as they were in those days...and Rush is just one example.Heck...most bands you can think of from the 70s were in the same boat including Fleetwood Mac who broke it HUGE with Rumors...and even they will tell you the same thing. How about KISS...yet another band it took 4 albums before anything financially started happening.

I won't say you should toss your hands in the air...but things are quite a bit different...it is also true that the "recprd deal" does not exist anymore...it just is not the same ballgame.
 
Yes, good point.
Labels will also sign a similar artist to an artist they are pushing so their preferred artist doesn't have competition. And the similar artist's career goes in the tank.

If one wants to go into the music business, I think one should get a bit business savvy and beware. Many artists, even the famous ones, have gotten themselves in trouble signing contracts early in their careers that gave most everything away.

The wonderful things about Capitalism is that it has given us a lot and a very high standard of living. And you need capital and a lot of it to do anything in music. it's an expensive hobby, as well. lol

Capitalism gives us so much music, more so than anybody needs. And most people need so little, 20-30 cds on the shelf, two or three a year is all they need. And they are very happy to turn on the radio and listen inattentively. I've met people at shows that have seen Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen or The Moody Blues over two hundred times. I don't think there is anyone I could sit through that many times. I mean I've seen those artists about a half dozen times each over the years and never need to go again. :)

The most important thing an artist can do is cultivate an audience and then really give that audience something to come back for. Your music becomes a part of their life. look at Jimmy Buffett.

Bruce is another one. His 1st two albums initially sold poorly. But the label stayed behind him, and now he has 120 million world wide sales to his credit.

Of course, now his 2st two albums are considered classics, but that's only because later fans went back and bought them later on.

If Columbia (now Sony) signed a guy today, and his first album sold poorly, he'd never get to make his 2nd one.
 
Bruce is another one. His 1st two albums initially sold poorly. But the label stayed behind him, and now he has 120 million world wide sales to his credit.

Of course, now his 2st two albums are considered classics, but that's only because later fans went back and bought them later on.

If Columbia (now Sony) signed a guy today, and his first album sold poorly, he'd never get to make his 2nd one.

In the other now infamous thread, you and I fought, I think that when it comes down to it, you and I agree on a lot of things. What you're saying is exactly what Pat Metheny is concerned about.
 
In the other now infamous thread, you and I fought, I think that when it comes down to it, you and I agree on a lot of things. What you're saying is exactly what Pat Metheny is concerned about.

We fought? I thought it was just a disagreement over who's turn it was to buy the next beer. :p

Almost every agreed G is crap, the only argument was over how to classify how much crap it was. But whatever.

Your name is familiar. I see you spent some time in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd swear we once met. lol
 
We fought? I thought it was just a disagreement over who's turn it was to buy the next beer. :p

Almost every agreed G is crap, the only argument was over how to classify how much crap it was. But whatever.

Your name is familiar. I see you spent some time in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd swear we once met. lol

I share a name with a well known tv actor.

I used to play with a trio a that little club on McCallister and Gough; but I can't imagine you ever saw us.
 
There was a Guitar Center at Market and Van Ness.
 
I think artists have been holding back their creative edge in order to make uninspired, catchy tunes that continually sound the same. While uninspired artists gain massive popularity due to their "good" music, real talent get washed away on the local streets for the minority to admire.

I have said this for years, but imagine if the visual arts allowed self appointed know-it-alls and "experts" to cut and paste all over Van Gogh or Picasso's works, because they knew more than the artist themselves about what the public REALLY appreciated in the world of art. That is the music business in a nutshell. And now they seem to think musicians are totally expendable - have you heard the rythm section in pop music lately? The mechanical drums and bass sound like they were programmed by elementary school students (you no longer hear human drummers or bass players except in rock - it's all cheezy programmed simple beats and simple bass riffs). They are in such a quest to save money, they have brought music down to it's lowest form of prostitution ever. They are strangling the whole art of music.
 
Strangelove is right on....it goes on in music...and it goes on other places...TV for example....let's admit it .Doing a "reality show" which has nothing to do with reality at all is a cheap cost cutting way of creating a "show". It's junk...but for some reason no one gets angered enough to change it. Lot's of Pop music consists of horrible "rhythm sections" that are not even players. It is ridiculous-the musical equivalent of a semi- rhythmic broken air conditioner with some beeps and bloops and cheesy video-sound effects with a completely auto tuned vocal line ( thank you Cher for starting this bull**it)....there is so much of this crap out there....and I won't even call it music...it's junk. Absolute junk

And I not referring to the band Garbage who I happened to have liked alot...there was intelligence behind what they did...and it sounded good. You never felt you were being robbed by them nor that your own brain was being drained with each beat.LL Cool J was 100% more creative...talented ...funny...and entertaining as ANY of the rap that comes out today...that is just one example.

It's low brow -do-it as cheap as possible stuff in most Pop music. Which is why I won't pay any attention anymore to what is supposed to be "big"...that goes for reality TV too...I don't have the time for it. At all.
 
Where there's economic rationalism there is soullessness. Very little love or passion.

Top 40, TV, production line art, food, literature ... all the joys of life reduced to 2D ciphers of what they could be. There's always been this cynical element around but my impression is that it's either increasing as a proportion of total output or there's a greater concentration of it at the forefront of the media. Probably both.

Thank Deity for the web. Great music can be easily found - just a web search away.
 
Back
Top