What value does the music industry add to artist's work...?

[mike_c]

I was just thinking about the recent efforts to pass SOPA and PIPA, and the federal actions against "pirate" web sites, and it occurred to me that the "record industry," or whatever it calls itself today, has gone the way of medical insurance companies, i.e. it has ceased to add anything of value to the products it doesn't actually create and become primarily a parasite on artists and consumers alike. One that is now fighting to maintain its attachment to it's host because there's still some profit to be sucked out.

The industry used to provide a valuable service. Recording equipment was expensive, and sound recording expertise was in relatively short supply. One went to studios, many of which were run by record companies in one form or another-- or which depended upon them for business-- in order to create recordings for sale, and the record companies also provided the means to make and distribute the copies. That required an industrial base of sorts, and a marketing and distribution network.

None of those things are strictly necessary any longer. I know musicians who do professional quality recording with a laptop, some software, and a few pieces of off the shelf audio equipment. This guy does it in his van, while driving around the country: http://www.tosimplify.net/

What value does the recording industry add to artists' work today? I presume they still maintain some sort of publicity and distribution networks, but those would seem easily replaced with existing technology and custom, e.g. via artists' own online presence.

[Enrique]

1. they make sure that only the most talented artists get heard

[Hugabear]

3. Lol - explains why 90% of what you hear on the radio sounds the same

Doesn't matter if it's rock, hip-hop, alternative, country - listen to most radio stations for about an hour, most of what you'll hear will be indistinguishable.

[HughBeaumont]

7. Like I said about Vh1s "Top 100 songs of the 2000s":

Between AutoTune, various songwriting factories, Pro Tools and the indistinguishable sound of male and female pop vocalists in the modern era, how could they tell one song from another??

[Edweird]

20. Ok, what does ProTools have to do with this?

It's just a DAW.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. You had me there for a sec!

Good one!

The music (distribution) industry used to perform an invaluable service to artists, the vast majority of whom are not remotely capable of handling the distribution of their (physical) products themselves should they be lucky enough to grow beyond a local fanbase. Even today, that's a benefit...but probably only to the tiny handful of mega-stars whose physical media sales are actually large enough to be a distribution challenge. The rest of us? The tiny levels of "hardcopy" sales can be easily dealt with ourselves, sad to say.

There is even less need of outside assistance with digital distribution. Services like TuneCore can get your music onto pretty much every paid download service for a very low cost. Other sites where you can charge for recordings are often part of a broader music-oriented site on which you'rte going to want to have a presence anyway (Reverb Nation, Bandcamp, etc.).

As has been pointed out, musicians can do pro-quality recording themselves these days, even those who use mostly "analog" instruments. Industry help with the cost of expensive recording studios is less necessary than ever.

It's no secret that pirate downloads hurt the industry end of things more than the artist end...but let's not pretend that the vast majority of artists don't suffer from it, too. Music as a profession has never been harder to pull off, and illegal downloading is a contributor to that. That practice isn't going to stop, and every "cure" I've seen proposed to curb it (like SOPA, etc.) is far, far worse than the disease. But people who steal music should at least be honest with themselves about what they're doing.

[Occulus]

18. I see what you did there

[randome]

2. Doesn't matter what they add.

If the industry is set up to sell things a certain way, that's the way it is.

On the other hand, I download stuff all the time and never pay a dime because I just don't give a shit about 'em! But I don't make excuses for myself, either.

[msongs]

10. yeah something for nothing rules - btw people who need something down the road

can't feel bad when the response is "I just don't give a s***...".

[GReedDiamond]

26. "On the other hand, I download stuff all the time and never pay a dime...

...because I just don't give a shit about 'em!"

I'm guessing the "'em" you are referring to not only includes the "industry," but also includes the artists the "industry" profits from (or not).

Music may come free to you, or to other free(down)loaders, but not so much for the people who created it.

Your attitude is offensive to all those who actually create music, whether they be corporately backed, or self-produced independent artists.

"Excuses" do not matter, whether you have one, or not.

[thelordofhell]

4. They used to have the best model for distribution and advertising

Now they are being destroyed by the internet model. Downloading (legal, and unfortunately, illegal) has killed the brick and mortar entertainment business. But quite frankly, the industry wanted to phase out the record store anyway. Back in the 70's and 80's it was quite normal to have an industry rep come around to your store to chat about and give out posters and flats for their artists. In the late 80's early 90's they phased out that function completely because they were squirreling away their cash because CD sales were declining (people didn't have to replace their record/tape collection anymore) and the internet was starting to eat into their business model. By the 00's the industry was full bore into suing their customers and casual users to try to get the pirates that were mostly the college age kids who were using the University net to download everything. Now we're in the 10's and the large spectrum that was only available to businesses and Universities are now in the living room, and the industry is wanting to censure the net because they can't stop P2P networks from popping up like candy.

[Zorra]

6. One day there was a rabbit and a snake who were both growing old

and could not remember what animal they were.

"OK I'll describe you and then see if you can guess what you are." said the snake.

"That's a good idea." said the rabbit.

"You are white, fluffy, and you have big ears and feet." said the snake.

"Oh good, I'm a rabbit!

So the rabbit says, "You are long, slim, scaly, and have a forked tongue."

"Oh NOOOO! I'm a music industry executive!

[FarLeftFist]

8. 99% of the record industry and movie industry practice EXTREME censorship.

Which is why independent films and music are way more thrilling.

[frazzled]

9. If artists don't think they add value, then they shouldn't sign with them

Then they'll have to see whether people pirating their work has an effect on their incomes.

[starroute]

11. They used to work to develop acts and they don't anymore

I few years ago, I read a long, detailed analysis of how record companies used to work with acts to improve their music but have given up doing this. They'd rather hire someone new and fresh-faced, polish their recordings electronically and promote the heck out of them, and then move on to the next new thing.

This might or might not be the same article, but it says much the same thing:

http://www.digiave.net/piracy-didnt-kill-the-music-business/

In the early 90?s the music business was booming. Record sales were through the roof and everyone wanted in on the action. Major corporations took notice, and record labels sold off to the highest bidders. . . . With national corporations running music, also came budget restraints, annual reports, and shareholders. Unable to meet the growing demands, major labels needed to cut costs. One of the first places to go was Artist Development, and Promotions. . . . This is when major record labels started depending on one-hit wonders and bubblegum pop to push profits ignoring their own rich history and tradition.

It’s expensive to develop an artist. It is common knowledge that for every 12 artists signed to a label, 10 lose money, 1 breaks even and 1 makes enough to pay for the development of all the others put together. It’s a really risky business. But, the small independent labels didn’t care because they wanted to discover the next Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen. They knew that one major success could make up for a string of costly failures.

Unfortunately, that equation doesn’t work in the corporate environment. You have to justify your budget every year, every quarter. The only way to do that was to release lowest common denominator music that would sell fast but fade just as quickly.

This caused major record labels to forget what got them involved in the first place, “heritage artists.” Tom Petty, Springsteen, Bon Jovi, U2, Metallica, and others were what sustained them over the long haul, not The Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears. Heritage artists were bands and musicians developed over years and they didn’t come cheap, but they made up for it in the long run.

[Fumesucker]

12. I'm reminded of Hunter S Thompson's quip..

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

[Selatius]

27. +1000 nt

[griffi94]

13. the only thing i've noticed

that the "music industry" adds to anything is a lowest common denominator effect.

imho when so many radio stations were consolidated under just a few owners. record companies
no longer needed to develop artists or offer anything they didn't already have.
just mass sell the stuff that was easiest to produce and shape public taste to fit what you had to sell.

they were able to buy almost exclusive access to the airwaves which insured their artists "hits"
they no longer needed writers or even musicians...technology did away with needing those things.

the only thing i've noticed from the "music industry" is an evermore generic sound that crosses all genres.

there's still a lot of great artists and great music out there, but you hardly ever hear it on mainstream radio or from traditional "major" labels. even established artists are working on indie labels.

[mike_c]

14. that's been more or less my take as well....

Which really begs the question: what is legislation like SOPA or PIPA meant to protect, other than the profits of an industry that is increasingly anachronistic and unnecessary? If they actually had a business model that added value to artists, it seems to me that consumers would reward them well (as they actually did up until the 1990s). Now, all they seem to be doing is clinging to the past, telling legislators that it's not fair the world moved on.

In that legislative atmosphere, we would all still be using horse and buggy because those new fangled automo-whatsits threaten the profits of the carriage industry.

[griffi94]

15. i'm sure this is just me being paranoid

but what i fear if the internet,to a large degree, comes under control of govt...and by extension
big business..is the lockout of indies.

it's about the same as what happened with radio. when all the indie owned stations were brought under just a few corporate umbrellas is when things like artist development bit the dust.
if censorship for profit passes a lot of indies will cease to exist. the majors had a monopoly on media. the internet undid that monopoly.

[progressoid]

16. Cocaine and sports cars?

I'm reading "I am Ozzy" right now.

[dogknob]

17. Um, little if anything

Once upon a time, there was a major record label called EMI. They owned a very swanky recording studio in London called Abbey Road. In this magical place, EMI merged the talents of musicians and studio engineers to create visionary works of sonic yummyness with bouncy titles like "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and "The Dark Side of the Moon," enduring sonic masterpieces that went on to outlive their creators.

In fact, "Dark Side of the Moon" remained in Billboard's top 200 for, like, a bzillion weeks, circumventing the "free market" standard of obsolescence and competing against music made decades later (just imagine the internal memos on that subject). Upon hearing one of its songs, the great anti-war piece "Us and Them," members of an alien culture, sifting through the ashes of our extinct civilization, concluded that the human race must have been very depressed for continuing to engage in behavior that at least some of them knew was suicidal.

Producing something like "Dark Side" involves a great deal of investment and risk; in the years preceding it, EMI patiently allowed Pink Floyd to record and release 7 other albums, none of which sold at ANYWHERE NEAR the level of "Dark Side." They even kept the band after its founder and leader, Syd Barrett, suffered a complete mental breakdown and left both the band and reality. EMI made use of an ancient, lost technique known to historians as "long-term thinking;" they invested the time, money and nurturing these artists needed to develop their sound in the hope that the investment would eventually pay off. Fortunately for EMI, it did.

Today's music industry revolves around just about everything except the music itself. An artist is given one shot (and almost no artistic control) to make a huge payoff, then discarded when that payoff doesn't happen. With today's music industry philosophy, there would be no Bruce Springsteen (who hit with his THIRD album) fer jumpin' bejeezopotumus!

Artistic decisions in today's music industry are made by people who don't make music. Try sitting through an entire Beyonce song WITHOUT the accompanying video and you'll see what I mean.

Access to affordable recording software and the Internet enables musicians to get their music out to an audience far beyond the local bar. Artists can now create music without the interference of some hack with a communications degree telling them what they aren't going to do. The entire process of creation, recording, production and promotion NO LONGER REQUIRES THE PARTICIPATION OF MAJOR RECORD LABELS OR THE RIAA, entities which repeatedly demonstrate their unwillingness to provide artists with the kind of support they need to create something that might one day prove to be as enduring as "Dark Side."

Technology and The Internet have created a world where the lazy, cynical, talentless likes of the RIAA and the major labels are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Rather than adapt their obsolete business models (which would require actual VISION and WORK), they have decided to attempt to trash the First Amendment with legislation like SOPA and PIPA, hoping to return us to a time when they were the only place to go if you wanted to make a record.

Crap legislation like this is all gussied up to look like some swashbuckling pirate-stopper, but anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that these laws aren't aimed at saving the lost profit-booty of "Caddyshack 2" These laws won't deter the pirates; they will be used to shut down the websites of small independents who lack giant legal staff... as well as other groups of people who coordinate online and do things like occupy Wall Street and elect brown presidents.

[Occulus]

21. Please rework this post as an OP in General Discussion

No, seriously.

You've made a lot of good points and they're worthy of discussion all by themselves, in their own thread.

[dogknob]

25. OK. I'll give it a shot. n/t

[dogknob]

28. Believe it or not... Courtney Love!

... I just saw a fine piece by none other than Courtney Love as I was fixin' to revise my own post into an OP. She makes a lot of solid points, the most surprising (to anyone outside the industry) being that even if you were in a band that got as big as Hole, you were a sharecropper working in a company town and kept perpetually in debt to the record company... there's a lot more...

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/singleton/

... her piece does not mention SOPA or PIPA specifically because it was written in 2000, but it does a much better job than I did of describing the world that those two soon-to-be-renamed pieces of legislation are aimed at preserving. Ick. Ick. Ick.

Then there's the Janis Ian piece I found here on DU last night. It's also 10 years old, but even then Ms. Ian was seeing tangible results from people downloading her music for free.

http://www.janisian.com/reading/internet.php

[mike_c]

24. yup, that's what I was guessing....

Thanks for explaining it so well!

[Edweird]

19. Parasites? How about 'predators'?

[guitar man]

22. None at all

Last edited Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

The bloodsuckers at the major labels only take, they add nothing. And any young artist about to sign a deal with a major needs to look up the word "recoupable" and fully understand it well before inking a deal with the devil.

Digital recording and the Internet have opened avenues for indie artists like never before. I own a 24 track digital studio and have had the pleasure of working with some really great artists over the past few years. I'm about helping them get where they are going rather than trying to drain every last drop of blood from them I can.

And yes, I charge a modest hourly or project rate for my services, I have to or I couldn't afford to maintain and improve my facility . 2011 was a great year and I'm hoping 2012 is even better. With any luck, I'm planning on adding a 24 track 2 inch analog machine to the studio. Not cheap to keep and feed, but I'm hoping to offer some indies with the budget to do so the opportunity to have a truly "big label" sounding record

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Managers A&R and investors

IMO still are necessary for big success in music.

Managers add value to new bands and artists' work by booking them into well-known clubs and other venues where they get feedback on their work, experience [erforming before sophisticated audiences and amass a hard core of devoted fans. Some managers have strong track records of their own that new artists can build on; they are gatekeepers who parlay their own reputations into opportunities new bands could not get on their own.

When a new band or artist is ready for the recording studio, experienced managers can help shape albums for market niches they know will buy them.

A&R men serve as gatekeepers for record companies, which have capital to invest in promotion and distribution for albums. Ask any band what is holding them back from wider success after years of hard work and they're very likely to tell you they're not getting the promotion they need.

Technology is changing, but IMO no matter how much raw talent bands or artists have, they still need management, A&R men, and costly promotion to get paid adeauately for their work. There are plenty of exploitative managers and labels still out there, but bands and artists don't necessarily have to sign with the first charlatan to approach them. Thwey can get legal advice before signing anything and hold out for managers and labels with good reputations.