Chad Adam Browne wrote
X-rated Bob wrote
Averatu wrote
I think the figures are vastly exaggerated as its probably based on the shrinkage of the 'majors', who are the biggest profits of doom. But if you take the prevalence of smaller independent labels and even independent artists into account its probably still quite kak, and illegal, but not as bad. The majors did it to themselves and they deserve to die a slow and painful death.
For argument's sake let's accept that the majors are greedy scum. The problem is that they don't die alone. If the majors don't make money then neither do the artists signed to them. If I download an illegal copy of Richard Thompson's
Rumor and Sigh album then you might not shed a tear because Universal didn't get their 5 dollars or whatever it is, but Thompson (who is not in Mick Jagger's financial league) doesn't get his cut either.
To be honest though it's more likely that Mr Thompson is being shafted by the label and not receiving much royalties in exchange for the exposure that the major label can offer anyway, in this day and age there are many ways to get exposure and the tried and tested method of being signed to a major label that can financially back you with regards to advertisement is starting to fall away as the whole climate of it changes. In the interviews with bands I like who have adapted to the new systems well it seems that though these smaller record labels may not have as much financial backing quite often they do create better deals, for instance Summerian Records, they seem to be giving their bands full rights to their own music and they seem to cut better royalty spreads. They are lacking in monetary power but their sound business practices have helped them sign bands that have really started to take off, such as Periphery or Veil Of Maya, they are very discerning with who they select as possible signees though so in a lot of ways they're watching their own backs more closely.
Thompson's actually "gone indy", though the album that I used as an example was recorded for Capitol, a "big" label, and is still owned by them (it's his best selling album by a long way).
There are multiple revenue streams involved - royalties, album sales, live work. Royalties and album sales will definitely be adversely effected by illegal downloads.
There's always a deal with a label (of any size). They make an advance and then seek to recoup that from sales and touring (if you take tour support, Thompson hasn't for 20 years at least). It's hard to see how the artist, the human being at one end of the chain, is not being disadvantaged by downloading. At the very least his/her debt to the company is going to be reduced less than it would be if somebody actually bought the product.
To take a bit of a tangent, and as regarding your comments about exposure, Thompson is of the opinion that since he went independent and started signing less inclusive deals (typically promotion and distribution) with smaller labels his exposure has increased (though by this stage of the game he's never going to be a household name). He thinks that the smaller companies think more creatively and understand the niche markets a lot better. If you're a Beyonce then you want to be a on a big label because they understand that big budget, high-profile game, but if your ambitions and/or prospects are less grand then (according to Thompson) the big labels don't understand what to do with you and they can be more of a hindrance than a help.
Many people used to want to be signed to a record label simply because affording studio time is so ludicrously expensive but in this day and age people are getting startling results from home recording systems and in alot of ways this DIY culture is probably going to push alot of the studios out of business. You also have the horrible 360 deals which record companies try to net bands with and these are just dodgy, the access to decent home recording equipment and the ability to get good results out of it is no doubt preventing alot of bands from being signed into these questionable contracts which is most likely a good thing.
To continue the Thompson thread, as it may show one way of doing things, these days he still uses studios, but independent studios. He pays. He calls the shots. He appoints the producer (last couple of albums he co-produced with the sound guy he retains). Except for the last album where to save money and to keep things interesting he sent demo tapes of the new material to his band, rehearsed for 4 or 5 days then did 2 weeks of live shows with every show recorded and the album compiled from those recordings. He said it cost almost exactly the same as doing it in the studio...
In interviews he has implied that you never get free of the label. Two albums back there was a clash of opinions about the running order - he wanted the album to build to a climax, the label wanted to "front load" it. They worked out a compromise.
I look forward to the further evolution of the music industry, and I look forward to the downfall of the major labels. I think this new climate is going to give more power to us the listener to find and enjoy music that is truly good and resonates with us rather than just being forced to hear the flavour of the week that a major label has decided to punt the hell out of over the local airways etc. I really think that it will put more of an emphasis on real musicianship and less on who's cleavage looks best in tight latex (Katy Perry) or who looks more like a martian spaceship after it's crash landed over a field of cattle in a hail of blood (Lady Gaga).
Well you're into the music for the music ? I don't think everybody is, certainly not in the market that Lady Gaga or Katy Perry are working in. That's about fashion too. Some folks like to see big shows with dancers and sets and lights and flying saucers descending. I don't, but you shouldn't use me as any kind of reliable index of public taste ?
I think that market will persist. What I think is already happening is that the niche markets are multiplying and that access to them is getting easier. That's a good thing. I think the music business is getting quite interesting again with a lot of fine artists on smaller labels or self-funding.
Just as an example as to why I think this is good, a more localised example that is, I truly hate the Parlotones, I find their music boring and monotonous and majorly derivative. They are meant to be the biggest band in S.A at the moment and yet I have still never met a single person who likes them or openly admits to having their album so how does that work? Recently I heard news that Coldplay were coming down, something I'm not really too thrilled about anyway, but I found it interesting that the organisers had an online poll where via facebook people could nominate and vote for bands to be the opening act to Coldplay. The winner by a landslide of votes was the nomination "anyone but the Parlotones", and by something startling like 30%, and yet guess who's opening for Coldplay?...Yeah the f***ing Parlotones, to me it just seems like someone in charge went "ah screw em, we'll decide what they want". The decision making and buying power is now falling more into the hands of the actual consumer, which I think is a good thing, hopefully in future people will band together more and not accept when this kind of thing happens. I believe that all the choice and the ability to readily and easily find music in almost any genre that's better than the crap we get forced to hear on radio, Mtv etc is just going to breed a culture that's more discerning with their music tastes and less complacent to accept mediocrity in their artists. In essence I think that things might finally become more of a case of "may the best band win" instead of the current culture of music being a product and the prettiest packaging creating the biggest hype.
I would think that a big factor in the Parlotone's success and landing of these high profile gigs is smart and persistent management. They understand the business side of "music business" very well.
To return to your point about studios, I don't actually think that's what really has made the difference. I think it's the move from vinyl to CDs. The latter are much easier to produce now. In the vinyl days you had to use a pressing plant - and it was hard to have one of those in your garage.
Joe Boyd (producer) tells a story of how he had a minor hit in 1982 with Richard and Linda Thompson's
Shoot Out The Lights album, which was released on Boyd's own Hannibal label. It got rave reviews in Time and Rolling Stone and an unexpectedly high level of orders followed from those reviews. It nearly bankrupted Hannibal. Boyd was getting more and more copies pressed to meet the orders coming in from the USA, but the retailers were generally paying him in 90 days whist the pressing plants wanted payment in 30. You can see what this was likely to do to an independent label's cash flow....
