Music Industry as we knew it is....

johnnylakes

Dead?? !! ???
Where do YOU think the future lies?? Will music be free? Will (Can?) the labels clamp down once the Film Industry does? Will things be subscription based??
Discuss..........

PaulBrewer

Funny you should mention that, I was listening to a interview with Peter Jenner (Pink Floyd, T-Rex, Bill Bragg etc etc's Manager) on Tom Robinson's BBC6 'Introducing' show two nights ago who covered this area in some depth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/tom_robinsons_introducing/

Have a listen.

johnnylakes

Thanks Paul...will check that out later.
Subscription seems to be the most logical step to me. You subscribe to a band's site for...whatever 20 bucks a year or something..you get their album...videos,discounted tickets.. a signed underpance whatever....ya catch the drift..
Good interview with Trent Reznor on digg.com where he talks about 'business models'... well, kinda...
I like dots .......
........

PaulBrewer

What I've noticed is the tacit acceptance that music by itself will be 'free' , even if that's not the official line.

Esser's first single was 'Free' but you had to buy a T-Shirt to get the code to download it.

www.esserhq.com

U2's last album you could buy from Amazon at $3.99 the week after it was released but if you wanted the Boxed Set with Book, CD, DVD, Online Video etc etc you paid Euro 60+ ....

So the idea of added value of physical stuff that can't be downloaded may well be an indication of how things may go.

Jimmy Eat World were very active on Twitter whilst on tour and had a song or two up on TwitterFM from the previous nights show, thereby advertising the tour as it went along.

All interesting New stuff.

seannash

johnnylakes wrote: »

Thanks Paul...will check that out later.
Subscription seems to be the most logical step to me. You subscribe to a band's site for...whatever 20 bucks a year or something..you get their album...videos,discounted tickets.. a signed underpance whatever....ya catch the drift..
Good interview with Trent Reznor on digg.com where he talks about 'business models'... well, kinda...
I like dots .......
........

wont happen.means if you hear a song on the radio you like youll have to subscribe and pay 20 bucks to get a track.you might not want anymore tracks from that band.its a bit expensive.
also as long as theres djs buying singles subscriptions wont work either as it will simply cost too much money to follow all the artist out there releasing material

PaulBrewer

seannash wrote: »

wont happen.means if you hear a song on the radio you like youll have to subscribe and pay 20 bucks to get a track.you might not want anymore tracks from that band.its a bit expensive.
also as long as theres djs buying singles subscriptions wont work either as it will simply cost too much money to follow all the artist out there releasing material

I'd be inclined to agree with Sean.

I notice to on the 2FM website they have the shows playlists and direct links to itunes from that. I expect 2FM get a cut.

johnnylakes

I was kinda taken it as a given that itunes will be there also.... kind of thinkin as opposed to selling CDs kinda thing..
Twas just a thought... I can see where yall are coming from..

Welease

Any business model can and will work if a band has enough people that are interested in listening to their music.. U2 for example could have charged 20 bucks to get the album from their site, they could have done t-shirts with codes, they could choose any method they wish and there are enough people in the world that will subscribe to that model to make it work (as they will want to get the new album)..

I think the biggest change will be in the role of labels/record/distribution companies and how bands get enough exposure to make their chosen business model work.

Do labels get removed from the equation as a physical product (CD) is no longer required, and therefore you don't need to have access to distributors/shops for the physical product (getting your release on iTunes globally is far easier than getting it into a record shop in LA if you live in Tralee and are not signed to a major label)?..
Do labels now focus on the marketing of their artists? with the physical distribution issues gone, they now essentially become music promotion/marketing companies?
Who would now own the publishing rights to the music.. Would you sign over your rights to a piece of music to essentially a marketing company now?

or any other possibility ..... it will be interesting...

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I expect 2FM get a cut.

They do already- they use music to attract listeners, who become the audience targeted by the advertising, from which they earn money. They use music to make money, so they pay for it via IMRO and PRS. I don't think that's going to change at all.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

They do already- they use music to attract listeners, who become the audience targeted by the advertising, from which they earn money. They use music to make money, so they pay for it via IMRO and PRS. I don't think that's going to change at all.

Yes, I understand that.
I meant a cut of the sale if it was bought through the 2FM link.

DamagedTrax

i think the retailers, distributors and labels really need to get together and sort the price of music. im not surprised no-one is buying with the price of cds these days. if the prices were decent (and everyone took a short term hit for a long term solution) im sure people would start buying again.

just look in hmv on any day. you cant get near the sale racks but the rest of the music section is usually quiet.

i think 12.99 is a fair price for an album and a cd single should go to 3.99

maybe im naive but i know from when i was younger that if a cassette or vinyl was on sale at a higher price than 5.99 then we all waited till someone bought it and then taped it. yet i bought a mountain of stuff at 5.99 because it was within my reach.

empirix

i am thinking this eircom legal case is the stepping stone for many record companies taken action, i havent followed it but is it you cant download mp3's or something.Personally i am for this, might give the wannabe's like myself more oportunity?

PaulBrewer

empirix wrote: »

i am thinking this eircom legal case is the stepping stone for many record companies taken action, i havent followed it but is it you cant download mp3's or something.Personally i am for this, might give the wannabe's like myself more oportunity?

There's a whole generation that has grown up thinking Music is free, like Air or Daylight !

There's a big problem straight away - why should we pay for something that's always been 'free' ?

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Yes, I understand that.
I meant a cut of the sale if it was bought through the 2FM link.

Ah right. 2FM as a music vendor- that's a big turn around of roles! There'd be money going both ways, sort of.

It looks like the 3 strikes rule is not gonna be implemented by any ISP other than Eircom, as it interferes with privacy. The dispute is on going. And I think Eircom stated recently that they won't disconnect anyone without a court order.

Most bands are giving away free stuff as promo. I think it just means profits will be lower than in the glory days. But bands now have more direct control over revenue streams, so it's OK for them, but not record companies. EMI appear to have their finger back on the pulse, they're streets ahead of the other big 3, because they were bought be Terra Firma.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

EMI appear to have their finger back on the pulse, they're streets ahead of the other big 3, because they were bought be Terra Firma.

Back into Profit too this year ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8039773.stm

'Music giant EMI tripled its earnings over the past year, helped by cost-cutting measures that reportedly caused a near-revolt by its artists.'

SeanHurley

Now I am just talking off the top of my head here but would it be crazy to think that we may see a decline in the established major labels as we know them (EMI, Warner, Sony etc) to be replaced with bands/artists signing exclusive deals to mp3 e-tailers i.e. iTunes Records, Napster Records, Amazon Records?

It could be the way things go with these companies maybe using copy protection say in the form of dongles etc to protect their assets from piracy?

Where's mystic meg when you need her

PaulBrewer

It may even be that the Music Retailing isn't even their core business ...

Look at McCartney on the Starbucks label .........

Walmart (the US's Tesco, I guess) is now America's biggest retailer.

My US based friend is David Byrne of Talking Heads Tour manager and I was talking to him about the state of the music nation.

I mentioned that I thought it was last year that money generated from gigs had topped CD sales for the first time.

He saw that as ominous insofar as it wasn't ticket sales generating this but advertising associated with a gig.

So the importance of music drops down in the scheme of things, it's just the coat-hook on which the coat of commercialism hangs.

He's already seeing it in his side where the club scene is as it was and the 'enormodome' scene is healthy as long as you're already there but the pathway between the two is getting blocked.

henessjon

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i think the retailers, distributors and labels really need to get together and sort the price of music. im not surprised no-one is buying with the price of cds these days. if the prices were decent (and everyone took a short term hit for a long term solution) im sure people would start buying again.

just look in hmv on any day. you cant get near the sale racks but the rest of the music section is usually quiet.

i think 12.99 is a fair price for an album and a cd single should go to 3.99

maybe im naive but i know from when i was younger that if a cassette or vinyl was on sale at a higher price than 5.99 then we all waited till someone bought it and then taped it. yet i bought a mountain of stuff at 5.99 because it was within my reach.

i wont buy a cd over 10

music will make money again but not purely on cd sales

the only trouble at the moment new acts cant get heard .... only pushed trax are heard

there is no foresight by the radio stations they really love the status quo.... why should new music be underground stations or not mainstream is probably what i mean.

what is needed

more gigs in pubs/venues who will not charge the band for playing
more support from music fans at the gigs
more airtime for new acts

_no one learns without trying ie: burn in time for live acts

in summary kill the official playlist format

Im sure most acts will sell music at sub 10 for album mostly cos they are doing it for themselves without a&r PR anyway

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

'Music giant EMI tripled its earnings over the past year, helped by cost-cutting measures that reportedly caused a near-revolt by its artists.'

The press seems to be very anti EMI. Probably driven by all the wasters they laid off. The dropped about 80% of the roster, mainly because there was no actual product for the Terra Firma folk to listen to! That definitely ruffled a few feathers. EMI Ireland seems to be very much on the ball though, for years.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

T Probably driven by all the wasters they laid off.

I remember the day Virgin got sold to, I think, EMI. There was some savage Heads-in-Pints in the Temple Bar that night ! Gravy Train Kaput!!

Flyboy!!!

One of the big things in LA for Artists seems to be getting your tune on a movie soundtrack, six figure sums overnight and possible worldwide exposure. Another cash earner are residencies in casinos, not necessarily Las Vegas but all around Nevada and also the ubiquitous Indian casino.

As for EMI? Much like Argentina, they may have lots of money in the kitty one year, thanks to cutthroat business practices, but when it fails to function and make money, the next year may will be very bleak. Already their artists are jumping ship and releasing their music through other channels:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104129585

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Gravy Train Kaput!!

Apparently EMI had the same taxi bill as a London bank with three times the staff. No one ever got the tube, it was beneath them (pun intended).

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

As for EMI? Much like Argentina, they may have lots of money in the kitty one year, thanks to cutthroat business practices, but when it fails to function and make money, the next year may will be very bleak. Already their artists are jumping ship and releasing their music through other channels:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104129585

True, but they've whittled the roster down, and have some very good ones on the books- Bat for Lashes and Empire of the Sun. As I pointed out earlier, 80% of the original roster had not produced a single thing.

If they were for sale, I'd buy EMI shares. Terra Firma have replaced the old management with some very savvy music heads.

PaulBrewer

Here's an article that just appeared on the BBC News website.
It's interesting from the point of view there are now actual stats on what we all know is happening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8073068.stm

"7m in UK 'use illegal downloads'
Faster broadband allows 200 MP3s to be downloaded in just five minutes
Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisors say."

seannash

PaulBrewer wrote: »

"7m in UK 'use illegal downloads'
Faster broadband allows 200 MP3s to be downloaded in just five minutes
Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisors say."

im sure youve heard this before but people who illegally download music wouldnt necessarily buy that matierial if they had no other way of getting it.
downloads does not translate into sales.
ive downloaded stuff that theres no way id pay for.its out of curiousity.if i had to part with cold hard cash i dont think curiousity would get the better of me(unless swayed by a review or recommendation).
its kinda like people at an open bar.if its free some people will drink the face of themselves coz its free.if they had to pay they might just show a little more restraint

Rockshamrover

seannash wrote: »

im sure youve heard this before but people who illegally download music wouldnt necessarily buy that matierial if they had no other way of getting it.
downloads does not translate into sales.
ive downloaded stuff that theres no way id pay for.its out of curiousity.if i had to part with cold hard cash i dont think curiousity would get the better of me(unless swayed by a review or recommendation).
its kinda like people at an open bar.if its free some people will drink the face of themselves coz its free.if they had to pay they might just show a little more restraint

Maybe the record companies could come up with a way of letting you demo music like a plugin. You get it for a week and then it dies. If you like it, you pay for it and keep it.

I have to agree with Sean, I think music gets a listen that you would normally ignore because of illegal downloads. If it's crap you won't listen again. If it's great you will keep playing it. You should pay for the stuff you listen to.

jtsuited

certain parts of the 'Music Industry' as we know it are indeed dead.

In fairness they did it to themselves. It's what happens when you let accountants run major labels.

thankfully for me and a lot of others here I'm sure, the 'death' of the industry is actually a good thing.
people's listening habits are infinitely more diverse than they were 5 years ago.

I still buy a lot of music. Haven't bought a physical copy of anything in years. The 'industry' was caught unawares when consumers like myself came into existence. Only place I have to endure really really awful major label stuff is on those ringtone ads.

They dropped the ball in a big big way by almost exclusively focusing on selling music to people who don't listen to music (or the Slane Castle demographic as I call them).
Again, good decision from an accounting perspective in the short term, disastrous for business long term.

dav nagle

jtsuited wrote: »

They dropped the ball in a big big way by almost exclusively focusing on selling music to people who don't listen to music (or the Slane Castle demographic as I call them).

Very well said, your right when your wrong your up when your down your in when your out you scream and you shout...do you really want .... POPTASIM

I remember when a friend of mine gave me his hard drive and within a click of a button I had a sizeable music collection. The music biz needs to go back to it's roots and sign hundreds of real bands and get them on MTV until a few of them take off.

jtsuited

dav nagle wrote: »

Very well said, your right when your wrong your up when your down your in when your out you scream and you shout...do you really want .... POPTASIM

I remember when a friend of mine gave me his hard drive and within a click of a button I had a sizeable music collection. The music biz needs to go back to it's roots and sign hundreds of real bands and get them on MTV until a few of them take off.

in between episodes of the Hills. 'Spencer....OMG.....DRAMA.......and so forth'

madtheory

jtsuited wrote: »

It's what happens when you let accountants run major labels.

I beg to differ, at least in the case of EMI. If you read the Maltby/ EMI report, you'll see that it was a lack of accounting and basic business acumen, that was their downfall.

Signing artists who were never going to do any work, and giving them big advances, and not exploiting their back catalogue in a consistent, viable manner. Not to mention spending a fortune on taxis and "fruit and flowers". All the fault of music industry types made paranoid by ingesting illegal substances. These same people are now feeding the press lines about EMI being accountants who know nothing about money.

In actual fact, Terra Firma have put in some very savvy music people to replace the previous management. They genuinely understand creativity as an asset, they're not serving their egos like the previous management. Guy Hands is an intuitive business man, he knows how to delegate.

Seems to me that EMI were doing the same crazy stuff the other 3 are still doing...

The profits won't be as huge as in the glory days, but there will be profits.

PaulBrewer

In ye olde days when Sales where high a couple of successful artists paid for all the rest.

I think I've told the story before that on the Something Happens Tourbus in the US a round of applause accompanied every time a Phil Collins song came on the radio - his royalties was paying their wages - and they knew it!