Music Industry to collapse within months warns Thom Yorke

MilanPan!c

http://blogs.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2010/06/radiohead_frontman_music_indus.html

I am in NO WAY vouching at ALL for the truth in this, but it's an interesting comment from someone in the industry for years and years... In fact, my own project has been talking to all sorts of people, none of which seem to be running scared... Still it IS interesting.

He says, "It will be only a matter of time - months rather than years - before the music business establishment completely folds. (It will be) no great loss to the world."

maccored

i agree with him. too much focus on money and being famous, not enough on quality music.

In fact, my own project has been talking to all sorts of people, none of which seem to be running scared...

I'd say many either don't see it coming enough to actually take it seriously (the music industry isnt known for its brainy, forward thinking company people), or even if they do, they aren't going to let on to any bands they're talking to. Its the bands that have to educate themselves.

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

i agree with him. too much focus on money and being famous, not enough on quality music.



I'd say many either don't see it coming enough to actually take it seriously (the music industry isnt known for its brainy, forward thinking company people), or even if they do, they aren't going to let on to any bands they're talking to. Its the bands that have to educate themselves.

Maaaaaaaybe...

But look CLOSELY at what he says... He says "establishment". Hard to believe labels like Domino are gonna be closing down.

Yorkie is also a bit paranoid and he may be engaging in wishful thinking.

I seriously doubt the whole thing is gonna collapse.

Bealzebub259

MilanPan!c wrote: »

He says, "It will be only a matter of time - months rather than years - before the music business establishment completely folds. (It will be) no great loss to the world."

Is that not a bit over dramatic? I can see how he might think smaller labels will fold, but the entire industry? What's he basing the claim on?

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Maaaaaaaybe...

But look CLOSELY at what he says... He says "establishment". Hard to believe labels like Domino are gonna be closing down.

Yorkie is also a bit paranoid and he may be engaging in wishful thinking.

I seriously doubt the whole thing is gonna collapse.

music business establishment I think it was - which is exactly the part thats more concerned about money than music. Plus I'd wager he's not talking about every single label out there since there are many that value talent more than how much profit can be turned over quickly from said talent.

maccored

Bealzebub259 wrote: »

Is that not a bit over dramatic? I can see how he might think smaller labels will fold, but the entire industry? What's he basing the claim on?

I think it'll be the smaller, band focused labels that will prosper - its the bigger ones who will fail.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I seriously doubt the whole thing is gonna collapse.

collapse is a big word. it will though, completely change. It doesnt really have a choice in the matter.

Bealzebub259

maccored wrote: »

collapse is a big word. it will though, completely change. It doesnt really have a choice in the matter.

But how is this going to happen? What is going to cause all this?

studiorat

The entire industry has been dying for the last ten years. It will turn into a cottage industry for the most imo.

The main cause is people just aren't buying records anymore, not near the level they were a few years ago. Why do you think HMV etc are selling more DVD's and Video Games tham records these days. Therefore record compaines are only investing in sure fire acts, stuff they know they can sell to the kids. There's absolutely no development of new artists anymore, there's very little learning going on for new artists as the don't have the opportunity to meet and work with established producers.

maccored

Bealzebub259 wrote: »

But how is this going to happen? What is going to cause all this?

There's the internet and how it provides worldwide distribution, or how computers have made it easier to make listenable recordings (and again the internet has lowed the quality expectations or many) and how the basic monopoly the majors have had for years has been eroded by such things. Its obvious there has to be changes.

Studiorat wrote:

It will turn into a cottage industry for the most imo.

I agree and in a macochistist way I think that sa good thing. Music needs to go back to those who want to write it and its way too focused on those who want to profit from it (sorry for sounding like an old hippy). No harm in making money, but at present money is being made from safe staples and not from investment in bands. imo thats where money becomes the problem and not the solution.

Mister men

Once rap music goes i'll be happy.

raindog.promo

While there's cash to be made, there'll be an industry. I would imagine in bigger stage productions, the focus just won't be on product such as cd's dvd's etc where they can be easily duplicated.

If it brings back the times when bands of a Zeppelin status roam the earth again then yippee.

AlmostFamous

The music industry won't collapse. Some labels will die and some labels will abandon the industry. Others will adapt to the ever changing technology. Bands will still make music, people will still pay for music through various means like attending gigs and buying band related merchandise. Music has become such an important medium for so many people.

Zendali

I agree with "AlmostFamous", the music industry wont collapse, it`ll reinvent itself under a different business model. I personally love radiohead and yorke has given us some brilliant melodies over the years.

I just think his statement is a bit OTT and he`s stating it from a fairly privileged position. Radiohead got their crucial financial backing from EMI in their early days and are now a household name. What if Yorke and the other 4 were starting out today, where a cash-strapped industry couldnt afford to indulge their alternative sound?

Much as I hugely admire Thom Yorke as a genuine music artist, I just think it`s a little rich that he can slag off an industry (or funding institution like EMI) now that he has financial independence. Would he have the same bravado if starting out today? The problem with these stars is their smugness, where they`ve forgotten how to empathise with struggling unsigned acts due to the bubble they`re living in.

Waking-Dreams

***Well-known musician shares opinion with the media in order to gain some publicity.***

Tom Yorke, like most people, enjoys talking and sharing his views. So when you read what some celebrity, film star, soap actor, or music persona has to say – just recognise that it's not always what they're saying, but that they're just saying something, be it controversial or trivial, to achieve a particular result; in order to keep themselves in the public's memory. It's free self-advertising, dressed up as genuine comment.

For instance, look at Korn's crude attempt to use the recent BP disaster to try and bolster their credibility.

Motivated by the BP disaster in the US and its devastating effects, KORN have taken a stand by launching a boycott against using the company’s petrol while on tour this summer. The band has formally announced that it will not be fuelling any of its tour vehicles with BP products and is strongly encouraging other touring artists to do the same.

“The daily images are hard to watch,” says KORN frontman Jonathan Davis. “We need to do our part to let BP know there are consequences for causing something like this. We want to send a message to corporations like BP so that they will take more preventative measures in the future. The more costly their punishment, the more money they will spend to make sure disasters like this don’t happen again. It’s plain and simple capitalism.”

KORN’s new album artwork, photography and stage set imagery reference the band’s hometown area near Bakersfield, CA and its bleak landscape littered with oil rigs. The video for first single, ‘Oildale (Leave Me Alone)’ reveals a poverty-stricken locale situated among the oil rich fields and tells a story of a young boy’s desire to escape. The video story echoes the band’s own struggle out of Bakersfield. Davis adds, “It was one thing for us to grow up near such poverty, but the situation in the Gulf takes things to a whole new level where people’s lives and livelihoods are affected forever.”

KORN, who have sold more than 30 million records worldwide, spend this summer headlining the third annual Rock Star Energy Drink Mayhem Festival playing 14,000 to 30,000 seat amphitheaters. “We urge the other acts on Mayhem and anyone on tour this year to be with us on this,” Davis also said.

Korn’s new album, ‘Korn III – Remember Who You Are’, is released on 12th July. The album was produced by Ross Robinson, who also produced their incendiary and much-lauded debut. The title is a reference to the band’s past and a nod to their roots. ‘Oildale (Leave Me Alone)’ hits stores a week prior on 4th July.

KORN will be announcing UK dates this coming Monday 14th June. Stay tuned for full details.

maccored

i personally believe the music industry will be shaken up like never before. though I think 'collapse' is a scary word to be using, I do nevertheless believe the music industry of tomorrow (if it is to have any credibility) will not resemble the music industry of today within the next 5 or 6 years - so to that degree I think thom yorke has a point.

At this stage, the music industry seems to have more non musically talented people associated with it, feeding off those that are creating. That cant be sustainable.

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

i personally believe the music industry will be shaken up like never before. though I think 'collapse' is a scary word to be using, I do nevertheless believe the music industry of tomorrow (if it is to have any credibility) will not resemble the music industry of today within the next 5 or 6 years - so to that degree I think thom yorke has a point.

At this stage, the music industry seems to have more non musically talented people associated with it, feeding off those that are creating. That cant be sustainable.

Well.... The thing is a creative INDUSTRY needs both creative folks and sales people (and technical folks and unpaid envelope stuffing interns, etc.).

It can't just be ALL creative people or it would no longer be an industry (and bands would cease to make meaningful money).

I personally think the whole issue is a BIT overblown.

They need **** to sell.

If you make something that sounds like money to industry folks, they'll come knocking.

maccored

If you make something that sounds like money to industry folks, they'll come knocking.

yeah, but musically that normally sounds shíte. thats part of the problem.

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

yeah, but musically that normally sounds shíte. thats part of the problem.

I disagree... There's LOADS of bands that do very well and aren't ****e and were promoted and signed because people thought they'd make money, like every band on every label ever.

From Modest Mouse to The Velvet Undergroud to The Beatles.

Music's history is a commercial history as much it's an artistic history.

maccored

for every decent band in the past 10- 15 years, theres probably another 50 that were jsut as successful but ****. making music to be sold on to those who dont mind being told what to listen to - thats where the money is made.

I wouldnt even start the argument to be honest, as the proof is there. If you dont see that, then fair enough - but dont start please with the whole story of how mass marketed, written specifically for the masses, formulated music doesnt end up sounding shít. Im too old for that fairytale.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

From Modest Mouse to The Velvet Undergroud to The Beatles.

VU? The band that didnt make a penny when they were together? They are a classic example of how good bands were overlooked. thanks for proving my point there.

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

VU? The band that didnt make a penny when they were together? They are a classic example of how good bands were overlooked. thanks for proving my point there.

Wow!

I have no idea what point your honking you're making?

The velvet underground signed to Verve.

And about 4 other labels.

And you know why? Because people thought they'd make money.

In other words people heard them and thought, "ca-ching".

Every band you and most people love got a break BECAUSE someone heard, "ca-ching" when they heard that band...

Now, have labels screwed many a musician? Sure! But that's NOT what we were talking about.

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

for every decent band in the past 10- 15 years, theres probably another 50 that were jsut as successful but ****. making music to be sold on to those who dont mind being told what to listen to - thats where the money is made.

I wouldnt even start the argument to be honest, as the proof is there. If you dont see that, then fair enough - but dont start please with the whole story of how mass marketed, written specifically for the masses, formulated music doesnt end up sounding shít. Im too old for that fairytale.

Honesty, you've put words in my mouth and completely missed my point.

Almost every single band that most of us have heard of was thought of as a commidity by the business that sold their product.

That's what the music business is, in a nutshell and always will be.

maccored

look - really, ive no idea where you;re going with this, but if you're trying to tell me the music industry is spot on and going the right direction then i just cant agree with you. I have to admit that thom yorke has a point. something has got to, and will change. thats all there is to it.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Wow!

I have no idea what point your honking you're making?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velvet_Underground

The Velvet Underground was an American rock band formed in New York City. First active from 1965 to 1973, their best-known members were Lou Reed and John Cale, who both went on to find success as solo artists. Although never commercially successful while together, the band is often cited by many critics as one of the most important and influential groups of the 1960s.[1]

thats what I was whatever 'honking you're making' means

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velvet_Underground


thats what I was whatever 'honking you're making' means

Your as confused as my iPhones auto-correct is.

You seem to think that not being commercially successful means that the label signed them for some altruistic reason.

They didn't.

Businesses have to make money to survive.

Therefore labels, the people that gave us allllllll the music we all like, signed bands based on making money off the bands.

It's silly to assume otherwise.

Fabo

ok, yous are both right but arguing over different issues. lets just leave it at that.

i cant see why the music industry will fold, its making plenty of money with the marketing driven music, thats where the profits are. unfortunately, there just arent enough great songwriters out there anymore so they had to turn to marketing to make money. if they hear $ or € or £ when they listen to your music then sure, they will sign you up.

the internet is affecting them but at the end of the day i dont want digital pepper, i want the record in my hand. its the same for all my fav bands/records and i know there are plenty of people who feel the same. so there is a lesson there for signed acts - put a bit of effort into the artwork.

maccored

Jesus man, if you spent less time assuming you know what Im on about and more time actually reading what i say we might progress ....... the velvet underground were a failure when they initially released. History tells us that so I really have no idea where you're going there with your amazing stories.

Ive no intention of continuing this with you MilanPan!c. Yes, we know "Businesses have to make money to survive". This 'business' has failed though and will change. You dont seem to be getting that into your head.

Worry less about the 'business' and more about writing good music - thats what people should be focusing on.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Your as confused as my iPhones auto-correct is.

You seem to think that not being commercially successful means that the label signed them for some altruistic reason.

They didn't.

Businesses have to make money to survive.

Therefore labels, the people that gave us allllllll the music we all like, signed bands based on making money off the bands.

It's silly to assume otherwise.

maccored

I cant see all labels disappearing by any means. musicians will need the support labels have supplied and the good labels will survive. None of the majors though seem to be one of those 'good labels' so it'll be interesting to see what they diversify into over the coming years. The music industry really has to get its head out of its arse though, see the challanges ahead and meet them. Not do what its currently doing and pretend its all the fault of downloaders.

Fabo wrote: »

ok, yous are both right but arguing over different issues. lets just leave it at that.

i cant see why the music industry will fold, its making plenty of money with the marketing driven music, thats where the profits are. unfortunately, there just arent enough great songwriters out there anymore so they had to turn to marketing to make money. if they hear $ or € or £ when they listen to your music then sure, they will sign you up.

the internet is affecting them but at the end of the day i dont want digital pepper, i want the record in my hand. its the same for all my fav bands/records and i know there are plenty of people who feel the same. so there is a lesson there for signed acts - put a bit of effort into the artwork.

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

Jesus man, if you spent less time assuming you know what Im on about and more time actually reading what i say we might progress ....... the velvet underground were a failure when they initially released. History tells us that so I really have no idea where you're going there with your amazing stories.

Ive no intention of continuing this with you MilanPan!c. Yes, we know "Businesses have to make money to survive". This 'business' has failed though and will change. You dont seem to be getting that into your head.

Worry less about the 'business' and more about writing good music - thats what people should be focusing on.

My only point is this:

ALL BANDS NEED LABELS IF THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY.

and

ALL OF YOUR FAVOURITE BANDS, EVEN THE FAILURES, WERE SEEN AS COMMODITIES BY THEIR LABELS.

Labels are failing because of the internet, primarily.

If it didn't exist, the music business would be in much better shape.

BUT!

The music industry, while being way too slow to react to the internet, wasn't responsible for the internet, or music piracy.

Yes, they put out garbage and screwed over many bands, LIKE EVERY BUSINESS, THEY ARE PRONE TO RIDICULOUS AND OFTEN SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR.

But c'mon, without labels, all the music you love wouldn't exist.

Will things change?

The industry is along history of business trying to adapt to changing times, change is inevitable.

So, look, sorry if you think I was being rude or whatever, I was trying to be conversational and playful.

I guess my main point is this:

At the end of the day, until there's an ACTUAL way for bands to MAKE MONEY, REAL MONEY from the internet, labels are essential.

Waking-Dreams

But c'mon, without labels, all the music you love wouldn't exist.

I agree that that was once true, but it's no longer the case. I can find music I love online because artists and songwriters have the means to create, record, and distribute their music without the need for a money-making machine.

The first counter-point to this will be, “Yes, but that's not as 'successful' as bands on labels”.

Sure, if you want to be a mega star, you'll need the big labels but you'll also be a commodity to them as well. And more to the point, since when did good music mean it's good because it has widespread, digestable, lowest common demonimantor appeal?

That kind of music saturates the charts because it makes commercial business sense, not musical sense. It's mostly just a way to advertise products to teenagers; afterall, we seem to have nothing but young lassies in skimpy skirts dancing in music videos. “Hey, it's just business man”. Call me elitist, but that is not what proper music is, so fcuk your business attitude I say to anyone who wants to defend that. Contributing to the dumbing down of society with cheap plastic entertainment for the dull masses, sounds more appropriate.

Ever hear of confirmation bias? Where you hold a certain belief and then look for any evidence that supports that belief, while talking down anything to the contrary? For example, people who think labels are “needed” - evidence: “Well, what bands get to play stadiums who aren't on a label? How far can unsigned bands really go before they run out of money?”

All a band needs is GOOD music and they will go far if they understand how things work. Except, a lot of DIY bands think their music is great, and so naturally come to the conclusion that the only thing that's holding them back is more “promotion and distribution”. The ugly truth is staring them in the face but people tend not to plunge daggers into their own self-esteem and so look for external reasons why they aren't succeeding. btw, let's be clear that hard cash sales aren't an indicator of value. The Secret book & DVD is proof of that; millions of sales and yet it's as useful as these magic beans I have beside my laptop here.

Have you heard of this website? http://maddox.xmission.com/

This site, as basic as the design might look, gets over 1 million visits per month. That came about through word of mouth alone, no adverts, nothing, not even a publicist. And after a few years the author managed to translate that traffic into hard cash sales, through merchandise, and then by publishing a book version and going on a book signing tour through the states. No 'record label' was needed. The publisher was needed in the case of the book printing because what person has the funds to finance getting hundreds of thousands of books made up? (whereas bands don't need to print 100,000 CD's anymore.) PLEASE DON'T TRY AND COMPARE BOOKS TO CDS - people still buy books like before.

Again, it just illustrates the point that you can win millions of hits through word of mouth alone IF your content is THAT GOOD to begin with.

Most bands just aren't that good so it's no wonder they're not going places.

Make sense?