Evolution of the "new" music business model

[sabriel9v]

For the past year there has been all kinds of talk about a new music business model and how this model will be drastically different from the old one. I have reason to believe that this new model will be essentially the same as the old one. Personally I feel the old model is more equitable, even in our fast paced and technologically driven environment. I know we have spoken about this before...but in what ways do you feel the new and old music business models are the same?

[richardmac]

Well, in some ways, the new model rewards conformity as much as the old model. Example - garageband.com. I've beat this dead horse before, but you rise to the top of the charts at garageband.com not by sounding different and unique, but by sounding like exactly what's on the radio in your genre. Some of the biggest myspace hits are acts that sound exactly like what's already selling in their genre. In that sense, things are the same.

 

But here's what's NOT the same - because of the success of the combination of the iPod plus mp3 sharing plus the Internet, younger people are listening to a much wider variety of music than in the past. It's not uncommon to see a 17 year old girl listening to show tunes, rap, a song by Metallica, classical, pop/rock, classic rock, classic rap, etc. They've got "Back in Black" next to "Bust a Move." They're consumers. They may still go through the whole "That band is cool" and then a year later "That band is lame" thing, but in general their tastes are much more varied.

 

This should be an advantage for all musicians - younger people are listening to a wider range of music. However, I think that for people in my age bracket and older (40+,) well, my generation and older generations already have our opinions of different styles of music and I think we are less likely to change our listening habits. Part of that is that for non-music lovers, music becomes less and less important as they get older. For older music lovers, maybe we're getting more stuff than we would have pre-Internet.

 

However, here's more to consider. That 17 year old girl who has "Back in Black" on her iPod didn't buy it. And the reason she likes it is most likely because she heard it in enough movies/commercials or whatever. If a band came out right now with the exact same sound, she probably wouldn't have anything to do with it. Unless she was seriously exposed to it. Same as it ever was.

 

The model is still listen/like/buy. You have to get people to listen. Then, if they really like it, they might buy it. The new system allows anyone to participate on any level they want. The old model was one street. The new model is a big complicated city map of streets. You might not get to your destination, but if you're doing it right, you should be able to at least have some fun exploring the city streets.

[BlueStrat]

 

But here's what's NOT the same - because of the success of the combination of the iPod plus mp3 sharing plus the Internet, younger people are listening to a much wider variety of music than in the past. It's not uncommon to see a 17 year old girl listening to show tunes, rap, a song by Metallica, classical, pop/rock, classic rock, classic rap, etc. They've got "Back in Black" next to "Bust a Move." They're consumers. They may still go through the whole "That band is cool" and then a year later "That band is lame" thing, but in general their tastes are much more varied.

Actually, that is almost exactly how it was when I was a kid in the late 60s-early 70s. But then it was because of a far fewer number of distribution outlets- fewer radio stations, fewer TV channels, no ipods, ringtones, or PCs, and fewer artists in any particular genre making records. So the radio station that called itself "rock" played everything from Hendrix, Cream and the Beatles to Ray Charles, the Supremes, and Jim Croce. So we'd hear something on the radio and trot down to the local record store or, more often JC Penney, and plunk down 50 cents for a 45 or 3 bucks for an album.

 

What has a really been the genie that can't be put back into the bottle is control of distribution. There just really is no way for any major label (or anyone form that matter) to invest a ton of money into something and have it pay off like it used to when the second it comes out it's available worldwide for free literally overnight.

 

Maybe this is good in the long run or maybe not. It's too soon to tell. One school of thought says it's good for the artist to get instant exposure (though I'm not sure how it is better than what radio used to do and at least radio paid royalties). It also levels the playing field" by giving indies and DIYs the same chance at exposure as the bigs.

 

However, it also changes the size of the playing field, and moves the goal posts to arbitrary positions to where no one really knows where they are.

 

I know I've used this analogy before, but it's a bit like that job search commercial where during a pro tennis match, people start pouring out of the stands and joining the game. Only in this case, the size of the court has expanded, too. Ultimately without control of distribution and the playing field, music has increasingly become an amateur pursuit.

[masterbuilt]

I think the whole music business is going down the tubes. More bands than ever are thinking that the way to make money is selling "stuff" not music. Forget ring-tones, forget bling. What about music. The problem is that now the clubs are getting conditioned to have bands play for free and actually have bands pay for the pleasure of playing in a particular hot venue to be considered cool.

 

Thanks, but no thanks. I do believe that if bands don't get smart soon, we will see the end of small-time musicians, and a lot of music will be gone for good.

[richardmac]

 

I do believe that if bands don't get smart soon, we will see the end of small-time musicians, and a lot of music will be gone for good.

 

 

The new system sort of encourages individuals, and not bands. It encourages recording, and not performing. The new system seems to say that one guy in his bedroom can make a song, have it become a hit on myspace, and sign a contract to write songs for Coke ads for a crapload of money. Can that happen? Yes, but... you can also win the lottery.

 

I think the number of musicians who play music for a living will definitely decrease, whether bands get wise or not. The market determines what stuff is worth. And like BlueStrat said, it IS like the tennis commercial.

 

But while it sucks to be a musician who is trying to make a living playing music, it definitely does NOT suck to be the guy on the other side - the guy who has a career they like, a wife/two kids/dog/2 cars/mortgage life, who loves playing music and can basically get his music out there to the world for free. A guy who grew up making crappy sounding home recordings bouncing between cassette players, who can now make CD quality recordings for practically nothing. Me, in other words. It does not suck for guys like me. Except...

 

Except that we grew up thinking that if we could only HAVE these things, we could be famous. If only WE had the gear, the distribution, etc. And now we've grown up and we've got it and we're still not famous. Because everyone else has got it too.

 

I've said this before - it's almost like a cruel joke. You go back and talk to yourself of 20 years ago:

 

"Dude, twenty years from now, you're going to own your own studio with better gear than what the pros have now. You're going to be able to make your own CD's, you're going to be able to advertise your music to the entire world for free. And everyone in the world will have easy access to purchase your music.

 

Unfortunately, no one will buy your music, because everyone else in the world will have the same capabilities, and because people will be trading music illegally on an extremely widespread basis and music won't have much value any more."

[BlueStrat]

 

I've said this before - it's almost like a cruel joke. You go back and talk to yourself of 20 years ago: "Dude, twenty years from now, you're going to own your own studio with better gear than what the pros have now. You're going to be able to make your own CD's, you're going to be able to advertise your music to the entire world for free. And everyone in the world will have easy access to purchase your music. Unfortunately, no one will buy your music, because everyone else in the world will have the same capabilities, and because people will be trading music illegally on an extremely widespread basis and music won't have much value any more."

 

That's the most concise and accurate assessment of the current state I've ever read.

 

I'm in awe!

[sabriel9v]

 

It's too soon to tell. One school of thought says it's good for the artist to get instant exposure (though I'm not sure how it is better than what radio used to do and at least radio paid royalties). It also levels the playing field" by giving indies and DIYs the same chance at exposure as the bigs.

 

 

The playing field has been leveled to some extent. Nonetheless, don't you feel that the large amounts of revenue that bigger and more established corporate entities can produce will always trump the efforts of smaller independents?

[Nijyo]

 

The playing field has been leveled to some extent. Nonetheless, don't you feel that the large amounts of revenue that bigger and more established corporate entities can produce will always trump the efforts of smaller independents?

 

 

I would agree. My feeling is that the major benefit to the major labels is their preexisting distribution networks. The access to more ears.

 

 

Unfortunately, no one will buy your music, because everyone else in the world will have the same capabilities, and because people will be trading music illegally on an extremely widespread basis and music won't have much value any more."

Music still has value, however the level of monetary expenditure required to simply obtain the recording of a song only existed due to technological limitations that produced an artificial scarcity. People still value music, but they are no longer willing to pay as much as in the past for simple access to the media. The harder it becomes to gain access to what people used to be able to do with music, the less they buy in favor of easy access to torrents/etc. The time of simply selling music as the primary revenue paradigm is past, now it *has* to be packaged with something physical, something people can hold, and which is difficult to reproduce by unauthorized means in order to get people to pony up cash for it.

[Poker99]

 

I've said this before - it's almost like a cruel joke. You go back and talk to yourself of 20 years ago: "Dude, twenty years from now, you're going to own your own studio with better gear than what the pros have now. You're going to be able to make your own CD's, you're going to be able to advertise your music to the entire world for free. And everyone in the world will have easy access to purchase your music. Unfortunately, no one will buy your music, because everyone else in the world will have the same capabilities, and because people will be trading music illegally on an extremely widespread basis and music won't have much value any more."

 

 

lol truth so pure

[MartinC]

What a great post-you nailed it. I'm also that guy with the day gig, wife, two kids, etc. and I do have a great recording setup, more instruments than I know what to do with, all the toys. The only things I don't have that I hoped for thirty years ago(heh, i'm a bit older)is hot and cold running babes, all day long to use all that crap, and the draw to be able to headline concerts. Pretty significant items.

 

I'm not sure about the cruel joke part though. I think it can be done still, but you have to put out 100,000 dollars worth of effort to make 40,000 IMO.

I'm not sure that part's ever been different.

 

 

The new system sort of encourages individuals, and not bands. It encourages recording, and not performing. The new system seems to say that one guy in his bedroom can make a song, have it become a hit on myspace, and sign a contract to write songs for Coke ads for a crapload of money. Can that happen? Yes, but... you can also win the lottery. I think the number of musicians who play music for a living will definitely decrease, whether bands get wise or not. The market determines what stuff is worth. And like BlueStrat said, it IS like the tennis commercial. But while it sucks to be a musician who is trying to make a living playing music, it definitely does NOT suck to be the guy on the other side - the guy who has a career they like, a wife/two kids/dog/2 cars/mortgage life, who loves playing music and can basically get his music out there to the world for free. A guy who grew up making crappy sounding home recordings bouncing between cassette players, who can now make CD quality recordings for practically nothing. Me, in other words. It does not suck for guys like me. Except... Except that we grew up thinking that if we could only HAVE these things, we could be famous. If only WE had the gear, the distribution, etc. And now we've grown up and we've got it and we're still not famous. Because everyone else has got it too. I've said this before - it's almost like a cruel joke. You go back and talk to yourself of 20 years ago: "Dude, twenty years from now, you're going to own your own studio with better gear than what the pros have now. You're going to be able to make your own CD's, you're going to be able to advertise your music to the entire world for free. And everyone in the world will have easy access to purchase your music. Unfortunately, no one will buy your music, because everyone else in the world will have the same capabilities, and because people will be trading music illegally on an extremely widespread basis and music won't have much value any more."

 

[germs]

Are you guys referring to the "all in" business model?

 

I don't see how that changes anything...Effectively, instead of bands owing the label for recording and paying for that through merch, tickets etc, NOW bands have to pay back the label for merch, tickets, recording, etc. and have a clean percentage dedicated off the top.

 

It's really robbing Peter to pay Paul, and I don't see how it's any better. If anything, it's worse.

 

There's much to be said about controlling costs and whatnot for the label - being able to asses what things cost, and brokering better deals for themselves...I understand THAT. But I don't see how it'll be "better" for a band.

 

This is going to be like New Coke. Essentially the same product in a different package that everyone agrees sucks.

[sabriel9v]

This is going to be like New Coke. Essentially the same product in a different package that everyone agrees sucks.

 

I've got to make that a quote

 

Do any of you feel the "new" music business model is inefficient?

[Nijyo]

I've got to make that a quote Do any of you feel the "new" music business model is inefficient?

 

Yes, but I think its a trade-off. Kinda like how the US gov't is deliberately designed to be inefficient. Being too efficient, too mass-production-like is what got the music-industry into its "too big to change" present form (just like "bipartisan congressional and executive cooperation" got us the Patriot Act :/ )

[sabriel9v]

 

Yes, but I think its a trade-off. Kinda like how the US gov't is deliberately designed to be inefficient. Being too efficient, too mass-production-like is what got the music-industry into its "too big to change" present form (just like "bipartisan congressional and executive cooperation" got us the Patriot Act :/ )

 

 

I agree and disagree. Being efficient and mass production like is not what hurt the record industry. What essentially hurt the industry is that bulky and gargantuan major labels were too slow to respond to change. They didn't anticipate change quickly enough and their vast and bureaucratic structures muddied lines of communication. However, their huge amounts of capital is what kept money flowing in and out of the industry...what happens if that capital is sucked out?

[CLOCK13]

 

That's the most concise and accurate assessment of the current state I've ever read. I'm in awe!

 

 

 

He should write a book about the music business.

[CLOCK13]

 

The playing field has been leveled to some extent. Nonetheless, don't you feel that the large amounts of revenue that bigger and more established corporate entities can produce will always trump the efforts of smaller independents?

 

 

Absolutely. In the past some major label releases as you know would sell 10 million copies a year. The major labels are going to need to accept the fact that the biggest selling albums of the year will now sell closer to 3 million.

[germs]

Absolutely. In the past some major label releases as you know would sell 10 million copies a year. The major labels are going to need to accept the fact that the biggest selling albums of the year will now sell closer to 3 million.

 

But what is your logic? Are you in agreement with the previous post that there are "too many fish in the sea" to guarantee sales?

 

I would have to add that the homogenization of the individual genres is also contributing to an overall downtrend in sales. It would seem that the majors are adopting the Motown business model from the 60's in that as soon as an artist hits, the label will clone their own success as many times as possible.

 

But I'm pretty sure that's all been said before in this thread... so many good answers here...

[BlueStrat]

 

what happens if that capital is sucked out?

 

 

You get a million bands on myspace all producing their own records no one is waiting for, for which no market exists, trying to figure out some way to get a few thousand people to pay attention to them.

[Poker99]

 

You get a million bands on myspace all producing their own records no one is waiting for, for which no market exists, trying to figure out some way to get a few thousand people to pay attention to them.

 

 

 

Exactly. Too many {censored}ing bands... Music has no more value.

 

Offer and demand! Make it rare once again and poeple will pay for it.

 

Won't happen.

[germs]

That's where you're wrong. The cream will always rise. If nothing else, the kiddos who are absolutely sucking will give up and stop once they see that no one is paying attention to them and move on to something else. I view it as an "attention span" thing...or at least that's how it's playing out...

[Poker99]

That's where you're wrong. The cream will always rise...

 

 

 

 

[germs]

You can bag on whomever you want, but how many #1 hits have you had?

 

It was a rhetorical question, I know you don't have a single song on the Billboard Charts.

 

Point is, enough people thought these guys were great and purchased albums, attended concerts, etc. Hell, when Limp Bizkit came out in the late 90's, I listened to them. It was new music, and I was in highschool...you know the drill.

 

Bottom line: Let's not let this degrade into a "these guys suck, this is why, life is unfair" arguement (if it's not too late already). Some good things have been said regarding the topic at hand, and I'd like to see the continuation of this discussion...you know, if that's okay with you and all. Massa.

[Poker99]

Generalities like "if you have talent and work hard, you will make it" and "if you are good enough, you will be popular" and "popular band are artists are the cream of the crop, that's why they are there" are not true and believing in them is one of the main problems of many aspiring artists.

 

But hey, to each his own. You can believe the {censored} that's ruling the charts is the best of the best if you want. I prefer a more critical view of what the industry is offering me.

[richardmac]

germs and Poker99 are both right. It makes no sense to yell at the storm - the storm does not respect you. You will, however, get wet. It is what it is. And the generalities don't always work either - I agree with Poker99. This is not athletics. So where do we end up?

 

Every songwriter has to make many decisions when writing. Some people write strictly to please themselves, and if others like it or they don't, it doesn't matter - they figure if THEY like it, there ought to be others out there. And some people write with an audience in mind, aka Taxi. You better not be trying to sell songs to TV and Film if you're not catering to what they want. Some people maybe try to walk the line between these two approaches.

 

If you write your own music and you want to perform and/or sell it, you can. But the odds of it being anything more than a fun hobby are extremely long. If you're cool with that, you can have all kinds of fun doing this stuff. If not, then... you're probably going to end up disappointed, unless you get extremely lucky. And that's possible but not probable.

[soundwave106]

Depends on what you mean by "cream of the crop". #1 pop bands *do* sell many records for a reason.

 

You may not need a whole lot of actual musical talent and chops to become a #1 pop band (though if you don't have help, songwriting talent is a must). Connections (how Limp Bizkit made it) and luck (the Jonas Brothers story) may also help.

 

But why the dis on Simple Plan? Sure, they're pop punk, but they rose up through touring as Reset (though they did change their style from SoCal style melodic hardcore to pop punk).