The Economist on new music models

[soundwave106]

There's been a lot of talk about music models here recently; interestingly enough, The Economist chimed in with their own take this week on a recent new model trend. Here's the leader;here's the expanded story.

 

The essence of this model is that, since recordings are increasingly viewed by consumers as "free", it unfortunately makes less sense trying to sell music as a physical product. Instead, the new model tested is bundling -- the focus of the article is Nokia's "Comes With Music" service, being launched in Britain (along with a few others being tried out in Europe). Buy a phone, you get a "free" year's subscription to a music download service, where you can get whatever songs you want. (In reality, the price of the service is passed on with the cost of the phone.)

 

If this model succeeds... to me, this confirms that mass music is now just a service to add value to products, and that "selling" music requires hiding the cost in other things people are willing to pay for. This means marketable brand or images is more important to the majors than ever; I think this will mean more manufactured music in the top of the charts, personally.

 

This reinforces the trend of pop music not being a sustainable career for most of us (if it's all marketing, what marketing connections do most of us really have?). I think it is still possible to become a indie / cult music superstar via the usual methods (good music; connections; luck), and in fact you can have some very long "careers" as such. However, 99% of the time, music probably will never be your primary career (even if you get known on the indie circuit).

 

That's my take at least.

[sabriel9v]

 

However, 99% of the time, music probably will never be your primary career (even if you get known on the indie circuit).

 

 

I disagree with this statement. Music can be one's primary career, but we have to realize that all the standards have diminished. Artists and labels can't expect to sell as many physical records in their opening week, we're going to have to rely more on new media outlets to expose our material to wider bases and audiences. Touring will be essential not only to make money via gigs, but to directly connect with audiences so they will have an incentive to purchase your music.

 

As musicians and music fans, we all fed into the lie that we could someday roll around in jumbo jets and limos drinking bubbly Cristal and throwing tvs off of hotel rooftops. The truth is, only a handful of people were doing that in the sixties and seventies and the rest just worked regular jobs. Our country is in a recession now and music is a luxury item. People NEED to be spending money on groceries and bills first before buying the latest Pop Superstar Bull{censored} cd. If and when things get better from an economic perspective, people will have more money to throw around on live shows, downloads, and whatever else. If I was even a regional or semi-national artist paying my bills solely off music, I'd tighten my belt buckle, take a shot, and add a few more dates onto my tour schedule. All the while documenting my tour and creating opportunities in which the audience can only engage with me in a live format and not via the radio.

[soundwave106]

 

I disagree with this statement. Music can be one's primary career, but we have to realize that all the standards have diminished. Artists and labels can't expect to sell as many physical records in their opening week, we're going to have to rely more on new media outlets to expose our material to wider bases and audiences. Touring will be essential not only to make money via gigs, but to directly connect with audiences so they will have an incentive to purchase your music.

 

 

I should've clarified that statement a bit, and said that "indie original music rarely can be your primary career"... as there is still opportunity in music outside original popular music. Still, though, you are right... it's still possible, but the standards have diminished, and touring, or other forms of getting compensation, are more important than ever.

[richardmac]

It's possible. It's just probably not possible for the majority of people who'd like to do it.

 

I still think that the artist who sells CD's at live gigs for a small amount of money (say 5 bucks each) is going to continue to be able to sell CD's. At 5 bucks, it's an impulse buy. At 10 or more bucks, people are increasingly turning away.

 

As far as how the major labels sell their music and all that stuff, well... to be honest, I don't much care. I don't buy much major label stuff. It's interesting to see the big labels scramble, but the interesting stuff is coming out on small labels or independently, these days, at least for me.

[sabriel9v]

 

I don't buy much major label stuff. It's interesting to see the big labels scramble, but the interesting stuff is coming out on small labels or independently, these days, at least for me.

 

 

Now that I really think about it, I've rarely cared about what's been released on major labels. To me, the most creative and interesting acts have always used major labels as a large stepping stone to the next level. They created a sound and image for themselves according to their own standards and accumulated a nice sized fanbase throughout that process. The major labels simply had the money to push them on national and international scales.