The New Music Business Whether you like it or not.

[richardmac]

You have to wonder what the current 800 pound gorilla (Apple iTunes) is cooking up. They bought out lala, and the insiders all think they're building a subscription service with it that they'll unleash at some point in time. It would be nice to see an iTunes subscription vs. Spotify, because the winner would be the consumer. Assuming people like it as much as you say.

 

I wasn't really so much talking about Spotify being an artist discovery tool, but rather more like this: Say right now I own 2,000 songs. So when I want to listen to music, I can choose from those 2,000 songs. Now suddenly suppose I have access to 20 million songs. Will that hurt my desire to discover brand new unknown artists, knowing I can listen to anything from the history of recorded music instead? That's more along the lines of what I meant. But you're right - building a "buzz" around an artist is a process that is going to continue to be very difficult.

 

So it's possible that if subscription models emerge as the next big thing, we might like them as consumers and hate them as small time unknown artists. Who knows. It probably won't matter that much for us, anyway.

[Poker99]

I see you point Richard!

 

Also, how do you "get" on Spotify? Do they accept unknown bands? I doubt it.

[flatfinger]

The thing about a new artist "breaking" is; ....................................

 

 

 

I read a recent bit of music punditry that said no one has any earthly Idea how to break a new band now days. But I wouldn't go thinking it was ever an exact science. The Idealist in me of course wants to believe that artist and songs of merit will rise above on there strengths alone , but , the cynic knows that's dam near impossible with the present systemic faults.

 

I started another thread awhile back questioning if the public at large even went out of there way to seek out originality... Given how many of these services try to index what you already prefer and then attempt to divine that in order to find stuff that shares qualities that are already part of your preferences , It would seem to be a recipe for the same old same old redux regurgitation!!!

 

 

I know that I don't listen to the Classic rock radio stations cause it's so targeted at the focus group wants and needs and so, never attempts to slip in anything new. But I can only surmise that they are staying in business so most listeners don't tune out like myself ....

 

 

So how in hell does an on line purveyor like a Spotfly or Pandora use computer algos to sniff out the next big thing ...... My guess would be that they won't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[daddymack]

Next big things are a risk...and businesses traditionally avoid risks.

Entrepreneurs take calculated risks.

You need to prove you are a calculated risk and find an entrepreneur.

That, people, is the new music business model.

Good luck with it.

[richardmac]

Yeah, actually, that is maybe the best summary of the new music biz that I've ever heard. Nice job, daddymack!

[sventvkg]

Dude..Spotify is not a radio. It's more like an God's iTunes collection where you have access to millions of tunes. You still have to find your music elsewhere but you can play it, share playlist, social network, listen to other people's playlists and create your own that other people can listen to as well. That's where you find your music. You check out playlists from your friends and friends of friends..It's all connected and integrated with social networking. Seriously, people are using this all over Europe and once you understand it here it will take over. It's the future.

[daddymack]

Yeah, actually, that is maybe the best summary of the new music biz that I've ever heard. Nice job, daddymack!

Thanks, Rich, I guess all those business classes I took back in college weren't wasted after all...

[flatfinger]

 

Dude..Spotify is not a radio....................... It's the future.

 

 

 

http://www.spotify.com/int/why-not-available/

 

 

 

Spotify coming soon Thanks for visiting Spotify But for the time being, we’re not able to launch in every country

 

 

 

From where I log on , It's nothing!!!

 

 

 

We'll see if they can get the rights holders to cave in ;

 

There must be a reason why they aren't on the band wagon yet ...............

 

Probably the horrible aversion too giving it away for almost free !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flatfinger]

 

That, people, is the new music business model. Good luck with it.

 

 

 

You forgot the part where you're a self aggrandizing , Hubris filled media whore without a smidgen of modesty !!!

[daddymack]

You forgot the part where you're a self-aggrandizing, Hubris-filled media whore without a smidgen of modesty !!!

Well, heck, that goes without saying...

[richardmac]

The majors don't like Spotify because it's the freemium model - the model is that anyone can use it for free, and if you pay a little you can use it with no commercials, and if you pay more still you can download the content. And the paying members pay for the free members, in a way. The money comes in, and they divide it up based on who got played, along with revenue from the commercials.

 

Flatfinger hit the nail on the head. The majors don't like the idea that the majority of people who will sign up for it in the US will just stick with the free version - so they'll basically get to listen to any music they want to for free, and the amount of money coming in from the paying members will not be this monumentally huge amount. The majors think that Spotify will reduce the need of people to buy music even further, hurting sales.

 

However, the folks at Spotify claim that it will do the opposite - people will hear music, love it, and then buy it. They claim this is happening now in Europe.

 

As long as the majors don't buy in, Spotify can't launch in the US. Who is right and who is wrong? Doesn't matter unless the majors change their tune.

 

I had originally asked why Spotify would succeed where other pay per month schemes had failed, but the answer is very simple - there's a free version. Spotify seems to me a bit like giving in and facing the reality that the war is over and the pirates won... and the only way to survive is to give people more than the pirates ever did, but find a way to upsell enough people to still make money. And to be honest... it's true. The war is over, and the pirates did win. The traditional music biz is a sinking ship and nothing can turn the clock back. Spotify may not be perfect, but it is probably the music industry's best hope. They'll fight it as long as they can, and eventually give in.

 

The combination of Spotify and Facebook could only be a good thing for indie musicians. Assuming we can get our music on Spotify.

 

Meanwhile, Apple tries to put together its own miserable music social network, Ping. Which is a big horrendous stinking piece of push. And what does Apple do when Spotify comes in and takes over as most important tech company in music? That will be interesting to watch. Do they work with Spotify, or compete with them? Or both?

 

You're right, sventvkg. The more I read about it and think about it, the more I think you're right. Spotify will change the game and when it hits the US, everyone will use it. But I suspect it will have competition. No one gets to just move into the US and suddenly own the music biz. Maybe Apple moves to a similar model. Maybe Google does. Regardless, once the genie is out of the bottle, the game changes overnight. Like I said, assuming we can get on Spotify, this would be a good thing for us. Even despite my earlier fears about competing against the entire history of recorded music.

[flatfinger]

Well as long as it's understood that by throwing the old guard under the bus, we accept that without a group effort ( a bunch of specialist who each can make a REAL living by trying to be the best they can be at whatever their specialty might be ...... writing songs , producing , playing an instrument , running a board, ect. ect .)

 

 

We will be trading in for jack of all trades master of none situations ( even a group of four to five who try and handle all the recording and mixing and mastering , in addition to being performing musicians, is a hugely bigger load to bear , and then you are still left without producers.... ).

 

Given the loss of what many a self-improvement or success guru's would refer too as a " Master Mind Collective" and the reduction of expertise and crucial experience, I would say that you should be wary of competing with those legacy productions which had all the afore mention power behind them .

I am in away saddened when I see I-Tunes recently pimping a 45 year old Band ( no matter how great they were...) in a massive advertising campaign ....

 

 

In a way , it says it all.

[daddymack]

Spotify is not radio, but it is the internet-based evolutionary offspring of commercial radio.

Why do I say this? Because it offers essentially the same deal commercial radio did for decades: you can hear music without paying for it, but you have to deal with our advertising.

I actually think a good portion of listeners will opt for the pay to hear commercial free; no one expected people to pay for cable TV originally, let alone pay services like HBO and pay-per-view, now the pay services dominate the entire marketplace.

No one thought people would pay for Sirius or XM, yet they are doing fine (now that they are not competing...it is not a big enough pie... yet).

[Bare Bones]

120,000,000 youtube views = 600,000 albums sold

 

I've seen every one of their videos but cannot name a single song. Their videos made them famous, but the music was background to what was on the screen.

 

Kind of a shame, I saw them at a music festival this past year and they were pretty good.

[BlueStrat]

nice point here daddymack! there's goes the saying if you failed to plan you prepare to failed. we must take a risk in any business we want to in. no risk no gain

 

And speaking of fail....

[Poker99]

 

The combination of Spotify and Facebook could only be a good thing for indie musicians. Assuming we can get our music on Spotify.

 

 

My main concern is how will they distribute money to small/indie artists? It will be negligible, and will they really know how many times our songs have been played? I have the feeling only major artits will receive royalty checks.

[BlueStrat]

 

My main concern is how will they distribute money to small/indie artists? It will be negligible, and will they really know how many times our songs have been played? I have the feeling only major artits will receive royalty checks.

 

 

 

Kind of like the way it works now......

[Poker99]

 

Kind of like the way it works now......

 

 

Exactly. I'm sure they could, with the help of a third party, link plays with a band's paypal account or something... CDBaby will probably do this.

[Floreste]

Has making it EVER been 'about the music'?

 

I think its a boon that the top-down, big daddy model of the record industry is dissolving, and not just for creative control reasons. Finding new ways to create music involves using all the means at our disposal new mediums like spotify, youtube, etc. Look at the huge joke Joaqin Phoenix played on such a large group.

 

A reticence to do something great isn't about a broken system but a simple lack of creativity and imagination. In the end the content is everything.

 

Understandably some musicians are fundamentally threatened by the fact that they have to get off their lazy butts and be innovative. End story: If you can't bring anything to the table get out. We don't need you around.

[sventvkg]

I agree Floreste. It's not about getting paid now anymore. It just isn't. Most over 30 can't grasp this, like Chris Anderson says in his book FREE.

[daddymack]

And that will ultimately prove disastrous for all musicians, as they will cease to find the performance of music worth the effort beyond the moment of creating it.

Those who rely on the financial aspects of performing or recording, as well as anything related to the music business will gradually surrender and find other ways to make a living.

More's the pity.

We will be buried in oldies.

New music will stop being released as there will be no rationale to record it or release it.

Instrument sales will dwindle, tubes will be obsoleted.

Guitar strings will be custom ordered from a few boutique manufacturers, as will guitars, amps, keyboards, harmonicas; they will eventually become historical artifacts...school bands will fall by the wayside...it is the end of days, indeed.

 

Only the truly driven will seek to learn and play music, and it will be nothing more than another hobby, like stamp collecting.

 

Somehow...there is a certain sense of closure to this...but that doesn't mean it pleases me.

[sventvkg]

I really have to doubt your stance on the doom to come daddymack. I don't see it coming anywhere near that level of collapse. You're looking at it through a 20th century model that doesn't work anymore for better or worse. Something new will rise up out of the ashes. Will Music sales be the dominant income stream for artists from now on? I doubt it but there will be $$ made in other ways. I'm not going to rehash all those ways here because it's be covered to death. I have faith.

 

Also, it's crazy to think all music will stop being released and you won't be able to get guitar strings because music stores will all be shut down etc. There are more kids getting into playing music than Ever! Seriously, look into it man. There are also more people listening to music than ever! It's just that there are a lot more activities competing for people's time and admittedly music is all but free now so the old model is breaking down. Maybe eventually as in the 1930's ASCAP, BMI and SESAC will have to come in and demand to be paid a percentage from the ISP's. I don't know but it's going to be something liked that mixed with the subscription/SPOTIFY thing. Rest assured, the music industry interests that represent the artists are working on ways to get paid and it will happen. It's the GREATEST time in history to be making music and if you're GREAT you will be able to make money.

[trmckenz]

i think that music should be able to be listened to free of charge. its like shopping for a pair of shoes. you walk in, can browse through all the styles, try them on, can wear the shoe as much as you want. to take them out of the store you must purchase them. i.e. digital download. the bands can just receive the money through the site, independent of anyone else (assuming contracts aren't blocking that).

[richardmac]

Oh boy. THIS whole debate again. I've agreed with both sides of this debate and flip flopped so much I'm starting to feel like a politician.

 

I see no evidence that kids will stop buying guitars and learning to play due to the collapse of the big music labels (and the small ones, for that matter.) People want to hear new music. If they're not getting it from the major labels they'll get it from the indies. If they're not getting it from the indies, they'll get it directly from the artists. The control of music is going to get handed from the labels to the individual artists. Some would argue this is a major improvement. Regardless, as long as people are listening to music, a certain percentage of kids will want to learn how to make music.

 

But it is also true that those individual artists are probably going to have day jobs. Only a small percentage of all artists in the future will be making a living via original music. Only a small percentage are right now. Figuring out how to monetize the relationship between fans and artist is the new big challenge. Some people have gotten it figured out. Most of us are just sort of scratching our heads.

 

But let's not pretend that things will be sooo much better without the majors. Things might be better without today's majors, true, because they suck. But some of the great acts of the past would not have happened without major label support. This will hurt. If the guys in Rush got together today, there'd be no 2112, because after they put out their first CD, on their own, they would have had to go get jobs to feed themselves. They would not have evolved as a band because they would not have had all that time together working on better music. So I think it's possible that some great music might never get made now, because no one can bankroll it. Put another way, I'm pretty sure that someone who can devote themselves to music full time will be able to write better than if they only had an hour or two per night to work on it, AFTER they'd worked all day and were tired.

 

I think it's also amusing to talk to some of the middle/high school kids who think they're going to be in a band and make all this money. I say "How will you make the money?" And they say "By being successful." I bring up the fact that if they get popular everyone will steal their music and they won't make any money that way, then I bring up the fact that live concert attendance is down and bands are struggling to sell out smaller venues now, unless they're U2. They sort of get this confused look on their face. They don't get it.

 

Music will become like Arena Football. The guys who play Arena Football are professional athletes, and they get paid to play a sport, but the vast majority of them have other jobs because football doesn't pay all the bills. That's where music is headed, with the rare few making serious bucks.

 

I also believe that in order to get noticed, artists will go further and further out onto limbs to sound different. The absolute kiss of death in the new music business is being a singer/songwriter with an acoustic guitar. You might as well quit, no matter how good you are.

 

Despite all of that, some great music will still get created. The question is, will you ever hear it, or will it disappear into the vast void of MySpace Generation Maroon 5 Wannabee's?

 

You better be in music for something other than the money. But then again, wasn't that always true? I don't know. This stuff makes my head hurt. And I fully realize that I'm making all this stuff up, and I don't know any more or less than the next guy with a computer on the Internet.

[daddymack]

i think that music should be able to be listened to free of charge. its like shopping for a pair of shoes. you walk in, can browse through all the styles, try them on, can wear the shoe as much as you want. to take them out of the store you must purchase them. i.e. digital download. the bands can just receive the money through the site, independent of anyone else (assuming contracts aren't blocking that).

Your shoestore analogy has more holes in it than the Albert Hall

...trying on shoes in the store is like only hearing the first 15 seconds of the song....and there are already places you can hear a sample...but that is not the same as taking the music with you, or knowing what the entire song sounds like, etc. You might as well have used test driving a car...but the same flaw exists.

 

For decades, we did get music for free, from commercial radio, in fact, we still do...and if you liked what you heard, you went and bought the single, or the entire recording.

All the old models are failing, being obsoleted by new technologies; my 'doom scenario' was intentionally tongue-in-cheek, but with a sense of "do not discount the possibility"...for all we know, computer generated music will replace us all in another decade.

Ask the SAG/AFTRA people how they feel about all the cgi characters in commercials today...and where that is leading. The 'human element' may be a diminishing commodity in the creative communities in the coming years...don't think it can't happen.

Do you know anyone who makes buggy whips? When was the last time you saw a new car with carburators? See any VHS machines being manufactured? Cassette tapes?

Things that were once popular, 'can't live without' items fall by the wayside almost daily...why do we arrogantly assume it can't happen to us...

 

One need only look at player pianos...they nearly made pianists obsolete at the beginning of the 20th century...