Do we need the major labels PART II

[Poker99]

Nice article, read and comment!

 

 

http://www.musiciansatlas.com/newsletter/mar08/majorinvestments.asp

[Instrospection]

 

Nice article, read and comment! http://www.musiciansatlas.com/newsletter/mar08/majorinvestments.asp

 

 

Yeah, that was a good article.

 

 

"How? The Majors have to invest less in the next “big thing” and put smaller amounts of money in the hands of many bands and artists like myself, John Romano. With $50-$100,000 a well organized band could do the following two things at 10% of what the Majors currently pay: * A. Fully equip their project studios. My band and many bands like me record in a kind of underground environment where we self produce quality tracks and use up and coming LA producers for a fraction of what the Majors pay the hit makers of days past. * B. Rent a comfortable touring vehicle and get on the road. I can think of twenty bands that would be big in Topeka if they could just afford to get there. The Majors of course would make sure the product was mastered properly and in stores digital and otherwise. If a band starts making some noise then and only then EMI or Warner Bros. could drop some heavy doe to make the crowds flow. Obviously, there are caveats that need to be addressed like the role of Booking Agents, radio promotion, and tour marketing in the process."

 

 

See, that's the thing--the wave of the future is bands doing stuff in their home studios, and the majors haven't realized this yet. There's just not the money to pay the money for the "name" guys. Conversely, alot of bands that have home studios that don't have a clue how to make records. They want to, they just don't have the technical knowhow to make a great sounding record. In the "good/ fast/ cheap", you're lucky to get one, rarely get two, and very, very rarely get all three. And now your average band is suffering, because they have no technical people to advise on it, because those technical people want to get paid for their advice.

 

They can still pay the big names--because the big names will work with the big acts. But i've noticed that there's a weird middleground as a fledgling or lesser known engineer/ producer--the bands that are bigger have their people already, and the new bands have no money to pay for recordings. Like, zilch. They put no priority on paying people for stuff, because they've only played two basement shows or whatever, but this is the only way that new engineers can get experience. As a friend of mine once said, "I can't buy bands to work with". And he's a good engineer. So guys that went to recording school and know what they're doing, are suffering, because there's this weird gap of bands either being too small with no money, or getting ignored by even moderately well known local acts.

 

And that weird gap is the next generation of bands given the money and the shot by labels--independent labels, majors, etc (the indies have been stung by downloads, too). They can't go into bigger studios, they can't hire people, because the live shows are dying. Even a guy like Steve Albini or Jack Endino--names that were once affordable to the majority of indie bands on labels---are too expensive, and they don't cost alot to hire, ironically. The reason for that is because bands, themselves, have to sink more into their own loans, instead of in the past, where the label would take on the loan. When it's your own bread and butter on the table, I have to side with the indies and majors in the downsizing--I got back $6600 on my tax return last year for our last record. That money had to be paid in the meantime, AND that's not counting in the cost of what we would have had to pay an engineer and producer (in other words, we didn't get paid for our time). If we included that time factor, it would have likely been close to 100 grand (my own estimate, in working on songs with upwards of 30 and 40 tracks...."Into The Abyss" on our MySpace has 30 tracks, "Sonic Maelstrom" has 45 overdubs, multilayered vocals, multitracked lead "guitarmonies", pianos, etc.).

 

I've seen tons of bands play to 3 people, as the writer stated. And these were great bands! And sometimes touring bands that were undoubtedly losing money. They just weren't playing the trendy music or weren't playing the industry games.

[sabriel9v]

 

With $50-$100,000 a well organized band could do the following two things at 10% of what the Majors currently pay:

 

 

This is the statement that struck me the most. HOW are artists supposed to get 50-100k? Last time I checked, enormous sums of money didn't grow on trees.

[daddymack]

aside from the money issue, note the term 'up and coming LA producers'...now where did these guys come up from?

You guessed it, from the label stables.

I hate to admit this, but, IMHO, in about 95% of the cases, the talent of the band does less to sell the music than the overall skill of the producer.

 

Why?

Because the producer is that listener who can actually tell the band what works and doesn't, when they are being over indulgent, when they are making too much of somethng, or too little of something...things the average band musician isn't looking for when he/she hears their band's recording.

 

Also, having the greatest recording rig in the world in your home is not always so great if you don't have the skill to use it to its utmost...and honestly, most home studio operators really do not.

[tiamatdrumer]

nice article

[DanielQ]

Quite debatable. My opinion is that currently, a major label isn't needed, but it is the fastest track towards success. IF you have the funds to do it yourself, it will take more time, but it's equally doable.

[SgMaster]

I like the whole idea of smaller labels turning into artist management companies that would work with concert promoters, publishers, lawyers, have their own A&R (as in 1 or 2 people) and essentially, with a small staff, act as a major label would, but instead of releasing the music or producing it themselves, they send the artist to a studio the artist commissions from a list of approved ones (as in they have to be professional enough to provide good results the masses could be happy with). Also, the new "label" would provide online distribution of their catalog through: 1) using an online service like iTunes, Amazon etc. 2) a subscription service that charges monthly 3) through distribution on the "label's" own site: either through subscription, per-song download for money, or all free. So I sort of think the $50-100,000 per band would be great, but if they band isn't good enough to keep making profit, what happens to that money and whoever they owe for the loan? I think some kind of label should exist, but not in the same way and not with as much power to control the artist.

[thedolaon]

i really honestly don't think live shows are dying. i really don't see it.

 

I went to this show last month and it was f'n packed and get this, the venue had two tour shows going on at the same time. I really don't believe live music is dying.

 

maybe it's more with mainstream artists, but for upcoming, indie artist. negative.

 

but i agreed with everything else you said instropection.

[SgMaster]

but consider that with the 360 plans and the focus on merch and touring that tour prices may go up a lot more, so its possible only "Devoted fans" would pay the extra cost to go see these artists. Good seats to see the Clapton-Winwood show at MSG were $180-280. That was a special 3 date only thing so it wasn't the best example. Dr. John is still $40, but Santana, with a little Derek Trucks action is $180 I think. So costs of upcoming indie artists will still be low, which is great, but more established current artists will charge more. Plus, Live Nation is basically a major record label, but for shows. They stopped selling through Ticket Master and now sell on their own, ie more money for Live Nation to control artists (Madonna). It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the next few years

[Instrospection]

 

i really honestly don't think live shows are dying. i really don't see it. I went to this show last month and it was f'n packed and get this, the venue had two tour shows going on at the same time. I really don't believe live music is dying. maybe it's more with mainstream artists, but for upcoming, indie artist. negative. but i agreed with everything else you said instropection.

 

 

The bigger artists still pack places. Moreso, artists that had already gained steam prior to the last 3 or 4 years, i've noticed. The clubs, here, at least, are hurting because they have trouble filling up the place or even covering costs most nights of the week....it's not the weekend shows that are hurting them, it's the other 3 or 4 nights that are a killer while they try to fill up days with other acts and other bands; most of whom are unknowns and just playing to friends and family and destined to never break out of obscurity if they're just playing to friends and family on a Monday night. I've seen that routine in other bands that I was in.

 

Now with the crackdown on drunk driving, the cigarette ban from indoor smoking, as well as an aging set of people that go (went?) to shows that now have careers, responsibilities and things like that, i've seen tons of dead shows on a Sunday night, Monday, Tuesday....sometimes even Thursday, sometimes even Friday. Now everything is becoming Thursday-Friday-Saturday, and I know that some bands can't even get booked here, because the weekend shows are generally increasingly being reserved for acts that already draw, which further hurts the development of the up and coming scene. It's getting to the point that the only point for newer bands is to play with a more established touring act--piggybacking unknowns with well knowns is the best way to get noticed-- but everyone and their dog wants to be on that bill, so it's back to playing to 10-15 people on a Monday night, most of whom are your friends, and then it's difficult to get in front of a bigger audience.

 

That may be different for different places--and different genres of music--but I know that the regular bass/ drums/ vocals/ guitar setup (unless you're a cover band) is getting more and more difficult to get people out to shows. I've noticed that as I get older (i'm 29), getting people to go to shows is getting rarer, so I usually just end up going by myself. I do know that alot of people that want to go to shows alot of times just don't go.....the turnout of audiences isn't always representative of who wants/ wanted to go. It's not worth it for them to knock back 30-50 bucks on a cab ride there and back, on top of 20-30 bucks for cover and some drinks, before merch.

 

Here's another cog in how people started getting paid less--club bookers started booking any band that could draw people out, regardless of talent. So they started voting with how many people turned up (most of whom were those bands' friends), as opposed to booking those bands because they were actually good. Also, Battle Of The Bands killed alot of the scene off--bands were encouraged to get their friends out, I know that the bands weren't paid (instead offered the "opportunity" to possibly win studio time as payoff), other bands' friends would only stay until their friends' bands set was over, and it all had a real clinical feel where it wasn't developing the scene. It wasn't supportive, it was too competitive. It all seemed like a great idea at the time--I was probably in those "crappy" bands, hahaa, and I know that we did a few Battle Of The Bands things feeling totally un-enamored and asking, "why the hell did we do that again?".

 

Great learning experience, though, in which I can pinpoint where live music truly started going downhill, with club bookers getting desperate to get anyone into the clubs, but at an expense--quality control. I remember in the rave scene around 2000-2001, my other bands would play to 10-15 people on a Saturday night (most of whom were the other bands), and then a couple of hundred people would filter into after hours all night raves. Sigh.....