The death of radio has played a big part of why the labels are where they are today. When the Clear Channels gobbled up all the markets and programming was being done out of the corporate office, it removed the program director & music director from the equation. A return on how the music business operated in the mid '70's along with todays technology would be quite exciting! Bring back the payola, the indie promoters, bands willing to make the sweat investment of living out of a van while on the road, have corporate get out of the way and all will be good.
I thought payola was mostly perpetrated by the big labels, how would that help the small guy? How do they pay with money they don't have?
The whole concept is an anachronism. There is no reason to buy an entire album if half the songs (or more) are weak. Singles are what consumers want. Anything else is just lining the pockets of useless executives.
I think it's the other way around. Singles barely make any money, and bands make most of their cash from album and concert sales.
Listening to an entire album used to tell a story, and the whole was sometimes greater than the sum of its parts. Many people now barely listen to a whole song, let alone a whole album. They half read books, and even read the first paragraph of article online (then comment on it). If the attention span of people is barely more than an SMS or a twitter, albums don't stand a chance.
Also, I don't think bands can really make it on single sales, financially. Singles go straight to number one and then vanish a week later (unlike the days when a song would slowly climb the charts). "Straight in at number one" used to be a rarity. Now it's rare for a single to move up from one week to the next.
This is doomed to fail like everything record companies have tried since Apple launched the digital music revolution. They are desperately trying to get back to the glory days when you had to buy the entire CD for one or two good songs.
I buy albums from artists of which I am a fan. The rest I just pick and choose what I like. That's the reality, record companies need to wake up and stop trying to force their old, tired ways of doing things on us.
This September Apple will kill the iPod Classic, debut a 64GB Touch, release iTunes 9 and roll out "Cocktail" with the newly remastered Beatles catalog.
D00ch. Some albums are worth buying. Most only have a few good songs.
Sometimes you get a good surprise, though. I bought Edgar Winter's They Only Come Out at Night, and it only has 2 hit songs, but the whole album is a listener. There's a couple on there that I'm surprised didn't become hits, like Alta Mira.
However, the industry (including some artists) have only themselves to blame for the devaluation of the album, having encouraged the public to repurchase allegedly classic albums with 'Bonus' tracks that weren't good enough the first time round.
I expect that some artists and labels will creatively explore the multimedia album format (which is what we are talking about, really - the mid-nineties are back!). Others will just shovel a bunch of filler and fluff around the tracks that people really want, again.
There are several million current indie artists with their own websites and even selling songs via iTunes and other sites.. And of those millions of indie artists, very few are able to make a living at it. Even fewer will ever be able to tour and/or get on the radio. Not saying it can't or hasn't be en done, just extremely rare.
How do you think you know who Britney Spears or the Jonas brothers are? Heck, I can't stand either of them, yet almost every home in America knows who they are.. The answer is marketing and promotion, radio and tv. Something that unless independently wealthy, can only be accomplished with the support of a label..
There are millions of Indie artist songs in the iTunes store that no one will ever know or hear. And yes, most of those artists have their own website.
Not to get into a pissing match, but just having their own website (and selling their songs on iTunes) is obviously not enough. My point was that having that was necessary but not sufficient for "making a living." As you point out, it needs "promotion," which is why I mentioned podcasting (give away some free samples and interviews/etc to generate your own promotion, sans radio and tv). And you could generate your own music video (a community media student with a cam and iMovie, for example, shot in your garage) onto youtube. yada yada yada. There are a lot of free posabilities via the internet (Facebook page just came to mind).
And to answer your question, isn't Britney Spears the girl who cut off her hair? If so, that's how I know who she is.
I think it's the other way around. Singles barely make any money, and bands make most of their cash from album and concert sales.
Listening to an entire album used to tell a story, and the whole was sometimes greater than the sum of its parts. Many people now barely listen to a whole song, let alone a whole album. They half read books, and even read the first paragraph of article online (then comment on it). If the attention span of people is barely more than an SMS or a twitter, albums don't stand a chance.
Also, I don't think bands can really make it on single sales, financially. Singles go straight to number one and then vanish a week later (unlike the days when a song would slowly climb the charts). "Straight in at number one" used to be a rarity. Now it's rare for a single to move up from one week to the next.
You are probably right about the lack of profit in singles versus bands touring and merchandise sales. The music business is very, very competitive and therefore unprofitable for the vast majority of musicians/bands competing on a national or global level. Specialization always seemed to be a good way to avoid competing with every pop musician out there. Example: Mannheim Steamroller is known as the "Christmas album band". Oingo Boingo was known as the scary music band, etc., etc.
The technology for an indie artist (band or author) to distribute work for profit has been here for the last (I guess) 5 years, at least: it's called the internet. A commercial web site (that can sell things) costs about $20-30 or so a month and you can sell for download MP3s or PDFs for whatever you want (99 cents, anyone?). If you need someone to design and set it up, that may be an extra $1000 or so. As for free publicity, ever hear of podcasts?
One of the problem is that, for now, the majority of the music buyers still want a physical CD if they are going to buy the whole album. Most of the music sold online are individual singles. This is where an Indie needs the labels. There's no way that they can produce and distribute a physical CD to every WalMart, BestBuy and Target by themselves and still hope to make a decent profit. They can cut some cost by selling a physical CD their website. But there's still the added cost of unsold CD's and the labor of mailing it out and processing the payment method. Selling on Amazon can help but Amazon takes a cut.
Another problem is that when your selling online, you're competing with P2P. If the quality of the P2P download is as good was what's at the artist website or iTunes, many won't pay for it. At least a physical CD has the advantage of being a higher quality recording that many are still willing to pay for. At least for now.
As an experiment, Radiohead offered for free on their website, one of their album. With an option for fans to pay what they thought it was worth. The majority of their fans (or should I say people that downloaded the album) paid nothing. There were some that paid $12.00 plus. The average they got per album downloaded was about $2.25. It's estimated that Radiohead made 2 million dollar less than if they sold that album through their label. One of the biggest complaint was that it was no where near CD quality. Needless to say, Radiohead next album was sold through their label. But Radiohead is not an Indie. They could afford to do this type of experiment.
As long as there are physical CD's and the majority of music buyers wants a physical CD, an Indie will have a hard time making it big by selling their music on their own. Not if they have to compete online with P2P for the same quality downloads. Or produce a higher quality physical CD for the brick and mortar.
Comments
The death of radio has played a big part of why the labels are where they are today. When the Clear Channels gobbled up all the markets and programming was being done out of the corporate office, it removed the program director & music director from the equation. A return on how the music business operated in the mid '70's along with todays technology would be quite exciting! Bring back the payola, the indie promoters, bands willing to make the sweat investment of living out of a van while on the road, have corporate get out of the way and all will be good.
I thought payola was mostly perpetrated by the big labels, how would that help the small guy? How do they pay with money they don't have?
The whole concept is an anachronism. There is no reason to buy an entire album if half the songs (or more) are weak. Singles are what consumers want. Anything else is just lining the pockets of useless executives.
I think it's the other way around. Singles barely make any money, and bands make most of their cash from album and concert sales.
Listening to an entire album used to tell a story, and the whole was sometimes greater than the sum of its parts. Many people now barely listen to a whole song, let alone a whole album. They half read books, and even read the first paragraph of article online (then comment on it). If the attention span of people is barely more than an SMS or a twitter, albums don't stand a chance.
Also, I don't think bands can really make it on single sales, financially. Singles go straight to number one and then vanish a week later (unlike the days when a song would slowly climb the charts). "Straight in at number one" used to be a rarity. Now it's rare for a single to move up from one week to the next.
I buy albums from artists of which I am a fan. The rest I just pick and choose what I like. That's the reality, record companies need to wake up and stop trying to force their old, tired ways of doing things on us.
This September Apple will kill the iPod Classic, debut a 64GB Touch, release iTunes 9 and roll out "Cocktail" with the newly remastered Beatles catalog.
Bill
D00ch. Some albums are worth buying. Most only have a few good songs.
Sometimes you get a good surprise, though. I bought Edgar Winter's They Only Come Out at Night, and it only has 2 hit songs, but the whole album is a listener. There's a couple on there that I'm surprised didn't become hits, like Alta Mira.
However, the industry (including some artists) have only themselves to blame for the devaluation of the album, having encouraged the public to repurchase allegedly classic albums with 'Bonus' tracks that weren't good enough the first time round.
I expect that some artists and labels will creatively explore the multimedia album format (which is what we are talking about, really - the mid-nineties are back!). Others will just shovel a bunch of filler and fluff around the tracks that people really want, again.
There are several million current indie artists with their own websites and even selling songs via iTunes and other sites.. And of those millions of indie artists, very few are able to make a living at it. Even fewer will ever be able to tour and/or get on the radio. Not saying it can't or hasn't be en done, just extremely rare.
How do you think you know who Britney Spears or the Jonas brothers are? Heck, I can't stand either of them, yet almost every home in America knows who they are.. The answer is marketing and promotion, radio and tv. Something that unless independently wealthy, can only be accomplished with the support of a label..
There are millions of Indie artist songs in the iTunes store that no one will ever know or hear. And yes, most of those artists have their own website.
Not to get into a pissing match, but just having their own website (and selling their songs on iTunes) is obviously not enough. My point was that having that was necessary but not sufficient for "making a living." As you point out, it needs "promotion," which is why I mentioned podcasting (give away some free samples and interviews/etc to generate your own promotion, sans radio and tv). And you could generate your own music video (a community media student with a cam and iMovie, for example, shot in your garage) onto youtube. yada yada yada. There are a lot of free posabilities via the internet (Facebook page just came to mind).
And to answer your question, isn't Britney Spears the girl who cut off her hair? If so, that's how I know who she is.
I think it's the other way around. Singles barely make any money, and bands make most of their cash from album and concert sales.
Listening to an entire album used to tell a story, and the whole was sometimes greater than the sum of its parts. Many people now barely listen to a whole song, let alone a whole album. They half read books, and even read the first paragraph of article online (then comment on it). If the attention span of people is barely more than an SMS or a twitter, albums don't stand a chance.
Also, I don't think bands can really make it on single sales, financially. Singles go straight to number one and then vanish a week later (unlike the days when a song would slowly climb the charts). "Straight in at number one" used to be a rarity. Now it's rare for a single to move up from one week to the next.
You are probably right about the lack of profit in singles versus bands touring and merchandise sales. The music business is very, very competitive and therefore unprofitable for the vast majority of musicians/bands competing on a national or global level. Specialization always seemed to be a good way to avoid competing with every pop musician out there. Example: Mannheim Steamroller is known as the "Christmas album band". Oingo Boingo was known as the scary music band, etc., etc.
The technology for an indie artist (band or author) to distribute work for profit has been here for the last (I guess) 5 years, at least: it's called the internet. A commercial web site (that can sell things) costs about $20-30 or so a month and you can sell for download MP3s or PDFs for whatever you want (99 cents, anyone?). If you need someone to design and set it up, that may be an extra $1000 or so. As for free publicity, ever hear of podcasts?
One of the problem is that, for now, the majority of the music buyers still want a physical CD if they are going to buy the whole album. Most of the music sold online are individual singles. This is where an Indie needs the labels. There's no way that they can produce and distribute a physical CD to every WalMart, BestBuy and Target by themselves and still hope to make a decent profit. They can cut some cost by selling a physical CD their website. But there's still the added cost of unsold CD's and the labor of mailing it out and processing the payment method. Selling on Amazon can help but Amazon takes a cut.
Another problem is that when your selling online, you're competing with P2P. If the quality of the P2P download is as good was what's at the artist website or iTunes, many won't pay for it. At least a physical CD has the advantage of being a higher quality recording that many are still willing to pay for. At least for now.
As an experiment, Radiohead offered for free on their website, one of their album. With an option for fans to pay what they thought it was worth. The majority of their fans (or should I say people that downloaded the album) paid nothing. There were some that paid $12.00 plus. The average they got per album downloaded was about $2.25. It's estimated that Radiohead made 2 million dollar less than if they sold that album through their label. One of the biggest complaint was that it was no where near CD quality. Needless to say, Radiohead next album was sold through their label. But Radiohead is not an Indie. They could afford to do this type of experiment.
As long as there are physical CD's and the majority of music buyers wants a physical CD, an Indie will have a hard time making it big by selling their music on their own. Not if they have to compete online with P2P for the same quality downloads. Or produce a higher quality physical CD for the brick and mortar.
And speaking of songs... Why do I have to pay 99 cents for a whole one? Why can't I just pay 33 cents for the chorus?
Thats a great idea. Seriously.
It's been done. They're called Ringtones, and they charge you three times as much as for the whole song.