From: Nicolai H. (soulsession_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 2004-01-19 10:31:01
Hey gang,
a few thoughts... my knowledge of record deals is limited, so yell if I'm
way off the mark.
let's follow the money trail of the majors.. artist makes music. Record
company pays for music. Releases it. Record company gets benefits, racks in
the money. Artist gets a fixed sum beforehand and maybe a bonus if the
record does well. Artist then makes most of his fortune touring,
merchandising and licensing his music to ads, etc (provided he's retained
his publishing rights, which I guess many major labels won't have allowed
him to do).
By this rationale, downloading and bootlegging does not hurt the artists
directly. But it hurts the record companies' sales revenues. Which could
mean that said companies would be unwilling to pay the artist for another
album. But if they don't pay up, they lose their artist and they're a record
company -artists are pretty much all they have (that and marketing). And
majors are racking in millions of dollars already -so it's not like they
CAN'T pay the artists. Thus : major label fights against bootlegging is to
protect their OWN interests, not those of artists.
BUT, if bootlegging is rampant and profits decline, majors will probably not
take too many chances with new/fringe artists. They'll bank on the Britney's
and such, who they know will make them millions either way. But then again,
when is the last time that a major label did anything truly spectacular for
an experimenting, innovative artists...like the hybrid jazz&soul pioneers
that we celebrate on this list??
Which brings us to independent labels. With much smaller profit margins,
severely reduced sales due to bootlegging could be potentially fatal. This I
see as the biggest risk. But think about the mindset of the core
independent label audiences? We've seen it on posts here already -people
will still dig for vinyl, they consider artwork as an integral part of any
music/album experience. It's like the dilemma in Cameron Crowe's
'Singles',about the proposal to put a supertrain through Seattle to ease
congestion. But as the mayor says : "you're forgetting one thing. People
love their cars". Same thing with music. People love the record shops, the
object value of a record, the weight and smell, the artwork. Those who have
enough of a musical conscience to discover independent artists are also
those most likely to value both the artists and the physical product enough
to buy the records in the shop.
Fact is, although some will convert to basing their music intake solely on
the new bootleg discs, I believe that this group will not be significant
enough to truly hurt the independent record industry. Since I've started
doing some downloading, the amount of records I actually buy has gone up by
somewhere near 300%. Because downloading forays are constantly opening my
eyes to new artists and genres.
It is so important to remember that we all have paychecks to deal with.
Short of winning the British lottery, there's no way that I will ever be
able to afford all the albums that I want. Downloading and bootlegging to me
does not mean that the chance to get all my music for free -it means that I
spend all I can on albums and I then try to download the stuff that I can't
afford. Which then turns me onto new genres and artists and around and
around we go...
Of course, artists would continue to make music even if the industry was
going through a serious slump. But some would not be able to live off it and
would have to juggle a part-time (or full-time job). So the amount of new
music would probably decline. Yet as far as I know, most nujazz and such
independent artists don't make a living producing. They DJ and play live
sets.. which I guess is their major source of income. Is there a case for
considering album-producing as a way of marketing live performances?
Ok, this was a rant.. sorry about the length, went a little off there... but
this is a fascinating discussion. Not least because we all want to know how
the future will evolve... we thrive on all things progressive and fresh...
and isn't that why we constantly pursue our thirst for new music? And why we
dig back to the roots to understand the music of today?
Stay cozy..
Nicolai
London
>From: "Olaf Molenveld" <olaf_at_interactivelink.nl>
>To: "Bob Davis" <earthjuice_at_prodigy.net>, <acid-jazz_at_ucsd.edu>
>Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] The future of music consumption?
>Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:31:01 +0100
>
>but would they also have bought the albums if it wasn't as cheap? in other
>words: did the labels and artist lose much sales? i mean *realistic*
>potential sales... i run a small label, we release vinyl only, but also put
>up MP3's for free, i don't see a big decrease of sales due to this, on the
>contrary: people mail to ask where they can buy our records after
>downloading and listening to it.... it might be different for the major
>labels, but i think their biggest problem is in releasing sub-standard
>music
>which is a copy of all other music available, can only be listened to for a
>week and needs a huge PR campaign to be sold, which in the end doesn't make
>the label any profits.... if you look at "real" artists/bands like
>radiohead, coldplay, U2 etc. you will notice that they still sell shitloads
>of albums without any problem because people still feel the craftmanship
>and
>love in their "product" ... i think that's much more a problem, if you make
>and market music as a 1-day product, you will also have your
>audience/customers acting like it's a cheap throw-away article...
>
>Olaf
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bob Davis <earthjuice_at_prodigy.net>
>To: Olaf Molenveld <olaf_at_interactivelink.nl>
>Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 6:20 PM
>Subject: RE: [acid-jazz] The future of music consumption?
>
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Olaf Molenveld [mailto:olaf_at_interactivelink.nl]
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 11:33 AM
> > > To: Bob Davis; Soul-Patrol_at_Davisind.Com
> > > Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] The future of music consumption?
> > >
> > >
> > > it's simple, imho these people wouldn't buy 99% of the music they own
>in
>the
> > > first place....not with the current prices....so you either decrease
>your
> > > prices or ignore them, as they are just "stamp collectors" instead of
>music
> > > lover..
> >
> > Hey Olaf,
> >
> > If I am understanding you correctly, I disagree.
> > If you would give most people the chance to buy 4330 albums that they
>genuinly liked for
> > $100.00 (about 2.3 cents/album) I think they would not only buy it, but
>listen to it often,
> > especially given that the music would be easily sortable/searchable in
>seconds.
> >
> > _________
> > Bob Davis
> > <a href="http://www.soul-patrol.com"> SURF THE: SOUL-PATROL.COM
>WEBSITE</a>
> > <a href="http://www.soul-patrol.com/newsletter"> JOIN THE FREE
>BI-MONTHLY:
>SOUL-PATROL
> > NEWSLETTER</a>
> > <a href="http://www.soul-patrol.net"> LISTEN TO: SOUL-PATROL.NET RADIO
></a>
> > <a href="http://www.soul-patrol.com/join-magazine"> SUPPORT THE MONTHLY:
>SOUL-PATROL DIGEST
> > MAGAZINE</a>
> > <a href="http://www.davisind.com/spnetwork"> GET FREE: SOUL-PATROL
>NETWORK
>CONTENT FEEDS FOR
> > YOUR SITE (UPDATED EVERY TWO WEEKS) </a>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Få alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk