The pre-internet version of this is Steve Albini's "The problem with music" which shows how major labels can end up costing bands quite a bit of money. Originally printed in Maximum Rock 'N Roll in 1993, but reproduced here on Negativland's site: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
It's worth the read if only for the amazing end line: "Some of your friends are probably already this fucked."
Sorry, I don't make it a habit to plug stuff I submit to HN, but in case anyone is interested, I submitted Albini's article here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4901063
I used to do music and a lot of my friends and I discussed the economics of music a lot.
The funny thing is...some of my friends really ARE this fucked. As in, literally. I have friends who are signed and tour a little over 50% of the year all over the world. They get depressed and always ask us to email them to keep them from getting too depressed or from going out of their minds.
This is off topic, but Salon.com is a mess. The page loads, and I get halfway through reading the first paragraph, the scroll point jumps around four times, a big overlay advert opens up, the page jumps down to where I was reading, now hidden behind the adverts background. Scroll up to the top, close the advert, a popup window opens for netflix. Close that, scroll back down, start reading the article but realize I've lost my attention.
I'm not against advertisements, just wish these big sites would devote some front end development to having them load smoothly.
This is the reality anywhere you have gatekeepers. I also have to point out that for all its talk about leveling the playing field and connecting artists to fans, the digital world has for the most part been simply replacing the old gatekeepers with new ones... and often at a lower margin for the artist. Look at what artists get from Spotify for instance, and Apple is trying to Wal-Mart the margins even lower.
(Wal-Mart. v. To use access to a massive sales channel as a tool to squeeze margins away from suppliers, often brutally.)
You have to wonder why that is, though. Maybe the gatekeepers provide more value than they're given credit for in forums like this.
Maybe the artists' roles in producing value is overrated.
Maybe consumers just lack any real sense of discrimination so can't be bothered to find the good independent artists when the music industry is throwing a ton of crappy acts their way.
In a world where an over-produced non-talent like Justin Bieber is a huge sensation, I really wonder how much we can't just blame consumers for not expecting better.
The Internet has provided plenty of models for "artists" to form closer connections with their fans and eliminate the gatekeepers. Why hasn't it worked?
No, this is a sign of competition. Music has a problem, any given person can only consume so much of it. When music was hard to make and distribute it was easy to fix the price. Now that(at least bad) music can be made by anyone there is an oversupply of music.
As a supplier to Wal-Mart you don't have to agree to lower prices. You just get replaced by another company willing to make 5 million units for .003 cents less.
That being said, I remember some post here about an indie artist (Zoe Keating) looking at revenues from Spotify, Apple, Amazon, etc.
With Apple she made decent living wage ($80k for the year) while the revenue from all the other services, esp the subscription ones, was barely a blip on the radar.
Kind of old problem. The world has changed. Newer math now, like how much does Spotify actually pay people. Apparently Lady Gaga got $167 from one million plays of 'Poker Face'.
A million plays sounds like a lot when the payment is only $167, but compared to the old method of listening (radio at its peak) the rate is not massively far off the mark, assuming you can adjust per listener. The article below attempts to compare the UK radio PRS royalty splits with Spotify payments and if I'm reading the numbers correctly the middle estimate comes to around $300 per spin per million listeners (I'm using the estimate of £0.0001870 per spin per listener).
The artists are a commodity until they are stars, the scarcity at the early stage is the set of people that can make the system work (promotion, marketing, producers)... thus they reap all the profits. Artists are not forced to work with major record labels. Once artists prove themselves not to be a commodity (i.e be stars) they reap great profits and have much more negotiating leverage over labels. I don't understand this rant.
> Artists are not forced to work with major record labels.
And what were/are their alternatives? Things are theoretically different with the internet now, though I'm not sure how well well-paying outlets for artists have advanced as of yet.
> the scarcity at the early stage is the set of people that can make the system work (promotion, marketing, producers)...
I doubt there's a scarcity of these people. Nor do I imagine they reap a huge profit from their work anyway. And surely the whole point is the quality of the artists' work, not how well crap can be pushed to preadolescent girls a la Justin Bieber?
> Once artists prove themselves not to be a commodity (i.e be stars) they reap great profits and have much more negotiating leverage over labels. I don't understand this rant.
If you read TFA you'll find that this is often not the case, even the stars get screwed out of vast sums of money.
12 years since the article was written and what's changed?
Seems like business as usual for the music industry.
All those "We're going to change the world" artists have just stood in line those 12 years waiting for their turn to get screwed by the recording industry.
Very astute observation. Different companies, different "models" with spotify and rdio and other radio, but the underlying dynamics for the artists really haven't changed
Some great insight, but I do wonder if it was ghost-written. Courtney certainly didn't give up her Prada pants, nor has she fully quit the machine: in 2004, she released a solo LP on Virgin records, and in 2010 she released another as part of reformed Hole on Mercury, a Universal Music subsidiary.
EDIT: On the other hand, Kevin Shields of the My Bloody Valentine whom Courtney mentions has made some great choices by waiting for digital distribution to mature and self-releasing his long-awaited album. Good work.
See above comment by @pashields. These are Steve Albini’s conclusions that Courtney is merely riding on—and continuing to get credit for it seems. I think Albini’s original-original was actually printed in The Baffler before it was printed in Maximum Rock 'N Roll.
I am surprised to see you make such a suggestion. Quite apart from the freedom of contract issues, think of the transaction costs on a large collaborative venture such as a motion picture.
I think we're almost done with this, finally: with a laptop, an Apogee Quartet and some $1000 ribbon mics (all easily resellable) you can make recordings as good as any studio, magic mixing board or no. And with Spotify, Rdio etc catching fire distribution will soon be no problem for the little guys. No need for big labels and dummy contracts.
But we have to make sure Spotify, Rdio etc are transparent about their payouts. The big labels are probably making deals to ensure they live on as gatekeepers to these services and right now they have the leverage. We have to demand openness so we don't see a situation where Warner gets 5 cents and smaller labels get 1 cent per play.
Spotify is horrible for artists. In some senses it's even worse than piracy because listeners think it's far, far better for artists than it really is. At least with piracy people know the artist isn't getting paid. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/research/augustconcerts2.jpg
What makes it even worse is that Spotify itself doesn't make money! They are losing tens of millions of dollars per year, it's crushing all other distribution models, and artists aren't getting paid. It's basically the worst outcome for everybody all at the same time.
You are forgetting a lot of stuff inbetween, not in the least the fact that even successful bands have a hard time making ends meet, major label or not.
Grizzly Bear, a very successful indie band recently had an interview where they spilled out everything. The band that opens for Radiohead and Paul Simon, is featured in ads for Volkswagen and Peugeot and sells out Radio City Music Hall.
They can't afford health insurance. After a tour they just about break even, and they make most of their sales from touring. Here are a couple of quotes from Twitter: "Mog and Spotify do not help bands or labels or indie stores. Not shaming you, just stating the facts since someone asked" and "Buying an album helps a band ten fold over buying a t-shirt, no matter what format. Again, answering questions".
The vocalist, Edward Droste, says that he doesn't even make a middle class living.
Here's the money quote from the interview: "“There’s a ceiling that independent artists hit,” he recently told NPR, “and the only way past it is radio.” And radio “still feels very much controlled by major labels’ ability to use leverage—you still have to have the muscle. Very few indie acts actually have breakthrough radio hits.”"
[+] [-] pashields|13 years ago|reply
It's worth the read if only for the amazing end line: "Some of your friends are probably already this fucked."
Apparently, he'll be updating it for the digital age soon based this article from January: http://www.mhpbooks.com/steve-albini-to-update-the-problem-w...
[+] [-] kafkaesque|13 years ago|reply
I used to do music and a lot of my friends and I discussed the economics of music a lot.
The funny thing is...some of my friends really ARE this fucked. As in, literally. I have friends who are signed and tour a little over 50% of the year all over the world. They get depressed and always ask us to email them to keep them from getting too depressed or from going out of their minds.
[+] [-] jplur|13 years ago|reply
I'm not against advertisements, just wish these big sites would devote some front end development to having them load smoothly.
[+] [-] sadfasdfa|13 years ago|reply
Experienced the same problems here. I was pleading the gods to please strike down whomever gave birth to such an atrocity of a design.
[+] [-] api|13 years ago|reply
(Wal-Mart. v. To use access to a massive sales channel as a tool to squeeze margins away from suppliers, often brutally.)
[+] [-] crusso|13 years ago|reply
Maybe the artists' roles in producing value is overrated.
Maybe consumers just lack any real sense of discrimination so can't be bothered to find the good independent artists when the music industry is throwing a ton of crappy acts their way.
In a world where an over-produced non-talent like Justin Bieber is a huge sensation, I really wonder how much we can't just blame consumers for not expecting better.
The Internet has provided plenty of models for "artists" to form closer connections with their fans and eliminate the gatekeepers. Why hasn't it worked?
[+] [-] pixl97|13 years ago|reply
No, this is a sign of competition. Music has a problem, any given person can only consume so much of it. When music was hard to make and distribute it was easy to fix the price. Now that(at least bad) music can be made by anyone there is an oversupply of music.
As a supplier to Wal-Mart you don't have to agree to lower prices. You just get replaced by another company willing to make 5 million units for .003 cents less.
[+] [-] caycep|13 years ago|reply
With Apple she made decent living wage ($80k for the year) while the revenue from all the other services, esp the subscription ones, was barely a blip on the radar.
[+] [-] netrus|13 years ago|reply
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=courtney+lo...
[+] [-] merinid|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhplus|13 years ago|reply
http://davidtouve.com/2011/12/13/uk-radio-versus-spotify-a-c...
[+] [-] crusso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] socalnate1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanderZwan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] merinid|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stanfordkid|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] singular|13 years ago|reply
And what were/are their alternatives? Things are theoretically different with the internet now, though I'm not sure how well well-paying outlets for artists have advanced as of yet.
> the scarcity at the early stage is the set of people that can make the system work (promotion, marketing, producers)...
I doubt there's a scarcity of these people. Nor do I imagine they reap a huge profit from their work anyway. And surely the whole point is the quality of the artists' work, not how well crap can be pushed to preadolescent girls a la Justin Bieber?
> Once artists prove themselves not to be a commodity (i.e be stars) they reap great profits and have much more negotiating leverage over labels. I don't understand this rant.
If you read TFA you'll find that this is often not the case, even the stars get screwed out of vast sums of money.
[+] [-] vonskippy|13 years ago|reply
Seems like business as usual for the music industry.
All those "We're going to change the world" artists have just stood in line those 12 years waiting for their turn to get screwed by the recording industry.
Doesn't feel a damn bit different to me.
[+] [-] niggler|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imissmyjuno|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: On the other hand, Kevin Shields of the My Bloody Valentine whom Courtney mentions has made some great choices by waiting for digital distribution to mature and self-releasing his long-awaited album. Good work.
[+] [-] stewdio|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polychrome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niggler|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nateweiss|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wglb|13 years ago|reply
How then would someone buying my services end up with the copyright of that work?
[+] [-] edwardunknown|13 years ago|reply
But we have to make sure Spotify, Rdio etc are transparent about their payouts. The big labels are probably making deals to ensure they live on as gatekeepers to these services and right now they have the leverage. We have to demand openness so we don't see a situation where Warner gets 5 cents and smaller labels get 1 cent per play.
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|13 years ago|reply
What makes it even worse is that Spotify itself doesn't make money! They are losing tens of millions of dollars per year, it's crushing all other distribution models, and artists aren't getting paid. It's basically the worst outcome for everybody all at the same time.
[+] [-] rospaya|13 years ago|reply
Grizzly Bear, a very successful indie band recently had an interview where they spilled out everything. The band that opens for Radiohead and Paul Simon, is featured in ads for Volkswagen and Peugeot and sells out Radio City Music Hall.
They can't afford health insurance. After a tour they just about break even, and they make most of their sales from touring. Here are a couple of quotes from Twitter: "Mog and Spotify do not help bands or labels or indie stores. Not shaming you, just stating the facts since someone asked" and "Buying an album helps a band ten fold over buying a t-shirt, no matter what format. Again, answering questions".
The vocalist, Edward Droste, says that he doesn't even make a middle class living.
Here's the money quote from the interview: "“There’s a ceiling that independent artists hit,” he recently told NPR, “and the only way past it is radio.” And radio “still feels very much controlled by major labels’ ability to use leverage—you still have to have the muscle. Very few indie acts actually have breakthrough radio hits.”"
http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html
[+] [-] drcode|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] showkhill|13 years ago|reply