For me, at least part of the reason I like my indies to stay indy is so that they have (almost) complete freedom to experiment and screw around, which often leads to some amazing albums, with little record label interference. I'm sure there are some indy classics that woulda got the Yankee Hotel Foxtrot treatment had they had any real money behind them.
Can I make a prediction? Most major record labels will not be around in ten years, or if they are, they will be vastly different than they are today. The reason for this is that bands no longer really need big record support to release a successful album (they can do it on the internet). This will lead to increased artist control as bands figure out that they don't have to pay record companies 95% of the price of a CD. Also in ten years people will not be listening to "regular" radio ststions. They will be listening to niche satellite stations. My point is that the 90's-type indie band that has a really small label and has an initial run of 2,000 albums is coming to an end. Thanks to the internet/satellite radio, within ten years any good music that is out there WILL find a substantial audience regardless of big record labels. Right now indie labels have a chance to capitalize on these new technologies by better marketing/targeting/utilization of technology, but they aren't taking advantage because the indie ethic is inherently non-capitalist. Unfortunately for them, not even indie record labels can avoid capitalism, and eventually their product WILL turn into just another commodity (not really a bad thing).
Originally posted by paxsoprano: Can I make a prediction? Most major record labels will not be around in ten years, or if they are, they will be vastly different than they are today. The reason for this is that bands no longer really need big record support to release a successful album (they can do it on the internet). This will lead to increased artist control as bands figure out that they don't have to pay record companies 95% of the price of a CD. Also in ten years people will not be listening to "regular" radio ststions. They will be listening to niche satellite stations. My point is that the 90's-type indie band that has a really small label and has an initial run of 2,000 albums is coming to an end. Thanks to the internet/satellite radio, within ten years any good music that is out there WILL find a substantial audience regardless of big record labels. Right now indie labels have a chance to capitalize on these new technologies by better marketing/targeting/utilization of technology, but they aren't taking advantage because the indie ethic is inherently non-capitalist. Unfortunately for them, not even indie record labels can avoid capitalism, and eventually their product WILL turn into just another commodity (not really a bad thing).
They'll still be around Pax. The main advantage Major Labels have on Indie Labels is the ability to promote a record. The internet has made it slightly easier for artists to release an album, but really, releasing a CD isn't a big expense. You can get a couple thousand CDs pressed and packaged for about $2000, which isn't a lot of money. The difficulity most artists face is getting media attention, getting airplay, and getting your CD into stores (brick & mortar and online), which is where labels, especially big labels, excel. The technology of album distribution has changed, but that's really about it. It still all comes down to sales and marketing if you want your album to be successful.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
I think ericg is right. It's easy to point to, say, the CYHSY success story, but they basically had Pitchfork doing their promotion work for free. The majors, as much as we hate/don't respect them, are not bumbling dinosaurs. They are profitable enough to have survived both an assault on their industry (piracy) and their own bumbling (shelving YHF as a career-ender, payola, rootkit). They have undoubtedly foreseen whatever challenges await and have plans to survive. Additionally, they do not share the naive viewpoint that quality will eventually win out in the marketplace. This hasn't been true since about 1973. 14-year-old girls will not stop buying Beyonce CD's because of satellite radio, and Louis XIV will sell circles around the Fiery Furnaces every time even if it's just as easy to find either on iTunes.
Originally posted by dubs: It's easy to point to, say, the CYHSY success story, but they basically had Pitchfork doing their promotion work for free.
Plus let's not forget that although CYHSY was pretty successful for a self-released album, It wasn't that successful. I think they've still only sold maybe 50,000 copies of their album. That's a drop in the bucket to a major label. Kelly Clarkson could make a CD of fart noises and it would sell more copies than CYHSY.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
But Eric, the future of music-selling isn't in (as you say) "brick-and-mortar." Think about all the record stores that have been closing. The future of music is on the internet. I see a future where bands don't even print CD's. They record some songs on their computers, put the stuff online for people to listen to, and people buy what they like (paying maybe $10 for a digital version of an album). People (at least young people) do not buy albums like they used to. Most of my friends have not bought an album at a record store in years. As that type of consumer gets older, he will be able to afford buying music legally, but he will see no need for buying an actual album so will go online to get a digital version.
I don't even think it's the major label's ability to promote that keeps indie so much in the darkness.
It's that MTV and Clear Channel stations refuse to play any music that isn't from a label they have a relationship with, and they've got a monopoly on the record buying public.
Guh..I hope they don't stop printing CDs. I like having the physical thing to listen to. I think they'll keep printing CDs, but conduct business mostly on the internet. (After all, you can still get a lot of newer albums in vinyl.)
Although..I think a great deal of the reason record sales are declining is..monopoly pricing.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bobthespirit,
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: Although..I think a great deal of the reason record sales are declining is..monopoly pricing.
That's probably a large chunk of it...but there's possibly another reason. A recent survey of music buyers under 30 found that 55% of them thought music was 'getting worse' recently. Only 24% thought it was 'getting better.' Combine higher prices with the (mistaken) impression that music is worse today than it was in, say, 1992 or 1977, or 1964, and you'll get a sales slump.
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: I don't even think it's the major label's ability to promote that keeps indie so much in the darkness.
It's that MTV and Clear Channel stations refuse to play any music that isn't from a label they have a relationship with, and they've got a monopoly on the record buying public.
Certainly that's part of it, but I don't think they are complete idiots. They know what sells, so that's what they promote. As long as people keep buying Nickelback and Black Eyed Peas in large numbers, that's what they will promote. The mainstream these days (unlike the early '90s) only has room for a handful of progressive artists (The White Stripes and Franz Ferdinand most notably).
For an indie band to break it big, they really have to prove themselves in the indie world first. I saw somewhere that Funeral has sold about 250,000 copies. That's a phenomenal number, and I'm sure the major labels are aware. They probably aren't going to raise their eyebrows at the numerous bands that are selling in the tens of thousands, though. So, don't be surprised if you hear The Arcade Fire's next single on the radio whenever it comes out.
To clarify my earlier point, I don't wish for a lack of recognition for indie bands. In fact, they generally get a lot of critical praise already. I don't think they need the approval of the Grammys though, since the Grammys represent the voice of the mainstream music world. I'd also prefer that they don't reach U2/Coldplay-level popularity (I personally like both bands), where they are so overexposed and overplayed and you can tell their new albums are designed to sell.
Originally posted by paxsoprano: But Eric, the future of music-selling isn't in (as you say) "brick-and-mortar." Think about all the record stores that have been closing. The future of music is on the internet. I see a future where bands don't even print CD's. They record some songs on their computers, put the stuff online for people to listen to, and people buy what they like (paying maybe $10 for a digital version of an album). People (at least young people) do not buy albums like they used to. Most of my friends have not bought an album at a record store in years. As that type of consumer gets older, he will be able to afford buying music legally, but he will see no need for buying an actual album so will go online to get a digital version.
I'm not debating that Pax. I wholeheartedly agree that digital music is where it's at. It's been a long while since I've purchased a physical CD too.
Where I was disagreeing with you was on the point that big record labels will cease to exist. No matter what technology you're using to distribute an album, there's always going to be a need for promotion and marketing, which is what Record Labels really have to offer.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
They do know what sells, but they also influence what sells.
The same album released in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005, promoted the same amount, will have eight different sales figures.
For a record to really sell, it needs to be part of a trend, and for a trend to take flight, it needs the endorsement of the trendsetters. And the same stations that are playing music to mainstream audiences, are the trendsetters.
It's usually only a matter of coincedence when the biggest trend matches up with the best music. It happened with the Beatles and arguably with Nirvana, and that's basically it in all of rock history. If MTV told it's audiences: "Wilco rules, buy Wilco", all their albums would start going platinum. Just like all of Metallica's 80's albums sold four million plus copies after Black came out.
Heh, I just had a random thought. I wish MTV had been around when the Beatles were popular. Because then we'd have all sorts of Beatles music videos, and I can only imagine what funny, cool stuff they would have come up with.
I kind of like the fact that mainstream music for the most part sucks. It helps to magnify the greatness of good music. If you hear "My Humps" on the radio, and then go back to your Wilco CD, it just makes it sound that much better. If all music were good, what would we make fun of?
I'd just like to add that I hate MTV. So much potential… so little to show for it.
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: If MTV told it's audiences: "Wilco rules, buy Wilco", all their albums would start going platinum.
I'm not really sure that's true. I've just never bought this big-bad-media argument that consumers are just pawns who buy up whatever rich record execs tell them to. Kelly Clarkson and Britney Spears are just easier to market than a band like Wilco. If Wilco sought the attention or were open to marketing stuff, I think they could be big-time artists as well. But the problem with that, as I said, is that indie-type rock acts generally shy away from the limelight because they equate popularity with selling out (there's no success like failure). Anyway, my point is that I think big record labels need to update their marketing strategies in order to comply with new technology because it is becoming easier and easier for an artist to become really popular without any help from a record label.
I agree that in most cases, the 'big bad corporations' don't have control over what's popular.
But, mainstream music is a special case. Maybe for the people on this board and audiophiles in general, music listening is strictly about hearing sounds that you like. But for mainstream audiences, music is social. You listen to what your friends listen to, and thus you fit in with the group. And your friends aren't going to be listening to something they haven't heard of. MTV and Clear Channel stations are how most people learn the music they listen to exists. If they don't play something -- they never learn it exists.
Let's put it this way. MTV played 'Hell' by the Squirrel Nut Zippers, and it turned into a hit. Imagine if they played 'Yoshime Battles the Pink Robots', an equally weird song with fifty times the musical quality.
Heck, a couple years ago MTV turned a swing retro-30's song into a hit. Tell me they couldn't do they same thing with 'War on War' or 'I Am Trying To Break Your Heart'.
Wilco and the Flaming Lips have to be way easier to market than Squirrel Nut Zippers or Cherry Poppin Daddies. Or White Town. Or Chumbawumba. Or Jamiroquai. The list goes on.
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: I agree that in most cases, the 'big bad corporations' don't have control over what's popular.
But, mainstream music is a special case. Maybe for the people on this board and audiophiles in general, music listening is strictly about hearing sounds that you like. But for mainstream audiences, music is social. You listen to what your friends listen to, and thus you fit in with the group. And your friends aren't going to be listening to something they haven't heard of. MTV and Clear Channel stations are how most people learn the music they listen to exists. If they don't play something -- they never learn it exists.
Let's put it this way. MTV played 'Hell' by the Squirrel Nut Zippers, and it turned into a hit. Imagine if they played 'Yoshime Battles the Pink Robots', an equally weird song with fifty times the musical quality.
Heck, a couple years ago MTV turned a swing retro-30's song into a hit. Tell me they couldn't do they same thing with 'War on War' or 'I Am Trying To Break Your Heart'.
Wilco and the Flaming Lips have to be way easier to market than Squirrel Nut Zippers or Cherry Poppin Daddies. Or White Town. Or Chumbawumba. Or Jamiroquai. The list goes on.
Fountains of Wayne are a pretty good example of what you're saying Bob. They were writing basically the same types of power pop songs for almost a decade without any attention until somebody started promoting the heck out of "Stacy's Mom". Then they had a hit on their hands. But it wasn't like Fountains of Wayne changed their musical asthetic at all. Prior to that hit, they released two albums of songs that were just as funny and catchy as "Stacy's Mom". It was simply a case of someone finally promoting them.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: But, mainstream music is a special case. Maybe for the people on this board and audiophiles in general, music listening is strictly about hearing sounds that you like. But for mainstream audiences, music is social. You listen to what your friends listen to, and thus you fit in with the group. And your friends aren't going to be listening to something they haven't heard of. MTV and Clear Channel stations are how most people learn the music they listen to exists. If they don't play something -- they never learn it exists.
This idea reminds me of something a co-worker told me about. I guess there was a Frontline on a month or so ago about "big music." She told me that someone interviewed on the show made the observation that when it comes to music, for most, "People don't know what they like, they like what they know."
Anyway, my point is that I think big record labels need to update their marketing strategies in order to comply with new technology because it is becoming easier and easier for an artist to become really popular without any help from a record label.
I still don't really see how the marketing will be any different. I mean, I could record an album myself and it might be the best thing ever (probably not, but let's pretend). I could then probably work out a deal with iTunes and get them to carry my album. But still, how are people going to know about it? I still have to do the standard album promotion for it, such as getting music zines and sites to review it and getting radio stations to play it.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
So what makes a hit then? Going back to Wilco, it is hard to think that songs like "Candyfloss" and "Nothingsever..." would not be big hits if they ever reached a mass audience. So who determines what reaches a mass audience? I think it is less MTV and Clear Channel and more the indie labels/artists themselves. Do you really think there is some record exec somewhere saying, "We really like these squirrel zipper fellows"? Below-the-radar bands deny themselves mainstream success purposefully because, as I said, they equate financial benefits with selling out.
I will rephrase what I was saying about big record companies...right now if Beyonce or Coldplay sells a CD for $14, they get maybe 1 or 2 of those dollars. Doesn't anyone else think they are getting gypped? It would be a much better deal for the artist financially if he sold an album for $10 and got to keep six of those dollars, even if he sold half as many albums as he would under a big record label! Labels in general will become superfluous as bands figure out new and better ways to sell and market their music.
Originally posted by paxsoprano: I will rephrase what I was saying about big record companies...right now if Beyonce or Coldplay sells a CD for $14, they get maybe 1 or 2 of those dollars. Doesn't anyone else think they are getting gypped? It would be a much better deal for the artist financially if he sold an album for $10 and got to keep six of those dollars, even if he sold half as many albums as he would under a big record label! Labels in general will become superfluous as bands figure out new and better ways to sell and market their music.
No bands get rich selling CD's. They get rich selling concert tickets and $34 tour t-shirts. But they have to sell a ton of records and get on MTV and the radio before they embark upon their stadium tour. This is where labels come in, to promote their records. This is also why that douchebag Lars Ullrich is the only musician who ever really cared about piracy ("This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark-tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must wait a few months before he can afford it."). No other musician gives a crap about losing like eight dollars from people who would have bought the album instead.
That was sort of a sidetrack. If I were in a band though, I'd make an album called Steal This Record and release it on pirate bay. Nonetheless, I think the labels will always find a way to stay relevant.
Originally posted by dubs: If I were in a band though, I'd make an album called Steal This Record and release it on pirate bay. Nonetheless, I think the labels will always find a way to stay relevant.
