Friday, November 9, 2012

Recording Companies


I am super sorry. It was meant to be a comment but it made it into being a whole blogpost, so I decided to post it. If you are interested in the topic please read. If you want just to read the feedback and get an overview of this post, read the beginning and then the last paragraph.

Nice lesson today! I am really enjoying these Fridays much.


To sum up my feedback today:
Nice prezi with great UX. Everyone should think about it, these can get really confusing. Overall I enjoyed the contents of the presentation. It was well prepared.

And I don't necessarily agree with Cai about DXing. It seems to be more of a hobby, than anything too important and mainstream. I used to chat and broadcast music with friends on short waves when I was a teenager and this double sided communication with first "prosumer" models is probably more valuable. DXing is basically a hobby about tuning in long distance stations and finding and tinkering with signals, at least that's what I get about it today.

Props to Sindy and Iina for their videos and interview, that was really cool! I personally only wished for better recording quality and editing. I wonder what did you use for the recording in the end?

I have few comments about the discussion... I am pretty sure Riikka wanted to say much more than she actually did, but the crowd really overpowered her.

It is important to understand that Record Label is not the greedy company owning rights and law-trolling everyone when someone breaks their territory. I know there are some undoubtedly absurd things like sampling being considered "theft" or prohibition of non-rightful covering, but without RLs there would be no music.

RL is kind of a Venture Capitalist, or Angel Investor if you want who picks few talented, usually poor artists, gives them the money (as Riikka told me: on small indie RL level it is ranging from 2k - 10k €), helps them produce their music into an album, gives them contacts, promotion and pushes them to gigs. And that all is an uncertain investment, which may be a great failure, that can bring the whole label down.

So the first thing is to make the whole business sustainable and viable for the company, so it can A) Push more artists to people B) Maintain the artists and help them grow , when this is covered, then it can come to the Artists' fees and revenue. I believe that for most beginning musicians making money with music is a nice bonus instead of granted expectation. The fact you reach your audience and get your track into radio is much more rewarding for an emerging talent.

As Yonathan said, the problem is not the labels, it is the people, who rather steal music than buy it... but it is also a matter of convenience, efforts and marketing. I know how annoying it can be waiting for your fav music to come out in your country (not that it's so much of an issue nowadays), plus buying music is usually quite inconvenient thing, requiring you to go through all the hassle with credit cards, picking the right format and so on.

Whilst piracy is simple - within 10 minutes you are likely to find and download whatever you want, for free. And that's where internet services step in... iTunes revolutionized (note: gosh am I actually using this word in connection to Apple?) the music market and threatened classic distribution channels. Getting your song in matter of seconds for 0.99€ is just brilliant. Then Spotify, Pandora, Rhapsody and similar services are doing even better service to the public by offering their music conveniently for free! How amazing! Of course you can subscribe (and you should) for even more convenience and good moral standing.

There is the other side of it. Music has always been part of human culture and therefore it should be somewhat accessible for free by everyone. Everyone should be able to remix it and use it as part of their cultural genome as they please. If you ignore piracy as plain lazyness and rebellion against the capitalist, those thoughts are indeed honorable and beautiful. However both parties are not very diplomatic in this case. Massive pirating of music is REALLY hurting Recording companies and forcing them into even more vigorous pursuit of profit (only to overcome the increasing loss and maintain the level of NET salaries), forcing them into demanding ridiculous and absurd laws, royalties, taxes, forcing them into bloating our broadcasts with more and more ads to make them sustain. No business wants to disappear, and especially when the business is over 90 years of tradition. Pirates should understand and consider this. And Labels and Broadcasts should attempt to change their business model accordingly to 21st century.

We are in stage of transition. We are dematerializing our worlds, pursuing the virtual. Objects (including CDs, Vinyls and such) are becoming obsolete with the spread of internet connection and computing devices. It won't take long and there will be the ultimate model for such business. But until then, we need to remain patient and thoughtful. And if you think you know what it takes, go out and start your company, it is an opportunity not only for you, but also for many future music star artists and record companies to survive and emerge into a new, more democratic and cultural age.

tl;dr:
Don't be a prick and read this... at least the last paragraph

8 comments:

  1. Two highlits from that story:

    "Digital streaming sites like Rhapsody and Spotify are not yet proving to be viable financial substitutes for CDs. According to Moore, Tennis' typical digital-streaming royalty checks are minimal: "You'll get a check for $100 in six months." Managers are equally skeptical. "You have to sell a thousand copies to equal a few cents," says Brian Klein, co-manager of Fitz and the Tantrums. "As a user, I like Spotify. But as a business, I don't think it's going to be profitable for an artist. It wouldn't even buy coffee for the whole band."

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/survival-of-the-fittest-in-the-new-music-industry-20121108#ixzz2BoYTYBEi"

    "Thanks to the role touring now plays with bands, it's become increasingly common for your favorite act to come through town multiple times during the lifespan of a new album. "We never used to see third cycles for tours," says Andy Cirzan, a promoter at Jam USA in Chicago. "It's increasingly commonplace. Bands want to build momentum, or they just need money." Yet that strategy has its pitfalls. "You have to make sure you don't hit markets too much," says Stevenson. "You might get a short-term financial gain, but it might hurt you – 'Oh, I saw them already,' or, 'I'll catch them next time.' That's the kiss of death. Familiarity breeds contempt."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated.

    The coversation around recorded music was really interesting, and I wish we had more time for that. I'm actually happy I got to hear so many different opinions and point-of-views.

    I think it is important to realize also, that you can't define one industry. It's versatile, with all kinds of business strategies and ways of working. I mean, these days, if you just want to make good business – the music business is the last one you would get into. It's different for the majors (Sony, Warner..) who have been in it for a very long time and entered the industry when there was still money to be made. But the truth is, I think middle-sized and small record labels today are struggling in the business mostly just because they love music. And sometimes they need to compromise to survive, which usually leads to things that aren't necessarily that good. But it is like this in every crative industry. There are the ones who produce unethical crap just for profit, like cheap clothes, and those who look to produce quality and sustainable products, even though they will just get by with their earnings.

    Even though funding is an important part of record labels, that also depends on the business model how it's done. A lot of times these days bands are even willing to pay everything for themselves, but still they want a record label behind them. This is also one of the reasons why I feel that crowd-funding will never be the major way of producing music to the market. Because artists simply can't and don't want to do it by themselves. They will not be able to handle the distribution, promotion, showcases, accounting etc. They want to concentrate on what they know how to do – music. So it's not for the label to only get their invested money back, because there is so much more being done than just putting money to a lottery ticket.

    Of course, a lot of deals have been done that aren't very good for artists. This is a decision to make – go to a greedy major and get big, or make a fair contract with a smaller label and reach your target audience. That's the fun thing in the music indursty, that it's still like The Wild West. There are no rules how to make contracts, it's all up to you and the artists.

    I think people should be able to enjoy music freely to some point. But, if an artists chooses not to share their music for free, they have the right to do that. It is still their struggle trying to make a living out of it. You can always choose to mark your doings as public domain (Creative Commons). And when it comes to using it for remixes and videos etc, it is also two-sided. For your own use, I would say it's okay, but where do you draw the line then? Would you want your makings combined with something you're against of, that is immoral to you or hurtful to your business or personal life? How can we monitor things like these, if there's no law against it? In reality I think suing people for some youtube-videos or remixes hardly ever happens, if it's harmless. And if you ask permission, they are likely to give it to you.

    I feel like there will be a change in the indusryr for the mainstream, there are new kinds of business models coming up all the time. None of these really interest me personally, weather it was crow-funding projects, live streaming or phone apps. But I'm sure someone will think of a way to make this market more appealing to the masses. There is still a small market for actual cd's and vinyls. The function of these has just changed, they're more like souveniers or collectables for people. People buy vinyls when they don't even own a player. Because for some it's about much more than the actual music.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shit, so many spelling mistakes :D Didn't know I can't edit a comment afterwords.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. haha this is the funniest comment in this whole blog! I think what you can do is:

      1-copy the whole text you have commented;
      2-delete your comment;
      3-do spelling check;
      4-re-post it.

      It should work this way.

      Delete
  4. About the recording part
    Well we use a System Camera Canon and we didnt plan to do it in high quality cause the audio was more important then the picture.We didnt have too much time for the editing because there was problems of getting the interview.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's bit suprising that some musicians funded by their fans in the article. Anyway, still whole music industry is in transitioning position, therefore, needs time to set in a 'right' system.

    ReplyDelete