[atlantaprog] Re: Majorly Labeled

I see the point about the validity of blaming the record industry for the lack 
of quality on the radio.  It seems to me that there's always been bubblegum 
pop.  Yeah, there was a golden era when what was extremely popular was also 
what was extremely good.  But how long did that really last?  With a few 
exceptions, by the late 70's those moments were already extremely rare.  
 
I would submit, however, that in the last 15-20 years the major labels have 
trended towards COMPLETELY ignoring relative musical "quality" and focusing 
instead on profit potential.  The resulting impact on music consumers has been 
to gradually alter their tastes and their expectations.  It's Newton's 1st law 
at work -- the industry's move towards profit-focus changed the music, and that 
in turn changed consumer tastes.  So now, even with an easier "DIY music 
career" landscape, it's the same crap that sells.  So I still lay some of the 
blame at the foot of the "industry".  
 
And regardless, my original point was just that the major labels are, IMHO, 
100% culpable for the position they're in right now, which I think is commonly 
being described as "on the verge of utter collapse".  It's not just the lack of 
quality, although that's 1 factor.  I think it's mostly because they completely 
misread the market, and totally lacked foresight regarding digital music, and 
therefore let their business model become a dinosaur.  Now iTunes and WalMart 
are eating their lunch and it's too late to change course.  Goodbye yellow 
brick road.
 
And yeah -- Lars is a doofus even without major label backing.  :?)



> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 02:19:55 -0400> From: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: 
> ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: atlantaprog Digest V4 #138> > atlantaprog 
> Digest Thu, 04 Oct 2007 Volume: 04 Issue: 138> > In This Issue:> 
> [atlantaprog] Re: Major Labels> [atlantaprog] Re: Major Labels> [atlantaprog] 
> Re: Major Labels> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > 
> From: "Wade S" <cobwebstrange@xxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Major 
> Labels> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:10:54 +0000> > So record labels are bad 
> because they rob artists, control distribution and > are only interested in 
> producing commercially viable music. A new system of > self distribution via 
> the internet is better because now anyone can promote > and distribute 
> themselves, the best bands will stand out and get the most > attention and 
> the money goes straight to the artist rather than the majority > of it going 
> to the label.> > Sounds good in theory, but most of the artists who I hear 
> are “getting > robbed” still make a lot more money than I make by being 
> signed to major > labels. Even the bands who get dropped have a major label 
> quality record to > hang on their wall and in those cases, the label loses 
> more than the artist > since the label has put up the money to create that 
> album.> > The record labels spend a fortune in the studio and on promotion 
> while the > band creates the music. It seems like both parties SHOULD get 
> paid. If a > band doesn't’t like that idea, well the major record labels have 
> never > completely controlled distribution and promotion anyway. There have 
> always > been indi labels and bands who’ve done it themselves. The Misfits 
> did all > of that in the 70s without the benefit of the internet. Now you’ve 
> got the > guys who wrote “Chocolate Rain” and “Peanut Butter Jelly Time.” Is 
> that a > step forward? That’s what I see getting the most attention.> > 
> Commercially viable product, regardless of whether or not it’s any good, is > 
> still the music that will sell the best. Who has really risen to the top? > 
> Who is the cream? Tila Tequila? Probably the best band that I can think of > 
> who’s really made it big through the internet is The Arctic Monkeys. They > 
> don’t seem any different than the other pop bands only their production > 
> isn’t as good. Theoretically, they are making more money because the major > 
> labels aren’t involved, but does anyone here actually know what the Arctic > 
> Monkeys make compared to a comparable band on a major? Does their indi > 
> label really pay them more? Either way you have a really tough time > 
> standing out and only a handful of bands can do well enough to make a living 
> > at it. That brings me back to the statements that NOW bands can distribute 
> > themselves, promote themselves, do it themselves. Since it’s always been > 
> possible. Is the argument that now it’s easier? Well that just means that > 
> there is more competition for the dollars that are getting spent. Ok, so > 
> it’s easier now. How many people here are making a living solely by > 
> recording and performing their original music?> > My point is that it’s easy 
> to blame the major labels for popular music on > the radio being crap, but 
> popular unsigned artists on the internet seem to > offer the same percentage 
> (if not a higher percentage) of crap. It’s easy > to blame the major labels 
> for robbing the artists, but it seems like you can > still make more money 
> with the support of a major (even with them robbing > you blind) than you can 
> on your own. Before the internet and since, I don’t > see much difference in 
> the percentage of people that I personally know > making a living from their 
> music. There have always been a few and there > are still only a few. I don’t 
> think that’s going to change with the fall of > the label.> > For years I 
> felt the way everyone here seems to feel. I'm starting to > wonder if that's 
> because it's easier to have the major labels to blame, so > I'm just trying 
> to look at it objectively.> > >[regarding downloaded music] Instead, they got 
> Lars Ulrich to open his > >mouth (pretty much always a bad idea) and started 
> suing teenagers.> > As for Lars Ulrich, I think that's more of an example of 
> a musician being an > idiot than the record label. I don't think the label 
> put him up to it as > you suggest. I'm pretty sure he did it on his own.> > 
> -Wade> > _________________________________________________________________> 
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star > 
> power. > 
> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_hotmailtextlink2_oct> 
> > > ------------------------------> > From: Allen Welty-Green 
> <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Major Labels> Date: Thu, 
> 4 Oct 2007 11:44:35 -0400> > Actually, the major labels have gone a long way 
> towards ruing the =20> careers of many artists who didn't manage to score a 
> *hit* right off =20> the bat. I grew up in Nashville and I saw it all the 
> time, albeit =20> mostly in the country music world. Some *next big thing* 
> gets signed, =20=> > paid a few bucks to make an album. The album sinks 
> without a trace. =20> The label isn't interested in them any more, but still 
> has them by =20> the 'nads until the contract is up. Meanwhile, the artist is 
> =20> forgotten, left out the dry. Unable to move on, they usually throw in 
> =20=> > the towel.> > The problem is that labels set themselves up as the 
> arbiters of =20> *commercially viable product* (which usually translates as 
> someone =20> that sounds like the latest big start) and shut out everything 
> else. =20> And by wielding their financial clout, they manage to limit to 
> =20> avenues that indies can have access to (witness the indy-promoter =20> 
> payola models of the 80s & 90s).> > =46rom what I've seen, the only way 
> original & innovative artists can =20=> > truly achieve a sustainable success 
> is by laying the groundwork on =20> their own, without making artistic 
> compromises. By the time an artist =20=> > has achieved some level of success 
> on their own, THEN the majors can =20> step in.> > Yeah, I'm rambling. Bottom 
> line is I don't trust huge capitalist =20> entities (such as the major 
> labels) to do the right thing by anyone =20> except their stockholders and 
> CEOs.> > On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Wade S wrote:> > > So record labels are 
> bad because they rob artists, control =20> > distribution and are only 
> interested in producing commercially =20> > viable music. A new system of 
> self distribution via the internet =20> > is better because now anyone can 
> promote and distribute themselves, =20=> > > the best bands will stand out 
> and get the most attention and the =20> > money goes straight to the artist 
> rather than the majority of it =20> > going to the label.> >> > Sounds good 
> in theory, but most of the artists who I hear are =20> > =93getting robbed=94 
> still make a lot more money than I make by being =20=> > > signed to major 
> labels. Even the bands who get dropped have a =20> > major label quality 
> record to hang on their wall and in those =20> > cases, the label loses more 
> than the artist since the label has put =20=> > > up the money to create that 
> album.> >> > The record labels spend a fortune in the studio and on promotion 
> =20> > while the band creates the music. It seems like both parties =20> > 
> SHOULD get paid. If a band doesn't=92t like that idea, well the =20> > major 
> record labels have never completely controlled distribution =20> > and 
> promotion anyway. There have always been indi labels and bands =20=> > > 
> who=92ve done it themselves. The Misfits did all of that in the 70s =20=> > > 
> without the benefit of the internet. Now you=92ve got the guys who =20=> > > 
> wrote =93Chocolate Rain=94 and =93Peanut Butter Jelly Time.=94 Is => that a 
> =20> > step forward? That=92s what I see getting the most attention.> >> > 
> Commercially viable product, regardless of whether or not it=92s any =20=> > 
> > good, is still the music that will sell the best. Who has really =20> > 
> risen to the top? Who is the cream? Tila Tequila? Probably the =20> > best 
> band that I can think of who=92s really made it big through the =20=> > > 
> internet is The Arctic Monkeys. They don=92t seem any different than =20=> > 
> > the other pop bands only their production isn=92t as good. =20> > 
> Theoretically, they are making more money because the major labels =20> > 
> aren=92t involved, but does anyone here actually know what the Arctic =20=> > 
> > Monkeys make compared to a comparable band on a major? Does their =20> > 
> indi label really pay them more? Either way you have a really =20> > tough 
> time standing out and only a handful of bands can do well =20> > enough to 
> make a living at it. That brings me back to the =20> > statements that NOW 
> bands can distribute themselves, promote =20> > themselves, do it themselves. 
> Since it=92s always been possible. Is =20=> > > the argument that now it=92s 
> easier? Well that just means that there =20=> > > is more competition for the 
> dollars that are getting spent. Ok, so =20=> > > it=92s easier now. How many 
> people here are making a living solely =20=> > > by recording and performing 
> their original music?> >> > My point is that it=92s easy to blame the major 
> labels for popular =20> > music on the radio being crap, but popular unsigned 
> artists on the =20> > internet seem to offer the same percentage (if not a 
> higher =20> > percentage) of crap. It=92s easy to blame the major labels for 
> =20> > robbing the artists, but it seems like you can still make more =20> > 
> money with the support of a major (even with them robbing you =20> > blind) 
> than you can on your own. Before the internet and since, I =20> > don=92t see 
> much difference in the percentage of people that I =20> > personally know 
> making a living from their music. There have =20> > always been a few and 
> there are still only a few. I don=92t think =20> > that=92s going to change 
> with the fall of the label.> >> > For years I felt the way everyone here 
> seems to feel. I'm starting =20=> > > to wonder if that's because it's easier 
> to have the major labels to =20=> > > blame, so I'm just trying to look at it 
> objectively.> >> >> [regarding downloaded music] Instead, they got Lars 
> Ulrich to open =20=> > >> his mouth (pretty much always a bad idea) and 
> started suing =20> >> teenagers.> >> > As for Lars Ulrich, I think that's 
> more of an example of a musician =20=> > > being an idiot than the record 
> label. I don't think the label put =20> > him up to it as you suggest. I'm 
> pretty sure he did it on his own.> >> > -Wade> >> > 
> _________________________________________________________________> > Climb to 
> the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge =20> > with star 
> power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?=20> > 
> icid=3Dstarshuffle_hotmailtextlink2_oct> >> >> > > 
> ------------------------------> > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT)> 
> From: BK Broyla <bkbroyla@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Major 
> Labels> > I agree with both Allen and Wade; the major labels have been, not 
> always perhaps but for at least 15 years, agnostic at best toward musical 
> quality and development, and have committed many sins of hindering or 
> destroying budding careers of worthwhile artists. However, this is inevitable 
> in a largely capitalist society and I'm not sure different-but-equal problems 
> wouldn't arise from some other system. > I've read elsewhere that the biggest 
> bottleneck is attention, not distribution or manufacturing. (I would add that 
> stupidity is the real underlying bottleneck-- if we raised the average IQ one 
> standard deviation through genetic engineering, Britney, Kenny G, Toby Keith, 
> 50 Cent and their ilk would cease to be a problem, but that's another can of 
> worms). It used to be that labels were necessary to achieve all three, but 
> they still perform a useful function with the first. As I said a few days 
> ago, labels are unnecessary (and indeed, uninterested) until you have gotten 
> off the ground a ways yourself. And once you've achieved a stable orbit like 
> Radiohead to the point where you're a household name with mucho dinero, 
> they're useless parasites. But in that middle ground, going from bare 
> self-sufficiency touring in a van and eating Ramen, to playing arenas and 
> selling platinum records, major labels may provide the necessary upfront cash 
> and marketing machine to catch the> notice of short-attention-span, 
> distracted, sensory-overwhelmed consumers, in a way that no MySpace page can. 
> I have to wonder if Radiohead would be in their current, enviable position if 
> they hadn't gone through the major-label phase for awhile. They has already 
> achieved their mindshare and no longer need a label's marketing muscle, but 
> that was not always the case.> > As Wade points out, there is a massive 
> supply glut of original music; it's nothing new and is unlikely to change, 
> since most kids would rather grow up to be rock stars than accountants or 
> Walmart greeters. There's an eternal fight over who gets the limited pool of 
> eyes, ears and dollars, and that will remain true even if technology enables 
> artists to stream their music to you telepathically. King's X is a good 
> example-- they've had a steady cult following for many years and have been on 
> small labels most of the time. They can probably sustain this level 
> indefinitely on their own. However, most of the fans got into them during the 
> years they were with Atlantic, getting exposure on radio, MTV, magazine ads, 
> etc. They parted with Atlantic acrimoniously with the usual complaints, but I 
> doubt they would have this steady cult following now if not for the previous 
> major-label phase. So, I guess I'm looking for a band to go all the way from 
> the garage to the arena without a> label before I write them off as 
> irrelevant robber barons.> > BK> > Allen Welty-Green <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote: Actually, the major labels have gone a long way towards ruing the > 
> careers of many artists who didn't manage to score a *hit* right off > the 
> bat. I grew up in Nashville and I saw it all the time, albeit > mostly in the 
> country music world. Some *next big thing* gets signed, > paid a few bucks to 
> make an album. The album sinks without a trace. > The label isn't interested 
> in them any more, but still has them by > the 'nads until the contract is up. 
> Meanwhile, the artist is > forgotten, left out the dry. Unable to move on, 
> they usually throw in > the towel.> > The problem is that labels set 
> themselves up as the arbiters of > *commercially viable product* (which 
> usually translates as someone > that sounds like the latest big start) and 
> shut out everything else. > And by wielding their financial clout, they 
> manage to limit to > avenues that indies can have access to (witness the 
> indy-promoter > payola models of the 80s & 90s).> > From what I've seen, the 
> only way original & innovative artists can > truly achieve a sustainable 
> success is by laying the groundwork on > their own, without making artistic 
> compromises. By the time an artist > has achieved some level of success on 
> their own, THEN the majors can > step in.> > Yeah, I'm rambling. Bottom line 
> is I don't trust huge capitalist > entities (such as the major labels) to do 
> the right thing by anyone > except their stockholders and CEOs.> > On Oct 4, 
> 2007, at 11:10 AM, Wade S wrote:> > > So record labels are bad because they 
> rob artists, control > > distribution and are only interested in producing 
> commercially > > viable music. A new system of self distribution via the 
> internet > > is better because now anyone can promote and distribute 
> themselves, > > the best bands will stand out and get the most attention and 
> the > > money goes straight to the artist rather than the majority of it > > 
> going to the label.> >> > Sounds good in theory, but most of the artists who 
> I hear are > > �getting robbed� still make a lot more money than I make 
> by being > > signed to major labels. Even the bands who get dropped have a > 
> > major label quality record to hang on their wall and in those > > cases, 
> the label loses more than the artist since the label has put > > up the money 
> to create that album.> >> > The record labels spend a fortune in the studio 
> and on promotion > > while the band creates the music. It seems like both 
> parties > > SHOULD get paid. If a band doesn't�t like that idea, well the > 
> > major record labels have never completely controlled distribution > > and 
> promotion anyway. There have always been indi labels and bands > > who�ve 
> done it themselves. The Misfits did all of that in the 70s > > without the 
> benefit of the internet. Now you�ve got the guys who > > wrote �Chocolate 
> Rain� and �Peanut Butter Jelly Time.� Is that a > > step forward? 
> That�s what I see getting the most attention.> >> > Commercially viable 
> product, regardless of whether or not it�s any > > good, is still the music 
> that will sell the best. Who has really > > risen to the top? Who is the 
> cream? Tila Tequila? Probably the > > best band that I can think of who�s 
> really made it big through the > > internet is The Arctic Monkeys. They 
> don�t seem any different than > > the other pop bands only their production 
> isn�t as good. > > Theoretically, they are making more money because the 
> major labels > > aren�t involved, but does anyone here actually know what 
> the Arctic > > Monkeys make compared to a comparable band on a major? Does 
> their > > indi label really pay them more? Either way you have a really > > 
> tough time standing out and only a handful of bands can do well > > enough to 
> make a living at it. That brings me back to the > > statements that NOW bands 
> can distribute themselves, promote > > themselves, do it themselves. Since 
> it�s always been possible. Is > > the argument that now it�s easier? Well 
> that just means that there > > is more competition for the dollars that are 
> getting spent. Ok, so > > it�s easier now. How many people here are making 
> a living solely > > by recording and performing their original music?> >> > 
> My point is that it�s easy to blame the major labels for popular > > music 
> on the radio being crap, but popular unsigned artists on the > > internet 
> seem to offer the same percentage (if not a higher > > percentage) of crap. 
> It�s easy to blame the major labels for > > robbing the artists, but it 
> seems like you can still make more > > money with the support of a major 
> (even with them robbing you > > blind) than you can on your own. Before the 
> internet and since, I > > don�t see much difference in the percentage of 
> people that I > > personally know making a living from their music. There 
> have > > always been a few and there are still only a few. I don�t think > 
> > that�s going to change with the fall of the label.> >> > For years I felt 
> the way everyone here seems to feel. I'm starting > > to wonder if that's 
> because it's easier to have the major labels to > > blame, so I'm just trying 
> to look at it objectively.> >> >> [regarding downloaded music] Instead, they 
> got Lars Ulrich to open > >> his mouth (pretty much always a bad idea) and 
> started suing > >> teenagers.> >> > As for Lars Ulrich, I think that's more 
> of an example of a musician > > being an idiot than the record label. I don't 
> think the label put > > him up to it as you suggest. I'm pretty sure he did 
> it on his own.> >> > -Wade> >> > 
> _________________________________________________________________> > Climb to 
> the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge > > with star power. 
> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx? > > 
> icid=starshuffle_hotmailtextlink2_oct> >> >> > > > > > 
> ---------------------------------> Pinpoint customers who are looking for 
> what you sell. > > > ------------------------------> > End of atlantaprog 
> Digest V4 #138> *********************************> 
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it 
now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033

Other related posts: