[atlantaprog] Re: Majorly Labeled

Sorry this is so late--I had some trouble sending mail. Here it is, anyway. 

On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Andrew Tegethoff wrote:
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.
OTOH, *now we know it can happen*. Even a little taste of, well, maybe not Utopia...can really whet the appetite.
Another point, though, is that even if the major labels as we know them all go down, *something* will take their place. The question here is: What will make for the culture of music-making that best gives good music a decent shot at both wide appeal and simple self- sufficiency?
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. 

In short:  People can only choose from what they're offered.
Of course, with the Net people can actually choose from a wider range, and to be honest a good number of high school- and college-age listeners have themselves a sense that something is wrong now and that some things were better "back in the day". I think a lot of listeners know that if they want music to improve, they, not just musicians, have to care about it.
So now, even with an easier "DIY music career" landscape, it's the same crap that sells.
Well, there are different kinds of crap. There's mediocre MegaMusiCorp crap, and then there's openly bad post-punk hip consensus crap (*pace* Wade). But again, it's a matter of knowing how to publicize and market. 


> From: "Wade S" <cobwebstrange@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> So record labels are bad because they rob artists, control distribution and 
> are only interested in producing commercially viable music.
Well, not just "commercially viable"--no one's gonna fault them for that. It's that they're *primarily* geared toward making as much money as possible, and that's affecting the quality of music because the industry would apparently rather sell mediocre music to a malleable audience based on such things as social status, hip quotient, and tribal identification than find the best music and sell that without going out of their way to promote it so much. If they did the latter, would music sales really go *down*? I doubt it, but (as others elsewhere have pointed out) the music business seems to think it would make their job harder than simply telling people who don't care that much (but think they do) what to buy. 


> 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.
Well, even if it doesn't actually go that far, can you deny that at least it's a step forward?
> 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.
Maybe, but I don't understand how that makes it OK for the major label to do what they do. Primarily, in the words of Unca Robert, due to the ability to recoup royalties, "the artist pays for the record which the record company then owns." Not too many records officially recoup their royalties (at least not with regard to the way the books are balanced), but that's not the same as saying the records don't make money. (In fact, the standard contract makes royalties recoupable from later records to pay for earlier ones.) 


> 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.
You make it sound as if that's a step back. The point is that even if there's more "competition", more people are able to "compete" in some way. (But take a 


> Ok, so
> it’s easier now. How many people here are making a living solely by
> recording and performing their original music?
At least some of us are probably making a few extra bucks we wouldn't have been making otherwise.
> 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.
Maybe. But as I understand it, some bands make livings at least as good when signed to indie labels, even without having been signed to a major.
I was once in a band in Tampa that never got off the ground, and we had an alumnus from a signed band (on a metal indie label) in the lineup. Either he or another musician I got to know through him told me each one of those musicians was making about $35K/year, which was a pretty good sum back then (or at least I thought it was--certainly enough to buy a decent house in Tampa back then). Of course, a lot of that was probably from performances and merchandising, but I don't know if bands on that level really perform that often. 


> 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.
I think there's the potential for many more people to make a living with it if things work out right. Granted, not *most* people, but a more substantial minority. 
>
> 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.
I think it's because of the sense that the majors could be Using Their Powers For Good, but aren't--not the way they seem capable of doing.

Other related posts: