The Album Is in Deep Trouble – and the Music Business Probably Can’t Save it

[SixStringSlinger]

No, I wasn't jesting. I think if you want to sell your music independently, you're going to have to sell it online. You can pay to have CDs made, and try to sell them at gigs, but if the gigs aren't frequent enough, then you won't sell many CDs.

I met an artist recently who depends on Youtube views, word-of-mouth, and digital downloads. She's not signed to a label, and has to organize her own small tours. Her music isn't suitable for club gigs or casino gigs, and her shows are often in unusual venues, like community centres and churches.
Most of her income comes from working in the film industry, which she got into about 20 years ago. She has a large network of contacts, which new, young artists might not have.
Also, when I talk about making a living, I mean an income that allows you to live comfortably and perhaps raise a family and not live in poverty after retirement. It used to be that a professional musician or singer or songwriter could live a nice life. I'm not talking about touring cover bands. I'm talking about people who are creating original material that people want to hear. How do those people benefit financially from their craft if the industry collapses and the labels are all gone?

I think I get where you're coming from. But I think the answer to your last question is similar to what it is now. Many people will be making music, and only a certain few will do well enough at it to constitute "making a living". These days a large deciding factor is whether a label decides the benefits outweigh the risks and therefore invests in you. In a label-less world it may be more a matter of who can market themselves the best, and get the best/most word of mouth, etc. Either way there will be artists who do better and worse, and more than a little luck is involved. Maybe less people (or perhaps even nobody) will be making Rolling Stones money. But I don't see that the making it/not making it ratio would change so much. The results would just be based on some different factors than they are now.

 

[warrent]

How do those people benefit financially from their craft if the industry collapses and the labels are all gone?

Well the short answer is they won't. If the entire industry (at this point live nation) collapsed it would be very bad, but it's not collapsing it's still a multi billion dollar enterprise.

 

[kelnet]

I think I get where you're coming from. But I think the answer to your last question is similar to what it is now. Many people will be making music, and only a certain few will do well enough at it to constitute "making a living". These days a large deciding factor is whether a label decides the benefits outweigh the risks and therefore invests in you. In a label-less world it may be more a matter of who can market themselves the best, and get the best/most word of mouth, etc. Either way there will be artists who do better and worse, and more than a little luck is involved. Maybe less people (or perhaps even nobody) will be making Rolling Stones money. But I don't see that the making it/not making it ratio would change so much. The results would just be based on some different factors than they are now.

There would probably be far fewer full-time musicians. The few musicians I know who are playing their own music also have regular jobs to pay the bills and pay for studio time and so on.
A friend of mine is in a band that recently scrapped original material from their set lists because they got more gigs doing only covers. His band had been recording and playing their own stuff for years. A lot of it is quite marketable, and yet they never got a label deal. None of the members of that band depend on music for their income, so perhaps the switch to covers was more about still being able to get local gigs.
But maybe that's where the rock genre goes if record companies completely disappear. No more new stuff. Just covers.

 

[kelnet]

Well the short answer is they won't. If the entire industry (at this point live nation) collapsed it would be very bad, but it's not collapsing it's still a multi billion dollar enterprise.

I know. I was just responding to the person who said that musicians don't need record companies/labels.

 

[SixStringSlinger]

There would probably be far fewer full-time musicians. The few musicians I know who are playing their own music also have regular jobs to pay the bills and pay for studio time and so on.

I guess my question is who are these full-time musicians who could no longer be so without major-label support.

Obviously there are recording artists/bands, and session/touring musicians. That's a large number of people, but not (I think) a huge percentage of the people who make music for a living (or at least try to). That's why I don't think the disappearance of major labels would make a huge dent in the music being made. I just don't see that such a large proportion of musicians is dependent on that label money.

Am I wrong? Is the proportion of musicians made up of major label artist/bands and their session/touring musicians that huge? Or are there other musicians dependent on label money that I'm not thinking of?

 

[Greggorios]

I agree with much of what's been said so far in this thread. Just some additional thoughts about LPs...
AM Radio is what originally introduced rock n roll to the listening public and drove it's mass market appeal. The popular music business model in the 50's and early 60's revolved around releasing singles for radio air play which may or may not have also been included on a 33.3 long playing record (LP); the established media for classical and jazz music in those days. Then sometime around 1967 a most significant event occurred: popular and rock music began being played on FM radio stations like WNEW FM in NYC. The FM radio format lent itself to "long playing" music such as a classical symphonies and included much more discussion and analysis of the music by the FM DJ's. The new FM Rock stations became known as "free form" radio and gave their DJs far greater input and control over what they played, how long they played it and how long they chose to "chat" about the music, song, album, artist etc. As a result longer songs and even multiple songs by the same artists got played at the DJ's discretion. This was received well by music lovers at the time. The FM music format seemed more "serious" about the music and the DJs felt more like kindred spirits to us music lovers. In any case that's my recollection of how it was and why I became the music lover I am today.

 

[codamedia]

The FM music format seemed more "serious" about the music and the DJs felt more like kindred spirits to us music lovers.

Your post is dead on... I just cherry picked one line for reference rather than the entire post.

What happened next matters.... as FM gained popularity over AM the structure of FM reverted to the AM formula. It shifted from "us music lovers" back to the mass market. If you call your local FM station today and ask them to play a B cut it will not happen. Their playlists are tight, structured and regulated. It's all about the singles once again. The exception to this rule is Campus Radio Stations... which is what I tune into more than anything when driving.

 

[kelnet]

I guess my question is who are these full-time musicians who could no longer be so without major-label support.

Obviously there are recording artists/bands, and session/touring musicians. That's a large number of people, but not (I think) a huge percentage of the people who make music for a living (or at least try to). That's why I don't think the disappearance of major labels would make a huge dent in the music being made. I just don't see that such a large proportion of musicians is dependent on that label money.

Am I wrong? Is the proportion of musicians made up of major label artist/bands and their session/touring musicians that huge? Or are there other musicians dependent on label money that I'm not thinking of?

Oh, I'm sure that recording artists are only a tiny percentage of the entire musical community. But that's who I'm talking about.

We have to separate people who MAKE music for a living from those who PLAY music for a living. I'm talking about the recording industry, and the production, marketing, and sales of original music to a paying public who want to play that music in their own homes. Lots of folks are playing gigs, but how many earn income outside of those gigs? How many new musicians are selling their product while they sit at home?

 

[bluesky1963]

Not really an opinion on this topic, but a sidenote I think is worth noting:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but recording artists have never made as much on sales of their music (singles, LP's, Cd's, downloads, whatever) as they have on sales of tickets to shows, and other merchandise/licensing (of their music, image, name etc.). There are exceptions, but I think this is a general truth.

That being said, it would seem the "death" of anything (the album, "rock and roll", etc.) is more industry-relevant than art-relevant. This is to say, major labels sell less albums and will probably put less albums out, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of artists making albums (regardless of where/how these are recorded/released). Likewise, there may be less rock and roll (or rock, or whatever says what you mean) on the radio, on TV, the zeitgeist, whatever, but there is still rock and roll "out there".

All this is just to say that what's relevant to the industry (and what they produce, invest in, promote, etc.) has no necessary significant bearing on what's being created. The main effect on the everyday music fan may be that we're less likely to hear about some particular artist or type of music "by accident" (that is, we're less likely to randomly hear it on the radio one day and think "Oh man, what's that? I need to hear more of that!"); we'll have to search more in order to find, should we care to find. But aside from that, what makes an industry money and what we want to listen to/what's out there to find are not one and the same.

I think you've got it backwards. Pre-Beatles, it was live performances that generated income. Singles were more important and albums tended to be collections of singles that had done well with a bit of added filler. It was during the late 60's that albums became the main source of income, with singles and tours (which were somewhat underwritten by the record company) becoming a way to support album sales. This went on into 90's.

Makes me wonder at the artists so vehemently opposed to Napster way back when. Regardless of your opinion on the morality of what Napster did (or allowed others to do), the only "victim" would seem to be the labels who would no longer get rich off of selling music. So what were the artists (most of whom, as I said earlier, made next to nothing on music sales) all worked up about? Were they afraid the labels would drop them or cease to exist altogether, thereby hurting their main marketing? Were they luddites, or otherwise ignorant of the potential in releasing their own music online (and therefore mistakenly seeing the labels as their only hope)? Or was it just the few artists who had a better deal than most (Metallica could reasonably have been one of those, and Lars Ulrich certainly seemed to feel like he was being stolen from)?

Record companies had never liked blank audio tape because home taping cut into album sales, but it was a labor intensive process and people rarely did it for more than one or two of their friends. Napster drove 'em bat-spit because one guy could rip a CD and distribute it to millions of people costing the artists and the label big bucks in lost record sales.

 

[Greggorios]

Your post is dead on... I just cherry picked one line for reference rather than the entire post.

What happened next matters.... as FM gained popularity over AM the structure of FM reverted to the AM formula. It shifted from "us music lovers" back to the mass market. If you call your local FM station today and ask them to play a B cut it will not happen. Their playlists are tight, structured and regulated. It's all about the singles once again. The exception to this rule is Campus Radio Stations... which is what I tune into more than anything when driving.

Exactly! ...and for anyone who's into history the The Museum for Radio and Broadcasting in NY & LA (...now know as the Paley Center For Media) has recordings of many of the radio shows from thos days available to listen to.

 

[SixStringSlinger]

Oh, I'm sure that recording artists are only a tiny percentage of the entire musical community. But that's who I'm talking about.

We have to separate people who MAKE music for a living from those who PLAY music for a living. I'm talking about the recording industry, and the production, marketing, and sales of original music to a paying public who want to play that music in their own homes. Lots of folks are playing gigs, but how many earn income outside of those gigs? How many new musicians are selling their product while they sit at home?

If by make vs. play you mean artists who write/record/perform original material vs. cover bands, I agree and I am making that distinction. I intended only to talk about the "makers". But if you just mean writing/recording/releasing vs. gigging, I am bundling all these activities together as "making a living" in music. Maybe this different use of terms is part of our disagreement.

From the artist's perspective, yeah, having to work a day job in addition to music means you have less time to make music than you otherwise would, and therefore you record less, gig less, etc. But I don't think that means as much to the consumer buying recordings or attending gigs. Nobody cares if Keith Richards has to farm avocados or something between making records, they just want the records when they come out. Maybe we wish he could come out with records more often, but we all feel that way about our favorite artists regardless of whether they can make a living only doing music.

I don't doubt for a second the huge effect that the disappearance of the labels would have. I just don't believe it would be so detrimental to the existence/availability of music (recorded, live etc.) as a whole (though it would be detrimental, or at least a huge change to be adapted to, for those entrenched in the music industry as it is now).

Our access to music would change, but it would still be there. There would just be less chance for the whole country/world to see a band on a specific tour, or to hear about this artist or song all at the same time. At the risk of sounding like a hipster, I think that could be a good thing (not that what we have now is necessarily bad). Lots of smaller, different things going on and less huge, monolithic, same-y things. Plus we'd still have the internet; I wouldn't have to be in South Florida to hear about a band or scene going on in South Florida.

 

[SixStringSlinger]

I think you've got it backwards. Pre-Beatles, it was live performances that generated income. Singles were more important and albums tended to be collections of singles that had done well with a bit of added filler. It was during the late 60's that albums became the main source of income, with singles and tours (which were somewhat underwritten by the record company) becoming a way to support album sales. This went on into 90's.



Record companies had never liked blank audio tape because home taping cut into album sales, but it was a labor intensive process and people rarely did it for more than one or two of their friends. Napster drove 'em bat-spit because one guy could rip a CD and distribute it to millions of people costing the artists and the label big bucks in lost record sales.

Oh, ok. I was under the impression that it was always the case (in the "modern" music industry) that you never got much $$$ from album sales (at least, relative to touring, etc.), unless perhaps you were a proven, established act that the label saw as less of a risk, and therefore was ok with taking a smaller slice (because, based on past performance, they could be reasonably confident that they'd still get the return they want). What you said makes sense, though. I don't suppose the Beatles got anything other than richer after they stopped touring.

RE. Napster, I know why the labels hated it. I was wondering why some artists did, but then that was assuming that they were getting peanuts from record sales to begin with. If record sales were a bigger percentage of their $$$, I guess it makes more sense. But again, maybe it was the more established acts with better deals that hated Napster more. I know for a fact that lesser-known acts were ok with it, because they could get some degree of exposure without a label taking so much of the resulting $$$.

 

[Mike Eskimo]

I go to the New releases and New rereleases wall at Dearborn Music and if something interests me ?

I go on Spotify and see if it’s there.

If it’s not - I think about buying it.

If it is ? I walk out of the store and start playing it.

Music is free , the way it was always supposed to be...

 

[ebb soul]

I joined Imogen Heeps' UJO music, that's where the future is.

 

[warrent]

Record companies had never liked blank audio tape because home taping cut into album sales, but it was a labor intensive process and people rarely did it for more than one or two of their friends. Napster drove 'em bat-spit because one guy could rip a CD and distribute it to millions of people costing the artists and the label big bucks in lost record sales.

The problem is that the entertainment industry has always hated change. They tried to sue the vcr out of existence. Even though in the end it saved the movie industry and generated billions in additional revenue, once they were forced to issue movies on vhs. This is an industry that once fought the remote control on a tv because people might switch channels. If the record companies had responded to napster by immediately offering music for download they would have kept to themselves the 30% cut of sales apple took when Jobs forced their hand and started offering downloads.

 

[bluesky1963]

Oh, ok. I was under the impression that it was always the case (in the "modern" music industry) that you never got much $$$ from album sales (at least, relative to touring, etc.), unless perhaps you were a proven, established act that the label saw as less of a risk, and therefore was ok with taking a smaller slice (because, based on past performance, they could be reasonably confident that they'd still get the return they want). What you said makes sense, though. I don't suppose the Beatles got anything other than richer after they stopped touring.

That's part of the reason concert ticket prices are outrageous these days. The artists have to front all the costs of the tour, no help from the label like in the 70's and 80's. Only certain very rich bands and Frank Zappa did that back then.

 

[kelnet]

Music is free , the way it was always supposed to be...

You're just trolling, right? People have paid for music since Roman times.

Anyone who doesn't want to pay for music needs to play it themselves.

 

[RetroTeleRod]

No love for the 8 track?

image removed

 

[beyer160]

Without label support, how will musicians earn a decent living? Pubs, clubs, and bars don't pay well enough, and the gigs aren't regular enough.
A big tour requires up-front investment that an independent artist just can't afford. Can bands and artists earn enough by calling venues and booking their own shows and tours?

I guess every musician who wants to earn a living will have to develop good internet sales skills.

"Label support" is like having a credit card at 400% interest. No lawyer in their right mind would let anyone sign a modern 360 recording contract, except an entertainment lawyer. In any other industry a contract like these would be considered fraud. Unless you're a Foo Fighters/U2 level artist with the ability to negotiate terms, your record company robs you blind in return for whatever pitiful advance they give you. In the Napster hearings, Roger McGuinn testified that he had NEVER received royalties from any of his records, EVER. The dirty secret of the record business is that most major label artists live this way- they get an advance on a record, and that's all. Any additional money they earn comes from touring, merch and publishing. Only a very select few see any sort of return from their records.

Here's a golden oldie from the '90s- the numbers are all different now, but the essential truth remains. And actually, things have gotten significantly worse from when this was written-
(link removed)

So what's a musician to do? Well, in the old days, record companies were necessary because they controlled the means of production-

-Independent recording studios were a rarity
-The labels controlled distribution
-The labels controlled access to media and promotion

The first two of these are no longer true, and the third is much less true today than it's ever been. You can hire promotional teams that place your music and promote it- it costs money up front, but in the long term you lose far less than having a major label with their hands in your pocket. It also means you're assuming the risk- that was what justified the labels taking the lion's share of the return on your record- even though you had a hit, 9 other artists tanked without a trace and the money invested in them was written off.

There are tons of artists on indie labels or completely independent making a living out there- it takes some work, but in a capitalist economy creative freedom (like everything else) has a price. I've known bands on both sides of the equation, and the indie bands ALWAYS wound up better off. I didn't know REM or U2 though, but bands like that are the black swan events of the music business.

That's part of the reason concert ticket prices are outrageous these days. The artists have to front all the costs of the tour, no help from the label like in the 70's and 80's. Only certain very rich bands and Frank Zappa did that back then.

The lack of "label support" has nothing to do with the price of concerts. Remember, tour support isn't free money, it's a recoupable expense- that means they take it out of your royalties. Concert prices have gone up for three main reasons. First, the price of pretty much EVERYTHING has gone up in recent years (tours require a lot of fuel, for example). Second, the labels have their hands deeper than ever in the artist's pocket (they take a cut of merch now!) so artists have to offset that, and third, booking agencies like Live Nation are taking an exorbitant cut of ticket prices.

 

[ebb soul]

...again...UJO...