Here's my thinking about the decision on the part of an artist to release their entire catalog to the public for free: if digital distribution has rendered direct sales to the customer significantly less worthwhile than it once was, they need some alternate source of promotion and revenue. A move like this would likely increase the artists' visibility in the public's eye without significantly harming their total revenues.
Notice that they give out copies of their songs, but don't release their copyright: want to download their music to listen to it on your iPod? Awesome, enjoy. Want to remix it or use it in a commercial setting? The music isn't licensed for that, you're going to have to talk to their agents.
This move is genius: it increases artists' exposure, ultimately leading to increased sales, licensing, and presumably also concert revenues. There's basically no downside to this.
"The same things that made 3 Feet High and other De La albums so influential — its creative, if not fully licensed, use of a myriad of samples — has also prevented the group's work from appearing on many digital platforms. "It's been a trying journey," admits Posdnuos. "We've been blessed to be in the Library of Congress, but we can't even have our music on iTunes. We've been working very hard to get that solved." The rapper points to frequent personnel changes at record labels and hazy language in early contracts that have led to long delays in properly clearing the group's catalog." - TFA
They can't give out any kind of licenses for these songs, because the rights for the samples they're built from are a tangled mess.
I think this move is about recognizing that they're not going to make any more money on the old catalog, so they're using it as a way to connect directly with their fans - via collected email addresses. Next, I would expect they'll release new material and target it directly at these people. They can charge a minimal amount of money and make more than if they went through any label or, say iTunes.
TL;DR They're doing this to build their email list to create a direct channel for marketing future material.
>>> This move is genius: it increases artists' exposure.
Only if people actually find out who De La Soul is. Considering they started in 1987 and their last album was out in 2009, I'm not sure most kids this side of 1997 really know who they are or care about their music.
It would be cool if they did get the exposure. I feel without a concentrated PR campaign, besides a few articles over the next few days, not sure their sales are going to get a big bounce from doing this.
I know hip hop is treated as a disposable commodity by society, but kids who are really into hip hop as an art form will definitely learn who De La Soul is sooner or later.
>>>> I know hip hop is treated as a disposable commodity by society.
This is really depressing because most kids think of hip-hop as music only. I was taught hip-hop is a culture. Breakdancing, music, and graffiti are integral parts of the culture. It has such a rich, vibrant history that's disappearing as more and more suburban kids gravitate towards rap. Sure they know Kayne and Jay-Z. Do they know about Sofles, Dondi and Phase 2? Doubtful. Do they about the Rock Steady Crew or the Super Cr3w? No way.
Too many kids just think hip-hop = rap which is depressing.
Here's a viewpoint, coming from a different place, but with the same recognition of the one-dimensional quality of commercial rap, from a lover of hip-hop as a verbal art form --
"I think that mix of vulnerability, confidence and honesty was why our mothers loved [Prince]. I think that was the sort of alchemy we missed in hip-hop. We got close a few times--notably De La Soul on Buddy or Eye Know, or The Roots on Silent Treatment or You Got Me. Also, there are a few Outkast joints. But we never achieved that sort of confidence--that sort of true manhood."
Another viewpoint is from DJ Shadow ("Why Hip Hop Sucks in '96") -- it's the money.
Yeah, but their last album dropped 10 years ago (and my favorite, Stakes is High, will be old enough to vote this year). Great way to get out there agian.
Kind of narrow minded to think the only people willing to pay to see a band are 16-20 year olds. Lots of bands continue make money touring well beyond their initial upsurge era.
I'm 30, and spend hundreds of dollars a year on concerts (Rev Horton Heat, Nine Inch Nails, Lolla, Coachella, etc). I'm debating paying $400 for 3 days in Miami for the Ultra music fest (EDM festival) at the end of March. It's not just 16-20 year olds paying for live shows.
EDIT: I also go to Lakes Of Fire, Burning Man, etc. I may not be representative of larger groups.
Don't most concerts for big name bands easily run more then $100/ticket? Like the Rolling Stones and similar? I don't think those stadiums are filled with people under 30.
Actually, I think there's a major upside in revenue as the artist profits way more from live shows than from album sales, which are a low margin business as record companies take its lion's share.
Getting their music out there increases their visibility and, therefore, desirability, meaning more people will be willing to pay to see them live.
One trouble is that booking artists for live shows is (or used to be) very driven by album sales, so perhaps we'll start seeing other interesting metrics - like Youtube/FB followers, # downloads, etc - achieving the status a "more official" indicator.
Or, the potential market could grow along with the deluge of free music, no longer restricted to the credit card-holding western adult listener. This would have the potential to trigger increased popularity in radio and other media, benefiting both the artists and listeners. Pure speculation, of course.
believe it or not, amount of local radio play still is the most referenced metric for booking consideration, at least on a profitable touring scale (as in touring for income rather than promotion). downloads and internet fanbase metrics have been used as well for quite some time now, just on a smaller scale, ultimately these decisions are up to the promoter, whether to trust facebook likes to turn into ticket sales, whether to trust a new artist being represented by a historically successful agent (this probably holds more value than any online clout), whether to trust the promoter's own instinct with their local market in deciding what acts will prove successful. ultimately, i agree that making a back-catalog free will benefit certain artists but probably not the domestically touring indie band.
With the rise of national corporate-owned radio stations, you have fewer program directors you need to convince to play your songs. But you're also competing with lots of other bands who sound just like you, because of the record company's tendency to sign clones of already top-selling bands.
Internet playlists (today's mix-tapes?) and college-radio probably have the greatest chance of becoming famous. Live venues work for local markets (Austin in particular), but breaking out onto the national stage is tough.
De La Soul situation is a little more complicated. Many of their albums used uncleared samples and some of the rights are still unclear. That's also why their stuff isn't on iTunes..
But streaming services are so much handier, thanks to their large catalogs. I use Google Play Music and used the free matching/upload functionality to upload my Beatles, De La Soul, and John Zorn collection :).
>Here's my thinking about the decision on the part of an artist to release their entire catalog to the public for free: if digital distribution has rendered direct sales to the customer significantly less worthwhile than it once was, they need some alternate source of promotion and revenue. A move like this would likely increase the artists' visibility in the public's eye without significantly harming their total revenues.
Well, if their primary source of revenue were the releases,
then the switch to digital (and the ease of just getting it from a pirate say even for people who would have ordinarily bought the LP/CD), then their total revenue is significantly harmed to begin with.
So, with sales hampered, mostly gimmicks like merchandise remain (for bands that catter to immature people buying branded t-shirts and the like, e.g not gonna really work for jazz or classical or tons of other genres).
And, of course, concerts. But those mostly apply to genres and bands with big enough fanbases to be able to have concerts and make a buck. For the rest, concerts are mostly lossing money (and were historically loss leaders for records sales for most bands).
You might be right about the overall move toward giving away music, but in this case, it's because they simply cannot get their music released digitally due to rights/sampling issues. Giving it away sidesteps the issue, gives them much more exposure, generates a lot of goodwill toward them and will get more people to come out and see them when they put on a concert in your area.
Notice that they give out copies of their songs, but don't release their copyright: want to download their music to listen to it on your iPod? Awesome, enjoy. Want to remix it or use it in a commercial setting? The music isn't licensed for that, you're going to have to talk to their agents.
This move is genius: it increases artists' exposure, ultimately leading to increased sales, licensing, and presumably also concert revenues. There's basically no downside to this.