

Why there’s no such thing as "the music industry" - ALee
http://drownedinsound.com/in_depth/4139120-guest-post--why-there%E2%80%99s-no-such-thing-as-the-music-industry?ticker

======
dandelany
"According to Association of Independent Music (AIM) '(...) A 'major' is
defined in AIM's constitution as a multinational company which (together with
the companies in its group) has more than 5% of the world market(s) for the
sale of records and/or music videos. The majors are (currently) Sony BMG,
Warner, EMI, and the Universal Music Group (which incorporates Polygram).'"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_record_label>

Four labels control 95% of the market? Sure seems like an industry to me...

~~~
cturner
Any definition of 'music industry' should refer to the set of musical activity
done for profit. This extends far beyond the sign->record->license model that
those four chase.

Think of live music activity done as business (orchestras, stage works, live
bands, professional church musicians), self-publishing musicians, sheet music,
bespoke composition, and all the music work done around advertising.

Even that barrier is artificial. If it weren't for copyright a lot of the
barriers between music, dance, acting and other creative pursuits would
evaporate. People could publish innovations without threats of legal attack or
stifling paperwork overhead.

~~~
gabrielroth
OK, so for 'the music industry' read 'the recorded-music industry.'

------
danhak
This is highly off-topic but I can't really think of a better place to solicit
feedback for this idea:

The more I think about it, the more I'm interested in the implications of a
YC-style investment model for promising young bands. E.g. identify hot,
unsigned talent; invest $20K + $5K/member for them to use as they please
(studio time, instruments, tour van rental, fliers etc.); claim X% of their
earnings from concerts, merch and royalties; lather; rinse; repeat. Has
anybody in "the music industry" discussed such a model?

~~~
leviathant
I'm not sure if you're making a joke here or not, but that sounds like the
traditional model of signing a band, more or less. Thing is, most bands that
can make money are probably already making money or on their way to making
money, without having to sign away rights to their output, or percentage
points to a label.

"Studio time" isn't quite what it used to be - anyone with a computer (doesn't
even have to be a decent one), a fairly inexpensive multichannel sound card
($150-$500), and (unfortunately, typically pirated) audio software can put
together a mix with high enough fidelity that most people would be happy with.
Bands already invest in their own equipment, so use the mics they have, the
equipment they own, and you've got a 'studio' for maybe $1000 more than what
the band already owns on account of being a band.

Distribution is easy, post your music to Bandcamp and iTunes. Then you need
promotion. This is the one remaining area where traditional labels still have
a decent amount of control, but that doesn't mean you can't hire your own
publicist. Just like the labels do.

The method you propose is more conducive to launching the 'career' of a pop
star who burns out after one single. You don't need to hire instruments, but
you will need studio time with session musicians, and will have to hire
songwriters and a costume department, and all kinds of things to put enough
flash on ultimately uninteresting music in the hopes that you trick enough
people into buying the album so you can at best break even, which only happens
because you're scamming the original 'artist' from the start.

~~~
danhak
No, I wasn't joking but thanks for your edifying and interesting response. I
guess my stereotype of how the record biz works involves a lot more
micromanaging/execs dictating every move and decision the artist makes.

------
milfot
Having family in the UK (and living there for a time myself), I can assure you
that whatever Thatcher meant to say - that unspoken implication was (and
remains) that society is whatever the BBC says it is. The fact that the people
collectively formed an opinion outside of that propaganda state just goes to
show how wrong she was.

Here again, the 'majors' are feeding you propaganda, telling you what (it
thinks) will be the way forward. Strangely, though, we keep seeing a common
thread amongst all new music delivery models... lower prices to the consumer.
I say, that is the future of music!

------
Groxx
OK, fine, the "music industry" isn't one big thing.

It's 4 big things. And they all seem to flow identically, screw artists and
consumers over identically, and make the same _moronic_ anti-improvement
decisions that they've been claiming will bring about their death since they
got big.

Remember the VCR? Cassette tapes? CDs? Napster? TiVo? Web-streamed video? MP3
players? The _media_ industry as a whole has exclusively benefitted from these
when they finally adopted them, and as a whole have predicted doom and despair
for everyone before finally raking in the money.

------
petercooper
I'm a massive Spotify user and fan and I pay $16/mo for its "all you can eat"
model. As much as I love it, this post seems to reflect my fear that it's
probably not going to last too long..

I used to spend perhaps $50 a month on albums on iTunes and I haven't bought a
thing since Spotify (and have listened to a much wider variety of stuff that I
wouldn't have "gambled" on previously).

When a regular music buyer like me decides a $16/mo service is "enough",
that's hardly going to thrill any musician, let alone the record companies.

