
Why Everyone But The Artist And The Music Fan Is Doomed - J3L2404
http://blog.tunecore.com/2011/11/why-everyone-but-the-artist-and-the-music-fan-is-doomed.html?utm_medium=email&ref=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newseletter11_21_11
======
jaysonelliot
The author should distinguish between the concepts of gatekeeper and curator.

Is a music magazine or a radio station a gatekeeper because they can only
showcase a limited number of artists, or are they a curator because they help
the end user sort through thousands of bands to find the ones they would like
to know about?

Even record labels have a role to play in the curation game. Smaller
independent labels like 4AD, Wax Trax, Factory, SST, and Alternative Tentacles
became valuable to fans in the '80s and '90s because their labels each created
a "sound" of their own. You could confidently buy a record from a band you'd
never heard of and know that if you liked the other bands on that label, you'd
probably like this new one.

Curators provide significant value, and earn their keep. It's only when the
curator turns into a gatekeeper and becomes a hindrance instead of a help that
the problem arises.

~~~
notatoad
Smaller indie labels are still gatekeepers. In this age, the benefit you
describe is gone because there is no longer any reason to be buying music
without first listening to it.

~~~
alexhawket
That's not really true. There are time constraints and filtering out the good
music can be a difficult proposition in 1 in 100 kind of scenario at best..
it's fatiguing.

Many djs, for example, rely heavily on labels to curate their offerings and
once they find a label they like, they pay more attention to whatever they
release than random discoveries.

------
chalst
Steve Albini, 2010, GQ interview: _This is a terrific time to be in a band.
Every band has access to the entire world by default. I know quite a few bands
that have been able to establish themselves internationally based on nothing
other their web presence. It's an incredible tool. It's also revived the
careers of a lot of bands that came before the Internet era and never had
enough penetration to find their natural audience. But because the music
survived, some people were interested in disseminating it for no other reason
than because they like it. People put stuff on YouTube or torrent clients or
whatever, not because they're going to make money off of it, which is the only
reason the mainstream industry would do something, but because they think it's
good. It's a like a worldwide mix tape. An awful lot of bands that had no
audience in their first incarnation were able to revive their careers and have
a second lap. It's so exceedingly rare that somebody gets more than one bite
at an apple like that. I think it's fantastic._

<http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/09/steve-albini.html>

------
earbitscom
Tunecore is among the few, liberating services that provides true value for
unsigned artists and I agree with a lot that's in this article. That being
said, it's leaving out of the discussion the biggest things that labels and
management still do for artists, and that's marketing, operations and
financing.

It is simply a very small group of artists who can not only write phenomenal
music and perform on successful tours, but manage their own online presence,
market their releases and shows effectively, and do them in such a way that
they either need no capital to do it or generate enough revenue to invest in
future promotion. Most artists, even the best ones, still need someone to
manage their promotions, help them understand the state of being online, setup
their tours, and fund the up front costs associated with promoting a band at
significant scale. Say what you want about record labels being a gatekeeper,
they are also an enabler.

Take my favorite band, Tool, for instance. They record highly complex albums
that take years to write, they do it in state of the art studios, and then
they promote them with massive tours that have some of the most amazing light
shows and animation of any live event today. Even at their size and their
success level, fronting the costs of an operation like that would be near
impossible for them, and just like so many entrepreneurs who start their 4th
company but still raise money from good investors, it's better to risk someone
else's money than your own, and leverage their network to get things done.

The shape and responsibilities of labels may change. But most artists do not
know how, or even want to know how, to market their own music, or figure out
how to finance an extraordinary product/experience. That's assuming they could
even get financing for something like a Tool tour. If someone is willing to do
that for them, there will always be a place for them and artists willing to
give them a percentage of ownership to have it done well and at less risk to
them.

~~~
jcr
Thanks Joey for being the voice of reason on this. Though you certainly nailed
the _main_ point, there is an additional supporting point, namely, the "easy
factor."

Take a look at this exchange, particularly the follow-up by potatolicious
(along with the parent article): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3264289>

The tech-centric view is now, and has always been, completely unrealistic for
everyone except skilled, tech-centric people. It can be pushed to absurdity
very easily...

"You don't know how to program well enough write your own web server?"

"You don't know enough assembly to write your own compiler?"

"You don't know enough VHDL to write your own instruction set?"

"You don't know enough about fabrication to build your own processor (ASIC)?"

Another way to look at the same "easy factor" issue is imagine you need to run
a multi-million dollar online advertising/marketing campaign and companies
like Google and Facebook with easy advertising platforms don't exist. Without
"other" companies providing easy ways to run campaigns, the typical
advertising/marketing person is essentially stuffed. They don't know how to do
it on their own.

Even if your favorite band, Tool, had the money to finance their operation,
they would most likely be worse musicians if they were forced to learn all the
other stuff they need to know. In other words, the thing they are good at,
music, would suffer due to the need to invest vast swaths of their time and
effort in learning everything else they would need to know.

As always, specialization has many advantages, but also, preventing the need
for specialization by making things easy can be very profitable.

~~~
earbitscom
Yeah, the same thing is said in music all of the time. You should be using
social media, leveraging every possible distribution model, putting your music
out there, giving it away for free, engaging your audience, designing your own
shirts, crowdfunding this and that, and and blah blah. Who has time to do all
of that and still practice their instrument, write new music, and carry on
some semblance of a life?

Tool lets someone else manage their social media and they use it almost
exclusively to promote other peoples' art that they like, because they
couldn't care less to promote themselves with it. They're not available on
nearly any streaming service. Their best form of marketing is putting out a
product that is eons ahead of other bands and they're only able to do that
because a label, manager, tour manager and everybody else help them stay
focused on what they do best. Everybody likes to hate on labels but the truth
is that they are a resource just like anything else, and when properly
aligned, can provide the necessary resources _and time_ to focus on the music
itself. I far prefer that to a world with no labels and every artist tweeting
their sanity away.

------
fbuilesv
I don't think that only the artist and the bands will be the ones who survive
in this new media ecosystem.

We need to fix the problem of getting tens of thousands of bands to the
potential millions of customers. If every band's expected to do their own
marketing and music spreading then we'll end up with stuff like Soulja Boy and
the Chocolate Rain kid. I seriously doubt you'll stumble upon the next Rush in
a random YouTube video.

I wish we could say that Pandora and other online services are fixing the
problems but I can't believe this is all we can do about it. I also wish I
could provide a solution to this problem and cash in millions in the process
:)

~~~
davesims
I'd say if all you're seeing is Soulja Boy and Chocolate Rain, you need to get
around the net more and seek out some of the great independent music that's
out there. Even on YouTube there's plenty of good music that has become really
popular, like Pomplamoose. To me those guys typify a group that gets it.
They've adapted their strengths to thrive in the new era. It's good, fun music
that never would have survived in the old system but does now:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1257832...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125783271)

The idea of simply being creative with your music and relying on some system
of promotion and distribution to hold your hand through an album-tour-radio-
album-tour-radio cycle is dead.

It's unfortunate, but artists have to do things they're not used to doing:
manage and promote, social media, new creative expressions that go beyond
simple videos for songs. They'll have to learn to leverage the full range of
visual content possible, create more 'meta' content that their audiences can
stay engaged with.

That's the tradeoff: those old industry dinosaurs will die off, but the
artists that survive in the new era will have to do things they didn't have to
previously, or find someone else that can.

~~~
fbuilesv
_I'd say if all you're seeing is Soulja Boy and Chocolate Rain, you need to
get around the net more and seek out some of the great independent music
that's out there_

That's exactly the problem. If I have to out of my way looking for it then I
see a possibility of disruption. I personally might do this (because I love
music) but I understand most people is not willing to do something more than
open a YouTube video or take a quick look at a Wikipedia page.

I brought the specific cases of Soulja Boy and Chocolate Rain because people
can relate to them (they know who they are). Pomplamoose might be great but I
don't think they're anywhere near mainstream (that might be a feature instead
of a bug but I'm not entirely sure yet).

Edit: I don't know why you're being downvoted but I think the idea of artists
doing their own marketing is interesting. Stuff like this is what's making a
living for people like Jonathan Coulton, but I still don't think every
musician can (or wants) to do this.

~~~
davesims
Who can tell the vagaries of HN voting habits? It usually evens out.

I think the notion of "mainstream" is just as dead as the old industry models.
Music audiences are more fragmented than they've ever been, and are learning
to be more and more proactive in how they discover music.

Local live music scenes are thriving, even while most of the artists will
never make a splash beyond their communities. Sites like <http://one-track-
mind.com> and <http://www.indabamusic.com>, countless blogs like
<http://www.brooklynvegan.com> have become popular destinations for music fans
that want to find something new and more interesting than what passes for
mainstream.

I suppose the new challenges that face artists also face music fans. Just as
artists can no longer rely on industry hand-holding, music fans that want more
than gagabeiberidolglee will have to be more proactive than they're used to
being.

The good news is that there's a vast amount of talent out there and they're
making high quality recordings cheaper than ever.

------
jakejake
I think this article has it's heart in the right place but I don't see labels
or music management going away. The services that labels and managers provide
are still useful to get exposure, it's just the terms have traditionally been
vary unfavorable towards the artist. Distribution isn't the only key to
success - now more than ever since anybody can distribute on their own.

I'd like to see the industry head in a direction where the artists retain
control over their art and finances. All of these the industry companies like
labels and managers will become more like service providers, hired by the
artist.

I happen to work in the music industry and I can tell you that management
companies are busier than ever and they are happy to have use of all these
services that are supposedly "disrupting" their business. The artists are not
usually disgruntled with their services because they are doing a lot of work
that the artists have no interest in. It may be a different story for labels.

~~~
davesims
I think management and PR firms can definitely thrive in the new era if they
adapt and match their efforts to new avenues of income that don't go through
ASCAP, etc.

But labels? Why?? They came into existence for two reasons: recording was
expensive and distribution was hard and required retail deals, physical
storage and transport. None of those things are true any more.

A few will be around I suppose but only serving a narrow band of "mainstream"
artists that live in a rarified world of High Media Royalty (Taylor Swift, et.
al.) that has little to do with the vast majority of working musicians and
writers. Those artists will find new ways of building followings and already
are not chained to the old production/distribution models.

~~~
earbitscom
You left marketing and radio promotion off of the things that labels did and
still do for their artists. Both require relationships, money and expertise,
and are still very valuable things they have to offer good artists.

~~~
davesims
Sure, but the system for doing this has been essentially rigged against the
artist for years. Very few see fair royalties after the very expensive radio
promoter has been paid, and the advertising budget has been tallied, all of
which comes straight out of the artist's bottom line -- essentially the money
for this promotion was _loaned_.

And even fewer of them have the resources to pay the accountants and lawyers
it takes to make sure they're not getting ripped off.

It's partly the immense dissatisfaction that artists have with this system
that motivates them to find other ways to make money.

~~~
alexhawket
You're confusing the big labels with a heavy marketing presence with the wide
swath of medium sized labels that used to exist but no longer do.

Now the situation is big labels pushing, mostly pre-internet era, artists with
enough clout to penetrate global markets and extremely small niche labels with
no market penetration.

In typical anarchaic fashion, digital evangelists diss the old way completely
in a damn them all mentality, without really addressing the other half of the
equation.

Recording music is labour intensive and great music is difficult. It takes
entire teams of producers, coaches, engineers and songwriters to help a band
polish an album to sufficiently high quality. Yet more people are needed for
marketing, sales, pr, distribution, design, business development and so on.
None of these people can be marked to zero. Great content is expensive.

Art is also high risk. For every 100 ideas, 99 of them are bad and 1 will
strike a chord with the public and go big. That's just the way art works. It's
not a bug, it's a feature. Art is taking a risk, despite the odds. But someone
has to pay for that risk. The bigger the project, the bigger the risk.

To say that a label offers "nothing" is completely disingenuous and totally
ignorant. Labels are not the enemy. Go out and talk to the owners.. most of
them are very humble and genuine people who really do want to help artists
succeed. I've talked them, that's how I know.

You want to know what happens when you put 500 musicians in a room with
platinum award winning artists and label reps and lawyers? I can tell you
since I've been there.. the musicians don't ask the artists much, but they ask
the reps and lawyers a thousand questions about how they can make a living
doing what they love in a world hell bent on devaluing their work.

------
thirdsun
Well, of course TuneCore declares labels obsolete - Is anyone really
surprised? However it's not that easy - given that there's so much mediocrity
available I'd argue that curators absolutely have their place. Don't mix up
major labels with smaller indie labels, who are passionate about what they are
doing - in my opinion they are still important.

TuneCore on the other hand reads like a nice idea, but builds its business
upon flawed hopes of its users. I'd recommend reading this:
<http://thecynicalmusician.com/2011/05/the-new-gatekeeper/>

------
chrisguitarguy
To be clear, I love where the modern music industry is moving. It's awesome.
The fact that artist control their own destiny and copyright is amazing.

That said...

> In the digital world, all artists can be on infinite digital shelves with
> infinite inventory waiting to be discovered, heard, shared and bought.

Awesome, the problem is discovery. Is social media the answer? If so, that
doesn't necessarily mean good music -- good music being a relative term, of
course -- gets discovered. It means bands and artists that do the most leg
work get discovered.

The old guard in the music industry exists to solve a very pressing problem:
actually marketing music. We're at a weird point in the industry right now
where an artist can certainly "make it" on their own. The cost to sell and
promote music as an independent artist is very close to nothing, monetarily
speaking, and the technological hurdles of distribution and connection and
licensing are no more.

But the cost of promoting yourself is time. Time that could be spent
practicing or improving your craft. Is that worth it? Is it worth it for a
musician to spend time away from her craft in the hopes of appeasing the new
consumer gatekeepers: bloggers, redditors, hacker news folk? Or maybe they
should spend time away from their craft producing a funny video to win the
"going viral" lottery?

------
daleharvey
I have believed this for a long time, however there is a big issue thats been
nagging me for a while.

If labels truly do provide no value, and artists can gain more by being in
direct contact with music fans, why hasnt it happened already?

As much as I love spotify (which is lots) it is still controlled (and owned)
by labels, there are lots of things like cdnow which has helped the situation,
and I dont doubt that a lot of truly independent direct artists to fans site +
apps exist, but even as quite a large music fan pretty much all the music I am
exposed to goes through labels, the internet has been around quite a while
now, so if this is going to be disrupted, why hasnt it already?

------
davesims
I think this is correct, but it's a bit like watching the centuries-long
decline of Rome: the idea of "just a matter of time" is a relative concept.
How long will it _really_ take for inefficient dinosaurs like ASCAP and the
RIAA to finally die off?

~~~
funkah
Yeah, in the long run we'll all be dead.

------
nextparadigms
This is why Google Music's artist hub was by far the most interesting feature
of the service to me. If Google is serious about this, it will do a lot to
decentralize this whole system and help artists bypass the labels and go
directly to the fans.

------
glimcat
Because technology interprets inefficiency as opportunity.

