[The following is a reply to an email, for links to the articles go to the bottom of the post]
Paul,
Very cool articles, thanks a lot. I must take issue with some of what was said by the writer of the Radiohead article, particularly that recorded music can be subsidized through touring. While this may be the case with bands that write their own music, the larger industry cannot be sustained without recorded music income. Take Nashville for instance, the majority of the large country acts have committed to a system where songwriters, not artists, write the music; and while licensing the songs can provide good income for these writers, mechanical royalties have long been the draw that gets professional writers writing. It seems like a tough pill to swallow. Especially when you think about acts that don't perform live. Bands that put together masterworks in the studio that are absolutely incredible but are impossible performances live. Where will these artists make money? A little food for thought.
I personally like the idea of a company that manages artists, records, owns all copyrights, and shares in touring income. I just feel like this is a job for a management company. A company that works for the artist. A company that is employed by the artist. A partnership that can create a brand that can be monetized, just at a much cheaper level. The one thing to take from the article is the quote by 18-year-old James: "They are unwilling to fork out what is generally considered to be an unreasonably high price for albums. However, they will buy an album if the band means a lot to them." This is the catch, making the band mean a lot to them. This means getting the artist in the trenches with the fan. Making the fan think he/she belongs to a club. Once you build this relationship people will pay, but the relationship comes first. So where do you start? Well, they need to hear your music. They need to know you. They need confidence that what they are about to buy isn't a one hit piece of shit. You must build confidence i.e. Dave Matthews. Only when the music becomes more about talent than profit can the true talent be weeded from the crap. When the fan feels like he can give to the artist. To belong to the club. Talent first. Music first. The money will come, you just have to know when to charge. Read this article on Nettwerk:
ARTICLE
This is the model of the future. Notice there are no labels involved. The future function of the record label is a marketing plan. This can be outsourced. You don't need the label anymore. Money comes from (c) ownership.
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, released an album earlier this year. They are a strictly do-it-yourself success story. They released their album and saw sales of just under 64,000 units in the first week. By industry standard this wouldn't be a good release. However, they recorded the whole album for $15,000 and due to the ownership of the (c) are making $6-7 PER SALE. They showed a profit in the first week. These are the stories that need to be circulating. There are larger questions that still need answers, but hey, its a start.
Paul, thanks again for the article and the interest. It is refreshing to see people opening their brains and actually using them for SOLUTIONS. In a recording industry department where most people don't know that these opinions are out there, it a fucking breath of fresh air. Thanks again for your involvement with DMCS and your commitment to getting the debate going. You are needed and appreciated. Thanks again, and we will talk soon.
Cheers,
Adam
On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Paul wrote:
I found these articles from the UK's Telegraph newspaper, and thought you might be interested to read them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/07/cnemi107.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/07/ccmusic107.xml
--Paul K.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
