[blue]

For those not in the proverbial know, English rock band Radiohead is releasing their newest album, In Rainbows, digitally on their website without a label (Their previous label was EMI). The catch is that consumers name their own price (Yes, even free). Today, Trent Reznor, front man and veritably the sole member of the band Nine Inch Nails announced that his contract with his record label, Interscope, was over, hinting at something along the lines of what Radiohead is doing. His statement:

Hello everyone. I've waited a LONG time to be able to make the following announcement: as of right now Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate. Look for some announcements in the near future regarding 2008.

Exciting times, indeed.
Source Wired News 10/08/07

It has long been a fact of the recording industry that groups and artists make very little from the sale of albums, nearly all profit from them going to the recording labels. With the advent of the internet and digital music, bands can now release their work directly to the consumer online, without the need for a label to manufacture and distribute albums to make them available. More importantly, the cost of albums can become ridiculously inexpensive (in the case of Radiohead, even free) for the consumer, if the group wishes, so long as money is made with touring and licensing deals.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Is this the beginning of the end for the recording labels? Will they find a way to work themselves into this process? Will this have enough traction among artists of lesser stature to be successful?

I envision (hopefully) something along the lines of a Google iTunes store driven on advertising revenue, offering album downloads from artists who wish to participate for free or almost-free...

 

[valve bouncer]

Sounds like a very clever business decision to me. For everyone d/loading it free or at a cheap price there'll be others paying above the odds cos they feel guilty or they reckon the album is brilliant. Mmmmm good topic, what albums would you pay above the odds for?

 

[blue]

I should also note Radiohead is releasing a physical copy of the record for something like 40 quid...I believe it's to be loaded with extra stuff.

I don't think I'd pay for a record from a superstar band like Radiohead, simply because I know they can make bank from touring. Local and up-and-coming bands I like and want to support I wouldn't have any problem paying a nominal amount of money for.

 

[ohio]

I should also note Radiohead is releasing a physical copy of the record for something like 40 quid...I believe it's to be loaded with extra stuff.

I don't think I'd pay for a record from a superstar band like Radiohead, simply because I know they can make bank from touring. Local and up-and-coming bands I like and want to support I wouldn't have any problem paying a nominal amount of money for.

Yeah, but it takes a band with some clout to do this with any scale and results. This could (potentially) start the direct-to-consumer revolution. I don't even like Radiohead and I plan to download the album for $5. With home recording studios, internet distribution and far better sources for music discovery, record companies essentially provide zero value-add but demand 80% of the cost of a CD or download.

In addition, I refuse to pay as much or more than a CD for compressed music and no album art through channels like iTunes. If this scares the **** out of record companies, it will be worth every penny.

 

[ohio]

Nabbed this from audioholics.com:
Robert Fripp (King Crimson) explains:

Copyright Statement (1994).

The phonographic copyright in these performances is operated by Discipline Global Mobile on behalf of the artist and compositor, with whom it resides, contrary to common practice in the record industry. Discipline accepts no reason for artists to assign the copyright interests in their work to either record company or management by virtue of a "common practice" which was always questionable, often improper, and is now indefensible.

Members of the public not familiar with the norm, might not know this common practice: the artist pays to record the album, generally on an advance provided by the record company. This advance is then recouped from artist royalties (which are subject to limitations in accordance with "company policy") and the album is owned by the record company. The record company owns the artist's work, for which the artist paid. If the record company, or owner of the company, sells the catalogue or the company itself, the artist receives nothing for their work, even though the artist paid for it to be made.

The copyrights of the compositions rest with the performer and post-performance compositor. Crimson Music recognizes no valid or ethical reason to assign them to publisher or manager as an inevitable, necessary or useful part of the business of collecting publishing royalties.

The artists affirm their moral rights to be acknowledged the authors of these works, subject always to the operation of grace.

Let us sadly acknowledge, in the spirit of preparing the future and repairing the past, that the publishing industry and music industry has often and repeatedly failed to treat its artists honourably, equitably and with common decency. There are too many instances of abuse, exploitation and the betrayal of trust for us to view this world with equanimity, confidence or ease.

Actions from the past which we now view with regret, including our own, may yet be addressed: they are reparable, they are forgivable; they are not excusable, they are not acceptable. To do otherwise is to place ourselves outside the natural circle of healing. This is truly terrifying.

Cynicism and bitterness are natural, reasonable and likely responses for anyone, whether performer or audient, who knows a close relationship with those who control money flows within the music industry; music can be a gate to Paradise, but cynicism holds us at the threshold.

 

[sanjuro]

For those not in the proverbial know, English rock band Radiohead is releasing their newest album, In Rainbows, digitally on their website without a label (Their previous label was EMI). The catch is that consumers name their own price (Yes, even free). Today, Trent Reznor, front man and veritably the sole member of the band Nine Inch Nails announced that his contract with his record label, Interscope, was over, hinting at something along the lines of what Radiohead is doing. His statement:

It has long been a fact of the recording industry that groups and artists make very little from the sale of albums, nearly all profit from them going to the recording labels. With the advent of the internet and digital music, bands can now release their work directly to the consumer online, without the need for a label to manufacture and distribute albums to make them available. More importantly, the cost of albums can become ridiculously inexpensive (in the case of Radiohead, even free) for the consumer, if the group wishes, so long as money is made with touring and licensing deals.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Is this the beginning of the end for the recording labels? Will they find a way to work themselves into this process? Will this have enough traction among artists of lesser stature to be successful?

I envision (hopefully) something along the lines of a Google iTunes store driven on advertising revenue, offering album downloads from artists who wish to participate for free or almost-free...

I hope so.

 

[MMike]

You misspelled Nell

 

[BurlyShirley]

I was listening to some economist talk about this on the radio the other day. He said that typically, a band like radiohead can expect $2 from a CD sale, so even if people pay $5 in the end, it's really just about them making more profits. Also he made mention to the fact that this really wouldnt be feasable to artists who dont already have some large fanbase, and that record labels tend to make most their money from those types anyway, so it's really not all that much of an issue. Just a big marketing scheme that's got a bunch of folks up in arms for 'revolution' and lining the band's pockets.

 

[punkassean]

On KGO they said the average fan was paying $10 for the new RH album. Initially the record industry promised that CDs would only cost about $10 after the cost from introducing the new medium (replaced cassette tapes) was absorbed.

Twenty years later, the prices have only gone way up. Based on this experiment by Radiohead, it looks like people are perfectly willing to pay what the record industry once promised to charge. The problem arose when the industry got greedy and decided to keep the price high well after CDs were the most common medium. Had they kept their promise I highly doubt that downloading illegal tracks would have ever become so popular in the first place.

Far fewer people bootlegged cassette tapes even though that too was relatively simple at the time. I imagine that's because tapes never cost more than about $7-8.

 

[ohio]

Just a big marketing scheme that's got a bunch of folks up in arms for 'revolution' and lining the band's pockets.

He's wrong. It's not about cutting out the record company. It's about forcing the record company to recognize that the ONLY value they provide in the modern world is promotion (identifying unknowns and making them known to the right customer), and networking (figuring out that Timberlake plus Neptunes is worth a lot more than just Timberlake) and that this is not worth $8 per album.

On the promotion and networking front... where Pandora, last.fm, fuzzartists.com and Musicovery.com exist they provide virtually no value at all and eventually an efficient market is going to snuff them out unless they change their model.

This isn't a revolution in the sense of people rising up, it's a revolution in the sense that economics and technology are replacing an outdated business model. This is a good thing for both supply and demand, and the sooner it happens the better.

 

[ohio]

Twenty years later, the prices have only gone way up.

Inflation, dude. $16 today is $10 in 1990 dollars.

 

[punkassean]

Inflation, dude. $16 today is $10 in 1990 dollars.

I haven't bought a mainstream CD in sometime but it seems to me a typical "new release" initially goes for between $17-20+. Isn't inflation about 3%/yr on average? Compounded that would make $10 equate to about $13.50 according to my math.

 

[punkassean]

He's wrong. It's not about cutting out the record company. It's about forcing the record company to recognize that the ONLY value they provide in the modern world is promotion (identifying unknowns and making them known to the right customer), and networking (figuring out that Timberlake plus Neptunes is worth a lot more than just Timberlake) and that this is not worth $8 per album.

On the promotion and networking front... where Pandora, last.fm, fuzzartists.com and Musicovery.com exist they provide virtually no value at all and eventually an efficient market is going to snuff them out unless they change their model.

This isn't a revolution in the sense of people rising up, it's a revolution in the sense that economics and technology are replacing an outdated business model. This is a good thing for both supply and demand, and the sooner it happens the better.

werd x2

 

[Silver]

Inflation, dude. $16 today is $10 in 1990 dollars.

How much was the cost of a blank when cds were introduced compared to today?

 

[kidwoo]

How much was the cost of a blank when cds were introduced compared to today?

Like 80 dollars!!

 

[ohio]

I haven't bought a mainstream CD in sometime but it seems to me a typical "new release" initially goes for between $17-20+. Isn't inflation about 3%/yr on average? Compounded that would make $10 equate to about $13.50 according to my math.

Dunno, I used some online inflation calculator and got that number based on actual inflation... Silver has a point though, blank CDs were worth a fortune back then. Nearly killed my portfolio. You'd think I would've learned after trying to hock my stockpile of blank 5.25" floppies in '96.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Blank recordable CDs are an entirely different animal than factory pressed CDs. Factory pressed discs are purchased in bulk and have way lower price per unit costs, making the industry's exploitation of artists and consumers that much greater.

Believe it or not, I read a very well reasoned article on this subject by Courtney Love. And just so you don't have to simply believe it, I went to the font of knowledge that is Google, and brought you this link.

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html

It is an interesting read... even if she killed Kurt to launch her career.

 

[jimmydean]

I like the idea of knowing if I opt to pay $10 to download it, that the band will get at least $8 of that (considering they pay for bandwidth, site hosting, blah, blah, blah) rather than $2 from the same purchase.

You figure some people will pay nothing, while other people pay $20 or more. So like BS said, my guess is the band will average at least $5 when it's all said an done.

That's a good sized chunk of coin in the bands pocket rather than a label would get for doing very little IMO.

 

[narlus]

He's wrong. It's not about cutting out the record company. It's about forcing the record company to recognize that the ONLY value they provide in the modern world is promotion (identifying unknowns and making them known to the right customer), and networking (figuring out that Timberlake plus Neptunes is worth a lot more than just Timberlake) and that this is not worth $8 per album.

you forgot one. as long as there is a physical product, distribution is also key.

 

[sanjuro]

I was listening to some economist talk about this on the radio the other day. He said that typically, a band like radiohead can expect $2 from a CD sale, so even if people pay $5 in the end, it's really just about them making more profits. Also he made mention to the fact that this really wouldnt be feasable to artists who dont already have some large fanbase, and that record labels tend to make most their money from those types anyway, so it's really not all that much of an issue. Just a big marketing scheme that's got a bunch of folks up in arms for 'revolution' and lining the band's pockets.

I would read this article by Steve Albini, a very successful producer, about the record industry: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html.

Basically, the record industry fronts bands the cash, but all expenses come out of the advance.

It is a horrible system.

 

[narlus]

this is an interesting debate.

on the 'only big bands can do this', well Einsturzende Neubauten struck first...they abandoned record labels and prevailed on their community of fans to be 'supporters', which for either 35 or 65 euros, got them a copy of the to-be-produced cd and extra stuff not on the eventual mass release (and a DVD, for the higher price), but also access to the band and other community members via websites, live feeds, and interactive chat rooms. their new cd is to be released very soon (i wrote a review of it, after i was given a promo copy - that cd also came w/ PDFs of the press kit, bio and lyrics in both english and german, as well as 3 high quality TIFF promo/publicity photos) but i'm not sure how they sorted distribution.

in all, it's an interesting concept.

 

[narlus]

I would read this article by Steve Albini, a very successful producer, about the record industry: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html.

Basically, the record industry fronts bands the cash, but all expenses come out of the advance.

It is a horrible system.

'the problem w/ music' is a must read...

that fripp bit was interesting as well...i'd not fully pieced together the fact that not only does the band pay for the recording (via royalties taken out from the advance), but they concede copyright to the label. wow. does that work that way w/ authors and publishers as well?

i've often thought it was kinda funny that cds and movie ticket prices were the same across the board regardless of quality or demand (the exception being limited run LPs, where the prices are higher).

 

[BurlyShirley]

Isnt it also the power of the record companies (and I know this falls into marketing) that gets bands on radio? Is there some other medium for gaining that kind of exposure for the up and coming or new artists?

 

[narlus]

I would read this article by Steve Albini, a very successful producer,

he's an ENGINEER, not a PRODUCER, dammit

H8R, regale us w/ some tales of Steve, please.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I would read this article by Steve Albini, a very successful producer, about the record industry: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html.

Basically, the record industry fronts bands the cash, but all expenses come out of the advance.

It is a horrible system.

Yeah, Ive read that before and have forwarded it to some musician friends of mine. I see it as a bad deal for the musicians in a lot of ways for sure, and Im not about to argue on behalf of any party here. I frankly, have gotten out of discovering any new music myself in the last year or so.

 

[narlus]

Isnt it also the power of the record companies (and I know this falls into marketing) that gets bands on radio? Is there some other medium for gaining that kind of exposure for the up and coming or new artists?

yeah, the power of payola. lthumbsdown:


for me, radio doesn't mean a damn thing. it's all word of mouth, magazines, web forums, and previous experience (ie, small labels tend to have a focused direction and aesthetic, so if you like band X, there's a good chance you could like Band Y).

 

[narlus]

I frankly, have gotten out of discovering any new music myself in the last year or so.

why is that? i'm curious.

how did you discover new music a year+ ago?

 

[BurlyShirley]

why is that? i'm curious.

how did you discover new music a year+ ago?

Well, moving out of Nashville to BFE for school is the biggest thing...and being focused intensely on my studies. Like I said alot of my friends are into music either making it themselves or seeing it live alot.

But as for your point on radio, that's the way most people hear new music, so while for some it's outdated and all, Id argue its still the most powerful force in music distribution.

 

[narlus]

But as for your point on radio, that's the way most people hear new music, so while for some it's outdated and all, Id argue its still the most powerful force in music distribution.

agreed. which is why i'd make for a lousy record label head.

 

[narlus]

that fripp bit was interesting as well...i'd not fully pieced together the fact that not only does the band pay for the recording (via royalties taken out from the advance), but they concede copyright to the label. wow. does that work that way w/ authors and publishers as well?

i guess courtney hole's blog told me:

When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.

her assumption that in the model, a record costs $500K to make is insane. each video, too.

w/ the advent of protools, how could that possibly be?

 

[ohio]

Isnt it also the power of the record companies (and I know this falls into marketing) that gets bands on radio? Is there some other medium for gaining that kind of exposure for the up and coming or new artists?

Gnarls Barkley "Crazy" was identified purely through viral networking, and how many times is THAT played on the radio.

 

[Da Peach]

i guess courtney hole's blog told me:


her assumption that in the model, a record costs $500K to make is insane. each video, too.

w/ the advent of protools, how could that possibly be?

If it were Courtney Love...it would make sense. I think $500K is a conservative estimate of what it must cost to make her sound less like ****.

 

[Westy]

Isnt it also the power of the record companies (and I know this falls into marketing) that gets bands on radio? Is there some other medium for gaining that kind of exposure for the up and coming or new artists?

That is pretty much why 99% of all the stuff on the radio sucks. That and most of the sheeple will eat up any music if the artist has a cool image.

 

[BurlyShirley]

That and most of the sheeple will eat up any music if the artist has a cool image.

Well I think that's really the heart of the matter, and where the record companies excel. I have a satellite radio because regular radio is so worthless, but most people arent going to take that step. I think alot of people are simply spoonfed into liking what they like.
...and there's a reason it's called "pop" because it's supposed to cater to the masses, not the picky music snobs. There will never be this revolution where "the good bands" actually get on the radio more than the "crap".

 

[H8R]

It is a horrible system.

Yes. It is.

So we said fvck it.

http://neurotrecordings.com

 

[Westy]

Well I think that's really the heart of the matter, and where the record companies excel. I have a satellite radio because regular radio is so worthless, but most people arent going to take that step. I think alot of people are simply spoonfed into liking what they like.
...and there's a reason it's called "pop" because it's supposed to cater to the masses, not the picky music snobs. There will never be this revolution where "the good bands" actually get on the radio more than the "crap".

But even pop music has gone down hill since the '70s. There is a difference between pop music that became popular because it was good and pop music created by a corporation created it.

I am actually lucky, there are two decent independant radio stations in the area. Sure they play a lot of the crap you hear everywhere else but they also play a lot of stuff just because the music geek DJ wants to play it. It is at least good enough to listen to when Colin Cowherd is on ESPN radio.

 

[MMike]

Do they play Justin Timberlake?

 

[BurlyShirley]

But even pop music has gone down hill since the '70s. There is a difference between pop music that became popular because it was good and pop music created by a corporation created it.

I am actually lucky, there are two decent independant radio stations in the area. Sure they play a lot of the crap you hear everywhere else but they also play a lot of stuff just because the music geek DJ wants to play it. It is at least good enough to listen to when Colin Cowherd is on ESPN radio.

Well feel free to call me a hippie again, but I listen to alot NPR and bluegrass these days just cause Im so tired of the same old sports stuff and music Ive been listening to for years. The other day I found myself tapping a-foot to bella fleck. God help me.

 

[H8R]

Well feel free to call me a hippie again, but I listen to alot NPR and bluegrass these days just cause Im so tired of the same old sports stuff and music Ive been listening to for years. The other day I found myself tapping a-foot to bella fleck. God help me.

It's scary how much you and I have in common. Aside from listening to Bela Fleck.

 

[binary visions]

Funny, about 3 weeks ago I turned on NPR for the first time in a long time. I forgot how much I liked it. Got sick of hearing the same fifteen songs on rotation on the radio, and now I listen to NPR every night on the way home.