Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Universal Music Group's View of the Digital World
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Morris is not the music industry. He is a dinosaur in the record industry.
His is a dying breed.
It is amazing to me how many people mix up the terms; record, recording, and music industry.
The record biz is where Morris is.
The recording biz is the studio or production house (usually owned by the recording artist) where the music is recorded.
The music business incorporates all forms of music written, performed, recorded, manufactured, downloaded or broadcast.
Apple is actually one of the largest players in the music business.
It's too bad Jobs isn't powerful enough to change the mindset of NBC/Universals web consultants.Because that's exactly where they think they're going to make all their money.Commercials..Really doesn't surprise me at all.These types will do anything for a buck.
Then you must hate all companies, because all companies are in the greed business. The only real difference is that some are smart-greedy and others are dumb-greedy. The music industry falls pretty squarely in the dumb-greedy corner if only because they have failed to think themselves out of some of the fundamental issues facing their industry.
I have a text book on the music industry
I have a textbook on the music industry that might have some interesting information about the digital music sales model. I'm on iPhone now but when I make it back to the MacBook Pro, I'll take a look and post what I find.
I do know this though. People like this guy are bastards. I got a professor whose got some interesting songs. They contacted him wanting to use one of them and asked HIM to front like $400. WTF. They want the song so why aren't THEY the ones fronting him the $400.
I have a textbook on the music industry that might have some interesting information about the digital music sales model. I'm on iPhone now but when I make it back to the MacBook Pro, I'll take a look and post what I find.
I do know this though. People like this guy are bastards. I got a professor whose got some interesting songs. They contacted him wanting to use one of them and asked HIM to front like $400. WTF. They want the song so why aren't THEY the ones fronting him the $400.
True story: I have a friend who used to be the president of a major label (this was brought up in an earlier thread where he gave me the actual data of where that $.99 goes -- you'll just have to trust I'm not lying). He recently had a conversation with a very successful artist he knows. The artist is happy that he renegotiated his deal; he is now getting a $12 million advance over however many albums they agreed to. My friend asks him if he "cleared the pipeline" -- i.e., have you made sure the label has paid all the money due on all prior projects? Turns out the label owed the guy $14 miilion. They gave him a shiny new deal worth less than that what he was owed (and which, of course, is recoupable) and were just gonna keep the $2 million -- and the artist thought he had got over. Mortified, he promptly fired his manager (who should have been on top of this) and got his money.
That's how these guys really do business.
That's how these guys really do business.
The internet makes distribution of music stupidly simple. So bands just need to figure out that marketing thing for themselves and the labels can fade into history.
Anybody feeling entrepreneurial? A little marketing business designed to support artists and leave the rest to them might do well these days.
Anybody feeling entrepreneurial? A little marketing business designed to support artists and leave the rest to them might do well these days.
Being related to a whole bunch of musicians, I may not know much outside of articles like this about the "business" of music, but I see artists.
And really, it seems to be sort of obvious. Like many things, recorded music used to take a lot of money and investment to produce--you needed a studio to record it, and experts with fancy hardware to mix it, and big factories to produce expensive records. And then, even if you had a stack of records, you had absolutely no way of actually getting them to anybody--you needed a huge distribution channel.
Hence, the music industry (that's such a sickening term, if you really think about it) positioned itself in there--they acquired the resources, fronted the money to allow the artists to produce a recording, and then used their distribution network to put the recording into the hands of paying customers.
Of course, being an industry, "artists" to them really were no different from the studio--a resource to be acquired and then used to produce product at the lowest possible cost. They weren't doing a service for the artists, it was the other way around, and the barriers to entry were huge so there wasn't any effective competition. Sure, you could play bars, but that wasn't going to get you known anywhere outside the area.
Kinda like car manufacturers--they only need fight with each other, because it costs a fortune to start a new car company.
The system changed. First it got to the point that almost any garage band could make a functional tape, albeit not a polished one. And now, ANYBODY can now afford enough basic hardware to produce an acceptable recording, and ANYBODY can buy the software to mix and produce, and ANYBODY can make a professional-quality CD--the only real limiting factor is skill.
The only thing that the industry had left was the distribution channels. Then came the internet, and the potential for ANYBODY to distribute their music to absolutely anywhere in the world for a price that they consider fair, and almost completely removing the middle man from the profit equation.
The Big Music Companies had a chance when this happened--they could have said "Ok, we'll create a system to facilitate artists getting their music onto the internet," and then used their "expertise" to flog the best artists to increase sales. Except that's a whole hell of a lot less profitable than selling $16.99 CDs and giving only a fraction of the sales to the artist, and as explained in the article in question they weren't about to give up their cash cow.
Which was great until Apple came and did exactly what they feared. Apple was willing to become the middle man for only a reasonable little cut of the profits. Now Amazon, too, or a band can just go solo and sell (or give away) direct. And so now ANYBODY can actually distribute their music for a very small cut of the gross.
So essentially the industry labels have obsoleted themselves through greed. Pretty much they had their chance to be flexible and adapt to a changing world, and they didn't. So every single tear they shed over profit opportunities lost to their shortsightedness is as sweet as honey, so far as I'm concerned.
And really, it seems to be sort of obvious. Like many things, recorded music used to take a lot of money and investment to produce--you needed a studio to record it, and experts with fancy hardware to mix it, and big factories to produce expensive records. And then, even if you had a stack of records, you had absolutely no way of actually getting them to anybody--you needed a huge distribution channel.
Hence, the music industry (that's such a sickening term, if you really think about it) positioned itself in there--they acquired the resources, fronted the money to allow the artists to produce a recording, and then used their distribution network to put the recording into the hands of paying customers.
Of course, being an industry, "artists" to them really were no different from the studio--a resource to be acquired and then used to produce product at the lowest possible cost. They weren't doing a service for the artists, it was the other way around, and the barriers to entry were huge so there wasn't any effective competition. Sure, you could play bars, but that wasn't going to get you known anywhere outside the area.
Kinda like car manufacturers--they only need fight with each other, because it costs a fortune to start a new car company.
The system changed. First it got to the point that almost any garage band could make a functional tape, albeit not a polished one. And now, ANYBODY can now afford enough basic hardware to produce an acceptable recording, and ANYBODY can buy the software to mix and produce, and ANYBODY can make a professional-quality CD--the only real limiting factor is skill.
The only thing that the industry had left was the distribution channels. Then came the internet, and the potential for ANYBODY to distribute their music to absolutely anywhere in the world for a price that they consider fair, and almost completely removing the middle man from the profit equation.
The Big Music Companies had a chance when this happened--they could have said "Ok, we'll create a system to facilitate artists getting their music onto the internet," and then used their "expertise" to flog the best artists to increase sales. Except that's a whole hell of a lot less profitable than selling $16.99 CDs and giving only a fraction of the sales to the artist, and as explained in the article in question they weren't about to give up their cash cow.
Which was great until Apple came and did exactly what they feared. Apple was willing to become the middle man for only a reasonable little cut of the profits. Now Amazon, too, or a band can just go solo and sell (or give away) direct. And so now ANYBODY can actually distribute their music for a very small cut of the gross.
So essentially the industry labels have obsoleted themselves through greed. Pretty much they had their chance to be flexible and adapt to a changing world, and they didn't. So every single tear they shed over profit opportunities lost to their shortsightedness is as sweet as honey, so far as I'm concerned.
Something not touched on is the hypocrisy of any music company executive claiming to be upset about their artists not getting the money due them. In most cases, the executives are the ones who pocket the money that the artists should be getting. But it's good press to pretend to be fighting for your poor struggling recording artists -- the fans sympathize with them. No one sympathizes with an executive who makes an eight-figure salary.
They just don't get it.
The music idiots don't get the fact that iTunes and iPods and iPhones are a media organization system. Apple wasn't hugely successful because they merely opened an online music store. They were hugely successful because they put everything together in an easy to use, well presented, elegant solution. That's why 2/3 of the world chooses to use iTunes. It is simply the most elegant way to organize your media.
Al
The music idiots don't get the fact that iTunes and iPods and iPhones are a media organization system. Apple wasn't hugely successful because they merely opened an online music store. They were hugely successful because they put everything together in an easy to use, well presented, elegant solution. That's why 2/3 of the world chooses to use iTunes. It is simply the most elegant way to organize your media.
Al
Totally. American corporations are required by law to maximise their profits, no?
I totally agree with you about the dumb-greedy... I just can't believe there are people about that don't get that EVERYONE is in it for the money! That includes Apple.
Did any of you see Fight Club? The job that Tyler Durden does in looking at burnt out cars. The company will put out a defective profit if it won't lose it too much money. Just think of this when you see any corporation! They are willing to do anything, say anything, be anything in order to get your money in their hands!
Mmmm... Apple
Here's a different take...
For a very different take on what music is about, check out:
http://kristinhersh.cashmusic.org/
Support great artists directly.
For a very different take on what music is about, check out:
http://kristinhersh.cashmusic.org/
Support great artists directly.
Just like how none of the money the RIAA won in lawsuits "for" the artists never actually went to any of the artists
Middleman logic
The music companies are nothing but lazy middlemen who make lots of money sitting back and watching artists pour their soul into their work. Why does it surprise anybody that they would resist another middleman, i.e. Apple, who actually adds value to the product by making it more accessible? In the end, Apple has had to convince them that more money could be made if people didn't have to get off their fat lazy butts and drive to a store to get the music. Now that they see how it's done, they're going to say "thank you Apple, but we'd like to be the ones getting that money now." They don't care about doing honest work, so they sure won't care about giving you a better product.
By the way that company that got $100 million from Apple because they had a patent on "getting stuff to you faster than you can watch it" ought to be suing every college out there, because my roommates regularly downloaded movies faster then they could watch them with Napster over the campus network back in the day. No iTunes for that, wasn't even Quicktime. Apple didn't build the network that got you the content, and that's where the real bottle necks come in. This is like Microsoft claiming a patent on "double tapping."
The music companies are nothing but lazy middlemen who make lots of money sitting back and watching artists pour their soul into their work. Why does it surprise anybody that they would resist another middleman, i.e. Apple, who actually adds value to the product by making it more accessible? In the end, Apple has had to convince them that more money could be made if people didn't have to get off their fat lazy butts and drive to a store to get the music. Now that they see how it's done, they're going to say "thank you Apple, but we'd like to be the ones getting that money now." They don't care about doing honest work, so they sure won't care about giving you a better product.
By the way that company that got $100 million from Apple because they had a patent on "getting stuff to you faster than you can watch it" ought to be suing every college out there, because my roommates regularly downloaded movies faster then they could watch them with Napster over the campus network back in the day. No iTunes for that, wasn't even Quicktime. Apple didn't build the network that got you the content, and that's where the real bottle necks come in. This is like Microsoft claiming a patent on "double tapping."
I am still reading the article and will be back later to read everyone's posts but I just read this part: (bolding mine)
And yet somehow people still want to point the finger of blame at Apple when they have to pay an extra 99 cents to "legally" have a ringtone for their iPhone.
I've said it before and I will say it again...Apple is not the driving force behind the ringtone charges.
Craig
And yet somehow people still want to point the finger of blame at Apple when they have to pay an extra 99 cents to "legally" have a ringtone for their iPhone.
I've said it before and I will say it again...Apple is not the driving force behind the ringtone charges.
Craig
Well, Frankly, **** Him. **** Doug Morris.
I am buying DRM-Free music on iTunes right now. And from Amazon. I will consider buying DRM-Free music from anyone who offers it.
I will not by DRM'd music from anybody.
I'll look first for a place to easily find a song conveniently professionally packaged and unencumbered for a reasonable price. That gets me a good error-free high-quality recording, correctly labeled, possibly with album art, and allows me to support something I believe in.
If I don't find that, I'll look for it on a P2P file sharing network.
I am buying DRM-Free music on iTunes right now. And from Amazon. I will consider buying DRM-Free music from anyone who offers it.
I will not by DRM'd music from anybody.
I'll look first for a place to easily find a song conveniently professionally packaged and unencumbered for a reasonable price. That gets me a good error-free high-quality recording, correctly labeled, possibly with album art, and allows me to support something I believe in.
If I don't find that, I'll look for it on a P2P file sharing network.
So no big surprise then....
Just another old fat stupid rich guy too lazy to change his ways. Frickin' 'dog' analogy - call a Vet, you idiot.
I also used to work in the 'biz'; I was in the management side of things.
An average record deal back then was around 5% of the gross for the artist, AFTER you paid for recording, PR, lawyers fees, etc. etc. Yes, the artist had to cover those costs out of his 5%.
Many new bands, being a bit green and also very enthusiastic, spent so much in the studio, they never saw a penny from a number one record. True.
Cd's came in, cost of production dropped like a stone, artist share stayed the same.
Many good artists gave up, I recall, because they could not survive on the low payout.
Lots of good songs that never reached the music-loving public - and thats NOT fantasy.
Doug Morris and his ilk are responsible for the schlock that we listen to, and killing the good stuff.
He doesnt even know what good music is - 'Sweet Talking Guy' LOL! (read the article)
Now we have the 'net - and it is destroying the newspaper biz (I hope) and the music biz (I hope) and a few other useless greedy appendages .
The music biz that sells CD's will survive, but only as a niche product.
But essentially its over - and about time too.
Doesnt matter what Universal does - their day is over.
Its healthy to see change - now lets see if the 'net can give us democracy back....
Just another old fat stupid rich guy too lazy to change his ways. Frickin' 'dog' analogy - call a Vet, you idiot.
I also used to work in the 'biz'; I was in the management side of things.
An average record deal back then was around 5% of the gross for the artist, AFTER you paid for recording, PR, lawyers fees, etc. etc. Yes, the artist had to cover those costs out of his 5%.
Many new bands, being a bit green and also very enthusiastic, spent so much in the studio, they never saw a penny from a number one record. True.
Cd's came in, cost of production dropped like a stone, artist share stayed the same.
Many good artists gave up, I recall, because they could not survive on the low payout.
Lots of good songs that never reached the music-loving public - and thats NOT fantasy.
Doug Morris and his ilk are responsible for the schlock that we listen to, and killing the good stuff.
He doesnt even know what good music is - 'Sweet Talking Guy' LOL! (read the article)
Now we have the 'net - and it is destroying the newspaper biz (I hope) and the music biz (I hope) and a few other useless greedy appendages .
The music biz that sells CD's will survive, but only as a niche product.
But essentially its over - and about time too.
Doesnt matter what Universal does - their day is over.
Its healthy to see change - now lets see if the 'net can give us democracy back....