I was using accounts in the real world, as opposed to the accounting magicians in Hollywood that can, on paper, make it look like one of the top grossing films of all time (Spider-man) never turned a profit.
Lethal
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
Lethal
How do you make your music stand out? Well, maybe you would start with having some talent. After that, you hire a PR agency. There is ZERO reason that the label system should be the only PR avenue available to you. The entire rest of the world uses PR agents which are not linked to the production studio and the CD pressing factory, and which do not claim ownership of your product as payment for their services!
I agree that money will always play a part. However, the "studio system" is a brittle beast wrapped around yesterday's technology, which couldn't have existed before that technology and need not exist given today's technology. It will not last, in its current form, another 10 years. Who knows. We went from something like 10,000 years with people writing and performing music without labels to manage their recordings, and the artists were relatively well taken care of (maybe a few less jets and solid-gold grills for the top end, but music did get written and performed). Maybe once the labels collapse under their own weight the steady-state of the industry will veer a little more towards its historical average rather than the bubble of the last 60 years?
Well lets be careful now about this.
What the labels do is pay for recording through the artist's up-front money, which is always 100% recoupable via royalty deductions. It is still a risk to the label, as lethal wolfe stated, but they are able to shoulder this risk by keeping a few celine dions around.
But the bit about the company store doesn't hold up any more (go back to my first post on p7). It used to, but no longer. Now since the artist has to recordig money in his bank account, the responsibility now falls on him to find a good recording facility. The problem is, since this decision affects the artist's bottom line, he is motivated to find a cheap studio. Thus the death of the megastudio model, and the rise of the bedroom studio (along with tech advances of course...).
Now remember, this up-front money serves not only as the artist's recording budget, (and increasingly nowadays, his production budget - his means to hire producers - yes the labels are getting out of that game too...) but also serves to pay his living expenses for the next 12-18 months, until the record shows a profit.
Now I won't go too deep in, but it typically takes a gold (and in the case of a really bad contract - a platinum) record for the artist to fully recoup the label.Now that's 500,000 records, @ roughly $8 a pop. Four million dollars. This money repays the record label for its marketing funds, pays a couple salaries, etc. The artist gets somewhere between 10c (a nobody) to a dollar (ms. dion) per. But of course the artist gets nothing until his advance is recouped. So you can quickly imagine a scenario where an artist gets a $100,000 bonus, spends 30k on recording/production, the other 70k on image maintenance for the next year, only sells 400,000 records (you're a smashing success in my book if you sell four hundred thousand of anything...) and ends up broke.
So let's not extend the label too much sympathy because they have already made upwards of $1m profit on those 400,000 units. While the artist is stuck with the advance he received a year ago.
Now add that to the labels now forcing artists to give up other revenue streams (like publishing). And they start to resemble those old corporations in another area: strongarm labor relations tactics.
What the labels do is pay for recording through the artist's up-front money, which is always 100% recoupable via royalty deductions. It is still a risk to the label, as lethal wolfe stated, but they are able to shoulder this risk by keeping a few celine dions around.
But the bit about the company store doesn't hold up any more (go back to my first post on p7). It used to, but no longer. Now since the artist has to recordig money in his bank account, the responsibility now falls on him to find a good recording facility. The problem is, since this decision affects the artist's bottom line, he is motivated to find a cheap studio. Thus the death of the megastudio model, and the rise of the bedroom studio (along with tech advances of course...).
Now remember, this up-front money serves not only as the artist's recording budget, (and increasingly nowadays, his production budget - his means to hire producers - yes the labels are getting out of that game too...) but also serves to pay his living expenses for the next 12-18 months, until the record shows a profit.
Now I won't go too deep in, but it typically takes a gold (and in the case of a really bad contract - a platinum) record for the artist to fully recoup the label.Now that's 500,000 records, @ roughly $8 a pop. Four million dollars. This money repays the record label for its marketing funds, pays a couple salaries, etc. The artist gets somewhere between 10c (a nobody) to a dollar (ms. dion) per. But of course the artist gets nothing until his advance is recouped. So you can quickly imagine a scenario where an artist gets a $100,000 bonus, spends 30k on recording/production, the other 70k on image maintenance for the next year, only sells 400,000 records (you're a smashing success in my book if you sell four hundred thousand of anything...) and ends up broke.
So let's not extend the label too much sympathy because they have already made upwards of $1m profit on those 400,000 units. While the artist is stuck with the advance he received a year ago.
Now add that to the labels now forcing artists to give up other revenue streams (like publishing). And they start to resemble those old corporations in another area: strongarm labor relations tactics.
The fall of the studio system is not due to its outdatedness. Its due to record companies' tightwaddedness, and their blind tendency to bite the hands that feed them in the interest of profits.
The decline of the major studio parallels the decline of good music. And that is no coincidence.
The fact you miss is that resident in each of these huge studios was a dozen or more sets of golden ears. The engineers. With the death of the studio, the engineer as a profession goes too. Yeah fine you can build better faster cheaper devices to obsolete-ize the studio, plugins to replace hardware effects, 128 track studios on a low-end Dell, etc.; but you can't replace those ears.
Again, it comes down to money. If you have enough money you can pay your own way for everything, but most people don't which is where the studio/label/private investor comes in. If writers had deep enough pockets they wouldn't need the studios but they don't so they do.
Am I the only one that finds it funny that you talk about studio's being out dated then follow up w/a supporting analogy about the middle ages?
Personally, I'm not pinning for the days when only a select few had access to the arts and everyone else was pretty much illiterate, working as a serf, and dead by 40. Also, recorded music isn't much older than record labels.
The label/studio system we know today will eventually go away only to be replaced by a new label/studio system that is more instep w/the technology and the times.
Let's say Apple opens the gates and lets anyone sell songs through iTunes. Okay, now there are millions of people selling their songs via iTunes and 99% of it is like the god awful trash typically found on YouTube. How do you rise above the garbage heap? First off, have a professional quality sound to your music (which costs money). Second, advertise so people are aware of your album (which costs money). Third, having a music video goes pretty much hand in hand w/having an album these days (there goes more money). Fourth, go on tour and earn fans the old fashion way (yup, this costs money too). Not to mention you still need money to cover all of your living exepnses. Where does all of that cash come from?
Lethal
No, you don't.
PR != Marketing.
That kind of thinking is why big organizations will eat the lunch of small shops when it comes to mass distribution. Marketing, distrbution, audience development are all separate from PR. Making your art is never just a matter of hiring a PR firm---if it was, you'd find more successes....
What will find mass success in the new Internet age is going to take on a lot of the characteristics of the old companies. They;re going to be smarter and more artist friendly, but that's because they'll HAVE to be.
Apologies if this has been linked already:
http://hijinksensue.com/2007/11/29/robots-are-everywhere-and-they-eat-old-peoples-medicine-for-fuel/
http://hijinksensue.com/2007/11/29/robots-are-everywhere-and-they-eat-old-peoples-medicine-for-fuel/
Great comic.
Sometime bad ideas just need to die. Literally. The biz won't change until these dinosaurs pass away. Take them, and the dinosaurs in congress passing laws in the digital age that they don't understand, and the dinosaur judges interpreting laws in the digital age that they don't understand, and fast forward 20-30 years to when they have all passed away, and those of us in the know, raised in the digital age take over. That's the ultimate deadline on all this BS.
No, he's grounded. I don't think people are really giving much thought on how art and commerce is actually going to work in real life.
Maybe the problem is commerce part of art. Maybe some of us have given more thought to this issue than is given credit.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it brings up a different set of challenges for content creators right now and isn't necessarily the great boon for them that it initially appears to be. It's like when I talk to kids in college who are thinking about moving to LA and I tell them about all the things that can happen out here (both good and bad). I'm not being frank to discourage them, I'm doing it so they know what they can expect in trying to make a living in the City of Angels. Again, everything I've posted is from my perspective as a "little guy" in the entertainment industry who wants to leverage the internet and "new media" to his advantage.
15 years ago the high cost of entry (expensive, purpose built equipment, etc.,) was what kept many people from recording their own albums or making their own films. If you had a studio recorded demo or a short film then that typically meant you were resourceful, and determined, enough to wheel 'n deal to get what you needed. That was like one of the first "weed out" challenges of the industry, if you will. Now w/the cost of entry so much lower, anyone can have a demo or a short film. It's no longer a hurdle, but a given. The old cliché in Hollywood is that everyone has a script, the new cliché is that everyone has a movie (shot on an inexpensive DV camera, mostly out of focus, w/no attention to audio quality, no thought regarding lighting, horrible acting, and quite possibly an even worse script). So now the challenge isn't "how do I afford to make a my own movie" but "how do I afford to make my own movie that will stand out from the pack and actually get noticed." The "weed out" challenge is still there, it's just taken on a different form.
Lethal
Absolutely. When I was "breaking into the industry" twenty years ago, my only resources based on my finances were borrowed mics and a cassette 4-track tape deck. I learned how to work within my limitations and produce something that sounded the way I heard it in my head. It took a lot of practice, determination and time.
Now with the proliferation of programs like Garage Band, recording artists have unparalleled freedom to swiftly create any sound they can imagine. That 4-track machine cost me close to $500. For about that price now, I could buy a Mac Mini and that (along with a mic and mixer) would be my entire studio.
I'm amazed when I see how far the technology has come and the unlimited creativity it allows artists. But the irony is that I feel I no longer have anything to say musically. So I no longer record anything. What made great music 150 years ago is still true today: the best art is inspired and skillfully crafted. Now that the technology is in the hands of so many, naturally there will be lots of poorly crafted art flooding the scene, people who have nothing to say (and don't mind saying it). But I can accept that if it helps just a few more people create great art.
I just judged a music competition for a local Boys & Girls Club. They used Garage Band to create short pieces reflecting urban life. Some of the pieces (created by kids ranging in age from 9 to 18) were amazing. Years ago, that opportunity would have been out of reach; the kids would have had to go to a recording studio.
So I'll gladly take the good with the bad. We'll still be listening to the good stuff thirty years from now.
I just noticed this morning all NBC shows are gone from iTunes .Me thinks this battle has really heated up.
Sure. I think we're all speculating to a degree, not knowing how the chips will fall in the end. Assuming there is an "end" of course -- the technological influence on art is continual and accelerating, and what we find to be true today probably won't be tomorrow. I guess the specific part of your argument I was objecting to was the "99% trash" aspect. I mean, isn't 99% of what we already find on iTMS today classifiable as trash, at least to the ear of any given beholder? (Sturgeon's Law comes to mind.) Expanding the pool of people who can create and market their very own "trash" doesn't seem to create any problems that I can detect. In the end, we should be our own taste-makers. And I often think we've lost track of what art should be first and foremost: a form of personal expression and communication. If the commerce cart always gets put before the expression horse, we can't really expect to get much art, can we?
Agreed. Great movies/books/songs/TV shows/bars/resturants/programs stand out because they are relatively rare. I'm not afraid of "newbs diluting the talent pool" or anything like that, I'm just trying to share what I know and help clear up misconceptions people might have about the current state of internet/new media distribution.
I'm not saying people shouldn't make their own art and put it up on the web. What I am saying is that people who make their own art and put it up on the web expecting others to just stumble upon it and it buy it up are being very unrealistic. Like I said, years ago the cost of entry was the biggest hurdle for new comers and today the sheer number of new comers is the biggest hurdle for new comers. Different obstacle, similar effect. I'm not telling people not to join the party. I'm just saying don't run near the pool 'cause I don't want to see anyone slip and get hurt.
Yes there is a balance, but making the art you want to make and making money aren't mutually exclusive things. If you want to paint, write, compose, or in my case edit, as a profession you need to find away to make enough money to support yourself. I mean, Stephen King stopped teaching high school once his books started selling and Einstein stopped working at the patent office once he was able to support himself with science. As the saying goes, "I don't make movies to make money. I make money to make movies." And if I can make my money to make my movies by making movies I'll be happy as a pig in sh*t. I know people back in Indiana that are content doing the typical 9-5 thing and making movies as a hobby and if that's their dream, great. But that's not for me. I can't do what I love part time and be content w/it.
Lethal