Why there’s no such thing as "the music industry" | Hacker News Reader

Why there’s no such thing as "the music industry"

drownedinsound.com

14 pointsALee13 comments

"According to Association of Independent Music (AIM) '(...) A 'major' is defined in AIM's constitution as a multinational company which (together with the companies in its group) has more than 5% of the world market(s) for the sale of records and/or music videos. The majors are (currently) Sony BMG, Warner, EMI, and the Universal Music Group (which incorporates Polygram).'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_record_label

Four labels control 95% of the market? Sure seems like an industry to me...

Any definition of 'music industry' should refer to the set of musical activity done for profit. This extends far beyond the sign->record->license model that those four chase.

Think of live music activity done as business (orchestras, stage works, live bands, professional church musicians), self-publishing musicians, sheet music, bespoke composition, and all the music work done around advertising.

Even that barrier is artificial. If it weren't for copyright a lot of the barriers between music, dance, acting and other creative pursuits would evaporate. People could publish innovations without threats of legal attack or stifling paperwork overhead.

OK, so for 'the music industry' read 'the recorded-music industry.'

Four labels control 95% of the market?

How did you get that number? Four labels each control more than 5% of the market, but that doesn't mean the rest control less than 5% combined.

You're right, I misread the statistic. Looks like the actual market share of the majors is ~87%.

(http://www.audiomicro.com/royalty-free-music-blog/2008/07/ma...)

My point, however, still stands. The record labels control the direction of the recorded-music industry, and it is an industry.

This is highly off-topic but I can't really think of a better place to solicit feedback for this idea:

The more I think about it, the more I'm interested in the implications of a YC-style investment model for promising young bands. E.g. identify hot, unsigned talent; invest $20K + $5K/member for them to use as they please (studio time, instruments, tour van rental, fliers etc.); claim X% of their earnings from concerts, merch and royalties; lather; rinse; repeat. Has anybody in "the music industry" discussed such a model?

You do realize that this is pretty much what record labels do, right? Only they call the investment an advance and wrap it up in a 360 deal. Within the past ~5 years, this has also increasingly become what artist managers do.

I'm not sure if you're making a joke here or not, but that sounds like the traditional model of signing a band, more or less. Thing is, most bands that can make money are probably already making money or on their way to making money, without having to sign away rights to their output, or percentage points to a label.

"Studio time" isn't quite what it used to be - anyone with a computer (doesn't even have to be a decent one), a fairly inexpensive multichannel sound card ($150-$500), and (unfortunately, typically pirated) audio software can put together a mix with high enough fidelity that most people would be happy with. Bands already invest in their own equipment, so use the mics they have, the equipment they own, and you've got a 'studio' for maybe $1000 more than what the band already owns on account of being a band.

Distribution is easy, post your music to Bandcamp and iTunes. Then you need promotion. This is the one remaining area where traditional labels still have a decent amount of control, but that doesn't mean you can't hire your own publicist. Just like the labels do.

The method you propose is more conducive to launching the 'career' of a pop star who burns out after one single. You don't need to hire instruments, but you will need studio time with session musicians, and will have to hire songwriters and a costume department, and all kinds of things to put enough flash on ultimately uninteresting music in the hopes that you trick enough people into buying the album so you can at best break even, which only happens because you're scamming the original 'artist' from the start.

No, I wasn't joking but thanks for your edifying and interesting response. I guess my stereotype of how the record biz works involves a lot more micromanaging/execs dictating every move and decision the artist makes.

That was their model, for a long time anyhow. The problem was that recording was very expensive (you can do OK on a shoestring now), and it's a very blockbuster driven industry- it's hard to make much money off modest touring.

Having family in the UK (and living there for a time myself), I can assure you that whatever Thatcher meant to say - that unspoken implication was (and remains) that society is whatever the BBC says it is. The fact that the people collectively formed an opinion outside of that propaganda state just goes to show how wrong she was.

Here again, the 'majors' are feeding you propaganda, telling you what (it thinks) will be the way forward. Strangely, though, we keep seeing a common thread amongst all new music delivery models... lower prices to the consumer. I say, that is the future of music!

OK, fine, the "music industry" isn't one big thing.

It's 4 big things. And they all seem to flow identically, screw artists and consumers over identically, and make the same moronic anti-improvement decisions that they've been claiming will bring about their death since they got big.

Remember the VCR? Cassette tapes? CDs? Napster? TiVo? Web-streamed video? MP3 players? The media industry as a whole has exclusively benefitted from these when they finally adopted them, and as a whole have predicted doom and despair for everyone before finally raking in the money.

I'm a massive Spotify user and fan and I pay $16/mo for its "all you can eat" model. As much as I love it, this post seems to reflect my fear that it's probably not going to last too long..

I used to spend perhaps $50 a month on albums on iTunes and I haven't bought a thing since Spotify (and have listened to a much wider variety of stuff that I wouldn't have "gambled" on previously).

When a regular music buyer like me decides a $16/mo service is "enough", that's hardly going to thrill any musician, let alone the record companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com