Comment by agentultra | Hacker News Reader

Comment by agentultra | Hacker News Reader

The point about the labels doing it to themselves is probably only half the story.

The other half is the culturally ingrained phenomena of "the dream." Many artists jamming in their basements dream of "signing," and expect a big advance, tours, radio play, and all of that old-world stuff. Many today of course realize that there's the Internet and they can afford to distribute their work for pennies and market to their hearts desire; but even those artists generally still think that "signing" is the next, big logical step.

The big labels cannot change. The 80s and 90s left us with a market and taste for stadium tours, music videos, and times square billboards. Six decades of business have given us a model that requires a huge up-front investment for a risky, but lucrative return.

The problem is the returns are becoming scarce.

Yet I think big labels will continue to persist only because they're the loan sharks with the money. I think the author is pretty close to right that there's likely no one that will fund a start up that has anything to do with music. If you have an innovative idea that you think can improve the situation, create new markets, etc you'll have to do it on your own.

There are several reasons that "signing" is the next, big logical step.

Larger venues (most of which are owned by Clearchannel) will not give you the time of the day if you don't have a label behind you. It doesn't matter if you consistently sell out of venues a tier below them. Their booking agent won't even take your call. Sell a million mp3s of your song online? If one of the subsidiaries of the Big Four aren't behind you, forget getting to play a place like Bowery Ballroom. The "break-in" venues like CBGBs don't even exist anymore.

In order to tour, and I mean really tour - spend six, eight months on the road - you need a lot of money. To haul equipment. To pay people to schlep your equipment. To deal with contracts with venues. To deal with venue management. To make sure you don't get screwed by the venue management. To book the shows. It's really, really hard for even a locally established artist to tour. That's where the label helps out. I'm not talking stadium shows. I'm talking about shows that break even, where 200-300 people show up.

I've worked with multiple acts (Clark, Broadcast, Plaid) that have played (and sold out) the Bowery Ballroom without major label support.

There is a very successful tier of well run larger indies like Warp, Domino, Beggars Banquet. They've worked out that not fucking your golden geese is a good long term play.

But yes, even they struggle with the costs of big tours. Touring is expensive.

Oh, I concur. I've known a few unsigned local acts that have been able to edge in as an opener at Irving Plaza. But it's a rare case indeed. (it doesn't help that they play a semi-in-the-hole genre, at least in the US. It's still quite big in some cold, northern european countries)

Add Planet Mu and Ninja Tune to that list.

edit: and most importantly don't forget XL Recordings, who have Radiohead, the Prodigy and the White Stripes among others.

The big labels don't feel like changing, not that they cannot change. They are a bunch of human beings at all.

Aren't human beings flexible enough to thrive anywhere on earth?

Yet, some humans choose to die rather than adapt.

The labels don't want to deal with the changing business. So they rather die.

Again, have you ever visited or spoken to anyone at a label? Next time you are in SoCal, email me.

I'm serious. :)

I'm not sure if you can answer this or not, but in your opinion what would it take to get some type of voluntary licensing going for music?

I personally would rather pay a monthly fee than pay for each individual song or cd. I also want the ability to do what I want with the music. I don't want to have to work to get music on an mp3 player or worry about whether I'm going to randomly lose access to songs in library, which has happened with Ruckus.

In my opinion (its not in my purview), it'll take government help. Take that for what you will.

It's not so much that they don't want to "deal" with the changing business, it's that there aren't proper incentives in place for the people who run the companies.

Chances are, if you run a major music rights company, you get paid a large sum of money and the financial incentives are structured in such a way that it's in your best interest to simply keep the ship sailing rather than make any drastic changes. Why take risks when you can keep getting your 7 figure check? If you tried to stop the bleeding all at once, you'd most likely be shown the door.

I think labels will continue to have its piece of the market. Not the whole market as in the past, but a important one, because they still control access to mainstream media.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com