Hacker News Reader

Comment by onemoreact | Hacker News Reader

The current model does not work for less popular artists, so I have trouble seeing the downside.

I'm anything but an apologist for the current model. But if it disappears, we haven't necessarily made life any better for lesser-known artists. So if we are to remove one of the critical steps to success (i.e., the marketing and promotional spend of traditional labels, publishers, networks, and studios), we should hope that there's a viable replacement. Or we should try to build one.

In our haste to cast out the old guard, we tend to lose sight of the fact that the old guard still fills what appears to be a necessary purpose: the breaking-out of artists. I'm confident and hopeful that their crucial role in that purpose will, eventually, weaken or fade. But for now, it's still a strong reality.

Ultimately, we have yet to see indications that this new model is any kinder to small-time or nascent artists than the old model is. That's the big problem. The winners of the new model (Radiohead, Trent Reznor, Louis C.K., et al.) have first been winners of the old model. So it's very premature to say that the new model is better for the little guy.

To put it in financial terms: the new model holds bigger theoretical upside (share of profits) for artists and consumers (reduced costs). But it does nothing about the downside (risk of never breaking out, financial burden of building a fanbase, etc.), and may even make the downside worse for most artists. At least the little guy in today's model has a chance, albeit extremely slim, of getting discovered and catching a big break. But will the same thing be true in a pure long-tail environment? The jury is still out.

"In our haste to cast out the old guard, we tend to lose sight of the fact that the old guard still fills what appears to be a necessary purpose: the breaking-out of artists. I'm confident and hopeful that their crucial role in that purpose will, eventually, weaken or fade. But for now, it's still a strong reality."

To be totally but somewhat apologetically blunt - that is a steaming pile of BS. That is the exact party line repeated by every single rank and file music industry do-nothing to justify their phony-baloney jobs.

In my own personal experience, affiliation with a record label as a young and growing artist is almost certainly more likely to handicap your chances at success than it is to actually help it. The reason is that when the young artist buys into the party line that "you need the major label machinery to grow your career", the artist then hands over a large amount of control and trust to a supposed "experienced, connected industry professional" to do a job that 99 times out of 100 would be better off done by the artist themselves.

Not only that, but the young artist has no idea that the supposed "experienced, connected industry professional" has zero interest in or understanding of what it is that the artist actually has going for them, either artistically via their music or commercially via their fanbase. At that point all they know is that for some reason, things aren't working out as everybody had hoped it would with the new label. They find out later that they are essentially paying a 100% interest rate on their advance for the privilege of believing this in the first place.

I and all of my buddies in other bands live our lives in the long-tail environment and we play for larger crowds and make more money than probably 98% of the suckers that take the advice to place their bets on "the traditional industry model". And we own our souls outright. You've probably never heard of any of us, but we're okay with that.

THE ONLY WAY FORWARD is to once and for all crush the notion that the "traditional industry model" is anything other than a parasite that eats hopeful and talented artists and excretes auto-tuned plastic dolls.

Rant over for this round.

> So if we are to remove one of the critical steps to success (i.e., the marketing and promotional spend of traditional labels, publishers, networks, and studios)

This is still marketing. By removing the publisher, which specializes in marketing, we put the burden of publishing duties on the artist.

Note how financially successful, award-winning, prime-time comedian Louis CK is playing the little guy against the publishers, mentioning that he financed it all (much like a publisher would do).

Who knows who he's paying or how much. The role he's playing implies that all the cash goes straight to him, the artist, but did he pay anyone for the production? Does he have a future royalty agreement with an agent or, perhaps, a channel like Comedy Central? Is he paying for advertising, or has he hired a marketing manager/publisher to rustle up publicity? Is he calling in favors to get mentions on news sites (much like a publisher would do)?

I'm not being cynical, just that he's playing the game very well, he's using his fame/brand to leverage sales, and that this distribution method doesn't really change anything except move the same roles elsewhere.

There are lots of examples of artists blowing up without labels (though some subsequently start their own or get signed) in the past few years by distributing their music on the internet for free. See: Pretty Lights, Girl Talk, Odd Future, The Weeknd, Justin Bieber, etc. It won't be viable for every artist/band but neither is the music industry of old. You must bring something special because otherwise nobody will care.

It's not clear the internet has actually improved the odds, though. There are plenty of examples of artists DIYing their way to at least moderate prominence decades ago as well; particularly common in punk-rock, where you've got Bad Religion, Fugazi, Crass, etc. You didn't have blogs to promote your music, but did have zines, flyers at shows, college radio, etc.

The current model doesn't work for most less popular artists. All the artists who came up through the system and are now superstars were less popular once, and the promotional machinery had a big part in making them popular (and rich).

This is sort of how I feel about the traditional publishing industry. The way it's worked traditionally is that can't quite tell which authors are going to be big sellers, so you take a chance on a bunch, and the more successful ones subsidize the less successful. Now the successful ones for obvious reasons resent this and can shift to a self-publishing model. The problem is they never would have gotten successful had some publisher taken that initial chance on them. Where's the next generation coming from?

An interesting angle is that the current model actually works quite well for the least popular artists: someone else pays for the cost of recording, usually at least a small advance, and tour, and if the record ends up selling nothing and the tour is a bust, the label eats the expenses. Such people would be quite a bit worse off if they paid for the recording/tour out of pocket and it went nowhere. The people who get screwed are those who do moderately well, where the record company takes most of the profits.

But this is a symptom of one-size-fits-all solution the labels cram people into. Like VCs, they don't care at all about moderate success, anything less than phenomenal success is failure to them. So they'll burn your band/company out trying for unreasonable goals instead of helping you achieve whatever you can.

Your band could have been poised to be a very successful mid-level act and have been mispositioned, because mid-level acts aren't hugely profitable, and thus seemed to be a failure in a market you weren't wanting to compete in.

The small bands don't need a ton of financial support, especially these days. Recording a song can be done, professionally, for just a few thousand dollars and traveling to nearby concerts is pretty cheap. If you drop the idea of trying to sell an album in stores (payola!), and doing continent-wide tours, it's not all that expensive to spread your music to fans and enjoy a moderate return on investment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com