Re: now music and economics.. .

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> There are factors involved. First of all, the economy is in the crapper. 
> CDs are a luxury item. Vacations, too, are way off...living in a vacation 
> destination, that's painfully clear to me and has been for the last two 
> summers as well. Then, too, there's the selfish and short-sighted music 
> downloaders. I guess they don't care if there's any more artists to MAKE 
> music.
Everyone can be expected to act in their own best interests.  Why buy music 
when you can download reasonable copies with far greater variety?  The old 
distribution system is in the crapper, and this will eventually kill the 
current system.  When the big record labels can't make billions of dollars 
off it anymore, they will declare bankruptcy and downsize to something more 
in keeping with their new role.

Artists will still be able to make money as they always have, through 
performing and selling their music.  The difference is that artists may have 
to take over their own destiny again soon instead of thinking they've "made 
it" when they sign a deal.  The record companies have offered what?  
Promotion, cd recording, manufacture and distribution--but they've always 
charged these things back to the artists out of royalties.  When artists can 
make more money by handling their own cds, I think they'll start to contract 
for these services individually rather than signing away all their rights 
for a package deal.


> Actually, it was 10% the year before. I don't know if your figure is in 
> addition to or not.
In addition to, I'm sure.  If it's for a six month period, then they've 
figured the percent of decrease from the sales of the last period.


> >the advent of file sharing, they've lost control of this, and now their 
> business model is going to fail.
>
> What's sad about that is it's not from fair competition. If the downloaders 
> "win," we all lose...the artists first of all. But it's not the labels' 
> fault people are stealing. And I wonder who is now going to be expected to 
> promote the product. You know, ads in Billboard, getting radio stations to 
> play the songs, etc.
It's fair.  This has been an artificial system, where the record labels 
force artists to sign away tremendous rights in order to receive their 
services, which are then charged back to the artist at a price the record 
label sets.  In other words, the record labels have been able to dictate to 
the artists because they held the distribution network.  Now the system will 
change.  The industry is open for companies to offer these individual 
services to artists for a lower price than the record labels are charging.


> Finding the artists, developing them, financing them, producing them, 
> promoting them. The label does ALL of that right now, and it ain't cheap.
As I understand it, this hasn't been going well for some time.  It's a 
business plan built in the Seventies when profits were easily available and 
it's unworkable now.  Recently the artists have been complaining because all 
the promotion and development money goes into to manufactured formula acts 
like 'NSync and Ms. Britnay which are a surer bet to bring in the big 
profits.  They still sign, expecting to get support from the record company, 
and they don't get it.  The real acts still develop and maintian their own 
audience by touring, or by other means like selling to movie and TV 
soundtracks.

Recall that TED forgot to tell MCA they were going on tour in 2000.  Why 
would they do that if the record company was doing a good job in 
representing them?


> >This is because what the artists are asking for
> is not a workable system.
>
> For every one band a label makes money with, there is about 20 that cost 
> the same but don't make it. I really can't see the artists' problem with 
> developing talent. The labels are doing the best they can (you know, they 
> DO want to make money and the more artists the more money they make),
This is from the record label's point of view, of course.  Why are they 
responsible for developing talent anyway?  If they charge all the costs back 
to the artists, then they break even and it's more a failure to profit that 
they're complaining about in the 20 who don't make it.  And they want BIG 
profits.  You have to recall that these are billion dollar corporations, and 
they're currently subject to those same corporate abuses that broke Enron 
and K-Mart.  Executives have to have their millions.  They want to see the 
profits roll in the way they did back in the Seventies, but I just don't 
think that's going to happen any more.

Plus, it's not true that they make more money with more artists.  I think 
the reverse is true.  Notice that Sony is also cutting artists.  The labels 
made more profits when they had a few good quality artists and less 
competition.


> and also have to deal with the fact that Rock music is dead and has been at 
> least since 1974. Still they cling, and it's become ridiculous. There isn't 
> anything new and exciting going on there. Rap is at least 25 years old, 
> too, and a very limited form. Alt. Country (as a trend) is merely a 
> nostalgic moment. What's fresh and new at this point? Hard to be on top of 
> things when the flavor of the month lasts only a few weeks. And there are 
> immediately tons of sound-alikes on hand to burn out the style.
This is a characteristic of the monopolistic competition market.  As soon as 
someone sees you're making a profit, then they'll copy you and compete it 
away.  That's why bands that morph, like The Who, always stay ahead of the 
competition.  If everybody is starting to do it, then it's time for a 
change.


> With the lack of new product comes innovations in sound for the old 
> stuff...like the remixed Who CDs, and the SACD releases. Remastering, bonus 
> tracks, boxed sets.
They're marking time.  These are the cash cow recordings that they're 
repackaging, because CDs don't wear out like vinyl and cassette tapes did.  
It's a good marketing strategy, and I can't complain about it.  I gather 
that the new Young Vic concerts and the LEEDS TOMMY might not have been 
released unless they were piggy-backed onto recordings that already had 
strong sales.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail