Today's Links
I posted this rant on Tribe Magazine's bulletin board in response to a fellow who posted an inflammatory message from a small-time producer who was decrying the effect of 'downloading' on his bottom line.
The impact on smaller producers has more to do with the record labels' seemingly undaunted quest to find the perfect product - i.e. one that is marketable quickly and flexibly for significant financial gain, but which can also be dropped at the first sign of drift on the part of the buying public. What this means is that they are focussing on the Britney Spears and Limp Bizkits of the world and dropping up-and-coming musicians and bands like flies when they determine they may take a long time to develop a fan base - i.e. longer than immediately with their first breakout hit. A couple of years back the RIAA decried a drop of something like 25% in revenues for the big five (now four with Sony BMG - BMG just bought Columbia House too, so it's even tighter out there now) ... but they neglected to publicize the fact that they had also released significantly fewer new works by bands - something like 30,000 fewer than the previous year. The drop in revenues has a lot to do with the following:- less variety for the consumer - retailers are offering less music in favour of DVDs and other products which are an easier sell - the full force of the entertainment industry is behind them on this one. Go into an HMV and do a quick assessment of the percentage of shelf space devoted to music, video and other and see what you come out with.-- consumer malaise - negative perception of the music industry as a result of the downloading fiasco
- economic reality - people have been spending less on frivolities like music
- what new music there is, sucks - the music industry is focussing less on talent than it is on marketability. Music has always been 'product' to the labels- which makes sense - they are in business to sell music. But they have lost touch with the responsibility they have as shepherds of art - musicians as a group are artists and as such are typically horrible organizers (right brained) and bad controllers of their own time, craft and lifestyles. Managers and handlers have to care for them in order to 'develop' their careers and market their abilities effectively and creatively while preserving the quality of the art. Once the managers stop managing the music and focus on the performer-as-celebrity only, the music suffers and the long term effect is that the whole industry loses credibility - not only among the listening public but particularly among the artists themselves. Artists see the raw deal they're getting and so choose to stay independant - and suffer for it because they aren't managed properly, so they either drop out of the business or they never go to the next level. It's a vicious circle. If even one major label decided to shift their business model BACK to music-first, it would have a tremendous effect on the industry and the public would take notice. Can you imagine a travelling festival of new talent - sort of like Lolla or Edgefest but all new bands, for a good price, marketed with the full force of a record label... or a properly run music incentive system, or a record store that burns cds for you from a system with ALL the label's music online for a reasonable price? All of this is possible if the labels could get rid of their addiction to quick-fix crack music. I stopped buying big five/four music about five years ago - I only buy Canadian or Independant music now. I'll be the first on the bandwagon if I see a label come back to the music and mean it. Until that time, I will continue to ignore their pap and stupid reliance on big sellers.
This guy has figured out how to use Amazon.com's image processing system (for their book covers, etc) to produce amusing results. Ah the wonders of arbitrary systems. Also, the site seems to be a good resource for finding materials having to do with Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts comic.