Back to Latest Entries
Thus, for example, at my blog on the Inside and Outside of Art
Beradley points out (i) the time it takes to focus on the "externalities" of the music business; (ii) the havoc that is created through different focal points of vision between artists and managers; (iii) the struggle to separate the creative aspects of art and the analytical requirements of business; (iv) artistic burn-out trying to do it all.
Drummercous says, in summary: (i) artists need those with more business and management experience to supplement musical capability; (ii) the vast majority of artists are not wired to handle simple but essential things on the business side but underestimate and underappreciate the work managers actually do; (iii) creating music requires a comprehensive package (vision, artistic/technical/management skills, resources, facilities), marketing, and people skills to hold it all together.
And john geek points out: (i) there is a negative side to the democratization of music production and distribution - short term thinking, pandering; whoredom; (ii) music has become a commodity; (iii) the ill-advised self-marketing of current musician may make matters worse than even the "crappy" patronage of the record labels of the past.
[A fuller exposition of these thoughtful points can be viewed at the foregoing click through.]
Then Resnikoff in a recent "Parting Shot" in his Digital Music News speaks about the growing trend to diversification of revenue streams in music and the lack of trust by artists to allow labels to get into and screw up the remaining areas of touring, merchandising and advertising, as well.
Resnikoff observes,
"...assuming that artists play ball at all. Many will simply avoid the downside risk, and manage their own portfolio of moneymakers. That sounds like an incredible opportunity for managers - and especially larger management agencies that can themselves diversify risk across a broader number of acts.
In fact, smart minds have been eyeing a possible power shift towards the manager for years [emphasis added by TCC]. The reason is that managers are structured to deal with a disparate collection of revenue streams, and theoretically have the best interests of their artists in mind.
Except, the trust factor creeps in once again. In fact, during the artist discussion at Popkomm [in Germany this week], the biggest issue that kept resurfacing was trust. Or rather, a complete lack of trust in potential business partners. Artists are precious about their creativity, and they want to avoid getting screwed. But there are very few trustworthy partners that an artist can turn to - whether it be a label, manager, or even a childhood friend."
Isn't the obvious staring us in the face as a powerful lesson to be learned at our Nightschool For Entrepreneurs? Namely: Not DIY, but DIO. [Note: phatduckk a knowledgeable IT professional chafes at the term "Do It Yourself" anyway as simply redundant and full of BS hype since everything in the web-based environment is "DIY" to the point where the phrase becomes meaningless.]
Given the validity of the foregoing observations [which are representative of a growing consensus by professionals], the power shift in the music industry of the future will be to move to micro-labels and managers who can still (1) achieve some economies of scale but (2) retain the level of trust that only intimacy can bring. Most artists cannot and probably should not "Do It Yourself", but at a more functioning level that incorporates the three key elements of artists/enlightened and knowledgeable intermediaries/shared platforms in a complex digital environment, we should still "Do It Ourselves"! [sorry, phatduckk] This is probably the optimum balance between scale and trust in relationships that can be achieved in the modern era.
As it has been a focus and a labor of love in our work at thecapitalclinic for several decades, I will turn to the important point of the evolution of the "micro" business model in subsequent blogs and lessons to be learned at the Nightschool For Entrepreneurs.
Using the punk rock world as an example, some of these small labels went on to great success (Fat Wreck Chords, No Idea, Victory, Dischord) and some have remained strong simply due to the dedication of their (often sole) proprietorship (Recess Records, K Records, Load). My old label (S.P.A.M.), unfortunately, fell apart a few years after I passed along the helmship of it to the other founder/head coordinator (we were a collective). While much of this was due to personal and financial difficulties (and the aforementioned collective aspect), a big part of the problem was also that we had a more expansive musical vision than most successful micro-labels - we wanted to put out bands that didn't necessarily sound alike or dress alike, though all were part of a diverse community that played shows together and shared some common aesthetic and philosophical underpinnings. That expanded vision, unfortunately, was not sufficient in an oversaturated music marketplace where bands and labels have to compete with so much noise from other bands and labels that they have to be instantly sonically recognizable (predictable) in order to build an audience in this brave new world where the playing field has been levelled in some ways, riven further apart in others.
Now, larger independent labels that had a more courageous vision and branched out from the sound of their "classic" bands are starting to experience high levels of difficulty as well. Alternative Tentacles and Gold Standard Laboratories (both of which I have personally released records on with bands I have been in), two highly reputable indies that have put out some of the most influential records of our time, are experiencing difficulties largely due to the diversification of their catalogues into previously uncharted territory. Kill Rock Stars and Lookout have experienced the same problems, along with many other good labels. Again, part of this problem is internal - many of these labels have not yet come to grips with the new business models, and have expensive, top-heavy staffs left over from the 90's glory days of indie labels. Yet part of the problem is, again, oversaturation and overstimulation of the audience; people cannot get their bearings.
It is unfortunate that in the climate today a label such as Touch and Go or SST would never have been able to get off the ground due to their early tendencies to "go out on a limb" and release seemingly "unmarketable" artists because they were good. This is a problem with many "managers" as well, who tend to seek out the most easily-sold musicians rather than those who may possess a singular vision that stands out. In the past, these folks could seek out other unpredictable weirdos on the business and marketing end of things who saw it their way and would be able to find the weirdos who wanted to buy such stuff; now there is so much out there in the musical sea that some of the most innovative music is being thrown to the wind. Please note these are not sour grapes, I have been lucky to have involvement with some great, dynamic people on the business end who did (and do) things to help my music get out there that I could never do myself, but I have seen far too many interesting artists fall through the cracks because they don't spend as much time on the internet as I do, and don't know the other side of it a bit as I am fortunate to.
The question is: How can you educate artists without turning them into hopeless cynics? Even though I have pretty much grown up with the internet and am as comfortable with it as a person should be, it is probably too late in my case. At least you guys are trying.
1.) I think there are two critical aspects of creating an effective "boutique" label/manager business model that need to be addressed, namely, (i) how to achieve "economies of scale" to maintain acceptable net operating margins while still focussing on unique niches and (ii) how to devise a "music discovery" algorithm so your stable of artists can rise above the chaos of the web.
2.) This is why I posited that the viable partnership of the future was a three-sided one made up of: (i) the artists themselves in all their diversity, (ii) the knowledgeable intermediaries that can win the trust of the artists, and (iii) one or more shared "platforms" to reduce the costs and achieve economies of scale collectively [i.e. "doing it ourselves" rather than "doing it yourselves"]; and also to develop music discovery tools and methodologies on an open IT platform to tap the "wisdom of crowds".
It definitely though is a business management issue. I know too many people in the industry who are having these issues. Also, so many people in the industry [that I know] are not that computer literate. I try to teach when I can but some people are just plain stubborn and they do not want to grow in that capacity.
I'll continue to tune in!
What do you attribute that to? Were the successful labels that stayed focused riding the hot style of the day (or perhaps driving it!)?
In connection with the foregoing, you might be interested in an earlier blog of cameron obscura on the same NY Times article and "the Fuzz aesthetic" and my response thereto regarding "nodes", "signal to noise", and "Excellence".
Some of those labels that diversified failed because they were trying too hard to jump on the bandwagon of new trends while not understanding them (i.e. Lookout), others just confused their audiences with too much "newness" and caused them to tune out (i.e. GSL). Ultimately, when the indie label "boom" came and went, most of the labels that were still standing were those that really understood their audience, knew what thay wanted, and largely refused to deviate from the previously-defined aesthetic which gained them this audience. This aesthetic did (and does) not necessarily reflect the "hot" style of the day, because there really isn't a "hot" style anymore - the music world is more fragmented into individual sub-scenes than it ever has been in the past, and while there are many people who like to listen to music from more than one aesthetic/musical genre, there is just so much media out there that people want to associate a particular "brand" (a label or artist) with what they expect to avoid confusion. If they want something different, they will go to another label or artist, but they generally do not want anything unpredictable from culture-producers they feel they already "know". You could characterize this as a "craftsman" approach, or you could say that artists and labels often end up seriously limited by it; either way, I think it is detrimental over the long term when those who have the courage to change and grow tend to be financially punished for doing so. This is a pricey side-effect of today's music overproduction (in the quantity and quality sense) - a lot of work ends up hackneyed.
Unfortunately, I think Jonathan Coulton (who I have read about before) falls squarely into that category. While his approach is innovative and interesting in theory, I fail to see how someone who is actually so responsive to their listeners that they will write and/or axe songs and lyrics as a result of fans' demands is going to be recognized for artistic triumph and singularity of vision. Then again, I guess we are just talking about marketability here, and that is definitely a way to make money. Then again, so is being an accountant.
(i) "... the small labels that have survived and are thriving are the ones that started as being run by one or two passionate people with vision and a specific aesthetic niche - boutique labels, essentially."
(ii) "...the labels that were still standing were those that really understood their audience, knew what thay wanted, and largely refused to deviate from the previously-defined aesthetic which gained them this audience."
(iii)"...there is just so much media out there that people want to associate a particular "brand" (a label or artist) with what they expect to avoid confusion. If they want something different, they will go to another label or artist, but they generally do not want anything unpredictable from culture-producers they feel they already 'know'".
(iv)"...You could characterize this as a "craftsman" approach, or you could say that artists and labels often end up seriously limited by it; either way, I think it is detrimental over the long term when those who have the courage to change and grow tend to be financially punished for doing so."
These are the hard issues that must be addressed before the warm and fuzzy notion of "micro labels" can be said to represent truly and productively the "future of music". If we end up just facing the same old choice of either (1) failed businesses and seriously limited artists, or (2) hackneyed product, we have not resolved the prisoner's dilemma previously discussed, and "the more things change, the more things stay the same."
Thanks for your insight. I've got some thinking to do.