State of Mind of The Art

Spotted on: Ars Technica

Although still unconfirmed, rumor has it that EMI is seriously considering pulling their funding from the RIAA.  According to a recent Variety article, EMI has taken early steps to exit from the IFPI, the international version of the RIAA.  Part of the move is a demand by EMI that the RIAA and IFPA produce a proposal on restructuring by March 31.

Citing the massive cost of participation in these trade organizations, it seems EMI is very unhappy with the results being produced by the RIAA and IFPI.  The public relations nightmares these organizations have created has been a major contributor the devaluation of music.  If file sharing wasn’t labelled an almost terrorist act, it could have a huge impact on the perceived value of music.

More as this develops….

Spotted on: Digital Music News

According to this daily industry bulletin, there was a 21% drop in music sales between Thanksgiving and Christmas.  This is traditionally the hottest time of the year for music sales.  This is on top of a 15% drop in sales for the year of 2007.

Bottom Line: Given plummeting sales and the major restructuring going on at EMI, 2008 may be the year where we see a major shift in how major labels operate.

Spotted on: CMJ

The RIAA is funded by the big four record labels, to the tune of around $130 million per year for each label. EMI was recently bought by a private group, and are now considering drastically cutting their investment to the lobbying and enforcement arm of the music industry.

Given that the RIAA’s legal moves over the last few years have been disastrous at best, it’s a great sign for artists that the RIAA’s financial base may diminish significantly. The amount of money that the RIAA has spent suing mothers and college students as been astronomical, and has led to a severe loss of credibility toward the record business in the public eye. Let’s take a moment to look at what a world without the RIAA might look like.

Without constant legal pressure to buy, audiences would begin to feel confident that albums they buy are supporting artists’ careers (this is part of consumer confidence). File sharing would continue, but people would be more willing to buy music they love knowing that they aren’t labeled as criminals anymore. The business model of turning artists into products, overcharging for albums, and using hype instead of quality would fail.

The music industry would become a free market, where any artist with great music and dedication could create a viable career. Rather than a few mega platinum artists, we would begin to see a massive amount of artists selling between 50,000 - 200,000 units on releases. This level of sales can cause an artist to be dropped from a major, but on an indie label, this is a great living for an artist, and a massive success for the label. Royalty rates for artists would also become much higher. Some artists already see similar profits selling 200,000 units with an indie label that they would see selling a million on a major.

New contracts would become the industry standard, similar to Polyvibe’s practice of leasing artist’s copyrights rather than owning them. Artists would have freedom to call the shots in their careers. The industry would shift to artists owning their masters, with labels existing to empower artists rather than to exploit them. Album advances would shrink; the amount of money owed to labels would shrink, too. In the major label world, an artist owes almost every penny the label spends on them. Label investment in artists would become the cost of doing business, rather than a loan.

The practice of shelving albums would become non-existent, as artists would have the ability to have promises for release dates in their contracts. Polyvibe currently includes release dates in our contracts, with a provision that if deadlines are not met, we will set a new release date. We even promise in our contracts that if we do not release an album within a set span of time after receiving masters, the artists is free to go elsewhere with their album. This type of provision would be standard fare, as well as other artist protection clauses.

Marketing, promotion, and booking companies would become the major players in breaking artists. The media will flock to what people want instead of what the Big Four tell them to promote. New and far reaching models and methods of grass roots promotion will become the norm. Music quality will again become the primary factor in an artist’s success; promotion and hype will be a second tier service. Radio will begin to offer a wider variety.

Without the ability to force legislation in their favor, major labels would become the victim of a music economy they no longer control. Consider that what allows major labels to force low quality music down our throats at high prices is their ability to grab politicians ears, to threaten us with lawsuits, and their near domination of media exposure and radio. We are now at the tail end of a 60 year monopoly on the music business. Rats swarm off of sinking ships, a perfect analogy for the exodus of mega-artists from major labels (getting off the ship, not the rats). In this new music environment, there will be dozens (maybe hundreds) of popular labels, and everyone will have the opportunity to create success.

Bottom Line: Without the RIAA, the major label business model will be obsolete, and a new paradigm and renaissance for music will appear within five years.

Spotted on: New York Times, Globe and Mail
As the end of the year statistics for the music industry are released, I keep noticing a common tone of these articles. They all seem to be written about the six major record labels, and iTunes. As an artist and independent label owner (ergo, part of the music industry), these articles seem counter-intuitive to the way my peers and I conduct ourselves.

“Yet the industry as a whole still remains uncertain” is my favorite quote from this article. What is uncertain about the industry? People continue to buy music they enjoy, and more of them are buying it online. This has made it easier for anyone with ambition to get into the game. The only unclear thing I see is the fate of these transnational conglomerates.

So the major labels finally accept we don’t want to pay more than ten bucks for CDs, and we don’t like DRM. Somehow, no matter how much money these huge companies make, they are continually complaining about what they are losing. If they focus on what’s missing and wrong with their model, it takes the attention off why their model used to work. The NYT article states that ’some estimates’ put the annual economy of music at around $75 billion. So what does that number really mean?

The music economy is vast, and a huge chunk of it rests in the hands of a few companies. These are the same companies that built their empire by taking the creative ownership over music in an unclear way, or by inventing a myriad of operating fees and loans to assess to artists like student loans. It’s a similar story to how Europeans ‘bought’ Manhattan. You offer someone a gift, or a show of support, and you ask for something. Instead of explaining what you are going to take, you smile and get them to agree to it. Once they sign a piece of paper, you force them to agree to your interpretation of the words through litigation, or worse. In the latter case, it was genocide, in the former, it is the complete monopolization of the music that we listen to.

Musicians have been getting this treatment since the phonograph was invented. Look at the story of the Funk Brothers (for those who don’t know, they were the Motown backup band from 1959-1972). This group of musicians played on more hit albums than any band in music history, and no one even knows who they are (Motown is now owned by Universal, BTW). Like so many other extraordinary musicians, fame and success was pushed out of their reach, as the music they created went on to make a fortune.

So where is all that money? If this NYT article is any indicator, the only ones talking are the major labels. Do you think they’re going to present an unbiased opinion? These major corporations are complaining about how much content we aren’t paying for, and how their sales are down, and the whole time they are becoming more valuable companies.
According to a recent Globe and Mail article, there have been about 20 songs sold for every iPod bought. In fact, iPod users are not buying massive amounts of music like people did when CD Players were first introduced. The main source of the article is Josh Bernoff, a well known media and entertainment analyst. In fact, Mr. Bentoff notes that there is a huge slump in music sales in the second half of 2006. People are converting their CDs for use on other platforms. It would seem that people (known as consumers by these corporate monoliths) only want to buy the same product once. And who can blame us?

Which brings us back to the major labels, and the NYT article. The article points out that major labels are now asking for a cut of artist’s tour and merchandise revenue. Apparently, this has become a standard practice in major label deals. So on one side of their face, the major labels are crying poverty, and saying they need to take more from their artists. Yet in the same article, there are admissions that the companies are growing in value. Can you say cognitive dissonance?

Freedom of choice in music is infectious, and the supply has truly outpaced the demand. The days of an album sitting at number one are gone, and this a great thing for those of us who do not have access to mainstream press and media outlets. People buy more CDs when they are reasonably priced, and artists are still selling albums at the ridiculous prices. The major labels cry that they have to protect their interests with DRM, when their customers mostly use more than one format for listening to music. Music is a form of expression that is meant to be shared, not kept to oneself. The technicalities of software licensing and piracy are not applicable to music, and DRM is another way of saying we’re not buying art, we’re buying a product. And worse, that a CD album is different thing that an MP3 album, or even a .wma album. People aren’t that easily fooled, though. Sales reflect it.

Clearly, lots of people are buying music, and most of it is going to the huge companies to dole out as they please. People don’t buy music because it’s on the radio, or plastered in magazines, they buy it because it moves them. Major labels use record spins and downloads as a measure of success, when they are paying for the spins and driving downloads with ubiquitousness rather than genuine interest. Their multi platinum artists bounce up and down their charts like a basketball, and they refuse to see that’s how we want it. They want to tell us what a CD is worth, and tell us how we can listen to our music. These business practices only work when you have a strangelhold. In most other industries, a company is required to respond to their customers needs to stay in business. When your business model is based on dictating people’s choices, it’s no wonder that freedom of choice is such a threat. The means of production continue to only grow, and our choices with them. The 21st century king of the hill is not the only choice, it is the one the customer enjoys the most.

Music doesn’t seem to speak for itself anymore in their eyes. These companies view artistic output in the same way they view the final result: as a product. Their industry trends are an academic discussion that has completely left the real world. They could have conducted an informal phone poll to come up with the conclusion that CDs are overpriced. Record shoppes are paying more than the iTunes price for an album in some cases. The real issue is what people are willing to pay for, and to deal with that, you must listen, not dictate.
2006 is coming to a close, and the very foundations of how music is distributed and sold began a major transformation this year. According to Josh Bernoff, we’ll all be going digital by 2010. The major labels are slicing up the pie already, but in the age of choice, they may end up with empty plates.