This Just In: Apple Not God
Published August 27, 2003
One might argue that God Himself might have trouble releasing the stranglehold RIAA member companies have on their artists. Certainly "artists rights" is a hill upon which many have died. Companies have tried and tried to make something happen, and one after another, they've shut down or been marginalized. In the end, it all comes down to this: Like it or not, many of the best artists migrate to the major labels in order to get their music heard. Most consumers look to the major labels to screen out most of the worst artists, and can trust that the labels provide the music they want. And so the cycle goes.
There are options for musicians and consumers that don't want to play that game, and there are plenty of us, but those options aren't exactly making the artists rich either, because a bigger percentage of a much smaller pie is still less pie.
That hasn't stopped some, however, from turning the issue into a holy war. Downhill Battle, for example, has a fantastic parody of Apple's iTunes Music Store. It's funny, and it's true, and it doesn't matter in the least.
Here's one way to get fans cheaper music and musicians more money:
- Bands sign-up with Apple, but put mp3s on their own website.
- iTunes displays songs and albums just like it does now.
- Songs cost 50 cents, albums cost 3 dollars, previews are free.
- Songs download directly from the bands' website.
- Like ebay, Apple takes a 3% commission for connecting the buyer and seller.
- Musicians keep the rest: 3 times what they now get from iTunes or a CD.
- The listener pays half, the band's take triples.
Perhaps the Downhill Battle folks haven't heard of MP3.com? Or eMusic.com? I'm actually a big fan of eMusic.com, but it lacks something most people are looking for: most major artists. Consider the flack Apple is getting for not having Madonna or the Rolling Stones online, and multiply that by, well, just about everybody for eMusic. MP3.com tried to launch a revolution, and crashed on the rocky coast. The problems? Many, but included among them were the fact that 95% of the songs available on MP3.com were crap. Pure and simple, people don't want crap.
- This Just In: Apple Not God
- Published: August 27, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Music
- Filed Under: Music: News
- Writer: Phillip Winn
- Phillip Winn's BC Writer page
- Phillip Winn's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The bands already pay for their own marketing, promotion, publicity, advertising, etc.
Some artists do make money at much smaller volumes then they would sell with a label, and there is no guarantee that a major label will ensure large scale success or profitability for the band. Music is the Gold Rush of the last half century and the labels are the general stores that are getting rich.
This is actually the discussion that let me to Eric's blog and eventually to blogcritics. The economic model of the labels isn't what it once was. The barriers to entry are way down (cost, expertise, etc), the distribution channel is being threatened by the Internet, and marketing is the only remaining stronghold of the traditional labels.
The value proposition to a band is way down, but the industry doesn't have a new model in place. I think it's reaching a change-or-die crisis, but I'm not sure when it'll happen.
Michael (#2), yes, the artists pay, but they pay out of an advance, not out of pocket. There is a big difference, which is why the labels are still the Holy Grail for almost all artists, and why even the big artists unhappy with their labels (prince) eventually sign with another big label. Even with huge name recognition and a monstrous fan base, the labels still provide the "best" way for artists to make their money.
But as I pointed out in the article, they're not the only way to go.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/7878)
the economics laid out with the idea of artists posting the songs on their own websites is misleading. sure, that way they might take in triple per song sold, but the band would now be responsible for all kinds of costs - they'd have to pay for their own recording, marketing, promotion, publicity, advedrtsing, etc. this could easily eat up the extra money, and if the band isn't good at it, could guarantee that in actuality the band will make a lot less money, and a lot fewer fans in the meantime. fewer fans mean less ticket sales and less merchandise sales, two other ways bands make money. most bands don't want the full responsibility for their own promotion, they'd rather concentrate on songwriting, recording, and performing, and furthermore most bands believe that a company who specializes in these things is liable to do a better job - they call this kind of specialty company that invests in sound recordings and then specializes in marketing and promoting these recordings a "record label." most artists have good reason to want a partnership with one of these.