A new model for record labels?

[Diet Kirk]

This is a very half formed thought, but something struck me the other day about the music industry.

Musicians don't necessarily want to be rich, they just want to be able to live comfortably doing what they love.

Record labels want to be rich and therefore don't always work with the artists best interests at heart. It is a business after all.

The music industry isn't struggling because of piracy, it's struggling for I think a couple of reasons nobody talks about:

1. music is a luxury product, therefore one band/artist is not competing over another for the publics money, it is competing with everything! the cost of food, energy bills, etc, etc. In a global downturn, luxury product purchases are the first things to tail off.

2. labels no longer see themselves as curators of art, instead they focus most of their money on 1 or 2 sure things, which if they don't pan out leave them struggling. This in turn causes them to be unwilling these days to support any artists that they don't believe will guarantee them massive profits, which leads to lowest common demoninator music.


I can't help but feel like there is or should be a better way. Something like an essentially not-for profit record label. Now granted I know very little about the day to day running of a record label, but wouldn't a business model that allows the staff of the label and the artists to all make a reasonable living, operate as some kind of co-operative where they all have a stake in the businesses success, with all profits going straight back in to the running of the label and the signing of new artists, be preferable to what we have now?

The deals could be on a short term basis, with salaries for band members capped and the understanding that the success of all bands is shared. Obviously eventually if one band is having massive success and wants to start leveraging their money making ability, then having a short deal means they can move on when the time is right. Such a label could be seen as a good starting destination for young bands.

It would hopefully allow more bands to exist and sustain themselves and allow them the valuable time to hone their craft without the need for day jobs etc (Which I believe is why we lose hundreds of potential great bands).

Other arts often recieve charitable donations, or patrons who give money in order that art will continue being made. Surely there is a revenue stream out there for future musicians along these lines?

I'm just thinking out loud here, but if I had some investment money (which sadly I don't), I think something like this could be the future of record labels.

 

[Nats]

Other arts often recieve charitable donations, or patrons who give money in order that art will continue being made. Surely there is a revenue stream out there for future musicians along these lines?

I had a long response, but decided to keep it short and just focus on this point for now. There's already a model for this and it's all the crowd funding going on.

 

[Diet Kirk]

I had a long response, but decided to keep it short and just focus on this point for now. There's already a model for this and it's all the crowd funding going on.

Please do type out the long response, I'm interested in a debate about this kind of stuff.

The current level of crowdfunding that I've seen pretty much equals fans pre-ordering albums from independant bands, so that they can fund the album recording process. Which really only works for relatively established names.

I'm instead thinking here of patrons kicking in funds to a central company (the record label) who use this money, not to line their own pockects and produce a profit, but split it amongst the artists on the label to ensure young bands are afforded the opportunity to record their first record that they can then use to gain a fanbase.

 

[Nats]

Lets hope I haven't copied anything since I copied my response... Yay, i didn't!

There are charitable donations in music now. It's all the crowd funding that's going on. The music industry has seen so much change in the last 15 years that I really don't think something with "order", like a record label, really makes sense anymore.

In the pre digital days, yes, it might have been a good idea to have non profit record labels where the bands all shared the royalties (isn't this the model in cap era sports?) so that great start up bands have a chance. But now, those start up bands can still get their music out and let the evolution of music decide if they should stay or die out. It's less risky to be in a band now. You can easily get your art out. You can put out your music and see who's buying it and who's digging it and give you a better feel to see if it's worth taking time out from your job to tour.

Record labels might still be around because we're conditioned to be impressed by a band that has a label. Band members themselves can do a lot more work with a lot less effort and probably do a better job than a label because they live it day to day. Message forums, social networking, etc... band members that have people active in all these mediums are basically on the front lines of what works and what doesn't.

I honestly don't know what a label does anymore for bands that aren't in the realm of Lady Gaga or Katy Perry or whatever shitty popular country artist is out there today. If I had a better idea then I might be able to offer even better insight.

And now that you responded I can add this new response to this...
"I'm instead thinking here of patrons kicking in funds to a central company (the record label) who use this money, not to line their own pockects and produce a profit, but split it amongst the artists on the label to ensure young bands are afforded the opportunity to record their first record that they can then use to gain a fanbase."

Before digital recording became the norm, this would be a great idea. These days it's so easy to record a song in good quality and have it uploaded. If I was home from work I would write, record a song (probably not a good one) and have it uploaded to a slew of different sites (soundcloud, FB, youtube) in 5 mins just to reiterate how easy it is. But I don't have to because I know you already know.

The concept is warm and fuzzy and great, but it might just be more hassle than it's worth these days. Of course I would never discourage anyone from trying. I'm always interested in seeing people try new things to see what works and what doesn't and then tweak it to make it work better. I'm a developer after all, it's the name of the game for me.

 

[HANIAK]

The main problem is: young bands don't sell enough. Not even to cover expenses (studio, cds, etc.). So there's no possibility to pay those bands a steady salary.

That being said, you got thousands of small underground labels supporting new bands...
I think the solution already exists and is carried by these small labels. They don't do a lot of profit, so they can't pay the artists, but they help the more talented/hard-working underground artists to develop and have their records released. Oh, and the artists have (or should have) a share of the records printed (so they can sell them and make some money).

IMHO, there's no possibility of having a steady salary while working in a band only (at least for small bands).
Most musicians would get lazy if so happened... (And they normally do when it happens )
Adding to this, it (usually) takes LOADS of time for a band to get big enough to be self sustainable...

 

[Diet Kirk]

Lets hope I haven't copied anything since I copied my response... Yay, i didn't!

There are charitable donations in music now. It's all the crowd funding that's going on. The music industry has seen so much change in the last 15 years that I really don't think something with "order", like a record label, really makes sense anymore.

In the pre digital days, yes, it might have been a good idea to have non profit record labels where the bands all shared the royalties (isn't this the model in cap era sports?) so that great start up bands have a chance. But now, those start up bands can still get their music out and let the evolution of music decide if they should stay or die out. It's less risky to be in a band now. You can easily get your art out. You can put out your music and see who's buying it and who's digging it and give you a better feel to see if it's worth taking time out from your job to tour.

Record labels might still be around because we're conditioned to be impressed by a band that has a label. Band members themselves can do a lot more work with a lot less effort and probably do a better job than a label because they live it day to day. Message forums, social networking, etc... band members that have people active in all these mediums are basically on the front lines of what works and what doesn't.

I honestly don't know what a label does anymore for bands that aren't in the realm of Lady Gaga or Katy Perry or whatever shitty popular country artist is out there today. If I had a better idea then I might be able to offer even better insight.

And now that you responded I can add this new response to this...
"I'm instead thinking here of patrons kicking in funds to a central company (the record label) who use this money, not to line their own pockects and produce a profit, but split it amongst the artists on the label to ensure young bands are afforded the opportunity to record their first record that they can then use to gain a fanbase."

Before digital recording became the norm, this would be a great idea. These days it's so easy to record a song in good quality and have it uploaded. If I was home from work I would write, record a song (probably not a good one) and have it uploaded to a slew of different sites (soundcloud, FB, youtube) in 5 mins just to reiterate how easy it is. But I don't have to because I know you already know.

The concept is warm and fuzzy and great, but it might just be more hassle than it's worth these days. Of course I would never discourage anyone from trying. I'm always interested in seeing people try new things to see what works and what doesn't and then tweak it to make it work better. I'm a developer after all, it's the name of the game for me.

Yeah I think cap era sports is a good analogy. I suppose you are right in a sense that it is easier than ever to get your music out there these days, however given the proliferation of online outlets its harder than ever to get it noticed once its out there.

Touring wise, I suppose its a whole other level of conversation how many shocking pay to play schemes and inadvisable routes bands can take to get out and play live.

The only thing about band members being active in social media, whilst needing day jobs. I remember when I was in a band (we are talking myspace era here), the day to day admin of the band became crippling. With only three members we spent far too little time focussed on the writing and prgressing as musicians and way too much time on other stuff. As I understand it thats the main beauty of a label. The musician should be left to perfect their craft.

Again you are right about decent level recordings. And I certainly would advise young drummers (I'm a drummer) not to be frightened about vst drums. I think young drummers should get involved with learning to write their parts in a vst in order to get a recording together and worry about having them actually appear on the recordings when they can afford it. But whilst sso is full of people doing that kind of thing, you do need to love the engineering aspect to a degree and not every band has a member who gets into that kind of stuff.

Maybe it is too warm and fuzzy an idea, a panacea, that could never happen. Maybe the whole thought in my head is driven by recently seeing my facebook feed pop up with a number of great bands who have finally bowed to the pressure and are no more. Plus the constant reminder that there are people out there with pots of money supporting other arts, but I don't see it happening in music.

Of course for all I know there are a million small labels out there trying to do exactly what I'm suggesting, alternatively there are millions of bands who are getting by just fine without a label.

The main problem is: young bands don't sell enough. Not even to cover expenses (studio, cds, etc.). So there's no possibility to pay those bands a steady salary.

That being said, you got thousands of small underground labels supporting new bands...
I think the solution already exists and is carried by these small labels. They don't do a lot of profit, so they can't pay the artists, but they help the more talented/hard-working underground artists to develop and have their records released. Oh, and the artists have (or should have) a share of the records printed (so they can sell them and make some money).

IMHO, there's no possibility of having a steady salary while working in a band only (at least for small bands).
Most musicians would get lazy if so happened... (And they normally do when it happens )
Adding to this, it (usually) takes LOADS of time for a band to get big enough to be self sustainable...

Maybe you are right, musicians would wind up being lazy. I used to believe that the system sorted the wheat from the chaff and those who desreved to eek a living out did so. But I just don't think its the case anymore. I for one am saddened by the number of great bands I see failing each year and fading away.

I suppose I'm wondering if there is a way to account for the fact that new bands don't sell enough and provide additional revenue from lets call them charitable donations which could make up the difference.

 

[Nats]

This is where I'm curious as to who pays musicians that tour and how all the finances breaks down with concert tickets, travel, management, etc. The orchestra/opera/classical types. They play concert halls and get paid steady income but it's not through a label is it? I always wondered that.

That's why I could never be in a touring band. I just can't be bothered worrying about that sort of thing. My ideal setup would be someone like Scott Hull from Pig Destroyer. Great government job with wife, kids, big new house by week, signed metal band guitarist playing shows by weekend.

 

[Diet Kirk]

This is where I'm curious as to who pays musicians that tour and how all the finances breaks down with concert tickets, travel, management, etc. The orchestra/opera/classical types. They play concert halls and get paid steady income but it's not through a label is it? I always wondered that.

That's why I could never be in a touring band. I just can't be bothered worrying about that sort of thing. My ideal setup would be someone like Scott Hull from Pig Destroyer. Great government job with wife, kids, big new house by week, signed metal band guitarist playing shows by weekend.

It does seem that plenty of people make money from music, its just not necessarily the original artists. There must be a way to remedy this!

 

[Given To Fly]

This is where I'm curious as to who pays musicians that tour and how all the finances breaks down with concert tickets, travel, management, etc. The orchestra/opera/classical types. They play concert halls and get paid steady income but it's not through a label is it? I always wondered that.

Orchestral musicians get a salary and the Concert Master (first chair violin) is usually paid the most. The money comes from ticket sales (very little), donations (a little more), and endowments...big ones (the bread and butter of the arts!). The orchestra usually has a contract with a record label and the musicians are more like employees. They won't see any extra money from record sales but they do have a salary. Also, classical album sales aren't exactly numerous so it may be a good thing not to rely on record sales in some genres.

 

[The Reverend]

The problem with this model is that at some point you stop being an artist and start being a parent. This isn't always the case, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of musicians at some point become parents. If I've spent the last ten years of my life working for a label co-op, I can't walk into a bank and get a loan, or get a job that pays enough to take care of my family. I think of all the "biggest" names in underground metal and fail to see any mansions or Lamborghinis, and that's with them actually making money. There's really just not enough of a market for labels to exist in this genre, outside of those who do it for the love. It's getting harder and harder for a band to be a viable product, as well. Speaking for myself, I listen to a lot of bands that offer their music for free or stream it on YT, and I almost never buy merch online or go to shows. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of lazy people out there like me. Even a collective of artists sharing their profits would have trouble breaking even, unless they had some big name attached.

Why do you think labels pick up lowest common denominator bands to begin with? It's to fund the bands they're taking risks on.

 

[Diet Kirk]

Orchestral musicians get a salary and the Concert Master (first chair violin) is usually paid the most. The money comes from ticket sales (very little), donations (a little more), and endowments...big ones (the bread and butter of the arts!). The orchestra usually has a contract with a record label and the musicians are more like employees. They won't see any extra money from record sales but they do have a salary. Also, classical album sales aren't exactly numerous so it may be a good thing not to rely on record sales in some genres.

So maybe this system could be adopted? In the orchestral situation where do the endowments come from? wealthy art lovers?

The problem with this model is that at some point you stop being an artist and start being a parent. This isn't always the case, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of musicians at some point become parents. If I've spent the last ten years of my life working for a label co-op, I can't walk into a bank and get a loan, or get a job that pays enough to take care of my family. I think of all the "biggest" names in underground metal and fail to see any mansions or Lamborghinis, and that's with them actually making money. There's really just not enough of a market for labels to exist in this genre, outside of those who do it for the love. It's getting harder and harder for a band to be a viable product, as well. Speaking for myself, I listen to a lot of bands that offer their music for free or stream it on YT, and I almost never buy merch online or go to shows. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of lazy people out there like me. Even a collective of artists sharing their profits would have trouble breaking even, unless they had some big name attached.

Why do you think labels pick up lowest common denominator bands to begin with? It's to fund the bands they're taking risks on.

Exactly, I can't help but think there has to be a better way, why shouldn't musicians have stability and be able to start families and continue to play original music.

However, I don't actually think record labels are even bothering taking a risk on anyone these days, and thats a real shame. Some incredible bands only hit their stride on album 3 or 4.

Moving on from that thought and what you say about a collective of artists there is a need to limit risk and there needs to be an income stream from somewhere, that it is becoming clear will not come from traditional places like labels. The things that can be monetized in music do not generate enough money anymore.

There is plenty of money in the world though. There are plenty of millionaires out there. Some of them musicians. Now I'm sure many of them give back in some form. But I'm sure there is a case to be made for those who have been immensly successful can spare some of their thousands without expecting to make further profit on them. Philanthropy I believe it is called! And isn't this like the orchestral example?

What if Bieber, McCartney, Osbourne et al were asked to contribute to a charity. Money that they have plenty of that they are giving away in order to help sustain the next generation of musicians. This charity could from the new blueprint of a record label. It would not seek to produce a profit and would function more like the art world, where governments and patrons of the arts spend their own money willingly to keep art alive.

A bit of the wall, but to insure its perpetuity then perhaps the PRS and MCPS should levy a successful musicians tax. Once you have made more money than you know what to do with, you are obligated to kick back into the charity music industry.

Perhaps bands the label signs could be selected by some form of tv show, lets call it the X Factor. I jest, but its a thought. no?

 

[Nats]

So maybe this system could be adopted? In the orchestral situation where do the endowments come from? wealthy art lovers?

I had asked my opera singer wife over the weekend the question I asked in here about where that money comes from and she gave me the same answer as Given To Fly. There are a lot of pretentious rich people that love the arts and donate handsomely to it. She got her undergrad in music paid for by an anonymous benefactor that she speculates heard her during her music lessons. It's a tax write off and it goes to something these rich people love, so it works out for them.

Could this be adopted for metal? Sure, but I don't think it's the greatest investment for these people. Here's how I kinda see it. If you're wealthy and want to donate money to a label to sign bands, you'd probably want some sort of say as to what bands get signed. Depending on the money donated, you may want a large say in what bands get signed. Since it's non profit you aren't going to see any of that money ever again anyway. Here's where personal favors and personal vendettas come into play. If I hate band A, even if they're good, and I am friends with band B, even though they're garbage, I'll make sure band B gets signed over band A or the label doesn't get a dime. At that point you might as well just be a label owner. I just don't see it being very pure in the end.

 

[Suho]

Keep in mind, too, that supporting classical music isn't really supporting the creative-end, either, it is supporting the development of talent via one's instrument or voice. The pieces that are performed are, for the most part, the same ones that have been kicking around for centuries.

 

[drgamble]

If you like/love a band buy their album. Doesn't matter if they are signed to a label at all. Musicians by and large are not making much money at all. They get by selling merch and touring. The model has always been the same. At the very least, you should make sure to obtain music through legal avenues and those are the ones that support the artists more than anything else. If you obtain music illegally, you are not only screwing the record company, you are also screwing the band. There are a lot of independent artists out there making good music, but people still don't buy albums. If you obtain music from anywhere besides legal avenues, you are lining the pockets of the various website owners including Google, YouTube, MegaUpload etc. websites make money off of advertising and the more traffic they generate the more money they make. The music has been very good to the operators of sites hosting infringing content and they are also the ones that have a large stake in keeping the Internet "free".