“The recording industry continues to move toward digital distribution. Yet the Internet has also given unheard musicians a platform for getting noticed, while technology has made home recording affordable,” Rick Munarriz writes for The Motley Fool. “If change is in the air, why is the indie movement left gasping for it?”
“Digital distribution has become a tantalizing notion now that companies like Apple and to a lesser extent Roxio are showing the major labels that it can work,” Munarriz writes. “As the uncola to commercial pop swill, this should be the golden age of garage bands. Instead, it has been as stifling as carbon monoxide. Home-recording software like Apple’s new iLife ’04 has made quality digital recording affordable and accessible. Satellite radio upstarts Sirius and XM have broadened the radio dial, including stations playing unsigned artists around the clock. The Internet should be arming clever marketers with ways to drape cyberspace with lawn chairs to enforce their grassroots efforts.”
“The entire pre-recorded music industry can afford to get leaner because the CD is dead… The savings in an inventory-free digitally distributed future are huge, and third-party outlets for distribution like Apple’s iTunes store are more motivated in making it work than the layered labels themselves ever were,” Munarriz writes. “Which may make it surprising to note that Apple never made a play for Vivendi’s MP3.com site and has not taken an active role in recruiting unsigned artists.”
Full article here.
It sounds like a worthwhile endeavour. Cutting out the middle man offers new opportunities for profits as well. Perhaps part of Apple’s original deal with the labels was to not do this very thing. Depending on when these deals renew, it might be interesting to see if things will change.
FYI, it seems that independent artists WITHOUT labels are already on iTunes. Services such as RainDog and CD Baby take the place of the label, proving very low-cost services to musicians and giving most of the profit to the artist. In return, they convert and upload the music to iTunes (and other services as well).
Two examples here:
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/1545222&mode=thread
Note that Apple doesn’t “just take anything” to make their catalog sound bigger–which some other online stores DO do. You can’t just send some random low-quality recording off your built-in mic
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Nagromme:
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Facts to back up your opinions–what will they think of next???
There are a couple of problems with this. As the “desktop publishing” wave of the early 90’s taught us, simply giving the tools to the people doesn’t mean that everyone is going to produce great work. Apple has put great digital music tools in the hands of regular folks, but if you visit macidol.com you’ll see that it doesn’t turn them into stars. It still takes talent, and one role that record companies have always played is that of talent scout. I know what you’re thinking. “These guys don’t care about talent, only making money.” That may be true to a point, but remember that music is subjective and there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” except within the realm of one’s own personal taste. Besides that, you can hate Brittany Spears all you want (I know I do) but to say she’s not talented doesn’t give credit where credit’s due. I don’t like any aspect of her music but it does take talent to do it. I’ve been a musician for 24 years, and been playing in clubs for 11 years, but I couldn’t do what she does. The point is, there has to be some kind of gatekeeper. In a perfect world the gatekeeper would be searching for anyone who was truly talented, not just those who show a huge potential for making money. There are many gifted musicians who never get heard because they don’t have the right look, sound, whatever, and that’s a shame. Still, Apple would either have to put just anyone’s music on iTMS or build a whole division to become a record company.
That brings me to my next point. It’s possible that doing something like that would be in direct violation of their agreement with Apple Corps. Distributing music is one thing, but actually becoming a music producer is something altogether different.
I think the recording industry is at the very beginning of a revolution. As a semi-professional musician, I can tell you that cutting out the middle-man would be great, and it should be possible now that recording equipment is becoming so affordable. All artists would really need from record companies is promotion, and that model will change as well. It’s going to take time though, it won’t happen overnight. People need to keep in mind that iTMS hasn’t even been up a year yet. I can see this type of thing happening in the next 5 to 10 years, but I question what Apple’s role in this should be.
Cool Nagromme. I am all for supporting this. From what I hear the big label record industry element is generally slime akin to pimps.
Corporate music companies follow production formulas where music is made like Dell computer – a product of accounting and advertising rather than art. Music is created by a bunch of creatively void clones (kinda like a Dell). The general population can be easily brainwashed into wanting whatever is continuously advertised and promoted on MTV and radio. This system has served them well for the last 30 years. The music companies used to be operated by musicians who could differentiate credible talent and the music of the 50’s and 60’s. The internet could be an incredible venue for the undiscovered talent that does not fit into the music factory mold. Ultimately there arre too many wanna be stars to wade through and some “authority” is required to filter the material for the audience. It is time for a real change.
I don’t like the idea of Apple recruiting unsigned artists. Let someone else discover the talent and bring it to Apple.
If Apple were to take on that role, every garage band would consider it Apple’s “responsibility” to promote them. If Apple agreed to host the music files without providing any promotion, how would that benefit Apple? It would clog up iTMS with a bunch of crap that no one is looking for. I hope Apple only accepts music that is already being promoted or handled in some professional way, otherwise iTMS will turn into a Google.
Not that Google is bad, it’s just that we already have one
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> Have you noticed that “Personal Home Pages” is the biggest category on Google, and that pages in that category never come up in searches? They almost aren’t worth cataloging. It would be the same for garage music on iTMS.
Google will automatically catalog your home page only if several other cataloged pages link to it. That is, in effect, a measure of popularity and promotion. If you have to tell Google about your home page and request that it be cataloged, it almost surely will never pop up in a search.
Okay, the analogy isn’t perfect, but you get my point.
This is where Apple Corps would REALLY be sueing Apple Computer!!
That’s why they can’t do this…
They (Apple Computer) cannot become a music label of any kind.
a follow-on from Jack’s comment
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench,
a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free,
and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.”
Hunter S. Thompson
All I know is that Apple does need to start aggressively expand it’s musical selection now that more and more competition is headed its way. I put together a list of 50 songs that I wanted to add to my collection and after searching iTunes, I was able to only cross off 4 songs. I’m willing and wanting to set up a monthly allowance in iTunes for myself, but it makes no sense when I can’t get much of what I want at the moment.
This article fails to mention that Apple, as part of its deal with Apple Music (of Beatles fame) cannot enter into the music business.
It’s already being sued by Apple Music over iTunes/iPod. Becoming a music production company would be in clear violation of the deal and Apple would be sued in court and lose.
Too bad, though– this is exactly what the music industry needs. If Apple did start recording music, they could easily break new bands by promoting them on iTunes and selling the songs for far less than 99 cents while still making a profit off of them.
JJ“They (Apple Computer) cannot become a music label of any kind.”
Too right. But what is to stop Steve Jobs personally starting one, with the understanding that all music would be distributed via iTMS?
For better and worse we need middlemen to scout talent. And big faceless, Godless, uptight, corporate, fortune 500 killing machine korporations to advance money and make services available to new talent.
Garage Band isn’t enough. $50,000 worth of recording equipment in your attic isn’t enough. You also need people like Brian Eno and George Martin, and world class recording engineers. Among other things. I’m a photographer repesented by a New York agency that sells my images around the world. I do the creative (fun) part. They put up the web pages, distribute CDs, catalogs, have offices all over the world, sales people, accounting departments, etc. I DON’T WANT to do all that stuff. So they take their cut. They are picky about who they rep because they want a quality product that their customers will return to. Is Apple going to sit through hundreds, THOUSANDS of demo cds? Are you? I happen to personally know A&R guys from huge recording companies, and they love to find talent and break new bands. There is no nirvanah where these guys get cut out completely, and the music is cheaper and the artists make more.
(this continued in next post)
(continued)
And for the guy who said “The general population can be easily brainwashed into wanting whatever is continuously advertised and promoted on MTV and radio”. You sir are wrong, or there would only be hit records, movies, books, etc.
EASILY BRAINWASHED? The reason that a lot of bad music is out there is because the record companies are getting alot better at guessing the taste of the general public.. which is not good.
Sorry, we need the middlemen. As gatekeepers and for the cash. Oh sure, inevitably some flukes will happen when a bunch of musicians record something on a MAC and it becomes a huge hit. Count on it. But it will be a fluke, an anecdote, in popular music history. And then forever re-iterated as proof, PROOF that we don’t need Sony or BMG. Up and coming recording artists HATE it when I talk like this. Because they aren’t signed at the moment, and hope they can produce a CD, have Apple put it on their website, and BINGO they are rich. If you go to the ITMS ‘home page’ they have different artists being promoted by the nature of their placement there. So let’s say, hypothetically, Apple DOES put a ‘new talent’ section on the ITMS. The next thing will be people bitching that “APPLE promotes the new U2 music on the home page, but the young fresh indie or unsigned talent is relegated to the dusty back shelves of ITMS, is that FAIR?” Then Apple, for all it’s work, will be a villian. Somewhere along the line you need middlemen that you make FILTHY RICH because they are not doing it for the fun of making music. They have hard, grinding, boring jobs to do. And if they are going to risk enormous amounts of money, they expect to hit the jackpot from time to time. Only 5% of bands make money for anyone in the long run, which is another reason why CDs cost a lot. You are compensating for the money losing bands. These are the facts of life.
DV
iPhoto has a Web Album feature, where your album is automatically posted to your .Mac account as a webpage. Could such a feature be added to GarageBand? Giving away music would not violate the agreement with Apple Music, and it would be a convenient way for talent scouts to look for talent–by browsing a .Mac site. Perhaps a category like “.Mac Music” could be added to iTunes–free listening to GarageBand posts.
If such a thing comes to pass, it wouldn’t be long before another company (unrestricted by Apple Music) would create a GarageBand for pay site. Apple could add to GarageBand automatic posting to that site, and add to iTunes a category that browses it. This would have the same effect, but Apple wouldn’t be in the business of hosting songs for every dreaming accordion player in America.
KL
david vesey: Yeah, that’s what I said. Sort of. Anyway, I agree.
While I agree with most of what David Vesey says, I disagree about what people listen to. Kids don’t create new fads – ad agencies do. Kids don’t determine what is top 10 and what gets listened to – MTV and the record companies and radio stations do. That’s why boy bands can be created.
People are sheep. They listen to what they are told is popular. They follow what everyone else does. Not all people, but the majority. It’s easier than thinking and forming your own opinion. Want proof? What operating system is the most widely used?
david, Jimbo: I think both of your views are a little too simplistic. It’s a combination of both. People aren’t dumb as sheep–they won’t follow just anything. You have to give them something that they want. The people who create boy bands don’t do it because boys are easier to work with, they do it because the masses respond to boy bands.
Likewise, the masses do respond en mass like sheep. Give them a boy band with just the right characteristics, and they’ll respond. They’ll respond in proportion to the amount of money you spend on advertising, promotion, etc. In a way, the producers choose which boy band will be the big hit.
But they couldn’t just pick any bunch of boys and sell them to the mob. The mob is not a flock of sheep. They just have some sheep-like characteristics.
Jimbo von Alphabet sez:
“While I agree with most of what David Vesey says, I disagree about what people listen to. Kids don’t create new fads – ad agencies do.
=======
No they don’t. I’ve been on the periphery of advertising and new product introductions for 30 years. My wife owns an advertising agency, and I have seen hundreds of new product introductions that stiffed. Even with great advertising and huge budgets
I also work in video and film and have directed TV commercials. It’s almost impossible to get a hit without a lot of money and saturation, but it does not guarantee success. And I am surprised that people think this way.. Maybe because they don’t want to put the blame on mediocre and trite tastes of the general public.
======
“Kids don’t determine what is top 10 and what gets listened to – MTV and the record companies and radio stations do. That’s why boy bands can be created.”
=========
True, product placement for music is more prevalent today than ever, and it certainly restricts the choices, but these efforts in no way guarantee success. Whether you are selling music or breakfast cereals. Boy bands are created, of course. Every band is a product. It’s created. Like an automobile, or a laundry detergent. If the public likes them they sell, if not, they don’t.
======
“People are sheep. They listen to what they are told is popular. They follow what everyone else does. Not all people, but the majority. It’s easier than thinking and forming your own opinion.”
========
New bands are certainly pushed by advertising, etc. But the success comes from the street up when certain trendsetting teens make fashion, hair, and music choices. Then other teens follow in order to be cool ‘too’.
(to be continued)
(continued)
=============
“Want proof? What operating system is the most widely used.?”
===========
Gee, let me think… ummmm..Windows?
As far as I’m concerned this proves my theory that in the long run most people have bad taste and aren’t really very discerning when it comes to products.
Windows was allowed by Scully to take the look and feel of the Macintosh, and this was after IBM and MS-DOS had a few year head start on the Macintosh system in being sold in to the business world. The IBM – PC was introduced, and seen as the first real business computer, and the business migration from IBM Selectrics to IBM computers was assured. Big business was not going to buy C-64’s. It wasn’t advertising that decided if a business bought an IBM-PC over an Apple II.
Any OS to come out much after the Mac OS was doomed because of path dependance. But from 1981-2 to 1984 IBM/Microsoft was the only ‘band in town’.
Not the best advertised OS crammed down the throats of the public. The Mac made a dent only because it was so insanely great. No amount of advertising would have made the AMIGA a success.I wouldn’t have traded in my Macs, and the guys in the bank down the street would not have dumped their PC’s.
Then when Gates was given the crown jewels he could get close enough to the Mac and cash in.
The Wintel world dominates because it’s cheaper, because people use it at work and can steal software. Because it has more games for the kids. And because everyone else uses it. Not because it was advertised into that position.
DV
FYI, I think CD Baby and Raindog do some pre-screening for quality. Less responsibility on Apple’s shoulders–but UNLIKE a traditional label, those services don’t have to decide “what will sell.” They get their conversion fee no matter what, and are not spending money on promotion/replication/distribution so they don’t have to worry about the risk of not having a “hit.” (They do, I think, offer additional OPTIONAL services that are more conventional, like contracts for making/distributing physical CDs.)
Here are links to both:
CD Baby: http://www.cdbaby.net/dd
Rain Dog: http://www.oasiscd.com/raindog
(I just noticed that Rain Dog partners WITH CD Baby.)
I downloaded a pricing PDF from one of those, and the service really looks very cheap and fair to me.
I think these are the GRADUAL beginning of the end for RIAA dominance. Good! And it does have to be gradual, I’m afraid that’s reality. For one thing, Apple has to be careful for now not to alienate the RIAA.
apple’s already addressed this…
they’re not a label because they don’t know what ‘good music’ is…
that’s the point: labels weed out crap and sign artists they think will make it.
DISINTERMEDIATION is a bit of a joke in this regard… dell cannot enter here..
and the Oscar goes to KENNYLUCIUS!!:
“david, Jimbo: I think both of your views are a little too simplistic. It’s a combination of both. People aren’t dumb as sheep–they won’t follow just anything. You have to give them something that they want. The people who create boy bands don’t do it because boys are easier to work with, they do it because the masses respond to boy bands.
You nailed it with that post!!
Describing the sensitive feedback circuit that is the music industry perfectly.
One of the biggest problems has been the homogenization of radio stations like ClearChannel, and the ability to buy your way onto the airwaves. But Tide pays for shelfspace in grocery stores. Sadly, music is a product, like anything else.
I’m from Detroit, one of the original from-the-streets-up towns. With supportive radio stations that helped the local talent (seger, nugent, MC5, Motown, original members of The Eagles and on) Today that link is broken with ClearChannel stations that ignore the local talent.
The internet is busting things open.. as are the satellite stations.
The BIG 5 recording companies will soon be like the ‘Studio system’ that controlled all of Hollywood for decades. It pushed around artists, created ‘Stars’, but also did great work at times.
All of this is going to change, but there will ALWAYS be a need to filter and support new artists.
DV
I always hate articles like this because the authors overlook a basic fact. Apple is in the digital distribution business, not the artist management business. For iTMS via Apple to start directly signing artist, Apple would then need to become a “record label”. And while many disparage record labels, including myself, they do serve some purpose. They wade through the millions of would be stars with no talent or skill, and even those with some talent and skill, so that we don’t have to.
Even sites like GarageBand.com have to introduce systems that allow methods for casually, curious explorers to find music of mediocre to good quality relatively quickly, because if they don’t users won’t return. Now consistently, I don’t have a problem with labels in their role as arbitrator between buyer and seller. I have issue with their goal to maximize profit by minimizing difference.
I may hate Christina Aguilera, but I do recognize that millions will love her. I like smaller labels, because they don’t have the need to have break-out stars, that appeal to the masses. I also like artists who are stoutly independent, even when faced with the temptation of overwhelming success. But even still, I appreciate having systems in place that allows me to explore new music both popular and independent, without wading through the massive amounts of junk that exists.
I feel that Apple to a stance, “We don’t want to be an arbitrator of quality, style, or popularity (in music). We don’t want to be a record label telling you, you might make it baby.” Apple is a technology company, and as such is selling a service to record labels, large, small, and independent labels, but record labels none-the-less.
I’d rather see them focus time and energy on improving iTunes, iLife, OS X, and hardware, than signing 100s of staff people to wade through artist looking for a shot at the bigtime.
Now, I do think it would be intersting if Apple could package and sell iTMS (distribution capabilities) directly to independent labels, so that CDBaby or Magnatude, etc. could have a store directly inside iTunes; and users could select which stores they wanted to display. This of course would have to be weighed by cost to Apple, and loss of potential revenue, but in basic theory could be very cool.
Apple designs and sells computers….I think…or have they gotten out of that business?
All I hear about Apple is iPod and music.
No new Macs….