“It wasn’t the internet that killed the music industry. In fact, everything is still looking rosy for many musicians and labels. Taylor Swift has had a good year, and her latest album is likely to be making her very wealthy indeed. And that won’t change in all likelihood, not for Swift, and not for those who come after her,” Ian Morris writes for Forbes. “There is always going to be public demand for music, as there has been for hundreds or even thousands of years. The human brain is wired to enjoy the patterns of music, so a musical beat is something we will always seek out.”
“So how will technology kill the music industry then? Well, it will simply destroy the record label,” Morris writes. “The reason is simple. Record labels are a man in the middle that simply doesn’t need to exist anymore. The same way we buy our flights direct, and get our shopping online and have things delivered from Amazon instead of going to a local shop. We have always been keen to enjoy cost reductions at the expense of the middleman, and the record labels are the ultimate in middle men.”
“Record labels also used to have an important role in producing the music. But again, for musicians that’s becoming something that can achieve on their own, through software like Apple’s GarageBand, or any of the other amazing music development apps that exist to nurture new talent,” Morris writes. “These aren’t even that expensive these days, and the hardware – thanks to digital technology – is cheaper than ever. Every Mac is a recording studio and countless artists are making their own way, without any help from the labels.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote back in October 2005:
We hope that someday Steve Jobs is the one who eliminates the [middleman] and allows the artists to go directly to their fans via iTunes; no more outdated ideas like making an album a year (you write a song, record it and release it via iTunes whenever the creative urge hits) and no more greedy, waste-of-space [middleman] types always getting in the way with their stupid money-hungry ideas and disproportionately outsized takes.
The “man in the middle” is always the gate keeper.
Universal, near-instantaneous communication made the Vinyl Label Music Co. a dinosaur.
You are your own Capitol Records.
…same thing for authors. You are your own Random House.
Middle-men have, too often, taken advantage of artists in the name of helping them. I won’t be sad to see them go. Up next, the entertainment agents of Hollywood…
“The music companies, there were four big ones, and we had really good relationship with most of them, but some of them were little difficult to deal with. Remember, there were 10 billion songs that were distributed in the U.S. every year – legally – on CDs. When we sold a song on iTunes they made more money then when they sold it on a CD. They made more money because they didn’t have to pay any marketing, and they made more money because there were no returns as there was in the physical world. We thought that was pretty good, but some of them kept talking about wanting to raise prices, because they’re greedy.”
“Steve Jobs Bio: The Unauthorized Autobiography”
With iTunes, there still is a middle man. Apple.
Taylor Swifts latest album isn’t making her rich, she’s already worth over 200 million
Unless you run your own server there is always a middle man to take care of distribution. The more direct the better for the artists.
Superstars like Taylor Swift are needed, but in the future the superstars will be able to use vehicles like GarageBand and iTunes to make it big. No more money grubbers needed to grab the lions share of the fruits of their talent.
It’s a real shame that historians of the future are going to dig up crap like Justin Beiber and bono.
Every generation of music is 90% crap. Every one. Looking back it always seems better than it was, because you get to cherry-pick the best ones and forget the others.
Since this article is about music, I would like to insert that Bono is a giant douche.
His persona or his music?
I can’t believe tech writers are still regurgitating this infuriatingly naive garbage. Yeah, it can be done, but the question remains: do we really want to live in a world where all music is self-recorded in GarageBand?
Sure why not? Garageband is pretty powerful.
What do recording labels use anyway? A lot music and movie professionals use Macs. So if the artist can make the music themselves power to them.
However there will still probably be a need for an agent or someone like that to set up and arrange tours or events like that.
I think Skeeter is saying there is no digital sound equivalent to a real cello.
Fair enough but I didn’t say there was. Technologies nowadays allow users to record and rerecord their performances even with live instruments.
According to pros that I work with, playback of an SACD through proper amps and speakers is practically indistinguishable from live performance. These same people can pick out a CD, vinyl, or any inferior source material immediately.
You have no idea whatsoever what is involved in the creative process regarding the producing, arranging, and recording of music. Deaf and dumb. Sorry, but Sgt. Pepper couldn’t have been recorded by 4 guys in a garage and sounded like it does. There was George Martin, engineers, a collaborative environment, people who heard more in one note than you’ve heard thus far in your life listening to “music.”
Don’t apologize for being asshole.
The technology consumers have today is way better than what professionals had when they made Sgt. Pepper.
You have no freaking idea what I have and have not listened to. Get off your freaking high horse.
Technology of today is way beyond dreams of anyone making music even as recently as early 90s. Your iPhone, running GarageBand for iOS, can function as a multi-track recording studio that is far superior to what the Beatles used on all of their albums. It is great for musicians to be alive today. The barrier of entry into the music recording business has been practically eliminated.
Anybody can record music today, so anybody does it. And the result has two sides; on the one, we have democratized music making and publishing process to the point that hidden talent can finally afford to come out. Musical geniuses who simply couldn’t do much with their gift because of the prohibitive cost can now express themselves and make themselves known to the world. To make your music available on iTunes requires an iPhone, iPad or a Mac with GarageBand and a about $60 (for an album, or $15 for a single song) for iTunes distribution (through CDBaby or similar).
The flip side is that anyone who thinks they’re a musician can now record and (try to) sell their music. And the audience now has to sift through massive amount of white noise before they can find a golden nugget.
Having your song or album on iTunes doesn’t guarantee that if you’re good, it will sell. It is impossible for anyone to stumble upon good songs on iTunes by sheer chance. It is still much better than what the bands of previous generations had available; you can make your song/album available for sale in the entire world, and your addressable market is almost half a billion people. But most of those half a billion people will simply never find your song in the ocean of billions of other songs competing for their eyeballs (and ears).
So what is the net result here? I believe it is positive. For musicians, it gave them a way to offer their music to the world at almost no investment. For audiences, it made much more music available than there ever was before. We just have to learn how to look through it all an find the good stuff.
The labels could still have an important role, just not the all-encompassing role they got used to in the last 70 years.
And they need to get used to that 70/30 profit split going the opposite way they got comfortable with.
This really only covers recording and the way music is sold. And covers artists who will never require the kind of attention super-artists and performers need. That’s only one aspect of the music biz. Touring with great bookings, PR, support, financial backing, navigating the world music scene, strategizing, marketing, getting sponsors, radio, Internet, nurturing, etc.. That would an awful lot for a performer(s) to take on by themselves and take away from the music. The record labels know the world has changed and they have to change with it. Technology has just made them HAVE to be more honest.
What you describe is not symbiotic but parasitic. Why should they tour? Right now, it’s their only way to make money thru a cut of ticket sales and the t-shirt stand. When it starts costing $500 a ticket to break even, you really need to go back to basics. Why do 200 hundred shows a year, stuck on a bus and more miles than you can remember. Do a pay per view feed out of a little club, sell it cheap, and reap the profit. Unless you shell out thousands, you’re not going to be in the first 10-20 rows anyway. Go to the arena and hell, you’d never know if it was the artist or a hologram.
Like I was essentially saying it’s a matter of the scale of the popularity of the artist. The less need and simpler requirements wouldn’t need a large record company and in fact a record company wouldn’t be interested anyway. Obviously things change if you are in the big leagues. Even the things you suggest some kind of an organization or individuals managing and taking care of low to middle end needs. PPV is not much of an option or opportunity for smaller groups and if you’re in the big leagues enough to substantiate the demand for PPV then chances are you have a record company involved. Of course you could always stream this stuff yourself online but most of the time I wouldn’t think it’d be a big money maker.
t am no fan of record companies but I do see the need for them foursome artists, and also the need for them to reform their previous evil greedy ways. Seeing how utterly exposed they are now I think that’s happening and now they really have to work for their money.
I don’t think you need the record companies for most of what you described.
I disagree. You would be hard pressed to assemble a staff on your own dime to accommodate all the needs of a high octane artist. The Internet is a very enabling place but it’s not the total answer to everything. I know this having worked with groups and the fact friends of mine’s kids are in by popular bands. The Internt is great but not the total answer for everyone.
Well this whole eliminating the middle man thing is actually pretty flawed. I mean, you eliminate the middle man, you eliminate jobs. You contribute to unemployment. More unemployment means more people without the means to purchase the music you’re trying to sell.
Yes I was thinking the same thing. And it gets worse, because with lower music sales, the musicians tend to go back to their day jobs so they can eat and pay rent. That reduces music diversity, resulting in a creeping mediocrity that degrades the quality of life; a spiralling consumer malaise. Why, those record producers (and other heroic middlemen) are practically our only defenders against a collapsing economy.
For real. At some theoretical point, the music will stop.
No, the companies running the music industry are very successfully destroying the music industry. Maybe after they drive their biznizziz into the ground the management will all be shuffled off to the geezer homes and the next generation who actually understands technology can take over and make the art of music bloom again within the field of business.
It could happen!
Meanwhile: Support your favorite and your local musicians with your cash! They don’t make their beautiful music surviving off butterflies, unicorns and rainbows.
Are stocker brokers financial types, insurance agents also middlemen?
yes, and all unnecessary too.
The thing is this and it is very simple. The middle man is the Gate keeper who has also control to the exposure for an artist to be heard. Yes, Record labels are gone but at the end of the day with 100 million more artist’s doing there own things it is difficult to be heard in a field now that the fan has become the artist and the competition of artist elevated more then 100,000%
Read “How Music Works” by David Byrne.