see Attitudes & Opinions

brilliant

JK spot on. My thoughts are simple:

The explosion of sites like Youtube and Myspace means that:

A: the primary consumption of music is going to be free to the user.

In order to wean them off p2p and other illegal and dodgy sites, a royalty paying Youtube or similar site is now essential. I have long argued that the BPI,AIM, IFPI, WIPO or someone else FFS should take this on board and create such a site. Then with a legal alternative they can throw the book at the pirates.

This will ensure that artists and labels can make money from the jungle that is the internet.

B Secondary income generation will come from Itunes and other legal download sites.

C Physical records and Merchandise sold online will be the third method of making money

D Touring and Live PAs. This will be the forth way to make money.

Now one can make more money with a lean mean machine and a simplified marketing and promotions strategy
and the practice of doing TV jaunts around the world is OVER. Have your own MUTV style site or tell the buggers to fly their journalists out to see you. They have the money and would love to travel.

[b]

A: the primary consumption of music is going to be free to the user.

In order to wean them off p2p and other illegal and dodgy sites, a royalty paying Youtube or similar site is now essential. I have long argued that the BPI,AIM, IFPI, WIPO or someone else FFS should take this on board and create such a site. Then with a legal alternative they can throw the book at the pirates.

I don't think you need a special royalty paying site to do this. Most acts make their music, or some of it, available free today. It's only the majors with their tight licenses that say "our music must never be free online" - even though it's been free on radio for years.

I think the availability of music tax or ISP levy or other semi-free music confuses the issue, and will only perpetuate the idea that you never have to pay for music.

I say, let people provide their music how they like. I for one would be mightily pissed off if the BPI does some deal to license EVERYTHING... because they don't OWN everything. They always speak about music copyright and music licensing as though they are the only music provider there is. I fear that any music taxes or levies will get split between Robbie Williams and his mates and the low end (just like today) won't see a penny.

The Internet allows us all to do our thing. The last thing we need is the dinosaurs rigging the rules... again.

Good points Bemuso but im not suggesting a music tax or levy at all.

Im suggesting an Itunes style site where music can be licensed to the Youtubes and Myspaces of this world in a simple and trackable format. The technology is out there to monitor it and to make sure that no skullduggery occurs.

In this case there would be collective bodies looking out for the interests of artists, writers, publishers, producers and labels. Monitoring the activities of the MusicTunes (just an example of what it can be called) site. This ensures that people who set up interactive radio sites or websites can do this legally.

ASCAP and BMI have such a licence, does PRS or MCPS ?
Does PPL ? Make no mistake it is the easiest solution for all and of course you can opt in or opt out.

At least lets have a go at it rather than always reacting against sites after the damage is done.
The public clearly wants their mpfree to a certain degree but lets at least get some money out of it or are you content with myspace making millions off your copyrights ? I'm not.

There are quite a few mistakes and assumptions in your calculations DJKZ -

Merchanidse has ALWAYS

I must add though, that although I also believe small companies are the future of music, this still raises a question of the charts. An indie can and often does sell out a whole cd run, but will not chart without a major distro.
Thereby, we either end up with even more irrelevent charts, or the distributors will take the place of the majors.
In the current climate, the major "record" company in the world will be I-Tunes.

Yes, PPL, MCPS and PRS do have licenses for interactive radio and other web music applications.

I'm just wary that whenever the big bodies get involved things go askew. Black boxes, label audits, royalty distributions, payola, lock outs, blacklists, schmooze and sleaze... a sorry tale of vested interests and market manipulation going back over 50 years.

As a musician and writer, there's nothing I can't do right now on the web. I can license, distribute, sell, play, perform, communicate... and any other thing the old infrastructure used to do. The last thing I want is the big boots of the dying regime stomping all over our nice new world.

Do I mind MySpace making money (something they're still not finding easy to do)? Not at all. If the new music retail on there takes off I'll spend more time there... and maybe finish some tracks instead of yapping on the web.

MySpace is terribly flawed, but paradoxically it's on the threshold of success. If they can make it work many other channels (and businesses) will be eclipsed. It could go either way... but it seems Yahoo!, Google, Fox, MS and Apple - and others - are on the brink of making a new entertainment hub work online. All the bits are there, money is pouring in... Interesting times for all, and the prize will be pole position for a generation.

reproduced here from Mister Smart... makes a lot of sense.

I see it very differently, Tipsheetxx.

It's a welcome rennaisance, not an unexpected and unwanted earthquake.

An earthquake usually means mass destruction on a scale outside of human control. I see the changes in the industry landscape as a form of rebirthing that is within our control.

I think too many people are getting distracted by technology. It is interesting to keep tabs on what's going on, how consumers are discovering music and generally where things are going on that front, but, I think too many are distracted by it and losing sight on what's important.

And what is important is the 'stuff'.

I and many others used to buy Factory records imprints, in the 80s and 90s, regardless of the artist. As soon as a factory release came out. I and many others wanted it.

Why?

Because there was 'stuff' going on around Factory Records and people wanted to be part of that 'stuff'. The music was important, but it was only part of the full picture.

In other words, when I bought a Factory release, I was really buying into the 'stuff', as well as the music - some of which was great and some of which was awful.

Record labels got very wise and savvy with the 'stuff' around the same time as Factory broke the mould and the vitality of london as where it all happens. Labels realised that they could re-release old hits, wrap it up with new 'stuff' and in the case of one example, westlife, sell over 60 million albums. Too easy.

When you strip away all the bollox about p2p, itunes, spiralfrog, youtube etc. not much has changed.

The key revenue streams are still:

(a) physical/digital sales
(b) gigs
(c) licensing & royalties
(d) sponsorship

A lot has changed in how physical/digital sales are made and how the music is delivered and there's a lot of changes in licensing, but, on the whole, not much has changed apart from 1 key thing that is worth mentioning under the topic of 'the future of music' and that is:

In the old days, singles sold albums. Now singles don't sell albums. gigs sell albums.

To the uninitiated, there's a subtle difference, but, when you factor in the 'stuff' there's a seismic difference.

Let me explain....

From a consumers point of view, there are a huge amount of opportunities to listen to music today.

In years past, it was impractical to carry a record player or gramaphone onto a train, bus, car, plane or as you walked about.

Walkmans came along and it became practical to listen to music on the move, but, it was still very time consuming to create new casettes (playsists).

With the advent of the mp3 player, it is not unsusual, now, for people to listen to 100 new artists every week, for free. on their computer online, on the radio, on tv, on youtube, wherever. music is all around us. for free. And some of it is bloody good.

good music isn't enough for people to buy it. A typical consumer can blisfully listen to great music for free all week long, without buying anything (I'm a few months behind catching up on all the great free myspace downloads, itunes singles of the week, free podcasts, etcetera etcetera).

But what will make them buy it is the 'stuff'.

It's the 'stuff' that sets your hit song above all other hit songs out there.

It's the 'stuff' that people buy into. By 'people' I mean...

Radio DJs
who talk about the 'stuff' and play your song bringing in royalties

journalists
who wax lyrical and spreads the word increasing physical/digital sales

music fans
at the watercooler telling others about the 'stuff' and increasing the (to borrow a phrase coined by another poster on here) 'word of mouse' and thuis increasing physical/digital sales.

shopkeepers
who hear about the 'stuff' and want to make sure their shop is 'with it' and stocked up with your music.

What smart labels generally do and will continue to do (until January 1st 2007 in the UK) is to wrap singles with 'stuff'. The idea was that singles didn't make any money, but, they were a great vehicle to attach 'stuff' to.

You cannot p2p 'stuff' and the future of music is people with a good ear for a hit song and who have a talent and understanding of the 'stuff'.

Not p2p. Not youtube. Not what people might be using in 10 years time. Not any of that bollox.

Apart from a few dance labels and maybe realworld, I cannot think of many labels who achieved the same brand status of Factory - where every release was snapped up quickly by hungry music fans.

To crystal ball gaze for a few moments, now that from Jan 1st 2007 singles are no longer loss leading flyers to sell an album, I can see a HIT FILTER label doing single deals with bands/artists. After 1 or 2 hits, people will buy into that label and keep buying into that label..especially if there's 'stuff' going on.

By 'stuff', I mean taking a leaf out of Hugh Grant/Kate Moss's book.

before blowjob from hooker, Grant was a relatively unknown actor. After the blowjob, he's able to get $5million per movie.

Before Kate met Charlie, she was a relatively unknown model. After she met Charlie, she's arguably a global brand in her own right, earning over 2 million quid a year and rising.

Think about the 'stuff' surrounding the beatles or elvis. Would Nirvana be the highest earning 'dead' project if it wasn't for the 'stuff'?

why is that?

Surely people can download the beatles/elvis and nirvana for free?

The reason, my friends, is the 'stuff'.

People aren't just buying music. They're buying into the 'stuff'. And without the 'stuff' all you've got is a great song or a great album.

Long time lurker, first time poster here. Apologies that it is so long.


We are looking at an earthquake. Not just mild alterations; total restructuring.



I see it very differently, Tipsheetxx.

It's a welcome rennaisance, not an unexpected and unwanted earthquake.

An earthquake usually means mass destruction on a scale outside of human control. I see the changes in the industry landscape as a form of rebirthing that is within our control.

I think too many people are getting distracted by technology. It is interesting to keep tabs on what's going on, how consumers are discovering music and generally where things are going on that front, but, I think too many are distracted by it and losing sight on what's important.

And what is important is the 'stuff'.

I and many others used to buy Factory records imprints, in the 80s and 90s, regardless of the artist. As soon as a factory release came out. I and many others wanted it.

Why?

Because there was 'stuff' going on around Factory Records and people wanted to be part of that 'stuff'. The music was important, but it was only part of the full picture.

In other words, when I bought a Factory release, I was really buying into the 'stuff', as well as the music - some of which was great and some of which was awful.

Record labels got very wise and savvy with the 'stuff' around the same time as Factory broke the mould and the vitality of london as where it all happens. Labels realised that they could re-release old hits, wrap it up with new 'stuff' and in the case of one example, westlife, sell over 60 million albums. Too easy.

When you strip away all the bollox about p2p, itunes, spiralfrog, youtube etc. not much has changed.

The key revenue streams are still:

(a) physical/digital sales
(b) gigs
(c) licensing & royalties
(d) sponsorship

A lot has changed in how physical/digital sales are made and how the music is delivered and there's a lot of changes in licensing, but, on the whole, not much has changed apart from 1 key thing that is worth mentioning under the topic of 'the future of music' and that is:

In the old days, singles sold albums. Now singles don't sell albums. gigs sell albums.

To the uninitiated, there's a subtle difference, but, when you factor in the 'stuff' there's a seismic difference.

Let me explain....

From a consumers point of view, there are a huge amount of opportunities to listen to music today.

In years past, it was impractical to carry a record player or gramaphone onto a train, bus, car, plane or as you walked about.

Walkmans came along and it became practical to listen to music on the move, but, it was still very time consuming to create new cassettes (playlists).

With the advent of the mp3 player, it is not unsusual, now, for people to listen to 100 new artists every week, for free. on their computer online, on the radio, on tv, on youtube, wherever. music is all around us. for free. And some of it is bloody good.

good music isn't enough for people to buy it. A typical consumer can blissfully listen to great music for free all week long, without buying anything (I'm a few months behind catching up on all the great free myspace downloads, itunes singles of the week, free podcasts, etcetera etcetera).

But what will make them buy it is the 'stuff'.

It's the 'stuff' that sets your hit song above all other hit songs out there.

It's the 'stuff' that people buy into. By 'people' I mean...

Radio DJs
who talk about the 'stuff' and play your song, bringing in royalties

journalists
who wax lyrical and spread the word, increasing physical/digital sales

music fans
at the watercooler telling others about the 'stuff' and increasing the (to borrow a phrase coined by another poster on here) 'word of mouse' and thus increasing physical/digital sales.

shopkeepers
who hear about the 'stuff' and want to make sure their shop is 'with it' and stocked up with your music.

What smart labels generally do and will continue to do (until January 1st 2007 in the UK) is to wrap singles with 'stuff'. The idea was that singles didn't make any money, but, they were a great vehicle to attach 'stuff' to.

You cannot p2p or download 'stuff' and the future of music is people with a good ear for a hit song and who have a talent and understanding of the 'stuff'.

Not p2p. Not youtube. Not what people might be using in 10 years time. Not any of that bollox.

Apart from a few dance labels and maybe realworld, I cannot think of many labels who achieved the same brand status of Factory - where every release was snapped up quickly by hungry music fans.

To crystal ball gaze for a few moments, now that from Jan 1st 2007 singles are no longer loss leading flyers to sell an album, I can see a HIT FILTER label doing single deals with bands/artists. After 1 or 2 hits, people will buy into that label and keep buying into that label..especially if there's 'stuff' going on.

By 'stuff', I mean taking a leaf out of Hugh Grant/Kate Moss's book.

before blowjob from hooker, Grant was a relatively unknown actor. After the blowjob, he's able to get $5million per movie.

Before Kate met Charlie, she was a relatively unknown model. After she met Charlie, she's arguably a global brand in her own right, earning over 2 million quid a year and rising.

Think about the 'stuff' surrounding the beatles or elvis. Would Nirvana be the highest earning 'dead' project if it wasn't for the 'stuff'?

why is that?

Surely people can download the beatles/elvis and nirvana for free?

The reason, my friends, is the 'stuff'.

People aren't just buying music. They're buying into the 'stuff'. And without the 'stuff' all you've got is a great song or a great album.

Welcome to the board MisterSmart i am glad to read your informative and detailed posts on this board as well as your regular posts on the other great board.


You are spot on, and i must say the number of people who are getting this new music economy gives me great joy and optimism for the future. This is kind of what i was talking about in terms of branding. Labels now have the best opportunity to develop 'stuff' and should go about doing so. It's now about an identity
a format, a formula but most of all fun. No longer should labels sign all and sundry unless they can weave it in a creative way.

This is not easy to get going but i have been inspired by your post and it has helped me in a huge way. I am pretty excited at the moment and look forward to seeing this all come together.

Interesting post MisterSmart and the more I think of it, the more I see things going back to being singles rather than albums. When you can cherry pick the best of an album, what's the point of it?

In the old days, singles sold albums. Now singles don't sell albums. gigs sell albums. I would say that this isn't necessarily true. Gnarls being a good example. Saying that, you don't get many Gnarlses to the pound these days.

I also wonder about how many people are going to be into the label over the product. A bit of a muso thing, rather than a general public thing?

Factory, Motown, 2Tone... In the days of these labels, there wasn't much else for kids to buy into in order to become part of something or to sculpt their identities.

Would a following of a label work on these levels today? Take the example I've heard a few times about kids having mp3 players full of songs of which they don't know the artists.. they're certainly not going to know the label.

Good point Kev. I also think that a label as a brand is going to die. With the advent of all this music being played on moblies and i-pods and computers, it`s sound without vision.
The next time the kids "collect" a label again could be a long time off, next year will be interesting.

apologies in advance for the length of this

the more I think of it, the more I see things going back to being singles rather than albums. When you can cherry pick the best of an album, what's the point of it?

because it's all about the song and people being able to hoard (not buy) their favourite songs.

It always has been about the song and up until very recently, it used to be a pain in the butt to take time to go down to your local music shop in the high street and buy a song you liked. On top of that, because singles sold albums, unless the song you liked was from an album currently being promoted, the song you liked probably wouldn't be available.

The piracy of that era was mostly kids, spending hours with a thumb on the pause button with the record+play button already engaged, trying to catch their song on their radio without the DJ spoiling it by saying something over an intro. It was infinitely easier for kids to pirate an album than compile a cassette with their favourite songs. So albums on cassette were shared more and passed around at school than singles.

So the attraction to a hit song was always there, it just wasn't practical to collect or, as people are doing today, hoarding their favourite songs.

With all the online shops grappling for attention, podcasts, singles of the week, widgets for ripping music from youtube/myspace and free covermounts, hoarding your favourite music for was never simpler or cheaper.

The point being that there's a difference between hoarding a load of songs you like and what music you buy.

I've heard a few times about kids having mp3 players full of songs of which they don't know the artists.. they're certainly not going to know the label.

I would argue that they wouldn't have bought that music in the first place. That is a good example of hoarding music...as opposed to buying music.

I would say that this isn't necessarily true. Gnarls being a good example. Saying that, you don't get many Gnarlses to the pound these days.

you maybe right..but, hasn't Gnarls gigged like mad and featured at almost every music festival this year?

I don't think I was at one festival this year that didn't have Gnarls on at some stage.

besides, I think we are just on the cusp of this music industry renaissance I'm talking about. Jan 1st 2007 is a key milestone with the UK charts, so, I think this renaissance is coming, rather than right here, right now.

Jan 1st changes how labels approach deals and how labels work. They can make money from 'single sales' now and the business culture impact will have a significant domino effect across the industry. Singles no longer *need* to sell albums for a label to turn a profit. They're no longer loss leaders. No faffing about with P&D. No returns. No panic manufacturing.

Online sales volumes are rising, as is freeloader hoarding but more and more people are finding it easier to just pay the 0.99 cents or whatever just to buy the song they just heard and liked, rather than hunt down a freebie.

That's a phenomenal result for a label. Normally that would be a dismissed as a sale that could never be made and more importantly, a sale not worth making. Now it means something.

I can see pop labels pushing singles or emphasising singles to press/media in the interim as the transition from the old to the new model takes shape, but, I wouldn't underestimate the impact.

I also wonder about how many people are going to be into the label over the product. A bit of a muso thing, rather than a general public thing? Factory, Motown, 2Tone... In the days of these labels, there wasn't much else for kids to buy into


In the days of the labels you mentioned, labels were run by dreamers, people who loved the music and 'stuff' more than the industry.

Since then, labels have been gradually taken over and are now run by bean counters.

There is no 'stuff'. Just margins.

Using the Pete Doherty documentary last night on bbc2 was a classic example of the 'stuff' I'm talking about...99% of the documentary had nothing to do about the music and all to do with the 'stuff'. You could see it in the faces of the fans at the front of the stage...the music is awful, but they really wanted to be part of that 'stuff' that was going on.

Similar 'stuff' that surrounded the hacienda/factory scene.

This new renaissance I'm talking about throws the gates wide open and brings back the dreamers to the industry.

Maverick dreamers and the same dreamers who have been gradually edged out by the bean counters, who have pretty much, taken over since the mid 90s.

Big budgets aren't needed anymore to have a hit. All you need is a good ear for a hit and a basic understanding about 'stuff'.

That 'stuff' sets your artist aside from all the other hoarded songs you have on your player. Those kids you mentioned that have thousands of songs on their player they don't know what their name is will be able to tell a Pete Doherty song from the first few bars. Not just 1 or 2 songs. But his entire collection.

That's the 'stuff' the factory's, mowtowns, beggars banquets, 2tones of the next decade will be based upon.

The same 'stuff' that converts a hoarded song into a purchased album, gig ticket, t-shirt....etc.

you maybe right..but, hasn't Gnarls gigged like mad and featured at almost every music festival this year? Yes but the album was already on sale and had sold well by this time, mainly on the strength of Crazy. OK, I'm sure the gigging has helped boost sales but in the Gnarls example (which granted is possibly a rare example today) I think it was mainly down to the single.

I would argue that they wouldn't have bought that music in the first place. That is a good example of hoarding music...as opposed to buying music.This takes us back to DJKZ's post and the value of music. Will anyone be buying music at all in the future? Some kids have grown up thinking that music is free and I can't see the current trends, Myspace, Youtube, Newspaper give aways, Artist freebies on their websites etc. changing this. If it's going to be heard it needs to be on the net and if it's on the net it's practically free.

Using the Pete Doherty documentary last night on bbc2 was a classic example of the 'stuff' I'm talking about...99% of the documentary had nothing to do about the music and all to do with the 'stuff'. You could see it in the faces of the fans at the front of the stage...the music is awful, but they really wanted to be part of that 'stuff' that was going on.Yes but Pete isn't a label (who is Babyshambles label, Rough Trade?). What I'm saying is, Babyshambles is about Pete, it's all about an act, not a label. Surely future developments with people self releasing, kids are going to get more removed from labels than they currently are?

I'd love to see a return of the label following but with the way things are going, it doesn't look to me like it's going to happen.

The great labels of the past depended totally on personalities - Berry Gordy was the gel that bound and founded Motown... There was me with UK and Mickie with Rak and Herb/Jerry at A&M and Andrew at Immediate and Ahmet/JerryW at Atlantic...

There's no reason why that spirit of what you call "stuff" can't return and hook the kids.

It simply depends who is behind it.

Not sure if it's a false memory but I think the late 70s punk explosin was the availability for musicians of cheap singles.

More or less anyone could afford a release. If lucky picked up by John Peel and a "hit" could be had.

Now music production is very affordable - bands don't do demos anymore they do tracks - getting it distributed is cheap and as it can be DIY no need to convince anyone else of it's merit to get it out there.

Then comes the problem, promotion. That's what the big companies still have. Sucessful word of mouth is time consuming and rare.

Getting it done and getting it out there has never been easier - telling people about it is the same as it ever was, expensive.

Which comes back to an earlier discussion - where's the Chart?

But charts mean hype, which means cash which brings us back to the big-boys and their bean-counters. Who will jump on any opportunity to push their "product", smother it and exclude the people actually making the music.

I think at best there will be a shake-up for the music industry but like before the big-boys will impose themselves on the source of materail in order to controll it an dprofit by it - psuedo indies backed by the corporations.

They want predicable returns which ultimately means the lowest common denominator. Keep it safe.

There will be / is a burst of creativity and interest but it won't last. It hasn't before why should it this time round.

Will anyone be buying music at all in the future? Some kids have grown up thinking that music is free and I can't see the current trends, Myspace, Youtube, Newspaper give aways, Artist freebies on their websites etc. changing this. If it's going to be heard it needs to be on the net and if it's on the net it's practically free.

The obvious answer is YES. People will be buying music in the future. But that's not what the new model labels are thinking about. They're thinking beyond that.

I probably didn't explain properly in my earlier post, but, there's a difference between hoarding and buying music.

The Kids of the cassette generation didn't hoard songs, they hoarded albums. They also bought (owned) their favourite albums. Bought the t-shirt. If possible, went to a gig.

The old mindset sees a hoarded song, a pirated album on cassette or a downloaded freebie as a lost sale.

The new mindset sees a hoarded song or downloaded freebie as a potential future fan.

An important thing to remember is that the revenue from music has never been better.

If what you say is true and kids today won't buy music...why is Nirvana the biggest earning artist?

Wouldn't your logic conclude the opposite should be true?

Is it because kids can't download it or is it perhaps because the kids want to own it?

Ignore the Ged Doherty's of the music world. He's talking about the demise of a model and mindset that he's part of.

Not the demise of the music industry.

And blaming anything other than their own ineptitude and lack of vision is futile.

What I'm saying is, Babyshambles is about Pete, it's all about an act, not a label. Surely future developments with people self releasing, kids are going to get more removed from labels than they currently are?

No. Because artists will see a new Factory in the same way as fans. Artists will want to be part of that 'stuff' just as much as the fans. The flick to singles deals instead of the obsession with album deals will be swift and a cool singles label that has a maverick, like JK outlined, that understands 'stuff' is on a winner.

Artists who are involved in 'stuff', generally don't lend themselves to timekeeping or 9-to-5 things. They're usually more into creating.

When Pete Doherty wakes up in the morning...do you honestly think he worries about getting to the office for 9 o clock to chase the artwork guys and get those press releases out or where the next party is?

I would tend to disagree that Babyshambles is all about Pete. It's more about the story that is being told.

Some people naturally attract/generate 'stuff'. Others have to sit down and work out a strategy and others again simply know when to tip off the press.

I agree with JK that it's about the personality behind the label that makes it all work. And I mean a new model label, not the sort of label model Ged Doherty is whimpering about.

A label that understands the value of 'stuff'. People don't just by music. They buy into the 'stuff'.

The big difference between the past and the future is: In the past only a minority bought records / CDs - and only a minority of the buyers were the heavy buyers who were responsible for the profits of the industry.

In the future (almost) everyone with an internet connection / mobile telefon / computer / whatever will be a "user" of music.
Just hearing music on a website, hoarding files on a computer or an mp3-player etc. And there will still be people who buy records / CDs / mp3s.

But the main income of the industry will NOT come from direct sales but from the infinitive ways to "use" music.

So the problem is to make money from the ways people will use music in the future.

About labels:
Fans of labels were/are a very rare species. Who knew in the 60s about Motown. I'm too young to remember, but from what I read the press, djs always complained about all the motown artists sounding the same ...

And (this I remember) this is certainly also true about RAK.

There will be an window of opportunity for new labels in the next few years, but ultimately the majors will survive (not as we know them today, but they could close down and just market their catalogues and would still earn enough money to buy up and coming labels / artist / mangers ...

Where the money is...

Britney Spears according to the Mail on Sunday

Music: