more on Musicians Looking To Let Internet Replace Record Cos

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:26:57 -0800
From: Thane Tierney <cauchemar () comcast net>
Subject: A note for the IP list
To: farber () dsl cis upenn edu

Dear Professor Farber,

Lauren Weinstein sent me an article snipped from the IP list, and after I 
sent my response to him, he suggested I send it on to you. It's my personal 
(not professional) response to the piece Barry Ritholtz sent in entitled 
Musicians Looking To Let Internet Replace Record Cos
<http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/01/musicians_looki.html>http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/01/musicians_looki.html.

I have chimed in once before, then as a recently displaced record industry 
veteran. I have since re-entered the industry. Apart from being a UC Irvine 
alum (I managed KUCI from 1977-78), I have also written for the 
Philadelphia Inquirer on record industry topics and have produced the 
Gordon Lightfoot Complete Greatest Hits package for Rhino, as well as a 
variety of other compilations for a variety of labels. Here's what I sent 
to Lauren; I'm not sure if it requires any more reference than what I put 
in earlier or not.

Cheers,
Thane

**********************************

I saw the bit about the suggested displacement of record companies in the 
post-mp3 world, and it's not surprising that people like Gabriel and Eno 
are leading the charge, since they embraced the digital domain early on. If 
they think the labels are going to give up their piece of an additional 
(and increasingly important) revenue stream, they're delusional. Let's turn 
back the clock: did any label offer their artists the opportunity to market 
their wares as compact discs, separate from the labels, when that industry 
was nascent, preferring to play only in the vinyl realm? Of course not. 
That's why they have a clause about "all current and future formats, 
discovered or undiscovered, throughout the known universe" or some such in 
every contract. Also, it's slightly disingenuous on the artists' part; 
their offer to the labels is "you do the heavy lifting, we'll cash the 
check." That having been said, it may well be that certain artists will get 
some limited dispensation from their labels to do what Gabriel and Eno want 
to do, or what the Who are currently doing, in supplying finished goods 
(whether physical or virtual) to alternative distribution channels for a 
fixed period of time or for a fixed number of assets. And the model may 
change to one where the artist signs a non-exclusive distribution agreement 
with a label for their "major" works, while retaining the right to exploit 
their "minor" works (concert tapes and such) on their own. Furthermore, 
some artists may bolt from the label structure entirely when their career 
has reached a point where they can hire out for any existing label 
functions (radio promotion, publicity, etc.) from their own pocket.

But the big nut here is how to get from zero to sixty, and the label 
structure is currently, and for the foreseeable future, the best avenue. 
Artists such as The Eagles and Jimmy Buffett and even perhaps Phish may 
have such a developed fan base that they can survive, and in some cases 
even thrive, outside the existing label structure. But what of Joe Pitslimp 
or Rhoda Krellmanski, who have yet to break through the clutter and 
establish a fan base? They need established marketing professionals in 
their corner, and military history has shown us that itinerant mercenaries 
(like indie press and promotion people) don't always make the best armies. 
Where the established artists (and, to a great degree, the public) have had 
a logical disconnect is in establishing and recognizing a value for the 
work of the people who put the stars where they are. Were it not for the 
behind-the-scenes talent of Warner Bros., Madonna would be a mid-level 
secretary in Jersey and the Red Hot Chili Peppers would be living in 
apartments in Silver Lake. Just because you can sing and play a guitar 
doesn't mean you can make a record, any more than having a videocam puts 
you in competition with Coppola.

One of the interesting things about the lowering of the threshold for 
making a record, financially speaking, is that, instead of the 30,000 or so 
releases that came out in 1995, we might well have triple or quadruple that 
number even now. In some ways, as a music fan, that's the tremendous and 
exciting part, as well as the slightly daunting part. I couldn't even find 
out about all the great records back then; how can I possibly expect to 
now? How many careers are going to be stuck in cyberspace, where no one can 
hear you scream?

On the other hand, this represents a real opportunity to have a 
middle-class life as a musician, which is virtually impossible in our 
current system. Regional artists can stick to a manageable base of 
operations and make a decent, if not extravagant, living while flying 
entirely below the radar. My pal Harvey Reid, who was the 1983 national 
fingerstyle guitar champion of the US, has put out more than a dozen 
records on his own label, going back to the days of vinyl. While he will 
never have a Cadillac, he also won't be subject to the financial abuse that 
the major label system would almost invariably inflict on an artist of his 
station. The economics as he laid them out are simple to explain, perhaps a 
little more difficult to attain, but definitely in reach: 100 dates a year 
with 100 people in attendance at 10 dollars a ticket means life is pretty 
okay. And that's doable in a tri-state (or perhaps quad-state) area. But 
that's a far cry from David Bowie or Peter Gabriel or Britney Spears or 
N*Sync. Those people can't ever make that equation work, because to produce 
the sort of music they make, they need a bigger engine.

As someone who has devoted a significant portion of my adult life as part 
of what Joni Mitchell called "the star-making machinery behind the popular 
song," I have to take a little umbrage at my work and that of my peers 
being characterized as "corrupt agents and business managers bleed[ing 
musicians] dry." I'll be the first to admit that some of my colleagues are 
dishonest, even corrupt. But musicians ain't no angels, bunkie. Nobody ever 
wrote the story of how, say, a band named after a painkiller decided not to 
go on tour
with Lollapalooza because it seemed like too much work and how the people 
at their label, who had worked 24/7 to make them famous, had to smile and 
eat the shit sandwich. Or how the widow or a famous (now-deceased) rock 
guitarist, as part of some vendetta, refused to grant the sync rights that 
would allow a video of her husband's work to be aired on VH-1. On some 
level, boo-hoo for the record industry. We're so misunderstood. On another, 
a pox on all our houses. We made our own beds, artists and managers and 
labels alike. I can't think of any rational reason that singers and 
guitarists should be granted dispensation from exercising financial 
prudence when teachers and scientists and bus drivers don't get the same 
consideration. Furthermore, when most of us do our day's work and get our 
pay packet, that's it. We don't get to continue to collect on that 
brilliant idea we had 20 years ago. So maybe we all need to get over 
ourselves a bit.

I have made a good living doing what I do. I get to wear sneakers to work 
and come in at 10:30 if I feel like it. I love what I do, and by most 
measures, I'm pretty damn good at it. And I'm grateful for all of it. But 
there is an opportunity cost for making that choice, and I like to think I 
made it with my eyes wide open, knowing I won't win a Nobel or get a 
seven-figure (or even a seven-week) buyout when I part ways with my 
company. I would hope that writers and singers and teachers and bus drivers 
do the same. And the people at the right end of the bell curve, well, good 
on them. I don't begrudge Norah Jones or Josh Groban or Whitney Houston or 
Christina Aguilera their success. But it miffs me when some of their ilk 
attempt to deceive the public into believing their success is merely a 
result of their innate genius. As my friend Dan Guthrie once said, "We see 
as far as we do because we are standing on the shoulders of so many."

Needless to say, this is just, as the notorious Los Angeles newsman George 
Putnam used to say, "this reporter's opinion." It should not be construed 
as a statement on behalf of or representing the views of any organization 
with which I have ever had contact, personally or professionally, in all 
current and future formats, discovered or undiscovered, throughout the 
known universe.

Thane Tierney
Inglewood, California
<mailto:dearg.doom () comcast net>dearg.doom () comcast net




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/