"Do Record Labels Matter?"

[bloop]

NPR has an interesting show on the impact record labels have on quality art here.  I thought it might make an interesting topic of discussion.

[murlough23]

I feel like they didn't delve too much into the issue of whether labels were relevant in 2009. It was more an excuse to get the nostalgia out of their system for labels and bands that they used to love. But that's probably the normal format of the show (here's an obscure song and I'm gonna say some stuff to set it up), so whatever.

I think big record labels probably still make sense for the biggest name artists out there - the U2s and Madonnas of the world and so forth. At that point you're pretty much a franchise and you need a lot of personnel to deal with the various moving parts. You could hire 'em all yourself since you're making a lot of money, but probably best to just have 'em built in, at least assuming you like the way they do business. (If not, change labels. The world is your oyster.)

For the up-and-coming acts or for those who are content doing more of a small-time local thing or performing for a niche market, the Internet has replaced a lot of the functionality that labels once served. How well those artists do with it depends on their business savvy. Some can run the whole package on their own; some just don't have the know-how to do it and need the help. Small labels can help with this, and are less prone to eating away big chunks of the artist's livelihood. (But the young and hopeful artist still needs to read the fine print before singing.) Big labels will too often go out and fine these up-and-coming acts, and even if they manage to put together a good record that doesn't scream "sellout" (which I think happens in more cases than people give credit for), the big labels still drop these acts like yesterday's garbage after a single album if they don't make the sudden jump from obscurity to household names (despite the fact that the label may have failed to advertise the album well).

In that regard, the days of a big label taking the time to really "develop" an artist seem to be over, so if you're some young upstart band with total world domination on your mind, it's probably best to get your crap together and learn how the business works and get a lot of experience under your belt and then go label shopping. But you may find in the process that you don't really need the label. (I'm just theorizing; obviously I've never actually done any of this stuff.)

I figure record labels are a tool - they should be used when they will facilitate a service that is agreeable to both the people doing the serving and the people being served. The service provided is distribution and advertisement of one's music; in return it makes sense that the people going to the trouble of putting the music out there for the world to hear should get a cut of the profits. It's when labels overstep and dig so deeply into ownership of the music and the artist that they inadvertently encourage people to find a way around the labels. At that point it strikes me as something like a switchboard telling me who I should be calling rather than routing my calls for me. And that's when record labels cease to matter.

[bloop]

I don't think the NPR folks are talking so much about business viability as much as "do they mean anything".  Is there a unified sound or philosophy associated with labels?  Might that help with new artist discovery in particular?  If not, is there still a place for that kind of branding marketing technique?

Of course, they use everything as an excuse to play music, but I think their questions are valid.

[murlough23]

I don't think the NPR folks are talking so much about business viability as much as "do they mean anything".  Is there a unified sound or philosophy associated with labels?  Might that help with new artist discovery in particular?  If not, is there still a place for that kind of branding marketing technique?

Occasionally I'll be intrigued to know that a label I like has signed some other promising artist, but it's really more about the relationship between artists. If you're not on the same label but you toured with some artist I like, I'll probably be more interested due to that.

Realistically, there are just so damn many small labels nowadays that I feel using one as a source to discover new music wouldn't get me too far before I had to find another one.

[Josh]

Slightly tangential to the NPR discussion, but worth noting, is that, every so often, you'll actually encounter a label that has a positive impact not just on an artist's sales and exposure, but also their art. My favorite label, ANTI-, is a good example. The president of that label is a very curious and creative guy who was actually responsible for getting Bettye LaVette and the Drive-by Truckers to come together for an album, a marvelous collaboration that may not have happened were it not for him having the idea. He also proposed that Ramblin' Jack Elliott record a bunch of country-blues songs with Joe Henry, and even came up with the song selection!

[Vlad!]

I think that in our current culture, the primary purpose that labels serve is to promote unknown artists. By finding talented groups and signing them up to what is essentially in theory an amalgamation of talented groups, they serve the important role of separating the mediocre from the great. If all artists had was the equivalent of self-publishing, it would be a lot more difficult for the consumer to separate the good from the bad.

Now, obviously that's theory, and in practice many record labels will choose "marketable" over "good". Also, record labels often create draconian contracts requiring artists to remain with the label after becoming famous. And heck, in the same way that athletes and actors are willing to give a ridiculous cut to their agents because they know they don't have the same degree of business sense, artists themselves often wouldn't know how to promote their own albums.

Much as I hate what labels have done to the industry, a world without record labels is a world where crap, mediocrity, and greatness are all given equal billing, and especially if you think that's the case already then you definitely don't want to see that world.

[murlough23]

Slightly tangential to the NPR discussion, but worth noting, is that, every so often, you'll actually encounter a label that has a positive impact not just on an artist's sales and exposure, but also their art. My favorite label, ANTI-, is a good example. The president of that label is a very curious and creative guy who was actually responsible for getting Bettye LaVette and the Drive-by Truckers to come together for an album, a marvelous collaboration that may not have happened were it not for him having the idea. He also proposed that Ramblin' Jack Elliott record a bunch of country-blues songs with Joe Henry, and even came up with the song selection!

This sort of thing seems feasible for a small label run by people who genuinely love music. In that sense, the label functions more as a sort of community hub, which is awesome. But it seems like that personal touch is lost once labels reach a certain size and stature. Of course, I don't know how long a small label can sustain that sort of idyllic atmosphere and still be commercially viable. But it seems like ANTI- has been around for a while, so I guess it could work, given the right ingredients.

[murlough23]

I think that in our current culture, the primary purpose that labels serve is to promote unknown artists. By finding talented groups and signing them up to what is essentially in theory an amalgamation of talented groups, they serve the important role of separating the mediocre from the great.

That sums it up pretty well. Obviously we're not all gonna agree on what's "great", but at least that will separate out the folks who can't play their instruments or sing on key. (Mostly. Except for the off-key singers that bloop likes.)

If all artists had was the equivalent of self-publishing, it would be a lot more difficult for the consumer to separate the good from the bad.

That may be one downside of the Internet and the ability to distribute music freely across the globe. (Though getting people to find it still takes effort.) I could record some crap song and put it up on MySpace. I'm imagining that it wouldn't propagate out to very many people if it was crap, of course, so there's something to be said for word of mouth. Still, the amount of music that we all have access to is daunting now, and ten or twenty years ago, most of that stuff would go unheard by most of the world if it wasn't on a label.

Now, obviously that's theory, and in practice many record labels will choose "marketable" over "good".

Agreed, though the general public is largely to blame for that. They wouldn't keep marketing crap if we didn't keep buying it. (Oh wait, maybe they would, but they'd just sue some more people for downloading music and blame their tanking sales on those people.)

Also, record labels often create draconian contracts requiring artists to remain with the label after becoming famous. And heck, in the same way that athletes and actors are willing to give a ridiculous cut to their agents because they know they don't have the same degree of business sense, artists themselves often wouldn't know how to promote their own albums.

Indeed. I used to be infuriated when a favorite artist got unceremoniously dropped from a label after their latest album went nowhere. Now I've come to see that as a sort of creative freedom for the artist, though some just hurriedly shop around for another label, or just throw in the towel and go into a long hiatus when that sort of thing happens. But nowadays I have favorite artists who are trying to get out of those draconian contracts, so I cheer for them when their labels finally let them go. (Sometimes it takes the "sacrifice" of an album to complete a contract - i.e. record something not all that great that doesn't sell so that the label will no longer be reluctant to turn you loose.)

But shoot, I have no business sense whatsoever. If I were a young guy who happened to have some musical talent, I'd just want someone to take care of all of that PR and booking and distribution and so forth. So I can see why so many young acts get sucked into the allure of major label contracts and then either can't get out or can't get back on their feet again when it doesn't work out. How do you separate out the labels who are genuinely interested in seeing you grow as an artist from the ones who just want to pimp you for cash? (And even the good ones are going to expect to make money off of you - there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe short-term contracts are a better answer in this climate - hey, let's do one album together, and if it sells, great, we'll talk about another one, and if it doesn't sell, that's cool, you go off and do your thing and we'll go off and do ours and it was nice working with you.)

It might be a tangent, but this sort of thing is why I hate American Idol so much. Winning (or placing high) on that show is tantamount to selling yourself into slavery, it seems. It's like, let's take a good voice, introduce it to millions of people before the person has had any opportunity to develop creatively, then sell them off to the highest bidder to crank out faceless pop music (or whatever genre). There's no training these people about how the business works, or about how to create stuff they can feel some sort of ownership over. It's just a fast track for pretty faces with nice voices. I feel sorry for most of those people.

Much as I hate what labels have done to the industry, a world without record labels is a world where crap, mediocrity, and greatness are all given equal billing, and especially if you think that's the case already then you definitely don't want to see that world.

I think we're going to see a world where some smaller record labels that actually have a reputation of helping the artists and helping the fans to find good music will survive. But for the business at large, I see some of those larger conglomerates breaking down over time and some other system taking their place that brings new music to people's attention... probably through social networking. I don't know if that will make the music better, but I think it'll level the playing field for a more diverse group of artists.

[Vlad!]

It might be a tangent, but this sort of thing is why I hate American Idol so much. Winning (or placing high) on that show is tantamount to selling yourself into slavery, it seems. It's like, let's take a good voice, introduce it to millions of people before the person has had any opportunity to develop creatively, then sell them off to the highest bidder to crank out faceless pop music (or whatever genre). There's no training these people about how the business works, or about how to create stuff they can feel some sort of ownership over. It's just a fast track for pretty faces with nice voices. I feel sorry for most of those people.

Yeah. A few years ago, there was a girl in the UK who decided that she would post herself singing something on her blog every day. She achieved a following, became a minor Internet celebrity, and then got picked up by BMG (or some other label; I may be misremembering some of the details). This left me (and I think a lot of other people) scratching their heads. Girl, you already did it. You achieved the mythical word-of-mouth critical mass. But even so, I have to admit that she will almost certainly sell more albums through a label than if she just went the digital distribution route. Much as we would like to believe that digital distribution will free music from the cold, hard clutch of the record labels, if you don't have a physical artifact sitting in a music store, you're not going to sell as much.[1]

However! The question isn't number of sales, it's economic viability. In the US, record labels exact a frankly usurious percentage from the artists. Why do you think Metallica takes about five years per album? Because no matter how well Death Magnetic sells, it's not going to make them nearly as much money as any of their tours, because Warner Bros. is going to take a huge chunk of it. I'd guess that an artist who distributes online without a label only needs to see 10% of the sales of a popular artist who sells through a label to get the same revenue stream. This is undoubtedly why the labels are afraid of digital distribution.

Yes, I do think that record labels matter. To paraphrase Voltaire, if record labels did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them. Artists just aren't capable of selling their own work, and the public isn't capable of separating the good from the bad. As to how long they will be able to matter in their 20th-century incarnation given our 21st-century world, though...that I don't know.

[1] I totally tried to find a reference for this but couldn't, so I guess it comes with the caveat that I may be making it all up.

[murlough23]

Yeah. A few years ago, there was a girl in the UK who decided that she would post herself singing something on her blog every day. She achieved a following, became a minor Internet celebrity, and then got picked up by BMG (or some other label; I may be misremembering some of the details). This left me (and I think a lot of other people) scratching their heads. Girl, you already did it. You achieved the mythical word-of-mouth critical mass.

Was she any good? There's a difference between showing off your voice on the Internet and releasing an album full of actually interesting music. If you can't write songs, it's either going to be all covers (which is what I'd imagine she posted to her blog), or generic stuff written by hired-gun songwriters. The latter is actually one of my pet peeves with the big labels - they'll sign someone just for the voice and the looks and then get the Diane Warren types to write songs for them - those songs may be packed with pop savvy, but they generally have nothing much to say, or even if they do, it's generally not the voice of the artist.

But even so, I have to admit that she will almost certainly sell more albums through a label than if she just went the digital distribution route. Much as we would like to believe that digital distribution will free music from the cold, hard clutch of the record labels, if you don't have a physical artifact sitting in a music store, you're not going to sell as much.

I think that's a fair assumption - we could probably find counterexamples, but as a general rule, I figure this would have to be true. On the Internet, you generally have to lure folks to you. In a store, you show up right in front of them on their way to something else, and it takes much less effort to go "Oh yeah, I've heard that one song, I should buy this CD!" or "Hmmm, cute album cover, I'll check it out" and make the impulse buy. Making the impulse buy online, even if you stumbled across an advertisement while surfing and clicked through to purchase it, requires more effort since you have to type in your credit card number and so forth. (Maybe iTunes makes that process more transparent, but still, there are more steps to go through online, which I think curbs the "impulse buying" to some degree.)

I'd guess that an artist who distributes online without a label only needs to see 10% of the sales of a popular artist who sells through a label to get the same revenue stream. This is undoubtedly why the labels are afraid of digital distribution.

Maybe. You have to factor in that the artist still has to either put in their own time and effort to do all of the distribution, maybe even down to going to the post office and mailing out orders themselves, or they have to hire somebody to do it. Still probably cheaper that the label approach, but all of that stuff that the label would have done for the artist ain't happening for free. So we probably need to look at what the artist nets rather than what they gross.

Yes, I do think that record labels matter. To paraphrase Voltaire, if record labels did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them. Artists just aren't capable of selling their own work, and the public isn't capable of separating the good from the bad.

I'm not entirely convinced that the record labels can separate the good from the bad... they'll knowingly sell the bad if they think we'll buy it (see William Hung). But for the most part, they do separate out the amateurs from those who are ready for prime time (they might be bad artists, but they at least show basic competence in terms of playing their instruments, not freaking out when they see the size of the audience they have to sing in front of, etc.)

As to how long they will be able to matter in their 20th-century incarnation given our 21st-century world, though...that I don't know.

I'm sure they'll adapt. For the most part I think the big labels will just break into a number of subsidiaries that are more or less autonomous. Some big conglomerate might still know them, but I think they'll realize that in this era of the entire world being connected at the touch of a button, smaller grassroots communities contribute more to an artist's longevity (and thus guaranteed ongoing sales) than flash-in-the-pan trendiness that gets dropped in favor of the next big things a few months down the road. That's my ideal, anyway. People with good business savvy will watch how people use technology and they'll harness that - and as noted (with some disdain) in the NPR podcast, most young people's favorite "labels" are probably MySpace or Facebook. That's how they discover their music - their friends are listening to so-and-so. The businesses who can't catch on and use social networking sites and find a way to become a legitimate part of these communities, or at least make sure their artists do so, will slowly die out.

Any independent artists who have a decent following have probably figured out how to master the social networking beast - which requires a certain amount of resilience and people skills on the part of the artist, because anyone can pop in with a comment and blast the hell out of you, no holds barred, at any time. It's not like before where they had the media and their live shows and label-organized met-and-greet type stuff as their main conduit to interact with fans. Now they have to get out there and be part of the dialogue and build up a loyal fanbase through that sort of interaction, I think.

I totally tried to find a reference for this but couldn't, so I guess it comes with the caveat that I may be making it all up.

As do pretty much all of my conjectures in this conversation.

NP: "Baby Blue", Dave Matthews Band

[Vlad!]

What's interesting is that the record labels really hate the iTunes store for several reasons, but one of the biggest ones is the 'featured artists' section. The fact that Apple could be given the power to promote or refuse to promote artists scares the mess out of them. Look at the concessions they've tried to demand out of Apple:
* We want control over the featured artists
* We want control over which songs go for the low price and which songs go for the high price
* We want to be able to pull songs from your library at any time
The records clearly like having the power to make or break an artist's album. Are you not being a good cog in our machine? Bad artist, your new album will be going for the high price. Do we have a competent musician-songwriter whose complex rhythms and profound lyrics are getting in the way of the latest sexy Disney-pop starlet's rise to fame? Put the pop singer on "featured artists" and relegate the talented dude to obscurity.

I think that even the tactics they use for advertising (see the guilty pleasure thread) show that they know they need to adapt to the 21st century but they have no idea how to do so.

[murlough23]

Interesting. Where are you getting this info about the relationship between the labels and iTunes?

In an ideal world, I would hope that iTunes would feature what the staff felt was worth featuring, but I won't kid myself. That's valuable ad space which is bought and sold like it is anywhere else. Still, as a user, my expectation is that if a store features something, somebody who works for that store thought it was cool and worth featuring, rather than it just being the latest product that some company wanted to push.

I think that even the tactics they use for advertising (see the guilty pleasure thread) show that they know they need to adapt to the 21st century but they have no idea how to do so.

Yeah. They're still going with the old tactic of "Hey look, shiny thing over here!" that may have worked in the brick-and-mordor stores in the 20th century, but Internet-savvy users are probably wise to that sort of thing. That's the thing the labels need to realize. We're wise to advertising gimmicks. Your average Joe consumer at the mall might not be, or might figure, "Hey, I'm out shopping, of course I'm gonna be bombarded with ads", but those of us who know how to go online and buy the stuff we want are generally smart enough to know when we're being told something is cool by somebody who just wanted us to know that they like it vs. by somebody who's being paid to sell it.

Especially for those of us who are deep into music, we tend to root for the underdog because we're so used to the stuff we like being pushed down into obscurity by exactly the kind of mechanics you mentioned. Personally, I don't have an automatic knee-jerk reaction against everything driven by a major label. I think most folks who really appreciate music are probably open-minded enough to give something a chance regardless of the label selling it (or lack thereof). But when we get the idea that some big spender is wielding their power to push down those most deserving of attention in favor of whatever they're pimping - in other words, that the hoopla exceeds the likely worth of the actual product - then we're likely to ignore the pricey advertising and dig beyond it to find what we're really looking for. It just makes it more work for us, but we'll still do it. The casual listener will not, but I don't expect those folks to be using stuff like iTunes all that heavily anyway. (Unless I'm wrong and there are a lot of clueless teenybopper noobs and grannies using iTunes. But I kind of figured their userbase would generally be the type of people who knew their way around the web.)

I tend to accept advertising more readily when it's upfront about the fact that it's an ad. I know you're selling something, so don't try to fool me into thinking you're my buddy trying to turn me on to something awesome. Just show me what you've got that you think is worth buying and I'll click on it if it looks worthwhile. Give me a very quick rundown of the merits of your actual product instead of bombarding me with unrelated imagery of people who are dressed cool and who look like they're either euphorically happy or too cool to actually shown any signs of feeling anything. Things happen on the Internet at the speed of light, so I will take mere seconds to identify you as friend or foe. You're more likely to come out as "friend" or at least neutral if I can tell you're being straight with me about wanting me to buy something.

[Vlad!]

Interesting. Where are you getting this info about the relationship between the labels and iTunes?

Pft, the same place I get most of the information I have. I read it somewhere on a news site I have in my RSS aggregator and it stuck in my brain for whatever reason and of course I didn't save the URL.

...Everything else you wrote...

Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure they understand that seeding a hundred forums that have Google hits for popular music groups is less effective than developing deep rapport on five forums carefully chosen for their large user base and influence in the community. I'm also not sure they understand that just because some no-name schmoe with five posts to her name talks up some band nobody's heard over doesn't mean that everyone's going to rush to check out that band.

[Vlad!]

Here is an interesting and possibly relevant article. Note that opinion is mixed as to why the industry wants tiered pricing; my assertion was that it wanted control over the artists, while consensus on the web seems to suggest that they just want to jack the price of popular songs to affect the bottom line.

Note that Apple is far from the good guy in this whole thing, but they're at least not as bad as the record labels.