Those of you who know me know that I am not a big fan of the way the "old system" worked. Memo deals, exclusive contracts, album options, and huge bills, recoupable, of course, out of the artists' pockets.
These days, it's easier and cheaper for artists to record their own music, and charge for it what they want. Bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have given entire albums away, or asked that people pay what they think they're worth.
The big advantages of the record companies - the distribution network and airplay - have both been supplanted by internet technologies. Distribution is as easy as offering downloads from your site, or sending your music off to places like TuneCore and CDBaby, and anybody can stream music off their own site or places like MySpace.
I've often felt for a while too, that the album is dead. Who killed it? Napster may have started the ball rolling. Certainly, iTunes and Amazon and Rhapsody share part of the credit/blame, but the record companies helped by charging $18.99 for a CD. Weren't they supposed to be cheaper to make than LP's and cassettes?
The music buying public has returned to a "singles" market, which is the way it was until the mid sixties, when bands like the Beatles and the Stones came along and brought with them the concept of an album.
When was the last time you bought an album and liked all of it. At best, I might dig 40% of what's on a 10-12 song album. Sometimes, I like one song - one. That's a lot of money for one tune.
Anyway, here's some interesting analysis from Rolling Stone a couple of years ago that I think covers it pretty well.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15137581/the_record_industrys_decline
So, what do you think? Are albums and record companies dead, or just waiting for the next Beatles? And what really did kill the record industry? Napster? iTunes? The industry itself?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment