What is it exactly that we are selling anyways?

[Rog]

If it's any consolation guys, it's the same over here. The labels spend huge amounts of money on acts that chart once (or twice if thy're lucky) before disappearing into the bargain bin.

Why? I suppose because they think that singles are the way to go, a way of getting the punters to buy albums which is where the money is made.

I'm not sure that this is true anymore. Maybe it's me getting older but I can't remember the last time I bought a single or took any notice of the top 40. I don't know anybody else who cares about singles either yet this is where the money goes.

The record companies have created this 'here today, gone tomorrow' enviroment where artists don't get a chance. Labels drop acts faster than hot potatos if they don't bring home the bacon off their first or second release. This never used to be the case. There is no time to grow and groom talent which has helped to create this horrible disposable pop shit I keep hearing.

The labels wanted this, they've got it but I get the feeling that if people are presented with a way of bypassing the major labels, now more than ever before, they will. Legally or illegally. Hell, the technology is already here and the industry reaction to the whole Napster thing speaks volumes. They're scared.

[Bear's Gone Fission]

The singles point is interesting. Some might recall the Sub Pop Singles Club, which was recently revived. On a subscriber basis they press and send a 45 every month, I believe, with new music, some non-album versions or exclusives, often split between two bands. We need a case study on this, because this is a success story and it also seems to support album sales. Maybe it's the fact that you aren't promoting a hit per se, just a representative example of a good band?

Bear

[bigtree]

Well said there Rog. It makes me wonder about their survival.
I personally am working on concept albums. Bands like Pink Floyd, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Supertramp, Tull, etc. seem to be a style that is long over due. I grew up with these albums so I'm bias but I think I'm not alone here. I also really like Top 40 and believe I understand why it sells, I think it's because it doesn't make you think. For years I've heard "musician" complain about Pop but the public/clubs, bars, disco's, muzac eat it up. I think Pop is successful because no one wants to "think deep" when you want to talk or have fun with a group of people. One takes you on a journey, the other adds ambience or a care free kind of feel.

I started out saying "I WILL NEVER PLAY TOP 40". Glad I didn't stay with that mindset. Playing clubs for 20 years gave me a reality check that is hard to explain. In general I think most musicians forget about the audience but if they want to stay true to their art they have too. Maybe that's why so much music sound homogenized.
How to write or play for a particular application or venue is something we're doing to survive but it's also cheapening us all.

Maybe new markets are going to open up that alow idies to sell there work to specific markets. I'm just speculating but I think once the internet speeds up (interent 2) we're going to see a large demand for original music. This is why I wonder about the survival of the majors.

I think the music that is already out there is gone for good; napster etc.(no return :( ) but the new stuff (once figured out) will have digital watermarks that will hopefully begin a new era for all of us.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>What is it exactly that we are selling?<hr></blockquote> The psychology of music and what it can do. Maybe we're getting alot smarter and need to look at music from a different angle.

[Bob Olhsson]

Large corporations tend to do everything "right" so that middle-management's ass is solidly covered and then throw it all up against the wall to see what sticks. It isn't remotely profitable and eventually the companies go under. Today's "majors" are no more than consolidations of successful indi labels from the past 50 years. Almost all of the real innovation has come from Indis.

There are a couple big "gotchas" in the area of a singles-based record business.

The first is that compulsory mechanical licensing means that more successful, better financed artists can "cover" your song leaving you with all of the development expense but none of the income unless you own the music publishing.

It's also why I find the proposed changes to the copyright laws creating compulsory licensing of recordings chilling. If any major can "cover" your recording with an on-demand delivery system, THEY get several dollars while the artist gets a dime on the financially critical EARLY direct sales where an artist or small label ought to be earning the lions' share.

The second is that achieving a high profile for a single costs just as much as achieving one for an album yet the income is significantly less.

One client of mine is getting around this by selling autographed singles for $15 along side plain ones for $4.98. It's a very creative solution and they've sold a lot of them not to mention tee-shirts and videos. They intend to follow this up with a full length CD.