In defense of the record industry. I know
a lot of people like to bash the record companies as greedy bastards, while
some of this is justified most of it isnt. People look at the cost of
a CD and think they are too high because it is significantly higher than
the cost of manufacturing of the CDs. That is very true, but a lot more
money goes into bringing a CD out than just manufacturing, the biggest
cost aside from the actual recording of the music is promotion. It cost
a lot of money to promote CDs - videos and radio airplay dont come cheap.
You may be surprised to know that 90% of CDs lose money for the record
companies, it is the really successful 10% of CDs that generate the profits
for record companies and offset the loses for the other 90%. So the success
of Eminem allows Universal records to put out CDs by lesser-known rock
artists. So he does serve a good purpose after all. Plus lets not forget
that record companies are businesses, they are in this to make money like
any business. Sure a lot of artists get screwed by one sided contracts,
but in reality the terms offered today are a lot better for the artists
than they have been in the past, so things are improving.
There does remain a lot of flaws in the
way that the record industry conducts business and they have to this point
been reluctant to utilize the full potential of the internet, a medium
that could revolutionize the industry and ultimately bring in more money
for the Record companies, but to this point they have been fighting the
changing landscape and confusing the issue by misrepresenting the facts
doesn't help their case. If anything Napster helps the record companies
because it exposes music to fans that isnt getting played on radio and
MTV, so they save on the cost of promotion. The biggest fear for record
companies seems to be that the internet will make it so artists will no
longer need them. In that scenario the artists would take their music directly
to the fans. That is conceivable, but the artists would still need to be
marketed so that fans will know about the music in the first place and
at this point this only benefits the well known artists who already have
name recognition and large fan base. Smaller bands will still need the
big corporation and it's resources for exposure, so if the 10% of artists
that do generate revenue for the record companies do decide to go out on
their own, it will in fact hurt the smaller artists because the record
companies will not have the money from the best selling 10% to promote
the lesser known artists. That is a scary proposition because in most cases
it does take the power and influence of a major label to bring a band to
a mass audience. Nirvana is a great example of this, it wasn't until they
had a label like Geffen behind them that they were able to break through
to a mass audience. If new bands don't have the opportunity of success
that a major label offers them, they may decide it isn't worth it and we
all will loose out in the end. The bottom line is the record companies
need to wake up to the reality of the online world and embrace it, they
may kill Napster but they wont be able to stop music from being traded
online. And if they don't take the steps now to become part of the online
revolution it may indeed be their downfall.
Fan Speak Here is your chance
to agree or disagree, call me names or praise me for my insight. Everyone
has an opinion. You just read mine, now lets hear yours!
Fan
Speak:
Posted by huh?:
Brilliant materiala. The best I've heard on Napster and the way record companies work. However, independant musician Aimee Mann is starting up a revolution called Artists United or United Artists which should help musicians succeed outside the record industry. Help support this for it may save the music scene. Also one should know that the reason record sales went down was because of the lionization of mindless dribble from teen pop and now many hip-hop artists as well. These artists get promoted tremendously while truly skilled and talented musicians get marginalized squat.
Posted by Gideon: It is obvious the music industry is looking
directly into the face of a revolution. But this time the power is on the
side of the fans. If the record companies don't hurry and get on the bandwagon,
they are going to lose their control of the industry to the free net. Napster
serves a tremendous purpose in offering long lost songs that I can't get
anywhere. In fact, it would be too expensive for the labels to re-release
old forgotten songs for just a handful of fans that are trying to find
them. It is a much better idea to add their back catalogs to the net for
download. I don't mind a small monthly membership fee (say $5.00)to Napster,
as well as a small royalty fee for everysong I download. (Royalties are
only a few cents per song, aren't they?) But I would be less inclined to
follow that path if Napster is told it can only offer certain songs/artists
and not others. Also, I propose the fans are allowed to listen to 51% of
any song to decide if it is worth downloading. The industry is trying to
pretend there is no revolution in the way fans get their music. Until they
figure out how to be fair and keep up with new technology and trends, Napster
will be the leader of this revolution. After all, isn't revolution what
rock 'n' roll is all about in the first place?
Posted by aG: What no comments from Butch? I'm disappointed
=(
Posted by name withheld: the way i see it the record companies
dug themselves into this hole it is not napster's fault. napster was started
by a music fan for music fans who love music first not money and most of
today's record companies are run by lawyers and accountants who love contract
law and money deals more than music. personally i think the solution is
for each record company to create its own napster model and turn their
whole back catalogue into mp3s so anyone can listen to 1 track off each
album. then they could track IPs from downloads and make sure nobody robs
them for money. it would work just like radio in that they could have the
'hit' out there and whoever likes the artist could go buy the album. plus
they can market back catalogue like jazz, blues, even classical this way
and not lose money cos it's cheaper than manufacturing and media marketing
and promotion. but the record company heads have their faces stuck so far
in their ass they would never go for a plan like that cos there's no price
tag on it! record company execs are truly some greedy fcukers.
Posted by Mikey: The record companies are full of it. They
don't promote the "lesser" artists NOW! How could anything sell; when no
one has ever had a chance to hear it? You won't hear much serious Jazz,
or Blues, or the types of Rock many of us are interested in, on the radio.
I HAVE TO SCOUR THE NET CONSTANTLY JUST TO TRY TO FIND WHAT'S BEING RELEASED
IN MY PREFERRED MUSICAL GENRES! I download pieces from Napster and still
spend all the cash I can possibly afford on music.
Posted by Lunargoose: I like aG's reference to Nirvana's Geffen
contract, as Geffen doesn't really exist anymore. It got bought up by bigger
and bigger companies, and now is all owned by Vivendi, which I believe
is a European trash disposal corporation. Seriously. I think that's the
cause of that one-hit-wonder promotion style right there: All the major
labels have mostly been rolled into giant multinationals just recently
(Vivendi/Unigram, AOL/Time Warner, etc.) and they want a return on their
investment.
Posted by ScottVile: The bands that are feeling the most pressure
are the "one hit wonders." And the way record companies promote, they basically
try to turn every band into 1 hit wonders so they can jump on the next
big thing.
Posted by Slip Pipe: A subscription service will never work.
Not as long as you have many other file sharing sites, that are free. Napster
file sharing is already way down due to people either getting banned (like
me) or going to another site, that still has all copyrighted songs avalable.
I don't know how much money having a commercial block on Napster, could
generate. But it could at least keep the membership fees down. As for me.
I only buy cd's that have more than just a few good songs on it. Otherwise,
I'll just download the good ones. This whole thing is stupid. The only
ones that are getting screwed is us. I'm sick Of the record companies deciding
what I should listen to. Having to hear the same song from a cd. over and
over again. Until I can't stand hearing it anymore!
Posted by the max: That is a good point GREENMUSE. Of course,
LOL...you have to remember, had they made an ethical issue out of it, they
would have been burned at the mention of their acts in illegaly jacking
CD prices up. It's impossible to feel sorry for millionares, no matter
how bad they want everyone to think they're being screwed. The only sympathy
they can get is from Congress and other rich types. Cause it sure as hell
isn't coming from anywhere else.
Posted by GREENMUSE: what a wonderful read on the tool of misinformation.the
riaa wants the courts to feel sorry for them,obviosly no one else really
does.and it will work.like antiguy i can see both sides of the issue,if
a band i like came out and voiced their displeasure over their music being
traded,id respect them in that right and not download their material.i
think napster is a sign to record companies to open their vaults of unrealeased,and
out of print records.there is a large market for this stuff.i think if
the music industry people presented their case as a ethical issue,and not
a money issue,the masses might feel compassion for them
Posted by Dr Fever: damn aG, why you gotta bash on radio!?!?
hahaha..just kidding. Anyway..well put together rant. Good Job.
Posted by scottVile: I think if CD compilation series like
"Now That's What I Call Music" can still go multiplatinum, Napster is not
having a negative impact whatsoever. After all, it seems as if CD burners
and Napster would wipe those things right out of existence, but they're
still as popular as ever!
Posted by Lars: NAPSTER SUCKS
Posted by neil: I don't know Antiguy I see what you are
saying but don't you think the bigger problem is the record companies all
signing pop bands and they are outgrowing their popularity so now the sales
are going down?
