cpr
Well-known member
Taken this from another forum, where i've started pretty much the same thread, so excuse the obvious opening paragraph, but thought i'd canvas some peoples views on here about the arguments i've raised (yeah i could write the piece better, but meh, brain mashed, will do for now, will add more cohesive bits later)
AS you've probably seen, Radiohead have put their new album on the net for download ahead of the CD release in December. Rather than a set price, you can 'donate' anywhere between £0 and £100 to download the album.
So, do you think this'll catch on?
Given that on average, a band makes about £1 per album sold (rest going on overheads, label's cut etc..... the real money for bands was in touring and merchandise, but most labels now demand a big slice of that pie n all), will more and more established acts cut out the label middle man and go direct to the fans? Even if 50% of people download the album for less than £1, they'll still be making a profit. Also more people will be willing to try out a band if its so cheap, and more fans means more ticket sales and merchandise.
It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next year or so. Nine Inch Nails have just split from their record label and are a pretty good bet to do the same as Radiohead for the next album. Its been said both Oasis and Jamiroquai (yes, he's still around) are planning the same n all.
To me though, it raises the question of how bad are the smaller artists, and the next lot of breakthrough bands, gonna get it. If labels arnt getting the revenue from the stars, then there sure as hell not gonna let up on the boys at the bottom. Its not like they get much at the moment anyway. (2nd cousin of mines band got a £500,000 recording contract. Straight away most of that went back to the manager, then they had to pay studio time and stuff.... left with £5,000 each at the end of the day to live off untill they could start earning royalties, so its not exactly easy at the bottom to begin with).
Now theres always going to be a demand for new music, and will forever be artists who'd literally give all to make it, but the question is, how much will they suffer from the big bands like Radiohead leaving the labels? These new artists cant follow the leaders so to speak, they lack the knowledge or experience, or indeed the contacts, to successfully market and promote their band. They need the labels, and the labels know that. Basically the labels will have em by the bollocks, and now their big earners have gone, they will squeeze as hard as they can.
I'm sure neither Thom Yorke or Trent Reznor are broke, and i bet they've made a pretty profit from working with the labels. Have they thought about the knock on effect of their decisions? At first glance i thought that this was a great idea, more reasonable priced music, more freedom for the artists, but thinking further down the line, i'm actually concerned that this is going to be bad for music, as it'll stifle new talent coming through (labels will have to become even more profit focused, only bands who are commercially viable, rather than artistically skilled will be signed)
AS you've probably seen, Radiohead have put their new album on the net for download ahead of the CD release in December. Rather than a set price, you can 'donate' anywhere between £0 and £100 to download the album.
So, do you think this'll catch on?
Given that on average, a band makes about £1 per album sold (rest going on overheads, label's cut etc..... the real money for bands was in touring and merchandise, but most labels now demand a big slice of that pie n all), will more and more established acts cut out the label middle man and go direct to the fans? Even if 50% of people download the album for less than £1, they'll still be making a profit. Also more people will be willing to try out a band if its so cheap, and more fans means more ticket sales and merchandise.
It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next year or so. Nine Inch Nails have just split from their record label and are a pretty good bet to do the same as Radiohead for the next album. Its been said both Oasis and Jamiroquai (yes, he's still around) are planning the same n all.
To me though, it raises the question of how bad are the smaller artists, and the next lot of breakthrough bands, gonna get it. If labels arnt getting the revenue from the stars, then there sure as hell not gonna let up on the boys at the bottom. Its not like they get much at the moment anyway. (2nd cousin of mines band got a £500,000 recording contract. Straight away most of that went back to the manager, then they had to pay studio time and stuff.... left with £5,000 each at the end of the day to live off untill they could start earning royalties, so its not exactly easy at the bottom to begin with).
Now theres always going to be a demand for new music, and will forever be artists who'd literally give all to make it, but the question is, how much will they suffer from the big bands like Radiohead leaving the labels? These new artists cant follow the leaders so to speak, they lack the knowledge or experience, or indeed the contacts, to successfully market and promote their band. They need the labels, and the labels know that. Basically the labels will have em by the bollocks, and now their big earners have gone, they will squeeze as hard as they can.
I'm sure neither Thom Yorke or Trent Reznor are broke, and i bet they've made a pretty profit from working with the labels. Have they thought about the knock on effect of their decisions? At first glance i thought that this was a great idea, more reasonable priced music, more freedom for the artists, but thinking further down the line, i'm actually concerned that this is going to be bad for music, as it'll stifle new talent coming through (labels will have to become even more profit focused, only bands who are commercially viable, rather than artistically skilled will be signed)
