I better understand you now, OCI, because I had misunderstood where you were coming from originally. I didn't realize you meant the "free" downloads like that.

My perspective in general is this. Artists definitely deserve money for what they do. It's not a "public service" or something goofy like that. It's entertainment, but entertainment costs money to provide. There's such a thing as decadence (I always loved the title of Coroner's album Punishment For Decadence) and it can be taken too far, but they deserve to be compensated, and it's the only way they can continue to provide music to the public.

I have no compassion for the labels. This is a blanket statement, I know, and there are exceptions to the norm--with more worthy labels showing up all the time. But the big labels are the ones that get to me, for the reasons I stated in my previous posts. They're the ones that pump tons of money into the clones who produce endless top 40 hits with no substance, fueling artists who lead the public off cliffs like lemmings because they're too self satisfied to look around and realize there are better, deeper, alternatives.

I also think the public in general are a bunch of mindless drones. This is best demonstrated by the radio and the types of songs played on it. Play an entire CD and note the best songs on it, and often the song that gets the most airplay is not even in the list of best tracks. But it's got the most "fan appeal" of them all. Fan appeal could be anything from "sex sells" to the latest instrumentation to the coolest current performers being guest vocalists, etc. So the label promotes it first, sells it best, cranks out the promo single and the CD-single that costs more than it should, etc. This is the same mentality that gets new TV shows axed after a few episodes and replaced by reruns of inaccurate procedurals like CSI and [un]reality shows like Survivor--and their countless spinoffs. [Let the flames begin for that paragraph. ]

I'm also coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't like live shows, so in that regard I can only slightly empathize with the artists. I've always come out of live shows with less regard for the performer than when I went in (not because of musical talent, but because of on-stage antics). I get much, much more out of listening to a CD than watching a live show. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing the artist's point of view about how the deal described in the OP cuts heavily into an artist's livelihood.

Agreed for the most part.


About being paid... I think they deserve it too. But from where I am personally, which is a slight influence in this, I would take big exposure over big $ any day.
So this is where I want to solidify that I'm not chasing money and want downloading to stop so I could make money if I made a record. I *do* know that that *exposure* and a lot of things that go with it cost $, a lot of which I don't have. Many seem to believe that just by having a page on MySpace you'll become famous, but being accessible does not make you accessed. If it did, why aren't __ and _____ and ____ and ____ who has been around for 20 years, stinking rich and famous because of the WWW. The WWW is possibly the last great tool we will have for marketing but the buck certainly doesn't stop there. Which brings me to the touring thing. This would be the only place I disagree, but that's merely because I want to go out and I want to tour. As far as I understand you're not in the same band position, so that's easily understandable to me. So it's not so much that I don't agree but more that I'm in a different position and I personally want to do something different because of my position. And I know you need some help to tour, so I don't want to cut off all outlets that are available.

There's a quote in a book I read recently about the history of punk, something to the effect of "If it wasn't for the press, punk would have involved a couple hundred people and then died out."

I think the spirit of that is applicable to this conversation. If it wasn't for the corporate record labels and the press, no bands would have more than a few hundred fans. You don't have pop music without a pop machine to create the phenomenon (and I include all successful metal bands as pop[ular] music). The phenomenon takes a lot of money.

So, getting back to the quote at the top, I think if the record labels go then bands are gradually going to be introduced to a world of hundreds or thousands of fans per band. The days of hundreds of thousands or millions of fans will disappear once the bands of the 60s-90s (who have already secured large fanbases) die off. The days of perfect sound recordings will disappear except for those who find access to a smart sound engineer. The press will help create some interest, but as less and less money is involved so will less and less type until it's all just zines and blogs.

In a world which is increasingly becoming totalitarian and corporate, I find it refreshing that music is headed in the opposite direction. Like the bards of old, musicians will need to become & remain working class again instead of hoping for fame and easy street. Like most artists in other fields. Doing it for the love. If you're good, you find a few patrons who will love and support you for it.

The last part is good and something I think a lot of bands do have even already. But what's wrong with having more fans, better sound, etc?

I don't see a lot of books on the market that I can go to the store and buy which have crappy binding, etc, no matter how many numbers the author pushes with each book. Why should we get the shaft?

BTW, most bands will tell you they are still working class and do still have a day job of some kind. Grave Digger plays Wacken one day and then when they get back their drummer works at his auto shop job. So what's wrong with that? What exactly is 'fame' and 'success' to most people? Why are we ignoring and totally cutting out the middle ground, which is the best a metal band can really expect for in the first place? Other bands have it, that's what I want to shoot for. Why should we be getting the shaft, and how would we stop being 'working class' if we get a fair chance and work hard at writing and playing out?

Honestly, I fail to see how this is the record industry "fighting back". It is still tipped way more in the record companies' favor, but it is a more equitable solution in many ways.

Under the old model, the record company lends the band money to make a record. The band is on the hook for that amount before they make a dime. Then, if the band is lucky, the label promotes them heavily and pays for tour support - all of which are recoupable expenses. It's all money owed back to the label, which menas the band or artist has even less chance of ever seeing a dime. Also, more often than not, if you're a new artist the label takes most, if not all, of your publishing. The only thing the band makes is whatever they can wrangle from performance fees and sometimes merchandise. Of course, you have to pay for expenses and crew out of that as well, so it's easy to stay broke or go more broke real quick.

With a 360 deal, all revenue streams are shared. This provides incentive for all parties to put as much work as possible into making the band a success. It means better advances for the artist, with potentially fewer recoupable expenses, and it allows the label to take the time to let an act develop and grow into their "big break". It creates incentive for both the label and the artist to try to branch out into as many income generating venues as they can think of. It generates money for everyone, and it allows a band or artist more of a chance to have a viable career. Paramore is a great example of a 360 deal that works.

Paramore released their first record about 3 years ago. They are signed to a joint deal with Fueled By Ramen and Atlantic. They have a 360 deal that is split between the band and the two labels. Rather than push to make them the "next big thing" Atlantic allowed FBR (a smaller, indie label) to roll them out slowly and let them create a fanbase and live show that is organic and truly representative of who the band is. They still released singles and such off their album, but they allowed them to develop at their own pace. The band toured incessantly and started creating a grassroots buzz. By the time their second album, Riot!, was released, the groundwork had been laid for them to really break out.

The first single off the album, "Misery Business", was a huge success at radio and on Fuse, and it crossed over to MTV as well. They were arguably the band with the most buzz on last year's Warped Tour, and they were able to keep the momentum going for a near-sold out headlining tour, and a co-headlining run with Jimmy Eat World. Their follow-up to Riot! is very much anticipated by their ever-growing fanbase, and the are one the increasingly few success stories in the industry in recent years.

Almost none of this would have been possible under the old model. They have not sold tons of records. If I'm not mistaken, they've only sold 300,000 - 400,000 copies of Riot! - hardly a best-seller, but because they have been able to develop and grow, their base and their sales have grown. They've demonstrated that they can draw and that they can sell merch as well as records. Which is why a 360 deal works. Instead of having the pressure to sell millions of copies right out of the box, and instead of the added pressure of a ton of recoupable money hanging over their heads, they've been able to grow at a pace that works and still make money for all involved. I don't think it's a perfect system, but it's a more fair system than the old model. It's definitely not the potentially world ending scenario envisioned by OCI or the sucker's deal that FOJ thinks it is.

With all that said, I think for up and coming artists it's a better idea to stay indie for as long as possible. Forever if it's working. It's harder in the beginning, but as the band develops and grows and money starts coming in, it can all be poured back into the band instead of being divided up into miniscule segments. There is a lot less pressure and it allows for much more autonomy. It's still hard, and there are still no guarantees, but there is a greater chance at success - even if it is on a small scale. You might not get the exposure or payday that some bigger bands get, but you'll have a better chance of controlling your own destiny and creating a body of work that you can be proud of.

Good post Luke.