[dudifordMann]

I always thought the age of the internet, especially with modern bandwidths, could be the end of large labels for the music industry (or publishing houses for literature). I understand (to a naive degree) that the labels establish large networks, and complex licensing with public avenues like the radio or concert halls.

It is also interesting that that most self published artists get the semi-derogatory term of "Indie-artist", and that there may even be a public opinion which has been molded into expecting a "quality filter" through labels.

The question I always come to is how big can you get without a label? and will there ever be a day when artists have full creative control of their craft? This would mean that the artist would need to value and understand business practices, distribution methods, contracting, etc.

[edit] and the artists that do appreciate this seem to start labels (see epitaph records or Bad Boy Entertainment)

[6stringmerc]

You've done a strong job of describing what I felt years and years ago, and have come to learn is the lay of the land still in the music business. Labels have done a fantastic job of maintaining their gate-keeper status and of being able to break new artists into the mainstream. What didn't change with the internet is, partially kidding here, that 14 year old girls decide what's going to be popular. Outside of that, it's pretty much table scraps.

But...there are some exceptions!

There are certainly a handful of examples of responding to the last question you pose - re: being independent and achieving mainstream success. The ones that I find the most relevant are CHVRCHES (unsigned, SoundCloud got them attention, eventually had their pick of labels) and Macklemore (independent, used major label distribution services though). Also Skrillex - his label had no interest in his bleep-blonk-screech-BASS DROP tunes and he set it free online and got that avenue going - now he's got his own label and millions in the bank. There are some outlier musicians like Prince who are genuinely contentious with both industry and fan expectations.

I think more and more artists who grow up as 'one-person operations' (think Grimes) will navigate a new business platform. Labels will specialize in these artists, or management teams. Eventually though, there does exist a plateau where it seems inevitable to have to deal with a large entity such as LiveNation or Ticketmaster...neither of which are very well regarded as customer friendly in this day and age - at least not as much as direct-to-fan opportunities. The next 10 years should be interesting both in the US and globally.

Oh, and in my opinion, artists tend to start labels as a compensation mechanism to get more power for their own business enterprise, and potentially profit from the success of others signed (see: Cash Money / Young Money Records).

[k-mcgrady]

>> "Also Skrillex - his label had no interest in his bleep-blonk-screech-BASS DROP tunes and he set it free online and got that avenue going - now he's got his own label and millions in the bank."

Financially I think artists like Skrillex (EDM producers in general) are incredibly lucky. Production costs are practically zero. You buy a DAW and some monitors and you can do everything at home on your laptop. You don't need to pay a band, all revenue is yours. And on top of that touring costs are minimal (a midi controller and a laptop) so you're extracting the maximum profit from each show. If you want a financially successful career in music this is probably the most sure route to take.

Edit: A lot of people responding are bringing up the point that production costs for most genres are now relatively low. While that's true when it comes to actually making money from the music that's much easier in electronic music for the reasons I gave above (one person, very little gear to drag around, no band to pay).

[6stringmerc]

Good point for sure. It's not just EDM - a basic Pop song can be produced at practically zero cost once an independent musician and producer has sunk the costs of DAW and equipment into the operation. A lot of music, in general, is stunningly simple. Hip-hop can be done with one MPC and a mic (okay maybe AutoTune as well haha). Country only really needs an acoustic guitar, vocals, and a quality mic. Yes, there's a reason studio quality recordings sound great, and I'm not going to deny that at all. But...

Owl City is a great example of a talented person producing their own material (then mastered) which fit the quality expectations and was, pretty much, recorded in one guy's bedroom.

Gotye's "Used to Know" was recorded all by himself in a room over a barn in New Zealand.

These are just a couple recent examples where I think the technology and dynamics of music production are really coming together (Trent Reznor is a great historical study). Personally I really enjoy playing with a talented drummer - which I will do tonight and probably broadcast on Periscope - but when I'm at home, making tunes that I'll eventually release, I can get fantastic results from Apple's GarageBand "Drummer" algorithm thingy.

The tools that exist now would've changed my world as a teenager. I think teenagers growing up now - the ones serious about making music - have more tools and opportunities than ever before. I'm a wee bit jealous, no lie.

Edit: To clarify regarding your edit, the personal production can now extend to live performance. Rappers typically just have a DJ behind them (sometimes a live band). There's a lot of wiggle-room for mid-market musicians to simply bring their box of backing tracks with them to perform live, and I think that is becoming more and more acceptable. I used to get really odd looks using a Netbook + Akai APC40 on stage, and now that's pretty tame compared to some of the other gear setups indies can employ. This way, the musician makes more money because there are fewer musicians on stage that need to be paid (my personal approach).

[joslin01]

Teenagers growing up don't only have a plethora more of opportunities & tools -- they also have a plethora of distracting activities that can take away from the careful attention needed to make great music.

Sometimes I believe the guys in the 60s & 70s ironically had it easier because they just sat around, maybe smoking some dope, and played music. There wasn't a smartphone at their hip vibrating every few minutes, so they could really just pour their heart into the music and hey, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Beatles, Dylan, etc... you name a great, probably came out of that time period. While I like a lot of stuff today, I do question if it'll hold up to the test of time and personally feel very little of it will when compared to how much did & will continue from the 60s/70s.

[6stringmerc]

Pretty fair point, I can totally see where you're coming from. Music does have a traditionally steep 'learning curve' and it does take focused practice - for good or ill, I do see modern tech and tools being a great short-cut though for a dedicated youngster with enough time on their hands. You're spot on about the number of distractions, that affects even adults who might be working in the industry. Focus is important.

Also, we should keep in mind that there was a ton of silly, throw-away, bubble-gum music during the 60s and 70s. Basically my contention is that the good stuff will, inherently, stand the test of time. Maybe because of, or in spite of, the river of crap surrounding it haha.

[andrewvc]

It COULD cost that much. But actually it doesn't. See http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/07/05/137530847/how-m...

$78k production $1m in advertising

[burkaman]

But that means there's lots more competition, right? If, theoretically, anybody with a laptop can do what you do, you have to be that much more talented and work that much harder.

It sounds like any other business. It's like saying freelance web developers are incredibly lucky, because their only business expenses are a laptop and maybe some software. That's true, but it also means that high school students can do what they do for free.

[earlz]

Realistically, this is also true of most modern music. Sure it requires a bit more equipment, but with software amp simulation and the plethora of VST plugins you can get, you can almost always get a tone similar to your target for just a couple hundred dollars, at most. Combine with equipment and you're looking at maybe $600 in instruments/equipment and a basic mic for vocals. The only sticking point right now it seems is that drums are still notoriously hard to record, though MIDI/software drums are extremely realistic, and even beyond that. It's extremely easy to find a random stranger on the internet that likes your style and happens to be a drummer with all the equipment for recording drums.

And then again, EDM is cheap, but it can be extremely time consuming if you're going cheap. Good synths don't just build themselves and there's a reason people buy virtual instrument packs.

[rorykoehler]

>you can almost always get a tone similar to your target

Therein lies the rub. You can't beat real circuits and valves especially when you're cranking it loud for a gig. The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

Touring a band is still expensive. So much so that it was the difference between going on extensive global touring as a duo or not touring at all (4 piece) for someone I know.

[6stringmerc]

As much as I want to agree with you nostalgia wise on the "real circuits and valves" thing, pretty much every industry magazine interview I've read with the top teir of guitarists basically say that "real amps" are for in the studio and when going on the road just use the Kemper[1] and nobody will be able to tell the difference. Honestly I would buy one of those in a heartbeat if I had the income/need/ability to write it off as a business expense.

[1] A Kemper review from 2012 - http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/kemper-profiling-a...

>This is the context in which the Kemper truly excels and it proves possible to create amp profiles that are good enough to fool three sets of very experienced ears during our testing process. At one stage, we even find ourselves unplugging the reference amplifier just to make sure that it's definitely the Kemper that we're hearing and there isn't some elaborate hoax taking place!

[earlz]

There are too many nonlinearities in real circuits and valves to perfectly model with current technology(or programming methods), but you're absolutely spot on that 99% of people can't tell the difference, even musicians. It's only the person playing the instrument that tends to care

[rorykoehler]

Muse use Kemper but they also mix it up by having 3 amps mic'd up backstage. I didn't mean to suggest that VST's don't have their place in the signal chain at all.

[ajtaylor]

I'm not a musician and I've never heard of a Kemper before, but that's one amazing piece of kit!

[guscost]

> The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

Honestly I think mixing and mastering each make a much bigger difference with recorded music. In my experience the "amateur aesthetic" usually comes down to these five things:

1) Timing

2) Tuning/intonation

3) Variation or lack thereof

4) Mixing

5) Mastering

The old adage applies to music too: Beginners care about gear, professionals care about technique, masters care about sound.

[rorykoehler]

>Beginners care about gear, professionals care about technique, masters care about sound.

Caring about sound means caring about gear. I don't know any masters (and I know a few) that don't obsess over the gear they use in order to get the perfect sound. Shit in shit out. I think this also applies beyond music: Masters optimise at every link in the value chain.

[coldtea]

>Therein lies the rub. You can't beat real circuits and valves especially when you're cranking it loud for a gig.

Actually you could very much can, and especially in a gig, where acoustics are not as perfect as at home with expensive hi-fi speakers.

You'd be surprised how many top artists, with huge followings, use amp simulations and plugins both on stage and on their productions.

>The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

No, that's talent and a good mixer, producer and masterer (neither of the three lesser acts have).

Tons of great sounding albums where recordings with VSTs. Heck, even Bob Ezrin uses the things nowadays...

[rorykoehler]

Generally VST's and top gear are used together. I wasn't suggesting VST's have no place in great sounding records but the initial source needs to be great to sound great. While I'm sure that a great producer/engineer will make a better sounding record with only VST's than an amateur with all the best gear in the world generally the top producers don't compromise at all because they don't have to.

[orbitur]

As an aside/complaint, I truly wish there was a way to emulate raw feedback. Back when I lived with my parents in the middle of nowhere, I could crank my tiny amp up to 10, put earmuffs on, and just let the noise wash over me when I crouched next to my amp. Now I'm in a house with a child, and no VST is going to give me that same thrill. I could perhaps buy an e-bow and stand near it when I'm soloing, but it won't be utter chaos.

[beachstartup]

a lot of electronic shows are more complicated than that, but i think for someone who chooses to be lean, yeah it's basically like being a programmer that throws parties for a living instead of a band.

[user_0001]

Skrillex got rich by marketing "EDM" to the mass US festival market.

That and probably to no small extent the huge influx of MDMA and MDMA-like drugs.

[vlunkr]

So, you might say the musicians who are more business savvy (they release independently in one way or another) can do well for themselves. The ones who let someone else take care of that stuff get screwed.

[6stringmerc]

Yes, that's generally my outlook on the business aspect of the music industry. There are of course needed staff professionals - PR, Legal, Booking - but if those can be hired and managed with some good accounting by an artist/management team (and not behind a label's closed doors, subject to contract obligations) then it stands to reason more revenue will be retained by the principal.

Practically speaking, I think it's the musicians who "ask" someone else to take care of that stuff that get screwed. This is more like the "Pop Star Contract" take-it-or-leave-it kind of approach. Sure, the label can make a person a star, but that comes with some significant catches (see: rappers angry their label won't release their new album).

[atom-morgan]

That's what I've thought all along. Artists think they can be artists and make money without learning business. As your parent mentioned with someone like Grimes, I think we're starting to see this change.

[api]

What I've seen is that the Internet intensifies the power of gatekeepers in the long run. It overloads people with too many choices, and in choice-overload people fall back to relying on a few filters to tame it down.

The information age is numbing. There is too much of everything, so it's all debased.

The Internet also flattens everything. You get a market with no barriers anywhere. Power and prestige accrete to the winners due to network effects.

Put those two things together and you get an extreme power law market with one or maybe at most two or three winners who own each vertical. I expect Apple Music and Spotify to be the only two "record labels" on Earth here in a few years.

[matchagaucho]

The "Super Artist" level of entertainment requires an army to support marketing, legal issues, mechanical licensing, PR, tours, accountants, video production, publishing...

Only the big labels are prepared to provide this support.

[dudifordMann]

Great point, even if an artist had 'n' skilled people to facilitate those roles and produce the needed deliverables, what would happen to those people when the artist becomes unpopular? so even if there is no way around having these established entities for the purpose of essentially allowing the artist to create, then is it a matter of reform? which really means not signing to big labels in the hopes that if enough artists do the same that the face of the industry changes?

[grammar edit]

[ancientworldnow]

A lot of my work is in music videos. I've got hundreds of millions of views on vevo and even a VMA winning video under my belt. There is almost no one in this industry who works for a single artist. This week, for example, I've got a video coming out from a big artist from a major label, a brand new band a major label decided will be cool, a major YouTube star (top 10 YouTube artist), a tiny artist on a tiny label, and a totally unsigned rapper (busy week). You'd be surprised how close the paychecks for a lot of these are.

Point is all of us work with dozens or hundreds of artists because outside of maybe ten mega artists you can't depend on a single "brand" to support you. Granted this applies to video more than other areas, but even agents and managers will have a few to several artists they work with.

[6stringmerc]

Traditionally yes, but the newer Artist-Management dynamic, most successful in Taylor Swift with Big Machine, but also well-respected in the form of Q Prime Management, can do most of those services and retain rights for artists that labels would traditionally take for themselves (e.g. publishing rights, which Q Prime tells their artists to retain). You're definitely not wrong. I think there are cracks in the system though.

[oblio]

> and will there ever be a day when artists have full creative control of their craft? This would mean that the artist would need to value and understand business practices, distribution methods, contracting, etc.

Well, probably never. Isn't division of labor one of the main reasons for human advancement? :)

[ukyrgf]

It's interesting that you call the term indie semi-derogatory, when the article you're commenting on is about how the music industry is full of monsters. Shouldn't operating independently outside of it be celebrated?

[cgh]

Basically, what's needed is an Image Comics but for music, where the creators maintain control of their works and are paid the lion's share of the profits. Surely there must be a label like this out there.

[hyperliner]

Why would a label want to do that? How would the label survive? If the creator's are paid the lion's share of the profits, would they also keep the lion's share of the losses?

[cgh]

Well, Image exists and seems to do okay, and the creators benefit to the extent that they are ditching the Big Two (Marvel and DC) in favour of creator-owned. I'm not sure what the exact revenue split is. Image's books don't get huge marketing pushes or movies either.

Re. losses: yes, that's how it works. You do a bunch of work up-front and if it flops, you don't make anything.

[j_s]

Sites like http://noisetrade.com/ recognize that the majority of artists' best chance at a steady income is on tour, so they give away the music as promotion.

[ArkyBeagle]

No, "the Internet" just coopted the major label business model.

[nickysielicki]

> The question I always come to is how big can you get without a label? and will there ever be a day when artists have full creative control of their craft? This would mean that the artist would need to value and understand business practices, distribution methods, contracting, etc.

If you're interested in this question, someone to watch closely is Chance the Rapper.

He started his music career just over four years ago when he received a 10 day suspension during his senior of highschool for allegedly having marijuana on campus. During those 10 days, he recorded the entirety of his first mixtape, 10-Day, and released it to datpiff.com and had relatively large success. The album was angry at times-- mostly complaining about the suspension, but also very fun and nostalgic. It was a third of Breakfast Club, half Dazed and Confused, and a sixth Ceelo-Green Fuck You. The production was sometimes great and sometimes really lacking, but on the whole it was impressive for an 18 year old with nothing but an old Macbook and 10 days of free time.

If I recall correctly, it received something like 10k downloads before his next album, Acid Rap, and that is where he really blew up. It was choir-inspired psychedelic rap with flawless production. It had dark moments talking about Chicago violence and losing friends. It retained the CeeLo-theme of "Screw you, I can do this myself." But this is where he got millions of downloads and became a household name to a sizable portion of 14-28 y/os-- and in only just a bit more than a year since his suspension.

At this point he started getting label offers like crazy, and he didn't like it. He saw the wild success he had in all of one year and didn't want to sign a label, and to today he still hasn't. He talks a lot about making a union for up-and-coming music artists.

One song he has that talks solely about this can be found here: 'https://soundcloud.com/chancetherapper/chance-the-rapper-the...

    Young black boy, how he got the labels scared?
    A&R's like, "Chano, you ain't playin' fair!
    You gon' set a bad example for the average bear
    You a Yogi, you should idle while in child's position"
    I be like, naw, these my sons, this prenatal care
    I'mma show em how to make it here and make it fair
    Take it there, they could kill me and I ain't gon' care
    You is just an ankle weight, lighter than some angel cake
    Sweeter than some maple syrup, easier than Ableton
    Make a plate and make a player
    Make em play it
    Just don't count your sheep before they hatch
    You chickens 'fore your eggs
    Eat your dinner 'fore you say your prayer

    [...]

    Young tactician, just got my taxes finished
    Beat the tortoise by a hair in an '04 Ford Taurus
    On a spare with a wax finish
    There's a lot of metaphors, you just lack vision
    You just bad business
    UH!
    All your shit been lower case
    Lower class, lower key
    I'm the only minor minority in priority
    Sippin' gin and tonic while I plot upon authority
    Author of my horoscope, feeling like the oracle
    Ain't no rules, nigga
    IGH!

Clearly continuing his "Fuck you!" mentality, now aimed at record companies instead of his highschool principal.

He's stated that one of his biggest idols as an aspiring Chicago rapper was Kanye West, and as someone who was watching him prior to Acid Rap, it was really fun to see that on West's most recent album he was featured in multiple songs-- still without a label. His dream was realized in a matter of a few years, and I think that clearly shows that mobility is at least possible in this day and age without a label

The question is if these platforms (soundcloud, datpiff, genius to an extent) can provide enough value to these artists that a symbiotic relationship is sustainable after they become popular. One of Chance's close friends, Vic Mensa, also came to popularity through soundcloud and datpiff, but he signed with a label soon after. Things worked out for him, too-- he has worked with West and appeared on SNL. Chance is more political and principled and is definitely an outlier-- so these platforms can't rely on artists having that mindset.