Since I work in it, I try to pay attention to what's going on.
There's a constant fight between artists and big labels, and it's gotten to a whole new level recently which has potential to entirely change the business. It should be concerning to anyone who works in it, and well, come to think of it, anyone who is a music consumer.
Earlier this month, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, who recently parted ways with long time label, Interscope, published a blog-like report on his experimental release of Saul Williams' "Niggy Tardust." The entry can be found here: http://www.nin.com/
Basically, after following Radiohead's model of a self-serving band who were one of the first to ditch their major label and NOT join another, Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor produced and released Saul's album to fans who were given a choice to pay $5 in contribution for the hard work that was involved, or for those who didn't want to contribute, they could get it for free.
Unfortunately, Trent perhaps believed in the good of mankind all too much, and was disappointed when a mere 18% of fans chose to pay the affordable $5 contribution. Saul's album made only $141,610, which he would have to distribute accordingly to all of those involved. Had everyone who got the album paid the requested $5, Saul's album would have grossed $772,245. Interesting. I guess that's what you get for expecting the best from people. Good news: Saul grossed a bazillion times more money than he would have signed with a major label.
Only one problem with NIN and Radiohead's doings--perfect for already famous bands, but unless they lend helping hands to the underdogs, these business models virtually incinerate your average artist. NIN acknowledges this. Radiohead, I don't know. All I know is that Radiohead was charging a whopping 75-or something British pounds per concert ticket. About $150 US.
I found another disheartening article here: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html. It's not credible and not reporter-style, but it does highlight, in detail, the extremely common contracted deals between major labels and your typical rock band. The numbers are correct, which I won't bother detailing in this blog, but the attitude perhaps isn't.
I've heard many artists say, "Who cares about the industry! Music should be free, and real musicians believe that!" I beg to differ. Usually, who I hear this from are starving musicians, who don't have anything to lose. For musicians who have already made a living off of their passion, or for music industry workers who receive paychecks to support their family with their industry jobs, it's a different story. Of course they care. And of course they want some income.
Music is consumable, right? -Just like paintings, furniture, cakes, dress pants, and none of these are free. Musicians are spending just as much time on their art as any of the other manufacturers, so why should they be any different? I hear this all of the time, which aggravates me: "X band made $3 million dollars already from their music. They don't need more. They shouldn't bitch that people are getting their music for free." Are we supposed to determine whether or not a musician deserves to make income past X amount of money they've thus far earned? Unless we're appointing a music God, I don't think that's our job.
There are great advancements due to technology, but what comes with those advancements are extreme fallbacks. Digital downloads have the potential to wipe out the industry. The only thing we're relying on here is the moral conscious of the common folk. Would you bet your money on that?
