Home| YooskTV| Members| Public Figures| Features| Search| Journalists| Site Guide - FAQs|
 
  1. I'd like to ask
  3. 497 people in 187 cities are asking questions to 1,047 people
  2. Login
    Username
     
     Password
     
Do we still need record companies in the digital age?

Do we still need record companies in the digital age? 		Presented by
Mark Doolan 		Submit questions by Nov 04 2008
Interview published on Nov 16 2008
Introduction

Turntable Revolution

 

Will record companies survive the digital revolution?

 

The times they are-a-changing

 

I invited Yoosk readers to consider whether or not record companies still have a purpose. Do we really need these ‘middle-men’ to access music in the digital age? Can’t artists distribute their music over cyberspace without record companies? Is the industry’s war on file- sharing piracy a last ditch attempt to assert itself?

 

Music mogul Alan McGee recently told the Independent on-line “I am running down my label, Poptones, as I don't believe in owning a record company any more - bands should own their own copyrights.” The former Creation Records boss went on to say “Looking to the future, as the major’s decline, more bands will recognise that it's the real music-lovers who will help them succeed.”

 

Chasing rainbows

 

When Radiohead released their ‘pay-what-you-like’ album In Rainbows exclusively on the net many commentators fell over themselves to sound the death knell for record companies. However can less established artists reach a meaningful audience over cyberspace without a record company backing?

 

Music Week Editor Paul Williams told me “If you’re relying on MySpace or iTunes, amongst millions of other tracks, then it makes it very difficult for you to get attention. It needs someone like a record company or an equivalent to be able to raise an artist above the parapet.”

 

Leave it to the experts?

 

Radiohead have since signed a deal with XL Records, who will distribute their music in the standard CD format. Doesn’t this prove that artists still need record labels to take care of the business side of their careers? Matt feels so. “Artists aren’t really concerned about distribution, marketing, promotion, and radio plugging – the record company is effectively the support network behind the talent.” Conor concurs “Record companies provide venture capital and international marketing. They provide a catch-all solution that says we’ve done this before; we’re experts in this business.”

 

Finders keepers

 

Traditionally a key role of record companies has been to select and promote artists; do Web 2.0 users have the time, skill or patience to adopt this role? Head of communications for BPI Matt Phillips thinks not. “When the filter is the crowd you don’t tend to get the best results.” In truth record companies omit virtual haystacks of needle-finding for us music consumers as NME Editor Conor McNicholas points out “Being a talent scout and a tipster is one of the most important roles that you can play in this new age. “

 

Bad reputation

 

Why then are the knives out for record companies? Several Yoosk questions appear to view record companies as manipulative and soulless. Conor totally disagrees “The people that I know at record companies are passionate music fans and they don’t treat music as a commodity.” Paul thinks that the British media is at the core of this disdain “The media loves David and Goliath stories. There is this seed planted in people’s heads that record companies are money-grabbing bastards and just they’re out to rip off artists.”

 

Killing music?

 

Much of this anti stance is derived from the infamous 1980’s BPI campaign; ‘Home taping is killing music.’ I asked Matt if the BPI is still haunted by this much maligned slogan “I think that the industry, historically, should have done better in explaining what it does. It takes a long time to change opinion when people just see record companies as being fat cat mediators who rip off artists.” Matt also feels that Web 2.0 ‘success’ stories in the media are often misleading “The myth about MySpace breaking Lilly Allen and the Arctic Monkeys is a very romantic notion that an artist doesn’t need to partner with the big, bad, music industry.”

 

As some Yoosk questions demonstrate, this negative public image has caused a lack of public willingness to understand the ethical issues of copyright ownership. Music is a strange beast; its conception as a commercial commodity has always provoked conflict. Yet consumers don’t expect other products for free, so why is music devalued by the very people who claim to love it. Can music afford to go cheap, let alone free? Matt Phillips: “The internet and the culture of free just can’t survive as a long term, sustainable thing. It’s like a free chocolate fountain; outlawing that’s not going to be popular.”

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

 

What then does the future hold for record companies in the digital age? The remainder of this decade could decide. Paul en-likens this transitional period as being “almost like the Wild West. People are trying all sorts of different things.” Conor agrees “I think that the whole point of the new digital world is that it will deliver a number of choices. “ Matt is also optimistic “The industry’s distribution problems are solved, because you’re one click away from hearing to buying, and that could be the most revolutionary thing that’s ever happened to music.”

 

So it appears that the record companies will continue to metamorphose along the many twists and turns of mass entertainment.  After all, at only five decades old, the recording industry not exactly due to retire!

 

 

Conor McNicholas (show answers)
  1. DonLogan asked Conor McNicholas : "With newspaper and magazine cover mounts boasting increasingly high profile artists (like The Verve in the NME and Prince in the Daily Mail) how do new artists have any chance in persuading the public..." Show more »"With newspaper and magazine cover mounts boasting increasingly high profile artists (like The Verve in the NME and Prince in the Daily Mail) how do new artists have any chance in persuading the public to pay for their recordings?" Show less »
  2. Conor McNicholas answers: "I think it’s a lot of the new artist’s coming through who are saying that music should be free. Artists do get paid for cover mounts because they get publishing royalties, and I think that that’s not ..." Show more»" I think it’s a lot of the new artist’s coming through who are saying that music should be free. Artists do get paid for cover mounts because they get publishing royalties, and I think that that’s not made clear enough, often enough. The NME is very keen that cover-mounts are seen as two distinct areas. If you’re a newspaper with no musical authority, like the Daily Mail, and you can choose to give away some music. But for that music to appear in the context of a newspaper has very little value to the artist. Whereas a free CD in a music magazine, where it’s being delivered as a recommended purchase, presents a completely different tone of discussion. There is a lot more free music about nowadays, but you’re not going to stop free music by cancelling cover mounts. "Show less«
  3. Is this a good answer?    1    0
  4. 0 comment   |  Topic: Arts and entertainment   |   Email to friends
  6. JohnDuffy asked Conor McNicholas : "Radiohead's innovative ‘pay-what-you-like’ approach is a laudable gesture, but does it not set an unsustainable precedent for new artists, who without sales based revenue may never enjoy such autonomy?..." Show more »"Radiohead's innovative ‘pay-what-you-like’ approach is a laudable gesture, but does it not set an unsustainable precedent for new artists, who without sales based revenue may never enjoy such autonomy? " Show less »
  7. Conor McNicholas answers: "The most exciting thing about the record industry at the moment is that it is the great unknown. Everybody’s experimenting and trying different things. Although Radiohead went with this big brave move..." Show more»" The most exciting thing about the record industry at the moment is that it is the great unknown. Everybody’s experimenting and trying different things. Although Radiohead went with this big brave move they are still hedging their bets and putting their album out on CD. But the one-size-fits-all no longer works for artists, so they will make decisions based on how they want to carry their music forward. The digital age allows artists, very, very big artists, to completely construct a virtual record industry entirely on their own terms. They don’t need to take something off the peg; they can create a completely bespoke solution for themselves. That’s great, but for a lot of smaller artists they are going to need ever more to plug into a one-size-fits-all service company, that will be able to get their music out there in one form or another. "Show less«
  8. Is this a good answer?    1    0
  9. 0 comment   |  Topic: Arts and entertainment   |   Email to friends
  11. mickthemouse asked Conor McNicholas : "It seems certain that the heyday of the 'millionaire-making' music business is past, and surely such egocentric careerism won’t be mourned by most. So shouldn’t musicians view doing what they love as ..." Show more »"It seems certain that the heyday of the 'millionaire-making' music business is past, and surely such egocentric careerism won’t be mourned by most. So shouldn’t musicians view doing what they love as being more important than whether or not they can obtain a jet-set lifestyle? Isn't rock and roll meant to be about freedom?" Show less »
  12. Conor McNicholas answers: "I don’t think it’s up to anybody to tell a musician what they should and shouldn’t do. I think that it’s entirely up to them. Some people just make music because they can’t not make music; it’s absolutely..." Show more»" I don’t think it’s up to anybody to tell a musician what they should and shouldn’t do. I think that it’s entirely up to them. Some people just make music because they can’t not make music; it’s absolutely inbuilt into them. Some people make music and like other people to hear it, some people do it and don’t want anybody else to hear it, like writing a diary. There are people who write songs at home but wouldn’t want to share them with anybody. There are other people for whom making music is a means to an end. You don’t get the feeling that David lee Roth has a burning creative passion in his soul. Let’s face it Kiss, as a band, did not start out because they were desperate to communicate their view of the world and their personal angst to the rest of the planet. They wanted to get out there and be a fire-breathing rock and roll band because they wanted loads of women and loads of cash. Both of them are perfectly valid views of the world. But I don’t think it’s up to anybody to say that band’s shouldn’t be thinking about business plans because some people will and some people won’t. "Show less«
  13. Is this a good answer?    1    0
  14. 0 comment   |  Topic: Arts and entertainment   |   Email to friends
Paul Williams (show answers)
  1. mickthemouse asked Paul Williams: "Record company executives used to play god by deciding which music the public actually gets to hear. So how it is it a bad thing that anyone can now release music digitally without having to grovel to..." Show more »"Record company executives used to play god by deciding which music the public actually gets to hear. So how it is it a bad thing that anyone can now release music digitally without having to grovel to a ‘suit’? Doesn't a completely unregulated marketplace provide a utopia for our sophisticated and diverse tastes? " Show less »
  2. Paul Williams answers: "I don’t think that it’s bad at all; in fact it’s very democratic. It certainly has been the case up until now that, generally, the only music that people got to hear pre-internet was at the whim and the..." Show more»" I don’t think that it’s bad at all; in fact it’s very democratic. It certainly has been the case up until now that, generally, the only music that people got to hear pre-internet was at the whim and the tastes of record companies. So therefore there was a lot of music out there that people might have liked but would never have come across. "Show less«
  3. Is this a good answer?    2    0
  4. 0 comment   |  Topic: Arts and entertainment   |   Email to friends
  6. JohnDuffy asked Paul Williams: "Will the art of studio recording suffer as artists are marginalized by the constraints of time and money? Lest we forget The Beatles and Brian Wilson created legendary recordings while completely omitting..." Show more »"Will the art of studio recording suffer as artists are marginalized by the constraints of time and money? Lest we forget The Beatles and Brian Wilson created legendary recordings while completely omitting the distractions pertained to live performance." Show less »
  7. Paul Williams answers: "Not necessarily. Certainly now most of an artist’s income comes from live revenues. The Beatles and The Beach Boys spent hours in the recording studio, but only in their later careers. Over the past thirty..." Show more»" Not necessarily. Certainly now most of an artist’s income comes from live revenues. The Beatles and The Beach Boys spent hours in the recording studio, but only in their later careers. Over the past thirty years or so the recording process has slowed down, partly because there’s much better equipment now so people can indulge themselves with technology. Also the issuing of albums has slowed down; the pattern now tends to be to release an album every three years. "Show less«
  8. Is this a good answer?    2    0
  9. 0 comment   |  Topic: Arts and entertainment   |   Email to friends
  11. DonLogan asked Paul Williams: "Download sites, such as I-tunes, are transforming the way in which we buy music by allowing consumers to purchase individual tracks rather than shelling out for the whole album. Do you think that artists..." Show more »"Download sites, such as I-tunes, are transforming the way in which we buy music by allowing consumers to purchase individual tracks rather than shelling out for the whole album. Do you think that artists can survive by making albums where only one or two songs show a financial return? Is this the end of the 'long-player'?" Show less »
  12. Paul Williams answers: "It will change the business model. Over the last thirty years the money made by record companies has been generated by selling albums. Because ITunes, and other services, allow people to unbundle albums..." Show more»" It will change the business model. Over the last thirty years the money made by record companies has been generated by selling albums. Because ITunes, and other services, allow people to unbundle albums into individual tracks people no longer have to go out and buy an entire album. I think that the record companies, in a lot of cases, have been guilty of putting out not very good albums, that contain some tracks that people want and a lot of filler. The difficulty record companies have now is this perception that all albums aren’t that good and there are only a few good tracks on them. The seed has been planted in the public’s head that most albums aren’t very good apart from the singles. However in the early sixties most music was sold as singles, and there would only be certain acts who would successfully sell albums. While we may be going back to that there will always be room for artists to make albums. "Show less«
  13. Is this a good answer?    2    0
  14. 0 comment   |  Topic: Arts and entertainment   |   Email to friends