Empowering artists or devaluing music?
It’s been just under a week since Radiohead fans began downloading their copies of ‘In Rainbows’. We were told to name our own price. Some (many I’m sure) probably went the route of getting it for free. Others (like me) wanted to show at least an inkling of support for the band by offering a few bucks. I paid a total of £2.99 (or $5.88 to you and me). But while all of this was happening, questions were stirring about the consequences of Radiohead’s actions. Not surprisingly, most of these came from from record labels.
Many people have been saying for quite some time now that the ‘need’ for a physical CD will soon be obsolete as will the decades old business model of most record labels. Still many of these labels, instead of following the lead of bands like Radiohead, are complaining that a group of that stature has an unfair advantage over lesser known acts. That they will obviously be successful with this name your own price model because they frankly don’t need the money and have established a fan base big and wide enough to sustain even a reduced revenue stream.
But when did a band this big not have an unfair advantage? Even under the label model, a band like Radiohead would certainly have the upper hand over some unknown, new act. Unless of course one of the big labels decided to sign that new act, dump a boatload of money and promote the shit out of it. Which brings us to the labels’ real concern. Control. As more acts start to take their music directly to the people, the labels are being pushed aside. And it’s not just big names doing this. Unsigned acts have done this for years, even before MP3s. Even Metallica gave away thousands of cassettes in order to gain attention early on.
The Majestic Twelve for example offered up their album ‘Schizophrenology’ for free on their website. After tens of thousands of free downloads, what the band has enjoyed is an unprecedented level of control over their own destiny. Simply put, the sales they’ve generated from this line of exposure may not impress a suit and tie exec sitting in a boardroom in NYC. But any cash the band makes is theirs, free and clear. And in the end, a band not tethered to a label contract can sell a small fraction of what bigger acts need to before seeing a profit.
Another argument I heard claimed that Radiohead giving people the option to not pay for their music would actually devalue it in the eyes of the consumer. But as I see it, music has already been devalued in the eyes of the consumer thanks to the likes of Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent and so on. In fact, the advent of the cassette tape and affordable consumer recorders could be blamed for starting this trend many, many years ago. The bottom line is this; the music business is evolving and devolving at the same time. How? Simple.
Bands have the ability to instantly release music and fans have the ability to instantly access it. That is the evolution. And as technology continues to leap frog thru society, this trend will continue. Now, in order for bands to make money they need to tour and sell merch. This is the devolution. For the most part, this is how the business worked in the early days of pop music. A record would be recorded and pressed in the morning and spinning at radio stations that afternoon. Then the act would be on the road to support it the next day.
So, is this move by Radiohead and others making it harder for unknown, unsigned bands? Absolutely not. Have they devalued the music? Again, no. But have they made life miserable for confused record label execs still unsure about this whole mp3 craze? You bet your ass they did. As have many other bands. So instead of fighting, execs should embrace the changes and maybe then they will discover a new business direction that will bring them happiness.
See Also:
Radiohead
The Majestic Twelve
