smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | DanAbnrml9@aol.com |
| Subject | Re: More musicians lose jobs |
| Date | Thu, 1 Apr 2004 09:10:13 EST |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (3.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
In a message dated 3/31/2004 10:16:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
<<But the problem with the industry, as I see it, is that they're releasing
the most vanilla music imaginable so that each act appeals to a broader
spectrum of people. Kind of like mass-prepared banquet food -- can't
make it too spicy, salty, garlicky or mushroomy, or you risk having a
significant percentage of people dislike it. So they end up releasing a
small number and promoting the crap out of them, because they have to
sell 500K to break even on the promotions. >>
Well, I don't think this is ENTIRELY accurate. I think all of what you're
saying is true when you're talking about what's being PROMOTED, and in particular
what's played on the radio. When I was putting together my "best of 2003"
list a few months ago, I was amazed that--for the first time in years--I bought
more stuff that's on majors than on indies this year. Granted, it's part of my
job to take a listen to the majority of the new releases--and we're
better-serviced with promos by the majors than we are by the indies--and there's plenty
of crap, or plenty of things that I'm not that interested in. But the fact is
that the majors DO put out tons of good stuff, and many (though not all, by
any means) of the people there--A&R people included--are quite well-intentioned.
But promotion is another story, and it's VERY expensive (as you note), so it
tends to go towards acts that are something of a sure thing. Also keep in mind
radio's reluctance to take any risks and that makes even more sense.
The outsourcing of manufacturing, as Mark noted, could also be a harbinger of
things to come. My initial reaction on these things is often that outsourcing
could be cheaper, but they're still using the same plants, right? And I don't
think that labor/operating costs in the Netherlands are known for being low,
either, though I could be wrong. So Mark may have a point--liquidating the
real estate now to generate some cash could make sense if they're planning on
dumping the entire operation later (Here in Boston, Polaroid sold most of their
still-occupied buildings a few years ago because they needed the money from the
real estate to stay alive. I don't think this is that serious but it could be
a similar strategy).
Basically what the majors need to do--as Stewart said--is to make the minor
releases profitable. I read some article a couple of years ago that said that
rock/pop needs to sort of follow the model set by jazz in the past half
decade--artists who make a modest living and build a long-lasting following on
records that sell modest numbers. I think that makes sense, and I think that the
majors are going to have to try and make their operations leaner in whichever way
they can. It sucks when you look at it and say "well, they bought these two
indies and now they're just folding one", and yes, it was a mistake to have
bought those indies in the first place, but it's also a mistake that was made
long ago and needs to be rectified now. --Jason
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.