smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Christopher Kouzes" <Christopher.Kouzes@btol.com> |
| Subject | Re: eMusic |
| Date | Thu, 10 May 2007 18:01:10 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (8.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
<<while the majors thrive because they have more money than God>>
Sorry Jaimie, but it's been several years since the majors have thrived.
In fact all of the majors have had substantial staff cuts in the past 24
months and have seen their profits dwindle. Just this week, WEA
announced a layoff of over 400 people. Music sales (and by this, it's
largely meant major label releases) are down about 30% from last year.
When Shawn Fanning and Napster made ripping and sharing mp3 so
commonplace, they let the genie out who will never return to the bottle.
Music, right or wrong, will be undervalued from here on out. Who knows,
maybe it's always been overpriced? Maybe the turn of events over the
past 2 years or so has brought the market to where it should be. Maybe
musicians can't have a career based on music sales. Maybe most music
offered will be a promotional tool to get people to see live shows
(which is about the only part of the music business is still strong).
Devauled entertainment product isn't limited to music. DVD prices have
continued to fall. Open up any weekend circular and see what you can buy
for under $10. Hell, under $5.
If a label thinks places like eMusic are a rip off and are afraid they
won't see enough money from sales to cover production costs, then simply
don't use them. But anyone wringing their hands because competition (of
any sort) or "unattractive" opportunities have turned over the apple
cart and doesn't do anything to help themselves can't be felt sorry for.
About 10 years ago when Best Buy was ploughing through the country
opening stores left and right, it put a lot of indie stores out of
business. But good stores, stores that met the challenge did things that
removed the head-to-head pricing wars they couldn't win. They brought in
things like t-shirts, pop culture stuff, used CDs, and anything else
that the competition couldn't offer. The good stores were, in most
cases, able to weather the storm.
Bringing this back to music, I think what Bruce is doing at Not Lame is
brilliant. By offering value added material (in the form of bonus discs,
downloadable mp3s, additional information), he's now able to offer
something that the likes of iTunes and eMusic can't offer. Ray at Kool
Kat is doing the exact same thing. The new Maple Mars, Fooling April,
and John Wicks CDs all have a bonus EP of usually demos or live. That
seems pretty smart to me. I know I keep on buying from both sites.
At the recent NARM meeting, the main topic of conversation was "what do
we do next?" The majors don't really know. The indie don't know. But
what is known is that artist or label still trying to think and operate
the way they were 5 years ago probably ain't going to be around much
longer.
Actually Jaimie, the classic rock model you've got is probably a pretty
solid one. Chances are most of those folks are slightly older and would
still prefer to buy physical product. Your numbers are right on. I
worked for an indie distributor/importer about 10 years ago and we had a
few in-house labels, one of which just reissued classic rock albums and
artists. The model was set so that some decent money could be made at
2000 units sold.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: audities-owner@smoe.org [mailto:audities-owner@smoe.org] On Behalf
Of Jaimie Vernon
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:30 PM
To: audities@smoe.org
Subject: Re: eMusic
At Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:54:19 Bob wrote:
>All I meant by my final comments was that some of the best music I have
in
>my collection was made by people for whom it was not their primary
source
>of income - possibly not even a source of income at all in some cases!
On
>the other hand I also own many great albums by people who have CHOSEN
to
>make music their career. Again that is their choice. But if they
can't
>make an honest living with their music alone, am I really meant to feel
>sorry for them?
No...but aiding and abetting the machinery that will, ultimately, put
many
of these musicians who COULD make a living at it out of business becomes
short sighted. It was like the Napster craze....which killed a good
portion
of the rat-bastards in the major label heirarchal con game, but also
took a
shitload of indies with it as well. E-music threatens to do the same by
offering next-to-free downloads. Again...the music is devalued so that
anyone trying to sell their music at a fair market price are going to be
passed over by consumers just looking for a bargain first...and not
necessarily great music first.
>There are many other ways to make money. I'd love to make a living out
of
>making or selling music, but I have neither the raw talent nor the
business
>acumen, so I chose to do something different instead.
But you're denying those who do have the raw talent the ability to make
it
their bread and butter. It'd be like all the hospitals hiring waitresses
as
nursing staff and paying them waitress wages while the REAL nurses who
need
a larger salary to pay for the schooling and years of experience can't
get
work. You've devalued the worth of the nurse.
[okay, I'm stretching the analogy here...]
>I've supported independent music plenty in the past, perhaps more so
than
>many contributors to this list. I have bought CDs galore from Bruce
>Brodeen, including almost all his NotLame label stuff (when NotLame was
a
>label as well as a store). I've been to loads of IPO shows (including
one
>Canadian night in Chicago, where I reckon I was about the sole paying
>customer there) and bought CDs at merch tables. However the simple
fact is
>that I choose now to avail myself of cheaper ways of getting my music,
>where possible, now that these cheaper avenues exist for me. eMusic is
the
>cheapest legal way of getting music I like, possibly music I wouldn't
have
>purchased otherwise. What's your beef about that, Jaimie?
See above. You indicate all the ways you've supported the indies, but
you've
already stated you do not care about the musicians making a living from
it
-- which is it? You've also shown it with your wallet NOW that Not Lame
is
no longer a label. That's your prerogative. But sure as shit there will
be
whining and griping on this very list in a year or two because Michael
Carpenter has thrown in the towel or Fountains Of Wayne has split up
because
they've had to go back to flipping burgers or driving taxis for a
living...instead of doing what they love (and are so much better at
doing)...which is make music.
As I stated in another email....the personal gains the listeners get are
unprecedented now -- bargains galore and more music than Stewart Mason
can
listen to in a lifetime. But the bigger picture is bleak. Companies like
mine are now scaling back while the majors thrive because they have more
money than God....to release bigger piles of shit...and the ONLY thing
you'll be able to buy on E-music in the not so distant future.
Oh...and the six labels who are disgruntled about the eMusic set up?
Linus Entertainment, Borealis Recording Company, Distort Entertainment,
Justin Time Records, Last Gang Records, and Nettwerk Productions.
They've
set up their own digital coalition and become shareholders in a new
company
that stands to profit from smaller indie labels who become members. Out
of
the shark tank and into the pirranha pool.
See their manifesto here: http://www.idla.ca/
Jaimie Vernon,
Bullseye
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows Live Hotmail is here. Upgrade for free and get a better
look.
www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA150
=======================================================================
Detailed Audities-List information: <http://audities.googlepages.com>
To manage your Audities List settings or unsubscribe:
<www.smoe.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?func=lists-long-full&extra=audities>
This email and any attachments contain information from Baker & Taylor which may
be confidential, privileged and/or protected by other legal rules. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
use of the contents of this email is prohibited. If you have received the email in error,
please notify us by reply email immediately and then delete the email and your reply
from your email system.
NOTE: Baker & Taylor accepts no liability for the contents of this email. This email
shall not operate to bind Baker & Taylor to any contract, order or other obligation.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.