On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:00:17 -0500 audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
> What the major labels have to do -- and it looks like EMI and Warner
> Brothers are both getting this, which is encouraging -- is to reduce
the
> bloat and stop the scattershot approach where they release 100 albums
with
> the hopes that maybe one or two of them will hit.  If the major labels
can
> get to the point where a record can sell only 5000 or 10,000 copies and
be
> profitable, I don't see how that's a bad thing.

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.  This creates a shitload of
straight-down-the-middle bands that people think are ok, but only a
couple that people are willing to drop huge loads of cash on (for
instance by buying their sophomore release despite the absence of any
radio hits).  Shit, bands like REO Speedwagon and Styx released record
after record with no national hits for years.  Nowadays, if your second
record doesn't explode out of the box like the debut, your third one is
guaranteed to be shelved (if they even let you make it).

The last point quoted above is spot on, but I don't think they've
realized it yet.  Their model is still to sell 5,000,000 units of 10
records, not 20,000 copies of 2500 records.  Reducing the artist roster
plays right into this.

g



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!