AAAAAAAAAA wrote:Just releasing a bunch of songs a-la-cart to Youtube, and interacting with the fans to bilk them of a few dollars via "superchats"? The entire thing seems really watered down and lame to me. Not sure, what do you thinK?
I don't know. I think it can be a good thing, as long as the band/musician is putting out a real album and not some Youtube only thing. They would be getting funding support from the people who truly care about their music, the fans, and not from some record label. Producing an album nowadays costs so much less than it did ten years ago, especially if the artist handles the production. I believe that if you don't branch yourself out into newer forms of communication and interaction, then you are only hurting your chances at success.
AAAAAAAAAA wrote:I think no- and that's without me knowing anything about the music industry. You can make the simple observation that all major bands do have record labels, and most shitty ones don't, so there is something to it. Those that have the means prefer to have a record label.
It's quite possible that record labels aren't willing to invest any serious money promoting artists anymore, but evidently the alternative of not having a label is worse.
That could be chalked up to the fact that many of these major bands were founded in an era without internet and mass communication, and getting signed was the only way to go. If the industry is truly being more selective these days, then some newer bands might have no choice but to start out as an independent act. At this point in time, it's obviously less fruitful to be an independent musician, and I believe that getting signed is important if you want to achieve the most out of a music career.
Take Ola Englund as an example. He is an independent musician who has amassed a very large audience on Youtube with his series of amp testing videos, among other things. He's a very good guitarist, and he also produces and sells his albums completely by himself. Do I believe his music career could be augmented by becoming a signed artist? Absolutely. However, I think his motivations for being an independent musician may be personal in origin.
Also, there are a ton of shit-tier bands that are signed artists.
AAAAAAAAAA wrote:(1) It's easier to make your work available to audiences on the internet, but not any easier to reach them. Probably its harder now. There is very little barrier to entry in the recording and distribution process- so everyone is pumping out music non-stop.
How is it not any easier to reach people nowadays on the internet? If anything, it's probably the easiest it has ever been. It certainly isn't hurting your chances. What are the odds that a big name musician will come across your channel and videos and reach out to you or want to promote you? I'd say the odds are much higher now then in the past. Instead of moving out to a large metropolitan area and getting noticed by local big names, all you have to do is promote your music online. Anyone with an internet connection has the potential to see it, so the pool of potential interest is much larger.
That's why it would be in a musician's best interest to attract the attention of a big name Youtuber, or someone else with a huge following online. If an e-celeb starts talking about your music, then you've also potential piqued the curiosity of the majority of that e-celeb's fan base.
AAAAAAAAAA wrote:(2) The monetization model for music is totally broken. What other successful industry relies solely on the "honor system" as far as downloads are concerned? Its untenable.
About piracy in general: I don't understand why people in any industry say that they're losing billions upon billions of dollars to it. My reasoning is this: A pirate is not a customer; not today, and not in the future. So to say that they are losing all of this money is ludicrous if the pirates were never interested in purchasing their products in the first place. It's not like they can force pirates to buy things anyway. They will either acquire things for free, and if they cannot, then they won't acquire it at all and move on to something else. It's such a futile thing for the industries to try to combat, and when they do try to combat it, good paying customers end up in the crossfire.
DRM sure is fun, isn't it? (I know this may sound strange, but I'm not completely opposed to piracy. If people in the future pirate my music, I would see it as people who are interested in sharing my music with others, and that has the potential to attract more attention and future fans alike)
AAAAAAAAAA wrote:(3) There is a growing back-catalogue of great music to listen to, which I think devalues future music. A young metal fan could spend years listening to classics that have stood the test of time from Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Stratovarius, Angra, Queensryche. So unless the up-and-coming band is bringing something to the table thats competitive with Visions or Temple of Shadows, whats the use? There is so much great prior work to choose from.
That's like saying that future video games have no chance compared to the classics... Actually, you're not wrong.
But in all seriousness, how does this logic really make any sense? If you enjoyed all of those older bands, why did you start listening to anyone else? Why, even, were you not content with just listening to only one of those several bands you mentioned? The answer is that people will eventually seek out new and alternative forms of entertainment from that which they're already familiar with. Not everyone is going to be looking to the past to find alternatives. There will also be people who will select their alternatives from up and coming bands.
Here's three points in support of newer bands and young talent in the music industry:
* There will be a demand and market for younger and newer bands to represent the interests of younger fans. There are generational shifts in tastes of music. For example, why aren't you listening to 40's era swing bands right now? Younger generations are eager to hear new and exciting things, and that's what generally prompts progression in music and art.
* The music industry would love to pay newer trendier bands less and eventually abandon the older expensive bands. An example of this was the rise of Grunge in the 90's. That one ultimately backfired, but it happened, nevertheless.
* Newer bands can potentially gain the attention of someone bigger than them, and rise to prominence as a result. This is how a lot of older artists became popular and this is also how newer artists will become popular.
At the end of the day, it really comes down to how much talent, publicity, and luck one has. Not everyone band is a great band, and that, in and of itself, is a form of natural selection in the musical ecosystem.
Sorry for the gigantic wall of text.