Unregulated markets do lead to monopoly. Why? Because it is the very nature of competition. There will be a winner (or a few) and most will either be acquired or they will die out. With monopoly comes political power and this leads to crony capitalism. Then the monopoly can now dictate prices and influence both legislation and government regulation. The idea that companies will compete in perpetuity and benefit consumers as a result is flawed. Competition will not last, someone will win.
EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
41–50 of 121 posts
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither; it's capitalism as usual.
>> Neither; it's capitalism as usual. Can you elaborate? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sorry for the brevity. Another commenter pretty much summed up what I intended to convey: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3225388
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? Exactly what does ADA do that gives them a competitive advantage that will hold over the next 10 or even 5 years? Their expertise at merchandising? Because really, isn't ADA's core value proposition "getting CDs into the racks at Best Buy"? Who gives a shit what's in the racks at Best Buy? We really think people are going to be buying music at Best Buy 5 years from now? No they won't.
No, ADA also ships to indie retail world wide, manages relationships with about 70 DSP's, plus the rights of those relationships (i.e., some get the full record, some have to bundle, some only take AIFF files, etc). TuneCore or The Orchard or CD Baby sort of do the same thing, but without international reach and without all the DSP relationships. Stuff doesn't just magically show up on iTunes, Spotify, Rdio, MOG and…
If (stipulate) digital distribution on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify and Rdio is going to account for the majority of all music sales in 5 years: exactly what is the "market barrier to entry" a middleman firm like ADA or a "major label" like Warner can rely on? Can you do me a favor, because you know more about this than me, and be as specific as you have time for?
I'm not bullish on the prospects for small music startups. I wouldn't start one. But that doesn't mean that the middleman roles in distribution and promotion aren't going to be taken by some new entrant.
Compare: Ticketmaster has what seems to be a mortal lock on the business of music performance. But concern promotion is a relationship driven business where firms compete to lock up exclusives with a few venues in each market. None of those venues are particularly interested in vertical integration. So Ticketmaster is likely to hold on to their market position until forced out of it by a huge company or government action.
Why, exactly, is Amazon or iTunes going to abet attempts by firms like Warner to lock up distribution? Amazon has already aggressively positioned themselves up against the major incumbents in publishing. Remember, all they have to do for music is to let more small labels interface with them; unlike the agency debates in publishing, they don't even have to fight the business model.
I just don't see it. However complex you think the music world is, so that we need firms like CD Baby to get artists listed on iTunes, I just don't see why 5 years from now a label like Kill Rock Stars is going to need the relationships it needs now to gets its products into the mainstream market.
It is going to get easier for companies like KRS, and harder and harder for firms like Warner. It just looks like it has to.
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#44Micro-labels are cool and online services like Rdio and Spotify are great but is there anyone out there doing anything in this space besides these players? It seems like this industry is prime for disruption and I'm not talking about the kind of disruption the current startups are doing. I see a ton of startups focusing on getting music to the consumer but what about startups that focus on grooming new talent for the…
It's not a bad idea, but there are two major drawbacks:
1) it's not that profitable. Companies that have tried some variant of this include tunecore and rcrdlbl but both dropped the bits that weren't profitable.
2) imagine startups are like bands; the founders will always do a better job making noise than a hired PR agency. Labels introduce politics and want to see success line their pockets, not the artist's. They will always recommend charging for music, rather than giving it away to reach a larger audience.
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#45The traditional idea of a “label” is going away. The existence of that particular line of business is an accident of history. Not a bad thing, but dependent of a set of circumstances (including medium and distribution) that existed for, say, 50 years. There will still be a role for managing and promoting talent, but it will look more like marketing and less like distribution. It will have less dependence on intellect…
[deleted]
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#46Record labels can be useful.
For example, take Mo'Wax from back in the day. Under James Lavelle they cultivated an impressive collection of up and coming artists in the electronica scene. Finding similar artists became a breeze by browsing through their artist roster. Similar things can be said about Breakin' Bread and Metalheadz
Problem is that record labels became to large and too broad. Their only real purpose to create revenue instead of giving exposure to artists.
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not Pink Floyd; the obstacle there isn't the label but the band-members, who want their works to be sold as whole albums and not individual tracks.
Since most of their work tends to tilt towards the 'concept album' area, this request could be purely artistic and not monetary.
Which is completely unfounded given that, with Spotify, one pays a flat fee to listen to as much music as one can; there is nothing stopping him or her from listening to the entire album.
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#48Without the sales to support such a large "industry" of lawyers and business people, and without the need for many of their services (marketing and distribution, at least), are major labels not irrelevant?
With dwindling sales they seem willing to further exploit their one resource, the artist. Artists on twitter are talking about getting monthly cheques for ~7 cents from Spotify. Guess who made that contract?
I feel like we're about to hit a new low for professional career musicians. Their existing structure is falling apart (and it should) but the replacement is not quite ready. Today's professional musicians have to tour constantly to be profitable enough to survive, not to mention constantly churning out new tracks to remain relevant.
It's a tough gig. Signing to a major label is not a great move financially (cue the albini essay), they're in dire straits and will exploit you for every dollar you can generate, leaving you with little but debt.
I hope that in the future, the fat will be trimmed from the industry (good riddance) but a sustainable model will be created where the artists and minimal management make healthy livings without being run ragged just because they devoted their lives to making music.
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not Pink Floyd; the obstacle there isn't the label but the band-members, who want their works to be sold as whole albums and not individual tracks.
Since most of their work tends to tilt towards the 'concept album' area, this request could be purely artistic and not monetary.
Pink Floyd and shuffle play don't really go together somehow
Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be more worried in the idea that there is no competition in label's market at the largest scale. Supposedly label contracts aren't exactly very artist friendly already, and I can't imagine as an upcoming artist it's going to get any better. On the otherhand, there are now a million indie labels, and lots of success stories from people using the internet.
Competition is good and the web is also great but I think too many indie labels pollutes the market with crap and eventually indie labels will be known for selling crap records, gimmicky records, or weird artists not because they're good but just for the sake of weirdness and novelty. I also think the Internet is overhyped in terms of letting indie artists get heard. It makes a great news story but it's still incredi…
Why are you assuming small labels want to grow bigger? Many indie labels are owned by or have contracts with larger labels to provide wider avenues of distribution. Alongside with those, there are plenty of small labels and small artists, verging on your "schmucks" definition, that are perfectly content with their sales and the size of the fan base they have.
These are small artists and small labels who often record music because they love to do it, and they chose to do it in whatever way is most comfortable for them. Not everyone in the music industry is in it for the profit.