Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#51

Post by nknight »

masklinn wrote: post #7
jfoutz wrote: post #4

2 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money to me. Apple could use, say, a third of its cash and own the entire music industry outright? not that the labels would ever sell, but still. amazing how tiny that industry is given how much noise it makes.

> 2 billion A bit above $4bn total, according to the article: "recorded music unit" goes to Universal for $1.9bn (£1.2bn), "music publishing unit" goes to a consortium led by Sony for above $2bn. EMI had been bought by its (now insolvent) owner in 2007 for $4.2bn, although it was apparently widely overpriced. > Apple could use, say, a third of its cash and own the entire music industry outright? Maybe less than that,…

No point. Apple has been contributing to the death of the big labels for years, both through iTunes, which artists big and small can use, and by putting high-quality hardware and software suitable for production into the hands of the little guy.

The business models are fundamentally opposed, and Apple's is winning. Buying the big labels wouldn't change that, it'd just be throwing a bunch of money at shareholders who hung on too long.

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#52

Post by mitjak »

EREFUNDO wrote: post #41

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 consu…

I'd argue otherwise, in any other case, but since a label's success solely depends on the success of its artists, which isn't always predictable, and considering the shrinking number of artists wishing to be signed onto a major label, there's a possibility of the music labels consolidating even more.

Then again, by the time they do, they just might stop mattering altogether. I keep hoping for self-implosion, anyhow.

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#53

Post by mitjak »

mmatants wrote: post #39
Achshar wrote: post #17

I like how title makes it look like it is a relief to have one less label to deal with.

I actually interpreted the title as having the exact opposite emotion - the frustration that there are only three oligarchs in this entire business now.

It was frustrating to me personally. Of the 4 sharks, EMI was the most forward thinking one, at least to a degree a major label can be. If commenters recall, they were the first to jump onboard with iTunes, and explore other digital delivery avenues. They also tended to sign promising artists that graduated from smaller labels. A lot of artists and fans considered EMI the "biggest indie label".

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#54

Post by abeh »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #16

Micro-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…

I think http://bandcamp.com/ seems to be along those lines.

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#55

Post by sukuriant »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #28
mwsherman wrote: post #20

The 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…

Right, this is the music industry adjusting to the freedom of information, one massive merger at a time. If they keep focusing on distribution, they'll keep losing money with piracy. I doubt music will ever be totally free, but they should at least focus more on shifting the market to branding and merchandise rather than fight an idealist war where no one commits piracy despite the ease.

I don't want music to ever be free. I want my artists to be able to continue their craft and keep their concert costs relatively low. I want to pay them for their goods :) The people I listen to tend to be good enough for at least a dollar a song.

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#57

Post by tomg »

gravitronic wrote: post #48

Without 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…

> 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.

I think this is just the nature of the beast, so to speak. Due to the large number of musicians, the very, very low cost of recording a track, and the global, nearly free distribution channel of the Internet, the value of a pre-recorded piece of music is practically $0.

However, going to a show, seeing a real performance, feeling the music, etc etc, is still worth $10 a ticket to me, even for music that isn't particularly good. You can't copy/paste that experience on to someone else's iPod.

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#59

Post by ivancdg »

gravitronic wrote: post #48

Without 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…

One of the conclusions one could draw from your comment is that the wrong kind of people (professionals) have been the ones involved in developing musicians' careers. ie, lawyers, corporate marketing-type people, etc.

As a professional musician I think this is correct.

The biggest challenge that I face is in my career (besides the creative challenges of creating compelling music) is this: there are very few smart, talented people who have an initiative to help me develop my career AND the skills to do so.

My current annual income is X, derived primarily from concerts.

If I had the right people helping me this could easily become 6X, and I would gladly pay my team of part-time helpers a substantial percentage of equity to make it happen (rather do more than less, bigger pie to split).

But chances are the people with the talent to make that happen would rather do other things that will:

- make more money - will be more fulfilling than, say, cold calling venues or other less-than-edifying things that, ultimately, make or break a career.

When I read about the idea Derek Sivers had to get people to specialize in 'Muck-Work' I got really excited.

If someone created an oDesk for musician's specialized helpers that were good at a myriad of very limited, but important tasks, they could make a pile of money.

It's easier said than done. I think Derek realized this and that's why we're still waiting for Muck Work to launch...

Re: EMI music is sold to Universal. We're down to three major labels.

#60

Post by ambertch »

sukuriant wrote: post #55
dylangs1030 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, this is the music industry adjusting to the freedom of information, one massive merger at a time. If they keep focusing on distribution, they'll keep losing money with piracy. I doubt music will ever be totally free, but they should at least focus more on shifting the market to branding and merchandise rather than fight an idealist war where no one commits piracy despite the ease.

I don't want music to ever be free. I want my artists to be able to continue their craft and keep their concert costs relatively low. I want to pay them for their goods :) The people I listen to tend to be good enough for at least a dollar a song.

you don't need to pay a dollar a song.

You could also go to their concerts, buy their gear, go to their appearances, etc.

This is how music industry works in Korea, where most all music is given away for free

Post reply on HN