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

61–70 of 121 posts

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

#61

Post by wavephorm »

There is no really good reason that a "music recording industry" needs to exist any longer.

Before vinyl records people would pay money to see a live musical performance. Operas, musicals, concerts, a live event people can go to and enjoy. The concept of paying money to listen to a pre-recorded performance is a relatively new phenomenon. It only made sense during the short time window when the ability to copy pre-recorded music was expensive. Now that the cost of digital music reproduction is zero, there is no legitimate way for this industry to continue, and there is no real reason for it to continue other than if it is legislated to continue.

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

#62

Post by ambertch »

tptacek wrote: post #43
ethank wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

You're assuming all the record labels do it distribution.

But they also do management. Without a startup that tackles the management side of things (which is pretty complex relationship wise, this includes relationships with venues and between producers and bands, just so much) attacking distribution is only half of the issue

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

#63

Post by taylorlb »

The buzz/concern about the merger is semi-premature. Universal will be fighting for years in order to pass regulatory in the EU. IMPALA, who tied up the Sony/BMG merger for 3 years, is dead set on blocking the UNI/EMI merger: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storyco...

Who knows what the industry will look like in 3 years. UNI might even decide to bail on the deal by then.

EDIT: changed the link to a non-paywall one

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

#64

Post by wanorris »

kabir_h wrote: post #44
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…

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 w…

The "startups are like bands" analogy actually implies a different, more interesting model: what about a startup incubator for bands?

Pick the most promising unsigned bands out of a set of applicants, and give them access to smart folks who have experience with being successful in the music industry along with other promising bands?

Bands don't IPO or get bought out, but a deal for percentage of revenue might still be viable, sort of like a manager/agent contract. I have no idea what the potential upside of a successful band is, so I don't have a clue whether the numbers add up to make the financial aspects of this work the way an incubator does, but it seems like it's worth exploring.

The band would still be in charge of their destiny, unlike with a major label or some more onerous types of management contracts. They would just have a access to a lot of insight and help toward achieving that destiny.

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

#65

Post by gravitronic »

tomg wrote: post #57
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 pr…

Your comment summarizes where we are today, but maybe there's other solutions in the future?

Right now we have basically the two mentioned modes of contact with the artist: listening to their released music and seeing them perform live. Already big concerts have been adding revenue streams with things like VIP tickets or a chance to meet the artist, but what about more streams in the online domain? David Lynch is a bit of a pioneer in this space, from what I gather his website has a paid-subscription model where you get access to a ton of his work from finished pieces to random things he does through the day. If some of my favorite artists had networks like this I would consider subscribing.

If you really want to change the game, first change the vocabulary and context and the game will change itself.

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

#66

Post by maximusprime »

ethank wrote: post #33
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.

Piracy is actually lower now on the list of how people get music for free. Number 1 is YouTube. Ad supported streaming and radio are also up there. Piracy has been falling as a primary mover of free music for quite a while now. The shifting of the market to branding and merch has been going on as long as I've been in the industry. I was a big part of it at Warner for a while, in our direct-to-fan initiatives. The pro…

AFAIK Youtube has deals with the labels so that they get a cut of advertising revenue for any music video. Also for anyone that uploads cover versions etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if that income is quite substantial.

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

#67

Post by TylerE »

wavephorm wrote: post #61

There is no really good reason that a "music recording industry" needs to exist any longer. Before vinyl records people would pay money to see a live musical performance. Operas, musicals, concerts, a live event people can go to and enjoy. The concept of paying money to listen to a pre-recorded performance is a relatively new phenomenon. It only made sense during the short time window when the ability to copy pre-rec…

Ironically, vinyl is the one segment of the industry that well. It's been growing double-digits percentage wise every year for at least the last 6-7 years.

In 2010, vinyl sales were actually higher than in 1991, the last year the majors were distributing most releases on vinyl. 2011 looks like it could be up as much as 25% over 2010.

Why is this? Well, at least for me, it's a much better value proposition, despite being substationally more expensive. Full size art, much better sound quality, etc.

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

#68

Post by ethank »

maximusprime wrote: post #66
ethank wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy is actually lower now on the list of how people get music for free. Number 1 is YouTube. Ad supported streaming and radio are also up there. Piracy has been falling as a primary mover of free music for quite a while now. The shifting of the market to branding and merch has been going on as long as I've been in the industry. I was a big part of it at Warner for a while, in our direct-to-fan initiatives. The pro…

AFAIK Youtube has deals with the labels so that they get a cut of advertising revenue for any music video. Also for anyone that uploads cover versions etc. I wouldn't be surprised if that income is quite substantial.

It isn't.

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

#69

Post by guard-of-terra »

This is sad because Universal was the most beefy of them four.

It was something like 1:1:2:3 (e/w/s/u) weighted by catalog ("impressions"). Now it would be like 1:2:4 Universal controls the more than half of said impressions, speaking of western mainstream music.

(Luckily, they also seem to be the sanest of all four)

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

#70

Post by ethank »

ambertch wrote: post #62
tptacek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

You're assuming all the record labels do it distribution. But they also do management. Without a startup that tackles the management side of things (which is pretty complex relationship wise, this includes relationships with venues and between producers and bands, just so much) attacking distribution is only half of the issue

Labels provide one or more of the following to various degrees of capability:

- Management

- Tour support

- Publicity (photos, PR, etc)

- Radio promotion

- Video promotion

- Tour routing and agent of record

- Marketing

- Distribution and Sales

- Websites, fanclubs and direct-to-fan

- Merchandising (physical and e-commerce), including distribution/sales (Hot Topic, etc)

- Art

- Video production

- Online marketing and community management

- Partner relations

- Licensing management (sync, etc)

Not all labels do all of this, it is case to case. Even labels in the same parent corp (UMG, EMI, Sony or WMG) don't do all of these. Indies vary as well.

Post reply on HN