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

111–120 of 121 posts

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

#111

Post by toyg »

wanorris wrote: post #64
kabir_h wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

You've basically described talent shows (x-factor etc).

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

#112

Post by ivancdg »

forensic wrote: post #100
ivancdg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, ta…

Does this Muck Work require talking to you/other musicians in person? I'm wondering if this business opportunity requires a physical encounter or could be done remotely. I actually would love to support musicians and other artists/talented people by doing their Muck Work. One of the problems I've encountered informally is that there are major trust issues! My job requires them to trust me and building that trust is n…

The way I understand it, 'Muck Work' was meant to be a go-to place for people specialized in all the things musicians would like to outsource. To my knowledge, it never launched (Hey Derek: am I wrong?)

Regarding trust issues, that is an excellent point. It is ironic that you would like to help, but can't for lack of trust.

The easiest way to overcome that is to make small promises, then keep them/over-deliver.

Most people who try to help musicians have good intentions, but are not actually effective. They make promises, then fail to deliver, leading to disappontment for all.

My two cents: a person who would like to help should just identify an area in which they have real experience, and focus on that, insted of 'dabbling'.

For example, I have professional photographers, sound engineers, designers who essentially donate their time, or work at a huge discount, as a way of supporting my work. I find that VERY helpful.

As a counter-example, I've had people offer to help cold-call potential clients, but these people have no experience cold-calling, so it has been a big waste of time.

oDesk has been infinitely more helpful in a matter of months than any of the 4-5 people in 1st world countries that I've had try to help over the years (which led, in turn, to me being extremely cautious about help).

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

#113

Post by Tycho »

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…

I don't understand what you mean by brands being hard to reproduce. cf. fake Rolexes... except at least Rolex still has the vanity element of the purchase going for it (ie. people would RATHER pay ten grand for a timepiece).

But in a way it's a shame for the labels, because while obviously there role as gatekeepers and distributors has been usurped, they do have extensive back catalogs which should now be more lucrative than ever due to the enhanced availability. Whereas before shops could only stock so many records, so most of the back catalog languished in obscurity or mail-order catalogs, nowadays it's on an almost equal footing with new releases. This was music the labels invested in and nourished for decades, but unfortunately due to the effects of piracy (including the white-flag cooperation with Spotify), they won't be able to harvest the fruits of their labour.

As for the artists themselves, frankly I think music is going to suffer. For established acts it might mean more freedom, and for fans more music, but the risk-reward relationship has been all messed up hence why despite having double the population we have nowhere near the quantity of great young songwriters launching careers as we did in the 60s. The 'get rich, be a star' allure has evaporated, replaced with the ordeal of American Idol / X Factor.

spare the rants about labels ripping of artists

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

#114

Post by maximusprime »

geden wrote: post #110
mikefox wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source, please?

Any artist royalty statement. (I manage a number of indie musicians). Same goes for Spotify. You are talking pence for hundred's of thousands of "views". Probably costs more to account it to the artist than the actual royalty.

http://bizcovering.com/major-companies/how-much-do-youtube-p...

"Youtube partners will make in the range of $2.5 to $5 per 1000 video views The most popular stars will earn $5 per 1000 views. This can really add up if you have 1 million views per video. Nigahiga for example, will earn $5000 per video they put up. This range can vary depending on number of advertising clicks."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

"Shane Dawson's estimated earnings from YouTube advertising on his video clips in past 12 months: $315,000"

I'm sure it varies wildly based on content, how the users got there, etc

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

#115

Post by ethank »

maximusprime wrote: post #114
geden wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any artist royalty statement. (I manage a number of indie musicians). Same goes for Spotify. You are talking pence for hundred's of thousands of "views". Probably costs more to account it to the artist than the actual royalty.

http://bizcovering.com/major-companies/how-much-do-youtube-p... "Youtube partners will make in the range of $2.5 to $5 per 1000 video views The most popular stars will earn $5 per 1000 views. This can really add up if you have 1 million views per video. Nigahiga for example, will earn $5000 per video they put up. This range can vary depending on number of advertising clicks." http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/g…

Youtube Partners != labels.

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

#116

Post by luriel »

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'm fairly sure will be almost always free (except for live shows, and physical records as merchandise).

Music was free before copyright came along in the last couple of centuries, and is natural for it to be free again now that distribution and sharing is even easier. Already there are plenty of people releasing their music for free, and there is no reason why everyone shouldn't do the same.

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

#117

Post by jwallaceparker »

Tycho wrote: post #107
galadriel wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be inclined to consider MS Windows had monopoly on market of desktop OS, and that particular market had little government oversight, essentially a free market. And Microsoft did what any rational monopolist would do, use it's monopoly power to stop spread of any other OS (by deals with OEM,etc), tried to enter other markets by use of monopoly, etc etc. Standard oil comes to my mind as another monopoly, but th…

I don't see how Standard Oil was a monopoly, it only ever had at most 60% of the market. And even then, oil prices fell substantially during its reign so what's the problem? Windows for all its market share, has still coexisted with Mac OS for decades. During that time computers have become more affordable, more prevalent, and more useful and having a dominant single platform seems to have been beneficial to many ind…

>> Can't we admit that monopolies are basically a myth? Why do people keep bringing them up as if there's numerous examples of monopoly abuse or monopoly-induced misery.

Exactly. The only monopolies that have ever existed in history are ones given monopoly privilege by government force.

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

#118

Post by EREFUNDO »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #95
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…

> Unregulated markets do lead to monopoly. Can you give an example of a company that achieved and maintained monopoly control of a free market? > With monopoly comes political power and this leads to crony capitalism. I think it's actually the opposite: monopoly is born out of crony capitalism and political power. The only monopolies I'm aware of (railroad, telecom, power) are government granted monopolies. Anyway, I…

Well my point is that "free market" will destroy "free market". The idea is an unsustainable model because once a winner emerges politics gets involved. I do not deny the fact that government involvement can help sustain a monopoly, but my point is that the creation of a monopoly starts with the free market.

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #95
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…

> Unregulated markets do lead to monopoly. Can you give an example of a company that achieved and maintained monopoly control of a free market? > With monopoly comes political power and this leads to crony capitalism. I think it's actually the opposite: monopoly is born out of crony capitalism and political power. The only monopolies I'm aware of (railroad, telecom, power) are government granted monopolies. Anyway, I…

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by EREFUNDO »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #117
Tycho wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how Standard Oil was a monopoly, it only ever had at most 60% of the market. And even then, oil prices fell substantially during its reign so what's the problem? Windows for all its market share, has still coexisted with Mac OS for decades. During that time computers have become more affordable, more prevalent, and more useful and having a dominant single platform seems to have been beneficial to many ind…

>> Can't we admit that monopolies are basically a myth? Why do people keep bringing them up as if there's numerous examples of monopoly abuse or monopoly-induced misery. Exactly. The only monopolies that have ever existed in history are ones given monopoly privilege by government force.

Monopolies do exist, especially in developing countries. And they tend to control prices when no competition is around. The only reason why monopolies are no longer as dominant in the United States and the West is because of the outlawing of monopolistic practices like hoarding or selling products below costs to kill off smaller competitors. Again I don't deny that government involvement sustains monopolies but monopolies are first created by the free market, and then they kill that very free market that brought them to the top. I think we should do away with campaign contributions and go straight with public financing.
Post reply on HN