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

Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

okgo.forumsunlimited.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#21

Post by jey »

nerme wrote: post #19
ique wrote: post #18

I've always been deeply interested in the inner workings of record labels. As I understand it, it seems that a label is somewhat like a VC for artists. But no VC takes 80-90% of the company they invested in. Why do they need to take such a big part? Is pressing CDs such a huge risk and expense? If such; why continue doing it? Barely anyone buys CDs for obvious reasons, shouldn't there at least be an option for artist…

"Why can't artists get regular bank-loans to fund their business?" This is one of the fundamental questions that is most often overlooked! Ok, so three long haired dudes working part-time jobs at coffee shops wander in to a bank and strike up a conversation with a loan manager... ...I think we can all fill in the blanks here. :) The indicators that banks look to for giving out loans are quite different than the indic…

Agreed, but shouldn't three long haired stoners with a couple of successful albums already under their belt be able to demand better terms? If labels aren't willing to do it because they've "always done it this way", maybe there's room for some new investors to offer less onerous terms to proven musicians?

This happens in industries as they undergo commidification, and it's pretty clear that the barrier to entry to making music has dropped a ton and the music industry is undergoing the same thing... so why aren't the funding institutions keeping up?

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#22

Post by ABrandt »

nerme wrote: post #16

Here's the very best point that is brought up: "And musicians need them to survive so we can use them as banks. Even bands like us who do most of our own promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while." While the major labels had their faults, the DID act as investors for musicians. This was probably their most important function, and it seems as if though the majority of Music 2.0 proponents do not…

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to as "Music 2.0" (possibly the likes of pandora and last.fm?) but I do agree that the investment function of record labels is often over looked. As someone heavily involved with researching the industry, as well as helping local bands, I am constantly amazed with the parallels between entrepreneurism and being a musician.

There needs to be the musical equivalent of the lean startup theory. Just as swarms of young entrepreneurs are embracing the bootstrap, so should bands. Yes the labels could probably tell you where to get your Fender repaired, but so can Google. All functions of the traditional record company are becoming obsolete in comparison to digital methods. I envision an industry where musicians retain artistic freedom and everyone actually gets paid (check out Steve Albini's classic rant on how most artists don't make much of anything www.negativland.com/albini.html)

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#23

Post by nerme »

jey wrote: post #21
nerme wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why can't artists get regular bank-loans to fund their business?" This is one of the fundamental questions that is most often overlooked! Ok, so three long haired dudes working part-time jobs at coffee shops wander in to a bank and strike up a conversation with a loan manager... ...I think we can all fill in the blanks here. :) The indicators that banks look to for giving out loans are quite different than the indic…

Agreed, but shouldn't three long haired stoners with a couple of successful albums already under their belt be able to demand better terms? If labels aren't willing to do it because they've "always done it this way", maybe there's room for some new investors to offer less onerous terms to proven musicians? This happens in industries as they undergo commidification, and it's pretty clear that the barrier to entry to m…

Well, people ARE trying. :)

Here's an article from Billboard: http://bit.ly/7qevgk

The concept was very interesting but unfortunately it had a lot going against it, which is why Jake got out of the music industry.

Jake didn't really know all that much about the music industry... he didn't know promoters, or booking agencies... having these connections are still very important, just like in any industry.

Also, Francis and the Lights are incredibly idiosyncratic and would rather not deal with the industry on any terms other than their own... which doesn't make for the best business partnership.

Independent labels still fulfill this role.. to an extent. What they are mainly lacking in is capital and a way to recoup, as bands do not sign contract for anything other recording.

It would seem that a company with the right contacts in the music industry, a good amount of capital to invest, and an all encompassing approach to the artists income would have a shot at becoming profitable.

There is most definitely money to be made from music, but understanding the intricacies of the this new marketplace are more complicated than most people are willing to admit to themselves.

Disclaimer: Jake and I have been good friends since college.

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#24

Post by nerme »

ABrandt wrote: post #22
nerme wrote: post #16

Here's the very best point that is brought up: "And musicians need them to survive so we can use them as banks. Even bands like us who do most of our own promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while." While the major labels had their faults, the DID act as investors for musicians. This was probably their most important function, and it seems as if though the majority of Music 2.0 proponents do not…

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to as "Music 2.0" (possibly the likes of pandora and last.fm?) but I do agree that the investment function of record labels is often over looked. As someone heavily involved with researching the industry, as well as helping local bands, I am constantly amazed with the parallels between entrepreneurism and being a musician. There needs to be the musical equivalent of the lea…

Yet another parallel between programming and musicianship... :)

I think any musician knows where to go to get their guitar fixed or where to find a rehearsal space. Those sorts of things are pre-requisites to having any sort of future in the industry.

By "Music 2.0" I'm referring to any number of articles related to music having to be free, being a loss-leader for t-shirt sales, etc... in these people's minds, bands form out of the ether and well-recorded albums rain from the heavens above!

Businesses involved in the digital commodification of music need to have a firm understanding of how music is made and performed in order to have any measure of success.

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#25

Post by krakensden »

danhak wrote: post #20
marilyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MTV has changed dramatically from 10-20 years ago. They have moved away from playing music videos around the clock. Now the majority of their content is teen reality shows and the like. Televised music videos is limited to very few, already very popular artists.

This doesn't really answer the original question, in which I am also interested. What about MTV2, Fuse, BET, VH1, etc? Do TV networks have to pay royalties on music videos?

MTV2 doesn't play much music videos either- for that matter, neither does BET or VH1.

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#26

Post by samd »

ique wrote: post #18

I've always been deeply interested in the inner workings of record labels. As I understand it, it seems that a label is somewhat like a VC for artists. But no VC takes 80-90% of the company they invested in. Why do they need to take such a big part? Is pressing CDs such a huge risk and expense? If such; why continue doing it? Barely anyone buys CDs for obvious reasons, shouldn't there at least be an option for artist…

Except when a VC invests in your company, you still do all the work. They get a small share because all they are providing you is money. Record labels handle a lot of the business side of a band and let the band members just make music.

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#27

Post by DarkShikari »

samd wrote: post #26
ique wrote: post #18

I've always been deeply interested in the inner workings of record labels. As I understand it, it seems that a label is somewhat like a VC for artists. But no VC takes 80-90% of the company they invested in. Why do they need to take such a big part? Is pressing CDs such a huge risk and expense? If such; why continue doing it? Barely anyone buys CDs for obvious reasons, shouldn't there at least be an option for artist…

Except when a VC invests in your company, you still do all the work. They get a small share because all they are providing you is money. Record labels handle a lot of the business side of a band and let the band members just make music.

That would make sense if that was considered as part of the cut.

But it's not.

The labels still charge the band members for their services in addition to the 80-90% cut they take!

See the classic http://www.negativland.com/albini.html for an example.

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#28

Post by pyre »

nerme wrote: post #16

Here's the very best point that is brought up: "And musicians need them to survive so we can use them as banks. Even bands like us who do most of our own promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while." While the major labels had their faults, the DID act as investors for musicians. This was probably their most important function, and it seems as if though the majority of Music 2.0 proponents do not…

> While the major labels had their faults, the DID act as investors for musicians.

Investment under the some of the most onerous terms ever made.

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#29

Post by discolemonade »

It's extremely difficult to feel sorry for the record labels. They all deserve their fate. They saw everything coming as far back as the mid 90s, but decided they were more powerful than the market. With all their CD boom money, they could have bought Napster and Big Champagne, which tracks P2P file sharing. They could have bought MySpace and Pandora and just about any major music portal that any person of average intelligence would have thought was a good idea.

Re: Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos

#30

Post by ramidarigaz »

discolemonade wrote: post #29

It's extremely difficult to feel sorry for the record labels. They all deserve their fate. They saw everything coming as far back as the mid 90s, but decided they were more powerful than the market. With all their CD boom money, they could have bought Napster and Big Champagne, which tracks P2P file sharing. They could have bought MySpace and Pandora and just about any major music portal that any person of average in…

I agree with you. I don't feel sorry for the record labels. I do however feel sorry for the artists. They're the ones getting screwed while the labels hold on to their dying industry for dear life.
Post reply on HN