Music Club

[anodein82.livejournal.com]

Alright Music Club

Second Activity of the month.

The Topic of this discussion is Would the Music Industry be better if it was just independant instead of big name labels???

You'll have until Friday to discuss that amongst yourself.
I'll also be posting the banner for the icon winner this week as well. Thanks for participating.

Lori
Club Leader.

Comments

[kaleidoruby.livejournal.com]

I don't think it would be, because without the big name labels, the music industry would not be producing all the big stars that everyone thrives on. Big name labels also give indie bands hope that one day, they'll get their big break too. (If that's what they want to happen with their band.) The industry needs big labels to make the money that drives them to continue.

Carrie - Gryffindor

[cherrysk8fan.livejournal.com]

Honestly, this is a tough one for me as I listen to a bit of both, but despite its many flaws [which I'm sure will be mentioned!], I'm going to say the music industry works well the way it is. Why?

Personally, I'm a movie soundtrack nut, and that kind of thing has to come from big name labels because the movies themselves come from big production studios. (I have no idea what I would do without my Moulin Rouge! soundtrack!)

Also, while it may not be so difficult to get five or six people together to put together the beginnings of an independent album, think of the complexities involved with classical/orchestral music. For much of that to ever get out to the public, professional help and equipment, as well as serious professional promotion, are required.

And another silly thing...how could people ever feel so cool for listening to only indie stuff if there weren't any big labels to compare it to? ;)

[beautyfrompain.livejournal.com]

I agree with the two above, the music industry is better off the way it is, with the big name labels.

To be honest, I don't know a lot about it so I can't really go into all the politics and negative things that factor into big label companies. But what I do know is from experience. My best friend and I just finished recording an independent album about 2 months ago. And let me tell you, it sucks when you have to pay for everything yourself! To think how much easier it would have been if we had a record company backing us up. Not only would we not have to worry financially, but also the quality would be better, I think. Yes, we did a pretty good job ourselves, only being teenagers, but the album could definitely have benefited with having ideas from professional producers and musicians.

Obviously, we aren't the greatest indie group there is, since this was our first time, but if and when we ever get a chance to do it again, I sure hope we have a record label!

As cherrysk8fan mentioned, soundtracks come from major labels and frankly, I would all but die if I didn't have movie soundtracks!

Whatever the case may be, professional help from record companies - money, producers, musicians, etc. - is such a key ingrediant if you want to make it in the music industry.

Although, more power to those indie groups who actually do make it big!!

::tori::hufflepuff::

Re: Movie Soundtracks

[hxcpunkchick.livejournal.com]

Recently most times the soundtrack is actually released through the movie studio's own record company. And it's becoming more and more popular to use music from groups that are on an indie label (when not using a straight score).

See, there are actual indie labels that help aspiring musicians...they do provide a lot of the money required (which I agree...is no where near the range of cheap) to be able to produce a good album. These indie labels have their own PR reps (which I almost got to intern with one a few summers back...just couldn't find a place to live soon enough) which work soooo incredibly hard and many of them rely on street teams to help get the word out about shows and album releases. I think one of them main differences between a indie and a big name record label lies in where the focus is placed (mostly in the marketing).

tif.Slytherin.

Re: Movie Soundtracks

[beautyfrompain.livejournal.com]

Very true. Again, I really don't know anything about record labels/indie labels... which is kinda bad since I want to go into the music industry *facepalm*

I didn't know that there really were indie labels. Are they just considered indie because they aren't as well known? hmm. Am curious.

Thanks!

I do agree, however, that they differ in marketing. Obviously, all the big names want is money... where as from what you tell me, it seems the indie labels are wanting to actually help the musicians out, rather than getting all the profit. Very cool. x]

::tori::hufflepuff::

Re: Movie Soundtracks

[laynie.livejournal.com]

You're wanting to go into the music business? What do you want to do?
I'm going to school for music business right now...you should read my post about this below. And basically, a record label is completely independent if they have no affiliation whatsoever with a major record label. Independent labels are very numerous, yet have very small artist lists and sell very small numbers of albums. There probably aren't alot of these that you've heard of.

Brooke//Gryffindor

Re: Movie Soundtracks

[beautyfrompain.livejournal.com]

awesome, thanks.

And yeah, I'm a singer and my friend and I just finished recording an album in June. So yes, I'd like to do something with the music business someday, not sure of what exacly - love to sing, but if not writing music is always fun, or maybe something else. who knows!

what are you wanting to do?

Re: Movie Soundtracks

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Well good luck in your ventures. Songwriting is always very lucrative since many of the singers nowadays can't think for themselves, let alone write for themselves. Heh.
If you get the chance, read a book called "Confessions of a Record Producer". It's a hard-hitting look at the music business and has alot of true stories in it. It also gives a pretty thorough explanation of many aspects of the business and is written for people (like you and me, but especially artists) who are wanting to enter the business. A friend told me about it a while ago and it's one of the very few books on my bookshelf...so I'll recommend it to you.

I'm wanting to go into tour management or artist management. Maybe dabble a bit in marketing of records or publicity.

Re: Movie Soundtracks

[beautyfrompain.livejournal.com]

thank you! You too - much luck with school and then whichever career you choose! Both of which sound extremely fun :) I read on your profile that you're working at Donny Osmond's tour? That is awesome. I would love to do something like that. Even if I'm not "the star" or writing songs or whatever, it would simply be a blast to be a part of it, whether its in the studio or touring, I just find it all fascinating.

And thanks for the book recommendation. Sounds interesting. Shall definitely have to look it up.

mind if I add ya on my friends list?

Oh, and I just noticed your icon... you're a redhead, I'm guessing? x] So am I.

Re: Movie Soundtracks

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Donny is actually on tour in Europe right now (and they don't take merch people over there), but he should be playing the states again next year. I can't wait. It was such a great job.

Yeah, I'm totalling adding you to my friends list...redheads gotta stick together! heh.

[hxcpunkchick.livejournal.com]

Haha...well you know my opinion on the matter pretty much. =)

I'm not so sure if it would be better persay with just indie labels. But indie labels do absolutely wonderfully in the current system. these bands on the indie labels tend to play smaller shows, but then they get to become more of a family with all the Crews in different towns. Crews are second family (and sometimes some kids only fam) for most where they're all more than just friends, but rather brothers (because honestly, there are so few girls in scenes, and even fewer who are part of a Crew rather than the girlfriend of a Crew kid). Managers of bands on indie labels seem to be more focused on the kids, and a bit less about how much money the can gouge out of people with shows, CDs, and t-shirts. No matter what, the indie label/scene will always exist...and that's where you'll always find me (because I prefer paying 5 bux to see 5 bands rather than 50 bux to see 2).

tif.Slytherin.

[harajukusweet.livejournal.com]

Well, I believe that everything in moderation is the key. I dont think getting rid of big name labels would really be a good strategy because sooner or later, an Indie label will become the most popular or the most powerful and we would have the whole big name label phenomena all over again. There are all different kinds of people in the world with all sorts of musical tastes and I think that having both Indie and big name labels caters to everyone. My point to all of this rambling is that no, I dont think that the music industry would be better if it was just independant.

Kristin ~ Ravenclaw

[musicaltwin07.livejournal.com]

I think it would be better. People wouldn't have to compromise their songs. Plus everybody's style would be different and there would be more variety out in the music world today. It seems like all the pop songs sound the same and all the rap songs sound the same, etc. except for a select few. Those that are original and sound real don't seem to get attention. That's why I like people like Joss Stone, she's a great artist and has a unique style.

[bartendersgirl.livejournal.com]

I don't think we should get rid of the big name labels, but I do hope that the indy labels will give the big name labels some good competition.

The big name labels have too much of a monopoly on the music industry. Even to the extent of cracking down on music fans for downloading/trading music.

The big labels have too much money to begin with, and the indy labels at least sell CD's at decent prices.

Nikkie//Gryffindor

[cherrysk8fan.livejournal.com]

It's really a shame that the labels keep so much of the money, true. We learned a bit about (and by a bit, I mean we spent two days covering, so really not all that much) the music industry in my introduction to mass media course last fall, and how so little of the initial profit trickles down to the artists...it is really sad.

As such, starting the music-sharing debate is opening up a whole can of worms.

Essentially, competition is always good, it attempts [with varying degrees of success] to keep either side in check or pushes people/musicians to strive for what they want. The big name labels give the chance for super-promotion and airtime to those who want it, but the indie labels allow more people to get their message and their music out there...which does push the big labels to be more individualistic, I think.

Caitlyn/Ravenclaw

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Get ready, I'm gonna break out the big guns here. I'm a Senior Recording Industry Management (Music Business) major in college, so I've got a helluva opinion on this.

First of all, let me say that because of the downloading problem, all record labels are in a dire state of affairs. Right now, neither indie or major labels can make the Music Industry "better". Why do you think all the music out there right now is shit? People are stealing music instead of buying albums, so therefore the industry can't function properly. And anyone out there who says "I don't need to pay for music, the artist/record label is making enough money already" ...your ignorance hurts me. Those people need to educate themselves on how the industry works before they decide it's okay to freeload. (If you really want to know where the breakdown of where money from a CD goes, or what the consequences of downloading are, feel free to contact me). *steps off of soapbox* On with the debate...

To begin, let me give you some basic knowledge.
1. An oligopoly exists between the major labels, meaning that four labels hold a majority of the market share.
2. The "major" record labels are really entertainment conglomerates. They are: UMVD (Universal Music and Video Distributors), BMG/Sony (a recent merger), WEA (Warner Brothers), and EMI (Electric & Musical Industries). Besides being labels, these companies also do distribution, manufacturing, music publishing, and just about everything else you can imagine. (AOL Time Warner ring a bell?)
3. Many of the "independent" record labels are really subsidaries of the majors. For example: Arista, Jive, Legacy, RCA, and Epic Records are all labels owned by Sony/BMG. Each major has a list of 20 or 30 labels that they own. And if a label isn't on one of these lists, chances are that their distribution, manufacturing, or publicity is handled by a major label. (many "indies" take this route)

Now, in my opinion, the industry will see a trend towards more independent record labels finding success. However, I think that RIGHT NOW, you have to have major record labels. I wouldn't get rid of them.
The bottom line is that independent record labels just don't have enough money to fund a large-scale release. When a label signs an artist, they give them what is called an "advance". This is money the artist uses to make their first album, their video, and to live off of while they make it. But, this money must be paid back to the record label. When a CD starts selling, the record label takes the artist's percentage until all of that advance is paid back to the label. So if the CD flops, an artist may never see money from it and the label could be out hundreds of thousands of dollars. And unless they have a rich financial backer, this is money that indies just don't have.

Let's think of it this way. If you're an average music fan, how do you find out about new bands/artists? The radio, television, and maybe magazines or in-store promotion. And do you know how much it costs for all this marketing? Thousands, even millions. And if you say radio play like Clearchannel is free, you're wrong. Yes, payola is illegal, but there are plenty of ways around that. How do you think radio stations give away things like CD's, cars, and cash? And I'll guarantee that indie labels don't have the funds for that.

Bottom line is that there's more to a label than just producing and putting together an album. Yes, it's every band's dream to "make it big". But it's very hard to do that without being signed to a major label. And it's impossible not to sign your life away if you're with a major.

So the world can either be like it is and have a bunch of majors, or be a grouping of indies like it was in the 60's. Of course, people don't buy albums like they did in the 60's and there's not as much media as there was in the 60's...so it probably wouldn't work anyway. Plus, who would distribute/rack job/manufacture albums if there weren't majors?
Bottom line...the music industry would not be like it is today if it were ALL independent record labels.

Brooke//Gryffindor

[hxcpunkchick.livejournal.com]

Would you consider Tooth and Nail Records/Solid State Records an Indie label then?

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Well, Tooth and Nail Records and their subsidary labels are in one of those grey areas. They are independent, but EMI (a big major) handles their distribution. This is how they get records into places like Wal Mart, Best Buy, and other stores. There's a good article on that particular label here (http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/18/cx_ar_0918music.html). So I would say, yes they are independent, and they are one of the larger indie labels. But I'm still not sure they could survive without help from a major.