The Industry has still to explain us what exactly is its use in the music circuit, and why doesn''t it just fuck off.
Music Industry
- Thread starter jmspald
- Start date
Popjustice
Staff member
he/him
I think it''s only fair that the labels get a cut of money made from gigs which sell out - more often than not - on the basis of a public profile the labels have invested money in creating.
T
thisisnotatest
There''s no denying that the physical format is in decline, but I don''t see it dying out altogether. A couple of weeks ago we were talking about the death of the album - I could understand that if U2, Coldplay or Madonna announced the release of their last album, but Ash are not exactly likely to start off any major trends, underlined by the fact that the album in question has been an out-and-out flop (number 32 after five consecutive top 10s). I don''t think ''cheerio, then'' was quite the reaction they were looking for.
I agree about the tour revenue - bands don''t generally fill 10,000 capacity venues without a great deal of investment by the record label, and if touring revenue becomes the main source of income it stands to reason that the label should benefit too.
I agree about the tour revenue - bands don''t generally fill 10,000 capacity venues without a great deal of investment by the record label, and if touring revenue becomes the main source of income it stands to reason that the label should benefit too.
None of this is really news though, record companies have been forcing artists into deals in which they take a cut of tour revenue and merchandising for years. Obviously established acts would be unlikely to sign such a deal, but many acts that have been signed and nurtured in the last few years will already be in these deals.
I think the record industry is constantly villified sometimes, but signing to a major label or a high profile independent label is still the easiest way of getting your music heard, marketed and distributed. If you, as an artist, don''t want a label to earn any money from your success, then don''t expect them to invest in the first place.
I think the record industry is constantly villified sometimes, but signing to a major label or a high profile independent label is still the easiest way of getting your music heard, marketed and distributed. If you, as an artist, don''t want a label to earn any money from your success, then don''t expect them to invest in the first place.
Popjustice said:
Mike said:
But the label, under a normal contract, has no right to any of the tour revenue. Let''s not think that an artist/band should get the money from their tour and then look at their label and think, "well, they have invested in us, they deserve some of this". That would be misunderstanding the agreement and relationship an artist/band has with the label.
The label know what they''re getting for their investment in an artist/band, and in the case of a major label it''s very often a contract weighted almost ridiculously in favour of them, as they are the party negotiating from a position of power. If they want anything more (i.e. money from tours, etc.) then it stands to reason that they should invest more.
Popjustice
Staff member
he/him
I think the point is that the music industry has changed.
Artists now know that they will make their money from touring, merchandise, sponsorship deals and so on, so that is how they approach their work.
If artists are approaching their work in that way - and in a sense placing less emphasis on selling records - then record labels would be stupid not to change their approach too. It is the money spent on making, promoting and marketing an album which sells concert tickets and merchandise - particularly in the case of new artists.
I think when you use the term ''normal contract'' you mean ''sort of contract which has very little relevance in 2007'', really.
Artists now know that they will make their money from touring, merchandise, sponsorship deals and so on, so that is how they approach their work.
If artists are approaching their work in that way - and in a sense placing less emphasis on selling records - then record labels would be stupid not to change their approach too. It is the money spent on making, promoting and marketing an album which sells concert tickets and merchandise - particularly in the case of new artists.
I think when you use the term ''normal contract'' you mean ''sort of contract which has very little relevance in 2007'', really.
Popjustice said:
That''s almost what I''m trying to say, but instead of it being irrelevant to the industry in 2007, I would say it''s inappropriate for the industry in 2007.
I would contend that it is still relevant, because, as far as I''m aware, the majority of contracts still don''t include touring/merchandise rights, and it''s only recently that labels have tried to start including them.
Popjustice
Staff member
he/him
Yes, you''re right that it''s only recent - because it''s only been 2007 recently. If you see what I mean.
The thing that irks me slightly about all of this is that it is the industry which has devauled it''s own product so much to the point that for most people, the concept of going out and buying a physical single from a shop is completely absurd.
I do think they are entitled to a share of the revenue, but it is a little cynical that they are only starting to dig their claws into it when their own little cash cow has stopped paying out as it used to.
As for saying an artist doesn''t have to sign a contract they aren''t happy with, I think most people would jump at the chance of a major record deal and think about the small print afterwards. It''s clearly not the right way to go about things, but I am sure there are enough people so desperate to be pop stars, that it happens.
I do think they are entitled to a share of the revenue, but it is a little cynical that they are only starting to dig their claws into it when their own little cash cow has stopped paying out as it used to.
As for saying an artist doesn''t have to sign a contract they aren''t happy with, I think most people would jump at the chance of a major record deal and think about the small print afterwards. It''s clearly not the right way to go about things, but I am sure there are enough people so desperate to be pop stars, that it happens.
Tribal Spaceman
Oh, OK.
surely it''s a good thing that concerts are the biggest source of revenue now?
makes music more exciting, like it used to be.
makes music more exciting, like it used to be.
RevolutionInMe said:
In what way has the industry devalued its own product?
If an artist signs a contract without reading it and understanding it, then they have to live with the consequences. Being a recording artist isn''t a game, it''s a job like any other. If you''re not happy with what''s on offer, don''t take it. It''s possible now for artists to release independently and therefore retain more control (Darren Hayes, Simply Red, Melanie C, Robyn) but it''s also more of a risk. Artists can''t have it all ways. If you don''t want to invest your own money, then you have to come to an agreement with a label, and it obviously has to be a worthwhile deal for the label who will be investing the money.
They have devalued their own product (by which I was refering to singles, in that particualr sentence) by their self regulation regarding what can and can''t be on a single for it to be chart eligible.
I did say that I believe they are entitled to a share, however, as I said, it is quite apparent why they are only jumping on to this income stream now.
My point about signing contracts was meant to be seperate to the one about tour and merchandise revenue, so here''s what I meant there.
As I said, signing a contract without reading or understanding it is obviously not the right way to go about things and I agree that being a recording artist is a job, however, the potential rewards on offer would no doubt cloud some people''s vision over what they are actually signing (again, I am not saying this is an excuse, merely that it undoubtably happens).
My point is simply that major record companies are coming from a position of power and the people who they are usually dealing with are generally quite young and possibly a little blinded by ambition, and therefore I can understand why people do sign the deals they do. I am also sure that the majors are aware of this too and that they take advantage of it, it''d be bad business sense not to.
As for doing it all independantly, I honestly think that is the way a lot of different industries are going at the moment, people are cutting out the middle man and getting their products and services directly from the source (such as the travel industry) or vice versa, and I think it''s great, especially in the music industry, but I love my popstars like Billie Piper and S Club and let''s face it, they were never going to go into a studio on their own and stick their output on myspace! (hmm, wanted to put some kind of smilie face here, but I am clearly too dense to figure out how to, so please imagine...)
I did say that I believe they are entitled to a share, however, as I said, it is quite apparent why they are only jumping on to this income stream now.
My point about signing contracts was meant to be seperate to the one about tour and merchandise revenue, so here''s what I meant there.
As I said, signing a contract without reading or understanding it is obviously not the right way to go about things and I agree that being a recording artist is a job, however, the potential rewards on offer would no doubt cloud some people''s vision over what they are actually signing (again, I am not saying this is an excuse, merely that it undoubtably happens).
My point is simply that major record companies are coming from a position of power and the people who they are usually dealing with are generally quite young and possibly a little blinded by ambition, and therefore I can understand why people do sign the deals they do. I am also sure that the majors are aware of this too and that they take advantage of it, it''d be bad business sense not to.
As for doing it all independantly, I honestly think that is the way a lot of different industries are going at the moment, people are cutting out the middle man and getting their products and services directly from the source (such as the travel industry) or vice versa, and I think it''s great, especially in the music industry, but I love my popstars like Billie Piper and S Club and let''s face it, they were never going to go into a studio on their own and stick their output on myspace! (hmm, wanted to put some kind of smilie face here, but I am clearly too dense to figure out how to, so please imagine...)
The death of record industry began when they started limiting the content of CD singles, because (I seem to remember that but not very clearly) some twats like George Michael and Robbie Williams protested, feeling that they were wasting too much of their product on mere CD singles. Also some rock musicians (Ash? I wish I could remember) said that they couldn''''t compete with dance artists who would have 40 minutes of remixes and in order to sell the same amount of singles they had to have three b-sides. (Because as we all know most people go to the record store and buy the longest CD, no matter what band it is by.)
So singles became 25 minutes long, then 20 minutes long. Suddenly dance artists, who would before put out a CD with six remixes, totalling 40 minutes, had to start putting out edited versions of three remixes (compare Pet Shop Boys'''' A Red Letter Day remix CD and Drunk remix CD). The sales of singles started going down. What was the brilliant single-saving ploy record industry came up with? Let''''s only have 10 minutes of music on the 2-track CD single! Oooh, surely people have infinite amount of space in their homes and want as many CDs with 2 tracks on them as possible. In particular 3xCD releases with 40 minutes of music in total are everyone''''s firm favourite.
And so within 10 years we went from 40 minutes of remixes or a-side and 3 b-sides for the price of Ł1.99 to 3 remixes or a-side and 1 b-side for, oooh my, Ł1.99. Surprisingly, people didn''''t jump at the opportunity of getting as little music as possible, cluttering as much space as possible for as much money as possible. And so the CD single has practically died.
The other thing are of course downloads. The industry began work on their own coffin when they shut down Napster without offering a single alternative to it. If they allowed Napster to continue, simply asking a fee from people wanting to use it, we wouldn''''t be hearing about death of the record industry now. Since that didn''''t happen, people started creating alternatives for Napster to the point where there''''s far too many to shut them all down.
Another smart move was putting crappy cuntrol on CDs. People really love it when they buy a CD and find out it doesn''''t play on their computer/car player/etc. This makes people go "oh my, I wouldn''''t ever download this music illegally since it''''s so much more fun to pay for a CD that doesn''''t work". Also the lengthy notes in CD sleeves about how you are a filthy thief made people like the industry more and buy more CDs, because we like hearing that we are thieves.
What''''s the latest smart move from Universal? They want to remove their catalogue from itunes because then people can only download songs they want. Oooh, smart move. I''''m sure people will not download these songs illegally and for free, instead they will gladly buy whole albums, because we really prefer to pay Ł12.99 for 15 songs we might like or not than Ł0.79 for one song we really like. Knowing that we paid for a record label''''s CEO''''s new Ferrari and are stuck with albums full of crap because we liked one particular song gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling.
It is a great thing that the record industry will now get a share from each concert ticket we buy. You see, you can''''t bootleg the live experience, you can''''t download the smell of sweat, booze and cigarettes and it''''s not as if there is another cheaper Madonna we would see without paying Ł120 for a ticket. I predict that the more people hear about record labels getting money from concert tickets, the happier they will be about rising ticket prices. Hell, I almost regret that tickets go only 10% up in prices every year. I''''m sure Sony needs my money more than I do.
So singles became 25 minutes long, then 20 minutes long. Suddenly dance artists, who would before put out a CD with six remixes, totalling 40 minutes, had to start putting out edited versions of three remixes (compare Pet Shop Boys'''' A Red Letter Day remix CD and Drunk remix CD). The sales of singles started going down. What was the brilliant single-saving ploy record industry came up with? Let''''s only have 10 minutes of music on the 2-track CD single! Oooh, surely people have infinite amount of space in their homes and want as many CDs with 2 tracks on them as possible. In particular 3xCD releases with 40 minutes of music in total are everyone''''s firm favourite.
And so within 10 years we went from 40 minutes of remixes or a-side and 3 b-sides for the price of Ł1.99 to 3 remixes or a-side and 1 b-side for, oooh my, Ł1.99. Surprisingly, people didn''''t jump at the opportunity of getting as little music as possible, cluttering as much space as possible for as much money as possible. And so the CD single has practically died.
The other thing are of course downloads. The industry began work on their own coffin when they shut down Napster without offering a single alternative to it. If they allowed Napster to continue, simply asking a fee from people wanting to use it, we wouldn''''t be hearing about death of the record industry now. Since that didn''''t happen, people started creating alternatives for Napster to the point where there''''s far too many to shut them all down.
Another smart move was putting crappy cuntrol on CDs. People really love it when they buy a CD and find out it doesn''''t play on their computer/car player/etc. This makes people go "oh my, I wouldn''''t ever download this music illegally since it''''s so much more fun to pay for a CD that doesn''''t work". Also the lengthy notes in CD sleeves about how you are a filthy thief made people like the industry more and buy more CDs, because we like hearing that we are thieves.
What''''s the latest smart move from Universal? They want to remove their catalogue from itunes because then people can only download songs they want. Oooh, smart move. I''''m sure people will not download these songs illegally and for free, instead they will gladly buy whole albums, because we really prefer to pay Ł12.99 for 15 songs we might like or not than Ł0.79 for one song we really like. Knowing that we paid for a record label''''s CEO''''s new Ferrari and are stuck with albums full of crap because we liked one particular song gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling.
It is a great thing that the record industry will now get a share from each concert ticket we buy. You see, you can''''t bootleg the live experience, you can''''t download the smell of sweat, booze and cigarettes and it''''s not as if there is another cheaper Madonna we would see without paying Ł120 for a ticket. I predict that the more people hear about record labels getting money from concert tickets, the happier they will be about rising ticket prices. Hell, I almost regret that tickets go only 10% up in prices every year. I''''m sure Sony needs my money more than I do.
I think the length of the single is a red herring. There are several more valid reasons explaining how the music industry has devalued its own product.
1) In the mid-1990s all of the major labels started trying to reach number one in the first week of release - with both singles and albums. They colluded on release dates, began promoting records to radio months in advance, and cutting the price of singles so they became loss leaders. It led to a situation where there was a constant churn of records at the top of the charts - a new number one every week. It provided great short-term PR, but the public soon lost interest in the charts and began to see music like the labels did: as disposable product.
2) At around the same time, artists started using the full-length of CDs - mo matter the quality of the tracks being used to occupy the 80 minutes of space. Some people would argue this represents value for money, but actually it makes albums less desirable in the long run. Take a look at the ubiquitous lists of 100 top albums of all time, and most of the records clock in under 45 minutes.
These long, boring, self-indulgent albums definitely turned off a lot of casual music buyers... to the extent where the head of Sony (I think) started asking artists to limit their output in 2005. Look at how many fewer bloated wankfests we have to put up with now - and how perception of albums has taken something of an upswing as a result.
3) The whole PR disaster that was suing Napster, and grannies who used Napster, instead of launching iTunes in 1999.
True, remedial steps have been taken over most of these measures now, but it''s too little, too late.
It''s interesting that Universal is bidding to buy Sanctuary - a record label that also manages artists and promotes concerts. I can see this becoming the key business of the four majors in the not-too-distant future.
1) In the mid-1990s all of the major labels started trying to reach number one in the first week of release - with both singles and albums. They colluded on release dates, began promoting records to radio months in advance, and cutting the price of singles so they became loss leaders. It led to a situation where there was a constant churn of records at the top of the charts - a new number one every week. It provided great short-term PR, but the public soon lost interest in the charts and began to see music like the labels did: as disposable product.
2) At around the same time, artists started using the full-length of CDs - mo matter the quality of the tracks being used to occupy the 80 minutes of space. Some people would argue this represents value for money, but actually it makes albums less desirable in the long run. Take a look at the ubiquitous lists of 100 top albums of all time, and most of the records clock in under 45 minutes.
These long, boring, self-indulgent albums definitely turned off a lot of casual music buyers... to the extent where the head of Sony (I think) started asking artists to limit their output in 2005. Look at how many fewer bloated wankfests we have to put up with now - and how perception of albums has taken something of an upswing as a result.
3) The whole PR disaster that was suing Napster, and grannies who used Napster, instead of launching iTunes in 1999.
True, remedial steps have been taken over most of these measures now, but it''s too little, too late.
It''s interesting that Universal is bidding to buy Sanctuary - a record label that also manages artists and promotes concerts. I can see this becoming the key business of the four majors in the not-too-distant future.
hi - I''m someone who has worked in the music business for (cough) almost 30 years now, in a variety of roles, with some very successful bands, some moderately successful ones, and a fair amount of stinkers.
when you signed with a major record label in the past, the deal with the devil was that effectively you gave them all the record profits in exchange for funding your recordings, and if you were lucky a bit of cash to live on and some tour support so you could devlop your live show. and hopefully some effective promotion and creative input. you kept the touring money and the profits from your publishing income (if you wrote your own songs). it''s only when bands sold more than 500,000 records that they actually start to see any money from recordings. my first lawyer told me "there are no such things as record royalties," and that in 95% of the cases is true.
now the record income stream is drying up so the majors want some of the money that they didn''t get before - I think this is actually quite fair if the company does their job - they fund and promote you, and you split the profits. this is like any other joint venture - one side provides the product, the other the money. but it is only fair if they actually pay the artist a better share of the record money and other income hey receive.
the problem with the record side getting involved with management and touring issues is two-fold. first and foremost, most record people don''t have a clue how to do the other things managers do, so they don''t provide you an effective service for their cut.
the second is, what''s good for the artist isn''t always what''s good for the record company. Acts get tons of requests that will make the majors money, and not much for the artist (most of the time they won''t even tell you how much the overall cash is). this is geting even more true in the current climate of deals with phone companies, sponsors, etc. and their thinking is becoming even more short-term, as they strive to make profit numbers for fiscal quarters at the expense of developing careers, which is the real life-blood of this business. an artist that sells over a period of time and has a loyal fanbase (that they treat with respect) is the holy grail. selling out to the highest corporate sponsor may bring the cash in in the short term, but it will often alienate the artist from their fans and shorten their career (and ultimately lessen the income they bring to the industry in the long run). as a very successful artist who I''ve worked with duly noted - every time you do this it takes a little bit of your soul with it. and some die hard fans too.
on another subject, as noted, the british music industry has indeed screwed itself on the packaging side. By narrowly defining what is chart eligible, they have cheated the consumer out of getting value for money. I''m old enough to remember some amazing packages with pop-up art, free stickers, full-size posters, pin badges t-shirts, picture books, etc. - the kinds of things that get fans excited and loyal to the artist. I was excited abou these packages the way people ae excited about the iphone today!
Now all this stuff makes a record chart-ineligible. one of the most exciting packages recently was the last Beck Record with the make-your-own cover - a really interesting take on the interactive age we live in. He was penalized for it and his record was chart-ineligible.
This is even more stupid because the companies are competing against something any consumer can get for free. why pay if you''re not getting something special for your money?
I think we''re in an in-between time now in the music business. the old model is clearly over, and the new one has yet to begin or show its face. The good thing is that artists have a lot more power.
why the hell shouldn''t prince give his record away for free (for the economic reasons I''ve outlined above)? he''s getting paid by the newspaper for his work, and his fans are getting a bonus by getting a new record at a reasonable price. perhaps he''ll even make some new fans who might never have checked him out. everybody wins. the record retailers are pissed off, and rightly so, but they''ve got to rethink the way they do business as well as the majors. It''s tough to compete with free, but that''s what everyone has to figure out how to do. not an easy task, but I truly believe music has value that people will pay for when they love something. the music business and artists just have to treat the punters with respect and give them something worth paying for.
when you signed with a major record label in the past, the deal with the devil was that effectively you gave them all the record profits in exchange for funding your recordings, and if you were lucky a bit of cash to live on and some tour support so you could devlop your live show. and hopefully some effective promotion and creative input. you kept the touring money and the profits from your publishing income (if you wrote your own songs). it''s only when bands sold more than 500,000 records that they actually start to see any money from recordings. my first lawyer told me "there are no such things as record royalties," and that in 95% of the cases is true.
now the record income stream is drying up so the majors want some of the money that they didn''t get before - I think this is actually quite fair if the company does their job - they fund and promote you, and you split the profits. this is like any other joint venture - one side provides the product, the other the money. but it is only fair if they actually pay the artist a better share of the record money and other income hey receive.
the problem with the record side getting involved with management and touring issues is two-fold. first and foremost, most record people don''t have a clue how to do the other things managers do, so they don''t provide you an effective service for their cut.
the second is, what''s good for the artist isn''t always what''s good for the record company. Acts get tons of requests that will make the majors money, and not much for the artist (most of the time they won''t even tell you how much the overall cash is). this is geting even more true in the current climate of deals with phone companies, sponsors, etc. and their thinking is becoming even more short-term, as they strive to make profit numbers for fiscal quarters at the expense of developing careers, which is the real life-blood of this business. an artist that sells over a period of time and has a loyal fanbase (that they treat with respect) is the holy grail. selling out to the highest corporate sponsor may bring the cash in in the short term, but it will often alienate the artist from their fans and shorten their career (and ultimately lessen the income they bring to the industry in the long run). as a very successful artist who I''ve worked with duly noted - every time you do this it takes a little bit of your soul with it. and some die hard fans too.
on another subject, as noted, the british music industry has indeed screwed itself on the packaging side. By narrowly defining what is chart eligible, they have cheated the consumer out of getting value for money. I''m old enough to remember some amazing packages with pop-up art, free stickers, full-size posters, pin badges t-shirts, picture books, etc. - the kinds of things that get fans excited and loyal to the artist. I was excited abou these packages the way people ae excited about the iphone today!
Now all this stuff makes a record chart-ineligible. one of the most exciting packages recently was the last Beck Record with the make-your-own cover - a really interesting take on the interactive age we live in. He was penalized for it and his record was chart-ineligible.
This is even more stupid because the companies are competing against something any consumer can get for free. why pay if you''re not getting something special for your money?
I think we''re in an in-between time now in the music business. the old model is clearly over, and the new one has yet to begin or show its face. The good thing is that artists have a lot more power.
why the hell shouldn''t prince give his record away for free (for the economic reasons I''ve outlined above)? he''s getting paid by the newspaper for his work, and his fans are getting a bonus by getting a new record at a reasonable price. perhaps he''ll even make some new fans who might never have checked him out. everybody wins. the record retailers are pissed off, and rightly so, but they''ve got to rethink the way they do business as well as the majors. It''s tough to compete with free, but that''s what everyone has to figure out how to do. not an easy task, but I truly believe music has value that people will pay for when they love something. the music business and artists just have to treat the punters with respect and give them something worth paying for.
Can I just state that this thread alone makes the PJ forums the best place in the internet?
I have once read a very interesting article that said that for a band that never exceeds sales of 200k (album) the only money they get is the first advance. They have to fund their recordings, which then become the property of the record label. The videos are funded by the record label *initially*, but then the costs are recouped from the band''s earnings. Then they have no choice but go on recording and touring even if they''d rather stop, because they signed a contract which states they have to release 10 records, and if they don''t tour, they don''t have money. The only winner there is the record label.
There is a huge variety of reasons why records became less and less popular. I wholeheartedly agree about the length -- an album of 10 great songs and 45 minutes leaves me excited and wanting to play it, an album with 19 songs, 9 of them fillers and 82 minutes... well I never play all of it, because I doze off halfway through, seeing that there''s still 9 more songs to go through. As for singles losing money? The labels wanted it and they got it. It costs the same to press, package and distribute a 2-track CD and a 5-track CD, but less people will buy the 2-track one. I completely agree about the ridiculous rules such as "you can only have 6 photographs in the interactive multimedia section otherwise your single is deemed chart-ineligible". What these rules do, apart from being stupid, is taking the feeling of having something special away. The A Red Letter Day package I mentioned gave me a really special feeling, even though I didn''t like the song that much -- 2 new b-sides, loads of remixes, great sleeve, the outer sleeve to house both CDs while looking like a miniature copy of the 12"... Gorgeous. Compare that to a JPG file accompanying a download package.
whipcracker writes: "what''''s good for the artist isn''''t always what''''s good for the record company". This is another very true thing. The only large record label these days that doesn''t drop an artist after having had a few flops in a row is Mute. (I wonder for how long.) Where in the 80s you would be dropped by a major label after your third album flops and in the 90s you''d be dropped after your second album flops, in the 00s you are dropped if Radio One refuse to play your second single. (Assuming you were lucky and got to *second* single -- your first would better hit top 5.)
As for Universal buying Sanctuary, I suspect the record label itself will cease to operate altogether after that happens, Universal will only keep the concert/management parts.
I have once read a very interesting article that said that for a band that never exceeds sales of 200k (album) the only money they get is the first advance. They have to fund their recordings, which then become the property of the record label. The videos are funded by the record label *initially*, but then the costs are recouped from the band''s earnings. Then they have no choice but go on recording and touring even if they''d rather stop, because they signed a contract which states they have to release 10 records, and if they don''t tour, they don''t have money. The only winner there is the record label.
There is a huge variety of reasons why records became less and less popular. I wholeheartedly agree about the length -- an album of 10 great songs and 45 minutes leaves me excited and wanting to play it, an album with 19 songs, 9 of them fillers and 82 minutes... well I never play all of it, because I doze off halfway through, seeing that there''s still 9 more songs to go through. As for singles losing money? The labels wanted it and they got it. It costs the same to press, package and distribute a 2-track CD and a 5-track CD, but less people will buy the 2-track one. I completely agree about the ridiculous rules such as "you can only have 6 photographs in the interactive multimedia section otherwise your single is deemed chart-ineligible". What these rules do, apart from being stupid, is taking the feeling of having something special away. The A Red Letter Day package I mentioned gave me a really special feeling, even though I didn''t like the song that much -- 2 new b-sides, loads of remixes, great sleeve, the outer sleeve to house both CDs while looking like a miniature copy of the 12"... Gorgeous. Compare that to a JPG file accompanying a download package.
whipcracker writes: "what''''s good for the artist isn''''t always what''''s good for the record company". This is another very true thing. The only large record label these days that doesn''t drop an artist after having had a few flops in a row is Mute. (I wonder for how long.) Where in the 80s you would be dropped by a major label after your third album flops and in the 90s you''d be dropped after your second album flops, in the 00s you are dropped if Radio One refuse to play your second single. (Assuming you were lucky and got to *second* single -- your first would better hit top 5.)
As for Universal buying Sanctuary, I suspect the record label itself will cease to operate altogether after that happens, Universal will only keep the concert/management parts.
I''m not so sure that the chart eligibility rules are a bad thing. A limit has to be put somewhere on what you give away. At the most basic level, a band could get to number one by giving away £5.00 with every single and the ensuing publicity may be worth the cost (obviously you''d have a limited edition of - say - 100,000 copies so as not to be too expensive a trick)
The Daily Mail are complaining that the new Prince album won''t be eligible for the charts this week, but that seems fair to me. There''s no way of knowing how many people bought the paper for the album.
I suppose the question is where the line is between the interactive sleeve and the free single.
The new business model for music also poses an interesting question about music charts. If recorded music does completely lose its monetary value, how will measurements be taken for a chart? Number of requests on radio/MTV, at clubs, something akin to last.fm charts with everybody listening to music through their computers or maybe just pure monetary worth of an artist (maybe akin to a real life pop-ex).
And if merchandise and live music make up two thirds of revenue streams for today''s music industry, how are they going to chart that.
The Daily Mail are complaining that the new Prince album won''t be eligible for the charts this week, but that seems fair to me. There''s no way of knowing how many people bought the paper for the album.
I suppose the question is where the line is between the interactive sleeve and the free single.
The new business model for music also poses an interesting question about music charts. If recorded music does completely lose its monetary value, how will measurements be taken for a chart? Number of requests on radio/MTV, at clubs, something akin to last.fm charts with everybody listening to music through their computers or maybe just pure monetary worth of an artist (maybe akin to a real life pop-ex).
And if merchandise and live music make up two thirds of revenue streams for today''s music industry, how are they going to chart that.
S
Steve
Airplay, presumably, like in America.