Corey,

I read your post but I have nothing to say about it becaus I was consumed by the fact that from the nose down you look like Ed Norton. I commented to my girlfriend at church one day when you were filling in for Mike but she didn’t see it. However I am always right about such things and I offer up as evidence the following visual proof….

photo link

that’s just creepy

I would be interested in seeing a further refinement of the statistical breakdown of these 410 albums. For instance, out of the 410, let’s get a stat for all albums that included the terms “Hot-Lanta”, “Dirty South”, or “Ooooweeeee!”.

[quote comment="37616"]Corey,

I read your post but I have nothing to say about it becaus I was consumed by the fact that from the nose down you look like Ed Norton. I commented to my girlfriend at church one day when you were filling in for Mike but she didn’t see it. However I am always right about such things and I offer up as evidence the following visual proof….

photo link[/quote]

I’ve been told this many many times. The only one I hear more than Ed Norton is Tom Green. As you might imagine, I prefer Edward Norton. The similarities are only exacerbated when I shave my head. It’s American History X all over again, minus the swastika and the fact that he’s all up’n yoked like an ox, yo… and I still look like Tom green from the neck down. Give or take a couple of things.

>>>If the band isn’t a money-maker in the first outing, very few labels are willing to invest…

actually, I would say NO labels. At least none of the majors or minors (usually owned by a major anyways).

Not to mention that people are far more interested in how your band will fare on MTV, etc…I mean, there are very few UGLY artists nowadays. Just think about a hardly-talented, yet beautiful and stupid dancing pop star that happens to be one of the richest people around…then compare with someone like Bob Dylan or Phil Collins who are far better artists (well, some would say) but aren’t all that pretty…

I think it was Phil Collins that said if the business were like it is today back in the 70’s, a LOT of those artist we love today would never have been signed.

also–getting signed 2.0 has a lot to do with creating buzz and being able to deliver a FINISHED product. If you’ve got 500,000 friends on myspace, and a buzz from all of your concerts around town,labels are listening…this is how Dave Matthews got signed.

I’m not sure Dave Matthews got signed because of his myspace account, but point taken.

I think more and more artists are realizing that they don’t have to get signed in order to make music work for them. Their goal isn’t to get signed, it’s to pay their bills by playing their music. And this is the secret that they’ve realized - record labels don’t make records. Chris makes records. Chad and Erica make records. Salient makes records. And if you told them “You’ll never sell a platinum record, but you will make $80,000 a year, making your own music, with no artistic interference” they would snap that offer up in a heartbeat. And they’re are figuring out that they can have that kind of career, if they cut the label out of the process.

Record labels provide 3 services to artists: loan sharking, marketing, and distribution. And, let’s be honest with ourselves, they are very good at those three things. Every time you watch an artist on MTV that makes you cringe with how awful they are, that’s some record label being successful at loan sharking, marketing, and distribution.

The thing that artists are figuring out is that the interest rate on credit extended by the label is something like 200% APR, and just like a loan shark, if you don’t make them back their money, they essentially break your arms. Much better to have everyone in the band max out their credit cards, put $50k into making the record yourself. At least then, you’re only paying 18% for the money, and if you can’t make it back, nobody comes and tells you they own the band.

Labels are very, very good at marketing an artist to 50,000,000 people. Labels are very bad at marketing an artist to 50,000 people. Marketing to 50 million people is very expensive, especially if it’s only 50,000 who really become fans of the music. Artists are realizing that they can probably locate, and promote, to the right 50,000 people with much more accuracy, and with a lot more cost-effectiveness than the label can. How many times have you downloaded and listened to the iTunes single of the week, and said, “Oh man, that sucks.” That whooshing sound you hear is the sound of a major record label missing the right 50,000.

So, distribution. Ah, distribution. When it comes to digital distribution, the playing field has leveled off considerably. True, a major label can get a record into the iTunes store in like 48 hours (Chad, it took what, 4 months to do it off-label?), but once it’s there, you get the same treatment that any other song gets. No special shelving, no contracted minimum displays, you get to be put right there next to every major label release. Not only that, but with companies like CD Baby handling online sales of both hardcopies and digital downloads (through itunes, rhapsody, etc.), you don’t even have to figure this stuff out for yourself.

I think this revolution in distribution is directly responsible for the rise of the indie artists. If you produce a style of music that would only appeal to 50,000 fans, they no longer have to all be located in Central Michigan. They can be worldwide, and still be part of your fan community. Think for just a second about how huge that is. Indie used to mean regional, exclusively. Now, indie means identity with a widely dispersed self-identifying community. Saying “I listen to TV on the Radio” identifies you as part of a sub-cultural community, regardless of whether you live in LA or Boise (in this case, it identifies you as belonging to the subculture of pretentious pseudo-intellectual asses, who love to vigorously defend whatever deconstructionist theory they were just assigned to read in their Intro to Lit course, but will vigorously argue against next semester when they take Intro to Philosophy).

For brick and mortar sales, the labels still have a significant advantage. With one call, they can put a record in a hundred thousand outlets. There’s nothing really comparable on the indie level, which is why most indie sales happen either at the table, or online.

I think this is what it comes down to. Sometime in the late 70’s, the major record labels decided that they couldn’t make money selling 150,000 copies of something. They only know how to make money selling 3,000,000 of something. If your music doesn’t have broad enough appeal to get 3m people to fork over $15, then signing to a label is a death knell. Well, as Sufjan can testify, you can easily make money selling 150,000 of something, as long as you don’t spend 10m producing and promoting it.

Holy crap, that’s a really long comment.

I must agree with the Edward Norton reference…downright eerie I must say.

sorry corey. I think I killed your thread.

No, you definitely didn’t kill it. I think the post itself is closed-ended, in that not everyone around here cares about getting signed to a label deal. I didn’t think it was a discussion that would involve the wives, so to speak.

But to shore it up completely- I’d absolutely agree with you and your assessment of labels’ 3 main talents. I have heard what I’ll call second generation tales about a jazz bassist who was signed to a popular jazz label years ago. He said they would advance him money to do the record, and then his sales would pay the label back, which is common. But at the same time, when they would hop on a jet to come to L.A. for the entire weekend, stay in a fancy hotel, drink expensive wine, and feast like kings, THAT money would also get put on his bill to pay back, seeing how the trip wouldn’t have been necessary if he hadn’t been doing a record about which they needed a first-person progress report. And when his record actually started to sell, and he was climbing on top of the money he owed them, they started charging him against the advance of the follow-up record that he was contractually obligated to do.

okay, now I think we’re done here. My next post will certainly be more broad, loaded with more conflict, and will probably start off with a catchy opening line like, “Woman are the weaker sex”.

Ok. NOW send in the crickets.

[Making the cricket noise.]

Corey, you silly ninny. Women are only weaker in things like math, and thinking. They’re much stronger than men in things like kittens, and celebrity gossip.

Wait, didn’t we already do this?

Well spoken Corey.

And for all you folks out there thinking about making record 60,332, don’t get signed. Rather, hire an independant producer to guide you through the pitfalls of the recording process. Well, on second thought, if you DO get signed, hire a producer and pay him a lot of the budget so at least SOMEONE makes a little dough in this process.

And I happen to know a guy…

[quote comment="37879"]Everything Mike said…quote]

That’s pretty much exactly the way I see it, only far more clearly stated. Nice.

My only addition to that would be if we were to talk about Christian music, just knock off a zero at the end of most of the numbers. Add in a built-in network of well-paying (ok, paying) live audiences nationwide (churches) and suddenly leaving a label out of the picture seems not only possible, but really the only intelligent choice.

I’m going to go play some more Wii Tennis now. Yes, Karen is the greatest wife ever. And I got her.

P.S. LOL Re:TV on the Radio

Well well, leave it to the “Professional Web Designer (TM)” to mess up the quote tag.

Did you hear that Suzanne Somers’ house burned down?

[quote comment="38415"]Did you hear that Suzanne Somers’ house burned down?[/quote]

I just so don’t get you sometimes.

I do. I totally get her. We were all talking about Thighmasters. Her comment was totally apropos to the conversation.

Cerise

[quote comment="38269"]They’re much stronger than men in things like kittens, and celebrity gossip.[/quote]

Yeah, you brought it up baby.

Thanks, G! ;)

Corey and Mike, I get so turned on when you go on (and on and on and on and on) about all that stuff…

uh…

umm….

yeah, i was gonna go with the “just ignore it” plan.

Your plan is appreciated, and will fail.

Corey, since you closely resemble Edward Norton and refuse to shave the goatee I think you get what you get. So you turn a few hot women on with geekspeak. So what? Same for you, Michael. Except for the resembling Edward Norton bit.

Hot geekery is de rigeur nowadays - go with it. I got myself a hot nerd and I’m never letting go.

Cerise

I said “hot” like 3 effing times. Curses. Hand me that thesaurus, will you, Stan?

Wow, and to think i was gonna type this big long post. Thanks Michael Lee! Great post!

I’m very glad to hear that people, musicians are hip to this new revolution!

Thanks Erin for sending me this link :-)