Finding The Long Tail In Music

from the it's-out-there dept

In the past we've had an ongoing discussion with some folks on this site concerning whether or not it's now a better time to be a musician than before the internet became central to everything music-related. We've argued that today there are more options and more opportunities for bands than ever, and that's only a good thing. It doesn't mean that every band will be a success or can make a living. That's never going to be true (and has never been true, either). Many will still fail, but there are more tools and opportunities that if you learn to embrace them, you can absolutely do much better than you ever could under the old system -- which required massive backing to become successful. It was the golden lottery ticket story of musical stardom.

Last week, we wrote a post about an interview with Tommy Boy Entertainment boss, Tom Silverman, claiming that just 14 unsigned artists "broke the obscurity line," -- which was defined as sales of 10,000 albums. Amusingly, three days after this post, I met Silverman on an airplane over the Atlantic... and only realized it was him when he started talking to the guy seated next to me about my post not realizing who I was (small freaking world). We had a brief, but quite enjoyable conversation, and while I see his point, I'm still not convinced his conclusion is correct on the issue of breaking artists (his view of business models, however, seems right on). Meanwhile, in the comments to our post, Peter Wells from TuneCore disputed Tom's numbers. Since then, both have expanded on the discussion.

Tom provided more details on the number of totally independent success stories (decreasing the sum from 14 to 12 due to the fact that they had mischategorized 2 of the bands) over at the site. He then went on to claim that the long tail doesn't seem to be working for the music business:
Clearly the ease of making and distributing music does not benefit "breaking" music. Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both. I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true.
Certainly bold words, though they did not address my original criticism with the point -- which is that number of albums sold is a poor measure of "obscurity" (or non-obscurity, as the case may be). As I said then: "You don't have to sell albums to become well known, and just because you're well known, it doesn't mean you sell albums. It's not the best proxy for figuring this stuff out." This week, at Midem, musician Hal Ritson of The Young Punx put it much more succinctly: "Sales are not how you measure success any more. You figure out how to get as many people as possible to hear your music, and then you figure out if you're profitable." Also, I still think it's wrong to only count totally independent artists in this list, because many artists signed to labels (both indie and majors) may use new technology to help breakout (with or without massive support from their labels).

Either way, even beyond that, it looks like Silverman's numbers may be suspect. Peter Wells Jeff Price (from Tunecore) followed up Peter Wells' comment on our site with a super detailed post about the problems with Silverman's numbers -- which rely on Nielsen SoundScan data, which Wells Price notes is massively incomplete. He quickly names multiple artists who sold hundreds of thousands of tracks, which aren't measured by SoundScan, and suggests the real issue isn't that new artists can't break, but that the measuring system doesn't take into account how they break these days.

I have to say that Wells' Price's post is quite convincing. It's incredibly well-detailed and provides multiple examples of clearly successful (and hardly obscure) artists that aren't counted by Silverman's method. I still think that the points raised by Silverman about new business models in his original interview were dead on (and even he made the point that sometimes it made sense to release albums totally for free and use other ways of getting money -- which under his own definition would have made them impossible to "break out."). But it seems like there's an awful lot of evidence that our original assertion is still true: there are plenty of artists that are, in fact, breaking out thanks to new technologies -- and many are able to do so without a label. Whether or not it's "harder" to break out today due to increased competition may be another issue, but I'm not yet convinced this is a real problem.

Filed Under: breaking artists, data, long tail, music, peter wells, sales, soundscan, success, tom silverman
Companies: nielsen, tommy boy entertainment, tunecore

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Lonnie E. Holder, 26 Jan 2010 @ 8:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ...when I have a specific target, I go to Amazon and buy it. The amount of time it takes to purchase music is miniscule.

    The amount of time it takes to use Amazon to download a song, and to use Pandora to find one are very similar. If you have time for one, you have time for the other.

    Why, clever you. However, I never download from Amazon, as I have noted several times. I purchase CD's.

    Regardless, Amazon itself has a very good system for recommending music. If you've purchased music there, you've already started on the path to using the Internet to find music.

    Yes, Amazon recommends CD's. However, after my experience with Amazon's book recommendations, I do not trust their CD recommendations.

    The number is not only NOT miniscule, it is about half of all people.

    You gave numbers of people who don't have what you call a computer in their home, and who also don't have a connection that you think is capable of downloading music. That's certainly not the same thing as the people who can use the Internet to find and purchase music.

    Just because people can read does not mean they own or buy books, magazines or newspapers. Can is not the same as will. However, there are several very good surveys that have estimated the number of people who can download, in a practical fashion, music or video. Having previously been on dial up for a long time, downloading music was impractical, and streaming downloads were IMPOSSIBLE.

    You didn't give numbers of people who use the Internet at cafes, at school, in libraries, at work, at friends homes, at relatives homes, on their telephone, with their gaming system... The list goes on. Your statistics have nothing to do with who's able to use the Internet to find music, so I'm not going to bother with them.

    Cool. No reason to provide counter facts, merely layer on possibility after possibility. Show me facts. How many people have ever downloaded music from the internet? How many people routinely listen to music on the internet. I have given you actual numbers, now give me yours and not some vague possibilities.

    Wow, so the 250 million or so people in the U.S. who listen to the radio are somehow handicapped by age or mental capability.

    You've gone on and on about how many people can't use the Internet to find music. That's incredibly incorrect.

    Bullshit. Not once have I said that people cannot use the internet to find music.

    People can choose not to use the Internet, but that doesn't mean that they 'can't'. 'Can't' and 'won't' are two very different things.

    You have either deliberately missed my point, or inadvertantly. In either case, my point was that there are hundreds of millions of people who do not use the internet as their primary source of knowledge about new music. If you are going to be obnoxious, at least be factually obnoxious.

    Choosing to use a radio doesn't mean that you're mentally or physically deficient - being unable to use the Internet does.

    Not true. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Education is a wonderful thing. Go get some.

    The point (that I guess you were too dense to get) is that all of these people, including yourself, who 'can't' use the Internet actually 'can'. You just 'won't'.

    Let me see. Should I go find sellers, or should sellers find me? Historically, sellers go find their customers, not the other way around.

    So you're assuming that not having a home computer or a broadband connection (or whatever your criteria were) means that they're uninterested in using Internet-based tools to find new music? That's an awfully long reach, there. Try again.

    You are quite good at making unwarranted assumptions. No, I never said any such thing. They MAY be interested, but statistics do not appear to bear out that they ARE using those tools as often as they are using non-internet tools. Try again, with facts this time.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.