It's funny that the CNBC commentator described the Rolling Stones as rebels who shunned business. That may have been the image they projected, but their music production/touring operation is the epitome of being "in business" and has been for many years. Certainly it has been that way far longer than people have been downloading music.
As someone who has worked with both old and new models, at labels, at digital music start-ups and in management, what I find exasperating is the drive for scorching the earth of the middle ground between the two sides.
Technologists who are industry-ignorant thieves that steal music and build businesses without paying
vs.
Record labels who are greedy, ostrich-like dinosaurs with their heads in the ground, running bloated models that fatten their expense accounts and line the pockets of superstars.
For more than a decade (and even longer if you work in "niche" genres), most of us in the music business (not just the recording industry) who think it is important for projects to be profitable and for everyone to make a living, have had to operate in the reality of lean recording budgets, creative marketing (instead of expensive advertising) and direct fan interaction. I'm grateful for the new tools and models that make some of these things more efficient and for the old models, like commercial licensing and radio airplay (which is still how 70% of people find out about music) that fund these efforts.
It's idealistic of me to expect that meaningful dialogue and collaboration between the two sides can become the dominant course instead of the bickering, but at least I enjoy the benefit of finding the desire for mutual benefit in my professional dealings.
"Still, can we kill off the myth that these new models mean that quality of new recordings suffers?"
Quality is more dependent upon technical capability (as SteveD suggests) and budget than it is the model. The cost of production has gone down dramatically, but there is still a need for technical expertise in the ears of people who know what they are doing, whether they have gained that capability through training, working on their own music or working for a label (regardless of whether it is an independent or a major). Not all recording musicians can or will be able to do that just because they buy the computer and the software. It is a skill of its own.
It's very likely that someone of Jill's stature could have found a record label to give her the same $75k under a limited term license (so the she owns the master). The question for someone like her becomes a matter of how she wants to spend her time and if the side benefits of direct fan interaction and publicity for being "experimental" outweigh the time intensity.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brenda Walker.
The Stones shunning business
It's funny that the CNBC commentator described the Rolling Stones as rebels who shunned business. That may have been the image they projected, but their music production/touring operation is the epitome of being "in business" and has been for many years. Certainly it has been that way far longer than people have been downloading music.
As someone who has worked with both old and new models, at labels, at digital music start-ups and in management, what I find exasperating is the drive for scorching the earth of the middle ground between the two sides.
Technologists who are industry-ignorant thieves that steal music and build businesses without paying
vs.
Record labels who are greedy, ostrich-like dinosaurs with their heads in the ground, running bloated models that fatten their expense accounts and line the pockets of superstars.
For more than a decade (and even longer if you work in "niche" genres), most of us in the music business (not just the recording industry) who think it is important for projects to be profitable and for everyone to make a living, have had to operate in the reality of lean recording budgets, creative marketing (instead of expensive advertising) and direct fan interaction. I'm grateful for the new tools and models that make some of these things more efficient and for the old models, like commercial licensing and radio airplay (which is still how 70% of people find out about music) that fund these efforts.
It's idealistic of me to expect that meaningful dialogue and collaboration between the two sides can become the dominant course instead of the bickering, but at least I enjoy the benefit of finding the desire for mutual benefit in my professional dealings.
Quality and Business Models
"Still, can we kill off the myth that these new models mean that quality of new recordings suffers?"
Quality is more dependent upon technical capability (as SteveD suggests) and budget than it is the model. The cost of production has gone down dramatically, but there is still a need for technical expertise in the ears of people who know what they are doing, whether they have gained that capability through training, working on their own music or working for a label (regardless of whether it is an independent or a major). Not all recording musicians can or will be able to do that just because they buy the computer and the software. It is a skill of its own.
It's very likely that someone of Jill's stature could have found a record label to give her the same $75k under a limited term license (so the she owns the master). The question for someone like her becomes a matter of how she wants to spend her time and if the side benefits of direct fan interaction and publicity for being "experimental" outweigh the time intensity.