The raging debate set off by one Emily White, an NPR intern and the eloquent retort from Dave Lowery about the generational shift in thinking about the music industry has been widely reported this past week in The New York Times, NPR, Los Angeles Times, Techdirt, Hypebot, Lefsetz, the Huffington Post. and countless other places. Here is a rather chilling synopsis from my friend Paul Resnikoff of Digital Music News that everyone should read.
“I’m not sure I’ve experienced anything quite like this.
Because David Lowery didn’t just touch a nerve this week, he may have single-handedly crushed years of post-physical, ridiculous digital utopianism. In one crystallizing, cross-generational and unbelievably viral rant.
And after a decade of drunken digitalia, this is the hangover that finally throbs, is finally faced with Monday morning, finally stares in the mirror and admits there’s a problem. And condenses everything into a detailed ‘moment of clarity’…
(1) No, artists can’t simply tour and sell t-shirts.
It doesn’t work. In fact, shockingly few indie artists can pull this off, except for those developed at some point by the major labels (ie, Amanda Palmer) or a serious group of professionals. Most of the others that are managing to squeak out a living on the road are doing it with great difficulty and are working non-stop.
(2) The recording is now effectively worth $0; its surrounding ecosystem has collapsed.
Some people buys CDs. Less purchase vinyl. iTunes downloads are still increasing. But averaged across all formats and personal valuations, the recording has effectively become worthless. And that has had drastic repercussions for the music industry, and the lives of otherwise creative and productive artists.
(3) Spotify is not a beneficial solution for artists. Certainly not right now, and quite possibly, never.
Will Spotify ever put a meal on an artist’s table? That’s extremely speculative. Sure, it might eventually mimic Sweden-like penetration in the US. But that is not happening right now; it’s not a fair solution for artists right now. Instead, it is shuttling people like CEO Daniel Ek towards stratospheric riches, fattening major labels, and potentially giving Goldman Sachs bankers another joyride.
(4) Kickstarter will mean something to artists in the future, but only to a relative few.
Amanda Palmer may hold the world record for a long time, but there will be other Kickstarter stories. Some will come out of nowhere, most will involve previously-established artists, particularly those already developed by a major label or similar entity. This will not replace the vast financing once offered by recording labels.
(5) DIY is rarely effective, and almost always gets drowned by the flood of competing content.
It doesn’t matter if you’re singing directly into the ear of your prospective fan. Because they’re listening to Spotify on Dre headphones while texting and playing Angry Birds. Some can cut through, but most cannot without serious teams, serious top-level marketing and serious media muscle. Justin Bieber ultimately needed the machine, no matter how beautifully his YouTube story gets spun.
(6) Sadly, most artists are worse off in the digital era than they were in the physical era.
Actually, we have David Lowery himself to thank for this realization. Because the implosion of the recording has impacted nearly every other aspect of music monetization (though certainly not music creativity itself.) And its replacement is generally a fraction of what a ‘lucky’ artist could expect in an earlier era.
Again, all great for fans like Emily White, but not so great for everyone else.
(7) Younger people mostly do not buy music; they do buy hardware and access.
They gravitate towards free digital content, and occassionally pay for things like concerts when they have the money. Emily White isn’t a fourteen year-old, she’s a young adult that probably doesn’t want the morality trip. And neither does anyone else – regardless of the generation.
(8) Older people buy less music than before; they more frequently buy hardware and access.
If you really want to sell a marked-up bundle, make another Susan Boyle. It’s still a market that doesn’t revolve around free music and constant fan contact. But older people file-trade, they stream, they steal and they buy less than before.
(9) Google is a major part of the problem.
Lowery is right. Google is not interested in protecting content creators; their interests lie elsewhere. Copyright is a nuisance to them, unless it involves their own code and algorithms. In fact, anything beyond the DMCA erodes their ability to serve customers, remain competitive, and make money. Which is why the Pirate Bay is one of the ‘hottest’ searches, and why adding ‘mp3′ to any artist search produces pages and pages of results.
(10) You (we) are a major part of the problem.
Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s helping musicians. It’s not file-trading, but the payouts on Spotify, Pandora, Turntable.fm, or whatever else are shockingly low. It’s a rounding error, towards 0. The paradox is that music fans are living in abundance, while artists are barely getting scraps.
(11) Google, the ISPs, and hardware manufacturers have won.
It doesn’t matter how brutal the war with Hollywood becomes; how many Dotcom mansions get raided. Music fans aren’t going to start buying albums again; in fact, beyond the playlist, the concept of pre-packaged bundling will become increasingly foreign to newer generations.
It’s not about who’s right, it’s now the world the entire music community lives in.
(12) Everyone lies about stealing.
I’ve only heard a few people actually admit to file-trading: my close friends, Bob Lefsetz, and Sergey Brin. If you have an iTunes collection of more than a few thousand songs, you’ve almost certainly swapped, torrented, or swapped hard drives in your life. And almost everyone has a collection of a few thousand songs.
(13) Mass-marketed, ‘lottery winner’ style successes will continue.
Niches are available and sometimes responsive; more often, top-down mass marketing wins. And most musicians are playing extremely bad odds.
(14) This ISN’T the best time to be in the music industry.
Conferences like MIDEM make money off this sort of Kool-Aid optimism. But I work in the music business right now; I was at a major label in the late 90s. And the reality is that this is the greatest time ever for fans, but definitely NOT the best time for those trying to make money from those fans. And as David Lowery so darkly described, it can be one incredibly depressing trip for even a ‘successful’ artist.
That’s the reality we now live in, and we have Emily White and David Lowery to thank for making it obvious.”
I feel like these are all problems that the music industry has been facing for some time now. We live in a virtual land of abundance when it comes to music now. There is so much more available online now more than ever and with torrent and filesharing sites peoples tastes and ability to search has greatly increased. It is sad that artists are having to work harder than before to sell records or make a buck. I think though, in the future this could lead to something great. The ability for artists to expose themselves online to a greater audience is a huge asset. I know that not a ton of money is made on tours and tshirts, but look at artists like Pretty Lights and Mac Miller. They’re independent and have great success doing tours across the country and shows on their own. I think there is still hope left in the live performance aspect of this business and something else needs to be monetized besides recordings. Like it or not, everyone will find a way to get their music for free if they can.
Also, Dave, thanks for this awesome blog. I don’t really get much help or advice in the ways of music marketing in my public relations program at school. As a (hopeful) future music marketing professional your posts and information give me a lot to think about!
Laura, you are very welcome.
Another thought on this. Our expectations can be shaped by our past experiences. So, in the world of music we may remember the ‘monster’ albums that were birthed by the ‘single’ that got huge airplay on Top 40 or another type of station. Album sales soared, reputations were made, bands became icons and hope for the next giant hit (and sales) was born.
We are in a new time, a time that Chris Andersen of Wired theorizes is the Long Tail – here’s the idea: “The theory of the Long Tail is that our culture and economy is increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of “hits” (mainstream products and markets) at the head of the demand curve and toward a huge number of niches in the tail.”
If an artist can find a way to create a niche and develop a following there is an opportunity for them to make money and a living from music. It’s just a different way and a different time. Example: a local band Twenty One Pilots was just signed to a Indie label deal. The reason the label wanted these two guys was that they sell-out their local shows, with promotion only occurring on Facebook or Twitter – and they make pretty interesting music. 2 guys from central Ohio are now putting together their ‘first’ album for a label, of course they have already released 2 others to much local success.
Doug, that’s really an interesting and illuminating way to put it. The tools and the landscape have shifted, and we CAN’T be successful in the new landscape using the milestones of the old one. We have a million new tools and ways to connect with listeners at our disposal … and yet the young bands that emmelle below mention are still gauging their success by having been on MTV.
Just read your post on Digital Cowboys and I agree with everything you said.
I have a son who is a producer/audio engineer working in L.A. – he has a freaking amazing gig and is actually making money and music, successfully, at 27 years old.
What is the future? What does it look like? I want to know not only for my intellectual curiosity but for our son and his family and their ability to survive.
This next generation has been raised on the concept of ‘if its on the web, it must be free’ or a derivative of that line of thinking. This is the embedded mindset. We can thank P2P file sharing for this at the earliest stages and Google for endorsing (passively) the same mindset today.
The next big shift, the real seismic change is not going to come from a mass music player (Spotify, Pandora, etc.) it has to come from a different place. There is a new business model and it has to come from a new place – something not yet thought of.
Music is intrinsic to people, it is in our DNA. Making music, listening to it, enjoying it is not going to go away, ever. The commercialization of music is not a bad thing – the creation and enjoyment of music is a good thing. Walking backwards into the future, whining about the glory days of the 60′s, 70′s or the pre-digital days is just not smart. You can’t walk very far into the future if you are constantly staring backwards wishing all of these problems would just go away. They won’t go away, these are our problems, this is our current reality.
I want to be at the next intersection of music and the consumer. I think that next intersection is a place for thinkers and then doers, not for music execs trying to protect their job and bonus.
The existing music industry execs have demonstrated that they would rather try and protect and defend their current model or grow through more distribution sources (iTunes, Spotify, etc) and while this helps the business overall it does not change the dynamic for the music makers. (Note: I am not anti-music exec . . but I am anti-thinkers)
Envisioning the next step is going to be a challenge and it will be tough for people on both sides to accept the next steps but . . . if the next step builds a new paradigm for everyone, re-educates and trains the consumer on the value of paying for music and helps everyone engage and move forward – that business is going to be worth millions and millions of dollars.
Sorry for the long rant, this is a passion point for me and something I have long thought about.
Hi all, interesting post!
I agreed that music business has completely changed for ever and we cannot still thinking on pasts economic goals! That’s so simple to me!
At this point, most people are consumung music, free music or paying for “access” to music and the question is if those services are paying a fair bill to artist? or if new P2P systems or ISP will contribute in anyway with musicians bills, as we know they benefit indirectly or directly a lot from their music.
We know the answer, one of the problem is focused on this part of the formula. the unfair payment methods. and this applies also for the PRS agencies which not distribute rights correctly that they’ve collectted!
Is incredible to say that right now we have strong fingerprints technologies and most PRS of different countries are not developing transparent payment methods, and still remains a big part of rights not identifed and this money in their pockets!!!!
We all know that Spotify is participated in a 37% by Majors, and we have heard that payout to artists are not equal in many cases. We have heard problems of PRS societies as SGAEs in Spain.
One point could be to establish a fair payment system.
Another point will be undoubtedly the the appearance of “new effective recommendation systems” that will drive naturally more traffic to long-tail artists, those new systems that now are been developed, will rise streams of not known artists, improving the long-tail curve. CAMRS (Context-Aware Mobile Music Recommendation) is one of this new recoomendation systems that will disrupt the 90%-10% problem.
Another solution could be to share a small portion of the cake with the music consumer, as long as they can help to promote an artist, let them to make money from music if they share, create playlists and contribute to spread the word concerning a release or a concert. Why not?
I am part of this this sort of Kool-Aid optimism that is still convinced that any artist that could make cool stuff would live decently from his music!
to easy to solve this issue …. chromes vs real talented people ….
Hi Dave, sorry to say, but you lost me. Did you have a bad hair day or something?
Come on! “Kickstarter will mean something to artists in the future, but only to a relative few.”
That’s nothing new, is it? You worked in the industry. Major labels only picked a few artists a year and in most cases not because they were talented singers. At least with Kickstarter I can choose who to back.
Back to your blog post. There is a basic rule in business you don’t take into account: follow the money! The money (for many years and you know it) isn’t with the labels or any of the 14 bullets above. It’s music licensing. And I don’t mean the licensing/sync deals going right/wrong in the US, I mean global. Country by country. PRO by PRO. Publisher by publisher. Label by label. Manager by manager. Billions. And not enough of that money is paid out to composers, singer songwriters and performing artists.
If the traditional industry is willing to de-clutter the value chain & royalties / pay-out system for musicians I, and many of my competitors, will be out of business before the end of the year.
Strangely enough I guess I don’t have to worry
Hi Hessel:
Living in Amsterdam must be great with all that legal weed. If you had read the post, you would have seen that it was from Paul Resnikoff, who I happen to agree with. Sorry if you got lost or it did not make sense to you. I think he makes many great points.
I guess the question you really have to ask yourself is, are you currently in business or not? To me, being in business in music or any other field implies generating sustainable revenue year over year to support yourself and your family, at the very least. There are very few examples of this happening these days with online distributors, streaming sites, musician web sites, tools for musicians, indie promotion sites and DIY. Even iTunes is a break-even business at best. So is it a business or hobby you are talking about?
I do agree with you that there is money in publishing, but not as much as there was and as mechanical royalties collapse further, there will be even less. Even sync royalties are falling as writers feel compelled to license for free or nearly for free in order to get “exposure”. Exposure for what? What will be left to monetize? How big of a business will there be when music becomes purely B-2-B, stripped of consumer driven revenue? The entire music industry “all-in” is smaller than a good quarter at Apple and less than the annual revenues of many of the new tech giants. Those businesses are growing and music is shrinking. We have had our lunch eaten right before us, and have actually paid them to dine with us.
So it is fine with me if people want to pretend that everything is ok and that we have nothing to worry about as you say. To each his own. I on the other hand am very concerned about the future of the music business and trying to keep my head out of the sand and working towards solutions. I don’t have a lot of confidence in copyright driven models right now for many reasons. We also have seen a huge behavioral shift, that this current debate is centered around, the implications of which don’t seem to be fully understood at this time.
It has always been true that the cream of the crop rises to the top and talent wins almost every time. This is the definition of nearly every “artist” that commands any popular attention. I disagree with you that the labels “only picked a few artists a year”. In fact many were picked, many were financed, and only the elite few survived and made it through the process. While that system may no longer be effective, never mind was it fair, a system will evolve that provides the same function.
I am working to try and make that system better for artists and writers, what ever it may be. And better for business. People don’t want unlimited choice, they want the good stuff. Just like in Amsterdam. Whether it is from their friends or some form of tastemakers, people need help filtering. Otherwise all you get is noise, right?
This seems spot on to me: “While that system may no longer be effective, never mind was it fair, a system will evolve that provides the same function.” I’m mainly interested in how this stuff plays out week to week, city to city with hobbyists i.e. those outside the business. I’m a research academic so I’ve been travelling around, looking at how people seem to forge localised answers to some of these issues/ challenges. It’s often really inspiring work because people ARE solving some of these issues, in really specific, often small ways…and, as you say, I think sooner or later some of it will boil up to the top.
“People don’t want unlimited choice, they want the good stuff.”
This is something that I might disagree with, unfortunately. People seem quite happy to have an unlimited, faux-empowering number of really crappy choices over a far more limited number of choices of “the good stuff.” That kid at NPR who downloaded 11,000 songs — they sure weren’t 11,000 fabulous, incredible pieces of life-altering music. She was a hoarder, plain and simple. She didn’t actually care about that music; no one can CARE about 11,000 songs. Period. Not in 1600, not in 1900, and not today. I don’t care what kind of super high-tech ipod she has, it will not enable her mind to hold onto 11,000 songs. The vast majority of that stuff is just garbage she listened to once or downloaded just for the hell of it or to brag that she already had it to a friend who had only just discovered some obscure indie band.
She WANTS the “empowerment” of having 11,000 things in her possession, and that’s all she wants. If she actually connected to fantastic, life-changing music that makes the kind of demands on your attention that such music tends to make, she would have been happy with far fewer.
Besides, anything that you can acquire in commodity quantities like chicken nuggets or fries at a super-cheap cost or even for nothing generally tends to not be “the good stuff.” Fact is, when it comes to food or music, most people are perfectly happy with an unlimited supply of absolute shite rather than the foodie/gourmet stuff that tastes and sounds better, and doesn’t destroy your arteries. Mickey D’s makes way more money than any gourmet restaurant.
Yup- if your raised being fed crap it’s normal…
Artists will make art whether they get paid or not. At least in the digital era, you can actually make art without having to ask for permission – you can write a song and record it exactly the way you really want to hear it in your own home. You don’t have to wait for permission from some gatekeeper at a recording corporation to make art anymore. You don’t have to sign to a record label and end up owing them major money they must “recoup” before you ever see any money at all for personal use. So, as far as art goes, it’s a better time than ever to create and record music as art rather than product. On the other hand, it’s a terrible time to make money off of your album. Never been worse (unless in the past you were simply not allowed to record – then you wouldn’t have made any money off your recording, anyway). But something many people don’t get, in the gold old days, artists did not see much of the $17.99 it used to cost for a CD. They got less than $1 of that, usually. So, a few cents per sale in the past, or zero cents per sale currently – no matter how you look at it, most musicians have always gotten screwed and today’s environment is just a continuation of that. I’m kind of glad the record companies are getting screwed also now.
My take is this…. it’s not a music industry or music business problem. It’s a cultural problem. A morality problem. As we Americans get further and further away from the judea-Christian ethic, we find people stealing and lying more. That’s the core of the problem. Where did the younger generations see Judea-Christian morality lived out… in the schools? I think not….. we have a church and state thing happening there more then ever before… at home?? I think not…. Where you find up to 70% of the kids at middle class and upper middle class High Schools coming from broken homes. Even if the single parent teaches these values, that it is wrong to steal and lie, there is no 2nd parent to reinforce it… or for the kids to be able to see it lived out between the two parents. So that leaves what?? T.V. …. Movies… yeah, right! That’s a gold mine!
Yes the digital age just happens to coincide with the decrease of judea-Christian ethic, but I don’t think it is the cause of the collapse of the Music Industry…. it just blurs it and makes it more difficult to see that it is a morality issue.
Damn. I read this and also read all the comments there- this sticks out: “Artists will make art whether they get paid or not”.
Perhaps an admirable and defiant statement, but in truth the occurrence of artists and artistry being disseminated to public consciousness is growing more and more infrequent and further between in media— even now in a 7 billion world- making the definition of artist more precious to humanity’s soul than ever. More people, but less artists? Huh?
Artist: a threatened species in a corporate controlled world aggressively moving to limit choice and taste for corporate expediency?
There are many, many, many, performers, personalities, entertainers and musicians competent or better (and more not so), and some pop stars. But there are very, very, very few artists. It makes me ill listening to contemporary Pop stars being referred to or referring to themselves as “artists”- physically ill.
Some contemporized dictionary definitions now even define simply any hobbyist as an artist (see Merriam-Webster’s). How convenient. Being suspicious by nature I suspect merriam- webster’s corporate America is happy to sell guitars and all the paraphernalia and trimmings to the fantasy of starting a band to naive media saturated kids via the (all owned by mitt romney) Guitar Centers of the world. Perhaps the exquisitely subtle perfection of corporate media overt and subliminal motivational saturation could be called an art? I hope not. More like a science. And controlling, manipulating dictionaries… control the very definition of what to think. Hmmmm.
There was no massive corporate rock accessories product push market when I started playing. The reason Woodstock was the high point on the curve of rock history for quality of music creativity is it unfortunately attracted corporate attention who then realized there may be a big profit in selling everything from A to Z with rock references stamped on it, and it’s been a slow downhill slog ever since as they took control. You know, the funny thing is a huge marketable amount of kids now days still gravitate to 60’s and 70’s rock music, prefer it and yearn for more. Good luck. All the teeth of R&R have been pulled. And music with any political consciousness or conscience? BIG corp no no no. Not a chance and performers, acts go right along with it in fear of elimination, even incrimination by now quickly emerging neo fascist corporate governance.
To me the cruelest cut of all is watching the proliferation of TV ads now routinely reducing “Rock” or “Rock and Roll” imagery to selling say chicken nuggets. And I’m not talking about them actually using the music in a commercial- I’m talking about the use of rock imagery and references for rock’s innate generational appeal. Example: cut to TV ad showing a little kid’s “rock band” and Mom steps in, exclaims “Pizza bites anyone? Oh Boy!!!” (ugh), or the “rockin’” baby wearing the right brand of diapers. Great. Now rock is being used to sell us exactly what rock rebelled against- corporate crap, limited choices. How’d that happen?
Is that the cruelest cut? No. The cruelest cut is that what these ads are rubbing on and using No Longer Exists. What Rock music? It’s been absorbed, homogenized and re-distributed by corporate America in the campaign to turn us into slaves. Corporate pliant slaves
Next: Actors (just kidding).
I’ve seen this first hand with my musician friends. We were all “music business majors” in college in the early 90′s and now almost all of us have had to move on to other careers due to the changing nature of music and the lack of money to be made. One band trying to make it has had several songs licensed on shows, most notably on a show on MTV. They got nothing for it as the show seemed to think the exposure was worth more than money and if their band didn’t want to do it for free, there were a 100 more bands that would. So, they licensed it for free. And yeah, it was cool to announce on Facebook that they had a song on MTV but it didn’t pay the bills. Sad and shameful that an established network like MTV (that built it’s reputation and fortune on music) is now in the business of screwing bands. Even $500 to a struggling band in LA would have gone a long way. I’m sad for the future of music. I know so many talented singer/songwriters who are struggling to make ends meet and I have no doubts that they would have “made it” long ago if we were in a different climate.
emmelle, this is one of the biggest pluses to NOT quitting one’s day job, to being an artist as a sideline for one’s own enjoyment and possibly a bit of extra money. It’s my chosen path. I have a good-paying job that has nothing to do with music, and I also make music. Anyone looking to cash in on my desperation by offering me the “opportunity” to give them my music for nothing will get a rude awakening. In my daytime office incarnation, agreements like that involve invoices and contracts, and if they instead choose to take advantage of someone else, they are more than welcome to do so. My bills will get paid regardless.
There is a LOT TO BE SAID for keeping one’s day job nowdays as an artist or musician. It takes a lot of work to balance one’s free time like a wirewalker, but it’s far, far better than being forced to agree to getting bent over a barrel. Fugeddit.
I agree, I wouldn’t have done it for free! (and the logic follows if everyone would refuse, they would have to pay.) Someone posted a great thing on FB not long ago. It was a response to an ad on Craigslist from a restaurant looking for a band to play at their establishment for free that could lead to a more permanent gig in the future. The response went something like this (and I think it made thier case perfecty): “I’m looking for a chef to come to my house to cook for me and all of my friends for the exposure. Could turn into a permanent gig in the future.” I couldn’t agree more!
Of all the comments, this one stood out to be the most “real”. Keep your day job, folks. I am lucky, actually VERY lucky to have the job I have, but I still want to explore the possibilities of my songwriting. I don’t think it is very wise to plan your life (financially) around the passion of music. A few decades ago, yeah. But now? no. You have to sound great, perform great, and look great to make any money in this business. The digital era makes it harder to make money off of music, but it makes it easier to get noticed.
“You know, the funny thing is a huge marketable amount of kids now days still gravitate to 60’s and 70’s rock music, prefer it and yearn for more.”
This maybe what seems to be the case, but try monetizing it. I just released a new live CD of one of Australia’s greatest 60s and 70s bands, classic rock, soul and R&B, Max Merritt and The Meteors, we recorded in 1969 and released in April. So we have it globally available thru every digital outlet for the kids and produced some CDs for the grownups. It is all anemic, we did not have a huge promo budget, but if you enter “Max Merritt Been Away Too Long” into Google, there are 800+ references/links etc, and I did not spend 1¢ on Google advertising. There may be a long bake period with the album, so by Christmas I will have an opinion one way or the other of what appears to be worthwhile in this new age of the music business. More of a labor of love than a big label release, there are things I can do and experiment with on a small budget and quickly measure the results that the big labels can’t do. I can even collect fans on internet radio but have yet to find any way to monetize that, probably becasue anyone who subscribes to internet radio has probably left the old physically owning music world behind already before they became fans.
Yes, I’m am “artist.” Meaning a musician who plays and writes my own stuff. And I will indeed make my art whether I get money from it or not. I have a day career — not job, mind you — that more than pays my bills. Frankly, I’m making more money than any musician I know.
So I make my art, and I pay my bills … and … what possible reason do I have for sharing it with someone who doesn’t want to pay? I mean, my muse compels me to write and play, but it doesn’t compel me to give it away for nothing, does it? I write and play for my own enjoyment because yes, I will indeed do it regardless. But I don’t have to share it around with anyone, much less entitled assholes who think they have a right to it because … you’re gonna do it aannnnnywaaaay! SO GIMME GIMME!
Piss off. Go take ten years out of YOUR life to learn to play an instrument, and then go make your own music.
Old school musicians and composers back in the day used to have salons, get-togethers in people’s living rooms where they played for one another. We will probably come back around to that now — and somehow I doubt that Mr. Gimme-Gimme up there will be invited. Go hop up and down to your computerized programed electro-techno-pop garbage and pretend you’re listening to music when what you’re listening to is about as close to actual music as Velveeta is to cheese.
I saw a deadhead sticker on a cadillac
A little voice inside my head said:
“Don’t look back, you can never look back”
We can argue all we like about morality, or the quality of the content, or the iniquities of the system, but the industry is never going to go back to the way it was in the 70s, or 60s, or 50s. To misuse Chris Anderson’s Long Tail metaphor, the short head is getting narrower and less tall. The huge success stories are fewer and fewer and they’re making less money. But it does still exist. The fat middle has all but disappeared. Making a reasonable living out of a small success is seriously hard to impossible and that’s what these articles are really about. Meanwhile the long tail is longer than ever. There’s more music being made and consumed by more people than ever before and almost entirely for free. This is not a problem to be solved. It’s just the way it is in the West now.
Now look at the other 7/8 of the world’s population. This summer’s ridiculous hit “gangnam style” hints at this. What’s happening in J-Pop and K-Pop? What are the kids listening to in Indonesia, or Khazakhstan, or Shengzen, or Chennai? And have their music industries got anything to tell us about monetizing content?
excellent put up, very informative. I’m wondering why the other experts of this sector don’t understand this.
You must continue your writing. I’m sure, you have a great readers’
base already!