Music distribution in a CD-less society

[Daniel A]

Without a working crystal ball I still have a couple of predictions about the future of music distribution:

• The compact disc will die
  
• There is no stopping file sharing
  

So, how will the industry handle that? It may seem this topic has been up several times before, but I cannot recall too many inspired suggestions as to how the distribution will work a few years from now.

The theory behind intellectual property law is that every artist is entitled control over his work. Supposedly, this has been widely accepted as a fair idea. Recent years have seen a new generation of downloaders, who think that (along with other things) music should belong to everyone. Now, I'm not too sure that people are suddenly disinterested in that the artists should be rewarded for their work (aside from the fact that much of the money never reached the artists anyway); I think most people bought their LPs and CDs without giving much thought to where their money went - they just wanted the product. Since there now is a free way of getting (almost) the same thing, lots of people are opting for that instead. So, many people don't want to pay anything for music, they will never pay - but on the other hand, they never wanted to. But there are also still people who do want to pay the artists something.

Looking at the jazz scene i my own country (which I know better than ths US/"global" scene), nevertheless more music than ever is recorded. Looking back at the 80s, 70s and the 60s, a lot more artists are putting out discs (and downloads, for that matter, but so far only in a limited scale) today. But the difference is that more or less all of these are distributed by the artists themselves, or by very small labels. The larger companies are barely releasing new jazz any more. So it appears the last few years of massive downloading has not affected the variety of recordings available. I don't say that it won't in the end, but still it hasn't over here. Also, the interest for music of all kinds are, as I take it, greater than ever before. As much as I love a physical product, I think that in a few years we'll be downloading music from artist websites, paying directly to the artists. A much more uncertain area will of course be reissues of existing material. The media industry wants to earn money, nothing more. When they can't get anything out from their old tapes, they will stop their reissues (more or less already happened). If there still are people wanting to hear them, they will find their way out somehow, but perhaps more via audiophile/niche companies.

My point is that there will be a way of recording, distributing and consuming new music, and I don't think that the major media companies will play a very big part in it. The big challenge will be how to revise the intellectual property law. Historically, I think it has not been as much to the benefit of the artists as of the media industry. I would need a crystal ball to see how rights of producers, composers, artitst etc. will work in the future.

Thoughts?

Edited November 12, 2007 by Daniel A

[king ubu]

Interesting post, Daniel. I have thought about this myself, too.

As far as new/contemporary music goes, I'm sure this won't be a big problem, many small labels are actively producing albums in CD format, beyond what the majors are doing, and the majors seem largely spent on many accounts - too bad only that they hold the rights/masters of so many historically important things!

A guess for how things could possibly evolve is in direction of accessible storage repositories, to which you can get access, similarly to how you pick up a book from the library. I assum I'd be willing to pay for digital files if the quality is right, but then that may be the point... quality to the large mass of music (and film, too!) consumers is of no importance any longer.

[JSngry]

If "the industry" wanted to survive, it should have never embraced digital as a retail format. If you want a textbook example of a blind pursuit of immediate gratification leading to long-term destruction, this it it.

The good news is that seeing recorded music as "product" is gradually going to fade away as it becomes less and less viable to do so.

The bad news is that seeing recorded music as "product" is gradually going to fade away as it becomes less and less viable to do so.

Although, somebody besides a fool such as I might want to ask if We The People are capable of distinguisihing between the variously motivated types of "product".

[Dan Gould]

If "the industry" wanted to survive, it should have never embraced digital as a retail format. If you want a textbook example of a blind pursuit of immediate gratification leading to long-term destruction, this it it.

Are you referring to embracing CDs or embracing downloads?

As to Daniel's comments, I suspect he is right, that the "industry" will have much of a role in the future. The problem, in my opinion, is that the "industry" does play a role (for better or for worse) in its power to promote acts "to the next level". A model wherein a lot of musicians are little atomized individuals selling their own music - it might be a better deal for the musician but how will these musicians get notice and attention?

Again, its for better or for worse, but the majors choose acts to promote, and use their power of promotion to make the music lover aware of them, particularly through articles in magazines like DB that are barely disguised promo pieces. I'm not at all sure how, outside of the home bases of these artists, people will come to be aware of these musicians that are acting as completely independent agents. Maybe one answer will be artists "seeding" (in a different sense than its currently used) bit-torrent sites with live recordings as a way to get themselves heard and direct those people who do want to pay for music to their site for more.

As an example, if Organissimo had formed and started getting attention ten years earlier, where might they be now? Maybe BN, in more flush times, takes notice and signs them - then Jim, Joe and Randy would be in a completely different place now, instead of looking at stacks of unsold CDs and $2000 debt. (Of course, we'd be in a different place, too, because BN wouldn't appreciate what people were saying about Norah on Organissimo's BB. )

[JSngry]

If "the industry" wanted to survive, it should have never embraced digital as a retail format. If you want a textbook example of a blind pursuit of immediate gratification leading to long-term destruction, this it it.

Are you referring to embracing CDs or embracing downloads?

CDs.

The industry was built on the notion that if you wanted the best possible (i.e. - most durable, best sounding) product, that you would need to buy it. Once digital technology identical reproduction a viable otpion for consumers, Pandora's Box was opened, and the death of that paradigm began. Anybody with any sense could have seen that consumer copying ability for digital naterial was going to come sooner or later. Consumer copying ability always comes.

What I think is that the industry was in a pnaic of it's own making due to several things, the first phases of Baby Boomer aging and changing spending habits being one of them, as well as the trend towards portabilty as a high consumer priority. So rather than think this thing out logically and long-term, they went apeshit over the CD (Portabilty! Back Catalog in PERFECT sound! INDESTRUCTABLE!), got immediate results, and killed their industry as a result.

"The industry" now pretty much has no choice left but to serve as a promotional agency now, since the necessity of their participation in the creation and dissemenation of actual music grows less every day. Anyboy with a will and a way (or even a nickel and a nail) can find a cheap digital recording situation and put the results online. You don't need a label for that anymore.

But what you still do need is promotion of a majorly coordinated and networked type, and this is something that the industry still has (at least int heory. Maybe they've totally cannabilised themselves by now...). A label can still do better than an individual entity in gettign airplay, creating promotional tools/materials that "work", providing tour support/coordination, etcetcetc. And that's what I think the industry is going to shift its focus to, rahter than keep trying to find a new way to sustain the "create & sell product" paradigm.

Of course, the changeover will probably never be complete, nor do I suspect that it will be particularly sudden. But if I were a betting man (well, ok I am a betting man...) and if I was a young & hungry talent ready to roll into Wider Public Awareness (definitely not that...), I would be working like hell at finding somebody at some label to take me on, not as a "Recording Artist" but as a "Distribution/Promotion Client".

And since I am a betting man, here's fittysint saying that we'll see this sooner than later.

[Jazzmoose]

Surely the music industry will still be needed (if that is the right term) to give the public the Britneys, Christinas and boy bands that they crave...

[Daniel A]

I agree with everything said in previous posts. There are some artists who are totally dependent on the media industry marketing - those (IMO) without quality. To a large extent a new (yeah, I know Britney is finished, at least for the moment, but I'll take her as an example anyway) Britney album is a large-scale production rather than "Britney doing nice songs with sympathetic musicians". Almost everyone in the production - musicians, Britney herself (remember her voice is "fattened" with overdubs from various professional singers), even songwriters - is replaceable, except the producer, who in the end is an extension of the record company. I realize there are a lot of people who like the result, and so want the "product" - a product no small independent label would give them.

But for "quality artists", I wonder if the marketing apparatus is crucial. I know that myself and the other members of this forum are not entirely representative of jazz "consumers" of today, but looking back at recent purchases of music of (to me) previously unknown artists, all of them have been upon recommendations on the internet. People will want music, and they will not stop searching out new stuff just because there is no Borders around any more.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Daniel A

[JSngry]

But for "quality artists", I wonder if the marketing apparatus is crucial. I know that myself and the other members of this forum are not entirely representative of jazz "consumers" of today, but looking back at recent purchases of music of (to me) previuosly unknown artists, all of them have been upon recommendations on the internet. People will want music, and they will not stop searching out new stuff just because there is no Borders around any more.

You must understand that CD sales alone generally generate nowhere near the amount needed to be considered a "sustainable income" for a musician with a family. The best that can be hoped for is, again, ususally), enough to put back into the next project. So you gotta finda other ways to generate income, & that means live gigs, merchandising, etc. That's where a/the "industry machine" comes in handy, and if that's a market that is currently being served (with varying degrees of efficiency) by various agents/PR firms, then it must be examined how much more effectively those needs could be served by the possible synergy created by combining those duties with the ability to supply the actual product itself.

The otehr alternative for the established biggies is to focus more and more on publishing, multimedia products, and other consumer items that either have a built-in return (you don't have to pay anybody to write a song, but if you own it, hey...) or currently demonstrable growing market. But that's no fun!

[GARussell]

I don't agree with Daniel's first premise, that CDs will die. I believe that in my lifetime there will always be a demand for physical product.

Perhaps virtually all of the downloaders were born after 1980. Let's say that they don't care about a physical product. OK, so maybe we won't have the CD (or its successor) after the year 2040.

I can imagine that a shift may occur away from CDs to DVDs with DRM. But I don't see retailers like Amazon ever having nothing tangible to sell.

[baptizum]

honestly i agree cds will die out.

it will be all digital or vinyl. the quality available on vinyl plus the durability will destroy the cd

[Quincy]

honestly i agree cds will die out.

it will be all digital or vinyl. the quality available on vinyl plus the durability will destroy the cd

With the price of oil continuing to climb, you can expect either the quality of vinyl to decline (try on some OPEC "oil crisis" mid-1970s MCAs for size as an example), or the price of LPs will climb so high that this fad will die another death. I say "fad," even though I hold on to & play from a collection of hundreds of albums.

[GARussell]

Quincy, I too bought dreadful MCA LPs a couple of times. As I recall, the two Olivia Newton-John albums I got were the worst fidelity albums I had ever owned.

I thought the problem was that they stamped too many copies of the record from the same press. I remember reading at the time that that practice was going on. I didn't realize (until reading here last week) that the price of oil was a factor.

[Jazzmoose]

As I recall, the two Olivia Newton-John albums I got were the worst fidelity albums I had ever owned.

I didn't realize (until reading here last week) that the price of oil was a factor.

In that case, I don't think it was...

[neveronfriday]

Of course there will always be some sort of demand for a physical product but in light of diminishing returns for the labels, limited print-runs of more and more releases as well as everything that goes around new digital formats (sharing, etc.) I do believe whatever physical product will survive will soon become a niche product (and will probably have more of a hefty price tag attached).

I don't think record/CD sales have ever been a major income stream for (average) musicians, so I do agree with the statement above that labels (or whatever they will turn into) will still be in demand for promotional aspects of the business.

Also, as far as I have read up on it on the Internet, so far alternative distribution routes have not really gotten bands who tried them anywhere. Just remember the recent Radiohead debacle (that's what I would call it, althouhg the band has denied recently published statistics showing that less than half of the people had been willing to pay for the download of the recent album) or, not that much different, Stephen King pulling a publication from his website because people were largely unwilling to pay for the product.

As a teacher, I'm faced with a generation that seems largely unattached to anything that could be termed "physical product". Yes, there are a handful of people buying LPs or a few CDs, but most people I've talked to these past years - and we've even compiled statstics every year in all our classes since 2003 - don't even keep most of the stuff they download, burn, etc. The times of huge digital collections seem to be over. Our (of course limited to our school and area) statistics show that a large part of the music is deleted regularly, trimmed down to a a number of regularly listened-to tracks. On top of that, very (!) few students keep any backups and just start over again once a harddrive crashed, etc. Almost 40% state that they regularly delete just about everything they have to start afresh with new music. There's more, but the trend is clear: Music is neither collectible nor worth keeping to most younger people. It has become a throw-away product (I'm trying to recall if that was any different with my generation and I'm not quite sure it was. After all, we all needed time to develop a taste for something we could hold onto in the long-term.).

What will this lead to? We've been in touch with major labels around Europe as part of this recurring school project, and despite the many smokescreen statements we received, the gist of it is that they are experiencing the same thing on a much more massive scale. We even had a Universal representative at our school stating in a discussion that - basically - the industry is at a loss as to what to do, especially because there is (still) a massive reluctance on their part to open up to the digital market totally. As was suggested, a refocussing on promotional work and merchandising seemed to be a future option for many.

In light of that, Madonna probably (once again) adapted the fastest to the change by hooking-up with concert promoters Live Nation.

Still, I think for smaller bands things won't change all that much. Most of the bands I know around this area haven't changed one bit: they have small print-runs of CDs produced, sell them themselves and basically live off live-gigs (which are indeed on a steady rise again around here after a long dry spell).

Just some thoughts.

[marcello]

Just quicky, in the not so distant future all of the entertainment in the home will come streaming throught your computer to various devises in your home.

For music, packages will come bundled with hi resolution music files, ringtones, live and outake music, videos, fansites/blogs and other multi media in one neat little package and saved directly on your computer and easy to access through desktop widgets. They might even throw in a real cd, if you want it.

The large labels, as we know them, will take a bigger piece of the live performance pie and support tours large and small, but for the most part they will concentrate on only the largest acts.

[mikeweil]

I have nothing against obtaining the music as a download, as long as I get:

1 - good sound quality

2 - well researched and edited expanded editions

3 - decent artwork and liner notes that I can printout and store along with the burn

The problem with reissues is the cost for transfer into digital and archive research - I'm afraid the quality range will surpass that of CD reissues by far.

Mosaic going the download path - I can see that.

Edited November 13, 2007 by mikeweil

[paul secor]

I'm not so much concerned about the format/s of music in the future as I am about the future of music itself. I think that music has always been disposable to a large portion of society - at least American society, which is what I'm familiar with. But, in my past, it seemed as if there were an appreciable number of people who had a true love of and need for music. I don't have that sense these days. Perhaps I'm just out of touch, but I feel that music isn't very important to an overwhelming portion of society these days. If that's true, I wonder if the audience has thinned out because of societal factors - for one thing, it's accepted that we exist in a throw away society - or because of the quality of present day music. If what I've speculated is so, I imagine that the causes are reciprocal.

I sincerely wonder if music of any quality will continue to exist, and if it does, will our society's practices and attitudes slowly destroy it.

[Morganized]

If "the industry" wanted to survive, it should have never embraced digital as a retail format. If you want a textbook example of a blind pursuit of immediate gratification leading to long-term destruction, this it it.

Again, its for better or for worse, but the majors choose acts to promote, and use their power of promotion to make the music lover aware of them, particularly through articles in magazines like DB that are barely disguised promo pieces. I'm not at all sure how, outside of the home bases of these artists, people will come to be aware of these musicians that are acting as completely independent agents. Maybe one answer will be artists "seeding" (in a different sense than its currently used) bit-torrent sites with live recordings as a way to get themselves heard and direct those people who do want to pay for music to their site for more.

If "the industry" wanted to survive, it should have never embraced digital as a retail format. If you want a textbook example of a blind pursuit of immediate gratification leading to long-term destruction, this it it.

Are you referring to embracing CDs or embracing downloads?

CDs.

"The industry" now pretty much has no choice left but to serve as a promotional agency now, since the necessity of their participation in the creation and dissemenation of actual music grows less every day. Anyboy with a will and a way (or even a nickel and a nail) can find a cheap digital recording situation and put the results online. You don't need a label for that anymore.

But what you still do need is promotion of a majorly coordinated and networked type, and this is something that the industry still has (at least int heory. Maybe they've totally cannabilised themselves by now...). A label can still do better than an individual entity in gettign airplay, creating promotional tools/materials that "work", providing tour support/coordination, etcetcetc. And that's what I think the industry is going to shift its focus to, rahter than keep trying to find a new way to sustain the "create & sell product" paradigm.

Of course, the changeover will probably never be complete, nor do I suspect that it will be particularly sudden. But if I were a betting man (well, ok I am a betting man...) and if I was a young & hungry talent ready to roll into Wider Public Awareness (definitely not that...), I would be working like hell at finding somebody at some label to take me on, not as a "Recording Artist" but as a "Distribution/Promotion Client".

And since I am a betting man, here's fittysint saying that we'll see this sooner than later.

Appears that there is agreement that the old business model of "production, marketing and distribution" is over. Because of changes in technology, production has become much cheaper and likewise less centralized;distribution has become in large part ubiquitious; and the only part left is the marketing and public relations. That is why the gurus at the music companies are shaking in their boots. There are some great PR and marketing firms out there and suddenly they can get in the "music" business. Major competion awaits the old line music companies.

For the artist the path is less clear. They have to find representation to "market" their product. I believe that we are seeing a step back to the beginning of the music business where recorded music is simply used as a tool to market the performer with no one is looking to it as the chief revenue source. In other words, orginally it was the record to promote the "on the road" band Then it became, the "on the road band" to promote the record. We are going back to the future so to speak.The money for the performer will come from llive performances, concerts, dances, etc. We will probably see a step back to the traveling bands, city to city doing gigs....on the road a lot....I think you will begin to see an increase in smaller venue's, including clubs, because the performers will no longer be able to depend on much revenue from record sales. As for jazz, probably less will change. Many parts of the jazz business have been this way for some time.

Someone mentioned Madonna and her new deal. If nothing else, she has been the shrewdest of marketers. I think she is once again leading the way and the music business would be smart to pay attention.

[.:.impossible]

Appears that there is agreement that the old business model of "production, marketing and distribution" is over. Because of changes in technology, production has become much cheaper and likewise less centralized;distribution has become in large part ubiquitious; and the only part left is the marketing and public relations. That is why the gurus at the music companies are shaking in their boots. There are some great PR and marketing firms out there and suddenly they can get in the "music" business. Major competion awaits the old line music companies.

For the artist the path is less clear. They have to find representation to "market" their product. I believe that we are seeing a step back to the beginning of the music business where recorded music is simply used as a tool to market the performer with no one is looking to it as the chief revenue source. In other words, orginally it was the record to promote the "on the road" band Then it became, the "on the road band" to promote the record. We are going back to the future so to speak.The money for the performer will come from llive performances, concerts, dances, etc. We will probably see a step back to the traveling bands, city to city doing gigs....on the road a lot....I think you will begin to see an increase in smaller venue's, including clubs, because the performers will no longer be able to depend on much revenue from record sales. As for jazz, probably less will change. Many parts of the jazz business have been this way for some time.

Someone mentioned Madonna and her new deal. If nothing else, she has been the shrewdest of marketers. I think she is once again leading the way and the music business would be smart to pay attention.

What do you mean by "distribution has become in large part ubiquitous"?

"The money for the performer will come from llive performances, concerts, dances, etc. We will probably see a step back to the traveling bands, city to city doing gigs....on the road a lot....I think you will begin to see an increase in smaller venue's, including clubs, because the performers will no longer be able to depend on much revenue from record sales. As for jazz, probably less will change. Many parts of the jazz business have been this way for some time. "

Isn't this how it has always been? Dances? That IS back to the future...

[JSngry]

Isn't this how it has always been? Dances? That IS back to the future...

If jazz has to go back to playing for dances, there's gonna be a whole lot of displaced motherfuckers!

Academia, your next generation awaits!

[Harold_Z]

the money for the performer will come from llive performances, concerts, dances, etc. We will probably see a step back to the traveling bands, city to city doing gigs....on the road a lot....I think you will begin to see an increase in smaller venue's, including clubs, because the performers will no longer be able to depend on much revenue from record sales. As for jazz, probably less will change. Many parts of the jazz business have been this way for some time.

I wish this was the case, but at his point (and I live in the NYC metropolitan area) venues that feature live music are at an all time low. there are some- not nearly enough- and the pay is 30 years out of date. I don't see any dynamic coming that will cause bar owners to shell out more bucks, and the truth of the matter is, they aren't doing that well either.

[Indestructible!]

I found this particularly interesting (even though I don't necessarily agree with all of what the author has to say)...

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/

Cheers,

Shane

P.S. The "trip to Russia" part of the blog has some funny shit goin' on as well!

[JSngry]

Harols, I think what we'll see (and are seeing), is the decline/fall of bars/restaurants/clubs as the primary source for local live performances, to be replaced by indepenent "venues" (which may or may not function as "clubs") which bands themselves rent for a night, week, whatever. In a sense, it's a succumbing to the odious "pay to play" concept, but on the other hand, if all concerned are shrewd, it can turn into a win-win.

One thing's for sure - musicians can no longer assume that there will be places to play, places that need to have a band in there, nor that people are going to be looking for live music when they go out. So what we gotta do is hustle more to create gigs, and then hustle some more to create an interest. A simple background/cocktail trio w/lounge vocalist on weekends is no longer going to be enough to get it done. Nobody (well, hardly anybody, there's always a niche...) really cares anymore, and when nobody cares, there ain't gonna be no money...

This is gonna affect jazz too. Just getting up there all non-plussed and just "playing tunes"...who cares at this point? Look at the numbers...Cats gotta get more presentation conscious and material consicous. Even with that, it's gonna be an uphill climb, but without that...

[Daniel A]

I wish this was the case, but at his point (and I live in the NYC metropolitan area) venues that feature live music are at an all time low. there are some- not nearly enough- and the pay is 30 years out of date. I don't see any dynamic coming that will cause bar owners to shell out more bucks, and the truth of the matter is, they aren't doing that well either.

Maybe we should not expect serious music to be made any more in areas which are so expensive. Stockholm is very small in comparsion, but in the suburbs there are more and more places with live music popping up.

[.:.impossible]

I wish this was the case, but at his point (and I live in the NYC metropolitan area) venues that feature live music are at an all time low. there are some- not nearly enough- and the pay is 30 years out of date. I don't see any dynamic coming that will cause bar owners to shell out more bucks, and the truth of the matter is, they aren't doing that well either.

Maybe we should not expect serious music to be made any more in areas which are so expensive. Stockholm is very small in comparsion, but in the suburbs there are more and more places with live music popping up.

I agree. I have had so many conversations over the past couple of years with musicians aspiring to move to Brooklyn, blah blah blah. I say "Grow your own roots! Stop trying to climb somebody else's tree!"

Richmond, VA is a great example of how a local scene can flourish.

“The first time (Steven Bernstein) heard our charts he said it would be impossible to put together a group in New York who could play them,” White says. “There are an amazing group of musicians in Richmond; just because we are a small city doesn’t mean we’re the B-team.”

Source