Why Record Labels and Traditional Media Still Matter
- 8
- by Oleg Mokhov
- September 23, 2010
The role of record labels, magazines, and other traditional outlets as a distributor is obsolete, yes. Anyone can deliver digital content now. But their roles as editors is more important than ever. And that’s why record labels and traditional media still matter – to be quality filters in an over-saturated world. Think about it: if you’re really honest with yourself, you usually tend to gravitate towards content from “established” outlets. Whether that’s music on some record label rather than some dude posting MP3s on his site, or an article from a bigger site or, dare I say it, traditional outlet like New York Times or Wired rather than some chick’s blog.
It’s human nature – in this internet age, we’re overwhelmed by choice, so we look to filters that do the finding of quality content work for us. If you know a record label is great, then you’ll trust their latest releases to be worth checking out.
That’s not to say it’s always the case – of course there are widely-read individuals like Seth Godin and John Gruber who have one-person blogs with no traditional outlet interference (well, Seth had book publishers, but the blog was separate from those). And amongst all the crap out there you no doubt have found a golden nugget or two that you passionately follow. I know I do – Seth and John being 2 examples, as are countless electronic labels like Warp, BPitch Control, Kompakt, and Hyperdub.
But those are rare exceptions for the most part. 99% of DIY (do it yourself) stuff out there is crap. So what’s an individual artist (writer, musician, entrepreneur, whatever) to do? Either start passionately building a consistent-high-quality-output platform to become your outlet, or affiliate yourself with existing quality outlets, at least until your own name and brand is built up.
And that’s where record labels and traditional media come into play. They’re not needed to get music, writing, videos, and other content out to consumers anymore. But they are needed to keep consumers’ lives sane by being quality filters. And it’s your job as the individual content creator to use these outlets to your advantage.
Music writer Jacob Wright summed it up great on the electronic music site Resident Advisor: I think that as the quantity of music being produced continues to increase, editing is more important than ever. Nobody wants to check on hundreds of albums every month, we need shortcuts. We need labels like BPitch to stand for quality and to do this it important not to put out albums when EPs would be better. That why, even though labels as a round piece of paper and a facilitator of distribution are becoming obsolete, the role of the label is has never been more significant.
I agree newspapers and magazines matter because of their editorial role.
But I disagree completely about record companies mattering _at_all_.
The difference is in the freshness requirement. News needs to be fresh to be useful. It helps and adds value if you have a NYT editor making sure the news in unbiased and backed up with facts.
What is good music, though? If anything, record companies get in the way of distribution of good music by acting as gatekeeper. A record company has never helped me discover good music (what “good music” means to me). Pandora, for example, has added a TON of previously undiscovered music to my repertoire. The record company in this case is an obstacle to music finding me (they may delay or cancel a record release for whatever reason). It adds no value to the equation.
And that is the record companies’ dilemma. It no longer adds value to the customer. It’s out of the equation.
Hey gm,
Pretty much all music on Pandora is on a record label. So in this case, record labels acted as a quality filter to Pandora – otherwise, they’d be overwhelmed with too many submissions from DIY’ers. This is how it works for almost all music recommendation services and internet stores.
Beatport, for example, only accepts new submissions from their existing label roster, or if a label recommends a new label. They explicitly state that otherwise there’d be too many submissions to sift through.
Perhaps I could’ve been more specific with WHO the quality filter is useful for – in this case, not for the consumer the listener ie. you, but the consumer the business ie. Pandora, Beatport, Last.fm, etc.
So you’re right that labels don’t add value to as many customers as they did before (they still do to me though, but I’m talking niche indie labels). But they continue adding value in B2B (business to business) relationships, among other ways.
Good comment,
Oleg
Point taken… But I think in the long run, it will be people that determine what is good new music, not some executive picking bands based on his company’s profitability calculation for the artist or record. I see it as much more feasible that new music will be discovered by popularity (like news stories make it to the digg front page, or “likes” popularize Facebook content/links), than by dictation of a few key people in the industry.
It would be easy, for example, for a Pandora to set up a new music submission system and then have people with time on their hands filter that music so that Pandora’s employees are dealing only with upvoted songs, much the same way that Digg frontpage (supposedly) shows you “worthy” content links.
That’s just one example, though.
Record companies, in order to stay relevant, need to stop being old-time record companies and add value either for the artist or for the customer. It will be interesting to see what they can come up with, I am sure that smaller indie labels are already doing some really interesting stuff…
Cheers!
Personally I think that editors should be more willing to work with a service like Last.fm. Due to its human-based matching logic, it gets to the point in recommending the right music. I’d spend more time in communicating there cultivating a community, contacting relevant users and help the word of mouth. The budget for that doesn’t need to be high.
Eventually everyone will jump on the Ping wagon, but still it’s different and less powerful.
tell me what’s good on the crap released by labels such as Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga?
Sorry for the lateness, my feed reader was piling up and I finally got to this.
Having worked with bands who have gotten signed, and done full-time engineering and producing at a studio, here is how I see it:
Music that comes from a label is guaranteed to be ‘well-done’. Basically, money was spent to produce the thing. It will be sonically superior to your backyard band, and will in general feel more polished. It does not, however, guarantee that the artist is subjectively ‘good’ in the sense that their music will be appealing to the public.
I actually see it the other way: The fact that record labels have for years signed 10 bands, knowing that only 1 of them will actually make them money proves that they know they cannot always pick winners. Instead, they play the odds, pick those who they think will be good, fund them, and see what happens.
In my opinion, a far better system is the grass-roots raise money for your band to record a good sounding album system. I don’t remember what the website is, but I heard of a place where bands would post their demos and fans could go on and ‘vote’ by pre-ordering a full length CD by them. The CD would be recorded well, and the result is that everyone is happy.
Physical media will never die. EVER! Why? Because people like holding things that they buy. They like feeling. They like textures. They like the texture of paper. This is why the iPad will never EVER replace books. There are millions of people, perhaps billions, that will always buy books over ebooks. There will always be a market.
Wow, I am happy to find this wondeful Post