Steve Albini on the state of music industry

[tapper mike]

The record labels that survived are doing just fine financially from music revenue Though not how one would think. They manage and profit directly off of tours. The Eagles made 100 million touring last year.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/201 ... t-tickets/

[jopy]

I'm actually well-aware of the old school and the corrupt industry...I'm making things which will have run into millions of dollars when I was trying to record things in studios. And we really had to watch the clock to record modestly at all.
I'm all for access and I'm all for the industry as we know it fading into memory.
These gigantic studios now still exist for the elites in terms of major $$$$$$$$ backing and to my view a huge percentage of it is for show and completely unnecessary.
So I don't really think things have changed radically in terms of the difference between someone with real access and someone at home; except for the latter can after a fashion say f**k you to it. The chances for most people to get a career going were, IME, much better when I was a kid than today, because of who makes the decision and an ever narrowing PTB in terms of taking a chance.

I agree with all of this. I know you're well aware of how hard it was to get access to making decent recordings in the past, and I think a lot of what Albini says is reinforcing how much easier it is to make music now. There were certainly mission driven companies like Stax or Atlantic or ECM that took chances on music first and foremost, but they were the exception for sure.

It's also a lot easier to distribute recorded music. Again, as you know, lots of indie record producers in the 60's and 70's basically fell apart because of their inability to get product to market efficiently, and their lack of access to radio play and record racks. Ergo, Soundcloud.

On the flip side, though, it probably is not that much easier to make money or generate attention for your music today. In fact, it might be harder for some things, because although it's essentially free to get your recordings out, they now serve primarily as an advertisement for a live performance and a way to promote ancillary merchandise (shirts, buttons, and what have you).

Also, as Tapper Mike noted, there has been an absurd degree of industry consolidation. The three biggest record companies now control 85% of the market, so there's a real stranglehold related to ways to get music out there and make money through touring, since they have a lock on larger and medium sized venues.

[jancivil]

Radio play meant payola. This was true no matter who you were.
Interestingly, I was approached recently by a nice-looking indie, alternative, hip net radio thing which appears to get some action; to submit to their review process. 'Your best track/professional photo/link website'.
Then I do and I'm apprised I need to pay for "priority" consideration.

One can /release and distribute/ now with no trouble or course. Promotion budget, marketing and competing is more or less the same thing though. Of course digital means much more ease of creating the visuals as well as the audio. And FCP costs about the same as your DAW. But you're in the public eye IRL or you're not. Only The Beatles sold records with no tour support.

[vurt]

would they have managed that if sgt peppers had been their debut though? or was the fanbase already there?

[jancivil]

Beatles were fantastically successful in 1964 for reasons which are not obvious to me or simple. The hype when they came to the states, where it all really exploded was fantastic. All these pubescent girls coming in their pants, screaming their heads off I never quite got, but that was a great look!
That they were able to sell as they did having quit touring in 1965 has to do with other media keeping them visible. Movies, for instance, and constant publicity. Sgt Pepper's visually was a great tool, the whole storytelling aspect was really tops in marketing terms, genius, really. The Beatles are practically mythological.
There was never a more hyped act in all of show biz IME. I mean it doesn't happen like that without the music being really something, but they had a fantastic machine behind them.

[justin3am]

Something that I have noticed since I started my career, is there are many more avenues to get work than when I got started. Perhaps that is because I know more people now, so I have more opportunities but I don't think that is the whole story.

When I was first trying to find positions at local studios, you couldn't get anywhere unless you knew someone who could get you in the door. Studio's didn't need to seek people, because enough friends of employees were dying to get in through the back door. The same seemed to be true of the industry at large; bands couldn't even access artist reps/management unless they knew someone who could get them time with a decision maker.

Now, if you have the patience and drive, you can do all that shit yourself. It's really difficult to make a living that way and requires a lot of non-music work but I know quite a few people who do make a living that way. A lot of people I know who make music for TV and commercials are strictly self-employed contractors now. They work hard and have to do a lot of bullshit that gets in the way of making music but one can own a house in North Hollywood or maybe even Encino, doing that kind of work.

That said, I never experienced the music industry from the "bad old days". I started my career around 2005 so my observations may be biased toward my perspective.

[jancivil]

There's more avenues for you exactly because of more access to technology. You know things that people of my time did not, could not know unless they were sehr privileged and gigantic polymaths.

Then as now, I think people had to really push to get noticed. If you're specifically happening and out there, scouts were out there too. Today I don't know about, I stay indoors. I think what happened during my youth vs today, was more organic then. "To get you face time with a decision maker" agrees with what I said about the difference. Taking a chance on something you didn't understand at all vs people that think their second hand opinion and second guessing is really something.



I'm not good at sales type of work and I realized it around your age, which is also around the time I embraced the avant-garde and obscurity as an aesthetic.
I used to try and make pop records. I met industry people and there was label interest. You have to realize that they're hurting for something to embrace and sell in the first place. It's not that hard to be 'knowing somebody', it just requires a certain sort of personality and a kind of whore's outlook.

[herodotus]

As a friend of mine once said, "someone has to like that stuff." But really, why are you surprised?

Because I am endlessly naive about these things.

You seem to be expecting something more of people that was probably never there in the first place.

No doubt, no doubt at all.

I think that, related, is that now that people have so much choice, those that don't want to listen to the mainstream, don't have to suffer mediocre attempts at interesting that, in the past, were their only choice within a local market.

I agree entirely. Those who wish to explore the world of music have more opportunities now than I could have imagined back in the 80s when I was first looking for interesting things to listen to.

The old adage 90% of everything is shit, really applies here. If you're not in the 90%, then you have a shot if you can find your audience. The sad truth, however, is that most people are in the 90%. There's no point in crying about not being able to find your audience if you don't actually have one.

I am not crying about anything, really. Least of all do I expect anyone to know or care about the music I like or make. That ship sailed before the internet was even a thing. I tend to prefer small communities of people who are actually in to the things they are listening to anyway. My dismay (which is actually pretty mild) is simply in realizing that your 90% adage is true. Before the internet, there was still reason to doubt it, because the distributive potential of the old music industry was so horribly inefficient. But YouTube provides all the proof you could possibly want of the 90% rule (which I would actually put closer to 96%).

The number of people who want to see something interesting and off the main stream was never large to begin with, now that they have an ocean of music to choose from, it's not enough to be different, you have to be good as well.

I don't really think 'good' has much to do with it. At all. It never has.

If good had anything to do with it, this would have gotten way more than 2,000 views in the past 3 years:



Because THAT is good.

[ghettosynth]

I think that, related, is that now that people have so much choice, those that don't want to listen to the mainstream, don't have to suffer mediocre attempts at interesting that, in the past, were their only choice within a local market.

I agree entirely. Those who wish to explore the world of music have more opportunities now than I could have imagined back in the 80s when I was first looking for interesting things to listen to.

Yep, we took what we could find, and we spent money on it because the alternative was that we could listen to the radio. This was especially true if you were stuck somewhere less than interesting.

The old adage 90% of everything is shit, really applies here. If you're not in the 90%, then you have a shot if you can find your audience. The sad truth, however, is that most people are in the 90%. There's no point in crying about not being able to find your audience if you don't actually have one.

I am not crying about anything, really.

Reading that back I can see that you might think that I was referring to you, I wasn't, my apologies. I had written a book between those two paragraphs and had deleted most of it, as I often do. I had made a connection between locally successful acts that now have to compete globally. It isn't the 80s, my only choice for alternative isn't just what the local club managed to pull in from the region, so I don't have to think that stuff is good just because I have no other choice.

Least of all do I expect anyone to know or care about the music I like or make. That ship sailed before the internet was even a thing. I tend to prefer small communities of people who are actually in to the things they are listening to anyway. My dismay (which is actually pretty mild) is simply in realizing that your 90% adage is true. Before the internet, there was still reason to doubt it, because the distributive potential of the old music industry was so horribly inefficient. But YouTube provides all the proof you could possibly want of the 90% rule (which I would actually put closer to 96%).

Yes, really what it tells us is that most of us (us includes me), shouldn't bother, we should stop wasting our time making mediocre music that nobody cares about. Of course, most of us who aren't operating under any delusion find other reasons for making music. If we're honest, we probably do like it when someone appreciates our output even if we're not operating under any delusion of larger success.

The number of people who want to see something interesting and off the main stream was never large to begin with, now that they have an ocean of music to choose from, it's not enough to be different, you have to be good as well.

I don't really think 'good' has much to do with it. At all. It never has.

If good had anything to do with it, this would have gotten way more than 2,000 views in the past 3 years:

I disagree, not that it's good, per se, but that good never had anything to do with it, or, even that having K views for a particular video is an indicator of being or not being good. I'm not going to debate that video, or even that group, they have some videos with well over 110k views.

Good here is perhaps being misinterpreted. I don't necessarily mean objectively good, a challenging notion in the first place. I mean that followers of the genre/style/scene think that it's good. I also mean based primarily on music judgement, there is no doubt that visual attributes can impact one's judgement. The video you presented is as much dance as it is music, and isn't a particularly well recorded video.

So, to the extent that good was ever a barometer, one has to be better today. You aren't just competing with the few dozen bands that made it to the only all-ages club in podkunksville this year nor are you just competing with the other 23 records in the "new house music" bin, you are competing with a much larger pool of talent within a genre who's audience isn't just talking to the one other guy who goes to the same club and likes that music, he's talking to thousands of people online.

Whether you think good is a barometer, they disagree. If you're going to reach them, you do have to create what they think is good, in some sense. I think that this relates to what Albini is saying as well. People don't have to listen to music that they aren't completely excited about anymore.

So, back to your video, is it good? I don't know, ask the people that are "completely excited" about that music what they think because that's who matters. They probably have an opinion about why there're only 2000 views.

We can't, or shouldn't, forget that most people aren't musicians. So, by necessity, they don't come at music from any sort of educated or intellectual point of view. Their sole entry point is whether or not it affects them in the ways that they like music to affect them. That is going to be how they frame "good." This is probably even true in many cases for the majority of KVR as well. For example, I like Bach fugues, a lot. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that there's any intellectual component there at all. I have only the most superficial understanding of what a fugue is technically. Perhaps more accomplished students are rolling their eyes at this statement much in the same way that we roll our eyes when others express appreciation for the Rebecca Blacks of the world? I wouldn't know, and I don't care, I choose what I think is good and if an artist wants me to reach into MY pocket and give them MY money then that's the only measure that matters between us.

Yes, so again, I write a book, sorry about that. I wasn't talking about your music, really, I was talking more about my own and others who are in the same boat, and, unfortunately, the large mass of "musicians" who often complain about not making a living without realizing that, they too, are right there in the boat with us (me and the other "musicians") as part of the 90%.

[jancivil]

What is 'coming at music from an intellectual point-of-view'? People can know things about music and through knowing they appreciate music that people that don't know the things are not likely to. If you like fugues of JS Bach, there is probably something going on under the hood that people that don't *appreciate* it are not enjoying.

Before the internet, there was still reason to doubt <90% rule>, because the distributive potential of the old music industry was so horribly inefficient. But YouTube provides all the proof you could possibly want of the 90% rule (which I would actually put closer to 96%).

Yes, really what it tells us is that most of us (us includes me), shouldn't bother, we should stop wasting our time making mediocre music that nobody cares about.

What is this word 'mediocre' doing in the sentence? It seems like 'good' is tied to 'people are reached by it', so is 'mediocre' completed by 'nobody cares about [it]?
I'm not in your 'we' settling for mediocrity.

We bring different experiences to music as individuals. I was raised with a lot of exposure to music that I would not be abashed to say I think was objectively good music. (I don't find that to be a challenging thing to consider, nor do I think saying 'John Tesh is not really good' is so wrong.) Past that, my father looked for music that not too many people cared about, because it was too avant-garde. Not that he even chose to be a musician in life, either. So, I was kind of entrained to look for things in music that would signify 'good'.

So most people aren't musicians. Some musicians are interested in making music that the people that are not interested, the 90 or 96 or 99.9 decimal infinitive percent don't, won't get. There are people what will see John Tesh and make the mistake of thinking he's a really good musician. So (beyond the mistake which is a product of not knowing) as it turns out, there is a high number of people that will be reached through some mechanism that may not be completely rational or at least that one's understanding of takes one into extramusical territory.

IE: by the time Beatles came on Ed Sullivan, I had heard, I had focused on drumming that was exciting. I will have responded to Buddy Rich on the Ed Sullivan show instead, and at 8 yrs I didn't know anything about sexual excitement, I mean I wouldn't have got why Elvis was shot from the waist up either. I now kind of get there was a suggestiveness of high harmonies, the feminization of boys, the intimacy of those harmonies along with the words. An actual physical excitement from that sound. But. There is a lot going for it quite outside being 'good music'.
I don't think Beatles will have totally worked as it did if it failed utterly to be strongly musical, though.

So this striving to reach people has a limit to it if we're talking straight music. Here was this video John believes to be good music to illustrate the point that "good" doesn't through itself drive a million views.
NB: {A. Rastopchin} is IME a top guitarist, world class, better in many regards than a number of people that are legends.

If he gets two thousand views, it's been through a famous cover. He has been around for a while, is an excellent video artist and makes fantastic hardware effects, and he's out there in the world engaged on more than one level. His records are produced like nobody's bizness. Has worked with a number of supertalented artists doing covers. Lot of it totally accessible, accessible-on-purpose music. Still, we're going to see a few hundred views, in some cases a couple thousand views. Because it's essentially Not_Beatles.

So I'm seeing a kind of straw man about people that aren't trying hard enough {"crying about not being able to find your audience if you don't actually have one"} tied in with the word 'good' (& to more or less argument from popularity). But I counter that with the Vincent Van Gogh experience. Never sold a painting, really. Was not the guy to be selling paintings in any milieu he was trying to mix in with. Nobody seems to have much cared.

[ghettosynth]

So this striving to reach people has a limit to it if we're talking straight music. Here was this video John believes to be good music to illustrate the point that "good" doesn't through itself drive a million views.
NB: {A. Rastopchin} is IME a top guitarist, world class, better in many regards than a number of people that are legends.

Again, I'm not going to comment on that directly. I said that I don't think that views necessarily imply good or not and I don't think isolated examples makes the case. I did not say that "being a good musician is all that matters", what I said was "good does have something to do with success." Further, although I'm talking about being good musically, that doesn't necessarily mean being a good player, it also reflects writing skill.

[notinterested]

"I'm jancivil, and "I'm going to change things" no matter what

Does it really take a savant to understand that the music industry has changed completely? I think not.

The state of the "music industry" is simple.....if you don't understand the dynamics, and if you are not any good, you will not succeed......simple. Put any ridiculous thing unto "that" ....

If you were a really kick/ass musician/producer/etc/ and were motivated properly.......you wouldn't be here shmucking it up with us shmucks!

[jancivil]

"I'm jancivil, and "I'm going to change things" no matter what

I have never even vaguely implied anything of the sort. I expect to change nothing, I'm a powerless non-entity.

If you were a really kick/ass musician/producer/etc/ and were motivated properly.......you wouldn't be here shmucking it up with us shmucks!

My tracks speak for themselves. Motivated 'properly' to do what? Be a great financial success? Evidently I'm not. You're focused on me and have a need to knock me down?
I'm nobody.
(kind of indicative of having more history than March 12 2015, too)
Kind of petty isn't it? It would be better if you had some thoughts about what's actually been discussed I think.

[jancivil]

I don't think isolated examples makes the case. I did not say that "being a good musician is all that matters", what I said was "good does have something to do with success." Further, although I'm talking about being good musically, that doesn't necessarily mean being a good player, it also reflects writing skill.

I know what you said. I think when someone IS good and they're additionally not bad at presenting, either and have a presence in a number of areas, and working with someone else with a following... EG: w. this result: Rastop and Amy Coleman doing Gershwin Summertime (a fantastic record) has 800-something views since Nov 2013; that being competitive as to views and exposure involves more than "good".You must be aware of things that do get millions of views that would be hard to call good, since you referred to Rebecca Black.

Also talking about good when you went to make 'objectively good' suspect doesn't work for me. Is JS Bach objectively good, would you say? John Tesh may indeed have 'writing skill' but it's a hack's skill set. The whole point I was making, while you chose to go around it, was that popularity involves a whole lot of other factors than musical good. I said that with a Beatles, it does involve musical good. I do not agree that popularity requires it per se.

[vurt]

im not sure rebecca blacks views are anything to do with people thinkng its a good record, it was one of those that people saw and sent to everyone in their contacts list "ohmygodwhatthefuck?" or on forums such as this where we all clicked knowing it was awful as it was presented as such.