1 post tagged “digital”

As I’d mentioned, I’m hoping to use the next few posts to “think-out-loud” about what Label 2.0 might look like.  As I’ve had first hand experience of Label 1.0 with Real Music, I’m hoping to use that as a jump off point for this discussion.  Despite all the hype, I think that most innovations in an industry build on, modify and improve on older models rather than completely replacing them.  With that in mind there’s a few things that a Label 2.0 needs to address, and we’ll start with:

1. Improving the reality and overall perception of the Artist/Label Relationship

For a variety of reasons, the perception of a “record label” has been universally distrusted, reviled and rejected as a system of corruption by artists for years, possibly since the very inception of the industry. 

The design of a Label 1.0 record contract could be summarized thus: “You get the glory, we get the money”.  Through a system of wily accounting, ambiguous clauses and extraordinary use of language, record labels strove to reduce the size of a royalty paid to an artist by any means possible.  

Once large corporations began buying & consolidating labels throughout the 70s and 80s, this process only quickened as shareholders began demanding greater and greater profits.

Although the indie label industry often set their own rules, the “standards” set by the larger labels formed the blueprint for many independents business models.  And why wouldn’t it?  It was certainly making serious money for the majors.  
 
As recently as 2004, while reading about industry practices, I was struck by how brazen it all was.  The reasoning behind many parts of record contracts was so obviously skewed in favor of the label, at the expense of the artist, that I couldn’t understand how they got away with it. (Check out Everything You Need to Know About the Music Business by Donald Passman for plenty of examples)   The reasoning, of course, was “This is how it’s been done for years, so crying about it won’t help”.

Flash forward to 2007 and the game has certainly changed.  But the perception of a label, if anything, has gotten worse. 

I believe a Label 2.0 needs transparency, first and foremost.   As hinted in previous posts, a Labels’ raison d’etre is NOT exploitation of artists for the maximization of profits.  The functions of artist development, promotion, publishing, management and licensing are still vital, but artists rightly distrust many of the agreements which allow Labels to take over these functions on their behalf, mainly because of the labyrinthine language that purposely plagued Label 1.0 explanations of various revenue streams.

For many artists, and the general perception of aspiring musicians everywhere, assistance from a label has been seen as a major stepping stone in a career as a musician and has made the move a desirable one for most. 

This goodwill has been met with difficult contracts, exploitation of artists and songwriters and a general disregard for the public good in favor of higher profits.  The changes that are running through the music industry today are finally bringing a certain balance to the conversation.  Artists have many more options available to them now than even 5 years ago in all the arenas that were once the exclusive domain of Label 1.0. 

It’s up to Label 2.0 to prove that a record label is an artist’s best option, rather than the only one.

Tune in tomorrow for ways I see a Label 2.0 aiding transparency and making Label structure attractive to artists once more.