So, many people who know me are aware I've always wanted to start a record label. It's not that I want to be a mogul or rip off artists, rather I was hoping to share music I love with the world. It's becoming easier to do the sharing part, but it's still far from perfect and no one makes money off of sharing alone. The idea of free music is great, but I have to wonder what it really does for the creators and their contemporaries. Take Death Grips for example, three of their albums have been made available for free. You can now purchase two of those albums in selected formats, but you can still get the originally shared versions for free. Are they making their money elsewhere? Yes, they probably are, so are they making the music simply because it's what they love to do? I suppose they could, but it's clear they want to make money. They may not care to be rich beyond their wildest imaginations, but they would almost certainly like to be well-off. I'm going to say that there is nothing wrong with that, though I'm sure if the right person reads this they'll argue I'm an idiot. Whatever.
Free music is kind-of over. It doesn't really benefit anyone. Executives at record labels in the late nineties and early two-thousands said this devaluing of the product was bad, and to an extent they were right, but probably not for the reasons they stated. Giving something away can be a good thing, especially in moderation. Give a taste of what is to come and you may have people lining up in droves. They've been doing it with video games, movies and music for years via demos, trailers, radio & television, and reviews, but when you can get the most current music or movie in a compressed format, why wait for the sample? The compressed format isn't quite as good as the real thing, but most people don't care. As for video games, people are able to get them the day they're released or earlier and they are equal to what is being sold. So why bother? Well, people still buy things, and there is science to argue that people who pay for what they want will respect it and take more time to enjoy or study it. There is a new generation of game publishers providing their content at far more agreeable prices than the $50 to $60 dollar instant mark-up for something not worth that. The same can be said of musicians, filmmakers and writers. People still want the physical product, something they can take note of, they just don't want to pay so much that some executive's children's children's children will be able to purchase multiple mansions years later without worry. It was different when we didn't have easier, less expensive distribution methods, so businesses have to accept that things are changing, just like the artists are doing.
So, why should I start a label? Because there are people who make music and should get paid for what they create. There are people that will take note of anyone whose release is distributed by a label of any sort over the local Bandcamp merchandiser. Is that fair? No, but it's a fact.
But... what about things that are out of the legal jurisdiction that are noteworthy? Records, films, books, video games, etc. Why can't the creators get them published? Why can't fair agreements be made regarding these releases? I have to wonder if John Oswald could have gotten the original plunderphonic released legally if he simply gave all the publishing to the original artists? He wasn't making any money off of it to begin with, but would the authors of the samples have said "free money!" and been agreeable about it then? Would multiple sample sources have complained that they deserve more money than others despite smaller contributions? Would lawyers and idiots fight over unrealistic payments for their artists? I can see the negatives happening easier than the positives, but positive things happen for more frequently than people give them credit for occurring. So why not give up the publishing in an agreeable method and keep some of the income? Is that so terrible? It's not necessarily good for people who are trying to make millions of dollars, with rappers and pop-stars being easy examples and targets for suggestion, but if they're serious about their art they can get it heard, or if it's been lingering in obscurity for ages, blocked by legal issues and complications, why not? Hell, what's wrong with making a profit? You can be successful without being the biggest business in the world. The biggest ones stay big by working with the smaller ones, and the smaller ones still keep more of their income at the end of the day, so why not? And of course, if you're not sampling Beatles or Rolling Stones records or whatever and instead making your own works, you could keep almost all of it. Isn't that a concept?
And if you really can't come to an agreement with the powers that be, you can just give it away and be done with it, at least in America. If you need a reason for "free" to be an option, there it is.
So what does all of this mean? It means I'm still trying to start a record label and maybe trying it differently. Maybe it's possible to share plunderphonic with the masses after all, or at least the masses that want it on vinyl or CD with liner notes.
I guess this brings up one other question though, and it's a big one. If it was okay for a big label to sell a good amount of records back in the sixties, seventies and eighties, why is it bad to return to that concept? Major labels may be realizing it's not 1999 and longer, but they're still fighting like it is, trying to get their pre-packaged pop-stars to the top of the charts. There will always be room for that, but when will they stop acting like everyone can become the next big thing? If you're making a profit and everyone gets paid, isn't that good enough? Of course it can get better, but that's a pretty great place to be if I'm not mistaken.
Anyone think I should do a kickstarter? Anyone think copyright trolls should be shot? I'm looking at the estate of Marvin Gaye, TufAmerica and ABKCO here, at least for starters. Anyone think I should be shot?
No comments:
Post a Comment