For those of you who are bored, here's my 2,000 word essay on the question:
"Should music producers encourage acts to accept that the music industry is an industry and tailor their music to fit existing markets?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The music industry is essentially a global (Burnett, p. 8) infrastructure centred around the recording and subsequent sales of music for profit. The companies that comprise it are split into two broad categories; record companies and publishing companies (Baskerville, p. 16) although there is a degree of crossover for example, the Universal Music Group is a conglomerate that, among others, comprises a number of record companies AND the Universal Music Publishing Group. The record companies sole interest is the recordings, whereas the publishers interest is the rights to the original music. (Baskerville, p. 47)
For many years, the format of the record company has not changed. An artist is found, through A&R or other means, they sign a contract with a record label, a producer produces them, hands the recordings to the record company who in turn pass these on to the distributors to get the product out there, then finally the record company gears up its advertising, promotion, marketing, etc. and rockets you to stardom. (Passman, p. 73)
Therefore, record companies are fundamentally only interested in turning a profit from selling recordings, so it follows that they will only want recordings that can sell, and everyone in the chain is responsible for ensuring that the record sells. As it is the A&R representatives job to scout talent, it could be argued that they are the most important stage in the chain. Assuming they find a talented artist, it is then up to the producer to ensure that the record company makes money by pulling a hit record out of the hat. (Burgess, p. 127) Assuming they deliver recordings to the record company that is a guaranteed hit, it is then up to the record company to ensure the record is a hit. However, they could leave it too long before release, fail to secure a distribution deal, underpromote the record, or fail to market it successfully. And this is all assuming, of course, that the initial talent is actually any good.
To answer the question, we must first define the role of the producer, and there are two existing jobs that were to become known as producers in the 1950s/60s the A&R representative, and the engineer. Since the 1930s (Baskerville, p. 284) the A&R men operated on behalf of the record companies, working closely with the artist (who in those days were usually soloists) to choose their material, musical director and orchestra. In the case of vocalists, it was also often their job to produce musical arrangements for the subsequent recordings of the talent (Tony Visconti is a major producer who came into the job through his arranging work, according to Burgess, p. 17.) The other producers came from an engineering background whose major role was and still is getting the dynamics and emotion of the music on tape. (Harrison, p. 106) The A&R were doing almost exactly what producers do today. (Passman, p. 141) Following this meeting in the middle, the traditional A&R roles were transferred over to the producer, heralding a newer A&R role. The modern A&R division of a record label is now responsible for talent scouting and overseeing the artistic development of recording artists (Passman defines the A&R as the people with ears who find and nurture new talent, and who work creatively with the artist, p. 73)
However, as we entered the digital age, the tried and tested business model of recording the talent and marketing the record was no longer relevant, as it began to take a back seat to the alternative methods of distribution and promotion available through the Internet. For the first time, artists had total control of their music as well as their image, without record companies attempting to pigeonhole them into a market that they may not fully have conformed to. With producers not necessarily earning a wage from a record company, they were free to freelance, and without needing to appease their employers to the same degree, they were able to record acts that they liked, not just those that were brought to them by the A&R. As this threatened the music industry as we know it, the model was forced to adapt.
It used to be the case that intellectual property was largely protected by being available as a record or CD, or instantly consumed in the form of live music. Although enormous in terms of finance and turnover, the record industry has historically been relatively underdeveloped legislatively because it has never been a problem. With the advent of the Internet, particularly the filesharing and sharing aspects of it, the industry has been constantly playing catch-up, as the infrastructure for protection of intellectual property was simply not there.
In modern times, the musicians are often as equally clued up on how to promote themselves and make themselves heard as the record industries are, using the Internet to build up a reputation as opposed to instantly signing a recording contract. Perhaps one of the best examples of this approach is the British band Arctic Monkeys. By using the social networking site MySpace to its full effect, they built up a large fan base by themselves, affording them more leverage when the record companies took an interest.
It could be argued that in this Internet-centric age, the role of the producer has absorbed the classic A&R role, so that as well as accurately recording the band and having musical input, they have a more involved role in terms of structuring songs and cultivating the bands image. After all, the record companys sole interest is to end up with a hit record that can guarantee a profit the band themselves deal mainly with the producer. Therefore, it is in the producers best interests to keep both the record company and the band happy, in order to make money for everyone involved and guarantee future work for themselves. However, for an artist, their identity is often directly related to their music, leading to the conclusion that a producer altering a bands music is indirectly altering their image also.
The modern artist has to be viewed as a brand, which is something the music industry has never had to deal with. Branding is the way in which you use your name, logo and reputation to build up a particular image in the public mind. (Harrison, p. 148) Whilst the concept of branding is well established in other industries, music is essentially a service in business terms, and hence difficult to market. Unfortunately for them, the advent of the Internet has forced record companies to adapt very quickly to this concept just to stay afloat. A modern artist that is not marketed on the Internet will simply not survive. The Internet and music now go hand in hand, with iTunes and Spotify being perhaps the two biggest examples of this marriage. However, with so many online outlets for music and artists identities being passed around virally through the Internet, what purpose do the record companies serve?
It is worth noting that the continually lowering cost of recording technology is having an enormous effect on the industry. According to an article posted on abc.com, half of all Los Angeles recording studios have now closed due to the fact that a studio-quality album can be produced on equipment costing less than 1,000 at home, where there are also no time constraints. With artists self-producing, then releasing their music themselves, there are a large number of artists bypassing the industry altogether and achieving modest success. An artist has to change their perspective in order to work with a producer, (Massey, p. 3) and for an artist not willing to compromise their artistic vision this can prove to be the best way of working. Looking at the success of the Radiohead album In Rainbows, which was released online and allowed consumers to dictate their own price, can reinforce this. The average price paid for the album was 4 [1], and due to the incredibly low cost of releasing via this method (compared to the standard model of manufacture and distribution of a physical medium) the pre-release alone proved to be more profitable than initial sales of their previous album Hail To The Thief.
In the past, the marketing strategy of a record company has been very much that of push marketing. The record companies have only promoted bands that they know will sell, and as there has generally not been an alternative, the consumer has bought whatever is pushed at them. Now, with the Internet having much more of an impact, the model is switching to a pull marketing strategy. The companies are simply putting records out and educating the music-buying public, although due to viral techniques, it is entirely up to the consumer whether or not they show interest. For the first time, the industry is having to listen to its consumers.
In terms of redefining the industry, the fans are now feeling greater ownership over the bands they love because of the previously unprecedented levels of involvement the Internet has given them. With the wall between the industry and the fans falling, the record companies are now being forced to treat the consumer more as a shareholder, leading to a much more two-way give and take business strategy. Whereas previously the record industry would give the consumer more of what sells, their influence now results in a situation where the industry is no longer defining the markets. As a result, in terms of the original question, there is no longer a set of existing markets that music can be tailored to fit, as the existing markets are constantly and rapidly changing, and entirely dependent on the trends exhibited by the consumers buying choices.
To this end, it could be argued that whilst the producer should encourage their acts to accept the music industry as an industry, it is far more appropriate for the producer to educate the artist such that they understand how to exploit the pull marketing themselves. The paradigm shift of power from the record companies to the fans has shown that the public is unpredictable. The producer is becoming more and more resigned to the role of recording the talent as best as possible, and although they can advise how best to play the game, the ball is now and for the foreseeable future in the consumers court.
When I began to write this essay, I was of the opinion that the sole reason for signing to a major label these days would be financial, and that artistic authenticity would have to be sacrificed in order to be successful. As a result, the producer should aim to tailor artists music to fit a pre-existing market to significantly improve the chances of the record being marketable and profitable. Conversely, if artistic integrity is of paramount importance, more so than financial gain, then the artist should simply promote and distribute the album themselves online. However, I have proved myself wrong, as it can now be possible to proverbially have your cake and eat it. An artist can release their music online, and if marketed correctly, they will turn a profit.
So do artists still need the record companies? In terms of the traditional business model, no. However, the record companies still have the upper hand in the sense that they have infinitely more experience of marketing music to the public than any artist bringing out their debut release will do. They have evolved with the ever-changing industry almost into specialised marketing agencies, and have refined their talents for promotion of a brand. Additionally, a good producer will keep up with the trends and understand how an artist can broaden their appeal, or indeed specialise it to maximise sales and of course, a good eye for that special something is helpful (George Martin signed the Beatles after every other UK record label had turned them down Massey, p. 70.) In this sense, the record companies may not be what they once were, but they are still relevant in an age where many are discounting their importance.
"Should music producers encourage acts to accept that the music industry is an industry and tailor their music to fit existing markets?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The music industry is essentially a global (Burnett, p. 8) infrastructure centred around the recording and subsequent sales of music for profit. The companies that comprise it are split into two broad categories; record companies and publishing companies (Baskerville, p. 16) although there is a degree of crossover for example, the Universal Music Group is a conglomerate that, among others, comprises a number of record companies AND the Universal Music Publishing Group. The record companies sole interest is the recordings, whereas the publishers interest is the rights to the original music. (Baskerville, p. 47)
For many years, the format of the record company has not changed. An artist is found, through A&R or other means, they sign a contract with a record label, a producer produces them, hands the recordings to the record company who in turn pass these on to the distributors to get the product out there, then finally the record company gears up its advertising, promotion, marketing, etc. and rockets you to stardom. (Passman, p. 73)
Therefore, record companies are fundamentally only interested in turning a profit from selling recordings, so it follows that they will only want recordings that can sell, and everyone in the chain is responsible for ensuring that the record sells. As it is the A&R representatives job to scout talent, it could be argued that they are the most important stage in the chain. Assuming they find a talented artist, it is then up to the producer to ensure that the record company makes money by pulling a hit record out of the hat. (Burgess, p. 127) Assuming they deliver recordings to the record company that is a guaranteed hit, it is then up to the record company to ensure the record is a hit. However, they could leave it too long before release, fail to secure a distribution deal, underpromote the record, or fail to market it successfully. And this is all assuming, of course, that the initial talent is actually any good.
To answer the question, we must first define the role of the producer, and there are two existing jobs that were to become known as producers in the 1950s/60s the A&R representative, and the engineer. Since the 1930s (Baskerville, p. 284) the A&R men operated on behalf of the record companies, working closely with the artist (who in those days were usually soloists) to choose their material, musical director and orchestra. In the case of vocalists, it was also often their job to produce musical arrangements for the subsequent recordings of the talent (Tony Visconti is a major producer who came into the job through his arranging work, according to Burgess, p. 17.) The other producers came from an engineering background whose major role was and still is getting the dynamics and emotion of the music on tape. (Harrison, p. 106) The A&R were doing almost exactly what producers do today. (Passman, p. 141) Following this meeting in the middle, the traditional A&R roles were transferred over to the producer, heralding a newer A&R role. The modern A&R division of a record label is now responsible for talent scouting and overseeing the artistic development of recording artists (Passman defines the A&R as the people with ears who find and nurture new talent, and who work creatively with the artist, p. 73)
However, as we entered the digital age, the tried and tested business model of recording the talent and marketing the record was no longer relevant, as it began to take a back seat to the alternative methods of distribution and promotion available through the Internet. For the first time, artists had total control of their music as well as their image, without record companies attempting to pigeonhole them into a market that they may not fully have conformed to. With producers not necessarily earning a wage from a record company, they were free to freelance, and without needing to appease their employers to the same degree, they were able to record acts that they liked, not just those that were brought to them by the A&R. As this threatened the music industry as we know it, the model was forced to adapt.
It used to be the case that intellectual property was largely protected by being available as a record or CD, or instantly consumed in the form of live music. Although enormous in terms of finance and turnover, the record industry has historically been relatively underdeveloped legislatively because it has never been a problem. With the advent of the Internet, particularly the filesharing and sharing aspects of it, the industry has been constantly playing catch-up, as the infrastructure for protection of intellectual property was simply not there.
In modern times, the musicians are often as equally clued up on how to promote themselves and make themselves heard as the record industries are, using the Internet to build up a reputation as opposed to instantly signing a recording contract. Perhaps one of the best examples of this approach is the British band Arctic Monkeys. By using the social networking site MySpace to its full effect, they built up a large fan base by themselves, affording them more leverage when the record companies took an interest.
It could be argued that in this Internet-centric age, the role of the producer has absorbed the classic A&R role, so that as well as accurately recording the band and having musical input, they have a more involved role in terms of structuring songs and cultivating the bands image. After all, the record companys sole interest is to end up with a hit record that can guarantee a profit the band themselves deal mainly with the producer. Therefore, it is in the producers best interests to keep both the record company and the band happy, in order to make money for everyone involved and guarantee future work for themselves. However, for an artist, their identity is often directly related to their music, leading to the conclusion that a producer altering a bands music is indirectly altering their image also.
The modern artist has to be viewed as a brand, which is something the music industry has never had to deal with. Branding is the way in which you use your name, logo and reputation to build up a particular image in the public mind. (Harrison, p. 148) Whilst the concept of branding is well established in other industries, music is essentially a service in business terms, and hence difficult to market. Unfortunately for them, the advent of the Internet has forced record companies to adapt very quickly to this concept just to stay afloat. A modern artist that is not marketed on the Internet will simply not survive. The Internet and music now go hand in hand, with iTunes and Spotify being perhaps the two biggest examples of this marriage. However, with so many online outlets for music and artists identities being passed around virally through the Internet, what purpose do the record companies serve?
It is worth noting that the continually lowering cost of recording technology is having an enormous effect on the industry. According to an article posted on abc.com, half of all Los Angeles recording studios have now closed due to the fact that a studio-quality album can be produced on equipment costing less than 1,000 at home, where there are also no time constraints. With artists self-producing, then releasing their music themselves, there are a large number of artists bypassing the industry altogether and achieving modest success. An artist has to change their perspective in order to work with a producer, (Massey, p. 3) and for an artist not willing to compromise their artistic vision this can prove to be the best way of working. Looking at the success of the Radiohead album In Rainbows, which was released online and allowed consumers to dictate their own price, can reinforce this. The average price paid for the album was 4 [1], and due to the incredibly low cost of releasing via this method (compared to the standard model of manufacture and distribution of a physical medium) the pre-release alone proved to be more profitable than initial sales of their previous album Hail To The Thief.
In the past, the marketing strategy of a record company has been very much that of push marketing. The record companies have only promoted bands that they know will sell, and as there has generally not been an alternative, the consumer has bought whatever is pushed at them. Now, with the Internet having much more of an impact, the model is switching to a pull marketing strategy. The companies are simply putting records out and educating the music-buying public, although due to viral techniques, it is entirely up to the consumer whether or not they show interest. For the first time, the industry is having to listen to its consumers.
In terms of redefining the industry, the fans are now feeling greater ownership over the bands they love because of the previously unprecedented levels of involvement the Internet has given them. With the wall between the industry and the fans falling, the record companies are now being forced to treat the consumer more as a shareholder, leading to a much more two-way give and take business strategy. Whereas previously the record industry would give the consumer more of what sells, their influence now results in a situation where the industry is no longer defining the markets. As a result, in terms of the original question, there is no longer a set of existing markets that music can be tailored to fit, as the existing markets are constantly and rapidly changing, and entirely dependent on the trends exhibited by the consumers buying choices.
To this end, it could be argued that whilst the producer should encourage their acts to accept the music industry as an industry, it is far more appropriate for the producer to educate the artist such that they understand how to exploit the pull marketing themselves. The paradigm shift of power from the record companies to the fans has shown that the public is unpredictable. The producer is becoming more and more resigned to the role of recording the talent as best as possible, and although they can advise how best to play the game, the ball is now and for the foreseeable future in the consumers court.
When I began to write this essay, I was of the opinion that the sole reason for signing to a major label these days would be financial, and that artistic authenticity would have to be sacrificed in order to be successful. As a result, the producer should aim to tailor artists music to fit a pre-existing market to significantly improve the chances of the record being marketable and profitable. Conversely, if artistic integrity is of paramount importance, more so than financial gain, then the artist should simply promote and distribute the album themselves online. However, I have proved myself wrong, as it can now be possible to proverbially have your cake and eat it. An artist can release their music online, and if marketed correctly, they will turn a profit.
So do artists still need the record companies? In terms of the traditional business model, no. However, the record companies still have the upper hand in the sense that they have infinitely more experience of marketing music to the public than any artist bringing out their debut release will do. They have evolved with the ever-changing industry almost into specialised marketing agencies, and have refined their talents for promotion of a brand. Additionally, a good producer will keep up with the trends and understand how an artist can broaden their appeal, or indeed specialise it to maximise sales and of course, a good eye for that special something is helpful (George Martin signed the Beatles after every other UK record label had turned them down Massey, p. 70.) In this sense, the record companies may not be what they once were, but they are still relevant in an age where many are discounting their importance.
powderfinger:
I don't know why SG blogs seem to be incapable of displaying even the most modest of punctuation.