374
Kate Nash and Lily Allen on OnlyFans should be a wake-up call for the music industry
(www.standard.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
374 points (95.6% liked)
Not The Onion
12390 readers
1287 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For anyone unaware, the "music industry" had a brief period around 1960-1978 where they led youth culture and brought some decent artists to the fore, including [everyone]. Which was ironic as they started mostly as a goof by rich people or a front by the mafia.
A "record deal" was always a sucker's deal because they'd loan you $300,000 or whatever and then decide how much you'd paid them back over however many years you made them money. The companies didn't buy videos or tour buses or billboards or anything -they fronted the money and the artist paid for that, usually without knowing it.
Around 1980, in a coke-fueled bender that lasted over a decade, they decided "fuck it" and just screwed everyone they could for every dollar they could. Fortunately, they were so stupid and up their own asses that mp3s destroyed them after a decade of them trying to decide who was going to get fucked more than who else. (Anyone remember the DAT wars?)
Billions were made but the artist usually only saw a small fraction of that because record companies were "riding the gravy train" and living fat off all the money. Nothing has changed. No one is going to wake up. It was always this bad. It's just that being a touring musician used to be at least a job and a career and now it's pretty rare.
If it helps, think of it like this - there's no one in any seat of real power in the "music industry" who is a musician. They don't give a shit about what they're selling, it could be cow pies for all they care - they'd look and act exactly like they do now because it has 100% nothing to do with music. It's just marketing a persona and bilking them for all they can.
And it's been that way the entire time. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many.
Back during the Napster days, Howard Stern had the Foo Fighters on. He asked them what their thought of the whole Napster vs. Metallica legal debate.
Dave Grohl told him he was 100 percent for Napster, explaining that they barely made a dime from record sales, and instead made the bulk of their money from touring and t-shirt sales. And that very few musicians were in the same boat as Metallica, actually making money from their album sales.
So from that point of view, the more people who were exposed to their music meant the more folks who might want to go see them in concert.
The best argument I ever heard in favor of Napster was that songs were already being given out for free all the time on the radio. What's the difference if they're being given out for free online?
I was made aware of the fact that touring and merch is the bulk of how bands make money by the documentary The Other F Word. It followed around a bunch of aging punk rockers from Rancid and Goldfinger and other bands.
I spent more money on music during the Napster days than any other time in my life. I discovered so much that I otherwise never would have been exposed to. I bought CDs, I went to concerts, I bought the T-shirts of bands I only listen to because of Napster.
And the irony was that Metallica got their big break because people were trading bootlegs of their tapes around.
That's not strictly true. A number of popular musicians started their own labels and cultivated their own talent. Dr. Dre, Hay-Z and Beyonce, Snoop Dog, NIN, The Beetles and Rolling Stones, Eminem, Madonna, Mackelmoore...
What's really changed over time is distribution. Digital music has huge margins, but prying them out of the near monopoly of Spotify and YouTube is much harder than simply selling CD/Vinyl copies of your songs at your shows
Who could forget the infamous rapper, Hay-Z. Creater of classic albums such as "The FarmPrint, and The Dirt Album".
Huh, coulda sworn that was Alice in chains
Your thinking of another barn yard hit "The Rooster" by Alice in Overalls.
That “fuck it” era is Reaganism. Every industry did the exact same thing at that time.
Movie industry as well. People with the money don't care about the product as long as it makes them more money.
Or if they do care, they interfere with the artist's vision to put in their own thoughts when they have no education or experience in filmmaking.
Then we end up getting the Emoji movie in theaters.
Right before MP3's, record labels treated a lot of their albums as products to sell. This required a marketing budget to go along with it including a lot of promotional material like music videos and concert tours for promotional purposes. The drop in revenue due to MP3's killed that model and it never returned.
Concert tickets are so expensive because record labels took control of that part of the revenue stream to find their promotion/marketing business. And promotion is no longer a small activity run by a band's groupies. The reason that Trent Reznor signed with a new label after he went independent was because he wasn't able to compete with the marketing arms of these companies.
I fear this is happening to every industry
🌈 E N S H I T T I F I C A T I O N ✨
Ouch, just like video game industry :-/
Any "industry" that doesn't sell a physical product and many who do.
A fair amount of the money still goes back to the studios. It's way more expensive than it used to be, both in time and money, to create what we consider a state-of-the-art video game. The goalposts for quality and realism have moved so far.
Well, I prefer say Commandos by Eidos to some super graphic expensive "triple A" game, but that's just me it feels like.
I too have tastes for well put together titles, but we don't make them enough money :)
Any "industry" that doesn't sell a physical product and many who do.
At this point, there's no one at the wheel at all. It's all algorithms.