Yo, RIAA! Want to survive? Pay attention!

[unixronin]

In particular, pay attention to this article in the Register.  It's a transcript of an In The City keynote speech from the Register's San Francisco bureau chief, Andrew Orlowski, detailing the inevitable obsolescence, withering and death of the music industry as it was ten years ago, and what the music industry needs to do if it still wants to be around another ten years from now.  There will be a quiz, and it's not one you can cheat or crib on or retake later.

I only really have one issue with this speech, and it's the following paragraph:

The LP gave the music business it's golden years.  It's true lots of LPs have stinkers.  But another way of looking at it is that I've spent $3 instead of $1, and I'm still not that unhappy.  iTunes and Napster destroy this model because they let people pick and choose the tunes they like within 15 seconds of hearing them.  My sympathies are with you guys, because you're actually right from every point of view I can imagine.  The world works on bundles: a newspaper is a bundle of stories; a TV channel is a bundle of programs; a satellite channel is a bundle of TV channels; economically the world only works through bundles.  The stuff you don't want pays for the stuff you do.  There are sound actuarial reasons for this. It works. And artistically, we wouldn't have had The Beatles or Joy Division without the bundle.

Sorry, Mr. Orlowski, but bite me.  You blew this point.  I don't understand how you could be so right on the rest of your talk, and yet so wrong on this.  Bundling, forcing people to take crap they don't want in order to get the stuff they do, has only ever worked when, and because, there was no choice -- no other way for people to get what they wanted.  That does not make it a good business model, and never has.  If you bought something that turned out to be crap and no-one wants it, more fool you for buying it in the first place; ditch it and sell something people want.  Don't expect to be able to soak the public to make them cover you from your own mistakes.  They know when you're doing it, and now they have the power to tell you where you can shove it, and guess what?  For the past few years, they've been doing just that.

You move with the times, or you die.  Period.  And if the times say you can no longer get away with bundling, then you sigh, you say "It was good while it lasted," you thank your lucky stars you were able to get away with it for as long as you did ... and then you move on and live in the new reality.  If you just start searching for a way to continue screwing people, they're going to give you the heave-ho.

It might mean you have to buy music a different way in the first.  Maybe, say, give artists control over what music they're making, and let them make an album the way they're happy with, instead of pressuring them to have an album in four months in time for Christmas and having four decent tracks and six tracks of commercialized garbage on it to make the deadline.  Let them record their music the way they want to play it, instead of yours the way you think they should be playing it.

You know, stuff like the indie labels like Metropolis have been doing.  There just might be a reason why they're succeeding, and why you're not any more.  Try doing it their way for a change.  You might be surprised.  It's always been a great recipe for success -- give the people what they want, instead of giving them what you want to give them, then telling them "Look, we already told you that you want this, so shut up and open your wallet."

Comments

[koyote.livejournal.com]

I will admit, though, that some of my enduring favorite songs were ones that never got radio time and that I wouldn't have ever heard if I didn't buy the album as a whole.

And, artistically, the album as a collection of songs can be valueable.

*my* issue isn't with having to buy the whole CD, it's with aying $18 for a CD that cost 75 cents including packaging and for which the artist only gets a few pennies.

Which is tangetial. I agree with you comments about bundles in general- just sometimes you do get some life-value out of a bundle that you might have otherwised missed.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Right, but if you could listen to the whole album before you bought it, and then only pay for the songs you like? That won't prevent you from finding the non-radio songs.

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And you may like 1,2,4,6,9 and 10, I may like 2,5,6,7,8,10. Or maybe one of us likes them all anyway.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

well, speking directly to my case, ther have been times where i needed several listenngs to appreciate ll the songs, or ven needed to have the song be there when life events finally gve it meaning. rush and heart are big ones for that.
From another point of view, the ARTIST and to some extent the publisher SHOULD have some control, and if they choose a bundled format, then they do. my bitch is with falsely elevatd pricing schemes, unfaurness to artists and consumers, and a rfusal to allow that i have a right to make copies for non resale use
excuse typing. the comment reches you by way of a nokia communicator, which has a smallish keyboard. like ircing from 101 in a trafic jam, sorta

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, sure. Just because one person thinks "I Blew A Mockingbird's Head Off Today" is a crappy song, doesn't mean everyone thinks so. It's not like there won't be someone who'll like it enough to buy it. And sometimes, those one or two songs that don't really fit with the rest of the CD will get bought by people who wouldn't have bought the whole CD at all, because they don't like the rest of it.

I could be wrong, but I think people mostly fall into two classes as far as music buying -- those who will continue to buy everything their favorite artists produce anyway, and those who may well actually buy more music if given the opportunity to buy only what they like. If, say, instead of having to decide which of two ten-track CDs you could afford to buy this month, you could instead buy your six or seven favorite tracks from each.

[otherbill.livejournal.com]

It might mean you have to buy music a different way in the first. Maybe, say, give artists control over what music they're making, and let them make an album the way they're happy with, instead of pressuring them to have an album in four months in time for Christmas and having four decent tracks and six tracks of commercialized garbage on it to make the deadline. Let them record their music the way they want to play it, instead of yours the way you think they should be playing it.

I haven't read the article you linked to, but there's one interesting case in support of this paragraph here: Boston's album, "Third Stage".

After the initial success of their first two albums, Boston's third album was very slow in coming...to the point that their label (CBS Records) sued them for failing to produce. Boston then signed with MCA, delivered the album they wanted to deliver, and later won the lawsuit.

Since release, "Third Stage" has sold 4 million copies...not bad, eh?

Give the musicians control over their music, and fans get albums worth waiting for.