JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum MySpace talking to independents Posted by: "Derek at CD Baby"

MySpace talking to independents
Posted by: "Derek at CD Baby" dereklist@cdbaby.com dereksivers
Fri Apr 4, 2008 9:16 am (PDT)
----- Forwarded message from Digital Music News <news@digitalmusicnews.com> -----

MySpace Music Initiative Announced; Three Majors On Board

MySpace Music officially announced itself Thursday morning with blessings from majors Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, and Sony BMG. The tie-up, billed a "landmark joint venture," will include DRM-free downloads, ad-supported audio and video streaming, a mobile storefront powered by Jamba, and "various sponsorship solutions." Artist-related assets like merchandise and concert tickets will also be part of the action, and collateral will be integrated within individual artist profile pages.

MySpace users are already familiar with MySpace Music as an umbrella for anything music-related within the site, including band profiles. But the new commerce-driven initiative, a stand-alone venture, reportedly involves equity stakes for the majors involved. Moreover, the venture allows the labels to participate in a broader portfolio of assets, instead of just recordings.

It remains unclear when standout EMI will jump into the fold, though an announcement is expected in the near-term. That, along with deals involving various independent labels, is part of an iterative launch schedule that will span several months, according to the network.

Outside of EMI, a number of dangling questions remain. That includes the price of paid downloads, and the possibility of a paid subscription offering. MySpace Music currently has more than 30 million unique monthly visitors, and 5 million band profiles, according to the company.

Permalink: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/040308myspace

Very interesting Ande! Thanks!

Cher

Having the labels get involved in more than the recordings is not a good deal for artists at all. In many cases those "other" income areas are the only places that artists can sustain themselves after the initial signing money from a label. To sign away everything to labels in such a way sees like going all the way into a sort of artistic indentured servitude.

Unless I am missing something, this doesn't seem good for artists and is setting a bad precendent moving forward. It's probably why the majors were so ready to jump on board, it's very one sided.

Brian

Is there any more info than what you just posted Ande? I think Brian is right based on what I just read here, the artist doesn't stand to benefit from this venture.

I totally agree, Brian - I am so anti-Major label since I lived in Nashville and saw so many of my friends got raked over the coals with so-called "deals" - like a having a credit card with a 67% interest rate...that's why this is so interesting to me. The internet has completely leveled the playing field in so many ways. I'm anxious to see what ideas the labels have up their sleeves this time...

Cher

Most of these deals seem to involve equity and revenue sharing from ads. Content licensing is usually part of the package.

A lot of these websites are agreeing to equity/revshare deals because a standard licensing deal with the labels would be too expensive. This is a similar argument webcasters have been making about having to pay increased royalties. The revenue stream just isn't there yet.

But anytime artists sign something away, they never get it back later when the model improves. Giving away a piece of everything implies all merchandise, any commerce surrrounding their name, any commerce involving their copyrights, any commerce involving their live appearances and performances and will likely tie all that up into the future and in an exclusive way. Look how new MySpace is. Does anyone think for a minute that they are likely to be the model for the next 2 years, let alone the next 10 years or lifetime? Getting into bed with a struggling and oppressive major label system seems like exactly the opposite pathway to the future for the community.

Then I have to wonder how it will affect the ability of independent artists to co-exist with their major label peers on a site like that. If there's no major label to partner, how can any scenario be equitable and fair? Will indies be expected to give up their rights and ownership and control without even having the benefit of a major corporation media empires money and power behind them? That's sounds beyond disastrous. In addition, won't this insure that indies will once again be relegated to the farthest away back burners of the spotlight that will be fully thrown to MySpace's business partners, the labels?

This really sounds like the worst news to come out in years for the non major label community and it sounds like a whole new way for the same corporate entities to once again establish a firm stranglehold on the entire music world. Ack.

Brian

360 deals were the big buzz word at SXSW this year
since CDs aren't selling like they used to,
labels are now want to capture parts of the artists other revenue streams. Like performance, merchandising and endorsements

here's a few recent headlines

U2 Signs Deal with Live Nation
U2 sign $300 million deal with Live Nation
Jay-Z Signs 360 Deal With Live Nation






SXSW afternoon dispatch:
Music business struggling to find new model

As recently as four years ago, all the talk about a failing major label model didn't seem to stop the annual South by Southwest Music Conference in Austin, Texas, from sending hordes of A&R reps and journalists on the prowl for the next big thing. Yet this year, the event has felt more and more like a traditional festival, one where the music -- and not the deal -- takes center stage.

Perhaps there's a relatively simple explanation for this. At a Saturday afternoon panel about the state of A&R, this dizzying statistic was thrown out: In 2000, the major labels employed more than 400 A&R executives. As of the start of SXSW in 2008 that number has dwindled to below 70, according to panel moderator Rodel Delfin, an editor with trade publication Hits Magazine.

And the ones who survived, said David Ayers, an executive with the Chrysalis Music Group, are "70 guys out there who are terrified. " Added A&R veteran Berko Pearce, "It doesn't matter if he's making $800,000 or $50,000, any A&R executive is expendable at the moment."

In a climate where job security has become the primary concern, talk around the Austin Convention Center on Saturday focused heavily on new business models, be it the much ballyhooed "360 deal," in which a label sees a cut of touring, merch and licensing revenue, among other facets of a band's career, or increased Madison Avenue-style branding techniques.

Across the hall at a panel on the pros and cons of 360 deals, Frank Gironda, a VP with Nettwerk Management, shot down the idea of such an arrangement, arguing that they make little sense at a time when major labels are trimming staff.

"You may as well do a deal with UBS or Paine-Webber," he said. "They want a piece of your revenue streams, but are not doing anything to actually develop them ... Why should we try to bail [the labels] out when they're struggling in their business?"

Gironda used the example of Nettwerk-managed gypsy punk act Gogol Bordello, a group he said is currently without a record deal. He noted the Gogol Bordello makes the majority of its money on touring, followed by merchandise and licensing. "Record sales," Gironda said, "are not insignificant, but they're not driving the business ... It might make less sense to do a 360 deal as all our other revenue streams are very profitable."

Jeff Krasno, president of Velour Music Group (Kaki King, Jesse Harris), countered that a label is investing in much of what makes a band's career, including publicists, who could cost as much as $4,000 per month. Yet he seemed to hint that 360 deals may not be a model that will work for all parties.

"It's not an illegitimate argument," Krasno said. "I think it's a legitimate argument, but that's where this whole system may break down. We need a new model."

Earlier in the afternoon at a branding panel, licensing songs to commercials or corporate outlets was pitched as the new model. "A CD today is nothing more than a transferring device," said Jeremy Wineberg, an A&R executive with Invisible DJ Records, which began by placing hip artists in high-end clothing outlets like Ron Herman and Fred Segal, and is now directly signing artists.

While the panelists pointed out that adventurous rock act Wilco recently "got blasted" for linking with Volkswagen, Wineberg argued that the question of an artist losing credibility by partnering with a corporate entity is irrelevant.

"As major labels are wanting to partake in touring [revenue] via 360 models," Wineberg said, "they're taking more and giving less ... You're always going to lose fans [by doing an ad]. You're always going to gain new fans. But you can't, as an artist, turn down opportunities to bring in money."
from:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/extendedplay/2008/03/sxsw-afternoo-2.html


http://www5.google.com/search?sourc...=m8X4R_nUCZi-ggT6mtFM&redir_esc=www5

http://news.google.com/news?source=...mp;um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Exactly what I have been saying a long time. I am writing my "My Take" about this. Sure.. if you're Madonna, perhaps a 360 makes sense when you get that giant upfront payment and other guarenteed money. But for the 99% of the rest of us, it's a bad bad bad deal. And this new MySpace Music deal sounds like the worst thing EVER since I started JPF for our community.

Ack!

Brian

I noticed that the headline of this post reads "MySpace talking to independents" but there's no mention of independent artists or labels in the article itself. These are deals between the four major labels and MySpace Music. Where do indies enter the discussion?

Here's another related article:

Digital music firms pay heavy price for labels' support
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080405/wr_nm/digital_music_dc_2&printer=1;_ylt=Ate0wZu3BIu6_1qPAqvAjL0h2.cA

Brian, I am totally with you on this.

A little off the subject, but in reference to what Ande said above abiout CD's not selling like they used to - I'm curious - has anyone here seen a decline in your CD sales? For us, for every 1 download, we sell 100 cd's... Maybe different markets are having different results. I'm in the singer songwriter genre, and the lullaby CD is flying off the shelves at the stores where they are being carried.

Anyone else?

CD Baby has consistently increased sales per artist on the site both in digital and CD's. For really active JPF artists (i.e. those gigging multiple times each week at paid gigs) I haven't heard of sales slipping in general and for the most part it seems that sales are up over the last 10 years. I am sure there are exceptions to that as there always are. But the new ways to sell music and promote artists has had nothing but a positive effect on indies that I am aware of.

Scott: The labels are counting on all the traffic generated by the indie community that currently makes up a large percentage of MySpace Music's model continuing and I can only imagine they plan to get a piece of that ad revenue money. I haven't heard a peep about sharing that with the indie artists, and I doubt very much that indie artists will get as favorable deal for their contribution when the labels own the site and are likely to pay themselves most of the money. That's why I feel this is a disastrous deal in the making for indies. The majors are moving in on what is primarily (as in 98% of the pages on that site) an indie music site.

Brian

I just did some math and added up the entire roster lists for all 4 major label groups. The total came to under 1000 artists across all genres of music.

If we are to believe MySpace Music's claim of 5 million artist pages on their system (which I can't seem to reconcile, but for now we'll work with that number)that means that the major labels (even if all 4 eventually sign on) would represent less than 1/50th of 1% of the artist pages on MySpace Music, yet they will co-own and control it. Do any of the 4,999,000 other artists really believe they'll get a fair shake in payments, promotion and benefits from being on the site? That would take an enormous leap of faith in the labels doing the right thing, something they've never demonstrated to date. On the contrary, they've worked hard to keep indies off the radio, off store shelves, out of promotionally beneficial places, out of corporate controlled music venues and relegated to the shadows of the commercial music industry. Using sheer brute force marketing muscle and other legal and illegal (i.e. payola for example) methods, they've always worked hard to screw the little guy at every turn. Now when they are in their most desperate situation ever, why should the massive numbers from the grassroots indie music community bail them out by helping them make this new model succeed? As far as I am aware, while all these high level negotiations have been going on, there hasn't been any significant outreached to the indie community to make sure the 4,999,000 unrepresented artists have a say in pricing and licensing and merchandising and promotions and a fair share of the ad revenue like the major label artists are getting.

This is a dark day for those who have made MySpace what it is, millions of little guys and gals.

Brian

Here's another article, a little clearer on the deal:

MySpace, record cos. launch new service
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_hi_te/myspace_online_music

Here's an interesting pullquote:

"MySpace, which boasts more than 110 million monthly users, has more than 5 million profile pages showcasing major label artists, independents and unsigned acts. All those artists would eventually be able to take advantage of MySpace Music's offerings, the company said."

Emphasis added. Of course we don't know yet what those offerings are, or if they're worthy anything to us...



Disagree with your interpretation here, Brian. Indies and unsigned acts may make up the majority of profiles, but there's no way they draw the majority of traffic. How many independent artists does it take to equal the traffic of the one Nine Inch Nails profile?

This is exactly why these sites are negotiating with the major labels first. They need those 1000 big-name artists to add legitimacy and draw the BIG traffic numbers they need to generate the revenue they need to operate.

It's the other way around for me. For 100 downloads, i sell 1 CD... I think it is a genre thing. The music i perform is post-punk and most of my fans are in their teens or early 20s.

Scott,

I did some research on this. I counted every major label artist on the roster at all 4 majors. It came to well under 1000 artists and that included a large percentage that were classical artists and hardly popular on MySpace. In addition, I checked out a dozen mid level artists like Cyndi Lauper, Billy Joel etc. and NONE of them had pages on MySpace Music. (A few had fan pages, but with no music available). So sure, NIN is very popular. So are some of the other hottest acts out today no question. But I put that number at around 200 total major artists with a page and significant stats. That's compared to 4,999,800 indie artists with pages that make up the balance. If MySpace music only had those 200 popular artists, or even the entire 1000 artists from all the majors, it wouldn't be in position to negotiate any types of deals with anyone, nor would it have significant ad revenue. Our indie/unsigned/grassroots community has MADE MySpace Music what it is. And we have ZERO voice in any of this. I find that egregious and bad on all fronts. Do you REALLY think we're going to get a fair shake with the majors in ownership? Hardly. They've never demonstrated fair play in the past. With Payola on radio and in music stores and with deals at popular venues etc. they've never given fairness to our community. And this won't be any different.

Brian

This is probably the reason as to why CD Baby dropped ties to Snocap and Myspace.

Hi "Folks"

This is a very important topic for anyone who hopes to make their living as an artist or songwriter. My perspective is shaped by nearly 40 years of involvement in commercial radio and playing/writing with bands.

My radio career began shortly after the days of the payola scandle so my early days as a station music director were not tainted by attempts on the part of label reps slipping a little incentive into the record sleeve for me to air their latest cut.

Major label control of the "marketing" is the danger here for the indy artist/writer. I left radio in the late 80's because of the coporate takeover of so much of the large and mid market radio capacity in America. Whether we like it or not, much of the audience is still acquired first by an artist, at the national level, through radio exposure. And the major labels still manage to control the commercial radio "marketing" tool.

If they gain control of the internet "spotlight" they control who and what the vast majority of new music seekers are exposed to. Not good. With resources like CD Baby we have a level playing field. With sites like JPF, Soundclick, MySpace, etc. we have a greater chance for our work being "discovered" by the fans we strive to reach.

Make no mistake. For the major labels it's all about controlling the "marketing" and that is the "spotlight" for the artist.

Wayne

Welcome to Just Plain Notes
Just Plain Notes: Volume 1.169, April 7th, 2008
Written by Brian Austin Whitney
Visit the Website: www.jpfolks.com
Mail CD's @ 5327 Kit Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46237
Copyright 2008 Just Plain Folks Productions.
Just Plain Folks Member Population: 46,519
***************************************************
Just Plain Quotes:

"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." -Scott Adams

"There's no business like show business, but there are several businesses like accounting." -David Letterman

"We believe that an artist, in order to be true to himself and his work, must be a free man." -John F. Kennedy

"Freedom is a relative thing. It's often determined more by what you allow yourself to do than what others allow." -Brian Austin Whitney

My Take:

As I was putting this newsletter together, a big announcement was made about MySpace Music signing a deal with 3 of the 4 major labels (with indications the 4th, EMI may follow suit soon). I’ve heard all sorts of excitement about this deal from our members. But I suggest using a great deal of caution and some healthy skepticism as to whether this is really a good turn of events or not.

The jist of the deal is that MySpace can’t afford to pay the licensing on major label content so they’re going around that problem by giving part ownership to each of the labels of a spin off from MySpace. This new stand alone MySpace Music will offer free streaming music of the entire major label catalogs in exchange for sharing the income from advertising and subscription fees from a download program (which hasn’t yet been defined). In addition, it is offering the labels participation in merchandise sales and ticket sales and any other commercial exploitation of their catalog. This is very attractive to the labels of course because right now they only make money from the recorded music. But I don’t view this as a good thing for artists, especially those who make up 99.9% of the artists already on MySpace Music.

MySpace Music claims they have 5 million major label, independent and unsigned artist pages on their site. (By the way, I am strongly suspicious of that number, but I’ll roll with it for now). I visited all 4 major label sites and counted up the rosters listed for each. The number was under 1000 total. If their numbers are correct, that means that the label artists make up less than 1/50th of 1% of the pages. The other 4,999,000 are from the indie and grassroots music communities. So while these negotiations are happening, I have to ask the obvious question: Who is watching out for and representing all of us (our grassroots/indie community), the 99.995% who collectively make MySpace Music what it is? As far as I am aware, the answer is no one. That should be a concern to any non-label artist on that site.

If the majors are going to be co-owners of the new site, what would make any of us believe that they’d treat the artists/writers not on their labels fairly? After all, these are the same people who have thumbed their nose at fair competition with schemes such as radio payola for many years. The major label system has regularly shut indies/grassroots artists out of significant radio play, off most shelves at record stores, out of corporate controlled music venues and relegated to the commercial music equivalent of the “back of the bus.” These are going to be the new owners/gatekeepers for MySpace Music? Really?

Now, perhaps utopia will prevail and the new company will find a fair and transparent way to compensate all 5 million artists for the traffic they bring to the site to increase ad revenue. Perhaps they’ll pay our folks the same rate per play that they’ll pay the majors. Miracles sometimes do happen. But without any representation behind the scenes, that’s a pretty big leap of faith to make. It's been stated that the major labels will have representatives on the board of the new company. Maybe we can hope for some board representation for the indie/grassroots community as well. But none has been offered so far. In the meantime, a site that was populated and made popular by the folks from the grassroots/indie community first is now being assimilated by the “Borg-Like” corporate major label system. Once again, the little guy helps blaze the trail and the big guy swoops in and gets the money and benefit.

This deal isn’t happening in a vacuum. For the last 10 years the indie and grassroots music community has found a way to survive and thrive outside the label system. Expect those stodgy old labels to swoop in on every other good idea and approach used by all of us. We’ve collectively led the way and now the modern day carpet baggers are coming. This week I heard about a major label head who thought he’d come up with an original, earth shaking idea that was going to change the entire music industry as we know it. His idea? He wants to launch an “all digital” label that will release music directly to the web for download only. Somebody hasn’t apparently told him that the idea was more than 10 years old and has been happening all over the web in the indie community and by countless start up companies for years.

Here’s a link to our message board where we’re discussing this and where you can find multiple links with more information about this new deal.
http://www.jpfolks.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/604077/page/1#Post604077

Freedom is a relative thing. It's often determined more by what you allow yourself to do than what others allow. Are we going to collectively roll over once again and give our freedom back to the new boss who is frighteningly the same as the old boss?

Learn, Succeed, Thrive. We're All In This Together!
***************************************************
Excerpt from today's newsletter
Copyright 2008 Just Plain Folks Productions

Thanks for all this info. I agree...it doesn't sound too promising. I had heard or read somewhere several months ago that the majors were wanting control of MySpace because they couldn't stand all the potential and alleged revenue the unsigned artists were pulling in. They wanted the focus back on something they could control. True or not, it seems very likely now.

Having worked for EMI several years ago, I have a very bad taste in my mouth for the majors and nothing they've done in the past few years has tempered that. Aren't they even trying to re-negotiate download royalties with performing rights orgs to make them more one-sided in their favor?

As Brian has said: Ack!

To reply to Cher...I'm seeing CD-v-download numbers along the same lines as FreewheelNat: 100 downloads per CD sold. Often even more. My last single was download-only as will be my next one.

I don't have a problem with the PEOPLE at the majors, as I know many who are very pro-artist and who love music. But the machine that is a multi-national corporation rips the soul out of most people and gives you an either or option.. either do it their way, or get out. Lawyers are making the decisions most of the time, not music people.

I read somewhere (perhaps in one of the articles above) that there were only 70 A&R people left in the industry with a job at a major. I'd love to know how many attornies work for those same companies. That would be very telling.

Brian

First I want to thank Brian for raising this issue on this forum. My next comment is that why is nobody complaining about how lousy MySpace is in the first place? And how much worse it will get when the traffic attracted by major label artists hits it? Some of this may be because of their success. It is buggy. Takes forever to do anything.

If some enterprising person or company wants to provide a viable alternative, and will make it their mission to shun the major labels, I would be glad to join other independents to desert MySpace en masse.

Best regards,

Steve Deasy
singer/songwriter

Oh absolutely...I still have great friends that work at labels, and they're wonderful people! I think it was the book 'Hit Men' by Fredric Dannen that submitted that there were two types of people that got involved in the music label biz: those who love music, and those who love power. Sadly, he revealed, the ones who usually made it to the very top tier were those who loved power. (Of course, that's just a generalization!)

The major record companies are like a beached whale, gasping for breathe, struggling to survive, yet ultimately doomed.

Years ago independant musicians created a new phenomenon with their music on MP3.com. The major labels sleazed in and took over - but where is mp3.com today? All but dead.

That's because what the people want is the creativity and artistry of the independant artists, not the McDonald's quality, canned nonsense offered by the major labels.

But low quality is all the majors can produce. Like so many second rate business people, they're all about marketing and don't have a clue about product production quality. I don't mean the easily quantifiable audio engineering aspects of quality. What I mean is the non-quantifiable quality aspects of musical creativity and originality.

A music industry run by a bunch of non risk tolerant accountants and business people can only survive by stopping the free and fair distribution of music by the competition. But those days are over.

Now, independant musicians and their friends have created a new phenomenon on MySpace, but what the executives at Myspace don't realize is that the content of myspace, supplied by the independant artists and contributors, is the reason for Myspace's success. Not their backend technology.

What I suggest is that the independant artists at MySpace show some mercy, some compassion and

PUT THAT POOR SICK ANIMAL TO SLEEP!!!!

On the day MySpace signs with the major, every independant artist should withdraw their music from Myspace and ask their friends to stop visiting the site. There are lots of competitive sites to post on.

If well coordinated and known, this would send a devastating message to the corporate world. It would all but shut down MySpace and almost instantly turn it from an internet phenomenon to an internet dud. It would be the death knoll for the majors. From then on no internet site would ever betray independant artist again!

There are already TONS of sites to go to! Garageband, Virb, iLike, Purevolume, Last.FM...take your pick.

But, remember that MySpace is still in the top 10 most-visited websites on the internet. None of those other sites even come close in reach and traffic.

The major labels have made a lot of money in music and they are not about to see it slip from their hands. They want 100% of the music market or as close as they can get to it, therefore by hook or crook, they intend to achieve their goal. They will buy out or squeeze out all competition. The only ones that can defeat the majors are the buying public. They have the power (purchasing power) to bring any company to their knees, but do they have the will when it comes to music. They buy what they hear, which is major label music, not because it's better, but because it's all they know and get,(the Internet is changing that, so they must change the net). People will eat garbage if it is all they can get to keep them alive. People will even drink muddy water to quench their thirst, they would prefer clean water and good food but they can't get to it.

If the public sees what the majors are doing as unfair competition and they are the victims as well as indie artist, they can send them a harsh message to their bottom line, by spending money at CD Baby and other sites that will not sell out to the majors.

Hey Steve,

Try wandering over to Independent Artists..... www.iacmusic.com and join the other indies, big and small.

cheers, niteshift

I know that this is a very important subject for many artists.
Sites like JPFolks are needed to keep us informed. Thanks Brian.

I wonder tho, how much difference will it really make.
I know there are musicians out there making a living from their music. There are some artists that make money as a part time venture. They keep a day job but they do make extra money from their music.
Myself, I don't know how they do it. I haven't made squat.
I have come to the conclusion that either my music sucks or I don't know how to market.

Then I see numbers like 5 million artists on MySpace. Add in all the other sites and I am not a small fish in a big pond, I am a speck of sand in the bottom of the big lake.
I wonder how anyone can sell anything with so much free music out there.

So I really don't know how this deal will affect me. But I still think we need to be aware of it.

long time reader first time poster:

we'll I was forwarded a copy of Brian's thoughtful piece about the record labels getting in bed with MySpace Music. In the spirit of full disclosure I am a fulltime musician and composer - meaning I create music [content] to feed my family.

IN this new arrangment that you reveal here I see where the labels will be collecting revenue for what they actually own rights to through a revenue sharing scheme in an attempt to get money for licensing performance. [PRO] Brian brings up a concern that somehow the indie artist will not be treated fairly by the labels who, by all measure don't treat their existing roster very well. Well that begs the question: why should they? Not to be flippant but it's not their deal, anymore than it's mine to pay your light bill. The artists - as they are - on these labels are supposed to be getting revenue for broadcast play and if MySpace won't pay it when the Genie is out of the Bottle - then they either get shut down - a'la napster - or they have to come up with a way to pay the bill. Bringing us to: Who's looking out for the multitude of little-guy-indie artists that make up the lion's share of the content on MySpace Music? No one. Why? Cause they want it that way. Free to all who come there. If you give it away - uh,. . it's given away, and no one - partial label owner or not - is gong to ever give you a dime for it. You can't have it both ways. not to mention, as one of us put it:
"I am a speck of sand in the bottom of the big lake.
I wonder how anyone can sell anything with so much free music out there."

You can't. But imagine that if you ARE with a label? They actually have just come up with a way a grabbing a little revenue from advertising - like radio - that may in fact find it's way back to the artist. You have to make your own best deal and then live with it.

IMHO

Turnaround,

I don't want to sound flippant or disrespectful, but I believe your arguments will carry much more weight if you weren't just using an anonymous screen name. Myself, I welcome differing opinions, but it is hard to take anyone seriously who won't put a name to those opinions.

BOY do you got that right!

If my life depended on getting a MAJOR RECORD/PUBLISHING DEAL I would die

If my life depended on My Space and whever else you sell muisc on the internet I would die.

Turnaround's intro as a long time reader, but new poster IMHO, means they could easily be someone up in the music food chain that wants to remain anonymous. Brian has often talked about people here that are famous even, but love being anonymous here so as to feel like a "just plain" person...probably unlike their public life...

The content of his/her post doesn't suggest someone who is here to "mess" with anyone. Just someone's take on this issue, and I am OK with it. I am glad someone who is here reading alot, finally decided to post.

I am not sure what to think of the issue at hand, and when that happens, I usually take Brian's view and compare other opinions to see if they stand up to his scrutiny. What he says makes sense...BUT it might just be that
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By: Bill Robinson
I am not a small fish in a big pond, I am a speck of sand in the bottom of the big lake.
I wonder how anyone can sell anything with so much free music out there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
and there will probably NEVER be anything I (as someone who works a regular full time job) can do about it. I just have to do my music because I love it and it fills my heart and expect nothing back from it...

As a mortgage broker though, I can't feel that bad for you music people trying to make a buck and struggling...join the club...every day I talk to people that are screwed up and going under ( me too )...and it's not just the big bad industry people that got them (well partially)...they did what seemed like the right thing to do at the time...they didn't know the real estate market would crash...it will emerge completely different at the end of this problem...and so will the music industry...I guess I am just trying to say that there are MANY many industries in trouble and morphing into something new. Don't feel alone... and us little people have very little say in any of it...It's the money that controls things, that's just the way it is, and this myspace deal will likely play out the way Brian is reading it because of that.

Herbie, you are absolutely correct.

Turnaround, I hope I haven't made you feel unwelcomed in any way. I too find myself doing a lot more lurking than posting. Hopefully, we can both contribute more.

Actually Turnaround (and FYI, I have no idea who Turnaround is, but that's fine as he/she was quite intelligent and respectful in their post) made the fundamental purpose of my essay for me. Indie artists should not look at this new MySpace Music set up as a good thing. We 100% agree on that issue. It's very bad for indies, and in the end, I wonder how good it will be for the majors. Everyone is raging about 360 deals right now where mega artists like Jay-Z and Madonna and U2 get gobs of money essentially sell shares of their entire commercial life. All products, all music, all appearances, everything. But I don't think that premise works so well for most artists, especially those not getting a gigantic upfront payment for it all.

Most of the smaller level label artists I know get their initial signing money and that's about it. That money dries up fast and they are left trying to make things go with all the fringe income they can make from touring or merchandising for example. Since majors are doing less and less and cutting back their staffs to less than mere shadows of what they once were, they're going to be giving more and getting even less in return than before. And how many of them (or Turnaround for that matter) actually think the royalty/shared income money they DO get from MySpace is going into the pockets of the artists involved? Outside of a few superstars, probably little to none. Remember, aren't these the same folks that said they lost money so famously on TLC on 179 million is sales right? Seriously.. with the claimed losses by these mega corps, that money isn't going to go to the artists, but less money from their sales of non musical stuff is going away at the same time. That's tragedy of this for label folk. For everyone else, you're right, they shouldn't expect that a new owner "the labels" are going to do anything for them. But when they signed up, it wasn't "the labels" site.. it was an independent site and 5 million artists joined up and made it what is it today so that the labels would ever consider doing business with them in the first place. Have the indies who worked it hard benefitted? Sure. So has MySpace. But now, all that goodwill is sold down the river to a bunch of failing corporations who rode their own plane into the ground before finally starting to do what indie artists have been doing for 10 years. I just think it's important that someone out there tell it like it is. So I stepped up.

I've actually gotten some hate mail from label folks.. had a few unsubscribe from our newsletter and others not return my emails. So be it. Telling the truth isn't always the easy thing to do, but it's the right think none the less.

MySpace claims to be a community site. They've just proven they are the farthest thing from that possible. And Turnaround seems to acknowledge that. So we agree.

Brian

Well wow, OK I am NOT someone up in the music food chain! LOL And I DO NOT work for a label. [bigger LOL]
I am a composer for TV and Film and I sign up anonymously at first on these forums to see how it all works and to see what the users here are all about. I'm not sure 'knowing' who Kevin is let's me take his point with any more or less weight. A good idea is like a good song. If it's working, fine. So for now even if some don't want to take my posts seriously here's my 2¢ rant. Let the fire begin:

My wife has a band that performs locally and maintains both her own site as well as a MySpace account. She forwarded me Brian's piece to see me take. I occasionally get the chance to speak at film festivals and such about composing and more to our discussion here about licensing music for Film, and TV.

I do get a bit tired of artist and singer songwriters moaning and groaning all the time about the big bad labels and being ignored and not compensated etc. Unfortunately they do most of it to themselves. And the labels - and mind you I have not a lot of love there either - are just corporations that want to make money. And they try to find or worse make 'artists' so they can sell some sort of media and make a buck. So what.

The idea that the interests of a few on this new site will drive the nature of the site for the many may be a bad deal. To which I say don't play in that sandbox. If you are a 'free' artist then just do your art and don't worry about it. If however you want to make a living doing/creating music, art, some content of some kind - then we are going to have to figure out how to get a good deal. For one; stop giving it away. Also consider the recent buyout of YouTube. 1.5 Billion for a site that was a grass roots, user driven creation. Sound familiar. Got popular for all the same reasons we have said here that MySpace became so. It's still what it was but now there is someone really making money from the advertising. Not you and me. Just so we can go on looking at badly shot videos of guys lighting their farts on fire.

Butt seriously, the big concern is that the labels - MySpace not withstanding want to get money from the one last bastion's that emerging artists had to survive: Sales of merch and other tour related media. Without that revenue they're really running out of gas. And now even that's getting too expensive to fill up the band bus. . .

The idea that they will 'compensate' the rest of the 5 million users on MySpace music is silly. They don't have a publishing deal with you. So your out of luck. If you give it them the genie is out of the bottle. If you want some of the ad dollar revenue then you are going to have to get record deal. I'd say 'it sucks' but is it really that evil? The same would be the case if you wanted a book deal. No publisher is gong to edit publish, print, and ship your tome around to all the Barnes and Nobles if everyone can read it on line for free.

We need to just take control of our own destiny and not rely on MySpace to be the guardian of our art.

I think that if musicians would concentrate more on being entertainers and less on being stars, they would find there was plenty of money to be made from local gigs. I did it for a couple of years in the Virgin Islands, where none of us had any illusions about becoming rich & famous - we were just small time entertainment (and made some money).

Unfortunately, here in the States, Rock n' Roll star wannabees turned live gigs into such a fiasco that most people nowadays opt for DJs.

Anyone remember back in the '60s & '70s when there was live entertainment EVERYWHERE? What happened?

Perhaps indie artists should concentrate more on competing with the local DJs and worry less about the major labels.

I agree with Turnaround.

Most of us freely put our music on MySpace with the understanding that we weren't getting paid in exchange. We wanted the exposure to their user base (which, by the way, totally dwarfs the musicians on MySpaceby orders of magnitude). We KNEW this. And we're not in a position to renegotiate. The major labels are, because their artists drive WAY more traffic than indies.

It reminds me of Billy Bragg's last speech. He was pissed off that Bebo got sold for millions but the musicians there didn't get a cent. Hey, them's the breaks. Like Turnaround said: don't put your stuff there if you want paid for it.

And the more I think about it, I really don't agree with the idea that "indies built MySpace." Musicians are just a very small fraction of MySpace users. The vast majority of users are regular everyday people, and they're probably spending more time on their own profiles than anything else.

At this point I've gotten WAY more value out of MySpace than they have of me.

Now, all that said: I wouldn't be surprised if IODA and CD Baby are allowed to participate in distributing rev-share money to indies. But I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't, either.

Hello Turnaround,
Welcome to JPF and thanks for weighing in with your comments and viewpoints. I can't find anything to disagree with, so I might as well be agreeably agreeable!

It's interesting that you are a composer for TV and Film. Then you've probably heard of Film Music Magazine published by Mark Northam who is very "pro" composer since he also did that for a living for a number of years.

Probaby the bulk of your income is from music licensing. This is getting to be an important (positive) topic around these JPF boards, especially on the Industry and Mentor forums. Hopefully you'll be able to "open up" to us and share what you've learned about music licensing. I'm sure there'll be some lively and educational discussion going on.

Looking forwards to more of your posts and maybe getting to hear some samples of your music sometime.

Best regards,
Michael

So you both agree with me. This new turn at MySpace isn't going to benefit the indie community. I've never been a fan or supporter of MySpace since day one. In fact, people here have criticized me because I didn't hawk it and even that I didn't create a JPF "MySpace" page. But I saw it for what it was back then and it just got worse than it was back then. Now MySpace Music will be totally a separate thing from MySpace, so it has to stand alone. If the 4,999,000+ artists not benefitting from the new deal all went to any other site, it would shut down the same day, I don't care WHAT deal they have with the majors or HOW many people visit because of those artists. If you don't believe that, you're just as deluded as the artists who were convinced this new deal was going to be the greatest thing for indie artists ever.

Brian

Brian, I don't understand what you're proposing (other than to get really angry!). This deal is going to either happen or not regardless of all this fuming.

The economics seem really simple to me. MySpace needs major label artists to stay legal and drive ad revenue. The major labels need MySpace's audience to sell ringtones to.

You can argue that it was indie artists that "built" MySpace but you'd have a tough time convincing me when ordinary people far outnumber musicians on MySpace.

That's a big difference. If indie artists are so valuable, why isn't Soundclick as popular as MySpace? Why isn't Garageband as popular as MySpace? Maybe it's because the real value in MySpace is that ANYONE can have a page, not just artists. And I'm willing to bet that the majority of people visiting MySpace are NOT visiting indie artist pages. They're visiting their own pages and their friends' pages, and maybe a handful of artists, both major and indie.

Otherwise, what do you propose we do? Expecting a mass indie exodus from MySpace isn't going to happen. The people who leave will be replaced with people who don't see it as much of a problem.

Besides, if we all leave MySpace then we'd REALLY have no say in the direction of the site.

Actually, the point is that without 4,999,000 there would be no MySpace Music. If the majors could simply post pages for their artist roster and make the same money, they'd do that without MySpace Music getting a dime. You can easily argue the exact reverse of what you're saying. MySpace Music isn't going to be the same company as MySpace. It's a spin off.

And my point was, after getting tons of emails about how amazing this turn of events was going to be for Indie Artists and how they were suddenly going to start making all this money from the site, I think folks needed a reality check that in fact their ship was not coming in and if anything, things would get worse, not better on MySpace Music. I see nothing in what you're saying to dispute that in any way. So why are you feeling the need to strongly disagree with me?

Does NIN have a lot of fans? Sure. So do a couple of hundred other major stars. But most of the major label roster isn't even using MySpace to start with. So your theory that those folks are driving most all the traffic simply doesn't hold up. Not when Indie artists outnumber about 25,000 to one. People go on to MySpace to check out pictures of hot women and listen to free music. Sure, now they'll have more free major label music to listen to. Great. My article didn't say it was bad for major labels, though the 360 deals are certainly not universally accepted as a good thing for even the average major label artist. And if indies start giving a percentage of the little they are selling to MySpace, how is that a good thing? Other than simply "existing" what is MySpace doing? And if, by your claim, that no one is visiting any indie artists now, then why would adding major label content be a good thing for indies either? It's odd how you keep making my point, but act as though we disagree.

As for what do to? I think being aware of what is going on is a good start. You can't make a plan until you do that. Next, just as people flocked to MySpace Music, they can easily flock somewhere else. It won't happen overnight, but we all know that in the end, it's going to happen eventually anyway. People rarely stick with one thing forever. Facebook seems like one option. Or any of the dozens of new starts ups coming out. I literally got contacted by 2 different start ups today alone that want to offer more to the indie community and try and compete with MySpace. And I get those types of contacts all the time. Who knows which one will be the successor, but why not start looking now rather than later?

I've predicted this type of thing happening with MySpace since day one. I've taken heat because I didn't recommend people join MySpace. It's always been solely about collecting data and selling ads. It's always been hollow. Why is it that we should all collectively just roll over with our heads in the sand and accept the rotting table scraps that some corporations choose to throw us? Why should we keep letting corporations get rich by exploiting our music for free? I've never believed in that crap. (It appears Turnaround doesn't either). I don't so undervalue the work of our members that I think we should simply bow down to anyone willing to exploit us. Sure, there may or may not be a better alternative right now. But we'll never collectively know if we keep kneeling at the feet of people who clearly assign zero value to the entire indie community. The labels have always played that game... keep them groveling and dreaming that one day they'll be invited to sit at the grown up table. One of the few saving graces about MySpace was that everyone got pretty much the same deal and the same treatment and the same status. Now even that has changed. I have to ask you, why are you so desperate to settle for what they offer?

Brian

OK, I may be wrong here, but I see a My Space bandsite as nothing more than a place to garner some exposure.

Until I'm getting thousands of views daily, I won't worry about getting paid... and by then my (better) home site will be showing up on search engines, and I can pull down the My Space site if I chose.

This all reminds me of MP3.com for some reason...