Print

Print


He's not of the record company business, but he's trying to tell them how to do business. Profitless 
ain't a business model. Self-releasing artists are finding this out, too, so they should be putting 
pressure on their agents to stand with the music guys instead of the tech business. These streaming 
services can definitely benefit everyone, but better deals than in the past need to be made. The 
streaming service model is to pay as little as possible for content, and then charge individuals and 
internet providers for the service they peddle. The internet companies want to pay the streaming 
services as little as possible to offer them to customers, so customers will buy ever-bigger data 
plans (did you know that many young adults pay well over $100 and closer to $200 a month for 
cellphone and video services? all of this used to be free for the cost of a TV set and a radio). So, 
at the end of the "pipe" is the "content," and there is tremendous pressure from many powerful 
interests who want it given away. The record companies made a bad deal for file downloads. They 
shouldn't make a bad deal for streaming rights. The bad deal that they made for downloads killed 
their cash cow by cratering the market for single-CD products. You now have multi-CD packages 
selling for a couple bucks a CD, whereas the original format of much of the content was single CDs 
selling for over $10. And account for inflation. They surrendered a huge portion of their profit 
margin! I don't blame the tech sharks who fleeced them; it's like GM signing bad union contracts and 
then crying poor. But to do it again would be suicidal.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interested in Emerging Trends and Distribution Models? Watch this


> Not of the industry he's pontificating upon? He's the head of the music
> division of WME, i.e. William Morris Endeavor, the largest talent agency in
> the US. You
> cannot tell me that the talent agencies do not play a role in the music
> industry, or in recording. They are now still standing as the record
> companies -- and
> even some service providers -- plummet. And they have a vested interest in
> seeing the recording industry do well, which it is not despite all of the
> avenues in
> terms of distribution models that have opened up in recent years.
>
> UD
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> I'm not against streaming, per se. But I do agree with Carl that a
>> fast-talking "expert" not of the industry he's pontificating upon is on the
>> make. Perhaps he's a stalking horse for one of the streaming services?
>>
>> As long as artists and record companies make deals with what amounts to
>> viable compensation, then of course they should embrace all forms of
>> distribution. But, they got steamrolled once by the tech guys. Fooled twice
>> might be fatal.
>>
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 7:24 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interested in Emerging Trends and Distribution
>> Models? Watch this
>>
>>
>>
>>  I don't think he is saying "everything is old sucks," or if he is it's not
>>> the main import of his message. As a consumer, I am hopelessly out of step
>>> with the world he is trying to explain and always will be. That was
>>> apparent to me even at Rovicorp where they were explaining how they could
>>> set
>>> up a product whereby the Rovi data would migrate to everything in your
>>> home, and I said, "No; you will not be able to infiltrate my phonograph,
>>> my
>>> Edison, etc." And they looked at me like "What the hell is wrong with you?
>>> Why are you here?" Indeed, I didn't even have a cellphone then; I do now
>>> and I mainly keep it on me to talk to my daughter and to call AAA when my
>>> car breaks down. I was there because my knowledge of the old rep and
>>> skills gained with that first page of distributors was still valuable to
>>> them. Ultimately, that changed, but so did the distro, and now that
>>> company
>>> isn't
>>> even listed with Pandora and the others on the second page. I was
>>> attempting to get them to deal with files in the years before I left, and
>>> now this
>>> fellow is saying that downs are on their way out, and it appears that they
>>> are. So that's two steps behind; but I'm getting off my point.
>>>
>>> However we are not only consumers on this list; many of us are producers
>>> and content providers of a kind. I have a catalog of over a thousand
>>> things
>>> that
>>> are mine that I find difficult to keep active, promote, distribute. He is
>>> really right in that the offerings are so vast that it is hard to be heard
>>> above all of
>>> the choices. And I would never listen to music over a phone, willingly,
>>> but
>>> if that's what gets you in the door these days, then so be it. What he's
>>> saying
>>> may be b.s. if you are the highly specialized type consumer that I am, but
>>> I don't represent the mean -- as I use mainly traditional media for my
>>> entertainment, I am now very, very exceptional. But as a producer and
>>> provider of content, it may not be bad news to me. It might be good news
>>> to
>>> someone like Karl Miller on this list, who is sitting on a heap of great
>>> catalog that has a shrinking market to contend with. I just know that I
>>> am,
>>> in a
>>> sense, most firmly connected with that first page of distro, particularly
>>> with Tower Records, and I was a little crestfallen that he stated that he
>>> would
>>> rather be on the second page, given my devotion to that cumbersome,
>>> top-heavy, slightly underhanded way of doing things. It had its flavor.
>>> But
>>> that
>>> doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to be connected to the second page, if
>>> possible, and that if even the tiniest fraction of the projections he was
>>> putting
>>> forward were somehow available to me a result, it would help, rather than
>>> hurt.
>>>
>>> Uncle Dave Lewis
>>> Lebanon, OH
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  There have been plenty of "Everything old sucks! This is the new
>>>> paradigm!
>>>> Go there or die!" statements over the past 20 years or so. Most of them
>>>> have turned out to be BS and those who "went there" lost time and money
>>>> in
>>>> their failure. Streaming is just radio without airwaves (well, actually
>>>> it's radio if it's done over a cellphone). The main difference is that
>>>> it's
>>>> customizable radio, because we now have a generation of listeners who
>>>> want
>>>> robots to pick their music rather than human taste-makers (who pretty
>>>> much
>>>> ceded the field in the age of Clearchannel and Evergreen). Many, many
>>>> people, myself definitely included, will still want to OWN and HAVE
>>>> good-sounding digital files or physical artifacts (ie CDs and/or LPs with
>>>> real graphics and liner notes). Yes, your best way to digest Mecklemore
>>>> or
>>>> Gaga may be via your cellphone, but permanent music will always gravitate
>>>> to permanent formats. I am quite confident I will be proven right in 24
>>>> months, and 24 years.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth -- and I know my "model" is unlike any kid, but I bet
>>>> I actually spend more on music so the industry should be paying at least
>>>> as
>>>> much attention to me -- I have never bought lossy downloads unless there
>>>> is
>>>> no other option to hear the music. The ONLY non-physical format I am
>>>> willing to spend any significant chunk of my money on is high-resolution
>>>> downloads, which I think are great as long as they start out as a great
>>>> transfer/remaster or original recording. I buy, on average, a half-dozen
>>>> or
>>>> more CDs per month. And in recent years, I'm buying nearly as many vinyl
>>>> platters, both used and new. What I spend is many times what a kid will
>>>> pay
>>>> per year for one of those streaming services. I consider those things
>>>> less
>>>> appealing that satellite radio, and would never pay for either. I do use
>>>> the free version of Pandora sometimes, but it often gets stuck in a rut
>>>> or
>>>> only plays stuff I already own so it's marginally useful at best. The
>>>> folks
>>>> behind Beats headphones now have a streaming service, so there is big
>>>> money
>>>> trying to strongarm the record companies into giving away music, yet
>>>> again.
>>>> If I were them, I'd sit in the room with Dre and Iovine and stick to my
>>>> guns that they will pay artistic, performance and copyright royalties for
>>>> everything they stream, every time it's played. Or, probably a better
>>>> deal
>>>> is to demand a direct percentage of gross revenue. Figure each record
>>>> company should get a piece of the pie based on number of offerings, so if
>>>> Warners offers up 1000 tunes it gets X% and if UMG offers up 10,000 tunes
>>>> it gets XX%.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 11:09 PM
>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Interested in Emerging Trends and Distribution
>>>> Models?
>>>> Watch this
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  You might not agree with Marc Geiger (of William Morris) has to say. But
>>>>
>>>>> this sure provides a lot of food for thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/5893871/
>>>>> wmes-marc-geiger-stresses-streaming-in-vision-of-100b-recorded
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Lewis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>