Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Enabler
I guess where I am going with this is, once I put up filters, they are subjective. I never thought Bright Eyes or Arcade Fire would do what they have done. Not because I do or do not like them, but because I did not hear the mass appeal. I was wrong
iTunes already has well over a million songs. Its shelves are virtual. Having an album in "stock" does not push out another album. The only way the album or song is going to sell is if there is demand but I can not see how a song sitting on a virtual Apple server will clutter someone's ability to find or buy something else.
I agree music / bands need to be promoted. Again, please provide specific examples of 'promotion' you feel these other companies have done to remotly justify their fees and model. Perhaps of the hundreds of thousands of bands you might find one?
The majority of the content at iTunes, the other digital services and even Amazon is indie label content. As a matter fo fact, the combined total sales of indie music is rivals major label content ( the long tail theory)
In addition, you don't always need big chunks of cash to promote yourself. Some simple ideas...
|
1. Yeah exactly that's what I mean when I said the role of filtering out the "chaff" is THE role that is hardest to replace a traditional record company with. Filters will always be subjective and no one's perspective/judgement is always right all the time. But I still think it is impt to have some methodology to select those truly bright or promising indie offerings. By this I am more referring to those potential trendsetters who are innovative in style/production/concept/songwriting and not those wannabe-<insert name of recent hit artiste/band> who are just cashing in on a trend people set. Perhaps the better way to "filter" stuff is to let every album received be reviewed/ranked by a pool of well-known audio bloggers, respected music journalists who are absolutely independent and have no affiliation with any company etc, so that consumers can see this ranking when it goes on sale. This will greatly help the consumer have a fruitful and pleasant shopping experience, by skipping those offerings that are "not so ready for big time" and go on to discover those up and coming gems. I like going back to the aurgasm audio blog cos I always find something worth listening to. The music there may not be even 50% my cup of tea, but they are almost always respectable and display creativity and musicianship. Even if the author makes $ from recommending this stuff on his blog, it won't affect me cos at least he recommends worthy music and I applaud that.
2. I have already covered this point in my previous post. The more tunes a store has, the more categorisation and product differentiation will be a problem. Like I said, unknown new releases which have little cross media promotion are unsought goods. If you want people to "seek out" music instead of searching for tunes they have already heard of somewhere else, the more new indie releases need to have a prominent voice in the clutter. To a websurfer all it takes is a bright flashing link with colourful flash graphics to distract them and be waylaid to the artiste that is being "featured".
3. I know very little about these companies since I only just read about them. But even if they really do promote 1 out of 1000 bands they deal with, it is pretty much understandable. They too have limited resources and have to concentrate on pushing stuff that they feel has market potential (which ties us back to point #1 about filtering). As an indie artiste I would feel good if they could give me an honest assessment beforehand on how much they can push my song based on timing/current market trends/positioning/standard of my music etc, and let me decide whether to sign with them. That is a fair deal to me. Of course promising to promote every band sounds too good to be true and empty promises suck.
The reason for my original post is not to defend your competitors or to undermine your business. I am just offering my honest viewpoint as a potential end-user as to how your business model may be different from the rest and why, perhaps so that other pple thinking of using these distributors can make an "informed decision". Honestly my perception of these online business may be very tainted and negative, but from your defensive tone which also seem to manifest your disdain for people who are just out to rip off indie musicians (that makes two of us!), perhaps you guys may be honestly trying to benefit the scene after all.
4. Thanks for that info on indie vs major label sales figures at itunes! Shows my lack of understanding of the business.
But I still can't figure out the process by which the average consumers actually seek/hunt for new indie releases. I mean, how are they supposed to find good new music (not those they have heard of from their friends, seen live or from the media or MTV)? Filter by "genre" (highly deceptive) and audition each and every one of the hundreds in the results list? Perhaps you should realise by now I am talking more from the perspective of an indie artiste looking to launch an album globally but does not actually live or operate anywhere near where these major markets are (US, Europe, OZ, Japan). Cos I know acts based natively in these markets will never think about launching their stuff into stores without first having done extensive ground work in the form of gigs or through other publicity means.
5. Thanks for the tips on DIY promotion.
