Guest Column
September 19, 2000
What's Right with Traditional Distribution
A music industry veteran looks at digital distribution -- and decides to stick with the old-fashioned, label-driven approach
by Dinky Dawson
Dinky Dawson |
Last spring I produced a session for a band, Matter of Time [My Discontent MP3, 561k], then began sending demos to recording companies. My daughter, who works for an Internet company, was curious about why I was going the traditional route in the age of cyber-releases and Web music trading. It got me thinking.
I know that in the recording industry, less than one percent of each year's releases -- about 250 out of 32,000 albums -- will sell more than 10,000 copies. I am well aware of how record companies exploit musicians by giving them cash advances in exchange for copyright ownership of their works, as both Esther Dyson (San Francisco Chronicle, August 13, 2000) and Courtney Love have pointed out. And too often over the past year I have read of corporate mergers, with the big fish consuming the little ones, consolidating and controlling more distribution, to the detriment of competition.
I'm also aware of the sea change that digital technology is forcing on our system of recording and distributing music. I know about Napster, Gnutella, iMesh, Freenet, and other mechanisms for swapping music files. I'm cognizant of Garageband.com, Riffage.com, iCast.com, and Farmclub.com, where Web entrepreneurs offer to discover new bands. I'm not opposed to sites that let you download for free the music of artists they have contracted and to whom they are paying royalties, such as Musicblitz.com.
But for all the talk about leveling playing fields and making the industry more democratic, I'm not sure that the new technology won't encourage greed and develop businesses similar to our current models.
And that's just one reason why I'm shopping my band the old-fashioned way.
'Even Courtney Love says that MP3 sounds cruddy.'
First and foremost, how an artist sounds, or the audio quality of a recording, is important to me -- after all, I'm a sound engineer. Digitally speaking, a three-minute song file is large, about 32MB; left in its original state, it would take about two hours to download on a 56K modem line. In order to save space for both transmission and storage, the signal is compressed -- in the case of MP3, parts are eliminated by a compression algorithm. Cybertechnology such as streaming audio and MP3, literally limit and compress quality. MP3 works because it fools the ear: The result may sound okay on cheap headsets or satisfy a boombox society, but to my ear it's barely acceptable. Even Courtney Love, who uses Napster and has no love for major recording labels, says that it sounds "cruddy." And as recording companies release quality CDs in surround-sound formats, no current website offers comparable audio technology.
Secondly, a distribution system that depends solely on the Internet is presently incomplete. The world is not yet entirely wired; for now, at least, most people still connect to the Internet with a dial-up modem -- broadband may soon be more common, but it's still the exception. This limits your potential audience. Moreover, most of the people downloading music are young, so the lion's share of the stuff online is catered to that demographic. Just try to find some Clarence White or Yo-Yo Ma downloads. Some will argue that brick-and-mortar distribution stinks because if you live in East Boofoo, chances are that a relatively unknown band won't get its product into the CD bins. But mail order has changed all that; with a little ingenuity and perhaps help from your local library, you can find just about any available recording. And even if your Internet connection is slow, you can order online.
'There are plenty of reasons to stick with traditional distribution. Yet this model must change.'
According to the RIAA, last year the recording industry saw a 5.6 percent increase in total album product and an 11 percent increase in CD shipments. It still controls distribution of most popular music -- another reason to stick with the traditional model.
Yet this business model must change. Artists deserve to own their own work, and labels need to be more sensitive to this fact. Musicians are finding other options for producing recordings. Idealive, a San Francisco startup that matches creative artists with prospective investors, is funding a recording project for Tor Hyams, a young soundtrack composer and musician (who may still look for a major label contract). Other artists are working with independents to get their music out. On top of this, a new generation of consumers is deciding that CD prices are way too high and seeking alternative means to obtain music.
If nothing else, Napster and MP3 have given the recording industry a harsh wakeup call. Some labels, such as BMG, are responding with commitments to sell music online. Others, including Dreamworks, are launching sites where unsigned artists can submit songs for consideration. There is talk about subscription models, in which subscribers would pay a flat fee for downloaded items, and radio models, in which users would get the music for free but listen to advertisements. I'm even hearing that labels are thinking about making use of the Napster/Gnutella models but requiring users to pay a small fee, a portion of which would go to the label and artist. In other words, record labels have finally figured out that the best way of responding to the new technology is to incorporate it into their own business models.
Bottom Line
In an ideal world, artists would work with record companies to make music, publicize it, and distribute it, but still own and get paid for their intellectual property. Record labels, investing in artists and their development, would continue to make money while helping people find good music. Distributors, the traditional brick-and-mortar markets as well as those using new technology with infinite bandwidth and unlimited storage capacity, would thrive. Great music of every genre would be available at reasonable cost to all. We would have a truly open market. Everyone would be happy.
Until that ideal day comes around, I'm going with what I know works and sounds the best.
|
 |
|
Dinky Dawson was the first engineer to run a live concert mix from the audience. He has toured and done sound for dozens of major acts over the past 35 years, from Fleetwood Mac and the Byrds in the '60s to Chris Whitley and Ke' in the '90s. Dawson's memoirs, Life on the Road, was published by Billboard Books. Visit his site at www.dinkysworld.com.
|
|
|
|
