kane

See I happen to think without the big labels we would be awash in garbage music that we would hopelessly be sloshing through to get at something good.

When I wrote for a music magazine I got 30-50 CDs a week from labels wanting me to review them. Most of them were from acts you never heard of, for good reason. They put out one bad CD on a small indy label then broke up and got a regular job. And the bands just sucked. Most of what I heard sucked. Most of what is out there sucks. The labels have a system in place. They have A&R guys that go out and find bands/singers who they think are good and can offer something interesting and they help develop them. They get them in a studio and have them record some demos and they take those demos to the label heads. They use this system to filter out the junk. Yes, in the process good acts get passed up for sure and bad acts still get signed because in the end the labels want to make money so they will sign an act that might not be that good, but has a catchy song and a look they can market (again see Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson as prime examples.)

All of this takes money. It takes money to find bands and to record albums and get the albums in stores. If the system worked in a way where anyone and everyone had equal shelf space and everyone shared the same space online and it was up to each band to build its own fan base and get exposure we as music fans would be awash in shit. There would be thousands of terrible acts out there and you don't ever want to listen to them, but you have to filter through them to find something you like. Eventually the really good acts might be able to find a way to rise above the junk. But they would have to get a team behind them and group of people who know more about marketing than they do to help them get their names out there. Those people cost money and that money is going to have to come from somewhere.

The music industry is evolving. Now you can download the full CD from a band for $10-$12. I think that is a fair price for something you are going to listen to and enjoy over and over again and again. Just like if you buy a DVD and pay $15 but watch the movie a bunch. You get your money's worth. But what if they cut out the major label system? What if because of this you were able to pay $5 an album? That sounds great. the problem is where are you finding these albums? If you are getting them at a store how did you hear about the band? If you haven't heard of them before will you be willing to plunk down your money for something you have never heard of? For that matter how many people will be willing to just download 100 different records online and listen to them all in hopes of finding a few they like. Or how many people will spend hours surfing websites, myspace and Youtube looking for something new and cool? There will be some, but not that many. For most music is a leisure activity. They listen it the car or at work or while they are doing something else. They hear a song on the radio they like and they go get it. Of all the friends I have I don't know any of them that actually go online and look for new music. That is not to say that people don't, because they do. Just not as many as some would like to think.

My entire point in all this rambling is this: Sit down and really look at how you find the music you listen to. Was it on the radio or on MTV or was it a video someone sent you? Chances are there was some way that music was marketed to you. That marketing takes money. Yes, bands can make some money online. Yes acts can have success. Yes, acts need to have some form or talent to have long term success. But in the end how successful and act is will be determined by their ability to get their work in our ears. If we can't find them and hear them, it doesn't matter how good they are and for most people finding new music is not something that they spend a lot of time on, they just take was is convenient and convenience means money and someone has to pay for that.