Death to labels!
Let's start with the sad. 95% of the population of the earth are people, in principle, not capable of more or less positive creation. However, this layer is necessary to ensure the existence of the remaining 5% in a market economy, for the fact that the higher the intellectual level of a person and his creative abilities is, the worse he plays the role of a consumer in the market system. That is, roughly speaking, the more a person is able to create - the less he will consume. And vice versa. Evidence of this position can be found on the Web independently, who disagrees with it - your right, the humanities allow pluralism of opinions.
Now, a little intro.
Very many people with whom I talked in one way or another, in talking about copyright and the role of labels in the development of the music industry, make one big mistake. They believe that the role of labels is only to make money on performers by replicating and selling discs (which, as all greedy children know, should be sold for pennies, since the price of replication is those pennies) and the whole world would only be happy if they all got into a rocket and flew to Mars. At the same time, Radiohead is constantly cited as an example of an indicator of a commercially successful “free” project.
')
In principle, talking with such people about copyright in the music industry is the same as talking to a 3rd grade graduate about relativistic physics (“well, when I click the switch, the light lights up immediately, which means light travels instantaneously”). If we consider that 95% of the population, in principle, are not capable not only of creation, but also of comprehension, it becomes completely sad, for it is clear that you will never explain a person to your position if he is not able to understand it in principle, and even if able - does not want to take. It is like women's logic - any argument can not only be refuted, but also rejected, even if it is logically flawless (“this cannot be because I do not believe in it”). Therefore, the article is written for an intellectual minority, with which a positive discussion is possible. Fans of shouting "copyright must die" please retire to the next topic and praise Radiohead.
This entry is over. Let's move on to the main topic. Many of the theses that I put forward may seem controversial, your task is to find them, carefully re-read, realize and understand what they mean. Only after that you can argue. I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, but I am not interested in talking with stools.
In a market economy, a very important factor in successful business (which involves making a profit) is the division of labor and specialization. A dozen narrow specialists in the conditions of mass production solve the task set much better, faster and cheaper than one person with a wide specialization. With this, I hope no one will argue. In order not to go beyond the indicated conditions, we will talk exclusively about mass culture, leaving aside the art house and its likeness. There are completely different laws.
In order to bring his creation to the final listener in order to get money from him, the team of performers is required to perform the following actions:
1. Assemble and organize a team of like-minded people united by one goal, able to work together. Like-minded people are needed so that the group does not fall apart in the very first months of existence due to creative differences, and the common goal is to mobilize forces to achieve it.
2. Write a material that will potentially be in demand by the consumer - this is necessary for the ultimate commercial success of the project.
3. Find tangible and labor assets necessary to translate the goal. It can be instruments, money for writing, as well as such non-material things as ability to play, sense of rhythm, charisma, etc.
4. Record the material.
Further, the question arises - what to do with this material, because the ways of monetization are rather vague.
To begin with, the material may be commercially unpromising. For example, the group plays music that is very much reminiscent of the songs of the well-known VIA “Aria”, or is another clone of the KINO. In this case, the group simply quietly dies in obscurity, where it, in fact, is the place.
But, let's say, the music of the group is really interesting to the potential listener. However, he (the listener) does not know anything about this group. And the task of the group is to bring their music to the listener, and then - the money from the listener in your pocket.
Here a certain intermediary appears, which is called a “label”. The label is both a professional listener (reviewer, editor) and a distributor. It is the primary buffer that eliminates unpromising clones of the Alice VIA from the reincarnation of Louis Armstrong. The result of the label is the fact that more or less popular groups that have a contract with the label really represent a product of the “above average” level, and the listener does not sink into a sea of ​​informational garbage.
The distribution of discs as the main income of the label is a completely different question. This is simply a model of earnings, which can change at any time. However, if the label will not be able to rebuild under the new model - it will disappear, and then it will be interesting.
A disoriented mass listener who is used to explaining what is good to listen to and what is not (and you love the voiceless Shevchuk, I know!), Is buried under the rubble of rubbish produced by 95% of which it belongs. As a result, the system will self-organize, as a result of which it will move to a state with lower entropy. There will be targeted associations of people who will somehow help the listener to filter the music. It can be anything - as a commune in LiveJournal and a habra-like site with self-regulation and content filtering by the listener. They, one way or another, will help listeners to make their choice. Naturally, after some time there will be a monetization of these services. Monetization models, however, are still unclear; it is doubtful that this will be an advertisement - most likely a paid subscription or paid access to content. In the second case, we get analogue labels, which will eventually devour more and more of the albums (aytyuns), and in the first system will be much more interesting.
It is known that man is a social being and dependent on the opinion of the crowd. The crowd in the absence of external control is a stochastic unstable formation, which is very much subject to external fluctuations. That is, as applied to our case, a positive rating given to the album is a catalyst for giving positive ratings in the future, and even hiding ratings is not a panacea - according to comments, reviews and other sources, a person is able to track the opinion of the crowd in order to be “on its wave”. Plus, the inertia of thinking, because of which the passing album of a famous group can get a much higher rating than the bright album of an unknown group.
Thus, the content will be self-regulated according to an exponential scheme - at the top there will be a very small number of performers who got there due to stochastic fluctuations or by contractual methods. All the same perturbations will take place below, and hundreds of good teams with good music will wonder why the community does not notice them.
However, this is only one of the models. The second model - “pay as much as you want” - disappears immediately, because 95% do not want and do not want to pay. In principle, it does not work very well anymore - only Radiohead and a couple of other teams that were the first and already promoted labels managed to collect a more or less decent amount. The rest (thousands of them) collect pennies. That is, the positive feedback effect is manifested here - the better the team is spun, the more money they collect, the more money they collect - the better they are spun, and so on. To get out at least in a zero balance for an undistorted team will still be impossible.
The third model is negotiable. The musicians sign a contract with the audience, according to which the new album will be laid out free of charge after a certain amount is formed on the account. The effect is the same - 95% do not want to pay and will wait until the “rich” contribute the necessary amount, and for a nameless team this path is completely dead for obvious reasons, I think.
The division of labor, through which musicians write music, and labels - its sale, is quite effective. This division should definitely remain, otherwise the music will finally turn into the category of expensive hobbies, and you will not hear about musicians more often than about collectors of stamps.
In general, even if the labels die, nothing will change much. There will be no more good music, no less bad music, it will be just as difficult for newcomers to get through, and old-timers will be able to earn their name. Because it is not labels that dictate, but the very model of the market in which we all live.
I propose to speculate together - what should be the ideal system that could save performers from the effect of promoted?
Now, a little intro.
Very many people with whom I talked in one way or another, in talking about copyright and the role of labels in the development of the music industry, make one big mistake. They believe that the role of labels is only to make money on performers by replicating and selling discs (which, as all greedy children know, should be sold for pennies, since the price of replication is those pennies) and the whole world would only be happy if they all got into a rocket and flew to Mars. At the same time, Radiohead is constantly cited as an example of an indicator of a commercially successful “free” project.
')
In principle, talking with such people about copyright in the music industry is the same as talking to a 3rd grade graduate about relativistic physics (“well, when I click the switch, the light lights up immediately, which means light travels instantaneously”). If we consider that 95% of the population, in principle, are not capable not only of creation, but also of comprehension, it becomes completely sad, for it is clear that you will never explain a person to your position if he is not able to understand it in principle, and even if able - does not want to take. It is like women's logic - any argument can not only be refuted, but also rejected, even if it is logically flawless (“this cannot be because I do not believe in it”). Therefore, the article is written for an intellectual minority, with which a positive discussion is possible. Fans of shouting "copyright must die" please retire to the next topic and praise Radiohead.
This entry is over. Let's move on to the main topic. Many of the theses that I put forward may seem controversial, your task is to find them, carefully re-read, realize and understand what they mean. Only after that you can argue. I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, but I am not interested in talking with stools.
In a market economy, a very important factor in successful business (which involves making a profit) is the division of labor and specialization. A dozen narrow specialists in the conditions of mass production solve the task set much better, faster and cheaper than one person with a wide specialization. With this, I hope no one will argue. In order not to go beyond the indicated conditions, we will talk exclusively about mass culture, leaving aside the art house and its likeness. There are completely different laws.
In order to bring his creation to the final listener in order to get money from him, the team of performers is required to perform the following actions:
1. Assemble and organize a team of like-minded people united by one goal, able to work together. Like-minded people are needed so that the group does not fall apart in the very first months of existence due to creative differences, and the common goal is to mobilize forces to achieve it.
2. Write a material that will potentially be in demand by the consumer - this is necessary for the ultimate commercial success of the project.
3. Find tangible and labor assets necessary to translate the goal. It can be instruments, money for writing, as well as such non-material things as ability to play, sense of rhythm, charisma, etc.
4. Record the material.
Further, the question arises - what to do with this material, because the ways of monetization are rather vague.
To begin with, the material may be commercially unpromising. For example, the group plays music that is very much reminiscent of the songs of the well-known VIA “Aria”, or is another clone of the KINO. In this case, the group simply quietly dies in obscurity, where it, in fact, is the place.
But, let's say, the music of the group is really interesting to the potential listener. However, he (the listener) does not know anything about this group. And the task of the group is to bring their music to the listener, and then - the money from the listener in your pocket.
Here a certain intermediary appears, which is called a “label”. The label is both a professional listener (reviewer, editor) and a distributor. It is the primary buffer that eliminates unpromising clones of the Alice VIA from the reincarnation of Louis Armstrong. The result of the label is the fact that more or less popular groups that have a contract with the label really represent a product of the “above average” level, and the listener does not sink into a sea of ​​informational garbage.
The distribution of discs as the main income of the label is a completely different question. This is simply a model of earnings, which can change at any time. However, if the label will not be able to rebuild under the new model - it will disappear, and then it will be interesting.
A disoriented mass listener who is used to explaining what is good to listen to and what is not (and you love the voiceless Shevchuk, I know!), Is buried under the rubble of rubbish produced by 95% of which it belongs. As a result, the system will self-organize, as a result of which it will move to a state with lower entropy. There will be targeted associations of people who will somehow help the listener to filter the music. It can be anything - as a commune in LiveJournal and a habra-like site with self-regulation and content filtering by the listener. They, one way or another, will help listeners to make their choice. Naturally, after some time there will be a monetization of these services. Monetization models, however, are still unclear; it is doubtful that this will be an advertisement - most likely a paid subscription or paid access to content. In the second case, we get analogue labels, which will eventually devour more and more of the albums (aytyuns), and in the first system will be much more interesting.
It is known that man is a social being and dependent on the opinion of the crowd. The crowd in the absence of external control is a stochastic unstable formation, which is very much subject to external fluctuations. That is, as applied to our case, a positive rating given to the album is a catalyst for giving positive ratings in the future, and even hiding ratings is not a panacea - according to comments, reviews and other sources, a person is able to track the opinion of the crowd in order to be “on its wave”. Plus, the inertia of thinking, because of which the passing album of a famous group can get a much higher rating than the bright album of an unknown group.
Thus, the content will be self-regulated according to an exponential scheme - at the top there will be a very small number of performers who got there due to stochastic fluctuations or by contractual methods. All the same perturbations will take place below, and hundreds of good teams with good music will wonder why the community does not notice them.
However, this is only one of the models. The second model - “pay as much as you want” - disappears immediately, because 95% do not want and do not want to pay. In principle, it does not work very well anymore - only Radiohead and a couple of other teams that were the first and already promoted labels managed to collect a more or less decent amount. The rest (thousands of them) collect pennies. That is, the positive feedback effect is manifested here - the better the team is spun, the more money they collect, the more money they collect - the better they are spun, and so on. To get out at least in a zero balance for an undistorted team will still be impossible.
The third model is negotiable. The musicians sign a contract with the audience, according to which the new album will be laid out free of charge after a certain amount is formed on the account. The effect is the same - 95% do not want to pay and will wait until the “rich” contribute the necessary amount, and for a nameless team this path is completely dead for obvious reasons, I think.
The division of labor, through which musicians write music, and labels - its sale, is quite effective. This division should definitely remain, otherwise the music will finally turn into the category of expensive hobbies, and you will not hear about musicians more often than about collectors of stamps.
In general, even if the labels die, nothing will change much. There will be no more good music, no less bad music, it will be just as difficult for newcomers to get through, and old-timers will be able to earn their name. Because it is not labels that dictate, but the very model of the market in which we all live.
I propose to speculate together - what should be the ideal system that could save performers from the effect of promoted?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/96137/
All Articles