from Net to Mainstream: Geoff Byrd

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 | 07:15 AM
in Music

Wanna know why the RIAA and major labels are so concerned about P2P and the internet?  It makes them irrelelvant:

"Portland, Oregon singer-songwriter Geoff Byrd may be the first artist to break into the mainstream music world from the Internet, but he's learning that there's still no free ride. Byrd's Internet fame has been growing slowly over the past year. As an unsigned artist on the GarageBand.com Web site, his music was consistently rated high, and ultimately drew strong support from Live365 and Microsoft's MSN. For a short time last December he was the most-played rock act on Net radio, beating out U2 and Green Day, according to Webcast raters RadioWave Airplay Monitor.

All of that was enough to garner him attention from major labels, but no record contract. So this week, his managers--which include the founding member of the band Kansas--are signing Byrd to their own new label that will give him national distribution through a Universal Music Group affiliate and access to mainstream radio stations around the country."

In my market writings, I have been critical of both the efficient market hypothesis, as well as the idea of prediction markets. But what if we combine the idea of prediction markets with the actual retail marketplace?

In other words, why don't big labels use P2P to help them select which bands to sign? These groups ultimately must compete in the marketplace, so why not let the marketplace help? Use actual downloading as an additional source for A&R data selection, in addition to subjective label management decisions?

One of the email lists I subscribe to (Lefsetz) published this comment on the sensibilities of the so-called label pros:

from John Parikhal:

Hi Bob,

A lot of today's music problems started when the labels eliminated program directors and music directors from decision making.

I knew it was all over in the 80s when I saw an ad in R&R for a new release. Nothing about how great the music was ... instead, it said "going for adds (followed by a date)". I was puzzled and called some record company friends. They told me it was the new thing ... pick the single/track the company wanted to release ... and try to get as many stations as possible to add it in the same week (Soundscan was just a twinkle in Mike Shallett's eye as this was happening).

The record companies stopped following the policy that had helped them sell ZILLIONS of albums, a policy that relied on stations to make choice first (bottom up). (Of course, MTV had a lot to do with accelerating the decline of album impact while elevating the "look" of the star. And,  as people smoked less pot, they "listened" less to music.)

In the best Superstars days with Lee Abrams (1977-1981), the music meeting was the best part of the week. Albums came in by the carton. Everyone listened. They picked 2, 3 or even 4 tracks that were good and started playing them. A week later, everyone talked on the phone and thrashed out which tracks were better. About 50% of the time it was DIFFERENT from what the record company was pushing. And nearly 100% of the time, the PDs and music directors were proven right.

(Of course, radio picked some stinkers and there was lots of low grade payola going on too)

The point it this .... as the music business pushed singles ... and, as they determined that THEY would choose the order of track release (put out the weak track and "save" the better one??!!) ... as they IGNORED the consumer and radio station input ... people lost interest in albums and made YES/NO decisions on singles ...

I wonder what would happen if the record companies gave 5 albums of up and comers (with no big marketing budget) to 50 music directors and asked them to pick the best "tracks" (forget singles). And, I wonder how they would fare relative to the pre-release Internet testing that's going on right now?


Is it any surprise that the Labels are horrified? Not just of P2P, but of colloborative filtering, of internet streaming, of audience ratings, and lastly, of artists  maximizing touring and DVD revenue and ignoring -- or at least downplaying -- CD  sales.



Source:
Singer breaking from Net to mainstream
By John Borland
C/NET, Fri Apr 22 12:31:00 PDT 2005
http://news.com.com/Singer+breaking+from+Net+to+mainstream/2100-1027_3-5681338.html

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 | 07:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
de.li.cious add to de.li.cious | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post

bn-image

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d8344236ca53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference from Net to Mainstream: Geoff Byrd:

Comments

Somehow I feel that the words "Clear" and "Channel" belong somewhere in this quite convincing picture of how things went wrong.

Posted by: dsquared | Apr 26, 2005 8:26:18 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.



Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Archives

Complete Archives List

Blogroll

Blogroll

Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:


Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites

FeedBurner


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™

FeedBurner