Before you claim that this is one of my wails against today's music scene, just know that this is by a writer for Cnet.

http://tech.msn.com/news/...1>1=9233

Perspective: Where did the music industry go so wrong?
By Patrick Faucher

Wasn't it all so gloriously simple back when people listened to top 40 radio and obediently paid $20 for discs at record store chains?

Labels set the deal terms for artists. Managers handled the "biz." The touring circuits were maintained by well-mannered warlords that politely divvied up the venues. And everyone had their place in the pond.

So where did it all go wrong with the music business? Somehow, the pond became stagnant over time, mucked up with greed, laziness, contempt and excess. People got bored with music. Then, someone threw a rock into the middle of it called the Internet, and nothing will ever be the same. Today, anyone can hum a tune, mix it with a rhythm track and some samples on their Mac at home, put it up on MySpace.com, and end up with a publishing deal from Moby, which will then sell it to the next Super Bowl sponsor.

The industry has become decentralized. Major labels no longer have the market muscle or control over the distribution channels as they once did. Technology and consumer choice have caused a shift from the traditional music business model of major labels throwing copious amounts of money behind a few big hits to that of a vast collection of individual artists creating pockets of more moderate success among passionate fan bases.

This shift requires a different approach to the development and monetization of music by the producers and promoters--one that more directly resembles that of more traditional venture-backed business. The entrepreneurs (artists) create new intellectual property (music, artistic brand) that has a demonstrated market (fans) that is robust enough to attract investors (for example, a label) that wants to own some equity in that IP and wishes to put money into the asset to enable it to engage in value-building activities (distribution, merchandising, licensing, and so on). Oddly enough, this "new" model is, in fact, not new.

We've all heard of The Grateful Dead, Phish, Ani DiFranco, Aimee Mann and the Barenaked Ladies. These great artists have grassroots beginnings. They all employed clever uses of the technology available to them at the time to find fans and create direct distribution channels (from bootleg cassettes and toll-free phone orders to MP3s and e-mail distributions). Using these methods, these "artist-entrepreneurs" have circumvented the traditional channel gatekeepers and have blazed a trail for the rank-and-file working artists and the weekend warriors to follow.

Now all serious artists need to conduct themselves as entrepreneurs engaged in building a business, not just playing and selling music. There are many tools and services out there that artists can use to help them sell. Still, it's not enough to put up a MySpace page and get a song on iTunes. They need to build a brand that has long-term value. They need to own that brand and their customers outright. There is a need for artist platforms that make this process more efficient so the economics make sense. Those solutions increasingly are becoming available.

Investors--including the major labels--need to understand the intricate partnership role they play in development. It's no longer about throwing money into the ether, marketing to no one in particular, and seeking only mega-hit payouts. It's about patience and commitment and focus. The labels--or their successors--need to get down to sea level, pick up an oar, and help row with the artist into this new ocean of opportunity.

Patrick Faucher is the CEO of Nimbit.

Oh, and here's what the editor of Cnet thinks about DRM and the record companies efforts to fight online piracy:

http://tech.msn.com/produ...id=4218445

Perspective: Forget DRM. It's the music
By Charles Cooper, Executive Editor CNET news.com

Pushing my vacuum cleaner around the living room last week, I suddenly did a double take. Chockablock with records, cassettes and CDs, the wall unit across from me contained my 35-year-old history as a music consumer.

Truth be told, I did download a few digital-music files here and there during Napster's heyday in the late 1990s. (Personal note to the RIAA: They've all since been deleted. I swear on my pet rock.) But I paid for most of the rest of my collection, down to the last penny. I bet you can say the same for the majority of the music-listening public.

So it was with a mix of amusement and disappointment that I read about the recent get-together for music industry executives, where the folks invited as talking heads took turns bashing Apple CEO Steve Jobs and offering pale prescriptions about how to fix what ails their business.

I don't want to get into an argument about which generation created the best music. Personally, I'm partial to jazz and classical, though I can't deny that I dig a lot of hip-hop. But is it possible--or even likely--that the falloff in music sales has more to do more with the quality of contemporary music than with digital piracy? We obviously have an enormous appetite for schlock, but there are limits.

With all due respect to the high-quality bands working for a living, the studios have always chosen the easy out by shoving numbingly formulaic, bad music down the public's throat. For most of the postwar era, that was the way things worked. Then came the Internet, which ushered in the revenge of the music buyer.

The studios shouldn't be surprised at what happened. Throughout their history, they routinely targeted Top 40 titles at teenagers and early twentysomethings. The irony is that these folks make up the demographic most likely to pirate music.

Instead of threatening to sue their own (potential) customers, why don't they do more to monetize the growing demand for oldies and indie music? Fans clearly are willing to pay it. What's so hard about finding a way to make that work? With a little creativity, the studios could find ways to better promote musicians who cater to these--and other--demographic categories, in which digital piracy isn't the fashion. All the consumer wants in return is a fair value.

Instead, the industry's best and brightest continue to look elsewhere.

For instance, they insist on clinging to digital right management as if it were a lifeboat. Pardon the cliche, but that ship has sailed. The endless wrangling over Jobs' call to get rid of DRM is so irrelevant. Same goes for their tired refrains, blaming the likes of you and me for their plight.

To wit: Ted Cohen, who directs music consulting for Tag Strategic, says the solution is "to get money flowing from consumers and get them used to paying for music again."

Really? It's not as if we haven't been paying all along. With all the high-powered MBAs in their employ, it's hard to fathom why the music industry can't move beyond finger-pointing and develop a more creative approach. I can understand the angst expressed by Cohen and his music industry cohorts about the future, but squeezing music fans for a few more shekels isn't the answer.

These folks are still shell-shocked from the Napsterization of their business, which has suffered a 23 percent decline in worldwide sales the last six years. Blaming peer-to-peer technology has become the convenient undertaking of our times. But it's useful to recall that people didn't stop buying books or maps when the Xerox machine hit. Customers will pay for worthwhile products, even if they can get free lower-quality copies.

There's a better reason to explain what's gone wrong. It's the product, stupid.

Then again, maybe I'm simply showing my age.

Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

Did the music industry go wrong, or is the dumbed down, passionless, apolitical, transient, gangster music we hear nowadays part of a plan that went right?


Think that over while you try to digest your Pancakes and Sausages on a Chocolate Chip stick breakfast. http://www.prince.org/msg/100/222454

The industry dumbed itself down, the 80's and some of the 90's were filled with big artists and big albums and the labels got FAT off of it, But as the decade ended and 2000 was getting close things began to change, people began to use the technology against the music industry. So when labels saw that POP and RAP were selling big numbers in the late 90's and early 2000's it figured it had its market, so they took advantage of it, they marketed EVERYTHING towards kids and they left out the true Music lovers. Lets be serious marketing anything to a teen audience is just plain stupid, its marketing 101 that you dont work with kids, they are most un-loyal fan base and yet labels took their chances and hoped that it would all stay the same. Well it didnt and rightfully so, as technology grew, who was using it, KIDS, the audience that labels were trying to cater too are really the ones not buying anything from them. So its been nothing but a domino effect, stores close down, sales go down, stores that stay open dont carry certain types of music, the industry alienated "the older audience" in place of the Kids, and now no one is really paying attention. I worked in music retail from 1988-2006 so i saw all of this close up, i worked around label people and reps, and buyers of product so i know how the business runs and as the years went on it got really stupid each year, the people at labels got even dumber. Right now you have no straight up music retailer, Best buy,WalMart and all of these are not music stores, they are places you go where music is an after thought after you buy a cell phone or something like that. Right now what the industry isnt telling people is that music sales to people29+ over is UP, but they wont tell you that because they arent marketing towards that, they are marketing towards a kid who has no job and a 200 dollar cell phone bill and trying to get him to buy a new cd, are they fucking kidding me? Im convinced that people in marketing are as stupid as the public, wait they are.
[Edited 3/29/07 9:08am]