Killing the Music


By Don Henley

Tuesday, February 17, 2004; Page A19


When I started in the music business, music was important and vital to our culture. Artists connected with their fans. Record labels signed cutting-edge artists, and FM radio offered an incredible variety of music. Music touched fans in a unique and personal way. Our culture was enriched and the music business was healthy and strong.

That's all changed.

Today the music business is in crisis. Sales have decreased between 20 and 30 percent over the past three years. Record labels are suing children for using unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems. Only a few artists ever hear their music on the radio, yet radio networks are battling Congress over ownership restrictions. Independent music stores are closing at an unprecedented pace. And the artists seem to be at odds with just about everyone -- even the fans.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the root problem is not the artists, the fans or even new Internet technology. The problem is the music industry itself. It's systemic. The industry, which was once composed of hundreds of big and small record labels, is now controlled by just a handful of unregulated, multinational corporations determined to continue their mad rush toward further consolidation and merger. Sony and BMG announced their agreement to merge in November, and EMI and Time Warner may not be far behind. The industry may soon be dominated by only three multinational corporations.

The executives who run these corporations believe that music is solely a commodity. Unlike their predecessors, they fail to recognize that music is as much a vital art form and social barometer as it is a way to make a profit. At one time artists actually developed meaningful, even if strained, relationships with their record labels. This was possible because labels were relatively small and accessible, and they had an incentive to join with the artists in marketing their music. Today such a relationship is practically impossible for most artists.

Labels no longer take risks by signing unique and important new artists, nor do they become partners with artists in the creation and promotion of the music. After the music is created, the artist's connection with it is minimized and in some instances is nonexistent. In their world, music is generic. A major record label president confirmed this recently when he referred to artists as "content providers." Would a major label sign Johnny Cash today? I doubt it.

Radio stations used to be local and diverse. Deejays programmed their own shows and developed close relationships with artists. Today radio stations are centrally programmed by their corporate owners, and airplay is essentially bought rather than earned. The floodgates have opened for corporations to buy an almost unlimited number of radio stations, as well as concert venues and agencies. The delicate balance between artists and radio networks has been dramatically altered; networks can now, and often do, exert unprecedented pressure on artists. Whatever connection the artists had with their music on the airwaves is almost totally gone.

Music stores used to be magical places offering wide variety. Today the three largest music retailers are Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Target. In those stores shelf space is limited, making it harder for new artists to emerge. Even established artists are troubled by stores using music as a loss leader. Smaller, more personalized record stores are closing all over the country -- some because of rampant P2P piracy but many others because of competition from department stores that traditionally have no connection whatsoever with artists.

Piracy is perhaps the most emotionally gut-wrenching problem facing artists. Artists like the idea of a new and better business model for the industry, but they cannot accept a business model that uses their music without authority or compensation. Suing kids is not what artists want, but many of them feel betrayed by fans who claim to love artists but still want their music free.

The music industry must also take a large amount of blame for this piracy. Not only did the industry not address the issue sooner, it provided the P2P users with a convenient scapegoat. Many kids rationalize their P2P habit by pointing out that only record labels are hurt -- that the labels don't pay the artists anyway. This is clearly wrong, because artists are at the bottom of the food chain. They are the ones hit hardest when sales take a nosedive and when the labels cut back on promotion, on signing new artists and on keeping artists with potential. Artists are clearly affected, yet because many perceive the music business as being dominated by rich multinational corporations, the pain felt by the artist has no public face.

Artists are finally realizing their predicament is no different from that of any other group with common economic and political interests. They can no longer just hope for change; they must fight for it. Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find answers.

So whether they are fighting against media and radio consolidation, fighting for fair recording contracts and corporate responsibility, or demanding that labels treat artists as partners and not as employees, the core message is the same: The artist must be allowed to join with the labels and must be treated in a fair and respectful manner. If the labels are not willing to voluntarily implement these changes, then the artists have no choice but to seek legislative and judicial solutions. Simply put, artists must regain control, as much as possible, over their music.

The writer is a singer and drummer with the Eagles and a founding member of the Recording Artists' Coalition.




© 2004 The Washington Post Company

sounds about right to me.


I am NOT "blaming" Michael Jackson for all this per se..
but EVERYTHING in the music industry changed after the international, once-in-10-lifetimes success of Thriller. starting with that album -
which was almost unversally acclaimed in/by mid-1983 -
record companies, & many "artists" themselves wanted to find/make "the next Thriller" in terms of its commercial, wide & mainstream appeal. starting with staggering success of Thriller, popular music began to be more about image & style than substance.

21 years later, the results of this continue to.. show themselves.

laurarichardson said:

In his last years Johnny Cash was more prolific & successful than ever before, I do think that a major would sign him.


For the rest, I do not really have an opinion except that Don Henley should come with some good music, it's been a long long time.....

abierman said:

-----
Well to be fair I read a interview that Don did were he said his wife had MS. Helping his wife and being in this group takes up a lot of his time. He also said he was frustrated because he can't get enough artist involved in lobbying for better laws to protect musicians from the industry.

mltijchr said:

Mindlss greed took over the record industry long time before Thriller. Peter Frampton's huge success in the 70's was due to record company manipulation & helped set the stage for record companies promotion that exploded in the 80's. Sure MJ had a big selling album but he wasn't the first. MTV is more to blame for shifting the focus from the music to the image. Prior to MTV groups could be a huge success without fans knowing much about them. Prior to MTV artists had few outlets for videos. With MTV image surpassed content & the music industry got a 24 hour commercial station. With the success of Thriller the bar got raised higher in terms of how many albums could be sold but the coporate takeover of the music industry started much earlier.

laurarichardson said:

didn't know about his wife having MS.....

thedoorkeeper said:

Co-sign!!!

Janis Ian has also written a few articles about the rise and fall of the record industry.

Very clever woman, much respect.


http://janisian.com/articles.html
(The Internet Debacle (I think) is the first of these).

thedoorkeeper said:

Yes and no. Sure MTV brought image into it all, but how different is that then having pictures in a magazine? Well, the difference is that an artist can be lots of places at once when a video is played. Duran Duran of course get a lot of flack for their extravagant videos. They still make music to this day and now are having trouble getting a record deal. Paraphrasing John Talylor of Duran Duran, 1 video can promote you faster and reach more people in 1 day than you can do it by touring for years.

I don't think image became such a huge motivating factor in the industry until Kurt Cobain committed suicide. That's is when the Backstreet Boys finally broke in the US. Sure, image has always been important, but still in the 80's musical content was just as important. Record companies signed and promoted bands and artists that wrote their own stuff. It wasn't about T&A and pyrotechnics. Of course, we can blame a lot of this on Britney as well. Now its just the same tired formula for music. No one experiments and tries new things. Not in the mainstream anyway.

The artists themselves let the record industry get way out of hand. They should have squashed the BS a long time ago. They should have formed a coalition years ago or started their own record companies. Together, artists have made billions of dollars, but unfortunately, a lot of them are selfish and only care about themselves. To me, it seems that it is all about the money and not the music. The artists on Prince.org seem to be really serious about the music, I'm sure down the road, they will make money but that will be just gravy to them. They seem to genuinely love that people dig their music. Commercial artists seemed to be only interested in the money. I used to download but I don't anymore but I also refuse to buy an album of crappy songs for 18 bucks a pop.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Fantastic essay, Don! Bravo!

I DO find it odd that his argument that the music in the 70's wasn't contrived or corporately driven is coming from a man who's band was the punchline of corporate bands like Journey, Boston, Foreigner - supergroups assembled from session musicians to cash in on a music style.

So, while his voice is heard and his arguments are well made, bear in mind that the music industry has ALWAYS tried to chase the flavor of the week by packing as many manufactured wannabees into the music scene to cash in on the latest trends.

That's all I'm saying. This is a man who's success was made from an industry he's now critiquing. A bit of the old kettle calling the pot black.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

I appreciate the props - but I disagree with some of the things you're saying.

The industry has always been about the money. Bob Dylan was the voice of a generation and the record industry saw him as a way to reach the kids, AND make money. Elvis. Same thing. Jackson 5. You name a popular artist, and you're naming someone who's in it for the money.

Why?

Because folks gotta eat. And after they get done eating, they realize they could do a whole lot better. And so they DO. Just like ANY field.

If you start out cooking hamburgers in mcDonalds, and discover that, not only are you good at it, but there's better places that could benefit from your skills, are you telling me only a TRUE cook would insist that flipping burgers is all they want to do?

Downloading is no different than taping back in the 70's and 80's. The industry screamed that cassettes were killing the industry and musicians would starve. Did it happen? No. No it did not.

Sure, in a utopian world, folks would mail money to the label everytime they download a song, or tape a song, or SING a song. But that doesn't happen. And bands still flourish that are good bands, and suckass bands fail eventually.

The music industry is suffering just as every other industry is suffering right now. Due to lackluster artists or corporate franchising? No more than when the Eagles were in full swing and a dozen Eagle wannabees flooded the market.

Does anybody remember the band Orleans? "Still The One"? Does anybody remember Bread or America? Sure, barely. Nitty Gritty Dirt Band?

The industry will survive and good music will always get out. The industry has fomulated how they DELIVER the music, and the sheep out there in radioland will listen and buy whatever they're handed, but that doesn't mean music is suffering.

It means the sheep are suffering. And maybe soon, they'll realize there's new music out there and they'll start looking for it. Probably online.

I'm just jumped up on caffeine and playing devil's advocate here. No offense, no insults intended. I gotta go get a nap.

otan said:

No offense taken. Brilliant stuff, Otan. Plus your music kicks ass.

Downloading will only get worse because not everyone wants to hear what the industry spits out.

For kicks, I once looked for a Joni Mitchell CD in Target… I found zilch. Not one title from this, a member of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Major labels are merging but I see it as them disappearing.
3 will become 1, then poof… we start again.

Y’all sit tight.
Artistry on the horizon.

Frampton's album was big in the mid 70s-
on "rock n' roll radio"
(remember how SEGREGATED radio stations were back in the 70s).
MJ probably had more "commercial aspirations" for Thriller than CBS Records did; his label then probably had to "scramble" to keep up with the demand, hype & "Thriller hysteria". Thriller crossed over & was HUGE on the Pop, Rock & "Urban" charts-
much more widespread than Frampton's album.

"record company manipulation" may have contributed to the success of Frampton's disc,
& it probably could be said that his "widespread" (rock n roll) success laid the foundation for Thriller, only a few years later..
& yeah.. "EmptyV" was a factor there.

but yeah, the "seeds of mindless greed" were sown before the arrival of Thriller.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

-----
You must work in the music industry.(lol) Records will sell when they start puting out something decent. Until then people will keep downloading and dubbing CD's.

I agree with many of the sentiments here, but ultimately I think that everyone is to blame. Record labels have ALWAYS been greedy and shady with the $$. Artists (not all) have sunk to a low level by writing & releasing music that is uninteresting and lifeless, just to collect a check. The public (not all) is guilty for supporting the crap and begging for more. If we stop supporting the fast-food music that's constantly being promoted everywhere, the labels will eventually be forced to start signing quality acts again on a larger scale.
Good music and inspiring musicians are everywhere. We each have to use our own minds and choose wisely how we want to spend our hard-earned $$. I believe that art should be supported, and I take pride in goin' to the 'wrecka stow' to support that art.
I also think that artists should take some time to think about why they are actually making music. Is it primarily for the money?? Artists should get together more to improve the quality of music. Otan is right about the fact that "we all gotta eat", but many hands make the load light. If quality artists come together more often to improve quality, they can at least set some kind of example for others. Just my

OdysseyMiles said:

So many people are just performing artists, like Britney. She doesn't write jack shit. Ok, maybe a little shit, but still. She mainly wants to "sing", look cute/sexy, dance and be a star. But, some people are songwriters and not performers, so there is a need for this kind of "artist". Still, I think it's a shame that they overshadow people who love creating music, work hard at solidifying their inspiration and can do it all (compose, arrange, produce and perform) themselves.

abierman said:

While I think he is right on about most of it...keep in mind this is Don Henley! He might just be jealous to that no one really gave a rat's ass about the Eagles comeback!