• From: BELGIUM
  • Registered: 2007-01-27
  • Posts: 3,403

Topic: DO WE STILL NEED RECORD COMPANIES

Using powerful media, like MYSPACE, YOUTUBE, giving us the opportunity to put our own songs on these sites, and access is easy.
You see bands, artists in abundance.
Some "STILL UNKNOWN BANDS" have a huge number of visitors.
So knowing this, posting songs on these sites, watching, hearing great songs, made me thinking if RECORD companies are still needed.
If you give people the opportunity to DOWNLOAD songs, for 0,89$, all the profits are for you, a band, without a CONTRACT.
My guess is that we don't need record companies soon.

Agree, we can discuss about PUBLICITY, AIRPLAY, PRODUCING, but on the other hand, there are "PC-wizards"using software, recording tools to create a COMPLETE product. It might be time consuming, a studio is maybe more time consuming, but you can make a TECHNICAL perfect song, sitting at home.
So WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?

[color=blue]- GITAARDOCPHIL SAIS: TO CONQUER DEAD, YOU HAVE TO DIE[/color]   AND [color=blue] we are born to die[/color]
- MY GUITAR PLAYS EVERY STYLE = BLUES, ROCK, METAL, so I NEED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY IT.
[color=blue]Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.[/color]

gitaardocphil's Website

  • From: Scotland.
  • Registered: 2006-07-13
  • Posts: 218

Re: DO WE STILL NEED RECORD COMPANIES

I think we do still need record companies. They will change, that much is certain given that USA iTunes sold more units than CD sales for the first time in the last year (at least that's what I read in the Glasgow Herald). Without the profits from big name artists the funding isn't there for lesser known acts for promotion, touring etc.

I've always been a wee bit sceptical about this My Space, You Tube malarky. It's my belief that quite a lot of these unsigned acts that make it big through websites actually do have the backing of companies, kind of like a silent partner. Not that I'm saying this is the case for all of them though. You'll always have acts that are simply so good that word of mouth will get them noticed by the massess, but for me you'll always need the record companies vast advances for a number of artists to make the breakthrough.

What really gets my goat is artists like Radiohead giving their albums away for free or a pay what you like deal .You wouldn't expect to buy a Banksy on a pay what you like deal or get it for free, so why expect the same deal on your music? They prattle on about how record companies treat them like slaves etc etc completely forgetting that without them, way back when they started, they needed the cash advances to make their albums in the first place. It's ok for them making albums with cash advances (made available from the big names at the time) but they want to withold that advantage from up and coming talent now!

Don't get me wrong, it's entirely upto an artist to decide what to do with their product, but they shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it was cash advances from EMI, Virgin, etc that helped them along the way.

I liken it to the apprentice who is a wee bit of a burden on his tradesmen untill he/she gets better at his/her job. Once he/she becomes a master then he/she is burdened with an apprentice of their own, and the cycle continues.

Just my tuppence worth. smile

Craig.

Blind acceptance is a sign, of stupid fools who stand in line.  John Lydon.

'Mod' is a shorter word for 'young, beautiful and stupid' - we've all been there." - Pete Townshend.