|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 29, 2020 12:07:38 GMT -6
Interesting to see a take from the radio industry. Page 22. Radio World |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 29, 2020 14:17:44 GMT -6
The challenge is the wimpy loud sound resulting from client paranoia vs. what will have the most balls over the air and streaming. We've been battling this for 20 years now while sales of new recordings have been steadily declining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2020 22:37:42 GMT -6
The amount of hard limited masters I've heard that sound acceptable is very low. It's been getting worse over time too as things have got even louder. Some of those early limited releases might as well be Steely Dan or Pink Floyd compared to what came afterwards. Now Kanye, modern rock, and Billie Eilish have more glaring issues than Darkthrone and they certainly aren't doing everything themselves on a portastudio.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 30, 2020 16:55:24 GMT -6
I've been thinking lately do the top 3 companies have any interest in any sort of change? A quick google search suggests Sony/Universal/Warner control 80% of all music, streaming and otherwise. A search for financials show revenues in the $4-$8 billion range for each. The oldest revenues I could find were 2005 where they were bringing in about $3.5 billion, ..I'm pretty sure that's before some consolidation though. Could any sort of change be seen as a threat to their self interests? Currently they seem to be doing great revenue wise, considering nobody is buying music and recording budgets are miniscule. If any kind of grass roots movement were to gain some momentum, would they kill it as quick as possible? Either buy them out and squash it, or some other tactic to make sure their current disposable music model stays dominant? It feels like artists are stuck with nowhere to go except the major labels, but they aren't allowing anything that might jeopardize their own status. This is a tough one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 30, 2020 18:41:42 GMT -6
Most modern recording contracts require complete creative control for the artist. A number of label execs have told me they'd love to see the master slamming end. It's on the artists and their managers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2020 19:49:05 GMT -6
Most modern recording contracts require complete creative control for the artist. A number of label execs have told me they'd love to see the master slamming end. It's on the artists and their managers. Sadly the best recent remasters I've heard were bootlegs. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Apr 30, 2020 20:19:39 GMT -6
I've been thinking lately do the top 3 companies have any interest in any sort of change? A quick google search suggests Sony/Universal/Warner control 80% of all music, streaming and otherwise. A search for financials show revenues in the $4-$8 billion range for each. The oldest revenues I could find were 2005 where they were bringing in about $3.5 billion, ..I'm pretty sure that's before some consolidation though. Could any sort of change be seen as a threat to their self interests? Currently they seem to be doing great revenue wise, considering nobody is buying music and recording budgets are miniscule. If any kind of grass roots movement were to gain some momentum, would they kill it as quick as possible? Either buy them out and squash it, or some other tactic to make sure their current disposable music model stays dominant? It feels like artists are stuck with nowhere to go except the major labels, but they aren't allowing anything that might jeopardize their own status. This is a tough one. Consolidation - of both the record business and radio - is the greatest threat to the music industry that has ever existed and does not look likely to change without some serious regulation and forced breakup of the monster conglomerates - like what happened to AT&T (and is increasingly being undone) or what happened with Standard Oil in the early 20th century. When such things happen nearly everybody benefits - the stockholders because They find themselves with holdings in several revitalized companies, the public because competition forces quality up while keeping prices down, and the government (and by extension the public) because of the expanded tax base, providing more funding for schools, public works like roads, public services like the Post Office, and investment in technological research.
In fact the only ones who DON"T benefit are the very small number of greedy monopolists and crooked bankers who want to keep everything for themselves.
We need to break up the major record labels and end the consolidation of radio, else things will only get worse. And THAT will require a major change you-know-where.
Breaking up the majors would also open the door to a revitalization of the indie label industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 1, 2020 9:24:26 GMT -6
Consolidation created the problem but the elephants in today's room are Spotify, Amazon, and Apple Music. They are today's Tower, Walmart, and Best Buy.
The major labels have become today's major artist managers-investors. They are already facing plenty of competition. Another elephant in the room is the lack of affordable local venues across a lot of the country.
Radio needs to become very local and live in order to survive streaming and podcasts. Live local streaming is a huge opportunity for artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 1, 2020 18:54:29 GMT -6
Consolidation created the problem but the elephants in today's room are Spotify, Amazon, and Apple Music. They are today's Tower, Walmart, and Best Buy. The major labels have become today's major artist managers-investors. They are already facing plenty of competition. Another elephant in the room is the lack of affordable local venues across a lot of the country. Radio needs to become very local and live in order to survive streaming and podcasts. Live local streaming is a huge opportunity for artists. But without local promotion how are people going to find outr about your streams? And how can streams from a single artist take the place of the variety of local Top 40 (old style) radio?
It used to be that people would just leave the radio on. Most people aren't going to want to keep going back to the computer (type device) to continually have to choose the next stream. Even if you do internet on your phone (I don't) you'd need to keep fiddling with the damn phone.
And major labels don't to squat to find or promote unknowns.
There are two major problems with the streaming services (in addition to nonpayment). First is that there is no live curation of streams, with no audience participation. Second is that there is no local representation/participation.
They shouldn't be too hard to set up with computerized phone bank software. But the services won't do it because it would require additional live staff and because they simply don't have to. That needs to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 1, 2020 19:18:44 GMT -6
It will require a lot of creativity because it won't work like anything in the past.
|
|
