So their customers will continue to be artists. But what makes them believe artists will continue to need big labels' services in 2011 as they've been needing them in the past?
I am just failing to comprehend where do they add value. Marketing dollars? I don't see anything beyond that. And if that's true, how is it different from VC-startup model then?
Labels appear to be just investors who ask too much in return and the only way they "die" is when more effective "investors in music" appear, and now, suddenly, it appears that their "death" isn't about distribution channels at all.
- they act as a filter for good music, or at least, music that is likely to achieve commercial success. Take MGMT. Two college guys with good ears put out a demo and basically forget about it. An A&R guy hears it, likes it, and travels out to NY in search of these two college kids. Eventually, he finds them and offers them a deal. 6 months later, Oracular Spectacular starts conquering the airwaves with hits like Kids, Time To Pretend and Electric Feel. If the record label hadn't stepped in, it's very unlikely that they would have broken through.
- Contacts with producers. A good label will have the wherewhithall to get a big name producer on board. Take, again, MGMT, where Dave Fridmann did an excellent job of capturing their far-out, spacey sound.
- Contacts, contacts, contacts. With promoters, with music publications and reviewers, with studios, with other musicians, etc.
I am just failing to comprehend where do they add value. Marketing dollars? I don't see anything beyond that. And if that's true, how is it different from VC-startup model then?
Labels appear to be just investors who ask too much in return and the only way they "die" is when more effective "investors in music" appear, and now, suddenly, it appears that their "death" isn't about distribution channels at all.