AT&T Tech Support 360
August 22, 2005 11:22 AM PDT
Warner Music readies CD-free 'e-label'
Last modified: August 22, 2005 1:55 PM PDT
- Related Stories
-
Music industry seeks Hollywood's 'windows'
August 9, 2005 -
Time for lawmakers to act on Grokster?
July 19, 2005 -
Politicos say Grokster ruling was just right
July 6, 2005 -
Supreme Court rules against file swapping
June 27, 2005
Edgar Bronfman Jr., Warner Music's chairman and CEO, said Monday that the new mechanism will be called an "e-label," in which artists will release music in clusters of three songs every few months rather than a CD every few years.
"We're trying to experiment with a new business model," he told an audience of about 150 people at a Progress & Freedom Foundation conference here. "We're going to try to see where this goes."
Warner Music's move seems to be a response to the exploding popularity of music-download services and the slowly slipping sales of physical CDs. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, about 180 million songs were sold online in the first half of 2005, up from 57 million in the same period last year. Apple Computer's iTunes recently passed 500 million downloads.
The e-label will permit recording artists to enjoy a "supportive, lower-risk environment" without as much pressure for huge commercial hits, Bronfman said. In addition, artists signed to the e-label will retain copyright and ownership of their master recordings.
Bronfman also took a few swipes at the technology industry while praising the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the Grokster file-swapping lawsuit. It will "inspire further technological innovation and will accelerate the growth of legitimate digital music services," he said.
He said he didn't support government interference in "what should be normal fair-market mechanisms," but praised mandatory requirements designed to filter pirated material from peer-to-peer networks and levies such as Canada's proposal, currently on hold, to tax iPods.
"We like government levies when they benefit us," Bronfman said. "I would like none of the legislators in France, for instance, to say they should no longer pay us a levy for all the blank CDs that are being sold, (though) it doesn't make up for the revenue that we're losing...If the government mandated filtering technologies, we'd be delighted."
A Warner Music representative said afterwards that the company did not believe it was politically feasible to push for mandatory filtering and it was not supporting such a requirement--or blank media levies--in the United States.
See more CNET content tagged:
Warner Music Group Corp.,
mechanism,
CD,
artist,
download
Ya sure, those mp3's sound amazing with your cheap little earphones or computer speakers but try listening to them with your home theatre system.
It's the music industry who are the real music pirates.
When I download FREE music I don't care much for the quaulity. For purchased goods I better be getting GREAT quality and even at 320kbps an mp3 is not GREAT...
Ya sure, those mp3's sound amazing with your cheap little earphones or computer speakers but try listening to them with your home theatre system.
It's the music industry who are the real music pirates.
When I download FREE music I don't care much for the quaulity. For purchased goods I better be getting GREAT quality and even at 320kbps an mp3 is not GREAT...
The only way I could ever approve this plan of action is if the music eventually would make its way to full-length CD's after three or four of these "packets" have been released, or if the downloads would be lossless quality so I could burn my own. Of course, I don't see lossless music downloads happening for quite a few years.
An upside to this, however, would mean that the artists would have to make their songs better in order to sell each packet - a lot less filler. In the end though, I prefer my hard copy, please.
The only way I could ever approve this plan of action is if the music eventually would make its way to full-length CD's after three or four of these "packets" have been released, or if the downloads would be lossless quality so I could burn my own. Of course, I don't see lossless music downloads happening for quite a few years.
An upside to this, however, would mean that the artists would have to make their songs better in order to sell each packet - a lot less filler. In the end though, I prefer my hard copy, please.
Rather, it's all about consumer demand. Audiophiles may prefer full quality recordings, but if the company doesn't see/hear/taste/smell the demand from a majority of buyers, then why would they bother offering it?
Rather, it's all about consumer demand. Audiophiles may prefer full quality recordings, but if the company doesn't see/hear/taste/smell the demand from a majority of buyers, then why would they bother offering it?
Although, other artist payment/contract issues aside, if this kind of release schedule makes the labels feel it worth giving more artists the studio time and exposure, then it could be a good thing.
Although, other artist payment/contract issues aside, if this kind of release schedule makes the labels feel it worth giving more artists the studio time and exposure, then it could be a good thing.
Producing 2-3 songs every few months instead of the current standard 12-song CD means to the consumer:
a) less crap music
b) less promotional overload (as the label tries to jam another studio-manufactured-tailored-to-American-Idol-audiences artist down your throat every couple of years... and then you never hear from them again)
For artists it means:
a) less pressure to slag out 11 more songs to fill a CD before the Christmas sales deadline
b) an opportunity to connect with consumers on a more micro level - it's already happening for smaller artists.
c) potentially less burn out for those lucky enough to be caught up in the huge greedy money making machine.
It's all about packaging... and if the labels (and radio stations) are finally waking up to the fact that as consumers, we'd rather be our own dj's than digest more over-processed, inorganic music-like substance.
And some truly creative artists may finally get a decent piece of the pie. Which means we'll hear more diverse and compelling music, whether on our iPods, our home stereos systems, the car, wherever.
Producing 2-3 songs every few months instead of the current standard 12-song CD means to the consumer:
a) less crap music
b) less promotional overload (as the label tries to jam another studio-manufactured-tailored-to-American-Idol-audiences artist down your throat every couple of years... and then you never hear from them again)
For artists it means:
a) less pressure to slag out 11 more songs to fill a CD before the Christmas sales deadline
b) an opportunity to connect with consumers on a more micro level - it's already happening for smaller artists.
c) potentially less burn out for those lucky enough to be caught up in the huge greedy money making machine.
It's all about packaging... and if the labels (and radio stations) are finally waking up to the fact that as consumers, we'd rather be our own dj's than digest more over-processed, inorganic music-like substance.
And some truly creative artists may finally get a decent piece of the pie. Which means we'll hear more diverse and compelling music, whether on our iPods, our home stereos systems, the car, wherever.
I do think however, that it would be good to have a CD available, even if it is just an EP--at the end of the cluster cycle for people who are interested in a hard copy--this is the paradigm for my own music, and I think it will work.
To the poster who acts as if hard working artist shouldn't even think about money, I have to say that no one on here would work 12-14 hour days for nothing--we all have to eat--we all have to pay rent--an artist wants to hone a craft and HOPES that they can make money at it--that it will be appreciated it for its honesty and if money comes all the better. Who here wouldn't want to have a career doing something they love, and have the money to focus on it solely so you can feed your family AND play music. As long as the artist is being honest, if he gains the popularity to make money, its a no harm no foul. Besides, things like CD's, T-shirts, lighting, sound, and such cost which is Warner's point--a risk free enviornment to promote quality muisic by artist who refused to be categorized and labelled was needed for people who wanted to keep musical integrity but still wanted to do music as a career (and do things like eat and stuff)
Me personally I'd love to be in a place where I could live take care of my needs and focus on my music exclusively--to that end I do not need a million dollars--nor do I want that, which is why I am an indie artist.
If you want to see the old paradigm of how the industry works (and massacres great artist) check out this link.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
It explains how someone can sell mega millions and end up broke while the Record labels end up fatter and happier.
I have always said the day I would even consider a major is when they embraced the new technology and stopped treating fans and consumers like the enemy--they have finally done it. I am still leery of them saying an artist retains the rights to their masters and copyrights...I almost choked on that one....if you read the above article from Nirvana's Producer Steven Albini you will know why...
The greedy punks...
Rae
- Warners headed in teh Right Direction
-
by
September 16, 2005 8:24 PM PDT
- I can understand why they would have to cut down costs--as an indie artist I realized it is damned expensive to put out even a cheap CD--these guys pay top dollar for what they do and are trying to make money and feed their families like everyone else. However, I am no fan of the major record labels and have been saying for years that I think REAL artist with something to say were going to start a musical revolution via internet.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 48 Comments >>I do think however, that it would be good to have a CD available, even if it is just an EP--at the end of the cluster cycle for people who are interested in a hard copy--this is the paradigm for my own music, and I think it will work.
To the poster who acts as if hard working artist shouldn't even think about money, I have to say that no one on here would work 12-14 hour days for nothing--we all have to eat--we all have to pay rent--an artist wants to hone a craft and HOPES that they can make money at it--that it will be appreciated it for its honesty and if money comes all the better. Who here wouldn't want to have a career doing something they love, and have the money to focus on it solely so you can feed your family AND play music. As long as the artist is being honest, if he gains the popularity to make money, its a no harm no foul. Besides, things like CD's, T-shirts, lighting, sound, and such cost which is Warner's point--a risk free enviornment to promote quality muisic by artist who refused to be categorized and labelled was needed for people who wanted to keep musical integrity but still wanted to do music as a career (and do things like eat and stuff)
Me personally I'd love to be in a place where I could live take care of my needs and focus on my music exclusively--to that end I do not need a million dollars--nor do I want that, which is why I am an indie artist.
If you want to see the old paradigm of how the industry works (and massacres great artist) check out this link.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
It explains how someone can sell mega millions and end up broke while the Record labels end up fatter and happier.
I have always said the day I would even consider a major is when they embraced the new technology and stopped treating fans and consumers like the enemy--they have finally done it. I am still leery of them saying an artist retains the rights to their masters and copyrights...I almost choked on that one....if you read the above article from Nirvana's Producer Steven Albini you will know why...
The greedy punks...
Rae