catapult magazine

The internet, Courtney Love, Ani Difranco and certain technological advances present challenges for a music industry that’s still structured according to a fifties and sixties model.

Labels typically act as loan companies that help artists pay for studio time, as long as it promises a return. This gives the label, which often cares only about profit, too much say in the final product. But now there are more Mobys, artists who can record anything they need to in their bedrooms or basements without needing a big budget or financial support from labels. Labels are still needed for mass-marketing, of course, but look what the marketing machine turns out these days: phonies like Alicia Keys while the real deals like Wilco get cast off.

The question is not IF the music industry has become irrelevant or WHEN it will crash and burn; the real question for Christians is how the industry should be structured now? Christians should be way ahead when it comes to reforming the industry, since Christian musicians and many Christian music listeners have been complaining about the limitations of Nashville’s CCM industry for decades now. What should an alternative to CCM and the broader music industry look like?

Anyone try out i-tunes 4? I don’t have OS X but I’m looking forward to seeing how the new Apple Music Store works.

The basic idea of I-tunes music store is that you can listen to :30 samples of any song in their catalogue and you can buy full MP3 versions of the songs for 99 cents.

Apple also apparantly just bought Universal music group.

I think this is going to be significant. The combination of convenience and publicity associated with I-tunes, not to mention the Ipod will probably make this a hit.

I also just heard that they busted another group of college students for audio file sharing. Seems like the net is pulling out of anarchy?

But I do still use Kazaa. And I don’t feel guilty about using it but I’m not sure why.

Sorry to interrupt this, but I just had to respond to ryanweb because it’s such a great question that relates to rock music and *cino in general. Maybe it should get a thread of its own. *cino is attempting to offer help for such communities as ryanweb mentions so that they don’t have to get “real” jobs if their passion is for something else. No one should have to work just to make ends meet if they have a passion for God’s kingdom. That’s what the church body is for, to support people who are doing kingdom work. Sure, it may be necessary for awhile, but if that kind of work gets in the way of living obediently as believers, then that work is not worth doing. Paul’s “reap what you sow” schtick in
1 Corinthians and elsewhere applies directly to this issue. We are set on different tasks now; we’re not mere cogs in the capitalist machine.

That’s why I love rock’n’roll. It’s a big middle finger to efficiency, practicality, money. It’s kids who refuse to “grow up” and “face reality”, who choose to hang out in the garage, collect records and grow their hair out, to throw around loud sounds, clothes, complaints and attitudes. And that’s what’s so evil about a music industry that stifles the power and potential of this music, that tries to predict the product and control the chaos.

yes, rock and roll is all that Grant. I think that I love it for those reasons. Its the heart beat of the sceptic, and the pulse of the wanderer…all those who believe something is wrong but could be right…its passion runs through our viens.

As to vocation and place within what you are called to, be very careful for what you ask for. The last year in NYC has been a long and lonely one for me. Making sense of Gods world outside of the chruch and its sterile underbelly leaves one wondering if Jesus really does show up. I usedt to think he always does, but these days I have been wondering and doubting more than ever. He is faithful and I have felt that reality but I still haven’t really been able to make sense of how I will fit into Gods plan as it crashes into my dreams and passions. Good luck and God’s speed to all who take that step off the cliff.

It’s interesting that you say this, because we’ve been talking in our new testament biblestudy about how God’s spirit does seem to be where God’s people are. I know there’s creational revelation and such, but as we were reading Acts we got the sense that Jesus’spirit is often found where two or three are gathered because that’s what the spirit is: the gathering of His people together.

If you look at any spiritual movement, not just that of the Holy Spirit, you see that it is defined by several individuals making a communal movement of some kind—this is definitely evident in the sixties movement, identified by Woodstock, but it arose out of the Greenwhich Village community of the Fifties. So, certain structures have to be in place for the movement to have power (fortunately the Holy Spirit has already helped to form many of the structures we need to build on). I hope never to have to go it on my own. That’s why I am excited about *cino and other structures (Calvin Festival of Faith and Music) that are put in place to show Christians their Spirit, which is seen in and through their own community.

by the way, while I have you here. joel and i would like to visit you in new york sometime in June, probably at the end of the month. will you be there? joel and i would really like to talk to you about the future, mike. and did you know that jasonvb from *cino will be moving to New York City?

Wow, I was reading over this topic just now and Mike Wooten’s words struck me because I know what he went through in New York trying to follow this reformation dream and I feel like I’ve been through the ringer in ways I could not have imagined at the time of those posts. Pause for heavy reflection…..

Ok.

Nevertheless, feeling like I’m on the other side of some difficult struggles myself (though they continue), and filled with confidence and God’s urgency that a change in the music industry is a change for the Kingdom of God that we’re called to, I’m going to lick my wounds and jump off that cliff again. I want to submit an alternative to music labels. It would be an opportunity to sell and buy stocks in bands. Imagine: A person would get an email with a list of bands from *cino. They’d listen to the bands, read through the bands’ promotional materials, and decide to support them financially. If the band does well, the investor gets his money back. If the investor puts his money in enough good bands, he might even make a profit. And you can be sure he’ll promote “his” bands too! Do you see what I’m getting at?

i like the idea a lot. just a couple questions: can the stockholders also fire the ceo of a particular band if they’re not doing well? and can the stockholders come and break the knees of bands that fail to bring home the bacon?

Yes. And no. I think it’s a good idea to institute some more accountablility for a band that makes crappy music. As one of my artist friends suggests: we would press charges against an architect whose building fell apart after six months but we do nothing to the people responsible for ugly buildings that tower in our cities for hundreds of years. Why shouldn’t we hold a band accountable for shoddy work or songs that sound dated and cheap after 3 months on the Billboard charts? Should this accountability come in the form of breaking the CEO’s knees? Maybe. In some countries. In the U.S., we can ruin people financially and that’s punishment enough for trying to do something great.

Ultimately, the concept behind this music industry alternative idea is to help bands get paid for the process of their work. As craftspeople, a band of rockers deserve to be reimbursed for the day to day work that they do, not just the product. I think internet downloading has undermined the music-as-product model, which might be a good thing. Music is craft and our financial system ought to recognize it as that. Going against young bands is the fact that they have to scrape and scrap their way through many years of financial burden to get a product to sell. I want to develop some sort of support system that helps bands survive financially while they are making the product.

Hmm… interesting idea. I like it! Here are a few
thoughts that may aid in developing the idea.
Basically put, having people invest in a band’s
“stock” is replacing the advance(s) that a record company
gives a band when they are signed. Investors would then become a collective recording company in a sense. Would this give
stockholders leverage in the development of the band
as far as image, sound, and overall marketability?
Also, would they get a cut-in of any future mechanical
or performance royalties the band receives as part of
their investment return? Is there ever going to be a
record company involved to promote and distribute the
music, possibly trying to cut into the stockholders
investments? If the band gets a publishing deal, will they be free to transfer the copyright to the publisher, consequently transferring the investors stock to a different company? I think that there are many ways of getting around these issues and I like the idea of having a more grassroots approach to recording, but I thought I would start the critique to possibly stimulate a “storm of brains.” Ideally people would just donate money to a band with no strings attached, but this won’t happen on as large of a scale monetarily speaking as giving them the possibility of making money… and no matter how much we hate it, it’s all about the money! Cheers…

Yes, this idea would be a substitute for label advances. It takes the power away from the label and puts it directly in the hands of “fans”. But it also asks “fans” to be more than fans, to become part of their upstart band’s cause from the very beginning.

Before we plow into all these questions, which are right on point, I want to acknowledge my lack of experience with this industry. I’m not exceedingly informed about the details of how the industry works but I have thought through some of these issues. Let’s take these questions one at a time:

Is there ever going to be a record company involved to promote and distribute the
music, possibly trying to cut into the stockholders investments?

At first, I thought that people would invest in young bands until they got a distribution deal, which would give the band more money of course and make them less dependent on investors. But I don’t see any reason why the investors cannot share in the profits as the band continues to do well. It would also be in the interest of a label that acquires this band to keep the investors because the investors also will naturally do (yes, grass roots) promotion for the band. I mean, if you’re putting money into a band and want to get a profit from that investment, you’ll do all you can to help your investment, right?

Would this give stockholders leverage in the development of the band
as far as image, sound, and overall marketability?

I didn’t think investors would be interested in getting so involved in the band’s process, but I suppose it’s a good question to pursue. Basically, I thought investors would think of it somewhere between Fantasy Football and Off-track Horse-betting. They’d put their money down on the horses they think have the best shot of making it and hope their horse stays healthy (artistically sound) and is received by a good label and eventually has mass appeal etc. Since the investor will base his judgment not just on the music, but on the band’s promotional materials and maybe some follow-up interviews with the bandmembers, they should be satisfied that they are making a good investment in a group of people who will make good marketing decisions.

Also, would they get a cut-in of any future mechanical or performance royalties the band receives as part of their investment return?

What are “mechanical royalties”? I do want investors to receive a percentage of what the band makes as long as the investor holds onto that stock. Whatever the investor puts into it is what he will get out of it (and more) as the band continues. The band will have to decide how they pay their investors back, whether it will come from performance royalties, merchandise, album sales etc.

If the band gets a publishing deal, will they be free to transfer the copyright to the publisher, consequently transferring the investor’s stock to a different company?

I hadn’t thought of this possible complication. Are you suggesting that the investor’s stock would include some part of the band’s copyright? If the band registers as a publishing company, they will own the rights to their work. The investor would then be investing in the band as a publishing company. If the band is not a publishing company or does not have any kind of entity status, then perhaps things would get a bit more complicated.

What if the band breaks up?

Part of me wants to say this is just part of the risk of the investment, but that makes it a pretty risky investment since it is often hard to keep bands together. The broken band would most likely not be able to pay the investors back. Does anyone have any ideas for this question? How does it work when investors put their money in a company that fails, do they just lose their money? I would guess so.

I was just talking to a friend of mine who is a music business major, and he agreed that you are onto something. Recently there was a reformed business model released by two students involved with the music business groups at Harvard and Berklee. Overly generalized, it stated that the relationship the artist should hold with the record company should be a 40/60 agreement. There are so many problems with that idea. As it does allow for a fairer way of doing business, it still doesn’t give the artist any artistic freedom. The record company can still dictate the final product, and only then will they give the artist their 40% share. The reason I am sharing this is because I believe that your idea, Grant, if it can be properly executed, would allow the artist total artistic freedom, relieve their financial burden involved with recording, and still allow the artist to be open to large scale possibilities, consequently enticing investors to invest more money. However, no matter how great of an idea I think it is, there are still a lot of gaps to be dealt with, especially those of a legal nature.
I don’t know if you are interested in music business resources, but if you are, you should check out the book, “All You Need to Know About the Music Business,” by Donald S. Passman. It is an amazing resource revealing the intricate workings of the music industry. It actually put a lot of music business lawyers out of business when the first edition was released! Also you might want to check out the Berklee Music Business Journal. I always find the articles very stimulating. The website is www.thembj.com. Which reminds me of the question about mechanical royalties. Mechanical royalties (mechanicals) are the “monies paid to copyright owners for the manufacture and distribution of records… The rights to reproduce songs in records are known as mechanical rights.” (Passman)
Oh, and by the way, your response to my question regarding publishing is absolutely on target. I forgot about the age-old trick of walking down to city hall, paying $30 to the nice clerk, and registering your business as “My Awesome Publishing Company,” allowing the performing rights societies (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) to cut the check directly to yours truly.
So if the band breaks up, the investors loose their money. That’s business; it’s full of risks. But here’s a thought in the form of a loosely stated question. How would the band guarantee financial responsibility to its investors? That would really destroy the peoples’ confidence by investing their money just to watch the band walk away with it in their pockets (does Enron ring a bell). I guess a prenuptial accord could insure the “marriage.” I haven’t given it much thought, but maybe releasing financial statements to the investors would satisfy their worries. What do you think? From what I am gathering, basically the band’s way of doing business should just mimic any other business out there that has stockholders?maybe the work is already done for us! Too bad there isn?t a hotline we could call to contact all of the venture capitalists in the world. That would make the job of finding investors a lot easier!
Keep it up because it’ll pay you back someday. Until next time?