EMI goes bust - here's my considered opinion

Why? You have a connection of sorts but there's only so much shit that the public at large are prepared to eat before they say 'no more'. And then they go to another big record label and eat some more.

I also wish that poptones goes down as well.

Films are different since it costs more to put a film out than a CD.

But what about the compromises such person will have to make to make sure that the record's sound will be profitable enough for the company to take a chance with their money? And what if the record doesn't sell, won't that person be in debt?

I must add that the people I listen that do record in studios don't need a big budget (I suppose that's because they do it in one take).

Jeff- But surely a film costs a lot more anyway because it needs to be promoted and marketed and produced, etc. That's why it's harder to make medium buget films as the loss is surely higher (because you make in studios and you have to pay both actors and crew).

Since say punk and the dawn of indepedent music there haven't been that many good records released on major labels.

Dawn of independent labels (pop) = about 1951! Earlier for jazz, probably

Of course, there were indepedent labels around the 50s and 60s. Mingus set up an indepedent operation to release material. And labels like Incus were operating in pre-punk days and I suspect the same went for free jazz.

But I think these were more isolated. Surely Indepedent music got a real take off in the post-punk era.

60s: Atlantic, Elektra, Motown, Trojan?, many more.

early 70s: Island, Virgin, loads of others.

I find this statement quite astonishing.

Who says? What = 'Good'? Obvious questions, but totally begged by your statement.

Pinefox- This statement comes from the fact that, from my record collection, the majority (99%) of records I have bought that were released from 1980s onwards have been released on indepedent labels.

'Who Says?'= That's my opinion on it.

'What= Good?'= The things i like are, by and large, not released on major labels. That's not my fault.

I commented on my weblog - that this restructuring, purging of the EMI brand name - can only mean one thing that EMI plc want OUT of the music business - this will be made easier when the EMI name has been purged - e.g no messy intellectual property/ branding legal problems with the sale to another PLC.

The issue of multi-million dollar budgets would only be important if certain kinds of music could only be made with that kind of money. And I don't see any evidence that this is the case. M Jacko spent about $20 million on his last record, but there isn't usually anything extra-ordinary in the way these $$$$$$$ records *sound* that justifies the money spent. It's mostly unneccessary self-indulgence.

Well, in principle, the company takes a chance with their money every time they release an album (or at least most every time). There have always been "credibility" artists on major labels - artists who won't turn much profit, but who will make the company look good artistically.

Your sort of "majors bad indies good" reductionism refuses to acknowledge the possibility of artist development and risk-taking w/r/t major labels. Perhaps the problem isn't the labels per se, but with their increasing refusal to engage in these sorts of activities.

By the way, how important is production to you?

That is so not true! I have friends who own and operate a local recording studio; they never spend more than ten thousand bucks on anything, and everything that comes out of there is completely radio-ready.

I don't know how familiar you are with Bizzie Bone (of Bone, Thugs & Harmony), but part of his last album was recorded by a friend of mine at a local studio that's in a basement. The album was released on Dreamworks, fer crying out loud.

Modern tech is super-cheap. The reason why your friends can't make records that sound like Timbaland isn't because they can't afford the tech, it's because they ain't Timbaland!

On the other hand, making a record that sounds like Meddle- era Pink Floyd, or Abbey Road, or Nefertiti, or anything like that, is indeed likely to be expensive. The process of analog recording, the use of vintage instruments and microphones and preamps, the specific elements needed to capture a particular sound -- all these things cost a ton of money, and Neve consoles (for instance) aren't in fact accessible to 99.5% of basement studios. For those of us who love recordings that come from 1965- 1977, and wish we could capture that sound ourselves, it's a frustrating proposition.

Yor last sentence is spot on. The best of the small labels are set up just so they can release material that the major labels wouldn't even look at.

I can only think of the Flaming lips as a band who have been able to spend large sums of money on projects such as zaireeka. The 'Soft Bulletin' (a great record) cost a lot of money. But again, I suspect they only had a hit because one of their songs was a surprise hit. It featured on the batman movie. I reckon they might have been dropped if they didn't get that.

'By the way, how important is production to you? '

Not very important. Only in the sense of getting a good recording of the music. But even badly recorded stuff has communicated with absolute clarity because such a record is quality.

I disagree. Any commerical studio worth its salt will have a wide range of amplifiers, guitars, microphones and effect to choose from. Moreover, there are plenty of people out there who modify newer gear to give it desirable sounds. Admittedly, not every schmoe is going to be able to afford a Neumann micrphone ar a Neve 12772 mic preamp, or record to one-inch analog 16-track, but that's what real studios are for. I completely disagree with the proposition that to capture those sounds, you must spend two hundred dollars of your major label advance. A little creativity in the studio and a reasonable amount of good gear should allow you to do the same thing for a fraction of the cost. Although nice gear is cool, the bottom line is that it's far more important to know what the hell you're doing in a studio (and I don't mean just what the effects do) and have good ears than to have fancy shit. It's like playing a musical instrument--I guarantee you that John McLaughlin could do better on a total PoS guitar than I'm ever going to be able to do on the sweetest vintage stratocaster.

Well, first off, I'm not sure why you're "doubting"--give me a reason, and I'll respond. If you've ever set foot in a recording studio and have an idea how records are made, I'm willing to shut my yap, but if you're just doubting what I say based on the fact that hit pop records get released on major labels, you're failing to consider marketing costs--which are the primary costs of a record label.

Second, it's silly and defies reality to say that because a record is on a major label that it's going to be cheaper! You could reasonably say that it's easier to find, or that it's more widely marketed or has better packaging, but all of that stuff makes records cost more, not less. Furthermore, none of that has jack to do with what the record sounds like.

Don't be fooled--most record labels, especially majors, are not that concerned with making music; they're concerned with marketing music. The fact that Kylie Minogue is signed to a major is completely incidental to what her record sounds like, but it has everything to do with why her record is available in every HMV, Tower, and Virgin Megastore; it has everything to do with why she was on Saturday Night Live last week, and why there are full page ads in music magazines for her album; it has everything to do with why she's got a fly video on TRL. I guarantee you: marketing a hit record is far more expensive than recording it, and at bottom, that's what labels are: advertising firms.

J sez:
Don't be fooled--most record labels, especially majors, are not that concerned with making music; they're concerned with marketing music... that's what labels are: advertising firms.
And this is a good thing, right? Just checking. :-)

No moral judgments from these quarters! :}

EMI Quits Selling CDs to Indie Record Stores

The music industry knows how to hang out itself, even if it lacks the correct length pf rope. EMI, certainly reeling from declining physical album sales like the other Big 4 record labels, is now apparently telling independent album retailers that it will no longer sell them CDs.

That’s right, EMI apparently told them over the phone a few weeks ago, an oddly perverse means of notification, that henceforth it will no longer sell them physical albums and that they must go to “one stops” like Wal-Mart or Best Buy to buy product like everybody else to then in turn sell.

“Several I have spoken with are so upset that they vow never to buy any EMI catalog again–or any new artist releases either,” says Wayne Rosso, former president of the P2P program Grokster, on his blog. “Only the certifiable hit product that they know will sell. They will no longer take chances on new EMI artists.”

It’s a odd turn of events for EMI, adding another blow to its physical CD sales while inversely arguing that illegal file-sharing is the real culprit behind declining revenues. If its concerned with losses then why get rid of customers? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that one stops don’t have nearly the selection needed to maintain an indie retailers bottom line, nor could they ever hope to have a price point necessary to make a living.

In short, the loss of EMI’s catalog means the job of indie record stores to stay in business just got even tougher.

there's an unlimited supply

That doesn't make sense...indie retailers don't get EMI CDs from EMI to begin with. They'd get them from any number of wholesale distributors, primarily from "one stop" distributors who carry most of the majors to small retailers. Does this mean EMI is stopping selling to any distributors and is only selling directly to the big box stores?

who?

that might be right. yikes. wtf.

so no more blue note or capitol CDs in indie stores?

btw who currently pays for the massive EMI archive? i worry this will be offloaded soon.

I think maybe this is a misunderstanding of some sort. Even if they have to buy from Best Buy, I'm sure they're not paying retail but using Best Buy as a distro of some sort. When I worked for a mom and pop brick and mortar, we never ordered directly from a major label, just third party "one stop" distributors.

Are they completely out of their minds? I mean, what the fuck?

That’s right, EMI apparently told them over the phone a few weeks ago, an oddly perverse means of notification, that henceforth it will no longer sell them physical albums

Prankster?

was it you?