Re: Why TRS Is Not A Success

[afcpeters@aol.com (AFC PeterS)]

In article <CpB0A8.EKt@infi.net>, larryh@infi.net (Larry Hufstedler) writes:

> It is my contention that the industry retards the process of change
> to make things more conveniant for themselves. Far more so today
> than 30 years ago. I also believe they could make just as much money
> in the long run without this regulation. What they are doing is
> unethical.

I'm not any happier than you are about the stance on music that isn't blatantly
commercial that's been taken by the industry. I'm a non-commercial musician
myself. I don't know about retarding change; music changes all the time, but
not in a direction I would necessarily choose. As for money, well, the music
industry is making more money now than they ever have before. As far as they're
concerned, they must be doing something right. I think anyone who determines
what music is worth releasing solely by market survey lacks a large degree of
soul, but that doesn't mean the practice is unethical.

> Kate Bush would sell quite well if they would just play the stuff
> like they do REM. I have NEVER found a soul who didn't like Kate
> Bush once they were exposed to it a few times.

I have. I know (otherwise) quite reasonable people who despise her music.
That's fine; I don't care for REM, so we're even. :) Yes, airplay would help
sell Kate Bush. However, radio stations are not in the business of selling Kate
Bush. They are in the business of selling advertising time at ever escalating
rates which can only be demanded by proof of marketshare, which can be acquired
by playing the most popular music, which ain't Kate Bush. As a secondry source
of income, radio stations will take money from promoters who are in turn paid
by record companies to push their products, and this being expensive, the
record companies will pay to push the records where they feel the most profit
is to be made. That also ain't Kate Bush.

Now, Chris made a *very* interesting post contrasting Kate to Tori, strictly in
terms of self-promotion. The bottom line was, Tori plays ball with the record
company (and everyone else down the line), and Kate does not. If Kate decides
to start playing the game, she could very well end up with a much more heavily
promoted record, *without* having to compromise her *music* one iota. I don't
think that will happen unless her label threatens to drop her...and that
*might* happen. Wait and see...

> If the recording industry of today had existed in the 60s, the
> Beatles would never have been anything but a cult band. A change
> like that would never be allowed.

Don't be daft. The whole grunge movement was a change, and Nirvana was
"allowed" to make millions. The Beatles were heavily promoted when it was
discovered that a *lot* of people liked their music a great deal; it wasn't
done because anyone thought they were great artists deserving of corporate
patronage.

> I doubt that it is profit from popular bands that carry Kate Bush.
> That profit may be put at risk at the beginning, but even cult
> status performers are making money for the companies. Not even pizza
> has the profit margin of the recording industry. Artists under
> contract only get 3%. CDs can be made for less than a buck or 2
> apiece in quantities over 10000.

You have no idea how much money record companies *lose* annually on records
that don't sell. The number of recordings that make any profit at all are
dwarfed by the number that never make it out of the red. The only way the
industry does so well is to make an absolute killing on the artists who have
the hits. CD's have helped the industry because the higher unit profit margin
means more records are profitable, but the overall balance remains essentially
unchanged. No other industry of any kind has as poor a product success batting
average as the record industry. 

> They are turning 1 and 1 half CDs into 3 or 4 CDs. I
> think it is a dirty trick...

Don't buy them.

Peter Stoller