mr dave

the current portishead thread in the new album reviews has me thinking about this issue. advanced album copies have long been part of the record industry and usually passed off to retailers and media outlets ahead of release to better gauge public reaction in different markets. today's issue stems from the fact that the vast majority of these advanced copies usually end up online or on P2P networks long before they see a store shelf.

good? bad? ugly?

i remember reading something about amon tobin being concerned that his last album might be his final one due to the fact that everyone downloaded it 2-3 months before it hit shelves and didn't think people would remember to pick up the disc once it was finally released. being an 'electronic' musician traditional distribution has always been risky.

on the other hand there's the even more recent radiohead (and prince and NIN) approach where they were the ones to leak their album first and then releasing the disc at a lower price, presumably offset by the revenue they made from the initial online release.

so what do you people think? is the 'press only' advanced copy still a valid tool in today's climate? should labels be seriously rethinking their distribution methods? maybe advanced copies should be sent out on cassette tapes (yes, they still make those). or should bands adopt the raconteurs method and just keep everything super quiet until - BAM! new record in 4 days.

__________________
i am the universe

sleepy jack

I know tons of bands support it. Conor Oberst said as long as it gets him more fans than he doesn't care, except he used a bad metaphor but that's the meaning. Wilco has no problem with it. In fact most artists generally don't care its more the record labels that have a problem with it.

The only time I can think of when artists have had problems with it is Patrick Wolf and Jesse Lacey (Brand New) that wasn't so much they had a problem with it leaking they were annoyed the unfinished product leaked.

__________________

Comus

I love leaks.

__________________
last.fm

tkpb938

IMO there won't be record labels in a few years, there just won't be any need anymore due to the internet. Trent Reznor's realized this, and has done some interesting things with distribution. His new album Ghost's I-IV "...amassed $1.6 million in sales" even though he's released his entire album in high quality digital for $5! How? Through collector's editions and vinyls and what not....

mr dave

i don't think labels are going to disappear. it's still far too pricey to get a solid hi-fi recording on your home system. unless you think you can amass the pile of gear reznor has collected over the last few years without having enjoyed some commercial success.

do you really think radiohead and trent reznor would have made millions with online only releases had they not enjoyed some commercial success in the past to establish a large scale fanbase? would they have had the studio capabilities necessary to make their last albums sound as good as they do?

i really don't think major labels will disappear so much as splinter back into the smaller labels they once were to serve their local markets better. someone will still have to provide funding for a new band to record something that sounds better than a 4-track in a garage (not that there's anything wrong with that).

__________________
i am the universe

sleepy jack

Record labels probably aren't going to go away because most bands don't want to book their tours, promote their albums, etc. That sort of thing really does get tiring fast. Besides the big 4 are the only record labels that are really in trouble thanks to the internet most independent labels are now doing better than ever.

__________________

tkpb938

Actually, recording music with semi-decent quality is fairly cheap to do... I've been kinda looking into it, and its certainly not out of the question. Obviously a band will need better equipment to really make it big, but you can at least get your debut album "out there" off of fairly little money.

Really, labels are just middle-men who do fairly little these days. They are meant to handle marketing and distribution, but the internet mostly takes care of those problems.

Edit* I don't work at a label, and therefore don't know this for sure^ but thats the impression I get.

mr dave

emphasis on the semi-decent quality. you're right though, it's perfect for a first album and it's worked for more than a few bands. but until you try recording a proper two song single you're not really going to be able to fully grasp the amount of time and effort involved in making proper full length recordings.

one significant thing you're forgetting when talking about labels is the financial advance they provide to a band for recording their album - aka their primary function. it's BIG money to record in a studio for any prolonged period of time. producers and engineers don't work for free. graphic artists need to feed themselves once they've created the cover art for your record too. etc. the fact that they invest 100s of thousands into every record is why they push so hard to control the marketing and distribution of their product (even though it seems like they've been investing in poop lately).

__________________
i am the universe

Molecules

You can release advance copies (I don't understand why they can't just leave the 'this is property of suchandsuch records' idents over these copies?) or you can keep a major new release under wraps, but your your average low-income music fan is always going to wonder why they should bother when they can have it for free.

The only way the record industry is going to win back their former customer base is to compete with the pirates, rather than sue them, and this is happening (Nick Cave streaming his new album in it's entirety on myspace, for example) - but how on earth are you going to compete with a bottomless well of free music? Offer me something that the pirates cannot, you already have guaranteed CD-quality sound, but mp3-deafened teenagers need more incentive these days.

It's like with iTunes, nobody wanted to have anything to do with it initially (this would have been 2001 I think?) but after years of loss and thousands of redundancies everyone hopped on the gravy train - just too late.

Obviously the big labels are still funding the aforementioned expensive recording process, but the real money for big bands now is in live performances...

__________________

[SIZE="1"]Eff em
tumble her

mr dave

since when do warning labels stop anyone? it's not that the advanced copies are ending up on shelves but they're being digitized and uploaded. then again it's not that complicated for an average net geek with a blog to fill out the forms necessary to become considered part of 'the press'.

i totally agree that labels need to do something more. i remember reading about how records in the 70s usually came packed with a bunch of free stuff. stickers, iron ons, patches, rolling papers. it didn't really add to the quality of the music but it made it a little more worthwhile for the fan to drop some cash on the counter.

the real money for bands has ALWAYS been the live show and the merchandise they sell. stickers are where it's at when it comes to the cost:sale ratio. you get 100 stickers made for $10 you sell them for $1 a piece.... 1000% profit. buying the album or t-shirt at the show guarantees the profit goes into the bands pocket.

__________________
i am the universe