The boss of the UK's record industry trade body, the BPI, has said that those rather high profile and much previously reported moves by artists like The Charlatans, Radiohead, Madonna and Prince to release their current or future recorded music without the assistance of traditional record companies are not a sign of an industry in collapse, as some media commentators have suggested. Then again, he would say that, wouldn't he? Though I think I said that too, just last week, so we'll give him a few paragraphs of CMU time anyways.
BPI chief Geoff Taylor has been writing about all this for the Daily Telegraph, and he says those artists' decisions represent "evolution, not revolution" in the music industry. Established artists, he argues, have a long history of taking more control over the distribution of their later work. In the past this often meant releasing their music through their own labels or imprints - but in the digital age those artists have a greater choice of ways to connect directly with their fans using new media platforms, many of which are also being used by traditional record labels.
But crucially, Taylor argues, newer talent will still rely on traditional record labels for support and investment, even if they are able to independently build up fanbases and sell music via their own online initiatives. Taylor: "There is in fact nothing new in established artists setting up their own record label. Prince, Simply Red, Oasis, the Beatles, and Led Zeppelin have done so in the past. But what do the recent developments mean for emerging talent? When the Arctic Monkeys and Lily Allen broke through MySpace, conventional wisdom had it that record labels no longer had a place in the digital age. Yet both artists are signed to long-established, successful record labels and in reality only became household names thanks to traditional marketing. Record labels are changing but remain the most highly skilled at identifying, investing in, nurturing, marketing and promoting new musical talent. Technology provides new ways to promote artists, but does not replace record labels".
He admits that the recording industry is facing real challenges, and then waffles a bit about P2P file sharing "devaluing music", like record label types do, before agreeing that the solution is those 360 degree artist contracts where record labels, as the principle and initial investors in new talent, are able to recoup their investment on revenue streams other than traditional record sales, which is, of course, a declining revenue stream.
But he argues that those investors - the labels - have, if anything, a more important role to play, saying: "The multitude of services that a record label offers to an artist are becoming more important, not less important, as media channels proliferate. In addition to their traditional expertise in international physical distribution, labels have networks of relationships to collect licensing income around the world, to account to artists, music publishers and other rightsholders, to generate new income from brand partnerships and synchronisation, as well as having the skill and resources to promote an act across a multiplicity of online channels. These capabilities are essential for artists trying to build a long-term career. The back catalogues and broad portfolios of larger record companies give them negotiating power in striking deals that can benefit all of their artists, while digital channels are opening up new opportunities to exploit catalogues more effectively than has been possible through physical retail".
So there you have it. Label types, you're not all fucked after all. As I think I said last week.