Like many readers of this column, I grew up alongside that newly sprouted limb of the music business, MTV.
I enjoyed watching videos for the most part, but my old friend George Haddad disagreed, claiming that "music should be heard and not seen."
Music and video are currently undergoing another unholy intermingling, once again in the form of the music video: iTunes and the iPod now support music videos, with the rest of the industry likely to follow suit. But this time, rather than extending music onto the television screen, the music/video hybrid could cause a fundamental shift in what "recording artists" are recording and what music fans are consuming. In other words, the endpoint of all of this video/music intermingling could be that neither continues to exist in its current form, and we end up with something new.
In a business as broken as the music business, the new music-video situation stands out as particularly worrisome for artists.
The music video began in the '80s as a promotional tool used by the labels to flog a single or an album to the video-watching public. The idea was that after being exposed to the video, consumers would be more likely to purchase the album. In other words, music videos were basically extended advertisements for tapes and CDs. As such, they were considered part of the promotional budget--owed by the artist to the label, to be subtracted from the artist's royalties on album sales.
In a business as broken as the music business, the new music-video situation stands out as particularly worrisome for artists. If Apple Computer and every other Johnny-come-lately online record store starts selling the entire back catalog of videos at $1.99, artists won't see a dime of that money unless their contracts are reworked. In fact, they'll lose money on their own videos--even though they're being sold for twice as much as the music--because music videos are still considered promotion.
If you think the labels will rectify this unfairness right away, you haven't been paying attention. One example: Sales of many digital singles and albums are still subject to a "breakage clause," meaning artists have to pay the labels a certain percentage of their royalties in the event that any of the music "breaks" on the way to the consumer. In the days of vinyl, it was pretty clear what breakage meant, but in these digital times it's a nonissue. That doesn't stop labels from continuing to write the fee into some contracts, which is the same sort of dodginess that will happen with music videos in the short term.
Regardless of the way the music video royalty situation works itself out (which it eventually will, as artists and labels evolve their contracts), the addition of music videos to the iPod and iTunes may have more than a mere business effect on the music scene. The music video could become the actual product, rather than an advertisement for a song.
Every digital song you buy comes with song information embedded in the file. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to add a video for every song--whether it's the music video itself, a hook to that video online, or some other video element. The new, more visual generation of music fans would probably be all over this approach, and it's no secret that those "kids" are the ones who drive the market.
Ultimately, the addition of a video to every song is going to change the definition of a music video, too. Considering today's exorbitant production costs, it won't be financially feasible to shoot a full-fledged video for each song an artist records (especially for the label, since at some point it probably won't be able to pass the production costs on to the artist). Most songs will need to have some other form of embedded visual aspect, whether it's a custom Outcast visualizer, a Madonna slide show, or a David Bowie signature Flash animation. Certain artists may elect to have the recording of each song filmed and then embed that video into each song so that fans can see how it was made.
If this really takes off, perhaps the ever-resourceful remix community will start creating its own videos to match with songs. Profits could soar as faithful fans purchase multiple versions of a song, each with a different video. By then, let's hope artists are getting a piece of the music video pie, because it could end up being larger than the music pie it used to advertise.
Biography Eliot Van Buskirk is an editor at CNET MP3.com. He is the author of the book "Burning Down the House: Ripping, Recording, Remixing, and More!"
Your summary makes The Sun seem oddly prescient when they named their latest album, since it is only available on DVD (or vinyl) but not CD. I think, however, that is was mostly due to the fact that they couldn't afford a DualDisc.
Speaking of which...if you really want to talk about an unholy intermingling of music and video, try DualDisc. Actually, don't. At least not if your discs travel a lot. That DVD side can quickly become useless, since DVDs cannot handle the typical incidental scratching that's no big deal for CDs.
Your summary makes The Sun seem oddly prescient when they named their latest album, since it is only available on DVD (or vinyl) but not CD. I think, however, that is was mostly due to the fact that they couldn't afford a DualDisc.
Speaking of which...if you really want to talk about an unholy intermingling of music and video, try DualDisc. Actually, don't. At least not if your discs travel a lot. That DVD side can quickly become useless, since DVDs cannot handle the typical incidental scratching that's no big deal for CDs.
This is exactly my main concern. Artists are not going to see a penny out of the music video sales. Even though they are usually charged for all the expenses for the making of the video. It comes out of their royalties. But, they, "the artist", don't own it. The record label does. Isn't that interesting??? So, a fecal business as the music business is, it ensures that the artist gets the short end of the stick. Trust me. It has been happening since the birth of the business. And the worst part is that "no one does anything" to improve it. Sure, there's the birth of the internet and all the hoopla involved in the development of new avenues. But, the truth of the matter is that the majority of artists don't have the "business bug" in them. So they get "screwed." The moral of the story is: want to support your favorite artists? Go to their shows, buy their albums, create some noise. Videos; not a penny to the artists. Apple has done for the record industy, what they couldn't achieve on their own; make them money out of music videos and give them the control back that they unknowingly gave to MTV in the 80's.
>>but, the truth of the matter is that the majority of artists don't have the "business bug" in them. So they get "screwed."
Most of these so called artists you see on TV are nothing but a product themselves, sure they have a voice and can look pretty but all the writing and music is done by producers. Thier clothes are picked out for them. They are a product and should feel blessed to have a much higher paying job then most of us will ever get.
This is exactly my main concern. Artists are not going to see a penny out of the music video sales. Even though they are usually charged for all the expenses for the making of the video. It comes out of their royalties. But, they, "the artist", don't own it. The record label does. Isn't that interesting??? So, a fecal business as the music business is, it ensures that the artist gets the short end of the stick. Trust me. It has been happening since the birth of the business. And the worst part is that "no one does anything" to improve it. Sure, there's the birth of the internet and all the hoopla involved in the development of new avenues. But, the truth of the matter is that the majority of artists don't have the "business bug" in them. So they get "screwed." The moral of the story is: want to support your favorite artists? Go to their shows, buy their albums, create some noise. Videos; not a penny to the artists. Apple has done for the record industy, what they couldn't achieve on their own; make them money out of music videos and give them the control back that they unknowingly gave to MTV in the 80's.
>>but, the truth of the matter is that the majority of artists don't have the "business bug" in them. So they get "screwed."
Most of these so called artists you see on TV are nothing but a product themselves, sure they have a voice and can look pretty but all the writing and music is done by producers. Thier clothes are picked out for them. They are a product and should feel blessed to have a much higher paying job then most of us will ever get.
Personally, I doubt the recording companies will survive much longer. The web provides a means for artists to promote themselves and sell their product directly without the intervention of the record companies.
Personally, I doubt the recording companies will survive much longer. The web provides a means for artists to promote themselves and sell their product directly without the intervention of the record companies.
... is to push the hype for the no-talent 'artists' which the record companies want to foist off on the American Public. And MTV played right into their hands. Now, the youngsters expect a sleazy music video with every album and almost with every song. In the meantime, we are saturated with junk music played by no better than amateur talent, and usually promoted simply by suggestive lyrics and videos.
Now if that's the way people really want music to be, then go for it. After all, look what the absence of talented artists, and equally untalented art critics, did to a great fraction of the art world. Now we have whole museums filled with 'untitled' garbage. And we'll have equal collections of equally worthless 'music'.
Yeah, so what's new. Quality is rapidly becomes a lost criteria in everything. I think I'll go away now.
... is to push the hype for the no-talent 'artists' which the record companies want to foist off on the American Public. And MTV played right into their hands. Now, the youngsters expect a sleazy music video with every album and almost with every song. In the meantime, we are saturated with junk music played by no better than amateur talent, and usually promoted simply by suggestive lyrics and videos.
Now if that's the way people really want music to be, then go for it. After all, look what the absence of talented artists, and equally untalented art critics, did to a great fraction of the art world. Now we have whole museums filled with 'untitled' garbage. And we'll have equal collections of equally worthless 'music'.
Yeah, so what's new. Quality is rapidly becomes a lost criteria in everything. I think I'll go away now.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
Not to mention people were making short films for their music long before the 80s.
Not to mention people were making short films for their music long before the 80s.
Speaking of which...if you really want to talk about an unholy intermingling of music and video, try DualDisc. Actually, don't. At least not if your discs travel a lot. That DVD side can quickly become useless, since DVDs cannot handle the typical incidental scratching that's no big deal for CDs.
Speaking of which...if you really want to talk about an unholy intermingling of music and video, try DualDisc. Actually, don't. At least not if your discs travel a lot. That DVD side can quickly become useless, since DVDs cannot handle the typical incidental scratching that's no big deal for CDs.
The moral of the story is: want to support your favorite artists? Go to their shows, buy their albums, create some noise. Videos; not a penny to the artists.
Apple has done for the record industy, what they couldn't achieve on their own; make them money out of music videos and give them the control back that they unknowingly gave to MTV in the 80's.
Most of these so called artists you see on TV are nothing but a product themselves, sure they have a voice and can look pretty but all the writing and music is done by producers. Thier clothes are picked out for them. They are a product and should feel blessed to have a much higher paying job then most of us will ever get.
The moral of the story is: want to support your favorite artists? Go to their shows, buy their albums, create some noise. Videos; not a penny to the artists.
Apple has done for the record industy, what they couldn't achieve on their own; make them money out of music videos and give them the control back that they unknowingly gave to MTV in the 80's.
Most of these so called artists you see on TV are nothing but a product themselves, sure they have a voice and can look pretty but all the writing and music is done by producers. Thier clothes are picked out for them. They are a product and should feel blessed to have a much higher paying job then most of us will ever get.
companies want to foist off on the American Public. And MTV
played right into their hands. Now, the youngsters expect a
sleazy music video with every album and almost with every
song. In the meantime, we are saturated with junk music played
by no better than amateur talent, and usually promoted simply
by suggestive lyrics and videos.
Now if that's the way people really want music to be, then go for
it. After all, look what the absence of talented artists, and
equally untalented art critics, did to a great fraction of the art
world. Now we have whole museums filled with 'untitled'
garbage. And we'll have equal collections of equally worthless
'music'.
Yeah, so what's new. Quality is rapidly becomes a lost criteria in
everything. I think I'll go away now.
Rant off -------------
companies want to foist off on the American Public. And MTV
played right into their hands. Now, the youngsters expect a
sleazy music video with every album and almost with every
song. In the meantime, we are saturated with junk music played
by no better than amateur talent, and usually promoted simply
by suggestive lyrics and videos.
Now if that's the way people really want music to be, then go for
it. After all, look what the absence of talented artists, and
equally untalented art critics, did to a great fraction of the art
world. Now we have whole museums filled with 'untitled'
garbage. And we'll have equal collections of equally worthless
'music'.
Yeah, so what's new. Quality is rapidly becomes a lost criteria in
everything. I think I'll go away now.
Rant off -------------