http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/37840

Artists like Pearl Jam and Phish have broken free of the record labels and now cater to broadband users directly on-line. New acts obviously lack the power needed to make that jump, something being addressed by musicians Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno, who hope to allow musicians to skip the middle-man and sell their product directly on the internet. The new alliance, dubbed the Magnificent Union of Digitally Downloading Artists, or "MUDDA", was unveiled today as an effort to put some power back in the hands of the musicians.

Artists would bypass the CD altogether and offer music in digital format, while being encouraged to tinker with prices, release dates, and tradition (one song a week, or multiple versions of one song, etc.). The concept so far is severely lacking in specifics, including what variety of encryption Eno and Gabriel propose. Smaller operations like Magnatune have tried to shake up the industry with their own progressive models for distribution.

Are record labels as middle-men destined for extinction? Or simple evolution?

I dont think labels will be extinct.

While I am disgusted with the many of the major labels business ethics or lack-of, not every musician is cut out to handle the business side of promotion, distribution handling, booking, etc or the very most effectively.

Even at the indie level, its a network relationship of anyone who is willing to help you out..public radio..college bookings...festivals..local club venues. Then you have the financial management, etc vest you have to put on.

I guess what Im saying is that a "label" is not necessarily a useless middleman. The right label can help enormously by lifting a lot of the burden in this tough tough business whether its a reasonable advance and/or maybe just getting them exposure with shows. Anyone who has been an independent musician knows this by heart.

I don't have a problem with record labels. I have a problem with foreign corporations trying to dictate our copyright laws.

Summed up well, murderswitch. The RIAA are all foriegn corporations trying to dictate our copyright laws.

indieWarriors is right. Not all labels can be bad. But the RIAA- well, we've already been there. They are another story.

:-:~ Phantom

Not all labels can be bad? True, not all labels are part of the RIAA. But those that ARE get what they deserve! To me, they are bad, and don't deserve our business. Continue to boycott until they realize it's time to fully embrace technology, not stomp all over it.

Sheesh. Phish and Peter Gabriel are still on major labels and Pearl Jam will probably be back once they realize what a hassle it is to do it on their own.

mroop - It might be a hassle on their own...the questions are - How much more or less of a hassle is it than dealing with their greedy and controlling former label? At the end of the day, are they taking home more of the money they really deserve while avoiding alienating fans?

The reason these formerly popular artists like Pearl Jam and Natalie Merchant leave the major labels is because they feel neglected when they can't get the attention they used to get when they sold a lot of records. If Pearl Jam could get some attention and a good promotion budget from Epic they would still be there - don't kid yourself.

its gonna take a while for the new way of promotion and distribution on the net to iron itself out but more and more artist's will migrate that way as some are successful and soon the lables will be used for what they should be a simple marketing tool and the riaa will have no reason for being

mroop has some damaging and convincing opinions, methinks.

Bottom line is that there SHOULD be a middleman. Why should a songwriter have to study distribution and economic models? They should focus on creating music. There is an industry ready to promote and distribute his product.

This is more artists being fed up with THEIR end of the business model. You can be DAMN sure this MUDDA is really interested in having their OWN versions of controls, and probably not all too different from the Association. One of Gabriel's biggest arguments is entitled : How Does One Compete with Free?

They are merely tired of someone ELSE making billions, when they would rather be making it. This is really only somewhat involved with our own fight against the Association.

mroop...you know I respect your opinions..and usually, you stay fact based and level headed...and I agree, that all too often, bands are ready to sell their souls for a recording contract with a major label, however; I suggest we start looking at things in a new paradigm...I suggest that bands start looking at popularity with consumers...i.e. the buying public, as a new index of "making it big time"....

I think we go out on a limb in saying why bands (as if a band has a collective mind that thinks in a monosyllabic fashion) do what they do. I never liked Pearl Jam's music...but a lot of people like them.

I think MUDDA may be an important development.

One thing that is NOT good for an artist's career, in my opinion, is that they are seen as backing the actions of the RIAA in the sue 'em all campaign.

PS...Kyodylee..great article/post....

Keep up the great work
~Code

If artists were whores...the labels would be the pimps....taking most of the money and assuring their money makers...:"We'll take care of you..."

I hope they're kissing them while they do that to them !

"I suggest that bands start looking at popularity with consumers...i.e. the buying public, as a new index of "making it big time"...."

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Bands see labels as the way to become popular with consumers via the labels promotional machines. Most artists want to do music and not business - that is why they are musicians and not going for their MBA's.

From what I am reading on the VR, Mudda is nothing new. Some are saying that there are already organizations doing what Mudda proposes to do and speculating it is really a way to make OD2 look good. You can read it here:

http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=419240&Forum=UBB1&Words=mudda&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3weeks&Main=419084&Search=true#Post419240

mroop...I am suggesting a paradigm shift...not sticking with what bands did in the 70s and 80s...

Old hat...moved on since horse and cart...i drive a truck

lol code had to laugh first on all day thanks I needed that

Wow ... what an interesting thread ... I haven't been active at all here at dmusic ... although I did set up an artist page here a few months ago.

I am both a veteran performer and a part of an indie label. One that has managed to post postive gains each of its nine years in existence. I work with sales, website content, and market developement in the Rocky Mountain Region and on the Internet. I am also the head of Chris K. Productions, a division of the overall entertainment company. We deal nearly 100% in the developement and promotion of local / regional talent in the Denver and surrounding region.

I've been all over both sides of these issues since it all began. Let me state, for the record, that I totally encourage all indie acts to use the Internet to their full advantage. I am also against downloading, with the exception of educational issues, those files that the artists themselves (or their legal representatives) have not authorized to be downloadable.

Piracy is an issue of stellar proportions. We often only talk about it, as if it only matters in the United States, or as it relates to the Internet, and that mostly as it relates to the United States. This issue has far greater politics and international ramifications than how it affects our industry here.

For me, personally as an artist, I suppose I believe it's my song. I have the sole right to do with that track as I wish. If I choose to give it away ... cool ... if I choose to hold back that right, and the right of others to distribute it, that's cool too ... for ALL artists, whether signed or not. That song is no different to me than the fine handmade guitar built by a custom luthier whose innovations to that instrument cannot be duplicated without his / her permission, and then only with licensing.

I can get deeply philosophical about the entire scene, so I'd better stop while I'm ahead ... LOL ...

Nice thread y'all ...

Chris K.

Thanks for participating Chris. Unfortunately, most people at this site think that the music of independent artists is free to trade around the net without the permission of the artist. For an artist to suggest that they have the right to control the distribution of their music is tantamount to heresy around here. : )

mroop, I think you have a vocal body of people here on these sites saying such, simply because these people have all come here hurting from the abuses of such control.

Bottom line of any business is a relationship. In the depths of a positive relationship, you will find no one side should have complete control. Once that happens, the inevitable abuse comes into play.

Artists seek to control their work, which makes sense, but distribution requires a demand. If the artist can only control the supply, then he/she must make concessions to the demand.

Thanks for the input Chris.
"Piracy is an issue of stellar proportions."
Please see the LEGAL, US definition of piracy, with statute cited below...
I think "copyright infringement "is what you meant to say
The word piracy doesn't appear in the Copyright Act of 1976, nor the DMCA (Title 17, 199. No civil suit filed by the RIAA has used the word piracy,
nor charges nor complains of "piracy" by any user of P2P in court filings.



CITE 18 USC Sec. 1652 01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING
Sec. 1652. Citizens as pirates
Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder
or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or
against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any
commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of
authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for
life."

Phish's popularity is entirely from live concerts that have nothing to do with a major record label. They get ZERO radio play, ZERO MTV play and barely sell any records. However they are one of the highest paid touring bands ever,that sell out every venue, which is sometimes more than a hundered per year. They also sell every live concert on CD as well as encourage boot legging. You can DL high bit-rate show's from their website.
There relationship with Epic(I think it is) is nothing more than fullfilling the contract, most of their studio releases are just to satisfy the contract and are most of the time produced in a couple of weeks from start to finish and ound nothing like the live performances of the same thing.