Has The Internet Really Destroyed Rock Music?

The Internet has taken a bashing lately from old rockers John Mellencamp (nee: John Cougar Mellencamp, nee: John Cougar) and Stevie Nicks (ex-Fleetwood Mac). Both assert the Internet is destroying rock music. Mellencamp thinks the Internet is more dangerous than an atomic bomb and Nicks thinks the online music industry stifles talent.

Neither of these artists really have to use the Internet. Mellencamp and Nicks have already had successful careers that were established under the old music industry regime. The A&R (Artist & Repertoire) person finds the new act either by solicited demo tapes or the chance meeting in a nightclub. The new act is signed to a major label, the promotion machine kicks in, the Great Unwashed gobbles up the product, and voila, a star is born.

While that may have worked twenty years ago, in today's world that does not hold true. It is not necessary to be signed to a major label or to avail oneself of the promotion and distribution that a major label offers. It is possible to build a successful music career from a grassroots or cottage industry base that is entirely online. Independent artists and labels can now have global distribution simply by offering the music for sale at a website such as eMusic or AmieStreet. Perhaps the poster child for a successful music career that is entirely Internet-driven is Jonathan Coulton. Coulton writes geek rock, which is, I think, the best description of his music. He regularly draws a substantial audience to his shows, has a considerable online catalogue for sale, and produces his own DVDs. In addition to the online sales, he sells product at his concerts and has managed to garner considerable interest from online press such as Wired and ArsTechnica.

Mellencamp and Nicks are acting like curmudgeons. All that is missing is for them to yell "Get off my lawn you rotten kids!" As well, their comments are based more on aesthetics, or what they consider "good" rock music, than anything else. Maybe they don't like the new rock acts or the new rock music, but that doesn't mean the Internet is at fault. The Internet is a tool for musicians, plain and simple. No, you don't have to slog it out in the clubs or on the road anymore. Paying your musical dues means something different today. No longer is it the months and years of playing before the awesomeness of signing to a major label, in fact the opposite is true. Bands can be signed with no live experience at all (I'm looking at you Everclear). That doesn't mean they perform well live though, there is something to be said for years in the clubs. But it does mean that the Great Unwashed potentially has access to the music in a manner that dwarfs what the traditional major label paradigm can offer.

There's a whiff of Luddite in what Mellencamp and Nicks have to say too. Plenty of folks over 50 can only and barely check their email, let alone figure out how to upload songs to a website or create a website of their own. Perhaps if Mellencamp and Nicks were starting their careers they might have a different attitude toward the Internet. Given the questionable accounting practices of the major labels, one would think they would welcome a new way to sell and promote their music that is driven by them and not some multinational entertainment conglomerate. I guess it's the "old dog new tricks" adage come to life.

I wish we had the Internet when I was on the road. It used to cost around $4000.00 to record and manufacture a 45. But just because you had a 45 didn't mean you got airplay either. When Killer Tumbleweeds released "When The Rain Comes" as a single, we managed to get airplay in the US, but here in Canada, all we got was criticism about the production values. As if a radio DJ in Peace River would know how much reverb is needed on the voices. Most radio DJs I have met are a "good voice" and that's it. Suffice to say, Killer Tumbleweeds received no airplay in Canada. Thanks for the support.

So, has the Internet destroyed rock music? Hardly. If anything the Internet has diversified rock music. The traditional gatekeepers no longer have control and there is plenty of new and exciting music available. Music hybrids are cropping up, musicians that otherwise would remain in obscurity now have a place to be seen and heard, and global distribution is all but guaranteed. All that is required is an Internet connection and a MySpace account. 

It is harder, however, to separate the wheat from the chaff, but more choices are better than fewer choices. The "old" music industry offered fewer choices, the "new" music industry offers more, and that's a good thing. Mellencamp and Nicks are off-base and showing their age. I mean really. "Pink Houses" and "Don't Stop" only go so far.

While you're at it, check out my MySpace page. Got some tunes posted there.

A New Model For The Recording Industry: No More EMI?

EMI is in trouble. The venerable home of The Beatles and Pink Floyd is in dire financial straits, so dire that if the problem is not solved by June it's possible EMI will be bankrupt, broken apart, and pieces of its cadaver sold off to pay its debts. Oh the humanity!

How did the once powerful and influential label get into this situation? Is it the fault of the downloaders? Is it because the private equity owners had no idea about the music business? Was it bad choices by the A&R staff who could not discover anything that would sell? Was it bad marketing? Was it losing Paul McCartney to Columbia in the 1980s? Was it Vanilla Ice?

The answers to these questions would take more time and space than I have available and frankly, I don't know the answers, but they are worth pondering (except maybe the Vanilla Ice one). I have a soft spot for EMI or Capitol Records as they are better known in North America. They are and were the label of The Beatles and Wings. EMI is one of the original record companies in the world, along with Germany's Deutsche Grammophone and RCA Victor in the US. Coincidentally, EMI owns the rights to the iconic "His Master's Voice" label that RCA uses in North America. The Capitol Records building in Los Angeles is as recognizable as the Eiffel Tower. EMI owns Abbey Road studios, that's almost enough right there.

I sincerely hope EMI is saved from disaster. It would be a shame for one of the oldest and influential record companies in the world to slide into recorded music history. If it wasn't for EMI we might not have The Beatles or Pink Floyd or Bob Seger or Anne Murray or The Beach Boys or The Barenaked Ladies, I could on. And who knows the fate of its archive and its current artists if it goes bankrupt? I know the artists that are selling will survive on other labels, it's the marginal or niche artists that will suffer. The archives will most likely vanish into oblivion except for the choice few songs or albums that will manage to be scarfed up by licencing agreements and reissued, repackaged, and repriced. And EMI will become the label that once was.

The most frightening outcome of EMI's demise will be that only three major record labels will be left in the world. Add the fact the majors control over 90% of the market and EMI's failure will seriously impact the diversity of the recorded music available, which in turn will make it harder to find the kind of music you want to hear. And given the proclivity for the labels to cannibalize each other, three will quickly become two.

The end result will be pseudo-individualization at its finest.

Oh noes. Adorno was right!

A Fractured Music Business Fairy Tale

Once upon a time a vinyl record album cost about eight dollars. Once upon a time a vinyl 45 cost one dollar (for two songs). Then technology changed and we were told the new format was better, it may be expensive to begin with but eventually prices will come down. That technology was the digital compact disc or CD. Suddenly vinyl records disappeared and became collector's items. Suddenly turntables and cassette decks vanished. Overnight entire collections of music became obsolete.

The new technology had taken over and we were forced to do three things: 1) replace the vinyl records with CDs; 2) buy new hardware to listen to the CDs; 3) pay the inflated price for CDs because the labels thought the public forgot that they promised to lower the price once the CD became popular.

Then the technology changed again much to the dismay of the record labels. The music business was becoming more democratized. Computers and the Internet changed the rules. The labels panicked. There was much hand-wringing and many predictions of doom. The sky was falling. Chicken Little was running around with no head.

Eventually the labels realized the potential of the new technology and the Apple store was born. The people rejoiced and bought one song. The record labels were suspicious, but the money changed their minds. But it was a Pyrrhic victory. Sales of the old new technology plummeted.

The labels had the answer. Remember, we forgot they promised to lower the prices of CDs to vinyl album prices once the CD caught on. Remember, the labels know we forgot. Plus, they claimed we should be happy with CDs, after all there are more songs on a CD than on a vinyl record, ergo that is justification for the inflated cost. But we were not happy. We complained about crappy music. We continued to buy one song.

And now, in a vain attempt to recapture what was lost, the record labels are testing, for a short period of time, selling CDs for ten dollars or less. In other words, vinyl album price. But we should not rejoice. We should feel sorry for them. After all, they are losing buckets of money and this price slashing is their version of a drowning man reaching for a life preserver.

It's a pity he can't swim.

It's a pity the labels didn't keep their promise.