GarageBand.com and other digital music initiatives

Hi there --

At 5:56 AM -0800 11/28/04, Marilyn Matty wrote:
>No sooner does the cyber-ink dry on Geoff's excellent article about
>Microsoft inking a deal with Garageband than Universal Music, one of
>the "big four" labels announces it is shattering another barrier by
>testing digital-only releases with a few bands via iTunes, Rapsody &
>MSN:

I saw this announcement, and have to admit I didn't read any
particular significance into it: maybe I need to look into it
further. Big distributors have long done limited market trials for
selected material and artists (particularly in dance, hip-hop, rap,
and urban r&b, but there are exceptions) and I guess I read
Universal's move as a slight variation - a variation which, I
believe, means they actually commit less money to promotion,
development, and/or payment of the already-signed artists. Anyway -
it kinda seemed like the same old schtick with the word "online" in
front of it, but I could be wrong.

>Garageband, which I think has yet to produce a major hit or launch a
>major band, does offer a potential chance for unknown and unsigned
>artists to be recognized.

Yeah - GarageBand's history is a little weird. During
dotcom-boom-days they tried to position themselves as something of a
democratic label: anyone could sign up and participate in the ratings
system, and they'd pick the top-ranked artists and promote the hell
out of them, do distribution, etc. That had some success but never
panned out in any major way. However, there have been a number of
successful acts which have used GarageBand.com as a component of
landing spots on tours, getting record deals through traditional
labels, etc. A component of an independent marketing and/or
distribution effort. Heck, even *I* got a minor gig I can directly
tie back to having a teeny page on GarageBand.com. So in some senses,
saying GarageBand hasn't produced a major hit or artist is like
saying the local farmer's market hasn't produced a good merlot. It's
true, but it's hard to blame them. :-)

>And for the first time, a major music distributor and producer is
>finally acknowledging the web's potential to test the waters with up
>and coming artists before making a big investment in promoting them.

What about the various "exclusives" which labels have long been
doling out to iTunes, MSN Music, Rhapsody, etc.? Are those different
because (I think) they're part of a larger promotional package which
usually involves brick-and-mortar at a later stage?

>And both deals could mean a move back to the times when edgy and
>truly innovative popular music was aggressively promoted by the big
>labels.

It *could* - and in some handful of cases, it probably will. However,
I think one medium-term consequence of the communications technology
revolution is going to be an even more fractious market, and that may
(ironically) make it easier for the major labels to control. There's
already more music available than anyone can meaningfully listen to,
so average listeners tend to seek out and rely on filters -
commercial radio, MTV, online/digital/satellite/subscription
services, etc - to narrow the channel and do their thinking for them.
There will be more of those channels online than in broadcast or
traditional media, but the channels will be just as narrow: the
bandwidth of human attention spans isn't getting any more capacious,
and in general people are probably devoting less thought and
attention to music than in years past. And we have whole generations
now whose primarily musical skill is arguably tuning *out* music.

I do think the "big four" (such as they are) have more to fear from
iTunes Music Store and its ilk than each other. I see three primary
things they have to control to survive:

- They have to lock up artists. It's fundamentally bad business for
them to have any interest in independent artists are channels which
enable independent artists to be heard alongside or instead of their
on-board talent. In their view, channels and filters featuring those
artists (like GarageBand.com) merely exist to service their needs.

- They have to lock up licensing. They need to tie up electronic
licenses, masters, and all distribution rights for as long as
possible, and they need to tie their material into video games,
movies, cell phones, and other channels hard and fast. (Again, to the
exclusion of anyone not in their system.)

- They have to lock up channels. This is where the big four will
crush iTunes Music Store and its ilk if they have to: once a business
model for online distribution is established, the big four will try
to control pricing and policy in an OPEC-like manner, and services
will have little choice but to play along. Things like iTunes Music
Store will only be permitted to exist so long as they can do online
distribution better and cheaper than any meaningful alternatives.
Right now, the labels still consider things like iTMS an experiment;
they'd really like to get into a locking arrangement more akin to
premium cable television, where they act like an HBO, and Apple (et
al) are more like Comcast.

Anyway - the battle for control these elements essentially means the
general listening public is unlikely to see much in the way of
innovative or edgy popular music in major channels, purely because
the ROI of doing so in those (still narrow) channels won't be
worthwhile. There will still be breakout artists, but they'll really
just be the crest of a wave swelling below the resolution (or
"granularity") of the money-filters, same as it's been for the last
five+ decades. Plus ca change...

>Would either deal have happened without the continuing success and
>growth of iTunes? I think not.

I agree completely. The relative success of iTMS has encouraged
labels to do (slightly) more than sit on their hands and throw money
at law firms. ;-)

gd
--
Geoff Duncan TidBITS Technical Editor <http://www.tidbits.com/>