Excerpt above from ReadWriteWeb article. Click here to read the story from @marshallk
The music world is suddenly jumping in all directions like an ADD kid but to many folks it may well be the wrong direction. Marshall Kirkpatrick excoriates Sonic Youth for releasing their album via iLike, a company funded by TicketMaster to the tune of $13 million, Pearl Jam (of all bands) inks a non-exclusive release with Target and eMusic annoys its subscribers by including Sony back catalog on their service but hiking the price of the service at the same time.
Sonic Youth and Pearl Jam are two bands who recently opted out of major label record deals, a move that I passionately support but the fall out from such arrangements means that we will see bands having to move toward sponsorships – some of which may make us want to hold our nose. C’est la vie…
[Update: to reflect that the Pearl Jam deal with Target is non-exclusive]
“Marshall Kirkpatrick excoriates Sonic Youth for releasing their album via iLike, a company funded by TicketMaster to the tune of $13 million”
yes, except Sonic Youth haven’t released their new album via iLike. iLike is currently hosting a stream of the new album, ‘The Eternal’, a week before release date. However, Sonic Youth fans have had an opportunity to hear a full stream of the album for several weeks now through Matador’s Buy Early Get Now campaign BuyEarlyGetNow.com
Mr. Kirkpatrick makes an excellent point, that perhaps a band like Sonic Youth might be expected to premiere their new music via an independent source. Trouble is, they’ve done exactly that — whether by streaming the new material thru an independent label website or by performing many of ‘The Eternal’’s new songs this past weekend live on WFMU.org.
I have no problem with Mr. Kirkpatrick finding a connection, however slight, between Sonic Youth and Ticketmaster distasteful. Given that his own blog entry prominently features an advertisement from Microsoft (surely there are independent software companies out there?) I’d think he’d be a little more careful when it comes to guilt by asssociation.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 amI have been a Sonic Youth fan for about 27 years. In fact I recall hauling amps with them when I promoted desert parities in LA with my friend Zippy (Davis Travis). That is entirely a different story. My comment is on “the exclusive”stream on the web and how I think it is a bummer. I want to see more recording artists to be able to share streams freely with fans and cut the exclusive marketing stuff out. Music can and should be socially transmitted by the artists fans and the perfect start point is the artists web URL. Perhaps by mistake, Youtube enabled millions of folks to easily share an artist video and thus unleashing the social web to work it’s magic. There was no exclusive end-point because the artists media was federated by fans. By making the artists content ubiquitous everyone wins. When I am on a blog like Stereo Gum or Pampelmoose and they mention a song I want and should be able to stream/play inline where the blogger or fan is giving context to the artists music. So let’s move away from exclusive and towards ubiquity. @djabatt
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 amthe most worrisome part of this to me is the idea that bands might have to be sponsored (although in some ways they practically are via the beer sponsored concert series and the like). didn’t kings once pay musicians and poets to create songs/art about them? Maybe we are headed in that direction once again.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 amMr. Cosloy, I thought about the same Microsoft argument myself after writing that article. We try to maintain a standard division between editorial and advertising departments at ReadWriteWeb – is there an analogous division between responsibility for creative and distribution responsibilities in the music industry? Obviously there is a division of labor, but I am not familiar enough with the ethical norms. I just find the association distasteful and said so. maybe I do deserve the same criticism that I offered Sonic Youth, if we were to accept the idea that Microsoft is as bad as Ticketmaster. I’m not sure that’s true, but it seems a valid conversation to have.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 amDave-
Make sure you have your facts straight. Pearl Jam’s Target deal is NOT and exclusive deal.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 amTim – thanks, updated the post to reflect the non-exclusivity of the arrangement…
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 amMarshall, I’m not suggesting your editorial content is controlled by Microsoft any more than it would make sense to say Ticketmaster has input into Sonic Youth’s repertoire.
We all have our own opinions about what constitutes (in your words) an “obnoxious” company to be associated with (hey, some might include the Universal Music Group), and your feelings on that matter are as valid as mine. I’ve already mentioned that SY have done a good deal recently to circulate their new music through outlets that have no connection to Ticketmaster. Your implication the band are eager to distance themselves from the iLike arrangement runs contrary to a news item on their own website Sonic Youth.com
The next time an artist chooses to premiere new material -at NewsCorp.-owned / not-paying-indies MySpace, can we look forward to an editorial lambasting them for their failure to support independent outlets? My apologies if you’ve already composed a few of those.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 amGerard/Marshall,
I’m glad that you both have strong and dissenting opinions about how indie bands work with sponsors, (I refrain from using the term ‘corporate’ as it’s too inflammatory,) as it throws a spotlight on the issues that will arise after bands abandon major label record contracts. The labels have been the bank for many years providing funds for recording and touring and also enviable distribution reach. So, let’s say for arguments sake that the playing field has been leveled and a small band on Matador and a big band previously on Universal, have to now chase after some kind of sponsorship to improve their income stream around the release of the physical product.
As sales of recorded music slump do either of you have an answer to how best strike deals with sponsors without music fans thinking that sponsors have simply replaced the ” big bad major labels?”
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pmI think this will continue to be a case-by-case sort of thing. Some sponsors are more likely to alienate fans than others, though keep in mind, some fans care about this issue more than others. But in this specific instance, I’m hesitant to even call this a sponsorship. Sonic Youth were not, as far as I know, paid a fee by iLike. Bands have been doing online premieres with a number of commercial entities for some time now (MySpace, Rolling Stone, MTV.com, etc.) — I’m not aware of a prior instance where an artist has been singled out for criticism for allowing a large, heavily-trafficked (presumably) site to stream their material.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 pmHere’s Irving Azoff’s take on recorded music’s decline and how to make money for his artists -
“Recorded music is more a marketing tool than a revenue source” for acts now, said Azoff, who also still manages the likes of The Eagles, Neil Diamond, and Christina Aguilera. His storied career, and well-earned reputation as one of the fiercest and savviest managers in the business, took flight with the Eagles, back in the Seventies when both Azoff and his artists were significantly more mustachioed and bushy-haired than they are today.
They also had a much easier time making a dollar back then. Today,“recorded music is down to less than 6%” of major musical acts’ revenues, he divulged. To put this in its proper perspective, consider that such income once was such acts’ “biggest revenue source,” he added.
Much of what Azoff said pointed to a view of music revolving around the live music experience. This, obviously, plays into his wheelhouse as one overseeing business interests so dependent on concerts. Still, his logic is convincing, and the examples he cited concerning what he called the “demonetization” of the music business were striking.
Artists walk in to his office, Azoff said, “who used to make $300,000 to $500,000 a year in royalties [from selling recordings]. And now that’s diminished to less than $50,000” a year. This means, unsurprisingly, “the creative side” of the music business is “very anxious” about the changes that have swept this landscape.
His answer, as cringe-inducing is it may be to artistic types uncomfortable with the ways of business, is understanding the branding and promotional value of music. He cited new deals like his client Aguilera working with Procter and Gamble to launch a line of fragrances.
Read the whole article here – Irving Azoff in Business Week Interview
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:53 pmYeah, how is this a sponsorship? I wouldn’t consider it that at all – they are using iLike as a tool to stream their music. That’s completely different than Pearl Jam filming a Target ad which I can guarantee you they were paid TONS of money for. Appearing in a commercial versus having a web site stream an album (and not even be the first ones to do so) is just not a fair analogy to me.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 amScion has been sponsoring a significant number of underground metal shows and festivals recently. I haven’t heard a huge backlash against that. And it’s hard not to get excited about a well-curated festival with no cover charge…
I really see sponsorship as a simultaneously optimistic and dystopian possibility for the future of music. But which devil do you deal with and how many really worthwhile bands can they really afford to help?
June 10th, 2009 at 2:41 am