As digital becomes a more viable method of distribution ...

dj awesome · Post by **dj awesome** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:55 pm

will smaller labels die?

will the record industry mechanic as we know it cease to exist?

the whole point of signing to a label was to have access to a distribution network that logistically you couldn't replicate, as well as promotional and marketing economies of scale that made a potentially expensive process less expensive ...

you could argue that now with digital there are much clearer channels between artist and consumer.

why sign to an indie now to do something you could do - get your record into stores?

i'm not leaning towards any side, just wondering what people think about this. Especially producers.

Will dance music always be label based as producers need the validation of being released on a credible label? Or is the affiliation of being on a 'credible' label a vital reason to sign to a record label in terms of exposing your tunes to as many ears as possible.

Thoughts??

Motive · Post by **Motive** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:36 pm

i think it'll only encourage small labels. as now it's a bit more feasible to be succesful venture, you're at the mercy of distributors as under a traditional scheme.

of course signing to label means a lot more than just distribution. in can also include things like publishing, management, publicity and legal - none of which have changed with digital formats. so i think labels as we know aren't really going anywhere.

dj awesome · Post by **dj awesome** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:47 pm

good points dan - so will it change distribution (a key part of dance music labels so far)?

Motive · Post by **Motive** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:41 pm

well i've already bought a few dance tracks from digital downloads. but i've bought cos the 12" was expensive and i was wanting to try the track out. at about $2.20 a pop it's the price of a coffee, so it's worth seeing if u like this style etc.

i think it'll just come alongside the traditional formats. when email first came along they said it would kill traditional post services, and that our offices would be paperless. obviously it didn't happen. and i don't think digital is gonna replace vinyl, it just goes alongside. i don't see very much money is being handed over by punters for digital dance tracks, but if u had a dance label you'd be crazy not to offer back catalogue and the odd exclusive as digital download. actually that's one thing u'll see happen - tracks that aren't really feasible as singles cos they won't sell much will be made available - which'll mean more choice for the DJ.

dj awesome · Post by **dj awesome** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:00 am

i have bought minimal vinyl in the past 12 months, but bought a stack of digital.

cost, range, risk (or lack thereof) and immediacy are the main benefits for me as a user ... i think something that might happen is the volume of dance music sales (unit wise) will go up as it's easier financially to purchase greater quantities of music.

Will we one day baulk at those days when we'd spend $200 for 10 tracks??

Post by **system** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:23 am

the main change from analogue to digital releases will be (and has been in) the delivery method. another biggy is seeing more tunes being released - which would have stayed on DAT or plate, eventually being coated by a layer of dust otherwise.

it'd be good to see more 'digital' labels doing more with their releases - like having artwork, etc all available.

DRM still needs more work though.

Post by **fooishbar** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:28 am

system wrote:DRM still needs more work though.

maybe they'll learn that people just don't really love being treated like criminals?

it's pretty simple. if there's a way to get a particular signal out -- be it an image destined for your tv, or sound for your speakers -- it can be recorded without loss. maybe not by me trying to rip it to .ogg so I can carry my iaudio around instead of the CDs that are currently on a ship, due to arrive here in three or so weeks, but by some crazy bastard in russia, yes. so ultimately it's pointless. if you want to deliver cds in 64kbps, then do that. but if you want to deliver in the best quality cd can, and do magical bullshit downsampling when you're not on an approved device, then you *lose*, because someone can and will pirate it.

drm really annoys me, in case you couldn't tell.

get out there and support shit like bleep, who treat customers like people, not like potential crims.

mrj · Post by **mrj** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:32 am

I think it has and will continue to create opportunities for small labels and producers getting off the ground. I think it also is resulting in music becoming more accessible.

Dean Millsons recent comments in his ITM interview boil it down quite nicely IMO.

Post by **system** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:01 am

fooishbar wrote:
system wrote:DRM still needs more work though.
maybe they'll learn that people just don't really love being treated like criminals?

it's pretty simple. if there's a way to get a particular signal out -- be it an image destined for your tv, or sound for your speakers -- it can be recorded without loss. maybe not by me trying to rip it to .ogg so I can carry my iaudio around instead of the CDs that are currently on a ship, due to arrive here in three or so weeks, but by some crazy bastard in russia, yes. so ultimately it's pointless. if you want to deliver cds in 64kbps, then do that. but if you want to deliver in the best quality cd can, and do magical bullshit downsampling when you're not on an approved device, then you *lose*, because someone can and will pirate it.

drm really annoys me, in case you couldn't tell.

get out there and support shit like bleep, who treat customers like people, not like potential crims.

totally agree with you, Dan.

I wasn't trying to support it at all. I mean - currently, there's a bunch of competing systems (WMA, RM, Fairplay, etc.) - none of which can play each other's formats!