Originally Posted by kane

We have been through all of this before. There are always exceptions to the rule. Many people argue that Dane Cook got huge because he was able to use Myspace as a way to get a ton of fans and he was able to turn those fans into people who bought his album and went to see him live. Tila Tequlia is another example of someone who made a lot of money just using Myspace and an online presence and it led to bigger things for her.

But when you remove the few exceptions most of these people are nothing more than glorified garage bands. I don't mean that in a bad way. There are small lesser known acts that I really like. There are bands that only put out 1 or 2 albums and never made it big, but I still love those albums. There are small underground acts that I really enjoy and yet they have never gotten big and most likely never will. This type of thing existed long before the internet.

What it comes down to is your ability to monetize your success while you have it. The half life of a band is about 5 years. Chances are if you haven't made it in 5 years, you won't. If you have made it, the odds of your success lasting more than 5 years is very limited. Times change, musical trends change and tastes and fads come and go. A few survive and most don't. It was that way before the internet, it is still that way wth the internet. If you go to a band and you tell them, "You can sign with a major label and they will ass rape you and you will never see a dime from record sales beyond your initial advance, but they will put a ton of money behind your publicity, you will have a couple of top 10 singles, work your ass off and within in year you will be headlining 3000-5000 seat venues and making millions on the road, or you can release the music yourself online, give it away for free and what you do sell you get to keep 90% of the profits from and in a few years you will still be playing clubs for 150-200 people and still holding a part time job when you aren't touring." Which do you think they would take?

I'm not saying the music labels are the be all end all. I'm not saying they have the best taste. I'm simply saying that when the music business becomes a free business where everyone releases their stuff for free and they hope to make money down the road touring, selling merchandise or whatever you are going to see a huge influx of people flooding the market with their stuff, and most of it is going to be garbage. There will be no filter and the consumer/fans will be left to sift through it on their own. Sure there will be magazines and web sites that will review it and help you find stuff you like, but most music buyers don't work that way. Most music buyers hear it on the radio and go buy it or download it. They don't have the interest in reading or researching stuff. Like always, there are exceptions to that rule and you and I are among those exceptions. But here is food for thought. Of the ten people that I consider to be close friends I am the only one who reads any kind of music magazines or websites. I am the only one of them that researches music and tries new stuff. The other nine all either hear it on the radio and buy it/download it or they just listen to something they already have. when I ask them why they don't look for something new that they might be into almost without fail they tell me it is because they have better things to do. Music, sadly, is an art of convenience and record labels help to facilitate that convenience for those who want it.