# Mike Lombardo - the music business



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

Hi all,

Just got this video in an email from Tunecore, and I think it deserves your attention:





 


Great to see someone telling it straight


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

Here's a fair counterpoint:



Steve Albini said:


> _What are your thoughts on Napster & the RIAA?_
> 
> The recording industry association of America is an industry lobby group, and it’s almost
> exactly the same as like, you know, the toxic waste industry or whatever. The lobbying
> ...


I tend to agree more with Albini's view but I think the truth is that there are pluses and minuses like most things. Albini has worked with a lot of successful but less commercially massive artists so I don't think he's speaking exclusively for the "giants" whose music will make them money regardless of industry problems.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

I see his point, but to my mind there's a crucial difference between all the examples he lists and the filesharing debate, and that's the sheer scale of it. Take the Metallica example he gives: he came into possession of _one_ tape cassette, that was only enough to give him an idea of what they were doing. The quality obviously wasn't the greatest, because there would have been some generational decline, so if he wanted to hear it as good as possible, he had to buy the original. So, being able to obtain a copy might have been good enough for some people, but more people would have wanted access to the original, so the copy would only have been useful as an "introduction" to the group. Compare that to now, when you can get the entire album for free in identical quality to the original. In this scenario, if you like the music, and you don't have a conscience, you can simply download the group's entire back catalogue for the same price. That has clearly cost the artist several sales... the other "justifications" for filesharing also generally seem to be made by people who just don't respect the artists enough to consider their work to be something worth paying for (obviously not including the likes of Steve Albini), and that's what the video was responding to.


----------



## immortalgropher (Feb 16, 2010)

The filesharing debate is old and tired. It's not going to quit and continuing to complain about it really just makes it worse IMO.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

AstralPlaneStudios said:


> The filesharing debate is old and tired. It's not going to quit and continuing to complain about it really just makes it worse IMO.


You may be right, but the video is responding to a blog post that asserts that far from being harmful, filesharing is actually the best thing ever to happen to music. Ridiculous points of view like that should be challenged IMO.


----------



## immortalgropher (Feb 16, 2010)

spacedout said:


> You may be right, but the video is responding to a blog post that asserts that far from being harmful, filesharing is actually the best thing ever to happen to music. Ridiculous points of view like that should be challenged IMO.


Well IMO it's a 50/50 thing. It's both good AND bad. more unknown bands can get great exposure that way (especially since they're probably not making a ton in the first place) the bad part comes at major/indy labels, but more-so on majors due to the fact that they're losing money thus affecting the artists draw on record sales, makes it more difficult for artists to break even.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

Exposure is good, true, but surely only if it can later be translated into cash, otherwise what's the point? There are definitely people who treat any shared files the way they used to treat copied tapes - as a way of getting to know a band before spending money - but there are also plenty others who are downloading stuff as a way of _never_ having to pay anything, which makes the exposure kind of pointless...


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

spacedout said:


> Exposure is good, true, but surely only if it can later be translated into cash, otherwise what's the point? There are definitely people who treat any shared files the way they used to treat copied tapes - as a way of getting to know a band before spending money - but there are also plenty others who are downloading stuff as a way of _never_ having to pay anything, which makes the exposure kind of pointless...


Well no, I don't think all (or even most) artists would agree with you that the summary value of their work is its marketability. Maybe there are some people with dreams of "commercial art" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) but I don't think monetizing is the end game for most artists; if it were the quality of art would be even more dreadful than the industry has already made it.

Even for someone with the end goal of monetizing their art, more exposure is absolutely the key to making that happen. For an unknown, having a million copies downloaded may result in $0.00 _on that album_ but the next one is quite likely to sell a few hundred thousand copies minimum. Not to mention the resulting t-shirt and merchandising numbers, increased touring capacity, etc. It would be incredibly short sighted for anyone but a super star to neglect the extreme importance of being in the forefront.

If you've never sold half a million copies of anything, there is little that would help your career as much as half a million illegal downloads.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

ngarjuna said:


> Well no, I don't think all (or even most) artists would agree with you that the summary value of their work is its marketability. Maybe there are some people with dreams of "commercial art" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) but I don't think monetizing is the end game for most artists; if it were the quality of art would be even more dreadful than the industry has already made it.


Reading back what I wrote, I can see why you said that, but I never meant to suggest that the true value of the work is the money the artist can make from it (although that is true economically). What I meant to say is that exposure, and art for art's sake, will not pay the rent, and if costs cannot be covered, then at some point the creativity itself will be stifled, because the noodles paid for by the last album sale have run out...

Of course there is a long term view to take here, but don't you need to be able to make it in the short term in order to ever get that far?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

ngarjuna said:


> Even for someone with the end goal of monetizing their art, more exposure is absolutely the key to making that happen. *For an unknown, having a million copies downloaded may result in $0.00 on that album but the next one is quite likely to sell a few hundred thousand copies minimum.* Not to mention the resulting t-shirt and merchandising numbers, increased touring capacity, etc. It would be incredibly short sighted for anyone but a super star to neglect the extreme importance of being in the forefront.
> 
> If you've never sold half a million copies of anything, there is little that would help your career as much as half a million illegal downloads.


If there are no sales of an album, what chance do you have of getting funding for a second one?


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

spacedout said:


> If there are no sales of an album, what chance do you have of getting funding for a second one?


Because second albums are judged entirely on the exposure of the artist, not on past sales. It's all about that artist's potential to sell not about how many they have or haven't sold already. OK Go would have looked like a bad investment based on past sales but having 50 million [free] hits on YouTube mitigated that considerably (and were able to afford Dave Fridmann for their next release in comparison). Ditto on Amanda F. Palmer who has made a career out of internet buzz despite modest sales figures (and draws bigger and bigger crowds every year).

As far as the other issue (taking the short view of needing money right now)...artists have classically been a bunch who didn't do very well in their lifetimes. You know the old term "starving artist"? 

Prior to the 20th century most of the "greats" didn't do all that well for themselves. Without mass market it's hard to make oneself a celebrity. The notion that, because of the 20th century and the western obsession with celebrity, artists are somehow entitled to super stardom and riches is somewhat laughable, really, especially for those of us who have the kinds of jobs that we keep to support our family and not for the love of. If a great artist has to keep a different job (or even series of odd jobs) to survive, I just don't see how that's tragic. Most of us have been in that position. Our talents don't make us immune to the harsh reality of the zero-sum economics that surround us. With output and exposure they can transition from making short term money off of less desirable income streams to their output itself but this does (and should) take time. Just because you own a Les Paul and wrote some songs doesn't entitle you to anything in particular. If people actually love your work enough to download it millions of times finding a fair (survival level +) income from that material isn't going to be the greatest struggle.

When people come to their senses and start to realize how much we've been overpaying artists, athletes and celebrities it might actually help art as a whole, weeding out those who only got into it to be pampered and leaving the "art game" for the real artists.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

ngarjuna said:


> Because second albums are judged entirely on the exposure of the artist, not on past sales. It's all about that artist's potential to sell not about how many they have or haven't sold already. OK Go would have looked like a bad investment based on past sales but having 50 million [free] hits on YouTube mitigated that considerably (and were able to afford Dave Fridmann for their next release in comparison). Ditto on Amanda F. Palmer who has made a career out of internet buzz despite modest sales figures (and draws bigger and bigger crowds every year).


Fair enough 



> As far as the other issue (taking the short view of needing money right now)...artists have classically been a bunch who didn't do very well in their lifetimes. You know the old term "starving artist"?


With respect, I just don't see how that can be used as a justification for downloading an album without paying for it.



> Prior to the 20th century most of the "greats" didn't do all that well for themselves. Without mass market it's hard to make oneself a celebrity.


True, but the fact is that mass media *has* made it possible, and I'm not talking about becoming a celebrity, I'm talking about making an honest living from one's hard work. Why does the fact that Van Gogh didn't do too well while he was alive translate into a licence to make use of an album without paying?



> The notion that, because of the 20th century and the western obsession with celebrity, artists are somehow entitled to super stardom and riches is somewhat laughable, really, especially for those of us who have the kinds of jobs that we keep to support our family and not for the love of. If a great artist has to keep a different job (or even series of odd jobs) to survive, I just don't see how that's tragic. Most of us have been in that position. Our talents don't make us immune to the harsh reality of the zero-sum economics that surround us. With output and exposure they can transition from making short term money off of less desirable income streams to their output itself but this does (and should) take time. Just because you own a Les Paul and wrote some songs doesn't entitle you to anything in particular. If people actually love your work enough to download it millions of times finding a fair (survival level +) income from that material isn't going to be the greatest struggle.


I think we agree on more than we disagree here. I don't think anyone is *entitled* to celebrity status or anything else. I don't set much stock by celebrity status either (I don't own a TV, and have never been too interested in sports and such either). There's also nothing wrong with an artist holding down more than one job, _as long as they are fairly compensated for *all* their work_, and being a musician is as valid a job as being a mechanic. If nobody actually wants their stuff, however great it is, then fair play. But zero-sum economics still doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be paid for their work, and in the same way that talent doesn't confer immunity from the real world, it doesn't open the door to being treated as a free commodity either. Even if it does take a long time until an artist can make a living solely from their art, there's still no justification for ripping them off along the way. And when they have (hopefully) made it to the big time, stealing $10 from Bill Gates is theft as much as it is to steal from a street beggar, even if the actual damage caused is lower. The lack of entitlement works both ways in my book.



> When people come to their senses and start to realize how much we've been overpaying artists, athletes and celebrities it might actually help art as a whole, weeding out those who only got into it to be pampered and leaving the "art game" for the real artists.


I don't object to paying a fair price for an album, and I think Stevie Wonder (for instance) deserves every penny of his success, which has come about as a direct of millions of other people feeling the same way. As far as the overpromoted, mass-produced rubbish goes, I would be happy to see it go, but by people making intelligent decisions about what music they want to listen to and not following the herd, rather than by theft. As for athletes, I agree (although they in fact only earn anything at all because of their abilities, as opposed to some "artists"). Celebrities - couldn't comment, because I've never understood the point at all...

Like I say, I think we're in agreement on many things here


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

spacedout said:


> Fair enough
> With respect, I just don't see how that can be used as a justification for downloading an album without paying for it.


I certainly didn't mean to justify illegal downloading. There is no justification, or no more than for any other crime that people commit. My only contention is that the music business can and will bounce back and that illegal downloading has a much smaller impact on artists than some artists are crediting.

Take Mike Lombardo, for instance. Who is Mike Lombardo? I asked Wikipedia, they didn't know. That's pretty telling. I asked Google, it returned a couple high up links to a trio. Maybe that's our Mike Lombardo. Now I'm not dissing the guy, I literally know nothing about him...but I'm supposed to believe that illegal downloads are the reason he can't live off his music (and not the fact that he's not very famous)? Small musical acts have been struggling to get by since forever, so I just don't see how illegal downloading has much of an impact one way or the other. If Mike was more popular, he'd sell more albums; plain and simple.

That's not a justification at all for people to rip off Mike; I sincerely hope they do not. But I think blaming illegal downloads all too often is used as an excuse when a musician's career hasn't really taken off. I'm going out on a limb but I think I'd say: it's never the actual reason.



> True, but the fact is that mass media *has* made it possible, and I'm not talking about becoming a celebrity, I'm talking about making an honest living from one's hard work. Why does the fact that Van Gogh didn't do too well while he was alive translate into a licence to make use of an album without paying?


I don't think it translates into any such license. I think it does, however, demonstrate that artists will kick out classics (as in, appreciated for hundreds of years to come) regardless of their monetary gain or lack thereof. Would it have been better if Van Gogh could have died with some money in his pocket? Probably so. But in the grand scheme of things it didn't lead to Van Gogh stopping his creation process in protest of counterfeiters (which, btw, the art world has been dealing with for a very long time without all the Metallica-esque crying).



> I think we agree on more than we disagree here. I don't think anyone is *entitled* to celebrity status or anything else. I don't set much stock by celebrity status either (I don't own a TV, and have never been too interested in sports and such either). There's also nothing wrong with an artist holding down more than one job, _as long as they are fairly compensated for *all* their work_, and being a musician is as valid a job as being a mechanic. If nobody actually wants their stuff, however great it is, then fair play. But zero-sum economics still doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be paid for their work, and in the same way that talent doesn't confer immunity from the real world, it doesn't open the door to being treated as a free commodity either. Even if it does take a long time until an artist can make a living solely from their art, there's still no justification for ripping them off along the way. And when they have (hopefully) made it to the big time, stealing $10 from Bill Gates is theft as much as it is to steal from a street beggar, even if the actual damage caused is lower. The lack of entitlement works both ways in my book.


I mostly agree with you. I don't think anyone necessarily "deserves" to be paid fairly in western capitalism (hence why we have unions). In fact, it seems to be one of the unspoken rules of zero-sum economics, that you essentially try to rip off everyone you legally (and sometimes illegally) can and pay your fines when they catch up to you, assuming they ever do. I don't think that's a very good model but what can I say, it's the one we're stuck with. This is the same way record companies have long justified cheating musicians out of their hard earned money for reasonably little in return. It's ironic to me that some of the most vociferously anti-downloading voices are the ones who have essentially been pilfering from creative people their entire careers.



> I don't object to paying a fair price for an album, and I think Stevie Wonder (for instance) deserves every penny of his success, which has come about as a direct of millions of other people feeling the same way. As far as the overpromoted, mass-produced rubbish goes, I would be happy to see it go, but by people making intelligent decisions about what music they want to listen to and not following the herd, rather than by theft. As for athletes, I agree (although they in fact only earn anything at all because of their abilities, as opposed to some "artists"). Celebrities - couldn't comment, because I've never understood the point at all...
> 
> Like I say, I think we're in agreement on many things here


I'm right there with you: I buy music because I want to support those musicians (or, more realistically, the business structures which support the musicians I love). I don't think that will change for me and many in my generation. What the industry is going to have to deal with is a new generation who don't have the fond memory of going to Peaches and digging around in the bins, album covers and release marketing, the excitement that led up to the next release for fans. Those days are gone. We can lament and sue thirteen year olds til the cows come home; or we can, as an industry, find a way to adapt and survive. I think the glory days of multi-million dollar studios and fancy tour buses are fading fast. It's time for artists and producers alike to be realistic about what the market will bear. Maybe producers will start to see (as the massive over-profiteering dries up) that there are other industries in which they can make their fortunes instead; to which I sway, Bon Voyage, we should be glad to be rid of anyone like that.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

It just seems to me that the right things are being said by the wrong people here (I don't mean you). Yes, sharing is a form of promotion, but that's something that only the artist can say, not some kid in his bedroom who can't be bothered paying up. Yes, filesharing damages artists, but that's not for a shady record exec to say either...

I take the point about Mike Lombardo (I'd never heard of him before this video either), but I don't think he's trying to say that he's been damaged in the past by sharing, only that he resents it being presented by someone else as a great thing for him and his career opportunities. I looked through some of the comments on his video above, and he responded to one of them by pointing out that all of his music can be freely listened to on his website by anyone who isn't interested in buying it, so he certainly isn't taking a dinosaur attitude to the issue. But he's sharing it of his own volition, and that's the difference IMHO.

As you say, this may all lead to the pruning of some dead wood from the industry. :yikes:


----------



## immortalgropher (Feb 16, 2010)

*I think blaming illegal downloads all too often is used as an excuse when a musician's career hasn't really taken off.*

Truth. On the flipside, you have greedy artists like lars ulrich who we all know probably wasn't getting killed by downloading who decided
to make a huge deal out of it just to get more money.
​


----------



## mikev (May 10, 2010)

I have been listening to music all my life and I have been a a IT computer person for almost 30 years (actually mainframes prior to 1982). Web came out of the closet in 95 and we started a digital revolution for the masses. When they tried to shutdown Napster it was like taking a mirror and dropping it on the floor; it created a thousands sites like it. The hacks wanted to stick it to the economic man, they made lots of Napster lookalikes. The internet was originally created by the defense department so a nuclear bomb could not destroy all lines of communication. Once the internet subnets grew in our world it was impossible for any one or government to control it. 

I don't think it was about ripping artists off it was about a digital revolution that allowed access to everything that was posted. I had 8 track tapes, records (now called vinyl), cassettes, cd, dvd's, and now mp3. Today I still buy music but it is online. I don't own a CD player anymore and have moved on. IF I buy a CD I immediately rip it so I can use the music in my multiple players whenever I want. I think artists got caught up in this freedom of sharing files as a unintended casualty. I was just reading an article about the p0rn industry lamenting that you can get it for free on the internet and it is ruining their business. Sound familiar?

I am all for the artists getting their money (I do sound, they get paid I get paid). But if an artists post or creates a CD and doesn't think about digital rights management then shame on them. I agree it is sad as to what I can download today for free. It's just not music that is getting downloaded, first run movies are starting to pop up from Asia as well.

There is no controlling the growth or the freedom of the internet. All you can do is produce files that allow you to mange your digital rights. I wish there was an easy answer or a governing body that could enforce the law of illegal copy. But that wont happen as the entire planet would have to agree together. The economic rules have changed radically in the digital age.

just my .02 worth


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

The problem with DRM as I see it is that it's _too_ restrictive - it tends to limit use for legit users. My mobile phone came with a 24-month unlimited downloads deal, but I can only listen to the tracks I download on my phone, or on one nominated computer. I've ended up hardly using the deal, because I want the freedom to move my music on to various devices, including my iPod, which isn't allowed. I'm not interested in jumping through hoops to get around the restrictions (and would have to put up with further reduced quality anyway), so I just haven't used it. Some would simply get their "free" music elsewhere.


----------

