Wow, that may be prove clever indeed. Having just written about the difficulties of making money through music – mainly due to the currently unrealistic hope on a fair digital rights management – I today ran across an Apple-related story. In this article the possibility of a new paid-for cloud-based streaming service is discussed, which is based upon the idea of providing mobile users with distributed versions of those songs on their harddisks (after a disc scan). By skipping the neccessity to upload, this sounds very convenient.

What makes this the more interesting is a note stating that this may also cover songs not purchased via iTunes (read: not purchased at all). By this, the labels and distributors may in fact gain at least some money from illegal copies. While many people will feel uncomfortable with Apple knowing about their files (and other Apple-related reasons), the sheer idea sounds rather interesting in the light of reimbursing artists. Well, at least the big labels ;)

(Pic by AMagill, CC)

 
How did we get here?

When I started to seriously get into electronic music as a producer in 2002, vinyl sales were just starting to decline due to digital sales and illegal downloads. Having never been a vinyl head, I was more than happy and willing to support the idea of breaking the dubplate cycle. At that time it really meant having a physical copy of a fresh, unreleased tune, which, typically, the producer himself had given to you. The dubplate vinyl therefore had the function of a doorkey. Know the right people, and you’re in. Be a newbie, well, better forget about it. As a result, the whole scene was centered around London, with people trading dubplates a lot.

As it had happened in history before, technology helped foster D&B democracy. The net not only shrinked the complete planet into a close-by neighbourhood, its digital foundation also allowed for substituting the vinyl hardcopy with mp3. This revolution was then pushed forward by the new ones in the scene, fresh producers who mostly knew each other through the various online forums. Maybe I’m single-minded, but to me it seemed as if the Neurofunk subscene, being techy by heart and sound, was the one to really embrace this approach for a global movement of new people with new skills.

Being young and ambitious, all we wanted was to see the light, challenging our own producer heroes of old. And it worked.

But over time, the complete electronic scene started to adapt to the game, commercial platforms appeared, and we entered D&B v2.0. Now, the bigger names were in, again, and with their good brands, they stayed on top, often because of their impressive powers in front of the crowd. Most newcomers were producers initially, not DJs, and therefore had to adapt to the performance side of it. But the DJ spot is what has been the aim of the game, always and ever. In the end, there is a beautifully inhomogenous mix of old DJ veterans and newcomer producers. Due to the fact that electronic music is something still kind of new, at least when compared to regular music, most actors are still at an age where they are far from retiring. It is no wonder, that now, in 2011, we have kind of an excessive supply of DJs, fighting for the money brought in by roughly the same amount of party people.

 
How is money generated in the (underground) electronic music biz anyway?

While in the vinyl days, scarcity was a power, and physical copies something to pay for, this has changed for long. Now, selling copies seems like a much harder thing to do. It is no wonder then, that even big names in the music industry, say Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, and others, are trying out new concepts. We have seen quite a lot of experiments on how to ask people to pay for music lately. Traditional CDs, digital downloads from Beatport and iTunes, pay-what-you-like downloads, freemium sales (free basic offer, pay for advanced/additional things), songs as apps (example), and more.

• In general, and opposed to regular music, generating an income through performing rights organizations does not work well for electronic music. There are too main reasons, one being the fact that the bigger numbers of people attending a club night are hidden behind the relatively small number of DJs and the music they buy. The other is that there basically is both no organization and no concensus among Djs/producers to embrace such a model. Paying producers to performing their music is something nobody embraces. This also holds true for online mixes, which have really become popular and helpful in spreading your sound.

• DJ fees are highly competed for, but in general they are reasonable good and the biggest fish in the money pond. With electronic music having become more professional over the years, an equilibirium has finally emerged between promoters and DJs. Still, the one to play a track often is not the one to having created it. And more important: Party people are willing to pay more (or at least come to attend), the more eagerly they want to hear someone play (superstar vs. nobody).

• Digital (and yes, some physical ones, too) music/apps stores sales are on the run, but will never be able to win the fight against illegal p2p.

• Additional services (lectures, workshops, etc.) exist, but due to the small market of professionals, its market cap probably is (still) pretty small. The one exception to this are remixes others pay you for.

• Merchandising: Seems like a good idea once people remember your name.

Well, how to make money then?

Basically, I see three approaches to make money with your music:

1. Sell music via shopping channels (stores/platforms), even setup your own online shop or wrap them in apps to increase margins
2. Give your music for free as marketing/advertising, and make money indirectly (through DJ fees, merchandising, production services i.e. remixes)
3. Differentiate from the mass, use the power of uniqueness/scarcity (live act, exclusive tracks not sold/shared)

Looking back and around, options 2+3 could play well together. They also fit to what other parts of the global (entertainment) industry seem to do: Create public interest and make yourself hard to copy, so people demand the original – you.

Where to go from here?

The optimal method would of course be to compensate producers for the time and effort they put into creating music by embracing a modern licensing/performance rights model. DJs ask producers for good tracks and then share some of the money they make by playing the tunes. As opposed to traditional performing rights approaches, I think a more license-based way among (semi-)professionals would be the way to go. This could also be done via peer groups or clans you choose to participate in.

Why is noone selling merch at shows? Every single band does it (way to often to just get in the gas money).

Finally, once you have aquired a certain level of professional knowledge, there should be ways to sell this knowledge to others via services.

Another fine interview by RA mag on the borders between live set and DJing.

EBK interview.

Looking back, you have to admit that Darren White may be the most influencal person in D&B, having been part of both Bad Company (back then) and Autonomic (now). This is the more impressive as the two styles are quite different and thus show how he has been able to grow as an artist.

In this beautiful RA interview, he speaks about his work in studio, outboard gear (“Gear lust”), and the fragility of your own voice. I wished there were more people as honest and open-minded as he is.

Here the guys are talking about their album, its influences and their complicated relationship with DnB.

Instramental interview at FACT mag