Re: [microsound] McRecordCompany

[Tad Turner <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/26/02 at 6:59 AM, anechoic <kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ...so the collective idea
> looks great on paper but unfortunately it doesn't work in 99%
> of the time due to economic realities...

But is this because of some structural reason, or simply because no one
has a "good time" when they're losing money?

> channels and why distributors rip off labels so often
> etc...after all the money it takes an indie label to gain
> market mindshare via advertising, promotions, band tours, etc

I would suggest these costs you're citing, which contribute to indie
business losses, exactly confirm the difficulty (impossibility?) of
alternate economic models:

Distributors that would rather deal in lots of 100K CDs are the creation
of whom?

The cost of minshare in a system of commercial speech established by
whom?

> there have been some examples of collective run/operated record
> companies but they are few and far between...this was a popular
> model for some punk rock labels during the 80's: the artists
> were also the workers in the warehouse and shared in any
> 'profits' that were made...now the problem is what if an artist
> is working somewhere else? does the record company janitor want
> to share equally in the profits along with the artist who works
> elsewhere? the quick answer is 'no'

I would suggest a forced sale of stock upon departure from the company.
Sort of like a New York co-op: you buy shares to move in and you sell
shares when you leave.

It probably seems silly to buy your way into a job if you're a janitor,
but on the other hand, how many janitors are owners in a company? The
company could also offer ownership-based and non-ownership based
compensation, the choice being left up to the employee.

Anyway, don't want to go too far with this line of speculation. Suffice
to say that a collective organization equally shares in the profits when
business is good and equally shares in the misery when business isn't.

(Perhaps this is the cue to shift discussion to models of State support
for the arts.)

I thought your point about the artist was interesting, though. It
reminded me of _Bleach_. Sub Pop must have gotten a big windfall when
Nirvana made it big, even though the band wasn't "working for" Sub Pop
anymore.

I guess the trick is to stay is business long enough to actually benefit
from the early investment made in a group of artists.

Thanks, Kim!