« How Spotify Changed Music | Main | Free Web-Sourced Playlist Creator Musicplayr Launches Public Beta »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Oh the irony, I guess we are a long time removed from Napster, damn the man! Right Lars?

Sean Harley [Tucker]

Between this Metallica article and the Trent Reznor news what this says to me is there is no single path to the stadium anymore.

If you do great stuff that people love, when it comes to the business side, you have the option to do it yourself, hire someone to do it for you or partner with label (indie or major).

Those may have always been the choices but the concept of building/hiring your own team is much more realistic now.

Sean Harley [Tucker]

I'm not sure I see the irony you are seeing. They are still selling a product, they just get to use a lower price point because of fewer people in the middle.

I think the free music and concerts on youtube.com/MetallicaTV is the irony you are looking for.

Jason Spitz

I think the difference between Reznor and Metallica in this instance is rooted in the type of release they're putting out (and their goals for said release).

Reznor is trying to "break" How To Destroy Angels and capture a wider audience for his new band than he was able to reach via DIY the first time around. He needs global exposure and marketing muscle, so a major label makes sense.

The Metallica project sounds like something only their existing fans would want -- who else would buy a Live DVD from the tour of a middling album that came out 4 years ago? Metallica doesn't need a big flashy marketing campaign for this release to be successful. They just need a solid D2F infrastructure. Given the financial benefits of the D2F approach, it makes a lot of sense for this DVD project to be released independently.


The major labels and that system could be effective and still work as a postive force in the world, if they were not publicly held corporations. When a company has to answer to stockholders, all that matters is the short term, the quarterly projections and profits.

Labels that are not traded on Wall Street will be looking at the long term, investing in artists and their mutally dependent futures, and have more room to think about artistic and innovation considerations.

Just my 2 cents....


Also, the lack of interest in the artist at major labels leads this end.
Metallica should do this years ago.. but due to their contract hopefully they couldnt..
Now they should be a little shame about suing Napster..
On the otherhand, facebook/youtube/itunes and etc. Are worse than napster and filesharing years..
Even you are a respected artist you dont get paid enough. All the collector societies, publishers made more than any artist around.. popular or non popular..
Going independent could be good for major artists if they have enough money on marketing etc.
In the past there were examples like Klf, mute records etc.
They pressed their own records and made them distributed by majors..
I think the most important thing is the distribution..
Digital or physical.. right now the biggest distributor(!)is youtube. In my country Turkey, everyone knows for example PSY and the single "gangnam style" but we dont event have itunes in turkey..
All is from youtube.. they listen youtube not watch..
thats the new music format.. who cares the artist independent or major signed..

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources