Here comes the second part of the interview. More stuff on how the 'business' of putting out records has changed over the years and how labels like LIB try to cope with it... expect more interviews soon. If you are interested in what other owners of small independent HC-label owners have to say about selling records in the age of the internet, please check this column of Felix/ Havoc records and this interview with the guy who runs Magic Bullet records.
If labels need to 're-organize' as you say, in what way do they need to re-organize? Are digital releases the future? Likewise: can Cd's considered to be an outdated medium? Or should a hardcore label like LIB go back to the roots and only do vinyl releases?The cd IS an outdated medium, that's out of the question. It is bulky, slow, has only 70 minutes of playtime, does not support multimedia and is way to expensive. Of course we do not have to automatically deny everything that is outdated but compared to vinyl (which has been outdated for decades now) the cd hardly has any nostalgic value. It's a little bit comparable to VHS-videocassettes. No one would shed a tear, cramming out their old VHS-tapes and thinking of the good old days. Vinyl has a big advantage compared to the cd when it comes down to nostalgia and "emotional value": it is not a "passage media", as I would call it. The cd was crucial and necessary for the shift from the analog music-world to the digital, but this process has been completed years ago. To come to the point: Vinyl is old, it is vintage, it is a technological chapter of its own. The cd was only a means to an end. That's why I believe the cd will sooner or later disappear completely. When that will be depends on the "next sound carrier" that comes along. Do you remember when the DVD came up? It took only a couple of month and all VHS-cassettes were completely banned from the stores. That's a great example to see how quick such "shifts" can happen. However, since there's no "next sound carrier" yet (at least no system that is mass-suitable enough) we will live with the compact disc as main sound-carrier for another couple of years, I guess.
Coming back to the question: Yes, I believe that labels should start preparing for the digital age. Digital record sales have increased constantly over the past years and if you look over the big sea to the US, they alredy have a good 40% of all record sales being bought digitally. That's a good indicator where we're gonna end up sooner or later, too. The other way to go is vinyl. Sounds weird, I know, but the nostalgia this media carries is deeply rooted within the hardcore-/punk-scene. Vinyl has a great standing among collectors and music-fans all over the world and the combination with free digital downloads of the music simply leaves not many arguments left why one should not buy vinyl. However vinyl still is a niche-thing. You can only reach a "hard core" of listeners which might be cool for a hardcore-hardcore band but any band that is willing and wanting to also address listeners outside of the scene will have to look for a label which also releases other formats.
This question might sound a bit rude, but why should 'the kids' actually care about all this? I suppose HC has been around before the crisis of the 'music industry' and will be around afterwards...No worries, I am already used to "rude questions" when it comes down debating with Final Prayer over this topic ;-) Well, even though that hardcore-scene has moved quite a bit away from what I got to know back in the early 90s, I still believe that there is a great awareness for ecological, social and political procedures among hardcore kids, these days. So why should they care about the "music industry" at all? Because they can either become/stay a cue ball of the music industry or they can start making their own decisions. The time is perfect to tell labels, promoters, bands, etc. what YOU want instead of simply taking what they offer you. It's a little bit like breaking into Troya with a great plan and then not giving a fuck about what's gonna happen next. The fans and listeners have contributed a big part to the crisis of the music industry by using the internet as some kind of "everything for free"-store, which was a good and important thing in the beginning. But now is the time to sort out how we all want to handle the process of creating, releasing, promoting and selling music in the future. The chance for codetermination has never been as high as now, within the hardcore AND outside of it. Say how you want to access music, scream out if you think pricing-policies are ridiculous, laugh out loud a promo-campaigns and ads that would never make you buy a record and most of all: decide consciously how you purchase your music. Labels, bands and bookers will listen to you and go into it.
Isn't it a bit far-fetched to assume that big corporations like Sony or Warner will all of sudden "care" about their customers. I mean companies always "care" about their customers insofar as they want them to buy their products in order to make money. But this does in no way necessarily mean that they'll create products according to the demands of their customers. I mean now that vinyl is coming back, Sony and Warner start selling Lp's for 20 Euros (instead of Cd's) - that's ridiculous from my point of view... Well, you said it yourself, the do care about making money (or at least surviving) and thus their customers play a key role. Even though I agree with your sample (major label's vinyl pricing is ridiculous) I am quite sure that the time of heedlessly exploiting customers are over. For 5-7 years there's grown too much consciousness among fans and buyers. The "illegal download disaster" has shown both, the labels and the customers, who really is in power. Sure, labels (especially multi-million-dollar corporations like Sony or Warner) will always try to maximize their profits but the times of constantly overstepping the mark are over. The labels' role has become less important - due to the social web there's a way stronger direct link between the artist (by the way: it is the ARTIST who creates the product. The label just throws it into wrapping paper and puts a price sticker on it) and the fan than ever before and the labels know that.
It's tough for me to speak "for" those big major labels since I do not have enough information of what's really going on in these companies. In addition to that it is not my point to defend their marketing- and pricing-strategies. I rather focus on mid-range and smaller labels since I have a deeper view and that's also the environment of Let it Burn Records. I see a lot of labels searching for "things that work" and if it is adding digital booklets to iTunes downloads: they do it. If it's offering pre-order deals (shirt + cd) for 15,00 euro instead of 25,00: they do it. If it's focusing on a nice and meaningful artwork: they do it. So, to pick up my previous point, I see way more effort and willingness among labels to step towards their "customers" than ever before.
And don't you overestimate the 'rationality' of us customers in the first place. If you'd ask me what I want, I'd say make music free for all. Put everything up for free download. Art should be for everybody to enjoy, not only for those with enough money to buy it. How are you gonna turn this attitude into a new marketing strategy for independent labels?One thing that hasn't changed during the constant decline of CD sales is the average amount of money each customer spends on music in general. It's easy math: If someone saves 12,00 Euro for not having to buy an album he/she will surely spend this money on a concert ticket and/or merchandise item The general purchasing power has not decreased at all, it's simply channelled into a different direction. If independent labels now thoughtfully reorganize their marketing- and pricing-strategies they will surely regain their core business: selling music. By the way, I agree with you that art should be accessible for everybody to enjoy but I totally disagree that it should be offered for free, no matter what. Artistic value might not be something you can fully compensate with solely money but to a certain degree "paying" for art (especially when the production-process - studio, artwork, pressing, etc. - has caused expenses) is just a reasonable thing. So if people claim to get things, they impute a certain value to, "for free", it's highly contradictory, if you ask me.
Do you think it's possible that through the demise of the record industry possibilities to get your hands on independent records will actually become more narrow, because only a few big players will survive, themselves ending up with some sort of quasi-monopoly over the market? Or I am not taking the multiple channels of the internet enough into consideration here?Nope, I don't see any risk like this. There will always be bands wanting to present their art/music and they will surely find ways to do that. If everything fails and record labels just don't get it, things might break down to a more diy-level again, making the bands doing it themselves. As you indicated, the internet has a lot of potential in this context. A risk that I do see, though, is a limited amount of major labels holding the monopoly on a certain sound carrier or transmission path for music. an example: Just image Sony or Warner (or Microsoft, or Apple, or Google, etc.) develop a new and easy way to buy and consume music that EVERYBODY follows. They'd surely have a dangerous monopoly on that. It's a bit like the combination "Apple iTunes + Apple iPod" which nowadays is the most common way of consuming music. Even though this "system" is the most successful these days, it is far away from being a monopoly. You can add your own mp3s to your iTunes library (you don't have to buy all your music from iTunes) and there's dozens of other audio-players and media libraries you can use. However such things change quickly these days and the risk of a big corporation abusing their advantage definitely is high.
