What The Hell Is Up With Rock in Atlanta

TheBigA · Sep 3, 2012

agentUrge said:
I guess, in the end, while I'm a bit bummed that there doesn't appear to be much support for rock right now, on the other hand, I don't mind being part of a musical minority. But it's made it harder for people who don't have access to satellite or internet radio.

I think your post is more to the point I was making earlier. The rock radio stations that are having success right now are those that play a variety of rock styles, either rock-pop or alternative-rock. Some of them have to mix in a lot of classic rock or other older hits to get ratings. Meanwhile, the real rock fans end up hearing music they don't like. My point was that A&R has gone away in rock. If you're a band with a fan base, you get signed, release a record, and you tour. But there's more to artist development than that. I see lots of rock bands on Letterman and Kimmel, and I wonder who they are. That's not good artist development, and it's up to the labels to do it, not radio. If you build strong acts that people know, you get the foundation for a radio format. The labels have (1) signed too many small acts, (2) allowed the rock genre to be diluted into multiple mini-formats, and (3) not invested in building a few major national touring acts. Compare rock to country. Look at how they build acts like Eric Church or Brantley Gilbert. Why isn't that done in rock? Brantley is an act who might have received rock airplay in the past, but he gets better label support now in country. Twenty years ago, you had major multi-act rock tours. That's how you build artists. These days, acts depend on multi-act festivals like Coachella or Bonnaroo. There's a need for someone to take a leadership role in rock music, or more artists will be looking to shift to other radio formats where they get the kind of support necessary to grow a career.

jabba17 · Sep 4, 2012

TheBigA said:
agentUrge said:

I guess, in the end, while I'm a bit bummed that there doesn't appear to be much support for rock right now, on the other hand, I don't mind being part of a musical minority. But it's made it harder for people who don't have access to satellite or internet radio.

Click to expand...

I think your post is more to the point I was making earlier. The rock radio stations that are having success right now are those that play a variety of rock styles, either rock-pop or alternative-rock. Some of them have to mix in a lot of classic rock or other older hits to get ratings. Meanwhile, the real rock fans end up hearing music they don't like. My point was that A&R has gone away in rock. If you're a band with a fan base, you get signed, release a record, and you tour. But there's more to artist development than that. I see lots of rock bands on Letterman and Kimmel, and I wonder who they are. That's not good artist development, and it's up to the labels to do it, not radio. If you build strong acts that people know, you get the foundation for a radio format. The labels have (1) signed too many small acts, (2) allowed the rock genre to be diluted into multiple mini-formats, and (3) not invested in building a few major national touring acts. Compare rock to country. Look at how they build acts like Eric Church or Brantley Gilbert. Why isn't that done in rock? Brantley is an act who might have received rock airplay in the past, but he gets better label support now in country. Twenty years ago, you had major multi-act rock tours. That's how you build artists. These days, acts depend on multi-act festivals like Coachella or Bonnaroo. There's a need for someone to take a leadership role in rock music, or more artists will be looking to shift to other radio formats where they get the kind of support necessary to grow a career.

Is there still a real role for labels and A&R? Or is the new normal DIY and getting yourself heard above the din?

I guess my question is what do labels/A&R bring to the party, besides being a filter, especially since payola independent promotion is pretty much a thing of the past? Or are the new labels the 360 degree management outfits like Live Nation?

TheBigA · Sep 4, 2012

jabba17 said:
Is there still a real role for labels and A&R? Or is the new normal DIY and getting yourself heard above the din?

I guess my question is what do labels/A&R bring to the party, besides being a filter, especially since payola independent promotion is pretty much a thing of the past? Or are the new labels the 360 degree management outfits like Live Nation?

I think that's a very good question, and from what I see, the labels are still the only part of the business investing in the music. The labels are supposed to provide the seed money for the artist development. Compare artist development in pop, urban, and country with what you see in rock, in terms of building demand for the artist.

DIY music is fine if all you want to do is play 500 seat clubs and tour the southeast. If the goal is to become the next U-2, you need money from some place, and no one else is investing. In fact, the company you mentioned, Live Nation, got out of the 360 business a few years ago because they didn't want to spend. They were used to just taking money in. The Zac Brown Band is an Atlanta based band that was left without a label because Live Nation pulled the rug out. Ultimately, Atlantic Records in New York picked up the bill, and now the Zac Brown Band is a multi-platinum act. Only the record labels are willing to do a five year investment plan on an act, support them through a radio promotion tour, and put together a multi-act national arena tour that will build interest and demand. Once you have demand, you get radio airplay. Until then, you're just another act with a web site and Facebook page. So what?

jabba17 · Sep 4, 2012

TheBigA said:
jabba17 said:

Is there still a real role for labels and A&R? Or is the new normal DIY and getting yourself heard above the din?

I guess my question is what do labels/A&R bring to the party, besides being a filter, especially since payola independent promotion is pretty much a thing of the past? Or are the new labels the 360 degree management outfits like Live Nation?

Click to expand...

I think that's a very good question, and from what I see, the labels are still the only part of the business investing in the music. The labels are supposed to provide the seed money for the artist development. Compare artist development in pop, urban, and country with what you see in rock, in terms of building demand for the artist.

DIY music is fine if all you want to do is play 500 seat clubs and tour the southeast. If the goal is to become the next U-2, you need money from some place, and no one else is investing. In fact, the company you mentioned, Live Nation, got out of the 360 business a few years ago because they didn't want to spend. They were used to just taking money in. The Zac Brown Band is an Atlanta based band that was left without a label because Live Nation pulled the rug out. Ultimately, Atlantic Records in New York picked up the bill, and now the Zac Brown Band is a multi-platinum act. Only the record labels are willing to do a five year investment plan on an act, support them through a radio promotion tour, and put together a multi-act national arena tour that will build interest and demand. Once you have demand, you get radio airplay. Until then, you're just another act with a web site and Facebook page. So what?

If that's the case, it sounds like what you need is less a label who owns your recordings (since the recording and distribution part can now be completely DIY) but may or may not be able to do much else and more of a management company or agency who does some kind of revenue share agreement and is incented to literally invest in your act.

That's not to say that Big Music can't do that, but it's more and different than providing studio time, pressing vinyl, and flooding a bunch of independently owned radio stations with promo copies while getting some ink in the trades.

That seems like a growth strategy for Big Music anyway, since there's not as much money to be made today with selling plasticware. Big Music blames piracy, but Wally World, Amazon, and Apple have really put the big hurt on Big Music, with their immense pricing pressure. Considering that, and considering that most artists don't make back their advances until many years later if at all, why not make the recording part+rights DIY and take your slice of the whole pie?

TheBigA · Sep 4, 2012

jabba17 said:
Considering that, and considering that most artists don't make back their advances until many years later if at all, why not make the recording part+rights DIY and take your slice of the whole pie?

I'm in the radio business, not the music business. Perhaps the collapse of the traditional label system has hurt rock music more than other genres. Maybe the fall is so obvious because it fell from such a high place. But what I see is an over-abundance of artists playing small clubs, and very few playing arenas. What happened to THAT side of rock? Why is it only country, urban, and pop can sell out larger venues, while rock artists are still in a van playing beer halls? This is not to say that country doesn't have a lot of DIY artists. They do. But they're not getting a lot of airplay either. The audience for a radio station is much larger than a 500 seat club. So when I get a press release that someone has sold out a beer hall, that doesn't make me want to play their record. Especially when I have no shortage of acts who play arenas and are ready for the big time. Radio can help if you're ready, but radio can only provide publicity and an audience. Someone else has to foot the bill. Management's cut come from the money it takes in, not the money it spends. Same with the promoter. That's where the label comes in and saves the day. If you're a DIY artist, who saves the day? Right now, some are trying Kickstart. But that's similar to the pledge system in the non-profit world. Sure it can attract a lot of money. But it really hasn't created any superstars yet.