As I’ve mentioned before on the site, I wanted to write some longer articles from time to time where we can discuss some of the other aspects of electronic music, outside of the music itself.
Previously I’ve discussed whether or not a mainstream audience will ever accept music without lyrics and how this might play a role in the future of electronic music.
Today I want to talk about the “free music” business model that is practiced by many electronic artists, and I want YOUR opinion on whether or not you think this is a good business model for artists to follow, or whether it is done out of necessity.
A few of you are starting to get to know me outside of the music posted on the site, and so you may know that I’m a young aspiring entrepreneur who likes to work for himself, and enjoys things like understanding marketing and business management (fun fact: I’ve only ever had one job throughout college, the rest of the time I worked for freelance and ran a very small business).
I only wanted to start this post off like this not to give you my life story, but to show why I take an interest in this side of the music scene.
You may not care as much, but I can tell you one thing: the artists that you enjoy sure do.
And so I wanted to discuss whether or not this “free music model” of business that you find in practice is a good way for artists to make a living, or if its simply something that they’ve had to adapt to due to the availability of downloads for their music; whether they intend for them to be free or not.
What Is The Free Music Model?
The free music model, in many ways, is tied to the “freemium” model that many web 2.0 businesses have taken in the few years.
In a nutshell: release (much) of your music for free, make money from concert tickets, merchandise, and donations.
I have to add that in some instances, songs have to be released for free, if they include samples that the artists could not attain rights for in order to sell, but did obtain rights to use.
Are Artists Using It Successfully?
This may surprise some people, but yes, a few notable artists have been using this model for years and continue to thrive and make music.
For the sake of this post, I’m going to focus on the most obvious example in electronic music, the Pretty Lights Music label.
I respect Derek not only as an artist, but also as a businessman. Think about this: what kind of confidence does it take to release all of your music for free, with no exceptions, with the hope that the music will be so well received that you will no doubt have people begging to see you live?
I’m not the accountant for PLM or anything, but with the recent signings of new artists, the fact that Pretty Lights is always on tour and a headliner everywhere he goes, and the huge growth in fans that all of the artists on the label have seen has me thinking that Derek and crew are at least able to make a living doing what they love: making music.
Are Artists Forced Into This Model?
However… I have to ask, do the many artists you see using this model enjoy working in this way, and see it as the optimal way of creating income so that they can continue to make more music, or are they forced into this model out of necessity?
If you follow the music industry even slightly, you’ll know that most mainstream artists these days are making most of their bank on tours and not through album sales, but this is also attributed to the huge chunk that labels take out of each album purchased.
With independent artists, the main culprit might be seen as illegal downloading, since many artists either found their own label or release their music independently until they’ve reached a point where it is no longer reasonable to do so.
While download has an effect on everyone that creates music, many artists have been able to create buzz for themselves by purposely releasing music for free, something that just wasn’t done before the days of the internet.
Now, however, people have come to expect as least something for free (I am guilty of this; if I see a new album coming out, I immediately expect for there to be a free “preview” track of some sort).
Now, many artists are fine with giving away a few free tracks to generate buzz, but certainly they shouldn’t feel obligated to do so, however, the state of music in the year 2011 almost demands that every artist who doesn’t have signifcant buzz already at least release a few free tracks, no exceptions, to grow an audience.
The Typical Solution
The general solution for most artists is to release tracks that are remixes or feature another aritsts work, as I’ve mentioned above, these tracks usually have to be released for free due to copyright issues.
The Glitch Mob did this with their “Seven Nation Army” remix, and were able to massively build their email list by giving away the song to anyone that subscribed to their mailing list.
If you are an independent artist, you recognize the power of a large email list hopefully: whenever you release a larger project, such as an album, you can instantly email a list of thousands (perhaps tens, and even hundreds of thousands) about your new work, which is critical for sustaining yourself in the music biz.
What Do You Think?
If you’re an artist or even just a fan of music, I want to hear your opinion.
Do you think that artists releasing their music for free are following a good business model?
Do you feel like artists are forced into releasing free music due to the demands of the current music market?
Is it better or worse for artists to make most of their income from sources associated with their brand & music (merch, etc.), rather than the music itself?
If you found this interesting, please give this post a share so we can have more input on the subject. Thank you for reading!
