Radiohead Manager , MAMA and Nettwerk Team Up to Create New Alternative to Record Labels

Radiohead Manager, MAMA and Nettwerk Team Up to Create New Alternative to Record Labels

Posted on 08. Jul, 2009 by refe in INNOVATION, NEWS

in rainbows | Radiohead Manager, MAMA and Nettwerk Team Up to Create New Alternative to Record Labels

Radiohead manager Brian Message has reportedly teamed up with MAMA Group and Vancouver-based Nettwerk Music Group to launch a new kind of record label, called Polyphonic. Polyphonic will allow artists to retain their copyright, and will give new artists a fifty-percent share of profits. Established artists may earn an even higher percentage, with hints of a kind of sliding scale. The new label is being founded with the intention of coming up with new, innovative digital release strategies for their artists along the lines of the pay-what-you-want download model of Radiohead’s In Rainbows.

Details are still slim, but with what we know so far Polyphonic promises to be a huge departure from the traditional record label business models in both the treatment of artists and openness to innovation.

Allowing artists to hold onto their copyrights is a welcome development, and frankly long over-due. For decades signing a deal with a record label meant the artist had to give up most of the rights to the music they created. Back in the day, artists had few alternatives – the expense of manufacturing and distribution necessitated the support of a label. New technology has leveled the playing field considerably, and this move could signal a new chapter in record label business practices. We can dream, right?

Brian Message is used to going against the grain of the industry. Aside from being a contributor to the pay-what-you-want strategy, he is also out-spoken on the issue of P2P. “We believe file-sharing by peer-to-peer should be legalised,” he is quoted saying. “The sharing of music where it is not for profit is a great thing for culture and music.”

Nettwerk’s Terry McBride is no stranger to innovation himself. In one of many examples, Nettwerk recently released ‘pre-mixes’ of yet unreleased tracks for fans to mix and mash. They chose the best of the best and released them alongside the official versions. Nettwerk is the home of artists like Sarah McLachlan, Great Lake Swimmers, Alexi Murdoch and Ladytron.

There is no information yet regarding who Polyphonic is looking to sign up first, but assuming that they have the rest of their ducks in a row, I would imagine that with a 50/50 split and a hands-off policy toward masters they shouldn’t have to much trouble attracting talent.

I am excited to see how this story develops. In particular, I’d like to hear more details about their model. Digital distribution means significantly reduced costs, but in a market where even the greed of the majors has hardly kept them afloat it will be interesting to see how they plan to offset the generous package they are offering artists. Smaller independent labels have had similar policies for years, but to see it work on a large scale would be impressive.

Share it if you like it:

Tags: ARTISTS, business models, MAMA Group, Nettwerk, radiohead, Terry McBride

4 Responses to “Radiohead Manager, MAMA and Nettwerk Team Up to Create New Alternative to Record Labels”

spinmeister

22. Jul, 2009

I don’t think it’s so much just a label, but a comprehensive 360 deal. Label seems too limiting a metaphor. And of this is good or bad for the artist will depend a lot on how the NET gets calculated before the 50% gets applied. Because there’s no way the 50% to the artist will be off any GROSS revenue. Businesses just don’t make 50% plus margins. Especially not in a business where supply is increasingly much higher than demand.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/20/polyphonic-music.html

The keyword is joint venture. Tricky territory, too, because there’s tons of up front marketing costs (not so much production). And let’s face it, while the music biz is often evil, the artists are often flaky. Always a tough combination to make work.
- refe
  
  22. Jul, 2009
  
  True, although the ‘joint venture’ language makes it sound like the arrangement may bypass a lot of the nonsense that usually goes along with a major label royalty agreement.
  
  Recording industry arrangements have always stood out from other industries – even other IP industries – for the way the ‘investors’ exploit the ones receiving their investments. The traditional deals are shameful! To bring the system more in line with traditional venture capitalism and traditional (non-music industry) investment relationships would be a welcomed shift.
  
  And yes, you’re right about the 50%. Especially when the other revenue streams are considered. 50% may actually be quite a bit if applied across the board – merchandise sales, touring profits, etc.
spinmeister

23. Jul, 2009

I think music makers are well advised to think of themselves in terms not dissimilar to many (most?) other professionals. You can be an employee (”work for hire”) for guaranteed cash with smaller or zero upside, or you can be an entrepreneur with zero guarantees and lots of upside.

But being an entrepreneur means you’ve got to have a basic understanding of legal (contracting and IP), accounting and tax, investment/funding, marketing and sales — all in addition to the base operations of your business (composing, arranging, producing, performing live and/or studio).

If you’re unwilling or unable to figure out a basic understanding of all of those fields which are part of every business, then you’re an employee at best and a victim at worst.

Of course none of your best efforts help, if access to market is controlled by an all powerful cartel, which it was and arguably still is to quite a degree. So at least the (much too slow) death of the cartel will hopefully restore some normal decent business behavior.

However this doesn’t change the fundamentals of supply vs. demand. As we increasingly find out, the supply of rather good recorded music is increasingly limitless. So correspondingly, the market value for recorded music is getting nearer to zero all the time. The supply of very good live music is probably not quite as plentiful, so at least in the short term, there’s probably some money in that.

But that means that “labels” as a separate commercial industry for recorded music is dead. While more comprehensive holistic ventures, which unite all of the things a music maker can and must do seem to make increasingly more sense. It also reflects the reality that most music makers have a combination of revenue streams – some work for music stores, some teach, some work for equipment manufacturers, some write software, some produce, some work musical theater in addition to doing rock/pop gigs, etc.

So my bottom line point is, that I would not call this new venture a “Label”. It deserves a different term. Not sure if there is one yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see one evolving. Heck, why don’t you coin a new term in this blog?
Notsure I Understand

06. Nov, 2009

In recently applying for this venture I was given a pdf file to outline all the numbers, earnings, and marketing teams associated with my music, asked to fill it in, and it would then be considered for Polyphonic’s interest.

My request to be considered for their project was as one of an intermediate in the business, and wanting to take my career to the next level. I would gain the benefit of experts who, already in the field, would know how to implement that for which I’ve no training or experience. The application appears to be one expecting many of these components to already be established, so I’m not entirely sure how this would be of benefit to an indie musician. It might be something in which an already established artist may be interested. Probably someone who already has the benefit of marketing, promotion, recording/production teams, distribution and many other things… in fact, perhaps someone who already has a record deal would like to give Nettwerk 50% of the earnings of his or her efforts.