The future of music studios

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails announced recently that he he doesn't need need no steenkin' music studios, leaving the days of contract-based servitude behind him in favor of the open fields of free agent status. This gives him the opportunity to sell direct to customers in any fashion - and at any price point - he chooses.  In so doing, he follows in the footsteps of Radiohead, who decided to offer their complete album online, giving fans the option to pay what they think the album deserves. Can't beat file traders? Radiohead's answer, it would seem, is to give them the free music that they want.

As has been well noted elsewhere, such revenue model experimentation is a lot easier to manage when you already have all the fame and money you could ever need and want. Radiohead doesn't require the promotion that comes with a big studio contract, nor does Mr. Reznor. Both are well-known to their fans, and both likely could have operated contract-free years ago...if only their contracts had allowed them to do so.

On the other hand, it is a simple fact that the Internet has reduced promotion costs across the board, making it feasible for even guys in their garage to effectively market themselves using tools available on an ordinary desktop computer. Dane Cook the comedian used MySpace quite effectively to build buzz for himself, and YouTube has served as springboard to bigger things for a number of digital artists. I recently took the beta version of the new Internet TV feature in Media Center for a spin, and noted a number of trailers for what looked like low-budget films included in the preview media. Add to this the fact that modern-day digital editing tools are low-cost and easy to use, and it seems clear that musicians and digital artists don't really need big studios as much as they used to.

On the other hand, saying that musicians and artists don't need studios is like saying Tom Cruise didn't need a good image consultant a few years ago.

Studios offer more than just onerous contractual obligations. Studios still have great marketing contacts, and their experience at catering to what consumers want can help shape an artist into something that has real staying power. I'm not saying that artists should dream of turning themselves into a factory-created Wonder bread band (just add sugar and gleaming white smiles). Rather, it's like the difference between Joe the crackerjack computer programmer who wears wrinkly clothes and mumbles when he speaks, and Joe the crackerjack programmer who wears nice clothes and speaks eloquently. In the latter case, Joe makes a hell of a lot more money than in the former. Further, Joe isn't any less of a programmer for his troubles.

Studios offer marketing connections, but also help to shape a band into a product that people want. That matters, and though Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails now have the name recognition necessary to sell new albums completely on their own, their ability to do that came by way of studio-provided image expertise and marketing connections. Radiohead, it's worth remembering, started life as a group of friends attending a boys-only school in Oxfordshire.

Using modern tools for expressing digital creativity, more musicians and artists will find ways to promote themselves without needing the attentions of studios. All that means, however, is that the relationship is more balanced. Studios can no longer act as gatekeepers to a life of creative expression. They do, however, still offer something important. Musicians will still want to sign with them, albeit under terms vastly more limited than in the past.

That is the lesson to be derived from the Reznors and Radioheads of the world, not that studios are going away, but that their role is changing. 

That IS a good thing.