What place does the music 'industry' have given the rise of internet metal music culture?

One of the first arguments in this particular discussion was that the industry definitely has a place, but that there is - or that there needs to be - a two-tiered approach to the metal music industry. The two-tiered approach argues that some fans are turned off by "industry" when it becomes too vertical. In this situation, the bigger labels are often blamed by fans for ruining the scene, whilst indie labels are put on a pedestal and given the respect for "doing right" by both bands and fans. An example provided by one member of the chat was of Opeth's move to Roadrunner, and the skepticism among fans that this created, simply because of the nature of the other bands on Roadrunner's roster.

And yet, the smaller bands are often seen as working harder than do bands on bigger labels.

This two-tiered approach was put forward by one of Metal as Fuck's contributors, and, read against the metal chat from last week, it holds a lot of water. Many of those involved in the chat tended to argue that labels "should" become obsolete, without thinking about the bigger picture.

What is that bigger picture? That labels are, and do, so much more than many people outside of the industry think that they do.

But the argument against major labels is also multifaceted. On the one hand there is an argument about two levels of the industry; on the other hand, there is an argument that major labels, far from ruining the scene, tend to homogenise it. The discussion centred around the fact that when a trend like metalcore or deathcore hit it big, all the other labels started to fall over themselves to sign bands that sounded the same. A result of that is a sense of tiredness among metal fans of an entire subgenre.

Some of the questions asked where whether that homogeneity really pays off, and isn't variety and originality a good thing that should pay off? But even if that's the case, if a really good band is 'on a terrible label, they are likely to get less recognition', said one participant.

Despite there being a general feeling of dislike amongst some chat participants towards labels: with a general consensus that labels limit bands' control of creation processes, art and sales. In particular, the notion that major labels are absolutely necessary if bands are going to undertake large-scale tours, disgusted some: to the point where one person stated: 'I don't think the industry should have a place. I'd love to see it back t the band doing it on their own'.

As  one participant put it, 'That's the rub. The system works now based on access to cash. How do we replace labels? Band co-ops?'

While cooperatives might be one answer, getting some subgenres to work collaboratively - seriously extreme or elitist black metal acts for instance - was conceded as a bit of a joke.

The trend overwhelmingly from the chat was that the more money involved, the less forgiving people are going to be about what goes on. The notion that bands 'need' the music industry in order to tour, gain widespread publicity, and so on, if only because of a money issue, really rubs some people the wrong way.

The other elements of labels' functionality - the PR and publicity - can, as one chat participant put it, turn some metalheads off. It's not the density of the publicity that does this, but the perceived control over that publicity: trying to keep it all 'good', or consistent, or otherwise, across nearly all media possible. And yet, the rise and fairly swift fall of nu-metal and metalcore has made a lot of people wary of strong over-campaigning. Metalheads are now more wary of what they see in the press - especially good press - because of having been burnt by the publicity machine in the past.

And, as with the previous chat, the issue of elitism, and notions of success, again reared their ugly heads. It made me think that perhaps this really is the biggest issue of them all.

At about halfway through the chat, AublivionMedia, a 'nu-rules' label, came online and were able to add their two cents. These guys are a small indie label that are starting to sign bands; but they make sure that they don't 'rape them of their royalties': these guys make sure that of all the money that comes in, the label and the band splits it evenly 50/50, and they don't hold onto bands' rights. The reason? Half the work is creating the music and the product, but an equal amount of effort goes into promoting, selling, and managing. 

As AublivionMedia put it succinctly, 'a good label is the organised epicentre for the booking, management, A&R and publicity that drives a band' - in other words, the business end. They do it in such a way as to enable a band to focus on what they do best.

But the interesting point was that this label contended that bands can never replace the authority of a label to tell people what is good or bad in terms of music. This comes from the idea that having one body with a collection of bands that the body vouches for says a lot for it: the label is, after all, working its arse off to promote and sell that collection of bands. But at the same time, AublivionMedia conceded that indie labels have very little media authority, and have to work with what they can get.

But in the digital age, where publicity is easier to get for free, if done well, the big question much more about whether the industry can adapt well enough, easily enough, and quickly enough to retain its place and relevance. As it was put by one participant last week, 'It's its job to adapt. If it can't, it will be replaced by whatever is able to do it better'.

The key points from this chat

• the more money involved, and the more control over the publicity machine (by the label rather than the band) the greater the negative perception of that label by fans
• there is a perception that the entire music industry 'system' is based on access to cash - from touring to publicity to merchandise
• that labels, especially small or indie labels, who provide a fair deal for artists, are outside the 'usual' loop
• that the major labels have greater media authority because of the fact they represent larger numbers of bands - and have more media weight
• that once labels start to run their own street press and pull advertising for negative press elsewhere, it's a bad sign (and is also when the backlash begins)
• that the music industry must adapt to new perceptions if it is to survive