RSS
Twitter
Yes, Being In Rock Band Or Guitar Hero Helps Bands Sell More Music
from the among-other-things dept
Last week, we mentioned that it was silly for musicians (and labels) to complain about their music being in the video games Guitar Hero or Rock Band -- which some folks challenged in the comments. Yet, just in time, the Associated Press comes out with an article detailing how being in any of those games significantly increases sales of music, sometimes more than triple what they were prior to their inclusion in the games. Some musicians are also making a lot more due to image and likeness deals, but on the whole being in those games is a boost to traditional sales.
The article does note that the labels are upset that they don't think they're getting enough, because the labels, in their typical short-sighted view, only focus on how much they get directly from the game makers, whining that it's less than they would get from selling a bunch of albums. Well, duh. But, they conveniently leave out that being in the games increases sales of the albums too. It also notes that Edgar Bronfman's earlier whining is a bunch of meaningless fluff -- because if Bronfman ever stopped allowing Warner Music songs in those video games, a significant number of musicians would look to switch labels, since they actually recognize how valuable the games are. Bronfman's mistake is to think that it's the music that's valuable, but basically everyone else realizes he's got the equation backwards.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I can't even count the number of artists that I have fallen in love with after playing their music in Rock Band.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The door swings both ways, doesn't it?
EA and Activision also benefit from including those songs in their games or they wouldn't be seeking them out. Its not just the game that makes the music more valuable, the music makes the game more valuable. The same game mechanics set to computer generated music patterns would not be the hit that it is now. The draw is in pretending to actually play THE MUSIC.
It doesnt have to all be about one or the other. THE GAME needs THE MUSIC. Is one more important to the equation? Probably. But lets not pretend that its hitting colored gems in sequence is compelling all on its own. A little humility on both sides is in order here.
As for money goes, the question is: are the musician being properly compensated for increasing the sales of Rock Band and Guitar Hero?
Isn't there some possibility that they are undervaluing the material they sell to the music game companies?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
While the game does indeed need the music, it doesn't need to rely on mainstream music from the major labels. The labels, however, don't seem to understand this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I really hope they just move on and get label/artists who are happy to be there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
@ cryix
You must be forgetting the original Guitar Hero. It lacked music industry cooperation and was full of cover songs and poor recordings. Yet it spawned an entire genre.
Granted, the digitally remastered songs on the newest games make the game much better, but with the advent of Music studio (a portion of the game that allows users to create their own music) mainstream music can take a back seat.
Labels should be looking for new venues, like gaming, to seek out new audiences for their old, stale and formula made music (if you can call it that).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not forgetting anything. That's actually a terrific example of THE MUSIC making the game better.
You're aware that Harmonix did not invent the "pressing buttons in time to music on plastic instruments" genre, right? They got some great songs and polished the gameplay and pushed it mainstream on the backs of the musicians that they did covers of.
I dont know one way or the other if record labels and artists are being taken advantage of by Activision and EA or just being greedy. But outright dismissing either possibility from your armchair simply because "they get something too!" seems ridiculous.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Air-Head
I'm beginning to wonder if I owe Pete Townsend for playing air guitar to his music for all these years?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Air-Head
On the flip side, maybe I can sue for getting tennis elbow from doing the windmill.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow Cyrix, you must work in the music industry because your bias smells.
This is like saying putting a radio in a car sells more cars... so the recording industry should get a cut there to.
Fact is... the songs they're putting in these products sold 6 copies yesterday, and the day after the game comes out they're selling 600.... and the music industry says its all about the songs! WTF!
Guitar Hero has sold more music than the music has sold Guitar Hero.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The relationship between the music companies and the game producers seems to be a classic symbiotic relationship. The game producers benefit from using well known and popular music, and the music companies benefit from the use of their music in conjunction with the game.
Obviously, situations like this are always ripe for a business deal accommodating the respective interests of each party. Of course, a beneficial outcome depends heavily on each party having realistic expectations. Despite the obvious discord, it is not at all clear that each party is being reasonable, and in the end each party may be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Interestingly enough, I caught a radio show called rockline a month or two back that had Metallica on. Down towards the end of the show they were discussing the fact that the band seems to be growing a new legion of younger fans. When asked why that was, I think it was Kirk Hammet who replied something to the effect "In a word, Guitar Hero. It's turned us on to a whole new generation." Heck, when even the band that helped killed Napster realizes these products are driving their music more than their music is driving these products, the music industry is really starting to lose it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Its nice to see a balanced argument, and one that actually argues both sides with a reasonable sense of logic and makes actual points rather than the usual "Me Wantee" attitude of most people that argue the music industry side.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Haven't Aerosmith made more from their cut of the Guitar Hero: Aerosmith game than they have from any three of their albums, or some such craziness?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Musicians giving up on videos, looking to TV shows, movies to promote songs
"The Toronto band the Knifings are pretty much a complete unknown in the music world and yet somehow - no one really knows how - one of their songs recently appeared on one of the biggest shows on TV, "Entourage."
...yet the band has no record label, no music videos and no previous mainstream exposure to speak of."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081223/entertainment/music_selling_songs
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Think about it this way. There are 70+ songs on one of those games. The games go for $60 just for the game. If those songs were sold on iTunes the total would be $69.30+. If the record labels asked the same from Guitar Hero and Rock Band as they did from iTunes than Harmonix and Activision wouldn't be making enough money to pay for the game testers let alone the developers and all the others that make the games.
If the music industry can't see that Guitar Hero and Rock Band are not only free advertising but free distribution (for them), than that is their fault. At this point both games could go with all indie music and give them the publicity. They are both "big name" enough that they could get away with it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I think your argument falls a little short in that, yes, the game needs music, but it doesn't need your music. The game could use anyone's music and still be successful. Who even heard of Dragonforce before Through the Fire and Flames was featured in that game? You have every right to demand compensation for using your music, but recognize that if you take your ball and go home, there's easily some other band that will take your place in return for the recognition. So they'll be the ones get 3x the sales, and you'll sit at home complaining that the radio doesn't give you enough exposure.
Sure, the music adds value to the game, no one's denying that. But why is the exposure that the game generates not enough compensation? The game isn't lost without your music, but you're pretty dumb if you don't see the advantages of being features in there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
@Cryix: I understand your point, but I think you're missing the real argument here, which is that Harmonix/whoever creates these games are essentially taking all the risks, yet are accused of "taking advantage" of musicians when they're successful.
Let me explain: you're right in a previous comment that Harmonix did not invent the rhythm game concept. However, they did do something new and risky by applying that concept to a game that required a bespoke, expensive, peripheral in order to play correctly at home. This was a massive risk. In order to help them, the record industry did nothing, yet the game was successful, and may have helped sell many copies of the original songs covered in the games.
Now, the music industry is *demanding* higher cuts of the games' profits because they became successful. Yes, original recordings do help the games sell more copies, but then the games help expose a new generation of listeners to songs and artists they may never have heard or considered buying before. That's actually a fair trade, especially when the songs are legally licensed to begin with.
Despite this, the music industry is doing essentially nothing to help these games become successes (other than licence already-recorded songs). The game makers are doing all the work transposing the songs into a playable format. They are also taking all the risk - no record label is going to lose money if the next Guitar Hero or Rock Band doesn't sell (is anyone really going to play Guitar Hero instead of listening to the song? Unlikely.), but the game makers could end up millions in debt.
Why, exactly, should the record labels get more money than (their already agreed licensing fee + extra sales from free advertising in the game)? The only reasoning we've heard so far is that the games have been more successful than the labels first thought when cutting the deals. Why does that entitle them for more, while doing zero work to earn it? FTA:
"Aerosmith made more money off the June release of "Guitar Hero: Aerosmith" than either of its last two albums, according to Kai Huang, co-founder of RedOctane, which first developed "Guitar Hero.""
Did Aerosmith actually do anything to create that game other than allow the use of work they already did? Why should they expect more than they're already getting?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Technically, the Lables would only get about, say, $20 (30%) from that $69.30 on iTunes -- the RIAA doesn't get 100% of iTunes' profit (yet).
Still, the main point is that the lables are COMPLETELY missing the fact that being in Rock Band/Guitar Hero is free advertizing. I can't imagine it costs then anything to say, "yes, use our music," and yet they still want more money. They're being near-sighted and stupid, and the fact is that the games don't really *need* them. If nothing else, idependant artists can take the place of mainstream music and almost no one would bat an eye.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's called business
"Still, the main point is that the lables are COMPLETELY missing the fact that being in Rock Band/Guitar Hero is free advertizing"
Actually, they get *PAID* for this advertising! If only every other business was like this. Let me pay you money for YOUR product so I can expose it to more people so you make MORE money!
If the music industry thinks they are entitled to more money because of the success of GH, then by all means increase the licensing fees during negotiations.
If they spent more of their resources in understanding what their product is worth in various marketplaces, instead of on lawyers and suing everyone into the ground, they might make more money.
Here is an example of this:
In the slot machine business the majority of licenses are time-limited. Many of the themes that were used 5 years ago are no longer out and playable. On top of this, the owner of the license typically gets a fee for each slot machine that is produced *AND* for every day being used. Paramount gets 25 cents for each Top Gun Slot machine that is currently being operated PER DAY and WMS Gaming can only operate it for a few years (or renew).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wait. First you say that someone has it wrong when they "think that it's the music that's valuable," but then their incentive is that "being in any of those games significantly increases sales of music."
These two statements are not consistent.
If music is not valuable, then increased sales of said music would not be valuable. That's patently nonsense, so we must throw away the idea that music is not valuable, since they're, you know, getting value for it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Mike isn't saying that music isn't valuable. He's said over and over and over again that music is valuable. But he is saying that here, and elsewhere, the content owners are over-valueing their product and neglecting the value that anyone else contributes. If there's no value to the game, why is it increasing sales 3-fold?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oh, my bad. It's that music is valuable, but you shouldn't expect value from the sale of music. It's, uh ... T-shirts, collectibles, and "access to the artist" that is supposed to be make money come in.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Which part of "increases" sales did you miss? (assuming this Anonymous Coward is the author of this comment)
There's a difference between value and price, or value in general versus monetary value.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here... The labels are over-valuing their music's role in the video games, but the exposure from the video games for their music is valuable insofar as it increases sales and insofar as it grows a fan base (like Metallica apparently noticed).
What's the contradiction? I think you're just muddling the meaning of the word value and confusing a whole bunch of valuable things involved...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
no shit... although for the full techdirt joined up thinking shouldn't rock band and guitar hero be given away or at best sold at cost?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Well, there are some scarcities involved. The games come with the instrument controllers. Though, they do charge for infinite goods (doesn't it cost money to download new songs?).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
of course...
it helps bands. There are a lot of song that I didn't know about and fell in love with. And you know what I bought new albums just because of rock band
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment