We’ve heard it all before.

“The music industry is fucked. We’re all dead.”

Everyone’s got their opinions on the industry’s problem(s) bottled-up underneath their fair-trade, organic quinoa-knitted beanies beneath some Beats headphones, which all lead down the same ‘ole path: from streaming services and pirated music to the “blog bubble” and corporate, capitalist, war-mongering record execs — it’s all fucked. And somehow, advanced technology is to blame for the first time in the history of the universe.

Labels, agencies, techies, bloggers, critics, major artists, indie artists, managers, music royalty, fans, has-beens, wannabes, fed-ups, never-tries, and future-generation glimmers of hope are all up-in-arms, facing the “problems” head on — Stone and Pitchfork in hand. And in that direction, there certainly lies a hole or two still leaking some money into the financial abyss. As in every industry.

But the music industry contains 2 separate, vital, equally synonymous and almost entirely dependent operations — and our collective backs are turned to the gaping, behemoth, black-hole of an operation directly behind us, while the operational engine we’re ridiculing now is… quite amazing, actually.

In fact, it’s beyond amazing. Our new “infant”- the digital-distribution side of music — is, dare I say, one of the only things that has actually helped save the industry from imploding altogether. Every industry has a pendulum moment and we’re experiencing evolution at it’s finest in distribution.

But that’s just half of the industry.

On one side of our inflatable cockpit we call the music industry, we have an incredibly innovative, digitally designed Tesla Model S engine (if you will), and, on the other, a 1997 Buick LeSabre engine. We’ve got leather seats and all, but man, does this thing feel awkward to fly, no matter who or how experienced the pilot is.

Just like a record, there’s a Side A and also a Side B in this industry.

And by this I mean — the music industry is one part digital-content operation and one part live-performance operation.

And we’re yelling in the wrong direction.

Let’s fix what’s actually still broken, first.

One side cannot exist without the other because that’s how music and/or entertainment works — just the way sports teams or athletes play in stadiums, to crowds, with, you know, actual human-beings in the audience. You can watch recorded TV and YouTube videos of these events all you want, and it’s encouraged, but these things attract physical attendance for a reason. Live experiences just can’t be replaced.

And the bloodline of music relies on the sufficiently beating heart of being able to efficiently perform live.

Our industry’s uniqueness is, artists and musicians (need to) travel exponentially-more frequently than sports teams, to perhaps fewer people, in smaller venues and with far less financial support to keep that heart beating. There are literally not enough hours in the day to optimize the risks vs the rewards using current methods. It’d be ludicrous to say there “can’t be” enough hours; we just haven’t focused our attention towards creating solutions to optimize the hours we have during the day. Everyday. And our backs have been turned to making it more efficient.

Side A

Record a new song on your Mac? Great. Upload it to SoundCloud or Bandcamp or TuneCore in your bedroom in minutes. The ability to reach millions is already there. An independent Step 1 in the operation is at least available. How successful your Step 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions are, is a completely separate debate.

The costs of getting music to millions of people has dramatically, almost ridiculously, diminished.

And subsequently, the costs for the fans to discover & consume that same recorded music has diminished to (almost) free, specifically because the process to get the fan that music is absurdly efficient.

Participation then thrives for both content creators and the channels by which that content flows. Costs of creation are kept so low, that although profits may seem to be “decreasing” (for the 1%), the profit margins are far-and-away increasing (for the 99%). The savings is passed to the consumer.

Side B

Now you want to play that same song live somewhere? Uh. Email a random venue? An agent? A manager? Get a manager to email an agent? There isn’t an independent Step 1 for Engine B, especially for new & emerging artists. There’s just a blank Gmail account and a whimsical hope that people flood your inbox with booking requests. The process of booking is a nightmare. Everyone does things differently.

The costs of booking shows has stayed exactly the same, if not increased, during these same years. Especially for venues.

In fact, the financial pain is felt 10-fold by venues. They are literally check-and-guessing as they go, hoping they are successful, while watching their operational costs shoot through the ceiling. Time is money for venues; they have very real and very expensive overhead. And the more time during the day it takes to get things done - with the lack of optimization methods available about who they’re booking and why - the less it makes sense for them to even participate in live music booking altogether.

The barriers to entry are unnecessarily large for both sides of the live music operation.

On the contrary, the barriers to entry on the digital distribution side are virtually non-existent.

If you record music, the capability for it to be played is solved.

If you perform music, the capability to play live has been ignored.

What technology does Engine B provide?

Think about what AngelList does for Startups and Investors, or what XERO does for Bookkeepers, Accountants and Small Businesses. Each platform is bringing to the table a beautifully designed, transaction-based process solver between separate entities. And each of their respective industries have thriving middle-men using these tools. AngelList has introduced “syndicates” which essentially act as intelligent curators for deals, while bookkeepers and accountants are thriving with more client-volume using XERO. The music industry is no different.

Just as small businesses hire expert bookkeepers and accountants, or, how aspiring investors essentially hire “expert” investors in the form of a syndicate - artists hire expert managers, agencies or labels to help them navigate through the concrete jungle. Effectively, “teams of people” using technology to conduct efficient business. All of them use some kind of technology. And that technology should be embraced to enhance their respective relationships and business-models.

So what technology does Engine B provide?

Participation is technologically stifled between venues, the artists, and the agency/manager/labels they hire, precisely because the channels between them have not evolved to parallel digital, recorded distribution. As a result, the ticket/door/drink price to the fan is increasing, and we’re neglecting the true culprit; it’s due to the lack of efficiency at Step 1.

There are truly, truly talented and hard-working venue bookers, talent-buyers, artists, managers, labels, agents & agencies — we’ve all just lacked the technology to make our lives easier.

Because we’re all yelling in the wrong direction.

The music industry has completely optimized the recorded, distribution engine. Some would argue too much. But you can’t discredit the innovation. The techies behind Spotify, SoundCloud, TuneCore, even Napster should be highly, highly praised and thanked for their contributions to progressing the ability for artists to reach millions of people.

The digital distribution capability between artists and fans is now available.

It ain’t perfect; but what is?

As a fan, I wouldn’t know about 99% of the artists I listen to without these innovations.

And as an indie-label owner, I wouldn’t be able to participate in helping artists become a fraction of that 99%.

However, the channel between artists and fans for the live-aspect of this same art is still as convoluted as ever. It’s still a Buick LeSabre.

We can’t have a music “industry” if we don’t have both engines working harmoniously. And it’s up to us to recognize it.

Let’s focus on improving live tech.

The live-music operation (Side B) is still as archaic as it was in the 1950s. Someone communicates with someone else (time), via an incredibly fragmented, outdated system (time), build fragile and persuasive relationships (time) and hopefully both parties get paid (money). A lot of time spent with limited money from consumers to compensate; specifically because of “space.” There’s only a limited amount of “space” for a live event, so there will naturally be a limited amount of money to be made from each one.

But the money “limit” is completely arbitrary right now. Hypothetically, the live operation is still manufacturing CDs — it’s conditioned to believe it’s processes are just “the way it is.”

Live music tech has to improve internal efficiency.

By live “operation”, I mean the actual methods available to conduct it. Technology and optimization tools for bettering the process of booking; not the live-performance itself or how “good” an artist is. Not just promoting the event once it is finally locked in; everything before that:

Where artists should play based on the location of their fan base, and communicating directly with the venues in that area.

How the venues can access relevant, real-time data about interested artists.

Streamlining communication and operational processes between agents, artists, managers, promoters & venues.

Providing valuable reporting & analytics to make better decisions throughout a tour.

All of these actions currently amass to an expensive, collaborative money-drain. And these are just a few. But it doesn’t have to, if we build a better, direct solution.

Sometimes playing live isn’t entirely necessary for artists. Just ask The Weeknd, or Blu, or even Daft Punk. All created the mystique of a digital presence without needing to exploit the physical one. Brilliance has that luxury.

Exceptionally well-liked music is shared naturally, thanks to efficiency channels.

But for the 99%, whether you’re an artist, manager, agent, label, or an amalgamation of each, all balled up into one — the methods of booking are the same, and the work hasn’t gotten any easier. And it sucks. Specifically for venue bookers and talent-buyers. After-all, they’re often the ones writing the checks before the fans do (in the form of a ticket).

Exceptionally well-liked music doesn’t have a live, operational technology channel to exist in. Venues (and subsequently fans) cannot partake in the participation of live-music as efficiently as it’s digital compliment.

Booking a show is still as “1997 Buick LeSabre” as it gets.

We should probably start yelling in that direction more.

Even if we think the music industry is infected with this digital “cancer” called technology and streaming and pirating, it doesn’t mean we can diagnose ourselves with the wrong illness.

A misdiagnoses causes unnecessary action to change something that may not be the problem. After-all, the industry’s previous lifestyle wasn’t healthy by any means. And going back to our old habits most certainly won’t fix the headache.

The industry is misdiagnosed with a disease we don’t have.

If the headache still exists — perhaps something else is wrong. Because along with nutrition is hydration. And hydration also fixes headaches.

If we all need food and water to survive, let me assure you — the abundant access to food is not a problem we need to fix.

Each can save a life uniquely, but if you’re deprived of one, the other can’t entirely supplement the scarcity of it’s counterpart.

That doesn’t mean we’ll stop innovating access to food.

Maybe we just need access to more water, first.

—

Danny Fiorentini is a Founder of music-booking platform Muzeek and indie-label Outbox Records, with coffee mugs from the University of Nevada and the University of Sydney. As an information and technology advocate, he pursues a personal interest in world affairs, believes the Internet saved the world, and wants to be buried on the moon.