>Heck, if ReverbNation or BandCamp wanted to get into the 'stand-alone, broadcast/streaming, exposure and small payment per play' market, they could have a distinct advantage in that their content sources are, predominately, unsigned and able to negotiate in good faith (in theory).
Yeah, but also the very big disadvantage that nobody cares for those artists [1], even for the better ones among them.
This kind of "long tail" [2] idea never panned out, because it turns out most people mostly go for the few acts at the top -- and, heck, even those today are not doing very well, sales and streaming licenses wise.
Maybe nobody cares yet because nobody has made a sufficiently compelling alternative.
Almost everyone I know has at least some bands they like that aren't one of the few acts at the top. Local bands, side projects, anti-establishment punk bands, whatever.
My little working class town is a miniature hotbed for small bands. They don't all make weird punk or whatever, tons of them make music that would be really nice for café ambience.
But from visiting cafés around here, it does seem like the only music that exists is the repeating top 20. I don't think anyone actually likes this, though. I certainly don't.
Somebody could make it fun and easy for cafés and friends and whoever to play that music. That would have a very real value.
ReverbNation would need a lot of curation on top their rewards-for-uploads model to make it listenable. Unlimited skips wouldn't be enough for the early adopters to enjoy the stream.
I was thinking about this a little more and realized that ReverbNation already has a "pay-for-listens" model where artists/bands have to fork over cash to have 'a community' review tracks and give a rating on a 0-10 scale. If a song hits higher than 8, it's allowed to submit to big name outlets (CBS Radio, etc) through their platform. So, I think it's kind of a flipped model - the people who listen to ReverbNation as a curation function are, more than likely, paid to sit there and go through the submissions.
Fair points and I can see your perspective, but also think you're kind of too focused on the notion of streaming revenue as the goal for unsigned bands/musicians/artists. Even signed to a major label, the income is negligible.
However in other avenues, such as 'music review' and licensing for film/commercials, there's a genuine thirst for finding the "next big thing" and getting involved with the artist before the 'long tail' even gets started. My favorite example is Chvrches, which turned free publicity into a viable career. Yes, there are only a few at the top who have the quality and capability, but that's kind of the point of curation, review, and promotions teams - if they don't find something new, somebody else will.
Remember all that buzz around whichever indie/unknown group was featured in an Apple commercial? That's more what I'm talking about, because they probably made more from the commercial and initial sales bump than they ever will/would from streaming revenue, and that's just the nature of the business. Hot today, cold tomorrow, better make something new to stay in the game.
Yeah, but also the very big disadvantage that nobody cares for those artists [1], even for the better ones among them.
This kind of "long tail" [2] idea never panned out, because it turns out most people mostly go for the few acts at the top -- and, heck, even those today are not doing very well, sales and streaming licenses wise.
[1] Using "nobody" as an emphasized "very few".
[2] Referring to this Friedman/Gladwelian notion that the long tail is big enough to be profitable, as in: http://www.thelongtail.com/about.html