EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW [PART 2]: TESSERACT’S AMOS WILLIAMS ON SPOTIFY AND THE FUTURE OF THE RECORDED MUSIC BUSINESS

After Tesseract bassist Amos Williams and I finished chatting about the band’s new singer Elliot Coleman, I couldn’t resist: I asked him about Spotify and his record label’s decision to leave the service. From there the conversation evolved into a friendly debate about the future of the music industry: do streaming services play a role? how do they alter the landscape? how can record companies adapt? Amos is obviously a lot more than just the bass player of a metal band; he’s a smart businessman with a good head on his shoulders, even if we don’t see eye-to-eye on everything. And he’s incredibly thoughtful and polite to boot.

The remainder of our chat after the jump.

What do you think of Spotify?

I’ve seen the stuff on MetalSucks recently – the banter between Vince and Century Media. It’s interesting, man, because there are two sides to this story. WIth every good thing that comes from Spotify there is also a bad side to it as well for both labels, artists and (I hate to say it) but I suspect that there may be issues for the listeners as well.

It’s a great thing for listeners to listen to stuff that they might not be able to hear [otherwise]. It’s a great thing for bands to get themselves in front of people that they’ve never been able to get in front of. It’s a great thing for labels to get their artists out there in front of people. It’s really popular in Sweden at the moment now. The record industry has totally collapsed in Sweden. Maybe that is a result of Spotify, I don’t know. It’s probably a result of the larger file sharing that’s been going on for 10 years anyway. I’m not saying that it is definitely a bad thing because I’m on the fence about it. I don’t know myself because I can’t really see the whole picture. Bands in general are losing out at the grassroots level, the real beginning of everybody’s career.

They are, or they are not?

I think they are losing out, maybe not a lot, but maybe just enough to make sure that they can get out onto the international scene and be a professional band. That being said, for example, we lost out on a ton of money as a result of piracy and as a result of things like Spotify. At the same time, we’ve had our music put out to countries like India, Russia, America and Europe even as a result of services like Spotify and file sharing. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. I think that it is equally as good as it is bad in many ways. It’s just such a tough question because some people will vilify you for even mentioning that it would even be a bad thing, saying “all music should be free”. Then you have to look at the other side. What about the people that make music and have to work full time in music to make music work? How do they make their money from this? It’s just such a tough situation to be in.

It is tough.

It’s not cool to sound like Lars Ulrich basically.

[Laughs]

And say “you guys suck for stealing my music.” Every band is going for that. I think a lot of bands dislike piracy but are possibly having a hard time saying so. I’m not really sure if I agree with it or disagree with it. Things like Spotify promised the world in terms of being able to pay you for having your music put out there for free. In reality, the money that was actually given to bands wasn’t worth it. I think labels lose out a lot as a result as well.

Labels are the big losers. I don’t think anyone expected Spotify to pay out a whole lot because it’s a free service with some ads and there is a premium version [for a cost]. Money has to come from somewhere to pay the artists. Labels aren’t really taking in any income from bands that aren’t from sales of recorded music whether that is streaming or owning a file, CD or vinyl. Their business model is based entirely upon that and that only. I think that’s what’s going to have to change. People seem to be vilifying the 360 deal, but to me, the 360 deal is just a management deal. No one vilifies managers for taking a cut of everything. What needs to happen is labels and managers become one and put some investment in (like a traditional label does) but collect from all streams like a manager would.

Yeah.

Then you’re dividing the pile in less ways because you’re all in the same building. You don’t have to rely on sales of music to make money anymore and those people can still have their jobs which are very valuable.

That would be wonderful in an ideal world. I think there’s too much greed in many situations: bands are often too greedy, managers are often over-inflated in their self-worth, and labels (like you said) have trouble adapting. I’ve got some great friends in the UK who aren’t massive, Basick Records.

Oh, we know Basick.

Nathan Barley Phillips has made the whole scene in the U.K. He’s one of the main reasons there is a progressive music scene. His label is doing well in terms of notoriety. Like every other label, they’re having trouble, especially in terms of just recent events, making it profitable. The bands themselves don’t see much [money]. He’s the one person that I see might be able to act as a manager and act as a label and do the whole 360 thing. Even somebody like him, surely you could do with a specialist. You would need quite a big company. You would need somebody that knows PR, somebody that knows distribution. So that means only the bigger labels can really get involved in the idea of the 360 deal.

I don’t agree with that. Anyone can sign up for TuneCore and have their product on all these services in no time.

We’re possibly speaking from the same point of view. You’re saying that you don’t need to put bands onto the big scene straight away to make them financially viable anymore. You’re saying that growing from a very small seed is the only way that it could work from now on?

As far as a label or management investing in a band in terms of a PR push and marketing and all that?

Yeah.

No, I don’t believe growing from a small seed is the only way. I think it’s more prevalent because with the internet being the way that it is, bands have a chance to choose exactly what it is they like without radio or MTV or any of the traditional means. In that sense, I think marketing is a lot cheaper than it used to be. TesseracT is a great example. You guys had a huge online buzz before anything.

The funny side to that is it’s great. We came from a very small community that’s building buzz, and we managed to get people in the industry interested in us. But it wasn’t until we decided to go with Century Media that we were able to pick up members of the general public who don’t spend their time searching on the Internet for new music and aren’t part of forums or communities. They’re fantastic communities but most people don’t have the time for that.

No, no, you’re absolutely right. There is absolutely value in a label and other industry people and what they do. I just think that the investment needs to come from a side that’s not depending on selling records to get investment back.

I think we’re in agreement that most record labels will become administration services, and investment will have to come from a management company if the record company isn’t part of the management company yet. I do see where you’re coming from in that and when most people speak of 360 deals and the current model of record labels.

I just hate the term “360 deal” because people other people seem to hate it. It’s just a management deal.

I understand that.

It’s not any different.

That’s very true.

The only difference is that right now managers don’t invest money while a label does. If you combine those two functions into one building and have everyone working together, not only are you playing each of those strengths, but you’re also cutting down on overhead.

There is the possibility that the band loses out in that situation because perhaps there is a conflict in interest from the management company. Then again, I guess the management company would just have to work ten times harder to keep hold of the artist.

The management company is the label. It’s one in the same company.

I’m just thinking that perhaps the label/management company would have to work ten times harder to stop a band going from their company to another company. I was just thinking that there might be a conflict of interest there.

They would still be under contract like they are now.

Yeah, but there are holding contracts.

[Editor’s note: Reading back this manuscript, I realize where Amos and I were missing each other’s points here. Amos thought I was suggesting that these new mega-label-management companies sign bands to typical management deals, where there is usually some kind of artist opt-out. Bands regularly switch managers, although they usually will still owe the former manager a percentage of money moving forward for a set number of years. Instead, I was suggesting these new deals be structured closer to how label deals are structured now, based on a certain number of albums, of which the artist typically cannot opt out.]

Thanks a lot for taking the time.

It’s a pleasure, man.

And humoring me on the Spotify and the music industry stuff.

No, not at all. Thank you.

-VN