Irving broke the model.

Has there ever been a greater friend to the artist?  With this much power?

Geffen screwed Laura Nyro with the Tuna Fish Music deal, and ultimately sued Neil Young.  And Bob Dylan signed to Asylum and then abandoned Geffen, went back to Columbia.  But Irving’s artists stick with him.  Because no one can extract money from a corporation, no one can find more profit in a deal than Irving.  If Irving’s on your team, you’ve got Kobe, A-Rod and Lance Armstrong all wrapped into one.  Or, as Don Henley so famously said, "He may be Satan, but he’s our Satan."

Yes, you want Irving on your side.

And who was conventionally on the other side?

The label.

The way it worked was the label made the lion’s share of the money.  Forget the rationalizations, that they took all the risk, made the investment, for eternity, or the life of copyright in most cases, the label owned your records and profited from them.  Which is why Mo Ostin is richer than any concert promoter ever, and he worked for a public company!  Working for the label is where the money was.  Everyone who was a manager jumped ship in the nineties, for that huge cash.

Then it all imploded.  Not overnight, but gradually.  Took ten years for sales to go down 52%.  And the hubris of the labels was such that they dictated to Irving, saying it was "company policy."

So what did Irving do?  He rolled up all the managers and said it was FRONTLINE’S POLICY!  Frontline became bigger than any label.  And then the Eagles didn’t need a label at all, out of contract they went directly to Wal-Mart.  And not only were sales huge, profits were incredible!

Yes, Irving made it so the artist has all the power.

You people looking to make a 360 deal with the still extant major labels…  I’m scratching my head.  Irving fights your battle and then you concede after victory?  You give the label the lion’s share of the dough when you no longer have to?

But to play Irving’s way you need a few elements.  Talent.  And perseverance.  And Irving himself.  Easier to place faith in the crumbling monolith, then you have someone to blame when you fail.

But make a deal for music without a label and you keep almost all the money.  Not only at Wal-Mart, but with the newspaper, Prince got paid, and even Tunecore.

So when it comes to recorded music, the artist is in control, at least when it comes to profit participation.

And when it comes to concerts, an act with traction can easily get the entire gate.  In the case of Jimmy Buffett, more than the admission receipts.  Because the promoter is going to profit from parking, merch and concessions.

Nothing inherently wrong with this, but please note…the artist gets the big piece of the pie, everybody else fights for crumbs.

So I don’t see how Live Nation becomes hugely profitable.  Because they need the acts.  And Irving’s paved the way for the acts to get all the dough.  Sure, there’s money in concert promotion, when done right, but not big money, not Google money, not MTV money.  MTV benefited the artists, giving them exposure, but the profit was in the advertising, kept by Viacom…and ultimately MTV didn’t need the artists at all.  It’s different for Live Nation.  They can make sponsorship deals all day, but not if no one plays their buildings.  Live Nation is dependent on the acts, and always will be.

Rapino has to institute some discipline.  He has to take back some turf from the acts.  There’s a bit to be reclaimed, but not much.  Because where there’s profit, there’s Irving, saying there’s no show, no revenue without his acts.

Ticketmaster works…  Then again, Irving wants a cut of that for his acts too.

Synergies are Live Nation’s upside, new products that can be sold because all the elements are under one roof, ticketing, promotion and talent.  Used to be artists were skeptical of promoters, you could film the acts in concert, but you couldn’t do anything with the results, not unless you paid them exorbitantly.  Irving can broker new deals, new opportunities for revenue.  But, the lion’s share of the dough will always go to the acts.

So it’s the best of times and the worst of times.

It’s the best of times if you’re an artist.  Slavery has ceased.  Then again, it’s not that easy to get a job, to get a toehold in the new world.  Your master gave you work and food, but he also beat you.  You can sign up with the major label if you still want to be beaten, but that’s not too appealing.

The worst of worlds is if you’re on the business side of the equation, if you’re not the talent.  Because you’re going to survive on crumbs.

Irving should be able to make Live Nation work.  Then again, he’s best as an outside agitator as opposed to a chief executive.  That’s what a manager is, an outside agitator who prods other people to produce, results, both marketing and revenue.  Can Irving be the inside guy as opposed to the outside guy?  We’ll see.  But Live Nation stock is never going to be like tech…  Certainly not like Apple, with its double digit margins, in some cases approaching forty percent.  It’s more akin to a blue chip.  Assuming there’s discipline.  Can Irving get his house in order, instill discipline not only in Live Nation but the entire music industry, which he’s fundamentally changed and controls more than any other person?

We’ll see.