Stealing Music-Bob Lefsetz

[Billster]

Well, as has been pointed out over and over again, there are no non-major label artists that have reached the point where they can really put out their stuff on their own without a big marketing and promotion budget and get people to come to them. The people who are doing that got to that point by way of the promotion machine of the labels. That's what labels do for their acts. They aren't just leaches. They have the means to get you known. Try that on your own. It's not easy.

Define success. One of the biggest wake-ups came to me when I landed at Berklee in 1984. There are so many ways to make a living playing music that aren't defined as "success" in rock star terms. Just three examples of people I know:

#1 - Touring the college circuit. Playing campus socials and other school sponsored events. You're not on MTV "Cribs", but you do own a nice house to come home to your wife and children every few months.

#2 - Licensing (retain your publishing rights). In a world where Bob Lefsetz pays $170 for cable TV, there's a lot of channels that need a lot of content. I know a guy who sold a soundtrack to one of those "World's Craziest Police Chases" things 10 years ago. That series still shows up on obscure cable channels around the world, and he still gets a quarterly payment from the performing rights society.

#3 - Small town recording studio. Charge a princely sum recording the local teenagers who still think the only way to be a "success" is to be a rock star.

[Geoff Grace]

 

Look, here's the deal. Lefsetz is all about cutting the majors out and with that in mind, $5 a CD is a good deal..Even $3 if it's downloadable and there are no middle men...The old Guard is cut out...This is his contention..Where he is going...The artist would still Make more then he would if he were on a major label.

 

 

As someone with first hand experience at what major label budgets can do, I think eliminating the major labels is bad for not only the people who are fed and clothed working in that economy but it's bad for music as well.

 

How, for example, does one record an orchestra or choir without the kind of advance that comes from a major label or profits that a major recording artist makes? Imagine "Nights In White Satin" without an orchestra or "Man In The Mirror" without a choir, and you get a glimmer of an idea of what I'm talking about. There is a nurturing support system at that level that allows recording artists to focus on creating music instead of engineering, or programming, or running errands; and more often than not, the music benefits. And when the music benefits, the consumer benefits.

 

I've arranged for real orchestras and choirs in the big leagues, and I'm now programming choir and orchestra parts using samples. Guess which option is more musically satisfying.

 

The "old Guard" is more than men in suits, you know. It includes great producers like George Martin, and great engineers like Bob Clearmountain. People here gush and fawn over Bruce Swedien, but they'd eliminate his job in a heartbeat to buy songs for a quarter.

 

You get what you pay for; and when you pay for indie recordings, you pay for music created under much harder circumstances. Sometimes that helps the music too; but more often than not, it just interferes. I am speaking as someone currently working at an indie level after having worked for a long time in the majors, so I know first hand what I'm talking about.

 

The bottom line is if you eliminate major labels, you eliminate music options; and that's a bad thing.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[kurdy]

Overall, what I took away from these articles is that they are just trying to provide a perspective on the reality of the way things are right now. I think expecting some article to provide definite answers is expecting a bit too much. Let's face it--nobody has a definite answer on what to do, I think Lefsetz did as best he could to offer possible solution. As opposed to the NMS article, which was a bit more harsh.

It would be stupid to deny the industry is hurting as a result of illegal downloading. And yes, it may be harder for artists to get paid than ever before. But the main point of these articles was to point out that people in the industry need to stop trying to fight reality, and accept it, and work within it. People can say all they want, "it shouldn't be this way", but the reality is that it IS this way. People ARE illegally downloading music. Yes, maybe people shouldn't be doing it. But they are.

Which of course, doesn't quite answer the question, "how do I get paid?" Lets put it this way--one is less likely to figure out a solution by clinging to the past and saying "It used to be so much better". Yeah, maybe it was. But we aren't going to get back those days, unless someone invents a time machine. Those articles are saying that instead, our energies are better spent figuring out how to adapt to now.

[Billster]

As someone with first hand experience at what major label budgets can do, I think eliminating the major labels is bad for not only the people who are fed and clothed working in that economy but it's bad for music as well. How, for example, does one record an orchestra or choir without the kind of advance that comes from a major label or profits that a major recording artist makes? Imagine "Nights In White Satin" without an orchestra or "Man In The Mirror" without a choir, and you get a glimmer of an idea of what I'm talking about. There is a nurturing support system at that level that allows recording artists to focus on creating music instead of engineering, or programming, or running errands; and more often than not, the music benefits. And when the music benefits, the consumer benefits. I've arranged for real orchestras and choirs in the big leagues, and I'm now programming choir and orchestra parts using samples. Guess which option is more musically satisfying. The "old Guard" is more than men in suits, you know. It includes great producers like George Martin, and great engineers like Bob Clearmountain. People here gush and fawn over Bruce Swedien, but they'd eliminate his job in a heartbeat to buy songs for a quarter. You get what you pay for; and when you pay for indie recordings, you pay for music created under much harder circumstances. Sometimes that helps the music too; but more often than not, it just interferes. I am speaking as someone currently working at an indie level after having worked for a long time in the majors, so I know first hand what I'm talking about. The bottom line is if you eliminate major labels, you eliminate music options; and that's a bad thing. Best, Geoff

 

 

Those are good points. I would suggest, though, that the business mavens should apply themselves to developing new revenue streams instead of trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Retail recorded music is going to be cheaper going forward. I think we can see that pretty clearly. The existing big players need to clear overhead, and innovate new business plans that go beyond recouping advances and exploiting loss leaders. They are fooling around at the edges with things like product tie-ins and video game cross-promotions, and the dreaded ringtones.

 

Like you say, I don't really want to think about innovating revenue streams. I want to write and play music. The labels should focus on offering a deal that isn't a combination of usery and exploitation. That kind of business would free artists from thinking of how much they owe on the advance, and how come if they sold 6 million copies, they haven't gotten any money for themselves.

[Geoff Grace]

Yeah, I'm all for fixing things and going forward. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

(This reply is for both kurdy's and Billster's posts.)

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Richard King]

Anyone remember The "Rio"?

http://www.rioaudio.com/shop/_templates/item_main_Rio.asp?model=306
I owned one of these guys for quite some time, until someone stole it from my car a bit over a month ago. The great thing about it was that it could fit securely in my shirt pocket and I could listen to 6G of music while I was working. I replaced it with an Ipod which is quite larger (size and capacity) that I don't really like nearly as much. The Rio lasted me a couple of years before the scroll wheel broke taking away much of the functionality. Of course, all functionality was taken away when it was stolen.

[Thrashy]

One small detail.
The choirs or orchestras would probably not be somethig that a major would spring for on an untested young band either. The larger, established acts still have enough pull to get whatever they need without a label.

[slight-return]

Wow the essay reminds me of Apocolypse Now

Are my methods unsound?

I don't see any method at all, sir.


I mean as a quick example


Music should not be free. People should pay for acquisition. But how they acquire music and how much they should pay...that's up for grabs.

Music acquisition should be free and easy.

He mentions "up for grabs" then talks about "should"

He talks about licensing (a legal mechanism) as a solution then talks about "no legal solution" [and even there we have implicit assumption that there is "solution"]

The guy is all over the place. I find it reads more like a rant than an essay

[Hulston Prickle]

Too many words.

I just strap my record player to the hood of my car and go.

[Billster]

The guy is all over the place. I find it reads more like a rant than an essay

Not familiar with his body of work?

[Dean Roddey]

The thing that everyone has to keep in mind is that no one has to make music. There are lots of other things to do for a living where you won't get stolen from. It's not like people have to bend over backwards to try to find some way to eek out a modest living in this new world. They are just going to start dropping out more and more because it can only be done as a fun-time project.

I personally don't consider playing in pubs to be a career. Who can really raise a family doing that? And let's face it, people get into rock and roll to get rich and famous and get laid (a lot.) That's the big draw that has inspired people to make a run at it just like the lure of getting into the NBA does on the court. When the best you can expect is to put your stuff on Myspace and maybe have a 15 seconds of fame, I'm not really sure that's going to provide the incentive for people to really go for it on a professional level because the effort required probably won't be any longer worth the potential payoff.

It's not that unlike the business world. Would I have lived like a pauper for 7 years to create a new company if the chances were like they are now in the music business? Not a chance. Everyone understands what the lure of a big payoff does to drive business and innovation. Yeh, some number of people will do it no matter what, but that's not really the point.

[MrKnobs]

 

There's a lot more than Britney involved. There's all of us who worked for people like Britney, or for the studios they recorded in, or for the record stores that sold their music, or for the record labels, or for their lawyers, or for the major recording studios, or the songwriters, or ASCAP or BMI, or rack jobbers, or equipment rental companies, and so on, and so on, etc., etc. It was a BIG economy, and now a lot of it is scattered to the wind... Best, Geoff

 

 

I don't know exactly what you do, but I'm sure your skills translate to the new reality. If you're a recording engineer or producer, well, there are more CDs out than ever and your help will still be needed as downloading n-tracks or ProTools free doesn't make anyone an expert at recording.

 

As for arranging and recording orchestras, string quartets, etc., well, I have to deal with that too so I can tell you that there are arrangers, quartets, and (small) orchestras who are very good but also feeling the pinch from the new reality. These folks are now independent contractors and are much more affordable than they used to be. What they aren't, these days, is unionized, and they mostly get paid under the table - so to speak.

 

Example: I frequently use a string quartet on my own work and that of some customers. These four ladies compare favorably to any string quartet anywhere, as they've toured with Talking Heads, frequently perform with the Austin Symphony, and appear on numerous albums. The arranger I usually employ is very well known and he's made his name doing mostly movie soundtracks.

 

The net result is that I can get a score written, performed, and recorded for under $1,000. The only tradeoff is that work I commission is understood to be "as time allows" as these folks all have higher paying work constantly. They use my "filler" work to keep their schedule full during the occasional slack times. So I have to wait a lot.

 

I use a first rate horn section also, under a similar and inexpensive arrangement. These guys have won a Latin Grammy, they're seriously good. They're also seriously busy, so they set aside one or two long days each month to do these minor jobs. My understanding is they just knock out the tracks for maybe 10 cuts off various people's albums during that day.

 

Now enter the Internet.

 

I've never recorded the horn section at my studio, in fact they've never even been here. Instead, we collaborate over the net. I post guide tracks for them to download, there is discussion (also over the net) about what's wanted, then some weeks later I receive the first cut on the tracks and drop them into my mix. Perhaps there is a little more discussion, some changes, and we're done. I Paypal them the money.

 

Conversely, I do a lot of work for a larger studio in New Mexico. They have a nice location and record some fairly big names. The guy who owns that studio knows me from my soundman days, and he knows Austin from having lived here for a while. In his online "Rolodex" he has not only local artists but Austin artists, and, I presume, artist from other music hotspots also. He calls me when he wants an Austin artist to perform, I set the session up for him, and the Austin person records at my place to his guide tracks. Resulting tracks are moved over the net. Much cheaper than flying people around.

 

This is a new way of working that's very efficient. Perhaps it doesn't create masterpieces of orchestration as in the days of old, but really, does every album need to be a masterpiece? Ultimately, isn't the song and the performance what counts? Does an album need to be recorded in a multi-million dollar studio, using gear that's been carted by expensive unionized workers, corrected and perfected to the tiniest detail, to sell and be good? Is the expensive marketing the big labels do the only way to get a new artist heard?

 

Besides, it seems to me that there's still room for big production; it's just requires a larger budget and a longer time to payback. And yes, the time to recoup expenses will be somewhat longer due to illegal copying. However, I think whatever the big record labels lose in this phase of the process will be offset to a significant degree by what they now receive for free - namely, the work done by the artists, both musically and promotionally, before they sign with the major labels.

 

I make no value judgements on any of this. I simply say that wishing for the old days isn't going to bring them back, and we'd all better find a new way to operate in the new days coming. I think that's what the articles were trying to say also.

 

Terry D.

[Geoff Grace]

The larger, established acts still have enough pull to get whatever they need without a label.

 

 

But they became larger and established because of that major label.

 

Regardless, at that point in their careers, money flows from a wide variety of sources; but the increased recording budget provided by the label certainly helps. In fact, sometimes -- due to cash flow problems or poor money managements skills an artist may have -- it's still essential.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[slight-return]

The word "free" has more than one meaning. If your girlfriend skips the bra, she might feel "free" herself, but you're still paying for dinner.

That's one of the problems with his being all over the place.

Perhaps if he weren't calling for unauthorized, un-paid-for infringement , (as he does with "Without theft...")then he could be using it in the "Lessig" / bra sense [ butnot even a mention of moral rights of copy?]. He even uses "free" in the immediately preceeding sentences in a "without cost" sense they shouldn't get a free pass and earlier in the piece with Hell,most people can talk for free every night

the dinner example brings up another kind of "free" (pay for dinner) -- one in which the costs are carried by someone else

I'm not entirelly sure he actually has a meaning to it



Not familiar with his body of work?

I'm not seeing any work at all -- motion sure, but work...


I don't want to get into economic
theory here, I just want you to contemplate...is it better for society, the greater
good, if there's a pile of money that can be spent for the benefit of all?


contemplate socio-economics....but without econ...

OK, that was harsh - but yeah it sure sounds like he's a biz, not an IP atty (and he is calling for convravention of IP law)
I assume he does mainly transactional not litigation (?)


I mean if he's filing briefs with that sort of writing, I'm not shocked he's seeing need for a coup
(funny side note : I'll have to see if I can find it somewhere, I've got a motion somewhere that was denied on the grounds of being "unintelligible".)

OK, once again, my apologies - too harsh and not fair I suppose (the writing is not a brief, I understand that, but even as a position paper). The writing could use a lot of clean-up, the points seem really scattered, there is a lot of assumption w/o associated support, etc - it's not a particularly coherent piece.
This is were the work of editting could really help make the rant an essay

[Billster]

I personally don't consider playing in pubs to be a career. Who can really raise a family doing that?

A smart person who treats it like a business.

Now, whether or not you want to treat music as a business is another question. If you really love making music, then the kind of drudgery that goes into making it a business (quarterly tax filings, etc. and so on) is not going to stop you.

And let's face it, people get into rock and roll to get rich and famous and get laid (a lot.)

So what motivates people who have non-glamourous careers? A plumber or a car mechanic can make pretty good money, but they aren't likely to get to the "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous" level, and I don't want to know about other peoples sex lives.

Maybe the auto mechanic just likes making things work right. If he's going to have a high-overhead business where he needs lots of workspace, tools, and parts, and has to hustle and hope that people call him ahead of the next guy down the street, he'd better love working on cars enough to deal with the drudgery of making it a legitimate business.

[flatfinger]

My mom's a child psychologist... she says that young children derive immense comfort from intense repetition: seeing the same movie over and over, reading the same book at bedtime over and over and over...etc.

I went to a child psychologist once ; That kid did'nt do me a bit of good!!!!!!!!

[slight-return]

I went to a child psychologist once ; That kid did'nt do me a bit of good!!!!!!!!

I hadn't realized I stumpled into the "tropicana room tiki lounge" , OK it made me laugh

[Dean Roddey]

So what motivates people who have non-glamourous careers? A plumber or a car mechanic can make pretty good money, but they aren't likely to get to the "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous" level, and I don't want to know about other peoples sex lives.

 

 

But the difference is in risk. I have given up the things I've given up and taken the risks I've taken for the promise of a big payoff. If that payoff wasn't there, I wouldn't be taking that risk. I'd be doing my version of the car mechanic (just in software), and not taking any risk. Going into business for yourself, or trying to make it in the music industry or movies or books, is far more risky because it may never happen and you end up having given up some of the peak years of your career in many cases earning nothing (or given up the early years of your career when you could have been establishing yourself.)

 

That's why the lure of the big payoff is important, to incentivize people to take those sorts of risks.

[Geoff Grace]

 

I simply say that wishing for the old days isn't going to bring them back, and we'd all better find a new way to operate in the new days coming.

 

 

I agree. What bothers me though is the blood lust I often see for the death of major labels and all the collateral damage that entails. No doubt, a change is needed; but eliminating the high-end is unnecessary and a mistake.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Billster]

Going into business for yourself, or trying to make it in the music industry or movies or books, is far more risky because it may never happen and you end up having given up some of the peak years of your career in many cases earning nothing (or given up the early years of your career when you could have been establishing yourself.) That's why the lure of the big payoff is important, to incentivize people to take those sorts of risks.

Ten minute misconduct for using the word "incetivize"

[Dean Roddey]

You answered your own question. The mechanic who opens a shop is taking a risk. If he didn't want to take that risk, he would go work for some established shop.

 

 

I wasn't really asking a question (being the fount of all knowledge), I was making a point, that when you remove the incentive, people don't take the risk nearly as much. They mechanic who goes and works for the shop around the corner is not the same as the guy who starts his own high performance car business. It's the latter who stands a chance of doing something we'll all be interested in.

[the stranger]

I make music to make music. I make music because I love to. Screw the money. Get a real job.

 

The devaluation of music started when people put a value on it. The commodification of art is obscene.

[Duddits]

 

What do you think of these apples? I agree with him. The following is reprinted by permission (c) Bob Lefsetz

 

 

If you agree with him, then isn't it something of an insult to his point to reprint his article "by permission"?

 

Or, according to Bob, is stealing OK, as long as it's not from him?

[Billster]

If you agree with him, then isn't it something of an insult to his point to reprint his article "by permission"? Or, according to Bob, is stealing OK, as long as it's not from him?

 

 

Touch

[Dean Roddey]

I make music to make music. I make music because I love to. Screw the money. Get a real job.

 

 

What if making music is your real job? Why should musicians, of all people, not be allowed to profit from their efforts? When you start volunteering to do your 'real' job for free, then you'll have a position on which to stand. Until then, it's pretty hypocritical of you to take this position.