Phil O'Keefe Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I can't embed it, but I definitely think it's worth checking out. If you do, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts / comments. http://tv.gawker.com/#!sarahmclachlan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PrinceOfTheLoud Posted February 19, 2011 Members Share Posted February 19, 2011 i, for one, think it would be pretty awesome to have a decent looking house-cleaning girl show up to my place and start cleaning for free. that would help out a lot. but i dont think that's the comment you are looking for. so, i think that the premise is really silly. because it lays the blame on the consumer. While the consumer is complicit in downloading music for free, the consumer (or freesumers) are far from the only ones to blame. The record companies steadily increasing the price of CDs from $12 in 1995 to $18-20 in 2006 is partly to blame (especially consdering production costs have decreased). The fact that mp3s are $1 to download is to blame - you don't even get anything physical that's like a hard piece of plastic (a CD) or cool artwork or lyrics or anything. The Reaper business model has it right - you get a full-fledged DAW for 40 bucks vs. Sonar and others which are hundreds. Finally, a company that's not motivated exclusively by greed and wealth!!! The same goes for MP3s - they're not worth 1 dollar EACH. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and well, there's not enough room for everyone to get a piece of the damn pie. Also, like it or not, the artist is to blame too. It's called a career choice. Everyone faces it (except for maybe the trust fund hipster dweebs in the gakwer video). It's not too dissimilar from, say Motorola. You know, a few years ago, RAZRs were all the rage, but poor business decisions, now I don't know one person who owns a Motorola. Same for people. The artists must diversify into other things in the same field - do what you do, be a music reporter, start producing, start a music promotion service like TAXI. Rather than whine and complain that the world is unfair, the artists - like everyone else - must adapt and overcome. In economics, the term for it is "creative destruction." It's a pain in the ass for sure and no one likes it, but it's also societal evolution, plain & simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scapier Posted February 19, 2011 Members Share Posted February 19, 2011 Yep, that's about right. We love you, use the back entrance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 19, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2011 The same goes for MP3s - they're not worth 1 dollar EACH. Yikes. Not blaming the consumer, just thieves. Funny, sad, video. A lot of old friends of mine are in the same situation. I'm lucky to have pussed out years ago and bailed the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PrinceOfTheLoud Posted February 19, 2011 Members Share Posted February 19, 2011 I do my math like this: an album is usually around 12 songs. That would mean than to buy an album from an itunes store would be $12. You can buy a REAL CD with 12 songs from amazon for 12-14 bucks. That real CD is a physical object with artwork. I absolutely think $1 for a song is too expensive because there are ZERO distribution costs - no shipping, no brick and mortar stores, no warehouse workers to pay, no distribution center real estate - especially when comparing MP3 vs Real CD cost comparison. Also, as an addendum, I know most artists dont exactly have their hands clean when it comes to paying for downloads. Rumor is that Lars Ulrich hasn't bought any music in years. Tons of interviews on youtube with the modernrock band crowd, the bands admit to just d/l their music from 'blacklisted' sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 Do you know what the single biggest music player / site on the planet is? It's YouTube. Music files are less than 3% of the total files downloaded via torrent sites - it's gotten to the point where music hardly isn't even being downloaded / "stolen" anymore. And yet, it's still incredibly popular and "present". Check out this site for some very interesting charts / stats: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted February 19, 2011 Members Share Posted February 19, 2011 I buy music all the time, I don't really see an issue with the current cost of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AMZ-FX Posted February 19, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2011 Check out this site for some very interesting charts / stats: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2 The graph that they label as "The Right Chart" is misleading since it does not take into account the cost-of goods, which is an important parameter. It costs much less to produce a CD than it does a vinyl record or even a cassette. Furthermore, the cost of digital downloads is essentially zero, as well as that of mobile files and videos. I'll bet that the gross profit percentage is up, even while per-capita sales are down. Even this does not tell the whole story, as the business analysis of an entire industry is a complex equation However, music piracy is everywhere and has forced musicians and music marketers into developing a new business model, if they want to remain viable. More reading: http://news.cnet.com/Recording-industry-should-brace-for-more-bad-news/2010-1027_3-6226487.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 19, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2011 I do my math like this: an album is usually around 12 songs. That would mean than to buy an album from an itunes store would be $12. You can buy a REAL CD with 12 songs from amazon for 12-14 bucks. That real CD is a physical object with artwork. I absolutely think $1 for a song is too expensive because there are ZERO distribution costs - no shipping, no brick and mortar stores, no warehouse workers to pay, no distribution center real estate - especially when comparing MP3 vs Real CD cost comparison.Also, as an addendum, I know most artists dont exactly have their hands clean when it comes to paying for downloads. Rumor is that Lars Ulrich hasn't bought any music in years. Tons of interviews on youtube with the modernrock band crowd, the bands admit to just d/l their music from 'blacklisted' sources. I think we all can grok the math at a distance while squinting and both our hands tied behind our backs. But saying a song you love isn't worth a buck... it's sad. A buck. And saying, "Rumor is that Lars Ulrich hasn't bought any music in years" doesn't suggest I should alter my basic values. What I value. I value music. And I value its creators. Of which I am one. Here's a buck. Go write another! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PrinceOfTheLoud Posted February 19, 2011 Members Share Posted February 19, 2011 I think we all can grok the math at a distance while squinting and both our hands tied behind our backs. But saying a song you love isn't worth a buck... it's sad. A buck. And saying, "Rumor is that Lars Ulrich hasn't bought any music in years" doesn't suggest I should alter my basic values. What I value. I value music. And I value its creators. Of which I am one.Here's a buck. Go write another! Sure, in absolute terms, a song may be worth a buck. But in historically relative terms and compared to the physical commodity itself, it's worth less than a buck. As an artist, I'd like to make $10 per mp3 download, but as a consumer, I'd like to pay 25 cents per download. I don't think the flat rate of $1 per song is good either. Compare it to to the stock market. GE isn't worth the same as Chrysler (assuming Chrysler were still public). GE is worth a lot more than Chrylser. Similarly, some songs aren't worth $1, other songs are worth more than $1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 19, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2011 Also, like it or not, the artist is to blame too. It's called a career choice. Everyone faces it (except for maybe the trust fund hipster dweebs in the gakwer video). It's not too dissimilar from, say Motorola. You know, a few years ago, RAZRs were all the rage, but poor business decisions, now I don't know one person who owns a Motorola. Same for people. The artists must diversify into other things in the same field - do what you do, be a music reporter, start producing, start a music promotion service like TAXI. Rather than whine and complain that the world is unfair, the artists - like everyone else - must adapt and overcome.In economics, the term for it is "creative destruction." It's a pain in the ass for sure and no one likes it, but it's also societal evolution, plain & simple. I re-read your earlier post. We agree. I diversified. I was straight music performance for 15 years. Did well enough but saw the end of live music coming. Or at least a shift in its reality. I left cold turkey and studied acoustics, digital audio and computers. This was 1992. They're still bitching about how live music is going in the tubes over at the live music forum here. Uh... yeah. Diversify, based on your values and interests. Agreed. I've since moved into video motion graphics, marketing, etc. Eat or be eaten. However, the video points to a very real problem. Talented artists from a previous infrastructure left without... what... any current infrastructure. I don't think the intention is to feel sorry for these folks. It's a send up. It's funny. And it's real. Aimee doesn't see that dirt on the stove. "No, that's dirt!" She's lost. A lot of artists have dedicated their toil to their art. A life of it. And now Darwin is kicking their tunnel visioned asses. Hey, if Sarah's got to trim shrubs to feed the kids... so be it. Still, don't let your perception of that "overpriced" buck-a-tune paradigm be a green light to devaluing music and the eventual acceptance of theft. And that is exactly where the consumer does come in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 I don't think the flat rate of $1 per song is good either. Compare it to to the stock market. GE isn't worth the same as Chrysler (assuming Chrysler were still public). GE is worth a lot more than Chrylser. Similarly, some songs aren't worth $1, other songs are worth more than $1. No offense, but I don't think that analogy holds up. A song by the Beatles may be priceless to me, but worthless to someone else - after all, not everyone likes the Beatles. Music is valuated subjectively; based on the preferences of the individual. And just because something is generally hugely successful, or even wallowing in virtual obscurity, doesn't mean that someone will automatically cherish that music... or find it worthless. You can't really put the value of music, the personal and emotional connection it has with individuals, into an assets and liabilities list / profit and loss statement. You might be able to place a value on a company, or even a publishing catalog, but on a personal, individual level, songs and albums either work for you or they don't. Who would decide what to charge for that song vs this song - the vendor? The label? Based on what criteria - sales / download popularity? How "new" the song is, and whether or not it's getting "pushed" by the label? The labels have already been pushing for that; they want to be able to get a different, higher priced tier for "new" songs, and so far, that hasn't really been a successful tactic for them. Yes, I'm generally a fan of free markets, but the sheer numbers make it difficult for a vendor like Amazon or iTunes to charge several different rates; different ones for each artist and all of their different songs - after all, the hits are worth more than the album "fillers", right? Unless you happen to really love that obscure "filler song". On an individual artist / vendor level, it's easier - on your website, you can decide to charge full retail for your CD and / or downloads, or even more - Marissa Marchant wanted $1k per copy of her CD because she considered it "art" and valuated it accordingly... or you can go the other direction and pull a Radiohead and offer the album for whatever the individual customer wants to pay for it - even allowing them to get it for "free" if they want. And the market will respond and either support or reject your pricing. But ultimately, those decisions represent the choices of a lot of individuals, and they decide based on what works for them, on what emotionally connects with and moves them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PrinceOfTheLoud Posted February 20, 2011 Members Share Posted February 20, 2011 Who would decide what to charge for that song vs this song - the vendor? supply & demand. Same thing that moves the stock market. For example, let's say for the sake of argument that GE has a Net Present Value of 100million for its predicted future cash flow. Also, PetToysOnline.com has a Net Present Value of 100 million for its predicted cash flow. Also, let's say its 1998. GE might be trading at $50/share, while PetToysOnline.com might be trading at $150/share, more than 3x the amount of GE, even though the discounted cash flows amount to the EXACT same value as predicted by the analysts. This is because demand for tech stocks exceeded that of GE conglomerates during the late 90s. The same supply & demand thing could be applied to an mp3 exchange. It could be interspersed with parameters set by the artists (e.g. "my song will never be permitted to sell below 10 cents"). Additionally there would be a universal ceiling - say nothing will sell for about $7.50 for an individual mp3 - Marrissa Merchant would have to find an alternate exchange to sell her sonic, uh, black gold. Some MIT mathematics PhDs could easily come up with an algorithm to help establish price based on demand and parameter inputs. I think this would be a much fairer way to determine the value of a particular song than the sort of arbitrary 99 cent thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PrinceOfTheLoud Posted February 20, 2011 Members Share Posted February 20, 2011 Aimee doesn't see that dirt on the stove. "No, that's dirt!" She's lost. A lot of artists have dedicated their toil to their art. A life of it. And now Darwin is kicking their tunnel visioned asses. Yes, but I get the impression that most artists, all they are doing to change is preach "don't steal the music, buy it!" Here they are, right in the middle of a changing music biz environment, and they're STILL tunnel-visioned despite EVERY SINGLE indication that they will not survive doing what they did 10 years ago. Instead of feeling pissed off and sorry for themselves, NOW is just a good a time to put their creative energies to work and come up with a PERSONAL SOLUTION. I'm not asking them to solve the industry's crisis, I'm asking them to figure out what they can do for themselves so they won't be living on the streets next year. Become a professional song-writer for others? Hook up with this taxi.com service? Start moving toward anything related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 20, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2011 Yes, but I get the impression that most artists, all they are doing to change is preach "don't steal the music, buy it!" Here they are, right in the middle of a changing music biz environment, and they're STILL tunnel-visioned despite EVERY SINGLE indication that they will not survive doing what they did 10 years ago. Instead of feeling pissed off and sorry for themselves, NOW is just a good a time to put their creative energies to work and come up with a PERSONAL SOLUTION. I'm not asking them to solve the industry's crisis, I'm asking them to figure out what they can do for themselves so they won't be living on the streets next year. Become a professional song-writer for others? Hook up with this taxi.com service? Start moving toward anything related. I don't know your background. Mine? I worked as a musician/artist exclusively for 20 years. Then got out. But my peers, my friends, my compadres? Well, they were cursed with some deep artistic fire. Get out? NO. It wasn't the quest for the limelight with most and still isn't. It's artistic expression. Should we artificially subsidize them? No. Should we be on the lookout for purely capitalistic means and ways of supporting artist and their output? I think so. Should they be on the lookout for purely capitalistic means and ways of supporting themselves and their output? Of course! And most are doing exactly that. You said, "NOW is just a good a time to put their creative energies to work and come up with a PERSONAL SOLUTION." What's giving you the impression that they aren't? That video? It's a send up. It's funny picturing David Byrne explaining how many HDMI ports the Toshiba 52" has while working the floor at Best Buy. That's doesn't mean he's not working toward supporting his mission, whatever it might be. It only points out the new reality. The couple in that Aimee Mann sketch weren't the bad guys. It only illustrates how fish out of water some artists are feeling right now. We're not supposed to feel sorry for them, but laughing at that plight in this video also made me empathetic. Laughing with them. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chris carter Posted February 20, 2011 Members Share Posted February 20, 2011 The video is funny as hell, but also sad and twisted. The reality is that the video hits way too close to home for me. Most of my friends who are incredibly talented and have worked their asses off (way more than most people with 9-5) are litterally Aimee in that video. It's very difficult to see hard working people's lives implode, not because someone came along and made a better product, or that they simply couldn't continue to make a good product, but because greedy people stole the music. There are lots of things I don't think are worth a dollar; and I don't buy them, but I don't steal them either. It's sad. I'm also really sick of idiots making stupid graphs. These people know nothing about business and the real numbers involved, nor do they know how to make a proper graph that presents data without totally skewing it. All of these morons are the same crackheads who keep saying that this is the best time to be an artist because there are so many opportunities (opportunities that generally don't pay...). These are the same crackheads to once a month say there is a new business model that will save the industry. EVERY supposed post internet piracy business model has failed. Remember the biggest one? Radiohead and their pay what you want that everyone said was so insanely successfull and showed the world that if you let people pay whatever they want, they will all be fair? Anybody notice that Radiohead abandoned that for the new album? Hmmmmm? Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. But I will justy say that anyone who thinks that video might be overexaggerating is wrong because I've seen almost identical situations in person many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skibob Posted February 20, 2011 Members Share Posted February 20, 2011 I do my math like this: an album is usually around 12 songs. That would mean than to buy an album from an itunes store would be $12. You can buy a REAL CD with 12 songs from amazon for 12-14 bucks. That real CD is a physical object with artwork. Then you should buy the CD. It's a bargain. That's the idea. Downloading the mp3 and being able to cherry pick the songs you want is a convenience for which you pay an up-charge. They want you to buy the CD. The sad truth is that file sharing and mp3 has basically made music worthless. People complaining about paying $1 for a song they like is a perfect example of this. You pay more than that for a candy bar that's gone in 2 minutes. It wouldn't matter if it was $.25, people would still complain. Case in point:Recently I bought a CD by a band that me and my friends really like. It was a double CD with like 20 songs on it for $10. You can also download the songs off their website for $.99/song. When my friends heard it, their first response was "burn me a copy". To which I replied "Really??? You don't have $10 to support a band you're always raving about???". Now it's not like these friends are poor or anything, $10 is a fraction of what they spend in the bar on any given night. But why would they want to buy it, even for a reasonable price, when they can get it free? It's not even worth $.50 per song for a CD from your favorite artist. And it's only going to get worse because there are more new consumers every day who have never known any other way. I'm starting to miss the days before mp3 when CDs cost $18-20, because then music was exciting. There was lots of it to choose from, good and bad, MTV played music videos and when a big artist's album dropped it was an event. You won't see people lining up around the block or camping out to download an mp3 the day it's released. And as far as artists finding alternative revenue streams, a lot of them have. It's called getting a real job and forgetting about making music, like in the video. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators MrKnobs Posted February 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted February 22, 2011 Marissa Marchant wanted $1k per copy of her CD because... ....she knew that would get her a lot of attention Fixed it for you. Terry D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted February 22, 2011 Members Share Posted February 22, 2011 Then you should buy the CD. It's a bargain.That's the idea. Downloading the mp3 and being able to cherry pick the songs you want is a convenience for which you pay an up-charge. They want you to buy the CD. The sad truth is that file sharing and mp3 has basically made music worthless. People complaining about paying $1 for a song they like is a perfect example of this. You pay more than that for a candy bar that's gone in 2 minutes. It wouldn't matter if it was $.25, people would still complain.Case in point:Recently I bought a CD by a band that me and my friends really like. It was a double CD with like 20 songs on it for $10. You can also download the songs off their website for $.99/song. When my friends heard it, their first response was "burn me a copy". To which I replied "Really??? You don't have $10 to support a band you're always raving about???". Now it's not like these friends are poor or anything, $10 is a fraction of what they spend in the bar on any given night. But why would they want to buy it, even for a reasonable price, when they can get it free? It's not even worth $.50 per song for a CD from your favorite artist. And it's only going to get worse because there are more new consumers every day who have never known any other way.I'm starting to miss the days before mp3 when CDs cost $18-20, because then music was exciting. There was lots of it to choose from, good and bad, MTV played music videos and when a big artist's album dropped it was an event. You won't see people lining up around the block or camping out to download an mp3 the day it's released. And as far as artists finding alternative revenue streams, a lot of them have. It's called getting a real job and forgetting about making music, like in the video./rant To look at this from a slightly different perspective. I love music plain and simple. If I find a band I like I will buy their albums. I won't say I've never downloaded a song here or there, but I have definitely purchased way more than downloaded. However I think the move to being able to buy one song at a time has been an improvement in some ways. When I was a teen in High School (mid to late 90s) I hated spending $15-20 on an album only to find it had 1 good song on it. The rest were horrible. So I essentially spent $20 for one song. That sucked. It definitely made me appreciate a well done album. One that was worth the full asking price. These days I can listen to 30 secs of the songs and see if it's worth buying the album or just the hit single. And fwiw if I do buy the album I prefer to buy the "hard copy". Just feels better having something to hold in my hand. So yeah times are changing but people will find ways to adapt. More than likely the big record companies may go away, but people will always love music and find ways to create it. And as long as people create music they'll find a way to make a living at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted February 23, 2011 Members Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'm kinda sick of hearing about all the post traumatic stress suffered by buying a clunker ..... For starters , Don't ever buy an album from that band again . period . The responsibility ultimately lies with the artist and their lack of integrity. The sooner we vote with our wallets and don't allow individual artist to pull this , no matter what the excuse , the sooner we get a sea change and better product . BUT , Since we now can easily preview every track , there is little excuse to continue with the constant pissing and moaning about how we got burned on an album , way back when ..... It is a singles ecosystem now . But before you throw a party about it , remember this . You have just made it so the artist is very much more constrained in what they can do . The pressure to not have ANYBODY feel that that last song was filler will mean that they will never try and stretch their legs . Originality ????? Not so fast !!! By killing off the album format , the petulant cry baby's have guaranteed that we get the equivalent of telling the painter to paint the same "hit " picture evertime . Tell the painter to never use purple in his paintings , cause you have a subjective bias against it , and will feel ripped off if he does ........... tell him to only paint landscapes ; never impressionistic ones either!! A bunch of singles that aren't part of a conceptual group , that are homogeneous and cookie cutter without any excursions or experiments ... in short , guarantee me that every song will be great , every time . Lunatics running the asylum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted February 23, 2011 Members Share Posted February 23, 2011 Not sure if the above was aimed at me, but I'm not stressing out about it. I'm just pointing out something I like about the ability to digitally stream and preview music. I have bought all music I've downloaded in the past couple of years. I wouldn't even consider illegally downloading it any more. Now I listen, see if there are enough songs I like to buy the album, if not buy just the one song. In my opinion this should spark creativity. Don't give me 10 versions of the same song. I'll just buy the one. Give me 3-4 interesting tracks and I'll buy the whole album. I don't need every song to be a hit. I don't mind albums that have a few songs I'm not a huge fan of. I just don't buy whole albums for one great song. So again this to me should spark more creativity and maybe more effort on the artist's part. Now that people can download one song at a time give them a reason to buy them all. Just my .02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted February 23, 2011 Members Share Posted February 23, 2011 Not sure if the above was aimed at me, Not at all. It's more the folks who use endless rationalizations to justify parasitically motivated actions . Your stance is that of a patron and I applaud you . I'm not a luddite and can adapt to a singles only world . I just think something has been lost . But it's not the end or anything !!!! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.