If Cloud Music Booms, Do Musicians Lose?

[Poker99]

 

If Cloud Music Booms, Do Musicians Lose? Last week, Hypebot reported on a study that suggests cloud music will boom in the next five years. For consumers, this moment has be percolating for a decade and is only now being realized. Unlimited music is "reportedly" what consumers have always wanted. Thus, once they're freed file-sharing and paying for digital downloads, they'll be better off. Artists, on the other hand, may find themselves worst off. ABI, the company behind the study, willfully admits that a cloud music boom will make it more difficult to make a living by selling recorded music. To them, this is a price worth paying. If consumers don't have convenient and affordable legal alternatives, "they will simply enjoy their music by other means," ABI cautions. Put differently, artists are damned if they do join the cloud shift because it will further erode their ability to sell music, but will be also damned if they don't, because consumers will download their music for free if they refuse. So, while artists certaintly have ways to leverage new scarcities, the cloud shift will force everyone to rethink how they make a living from music. A Niche Product Over at Tunecore, George Howard tells artists that, for better or worse, the cloud is upon us; it will reduce digital downloads to a niche product. Nothing will make physical product and downloads relevant to consumers again. In time though, Howard believes that artists who own their masters will be able to negotiate more favorable terms and reap promotional benefits from the increased access to their music. Andrew Orlowski agrees with Howard, at least in part. "Creative artists who really do value their own work naturally shop around for the best deal from an intermediary," he says. "If one label can't offer it, they'll go to one who can. If a collecting society strikes a bad deal, they'll reason that they're better off without the collecting society." But Orlowski's optimism stops there. In his opinion, the looming music cloud is much darker. The Internet revolution promised to free artists from exploitative corporations. Now, it seeks to simply enslave them to Internet companies instead. "How ironic," Orlowski muses. Getting Prepared The music that fuels cloud-based services is less profitable, but artists are still expected to create it, and many will. "As artists, it's imperative to prepare and capitalize upon this disruptive technological innovation," Howard writes. "In order to immediately begin the preparation process, be sure to affiliate with both a PRO (like ASCAP or BMI) and with SoundExchange." After that, he says artists must then "look for opportunities where you can extract value out of these streams." To Howard, if cloud music booms musicians won't lose... if they're prepared. Are you?

 

 

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/03/if-cloud-music-booms-do-musicians-lose.html#tp

[daddymack]

The music that fuels cloud-based services is less profitable, but artists are still expected to create it, and many will.

 

Well...if there is no way to generate adequate income from it, who in their right mind is going to spend their own money to do it when there is absolutely no potential reward?

I have a feeling that the whole 'cloud' thing has yet to be properly explored, explained or exploited...if a product goes up on the 'cloud', why shouldn't some form of payment be made for providing 'content'?

[Cliftonb]

 

Well...if there is no way to generate adequate income from it, who in their right mind is going to spend their own money to do it when there is absolutely no potential reward?

 

 

That's me all over. There's a lot of stuff I need to give voice to and issues I have to sort out in my life and music is my primary venue for doing so. I seriously can't not make music. It's just like eating, drinking, and breathing. I feel I'd die if I quit doing any of those things.

 

Lucky for me I'm left-brainded and rignt-brainded and making a very good living in the engineering/technology sector. I'm toying around with some ideas on how to generate revenue that I've seen in other fields outside of music but under any circumstances barring death, I hope to continue making music for as long as I'm able.

[PermaNoobie]

 

Lucky for me I'm left-brainded and rignt-brainded and making a very good living in the engineering/technology sector

 

 

Might not be too unusual, guess what brain structure tends to be larger in musicians

[Poker99]

 

That's me all over. There's a lot of stuff I need to give voice to and issues I have to sort out in my life and music is my primary venue for doing so. I seriously can't not make music. It's just like eating, drinking, and breathing. I feel I'd die if I quit doing any of those things.

 

 

Me too, although I could see myself quitting in the long term. I would do something else, and return to listening music. I will always like music, but creating content? Not sure.

 

But you have to remember... Making good music costs a lot of money. Good studio, producer, instruments... I was planning big studio for our next project but now thinking more and more about doing most of the studio work myself or in a small place. Of course the quality will be lower, I just don't have the money or interest to invest in something that won'T pay a dime.

[BlueStrat]

This article seems like the writer is a little late to the party. Gems like this make me think so:

 

"Artists, on the other hand, may find themselves worst off." May? Gee, ya think? They already are.

 

 

"Put differently, artists are damned if they do join the cloud shift because it will further erode their ability to sell music, but will be also damned if they don't, because consumers will download their music for free if they refuse. " Again, already happening and is common.

 

"So, while artists certaintly have ways to leverage new scarcities, the cloud shift will force everyone to rethink how they make a living from music." Why haven't we talked about this before?

 

 

"In his opinion, the looming music cloud is much darker. The Internet revolution promised to free artists from exploitative corporations. Now, it seeks to simply enslave them to Internet companies instead. "How ironic," Orlowski muses."

 

I actual'y disagree with this. It's not the internet companies that are being exploitive, it's the consumer. Internet companies are scrambling to try to make a living out of this steaming pile just as we are. We have, through the combined effort of the DIY revolution and the utter lack of business acumen among musicians ( I made a CD- now what?) succeeded in turning everyone into thinking they are entitled to whatever they want, and music is the most logical victim because current technologically makes it the easiest to steal. If BMWs or diamonds were as easy to steal, the public would be helping themselves to those, too, no matter what they cost to produce.

 

I can't think of another business where someone from the public could walk in and say to the owner "hand over your stuff. If you don't, I'm just going to steal it anyway". And then have multitudes of papers and blogs writing about how it's the shopkeeper who's an idiot if he thinks he can stop it and is a fool to try, but it's okay because he really loves what he does so he can just get a second job to pay for the theft.

 

Some days I open my laptop and wonder wtf planet did I just wake up on?

[Matximus]

Skeptical of the whole "cloud" thing too - from what I understand of it, which isn't very much. My sense is it's being bandied about because it's some kind of way to corral the explosion of freely swapped content. All of your content disappears when you terminate your cloud service, at least that's how I think it's going to work. You can't take it with you. Which is bull{censored} and people won't buy into it. I've got 100,000 songs on a storage drive that's no bigger than a deck of cards. Who needs a cloud?

 

ON a side note - I got that drive from my brother. Who got it from another guy who served overseas. And this is interesting - the troops over there all share their content on a central server, it's one of the comfort-type services that's provided while they're toughing it out on hardship tours. You can plug your {censored} in and rip an endless stream of music, movies & even porn I believe that was contributed by everyone else. It's like everyone throwing their halloween candy into a bowl and sharing- but the bowl is bottomless. Isn't that wild?

 

It's kind of of the same idea as a cloud, except you're free to rip the content right onto your laptop, or iPod or whatever. It's yours. This drive my brother gave me has the top 100 billboard songs for every year from around 1950 through 2007. And then pretty much every album you can imagine soldiers would be interested in listening too -the Motley Crue discography, the Led Zeppelin Discography; Public Enemy; Eminem; Pretty much every platinum or important record made in the last 30 years.

 

It's actually too much music. It's overwhelming and not all that enjoyable to rip from, because there is so much information it becomes work - kind of like filtering through the million Myspace bands or whatever.

 

Anyway the implications of that drive are staggering to me. The idea that you can take Napster off the internet and put it in your pocket is kinda freaky.

[PermaNoobie]

 

The idea that you can take Napster off the internet and put it in your pocket is kinda freaky.

 

 

Sneakernet is classic, it's still a when-all-else-fails option. It's a part of why the Apple ][ was what it was.

 

 

I think "cloud" has just become the latest buzzword in just some very classic issues in architecture. Where are your resource? -- concrete or abstracted? local or remote? dedicated or distributed?

 

oh we're using a dumb terminal on a vax, oh now we've got a power desktop, oh now we're now were running a thin client, oh now we have a Beowulf cluster.....and there's all these tiny little bits marshmallow just stuck right in the cereal so when the kids eat them they think "Oh this is candy, I'm having Fun!"*

 

 

* Frau Farbissina on Lucky charms

[Triny D]

Performers will always win. The whole idea of monetizing recordings may have been a temporary aberration in music history.

[Dessalines]

The tyranny of the new raises it's ugly head again. What happens when the cloud goes away? Do not dismiss the last question out of hand.

[daddymack]

after the cloud? We go into the O-zone (Oprah probably already owns all the trademarks for that, though)...or the Ultraverse ( I will trademark this one myself)...frankly, as I said, the whole 'cloud' concept is still relatively unexplored...and I absolutely hate those MS commercials...'into the cloud'...all a crock...

[Matximus]

 

Performers will always win. The whole idea of monetizing recordings may have been a temporary aberration in music history.

 

 

I think that's an important sentiment that's should be expressed more often just like you expressed it -I do agree with that. It wasn't really much about the music. I mean, it was, but it wasn't. It was about the tangible, plastic, music-related products. It's so funny if you think about it - how many people grow up fantasizing about selling ten million coffee mugs, or pens, or snow globes or any other kind of consumer product? But that's what fantasizing about being a rock star was always about at the end of the day: Being the salesman for a company that sells little plastic things.

 

THe performing opportunities were always the best part of the bargain for most people that got any traction in that business; and the performing will be there when the recording business is gone, although the performing field is just as cut-throat and crooked and crazy and wild as the recording industry.

[BlueStrat]

 

Performers will always win. The whole idea of monetizing recordings may have been a temporary aberration in music history.

 

 

Well, yes, but only because recordings have only existed for about 80 years. This does nothing to explain how people feel entitled to own something for free that someone else paid to create. One could take your point and apply it to all sorts of things-and it may be true, and it may not be, but the questions are 1) what are the long term effects, and 2) will we be better off?

[flatfinger]

Well I was recently reading through the comments section on another article about streaming , and like clockwork , a clone sounded out with the usual " artist can still tour and make money that way "

 

It's always great to have someone outside designate your business model for you ; isn't it !! Imogen Heap is having trouble making a profit touring, and that's just the canary in the coal mine .

 

The endless rationalizations and situational ethics will never stop . If there are no teeth or enforcement , then it will be the same as taking the cops off the beat in any neighborhood , or taking oversight of wall street or the banks ..... anarchy.

 

I'm really {censored}ing glad that music isn't how I make my living , but , I'm real sad when I ponder the chances of there being any uber quality projects going down like in the past .

No more Steely Dans either . Just a bunch of auto-tuned studio wonders and Disney taste- making attempts forced on those poor tweens !!!

 

 

But that's the bright side ! ; On the negative side ...........

 

 

 

 

.

[BlueStrat]

 

Well I was recently reading through the comments section on another article about streaming , and like clockwork , a clone sounded out with the usual " artist can still tour and make money that way "

 

 

 

It may well be true that for some acts, touring is profitable. But for new acts or intermediate echelon acts trying to break big, it is almost always at best a break-even propositon, and usually a money-losing one unless one can strip everything down to where they're basically little more than hobos with guitars. Touring bands just getting going are competing with local bands who are playing for little to nothing, or even paying to play, just to get gigs. They can do that because they aren't on the road. But road bands have to get paid. If bands are expected to give away their recordings for free, and play for basically gas money, they can't survive. It's just that simple.

 

A high draw national act can afford to give away records because they can make money on tours. But lower echelon bands need everything they can sell to make ends meet, and that includes CDs. If they can't make enough to live, they won't ever become upper tier bands. People piss and moan about cookie cutter music and mindless drivel, but this is one of the biggest reasons they're getting it. It's not because there aren't good bands writing good songs. It's because the avenue to success that used to be available to them is all but gone.

[Poker99]

Whatever!!! Bloggers say touring is the future maaaaaaan! Also, Twitter.

[sventvkg]

The more people that hear your stuff the better so if it's available in the cloud it can be promoted and thus has a chance to go viral if it's good. This is a different music business than most people understand it to be here. For better or worse. Even in country patterns are changing and they are catching up with technology. Going to be an interesting few years!

 

Look, I have used SPOTIFY in Europe and from a user perspective it was the GREATEST THING I EVER EXPERIENCED!! A Streaming service like that when it comes here, and it will, based in the "cloud" will render owning tracks obsolete. Mark my words and be advised! It's like being plugged in to the world's Jukebox at all times! Practically anything you can think of you type in and it comes up and plays!! {censored}ing Amazing!!! Why do you need tracks on your computer anymore much less stolen ones? Ya dig? They just need to work out the royalty thing which WILL be much less than terrestrial radio because for better or worse, technology is changing, listening habits are changing and the music business is going through the more profound change since it began.

[sventvkg]

 

Whatever!!! Bloggers say touring is the future maaaaaaan! Also, Twitter.

 

 

They don't know what the {censored} they are talking about plain and simple..$3.50 a gallon gas and you want me to drive 2000 miles a week to play for free? Right....

 

No no, the future is niche...getting a small cadre of fans that will support you. At first you can do live streaming shows with a tip jar and get people to contribute paypal. I've already done this a lot and I've made more that I would playing Jammin Java in VA or Eddies Attic. They will buy your schwag and music as well. It's the future and you will see more artists doing it. From there you branch out into house concerts and than traditional shows spaced out regionally as your popularity grows, all the while staying connected and plugged in to your fanbase. No, the future is about developing a small loyal fanbase. If they love you they will support you but you have to be about them. Make the music they like and connect with them. This is where it's at and artists like Amanda Palmer, my friend Marion Call, and so so many others are doing just this, profitably.

[fatusstratus]

Does "cloud music" even have one clear definition?

 

I mean, to me, it sort of seems like one of those words that kind of has been picked up by everyone to just use to mean 'the next thing'.

 

Like remember how with "podcast" there were those arguments about "It's got to be RSS to be podcast" or "it has to be independently, personally produced! just puting corporate radio show up on RSS isn't a podcast!" and all those things. I just seems like another word to use to sell the next crop of "you too can make money in the new economy" books -- "The New New New Music Biz : Crowdsourcing the tipping point on the longtail of the cloud"

[flatfinger]

well if you investigate e-readers for instance , you find that some keep the actual files on a remote server ( the cloud ) keep your place for you so that when you start reading again you can pick it up where you left off . This nice in that you don't need lots of storage on the hardware device and don't need to manage files .

 

Now some folks are uncomfortable with having the need of being in a wireless hot spot ( which is less of an issue with things like a 3G cell phone network , especially if you are in a major metropolitan area ) some just want the security of having a "hard copy " of the data ....

 

From a hardware device standpoint , the $$ can go toward things like a bigger , better screen and such , if it isn't spent on things like storage devices ( DDRM) and the device an be slimmer and have better battery life...

[flatfinger]

From there you branch out into house concerts and than traditional shows spaced out regionally as your popularity grows, all the while staying connected and plugged in to your fan base. No, the future is about developing a small loyal fan base. If they love you they will support you but you have to be about them. Make the music they like and connect with them. This is where it's at and artists like Amanda Palmer , my friend Marion Call, and so so many others are doing just this, profitably.

 

 

Jesus dude , That's one of the shining examples you refer too ??? :confused:Really

 

Why bring her up ? She had previous label backing , and her sites Alexia ratings are only up when she manages to get attention ( I.E. generate purposefully {censored} storm).With her Convenient "battle with the man" fight with her record company .... It's just a transparent tapping into the "hate the big bad wolf labels" routine .

The biggest beef she has with them is about a video shoot and how they cut out some mid-drift shots or something ... (It's a joke !!)

 

She had a stunt where she got a clique of some of her trust fund baby fans to buy a bunch of $50 T-shirts and the musicians coaches blogoshere nuts went ape {censored} about it .... What a shining example of what can be accomplished !!! Again , basically a joke !!! How many fans out there are buying $50 T-shirts from you ???

There are exceptions to every rule , but I'm willing to bet that the average fan , no matter how fanatical , doesn't slap down $50 or more all the time for scwagg!! It's an anomoly.

 

 

This is the future ?? more relevant , realistic examples please ......... Start with someone who didn't benefit from previous label promotion and marketing....and leave out the baby GAGA prototypes if you don't mind

[sventvkg]

Fatfinger, I know what I'm talking about because I know people doing it. I do it a bit and plan to use this mode more and more. It's working just fine,REAL WORLD, RIGHT NOW. I used Amanda Palmer as an example because people would know her {censored}ing name dude. Seriously, you dont' know what you're talking about in the practical real sense of the world and the new music business. I do because this is what I do and all my friends do this full time. I could spew 1000 names of artists and bands you don't know but well...You wouldn't know them..You can debate until the cows come home. I'm telling you how it is for the Arists who aren't bull{censored}ting about it on forums (well some are like me ) but are working this {censored} full time. I've named a lot of artists in my posts who are indie and doing great using new methods....Like it or not this is the new world we live in...The old music biz is gone along with the old methods. Accept it.

 

It's NOT theory.

[flatfinger]

I challenge anyone to google up and investigate Amanda Palmer and prove that she isn't anything but all smoke and no fire . You throw her out as an example ; but that example is highly flawed! If anything , it is an example of what is wrong with the present "web "paradigm. I suppose it's frustrating not to be able to present any real examples, so you're left name dropping "Artist" like that . Whoopee

 

It's all fine and dandy to say things like "I Know" It's less than anecdotal and folks out there don't have to accept it as evidence of jack.

 

 

 

I can debate this subject , and I can ask for some real examples of folks who have managed to break the ice without some previous label promotion and marketing . You have chosen to provide platitudes and "I know" as opposed to alternative examples to the flawed one you offered up . Excuse me for asking for some evidence , I apologize. I'm guessing that was just asking for to much , so I'll just take your word for it !!!

[flatfinger]

And sventvkg;

 

It would be nice if you would stop inferring and insinuating that anyone who sees flaws with the current system must therefore be some sort of Luddite who pines for things to go back to the good old days .......

 

 

It's not such a simple black and white situation and obviously the shades of gray exist . I've never advocated trying to turn the clock back ! The only constant in this life is change . But that doesn't mean that sometimes the emperors new clothes aren't a smoke screen or that we have to fully embrace all the new ways just because they are new .

We should find out the best mixture of old and new ideas and put them together .

[sventvkg]

Nothing is black and white Finger but all I'm saying is there are people doing it a new way. Are they rich? No. Are these people i'm refering to making a living? Yes. They have licensing, song placement in TV and movies, tour, and hustle their asses off.

 

I don't have to PROVE anything to you or anyone else. I {censored}ing know there is a new music paradigm out there. If I sat here and named names all day, it wouldn't matter squat to you because no one is going to spend the time googling these bands and reading all their blogs etc to try to prove Im bull{censored}ting about their small niche, yet profitable mini-careers.... IF you don't want to take my word for it, good for you. I don't have time to jerk off here squabbling with you. I'm saying right here right now, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to new music business strategies because you discount what thousands of artists are ALREADY doing, essentially calling me a liar.

 

I challenge you. Come to Nashville and I will set you straight to you face