Members entityx Posted February 3, 2012 Members Share Posted February 3, 2012 No reasonable person is in favor of piracy. Neil Young, Paulo Coelho, Dave Grohl, Radiohead, Trent Reznor...all totally unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 Oh boy. Here we go again. Before the fireworks start, know this: You have entered the hallowed halls of yesteryear. Here you will find the Priests of the Temples of Old School. The priests believe that: 1. It is impossible to find new good music on the Internet2. Soon, no one will be able to write good music any more because there won't be any money3. We were better off when it was practically impossible to make and distribute your own record4. It is impossible to make a living as an original artist5. If you give your music away, no other musician in the country will be able to sell music ever again OK, I maybe made some of those up, and I maybe exaggerated a little bit. Old farts can't find music online because they don't know how. Songwriters will always exist. When you democratize anything, the elitists will get upset. It is very very difficult but not impossible to make a living as an original musician. And the new music business operates by different rules and those who do not understand them complain the loudest. OK, that's maybe a little too harsh in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in between the two. My point is that this forum is not about finding ways to succeed in the new music biz - it is about complaining. The sad part is that some of the complaints are very valid. The one thing that I would say is that anyone going into music should plan on making no real money. Because it IS very, very difficult to make money with original music, and 99.99% of those who try will fail in the long run. Get a career in something else that you like to do. Society puts value on jobs via the pay check. There's an overabundance of music out there - you're not going to make any money. Enjoy your day job and compose at night and weekends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 Neil Young, Paulo Coelho, Dave Grohl, Radiohead, Trent Reznor...all totally unreasonable. Don't worry, I've got this one covered. Stock reply #51: But those guys made all their money under the old system! If they were starting today, they wouldn't have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 Old farts can't find music online because they don't know how. With all due respect, and you know I luv ya Rich, but allow me to say 'Bull{censored}". I have been out of work with shoulder surgery since November, and I surf an awful lot of music during the day out of sheer boredom. And I can tell you that you can find good stuff, but the good stuff/{censored} ratio is about 1/5,000. And it literally takes hours of time to find very much good stuff at all. I realize "good" is subjective, but I like to think my standards are high. The thing that is good about then internet is also it's downfall- that anyone and everyone can get stuff on any online distributor, and they are. I don't know if you've ever gone to a pawn shop and looked through a giant bin of CDs that aren't organized,. but I have and after awhile that feeling of excitement gives way to tedium and then frustration as one realizes how overwhelming it is to wade through hundreds of titles to find that one gem. Only online, that giant bin of CDs is the size of Nebraska. Let me use food as an example. 1000 varieties of ice cream bars is a problematic proposition in itself, in that all are going to be good but you might like some better than others and you won't know until you try therm all. But online, instead of 1000 varieties of ice cream bars, you get 1000 turdsicles with an occasional fudge pop buried in among them. Unfortunately, you have to lick a lot of turds to find the fudge. Other than that, I don't know that piracy hurts anymore. Once the forest has burned down, building a campfire isn't going to hurt much, is it? Since nobody but the top tier acts are making money anymore off of records these days, it's pretty much become a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 Neil Young, Paulo Coelho, Dave Grohl, Radiohead, Trent Reznor...all totally unreasonable. And every one of those guys achieved their success under the old record business, before online piracy became as common as air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 Correct about those artists, Pat. But I stand by what I said about old farts. I'm an old fart too - I use the phrase in humor only. I think you're wrong about the good/{censored} ratio being 1 to 5,000. It's more like 1 to 20,000. I'm very picky also - I have no idea if I'm as picky as you. I suspect you're pickier than me. But to get back on track, the amount of bad music (if I can say that) out there is huge, true. But the youngsters have it figured out. Spending hours searching through the Internet dumpster is not the way to find good music. They might tell you something like this: 1. Recommendations from friends.2. Social networks (Facebook, twitter, etc)3. Checking out artists on your Pandora channels.4. Websites dedicated to the genre you like5. Looking at the "similar artists" listings in Spotify for the artists/groups you like6. Checking out the Top 100 listings in non-popular genres7. Adult Alternative station on Cable TV (OK, I added that one)8. Exploring "People who bought this also bought" for artists in Amazon In reality, an actual 21 year old would probably laugh at that list and come up with a brand new one. I am an old fart too and I'm not the digital native that these kids are. Maybe I'll find a college kid and ask him how he gets new music. Now, if a person would exhaust the above list and still not be able to find anything to listen to, I would say that they are an extremely picky listener and very little is going to make them happy. For those people, they were going to be extremely picky anyway. The above list also requires a person to be using social networking as well as today's bigger music web sites and technologies (Pandora, Spotify, iTunes, etc.) If a person is not using the latest tools, either because they don't know how or they don't want to, that's a choice. I would also say that finding "new" music can, additionally, mean music a person has never heard before. I find stuff I like and start listening to it and then find out it's 7 years old. Or maybe I've never REALLY listened to much music by a band (say, CCR) outside of the radio hits. When I'm looking for new music I'm looking for music I've never heard before. I don't care what year it was recorded, I only care if I like it. In terms of social networking, aside from the obvious idea of asking ("Hey, what's everyone listening to right now?") this strategy works better for younger people, because they spend more time talking about music than old farts. Before someone goes point by point through my list and debunks all of them, my point is not to create the definitive list of how to find new music for everyone. My point is to show that yes, the Internet is a big place and yes, there's a lot of bad music out there, but there are strategies to finding what you want online without digital dumpster diving, so to speak, and the youngsters are more in tune with those strategies than us old farts because they're growing up as digital natives. But we can learn from them. And we must also understand that it's going to be easier for younger people to find stuff because they're still into music. People my age don't really discuss music too much. Unless they're musicians. Which is why numbers 1 and 2 might not work super great for old farts like me. One more point. My brother in law is a big time metal fan. He buys anywhere from 1 to 4 new CD's per month (online mostly.) Mostly it's European metal bands that I've never heard of. But he has the opposite problem than is being discussed - there's more music out there that he wants to buy than he has disposable money for. And he's 45. But he's far easier to please than I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 1. Recommendations from friends.2. Social networks (Facebook, twitter, etc)3. Checking out artists on your Pandora channels.4. Websites dedicated to the genre you like5. Looking at the "similar artists" listings in Spotify for the artists/groups you like6. Checking out the Top 100 listings in non-popular genres7. Adult Alternative station on Cable TV (OK, I added that one)8. Exploring "People who bought this also bought" for artists in Amazon It is interesting that every one of these points provides a gatekeeper function not much different than the old model provided. If it's based on what your friends recommend and what a site like Pandora plays or Spotify recommends, how is that different from 1980 when your friends would recommend something, you'd hear it on the radio, or you'd read about it in Rolling Stone? So if the gatekeepers still exist, the only real difference is that quality control has been eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 OK, that's maybe a little too harsh in the other direction. The truth is somewhere in between the two. My point is that this forum is not about finding ways to succeed in the new music biz - it is about complaining. The sad part is that some of the complaints are very valid. True...and I like this forum. I find it interesting. But every thread devolves into the same argument, that the music biz is horrible, it's foolish to think you can succeed at it...anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. All which probably has more than just a kernel of truth to it. But it doesn't make room for much discussion. So this forum winds up becoming a ghost town. I think my perspective is different as a person who does music as a hobby interested in finding out different ways of getting it out there, and doesn't make a living from it...to me, it's just an interesting brainstorming discussion. For those looking at it through the lens of a former working musician having tried to break in, or just gigging to pay the bills, it's a very emotionally charged subject, and that frustration understandably gets expressed here. I think both perspectives are valuable. The issue is when there's more of one than the other...those with differing perspectives tend to get shut out, whether intentional or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 It is interesting that every one of these points provides a gatekeeper function not much different than the old model provided. If it's based on what your friends recommend and what a site like Pandora plays or Spotify recommends, how is that different from 1980 when your friends would recommend something, you'd hear it on the radio, or you'd read about it in Rolling Stone? So if the gatekeepers still exist, the only real difference is that quality control has been eliminated. Possibly - but extending that analogy, the amount of gatekeepers has been increased by an insane crazy amount. Even among your friends... when I was 16, if I wanted to know what someone was listening to and they didn't live near me, I had two options - a long distance phone call, which cost money, or a letter via the mail, which costs time. But now, long distance phone calls are covered by my contract, and email is instant... but I can also use Facebook or similar means. So the amount of people I know (including old college and high school friends, etc) that I can talk to about anything (including music) is probably 20 times greater than in the past. And that's just talking about two aspects of the list. Instead of Rolling Stone and a small handful of other magazines, there are hundreds of web sites. The overall quality of most of the sites is not up to Rolling Stone standards (which granted isn't saying much,) but the sheer bulk of info out there enables me to zero in on websites and fan sites that give me way more info than in the past. Side bar - I used to read Home and Studio Recording with religious zeal. Once a month that prized possession would arrive in the mail and I'd read every word, and sometimes every word of the ads, because I was starved for knowledge. It was a secret society, almost, audio record was, back in those days. I have wonderful memories of those days. But it's a joke compared to now. Back then, to learn what parametric equalization was, you waited for an article to read. Or you went to the Town Library and hoped they would have a book on audio recording. But now you can go watch a video of freaking Alan Parsons himself explaining how it works. And if you don't understand that, there are dozens of other videos, articles, animations, etc online to help you. Point taken about the gatekeeper role - I guess we do still have gatekeepers, but they're not controllable by big money. And those that still are, no one cares about. And the point the OP was making is far, far away from what I'm talking about. I disagree with piracy in a practical sense - I want to support the artists I love, so I buy music or I pay to stream it. No one should pirate music any more, because for as little as $5 per month you can stream practically all of it. For a true music fan, pirating is what you do when the music isn't available via stream or iTunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 I think my perspective is different as a person who does music as a hobby interested in finding out different ways of getting it out there, and doesn't make a living from it...to me, it's just an interesting brainstorming discussion. For those looking at it through the lens of a former working musician having tried to break in, or just gigging to pay the bills, it's a very emotionally charged subject, and that frustration understandably gets expressed here. I think both perspectives are valuable. The issue is when there's more of one than the other...those with differing perspectives tend to get shut out, whether intentional or not. That is very, very well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 True...and I like this forum. I find it interesting. But every thread devolves into the same argument, that the music biz is horrible, it's foolish to think you can succeed at it...anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. All which probably has more than just a kernel of truth to it. But it doesn't make room for much discussion. So this forum winds up becoming a ghost town. It is indeed a matter of perspective. For younger guys (to me anyone under 40) your perspective will likely be a lot different than if you are my age. When I started playing, distortion had only been being used in guitars for about 5 years. Rock as we know it (Hendrix, Zeppelin. Santana, Cream etc) was in it's infancy, a radical departure from the clean guitars and smooth harmonies of the Beatles, Dave Clark 5, and tons of other crooner type vocal groups. It was a really exciting time to be alive, and to watch the explosion of rock music. Rock stars were being created overnight, record sales were booming, and though it was always hard to get signed, the possibility that one could get good enough to get a record deal was a very real one. Record companies were signing bands out of bars, and they were developing raw talent. All of that came to a head in the 80s, and in the early 90s indy records started making headway with Sub Pop and a few others. And then the mid 90s rolled around, the internet happened for the masses and nothing has been the same. And now while it's true that there is still great music being made, it's harder to stand out from the masses of mediocre talents that are making music with no one to tell them they shouldn't. Is it better or worse? From where I sit, it's worse, a lot worse, but for someone 25 or 30, it might be awesome. But I do really believe that the explosion of innovation we witnessed from 1964 to 1994 may never be seen again in music unless some way is found of separating the wheat from the chaff once again. That used to be done by record companies with producers. Since they are all but irrelevant, there is no one left to fulfill that role. Just my 2 cents. WTF do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 Is it better or worse? From where I sit, it's worse, a lot worse, but for someone 25 or 30, it might be awesome. But I do really believe that the explosion of innovation we witnessed from 1964 to 1994 may never be seen again in music unless some way is found of separating the wheat from the chaff once again. That used to be done by record companies with producers. Since they are all but irrelevant, there is no one left to fulfill that role. Just my 2 cents. WTF do I know? I have no idea if it was better, though I don't doubt it was in some ways. I guess one could argue all day how much better it was then, how much worse it is now or vice versa. Not sure how important that is...though certainly interesting. One thing that is hard to argue though, as richardmac just mentioned, yes it is harder to make money from music than it was before. But things will never get back to the way they were before. So accepting this reality, (and assuming most of us have day jobs anyway ), I think the best way to frame the discussion is, how do we make the most of it? Some people might have some creative ideas on how to do so. That isn't to say criticizing the current state of things doesn't have its place here. Nothing wrong with a good rant on occassion...not to mention, I'm sure there are many people with musical aspirations who are in need of a reality check, and good to have a forum like this to provide it to them. Diversity of discussion, I suppose is what I'm suggesting. I think the other issue with this forum is that the topic is so broad. The "music biz" encompasses just about everything, from cover bands, to original artists, to labels, management, etc. Some of the other forums such as the "band" or "solo/duo" forum cater to a specific area of the business (i.e. live gigging and performing)...seems more real world concerns tend to get discussed in those places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 Neil Young, Paulo Coelho, Dave Grohl, Radiohead, Trent Reznor...all totally unreasonable. Copyright is about giving the artist control over the means of distribution. If the artist is fine with their music being downloaded without compensation, then they still control the means of distribution. Piracy ("stealing") denies the artist control over the means of distribution. As an analogy, consider this. You go into a supermarket and there's a guy handing out samples of a cookie. You are not only allowed to take the cookie, you're encouraged to do so in the hopes that you'll like it and buy more cookies. But if the cookie is sitting in a package on the shelf and you walk out of the store with it under your jacket and don't pay for it, that's stealing. BTW - I don't have stats on the others, but Radiohead and Reznor are both estimated to have made considerably more money by offering products in a tiered system than if they had sold an equivalent amount through traditional record companies. Good for them for figuring out how to take advantage of the new paradigm to make more, not less, money. But again, let me emphasize, they still determined the means of distribution, which has always been the intent of the copyright laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 As an analogy, consider this. You go into a supermarket and there's a guy handing out samples of a cookie. You are not only allowed to take the cookie, you're encouraged to do so in the hopes that you'll like it and buy more cookies. But if the cookie is sitting in a package on the shelf and you walk out of the store with it under your jacket and don't pay for it, that's stealing. To take your analogy further, the point in giving away free cookies is to induce people to come back and buy a bunch more of those same cookies. But once somebody has your album for free, why would they want to come back and buy it? That's the difference between physical product and intellectual property, and why the "free" model for musicians doesn't work for most but the very top of the food chain. If a million people download your free record but you haven't made a dime, what are you gaining? Likes on Facebook and Youtube are nice, but they don't pay the bills. So now, you are faced with having to tour, and if you're a young band, there isn't much if any money in that either, because your costs are fixed but the venues are smaller and pay less. My son goes to a lot of shows for newer younger bands passing through, and he buys their schwag. But he is amazed at how many of his friends don't buy the band's CDs or even downloads, because they get the recordings for free online. The don't realize how much the bands need those sales to help cover their touring expenses. Even in my travels on weekends, selling CDs or increased downloads can make the difference of paying for my gas or having to shell out of pocket. Trent Reznor or Dave Grohl can give away records and sell out big venues. Bands starting out, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 To take your analogy further, the point in giving away free cookies is to induce people to come back and buy a bunch more of those same cookies. But once somebody has your album for free, why would they want to come back and buy it? They don't buy what they have, they buy more from the same artist. For whatever reason, Reznor SOLD a ton of copies of Ghosts. Enough people bought the Radiohead album for them to get more money than they would have gotten from a record company. Here's one possible reason as to why. When Ensoniq was selling samplers, Akai was giving away samples for free to encourage people to buy their hardware. Okay, fine, no problem with that. Ensoniq had free samples too, but they also wanted to introduce a series of signature series sample sets that cost Actual Money, one of them done by yours truly (they also had sets from Nile Rogers, J R Robinson, etc.). The samples were from my CD Forward Motion, so I had them sitting around anyway, and figured they'd sell the first production run and then the files would be out in the world. and I wouldn't make another penny. Well, Ensoniq did a tiered system. They had lots of free samples, but they differentiated those from the samples you had to pay for. The argument was basically "These you get for free, these are premium samples by people who know their stuff, so you'll need to pay for those." I continued to get royalty checks on those samples basically until Ensoniq stopped making samplers. Apparently people WERE willing to pay when they perceived value, and in my case at least, to support future products (and in fact I did a volume 2 because it was worth doing). It's the same with Reznor. I've downloaded his freebies, and paid for his non-freebies. Not everyone is okay with stealing, in fact a lot of people DO have a conscience, DO understand the way the world works, and ARE willing to pay for things they perceive as having value. My daughter listens to a ton of free stuff on the net, but if she wants to have it on her hard drive, she pays. She's not alone; the question in my mind isn't so much "is piracy right or wrong," I think we know the answer to that. The question is how to we make people recognize the value of intellectual property. Then if they decide to steal something, they'll at least recognize they are stealing something. People WILL buy stuff. I just did two instructional videos on Sonar and they've done extremely well, but part of that is because people really liked the videos, and hoped I'd do more...and they can put two and two together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 And for those who'd like a little more context, what follows the initial quote is: No reasonable person is in favor of piracy. And many people were reacting to the source of SOPA’s authorship—the entertainment industry—rather than the content of the bill itself. After all, Big Media (including movie studios, networks, and the record companies) are notoriously parochial and primitive in their attempts to deal with the illegal copying and distribution of their properties. But whether you begrudge the entertainment industry their profitability or not, you darn sure don’t want them in control of the Internet, nor do you want them to be the authors of the legislation that enables their ham-handed tactics. (My longtime favorite example of this is the anti-piracy warning that precedes rental videos, where viewers must sit through an insulting and non-fast-forwardable screen—complete with FBI logo—about how you’d better not be stealing this movie.) You can read the complete article here. To subscribe to the free weekly newsletter (your email is not sold or given to third parties), click here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 They don't buy what they have, they buy more from the same artist. For whatever reason, Reznor SOLD a ton of copies of Ghosts. Enough people bought the Radiohead album for them to get more money than they would have gotten from a record company. Here's one possible reason as to why. When Ensoniq was selling samplers, Akai was giving away samples for free to encourage people to buy their hardware. Okay, fine, no problem with that. Ensoniq had free samples too, but they also wanted to introduce a series of signature series sample sets that cost Actual Money, one of them done by yours truly (they also had sets from Nile Rogers, J R Robinson, etc.). The samples were from my CD Forward Motion, so I had them sitting around anyway, and figured they'd sell the first production run and then the files would be out in the world. and I wouldn't make another penny. Well, Ensoniq did a tiered system. They had lots of free samples, but they differentiated those from the samples you had to pay for. The argument was basically "These you get for free, these are premium samples by people who know their stuff, so you'll need to pay for those." I continued to get royalty checks on those samples basically until Ensoniq stopped making samplers. Apparently people WERE willing to pay when they perceived value, and in my case at least, to support future products (and in fact I did a volume 2 because it was worth doing). It's the same with Reznor. I've downloaded his freebies, and paid for his non-freebies. Not everyone is okay with stealing, in fact a lot of people DO have a conscience, DO understand the way the world works, and ARE willing to pay for things they perceive as having value. My daughter listens to a ton of free stuff on the net, but if she wants to have it on her hard drive, she pays. She's not alone; the question in my mind isn't so much "is piracy right or wrong," I think we know the answer to that. The question is how to we make people recognize the value of intellectual property. Then if they decide to steal something, they'll at least recognize they are stealing something. People WILL buy stuff. I just did two instructional videos on Sonar and they've done extremely well, but part of that is because people really liked the videos, and hoped I'd do more...and they can put two and two together I don't doubt it will work for established artists. I don't see it working for new ones, however. Unless anyone can point me to some successful new artists that are anywhere near as successful as NIN or Grohl who got there by giving their product away. Maybe there are, maybe they're common as dirt and I'm just unaware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 I'm not even going there on this one!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 I don't doubt it will work for established artists. I don't see it working for new ones, however. Unless anyone can point me to some successful new artists that are anywhere near as successful as NIN or Grohl who got there by giving their product away. Maybe there are, maybe they're common as dirt and I'm just unaware. OK, screw it..It does work..Bill Gates has embraced giving away MS stuff in China because they found if you get them addicted or interested you can get $$ somewhere down the line. Artists like Johnathan Coulton for example do just fine giving lots of their stuff away then offering killer products that make up for the loss of the downloadable stuff..Check this out:http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/ Most artists I know never made anything off record sales and that's a fact. Then again, there's something to be said for record company investment in artists careers and the heights that it lifted many of them to. However it's a different age, and a different game with a VERY different thinking generation growing up in this. Inevitably it's all changed and the old paradigm is never going back. No matter how powerful these entertainment corporations are they aren't more powerful than the Consumers and they see things differently these days. It's going to interesting to see how things shake out but I believe the streaming model will win out and it will be monetized to a respectable level eventually. Could take another decade or more for that to happen though and in the meantime, it's gonna be rough to make a living in Music. After they do monetize streaming to the degree of what they did to Radio when radio caught on big, you're going to see popular indies like Coulton, pomplamoose and others doing very very well, competing neck and neck with the major label acts. THIS is the major label's WORST nightmare as it threatens their business mode and THAT is EXACTLY what SPOA was about. This is only the beginning of this fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 I have no idea if it was better, though I don't doubt it was in some ways. I guess one could argue all day how much better it was then, how much worse it is now or vice versa. Not sure how important that is...though certainly interesting. One thing that is hard to argue though, as richardmac just mentioned, yes it is harder to make money from music than it was before. But things will never get back to the way they were before. So accepting this reality, (and assuming most of us have day jobs anyway ), I think the best way to frame the discussion is, how do we make the most of it? Some people might have some creative ideas on how to do so. That isn't to say criticizing the current state of things doesn't have its place here. Nothing wrong with a good rant on occassion...not to mention, I'm sure there are many people with musical aspirations who are in need of a reality check, and good to have a forum like this to provide it to them. Diversity of discussion, I suppose is what I'm suggesting. I think the other issue with this forum is that the topic is so broad. The "music biz" encompasses just about everything, from cover bands, to original artists, to labels, management, etc. Some of the other forums such as the "band" or "solo/duo" forum cater to a specific area of the business (i.e. live gigging and performing)...seems more real world concerns tend to get discussed in those places. There's more opportunity to engage fans directly than EVER BEFORE IN HISTORY so if we can't figure out a way to monetize that it's on US as artists! I do not think it's harder today then ever before to make money at music. It's that there was a business model in place before of selling packaged product, that is no longer in place. We need to innovate out of this to replace that income. Some artists have figured out new ways to do that and are leading the charge. One thing that differentiates those artists from others is that they instill a very loyal following and are very forward thinking. Today we have crowd sourcing, tiered systems and social networking that allows music to go viral..No..It's on the artist these days and there are WAY WAY more opportunities if you are really really good then there ever were before in History. NO great artists who puts himself out there today will be denied where as before when there was one door and gatekeepers 90% of them WERE denied and they then had very little recourse. Today it's in the Artist's hands and we are merely at the beginning of this change. I promise you fellow musicians, This is good thing for music and the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted February 6, 2012 Members Share Posted February 6, 2012 Most artists I know never made anything off record sales and that's a fact. Then again, there's something to be said for record company investment in artists careers and the heights that it lifted many of them to. However it's a different age, and a different game with a VERY different thinking generation growing up in this. Inevitably it's all changed and the old paradigm is never going back. No matter how powerful these entertainment corporations are they aren't more powerful than the Consumers and they see things differently these days. It's going to interesting to see how things shake out but I believe the streaming model will win out and it will be monetized to a respectable level eventually. Could take another decade or more for that to happen though and in the meantime, it's gonna be rough to make a living in Music. After they do monetize streaming to the degree of what they did to Radio when radio caught on big, you're going to see popular indies like Coulton, pomplamoose and others doing very very well, competing neck and neck with the major label acts. THIS is the major label's WORST nightmare as it threatens their business mode and THAT is EXACTLY what SPOA was about. This is only the beginning of this fight. I hope that things go that way. I REALLY DO. They might. But America just doesn't seem so super thrilled with streaming, and I'm wondering if it will ever gain huge market share, or if it stays niche. I really hope it goes big. I wish Spotify would sign deals with Verizon and Brighthouse - Give consumers the option to add it onto their bill for 6 bucks a month. Verizon and Brighthouse keep a buck of pure profit for each sale, per month. Spotify gets better marketing and access to all those people. Something like that would really help. I talk to people all the time who have never heard of Spotify. I've never seen an ad on TV. Or anywhere. Side note - I'm streaming my own music on Spotify as I type this - Can't hardly wait for that tenth of a penny! Woo hoo! I wonder what systems Spotify has in place to keep artists from gaming the system. I could write a script to play this song over and over again 24/7. At the very minimum, I can control which of my songs "appear" to be the most popular, probably, by playing them over and over again. God, I wish I could go back and redo the vocals on my second CD. I could do so much better now. Actually, I COULD go back and redo the vocals. Nothing stopping me... Anyway, if steaming gets bundled, we're going to see change. If not, then I think it stays niche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted February 6, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2012 Streaming (or whatever replaces it, as technology speeds along) will be the delivery system, eventually, but until the internet is really 'leveled' as far as access everywhere to everyone, it will be an uphill battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 6, 2012 Members Share Posted February 6, 2012 I don't doubt it will work for established artists. I don't see it working for new ones, however. Unless anyone can point me to some successful new artists that are anywhere near as successful as NIN or Grohl who got there by giving their product away. Maybe there are, maybe they're common as dirt and I'm just unaware. I'm with sventkg on this one - it's too soon to tell. Look how long it took for Grohl or Reznor to get where they are. It takes a long time to build a career, and the current model (such as it is) has not been in place for long; some would argue no model is really in place yet anyway. I do think it's a mistake to assume that the majority of people will steal stuff if they can. Interestingly, at one point both BIAS and IK Multimedia used dongles to protect their software. After a while they ditched the dongle and went to a simple registration system. I asked why, and they both said that sales didn't go up when they added the dongle, and didn't go down when they removed it. Their conclusion was that honest people remain honest and pay for what they use, and people who steal things are going to steal things no matter what. The success of a new model that works on "the honor system" is for people to have honor, and for that, they need to be educated about the value of intellectual property. I'd bet few people who steal music software are aware of how complex it is to create, and how little the companies make. In that respect, the RIAA's "get tough" campaign has been, IMHO, counter-productive because it didn't stress how the CREATORS are affected. Dumb. For example if someone's into stealing music and there's a merch table with Led Zeppelin CDs and someone from Atlantic Records watching over the merch, and he goes to the bathroom so CDs could be stolen i his absence, I bet the CDs would be stolen. But if Jimmy Page was there and left for a few minutes, I bet they wouldn't be We need to educate the part of the public that is honest and reinforce their honesty. As BIAS and IK learned, the others are a lost cause anyway. One last thought: Reznor respects his fan base, so they respect him. I think that has a lot to do with why he makes money off direct web sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 7, 2012 Members Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm with sventkg on this one - it's too soon to tell. Look how long it took for Grohl or Reznor to get where they are. It takes a long time to build a career, and the current model (such as it is) has not been in place for long; some would argue no model is really in place yet anyway. I do think it's a mistake to assume that the majority of people will steal stuff if they can. Interestingly, at one point both BIAS and IK Multimedia used dongles to protect their software. After a while they ditched the dongle and went to a simple registration system. I asked why, and they both said that sales didn't go up when they added the dongle, and didn't go down when they removed it. Their conclusion was that honest people remain honest and pay for what they use, and people who steal things are going to steal things no matter what. The success of a new model that works on "the honor system" is for people to have honor, and for that, they need to be educated about the value of intellectual property. I'd bet few people who steal music software are aware of how complex it is to create, and how little the companies make. In that respect, the RIAA's "get tough" campaign has been, IMHO, counter-productive because it didn't stress how the CREATORS are affected. Dumb. For example if someone's into stealing music and there's a merch table with Led Zeppelin CDs and someone from Atlantic Records watching over the merch, and he goes to the bathroom so CDs could be stolen i his absence, I bet the CDs would be stolen. But if Jimmy Page was there and left for a few minutes, I bet they wouldn't be We need to educate the part of the public that is honest and reinforce their honesty. As BIAS and IK learned, the others are a lost cause anyway. One last thought: Reznor respects his fan base, so they respect him. I think that has a lot to do with why he makes money off direct web sales. I can't find anything there to argue with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted February 7, 2012 Members Share Posted February 7, 2012 Another old fart/dog who inevitably ( according to the whippersnappers) will never ,ever learn any new tricks Aside from the vaugaries of what's good art and why something indeed ends up wheat instead of chaff , ( and believe it or not , there are simple standards and practices that can be used to weed out diletante hordes) maybe the process of how the now great acts got discoverd or made it in the past would be in order .... I am of the mindset that most who ( if not all at this point ! haven't seen valid example , only easy to debunk attemped examples !!!) have found a way to monetize on the net already have had some label help with promotion and exposure , and are exploiting that to the hilt. The thing where the old guard took a beating worst after napsterization , is that there became a characture and were reduced to being vampires who never really did a thing for the artist ; even in the very beggining when said artist was unknown . If you were to talk to one on those old label farts, you might find out that there were lots of bands , whom had a criticaly acclaimed album in hand , which was backed up by the labels promotion and marketing muscle and , that despite this seemingly sure fire , couldn't miss scenario , things still fizzled . For some unkown , wild card factor ( No payola immune DJ champion, no calls to the request line?) It just didn't happen despite all that investment of time and money.There are lot's of examples of artist , who were given more than one or two shots ( Even Elton John , with all that inmistakable musical talent) had his first few 45's fizzle . Now fast forward to the present... The question is , is after you take all the possible profits ( besides peanuts ) out of things and get entirley rid of all those bastard middle men , who fronts any venture capital for artist development/marketing/discovery/promotion ?? Don't forget that in what some called the "halceon days " , record co's were owned buy guys who gave a {censored} , not corporations who only answer to the shareholders never ending demands for hard profits ( without a concern for re- tooling or re-investing cost ) Does the internet step into those shoes of curator, or does it end here .... with this eulogy... . ( Dear mods , give my "Resident Cynic" badge over to Richard !! He's earned it and now deserves more that I:eek:) See sig and goose tale , rinse , lather , repeat .... A society gets the art it deserves .... OLd Fart Rant over and out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.