just curious

[cuffdc]

I get all the arguments, and the one that sticks out the most, still doesn't answer my concerns: That is the correct answer, of course, but the question was about the full-length cd, not the demo EP. How would the circumstance change if that same artist also gave away the full production CD?

 

 

You mean like Radiohead did for In Rainbows?

[Austincowbell]

You mean like Radiohead did for In Rainbows ?

jinx

[BlueStrat]

 

You mean like Radiohead did for In Rainbows ?

 

 

As has been pointed out a thousand times, Radiohead did this as a stunt. It certainly wasn't to gain new fans or find a new audience, since they already were a big success thanks to a label system that put them in the position they enjoy.

For new bands to think they can do what Radiohead did is just silly.

[BlueStrat]

 

It wouldn't. It would have the same effect as giving away a demo.

 

 

Do you have any stats to back this up, or did you just pull this out of your ass?

[faileddrummer]

Do you have any stats to back this up, or did you just pull this out of your ass?

 

 

Do you have any stats to back up anything you've said so far, or are you just taking what the RIAA force feeds you, {censored}ting it out, and then presenting it here?

[Kramerguy]

You mean like Radiohead did for In Rainbows ?

 

 

I already addressed that on page 2, I think.

[Kramerguy]

wow.. why did this thread turn into such a pissing match?

 

I agree with BlueStrat and Wades mostly here.. both offer a decent POV. I'm obviously against giving away full-length cd's, and just don't understand why a band feels the need to do it, I mean... sure give away demos and EP's till your cd burner blows up.. but why undervalue your own music to the point of having to give it away? Yeah.. radiohead is an exception.. Prince did the same thing in europe.. it's half stunt, and half paying the fans back for years of loyalty.. and PERFECTLY understandable.. when you are at that level, (as I said in another post) Nickelback and Creed ain't exactly reeling from the pain...

 

Whether or not it hurts other local and regional artists is yet to be seen IMO, but part of me feels that it does. It's my opinion.. but I've not seen any facts that can prove or deny it.. so I will just leave it at this: It's a bad business decision.

 

Free Demo's: Good.

Free full-length produced CD's: maybe not bad, but dumb.

[Austincowbell]

wow.. why did this thread turn into such a pissing match?

 

I was wondering the same thing.... Any time posts have like 14 quotes in them and are 2-3 pages long I hurt a little on the inside.. where my heart used to be before I sold it to the devil in exchange for the ability to cover Paula Abdul.

[BlueStrat]

 

Do you have any stats to back up anything you've said so far, or are you just taking what the RIAA force feeds you, {censored}ting it out, and then presenting it here?

 

 

I'm not the one claiming that an unknown band giving away their entire CD is profitable. You are. Back it up or STFU.

[toddkuen]

Your original point was "The slackers feel that they can bypass all of that work and go straight for the glory, with none of the guts."

My first point was that sometimes they can and do - and as BlueStrat said it may be the exception and not the rule - but none the less its possible and it does happen. Not everyone has the same amount of "raw talent" to start with and there are extraordinary manifestations of "raw talent" in the world - which are identifiable without any specific training. (Unless I am in the PC Talent Forum where everyone is born with the exact same talent.)

A "Lance Armstrong" will, without prior training of any kind, be able to out perform "joe random" because of his innate talent. Does that make him a world class athlete "out of the box"? Nope - that's not my point. But his innate talent makes him different than most everyone else.

I asked how do you distinguish between a "slacker" and "innovation"? My point here is you plop any potential untrained "Lance Armstrong" down into any "normal" situation where his innate talent excels and he may best everyone else. Doesn't make him world class - no, just better than most.

My second point was the "status quo" of academia and industry tend to repress exceptional talent and resist change - for example the Dr. that discovered ulcers where caused by bacteria and his struggle to change the "status quo" for treatment. So unless a "Lance Armstrong" has the will to buck the establishment and believe in himself enough not to give up, his talent may be wasted or undiscovered.

My third point is that yes, some children just "know" mathematics or music or chess or whatever - their innate talent gives them abilities well beyond "joe random" - just like "Lance Armstrong" has innate talent.

[Janx]

why are we talking just about giving away CDs. I'm talking about underpricing music in general. Giving away CDs, playing for free, undercutting. In the end, it all increases supply or alternatives (which is translates to more supply), and that lowers price. Which is exactly what's happened. a song for a buck.
Why are we talking about slackers? Slackers, by definition, don't do the work. A slacker doesn't bring quality to the table, because by definition, they slack. None of the "inate ability' examples are of people who are slackers. They all have an inner drive. And that's a part of why they excel.

Ultimately, Wades was talking about kids who learn a little, think it's everything, and then fling their crappy product into the market. That increases supply and competition, thus lowering the price that can be commanded.

Does 1 kid giving away a free CD affect the supply? Not by much. But a million kids? The impact of all this low-price/low quality stuff affects the entire market over time. Folks who are arguing against this need look no further than the walmart effect. It's the same thing. Walmart insists on lowest cost items. They get them from China. This drives everybody else to lower their prices, or not sell anything. There's been bloody books on this subject.

[Kramerguy]

I can't disagree with that Janx! Now we're getting somewhere! Everyone start pissing again

[rorylawford]

You ask "Why did it become a pissing match?" Well in my opinion, that occurred because some people's ego will not permit them to admit an error - no matter how small, easily made, easily corrected or well intentioned - and instead will pile on further hyperbole dripping with undeserved condescension in order to try and maintain their perceived status as " the one who knows". Which just starts to look silly and tempers flare.

 

Both Wade and BlueStrat do indeed, as you point out, have decent positions on the original post, as do many others here including yourself. And the debate can be healthier for it - unfortunately such strong 'courage of convictions' can turn into seemingly arrogant dismissal of other points of view - other's experiences. Some will however admit it's only their opinion and that they could be wrong, and some will even admit that they could have made a simple error or mis-spoke in a post.

 

However, there are some who so determined to be seen as right at all costs - their own sense of self-worth so wrapped up in the ideal of being seen by others as the one who is right - that they cannot see another's different experiences or ideas as having worth and simply cannot admit even a simple mistake, and the fight is on. Some will simply walk away from such people - realizing that no open debate can be had with them. Others will continue to try and debate them, but eventually it goes so far over the cliff from the original question that it reaches the point of

a pissing match.

[Austincowbell]

why are we talking just about giving away CDs. I'm talking about underpricing music in general. Giving away CDs, playing for free, undercutting. In the end, it all increases supply or alternatives (which is translates to more supply), and that lowers price. Which is exactly what's happened. a song for a buck. Why are we talking about slackers? Slackers, by definition, don't do the work. A slacker doesn't bring quality to the table, because by definition, they slack. None of the "inate ability' examples are of people who are slackers. They all have an inner drive. And that's a part of why they excel. Ultimately, Wades was talking about kids who learn a little, think it's everything, and then fling their crappy product into the market. That increases supply and competition, thus lowering the price that can be commanded. Does 1 kid giving away a free CD affect the supply? Not by much. But a million kids? The impact of all this low-price/low quality stuff affects the entire market over time. Folks who are arguing against this need look no further than the walmart effect. It's the same thing. Walmart insists on lowest cost items. They get them from China. This drives everybody else to lower their prices, or not sell anything. There's been bloody books on this subject.

1) The price of $0.99 was set before kids were "flooding the market with crappy product" and hasn't lowered. In fact, ITunes is raising prices on some songs.

2) Wal-Mart's Chinese crap products impact everyone else selling crap products but real luxury products aren't affected. In fact, their price goes up. Wal-Mart selling a huffy bike for $79 doesn't impact the store selling a Trek for $4000. Wal-Mart selling a $400 diamond ring doesn't impact Blue Nile's ability to sell a $10,000 diamond and Wal-Mart selling a mower for $199 doesn't impact Snapper's ability to sell their mowers for $399. Its a different market. Just like a million kids giving away a million songs won't impact U2's ability to charge full price for downloads or CDs. The thing about a million crappy songs flooding the market is that it makes you more sensitive to great songs.

[rorylawford]

Essentially my opinion on the original post is that some unsigned low level band giving away their CD will not have so dramatic an impact on others ability to sell their CD as some believe it will. My opinion is that what is causing the devaluation of recorded music is theft - the culture of entitlement to stealing music through illegal downloading. That is what is devaluing the market - the exponentially growing belief that "since I can steal entire discographies through BitTorrent, why should I pay money for them instead?"

 

And that is only my opinion - and I am neither stupid or naive or uneducated or deluded.

[BlueStrat]

 

Just like a million kids giving away a million songs won't impact U2's ability to charge full price for downloads or CDs. The thing about a million crappy songs flooding the market is that it makes you more sensitive to great songs.

 

 

This may be true for now. But when U2 is gone, how will they be replaced without the system that made U2 what it is today? The fact is, we are still benefiting from the fruit of the old system, as witnessed by the number of dinosaur acts still on the market and doing well. But whether every new band giving away CDs for which no demand exists to further their careers will result in any future U2-status bands remains to be seen. I can't be certain, but I'm going to bet 'no'.

 

Maybe the future of music is that it is entirely performed by hobbyists with day jobs locally and no one sells more than a few thousand CDs/downloads/holograms/ MP3 implants/whatever the hell the format will be. Maybe the professional musician will go the way of the professional chimney sweep.

[Austincowbell]

This may be true for now. But when U2 is gone, how will they be replaced without the system that made U2 what it is today? The fact is, we are still benefiting from the fruit of the old system, as witnessed by the number of dinosaur acts still on the market and doing well. But whether every new band giving away CDs for which no demand exists to further their careers will result in any future U2-status bands remains to be seen. I can't be certain, but I'm going to bet 'no'. Maybe the future of music is that it is entirely performed by hobbyists with day jobs locally and no one sells more than a few thousand CDs/downloads/holograms/ MP3 implants/whatever the hell the format will be. Maybe the professional musician will go the way of the professional chimney sweep.

 

Honestly, I think the whole recording industry business model is going the way of the dinosaur. In 10-15 years I think the music industry will have a distinct two-way split where music is either HEAVILY commercial and reality-TV-ish where the "artist" is more of a celebrity than an artist OR it will have almost no marketing budget and go completely viral and there will be thousands of Vampire Weekend type bands who get huge on a p2p level with one person "discovering them" and sharing the band with his/her friends. The bad news about that model is it will be tougher for someone to "get signed" and have the record company push your product. The GOOD news is soon more and more places will spring up where people are interacting and discovering new artists and buying their music and watching the money go directly to that artist.

15 years from now "Billboard" won't be the big chart. It will be a yet uninvented website which streams into cars for internet radio and allows users to purchase the song they just heard at the touch of a button.

 

maybe I'm crazy but thats how I see it.

 

oh... and in that future I get to bang Jessica Alba. No...no... wait... Jessica Alba's long lost younger sister... who will be 26 at the time.

 

what? Its my reality, you assholes.

[BlueStrat]

 

Essentially my opinion on the original post is that some unsigned low level band giving away their CD will not have so dramatic an impact on others ability to sell their CD as some believe it will. My opinion is that what is causing the devaluation of recorded music is theft - the culture of entitlement to stealing music through illegal downloading.

 

 

You could be right, though I think ALL of it--theft, giveaways, undercutting-ALL contribute to the overall cultural shift toward the attitude that 1) recorded music just happens out of thin air, at no cost to the producers, 2) music is plentiful and quality will always be there, and 3) it has little value and ought to be free.

[Chip Stewart]

This may be true for now. But when U2 is gone, how will they be replaced without the system that made U2 what it is today?

 

 

I've been a U2 fan since their beginning. Their "Boy" album was NOT commercial. Back in the 70s and 80s, record labels were willing to invest time and money to develop bands. Record labels have not been investing in bands for a long time. There is no future payback consideration. The labels only care about how much money they can make off a band NOW. This is a large contributor to why the music industry has declined to the state its in. I would venture that if U2 were just starting out now, they would not get signed by a label. This has nothing to do with bands giving their CDs away for free. It has everything to do with the greed/risk aversion of record labels.

[BlueStrat]

 

I've been a U2 fan since their beginning. Their "Boy" album was NOT commercial. Back in the 70s and 80s, record labels were willing to invest time and money to develop bands. Record labels have not been investing in bands for a long time. There is no future payback consideration. The labels only care about how much money they can make off a band NOW. This is a large contributor to why the music industry has declined to the state its in. I would venture that if U2 were just starting out now, they would not get signed by a label. This has nothing to do with bands giving their CDs away for free. It has everything to do with the greed/risk aversion of record labels.

 

 

You apparently missed the point, or I didn't express it well. The issue is not whether U2 was commercial in the beginning. The issue is that labels made them what they are NOW. Of course some local band giving away CDs isn't hurting U2. My point was this:

 

"But whether every new band giving away CDs for which no demand exists to further their careers will result in any future U2-status bands remains to be seen."

 

The local band will never become U2. No one is arguing that labels aren't screwed up, screwed over and basically a product of their own bad judgment and decisions. All I'm saying is that without labels, using the current paradigm of getting the cart before the horse and giving it away to try to create demand after the fact, I don't see any way bands of the future will achieve the status of a U2 or a Clapton or the Police or any of the other 'supergroups' out there. Supergroups were created by 1) creating demand before releasing records and 2) controlling distribution, two things that aren't even in the picture now.

Your point that U2 wouldn't even get signed now only underscores what I'm saying. How many other great bands will never get the recognition they deserve because of the current way we've come to doing business?

[Chip Stewart]

Your point that U2 wouldn't even get signed now only underscores what I'm saying. How many other great bands will never get the recognition they deserve because of the current way we've come to doing business?

 

 

I totally agree with you on this. Most of the CDs I buy are of bands most people have never heard of. My current rotation includes Hey Tiger, Becky Schlegel, and Lisa Bouchelle. Any of these three are better than 90% of the crap I hear on the radio. All of them are on indie labels.

[vanlatte]

Do you have any stats to back up anything you've said so far, or are you just taking what the RIAA force feeds you, {censored}ting it out, and then presenting it here?

 

 

You're new here, aren't you?

[modulusman]

You're new here, aren't you?

Well he is a drummer,and a failed one at that.

[MartinC]

My group plays mostly originals at every corporate we do. sometimes HP people just want to be entertained and not by play that funky music. We recently did a very high end corporate and they other band donned afro wigs and did 70's covers-we did our music. Our conga player is an absolute monster. His solos are incredibly entertaining and he has rightly done many high profile gigs with top pros. When he takes a solo, the corp types smile and dig it, just like anyone else. They don't care that his solo came in a tune they never heard before-they just know that this guy is about the best conga player they have ever seen live. I suspect your mashup band has a similar appeal. You aren't playing covers the way they were recorded, but some corp customers will watch and think "this band is playing this stuff all mixed up, but it's fun as hell and great" Hire them instead of that band that we had last time.

In other words, ANYTIME you play a gig you need a clear understanding of what is expected of you. If you are there to entertain a crowd and keep them dancing and singing along to songs they know you better stick to it. If you are there to "be a live band" you might have more wiggle room. No one at the Hewlett Packard convention wants to hear your originals. They want to hear "Play that funky music white boy, Word Up and Blister in the sun" so, since they are paying you, you'd better stick to it. On the converse, if you are playing Jo's bar and grill and you have 50 people in the crowd and 15 of them are your friends you can give it a shot.

 

[Austincowbell]

My group plays mostly originals at every corporate we do. sometimes HP people just want to be entertained and not by play that funky music. We recently did a very high end corporate and they other band donned afro wigs and did 70's covers-we did our music. Our conga player is an absolute monster. His solos are incredibly entertaining and he has rightly done many high profile gigs with top pros. When he takes a solo, the corp types smile and dig it, just like anyone else. They don't care that his solo came in a tune they never heard before-they just know that this guy is about the best conga player they have ever seen live. I suspect your mashup band has a similar appeal. You aren't playing covers the way they were recorded, but some corp customers will watch and think "this band is playing this stuff all mixed up, but it's fun as hell and great" Hire them instead of that band that we had last time.

 

Sure... but but in both cases there exists a familiarity. Our mashups go over because people know both songs. Your congo solo goes over because its in a song that people know. Now, there ARE going to be people at corporate events who want to hear originals but overall people want to hear music they recognize.