Jump to content

File sharing of your music.


dmguitar0

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Originally posted by dmguitar0



well...i took this to say get a job instead of playing music:


 

No really, I meant getting a job (or part time job if you need more time) will make you more secure about money, and you'll be able to enjoy your passion more because there is no money issues. With a part time job, you'll still have time for music.

 

Then if you start to have success, quit your job. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

ok I am going to disregard the disagreement between Poker and myself over Finnkeeper's post.

 

On the topic: do you think there is hope of changing the consumer's mind about file-sharing? Is there a way to do so with the current system in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by dmguitar0


On the topic: do you think there is hope of changing the consumer's mind about file-sharing? Is there a way to do so with the current system in place?

 

 

I think not. I think some changes must be made to the current system of file-sharing to allow more control over what is passed around, and that there should be added incentive to purchase music - such as royalties going to the artist instead of through the record company. Perhaps a new system of distribution which pays the artist directly but that still allows the consumer the freedom to choose only the songs he or she wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by dmguitar0

On the topic: do you think there is hope of changing the consumer's mind about file-sharing? Is there a way to do so with the current system in place?

 

 

Yes, but it will take work. I think legal action against file-sharing companies that obviously promote song theft (ie. Limewire) is important. As other companies have demonstrated, it's certainly easy to impliment filters to make song theft very difficult on P2P systems. In fact, that's the current beef with Limewire, because they won't impliment it - they know that pretty much 99% fo their users are using the stuff to pirate music. Hand in hand with this, I think the RIAA needs to hire better publicists and spin doctors so that consumers understand it's not big companies trying to be evil and to educate people about how stuff really works from a news media standpoint. We basically need a mastermind like Karl Rove - I don't like the guy, but let's face it, he can sell people on just about anything very effectively.

 

Alongside this, I think HFA, ASCAP and BMI need to team up with the RIAA better to do a better job of educating people. Most teenagers, believe it or not, don't really know it's ilegal. There needs to be a better effort to go into elementary schools and middle schools to talk to kids. As well, there needs to be better ads on TV. The movie studios ran a very effective ad against movie pirating where they showed all the little people involved in making movies. The music industry needs to lose some of the magic sheen and show the little people like songwriters, engineers, 2nd engineers, promoters, etc. and show how they get hurt.

 

I think if all that gets done (easy to say, of course), then I think people's attitudes will change. Not all the way, but enough. There will always be a certain amount of song theft, but the idea is to keep it to tolerable levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

Like blueguitar, I don't like the way the current system takes my choices as an artist away from me. Anyone can find my music, and distribute it for free. It's not their music to do that with. If file sharing was structured so that ONLY the originator of the work could make it available, that would be better.

 

However - the other concept that hasn't been discussed is the perception of the 'value' of music. I think that free, downloadable music has devalued music in the marketplace in general. People expect music to be free in the clubs, too... "Can your band come play my party? - I'll give you food."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by dmguitar0

"Can your band come play my party? - I'll give you food."


That SOUNDS like some club owners nowadays. They want you to play for 3 or 4 hours, and take nothing home; just get free beer or something.
:eek:

 

Its because people are there for poker machines, not the band... They just need some background music while they waste their money... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members

Musicians are an egotistical lot. I don't buy the "I just do it because I love music" bit. Any of us could love music just as much at home. No, we do it because we love the attention and the approval of others. That's why we're so obsessed with crowds, and promo, and the like. It's because we get a rush from the adoring fans telling us how great we are. That's why so many of us get bummed when the crowds are small. It's not the music that was different. It was the crowd. If it was really the music we loved, we wouldn't give a {censored} about the crowds. And that's why so many guys will go out and play for free, give their music away for free, and even pay to play. It ain't about the love of music. It's about the love of approval, and the need to be validated by other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Poker99

And a day job is really hard on my music...


 

 

How so? Unless you're touring full time, there's no reason you can't have a day job and make music too. I have had my day job for the past 22 years, I own a home, I have a wife, raised 3 kids, got two car payments, motorcycle payment, etc etc and still had time to write songs, run a band, and make 4 CDs and travel the region in a 600 mile radius doing festivals and concerts. It's only hard if you're lazy, stupid, or unmotivated. Yeah, if you like to stay up all night and sleep all day and noodle with your guitar in the meantime, a day job will be hard. I knew lots of guys like that when I was learning. Almost all of them are nowhere today, still working {censored} jobs 30 years later, because their problem wasn't having a day job, their problem was lack of personal discipline and motivation, and tended to view the music business as an easy way to make money while partying and without having anyone telling them what to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There's no way anyone can regulate file sharing or whatever other technological breakthroughs happen.

 

People don't put a high value on music any more. Period. I'm as guilty as anyone else--I've probably burned more CDs in the last five years than I've ever bought retail. I do think that lower CD prices would encourage me to buy more, but not that much more. If I was a teenager into music, I'd be file sharing like nobody's business...just like I taped every good album I could find back in high school and college.

 

This is just another period of change in the music business, like when radio first came along, or the LP format. Somebody--a label, a band, whoever--will figure out how to work the system and profit from it.

 

I think the whole idea of the modern music business--essentially the baby boomer generation who valued music--is an anomaly. There's no way the planets could line up that way again. Those boomer bands made a killing when they had their first hits, made another killing when the records were re-issued on CD, and now again with $200+ ticket nostalgia shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I write/sequence my own music and I have shared mp3s of my work online. Here's why file sharing evolved:

 

The labels owned the distribution channels. Then they started releasing CDs with one or two good songs and the remaining fifteen being mindless filler and we still paid $18 for it. Then the quality of music went to crap with clueless beancounters hyping the wrong music and hyping prepackaged talentless teen sensations.

 

Radio was reduced to automated playlists from remote locations far away from your city as Clear Channel and other conglomerates swallowed up station after station. You could drive to different cities and hear the exact same songs being played. There was a lot of good music out there that was not being heard on the radio, and the crap being force-fed on the airwaves bored listeners to tears.

 

Along came the internet and mp3, and the people revolted. Tired of paying $18 for a piece of plastic and frustrated by radio, they downloaded the product they really wanted en masse. The labels hated it because they couldn't own or regulate the distribution channel. They hated it because it rendered their business model obsolete. They hated it because radio, their primary promotion tool, became obsolete.

 

Instead of adapting to the new business model, they filed lawsuits against uploaders and downloaders. That only served to drive more people away from CD stores to p2p, and major chains closed their doors. So the labels went after the developers of p2p, and for every one that was shut down or restricted, another one popped in their place. It was a futile game of whack-a-mole.

 

Labels have only themselves to blame when people put no value on music. It has nothing to do with p2p, it has everything to do with the label devaluing the product. Diminished quality. Fewer good songs. The CD devolved from a collection of songs to a single. That's right, the labels had subtly deceived consumers into buying a "45" for the price of a CD. Revolting consumers saw better value downloading singles rather than shelling out $18 for a whole CD.

 

The labels hated p2p because recording artists suddenly had a channel of promotion that was not controlled by the labels. Labels allocated promotion finances to fewer and fewer artists, and the ones left out are faced with a self-defeating scenario - no promotion, poor sales, and they're dropped by the label. Even though the poor selling product had great quality music on it. Add the fact that the label owns the recording and the artist has no control over a product that will never see the light of day.

 

I have no plans to enter into a label contract - they are essentially endentured slavery contracts with clauses to withhold as much money from you, and your right to audit the books is severely restricted. Don't like the contract? Fine, there are a hundred other starving artists waiting in line willing to sign on the dotted line. It's a seller's market.

 

Labels are irrelevant dinosaurs in todays' internet p2p age. There are artists out there making a living - notice I did not say a fortune - selling their music online. They control the package, they control the artwork, they control their music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by The Real MC

I write/sequence my own music and I have shared mp3s of my work online. Here's why file sharing evolved:


The labels owned the distribution channels. Then they started releasing CDs with one or two good songs and the remaining fifteen being mindless filler and we still paid $18 for it. Then the quality of music went to crap with clueless beancounters hyping the wrong music and hyping prepackaged talentless teen sensations.


Radio was reduced to automated playlists from remote locations far away from your city as Clear Channel and other conglomerates swallowed up station after station. You could drive to different cities and hear the exact same songs being played. There was a lot of good music out there that was not being heard on the radio, and the crap being force-fed on the airwaves bored listeners to tears.


Along came the internet and mp3, and the people revolted. Tired of paying $18 for a piece of plastic and frustrated by radio, they downloaded the product they really wanted
en masse
. The labels hated it because they couldn't own or regulate the distribution channel. They hated it because it rendered their business model obsolete. They hated it because radio, their primary promotion tool, became obsolete.


Instead of adapting to the new business model, they filed lawsuits against uploaders and downloaders. That only served to drive more people away from CD stores to p2p, and major chains closed their doors. So the labels went after the developers of p2p, and for every one that was shut down or restricted, another one popped in their place. It was a futile game of whack-a-mole.


Labels have only themselves to blame when people put no value on music. It has nothing to do with p2p, it has everything to do with the label devaluing the product. Diminished quality. Fewer good songs. The CD devolved from a collection of songs to a single. That's right, the labels had subtly deceived consumers into buying a "45" for the price of a CD. Revolting consumers saw better value downloading singles rather than shelling out $18 for a whole CD.


The labels hated p2p because recording artists suddenly had a channel of promotion that was not controlled by the labels. Labels allocated promotion finances to fewer and fewer artists, and the ones left out are faced with a self-defeating scenario - no promotion, poor sales, and they're dropped by the label. Even though the poor selling product had great quality music on it. Add the fact that the label owns the recording and the artist has no control over a product that will never see the light of day.


I have no plans to enter into a label contract - they are essentially endentured slavery contracts with clauses to withhold as much money from you, and your right to audit the books is severely restricted. Don't like the contract? Fine, there are a hundred other starving artists waiting in line willing to sign on the dotted line. It's a seller's market.


Labels are irrelevant dinosaurs in todays' internet p2p age. There are artists out there making a living - notice I did not say a fortune - selling their music online. They control the package, they control the artwork, they control their music.

 

I have to say, I think you give a very convincing scenario for what devalued music. I hope to see more artists doing their own stuff, and also a company willl start up that will stop trying to own the music, and cash in on the need by unsigned artists for promotion on a scale comparable to labels. But I think that will probably never happen.:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by dmguitar0

I have to say, I think you give a very convincing scenario for what devalued music. I hope to see more artists doing their own stuff, and also a company willl start up that will stop trying to own the music, and cash in on the need by unsigned artists for promotion on a scale comparable to labels. But I think that will probably never happen.
:(

 

 

Good stuff will always sell as it has in the past. With every band having the ability to record their own CDs,, there basically is no filter. Every one gets to the market place ,,, finding good music will be like the kid digging in a pile of horse crap looking to find a pony. The industry will always have a filter ,, such as a label. The business model may change some ,, but someone will always make money sorting out the crap. rat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by chris carter

The second point is very interesting when I meet fans of records I've worked on at meet-n-greets. Some of these kids who are 12 years old simply don't remember a time when you couldn't swipe music so easily; their initial music acquisitions were quite possibly via P2P services. As such, they don't have a reference point. Many of these kids will walk up to the artist and say silly stuff like, "I LOVE your album sooo much! I got it on __P2P_name_here_ and I play it ALL the TIME" and then they hand over a photo for the artist to autograph because they never bought the CD and it doesn't even occure to them what they did. I've witnessed this exact scenario so many times it's just to the point where you have to laugh.

 

 

This part of your response just made me think of something: I wonder how long it will be before artist 'meet-and-greets' will become like book signings, where you get in line, buy your cd then the artist signs it... in fact I wonder how many artists will eventually be like, 'The only thing I autograph is my CD...'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by The Real MC

I write/sequence my own music and I have shared mp3s of my work online. Here's why file sharing evolved:


The labels owned the distribution channels. Then they started releasing CDs with one or two good songs and the remaining fifteen being mindless filler and we still paid $18 for it. Then the quality of music went to crap with clueless beancounters hyping the wrong music and hyping prepackaged talentless teen sensations.


Radio was reduced to automated playlists from remote locations far away from your city as Clear Channel and other conglomerates swallowed up station after station. You could drive to different cities and hear the exact same songs being played. There was a lot of good music out there that was not being heard on the radio, and the crap being force-fed on the airwaves bored listeners to tears.


Along came the internet and mp3, and the people revolted. Tired of paying $18 for a piece of plastic and frustrated by radio, they downloaded the product they really wanted
en masse
. The labels hated it because they couldn't own or regulate the distribution channel. They hated it because it rendered their business model obsolete. They hated it because radio, their primary promotion tool, became obsolete.


Instead of adapting to the new business model, they filed lawsuits against uploaders and downloaders. That only served to drive more people away from CD stores to p2p, and major chains closed their doors. So the labels went after the developers of p2p, and for every one that was shut down or restricted, another one popped in their place. It was a futile game of whack-a-mole.


Labels have only themselves to blame when people put no value on music. It has nothing to do with p2p, it has everything to do with the label devaluing the product. Diminished quality. Fewer good songs. The CD devolved from a collection of songs to a single. That's right, the labels had subtly deceived consumers into buying a "45" for the price of a CD. Revolting consumers saw better value downloading singles rather than shelling out $18 for a whole CD.


The labels hated p2p because recording artists suddenly had a channel of promotion that was not controlled by the labels. Labels allocated promotion finances to fewer and fewer artists, and the ones left out are faced with a self-defeating scenario - no promotion, poor sales, and they're dropped by the label. Even though the poor selling product had great quality music on it. Add the fact that the label owns the recording and the artist has no control over a product that will never see the light of day.


I have no plans to enter into a label contract - they are essentially endentured slavery contracts with clauses to withhold as much money from you, and your right to audit the books is severely restricted. Don't like the contract? Fine, there are a hundred other starving artists waiting in line willing to sign on the dotted line. It's a seller's market.


Labels are irrelevant dinosaurs in todays' internet p2p age. There are artists out there making a living - notice I did not say a fortune - selling their music online. They control the package, they control the artwork, they control their music.

 

 

Well, your points are well taken, but only tell half the story, IMO. Yeah, the intenet has been great for some folks promoting their music. But in some ways, it's also been the worst thing that ever happened to it. Say what you will about record companies, there are plenty of bad things they have done, and now they're collapsing under the weight of their own excess and greed. But the alternative hasn't been great, either. The internet has made every swinging dick with a guitar, three months of lessons, and 6 mediocre songs a "recording artist." At least record companies used to act as gatekepers and regulate the amount of stuff being produced. Today, there are literally hundreds of cds being put out worldwide every day, the vast majority for which no demand exists. And what we have ended up with is mountains of {censored} to wade through to find something good, thousands of poorly recorded, poorly packaged, poorly produced and poorly written amature songs and CDs, so many of them that bands now have to play for free just to get an opportunity to promote their CD that they are lucky to get 5 or 10 dollars for. As with any business, the more product there is available, the lower the price for said product goes.

 

Used to be guys would form a band, work hard, hone their chops and perfect the art of songwriting by trial and error through audience reaction, with the idea of recording being something they aspired to be good enough to do one day. Now, bands get together, rehearse for 3 months, get 4-10 original songs in the bag and make a record before they ever gig. Not all of them do this, but a large enough number to where making a CD is nothing special anymore. It's become little more than a digital business card. There are so many bands plying their trade that they have to book 3 and 4 bands a night, each getting 30-45 minutes, thus ensuring that few of them if any are going to make any real money. The DIY give- it- away- for- free mentality has made touring almost impossible, because road band just can't compete with local bands who will play for little or nothing just to get on stage.

 

Oversaturation of any market will kill that market. And the music business is perhaps the most oversaturated market there is today, thanks almost entirely to the internet and the lack of need for record companies to produce the music. So for some people the internet has been great, but for a large number it's been a hindrance in the bigger picture.

 

But hey, it's the reality we have today. Gotta live with it or get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...