Members Grantus Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 A long, long article by one of my favorite musicians. Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post/ In short, Apple and other online music distributors are taking huge cuts of sales, just like the old record companies did. Except that Apple isn't investing anything in artist development. "And then there is that iTunes store 30%. Seems kind of high to me. What is their risk? Today in 2012? Do they really deserve more per album than the artist? At least the record labels put up capital to record albums. At least the record labels provide the artist with valuable promotion and publicity. Historically in the music business when someone was taking more than 20% of gross revenues that had some 'skin in the game'. They risked losing a lot of money. "Between the record labels and the digital retailers like iTunes, once again the artist gets squeezed. If you add to this the cannibalization of sales from streaming sources that pay too little and illegal file-sharing that pays nothing at all you can see why the artists have much less money now. This also helps explain why artists are spending dramatically less time and money recording." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kap'n Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 I will never own an Apple product, hardware, software or iTunes. It's amazing how they get their cultish followers to hang on their every product, while butt-raping them in the process. It's worth noting that DL does use Apple computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deanmass Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 I will never own an Apple product, hardware, software or iTunes.It's amazing how they get their cultish followers to hang on their every product, while butt-raping them in the process.It's worth noting that DL does use Apple computers. It is apparent to Apple users that many, stupider PC users like to waste time working with {censored} gear. This does not mean that most Pc users are stupid, nor that all pc hard ware is {censored}, but. MANY PC users are clueless, and continue to consume garbage hardware and tolerate working with broken tools. Is this absolute? Nope. Lots of great, well made PCs out there, but they are the minority, just like Us Apple loonies. Now back to the original point. 30% is high, but, considering you are buying into a worldwide distribution network, and something like Tunecore can get you everywhere, your reach as an independant artist has never been deeper. I think the "development" of an artist could also be characterized as " commercialization, which could in turn be characterized as dumbing down/lowering the bar. I don't think any large record company ever did anything other than pimp and threaten. It is a double edged sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cbh5150 Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Funny that in reading the article (until I about died from the rambling), he seems to have answered all of his own questions, but is still bitching. Apple/Amazon/Google taking a chunk of the revenue for making it painfully easy to distribute the artists music worldwide? How DARE they. Certainly, in the past the record companies didn't rape every artist to the tune of 90% of the recorded music sales revenue, eh? And geez, if the album/CD didn't sell as much the the company had hoped, the record company surely wouldn't dare drop them, now, would they? And record companies spending money to develop artists? HA! Only if they had any short-term potential to bring in huge amounts of money (read: teeny bopper pop crap). Record companies would turn off the investment the second that an act appeared that it may have peaked in their eyes. Again, put me right in the middle of the "record companies can suck it camp", but when the artists these days bitch about revenue from recordings, I have little sympathy for them, too. There are so many more ways that they can market their music than even 10 years ago, that whatever they may lose in overall units moved can surely be made up in cutting out much of the various middlemen. Frankly, would you rather move 1,000,000 units via the standard record company route, and get the measly 10% cut (or less), or would you rather move 250,000 of the same unit and keep a much larger chunk of the revenue, even after the overhead? Here's an idea: in the year 2012, the artist has many more choices to distribute their music, including selling through their own website - Market exclusively through your own site, and spend some small cash to get some ads floating out there. Sure, you may end up selling 50,000 instead of 100,000, but then you have overall control of your revenue. The record companies have such a long history of ripping off artists, but they were the only game in town for so long, so it was either play the game, or be left out in the cold. Plus, for the vast majority of performers, recorded music sales were very rarely the bread-and-butter - it was the live performances that they made their living on. I think the current environment gives lesser and up-and-coming artists more of a fair shot to be noticed. Wanna bitch about recording costs? Then record more efficiently. Sounds trite, and maybe naive, but when I can hear clips on this here very site that were whipped up in a relatively short time, and sound pretty fantastic, well, it tells me that artists that pour over every single nanosecond over weeks and months at a time to get that perfect moment need to get their ass in gear. Let us not forget, too, that the overall world economy has been in the toilet for several years, and will probably take several more before it gets going again; discetionary spending has shrunk. The digital revolution is a huge double-edged sword for the industry: it's great for the fans and the musicians because it is so much easier to be heard via multiple outlets, and the fans can get a sampling of the music before deciding to buy it; yet, the piracy is much more pervasive. IMO, other than the gallingly high-priced tickets for some of the biggest live acts, I can't think of a time when a more balanced playing field for artists and fans alike than is what's going on right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Danhedonia Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 "he seems to have answered all of his own questions, but is still bitching." If you had personal experience of David Lowery, this would not surprise you. He's insufferable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members epi56ebony Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 The reason Apple gets that huge cut on a digital song is because 1. The Major Record Companies dropped the ball when Napster came out and didn't monetize their assets2. The Major Record Companies thought CDs would be around forever and the huge amount of money rolling in prevented them from seeing the big future picture3. Remember many executives thought the CD would be a passing fad when first introduced4. When the {censored} finally hit the fan, the record companies were clueless5. Steve Jobs was able to negotiate with all of the Major Record Companies to license their assets to Apple/itunes6. No one does it better than Apple with vertical integration of the hardware to the software. EASE OF USE. Amazon is a bit easier and Google music sucks7. Apple has a monopoly because it's easy to get the songs from itunes store, and put it into you library hooked up to your ipod. More difficult than putting CD into a player but at least Apple has made it easier for non-techies than anyone else This is why Apple deserves the huge share they are getting. I own nothing by Apple except my ipod and itouch. My next phone will be an iphone. Why? Because everything is already set up to be downloaded thru my itunes library. I hate learning all of these new tech things, but my familiarity with the itouch makes it easy for my to understand the iphone and while it did take some time, I am very familiar with the itunes delivery of music, downloading their software etc. Steve Jobs LOVES a closed system. That's why Bill Gates beat him in the PC game. Steve Jobs learned from that and allowed itunes/ipod to be used on a PC. He did want to close the system as much as he could (there was a big deal about who got to sell apps and the rules involved), but it's pretty much an open system and then he took off the copy guard on the AAC files. Apple deserves the money because they were smarter than everyone else. The Major Record Companies are stupid and deserve piracy. The Record Companies themselves are the biggest pirates. They rip-off their artist on royalites. Right now The Allman Bros and Cheap Trick are suing the companies for unpaid royalites. Eminem just won a suit based on a definition of licensed music vs. owned music and they have to pay his company a huge amount of back unpaid royalties. The Major Record Companies always like to portray themselves as the champions of the artists. HA! Illegal Downloaders are Pirates. HA! It's the pot calling the kettle black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tedmich Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Bigger guys butt rape smaller guys? Shocking...just shocking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ugameus Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 "This is commendable in a CEO. That Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beyer160 Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Roger McGuinn (The Byrds, solo) had a somewhat different view in 2000 when he testified before congress- http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/Senate.html iTunes didn't exist yet, but McGuinn's take on the "new" music industry vs the "old" is still a valid viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jrockbridge Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Is David Lowery bipolar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grantus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Is David Lowery bipolar? He's bi-layered, like Gibson's recent fretboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kap'n Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Is David Lowery bipolar? David has layers. Like an onion. I might not agree with all of his ideas, but there's no doubt they're all well thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grantus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think he raises some interesting issues. I may not agree with everything he says either, but I think the broader point -- that the new Web-based delivery methods aren't always a huge benefit to musicians -- is one worth noting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jpnyc Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Tough {censored}. Musicians had years to work out something better. Instead most of them re-signed with the same labels that had been screwing them over for years, and the labels screwed them over again by not taking online music distribution seriously until piracy and iTunes were the new norm. The musicians should have been building something different since the 1990s, most of them didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVisme Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 Here's an idea: in the year 2012, the artist has many more choices to distribute their music, including selling through their own website - Market exclusively through your own site, and spend some small cash to get some ads floating out there. Sure, you may end up selling 50,000 instead of 100,000, but then you have overall control of your revenue. He addresses that in the article. Basically, it boils down to this: Freebird. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter ate our web traffic. A similar situation occurs with the process of selling music online. Our fans already have an iTunes account. They already have a credit card on file with Amazon. That small hassle of getting your credit car out of your wallet to buy music directly from the artist website is a giant hurdle that most people will not jump over. The internet has a tendency to monopoly because we are {censored}ing lazy fat slobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ugameus Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 It is really very simple. Play the game and deal with the parameters required to participate. If you don't like it, make up your own game with your own rules. It it not a right to make money by making music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVisme Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 It it not a right to make money by making music.No, but once you've made it, you do have the right not to have your music stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ugameus Posted May 28, 2012 Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 No, but once you've made it, you do have the right not to have your music stolen. Very true. The same goes for any other product in any other industry. I would be pissed if someone stole my music or widget and made money off it. However, if you decide to make your music available in the iTunes store, don't bitch that they take 30%. Go sell it somewhere else. If I make coffee filters and sell them for $3.00 a pack and I want to sell them at Wal-Mart and they say they won't sell them for more than $2.19 a pack, then I have two choices. Sell them at Wal-Mart for $2.19 a pack or don't. It is not my right to sell coffee filters at Wal-Mart for $3.00 a pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grantus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 28, 2012 If I make coffee filters and sell them for $3.00 a pack and I want to sell them at Wal-Mart and they say they won't sell them for more than $2.19 a pack, then I have two choices. Sell them at Wal-Mart for $2.19 a pack or don't. It is not my right to sell coffee filters at Wal-Mart for $3.00 a pack. I agree, but if Wal-Mart had 70 plus percent of the market for selling coffee filters, and they're only giving you 3 cents on each sale, then you've got a legitimate gripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVisme Posted May 29, 2012 Members Share Posted May 29, 2012 However, if you decide to make your music available in the iTunes store, don't bitch that they take 30%. Go sell it somewhere else.Well, in the article, he pretty much lays out the argument against everywhere else you can sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ugameus Posted May 29, 2012 Members Share Posted May 29, 2012 I agree, but if Wal-Mart had 70 plus percent of the market for selling coffee filters, and they're only giving you 3 cents on each sale, then you've got a legitimate gripe. No you don't. No one says you have to sell coffee filters at Wal-Mart. No one says you have to sell coffee filters period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grantus Posted May 29, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 29, 2012 No you don't. No one says you have to sell coffee filters at Wal-Mart. No one says you have to sell coffee filters period. No one says you have a right to a job, either, but you'd complain if you got laid off. Basically, you're arguing musicians don't have the right to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ugameus Posted May 29, 2012 Members Share Posted May 29, 2012 Well, in the article, he pretty much lays out the argument against everywhere else you can sell it. This is the part where you make up your own game and your own rules. Again, it is not my right to make money by selling my music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grantus Posted May 29, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 29, 2012 This is the part where you make up your own game and your own rules. Again, it is not my right to make money by selling my music. So basically, no one has the right to make money at any jobs, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ugameus Posted May 29, 2012 Members Share Posted May 29, 2012 No one says you have a right to a job, either, but you'd complain if you got laid off. Basically, you're arguing musicians don't have the right to make money. I might complain because that would suck. In fact it happened to me recently and it does suck. I am a musician. All I do in my spare time is write music. That still does not give me the right to make money by selling my music. I have the right to try. Just like Apple has the right to write the software and set up however many servers it takes to run the iTunes store and charge however much they want to make your music available in their store. I am not saying it is easy, but if you don't like it go do it another way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.