Record Companies Give Up! We win!

[soundwave106]

Anytime, somebody can get your product for free, it doesnt matter if a label, pr firm, or talent agency controls it, you're going to lose money. The only possible solution I see to "curing" the problem of downloading is to restructure the role of the artist.

Not true necessarily. Since there is still money to be made on live experiences, licensing, cross-marketing, etc. etc., a PR / management firm can make money by negotiating these deals for the artist, netting a nice % of the deal of course. The recorded work is becoming less relevant than the brand, even though people occasionally still buy CDs. So the CD just becomes another part of the merch package, along with the T-shirt and the trinkets. People still pay for looking cool and displaying a popular band's logo on their chest. And commercials and ringtones still need the music of whatever is hip.

In fact the labels are even beginning to be sold on this concept -- the "360" deal push didn't exist 5 years ago. And yes, artists are complaining about this sort of thing eating into their paycheck, as Lee pointed out. Funny how that works.

[HKSblade1]

i go with what Roddy said. majority of my album collection and cd collection expenditures were teens and young adult.

used to spend 7.99 of my 3.25/hr job on a new record each week. I had more stockpile than most dj's.

When cd's became the new standard, I repurchased a lot of my collection at 16.00 disc.

Fact is, young people are who buy music and go to concerts. That has not changed. Now the young get for free and dont have concerts to attend since the venues are not booking weekly or bi monthly. No cd sales, no tour.

[bluesway]

Well some of us who have real jobs:poke: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article3261591.ece

'k. so i know this has been beaten into the ground. (what is this, post #1000?)

but anyone who feels like they 'win' here is completely not in music as a musician. just some fan who beleives he's somehow entitled to take money out of other people's pockets.

(not to mention that the thread starter only posted the start and left. he's a troll from mainly the political forum.....and he has some really brilliant posts in there, too. )

[sabriel9v]

'k. so i know this has been beaten into the ground. (what is this, post #1000?) but anyone who feels like they 'win' here is completely not in music as a musician. just some fan who beleives he's somehow entitled to take money out of other people's pockets. (not to mention that the thread starter only posted the start and left. he's a troll from mainly the political forum.....and he has some really brilliant posts in there, too. )

Maybe the OP was referring to the freeing of the market and the notion that artists now have more options and opportunities to get their material out there.

[bluesway]

Maybe the OP was referring to the freeing of the market and the notion that artists now have more options and opportunities to get their material out there.

MAYBE, but i still don't feel like i'm getting anything out of it from that perspective....especially since i had those options as an unsigned artist anyway. i don't see the 'more' part for a guy like me.

and also, i'm having a hard time figuring out if "giving away"="freeing market that I could really benefit from"

the money in the music industry is in publishing. everyone knows that. HOW does it become better for songwriters and music creators when congress allows free distribution?

i'm as much into 'getting my music out there' as the next guy, but i also consider this as [at least] part of my income and career. that part seems to be being neutered.

if you really see it differently, PLEASE explain it to me. i've missed points before.

[sabriel9v]

part of my income and career. that part seems to be being neutered. if you really see it differently, PLEASE explain it to me. i've missed points before.

At this point I can't even remember all the parts and responses to the original post. That was like ten pages ago...but personally when I talk about the freeing of the market in regards to unsigned artists and the music industry, there are now more outlets for artists to record, get their cds replicated and duplicated, get cheap merch. made, overall it's easier now in those aspects. But that's really that's because everyone and their grandma is trying to capitalize upon artists

[bluesway]

[Mosby]

Just going to weigh in a bit.

Firstly, I will admit that I downloaded via napster when i was in college. And yes, I was able to get a taste of music that i never would've otherwise heard. A buddy says something about band 'x' or you read a cd review, you can go on napster and download a couple tracks. I ended up buying a lot of stuff that I wouldn't have otherwise bought. Now - is it theft? Yes. Was it theft then? Yes. I'm just saying that the argument held some weight then? Now, almost every band has a way you can preview their music on the internet (myspace, etc....) - where's the excuse for downloading the entire album?

Now downloading has a significant impact - not just on the artist to (what about a songwriter's royalties?). But let's not blame the state of the industry on illegal downloading entirely (though it is certainly a factor). Can you tell me that the recording studio side is doing okay? can you tell me that playing live is what it used to be? Personally I think all of these factors contribute to the state of the industry as well.

I was talking to a guy i met in a bar while watching a hockey game and he was telling me that he used to be a touring musician, and that when they would play (9 piece band) that they would get around $250/man. I said wow, because a lot of four piece here in denver is lucky if they get $150. he replied well thats not that bad, and then I told him that I meant that the *band* gets $150 a night. he looked at me like I had just kicked a puppy.

I think sometimes we've turned music into the new McDonalds (hey a burger cost .99 and so does a song. Anyone else notice this?) - this is evident even in the recording side. I mean, you can get a decent recording setup for under a grand and suddenly everyone is a producer and recording engineer. Now, I'm not against home recording, and not against self-production, but let's not overlook the fact that there was/is a reason that artist went to a studio or worked with a professional producer. I freelance for a local studio, and time and time again people tell me, well, I'd love to record with you, but my buddy's got this recording setup in basement, and he records us for free, so..... I mean, the value of a recording engineer has gone downhill, because everyone thinks they can do it themselves. I mean, I can change the oil in my car, but it doesn't make me an auto mechanic.

As far as the internet as the distribution/publicity/free music thing goes, I get tired of people (usually CS/IT guys) tell me that all music should be free and that people will choose what they want to listen to, and that those artists, that the public favors, will rise to the top and make more money. Plus according to this idea the artist gets more money because the "evil" labels are out of business. This supposed give more control and money to the artist - though I'm not sure how, because there are no CD sales (everyone already has the album), no songwriter royalties (everyone got the album for free, 25% (or whatever) of 0 is still 0). I guess the artist will make money off of the live show/tour - but alas, the artist can't go on tour because he has no capital because there where no CD sales, no royalties, and no advance from a label. Of course tell the people who tell you this to put their business plans and computer code on the internet, and the best will rise to the top, and thats the code/plan that'll get used , and they might get paid somehow from that, and well, they usually say, "no, that's totally different...."

Sorry about the rant, but this has just been stuck in my jaw a lot lately.