If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Posting Guidelines.
You have to register before you can post.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I am often misunderstood on this point that there is a big difference between "good" songs/recordings and "great" songs/recordings.
the conversation of hobbyists (soundclick) versus pros/labels (itunes) devolves into the argument that even if piracy destroy's all revenue models, "artist will continue to create"... ok, fine, sure... read on...
it just so happens that many of the "great" songs, albums, recordings are also hit recordings by labels - that's not an accident.
sure, artists with day jobs & daws will create, but will they have the support and resources to be THE BEST they can be, to grow and stretch, and evolve into the absolute GREATEST manifestation of their personal creativity?
sure, Radiohead's "the bends" was a good, some may say great album, but could they have developed to "OK Computer" and "Kid A" without label support? Unlikely, and just as unlikely as we would have gotten Dark Side Of The Moon from Pink Floyd or Sea Change from Beck, the list goes on and on... Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots from the Flaming Lips.
It's been said that the enemy of Great is Good, and so it is with artists confined by day jobs, but liberated by DAWS. If you endeavor to create any GREAT art, you will quickly find the greatest expense, and by far, is the cost of man hours in human labor that is required to arrive at GREATNESS through the process of dedication and refinement.
This isn't some subjective "us verses them" argument, anymore than commonly accepted notion that it takes "10,000 hours" to master an instrument.
I started playing guitar two years ago as a man in his forties, if I was 14 I think I could say quite comfortably the man hours I would be able to dedicate to practice would have me playing much better than I do now.
So this isn't a judgment about the capabilities of artists with day jobs and daws as much as it is about the limitations on the artists by needing to have a day job.
Like Muser and Jaron Lanier I would much prefer a world where human creativity is rewarded and theft of human labor is punished... but maybe others would prefer the opposite as it would appear in many of these threads.
sure lagavulin16. to me it's not that I think that people can't produce great Art with next to nothing.
I think that argument is a defunct argument from go.
but the people with the shoe strings are poised to be eternally with strings in their shoes and I would argue that your argument supports that supposition. even if you don't at all mean to.
The image you paint of the Artists with a good voice, a shitty guitar, and a great song, is clearly one you are already accepting as being in such a state of affairs that, only having that minimum of freedom, is acceptable.
imo This image entails the giving over of Freedom not the obtaining of it.
in the past, people with good voice, a shitty guitar, and a great song were usually singing about being able to afford more than a shitty guitar.
That IS exactly why Art is bound up with Freedom and why any Art lover should respect why any act that kills the Artist may also be Killing Freedom.
Ultimately I envision a world where people will be able to support themselves by creativity and not destruction.
perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been, this post sums up the intent of the original post quite well...
Originally Posted by chrisso
Care to list all the great works of art produced by part timers and amateurs.
'Great art' being that which is both critically acclaimed and has stood the test of time by being loved by the public over an extended period.
Like The Beatles output, Salvidor Dali, Martin Scorcese, Miles Davis and Serge Prokofiev.
Officials said a band blocked the 101 Freeway in Hollywood on Tuesday morning for an impromptu concert that jammed traffic and tested the patience of commuters. In what is believed to be an effort at promotion, authorities said that members...
honestly, i dont think its a good idea cuz instead of making new fans, you're just pissing alot of people off. in a city where road rage and highway shootings are not uncommon, these guys are lucky they didnt get hurt. they did however get their band name in the paper. but i'm not in the camp that believes there's no such thing as bad publicity. do you think this was worth it/ a good idea?
On first reading, I think I can agree with pretty much every line, even the Billy Bragg quote.
It's about how the Arts deal with a global financial crisis, but much of the text can directly relate to music industry discussions we've had here - government funding, poverty inspired creativity, the live scene and the post Simon Cowell music scene etc......
Vevo's revenue is in the "tens of millions," collected through sponsorships and advertising, but the site is still not profitable, CEO Rio Caraeff told an audience at TechCrunch Disrupt yesterday. "Vevo is an experiment on a grand scale,” according to Careff, with more than 50% of revenue passed on to the labels and artists. "We’ve proven that we can aggregate a large audience," he continued, "and proven that music is valuable to advertisers. If people are passionate than we can monetize that audience.” In an effort to “restore the luster of video advertising,” Vevo’s ad rate is comparable to broadcast...
The other day, a commenter on the blog wrote this: “Digital content creators should have the right to control how their content is consumed. Whether they want to be financially compensated or wish to give it away for free should be their choice—not the users or The Pirate Bay.” That digital content creators should have the right to control how their content is consumed and distributed isn’t something I’d argue against, in most circumstances. This serves as a platform to talk about musicians rights, perceived or otherwise. What rights do you think that musicians should have? How can we create...
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, post links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet.
Last June I sent an e-mail urging the music community to become more engaged in the fight against online theft. The result -- over 16,000 e-mails imploring Congress to pass aggressive laws to combat piracy.
It looks like Washington heard our call. A bipartisan group of Senators has introduced legislation that would give the Justice Department an expedited process for cracking down on rogue websites that are dedicated to making unauthorized copies of music available to internet users around the world. The Justice Department would target the most egregious pirate websites, go to a federal court with the evidence, and then seize the domain name.
Once a site has been seized, the Court would issue an order to intermediaries -- such as ISPs, payment processors, Internet registries and registrars, advertisers, etc. -- prohibiting them from doing business with such rogue sites.
CNET called S. 3804, "one of the most ambitious attempts yet from the U.S. government to fight online piracy" and observed that "if the bill passes, it could mark the most significant antipiracy victory for the film and music industries in quite a while."
Each and every one of us needs to act NOW if we expect the legislation to gain momentum. Our community has never matched the noise created by those on the "copyleft" – we need to be louder than ever to drown out those who don’t care about our art, our jobs and the difference between right and wrong.
Please click HERE to send an e-mail to your Senators and Representative and ask that they support this unprecedented legislation. Take the time to ask your colleagues and friends to send a message as well. It’s quick and easy – just enter your home address and click “send.”
You can now watch the new, official video for "**** YOU" on Cee Lo's Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU Download "**** You" at http:...
Once again, this is all empirical data, but with a song like F@$k You!, he obviously had to go off the radio.
A true classic, with a vocal that hangs with any Motown track. Not for the kids. F. U.
Interesting. I see this helping the 2.0 cause, even though youtube lost it's net neutrality in August with the complete corporate ruination of it's music category page. (YouTube - Music) Terrestrial radio has got to go, so I get excited when I see success without it.
I'm probably going to get flamed, but I think in these times, it doesn't hurt to be wrong sometimes. I think everyone involved in music making should be thinking about the business model and coming up with ideas because there is no other way to find a way out of the mess we're currently in, so please bear with me.
I've done some calculations lately and I've found some rather interesting stuff which I'd like to share in the unbelievably cynical ecosystem that is GS.
The answer to the music industry crisis has long been suspected to lie in ISPs, that give (and control) access to all internet content in the whole of the UK, whether illegal or not. Still, a good model is still not in place.
First, some numbers. I'll be succinct here, but I have calculations which I can present if needed. National Statistics Online - Internet Access
There will be an approximate average of 20 million households with internet access in the UK for the next 5 years, meaning about 65% of total households. BPI | Recorded Music Sales Revenue Stabilise In 2009
The UK recording industry has been making less than £1 billion on record sales since 2007. RESOURCES - IFPI publishes Digital Music Report 2009
The 2009 Digital Music Report indicates 95% of music downloading is illegal.
A completely hypothetical, gigantic database (that we'll name MusicBase), that would contain the whole of the UK musical products sold in both digital and physical formats in several versions of varying quality, added to a multi-platform piece of software for download and optional playback would cost about £1 million per year to develop and maintain (This figure took a bit longer to calculate and is an approximation based on hosting costs, software development, digital transfers, et cetera, and doesn't take into account the media campaigns that would probably cost several times that amount.)
This database would have to be managed by an organisation with a royal charter, like the BBC, or (why not?) managed by the BBC itself.
It would be a mixture between the iTunes Store, with playlist streaming like spotify or deeper, but with a higher sound quality than all three of these, and with complete, unlimited DRM-free song downloads in both lossy and lossless codecs. You want the highest quality? Download the Super Audio version in 24/96k, in stereo or even surround sound. Do you want it on your iPod? Download the MP3 version. Do you want both? You can. And it would be a fixed rate subscription. £10 plus VAT per month.
Such an unlimited, highest-possible quality, high convenience option for music listeners would eventually mostly supersede physical music sales, meaning the end of retail outlets with their rent and shipping and taxes and returns policy and unsold stock and analog master storage, amongst other costs.
Most importantly, this would mean the complete transition to the digital world, with all of the advantages this can bring. The disadvantages of current digital technology are mostly related to getting the artists paid. Current digital offers from Amazon, HMV, Tesco and even Apple do not offer the sound quality, amount of choice, paying system, and overall convenience for most users to stop downloading illegally.
And the government can arrest illegal downloaders, but it can't technically make them buy music. How do you force them, then? Well, with the age-old stick and carrot system, how else.
ISPs have the technology to know when music is being downloaded illegally. They acknowledge it openly. They can control internet traffic if they have to. But they don't care what users do, and the internet is thus a free-for-all. However, they can be made to care what their users do, if they are being paid to do so.
MusicBase is online, but blocked to anyone without paid access.
Any household that is caught downloading more than 20 songs by their ISP receives a written warning. Another infringement, and they disconnect their house for a year. However, at the bottom of the warning there is an offer to pay for unlimited access to MusicBase.
£10 plus 20% VAT, so £12 total a month, for completely unlimited music. Roughly the same price of the 20 songs they illegally downloaded and less than a TV licence.
This fee would be an "add-on" to the ISP fee, meaning their client would just have to go to the ISP website and order it in a few seconds. This add-on would be offered on every new contract and £1 would go straight to the ISP, pushing them to look for illegal downloaders and to enforce the law.
To top it all, a large media campaign. "A new era for Music." One database to rule them all. From early classical music to minimal techno, from Brahms to Led Zeppelin, from dead musicians to brand new bands.
A good percentage of the population would jump right on such an offer. I would predict at least 10% of UK households in the first year of their own would, and after word of mouth and ISP warnings this number could go beyond the 50% mark.*Such a service would be cool enough for people to say they are paying for it to their friends, which is an important point.
Now, if we do the maths, £11 a month (£12-1 ISP bribe) for 50% of households means £1.32 billion per year.
Let me repeat that.
1.32 BILLION extra pounds for an industry currently worth 1 billion, with a maintenance cost of under £1 million per year. This is, of course, to be added to current CD and vinyl sales which shouldn't totally disappear, at least in the short term, and with only half of households paying for it. What's the percentage of them paying a TV licence? I suspect in a few years it would be a lot higher than 50%, thus raising that figure even more.
This is also discounting all forms of revenue that do not relate strictly to music sales. Extra money could be made by advertising on MusicBase, and by selling premium licences for commercial use, etc. or extra content like videos or tickets.
As a label or musician, you'd have to pay a minimum fee to keep your own songs on MusicBase, let's say £2 to per song a month (£4 if a hi-def version is added, £6 for a surround version), a bit more than the price for tunecore (iTunes). That would ensure hobbyists with really low click rates and lots of shit songs are giving money rather than taking from the industry. Then you add these fees to the money pool from music download.
Then, you and divide the earnings between labels and self-produced acts by song downloads. Obviously, only 1 song download per IP address. You could even add a small multiplier like 0.8x for compilations and 1.2 for rare material, or 1.5 for native UK music.
This method of purchasing would ensure:
that more artists in the system would still mean more money per artist because of the upload fee which would cancel out growing numbers of hopefuls, although most hobbyists would lose a bit of money, which I think is fair enough.
a democratising of music genres and an opening up of the market. People would be a LOT more adventurous about downloading unknown music if downloads were unlimited, so less well-known bands would make more money, proportionally. Small label running would become less expensive and the gap between unknown artists and superstars would decrease.
that the customer could choose to download (or stream even!!) music on 3 different format downloads and re-download if they want, stream the mp3 version, create favourite playlists, you name it. This would also mean the gap between lossy and lossless codecs would be elegantly closed as soon as people are willing to have big enough hard drives and we wouldn't have to keep buying our music all over again like it happened in the 80s with vinyl, cassette and then CD formats.
the freeing of the digital market from the claws of Apple.
the destruction of online music piracy in the UK, taking with it the myriads of low quality files with poor naming and no artwork and a stop to the money flow into sites like Rapidshare and such.
the opportunity for a complete streamlining of the whole music business model. Labels would completely change their way of thinking and behaving towards artists. That experimental blip-jazz-techno band might not be an instant hit (sic) but their label would stop not drop them since the price to keep the file in the servers would be so low. As long as that artist made more than £2 per song per month, or even less if the artist himself paid the fee, the label would be making money; there wouldn't be any additional overhead. Actually, the label would make even more money by having lots of small artists than having a few ones. This is what everyone has been hoping for.
I realise this would be a massive undertaking, since it would involve heavy negotiations between the government, music labels and ISPs.
But it can be done. I don't see any major drawbacks for the end user.
What do you think? Is this completely ridiculous or a rather good idea?
Think 30 seconds isn't enough to decide whether you like a song? Sources tell CNET that Apple is making changes. They also say you'll have to wait longer for an iTunes cloud service. Read this blog post by Greg Sandoval on Apple.
On Wednesday, when Apple CEO Steve Jobs takes the stage at the company's annual September media event, he is expected to announce that iTunes users will be allowed at least twice the amount of time to sample a song, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the move. The sources said the sample period could be extended to as much as 90 seconds.
An Apple spokesman said the company doesn't comment on speculation and rumor.
Currently, iTunes offers 30-second snippets of songs, a feature designed to give users a taste of the music to help them decide whether they like it enough to buy. Some users have long complained that half a minute isn't enough time to review a song.
why leave your hometown (or back yard) when you can stream your live shows to fans without the expense of traveling? If enough people want to see your band play their town, put a price on it. If they can raise the money, you show up...
Quick Post: There are dozens of ways fans can post video segments, or stream live concerts from their mobile phones, but below are 5 sites that can help artists professionally broadcast their live shows (in no particular order):
When invitations arrived yesterday featuring an Apple inspired acoustic guitar for an event on September 1st, the speculation about what Steve Job might announced went into overdrive. Separating facts from speculation isn't easy, but a new report from a relaible source matches with other off the record bits of information that we've been hearing. The rumors had already been flying about a new Apple TV device and an upgraded line if iPod touches with a camera. Some are also speculating that a music locker and/or streaming serivce will be announced, but sources tell Hypebot that's highly unlikely. This morning, Peter...
Sorry that should be Looking for perfect band website !
Ive been hunting around for good band websites and i reckon there are a few no brainers. Obviously easy to navigate and simple to find out what you want are essential. I wondered what you guys thought of this site in terms of layout and navigation etc.Its one ive put together for friends band
Basically my (fact-supported) opinion on our future options for the music business.
MP3 Happened - Now What?
"It wasn’t the beginning of the end, just a harbinger of it. Subsequent formats such as aac, ogg later sprang up based around the same ideas, and the overall concept had already been made a reality by prior formats such as ac3 and mp2 - they just didn’t do it as *well* as mp3 did. Discard psycho-acoustically negligible information to gain a 5-12x reduction in file size - meaning a song could comfortably and easily be ported around the internet, even in the days of dialup." ...
If I had a dollar for every time some old, 'I-live-with-my-head-under-the-sand' rock artist said something stupid about the web... I would still be a tech-blogger... But I would also have a pool of money. I’m not even sure where to begin disagreeing with what Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac has to say. I mean, come on, are her and John Mellencamp friends? Do they hang out on the weekends and yell at the kids playing on the front lawn? Does Nicks not understand that the Internet that’s 'destroying everything' is also the very means through which more musicians are gaining...
With anti-piracy outfits and dubious law-firms policing BitTorrent swarms at an increasing rate, many BitTorrent users are looking for ways to hide their identities from the outside world. Here's an overview of five widely used privacy services.
Modern media, traditional print, TV or online have, I feel, for many years been pandering to the "Yoof" market, doing or saying anything to appear to be "down with the kids" regardless of the fact that, as journalist's who are meant to have a degree in English (?) should know about the power of word's and the context in which they are used.
The word is download.
For year's with every review, I have seen tacked on at the end the usual blah blah out of 5 and the new 21st century way to be "Cool" Download these... which is usually what the reviewer thought are the highlights of the album, but saying that would be so 20th century, right?
Now a journalist could turn around and say "erm yeah, I didn't mean steal it" but the point is the word, if someone says they downloaded something off the internet, it usually means they got it for free, why not put those English degrees to some use and rather than coming up with some dodgy headline, actually find a word that can be used and not feed the world the notion that the word download is not a "dirty" word.
Journalist's do not want to appear to be out of touch, in fact they and many people don't want to to be the walking contradiction that was their parents.
How can you tell someone downloading is bad when you used to tape stuff off the radio... That is different but I do get the analogy, my point is, when your a teenager somethings seem alright, your right to rebel against the world but you have no reference point yet, your right that singles used to be too expensive for what you got, some dodgy live versions and remixes for b-sides but that's another argument.
To not appear to be out of touch, the media has made some decision's that they thought wouldn't affect them but now with print media fading and people expecting free news, the extent of which is who has cut her hair by 1cm and other trash.
I have been visiting a site called lifehacker and sometimes they have some good tips on how to do things, an online DIY manual, if you will but I have noticed some articles about Torrrent's and again they don't mention downloading illegal content but the point is the image the word brings up...
Disclaimer...(???!!) Yes Torrent's can be used for legal downloads, Linux etc... but my question's are:
What do you think of when I write Download.
What do you think of when I write Torrent.
Terry McBride, CEO, Nettwerk Music Group (Canada).
starts @ 3:30
He says that because the Nettwerk Music Group (Canada) is a group of managers, publishers and record labels there are in a unique positions to cross reference what shows up on the statements. They knew there were 100,000,000 views on youtube of one of their artists videos BUT this wasn't showing up on their artists statements. so they went to the label and asked, how come these youtube views weren't showing up on the artists statements.
He also says that the Major labels held onto the money generated by streaming, for the better part of 3 years.
When Terry McBride actually showed the head of the Major label a rhapsody statement, the head of the major label said He had never seen one. so... the money had been sitting in corporate accounts and had never made it down to the label..
so that means that, Artists who's labels are not developing them any longer because of the purported crashing of the industry, due to illegal file sharing is a fallacy.
The real reason they are NOT being developed is because ..
The major corporations are sitting on the money and not passing it down to the major labels.
if the Major labels don't get the money then, the subsidiary labels won't.
if the subsidiary's don't then the Artists themselves certainly won't.
so .. a given label (may or may not be) obtaining the payments from the numerous types of services out there.
it depends on the competence of the label and manager to find those, extract the money and communicate with the artist (and) more vitally, decide whether or not to use that money to develop the artist further.
Thus... the claim that illegal file sharing is killing the industry is a fallacy.
what is killing the industry are the large corporations long term strategic plans for control over the electronic communications system itself.
the Wiki on Vivendi is a master class of corporate strategic planning.
Maybe it's time for a little optimism. A list of artists (with some details) that have done it the old fashion way- starting independent, building a dedicated fanbase, slowly playing better and better venues and selling product all along the way.
Sure they were recently signed to Rick Rubin's branch of Columbia, but that was just the culmination of everything the boys had done before that. And by the time they were signed, they were already selling out larger venues and had 5 self released CD's in their catalog. Basically, they didn't NEED the label (to be financially viable), but it did help take them to the next level.
How did they become successful?
1- They poured a lot of energy into their craft
2- They put on amazing high-energy ACOUSTIC shows from the get-go
3- They connected with their fans- engaged is more like it
4- They kept touring (starting around NC and building out from there).
5- They kept touring regardless of the poor turnouts in new markets
6- They kept touring and those new markets were slowly starting to produce larger crowds
7- They kept touring and old markets were selling out, while new markets saw yet more turnout
8- They kept touring and connecting with fans and selling product
9- They continued to push and hone their craft
10- They ended up with they type of fans that don't want to steal, will travel to see them, and consider the band to be their friends (even though they may have never met).
Now the Avett's sell out almost every show and continue to grow, financially, artistically and in popularity.
There is a 'huge demand' for arts experience's but artists income has barely changed in nearly 30 years.
44,000 professional artists were surveyed, that includes musicians, writers and painters for whom copyright is an important income component.
The average yearly wage was under $36,000 a year (including 'non arts' income) and 16% earned less than $10,000 a year.
For me this is the reality of the average professional musician, not the greedy rock star lifestyle the anti-music business, anti-copyright lobby want us to imagine.
Caveat: Australia is rather isolated, and due to small population struggles to support the arts more than countries like the UK and U.S.
However, in my 30 year experience, this survey paints a more accurate picture of the financial struggles of most creative people than the many 'free music' blogs or posts I've read on this forum.
Formerly known as Project Playlist, the digital-music service says it will continue to operate and expects to come out of the bankruptcy protection period in better shape. Read this blog post by Greg Sandoval on Media Maverick.
We keep hearing about artists like Shania and Alanis being the number of sales we should want and we keep dismissing sales of artists like Lady Gaga and BEP being too few. So what is the right amount? How many records did bands like Pink Floyd, Boston, Queen, Eagles and such sell? We all will have our own opinions of what these numbers mean, but here they are.
Rdio lets you listen to millions of songs ad-free wherever you are – on the web and on your phone, even offline.
It’s been two months to the day since Rdiolaunched in the States – check out Erick’s review if you’re interested in learning more about the social music service.
But until today, you needed to be invited by another user to gain access to the service.
Not that it was all that difficult – users were able to invite dozens at a time and we gave away thousands of invite codes for TechCrunch readers – but still, the doors are now open.
Update: apologies, doors will actually open 8 AM EDT Tuesday morning.
That is, if you live in the United States or Canada or at least know how to pretend you are.
Users in those countries can henceforth sign up for Rdio and give it a whirl free of charge and ad-less for a period of 3 days, although users get the option to extend the free trial with another 10 days after, according to the startup, which was founded and financially backed by Skype, Kazaa and Joost founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis.
Rdio, pronounced “ar-dee-oh”, costs $9.99 per month for unlimited Web and mobile access (including the ability to listen to music and playlists offline), and $4.99 for Web-only access.
Rdio says it recently expanded its music collection through deals with independent labels and aggregators, hitting the 7 million songs milestone. Apart from the major music labels, Rdio now boasts agreements with the likes of IODA, IRIS, Finetunes, INgrooves and The Orchard.
In addition, Rdio has attracted a number of music publications and other influencers (Spin Magazine, Pitchfork and Los Angeles’ KCRW Radio, to name but a few) to set up profiles and connect users with their favorite tunes (which can now be played without interruption, thank God).
The company has also been consistently updating its iPhone, Android and BlackBerry apps, as the mobile aspect of the offering is really key to their long-term strategy.
The public launch of Rdio in the US and Canada is bad news for European music startup Spotify, which hasn’t managed to make it Stateside yet, despite all its oft-expressed hopes and dreams. Spotify says negotations with the labels are moving in the right direction, however, and that they’re confident they’ll be able to launch in the U.S. before year’s end.
Of course, Spotify is far from the only competition Rdio has or will have, with startups like Pandora and MOG doing very well. And let’s not forget three technology giants are plotting their own music-in-the-cloud push, too: digital music sales juggernaut Apple, Web giant Google and HP, still very much the largest information technology company in the world.
Curious to see what the future will hold for Rdio.
You please tell me what you think of it today, though.