Free Ride - I've got a question.

[chrisso]

I totally agree. We need a collective of independents, self releasers, individual record producers, musicians etc....

[rack gear]

but that's just it, it's all about getting paid... and you can't get paid without having a stick to do so...

so the major division is this...

hobbysists / freehadists :
- people who are not, and will not ever likely have a professional creative career or even aspire to one with any degree of seriousness. these are the people that can pay $50 for a tunecore account, upload their "album" and maybe make an estimated average of $277 per year. Of course this doesn't take into account all the time and money invested in purchasing recording equipment, labor to record etc.

This is NOT a professional creative career, but because there is no investment as such. As a result, whatever money there is earned, is a net positive from zero money. So many of these people are now running around talking about how much BETTER things are for musicians, and how they can all get paid without a middle man.

Well, David Lowery disagrees:
Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post | The Trichordist | (via Instapaper)

- VERSUS -

professional career musicians and those who aspire to be :
- these are those who, at minimum able to make the equivalent of the minimum wage annually as professional full time self-supporting musicians. according to Salon there are 45.3% LESS of these from people 2001 to 2011 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which I believe uses the metrics of tax filing status):
No sympathy for the creative class - Salon.com

Spotify is a perfect example of the worst of the worst, in that it mergers the worst of the old model (labels exploiting artists) with the worst of the new model (tech exploiting artists). What's happening as a result of there being no protection for artists rights, is that the whole house of cards is collapsing. It's not collapsing on labels, because they are aggregators of massive libraries of content, hence the equity position each label has in Spotify that the artists will never see.

https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com...u-part-5-of-5/

tech doesn't care about artists, and labels are focused on saving their own assess. this works for tech, because it fuels that anti-label sentiment that prevents artists from mobilizing on behalf of their own rights.

in the end, we're at a crossroads as a society of choosing whether we want a professional creative class, or not... the choice to disempower artists from the opportunity and ability to have full time creative careers I fear will have unforeseen catastrophic psychic damages on the society as we've never before made that choice.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I totally agree. We need a collective of independents, self releasers, individual record producers, musicians etc....

Agreed as well. I'm pro-choice. The choice of the artist to choose their own path. A healthy ecosystem supports artists rights for those opportunities.

http://music3point0.blogspot.com/201...28Music+3.0%29

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by rack gear

No sympathy for the creative class - Salon.com

Fantastic article.
Love that line "no Springsteen anthem for struggling creatives"

[joelpatterson]

The logical response (however absurd it might sound) would be for non-affiliated creatives to start their own Internet. Rather than clawing at the castle walls of an Internet that cares not two hoots for their plight.

The other logical courses of action would be a strike, a sit-in, a demonstration, or an entire restructuring of society from the ground up.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I totally agree. We need a collective of independents, self releasers, individual record producers, musicians etc....

Good idea. Now who among you is going to give up their musical careers and devote their lives to organising and running the collective?

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Good idea. Now who among you is going to give up their musical careers and devote their lives to organising and running the collective?

ahem...

A2IM: American Association of Independent Music — Home

and...

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012/...68e7691195970c

and... (although it failed was the right idea)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNOCAP
http://www.crunchbase.com/company/snocap

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Good idea. Now who among you is going to give up their musical careers and devote their lives to organising and running the collective?

Who said I had a music career?
Secondly, the whole history of these movements is that people who prefer advocacy to the actual activity are generally enthusiastic to take up the cause. For example, there are not many professional musicians running the musicians union. People who are passionate about music, politics and workers rights tend to be the staff at any musicians union.
Likewise, there are barely any content creators working for the Pirate Party. They are people who are interested in politics and passionately against copyright and the business of music (and tv, and film).

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by rack gear

ahem... ...

Yes, they were pointed out to me in another thread a short while back.

Nothing RIAA sized though, and they would need to be in order to be effective.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Who said I had a music career? ...

You have, repeatedly.

But I get your point, that there are people prepared to do the work.

[dan p]

I'll add one more piece od kindling to the fire.
Your performing rights organization,BMI,Ascap,Sesac
and the rest frown on composers inquiries unless you are a publisher.
I have been told by someone in BMI who has said so.
PRO"s tend to protect publishers more than writers,its one more part of the business you have to understand.
Spotify is the evil cloud empire screwing musicians.
THe lables/4 have a 20% stake in spotify benefitting the top tier acts the most of which they own the bulk of the publishing.
THe 300 employees stand to become millionaires on the backs of creatives everywhere once stock offerings are taken.
Radio is owned by Clear channel and in business with the big labels.
Its big media manipulating the populations en mass.
You can go to youtube and see the click/hits top tier acts get to view there videos.
Not uncommon to see 40 or 50 million views.
Its like an hour glass but bigger on the bottom.
Only the few break into the top with luck and timing.
Music is a given.There is a ton of good music out there.
I'm consistently impressed when I listen at sites who have composers selling
tracks.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Yes, they were pointed out to me in another thread a short while back.

Nothing RIAA sized though, and they would need to be in order to be effective.

I don't know about that. A collective of indie labels can carry as much weight in market share as a major label. That provides some substantial collective bargaining power as well as bringing a voice to legislative discussions.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by dan p

I'll add one more piece od kindling to the fire.
Your performing rights organization,BMI,Ascap,Sesac
and the rest frown on composers inquiries unless you are a publisher.
I have been told by someone in BMI who has said so.
PRO"s tend to protect publishers more than writers,its one more part of the business you have to understand.
Spotify is the evil cloud empire screwing musicians.
THe lables/4 have a 20% stake in spotify benefitting the top tier acts the most of which they own the bulk of the publishing.
THe 300 employees stand to become millionaires on the backs of creatives everywhere once stock offerings are taken.
Radio is owned by Clear channel and in business with the big labels.
Its big media manipulating the populations en mass.
You can go to youtube and see the click/hits top tier acts get to view there videos.
Not uncommon to see 40 or 50 million views.
Its like an hour glass but bigger on the bottom.
Only the few break into the top with luck and timing.
Music is a given.There is a ton of good music out there.
I'm consistently impressed when I listen at sites who have composers selling
tracks.

yup... if you haven't seen this before...

Musicians POV: Give it to Mikey, he’ll eat anything! Spotify is (NOT) Good for You, Yum Yum! (Part 1 of 5) | The Trichordist

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I think a true unaffiliated indie artist will never have an equal voice in legislative discussions, unless they are independently wealthy, then they'd probably just lobby for whatever industry is actually profitable for them.

Absolutely. One voice is a faint cry in an ocean of opposition.

Originally Posted by unitymusic

The collective idea is interesting, but a lobbying collective is not something I could see a lot of independent artists going for.

I don't know about that. It's not that it's a "lobbying collective" it's that it's a collective that learns to lobby for it's interests. If the collective exists, it exists to serve it's members.

Whatever name you put on a collective, the idea is that if everyone wants/needs the same thing, than it's more realistic to work as a group to accomplish a common goal.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I like the idea of a collective you could join if you want to be serious about being an artist but don't want to get into the mainstream industry, but speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in lobbying or learning to lobby for my interests. IMO lobbying is one of the biggest offenders of all of the things corrupting our odds at a future focused on equality and individual rights.

Then you don't understand lobbying.

Without lobbying, how does anyone make their interests known to government in a modern society? Lawmakers don't have the time or energy to go through every individual communication from a citizen. A lobbyist is just a representative of a given group. Kind of a proxy communicator.

And a group hires a lobbyist so they don't have to lobby for their interests individually. Individually, about all you can do (unless you're very rich and can afford to go to Washington to speak to representatives in person) is to write your congressmen and The President. And as I just pointed out, that's not particularly effective.

Of course there are corrupt lobbyists and politicians - that doesn't mean the system is bad. there are aspects of corruption in all business, all government (regardless of political system), all aspects of human interaction. It's something that has to be dealt with.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I like the idea of a collective you could join if you want to be serious about being an artist but don't want to get into the mainstream industry, but speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in lobbying or learning to lobby for my interests. IMO lobbying is one of the biggest offenders of all of the things corrupting our odds at a future focused on equality and individual rights.

That's exactly the idea. You empower people to work on your behalf so you CAN be an artist. All you have to do is support the group with your voice. That doesn't mean you BECOME a lobbyist, it means you support the lobbyists that support your interests.

You can also do simple things, like educate others about the issues, etc. It's not about giving up being a musician, it's about making sure you can BE a musician.

I'd be more than happy if there were no such thing as lobbying, but it's how the game is played, and if you are not represented, you are NOT a part of the conversation.

http://mashable.com/2012/04/24/google-record-lobbying/

Google's lobbying bill in US triples to $5m in Q1 - NewsPlurk

Mr. Page goes to Washington: Google lobbying tripled in Q1 | VentureBeat

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

Then you must not understand what I am saying.

Throwing money at something so your interests are protected more so than others is not only not fair, it should be criminal to implement legal policy based on that.

If by lobbying you mean simply voicing your opinion then sure, but as far as I know that is not how the current world operates. I would love to be wrong though.

As I said, you don't understand lobbying.

Rack said it pretty well. It's not about "seeing your interests are protected more so than others" - it's about seeing that you interests are HEARD AT ALL.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I think that is part of my problem: I am just fed up with, tired of and simply over "the game".

The only way out is to kill yourself or become a hermit out in the middle of nowhere. Anywhere there's a group of people of any size, from a family unit on up, some version of "the game" is being played.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I think that is part of my problem: I am just fed up with, tired of and simply over "the game".

well, aren't we all... but the choice is to lay down and let the tanks roll over you, or move to Moorea as an expat. how well do you play ukulele?

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

... The collective idea is interesting, but a lobbying collective is not something I could see a lot of independent artists going for.

The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.

Never heard of a musicians union huh?

[rack gear]

@ unitymusic

what interest do you think you have that are so different from chrisso's?

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

I agree with the first part; I don't think it is a waste to voice your opinion, in fact it is important that you do. I am interested in the topic, just not political lobbying. IMO exposing the parties that do resort to throwing money at washington to have their interests protected would do far more good than attempting to participate in that yourself.

That's the way the system works and it's that way by necessity. You're not going to change it because there in nothing that's viable to take its place.

To not participate is to abdicate your voice.

I know technically and legally, lobbying and bribery are two different things and should be mutually exclusive, but does anyone actually believe that is the case? Just because you can be creative with your use of donations and paper work does not change the reality of your motives and the outcome.

Not all lobbyists are crooked, although some are. Not all politicians are, either. And simply removing bribery from the equation won't really change much. Look how Google very effectively gamed the debate about SOPA. And you can be pretty sure they did it without doing anything that is technically illegal.

Originally Posted by Don Hills

The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.

yeah....

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Never heard of a musicians union huh?

You've just proven my point.

[chrisso]

How is your lack of awareness about the music industry proving my point?
It may be redundant in New Zealand, but the musicians unions in the UK and USA are active and present in all kinds of workplace scenarios.
The stereotypical view that the music community is a disorganized rabble is pretty tiresome.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

@ John: I agree with your last post but I'm not an anarchist nor do I know much about anonymous; I certainly don't follow them enough for them to have much influence over me. I might agree with a few things here and there from those groups, but that is usually how it is for me. I don't align myself with any political organization, religion or any group really. If something makes sense to me I will agree with it, I don't care as much who says it.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. However over the past year a lot of Anonymous's rhetoric has been invading the public consciousness spread by Anon's relationship with the Occupy movement and the boost given them by Google over the SOPA thing.

Anon themselves are hard core hacker anarchists who do things like hacking websites but they have an extensive softcore fringe that works on spreading their message, part of which is radically anti-artist and anti-music industry. Anon also has an intrinsic involvement with the Occupy movement (for example both use the same mask as a symbol), which serves to garner sympathy toward them among people fed up with the status quo of big business/big government. Especially among non-aligned types like yourself. Since anarchists do not believe in any type of formal authority or control for any reason that makes them particularly attractive to the disaffected.

Since anarchists are basically just into raising hell that makes them ideal pawns for other entities with a specific agenda. Enter Google.

Understand, if those forces can prevent artists like you from organizing and gaining representation that will give them a voice at the table they've won a big part of their war.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

How is your lack of awareness about the music industry proving my point? ...

No, you proved *my* point.

I said that collectives exist, and had been previously mentioned, but there are none that are anywhere near as large and effective as the RIAA.

Rack replied that a collective of indie labels could be effective.

Unitymusic replied that he didn't think a collective would gain enough support from independant artists.

I agreed, saying that the phrase "herding cats" came to mind.

You asked if I'd heard of a musician's union, implying (and later explicitly stating) that I wasn't aware that they existed.

Of course I knew of the existence of collectives and unions, I'd said so a few posts back. The point you proved was the one I made earlier, that although they exist, none of them are anywhere near as large and effective as the RIAA.

[chrisso]

I don't really see a connection between any claim independent artists would not want to join a collective and the power of the RIAA?
Musicians union's exist and millions of musicians have joined. The union is pretty powerful. In the UK the BBC wont do anything unless the union agrees to it. In the US a few years ago, you couldn't get paid for many studio gigs unless you were in the union, and similarly to actors unions, you couldn't just join.
John and Rack's point is there is currently no relevant organisation that speaks for independent artists, studios and small labels.
If there was, millions might join.
Which brings me back to your herding cats comment being a negative stereotype.

[John Eppstein]

Ahem!

The RIAA does not represent artists.

The RIAA is a trade organization that represents its members.

The RIAA's members are the major labels.

Indie musicians (especially those who are not union members) and small indie labels have no representation.

We need to fix that - unless you people find it more psychologically satisfying to sit in your corner rocking back and forth and moaning about how you've been screwed by the world.

Time to wise up and grow up!