What can we do?

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Stepwise Sound

This is my point -- if people are stretched too thin, if they have no money and no savings then purchases like buying albums are going to be at the bottom of their list.

actually the truth is - durable good usually take the hit and lower priced consumer items usually maintain stability due to their lower cost - it's one thing that people can still afford and take pleasure in...

we went from $20 CDs to 99 cent songs... I don't know that "not having money" really works on 99 cent economics... unless there is an illegally free alternative that can be had without consequence.

music is cheaper than candy bars - I'd like to see the 10 year graph on candy bars during the bubble and recession...

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

actually the truth is - durable good usually take the hit and lower priced consumer items usually maintain stability due to their lower cost - it's one thing that people can still afford and take pleasure in...

we went from $20 CDs to 99 cent songs... I don't know that "not having money" really works on 99 cent economics... unless there is an illegally free alternative that can be had without consequence.

music is cheaper than candy bars - I'd like to see the 10 year graph on candy bars during the bubble and recession...

I looked for a graph but couldn't find one. I can tell you that they didn't drop more than 6.6%.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by Mark Kaufman

I want to contribute a good idea for Kenny...but the realist in me tells me that ship has sailed. Educating people about not stealing...it's like those ads at the beginning of DVDs...they're perceived as a buzzkill and a drag. I don't think it works.

I think the answer will be in the delivery system. The uncopyable file.

If you can hear it, you can copy it. Everyone in the studio business should know this already. If you can copy it, you can remove the watermark.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

some people want the old model to go away and only the new model to exist

There is no 'new model'.
we are scrabbling around for a new model.
All we have is the old model in large part and a bunch of people illegally bypassing it.

It probably doesn't really effect me, as I'm too old for pop, I've made my money in the old model and even if the old model was still king i wouldn't be making my own albums and touring every year.
I do feel sorry for this generation of musicians, and more importantly I do worry about the future of quality music and quality artists........ because my interpretation of quality artists and my experience of 30 years tells me quality artists and quality music are not nurtured (or even really supported) by corporate sponsorship, or cosmetic deals and clothing lines.
That's the domain of the media star - the likes of Lady GaGa, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Miley Cyrus and Madonna.
So I'm merely worried about the future, and how really adventurous artists who take risks with their music are going to find funding, and going to find a career path, sandwiched between people who want their music free of charge, and the big corporations who only want to back a short term winner - like Lady GaGa.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

If you can't send a tiff uncompressed, and you can't compress a file that won't let you compress it, there would be enough work just undoing that that sharing would halt overnight.

You sort of lost me here. You can compress TIFF files. I've never heard of a file that can't be compressed, though I know compressing some files won't really gain you any space if they're already in a compressed format.

There is a billion ways to do this. You might have to climb every mountain (Joel, cue mopey music) before they get the idea that it's serious. Soon as they get a tiny grip, change the format.

So now we're onto a special format that "can't be copied" and "can't be compressed". So let's look at what that will require:

1) Banning any OS that isn't Windows or OSX, assuming Microsoft and Apple play along.
2) Banning/regulating any recording equipment capable of recording audio. Or...
3) Banning any music stored in any other format.

This is all assuming you can get consumers to go along with the fun.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by chrisso

There is no 'new model'.
we are scrabbling around for a new model.
All we have is the old model in large part and a bunch of people illegally bypassing it.

This is correct. There isn't really a "new model" as much as a "new environment", and everyone is looking for the "new model" as a result.

The differences seen in the new model:

1) Much cheaper/easier to provide and distribute music.
2) Much cheaper/easier to pirate music, as well as purchase it.
3) Many more artists.
4) Labels making less money.
5) Less money on music sales.
6) More money for touring.
7) A general reduction in money at every step of the ladder.
8) More "studios", though these are often people with a computer and some mics in their apartment.

In short, a lot more chefs and restaurants, some a lot better than others, and most of the customers can eat for free legally or illegally.

It probably doesn't really effect me, as I'm too old for pop, I've made my money in the old model and even if the old model was still king i wouldn't be making my own albums and touring every year.
I do feel sorry for this generation of musicians, and more importantly I do worry about the future of quality music and quality artists........ because my interpretation of quality artists and my experience of 30 years tells me quality artists and quality music are not nurtured (or even really supported) by corporate sponsorship, or cosmetic deals and clothing lines.
That's the domain of the media star - the likes of Lady GaGa, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Miley Cyrus and Madonna.
So I'm merely worried about the future, and how really adventurous artists who take risks with their music are going to find funding, and going to find a career path, sandwiched between people who want their music free of charge, and the big corporations who only want to back a short term winner - like Lady GaGa.

How many adventurous artists would find funding under the old model? For every artist that got signed and earned a good living, how many bands failed?

I think starving musicians have always existed and will continue to exist.

[rack gear]

Copyright Alliance

The Copyright Alliance believes that copyright law promotes creativity and job creation and strengthens the U.S. economy. Those who create, render, and publish copyrighted works rely on the copyright law and its enforcement, for their creative and financial success. Without it, these creators would likely cease to exist, or at the very least, cease to produce these important works that are enjoyed by billions of people around the world.

Our shared belief in protecting copyrighted creative works brings together in the Copyright Alliance a broad panoply of parties, from artists’ unions to major publishers. A sweeping swath of creative works are represented, from songwriters to photographers, motion pictures to videogames, recording artists to graphic designers, software developers to sports leagues.

We are committed to promoting the cultural and economic benefits of copyright, providing information and resources on the contributions of copyright, and upholding the contributions of copyright to the fiscal health of this nation and for the good of creators, owners and consumers around the world.


The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization dedicated to the value of copyright as an agent for creativity, jobs and growth. It is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. Membership fees and contributions are not tax deductible as charitable donations. However, membership fees may be deductible as ordinary business expenses under IRC Section 162. Please consult your tax advisor.

Address:
Copyright Alliance
1224 M St. NW Suite 301
Washington, DC 20005
Our Principles

Recognizing that property rights and free expression are drivers of economic growth and personal freedoms, the Copyright Alliance promotes the following principles:


Cultural Enrichment

• To enrich our culture through incentives to create and disseminate new and innovative creative works to citizens

Progress

• To promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment

Education

• To advance educational programs that teach the value of strong copyright and its vital role in fostering creative expression, driving economic growth, and enriching the lives of our citizens

Enforcement

• To protect the incentive to create by supporting effective civil and criminal enforcement of copyright laws domestically and internationally

Dissemination

• To defend the rights of creators to control their property, understanding the necessary balance of those rights with the public good

Global Development

• To encourage the inclusion of copyright protections in bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements to protect creators and foster global development

Free Expression

• To protect the rights of creators to express themselves freely under the principles established in the First Amendment, with copyright as an "engine of free expression"

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

The differences seen in the new model:

1) Much cheaper/easier to provide and distribute music.
2) Much cheaper/easier to pirate music, as well as purchase it.
3) Many more artists.
4) Labels making less money.
5) Less money on music sales.
6) More money for touring.
7) A general reduction in money at every step of the ladder.
8) More "studios", though these are often people with a computer and some mics in their apartment.

In short, a lot more chefs and restaurants, some a lot better than others, and most of the customers can eat for free legally or illegally.

How many adventurous artists would find funding under the old model? For every artist that got signed and earned a good living, how many bands failed?

I disagree with your analysis and I think it's quite important.
Are there really more artists?
And did big labels really hold people back?
My experience tells me no.
Big labels always followed trends, rather than creating them.
The punk/new wave scene completely happened outside the label system - and long before the internet.
Anyone and everyone formed bands, put out their own records, promoted their own gigs.
At the time it blew away the major label scene, until the labels started to sign the most popular bands (and this is important) and when those bands realised they needed major label clout to get into foreign markets and take their music beyond a small fanbase.
Importantly, the labels were completely unable to stifle the punk movement, or it's anti establishment, anti established music industry message.
More recently, the whole dance music, rave scene has largely taken place outside the established label scene.
It was arguably the biggest music revolution of the 90's.
Any individual could make a dance music record working at home, and there were plenty of distribution outlets.
Again, although the internet was around (in it's early day), widespread illegal downloading was not - and many independent artists thrived, even at a cottage industry type of level.
My main point is, music revolutions involving powerless individuals working together to form a scene have happened for years - ever since pop music was invented.
Any suggestion that the current internet model of free sharing has made this easier or encouraged it to survive is unproven IMO.
IMO there is less niche music, less adventurous music around now than there was in the 90's (with the Chicago and Detroit techno artists, R&S in Belgium, Warp in the UK).
Precisely because you have to hit a mass market to survive in the post Napster/Pirate bay internet.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I disagree with your analysis and I think it's quite important.

Let's look at it point by point, I may not have expressed myself properly.

Are there really more artists?

My first three points are really all connected. The main idea being that in 1988, I would have no idea about a band in Des Moines. If they got on the radio, I might hear them. If they toured, I might see them.

Now, they are just as easy to locate on myspace.com or youtube.com as Mariah Carey. So if I can clarify anything with those first three points, it would be that there are many more immediately accessible artists out there. While it isn't an even playing field, I don't have to go to an indie record store to buy a CD by an artist I'm intrigued by. They're a quick search away (and I'm talking legal listening here).

And did big labels really hold people back?
My experience tells me no.
Big labels always followed trends, rather than creating them.
The punk/new wave scene completely happened outside the label system - and long before the internet.
Anyone and everyone formed bands, put out their own records, promoted their own gigs.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I felt this way. I fully agree with your perspective on how the underground music scene would grow, become popular, then major labels would sign a bunch of artists until the next big thing came along. I guess the way I'm looking at it is this: In 1990, how many artists were completely accessible to you without leaving your house? Probably whatever was on MTV, the radio, or your stereo. Now every artist in the world is that accessible. So even if there were always this many artists (a different point to debate, but I do think the number has grown with the advent of cheaper DAWs and computers), they are now in your living room. That used to be major label real estate, or the indie acts you were able to find through shows/zines/whatever.

At the time it blew away the major label scene, until the labels started to sign the most popular bands (and this is important) and when those bands realised they needed major label clout to get into foreign markets and take their music beyond a small fanbase.
Importantly, the labels were completely unable to stifle the punk movement, or it's anti establishment, anti established music industry message.
More recently, the whole dance music, rave scene has largely taken place outside the established label scene.
It was arguably the biggest music revolution of the 90's.
Any individual could make a dance music record working at home, and there were plenty of distribution outlets.
Again, although the internet was around (in it's early day), widespread illegal downloading was not - and many independent artists thrived, even at a cottage industry type of level.
My main point is, music revolutions involving powerless individuals working together to form a scene have happened for years - ever since pop music was invented.
Any suggestion that the current internet model of free sharing has made this easier or encouraged it to survive is unproven IMO.

Perfectly fine points and I completely agree.

IMO there is less niche music, less adventurous music around now than there was in the 90's (with the Chicago and Detroit techno artists, R&S in Belgium, Warp in the UK).
Precisely because you have to hit a mass market to survive in the post Napster/Pirate bay internet.

That is part of it, but it's also the fact that there are no regional secrets anymore. The scene in Detroit was discovered by someone in Belgium with a plane ticket and a few mix tapes on the return flight.

Now it's all over your favorite music blogs and one click away. There was certainly something to be said about communities based on region and less on message board preference, though I sure like having a forum full of studio experts to talk to.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

... I sure like having a forum full of studio experts to talk to.

This is the baby. Swimming in a sea of illegally downloaded bathwater.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

So if I can clarify anything with those first three points, it would be that there are many more immediately accessible artists out there.

There's more access, and it's more convenient, but in my experience less young people are interested in making a record than they were back in 1988.
They can see there's no money in it and there are more exciting things to do, where there is a bigger chance of earning a decent living.

In 1990, how many artists were completely accessible to you without leaving your house?

Obviously not many, but I bought records, including indie label samplers/compilations. This put money directly back into the emerging artists pocket.
You can find a new band in 5 seconds nowadays, but what's the point for them if they can't sell their recordings?

That is part of it, but it's also the fact that there are no regional secrets anymore. The scene in Detroit was discovered by someone in Belgium with a plane ticket and a few mix tapes on the return flight.

Not really, it's always been the same, people hearing records and being sparked to hear more, find out more. It tends to happen in multiple spots (in the case of punk - London and NY almost simultaneously).
I think your main point here is convenience and bigger exposure - but if you can't sell records and have to make money by touring, selling merchandise, or corporate sponsorship, how is the internet completely positive for emerging artists?

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by chrisso

There's more access, and it's more convenient, but in my experience less young people are interested in making a record than they were back in 1988.
They can see there's no money in it and there are more exciting things to do, where there is a bigger chance of earning a decent living.

Perhaps the rockstar dream isn't what it used to be. I'm sure there are plenty of people who still want to be the next big thing but I know these things change over time.

Obviously not many, but I bought records, including indie label samplers/compilations. This put money directly back into the emerging artists pocket.
You can find a new band in 5 seconds nowadays, but what's the point for them if they can't sell their recordings?

That's the problem with the new business model. It used to be a big mall, with major labels on one side of the building and a bunch of smaller indie shops on the other side. Now it's a gigantic flea market with 30,000,000 stands, some of which are bigger than others... how do you stand out? And how do you sell with so many giving the product away for free, or seeing it taken for free?

Not really, it's always been the same, people hearing records and being sparked to hear more, find out more. It tends to happen in multiple spots (in the case of punk - London and NY almost simultaneously).
I think your main point here is convenience and bigger exposure - but if you can't sell records and have to make money by touring, selling merchandise, or corporate sponsorship, how is the internet completely positive for emerging artists?

Keep in mind that I never said, nor do I think, that the internet is completely positive for emerging artists. Like most things in life it has advantages and disadvantages. It just so happens that the advantages and disadvantages are quite dramatic in this case.

No one is really sure how to best make money in the new world. Personally, I think it's genre specific. There are genres that still move CDs and no one really pirates.. unfortunately, the fan base for these artists are probably retired. Some people think piracy can be stopped and that everything will go back to "normal". I'm not one of those people.

I think if you're Lady GaGa, you make your money by getting famous, licensing songs, and corporate sponsorship.

If you're Miley Cyrus, you make your money touring and selling MyFirstLipGloss to tweens.

If you're Radiohead, you stick to your artistic integrity and know that you have a passionate fanbase who will buy your album even if they've already pirated the leaked copy two months before it came out.

Indie rock bands probably need to follow the radiohead model.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

You sort of lost me here. You can compress TIFF files.

Then you can't read. You can't send them unless they are compressed, try sending one that isn't.

I've never heard of a file that can't be compressed, though I know compressing some files won't really gain you any space if they're already in a compressed format.

Well, you've lost the plot.

So now we're onto a special format that "can't be copied" and "can't be compressed". So let's look at what that will require:

No, just can't be transmitted over IP without extra steps.

1) Banning any OS that isn't Windows or OSX, assuming Microsoft and Apple play along.
2) Banning/regulating any recording equipment capable of recording audio. Or...
3) Banning any music stored in any other format.

This is all assuming you can get consumers to go along with the fun.

That's just histrionics on your part, based on a misconception of what I posted.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

This is correct. There isn't really a "new model" as much as a "new environment", and everyone is looking for the "new model" as a result.

The differences seen in the new model:

1) Much cheaper/easier to provide and distribute music.
2) Much cheaper/easier to pirate music, as well as purchase it.
3) Many more artists.
4) Labels making less money.
5) Less money on music sales.
6) More money for touring.

WHAT???? Where the heck did yo get that total line of BS from?
that's baloney, 100% baloney.
You have balls posting that!

7) A general reduction in money at every step of the ladder.
8) More "studios", though these are often people with a computer and some mics in their apartment.

In short, a lot more chefs and restaurants, some a lot better than others, and most of the customers can eat for free legally or illegally.

Why don't you just say a bunch of chiefs and no regular tribal peeps?

How many adventurous artists would find funding under the old model? For every artist that got signed and earned a good living, how many bands failed?

I think starving musicians have always existed and will continue to exist.

this new model (BS NAME) will kill ALL artists off eventually.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

That's the problem with the new business model. It used to be a big mall, with major labels on one side of the building and a bunch of smaller indie shops on the other side. Now it's a gigantic flea market with 30,000,000 stands, some of which are bigger than others... how do you stand out?

investment in marketing and promotion, which cost money.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

And how do you sell with so many giving the product away for free, or seeing it taken for free?

people giving away their own product is not the problem, people giving away my product is - especially when I made the investment to make it stand out of the pack...

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

No one is really sure how to best make money in the new world. Personally, I think it's genre specific. There are genres that still move CDs and no one really pirates.. unfortunately, the fan base for these artists are probably retired. Some people think piracy can be stopped and that everything will go back to "normal". I'm not one of those people.

I know you and I have gone round and round - but to be clear - I don't think things will ever get back to whatever "normal" was... CDs, and by and large the album format is the thing of the past.

I am personally a new-tech, early adopter kinda guy. I love technology, and have embraced pretty much every development offered to the music industry including producing several 5.1 projects, and as far as I know the first and only surround sound releases on Itunes utilizing Dobly Pro Logic ][ fold downs for backwards compatibility and stereo distribution.

Point being please don't confuse that fact that I support copyright, and see piracy as a cancer to the legitimate marketplace to imply that I'm anti-progress.

I'm just not a person who believes legitimate business should accept being raped by piracy, nor do I believe that piracy helps to create incentives for new legitimate business models - which can also be stolen wholesale.

If I could get my hands on Google's code and build an identical site with the exact same functionality do you think the $750 billion monster would allow it?

The support and protection of all forms of IP including trademarks, patents and copyrights are essential to a healthy free market economy. To say otherwise is to be either intellectually dishonest, or incapable of understanding the basic foundation of economics. At worst these arguments are sponsored by only those would profit from stealing from others.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I think if you're Lady GaGa, you make your money by getting famous, licensing songs, and corporate sponsorship.

If you're Miley Cyrus, you make your money touring and selling MyFirstLipGloss to tweens.

If you're Radiohead, you stick to your artistic integrity and know that you have a passionate fanbase who will buy your album even if they've already pirated the leaked copy two months before it came out.

Indie rock bands probably need to follow the radiohead model.

the radiohead model is to get signed to a huge multi-national corporation who will invest millions of dollars into building the bands audience and brand while providing he highest level of specialty marketing and promotion. there's nothing indie about radiohead.

[memphisindie]

I'm beginning to think the pirates are disgruntled ex employee label PR and Promo departments.

If they want to distribute stuff, let them distribute stuff people legally allow them to distribute, even stuff not distributed elsewhere "only get it here" type of releases, FOR the labels. If they do that legally and don't allow the current nonsense, no one has to be prosecuted, but, if ONE song shows up that is not legally sent to them, BAM, outta the pool forever.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

Then you can't read. You can't send them unless they are compressed, try sending one that isn't.

This is news to me, but I don't really work with TIFF files. You should be able to email any binary file provided it's small enough to go through the email system.

Well, you've lost the plot.

How? You're the one who keeps proposing technologically impossible solutions. "Make a file that can't be compressed". OK, while you're at it why don't you make a file that can't be deleted, a file that can't be copied, a file that can't be renamed, and a file that blows up your computer if you try to make a copy of it.

No, just can't be transmitted over IP without extra steps.

But what will you accomplish?

That's just histrionics on your part, based on a misconception of what I posted.

It's really not. I'm actually helping you by taking your impossible solutions and telling you what needs to change to make them possible.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

people giving away their own product is not the problem, people giving away my product is - especially when I made the investment to make it stand out of the pack...

Couldn't agree more.

the radiohead model is to get signed to a huge multi-national corporation who will invest millions of dollars into building the bands audience and brand while providing he highest level of specialty marketing and promotion. there's nothing indie about radiohead.

Ooops, I was wrong, I can agree more. thumbsup

[boody]

Originally Posted by chrisso

There's more access, and it's more convenient, but in my experience less young people are interested in making a record than they were back in 1988.
They can see there's no money in it and there are more exciting things to do, where there is a bigger chance of earning a decent living.

Wow, you must me bitter having this point of view. I can tell you over here more kids are having that dream then ever. I know, because I have the privilege teach some of them (their final exam = releasing an album) and the school is flooding. These kids know there is not a load of money to be made from it except for the happy (mostly extremely commercial) few. They want it because they think it is the most beautiful thing in the world to them, the only thing that makes them happy, they feel ultra cool doing it. Remember that feeling? Or were you just in it for the money?

Aw, and one of 'm chose (and of course is allowed) to be ultra commercial (= pure 100% entertainment): he's already invited by a major and delivers stuff that will definably be on the radio soon. He thinks in the new model: performance, clothing line, merchandise and music. It is the whole package that creates the income.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

investment in marketing and promotion, which cost money.



people giving away their own product is not the problem, people giving away my product is - especially when I made the investment to make it stand out of the pack...



I know you and I have gone round and round - but to be clear - I don't think things will ever get back to whatever "normal" was... CDs, and by and large the album format is the thing of the past.

I am personally a new-tech, early adopter kinda guy. I love technology, and have embraced pretty much every development offered to the music industry including producing several 5.1 projects, and as far as I know the first and only surround sound releases on Itunes utilizing Dobly Pro Logic ][ fold downs for backwards compatibility and stereo distribution.

Point being please don't confuse that fact that I support copyright, and see piracy as a cancer to the legitimate marketplace to imply that I'm anti-progress.

I'm just not a person who believes legitimate business should accept being raped by piracy, nor do I believe that piracy helps to create incentives for new legitimate business models - which can also be stolen wholesale.

If I could get my hands on Google's code and build an identical site with the exact same functionality do you think the $750 billion monster would allow it?

The support and protection of all forms of IP including trademarks, patents and copyrights are essential to a healthy free market economy. To say otherwise is to be either intellectually dishonest, or incapable of understanding the basic foundation of economics. At worst these arguments are sponsored by only those would profit from stealing from others.



the radiohead model is to get signed to a huge multi-national corporation who will invest millions of dollars into building the bands audience and brand while providing he highest level of specialty marketing and promotion. there's nothing indie about radiohead.

Are you even listening to me? When did I say radiohead are in any way "indie"? My point is that the way to monetize your fan base will depend on your genre and the type of fans you have.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by boody

Wow, you must me bitter having this point of view. I can tell you over here more kids are having that dream then ever. I know, because I have the privilege teach some of them (their final exam = releasing an album) and the school is flooding. These kids know there is not a load of money to be made from it except for the happy (mostly extremely commercial) few. They want it because they think it is the most beautiful thing in the world to them, the only thing that makes them happy, they feel ultra cool doing it. Remember that feeling? Or were you just in it for the money?

Aw, and one of 'm chose (and of course is allowed) to be ultra commercial (= pure 100% entertainment): he's already invited by a major and delivers stuff that will definably be on the radio soon. He thinks in the new model: performance, clothing line, merchandise and music. It is the whole package that creates the income.

I totally agree with you. I think the people here who assume people will just stop making music if it becomes more difficult to make money are delusional.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

This is news to me, but I don't really work with TIFF files. You should be able to email any binary file provided it's small enough to go through the email system.

It's not the size. Try it with a small file.

How? You're the one who keeps proposing technologically impossible solutions. "Make a file that can't be compressed". OK, while you're at it why don't you make a file that can't be deleted, a file that can't be copied, a file that can't be renamed, and a file that blows up your computer if you try to make a copy of it.

I didn't say that you couldn't compress it.
I said a file that can't be transmit over IP, and/or, a file that had a watermark that was part of the audio in three bands None of which would be removable from the music in any way, that could survive compression, you could even make it so that if the audio was compressed the watermark would still work compressed, leaving it's fingerprint in the compressed version of the file visible to detection.

But what will you accomplish?

I won't be accomplishing anything, but, it would slow the process to a crawl for a long long time.

It's really not. I'm actually helping you by taking your impossible solutions and telling you what needs to change to make them possible.

Well, you got what I posted wrong , so what followed was based on something I didn't say, = invalid response. I hope that the clarification above helps.
I get what you are doing, I just don't see ANY value in playing devil's advocate. Your brain could be engaged actually looking for solution rather than wasting it doing nothing but shooting down.
What are your ideas?

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I totally agree with you. I think the people here who assume people will just stop making music if it becomes more difficult to make money are delusional.

Yeah, but, you won't see people seeking to have any career in it.

What if most music was done by part time enthusiasts, (is that already the case?) with no development?
Would it be better?
What if major labels depended on nothing but these folks and no development to be the future?
Isn't that already happening?
The results are in and trends can be plainly seen.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by boody

Wow, you must me bitter having this point of view.

Sorry, not bitter in the slightest.
Why do people keep saying that about the industry members here?
We're just talking about reality.

I know, because I have the privilege teach some of them (their final exam = releasing an album) and the school is flooding.

I've taught them as well.
To be honest, many had the new 'idol' idea about the industry. It's less about playing music for the sake of it, more about being a star, being discovered.
That's why i worry for them.

Aw, and one of 'm chose (and of course is allowed) to be ultra commercial (= pure 100% entertainment): he's already invited by a major and delivers stuff that will definably be on the radio soon. He thinks in the new model: performance, clothing line, merchandise and music. It is the whole package that creates the income.

Choice is what it's all about.
having been in the industry for many years i have to admit I'm sad artists are thinking as much about merchandise and clothing as they are their art and music.

You seem to represent a contradiction in part.
You say I must be bitter and your kids are in love with making music, then you champion one who is into the clothing and merchandise side of things too.
Wouldn't it be better if they could just make enough money making music?
That's what we are arguing for here.
The clothing and merchandise is a completely different job, a sidebar.
It's like saying the TV chefs are the future and straight forward michelin star chefs who stick to cooking are the bitter old farts.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

It's not the size. Try it with a small file.
I didn't say that you couldn't compress it.
I said a file that can't be transmit over IP, and/or, a file that had a watermark that was part of the audio in three bands None of which would be removable from the music in any way, that could survive compression, you could even make it so that if the audio was compressed the watermark would still work compressed, leaving it's fingerprint in the compressed version of the file visible to detection.

OK. Let's say you have an audio file that must be compressed or it can't be transmitted. Obviously it will be easy to compress or convert to a different audio type, so that won't slow anything down.

Now let's look at the watermark. You have it in three frequencies? Can they be heard, is it just a high pitched sound or perhaps too high pitched to be heard?

Anyone with a spectrum analyzer and an EQ know how to strip those out? How hard would it be write a program to do it automatically?

So if it can be heard, it's going to be an issue in the music. Maybe people will put up with it, maybe not. In any case, it can be stripped/filtered out.

If it can't be heard, it can be re-recorded and the watermark is stripped out.

And even if your watermark can somehow never be deleted, stuff still gets pirated. It'll just be downloaded with a stolen credit card, or when someone "loses" their ipod every piece of music on there will be on the internet... watermarked with the guy's ID.

I won't be accomplishing anything, but, it would slow the process to a crawl for a long long time.

You won't even slow anything down at all. Video games and applications are pirated before they come out quite regularly, and software has all kinds of advantages as far as copy protection goes. I know your heart is in the right place, but you're still in the realm of fantasy.

Well, you got what I posted wrong , so what followed was based on something I didn't say, = invalid response. I hope that the clarification above helps.

The fact that I misunderstood your point at first did nothing to invalidate my response. Your proposals to watermark and slow down piracy won't accomplish anything.

I get what you are doing, I just don't see ANY value in playing devil's advocate. Your brain could be engaged actually looking for solution rather than wasting it doing nothing but shooting down.
What are your ideas?

Your ultimate solution is going to be vetted and explored for exploits by people much smarter than I. The least you can do is come up with an idea that I can't shoot down with basic technical common sense and then kick it up to the next level.

Originally Posted by memphisindie

Yeah, but, you won't see people seeking to have any career in it.

First, I don't think the major labels or industry will disappear. I think they'll make less money than before, take less risks than before, and sign fewer artists than before.

Regardless, I think plenty of people will want to have a career in it.

What if most music was done by part time enthusiasts, (is that already the case?) with no development?
Would it be better?
What if major labels depended on nothing but these folks and no development to be the future?
Isn't that already happening?
The results are in and trends can be plainly seen.

I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

... What if most music was done by part time enthusiasts, (is that already the case?) with no development?....

What if a gallon of gasoline cost $2.69? I guess people would stop driving their cars, because that's just an intolerable situation.

"Intolerable situation" is kind of the vibe I get from all this enragement when people see the sun rising and the old world is gone and it's a new day.

People who want to make music will adapt and survive and thrive, and people who want to curse the dawn and hurl dirtclods at the sunrise and try to blot it out of the sky, well, a part of me admires that kind of idealism. And the other part of me just shakes its head slowly.

[boody]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I've taught them as well.
To be honest, many had the new 'idol' idea about the industry. It's less about playing music for the sake of it, more about being a star, being discovered.
That's why i worry for them.

The kids I teach hate idols. They think it is one big fake and has nothing to do with music.

Choice is what it's all about.
having been in the industry for many years i have to admit I'm sad artists are thinking as much about merchandise and clothing as they are their art and music.

You seem to represent a contradiction in part.
You say I must be bitter and your kids are in love with making music, then you champion one who is into the clothing and merchandise side of things too.
Wouldn't it be better if they could just make enough money making music?
That's what we are arguing for here.
The clothing and merchandise is a completely different job, a sidebar.
It's like saying the TV chefs are the future and straight forward michelin star chefs who stick to cooking are the bitter old farts.

I don't follow your reasoning here

Let me try to make it more clear: most of the kids are dedicated to art and want people to think their music is art. They feel cool about that. This commercial guy wants to make money. So he (ambitious as he is) goes full throttle on the money aspect and makes sure he delivers anything the public might want. This is not about music, this is about making money, with music as the main product.

You have my respect for being in this industry so long and a lot of things you say are true for some part of the crowd. But I am talking about the other part of the crowd that's somehow beyond your radar: the new kids that in spite of the declining industry is dreaming up and making new music as fanatically and proudly as a young rebel should. Promote these kids and help them earn a living, they are our future. Don't do them injustice by denying their existence.

[boody]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

Yeah, but, you won't see people seeking to have any career in it.

What if most music was done by part time enthusiasts, (is that already the case?) with no development?
Would it be better?
What if major labels depended on nothing but these folks and no development to be the future?
Isn't that already happening?
The results are in and trends can be plainly seen.

You must be reading papers I have no access to In my book development is not connected to full time work or major companies. Majors focus on commercial success, not on creativity or development. Part time or full time says something about time spend and again says nothing about creativity or development.

[crufty]

i think memphisindie is saying that right now labels and studios have a lot of knowledge that artists can improve themselves with, and if those labels/studios die, then the artists have to relearn old lessons.

The flip side is that Daws have made engineering easier, so what loss is the studio?

I would imagine the human component hasn't been replaced. I have never been a part of a real recording session, but I assume when it comes to song arrangement and production the artist vision is there, but there are also people present to help guide the vision from its raw / innate art form into something more refined / improved / accessible. Even if its someone going hmmm maybe we need another take or could we consider treating this sound this way etc etc. Not implying the artist vision is eliminated by saying 'market studies say you need a ballad mr heavy metal group' though i'm sure that happens too, as evident by many 80s metal cds where slap in the middle of some rocking tunes is a strange lonely piano recital.

In the business arena, if you consider a business plan, it might have a great raw concept but on its own will fail in execution because the writers lack experience. So you take the guys who have the plan, put them in contact with folks you know, and refine the plan into something workable. The original vision is still maintained, just now the i's are dotted, t's crossed, some roads that led off cliffs were turned into bridges, etc. This guidance, both at conception and ongoing, is the difference between amazon.com and cdnow.com (not that cdnow.com had bad guidance, just not as good as amazon.com as proof is in the pudding).

I think thats what chrisso and memphisindie are talking about. A drummer, assuming the drummer is part of the original band and not a hired hand, can't just focus on getting the drumming part down any more, he's got to worry, hey am I going to look good on the t-shirt, am i positioned well in the photos, if I don't have my own beer line will the label demand I'm replaced because I'm not bringing in enough revenue or will my royalties be reduced, etc etc etc.

[zooloop]

Originally Posted by boody

the new kids that in spite of the declining industry is dreaming up and making new music as fanatically and proudly as a young rebel should. Promote these kids and help them earn a living, they are our future. Don't do them injustice by denying their existence.

Now, this is what this thread is really about! thumbsup

How can we help these kids?

Do the kids really want to do everything on their own or do they do it because they have to?