They gonna steal your music anyway, whats the solution?

[quietdrive]

Now people can download mp3s from MySpace, even if the artist doesnt make his songs downloadable. I wont post the URL of the site with which you can rip/download music from MySpace, but its out there and very easy to use.

So, what is the solution?

I think the best is to only post clips of your music (i.e. put the chorus at the beginning, then a few seconds of silence, fade into the 1st verse, let the listener hear the rest of the 1st verse and the entire chorus again and at the beginning of the 2nd verse you fade out).

This "method" could at least get people to pay for your music cause even though most fans dont steal/rip music from MySpace, they usually come back to your page to listen to your songs whenever they are in the mood for it. And that is enough to kill possible sales, simply cause your music is just a mouse click away, at all times. Gone the days where you had to buy a record or sit in front of the radio or MTV to hear your favorite music. Now you just log on to MySpace and get your daily dose of music you either dont want to buy or cant steal.

Sillicon Valley is what's really ruining this business. They're putting a huge dildo up the music industry's ass, and they're even getting paid for it.

[davet]

Your idea will work. I've heard examples of songs with a voice over in middle.

I think Prince has the ultimate solution. Buy a ticket to the show, get a free CD.

DaveT

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by davet

I think Prince has the ultimate solution. Buy a ticket to the show, get a free CD.

That's no ultimate solution cause it requires artists to tour, and I dont think that should be the case. If an artist only wants to make records, why should he have to tour? The Beatles didnt tour during their last years. What this approach does, is it only devaluates recorded music more and more.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

So, what is the solution?

Make it worth while so people will want to buy it.

And don't penalize them financially when they do so.

People will always pay for what they perceive as one of a kind quality or timeless.

Even if they think they can get it for free or cheaper.

Even in the down financial periods.

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

People will always pay for what they perceive as one of a kind quality or timeless.

Even if they think they can get it for free or cheaper.

I dont agree... why pay if you can get it for free, even if its a classic record/song? It's not like people still want vinyl or cds with booklets, all they usually want is the damn mp3 file. And getting it for free is oftentimes much more convenient than paying for it. Think about it, you can either go to iTunes or Amazon and buy music, or start your filesharing program and have everything on your computer within minutes. As long as stealing is easier than paying, people will always steal.

[Sigma]

long live socialism ...the proletariat, the bourgeois and the kings are now relagated to the same palying field and audience

it is as it once was long ago and later should always have been...AND TECHNOLOGY BROUGHT US 'ROUND CIRCLE

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

I dont agree... why pay if you can get it for free, even if its a classic record/song? It's not like people still want vinyl or cds with booklets, all they usually want is the damn mp3 file. And getting it for free is oftentimes much more convenient than paying for it. Think about it, you can either go to iTunes or Amazon and buy music, or start your filesharing program and have everything on your computer within minutes.

There will always be people that want something for free.

But there are also those that turn their noses up at anything that is free because they feel its beneath them or there is nothing unique or special about anything free.

These are the people you have to reach.

But these people are the pickiest and hardest to impress.

You have to draw a line in the sand and choose.

If you go for the first than i agree with the first guy just choose to give it away for free as a promotional tool but that means you will have to charge alot for the tickets and merchandise. And now all the labels want a piece of that as well so deal with it.

If you choose the second than you have to make "art" with your product.

How?

Make a CD booklet that is a real booklet. You know how the album covers were on vinyl. Something that takes thought, not something thrown together at home in photoshop. Make a bunch of different one's mixed into the CD's so it feels like a collectors item if you find it.

How about a discount for a ticket to your concert for every CD purchased? How about a free T-shirt or program booklet at the show? How about promising to sign each CD personally purchased, thanking them personally and meeting the fans at some promotional event?

How about giving them a personal discount for any future CD purchases kind of like a special fans discount?

Seriously though all this seems cool but it comes down to your music.

If your music moves people to purchase the CD than all of these ideas can work.

If your music doesn't than stealing one song to them will seem justified because paying all that money for one song CD won't seem worth it at all.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

I dont agree... why pay if you can get it for free, even if its a classic record/song? It's not like people still want vinyl or cds with booklets, all they usually want is the damn mp3 file. And getting it for free is oftentimes much more convenient than paying for it. Think about it, you can either go to iTunes or Amazon and buy music, or start your filesharing program and have everything on your computer within minutes. As long as stealing is easier than paying, people will always steal.

I don't think that's true of everybody. Sadly, though, it is true of a lot of people.

For sure, while I prefer to have full quality music, in many ways I'd rather simply have high VBR, well made Mp3s (like they sell at Emusic for about 25 or 30 cents a song) than another CD and jewel case to store and then have to go find when I want to hear it.

When I buy a new CD, I rip it into a high quality file anyway because, even though I'm listening on a decent rig and in at least some cases I might be able to suss the diff, yeah, I want to hear it now -- and I probably don't want to hear the whole album -- with some exceptions, of course.

Some albums just fit together so well, they're much more than the sum o their parts. But many releases today and particularly re-releases seem almost the other way around -- with so many added tracks, out-takes, commercials (who ever thought it was so cool to have old radio ads for bands on their re-releases?!?), duplicate takes, inferior versions, etc, that you DON'T want to hear everytime or maybe even ever...

In fact, when I rip a CD like that I've just bought I usually rip all the content but I immediately make a playlist with JUST the original album song order in it.

[Alex Niedt]

Why would anyone want to rip from MySpace? I can't think of anything that would sound worse. If someone wants to steal my music, I'll gladly provide them with a higher quality product.

[Watersound]

I think Thrill is pretty much on the money. Yeah there will be plenty who will steal your music no matter what, but you have to cater to those who will buy into your art long term, and the only way to do that is to win over the hearts and minds of people one by one. That's why being able to perform live will always be critical. There are countless consumers out there that believe in paying for quality and guess what, that will never go away- at least not any time soon. Also, I firmly believe that major labels have completely and utterly failed in regards to marketing music to adults (30 and over). It is such a crock that adults don't buy music (according to majors). Adults are much more picky, but hey, we all think we're the best so that should not be a factor in deterring artists. People are starving for quality and will pay for it in large numbers. There are still artists/bands selling many millions out there so it can be done, it's just getting a lot harder. The way I see it is that if people want to download my songs for free let them...I can't stop it and hopefully they will play them for others.

[theblue1]

I think it's not so much that adults don't buy music -- it's just that they don't buy what they're supposed to buy, in the view of the music marketers.

Much as in other fields of commerce, mature consumers (you should pardon the expression) know what they want and like, know how to find it, and aren't nearly as susceptible to hype, payola, and guerrilla/street team marketing as malleable young consumers are.

That's why advertisers for products across the board tend to focus their attention on young, unformed consumers. They're easily swayed by novelty and hype.

Flatter them into thinking there's something subversive or underground about your product and that they're the only ones hip enough to like it -- and they'll follow you like lemmings.

[sage691]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

Now people can download mp3s from MySpace, even if the artist doesnt make his songs downloadable. I wont post the URL of the site with which you can rip/download music from MySpace, but its out there and very easy to use.

So, what is the solution?

I think the best is to only post clips of your music (i.e. put the chorus at the beginning, then a few seconds of silence, fade into the 1st verse, let the listener hear the rest of the 1st verse and the entire chorus again and at the beginning of the 2nd verse you fade out).

This "method" could at least get people to pay for your music cause even though most fans dont steal/rip music from MySpace, they usually come back to your page to listen to your songs whenever they are in the mood for it. And that is enough to kill possible sales, simply cause your music is just a mouse click away, at all times. Gone the days where you had to buy a record or sit in front of the radio or MTV to hear your favorite music. Now you just log on to MySpace and get your daily dose of music you either dont want to buy or cant steal.

Sillicon Valley is what's really ruining this business. They're putting a huge dildo up the music industry's ass, and they're even getting paid for it.

If your music is really something exceptional, then you should be happy about people stealing it. Why ? Because if it truly blows them away and they like it more than all the other commercial crap artists they listen to due to Media Mobster "peer pressure" marketing, then they will "spread the word" and this is how your "buzz" will get going.

For an unsigned artist "buzz" is infinitely more important than mp3 sales on some cheesy website. If enough people are mesmerized with your music then eventually you will have no problem selling it, along with all the other trinkets that go with it.

[Curve Dominant]

We are probably a ways off from the days when recorded music, once again, becomes a commodity of value. I've been in denial of this myself for some time now, but the inexorable reality of the situation has recently become impossible to ignore.

About eight years ago, when the P2P phenomenon was blowing up, I was making this argument on the New York Times website: That, in a democratic capitalist system, capital tends to flow in the direction of innovations which create or increase revenue, as opposed to innovations which diminish or eliminate revenue.

Which meant: Someone would find a way to make recorded music sales profitable, by hook or by crook, because somebody stood to profit from those sales, right? Capitalism is all about incentive, right?

Wrong. Capitalism is all about percieved value. The argument I had been banking on, was too intellectual, too technical. It didn't take into consideration the sociological aspect. My argument was thus flawed, and the market has proven that as fact. Here's why:

With the mass proliferation of recorded music and sound now coming from more sources than many humans can stand to bear, often uninvited and unwanted, the percieved value of that audio is not only nil, it has actually become, for many, of a negative value.

Plainly and bluntly put: Most people don't want most of what we're trying to sell, even when we are giving it away. And it's not simply because our content is inherently bad (although much of it is). It's because modern society is suffering from sensory overload, and can't tell the good from the bad, to the point that they no longer can be bothered to take the time to make any distinction in that regard.

Case in point:

The other day, I went to my local pizza parlor. It had two different radios playing two different stations, one in the customer area, and one in the pizza-baking area, but both were audible wherever you were standing in the place. There was also a car parked right outside, blasting a third radio station (or CD or whatever). Then a customer's cellphone rang out a ringtone of the latest Billboard Hot 100 hit, so now there were FOUR different audio sources all playing completely uncorrelated audio.

By the time I got home with my two slices of pizza, the last thing I wanted to do, was listen to recorded music. And I was definitely in no mood to PAY for recorded music. I would have paid $20 to have it shut off back at the pizza parlor, so I could sit and eat my pizza in peace.

When my pop took me to our local pizza parlor when I was a kid, it had a jukebox. If the jukebox wasn't playing a song, there was no recorded music playing. You had to put a quarter in that machine, and that was, like, a special occasion. You chose your quarter's worth carefully, and when that song played, you savored it.

Will we ever get back to that? Uh, no.

The only potential good news, is a ways away, a decade at least:

Eventually, communications gadgets will evolve into all-in-one sorts of things, like the iPhone. Songs will be difficult-to-impossible to illegally rip on these gadgets. The kid ripping mp3's off Gnutella on his Windows PC will eventually fade into the minority. The "single" will make something of a resurgence (already perhaps), encouraging bands and artists to create strong material once again. There will be a resurgence, eventually, but it will never be quite what it was, and if there is, it will be awhile, so don't hold your breath.

The other semi-good news is: Film producers, TV program directors, and advertising agencies, will always have to pay $$$ for original music. So look there.

-Eric Vincent @ Studio Curve Dominant

[RainbowStorm]

An important difference that Internet makes is that it allows you to find and play a song almost instantly and the library is automatically updated when something new is released. There is a huge economic advantage here, it is more friendly to the environment, it enables people to consume more music, there are marketing advantages, there are less costs with selling the products that are now being directed to a global market. So in itself that's not a problem, it's actually an elegant solution to many problems. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that if everybody download everything for free there is no money to be made on music. Music is free for everybody. Great, from a user's point of view, from a record label's point of view it's a nightmare.

One solution would be to have a virtual credit system that is impossible to hack. This would mean that when a user downloads a song from a certain server, that server will grab credits from the client by the help of a middle-sever (ISP). These virtual credits can then be converted to real money. The idea here is to be able to translate downloads into money without the user interacting in this payment process. How can you solve that in practise? Well, the ISP could offer credit solutions, in other words, you don't pay only for bandwidth/month, you pay for credits/month. So when credits end you have the possibility to fill credits and that will cost. The server that offers the songs for download only communicate with certified virtual credit servers. This credit-solution would make it possible for additional services to sell credits, for instance authorities to compensate for "free" content needs. For instance, when you click an ad you get credits or when you buy many CDs of a certain artist you get bonus credits. Some of these credits are then used when you download something. It's not an impossible solution, since a download always requires communication between a server and a client through an ISP. Of course, free content will not require any credits. ISPs could then offer additional credits at less bandwidth, to make it possible to download more when the credits start to run out.

I'm pretty sure you can play with the parameters money-credit-server-ISP-client-download-bandwidth-network-communication to form a suitable solution.

When you think about it, as a user you have limited available time to download and listen to music. Even though you would fill a computer with music you don't get any additional time to listen to it. Every song takes a number of minutes to listen to and often you want to listen to the same song several times. That's just a fact, you can never add time to consume more and you will always consume more time listening to good stuff. So theoretically there is a time-consume limit that you can take advantage of to help the user "consume" as much as he needs without making it too expensive for him and such that the record label still can turn that into serious amounts of money. So what you already have downloaded should be possible to consume as many times as you like, because it adds value to the credits you have left. During that time you don't have any needs to download anything, hence you save credits to actual needs.

Ultimately there is a file size-bandwidth-consumption time relationship that you can base the credit system on. MP3 files cost less credits and can be downloaded to be consumed in the amounts that corresponds to a typical max user consumption today, which means it would be "free" for the user and would mean sales for the record label.

However, there is still a problem, downloaded files are duplicateable. What that means is that you need some sort of network filter to block these transactions and/or you might have to seriously limit the upload bandwidth. Local duplicates is not a problem for anyone, as long as they are not spread by mail in excessive amounts...

[Kiwiburger]

Myspace is just the AM radio of the 1960's, the FM radio of the 1970's, the Walkman of the 1980's, the Minidisc of the 1990's, etc, etc.

The quality is just as crap, and arguments about the ease of duplication don't make any sense. It's possible to still play cassettes of music taken of the radio in the 1970's. Try playing a current software format in 10 years time ...

If you are an artist, just be glad that you are being heard at all. The competition for 'mind space' is fierce. Not just music but tv, movies, games, advertising, sports, clubs, everything.

The growth in the home recording industry and the proliferation of audio engineering courses doesn't guarantee everyone the right to earn money from your craft. It means there will be a lot of disappointed punters. There is only ever an elite who will make a lot of money out of music - because the public only has a tiny little percentage of their mind space to allocate to music.

The clever people aren't whinging about Myspace - they are exploiting it for all it's worth.

The fashions change, but the basic rules of engagement haven't really changed at all. If you want to make a good living out of music, you have to be better than everyone else, and find new and inventive ways to reach your audience. If they fall in love with you, you have an opportunity to sell them an experience. Whether that venture succeeds of fails is largely in your own hands.

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Myspace is just the AM radio of the 1960's, the FM radio of the 1970's, the Walkman of the 1980's, the Minidisc of the 1990's, etc, etc.

The quality is just as crap, and arguments about the ease of duplication don't make any sense. It's possible to still play cassettes of music taken of the radio in the 1970's. Try playing a current software format in 10 years time ...

If you are an artist, just be glad that you are being heard at all. The competition for 'mind space' is fierce. Not just music but tv, movies, games, advertising, sports, clubs, everything.

The growth in the home recording industry and the proliferation of audio engineering courses doesn't guarantee everyone the right to earn money from your craft. It means there will be a lot of disappointed punters. There is only ever an elite who will make a lot of money out of music - because the public only has a tiny little percentage of their mind space to allocate to music.

The clever people aren't whinging about Myspace - they are exploiting it for all it's worth.

The fashions change, but the basic rules of engagement haven't really changed at all. If you want to make a good living out of music, you have to be better than everyone else, and find new and inventive ways to reach your audience. If they fall in love with you, you have an opportunity to sell them an experience. Whether that venture succeeds of fails is largely in your own hands.

Even though the quality is crap the basic problem of "illegal" file sharing creates the need for a solution that actually solves this problem. In my opinion it's a lot about lost revenue for record companies and from a business point of view that's a serious issue. It means they cannot expand the way they need to, their business idea becomes more difficult to succeed with, the company is tightened up to become more trapped when the overall economy turns bad, the company has a much harder time to make healthy investments etc. And the bigger the file sharing phenomenon becomes, the more the industry will suffer. Sure, some will get wealthy anyway, but the industry business value will seriously fade and companies will have to end their business. There are no sales when nobody buys, it's really that simple. And if one buys a CD and spreads it to the whole market, the total sales of that CD will be approx 20 $. That makes it ridiculous to run a record company.

[Kiwiburger]

The 'problem' cannot be solved. It's also not even a 'problem'.

Kids copied songs from AM or FM radio onto cassette tapes. It was 'illegal' then. It can't be stopped - and even if it could, the smart artists would not try to stop it.

People have to hear your music first before they can love it. If they don't love it, you aren't going to get a cent anyway. But if they do, they are going to want more. Concerts, mercandise, DVD's - the works.

There is simply no technology that can stop somebody with a will from copying audio or video. It's a complete waste of time - because there is always a workaround. If necessary, an analog transfer. The sooner the ignorant corporates of this world wake up and smell the coffee the better. (Kudos to Steve Jobs).

Smart advertising execs know that getting 'mind share' is what it's about. Don't piss on your customers before they even get to be customers. The world doesn't revolve around yourself. 'Cast your bread on many waters', etc, etc ...

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by pegleg

For the artist who pays for their own recordings and pressings, EVERY sale counts. That goes for downloads as well as CD sales.

Spot on.

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

If you are an artist, just be glad that you are being heard at all.

Come on, that's like telling a restaurant owner, "be glad that you got that great new location, at least people are eating your food now, who cares if you're giving it away for free and dont get paid!"

THIS IS A BUSINESS. I treat music as my job. And I expect to get paid, that's crucial, especially if we're talking about indie music. So, we have to come up with some alternative (short-term) solutions. And I think a very effective one is to simply not stream or upload your full songs. If they like the song, that should get them "frustrated" enough to buy it. Sure, this will probably result in your music being available on filesharing programs. But at least you got paid until that happened.

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

The clever people aren't whinging about Myspace - they are exploiting it for all it's worth.

Nobody is whining about MySpace. I think expecting or trying to find way to get paid for your songs, IS being clever and exploiting it for all it's worth. If there are 20,000 people listening to your music every week, and 2000 of them are fans, why should you make it easy for them to steal your music? Why not try to at least sell mp3s to all of those 2000 people, or even a full album/ep? Why are we so damn fine with people not paying for music? It's like some guy in his 20s thinking it's normal to be a virgin and not have hot chicks in his life.... "oh well, that's just the norm, nothing I can do about it."

We spend 1000s of hours developing our skills and working on our music, and then we just give it away for free? And we're supposed to be happy with that? And feel grateful that there people who will at least bother paying attention to our free stuff?

"Hey at least they're listening, who cares if you get paid. Right?".

[Doug Rogers]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Kids copied songs from AM or FM radio onto cassette tapes. It was 'illegal' then.

That's a flawed example because you don't know what song is coming next as opposed to file sharing networks where you can do a search.

Look, this is simply theft on a grand scale, and the sooner Governments make ISPs responsible for policing this, the better it will be for the industry. Clearly the record industry isn't spending enough money on lobbiest in Washington to save this multi-billion dollar business.

Btw, it's not just record companies being ripped off here, it has a trickle down impact on publishers, artists, writers, studios, producers, engineers, software and equipment manufacturers, and on and on, an entire industry is at risk involving millions of lives.

Sure, there's an overload of content out there, that comes with cheaper access to technology, but people love music and always will. Good music will always get noticed somehow, but we must pay for it if the industry is to survive.

There is a simple technological solution, our lawmakers should be more concerned (especially as the movie industry is starting to meet the same fate), there's a lot of tax dollars at stake here!

DR

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by pegleg

Big difference is that digital copies don't degrade from generation to generation. If it's an MP3, then it's poor - but a ripped CD file can be passed around the world, with little or no loss - that's a little scarier than cassette copies!

Do "smart artists" also not mind if you break into their home and steal their TV?



So you don't draw a line between "hearing it first", and "stealing it and passing it around"? Interesting! I sincerely hope you're not a cop!

It's REALLY sad to see how many folks on "Gearslutz" are happy to give recorded music away for free - relying on the vague theory that it can be made up for by selling T-Shirts and touring! Most artists I see touring rely on CD sales off the stage to put gas in the tour van!

Thank goodness this wasn't true in the past - or we wouldn't have the last half of the Beatles catalog, the last half of XTC's catalog, anything past the first Steely Dan album...

It's a shame to see the life's work of an artist DEVALUED in this way. It's a shame when the buying public "doesn't get it", and it's really pathetic when musicians and engineers don't understand. Maybe you're all desperately trying to justify something that you think you can't control. I still think a difference can be made, and maybe that's foolishly optimistic too, but if music becomes "FREE", I guarantee you that it will GO TO HELL - the quality of music will decline until it's not worth anything to anyone.

Originally Posted by pegleg

It certainly makes you wonder what the hell people on this forum do for a living, that gives them a skewed perspective about the art and business of music...

Are recording engineers "glad" to be recording audio, without expecting to be paid? Are lawyers "glad" to be in court, but shouldn't expect an income? Are surgeons "glad" to be slicing you open - they should be happy to be doing what they love, and forget about the cash?

The fact is - the vast masses of unmusical, untalented folk should be GLAD that there are musicians making music they can listen to - because it makes the world a better place to live in. The cultural, social and personal benefits of music cannot be denied - and if musicians can't make a living making music, then there will be less music, and definitely less good music (since they'll have to spend their time flipping burgers or banking)...

How many of you engineers, producers and studio owners give your time away for free, in the hopes that someday, somehow people will start paying for it?

What he said thumbsup

I want to add this... you CANT compare the piracy of the 60s,70s,80s or early 90s to those of the 2000s. Recording songs from radio to a tape recorder is not even in the same ballpark as what's going on these days. People got tired or annoyed by listening to their crappy tape recordings, and they eventually went out and bought the record. It was a HUGE difference in sound quality between those tape recordings and the real album. But thats gone, and thats ONE of the main reasons why people dont buy records anymore. The pirated songs just sound too damn close to the real thing. Usually they ARE already the real thing. So there's no motivation for most people to go to the store or iTunes and pay for a song or an album.

And yes, making some sort of deal with the ISPs is probably the only long-term solution there is. It blows me mind why the majors havent done this yet.

[8th_note]

I think there's some questionable underlying assumptions here.

- Putting a shortened version of a song on Myspace will encourage the listener to pay for a full download. I believe that this will have a greater chance of driving the listener away. Myspace can be a good marketing tool but if you treat the listener like a thief in the first place they will probably go elsewhere. I believe it would be more effective to put on your page the location where the listener can download better quality mp3's of your music for a reasonable cost.

- If somebody downloaded your music for free then they would pay for it if they couldn't get it for free. A tiny fraction of stolen music would actually be paid for if the user couldn't get it for free. I know people who have dozens of gigabytes of stolen music and they listen to 95% of it once and never play it again. Interestingly, it seems that when they find something they really like they go out and buy the CD. I know quite a few young people who routinely rip off music (many of them musicians, ironically) but they all still buy CDs or have an iTunes account that they use regularly. That doesn't make it right but the economic losses for artists and record companies due to illegal downloading are much harder to quantify than we are led to believe.

- I should just be able to put up my music as short clips and if people like what they hear they should pay for the whole song. I never get played on the radio, I don't tour, and there's no way anyone could ever hear my music on any kind of general media but, doggone it, they should just be willing to pay for my song based on hearing a short clip.OK boys and girls, it's time to put down the crack pipe. Music sales have always been driven by the consumer hearing the song(s) on the radio or elsewhere, multiple times, and then buying the music. If you really want to drive sales of your downloadable songs or CDs, pay your local radio station several thousand dollars to play your music (it's perfectly legal). That's what the record companies do. Putting an abbreviated clip on your Myspace page and expecting people to pay for your music is laughable, IMO.

- There's a solution to this problem, it's just that "they" won't implement it.I'm afraid that this is like the Iraq war. There's just no good solution to this problem. One of the primary reasons is that this industry is rapidly fragmenting before our eyes and it's going to take a while to sort things out. There were something like 30,000 CDs released last year in the U.S. Think about that for a moment. That's about 100 CDs per day. The Internet and the dramatic price drop for recording equipment have allowed musicians to put their music out for everyone to hear. The problem is that there's so much of it that nobody can find you. Myspace is probably the best vehicle available today for an unknown band to reach a new audience.

You guys who are aspiring to make a living from your music aren't going to like this but I'm afraid that the vast majority of recorded music is going to go the way of YouTube. Nobody talks about charging for their artistic work on YouTube. They put it up there because they want to. 90% of the recorded music out there just doesn't have a monetary value to the consuming public. Just because they download it for free doesn't mean that they would actually pay for it.

The only people who can expect to charge for their music are those who make the commitment to tour and do the other commercial activities that professional bands do. The casual nontouring musician doesn't have a chance of deriving an income from their work unless they can sell their songs to established artists.

I suggest putting your music up on Myspace in it's full form and offer your fans the opportunity to buy it graciously. Myspace should be used as a vehicle to make a connection with your fans, not to distance yourself from them. If you really feel you're losing your livelihood from people downloading your Myspace songs it's time to find another source of income.

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by Alex Niedt

Why would anyone want to rip from MySpace? I can't think of anything that would sound worse. If someone wants to steal my music, I'll gladly provide them with a higher quality product.

This is my thought as well. I usually put roughs up on my MySpace pages, and allow people to download them. They feel special because they have a version few others do, and they feel involved in the process because I occasionally repost different mixes, or rerecord parts, and ask opinions. This generates traffic as well.

If they want, they can buy far better sounding versions from me. And most of the people whom I consider real fans do.

I figure that right now my problem isn't income generation, it's publicity. And allowing my stuff to be downloaded for free means SOMEONE is playing it, and may generate new fans.

[gainreduction]

One big problem on the other side of the fence that needs to be solved is the administration of legally downloaded music. It's an economic nightmare, millions of small transactions where the cost of administration for every transaction is enormous compared to the price of the purchase.

This is a major pain right now for everyone down the line. The "ASCAPs" around the world, publishers, record companies, credit card companies...

I just got a statement (as songwriter, from my country's equivalent to ASCAP) and it was a "downloads/ringtones - statement". It was ridiculous. Although it wasn't crazy money (next problem, downloads never are...) it was like a friggin phonebook ! Pages upon pages of specified downloads and ringtones with next to no value each. It adds up of course, but the amount of administration work is unsustainable.

I think this is what slows down the majors. They need a cost effective yet fast and accurate solution for this.

[backplay]

As an ex-vinyl junk i always want someting in my hand when i buy music, so mp3 is a no-go for me.

Labels and artists should make the package more atractive.
For example this:



They made a nice little cd box with cd and a viewmaster inside, with pictures the artist (Venetian Snares) made while touring.
It was the same price as a regular cd.

[swisha31]

I dont think there will ever be a solution. People have been cracking software, music, movies, anything computer related for a while now and i dont see it stopping anytime soon. especially with music. at least with software they have ilok and different protection methods to slow down the piracy of software but music doesnt have this so it can and will always be pirated. There is really nothing you can do as an artist but try to make the best music possible and hopefully your reputation for making great music will help your record sales. We are in a time where the economy is messed up horribly, millions are without jobs, millions that do have jobs live check to check and can't afford to always go support artists, gas prices keep fluctuating, etc.... and i honestly believe that has something to do with the decline in the past 2-3 years but thats just me.

If I were signed today and put out the most amazing album knowing that it would get pirated, I don't know if I would do the Prince thing BUT I would do what the Grateful Dead did and tell all downloaders, bootleggers, piraters to at least come to the show if you are gonna bootleg my hardwork.

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

One big problem on the other side of the fence that needs to be solved is the administration of legally downloaded music. It's an economic nightmare, millions of small transactions where the cost of administration for every transaction is enormous compared to the price of the purchase.

I agree, but why are we even using stores like iTunes then? It's fairly easy to set up a shopping card or online store where you can sell your music independently. Do it on your own, you can offer drm-free files and sell them for whatever price you want. Hell, you can even offer all file formats, flac, mp3, etc... you keep all of the profits and your customers have more choice. Win-win. Nobody needs Steve Jobs. It blows my mind why musicians or labels are even using iTunes. This is digital. You set up your own store, customers pay with paypal or credit card, they pick their favorite file format, and instantly get a download link to their drm-free files. Easy. I understand why Amazon is in business, they're selling physical products, and also serve as a warehouse. But iTunes? We dont em! Especially not the majors who could start their own mega store, where THEY make the rules and keep all of the profits.

[8th_note]

You do know there was a REASON the DJs used to talk over the beginning and end of each song, don't you?

You might be too young to have experienced this but in the early days of FM the late-night DJ would play an entire record, all the way through, so you could record it. Sometimes they would actually say, "Hit record now." Ahh, the good 'ole days.

but WHY are people downloading things they "wouldn't pay for" anyway? I mean, either you want to listen to a song, or you don't.

Normal consumption patterns don't apply when something is free (or easily stolen). My point is that if downloading wasn't available people wouldn't be buying the music they steal. That doesn't make it OK to download unauthorized music but the economic damage is a tiny fraction of what the industry says it is. And if a person copies their buddy's CD, ends up liking the band, and goes to the next concert it makes the economic impact even harder to quantify. It still doesn't make it right but I'm just trying to say the the whole thing is quite complicated in its impact.

Are you telling me you can't tell if you like an artist by hearing PART of a tune? Seriously? You never heard the back half of a song on the radio and bought the album?

Yes, I guess I am telling you that. There's been several cases where I went onto Amazon and listened to snippets of songs and decided to pass on the album. Then, later, I would have a chance to hear the whole record, maybe more than once, and I ended up really liking it and buying the CD. In all fairness, there have been a number of occasions where I have heard a song once on the radio and ran out to buy the album but if your band is not played on the radio, that's not going to happen.

Just like the original Napster debacle, the biggest issue with a solution is that the law-makers, for the most part, don't understand the internet or current digital technology.

That's exactly my point. I would venture to say that nobody truly understands the whole issue - it isn't just the politicians. IMO anybody who claims to have "the answer" to this just doesn't realize how complicated this problem is and how many stakeholders with different agendas are involved. I guess we could just pass a law proscribing the death penalty for anybody who downloads music without paying for it but short of that it's going to be hard for all the different interested parties to agree on a workable solution.

It makes no sense to me that anyone involved in music could think these things and not be unhappy about them. But maybe you're one of those "casual" musicians or engineers, who makes a living somewhere else...

I'm certainly unhappy about this but cynical may be a better word for it. It's always been nearly impossible to make a living in the music business and now it's even harder. That makes me sad. But we're dealing with a different problem that few people want to acknowledge. It's is a basic problem of supply and demand. You could stop all illegal downloading tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference to the incomes of 98% of all the musicians out there. And you're right BTW, I don't make my living from the music business so I do have more of a detached perspective. But I know a number of indie bands who are putting everything they have into making a living at from their music and I haven't found one of them who thinks that pirated music is their biggest problem. Almost universally their biggest challenge is to rise above the noise and get heard by their potential audience.

Interesting. So the Beatles, Steely Dan and XTC should be considered "casual musicians"?

Of course not. They paid their dues bigtime by touring in their early days. Maybe you can cite some examples but I can't think of an act that broke to national status without touring. Paul McCartney tours like there's no tomorrow and it provides a major source of his income. Sure, he could put out records and stay at home but he wouldn't be nearly as big a presence on the pop music scene if he didn't get out and tour. For a young band starting out I think it's a pipe dream to try to make a name for themselves without touring. Hell, it's a pipe dream even if they do tour.

Asking your "fans" to PAY for your music is "distancing" yourself from them??? Wow!

I'll use this example. WallMart puts up with a certain amount of shoplifting because they can't afford to alienate their customers. They could pat you down at the door (within legal limits) and do all kinds of things to eliminate shoplifting but they want to make their customer's experience as pleasant as possible. If you put up part of a song on Myspace it's going to have a negative impact on your customer's experience. It's a marketing decision whether or not you want to risk a certain amount of bad-will to reduce the theft of your product. I really don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, I just feel that a relatively unknown band or performer should take that into account and not get completely focused on the potential that fans could download your crappy sounding Myspace mp3 without paying.

[Kiwiburger]

I appear to have upset some people - but it's also apparant to me that very few people actual know what i'm saying, in context. Your loss, not mine.

What's done is done - the genie can never be stuffed back into the box. Humpty Dumpty can never be put back again.

There are ways of making money - provided people get to hear your music and love it. Not a hard concept to understand, but apparantly english comprehension is not strong around here.

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by 8th_note

I'll use this example. WallMart puts up with a certain amount of shoplifting because they can't afford to alienate their customers. They could pat you down at the door (within legal limits) and do all kinds of things to eliminate shoplifting but they want to make their customer's experience as pleasant as possible.

Can somebody translate this for me? I slept while they taught ****** at school. But as far as I can recall, what he's saying, is... they dont stop shoplifting cause they want to make the shopping experience for shoplifters and normal customers as pleasant as possible.

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

There are ways of making money - provided people get to hear your music and love it. Not a hard concept to understand, but apparantly english comprehension is not strong around here.

Yes, we're stupid. That's why we dont understand your genius concept of giving our music away for free. I'll call my friend now, he sells cars. Maybe he'll like your idea, and they'll start giving all their "cheap" cars away for free. Hey, after all they can still charge for the real expensive ones, right? Give all Hondas away for free, you'll make your money with Ferraris and BMWs. Kiwiburger, you should do business consulting! Your the next Jay Abraham.