Do you think artists should not get paid for CD sales?

[bewarethanatos]

I'm having a discussion with some people in another forum, and one guy has brought this up (long post ahead):

seriously why exactly should it be expected for people to make money out of recordings? why do you need to spend trillions on producing an album? people can make albums in their bedrooms for pitiful amounts of money that sound exactly as good as any Desmond Child or Bob Rock or whatever produced album.

make your album, get it out there, get people interested, and then TOUR YOUR [expletive deleted] A$$ OFF. if your album was good, people will come out and sea you play. if you suck, they wont. its as simple as that.

i basically just pretend that the music world actually works like that and download music to see whether i want to go sea a band play, then i go sea them. ive spent TONS of money on going to sea gigs and thats how i support bands. also by telling people about bands just in case they arent touring near me, this way i am getting even moar people to go to their gigs.

besides bands get PEANUTS out of cd sales. most of the money goes to the label and for the artwork and production costs and crap. bands should release music to become known, not to make money. bands dont have this magical "right" to make a living out of album sales, because they never did anyway.

Who says there have to be actual physical stores where you buy music? We are well into the internet age, pretty much everyone and their gran has internet access and things that can migrate over to the internet will quite inevitably do so, as they already have done despite the pathetic denial we sea in the RIAA and other similarly-minded individuals.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that music has to be released on physical medium. There is no reason to assume that music has to be released with artwork. There is no reason to assume that music has to be released with an 80 minute time restriction. There is no reason to assume that music has to be released at CD quality. There is no reason to assume that music has to be RELEASED AT ALL.

In 5 years, there may well be no CD releases at all, quite simply because you will be able to get pristine quality music anywhere in the world streaming off the web. Do you want to be really audiophilic and sit back and enjoy an album to its fullest? Piece of cake. Turn on your networked Pioneer stereo, type the artists name into google, click on the album and its already streaming at 5.1 Surround while displaying relevant information off Wikipedia and a selection of the Google Image Search results. At the same time, it's showing you similar artists which you can jump to and start playing immediately. On the side of the screen you are shown tour information for that band and you can book a ticket with roughly three clicks. You enjoy the music, you pay your $50 for the ticket and you go to the show and sea the band where it's really its true self. You're actually there and the band can look straight at you and sea you support them. You're not some decimal point on their annual royalty check that may or may not come in the post from the label. You are an actual person and the look on your face will show exactly how much you like what they are doing.

The $15 you pay at Best Buy for a silver plastic disc is not how much you support the band. Whether you will tell people about a band at work the morning after you download their songs is exactly how much you support the band.

1. Who says people should be able to make a living out of recording an album? It sounds like complete bullsh!t to me, to be honest, considering that most people work half their waking hours for most of their lives to get by. Spending a week in a studio should NOT be enough to make you get by.

2. You can dedicate your life to music by playing music all your life, not for a week in a studio and then sitting back and expecting the money to come to YOU.

3. Music can be your passion, your income and your hobby simultaneously, or it can be any one of those on its own. NONE of them require recording an album and making money it.

4. It is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS that it is actually the LAW that people should expect to receive money for copies of something. Just sit back and think about Copyright for a bit. If you make ANY sense out of it, please let me know.

What do you make of this? He's not involved in the music business at all, and I'm giving him my opinion on the other forum, I'd just like to see what people that are actually gigging musicians and engineers/producers, etc., think.

Also, on our forum, we like to mess with each other, so see filters to sea, and more filters to moar. Just so you don't think he's intentionally spelling words that way.

[subatomicpieces]

This guy sounds just like all the other teens arguing FOR stealing music.

Nothing new. This guy doesn't have any new insight or any original ideas. Pretty much all of his arguments have been blown to bits time and time again on the internet.

[Protools Guy]

Originally Posted by bewarethanatos

people can make albums in their bedrooms for pitiful amounts of money that sound exactly as good as any Desmond Child or Bob Rock or whatever produced album.

I thought this quote was pretty funny!!

[bewarethanatos]

Now he and others are arguing for the abolishment of Copyright laws.

In response to the last quote box I posted, I asked:

No, they are not. I'd like to sea you (or anyone) argue why they are while everyone else is working 9 to 5.

Thoughts?

[Kiwiburger]

I think bad spelling is a seperate issue. Lots of people posting here can't spell for nuts. I see the word 'sure' being spelled 'shure' all the time.

I see the old record industry reacting to the internet the way the old oil companies are reacting to electric cars and alternative energy sources. They aren't going to give up their power structure without a fight - so the ideal of free music for all just isn't going to happen. At least, not with the established back catalog.

Just like Big Oil - Big Music still has a product the world wants, and they've made themselves rich by restricting supply. Despite their crys of poverty, there is still plenty of fat in there to allow them to drop the price in order to wipe out competition when necessary. And if that doesn't work, they will buy out the competion, or otherwise force them out of business. They are a powerful lobby group.

What I really expect to see happen - perhaps first in America - is the complete abandonment of all civil liberties to a controlling infrastructure. Big Brother on an unprecendented scale. We will be conned into believing this is necessary, over issues of copyright and identity theft and fraud. We won't be able to make any kind of transaction without Big Brother knowing all details of it.

So be very careful what you wish for.

[divingduck]

Originally Posted by bewarethanatos

Quote:
1. Who says people should be able to make a living out of recording an album? It sounds like complete bullsh!t to me, to be honest, considering that most people work half their waking hours for most of their lives to get by. Spending a week in a studio should NOT be enough to make you get by.

A week in a studio? Is there nothing before that?

As a professional freelance musician who has spent 15 years (so far) building a successful career based on entertaining a public that generally appreciates and is prepared to reward us for our work, that relies on recording sessions (ie album sales) as well as ticket sales (irrelevant to session musicians), I'd like to say thankyou to anyone who has ever legitimately acquired an artist's work - whether or not you (or I) believe there is currently a fair distribution of the revenue to the creative parties (another matter entirely).

If these 9-5'ers didn't charge us for the burgers they flip, maybe we wouldn't need to charge for the music we make? fuuck

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by Protools Guy

I thought this quote was pretty funny!!

as the owner of a copy (on cassette) of the 1977 album, "Desmond Child & Rouge", i can say with confidence that the guy is probably right!

[bewarethanatos]

I was just so shocked that this guy and a few other people think that if you don't tour, you're not even entitled to the prospect of making money off of album sales.

[johnnyrock]

The fact that he claims it cost "trillions" of dollars in his first two sentances makes
makes the rest of his post irrelevant. He's an idiot.

[uncle duncan]

Trying to communicate with guys like that is as futile as trying to talk sense with someone who watches FOX News. They're in their own little world, with no concept of reality. One approach might be to send the RIAA a link to his posts. Perhaps they could track him down and sue his ass.

[drBill]

There's much to say, many thoughts to share, but over the last couple of days of arguing on the internet with #############'s who don't have a clue about reality, or the history and facts behind our industry.....I think I'll pass on this one. Too depressing and nothing is going to change their minds. What happened to the youth of our country?

[lowfreq33]

Why hasn't anyone written a crippling virus that can be embedded in mp3's? Sound like a good solution to me.

[MarkRB]

What a stupid idea.

You should get his address so we can all come round for a free breakfast.

I think it's fair that you should not have to pay to hear music.
But if you want to own the music I have made then you have to pay me?

THIS is exactly the reason that record companies will continue to exist.

[bewarethanatos]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

What a stupid idea.

You should get his address so we can all come round for a free breakfast.

You're closer than I am. He lives in Cyprus.

I agree, you shouldn't have to pay to hear music. I was arguing to him that the great thing about CD's (he's arguing against the need for physical media) and vinyl is the artwork that it comes with. He doesn't think it's necessary. But why not?

I can go to a show to see a band and hear the music, but that's not an experience that's going to last. Holding a CD or vinyl album in my hands is more personal than downloading even uncompressed audio from the internet.

I pay for the "personal connection" to the band, in the form of physical media, when live shows aren't an option, as cheesy as that sounds. Am I completely off base?

[PT6.7UZR]

Originally Posted by drBill

What happened to the youth of our country?

Indeed.

I blame TV.

[synthoid]

He's missing at least one very important point. It might be, as he argues, that most artists never made a tremendous amount from recording sales in the first place. But it was a big deal that a record label could recoup their investment in a recording from sales of the recording. It meant that they could spend money on the production, especially on the human side of production. There is no replacement for this at present. Perhaps from some very abstract technical point of view, you can make a recording at home that's as good as a very well-produced recording, but what you won't have at home is professional arrangers, seasoned session players, lots of interesting instruments lying around, experienced engineers, experts in all dimensions of production. A record label can make those things available to an artist, but not if they don't have any prospect of recovering the cost. And this has nothing to do with whether the artist himself makes any money from sales of the recording.

-synthoid

[ALL*MYTEE]

He's absolutely right you guyyz! --Why should THEY! make money off of recorded music?

What about the KIDZ man?!! What abou t the kidzzz???

khrthjdrhjdrtrt

Why should anyone make money at all??!!??

It just seems so confrontational!!!!

First you make what you want and then you ask for money for it from someone else who has been paid doing what they chose to do!!? Then if they really want it they have to give it to you!! No one, like, ever gives it to you for free and stuff.. IS THIS WHAT U Call nice!!?

Guuuuuyyz!!

Come! On!

wwoied

What is it 1960? 1840? Hasn't the whole freakin world--even the Chinese, Cuban and European socialists--voted in blood in favor of free markets?

--But the culturally starving mall rats outside of Minnnheeapolis??!! Don't they DESERVE music?! Guyss!! Don't they deserve SSL compression and Augsburger monitored rooms and $500K mastering labs!!??? Don't they deserve to be entertained? They did clean their rooms AND like do mass homework last week! (Then blew their allowance on a $400 iPod Touch, some pre-ripped jeans, and an eighth.) What about them!!?

--So mean.

(Note to self: start posts demanding drugs should be free for high school students. And that it shouldn't be so freaking hard to get beer when you're under 21!! And that Julie Marvy should like all junior guys with their locker next to hers. Also--tell mom to vaccuum her own freaking rug!!)

hitt

It must be MILitAry INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CONSPIRACY TO STOP THE CHILDREDN! frob duing whut they wunt---


I MEEN --STOP THE MUSIKK!

STOPP THAA MMUUSSIICCCKKKK-TIONS from stealing kids moonee.

My god---THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What have we done??!

meze

On a more drastic note:

Didn't this post used to be called "What if Music Should Be Free?". And don't communalists use the search function anymore? I cann't hadele it. It's like the tragedy of the commons, all over again. Those damn sheep eating, eating, eating!

snif..)

[DontLetMeDrown]

Originally Posted by divingduck

If these 9-5'ers didn't charge us for the burgers they flip, maybe we wouldn't need to charge for the music we make? fuuck

[nandoanalog]

I think artists should have some free ammo and a permision to kill whoever they want. Just for the sake of fun....

[8th_note]

The following post just shows that I have nothing better to do with my time than to respond to a moron who doesn't understand how the world works.

There's two reasons why this guy is just plain wrong. I'll try to patiently explain them.

First, nobody has a right to make money on anything they create. We do have a right, however, to not have our creations and labor stolen - even if someone else is willing to offer a similar service for free. Let me give you an analogy.

You can go to a public drinking fountain and drink all the water you want for free. You can drink gallons and gallons of water, as much as you can hold, for free. This does not give you the right, however, to go into a convenience store and steal a bottle of water. If you want the water in a bottle you have to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it you can find a public fountain and drink from there.

Music is like this. You can find free music all over the internet. You can download thousands of songs from the internet where the artist is giving you permission to have them for free. There's more free music available than you could listen to in a lifetime. But other artists, for whatever reason, are charging for their music and if you download their music without paying for it you are stealing. Just as if you walked out of the convenience store with a bottle of water without paying for it. I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand.

The second issue relates to intellectual property. Over the last several hundred years we have developed a workable consensus that intangible intellectual creations have value and belong to the author. It is the basis for our patent and copyright systems. If a creator of an artistic work wishes to charge for the use or consumption of that work it is a widely recognized legal concept that they have the right to do so. This means that you do not have the right to steal their intellectual property, even if you think it has no value.

Our copyright system is designed to reward authors of artistic work based on the popularity of their creation. The poster questions why one would be paid based on the number of copies sold. Obviously, this is an absurd question. If he writes a book or a song that sells 1 million copies does he really think he should be paid the same amount as if it sold 10 copies?

There's a lot of people in this world who do not understand the most basic concepts of economics. The poster is simply clueless on the fundamental principles of human commerce.

[MarkRB]

It's tricky. If you put a song in the public domain: ie myspace etc. How can you protect it?

I think the internet will evolve very soon.

(My Prediction)

As a consumer you will not have to pay for music, films or any other type of 'content'. You will simply pay a fixed fee every month to your ISP, a percentage of which is distributed to the content providers (you & me) that you use.

If you tag a piece of art as belonging to you, be it music, a painting, or whatever then you will recieve sufficient and proper payment.

I will place a large amount of money on this happening in the next 10 years.

[BLUElightCory]

Originally Posted by johnnyrock

He's an idiot.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.

This is the kind of person that slows traffic on the freeway because some guy is changing a tire on the side of the road.

Cory Spotts

[drBill]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

you will recieve sufficient and proper payment.

You want to clue us in on how that would work??? BMI and ASCAP have been trying to do it for decades and still don't have a clue and are not completely successful. I know for one, I do not receive SUFFICIENT nor PROPER payment. Ask any BMI or ASCAP writer if they feel good about their royalties. And as of today, BMI/ASCAP deal with "hard" places of business - ie: Radio stations, TV stations, Theaters, Resturaunts, etc..

Now.......add in the internot with unreachable places in the remotest parts of the world who don't WANT to pay to have your/my content on their sites.....and you've got a battle bigger than WWIII on your hands. Nice try though.....

[MarkRB]

[QUOTE=drBill;1755938]You want to clue us in on how that would work??? /QUOTE]

It's all in how the labels (in terms of music at least) and the Internet Service Providers allow and instigate tagging (or DRM if you want the evil sounding term) of copyright protected work.

What i'm talking about isn't random fantasy, it's in development. Every torrent file and download, be it via iTunes or Pirate Bay will clock up due to the way music will automatically be recognised by the ISP.

Record Companies have already accepted the 'subscription model' as the way forward. It's not that much of a reach.

I don't imagine it will be 'unbreakable' for people that resolutely refuse to pay for music but co-operation between the content providers (the labels and you and me) and the people that allow access to freely available content (the ISP's) is the quite obvious way forward.

[herecomesyourman]

Hey copy and paste to them what I've written here to give them some perspective.

I work much longer hours than 9-5 to make music proffessionally.

And for all the bootlicking, travel expenses, rock shows, production and pre production sessions, phone calls at 4AM I always seem to pick up when an artist is losing focus...day to day writing for several hours at a time to keep my edge as a songwriter, band practice....touring...artistic sessions with web designers and graphic artists...business plans I've had to write from scratch...research for my book on the industry...phone calls to talk to others within the industry in order to scare up work...mixing sessions...and budgeting sessions / carreer advisments sessions I've had to make while studio managing simultaineously...I consider this to be a carreer. I've studied sound reinforcement...the physics of sound, the legalities and general nature of the music industry, Trends, my favorite productions...the history behind the gear we all use and the electrical engineering behind it to an extent.

And I've personally always wondered why I don't get paid more for what I kill myself daily doing.

Those guys have no idea what it is to truly work hard and up from nothing to get where you are, and therefore they could never fully grasp what it is to be compensated for contributing to society. Working a job you hate while you envy others only means two things:

A. That you lack the ambition, drive, and creative energy to do any better for yourself or others.

B. That it's not mine, or anyone else's problem if you hate your station in life.

Get in line if you feel underappreciated, but do something about it for yourself instead of stealing out of someone elses pocket to justify your depression.

[divingduck]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

Hey copy and paste to them what I've written here to give them some perspective.

I work much longer hours than 9-5 to make music proffessionally.

And for all the bootlicking, etc.

thumbsup

[Soulbrother]

As 'idiotic' as this guy is, what he's saying basically reflects mainstream youth opinion. So in that sense we have to listen to him.

The reason for his arguements is easy to see. While it is true that downloading torrents of albums is stealing, we have reached a point technologically where you can basically have access to a huge range of music (far more than you can fit in your local recordsstore) online for free. Click and download. The fact that this is illegal is in practice, a moot point. A huge majority of people are doing it anyway, and will continue to do so.

In the past, if you wanted to get your hands on an album, you had to pony up 15 bucks for an LP, and walk to the store hoping they have it in stock. Now that you no longer have to do that, the fetish value of a physical disk has diminished hugely. Most young people see the Internet as a kind of "Choose Your Own Radio Station" - Like a conventional radio station, except instead of a DJ choosing the music, you choose it yourself, by downloading what you feel liike listening to. The cultural value of "owning" an album has dissapeared for them.

This is of course a major problem for people who wish to make money out of music.

[ALL*MYTEE]

Every industry has a problem with "shrinkage"--or theft.

And what every industry does to remedy the problem--so they don't go out of business--is raise prices for legitimate customers.

The problems with the music industry is that, for whatever reason they haven't decided to do this (they have others, but with illegal downloads outpacing legit sales 25 to 1, this is a big one).

If the costs of piracy were passed along, the kiddie culture that thinks downloading is okay would change quickly as those who wanted to support the artists they love were forced to pay for their friends theft. Right now it's culturally acceptable to steal music--because it's not valued. Stealing a song is like tasting a grape at the supermarket. If a song were a steak, you can bet that many fewer would be stolen. People think that an .88 song doesn't matter. Including a lot of people on this board, which always surprises me, as the artists get a tiny fraction of this and teh studios and engineers and producers get an even smaller amount.

Money to record doesn't come from nowhere. Major label money paid for a lot of the Neves and API consoles back in the day. And many of those Neumann U47s that everyone's so keen on.

Eventually the music industry will have to raise prices or they'll go out of business.

The interesting thing is that once movies and tv go digital, they'll face the same problem. Sooner or later, they too will have to accept the economic reality that they have to raise prices if they'd like to stay in business.