This said, these paradigm shifts are also the price of "progress." Vaudeville was killed by nickleledeons. Those got killed by movie palaces. Those got killed by cine-plexes. We mourn the loss of single-screen theater houses but does anyone feel bad that vaudville had to take an L just so the world could have "Star Wars"? (Well, more like "Birth of a Nation" and "The Jazz Singer"). For the performers of that generation, it must have felt like an abandonment or a betrayal too.
In any case, I really don't think popular music, as we know it, is on death's doorstep over all this. But yeah, we're experiencing some major growing pains as the game changes.
Honestly, you're right Odub, I don't see this changing for my generation. Maybe for my younger sister's generation (currently in 7th grade), where iTunes dominates the market, but not for my peers. Music is disposable to my generation for the most part, because it's free and there is tons of it, of all styles, just a click away.
yeah, we've got growing pains, but artists have always had to struggle. I mean, for thousands of years cats were working the zither night to night just to get by. it just might be that artists have to rely more on live shows again.
another thing to consider, is like Spelunk said, the sheer quantities of music that people have now. your average music-loving, money-making consumer back in the 70's had nowhere near as much music as any given 8th grader with a $5/week allowance nowadays. this is a GOOD THING i think. plenty of fools will download songs and not know anything about the artist (or they might even have an improperly labeled MP3 and think that it's MJ when actually it's Carl Carlton!), but for people who truly care about looking deeper and discovering more- there's MORE AVAILABLE. Why do you think crate digging culture got so big to begin with??? We be digging up obscure shit because we can! Because with the product overload out there, it's actually considered a valuable characteristic to be able to weed through the stacks and pick out the gems.
Progress might mean that people don't buy albums, or even listen to "albums" in the same way. The idea of an album (a collection of records) was a product design concept to begin with. there was a time not that long ago when albums didn't exist. Wherever we're headed, I'm down to participate. I have full faith that good music, and good art in general, will always prevail.
Talk to anyone in the newspaper industry and it's impossible to elicit an optimistic perspective. Shit is just bad everywhere - falling circulations, declining ad sales, practically flatlined classified sections and competition from not just other internet news sites but from their own sites (why buy the NY Times when you can read the whole thing online?)
I never, ever thought that, in my lifetime, I'd see the demise of the newspaper - at least as a core form of media as it enjoyed in previous gens. To me, it's depressing as hell.
However, if you look at the forces that are behind the decline of newspapers (basically, the internet), it's not as if any of this was done with malice, either by the internet industry itself nor by readers who are finding that they prefer to gain their news some other way than 50 cents spent at a kiosk or newsstand. Newspapers are the victim but who exactly is perpetrating a crime here? Craigslist? News.google.com? Someone like my wife who reads the NYT online but probably wouldn't walk down the street to buy a paper copy for $1? The problem here isn't rising illiteracy. It's rising e-literacy.
I don't think this is a perfect analogy with filesharing and song downloading. It's hard to argue that, technically speaking, this ISN'T piracy or at the very least, going against the intent of the artist, the label and basically the entire industry (not to mention copyright law).
However, putting those things aside, what's fundamentally changed is the way in which people access these forms of information/media whether you're talking about a news article or a song. The ease, the lack of cost...it's mindblowing if you compare how things are now with how they were even ten years ago.
And this is just my opinion but once you've crossed that threshhold, it seems virtually impossible for things to move back to the older models. The RIAA, despite its fervent wishes, cannot prosecute its way back any more than newspapers can hold out the hope that circulations (and hence ad rates) will bounce back.
The best you can hope to do is find a way to adapt. But in doing so, something will be lost, perhaps permanently. And that's not an inherently evil thing even if it is worth mourning.
This isn't a digg but I question the idea that there's more music now than there has been in the past. I think this is the common sense assumption but I'd actually like to see someone quantify it.
I think what's different is that ACCESS to different music is greater than it's ever been but I don't know if that means the sheer VOLUME of music has increased as well, at least not relative to the past.
Uploading/downloading are an integral part of this music game these days, and I support the sharing of music for free via the internet as a means to help promote and sell our product. But what happens when ENTIRE CDs of mine get posted on the internet for download. Shit fucking sucks, man. It's like how am I supposed to eat? THIS IS WHAT I DO. THIS IS HOW I FEED MY FAMILY.
no offense intended, but aren't your CDs DJ mixes? Are you paying the artists you use? I donno I mean I want to ride w/ you here and I agree with what Thes is saying but this seems a little hypocriticalist coming from a DJ who uses another person's music to feed their family
This isn't a digg but I question the idea that there's more music now than there has been in the past. I think this is the common sense assumption but I'd actually like to see someone quantify it.
I think what's different is that ACCESS to different music is greater than it's ever been but I don't know if that means the sheer VOLUME of music has increased as well, at least not relative to the past.
easy. do you listen to records from the 50's? 60's? Your grandpa (speculating, since I don't really know when he was [or is] around) didn't have that historic pool to pull from. There are a lot of people (especially in these here parts) who basically ONLY listen to records that are past a certain vintage. The fact that young kids today can identify with recordings that were made 50 years ago, to the point where they would rather emulate the sound of a 7" from 1967 than what is technically possible with today's highest quality tools, shows that there is more to choose from. more artistic options. no one in '67 was asking to return to the wax cylinder. History accumulates, that's why I think progress is actually possible in the first place.
Def Jux actually PERSONALIZED the promo-bot on each of them.
Saying.
My friend told me, "I bet you get called out, by name, on the new El-P CD." I feared the worst given my history with a few of the dudes in that family but then I realized: ah, the promo-bot. It's still creepy.
that's funny you used the Def Jux camp as an example cause my bro has been complaining about their press promos for a couple of years now - saying that he can't even review them because every 30 seconds or so there is El-P or someone yelling "Bootleggers will get the boot" or some such other thing.
Another interesting thing, an article I read in the last year or so (I think it was the Village Voice) that stores (not so much the labels) are actually more worried about shoplifting than bootlegging/downloading.
Uploading/downloading are an integral part of this music game these days, and I support the sharing of music for free via the internet as a means to help promote and sell our product. But what happens when ENTIRE CDs of mine get posted on the internet for download. Shit fucking sucks, man. It's like how am I supposed to eat? THIS IS WHAT I DO. THIS IS HOW I FEED MY FAMILY.
no offense intended, but aren't your CDs DJ mixes? Are you paying the artists you use? I donno I mean I want to ride w/ you here and I agree with what Thes is saying but this seems a little
hypocriticalist coming from a DJ who uses another person's music to feed their family
apologies if i'm missing something obvious here
no, he is a DJmusician who asks for mp3s on REAL HEADZ so he can "play" them on gigs.
Uploading/downloading are an integral part of this music game these days, and I support the sharing of music for free via the internet as a means to help promote and sell our product. But what happens when ENTIRE CDs of mine get posted on the internet for download. Shit fucking sucks, man. It's like how am I supposed to eat? THIS IS WHAT I DO. THIS IS HOW I FEED MY FAMILY.
no offense intended, but aren't your CDs DJ mixes? Are you paying the artists you use? I donno I mean I want to ride w/ you here and I agree with what Thes is saying but this seems a little
hypocriticalist coming from a DJ who uses another person's music to feed their family
apologies if i'm missing something obvious here
no, he is a
DJmusician who asks for mp3s on REAL HEADZ so he can "play" them on gigs.
I work in the download sector and the whole sharing / blog thing is not clear cut. I work across majors and indies so I have no bias either way. I've seen a lot of research on this whole area and two big unanswerables emerge:
1. There's nothing to say that illegal downloads constitute 'lost' sales - who's to say that the downloader would ever have bought a legitimate copy in the first place? You can postulate and infer but there's no hard proof either way. 2. Does wider exposure of the music (i.e illegal free downloads) increase overall awareness and sales of that music? People who are big downloaders are more often than not big music buyers, often spending up to 40% more than the national average when it comes to purchasing legitimate music, but that's at the top end.
Well, overall music sales are up in a big way over the last few years and live music is thriving again. People have moved on from certain recorded music formats but that fact that the majors are losing unit sales in some formats is countered by the overall rise in sales.
It absolutely sucks for an artist to see their hard work being downloaded illegally and for nothing but, again ,that does not necessarily equate to lost sales although it definitely means a bigger potential audience. Of course, some artists do lose out on sales and for those individuals it is a big, unfair kick in the head.
A bigger issue for me is the failure of majors to properly compensate artists for legal downloads sold. More than 75% goes back to the label. The artist, website and digital distributor share the rest, in most cases. In the digital realm production costs are down, distribution costs are almost zero and yet the proportion going back to the artist has shrunk in real terms from the days of physical formats. That's where the rot is.
Beating up on Cosmo for being a DJ (one of the more creative, open minded DJs at that) is really lame and short-sighted.
I mean let us not forget how important people like Cosmo, who hold gigs to play certain types of music, who press CDs filled with certain types of music, who perpetuate a style and vision that values said music are in resurrecting forgotten music like that of Monty Stark.
Dollars to donuts that without DJs playing rare groove and collectors swapping unlicensed tapes/CDs, nobody except a couple record collectors gives a shit about Stark Reality.
Anyways, sorry to get off track but that whole little shit rubbed me the wrong way (no pun intended). That was a real small look right there.
The desire to pay for music has been further and further diminished by continued lack of value in the end product With a disposable record industry (from the label personnel down to the writers producers and artists) it is not surprising that the music itself is being seen as disposable.
If I'm an independent artist, I'm just trying to distance myself from that model as much as possible. I think the more you present yourself as the better alternative, the more you display workmanship and dedication to core musical values, the more people give a shit about buying the product rather than ripping it.
Beating up on Cosmo for being a DJ (one of the more creative, open minded DJs at that) is really lame and short-sighted.
I mean let us not forget how important people like Cosmo, who hold gigs to play certain types of music, who press CDs filled with certain types of music, who perpetuate a style and vision that values said music are in resurrecting forgotten music like that of Monty Stark.
Dollars to donuts that without DJs playing rare groove and collectors swapping unlicensed tapes/CDs, nobody except a couple record collectors gives a shit about Stark Reality.
I don't think anyone would disagree with those sentiments Jonny. But the problem I see is that if you're, not swapping, but making money off of unlicensed mixes and bootlegs, and you're d/l mp3's yourself, you best just accept that people are going to do the same, to what you're putting out.
Sometimes, I listen to the music of strutters & ask myself "How come ***** hasn't blown the F up?" I think the Dl'ing thing is to blame. Like, the internet has helped people build their reps. Without it, a guy like me up in Montreal probably would never have heard of Dj Day. But if me knowing who Day is isn't helping him put food on his table, what good is it doing for him? It's good for me cause I like his music & will buy his releases, but, if other people aren't follwing suit & getting his ish for free, its a shitty deal for him.
Beating up on Cosmo for being a DJ (one of the more creative, open minded DJs at that) is really lame and short-sighted.
I mean let us not forget how important people like Cosmo, who hold gigs to play certain types of music, who press CDs filled with certain types of music, who perpetuate a style and vision that values said music are in resurrecting forgotten music like that of Monty Stark.
Dollars to donuts that without DJs playing rare groove and collectors swapping unlicensed tapes/CDs, nobody except a couple record collectors gives a shit about Stark Reality.
I don't think anyone would disagree with those sentiments Jonny. But the problem I see is that if you're, not swapping, but making money off of unlicensed mixes and bootlegs, and you're d/l mp3's yourself, you best just accept that people are going to do the same, to what you're putting out.
this is interesting on several levels impalaville is obviously unlisecnced and holmes owns a record store it's good promo for the shop and also a way to rep selecta/mix skills/lifestyle etc but if it got posted on a blog in japan would you be mad or happy that it was getting the exposure?
Sometimes, I listen to the music of strutters & ask myself "How come ***** hasn't blown the F up?" I think the Dl'ing thing is to blame. Like, the internet has helped people build their reps. Without it, a guy like me up in Montreal probably would never have heard of Dj Day. But if me knowing who Day is isn't helping him put food on his table, what good is it doing for him? It's good for me cause I like his music & will buy his releases, but, if other people aren't follwing suit & getting his ish for free, its a shitty deal for him.
Yeah, but there are so many variables to consider: maybe his music isn't hitting in Montreal, he's on a small label from overseas so they probably don't have a huge advertising budget, they also press up smaller quantities so those records are kinda hard to come by even in NYC sometimes, etc. etc.
Beating up on Cosmo for being a DJ (one of the more creative, open minded DJs at that) is really lame and short-sighted.
I mean let us not forget how important people like Cosmo, who hold gigs to play certain types of music, who press CDs filled with certain types of music, who perpetuate a style and vision that values said music are in resurrecting forgotten music like that of Monty Stark.
Dollars to donuts that without DJs playing rare groove and collectors swapping unlicensed tapes/CDs, nobody except a couple record collectors gives a shit about Stark Reality.
I don't think anyone would disagree with those sentiments Jonny. But the problem I see is that if you're, not swapping, but making money off of unlicensed mixes and bootlegs, and you're d/l mp3's yourself, you best just accept that people are going to do the same, to what you're putting out.
this is interesting on several levels impalaville is obviously unlisecnced and holmes owns a record store it's good promo for the shop and also a way to rep selecta/mix skills/lifestyle etc but if it got posted on a blog in japan would you be mad or happy that it was getting the exposure?
Actually, it was bootlegged by Rich King and Big Daddy Distribution.
And I was mad, because someone was *selling* my work without cutting me in. Those song choices and sequences, the shoutouts, the packaging was all part of an artistic vision. It never made me a lot of money but I do believe people should buy mix CDs and support their creators, because it's not *just* other people's music.
Not a dig at Cosmo. But as I see it. Things kinda worked for him. Maybe he just needs to look at the bigger picture. He made a dope mix. Maybe if I were him, I'd be tryin' to get it on every tracker and blog out there. Then, people show up at his gigs and put down their 10 bucks or whatever it cost at the door. Maybe that dude would never had shown up if he didn't grab it off oink.
Part of the reason you make what you do, is because you can get people to your gigs. Plus, the more popular you get, the more you can ask for. CD mixes should be looked at as a promotion material. Not tryin' to get paid. That biz model is going out the door.
I've been saying this for almost 8 years now. Don't be looking for a CD or record to be gettin' paid off of. With how many people out there making music or being DJ's, get urself to be heard by as many people as possible and look to other ways to be making a living off of.
Billy - I kind of see that as being backwards. Recording artists used to bank on actual sales. It wasn't until the last five years or so that people started to print music STRICTLY to get people to the shows, as the shows were the better way to make money. That might be the current reality but it doesn't make it right... and as long as I can do what I do I feel strongly about differentiating between "the way it is" and "the way it should be".
I don't think you can fault Cosmo or me or any other DJ for at least wanting to break even on a CD. I mean, WTF. Like we should just be giving this shit away?
Why *shouldn't* we look to get paid on a CD? I mean not PAID, but at least compensated?
HOWEVER, the case that Keith linked to shows that end users can be successfully prosecuted for simply owning the files. However - and please take this with a grain of salt - my sense is that it is not in anyone's best interests (time/money-wise) to go after end users. Is it theoretically possible? Sure but a lot of things are theoretically possible vs. realistically probable (getting hit by a car today, for example).
I have zero experience with copyright law, but this thread and the NYT article on DJ Drama have definitely got me interested (anyone have any cases to refer me ;-). Anyway, I've talked to some people and apparently there have been numerous lawsuits against end users...and in several cases, end users who have only a handful of illegal mp3's. In one case (that I was told about), a women was involved in a completely unrelated lawsuit, and during the Discovery process, she had to turn over her hard drive. Unfortunately for her, the lawyer on the other side represented a record company and this woman had 1 song on her harddrive that was illegally downloaded. Based on that 1 song, she was sued by the lawyer's client!! So watch out!! As Serch would say, "This is not a game people!"
Billy - I kind of see that as being backwards. Recording artists used to bank on actual sales. It wasn't until the last five years or so that people started to print music STRICTLY to get people to the shows, as the shows were the better way to make money.
That's not true at all, ever since recorded music started performers have made their real money on the road, not from their recordings. Read through any history of jaz or R&B, that is the whole reason that the so-called "Chitlin Circuit" was so strong, because performers knew that if they brought a great act on the road to these places they could make a decent living. They definitely weren't making it from the bum deals they were getting from the record labels.
Even in more recent times, the whole indie music scene of the 80's and 90's was built on the fact that the live shows were the most important thing enable you to sustain your career. I think it was Mike Watt of the Minutemen who said that the records were considered another form of flyer for the gig, a way to get people in the door when you were on tour. In my own experience with the Punk scene, my band definitely made more money playing shows (which certainly wasn't much) than we ever did off records or CD's (except when we sold records AT a show).
Comments
hobbs, locke or Nietzsche ?
yeah, we've got growing pains, but artists have always had to struggle. I mean, for thousands of years cats were working the zither night to night just to get by. it just might be that artists have to rely more on live shows again.
another thing to consider, is like Spelunk said, the sheer quantities of music that people have now. your average music-loving, money-making consumer back in the 70's had nowhere near as much music as any given 8th grader with a $5/week allowance nowadays. this is a GOOD THING i think. plenty of fools will download songs and not know anything about the artist (or they might even have an improperly labeled MP3 and think that it's MJ when actually it's Carl Carlton!), but for people who truly care about looking deeper and discovering more- there's MORE AVAILABLE. Why do you think crate digging culture got so big to begin with??? We be digging up obscure shit because we can! Because with the product overload out there, it's actually considered a valuable characteristic to be able to weed through the stacks and pick out the gems.
Progress might mean that people don't buy albums, or even listen to "albums" in the same way. The idea of an album (a collection of records) was a product design concept to begin with. there was a time not that long ago when albums didn't exist. Wherever we're headed, I'm down to participate. I have full faith that good music, and good art in general, will always prevail.
Talk to anyone in the newspaper industry and it's impossible to elicit an optimistic perspective. Shit is just bad everywhere - falling circulations, declining ad sales, practically flatlined classified sections and competition from not just other internet news sites but from their own sites (why buy the NY Times when you can read the whole thing online?)
I never, ever thought that, in my lifetime, I'd see the demise of the newspaper - at least as a core form of media as it enjoyed in previous gens. To me, it's depressing as hell.
However, if you look at the forces that are behind the decline of newspapers (basically, the internet), it's not as if any of this was done with malice, either by the internet industry itself nor by readers who are finding that they prefer to gain their news some other way than 50 cents spent at a kiosk or newsstand. Newspapers are the victim but who exactly is perpetrating a crime here? Craigslist? News.google.com? Someone like my wife who reads the NYT online but probably wouldn't walk down the street to buy a paper copy for $1? The problem here isn't rising illiteracy. It's rising e-literacy.
I don't think this is a perfect analogy with filesharing and song downloading. It's hard to argue that, technically speaking, this ISN'T piracy or at the very least, going against the intent of the artist, the label and basically the entire industry (not to mention copyright law).
However, putting those things aside, what's fundamentally changed is the way in which people access these forms of information/media whether you're talking about a news article or a song. The ease, the lack of cost...it's mindblowing if you compare how things are now with how they were even ten years ago.
And this is just my opinion but once you've crossed that threshhold, it seems virtually impossible for things to move back to the older models. The RIAA, despite its fervent wishes, cannot prosecute its way back any more than newspapers can hold out the hope that circulations (and hence ad rates) will bounce back.
The best you can hope to do is find a way to adapt. But in doing so, something will be lost, perhaps permanently. And that's not an inherently evil thing even if it is worth mourning.
I think what's different is that ACCESS to different music is greater than it's ever been but I don't know if that means the sheer VOLUME of music has increased as well, at least not relative to the past.
apologies if i'm missing something obvious here
easy. do you listen to records from the 50's? 60's? Your grandpa (speculating, since I don't really know when he was [or is] around) didn't have that historic pool to pull from. There are a lot of people (especially in these here parts) who basically ONLY listen to records that are past a certain vintage. The fact that young kids today can identify with recordings that were made 50 years ago, to the point where they would rather emulate the sound of a 7" from 1967 than what is technically possible with today's highest quality tools, shows that there is more to choose from. more artistic options. no one in '67 was asking to return to the wax cylinder. History accumulates, that's why I think progress is actually possible in the first place.
that's funny you used the Def Jux camp as an example cause my bro has been complaining about their press promos for a couple of years now - saying that he can't even review them because every 30 seconds or so there is El-P or someone yelling "Bootleggers will get the boot" or some such other thing.
Another interesting thing, an article I read in the last year or so (I think it was the Village Voice) that stores (not so much the labels) are actually more worried about shoplifting than bootlegging/downloading.
DJmusician who asks for mp3s on REAL HEADZ so he can "play" them on gigs.I'm scared...
1. There's nothing to say that illegal downloads constitute 'lost' sales - who's to say that the downloader would ever have bought a legitimate copy in the first place? You can postulate and infer but there's no hard proof either way.
2. Does wider exposure of the music (i.e illegal free downloads) increase overall awareness and sales of that music? People who are big downloaders are more often than not big music buyers, often spending up to 40% more than the national average when it comes to purchasing legitimate music, but that's at the top end.
Well, overall music sales are up in a big way over the last few years and live music is thriving again. People have moved on from certain recorded music formats but that fact that the majors are losing unit sales in some formats is countered by the overall rise in sales.
It absolutely sucks for an artist to see their hard work being downloaded illegally and for nothing but, again ,that does not necessarily equate to lost sales although it definitely means a bigger potential audience. Of course, some artists do lose out on sales and for those individuals it is a big, unfair kick in the head.
A bigger issue for me is the failure of majors to properly compensate artists for legal downloads sold. More than 75% goes back to the label. The artist, website and digital distributor share the rest, in most cases. In the digital realm production costs are down, distribution costs are almost zero and yet the proportion going back to the artist has shrunk in real terms from the days of physical formats. That's where the rot is.
I mean let us not forget how important people like Cosmo, who hold gigs to play certain types of music, who press CDs filled with certain types of music, who perpetuate a style and vision that values said music are in resurrecting forgotten music like that of Monty Stark.
Dollars to donuts that without DJs playing rare groove and collectors swapping unlicensed tapes/CDs, nobody except a couple record collectors gives a shit about Stark Reality.
Anyways, sorry to get off track but that whole little shit rubbed me the wrong way (no pun intended). That was a real small look right there.
The desire to pay for music has been further and further diminished by continued lack of value in the end product With a disposable record industry (from the label personnel down to the writers producers and artists) it is not surprising that the music itself is being seen as disposable.
If I'm an independent artist, I'm just trying to distance myself from that model as much as possible. I think the more you present yourself as the better alternative, the more you display workmanship and dedication to core musical values, the more people give a shit about buying the product rather than ripping it.
My loooong .02. Sorry for the drag.
I don't think anyone would disagree with those sentiments Jonny.
But the problem I see is that if you're, not swapping, but making money off of unlicensed mixes and bootlegs, and you're d/l mp3's yourself, you best just accept that people are going to do the same, to what you're putting out.
I think we can compare the sound quality and the bio-foods
Yo, my beats are bio!
this is interesting
on several levels
impalaville is obviously unlisecnced and holmes owns a record store
it's good promo for the shop and also a way to rep selecta/mix skills/lifestyle etc
but
if it got posted on a blog in japan would you be mad or happy that it was getting the exposure?
Yeah, but there are so many variables to consider: maybe his music isn't hitting in Montreal, he's on a small label from overseas so they probably don't have a huge advertising budget, they also press up smaller quantities so those records are kinda hard to come by even in NYC sometimes, etc. etc.
Actually, it was bootlegged by Rich King and Big Daddy Distribution.
And I was mad, because someone was *selling* my work without cutting me in. Those song choices and sequences, the shoutouts, the packaging was all part of an artistic vision. It never made me a lot of money but I do believe people should buy mix CDs and support their creators, because it's not *just* other people's music.
But legally, I had not a leg to stand on.
Part of the reason you make what you do, is because you can get people to your gigs. Plus, the more popular you get, the more you can ask for. CD mixes should be looked at as a promotion material. Not tryin' to get paid. That biz model is going out the door.
I've been saying this for almost 8 years now. Don't be looking for a CD or record to be gettin' paid off of. With how many people out there making music or being DJ's, get urself to be heard by as many people as possible and look to other ways to be making a living off of.
I don't think you can fault Cosmo or me or any other DJ for at least wanting to break even on a CD. I mean, WTF. Like we should just be giving this shit away?
Why *shouldn't* we look to get paid on a CD? I mean not PAID, but at least compensated?
Because people now say so?
That shit is weak to me. (no offense meant)
Are your CDs bio?
It was a reference to a post I made earlier in this thread, about the sound quality... forget it.
I have zero experience with copyright law, but this thread and the NYT article on DJ Drama have definitely got me interested (anyone have any cases to refer me ;-). Anyway, I've talked to some people and apparently there have been numerous lawsuits against end users...and in several cases, end users who have only a handful of illegal mp3's. In one case (that I was told about), a women was involved in a completely unrelated lawsuit, and during the Discovery process, she had to turn over her hard drive. Unfortunately for her, the lawyer on the other side represented a record company and this woman had 1 song on her harddrive that was illegally downloaded. Based on that 1 song, she was sued by the lawyer's client!! So watch out!! As Serch would say, "This is not a game people!"
That's not true at all, ever since recorded music started performers have made their real money on the road, not from their recordings. Read through any history of jaz or R&B, that is the whole reason that the so-called "Chitlin Circuit" was so strong, because performers knew that if they brought a great act on the road to these places they could make a decent living. They definitely weren't making it from the bum deals they were getting from the record labels.
Even in more recent times, the whole indie music scene of the 80's and 90's was built on the fact that the live shows were the most important thing enable you to sustain your career. I think it was Mike Watt of the Minutemen who said that the records were considered another form of flyer for the gig, a way to get people in the door when you were on tour. In my own experience with the Punk scene, my band definitely made more money playing shows (which certainly wasn't much) than we ever did off records or CD's (except when we sold records AT a show).