Obviously the music industry is to blame for its own demise. But what my initial posts were trying to ask is whether or not anyone thinks the music industry is *currently* adapting any better or making the right moves going forward. My understanding of the way the industry is working these days is basically that it has ceased to put any money into music until it is certified that it will be a hit. They are acting more or less like banks are these days - offering to lend you an umbrella once it's sunny outside. I don't think this will produce good music in the long term, nor will it help them regain their own hegemony. But that's just my 2 cents. I didn't want to rehash the "downloading is killing music!" "but it's the labels' faults!" argument. We've had it before and we all more or less agree.
Obviously the music industry is to blame for its own demise. But what my initial posts were trying to ask is whether or not anyone thinks the music industry is *currently* adapting any better or making the right moves going forward. My understanding of the way the industry is working these days is basically that it has ceased to put any money into music until it is certified that it will be a hit. They are acting more or less like banks are these days - offering to lend you an umbrella once it's sunny outside. I don't think this will produce good music in the long term, nor will it help them regain their own hegemony. But that's just my 2 cents. I didn't want to rehash the "downloading is killing music!" "but it's the labels' faults!" argument. We've had it before and we all more or less agree.
I don't think they are adapting well or making right moves. I imagine, in retrospect we may wax nostalgic about the good ol days of Justin Beiber and Susan Boyle.
What I think is positive now is what is coming out of local music scenes, like the one here in Portland. Any town that has clubs that encourage live original music will attract talented musicians and songwriters. The clubs give them a venue for expression and the internet gives them a way to market (social networks) and sell (cdbaby) their products. Today a local garage band* can sell downloads, or cds, or tapes or vinyl, all over the world. Their market may or may not be larger than a garage band of the 60s, but their fan base stretches much farther.
I have a friend in noise band that was big in the 80s. Their fans, largely united through the internet, recently financed a European tour and and elaborate box set. Being a noise band, most members continue to work their day jobs, but the fact that fans would underwrite and take the loses of a tour is impressive.
In towns that support live music, like Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis... musicians are making a living.
Another good turn of events, here in Portland at least, is that classical concerts are getting booked into rock clubs.
I agree with you it is a shame that great studios, producers, session musicians... are largely thing of the past.
*you can replace garage band with rap group, jazz band, whatever.
I think everyone can agree that the best musicians are often lousy businessmen, and the best businessmen often make lousy musicians, or know nothing at all about music.
I don't see how forcing musicians to be their own record labels, booking agents, managers, lawyers and A&Rs; is a good thing, or how it's going to lead to better music being made and heard.
I think everyone can agree that the best musicians are often lousy businessmen, and the best businessmen often make lousy musicians, or know nothing at all about music.
I don't see how forcing musicians to be their own record labels, booking agents, managers, lawyers and A&Rs; is a good thing, or how it's going to lead to better music being made and heard.
This is a really good point, and something I haven't really thought about before. The bottom line, after all: You want the musicians that make the music you love to be able to focus on doing just that.
On a side note, I always think it's weird checking out cd collections of people my age (25-30ish) - the latest cds are always from about 7-8 years ago. A few classics, a bunch of late 90s/early 00s bestsellers, and then... it just stops.
On a side note, I always think it's weird checking out cd collections of people my age (25-30ish) - the latest cds are always from about 7-8 years ago. A few classics, a bunch of late 90s/early 00s bestsellers, and then... it just stops.
Would u even call that a collectron?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
DOR said:
The remaining Beatles have stated they want they want their music in itunes.
The Beatles' record label Apple is to release material to download for the first time - but the music of the Fab Four will not be included.
Apple has remastered 15 albums, including Mary Hopkin's Post Card, to be released digitally and on CD.
The work of The Beatles has never been cleared for download, partly because of a trademark dispute with iTunes owner Apple.
Earlier this year, Sir Paul McCartney said "one day it's going to happen".
"To tell you the truth, I don't actually understand how it's got so crazy," Sir Paul told BBC Radio 1's Newsbeat.
"I know iTunes would like to do it, so one day it's going to happen."
He said the delay had been down to record company EMI, which distributes the music of The Beatles, adding: "There have been all sorts of reasons why they don't want to do it."
The remastered albums, which also include Sir John Tavener's The Whale and Badfinger's No Dice, will be released on CD and download sites, including iTunes, on 25 October.
Post Card, by Mary Hopkin, includes the 1968 hit Those Were The Days, produced by Sir Paul.
The band set up Apple in 1968 to release their own music and to sign artists they admired.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Jonny_Paycheck said:
I think everyone can agree that the best musicians are often lousy businessmen, and the best businessmen often make lousy musicians, or know nothing at all about music.
I don't see how forcing musicians to be their own record labels, booking agents, managers, lawyers and A&Rs; is a good thing, or how it's going to lead to better music being made and heard.
It isn't. It goes without saying that all musicians want to do is make music, and everything else is just stuff that gets in the way, which is why they hire managers, agents, drivers, roadcrew, etc. It's like I said earlier; musicians are forced to become hobbyists, because taking care of all the other shit (which needs to be taken care of) leaves them without the time and the resources to focus on what's most important to them. I've seen it happen to friends of mine, and it really slows a band down.
I will further concede that local scenes are nothing new, and none of the changes the industry is going through has made being a local act significantly more profitable than before. The big change is it is easier to promote yourself, and easier to build an international fan base, that will allow you to tour. But if you are playing small rooms at home, you will most likely be playing small rooms on your tour as well.
As I said before. I think itunes is ripe for competition.
I also think that the record labels that figure out how to function in this environment will be the next Blue Notes, Atlantic, Chess, Cameo, Mushroom, Sub Pop, SST, Sugar Hill, Bad Boys...
I think the majors are sitting on valuable assets (catalog) that they are ignoring and abusing. I think the major that figures out how to capitalize on their catalog will start to see money rolling in and will be back in the game.
BTW: The idea of majors selling directly to the public is not new. When I was a kid everyone was a member or record club, Capitol being one of the largest.
I think everyone can agree that the best musicians are often lousy businessmen, and the best businessmen often make lousy musicians, or know nothing at all about music.
I don't see how forcing musicians to be their own record labels, booking agents, managers, lawyers and A&Rs; is a good thing, or how it's going to lead to better music being made and heard.
True. But. The old system did not always, in fact you might say rarely, protected musicians who were lousy at business.
I think everyone can agree that the best musicians are often lousy businessmen, and the best businessmen often make lousy musicians, or know nothing at all about music.
I don't see how forcing musicians to be their own record labels, booking agents, managers, lawyers and A&Rs; is a good thing, or how it's going to lead to better music being made and heard.
True. But. The old system did not always, in fact you might say rarely, protected musicians who were lousy at business.
I think you're investing "lousy at business" with some meaning that it doesn't naturally connote. It's not a label's responsibility to protect an artist... but it is their job to promote them, to support them in their mutual business pursuits. Hiring a good lawyer is the other part, and that's never changed.
JP: Back to your original point, I'm in agreement with you to a point.
What we're seeing - at least for the time being - is the end of an era of "big" production funded by record labels. Because of their own poor business moves, they're now gunshy of throwing the kind of money that even middle-level artist could have commanded to help produce an album and that undoubtedly DOES suck if you're a fan of the kind of music that came out of that system.
Two things though:
1) Just because that style of high-production music isn't getting the same kind of funding doesn't mean "good" music is on the wane across the board. It just means one style of good music is.
2) It doesn't mean this era is permanently dead. I see the music industry in a similar way to how I see the news industry: both are being confronted with the destruction of their traditional model for generating profit. And until they can find a new system, it's going to be very lean years. BUT - the desire for high-quality content hasn't disappeared. People's consumption tastes - IMO - haven't radically shifted even if the model by which they access/consume that content has. Think about it - institutions that have been around for 100+ years have been decimated in less than 10. It's still early in their process of reconstitution and I have confidence there will be a new system to replace the old that can generate enough money to reverse the trend towards DIY-ism as the ONLY model for producing content (whether musical or news).
Will things look like they once did? Not structurally. I think there will be new priorities. But I don't think a reinvention means being stuck in a permanently lo-fi world of content. Things will circle back even if it won't look like we've "returned" anywhere recognizable to the past.
Will things look like they once did? Not structurally. I think there will be new priorities. But I don't think a reinvention means being stuck in a permanently lo-fi world of content. Things will circle back even if it won't look like we've "returned" anywhere recognizable to the past.
I think it's really interesting how the whole "home-cinema"-concept seems to have caught on way more than having, you know, a fairly decent system for playing music.
Will things look like they once did? Not structurally. I think there will be new priorities. But I don't think a reinvention means being stuck in a permanently lo-fi world of content. Things will circle back even if it won't look like we've "returned" anywhere recognizable to the past.
I think it's really interesting how the whole "home-cinema"-concept seems to have caught on way more than having, you know, a fairly decent system for playing music.
Funny, I'd never really thought about that till now. My first thought would be that most people probably listen to music while on the move (the car/mp3 player) far more than when they're at home and therefore don't really put so much emphasis on spending lots of money on a home system.
Will things look like they once did? Not structurally. I think there will be new priorities. But I don't think a reinvention means being stuck in a permanently lo-fi world of content. Things will circle back even if it won't look like we've "returned" anywhere recognizable to the past.
I think it's really interesting how the whole "home-cinema"-concept seems to have caught on way more than having, you know, a fairly decent system for playing music.
Funny, I'd never really thought about that till now. My first thought would be that most people probably listen to music while on the move (the car/mp3 player) far more than when they're at home and therefore don't really put so much emphasis on spending lots of money on a home system.
I think that has a lot to do with it - you'll always have your morning trip to work to listen to music, even if you aren't doing it when you get home.
On the other hand, people with too much money on their hands tend to want top-of-the-line-stuff, even if they barely have any time to enjoy it. You'll have your blu-ray player and 50 inch tv. I'm not sure if that consumer group is really interested in the whole hi-fi thing anymore. Or maybe they are, and I just don't know enough programming dudes who go home after a fifteen hour day and play air guitar to that new Dream Theatre joint.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
DOR said:
mannybolone said:
These are perfect examples of RIAA's inability to convincingly sell its policies or the ethical rational behind them.
Does it really cost around $5000 US a year to play the radio in your small biz in the UK?
Nope, not if you get the proper license, which will cost you a couple of hundred quid - a lot less than a fine, in any event. This isn't some chiseller's law which has just appeared out of thin air either. It's been in place in the UK for almost as long as recorded music has existed. I'd have a bit more sympathy for someone who found themselves on the wrong side of a legal requirement they weren't previously aware of if they hadn't ignored the succession of warning letters they'd have received before legal action commenced, which is what the piece Techdirt links to suggests this guy did.
As always, most of the people commenting on both stories don't have the faintest fucking idea what they're talking about. First of all, PPL isn't some anonymous private body. It's a not-for-profit organisation whose brief used to be to pay record companies a royalty for public broadcast of recordings. In about 2004 they began paying performers as well, something which had previously been the responsibility of the company I worked for at the turn of the decade. An EC directive which passed into law in 1998 had declared that performers were entitled to "fair and equitable remuneration" for their contributions. So, what they do now is make sure that anyone who's a PPL member, or of the organisations that were merged into PPL a few years ago - whether someone like, say, Amy Winehouse, or simply the session players on her records - gets paid for their contribution whenever a recording they perform on gets played in public.
And these people get paid directly as well - the money that PPL and their European equivalents collects doesn't get plundered for arbitrary admin costs and commission fees and is, in a lot of cases, the only income stream some performers have. If you're not the songwriter, you don't get publishing income. If you're not a signatory to the recording contract, you don't get record royalties. But if you're the guy who played the sax on Baker Street by Gerry Rafferty, for example, this is how you're rewarded for your contribution (which, in his case, was a pretty significant one). I know for a fact that a lot of musicians gained significant benefit from it. I used to get calls from the late Micky Waller, who played drums in The Jeff Beck Group amongst others, and was trying to see if he could get some money for having played on Rod Stewart's early solo albums, particularly things like Maggie May. He couldn't afford a phone at the time, so he used to have to call me from the pub (although there may have been other reasons for that), but to cut a long story short, we got him about nine grand in back royalties. If it had been a legal requirement to pay guys like him back when Maggie May was never off the radio, he'd have done very well indeed, but them's the breaks. At least he ended up with something after decades of being stiffed, and all thanks to those evil copyright laws. He sent me a Christmas card, too.
So far, the US industry has resisted setting up a similar body, so if you're an American recording artist or performer who enjoys considerable radio play in Europe, such as the Kings Of Leon or Kelis, you lose out on a lot of money. And it is a lot - there were actually session players who'd rock up at our office and ask the receptionist if there was anywhere they could park their Ferrari - no joke. They'd played on that many hits that, by the time the change in the law went through, their back payments ran into the high five-figures.
So far, the US industry has resisted setting up a similar body, so if you're an American recording artist or performer who enjoys considerable radio play in Europe, such as the Kings Of Leon or Kelis, you lose out on a lot of money. And it is a lot - there were actually session players who'd rock up at our office and ask the receptionist if there was anywhere they could park their Ferrari - no joke. They'd played on that many hits that, by the time the change in the law went through, their back payments ran into the high five-figures.
I said much the same earlier. US artists on this board really need to get behind the MusicFIRST coalition to get the law changed.
Also as a consequence of this, American artists who record in America are not entitled to the performer shares of UK (and elsewheres) airplay, they go back to the Record Company. This is why you get high profile artists, Your Britney Spears, Your Madonnas coming to record in qualifying territories, as the benefits to them are huge.
But I still think it's kinda silly needing a multiple licence to play the radio in your shop. It's not like the guy was trying not to pay. He just thought one would cover him. Could they not streamline the fees?
Are there licenses needed to read magazines & papers in a hairdressers???
Comments
I don't think they are adapting well or making right moves. I imagine, in retrospect we may wax nostalgic about the good ol days of Justin Beiber and Susan Boyle.
What I think is positive now is what is coming out of local music scenes, like the one here in Portland. Any town that has clubs that encourage live original music will attract talented musicians and songwriters. The clubs give them a venue for expression and the internet gives them a way to market (social networks) and sell (cdbaby) their products. Today a local garage band* can sell downloads, or cds, or tapes or vinyl, all over the world. Their market may or may not be larger than a garage band of the 60s, but their fan base stretches much farther.
I have a friend in noise band that was big in the 80s. Their fans, largely united through the internet, recently financed a European tour and and elaborate box set. Being a noise band, most members continue to work their day jobs, but the fact that fans would underwrite and take the loses of a tour is impressive.
In towns that support live music, like Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis... musicians are making a living.
Another good turn of events, here in Portland at least, is that classical concerts are getting booked into rock clubs.
I agree with you it is a shame that great studios, producers, session musicians... are largely thing of the past.
*you can replace garage band with rap group, jazz band, whatever.
And there is a tremendous difference between...
Musicians being able to perform
Musicians making a living performing
Musicians making a GOOD living performing.
I'm curious as to what the record is for sales of one title on CD Baby.
I don't see how forcing musicians to be their own record labels, booking agents, managers, lawyers and A&Rs; is a good thing, or how it's going to lead to better music being made and heard.
This is a really good point, and something I haven't really thought about before. The bottom line, after all: You want the musicians that make the music you love to be able to focus on doing just that.
On a side note, I always think it's weird checking out cd collections of people my age (25-30ish) - the latest cds are always from about 7-8 years ago. A few classics, a bunch of late 90s/early 00s bestsellers, and then... it just stops.
Would u even call that a collectron?
But not yet, though.
Beatles label Apple Records to release downloads
The Beatles' record label Apple is to release material to download for the first time - but the music of the Fab Four will not be included.
Apple has remastered 15 albums, including Mary Hopkin's Post Card, to be released digitally and on CD.
The work of The Beatles has never been cleared for download, partly because of a trademark dispute with iTunes owner Apple.
Earlier this year, Sir Paul McCartney said "one day it's going to happen".
"To tell you the truth, I don't actually understand how it's got so crazy," Sir Paul told BBC Radio 1's Newsbeat.
"I know iTunes would like to do it, so one day it's going to happen."
He said the delay had been down to record company EMI, which distributes the music of The Beatles, adding: "There have been all sorts of reasons why they don't want to do it."
The remastered albums, which also include Sir John Tavener's The Whale and Badfinger's No Dice, will be released on CD and download sites, including iTunes, on 25 October.
Post Card, by Mary Hopkin, includes the 1968 hit Those Were The Days, produced by Sir Paul.
The band set up Apple in 1968 to release their own music and to sign artists they admired.
It isn't. It goes without saying that all musicians want to do is make music, and everything else is just stuff that gets in the way, which is why they hire managers, agents, drivers, roadcrew, etc. It's like I said earlier; musicians are forced to become hobbyists, because taking care of all the other shit (which needs to be taken care of) leaves them without the time and the resources to focus on what's most important to them. I've seen it happen to friends of mine, and it really slows a band down.
I will further concede that local scenes are nothing new, and none of the changes the industry is going through has made being a local act significantly more profitable than before. The big change is it is easier to promote yourself, and easier to build an international fan base, that will allow you to tour. But if you are playing small rooms at home, you will most likely be playing small rooms on your tour as well.
As I said before. I think itunes is ripe for competition.
I also think that the record labels that figure out how to function in this environment will be the next Blue Notes, Atlantic, Chess, Cameo, Mushroom, Sub Pop, SST, Sugar Hill, Bad Boys...
I think the majors are sitting on valuable assets (catalog) that they are ignoring and abusing. I think the major that figures out how to capitalize on their catalog will start to see money rolling in and will be back in the game.
BTW: The idea of majors selling directly to the public is not new. When I was a kid everyone was a member or record club, Capitol being one of the largest.
True. But. The old system did not always, in fact you might say rarely, protected musicians who were lousy at business.
I think you're investing "lousy at business" with some meaning that it doesn't naturally connote. It's not a label's responsibility to protect an artist... but it is their job to promote them, to support them in their mutual business pursuits. Hiring a good lawyer is the other part, and that's never changed.
You could probably post examples for days really.
I was just reading this today.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100706/10570810083.shtml
Does it really cost around $5000 US a year to play the radio in your small biz in the UK?
What we're seeing - at least for the time being - is the end of an era of "big" production funded by record labels. Because of their own poor business moves, they're now gunshy of throwing the kind of money that even middle-level artist could have commanded to help produce an album and that undoubtedly DOES suck if you're a fan of the kind of music that came out of that system.
Two things though:
1) Just because that style of high-production music isn't getting the same kind of funding doesn't mean "good" music is on the wane across the board. It just means one style of good music is.
2) It doesn't mean this era is permanently dead. I see the music industry in a similar way to how I see the news industry: both are being confronted with the destruction of their traditional model for generating profit. And until they can find a new system, it's going to be very lean years. BUT - the desire for high-quality content hasn't disappeared. People's consumption tastes - IMO - haven't radically shifted even if the model by which they access/consume that content has. Think about it - institutions that have been around for 100+ years have been decimated in less than 10. It's still early in their process of reconstitution and I have confidence there will be a new system to replace the old that can generate enough money to reverse the trend towards DIY-ism as the ONLY model for producing content (whether musical or news).
Will things look like they once did? Not structurally. I think there will be new priorities. But I don't think a reinvention means being stuck in a permanently lo-fi world of content. Things will circle back even if it won't look like we've "returned" anywhere recognizable to the past.
Well no, from the article they link to in that story
'Both PRS and PPL licences cost in the region of ??200, depending on how many people will listen to the music played.'
Dude was aked to buy a licence, warned repeatedly what would happen if he didn't and got fined that large amount in court.
Heres the actual PPL tariffs for Hairdressers
http://www.ppluk.com/files/tariffs/PPLPP113.pdf
I think it's really interesting how the whole "home-cinema"-concept seems to have caught on way more than having, you know, a fairly decent system for playing music.
Funny, I'd never really thought about that till now. My first thought would be that most people probably listen to music while on the move (the car/mp3 player) far more than when they're at home and therefore don't really put so much emphasis on spending lots of money on a home system.
I think that has a lot to do with it - you'll always have your morning trip to work to listen to music, even if you aren't doing it when you get home.
On the other hand, people with too much money on their hands tend to want top-of-the-line-stuff, even if they barely have any time to enjoy it. You'll have your blu-ray player and 50 inch tv. I'm not sure if that consumer group is really interested in the whole hi-fi thing anymore. Or maybe they are, and I just don't know enough programming dudes who go home after a fifteen hour day and play air guitar to that new Dream Theatre joint.
Nope, not if you get the proper license, which will cost you a couple of hundred quid - a lot less than a fine, in any event. This isn't some chiseller's law which has just appeared out of thin air either. It's been in place in the UK for almost as long as recorded music has existed. I'd have a bit more sympathy for someone who found themselves on the wrong side of a legal requirement they weren't previously aware of if they hadn't ignored the succession of warning letters they'd have received before legal action commenced, which is what the piece Techdirt links to suggests this guy did.
As always, most of the people commenting on both stories don't have the faintest fucking idea what they're talking about. First of all, PPL isn't some anonymous private body. It's a not-for-profit organisation whose brief used to be to pay record companies a royalty for public broadcast of recordings. In about 2004 they began paying performers as well, something which had previously been the responsibility of the company I worked for at the turn of the decade. An EC directive which passed into law in 1998 had declared that performers were entitled to "fair and equitable remuneration" for their contributions. So, what they do now is make sure that anyone who's a PPL member, or of the organisations that were merged into PPL a few years ago - whether someone like, say, Amy Winehouse, or simply the session players on her records - gets paid for their contribution whenever a recording they perform on gets played in public.
And these people get paid directly as well - the money that PPL and their European equivalents collects doesn't get plundered for arbitrary admin costs and commission fees and is, in a lot of cases, the only income stream some performers have. If you're not the songwriter, you don't get publishing income. If you're not a signatory to the recording contract, you don't get record royalties. But if you're the guy who played the sax on Baker Street by Gerry Rafferty, for example, this is how you're rewarded for your contribution (which, in his case, was a pretty significant one). I know for a fact that a lot of musicians gained significant benefit from it. I used to get calls from the late Micky Waller, who played drums in The Jeff Beck Group amongst others, and was trying to see if he could get some money for having played on Rod Stewart's early solo albums, particularly things like Maggie May. He couldn't afford a phone at the time, so he used to have to call me from the pub (although there may have been other reasons for that), but to cut a long story short, we got him about nine grand in back royalties. If it had been a legal requirement to pay guys like him back when Maggie May was never off the radio, he'd have done very well indeed, but them's the breaks. At least he ended up with something after decades of being stiffed, and all thanks to those evil copyright laws. He sent me a Christmas card, too.
So far, the US industry has resisted setting up a similar body, so if you're an American recording artist or performer who enjoys considerable radio play in Europe, such as the Kings Of Leon or Kelis, you lose out on a lot of money. And it is a lot - there were actually session players who'd rock up at our office and ask the receptionist if there was anywhere they could park their Ferrari - no joke. They'd played on that many hits that, by the time the change in the law went through, their back payments ran into the high five-figures.
Thx for that. I misread it was the fine.
But I still think it's kinda silly needing a multiple licence to play the radio in your shop. It's not like the guy was trying not to pay. He just thought one would cover him. Could they not streamline the fees?
Are there licenses needed to read magazines & papers in a hairdressers???
These are my neighbors.....they are certain they are gonna make it BIG!