I'm not a gamer, but Steam may be even better than iTunes. Video game piracy has certainly been declining, no Christopher Dodd needed.
Another decent example of an industry figuring out what their customers are asking for and working towards filling a void.
I'm not suggesting its the 100% answer of what to do. But there are much better ways of decreasing people downloading than suing and going after potential customers is not it.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
The_Hook_Up said:
The industry needs to look at itself in finding the cause of their dwindling coffers.
I wouldn't dispute that for a second. It's always been my position that the industry has been largely the architect of its own decline. But even if you accept that, it doesn't alter the fact that, in the subsequent climate, a lot of people have emerged who've simply made a bad situation worse.
What I have a serious problem with is when those people refuse to accept that what they are doing hurts the artist - the person who always gets paid last and least, and often doesn't get paid at all if the label hasn't covered its costs. Everyone but the person doing the downloading is expected to adapt or die - "They can make their money from live shows!" (on a pay-to-play circuit?) "They can sell t-shirts!" (cheaply-made ones, maybe, but wait for the complaints about that).
There are people on every level of the industry (although maybe not so many at the very top) who have come to terms with the fact that the days of earning a lot of money from music are over, unless you happen to be ridiculously successful. But the idea that there's any sort of moral aspect involved in paying for something you take, as opposed to something you're given or offered, doesn't seem to occur to those doing the taking. They simply couldn't give a fuck. However wrong you think industry practices are (and there's a fuck of a lot wrong with them, always has been), the behaviour of this latest strain of parasite is only marginally less morally bankrupt. If some of them are now finding themselves on the wrong end of an assfucking, then that's too bad.
Radio broadcasts and cassette tapes allowed as many people to do exactly the same in the 'pre-digital' age.
No, they didn't, for precisely the reasons I outlined above. Tape-copying never represented anything like the same kind of threat to revenues, and in any event people were still happy to pay for music at that point. The whole problem with the modern equivalent - if you can even call it that - is the scale of it and the ease with which it takes place. Just as soon as people realised how easy it was, that was it. I could probably fill a 500GB external drive with illegally downloaded content within a month without ever spending a bean on something as anachronistic as a blank CD. I wouldn't even have to leave my chair.
Bunk. There were more illegally copied tapes floating around the world than there ever were legitimate 'official' copies of any popular recording. FACT.
DocMcCoy said:
Its well documented that the most avid of home tapers and downloaders spend the most money on movies and music - because they are the ones who care most about the content.
Well-documented by whom? The people who seek whatever moral justification they can find for downloading? I'm still waiting for some concrete proof as to how and why someone would go out and spend money on something they can get for nothing. I'm sure there are some people out there who treat downloading as an opportunity to try before they buy, and who delete anything they don't actually like from their hard drives, even with storage now being as cheap as dirt. But the idea that they represent any sort of majority, or that they all offset their downloading habits with hard cash in bricks-and-mortars stores, is ridiculous.
Not ridiculous. Rather, a cold, hard FACT.
People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of ??77 a year on music ??? ??33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly.
In fact piracy and the inability to profit off hard or soft copies are forcing artists to go out and perform to make money. quite a good development. I don't see any digital age movie or pop stars starving because of piracy either.
What you'll begin to see very very soon, if you're not seeing it already, is a steady decline in quality and diversity in just about every area of artistic endeavour. The big entertainment conglomerates will cleave even closer than ever to the safest of safe bets, and the folks who are in it for something other than the money will have to work harder than ever just to stay afloat; running their own labels, designing their own artwork, co-ordinating the manufacture of their own product, manning their own merch tables and mail order service, booking their own gigs, generating their own press coverage, squaring up to promoters who try to dick them out of their money, setting up and taking down their own backline, driving to and from gigs, etc., etc - all of which they'll have to do without the aid of tour support or recording/publishing advances. In between all that, they might find some time to write and record music. Who pays for the studio time? The mixing, the mastering, the additional musicians or technical/ancillary people you might need in order to make the music sound as good as you can possibly get it, rather than simply as good as you can afford? Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps it'll come from the sales of all those t-shirts that meant you had to leave half your gear at home so you could get them in the van. Some artists will see all of the above as a challenge. Others will think, fuck it, and stick to driving a truck. How big a loss that might turn out to be, we'll never know. Maybe in 20 years time, some of that unrealised potential will be the topic of a future Waxi/SS 5-pager. We won't be able to blame the industry for that, though.
The internet is making art bad? coughBULLSHITcough
DocMcCoy said:
In fact I'd like to read any story about any artist who was ruined by piracy.
Well, I'd like to read any story about any artist who's cool with it, who actively encourages the widespread distribution of their work and who would be perfectly happy with never earning a cent from from the sale of a CD or a legit download. I've read about artists who've benefitted from filesharing when they've been able to exercise some control over it, and that's fine - it seems to me that it's when they have no control over how, when or where it takes place, no means by which to measure the effects both positive and negative, that they begin to have a problem with it. And that's usually the point where some toerag will give them a lecture about how music should be free and they should create purely for the love, and if they don't do either then they're a fraud and a sellout and, y'know, I'm going to illegally download your album right now, just to piss you off, so how do you like that, huh?
Prattle. There isnt a single artist out there whose work is in reasonable demand but - OH NO - they cant make money because of downloading. Filesharing increases awareness of and popularity of the auteurs being fileshorn. Enabling them to get the papes. No record company needed.
All this talk about the industry losing money because of all this horrid piracy. Show me who these poor souls in the industry that are crying over losing money are, and ill show you a rich motherfucker who likes to eat babies. Piracy is not going to stop, copying is not going to stop. In the end, this is really about corporate control versus free and open sharing and communication.
What I have a serious problem with is when those people refuse to accept that what they are doing hurts the artist - the person who always gets paid last and least, and often doesn't get paid at all if the label hasn't covered its costs. Everyone but the person doing the downloading is expected to adapt or die - "They can make their money from live shows!" (on a pay-to-play circuit?) "They can sell t-shirts!" (cheaply-made ones, maybe, but wait for the complaints about that).
While I don't necessarily disagree with you. I only ask. Are people making more content now or less? Are more movies being made now or 20 years ago?
If we go by the idea that artist will stop creating because there is no money to be made. Where are the stats to back this?
If a major portion of society believes that downloading isn't wrong (And I think as younger generations come and go, the % of humans will go on with this idea). Who is the American entertainment industry to push US laws to everyone across the planet?
I'm not trying to take the piss. Just believe debate and discussions on subjects like this are important.
But consumers aren't stupid. Once people start to find out things like how Hollywood was created and the history behind it. Or how Disney created major portions of their IP. Or they read things like this...
They realize that there are major things wrong with copyright and a good portion of it doesn't benefit society or culture in any way shape or form.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Reynaldo said:
DocMcCoy said:
Well, I'd like to read any story about any artist who's cool with it, who actively encourages the widespread distribution of their work and who would be perfectly happy with never earning a cent from from the sale of a CD or a legit download.
Robin Pecknold of Fleet Foxes: "Music has no inherent cash value"
Even if the record label system went under due to piracy, upper-class and independently wealthy musicians/people would still be able to afford to record and tour, even if just for fun/love/vanity and a modest amount of money. Not every aspiring musician would have to choose between making music and making a living--only the financially insecure ones. That might be an interesting paradigm shift--back to a sort of patronage system.
Once people start to find out things like how Hollywood was created and the history behind it.
Pray tell.
??? related?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Reynaldo said:
Even if the record label system went under due to piracy, upper-class and independently wealthy musicians/people would still be able to afford to record and tour, even if just for fun/love/vanity and a modest amount of money. Not every aspiring musician would have to choose between making music and making a living--only the financially insecure ones. That might be an interesting paradigm shift--back to a sort of patronage system.
That could be exactly where we're heading, and it's something that's occurred to me before now. It's unlikely to go down well with those who take the position that music should be for the people, but since I personally think we're unlikely to see the colour of their money, let's not worry too much about them just yet.
This paradigm shift might lead to one set of consumers who can and will comfortably support the individually-numbered $150 bespoke box-set business model, while at another level you'll have the people who can afford to pay Taylor Swift more money for one private show than she'd earn in a year touring the nation's cowsheds and enormodomes, thus removing one of the main incentives for playing those places to begin with. Both methods would involve smaller audiences and/or access only for those with sufficient money to spend, but maybe some people consider that a suitable quid pro quo for bringing Megacorp Records (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Evil Megacorp Entertainment, Inc) to its knees. And, hey, if the studies say that all these music-for-the-people downloadin' fools already spend more money on music and entertainment than the people who, er, don't spend as much as them, then they're not going to have a problem dropping $150 on, say, a handmade limited edition of the new Bon Iver album, or $500 on a Taylor Swift live-in-your-living-room concert ticket for their kid's birthday. Being that they're the ones who care the most about that kind of thing.
I'm not a gamer, but Steam may be even better than iTunes. Video game piracy has certainly been declining, no Christopher Dodd needed.
Another decent example of an industry figuring out what their customers are asking for and working towards filling a void.
I'm not suggesting its the 100% answer of what to do. But there are much better ways of decreasing people downloading than suing and going after potential customers is not it.
Creative composers have found that their is money to made in video game soundtracks.
An example of artists finding a way to make a living in a rapidly changing market place with out selling t-shirts.
Even if the record label system went under due to piracy, upper-class and independently wealthy musicians/people would still be able to afford to record and tour, even if just for fun/love/vanity and a modest amount of money. Not every aspiring musician would have to choose between making music and making a living--only the financially insecure ones. That might be an interesting paradigm shift--back to a sort of patronage system.
That could be exactly where we're heading, and it's something that's occurred to me before now. It's unlikely to go down well with those who take the position that music should be for the people, but since I personally think we're unlikely to see the colour of their money, let's not worry too much about them just yet.
This paradigm shift might lead to one set of consumers who can and will comfortably support the individually-numbered $150 bespoke box-set business model, while at another level you'll have the people who can afford to pay Taylor Swift more money for one private show than she'd earn in a year touring the nation's cowsheds and enormodomes, thus removing one of the main incentives for playing those places to begin with. Both methods would involve smaller audiences and/or access only for those with sufficient money to spend, but maybe some people consider that a suitable quid pro quo for bringing Megacorp Records (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Evil Megacorp Entertainment, Inc) to its knees. And, hey, if the studies say that all these music-for-the-people downloadin' fools already spend more money on music and entertainment than the people who, er, don't spend as much as them, then they're not going to have a problem dropping $150 on, say, a handmade limited edition of the new Bon Iver album, or $500 on a Taylor Swift live-in-your-living-room concert ticket for their kid's birthday. Being that they're the ones who care the most about that kind of thing.
Once people start to find out things like how Hollywood was created and the history behind it.
Pray tell.
??? related?
KKK? No.
No Hollywood was pretty much set up in part as a way for studios to get away from copyright and patent laws of the holders on the East coast and of Europe. Studios didn't want to pay fees to Thomas Edison for example.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
LaserWolf said:
DOR said:
fauxteur said:
I'm not a gamer, but Steam may be even better than iTunes. Video game piracy has certainly been declining, no Christopher Dodd needed.
Another decent example of an industry figuring out what their customers are asking for and working towards filling a void.
I'm not suggesting its the 100% answer of what to do. But there are much better ways of decreasing people downloading than suing and going after potential customers is not it.
Creative composers have found that their is money to made in video game soundtracks.
An example of artists finding a way to make a living in a rapidly changing market place with out selling t-shirts.
Many of the composers making money via video game soundtracks are doing so because their record label or music publisher has pitched their music to the game companies. Sometimes the companies will seek out the artist directly and, if that artist is unsigned, and depending on how good their manager is (if they have a manager), the artist will often use the terms on offer as a means of landing some sort of label/publishing deal. If that structure disappears, then it's likely that only those artists prepared to spend as much time negotiating deals as they do making music are going to thrive. The actual creative aspect is reduced to a side hustle, almost.
I'm not a gamer, but Steam may be even better than iTunes. Video game piracy has certainly been declining, no Christopher Dodd needed.
Another decent example of an industry figuring out what their customers are asking for and working towards filling a void.
I'm not suggesting its the 100% answer of what to do. But there are much better ways of decreasing people downloading than suing and going after potential customers is not it.
Creative composers have found that their is money to made in video game soundtracks.
An example of artists finding a way to make a living in a rapidly changing market place with out selling t-shirts.
Many of the composers making money via video game soundtracks are doing so because their record label or music publisher has pitched their music to the game companies. Sometimes the companies will seek out the artist directly and, if that artist is unsigned, and depending on how good their manager is (if they have a manager), the artist will often use the terms on offer as a means of landing some sort of label/publishing deal. If that structure disappears, then it's likely that only those artists prepared to spend as much time negotiating deals as they do making music are going to thrive. The actual creative aspect is reduced to a side hustle, almost.
This must be why poor old Hans Zimmer is doing video game soundtracks.
I'm not a gamer, but Steam may be even better than iTunes. Video game piracy has certainly been declining, no Christopher Dodd needed.
Another decent example of an industry figuring out what their customers are asking for and working towards filling a void.
I'm not suggesting its the 100% answer of what to do. But there are much better ways of decreasing people downloading than suing and going after potential customers is not it.
Creative composers have found that their is money to made in video game soundtracks.
An example of artists finding a way to make a living in a rapidly changing market place with out selling t-shirts.
Many of the composers making money via video game soundtracks are doing so because their record label or music publisher has pitched their music to the game companies. Sometimes the companies will seek out the artist directly and, if that artist is unsigned, and depending on how good their manager is (if they have a manager), the artist will often use the terms on offer as a means of landing some sort of label/publishing deal. If that structure disappears, then it's likely that only those artists prepared to spend as much time negotiating deals as they do making music are going to thrive. The actual creative aspect is reduced to a side hustle, almost.
I'm guessing that's just one example of many that can made. Not the solving of the issue.
I would have used a better example of say something like VEVO (Which is a music industry reply to market conditions). Something the industry should have been working on years ago IMO. Which was suppose to be a marketing tool for labels, but turned into a device for labels to make some decent royalties (Something like $100 mill over 2 years or something like that).
You can still find your music videos to watch all over the net (sites like youtube or torrents, or whatever). Yet, $100 million was made off offering music video for free... While competing against a number of other free options.
I'm not a gamer, but Steam may be even better than iTunes. Video game piracy has certainly been declining, no Christopher Dodd needed.
Another decent example of an industry figuring out what their customers are asking for and working towards filling a void.
I'm not suggesting its the 100% answer of what to do. But there are much better ways of decreasing people downloading than suing and going after potential customers is not it.
Creative composers have found that their is money to made in video game soundtracks.
An example of artists finding a way to make a living in a rapidly changing market place with out selling t-shirts.
Many of the composers making money via video game soundtracks are doing so because their record label or music publisher has pitched their music to the game companies. Sometimes the companies will seek out the artist directly and, if that artist is unsigned, and depending on how good their manager is (if they have a manager), the artist will often use the terms on offer as a means of landing some sort of label/publishing deal. If that structure disappears, then it's likely that only those artists prepared to spend as much time negotiating deals as they do making music are going to thrive. The actual creative aspect is reduced to a side hustle, almost.
You have been setting up arguments which have been knocked down one by one.
This argument, which you have made numerous times [artists must; tour, sell t-shirts, sign records, negotiate deals], suggests that in the past musicians used to sit in a room producing music protected from the outside world by the BRAVE RECORD COMPANIES who insulated them from the horrible world of commerce. Never happened.
Back before the internet, Nirvana toured, sold t-shirts and made deals, as did Springsteen before them, Rolling Stones before them, Elvis before them, Frank Sinatra (no t-shirts but lots of deals) before them, Duke Ellington, Cole Porter, Caruso, Stravinsky and Mozart.
It's just a stupid argument, so please stop.
Today musicians have to find a way to make a living. Yesterday musicians had to find a way to make a living. Tomorrow musicians will have to find a way to make a living. In the past (as in the present and the future) those musicians who's art is so great they can't be bothered to engage in commerce will starve. Thus the old fashioned saying Starving Artist.
The music that many of us dig for....the literally thousands of 45's and LP's that "flopped".....many of them musically superior to the "hits" of the day....would have never been recorded, nor released if not for the record labels....a chunk of the money that Capitol made on acts like the Beatles and Beach Boys was reinvested in recording and distributing the music of artists that we otherwise would have never gotten to hear on a national level.
You can argue that top level commercial pablum artists would succeed with or without a record label, but it's those second and third tier acts that would have suffered, and luckily didn't.
Right. Because nobody finds success today without major label support... And no artist are willing to create today because there is no money to be made...
I'm willing to bet Youtube (Just one company) has done more for struggling music artist in 7 years it's been around. Than major labels have in the last 20.
Right. Because nobody finds success today without major label support...
I'm willing to bet Youtube (Just one company) has done more for struggling music artist in 7 years it's been around. Than major labels have in the last 20.
No, what's happened is the major labels have narrowed their focus and the gap between the Lady Gaga's and the artists we'll never hear because they are lost in a sea of lousy self promotion and poor marketing skills has widened.
I attended a Warner Brothers sales meeting a few years ago and they made it very clear that they were marketing to 13 year old girls because A) Their parents would buy the music for them and B) They weren't downloading stuff for free.
If that's a good thing for the music lover/consumer I fail to see how.
Right. Because nobody finds success today without major label support...
I'm willing to bet Youtube (Just one company) has done more for struggling music artist in 7 years it's been around. Than major labels have in the last 20.
No, what's happened is the major labels have narrowed their focus and the gap between the Lady Gaga's and the artists we'll never hear because they are lost in a sea of lousy self promotion and poor marketing skills has widened.
I attended a Warner Brothers sales meeting a few years ago and they made it very clear that they were marketing to 13 year old girls because A) Their parents would buy the music for them and B) They weren't downloading stuff for free.
If that's a good thing for the music lover/consumer I fail to see how.
Why were the Beatles, Monkees, Bobby Sherman, Osmonds, Little Eva, Ricky Nelson and Kiss Marketed to 13yo girls?
those musicians whose fans can't be bothered to engage in commerce will starve. Thus the old fashioned saying Starving Artist.
True. Which is why classical musicians depend on charitable donations to symphonies, symphonic halls and other institutions.
There simply are not enough classical music fans willing to buy recordings and tickets and t-shirts to support classical music.
Right. Because nobody finds success today without major label support...
I'm willing to bet Youtube (Just one company) has done more for struggling music artist in 7 years it's been around. Than major labels have in the last 20.
No, what's happened is the major labels have narrowed their focus and the gap between the Lady Gaga's and the artists we'll never hear because they are lost in a sea of lousy self promotion and poor marketing skills has widened.
I attended a Warner Brothers sales meeting a few years ago and they made it very clear that they were marketing to 13 year old girls because A) Their parents would buy the music for them and B) They weren't downloading stuff for free.
If that's a good thing for the music lover/consumer I fail to see how.
Why were the Beatles, Monkees, Bobby Sherman, Osmonds, Little Eva, Ricky Nelson and Kiss Marketed to 13yo girls?
That's easy....because 13 year old girls were the only ones who bought records in the 60's.....everyone else stole their records from the local record shop.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Rockadelic said:
DOR said:
Right. Because nobody finds success today without major label support...
I'm willing to bet Youtube (Just one company) has done more for struggling music artist in 7 years it's been around. Than major labels have in the last 20.
No, what's happened is the major labels have narrowed their focus and the gap between the Lady Gaga's and the artists we'll never hear because they are lost in a sea of lousy self promotion and poor marketing skills has widened.
I attended a Warner Brothers sales meeting a few years ago and they made it very clear that they were marketing to 13 year old girls because A) Their parents would buy the music for them and B) They weren't downloading stuff for free.
If that's a good thing for the music lover/consumer I fail to see how.
Some of my favourite releases in 2011 were from young artists who have quite happily put their music online for free download. How do they fit into the failing music industry? Chances are I wouldn't be aware of most of them if it wasn't for the internet, which makes it's so easy for them to self publicise, and has made a percentage of the music industry wholly redundant.
They're still making money. I've paid for non free releases when they've put them up on bandcamp. I bought the physical product when Type released the Clams Casino instrumentals. Just to give him my patronage so to speak, I had no reason to buy it, as he put up the remastered, high quality, mp3s for free download on his twitter. How does all that fit into the, death of the music industry = death of independent music & creativity.
-
Away from music. I have also happily downloaded pirated tv shows. The UK ones, well I pay a licence fee so I am entitled to that shit anyway. I'm just choosing the way I want to consume it.
But American tv is slightly different. Take SS favourite The Wire for instance. We don't get HBO over here, so I would've had to wait for ever for this show to be aired, and you can guarantee it will be on at some inconvenient hour in the middle of the night. Or I could just download it from megaupload, and watch it ad free, at my leisure.
I now legally own the entire thing in DVD boxset form. And hopefully most of the money I paid for it will go to the people responsible for its creation, rather than some third party I have no interest in bankrolling.
Which leads me on nicely to one of my other favourite HBO shows, Game of Thrones. Now this did get picked up quickly by a UK broadcaster and shown only days after the US air time. Unfortunately it was only available to me if I'd spent hundreds of ??s on a new tv system with hundreds of channels I'm not interested in. It also doesn't help that said system is owned by Rupert Murdoch and I'd rather not give him a penny of my money.
No thanks. I'd much rather download it illegally, watch it when I choose, ad free, without putting money in the pocket of our evil over lord. Then buy the DVD / Blurays when they finally get released.
It's a wholly backward way of doing things really. But the industry is too sluggish or straight scared to truly update their system of delivery to consumers.
If you look at what Louis CK did with his latest Live release, which he produced, marketed and sold himself through his website, DRM free. It is quite possible for artists - like Radiohead have shown in the music industry previously - to do well financially without the aid of an antiquated industry leaching off them.
On December 21, 2011, C.K. appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon where he provided an extensive recounting of the special: C.K. said that 220,000 people had bought the show, providing a gross of $1.1 million. With the proceeds, C.K. said that he reimbursed his company $250,000 for production costs, gave $250,000 in bonuses to those who work for him, donated $280,000 to a mix of charities, and will use the remaining $220,000 to buy himself an additional penis ("I'm keeping the old one...I'm gonna have an old one and a new one, right there. It's gonna be nice.").
Right. Because nobody finds success today without major label support...
I'm willing to bet Youtube (Just one company) has done more for struggling music artist in 7 years it's been around. Than major labels have in the last 20.
No, what's happened is the major labels have narrowed their focus and the gap between the Lady Gaga's and the artists we'll never hear because they are lost in a sea of lousy self promotion and poor marketing skills has widened.
I attended a Warner Brothers sales meeting a few years ago and they made it very clear that they were marketing to 13 year old girls because A) Their parents would buy the music for them and B) They weren't downloading stuff for free.
If that's a good thing for the music lover/consumer I fail to see how.
THIS x a million.
I'm not sure why. Rocks original point was that because labels made money off bigger selling artist, they were able to support many artist who made better music which never sold well in many case.
One could easily make the argument that labels were able to put money into artist development because they took advantage of a sizable portion of their artist with shady deals. Only to discard anyone which didn't work out for them. In many cases, using things like recouping promotion and marketing (Which were inflated) cost from artist to make sure they were right fucked and in many ways, not making any serious money even if their music sold decent numbers. All the while owning their creative works in many cases.
The fact that you would sit in on a WB sales meeting a couple of years ago and think you would get any decent idea's or information doesn't surprise me what so ever.
But I still stand by my point. Anyone who thinks the Internet doesn't make a much bigger impact on music artist on a whole and their ability to create over what labels have been able to offer is IMO wrong. And the impact will only grow.
I'm willing to bet in 20 years, people will laugh when they think back and reflect on how the sky was falling with downloading. Much like when most technology advancements came in the past 100 year and industry at first refused to embrace and fought it for many years refusing to adapt and advance. Whether it was radio, television, the VCR etc etc etc.
Jack Valenti once said in testimony to the House of Representatives "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Is there anyone on the planet that would agree with that statement today? It was a crazy statement in those days. I'm not even sure how you can properly describe the statement today.
Some of my favourite releases in 2011 were from young artists who have quite happily put their music online for free download. How do they fit into the failing music industry? Chances are I wouldn't be aware of most of them if it wasn't for the internet, which makes it's so easy for them to self publicise, and has made a percentage of the music industry wholly redundant.
They're still making money. I've paid for non free releases when they've put them up on bandcamp. I bought the physical product when Type released the Clams Casino instrumentals. Just to give him my patronage so to speak, I had no reason to buy it, as he put up the remastered, high quality, mp3s for free download on his twitter. How does all that fit into the, death of the music industry = death of independent music & creativity.
Yep this in a nutshell for me. Any bedroom artist can distribute their music globally within five minutes of recording it so for me we're in an exact opposite situation of smaller artists getting lost. Even those who have signed to major labels and then been suffocated are now able to release music themselves (e.g. recent Wiley twitter activity). I think the argument only works if you assume that people still only read about and buy music from major labels when, in my experience, people are far more savy these days about hunting out music they're interested in themselves and even national radio shows mix up their playlists between the big releases and independent artists.
No, what's happened is the major labels have narrowed their focus and the gap between the Lady Gaga's and the artists we'll never hear because they are lost in a sea of lousy self promotion and poor marketing skills has widened.
Really - the argument that niche acts, artists with less wide or commercial appeal and or obscure music are going to evaporate and we'll only be left with major label dross because of filesharing/piracy is complete BS. It just simply isn't true. In fact there are more and more indie acts finding their own audience without major label deals and promotion than ever before, precisely because of the record companies dwindling power. One need only look at the new music and rap youre liking threads on the strut to see evidence of more and more indie acts finding an audience without major label or radio support.
The idea that walking into a virgin megastore or visiting the itunes homepage are the best ways to discover new music or really finding whats out there is a joke.
Think about it - you're actually arguing that mass sharing and dissemination of music independent of corporations controlling the selection of acts, their distribution and promotion is bad for music. What?
Even a huge major label artist like Shakira has gone on record stating filesharing brings her and her audience closer together.
Comments
Another decent example of an industry figuring out what their customers are asking for and working towards filling a void.
I'm not suggesting its the 100% answer of what to do. But there are much better ways of decreasing people downloading than suing and going after potential customers is not it.
I wouldn't dispute that for a second. It's always been my position that the industry has been largely the architect of its own decline. But even if you accept that, it doesn't alter the fact that, in the subsequent climate, a lot of people have emerged who've simply made a bad situation worse.
What I have a serious problem with is when those people refuse to accept that what they are doing hurts the artist - the person who always gets paid last and least, and often doesn't get paid at all if the label hasn't covered its costs. Everyone but the person doing the downloading is expected to adapt or die - "They can make their money from live shows!" (on a pay-to-play circuit?) "They can sell t-shirts!" (cheaply-made ones, maybe, but wait for the complaints about that).
There are people on every level of the industry (although maybe not so many at the very top) who have come to terms with the fact that the days of earning a lot of money from music are over, unless you happen to be ridiculously successful. But the idea that there's any sort of moral aspect involved in paying for something you take, as opposed to something you're given or offered, doesn't seem to occur to those doing the taking. They simply couldn't give a fuck. However wrong you think industry practices are (and there's a fuck of a lot wrong with them, always has been), the behaviour of this latest strain of parasite is only marginally less morally bankrupt. If some of them are now finding themselves on the wrong end of an assfucking, then that's too bad.
Bunk. There were more illegally copied tapes floating around the world than there ever were legitimate 'official' copies of any popular recording. FACT.
Not ridiculous. Rather, a cold, hard FACT.
Just one of many studies
The internet is making art bad? coughBULLSHITcough
Prattle. There isnt a single artist out there whose work is in reasonable demand but - OH NO - they cant make money because of downloading. Filesharing increases awareness of and popularity of the auteurs being fileshorn. Enabling them to get the papes. No record company needed.
All this talk about the industry losing money because of all this horrid piracy. Show me who these poor souls in the industry that are crying over losing money are, and ill show you a rich motherfucker who likes to eat babies. Piracy is not going to stop, copying is not going to stop. In the end, this is really about corporate control versus free and open sharing and communication.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you. I only ask. Are people making more content now or less? Are more movies being made now or 20 years ago?
If we go by the idea that artist will stop creating because there is no money to be made. Where are the stats to back this?
If a major portion of society believes that downloading isn't wrong (And I think as younger generations come and go, the % of humans will go on with this idea). Who is the American entertainment industry to push US laws to everyone across the planet?
I'm not trying to take the piss. Just believe debate and discussions on subjects like this are important.
But consumers aren't stupid. Once people start to find out things like how Hollywood was created and the history behind it. Or how Disney created major portions of their IP. Or they read things like this...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
They realize that there are major things wrong with copyright and a good portion of it doesn't benefit society or culture in any way shape or form.
Does he mean that in a literal sense, or in an abstract one? Because I bet he still cashes his royalty cheques.
??? related?
That could be exactly where we're heading, and it's something that's occurred to me before now. It's unlikely to go down well with those who take the position that music should be for the people, but since I personally think we're unlikely to see the colour of their money, let's not worry too much about them just yet.
This paradigm shift might lead to one set of consumers who can and will comfortably support the individually-numbered $150 bespoke box-set business model, while at another level you'll have the people who can afford to pay Taylor Swift more money for one private show than she'd earn in a year touring the nation's cowsheds and enormodomes, thus removing one of the main incentives for playing those places to begin with. Both methods would involve smaller audiences and/or access only for those with sufficient money to spend, but maybe some people consider that a suitable quid pro quo for bringing Megacorp Records (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Evil Megacorp Entertainment, Inc) to its knees. And, hey, if the studies say that all these music-for-the-people downloadin' fools already spend more money on music and entertainment than the people who, er, don't spend as much as them, then they're not going to have a problem dropping $150 on, say, a handmade limited edition of the new Bon Iver album, or $500 on a Taylor Swift live-in-your-living-room concert ticket for their kid's birthday. Being that they're the ones who care the most about that kind of thing.
Creative composers have found that their is money to made in video game soundtracks.
An example of artists finding a way to make a living in a rapidly changing market place with out selling t-shirts.
...
KKK? No.
No Hollywood was pretty much set up in part as a way for studios to get away from copyright and patent laws of the holders on the East coast and of Europe. Studios didn't want to pay fees to Thomas Edison for example.
Many of the composers making money via video game soundtracks are doing so because their record label or music publisher has pitched their music to the game companies. Sometimes the companies will seek out the artist directly and, if that artist is unsigned, and depending on how good their manager is (if they have a manager), the artist will often use the terms on offer as a means of landing some sort of label/publishing deal. If that structure disappears, then it's likely that only those artists prepared to spend as much time negotiating deals as they do making music are going to thrive. The actual creative aspect is reduced to a side hustle, almost.
This must be why poor old Hans Zimmer is doing video game soundtracks.
I'm guessing that's just one example of many that can made. Not the solving of the issue.
I would have used a better example of say something like VEVO (Which is a music industry reply to market conditions). Something the industry should have been working on years ago IMO. Which was suppose to be a marketing tool for labels, but turned into a device for labels to make some decent royalties (Something like $100 mill over 2 years or something like that).
You can still find your music videos to watch all over the net (sites like youtube or torrents, or whatever). Yet, $100 million was made off offering music video for free... While competing against a number of other free options.
Why I Stopped Pirating Video Games
You have been setting up arguments which have been knocked down one by one.
This argument, which you have made numerous times [artists must; tour, sell t-shirts, sign records, negotiate deals], suggests that in the past musicians used to sit in a room producing music protected from the outside world by the BRAVE RECORD COMPANIES who insulated them from the horrible world of commerce. Never happened.
Back before the internet, Nirvana toured, sold t-shirts and made deals, as did Springsteen before them, Rolling Stones before them, Elvis before them, Frank Sinatra (no t-shirts but lots of deals) before them, Duke Ellington, Cole Porter, Caruso, Stravinsky and Mozart.
It's just a stupid argument, so please stop.
Today musicians have to find a way to make a living. Yesterday musicians had to find a way to make a living. Tomorrow musicians will have to find a way to make a living. In the past (as in the present and the future) those musicians who's art is so great they can't be bothered to engage in commerce will starve. Thus the old fashioned saying Starving Artist.
You can argue that top level commercial pablum artists would succeed with or without a record label, but it's those second and third tier acts that would have suffered, and luckily didn't.
I'm willing to bet Youtube (Just one company) has done more for struggling music artist in 7 years it's been around. Than major labels have in the last 20.
No, what's happened is the major labels have narrowed their focus and the gap between the Lady Gaga's and the artists we'll never hear because they are lost in a sea of lousy self promotion and poor marketing skills has widened.
I attended a Warner Brothers sales meeting a few years ago and they made it very clear that they were marketing to 13 year old girls because A) Their parents would buy the music for them and B) They weren't downloading stuff for free.
If that's a good thing for the music lover/consumer I fail to see how.
Why were the Beatles, Monkees, Bobby Sherman, Osmonds, Little Eva, Ricky Nelson and Kiss Marketed to 13yo girls?
True. Which is why classical musicians depend on charitable donations to symphonies, symphonic halls and other institutions.
There simply are not enough classical music fans willing to buy recordings and tickets and t-shirts to support classical music.
That's easy....because 13 year old girls were the only ones who bought records in the 60's.....everyone else stole their records from the local record shop.
THIS x a million.
They're still making money. I've paid for non free releases when they've put them up on bandcamp. I bought the physical product when Type released the Clams Casino instrumentals. Just to give him my patronage so to speak, I had no reason to buy it, as he put up the remastered, high quality, mp3s for free download on his twitter. How does all that fit into the, death of the music industry = death of independent music & creativity.
-
Away from music. I have also happily downloaded pirated tv shows. The UK ones, well I pay a licence fee so I am entitled to that shit anyway. I'm just choosing the way I want to consume it.
But American tv is slightly different. Take SS favourite The Wire for instance. We don't get HBO over here, so I would've had to wait for ever for this show to be aired, and you can guarantee it will be on at some inconvenient hour in the middle of the night. Or I could just download it from megaupload, and watch it ad free, at my leisure.
I now legally own the entire thing in DVD boxset form. And hopefully most of the money I paid for it will go to the people responsible for its creation, rather than some third party I have no interest in bankrolling.
Which leads me on nicely to one of my other favourite HBO shows, Game of Thrones. Now this did get picked up quickly by a UK broadcaster and shown only days after the US air time. Unfortunately it was only available to me if I'd spent hundreds of ??s on a new tv system with hundreds of channels I'm not interested in. It also doesn't help that said system is owned by Rupert Murdoch and I'd rather not give him a penny of my money.
No thanks. I'd much rather download it illegally, watch it when I choose, ad free, without putting money in the pocket of our evil over lord. Then buy the DVD / Blurays when they finally get released.
It's a wholly backward way of doing things really. But the industry is too sluggish or straight scared to truly update their system of delivery to consumers.
If you look at what Louis CK did with his latest Live release, which he produced, marketed and sold himself through his website, DRM free. It is quite possible for artists - like Radiohead have shown in the music industry previously - to do well financially without the aid of an antiquated industry leaching off them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_at_the_Beacon_Theater
I'm not sure why. Rocks original point was that because labels made money off bigger selling artist, they were able to support many artist who made better music which never sold well in many case.
One could easily make the argument that labels were able to put money into artist development because they took advantage of a sizable portion of their artist with shady deals. Only to discard anyone which didn't work out for them. In many cases, using things like recouping promotion and marketing (Which were inflated) cost from artist to make sure they were right fucked and in many ways, not making any serious money even if their music sold decent numbers. All the while owning their creative works in many cases.
The fact that you would sit in on a WB sales meeting a couple of years ago and think you would get any decent idea's or information doesn't surprise me what so ever.
But I still stand by my point. Anyone who thinks the Internet doesn't make a much bigger impact on music artist on a whole and their ability to create over what labels have been able to offer is IMO wrong. And the impact will only grow.
I'm willing to bet in 20 years, people will laugh when they think back and reflect on how the sky was falling with downloading. Much like when most technology advancements came in the past 100 year and industry at first refused to embrace and fought it for many years refusing to adapt and advance. Whether it was radio, television, the VCR etc etc etc.
Jack Valenti once said in testimony to the House of Representatives "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Is there anyone on the planet that would agree with that statement today? It was a crazy statement in those days. I'm not even sure how you can properly describe the statement today.
Yep this in a nutshell for me. Any bedroom artist can distribute their music globally within five minutes of recording it so for me we're in an exact opposite situation of smaller artists getting lost. Even those who have signed to major labels and then been suffocated are now able to release music themselves (e.g. recent Wiley twitter activity). I think the argument only works if you assume that people still only read about and buy music from major labels when, in my experience, people are far more savy these days about hunting out music they're interested in themselves and even national radio shows mix up their playlists between the big releases and independent artists.
Really - the argument that niche acts, artists with less wide or commercial appeal and or obscure music are going to evaporate and we'll only be left with major label dross because of filesharing/piracy is complete BS. It just simply isn't true. In fact there are more and more indie acts finding their own audience without major label deals and promotion than ever before, precisely because of the record companies dwindling power. One need only look at the new music and rap youre liking threads on the strut to see evidence of more and more indie acts finding an audience without major label or radio support.
The idea that walking into a virgin megastore or visiting the itunes homepage are the best ways to discover new music or really finding whats out there is a joke.
Think about it - you're actually arguing that mass sharing and dissemination of music independent of corporations controlling the selection of acts, their distribution and promotion is bad for music. What?
Even a huge major label artist like Shakira has gone on record stating filesharing brings her and her audience closer together.
http://meegaupload.net/