Slashdot Mirror

It is. It's called Righteous Babe records.

Or, if you don't sign with a major, both.

Righteous Babe, Ani's label, now carries other artists as well. She has indeed shown that you can do it the "right way" and still be successful.

Of course (and this is just my opinion), being an incredibly talented musician also helped her early on. A -lot- of people heard about her from people who had seen her perform. If you haven't had the opportunity, I recommend it.

Righteous Babe, Ani's label, now carries other artists as well. She has indeed shown that you can do it the "right way" and still be successful.

Of course (and this is just my opinion), being an incredibly talented musician also helped her early on. A -lot- of people heard about her from people who had seen her perform. If you haven't had the opportunity, I recommend it.

One example of an indie game that's turning out to be a very good product is "Live For Speed". They're keeping it as an independent product, and seem to be doing OK. I don't know what their sales figures are, but based on the # of online players, it can't be too bad.

I find it amusing when people make a big fuss about not being able to go indie - when others just do it.

p.s. Anyone remember Doom?

I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of the artists that the RIAA "represents" are against this whole "let's sue our fans" thing. Michael Jackson spoke out and denounced the RIAA's actions, yet I remember seeing several of his songs listed

I'm just shocked to see Green Day on that list.

IANAT (I Am Not A Teenager) but I seem to remember them being relatively left-wing/anti-corporate, didn't they speak out against this bullshit too?

It looks to me as if the RIAA are deliberately including the work of objecting artists in their "relatively short list of files", perhaps as a PR defense against those artists making further noise i.e. the RIAA will be able to say "but look, we've caught all these who actually downloaded your work, we are merely your servants protecting your interests, attacking us is hypocritical".

Or perhaps the RIAA is playing an elaborate game of chicken, daring artists to stick their necks all the way out. Very few artists with a contract really want to risk losing corporate patronage, not even Michael Jackson. There is at least one artist with real balls that I know of who made sure to stay clear from all that bullshit right from the beginning, hopefully we'll see more of that independent artistic spirit re-awaking in the wake of Enron etc.

...the grandparent poster used the word gal, not girl.
Gal simply means female, but connotes maturity (to me at least).

Also, is Ani DiFranco the gal in question?

I realize that a talented producer can cost a lot of money and some bands drink a lot of beer, but why aren't the benefits of lower production costs being passed on to the consumer?

This opens up a bigger can of worms than just wanna-be home music-producing-armchair musicians with a PC and dumbed-down software. Sure, anyone can buy protools, record some tracks in their basement, and mix an album (albeit amateur) and burn a few CDs for their friends. But this absolutely doesn't take the place of a well-trained, well- connected producer established in the industry. Unfortunately very few who produce their own make into the big leagues, but those who have, have done it quite well. But then again, those musicians are in the slim minority.

If you've taken a look at the music industry (trust me, I'm in it) lately, the money doesn't end up in the hands of the musicians, nor the producers (but they're not doing bad, mind you, if you hit the big time) but lining the pockets of the major labels. Remember, artists pay for their studio time and mixing and post-production, not the labels, who mass produce and market the albums once they are released. Besides, production isn't the major cost associated with an album's success- it's the marketing done by a major label.

• Sued Napster into oblivion
• Deprived Napster(and its shareholders) a chance to compete in the marketplace
• Accused me (and probably you) of being a criminal
• Settle lawsuits that accused them of price fixing
• Given so little back to their artists that it's almost impossible to survive in the business
• Paid radio station to play only what they want me to hear

of adjustment that is already occurring in the industry. Here's another. Ani Defranco who I'd never have listened to if it weren't for P2P went around the system. She wasn't loud about it - more matter of fact. She has a loyal fan base and her own label where you can buy her tunes directly (think she makes more per album?).

And yes, I turned my swiped sound into solid support - (I bought the album).

"The fact is that publishers of art, specifically musicians need more than an inexpensive distribution channel. They need two other things, talent and, more so, marketing."

This is at least interesting. It's been a while since I've heard someone on /. who cared about what the publishers needed. If you ask me, they need to stop screwing the talent.

"For the past 5 to 10 years musicians have had the ability to publish and distribute their productions at a very low cost. Yet, there has yet to be a single artist who has achieved wide-spread popularity or fame through these channels."

This portion of the poster's argument just isn't true. For one thing, this has been the case for more than ten years. Remember selling tapes out of your trunk? And for another, artists as diverse as Ani DiFranco, the Dead Kennedys and N.W.A. have ridden independently-produced records to fame and... a modicum of financial stability.

In short, there are costs associated with all kinds of aspects of the project, and there's no way that we will experience $revenue == $profit.

People sign with record labels because they can't afford to do it on their own. We are fortunate enough to be able to afford to do the first album on our own without getting into too much debt, since I have a pretty good nerdly job and my wife also teaches.

The name of the game right now is to:

1. Release the CD.
2. Publicize the disc by marketing it to people who can get it on the air, etc.
3. Start getting gigs.
4. Develop a fan base.
5. Pay off expenses
6. Hopefully make enough to pay for another album.

Middlemen can be really helpful, even downright necessary. They help you get your work out to people that will pay you. The real trick is to maintain control of your art, and these days the costs associated with producing your own album are not as high as the costs of selling out to a big label.

I'm pretty sure that Kristen would be very interested in signing up with an indie label like Ani Difranco's righteous babe records", since it would mean getting a fair deal and getting the music out there easier.

So don't be so closed-minded about who gets the money and how. Just because some businesses are evil, it doesn't follow that all business arrangements are bad. And I certainly hope that you don't boycott or rationalize copyright violations just because you find some minor detail about an artist's distribution choices.

Besides, if you can't afford 75 cents to download a song, you've got worse problems. Maybe you should consider selling your computer to help pay the bills. It's about the same price as a candy bar, for crying out loud!

self evident - ani difranco

Ani has her own Indie record label Righteous Babe Records if you check out the "artists" link, they have several people signed now.

I don't know the #'s, but Ani is often cited as an Indie label sucess story. And her music kicks ass. And her concerts kick ass too.

-dc

She even does things like put *full* sample tracks on her website. *gasp*

And her sales and profits climb...

And her music continues to be her own...

And her music continues to kick ass.

Are you reading, RIAA?

I hope more artists sign up for this.

Hell, I don't want my favorite artists distracting themselves with this business bullshit, unless being a fighter is part of what they already are, like Ani diFranco or Courtney Love. Life is too short, time too scarce for the few genuinely talented artists we have to go running off on tangents.

This is a battle that we, the consumers, should be fighting. If we decide, en masse, not to play the RIAA's game, what the Hell can they do.

Can I suggest that PeerCast (as discussed on /. earlier) is a very good place to start.

And, remember, if we really want to stop these bastards shagging us, we must always remember that our participation in P2P has to be about growing a new, fairer system, not just getting our hands on free stuff.

If you buy certain CDRs you pay a bit of a fee to the RIAA, too (although, I doubt the artists benefit from this).

I've only had to repurchase two CDs (because I loaned them out foolishly) but I am still listening to some cassettes just because I don't want to spend the money on a CD.

I think some of the ideas presented above are REALLY good but like you said: only in a perfect world. I think the setup costs (both in time and money) for a media distribution system would be too great for the RIAA. (Of course, how many millions are they paying lawyers right now?!) This also means that the RIAA has to CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL slightly. Imagine that...

I'd like to see some smaller, independent labels go this route (like Righteous Babe Records). Perhaps the rest of the industry would catch on (or catch up... hehe).

But do we really believe that the small independent producers have some secret to making money that the Big Bad Studios haven't thought of?

Not under the current system, because the big content providers have successfully saturated the market with flashy, big-budget films while at the same time conditioning people to think movie budget = movie quality. As a result, smaller films don't have a chance: less press, less distribution, no exposure at the growing number of N-plex super cinemas which show the latest Jerry Bruckheimer spectacle on four screens.

(not a USA-sucks rant...) One of the nice things about living in Canada is that the government here provides some support ($$ and legislation) for our home-grown movie industry. Without this support, a lot of enjoyable and intelligent, but smaller-scale, films would never see the light of day. Examples: "Ginger Snaps", or "Last Night".

I'd say that off-hand, the main advantage that smaller producers, of films, music, or any other media, have is the goodwill of their customers! I'm far more likely to buy an Ani DiFranco album ("Unauthorized duplication, while sometimes neccessary, is never as good as the real thing") after listening to her music from Napst^H^H^H Morpheus, than run out to buy a copy-disabled CD by some major-label artist ("unauthorized duplication, authorized duplication and Fair Use are prohibited, and as technically impossible as we can manage")...

They are. At least the smart ones are. Ani Difranco in particular. As well as being a very good songwriter she runs her own label.
Rather than getting the small fraction of the price of a CD that most artists get she is getting a good share.
It's a lot more than most other whinging artists get. Instead of whining ( ala Courtney Love ) she's gotten her act together and promoted herself through relentless touring and the quality of her music.
Ani Difranco is the future of music. EMI and all the rest are bankruptcies waiting to happen.

I wonder if some of them may decide to start their own artist run label.

You mean like Ani DiFranco's Righteous Babe Records? I'm not too sure about the background but as far as i know she didn't feel like getting screwed by a major record label and, being one of those pro-active folk singer types, started her own. Someone posted a letter she wrote to Ms. Magazine complaining about people looking at is a financial success rather than just not wanting to deal with a record company.

Well, I just can't afford NEW CD's, copy-protected or not. Especially now that I can't "preview" them on Napster. I spend $10 and buy second-hand at the used music store or even pawn shop. It's not like there isn't a vast back-catalogue of music to pick from, and with enough patience, you can find almost anything semi-mainstream... And I don't mind paying $17 to Righteous Babe or some other smaller label for truly innovative, fresh music - once in a while as a treat.

"It's the perfect model: the users pay you *and* for the bandwidth to share the songs they already bought"

Maybe if the users stopped "sharing" the files with people who did NOT buy them, this wouldn't have been such a big deal to begin with.

"Course I still don't see the benefit for us."

Taco, you must be blind. How is being able to get music digitally, and legitimatly, without actually buying a cd is not a benefit? Not to mention that Individual artists could work with Napster to sell their own music online in such a manner, giving them an easy way to distribute their work via an incredibly popular online service for little cost, without ever getting involved with record companies to begin with?

"No doubt we'll see more of these deals as napster becomes less relevant and decentralized networks grow in popularity."

Not too likely. Given that peer-to-peer networks like GNUtella scale poorly (See the Slashdot story about that here.), Napster is likely to experience a nice rebirth of sorts. Once users realize that they can just buy a few songs they want from record company whores like Britney Spears and J-Lo, instead of getting the less catching songs used as album filler between hits, money-conscious pop fans will jump right back to Napster.

This is just another crappy Slashdot post about the big evil record companies versus Napster, hero of the people and savior of artists. The Slashdot crew posts these because even though they hate the record companies (Rightly so, the record companies and their affects on music are disgusting.), they are too lazy to make a concerted effort to help artists survive independantly. Anyone with a brain knows that Napster is just as sleazy as Sony or BMG, and cares even less about the artists. At least the record companies front musicians money to work with. Napster just wants to leech off of the artists and record companies, growing fat on the blood of artists, as well as the pus and bile that fills the veins of record execs.

If Slashdot really wants to fight the record companies, perhaps they should bring up Prince's successful online music club, or review the work of independent artist Ani DiFranco, both working outside the world of record companies.

Stories like this are the product of laziness. If anything is to become less relevant on the net, it will be Slashdot, as a result of this crap, not Napster.