Slashdot Mirror
More Opinions About Napster From Offbeat Artists
Masem writes "At the recent CMJ Music Marathon, there was a large discussion about the effects of Napster on not-so-mainstream recording artists by the artists themselves. Some for, some against, but an interesting opinion was given by John Flansburgh of
TMBG, in that Napster comes between the direct connection of the band and the music listener in cases where the band already had a strong net presence."
the anti-gravity push-up bra that she always wears. So pathetic to see yet another Barbie lookalike doing the same teenybopper song-and-dance.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
How does that beat downloading for free an entire album which would've been $16.99 at the store?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
In the beginning, at least, it's very much like VC. The distributor takes a chance on an unknown in exchange for the rights, hoping that the unknown will become a well-known success.
If the unknown doesn't, well, at least it'll reduce your tax liability for the year...
A VCer -- or distributor -- doesn't have to win every bet. He, or it, just needs to win big enough on the odd bet -- be it Britney, the latest contrived boy band, or whatnot -- to cover his losses and a bit more.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
that the title 'artist' should from now on be called 'moneyist' instead, because it sure isn't about art anymore...
Lots of people are blindly bashing Cracker for that comment, but think about it a minute. Napster is a corporation that's out to make profit. Acting like music should be freely passed around is their marketing angle. So while everyone rah-rahs about freedom and intellectual property and all that, money goes into Napster's pockets. This isn't some goody-goody freedom thing, it's captialism. The faux "we don't like big bad music corporations" attitude sucks in all the net hippies. So is it hippie capitalism? Sure is.
True enough.
I was thinking upon the lines of when you load the file with WinAMP (or whatever) the browser shows a banner ("click here to learn more about this artist") and, if you clicked the banner, the artists website would appear. On their website, they can advertise their new CDs, tours (where the real money is made for the artist), clothes, etc.
/me hits myself on the head for not patenting this ;).. whover does... enjoy your royalities and perhaps send me some ;)
Verbatim
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
If you're going to promote an artist on this site, why not just put the mp3's on that site as well? Then you'd be able to know how many people visited, how many people downloaded, how many people completed their downloads, how many people downloaded one song and then decided to download more songs. That's all information that artists would probably be interested in, but only the first item would actually be able to be collected if a site left the downloading to Napster.
Besides that, bandwidth just isn't THAT much money... $25/month will get you 10 GB of bandwidth at numerous places. If each song is 5 MB, that's 2000 downloads for $25 each month. It's not a real strain on any one band, and would be easily offset by 4 or 5 CD sales (at marked down prices).
In the world that artists started promoting themselves over teh web, Napster's "benefits" become fewer and fewer.
I have discovered lots of non-RIAA music I like since I started using Napster - if I just listened to the radio and bought CDs like the RIAA wanted me to I never would have heard this stuff.
The trouble is there is far too much great music being made than is practical to market - record labels have discovered that they can optimise their profits by having relatively few bands, marketing them heavily and selling a lot of copies of few CDs. There are loads of great bands that never get signed for exactly this reason.
As for RIAA songs being popular - songs that are familar to people are always their favorites. You generally have to hear a song a few times before starting to love it.
"Every single artist that you do like is supported by another you might not like," -Lowery
In my mind, this is one of the fundamental problems with the music industry. I mean, an artist who "only" sells 100,000 CDs can't break even, and depends on the profits of someone who sells 5,000,000 CDs. That's just a broken business model. The recording industry has gotten so used to mega-profitably multi-platinum national "acts," that they've pretty much given up on making money on music that might not play in every mall on Earth.
Causation can cause correlation
Napster didn't setup a server and put up a bunch of Metallica and They Might Be Giants MP3s on it. Napster created a tool that uses their central server to connect users together into a community. The people in the community are the ones distributing Metallica and They Might Be Giants, not Napster.
In conclusion, if listeners are going to Napster for their TMBG MP3s instead of TMBG it's probably because their wasn't much of a bond between artist and listener to begin with.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
There is no right for a musician to be paid, no more than an auto dealership has a right to your money. However, neither is there a right to consume their work, or for you to take a dealership's cars.
You want to play? Pay.
That's the basic model. If somebody else can provide something you want -- like the right to play his music -- but is not willing to let it go for free, then you rarely have the right to take it from him. Major exceptions include Governments and taxes, as it's rather non-trivial to switch countries and citizenships.
Of course, an artist could distribute electronically, freely, on his own, if he did not sign any contracts prohibiting this. That's his choice. He could also sign a contract selling this right, if he chose.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Kind of funny about that. I fired up Napster a couple of days ago after a long period of Forced Internet Withdrawal (no cable modem )= ). I thought, "Gee, I'll be a good guy today and look for some new artists to download!" So I looked for some interesting stuff on their new artists page (bands resembling "Metallica"). The long and the short of it was, I couldn't find a single song by anyone matching my search on the server I was connected to. So much for that effort.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
EVERYONE (especially someone like Lowery who's been in the biz for a very long time) that a band's promotional costs get paid BY THE BAND, not the label. The label is nothing more than a (low interest? (I hope)) loan shark with a marketting department. They loan the band the money (an advance) which the band then has to pay back. All the promotional costs etc are taken out of that advance too.
What a crock of Cracker shit.
The point behind the sarcasm was that many believe that there is no music outside the RIAA. You apparently agree. The point is that some of us like to listen to other stuff. We don't generally believe that the music industry is "keeping it down," but rather that retards like you aren't smart enough to know that it's good, because your weak personality can only manage culture that has been predigested for you.
But Occam's razor prefers the simplest explanation that accounts for observed facts. In the case of the music industry, examples abound to prove that "what people like" really means "what people like after removing all the stuff that the industry suits don't like" or occasionally "what people like and make popular only to have the music industry decide it's good, bring it into the fold, and gradually crush the life out of it" (cf Metallica ;-)
The only music they CAN keep down is in fact usually made by mainstream artists or almost-was artists. The kind that ends up in a vault because some suit "doesn't hear a single" on it.
Go to bed, old man!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
It's interesting to note U2's take on mp3's and Napster:
Bono has said: "The Edge is actually very pro-Napster. He thinks that as long as people are using their computers for music, and not playing mindless games, that's good. My feeling is that it's cool for people to share our music - as long as no one is making money from the process. We tell people who come to our concerts that they can tape the show if they want. I think it's cool that people are so passionate about our music - especially about this new album, quite honestly."
The Edge said in another interview: "It's new, it's out there, let's see where it goes, figure out how to get paid later."
It's interesting to note that U2 is also one of the few bands that has full rights to all of their own music, in all formats (they were definitely thinking of the future).
They are performing a free service, but they are also making every attempt to make money off that service
I may have missed something here, but how is Napster trying to make money? VC possibly but considering the size of their legal bill it's certainly understandable. I don't even see any banner ads on their site.
Please consider this an honest inquery and not a flame as this may just change my opinion of them.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -RAH
Though this is not totally on topic, it's still kinda interesting. In an interview done a long time ago, Flansburgh defends mp3s claiming that anyone who is in the music business for money is advised again it. ("I've been in the music business for 20 years, and just recently paid off my first car") He defended the fact that intellectual rights are still retained ("A picasso is still a picasso, no matter who owns it)
It's nice hearing a different view on MP3s from an artist who doesn't totally defend it, yet isn't totally against it.
Think Digital Audio Postcard.
See here and here for examples.
I nearly went and bought the Ben Lee album after downloading his MP4.
I use Napster to listen to songs of commercial bands (many of whom would never be on the radio)so I can make an informed decision before plopping 16 bucks down for a CD. Yes -- in the past I purchased many a CD that have about as much value as those AOL discs that come in the mail -- and Yes -- I buy less CD's now because of this -- and Yes I feel it is a WIN/WIN situation -- because if I like it, I buy it...And if it sucks or is mediocre, I do not buy it. Kind of like thinking it is OK to test drive a car before you make the decision to purchase it strictly based or here say and glossy ads.
I use mp3.com to find good music that I would(may) never see in my local record store.
The bottom line:
Bands get hurt by Napster only if their product does not live up to the hype or marketing. The good bands that produce complete CD's are getting a bonus. mp3.com helps artists that would otherwise be "looked over" by the record labels
So you tell me -- who loses? -- Why is an informed customer regarded as a crook??
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Who cares if Sun honors the GPL? Same argument.
I want to know if they are actively persuing profit as we speak, or if they are simply trying to scrape together enough money to pay for their legal bills and hardware. They could very easily rake in the cash by including banner ads in their client, setting certain songs to rate higher in search returns in exchange for advertising cash from the bands, etc. Is any of this happening right now though is my question.
They currently aren't making any money, but I would bet my right testicle that the reason they aren't yet is because of their legal troubles. If they try to make money right now they are gaurunteed to lose the case. As long as they are not making any money, the court might decide their service is okay. Venture capitalists don't give money to companies that never plan to make money. If they can survive the court case they will be charging within a month, mark my words.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Well, in my opinion, the band should get something back because you enjoyed what they did. In most cases, it's money. It could also be, like in the case of TMBG, the knowledge that people like their music (and I'm sure money doesn't hurt). So no, you shouldn't be required to be part of the community. But you should give something back.
Of course I'm sure some will disagree with me.
Mostly I made that previous reply because I'm sick of the knee-jerk reaction "But I buy more CDs because of Napster!" whenver someone says its bad. If you're going to say something, at least make it relate to the point.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
A friend of mine submitted this to slashdot weeks, ago, but it got rejected. It's some comments by an unsigned but locally very succesful artist on the benefits of Napster. It's fairly pro-napster -- and, interestingly enough, was made during a Senate field hearing.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
People are still buying their MP3s online. That's the extent of the TMBG web presence I see.
Don't get me wrong, I love the band, but the guys are SO busy that the damn website almost never gets updated. I used to try and check the thing out but everything on it was at least 2 months old. Using Napster isn't going to stop me from swinging by tmbg.com every 2 months or so.
The only thing that got regularly updated were the tour dates, and they're all on the East Coast for a while, so it's not like it's going to be of any help to me.
For example, the website got an overhaul after Linell released "State Songs" but it hasn't changed very much since that last time I saw it. No new merchandise, save for the State Songs T-shirt and album. No new stories from the guys, they're just too busy for all of that.
If it was a website were the band regularly interacted with the fans, and such, I'd respect their call, but I really can't say Napster's stolen all that much of TMBG's regular web audience.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Phil G is pretty much right on here. I will usually use mp3s and napster to find music that I've heard of, but haven't heard. I'm unlikely to go out and spend $40 on an imported Funkstorung album without listening to it. I'm much more likely to buy it if I've found it on the net and listen to it and like it. I find out about new music on my own, but napster is set up to do that too. That's what the channels are for. I am 100x more likely to buy a cd with value added though. Case in point: The last 5 cds I've bought have all been released by Ninja Tune. The reason (aside from the good music they put out): The CDs I bought all came with videos on them. If more CDs were actively trying to add value they would get my cash. BTW: For those who care, emusic.com is awesome. I don't remember seing it posted as a story, which is a shame because it's licensed mp3s for a subscription fee that works (or at least it appears to).
Obligation nothing, it's simple busking. Find free (beer) music, enjoy music, send money (or equivalent) to artist, artist makes more music, wannabes encouraged to learn guitar chords. It worked a thousand years ago, and it will work in 2100AD. Time to start building the B-Ark..
This, to me, is a perfect example of the new business model that bands ought to adhere to. COMPLETELY Do-It-Yourself - cutting out most layers of music industry sycophants who siphon off of others' artistry. This is what Chuck D. meant when he spoke about artists no longer being "one-dimensional" but in charge of all aspects of their music. If the music industry went under tomorrow, a band like this would still thrive as they are not dependent on the music industry machine to keep them in business other than to press CDs and distribute them - which they could do themselves if they really had to. Do *they* need to worry about Napster? I think any current bands trying to be successful should only actually start to sweat when they do a search and DON'T find any of their MP3s on Napster. That just means no one cares about their music enough to download and share it.
It sounds to me like David Lowery has contracted Metallicitus (a common ailment among former DIY musicians suddenly addicted to slurping Major Label schlong and all the benefits that come with it)....
Ok, if you want to use Napster to find MP3's that have not been released by the artist, and not sanctioned, then this is probably illegal (and morally wrong, if you feel this way) BUT this does not make Napster itself illegal for the simple reason that you can also use Napster to find plenty of LEGAL MP3's. If an band releases a file on their website specifically saying you can distribute this piece of music as much as you want, and however you want, and then you download it and trade it over Napster, this is perfectly legal.
It is like suing a supermarket because the can of soup you picked up has DeCSS printed on it's label.
So, yes, Napster may be bad for musicians and record labels, but it is perfectly legal.
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
I was using DMB, The Grateful Dead, and now adding Phish to my example...
They may be doing it to promote albums (at least in DMB's case) but b/c of the fact that they are actually good (and not some sort of bullshit artist that can't really perform live) they are going to end up having people buy their albums.
Take for instance a group I heard about last year. String Cheese Incident. I downloaded a few songs from Napster (they are a taper friendly band ahem). I liked what I heard, I went out and bought two albums. Now. I could have been the typical fuckwad and just burned my own copy of their studio stuff, but I prefered to buy it. I download their concert stuff from etree.org sites and enjoy.
IMHO touring is better for the artists to make money. As is Napster. They are getting the exposure they want.
If you don't agree that's fine, this is all my opinion, you can take it as you wish.
I do, and will only support bands that allow taping and distribution of their music freely. If the other artists out there don't agree w/that policy, I am going to continue getting what I want for free. Tough shit. The musicians on MTV's (or whatever) show about their huge ass houses and cars are obviously making plenty. I don't feel bad for them.
- Bill
The more I hear about Napster, the more I agree with what Lars said during his Slashdot interview. There is nothing inherently wrong with people sharing music and it should be encouraged, but Napster is a for-profit distribution model, and Napster does not ask artists if they want to be a part of its distribution model. You can hear that echoed in TMBG's quote that Napster has broken the link between them and their fans. No one asked TMBG if they wanted to be part of this distribution model, and they've already got their own Internet-based service setup. Thus, I think they have a right to be miffed.
Most artists are in favor of people sharing music, and in fact, most artists encourage it. However, there's a fine line between 'sharing songs' and distribution, and Napster is walking that fine line (personally, I think they're a distribution service). They are performing a free service, but they are also making every attempt to make money off that service (contrast it with Gnutella to see a scheme that is more of a true sharing service). If an artist says, "Hey, I don't want my songs distributed through you because you're making money off of it, not me," Napster should respect that.
Of course, that really has no bearing on where the RIAA is fighting from, but I can see where artists, especially established artists with money and careers invested in their distribution chains, would be upset with Napster.
"Every single artist that you do like is supported by another you might not like,"
I like Britney. Who's supporting her?
WonderBra, perhaps.
"Detachable Penis" was by King Missile.
And, to the best of my knowledge, David Lowery is the only former member of Camper Van Beethoven that is in Cracker. So, it's not really that "they were" Cracker, more that "he was in" Cracker.
Neither, DetachablePenis was by King Missile.
i started buying cds about 7 years ago ... and of the hundreds of cds that now have, i reckon that about 40 were purchased new. seriously.
the rest were purchased as used cds.
how come these anti-napster bastards don't lay off of the best thing since the web browser and start trying to attack the dealing of used cds. i would definitely like that ... they'd lose so much faster. kind of like how garth brooks did in his similar campaign a while back.
oh yeah, let me also mention that many of the cds at used cd places are promotional copies of albums that record industry types immediately sell to a used cd place.
so ... whether just about everyone i knows gets their music on cd or from napster ... the record companies aren't getting shit ... yet they're still around.
-Christian
our written thoughts are gifts to our future selves
Wow, that's great. I downloaded some songs that I wanted to hear off Napster and then didn't buy the CDs because I already the songs I wanted to hear. Hmm...
If we go by your logic of how helpful Napster is, the RIAA could very well say that they lost 50% of the business of people who use Napsters.
Your comments mean nothing other than you bought some CDs because you heard songs you got off Napster. If you really want to make a point, link to studies that examine the buying habits of the majority of Napster users, not one pro-Napster user on a pro-Napster web site trying to make a pro-Napster point.
Authors should release "freebies" to the net which have embedded links to their website. It would be really cool to be browsing in a Napster-like-program, find a song you like, and find a link to the artists website attached to it. Suddenly, Napster stops becomming a rip-off scheme and it becomes and advertising rip-off scheme. Artists would be then able to (ab)use the Napster system and get hits to their websites from people acutally interested in their music.
Will people stop buying CD's if they can get their stuff free?
Certainly. But the music groups are going to have to offer an incentive to buy that CD - lower price, more features, custom mixes, etc. They could also sanction certain singles to appear on Napster as a promo for their entire album - granted Napster has no way of stopping people from going home and ripping those "extra" tracks onto the service, but I think you get the idea of where I am.
I've recently been getting into the www.mp3.com service (not the my.mp3.com one, the one where artists put their stuff up for public consumption). I love it. Even though I can download songs free, I have acutally bought some CDs from them...
Here is the thing... I own 2 cassette tapes and an audio CD that I got free with a DVD movie I bought (Dune DVD came with an album by Sting). That was it (and no, I never really used Napster.. I prefered stuff like Skaven, Jonne Valtonen, Teque, etc, which was only available over the net. With this system I was finally able to pay for the music that I liked and not the stuff that I didn't. That was the reason I never bought CDs... I had the radio, and most of the CDs only had one or two songs I was even remotely interested in... Bah.
It doesn't matter anyway... Piracy will find a way, I suppose.
Verbatim
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
i'd say that's your own fault. noone's stopping you from naming your file with a popular band name included (a sounds like bandname perhaps?)
i.e.
djallstar (the roots) mysongname.mp3
j.
"By the way, I should mention that all of these cheesecakes were very delicious."
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
The few times I've used gnutella (I've never used napster), I've been looking for artists that I've heard of but not heard much of, if any of their music. While this isn't exactly "discovering" artists through online mp3 sharing, it did allow me to hear songs that I probably wouldn't have otherwise, and I know own several CDs that I would not otherwise have purchased. (And yes, there's at least one case where I didn't buy a CD due to gnutella. I don't remember the artist, but I liked one song by the artist and went to look for more. I didn't like the others enough to buy a CD. In the absence of gnutella, I might have bought the CD and found out that it only had one song that I liked.)
As for actually dicovering someone via napster, I do know people that use napster to find people sharing artists they like. Then they browse the rest of that person's collection and look for bands they've never heard of. "This person had bands X and Y. I like band X, but I don't know anything about band Y. Maybe I'll like them, too."
--Phil (I like having my entire CD collection available as mp3s.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
What you don't yet realize, is that a lot of users on Napsters actually *use* the channels provided to discuss good new music. I, for one, usually don't search for music unless I *really* have a song in mind that I'm looking for.
Most of the time (I have this luxury since I'm on DSL) I just browse the Libraries of people with the most songs that are in the same channels as me, and grab whatever looks interesting. I've found some good stuff this way.
Very well said. I run an opennap server here at my college since the network admin cut access. John Q. Collegestudent only ever looks for music he saw on CTN, MTV, or heard on the radio. I see it all the time. I even get emails from idiots because they can't find the latest DMB song. (Reminds self to remove email address from opennap startup page.)
Napster's model sucks for discovering new music. How often does someone browse another's music collection rather than typing in some sort of search for a known song? How often does someone take the time to download a song that they can only read the title and artist name? How happy is that person gonna be when they play the mp3 and find out it's a skit rather than a song.
Face it, services like mp3.com are the only ones helping new artists. I download quite a bit off mp3.com. You know why? Because I can read about the band and the songs before I do. mp3.com is really a service for the fan AND the *artists*, not just the fans (like Napster).
Cheers
I think Napster would gain a lot of fans among the artists if there was support for official freebie releases from the bands themselves. It would be good if searching for things that the band was distribution turned up the band's own site, so you'd also get other info about the band and such.
Plus, it would be a way for the band to know what effect napster and their freebie releases were having on the fan base: they can say, "X number of people came to our site because of Napster. These people may not have found us directly (i.e., read our actual site, rather than just maybe gotten our CDs) otherwise." For bands that want their fans to know what's up (and remember that bands often care more about concerts than CD sales), this would be a big factor.
Shouldn't be too hard a thing for napster to add; they're just have to verify that the site is actually the band's and see what it's distributing, and make the official site the automatic top result for things that are on it.
If something as simple as a new way to distribute music can cause this much turmoil, how is civilization ever going to survive the changes coming as the internet and other technologies completely rewrite the rules of society.
Do you have any actual proof of Verizon doing this? If so, I'd like to know of it so I can present it to some freinds of mine that might use Verizon as a DSL ISP.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
I have probably purchased 50 or so CD's over the past three years because of the music samples provided by cdnow.com.
I can certainly appreciate that being able to hear something before hand helps. I don't agree that you need the whole song, as I've been able to tell from listening to the samples what the band is like.
Now the unfortunate thing is that out of those 50, probably only 10 of them were actually purchased from cdnow.com. It's more convenient to buy at Best Buy, and it only costs me maybe an extra dollar.
There are bandwidth management tools out there that can prevent the hogging of bandwidth. I don't know one off the top of my head. However, I have heard of schools using it to better control massive student use of Napster.
Bingo. Bands need to show that there's value in maintaining a relationship with them, via web or whatever. If they don't, well, Napster et al. let us say: too bad.
sulli
RTFJ.
Mr. Silicon Implant is.
Britney is a borg?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Huge Ass Houses? Are you shitting me, only the top bands make enough to retire on, most bands have day jobs. How many .com millionairs are there? A whole lot more than musicians millionairs. So you listed three bands, that have a huge following, that all play the same crappy music, three bands. Boys I guess that is choice.
nope. The bands I mentioned weren't huge money makers, I am talking about other bands.
get a clue.
--
mass-marketed pop musicians bring in cash to the labels - which in turn means more support for the less popular, higher quality artists. "Every single artist that you do like is supported by another you might not like," said Lowery.
So the record labels support artists? At a loss? Sounds like communism...
David Lowery, leader of Cracker, voiced the strongest criticism of the file sharing service: "It's just bulls---t hippie capitalism," he said. "It's just not right."
"Hippie Capitalism"? Sounds like communism...
So which is it? Is Lowery pro-communist, or anti-communist? Or is he just a smoked-out idiot?
Hey, Hey, Hey it's like being stupid...
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Because of Napster, I actually bought 2 of the more recent TMBG CDs... I downloaded a bunch of mp3s, liked what I heard and bought the CDs from which the songs came.
These were literally the first CDs I have bought in well over a year.. Coincidentally.. this was also the first time I had actually used Napster.... hmm..
My recommendation is to get DSL with someone who uses Covad, and make sure that it doesn't use PPPoE. If the friends of yours live in a Verizon-controlled area, then you might still have some trouble with them, even if they're not your ISP (see the article "Why Verizon Really Sucks" on 2600.com for their Verizon horror story).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Ok, there are a couple points here. First, I agree that I don't think extended touring would be much fun. And guess what? I don't tour extensively, and don't ever plan to. There are lots of things I could do, but I don't, because I think doing them would suck. There are some people who enjoy touring. If you (or Courtney Love, or whoever) doen't like it, then get a different fucking job and stop whining about how much your life sucks. Second, I also agree that touring is unprofitable. Guess what that means? It means the system is broken, and needs to change. And change it will, I think, unless the RIAA has their way and makes change illegal. The system now isn't making anybody happy, except for the record execs.
Is it just me, or do all discussions of Napster or IP (such as this one) degenerate into "I'm right, you're wrong, so deal with it fuckhead!" really quickly?
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
from the article: "David Lowery, leader of Cracker, voiced the strongest criticism of the file sharing service: "It's just bulls---t hippie capitalism," he said. "It's just not right."
"
Just because he said that, i'm never buying anymore cracker cds. Oh wait, i never did buy any of their cds. Oh wait, i don't like cracker. Silly me, I forgot.
I would probably embrace Napster and MP3.com as my best friends. They would allow me to share my art with others around the world. I've never really thought that the record industry really had the "art" as a main concern, but rather the money. When I imagine myself as a painter, or a sculptor, I don't see myself drowning in cash, or surrounded by chicks that want to have sex with me now matter how nasty I appear. I see people looking at what I've done, and taking it with them and appreciating that someone has a talent like that. Unfortunately, I can only draw stick figures, so that will never happen. Don't musicians usually make pretty good money on the road, sharing their talents with those willing to pay to see and hear it?
I'm on a chair.
This was an interesting little blurb. It's too bad that under the current scheme of things, artists signing on to major labels don't even own their own music, much less decide over such issues as whether music should be 'free'. Even if you hate the RIAA (as I do), you have to realize that they hold vastly greater influence over the future of music than the musicians themselves.
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
From what I've seen, the very mentioning of Napster in the IT sector conjures up images of a routermonkey's nightmare: the entire backplane blinking like a christmas tree; innocent file transfers and print requests being delayed by a few connections involved in a Napster session. Perhaps this is why the government is acting so harshly against Napster; because it just might be a threat to national security and the status quo.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
It's true that They Might Be Giants has probably the strongest online fanbase of any group out there, which is especially interesting considering that they have been around over 15 years. (How many bands from even TWO years ago still have well maintained sites?) TMBG is also unique in that its fanbase tends to be extremely respectful of the band's wishes. A while ago They released a mp3 album on eMusic.com, and with any other band you'd expect to see it show up on Napster within minutes of release. TMBG fans, however, respect the artists and still (for the most part) don't put the songs up for sharing. We the fans aren't using Napster-like services to interfere or cheat out TMBG's net presence, but rather to make it stronger. Fans have tmbg.com for the official news and releases, but also have their own homegrown ways of distributing b-sides, rarities, videos, and the like, which doesn't keep TMBG from making money but rather keeps the fans happy. If anything, unofficial fan efforts are where most of TMBG's online strengths lie. I think Mr. Flansburg knows this, he just wants to make sure that the fans continue to respect their groundbreaking efforts on the net and don't undermine their profitability with Napster and download sites.
Sure, Dave Matthews Band gained popularity through tape-trading among colleges
this is exactly why I don't understand the problem w/Napster. The Grateful Dead were known for great concerts and shitty albums. They honestly didn't care about the money, they cared about the music (which I assume is why they are different from other bands, but the principle can be applied). Anyway, they were made popular by tape-trading. Not by the fucking music that they sold. Now. They spread their popularity through the free trade of their shows yet these fucking assholes are bitching that they won't make any money...
DMB has to be one of the biggest money makers ON TOUR. Every little college/teen wants to go see "Dave". Fine... He still allows the free trade of his music, and honestly, most of his fucking albums have been live shows.
If these artists would go on tour and stop whining, allow taping at their shows, and allow people to spread their music, their revenues would go up...
- Bill
UBU
XML-aware search-engines can remove the brokering of information by introducing standard DTD's for each industry (such as Real Estate Listing Markup Language (RELML).
Seastead this.
That's a really good idea - someone should start a web site that promotes unknown artists and uses Napster to actually obtain the files. The site would be pretty cheap to serve up because you wouldn't actually provide the files - just a band review site that looked at new stuff up on Napster.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have the artists you're talking about taken the extra step and told EVERYONE to search for them on Napster?
You can't just put a website on the web and expect hits ... you have to let people know it's there, right?
Also, maybe the band is getting a lot of listens online ... but they don't know ... like how you can't track what people are downloading on Napster. And maybe very few of those who do download their music bother to write to them about it.
-Christian
our written thoughts are gifts to our future selves
for those bands that do, why are people using Napster instead of their site? do they know their site exists? if they have a site but have no mp3s, why would people not go to Napster to check them out?
but many bands out there have minimal or no web presence... maybe a fan site if they're lucky... some of their labels would like to pretend the web doesn't exist, that it's something they don't have to deal with... or they're just too tight-fisted to do a website...
since I first used Napster, I've bought more CDs than I ever have before... bands that aren't promoted in Australia, bands that I haven't liked the singles of, but love the rest of the album and even CDs that are just always out of stock... you can't listen to something instore that they don't have... and they won't order it in just so you can have a listen...
and then for my friends overseas, when I get a new CD that's not released overseas yet, they can find an mp3 to listen to with the song titles... I have many friends who now buy Australian music they'd have never heard otherwise...
Napster is file sharing, with the emphasis on sharing...
I don't believe most record labels treat their artists very well, I think it's time the music industry took a good hard look at the way it runs... times have changed... there'll always be resistance to new technology, but why not see if it can improve the way it works, or find a new way yourself...
when records were first invented it was believed that it would mean the end of live performing...
take a second look...
these articles bashing napster with a huge grain of salt. I too have spoken to many independant as well as major label artists. People, they _HATE_ the record labels. They think napster is the coolest thing since sliced bread. Of course, they cant officially say that. Look, you want to interview a labels artist , and then have them speak bad about napster? Um, ok, guess what, you never get to interview one of those labels artists again . The almighty buck is at work here. Artists behind the scenes love napster, and the record labels loathe it. Chuck D said it best...dont believe the hype
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Because of Napster I have made perhaps $800 or so in CD purchases that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise, and most of that would have gone to upgrading my computer or sound system had I not discovered Napster.
Napster increases sales of many types of music, and I think I am a prime example of that.
Only those who dream can grasp reality.
- Artists are:
- providing entertainment - if it sucks they don't get money
- puppets of their record company
- cry babies - don't like the way the system is changing, find another job
This is just my opinion. Things change all the time. Our bodies, our governments, and our attitudes are constantly evolving. People resist change but if you do not change you WILL become extinct.illenium.net - ultimate sk8 shop online
I wonder if some the band (particularly TMBG, whose website I visit regularly anyway), might be happier if all the mp3's had links back to the artist's homepage. That might be cool thing. The players could provide an easy means to bring up the artist's/song's webpage in a browser.
The real silver bullet to good programs is caffeine; lots and lots of caffeine! *twitch, twitch*
There is one good way to see who's listening to your music on napster... if you're the artist releasing some songs, just do a search for em... if you're the only one with those songs, then I guess they're not getting around =)
;-)
If you find 2 or 3 people with your songs, then you're in better shape. Obviously not everyone who's downloaded a song is going to be online, or on the same server as you, so its not perfect tracking, but its better than nothing.
Actually, the number of artists who have "broken through" using napster is probably pretty similar(relatively) to the number of one-hit artists on the radio... napster break-outs are just more "edgy" or have nastier lyrics
A lot of this discussion of Napster focuses on searching, but very little on it's best feature: it's instant messaging. Everyone I know who uses Napster regularly goes through several stages. First, they search for songs they know and like. Once they have their current collection duplicated, they search for stuff they remember, but never owned. Eventually thay have all the stuff they can think of. Then, they start looking for stuff that will appeal to their tastes. That's when they start noticing who they've downloaded stuff from, who has tastes similar to their own and message them. Eventually they develop friendships with people they trust with reliable taste.
Of course just having a song on Napster won't do anything for someone. But having a song in the collection of an active fan of a particular genre of music, someone happy to talk to people who share their tastes, is wonderfully effective.
I have a fairly small MP3 collection on Napster (560 files), but my wife has 8600 songs. She is constantly chatting with people all over the world, discovering artists that she could have otherwise never heard, and introducing people to new music constantly. I'll look over at her computer and she'll have four chat windows open, conversing with various folks. She's bought albums and CDs of artists she's discovered via Napster, and people are constantly telling her that they're on a web site ordering something that she's introduced them to, or heard on her Shoutcast stream.
Maybe it might make the job of marketing easier, but in this respect Napster is not broken. MP3.com works fine, and Napster works fine. Leave both to do the job each does well. The last thing Napster needs in a bunch of self-serving verbige accompanying each listing. There are file sharing programs that allow links and comments (see Audiogalaxy) but the "viral marketing" of enthusiastic fans chatting about their favorite music is (IMO) more effective in the long run.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
It's Camper Van Beethoven. And it's not "They," it's "He".
Lowery left CvB some years back to persue a career as a media whore after the somewhat mainstream success of Key Lime Pie. As you can see, it didn't quite pan out, and he's a bit bitter.
The rest of CvB attracted one or two other members and formed a new band, The Monks of Doom.
The Monks of Doom aren't as funny as CvB, but there was more to CvB than humor. If you liked CvB for the music, you'll like the Monks of Doom. I sure do.
I *Highly recommend the Monks of Doom. Cracker had maybe two good songs, and they sound alike. MoD retains all the creativity and virtuosity that was CvB.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
We exist, but we're pretty rare.
Seriously, though, I do exactly that on a semi-regular basis. Here's the typical procedure I follow:
I realize this is a reasonably involved procedure, but I've found some really, really great bands this way. (For example, the Old 97's... it's hard to get good country music in Boston.)
Your statement is not completely true. I frequently use napsters hotlist function if a person has several songs I like, then I hotlist them, which lets me view all their songs. From this, I download stuff I have not heard of/listened to. Some of which I like. BTW, my CD purchases have drastically increased since I started using napster.
Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
Well, I have to agree with TMBG, which matches some discussions I've had with some of the local and regional bands in Seattle, about how the Web and the Net can be used to give most bands way more exposure, touring locations to base from (based on where people download the music from), and a basic fan network.
MP3 and other disruptive technologies represent a threat to the big name artists, are a wash for the moderately famous groups, and a bonus for the starting band. Which is cool!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Fine, don't tour. Nobody's making you. I don't think I'd go to see you anyway. But don't expect to make a lot of money from music any other way. Deal?
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
It's not so much that they've gotten used to it, as the fact that their promotion depend on it. If Mr. J. Random Record-Weasle discovers a dozen good solid bands that produce good music and sell a respectable number of albums, he'll eventually get fired. If, on the other hand, he has one huge-ass Brittney-like hit artist, no matter how dreadful their music, that sells millions of copies, he'll be a vice-president of the label in no time.
A long time ago, labels would have "prestige artists", people who wouldn't sell huge numbers of records, but were loved by critics. These artists would elevate the status of the label, and help attract artists to the label. Now, as there are essentually no labels left anymore, only various "brands" of a huge conglomorate, they don't care about prestige anymore. Only hits. Because only hits get you a corner office.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
There's no point in competing with the MP3.coms of this world unless you're willing to provide the same service or better. The alternative I've been juggling with is a weblog like Slashdot that points at MP3s but offers them for peer review so that people can say 'yes, we like' or whatever. All you need then is a database and a web server with the requisite application.
There are billions of ways to make money at music, but everyone seems to discuss "national acts", or atleast discuss how independent musicians react to Napster with the notion of them striving to be national performers. I know for a fact that lots of unknown Las Vegas lounge acts make more money than a lot of popular national / world acts.
For instance, I write music, it's generally bland and mostly I just have fun, but I don't know anyone, and no-one knows me. I don't care, it's fun. Those people, however, striving to make wide-spread music distribution get them somewhere, are fooling themselves.
Sure, Dave Matthews Band gained popularity through tape-trading among colleges, but now we live in a world where idiots like my brother have a Napster T-Shirt. It's *solidifying* the concept of "it's who you know..."
----
A few people I know are living a happy existance as a member of fairly average unsigned club bands bouncing around New York trying to get heard, and a few of them, after finally getting a demo-quality CD cut asked me to rip the tracks and share them over 'that Napster thing'. I'd like to do what I can, but because of the way Napster works, it's easy to find the song you know, by the band you know (oh, say, Metallica) but next to impossible to just share a song that no one has ever heard of and get any good hits. mp3.com is a site that does a much better job of this than Napster claims to do.
Knee-jerk pro-napster moderators can mark this as flamebait if they really want to, but realize that unless Napster gets a decent overhaul allowing an mp3.com style system of self-advertising, their claims in the article are fairly self-serving in their defense against RIAA. However, the potential is there. I'd LOVE to see them actually do it.
Whether we like their music or not, people like Chuck D and Courtney Love deserve at least our respect (and we won't forget them) for the stand they've taken on the MP3. Down the road, when this mess is sorted, we'll all remember two kinds of "music-makers" : those who supported MP3 and those who fought the new technology. Of course it's up to us to decide who we'll remember fondly as the true artists, and who'll be remembered as just making music to make money. Selling out isn't only about the music. Bands change, music changes, it's inevitable, and we each decide according to our tastes whether we like the new directions taken by musicians or not. Ultimately though, if the artist is truly making music as an expression of their creative energy, it wouldn't matter if we didn't like the music, because their intent would shine through and we'd at least be able to respect the artist, if not enjoy their music. However when musicians start making music because they have a contract to fulfill or a bank account to fill ... then it wouldn't matter what the music was like, their intent would still show through, and without the respect for the artist, we'd have no respect for the music. We might like the music, we might even listen to it, but there is a very distinct difference between listening to a song you like, and one you like -and- respect. Listening to good music that you respect is an experience you savour. It makes you feel something. The artist's emotional investment in the song allows you to feel the intent of the song. A song just written to get radio play will do just that. You'll hear it on the radio, and then turn it off, and forget about it. Good music makes you think and makes you feel, long after the final chord has been struck.
A good artist makes music because they love the art form and they love expressing themselves, and moreover they love the experience of sharing their expression with others. That's why musicians perform. For the 99 out of every 100 musicians who don't make it big by performing, they could be making a lot more money by training to be lawyers or purchasing-agents or bus-drivers etc. Many musicians do work other jobs to fund their performing. They clearly aren't in it for the money. They are there, practicing every night, putting their finances out on a limb, dealing with the stress of setting up gig after gig in a different small venue every weekend; because they love performing and "sharing" their music, which is their experience manifest in an artform. To be right to the point now, what this illustrates is that the primary goal of a visual-artist, or a musician, or a filmmaker etc. is to have their work seen, heard, and experienced. The artist derives pleasure ('utility' if we would apply the cold terminology of an economist) from their performance, from the shared experience and mutual emotional bonding that occurs between a performer and their audience. This is their reward. This is what they work for.
Financial remuneration, is the inconsequential and secondary possible way of deriving utility from performance. In light of the emotional (and if you are inclined to believe so; spiritual) benefits derived from performing, many musicians would (and often do) perform for either little or no financial compensation, or even for a loss. It is an insult to every -true- artist of any ilk, past, present and future, for anyone, most of all a -purported- artist to suggest that financial rewards should ever be put ahead of the ultimate goal of sharing one's expression. If they wish to treat an art-form as an industry, and expression as a product, they should have enough respect for those who create art because the art -is- its own reward; to ensure they make no pretenses of artistry. No false suggestions that they are in their line of work for any fans, or because they love what they were doing. If they loved what they were doing and if they enjoyed the fact that their fans enjoyed their music, then the money wouldn't mean a thing.
It's not a sellout, or someone who was in it for the money before being a sellout, that I mind. Everyone has to make a living, and if that is how they choose to do it, that's fine with me. It is those I mind, who lie about their intentions and desires, and in doing so, offend the true nature of every -true- artist ever to live.
I'm not pointing any fingers or naming any names. I'm hardly qualified to be a judge of people's natures. All I hope is that every artist out there will never lose sight of the best reasons to be an artist. Love your audience, they are your lifeblood. As long as your message is reaching your audience, all is well, no matter what you do or do not get paid. Remember this, and no matter how much I love or hate your art, you'll always at least have my respect for being an artist.
And respect, is more valuable than anything money can buy.
If I were an artist, I'd be a little ticked off that they hadn't protected my songs better. They had the money, they should have seen it was coming, but they didn't resolve the issue. Now MP3 and Napster (and Gnutella) are here, and it's gonna be hard/impossible to get rid of them.
I agree that Napster aids kids in ripping of copyrighted works, but the labels haven't made it easy (or at least not reasonable) to purchase songs over the net. The labels have not upheld their financial duties to their artists.
"I had a dream I wanted to lick your knees"
And wasn't Detachable Penis by CvB? Or were they Cracker by then?
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
"Every single artist that you do like is supported by another you might not like,"
<joke>
I like Britney. Who's supporting her?
</joke>
--
--
E_NOSIG
The real threat isn't Napster -- it's MP3.com. It's full of great independent artists, and you can buy their CDs for 6 or 7 bucks. Take that, Sony! Check out: http://www.mp3.com/wildclam http://www.mp3.com/ngm for a couple of examples. (or click on the URL above!)
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Yeah, obviously no musician that hasn't been snapped up by a record label which is a member of the RIAA and conjoled into signing away all their rights could possibly be any good. Hence Napster must be shut down, because nobody would ever bother swapping any non-RIAA material on it.
It's the same tired old melody that everyone keeps cranking out about Napster, but with a new bridge.
Some "artists" in the corp-rock arena are extremely well established and earn money from their music. They probably don't earn as much when people get the one or two songs they like from file swapping and don't have to buy a disk full of the stuff they don't want. (Of course, it could be argued that it's their own damn fault for sticking one or two good songs on a disk with nine steaming dog-rockets.)
Those artists that aren't at all well established, especially those with undiscovered talent, are grateful for file swapping and its ability to get their music distributed farther than any record company executive would even think of distributing it.
And then there's TMBG, the original Rhythm Section Want Ad (see also)... they started as an off-beat group (not even a proper band since they didn't have a rhythm section to start with), displayed quality and some innovation even if they did sometimes sing like Olive Oyl (grin), and made it to, well, the relative heights of the heap.
John Flansburg's attitude against Napster smacks of the 'bigger' bands' attitudes, but for different reasons. They already have a web presence, wherein you can download some interesting snippets of music and video, including the Dr. Evil theme which didn't make the Austin Powers 2 music CD.
(On the other hand, their vaunted website is a Flash-tarted advertisement for motion-sickness medication with a rather obfuscatory and difficult interface to navigate. They don't have any of the old music on there which put them on the charts to begin with, and some of their old CDs may be hard to find -- the only way to relive that nostalgia is to find friends who collected them, scrounge the back rooms of your local record shop, check eBay, or, naturally, fire up the file-swapping software.)
I like TMBG a lot myself, and I liked Factory Showroom for brazenly venturing into new sounds while friends derided them for not sounding like their old familiar selves. (So I'm not riding them. Just their site design.)
Copyright issues aside (and please note those words before hitting the reply link), obviously file swapping = publicity for the good bands, whether they've been discovered already or not. The untalented will not be traded, unless they're so execrable that they make Spinal Tap look like Richard Strauss, and people share their music just to prove to their friends how bad it is.
And file swapping = lost revenue for the big bands, whether they've got talent or not. More talented bands lose less because people are more willing to go out and get the CD. (Or perhaps download the rest of the music, but that could take time too -- easier to get the CD and rip from that.
The rest is economics: There comes a point where the publicity earned from file swapping isn't worth the loss of revenue. If there's no revenue, then the publicity is essentially free, and there's no reason not to use it. If they actually make money on their music, there's not so much reason to allow sharing, because they already have all the publicity they need.
By the way, congratulations to TMBG for passing the line into the upper half of the pay-play spectrum.
---
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Touring is one music-based business model. It is a way for musicians to make money, by performing their music for people, in meatspace.
Most musicians today, don't fully implement this business model. They tour, but only to promote their albums. They rely on the fact that they continue to get paid for sales of their album for a really long time. The internet will eventually make this business model totally not-feasable.
Lemme say that again, pretty soon, musicians will not be able to make lots and lots of money by selling their studio-recorded works. This simply means that the business model has to change, and I can see more bands returning to live-performances, and releasing studio albums and recordings of live shows to get people into them, and then make their money by touring. Hell, Phish manages it, and so do lots of others.
Where does the idea come from that a musician has the right to work once (record an album) and get paid for it indefinitely? I love music, and I'm all for paying musicians, every time they perform, but not every time I listen to recording made from a performance they did at an earlier date.
Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
Who cares if Napster "comes between" the band & its audience? I don't.
The online audience chooses on its own whether to use a service such as napster or to go out and search for the band's website (if it even has one). Let the audience decide how it wants to spend its time, not the band.
I believe what really steams bands is that Napster shows quickly & painlessly how many *other* choices there are out there for your listening pleasure. They don't like the competition -- not from Napster -- but from other bands.
Napster is making a valiant effort to be perceived as a medium for new music, but they do not seem to be doing nearly as well as MP3.com is doing. MP3.com offers free music from independent artists, and has a built in system for promotions and rewards, rather than the Napster approach, which is simply to mention a new band on their home page now and then.
Got Rhinos?