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."

Comments

Seems to me...

[Fast Ben]

that the title 'artist' should from now on be called 'moneyist' instead, because it sure isn't about art anymore...

Think about the "hippie capitalism" remark

[Junks Jerzey]

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.

Re:Think about the "hippie capitalism" remark

[Danse]

How do the fatcats think Napster is making money? Where is their revenue source? Why would someone invest in it? Do they think they will be able to stick ads or some other revenue generator in later?

Re:Lowery

[algae]

"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.

Lowery's so full of crap!

[fuckface]

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.

Pro-Napster comments from U2

[mengmeng]

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).

Re:Metallica and Napster

[dirk]

Sure they could be positioning themselves, but my VC statement was a guess.

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.

Re:Heh

[PiMan]

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.

Comments From Senate Field Hearing

[namespan]

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.

Metallica and Napster

[Hrunting]

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.

Re:Metallica and Napster

[sheldon]

People who give out charity are called philanthropists, not Venture Capitalists.

I think it's fairly obvious to everybody involved that Napster is positioning themselves to make money off of their service.

Well ok, trying to position themselves. Yeah, they probably will never be profitable. But that didn't stop people from giving tons of money to Amazon, Redhat, and other dot coms.

Re:Metallica and Napster

[Wah]

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.

And Napster says, hey, we can't watch every file that we index. But what we can do is set aside a certain percentage of revenue to contribute to artists groups (kinda like how radio is now). I think a lot of people who condemn the p2p phenom do so for this reason, "Who's making money off it?". With this arrangement it would still be the artists, or at least as much as they might get from radio airplay.

Like a number of the artists in the article said, it's free promotion. If they don't want to be promoted, well, that's a tough one. Personally I'd say stop making music if you don't want people to hear it. If you really want people to buy CDs give them more reasons to, like Limp Bizkit did.

One other note on the "who's making money off me" bent, I seriously doubt that Napster will *EVER* make much money. The value that is gained from their network comes directly from its users, alienate them in any way, and they'll be gone. It's been shown fairly convincingly that the programming isn't the hard part. Any advantage that a company wishes to leverage could very well piss off enough customers that their leverage evaporates. Of course, people still use AOL, so there ya go.
--

Re:Metallica and Napster

[abe ferlman]

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.

The interesting thing about Napster, despite being "for-profit", is that they are not fighting for an *exclusive* right to share these files, but for *everyone* to have that right. Remember- they don't advertise that you can get Metallica songs from them- just that they'll introduce you electronically to others from whom you can get whatever others make available.

You're damned right no one asked Metallica if they wanted to be part of this distribution model- once they sell the CD, it belongs to the consumer to do with as they please. No one asked Metallica if it was ok if I copied Ride the Lightning for my girlfriend's car, but Orrin Hatch seems to think that's ok, and if Metallica doesn't like it, tough.

The draconian methods it would take to stop file sharing will, in the long run, have much worse effects on our society than a realization that artists a) have no inherent right to get rich from their craft b) may not steal ideas from the public domain and claim they are theirs and c) can find better distribution models (street performer protocol, stephen king style releases, show, merchandise, etc) that do not trample on the rights of consumers, both directly for those who actually trade their music and indirectly for those who have to put up with the DMCA, encryption schemes, and the idea that corporations can own ideas. Damn.

Re:Metallica and Napster

[bloosqr]

I think to some extent you're right but there is really more than meets the eye. The RIAA is on the money in promoting this as "tape trading" taken on to a new level. I had stopped buying records about 2 years ago except for "variations of the same theme." Then Livecast came along and all of a sudden I could do searches for bands that I would like and get kids (or whomever) to play me their record collection (To a large extent this falls under the same scenario as what amazon does .. people who like X might also like Y) And all a sudden I (and my friends) all started getting excited about music (this was a serious phenomena). At this point we connected everything together w/ Napster (or lopster for the linux friendly :)) w/ the general pov of "wow this band is not so bad" I wonder if anything else by them doesn't suck.. and we'd do exactly what you said do the search of bands directly (obviously by passing you).. Now this led us individually to go buy records of bands we liked (just so you know significant chunks of our measley stipend goes to a.differentdrum.com now ;)) .. Now pretty soon we discovered a great way of finding new music is searching for bands that you like (for us it was apop bezerk,vnv,and one etc etc) and then doing a browse on that person, then (since we're on the net) clicking a few songs of each band name that we hadn't heard of.. Now this is really, really like glorified tape trading from the high school days in much the same way.. it gets people (well me anyway) excited about new bands.. Music *is* the main promotional tool and its unfortunate that artists don't realize this (many of them do to be honest) Most people are much likely to buy records/ go to a concert after they've heard a few songs and given the dismal state of radio icecase/napster are finally providing a way of getting bands heard, and I think you'll find if you just poll people that i'm not exactly a rare case.. the "browse user" trick really is a great way of finding good music that pretty much everyone uses (perhaps initially only because they've realized they've found a working connection :)) but more so as a way of finding new music.. Lets face it record reviews suck. They are basically (as far as I can tell) an investigation into the reviewers psyche, actually being able to listen to the songs on the other hand will get me to go buy the album (and albums like it en masse) and go see the band.. while ow your concert/album would have just been another negligable blip on in the back of the village voice :)

-blooser

Re:And they were funnier as "Camper von Beethoven"

[TheReverand]

Neither, DetachablePenis was by King Missile.

Re:Heh

[Hrunting]

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...

[verbatim]

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

Whoops, you are right

[OlympicSponsor]

"By the way, I should mention that all of these cheesecakes were very delicious."
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

Re:My experiences

[Phil Gregory]

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.)

Re:My experiences

[Mojojojo Monkey Inc.]

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.

TMBG has a good point

[iabervon]

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.

cdnow.com

[sheldon]

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.

Re:Lowery

[hey!]

Mr. Silicon Implant is.

Britney is a borg?

Cracker = Moron?

[mwalker]

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...

Re:Cracker = Moron?

[Mad Hughagi]

I'd have to wager on idiot.

I think the thing that pisses me off the most about this guy is that he is just a puppet for the labels himself. He spouts nonsense about money appropriation in the big label scenario - why doesn't he go over to an indie label that doesn't work for only a few big sellers and actually cares about it's artists...

Oh wait! I forgot, he probably won't make as much money - he's not one of those poor less popular, higher quality artists.

Heh

[jamis]

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..

Re:Heh

[Dirtside]

Hmm, you've got a good point, but it also draws the following question: Should I be required to get into the TMBG community if I want to hear TMBG's music?

Re:Heh

[PiMan]

You missed John's point. They fully support the idea of free music, they're just annoyed it's not coming from them. They have a _huge_ online presence, dial-a-song, etc. The problem is, Napster lets people get the music without getting into the TMBG community.

So the question isn't whether or not you bought the CDs, but are you a regular on tmbg.org?

cracker?

[clinko]

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.

TMBG's Internet presence

[Mooset]

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.

Re:Despite napster...

[garcia]

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

Re:The Napster/Indie link.

[Mad Hughagi]

I think that's why both MP3.com and Napster exist. I would have to agree with you in that Napster does nothing for advertising, but that's not what it was intended for. I broadcast a jungle/drum 'n bass/reggae show at my University and since we're in Canada I have to broadcast a certain percentage of Canadian music. Well, with genre's like jungle and reggae you don't find too many popular canadian acts so I've frequently gone to MP3.com to find them. I'd just like to point out that people won't follow up on obscure groups unless they are doing so with the intent to do so. How many people walk around the record store looking for new stuff? I would think hardly no-one, since everyone there is going to find something they've allready heard or an artist they allready follow. Napster is the same situation - people only get music from it that they want. While I don't think that advertising would hurt Napster too much, it's hard to say who would have control of it, and unfortunatly I think it would end up in the hands of those money grabbing industry goons in the end.

Music Listing Markup Language

[Baldrson]

There needs to be a Music Listing Markup Language (MLML) DTD established so that XML-aware search engines can let fans obtain direct access to music downloads from the artists' sites.

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).

Re:Music Listing Markup Language

[Baldrson]

XML sucks.

You should be able to enter an Alta Vista query like:

artist:sting title:synchronicity format:mp3

and get only URL's that let you download the song "Synchronicity" by Sting. If Sting wants people to come to his site only for his songs, he merely needs to demand that the other sites cease carrying his copyrighted material -- and all he needs to do to find those sites is enter the above query.

How would you suggest specifying a standard so that web crawlers can create such indecies if not XML?

PS: I agree "XML sucks" but primarily because people are using it for everything except that for which it is appropriate, such as web page indexing.

many bands do NOT have a strong web presence...

[Technodummy]

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...

Napster helps sales of indie groups

[Xevion]

I would make a strong argument that Napster can and does hurt CD sales... Only of popular artists however. Through Napster I have discovered many groups I wouldn't have given a second thought of listening to, and shortly thereafter turned around and purchased several of their CDs. Without Napster I would have never discovered these groups, and I would still be listening to the crap that they play on the radio. Now I have a way to discover more good music, and then I order it from amazon.com or another retailer. Without the chance of hearing those groups I would have never bought any of the CDs.

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.

what the f**k?

[.Tacitus.]

Ok, I had a big long thing here but it didn't make sense to me soooo to sum up.

• Napster is:
• basically radio
• not the best thing out there (imagine if the RIAA found out about IRC)
• for some people the best thing since sliced bread

• 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.

Re:The Napster/Indie link.

[K8Fan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re:And they were funnier as "Camper von Beethoven"

[alhaz]

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.

Re:Lowery

[K8Fan]

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.

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.

Despite napster...

[AntiPasto]

I still think that who you know gets you a lot farther in big music than anything else. I think that wide-spread distribution of music will just solidify this state, as truely large acts will seriously have to know the right people.

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..."

----

Re:How about Used CDs?

[Greg W.]

Napster is a way to discover and share music, but as the only way we have to support artists we like is to buy their CD, thats what we do.

You could also support these artists by going to their live shows, or buying their merchandise, if they have any.

Or you could send money directly to them with Fairtunes.

The Napster/Indie link.

[Latent IT]

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.

And they were funnier as "Camper von Beethoven"

[OlympicSponsor]

"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.

Re:How about Used CDs?

[K8Fan]

You could also support these artists by going to their live shows, or buying their merchandise, if they have any.

We do go to plenty of live shows, as we're lucky to be in Chicago. Everybody plays Chicago. But if I were some smaller place, I'd not have the same opportunity. Or if I was in LA or New York, where virtually every show is scalped. I buy T-Shirts, cassettes and CDs - if the artist is on a major label, they have to buy the CDs they are selling from the label at a small discount.

But the "live show" thing doesn't apply to every situation. My favorite artist, Kate Bush, has never toured the US - she's only done a single tour, back in 1979. CD purchases are the only way.

The other thing is that MP3s are not "CD quality". They can sound decent, but so many people are using crap encoders like the Musicmatch Jukebox that you just can't rely on them. What the labels should do to keep selling me stuff is to deliver a more compelling product. I want 5.1 channels!

BTW, I know that OGG/Vorbis is supposed to support multiple channels; does anyone have a prototype OGG file, player or encoder demoing greater than two channels?

Lowery

[Rupert]

"Every single artist that you do like is supported by another you might not like,"

<joke>
I like Britney. Who's supporting her?
</joke>

--

Re:who the fuck cares?

[Dust Puppy]

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.

Same Old Song, New Chorus

[Crash Culligan]

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.
---

Re:How about Used CDs?

[K8Fan]

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.

Yeah. Every couple of years, whenever the record industry goes into a tiny slump, they search for something to blame their incompetence on. Garth was the puppet for the "used CD threat". Before that it was the "home taping is killing music" campaign (I still have CDs with their idiotic "cassette and crossbones" sticker.)

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.

Do you want to know the really offensive part of all this? Those were paid for out of the artist's share. Yep. Every single promotional CD came out of the artists share of the royalties before they get a single dollar.

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.

Maybe it applies to you and your friends, but my wife and me are avid Napster (and Scour...and Audiogalaxy...) users. And music is the most important thing. We have ~1500 CDs, as many LPs and bushel baskets of cassettes. Napster is a way to discover and share music, but as the only way we have to support artists we like is to buy their CD, thats what we do. Personally, I wish that every time I read an article about Napster, they didn't have a quote from some 17 year old who brags about the fact that he's never bought a CD.

My experiences

[zpengo]

I have often thought about using Napster as a medium for promoting my own music to the online community, but in practice I have found it *very* difficult to do so. The problem is that most people simply go online to search for something they already have in mind: Eminem, Dr. Dre, Metallica, Britney Spears, whatever. It is very unlikely that anyone is going to type in my name, and even if they did, it's only because they're already familiar with my music.

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.