Slashdot Mirror
Musicians Get Together For Anti-RIAA Concerts
DarkZero writes "The Sacramento Bee is currently running an article
about several different bands getting together for five concerts to raise money for the Recording Artists Coalition with the express purpose of fighting the RIAA and the
unfair treatment of its musicians. The acts lined up include Elton John, Billy Joel, Ozzy Osbourne, Stevie Nick
s, The Offspring, The Eagles, Weezer, and plenty of other bands. Good for them. (And for those that are wonderi
ng, the RAC's site, ArtistsAgainstPiracy.com, is actually an anti-RIAA and somewhat pro-Napster site, not what you would immediately expect it
to be.)"
He has been a very active "Anti RIAA" soldier.
As most bands/artists know that a good relation with the fans is the key to success, and that their record-companies takes most of the profit anyway,they don't really see MP3's as a threat, but rather as a momentum to spread their music and gain popularity, hence creating the opportunity for more sales. I'd guess the only larger band to actually support the RIAA would be Metallica...
You can also fight majors'monopoles by endorsing Free Art distribution policies.
There is, for example GNUArt (soon to be translated in English, I swear) which promotes the application of the GNU General Public License to Art.
BTW...
Wasn't a Weezer video clip on the Windows 95 CD ? (an excellent Video Clip made after the "Happy Days" series)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Ah, Sacramento is a real city now that it's gonna get Slashdotted. :) Now if only it had been spelled right. Now some city called "Sacremento" is going to get all the credit.
More on topic, this is the coolest thing I've seen in a while. Go artists! Tell the damn RIAA to shove it up their money holes!
SIGFEH
so basically all the old farts : what does that tell us ? that the older artists get, the more they realize how much the RIAA shafted them (and don't even tell Elton John about that !). Of course, that comment only applies to *real* artists, not fake teen bands that are direct products of the RIAA : if Britney Spear lasts beyond her first wrinkles as an "artist", she'll probably miss her RIAA-generated glory days dearly, when she finds out she actually needs talent to make it without them.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If anything, the Napster case has prompted artists to fight for a better arrangement whith their record companies.
Maybe changing the balance toward artists, so they can decide how do they distribute their work, and not destroying the whole copyright concept, would be enough for many people.
As things stand right now, I feel ethically correct to copy RIAA's protected stuff. Maybe this and other legislative changes would change it.
If I know that 90% of the money I pay goes to productive people like musicians, sound tehcnicians, etc... (and this is possible with internet distribution and without spending money in pushing marketroid manufactured culture) I wouldn't mind to pay for my music.
Also I would like a free market where people can charge different amounts for different products. Maybe a start up band shouldn't charge as much as a reputed musician.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Are Lars Ulrich and Metallica going to attend?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Billy Joel: Sony/Columbia
Ozzy Osbourne: Sony/Epic
Stevie Nicks: WEA/Warner Brothers
The Offspring: Sony/Columbia
Eagles: WEA/Elektra Entertainment
Weezer: UNI/Geffen
Why don't they all just leave their major labels and take their 'business' elsewhere?
And yes, contracts can be broken if you have enough money and/or an inkling of complaint (see: George Michael) -- and it does seem there's complaint. After all, they are planning a series of concerts.
I had a really great fucking post but a stray keyclick nuked it. I don't feel like typing it all again so anyone interested please use ESP and I will send you a mind bullet. I'll also point to a handy website. Here is a really good page not because it contains much info but because it has two very good papers written about the recording industry and does a good job summing up what my mind bullets contain. It's good to see artists telling the RIAA to fuck off, the only problem I see is these artists have already made their money and have their fame, the recording companies could drop them like a bad habit and they could still make money on their own. There's thousands of bands that don't have that ability and probably never will. The recording industry likes it that way but then again, so do most people who really like listening to music (or just want to be cool for owning some new popular album). That blows.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The RIAA has been screwing the artist for years, its about time they fought back. Haha... I mean how long did the RIAA think all this could last? Lets see what exactly do they do? They write the music right? No wait. They play it? Again no. So then... they record it? Nope. Basically they get rich, I think thats all they really do. Now they're going to get what they deserve due to the fact that at least in the US the govt and people are easily influenced by famous people with money. This along with the bill proposing to allow online music distribution to break the RIAA's choke hold (seen last week or so on slashdot), should be enough. When the shit hits the fan, I wish it'll be on pay-per-view, I'd love to watch the RIAA's lawyers try to weasel up some good reasons justifying their actions.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
With stuff like TV's Popstars, the record labels aren't even bothering to hide the fact that "bands" these days are made-up. Do you think that these mime & dance combos can afford to complain to their record labels? No way. They'll dump you and then just phone up the model agency and ask for 5 more people who look OK and can sort-of dance. No singing ability required. If you can read music (much less, write it), then you're probably too clever and might make trouble later. Much as I can't stand the guy, but at least Elton can actually play an instrument.
I bet the labels can't wait until the CG stuff can be done cheaply enough to replace humans altogether.
Sad times indeed.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
This "shadow" of negativity over technology, which the recording industry has used Napster and other peer-to-peer systems to grow, now over shadows our new technological achievements as mankind, and demeans the ability for artists to understand the truth of the options available now to them.
Because of the existence of the new system of distribution enabled by technologies progression into the new century, artists need to understand that a recording contract is not necessarily needed to become successful and reach the masses with their artistic impressions. This I wish to seriously stress unto everyone. Now is the time for the options for the artists be removed from these shadows of negativity, and that we enable the true digital music revolution to shine unto the world. Giving back to the artist the very art which they create to make the this industry, and allowing them to reclaim the control.
Man and Goat
Thanks to big companies we have today in TV only stupid, primitive, commercial music. They check what could sell and what not, then promote stuff like Britney Spears or Marlyn Manson. In early 90s I could watch MTV for many hours and wasn't bored, now I can see only stupid commercial stuff. ;-)
It's nice to know that Ozzy is on our side. What's about Dio, Tony and rest of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc...?
>Money raised from the concerts will help fund an offensive against the major record labels for allegedly denying musicians a share of royalty earnings.
;)
Not to downplay the fact that alot of artists *do* get the shaft by the record companies, but considering the -- erm, financial success -- of these artists, wouldn't it be more fitting to hold some benefit concerts to
-feed the homeless
-make a wish for a terminally ill child
-donate gifts to a low-income family
-donations to Amnesty International to keep the newly founded Afghan regime under control. One warlord for another right? Just give it 10 years, you'll be hearing from them again soon.
It *is* nearly Christams after all.
Now, I'm not a big xmas fan at all, and I've actually lived in some seriously shitty areas, so I have my criticisms of the poor and needy. However, I really don't think it's appropriate to be tossing money at Music Artists to help offset their court costs so they can fight the big bad RIAA. Let them foot the bill themselves, with funds from their own industry group. If $ARTIST wants to take his/her cut from my concert ticket to buy some coke, or put in for their court fees, that's their business. Just don't masquerade it as a "benefit".
<crotchety Old Man voice>
And another thing! Like hell am I'm going to go see that aging, worn-out fucking cokehead Elton John dance around with some homophobic little angst-ridden punk sonafabitch (like you have it so hard, go work in a sweat shop in China you fucken LA Burb refugee), all so they can whore their asses a little more to get me to buy their silly-ass brand name shoes.
In my day, we had to actually do WORK. You know the kind; shitty, unpleasant, unfulfilling jobs 8 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year, no vacation, no benefits, the kind of job you dread so much you don't wanna wake up it's so fucking soul-destroying, just so we could get sold to a larger comapany and get layed off.
I only wish I got paid to dance around and curse like a MOFO next to jigglies, calling my mom a fucken biatch. And get paid to do it to! If you got fucked by your record deal, deal with it and join the club pal, because we are ALL getting fucked by the system.
<crotchety Old Man has stroke and shuts up>
Update: I just re-read the article and realised that the concerts are to be held the night before the Grammys. I have no idea when the Grammys are held, I never watch them. But my original point still stands.
Elton, if you're reading this, take those Lion King royalties (your $$ not mine) and sue the ass off the RIAA, that way you can make everything you've done since 1983 dissapear
... this whole thing would have never happend.
At first we had napster, the CD sales increased. Somehow the RIAA didn't like this, nobody knows why.
Now they try to copy-protect CDs (which is not going to work anyways). What is the simple consequence? People won't buy such "defective" CDs, instead download the songs they like.
But it comes even better, some sickminded consulting people think that a pay-for-download-AND-listen system would work.
Now some bands have to jump in and tell the RIAA that they are going the wrong way.
And what's the outcome:
The RIAA spent more money on copy protection and lawsuits than they will ever get back from it.
Guess who they think has to pay for this... and guess who is not going to pay but download instead, and it goes on like that...
Can anyone tell me where this stuff is going to end?
I'm sick of it.
Cool, now i can just print out the list of member artists, cross-reference it to my list of people to buy presents for, and figure out what to buy in a matter of minutes without the guilt of blindly supporting the RIAA. True, depending on the label some money may make its way to their hired thu^M^M^M^M^M legal dept, but at least some other fraction of my money is going to fight said legal dept.
;-)
And while i'm at the record store, i can buy some scratched up used CDs which still, in theory, include liscence to enjoy the content originally pressed into those disks, so i can go home and download songs without pirating anything, while not paying full price
They will have to adjust their retoric now. In the past, they have blasted ripping and file sharing as acttivities which deprive musicians of payment for their work. With so many major acts coming forward to differ , the RIAA's sanctimony is exposed as phony, self serving propaganda. Now they will need a new marketing strategy to sell their heads-we-win, tails-you-lose agenda.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I wonder if some of them may decide to start their own artist run label.
You mean like Ani DiFranco's Righteous Babe Records? I'm not too sure about the background but as far as i know she didn't feel like getting screwed by a major record label and, being one of those pro-active folk singer types, started her own. Someone posted a letter she wrote to Ms. Magazine complaining about people looking at is a financial success rather than just not wanting to deal with a record company.
The fundamental problem is that musicians sign their lives away for multi-album contracts at an early stage in their careers. These contracts are signed with the artist at a huge disadvantage (for instance the artist often signs away their right to negotiate with any other studio without realizing that it was legally binding, let alone what they are now in for). And studios are under all incentives to take full advantage of this.
But as actors realized decades ago in movies and as professional sport after professional sport has found out, if you give talent the ability to renegotiate contracts early and often (ie make them free agents) then the top talent gets an absurdly better deal, and the average talent gets something much closer to a decent shake. Make musicians free agents and studios will have incentives to treat artists better, not worse.
Oh, people talk about having a studio founded by the artists, for the artists. But such a studio will have all of the same incentives as the existing ones, and in the end will turn out the same. Therefore until musicians wake up and start demanding to be free agents, I confidently predict that their treatment will continue to suck.
To clarify, the artists in this case want
Their music to no longer be classified as a "work for hire," aka a pointless industrial design owned by the system... such as the look of a car, the shape of a replica statue of liberty, or N' Sync. There isn't much money to be made creating "works for hire," nor is there many legislated rights associated with them.
Compulsory licencing for online music content with compulsory compensation for artists. Much in the same way that radio was working up until Clear Channel, compulsory licencing would mean increased online distribution and competition and with a per-song fee paid to artists. Artists would also like to have the option of licencing "their" music to free services like limewire and napster, in the hopes of making more on concert sales and merchandising.
An end to long-term contracts. This makes sense, as artists don't have much barganing power with their labels when they first sign that 10 year piece of paper. At the time it looks like a much better prospect than returning to Mc Donalds.
All of these things are aimed at making more money for the existing, successful (and unsuccessful but signed) artist, but with little real attempt to reduce the grip of the Recording Industry from the musical world.
I know a dozen musicians, all of whom have in-house recording studios capable of producing some truly professional quality audio and burning it to disk. And I know dozens of people who run sites, some of which involve payment authentication systems. Add a buck for postage, a few downloadable sample MP3's, and make the artists do all the legwork and you have a replacement for the traditional music distribution system. Why, then, do we not have benefit concerts to startup alternatives like this? (Hint - look at the dinner tables of the artists throwing this concert... )
While the tweaks to the system advocated by these artists are by and large good ideas (lord knows we could use a compulsory licencing scheme for online music), they are not in reality as revolutionary as some people here seem to think.
The ______ Agenda
Part of the beauty of this is that these recording artists will be in LA at their record labels expense for the Grammys, not to mention the fact that the LA area fans will have a chance to see acts together on the same show that would never happen otherwise.
It costs a lot of money to fight the RIAA in congress, and the RAC has recently hired two professional lobbyists to educate the congress to their situation. Many half-truths have been spoonfed to congress (along with campaign donations), as well as the court filings (such as in the Napster case) where the RIAA presents a document, that if accepted, basically acknowledges that the RIAA is the copyright owner, thus making music recordings work for hire. Even if they lose the case, they win. This is why the RAC filed an amicus brief on the behalf of Napster recently. The RIAA tried this same trick in the MP3.com case, but then settled with MP3.com to avoid having to prove "ownership" of the recording they said they "owned". The artists have yet to see a penny of the $125 million or so that was collected in the MP3.com case.
If they are screwing the big name acts, who actually make a lot of money for the label, what chance the newly signed bands have. This is going to be a major coup for the artists, as they are gaining support from the fans and in the public eye, by attacking the actual problem, rather than attacking the fans who support the bands.
above post moderated (-1, depressing).
Oh well, on to the christmas "cheer"...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
This is an older article from May 16th when Courtney Love gave a speech on Napster and Recording Labels and such. Good speech too bad she killed Kurt Cobain
v e/
... zero!
=] anyway here's the first page:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
Courtney Love does the math
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."
Editor's note: This is an unedited transcript of Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16.
By Courtney Love
June 14, 2000 | Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math:
This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.
What happens to that million dollars?
They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.
The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.
Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.
If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million.
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
A nice article detailing the coming demise of the RIAA!
Short summary - its about how the music industry is starting to collapse. Like a rat backed into a corner, the RIAA is trying to impose some "strongarm" tatics. Mostly this article deals with music encryption on their CD's, but does do a bang up job discussing its flaws.
What I really don't understand is why the RIAA wants to treat US the consumers, as bad guys? What ever happened to trying to PLEASE the customer, not piss them off even more? Haven't any of these folks taken economics classes in school (that is if they even WENT), its called supply and demand. You f@ck up the supply chain more by flooding the country who BUYS most of their crap with non-working, encrypted coasters, and the demand for said crap drops - thus inciting further financial ruin to them.
Finally - don't play the "piracy" card for the kiddies of the USA, just LOOK at Asia! Piracy is by far more rampant there than anywhere in the world! If you are going to try and claim that MP3's and Napster have taken a "gouge" out of your music sales think again. Just take a walk down the streets of Bejiing during the open market and see how many illegal software and music titles you can find amongst the rats.......
To the RIAA - I say F@CK you, you're day will come when your empire will topple......
i'm a musician and i definitely want to get paid for the work that i do, but i don't think that the so-called 'music-industry' does anything but shove canned crap down the throats of our nation's youth while trying to make a decent return for themselves. the entire market is saturated with complete garbage.
programs like napster allow bands that really don't have the resources to get their music heard. in addition to this, i'd like to restate what countless others have said. I'VE PURCHASED ALBUMS BECAUSE OF NAPSTER, MORPHEUS AND PROGRAMS LIKE THEM!!!
although i really don't care for the bands that are playing in this rally, hats off to them!!!
hats off for having the balls to tell this 'industry' to shove off and leave music to the people who know it best-- MUSICIANS!
end of rant...
Hmm...somehow with cutting out a slew of middle men, the King Crimson live CD (45min) is still $15. CD's should be like $8 tops.
You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older, and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go,
I owe my soul to the Company Store."
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Wow...I've been part of the problem all along, thinking "what a good deal" by being able to buy CD's dirt-cheap from the big mail-order houses. This is news to me...I've always been miffed by the way the mail-order houses stamp their name and contact info all over the CD jackets, as if they owned the rights or something.
Maybe those of us who claim to be anti-RIAA need to put money where piehole is and stop buying from Columbia House, BMG, etc...
That's a great lineup! I like and respect all those bands. Especially The Eagles, Dixie Chicks, Offspring, and Weezer. Throw in Guns and Roses and it would be perfect. They all play their own insturnments, write their own songs, and apparently they can see Hillary Rosen and her mates at the RIAA as the evil greedy people they are.
Let's make sure that for every click on the RAC site, we are all clicking at least 10 times on the RIAA site.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
The Monkees were assembled not as a misucal band but as a comedy team. Despite the fact that both Peter Tork and Mike Nesmith were musicians, they didn't play their own instruments on the show or in their recordings for several years. After several years of success due to the show, Mickey Dolenz started actually learning how to play the drums he'd been faking for years, and Davey Jones (who had a pretty good singing voice) started studying seriously.
The telling point is when the Monkees had a well-watched meeting with the Beatles ("The Fab Four Meets the Prefab Four!" shouted the headlines) John Lennon looked at Mickey Dolenz and said (paraphrase here; I don't remember the exact quote), "I finally get it. You're the Marx Brothers!"
So, in short, the Monkees were chosen by how well they worked as a comedy team, not for their musicianship. This makes them a bad example of a "manufactured band" since they weren't really intended to be a band at all. They just grew into the role. And yes, this also goes for the Partridge Family.
Virg
No : As music (as a digital binary) contains all the information needed for another musician to re-create/modifiy it, it is hence considered as its own source code.
So, if a musician can hear its subtilities, he then can interpret it, hence adapt it.
Now, if you make a program that plays music, you'll have to distribute its source code.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
...but I really don't see much of a need and I don't have much of a desire to support an artist in their struggles against their personal or individual contracts/etc with their employers, the record companies. RIAA as it affects my rights to fair use of stuff I BUY? Nuke em from orbit, as far as I'm concerned.
But let's face it... nobody ever (well, maybe not EVER) put a gun to the head of a no-name, starving artist and forced them to sign away their rights in order to allow them to get a shot at being rich and famous; they made that choice themselves. I'm sick of the "woe is me" and "but that's unfair" attitudes of these people. Big Lou made N Sync what they are, and now that they're famous and seeing just how much money their band is making, they're whining about how they should be getting a bigger cut. Srew that. He put his industry contacts, know-how and money on the line, took most of the risk, and they agreed to it, so they should have to live with it. Do you think they'd pony up the huge bucks if it tanked? Yeah, and Brittany's tits are real, too.
The real problem is that there are WAY too many rock-star wannabes that are willing to sign away everything for life in order to take a shot at being on the cover of Rolling Stone, so there's not much forcing the record companies to offer something other than a "we take everything forever" contract. That'll only happen when there is someone with enough talent (and potential revenue generation) to make the record companies fight over them. Sarah Mclachlan is a case in point. She's got a great deal with Nettwerk Records in that she owns all of her own publishing. That's because she was smart in (a) hooking up with an excellent manager, Terry McBride, and (b) she was smart in assessing her options and making her choices.
In a way this is similar to what I'm going through right now in taking a software product public. We're getting LOTS of offers for VC funding, and most of it is Pirate money... "give us 80% of the company, and we'll give you a bit of cash". Lucky for us we've got investors that are willing to take a more reasonable stance with us. But if those "more reasonable" investors weren't there, and the only deal we had was a bad one, and we took it, should we be able to whine and complain about how we were taken advantage of and abused? Absolutely not. We were presented with an offer, and WE ACCEPTED IT. If we were stupid enough or desperate enough to accept a bad deal, then we'd have to live with the consequences.
$0.02 (CDN)
Anyone else think this is largely hypocritical of the majority of the artists involved?
Stage a "protest" on one hand, accept a Grammy on the other. E.g. Elton John, perhaps others, certainly all of them given the chance.
The Grammies are more or less a way of rewarding the artists who help the RIAA the most by largest sales. Call me cynical, but no worthwhile music is rewarded with anything these, but certainly large profits are.
This whole thing is only skin deep, but what shoudl we expect anyway from "major recording artists"?
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
I don't see the fun in opposing as association of labels instead of attacking each label individually. The RIAA can dissolve tomorrow and nothing will have changed. What artists need is a class-action suit against their label for arguably decieving them with the "work for hire" clause in the Satellite of Love act of 1991 or whatever it was called.
Secondly, consumers must gripe and stop buying the artists' music. If Elton John fans go pissed enough he would be forced to file a suit to get a more respectable label (or perhaps form his own indie label) to sell his music. As long as you keep buying it doesn't matter, the label will have the upper hand.
Not everybody realizes it, but it's not just the videos that are animated... the band doesn't actually exist. It's the brainchild of Tank Girl creator Jamie Hewlett and Blur's Damon Alburn, plus a lot of other people. The whole idea is that if you can accept Marilyn Manson or Eminem or Michael Jackson as stars, you can accept anything. Why not? Virtual pop stars have already been thought up (Sharon Apple) and tried (Kyoko Date), it's just a matter of time before they become accurate enough to be a significant force. Hell, I think an animated band has a better chance than a CG one - more style, less fussing over detail.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Studio CDs should cost under $10USD, but live albums cost more to make, because it's not just a matter of setting up microphones to pick up the performance. In fact, the best live recordings are done by setting up two entire sound boards; one to handle the mixing down for the stage and to run the monitors, and the other for getting and storing the sound (both from the live board and from ambient mikes). So, the cost of a good live CD can easily be much more than the cost of producing in the studio,since the recording portion costs more and the post production is about the same.
Virg
I notice a lot of people are complaining about mass marketed music like NSync and Britney Spears. The problem is that, the RIAA isnt responsible for this watered down content manufacturing - people in general are. Take a tally of how many people listen to Linkin Park or the Offspring or something, then square it against the number of adolescents who buy BS and NSync. Sorry folks, but cheese pop seems to be where all the money's at, and if you're like Katz and think that people shouldnt follow simple market forces then go back to writing for Pravda :P
If you and others like you like music by these bands and buy it, fine. If there's money in it someone will service that niche, be it the RIAA or autonomous artists. However, until more people buy 'proper' music as one might refer to it, that's all it's gonna be, a niche.
Think Yaz's (Yazoo in the U.K.) "Upstairs at Eric's" (recorded in E.C. Radcliffe's studio), and "You and Me Both". These combined Alyson "Alf" Moyet's voice with Vince Clarke's (from Depeche Mode) synth-pop sound (rumour has it that she was a club act looking to sing lead for a "rootsy blues outfit" and he said, "I can be that").
For it's time, it was dance-able club music, but with meaningful lyrics, and a lead that could actually sing, despite her, what?, 300 pound bulk?
Sadly, Ms. Moyet considers it the worst stuff she's done. Me, I think the exact opposite.
You could've hired me.
This is a breathtaking new level of corruption - from the party that promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Surpassing even the time that Republican Tom Delay delivered envelopes full of cash from tobacco companies to members of Congress who had just voted for a pro-tobacco bill. he did this on the floor of the House of Representatives just after the vote.
The reason these guys get into office is because this cash buys thousands of campaign commercials telling us how honest they are and how corrupt the Democrats are. Yes, the same Democrats who are trying to make this sort of bribery illegal.
Actually, this is a mis-report of what happened. The reason he stopped using "Prince" was because his contract with Time/Warner was so draconian that when he broke it, they claimed (successfully) that the very stage name "Prince" was their creation, so he wasn't allowed to perform or record under that name without TW's involvement. So, instead of bending over, he dumped his name in favor of the symbol until the contract expired. The press went with "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" because there was no way to pronounce the symbol. In one fairly entertaining vignette, he was being interviewed by Rosie O'Donnell, and it was hilarious to watch as he got visibly annoyed with her because she kept calling him "TAFKAP".
So anyway, even more kudos to him for not caving in.
Virg
Your post is a great effort, and I thought it was a good analogy to the recording industry, but there's a difference that time has introduced. Unlike your employer, musicians are finding it easier and easier to put together very high quality music by themselves than ever before. Thirty years ago, recording studios were the only way you could hope to put together a decend recording, and they were very expensive (and rightly so). So, the record label would sponsor a band's entry into the field by giving them money to record, with the stipulation that they pay back the investment (and a percentage of the profits) out of the money made from selling the record. As time passed, however, the labels got more and more profit-hungry and as technology gets cheaper, less and less relevant. Now, there's very little interms of investment standing in the way of producing very high quality music.
So, now I ask, if it's so cheap to produce good music, how come anyone signs a recording contract anymore? The reason is that they are now so large that they control the production channel, and so you can make your music on the cheap, but you can't afford to publish it yourself because:
1.) Most record stores are national chains, and few national chains will buy from indie labels, for the most part.
2.) Most radio stations get kickbacks from their playlist (this isn't an accusation of criminal activity; it's perfectly legal to pay for play) so if you aren't backed by a label you can't afford to buy a slot to get your song broadcast.
3.) Distribution centers (CD press facilities and such) charge a lot for small runs (again, rightly so, as it's more costly for them to do several small runs than one big one) so while making the music is cheap, making the CDs is expensive.
So, to bring it all home, your example would only hold if you could design the part yourself at home (my guess is your design equipment is a tad more costly than your run-of-the-mill home PC) and didn't need to work for them to use their manufacturing facilities (even if it cost you more). More importantly, your employer would need to make you sign a contract where he gives you pay, but then if the part doesn't sell X units you must make up the difference by paying him back. Not so nice anymore, is it?
Virg
You make a good point, but could you try to find a more confusing way to say it? Sheez, who uses "unto" anymore except televangelists?
Summary: Advances in technology (for making music) and the Internet (for advertising and distributing the music) have made recording contracts much less important. Artists should note that it's no longer necessary to sign a record contract to find success, and should avoid being fooled into thinking these technologies are bad for them.
There now, that's better.
Virg
3) Professional musicians
by yamla
These days, it seems that virtually no professional musicians actually make a decent living. Courtney Love has said that she is pretty much playing for free already. TLC declared bankruptcy. And these are just two examples. Yet during this time, the record industry is reporting record sales, record profits.
What do you think the answer is? Is the day of the professional artist over? Is it still possible to make the music you love and make enough to pay the bills? If so, how? How do you see the record industry changing over the next ten years?
John:
Being broke is not being poor, and one should be skeptical of such complaints, as they often reveal poor judgement more than poverty. In both of your examples, you are talking about people who generate huge amounts of revenue and conspicuously purchased very expensive things.
I don't think the era of the professional musical artist ever really existed. Through the course of the 20th Century from the birth of publishing to the explosion of rock as a mass market business, the business terrain has changed for the better, but long term professional employment remains an elusive reality. Musicians are always at the end of the food chain in the music business. It has never been easy making money.
How brilliant! But maybe, enjoying economies of scale, these venture capitalists should also provide the production facilities to press the CDs. They could coordinate the marketing too! I even have a name for these "venture capitalists" who put up the money behind bands ... we could call them "record labels"!
Seriously, why do you think that venture capitalists will want less money than record companies. Take a look at the books of EMI some day. Sure, on one superstar band, they make out like bandits. But that's ignoring all the flop acts, on which the musicians haven't paid them back a cent. Across the whole portfolio, they are substantially less profitable than many other industries. This mythical surplus profit which "could go to the musicians" just doesn't exist.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
See: http://www.riaa.com/News_Story.cfm?id=446 for the RIAA news story; http://www.riaa.com/pdf/midyear_2001.pdf for the actual statistics.
Here's the relevant bit:
Here's the math:
$6.2B/488.7M = $12.69/Unit (last year)
$5.9B/442.7M = $13.33/Unit (this year)
Simple economics. Charge more, sell less. Especially with a weak economy.
I wonder if they are going to have TicketMaster sell the tickets. They are almost as evil as the RIAA.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
How many of them are there out there? Name a few truly independent labels that are on store shelves.
Not a lot of them is there?
Tell me again that they had much of a choice- no, nobody forced them to do anything. Neither did the sweatshop workers of the past- they could have not worked effective slave labor hours, etc. for a pittance.
And, BTW, the big labels DO have an effective monopoly- they have over 90% of a given market between them. The smaller players don't matter for the most part and don't really have an impact on things.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas