Slashdot Mirror
Musicnet Fails to Impress Customers
mcwop writes "A Wall Street Journal story carried on MSNBC chronicles MusicNet's failure as a service before it even gets started. The story contains some funny quotes such as: 'The first offering was too clunky and too consumer unfriendly to hold much hope for its success, says Richard Parsons, AOL Time Warner's incoming chief executive. So we are going to go back, and we will come out with a 2.0 product which will be more consumer friendly, easy to use. ... This is a business of trial and error.' Any consumer could have informed the music titans that their business plan was flawed. Unfortunately, version 2.0 won't be any better unless the music industry is willing to take some risks. One of the more interesting aspects to the story is how the major music companies could hardly be present in the same room for fear that antitrust laws may be broken." A good business-oriented review of Musicnet's operations. With the artists making a quarter-cent per downloaded song, they're probably just as happy to see it fail.
With the artists making a quarter-cent per downloaded song, they're probably just as happy to see it fail.
more than they got from napster or any of the current junk out there!
long live furthur net!! real live good music!
www.furthurnet.com
There's an article entitled "Courtney Love does the math" that talks about why Napster isn't the problem; rather, the record companies are screwing the artists. (Worth a read.)
This applies to the above "quarter cent per song" -- which may actually be more than what they get making CDs.
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
I would love to see their evidence for this. I assume it would be the same crap they've been whining about for months, which is that their sales are slightly less record-breaking than they'd hoped. Whooptee... it's a recession. Guess what kind of stuff is the first to get cut from people's budget? Yep, overpriced crappy music.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The qoute from the article: "It didn't allow consumers to keep downloaded songs permanently."
:).
pretty much sums why its was doomed for failure.
Lets see.. advantages of buying a CD, I can rip it to mp3/ogg and Ccpy it to my PC for listening to (and upload it to my protable mp3 player). And very importantly, I get to put the CD on my shelf with the rest of my collection.
Oh but wait that make me a priate so I will go spend my money on music that I don't actually get to own... sounds logical to me
People are accustomed to free access to music,
we've been spoiled by Napster and its successors and those of us who don't want to burn our own CDs or download can get free music from the Radio (althought it is somewhat limited in selection).
The business model used by these guys was wrong and musicnet is part of the establishment that is trying to (i) dictate how we listen to music and (ii) bill us for it. As if they were doing us a favor, yeah right...
What?!?!? You mean people prefer P2P clients like Kazaa or WinMX over MusicNET? I'm shocked. . .
But seriously, once the artists start getting the respect that they deserve from the companies, the business model will follow. Just look at the explosion of home-based studios and smaller record labels. We're all tired of the BS and are taking matters into our own hands napster.
Just my $.0000002
-Daniel
The problem with computers is that they do what you TELL them to do, not what you WANT them to do.
Reading through the MSNBC article, I noticed one thing, references to much fanfare with which these "legal" services were introduced. It all comes down to one aspect. Music industry never intended to make this attempt succeed. They know that they could sell Old CDs at a profit many years from now, and by giving music away at this cost, no one is going to buy these CD's years from now.
They remind me of a pack of dogs fighting over a piece of meat, while someone else gets the most of it.
I for one, is reminded of musician Moby who once said that "If I ever hear that someone on the other end of this world downloaded my songs and listens to them on their computer, then I would be content because that makes me proud of what I do as a musician" or something to that effect.
Rapid Nirvana
Does anyone else wonder what would happen if some of the big artists told the record company to go take a flying leap and just distributed their music directly to the fans? I know Steven King tried that once, but just on the honor system (on the internet, HA). But, if they could take credit card payments, paypal (evil), etc., people could download the music and burn a copy of it, or put it on a portable MP3 player, or just play it from the PC.
After all, of the roughly $18/CD, how much do you think that the artist really sees?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
its a quarter of a CENT .. not a quarter (like they deserve)
.. isn't it.
4 dls = ~$0.01
8 dls = ~$0.02
1,000,000 dls = ~$2,500.00
sad
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
...She HAS figured out she gets a quarter gram of heroin per song.
The recording industry tells the radio stations what songs to play. They make their own stars, and use the radio to advertise them. They know exactly how well their "artists" are doing, since they decided it in advance. You are correct though in that the radio stations do pay for the privelege of advertising for the RIAA.
Murphy was an optimist.
...with more than one person in the room?
What will happen when the music executives find out about THIS? Oh, those clever, wicked teenagers... they buy ONE copy of a CD, but TWO people get to listen to it!
If they play it on a boom box on the subway, the number of illegal listeners can climb even higher! It's theft, that's what it is! It's just like shoplifting--no, bank robbery!
We need a law requiring every CD player to include a little IR scanner that counts the number of people in the room and shuts down if you haven't purchased the right number of licenses (or charges them to your credit card). This is in our own interest as consumers, because if this isn't done, there won't be any profit in music any more and then there won't be any music. Nope, none at all. How would we like THAT?
(P.S. It's irony, folks)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
By the record companies shutting down napster, when reports have shown that it increased the amount of music people bought by allowing them to sample songs before deciding to buy the cd, all they've done is increased consumer backlash against them. Now that more free services are out there following napster, they've just created bigger problems for themselves. As for stopping consumers from pirating music and movies, you may get rid of the easy ways to get them for free, but there will alwayz be those determained to get what they want for free. Instead, a better way to handle this is to provide them incentives, or extras, that they can only get from getting it legally, and not illegally. For example, most movies that are ripped from dvd's and compressed, do not include any of the extras that are put on the dvd normally. For music, it could be the artwork thats put on the inside of the cd case or setting up a membership area of a website for a group that you can only get access to if you buy their cd.
They want me to pay for music? What?
:)
Ummm... no.
And, most likely, what I'll never see.
1. Cheap downloads of decent quality (160 or 192) MP3s. Maybe US$0.25-$0.30/song. Give me a printable receipt. These are true MP3s, no time sensitivity or DRM. If you want to encode the receipt number into the MP3, I think I can deal with that. Just let me copy it onto my laptop, MP3 player, etc. and keep it for perpetuity.
2. Now, since I've paid less for a lesser quality product, I'd like an upgrade path. Let me use that receipt as a discount coupon on the album I've downloaded. Usable anywhere.
This way, I can legally sample albums for about a buck. If I like it, I'm not out that dollar, It was just a down payment on the stuff I like.
3. (Since I'm already shooting for the moon, why not...) Let me order custom-mixed CDs of MP3s I've purchased. With or without the aforementioned discount. That part I don't care about. If there's 10 or 12 songs I like where the rest of the album's trash (i.e. just about everything released these days) then let me just buy those songs.
4. Access to _every_ label's material, not just two or three.
5. A shopping cart style interface. Something like Amazon will do nicely.
I can't imagine I'm the only person out there that thinks something like this would work.
How the royalties get distributed would naturally need some thinking. It's got to be better then a quarter of a cent per song, though.
Hitch Hikers guide to music piracey, dont forget where your towl is.
Burt "Out of my mind back in 5 minutes"
So here's a company who invests a million dollars into a group of four guys who have talent.... and no other financial backing (I assume). Then another million dollars is invested into making some music videos for the band. They also invest a lot of money (4.4 million according to courtney) in marketing, publishing, manufacturing etc. She doesn't even mention things like cost of doing business, etc. (Record labels have employees).
So.... the record label has invested 6.4 million dollars into an artist....and they end up profiting 6.6 million.
If you ask me that sounds like the artists are getting a pretty good deal. Where else are they going to get 6.4 million dollars from without any finances of their own? And what happens if they fail? What about contacts, etc.
Not to mention what if that band fails and the record label comes out in the red...it's pretty easy to imagine losing a couple million dollars on an artist.
After putting it into perspective I really don't see what there is to get upset about.... If an artist wants to try it on his own, go for it. But if he wants to make it national, he's going to need lots of money and help.
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
Then you should check out emusic.com. The trial is free.
.rmp song list downloading files and mention linux specifically as being able to use the "one click album downloading" via FreeAmp. I use Tafkar on my Mac.
1.)$10/month for a year subscription. $15/month for 3 month subscription.
2.)All-you-can-download, one click album downloads.
3.)MP3 format.
4.)You own it.
5.)Artists get paid.
6.)Tons of great bands you have and haven't heard of.
The only downside is that the bitrate is a bit low (128). But for my $10 I've gotten about 15-20 albums this month. All nicely organized and ID3 tagged, downloaded in one click. They use
I know I've posted about this a lot, but it seems to address many of the issues that slashdotters have with Musicnet and the new Napster.
This is the best money I've ever spent on music.
Even though I've never heard of many of the artists, emusic's "Picks" tend to be pretty damn good. And if they aren't I just delete them.
--wundabread
P.S. Check out all of Mogwai's stuff, Taking Back Sunday's album "Tell All Your Friends", Firewater's album "Psycoparmacolgy", and Ursula 1000's track "Beat Box Cha-Cha" track.
None of which I had ever heard, nor likely ever would have heard without my subscription.
MP3.com was kinda like that at first. But then they decided to start fucking the artists over by giving them a smaller and smaller cut. Now mp3.com looks like the music section at Best Buy.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Kazaa works better, has more music, and is free. Seems like with Musicnet, you pad to get less in every regard.
I fucking hate your IP banning policy so much that I am going to troll your sorry ass forever! No, make that "I am going to crapflood your sorry ass forever!".
You know those useless little 1.... 9 numbers on volume knobs? Since volume increases result in a louder sound and potentially more listeners, the numbers correspond now to the amount of a cent payment per minute added onto the license fee.
And they think that the computer & electronics industry -- people with little to no vested interest in the recording industy's profit -- are going to magically produce a DRM system for them, a la the CBDTPA?
It's clear that there is a huge vacuum in the market place right now: people obviously want to be able to retrieve their music electronically. People are obviously accustomed to the freedom they currently have with the music they own. As long as the recording industry ignores this basic fact, anything they create is utterly and completely doomed to failure.
The unfortunate side effect is that they will blame the failure not on a flawed business model that fails to address market realities, but on piracy and the evil internet, and they will use this as justification for buying ever increasingly draconian legislation.
'Britney's Not A Virgin'
At last the truth is out - Britney Spears is not that innocent.Or that is what her former boyfriend Justin Timberlake claims.The singer, 20, built her career on the boast she would not have sex before marriage.
Britney, a strict Baptist, maintained she had not jumped into bed with any of her boyfriends.
And now it seems, the words of Madonna's song, Like a Virgin, may no longer apply to the princess of pop.
NSYNC singer Timberlake has broken his silence on one of the most hotly debated subjects in the pop world, claiming Britney is NOT a virgin.
"Everyone thinks she is still a virgin but that is a joke," Timberlake is alleged to have told a passenger on a plane, according to The Sun.
"She lost her virginity a while ago - and I should know."
Timberlake and Britney split in March with Justin claiming he did not want to marry her.
The couple had been dating on and off since they were 12.
Britney's sex life has been the talk of the showbiz world.
She admitted on a recent trip to Britain that she had regretted claiming she was a virgin - and even hinted it may not be true.
"I wish I'd never said anything about it," she told TV host Frank Skinner.
The solution to the problem is not censoring political speech like the "Campaign Finance Reform" bill does. The solution is electing ethical politicians, such as George W. Bush, who was given $$$ in campaign donations from Enron's Ken "Frito" Lay and then turned around and gave them the cold shoulder when they came whining for a bailout.
Every time this subject is raised, people holler about cutting out the middle man and sending money direct to the artists through FairTunes or whatever.
Tiny point: most artists signed up to the Big 5 labels have no rights to the music. They either do it as work for hire (in which case they never owned it), or they explicitely agree to sell the rights to a publisher. And that's actual artists, let alone miming meat puppets like Ms Spears who are technically committing breach of copyright if they so much as hum "their" music without prior written consent from their label.
Now, I'm not saying that's right (it's not), but artists have a choice. They can choose to self publish. And those artists deserve support. But most artists choose to take what looks like the easy, lucrative route, let a publisher take the big risk to pay up front to record and promote their music, in return for a smaller reward. And sure, a lot of them get screwed, but they're (mostly) adults, and nobody's making them sign up with the Big 5. I'm not entirely clear on why we should be rewarding them for that... although I'm quite happy with punishing the Big 5 labels for their cartel abuse of the market.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
40000 subscribers x $10 pm = $5m p.a.
$5m for renting people music rather than paying magazines, radio and tv stations to promote it? Doesn't sound like a total wash. Looks like they're paying the artists approximately fuck all out of that, so isn't this pretty much gravy?
You stole the intellectual property of the RIAA by listening to the thud*thud*thud without paying for your own copy.
If only musicnet would realize how to please customers.
Spock: "The planet appears to be Class M"
Kirk: "Any life forms?"
Spock: "7.8 billion humanoids detected, captain"
Kirk: Alright. Uhura, play some of my "Priceline" songs on all hailing frequencies. With the resulting license fees owed by 8 billion listeners, we'll be able to buy the entire Ferengi Trading Coalition when we are through".
McCoy: "Damn it, Jim. I'm a doctor, not an aging jazz saxophone player!"
how NOT true. You can record the music which they offer there WITHOUT even hacking anything in windows..
/dev/dsp. You can use KDE's aRTs or ESD, and play with it, but remember - both VMWare and win4lin (not sure about win4lin) run as setuid root, which means you'll need to run ESD or aRTs as root...
/dev/dsp and press the "play" button on the MusicNet player. When the music ends - stop your /dev/dsp grabber.
Here are few steps which you can do (if you have some linux programming skills, a VMWare [any version] or Win4Lin..)
Instructions are pretty easy - and I'll put it as generic as possible (who knows who reads this...)
You start VMWare with windows as a guest (or win4lin with your windows) and install the client and subscribe to musicNet. Now you're installing their client and making sure that everything works, and that you can hear your music well (with VMWare you might need to play a bit with "renice" command)..
Now - the Linux part. You'll need to write/steal/beg-someone-to write a small wrapper program which simply "records" whats going into
Now the fun parts begins - with your new program, start recording whatever comes out of
Now you have a big WAV file. You can use a simple editor to cut some empty sound seconds, and viola! you got a WAV file ready to be converted into mp3/ogg/wma/whatever - which you can now trade, put in your player, etc...
Enjoy..
BRING BACK HEADBANGERS BALL!!!!
Someone who download legitimately will share it to the public. Now once the mp3 is shared, no one's going to pay for the copies from the server. So you're supporting a plan that robs the musicians money or the recording industry's? The real problem is how is the artist going to be compensated. People are not going to send 25 cents when they get the mp3 from somewhere else. This issue does not endorse "information should be free." A lot of the nerds are asking too much. Maybe that's why quality of music has dropped tremendously in the nineties.
The whole idea of Musicnet was to cater people like you who asks for this and that, but the fact is most techies will get their songs, divx's via ftp, Easynews, or p2p software- ie for free. This is too egalitarian and immoral. I don't think anyone can refute my point. While I agree that for most of us, playing mp3's are just a click away.
What is wrong with Microsoft making their media player ....imagine this.... more USEFUL to the users by being able to play more formats? What in the world were they thinking! Improving the product! Imagine that!
Putting monatary and moral issues aside for a moment, why would anyone in their right mind subscribe to these services? They have shitty music selections and massive restrictions on what you can do with the music you download. Even if someone is willing to pay for a music service, there is no way most people would use these when the free alternitives are so much better.
I think it was obvioius to anyone who read about these things before they came out that they would fail. It was certeinly obvious to me. It should of been obvious to the record companys as well. why wasn't it? Becuase they where designed to fail. They realised that when these services failed, they would have ammunition to throw into legislaion. They are going to say that it's a faulty buisness model, and that musicnet is proof. Too bad too, as I am sure that a pay service that was not restrictive and was offered for a decent price would be quite sucsessful.
Why can't music be treated like movies? You can pay the big bucks to see a movie in the theater when it first comes out or rent it or watch it on pay-per-view a little later. And if you like it a lot, you can buy it on DVD and watch it over and over again. If you're really cheap, you can wait until it comes out on regular TV.
I don't see why a similar model would't work for music as well. Release the CD first, maybe make some samples available on the net. Later, when sales are slowing, release it on the pay services. Finally, let the Napster clones have it for free.
Not to mention the merchandising...
With the artists making a quarter-cent per downloaded song, they're probably just as happy to see it fail.
When asked about why the actual artist got so little, an RIAA representative answered "The value of the is questionable. The way we see it, we provide all the bandwidth, and without our promotions no one would even know about the artist. We have a lot of costs, so we should get a lot of money."
An RIAA representative was quoted as saying "People need ot [sic] understand that this system is much more akin to a tip jar then a true subscription."
msnbc starts off with a quote claiming that free download services have been cutting into music sales for years. I just don't buy that. Consider:
Music download services have only been around for (at most) a few years (that I am aware of). Long before the introduction of the mp3, people used this funky gadget called an audio tape to exchange music. I don't recall hearing them yell that tapes were going to bankrupt them (although it's possible I was too young to remember such a time).
And yesterday, AP (that's the Assosciated Press) sent a story across the wires saying that Jupiter Media Metrix had hard data that music services actually boosted music sales. I don't have the numbers or a link handy, but they indicated that people with a CD writer who downloaded music were more likely to buy than people without one (among other stats). The other thing the article mentioned is that Napster has become the industry's straw man.
It's no shock to me that customers prefer to download, evaluate, and buy rather than subscribe and rent. I just wish that the music industry megacorporations would drop the FUD and do something productive.
Then again....anyone notice that earthlink started running commercials about how you could download and share music faster on their broadband service and now AOL is making a similar claim about its broadband service? Hmmmmm....
What is your Slash Rating?
Listen to the full report at (Real Audio): http://news.mpr.org/programs/futuretense/daily_raf iles/20020506.ram
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Once upon a time, it seems that the phonograph must have threatened the music industry. After all, performers of the time would have made their living from live performances, so the concept of people being able to hear the music without attending a physical performance must have been very scary indeed. But of course, the availability of records just made music more popular and more in the mainstream.
Then when music radio came along, it must have shaken up the music industry of that time. All of a sudden, people didn't even need to buy records to hear the music: they could hear it for free on the radio! But, once again, this just increased the public's love for music.
And here we are again, playing out the same farce. Don't believe it, Internet friends: pop music is in no danger. The artists are as excited about the new frontier of music as the fans are. Let's just try to get through the painful transition period in one piece.
"I'm a rocket man / Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." - Sir Elton John
What a flawed technology and business model... I believe this to be yet another exhibition of the M$ philosophy of not allowing anyone (least of all paying customers) to wholly own a given product - simply allowing them to pay for the limited use of it!
Amongst other obvious consequences, technology and business processes such as this will one day greatly heighten the cost of identity theft. Not only will criminals of the future be able to assume your identity for the purposes of credit card fraud and the like - but they will also get your damn music and windows OS privileges...
Be afraid, Slashdotters...be very afraid!
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
The problem with this model is that the Napster clones are getting it right after the "Release the CD First" step. No way to stop this.
emusic.com has stayed out of the spotlight this whole time. This may be intentional-- if they actually got popular, their business wouldn't make any sense compared to other offerings out there (not sure how it does now).
They charge 10 bucks a month. With that, you get unlimited downloads in mp3 format. That's right-- you can download that Haujobb CD 8 times if you want. I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days.
How the hell does it work? How do they make any money (after they pay half to the labels)? I have no idea. On the label side, they don't get the big names. Their biggest are people like TMBG, but most bands are significantly smaller. And if you're looking for cool small, unsigned bands, you won't find 'em either. So it's not the only service you'll need. But at 10 bucks a month, it's a hell of a start on your collection. And it makes MusicNet look downright stupid (well, like that was hard).
P.S. On the antitrust note (how they could hardly be in the same room): well, duh. It's a big fat antitrust violation already, and they're just observing the technicalities to avoid a prosecution. Let's see-- they all collaborate to wipe the other online music services off the face of the planet. Then, they get together and start one of their own. They're a music mafia, but they aren't allowed to get all the families in one room together. No big deal, there are plenty of other ways to communicate.
It's been mentioned before, but I figure I might as well mention it again. EMusic.com is a nice site offering access to some 200,000 songs in pure MP3 format (yay). Subscription costs $9.99 a month if you sign up for 12 months, or $14.99 a month if you sign up for 3 months. If you're really into music, either way that's cheaper than one CD per month. :)
EMusic doesn't have Britney Spears or any of those other "top" artists the RIAA likes to shove down our throats. But if you don't mind independent artists, EMusic is pure heaven. I'm a big jazz fan, and EMusic has pretty much every kind of jazz I could want, and lots of it.
If you really want to support online music services, go for EMusic. It's obvious these guys have figured out what net music fanatics want: Pure MP3s that can be used in any of their personal devices, and even share the music with family members. :)
The real reason is that CDs no longer good value for your entertainment dollar, in a world where a 2 hour DVD can be had for $15-$20 and I can listening to streaming audio (legally) all day long for free.
Try as they might to change the crumbling economics of their situation, technology has moved on and there are better, cheaper options to the CD. The music industry must get over the fact that the goose that laid the golden egg has been slaughtered, and they are never going to be able to make as much money as they once did.
-josh
RIAA
.... for the legions of pure-pop bands (Britney, N'Sync, et al) that were "ripped off" by Napster -- they've sold the requisite # of albums required to be rolling in dough, even though they're probably being ripped off. Somebody mentioned how Linkin Park only got signed to WB after they proved themselves -- I'm wondering what kind of terms they were able to land, or if they were better off going with a smaller label.
But whatever -- most bands are still getting ripped off. Perhaps in part by us, the consumer -- but I refuse to pay the middleman surcharge anymore. If the popular bands are starting to feel the squeeze, maybe this will urge them on to taking action of their own. Some might go the way of Metallica, and scream and yell about P2P -- maybe others will refuse to sign multialbum deals, and hold out for terms where they get more of the cash that consumers intend to reward them with. But for now, as people have said, I'll stick to paying for clubs, concerts and only select CDs that are worth the price tag attached to them.
Is anyone really surprised?
:-)
If the record industry wants to tell us what we can do with music we pay to download from them, of course we're going to tell them what they can do with their lame-brained, greed-inspired scheme-- mainly, to stick it where only Hilary Rosen's proctologist will be able to find it, assuming there are fresh batteries in his flashlight.
Of course, like others have said, MusicNet is probably just a designed-to-fail operation, so they can say, "But we tried to change our business model, and failed! Obviously, the public does not want to buy its music in downloadable format, so we'll just keep selling these plastic thingies for $20 each, and buy some laws to make it a crime to do anything we don't approve of with what's on them."
~Philly
Here's my favorite quote from MusicNet:
" A spokeswoman for MusicNet said, "We are deeply committed to artists' rights and to ensuring that copyright holders are compensated." "
The amazing thing is that this statement is actually true. They're committed to artists' rights in that they want the market instead of Napster, et. al. Additionally, they are compensating copyright holders. The problem is, only in rare occasions is the artist the copyright holder.
Thank you Sony Bono. Sometimes you just have to root for the pine trees.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You quoted:
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
But you missed this one:
And there are the problematic relationships between the record companies and the rest of the music industry, which make it difficult for MusicNet to offer as much music as the illegal services do.
And this one:
The struggle to create a legitimate commercial online music service goes back years, before there even was a Napster.
And this one:
Yet the industry still feared that creating a legitimate market for music downloads would cut into sales of compact discs.
And this one:
But now, music fans were racing to outlaws such as Napster.
And many others, but you get the point: Not only are we accepting on faith -- and against reams of evidence to the contrary -- that online trading actually hurts sales; but also that any services that aren't set up by the studios are "illegal services," "outlaws" or, at the least, not "legitimate."
Nope, no sig
Chill stuff like Ursula 1000 and Thievery Corporation.
Stompin' trance by Juno Reactor, Kox Box, X-Dream and Timo Maas.
Random stuff by those "no-names" Sasha and Digweed.
Jam bands like Hot Tuna.
Rock outfits like Bush, Rancid, Green Day, Violent Femmes, Mogwai.
Silly shit by Frank Zappa.
Awful music by Elvis Presley.
No-name reggae artists like Bob Marley, Eek-A-Mouse and Black Uhuru.
Classic ragas by Ravi Shankar
Shitty celtic music by Clannad
Brit-shit like Belle and Sebastion, and The Gentle Waves
Old punk favorites like NOFX, Bad Religion and Pennywise.
Hip-hop turntablists like Invisibl Skratch Piklz, Mixmaster Mike and DJ Assault.
Classic Jazz by Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, John Coltrane, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Chet Baker, Count Basie and more
It even has some classical music that's well-performed and recorded.
emusic is a great service, and i think that if you like any genre of music other than 'top 40', you'll be really happy with it. if you like top 40, do us all a favor, and jump off a tall building, ya lemming!
That's right. Until recently, nobody except the people being screwed knew anything about it. And most of the people being reamed didn't think that it could be any other way so they kept quiet about it.
Nowadays, technology has come to the point that the producers of art (for music and literature, at least for now) don't need these parasites to get their stuff out to their customers. They might need someone to play filter/promoter, but they don't need the labels as they currently are to do that- anyone can play that role, incl. independant labels, etc.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I found this link to be far better than Courtney's ramblings. Besides which, I'll take Steve Albini's word over Courtney's any day of the week. Of course, Albini's opinion is pretty set, too, but at least there're more hard figures involved.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
Gee, aren't these guys supposed to be looking out for the artists? Why are they so strangely silent about all this?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
If my favorite bands would offer a subscription on their website, I'd gladly pay (say) $5 per month or $25 per year to access high quality oggs/MP3s and all of the artwork necessary to create my own CDs. They could market their own CDs too that way, and skip the record companies. Put live or rare tracks on the subscription too. And the "free" part of their site could offer lower quality sound files or streams.
Of course, that means the RIAA goes out of business, but that's not something anyone would be sorry about.
"I think that you do them a disservice making it sound like a place to download TMBG crap."
Huh? I said that was one of the biggest names they have (didn't know they had Rancid, Marley, etc.; they have more big name stuff than I thought. I don't go there for shit I could hear on the radio.). My biggest problem is the other thing I mentioned-- they don't have itty bitty unsigned bands. So you won't get the nifty community feeling of, say, somesongs.com. Not a big deal, somesongs is free. As for the big names, well, let someone else listen to Britney and save my ears the pain.
And did you read this bit? "I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days." Guess what-- that wasn't 20 TMBG CDs.
So I guess we're in agreement-- emusic kicks ass. But I'm not sure how I gave it a glowing recommendation, and you read it as me calling it a silly little site that offers some TMBG.
And how did you know beforehand that she was not a virgin?
I know because I deflowered her.
But how can you trust a woman who has had several - even dozens - of sexual partners before marriage?!
It's called "getting to know her."
How do you know she's not going to "try one more"?
Same answer.
How do you know she doesn't have VDs?
Video Discs? Maybe you're mixing up STDs and VD, which is itself an STD. There are tests that you can have done at any Planned Parenthood clinic in the country, usually for little to no cost.
I heard a song on the radio the other day, and I am remembering it now! And I am not even paying for the privilege!
I can't stop. I must be a cleptomaniac.
Is there an equivalent site in English?
I do remember clearly when the entertainment industry was certain the VCR was going to destroy them. I don't remember what happened when audio cassettes were introduced but I do know that when I buy a blank tape I pay a tax on the media because it's assumed I will be pirating copyrighted content. They got their stooges in congress to pass that law sometime in the 80's if I recall correctly. So much for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
The only way to reduce piracy is to lower the price of legit content until it makes piracy not worth the time and the hassle.
Now, I work in the music industry, and I can assure you that a viable internet-based distribution model is pretty far off.
Two short reasons why:
1) Cost and Exposure. For all the carping that goes on about how labels pocket about $15 of a $17 sticker price on new cd's, it's not true. Once you take out mechanical royalties, publishing fees, licensing fees, distribution fees, songwriter percentages, producer percentages, miscellaneous finders fees, manufacturing costs (which typically run between $1.50 and $3 per unit depending on configuration), there just isn't that much money left over for labels to play with.
Don't get me wrong, a million-seller still rakes in the cash, but it's not like we're Saudi oil magnates.
Also, please remember that less than 10% of all releases sell more than 10,000 copies. When it costs tens of thousands of dollars to market an album, get it in stores, get a profile, that is usually a dismal failure. And now my point... labels, generally speaking, profit on one out of ten releases or so. That's a pretty poor margin.
Rather than drive labels to try to find more efficient ways to get music into people's hands (and money into artists' and our pockets), it makes them more conservative with their money, and ties them to traditional distribution channels.
2) Most/many labels are still run by boards of directors who don't know ANYTHING about music at all. They are interested in the health of the quarterly balance sheet, and are reluctant for their company to be the first one over the cliff into new, unproven business models. Also, remember, many of the major players in the music business- the rich guys, the guys with the cash to make digital distribution happen-- made their bones in the 1950's and 1960's. Even rich younger guys (...ermm...David Geffen??... Strauss Zelnick?...) learned at the feet of the codgers and adopted their ways.
Don't forget... if a label head tries some crazy new digital distribution scheme, and it goes horribly wrong, it's his or her butt on the line.
Dn't look for a really good digital distribution model from within the music industry any time soon.
And remember... all labels are not evil, and music is everything.
I definitely don't remember it :) ....of course...that's the period when tapes were the big thing and on the way out...and I was kid in school...so such things were the least of my concerns (avoiding my homework, on the other hand...)
What is your Slash Rating?
Why would anyone pay for 128kbps? You'd be better off going to a used music store and buying cassette tapes.. It'd be cheap, and probably about the same sound quality.
128kbps. Pfft. I won't even keep FREE 128kbps tracks.
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
All right, then let's try a slightly different approach. Let's say the recording contract is written up, and the artist makes a record, and the record does fairly well. In fact, let's assume it went gold! The record company spends 5.4 million dollars, and the record pulls in about 7 million. That's a win all around, right? Not quite. See, according to the nicest recording contracts, the artist gets a small percentage of the gross. From that percentage the artist must pay back the record company for the cost of production and promotion, while the huge percentage the company gets is just considered gravy. So, while the artist pays back the 5.4 million, he doesn't get a dime. The artist's cut of the 7 million doesn't begin to cover the 5.4 million dollars he owes. So, now that he's mildly popular and 5.1 MILLION DOLLARS in debt, he either:
1.) goes on tour and pays the debt back over the next several years, or
2.) declares bankruptcy and dissolves the band.
The problem with number one is he can't pay the rent during those touring years, and the problem with number two is that once he declares bankruptcy he's not legally allowed to perform or record under the now-popular name, so the hard-won fame vaporizes. Now, let's do that math:
Original investment: $5.4 million
Profit: $7 million
Amount to artist: $0.00
Amount to record company: $7 million
Value of artist in the market: $0.00
So, in exchange for that one year of fun, he's got no real property, ten years of not being able to get a credit card, and he's got to go back to the 7-11 job, or do the whole thing again. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem to qualify as "a heck of a lot further ahead than he was". This is one of the major contributors to the "one hit wonder" phenomenon, and even the major players have difficulties with it. Glen Campbell has twenty gold records, and he has said that he lost money making every album he recorded.
Virg
"she embodied the purity of the womankind that's sadly mission from the modern world" oh please give me a break, she wears panties on the outside of her pants for goodness sakes. Perhaps you would be happier with a less or even non experienced person becuase that way you wouldn't *ahem* disapoint her cause she doesn't know any better. I would rather her get those sexual impulses of multiple partners out of her system before settling down that way she won't "wonder what she is missing" and realize I have more to offer. As for the VD's or STD's that is just a matter of simple responsibility of getting testing before undoing your pants.
I can only agree with the previsous poster. $10 a month is a fair price for unlimited downloads, and eMusic's selection is excellent. Only the 128kBit/s are a bummer, that's why I mainly download artificial music (Matmos, Atom Heart, etc) where you don't notice the difference. Unfortunately, 128kBit/s really disturbing in Classical or Jazz recordings.
I would certainly pay 25c per song for most MP3s - it'd be worth it for consistent quality. I might not get everything that way, but if it was something I really liked, I'd go that route first.
You're forgetting about the "over-download fee" which will be charged against the artist's $0.0025 if their song gets downloaded too much. In fact, if you download even more, the artists have to start paying the record company.
OK, so I made this up, but it'd be perfectly in line with the other terms of their contracts.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Why would the music industry want a quarter cent per song when they currently get $15 per CD, with no other legal options for getting the music.
The first offering was too clunky and too consumer unfriendly to hold much hope for its success, says Richard Parsons, AOL Time Warner's incoming chief executive.
When are they going to learn to model these things on experiences that are already familiar to people?
You'd think a giant corporation would have the resources to learn from decades of interface mistakes, not to mention all the bad interfaces on the web.
This is a business of trial and error.'
It doesn't have to be, if you've GOT A CLUE.
Probably just another case of wanting to fail to protect the status quo.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
How does nursing a puritanical viewpoint on a natural enjoyable experience constitute purity? I can respect a woman's choice to not have sex in sense that it is her choice and none of my damn business, but I pity that it is probably indicative of maturity problems and early indoctrination.
The whole preoccupation is disgusting and demeaning to women in general. Your ideas are a hold over from regarding women and their bodies as property of their fathers and husbands.
stupid wannabe-k5 wankfest.
weblisten.com
this is how all online music should be offered
with the exception of mp3 128kb bit rate being the only bit rate offered (other than WMA, yuk)
So if you want to support your favorite artist, go to a Concert.
My favorite bands don't even play in the US. I might be able to catch a concert if I fly up to Canada though.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer