Janis Ian on the Internet Debacle
Datasage writes "Janis Ian, famous songwriter and artist, writes about her views of free music downloads, the music industry and the evils of the RIAA in this article." Yet another artist with substantial first-person experience speaking out, reminiscent of Courtney Love's speech.
This really boils down to "who's in it for the self-validation" vs "who's in it for the music." It seems that much of the response to the music swapping debate just goes to show where these folks' alliances are. Mettalica was in it for the prestige and decided to suck up to the record company who was promoting them and making them 'famous'. Janis Ian (and others) is showing herself as someone who is in it to make music, not to get famous.
The fame-junkies are going to ally with the record companies no matter how much or little they get paid. But to quote Bowie, "Fame...makes [someone] loose and hard to swallow."
The ironic part is, if they ditched the record companies and made a *real* effort to come up with an internet-based music distribution system with micropayments, they'd all probably make more money, AND get more direct control over their work...which is a much more 'real' power than the record companies' 'fame' they peddle.
It's interesting to note that this is not someone who could be dismissed by an RIAA flack as a no-name musician whining because the Internet might get her recognition that she's not gotten from "The Industry" -- she's had nine Grammy nominations, and her music has been recorded by just about everybody at one time or another.
Need a UNIX/Linux/network guru in the Boulde
They're too late for that goal. It's been years since I've encountered anyone who believed that the music industry benefited musicians (as a class, rather than as a particular selected individual). And I don't think I've ever met anyone who believed that it was run for the benefit of the consumers.
But it sounds like a good answer to a reporter, and won't usually be openly scoffed at. If for no other reason, then because the publisher doesn't want to offend a large advertiser.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No, not to the RIAA.
No, not to Congress/Parliment/whatever your country has either.
That's been done, and frankly, won't do any better now than it did then.
Boycotts won't work well either. They'll just blame it on piracy anyway.
No, I suggest letter writing to the ARTISTS.
If you decided to buy a CD or go to a live show by [insert artist here] after sampling some of their music, but wouldn't have before, let them know! Most bands have websites, with ways to send email to them. Send one letting them know that they got MORE of your money thanks to your being exposed to them through free downloads.
Maybe, just maybe, if enough people do that, then more artists will step up to argue against the RIAA claims that piracy is hurting artists.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
I recently picked up Frank Zappa's autobiography (The Real Frank Zappa Book) and he had a chapter on failure where he listed all the ideas he had that never took off. One of those ideas (and this was back in the 80s) was to have record companies sell albums using using modems connected directly to home recording decks. His theory was they lose the overhead of packaging and shelf space and would be able open up the industry to new artists (who no longer had to compete for shelf space with more well known people). In addition, there was no concept of out-of-print, and people could get better sound fidelity rather than recording of your buddy's crappy LP. While this probably has little to do with the article, I found it fascinating that this guy was thinking about delivering music directly to people well before Napster and all its clones. Further proof that the man was a genius
My CD collection vastly outweighs my mp3 collection. I mostly download mp3's to fill obscure bands like "Captain Beyond" discographies. I do sample *every* band before I buy their CD though, unless they're a local, then I "sample" them live. What the hell is the difference?
Congratulations to Janis Ian for the excellent article she wrote. As a musician myself, I completely empathize. I've said this before, I'm planning on starting an Internet on label. I could use some help. Drop a comment in my journal if you are interested in getting involved.
Sandman, that really strikes home. My other half and I frequently ask each other if our parents are coming home soon. Gotta love being 42...
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer...
I would put the period right there. Too many corporations cannot fathom the existence of a customer.
I was watching some talking head on one of the tv money shows the other night. They were discussing, what else, corporate mismanagement. This guy was some kind of hot-shot investor, and he was all hot and bothered because company executives had forgotten their one true purpose: to serve the shareholders!.
WTF?!
The ignorance is so rampant, no frickin' wonder we're witnessing such a show of corporate suicide. What about the goddamn customer?! What about developing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and supporting a product that customers want to buy!?
The tail is wagging the dog. Customer satisfaction has taken a back seat to corporate profitability and shareholder value. Selfishness is regularly promoted as the root of all that is good and holy. It should be the other way around. Hence the expression "the customer is always right." - it used to be a maxim of good business practice. When is the last time you heard anything resembling that expression on "Money News with Pinstripe Boy"?
Look no further than that epitomy of self-serving capitalism - Microsoft - to see just how far awry this philosophy has taken us. If they can't compel people to buy their products because they want to, then damn it, let's force them to upgrade by continually changing file formats and protocols. Oh, and let's not forget lobbying Congress to create new laws declaring certain undesireable competitors criminals.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
From Janis Ian's excellent article:
"When Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who'd downloaded Society's Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only the ones who let us know how they'd found the site), 15 bought CDs."
Anyone else notice this is a 15% successful direct sales rate? ANY marketer would be thrilled to have a 2% contact rate, and delerious with joy if only 5% of those contacts made a purchase. 15% is a solid testament to the power of "free samples" as a sales technique. Try the MP3, buy the CD.
BTW I had no idea she was such a good writer. There are lots of well-considered articles on her site, on all manner of topics. Gotta spend a day there sometime soon!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I've sold one, for two bucks in 'royalties'.
That's two bucks more in royalties than Janis Ian has ever been paid for her entire major label career, by her own account. "In 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money." I'm not even 37 years OLD, myself...
As if that's not enough, I can get CDs made pretty cheaply if I made 1000 or so, and can get them one at a time back from Ampcast for 7-10 bucks- and even at that, it's a better deal than BMG artists can get on their own CDs, should they wish to sell 'em at shows: "BMG has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per CD."
This article is even more damning than the Courtney Love article. My jaw is just dropping, and I was far from uninformed to start with... and I never knew how well off I was as a starving indie with no sales. Funny how I'm owed more royalties than a multiple Grammy winner...