Slashdot Mirror
Ask Singer Janis Ian About the RIAA and Online Music
Janis Ian has been a popular songwriter and performer since the 1960s, and has decided that Internet music downloads help her and many other recording artists. She wrote an article saying so, then wrote a followup piece, and now it's time for Janis to answer your questions about how the RIAA, the "major labels," and online filesharing affect artists like her. We'll send 10 of the highest moderated questions to Janis tomorrow and post her answers when we get them back. (Off-topic note: Alton Brown has not forgotten Slashdot. He had some show taping problems that messed up his schedule, and asks us to be patient, please.)
What kind of response from the RIAA et al have
you received from your writings? Do they just
pretend like if they ignore your commentary, it'll
go away, or have you actually gotten some sort
of response from an actual industry exec?
What percentage do you make of the sticker-price of your CDs?
Also, if you know, how much of that price is going to pay for advertising, studio time, et al., and how much is pure profit for the record companies?
Do you not find it strange that a 2-hour DVD, with commentary, subtitles, and extra scenes, can be sold for less than $10, while few audio CDs are that low priced?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Its obvious that CD's from a lesser known artist such as yourself (no offense intended) might have difficulties selling. Its also apparent that free downloads of your music would expose it to more people and potentially increase sales. However, what do you think the effect of peer to peer sharing is on more recognized artists and groups, particularly very popular artists and groups (Britney Spears and the like) who don't need peer to peer technology to gain recognition?
what would you say to RIAA executive to try to convince them that p2p helps the music industry, and they shouldn't be so concerned about money anyhow?
Runnin' On Empty
When you entered the music business, radio stations were diverse. In the last few years, this diversity has disappeared. Do you have any comments on this?
In one of your interviews, you mentioned that contracts with the music industry should be likened to indentured servitude (must produce X albums, but the label has the final say on if what you produce was acceptable). Why do you think so many artists willingly accept these terms? What can be done to promote contracts that are more fair?
slashdot!=valid HTML
RIAA is evil. This is an established fact of life. What I'd like to know, from an artist's standpoint, is how SHOULD it be? Now you sign with a label that helps production and then calls you a hired hand and steals your music. How should it work, start to finish? What's currently broken that's stopping this? Do you have any ideas on how we can fix this for the artist, as a society? How can we get involved to help the artists?
What exactly does the RIAA do to help the individual artists, anyhow? To me, it appears that their business model is to protect the record companies at all costs, and do very little for the actual creators.
What do you propose as a long-term solution for the music industry? How does your proposed solution benefit each of the parties involved: the artist (songwriter, singer, musician), the consumer, the recording studio, the talent agent, and the producer?
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Depends what you mean by the "average" artist. Surely there is a broad range of political stances, computer literacy and general apathy.
I'm much more interested in the way the RIAA works, from someone who presumably has worked with and without the system, and done plenty of research into the matter.
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
1) is it the lack of control they have over the distribution?
2) is it the fear that someone will find out what the "filler" material on the album sounds like.
3) that P2P actually cuts into sales.
or is it a combination of the three?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I'm curious - you're an artist who's been in the business for a number of (ahem) years. How has the RIAA changed since you signed your first recording contract?
The battles between artists, listeners and the recording industry strike me as just a high profile version of what is happening in the larger society. We are seeing the centralization of power in the hands of the few to the immediate detriment of workers in a field and longer term harm to society as a whole.
What kind of efforts can those of with relatively little power make to reverse this centralization? Or should we just wait for the inevitable collapse and prepare to pick up the pieces?
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
Hello, Madam Ian. I'd like to point your attention to Scott McCloud's essays named "I Can't Stop Thinking!", especially #5 and #6, the Coins of the Realm. After reading those two, and the claim that 15 cents per song would be apropriate for the artist directly, what would your reaction and responce be?
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
When an artist signs on to a record label, exactly how much control do they lose over they type of music that they will put out?
We've all heard the stories or watched a movie about how an indy band decides to sign onto a record label, and the label then forces them to change their image / play crappy music written by some 2-bit composer / or do something else that the band doesn't really like, but their contract obligates them to do.
Are these views extreme in most cases?
Does the artist lose all control, allowing themselves to be remade into whatever the record company wants them to be? Or is some amount of control retained?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I learned the Truth at seventeen,
That P2P is met with Lawyer Teams.
And High School file sharing friends,
destroyed by thought control bends.
We all play the game, but when we dare,
to download songs, is it unfair?
Inventing email accounts unknown,
causing profit losses to the bone,
that call and say "Don't download that!"
but we think that Napster was just phat.
It isn't all it seems, at seventeen...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
While I must admit I really haven't heard much of your music, your stance with regards to the RIAA and Peer-to-Peer song swapping has ceratly drawn my attention both to you and your music. With bills in the US congress to allow entities such as the RIAA and MPAA to 'attack' p2p networks, specifically those allowing copyrighted works for download, do you think the RIAA and/or the MPAA has any concious understanding of the mistrust and Orwellian thoughts that their lobbying efforts are creating? Lastly, what do you think it would take to get them to realize the light at the end of the tunnel that they see is actually an oncomming train?
I don't think many can argue that the overall experience of downloading/ripping/burning music is still prohibitive to many. People will still buy CDs and whatnot because the current technology does not allow for immediate, complete, high-quality copies to be made. In that way, modern filesharing is very much like sharing tapes. This, in my opinion, does help artists.
However, let's take a look into the future. Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD (or whatever the current technology is) in even less time. One click allows me to fully reproduce Janis Ian's latest release - liner notes & all.
At that point, should artists be worried? Or, to put it more generally, should artists always permit the reproducing of their works?
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
What has been the RIAA's or label's attitude about your online pieces regarding the "biz" and have you received threats ( legal or otherwise ) for speaking so candidly about it?
I personally believe that the big reason that the RIAA's up in arms about music sharing is that they're concerned that people will hear the music and realize they may not want it. They fear losing money from people buying an album without really knowing what's on it.
Do you think there's any truth to what I'm saying?
As the coauthor of a rapidly-becoming-obsolete technology book that's barely more than two years old, I can certainly sympathize regarding royalty checks in the red (I only received one, so far, that actually came with a check attached). Knowing that, how do you feel about significantly reduced copyright terms? Obviously, it would mean your former label would no longer be able to profit off of songs like "At Seventeen", but conversely, having that material in the public domain much more quickly might result in some of the collateral effects on your current material that, as you described in your first article, Baen is doing for authors.
This expiry issue is actually a more critical concern for many in technology, because unlike other, more tangible cultural elements like books or records, a lot of culturally significant digital content (e.g. old video games) has been produced in the technology arena that, by the time its copyrights expire under current law, no one will remember how to (or have the right hardware to) reproduce. Then again, how many people today (a mere decade later, really) still have working phonographs?
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Can you honestly say that you believe in human altruisticness? If I for one made an album, no way would I put it online for download. It's not a matter of greed, I just believe that the majority of people won't pay for what they can get for free. And not to troll, but this site reaffirms that opinion everyday.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
We know that the movie industry doesn't have the "problems" music does -- Macrovision can be easily circumvented, and copying from cable and satellite TV picks up where that leaves off. And yet people continue to buy and rent and watch movies at the box office, and the industry continues to do well despite piracy. Software isn't all that different: good programs and games continue to sell well despite the availability of "warez" and casual copying.
What then, in your opinion, are the significant differences between video and music or software? Why is digital piracy such a "problem" for them when the others have successfully made money despite it?
When I talk to RIAA lawyers they insist that they and their colleagues with the major labels are staunch defenders of the 1st Amendment. Has this been your experience? Why or why not?
Finding God in a Dog
How much has ownership of lyrics, music and captured peformances shifted in favor of the artists? How much of a factor do you view the RIAA's alleged-piracey tactics are to avert risk of further erosion of these lucrative properties away from producers (i.e. big labels)?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
For instance, you might want to start by signing my band, Local Porn Star. Thanks.
I really liked your idea about a proposal for the RIAA to "test the waters" with music that was out of print. But that got me thinking even more. Most of the music I downloaded from Napster was music that was either OOP altogether, or never released on CD in the states. Why would the RIAA be concerned if I just happen to like music that they deemed not important enough to even make available for me to purchase. I think your idea would go much further than just "testing the waters" for people in my niche.
My question is this: Why would they not go for something like this?? Have you heard any rational reason for the labels not getting together and giving this a go??
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I think it is interesting that the success or otherwise of musicians and music in general is now measured in CD sales, playlists and MTV airplay. I think this is a great shame considering what music can be, and indeed ought to be. These great custodians of the income of the record labels (who incidentally themselves make no music, they merely package and sell it) shows how crazy the whole discussion has gotten. Can we please remember the lowly musician?
Fundamentally musicans make music because they love music. They don't do it for the fame, for the limo or the huge paycheck (though I grant some do). Musicians make music because they are crazy about music.
I believe that the Internet has the potential for us to rediscover musicians who make music, music for themselves, their friends, their local community but most of all music for people to listen to and enjoy. Musicians with a passion for the music in itself. But this potential is being criminalised as the labels and their cronies see their massive revenues slipping away. Lets face facts record labels are the most conservative, non-innovative and staid organisations known to man. They *buy* talent in, and most of all they buy it cheaply, often through one-sided contracts, usually underpaying by substantial amounts - you only have to look at the countless court cases surrounding record contracts.
Musicans need to innovate and need people to listen to their music, and the normalising effects of the record industry merely serve to homogenise and standardise music into need easily digestable packages. This is the problem - the record labels have gotten bigger than the musicians and consequently they now try to mass-produce them. This is a pathetic attempt to continue to cash in on their cash-cows and suppress innovation and creativity.
I hope people will continue to experiment with downloading and trying out new music, and yeah hopefully some method will be developed to help musicians get paid when you want to buy it. But the record labels have grown fat and lazy and have become part of the problem.
I believe Open Music initiatives (like Creative Commons, EFF, LOCA public license etc) are the way forward to get exciting new sounds and musical movements underway. I look forward to seeing what musicians the world over can create in this new medium.
I would be very interested in hearing what Janis thinks of these Open Music licenses.
David
locarecords.com
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
I assume that you get a chance to talk to other artists at music festivals and the like. Have you received any feedback from them regarding your recent public comments? What about other music industry people (festival organizers, recording industry execs, radio DJ's, etc)?
(Seems to me that this organization can not only exist to deny P2Pers. It existed before Napster, et. al. and thus provided some service to artists, even if peripherally.)
Hi Janis,
How do you feel about the general policy of "CD's cannot be returned unopened."? Do you feel this is necessary to protect artists? The reason I ask is that it seems to fly right in the face of customer satisfaction.
Is there anything in your assorted contracts, past and present, that disallows you from organizing with other musicans to protest or strike against your label or the RIAA?
Has artists ever sucessfully orginized against the RIAA or one of it's member companies, to stop a practice that makes the industry money at the artists expense?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
What do you think that the general music-buying public should do about the current situation? Should we boycott copy-protected CDs? Write letters to someone? Share our views artists after concerts?
An important question was asked here... It's in the 4th panel, you'll understand when you see it.
Now, the fictional Shawn Fanning refused to answer the question, would you care to take a shot at it?
[o]_O
I'm not sure where you're shopping for dvds son, but generally list price on those things goes around $20 to $30. Granted, you can find deals, but you can do the same for CDs. Comparing the standard overpriced CD to the bargain DVD isn't really fair.
That being said, I agree that CDs are overpriced for carrying 40-70 minutes of stereo audio, while a DVD carries 2-3 hours of video + 5.1 digital surround sound + bonus features, and doesn't cost substantially more.
From the little history I know, the RIAA was originally created to bring standards to record formats, and today has become a political tool for the big-wigs of the industry. We need to see how they changed, and learn from it..hopefully to prevent it from happening in the computer industry.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
How difficult would it be for an established artist to leave the RIAA and remain a success?
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
How practical or common is it for an artist to retain copyright to their own material? Is there a financial incentive to do that? Does a wish to retain copyright of recorded material have an impact on your chances of signing with a "mainstream" label?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Do you see a possibility of a return to subscription recordings, for currently relatively obscure artists that make a name for themselves by offering free samples of their music on-line, to establish their reputations, if the recording industry's lock on distribution were to be diminished?
You could've hired me.
Apple seems to have the most geek-friendly attitude towards digital music and fair use - they ask not to steal music and (as far as iTunes / iPods are concerned) obscure the methods to do so without completely preventing it. As a practicing musician myself I understand the necessity of copyright and all its baggage and am enthralled with Apple's stand - I also grew up writing / scoring all my stuff on a variety of macs. I'm therefore wholeheartedly biased and would like another professional opinion.
So I guess the question is: How do you feel about Apple's stance on fair use?
Triv
The Ultimate Home Theater
This 20-person home theater earned Escient Solutions an award for "Best Home Theatre Electronic System Design Over $150,000"
At over 150K with no upper limit, any home theater could be best.
Hi Janis,
Your site has some material that implies you were the subject of FBI investigations. Could you tell us more about that? Was it related to your early work regarding interracial relationships ("Society's Child", 1966), or something else?
Thanks,
S.D.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
How old are you? 12?
-------------------------
A person of moderate zeal
one word: Locomotion
-------------------------
A person of moderate zeal
oops, no wait... that was Carol King...
Any way, how old are you, 12?
-------------------------
A person of moderate zeal
As a long-time "amateur" musician who has made a lot of recordings and kept all the rights by not signing any contracts, my main worry about all this is: The RIAA are once again trying to prevent me from making my own recordings of my own music. They tried this when they tried blocking other recording media such as cassettes, and they lost. But in today's corporate-dominated world, I keep worrying that they might succeed the next time.
The "Digital Rights Management" software seems to me to be an attempt to do the same thing. If this succeeds, I'll have to get a license (probably from Microsoft) to record and listen to my own music on my own machines.
Is there anything we can do to prevent this? Or are we facing a world in which all music, even my own private music, will be owned by the corporations?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You came up with a good way for the RIAA to get a reasonable benefit from online music and get what they are actually due when music is freely available. The RIAA hasn't gone for it, which is hardly surprising, considering that the RIAA are, so far as I can tell, the only people who don't like you.
So what can be done without the RIAA getting involved? Perhaps the RIAA would buy in if someone had gotten something working which was making money and didn't use RIAA-owned materials. I bet it would be possible to put together the music needed to have a site from people who just play for fun and aren't expecting to make money (but want to spend their free time but little money on it).
Miss Janis Ian,
Everybody seems to have a solution but nobody seems to be putting one into place. Will you lead from the front on this issue and start putting up your own website where people can pay for your songs to download and or buy your songs on a MP3 CD? Maybe if some hard evidence is shown to the record companys they will follow suit?
Thanks alot,
Mr.Winkey
Vote early. Vote often. Vote CowboyNeal.
First off, thanks to you and to Christine Lavin for eloquently voicing the artist and consumer side of this issue and puncturing the facade presented by the RIAA.
In the 1940's the musicians' union shut down the record industry for 2 years. In today's market, that would be next to impossible. Artists like you, Christine Lavin, and Ani DiFranco have proven that it's possible to survive and prosper away from the major labels. What do you envision as a fair balance between artist, label, radio, and consumer, especially for artists outside the mainstream? How can we as fans and consumers be effective in pushing the mass media towards that balance? Would it make sense for independent artists and smaller labels to form their own coalition, say as BMI was formed as an answer to ASCAP?
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
Your stance on the recording industry and the public is right on, but how can we convince other artists of our viewpoint?
- Serge Wroclawski
I absolutely agree. I never meant to give the impression that computer literacy == approving of copyright abuse. I was thinking more of the distinction between "my manager says all P2P is the devil incarnate" and those who, knowing about the subject, can take into account the complications.
.aif files to be available as well as .mp3s... some of us don't play music through soggy cornflakes packets attached to our monitors :) Oh, and .tiffs of the covers as well.
The problem is that I can't find it in my heart to side with the RIAA, but nor do I agree that entertainment should be free without helping those who created it make a living.
At the moment, we have two extremes: the RIAA, and Napster (or whatever it is this week). Neither is desirable, but no-one seems to have made popular a really good 3rd way, AFAIK. Yes, there are lots of ideas floating around, but we need more of a paradigm shift. Just letting people download samples isn't really going to get us anywhere fast enough.
Here's an example (not a paradigm shift, but gives you an idea of what I want and why): remove internet radio royalties, and let lots of people stream what they want to. If you latch onto a few stations run by people who share your tastes, you soon get to know lots of stuff you love and had never heard of (in my case, it's listening to Radio Free Klezmer that's got me buying loads of John Zorn...). Then (and here's the clincher), you can buy the damn songs online and download them, so even if the CD's out of print (like my favourite Henry Kaiser album), or only ships from the US and you're in the UK and have to pay exorbitant customs charges, you can stil get the CD easily. Of course, I'd expect
Given that many CD stores like Amazon or Tower Records already have clips of music, why aren't they offering all the really obscure stuff for download? Bastards...
Thing is, I'm fed up of everyone talking about how they want to buy albums "by" their favourite band-flavour-of-the-moment. There's been so much stuff done in the decades before us, I want to find the interesting stuff and listen to it.
Well, that concludes my rant. See you same time, same place next week...
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
I recall my grandfather telling me as a kid about the early 1970's CB radio problem. It turns out that the FCC initially required licenses to operate a CB radio. Truckers and the general public broke this rule in such numbers that the FCC dropped the requirement all together to aviod looking stupid. Obviously this situation can be applied to today's music "sharing" situation. Here the laws forbid the act of private citizens giving out thousands of copies of copyrighted music, but millions of people disregard those laws and most are better off for it (having more music for less money afterward). Do you believe this civil diobedience to be a legitimate expression of one's sentimate towards these regulations? If so, how far away can the "critcal mass" of file sharing be? Does this disregard for the current statutes help the cause or detract from it by branding music sharers as hacker/thieves.
Thanks, and mad props to artists that speak their mind!
James
Imagine a future where music bands only make a small percentage of money of what they earn now because of piracy, a future where the most popular band is not even close to being millionaire.
Do you think music would disappear? In other words, would musicians (both new and already well-known) compose, play, perform as good if money were not there? How important is money in all of this?
Today, distributing recorded music costs next-to-nothing. Yet the price of recorded music has never been higher.
What does a record company offer an artist today? What can a record company do for an artist that the artist can't do herself? Are artists beginning to realize this on their own?
Thanks / Jeff
Her most famous would be Fly Too High from -78 or -79
She has been active since late 60's
Who do you believe that the RIAA primarily works for? The artists or the labels, and how do you think that this can be changed? (or should it even be changed?) Thank you.
It has always been my opinion that the RIAA cares not about selling a million different CDs, but rather sell a million identical CDs. The RIAA would be silly not to think that way. I believe the record industry isn't so concerned about "theift" of the music, but more about controlling what people listen to.
It's a little hard to justify the cost of buying a CD without hearing it first. So, to first hear it you have the option of radio and TV which are pretty much controlled by the RIAA or you can get a copy from a friend (extending to online "friends") which is frowned upon by the cartel.
Do you feel the RIAA's stance on music trading on the Internet and even outside of the Internet is entirely about lost sales, or is it more sinister?
My fiancee and I are songwriters and we have a band, and of course we'd like to be able to make a living writing and playing our music, even if we never become zillionaires doing it. If you were getting your first recording deal today, but had your 30+ years knowledge of the music business, what things would you do, not do, do instead, etc. What sort of things would you do to protect yourself and your rights to your own music? In other words, what wisdom in dealing with record companies have you acquired can you pass on to other artists about the whole signing process, copyrights, publishing, etc.?
About 10 years ago, I submitted tapes of my material through the Readers_Digest_Songwriters_Market : RequestToSubmit : SendTape : Never_Hear_Anything_Back_Except_For_Promotion_Sca
Having spent a considerable amount of time touring, do you see this as a viable approach for undiscovered songwriter / artists to get their message out; perhaps the only one? Do you know other signed artists personally who are still benefitting from the legacy A&R / Promotion-heavy approach who might be considering the recent turns of events in their current model of distribution? Are they planning to focus more on touring if the current CD sales slump doesn't turn around?
As a side note, I love where all this is going and look forward to the promise of a world where we can get access to creative content unfiltered by the RIAA. With cheap / useful technology, artists should be able to finally get some real creative work done. I only hope our lobbyists don't legislate that potential away from us...
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
You mean Locomotion by Left Side? Lo, lo, lo, lo, lo, lo, lo, locomotion? Did she write Mama mia (not the one by Abba) too?
The problem is that the contracts have non disclosure agreements in them as well as do the settlements between artists.
Visit this page on boycott-riaa and listen to part seven of the hearings on Labels accounting practices. It starts out with Kevin Murray CA Sernator) and then Don Engel the Dixie Chicks attorney.
Sorry if my earlier post got truncated. The cost of a CD/album has nothing to do with the cost of a PC music recording system. That would be like saying the cost of a Spielberg motion picture can't be much more than the cost of a camera and a roll of film. The cost of making a Spielberg picture depends (in part) on the cost of hiring Spielberg and Tom Cruise to make it, plus many other costs. The cost of recording studio equipment has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years. But the cost of making an album is the cost of hiring all the musicians, songwriters, engineer and producer who make it, and those guys charge money because they've been working their whole lives to become good musicians. Furthermore, if a movie is to become a hit, the film studio or record label has to spend millions of dollars marketing it. "Spider Man" would not have been a hit unless the studio had spent a great deal of money on all the movie trailers you saw all over TV and all the posters you saw at bus stops. Web sites cost money too. With all major-label record albums, the label spends much more money promoting and marketing the album than they spend recording it. And very, very few albums become platinum or gold sellers in the absence of hundreds of thousands of dollars in promotion money. So, in short, the cost of recording an album might be small if it's an indie punk project where the musicians don't expect to get paid. But the cost of a major-label pop record is a huge gamble involving hundreds of thousands. The record company invests the money (gambles) in the hopes that they can reap rewards (profits). The question is, how will the Internet, P2P and MP3s cause the balance to tip? Will record labels have to figure out how to have hits when they have the potential to earn far less money from them? If so, how can they justify the marketing budget if it will be even harder for them to earn their money back? Fascinating.
Thinking like this got us the DMCA, and maybe the Berman Bill and the Hollings bill. Keep up the good work.....
The problem with your arguement is you make it so narrow. The RIAA wants to get control of your PC, your stereo, your car, and so on. At what point will you decide the RIAA is screwing you? Think the RIAA is going to stop at piracy by copy protecting CDs? What about when there are only players available that will play a RIAA approved CD (or whatever format comes next)? Yeah, you can have yer CD player now... but how long will it last.
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
Seems to me that you and your fellow artists and the open source community have at least one thing in common - a strong dislike for the RIAA.
Given that, perhaps the two communities could get together and take on the recording industry by developing a replacement for it.
Today, the industry supplies the artist with:
1) Funding - supply up front funding to artist to create music
(i.e venture capital).
2) Recording - they provide a studio,(optional) other musicians
to record with, technicians to record the music, mixing, editing, etc.
3) Manufacture - create physical CD's, art-work, etc.
4) Distribution - distribute the CD's to record stores.
5) Accounting - Track sales, send payments to artists, songwriters, etc.
6) Promotion - promote your music to the fans. Get air play on radio, TV. Arrange for concerts, etc.
Unless the artist has recent "megahits" much of the above is done poorly or not at all. What software would you like to see the open source community develop, to enable artists to become more independent of the recording industry?
[Insert pithy quote here]
I have just finished reading "Our Band Could Be Your Life" by Michael Azerrad which details the creation of the American independent music scene from 1981 to 1991 (when Nirvana "Nevermind" went #1 on the Billboard charts). In it there are many examples of independent artists (those not affiliated with the Big Six) trying to move up to a major label.
However there is also a strong segement of the underground that is vehemently independent: Steve Albini for one and his diatribe against the majors (The Problem With Music) or Ian MacKaye and Fugazi who assure all their products cost at most ten dollars and who have concerts for five. It seems that there has been a long standing (at least twenty years) of a "shadow industry" that stands for all the virtues of music making.
My question is this: what do you think causes the majority of the music buying public to only purchase from the Big Six (99% of all music I believe)? And what would the underground have to do to bite into that? Or should they even bother (the idea being someone who buys music from the mainstream isn't worth the effort)?
What is music when you despise all sound?
What do you think about unitedmusicians.com? Will the idea work? What would you recommend as the best course of action for an independent musician who wants to maintain ownership of the publishing portion of their songs' mechanical and performance royalties? Should singer/songwriters start their own publishing companies in order to maintain control of their work?
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Hollywood and the RIAA have the likes of Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen speaking before Congress all the time. Other than Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia, consumers have no voice there. Is there any way Janis Ian could speak before Congress on behalf of musicians and music consumers? I would hate for the likes of Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti to be the only voices they hear.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Janis,
How do you feel about the Palladium and the so-called "trusted computing" initiatives that are being pushed by industry leaders as a way of protecting content providers and copyright owners? Do you see this as something that might benefit artists, songwriters and musicians, or more as an attempt to cede total control in the hands of the RIAA membership? By placing the onus of protecting digital content on the consumer rather than on the entity claiming ownership, will we be helping the struggling musician or will it give the record companies an unassailable lock on the entire industry? In short, if the promoters of trusted computing succeed in their plans, do you think this will move the balance irretrievably in favor of the Big Three?
Yep, you're a naysayer allright. A friend and I have often argued if there was such a thing as "too cynical" and if so, where the line was. You, dear puto, are too cynical. I don't think anyone writes an article for Performing Songwriter Magazine in an effort to "revitalize a fading almost carreer."
And thats an interesting choice of words there. Just how many albums or grammy nominations does one have to get to make it from "almost career" to actual career?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Have you considered providing a specific license for those downloads? If so, would you use your own license, or would you use an existing "open music" license such as the Open Audio License published by the EFF? If you didn't use an existing license, what would your primary reason(s) be for using your own?
No Laughing Allowed!
Advertising.
Marketing.
Airtime on radio play lists.
Concert organization and promotion.
As well as the things you mentioned, like:
Recording studios.
Qualified engineers.
All the back office stuff for running a music business.
Distribution channels. (Janis doesn't make money fom MP3s)
etc.....
Bottom line, a better chance at a steady paycheck. Doubt it? Name one garage band that is distributing over the internet that has global mind share and is making the big bucks that even burned out stars are making, much less Brittney or Backstreet or any other pop group.
She doesn't have to believe, she has personally observed empirical data.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I just came back from DragonCon, so this is fresh in my mind, but I saw a band called the Brobdingnagian Bards. They have one of the most popular songs on Mp3.com, and are somewhere in the top 20 most popular bands, I think 14th... They do sell CDs, they have one produced by Mp3.com, and 2 produced by some other folks. The mp3.com CD that I got from them for 15$, contains 17 songs PLUS all 17 songs in mp3 format. The other two cds cost me about 10$ apiece, maybe a bit more. They don't contain the Mp3s. As far as I can tell these guys just go to RenFairs, Cons, etc... play their music, sell their CDs, put stuff on Mp3.com, etc... They make pretty decent money from what I can tell.
So what entitles Musicians to 'Make it big' ? Why can't they make it 'big enough' and be happy? Why sign with a record label at all if you don't have to?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
That's the trouble. A lot of bands today churn out one good track and a bunch of Kwality muzik.
To me, one good track plus a bunch of random bits called "music" isn't worth $17.99. Get three or four good ones on that disc and then I'll buy it.
Prime example, back in the day, I thought Backstreet Boys "Millenium" was a good deal, it had several good tracks and sold in the mid-teens price range. The next album, "Back in Black" had one decent track ("Shape of My Heart") plus a bunch of crap. It, too, was priced in the mid-teens and I felt it was a waste of money. Not that I listen to either now; my tastes have changed.
Way too many one-hit-wonders these days in popular music. Not many outfits anymore that can produce a 4 disc boxed set of greatest hits.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
When you buy a CD, you're not just paying for the production of that one CD. You're paying for the production of that CD and the 9 others that flopped and didn't recoup their expenses at all.
When the artist is already a success it certainly looks like the record company is getting a great deal. But if some no-name came up to you and wanted you to invest $10,000 in his new record, what kind of return would you want?
p.s. Everybody knows Courtney shot Kurt Cobain. :)
--
Power to the Peaceful
A great deal of the debate over the RIAA/MPAA copyright crackdowns and new technology such as P2P focuses on the monolithic marketing models of the big labels/studios. You yourself have pointed out that their models are based upon a world where music (or movies) are expensive to produce and share.
What alternative model you look foreward to (or fear) arising? Do you want to see artist/promoters working with radio stations (like the old days) or do you beleive that there will always be a place for middle-man labels such as BMG?
Why? I think 14 years from the date of publication is plenty. Shorter monopoly terms should encourage the artists to work (!) and create more, rather than sit on their buts collecting royalties.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
the original poster had a valid point from what i can see. there's a price point where the big guys (MGM, Disney, etc.) can afford to hold their copyright and the smaller guys cannot. could disney shell out 100k for each movie to hold onto the copyright? of course they could. perhaps the re-license fee could be a percentage of actual revenue, but that would be extremely shady as well.
i do agree that copyrights NEED to expire in a reasonable amount of time, perhaps 15 years or so. the intent of a copyright is to give the creator a limited monopoly on the work for a limited amount of time. this lets them and only them make some money while they're off working on the next great peice of work. elvis' estate shouldn't be raking in a check everytime someone sings the blue suede shoes or whatever his songs were. those people should be out earning their own fortune or living off the interest of their parents, but not the continued revenue from "royalty" paymemts for some has-been song.
we need to stop making excuses for the current system, and stop trying to find a way to fit it better into the way the system was intended to function. no extensions, no 50/80/100 year copyrights. limited needs to be defined, and to me it is well under 20 years. to me it should be well under 10 years, but i could waver on that a little.
Ever read the short story Melancholy Elephants [baen.com]?
I have. It's especially terrifying when taken along with the fact that a fellow can get sued for copying a four note melody from an existing song, and that there exist fewer than 50,000 such melodies.
Will I retire or break 10K?
of course they could. perhaps the re-license fee could be a percentage of actual revenue, but that would be extremely shady as well.
Not shady at all. Consider it a tax on net profits derived from a government-granted monopoly.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There are only three groups of musicians who have copyright to their own material:
The real "gotcha", as Steve Albini pointed out, is not the contract, but the deal memo that obligates the band or artist to sign the contract the label eventually offers.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Fame is fame. Are you trying to say that Janis Ian is more famous than Britney Spears?
So go to her site and download one. She encourages it.
"The masses" are music consumers, not music creators. It is their attention, not the RIAA's, that needs to be won. As long as the masses only accept what the RIAA (&c.) provide, to the exclusion of non-commercial music, "open source" or public domain (i.e., "no copyright") music will always be a niche.
As my sister put it, when I suggested that she check out the Open Music Registry to see what it had to offer, she "just isn't interested in new musicians" -- meaning, more to the point, that she is uninterested in music that hasn't been given the commercial stamp of approval. This was a depressing revelation for me, but a worthwhile one at that. There's a serious message here:
If you want to defeat the RIAA, you must pull their audience away. This does not mean working around the law to share commercial music without the license to do so, it means convincing the masses that commercial entertainment is more likely to be trash, and to give Free entertainment their attention instead. This is more challenging than just making Free entertainment available -- it means making Joe and Jane Citizen think that all of their friends and neighbors are going over to Free entertainment, so they can feel "safe" in making the same change. Whether or not you deride them as sheep, pack animals, lemmings, or whatever, Joe and Jane Citizen comprise the rope in a tug of war against the RIAA.
No Laughing Allowed!