Janis Ian on Life in the Music Business

Y'all didn't pull any punches in the questions you asked, and Janis didn't pull any in her answers. But then, the word "outspoken" has been used to describe Janis ever since she recorded Society's Child at the age of 15, back in 1965.

1) How much?
by evilviper
What percentage do you make of the sticker-price of your CDs?

Janis:
As the artist/singer, that's a tough one, because it depends on the contract, and also the sticker price. For instance, contractually I make a smaller amount on records that are priced "mid-line", cut-outs, singles, cassettes, compilations... well, you get the idea! It also depends on the era; my first contract, with Verve (now Polygram) had a royalty rate of 2%. Current royalty rates are 12-20%. Generally, figure that if I was completely paid back, there were no new charges for shipping/ distribution/ advertising/ travel/ phones/ faxes/ artwork/ publicity/ promotion/ manufacturing etc etc, I would make around $1-$2 on a list price of $17.98. Alas, that never happens, because records get high list price only when there's a lot of promotion behind them. On mid-line (you buy it for $12.98), my take drops to around 85 cents, and on down the line.

As the songwriter, I make less if I write the songs - then the record company invokes a 75% clause, where they only pay the songwriter/recording artist 75% of the Congressionally set statutory rate for writing/publishing the song. Their original argument, around 10 years ago, was that artists who insisted on recording their own songs cut the chances of a hit record, because the record company couldn't recommend potential hit songs for them to record.

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?

Janis:
Almost impossible to determine; you'd have to know the advertising budget, studio budget etc. On my CD Breaking Silence, which is owned by Morgan Creek throughout most of the world, I paid for the entire record myself, so there were no recording costs. We've sold about 100,000 of them worldwide. I haven't seen royalties.

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?

Janis:
I don't find it strange, I find it reprehensible.

2) Radio Station consolidation
by gorilla
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?

Janis:
Maybe it's all part of a great international conspiracy to deprive us of choice while driving us crazy with limited playlists of bad music? Maybe the conspiracy includes not just record companies (who benefit because it's much cheaper to sell a million copies of 1 CD by 1 artist than to sell a million CD's by a million artists to a million different people), but also radio stations (who may need that new refrigerator/trip to Cancun to meet a new artist/free lunch/widescreen TV for the office much more than you or I need good, varied music), and drug companies who are using the incredible psychoses derived from hearing a Backstreet Boys single three thousand times to push their drugs on us?

Seriously, diversity is something record companies can't afford anymore - not the majors, at any rate. I'd go to this article, posted at Linux Journal, which quotes a Newsweet article (July 15,2002) by Steven Levy saying "So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that it's all about protecting their Internet-challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moved to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive--to the detriment of the labels, which would have trouble rustling up the rubes to root for the next Britney. The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA-backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is "inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation." That's really it in a nutshell. "Market consolidation" means the less artists they have to promote, the less ultimate dollars they'll spend. The smaller the playlist, the greater the chance that audiences will buy something from that playlist alone - because that's all you'll be able to find out there.

3) Indentured Servitude
by zapfie
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?

Janis:
Ah, you're into a two-fold problem here. Fold one is that the record companies hold all the cards; if you want to be famous, you have to go the mainstream route. If you want huge success, you have to go the mainstream route. If you want worldwide success, you have to go the mainstream route. And until we see our first Internet & Live Shows Only artist sell a million CDs without a label deal, the major labels will be the only mainstream route available. Don't quote Grateful Dead statistics to me - they're the exception, not the rule.

Fold two is that everybody wants to be famous these days, and enough is never enough. Let me use an example: in their mid-20s, my grandparents were thrilled to have a small refrigerator (without freezer) and gas stove with a tiny oven. The house had one TV. My parents assumed they were due a bigger fridge with freezer, four burner stove and three-rack oven, dishwasher, toaster, mixmaster etc. The house had two TV's. My generation went for all that, plus microwave, automatic coffee maker, food processor, and a TV for living room, bedroom, and kitchen. The next generation assumes they're due all of that, plus espresso machine, bread maker, etc. And there's a TV in pretty much every room.

It's the same with being famous. In my grandparent's day, you got famous if you were a criminal or a politician. Artists whose fame went beyond regional were really rare; worldwide fame, even for classical artists, was almost non-existent. Nowadays, with television and magazines making it seem like there are more famous people than not, every artist figures they, too, can get really, really famous. And they want the whole hog.

I think (musing on a personal note here) that's one of the benefits of my not being twenty any more, or even thirty. I'm painfully aware that I will never have another hit record; no label's going to invest that kind of money in me. (As an aside, the big Carlos Santana album cost $750,000 to make, and $1,500,000 to promote. That's a lot of money, and it wouldn't have happened if Clive Davis hadn't needed to prove a point after initially being "retired from active duty".)

Believe me, it took me years to get comfortable with that conclusion. But once I was comfortable, I could look around at my life and be pretty happy. Ten years ago I was still chasing the brass ring, waiting for my 16th platinum record to happen. Now, I'm thrilled that I can gig whenever I want, record what I want, and make a living doing what I love. I know it sounds disgustingly Pollyanna-ish, but there it is.

4) Life without RIAA
by ahknight
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?

Janis:
Oh God... what a huge question! And unfortunately, impossible for me to answer. It should work so there's a fair contract on both sides; no one disagrees that record companies bear the brunt of the initial cost, everyone agrees that they deserve to make money. The question is - how much money, and at whose ultimate expense?

I don't know that you can blanketly call the RIAA evil. They wouldn't exist without support of the media conglomerates, remember. I agree that they're much, much more aggressive (nosy? greedy?) since Hilary took the reins, but ultimately it starts at the top. And the top is the buyer, the one with all the money.

How should it work? Gee, we should all be good friends, make our deals on handshakes, and always keep our word. That would be a good start. Seriously, I don't know. I do know that record companies have become way too big; there are arguably only five major labels left in the United States, and of those five, four are owned by people in other countries. I do think absentee landlordism is a lot of the problem; how can someone in Germany, or Japan, or Alpha Centauri for that matter, have any idea what consumers and artists in the US are feeling?

Another problem is the lawyers, who are paid for tying artists up as long and as cheaply as possible. And the fact that in the 70s, music became a "growth industry". Through the 50s and 60s, there were plenty of businessmen involved, but by and large they went into the music industry because they also loved music. Sure, they treated artists like shit in the main, but at least they were fun to work with. Somewhere around 1976/1977, you began seeing Harvard Business School grads going into record companies, and there was the death knell. That, and cocaine use by the executives, which made them fritter away their time engaging in pissing contests with one another. That's how these ridiculous artist advances got started. Whoever heard of an artist like Mariah Carey being dropped by her record company, and paid a zillion dollars to leave - only to turn around and get another zillion from another company?! It's absurd.

As to how you can get involved? start with getting political, and voting. Check your own representatives' voting records on issues having to do with this. Support live music, and buy your CD's at the shows - at least then some of the money will funnel right back to the artist!

5) How has the RIAA changed?
by tinrobot
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?

Janis:
Technically, the RIAA was formed in 1952 to "facilitate the technical standardization of records by bringing together engineers from member companies to develop the RIAA curve, a frequency response specification for optimizing the performance of phonographic playback systems." In other words, they were formed to make sure the science of recording was optimally used by all companies, in formats that everyone could play. In 1958, they decided to copy RCA/Victor's creation of a "gold record" (which they gave the Glen Miller Orchestra), and awarded the first one to Perry Como. When I was a kid, that was their entire job - certifying gold records. There are a lot of rumors about back-door dealings in that process, by the way, none of which I'll go into here, but most of which are on the Internet.

With the advent of Hilary Rosen, the RIAA took on a whole new gamut of "problems", and began holding themselves out as defenders of intellectual property rights/defenders of artist's rights/defenders of record company rights (choose one). And that's what they are now - defenders of various rights they determine are important for the good of the mainstream record industry. Unfortunately, just like defense attorneys, they never ask whether their client is guilty - they just try to get him the best deal possible.

One huge change is the amount of things the RIAA control, and the way they exercise that control. For instance, in order to buy a copy of one of my gold/platinum albums in Nashville as a gift for someone, I have to go to one store that's "licensed" by the RIAA to produce those. That's the only store in Nashville, believe it or not, and they're usually backed up several months (not to mention that the first run is always wrong, and has to be re-done. Once they even spelled my name wrong.) When I asked a friend who owns a framing shop why she didn't try to get an RIAA account, she looked into it, and was told they had to apply. The person they spoke with didn't think they would be approved, because they weren't "the type", and he warned them that it would cost $5,000 a year for the privilege, as well as their having to fulfill a minimum amount of orders. They'd also have to be re-approved yearly. In other words, whoever drops the most sugar in the lemonade, gets to have a lemonade stand.

Another huge change is the money involved. When I was 15 and first nominated for a Grammy, I went to the award show with Arlo Guthrie, and all the industry people were saying "Gosh, if we could just get some radio coverage..." A gold record was one that sold 50,000 dollars worth of units. It was a much, much smaller business, and consequently the stakes were much lower. Now, the record industry is where the movie industry was in the early 60's, and the stakes are huge. Witness Rosen's salary, over seven figures, not counting perks. Well worth lobbying for things she may not agree with!

6) What about the future?
by mshomphe
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?

Janis:
Lots of different questions in there! Let's see... yes, I think artists should be worried. Artists should always be worried about something; it's good for our work.

If you can transfer complete CD-quality albums quickly and easily, then reproduce all the artwork, somehow get it on the CD, have the labels come out perfectly-sized to fit a blank CD box, etc etc? Well, then maybe people will really start selling their CD's on line. Maybe the entire business paradigm will move to online distribution. For that matter, online production is only a few clicks away; I can go realtime with Pro-Tools and be working with my engineer in LA right now, making the next album. It's not as much fun, but it's do-able.

I think, as I said in my follow-up article, that the music industry is going to have to provide more and better content in its CDs. Maybe CDs all become DVDs, and you get not just the music, but interviews, concert footage, games, whatever. I don't have the answer.

I do know that in my own opinion, you can't stop file-sharing. Therefore you've got to come up with a better alternative.

7) RIAA Attitude to all this
by sdjunky
What has been the RIAA's or labels' attitude about your online pieces regarding the "biz"BPO/ and have you received threats (legal or otherwise) for speaking so candidly about it?

Janis:
Stunned silence? annoyed silence? loud and angry silence? Hilary is a very bright woman, one might even say brilliant, and a savvy politician. She sent me a lovely email telling me that while she disagreed with a number of things I said, she admired my writing style.

As to the labels, I've heard from numerous executives, secretaries, and everything in between, saying they agree with me but want to remain anonymous for fear of their jobs.

About the only other fallout is that I was supposed to be on a panel at the NARM convention, and one of the "big five" said that if I appeared, they wouldn't come to the convention.

But as I said in an earlier answer, I know I'm not going to get a major label deal, I know I'm not going to have a hit record, and I know I have nothing to lose. So I don't really care, as long as people keep listening to my music.

8) Can Artist Retain Copyright and Still Make a Living?
by reallocate
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?

Janis:
Do you mean the record master, or the publishing rights? That's a big difference. And remember for purposes of this discussion that writers still get 50% of the income, even when they don't own the copyright. The publisher gets half, and the writer gets half. You can't (at least, not legally) sell your writer's share.

I own the copyright on about half my songs. I had to buy my catalogue back when I was 21, but as time has proved, it was well worth it. I own the copyright on about half my records, but that's only because I had a brilliant lawyer for many years (Ina Meibach), and because I've been making records "just for the fans" that didn't fall under my contracts.

It's not common, unfortunately. And sometimes not unfortunately! Imagine you're a beginning songwriter; you have no money unless you work a day job. Someone offers to support you for three years if they can own your copyrights for that period. Not only that - they'll pitch your songs, trying to get other artists to record them! I think that's a pretty fair deal, personally. After three years, you can leave, hopefully with some success under your belt. And you'll write more songs.

In terms of records, it's a bit different, just because of the length of time they tie you up. Most publishing contracts are for 1-5 years, with an option at the end of each (sometimes mutual, sometimes just the publisher's). Record contracts are always tied to the production and release of material. There's no way to sign a 7-record deal and get out in 5 years, or 7, or even 10, unless they're willing to let you go.

In both instances, the buyer "owns" the material forever. However, as a songwriter, the buyer never owns more than half of my income. With a record, they do.

Is it practical? depends on the circumstance. It's not for me, but I earn enough to afford a business manager who tracks all of that, makes sure I get my royalties around the world, etc. I'm also savvy enough to check my statements, and I notice when a country is under-reported, or a song is missing. It takes up a lot of time, though.

Would it affect your signing with a major label? Absolutely. There's no way, if you're not a huge success already, you're going to own your own master recordings and get a label deal. And most of the time, you'll have to give up at least 50% of your publishing. All that is incentive to the label, to sign you.

9) FBI files on you?
by small_dick
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?

Janis:
No. In fact, I was a little miffed that it wasn't! The files were started about a year before I was born, when my Dad (a chicken farmer at the time) went to a meeting in South Jersey about the price of eggs. (No, I'm not making this up.) Then my Mom made the mistake of attending a Civil Rights Congress meeting about voting rights. Then they had the gall to open a summer camp that advertised itself as "multi-cultural and interracial". That was the main reason.

Your tax dollars at work...

10) What do record companies offer artists today?
by Just Jeff
Not too many years ago, widely distributing recorded music took expensive equipment and cost a lot of money. Only a large record company could do it. Artists had little choice but to sign their life away to a major record company.

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?

Janis:
A lot. Really.

Start with distribution and manufacturing. Joe Shmo uses the same manufacturer/distributor as Radiohead. Both their records are "released" the same week. Radiohead order two million, and run out in a month - they need more, right away! Joe orders 5,000, and runs out in a month - he needs more, right away!

Who do you think is going to get their records in time? Whose records are going to get into the shops first?

Distributing doesn't cost next-to-nothing, alas, and won't in the foreseeable future. Just think of all the record stores, online companies, etc in this country, and imagine trying to make sure your record is in all of them - and in every city you gig in. Then think about coordinating that worldwide. It's a nightmare. Sign with a distributor yourself? Sure, except there are only two or three major distributors in America, and they don't want you if you can't guarantee reasonable sales (say, 35,000 or more). It's not worth the warehousing and trucking for them. And even if they take you, you're still the one who has to make sure the records are in the stores!

Add to that making sure radio stations have the records x 50 states, or times 20 countries.

So there is a lot they can offer, in addition to paying the upfront costs. Look at it from my viewpoint? Windham Hill picked up my option. Two years later, they asked if I would leave. They paid me enough "departure bonus" money to easily make my next record. So I thought, hey, I'll make it, own it, sign a distribution deal. Until I started looking into it.

Now I'm talking with 3-4 smaller labels, working on a licensing deal - they get it for 5 years, they deal with distribution, promotion, publicity, all that stuff. I get a really good royalty rate, keep the overseas rights completely, and get my US rights back in 5 years. A whole lot easier!

There are two other things a record company can offer an artist that are next to impossible to get on your own - perks, and serious fame. I've had #1 records in pretty much every western country in the world, as well as Japan, and let me tell you - it's really big fun. Forget about the fabulous suites hotels give you for free, the automatic bumps up to first class on planes, the Rolex watches from grateful promoters. Think about the kick of playing to 25,000 people a night.

Think about getting to see parts of a country most Americans can't get into in the first place! I've gotten to go places in Japan that only royalty go to normally, amazing old places. I've gotten to meet people I'd never ordinarily get to meet; kings and queens, novelists, Pulitzer Prize winners, artists I've dreamed of meeting. I've gotten to watch 35,000 people in Holland sing harmony with me. Those sort of perks, that sort of fame, is something that right now (for better or for worse), you can only attain with a label behind you.

Comments

Yes I do.

[Em Emalb]

"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? "

Yes. Maybe the rest of the music world will wake up to this too.

Re:Yes I do.

[Kenja]

To record the commentary track for a two hour movie takes two hours. How long do you think it takes to record a CD?

Re:Yes I do.

[Carlos Laviola]

1 hour and 14 minutes, in your own line of thought.

Re:Yes I do.

[OrangeSpyderMan]

And a two-hour movie takes how long?

Re:Yes I do.

[schon]

To record the commentary track for a two hour movie takes two hours. How long do you think it takes to record a CD?

Why is that relevant? Are you suggesting that the entire two hours is all that it takes to make a movie?

Re:Yes I do.

[Reality Master 101]

It's worth pointing out that producers of documentaries probably aren't subsidizing 50 documentaries that fail for every one that makes money.

Re:Yes I do.

[Leigh13]

"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? "

Yes. Maybe the rest of the music world will wake up to this too.

While I do agree that compact discs are often overpriced, you can't accurately compare the price of music albums to DVD movies.

What you are forgetting is that a DVD is usually not the primary source of income for a film. Most major studio releases make back their money in the theatrical release, so the DVD is just another revenue stream. A CD (or LP, or cassette), on the other hand, is the only current method to recoup an album's own production costs.

-Leigh
Evelyn Forever

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "subsidizing" you mean "burning $100K's on cocaine for the execs, billable to the documentarian," you're right.

Re:Yes I do.

[rlangis]

Yes - perhaps the recording artists will just make DVD's now, complete with music videos, lyrics, cover art, snippets of live shows, concert dates, website address, computer content, screensavers, themes, etc etc etc...

Perhaps in doing so, they can bypass the RIAA entirely (since it's not *just* a record) and sign under the MPAA. Er...

Re:Yes I do.

[Kenja]

When a DVD is released most if not all of the production cost has all ready been made back. The only new production expense is the added features. Compare this to a CD that has to earn enough to pay for production AND distrabution in one go.

Re:Yes I do.

[Golias]

It's worth pointing out that producers of documentaries probably aren't subsidizing 50 documentaries that fail for every one that makes money.

Right, because it's probably more like 5,000. Documentaries almost never make money. For every Ken Burns, there's an army of non-fiction film makers who are utterly ignored.

On a side note, it's too bad nobody modded up the question that I most wanted answered by Janis Ian: "Who the fuck are you?" I listen to lots of music from every decade of the 20th Century, in a wide variety of styles, and I never even heard that name before /. announced an interview with her.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD's are not the bread and butter of the movie industry. The money is supposedly made at the box office.

Having said that, the MPAA admits that most movies don't turn a profit until merchandising and the home video run is taking into effect.. But regardless, lets not forget that while some DVD's cost under $10, so do some CD's, and that some DVD's cost $50+, at least if you're after something a little more 'fringe' (box sets, anime's, etc).

Please, don't compare DVD's to CD's. The politics of the box office are vastly different than that of the radio industry, and the politics of the DVD market different than the CD one.

Re:Yes I do.

[schon]

When a DVD is released most if not all of the production cost has all ready been made back.

You're using some pretty nebulous terms. Most of the production cost has been made back - OK, how much (on average) is made back, relative to the amount spent on production, and how much is the average amount spent on production.

Then, how much does the average CD cost to produce? Give us some

I'll give you an example (using made-up numbers) of why you MAY be correct, but it's still a moot issue. - Say the average movie cost $10M to produce, and the average CD costs $1M to produce.

Your assertion that the movie has made back most (say, 90%?) of it's costs could be correct, but still have nothing to do with relative retail costs, because the total amount of money is still the same! (90% of $10M is $1M!)

The only new production expense is the added features.

OK, so what about the direct-to-DVD releases? They're usually even cheaper than hollywood blockbusters - by your logic, they should be much more expensive, because the blockbusters have already made tons of money.

Re:Yes I do.

[sqlrob]

So, how many bombs does Hollywood produce?

It's also worth pointing out that each movie has a soundtrack of similar length. Yet, a DVD is close to the same cost as an album. Promotion is just as high, if not higher for movies (when's the last time you saw a toy for an album at McDonalds?)

Re:Yes I do.

[Enigma2175]

It's worth pointing out that producers of documentaries probably aren't subsidizing 50 documentaries that fail for every one that makes money.

Perhaps not 50, but there are certainly documentaries that do better than others, pulling in more viewers and ad revenue. The difference is that when you are making a documentary you don't just produce a load of crap, throw it at the wall and note which part of the crap sticks. You actually produce a good product. If the record companies would be more discriminating in what they choose to promote, they wouldn't lose so much money backing losers. I don't see why I should have to pay for their incompetence in signing bands. If only one out of 50 of my programs worked, I would be fired immediately. Maybe these people are jsut in the wrong business.

Re:Yes I do.

[Archfeld]

BINGO, the above is right. Most DVD releases are long after theatre release, and the movie has made its money back. The DVD is just an additional market and BONUS money I think.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're really an idiot, aren't you?

Just because you haven't heard of someone's name in your tiny little isolated corner of the universe you can presume judgement on someone's relative value, as if, because ... ...eh, never mind. You are an idiot, and you post too much here.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD's are not the bread and butter of the movie industry. The money is supposedly made at the box office.

Considering movie tickets are $4-$9, I don't really see them changing the balance books significantly on a per-customer basis.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, golly. I'm sure if you haven't heard of her Mr. Music Expert, then she must be a nobody!

Re:Yes I do.

[Golias]

Just because you haven't heard of someone's name in your tiny little isolated corner of the universe you can presume judgement on someone's relative value, as if, because ...

Here's a concept: a sense of humor.

Lighten up.

Oh, and yes, I do post too much here. I'm on a job with way too much down-time right now, and bored. /. discussions passes for entertainment with me.

Re:Yes I do.

[GraemeL]

If only one out of 50 of my programs worked, I would be fired immediately.

Someone tell that to Microsoft.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

while some DVD's cost under $10, so do some CD's,

Yes. I know that I myself have bought several CDs for $1 or $2. If you're willing to buy a low-priced classical music CD, you will find that they can be very inexpensive.

Re:Yes I do.

[Schnapple]

Just remember that the bottom line is this - I have a wallet. The wallet has money in it. The money goes towards things. I can pay $17-$18 for the soundtrack album to a movie or I can pay $20 for the movie itself. Yeah, I know about how both industries work. Yeah, I know there's like 50 people to pay with the CD. Yeah, I know the musicians on the CD are hard working artists who deserve to be paid. But my wallet doesn't care about that. My wallet says $20 for a movie is a better deal than a $17 CD. I buy the DVD instead of the CD. And not because I can't afford both - I can. The CD, given that it's audio only, just seems like such a ripoff.

Perhaps I'll feel the same about DVD's one day. Perhaps someday there will be a $20/month service that lets me watch whatever I want to watch whever I want to watch it forever. When that day comes I'll feel like $20 per movie is a ripoff.

Plus, its interesting to note how much of this is about possession. Right now the above scenario seems so dirty - I want to have the movie on disc. Think about all the people who download movies they see in theaters - crappy picture, horrible sound - but there they go burning them to VCD and playing them on their DVD players. And then when the movie comes on DVD they buy the DVD and throw their VCD away. It's like it was just holding a spot for the DVD. People download more MP3's than they can possibly listen to - they just like having them. People download thousands of MAME ROMs, knowing they won't play them all (or even understand the Japanese ones) because we like having things and possessing them.

Look at how the pay-per-download music systems have failed (and how Napster would have failed, given the chance) - they took away the one thing people wanted: possession. I say, give people the ability to download MP3's for $20/month and do what they want with it and few will bother to give it to others - they'll tell the others to buy their own. This DRM stuff is for the birds.

Re:Yes I do.

[Schnapple]

For every Ken Burns, there's an army of non-fiction film makers who are utterly ignored

Yeah but think of the number of documentaties that are made out of love or for fun. Many are film school projects or are mainly for Oscar consideration. Few documentarians are in it for money - many have a point of view to express or have an agenda.

Re:Yes I do.

[joshsisk]

Uh no. The MPAA claims (take it for what it's worth), that most movies don't make their money back until video.

They also say that most movies don't ever make money, but the big hits make up for the losers. The RIAA says the same thing about CDs, incidentally.

Re:Yes I do.

[Golias]

Few documentarians are in it for money

You are correct, although that does not negate my point. Documentary film producers do, in fact, subsidize a lot of money-losers.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

What, going to Google and typing in her name is too hard for you?

Re:Yes I do.

[joshsisk]

Well, in their defense, it is very hard to predict whether or not a band will succeed. When you sign a band to record an album, you are gambling that they will actually make a good one, for one. And that people's interests will be in line with their sound, etc.

The key is that the record labels should take a less aggressive, manufactured approach... Let bands build up a following over time, like they used to, as opposed to the current strategy of throwing money and advertising at the problem, thus creating a horde of one-hit wonders.

Re:Yes I do.

[robocord]

Actually, most movies make more from the DVD release than from the box office. Most of that money comes in the form of rentals. Check out this page for more info. It's part of a larger feature called The Monster That Ate Hollywood

Of course, you still can't compare the two, because renting CDs doesn't happen, for various reasons.

Re:Yes I do.

[bman08]

Films are not shot on DVD, and I guarantee you that transferring a 35 or 70mm movie to DVD is just as expensive, below the line, as engineering a CD.

Distribution is the same story. DVDs and CDs both have to get to blockbuster. Production, shipping, storage and all that crap is the same.

Marketing costs for a DVD may be lower because they usually release DVDs close enough to the theatrical dates these days that the movie still has some residual buzz to drive the market. Anectdotally, though, it certainly seems like major DVD releases get more mainstream advertising as well.

There's no way a DVD release is just free money. They have a similar set of initial expenses, yet the market for DVDs sets the price at 10 bucks. Why? If you ask me it's because I can rent a DVD for 2, so if they cost twenty I'd never bother. The fact remains that even at the 10 dollar price point DVDs are incredibly profitable.

Re:Yes I do.

[truthspirit]

Another point you might consider is that documentaries are not the same beast as mainstream music. You aren't paying for incompetence in signing bands, you're paying for advertising. It costs almost nothing for a record company to pick up a small artists' moderately popular record and then shelve it. They don't like little fish making waves outside their system. Especially when you compare that cost to what a break out superstar they don't control would cost them in competition to their in house stars. Besides, if they buy your record, in some contracts they can take your best song and give it to the Backstreet Boys. Because the Backstreet Boys make the record companies more money singing it than you do. (i.e. the RIAA's members are killing the competition, feeding their corpses to the pop-music beast, and drowning consumers in it's crap.) In Austin TX, where I live, there are lots of local artists that none of you will ever hear even though their skills rival that of most "popular" musicians today. Or at least you wouldn't ever hear them except that we have KazaA. (Try downloading some "The Scabs" or "Pushmonkey", they're awesome.). The businessmen are always bad for business. Because business men care about money, not quality. Look at every industry going... music, food, tv, oil. When will we stop trading money for quality of life? If the music companies goal was to produce music and not to produce money, perhaps artists and music lovers would stop getting the shaft.

Re:Yes I do.

[MoneyT]

It suprises me that you've never even heard of her. Like you, I tend to listen to music from just about every era, though she never appears in many of the compilation sets you find, if you come across anyone in their 40s, most of them have heard of her and many would recomend listening to some of her music. Heck I went to one of her concerts, she does some good stuff.

Re:Yes I do.

[Golias]

I work with a lot of people in their 40's, so I just did an informal asking-around... none of them heard of her either. Either these people are out of touch with their generation, or your statement that "most of them have heard her" might not be entirely accurate.

Regarding your signature: I think Ruri's frequent use of the word "Baka" was a word that should have been left untranslated in both dubs and subs of the show. Instead of subbing "fool" or dubbing "idiot" (neither of which was completely accurate), leaving it alone would have allowed the viewer to get the meaning from the surrounding context. Totally unrelated to this thread, just an opinion of mine.

Re:Yes I do.

[Kierthos]

Frankly, I don't take it for what it's worth, because I think we can all remember the MPAA's claims about not making money on Titanic.

Kierthos

Re:Yes I do.

[d3vpsaux]

What, going to Google and typing in her name is too hard for you?
Which once again proves my prediction...
The Internet will be renamed "The Internet brought to you by Google," and the main portal will be google.com.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say, give people the ability to download MP3's for $20/month and do what they want with it and few will bother to give it to others - they'll tell the others to buy their own.
Check out Emusic. I found it through /. comments, and subscribed. $10-15/month, all you can download 128kbit mp3s.

Re:Yes I do.

[schon]

Just remember that the bottom line is this - I have a wallet.

All of your points are very saliet, but ultimately irrelevant to the argument proposed.

You're arguing the demand side of supply and demand (ie. people are charged what they are willing to pay), whereas the original poster was arguing the supply side (ie. CD's cost more to produce.)

My argument is that (on average) CD's DON'T cost more to produce.

Re:Yes I do.

[joshsisk]

They really said that? HAHAHAHA! I don't remeber that at all, but I'd love to read that press release, do you have a link?

Re:Yes I do.

[homer_ca]

That's the same Hollwood Accounting that calculated zero net profit from Forrest Gump out of a $660,000,000 worldwide gross in 1994. A good way to cheat the author, producer and screenwriter since they accepted a smaller upfront fee in exchange for royalties from net profits.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.janisian.com/bio.html

Re:Yes I do.

[Cromac]

Another way to look at it is the value you receive from the CD vs the DVD. You will likely listen to the CD many more times than you watch the DVD. How many times are you really going to watch the movie? Even over the course of a few years that number isn't likely to be more than 5 or 10 times. Now the CD you may well listen to several times in just a week if you have a long commute and/or listen to it at work.

Re:Yes I do.

[Schnapple]

yeah but then you say "I buy a few CD's and listen to them incessantly during the course of the year, especially now that they're so expensive" and the RIAA then complains that CD sales are down this year and that it must be because of MP3 and the record labels have to raise the price of CD's to account for the decrease in sales, never thinking that it might be those higher prices that fuel lower sales and drive people to MP3 in the first place.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to that link, she wrote some folk and disco songs nobody listens to, composed songs for several films that nobody has seen, won 9 grammys (an award that nobody cares about) and was praised by a music critic that nobody has ever heard of. Also, she wrote an unknown children's album, and was the least famous person in a Chet Atkins tribute concert made up of b-list folk guitar players.

Quite famous, she. Perhaps even bigger than Jesus? I don't understand how the parent poster could have gotten through life without knowing every intimate detail about this woman.

Re:Yes I do.

[JebusIsLord]

Ah but, as Janis said, the Santana comeback album cost less than $1M to make and that was an expensive one. Big budget movies cost sometimes hundreds of times more than big-budget albums.

How much do you think editing special features, alternate audio tracks and 3d menus on to a 4-disc plastic multi-hinged package LoTR dvd set costs in comparison to a simple paper insert/jewel case/cd? The answer is I don't know, but i expect it is close to being the same.

And why are movie soundtracks so expensive then? they should be way cheaper than the dvds AND regular cds that have not recouped costs in theatres. Soundtracks are obviously just another cash grab but man do they grab it!

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

your sig is wrong on so many levels and yet I am still laughing..
I bet we found out what Jesus would do for a klondike bar.

Re:Yes I do.

[sgage]

"I work with a lot of people in their 40's, so I just did an informal asking-around... none of them heard of her either. Either these people are out of touch with their generation, or your statement that "most of them have heard her" might not be entirely accurate."

It is the former - they are out of touch. Janis Ian was very well-known and popular to people of my generation (I'm a doddering 47 years old).

Re:Yes I do.

[Golias]

See, when I think of "well-known" female folk & rock singers of the 60's and early 70's, I think of Mama Cass, Janis Joplin, Joni Mitchell, and Mary Travers (of Peter, Paul and Mary, for you youngsters following along). Then, of course there were the R&B stars of the time, like Aretha Franklin... and pop singers (back when "pop" meant Bacharach & David type stuff) like Dusty Springfield.

If Janis Ian was so huge, how is it that I can recite the lyrics to several songs from each of the women I just mentioned, yet I don't recall hearing any of her stuff anywhere?

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the state of the economy has no influence at all on CD sales. It's all due to 'competition' with mp3s...

By the way, the earth is flat.

Re:Yes I do.

[ninewands]

Quoth the poster:

See, when I think of "well-known" female folk & rock singers of the 60's and early 70's, I think of Mama Cass, Janis Joplin, Joni Mitchell, and Mary Travers (of Peter, Paul and Mary, for you youngsters following along).

Yes, and Janis was a member of that elite group when I was in high school and college ...

If Janis Ian was so huge, how is it that I can recite the lyrics to several songs from each of the women I just mentioned, yet I don't recall hearing any of her stuff anywhere?

Good question ... only watched Hootenanny on TV? only listened to Top 40 radio stations? Suffered a "social conscience disconnect" after Kent State? I don't know ... I do know this ... after Janis bought back her catalogue, the "major labels" did pretty much a "you'll never work in this town again" act on her, burying her as deeply as they could in the social consciousness of pop culture ... I'm very pleased to see her come roaring back after too many years ...

Re:Yes I do.

[KewlPC]

When a DVD is released most if not all of the production cost has all ready been made back.

That is so not true.

Your average movie needs to rake in at the box office much more than what it cost to make just to break even. How do I come to this conclusion?

Let's say, for example, you make a movie, and shop it around, and some company agrees to distribute the movie. Now, unless the company is run by idiots, they will 1)demand 50% of the money you make, and 2)demand that their costs get covered FIRST (i.e. they get paid back the cost of making the prints, promotional materials and other advertising, and getting it all out to theaters, before you even get so much as a dime).

Now, let's pretend your movie's budget was $10 million, and that the distributor likes it so much (or you're such a good negotiator) that they've agreed to roll the costs of prints, advertising, etc., into their 50%. When released, your movie makes $40 million. You're a huge success now, right? Maybe.

$40 million - 50% for the exhibitor (aka the movie theater) = $20 million.
$20 million - 50% for the distributor = $10 million left for you. Congrats, you broke even.

Let's not forget that more movies are being made now than 10 years ago, and that for most movies the box office gross decreases by approximately 50% each week, and the result is that very few movies do much more than break even, let alone become huge successes.

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I say, give people the ability to download >MP3's for $20/month and do what they want with

I already pay more then $20 per month for my cable connection... maybe people should go after my isp for money to reemberse the artists.. not the record companies.. because record companies dont make mp3s.. fuck em...

Re:Yes I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when CD's were first introduced it was promised that they would go down in price. Instead they went up. Way up. You can be sure that the same thing is going to happen to DVD's. There's no sane reason for it other than to make more profit. It's one of the many reasons why I've stopped buying "stuff" from the media industry entirely. They don't deserve my money.

And, no, I don't cheat by downloading everything from the net. Only lamers do that.

fix the darn HTML'ing of Janis Ian's answers!

[jdbo]

the second question has been combined with the end of the first answer. grrr!

Or is /. just moving to XHTML 2.0 already? ;)

Re:fix the darn HTML'ing of Janis Ian's answers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Im afraid we just have to accept that the editors arent interested in that silly waste of their precious time. Its not as if their are tens of thousands of people trying to read through the lack of grammar and spell checking to work out what a story is about.

Re:fix the darn HTML'ing of Janis Ian's answers!

[jdbo]

Argh! The parent post wasn't offtopic, it was one of the first to point out the error! (since fixed, thanks to this and related posts!)

I'm not annoyed because of the (insignificant) loss of a karma point, but because of the spastic moderation "methods" practiced by some users of this site.

No one should be _punished_ for helping the editors do their jobs!

I dunno

[Reality Master 101]

I hear a lot of bitching, whining and complaing about the record companies, yet I don't see a bunch of these incredibly wealthy artists (not this one, probably) start their own freaking record company. If they're ripping people off THAT much, I would think the artists would have banded together long ago.

Although I'm not an expert on the business, I would be willing to be that it HAS been tried. I bet a lot of artists have started their own labels, and found out that it ain't cheap being a record company where 50 acts fail for every one you make money on, and they end up turning into the beast they hated.

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a job, or do you just flame on Slashdot all day?

Re:I dunno

[sql*kitten]

it ain't cheap being a record company where 50 acts fail for every one you make money on

Exactly. People criticize the prices charged by pharmaceutical companies, and losing control of your company to venture capitalists, but the fact is that these are all high-risk industries, and one success has got to cover the cost of many, many failures.

It's difficult to find a pure recording company these days, so it's hard to evaluate the margins, but I would be very surprised if recording and media companies consistently outperformed the S&P 500 or FTSE 100.

Re:I dunno

[slapshot]

have you heard of madonna? Maverick?

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't agree more.

It's the Ralph Nader syndrome: his job is telling other people how lousy they are at their jobs.

Hey Janis: put your money where your mouth is.

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

They have also done it with success....see Maveric records (owned by Madonna), Real World (Peter Gabriel), Pangea (Sting).....

Re:I dunno

[DaytonCIM]

Warning: I'm rambling this morning:

I hear a lot of bitching, whining and complaing about the record companies

The problem is not labels, but distributors. There are only 4 major distributors now. Probably thousands of labels, but each (if they want to get their music to the masses) must use a major distributor.

, yet I don't see a bunch of these incredibly wealthy artists (not this one, probably) start their own freaking record company

I can't think of any major artist who DOESN'T have their own label. Beginning with the likes of Frank Sinatra (who was fed up with label control over his music) and his startup label: Reprise to Madonna and Maverick Records or The Beatles and Apple, etc...
Now if you mean, why don't major artists like Michael Jackson take some of his Millions and start a label that is fair to artists (and not racist like Sony as he claims)? I don't know. Maybe they know that the chance of losing all of their investment is probable...
To be honest, most of the rap stars have their own label and distribution network. They really have taken control and are making ENORMOUS amounts of money doing their way.
I still laugh when I read about TLC having a #1 album, selling 10 million units, having the #1 tour of the summer, and being bankrupt. Definitely, should be required reading by ALL up and coming bands.
Out

Re:I dunno

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

I hear a lot of bitching, whining and complaing about the record companies, yet I don't see a bunch of these incredibly wealthy artists (not this one, probably) start their own freaking record company.

If a corrupt system made you incredibly wealthy, would you want to change it?
The folks who are (in your words) "bitching, whining and complaining about the record companies" are the ones whose work is fueling the machine, not the ones who are becoming gazillionairs from the machine.

Re:I dunno

[passthecrackpipe]

madonna & prince ring a bell? several other out there....

Re:I dunno

[LoRider]

Think about it for a minute. Start your own label and compete against the government supported bigass labels. If you hate Microsoft, why not start your own software and do it better than MS can? Because it's hard to fight and win against a 800 pound gorilla that has a 1000 pound elephant(US government) doing anything and everything it can make sure the big boys stay the big boys and the little guys can't stand a chance. If we had a truly free market where corporations large or small can actually compete, then I would agree with you.

There are some people out there who have succeeded running small labels (Lookout records, Fat records..). But it's not easy and not every artist wants to run a record label, but that doesn't mean they can't bitch about record labels. I don't like my bank, but that doesn't mean I have to start my bank or quit bitching.

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

She's in the Grammy Hall of Fame and you are anonymous Slashdot troll and will likely die a virgin. You ought to know your place and shut your face.

Re:I dunno

[Seanasy]

• Smells Like Records - Sonic Youth
• Dischord - Teen Idles (Minor Threat/Fugazi)
• Merge Records - Superchunk

Those are just a few labels started by bands. They haven't turned evil and they consistently put out new and good music.

There's already an alternative to the major labels. You just won't become a mega-superstar as easily. I have little sympathy for bands that go with major labels, they have a choice.

Re:I dunno

[harveyswik]

Here's some record labels you might not have heard of:

http://www.nitrorecords.com/home.html Started by the lead singer of The Offspring, Dexter Holland

http://www.fatwreck.com/ Started by the lead singer of NOFX, "Fat Mike"

http://www.alternativetentacles.com/ Started by the lead singer of the (former)Dead Kennedy's, Jello Biafra

http://www.dischord.com/ started by Ian MacKaye of Fugazi

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

elephants are heavier than 1000 pounds, dumbass.

Re:I dunno

[jack1323]

Instead of artists putting their own record company together, don't you think a Union might work better?

I mean, in the past, when the truckers were being shit on, they didn't all get together and start their own Trucking Company, they formed the Teamsters.

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

Gasp! The Grammy Hall of Fame! Oh my word! I am in awe!

Re:I dunno

[LoRider]

Yeah, I'm the dumbass. You are the idiot the doesn't recognize when someone is using a metaphor. The english language can be confusing, you anonymous coward.

Re:I dunno

[Andy_R]

The problem is that the vast majority of them are so tied up in their current contracts that they are unable to escape and start their own record label.

There is one example in the UK where it has been done succesfully, a band called the KLF, one of whom worked as an A&R man for a major label, and therefore had all the right contacts to run their own label.

They had some of the biggest hit singles in 1991 over here, and ended up with so much money they were able delete their back catalogue, quit the business, burn 1 million pounds and still affor to do a lot of other wierd things.

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

Zeppelin, David Byrne, Jimi Hendrix, Ani Difranco...they all created their own labels.

If Ani can do, others can too.

Re:I dunno

[MoneyT]

She did. She went and bought back her back catalouge, sells CDs on line, provides MP3s for download and has more or less avoided mainstream record lables. The complaint againts the RIAA is that it's more or less a cartel of the 4 biggest record lables and they control 95% of the radio and media outlets

Re:I dunno

[MarkCC]

A few more artist-run labels:

- Compass Records, owned by Allison Brown (former
banjo player for Allison Krause and Union Station, currently fronting her own Jazz quartet.)

- Discipline Global Mobile, owned by Robert Fripp (founder of King Crimson).

- Realworld, run by Peter Gabriel.

Re:I dunno

[schulzdogg]

I hear a lot of bitching, whining and complaing about the record companies, yet I don't see a bunch of these incredibly wealthy artists (not this one, probably) start their own freaking record company. If they're ripping people off THAT much, I would think the artists would have banded together long ago.

You mean like No Limit Records? Master P's label that he started and put both of his brothers and his son on? I've heard him say in interviews that he can sell 100,000 units and make more money than somebody who went platnium on a Major.

Or Suave House? Rap A Lot? Death Row? Ruthless? Aftermath (Although I'm not sure if Aftermath is a lable or an imprint, or the difference between the two).

It's been done, with quite a bit of success.

Re:I dunno

[kin_korn_karn]

Madonna started her own label. She has signed acts like Deftones and Alanis Morrissette.

Other than her.. hmm, you're right.

Re:I dunno

[egileye]

Some other artists who are trying to find a way to operate outside of the major label system have set up United Musicians (http://www.unitedmusicians.com - although it's not up right now!).

It was set up by, among others, Michael Penn and Aimee Mann and provides marketing, distribution and management services for artists. It's based on a kind of co-op model, where smaller-selling artists can band together to get services they wouldn't be able to afford on their own.

Mann has just released her first album on her SuperEgo label with the support of United Musicians and she was able to put together a great package and get good distribution for it, but do it her own way.

Re:I dunno

[GigsVT]

You are a rockin' maniac.
You are a singin' hyena.
You are a rock star in Jesus' name.
You can really rock Sadam Hussein's ass.
You are so lovable to me in the long run.
ALANIS MORISSETTE!

-Wesley Willis

Re:I dunno

[martyn s]

Stop being a fool. The pharmaceutical companies make 18% return on investment (That's *after* "the cost of many, many failures"). In any other industry, that is considered OBSCENE. The only reason it doesn't happen in other industries is that other industries are competitive. The only "competition" in the pharmaceutical industry is competing to make a better product. But once they have that product, they can charge whatever they want. In terms of economics, that is not "competitive".

And if that 18% figure ever changes, it'll most likely be because of cannibalistic advertising practices.

Re:I dunno

[whichmike]

Several artists with a relatively large audience base have made this move and have seen positive results, artistically and financially. John Prine, Ani DeFranco, Van Morrison, Jerry Douglas and (I believe) Tom Waits are some of the folks who have decided to enter the market unescorted by major label names. There are probably more that I'm not aware of. Of course retail distribution is geared toward the big boys, but there are other distribution methods, ie Internet marketing.

Re:I dunno

[whichmike]

Guess I'd have to wonder what you would consider an indication of long term success. Grammy hall of fame membership is likely a lot more accolades than you have garnered in your chosen profession. I'll have a cheeseburger and a strawberry shake.

Re:I dunno

[clone304]

It's been done, with quite a bit of success, true. But, these people are playing a quite different game than most of the recording artists out there.

1. Most if not all of those labels were initially funded with drug money. I'm not making an ethical/moral judgement here, but it's true. In order to look at the subject honestly, we should take that into account, because it makes it a lot easier to self-finance any project you undertake.

2. The sound engineering skills required to record a song/album of rap music are negligible. You only have to know how to record two types of input: sampler and vocal. For the purposes of rap music, and especially the aptly-named dirty-south version thereof, the depth of knowledge required for recording is so minimal as to reach below the level of rudimentary. Evidence of this is available especially in many of the No Limit recordings, which are almost invariably poorly engineered. An exception to this is Dr. Dre's productions, which though low-fi back in the NWA days, already showed ample evidence of his golden ear. Fortunately, production values are not the driving force for this market segment, not hardly.

3. Live shows are very easy. To prepare, you record your tracks (without vocals) to a DAT tape and make sure your rappers show up. There's no comparison between this and preparation, rehearsal and musical skill necessary to successfully play a live show as a band.

4. The gear necessary to record, mix and master a CD of rap music is very little compared to that necessary to record a band correctly. Three DA-88's, a Mackie mixer, a two channel stereo linkable compressor, an SM58, some cabling, a pair or two of studio quality monitors, and a sampler are about all that's need to produce commercially viable rap music. Compare this with the variety of instruments, effects, microphones, and space necessary to record a band, and you'll see why it's so easy to record rap yourself. It takes a professional and a studio to make a band sound commercially viable, and even then it takes LOTS of time to pull it all together and get it down right on tape. Not true in the rap game. Rap is a wham bam thank-you ma'am style of recording. Only idiots or visionaries spend a million dollars to record an album of rap.

Need I go on? Let me conclude simply by saying that the examples you offered, though exceptions to the rule, are not at all representative of the artists that are in a position to need the services of the big-time record companies. They can afford it because they turn out cheap and dirty product whose funding was kickstarted by the sale of contraband. I don't hate them because they were smart enough to realize the advantages in front of their faces, but that doesn't really make them relevant to the larger discussion. It's just not practical for most artists to follow Master P's example.

Re:I dunno

[Jason Earl]

The problem with Unions in this case is that there is always someone else willing to take their shot a fame without the safety net. So while you are on strike trying to get a decent contract and benefits seven other bands are begging to sign up for the deal you are turning down. No one is going to become famous as a truck driver, so negotiations boil down to pay and benefits. A successful music star, on the other hand, literally has the world at their feet (Money for nothing and the chicks for free). There are lots of folks willing to take a risk to hit the big time like that.

Re:I dunno

[Dirtside]

Just FYI, Maverick Records is a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Madonna is the titular head of Maverick but you can be damn sure Maverick isn't going to do anything of which Warner disapproves.

Re:I dunno

[AdamD1]

Now if you mean, why don't major artists like Michael Jackson take some of his Millions and start a label that is fair to artists (and not racist like Sony as he claims)? I don't know. Maybe they know that the chance of losing all of their investment is probable...

Michael Jackson still owns MJJ Productions and used to run MJJ Records. It initially was started so he could own all his own publishing under his own single roof, instead of under the various others that owned it at the time (Motown, Epic, etc.) The only semi-well-known act his A&R department signed was called Brownstone, kind of a Destiny's Child thing. That was in 1990 or so.

In a Spin Magazine article it was mentioned that he was selling MJJ Records. But every record he releases on his own is a co-production of his own "label" and production company with Sony / Epic Records. He certainly hasn't had any successes with MJJ Records since he started it, so I'm sure he knows pretty well (or his business managers do) how much money it costs to run it versus how much it will make.

Bottom line about artist-created labels: they are often created as a tax shelter so that when they make a billion dollars in record sales, which the IRS would definitely want a piece of, their "failing" record label can write off most of that through operating expenses. Happens alll the time, including Reprise, and Mariah Carey's new label, and Madonna's label, etc. The only labels that succeed are the ones that still play the major label game. Probably always will be.

I am not a fan of Michael Jackson, I just ended up hearing about a lotta this from Billboard, etc.

ad

Re:I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

And now they shit on everyone else. What a great model!

fighting from within

[Anonymous Coward]

You hear this all the time, recording artists complaining that the music industry machine is hell. In my experience too many of them are passive sheep outside of their performances, signing what their agents tell them to and sweetly accepting the status quo.

They should take example from Courtney Love. http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ index.html Rock on babe!

Re:fighting from within

[King_TJ]

Sure - but when you've lived through the hell of working dead-end jobs and wondering where you'll get the cash to pay for your next meal (all so you can keep on working towards a dream of being "famous"), you probably don't feel much like "biting the hand that feeds you" when you reach the top.

Courtney Love is in a "more comfortable" place than many artists. I'm not trying to knock her here, but let's face it. She didn't really have to earn all of her fame herself. Being married to Curt Cobain had its advantages. I'm not really sure she'd be giving the industry the proverbial finger like she does today, if she didn't have the Nirvana fame to ride the coat-tails of first.

Re:fighting from within

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the fact that she doesn't 'do' anything anymore.

When was her last album?

Sloppy

[legLess]

Tell me, is it too much trouble for the editors to make sure the interview is actually readable? That the questions are correctly broken out as such, and not mixed with the previous answers? Can't Slashdot even proof its own content?

[ Pause for laughter ]

Re:Sloppy

[Anonymous Coward]

NCSA's Beginner's Guide to HTML

famous

[morgajel]

"you got famous if you were a criminal or a politician."

isn't that repetitive?:)

Re:famous

[(void*)]

It's repititive and redundant.

No - that would be superfluous.

Re:famous

[morgajel]

void*.
damn that sounds familiar.

seem to remember
voidptr would make a great licenseplate... :)

Re:famous

[Dirtside]

How dare you!

I'll have you know that the ACA (Associated Criminals of America) objects to being characterized as similar to politicians.

Re:The Big Question Was Never Answered

[Junks Jerzey]

"Who the fuck are you?" I have never heard of Janis Ian.

Oh for crying out loud, all you had to do was follow the link in the article (ahem: janisian.com). And please don't put her down by claiming she's old or you never heard her music. Fame is very fleeting in music. Bands that are on top of the world now will be have people saying "Who? I never heard of them!" in fifteen years.

And anyone who is pro-music should realize that the best music isn't always from people who get coverage on Entertainment Tonight. One of Janis's big points is that there's a difference between mega-bands like Radiohead and the 99.9% of other bands that don't sell 10 million copies of each CD they release.

Somebody put the kids to bed

[cavaroc]

Why doesn't everyone just quit bitching that you're too young to know who Janis Ian is and be glad there's someone speaking out for your rights to download music?
Grow up.

Re:Somebody put the kids to bed

[adewolf]

Good point. I was just thinking this.

Alex DeWolf

PLEASE RE-FORMAT!!!

[amarodeeps]

Okay, in the first paragraph after the followup question to #1 "...how much of that price is going to pay for the advertising...etc.," there is another question smooshed in to the end of the paragraph that Janis answers: "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?"

In the very next paragraph, Ms. Ian's answer to the previous question, there is another question tacked on to that paragraph:

"2) Radio Station consolidation by gorilla 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?"

I haven't gotten past that yet. I found egregious errors in the first answer in the interview.

I know we're (most of us at least) not paying for the fine service of slashdot, but could somebody please edit these f@$#ing articles!? I mean, let alone the question of what the readership is owed (not much, I guess...), where's the personal and professional pride? Aren't we computer geeks intelligent folks, who should be able to process the written word better than most? This low quality is shameful. It doesn't take that much time to have a few folks read over the piece before posting it, and that's not even real editing, but I'm sure it would catch 99% of the stupid mistakes that happen on these story postings.

*sigh*

Re:PLEASE RE-FORMAT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't we computer geeks intelligent folks, who should be able to process the written word better than most? This low quality is shameful.

Apparently some of us are even intelligent enought to figure out that the first question of the post had 3 parts to it, and for simplicity of formatting the answers were broken down to correlate to the specific sub-parts of the first question.

see spot. see spot run. run spot run!

Her Best Song "At Seventeen"

[Anonymous Coward]

http://frogstar.com/stern/Celebrities/Jerry%20Sein feld/shoshana.mp3

She says it all in one short phrase:

[Tri0de]

"As to how you can get involved? start with getting political, and voting. Check your own representatives' voting records on issues having to do with this. Support live music, and buy your CD's at the shows - at least then some of the money will funnel right back to the artist!"

Not *THAT* is succinct and comprehensive!
IMHO her music is really good ,too.

RIAA Equalization.. IETF in 2027?

[dpbsmith]

I really appreciated the capsule history of the RIAA. Until recently, the ONLY thing I'd ever heard of the RIAA doing was to standardize the equalization curve on LP records--anyone else ever have a record player with switch-selected LP/AES/RIAA/78 settings?

Funny about certifying gold records...

It's sort of like the AMPAS, that only does two things I know of--I'm sure it does more but only two that I know of: a) Standardize the leader on films (you know, that clock-face 8-7-6-5-4-3 countdown things you used to see if the projectionist was careless) and b) run the "Academy" awards.

I wonder what things the IETF will be doing by, say, the year 2027? Giving software awards? Lobbying Congress for special privileges for the giant "Big 3" companies that run everything on the Internet? Do you suppose theres some kind of organizational law that groups that start out with legitimate, technical, engineering always degenerate into other things?

Re:RIAA Equalization.. IETF in 2027?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just seems that way. Consider NIST, the ARRL, and... a few dozen lesser-known organizations that are lesser-known for just that reason.

There are probably other organizational 'laws' that make certain ones more prone to 'selling out.' AMPAS and RIAA had the proximity of the recording industry; ICANN had a non-democratic process... and so-forth.

It also depends how many people care about your standards; the more your standards are worth - and Academy awards are a form of standard, too, when you think about it - the more interest there'll be in manipulating/breeding the system for profit.

Re:RIAA Equalization.. IETF in 2027?

[An Onerous Coward]

I wonder what things the IETF will be doing by, say, the year 2027? Giving software awards? Lobbying Congress for special privileges for the giant "Big 3" companies that run everything on the Internet? Do you suppose theres some kind of organizational law that groups that start out with legitimate, technical, engineering always degenerate into other things?

Yes, there is such an organizational law. It's called "evolution".

Complex, adaptive systems evolve. Whatever the original intentions of any large organization, whether corporate, religious, technical, or humanitarian, one of two fates awaits it. Either it will morph into something whose primary purpose is to ensure its own continued survival, or it will eventually fail because other systems are better suited to the niche it inhabits.

Okay, you may or may not think that "corporations as organisms" makes for a good analogy. But I'm not offering it up as an analogy. I'm suggesting that the organic ecosystem that is usually the focus of evolutionary study is just a special case of interaction between complex adaptive systems. The competition between human organizations is another.

Take Microsoft. We love talking about Microsoft around here, so why not? It's constantly looking for new markets to extend into, to ensure its continued income stream. And it's always looking to engulf small upstart companies with cool technology, which eliminates competition while feeding the organization. It uses all sorts of tricks to make the ecosystem it inhabits hard on competitors. These are just things that successful corporations do, and the similarity to the behavior of organisms is uncanny.

The major difference I see is that organizations have people, rather than genes, as their individual units. So the nature of an organization is more malleable. Also, it makes a wider variety of forms of reproduction possible (people leave the company for their own startup, mergers and breakups, etc).

That's why my political ideas have slowly been leaning more and more towards a semi-anarchistic system. I just don't trust any of these complex, adaptive systems to value my best interests, so it's best not to give them too much power.

Re:RIAA Equalization.. IETF in 2027?

[hta]

the IETF is a funny organization.
it is 99% "volunteer" (ie non-hired) personnel, and the hired staff just does the clerical stuff, not the technology.
one reason for that is that if there is no more purpose for the IETF, we WANT it to be able to go away in reasonable style.
I just hope that when the time comes, we have the courage to recognize it.

The Answer is simple

[kenp2002]

The fundamental answer is simple, the laws of capitalism work no matter what. One of those laws is the simplest to follow:

THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Simply put if people campaign against the RIAA effectivly and boycott (of course how hard is it to boycott the crap they are putting out these days) the company will continue to lose money. Lobbiests and lawyers don't work for free and if the RIAA can't pay there goes the problem. More importantly if the recording labels start to lose money the shareholders will intervene.

SUN TZU says "One cannot win a war without the will of the people"

Ultimatly WE are responsible for allowing the RIAA to get this far. Perhaps we will all learn something from this Digital Dark Age that looms on the horizon..

THE COST OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE

and I will clarify with

THE COST OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL AND "PROACTIVE" VIGILANCE.

Re:The Answer is simple

[cavaroc]

Good luck getting the mindlessness of the mainstream to boycott Britney Spears, Creed, and Limp Bizkit and the rest of the BS they think is so great. They don't care about good music, they'll buy it simply because it's marketed and they actually believe that whoever's at the top of the charts is who's the best artist out. That's why a successful boycott of the RIAA will never happen.

Re:The Answer is simple

[iamacat]

The question is not so simple though :-) Where exactly do I go to buy real music produced by humanely treated artists? Not computer-synthesized/experimental stuff. Some songs where I can hear the words and empasize with them. Since it will not be on the radio, I want to be able to preview a good portion of it before ordering or going to a concert.

Re:The Answer is simple

[SirSlud]

This doesn't work in a market where the consumers are as ethically corrupt as the distributors. People are happy enough to get music for free (disclosure: I support p2p), so it should be obvious that when it comes to boycotts, consumers only stem demands when the consumers themselves believe they are not being supplied with goods at a fair price. Consumers don't really mind when those who are producing the products are being mistreaded. (See: Nike, Addidas, Esprit, Hillfiger, etc)

All of which doesn't help the folks who are actually being screwed; the artists.

People buy sweatshop produced clothes. Just because as inidividuals we might be ethically conflicted about who we are buying for, doesn't mean we'll do anything about it if the producer is able to keep us from experiencing first-hand the consequences of our 'voting' dollars.

The market is good for helping people make money, but very poor at punishing those who don't deserve to by way of their means to the end of actually supplying the product to the consumer.

And who can blame us? There's 24 hours in a day, and in this specialized world, the onus to ensure that we are using our wealth ethically should be on the producer of the product, not on the consumer. Any other way results in gross ineffiency (since presumably we must *all* experience the negative consequences of our purchasing buck for a particular company before we stop voting).

I just feel bad that people have lost such faith in their _votes_ in a democracy that they feel the only way to deal with unethical business practices is to expect people to stop participating in a market (in the case of a monopoly/cartel such as music) all together instead of vote for politicians who's ethics cannot be had for a price.

I'm all for punshing shoddy product with my dollars, but my government should hold up its end of the bargain by equalizing markets that have grown into monopolies in cases where people are unlikely to revolt. (Again, see sweatshops.)

Re:The Answer is simple

[lysurgon]

I just feel bad that people have lost such faith in their _votes_ in a democracy that they feel the only way to deal with unethical business practices is to expect people to stop participating in a market (in the case of a monopoly/cartel such as music) all together instead of vote for politicians who's ethics cannot be had for a price.

Would that such politicians abounded or had much of a chance of winning elections!

Re:The Answer is simple

[_Swank]

i completely disagree with any assertion that people who buy artists in the top 40 don't care about "good music" or buy it because they believe they should like it (unless it's U2, which i'm pretty sure fits those categories...). people buy music because they like it. whether there's possibly "better" music out there that they haven't heard (and might like more if they did) is not the point. just because a person does not make a special effort to find music other than what's on the radio does not make them "mindless."

good music is COMPLETELY dependent upon the person listening. i'm relatively confident that my music collection and your music collection have less than 10 cds (or equivalent if you don't buy cds) in common. that means nothing about the quality of either of our music collections. if you think it does, then clearly the 10 cds we both have should be the "best music" between the two of us and, carrying this to it's logical conclusion, the britney spears, creeds, and limp bizkits of the world is truly great music.

good music means one thing and one thing only: that the person listening to it can derive some enjoyment/entertainment value from listening to it. this is (thankfully) different for all of us.

Re:The Answer is simple

[HiThere]

...
I just feel bad that people have lost such faith in their _votes_ in a democracy that they feel the only way to deal with unethical business practices is to expect people to stop participating in a market (in the case of a monopoly/cartel such as music) all together instead of vote for politicians who's ethics cannot be had for a price. ...

It didn't happen by chance. There has been a clear chain of laws and legal decisions dating back to around 1850 when a federal court declared that corporations were people. But there have been lots of intermediate reinforcing decisions. Such as when the FCC decided that the media stations didn't have to provide politicians with equal access to the air waves unless they could afford it (I believe that decision was sometime around 1960). This allowed whoever had the most money to essentially buy the election. And where did they get the money?

There were also economic trends (fostered by governmental rulings) that favored centralized controls. And is it now 7 mega-corps that own all the media? Or has there been futher consolidation?

The RIAA may well be one of the most active focii of evil around, but they are continuing a long standing tradition, with support from many areas.

Don't think of this as a conspiracy. I wouldn't claim that there weren't multiple conspiracies here, but that's not why it's happening. The real reason is that those who favor centralized controls have a better chance of being in the position of being a centralized controller. The head of a corporation or a judge or a president will almost always favor increasing central controls. No conspiracy is needed. (They exist, of course they exist, so do plumbers conspiracies [call them unions]. But they fight as often as they cooperate, not that it does the average person any good.)

Re:The Answer is simple

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

Simply put if people campaign against the RIAA effectivly and boycott (of course how hard is it to boycott the crap they are putting out these days) the company will continue to lose money.

But there's a problem with your logic. The RIAA will just blame their loss of profits on more and more people downloading music (I assume here that there will not be an abnormal increase in P2P activity) and use it to pass more stupid laws and sue people.

Re:The Answer is simple

[kenp2002]

Funny I haven't bought a single Britney CD. In fact neither have my family members. The reason is simple, if you explain to a young person what the marketing people are doing. Word gets around. In the 6 blocks around my house All the kids 10-18 are flocking to Independent artists and have discarded the marketing machine. It takes YOU to reach those "Mindless" people. It takes YOU to educate them. Quit yer bitching and DO something. If you explain it to the youth they do listen from time to time.

Re:The Answer is simple

[kenp2002]

The old fashion way, word of mouth. It's real effective. It's how I have bought almost all my music (I found Mike Oldfield in this manner and "Songs from a Distant Earth" has got to be one of my favorite. I was introduced to Tangerine Dream by word of mouth along with Mechanical Bride (The drummer was a student of mine.) Word of mouth is a phenominal method and with the Internet it should be rather easy. Why not go to EZBoards or some site and start a Independent music review site.

Re:The Answer is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no power greater than the will of the people. Nobody thought the English could be overthrown but they were. They had the ultimate monopoly in military and weapons. No matter how "bad" it gets it will eventually get to a critical mass and the wicked will fall. They always have and most likely always will. The only question is how far it is to that "Critical Mass" point. The piracy of music is a simple revolution, an economic war that is being waged. For over 100 years the people of the US were called terrorists by the British. We threw tea into a harbor because the tax was too high and started a bloody rebellion in the name of freedom. Now people are rebelling against high priced music. I ddon't remember seeing people breaking into Best Buy and burning CDs so kudos to them, they shipping company LOST the tea, the founding fathers didn't make illegal copies of the tea. The blessed thing is there is no bloodshed involved with this Music rebellion. The people have spoken and like it or not the market will have to capitulate. If the majority of people say you can't make money selling drugs. You can't make money selling drugs. That is the will of the people. If the people say "We won't pay for music." well that is just a fact of life, I simply would adapt and not depend on making music as being a source of income. The people will dictate the terms. It is open rebellion. Lets pray it stay a simple rebellion over the cost of music. The tensions in the US are rising and these small rebellions could be a sign of what is to come. We better fix the problem before it gets worse.

Re:The Answer is simple

[kenp2002]

Lawsuits cost money. Even the RIAA doesn't have the money to sue 250 million people. Do you honestly think they will throw over 100,000 people in jail for music swapping? There isn't any room. Even if they did more and more people would work at making the RIAA's life a living hell. Once they are bankrupt, who cares? You have to DO something to WIN against the RIAA. If every slashdot reader gave $1 a month and hired some lobbyists think on how effect we could be. Politicians work for those who participate and do their civic duty. Pool your resources and hire a lobbyist. That in of it's self would show congress you a notch above a bunch of whiney no-nothings. You must participate. Get you district reps email on your contact list and write them at least 1 time a month. Form organizations and distribute literature door to door. EDUCATE PEOPLE if your so god damn smart :) You have to get the people involved. Go grocery shopping? Have 40 printouts detailing the RIAA's practices and toss a few under a windshield. Got Church? Tell your parish about it. There are millions of things you can do to win against the RIAA that they cannot stand against. DO SOMETHING->DO SOMETHING->DO SOMETHING.

Shit even in the future nothing works!

Maybe this will help...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.c-source.com/csource/newsite/ttechnote. asp?part_no=651695

Ahem...

[CrazyDuke]

For all the people who keep implying that anyone who thinks US intelligence agencies are not seriously spying on its own law abiding citizens and that people who think otherwise are paraniod, tin-hat wearing idiots, I present the following excerpt:

"The files were started about a year before I was born, when my Dad (a chicken farmer at the time) went to a meeting in South Jersey about the price of eggs. (No, I'm not making this up.) Then my Mom made the mistake of attending a Civil Rights Congress meeting about voting rights. Then they had the gall to open a summer camp that advertised itself as "multi-cultural and interracial"."

That is all.

Re:Ahem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, if I were a skeptic, would I not also think that Ms. Ian's telling of the tale could be inaccurate?

Re:Ahem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for enlightening us about the Government (circa 1950). Maybe you can start a campaign to get Mr. Hoover removed from the FBI before he spies on us any longer.

Re:Ahem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out that "before I was born" would refer to pre-1950, during the notoriously corrupt and overpowered Hoover administration of the FBI. Although I wouldn't be so naive as to say this kind of thing doesn't happen anymore, there have been several waves of reform that have made it more difficult.

I would also point out that no mention is made of anything being done to her parents aside from their names being recorded in some file burried in some folder somewhere.

Re:Ahem...

[Erasmus Darwin]

"For all the people who keep implying that anyone who thinks US intelligence agencies are not seriously spying on its own law abiding citizens"

Fifty year-old anecdotes probably aren't the best way to prove your point. Those anecdotes date back to the McCarthy era.

Re:Ahem...

[NiceGeek]

And you honestly don't think it could happen/happens now?

Re:Ahem...

[alienmole]

Substitute the Bush/Ashcroft "tag team of evil" for Hoover, and you'd have a point.

Re:Ahem...

[poot_rootbeer]

I think you're still a paranoid, tin-hat wearing idiot.

I don't give a damn if the government knows that my dad went to a meeting about eggs. So what? They're never going to use that information against me.

NEVER.

Re:Ahem...

[cduffy]

I don't give a damn if the government knows that my dad went to a meeting about eggs. So what? They're never going to use that information against me.

Then why did they collect it?

Re:Ahem...

[refactored]

That's because you never do anything meaningful.

NEVER.

Re:Ahem...

[Jeremi]

I don't give a damn if the government knows that my dad went to a meeting about eggs. So what? They're never going to use that information against me.

(Insert quote about those who forget history being condemned to repeat it here)

It's not a question of eggs, it's a question of whether you trust the government to spy on any and all aspects of your life, and not eventually abuse the information it acquires. History strongly suggests that anything that can be abused, will be.

Re:Ahem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out that "before I was born" would refer to pre-1950, during the notoriously corrupt and overpowered Hoover administration of the FBI.

That corruption did not become public until decades later. At which point, people said, "golly, I'm sure glad that's in the past." Every few years, the government releases more data disclosing government corruption years earlier (except after Bush jr. was elected. He blocked those disclosuers). Rest assured, years from now the government will release data disclosing government corruption during 2001 and 2002.

there have been several waves of reform that have made it more difficult.

In the past year, there have been massive reforms which removed those barriers.

Re:Ahem...

[/dev/trash]

uhhh the Guy was trying to price fix chicken eggs. Souffles wanan be free!

Re:Ahem...

[Squalish]

(except after Bush jr. was elected. He blocked those disclosuers)

Why do these things never hit the fan? The "Liberal Media" had 9 months to turn that into a source for discussion, yet the only place one finds out about it is from slashdot and anti-government sites like counterpunch.

Lost Bands

[kenp2002]

I noticed a reply that pointed out that fame is fleeting. For Minnesotans they might remember "Slave Raider" from the 80's. Great band but they have since faded. I wish they would master their albums and remaster them into CDs. They had a sweet song called "The Black Hole" and "Rollercoaster." Ohhh I wish my tapes hadn't wore out...

Re:Lost Bands

[Creepy]

ah, Slave Raider... how well I knew thee (ok, not that well - I was much more of a Soul Asylum (Loud Fast Rules)/Replacements fan back then :)

Chainsaw (the singer) mismanages - er, manages bands still, I think. He managed my brother's band for about 6 months about 5 years ago before they dumped him for not doing his job. As a self-managed band, they got twice as many gigs and a lot more pay before breaking up in the late '90s.

I took lessons from Tommy D, their second bassist. I've heard rumor from some old musician friends that he's in jail in California, but I have no proof to back that up. Damn good bass player. AllMusic has a picture and album listing (sorry, URL is POST not GET, so you'll have to look for yourself - www.allmusic.com). Chainsaw and Tommy are the middle row. For a good laugh, click on their record label Jive - yes, the same label that now has n-Sync and Jennifer Love Hewitt.

Anyhow, enough Minnesota trivia... OK, 1 more -remember Shattered Image?... probably not. I think the up-and-coming Kurt Jorgerson [sp?] played with them for a while, and his career has recently begun to take off. Those guys kicked my band's ass back in battle of the bands in the late '80s... of course they were giging regularly and were mostly older and more experienced musicians, while we were a bunch of intoxicated kids (OK, the guitarist and I weren't intoxicated, but the drummer and singer in my band were, and if you've ever heard Chris Mars and Paul Westerberg with the Pleased To Meet Me era Replacements, you have a good idea of what that's like).

she's a musician, not a businesswoman

[God! Awful]

I think, as I said in my follow-up article, that the music industry is going to have to provide more and better content in its CDs. Maybe CDs all become DVDs, and you get not just the music, but interviews, concert footage, games, whatever. I don't have the answer.

Here's another variation on the old theme:

1. Let people copy your music for free.
2. Pad your CDs with premium content that they can also copy for free.
3. ???
4. Profit

If at first you don't succeed, try try try again. When scientists/alchemists figure out how to get blood from a stone I'm sure it will be frontpage news.

-a

Re:she's a musician, not a businesswoman

[joshsisk]

Where did she encourage "letting people copy it for free"? She said she didn't tink file sharing was going to go away, that's not the same thing at all.

Also, CDs currently can be copied for free and record companies DO still profit. And have for years. And are likely to still make money for years. There is a large, very large group of people who would rather pick up the cd at wal-mart than try to download all the tracks from a p2p service.

Re:she's a musician, not a businesswoman

[God! Awful]

Also, CDs currently can be copied for free and record companies DO still profit. And have for years. And are likely to still make money for years. There is a large, very large group of people who would rather pick up the cd at wal-mart than try to download all the tracks from a p2p service.

Allow me to quote from the question she was responding to:

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.

Where did she encourage "letting people copy it for free"? She said she didn't tink file sharing was going to go away, that's not the same thing at all.

Again, allow me to quote from the question she was asked:

At that point, should artists be worried? Or, to put it more generally, should artists always permit the reproducing of their works?

So in both cases you may protest that "she never said X", but I would say that she was responding to the question "what about X?" so either she is agreeing with X or she is evading the question.

-a

Re:she's a musician, not a businesswoman

[joshsisk]

You are just quoting sections of the article, but they have nothing to do with what you stated.

You said :
1. Let people copy your music for free.
2. Pad your CDs with premium content that they can also copy for free.
3. ???
4. Profit

If at first you don't succeed, try try try again. When scientists/alchemists figure out how to get blood from a stone I'm sure it will be frontpage news.

But nowhere did she say she encourages free copying of music. She said she thought it wasn't going away, but that's not at all the same thing.

The quote you use doesn't say "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 for free", it just mentions the possibility.

She even goes on to say that artists should worry about it.

Re:she's a musician, not a businesswoman

[God! Awful]

You are just quoting sections of the article... But nowhere did she say she encourages free copying of music.

Well, I didn't say she did exactly. I used the word "let", which doesn't connote approval, only resignation. Let me amend my flowchart to something a bit clearer:

1. Ignore the problem of people copy your music for free.
2. Pad your CDs with premium content that they can also copy for free.
3. ???
4. Profit

The point is, she actually suggested step 2 as a viable solution to the problem of copying. Business models such as these wouldn't even pass the laugh test on any forum besides /. Here, it might possibly be the majority opinion.

I remember being headhunted by an SV startup with an idea for a new online service. I asked how they planned to make money. "Oh we'll worry about that later. I guess we'll sell advertising. We'll pay people to read ads if necessary." Right... I can see you've put a lot of thought into this. I was not surprised to hear that they ran out of money a few months later.

In previous /. threads, I have noticed the temptation to assume that a solution exists, so the best alternative must be correct. You can see this attitude in rash statements such as "There will always be jobs for X" or "Businesses will always pay for software in order to get the support contracts" or "We don't need to worry about global warming because mankind will find a technological solution before it ever gets of control." These are all completely unjustified assumptions but you hear them all the time on /.

-a

Re:she's a musician, not a businesswoman

[joshsisk]

Thank you for clarifying.

Now, I don't see why you are railing against her statement so intensely, since she stated that she did not know if that was a solution that would work, or if there even _was_ a solution. The only definitive statement she made (in that section) that was she was sure P2P isn't gonna just go away.

As far as the "ignore the problem" and "let" aspects go, I don't feel there is anything that can be done about it. If you can listen to something, you can copy it.

However, this goes back to my previous point - that your flowchart isn't actually far off, since the labels ARE still making a profit even though people are copying their music. People have been copying music for years and, though P2P is definitely more of a threat than tape trading, they have always made a profit.

I really don't think that record companies will ever go away, at least not in my lifetime, since people like to buy stuff. They like to be in Wal-Mart, and pick up that cd from the shelf and just buy it. No matter how easy it is to copy a CD, many people will still just buy it.

I mean, I buy music all the time, and I'm a very savvy guy, I could easily copy anything I want. But the bands I buy from are smart and release their stuff at a low enough price where I'm happy to just buy it. Assumming demand for major-label music decreases due to file-sharing (it hasn't yet, not appreciably), they'll drop prices in response. It'll cut into profits, sure... But the system is going nowhere in the short-term or medium-term.

OT : </b>

[Geeyzus]

I would love to read this whole interview... but can someone please fix the bold tag that was not closed midway through question one? I'd rather see 10 spelling errors than pages worth of all bold text.... thanks,

Mark

Don't buy major artists

[bluGill]

Record companies make their money from the famious artists, and then use their cut to lobby for laws that are against artists and people. Don't don't buy the major artists, because in the end it works against you. Buy from the artists that are self producing (who may or may not have independant distribution deals) who won't be lobbying for laws that are against you.

There is a large amount of music out there. Stores want to carry what sells, radio stations want to play what will get listeners. When they see enough people are buying from talented no-names they will put forth some effort to get the money in there. If they discover that not liking certian laws is part of the reason a no-name is chossen over a major artist of similear talent, they will solve the problem. (of course good luck finding talen in major artists today, but they will likely look for talent before they realise there is more than just talen at stake)

Re:Don't buy major artists

[haplo21112]

Hummm....

Not really an option...I like the idea, but honestly I love the bands I love...and I will keep buying their discs....I also have CD's from serveal local bands, but the problem is getting them...then there are production issues quite often with the off main stream discs...and then there is the big issue...3 local bands I have liked got signed.

Re:Don't buy major artists

[bogie]

Tell that to the 4 million 12 year old girls who want to buy the next Nsync album.

Your plan will never work. Most of the general public have not even heard of the RIAA and will continue to buy as usual. And even if informed of the current RIAA agenda, when compared to say the the threat of terrorism, the falling stock market, and the lack of a national health care plan, the fight over $16 cd's doesn't even come close to being on the radar.

As far as most people are concerned things haven't changed. CD's cost $16 in 1985 and they cost the same now. It's one of those things that America has come to accept and frankly I can't blame them.

The only thing that even has the slightest chance of changing consumers buying habits with regards to CD's, is if CD's stopping playing on the CD players they bought 10 years ago. Until all CD's made require new consumer audio hardware to be even played, things won't change.

Re:Don't buy major artists

[Anonymous Coward]

It is already happening...slowly....in more vibrant music cities. Memphis' "Alternative" stations are now playing about 5% local-bands-made-good music. The band fans are now more likely to buy CD's directly from the bands instead of the stores. Used CD stores are still alive and our Biggest CD stores have changed hands constantly (except the local Pop-Tunes stores). Change in CD distribution is S..L..O..W..L..Y happening and it should be for the better.

Scratch the not. -_-

[CrazyDuke]

*cough*feels like a dumbass*cough*

Quickies

[Photar]

I miss the quickies.

Re:Quickies

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Quickies? Try Memepool. Or try this mega-MLP on Kuro5hin.

Not Slashworthy...

[sysadmn]

You haven't heard of them because the story I submitted was rejected. (Whine, Whine). Jimmy Buffett's label is going after artists who want more control. His hook is a $5/cd royalty rate, rather than $1-2/cd. The catch is that the label doesn't spend anything on promotion. It works for him - he's sold a million copies of his last two albums. From the article:

Mailboat's roster is growing and includes a diverse array of acts from the heavy-metal band Poison to pop-blues artist Boz Scaggs and country-rocker Maria McKee (of Lone Justice fame). Poison has already released music on Mailboat (which sells direct to retail), and the latter two acts will release their first Mailboat discs soon.

Re:Not Slashworthy...

[Schnapple]

It works for him - he's sold a million copies of his last two albums

Yeah, but only because he's Jimmy Buffet and he wrote "Margaritaville". If he was Joe Idiot trying this he'd have a day job by now.

Re:Not Slashworthy...

[MoneyT]

So what's wrong with having a day job untill you get some money back? A lot of people do this, work one job while building up another.

An option

[pyramid termite]

Give it away. Seriously. Put mp3s wherever you can and let people have them at will. Fame? Fortune? You probably won't get it anyway and they can be disappointing when you do. Clear it all away and do it because you love it and give it to people because you want to share it; perhaps you'll parlay it into a little fame and fortune, more likely you won't.

It's time for the amateurs to take art and culture back from the professionals.

Re:An option

[TheAwfulTruth]

Er, what is there to "take back". There are amateurs and there are professionals and there always has been.

The amateurs are now and have always been unknown by more than a very local following /because/ they are not involved in the pro music buisness. The pro music buisness evolved to create something that didn't even exist before. Wide-spread recognition for artists.

They really are two different things. The amateurs will never take over the pros. But they will never go away either. All it takes is the tiniest bit of effort on the "user" to look for them. But that really is the main problem. 99.9% of the people don't want to "work" for it.

What you are really calling for is the complete distruction of the pro music buisness. Then people will become so desperate that they will then have to put in that tiny bit of effort to find entertainment for themselves. Actually go out and listed to local music! This of course is just utopianizing.

Instead, just be true to yourself. Do the work yourself, find good indie bands or deal with small lablems like www.indistrialmusic.com. (There, I did my litle bit of evangelizing for today! Now imagine if everyone did that instead of just complaining all the time about how evil everything is?)

But also remember that musicians need to eat to, so even if it's indy music, please don't ask us to just give everything away for free. Please SUPPORT us by buying our music on-line and off.

Thank you.

Re:An option

[TheAwfulTruth]

(damn I wish /. allowed post editing)

I meant to post this URL actually:

http://www.metropolis-records.com/

Re:An option

[pyramid termite]

What you are really calling for is the complete distruction of the pro music buisness.

Actually, I don't think it needs to go that far. The more "free music" competition there is and the more widespread it is, the more the professional music world will be forced to actually pay attention to what people want. This process is already well underway.

But also remember that musicians need to eat to, so even if it's indy music, please don't ask us to just give everything away for free.

There are those of us who are willing to give it away. As far as eating goes, some of us are willing to work day jobs and keep the music as a hobby, a much more realistic viewpoint then someone who hopes to be a mega big star.

Re:An option

[HiThere]

I don't know if it's still true, but the last I heard most bands made most of their money from performances. I really don't care about the "mega stars". I've never choosen my listening preference based on what everyone is dying to hear!. And my close encounters with the music scene date to the 1960s. So I'm not a good witness. But that's what I've heard.

Now it may be true that most of the money is earned by CDs. I wouldn't know. But most bands used to earn most of their money by live performances. (And for the groups that I prefer, the sound quality of CDs purchased at those performances was quite good.)

Re:An option

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is actually what I do, but that leaves me precious little time to devote to music. That hurts a lot. Makes it very hard to ever actually gig. Most "real" musicians I know have to devote their full time to it. It's not really a part time job.

Check out the cool articles...

[broody]

I like the way this woman writes. I don't really know jack about her music, other than what I read on her website, but the articles are amusing and insightful. I particulary likely the Memorable Mistakes article. Overall it looks like some interesting reading.

Re:Check out the cool articles...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the way she writes too... she's more
articulate than 100% of congress.

And not only that, I've been a fan of her music
forever... quirky, sentimental, and sonorous.

Re:Check out the cool articles...

[Da VinMan]

I'll second that. To tell you the truth, I'd never heard of her until she appeared on /. She may be world famous, but I guess this is just one more example of how the world keeps getting bigger in terms of the variety of material being offerred to the public. This is a good problem; even if it means excellent artists do not reach some of the people they should otherwise reach.

How many recording artists bother to fight back?

[Anonymous Coward]

You hear this all the time, recording artists complaining that the music industry machine is hell. Too many of them are passive sheep outside of their performances, signing what their agents tell them to and sweetly accepting the status quo.

They should take example from Mrs. Courtney Love... someone actually willing to bite back, rather than simply removing herself from the system by distributing music online. And fading to obscurity as a result.

Slave Raider website (unofficial I think)

[Isaac-Lew]

http://www.vldesign.com/bands/slaveraider/

The gist I get is that they've broken up, & apparently Jive/RCA (divison of BMG now I think) 0wns a lot of their master recordings (which are probably sitting in a vault somewhere).

There's an idea

[drew_kime]

Maybe CDs all become DVDs, and you get not just the music, but interviews, concert footage, games, whatever. I don't have the answer.

Since we already know we can get a 2-hour DVD for less than $20, and many new CDs have less than 1.5 hours of music for ~$20, what if someone puts out an all-music-video DVD? Or better yet, a concert DVD? Two hours of digital music plus video, liner notes, artist interviews, etc. etc. etc. for $20. Wouldn't that be fun.

Re:There's an idea

[Bourbonium]

Already done. I was at a record store over the weekend and checked out their music DVD section. I was particularly interested in two choices. One was Judas Priest's British Steel DVD, which contains the entire album, live concert footage from the tour that promoted it, all the videos from the album and interviews with the band. The other was a Rammstein DVD that included video of an entire concert, all the videos from the songs included, interviews with the band members, and English, French and Spanish subtitles (essential for me, since none of the band speaks English and all their lyrics are in German). Both of these DVDs were priced at $17.95, which was just about the same price as the CDs of the associated records.

Re:There's an idea

[xphase]

Please buy me a Portable DVD player, a home 5-Disc DVD changer, a car DVD changer, a DVD player for my computer, and... umm... oh yeah, another DVD player for work.

Sorry to say this, but CD's are where the music is at until enough consumers have replaced their CD devices for DVD devices. This will take a long time. Can you even buy a portable DVD audio player?

Also, maybe I'm the only one with this problem, but DVD seem to scratch easier and become unreadable quicker than CD's. Hopefully this will someday be fixed.

Although, I just bought the new CD by the band 'Ash' on Saturday for 10.98(At virgin superstore) and it came with a bonus dvd with concert footage. videos and a documentary. I was very happy.

--xPhase

Re:There's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, maybe I'm the only one with this problem, but DVD seem to scratch easier and become unreadable quicker than CD's. Hopefully this will someday be fixed.

Never had a problem.. maybe because I keep em in the case. Also DVD cases are worlds better than CD cases..

Re:There's an idea

[gl4ss]

*looks at his depeche mode videos 86-98*

sure, it cost me a bit more than 20e(around 30 IIRC), but still worth it, good sound(pcm), and all the videos too.

plus, i can rip off the sound and put it in mp3/ogg and listen it on my portable player(only mp3, since my player is starting to get OLD)..

Re:The Big Question Was Never Answered

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll remain uncultured then, thank you."

You should have no trouble achieving that goal.

Nothing ever changes, you know

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fifty year-old anecdotes probably aren't the best way to prove your point. Those anecdotes date back to the McCarthy era. "

And what makes you think the government is any less paranoid than they were 50 years ago, especially given the events of the last year?

Articles like this make /. great

[loomis]

There is often a lot of complaining around here, and I would just like to step forward for a moment and thank Slashdot and Janis Ian for this informative exchange. It has been very educational and interesting.

It's too bad I missed the peroid when one could post questions to Ms. Ian. I would have liked to been able to ask her opinion of the success of Ani DiFranco's independant record label, Righteous Babe.

Thanks again,
Loomis

Re:Articles like this make /. great

[janisian]

I think Ani is amazing; that's why she produced a cut on my CD "Hunger". She's an inspiration to everyone... Janis

The RIAA has come full circle

[mttlg]

In other words, they were formed to make sure the science of recording was optimally used by all companies, in formats that everyone could play.

Ah, the irony...

RIAA 1952: We make sure you can play your music.

RIAA 2002: We make sure you can play our music only if we're sure you're not an evil pirate.

What will the RIAA be like in 2052? "We make sure you are paying for our music, whether you listen to it or not." Or am I being just a bit too optimistic?

Re:The RIAA has come full circle

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds too much like Microsoft- "you'll buy our OS whether you use it or not..."

Sorry, but the parallel had to be pointed out!

Re:The RIAA has come full circle

[Anonymous Coward]

Or am I being just a bit too optimistic?

You're being a dork.

Re:The RIAA has come full circle

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA 2002: We make sure you are listening to our music.

Re:The RIAA has come full circle

[fishexe]

What will the RIAA be like in 2052? "We make sure you are paying for our music, whether you listen to it or not." Or am I being just a bit too optimistic?

You probably are, seeing as microsoft already does this with their software.

Re:The RIAA has come full circle

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA
1952-2022
3 score and 10.
R.I.P.
(if they continue on their present course)

LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

[Thud457]

"The MPAA claims (take it for what it's worth), that most movies don't make their money back until video. "

Does anyone else see the irony in Jack Valenti claiming that VHS would cause the collapse of civiliztion in 1980?

Jeebus, we joke about these people being dinosaurs, but it's really true. They can't see the opportunity offered by change, they only see a threat.

Owning a record company is easy. . .

[Moekandu]

It's the promotion, distribution and airplay that the big boys have a stranglehold on. As she stated in her answer, negotiating with distributors, trying to make sure you're getting your album into the Virgin Megastore (just because you have the album available from a distributor doesn't mean anyone will buy it to stock their stores), coming up with the advertising dollars, and convincing the radio stations to play your single are the major difficulties with making it big on your own.

Wow, that was a hell of a sentence. Sorry. Anyway. . .

This is a lot of work, but at first glance it seems to be something that could be accomplished. However, it seems that the prevailing attitude among those that distribute and sell music is that of the auto repair shop owner that is a hundred miles from the nearest town.

"How much is the new battery gonna cost?" you ask while picking at your salt stained shirt, grateful for the air conditioner blowing noisily in the grimy office.

The owner wipes a greasy hand on his pants and fixes you with his beady eyes. "How much you got?"

However convoluted it may be, payola from record companies to the radio station will not stop without some major, earth-shaking changes. Because the record companies don't trust each other. It's like two dogs with their jaws around the other's throat. What we need is someone with a garden hose.

The process is more difficult that it needs to be. But, until we weed the greed and avarice out of our society, it will be very difficult to change.

Moekandu

"It is a sad time when a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs."

their own freaking record company

[edgarde]

Robert Fripp, after years of expressing dissatisfaction with the music business, started (with help) an independent label where artists would keep the rights to their recordings; the label would profit (hopefully) on its percentage of sales. Fripp's intention was to create an "ethical" record company with a business model that others could follow, and that artists would perhaps flock to.

Fripp probably intended the company to be more a proof of concept than a cash cow; however, it was clearly intended to be a working and sustainable business.

The project was terminated April of 2002 as album sales had not begun to cover reasonable business expenses. Fripp details reasons for the failure to thrive in his online diary. Either this business model failed, or they were the wrong people for the right job.

Discipline Global Mobile still exists, now as just another artist-owned label marketing directly to existing fans.

Wow, now that was informative

[LunarOne]

I usually have too short of an attention span to read an interview this long. The questions were well chosen, and the responses were very well written. Not to mention an absorbing read.

Hopefully, the discussion here can be as thoughtful today (as well as on-topic).

They have trust funds to live off of

[mekkab]

I'm not bashing the rich, but from my limited experience (a friend of mine made documentary films in NY) they have a whole lot of money, they don't care to make more, they just produce "art".

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[Erasmus Darwin]

Well, at the very least, we have the fact that McCarthy (who was considered representative of this sort of suspicion of American citizens) was formally condemned by his own Senate. Furthermore, there was the well-known Civil Rights movements of the 60's.

I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that the government isn't engaging in some questionable acts. However, citing 50 year-old anecdotes is a piss poor way of trying to establish that our government is currently doing bad things.

Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Distributing doesn't cost next-to-nothing, alas, and won't in the foreseeable future. Just think of all the record stores, online companies, etc in this country, and imagine trying to make sure your record is in all of them - and in every city you gig in. Then think about coordinating that worldwide. It's a nightmare. Sign with a distributor yourself? Sure, except there are only two or three major distributors in America, and they don't want you if you can't guarantee reasonable sales (say, 35,000 or more). It's not worth the warehousing and trucking for them. And even if they take you, you're still the one who has to make sure the records are in the stores!

I have an idea. Why not have broadband connections in music stores. You browse a database of music, sampling what you want at a touchscreen terminal or something. You find an album you want (or better yet, pick a set of songs you want) and have this music kiosk burn it all to a CD right there. The costs of the songs are charged to credit card and the payments (royalties, etc) are sent automagically to all parties involved. Why do we need record stores with limited shelf space to sell a product that requires so little?

Lets take advantage of technology, not ignore it.

Re:Distribution

[dcgaber]

I spoke to a friend of mine who manages a Tower Records and told him this is precisly what the industry should do if they want to counter p2p. It would give the public exaclty what they want at an effeective cost point that is beneifical to both sides. However, this cannot happen as it would cost the labels a lot (his words).

The labels work by dripping out a single at a time for a hit album until the whole album has "hit singles." This process can take around a year b/c they dont want two songs from the same album canibalizing each other. But that is the method they use to promote the albums. They can not just release singles at a time, but need to release whole albums and buying it in whole for a few tracks subsidizes those tracks.

This is not (as was pointed out to me) a new or novel concept. If you recall, during the early 90's there were kiosks in stores where you could do this, and the record companies did not find them to be profitable enough to continue.

Of course, I responed that this is a different time, and the stores/RIAA need to compete with p2p, and this is the best bet, but they will not contemplate that as a viable alternative--too bad, i still think it would be a better method, even if it changes the old biz model.

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[Malcontent]

It is holding American citizens in jail without a trial, access to lawyers, or charges. Bad enough for you?

Re:The Big Question Was Never Answered

[dbc]

And who are you? Written a lot of music have you? Done *anything* positive in your teen years that caused a nation to sit up and take notice of you, even for a few minutes? Your contribution to the arts and humanities is what, exactly? Great artist that you have never heard about are all around you, if you care to look. But, of course, you might have to train your ears and eyes.

Look in the mirror, hoss.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you aren't tracking independent labels, and you aren't going out of your way to buy only from the labels that deal fairly, is the root of the problem.
Ah, well, at least you are willing to admit you don't know what you're talking about. The average /. poster wouldn't even have been that objective....

All power ultimately....

[Anonymous Coward]

...emanates from the barrel of a gun.

--Chairman Mao

Is what people share really new or innovative?

[Kiwi]

I think Janis has a lot of legitimate points to make; it is a revelation to me that the RIAA basically will not allow an artist say anyting in public which supports file sharing.

That said, my concern about file sharing is that the people who are sharing files are far more likely to share Britney Spears' or No Doubt's latest CD than they are to share innovative, talented artists. If people wish to find innovative, talented artists on the internet, they can find them at mp3.com; these artists freely share their music with the world.

- Sam

Re:Is what people share really new or innovative?

[Anonymous Coward]

There has to be an inverse relationship between quality and what people are ripping. I have teen age kind who don't know from adam musically and I guess if some rap group or Boy-Band gets ripped, too bad. Most are flash in the pan fads that are marketed to know-nothings who will forget about them in something less than five years. I can think that the real moldy oldies, like from the Eighteenth Century never got a kronig for things we still love, and now a bunch of suits are using their power and the weight of law to keep us from upsetting their get-rich scheme for which no one will care in five years let alone 200. I say, forget you all, while the FCC has "deregulated" the broadcast bands so that what we hear on radio has degenerated because of margins of a mature market. To paraphrase "Tune in and turn off" and
bust of the media conglomerates, including the recording industry, and let a real market pay artists their fair share, not some phoney cartel dreamed up by Harvard MBAs and lawyers.

Re:Ahem... Outlawed after Watergate

[Anonymous Coward]

The Vietnam War (and Nixon) changed a lot of things about this country, and that was one.

Between all the (obviously law abiding, harmless, but politically dangerous) peaceniks and hippies that marched for civil rights and against the war, people that the FBI nevertheless kept dossiers on, to RM Nixon's "dirty tricks" squad, the American people started writing Congress and demanding that these jackbooted thugs be reigned in, and Congress, fearful of losing their cushy jobs, outlawed spying on American citizens.

Now, if you catch the FBI or CIA or NSA or whoever spying on you without a warrant, you can retire with the civil rights lawsuit settlement.

Please, Mr. Asscroft, investigate me!!!

Re:How many recording artists bother to fight back

[Anonymous Coward]

And how did she get big enought to bite back?

I think maybe "Bite the hand that feeds her" is a more appropriate description.

If it weren't for the music industry machine, she'd be an absolute nobody right now.

Re:I have never once heard of Janis

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're proud of your ignorance????

Business model of movies...

[sterno]

The thing to keep in mind here is that the business models of movies vs. the business model of music are vastly different up front. Most movies rely on theater ticket sales as their primary income and then the DVD market is just additional cream that comes aftewards. A movie that can't make back it's production costs in the theaters is considered a flop.

In the case of music, you have to make up all of your production and marketing costs on CD sales. It costs less to make a CD then it does to make a movie, but there's no up-front infusion of cash from an equivalent of a theatrical release to push down the per-unit price.

Remember, that to produce a DVD, the movie companies have several advantages going in. They know the appeal of the movie based on box-office take. They can decide based on that information whether to invest much in behind-the-scenes material or to just make some simple menu graphics and release it.

A DVD, in and of itself, is never released at a loss because the expensive part, the movie, is already paid for. Even on a crappy movie, it's worth it to make DVD's for it because a few people will buy it, and it's money they wouldn't have otherwise made.

One Word: NETFLIX

[MystikPhish]

Perhaps someday there will be a $20/month service that lets me watch whatever I want to watch whever I want to watch it forever. When that day comes I'll feel like $20 per movie is a ripoff.

Try NetFlix. I've been using it for over a year and it ROCKS. Of course I live very near one of the main distribution cneters so most of my movie turn-around times are about 2 days from sending out to getting the next one on my list.

Re:The Big Question Was Never Answered

[The Turd Report]

And who are you?
I am The Turd Report. Sez so right there on the by-line.

Written a lot of music have you?
Yes, actually. As well as performing it. Add in painting and sculpture as well. I also enjoy reading/writing peotry.

Done *anything* positive in your teen years that caused a nation to sit up and take notice of you, even for a few minutes?
No, but I don't think Ian's pop hit in the hippie days qualifies either. I mean: "Whoopty-doo!" Menudo cranked out some top 40 hoits back in the day, but that does not mean squat.

Your contribution to the arts and humanities is what, exactly?
It is infinately more than you know, little snipping-dog. Just because I don't hop down on my knees and rim Ian's crusty butthole does not mean I don't care for the arts and humanities.

Janis Ian's comments on absentee landlords

[Anonymous Coward]

I do think absentee landlordism is a lot of the problem; how can someone in Germany, or Japan, or Alpha Centauri for that matter, have any idea what consumers and artists in the US are feeling?

Maybe because they're human beings, and music is universal?

I'm guessing Janis Ian sells recordings outside the U.S. Does she wonder how it is possible that non-Americans could appreciate and enjoy her music?

Blaming the nominal national identity of the megacorporation for the exploitive nature of the music industry is breathtakingly naive and completely wrong-headed.

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[Jobe_br]

Non-elected officials (FBI/justice dept.) are refusing oversight by our elected officials (congress) - dunno about you, but I'm thinking that there's something to hide there. Its not like they're being asked to compromise national security and make public their actions -- a 'secure' committee with specific oversight duties has been around for quite a while (to monitor the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc.) -- they are the ones that would know, so don't provide any 'security concerns' BS. Don't even cite the possibility of leaks - thats all smoke and mirrors.

Re:One Word: NETFLIX

[Schnapple]

Well what I was thinking was more along the lines of a glorified Pay Per View where you could serve up any movie any time. I know there's some stuff flirting with that idea but nothing yet.

God...

[sielwolf]

This topic is getting so damn boring.

*The difference between CD and DVD prices: This argument would be fine if you were comparing CD piracy with a rash of people sneaking into movie theaters without paying. By the time most movies are DVDs they've already recouped their costs. Thus the DVD is all profit. Shit, the movie theaters would sell them to you for 3 bucks and just jam them full of adverts for their next features coming out. Example: the point of the Fellowship of the Ring DVD is to get you to go and see The Two Towers in the theater ten times.

* Think there is a Problem with Music? There always has been. Welcome to the real world. This article is by Steve Albini. If you don't know who he is you shouldn't even be a part of this conversation.

* Do you know who is even on a major? What, you think that the label your favorite artist created is an indie? *heh* Yeah... right. If you think this I bet you also believe in Santa Claus and reach-arounds.

* Here is how to start an indie label.

Final Verdict All this comes down to people going to a swingers party, bending over and being surprised when they take it in the ass. What? Don't like the Major Labels??? Then DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC. DON'T SUPPORT THEIR ARTISTS. DON'T BUY MAGAZINES THAT THEY ADVERTISE IN. DON'T WATCH MTV/VH-1/BET/etc. DON'T MAKE THEM MONEY.

Jesus. You would think people would realize this. But no. They keep on going out and throwing money at the Majors. So how is it that they are supposed to change? If you really cared you would only buy indie stuff anyway. Go out, buy Our Band Could Be Your Life , crank on your Fugazi and don't pay attention anymore.

Re:God...

[Elbereth]

It's not my fault someone was stupid and naive enough to sign a bad contract. I'm not here to subsidize mediocre artists who are "punker than thou". I'm not really impressed at all by Fugazi. Why should I buy their stuff? Just because they're on an independant label? I think not.

Here's a hint for all the artists whining about how unfair their contracts are: read it before you sign it! When I get a job, I don't constantly whine about how unfair my salary is. I ask for a raise or get a different job if I want more money.

Re:God...

[Creepy]

How is the movie industry different than radio playing an album's songs before they are in stores? The radio stations have to pay every time they play a song, right?

Want to know the ugly truth?

Record companies PAY THE RADIOSTATIONS to play their songs. Yes, to do this directly is illegal, and called (Payola, and it was banned in the mid 60s. So how do the record companies circumvent this and essentially bribe the radio stations to play their songs? They pay middlemen to "promote" the songs, and those middlemen pay the radio stations (often keeping millions for themselves). Want to know why new artists can't get on the radio? Payola. Want to know why our stations are so bland? Payola again.

I can tell you horror stories about the recording industry, but that first link is pretty accurate, with the exception that most bands work with a lot less and end up PAYING the record company because their royalties after the 75% the record company takes doesn't cover the advance (note the 75% is taken off the top, then the advance is subtracted from the artists earnings). Put simply, a band forwarded $20000 puts it all into studio recording expenses. The band has 5000 CDs cut, and sells 4500 (the other 500 are promotional). The $50000 on CD sales is chopped by 75% by the record company, and the recording company claims they also put in $15000 for promotional expenses (which amounts to a bunch of calls they took from clubs your agent found for you to play at). The band takes in $13500 from CD sales - $20000 for advance, - $15000 for promotion, meaning you still owe the record company $16500 (assuming the bands' touring and promotional expenses [posters and the like] and touring fees [agent, expenses such as food and liquor] are covered by gate costs). The record company expects this to be paid back, which is why some bands declare bankruptcy (when you only own a $4000 PA system as a band, it's the cheap way out). Many indies are just as big of leeches (or even worse than) major labels. Note the record company still took in $21000 after the $16500 "loss" and the band lost everything.

These days, you're better off doing it in your basement and burning your own CDs...

Famous without labels? Already been done.

[Rikardon]

From Ms. Ian's reply: Fold one is that the record companies hold all the cards; if you want to be famous, you have to go the mainstream route. If you want huge success, you have to go the mainstream route. If you want worldwide success, you have to go the mainstream route. And until we see our first Internet & Live Shows Only artist sell a million CD's without a label deal, the major labels will be the only mainstream route available. Don't quote Grateful Dead statistics to me - they're the exception, not the rule.

Not so. Other artists besides the Grateful Dead have achieved worldwide success without selling their souls to the labels. The problem is, it takes serious talent.

The name that first comes to mind is Loreena McKennitt. For those who don't know, she's a harpist and a singer who primarily does Celtic/World music (that's an oversimplification -- listen to her stuff). She released her first two albums on her own label. They sold well enough that Warner Music offered her a deal. IIRC, she told them to get stuffed -- she was going to retain ownership of her music, period. Warner hemmed and hawed about it for awhile, and eventually signed a distribution-only deal with Loreena that saw her retain complete ownership rights, and the freedom to distribute her music on her own label's behalf.

The labels aren't stupid; they signed onto this deal because it made economic sense for them. It was obviously worthwhile for Warner: McKennitt's last studio album sold over 4 million copies worldwide. But the reason it made economic sense was that Loreena McKennitt's music was good enough that it created a serious buzz all on its own. She knew she didn't need the record labels; she was good enough that she could afford to hold out for a better deal. Perhaps she was just less greedy than some; I don't know (Ms. Ian's comments about each generation expecting more than their forebears seem relevant here). But Loreena now has worldwide recognition and ownership of her music.

The simple reason this happened is that McKennitt is a rare talent. That proven talent was in enough demand, sans label backing, that she could negotiate on a more even footing with a multinational like Warner.

But as Ms. Ian pointed out, this is pretty rare. Where does this leave the average artist when negotiating with a multinational label? Frankly, it leaves them right where I think they belong: with no negotiating power prior to having proven themselves. Think about it: why should the record companies take on all the risk and expense, and then hand over the majority of the fruits of their labours to the artist whom they created? I mean, do you really believe that Britney or your average boy band would even exist without the labels? These people are interchangeable -- they're commodities! They are the wholesale creation of their record labels. Anybody with a half-decent stage presence and half-decent voice can replace them. Likewise for damn near every major-label band in existence.

I suppose I see this as a merit system. The unsigned, semi-talented artist wants the whole enchilada -- fame, fortune, groupies. He/she can't earn that on his/her own merits, and so needs the manufactured hype of the record labels to acquire it. So this person makes a deal with the devil, so to speak -- signing away a lot of future considerations, in exchange for the label's best efforts to make them famous right now.

Contrast that with artists like McKennitt -- or for that matter, with Janis Ian who's now independent -- who was already making a living with her music because she was so very talented that her performances and music were just that memorable. Word of mouth did most of the rest.

Anyway: this is more rambling than I'd like it to be, because I'm posting on my lunch break so I don't have time to make this shorter, but I think you take my point: Janis Ian asserts that "record companies hold all the cards," but she's assuming an artist who's desperate for that worldwide fame. Such people do NOT have my sympathy if they sign their lives away to a record label for fame and fortune right now, rather than earn it like a handful of very talented musicians have done.

In saying this, I don't mean to imply that there aren't talented musicians out there that have a hard time making a living. My father was one -- an entertainer for 30 years. But I think what I am saying is that there are enough people out there of comparable talent that their relative value is a lot less than they think. It seems to me only appropriate that only the really exceptional talents can get onto the worldwide radar screen, so to speak, without having an enormous hype machine behind them that (justifiably, in my view) expects the lion's share of the profits in return.

Re:Famous without labels? Already been done.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not so. Other artists besides the Grateful Dead have achieved worldwide success without selling their souls to the labels. The problem is, it takes serious talent."

So the Beatles sold their soul and lacked serious talent because they signed up with a major label?

Re:Famous without labels? Already been done.

[Dirtside]

I think it can be summed up this way:

In theory, someone with no market power (a new artist/band that has no successes/history yet) will be at a disadvantage when dealing with someone who does have market power (an established label, for example). Now, the label knows that if the artist has talent, the label can use its financial resources to give the artist a chance to get exposure, in exchange for a cut of the profits from the artist's work. As a result, the artist gets more famous, and has more market power. (Assuming they're talented, and don't just suck.)

However, if the label is the only label out there, then they have *all* the power, and can abuse the artists horribly. But if there's other labels that compete with this label, then even the nearly-powerless artists can pick and choose a label who will give him the best chance.

But in our world, most of the labels are in collusion to not compete with each others' terms for new artists. This is the fundamental problem. In a properly free market, the labels would be competing, not colluding, and the artists would have a better deal. The way it is now, the artists have to compete for a spot with a label, but the labels almost never have to compete to get a good artist.

So why hasn't the Justice Department gone after the labels and made them start playing fair yet? Aren't they obviously hurting the music industry by doing this?

Re:Famous without labels? Already been done.

[jakeblue]

Interesting side note on the music downloads of Loreena McKennitt's site. In addition to not including the entire song, the MP3s (can't speak to the other formats) have an ugly hiss throughout. Speaking as someone who's spent lots of money on loudspeakers, I would find this intolerable. If I had to guess, I'd say the hiss was intentional. Thoughts?

Wow!

[CaptainZapp]

I'm maybe one quarter through the interview and it turns out to be the most impressive fucking thing I've ever read in this fine family type forum.

This women is incredible!

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[SN74S181]

And the instances of said acts by the government are well known, not secret acts, and the exception to the rule.

No, really, it's ludicrous to see the Trotskyites again harping on, and on, and on, and on about COINTELPRO, something from the 60s. The fact that that old shopworn evidence is all they can come up with is telling.

The Offspring

[Twister002]

The Offspring tried to give away their entire album and Sony sued to stop them from doing it.

She should know

[ianscot]

As the songwriter, I make less if I write the songs - then the record company invokes a 75% clause, where they only pay the songwriter/recording artist 75% of the Congressionally set statutory rate for writing/publishing the song. Their original argument, around 10 years ago, was that artists who insisted on recording their own songs cut the chances of a hit record, because the record company couldn't recommend potential hit songs for them to record.

Janis Ian would know, she's been covered by just about everybody and nominated for songwriting grammies in three or four decades now. This woman really is the ideal of the singer songwriter, traveling and doing her own work out of the love of it. I saw her two years ago, in a concert at the Minnesota Zoo in the driving rain, and she was just dazzling. Came out about 4'10" tall in huge puffy pumps and just grabbed you.

Talk about your "risk-management" model: these corporations actively discourage their artists from writing original work because they can't stick their studio noses in and make every last album another Johnny Mathis Christmas Compilation. (It'd be fun to go back and figure out when this model started up, and look at the pop songs then. "If the recording execs had gotten their way in nineteen-whatever, we'd still be listening to covers of the Bee Gees or whatever...")

Why not compare the two?

[Duck of Death]

Yes, movies and music are different, the main difference being that paying customers line up to see a movie in the theater before also buying the shiny disc.

But there are similarities as well. Both industries use warped accounting to suck every last possible dime into their coffers and leave the artist out in the cold. I'll bet fewer than one movie in ten ever "officially" breaks even. There are movies with a $200 million US box office that have "lost money."

Most importantly, though, DVD's and CD's are the same in one simple respect - they are 2 products that are competing for MY entertainment dollar. Do I go with the one that offers me about 60 minutes of music, or (for only a couple dollars more) do I go with the one that offers me a 2 hour movie with additional, possible even decent, bonus materials?

Oh, and let's not forget that in the face of more competition for consumers' time and disposable dollars as well as a slow economy, CD prices have risen while DVD prices have dropped.

BH

Re:Why not compare the two?

[KewlPC]

There are movies with a $200 million US box office that have "lost money."

Let's say you make a movie that cost $100 million. It grosses $200 million. You just made a mint, right? Wrong. The theaters keep 50% of that, automatically bringing you down to $100 million. If there are any production companies involved, split the $100 million like so (assuming that a)the studio is acting as the distributor and isn't taking an extra cut because of it): 50% goes to the studio, everybody else divides up the rest. If any big name actors are getting money "off the back end", that means their percentage is coming out of the $200 million gross, not the $100 million net. And it comes out of YOUR money, not the studio's.

The problem is just that there are SO MANY MIDDLEMEN. The theater gets 50%. The distributor takes the other 50%, gives themselves 50% of that (unless the distributor is also the studio that made the movie), and gives the rest to whoever is left. Nevermind actors getting money off the back end.

I once read that the only thing holding up Indianna Jones #4 was that Paramount couldn't figure out how they were supposed to make money off the film. All the actors in major roles were demanding huge salaries and a huge percentage of the movie's gross, as well as Spielberg's percentage of the gross, as well as the actual cost of the movie, and there was almost no money left over for Paramount. Luckily they seemed to have solved the problem, and Indianna Jones #4 is in the pipeline.

Re:Who?

[ianscot]

Janis Ian is great, I have a few albums including the "Breaking Silence" one she mentioned in her response.

Who's Radiohead, though? ;-)

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[Anonymous Coward]

the instances of said acts by the government are well known, not secret acts

So you're saying that government oppression is OK, as long as it's being done in the open?

Work

[Angst Badger]

First of all, I'd like to thank Ms. Ian -- who is always a pleasure to read -- for taking the time to do this Slashdot interview.

Secondly, I'd like to note that there are enormous numbers of excellent unsigned artists and artists on minor labels. Oodles. Scads. Shit-tons. So many, in fact, that artistic talent is really not especially scarce and therefore not all that valuable economically, which is, IMHO, why the big media companies can get away with what they do. This is not likely to change. Supply has always exceeded demand for good -- and even bad -- art.

The other thing that makes life easy for the RIAA's clients is our laziness as music consumers. The RIAA makes it very, very easy to find their artists: there are only a few of them, they are on the radio all day long, their CDs are not only in dedicated music stores but also in ordinary department stores and even the occasional gas station and drug store.

All those thousands of other excellent musicians take work to find. You may have to actually get off your duff and go to local clubs, familiarize yourself with minor label catalogues and indepedent record dealers, troll mailing lists and the web, and so on. They're not actually all that hard to find, but you do have to work at it. And while we can hope that the current IP-rights struggle will ameliorate the situation somewhat, the economic reasons cited above suggest that the ratio of a few big name performers to tens of thousands of good-but-unknown performers will probably never change much.

So, yes, definitely, let's write our congressmen to make sure that folks like Ms. Ian get their fair cut, but let's also realize that supporting a rich and diverse musical environment requires our active participation as fans.

Re:The Big Question Was Never Answered

[mekkab]

Dewd, I am well aware of TTR's (aka, YOU) contribution to the world of arts and humanities.

SO WTF? How come no-more turd report? Tired of the usual requests for a corn-flecked, fetid wonder? Why no more reports?

Fuck-a-damn virginia, move to a real state, like Maryland.

Economics is great

[IamTheRealMike]

Distributing doesn't cost next-to-nothing, alas, and won't in the foreseeable future.

Ah ha! This is the crux of the problem, the thing it all revolves around.

[puts on his economists hat]. What we are witnessing here is perhaps the first time in which something that was previously scarce (music) is becoming non scarce through technology.

Let's assume that one day the RIAA decide to stop hounding the P2P networks. They'd improve dramatically right, because you don't need any of that distributed encryption stuff. So it'd become possible to get virtually any music you wanted, for free, quickly and easily. The key word there is for free. It costs nothing effectively (yes yes, I know everything has a cost, but the perception is that it costs nothing), and as such music has now become a non scarce resource.

Why is this so important? Because capitalism really sucks at managing non scarce resources. Scarce stuff it does great, as supply and demand/competition/best product for the best price kicks in and everything is very efficient. Tins of beans capitalism does well. Information it does not do well.

Most of the stress and strain we're seeing here today, with patents, copyrights, and music distribution is down to the fact that people are attempting to force capitalism onto markets that it cannot handle. The only way of making capitalism work in these cases is to try and make things scarce once more. So you have patents (ownership of ideas), copyright (ownership of intellectual works), royalties (payment for that "product") and so on. The problem is, these mechanisms are at best horrible hacks. We've all seen the abuses of the system they allow.

So what is the solution? The solution is simple - new economic system must be created that is designed (yes, designed) for lack of scarcity. The gift economy is a good starting point, but it's far from the only possibility. Right now, there is big inertia behind the status quo. There are vested interests in seeing things remain the same - somebody needs to change that. I don't know how it would start, I'd imagine by somebody setting up a distribution network (possibly p2p, possibly just a series of permenant servers) with tipping built in. Espra tried this, but the project died. The problem we face right now is that micropayments are hard, I should think that can be worked around for now, but a real solution is needed.

And then? Who knows. The only way to see is by trying it. There's more info on my thoughts here about this topic, it's got some ideas for how this new market could work.

Is it possible to one day replace the current system with a new one, better optimized for information? Yes. Linux is showing that the little people can, if they try hard enough, push against massive inertia and alter the status quo, Linux is itself an economic revolution of sorts. All it takes is enough people with a shared vision.

Anybody up for it? Janis?

Re:Economics is great

[Bat_Masterson]

So what is the solution? The solution is simple - new economic system must be created that is designed (yes, designed) for lack of scarcity.

Other than the "gift" approach, do you know of such a system? Particularly one that will not breakdown into "no gift" over time?

Change the Distribution Process...?

[Bat_Masterson]

It's been said that the artists are limited because of the distribution mechanisms. There are only 4 major distributors in the U.S. and they've got to compete for shelf space and the like. I would think that a Napster-like system could change this.

Consider, what if there was a chain of record shops (start with a small number and grow) that allowed customers to create their own CDs by pulling songs (along with lyrics and artist info and such) from a large (and continually growing) database of artist contributed music. For each song copied from the database, the artist(s) get a royalty cut and the record shop gets expenses (CD, jewel case, personal lyric book, personal artist info book, etc.) plus a small profit. This is similar to (if I remember correctly) the Personics model of "make your own tape".

Since distribution could be done via the Internet, the shipping and storage costs would be nearly eliminated. The stores would need to maintain a large computer system with lots of disk space (which is getting cheaper all the time) as well as have on hand a supply of blank CDs (or DVDs). Using a "least recently used" model, the store computer system could keep on hand the most requested titles and, thus, be able to pump out most CDs fairly quickly. The store would also need a high-quality (and speedy) printer to produce the artist info and lyric books to go with the CDs (ie. this is the "value add" over pure Internet distribution). When the store computer needs to get hold of a new song (or a very old song), it might go out on the Internet to the artists web-site to download it (a central site controlled by the artists could list all new available songs and where to get them).

Basically, I think an expansion on this would be a way to leverage a new distribution model into the picture. The artists should be able to get a higher royalty from this model because much of the costs have been replaced by the Internet. Would it work?

Re:Change the Distribution Process...?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it wouldn't work. First, the lables will not let your store have access to their library or current artists. Of course there are thousands of (better) artists out there than Brittany for example, but your average consumer only knows to buy what the radio plays. And what does the raido play? Only what the major lables pay them to play. The net result is that your store would sell very little music to a few knowledgeble people, but that is not a prescription for a money making operation.

Until the current bland top 40 paid for content radio model is overturned we will be saddled with the existing corrupt system, except for those perceptive enough to just ignore it and find the good stuff that is out there on the net and at live shows near you.

Re:Change the Distribution Process...?

[Erbo]

Consider, what if there was a chain of record shops (start with a small number and grow) that allowed customers to create their own CDs by pulling songs (along with lyrics and artist info and such) from a large (and continually growing) database of artist contributed music. For each song copied from the database, the artist(s) get a royalty cut and the record shop gets expenses (CD, jewel case, personal lyric book, personal artist info book, etc.) plus a small profit. This is similar to (if I remember correctly) the Personics model of "make your own tape".

Ah, but the record industry killed off Personics, too. See this Business 2.0 article for details. Basically, even though Personics was approved by the record labels--and some of them had even invested in it--they couldn't get licenses to use many good songs in their system. (And, in order to get the licenses, they had to incorporate lots of security measures, like strict inventory control to ensure employees didn't run off extra tapes after hours.) This lack of music really hurt Personics' business, especially repeat business. In the end, although Personics tried to "do the right thing," they suffered the same fate as Napster was to suffer nearly a decade later. The parallels are striking.

It seems likely that your chain of DIY record stores would suffer a similar fate, or (if it tried to run without formal permission, like Napster did) get sued out of existence. Sorry.

Re:Change the Distribution Process...?

[Bat_Masterson]

Ah, but the record industry killed off Personics, too. See this Business 2.0 article [business2.com] for details. Basically, even though Personics was approved by the record labels--and some of them had even invested in it--they couldn't get licenses to use many good songs in their system. (And, in order to get the licenses, they had to incorporate lots of security measures, like strict inventory control to ensure employees didn't run off extra tapes after hours.) This lack of music really hurt Personics' business, especially repeat business. In the end, although Personics tried to "do the right thing," they suffered the same fate as Napster was to suffer nearly a decade later. The parallels are striking.

Hmmm. I hadn't taken into account how much the restriction on "recognized" music that the record labels could wield could hurt business.

If you only get new, unrestricted songs, then you'd have to advertise (radio, etc.) to get them recognized. That, in turn, raises the cost of doing business which, in turn, adds to the store's distribution fees which, in turn, cuts the royalties that artists could expect which, in turn, reduces their reason for switching to this approach.

*blech*

Re:Change the Distribution Process...?

[Erbo]

Hmmm. I hadn't taken into account how much the restriction on "recognized" music that the record labels could wield could hurt business.

Believe it. The record companies have a stranglehold now. They won't give it up willingly. And they will not go down easily, and they will not go down alone.

Microsoft only tried to "cut off Netscape's air supply," and they never quite finished the job. You do something with music distribution the record companies don't like, and your air supply will get cut off, if it's humanly possible.

Re:OT :

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time, try this:

View Source
Edit Tag
Save
Open

But thanks for pointing it out to the editors.

OT: funny (was Re:famous)

[yellowstone]

moderators: everything I say is supposed to be funny. don't be upset if it's over your head.

What's really needed is a "-1 I get the joke; it's just not funny" rating.

(-1; doesn't follow the party line)

TLC not the first ...

[Lucas Membrane]

Linda von Ronstadt's group, the Stone Poneys, broke up when they finally had a record in the top 10. Success sucks. You're sittin' in a bar, strummin' your guitar, and man comes in and says "Son, I'm gonna make you a star!" You sign his form. You gotta do two albums and they keep rejecting your material. You gotta travel to promote your album. They give you a nice $100,000 deal, but they charge back all the travel and promotion expenses. You don't make much. Willie Nelson was the biggest star in Texas some years back, but he couldn't even go there because of legal and tax troubles. He couldn't even afford a real bandage for his head.

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[HiThere]

I see.

1) If it was done secretly a while ago, it doesn't count any more.
2) If it's done openly now it doesn't count.
and
3) If you don't know about it, it isn't happening.

Everything is quite clear.

Re:Ahem... Outlawed after Watergate

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, if you catch the FBI or CIA or NSA or whoever spying on you without a warrant, you can retire . . ."

. . . in Camp Delta, Cuba; and they don't even have to tell anyone they have you there.

Don't be so insulting!

[A nonymous Coward]

Not all criminals are politicians...

Uh huh...

[A nonymous Coward]

The very fact that you had to explain who Loreena McKennitt is seems like a pretty good indication that she isn't as famous as you'd like to think....

Re:Uh huh...

[cduffy]

Oh, c'mon -- you've heard The Mummer's Dance, right? It made major radio stations. I'd call that pretty darned popular.

Re:Uh huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the explanation is probably necessary to the geeks like you who have such a narrow scope of the world.

Oh, and yes, I knew exactly who Loreena McKennitt was before I read the post.

Re:I have never once heard of Janis

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're proud of knowing about this never-was burnout?

Ahem

[jagripino]

It has happened, at least here in .br. A singer/writer called Lobao (that's "Big Wolf", for the Portuguese-challenged among you) started his own label, Universo Paralelo (Parallel Universe), he is distributing his and other artists' CDs on freaking NEWSTANDS, for less than $5 and besides the CD you also get a magazine with information on the artist, album "making of" and other stuff.

Of course, he never gets any airplay. But then again, when was the last time you heard anything good on radio?

What Are UK Prices These Days?

[reallocate]

Back in the last century, I lived in the UK for a few years. Music CD's were priced pretty much at a pound-to-dollar rate. I.e., if it cost 18 dollars in the States, it cost 18 pounds in the UK. When I was there, the pound was selling for about $1.60, so that's a substantial markup. Caused a bit of a fuss in the mainstream press, too.

By the way, software seemed to follow the same pricing formula. Never could figure out why. :-)

Re:The Big Question Was Never Answered

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the 99.9% usually suck ass.


Damn, and here I was wondering why everyone but the 3 bands approved by the RIAA for fame get airtime. It's because morons like you think "Well, if I haven't heard of it, it must be crap!" Or, to the RIAA's ears, it sounds like "Please tell me what to like and purchase!" I'm sure they're happy to oblige.

Re:Ahem... legalized after 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if you catch the FBI or CIA or NSA or whoever spying on you without a warrant, you can retire with the civil rights lawsuit settlement.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the USA-PATRIOT act...

Jane Siberry

[geoswan]

The CBC had a segment on Jane Siberry . Siberry was able to leave Warners, and start up her own company. In this interview she described having to let all her employees go. At the time of this interview her company was run out of her spare bedroom. She described how time consuming it was to answer her own phones. Too often people phoning her company to place an order feel amazingly lucky to have reached the artist herself, and want to have an extended conversation.

Who's Junk Jerzey?

[reallocate]

Janis is a singer/songwriter who first came to our attention in the sixties. The music and recording industry didn't begin last Thursday; taking a look at its history might provide a bit of perspective.

Oops...Sorry, Junks

[reallocate]

Sorry, Junks. whoever you are. Clicked on the wrong "reply" link.

Re:The Big Question Was Never Answered

[Anonymous Coward]

No, obviously, since he said 'remain' - fuckwit.

Re:Who the fuck are you?

[CreamsicleSeventeen]

+5 FUNNY

manufacturing scarcity

[solferino]

Most of the stress and strain we're seeing here today, with patents, copyrights, and music distribution is down to the fact that people are attempting to force capitalism onto markets that it cannot handle.

agreed. this is called manufacturing scarcity. telephone companies do it, ip propronents do it, diamond miners do it. solution is inherently simple - call their bluff and refuse to play their game - ppl only have power over you if you give it away to them

160kb mp3 or 128 ogg dammit

[sethdelackner]

I love the idea of online distribution, but I'm not going to pay a nickel for 128kb mp3 audio. Compared to 160kb mp3 or Ogg Vorbis, the quality is just not acceptable as a replacement for my CDs.

Two Words: David Hasselhoff

[sethdelackner]

Germans seem to love him, so by your logic, perhaps everyone else will, too? You are missing Janis' point that the cultural vibe of a country is on its own track with predilections for their own unique stars and styles. If you still disagree, I wonder how big is your collection of bollywood soundtracks? What, you don't like indian music?

Right idea,here's how to make it work

[alizard]

Right general idea, wrong storage and data transfer to record store site. How many new CDs do you think you could download a day via a DSL link? The answer is not enough to support a record store. (15CDs/day assuming 1 meg transfer rate and 24 hour usage)

What's really needed for this is terabyte removable media of some sort, there's one system (TVD) that's due out in a year or so that uses a super-DVD for this, there's an IBM approach using nanomachines. 1 TVD = 1538 CDs of content.

One or at most, a handful of TVDs would be adequate for a complete record label's catalog including artwork.

CD on demand is off the shelf.

Combine CD on demand with a TVD jukebox and you could distribute *everyone's* CDs. A 100 CD jukebox could distribute up to 15,380 different CDs.

The other piece of technology - the CD-on-demand setup must be turned into a neat package capable of being operated by non-technical personnel. However, this isn't rocket science.e

Updates can be done via snailmail. A major label can snailmail weekly, smaller labels might send their records out monthly or whenever they release new content. Encryption and an audit trail can make sure that the people distributing this way get paid for their work. This is a special problem, not the conventional DRM situation because a record store without this could sell or give away any number of CDs loaded with content for only the cost of the media or worse, duplicate it's 'retail only' database, allowing wholesale theft of content.

The record store connects to the central tracking database every day, and which and how many of each CDs (or tracks) were sold by a given artist go to the database. The record store pays for the tracks from money provided by customers.

Implemented properly, everybody gets distribution and for a label distributing content weekly or monthly, the price of distributing a new CD into record stores is very close to zero.

The only losers are the current record distribution companies.

Re:manufacturing scarcity ...add oil

[Bob Hellbringer]

Don't forget oil. Far to much money to be lost by a few people if we switch to hydrogen. Come to think of it, a hydrogen economy, in its current state, seems to have a lot of parallels to the peer-to-peer/file-sharing world. The thought of distributing purchasing and usability power to the masses would certainly cause some rich and powerful people to sweat!

"freely share their music with the world."

[Chris Johnson]

"these artists freely share their music with the world."

They sure do- mp3.com was what Michael Robertson did before he started messing with Linux through 'Lindows' and charging people for access to Debian mirrors and attempting to place restrictions like "please do not make copies of this software for your friends".

mp3.com is now owned by Vivendi International- it's part of the majors. It mostly touts major label promos now- signing up with mp3.com means you permanently give up certain rights to your material- and if they don't want to pay you, they won't, they'll make up and excuse and kick you off rather than pay you.

Worst of both worlds- be warned.

Happened in the Movie Biz

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that how "United Artists" got their start? I don't recall the names but they were bigguns at the time IIRC...

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is. If the people are truely being oppressed they then have the opportunity to do something about it.

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[Anonymous Coward]

To you I say thankyou.

Oh, and I smell wool associated with that -1 troll mod.

Re:Nothing ever changes, you know

[Anonymous Coward]

McCarthy had nothing to do with this. For a clue to the perp check the name on the fbi building.