Music and the Internet Reprise

Paul M. writes "Janis Ian, nominated for nine Grammys since 1967, writes, "RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense." She wants the industry, artists, and consumers to work together 'to make technology work for all of us', something I've advocated all along. Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired." Janis' interview makes for good reading as well.

Comments

Question...

[CaptainAlbert]

I remember reading about the music industry from "insiders" before Napster et al. The story about six years ago went thus:

"Record companies lose money on CDs. Recorded music has not turned a profit for a long time. The real money is made from concert tickets and merchandising."

I'd be interested to know what happened to this story and the people who used to tell it. Sounds to me like it's every bit as relevant today. But the RIAA don't want anyone to hear it, because now it has a scapegoat for its members' lousy market performances.

Ho hum.

Re:Question...

[GooberToo]

Their only expenses are production and promotion.

Which the artists typically have to cover. This is one of the reasons why they are considered the last stand for slavery! The RIAA usually gets nothing but a free ride.

Imagine this. You sign a 5-disc license with someone. You're first disc sales great. You make another disc. They don't like it. You still owe 3 more discs AND now you're out all the money it took to record/produce it. Now, you're stuck. You can't sale or even attempt to make you're money back as they own the rights to the disc. They won't sale you're latest and all the money you made on the first disc is now spent and down the drain in living and making the second disc. What do you do? Make a third disc? You don't have any money. Okay, so now they front you the money with horrible terms (ownership rights to the previously made disc and you still owe them four more) because they have all the leverage.

You're screwed!

Yes, the RIAA is past its time just like the buggy whip! They are corrupt and no longer serve any purpose.

Jimmy Cliff releases free CD

[I Want GNU!]

Reggae pioneer and Grammy award winner Jimmy Cliff, famous for his starring role in cult movie classic The Harder They Come and several hit songs, has recently released his entire newest album online for free download at his website. You can listen to the music by downloading People Music Media from the site, a P2P application that streams the music to you. It's great that famous artists are finally developing new music distribution schemes and revenue making models for the Information Age! Perhaps the RIAA could take a few notes from him...

And I just downloaded the album last night, it is amazing. (-:

Why do people make this subject sound complicated?

[ccalvert]

To me, it's very simple. Any artist who is any good should be able to go in the studio, start the tapes rolling, and record the CD in 60 minutes, a few hours max, then walk out and go home. Someone then turns the music into MP3 or even some proprietary format that can't easily be copied, and sells the output on the net for $3 or $4 max per album.

The total cost of that kind of distribution should be at most a few thousand dollars. If the artist is really good, they will sell tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of copies, and make a fortune.

You say that's not realistic? But many of the great albums were in fact recorded exactly that way. Most of the classic Miles Davis, Charles Mingus or T. Monk albums were recorded in one or two takes. The early Beatle's albums, which still sell like crazy, were little more than recordings of the group playing live in the studio. Classic Bob Dylan albums like Blonde on Blonde, Positively Fourth Street or Planet Waves were also basically live recordings with just one or two takes per song.

When the Beatles recorded Sgt Peppers they started this trend toward albums that took a long time and cost huge sums to make. But everyone forgets that they were a huge success before they decided to make that album, and their success was based on what amounted to live recordings in the studio.

So the solution is simple. What are the arguments against it?

You could argue that not everyone has a computer and a good connection to the internet. But if major artists started releasing their albums on the Internet for $3 a pop, then believe me, there would all of a sudden be a lot of people signing up for ADSL, cable, etc. And the profits would go up, and connections would work.

And lots of people would make lots of money. Sure the record companies would lose out. But computer people, and artists, both old and new, would make a lot more than they are making now.

The answer is simple: record albums cheaply, and distribute them on the net for virtually no cost. The only losers would be the record companies and no talent acts that need hours of time in the studio in order to sound decent. Everybody else would gain.

This solution is so obvious that it makes one wonder why it's not happening. The reasoning it's not happening? Because the politicians who control the market are in the direct pay of established corporations. It's not capitalism, it's cronyism. Or more simply, corruption.

A good musician, like Michael Brecker, Joshua Redmon, or Joni Mitchell sounds great when recorded live. They don't need expensive studio time. A major talent like Neil Young, Leonard Cohen or Ani DiFranco sounds just as good live as they do in the studio. Just go in the studio, do your thing, and sell it on the net cheaply. Then all the controversy would end, and a lot of corrupt people would have to get new jobs.

- Charlie

Peanut Butter Wolf anybody?

[sielwolf]

I'd like to see some more opinions on the subject instead of the /. darling that Janis Ian has become.

May I suggest Peanut Butter Wolf, DJ and founder of the seminal underground hip-hop label Stones Throw Records?

PBW on the Stones Throw website:

As an artist myself, I have the artists help decide how much money to spend on promoting their records. We all split the profits after expenses, so it makes sense that we collectively decide how much to spend on promotion. This includes video budget, advertising, radio promotion, video promotion, street teams, snippet tapes, stickers, flats, posters, 8x10 glossies, etc.

Now to me he sounds like the perfect person to talk to about managing an artist's career from the ground up with no support of major labels. Again from Stones Throw:

As executive producer, I don't put out what I think the people will like, I put out what I like. This has worked for me so far, and if it stops working for me, it will be the end of Stones Throw as a label. I've passed on some artists that I knew would sell a lot of units because I didn't like the songs. That sounds like a bad business move and from a purely financial standpoint it is one, but profit isn't the only thing that drives my label. If money were my sole motivation, I'd be rich by now because so far I've attained everything I've put my mind to.

I mean, doesn't this sound like somebody with some perspective? Especially since he doesn't have 9 Grammys and a Top 40 hit?

Songwriters break the law

[yerricde]

What I don't understand is where the law is that says you are entitled to make huge sums of money because you can write and record a good song.

It actually says you're not. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works from a copyrighted work, and the courts have interpreted "derivative work" quite broadly, especially in the commercial arena, where "fair use" seldom applies. Only 50,000 melodies exist in the Western musical scale, and by now, somebody probably owns them all. It's possible to infringe copyright without even knowing it. Without the ability to build on previous works, how will it be possible to create new works?