Slashdot Mirror
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.
I still have a Janis Ian vinyl 45 of "At Seventeen..."
Memo to self: rip this to MP3 later this week, release new "At Seventeen (hardcore Phunked-up remix)"
to give Janis Ian her own icon and group here on /.
More concerts and less CDs. What, the "R" in RIAA stands for "recording"? Well too bad for them then.
the record companies' utility has expired
Mod her up + Insightful
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Be sure to visit Boycott-RIAA for further coverage of this and all issues anti-RIAA (Not that there are any /.'ers against the fine institution of the RIAA, but link provided just in case ;)
If I download a song, the RIAA hasn't lost anything. I've just gained it. Copyright laws should only be applied against publishers, not members of the public.
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.
These sigs are more interesting tha
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. (-:
The core problem here is that the RIAA (and MPAA if you want to go there also) leadership is not comprised of reasonable people. They're busy breathing heavily into paper bags over Internet File Sharing and are unwilling to consider any options other than locking up music as tightly as they can, prosecuting everyone they can get their hands on, and lobbying congress for more laws.
This is a textbook example of incompetent leadership in business - management is religeously inflexibile and lives in a complete state of denial while steadily circling the drain.
If the music industry wants to survive they need some fresh blood at the top because all of the laws and lawsuits in the world won't solve their problems, in fact, they will only make them worse...
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
When technology goes past current methods of revenue, we must stifle the technology, rather then letting go of what made us money previously, just like movie previews on VHS tapes, because consumers certainly appreciate being held back.
It doesn't stream, it downloads the album in a protected albx format. It doesn't let you burn to CD but you can listen to it all you want on your computer and again, it's free (as in beer). He could theoretically release the whole thing in OGG or MP3 format but since people could copy and burn the CD easily and legally then it might hurt album sales, which I think we can understand him not wanting to do. Still, this is an amazing step!
now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired.
I don't agree.
An anecdote some people here may share: back when I started surfing the web in 1995, websites were a lot easier to find. Back then, I'd happen upon more cool sites than I do now. These days, there is just so much of the web available that you need to use a portal/weblog/etc just to get there.
Internet-distributed music falls victim to the same problem. Sure, anyone can get it anytime anywhere, but what good is that if no one will find it? Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.
That said, I am very glad that someone in Finland can download my band's mp3s anytime.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
So, I guess all I have to do in order to get a submission finally accepted is resubmit a rehash of something that already made the front page half a dozen times then.
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
Again, this article is newsworthy NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT (with which you and I are both already ridiculously familiar), but BECAUSE OF WHERE THE CONTENT APPEARS.
Maybe the wind blows up where you live, but my mother-in-law reads the USA Today, not
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
The RIAA is not interested in anything that empowers the artist or the consumer unless they are the sole source for it. While free downloading is infinitely better publicity and promotion for bands it provides little benefits in return to the recording industry. They can not charge the artist or bands for the free distribution of their material on the net as they do with off net promotion. They can not report their ever increasing profits to their share holders. It is going to take a redefinition of the consumers and artists rights by Congress before the recording industries strangle hold on the music business is relaxed even a tiny bit. I am generally against legislated solutions however in this case it may be our only hope.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
...her 9 Grammys hardly qualify her as an expert in this area. They qualify her as a musician but it doesn't mean she has some great insight into the business end of the industry.
Now, if she had started and run a successful indie label then I'd take her comments more seriously. Good that the submitter found a way to plug his writings though.
Might have made sense for the editor or submitter to POINT THAT OUT then, don't ya think? Because GOD KNOWS that Janice Ian quated saying the same things again is not something I really am going to bother go checking all the links on, just in case it's something new.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Representative Gurm Dorbson of North Carolina recently wrote This piece on how world hunger should be eliminated, something I've advocated All Along.
*cough*.
=== "Some people see the glass as half-empty. Others see it as half-full. I see the glass as too big." -G. Carlin.
Its about time theres a song writer to whom's high priced lawyers havn't brainwashed into thinking they are getting ripped off.
:) Anyways, back to my point that the little guys really benifit from this. If i'm listening to an mp3 stream and hear a really jazzin song that i've never heard of the artist before, I might buy it.
I know I bought metallica albums before their napster crusade, but I flat our refuse to now.
And what about cd's that you've either gotten lost or stolen, or broken even? I think you should be entitled to download the song if its availiable. After all, why not? I'm sure I wasn't the only one really ticked off when I bought that one blind melon album and found all the songs except for the one that they played on the radio all the time (you remember, allllll I can say is that my life is pretty plain *breum brah brerum* I like watching the pluddles gather rain*).
And don't forget the main issue here. EXPOSURE. Time to take away the strangle hold a couple of stuffed shirts think about what is "good music." I stopped buying music all in all not long ago, but when I did stop, the last couple albums I bought were from those labels that were created by the songwriter. Ok, so *maybe* I didn't pay for that kid rock cd, but how long could you really listen to that one for?
Otherwise, they would have just ended up in the fatcat's rejection bin.
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.
That's just idiotic. In fact it's the opposite -- because every idiot who owns a guitar can put up a web site, the good bands are drowned by even more noise that we've seen in the past.
I'm sure there are innumerable good bands who put up a web site expecting the flood of CD orders to come charging in -- and then are bitterly disappointed when people don't magically show up.
The fact is, good musicians just aren't that rare. The ones that become extremely popular happen because of combination of luck -- and promotion. The way to get noticed is still to play local clubs hoping that you get good word of mouth. And if that happens, hope that a national promoter (duh) promotes you nationally. Just opening a web site and hoping is not going to cut it.
Or to put it another way, somehow you have to rise above the noise. What makes you unique by just putting up a web site? And even if you did become as popular as a big group, exactly how are you going to produce those million CDs? Can you say "record distributor deal"?
[P.S. This is my 2500th comment on this account. That's not including the 400+ on my old account, though, or miscellaneous A/C posts. And yes, I manage to distribute my wisdom while still having a life! Boy it's great to be me. :)]
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Just because Janis Ian isn't prancing around in a pepsi commercial, doesn't make her a failure.
Janis has never complained about her records selling. Her complaints usually relate to not being ALLOWED to sell them. I won't really go into it, since it'll look like an article, and we know you don't read those...
Small artists which do not get screen-time on MTV or air-time on popular radio stations have no other way to let people "try before you buy" than the Internet. Some recording companies provide samples of music from the albums they publish, but an artist should have the right to do this him/herself if the record company doesn't. I know of only one record company where the artists own the copyright to their own work. DGM only functions as a recording and publishing company, they don't buy intellectual property. Arthur Brown made a record which sold 5 million copies in three months and never got anything for it. Somehow I don't buy it when the big recording companies say they work for the artists. They are in fact only working for artists that sell millions and then only to rip them off completely.
So Jack: if the distributor doesn't want me to download the music, but the creator of the music does, who's got control? Wait, you think that if the creator signed that excessive contract s/he doesn't have any say? That'd be legit, if the RIAA didn't have an effective monopoly on contracts; if there was somewhere for the creator to turn where they could get their music to the mass audience effectively without the draconian contracts. The Internet has the capability to become that alternative, but the RIAA is doing everything they can to stop it.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
but what good is that if no one will find it?
Sure, if you had to sift through ALL the music out there on your own, you would be lucky to find a fraction of the good stuff that makes it to your ears today. However, you don't need the RIAA or their recording companies to do that.
A perfect analogy is news. Frankly there is too much of it. Because you posted on slashdot, I'll assume, that like myself, you let this site do some of your filtering for you. In the web world there is always competition for eyeballs, and those with the best merit will survive. (e.g., Slashdot.)
In a world where music is available from millions of direct download sources on terms dictated by the artists, I don't find it too far fetched to think that a website or two will spring up to fill the void left by the recording company talent agents that refused to logon.
--bdj
The following is a rant about Action versus talk, not a rant about the Music industry. Please keep children away from this rant, it is contagious.
---Begin Pre-Luch Time Rant--
Am I the only on sick of hearing about Janis? Great, wonderful that Janis is speaking about rights and all that bull; so does Bono for animal rights your point? Sitting around bitching about why things are the way they are does NOTHING. The question Janis is what are YOU going to DO besides sit and lecture? We know what the problem is Janis (Doctor Scott, Brad, ROCKY!) we have heard this over and over again. Why not try something that few people understand. Instead of bitching and whining and being all "Touchy-Feely" and sympathetic with your fans, why not OFFER SOME CONCRETE SOLUTIONS! I am sick of hearing whiny maggots from the music industry, BOTH SIDES, sitting say A is bad and B is bad when neither of them can do the following SIMPLE things:
A: Define the problem
B: Offer concrete evidence on the fact the problem is real
C: Offer SOLUTIONS that work in the real world.
This nonsense with the music industry is pissing me off. With nuclear powers facing off, people dying from murderers, war looming, and all sorts of bad things that go bump in the night you think these whiny commies would get a clue and realized if they had stuck with capitalism they could have simply used the old law of supply and demand to stop this (Most are, it's called bootleg MP3s). People are sick of the record industry and all they do is whine and talk and talk and talk. If EVERY person that hated the RIAA gave $10 to a general fund they would have 4 times the disposable income that the RIAA has. The RIAA would have to dip into profits (creating debt) to battle YOUR $1!! That is a vicious cycle if you have a few brain cells left. If every person that didn't vote in a presidential election gave $1 every month how many millions of dollars would you have? Can't spare a $1 a month? Bullshit. All I see is entitlement lazy assholes with too much free time that CHOOSE not to get organized and actually do something about their problems because they're too busy whining about shit instead of doing something about the shit they see.
There is the problem and I'll say it again:
I see is entitlement lazy assholes with too much free time that CHOOSE not to get organized and actually do something about their problems because they're too busy whining about shit instead of doing something about the shit they see.
I contribute a whole whopping $5 buck to my candidates and political party each month. Why don't you? Because you're too damn busy whining! Why is it every time some singer start crying about a cause it becomes profound? How many fucking lemmings post on this board?
The fundamental problem of 90% of problems is your too god damn busy talking to DO something.
There are no corrupt politicians, they WORK HARD for the people that elected them, too bad you did elect them. You were too busy whining.
You have become lazy and CHOOSE not to defend you freedom with your vote. You must PARTICIPATE in the political system, if you don't be surprised if they don't listen.
Now, like so many, you lemming behind some famous person without doing the 3 simple things:
A: Define the problem
B: Offer concrete evidence on the fact the problem is real
C: Offer SOLUTIONS that work in the real world.
The problem isn't the RIAA buying politicians. It fails a typical logic test. The ROOT problem is the fact we are not being active in politics. I am reminded of a simple poster I saw at a police station. There on the poster is an inmate lifting weights. The poster asks," He's getting stronger, are you?" Well the companies are pushing hard in politics, did you forget how to compete? You have to pusher HARDER than the competition. I am sad to see that the American spirit on competition has been replaced by lazy, whiney, bitchy, slackers who have to rally around a musician instead of their own ideals.
I have a great SOLUTION, go buy Sony Stock and vote the fuckers off the board and put your own people in there. Oh wait, that would be too easy. Who would have thought that you have to work hard in order to win.
Can't afford it? Yes you can, first form an ethical investment firm in your local area and RAISE MONEY to battle bullshit like this; SHUT UP AND DO SOMETHING!!! ARG!!!
--- End Pre-Lunch Rant---
I'm sure I'll feel better after lunch, please take my rant as just that, a rant. I might have drifted into a blind range of madness and babbled about gold fish or something but I had to get it off my chest, that's why I like Slashdot, it's a great place to vent rational and irrational statements. Later
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Record companies would still be useful down the road as publicists. After all, do any of us believe that Brittany made it this big on talent alone? They help certain artists onto the public radar (deserving or no).
The problem is that record companies are no longer the only mode of production and distribution. That means that they can't make artists into indentured servants. They would still be able to make money, just not all the money.
Boom Shanka
Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.
These were once valuable services but they are decreasingly so... Distribution is (obviously) no longer a problem -- this is traditionally where the music companies have had a stranglehold. Promotion is really the only value add they have but the value here is highly debatable. Sure someone has to sift through a bunch of crap but how good a job do they do? If you never hear any of the ones they reject, what makes you think they aren't good (ok, probably a bunch of them are crap...). Wouldn't a moderation system where music listeners (who don't have a vested interest in an artist) rate music work just as well, if not better?
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense. 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.
The above is nonsense.
The record companies don't care about "free downloading" per se. They care about free downloading of content owned by their members. BIG difference. Any war the record companies are waging upon filesharing is the result of the obvious fact that most of the music available on these networks belongs to RIAA members and the equally obvious fact that a significant amount of downloads are being done by people who don't have "fair-use" license of this content.
As for whether or not record companies serve a function, bands have been putting out their music for sale and download on the Net for years now, and there have been but a handful of modest success stories. I defy anyone to name more than 5 such bands, recognizable to an average guy on the street, who still maintain independence from traditional music distribution channels.
I am certain that if you were to survey the MP3 collections ("legal" and "shared" alike) of all Slashdot users (not just a perverse few), we would discover that the vast majority of MP3s are of artists signed to RIAA member companies. And I would bet you that these infinitely self-motivated musicians and bands will continue to be signed to said companies, because they serve thema function, just like these musicians and bands will continue to pay for artists.
I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital. But I do object to the industry spin that it is doing all this to protect artists. It is not protecting us; it is protecting itself.
/. poster said it best (can't remember who). It's not about destroying on-line distribution. It's about destroying the early competition so that the industry can move in afterwards and take it all for themselves.
I see a very common theme appearing these days.
Neither the artists nor the consumers want the RIAA and record companies to have the absurd power that they currently have (which they seek to strengthen and extend).
A
Memepool.com, obscurestore.com, slashdot.com,
the list goes on.
How do you use the net? you search for stuff- chances are you will find a place where you agree with what is being said more often than not. And in the meme-propagating world that is the Internet if something is quality it will spread like wildfire.
Instead of being bombarded with big money commercials you get testimonials. You go to the Onion's AV room and you read some reviews, you respect the reviewer, and when s/he later on says "This is the Next big thing" you weight the opinion not on how much hype you have heard about it, but on the integrity of the source.
Its like the zoo.pl stuff at slashdot- you like what someone has to say, you make 'em your friend.
It's what people have been doing for years before there was advertisement.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I always found it quite interesting that the most vocal anti-napster groups were the soon to be totally washed-up has-beens from the early 90's. Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same. When will the RIAA and their pet artists realize part of why alternative music sources succeed largely because THE LISTENER decides what songs to get and the RIAA can't force their decisions on us anymore?
A very vocal group speaking out in favor of swapping services (whether you're talking "weeds", napster, kazaa or just a recording/swapping party) is CSN. True, they've had periods where they've been much more successful and other periods when they've pretty much fallen totally off the radar, but they most certainly can't be called a one hit wonder or producer of "crap" that no one wants.
Janis did make a very smart comment "I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing: If a record executive says he will make me more money, I'd immediately protect my wallet." The RIAA doesn't want to protect anything other than its own wallet. It doesn't take much searching to find a smaller artist (not a major commercial success) or older (no longer "successful") artist who can easily show the record companies owe them what amounts to a LOT of money or that the record companies (or their reps) have successfully stolen all rights to their songs. The RIAA no intention of protecting the artists, they're just smart enough to know that they can fool a lot of schmucks by pretending to care about more than their own money and the more schmucks they fool the better their chances to win this war by BS.
He slams Greene, record labels, and the industry in general and promotes the best interests of artists and consumers. His points are laid out cleanly in numbered paragraphs with bold "headline" statements, which makes it easy to skip the ideas with which you may disagree or of which you've heard too much of, and simply get to the stuff you want to read.
It's a very good article, but Fletcher misses the point a little when he says:
Correction: Selling albums was never the only way for artists to make money.
I agree. She doesn't express any new ideas on the subject.. but it is nice to see someone who's "been there, done that" to step up against te RIAA. She makes some good points, too.
"That's how artists become successful: exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, and no one buys CDs. After 37 years as a recording artist, when people write to tell me that they came to my concert because they downloaded a song and got curious, I am thrilled."
That's how I am. Sure, I might not buy CDs that I download, but I sure as hell do support the artist by buying merch, going to shows and telling my friends about how good a certain band is.
There's no "I" in Linux.. err..
from the article:
I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital.
Janis Ian recognizes that the artist has the right to choose what happens with her output. This often gets overlooked in all the RIAA-bashing around here.
If the artist doesn't want to allow sharing, then that's her choice.
--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits
..is that it gives all the new wave of (pop) nu-metal & alternative bands who claim to be "all about the music" a kick in the pants when they start complaining about losing money. "Yeah man, we is da hardcore, we is all about the music. But the money is nice too."
There has to be a way for them to make money off of all this. Sure, there will always be someone trying to rip off your work, but companies like M$ have seemed to adapt very well. Who would have though 10 years ago that local and national newspapers could give away free electronic copies of their content and still make money. There has to be a way to make this work for the entertainment industry.
This is just like saying that your market is ready to buy your products, but you are unwilling to sell.
That is why we share little bits of arguments in this way. I share one view, you share another, the rest of the world (potentially) shares billions of others, and somewhere down the line the best solution is realized, pursued, and achieved.
The political philosopher John Stuart Mill said it best in his essay On Libety in 1859:
that the only reason the music industry worked so hard to close down Napster was not really because people were exchanging copyrighted music - people have been doing that since the inception of magnetic tape, no, the real reason is because suddenly, overnight, there was a music distributor with millions of subscribers that they (the music industry) didn't control, and this distributor (Napster) was actually promoting independant bands. THAT'S THE REAL REASON.
Notice that the record companies BOUGHT Napster? Now you'll be forced to feed on the sludge THEY decide to feed you.
Suckers. All inflamed with this intellectual-property jazz when it's ALL about dollars & cents.
You reversed the dynamics of supply and demand again. You really need to stop doing that, we have very little credibility as it is.
Sincerely,
Hilary Rosen
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Now, they are just plain bastards, for sure.
That's a bit of bull shit. It could be said that they already have near universal exposure since they all have telephone numbers. Having your music on the Internet does not make people notice you; marketing is still a very important utility that the record companies still provide.
Personally, I'm exposed to music primarily through my friends, but also listen to radio shows and sometimes music TV stations. I find that when I find a single that I like, I download it, and don't pay for it. However, when I find an artist who is really neat, I'll buy their CD, even if it costs 30 dollars or so. I find the
Here's what I think applies to most consumers of music:
o If they like an artist's work, they'll shell out cash
o If they are checking out artists (sampling their music), they will pay a few cents per song, but the cost of managing the transaction would be prohibitive (not necessarily financially, but in a pain in the ass sense)
o If they want a single, they'll pay about a dollar, but the cost of such a transaction is still probably prohibitive.
So, realistically, fans will shell out cash, but people who are casual listeners will only shell out cash if there is no pain in the ass factor. If record companies can make music available at a low cost (money) and reduce the pain in the ass factor to below the GNUTella/Kazaa level (good download speeds, good quality, etc), people will pay.
We already have laws to deal with copyright violation. We don't need more laws (we didn't need the DMCA). If they sued a few thousand joe downloaders (and of course settled out of court for a few hundred bucks each), people would hear about it and be afraid of using kazaa. Lots of kids (warez kiddies) would still use it, but their parents would be afraid and give them shit. At least, that's what mine would have done (and did, when I was 15, and trading warez, perhaps?)
RIAA has an incredible marketing power; they are not that affraid of the Internet, but every little extra dollar is a win, so why not trying to keep it under control as well?
So far I find CD sales to perform quite well given the economic situation, so people still buy CDs, begin to learn the shortcomings of mp3 and free downloads (quality, broken, etc). Make no mistake, eventually CD will disappear, but certainly not before a few years at best.
And for the whiners against RIAA: try to convince consumers to vote with their cash, instead of blaming a service you can choose not to buy from.
have you been defaced today?
Your theory is based on the flawed assumption that a particular music recording, which can be downloaded, is a product, just like a toothbrush. With the unlimitted supply of free music, the product ceases to be the particular recording - the packaging, the presentation (i.e. concerts), and other "add-ons" should become the product. Don't forget, the RIAA showed their highest, record profits from CD sales were during the heyday of Napster, then they showed a reduction of profits after Napster was shut down...
It seems that record company executives never managed to go past their first semester in college...
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
First, let me state that I, too, agree with Ian and her position. But every time I see something about her speaking out against the RIAA and state of music industry today I'm wondering if anyone else in the industry is speaking out as well or is it just her? I'm guessing the reason she's in the news so much about this issue is that she's the most vocal but does anyone know if anyone else is making any noise about this too? Honestly, I'm not sure how much of an influence Janis Ian has among everyday people today. If some big name person (read: talentless but popular contemporary act) were to start making some of these same points, perhaps someone other than the faithful would start listening.
Again, I'm not slamming Janis Ian or slashdot for posting this. I'm just wondering if anyone is adding their voice to hers. Because, if not, I'm afraid it's not going to do much good.
GMD
watch this
Personally, I'm almost weaned off the major labels, by chance, since most of my favourie artists are also going independent. I think Britney's or Eminem's albums should come with a government health warning: "Purchasing this major label album may be detrimental to the health of music and music lovers worldwide".
You may have some valid points in your rant, but, like many here, I tend to switch off when the personal insults start appearing. We don't need this, do we?
(this is not a
"I can see clearly now my money's gone"
Airplay, though, in the Clear Channel era, is the problem. What's needed are some popular webcast channels of non-RIAA material.
Yeah that's about it..
He's just a sk8r boi, I said cya l8r boi. Thankyou "quality".
s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).
Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same.
Actually, Metallica didn't start to go artistically bankrupt until the infamous Black album. Prior to that, each of their albums sounded quite different from the previous one. I've often wondered if there is any connection between the fact that Metallica started making a lot of anti-Napster noise about the same time as they started watering down their music to appeal to a wider audience. Here's my pet theory: Metallica started to get older, looked back on their work and decided that they had done great stuff. Now, they decided, we can sit back and churn out some genri-rock that will really earn us the bucks. We've already earned our place in metal history. It's kind of like when university profs finally get tenure and then take a breather from working so hard. However, much to Metallica's horror, Napster and p2p services start trading their music. "Good lord", Lars says to himself, "We've sold out for nothing! Those little bastards! I traded in my musical intrigity for more money and now it's not going to work out that way! Well, I'm not going down without a fight!"
Again, this is only my little pet theory. But does anyone think that the band that made Kill 'Em All would be rubbing shoulders with politicians to try to squelch the digitial music rebellion?
GMD
watch this
I've been loving Janis Ian's campaign against the recording industry-- in my opinion, her micro-distribution technique is one of a very few viable new options for artists to pursue, and it's a great thing besides. I just thing she's a little bit early in declaring the end of labels' useful lives.
Let's look for a minute at why labels exist. Not every artist needs a label, either now or fifteen years ago. Performers ONLY "need" a record deal when what they need to do takes more time, money, and expertise than they and their friends/agents/managers/assistants can give them. If you have a record that's doing well locally, you can sell out the Iota, the Mercury Lounge, the Corn Exchange, or Viper Room, and you are happy at that level, you probably don't need a record deal. Doing it Janis' way is perfect, and in fact waaay preferable to having a deal with a large label.
Where labels are handy--still-- is when you start to grow beyond your borders. Do you want national distribution? International distribution? Has your record done well on local radio, and you feel like it could have a nice run nationally? Are you spending more time putting together mail-order packages than you are writing songs? You could probably use a label to help you with these tasks. Labels are better at marketing on a large scale, better at getting traditional radio play (and NOT NECESSARILY POP RADIO), better at getting press, and better at setting up and managing distribution on a large scale-- not to mention labels can help you get your music licensed into films/tv-- many artists make most their money that way rather than through traditional album-sales channels. This is what they're FOR-- they have the bankroll and the contacts-- the shady business practices of certain elements notwithstanding.
It's a rough time for the music industry, and things are going to change rapidly. I just want to make sure that I speak my piece to my fellow slashdotters. Labels are not, and have never been, for everybody, and they probably shouldn't go away altogether (not least because I like what I do, and I work with great, GREAT music). I sincerely hope that more musicians are successful with Janis Ian-styled strategies, because it will have the very beneficial side effect of killing off those parts of the music industry who are least able to adapt.
Janis Ian has made a point in her piece "That's how artists become successful: exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, and no one buys CDs" and the usual line heard from pro-napster people is that the internet/downloading provides exposure, when in fact it does not; it provides a means of access, and that doesn't mean any more people will be exposed to your music than if you were not on the internet. The job of record companies is exposure and distribution (and they do tend to shaft artists for these services), but exposure and distribution are/were not impossible without record companies, even back before the Internet. Does anyone remember independant labels? A lot of those were set up by musicians looking to do the grunt work themselves. Ask the Barenaked Ladies about that.
I wonder if Janis Ian is aware of the differences between her version of "downloadable music" and that of the general internet community; yes, Janis has files for download on her site, but certainly not her entire catalogue, and I question the quality of the files she has available. Again, offering a few songs for download is a great idea and has worked for her, but would she be willing to give away high-quality mp3s of every recording she has ever made? That is what Napster/P2P music sharing is about, and it is about doing so with or without the consent of the writer, the performer, or the producer.
Yes, I agree that the music industry as a whole has to change its business model, and there are a lot of jerks involved in the industry, but saying that there is nothing wrong with free access to every and any recording is just stupid.
I write this as a person whose line of work is in a creative industry, and I have been a serious musician in the past, so I have an inside opinion of the issues. I'm a little surprised that the free download idea is so popular around /. when (I would guess) there are so many programmers reading this who (I would guess again) get paid for ideas/concepts that come out of their head. Music, painting, movies or code - it's all creative and people need to be paid for it.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
It's true that the Big-5 might not want to sell her records. But she would like to, and she can make money because her overhead is so much smaller. But the Big-5 would rather sit on it.
This is besides the point. The OP was saying she bitched about her albums not selling. She's never complained about that.
I am the web person for the band Beautiful Feet. I discussed with the band about releasing their CD's in an online format for free. They will be in MP3 format but you won't be able to download the songs as the website is being redone in Flash. Of course you can always do a line-out recording or something similar. You can probably even hack into flash and do some wham fangled crazy thing to get the MP3 files. But for the other 95% of the people that go to the website that are the casual computer user, they will be able to experience the music in full before making a purchasing decision.
:)
Anyhow... does anybody know a free/$50 way to secure music? I'm not worried about securing it from the die hard "hackers" that want to get at the music. Would the solution above be enough for the common surfer?
Obviously once one person gets ahold of it they can distribute it in format X anywhere they want. But if somebody does that, in my opinion they probably wouldn't have bought the $10 CD anyhow but are attempting to add more songs to their collection of music that they will never listen to anyhow.
I personally buy CD's from artists (even if I don't like their music) if they have a whole CD on their website. For instance, The The released one of their CD's online a while back which after downloading a few tracks I just bought to show support for the boldness.
Anyhow... sorry about my lack of flow. That's why I'm a programmer and have statements to control my "thought flow".
> In a free market, quality always rises to the surface.
.. which is how we know that McDonalds makes the highest quality food, right?
[ fighting from keeping milk from splurting from my nose laughing ]
Can I get an age count? How old are you, and what does your dad do for a living?
"Old man yells at systemd"
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
Actually McDonalds are doing badly at the moment. They just announced a decline in earnings for the 7th time in the last 8 quarters.
I'll modify that. It was applied to every new medium of mass communication.
Surprised? So was I, when I was reading this amazing book on mass-communication theories. Apparently, people said the same thing when newspapers and magazines became popular in the turn of the century.
More than mere navel gazing.
Doesnt matter; they were at the top, and thats enough to "prove", according to Mr. Free Market, that they made the best food at some point.
.. thats the _law_ .. ") sounds about as capable of objective reasoning as a religious fundamentalist.
Of course, what he fails to recognize, much like how rabid anti-abortioners 'fail' to recognize killing people for killing people is still killing people, is that quantity sold is a function of quality *and* price; and furthur more, that cheaply made, cheaply sold shit often sells better than less cheaply made good shit. The *only* way to measure quality is through analysis, since the market has never demonstrated any preference to selecting quality over quantity or value, nor for that matter, not be subject to the forces of marketing.
Hell, I can put him in touch with money making CEOs if he likes, probably his heros, who could demonstrate that the advertising market wouldn't exist if products outsold each other based on quality alone. Alas, anyone that sticks to an absolute like that ("
"Old man yells at systemd"
But if major artists started releasing their albums on the Internet for $3 a pop
:)
Good point on the recording costs, but what's to stop that $3 internet release from being spread all over the place for free?
Okay, maybe I don't want to know.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
The real problem comes into play when people start stealing products. In the traditional sense of the word we have to view downloading copywritten music off the web as stealing as you are receiving goods that you didn't pay for against the wishes of the person/company who owns those rights. I'm not talking about the moral issue of right or wrong here.
It is not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There is no loss of product. If someone copies a song illegally, they don't have to produce another one to replace it. It doesn't cost them anything. The only loss is a perceived lost sale which is only true if the receiver of the illegal copy would have bought a legal copy and now won't. Most people who download music don't fit this category. The software industry realized this years ago and now the recording industry needs to realize it.
It's no wonder the RIAA has trouble showing an accurate profit/loss report from the past few years with all this going on.
What the fuck are you talking about? P&L statements are very easy to calculate: $ earned - $ spent = profit. Copyright infringement doesn't affect their P&L. It affects what they think they're revenue should have been. When the RIAA talks about the money their losing to "piracy" they are talking about sales they think they are entitled to, not money they had to spend that they won't get back now.
We need some Internet auditing controls to be put into place before we villify the RIAA as being this evil entity.
This is exactly what the RIAA wants you to believe. They aren't worried about copyright infringement, they are worried about losing control. They've had a monopoly on the music distribution channel for years and now their business model is suddenly obsolete. They don't want you to even be able to buy music on the internet if you don't have to buy it from them. They want to be able to threaten file sharers with C&D letters without the slightest bit of evidence that they own the copyright in question. They want carte blanche to commit what would otherwise be computer crimes against people they "suspect" of violating copyright law. They want to stifle a $300 billion industry so they can maintain their $30 billion industry. They have villified themselves quite successfully without any help from us.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Erm, a few points:
.. although I can probably conclude that:
a) Janis turns a profit.
b) Janis still sells records.
Didn't want to shatter your perfect little argument there, but hey, thems the breaks.
I dont know what to say about 98% of the other stuff youre saying, considering that most of its seems to be pure conjecture and disillusioned reductions
a) youre somewhat bitter with life?
b) you dont like your job very much? (otherwise you probably wouldn't spend so much effort trying to portray other people as having it cushy compared to you?)
Which leaves me with: I dont think Janis cares too much what you think of her, so why waste your time rambling on when clearly you have so much hard work to do?
"Old man yells at systemd"
On a related note, Hilary Rosen (chief executive of the RIAA) is debating in proposition at the Oxford Union tomorrow evening, with the motion 'This House believes that "the free music mentality is a hreat to the future of music.'.
Get there early to get a chance to speak from the floor!
OK then answer me this:
How, based on your number, would an artist afford to book a concert say in LA, rent a stadium (So all thier fans in the area can come and enjoy this new, high quality music), and pay for all the up-front costs to do a tour?
A solid, realistic answer is all I ask.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I'll try one last time, since you oh-so-thorughfully blurted the "supply/demand" buzzword somewhere back a few threads amongst so much gobbledygook.
.. congratulations!
If you knew any musicians, you'd know there was a demand to reduce the power of the RIAA somewhat and restore some semblance of power to artists. Janis is supplying that demand, and will probably make more money in doing so than being silent. You can, if you want (although I question your ability to expose yourself to information that may dilute your self-affirming babbling,) confirm that there's a demand, because that demand has been articulated in everything from trade papers to the mainstream press. (Why do I always get the feeling youre rewriting reality in your head as you read these words?)
So there you go, Janis is actually being the perfect little capitalist.
But I must admit, you have a compelling argument, which is, lets see here:
1) janis sucks
2) janis sells nothing
3) janis doesnt work as hard as me
4) janis makes my stomach turn
5) you can never go wrong sucking the ideological dicks of authority figures (mostly financial authorities with you, I suspect) because if you can close your mind enough to believe that the almighty dollar is absolute, constitant and eternal proof of intrinsic worth and value, you can never be proven wrong! aha! You've found the loophole in the act of rational discourse! You've found the unbeatable argument (along with millions of other people too intellectually lazy to brave the shades of grey)
"Old man yells at systemd"
the record companies' utility has expired
What would happen without record companies?
Well artists still need to record thier music professionally, so maybe we would have smaller companies that just record for the artists.
Now artists need to make some money (both to pay that recording company and for themselves) so somehow they have to sell thier music. Well, if they're a new artist that nobody's heard of then nobody will buy thier music. So they need to promote themselves. They only way thier promoting efforts will get them national exposure is if they contract a promoting agency to do it. If you think the web is good enough by itself then your living in a dream world. Maybe in 20 years. So now we need a promoting agency.
Now they've got lots of exposure and lots of people around the country want to buy thier stuff. How are they going to distrubute thier music to everybody that want's to buy it? They need a publishing agency to do that. Again, the web isn't good enough.
Now we've got a recording company, promoting company and a publishing company.
Now lets say we've got an artist who's got a great song but he can't afford to pay the recording company and the promoting agency because he doesn't know if people will buy his music. Those companies will want to get paid no matter how many copies he sells. Most new artists won't be able to afford that risk.
However if all those companies were combined into one company, then *that company* could take that risk because they have money. They could say "we like your music so we're going to take a risk and record, promote and try to sell you." If the artist flops; well then company loses out, but they have the capital to absorb the loss. An independant artist wouldn't.
No my friend, the record companies utiltiy has most definetly *not* expired.
Aw crap, ninjas!
The same way anyone else would, get a loan.
Or, talk to the owner of the stadium, arrange a deal whereby the cash from the concert is split with the owner of the stadium. It's not that hard.
If they sell a few thousand mp3s they should have the starting capitol to do small tours, sell more music, do larger tours, sell more music, do MASSIVE tour, sell LOTS of music, then rent a stadium. It's not like they are going to have 250 thousand rabid fans 3 days after they release their first track. It takes time to build that kind of fanbase, and in that time they should be building capitol from their music sales and local concerts to help boost them further.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
In a free market, quality always rises to the surface
You mean the "quality" stuff that has been coming out lately like Britney Spears and N*Shit? Yeah. Uh-huh. Sure. That's high quality stuff right there.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Anyone who thinks the music companies have outlived their usefulness does not understand one of their primary roles. Granted, their distribution services may become obsolete, but that is not the only thing they do.
One of the critical functions of the majors is to provide "venture capital" for musicians. To make it big, most artists still need a good amount of money to hire big name producers, have videos made, get physical media (CDs) made and widely distributed, get main stream marketing, etc., etc. Of course, there are exceptions, but this is the rule.
The majors invest money in artists and they make money off the back-end from CD sales just like VCs invest in start-ups and make money from stock sales. Both groups use the "portfolio approach" since one big success can pay for a number of less popular investments. Both groups expect big return on investment and, not surprisingly, both groups are disliked.
Regardless of how popular the majors are (or are not), artists will always want up-front investment so they can afford the services of top tier music professionals and get mass market advertising. The current majors may not survive, but I don't see this fundamental need for initial investment going away so there will always be music companies to fill this role.
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:
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:
I mean, doesn't this sound like somebody with some perspective? Especially since he doesn't have 9 Grammys and a Top 40 hit?
What is music when you despise all sound?
Actually, Metallica didn't start to go artistically bankrupt until the infamous Black album.
Infamous in what sense? Just curious. I mean, it's not my favorite Metallica album, but God knows the thing sold. Someone liked it.
Interestingly, if you look at the RIAA website you'll notice that the band hasn't received any gold or platinum awards since January 2000, which is shortly before they started taking on Napster (around March or April of '00, I think). Now, of course, there could be perfectly good reasons for that; that the records are selling as well as ever and the band's management asked the RIAA to hold off on future awards until they have something new to promote. But you've gotta admit that a 2 1/2 year stretch of *no* gold or platinum awards for a band that was regularly collecting RIAA certifications in each year between 1986 and 2000 (look it up here) looks pretty odd.
On top of that, the last RIAA certification for "Load" (1996) was for 4 million copies in November 1997, and the last certification for "Re-Load" ("Load" outtakes; 1997) was for 3 million copies; also in November 1997. In other words, you're looking at the sales of the band's two most recent studio albums levelling off nearly *five* years ago. In the meantime, the band's earlier records continued to pick up awards for more than another year before mysteriously stopping altogether around the time of the Napster controversy. Now I don't know about you, but that sure spells "commercial decline" to me: The old stuff continues selling and the new stuff stalls out at a level well below the old stuff.
By being their own publishers, they make a lot more money - I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but publishers split royalties with whoever has song writing credit on the song. So, Dr. Dre can be the publisher of many songs (possibly every song on his label; he has a label, right?), and make 50% of the royalties on those songs, even if he didn't write them or record them personally. Thus, in this respect, Dre is closer to a music industry exec than an artist - he is financially hurt by music sharing, because his publishing royalties come directly from CD sales. A very quick search found this article for reference.
So, many of the vocal opposers were some of the very popular bands / musicians who also have a larger interest in higher CD sales than most bands. So if music is shared, while a regular band might see increased ticket or merchandise sales that could improve their bottom line (meager as it is) the publisher only loses. (OK, so more downloaded songs might mean more CD sales, but you understand the publisher's objections I'm sure.)
In this respect an artist like Dre would be very valuable to the RIAA, because while he seems to be primarily a musician, I imagine most of his money actually comes from publishing credits. So, he can appear to be a musician opposed to sharing, when he is actually a publisher/musician opposed to sharing.
sheephead
7d9e63e9501751ff4bf9307989d5623d *SheepHead
Honest question, not meant to be rude
Why don't they allow musicians to decide this issue by noting in their contract whether they want free downloads or free Internet Radio airplay.
When I had my option to sign a recording contract (yes, I was more of a nobody than I am now but...) there was a clause dictating (not asking mind you) how many of MY CDs would be pressed for free give away to radio stations. These stations would Never play our stuff. Not because it was not Radio Freindly, but rather because it was not known. Yeah, we could get on local shows but never anything that was new exposure.
You want to guess who paid for those copies?
The recording industry is just trying to squeeze those last few cents out of their cattle (artists) not looking out for their best intrest.
throw the baby out. The bathwater is cold
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?
Will I retire or break 10K?
You've just eliminated some of the best albums from the last 30 years, by handpicking a couple of great performers and saying everyone should do what they do.
That's not a solution at all, it's selective prejudice, like trying to tell me that LINUX is the one true solution to all out computing needs, neglecting that the vast majority of computer users aren't geeks and don't want to be.
Nice try, though.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Any time PartyA and PartyB are in a joint venture, and PartyA's expenses are covered by PartyB's share of the profit, *and* there is no reasonable recourse for PartyB to protest...
PartyA has no incentive whatsoever to keep its expenses down. In fact, the best situation for PartyA comes when expenses are really high.
It works for government contractors, and for the RIAA.
At this point, I'm going to put forth the supposition that it really does cost close to $10.00 per CD to fill that music store. I'm going to posit that they're really not making obscene profits selling a $0.25 worth of plastic for $16.00. (The gross margin markup from $10.00 to $16.00 is reasonable, IIUC.)
Instead, I'm going to suggest that the cost situation is all out of line, and they're bleeding expenses at every single turn. If computers were produced and promoted as efficiently as CDs, they'd cost somewhere between a car and a condo.
IMHO, we need a visible campaign. Since you mentioned "buggy whip" I'll suggest an idea my brother and I talked about this past weekend:
We need to sell buggy-whips for cars, or at the very least buggy-whip bumper stickers. The tech sector is suffering enough without the RIAA dumping on us. (...like a drowning person climbing on his rescuer.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I think it was Ray Kroc(sp?) himself that once explained this phenomenon. McDonalds's real business isn't making great food. It's picking great real estate. That is to say, they're good at finding locations where money can be made. And it's because they've known their business and stuck to it so well that they've done so well over the years.
Just something to think about.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
The real problem is the tie-in between the major labels and the recording industry. If you aren't a major label act you don't get played on 90% of the radio stations in the USA. Monopolists such as Clear Channel have too much wrapped up in their monopoly to waste airtime on music, they need product. The money in radio is selling advertising, and that money goes to pay licensing fees. The money in music is made in product distribution and sales, and that money goes to record executives. The record companies churn out product, the radio stations play it, it sells ads for the station, and the music on the radio functions primarily as advertising for the record companies. It is insidious. ONLY the consumer can make a dent in this cycle. Pepsi can't sell 200 kinds of soft drink, consumers wouldn't know what to do. They want 4 types of soft drink. Similarly, major labels can't make their required profit with hundreds of artists (brands) on the shelf. They need three or four, and spin off subsidiary labels to deal with their Diet, Caffeinated, Clear, All Natural, or other product lines. It isn't called show BUSINESS by accident. Consumers who have an FM radio in 99% of their homes and cars get as much Major Label product advertising as they can stand. They go into a record store, freeze like opossums in the headlights, and go for Aerosmith! Hey, they were OK 25 years ago, why not go right back to old dependable CocaCola? The Stones have made 1.5 BILLION in the past 8 years by adapting a "branding" approach. Teens are being conditioned to accept the teat of the RIAA via Modern Rock Radio. It ain't modern, and it ain't rock, it's ads, ads, ads. The majority of consumers have been brainwashed into thinking that FM Hits are the creme de la creme, and can't take the time to ferret out good music. Streaming net radio, free downloads, alternate distribution... it all hits the RIAA right in the bread basket. The consumer's response (IMO) shoould be "Hard Cheese, bud, get off my back".
...and they're bleeding expenses at every single turn
This, I have no doubt of. On the other hand, it's the RIAA that's mismanaging the money. In other words, mismanaged or not, this is all risk they they *mostly* control and mitigate as they see fit.
We need to sell buggy-whips for cars, or at the very least buggy-whip bumper stickers. The tech sector is suffering enough without the RIAA dumping on us. (...like a drowning person climbing on his rescuer.)
That's an excellent idea. I wonder how many people of "the masses" will actually understand the implications of a buggy-whip for cars and how it relates to the RIAA?
1) look at the links
2) note that USA Today was part of one of them.
Silly me, I expect the text, not the links, to be what's newsworthy in any given front page article. The links are simply supporting information and details.
Since I didn't see anything newsworthy in the text: 'Janis Ian thinks the RIAA is full of shit. Still.' what exactly was supposed to motivate me to look at the links?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
That's really cool, and indeed newsworthy. Woulda been nice if someone had pointed that out in the text of the article, since I don't bother to mouse over links in yet another duplicate story on slashdot just to figure out 'oh wait! that's USA Today!'
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
First you are right its about the artists. Record companies will something underwrite tours mainly for new artist to get them exposure. But what people don't realize record companies are in a sense like insurance companies. Record companies take risk and sign a hundred groups or so over the course of a year, but if lucky only three or four will make money. But for all one hundred groups they have recording, and manufactuing cost, promontion costs, and so on. Getting groups exposure is expensive. So they do make a lot money on a few group, but lose a lot of money on others. But the bottom line to all this is the artists are the ones making the least especially old groups who the need the little royalites to pay bills. Not everyone is a Janis Ian who has done very well. She is not representive of the masses of recording artists.
Bottom line artists would back you more and not the RIAA is showhow you came up with a process where they still got paid their few cents royalities. As it is today the Napsters and P2P is stealing from artists. Get artists their money and they will back you against the RIAA.
Pay attention to the issue at large!
There was a documentary on why country music was beginning to sound much like "pop." It was on TV and I was bored so I watched it. The conclusion of the documentary was that country music was becoming so much more like pop because the big music companies wanted to specialize in billion dollar records. They don't want to sell many different records, just hundreds of millions of copies of a handful.
The music industry specializes in a small demographic: the 14-22 year old. Not a huge fraction of the population of any country in the world. Listening to radio and cruising through the record stores will give good verification to that conclusion. I'd buy more music, if I could easily find music that I liked. But since I'm out of that demographic, I'm not a customer. The industry doesn't care if I buy another album or not--ever.
With Clear Channel having a near monopoly on the radio, the RIAA fixing prices, and a small target market, can there really be any surprise that Janis Ian hasn't been "popular" in a few years? The argument that just because an artist is not the latest thing equals "nobody will buy that crap" is vacuous.
What the RIAA is trying to crush is the small market record. Just as there are small grocery stores, mom and pop diners; family owned hardware stores, and chemical companies owned by one guy, there are records that have a small market. It is true that a multibillion dollar corporation with large fixed costs is not going to be interested in a small market product with a lower per unit profit than a high volume higher margin product.
But saying that nobody is buying that crap is wrong. In the case of Janis Ian, somebody IS buying her records. Other artists with a limited market should be allowed to operate without being squashed by the RIAA.
I don't like what the RIAA is doing because they have the monopoly mentality: All of the music must be sold by us or one of our agents and WE don't care if YOU don't like it because it's the only MUSIC in town.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002) May be used without persimmons.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
They've got two basic problems. In their primary markets (USA, Canada, Australia/NZ and Western Europe) they've run out of places to expand to, they've got increasing competition from other fast food suppliers, and there are increasing concerns about the nutrition of their products - hence the new 'lighter' menu.
In their secondary markets, the rest of the world, they're trying to develop their business, but as these countries often really don't have the money to make a huge difference to the McD bottom line, so the increases in these markets can't keep up with the decline in their primary markets.
...She can claim whatever she likes...
...but successful artists don't have to resort to such desperate ploys to get their name in the paper...
You mean, like the truth?
Let me get this straight... we should listen to you, who said she sold 12 albums. Yep, I'm sure that's right.
Right. We've never seen desperate acts from sucessful artists...like Metalica. Britney Spears (check out the new commercials coming out in the movie theaters). It's all showbiz, they are all called media whores for a reason.
I consciously chose that mode of working (I'm also laying down basic tracks without any sequencing or click track) to rebel against the cult of perfection and note-fixing so common today. Stuff gets so polished that it has no distinguishing marks at all. Listen to some of the acts you're talking about, listen closely, and you'll see they are NOT PERFECT. There are mistakes! Even from the Beatles! But the personality and character of the music comes through so strongly that it distracts you and you don't key off the mistakes.
That said, you're leaving out whole genres of musicians by going that way. I'm thinking particularly of Steely Dan. Not many people know that the first incarnation of Steely Dan, the 'Can't Buy A Thrill' band, was asked not to tour by the record label, because they DID gig, and they SUCKED. They weren't consistent. In the studio they had the capacity to keep hammering away at it until each part came into its own- they didn't have the capability to get fired up and get it in one take. Contrast with a musician like David Gilmour (one of my idols ;) ), who is- people recording Gilmour know to roll the tape the first time, every time, because sometimes when he's just feeling out the song he'll hit an effortless peak that you couldn't get by slogging through the part 1000 times. The solo in Comfortably Numb (iirc) was like this: one take, the very first run-through, and it was a matter of 'well- looks like we have that taken care of' and not attempting to re-record it. The famous Bruce Springsteen song 'Born in the USA' was very much like this as well.
You just have to know which type of musician you are- personally, I'm thrilled that you as a listener like the rawer, more personal stuff, seeing as I've been veering in that direction of late :)
Duh, that's why I copyright the *words* not the melody.
A copyright on a musical work covers both the music and the accompanying lyrics. A songwriter generally sends a copy of the lead sheet (notated melody + chords + lyrics) to the copyright office for an optional but recommended copyright registration.
Seriously though, unless your talking instrumentals (not songwriters then)
The books on "songwriting" that I could find at my local BN covered both melody and lyrics. However, they did not cover innocent infringement, which is my main concern keeping me away from composition.
the important part is the song. Not the singer, the music, but the song.
Handel v. Silver found infringement in four notes, even when the lyrics had nothing to do with one another ("Hal-le-lu-jah" vs. "Yes we have no").
Will I retire or break 10K?
Infamous in a sense that it was commercial crap. Infamous in a sense that it was produced by the same guy (Bob Rock) that used to produce Poison and similar commercial crap. No wonder it sold. So did Britney, and does that tell us anything?
Sorry, but that just sounds elitist. Quality isn't measured inversely to quantities sold. Sure, Britney Spears sells a lot of records. But so does "Back in Black," and I don't think there are many who'd doubt that record's ass-kickin' quotient.
Since when is Everything2.com the last bastion of truth in the Universe. It is only slightly less apocryphal that the Hitch Hikers Guide...
Yes, I know that E2 and H2G2.com have similar user contribution systems, but I wrote the E2 article I linked to. Would you believe me more if I posted a mirror of the article on my web site and linked to that?
Only a non-musician would consider melody to be the only force at work within music.
I am a musician, but I wrote the article from the perspective of somebody who is standing face-to-face with a federal judge. Most federal judges are not musicians.
Will I retire or break 10K?