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.
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 ;)
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.
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
If the RIAA has sex with your wife, you haven't lost anything...
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.
--bdj
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
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.
..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."
Why does she need to have a label to be taken seriously? It doesn't take an idiot to get screwed in the biz. The odds are so stacked in the industry's favor that you might as well be a farmer. She has managed to stay alive in a business that eats artists for lunch, and craps 'content' or product or whatever the flavor of the week is.
BTW... The Stones, Bowie, and McCartney are all examples of musicians who are excellent businessmen. I think they may have won a talent show award or something, too.
There has to be some system to select the best artists. Today we have one system, but it requires the artists sign over the vast majority of their earnings to a cartel.
That cartel arose because of the characteristics of mid 20th century media technology (i.e., the cheapest and most effecitve way to distribute music was plastic disks and plastic tape).
Now that technology has advanced, it might be possible to create a better system. Maybe something along the lines of EBay. It's still a cartel or "natural monopoly", but at least anybody could participate without signing away all their rights, and the system might only skim 15% or so. The best music could be determined by customers' moderation points.
I know there have been many attempts at this kind of thing, but none have yet hit the critical mass needed to stamp out the old cartel. One big reason for this is that almost all of the current popular artists are locked into long term exclusive contracts. The old cartel thus perpetuates itself even though it could be replaced by an alternative that would be more efficient for both artists and consumers.
I said that (several times). It's not about online anything, it's about controlling access and entry points, so NO ONE can horn in on the RIAA's *control* over the profit pipeline. After all, if you distribute your music over the net, or sell your locally-pressed CDs via Amazon or CDBaby, the RIAA doesn't make a cent off your work. This Will Never Do!!
If the net were the *original* way of distributing music, and CDs were the newfangled method used by unsigned artists, we'd instead see the RIAA trying to shut down the manufacture of CD-related items.
Oh, wait...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
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
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?
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?