Slashdot Mirror


Instant Concert CDs?

NickRipley writes "Clear Channel (owner of every radio station in America) is purporting to offer a new service, whereby concertgoers can receive an official recording of the concert they just attended, within moments after the final note. How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating? Also, what kind of equipment will have to be used to produce these so fast? Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?"

58 of 682 comments (clear)

  1. Ehh by lordaych · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't see why the RIAA would care. They may consider the act of individual listeners recording and distributing concert recordings piracy, but Clear Channel will likely charge $20-30 per recording, making a decent incoming in the process, "legitimizing" the act and thus rendering "piracy" in this case a non-issue.

    Assuming these will be highest-possible-quality recordings (who knows) this of course would be a boon for so-called "bootleggers" who would no longer need to participate in the act of recording these shows but instead simply need to buy one copy and run off as many dupes as they need.

  2. Clear Channel by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is not a radio station company... They are an advertising company that happens to own every radio station in America. It's a shame.

    --

    Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

  3. Technology gives - and technology takes away by mickwd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only thanks to technology that there is a "recording" industry in the first place. Before performances could be recorded, musicians had to make money through performing their works. Technology, and the ability to record music, created the recording industry.

    Is it too surprising, then, if technology might take it away again ?

    In my personal opinion, music is about many things.......creation, art, emotion, enjoyment, life. If there is one word which doesn't belong next to the word "music", it's the word "business".

    1. Re:Technology gives - and technology takes away by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Is it too surprising, then, if technology might take it away again ?

      I don't see how the technology would take it away. On the contrary, this is a serious threat to the goons who make up the RIAA, as it does two good things:

      Artists get paid for their work, directly, bypassing the RIAA hands. Particularly a good thing for bands who don't want to sign bloodsucking contracts and already have established a following.

      Fans get live recordings of the show they went to. Man, how many times have I attended a show and thought, "Gosh, I sure liked they way they played x, but their 'live' mixed album in the store isn't anywhere like that. I would pay $$ to get this show on CD)

      The only way I could see this being any kind of victory for the RIAA goons is if artists sign a contract which requires their concert proceeds go from the promoter to the RIAA goons and what few cents are left come back to them.

      As always, advice to musicians, get your own lawyer to explain terms of a contract to you before signing.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Technology gives - and technology takes away by Peterus7 · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'm going to a concert soon, and I can just imagine...

      Band: "Are you ready!?!"
      Crowd: "YEAH!!!"
      Band singer: "Ok, well that's cool, but first I've been asked to tell you to turn all your recorders off, because there's a legit way of doing that now.... That benefits us!"
      *man in suit walks on stage*
      Man: "Ah, I'm with the RIAA and we're shutting that down now, but we'll shoot the next person we see with a recorder out."

    3. Re:Technology gives - and technology takes away by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the only problem with what you are saying is that recording the shows has to be ok'd by the artists. most artists don't allow recordings of their concerts.

      I've always assumed that's because they'd prefer to sell you their old albums or the booklets full of promotional pictures. That's the old business model.

      a lot of the reason for that has to do with their management and the RIAA. i don't think artists or the RIAA would ever allow a complete third party to record their shows and sell them without getting all or most of the money.

      Largely due to restrictive contracts. Again, the old business model. A new artist who doesn't allow that language into a contract has complete freedom to sell recorded performances. I've seen many a bar band sell their own studio recordings. Assuming they recorded a particularly good live show and offered it for sale, nothing prevents them from doing so.

      and i don't think clear channel would be overly willing to give all or most of the money away, unless we start to see a major increase in concert tickets.

      Tickets have nothing to do with it. If Clear Channel wedges this door open wide enough, those artists who have the clout, are independent, or otherwise are unfettered, this will be the direction music goes. And you can bet the RIAA is paying attention to this, as it is far more damaging to the fat cats than small independent recordings.

      Don't fall into the trap of believing the old business model is going to survive no matter what. It has to change because consumers expect more, and when consumers and artists are given the avenue you bet the power of the RIAA will errode fast.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Duplication... by mackd · · Score: 5, Informative

    I worked on a production requiring this kind of speed. However, we were using audio cassettes, and the material involved was a spoken presentation that we had permission to duplicate and sell.

    This is how it worked: we created a master tape on the fly during the program. At the conclusion of the program, the master was carried down to a workroom with tape duplication machines. We could have 16 tapes created within 4 minutes of the end of the presentation--with more coming. If it was this simple with analog equipment, I'd imagine a digital method for distributing these recordings would be a piece of cake.

    1. Re:Duplication... by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is how it worked: we created a master tape on the fly during the program. At the conclusion of the program, the master was carried down to a workroom with tape duplication machines. We could have 16 tapes created within 4 minutes of the end of the presentation--with more coming.

      This is not even rare. In fact, is very common. Most churches do this routinely. The equipment investment is modest. The convenience is great.

      In fact, my boss was asking me questions about technology for doing this with mp3's. In his case, they were interested in making mp3's available on his church's website. They also wanted to make an audio CD. They did end up accomplishing their goal. I might be mis-recalling his final solution. I believe they used a modest PC to simultaneously record audio along with the tape equipment. As long as they were doing a decent job of "mixing" during the live recording, they could immediately start making cassettes or audio CD's after the recording was complete. And have an mp3 file ready almost immediately as well.

      --
      The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
  5. easy for some concerts... by pangu · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...where everything is lip synched anyway.

  6. Given that live music is the best music... by dWhisper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, most of the time anyway.

    I can only imagine that the RIAA would squash this one, since traditionally, there would be all sorts of copyright issues here. Royalties go to the Label, Producer, Studio, Artists, RIAA, and who knows who else. Beyond that, a lot of the great artists play cover songs and unreleased material, which they'd have to cover royalties or permissions for that.

    However, I would say that I'd pay for concerts of a lot of bands. People like BNL, Dave Matthews, etc. that throw some of the best live shows on earth would be worth it. Of course, since this article implies that you have to attend the concert, and the RIAA has little sway there, this is something that benefits the artists (and Clear Channel).

    This would be great, if you can afford a ticket or get a chance. But what about the people in South Dakota that never see anyone, or people overseas who can't make a concert?

    If this is something that the artists support, it would be easy to have the recordings ready. Fast burners and digital recording equipment tied into the sound system would make it easy to get these discs out minutes after a concert ends. What would be sad is that most likely, encores and bonus sets would be lost if they cut the recording early.

    However, since this looks like something they're going to start in club shows, I'd imagine it's meant to boost new and smaller artists, which is great. I've seen enough small bands that never even crossed the radar of most radio, and it would have been great to hear their sets again.

    1. Re:Given that live music is the best music... by thesupermikey · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Fast burners and digital recording equipment tied into the sound system would make it easy to get these discs out minutes after a concert ends. What would be sad is that most likely, encores and bonus sets would be lost if they cut the recording early"

      www.livephish.com

      --
      Mikey
      I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
    2. Re:Given that live music is the best music... by sweeney37 · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, I would say that I'd pay for concerts of a lot of bands. People like BNL, Dave Matthews, etc. that throw some of the best live shows on earth would be worth it.

      many people are not aware bands like Dave Matthews Band have an open taping policy. while not soundboard, many audience recordings are really close. many tapers spend $5000-6000 dollars in equipment and acheive pristine copies of the concerts. access to the shows has become even easier thanks to an amalgamation between archive.org and etree.org, we now have the etree.org audio archive .

      these files are distributed in the lossless SHN format so each copy will sound the same no matter which generation of the disc you have.

      Dave Matthews Band no longer allows distribution through etree.org audio archive , but using trades and B&Ps you could easily find a high quality DMB show for free.

      Check out the etree newbie FAQ and the etree trader database for more info.

      Mike

    3. Re:Given that live music is the best music... by egreB · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the best thing is, if you have fast enough CD-burners, you can actually burn a lot more CDs than you have burners at the same time, according the RIAA..

    4. Re:Given that live music is the best music... by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 4, Informative
      Quotes from the above site:

      PLEASE NOTE: LivePhish.com is optimized for Internet Explorer 5 or later. You will not be able to register or purchase or download shows with the web browser you are currently using. Please come back and visit us with Internet Explorer.

      Morons! (and no, I won't come back, neither with nor without IE...)

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    5. Re:Given that live music is the best music... by derF024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      e-mail tela@livephish.com. they respond to all messages within 48 hours.

      i emailed them about this almost 3 weeks ago and haven't gotten anything back about it at all. i use the site exclusivley under linux and i've bought 2 shows from them in the past. i refuse to buy anything from them as long as that notice is up. (and i really do want to buy some of the newer shows)

  7. Payola to the Artists? by The+Mutant · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm inclined to say "Great Idea!" but before I do so I'd like to know how much of this $15 would end up in the artists pockets?

    If it's anything like Courtney Love's RIAA / Recording Artist math, I think it will just put more cash in the wrong pockets.

    Seems like the Artists should get a higher percentage than their standard recording contract might allow, since this would be a major impulse buy on the part of many concert goers - especially considering the effect of various substances and inhibitions.

    1. Re:Payola to the Artists? by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If it's anything like Courtney Love's [holemusic.com] RIAA / Recording Artist math, I think it will just put more cash in the wrong pockets.

      Please read the original "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini from which Courtney stole much of her manifesto.

  8. What About Non-Attendees? by Servo5678 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about selling these CDs to customers who did not attend the concert? If my favorite musician is coming nowhere near my town, can I buy one of these CDs? I own all the albums of my favorite groups, so there's just nothing left in the music world for me to buy. Offering these concert CDs for sale to anyone would entice a lot of people in my position to purchase some new music.

    1. Re:What About Non-Attendees? by rizzo420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this is already done by several bands. pearl jam was the first that i know of to do this. they have been releasing a series of live shows from their archives. the who did this with their last tour. they would release the live recordings a few weeks after the shows. the entire tour was done taht way. the string cheese incident has their "on the road" series, same thing as the who with the current shows being released a few weeks after they happen. the greatest band in the world, phish, has done it completely differently. they have a live phish series, releasing shows on cd from their archives, but they also now have live phish downloads. this is a way of getting the shows out to people within 2 days after the show by way of download. they release them in a lossless compression format (shorten) and they even include printable jewel case inserts and cd labels for people who label their cd's. it's a pay per download thing, but the risk involved is huge since peopel can just trade these shows openly even though phish does not allow that in their policy. they are very proactive in enforcing that as they have removed their band from furthurnet because people were trading the downloaded shows there.

      so this alraedy does exist for many bands, but a lot of bands aren't even worth listening to live unless you watch the show (britney, nsync, etc) because there's nothing different about the music except they do a little dance number with it.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
  9. What a great idea... by magickalhack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Clear Channel (owner of every radio station in America)
    LMAO!

    This sounds like a great money making scheme... making the RIAA likely to fight it tooth and nail. Just like they did with radio, and tapes, and cds, and now digital music on the 'net. Yup. And in 10 years they'll wonder how they every got by without it.

    --
    This Sig Kills Fascists
  10. sounds like livephish by somebaudy · · Score: 5, Informative

    as described in this article this is not unlike livephish nearly-instant Concert selling website.

    --
    http://www.somebaudy.com
  11. Quality by nautical9 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The speed at which they burn their CDs won't have any effect on quality. The real issue is the amount and care of their prep work before each concert, to make sure the feeds they're capturing are of a high quality. And they should be if they're patched into the same feeds that the concert speakers are getting, since they then get the benefits of the same volume levels and mixing that the concert guys put together.

    Obviously, there will be no post-production editing or enhancing, so you're basically just buying a fancy bootleg, not a CD you'd buy from a store of a live performance. But it shouldn't suck too bad, and it'd sure beat holding up a mini-recorder in the crowd.

    (probably a moot point, as I can't see the RIAA letting this happen - unless they're getting a healthy chunk out of the pie.)

    1. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrongo. The mixes and equalization for the speaker feeds of a large concert are optimized to produce the best sound for the that particular venue, often with slightly different mixes going to different stacks. A traditional concert hall mix will be completely different than one for a sporting venue and neither might sound any good on a CD.
      If this is anything but a zero-budget cynical cash grab by Clearchannel, a separate CD mix will be created by splitting every audio feed prior to the sound reinforcement mix. This can be done with a dedicated sound console or by creating a submix on the house console, much as is already done for the foldback mix the musicians hear on stage.
      Given how much effort and extra cost would be required to do this right (second board, isolated mixdown room, racks of processing + the talent to make it work), I suspect Clearchannel is shortcutting by using a main board sub-mix sent to portable mastering/duplicating equipment owned and operated by a third party. This also puts the onus on the band and record company to insure the sound mixer does a good job making the band sound good. Clearchannel's responsibility would be to force the contracts and pocket the cash.

  12. This is not piracy by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the instant selling of a live album. Recording a live concert was never piracy as long as you got permission (ignoring that the band may not have the proper rights to the songs, those might belong to the label or songwriter)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  13. Paying for Poor Quality by fobside · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would anyone want a CD of a live concert with music and vocals that are really done live. Almost every "live album" you can buy in stores has been redone. Basically, you would get inferior quality music.

    Plus lots of bands record with extra instruments that they don't use when they play live. Those are often added in when they make the "live album" for sale.

  14. Note the word official by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating?
    Note the word "official," as long as the Clear Channel concert contracts have this stipulated as an option, it will not be an issue. Heck, RIAA will probably like it because now they can get a cut unlike the unofficial bootlegs. I also note this is not the first mention of this. I can't find the press release now, but another group recently mentioned that concert goers would be given access to a website to download mp3s of the concert. Within a couple of weeks of the concert they would receive a professional CD of the concert.
    1. Re:Note the word official by spencerogden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure if it is the one you are talking about, but Phish recently started selling concert downloads at LivePhish.com.

    2. Re:Note the word official by jms · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess we can now revoke the legend of how Phish promotes free distribution of concert recordings.

      Nope. Phish still allows tapers to bring their own equipment, and allows them to freely distribute the recordings made from the audience.

      What they are doing is selling official soundboard releases in parallel, under the usual conditions of commercially released albums. This has absolutely no affect on the making and noncommercial trading of audience tapes.

      As a matter of fact, Phish had a taping rule that said that when they released an commercial release of a show, you weren't allowed to distribute audience tapes of that show. They removed that restriction at the same time that they started offering soundboard downloads, so the new system is actually less restrictive.

      NO complaints here. Phish is doing it right. They are distributing the music in lossless SHN format as well as MP3, and there's no DRM crap to mess it up. What more could you want? I have no problem with it not being free, because hopefully the cash will provide enough of an incentive for the band to continue the program for the rest of its career.

      As far as Jerry Garcia, I'm sure he would be perfectly happy with the arrangement. After all, the Dead put out lots of commercial albums of live concert recordings -- Live Dead, Europe 72, Steal Your Face, etc, and Deadheads never had a problem with buying those albums instead of copying them amongst themselves.

  15. hmm by SnAzBaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating?

    Excuse me? Bands have always sold CD's and merchendise at concerts without involvment from the record company - and many bands explicitly allow fan recordings of the concert. Is this just some shameless attempt to bring the word "RIAA" into the post to increase it's chances of getting posted?

  16. Phish already is doing this.. as well as others by acomj · · Score: 4, Informative

    A lot of bands with a history of allowing taping (greatful dead, phish , DMB). Now phish is selling all 2003 concerts. They're in both mp3 and shn formats. The SHN format costs more (more bandwidth)..

    The have a good FAQ which answers the age old question ...Why should I pay for when I can get an audience recording for free?

    They Might Be Giants also gives away tracks on the internet. Better than the dial a song, which used to give away free songs over the phone.

    Contrast this with the FooFighters annoying extra track download feature which doesn't work with Mac (Windows Media) and uses a special program which seems to check if the music cd is in the drive.. I like the band but that experience left a bad taste in my mouth.

    The bottom line here is that creative bands can have alternative music distribution. This is good, unless your band is already signed, then the label can object.

  17. Doesn't take anything special by jarrell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All you need is a huge rack of cd-duplicator machines... You can buy boxes that you just drop the cd into the top, and a stack of 5, 10, even 20 drives immediately clone the disk. I've even seen some that clone the disk, then drop it into a disk printer. Since concerts generally have the same order, you predo the jewel case inserts, and pre silk-screen the blanks. Record off the mixing board onto a digital source, and immediately burn to a master cd, and drop that into the first duplicator. Then burn another, and drop that into the next duplicator. If you bring a truck to the concert with all that stuff pre-racked and powered, you could easily start churning out a couple of hundred cds every 15 minutes or so.

  18. The recording process will benefit because.. by i · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..of the law of KISS ! (Keep It Simple Stupid)

    Because of the hurry You must have a simple microphone config.

    Because of the hurry You can't process/"adapt" etc the sound to very often inferior levels the usual CD-recording deps use to do.

    Because of all this it will often result in a more dynamic and unfiltrated music.

    Sic!

    --
    Mundus Vult Decipi
  19. It's easy... by Overt+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    When the boy band du jour finishes their lip-synching performance on stage, Clear Channel can just have the soundtracks ready to go...

  20. Phish is already doing it. by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 2, Informative

    Phish is already offering such a service. They even offer MP3 ($9.95 per concert) or SHN (non-lossy) file formats ($12.95 per concert). They are slowly compiling an archive of downloadable media for all their concert recordings, as well. How ya' like dem apples?

  21. Oh great... by march · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh great... So now, for $15.99 I can get another poor quality, live recording of my favorite band.

    No thanks. I'll wait for them to produce one in the studio so I can actually hear all the instruments and vocals.

  22. Are you sure about that pricing? by Brento · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:
    "the live CDs would probably sell for around $15"

    Probably, eh? Lemme break this down: concert t-shirts are generally $10 at the mall, but $20 at the concert. By that same rule, band CDs are $15 at the mall, so I'm guessing they'll be closer to $30 at the concert.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
  23. Stupid questions... better reasons by ggruschow · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is great for nostalgia and instant gratification.

    How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating? Don't know. Don't care.

    Also, what kind of equipment will have to be used to produce these so fast?

    Uh, a couple cables running from the stereo outs on the mixing board to the line in on a decent PC? Then, after the concert, perhaps a few CD-R drives? The biggest issue would seem to be any editing to get it below 80 minutes, but half-decent audio engineer can trim that stuff down quickly, or they could just do 1 hr shows, or just sell the end, or whatever.

    Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?

    Duh? Popular musicians typically sound much better with multiple takes and processing. Some artists are good enough that it's not a big factor, and then of course anything that's improvised (*not* Britney Spears) is different each time.. Possibly better in many people's opinion.

    The real killer for an individual live recording for me is sheer nostalgia. I've been to performances that I simply loved. I'd love to take them with me for the rest of my life to listen to and remember back. I've got recordings of a couple of these, but most of them are now lost.

    Of course, for most pop artists that are aiming to do the same set every time (aside from "Hello New York/Chicago/Milwaulkee/Seattle/LA!"), just buying the "Live" CD released 6 months afterwards is accurate enough, but still doesn't offer the immediate gratification of buying it as you walk out the door.

    Plus, a good performance, as opposed to great, often fades in goodness over time, as your 12 year old mind shifts from Britney to Justin. Selling it immediately will likely milk the cash cow more efficiently. Even better, a lot of those little 12 year old suburbanites can afford to buy the single, the album, the poster, the trapper keeper, the lunchbox, and multiple live recordings.

  24. How's this music pirating? by Peter+Winnberg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is this "legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating"?. Money from selling these recordings would of course go to the artists playing at the concert.

  25. WOW, I love it, but how much will it cost the band by tyrani · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a great idea. I would love to buy a CD of the concert that I just experienced. I think everyone who's ever attended a concert and seen all of the audio production going on has thought why the concert producers couldn't do something like this. Being able to take an actual piece of the concert away with you would add a lot of value to expensive concerts.

    However, bands would have to worry about concert sales. I'm sure that a couple of hours after a concert ends, all of the audio would be all over the net. Would this effect record sales?

    --
    rejected (19) accepted (0)
    Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
  26. Sad part is... by PhyrePhox · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most bootleg tapes, made from one point stereo mics or quasi-binaural mics mounted in eyeglasses, would sound better than a tape from the mixer. The mix would be for the live show, and would sound weird on tape, without the acoustic sounds from the room. I doubt very seriously that CC is going to pony up for a snake split and a second mixer to make an actual "live mix" that would sound like something worth $15. Board tapes are only good for the band to listen to afterward to see where they screwed up/did something cool. If they are gonna just set up a stereo mic pair somewhere in the house and feed it directly into a two-track recorder, they _are_ bootlegging the concert, just like any other Deadhead.

  27. Phish started doing something similar... by bsletten · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...with their recent Holiday run. The New Year's Eve show was available for download one or two days after the concert as either MP3s or SHNs (lossless compression see Etree for more on the common formats). The price was reasonable ($11/$14 depending on compression) for the equivalent of three CDs of music. The cool thing is that they still allow tapers to record and trade the shows, you just can't trade these sanctioned downloads which presumably sound better. It's a very cool idea though.

  28. the phish business model by kraksmoka · · Score: 2, Informative
    is the new model that the musicians should be embracing. come to our concerts and pay us. pay more to record for yourself. buy an occasional album, a couple of t-shirts and follow the tour for a couple weeks. trade our music to anyone to make sure that they hear us and do the same.

    all the sudden you have a following and a few dollars in your pocket for your troubles

    i'm not a phish head, but i have been to a show. have plenty of friends who can't live without em. . . .

    too bad CC has basically taken over concert promotion in addition to the radio. . . ..

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  29. Legitimizing, or undercutting? by rcoleman15 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this really "legitimizing" unauthorized piracy, or an attempt to undercut it? If you could be guaranteed to get a "professional quality" soudboard recording of the show (i.e. little crowd noise, no hiss, etc.), why even attempt to sneak in recording equipment of your own? IF this works, it could be another revenue stream for the artists involved (thus sating the RIAA, possibly). Their shows are being recorded anyway, why not release good quality recordings (a la Pearl Jam) and beat the bootleggers at their own game?

  30. RIAA and Clear Channel by hairylarry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The labels will have to pay Clear Channel for the privilege of bootlegging the concerts or Clear Channel won't play their bands on the radio.

  31. How's zat again? by bmetzler · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating?

    How does the fact that a concert promoter licenses the ability to create concert CD's legitimize music pirating. This is no different then them playing the music on stations, or selling the bands other CD's. In every case I'm sure that proper royalties are being paid.

    -Brent
  32. Interesting idea by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Too bad Clear Channel isn't likely to sponsor concerts by bands I actually give a shit about.

    Now that I think of it, they'll be sponsoring "acts" rather than bands. Performers with nameless backup musicians, rather than groups with musicians whose names are known.

    I think $15 is a little excessive, considering for a Clear Channel concert you're already paying around $100 a ticket (from what I've read).

    As to the "what does the RIAA think of this" quesiton, I'm sure the licensing and fees are already part of this. The RIAA is probably just trying to figure out how to get them to cripple these "instant" concert CDs...

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    1. Re:Interesting idea by cei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, so Peter Gabriel may be an "act" rather than a "band", but I'd have to take issue with anyone calling Tony Levin a "nameless backup musician." During the band introduction on Gabriel's last tour (promoted by Clear Channel), Tony's intro got an amazing response from the crowds.

      All session players are NOT created equal.

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
  33. Pearl Jam planning something similar by RedX · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pearl Jam announced a few months ago that for their world tour that's about to begin this month, they'll be putting a live CD of a show on sale within a week of the show. Better yet, if you order via their website, you have the opportunity to download the unmastered MP3 version of the show the day after each show. For people that didn't already know, Pearl Jam released a concert CD for each show of their last show, around $10 from their website IIRC. Very interesting to note that if you go to Epicrecords.com, they are advertising this Pearl Jam deal in big graphics on their front page. FYI, Epic Records is a division of the evil Sony, one of the most vocal RIAA members.

  34. Phish is doing nearly the same thing by jonveit · · Score: 2, Informative

    if you go to http://www.livephish.com you can get a copy of the concert in .mp3 or .shn (loss-less compressed sound format) form for $10 or $15 respectively. Pretty good deal for 3 CDs worth of music if you like 20 minute long random jammings that sometimes includes vaccum cleaners as an added instrutment. They just started this since they got back together. Oh and there is no copy security feature to the mp3s or shns, they go by entirely by an honor system. Definitely a cool feature for those who want to grab the concert they attended.

  35. Legitimizing Piracy? by mr.crutch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    C'mon, why do submitters feel compelled to throw baseless incendiary quips into their story submissions, and why do /. editors always fall for them?

    This service does not legitimize piracy any more than a band providing a MP3 on their own website legitimizes piracy.

    ClearChannel will have the recording and distribution rights to the concert, what they do with those rights is their business.

    I for one am looking forward to this service, I think it's an interesting idea.

  36. why would RIAA care? why would "quality" suffer? by walmass · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You think the RIAA bandits wouldn't be getting a cut of the proceeds? They probably thought this up to stop the concert-pirating.


    As for quality: this will come from the sound equipment straight to the recording device, and they will stamp out CDs. Much better than a crappy hand-held cassette-recorder can do. Yes, the quality will not be as good as a studio album, but you want the live album, right?

  37. Why would the RIAA be unhappy? by c_g12 · · Score: 2

    The article did say the CD's will be sold to concert-goers, so one could only assume that part of the price would be royalties for the artist.

  38. equipment needed by ibennetch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All you really need to do this is to split each of the signals, run it to a seperate sound board, the output of which feeds either a computer or stand alone CD recorder. Then you just get a huge pile of cd-r media and racks of cd duplicators...[near] instant copies. Not hard and can be done rather cheaply -- the biggest cost would probably be the duplicators -- we've got a 1x7 that runs at 24x that cost over a grand, as I recall -- you could easily get 20 or 30 thousand in duplicators.

  39. Nothing New Here by dmnic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pearl Jam has down this(ok, the cds arent available AT the show) for years.
    Phish is now releasing each concert online no more than 2 days after a show in mp3($10.95) and shn($12.95) formats(shn is a lossless compression of a wav/aiff file that can be expanded to its original format)
    other bands havea "on-the-road" series similar tothe Pearl Jam format with cds shipping a week after the show.

    nothing new here

  40. This will work by puppetluva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I did a consulting gig with ClearChannel a few years ago and a fellow consultant suggested this to them then. There are many reasons this is a good idea:

    1) Artists own their own performances. This is the reason why Record Labels don't really make money off of concerts. It is up to them and their artist representation as to what they do with their recordings of them.
    2) CDs distributed at street-level and concerts are an effective form of promotion - one that is very effective. . . The Wu-Tang Clan and The Grateful Dead know this cold and they did great even though they NEVER got airplay. (CCU is diluting their radio prowess a bit here - but don't thell them that).
    3) Music has a great "hook" into your memory. How many times have you heard a piece of music and it reminded you of some past situation when you heard it? How great would it be to have the EXACT rendition of that concert and the good time your friends had? Bill Graham (the famous San Fran concert promoter) both understood this and encouraged it.
    4) If you love a band (say RadioHead), and you go to more than one of their concerts (say MSG and Philly Spectrum), wouldn't you like to buy them both if they were unique experiences? How about a digital season's pass (over the web) to ALL of their concerts? (with video). Would you pay the equivalent of a box-set to have that kind of access? I would. . . most people would for their favorite band (if they have the coin).

    The sky is the limit with these opportunities and there isn't much that the RIAA can do about it. This is the kind of liberation tha technology makes possible. . . There is more value because there is more PRODUCT. There is more product, because there is more access to the ARTIST. Let's hope this catches on before the Label's start asking for exclusive rights to concerts and concert-proceeds.

  41. Re:Oh the irony.... by RadioTV · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, when its done without the permission of the copyright holder it is pirating.

    When it is done with permission it is call an over-priced souvenir.

    Like it or not this is the way thing work. Don't think that it should work this way? Try to change it - don't just bitch about it.

    --
    I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
  42. The Clearcast plan is is Out-and-out EVIL by The_Laughing_God · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First off, as has been documented many times here on Slashdot, with links to business and musician articles, first hand accounts of musician readers, etc., only a handful (a *few* of the top 50 bands in only the most most populat genres) derive substantial income from recording sales. The rest -the vast bulk of musicians- make their living on concert performances. In fact, the studios have successfully pushed through laws (also reported here) stating that the artists who produce music -singers and musicians- are presumptively "work for hire" and are not entitled to residuals or royalties at all, unless their contracts happen to award them. For example, any public performance of a song has long generated a a residual or royalty for the composer (or owner of the lyric copyright) but not one cent for the band. Period.


    The actual accounting (also reported in countless previous links) means that after the studio's self-declared expenses are deducted, the band not only rarely makes much beyond the initial advance, but often ends up owing the studio money on paper. This can lock them in, forcing them to sign for additional albums (to have the debt forgiven) and making it hard to switch labels.


    I could enumerate many more abuses, but I'm sure others will -- if they're not sick of doing so.


    NOW COMES THE EVIL PART

    The studios (or RIAA) don't have any right to the music the musicians play in concert, unless there is a specific concert recording clause. This was the meat on the musician's table. but now the largest promoter in the nation will be making it a term of their contracts that bands must surrender most rights to the music in their precious live performances. Note: Clear Channel never said a word about paying artists. It's be a condition of the concert: "If you don't sign over the rights, you don't play in this town". [We've also seen plenty of articles on the strong-arm methods Clear Channel has used to build and enforce precisely this sort of monopoly.


    This won't improve anything for most bands. It only applies to the known successes where Clear Channel expects to make a profit; the ones where CC is already profiting as the concert promoter. If Clear Channel didn't book you for a concert or performance, don't expect their audio truck.


    In short: they are reaching deeper into the artist's pockets -- and removing (coopting) a potential source of revenue for the band itself. The recording industry was a historical artifact, like buggy whip makers. It gained its stranglehold because 100 years ago, musicians could not afford studio equipment. Now they can, so the strangle hold much be maintained in other ways.


    This is a coerced corporate seizure of the band's rights to the proceeds of their own live *performances* (concerts, shows, etc.) which had been the last bastion of the musician. They are doing this preemptively, because it's now a small step from the club/concert audio feed to a burned CD -- and right now sales of such CDs could well belong to the musician, if the corporations are not careful!

  43. Re:The Clearcast plan is is Out-and-out EVIL by vovin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Clear channel owns about half of the stations. If they don't promote/play bands that don't play along, the bands may feel there is no choice. If the band gets a cut I see no problem with this, but if they don't then it's pretty nasty, imho.
    I would suck to loose almost half your fans because you didn't like somebody taking some profit off your only opportunity to make some ching. After all, most profits are from T-Shirts, and if CD's take sales from shirts ...