Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry's Future Foretold in China?
sapphire writes "An article today in the International Herald Tribune provides a look at music piracy from the point-of-view of pop stars in China. China is a country forced to deal with the reality of unchecked piracy of digital media products. Will their experience lead to new business models for the world-wide recording industry?"
So people can't get rich playing music anymore. I guess they'll have to find another reason to play.
I think that quote sums it up best. They must "look elsewhere to fund the rockstar lifestyle".
I don't fucking pay artists to fund their 'rockstar lifestyle'. I pay them to make music. If they get the intense rich/famous shit going on because they sell loads, well, that's a bonus. If they make enough to live on and keep producing, then they're with the rest of the population.
To me, that keeps what they say in their lyrics all the more relevant to me.
Sorry, but it really gets to me when a "band" only does their stuff for the money.
I know plenty of bands that just thrive to hear a live audience, no, they're not big and they don't have a flash Porsche but they enjoy what they do and get to pay the bills.
All pirating means is that people that expect that when they get into music that their life is sorted and they can go round smashing up hotel rooms and stuff.
Bah! They don't even usually write their own songs.
And they make more tours. A singer complains about her voice, but OTOH it means people do not have to travel a lot, more total audience, and after all singers in the past had not mics, like good opera singers (they just take care of it).
Where CD's only cost a few bucks instead of $13-15.
If you really look at the article all you really get out of it is that some artists expect to make a few hit songs and be able to live in luxury for the rest of their years off the millions they supposedly make. Whenever I hear artists complain about how they are suffering from the effects of piracy, I just laugh. They are making lots of money doing something they supposedly love to do and they get made when they aren't making millions?
See Courtney Love does the Math.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
What scares me about this though is that from what I know of the Chinese music scene, is it's pretty much all pop garbage. There is very little diversity in mainstream music as compared with what we have in the English speaking music scene. I hate the RIAA with a passion and I'd like to see them die a gruesome death. But I just hope that we don't end up with a music scene that is only fincially viable for boy bands & Britney Spears look alikes.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
You do realize that these "bands that only do their stuff for the money" are just going to work everyday like you or I. I am a professional musician and have played many a gig just to make money, not because I particularly liked the music I was playing. I definitely do not live the "rock-star lifestyle," but not one of us can say that all that money wouldn't be nice. We definitely can't blame these rich artist for enjoying their money. As far as the article goes, it seems like a good idea in general. Musicians get paid for appearances, companies license songs for ad campaigns, and, most importantly, record companies basically act as talent agencies. This is one model that the RIAA could look into. Most of these agencies skim a huge percentage off the top for booking gigs for artists. The record companies could make much more money from this method than their current model, which is probably why they aren't doing it yet. Easier to complain than change.
To be honest I don't listen to pop music at all. It's the auditory equivalent of "My Mother the Car". I am far more interested in music as art - and from what I've seen here China is failing miserably in producing anything that I would want to listen to.
I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not the latest Devo album cost $2 or $20. But I do care if the music industry and where it is headed is going to make it impossible for me to get a DVD-Audio recording of the works of somebody who actualy making a real contribution music.
The prediction that the music industry is heading towards the current situation in China does not please me at all.
Only the truly mega-super stars are rich. Most other bands are not multi-millionaires. Most are probably still in debt after having 2 "hit" records. The ones that are getting rich are the music company execs. In a true markey economy, it would be the musicians that would be making the money since they can set up a direct marketing system and buy airtime at radio stations, etc. However, the current system is not even close to a true market economy.
The IP shouldn't even be the property of the record companies. Shouldn't the IP reside with the artists who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the melodies? Singers and other musicians, who only play other people's songs, are more like employees than artists. At least the Chinese "system" makes these people work for a living, just like everyone else. Wang Lee Hom, in the article, sounds like he does everything himself from song writing to promotion. He also doesn't seem to be starving, either.
The article itself was basically very pro-RIAA. It would be nice to know how hard is it to "break into" the Chinese system as compared to the already-industry controlled system in the U.S and Europe.
Anthony
at only breif flickers in history has there been a middle class that could support the arts through small sales commerical routes. Troubadors may have made aa living but they were not stars, whose offerings were trades to others. Perhaps breifly in egypt there was a middle class. Perhaps briefly a few art centers, like venician glass makers held brief monopolies on desirabel art. but never for long.
it is only the rise of the ubquitous middle class, and a widespread media that has created the commerical conduits for art we have today. there is nothing to suggest these channels should or will be enduring. We as a generation or two grew up and thought these the norm but we were wrong.
To the extent that artistis are conduits of expression and the exchange of ideas, is this good or bad? its not clear. there are commmercial forces to tow the political norm on all artists whether they have patrons or must please the masses. Indeed one might claim that given the financial independence offerec by a patron is what frees the artist to challenge popular norms. You would not see many commercial artist these days advocating buttfucking small boys, but certainly many poets in greece spoke well of the idea. I know thats a bit gross, but I say it to make the point that stong ideas can come about when you dont have to please everyone.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
And the music just gets worse. There hasn't been much original music released since Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins broke in the early 1990s. It's not because the artists suck. It's because the record companies only invest in sugar-pop acts that are too watered down to be interesting. Is there a band that has artistic ingenuity or a political point? They won't get a contract, because the record company won't take a risk.
I'd pay about a dollar per song for a CD today. If I could find one I was interested in.
The whole music thing is overrated anyway. It's all just entertainment. In the end, you can get too much entertainment.
The big record companies have dug themselves into a deep hole. They're too big to release innovative or strongly artistic acts. They're too large and bulky to move nimbly. The giants are going to fall. Both music and art in general will be better for it.
"In the United States and Europe, stars have it easy if they make a hit record," said Han Hong, named best female artist this year at Channel V's China Music Awards, and whose renditions of Tibetan songs have become nationally popular. "In China, we have to give so many concerts that we do not have time to rest our voices."
Am I supposed to feel sorry? Since when is it news that musicians, for the most part, have always been largely poor? It's those "posers" and "fakes" that somehow strike it rich are now bitching. They've been a part of the "corporate pop" machines for so long that they've forgotten what it meant to be creative in the first place. They've been given songs to sing and now get paid to sing a song that someone else wrote just because teens these days need to hear a new song from the same old cookie-cutter pop star.
Let's get real people. Music is good this way, honestly. We want to be able to choose for ourselves who is and who isn't "in". I'm tired of the radios force-feeding me the same old shit. I want something new, fresh, or maybe not-so fresh. Something raw but honest is way better than a "polished" whore/hottie who can sing. It's about time the fans demanded honesty in a musician's musical expression. After all, music isn't about honesty, it's about one's unique interpretation of a song, genre, or otherwise. Music is about allowing those who truly love it to choose what they love. The musician is the one who must also love music enough to effectively stress how much appreciation he or she has for music. Let us all live well together and with music, we can all continue our sanity.
If you sell your records at $20 a copy, you will not sell a million of them. Anymore. But if you sell your records at $10 a copy, you might. And if you sell them at $5 a copy, it's that much more likely.
So, yes, you can get paid. But in the current economic environment, the substitute goods (Economics 101 terminology) mean that you can't charge monopoly rent for it anymore. That is to say, music downloaders would rather have the convenience of an audio CD than the poor audio quality of MP3, as long as the audio CD isn't priced too high. The current price of 15 to 20 dollars is too high.
As an alternative, put out a mega-album with 2-3 CDs, a big booklet filled with lyrics, photos, art, and interesting notes. Put it all in a quality sleeve/jacket/jewel case. If the music is decent, you could probably charge 35, 40, maybe 50 dollars for it.
The days of easy money for musicians, groupies, executives, and the rest are over. Period. No more cutting a record for five weeks that makes millions. From now on, if you want to be a musician, you're going to have to work for your money.
As for the musicians who still want unlimited money, furs, diamonds, private airplanes, giant mansions, and all the illegal drugs they can inject in their ears, from now on they're going to have to work a lot harder to get all that dough.
The real winner in this will be that art form known as music.
Beautiful. Abso'fuckin'lutely beautiful.
You left out one bit though. At least in the United States the consumer takes it up the backside. So we've got that going for us at least.
KFG
Did you see this line?
As a result, Wu said, there are fewer than 20 professional-quality albums produced per year in China. This lack of large-scale music production inhibits the entry of talented newcomers.
Unbelievable! Granted China is a poor country, but with their population they must have millions of talented musicians. Yet only 20 professional albums are produced per year. I can't think of a sadder commentary on the effects of universal piracy. Let's hope we don't end up in the same state here in the West.
You clearly are not familiar with the laws of your own country. The intellectual property that you speak of... the stuff that's not 'ours'.. it doesn't belong to the artists who created it. Recording is done as a work for hire for one of the few huge corporations that control the flow of music from the artists to the listeners. Those impartial laws you speak of, they weren't concieved by some grassroots movement. No one marched for this shit. The laws were the results of lobying by the RIAA. The politicians we elected to protect our rights sold us out for Sony and Time Warner. Very little, if any of the money made by the average artist comes from royalties. If piracy were to become the accepted standard by which the public obtained their music, artists on average would actually make more money. Why? Because the primary source of their income(concerts/public appearances) would be increased by their increased exposure. Forget about the benefit to the public of not having the recording industry decide for us what is good. Copyright laws serve more to protect the corporate stranglehold than anything else. You seem to be a fan of capitalism, but we've failed to realize one of capitalisms most important goals: promote competition. Don't kid yourself, the RIAA and the MPAA are monopolies. When was the last time you saw a movie in the theater that wasn't produced by a member of the MPAA? When is the last time you heard a song on the radio that wasn't being marketed by a major record label? I say pirate until we have the option of buying from the people who actually made the music.
My Blog
Or, to translate it into a well-known aphorism:
"Under Communism, man exploits man. Under Capitalism, it's the other way around."
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
That seeming would be wrong. The US was more "socialistic" during the 50's and 60's, and only a tiny drop of China's history could be called "traditionally" communist. China is China more because it's China than because it's Communist.
Music is a calling, not an industry. Thank heavens the record companies are being squeezed out. Now a musician can reach his audience without being shrink-wrapped first.
No. They shouldn't.
The proof of this is precisely because they have no control over independent duplication, nor can they ever reasonably expect to obtain that control.
Consider: Oxygen is a valuable commodity. Indeed, you cannot live without it. Oxygen is exuded from plants every day, including those in your garden. Now, given that there are significant, measurable costs to tending and maintaining your garden, and given that the oxygen it produces has clear market value, shouldn't you be able to charge for it? Aren't those who have received value from the oxygen you produced morally and ethically obliged to stuff money into your wallet? (Or, to take it to more absurd extremes: If Bill Gates bought the entire Amazon rainforest, could he legitimately start billing the world for the oxygen it produces?)
The answer, of course, is a big fat "no," because that's not how reality works. Anyone forming a business model based on this presumption would -- correctly -- be laughed into bankruptcy.
The reality of digital media is that it is easily and cheaply duplicated by anyone, anywhere, any time. It was designed to do this, making it a feature, not a bug, and, despite Micros~1's ambitions with Palladium, it's not going to change any time soon. This reality of digital media has never been a secret -- indeed, it's one of its big selling points -- and for media executives to whine shrilly about it speaks less toward their business acumen and more forcefully toward their stubborn unwillingness to face facts.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
What can you say? After decades of the abuse of consumers by the RIAA and the record companies production of 'pop' stars, the crows are coming home to roost.
/. knows about karma. I guess RIAA is in for an education.
When they (recording industry) continue to make ever-unreasonable demands on us (the consumers) how much longer do they think we will put up with it? Just like open source, the will of the masses will become reality.
It's sad that in the China example, artists again get the shaft by the recording companies, blamed on 'pirates' (or is that terrorist? I'm no longer certain.)
Everyone on
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not the latest Devo album cost $2 or $20.... But I do care if the music industry and where it is headed is going to make it impossible for me to get a DVD-Audio recording of the works of somebody who actualy making a real contribution music.
Are you suggesting that Devo isn't contributing to our musical heritage? Or were you just saying that you'd be willing to pay any sum for their new album? Or perhaps you meant that their contributions are more literary than musical. That I could understand.
I'm a speed racer and I drive real fast;
I drive real fast - I'm going to last.
I'm a pirate and a like to kill.
I like to steal, so here's your bill.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
The problem with the "rock-n-roll" lifestyle is that people are fed up with supporting it: if they want to listen to something they might as well download it (pirate it! argh!) because the product is not worth the price when it could be had for free. This isn't a "class warfare, these people make too much and hold us peons down" problem - this is a failing business model that isn't keeping up with the times (think: buggy whips).
Pssst...the reason your hear so much bad advice is because there's essentially two things one needs to understand in order to construct a viable system. Be it a form of government, or an economic system. People and the world. If you look around at all the people saying "those rich musicians are getting what's coming to them", then you compare that to the reality, and you go, hmmm. GIGO in action.[1] And the other part, the human part. A lot of people seem to be confused there. But I'm not too hard on people about that, because that's the hardest part.[2] ;)
:(
[1] If people are saying so and so, is true about such and such, ask them were did they get that particular impression? TV, magazines, radio, talking with the actual person? Walking a mile in their shoes?
[2] But at least you think they would make the effort.
Americans enjoy much more freedom to innovate and achieve their own dreams then those in Communist China, and mainly it is because of impartial and fair laws
You spoiled son of a bitch...
Yeah, mod me down I can take the karma hit, I want the karma hit. Anonymous cowards piss me off. And that one got modded UP for this nausiating trolling...I'm hoping that the modding down will come from the same moderators that upped that twisted fuck's post.
Fair and impartial? How drunk are you? The DMCA is fair and impartial? The tax cuts for the disgustingly rich are fair and impartial?
the Soviet commisars, where wealth is stolen from those who are capable and worthy and forcibly redistributed to the benefity of the lazy and dishonest.
You arrogant bastard.
You lying, dishonest, hypocrite! I'm choking on my own rage here!
Yeah, Lance Bass deserves his millions of dollars more than the men, women and children who worked 10h days in sweat shops to make his shoes! They are so damn lazy! Working themselves to death just so they can scrounge enough money to keep their children barely fed and clothes! How dare they not pay as much as his highness demands for his crappy music?
I'll be modded down as troll or flamebait for loosing my temper, but fuck it. I would jam dollar bills down your throat until you choked if I ever got the chance. You don't deserve the air you breath if you're going to pollut it so when you talk.
Someone needs to show you true pain and suffering, to get you out of your ivory tower and make you smell the sweat and the blood that the poor have to shed to make people like you so damn comfy.
Sure, the extravagance of some pop stars may lead some with a Marxist bent to argue that they don't "deserve" their wealth
Call me names all you want (Marxist? I do have a goatee...) but britney spears does NOT deserve her money. She works hard? Well so do many other whores, and they don't make as much money as her! Sure she got a better deal (duh!), all she does is tease the Johns and they give her cash without her ever needing to deliver the goods. Most other whores don't get that chance; they do it the old fashioned way. Her pimp is better than most pimps, but he doesn't deserve his cash anymore than that little bra stuffer does.
Are you so totally devoid of basic human decency that you really think that Ozzy deserves his wealth more than any other burned out drug addict with a bit of musical talent? You think that most LSD horror story deserve to slowy rot while their unemployability prevents them from earning a living, but that one married into money (he did, Sharon's dad was quite wealthy), so he deserves it?
he fact is that in a market economy, merit is rewarded with wealth
FUCK YOU
What kind of god-given bullshit are you using to justify that insane bit of rationalisation?
99% of people with money never did anything to merit that money, they were born with it. No, being born into money does not merit immense wealth.
The french had it right in 1789: Cut off their heads.
The very rich do NOT deserve or merit their wealth. They kill and lie and cheat to get it. They get liposuctions while other starves.
They
make
me
sick.
No, I'm no red commie, I don't think that a bureaucracy would be better equipped to manage the mind-boggling riches that vast industrial nations can generate, yes, I enjoy freedoms. Including freedom to earn and spend varying amounts of money. Yes, some people are lazy, and some are freeloaders...but povrety and lazyness are VERY DISTINC ISSUES. Don't you DARE tell me that there are no rich freeloaders out there...don't you dare.
merit is rewarded with wealth, and the motive for any person to work hard is the possibility of this reward.
You disgust me.
No, no and no. I have done very hard work in the past for the sole purpose of benefiting others. I give my time to charities, I volunteer and do hard work, not only for money (gotta eat, gotta work to get the money to eat), but also to help my fellow human beings. Why? Because I know I'm incredibly lucky to have been born in a rich country where its possible to do hard work for good money, and I want to be at least a tad helpfull to others who might be doing hard work for bad money...or for good. I just like to help people (and unlike you, I don't mind if I get nothing in return, a good action is its own reward...sometimes).
Money can be a great motivator, but to worthwhile persons it is not the only one. To sleezy jerks like you it is, but I don't think of people with such low morals as yours as human. More like meatbags (spoiled meat).
Lazy people might have gotten that way by being born in a world where no matter how hard you try, you'll never get out of the hole you're in. Maybe they got a learning disability and never got diagnosed because the fucking bastard of a doctor wouldn't see him without first seeing the green stuff? Maybe? Huh? Maybe a billion other stories like that...
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, if absolutely no one is going to say, I guess I will:
.
"you cannot condone pirating or downloading music, even if the piece of crap pop musicians getting taken arn't worth the lint from my bellybutton, because *sigh* stealing is wrong."
If some backdoor boy sings "baby-girl-baby" over and over again, and all your little daughters run out and buy it, then they deserve the money. The basis of capitalism is that your ability to make money is limited only by the demand for your product. If you want it, buy it. If you don't . .
shut the hell up already.
I notice that the article didn't suggest that the record companies lower their prices to match that of the pirated CD's---though one singer was doing just that. After all if the pirates can somehow make a profit why can't the legit record companies? The only difference is the cost to produce the music in the first place. Both then have to make the CD's and distribute them.
Guess the record companies aren't interested unless they can make obscene profits.....
Leave it to slashdot to try to put a positive spin on an anti-piracy article. Musicians and record labels shouldn't have to struggle because people pirate their music. Of course this is ok in China. That's the nature of socialism. History and reason both show that socialism is doomed to fail. Let's not take cues from societies that steal the freedom of the individual for the good of society.
Vote for Pedro
Recording is still an art requiring skilled audio engineers to pull it off properly
Counterpoint: Bruce Springsteen's "Nebraska" is considered one of the most important and influential records of the 1980s, and was recorded by himself on a portable 4-track in his basement.