Magnatune - a Non-Evil Record Label?

jea6 writes "As seen on Fark and sure to intrest non-crossover Slashdotters, Magnatune is a record company with a catchy slogan. They highlight: 1) We're a record label. But we're not evil. 2) We call it 'try before you buy.' It's the shareware model applied to music. 3) Listen to hundreds of MP3'd albums from our artists. Or try our genre-based radio stations. 4) If you like what you hear, buy our music online for as little as $5 an album or license our music for commercial use. 5) Artists get a full 50% of the purchase price. And unlike most record labels, our artists keep their rights to their music. 6) Founded by musicians, for musicians. No major label connections. We are not evil. So if you are anti-RIAA (artist or consumer) and looking for an option (albeit a small option), this may be a start. The music is Creative Commons licensed, which is the brainchild of the eminent Lawrence Lessig."

Comments

hmm

[B3ryllium]

Evil will always triumph over Good, because Good is Dumb.

A swift kick in the rear

[Quixo-tastic]

To the first tinfoil hat owning AC to suggest the RIAA submitted this to get their competition /.ed off the face of the planet. =)

It may be non evil...

[willll]

but it still sucks unless its got good music.

Re:It may be non evil...

[jsmyth]

but it still sucks unless its got good music.

Depends what you consider good music. From what I can see, the RIAA and cronies tend to be pushing mass-market pop and "easy listening", so they can get their money back and much more.

This way, good music can get to the top so much more easily, if it's all word of mouth and independent of mass-marketting, rather than hyped.

Re:It may be non evil...

[netbornmusic]

Depends what you consider good music. From what I can see, the RIAA and cronies tend to be pushing mass-market pop and easy listening, so they can get their money back and much more.
Absolutely right. Sure the quality (tech side) of what they release is highest, cause they spend so big $ on it. But besides this - it's all the same pop again and again, they don't want to release something really new, cause it's risky. And people (when talking about millions of people, the majority) don't really want something new, they don't care so much about the music and just want it to sound somehow familiar and not bothering...

Re:It may be non evil...

[Jace of Fuse!]

they don't want to release something really new, cause it's risky.

It's risky, because sometimes people "experimenting with interesting sounds" just plain suck.

The fact is Music IS a definable thing, though taste is subjective. A lot of music now days very barely falls into the definition of music. This goes for some pop music, but a whole LOT of indie music.

Indie music, on the whole, DOES suck because the people either lack talent, lack recording skills, they lack the funds to get proper equipment, or maybe they just really really universally bad taste. Whatever their excuse may be...

But when you really dig into what makes music, uhm, musical, you'll notice there are human biorhythm connections. Some things work really well, some things don't work at all.

Music that incorperates some or all of the basic principles tends to be more easily received by the listener. Random, disjointed, haphazard noise tends to irritate the body until it gets used to it, but even after becoming used to it (the same way you get used to city traffic, the sound of airplanes passing by, or the sound of a train station down the street) your body is still never really ready for it.

Some people will jump in here now to defend new and interesting sounds, or things that "break the rules" because it's cool or interesting, but most of the time it really isn't either. There are exceptions to every rule though, and that's what seperates the true artists from those who are just wailing away without any talent, which is as common today as the tasteless masses that enjoy it.

A serious music fanatic that I once knew told me that the best way to test if music is true to the nature of music is to try to hum along, clap your hands, and tap your feet. While some music makes one or more of those things difficult, as a general rule I noticed he is right. Things that do "make sense" as music tend to be more easily accepted by the senses.

He then pointed out to me that those songs that "make sense" stand the test of time. We can hear them 10, 20, or 30 years later and still enjoy them. Really, really, bad stuff from the 90's is already forgotten, probably never to be aired again (thankfully).

Back to the topic -- This Shareware Music thing hasn't any more or less potential to create good music than the current Music Business. It just has more of a chance of exposing us to the stuff that REALLY SUCKS (irrelevent of tates). Now even the really shitty artists will have some exposure, where they had only a small chance with the big lables that were afraid to bank on the masses of people with no taste at all. (People probably accepted the crap because they've been exposed to way too much hectic noise and insanity their lives and the music doesn't grate their nerves like it should...)

We're definately going to have less "quality control". Some of it is really going to stink, but some of it just might be really good. And that's why I'm so much for this idea. It gives everyone a fair chance, and if someone really wants to listen to total shit, they have that right and now they have that chance.

Re:It may be non evil...

[anon*127.0.0.1]

Well, if you're happy with the major music labels deciding for you what it good and what sucks... more power to you. There seem to be an awful lot of people like you.

I don't mind doing my own "quality control". I don't mind sifting through a bunch of crap to find a few gems. I'd rather have a few pearls and a bunch of dross then a sea of mediocre crap. Besides, if you follow your instincts and listen to the opinions of people you trust, you'll find good stuff more often then not. Stephen Hawking said that MC Frontalot had talent.... and by golly, he was right.

This is great except..

[OmniVector]

What about all those people who have already signed their soul over to the devil? I'm sure if it were as simple as "switching" from one record label to another, many bands would. The choices today are getting better, but the contracts those people have to sign just to get their music on a cd is insane. The record company basically owns their ass for years before they can choose to go somewhere else, and even then in many cases the new record label they go to still has to pay a cut to the previos label.

Re:This is great except..

[Amiga Trombone]

What about all those people who have already signed their soul over to the devil? I'm sure if it were as simple as "switching" from one record label to another, many bands would. The choices today are getting better, but the contracts those people have to sign just to get their music on a cd is insane. The record company basically owns their ass for years before they can choose to go somewhere else, and even then in many cases the new record label they go to still has to pay a cut to the previos label.

Well, yeah, there are a few pitfalls here. It's not just a matter of recording your stuff and throwing it out on the net. The Big Evil companies also do things like pay for promotion and help underwrite the cost of touring, exercise influence with the radio stations and MTV and whatnot to get the music played and brought to the attention of consumers. I'm not sure these guys have all the resources at their disposal to perform these functions. It wouldn't hurt to have an already highly successful artist or two sign on to this to help push it along. A stable of competent but unknown artists is fine, but is unlikely to generate the kind of revenues necessary to be able to afford to provide the kind of services the Big Evil companies provide.

*THIS* is what i've been waiting for

[Ubergrendle]

I've been trying this site for the past 48 hours. Their music selection is limited, but its a starting label...its a chicken & egg scenario i think -- Need customers to attract musicians.

I found its offerings to be professional and compentent, if unremarkable. So far the site seems to deliver on what its promising. FREE downloads, FREE streaming audio. Their business model appears to be ethical (by my standards).

Basically I'm waiting a week or two to see in the media if things are kosher before buying something: e.g. this is a legitimate venture?; they're on the up & up?; people don't have nasty customer service problems, etc.

Slashdot users -- this is probably THE busienss model we've been biatching for. If this venture fails, lets try to make sure its not because of lack of demand.

NOTE: I have NO affiliation with this site whatsoever. I can can barely read music. ;)

Cool...

[akmolloy]

Nice. Between this new label and cdbaby, maybe the artists will start to actually make something off of their CDs, and make me more apt to buy as well.

Re:'try before you buy'

[daveo0331]

If you have coke coming from faucet at home, how much would you pay for a bottle? "

Same amount I would pay for a bottle of water, probably.

Finally

[soliaus]

I like it, and have just bought 3 albums myself. Im happy to see there is finally a LEGAL solution. Now, if only the RIAA would wake up.

One feature I think is extremely unique is that people can choose what they pay. From $5-18, and the recommended amount is $8.

Re:Whoa, this is great

[BJH]

No, no, it should be "I, for one, welcome our non-evil overlords."

You see? Much better.

I checked it out

[iamacat]

They don't have that much stuff yet, but what they have is not bad. It's regular music rather than just "experimental" stuff. Definitely better than what you hear on radio. I am definitely buying a few of their albums.

Now, how long before big labels realize that they have to start making more variety of music? With Apple music store I can already preview, download and burn on CD so they would be making some money.

Marketed != Good

[yintercept]

Our biggest problem is that we, as a society, have confused well marketed with "good." There's thousands of great musicians running around that are not well known.

What main stream America wants is the marketed music. Well, guess what? marketing machines are about making money.

Imagine who cool it would be if all the effort thrown into pirating the marketed stuff went into creating an underground force for marketing independent music?

The cool thing about the creative commons license is that it is a start in making such an underground force.

Re:Marketed != Good

[JaredOfEuropa]

Our biggest problem is that we, as a society, have confused well marketed with "good." There's thousands of great musicians running around that are not well known.

That's why the ability to hear songs before buying is so important, and this label addresses that issue.

I will not buy music before I've heard it. Bt where can I hear stuff outside the mainstream? Not on the radio (they won't play them), and not in the record store (too damn inconvenient to ask to listen to more than a few CDs there). Being able to download songs or listen to streamed music is a big help in selecting artists who have not been previously 'marketed'... so now we can continue to give the RIAA the finger and put our money where our mouth is.

Re:Artists aren't this stupid.

[johnpaul191]

it depends on what the artist is going for....... did you ever see Josie and the Pussycats? yes the movie was a joke, but the hype factor of artists in the movie is kind of true. there are plenty of artists that were somewhat created overnight through a promotional campaign. they don't write their own songs, they never toured. yes, it's what the mindless masses will suck up, but you can not really consider them a musician or an artist. they are a performer. they could be replaced overnight and often are.

there are some bands that get big from writing songs and touring. the 50/50 split is nothing new, and has worked for many labels and artists for years. Labels like Dischord, Lookout!, Kill Rock Stars have used this model for years with bands like Fugazi, The Donnas, Greenday etc.

It works well for small labels and bands because the label and the band split profits 50/50 and in the early days the bands and the labels both have a real reason to make the records sell. when the bands get huge, the bands make a lot of money this way. that's a better percentage take than any major label could afford.

no, labels like that won't dreate the next brittnany spears, but how many of them exist, and who really want to sell their soul and suck that much anyway.

Works fine, music sucks

[Animats]

Well, let's see. Under "rock", there are a few techno-pop songs, all kind of lame. Under "metal", effects pedals without much backing them. "Classical" here means medieval/renaissance, Bach on the cello, and choral works from the former USSR. "Electronica" lists most of the stuff from "Rock", and some of the stuff from "World Music" again.

Downloading works fine. Everything plays with open-source Freeamp/Zinf. If you care.

Re:Works fine, music sucks

[anubi]

I think they are just starting off, just as we do on a new topic. We quickly accumulate a variety of off-topic, trolls, redundant, insightful, interesting, funny, etc. posts. In their case, they will quickly accumulate a wide variety of music - of all types - just as we have types of posts.

The gurus at Slashdot devised this really clever little distributed moderation system that works quite well to sort these posts by genre and revelence. I would think that Slashdot itself may provide an example of a ranking paradigm to help moderate the music at Magnatune. Statistics will evolve which show the more meaningful parameters of the music offered.

If I were working on their system, I would probably try to configure the radio streams so I could detect if the stream was aborted. That is a strong indication the guy on the other end was not much interested in that one. I would maintain statistics on which song of an album was downloaded first. Knowing which track was downloaded first probably will generate data for which tracks are the best ones of the album, based on which spawned off downloads of other tracks.

The album gets modded up for selling a track, a major mod if the entire album sells.

Its a brand new site, a brand new paradigm. But they will have the same bugs to work out as CmdrTaco has worked out here. Maybe they can look over here and talk to CmdrTaco for some insights on handling a torrent of data of various quality and how to set up some sort of moderation system similar to the one working here.

We are evolving. They will too.

the test

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Ok, Here's the big test! Now that all you music copiers have a way to get music at a reasonable price, that you can hear before you buy, where the musician is treated with respect ...

What excuses will you use for stealing the music now?

Re:the test

[blincoln]

Hey editors, obviously we need two new mods - (+1, Anti-Piracy) and (-1, Criticizing Me For Doing Something Illegal).

This isn't a troll, and neither are the hundreds of posts that criticize pirates that are also modded as trolls. It's a legitimate comment, because people who pirate music are going to come up with another excuse just as the parent is implying.

Metropolis Records - another example

[scoove]

But if anyone is an unsigned band: don't sign with an RIAA-connected label

Absolutely, and if you have any talent, it'll probably be wasted at a major RIAA label as well.

There's been a lot of coverage the past few years about the real problems of these labels, including the absurd advances to dated artists like Michael Jackson (who never make back the advance money and end up costing other less prominant artists their chance), promotional efforts being spent on the tired old artists at the expense of up-and-coming ones ("Hey folks. That new Madonna album's out. Let's put lips on that pig!"), termination of thousands of smaller and newer artist contracts, fewer releases, etc.

Compare that with a label like Metropolis Records which has amassed a base of artists like Funker Vogt, KMFDM, VNV Nation, Juno Reactor, Apoptygma Bezerk, Frontline Assembly, Project Pitchfork, De/Vision, etc. - much of the EBM and techno-industrial sounds come from this label.

How do they play with the Internet community? They support royalty-free shoutcasting (which is how I found them and ended up spending a few $$$ on their artists!).

Support these labels by buying direct whenever you can, and let them know each time you buy that the reason you're sending them business is because of their support for great artists and the promotion of a music marketplace free of RIAA manipulation and anticompetitive behavior.

*scoove*

Finally, UNCOMPRESSED online music!

[Cordath]

Small independant labels that give their artists good royalties are nothing new. However, such a label coming up with an online music service that is actually *good* is new!

Let's compare this service to iTunes, the most popular current service.

Price:
iTunes - $0.99 per song
Magnatune - $5.00 an album
If it's a good album without crappy filler then Magnatune is the big winner here. Classical fans get a great deal, but pop fans may not, depending on the band. Overall, I'd give the edge to Magnatune, but not a big one.

Format:
iTunes - AAC with some annoying DRM
Magnatune - Uncompressed WAV's!!!
Absolutely no contest here. Finally an online music store has listened to audiophiles! They'd be smart to use a lossless compression format to save on their bandwidth costs though...

Ethics:
iTunes - Apple takes it's (big) cut and then the Artist's (frequently RIAA affiliated) label takes most of the rest.
Magnatune - The artist gets 50%!!!
Again, no contest. Instead of feeling guilty about fueling a powermad monster when you buy music you can feel good about supporting the people who actually made it!

Selection:
iTunes: Lots
Magnatune: Not a lot
iTunes is the clear winner here.

To sum up, you get more for your money with magnatunes, including peace of mind. You just can't get many albums there... yet. If magnatune manages to get off the ground that may change, but they have a long road ahead of them. Their biggest challenge is getting more content. In my opinion they need to forge alliances with other like-minded independant labels. There are a lot out there, but many use mail-order as their only form of distribution! Magnatunes needs to get these labels on board pronto.

Maybe not evil, but...

[orthogonal]

They may not be evil, but they may not be too smart either.

When I went to buy one of their albums, Magnatune wanted me to type my credit card number on a NON-SSL page. Naturally, my attempted purchase ended right there. $5 to Magnatune and $5000 to man-in-the-middle hacker is not cheap.

According to Magnatune's "forum", they plan to add SSL "in a few days". That this wasn't a higher priority makes me very worried; even if they do set up SSL, it suggests they might not be too careful with say, customer lists and credit card numbers.

And there doesn't appear to be way to search through the albums for sale.

Still, Magnatune's a step in the right direction.

Re:Maybe not evil, but...

[mabu]

For the most part, SSL is a PR issue more than it is a security issue. I hate to break the bubble, but it's true. As long as you use a credit card (as opposed to a debit card) you are protected against fraud according to the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1976.

What are the chances that someone is packet-sniffing the connection between the networks looking for credit card numbers, and what could they realistically do with it? Most peoples' passwords between the client and the server are in cleartext and that represents an even more substantive security/privacy issue.

Obviously SSL encryption is important, but even more important is not using debit cards and making sure the company you're doing business with it legitimate.

Let's not propagate the ignorant generalization that simply because a site uses SSL, that guarantees the transaction will be secure. Most security compromises are on the client and server level and not in between.

Magnatune site a little slow

[magnatune]

Ok, so I discovered that I was slashdotted about an hour ago when Apache slowed to a crawl.

Things look better now, but still sluggish. (at least it's still working).

I've moved all graphics to my secondary server, running Squid. That helped Apache, but graphics are taking some time to come up. I'm bringing up another squid server now.

Audio streaming seems to be working ok (at least for me)

And THANKS for all the kind words on this thread (I'll respond to them once I get the servers running fast)

- John (the Magnatune guy)

Re:Magnatune site a little slow

[magnatune]

Ok, web site speed at Magnatune seems back to normal - nice & zippy!

I'm now running a copy of the poorly-named but amazingly fast open-source "AOLserver" http://www.aolserver.com/ on port 81, feeding all graphics requests through it rather than through Apache. That seems to have alleviated all the (current) speed problems.

Now, of course, that'll just encourage more people to visit, and I'll have new speed problems in a few hours (grin).

-john

mp3.com RIP

[yerricde]

yes, but mp3.com got bought, so "mp3.com, originally" no longer exists. In addition, "mp3.com, originally" had an additional problem: artists could provide recordings only in 128 kbps MP3 format, which is capable of nowhere near the fidelity of pristine 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo PCM audio to the good ear.

music is a useless definition

[metalhed77]

Your argument is as old as time and it is eternally on the losing side. You could say the same thing about the impressionists. Oh, the true test of a good painting is if it is a perfect incarnation of man's splendor via realistic modeling / rendering. Well, let's get rid of Monet, Manet, and all art made after the neoclassical period. In fact we can apply this to every period of art history! I don't have any problem with your taste, you're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine. Let's not forget that it wasn't so long ago that the Beatles weren't considered music by many, and now they seem quite mild.

I like experimental music. You can rant about it all you want, and that's fine. Just don't try to impose your unenlightened views upon me. Almost ALL experimental musicians are classically trained before they decide to try something new.

The Value of Editing

[sterno]

Where this goes is that with the large volume of bands out there that can be so readily distributed, the value of critics and editors will increase. You find somebody who seems to agree with your tastes and follow their recommendations. Right now, the opinions of certain power brokers determines the fate of bands.

The adventurous listeners can go out there and try all kinds of new things and then bring back what they like to the masses. Word of mouth will become a far more powerful engine for generating popularit than RIAA marketing. This is already true for many who've grown sick of pop radio.

To speak from personal experience, I don't listen to the radio (except for NPR). But I listen to lots of music that never gets played on the radio. I've got a friend who's in a really good local band, and I've got some friends who are really into music that always point me towards new things. So I get their recommendations, and I find that I like a large portion of what they recommend. Finally I experiment a little, usually finding crap, but occasionally discovering something new that I like.

That's the future of music. The RIAA is screwed.

Or use the RIAA Radar to find non-RIAA albums

[Ride-My-Rocket]

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

Weak offer when compared to CD Baby

[Psychic Burrito]

What's the point in signing on to this "good" label if they don't promote me outside their website?

All they offer is a website to listen to the songs and then buy them. If I need that service, I'll use CD Baby, where I don't sign the rights to my music away. And boy do they have many artists already!.

Additionaly, CD Baby takes a flat amount of $4 (CDs) or 9% (iTunes music store), all without signing my rights away. I think I know which one I'm choosing :-)

Re:I don't know if it is a "record-label"

[magnatune]

I love the model, I just wish that they had a studio somewhere. I am a musician myself and would love to have some talented studio professionals who also happened to have some ethics.

from http://forums.magnatune.com/read/messages?id=54386 7 :

Magnatune acquires portable recording studio

Magnatune has acquired a portable recording studio, and will soon begin recording artists specifically for release on Magnatune.

When under a recording agreement with Magnatune, artists will be able to record an album at no cost to them, Magnatune will distribute and promote the album, and the artist will still own all rights to the recording. For example, the artist will be able to print their own CDs of the recording and sell them at gigs.

Magnatune acquired the recording system so that it would be able to broaden its reach, and include talented artists who don't have the thousands of dollars (at a minimum) it takes to make a typical record studio-recorded album.

For the gear-heads out there, the recording setup comprises of:

- a 17" mac powerbook
- pro tools digital audio workstation software
- digidesign's digi002 8 track recording console
- an additional 8 tracks of recording capacity (16 tracks total)
- a variety of high end "Studio Projects" microphones and stands
- various off-board racks and effects (and software-based ones)

In most cases, it is easiest if the recording happens at our premises in Berkeley, California (it's still a lot of gear to move around), but in some case we will record at a band's performance site

-john (from Magnatune)

Re:HTTPS? (What is music?)

[Wumpus]

However, screaming is not music.

Says who? I always maintained that the western violin is not a musical instrument, but an instrument of torture, inflicting injury on players and mental anguish on listeners. Still, it would be idiotic for me to dictate that violin music will not enter our home.

On your rule of "no distortion": So Shakti would be kosher, but Mahavishnu Orchestra wouldn't be? Shankar would be OK, as long as it isn't that "screaming" album he did with Frank Zappa? The Roches would be forbidden because Robert Fripp used a distorted guitar on the second track of their self titled debut album?

Death Metal singers don't scream - they growl. Would that be ok? No? So I guess Tom Waits is verboten. Too bad.

Ornette Coleman's The Shape of Jazz To Come: Fine - an acoustic, instrumental work. No screaming there. What about Free Jazz? They don't actually scream, but they might as well have. The screaming attitude is there. There goes a seminal 20th century recording. Plonk.

Listen to anything by Devin Townsend. Is he singing or screaming? Whatever it is, it's musical, except that your daughter won't even get the chance to argue that with you, because this screaming ain't getting in your home, no siree.

Krzysztof Penderecki made a symphonic orchestra scream in Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, but I guess that's not music. Damn - I rather liked it, and I was deeply moved by it.

I suppose you'd approve of Pat Metheny's work. No screaming or distortion there... Oops, I forgot about Zero Tolerance For Silence. It's a work of great beauty, if you dig into it, and see past the, well, distortion.

Give me a break. This isn't philosophy, or moral structure. This is an arbitrary, boneheaded and ignorant rule of aesthetics. If you give your children a philosophy of life (as you should, and you seem to strive to do), it must be consistent. It must have structure, and things must follow logically from the ground rules. Setting arbitrary rules to satisfy your preferences in music is neither consistent nor fair.