Slashdot Mirror
Web-Only Album Wins Grammy
blamanj writes "Jazz artist Maria Schneider won a Grammy last night for her album 'Concert in the Garden.' What makes this unusual, according to CNET, is that she might be the first artist ever to win a Grammy for an album distributed solely on the Web. None of the sales were in record stores, and the album was financed through Artist Share."
This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
See how it works RIAA? people release albums to be LISTENED to, not to be controlled... and when they do they SUCCEED.
I've downloaded most of Maria's album, and am looking for the final pieces. This is how distribution can and SHOULD work
Come on, when a dead guy nearly sweeps the awards (regardless of the fact that Ray was talented), truly this an industry running out of options.
How will the RIAA remove her from the public eye? Or will they just make her an offer she can't refuse and bring her to the dark side?
As a musician, I hope her win is a precedent that will be emulated over and over.
When they realize that they now are losing control of their artists. I have not heard of her before, but this is nice in that web based distro of music won a Grammy and I hope that this is the first of many more for here and other artists.
Panic now, beat the rush!
What's really interesting is that the album was made with no involvement of a record company at all.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
ok, Dr. Semantic
what TYPE of "audio files"?!
and since when was the "web" just "HTML"?!
Booyah!
No, you're totally wrong. Green Day has never ONCE done anything that hasn't been done before. Their lyrics are trite, their music is unimaginative, and this whole "concept album" business is BS. They started wearing makeup like those loser sellouts from Metallica and put 4 chords into a song instead of 3, and now everyone thinks their breaking rules. Please. If you want unique and unusual, try Mr. Bungle. Or Naked City. Or Marc Ribot. Or Tom Waits. Or a million other artists that not only have MASTERED THEIR INSTRUMENTS (instead of just getting by with a few chords) and actually have SOMETHING TO SAY (other than the rehashed disaffected youth BS).
... that is the ONLY explanation for calling ANYTHING Green Day does as unique and unusual.
I only responded to this because I feel that your opinion illustrates the real problem w/ the RIAA and organisations like it. They have lowered the standards that people have in music, and overshadow truly talented artists w/ a swath of oversaturated advertising
GD's crap wouldn't have been unique or unusual in 1984, let alone 2005.
Fact 1: The album was distributed solely on the web.
Fact 2: She won a Grammy for the album.
Fact 3: Ain't no *might* about it.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
the dude came out and talked about how we need to "own" the music to help keep the music alive. his example was quite weak; he used how the artists sang the beatles song, across the universe, to raise money to send to teh tsunami victims.
i personally think that was lame, because those rich bastid artists (Damn i hate bono) could have easily shelled out way more money than will be made off of their raping of the beatles.
How many of you are going to support her by buying her album?
If you truly want music to be free (as in speech), put your money where your mouth is for once. The success of such artists depends on the financial backing of people who claim to support independent music.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Was anyone else sooo annoyed at how much crap they spewed about downloading music last night?
Yeah, that was annoying. It's almost as if these people, that earn their living by being paid to entertain their audiences, are annoyed when people decide that they like their music, but not enough to pay for it. Pretty obnoxious, expecting to actually get paid for their work. Jerks! Soooo annoying.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Seriously, if you're not getting paid at your job, why don't you, you know, get another job?
But if you ran a small store, and for a year you lost all of your proceeds because you kept getting ripped off... wouldn't you want to do something about it, rather than just throw your hands up? And wouldn't at least some people in the situation want to get on the news and say: "hey kids! when you rip off my store, you're stealing from actual people!"
Professional musicians spend the best part of their lives getting to the point where they can earn a living at it. Ripping off music over the net is a recent development, and you can't blame career musicians (or aspirants) for wanting to change the course of this stuff back towards showing the artists a little respect. I'd completely agree with you if a musician wasn't making any money because no one liked their music (go get another job!), but the people in question are getting ripped off because people like them!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I don't think you should include Bono in your argument. He has done more to help out the poor in this world than just about anybody.
It pisses me off to see people complain about "stars" not doing anything good for society, but when someone like Bono gets involved, he's labeled as cocky, a sellout, whatever. Walk in his shoes for a year and then talk.
Maybe you should RTFA, given that it's all about an artist who makes a living by distributing her music online and treating her fans with respect.
I'm happy to support artists like that. But buying a $18 CD, knowing that maybe a quarter is actually going to the artist, and the rest to a corporation that is lobbying to cripple my computer and restrict my rights to make whatever software I want...that just makes me feel dirty.
"I only responded to this because I feel that your opinion illustrates the real problem..."
And I think the real problem is people like you telling other people what they are allowed to like and what to think. You complain about the RIAA repressing people, and here you are doing the same thing. Hypocrite, let people enjoy what they want and maybe they will be so kind to do the same for you.
Pretty obnoxious, expecting to actually get paid for their work.
Almost as obnoxious as expecting to make money on an album, instead of accepting an advance which then gets taken out of album sales and paid back to the record label, so that you never actually see any money from it even if people do buy it. Look at the figures.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
How about you look up the word "steal" and then start to use the right terminology. Stealing involves depriving someone of property - unless you're "stealing" a base. And we're not talking baseball here.
This is always so funny. I love the way that people who are too cheap, and too disrespectful of the very musicians they seem to like to listen to, respond to any challenge by attempting a redirect. How about this: let's forget worrying about whether it's theft (like of a baseball), or "infringment" (in the classic copyright sense of that word). You're trying to defend the practice of disregarding an artist's specific wishes. The artist agrees to play the music, and lays out the terms by which you can have your own copy of that music. In short: you can pay for it. Now, you don't want to pay for it... you want it for free, and want that person to be your personal musical entertainment slave. Who cares which law or regulation does or doesn't not exactly, specifically address it? You want people to sing, dance, make movies, write books, and otherwise create things that you like, and you want them to do it for you, for free, regardless of what they say.
You've got two choices here: admit you're angling to avoid paying for something that was created and distributed by the artist with the expectation that you'd pay, or that you really do think you should pay for it, and are simply too lazy to do so. There's no middle ground. If you agree that an artist should be paid, then you should honor the artist's terms. If you think the artist should create for you at no charge, then you're deliberately ignoring their rights (never mind legal: just plain rational and ethical), and have no complaint when they in turn seek to impact your rights in exchange.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sorry, but making money off recorded music is a recent development.
Music has been around for THOUSANDS of years. The RIAA for a few decades. Technology created a whole new way to make money from music, and sorry, but technology continued to improve until it allowed regular people to share with their friends.
Musicians have historically made money from people paying to watch them play. Even when selling recorded music was at its best, that is still how the artists made their money. This really is gonna be disintermediation, with music on the net as advertisments to get people to like you and come watch your shows.
1) Consitutional scholars KNOW this to be true
2) Years of court rulings tell this to be true
3) Common sense has been perverted by the IRS. Why do you think they only send subsection (b) and not subsection (a) on the Notice of Levy form? Because subsection a says that ONLY Government employees may be levied. So most HR departments (completly ignorant of the law) comply.
Why do you seek to mod me down? Ibrought up a legitimate wuestion of Jusrisduction. Now you find that I'm a "tax protester" and seek to silence me. Are you the IRS?
There are two kids of taxpayers in this world. Those that don't want to be a tax payer, and those who are mad at the tax payer for not paying their fair share.
Did you know that before the income tax, the federal budget had an "embarassing surplus" where did it come from if we had no income tax?
Did you know that 85% of the federal budget is spent on socialst (welfare) programs? Only 15% of what is spent today is needed to run the country.
You can thank FDR for all that.
Get a clue.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Why should congress stop the IRS? The IRS is very effective at getting them money. I mean, of they money they are supposed to get, they get easily 1000 times more. The government does not want to stop people from making donations to the federal governement.
All of our founding fathers knew that slavery was wrong. But they also knew it could not change overnight without throwing the nation into great chaos. So what sis they do? They made every man whose life was worthless worth well over half of a life. This was a *huge* issue. But 3/5ths established slaves as having some value, where they had never been worth anything before. 3/5th is not insignificant. It was greater than zero, it was greater than 1/2 and it actually laid the foundation to increment up to 4/5 then finally to 5/5ths. The incrementing was cut short by the civil war and the industrial revolution. That is why Lincoln freed the slaves in their entirety. So they would bolt to the cities and fuel the industrial revolution. It is sort of the chicken and the egg problem - you need people to work on the machines to have the machines to do manual labor and reduce the need for slave labor. Lincoln gave it a kick-start.
I think it is short sighted of you that you accuse the brightest minds our government ever had of being hypocrites because they were constrained by a situation that they did not work to create. When all they did was al they could - setting the wheels in motion.
Furthermore, to grant millions of uneducated people, the majority of which could not read or write, much less speak english would have given rise to mass chaos in such a fragile time in our nacent country's history. Even of educated people that were availible were not as greatly schooled in the art of running a country.
And in fact we have evidence that Jefferson was a nice slave owner who loved his slaves.
A similar situation would be Social Security today. We know collapse eminent (only "when" is the question) yet we must fund those who have put an are anre relying on it now or will be shortly. We know the situation is wrong, and for a good number of us, we know we will see no benefits. It is wrong for the government to require us to contribute to a system in which we will never see a dime.
Do not belive those who use the term "Social Security Trust" because there is no trust. Had you read the statutes, you'd know that FICA is deposited into the rest of the treasury, along with all the other income tax. So how does it come out? Congress, every year, must appropriate and approve the SS benefits budget. If that fails, there is no social security benefits that year. Plain and simple. The SSA is only there to track how much money you put in and make sure you only get the benefits that they want yu to get.
If I had all the money that I put in to FICA, I'd be retiring 10 years before age 67 (which is how long I must be currently to take out, but that number can change at any time, along with the benefits that are given)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.