Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web-Only Album Wins Grammy

Posted by timothy on from the kids-are-alright dept.

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."

10 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. that's nice by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.

    --
    I'd rather be lucky than good.
  2. See how it works, RIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. Records Cos on borrowed time by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    More to the point, look at the manufactured crap the record companies are spitting out - Maroon 5, retreaded Green Day and a dead Ray Charles.

    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.

    1. Re:Records Cos on borrowed time by wankledot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You jackass.

      Maroon 5: The fact that they are successful suddenly makes them crap? I forgot, selling records make you suck They put out Songs About Jane in 2002. The fact that it is a really good album is what made it succeed, not some plot by the labels to push "crap." New bands like Maroon 5 disprove your point that the industry is running out of options.

      Green Day: Retreaded? Once again, people like to slam green day as not being punk because they're popular. Nevermind that they continue to put out good songs. Ray Charles: He died less than 9 months ago. The RIAA didn't trot out a corpse to sell records, he recorded (obviously) and released the album before he died.

      Can you even fathom that these people are musicians and not just pawns of the RIAA? They work hard (none harder than Ray) and try to get as many people as they can to hear their art. And then some pissant like you dismisses them as crap because they happen to be popular.

      Your opinions on music are not the only ones that matter (shocking!) The fact you feel like Maroon 5 is crap, Green Day is re-treaded, and Ray Charles' album is a publicity stunt doesn't change the fact that they are all really good artists, and really good albums. But it's your loss for not appreciating them.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
  4. The big question... by gatorflux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Nervous times for RIAA & MPAA... by TomTraynor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Nervous times for RIAA & MPAA... by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every time a post like this is made, an RIAA lawyer gets his wings.

      Look, the RIAA doesn't "control" anything. They do the bidding of the big record labels, and take all the heat from people like you so Sony Music and the other actual villains in this story don't have to.

      The last decision which the RIAA made was the standardized design of that little preamp that goes into the "phono" input of most stereos prior to 1998 or so.

      All they do now is serve as a mouthpiece (and lightning rod) for the record labels in their efforts to lock down their IP. Ranting about how eeeeevil the RIAA is simply plays right into the hands of the labels behind it all.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  6. Not so much the distribution... by porcupine8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The fact that it was solely distributed on the web really isn't the amazing part - I mean, there are iTunes exclusive tracks all the time. I'm sure it would be easy for a major artist to convince their record company to let them only distribute an album online, and it could get plenty of publicity and possibly a grammy.

    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.
  7. Buy Her Music by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:OT:The Grammys by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.