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."

Comments

Music Without The Middlemen

[fembots]

Does that mean that Grammy is rewarding talented artists too?

It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.

Is publisher still an important factor?

Re:Music Without The Middlemen

[bahamat]

It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.

Unfortunately, most artists aren't able to do anything like this. Case in point Poe (or try the iTunes link) has basically been screwed left and right by Atlantic for the past 5 years. She can't perform any of her own songs until 7 years after her contract expires, and at current, if I understand correctly, she is essentially barred from creating any new music and releasing it without Atlantic's approval.

Even Prince had to bend over and take it. His contract was so bad he wasn't even able to use his performing name until the contract expired.

All of this of course just underscores how screwed up the RIAA is.

OT:The Grammys

[MasTRE]

Was anyone else sooo annoyed at how much crap they spewed about downloading music last night?

Re: that's nice

[bechthros]

Ah, but the significance is that the Grammys are based strictly on sales. Whoever sells the most albums gets a Grammy, period. Which means that internet sales are finally getting noticed and accepted as a revenue generator.

Which is very significant indeed.

Music..the other way

[pronobozo]

For someone that is coming from the bottom up, i can say that time is the key. Without millions of dollars to spend on promotion, independant artists have to find a different way to communicate with the masses.

Internet is their greatest tool, so with a bit of time and dedication you can reach millions of people from the comforts of your own home.

I don't think it's about the music industry now, it's about the new uprising of artists taking a step on freely distributed music. The RIAA has their game, but we have ours too.

Instead of changing them, lets just use our own method.

that's my .02

- pronobozo

Irony...

[argent]

Ironically (and in restrospect obviously) the album is not available on iTMS in their "Grammy Winners" section. :)

Jazz is a bad test case

[ScentCone]

My first thought was: "I wonder how many people who are normally fine with pirating music because they're sticking it to a record company..." (as if the artist isn't a piece of that picture) ..."will, out of inertia, just go ahead and run off with an unpaid-for copy of this woman's work, too." And then I realized that most Jazz fans are a little more cerebral, and have a lot more respect for the artists themselves, and typically would either go see a show, or actually pay for a recording. If her work isn't immediately torrented everywhere, that won't really indicate a sea change in this picture. Stay in the musical neighborhood, but see how it goes with, say, a new Norah Jones collection. Or, just prove that all of the "I only do it because of the RIAA" types are hypocrites by seeing if, just to make the point, Metallica or The Blackeyed Peas would do it. Their work would be immediately ripped off, and we'd have some tangible hypocrisy to point to. And this endless conversation would finally come down to: "I, um, really just don't want to pay for music, actually, you got me."

The "Social Revolution" Begins

[Dana P'Simer]

A few days ago I posted in response to another reader's comments about the "Social Revolution" that is occurring due to P2P software.

This is precisely the way in which this "revolution" should happen. This artist has choosen to distribute her music only over the internet. Because of her choice many people are able to enjoy her music that might not otherwise. She also has cut out the RIAA member middlemen. We need more artists that are willing to do this.

Her choice, though, is the key issue here. An artist that does not make a similar choice should not have thier right to make that choice usurped by a bunch of thieves with bittorrent clients.

Re:Not just the RIAA

[cronius]

This is the point that RMS is trying to make about copyright. He says sharing music should be legal.

The reason for this is exactly what we're seeing here: the artist are being screwed over by the record companies. If you're a "to be" artist, you need someone to record your songs, distribute them and give you PR. Either you sign the standard (awfull) contract, or you get nothing. Of course they sign it, they want to be artists, right?

If music distribution on the net was legal, artists wouldn't be so much under the mercy of the record companies (which you can see they are taking advantage of). They would get their PR through filesharing, more people would go to their concerts (if they're any good), and they would make more money (income from concerts are mostly theirs to keep). Instead, they're getting fucked over by the record companies, and the only option is not to be an artist at all.

The exception for this are the artists that have sold their 7 records or so, because then the contract expires. Then they are in the situation to renegotiate, and they can actually get a contract that's good for them, so that they earn money.

So big stars earn big bucks, and they will loose money if music sharing is legal, but small artists will definitly win.

Those are basicly the words of RMS, and when I hear examples like this they make sense.