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.
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?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Was anyone else sooo annoyed at how much crap they spewed about downloading music last night?
Must-not-watch TV!
Wake up call....
Dear RIAA,
PWNED,
Toddy boy
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
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
This can't be right. The RIAA told me in my latest session, where I get hooked up to this machine.... with electrodes and stuff.... it shocks me :( ... that only mass-marketed artists are successes, and that the internet gives you herpes.
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!
that Green Day CD really is very good. Admittedly, I've been a green day fan for years, but American Idiot really is a whole new thing for them. I've always really liked the fact that Green Day was willing to try really unique and unusual things.
Yea, most of the rest of the RIAA stuff produced is crap tho.
i didnt think the grammy's were about commercial exposure or success, but rather about the quality of music...(checks online) wait, maroon 5 won a grammy? well, fuck that, i was wrong.
Still, a good sign.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
she will probably have to sell the award on ebay to compensate her webhost for the server that just went down in flames.
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!
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.
.02
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
- pronobozo
------
insert sig here,here, and here
...now we're slashdotting Grammy-winners' Web sites.
I guess they had to *ahem*face the music soon, though.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
It'll be the most derivative crap ever created. but, hey, lots of people have become wealthy doing *that*. :)
Progressive jazz metal, maybe. Hmmm. Instrumentals only, because my singing kills cows at fifty paces. I'll sell *that* disc to the farming industry, although PETA might protest it as being more cruel than a pneumatic bolt to the skull.
For promoting this kind of crackhead lesbo communism. Next thing ya know people will object, object I tell you, to our crawling up their asses for the sheer fucking thrill of complaining how bad it smells. Got to nip this in the bud.
Steps will be taken.
Milli Vanilli. No, it's an industry award, and, like most other industry awards, goes to the people who made the industry the most money.
Oh, but it's on their official website. Well then. I'm sure they woulnd't bend the truth to not look like corporate whores.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Highlights include:
Animating Ray Charles corpse to sell box sets and tribute albums. Look at the dead guy dance! Reminded me of last year's "Cash in on Johnny Cash".
The most god-awful rendition of 'Across the Universe' ever. Hey, if I wanted wooden performances, I'd hang out with a drugstore Indian. And Slash, you don't need to lean that far back when you're playing a quietly phased 12 string. Save the rock pose for something that isn't being butchered right before your eyes.
The internet-inspired 'mash-up'. You can't tell me that someone didn't get that idea from searching Livejournals, and thinking, "This is super-hot! The kids will eat this up! LOLLERS!"
Industry fuck talking about the usual, "downloading music is illegal". Unless you don't own the rights to it. Great crowd shot during that speech. So many 'fuck you' expressions on the audience that had been screwed by industry contracts. Or boredom, apathy and 'get this over with'. I would have been yelling, "Michael Bolton called, and he wants his hair back!". Or something funny.
The endless 'we care' about the tsunami or fill in the blank tragedy of the moment' blathering. How about you kids spend more time making a listenable record, and less time pandering to your bleeding heart market share?
Once again, the Grammys show that the RIAA is not relevant. When are we getting rid of them again?
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
The artist has no label. The album was self-financed, and she managed to recoup her expenses with web sales.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
in AD 2005, war was beginning.
RIAA chairman: "what happen"
RIAA flunky: "somebody set us up the bomb!"
RIAA flunky: "we get signal!"
RIAA chairman: "what?"
RIAA flunky: "main screen turn on!"
RIAA chairman: "it's you!
schneider: "how are you gentlemen. all your sales are belong to us. you are on the way to obsolescence."
RIAA chairman: "what you say!"
maria schneider: "you have no chance to survive. make your time."
ed
IANAL, but it was pretty obvious. In doing Constitutional research this past weekend, I came across the fact that US District courts (the one that RIAA sues in) are all (except one) Article 1 courts. It takes an Article 3 court to be effective throught the United States of America. What is the difference? Article 3 courts enforce the laws of the land throughout the USA. The Article 1 courts enforce laws of the Federal governement (federal territories), so therefore, they only pertain to federal lands. The one exeption that I mentioned is Hawaii who has been given an Article 3 court, though it is operated as an Article 1 court.
Therefore, if you find yourself the victim of a MPAA or RIAA lawsuit, you just should stay out of Federal parks, buildings, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa. Voluntarily appearing before the court is admission of jurisdiction. Furthermore, if you are asked to serve on a federal grand jury, in an article 1 court, make sure you are from a federal territory.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Ironically (and in restrospect obviously) the album is not available on iTMS in their "Grammy Winners" section. :)
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."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
The article says she made 10,000 copies and pre-sold 9,000. The album cost her $87,000 to make. She'd need to be selling them for at least $12 a pop to be getting much of anything back. That's assuming the $87k includes her production cost for the 10,000 CDs. In a small run, the packaging costs could easily run $2-3 per CD.
Her site has gone down in flames (no coral cache available), so I can't check how much she was charging. Granted, a jazz artist with her tallent is likely doing a fair amount of live performances, so the album's not her only source of income, but still . . .
Come on, you didn't read the three rules of winning a Grammy!
1. If a Grammy can be awarded post-humously, it will. No disrespect to Ray Charles at all, he is one of my favorites, but did his duet album deserve to win EIGHT Grammies? He won for pretty much every award he was up for. The same thing happened in the past with Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, and George Harrison. There are much better records by Ray Charles out there that should have deserved more when they came out, but to get all these awards post-humously is pandering to right past wrongs concerning his legacy.
2. Perform at the Grammys, win a Grammy. Come on, how many times have you seen someone win a Grammy RIGHT AFTER THEY PERFORMED? Constantly walking right from backstage to accept the award. What proved this to me was when Gloria Estefan performed an obscure Spanish-language song on the show, then they awarded the Grammy for that same category. In any other circumstance, the award would be given out before the broadcast. You almost wonder if some of the winners know beforehand if they are going to win as incentive to perform on the show: "I'll only show up and perform if I won an award!"
3. The palatable artist usually wins. This year: Maroon 5 for Best New Artist. Which might actually be a good thing considering Best New Artist can be the kiss of death. (Arrested Development and Milli Vanilli anyone?). What triggered this theory? Well, Norah Jones last year. Santana the year before that. But two words come to mind. Jethro. Tull.
Let's face it, the Grammys are all about politics, not quality of product. As pretty much all awards shows are. But the important thing here is that you don't have to pay attention to them. You are your own person, you listen to what you choose to listen to, and no one can tell you otherwise.
She was mentioned in a 3-part piece on NPR's Morning Edition titled "Paying for Music in the Internet Age".
She's interviewed in part 1 of the series which was aired on the 15th of September [clip length: 5' 42"]. Odd, though, that clip one is the middle link among the three.
For immediate release:
The RIAA has today shown further proof that non-conventional Internet Music systems are flawed, and costing the artists money. The recent Grammy success of a relatively unknown artist, Maria Schneider, through an unconventional medium is hurting artists. Sure, her method of direct sales, thereby lowering the overhead of record stores, executives and others in the chain seems innocuous enough.
But it's not.
You see, since her record was not released through the RIAA, we missed out on that chunk of profit. That's money straight from our profit coffers, err, I mean our lower employee payrolls. Now, since she cut our profit on her work off, we have to compensate to meet our annual profit-for-executives margins. So, we had to cut into other artists's payments. Now, Maroon5, Britney Spears, and Metallica will NOT be able to upgrade the toilets in their pet's private jets to a gold plating, versus their current silver plated models.
In addition, the RIAA said that without direct control over what the content of the music was, they couldn't tell people what they wanted to hear. One executive was flabbergasted "How the hell are we going to tell the radio stations we want people to listen to this if we don't control it. It's outrageous! I know people aren't smart enough to think about what they want to hear, so how are we going to tell them about this music. It's just a stupid career-limiting move."
Britney was quoted as saying "All those people buying those records they want are hurting my dog. I hope they can sleep at night, knowing my Poopsie will have to deal with the pain of only a silver toilet seat. They all should die in a tire fire."
They also reported that in addition to not distributing through the RIAA or a major label, she was able to control the content. The RIAA has said that they are considering lobbying Congress to get this "potential for free-radical thought" listed as a terroristic activity. No response yet from Capitol Hill or the White House on these allgations yet.
I'm a jazz sax player, and have been a big fan of Maria Schneider for several years. She has been creating some of the most sophisticated and musically interesting big band music around since her first album in 1995 (Evanescence, which was also nominated for two Grammys). She has 3 or 4 other albums, and most have received Grammy nominations. She has been regularly winning Down Beat reader & critics polls since 1994. Schneider is the heir apparent to her mentor, the late Gil Evans, who's music includes the famous Miles Davis collaborations Birth of the Cool, Porgy & Bess and Sketches of Spain. Her music is very accessible, though she's explores complex meters, harmonies, textures, and timbres. Her pieces tell a story, and often make reference to visual images. I bought her latest album over the web a few months ago. It was something like $9.99 for 128kbps, $14.99 for 320kbps. It's an excellent album, but I still think that Evanesence is her best effort so far. By all means check out her band live if you ever have the opportunity. She always has some of the best jazz musicians in NYC in her group. Evanescence (amazon.com) Concert in the Garden review (allaboutjazz.com) And, she's a babe! -Hot Wasabi over & out
-- Hot Wasabi over & out --
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.
Life is Reality
She's not, and wasn't screwed up, just screwed over. Young musically (or otherwise artistically) inclined people are not lawyers. When the record company comes by with the tantalizing offer of becoming a millionaire most of them don't know enough about business or the world in general to negotiate a contract properly. "Sign this and you'll be rich and famous, the details are just formality, no need to read them".
Think about it. Most "hits" are from artists that are in their early 20's. When have you ever known someone that young to make a fully rational decision? Record companies know the position they are in, and they know full well that they are taking advantage of someone who can't fight back.
Even industry giants have little choice but to shut up and take it. Prince went for many years with no name and referred to only as the artist formerly known as Prince. That happened because he got screwed by his publisher and wasn't even allowed to use his name because even it was under contract. I could go on and on about artists that get screwed. The list is as long as the number of musicians signed by record companies.
The record companies have a stranglehold on the music industry and only a few people are able to get out from under it. The moral of the story here guys is SUPPORT THE ARTISTS, ESPECIALLY INDEPENDANTS. The only way people like Prince, Maria Schneider, or Poe will be able to get out from under the control of record companies is fan support and lots of it.
I just came back form about a half hours wading around in a site that apparently is off on a 56k dialup someplace.
To become eligible to buy the album, something I'd do out of curiosity and because I think the ARTIST should be supported by a method that purports to funnel the monies to the artist as opposed to funneling it thru the accounting dept of some faceless record company where any number of charges are made against the net sales of an album, whatever it takes to make sure they don't have to cut the artists a royalty check being the order of the day.
To continue with the first sentence above, one must open an account, complete with usernames and passwords. Somehow, it didn't like something and looped around to have me fix it, but when I fixed it, then it just loops forever asking me to login, something about an expired security certificate was being reported by my browser. And I was unable to get past that, so I never got a chance to drop my card and actually make the purchase.
FWIW, its $16.95 USD & probably a hefty shipping fee if that site is like most.
But I'm a little put off, not getting the chance to support what, from the sounds of things, must be a worthy artist to support, by buying her output.
If you are copying the mail here Ms. Schneider, grab a ball bat and go see your web designer, and don't leave until it works as intended. We really should be able to purchase it without all this 'membership' crap as long as our card has a sufficient line of credit to support the purchase. And I believe $30K+ should be enough to buy your cd unless you'd like to have a really really exclusive club that doesn't mind playing the starving artist scene for real.
--
Cheers, Gene
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.
All your bass are belong to us
RP
I really don't have to protest taxes. The statues are written 100% within the bounds of the constitution. The problem arises that the IRS is making people believe that the statutes are written one way, when they are actually written as another. I really don't need any court case to read the statues in my favor.
If you're not beliveing me, then I suggest that you start reading, starting from the constitution and then jump to title 26. Make sure you read it in its entirety, particularly section 3401. There are numerous "terms of art" like "employee, employer, "trade or business", "wages" in which the statues use a common word then define it specifically. The IRS capitalizes on this.
You will find that you actually have to construe words to be broader than they are defined in order for you to be liable for paying any tax.
I really challenge you to read with an open mind, the constitution and title 26. I am not wrong on this. You obviously have not read the statues or you'd be in agreement. It's ok though. No one read the statues, something that the IRS is counting on. Why do you think they got a "kinder gentler IRS"? If you piss off enough people, they look for new ways out. Voluntary compliance (Their term, not mine) was falling fast.
It is upsetting how many freedoms that people will give up for a promise of no worries.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom...Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you...and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State House, August 1776
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
-John Marshall Order
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury.
--Alexander Tyler
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-G. Gordon Liddy
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights.
-Abraham Lincoln
The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.
-John Hay (1872)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
-John Adams
Do any of these stir anything inside of you?
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.