Indie Artists Support Peer To Peer

dpilgrim writes "Alex Veiga at the Associated Press has a good story on indie artists voicing support for file sharing networks. While not a new topic on Slashdot, it's great to see musicians speaking out about the value of p2p as an alternative channel for reaching audiences. Choice quote from Veiga's article, on what it's like to pass muster before a mainstream media company: "For Sananda Maitreya... online music distribution gives him the freedom he says he lacked when he was signed with a major label in the 1980s under his former name, Terence Trent D'Arby. Back then, Maitreya recalled, committees had to sign off on any music released. 'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.""

Comments

Great...

[Havenwar]

Now if only someone ever listened to what the artists said...

Or to indie artists in general.

When you have clout like the Beatles...

[Golgafrinchan]

'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.

I'm not sure that the Beatles are a good example here. By the time they started doing really revolutionary stuff on Revolver, they'd already had 10 #1 singles. I'd suspect that any artist who reached that point would have a lot more freedom in what they did.

Re:essentials

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for you to get to the part where P2P solves the problem of artists needing money.

It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[riptide_dot]

This from the perspective of an "indie" musician:

P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you.

ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio

ProTools + P2P distribution + web advertising = no more RIAA requirement PERIOD.

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[riptide_dot]

You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music.

That assumes that they didn't have any money at that point in their careers. At that point in their careers, they could live of the gobs of money they had already made. They could also sell an album just because they were the Beatles (people would buy them based on the fact that they knew it was good just because the Beatles wrote it). Plus, they were in a time where the distribution model was such that you had to tour to promote your album. That's not necessarily the case anymore.

ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio

Hardly! There's more to recording a good album than just having Pro Tools...jesus, that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap.

Pardon my french, but no shit sherlock. There's a lot more to writing a good program than having C++ on your computer too, but if C++ cost millions of dollars to buy, and there were no alternatives, there would be a whole lot fewer C++ programmers. The proliferation of ProTools and cheap(but quality) recording hardware means that anyone can create a truly professional sounding studio out of their house without having to have millions of dollars worth of mixing software and hardware to do it.

Albums sound crappy for multiple reasons, and bad recordings is just one of them. Bad music is also one. The RIAA is a corporation where money is the bottom line, so they don't care about promoting any artist they don't think will be hugely popular. That makes for a pretty small circle of artists for a consumer to choose from.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that artists ought to attempt to distribute/promote their music on iTunes and places like that as well, but if they want to distribute their creations on a free P2P network, that's their decision, and in a free country, you should respect their right to make that decision, even if you don't agree with it.

Consider this from an artist's point of view: If someone likes the song you wrote, most likely they will want their friends listen to it. And if their friends like it, and the friends of those friends like it, and so on, you suddenly have a fan base. And when you come to their town to put on a show, they just might show up and be willing to pay for a ticket.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Monkelectric]

Record companies know that p2p helps their sales, but it messes up their CONTROL OF THE DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL. Why would we need sony music at ALL if bands can sell their albums directly to you?

Also it takes the control of popular culture out of their hands. I recently downloaded an album from a cool south american folk/electronica band. Is that *EVER* going to be on MTV, VH1 or Clear Channel? I think Not

Musicians want people to share *some* of their...

[turnstyle]

But musicians only want people to share the specific tracks that they want people to share.

Most want some tracks shared, but others kept for CDs.

It's misleading to say that musicians favor P2P without considering what portion of their catalog they'd like to be shared.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[garcia]

It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.

It's not the artists music when they are RIAA backed. It's the RIAA's music and no matter how much the RIAA claims that they have nothing but the artists' best interests in mind they prove time and time again that they only have their own best intentions in mind.

Now, when there is a GPL violation it is sometimes by a corporate company (i.e. a company that distribute SOHO routers) that is using GPL'd software to drive their product w/o giving credit where it is due. The Slashdot community gets pretty pissed off when the corporations shits on the little guys.

Now, the RIAA is a corporation (convicted of price fixing none-the-less) that is shitting on the little guys in two different arenas. Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil) and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them.

I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms.

Re:Doesn't change anything... actually, it does.

[muel]

Does this mean you feel guilty when you hear a song on the radio? The whole point of "indie artists support P2P" is to find better promotional distribution now that the musical community has outgrown the limits of clamped-down radio. Major labels have always had a stranglehold on radio distribution, but now we're in a world where smaller artists and labels have the power, technology and distribution to receive just as much attention as the artist who suckles at ClearChannel or MTV's teat. P2P is a way to get people to hear imperfect copies of songs - much like radio, but with more control. Does this create freeloaders? Sure, just as cassette tapes did in the 80's, but even if it's to a grander scale, the tape-to-purchase ratio of the 80's is nowhere near the mp3-to-purchase ratio of today - you can make some serious money from downloaders, oftentimes through ticket and merch sales even more so than album sales. "Most artists have not given their permission" - that's not the case, because if someone releases a CD, they want it promoted. They want to be heard so they can make some goddamn money. Consider P2P distribution a "marketing expense" and it makes complete sense. It costs less to seed a torrent and give away a few free copies of an album than it does to whip up a huge batch of flyers, for crying out loud!

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Hallow]

Well, it really depends. You might have the copyright on your movie, but have you carefully checked all your audio to make sure you're not using anything copyrighted, or can even hear anything copyrighted? Made sure any buildings or artwork that appear aren't copyrighted? Better not have used a coke can or a t-shirt with a cool design - all those are probably copyrighted. Got releases from every identifiable person in your flick?

This has even made me a little scared when it comes to just sharing family home movies online! You can get sued for just about anything these days.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Monkelectric]

The record companies could give a shit less about each other

You are completely wrong. They want P2P shut down so SONY/BMG et all are the ONLY way to buy music.

Music labels are obsolete, heres whats going to happen, itune like stores are going to start selling music from indie bands, and they will bypass the music industry all together. THAT is what they are afraid of.

You've been drinking the RIAA koolaid.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[weopenlatest]

As a self-described audiophile, I have a deep respect for the musicians who provide me with all of this entertainment. I don't complain when I pay $10 or $40 to see a show. I don't mind shelling out $15 for a T-shirt. But I do refuse to pay $20 for a cd. I know that only a dollar or two will go to the artist, unlike maybe half of a concert ticket. If it's a Beatles cd, that dollar is going towards Michael Jackson's kid-touching defense. The rest goes to promote the next Brittany Spears.

I could go to a used record shop and buy a CD for $5-$10 legally, but my favorite one down the block just went out of business, along with most of my other favorite ones. Don't tell me it's gone because of file sharing--it has a lot more to do with WalMart. So I download the track, and then go and pay for a concert ticket when the band comes to town. Usually I can by a copy of the cd at the show for $10, which I'm fine with.

Fact is, as long as music prices reflect huge marketting budgets that mean the stuff on the radio can't compare in quality to the cashless musicians who play at the bar down the road, I don't see a need to spend money on full priced CD's from the big labels.

As for the arguments that few musicians agree, i think that if you polled only the quality musicians you'd find a different story. And besides, bands like The Grateful Dead have been allowing fans to freely tape and distribute their concerts for almost 40 years. In the Dead's case, they'v made a hell of a lot of money in the process.

If you want to make a legal argument against file sharing, be my guest, you'll probably be correct. But please, quit the moralizing. I've done my part in supporting the arts financially through concert tickets and the CD's I do buy. More importantly, I've supported the arts by demanding quality and fighting the marketting monster that is the true threat to the future of music. I've fought it by covering my ears to top 40 garbage, and to complaints of those who shovel it in my direction.

Re:Music Costs

[Lodragandraoidh]

It is quite a bit cheaper to produce your own music now than it used to be:

$500 - 1.4 GHZ P4 computer w/24bit soundcard - parts built by myself - I was able to find some good deals - for example I spent $10 for the case.
$75 - 24bit compatible multitrack recording software (N-Track)
$99 - good quality condenser mic
$79 - good quality cardoid mic
$25 - two mic stands
$30 - enough DIN cable to choke a horse (for connecting the mics to the mixing board)
$50 - decent 6 channel mixing board
$30 - misc other gear (RCA cables etc...)
$60 - BOSE computer speakers (excellent sound quality and onboard amp and 2 inputs - for mixing down your stereo master).
----
$948 - Total (not including instruments - I assume if you are a musician you already have your instrument).

So, for about a grand you can have your own home recording studio that can produce as good sound quality as any professional studio out there. Of course, you have to spend the time to learn how to properly record sound - but there are books out there you can buy that take you through it in detail - from how to properly set up an acoustic environment to microphone placement to setting recording levels and how parametric equalization works etc...

Recording ain't cheap for those who can't or don't know how to do it themselves. Those who can do. They are doing it today and going indie, or even posting their tunes for free if they are not interested in the business side of music. http://music.myspace.com has a good selection - and there are other sites as well that allow users to post their MP3 recordings for download and/or streaming.

With the sorry state of pop music today, more and more people are finding a viable alternative online via free downloads and sales of independently produced music. With the closure of traditional outlets for advertising certain genres (Rolling Stone is reporting that Clear Channel is closing down a large number of Rock stations in favor of urban/hip hop formats - at the same time as we are seeing a renewal in interest in Rock! Where will Rock artists go to get exposure? I think it will be the web - and in a big way due to the lack of air-time in the traditional form).

Anyway, I believe the traditional big record labels are going to be around in the future, but they are not going to be as 'big' as they once were - and quality music that is not spoon-fed vanilla pop will be more and more a web phenomenon.