Slashdot Mirror
Outspoken Group Releases Album as Free Download
SirNuke writes "Harvey Danger, a Seattle based rock band, has released their newest album Little by little for free mp3 download. They are doing this partially as an Internet publicity experiment, and partially as a stand against the Music Industry's attack on filesharing. From their website, 'In preparing to self-release our new album, we thought long and hard about how best to use the internet. Given our unusual history, and a long-held sense that the practice now being demonized by the music biz as "illegal" file sharing can be a friend to the independent musician, we have decided to embrace the indisputable fact of music in the 21st century, put our money where our mouth is, and make our record, Little By Little..., available for download via Bittorrent, and at our website. We're not streaming, or offering 30-second song samples, or annoying you with digital rights management software; we're putting up the whole record, for free, forever. Full stop. Please help yourself; if you like it, please share with friends.' I suggest you check it out."
That is nothing, artists have been doing that for awhile now. Jeff Cliff a semi local musician has offered his music for download freely in mp3 and ogg vorbis for at least 5 years now.
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
Who needs the RIAA when you have Slashdot for publicity?
sigfault. core dumped.
bout time
All I wish was that they were a decent band!
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Except... wait! There *is* a story here: Slashdot Editors have finally been surpassed by a room full of chimps!
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Funny how it's always the artists making no money that have no problem giving their music away.
This is probably the most positive use of the Slashdot effect I've ever encountered: how to build a torrent in seconds. I'm at 4 mbit/sec and my pipe is maxed out. Hot damn!
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Recording a CD: $2000 Ripping your CD: $0 Saying 'Screw you' to the RIAA's business model and getting Slashdotted for publicity: Priceless
E.g. Landline has all there music available for download -- not just a single album, and there's no DRM or other bullshit.
Is it novel and exciting because they also have a record deal? I thought a lot of industry-hating musicians would just refuse record deals on principle.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Downloading it right not. If its any good I fully intend on buying it.
They need it,
never heard of them.
Seriously though, afaik they aren't any famous band, so it's not really taking a stand against anyone then, it's just a random band wanting some publicity.
Yep, nothing all that new, but it is a good thing. The band MeatMachine has had a full cost-free, DRM-free album available for download in a handful of audio formats (and full score) for a couple of years now.
Harvey_Danger-Little_by_Little.OGG.zip.torrent
This is not news, not when bands have been doing this since the days of Napster (voluntarily releasing whole CDs on internet only free release MP3).
Let the "(-1) Belligerant hammering of bad slashdot news" begin! ;)
-Vendal Thornheart
Here's the Ogg Vorbis torrent.
For those who haven't heard of Harvey Danger, they're a mid-90s rock band and their hit song was "Flagpole Sitta". I applaude them for doing this, because they're not exactly a no-name band.
To better understand why an artist would do this, I figured some people would like to know the actual financial breakdown of the music industry. I have several very good friends in the music industry, one is the publicist for several major artists, so here's the skinny:
For a standard artist (not yet established), out of every CD sold they receive about $0.20. For you non-math whizzes, that means when their album turns platinum (1 million copies sold), they bank $200,000. Seem low? It is, but we'll get to that.
For an established artist, there are 2 possibilities. The first is that they have their own label. If this is the case, they will still use one of the major labels for distribution, and they have to pay all those little people that made things happen, but they're pocketing more cash. The second possibility is that the record company convinced them to stay by offering a MUCH better contract, which ends up being about as much as having their own label minus the hassle.
But this still isn't a big portion of their income. That comes from several other sources.
ASCAP is The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. They dictate who can play your music, such as music at a bar or in a restaurant. They have a virtual monopoly on all genres of music (out of 100 established artists, maybe 1 or 2 are not signed with ASCAP), they are expensive, and they are about as well liked by the people that know them as the RIAA is here. Tactics include sending in "undercover agents" to places not paying ASCAP, and writing down the inevidable songs that they play. Then comes an agent, who will "aggressively suggest" that you pay up to ASCAP or be sued out of business. They've actually had people call the cops on them thinking it was a mafia shakedown. Oh, and they've never lost in court.
There's some issue over how much of that cash actually makes it to the artists, but rest assured it's much more than they're getting from their label for album sales.
Licensing of music is stepping up into a bigger payscale. This mostly refers to commercials, movies, and now video games. Obviously the pay scale varies widely based on the popularity of the artist and of the specific song, but there are virtually no costs for the artist.
Touring is where the money is really at. To give you an idea of how much, you need to understand what a "floor" is. This refers to the minimum amount an artist is willing to make in a performance. Let's take Britney Spears for example. Her "floor" is (or was, it constantly changes) $750,000. What this means is that if the show only makes $500,000, she still gets paid $750,000, and the organizers eat a loss of $250,000 plus production costs. Also keep in mind that organizers know what they're doing, and shows hardly ever hit the floor. So you can assume for her last tour, Britney pocketed $1+ million for each of the 37 shows on her last tour.
And that's just at the gate. Don't forget to buy your T-shirt, or poster, or anything else "Britney" that cost a dollar to make and $8/hr for some schmuck to sell it to you. All of that money goes straight back to her.
For the really big artists, you can cap it off with an endorsement or two. Britney's Pepsi endorsement deal was reportedly $10+ million.
Substatial evidence that music sharing doesn't effect album sales aside, there's a reason sharing music doesn't hurt artists. Singles act as commercials for all the other things that make them money. They want their music played on the radio so you can hear it for free. They want their video played on MTV so you can see it for free. It's called exposure, and it's a good thing like Martha Stewart doesn't even know. If an unsigned artist found out people had downloaded 100,000 copies of his song, he'd crap his pants he'd be so happy.
There's a reason Harvey Danger is willing to do this. It's also like VW letting people download their latest commercial. Good. It will probably make more people buy their cars.
It's not just a publicity stunt or moral stand, it's a brilliant financial move.
... but then again, there's a lot about music in the early-mid 90's that I blocked out of my mind. Sometimes I get nightmares of teenagers in baggy purple sequence pants, and I wake up screaming.
-Vendal Thornheart
If you're not one of label's top artists with a renegotiated contract after your second album has made the label ungodly amounts of cash, you're treated like shit anyway. Bravo for Harvey Danger. Download their music, if you like it, send 'em something for it. FWIW, I sent them ten bucks because I hope more artists will take the opportunity to ditch the lables.
posting this article on /. should give them plenty of popularity :P
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
Let me guess they dont have one or its their own label.
Wonder if they expected to sell 750,000 units if they would give for free instead.
Plenty of indie artists give their stuff away for free.
Fact is, P2P swapping is hurting the music labels badly - to the point where smaller artists have just been cut off the roster.
As if increasing consolidation and decreasing margins in the music industry wouldn't have led to this happening anyway. Most mass-market bookshops, for example, are generally a lot less diverse than they used to be, and I don't think you could argue that P2P and e-books are killing paper books.
In one way I guess it means that only the best of the best will ever get a music contract these days.
By best, do you mean "most saleable"? That's not a definition that works for everyone.
: PBS... *snip* I can't believe that MY tax dollars go to support this fucking shit.
Uh, dude, they don't. The "P" stands for "Public," remember? That's why they do those annoying money drives every so often. No tax dollars there.
shoot yourself in the face with your gun and get it over with.
i never heard of them either: allmusic bio
Paranoia, paranoia!
The RIAA's coming to get me...
Just say you never met me...
I'm runnin undeground with the moles (digging holes)
That's two torrents in two days! I wonder if more are to come now that BT has VC funding? That's cool BT's great technology and it's good to see legitimate uses for it prominently featured.
Yay me! ^^
http://www.thermalandaquarter.com/ has their new album out for dl. english band from bangalore. ahem.
Okay, but you just compared the album sales revenue from a "standard artist" to the touring "floor" of Britney Spears.
How about comparing apples to apples?
-a
Of course, the real question is, did the label dump the guy because it is getting hurt from the downloads? He is being told that the companies are cutting off the little guys, but they always have. If the small guy does not make money fast, then they the labels do not spend any real money. If the guy/group makes some money, then they are willing to spend to see what will happen. Of course, there is a real reason why these labels make 100's of millions in profits.
I suspect that the guy got cut and he is a bit miffed and simply lashing out at anything but themselves. If he really is that good, than he should set up a good web site and see what happens. If nothing else, give it away in the name of publicity.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why do you or your friend assume it's P2P that's hurting the recording industry so much? Not saying it isn't, but did your friend have any evidence to say that?
Also, many people would say that it's definately not the best of the best getting music contracts these days.
Fact is, P2P swapping is hurting the music labels badly That's exactly the desired effect. Kill the labels, there will always be kickass bands.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The only band I've ever booed off stage. Ever. Offering absolute shit for download proves only one thing - people will download anything they dont have to pay for.
//That includes the Japanese girls rapping.
reproducing music without permissions is ILLEGAL not "illegal" with /. bitch-ass quotatiion marks. no matter what policy arguments you people want to make the fact remains that it's, right now, illegal. or, if some law student wants to be a pedantic bitch, we could call it unlawful. fact is, basically, same difference.
morons.
The RIAA is getting a taste of its own meds.
Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
Fact is, P2P swapping is hurting the music labels badly
That's exactly the desired effect. Kill the labels, there will always be kickass bands.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
If an artist has 10,000,000 fans, sure if 10% of potential customers download the music and don't buy it, they will lose money. But consider this. If an artist has 10,000 fans, and 90% of them download the music, sure only 10% of the profit is made. But lets say they play GOOD music. You have a portion of that 90% illegal download crowd that actually likes it, and they tell their friends. All of the sudden that 10,000 starts growing, and people buy merchandise. Case in point: http://machinaesupremacy.com/ They offered songs for free, which I liked. They then put out 2 sample songs for a for-sale-cd, which I downloaded and liked. I then proceeded to import the CD and I am glad I downloaded their music. Music downloading only hurts small time artists whose music sucks. Face the facts.
Sysadmin: "Dude, you e-mailed it to slashdot!?"
Band member: "Yeah man, I sure did. Figured we'd get a ton of Publicity!!"
Sysadmin: "Does the term "SLASHDOTTED" Mean anything to you?"
Band member: "Exactly."
Sysadmin: "C'mere, look at this. Notice that floating pile of burnt plastic over there?"
Band member: "Yeah, what is that? Looks like someone's mutant-robotic hybrid fish had some bad gas from the furby you fed it and exploded in the fish tank."
Sysadmin: "The server. I keep my servers in vegitable oil baths to keep them nice and cool, and in case of slashdotting, decrease the risk of an explosion. Notice the unusual gooeyness?"
Band Member: "Uh, hrmmph. Hey! It still looks like the metal parts are good! Look, there's half a case-e-o-majig, OOH! and a circular round thingy! What's what there? Looks like the innards of a floppy! And that there, it kinda looks like, hrmm, Michael Jacksons face if he had more surgery to become a clown!"
Sysadmin: "Why don't you have a closer look?"
*Sysadmin grabs the band members neck and proceeds to shove his head into the vegitable oil, which consequently has been heated to a few hundred degree's centagrade by a dozen or so magnetically-attracted iron case parts which have reacted with the toxic mess of metals to form something of a primitive heater, which, provided electricity by the now shorted 120 volt 60hz lines, in collusion with a massive radiatior-sensory system failure which would've shut all the electricity off to the boxen in the tub should the temp get too hot, have not only boiled or rather, fried, the innards of the computer to nothing, but are now also attacking a persons head at a rapid rate.*
Band member: Whoa, Hey, What are you, GRAAAHAHAAA HAAAAA *gurgle gurgle* IT BURNS IT BURNS!!! GAAAAAHAAAAHAHAHA, *Gurgle gurgle, pop fizz fizz* Graaa... *Bubble bubble, pop, fizzz....*
Sysadmin: SLASHDOWNED!
The point is that the "standard artist" who sold 1 million copies will make more than that $200,000 in one night for a good portion of their tour dates. It makes perfect sense that artists like Harvey Danger (and they won't be the last) would sacrifice that $200,000 to bring in more fans to their shows. Fans who are grateful to have an extra $15 they saved not buying the album.
Not True. Tax dollars do go to public TV and Radio. Note the Senate actions a month or so ago when they considered not funding it anymore and certain liberal groups were getting quite upset
I guess it was only a matter of time before bigger artists finally started offering better online distribution options... but for Harvey Danger to offer an entire album on their site - one that's encoded correctly and free to boot - that's almost a dream come true. I hope this experiment of theirs works out, because I'd love to see a lot more artists out there take note.
For those who don't realize why this is a rather big deal, Harvey Danger was a fairly popular rock band from the late nineties. They're most known for Flagpole Sitta', off of the album Where Have All the Merrymakers Gone?. That album and Kings James Version are both pretty decent and it's kind of sad the band has fallen to the wayside as of late. Hopefully this publicity will do something for them besides raise their bandwidth costs.
While the whole idea may not be entirely novel, they're still one of the few more popular bands that are offering a full album for download off of their site. Also their site doesn't have any terribly gaudy and annoying flash elements. Kudos for that.
Hey, it's my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a piss.
Even though Harvey Danger isn't really my thing, I still am seeding it at about 2MB/s. Help this band distribute their music, and help others be able to download it quicker by seeding it too! One might think that it is not their job to waste their own bandwidth doing this, but the more people help distribute this type of stuff, the more fans a band might have. Although I know that there are some other bands out there who give away their music, it still would be great to see more bands doing this anyways.
This is a way (stunt) to try and show that they are legitimate and not just a one hit wonder. I don't imagine that every band would be best suited by starting to release records for free.
On the topic of the music industry:
I personally do not think that, as a music fan, that there is any problems with the way the industry is working at the moment at all. The big mainstream bands have plenty of outlets to promote their "artists." The rest have the internet where any band is able to offer emphasis tracks for download or streams to promote their music.
I couldn't care less if the major labels aren't making as much money as they'd like to, or if they are making more than they "should be."
Uh, dude, they don't. The "P" stands for "Public," remember? That's why they do those annoying money drives every so often. No tax dollars there.
i c_Broadcasting
Actually dude, the US government does provide some money to PBS through the corporation for public broadcasting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Publ
You still have a valid point though, because the majority of PBS funding comes from viewers' donations.
as opposed to shooting himself with not a gun? lol
MORE POWER TO YOU!!!! GO GO GO!!!! hey if you guys are any good, i will come and see you live, which I think how most musicians should be paid anyway...TOURING... cut away the middle man,the lawyers, all that crap, the future will destroy all that. the future is word of mouth...straight to the consumer, no middleman.
Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
Great. The "I have a friend who has a brother who once heard someone talking about this" expert. Thanks for sharing your personal, first-hand knowledge of the music business...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I'm a liberal guy, but I must admit PBS is skewed a bit to the left. The only good shows are Nature and (sometimes) NOVA, especially the ones about space. Unfortunately, Nature (and quite often NOVA) have the obligatory salespitch about how we are destroying nature and blah blah blah. And yeah, what the fuck is up with this British invasion? I have tried to watch a fair amount of British "comedy", but I just can't force myself to laugh. I have NEVER laughed at ANY British "comedy" EVER. I just don't get it. What the fuck is so God-damned funny about a man in a dress?!?!?!
Goddam war Bush threw is killing innocent people. I cannot believe that MY tax dollars go to support this fucking shit.
I just paid $1.632 for the album on AllofMP3.com!
Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
As I understand it he would never make any money to begin with. The record label would front the money necessary to record, produce and market the album but the artist would be indebted for that amount. Any sales would first go towards recouping the record company's initial investment with a paltry amount left over for royalties. If the record sells well then the record company may pick up an option for a second album and the process starts again. To top it off, the cost of producing the album is grossly inflated by such things as manager fees, artificial production costs, etc. and while the artist retains the copyright on the sheet music the record contract most likely stipulates that the recording is a work for hire, which means the record company retains the copyright to the recorded work.
Again, from my understanding of the system this is why only albums that sell very well make the artist any money at all and those that do make money go on to create their own production companies to get out from under this system.
I think the Internet is the ideal way for small artists to make money. The catch is they have to use their own money to produce and market their record, but with a record contract they're doing that anyway. The old way of doing things is rapidly being replaced by the Internet reality and artists that embrace it will make money, I am sure of it.
Harvey Danger sticks out in my mind only as the one-hit wonder from the late 90s with the single "Flagpole Sitta". The rest of the album was horrid and pretty much scarred them for life. So I have to think they're just doing this because they really have no other option than this besides maintain their OHW status and keep releasing albums that very few people will buy.
Regardless, I'll issue the standard slashdot "THEY'RE TROOPERS FOR DOING THIS, DOWN WITH THE LABELS" statement, listen to the album and perhaps they'll impress me and I'll stop talking smack about Harvey Danger.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
My friends bands label went bankrupt and they did the same a few months ago... Incredibly slick band if you ask me....
www.purevolume.com/pmx
If theres a bunch of guys I know who should be making it, its these guys! Incredibly talented
Well, I certainly wasn't expecting to see this pop up on Slashdot... I had actually downloaded this a couple of days ago since I already love the band's other two albums, but this isn't a massively new idea. I certainly won't begrudge them the publicity though.
But for those of you who'd like a geek tie-in, I've been poking through the websites of one of the band members and come across some interesting commentary about getting things set up on the technical side, from choosing a webserver to making sure the files are tagged properly.
It is false that nobody has ever heard of jeff cliff, by example, since I have heard of him(hell, I am him).
But your point still stands (even though I've been approached for movie soundtracks). Mod parent up.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The torrent is slashdotted.
It's running so fast, I think I'll download a few extra copies, to hand out to my friends :)
Seriously, more bands need to do this. Release some music for free, if people like it, encourage them to buy a copy from CDBaby or directly from the band. That way the band gets more fans no matter what, and more of the money. The big RIAA corporations (record labels) get squat. That's a win-win for the artist and the consumers.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
None of this advertising had any direct benefit to the artists that the MPAA claims to be protecting. You'd think we should have control over what we'd paid to see, though the MPAA obviously feels differently about it. It's clearly intended to create demand, and if there's any additional benefit to the artists, it's basically accidental. However, the part that really annoyed me was that all but one of the movies they were plugging were stupid ones without any relation to the feature film that we rented. The "featured advertisement" with the long trailer was actually for a totally annoying movie that I'd never heard of--probably one of those direct-to-DVD losers. The trailer totally failed to motivate renting or buying that garbage movie, and we didn't (and never will) watch the "free bonus" part of that garbage movie at the end.
P.S. Have they done something to improve the CSS layout glitches with Opera? Still not perfect, but seems to be improved now. P.P.S. Anonymous moderation is still being abused. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Lousy moderators should be held accountable, don't you think?Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I swear was it just me or did anyone else think this guys post sound just like that football player doing his history report in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure". I swear I've heard this before.
"Everything was.....different. Better....but....slower. Stuff took longer...... The world was bigger.......but smaller..... Recording artists were more free......but less free at the same time...... SAN DIMAS FOOTBALL OORAH!"
Nice try man, what label do you work for anyway?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Magnatune, where you can download for hours and hours, and use'm in yer podcasts too... and if you do like what you download, you can actually let the artist know by sending him a paycheck!
I never heard of this band before until this, and I must say that I'm acctually liking their album a lot.
I just hope that other groups learn that the internet can be used as a great marketing tool like this.
They saved my $1.47 from going to the Rooskies over @ allofmp3.com!
IMHO, it's always a good thing when artists decide to cut out the middle man and let the music sell itself over the web. However, as many have already noted, this is hardly unique to Harvy Danger. I suggest checking out http://bt.etree.org/ for a lot more great trade-friendly artists. They have a good variety with bands such as the Black Crowes, the Grateful Dead, Dave Matthews Band, Phish, and Gwar.
Again, this is a good thing that Harvy Danger is doing. It just makes me wonder why it took them so long (Maybe they had to wait for a contract to expire or something), other than the fact that they haven't had a hit in years and are probably desparate.
I release stuff in ogg vorbis because that's what my tools create, and ogg vorbis is a totally free format, not so that everyone with an ipod or windows media player can play it. ITMS can at any time impliment ogg vorbis support if they so choose, and I'm sure the ogg people will help with support if they so require. It's smaller than wav and doesn't lock you in nearly as much as wma or the equivilent on mac. In 2055, after the US government falls, and once north america is thrown into anarchy, using late-90's technology, a personal generator or solar cell, I should still be able to record and play an ogg vorbis file, using free software developed running on hardware built in the late-90's. While mp3 also might be capable of this, it is non-free, and therefor not acceptable to support.
(What makes mp3 so popular? The fact that everyone uses it, that its files are small, and decent of quality. If everyone used ogg vorbis, ogg vorbis would be popular- there's only one way to change this: Musicians releasing ogg vorbis files).
If you want mp3s encode them from the ogg vorbis files yourself. Or if it's a newer project encode from wav samples(if I still have them). I'll host them.
...you know...the 'mandatory suicide' stuff is utterly unfinished scraps, most of which doesn't sound all that good. This is not the same thing as releasing an album online. And I certianly didn't release an album online using bittorrent, which is a superior album distribution system which should be blatantly shown to be beyond a shadow of a doubt useful to everyone. I have never successfully released a full album online, although material from all my albums (including my best stuff, not included in the above link) have found their way online. Had Past Tense been a finished work in 2000 and released online as I had planned, I would have really have showed up these musicians. However, the Past Tense project tanked, and with it my first chance to do something that at least I don't think had really been done before (creating a double-cd album, distributing online, using nothing more than a home computer and mabye a pay-server for distribution).
But thanks for the plug schnitz0r.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I first read the article as them releasing their new album a track at a time (little by little), spread over a longer time. And I thought that might actually be a good idea that could work. Apparently they're not doing it like this but the concept is still good I think:
1. Release album on CD.
2. Release a song from the album for free on the internet every few weeks, taking a few months to download the complete album and in the meantime attracting a new audience who might buy the CD because they (A) want the entire album ASAP, (B) don't want to wait for the entire free release and (C) feel that crossing this legal barrier cannot be morally justified.
3. Profit! (hopefully)
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
By the way, do you know how to play Ogg on an iPod ?
Never heard of them myself but hell I'll grab the torrent and give 'em a listen.
If it doesn't suck and I see them playing somewhere locally I'd be very likely to go see them live (heck even if they do suck a little I might go anyway just to get out and go someplace).
I hope this is a huge success for them and other artists begin following along. The more artists who get on the bandwagon the better.
--- www.f-theocean.com
I know this isn't anything new, but I just popped onto their site to download it. I like it. Asides from John Denver's Country Road and Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi, I don't think I have any other english songs that I listen to. This, I actually like.
/. existed... hmm...
As for story worthiness, yeah, it's questionable. But bands that try to circumvent the RIAA deserves some attention, imo.
P.S. Is it just me or are most the negative comments annonomyous cowards.(I know, I'm one too >.) I recently heard on the BBC that there are people from the government in china that try to steer conversations on forums and bulletin boards to change opinions about people and subjects... *looks around* I've been reading slash dot for a good 2 years now, I don't remember all these bashers of stories like this until the places like the GOP, MPAA and RIAA realized that
This is good because:
1. I don't buy music. Really, I don't. I feel fine listening to everybody else's music which they bring to work. Or listen to oldie's on the radio. (My local stations have no good music, so oldies it is for me.)
2. There are plenty of bands I've never heard of, and are quite good. I had never heard of Jet, but a friend brought them in to work to listen to. Good stuff. I've heard some old Harvey Danger when I lived in Olympia, WA in the 90's. They were quite the sensation. Good stuff is hard to come buy, and when it does... we get interested and want to find out more.
3. For those who do buy music, they'll buy the album. Seriously, the average consumer likes to support what he or she likes. If the price isn't outragous, they'll pay. Sometimes they'll play again, because they lost the CD somewhere. I've seen it happen all the time.
4. For those who won't buy music, this changes nothing. People who won't buy the music they listen to are probably stealing it... So, this doesn't change the model.
5. For older music, either you already have it, or you have to go find it. If it's available on your band's website, then you can tell them all about your new music, or tours, or whatever.
I've always been of the opinion that if you broadcast any media, it should be public domain. Basicaly, if I can pick it up off the air, why can't I record it and replay it whenever I want? Don't want it to become public domain? Then don't broadcast it: Use pay-service such as Cable or satellite radio. Put it on a broadcast channel?
--Pathway
I just listened to all of this album. I've never listened to them before.
They do have talent. I liked it.
Diminishing Returns appealed to me most, and I think they would sound far better live.
"I'm at 4 mbit/sec and my pipe is maxed out. Hot damn!"
And it's easy to contribute just by leaving your torrent on to upload for others. Even if you didn't like the album you can show your support for artists (and tweek the nose of the RIAA) who support free(dom) content by acting as seeders for the file.
I had visions, I was in them,
I was looking into the mirror
To see a little bit clearer
The rottenness and evil in me Anyone who gives away music
Fingertips have memories,
Mine can't forget the curves of your body
And when I feel a bit naughty You're not supposed to give away your music!
I run it up the flagpole and see who salutes Apparently slashdot does!
(But no one ever does)
I'm not sick, but I'm not well
and I'm so hot 'cause I'm in hell
Been around the world and found
That only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a TV See, they're anti media from the beginning!!
Put me in the hospital for nerves
And then they had to commit me
You told them all I was crazy The record companies want you to think that a band that gives away its music must be crazy!
They cut off my legs now I'm an amputee, Goddamn you
I'm not sick, but I'm not well
And I'm so hot cause I'm in hell
I'm not sick, but I'm not well
And it's a sin to live so well
I wanna publish 'zines
And rage against machines They're totally anit-establishment!
I wanna pierce my tongue
It doesn't hurt, it feels fine
The trivial sublime
I'd like to turn off time
And kill my mind
You kill my mind
Mind...
Paranoia, paranoia
Everybody's comin' to get me Run! they knew the RIAA was coming
Just say you never met me
I'm runnin' underground with the moles Underground music distribution?
Diggin' in holes
Hear the voices in my head
I swear to God it sounds like they're snoring
But if you're bored then you're boring
The agony and the irony, they're killing me, whoa!
I'm not sick, but I'm not well
And I'm so hot cause I'm in hell
I'm not sick, but I'm not well
And it's a sin to live this well
-Mikey P
Various punk and underground bands were doing it for years, giving away their albums for free. For example, http://evil.hardcore.lt/mp3/ has most of Lithuanias punk music discography for download. So, nothing very new or mind-blowing.
"Unfortunately in this case, "priceless" literally means they wont make a dime!"
And if they were to get into a contract with the RIAA they are shafted then for sure. At least this way an unknown band has a chance of making it to the top without having to sell their soul, and their fans can benefit in the mean time with free music.
I just downloaded the album and noticed it uses VBR. What are the advantages and drawbacks of VBR? And what about AAC?
That's a first. I wrote a reply to the parent and posted to you. My mistake, sorry. I don't think even the preview could have saved me there.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
You should better try http://jamendo.com/
...
Full albums on torrents (ogg AND mp3).
Lot of crap but lot of good things too : Both, Emma,
And if you're an artist, go on and share your work !
lameness filters suck
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
There is a difference between legal and illegal file sharing. Yes, you are correct. File sharing CAN be beneficial to many bands, in many circumstances, in a variety of forms (complete, snippets, streams, etc). No one is arguing against file sharing - we are arguing against illegal file sharing.
It is up to the artist and his or her representatives to decide which data to give away, and up to you to respect their wishes.
Quit whining and pay for your music (if the artist asks).
Yes but, the artists who 1,000,000 legally downloaded songs for free might not be as popular as the one who sold 1,000,000 albums for 15$.
Considers that Britneys probably had her albums downloaded 100 millions times, while it was illegal and not straight forward... What is the ratio of "fan per sold album" vs "fan per legally downloaded album" ?
Album sales are a more a mesure of the artist popularity. Number of time you song is played on the radio is a mesure of your exposure. What is the number of legally downloaded song a mesure of ? exposure or popularity ? or a mix of both ?
There are 270+ complete albums on Jamendo ! All delivered under a Creative Commons Licence using BitTorrent.
http://www.jamendo.com/
How do musicians make money? I'm not a musician, but I'll give it a fair guess:
1. Concert ticket sales
2. Selling records or indiviual songs
3. Writing for hire
4. Playing for hire
5. Spin-offs (coffee cups, dolls, posters)
Selling records or individual songs over the Internet is clearly not the only source of income for a musician. It's just very cheep and simple.
If there are any professional musicians here, it would be fun to know how much income - in percentages - comes from each source. There are expenses tied to each source that are fairly obvious, but I'd like to hear from a professional musician.
You are being statistically inane. For any given band, there are going to be people who hate them, and people who will let us all know how much they hate them. No one is surprised by your post, no one is going to think your opinion means 1/8192th of anything, you're not communicating anything more than an arbitrary preference, so why bother?
No, for the record I haven't listened yet. And yes, replying to your wankery is equally wanktastic.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
...in a way that means the RIAA don't get any!
I assume that using their 'contribute' link is probably the best way to do this, but does anyone know if they'd prefer people to just buy the album?
We realize that digital files are the primary means by which a huge segment of the population is exposed to new music [...]
I suppose I can't speak for the rest of the population but I don't download new music I've never heard before. I hear songs other places, decide I like them, and *then* download them. Do other people really spend time downloading random songs they've never heard before?
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Actually this could be part of a new business model. We have set up a
small record label where all music for our artists are freely downloadable under
creative commons license. We also accept donations for the artists and sell
cd's. That way, it is fair for the customer (they pay what they want, no
drm crap) and for the musician (they get all the procedings, instead of major
labels where artists get NO money from cd sales). Check it out on
http://www.dyinggiraffe-recordings.com/ We also want to encourage other
people to do the same! With minimal investmens we could start a network of
cc music, fair for musicians and customers..
In the MP3 zip file you can download directly from the site, the MP3s have a bitrate of around 160 kbps (VBR). The BitTorrent download zip file contains MP3s of around 230 kbps (VBR).
Saw ur URI pointed to
http://nineinchnerds.org/
HA! Only 9 inch!
I Guess You dont get any SPAM !!!!
Harvey Danger... Are they eh.. good?
TASK
Write your own bit about good vs. free.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Hell yeah, in fact for me, downloading music I havn't heard before must account for about 70% of the music Ive downloaded in total. The reason being, its the safest way (financially. till you get sued) to try new music.
In one way I guess it means that only the best of the best will ever get a music contract these days.
I hate to say I agree. These days, it takes REAL talent to get the attention of the music industry, not the musicians goofing off like in the punk or hippie era. It takes somebody with the brilliant creativity and style of Britney Spears to convince them to take a chance.
Seriously: I'm still trying to work out if your post was meant to be taken sarcastically or not.
Rather than squander my time as a total dilettante, I went ahead and purchased the album. The collector's package, even, with the buttons and the t-shirt and so forth. And why not?
As a citizen, it makes me feel American-as-Apple-Pie to vote with my dollar in favor of a principle and model for which I have strong feelings. As a geek, it thrills me to participate in the subversion of the standard monolithic approach to cultural design by a leaner, sleeker, more modular one, built upon a (mostly) consentually standardized set of interfaces.
Sure, this may not be a completely original idea. In fact, this idea has been tried out in various forms for quite some time now. As someone who doesn't follow popular music, I've been at best peripherally aware of this phenomenon. Very little product represented in this way has been of interest to me. Up until now, I haven't had the inclination to support this process in an active way, because, while I agree with it on principle, it has never been presented to me in a manner that is compelling enough to cause me to make an actual change in my behavior, despite whatever antipathy I might have for the music-industry-at-large.
Take me as an experimental group, if you like. My reaction was positive for a number of reasons. First, that the presentation alluded to certain social and cultural phenomena about which I feel strongly, namely culture itself, free cultural exchange, and the rights both to personal expression and to the personal establishment of cultural norms as vehicles for communication (which I assert as self-evident as an arguable premise).
Second, the integrity of the experiment. While the artists retain their copyright, they release the music with, for the intents and purposes of the common listener, no restrictions upon its use and distribution. Express what cynicism you may about the common listener and his social motivations, or the artists and their financial motivations, but the things that motivate people do so because they are rewarding to people. The new model might do much, and the traditional business model certainly does comparatively little, to reward its constituency for simply doing what comes naturally to it.
People naturally seem to want to share ideas and experiences with one another, finding a place in the "noosphere" (if you will) to call home. At the same time, it is difficult to be cut off from diversity and potential. Whereas a society that indoctrinates its members to accept culture as it is handed to them does little to foster a deep-seeded sense of diversity of experience, perhaps a society that rewards vigilance, determination and resourcefulness with breadth and splendor and models for expression that suit the individual's needs will do better.
I'll download the album and listen to it, but I think I'll keep my package wrapped and sealed as a memento of a historically noteworthy occasion.
... but the guitarist just graduated from the University of Washington's Computer Science program. Perhaps this partially explains why they tried this experiment, mentioned their encoding settings on the download page, etc.
They performed (along with The Presidents of the United States of America) at the UW this week as part of a "welcome back" concert (pictures here... ironically enough, it was partially sponsored by Dell and Napster), and it wasn't until they played "Flagpole Sitta" that many people realized who they actually were. Most people claim they don't know them or "Flagpole Sitta," but I'm sure they'd recognize it if they heard it. That's not to say that's their only good song, though -- their entire set rocked.
Good on them for packaging this up (at least) on a mac, and using itunes. Having the album art already embedded in the tags is awesome. The only thing better would be if they had the lyrics embedded in the tags as well, but perhaps that is asking too much.
I bought said album at one of the local independent record stores here. As I'm paying I look over and who should I see but Sean Nelson, frontman of Harvey Danger. How cool is that?
artists don't need to work for free; we just need to turn it around so as it's the artist rather that the distribution channel that's getting 90% of the profits. Previously it was expensive to record the music itself. This is no longer the case - friends of mine churn out HDTV ready content on a $1000 iMac! Nor is it expensive to package and distribute the music. I don't see why a distribution network can't exist that works on a 'cost plus ten' model, especially if that network were built on top of a peer-to-peer network.
Here's the clever part: if the artist is getting 90% of the profits then the *new* price of the track/album need only be around a 10th of the old price (11.11%) for them to get the same profit per sale, but all of a sudden our (typically fairly static) music budget can buy us almost an order of magnitude (9x) more music, which means more artists get a share in a big pot rather than a small handful getting a share in a small pot.
Everybody wins, except of course the dirty thieving 'legacy' recording industry; the same ones that said the VCR would destroy them yet who are now making billions each an every year from home video!
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,60650,00.html
"Technology giveth and it taketh away, and the industry knows this," Chuck D said. "The horseshoe makers probably got upset at the train manufacturers because (the new industry) took away their transport dominance, just as the train manufacturers probably got mad at the airline industry."
"I think this expands artistry and it's about adjustment," he said.
"As an artist representing an 80-year period of black musicianship, I never felt that my copyrights were protected anyway," Chuck D said. "I've been spending most of my career ducking lawyers, accountants and business executives who have basically been more blasphemous than file sharers and P2P. I trust the consumer more than I trust the people who have been at the helm of these companies.
"The record industry is hypocritical and the domination has to be shared. P2P to me means 'power to the people,'" Chuck D said. "And let's get this to a balance, and that's what we're talking about."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
I suppose I can't speak for the rest of the population but I don't download new music I've never heard before.
;)
You're missing out. I found most of my current favourite music that way. As an experiment for yourself, search eMule or BT for an mp3 called Crescent Suns, by Shpongle, Slinky Wizard, and Jewel. You might not like it...but then again, you just might.
I didn't care too much for their single from back in the day, but like everyone else I heard it a million times on the radio.
This album is much better, more mature, and just overall good stuff. Give them a nod and download the album, their good faith is the only reason I gave them a shot and hey, I like it a lot.
Henry Rollins has been doing this too, although unofficially. He has always encouraged people to copy and trade his albums, as well as bootlegs of his shows. In his own words: "I'd rather have your time than your money."
Actually this album is pretty good... I'd like to thank all the little people who made this possible today... The Members of Harvey Danger, for making unique music in todays age of overdubs and the 'every song must be a single' mindset; Slashdot, for posting this on the front page; P2P file sharing, for allowing me to get this file quickly and easily via bittorrent ; and finally the RIAA for not turning these guys into another 'Nickleback' clone. Brilliant Idea. And yes, im actually gonna buy this now that I have heard it - not so much because its the best album ever, or anything... but because someone finally gave me a chance to do so. What would the RIAA say if this record sold a bunch of copies, even with it being freely available in its entirety from the same website? (with the exception of the 30 minute companion piece) not to mention: $11.99 = CHEAP!
yes, nothing new. my friends at http://www.epic45.com/ were offering free album downloads for years. unfortunately it's not possible at the moment due to bandwidth limits, etc but they were doing this donkey's ago. saying that, though, if somebody's going to offer free (as in beer) stuff at the expense of it having to be pushed at us via some means, good on them. (i did think this was a _news_ site, though!)
:-)
are there many sites left that provide places for people to get songs that bands are 'giving' away? i got out of the loop once i started, uh, buying my music
I've been reading over the posts, and there is a number of good points that offering your music for free is a good way of ensuring that lots of people come to your shows, where you can make some real money (rather than the $0.20 per CD). I've had 2 thoughts about the free music thing...
1st... How you could get people to pay you some money for your songs is to exploit the "first post" urge of your fans, and get them to register at the bands offical homepage, and have a page for the supporting fans. You just need to have the option for paying $1 for the album, and if you do, you get your name added to the supporters page for that release. You then also have a good chat room area, where people have an auto sig that lists or links to the pages, and a summary.
E.g. for U2
User: Mahju (user 164067)
Albums:
Autung Baby (Bronze Supporter - 123456th),
Zooropa (Silver Supporter - 540th Download)
Pop (Silver Supporter - 13th Download)
ATYCLB (Gold Supporter - 2576th Download)
HTDAAB (Bronze Supporter - 10276th Download)
This way you use the force of your real fans to get some payback on the inital album costs. People would want to have their name registered for the bragging rights (what if you were the 1st person to register for U2 Boy? some good karma there...).
Now my 2nd thought... The 'evil' music industry does actually filter out a lot of crap bands, and deliver a certain quality standard of music. Yes not all are great i know, but it does mean that most tone deaf, musically illiterate, idiot isn't flooding the airwaves. That's because the labels don't want to invest money in bands that we wont like enough to pay them some money such that they get a return on investment. If we move towards free downloads, then the distribution model for the music will have to change. I suspect that this will move towards something two things;
1. Tour promoters advertising the bands to us.
2. Review sites listing the new releases. This is a bit like the free street mags (that you get in places like melbourne) where music critics weekly review albums. I used to buy albums on the back of those reviews, and I would do the same for free music too.
Recording companies are basically advertising companies bundled with venture capital. These functions ought to be separate. There ought to be venture capital firms that specialize in funding musicians. And there could also be advertising agencies that specialize in promoting musicians. The musicians would form startup companies and use shares as currency, just like in tech. They would pay for advertising just like any other company, instead of selling their souls to record companies.
Boycotts of the music industry are doomed to failure. But if the most talented artists began starting their own companies, that would really change things.
You have to love how people just jump onto a bandwagon because it is the "hip" or "cool" thing to do without checking out the competition. If anyone actually reads this I suggest checking out iRiver and iAudio players, especially the iAudio X5.
I certainly do! And there are some great easter eggs out there.
Just type random words into the search box in emule and away you go: 95% crap and 5% really worth listening to - and that 5% is a lot more than you get on most radio stations!
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Everybody knows that creating a song is a long evolutional process, so I suggest these artists that are willing to put their work freely available on the internet (like most /. users), to create a versioning service of their songs. Their fans could choose the best cover for the album, give some advices to the order of the songs, song titles, etc.
If I knewd that I had contributed to the making of an album I would definitely buy it. Think about it!
(I would love see Metallica doing this...)
As home studios get better and better, and bands no longer need to borrow money to make recordings, we will see more and more of this.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
For violating the sacred law of raping and pillaging their own consumers.
You're missing out. I found most of my current favourite music that way.
:). And, they gain also my gratitude because they are trying to bypass the corporate monsters that nowadays are screwing our society trying to create new rules and get rid of our constitutional rights.
You bet it!, See, I am not really fond of this band music style (Alternative?), but I downloaded, am seeding and sharing via Emule. I am more a heavy,progressive metal guy.
After listening to the album I think I like the first song [wine women and song] as I liked the piano. So as the original thread poster said it is indeed a great marketing movement
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Wow! Go Slashdot! I've never seen this before: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65688,00. html/.
After being dropped by Reprise records in 2001, Wilco offered Yankee Hotel Foxtrot for download and streaming both before it was mastered and once it was completely wrapped up. Then, they turned around and sold it to Nonesuch records (_after_ it had already been free to download for a few months) and had their biggest album to date. With their next album, A Ghost Is Born (2004), they did the same thing (minus getting dropped from their label), and once again had their biggest album to date.
Oh, and for both those albums they released download only EPs of ~5 songs you could download once you purchased the CD.
I think calling this an "experiement" might be a little outdated. Wilco ain't exactly a no-name band either.
What would you say the difference is between "exposure" and "popularity" ?
.. I think it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people who download your songs are doing so to listen to them. That would be "exposure" in my opinion.
Is popularity when people know of your name and music but don't necessarily listen to your music personally ? I don't see why they would download your music in that case.
I guess downloading music isn't a hard measurement of exposure since there's people who may download your music for purposes other than listening to it (compiling collections, a DJ using it for mixing etc.)
But still
Yes, it has been done before. This band is doing nothing new. The fact that this is getting publicity is what interests me. The cheaper it becomes to record and master an album with professional studio quality, the more artists will be putting out these albums on their own. Artists make next to nothing from the sales of their albums. The money generated here typically goes straight to the producing agency. Where artists make their money is from concert ticket sales (and if you're really famous, TV spots, etc.). The more artists that are recording their own work, generating their own publicity, and freely distributing their art, the less anyone will need the RIAA members. A band like Green Day, for example, could certainly pay for their album production, use a promotion agency for distribution at a small fraction of what it would cost them to go through the normal channels, and still make just as much, if not more, money than if they had a formal label produce them. Pretty soon, someone is going to wise up and seriously use this business model. If I was at all interested, I'd find a really good band (it's not hard to do . . . check out the local music scene in any major city for a week and you'll come across one or two), shell out about 75K for album production and initial promotions, give away the album for free, promote that fact on slashdot (I think that's what the ?????? is), and finally . . . profit. If we can get significant airplay on regional radio, and the music is good, the national scene will pick it up with the right sales approach. No where is there any need in this model for a huge production company, nor is there much of a need for tangible media. The band would not be as big as Green Day, but that's more a function of the popularity of downloadable music versus that of CDs. More power to anyone who wants to give this a shot.
From what I've read, bands don't make money off the album anyway, the record companies take back all the money for video production, fees, and so forth, so it's a break even for the band, even a loss. They have to make money on live gigs.
So why not release the album for free, get some good coverage, lotsa propagation, and get your band known; then make your money on touring.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
It's probably fair to summarize that Free music isn't exactly new as of 2005.
Anyone know where to send pizza/beer/ching to the band?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Well as long as slashdot's giving free advertising to bands now...
Mine's been up creative commons for 4 years now... check it out http://www.subatomicglue.com/
There certainly has been bands puttig up music way before that as well. Is this news? or free advertising
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Well as long as slashdot's giving free advertising to bands now...
Mine's been up creative commons for 4 years now... check it out http://www.subatomicglue.com/
There certainly has been bands putting up music way before that as well. Is this news? or free advertising
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Carbon Leaf has had a few of their albums available, straight through Amazon. For example, Echo Echo
(there are more, dig around)
And at concerts on etree.org he definitely says "spread the word by any means possible" -- though now they're with a "real" label, maybe the latest album doesn't fall under that license.
Their music was a great discovery for me.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
Mainly true.
1. ASCAP as 'enforcer'. Its role, as I understand it, is to make sure that someone who IS making money from playing the music (neighborhood bar, club, etc. using the music either as a feature of the place or for ambiance) pays for that. I'm not offended by that; not sure why MrMs S. Moose is (seems to be).
2. Not all music is rock-n-roll/hip-hop/Britneypop. Consider: classical music. Very different equations. For classical music, opera, etc: the performances lose money, while the sale of CDs, etc., are important as income (and as a statement of broader interest in the music than just those who can get to the performances -- important when seeking grants/funding).
Thus, for Harvey Danger: it's a good publicity move; it MAY get their new music played on radio stations (revenue) and in bars (revenue); it may also result in sales of legit CDs (revenue); it MAY get them new gigs (mucho revenue). They've endorsed it; their agents and managers may also have, thinking that otherwise HD would release their CD to exactly no sales.
In many other cases, however: MP3s online remain illegal AND, sadly, unethical.
So what you're saying is... When I buy a CD, of that $18, $0.20 is going to the artist, and $15.80 is going to pay for advertisements, middle managers, and contract lawyers, whos only talent is to siphon money off a font of talent?
Rar. I'm not buying albums; I'm just going to shows.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
"Do other people really spend time downloading random songs they've never heard before?"
Yes, I am one of them. I actively seek out music with a copyleft license and download it. I often run irate radio to see what I can find. I will then pass the best of this on to friends. (Where the license is right.) I also decided not to waste my recommendations on music with non-Free licenses. If you want me to promote your non-Free music, you can pay me for my promotional efforts. That is your attitude after all. Time is money right?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Place Design 001 Video
Creative Commons BY-SA license
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
The HTTP direct downloads were encoded with LAME using the --alt-preset 160 setting. The Bittorrent MP3s were encoded using --alt-preset-extreme.
Yes, this will be a redundant post...I am sure numerous others are pointing and questioning WHY this was a legitimate newsworthy Slashdot entry when thousands of unheard of unsigned bands have been doing the same thing. And yes, I am sure some people have heard of said band but it's not of any major noteworthiness. Had this been say "Metallica" releasing an album free to download - than it might have been of news note.
This seems more like someone trying to promote their friend's band than anything else...
Frankly, I think many more people would have been interested in my rejected post regarding Tim Burton's use of commercial/consumer Canon digital SLRs for filming the movie "Corpse Bride". But nope...
*lol*
Mod this whatever way you want. The truth, it may be redundant...but I can't be held liable for hundreds of slashdotters posting and saying the same common sense!
- The Saj
If you want another band that hates the RIAA, check out http://www.machinaesupremacy.com/news.htm
I think one thing that people forget about is the fact that tour promoters use record sales to gauge popularity of a band that they want to invest big bucks in for a tour. Putting on a tour costs money, and without strong evidence that they can make their money back (like record sales) tour promoters won't want to invest in a band.
Four free albums of mostly original rock in MP3 form. Also, thestationmusic.com has links to archive.org collections of their stuff in lossless compression (CD quality!)
This ain't new, folks. Roger McGuinn of the Byrds also posts his stuff online, and said the old outlawed Napster revitalized his career.
The major labels' days are numbered. When they are gone, P2P will no longer be controversial, as P2P does NOT hurt sales; every single study (save the one commissioned by the RIAA) says people who use P2P spend more money on music than those who don't. The RIAA's problem is that they can't restrict P2P to their own content as they can radio and empty-v, so they're trying to kill it completely.
"As I understand it he would never make any money to begin with. The record label would front the money necessary to record, produce and market the album but the artist would be indebted for that amount. ...
and while the artist retains the copyright on the sheet music the record contract most likely stipulates that the recording is a work for hire, which means the record company retains the copyright to the recorded work."
-----
RIAAHMC: So, Joe Suka, just sign here and you can have the money and get started building your new home today.
Joe: Uh.
RIAAHMC: Is there a problem?
Joe: Um, I am not sure, I am a little confused.
RIAAHMC: What is to be confused about, this is our standard contract. Everyone signs it. It is really very simple.
Joe: Well, what I don't get is that you lend me the money to build my house.
RIAAHMC: Right.
Joe: And then I have to pay you back the money you loaned me.
RIAAHMC: Right, that is standard.
Joe: And then after I have paid you back, you own the house and not me?
RIAAHMC: Sure, that's how we do it! It's standard.
Joe: I think I am gonna try one of them intarweb home mortgage companies. I heard that when banks compete, I win. Almost anything has to be better than this.
-----
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984
da bubble man
CC BY-SA Licensed Video
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I think I might have to go to one of their shows.
The only live musical acts that make into all-ages venues anywhere around where I live are teeny-bopper acts. The rest show up only in bars, which by the law of the State of Indiana are not permitted to admit minors. Even major national acts show up in The Big Bar instead of the indoor stadium. Therefore, the only live musical acts available to minors are teeny-bopper acts.
"If you're bored then you're boring."
I've found this to be a pretty good assessment of people.
Nice write up. I have no idea how much of it is true, but I think you should point out that ASCAP royalties only go to the songwriters. That's good for most "rock" bands and rappers, because, in general, they write their own lyrics and music. People who just sing other people's songs don't get ASCAP royalites.
I guess distributing on the Internet really is a way to touch more listeners.
The record company measures a "gold" album by how many people have paid money for the album. The artist measures "gold" by how many people have listened to his or her work.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Mind you, most classical music is in "public domain" and very little interest exists in "new" classical composition as it is not a top genre.
For example: very few classic rock and roll albums that are new hit the billboards but Elvis still sells quite well.
So we are either speaking of a classical performance of some dead composer's work, (in which anyone can perform said work and there are thousands of small symphonies playing mozart as opposed to a single Switchfoot playing Switchfoot songs) or a neo-composer of which there is very little interest for such.
Esquadrão Atari has been doing this since the year 2000. The sound loops used in the songs are also available for free. Our videos are also open for download and re-editing. We would like to share them in DVD quality, but today's connection speeds (and web traffic costs) do not allow this yet.
Vavrek has been giving away good music for some time. Check out the site: linky
Articles like this one on slashdot can alert people like me to sites that they may have not found before,and that adds not only to the torrent usage, it also helps to publicise those artists that are trying to make it without the huge backing of the industry.
See Above Comment.
It's news because this is a band with not only a major label contract, but also because they had a song in heavy rotation in the late 90s, as well as the fact that the same song was featured in a few movies, duh.
I'll check yours out too, anyway, but get a sense of yourself. (And wow, yeah, you guys have some slow links.)
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
I've made two whole albums and put them on the Internet for free, and even handed out CDs, never charging a dime: no one is writing a fucking /. article about me!
(BTW, don't click my sig or URL link unless you would have anyway: I'm not trying to whore for hits, but I'm also not gonna change my sig just for one article. Hell, I don't even track the hits at the moment.)
train manufacturers probably got mad at the airline industry"
No, the train manufacturers (except GM's EMD division...nothing like playing both sides, right?) were mad at the trucking industry, and Congress, which essentially did almost all it could to kill off rail. The rail industry's bite-back then are the weight stations on the highways for commercial trucks. I'd say it hasn't really worked all that much.
But I think that ChuckD's other comments are salient.
Ahh. But you are missing the 3rd and 4th options.
3. The record company decides the artist is no longer desirable, and releases the album quietly and on a budget, thus ensuring that it will die. They control what gets played on the radio, so nobody will hear it.
4. The record company decides the artist is no longer desirable, and refuses to release the album. See the most recent Fiona Apple incident. Unless the fans rise up, protest, and beg, the album will never see the light of day.
Here is how it works: find an artist with a somewhat established base of fans or someone who can make a couple of radio-friendly songs. A sure thing. Sign them to a 2 record deal. Market the bejeezus out of them. Make sure everyone knows their name and their hit. Play it 24/7 on the radio. Sell a million copies. Stick their face and name all over sheep-ville: MTV, E!, People, etc. etc. Hype the crap out of their 2nd album, don't put much into it. It will probably sell well. Then drop the artist. Move on to next flavor of the month.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
200k in a night? Gross perhaps. When the likes of Neil Young/Bob Dylan/Paul Simon etc. are questioning the economics of touring I think you have to take a step back from thinking they are making a fortune. Pink Floyd and U2 (around the time of ZooTV) often lost money for example with their stage show, lots of artists now are only going out in tandem with other headliners (rather than support) and alternating the slots.
I`ll check it out.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Rar. I'm not buying albums; I'm just going to shows.
Agreed. The future for musicians in making money is from live performances. Not from selling albums. It has been clear for many years that no one cares to buy an $18 CD that only has one song you want on it. And also with electronics/computers replacing recording studio musicians, live performances will be how those musicians make money.
Disclaimer: I am a full time composer/musician
It's great news and we should applaud the effort. But unfortunately for them this practice isn't going to be sustainable.
One model which does work, in order to release your work for free and generate revenue for your efforts without relying so much on the good will of your audience is to auction your work.
This has been done before by the Blender foundation for software and is being repeated successfully for the release of the movie Orange.
It's a simple concept. People pay a very small amount, until a threshold is met, then the work is released free to everyone.
It's IMHO the only model that will ever succeed. Maybe they'll catch on.
DR
This is a great distribution model.
One niche that needs to be addressed however is that of people who play an instrument as a hobby. We rely on sheet music and guitar TAB to play the songs we love. We pay out for the recording, the book, and are usually the first in line to get tickets for the shows.
I think these "underground" artists need to consider selling the sheet music to amateurs after getting them hooked on the recordings.
I personally discovered a ton of new music during the napster era. I would search for some songs I like, and when I found someone who had them I'd browse through their collection to see if they had anything else that seemed interesting.
They have distribution and a little bit of marketing sense (hey, they got slashdotted), but they are missing the feedback loop. What they need to hear from their new patrons is what the patrons want to hear from Harvey Danger. "Flagpole Sitter was great. Do more songs like that." Once you've mastered marketing your service, feedback is the key to getting people to pay for it.
Yeah, that's the ticket! I think EVERYONE should break the law so that they can find new music! It's our RIGHT to be entertained for free, on our own terms and without risk. We're entitled to it, because the RIAA member companies are greedy, and I wouldn't have bought it anyway. So, I can download whatever I want, listen to it, and then proclaim it "crap" and then move on to the next downloads.
From time to time, I'll graciously condescend to actually SPEND money on the odd CD or two, feel proud of myself, and make a HUGE point of it here on Slashdot: "Hey, I got all the music I listen to that way now: I download it illegally, decide if I like it, and whether or not I'm going to pay for it, regardless of the copyright - you should break the law, and do so too!"
I never stop to think that maybe the copyright holders might object - this is the new digital era, the age of immediate gratification, and they are all dinosaurs that just don't "get it". It should cost me nothing download it (because I already paid my ISP for my Internet connection - why should I pay anyone for anything else?), because it didn't cost them anything to upload it.
Even better, since I'm underage, nothing at all will happen to me - my parents are liable.
Besides, information wants to be free, and what are digital music and movies but a collection of ones and zeroes? Certainly nobody can expect me to pay for that!
Did I mention that I can't afford to buy music, so I'm entitled to it for free?
Or, that I'm actually staging a form of protest, by making sure that NOBODY gets my money for anything?!? I'm sticking it to the evil, greedy corporations, you see!
Yeah, that's it! It's the new revolution: Between evil, greedy corporations that want to charge me, and my selfish desires to have everything the way I want, when I want it, for whatever price I'm willing, or not, to pay.
And that's a good thing, 'cause it will make the world a better place for me, and that's really all that matters to me.
Paranoia! Paranoia! RIAA's coming to get me Just say you never met me I'm going underground with the moles
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
They were and still are one of my favorite bands, if not my favorite, but unfortunately the album itself didn't make much of an impression on me. There are only a couple songs on it I really like. I don't think they made nearly as much of an effort of polishing this release as they did their previous albums.
I just downloaded the entire Smashing Pumpkins discography for FREE! Artists have been doing this on Pirate Bay for years!
I tell you eeeessss truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
Joel Arant does the same thing. The liner notes even say, "Making copies for non-commercial use is expressly encouraged."
ASCAP is The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. They dictate who can play your music, such as music at a bar or in a restaurant.
ABSOLUTE misrepresentation of what ASCAP (and similar organizations, like BMI) does.
If you're a composer or songwriter, ASCAP is working FOR you. They're the only ones out there who are making sure that the ARTISTS, not the publishers, are getting paid.
Sure, bars and restaurants don't like ASCAP because licensing music costs them money. But if they were really dedicated to not paying, they always have the option of not playing music that's under license.
Artists have the option of releasing music that's not licensed to ASCAP, too. So at least in the case of performing rights, no one's being forced to do anything on any side.
I don't even need to point out that your Britney examples hardly reflect reality for ANY other act in the music business, except for maybe a dozen acts on par with Britney for popularity. Touring actually ISN'T the moneymaker for most acts, even if they drive their own equipment cross-country in a van and sleep in a Travelodge every night.
I call BS. They show Mexico One Plate at a Time with Rick Bayless. He rocks my mexican-loving mouth with loving chile-fired goodness.
Britney Spears is not a "standard artist". Standard artists can't sell out football stadiums. They can't even get booked in football stadiums.
-a
Well, all arguments for filesharing aside, I downloaded the album and liked it. Much like how they put their money where their mouth is, I have decided to go out and buy the album after listening to it. I always said I bought music that I heard online in order to support the artist. Now is the time to back up my claims.
Harvey Danger's free download "Little by Little" resembles nothing of an Open experiment since they are not going to be posting the results of their Internet revenue.
Confusing "free==open" serves only to foster another blackbox industry like the one its replacing RIAA. Open Music transparently shows the costs (significant) and the returns of doing business in a free market.
The problem is that it's nearly impossible to find interesting new music. Radio is dead, and the "evil, greedy corporations" are making sure it stays that way. If you know of decent ways for me to discover new music, then by all means, please share them.
Ok, not bad, nothing terribly groundbreaking (what is, anymore?). I like it, if that means anything (but I've always been a big house/trance fan). I suggest you do your ID3 tags though.
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
I don't know you from Adam, so I'm not sure if you know this or not, but "suka" is Polish for "bitch". The irony of the RIAA referring to the average person that way was not lost upon me.
Otherwise known as a Loss Leader.
Either one is good. Both? Excellent. So just go marry a musician in your favorite band. Problem solved. This digital bit-compressed stuff is just too flat. The live analog via Marshall stack in the living room is greatly preferred.
http://www.takemycdplease.com/music.html
If this is true, why aren't there more concerts?
I would think our concert halls would have major headliners every weekend.
OT but, perchance are you referring to the practice of destroying musical recordings during the mastering phase via killing the signal with limiters and cranking it up to constantly fill all the available headroom on a CD (or other digital medium)?
Now that is the industry-destroying practice that the RIAA should fight against with all their might, IMHO...
I think the main issue here is that even if the album is free or not, the RIA walks away with empty pockets, and they are not going to stand for that outrage.
ever notice the the only people releasing free music are those that aren't making money anyways
Sounds like your "friend" wants to be re-inserted into the Matrix...
www.clarke.ca
Knock off two zeros from all of your figures and your post is a lot more accurate for the vast majority of professional bands.
TODO: come up with a clever sig
Finally! 100 posts saying "you'd know the song if you heard it", and someone makes this true.
Funny, too, because I recently rented "Disturbing Behavior", which had this song. Unfortunately it wasn't on the actual soundtrack CD. *shrug*
Always been one of my favourite one-hits from the 90s, but I never knew who sang it. I'm definitely going to check this out when I get home.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I've worked as a techie in a "small" recording studio. This is a recording studio that is adjunct to a church, and the studio itself won major design awards. (Dallas Mid-cities area) (Those who know, know which one I'm talking about.) /Anything/ sounds great in this studio. Beyond /that/, the digital processing system (Pro Tools, midi tables, swathes of software effects and processing cards) are not cheap. Any dedicated professional studio will have this equipment, which is only produced by a very few manufacturers.
/and/ the production facility. A producer might say, "Let's make this soar" - the sound engineer /does it/. He/she makes your guitar sound good, drums sound jazzy or meaty, makes your slight treble warble stabilised or adds the proper amount of vibrato if it's not already there - he makes passable artists sound good, and good artists sound great, and great artists household names.
The construction of the studio wasn't cheaply done by any stretch.
Third was the know-how to put this all together. One-time cost, plus maintenance every six months.
Fourth is the artist that most people don't even think about: The Sound Engineer. Yes, he/she is a musical artist, encompassing every conceivable instrument
Any given artist might be their own producer. They spend decades, lifetimes, learning their instrument(s).
The sound engineer has spent a lifetime learning how to record everything you do, so you don't sound like you're performing in a bathroom / airport terminal / anechoic chamber. So your nuanced folk instruments don't get recorded with a rock mix, and sound like nasty. Sometimes, so that your final product sounds great on any imaginable radio, from horrid Radio Shack models to Bose to Bang & Olaffsen (which may be why David Lee Roth was so popular...)
And good sound engineers will not work on systems that cannot do what they want to do.
Every recording artist I've ever met regards their sound engineer as (just short of) their Eternal Saviour, the miracle maker and the man with the magic touch.
A significant percentage of each recording goes to paying the owner & operator of the studio, & the equipment has blossomed recently so that "portable" studios can run off a laptop & portable modular equipment. But would anyone like to guess what percentage is standard for the sound engineer?
Convincing your sound engineer to forego the standard contract means USUALLY paying him 100% or better of what he can expect to return off the standard contract. Or doing it yourself. Also, many sound engineers are required by the union to take the standard contract...
But really, I couldn't care less about long MP3s or gapless playback. The (weak and broken) DRM ensures that I can buy music at the iTMS. The UI is good and the style is nice (girls dig iPods). The battery has worked fine for me so far, and by the time it dies I'll probably want a new one anyway (cell phones are much the same in this). I do wish it played vorbis, and I wish it had a radio, and a recorder. But I don't wish any of those enough to throw away a good gift and spend my money on something less stylish with a worse UI and no iTunes Music Store.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Dude, so I'm listening to this record. NICE JOB you guys. It's good stuff. As soon as I'm not completely broke I'll be running over to your site and cutting you a 10 dollar check. Musicians out there, if you're good you should have no reason not to do this. Also, if any of you would like a website to start releasing your recors together, I'd be glad to work on something like that.
Most bands don't make much on their records anyway...only huge acts make bank on sales themselves. The big money for most bands comes from touring...so why not give away the recordings? Plus, there will ALWAYS be a contingent willing to pay for a CD of higher sound quality (I'm one of 'em). Of course, ALL of the questions would go away if everyone stood up and took a stand against the record companies. If NOBODY bought a CD for just one week...I'm talking ZERO sales...then the companies would rethink the whole RIAA thing. If you want to effect change, interrupt the cash-flow.
If you are interested in this sorta breakdown, check this out, a piece by producer and musician Steve Albini.
which came long after the invention of the printing press. There has not been a change in the underlying logic.
Again, note that releasing your songs for free MAY be a good idea for some bands some of the time, not all bands all of the time (and almost never a good idea in the case of a book or movie, which is only used once, typically). You cannot escape from the necessity of a copyright system, and therefore the means to regulate one.
Quit complaining and pay, please.
ogg files of my original rock music.
http://www.brianjonestownmassacre.com/mp3.html/ has their whole discography online.
Even 'corporate' bands like the smashing pumpkins did this back in 2000 (or was it 2001?) with their last album.
As a former bar owner, I can tell you that the fee ASCAP charges is way out of line for the amount of money music brings in. If they were fair in their fees it might be a different matter, but they simply ask what is your yearly revenue, and then how often you have music and divide. But my biggest revenue days were from local bands that played and other events that did not include music from any musician that ASCAP might have represented. So in the end I was paying for something I did not use or get. That is why ASCAP and BMI are disliked by bar owners.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
"So what you're saying is... When I buy a CD, of that $18, $0.20 is going to the artist, and $15.80 is going to pay for advertisements, middle managers, and contract lawyers, whos only talent is to siphon money off a font of talent?"
Not really.
First, a clarification on the royalties. The GP stated that the band makes $0.20 -- that might be post-tax. Royalties paid to the songwriters are $0.08 by law, but they can be $0.06 or so if the songwriter is also the performer. For a ten-song track that's $0.60 - $0.80 just for the songwriters alone.
The recording artist typically gets a royalty that starts at 8% of the suggested retail price (established artists get more), so it starts at about a buck for a new artist. However, the recording artist is typically only paid royalties on CDs sold, not CDs produced or even shipped. Returns, breakage, and CDs produced but not sold can eat away at that. So that we can do an apples-to-apples comparison (this will become clear below), let's use $1.60 for total royalties paid per CD.
Anyway, New CDs are down to $13 or $14 now; this means that they're sold to distributors for about $10. That $10 is all the record company sees, and it goes to:
While I agree that it's kind of fun to think of all the money as going to "middle managers and contract lawyers" (it's good to add "overpaid executives" for good measure), the reality is that most of the money that goes into the production cost of a CD either goes to (a) some third party company that does a mundane task (such as running a record store, or operating a shipping company), or (b) "little people" who probably have a salary that's less than that of the typical Slashdotter.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
"Do other people really spend time downloading random songs they've never heard before?"
If you don't count the 20-second snippet on iTMS, sure. Their "listeners also bought" feature, along with their other features that encourage random surfing, have incited me to download lots of new music that I'd never once heard on the radio, from artists that I had never heard of. It's largely been a positive experience.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
They may have a record deal, but this album is RIAA free. So you shouldn't feel sullied if you paypal them some cash or buy their album. No funds will contribute to the litigation of minors. More to your complaint; No it isn't really novel, but it's nice that more bands are waking up to this intarweb thing. Maybe next time, they'll release source files like brad does. So they're OK with P2P... I wonder if they are cool with remixing too. That's probably too much to ask of a band doing this just to test the waters. Regardless, I hope this campaign is a success for them. It is evidence that the 'industry' is loosing mind share among its artists. If this succeeds, it will be more damaging to the RIAA than a simple court battle because more artists will follow.
Why is it everybody's mind is in the gutter?
It's a play on the name of the band "Nine Inch Nails." Not a sexual reference.
I get this all the time, and it bugs me a little more than it should.
--Pathway
I haven't heard of this band, I haven't listened to the album even. I bought the full kit also. The price was very reasonable and buying the music this way makes sense because you usually don't get to hear the stuff first anyway.
Now I've downloaded the torrent and I'll find out if it's any good. If the music totally bites I'll still leave the torrent up for a few months. If it doesn't totally bite everybody in my extended family is getting this for the holidays. I hope they rake it in and that we get to find out how well they do. Most especially I hope they rake it in and other artists find out how well they do.
DRM sucks and if supporting this experiment is how we avoid it, I'm all in favor of that. That a good profit for these guys is money that escapes the RIAA is just a pleasant bonus.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No, but that certainly is a disturbing practice. But I'm refering more to recent political and journalistic tendencies.
Don't even know if I like their music yet. But despite the fact of being a 47 year old fogey, I went right to their web site and downloaded the album and made a contribution. An excellent spirit and good judgement deserves a reward.
Thank you HarvyDanger.
In my mind, popularity is how many people like the artist, exposure is how many people have heard of the artist.
Revenues (Album sales, concert tickets sales, online song sales, endorsement deals) is a function of popularity.
Popularity is a function of exposure and the intrisic quality of the artist.
Exposure is a function of radio diffusion, tv appearence and free internet download.
So really you cant compare internet download and album sales in any meaningful way.
Sorry, I don't remember who, what, where, when, or why.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
The one constant with the entertainment industry is how creative their accounting processes are, and how thoroughly they try to avoid paying those involved in the creation of the product. In the music industry, you have the situation above, where the publisher takes the majority of the profits from selling the work, and then charges all the expenses of producing the product to the artist's royalties, too. In the movie industry, you have creative ways of making movies have a net profit of $0, so that those writers that signed contracts to get a certain percentage of that profit get nothing. I'm sure the gaming industry will come up with something just as scummy sooner or later (as if the treatment of their employees wasn't enough).
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Have a look at SoundNet.
Unfinished, and I suspect it won't be finished for quite some time, but it works fairly well as it is.
I got to hear them live at Dawg Days last week, along with Smoosh and Presidents of the USA and that so rocked!
...)
Now they're going open source, it's severely kuhl!
ok, so I get carried away, but my first few degrees I hardly went to the free student parties cause I was way too geek and now geek is ok and I don't care, since I'm going for a doctorate (way way too many years to think of, but
Seriously, they were just what I needed when I heard them on the HUB lawn.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
To those who got all righteous and bought the album in a store... why didn't you paypal the band rather than paying all those middlemen you sooooo despise? All you need is an email address. sales@harveydanger.com would do.
I'm not sure I agree with your latter point. I think you significantly exaggerate how much money classical artists make from recordings. For those dealing with the major labels, the economics are similar to pop artsits, but keep in mind that in most cases, they are selling less than 10,000 CDs. In many cases, they're lucky to hit 1,000 in sales.
I think it's more frequent that classical recordings lose money just as the concerts do. The record companies overall make just enough profit to continue (usually - the major labels stopped recording US orchestras entirely some years ago since it's too expensive, and have not started up again to this day), but I don't think anyone outside of the Three Tenors or Charlotte Church are getting rich off of it (and maybe not even then - again, they probably make far more off of concerts than recordings), and this is regardless of whether they need to pay royalties on the composition or not. And even when they do record, often they need support from grants just to make the recording (particularly for orchestral or opera recordings, which are expensive to make).
It may be different in Europe, but I wouldn't assume this is the case even there: the BBC is now giving away material from their archives (note: they own several orchestras I believe, and have tons of music in their archives), and Naxos allows downloads of their entire catalog for a rather modest fee (or 1/4 of each track in the catalog for free). (Naxos also happens to sell classical CDs at very reasonable prices in the first place, like probably $5-10 average.) In addition, other than independent labels with widely varying prices, the majors seem more and more to be focusing on crossover stuff with sex appeal or whatever. It barely qualifies as "classical" any more.
This is somewhat true, but less so now. There is a lot of music from the early 20th century, up through the '50s especially, that is very popular but may still be under copyright. This may include works by composers like Stravinsky, Sibelius, R. Strauss, Bartok, Vaughan-Williams, Bernstein, Copland, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Gershwin, and many more. (I'm not sure of the status of each specific work, which depends on when they were published and I guess which country.)