Slashdot Mirror
Some Bands Still Refuse Music Downloads
Zelbinian writes "Wired News reports there are a number of artists, ranging from The Beatles to Radiohead, that are still holding out on iTunes. Some feel that per-track downloads hurt the artistic integrity of albums as a whole; for others it's simply a matter of negotiation troubles. From the article: 'Since record companies have realized the popularity of iTunes and other sites, many reworked contracts to give artists less money per download. Andrews said while record companies once offered artists about 30 cents for each song sold, now musicians are earning less than a dime.'"
It's strange how Radiohead have chosen to do this, considering they were one of the first major bands to offer MP3 downloads to the public. Kid A was released for free online before in stores, and they found it advantageous. This was at the same time as their refusal to release singles or advertise the album in order to sell it purely on its merits.
Radiohead made Kid A top the charts, both here (UK) and America, through online publicity.
Perhaps it is since the culture of iPods is to create playlists and to "shuffle" that they wish to avoid it, and their release on the internet was in the idea that people still listened to music, downloaded or not, as a whole work, as if on CD.
Often called pretentious, the desire to have your work viewed and heard as a whole appeals to an older perception of music, one that I personally still subscribe to. It holds the idea of an album as a progression, as something that has a beginning and a conclusion, such as one might expect from a traditional symphony.
It can be very discouraging to an artist when an entire medium is practically devoted to destroying that construction. And if they care more about their artistic integrity than making further sales, I can only applaud them.
Unselfish actions pay back better
My band is unsigned...iTunes is a potential cash cow for forward-thinking bands.
... I don't understand the allure.
I think you just answered your own question. The problem here is that too many artists are lured into thinking that the only way to make a living in music is to sign away your soul to record label, for pennies on the dollar.
Now I'll grant you that I don't really know much about the intricacies of the music business, but based on conversations I've had with quite a few people lately, it seems like an artist would perhaps be better served staying unsigned -- if they have any management skills at all, or know where to find someone who does -- than to get on board with a label. What does the label give you? A chance at a very, very small slice of a larger "pie," but really what's the advantage of that over having a much larger slice of a smaller pie?
If you get 91% back from your music sales, it doesn't take nearly as many sales for you to make a living than it does for a signed band. I'd bet that properly done, the margins on CD sales are similarly large. Sure, you probably won't see an unsigned band's stuff in WalMart, but again: if you can make the same amount of money being a regional band, and have total creative control
The one thing that the labels still seem to have is a pretty tight grip on the music flowing into radio stations, particularly the corporate controlled (*cough*ClearChannel*cough*) ones; but the relevance of that mode of distribution is fading daily. Particularly if your audience is in a younger demographic, it doesn't seem like radio play is necessarily the requirement for sales that it once was.
I guess maybe I'm not a musician and I don't understand the desire for fame that might lead someone to believe that being nationally recognized is a good thing per se, versus making the same amount of money as a regional band, and not feeling like they're taking it up the ass every day. If someone can explain what the value proposition of the record labels is, in today's economy, where it's widely known that they compensate artists poorly and essentially do nothing but take your music as payment for questionable PR campaigns, I'd be interested.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If they do that then it will be at best an EP and they won't get paid nearly as well, nor will it get the same distribution. I'm not in the industry so I cant give specifics, but take a look at some of Mars Voltas works. Their latest cd is pretty much split arbitrarily so as to be long enough to be a 'real album'. They also have a live cd thats has a good 5 or 6 tracks that are just parts of the last song. Apparently the record companies will screw you over if you don't have enough tracks, even if one is 40+ minutes long
As an aside, Mars Volta is one of the few examples of music that is much better as a cd than as an individual track. You might like Inertiatic on its own, but until you've heard the full cd as a whole you havn't experienced the band.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Just sell the entire 'album' as a single 'track', for $.99
I have heard this argument quite a lot in this thread, but you have to realize that isn't really a very good analogy to releasing their music in albums.
A live concert is for fans who have shelled out to come see them, in person, they are going to give a full performance for their fans. The songs are generally already known by fans, that is why they went to the concert. It would be more like the artist doing concerts, but a fan could simply pay 3 dollars to hear a couple of the songs, and they leave during the songs they were not interested in hearing.
Releasing music on the radio is also different, because if a band is going to get their idea out, which SOME portray through an album, some through individual songs, they need some method to do so. You can't just make a CD and expect it to sell, you need people to hear something. So they put their best (or at least most catchy) foot forward, and hope that people like them enough to hear what they have actually put together.
What they want to avoid, or at least the ones who put out full comprehensive albums, is that they produce an album that has a point that they want conveyed, release a single, people love the single, people don't buy albums anymore so they buy the single and noone ever hears the album. Believe it or not, some artists actually care what you see, call them crazy, many will agree. Salvatore Dali was crazy, I bet you would have had a difficult time getting him to agree to cut out your favorite peice of one of his paintings to put on your starter cap. However, don't you agree that this is what is needed from more artists, and not less?
You take it, I don't want it...
I only by CD from the artist at the concerts I see them at. If we all do this we'll be supporting the artist and treating them the way they deserve to be treated.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
A friend of mine, a jazz musician, recently released a self-produced album designed to be listened to on Shuffle mode. Each song blends near-seamlessly into the next, regardless of what order they're played in. It's a different album every time it's played.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
IIRC Radiohead didn't even release a single from their album 'Kid A' (or maybe it was Amnesiac), which is an action that massively damages sales (due to the lack of a song getting much airplay and TV play if it isn't a single).
And due to what members of the band have often said, I am willing to believe that they really do care about something other than the money.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
To be honest, your little story makes it sound insanely easy to get onto iTunes. Much easier than, say, getting a distribution deal into a national music store like HMV.
think about it another way. If you are a painter having just completed your masterpiece stretching across a huge canvas, would you be happy if someone just took a detail from it and refused to see the whole work?
back to music how happy do you think beethoven would be to know that his epic works have been reduced to a mobile phone ringtone? and how good an understanding of his work do you get from only listening to that ringtone?
a lot of musicians are unhappy with people reading the lyrics when listening to the songs because they feel it detracts from their work. does that stop you from reading while listening? hell no!
does it mean that they don't have the right to ask how they would like their music to be listened to? again hell no!