Slashdot Mirror
Download Only Song to Crack the Top 40
nagora writes "The BBC is reporting that next week's UK music chart may have the first sign of the end of the recording industry as we know it. From this week (7th Jan, 2006), all downloaded music sales are counted in the official UK chart, not just tracks which have had a physical media release. Now, an unsigned band called Koopa is poised to enter the top 40 without any old-world recording, distribution, or production deals. Band member Joe Murphy says "If someone comes along and gives us an offer, we'll talk to them." before continuing on to add the words the recording industry has been having nightmares about since the introduction of the mp3 format: "If we can get enough exposure and get in the top 40 by the end of the week, do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." Is this finally the crack in the dam we've all been waiting for to wash away the entrenched monopolies of 20th century music production? Or just a sell-out waiting to happen?"
Non-disclosure agreements and the concept of a trade secret are examples of copyright-like limitations on free speech. Remove them, and any company's attempt to keep source secret would be undone when any ex-employee or disgruntled cubicle denizen can freely leak it.
In some other discussion here about copyright I said why not have copyright last as long as the artist lives, or 30 years, whichever is longest? (In case the artist dies shortly after creating a work, their family should benefit from profits).
Why shouldn't an artist continue to reap the rewards of a creation of theirs for the entire lives?
Probably slim, considering the lyrics of the music being anti-sellout...
Unless they're REALLY hypocritical, which is always possible I suppose.
From this week (7th Jan, 2006), all downloaded music sales are counted in the official UK chart.
2006!
I'm suspicious, this seems like it could be a manufactured media phenomenon. Their song includes lyrics about getting into the charts. Their logo is a parody of the UK's age-rating logo. Their site is really slick, it's all a bit too knowing for their "underground" image.
Their whois points to a local web design/media branding firm, maybe they just laid it on a bit thick. From their myspace:
"Listen to KOOPA and you realise that this is not that watered- down, manufactured sound designed to impress your younger brother, little sister and please your parents."
Hint: it's not cool to say you're cool.
On they other hand they supposedly come from my home town (Colchester, UK), and are gigging here tomorrow. Might as well check them out for real...
Hate to burst your bubble but bar bands don't make money as a rule. I have a lot of friends that do it and what little they make comes from CD and tshirt sales and it ain't much. Generally doesn't pay expenses. Back in the day some groups used to make money at it. I used to know one of the Flying Burrito Brothers, they were a hot bar band in the 70s. They stopped playing in the 80s because there just wasn't any money in it. Too many garage bands willing to play for free to get exposure. The problem is exposure for what? If everyone wants free downloads and small venues don't pay then it's no longer a profession.
If I buy this CD with my USA credit card and my USA address, will it count towards the total tally?
:P.
If it'll help get them in the top 40 without major label backing, I've got two bucks (or whatever 77 pence is in dollars nowadays), but I don't really like the song very much
Game... blouses.
I read recently that in the UK some artists who cater mainly for older clientelle were making it into the charts. The reason being that their aged fans did not know how to download their songs. Other more web-savvy younger users were downloading so many songs from their favourite artists that they no longer needed to by their albums, so the artists who were actually popular just didn't make the charts anymore.
This move to include download sales is not just a natural progression to indicate popularity of artists, but a commercial necessity for the music companies. How can they promote a platinum-selling artist who has only really sold a handful of albums?
Of course, if they really want to gauge the popularity of artists, they could also start to look at how many people are searching for their music at BitTorrent sites or on Limewire. Eventually this will also have to go into the mix if they want an accurate gauge of what people want to listen to.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
Not yet. I think the Slashdot crowd massively underestimates the impact that experienced producers and recording techs have on music quality and popularity (not that the 2 always go together). Then of course there's good management and yes, marketing.
Of course there will be times when a band/artist gets enough right to make the charts (or even just a decent living) independently. However, there's an obvious problem with this idea that bands should just record their own music, put it out there and then allow market forces to pick the best stuff.
What if they can't afford a decent studio, or don't have the discipline to do enough takes until the sound is right, or the drummer sucks? Good production has turned a lot of bad music into good. An artist can be incredibly gifted musically but that doesn't mean they know the best way to record their music, or the point where a guitar solo stretches from cool to self indulgent wankery.
I think the tide will turn, but it needs to involve more people than just the artists themselves. I think we'll need to see a bunch of small to medium level labels dedicated to talent scouting, production, recording tech, management and marketing before the biggies start to get squeezed.
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
There can be real value in big labels. What if, say, the Beatles had tried to make it without a label. Would they be able to succeed today? Maybe. But part of what made them so great was the contributions made by folks like their producer George Martin and the various sound engineers they worked with. They added real tangible value to the music, especially as the Beatles started wanting more complex arrangements. They might not have ever come together if not for the recording label that employed Martin and the engineers. On the other hand, today we have so much great music technology that it's much easier to make a whole wonderful recording without leaving your bedroom. But you still have to know how to use that technology. Some bands do. Some do not. For those that do not, the labels may still offer some benefits. That said, some of the labels also seem to offer other things that aren't necessarily beneficial to the artists...
It's interesting you're trying to use the Dead to rebut the importance of this when the Dead signed to their majors for their first 7 years, then went independent for a short stint and signed to the majors again for another 13 years. I bet if they hadn't had the commercial success of American Beauty and Europe '72, they never would have left the majors.
Phish only released albums through major labels, so I'm not sure what crack you're on there.
Maybe your point is that if bands want to make money they should ignore their albums and form a jam band, rather than pursue any other genre of music. Want to make concise pop songs? Too bad. Challenging dynamics or lyrics? Sorry, that's not the kind of stuff that'll endear people to follow you around the country taking lots of drugs. Want to create the best album of all time? Sorry, that's not important. No, all musicians should make long meandering music whose only "challenging" aspects are the use of slightly obscure scales that can easily be ignored when you're dancing around while hallucinating (and aren't really challenging, so much as interesting to musos).
People who say "get your profits from touring" have a very naive understanding of the life of a musician or else very narrow taste in music (both stylistically and geographically). A lot of good music doesn't suit well to touring. Live music is great but music recordings are very important art form in themselves - I've never seen My Bloody Valentine live and I'd lose all respect for someone who says MBV should have received any money for the album "Loveless". Also, musicians who haven't already made it usually have day jobs and touring means at least inconvenience at work and possibly losing one income and replacing it with the touring income, which usually isn't that lucrative.
If you stop trying to cheapskate your way out of paying for recordings, you'll benefit in the end. That money opens up a lot of possibilities for a musician. They might improve their home studio, buy more or better instruments or afford some professional mastering or studio time. If they're suited to touring, the income from their recordings could lessen the risk and burden of touring and make them more prone to go on the road. The bottom line is this - if you find music on the net that you like, it behooves you to give the band some compensation. Not only is it the moral thing to do but it directly benefits you. If you pay someone for making something you like, the odds improve they're going to make more things that you like.
Therefore, if the right of attribution is alienable, there is no reason that a system without copyright would include a system of attribution.
What we're finding out now, is that, at least in the eyes of the state, like a salmon returning to it's birthplace, copyright is returning to its original purpose and it's all about money and monopoly control.
What I'm still undecided about is whether 'copyright is a bad seed and its basic nature will always win out'.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce