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?"

28 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Don't stop at just the labels... by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...keep moving forward by working to repeal laws that instill any form of anti-market monopoly, such as copyright. I promote and produce for a few bands in the Chicago area, and I've worked hard to get them to repudiate monopoly. The bands that do make more money! Why?

    Small bands want their music out their -- the CD sales aren't where the cash cow is. Live venues can be very lucrative for even a small band -- getting 300 people to a show can net you $1 a beer or $2-$4 per head. Also, you can upsell your new fans on items they can't easily copy, such as T-shirts, autographed posters, etc. My brother's band Maps & Atlases just received a major article in Guitar Player, and they're moving forward with picking up sold-out shows, all without any representation. They do just fine on cover charges, new T-shirts every month or so, and autographed screen-printed show posters. If they can do 50 shows a year (1 a week), there's no reason that each of them can't make a very respectable 5 figures a year, after expenses.

    Sure, CD sales account for some profit, especially on tour, but there is little reason to think that a band needs a label just for radio exposure or MTV. Both are great for the rare groups that can break 50,000 albums a year or sell out to 3000+ crowds -- and the chance of being one of those bands is so rare that it is almost impossible. Even worse, the labels utilize the force of copyright against even the bands that "succeed" by wrapping up all their future income in the form of residuals and management fees.

    If you're a small band that wants to make it big -- tour. If you're a medium-sized band that is starting to form an audience -- get a street team. If you're a large band, make more products for your consumers to buy that isn't easily copied. Sometimes that 5 minutes you spend with a fan is worth a lifetime of them wanting your products, even if they get the easily-copied products for free.

    The best form of marketing is piracy -- if you're part of the 99% of the artists out there who can't get into the big industry because you have no clout or nepotism pull.

    Is it easy either way? NO. Simple laws of supply and demand will show you that most artists won't cut it -- it is very easy to get into the market (financially). The skills can mostly be learned. The production tools are getting cheaper and cheaper. There is a near limitless supply of people who want to get into the market. Surely, few are talented, but the simple fact that there is SO MUCH SUPPLY and so little demand means that most bands will make nothing (or worse, lose a ton of time and money trying). Still, the web will surpass the radio and MTV as the prime networking engine, and I do believe that collaborative filtering engines such a CRITEO will really take off when more small sites start utilizing them to get their microcosm of users to collaborate on what they like and don't like.

    Sidenote: If any bands are out here that are interested in trying this theory, and have any touring experience beyond a few local shows, hit me up with an e-mail, we have some money to invest in those who repudiate copyright in exchange for the free promotion that torrents and fileshare offers.

    Congrats to KOOPA for proving that you don't need might -- or force -- to be more than a starving artist.

    1. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GNU Public License rests solidly on copyright law. Take away copyrights, and anybody can take GPL software and release it as closed source.

      The right answer is to limit copyrights. I think that 30 years from creation, plus another 30 years IF the copyright holder explicitly renews his rights is fair. When the copyright expires, after either 30 or 60 years, it goes directly and permanently into the public domain. The Library of Congress should hold the official registry of copyrighted works in the USA. Corporations should not have terms that exceed or are different from the rights given to individuals.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    2. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't remove those, because those are contractual restrictions, and therefore voluntary. People have the right to enter into contracts if they want to. I don't think outlawing non-disclosure agreements is very smart at all.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by spoco2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by awol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct GPL is based on copyright. But you are only half right about the "taking open code and closing it". It is true that under a non copyright regime (which I support) such taking and closing is possible. But even where there is no copyright there is the _fact_ of authorship. That is the closing can only legally be done with the correct attribution ie, "derived from project X" or based on code from "Jo Public". Take away those attributions and the closing author is committing fraud, claiming something that is their work independent of the true author. This damages the reputation (or rather fails to enhance it adequately) of the original source of the code. Which is a very simple wrong. And easy to fix. Much good flows on from this situation.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    5. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Art's expensive. Paint, canvas, pianos, harpsicords, guitars, theatres, lights, studios, tour buses, dancers in cages, and hand-sorted m&ms all cost money.

      Gone are the days when it took hundreds of thousands of dollars--if not millions--to publish a book, release an album or make a film. F*ck the "artists" who don't like the way the world is changing. I'd much rather toss a 20 to a brilliant performer on open mic night than a shrink-wrapped CD any day.

    6. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by Rycross · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Artists don't have a natural right to control how their work is used after they distribute it. Copyright is a contract between creators and society, where we give them a short term monopoly on distributor to encourage them to contribute to the public domain. Setting copyright lengths to life defeats the purpose.

      Honestly, I'd say 5 to 10 years is more than fair. If you haven't made money off of your stuff by then, then you're not likely to.

      Point being that copyright is supposed to benefit us by benefiting them.

    8. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take away copyrights, and anybody can take GPL software and release it as closed source.

      Oh come on. Without copyright there IS no closed source. There would be no law to keep me from using it.

      --
      What?
    9. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's completely false. I've produced 3 bands in 2006 (basically, fronted them the money for marketing, promotion and equipment) that have done fairly well doing relatively small-club tours. Many of them saw significant profits from selling their $3 t-shirts for $15, their $0.50 posters (signed) for $10, and other dookie. Art isn't necessarily a profit center -- getting a job and meeting regular needs is.

      A musician can get a job making music for industrial purposes (movies, TV shows, even local productions such as local TV commercials, etc). A musician can get a job teaching others how to play music. A musician can get a job working on soundtracks for video games or other goods. That's where the consistent money is. Otherwise, it is risk/reward: you're out there competing against thousands or tens of thousands of bands, the risk is huge for a very slim chance of a huge reward. Why is this? Because the content is controlled by copyright -- any one band invests 200 hours total in making an album. 1000 bands do this. 1 band succeeds and never has to work again. 999 bands fail and continue to try. Why is the first band any better than the others? Usually because they're colluding with the distribution monopolies (designed this way by the FCC, mind you) who control copyright.

      If you're a tiny band and I bootleg your music, you have NO chance of suing me and winning -- I probably have more money than you, if I was a pirate. Copyright only helps the distribution cartels -- and cartels are generally formed by government force.

    10. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by mdwstmusik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      bar bands don't make money as a rule.

      True, as a rule, but not because there isn't a market capable of supporting bar bands. Most bar bands don't make money for the same reason most new business fail, poor management. I've been playing in bar bands for 25 years, 10 of those years playing bars provided my sole income. I only backed off due to a temporary medical problem. A bar musician can make $50,000+ per. year if they treat it like a 'REAL' job. They can't forget the business in "music BUSINESS." Be flexible, find your target market(s), play to those markets, keep your expenses to a minimum, and work at it 40+ hours per. week. Those are the kinds of things that one does when they run any kind of business.

      --
      "Oh, what sad times these are when passing ruffians can say 'ni' to helpless old ladies."
    11. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by Kris_J · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But if I've created something that is desirable to people for decades after I first made it, and there continues to be people who want to buy it... why shouldn't I be making money from it, rather than someone else?
      Because you live in a society that makes it possible for you to create that thing. As in incentive to make society better, you're given a monopoly over said thing for a brief period. Then the thing should be made available to everyone in society so new, better things can be built without having to start from scratch. To argue for infinte copyrights is to argue that you should be able to use stuff that came before you, but no one after you should have the same opportunity.
    12. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when that creator is a corporation and immortal?

      In any case 28 years from first commercial publication (otherwise the life of the creator) is plenty.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    13. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Copyrights protect creative works once they are released into the public

      No, they protect works upon creation. Further, there is some desirability in them doing so, or else we might have people stealing manuscripts in order to get around copyright. This has happened in the past, more or less, and should be dealt with.

      I can put a circle-C (©) on a piece of original work and it is protected by law from that point forward.

      Actually it's protected once you fix the work in a tangible medium of expression. But I would agree that strict notice formalities are a good thing and should be brought back.

      Now, copyrights can be contested if prior art existed before you released your work and made your claim to copyright on it.

      I think that you're confusing copyrights and patents. Copyrightable works have to be original, but they don't have to be novel (i.e. never done before). Patents have to be novel. It's entirely possible for Alice to create a copyrightable work, and for Bob to independently create and identical work and for Bob's work to also be copyrightable. So long as Bob doesn't copy from Alice, it's fine. That the works are identical doesn't matter.

      free speech as they are not restricting original oration or free thinking

      Free speech has nothing to do with originality. If I recite Hamlet, I use my right of free speech just as much as if I recite something I wrote myself. Both original and unoriginal speech are the same for first amendment purposes.

      then an NDA is a good way to protect the rights of ownership

      No, not really.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    14. Re:Don't stop at just the labels... by repvik · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you kidding? Business? You are aware that musicians create art? They don't do this "business" thing. Create the art, and the money should appear. If not, it's the pirates fault.

  2. MAFIAA by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    I'm sure some burly men in suits from the RIAA would have something to say about that. You wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, would you?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. The answer by PurifyYourMind · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    Yes.

    1. Re:The answer by Frogbert · · Score: 5, Funny

      Before you mod this guy down note that he isn't being a tool. He is just parsing the GP's comment using boolean logic, and is therefore correct.

  4. Observer affecting the experiement by Kris_J · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, now that they've gotten this extra publicity due to not being part of a big label, the results are largely meaningless. Much as I'd like to say that this signals the end of the big labels, this almost proves that you do still need them for the halo of hype that surrounds the industry. When a song or album is hugely successful for no reason other than the quality of music, then we will finally have moved on from the artificial reality created by the big music labels.

  5. Grammar police by Shippy · · Score: 5, Funny

    The header should be 'Download-Only Song to Crack the Top 40'. When I first read it, I thought it was a request to download the only song ever to get into the Top 40. Which doesn't make sense for several reasons. :)

    --
    -Shippy
  6. I told them this. by SickLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, at least I told a young BMW-driving yuppie from a major label. It was back in the mid 90's. "Adapt or die" I said. "Hah! You don't know what you're talking about," he repied. "We filter out all the crap music you don't want to hear!"

    Yeah, right. I now repeat: Adapt or Die!

    SLM

    --
    main() {1;} // zen app
  7. In Polish, the band name means... by BeneathTheVeil · · Score: 4, Funny

    poop.

    Having sampled some of the music, I must applaud them on truth in advertising.

  8. Here the song by sirnuke · · Score: 5, Informative

    The song is Blag, Steal, and Borrow and they have a Video, if you wish to hear the song.

    --
    Zing!
  9. Already a sell out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  10. Labels are sooooo last-millenium by inviolet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly, this is not a good millenium to be a business whose profit model consists of controlling access to information channels.

    First they came for the travel agents, but I did not speak up because I am not a travel agent.
    Then they came for the stockbrokers, but I did not speak up because I am not a stockbroker.
    Then they came for the newspapers, but I did not speak up because I am not a newspaperman.
    Then they came for the record labels, and there was great rejoicing.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  11. Who are the good guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I keep reading these articles and it always seems to come down between greedy, callous, paranoid record labels on one side, and greedy, sanctimonious, flippant music fans on the other side, with the bands in the middle trying to figure out how they can be rich and famous and retire at age 26. It's all self-serving bullshit on all sides.

    There is no music industry unless someone, somewhere pays for the music, and there better be a fair number of someones to make the money worthwhile, at least for the winners of the game. You can and will get inspired amateurs willing to work for nothing, or for gig money, but you won't get the explosion of creativity that comes from lots of talented people working their butts off for years trying to reach stardom.

  12. Re:Had to be done by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    But the Top 40 is not about gauging popularity. It's about gauging sales.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  13. Not ALL downloads by grahamm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Despite what the story says, it is NOT all downloads which count. If you look at the chart rules (http://www.theofficialcharts.com/docs/NEW_Single_ Chart_Rules_2007.pdf, there are very stringent conditions on a downloaded track being counted for the chart. Amongst these are the minimum dealer price of £0.40 per track. This will immediately preclude any tracks released under Creative Commons etc. It also only seems to apply to track downloaded from 'official' online retailers.