Slashdot Mirror
Recording Music Without the Recording Industry
hephaist0s writes "The 2008 RPM Challenge — to write and record an original album in February, just because you can — is about to begin. Hundreds of musicians from around the world have already signed up. Last year, more than 850 albums were recorded as part of the challenge, a testament to what can be done by independent musicians without a label, without the RIAA, and often without a professional studio. The efforts ranged from an album made entirely on a Nintendo Game Boy to a Speed Racer rock opera, produced by both experienced bands and novice musicians, often in continent-spanning online collaborations. Last year's challenge generated one of the largest free jukeboxes of original music available online, built to stream on-demand all 8500-plus original, artist-owned songs. Imagine if grassroots, independent systems like this foretold the future of recorded music and its distribution."
And by working for free, they are stealing money from the professional artists. The more money a professional artist makes usually, the more are they stealing from him by taking part in this competiton. Hobbyist work should be strictly prohibited since it is, by its very nature, simply theft. And we aren't condoning theft, especially on a large scale like this, are we? Making music kills music, and a new copyright extension (prohibiting non-profit publications) should prevent that. Act now!
After being part of the founding of 2 nonprofits, and working many years in offering free and near-free services, I've come to the following general conclusion:
"Free does not work long term".
What I mean is complex, and it includes many different factors. First off, living and existing requires money: for food, shelter, power, and security. There's no avoiding it. Getting great people to devote (significant) time onto projects requires that they be paid. If not, the great people go elsewhere. For short times, and for specific initiatives, one can get remarkable, free contributions: but it doesn't last very long. There needs to be a financial element to any project or organization that will create value and last long term.
The second thing to realize is that for the long-term services and groups that we do see that are both great and free to you (eg Linux, apache, public parks, etc. etc.) - someone is paying, but it's just not you. There is typically just some kind of cost shifting going on. It is either the programmer who voluntarily spending their time, the foundation donors giving money to pay the staff, EFF staff fighting to keep legal protections available, or taxation programs paying for public services.
There are increasing awareness now among people that there are several other forms of value getting passed around online that are not cash: for example (1) people's time and attention, and (2) social capital/connections and relationships, and others. When you incorporate these factors as ones of own value, then it becomes clear that absolutely nothing is "free". Someone does work to make and organize things, and they need to be paid back, or they will (eventually) move their efforts elsewhere. That payment back does not necessarily need to be only in cash: it can be in attention, credit, or other items or actions they find valuable. That said, for most artists and content creators making great work, they do need cash in order to continue to spend their time making high quality content.
You can't because, when you do your independent production, whether you say so or not, you are *part* of the industry, even redefining it.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Label-free production isn't a new thing -- we're probably at least a decade into the era where anybody could pick up the basic tools to produce an acceptable quality album for less than $3000, and really, that would have even bought you enough time in some conventional studios to have them do it. I've heard some good albums produced circa mid-90s this way.
And internet distribution isn't really that new anymore. That's also been happening to some degree since the late 90s, and it obviously had gathered considerable momentum by 3-4 years ago. We're not at the end of that trend, but once wireless data service becomes ubiquitous, it's pretty safe to say the old distribution channels (record stores & FM radio) will be outmatched.
But there's still going to be a significant distribution challenge, and that's marketing. If anything, I think it's possible it will get harder. I kindof wish I'd gotten myself together and produced something high quality about 3 years ago, because I think someday, people are going to look at 2000-2005 as the easiest period for an indie artist to get attention, just like 1997-2001 was the easiest period to get a start as a high profile blogger. The wide net of participants increasingly means greater competition for attention.
Some people will be willing and able to pay for people to help them get it. Something like a label will exist for that purpose for a long time.
Tweet, tweet.
"Last year, more than 850 albums were recorded as part of the challenge, a testament to what can be done by independent musicians without a label, without the RIAA, and often without a professional studio." People make music in their home studios all the time. Make some albums that have the quality and production values of the top selling commercial acts. At the moment, from what I have heard, the music does not compete with what the RIAA members offer.
I guess the RIAA has to get mentioned in any Slashdot story about music, but I don't really see this is about 'sticking it to the RIAA'.
It seems to me it's more about just giving people a goal and a deadline - a cure for procrastination and all the other stuff that gets in the way of finishing things.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Ehh... There's a couple points I'd like to touch on here.
One: Yes, the RIAA is full-blown evil, and its disappearance can only be a good thing, not only for those being unfairly persecuted by it (whom these days seem to be anyone who's even heard a song they don't own while riding a friend's car), but also (even if they don't realize it yet) for the record labels themselves. The sooner they try to adapt to the changing marketplace instead of trying to plug an iceberg tear with sellotape, the better for everyone involved.
Two: However, art is not interchangeable in the same way software can be. I can say "Microsoft isn't needed anymore" because there are alternatives that perform the same functions, and often better and cheaper (or even free), but I can't say "Artist X isn't needed anymore". Because art (music in this case) doesn't merely "perform" a "function". Not good music, anyway.
One of my favorite bands ever is Gyllene Tider, from Sweden. I can barely understand half the lyrics, but their melodies are pure gold. A friend, while listening to them, mentioned a couple bands who sound kinda like them. "Why would you listen to songs you can't understand? If it's bouncy pop you want, you can get it in English". I was dumbstruck by the idea, even though I routinely tell friends "Why would you use expensive software that's broken half the time? I can install Linux for you in half an hour".
Free Art isn't like Free Software in that every artistic expression is unique. That particular expression may suck, but it's unique in its suckitude. And if you like one particular form of art, or a particular artist, there's no "switching" the way there is for software. So initiatives like this, while cool as hell, are not a way to "replace" anything. I can't imagine making a point of listening to stuff solely because it agrees with me ideologically, the same way I wouldn't drop the Star Wars films in favor of stuff like the Revelations fan film.
Of course, I may have just misread your point and am rambling on needlessly, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
You're asking me to spend time and money to produce an album, and then give it away? I'm all about the spread of the arts and aesthetics, but producing a good album takes A LOT of money, and time.
I do a lot of music composition and production, myself. I spent $2500 this year on a new mac pro, upgrades to the latest versions of Digital Performer, Native Instruments Kontakt, EWQLSO Gold. I bought a bearbones Digidesign interface for $400, own a $1500 synthesizer, and two $100 microphones, and I'm NOWHERE NEAR capable of producing a rock/pop album. For that, I'd need to spend another $1000 on a 8-channel audio interface, $400 in decent overhead mics for drums, and probably a few more SM57s. On top of that, a good set of mixing plugins for my DAW (like Waves), is a good $800. To build a recording studio capable of providing even the most MINIMAL of recording environments is upwards $8000, and that's with cutting a lot of corners.
No, while I have the potential to record and produce keys, guitars, and vocals, I'm taking drums to a studio, where I'm going to pay a couple $100 an hour.
And then you ask me to give it away? Fuck you. That's not "free", that's negative. Even to do music for the joy of it, money's gotta come from somewhere.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
There is a chance that these musicians can end up making money from their recordings someday, a much GREATER chance than if they had tried their luck with the RIAA. Feeding all of the CEOs, lawyers, marketing, walmart, etc. is taking money out of the pockets of musicians themselves.
What MUSICIANS need is to be free of these commercial juggernauts so they can compete in the market without juggernaut approval.
You are right that you can't a replace an artist.
But an artist can switch labels.
Do we need the RIAA? No.
Do artists need the RIAA? No.
So we can do fine without RIAA. The artist needs an audience and the audience needs an artist. Problem solved.
What power has law where only money rules.
To be fair, there are plenty of plenty of member labels that put out some great music. Rhino and Decca,for instance, are both RIAA members and there are plenty more that shed light on undiscovered artists that deserve a wider audience. It's unfortunate that everyone thinks RIAA==Britney Spears. The music industry is as varied as the computer industry. Sure you've got your Dell and Apple, but there are plenty of smaller players (and some big ones)that make moves and money. Of course it's easier to just denounce everything RIAA as evil. Nuanced opinions are usually modded down in these discussions.
harmonious design
is that there are too many good musicians. Right now I could go out to at least five different local bars which all have excellent musicians playing and I don't live in a big city. Sometimes when there's a decent amount of people over at my house there will be at least a half dozen talented musicians around. It's supply and demand. Music isn't worth what it once was because musical talent isn't rare, musical equipment isn't expensive, and because music is so prevalent and good no one wants to pay money for it. And let's face it, you get a better experience going to the bar and paying a $5 cover to watch an amazingly talented amateur than you do when you pay $50 to see a "rock star." Drinks are cheaper and the ride home is shorter, too. Good music is a commodity and is by no means profitable for record companies. Celebrity personalities are what the music industry deals with today. They need people who can sell t-shirts, posters, and appear in t.v. ads. They need people who can cameo in movies, people who have an interview presence. If you don't like the way the music industry is, then blame Kurt Cobain and Napster. Cobain proved that serious artists are more of a liability than an asset to the record companies. Ever since he blew his head off record companies have sought people who want to be famous first and an artist second. And really, who can blame them? It's just economics--if we had moral record companies then the industry would have gone bankrupt when Napster hit.
As a musician I'm not particularly happy about the state of the music industry but the only thing I can hope for is that the majority of guitarist in the U.S. keel over a die for no apparent reason. As long as there are guys playing at the bar who are better than me who can't become rock stars I'll have no great expectations. I'll have succeeded when I'm the bar star, when I get paid a couple hundred bucks to play a bar. As a musician, that hundred bucks for a night says more about my music than the millions a night I'd make if I played sold out arenas singing whiney music about my libido to teeny boppers. And really, there's nothing wrong with that. So I'll always have to have a day job, but in no way does that compromise my artistic integrity. Most rennaissance painters never became famous and the ones that did usually remained close to anonymous throughout their own lifetime. It's not like being famous validates the work; if any artist feels that way then their art has failed before even started. I guess it sucks that no one will pay me millions for playing music, but at the same time the whole rock star thing is a bit ridiculous. No one expects to get rich painting - artists who get paid make logos, storyboards, and marketing materials. That doesn't mean the canvas art "industry" is in a sorry state - it's just evolved past being special and is now commodity.
The music business is hard enough, with everyone feeling entitled to free music; ostensibly because they're fighting an ideological battle with the RIAA.
I suppose it doesn't matter, with our society praising mediocrity in all areas.
It's a motivation thing. People are lazy, and this gives us an excuse to do something on a set schedule. I've been writing and recording music for quite some time now, and yet it is amazing how much music I have not written, mostly due to simple procrastination.
Sig goes here.
There are even more talented artists out there than American Idol suggests. American Idol has a very strict age cutoff, precisely because they're trying to produce stars rather than musicians, and stars start young. Experienced, talented musicians over 30 need not apply.
"Why would you listen to songs you can't understand? If it's bouncy pop you want, you can get it in English". I was dumbstruck by the idea, even though I routinely tell friends "Why would you use expensive software that's broken half the time? I can install Linux for you in half an hour".
Both statements ignore their own audience.
In your case you'd replace broken software with cheaper (free) broken software that includes certain rights/freedoms the other didn't have but which most users won't directly benefit from (I love my mother but I know she'll never recompile a thing in her life). You just don't care about the things that proprietary systems provide which Linux doesn't have. Others will.
In your friend's case all he wants out of his music is that it's "bouncy pop" but you care about subtle nuances that aren't the same in his alternative music. That's no different to the OS situation - it all depends on what you want out of the the object (music or software).
If you're smart you should be using this as an opportunity to re-assess what you've been telling people about software rather than claim music/art is somehow special. Software can be viewed as a form of art too if you want to push boundaries and definitions. One man's commodity is another man's sacred art.
Heck I've even listened to some blokes ramble on about women being a commodity and then wonder why their view of women is so warped and they can't find someone they're happy with. For a commodity to be a commodity the differences and subtleties have to be ignored. If you're not willing to do that - if the details matter to you - you're no longer talking about a commodity.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
That's cool, and I wish a lot more labels were like that. But your brother should realise a couple of things: