An Artist's View of the Modern Music Biz

An anonymous reader writes "A member of the band OK Go wrote an interesting open letter giving an artist's perspective on the current state of the music business and how labels finance producing, distributing, and marketing music and music videos. A very insightful perspective of 'both sides': the argument that music and music videos are meant to be heard and, in the case of the latter, seen by a wide audience; and the argument that the money needs to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, the letter doesn't address the perspective outsiders have of outlandish salaries in the music labels, but it is interesting nonetheless." Their new video is not bad either.

Comments

A non-story.

[Anonymous Coward]

About Youtube videos not being embedable. Corporate fatcats strong arm Youtube and the band and internet at large suffers. Well, not me, that's for certain.

Re:A non-story.

[epiphani]

You're somewhat right - but I thought since all kinds of people are putting in their two cents, I may as well. A bit of context - my father is a professional musician, and I spend a lot of other professionals - from moderately recognizable artists on big labels to the 20 year olds working their ass off gigging in crappy bars with crappy patrons trying to do better.

There are two sides to the music business, and surprisingly most people know which direction the business is going. I've had extended conversations with managers that got this amazingly well. Oddly enough, this article doesn't get it.

The music industry is reverting to a performance-based system. You won't make money on CDs. You won't make money on music videos. The only people that don't want to admit this is the higher-ups in the labels, because that is the ONLY place where the labels make money. Artist make their money off of performance. Labels CAN still exist - in fact, they should. But they're an advertising and marketing company - and they should work for you like one. Why the hell does an advertising company want to STOP its content from being seen?

Once you admit that, then everything starts to get easier. Labels, CDs and videos exist only to promote performances - and the performances get easier. Better venues, higher cover charges, people actually there for your music instead of the beer.

Oh. And the article seems to make out that the labels are hurting. They're not, amazingly. Trying to solicit sympathy for the poor corporations that exist to exploit your creative works ... why are you doing this? In other words, my comment to OK Go, tell your label that their restrictions on embedding are costing you performance revenue. And stop defending a multi-billion dollar industry that cannot seem to adapt to change.

Re:A non-story.

[epiphani]

Make that "spend time with a lot of other professionals". durr..

Re:A non-story.

[home-electro.com]

+1. Artists ALWAYS made money through concerts only. That was so 200 years ago, that was so 30 years ago, and that is so now. Yes, there are few exceptions, like Metallica, Beatles, Madonna, Michael Jackson who made it to platinum albums. But these are few and far between.

Yes, there was a period of time when labels came into existence and enjoyed their position for nearly a century. Well, Label people. You got it good while it lasted, so don't feel bitter now. Your time is over. Go back to doing actual work.

Re:A non-story.

[slim]

Expect when artists lose money through concerts.

It used to be - and may still be - quite common for venues to charge acts for the opportunity to play in front of an audience.

Fine, I guess, if you're performing for the fun of it.

Re:A non-story.

[lastchance_000]

quite common for venues to charge acts for the opportunity to play in front of an audience.

Of course they do. Assuming we're not talking about a hole in the wall nightclub, how else will they pay the bills? If the artist wants to be paid, they need to be able to bring customers that are willing to pay, and share some of the proceeds with the venue. If they can't, then is it unreasonable for them to pay to get themselves heard?

Of course, they can always convince some modern-day Medici to be their patron.

Re:A non-story.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think for a second that the record labels pay those costs at the moment, do you? They might pay them up front so the band doesn't have to find the money in advance (admittedly there's some small risk here but these guys are experts at minimising their risks), but you can be sure that the labels charge the band every last cent.

Re:A non-story.

[glasserc]

Oh. And the article seems to make out that the labels are hurting. They're not, amazingly. Trying to solicit sympathy for the poor corporations that exist to exploit your creative works ... why are you doing this? In other words, my comment to OK Go, tell your label that their restrictions on embedding are costing you performance revenue. And stop defending a multi-billion dollar industry that cannot seem to adapt to change.

Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone else) have any numbers on the current recording industry financials? I can't find any clear analysis that says that yes, the RIAA member labels are still making money hand over fist. I see lots of muddled research that don't combine physical and digital sales, or that report revenues instead of profits (which seems stupid, since digital sales provide greater profits than physical sales). That said, all the numbers I see don't really look great for the record industry..

Ethan

Re:A non-story.

[geezer nerd]

Except when artists lose money ... works better for me.

Re:A non-story.

[hguorbray]

Artists did not always make money through concerts only -as several posters note below most of the great baroque and classical composers had patronage of church or nobility or other wealthy parties.

Beethoven though -he relied on publishing for much of his income as well as a consortium of subscribers.

http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ba-Be/Beethoven-Ludwig-van.html

bands like Marillion have been going the fanclub subsidized route, but they had years with traditional record companies and touring to build up an audience as well.

http://www.goldminemag.com/article/Progressive_Ideas_Marillion_breaks_new_ground_in_file_sharing/

-I'm just sayin

Re:A non-story.

[MaskedSlacker]

Let me google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=EMI+earnings

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Sony+BMG+earnings

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Warner+music+earnings

Was that hard?

Re:A non-story.

[glasserc]

Thanks; I hadn't hit on the word "earnings".

Ethan

My shits are meant to be smelled!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm Jeffery. I aspire to become a professional shitter. You see, shitting is more than just a hobby to me. It is a calling; a way of life!

I take a lot of care in eating foods that will enhance the smell and nosefeel of my defecations. Trust me, it isn't an easy task crafting the perfect turd. But I do it day in and day out, because I want to offer the world my best shits possible. In return for my hard work, all I ask is that you give me some money when you smell one of my delicious poops.

Now, I've been hearing that some people are smelling the shits of other people, and not paying for it. Some people even smell their own cacas! Did you know that fecal piracy is wrong? It deprives artists like myself the funds we need to live.

Please, think of artists like myself the next time you smell shit that you didn't pay for. If you don't repay me for the glorious turds I leave for you, then I'll have to get a real job like everyone else, and that would be a terrible thing. My stools are a gift to the world, and should be shared with all.

Re:My shits are meant to be smelled!

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously, you're not a golfer!

Re:My shits are meant to be smelled!

[lord_rob the only on]

I totally agree with parent AC, GP is *NOT* offtopic, insightful even if funny, it's called a cartoon. I'll surely be modded down for this but it had to be said.

Re:My shits are meant to be smelled!

[bws111]

No, it is making the same arguments that people CLAIM the musicians and recording industry use. Where did any musician or recording industry exec claim that merely listening to music is a copyright violation? Where did they claim that creating your own original work is a copyright violation?

Should Have Grown Organically

[eldavojohn]

So what’s there to do? On the macro level, well, who the hell knows? There are a lot of interesting ideas out there, but this is not the place to get into them.

So where is the place to get into that sort of brainstorming?

... the smug assholes who ran labels, who’d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats?

Ah, that's where it will be decided. I have low expectations for what comes out of that.

I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain. If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement. I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it. Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI. The obvious answer is that's a harder route for the big acts. It takes more work, like you actually have a job forty hours a week. And the attitude toward that option is:

We're a rock band, and it’s a great gig. Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England (we do), but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff.

But in the end we all suffer from bands 'selling out' to labels. I personally think no one suffers more than the bands. Some fans can comply with the ridiculous terms but you lose a lot. I would point to this small milestone in Ok Go's career as something of note to new musicians. If you believe in yourself, don't rely on a label to grow. If it doesn't work at least you weren't artificially installed singing someone else's music putting together an executive's vision.

If only Ok Go could decide that their new video is embeddable, most would have watched it on Slashdot right now instead of the 1/2 of us that clicked on the link. Unfortunately they already sold their soul to the devil so it doesn't matter what they think is good for them now. The funny thing about this is that I'm vacationing in Grand Cayman right now and while I own every single album and EP and even vinyl records from Ok Go, I can't see this video on account of what they wrote in their post:

This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country.

Good luck guys. I think you traded early growth that would have came naturally for some control over what you love. It's sad but it's the way it is now.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[MRe_nl]

One of the replies to the article sounds like a record company person, and i think part of it sums it up quit succinctly;
"Need" is obviously contingent on your band wanting to achieve certain things, none of which are *necessary*. To achieve those things, you needed some money you didn't have, and decided to sacrifice some freedom with your music, in exchange for the advance money.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[192939495969798999]

Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label. That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you. So at that point, why sign? If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.
Your choices in summary:
1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit
2. don't sign, get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profits

If you're all that good, you're gonna make way more money at #2. If you're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of #1, believe me, the label will find a way to claw that money back from you.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[slim]

I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain. If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.

Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.

The difference between a bank loan and a record company advance is that the record label is taking some of the risk. They can do it because they aggregate it across many acts, most of whom will fail, a few of whom will succeed well enough to fund the rest. Unfortunately we see that bands typically build up a debt to their record company, and that's a shame.

I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it. Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI.

But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video? There's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output. It's record companies' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.

I guess there are some organic successes out there (Jonathan Coulter?) - but they'll remain the exception rather than the rule.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[slim]

When my beloved Decemberists moved from Kill Rock Stars to Capitol Records, I wondered what the reason was.

Whatever their reasons, the result was hugely more ambitious records - in terms of production values and sheer number of instruments - and more ambitious live shows. I suspect that with all the extra gear, these were expensive shows to put on. Kill Rock Stars probably couldn't have handled that much cashflow.

But, they left it late. Colin Meloy of the band said:

We felt that in some ways, if we continued putting out records on [Kill Rock Stars], we'd totally be fine. But we also felt like we needed to kind of up the ante a little bit. One should only move to a major label when one can pretty much call the shots.

It seems as if being handled by a major before you've hit success, is bad news all round.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[alen]

if it's that easy why haven't banks pushed into lending to musicians before and instead poured money into RE? reason is that most music acts lose money and banks like stability with a lower interest rate than lending to 10 acts and losing money on 9 of them. banks also want something called collateral in a lot of cases. a lot of rich people like Annie Lebowitz who borrowed a lot of live in luxury put up a lot of their works and property as collateral. same with Michael Jackson. He signed over a lot of property to hedge funds and now everyone is monetizing his name to pay off his debts

this is where record companies come in who act like venture capitalists.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[javilon]

Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label. That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you. So at that point, why sign?

Well, now there is no reason any more. The reason used to be that labels owned the distribution channels, so you couldn't sound on radio or TV without them, even if you were a huge gig. Without them, you would not sound on TV or radio.

Now things are different, but labels still pretend to own the media and some bands fall for it, like OK go did.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[dangitman]

I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it.

You say that, but you probably would never have heard of them if it weren't for marketing from a record label.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.

If the label is keeping most of the money to themselves via Hollywood accounting or what not then what's the benefit again? That more people will buy albums and merch that goes in to the label's coffers that you still won't get a decent piece of?

All of your 'point' seems to come down to "the label will make you a hit faster so you can retire early without needing a standard 30-40 year career like everyone else".

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[mcgrew]

1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit

More importantly, personal CONTROL. Reel Big Fish made some kick-ass CDs before they signed. The one with the clown on the cover sucked. It was their first major lable CD. An artist who has someone telling him how to make his art is like a scientist with a guy with an MBA telling him how to do science. The good, effective ones aren't led by the nose by someone whose only goal is to make money.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[fastest fascist]

I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.

There's an assumption implicit here that is all too common: That music needs to be a business, or even that record sales, radio play, the stuff record companies are seen to be good for, are a viable source of income for a large portion of musicians these days. Most of the bands and projects I listen to are far too obscure to make any significant cash on sales of recordings. They don't get any radio play worth mentioning. They know selling music is not, and never will be, something they can rely on as a significant source of income. Still, they continue to make great music, maybe making some cash off gigs, probably making most of their money from something quite separate from their band work.

So the people treating music as a business - feel free to do so, but if you fail to attain the level of profitability you deem necessary, I'm not inclined to jump through hoops to make the world more suitable for your needs. Anyone complaining that music is becoming too difficult to draw a profit from, and that artists will suffer from that is forgetting that the majority of artists already don't, and never will, make enough money to live off. The group of artists that sells enough records and gets enough radio play to get significant income from it is very small and I'm quite prepared to live without them.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[slim]

If the label is keeping most of the money to themselves via Hollywood accounting or what not then what's the benefit again? That more people will buy albums and merch that goes in to the label's coffers that you still won't get a decent piece of?

All of your 'point' seems to come down to "the label will make you a hit faster so you can retire early without needing a standard 30-40 year career like everyone else".

To an extent that's right. As much as super-rich bands like U2 etc. are the exception when it comes to major label acts, I can't think of a single indie act that's raked in megabucks.

Becoming a hit faster sounds like a facile aim - but pop music is an ephemeral thing. A certain kind of act - and acts I personally value - are all about the performers' youth and vigour. If you give them 5 years to build up a grassroots fanbase, they'll have faded out before anyone's heard of them.

Classy of you do demean my 'point' by putting quotes around it.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand why he thinks artists need record labels.

Because you're in the business? Have been for years? You fully understand how everything in the entertainment business works? From the creative process all the way down.

Nope. Because you have an idea in your head that you will defend even in the face of the evidence.

Welcome to the world of Intelligent Design.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Anonymous Coward]

But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video?

Yes... I've only every seen this video on YouTube and not because of any advertzing from EMI.

The label fronts the money for us to make recordings... The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record label

So... why all the whining? The band is under contract, it's paid for what it produces and it receives compensation during the creative process. After which it also receives additional compensation as a percentage of sales (out of which the label craftily recoups it's expenses, from the net procedes I'll wager).

Anni DeFranco found a different method that allowed her to succeed without the onerous contracts under which bands like Ok Go operate. So there are other means, they're just not as easy. And people who grow their own businesses probably don't have time to write open letters whining about the way the Internutz work because they actually spend that time getting dirty and figuring it out.

EMI, as far as I know is one of the more progessive labels, especially in its flexibility regarding use of the Internutz. I can see 2 sides of the embedding question, but since IAMAL the other 4 sides are opaque to me. Damian's comment that it's harder to share links to online videos is appeasement for the blogosphere only. Lack of embedding obviously doesn't stop fans from sharing URL's of copies.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Anonymous Coward]

>Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while >you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.

Right except for the fact that there are thousands of bands out there who play music for a living and a handful of acts that play stadiums and that its more of a lottery than anything else.
Growing your own fan base takes more time but your success will be more due to your talent and effort than whether some suit thinks they can 'sell you'.

Bands like Phish, Widespread panic, String Cheese and others of that genre have succeeded thanks to the slow but steady method of growing a community of fans rather than relying on labels.
Heck, these bands do something that irks labels to no end: they give their live music for free. Tape it, trade it just dont sell it and they dont care (its like open source). And this does affect cd sales since those same people that will listen to some average audience recording will buy official releases as well.

There are an amazing amount of bands of all genres that never get airplay and yet that travel the world playing their music.

I should know, our band has played over 800 shows this decade including 200 in europe. The situation is similar in every country (and europe is falling in the hands of the vultures of Clearchannel). Big labels represent only a small fraction of working bands out there and while that model is well known, it is not the one which benefits bands more, only a small select few.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[tthomas48]

I highly recommend the movie Anvil before you make these kind of ridiculous claims again. The problem with these claims is they assume that bands have the time and skills to be marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants. Oddly enough it's possible the musicians might NOT be good at one or more of these thing.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[nine-times]

I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically...

Well I'm sure that at least part of the problem is that you "need" the labels because the labels exist. Ok, that's a weird way of putting it, but here's the thing: to some extent, industries also need to grow organically. They need to develop business models and trade organizations and conventional ways of doing things and bla bla bla. Right now, record labels are filling that void, and we won't develop real alternatives until there's nothing filling that void.

Imagine your a musician. You're not a businessman. You don't want to be a businessman. You don't want to have to figure out international distribution deals, which deal with different laws across hundreds of countries. You don't want to have to figure out how to get yourself on the radio and on MTV (oh, wait... MTV doesn't have music anymore... well, whatever the modern equivalent is of MTV). You just want to play your music and let someone else figure that stuff out. Maybe you have a manager, but that's still a lot of work for one person. You don't have the money to hire a team of people, or at least you don't yet. Who figures out your pathways into those things?

Sure, you have the option of simply living without that stuff, but if you want that stuff, the labels still hold the keys to the kingdom. Sometime in the future, if running a record label ceases to be profitable and they all go out of business, some other businesses or organizations will step up to the plate.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[slim]

But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video?

Yes... I've only every seen this video on YouTube and not because of any advertzing from EMI.

How did you find it on YouTube? Follow the chain of cause and effect, and I bet you find real marketing effort from EMI's promotion people is at base of it.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Dr. Evil]

When the music pays for 100% of your time to work on the music... what are you signing up with a label for?

I know at least one band who does everything on their own. They're happy doing what they're doing, and as long as they're happy together, make enough money to pay for their touring, their rent and their groceries, they consider themselves to have "made it".

If the "product" doesn't have that kind of demand, the only thing a record label could do would be to change your image, change your sound and change your gigs. What if you *like* visiting Bob and Julie up in that little town every year? What if you enjoy hanging out with the musicians in that little town in Ireland? Are you a musician or a business person? Is it about music or profit?

If you need an accountant or sound person, you can always hire one. Ditto for studio time, vocal coaches etc. It's just part of being a "pro" musician.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Vanderhoth]

Why do you think most small businesses fail? If only someone had thought of a business that lends money to help start small businesses, Oh wait that would be a bank.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[grumpyman]

All sounds logical, though if #2 really works out the way it is, all big/medium/small bands should have all flocked to option #2 asap. I don't see it happening currently - why?

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[tonyreadsnews]

This is starting to sound much like any entrepreneurial idea.

In the business/tech world you can either grow organically, or accept venture capital to grow bigger, faster to try and take advantage of market opportunities.
To do so means you give up some rights, have to have some IP protection or something to help guarantee that the VC investment has a chance to pay off.
Most reasonable people don't expect everything to be free, but I think most are tired of the VC/Labels emptying your pocket for products that suddenly don't seem worth it which is why opensource is starting to take off, but also why some started pirating media. If the media cost and convenient access were inline with more inline with a majority of the population's thoughts, I think most would choose to buy the media rather then download illegally.

Instead of looking at 'pirates' as people stealing their product, they really should consider that a sale lost due to price/convenience offering. This is better then the business/tech world which can only guess at what their sales might be if they changed their price/convenience offers.
True some will never pay, but then there is nothing you'll ever get from them.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Croakus]

For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party. Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party? I assure you, he would not. Likewise, no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.

As to your argument about a "huge reduction in your personal profit," that simply isn't true. While the percentage is certainly lower, 40% of a million dollars is far greater than %80 of $100,000.

As to your argument about "get the promotion your music warrants on its own," I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the Internet, you're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard. If you're talking about booking your own radio tours, making your own posters, etc ... when do you have time to make music? Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion. I may have totally missed your point here though.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Critical Facilities]

I can't think of a single indie act that's raked in megabucks.

They're out there. They may be in "niche" markets, but they're out there. I don't know how you define it but $14.5 million per year qualifies as "megabucks" to me.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Critical Facilities]

I can't think of a single indie act that's raked in megabucks.

They're out there. Any way you cut it, $14.5 million per year qualifies as "megabucks" to me.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article (and I trust the opinion of a career musician over random /.er on the matter)...

Your choices in summary:
1. Sign and have your budget for tours, music videos, and production staff quadruple, if not quintuple.
2. Don't sign and be able to reach out to more people (who are just going to download your music for free on the internet) while also sacrificing the ability to make better music (it's not all talent, production staff play a huge role).

No band can 'make it big' without a label.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[MarkvW]

Two words: Independent Contractors

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Bakkster]

When my beloved Decemberists moved from Kill Rock Stars to Capitol Records, I wondered what the reason was.

Whatever their reasons, the result was hugely more ambitious records - in terms of production values and sheer number of instruments - and more ambitious live shows. I suspect that with all the extra gear, these were expensive shows to put on. Kill Rock Stars probably couldn't have handled that much cashflow.

That's exactly the reason. You let someone else foot the bill and the risk. If you want a big-name producer and a lot of studio time, you need a major. The only way to take that much studio time otherwise is to record it yourself, but that doesn't pay for the big-name producer who can actually coax the huge sound you want from 10+ instruments simultaneously.

And as an aside, I was fortunate enough to see the Decemberists live last year. Fantastic show, and definitely a lot of equipment. Not that they couldn't have put on that show without support from a major, but I'll bet it made things much simpler.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[thomst]

Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label. That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you. So at that point, why sign? If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.

Wrong.

Your choices in summary: 1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit 2. don't sign, get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profits

If you're all that good, you're gonna make way more money at #2. If you're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of #1, believe me, the label will find a way to claw that money back from you.

Spoken from the perspective of someone who just "knows" that's the way things work - or rather, the way he thinks they should work.

The problem is that real world doesn't work that way. The way the real world works is this:

1. You perform, for almost no money (or, in the case of pay-to-play venues, for less money than it costs you to promote the gig and buy the tickets you couldn't find friends to purchase from the allotment the management of the place portioned out to you - and, if you don't sell all of them, you won't get a second opportunity to play that venue), as often as you can, while you work a dead-end, stop-loss job that, nonetheless, you have to schedule your rehearsals, performances, and promotional activities around.

2. You scrape together enough money to record your band at a low-budget studio, without enough time to complete your overdubs, because you can't afford to pay for the extra time. So the end-product is less than satisfactory - sometimes a whole lot less than satisfactory - but at least you have something to sell at your gigs, and send copies of to college radio stations and independent record labels.

3. You spend a lot of effort on your MyFace page, embedding your recordings (which eats into your market for CDs, which you try to sell at your performances, but more often can't, because the economy sucks, and, oh yeah, your audience can get the MP3s for free, anyway).

4. Eventually, you manage to attract an offer from an independent record company, which will give you the budget to make a decent album recording, and just enough promotion to go with it that you may just get a modest, college-radio hit out of it.

5. Then the major labels become interested enough to offer to buy your contract from the independent label, put you into what amounts to debt slavery to finance your next album and accompanying video(s), and (most importantly) pay Clear Channel the bribe money - excuse me, I meant "research fees" - that somehow, magically, gets your first major-label single actually played on commercial radio.

6. If you're really lucky, your song is a hit. At that point, you finally have a chance to beat the record company system - but only if you have already have a second single to promote (and not at all, if you're foolish enough to spend that income, rather than re-invest it by accepting a smaller advance for your second major-label album).

7. Rinse and repeat, until your contract is up, at which point, you finally have a chance to renegotiate the terms to something more in your favor. Just don't fail to continue to release hit records along the way, because it only takes one stiff - especially if it comes near the end of your contract, when you're getting creatively exhausted from the pressure and the touring - to put the record company in the driver's seat when it comes to negotiations. (This is what happened to Prince - and it's why he started insisting on being referred to as "the artist", because that's the way your record contract will refer to YOU - in the period when he appeared on SNL with the word "slave" written on his cheek in magic marker. And note th

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Anonymous Coward]

marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants.

Good music doesn't need marketeers, that leads to crap like spears and cirus.

Travel and booking? Is that really a skill that an adult should have a problem with? Even if you're also talking about actually booking concerts, - if you're successful, they will come.

Accountants - I'll give you this one, but I'll also claim that people are capable of hiring accountants without needing some economy of scale claimed by the recording industry. Hiring a private accountant is going to get you better results than relying on a corporate stooge that doesn't give a crap about your band.

Got anything else?

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[bkr1_2k]

The real answer? Because radio is controlled by the labels and has been for 60 years. It's worse now than ever for the case of radio, which is why we're seeing more and more bands gain popularity on myspace, facebook, and youtube. This is only going to become more common as more and more of us turn to what we use daily (who really listens to radio these days for anything other than shock jocks?) like the internet to get more and more of our entertainment, like music.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[tthomas48]

>>Good music doesn't need marketeers, that leads to crap like spears and cirus.

That's a recursive statement. Of course good music needs marketing. Please explain how you are finding good un-marketed music. Do mp3s just magically appear on your hard drive? Because I personally have to find out about bands via websites, tv shows, live gigs and magazines. Those websites, tv shows, promoters and magazines found out about the band because someone notified them. That someone is a marketer. Even if they happen to be the singer of the band, or a position paid millions of dollars. Still marketing.

>> Travel and Booking
Why will you give me accounting, but not travel and booking? Neither's too hard for people to learn, but they both are tedious and take away a lot of time from creative pursuits.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[gregmac]

If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.

There was an Ongoing History Of New Music episode that discussed this to length, and it was quite interesting (unfortunately, they don't put their shows online due to licensing restrictions because they contain music that is owned by record companies....)

For starters, banks are not likely to give a loan to a band. Simply put, there is a low probability of success, and banks do not have the expertise to judge the likelihood of a band succeeding. Secondly, if you fail* as a band, the record label will say "oh, well, that sucks. Well, have a nice life, thanks for wasting our money". A bank is not quite going to have the same attitude.

* Failing means not making money at a faster rate than you are required to pay your loan back. If you don't start making money for two years, it doesn't matter.. you still owe that money during the two years.

Record labels are basically analogous to angel investors for startups. The only difference is they are also the distributors, and effectively have a monopoly on distribution. It would be like if the only way to get out software was to put it on a CD, and the only ones who could make CDs were the angel investors/VCs. They're not going to make a CD if you funded your startup on your own, and they have no ownership in it.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Aqualung812]

Because the label gave them $100k up front. The band may have earned $500k in a few years, but that was an IF and in the future. However, the label can pay 10 bands $100k, lose the money on 5 of them completely, make back a little with 4 of them, and then earn millions on that 1. However, 9 of those 10 bands won't get any more than their $100k back.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Anonymous Coward]

But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video? There's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output. It's record companies' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.

When I click the link with the video all i get is :"Dieses Video enthält Content von EMI. Es ist in deinem Land nicht mehr verfügbar. ". In English that is : "This Video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country". Because of EMI I am unable to watch that Video and become a fan. At least in my case the record companies' copyright prevents more commercial success.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Space_Pirate_Arrr]

Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums and in debt up to their eyeballs while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s having made a modest but steady income all the way.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Should Have Grown Organically

[Falconhell]

Having worked in the music industry for many years, I would say that LOTS of people "have the time and skills to be marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants." We called them "tour managers"!-A job I did for some time. Its not that hard really.

Other artist's insight

[sean_nestor]

David Byrne (of Talking Heads fame) did a fantastic article for Wired a few years ago about this. He discusses (with details!) how the music industry works, some of the "models" of releasing music, and the economics/incentives to each one. Great read.

On a semi-related note, it's also worth looking at Steve Albini's now classic essay "The Problem With Music", which showcases how horrible the modern music industry is to musicians. It was written before the whole "digital revolution", but it helps remind me why I don't feel sympathy for suits in the music business.

Re:Other artist's insight

[rschwa]

I found this an interesting look at how labels treat their bands, and it kind of straddles the 'digital revolution'. It's a blog entry about an unrecouped band trying to get digital sales credited on their statement, to hilarious effect.

Microsoft got it right with Zune

[alen]

never had a Zune, but liked the Zune Pass idea. too much music out there to buy all the CD's i'd want to listen to. at some point it's wasted money having hundreds of CD's sitting around being listened to once a year or less often. I'd rather just pay $15 a month to rent the music. I wouldn't trust Real with it. Zune was just a crappy device compared to the iphone/touch. too much wasted potential of it being just a music player. Apple I would trust to pay for this service. Google is spyware.

Re:Microsoft got it right with Zune

[imakemusic]

Apple I would trust to pay for this service. Google is spyware.

What? Seriously?

Re:Microsoft got it right with Zune

[mcgrew]

I get all the free music I need from the radio. Now excuse me while I go buy some bottled water...

Re:Microsoft got it right with Zune

[Anonymous Coward]

If google is spyware, then apple is a rootkit

Re:Microsoft got it right with Zune

[Anonymous Coward]

and microsoft is a lobotomy?

Promotion

[whencanistop]

It sounds to me a bit like the music video was always meant to be a product that Musicians could use as a method of promoting themselves so they could make money on the things that actually made money.

This used to be selling CDs. Seeing as nobody buys CDs any more, this should be music downloads or live tours/merchandise. (I'm sure someone with a bit more time on their hands can dig out a link to that graph showing which people are making money out of music now).

If your record label is spending a fortune on making your video and then not allowing certain countries to see it, then you're not going to be making money from those countries (or not as much as you could). It's not like there is an incremental cost involved in allowing it to go on other blogs/other country's youtube. It's just that the record label is being greedy because they think they can get some money out of them, at the cost of the band's image.

Re:Promotion

[flyneye]

Yes, but, we actually do want to kill the music industry for its many crimes against musicians ,music and listeners.
An open business model is a much more profitable scenario for musicians operating on a level playing field, i.e. no industry spotlighting owned talent obscuring independent acts which may be actually better listens.
            Quit thinking about how to help the cancer and start thinking about how to remove the cancer.

Re:Promotion

[whencanistop]

I know you jest slightly, but I'm presuming the music company take an artist/band they think will make money and attempt to make them even more money whilst making themselves a bit on top. If you could do it all independentally then the bands would. Think of the equivalent of you filling in your tax return/paying an acccountant to do it for you.

However it has never been easier for musicians to go independent. It's cheaper than ever to get good recording technology. It's easier to distribute to masses through the internet. You can get your song on itunes. You can promote yourself in pubs/clubs. There have got to be far more people doing it now than there ever were, thus eroding some of what record label do.

However if you do go for the record label route, where you take half the hard work that you have to put in out of it (making the videos, setting up the recording studios, promoting the songs, albums, videos, tours, etc) then you can't complain when the record label tell you what they are going to do with them and tells you that you aren't going to make as much money as you would have before.

Plus you could probably replace the words 'musician' and 'record label' with the word 'journalist' and 'newspaper' in the paragraphs above then it wouldn't be any less true.

Re:Promotion

[flyneye]

You said "but I'm presuming the music company take an artist/band they think will make money and attempt to make them even more money whilst making themselves a bit on top"

          Regarding your presumption, The industry takes a band they think will make money for them and utilize the band as one would kleenex or toilet paper. The welfare of the band is never a consideration. It's all show. Even a successful band won't see profit till the 3rd HIT album, maybe. It all goes back to paying back the promotion and middlemen. Any personal glitz, cars, mansions, vintage instruments, etc. All owned by note by the industry. It's an illusion.
          If you would like to get a more realistic view read Steve Albinis tell all http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

        Musicians don't have a fighting chance with these unnecessary middlemen in the way. The same middlemen who've been ripping off musicians since music was distributed on sheet music before recording. Now with the advent of the internet, the parasite can be killed and there is a level playing field for all. We will all be better off in the end. As for the industry jobs lost, to quote Ted Knights "Caddyshack" character, Judge Smales," Well Danny, the world needs ditchdiggers too".
      To think that prostitution, drug dealing and rape are all illegal, yet the music industry receives government help and legislation is very much a living contradiction.
        No, I do not jest.

 

Re:Promotion

[bws111]

You can go way farther than journalist and newspaper. Replace musician and record label with employee and employer. Does a musician need a label? No, they could do it all themselves. Does a chef need to work at someone's restaurant? No, he could open his own. Does a doctor need to join a group? No, he can open his own practice. An electrician could run his own business instead of working for a firm. In each case, many (most) people go the route that provides them the most financial security, working for someone else. And in many of those cases, they are complaining that they are treated unfairly, should make more money, etc.

Re:Promotion

[xilmaril]

Does a chef need to work at someone's restaurant? No, he could open his own. Does a doctor need to join a group? No, he can open his own practice. An electrician could run his own business instead of working for a firm. In each case, many (most) people go the route that provides them the most financial security, working for someone else.

I was going to tell you that all of these professions are mostly self employed, since that's the impression I grew up with, but I looked it up, and it's actually around 6-9% for each field who are self employed.

I guess you're right. Pity.

And Another From 2000

[eldavojohn]

There's another old article going as far back as 2000 from Courtney Love. Although I find her and her music distasteful she sure does open up a lot of numbers that -- although larger -- probably work the same way today. If that isn't condemnation of the music executives milking artists like animals and then dumping them, I don't know what is.

Re:And Another From 2000

[koogydelbbog]

Steve Albini wrote that first 8)

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Re:And Another From 2000

[koogydelbbog]

as the grandparent mentioned. d'oh.

Re:And Another From 2000

[alen]

if Courtney Love doesn't like it she can record in her garage like David Grohl and just release to iTunes with no promotion and hope someone finds her music. then she can save up to pay the upfront costs of the tour and risk her own money and property.

cry babies have people giving them millions of dollars up front with a lot of risk of the loss of investment and they think they deserve more but they don't want to risk their own money for their ventures.

Re:And Another From 2000

[tepples]

if Courtney Love doesn't like it she can record in her garage like David Grohl and just release to iTunes with no promotion and hope someone finds her music.

Unless that "someone" happens to be an incumbent music publisher, accusing you of copying a tune written by one of the songwriters managed by the publisher.

Re:And Another From 2000

[alen]

so then hire a lawyer and fight it out in court or don't make music that sounds too much like someone else's music.

Re:And Another From 2000

[Darth_brooks]

Considering that Love has spent most of the last decade in legal wrangling over the very copyrights she seems to decry (copyrights she's now apparently the sole holder of thanks to a heavy dose of herion, a shotgun, and entertainment lawyers that sided with her over the guys that were you know, actually in Nirvana, not thanks to her own work), then leveraged those evil nasty copyrights into a cushy 30 million dollar deal that lets us all enjoy Kurt Cobain as part of Madden...er...guitar hero 17 while she can afford that bohemian lifestyle of earning tips from grateful listeners that she so lovingly describes in the article.

Couple that and the fact that she cites Sonny "I let Disney shoot their load all over my back while calling me princess so they didn't have to worry about losing Steamboat Willie until 2092" Bono as a defender of artist rights, and I'm just gonna go ahead and give that article the same credence that I'd give a dissertation on the importance of the 4th amendment from George W. Bush, or a lesson in fiscal responsibility from Carly Fiorina.

Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[RobotRunAmok]

What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity

And it's Just. That. Simple!!

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

And to think I could have been a rock star making millions with hot chicks ripping their clothes for me - all by growing organically!

I didn't realize becoming a rock star was so easy! WTF did I spend do much time in school? I could have grown organically during that time, getting high and laid in the process, and become rich! I feel so stupid!

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[Ihmhi]

What can labels & conglomerates provide that can't be provided by other already-existing companies or persons?

Studio time isn't necessarily done by the labels; there's tons of independent and in-home studios out there. Ditto on mixing.

Marketing? There's tons of marketing agencies.

Advertising? See above.

Pressing CDs? Although the technology will likely be obsolete in the next 20 years, all the labels do is make the order and pay for it. I don't doubt an artist with sufficient money could make the order themselves.

Music videos? Look at the work, say, Monty Oum does by himself on his free time. Imagine what a single man employed in that field (or a small company) could do.

In short, there's nothing labels do that artist couldn't contract out themselves. Labels will collapse under their own weight soon enough, I'm sure.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[locallyunscene]

In a way it is.

If people have X disposable income that they're willing to spend on music then you'll likely not see much of a decrease in terms of the industry as a whole. But that money will be far more spread around, and more of it will be going directly to the artists.

The problem with his thinking is that the money doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's a person's, potentially a fan's, money, and as long as you don't try to sell them more music than they can reasonably listen to they will pay for it.

It wouldn't be this way in the beginning, however. Because fans are so used to inflated prices there'd probably be an orgy of grab everything you can because you're getting something for nothing mentality. Eventually, though, people will realize that they can and should support the artists of the music they're listening to, especially when it's easier to give the money directly to the artist.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you left out is exposure on radio (whether it be classic FM style radio or internet radio such as Pandora, etc.). I think the labels pretty much control what music can be played on mainstream stations don't they? I agree that stations managed by a high school or college can play independent stuff - but they generally have low power and fewer listeners.

The other thing you cover - but sort of miss on - is the money. Marketing? Yes - tons of agencies. Just give them a check that won't bounce. CD's - sure, again that check that won't bounce. These things would be very expensive for me to attempt. I don't know about others. I guess you can incorporate and take out a small business loan? Maybe? Anyway, if you just want to be a band that has day jobs and puts some free stuff on the internet - sure - cheap. No problem. But "it takes money to make money" and the labels give them a way to do that (hate them or not, that's what they do).

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[rhsanborn]

Labels write checks. That's what no one else does. They are very much like loan sharks, the interest rate on the checks they write are terrifying, but if you are a small band, or a young band, many times you can afford tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all those things you mentioned above.

As someone mentioned above, the alternative is to "grow organically" which really means grow very very slowly. In many cases, these bands have grown slowly. They have had regular jobs to pay for their equipment. They play tiny gigs at small bars in their home town, and they've probably worked really hard doing, essentially, two jobs, for a long time to get to the point of being recognized by a label. They have barely enough money to buy guitars and a car to get to the next gig, much less move their recording and promotion to the level that a label can offer.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That's the great thing about free market capitalism: if the better way is really just that simple, then someone will do it.

Of course, the contrapositive of this statement is that if someone hasn't done it already, then it's really not just that simple (but some people find this view a little challenging).

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[icebraining]

I think what you left out is exposure on radio (whether it be classic FM style radio or internet radio such as Pandora, etc.). I think the labels pretty much control what music can be played on mainstream stations don't they? I agree that stations managed by a high school or college can play independent stuff - but they generally have low power and fewer listeners.

That's the thing: Youtube and other social networks are now _way_ more important now for promotion than classic radio, especially for a band that is primarily listened to by young people. And they're free!

four years after we posted our first homemade videos to YouTube and they spread across the globe faster than swine flu, making our bassist's glasses recognizable to 70-year-olds in Wichita and 5-year-olds in Seoul and eventually turning a tidy little profit for EMI

The other thing you cover - but sort of miss on - is the money. Marketing? Yes - tons of agencies. Just give them a check that won't bounce. CD's - sure, again that check that won't bounce.

You don't need any of that in the beginning. Look at Artic Monkeys. They made a few gigs and gave away a some demo CDs (those CD duplication companies burn you 1000 CDs with covers for £500), the fans started file-sharing and upload to MySpace.

The band refused to change their songs to suit the industry and resisted signing to a record label -- "Before the hysteria started, the labels would say, 'I like you, but I'm not sure about this bit, and that song could do with this changing...' We never listened."[14] Their cynicism towards the industry was such that record company scouts were refused guaranteed guest list entry for their gigs, a move described by MTV Australia as "We've got this far without them -- why should we let them in?".[17] The success of the strategy was illustrated with a series of sell-out gigs across the UK and Ireland.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[Ihmhi]

Maybe its time people stop considering music as a primary career, then, until they build their customer base up stronger.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[HeckRuler]

Uh, the price to produce a decent music CD is approaching zero, especially if you already have the instruments and a PC.

Buy a mike, some foam, learn to be an sound engineer or get one to join the band, pay someone for hosting your website or pull out a 486 and learn how to host it yourself. Sell yourself to everyone you know, and give your music away for free.

OR, promise 90% of all revenue you ever generate, give up ownership of your works, sell out to a label so they can deal with all that business stuff, and you can simply get a check.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sell songs. Not much. Mostly to friends.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[Kierthos]

That's the thing: Youtube and other social networks are now _way_ more important now for promotion than classic radio, especially for a band that is primarily listened to by young people. And they're free!

And far more people still listen to the radio then watch YouTube. Okay, look... you can listen to the radio at any time, while doing practically anything. You could be working in your backyard, driving a car, putting the new coversheet on the TPS report... and listen to the radio at the same time.

But if you're watching a video on YouTube... well, I hope to Jesus you're not driving at the same time.... regardless, you need a computer/laptop/netbook to do so. Which limits the viewership. (A radio is far cheaper then a computer. You can get a cheap Walkman for twenty bucks.)

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[icebraining]

Even then, most people young people I know won't listen to radio - they'll listen to their MP3 player. They can be found for 15, around here.

And having a computer is not required to watch Youtube, at least 'round here the schools all have some computers. Besides, if you're young and don't have a computer, it's usually because you can't afford it. And if it's so, can you really afford to buy music CDs or go to concerts?

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[bkr1_2k]

Really? A computer is now as cheap as a CD or a single concert ticket? I want to live where you live!

Seriously, I agree that you're on the right track, especially over the next five years, but it's not that easy yet. I think the biggest issue the opposition to your statement is missing is the fact that growing "organically" doesn't mean instant success with your first album. The generation that "changed music" in the 60s didn't do it with a single album. They did it by putting out a lot of good music over time. A couple of big names had instant impact but for the most part these were artists who "earned their stripes" so to speak. They grew their fans over time. We're going back to the way it was, only with new methods of distribution, nothing more.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[frank_adrian314159]

Labels write checks. That's what no one else does. They are very much like loan sharks, the interest rate on the checks they write are terrifying, but if you are a small band, or a young band, many times you can afford tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all those things you mentioned above.

There's one other difference. They forgive the loans if the band can't pay them back. This may seem like very thin gruel if you're working on what seems like indentured servitude for years to make your act big, but 90% of all bands break up (or are released from their contract) before the terms of those contracts expire.

A better model to view this under might be that of venture capital funds. In exchange for money and "management expertise" (in addition to a fair amount of buzz in the money community), you sell off large chunks of your ownership and IP. You may slave for years for little more than a mediocre paycheck. In the end, a lot (if not most) of what you make goes back to the VC firm. If you're lucky, you hit it big, too.

Granted, most VC firms don't sue their customers... that often. And, that being said, there's a lot to dislike about the VC money marketplace, too. But if you can see (labels funding bands) (VCs funding startups), the kids in the band don't have that bad of a deal - like they say, they get paid for making cool stuff (that actually sounds like all the other cool stuff out there, but... see! It is like the VC industry!).

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[icebraining]

Really? A computer is now as cheap as a CD or a single concert ticket? I want to live where you live!

Not quite, but if you can only afford one CD, you're not really the marketeer's target market :P

But actually, here in Portugal our government as made a deal with the three mobile (phone and internet) networks, so they don't have to pay the licenses (and possibly other taxes, I'm not sure), as long as they provide a subsidized laptop for all students. The companies make a decent profit with almost any of them, except in the case of students who have low income: They pay no upfront for their laptops, and the mobile internet monthly fee is 5 (for 36 months minimum).

So if you're a student and actually can only afford one CD, you can probably afford a laptop too.

Seriously, I agree that you're on the right track, especially over the next five years, but it's not that easy yet. I think the biggest issue the opposition to your statement is missing is the fact that growing "organically" doesn't mean instant success with your first album. The generation that "changed music" in the 60s didn't do it with a single album. They did it by putting out a lot of good music over time. A couple of big names had instant impact but for the most part these were artists who "earned their stripes" so to speak. They grew their fans over time. We're going back to the way it was, only with new methods of distribution, nothing more.

Yes, but is signing with labels really a guarantee that you'll be a success on your first album? I doubt it works for more than 5% of them.

Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[Ihmhi]

There's one other difference. They forgive the loans if the band can't pay them back.

Yes, and labels have also torpedoed bands because they don't think they're going in the "right" direction musically.

"This band's sound isn't in anymore, let's reduce their advertising budget."

A Better Perspective from a Real Pro

[flyneye]

This article barely tells anything. You want a real close up perspective? read this : http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
It's a tell all by Steve Albini, producer of Nirvanas last album and member of Big Black and Rapeman .
When you read this , you will see why I hate the industry soooooo much and am dedicated to its death.
So read this and get out your p2p and help kill the industry to make the world safe for music and musicians.

Re:A Better Perspective from a Real Pro

[Anonymous Coward]

By dedicated to its death, I hope you mean by supporting bands with a business model you approve of, and you're not just using this as an excuse to download music you haven't paid for. Because one of the arguments I keep reading here is that "no one gets hurt because it's not stealing".

If you don't support a band that does the things you agree with, then you're not part of the solution.

It's amazing that so many people her get so worked up over this, because while I agree the music industry is changing, I just can't imagine this is the most important issue we all face.

There's a ton of music out there. In fact, local music is dying, so why don't you go out to a club and support some real starving artists?

Re:A Better Perspective from a Real Pro

[flyneye]

They say they are hurt by p2p. Fair enough. Hurt them.
Of course I support free music. I support my local scene.
      I also want the industry to dry up and blow away. I will do what I can to achieve this end.
Whatever I can't do, the rest of you can.
    Quit BUYING industry garbage and starve the bastards out.

   

"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again. Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more. Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.

The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales. Instead, it sold more records. The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies. They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened. The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.

The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.

If giving it away meant that you couldn't sell it, Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list. Besides libraries, you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website. The forward to Little Brother explains this far better than this slashdot comment; I urge everyone to read that book, or at least the forward.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[jank1887]

just a minor point: public libraries aren't free. they're a shared cost institution, getting their funding from numerous taxpayer sources.

http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=42

Question:
From what sources are state libraries funded?

Response:

Revenue

Sources of state library agency revenue are the federal government, state governments, and other sources, such as local, regional, or multi-jurisdictional sources. State library agencies may also receive income from private sources, such as foundations, corporations, friends of libraries groups, and individuals. State library agencies may also generate revenue through fees for service or fines. Revenue may be designated for aid to libraries, for the current and recurrent costs necessary for the provision of services by the state library agencies, or other purposes.

        * State library agencies reported a total revenue of $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005. The states provided state library agencies with $895 million in revenue, $158 million came from federal sources, and $30 million came from other sources.1

        * Of the financial assistance to libraries provided by state library agencies in fiscal year 2005, some 56 percent ($409 million) was targeted to individual public libraries.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Anonymous Coward]

The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales. Instead, it sold more records. The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies. They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened. The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.

The buggy whip industry was sure that the internal combustion engine would kill sales. Instead... erm... it did?

Come on, this is Slashdot, get with the car analogies people.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[acoustix]

I don't think you understand how a library operates. The books don't just appear out of thin air and Librarians don't volunteer their time. It all costs money. In this case, taxpayer money.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[dangitman]

The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.

In an increasingly virtual world, what physical items are you going to be selling? Food and shelter?

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[i_ate_god]

The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again. Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more. Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.

The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales. Instead, it sold more records. The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies. They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened. The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.

The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.

If giving it away meant that you couldn't sell it, Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list. Besides libraries, you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website. The forward to Little Brother explains this far better than this slashdot comment; I urge everyone to read that book, or at least the forward.

So, what you're saying is that you support DRM? Because that's what a library is. It's a place to temporarily get your hands on content, consume it, and then give it back. You have no rights to copy/distribute the work you BORROWED. That is what a DRM'ed DVD or MP3 is. You borrow that content. People really need to stop using libraries as some sort of "proof" that free access to content does not deprive money from the creator of the content.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[alen]

in a library you have to wait for a new book or the one you want. i want to borrow some CD's but they are in a branch that's an hour away and i don't want to spend the time going there. all the kids want what they want NOW

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

In an increasingly virtual world, what physical items are you going to be selling?

You could check books out from the library, why would anybody buy a copy? Because people like to OWN things. I hold no value in my digital music collection, which is far larger than my CD, record, and tape collection, but I value the physical copies. They're MINE. My digital collection is not.

Having only digital copies does make sense if you live in a dorm. Otherwise, the valuable ones are the physical. Non-physicality is worthless.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call it a "physical product", but I think MP3s are a free lure to get people to shell out cash for live performances. People will pay several times the cost of a CD to watch a live show.

Almost everyone has to do live performances to earn a paycheck. Musicians are now coming into that fold.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[dangitman]

Because people like to OWN things.

Yeah, people like to own things. Like a house, or a computer.

Having only digital copies does make sense if you live in a dorm. Otherwise, the valuable ones are the physical. Non-physicality is worthless.

Why? The song sounds the same whether it is being played from a physical CD or a rip stored on your hard drive. Nobody really cares that you own the CD case with its cheap artwork.

Your money would be much better put toward things that people actually care about.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[iB1]

Concert tickets and T-Shirts

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[16384]

Nobody really cares that you own the CD case with its cheap artwork.

Why don't they sell CDs with proper artwork, booklets, etc. then?

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Thoreauly Nuts]

The real purpose of libraries in America is an adjunct to public education; to make available and instill in individuals the knowledge to identify threats to liberty and prevent the rise of tyranny. It is meant to protect a "government by the people" from becoming one run by an elite ruling class. As such, the presence of "entertainment" in a library is secondary.

Sadly, and although it is anecdotal, over the last couple decades I have noticed in the communities I have lived in a shift away from libraries being repositories of knowledge and instead becoming little more than entertainment "rental" establishments.

The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs, CDs, and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section. I would guess that at my current library, only about 20-25% of the selections are non-fiction.

Obviously, libraries are failing at their purpose to the same degree that the public education system is, with the former serving more to distract than teach, and the latter to train for wage slavery rather than to truly educate.

The American experiment was an interesting idea even if it is failing completely at this point.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[dangitman]

Why don't they sell CDs with proper artwork, booklets, etc. then?

Why would they? Nobody wants it.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

just a minor point: public libraries aren't free. they're a shared cost institution, getting their funding from numerous taxpayer sources.

True, but beside the point. You're paying taxes whether or not you use the library, and checking out a book costs you nothing.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Thoreauly Nuts]

in a library you have to wait for a new book or the one you want. i want to borrow some CD's but they are in a branch that's an hour away and i don't want to spend the time going there

I've always found it silly that the requirement to legally acquire works for free is to get in one's car and drive to a library.

If I simply pirate all the works to create my own library and then drive around the block in my car a few times before consuming them every now and then, I've essentially done the same thing.

Just to be clear, this was a mild attempt at humor...

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

That is what a DRM'ed DVD or MP3 is. You borrow that content.

I own the physical copy of the DVD. I can resell it, loan it out, set it on fire if I want. The idea of DRM is irrelevant to the subject. DRM or no, you don't own digital data.

Even if you buy a book, you don't own the novel, you own the book. The only restrictions borrowed books have over bought books is you have to give them back.

In the essay I pointed to, Doctorow mentions that nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have gone hungry or found other work because of obscurity. Obscurity is the artists' true enemy.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[tehcyder]

The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again. Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more. Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.

That is a bizarre example to give.
At least here in the UK, libraries are funded out of taxes, they don't make a profit; and yes, you have "free" access in the sense that you don't have to pay again to use something you've already paid for.
The book publishers are paid for their books, they're not giving them away for free.
But who's making money out of this "free" service?
I don't understand your point.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

America isn't the only country with libraries, you know. And the fact that most books (and DVDs and CDs you can check out from a library) aren't nonfiction reinforces my point rather than diminishing it.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[tehcyder]

You're paying taxes whether or not you use the library, and checking out a book costs you nothing.

If I give my local corner shop a thousand pounds a month, and they agree to let me help myself to sweets whenever I feel like it, I don't think those sweets are costing me nothing just because I don't have to pay him cash each with each transaction...

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[slim]

Why? The song sounds the same whether it is being played from a physical CD or a rip stored on your hard drive. Nobody really cares that you own the CD case with its cheap artwork.

I think this is a generational thing. People who grew up with vinyl, where some releases would come in very ornate packaging - gatefolds, embossing, inserts, tracing paper layers, etc. miss all that. Those artefacts were a complete package -- you'd listen to the music, and spend a lot of time looking at and experiencing the packaging.

Think of those fetishistic Apple unboxing videos.

Even when we were giving mixtapes to our friends, we'd make box art, to turn them into artefacts.

With CDs, some of that continued. But more and more, CD packaging is cheap and uninspiring -- a jewel case with a cheaply printed insert, or even a cardboard case.

With downloads, of course you get none of that. Some Radiohead downloads include PDFs you're encouraged to print out and play with. But mostly, you just get the music. Us old guard feel something is missing. Younger people are used to it, and see nothing wrong with it.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[radish]

Meh. I'm a huge music fan, and spend a lot of money on CDs etc. I have no interest in T-shirts and rarely go to concerts (largely because most of the artists I listen to don't really play concerts). So if that model were adopted and the recordings were made free, their income from me would drop to basically zero. Of course I'm sure the income from other people would go up from zero, so maybe it'd balance out.

I really have no issue with the current model other than (a) the lawsuits are clearly over the top and (b) I wish I could buy lossless downloads at a comparable price to the physical CD so I could save the waste of manufacturing and shipping the plastic disc I'll rip exactly once. When WAV or FLAC downloads are available they're usually considerably more than the CD on Amazon, which is frankly absurd.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[radish]

The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs, CDs, and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section. I would guess that at my current library, only about 20-25% of the selections are non-fiction

My wife is a librarian, so I know a little about this. The reason that the proportion of non-fiction is lower is two-fold. Firstly, the demand is dropping. Libraries are paid for by the taxpayer and it's hard to justify not stocking the kinds of items they are actually interested in. Secondly, non-fiction is simply not being published as much because of the explosion of access to non-fiction information online. One of the very important functions that modern libraries provide which you totally overlook is free access to the internet, along with training and instruction on how to use it. This is replacing (and improving on, in many respects) traditional reference books.

Additionally, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of the purpose of a library. I think they are many fold, and one is the promotion of general literacy. Most librarians are just happy to get kids (and adults to be honest) to read _anything_, the argument over whether they're reading the _right_ thing can come later.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[slim]

Concert tickets and T-Shirts

A common enough suggestion. But there are genres of music that are not amenable to concert performance. And there are genres of music whose fans aren't the types to clamour after T-shirts proclaiming their musical taste.

Are we saying that those kinds of music don't deserve to get made? (Or don't deserve to be self-financing, at least).

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Old97]

You're paying taxes whether or not you use the library, and checking out a book costs you nothing.

'Taxes' is not a single quantity of money. You can pay more or less in taxes. Many communities have cut their funding of libraries in order to spend the money for other things. They did that as opposed to raising taxes to fund both the libraries and the other things. That happens a lot during economic down times like today.

The numbers of books and media, their variety and quality are also dependent on how much funding the libraries get. The number of library locations and their operating hours - the same. Many libraries also provide internet access. Nothing is free.

One argument for cutting library funding is that people can or should by their own books, media and internet access - as if only the people who can afford all this exist. Some people wish this were true. Don't take libraries or their continued funding and support for granted.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of Merchandise?

Its quite popular in the form of clothing. People will wear things showing off their favorite band. The crazy thing is, while people will pay $15 for a cd, that might be released every three or four years from a band, they will pay $50 for a hoodie, $20 for a tshirt, $15 for a hat, and so on and so forth, without even needing the band to do anything but keep released music on their regular cycle.

There will _ALWAYS_ be a market for clothing. Humans aren't simply going to 'go digital'.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[stillnotelf]

If you give your local library a thousand pounds a month, they're going to rename it the tehcyder library, because they don't normally get that kind of support!

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Alistair Hutton]

Libraries are the new number 1 stupid analogy used by people who think they shouldn't have to pay for anything.

I've started seeing libraries being used more and more as "proof" that "Big Media" are hypocrites, or stupid, or something, something, blah, blah I WANT FREE STUFF.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[Anonymous Coward]

What prevents someone from copying the images and making their own clothing? Or are you really naive enough to suggest that people who are too cheap to pay for the music will be happy to pay inflated prices for clothing just to support the musicians?

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[penguinchris]

Your example is obviously flawed - libraries do not cost each person $1000 a month in taxes, besides the fact that it would be pretty difficult to eat $1000 worth of sweets in a month (by yourself), meaning the value proposition is so low that no one would take up that offer.

It's not really necessary and I doubt anyone will even read my post, but I've always wanted to do a slashdot style back-of-the-envelope calculation... so here goes.

Let's assume the previous post was correct, and libraries cost $1.1 billion a year. To keep it simple I'll use state taxes only, which is listed as $895 million. Wikipedia says total state tax revenue (in 2007) was $749,785,186,000 ($750 billion). So, 0.001% of state tax revenue was spent on libraries. Very likely there are local/city taxes that could be significant, but the previous poster showed that states provide the largest source of library funding.

In 2005, at $38,206 per capita the average state tax rate was 9.8% (source). So, about $3,750 in taxes was paid per person, on average, to the state(s) where they did business (these numbers include taxes from states besides those the person resides in, such as sales tax on out-of-state purchases, but doesn't include federal taxes). 0.001% of that is 4 cents, and that's for the whole year... 0.3 cents/month.

Let's assume my math and the figures I used are bad, and it's actually significantly higher. Say, one hundred times higher... $4 a year is still a heck of a good deal for everything that libraries provide to those who use them, and if you never ever use the library, you can write off the expense (pun intended), considering how small it is, as part of "buying civilization" as the well-known slashdot sig goes, just like you probably don't directly use a lot of the other things state, local, and federal taxes pay for (and you don't get to pick and choose what your money goes toward).

Your sweets example is obviously different, because sweets can't be almost endlessly re-used like books and DVDs from the library can (I suppose you could try with sweets, but...) That's why, of course, such a pre-payment scheme as you suggest wouldn't work for food (although all-you-can-eat buffets are an interesting thing to consider), but why the original point stands... you are pre-paying for the library, but it's a minuscule amount that more or less equals nothing, especially when compared to the value it potentially provides to you.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[i_ate_god]

That is what a DRM'ed DVD or MP3 is. You borrow that content.

I own the physical copy of the DVD. I can resell it, loan it out, set it on fire if I want. The idea of DRM is irrelevant to the subject. DRM or no, you don't own digital data.

Even if you buy a book, you don't own the novel, you own the book. The only restrictions borrowed books have over bought books is you have to give them back.

In the essay I pointed to, Doctorow mentions that nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have gone hungry or found other work because of obscurity. Obscurity is the artists' true enemy.

You missed my point though. You buy a DVD, you keep it. You don't own the content, but you still keep it. DRM however, makes that ownership temporary. You may keep the medium, but the content may not last. That's the same principle behind a library. You don't keep the content, you just consume it and give it back.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[AthanasiusKircher]

You could check books out from the library, why would anybody buy a copy? Because people like to OWN things.

Agreed. I own a heck of a lot of books for this very reason.

I hold no value in my digital music collection, which is far larger than my CD, record, and tape collection, but I value the physical copies. They're MINE. My digital collection is not.

Sorry, but WHAT?!? I suppose if you're talking about DRM crap, you could make an argument that you don't "own" that digital music. But if you have a DRM-free mp3, you own that recording. It may be part of data on your computer instead of data encoded on a CD or whatever, but you still OWN it.

Having only digital copies does make sense if you live in a dorm. Otherwise, the valuable ones are the physical. Non-physicality is worthless.

This is your opinion. I personally tend to agree with it. But if you're naive enough to think that most people think like this, you obviously haven't talked to a lot of people below the age of 30. Already when I was in college in the 90s, I had friends who stopped buying CDs. Their entire collections were thousands of pirated mp3s.

So, if you're making your larger argument about how you think people can make money off the ridiculous assumption that most (or even a large number) of people these days give a damn about physical CDs... well, it's sad that some mods thought you rational enough to give points.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[bkr1_2k]

Concert tickets and T-Shirts

A common enough suggestion. But there are genres of music that are not amenable to concert performance. And there are genres of music whose fans aren't the types to clamour after T-shirts proclaiming their musical taste.

Are we saying that those kinds of music don't deserve to get made? (Or don't deserve to be self-financing, at least).

Honestly, what genre is it that doesn't have associated merchandise? Opera? No, I've definitely seen opera shirts (not the browser). Jazz? Nope, seen those too. Maybe religious... hell they have a whole Crusade behind them... wait maybe it's hip hop? Nope, that's not it. Classical? Nah, all those t-shirts with Bach and Beethoven bust that idea.

I agree that the concert t-shirt isn't really the big seller for some genres that it is for others, but everything can be performed live (even electronica) and I have yet to find any music genre that doesn't have some sort of merchandising to go along with it. T-shirts, programs, posters, whatever.

Certainly most of the more obscure merchandising genres do better selling CDs than merchandise and they most certainly deserve to be made, but the case was for the merchandise to be sold if the music were given away, not how to get the music made in the first place.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

Rather than redundantly answering your comment (which was probably posted exactly when the comment I'm linking was posted, I'll just link my response to him.

There was another response that should have been modded up, which pointed out that your library costs you about four cents per year, which is about as close to "free" as you can get.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

But if you're naive enough to think that most people think like this, you obviously haven't talked to a lot of people below the age of 30.

People below the age of 30 usually don't have a lot of room for extraneous stuff; I know I didn't. Nor do they have the money to buy it. If I were under 30 I'd probably eschew CDs and books as well in favor of MP3s and either the library or ebooks. Of course, with the music industry's retarded penchant for trying to sell to young people while ignoring older people; in short, selling to people with little or no money and ignoring the demographic that has more disposable income, you're going to have the largest segment of their percieved audience eschewing CDs. It doesn't have to be that way, or wouldn't if the insudtry wasn't run by cokeheads.

it's sad that some mods thought you rational enough to give points

Oddly, usually a day doesn't go by that I don't get at least one +5. Sadly, perhaps it's you that doesn't see why it was modded up. And I'm sure there were a few downmods to the comment as well.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

What prevents someone from copying the images and making their own clothing?

The cost. I had friends in a band called Posamist (several years ago; the band no longer exists). I was going to make a Posamist t-shirt that said "It's ok, I'm not in the band".

The first shirt costs $70, which covers the cost of the screen. Unless you know how to make a silkscreen, and to use one (I do) and want to go through the effort of doing it (I don't), you're not going to make your own cheaper than you can buy it.

And most people don't pirate because they're cheap; they pirate for may reasons, and "cheap" is the least one. It's been shown in study after study that music pirates spend far more money on music than non-pirates.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

all the kids want what they want NOW

So why are these idiots trying to sell to kids in the first place? Why not sell to people with money and patience?

Perhaps it's because it's easier to decieve those without a lot of experience in the world? You can convince a kid a dog turd is cool and he'll buy one. Not only will you not convince an adult dog turds are cool, they wouldn't buy them even if you COULD convince them they were cool.

It's easy to steal from the naive. That's why RIAA music is geared to kids.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

Nobody wants a lot of the crap that's for sale, until the proper marleting guy markets it well. A good salesman can sell ice cubes to an eskimo, or bottled water to people with indoor plumbing.

You want what they tell you to want. Why else would anybody pay thousands of dollars for a wristwatch when their cell phone is more accurate?

Nobody wants it because the marketers can sell bits cheaper than they can sell plastic. If they want people to want it, people will want it.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

But who's making money out of this "free" service?
I don't understand your point.

The authors themselves are making money off of it, which IS the point. Nobody is going to buy a book from an author they've never heard of, but they WILL buy books by authors they like. You can't know you like an author's work until you've read at least one of his books. Many authors have made lots of money from me, and had I not read their other books from the library I'd never have bought any of their work.

Taxes pay for libraries in the US too, but as a previous poster pointed out it works out to such a miniscule amount per person that they are, in fact, essentially free. Which isn't the point; the fact that "free" sells is the point.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[dangitman]

You want what they tell you to want.

Bullshit. Marketing is not all-powerful. There are things that people just don't want, and marketing won't make a bit of difference.

CDs are a very good example of this. The whole music industry was marketing CDs heavily, but sales kept declining. The sales of digital downloads rose rapidly, despite very little marketing of them.

Are you really that weak that you just go out and buy whatever is advertised?

Why else would anybody pay thousands of dollars for a wristwatch when their cell phone is more accurate?

Because a wristwatch is a fashion item and a status symbol. You chose a very bizarre example, because I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for a wristwatch, but phone ads are all over the place.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[dangitman]

I think this is a generational thing. People who grew up with vinyl, where some releases would come in very ornate packaging - gatefolds, embossing, inserts, tracing paper layers, etc. miss all that.

Which is why I said "cheap artwork" to emphasize the difference between CDs and vinyl.

With downloads, of course you get none of that. Some Radiohead downloads include PDFs you're encouraged to print out and play with. But mostly, you just get the music. Us old guard feel something is missing.

Speak for yourself. I grew up with vinyl, and I have a substantial collection of interesting albums. But I also don't feel the need for this fetishism to continue. The music is what matters. This materialism and fetishism over bits of cardboard and plastic is counterproductive and wasteful.

Furthermore, with the iTunes LP and Extras, you actually get a lot more than you would the typical vinyl release. Remember, the majority of vinyl releases were not elaborate gatefold affairs with great art, they were just as cheap and nasty as your typical CD.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

Bullshit. Marketing is not all-powerful.

Nothing is all-powerful; there are some of us who aren't swayed by it. But those instances are few and far between.

CDs are a very good example of this. The whole music industry was marketing CDs heavily, but sales kept declining.

Bad marketing will sway no one, and the music industry is the worst at marketing in this century.

Are you really that weak that you just go out and buy whatever is advertised?

No, but most people are; at least, enough people are that they can sell "pet rocks" and those tacky halloween and christmas lawn decorations. Why would someone spend their hard-earned money on that dreck if not for marketing?

Because a wristwatch is a fashion item and a status symbol

Bingo! Why would anyone need or want a status symbol or a fashion item? Not all marketing is blatant advertising; a rich, powerful man wearing a Rolex is marketing enough.

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[dangitman]

No, but most people are

Riiiight. Because you are the übermensch who is above it all, while everybody else is a stupid and gullible.

Bingo! Why would anyone need or want a status symbol or a fashion item?

Because it helps you socially and in your career? It helps you get laid or find a mate? Why the hell do you think people want such things?

I'm curious, do you dress in rags?

Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"

[mcgrew]

Rags are neither warm nor comfortable, but I do in fact occasionally wear stained tshirts.

Sure, what the hell

[Pojut]

In the spirit of making it without a major label and needing a little exposure for my own work, here are four free tracks off the ambient album I'm working on: http://www.livingwithanerd.com/music. These are 100% DRM and cost free. Enjoy!

Re:Sure, what the hell

[Myopic]

Awesome, good for you.

If you make similar posts on other websites, I offer the advice that you hyphenate your last sentence: "These are 100% DRM- and cost-free." Otherwise the sentence has nearly the opposite meaning.

Great luck!

Re:Sure, what the hell

[Pojut]

doy, lol.

Thanks for the advice and the good vibes:-)

without rtfa

[hesaigo999ca]

I can say I know where this is going, and I wonder, why do we care here on /. what metallica or pink or even backstreetboys think about the music industry, we are a computer industry, and technology, and science and math....come on people....really?
If i want music news I'll get from a better source then /.
If i want to know what happens when I download music, that's ok for /., as most geeks like to know what they can and can't do with TPB being their close friend.
Could we have better stories please, this is not what i signed on for when i joined /. community!

ps- to all the uber /. geeks out there, yes I know i can filter out certain stories, but this one slipped in, and i though, isn't /. about tech and science, when was it about music artists, unless of course talking about how pussycat dolls are babes.

Um, what was that argument again?

[Jane Q. Public]

After having watched the video linked to from OP, I have to ask: why did that video take a music label to finance it, film it, produce it, distribute it?

It was a frigging marching band, for Grid's sake! They could have gone to a sizable local high school, recruited the cooperation of the band director, and done this entirely by themselves -- including distributing it on YouTube -- for only a few bucks. And they wouldn't have to worry about distribution restrictions, because they wouldn't be owned by a label! And the band would be happy to cooperate if given credit, because they would be famous, if only for a little while.

The video is decent, but there is nothing there that requires any fancy label support or financing. I have seen more impressive shows by high school bands, and I mean that quite literally and sincerely.

Sorry, but the actual product does not back their arguments. I call bullshit.

Others are doing it successfully. If OK Go can't... well... I won't lose sleep over it.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[i_ate_god]

After having watched the video linked to from OP, I have to ask: why did that video take a music label to finance it, film it, produce it, distribute it?

It was a frigging marching band, for Grid's sake! They could have gone to a sizable local high school, recruited the cooperation of the band director, and done this entirely by themselves -- including distributing it on YouTube -- for only a few bucks. And they wouldn't have to worry about distribution restrictions, because they wouldn't be owned by a label! And the band would be happy to cooperate if given credit, because they would be famous, if only for a little while.

The video is decent, but there is nothing there that requires any fancy label support or financing. I have seen more impressive shows by high school bands, and I mean that quite literally and sincerely.

Sorry, but the actual product does not back their arguments. I call bullshit.

Others are doing it successfully. If OK Go can't... well... I won't lose sleep over it.

1) Cameras, 2) Camera crews, 3) studio engineers, 4) distribution of video, 5) promotion and marketing and licensing of the video (which involves slashdot's favorite group of people: lawyers), 6) production of the song, 6a) studio engineers, 6b) hired musicians to complement some tracks, 6c) cd/vinyl pressings, 6d) distribution of album.

Do you actually need a label to do all this? No, of course not. But you need money. You need capital to invest. Where will you get it? previous comments have pointed out that banks aren't going to loan musicians money to make an album, but labels will.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[argent]

Did you actually read the article? It was the six months producing the album that the track behind the video was taken from that cost all the money.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[mbone]

It was the six months producing the album that the track behind the video was taken from that cost all the money.

Basically all that money went to the label and their minions, it just had to be loaned to the band first to leave them in debt to the label. Steve Albini explained this process much better than I ever could.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is the bank will charge you standard interest rates for the money. The music industry uses near illegal accounting methods to ensure most bands pay 10x the "loan" amount, ensuring the costs absorb any income from the band's sales.

Music videos no longer need to be Hollywood epics, no one plays them any more and haven't done for a decade. Studio time can drastically be reduced by the bands being prepared with their material and using the professionals to polish it. Lounging around in the studio writing stuff is for the top bands only. Why? Because it costs so much and unless you're at the top of the pile, it's clear you cannot afford it.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[tehcyder]

1) Cameras, 2) Camera crews, 3) studio engineers, 4) distribution of video, 5) promotion and marketing and licensing of the video (which involves slashdot's favorite group of people: lawyers), 6) production of the song, 6a) studio engineers, 6b) hired musicians to complement some tracks, 6c) cd/vinyl pressings, 6d) distribution of album.

Isn't the point though that if all you end up with is a mediocre YouTube video, then a huge chunk of the cost of that video was a waste of money, and you might as well have done it yourself with a basic camcorder, a half knowledgeable friend to use it properly and a home studio.

If you can end up with an adequate YouTube video for (say) a thousand pounds, that is not beyond the reach of a band, whereas a proper music video costing hundreds of thousands obviously would be.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[slim]

Cue lots of people claiming you could get the same standard of recording/production/mastering in a bedroom studio for $1000.

Let's pre-empt them. If the band thought they could do it that cheaply, they'd do it. They don't think they can.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that IF (and that is a very big if) you manage to find a bank to give you a loan, you are assuming lots of risk (personal bankruptcy, loss of collateral, etc). In addition, you have a fixed time to make payments (better get that album out and have good sales ASAP). With the labels, you may not end up with as much money as you like, but you still have your house. BTW - you can shorten your 'near illegal' phrase to just plain 'legal'. Saves typing, although it doesn't sound near as bad.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[Jane Q. Public]

No, you don't. That was my whole point. There are lots of people doing it today without ANY of those things, except cameras and a couple of people to run them.

I mean, you can argue all you want, but it's a fact: people are doing it. Successfully. Without the money.

Re:Um, what was that argument again?

[Jane Q. Public]

But the fact that they didn't think they could, does not mean that they really couldn't. Again: others are doing it. It's not a matter of whether it's possible. It's being done.

One post worth a million RIAA's

[tjstork]

If the music industry had people who could write like that speaking for them, they would be a lot better off. I mean, the whole thing with the music business isn't even the idea of copyrighted content. It's that, they are such jerks. How well you interact with the plug is indescribably valuable in an age where everyone can know how you really act. If they were making the soft sell, if they were leading out with "we gave Madonna millions of dollars and she's been a total bust since she got old", rather that suing college kids or octomoms, then, people would be more receptive to their arguments. I mean, Google's "Don't be evil", is nice and all, but for a lot of businesses, its really, "don't be such a dick".

FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com

[conureman]

Can't find server. wtf?

Re:FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

just wait a minute. rule 34 of the internet: http://xkcd.com/305/

Re:FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com

[conureman]

Seriously, in the time it took to RTFA, someone would always get the url registered. We must be in a recession. It's got a placeholder now.
Notice I anticipated the mis-mod w/my sig. ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Re:COMMUNISM IS THE FUTURE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Obongo supporters aren't allowed here.

EDIT: Re:Wow, Why Didn't I Think of That?!?

[rhsanborn]

CAN'T afford tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars...

Music should be free

[Rmorph]

Speaking as an amateur musician who hosts his own music for free on the internet.

If music is "good" (opinions will vary according to taste) people will listen to it repeatedly, word will spread, and people will become fans of the creators of that music - wanting to own something to demonstrate their fandom: A CD, an MP3, a t-shirt, a ticket to the next gig etc... This is what makes getting fans more important than "selling cds" to most artists. Fans are LOVE followed by INCOME (You're not going to stop a year old girl from buying the next Hanna Montana, for example).

Distributors (most labels), on the other hand, are only interested in those revenue streams they can tie up for shortterm income - which creates one-hit-wonders, mediocre boybands, and starves out 99% of musicians - as well as actually alienating real fans and bands - driving a wedge between them. (for example: many record companies hold the rights to most full times bands music - and can override a bands decision on how they want to get their material out to fans, as exemplified in the article above).

Now: If it's not "good" music to begin with -. people won't listen to it -despite whether it is freely available or not. People *might* check it out out of curiosity - but won't return, and certainly won't put money into it if the y have a choice. If they did already they will feel burned.

Professional distributors promote very much according to a "pay-to-try policy: they limit access to the extra songs on albums, demand roylaties from indy web radio stations..control the airwaves and promote airplay for only the (most commercial track) single across any medium (radio, itunes etc) that will take it. This is why so much "Bad music" gets aired - in case you wonder why the charts are filled with shite (But you already knew that cos its a conspiracy theory and this is Slashdot).

Anyway: The income generated from "good music" by fans is largely independent of this supersale effort by the labels.... so arguably the best model for these bands, as exemplified by bands like Radiohead and 9-inch... is to actually give the shit away for free: They can recoup the "first sale" profit by attracting more fans. Ironically most musicians have dreamed of "The record deal" since they were 5 years old... so usually they are actually the most reluctant to risk this sales model - preferring the safety of servitude to a label over the risk of pushing "valueless music" (if its free it aint worth much, right?).



Also: as this model starts to become more popular.. a lot of smaller bands will get lost in the noise. Maybe less millionaires will get made, but in the long run this is a much better world to play music in. I like it anyway.. but then I found a day job.

Shameless plug: My music (with money goes mouth) is available at Stabbing Pixies/ it will never hit the Billboards .. but I'm happy to make music I like - which you are free to listen to and not have to like or pay for.

Re:Music should be free

[Son of Byrne]

Well said.

I heard something last night on NPR about perceptions (and acceptance) of gay marriage and the stats showed that the percentage of people accepting of gay marriage was inversely related to age. That means generational replacement will eventually solve that issue.

The big labels should be aware that their days are numbered because of this same phenomenon.

When all parents are teaching their kids that music should *not* cost 20 bucks for a cd, we'll win. Those kids will grow up and start their garage band in high school and decide that instead of doing summer jobs or a year of work before college, they'd rather promote their band online, give away music online, and do live gigs. When their band then becomes popular, they'll just keep doing what they're doing instead of giving their hard work away to a music label.

Someday maybe.

I think that people want to convince themselves that rock stars should live like slobs: lazy, unmotivated, party animals that don't give a shit about their "careers", but let's face it, no matter what you choose to do in life, you should have the opportunity to work hard at it, excel, and become successful. Record labels don't factor in to that statement.

Musicians need labels to become famous

[Myopic]

I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success. To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven? The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today. Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience. Today, that's nearly impossible.

Re:Musicians need labels to become famous

[the Dragonweaver]

Back in the day, musicians often had patrons. Bach, for example, was subsidized by his church, and Mozart got paid by various high muckety-mucks to writes pieces for them.

These days, very few people have the funds to exclusively subsidize a musician or artist. But we can all subsidize artists a little bit by purchasing their CDs— a little more if we purchase them directly. For example, we buy CDs directly from Devin Townsend, from Canada, thanks to the magic of the Internet. I don't know if he makes a complete living from his music sales but he does well enough to make it more than a hobby. (He's also decently well-known from his label days, on his own and as a member of other bands.)

Personally, I think individual sites or clearinghouse sites are the answer that will eventually come out on top, but I hope a little bit of the subsidizing sticks around.

Re:Musicians need labels to become famous

[tehcyder]

To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?

Didn't they have patrons instead?

Re:Musicians need labels to become famous

[misexistentialist]

To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?

Back in the day, the corporations that ran countries didn't bother with the pretense of elections, and the executives also didn't have to pretend that they were generating profit. Princes aren't what they once were, and Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven would find success harder today.

Re:Musicians need labels to become famous

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success. To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven? The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today. Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience. Today, that's nearly impossible.

They had patronage - you don't hear of that happening very often. In fact, I might be able to name about 20-30 artists from pre-1900s. I can name about 10 times that for artists in the last 10 years (Each band has approx. 4 members, I easily know 50 bands).

While I do not support the RIAA activities, I do believe that artists are likely to get more exposure from record labels.

Re:Musicians need labels to become famous

[AthanasiusKircher]

I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success. To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?

Sure, the "labels" for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven were various publishers. And yes, there was a pecking order among publishers, and composers spent a lot of time (particularly in the 19th century) negotiating deals with them.

The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today.

Really? In Bach's first few years at Leipzig, he had to teach at a boys' school (Latin and music), direct a bunch of choirs and musicians, supervise a whole bunch of music students, and have time left over to write a 20-minute cantata every week or so (and then arrange for the copyists to create the parts necessary for performance), in addition to random organ music, etc. All this to make money to support his family. I'd hardly call this "much easier than musicians today." Beethoven and Brahms had it somewhat easier, but they weren't depending on an organist job for a living, and their social class made a difference.

Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience. Today, that's nearly impossible.

What the heck are you talking about? In the era before recordings, the main way to get your music "out to a wide audience" was through publishers, and publication was quite a competitive business. Although I don't think it's true of the three composers you mention, other major classical composers had exclusive publishing contracts with some major publishers.

Bach's music, in fact, really didn't get "out to a wide audience" during his lifetime, except for a few keyboard works that he published, so I don't know how he's even relevant to your argument.

And besides, as other have already pointed out, there was a system of patrons for the arts into the early 19th century. Sort of like getting NEA grants nowadays, except often back then they were pensions for life. These musicians only had it easier if they were independently wealthy, sold copies of their music, or had random rich guys giving them money periodically.

Re:Musicians need labels to become famous

[AthanasiusKircher]

Oh, one other way they could make money (particularly in the 19th century) -- be a traveling virtuoso, sort of like our current "rock stars." But those guys are mostly forgotten these days, except for Liszt and a couple others.

Re:Musicians need labels to become famous

[bit01]

These days, very few people have the funds to exclusively subsidize a musician or artist.

Not true. It's just not the custom, that's all. Methinks a few rich people could stand giving back to the community in this way.

---

Has the Least Patentable Unit reached zero yet?

Things you might need a label for

[tepples]

I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.

You need a label to get phonorecords* of your work into stores because the labels have relationships with the stores' buyers, especially if your genre is more popular among people with no PC, people with a PC and no Internet, or people with PC and dial-up. (Country music and pop standards come to mind.) You need a label because the recognized experts in record marketing work for labels. In certain genres, you need a label to help clear the samples you may have used. You may even need a label to help make sure that you didn't make the same mistake George Harrison and Michael Bolton made of unintentionally making their own songs sound too much like a song that was on the radio a decade ago.

* Legalese for copies of a sound recording.

I prefer non-embedded videos.

[argent]

In fact if I see an embedded video, I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.

Why?

1. I get to see comments and related videos directly.
2. If I want to share the video, I have to extract the link anyway.

Don't do <embed>, do <a target=_blank ...>.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the latest embedded youtube stuff has (at least on IE) a right-click menu that includes the option 'watch on youtube' that does exactly what you want.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[HeckRuler]

If I see an embedded video, (and if it's particularly awesome,) I will frequently go through the hoops to find the url of the .flv file and download it onto my own hard drive.

Why?

Because I'm a hoarding little pack-rat when it comes to digital media. My unsorted pics folder is 7 gigs of nonstop wtf moments. Seriously, I've entertained company by just putting that folder on slide show.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[Anonymous Coward]

will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.

Why?

1. I get to see comments and related videos directly.

Uh huh. It just wouldn't be the full YouTube experience without the comments.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[Art3x]

In fact if I see an embedded video, I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.

I likewise. But the musician's main gripe is that blogs can't embed the videos. The advantage of an embed over a link, I think, the freeze frame it shows, drawing the reader in to more likely click. Solution: make a JPEG freeze frame of the video and link it to YouTube. You could make it open in a new, small window, too, to (kind of) keep the reader on the site.

This is probably beyond the bother of most bloggers, who aren't web developers. Still, YouTube could provide the code to copy and paste a picture-link, in lieu of the code to embed the video.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[argent]

Someone has already provided a snippet of code for that... it turns out the preview image Youtube uses has a predictable URL.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[SheeEttin]

For YouTube embedded players, clicking on the video will open the YouTube page in a new window/tab. Which, incidentally, I find annoying, as I expect it to pause, as it would on YouTube.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[argent]

For YouTube embedded players, clicking on the video will open the YouTube page in a new window/tab.

Funny, that starts it playing for me.

Oh, I see, if you click the video *again* it'll do it.

*sigh*

Which, incidentally, I find annoying, as I expect it to pause, as it would on YouTube.

Yeh, that.

Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.

[Waccoon]

If only the W3C wasn't so determined to get rid of the target attribute.

Yet another useful thing that was removed just because developers tend to abuse it.

Can't watch it

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really care if the video is embedable or not but getting this message when I try to watch it makes me fracking mad:

This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country.

Get out of the damned studios

[A nonymous Coward]

I have never understood why bands spend months recording 30 minutes of music when they perform the same music live ALL THE FREAKING TIME. I myself would rather hear live music than stale perfection. How many takes do you have to splice to make one single recording -- how can you even call it your music any more when it is the recording editor who does all the hard work of listening for pointless variations in takes to make a recording which is going to be heard thru earbuds anyway?

I know why. It's because labels are parasites and have to make money off musicians somehow, and the easy days of controlling airplay and distribution are gone. It's got to come from somewhere, so they put it in the contract that you have to spend x hours in the studio to produce an album.

I don't expect bands to produce an album in one day, but months? Sorry, you are letting them rip you off. I would rather listen to a good band produce their own stuff in their garage or even rent a studio themselves for just a few days, and use a Mac to edit it themselves. Wake up! This is an age where YOU can control your own destiny. Stop signing slave contracts with labels and then making up excuses for their abominable behavior.

I have no respect for bands who sell their souls in exchange for the very remote possibility of being the next megahit. Just do what you do, be good, have fun, make a good enough living, and if you become superstars, great, but don't sell your souls to let the parasites make that decision based merely on how much of a toady you can be. If you want the parasites to decide your life for you, you are no longer artists.

RIAA gradated response plan

[mbone]

I concluded 7 years ago that there was really no hope for the current music industry, and that the only rational thing to do was to wait for it to crater. Nothing has changed, except the smell of desperation is ever more palpable. Yesterday, I heard Steve Marks of RIAA talked about their graduated response plan. He denied it was a "3 strikes plan," which of course means that it is. It is no more likely to work than any of their previous plans.

Someone asked me afterwards why the industry continues to be so disastrously stupid. All I could come up with is that the people executing the stupidity are getting paid, and paid well, for continuing to hold out hope to the old men running the business that things can get put back the way that they were. As long as the people in charge have such delusions, and as long as they still have something to be in charge of, nothing will change,

Of course, bands like OK Go are basically serfs in this process. As they admit, they have no actual power whatsoever, and are just along for the ride.

How do I make sure I haven't plagiarized?

[tepples]

so then hire a lawyer and fight it out in court

How can someone growing organically afford what a lawyer charges?

or don't make music that sounds too much like someone else's music.

If I've written and recorded a song, how do I check my song against the millions of songs controlled by the major performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) before I publish my recording?

He lost me...

[Anonymous Coward]

He lost me at "the major labels are hurting." Cry me a river, those poor suits haven't missed a meal yet, though that MAFIAA-powered foot-shooting surely is painful.

tape trading helps bands

[Anonymous Coward]

You mention libraries but I think tape trading is an even better example.

Since themid 70s, the Grateful Dead had allowed live taping of their shows by fans and trading amongst the fans without allowing for the sale of these tapes.
Thousands of bands after that (jam bands are usually more prevalent because if every show sounds exactlly like the other, there is no difference between two shows) have allowed fans to tape and trade and given access to stadiums and often even sound board patches.
Some bands make it commercially like Dave Matthews bands but others like Phish dont cross over yet have huge followings and sell out stadiums in minutes.
All those bands credit taping as the reason they were able to get their music across. Especially in the pre-web days (and I remember those first efw years DLing whole shows in..... Real Audio format!!

Again, this works for a Medeski, Martin, Wood and Karl Denson, old timers like Allman Brothers and kids like Umphreys Mcgee because their musical interpretations of songs are different from show to show. This wont work for a Rolling Stone or lipsyncing pop bimbos whose goal is to make each song sound exactly like on the album.

But for 30 years, bands that allow taping (there is a site that tells you all the bands that allow it) have noticed that if you give people free music, you will make new fans and those people will buy official releases. Even official live releases by bands sell rather well even though you can easily find those shows for free from a trader or even online.

"manufactured"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label. That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you. So at that point, why sign? If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.

There are plenty of groups and people out there that are "manufactured" and are successful because of a record label's marketing. A middle-of-the-road sound that appeals to many people, but doesn't say much and isn't very risque.

On one hand you have Britney Spears who's basically all manufactured, on the other you have someone like Coeur de Pirate (aka Béatrice Martin) who is doing things from the ground up without almost no marketing money.

Now some people like the generic sound of Spears, and if they enjoy it, good for them. Other people may like Martin or another individual who has a more unique sound, but since the latter's music doesn't get studied by focus groups, they may have more of niche audience.

You should read the article

[ctid]

Especially if you are going to post critically about something, it will help you if you read the article first. It specifically mentions that they do their own videos so as to keep the costs down.

Re:You should read the article

[Jane Q. Public]

I did read the damned article, and so what? Just before that part, they also say "... and they put up most of the cash that it takes to distribute and promote our albums, including the costs of pressing CDs, advertising, and making videos."

And they are getting ripped off. That is a big part of my point. They ended up with a video that a high-school kid could have done, and quite frankly, I don't care if most of the money went to the sound studio ("Amish... twiddling knobs") because their song wasn't very damned impressive either.

Bigger names than them have gone independent, successfully, with very little money. OK Go, for their efforts, released mediocre music and a mediocre video that they can't even distribute the way they want because of the label, a bunch of debt, and only a small cut of the profits where they could have had almost no debt and almost all of the profits.

In the words of the immortal Frank Zappa

[CodeHog]

"We're only in it for the money."

Radiohead & Digital Distribution

[BigSes]

Radiohead made a effort to circumvent the industry, at least at first, with their release of In Rainbows. It was released via digital download, and only available for ten days. However, anyone who downloaded it could pay whatever they wanted, including nothing. After 1.2 million downloads, it was estimated that the average downloader paid approximately $6, earning the band somewhere in the neighborhood of $6+ million dollars. All of this with no astounding amount of expenditure for marketing, packaging, or distribution. I'm sure more solid figures are available all over the internet.

Ok Go would be in a different situation, not having the fan base and clout for those kind of numbers. However, this does leave something to be said for digital distribution as a means to avoid the record companies.

Re:Radiohead & Digital Distribution

[DiademBedfordshire]

Hail to the Thief came out in 2003 and In Rainbows came out in 2007. So for four years they had to live off their earnings from Hail to the Thief and it would be a logical assumption that it would be four more years till they come out with their next album. There are five members to Radiohead so they made aprox 1.2 Million per person Gross. Any good business should be able to pull 30% profit. So lets guess they each made a net profit of $360,000 for four years or $90,000 a year FOR MAKING FUCKING MUSIC. This doesn't include shirts, buttons, ect or live shows. If OK GO can make even half that, I think they should feel privileged.

Re:Radiohead & Digital Distribution

[slim]

Radiohead were an established name. A huge established name.

They'd already done the whole thing of spending 6 months in a country house studio, spending record company money on the best producer, the best session musicians, equipment, acoustics, instruments, catering, etc. OK Computer was the epitome old school music industry album production.

4 albums later, they were still a huge name; of course they could get 1.2 million paid downloads for their new album. The same logic goes for Nine Inch Nails. Promotion is easy if you've already got millions of fans. Just blog what you've done and let the fans and the media spread the word.

Let's say I was able to make music as good as Radiohead's. If I just stuck it on the net and waited for the downloads, I'd be waiting forever. Radiohead wouldn't.

In Rainbows got all those downloads because of promotion a record company had done 10 years earlier. Without that, they'd still be playing Oxford pubs.

No Paid Downloads?

[SpaceToast]

The article bemoans the death of CD sales, and makes some decent points, but it's got a weird blind spot around paid digital downloads. Isn't iTunes the largest music retailer in the US now? Am I the last person who's happy to pay for music in a format, and with a level of convenience, that I like? I haven't bought a new CD in years, but between iTunes and Amazon MP3, I've got vastly more at my fingertips than any CD store ever sold.

Lets check some Created On dates, and see what I've spent money on in the past year...

• Benny Goodman
• Bruderschaft
• Massive Attack
• Theatre of Tragedy
• Underworld
• Foo Fighters
• Billy Joel
• Freezepop
• The Silent Hill IV soundtrack

I'm not even a big music buff. What about paid digital downloads?

Jonathan Byrd...

[Misch]

Independent singer/songwriter Jonathan Byrd released his own financial statement for 2008. (You'll have to scroll down to his 3/28/2009 update for it).

I was amused by his summary:

So, that leaves me about $9000 to spend on frivolities, such as my mortgage, pants, and lettuce.

So, the next person who complains to me about CDs costing $20 is going to get strapped to a fire ant hill and tasered in the nuts. Can we all take a vote? All in favor, signify by saying "aye." All opposed?

Very well, then. It's unanimous.

Re:Jonathan Byrd...

[CodeHog]

Obviously he's not producing very well liked music. Or perhaps he should change his name to something like Johnnie Janus.

Bigger problem

[gurps_npc]

There are three factors here.

1. The music industry has become a leach. They started out as doing three things - producing, marketing and distributing. Distributing was the hard work and where the customers were willing to pay big money for (transporting delicate wax tubes was very dificult, vinyl was slightly better but breakage was still a big problem. Tapes and CDs were lighter and sturdier, but still heavy.) But a better producer and marketer made more money, so they THOUGHT they were being paid for producing and marketing. No. They were being paid for distributing, and that market has vanished the way the buggy whip and the horse drawn carriage market has. They still try to charge as if they are distributing, but they are not.

2. Musicians still need Producing and Marketing, but those are worth only about 20% or MAYBE 30% of sales, not 80% that the big labels have. But the existing monoplies (that grew up charging 80% for distribution) make it hard to break in to the Producing + Marketing (no distribution). This problem will eventually go away, but it will take time.

3. The old distrubution system was so big and powerfull that it evolved into THE methods of transferring money to the musicians as well as the way to transfer music out. The ease of distrubtion has created a ton of tiny producers and removed the old 'gateways' that funnelled money and goods to the succesfull ones. We need a new SYSTEM, not of distrubtion, but of funneling money.

What we need is a breakthrough in marketing. Something that lets low level musicians earn a living wage, and gradually increases as they gain more fans. Note there may never be a band as big as the Beatles or Elvis or M. Jackson, ever again because of the greater range of music that should be available without the gateways. Also, musicians will likely never again be able to make money without performing live. People will always pay more to see live music than they will for a recording because honestly, recordings are commodities.

Perhaps music clubs could form in large cities where people pay a set fee, similar to a gym membership. Each night the club offers live music performed. Membership lets you in for free AND lets you download the music for free whenever you want from any oif the club's bands.

Or maybe somethign far better than what I can think of.

Touring for fun and profit????

[ThirdPrize]

I don't now how much you guys know about rock history but sending bands out on the road (to tour/promote the album/make a living) is probably the worst thing you could make them do. It is the tedium between gigs on long tours that turn otherwise sane bands in to drink/drug/groupie monsters. When you are living for that hour on stage, the remaining 23 are a huge drag. Only way to get through them is to numb yourself till they don't exist. Similar principle to homelessness in that respect.

The other thing is imagine being in a band and having to tour all the time just to make a living. it's a bit like travelling salesmen. It takes a certain sort of person and they probably don't have much of a home/family life.

Re:Touring for fun and profit????

[Ol Olsoc]

Gee, it sounds like you want musicians to be CPAs or something. When I was doing the musician thing, I enjoyed the travel. Some days the off times got a little boring. Guess what, I sometimes get bored now too. But overall, I enjoyed it a lot. I was a high school age kid, and making some money doing what I liked. BTW, groupies aren't all that bad either. Maybe that's a bit too much for slashdotters.....

A lot of executives spend a lot of time on the road, and they don't turn into druggies. Performing for people, and traveling and staying up late at night is part of the musician lifestyle. If you don't enjoy that sort of thing, you need to look into working at Wendy's or become an accountant.

Re:COMMUNISM IS THE FUTURE!

[anagama]

The parent isn't off topic. The summary suggests outsider's dismay over "outlandish salaries" in the music biz. To say there should be an upper limit on income, is to say that some sort of regulating agency (presumably government) should see to it that incomes are leveled. At the extreme end, a burger flipper dropout would be seen as having a "right" to the same income as a doctor or other highly trained professional. To someone making $16k per year, a $200k salary likely seems quite outlandish and "fairness" would require spreading the wealth a bit. Of course, that would require punishing the people who actually try to succeed, and reward those who make little effort. Anyway, you can agree with the parent post or not, but it was directly respondive to a line in the summary and is thus, not offtopic.

Put your music where your mouth is.

[VortexCortex]

So read this and get out your p2p and help kill the industry to make the world safe for music and musicians.

P2P won't kill the industry, it will only help to spread the music's popularity. P2P = Free Advertising (similar to radio music). Some free music labels even distribute via P2P to cut server costs.

Start listening to free music from free sources. Start listening to and making some donations to the artists and companies that are already achieving your goals.

Go to a few concerts, buy a t-shirt or two. Check out the local music scene. The only way to "kill the industry" (by which I hope you mean "kill evil labels") is for the majority of people to stop consuming (even via P2P) the music they produce.

Re:Put your music where your mouth is.

[flyneye]

Excellent post!
        You certainly provide the bright side of the coin to my more black one and mention the important part.
        The only other thing I can encourage is to begin lobbying your favorite artist trapped within the industry to break away at their first opportunity.
        It may be worth mentioning that industry artists are supported so little by your purchase of industry goods that paying for anything is only promoting the longevity of the industry.
Just say no.

Not really a solution- live is a ripoff too.

[WiiVault]

I'm all for live performances, but ticket prices lately have gotten insane. A stadium that can seat 50k and yet they still charge $100 a ticket like many acts do? No thanks- that is greed pure and simple. I have no problem dropping $10-$20 to see a good band, but thanks to greed and Ticketmaster, live music seems just as much a scam as the recorded stuff.

Re:Not really a solution- live is a ripoff too.

[epiphani]

Your statement, while a valid opinion, doesn't reflect the fact that the market dictates that $100 a ticket is acceptable for some bands. Just because you don't want to pay it doesn't mean other people won't.

Plus you're talking about the huge huge groups. Even moderately famous groups don't rent stadiums, they still play in clubs and theater venues.

So... I'm not quite sure what you're arguing.

ads vs products

[Sloppy]

It looks like it's going to be hard to address the market, because there are actually three different ones.

Some people buy full albums/CDs. From the point of view of these listeners and the bands that they like, the radio singles and the videos are just an advertisement, and most of the songs are not ever released through these forms. It doesn't make sense for the ad to be pay-per-view, any more than a Coca Cola ad on TV. The point of the video, or a single on the radio, is: "Like this? Buy the CD/ticket and hear more."

A relatively new market is the a la cart single tracks, a market that I believe was initially popularized by Apple's iTunes Store. (Personally, I can't really imagine being part of this one, but I think it's a genre thing.) If a single song is a whole sellable product, then a video which contains the song is obviously a product too. So of course you try to get paid.

And the third market is the live performance ticket sales and merch sales (e.g. T shirts). Among fans in this market, some of them consider all the recordings to be ads, not just the videos or radio singles. (If the songs aren't ever released as videos/singles, though, I'm not sure how those people ever draw that conclusion. The thinking might be that pirates end up releasing the songs for free, whether the musicians ever intended that or not, therefore tickets/merch are simple all that's left.)

The first and third forms were largely compatible. You could sell tickets and sell albums and it all made sense. The second form, though, has really fucked things up and blurred the distinction between which songs are ads and which ones are products. A given song might be both; it depends on who is listening to it. The ideal thing for the business would be to try to segment the market: sell the singles to the a la cart people, and give 'em for free to the people who buy albums, tickets, and merch. But at the time you sell a song, you don't know which segment someone is in, so how do you vary the price?

If it's a genre thing (e.g. rock and metal are about full albums, pop is about singles) then you could pick your approach by band. Do people actually exist who would actually buy "Aces High" but not "The Duelists"?

If so, then a band like Iron Maiden would have no perfect solution.

If not, then Iron Maiden could just give away "Aces High" singles/videos and sell Powerslave albums and World Slavery Tour tickets (which is what they basically did) while $POPNAME takes the totally different approach of just selling singles/videos.

Overyhyped summary

[evel aka matt]

There is so little real info in the piece, and none of it is particularly insightful or otherwise-unknown. Dunno wtf is wrong with OP that made him decide to sell that forum post like that. COME ON!

OK Go Irish

[Yergle143]

Nice video -- at long last the Ftn' Irish have a music video that matches up to USC!
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/e1131685gpf3GfW

Now if only we could lick 'em on the field!
537

The reason...

[Anonymous Coward]

You start a rock band is to get laid. No one is in it for art or money.