One thing the Dean blog and forum have been very good at doing is generating a feeling of involvement. Self-involvement? Certainly, but unlike most political deals, there is rarely the sense that policy and positions are being handed down from on high.
It has been possible to get inside the mind of the campaign there. Not Dean's mind specifically, but the collective mind of everyone involved, to the point of knowing what the reaction would be to the events of the day, to the point of understanding the references Dean might make in his off-hand, "everybody knows what I'm talking about" manner.
In this way, the "inside" got a lot bigger, for anyone willing to pay attention. It's gotten big enough to include thousands of people, and there's no reason to think that it can't grow to include millions.
It's a way to do politics that goes beyond sloganeering and position statements, sound-bites and image. Maybe the campaign couldn't figure out how to do both, maybe it isn't possible, or maybe the process is there waiting for the right person to take advantage of it, but it's a powerful, positive thing.
I'm curious about some of the assumptions made about the music business. First is the assumption that CD sales can provide a living income. We can say this about some percentage of the total performers, but would anyone consider this reasonable if they applied it to their own
job? Suppose only the top 1% of programmers or managers were able to make a living at it- who would view those jobs as viable careers?
Second, there is the assumption that performers are artists. I think almost everyone would agree that this term is applied a little freely. For every original in the world of music there are thousands of imitations, and most originality is creative theft. Performers can be artists, but the art is in convincing you that that's what they are!
And that brings up a third assumption- that only the true originals, the "artists", are worth rewarding. Think about that the next time you
are shaking your ass or pumping your fist or grinning wildly to the music made by some local, relatively imitative performers. Just what is
it about what they do that should be rewarded- do they get points for turning you on?
What lies behind these assumptions? I think the industry has created this mythology in their drive for ever bigger sales numbers. Mass communications created the hit song and the big numbers. Everyone loves a good rags-to-riches story- hey, it could happen!
Which brings me to why I think copyright infringment (so-called piracy) is no big deal. It punctures these myths by devaluing music as a
product. In my opinion, music is communication between the performer and the listener, and the quality of that communication is what should be rewarded. Careers deserve to be rewarded, not "hits". The sooner we lose these marketing induced notions of what music is about, the better.
Re:I can attest to the overvaluation of producers.
on
Cheap Audio Production
·
· Score: 1
Dude, you rawk!
But you can get a great acoustic guitar for much less than that- and why would you BUY a $9 mic when you have a talent for finding things?
"so long as it's good, they'll still sell out their concerts."
Ah, but look who owns/controls the concert venues!
Make something happen yourself- sponsor a band through FairTunes.com. Sponsor a studio at somewhereoutwest.com. Don't expect that market forces will provide for everyone worth providing for. Art ain't like groceries...
"It's not practical to drop the price of CDs to the "don't think about it" level, because the CDs are priced for optimal revenue now"
I wonder if this is true. By their own admission, the top 7 percent or so carry the rest of the record companies' roster. Would you be more likely to chance an unknown group if the price of their CD was $10? How about $5? What does Starbucks charge these days, anyway?
There is some motivation to keep the price high because if the public perceives that CDs are too cheap then they might begin to question the entire mythology of the record industry (beginning with the idea that the "stars" are orders of magnitude better than your local band. They're not, but they sure know how to polish stuff in LA)
I believe the industry lives on the hit and the fact that people willingly overlook the high price when they really get juiced about a song. Too bad for acts which have no hit potential, eh?
The technical solutions are here already. A decent recording need not cost 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars. Distribution of (admittedly lo-quality) song files is easy via P2P (and the quality will improve).
The social end of things is where there is much work to do, and as has been mentioned, the RIAA has no interest in changing its (or society's) tune. However, it is likely that the tune will change, with or without the blessing of the RIAA.
One option is listener sponsorship of artists, producers and recording studios. Unlike "tips" given in exchange for a file, a sponsorship is an open-ended show of support for the process of creation.
It will take time, but eventually society will lose the illusion that the music they want is a tangible product, an illusion that the RIAA would like to maintain. What solutions can we offer which better reflect reality?
Fascinating. I've never heard anyone take this point of view before.
Personally, I make a distinction between "compulsary" labor and anything else I do which might be considered Labor.
What I must do in order to provide for myself and my family- that is compulsary labor. No one forces me to do any particular job, but I must do some job.
Can you deny that, for most people, the number of hours they must devote to this sort of labor has decreased, and will likely continue to decrease in the future?
At Steam Powered Studio I am attempting to provide the recording and production services to the artists for free, relying on listener patronage to keep me fed. The math looks do-able. I figure 6K patrons at $10 a year as a goal, for which said patrons could count on at least 50 songs (probably more) in digital form.
The artists will still be looking for income, but this will give them a "product" to work with, whether it's simply used for promotion, pressed (at their expense) to sell at gigs, or tied into some online subscription service which pays for plays.
There are many levels to play this game- it does not need to be an all or nothing proposition for the artist like it is now.
I don't disagree with what you say. The music industry is a sad, sick thing. They support the value of their "product" by controlling exposure and manipulating the market.
Do you know that some artists are still getting charged "technology adoption" fees that supposedly help defer the cost of switching from vinyl to CDs? You gotta know a good lawyer.
Great masses of people do behave in very sheep-like ways sometimes, IF they are properly herded. I'd like to think that a lot of them have seen the break in the fence (Napster). Some of them may even behave responsibly on their own (Fairtunes).
My hope for the future is that these mass herding techniques are breaking down. At Steam Powered we are doing our best to create and deliver music outside the structure of the music industry.
OK, the conductor could probably cut a deal to get something from sales, if he had the clout, but I believe symphony musicians get scale for the session and that's it, brother.
The rights to the performance would go to the record company- and that's OK, because they paid all the musicians, rented the hall, hired the engineers etc.
"Point being, CDs should all sell for just under 4 bucks..."
Sorry, it doesn't follow. You conveniently skipped paying the artist I think, plus, like it or not, there is a whole lot of promotional expense involved in marketing these cheesy plastic platters.
If you are really interested in the truth, and not just yelling "sheep" at people, ideally every CD should be priced differently to acknowledge the different amounts of work that go into producing them. If you continue to address this issue as though these disks are simply "product", join the flock.
I consider myself one of the "copyright is obsolete" mob you refer to, only I'd be more likely to say that copyright will be irrelevent.
I don't expect a "new player" to step in to create a new music industry based on a more flexible copyright system. I expect a slow but steady acceptance of transaction schemes that fall outside the traditional "product/consumer" economy.
That's an interesting point. Do you feel the same way about your music budget? Does that mean it's usless for the zillion bands on the net to ask for money, but if there were two "labels" that you liked, you'd pay for general access to bands on those labels?
Some major behavior modification (education) will be necessary for this to work, but the "brainlessly easy" part would simply be links through the song files to the performers.
An independant (of the copyright industry) clearinghouse of song files needs to be created to insure that the gifts are flowing to the proper recipients.
Online accounts for listeners will need to be integrated into the system.
"Thank you" buttons on players could prompt "How much?" or be set to automatically credit the performer's account with a default amount- or automatically gift every play. Portable players could keep tabs of gifting and upload the info whenever they are connected to a host machine.
The really beauty time for listeners to show their appreciation for music is while they are listening to it- not in advance. This is the behavior modification carrot.
The number of "deadbeat" listeners will be high, but this may be offset by the number of repeat gifters, and the open-ended nature of the gifting. You would think that the recording industry would be interested in the long-term revenues which could be expected from music with legs. (Hmmm, might even have an effect on the quality of their signings)
Not to mention the value of the cumulative data which would be collected in the process.
But this all runs counter to the industry's way of thinking. It's not the sort of thing which can be imposed, but it would be great if it were available.
If you like the possibilities, then support whatever seems to be moving us toward them. I still haven't decided if (o) is a good thing for this or not...
...is to identify the rightful owner of the song you wish to voluntarily make a payment for.
If it works, it could insure that no one swaps tags or otherwise subverts the process of getting money back to artists.
It could possibly be used to direct payment for samples within songs.
Sorry.
Can't agree that trading of copyrighted material is illegal. Collecting money from the use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner, now that's illegal.
So the rest of your argument?
As long as the promotional tools are expensive and corporate, you will mostly hear corporate music. Once you have a tool to help you find what you like in a mountain of mp3s, you will hear mostly what you like.
It's true that it will allow bands to step outside their niche with less fear of losing their audience-
I'd like to see a "tip" button on media players. It's the natural place for it. There could be provisions to auto-tip favorite performers/songs, as well as a tip budget manager built in.
No fuss finding artists this way- like tossing a coin in a hat.
Slashdot Mirror
Unit pricing does not support small scale.
Songs are merely advertising for bands/artists- set them free!
And send money directly to the artists you want to support- in tens and twenties- because they are worth it!
I absolutely agree. I took the survey. It was vague.
One thing the Dean blog and forum have been very good at doing is generating a feeling of involvement. Self-involvement? Certainly, but unlike most political deals, there is rarely the sense that policy and positions are being handed down from on high.
It has been possible to get inside the mind of the campaign there. Not Dean's mind specifically, but the collective mind of everyone involved, to the point of knowing what the reaction would be to the events of the day, to the point of understanding the references Dean might make in his off-hand, "everybody knows what I'm talking about" manner.
In this way, the "inside" got a lot bigger, for anyone willing to pay attention. It's gotten big enough to include thousands of people, and there's no reason to think that it can't grow to include millions.
It's a way to do politics that goes beyond sloganeering and position statements, sound-bites and image. Maybe the campaign couldn't figure out how to do both, maybe it isn't possible, or maybe the process is there waiting for the right person to take advantage of it, but it's a powerful, positive thing.
Speaking of cathedrals, too bad about that whole "reformation" thing, wasn't it?
What an incredible coincidence! That's just what I was thinking when I started Steam Powered Studio.
I record people for free and they let me post their songs on my site. We've been at this since 2001.
But we're not a record label either, really, because there are no physical records involved, just downloads...
I'm curious about some of the assumptions made about the music business. First is the assumption that CD sales can provide a living income. We can say this about some percentage of the total performers, but would anyone consider this reasonable if they applied it to their own job? Suppose only the top 1% of programmers or managers were able to make a living at it- who would view those jobs as viable careers?
Second, there is the assumption that performers are artists. I think almost everyone would agree that this term is applied a little freely. For every original in the world of music there are thousands of imitations, and most originality is creative theft. Performers can be artists, but the art is in convincing you that that's what they are!
And that brings up a third assumption- that only the true originals, the "artists", are worth rewarding. Think about that the next time you are shaking your ass or pumping your fist or grinning wildly to the music made by some local, relatively imitative performers. Just what is it about what they do that should be rewarded- do they get points for turning you on?
What lies behind these assumptions? I think the industry has created this mythology in their drive for ever bigger sales numbers. Mass communications created the hit song and the big numbers. Everyone loves a good rags-to-riches story- hey, it could happen!
Which brings me to why I think copyright infringment (so-called piracy) is no big deal. It punctures these myths by devaluing music as a product. In my opinion, music is communication between the performer and the listener, and the quality of that communication is what should be rewarded. Careers deserve to be rewarded, not "hits". The sooner we lose these marketing induced notions of what music is about, the better.
Dude, you rawk!
But you can get a great acoustic guitar for much less than that- and why would you BUY a $9 mic when you have a talent for finding things?
Can't wait to hear the songs- where ya posted?
If you don't like it, why pay? If you do, send me money to keep working. It's sponsorship on the most basic level.
"so long as it's good, they'll still sell out their concerts."
Ah, but look who owns/controls the concert venues!
Make something happen yourself- sponsor a band through FairTunes.com. Sponsor a studio at somewhereoutwest.com. Don't expect that market forces will provide for everyone worth providing for. Art ain't like groceries...
"It's not practical to drop the price of CDs to
the "don't think about it" level, because the CDs are priced for optimal revenue now"
I wonder if this is true. By their own admission, the top 7 percent or so carry the rest of the record companies' roster. Would you be more likely to chance an unknown group if the price of their CD was $10? How about $5? What does Starbucks charge these days, anyway?
There is some motivation to keep the price high because if the public perceives that CDs are too cheap then they might begin to question the entire mythology of the record industry (beginning with the idea that the "stars" are orders of magnitude better than your local band. They're not, but they sure know how to polish stuff in LA)
I believe the industry lives on the hit and the fact that people willingly overlook the high price when they really get juiced about a song. Too bad for acts which have no hit potential, eh?
The technical solutions are here already. A decent recording need not cost 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars. Distribution of (admittedly lo-quality) song files is easy via P2P (and the quality will improve).
The social end of things is where there is much work to do, and as has been mentioned, the RIAA has no interest in changing its (or society's) tune. However, it is likely that the tune will change, with or without the blessing of the RIAA.
One option is listener sponsorship of artists, producers and recording studios. Unlike "tips" given in exchange for a file, a sponsorship is an open-ended show of support for the process of creation.
It will take time, but eventually society will lose the illusion that the music they want is a tangible product, an illusion that the RIAA would like to maintain. What solutions can we offer which better reflect reality?
Fascinating. I've never heard anyone take this point of view before.
Personally, I make a distinction between "compulsary" labor and anything else I do which might be considered Labor.
What I must do in order to provide for myself and my family- that is compulsary labor. No one forces me to do any particular job, but I must do some job.
Can you deny that, for most people, the number of hours they must devote to this sort of labor has decreased, and will likely continue to decrease in the future?
At Steam Powered Studio I am attempting to provide the recording and production services to the artists for free, relying on listener patronage to keep me fed. The math looks do-able. I figure 6K patrons at $10 a year as a goal, for which said patrons could count on at least 50 songs (probably more) in digital form.
The artists will still be looking for income, but this will give them a "product" to work with, whether it's simply used for promotion, pressed (at their expense) to sell at gigs, or tied into some online subscription service which pays for plays.
There are many levels to play this game- it does not need to be an all or nothing proposition for the artist like it is now.
I don't disagree with what you say. The music industry is a sad, sick thing. They support the value of their "product" by controlling exposure and manipulating the market.
Do you know that some artists are still getting charged "technology adoption" fees that supposedly help defer the cost of switching from vinyl to CDs? You gotta know a good lawyer.
Great masses of people do behave in very sheep-like ways sometimes, IF they are properly herded. I'd like to think that a lot of them have seen the break in the fence (Napster). Some of them may even behave responsibly on their own (Fairtunes).
My hope for the future is that these mass herding techniques are breaking down. At Steam Powered we are doing our best to create and deliver music outside the structure of the music industry.
OK, the conductor could probably cut a deal to get something from sales, if he had the clout, but I believe symphony musicians get scale for the session and that's it, brother.
The rights to the performance would go to the record company- and that's OK, because they paid all the musicians, rented the hall, hired the engineers etc.
(previewed in plain text last time)
"Point being, CDs should all sell for just under 4 bucks..."
Sorry, it doesn't follow. You conveniently skipped paying the artist I think, plus, like it or not, there is a whole lot of promotional expense involved in marketing these cheesy plastic platters.
If you are really interested in the truth, and not just yelling "sheep" at people, ideally every CD should be priced differently to acknowledge the different amounts of work that go into producing them. If you continue to address this issue as though these disks are simply "product", join the flock.
I consider myself one of the "copyright is obsolete" mob you refer to, only I'd be more likely to say that copyright will be irrelevent.
I don't expect a "new player" to step in to create a new music industry based on a more flexible copyright system. I expect a slow but steady acceptance of transaction schemes that fall outside the traditional "product/consumer" economy.
Rust never sleeps, somebody once said...
"2 ways yes, 50 ways no."
That's an interesting point. Do you feel the same way about your music budget? Does that mean it's usless for the zillion bands on the net to ask for money, but if there were two "labels" that you liked, you'd pay for general access to bands on those labels?
Yes.
Some major behavior modification (education) will be necessary for this to work, but the "brainlessly easy" part would simply be links through the song files to the performers.
An independant (of the copyright industry) clearinghouse of song files needs to be created to insure that the gifts are flowing to the proper recipients.
Online accounts for listeners will need to be integrated into the system.
"Thank you" buttons on players could prompt "How much?" or be set to automatically credit the performer's account with a default amount- or automatically gift every play. Portable players could keep tabs of gifting and upload the info whenever they are connected to a host machine.
The really beauty time for listeners to show their appreciation for music is while they are listening to it- not in advance. This is the behavior modification carrot.
The number of "deadbeat" listeners will be high, but this may be offset by the number of repeat gifters, and the open-ended nature of the gifting. You would think that the recording industry would be interested in the long-term revenues which could be expected from music with legs. (Hmmm, might even have an effect on the quality of their signings)
Not to mention the value of the cumulative data which would be collected in the process.
But this all runs counter to the industry's way of thinking. It's not the sort of thing which can be imposed, but it would be great if it were available.
If you like the possibilities, then support whatever seems to be moving us toward them. I still haven't decided if (o) is a good thing for this or not...
...is to identify the rightful owner of the song you wish to voluntarily make a payment for. If it works, it could insure that no one swaps tags or otherwise subverts the process of getting money back to artists. It could possibly be used to direct payment for samples within songs.
Sorry. Can't agree that trading of copyrighted material is illegal. Collecting money from the use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner, now that's illegal. So the rest of your argument?
It's about finding stuff, not classifying it.
As long as the promotional tools are expensive and corporate, you will mostly hear corporate music. Once you have a tool to help you find what you like in a mountain of mp3s, you will hear mostly what you like.
It's true that it will allow bands to step outside their niche with less fear of losing their audience-
Yeah- I got 'cha covered there. See the "sounds" page at Steam Powered.
Imagine the wealth of information about actual listener responses a working tip system would collect.
I would suggest that this information be available to everyone- listeners, performers and middle men.
For more on this subject, see Busking as a Form of Online Compensation at InSound.com.
I'd like to see a "tip" button on media players. It's the natural place for it. There could be provisions to auto-tip favorite performers/songs, as well as a tip budget manager built in.
No fuss finding artists this way- like tossing a coin in a hat.
For more on this, see Busking as a Form of Online Compensation at InSound.com