Oh Look, You Can Make Money Giving Away Music
from the shocker dept
A few years ago I wrote up a short piece explaining one (of many) ways that musicians could still make money while giving away their music via file sharing. The system I proposed could help a musician get more fans, and even make more money than going the traditional route. We were told it would never work, but it appears that ArtistShare is taking an approach similar to what we suggested -- and succeeding with it. The basic concept (which we discussed when it first launched) is that the musician should use their music for promotional purposes, and sell something else. In the past, this has mostly been concert tickets or merchandise -- but it's possible to sell much more. And that's exactly what ArtistShare does. It lets musicians sell whatever they want: early access to new songs, signed copies of albums, writing a song specifically for someone or even a co-producer credit -- and use that to finance the creation of new music (I still like the idea of selling a personal backyard concert). The first artist who used the system, Maria Schneider, won a Grammy last year with her album produced this way -- and says that it turned out to be a lot more profitable than earlier albums produced the traditional way. It's good to see some people getting how they can actually embrace what fans want, and still make money. It's about time the recording industry recognized that it's not about them against people who want to listen to music, but working out business models that benefit everyone. It's a basic recognition that you should get paid to do something, rather than paid for what you've done in the past. However, what you've done in the past helps promote what you can do in the future, and can enhance how much people are willing to spend on those future endeavors.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
I like the 'back to the basics' or 'grassroots' approach to getting paid for what you do. kudos to the musicians that use this method to make a name for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little one sided...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
This is a valid point... to some extent. For a very small number of megastars, it will be more difficult to make the same ridiculous amount of money. However, those megastar success stories are *disappearing* anyway. The economics just don't make sense.
So, really, no one loses out using this type of system, because the old system won't support blockbusters either.
And, I disagree with you that it's only good for "small artists just starting up." As was clear, the woman who was successful using it wasn't just starting up. And, since the artist can set the terms, a big artist could obviously do quite well. They just set a higher level before they'll do something. If they're really that big, then the fans will pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
The big artists dont really get effected by file sharing seeing as they get so much money from live preformances (which is their main method income, NOT cds which gives very little as compared to live preformances).
Once an artist or band is big, it still needs money, but not as much as the amount of money that new bands need in order to promote themselves more.
So as far as the big bands are concerned, they really should not care about file sharing.
Now that there is avaiblable proof that small artists can actually profit from file sharing, I dont see why these huge artist protecting enterprises still need to harass and invade into everyone's computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
Touring is not the end-all be-all of musical creation, and it should'nt have to be. While some artists might choose the P2P avenue, those who choose to release IP in the form of recorded, copyrighted media should not have to expect to have their works pirated simply because it is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
Er... that's the whole point of this post. ArtistShare shows that there are a LOT of non-touring related ways of making money that still embrace file sharing.
Which part of the post says they have to tour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
The big thing is conserts of course, $50 to get in and $5 a drink, $40 for the T-Shirt etc etc. But you need at least a couple thousand people to buy in advance to make this worth while.
So maybe this will work, but real artists want their creations to be experienced by others and just that basic need cannot be fulfilled because the massive marketing for mainstream has saturated the media. If the artist can overcome this then the flood gates will open, maybe music was meant to be free after all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
--And where did you get your figures, exactly? A bodily orifice?
The big thing is conserts (sic) of course, $50 to get in and $5 a drink, $40 for the T-Shirt etc etc. But you need at least a couple thousand people to buy in advance to make this worth while.
So maybe this will work, but real artists want their creations to be experienced by others and just that basic need cannot be fulfilled because the massive marketing for mainstream has saturated the media.
--The artist is getting paid for food concessions?
--And what, exactly, gives you the right to determine what a "real artist" is?
If the artist can overcome this then the flood gates will open, maybe music was meant to be free after all?
--"meant to be free" by whom? You? God? Buddha? The Great Pumpkin? Your fellow Junior High students?
Just because you prefer to get it for free doesn't make it global policy. Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, missed one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oops, missed another one...
You might have more credibility if you wuz lernt 2 spel kerrekly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
A real Artist does what they do for the art. A painter doesnt only paint to make money. They paint becasue they enjoy painting and use it to express themselves. Same is for Music. The real music artists are people who do it for the sake of Music itself. They deserve the credit and money. Many big "Super Star artists" who make millions are only in it for the money and lose the whole reason behind music. They shouldn't even be called artists.
So my question to you is, what doesn't give them the right to determine what an artist is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
If you will do some research, you may be surprised to find that the majority of the well-known "great" artists throughout history managed to survive by benefit of the patronage system, i.e. art for money. Certainly not the only reason to produce creative works, nor the most immediate, but generally considered a desirable by-product of the process. The list of artists - literary, visual, musical - that were paid to produce is very long and very distinguished. You have defined the term "real artist" according to your personal opinion. That is certainly your right, but a minimal study of art history might enlighten you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
The best part is that most of the "Super star artists" are not artists because ... they don't write or perform any thing themselves. Meaning they are the equivalent of paid actors mainly chosen for their body types and lack of inhibitions. Do you really think Britany is sitting at home right now writing lyrics and the notes to her music? Shit no one there even holds an instrument. They are not really even performing music they are preforming a play. That is what I would say "Not a real artist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
Yeah - I totally agree. But we are simply agreeing on what our opinions are.
On that note, I prefer Alice In Chains, Tool, Pearl Jam (Ten anyway), NIN, and Nirvana - but does that mean they are the only "real artists"? Just because I might think they are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
The corelation that this shows is that people want to pay the artist not for the song but for their talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little one sided...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
The difference between these bands and the typical popular band? These bands actually have enough talent that they can sell themselves based on the music rather than being forced onto people through radio, MTV, VH1 etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arctic Monkeys
After developing an enormous cult following through word-of-mouth and available downloads, they released their first album at the end of January. It sold over 100,000 copies in the first day, and is the fastest selling album of all time in the UK charts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arctic Monkeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arctic Monkeys
Again, I think you're putting words in my mouth. I have NEVER advocating copying unauthorized music. I have NEVER suggested there's a defense for people who illegally download or share music. If you think I did, you are mistaken. I don't participate in it, and I don't advocate it.
My point is for the business people who say that there's no business model based on greed. There obviously is. Not only that, but it can be quite beneficial, while their existing business model is going away.
So, PLEASE, understand the difference -- and stop putting false words in my mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a point...
ok- rant over.
T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a point of my own
At the end of the day while bands can and should be able to promote themselves however they want, they should not have to have their music pirated all over the place simply because technology allows it and thus people assume it's "supposed" to be that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its all about the music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P options
It seems reasonable to me that the exposure will lead to the $$$ if the market will allow.
For all those wonderful people who conjecture on artist validity or not, it is irrelavent(sp)here. A virtual peeing contest at best.
As a new artist, an opportunity to get people into your camp is far more valuable to your bottom line of success than DRM or Publishing profits will be for some time to come.
Once you have a fan base (Reference the Greatful Dead comment in a previous post) that is supportive and substantial, the record companies and publishing companies will flock to you. In the process they will likely offer your group the lowest amount and most restrictive contract they can get away with. With a "write you own ticket" service as ArtistShare (which I will soon look into, so this is MHO) an artist has the ability to, not only aquire the fan base and power that base brings to the negotiating table, but also opt to avoid the negotiations with corporate money grabbers altogether.(also MHO)
I personally would rather be heard, than under a contract that could restrict my audience to "potential profit margins".
Hell, if I can make a profit of any kind without a record deal, or at least recoupe some of my expenses on recordings/rehearsals/gas/food/hotel etc... while I increase my fanbase, I consider it a win/win situation. Support Local Artists (even if they do have a record deal)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sony/ RIAA sucks
What really infuriates me is that SONY isnt even an American company. They stick their nose in America screwing over both consumers and musicians and we DONT need them we would still have the same music without them at much lower prices. Billions are siphoned out of our economy for songs they didnt even write. Why do we allow a foreign corporation to do business here this way charging 20 bucks for a cd that costs 20 cents to produce?
Oh sure, I own a Toyota, but at least this Japanese company actually CREATED the product I am using.. rather than reselling something at monopolistically-induced high prices.
And how could someone be such a moron to mindlessly repeat the propaganda about how bad "piracy" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jane Siberry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just DON'T do it...
You treat the music industry exactly the same way, ignore them. Nobody needs them, anyone can do anything by themself.
Saying that you "have" to go through this or you "have" to do that is placing an unnecessary limitation on yourself.
"Lone Ranger" artists will multiply until it becomes a new paradigm and we will have both commercial and non-commercial industries. Somehow I see commercial artists making the switch to non-commercial or "free music" because it will be more "L337" or "kewl".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]