Less Well Known Musicians Embracing 'Pay What You Want'
from the small-musicians,-big-musicians-alike dept
It still amuses me how often when we talk about specific music business models, defenders of the old system rush in to explain why any particular example is an exception. For years, we showed examples of less well known musicians embracing these kinds of new business models, critics would complain that they might work for unknown musicians who have "nothing to lose" and need attention more than anything else, but it would never ever work for a big star who has too much to lose. Then, of course, we talked about big time musicians like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails embracing these kinds of models, and the critics said "well, sure, it works for them with their well recognized name, but it would never work for unknown artists." Hell, someone said that just yesterday in response to a post here, leading another commenter to jokingly (I hope) coin the phrase "Masnick's Law", which is loosely defined as"in any conversation about musicians doing something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will inevitably attempt to make the argument that 'it only worked for them because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the opposite,' no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily available."I might expand on that definition a bit to have it go beyond just big/small. People will keep looking for excuses why each example is an exception, (big/small just being an easy such reason) to the point that they'll eventually miss the fact that all of those exceptions are the rule.
Anyway, based on all of this, it will be interesting to see how Girl Talk's new album does. Girl Talk is a one man DJ once mentioned (positively) in Congress as an example of why traditional copyright laws might not make sense anymore. With the release of his latest album, he's decided to use a Radiohead-style model, with a few improvements. That is, rather than just a pure "give it away and pray," he's giving people an additional reason to buy -- though I think he could still put together a better model. His is set up so you can pay what you want (including nothing at all) and get 320 kbps MP3 files, but if you pay over $5, he offers FLAC files as well, and at $10 you'll also get a copy of the physical CD when it comes out. If you pay $0, he does ask that you fill out a little survey explaining why. There still are some problems with this model (it's still a little too much like a give it away and pray model), but overall, it's quite similar to Radiohead's experiment.
Now, of course, all the folks who insisted that Radiohead's model would never work for a relatively obscure musician are supposed to now insist that this model won't work at all for Girl Talk, right? But what happens if Girl Talk is actually happy with the results, whether in direct payment amounts or in the fact that it gets him more publicity? Will they finally admit that the model isn't just an exception?
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
Filed Under: business models, girl talk, music, pay what you want, radiohead
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We'll never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We'll never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We'll never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We'll never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We'll never know...
That these models generate cash has nothing to do with novelty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thing is
Big ones, small ones, good ones, haliriously bad ones... all of them are not middle of the road. all of them are helped. Middle of the road ones are only hurt by rocking the boat.
Still, they deserve to be run over. They're not really worth all of this dead weight, and there will be a new middle that will develop once the switchover occurs, embracing the new crease. Some of them will be survivers of the old middle. Most of the old middle will just get burned.
This is a good thing. In music, and in art, the crappy center are crappy, and like a cancer, need to be regularly purged so that the animal is not killed by their size and dead weight. Too bad sculpture and painting are overdue a model change, and so full of lack-wits selling unmade beds, but that's a discussion for another day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For $0 I can download a high bitrate MP3 that I can upload for sharing, with of course the risk that downloaders may not have a clue that a tin cup is extended or that the musician would like them to take a short survey. For $5 I can flac it to the world. For #10 I can rip the CD and upload for sharing in whatever format I decide, including an ISO.
Try as I may, I have a hard time figuring out just how this model is calculated to generate any form of a predictable income stream that cannot be seriously undercut by file sharing.
Yes, sales of scarce goods may result...but I do have to wonder if this is realistic in the case of this particular musician. I guess only time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is why I noted that the model isn't the greatest...
But, I actually disagree to some extent. If the idea is not to worry about sales of the music at all, and focus on other scarce goods (live performances, the ability to make new albums, access to the musician) then who cares if it's shared far and wide? In that case, it's actually better.
Sure, those receiving the music may not know what the business model is, but if they're really interested in the artist, they can easily do a Google search and find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True, but if I was this guy I would be going to bed each night hoping that these other opportunities actually materialize, and especially if people like his music, but live performances are not his forte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the industry is actually going to vanish (laughably unlikely) then its because its time has passed. Or if it is going to democratize into some sort of non-industry artform then more power to it, if thats the way the people want to take it. But that also is quite unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I work in the technology industry as a technical writer. Do you think maybe that position has changed a bit over the last few years? Almost everybody works in a changing industry. Many of us worry about some of those changes. Most of us, however, accept change as a matter of course, rather than fighting it tooth and nail to the detriment of our careers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, "hoping" is not a business model.
especially if people like his music, but live performances are not his forte.
You should see Girl Talk perform. It's quite impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business models
AC, if he's merely going to bed hoping, he's not grasping the tao of the business model. Like any other business model, the "pay what you want" plan requires planning to execute profitably.
In fact, releasing the music for free, or for PWYW, should be the last duck in the row.
Granted, for a musician, live performances are a major source of revenue, but there are others, from T shirts to posters to extras. And very few musicians, in my experience, don't like performing. A lot of them hate touring and a few prefer smaller venues, but for most of them performing is a lot more fun than recording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the original post, and in this comment, you say he could make a better business model. Could you be more specific and give some concrete examples? As you do so, bear in mind what another commenter said: live performances are not his forte (given his particular genre/style of music creation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would replace "artist" with "musician" ... which is then not very helpful for other artists whose works can be digitally copied and distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, what artists are you concerned for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Journalists aren't paid based on each copy of their content anyway. They're paid by salary. So I'm not sure what the concern is there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: no
That's a double bonus right there. Selling something online free or not, to increase your audience and market a side-product. This philosophy has been used for years for tons of business models, its just the music industry that fights it.
How do I suspect the music industry will get back in the game eventually on this? I suspect the labels will get into the business of hosting the servers that take the massive download requests when big artists put files up under a pay-as-you-choose....requesting a cut of the sales, of course. This would be my guess if they embrace it, not that it's a great idea. I just can't see the music industry willign to come up with a model other than "I get my cut".
With that said, marketing an alternate item via a free one has been around forever in many businesses. An example is a location that has no fee for admission but sells souveneirs (say a museum with free admission) and/or food (museum restaurant), or sells alcohol (bar with no cover).
Or how about free concerts where they ask people to donate, for a music example?
If people really look for examples, it's out there. Just music industry screaming and kicking, and the artists doing just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, first, having seen Girl Talk perform, I'd say his live performances are quite impressive -- so I'd disagree there.
But, more concretely on the business models:
* His real speciality is his ability to create these songs. So he could sell his ability to create these mashup songs for whatever purposes (commercials, to fans who want to fund the new album, etc.)
* Also, the music that he uses for these mashups helps them become more popular. In DJ culture, musicians have often *wanted* to be included in popular mashups to get them more exposure. So, labels could pay someone like Gillis if he includes certain samples in his mashups.
* As I said, his live performances really are something to behold. I know it's hard to believe, but you have to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some filesharing will happen, and you cannot stop it or argue with it. This is a bit hard to understand, but try: not every download is a lost sale. These are not undercut revenue; and downloads that are lost sales are the artist's own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You really and only mean this: Revenue streams are undercut by artists themselves by being stupid and driving potentially paying customers to be freeloaders for lack of a better alternative
In other words, downloads that are lost sales are attributable to a business model not ideally suited for the current realities of the market.
Otherwise, you're being really harsh to the ones who create music you enjoy.
Also, if you like music, how about helping the artists you like to successfully make the transition to the new business models, rather than just writing them off as stupid and telling them their lost revenue is really just all their fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean only to be harsh to whomever is stupid in each case.
And since you mentioned it, I have spent significant portions of my time and treasure helping artists transition to the new way of doing business in a variety of commercial and noncommercial ventures. I certainly havent written them off and calling them stupid is just my way of showing here that I care. I care deeply about them and if I could change the world into a better place for them somehow by sacrificing my life then I would do it and be glad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, some are ... and that's great for them. But if someone is a talented artist (meaning she produces something that I value), I don't want her chances for success or failure to depend on whether or not she is *also* a talented business person. That's why things like management companies, labels, etc. came into existence in the first place.
What I mean by "help" is not simply buying music. And I'm not questioning whether or not you've done that and more. What I'm saying is we need to fight for models that can sustain talented artists *even if* they aren't *also* talented business people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly right, but have I missed something here? Did anyone say the artist has to do the business side themselves? Even if the big labels aren't interested in this, surely one can still employ an independent manager?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? No, that's not true at all. It's no different than it is today. Do we demand that musicians today are effective entrepreneurs? No, that's why they sign with a label. There's no reason that the labels of tomorrow can't provide the same sorts of services, allowing the musicians to concentrate on the music, while the label concentrates on the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I've got that right, then I'm suddenly in almost 100% agreement with all of your blog posts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup. That's pretty much it. There are tons of ways that they could adopt new models that will help musicians and themselves. And they refuse to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh*
Let me fill you in on some basic facts of 21st century life, especially as it applies to people who create value.
For now and the near future, we are all in the "me" business. Our success or failure increasingly doesn't rest with General Motors, or Sony or some other third party. It rests with us. That is a very liberating and really scary realization. But the sooner you come to it the better you'll be able to prepare and profit from it.
The truth is it has always pretty much been that way for artists. There have been a few exceptions, such as some musicians and some writers, but an artist always had to be an entrepreneur. At least back to the 15th Century. (Read Michelangelo's letters sometime.)
So how do you deal? Besides entering a monastery there are several ways. The two big ones are learn how to be an entrepreneur yourself or hire and entrepreneur to market you.
The difference, if you're a recording musician, is that today it is easier to be in control of your own destiny. You can bypass the big record companies and Nashville/Hollywood/Tin Pan Alley far more easily that ever and you can pretty much have it your way.
The problem I see here is waaay to much old thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And, once again, I insist that each download is not a missed sale. Many downloaders download waaaay more music than they'd ever pay for. It is insane to propose that you have lost potential revenue from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm looking for music in the file format of my choosing, without DRM or vendor lock-in. I move my music (and movies) about a lot and it's extremely difficult to do so with DRM and vendor lock-in about. I'm not sure where you come from but in England it's perfectly legal and within the rights of the consumer to 'copy' for their own use something that they have legally bought. Unfortunately, as all CDs/DVDs come with DRM these days, the industry is pretty much just fucking over their customers and I have turned to pirating purely because that is the ONLY way I can get what I actually want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A reasonably priced, high quality, DRM-free, non-region controlled file that I can use on any device I choose at any time.
iTunes, Amazon, etc. do not fit this criteria.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems to me that this is good for a potential customer, like me, who hasn't heard of the artist. I can listen to it for free, then pay if I like it.
I believe that if you give people the ability to pay a small amount for a decent product, many will pay.
There will always be a percentage of people who will rip you off, or violate copyright, no matter what the law is, or how hard it is to cheat. I personally know people who will spend more time/effort/money trying to cheat than they would have if they just paid... the fun to them is in cheating.
I believe that the greater majority are generally decent people, and given the chance to do the right thing, they will.
It really depends on the audience who's interested in the artist... what type of people they are. If the content and audience is pro violence or crime, then that artist may have some issues getting the audience to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the business model is about leveraging the infinite goods to add value to the scarce, why not let or encourage people to share your music? I don't think that's "cheating" or doing the wrong thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay what you want
Its not calcualted to generate a predictable income stream. Recordings were originally simply souvenirs of a concert or more likely of an artiist. That's all.
The musicians, like they have in the past, really make their living from their live performances. The whole recording industry has been created on the pipe dream that hit recordings can be produced by somne formula, or worse, advertised into existence. Instant mediocrity results. Recordings will always be here, but not as a real source of income for a musician. Always, live performances are a musicians bread and butter.
Some do make a living as studio musicians, but they are paid a fixed rate for their work. Thus, they are paid for their live work, not the recording they are on. It is also intersting to note that many name artists appear on recording after recording as studio musicians.
Let this present nightmare dwindle into nothing like it should
cheeers,
RJH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are lots of models
A few years ago, on a lark, I offered to do music by "commission". That is, I would make a one of a kind piece of music, from 23 to 37 minutes long for a certain price. I would make no other copies of that music so the patron would truly have a singular work. Then, the patron could do whatever they wanted with the high-resolution recording, as long as I retained attribution. They could even press it to a CD and sell it themselves. Surprisingly, within about 6 months, I was generating a steady, sustainable income this way. During that time, I also sold music the old fashioned way (although my new way was really really old-fashioned) and I liked this better. It was the way painters and sculptors have always worked.
I now go so far as to offer the work on a sliding scale, depending on income. I actually require an interview with the patron and sometimes request a peek at income tax returns before giving a price. On occasion, the sliding scale also moves according to the political orientation of the patron, but rarely.
Oh, and I of course give away music on my website too, otherwise only people who have heard me perform would be interested, and that's a limited number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are lots of models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
merch sales
It may seem negative that the record is reduced to an advert this way but it also emphasizes the live performance which in many way is real experience of music and it's truest test, one that can't easily be faked with the recording tricks and technology that is all too common today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note Severed Fifth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the artists and people directly responsible for the show are getting money from me and I am getting more value for my money. Why is this situation bad for the musicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: concert tours
I like "Masnick's Law", that's a good one. To play devils advocate though, one could similarly note that a number of Hollywood stars and professional musicians have embraced Scientology. Does that validate Scientology as the spiritual home for entertainers of the 21st century, or should we argue the famous converts are all exceptions? I guess what I'm trying to say is, this blog does some cherry picking when it comes to these stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: concert tours
No one is saying exceptions are always the rule, then they wouldn't be exceptions. The point is that when people start labeling virtually all examples as exceptions, they make a mistake in doing so. Everything can't be an exception.
I don't see how the analogy with Scientology holds... that isn't an example of someone calling virtually everything an exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They made their money the way most bands make the bulk of their money, from concerts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay what you want...
They have a fairly extensive collection of nearly every genre, and they are adding new stuff regularly (if you are in an indie band, and would like some exposure and more money, check them out).
You can even listen to all the stuff on the site for free, although each track comes with a short commercial on the end. Personally, I find the sexy female voice delivering the low-key commercials pleasant enough that I would be happy to have the commercials kept in the paid downloads...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you've been on the buying side, you might agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I use the Pay What You Want system
I have a regular job to pay my regular bills, and for the music stuff, I have to be careful to pinch every single penny to make sure that I break even.
I've had varying success. Last year I was able to launch a "pre-order" campaign on YouTube that allowed fans to contribute to my record at different pre-set levels. Using that I was able to raise $10,000 over the course of 6 months to make my first record.
Once the record was finished, I used a "pay what you want" strategy on my site that suggests a price of $10.00 for the mp3 version of the record but allows people to set the price to whatever they want as low as $1.
With this set-your-own price I've had many downloads but I was nowhere near as successful as I was with my pre-order campaign.
Meaning for my next record, I'm going to have to do something that's not quite as rich, dropping out all the great horns and other session musicians I was able to use for my first record.
In the future, I plan on setting up a "membership" model that is based similar to PBS. The idea is that instead of buying a physical record or cd, or a "license" to listen to music as the record companies would like, you will be giving money as a resource that helps to actually create the music.
People will be able to join at different levels with lots of levels with rare goodies as incentives such as signed & numbered concert posters, and limited-edition first-run CDs, etc.
If you guys are interested, I'll keep you updated on how its turning out.
In the meantime, you can find me on youtube at
youtube.com/mrpitifulband and you can "pay what you want" for my record at mrpitifulmusic.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art
It's called last.fm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick's iPod
Would he be willing to share with us what percentage of the music on his iPod he has paid for, and what the average price he paid per song is. Very curious to see what his honest reply would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick's iPod
Would he be willing to share with us what percentage of the music on his iPod he has paid for, and what the average price he paid per song is. Very curious to see what his honest reply would be.
Sure. I've paid for about 99% of the music on my iPod. I don't use any file sharing programs and I don't download music. Believe it or not, I still buy CDs and rip the songs to my computer. I like having the physical artifact and am willing to pay for it. And actually, the % was 100% until last week when I was visiting a friend who wanted me to hear some music from a couple bands. So he put the songs on a USB stick for me to put on my computer. I spent a lot of time on my flight this weekend listening to both, and really liked them, so I'm about to go buy the CDs on Amazon, which should get the music back up to 100% bought.
I also have some podcasts that aren't bought, but those are given out free on purpose.
One caveat: in the early and mid-90s I did some DJing and received a bunch of CDs at the time for free. There's a chance that some of that music is on my iPod (though I don't think so), but it's been so long that I forget which CDs were sent to me and which I bought (during that time I bought a lot more CDs than at any other period in my life, because I wanted to have a much more comprehensive collection).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
1) If you believe the current market doesn't work, musicians should be making some other way, and copyright laws are unnecessary, why are you buying all this music (and presenting it as a morally responsible position)? Is it only out of obeying a law for which you have no real respect?
... and related ...
2) If everyone did what you do, that would seem like an ideal position for all involved, given a few provisions: a) prices for songs/albums are reasonable, b) songs are DRM/device free, c) "sharing" a few songs among friends is as "non-punishable" as it used to be for mixed tapes/mixed CDs, d) the expected and socially ethical response to a musician whose songs you truly enjoy is to purchase the work when possible (though not necessarily re-purchase songs that have been shared with you). Here's the question: your actions suggest that current model can and does work (particularly with the above provisions), so why must it change (except for the above provisions)?
In other words: you seem like a poster-child for responsible music consumption. Why shouldn't we follow you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
Most of these articles are in response to the traditional music industry's complaints that its profits are falling and there's no way of making money other than selling the songs. Mike tends to point out that there's plenty of other models out there. Whether he personally chooses to support the current one is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
The music industry needs to realise that, like any other industry, it has to offer people what they want. They can't control the market any more. They've had a decade to get their act together and they failed to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
You seem to have confused my position. I am only talking about from the position of the artists. I think *think* they should be the ones recognizing the value of giving stuff away for free.
I make no argument saying that it should be okay for others to ignore copyright law, and I do not ignore it myself.
I will tell you this, however, I believe that I would know about a lot more bands, and most likely spend a lot more money on those bands if they started giving away their music for free.
2) If everyone did what you do, that would seem like an ideal position for all involved, given a few provisions: a) prices for songs/albums are reasonable, b) songs are DRM/device free, c) "sharing" a few songs among friends is as "non-punishable" as it used to be for mixed tapes/mixed CDs, d) the expected and socially ethical response to a musician whose songs you truly enjoy is to purchase the work when possible (though not necessarily re-purchase songs that have been shared with you). Here's the question: your actions suggest that current model can and does work (particularly with the above provisions), so why must it change (except for the above provisions)?
Because, this model is not the most economically efficient one. As mentioned, I know about many fewer bands than I would have otherwise, and I end up spending less on all of those other bands.
Again, this is not about what I want or what I think should happen. I am simply explaining what is happening and what will happen from understanding the economics.
Even if you and I *wanted* to keep the music industry working this way, it wouldn't, because it's just not economically efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
I find that to be a dubious proposition, because the amount of time you have to spend listening to these bands does not change. It's not like the digital era has allotted you more free time to listen to these music groups, whether at a live performance or privately on your MP3 player. I find it very hard to believe that you would actually spend more money on music if it were cheaper or free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
Okay, but does this in the end cause you to spend more money on music? Are you purchasing tickets to more live shows? Are you buying so many more music tracks at 30c a pop that your expenses on music have become larger? My guess is no. I find it extremely hard to believe that one would increase his personal budget for music as the price of it goes down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
Short answer: yes. I buy at least 5 albums a month through eMusic, whereas I might have bought one CD a month previously, if that. I went to the Sonar festival in Barcelona at the weekend, and one of the things that attracted me (apart from a relatively close physical proximity) was the presence of several artists I'd never heard of before joining eMusic. I only attended one night of the festival but the night before I went to a club where Sven Vath was playing. I bought his album on eMusic the next day.
"I find it extremely hard to believe that one would increase his personal budget for music as the price of it goes down."
Over the last 2 years, my love for music has been rekindled. My exposure to new music is no longer through the increasingly homogeneous radio and TV outlets, but through services like podcasts, last.fm and pandora. I've gone from being mildly interested by some new acts to loving a wide range of new music. As my interest has increased, so has the money I'm willing to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's iPod
It's got nothing to do with time. As it stands now, I end up listening to a few bands over and over again until I discover new music that I like -- which is pretty rare. Yet, when I do find new music I like, I definitely do go out of my way to see them live. So, I believe if more bands made their music free, I'd spend a lot more time going to see bands.
But, on a secondary point: much more of the money I spend would also go to the artists directly. As it stands now, when I buy CDs very little of that money goes to the artist (more than in most cases, since I'm often buying from independents or even directly from the musicians).
So I definitely disagree with your premise. It has little to do with the time available -- and everything to do with the fact that I just don't know who's out there that I would like.
That's why it was so great to see my friend last week who introduced me to some new acts that I hadn't heard before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is something much larger and more complex looming in the background of the "how should we pay for music" discussion and if it's reduced to only dollars and cents, the lowest common denominator for all artists, then it's lost before it's begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1.) people will NOT be guilted, cowed or forced into paying for music if they don't want to. Argue morality and ethics until you are blue in the face. It doesn't change what is.
2.) there is not now, nor will there ever be a DRM system that will work the way it is intended....particularly one that doesn't alienate customers who are willing to do business on the record companies terms.
You can kick, scream, threaten to litigate (in which case whatever downloader you take out of the mix will only be replaced by 2 more) but things will NOT return to the way its been. Period. Yet daily I see otherwise brilliant people posting entire blogs over why new models are doomed to fail without putting forth any alternate idea of what may or may not work.
To be honest I gave little thought about copyright until I started reading techdirt and Mikes postings. It been an education. But, like many, I don't agree with 100% of everything he posts (I find him too vague on certain specifics) but I have enough of a grasp to tell when there are people in a heavy state of denial over the aspects that are cut and dried.....that things have change for good.
To those people I ask, again, what is the alternative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about musicians that can't play live?
Should he just hang it up and sell real estate, or maybe blog about something? The recorded songs are this persons only tangible product. Is it unreasonable for him to expect to have an opportunity to sell his product???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about musicians that can't play live?
Should he just hang it up and sell real estate, or maybe blog about something? The recorded songs are this persons only tangible product. Is it unreasonable for him to expect to have an opportunity to sell his product???
No, the Masnicks of the world propose that the songwriter who creates but does not perform be turned into some rank-and-file employee that gets paid a salary based in his reputation, not a royalty based on the value of his actual work. Masnick thinks that songwriters should be treated the way journalists are in the printing and publishing business, implying that because the two professions are so similar (or so he assumes), they should be compensated in similar fashions.
It's almost as if Masnick thinks no one has actually considered this method of compensation for content creators in the music industry. I find that extremely doubtful, especially considering how long both industries have been around. My best guess as to why this compensation model has not been employed for songwriters is because it does not work for songwriters, as songwriters are NOT that similar to journalists, and the craft of a songwriter is considerably different from that of a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about musicians that can't play live?
Songwriters can get paid to write songs, rather than only getting paid for songs they've already written. Isn't that what songwriters are supposed to do, write songs? A salary may be one example, though it may have limited application if few people need a salaried songwriter. Commissioned works are another great example though. A television producer might commission a theme song from a songwriter. Before copyright existed, works were often commissioned from composers. Or there's the fund-and-release model, which Mr Pitiful was just talking about, where fans contribute to the costs of producing a record, to the cost of writing and recording songs.
These are all just examples of songwriters being paid to write songs.
My best guess as to why this compensation model has not been employed for songwriters is because it does not work for songwriters
My best guess is that there's been little incentive to do so, since money was largely made off works that had already been written via copyright rather than from creating new works, before digital technology began to pose a serious threat to that system.
Of course songwriters aren't exactly like journalists, but it's an analogy. There are some similarities, namely, that both songwriters and journalists can be paid to create content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about musicians that can't play live?
Why do songwriters expect to be paid ad infinitum for work they've already done, while working in virtually any other industry only get paid for the work they're doing *now*?
An architect doesn't get paid every time someone buys an apartment in the building he designed. Nor does the builder. Nor does the designer of your car get a cut when you buy it. Computer programmers generally get paid for the lines of code they create, not a cut of the sales of the final product.
It's strange that songwriters seem to expect a different wage scale. I can understand wishing to get a cut every time the song is licenced, but songwriters need to stop expecting a cut every time it's used.
"My best guess as to why this compensation model has not been employed for songwriters is because it does not work for songwriters"
Actually, I'd guess that it's not been employed for songwriters because they have no incentive to - they can get just as much money under the old model without doing any additional work. Hell, if I could get paid for work I did 20 years ago, I wouldn't bother working now either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about musicians that can't play live?
You mean like Girl Talk? Apparently, he puts on a really good live show. He found a way to translate it into a live environment.
I've witnessed lots of amazing live one man acts, from Fr. Stan Fortuna to Danny Michel. Fr. Stan, in particular, used to rap and sing to pre-recorded backing tracks, but in the past few years with the advances in audio equipment, he began using repeater pedals to build his own backing tracks on stage during his performance. Danny Michel sounds like he has a full band behind him even when he's on his own.
Aside from opportunities beyond live performances, most talented artists I know are able to put on compelling live shows, even as a one man band and even if it involves layering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about musicians that can't play live?
I'm talking about a musician, you know someone who plays notes on a keyboard, guitar or whatever, even multiple instruments. Writes original music and plays and records his or herself playing all of the parts of their music in a multi-track recording. There have been many "Studio bands" over the years who rarely, if ever played live and made a living by selling their music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about musicians that can't play live?
More? Imogen Heap and Pat Robitaille both layer in their live performances, just going off the top of my head from artists I've actually been out to see recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about musicians that can't play live?
Two things: First, as Blaise pointed out, who says it can't be translated to a live environment?
Second, I never said live music was the only scarce good you have. In fact, a much bigger potential scarce good is your ability to write new music. Good musicians can still charge for that without having to do any performing.
Should he just hang it up and sell real estate, or maybe blog about something? The recorded songs are this persons only tangible product. Is it unreasonable for him to expect to have an opportunity to sell his product???
First of all, the recorded music is not a tangible product, and as noted above, you're wrong in thinking it's the only thing he or she can sell.
As for it being "unreasonable" to expect someone to have the "opportunity to sell his product" that's not up to you or me. It's up to the market. And if the market says no, then, yes, it is unreasonable for you to expect him to keep selling what the market says is unsellable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
girl talk isn't small
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: girl talk isn't small
Huh? Maybe in the US or wherever you're from but I'm a dance music fan and I've never heard of him. A search for him on Mixmag's website also returns 0 results. I'd say that until he ranks with Tiesto, Sasha, Fatboy Slim or Daft Punk, your claim rings a little false...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: girl talk isn't small
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: girl talk isn't small
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
songwriters
"Why do songwriters expect to be paid ad infinitum for work they've already done, while working in virtually any other industry only get paid for the work they're doing *now*?"
That's because songwriting is a whole lot different from other vocations. It's not something people can be trained to do, like plumbing or writing code. Good songwriters are themselves a scarce resource, just like good musicians or good writers are.
Also, most workers have retirement benefits, regular wages...many have unions, collective bargaining, etc, which luxury is not afforded to the songwriter.
Society and the economy recognize the fact that creative artists like songwriters are a lot different from architects or designers.
"Hell, if I could get paid for work I did 20 years ago, I wouldn't bother working now either."
But that's not about to happen, is it? And it riles, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: songwriters
Exactly. So, what's the problem with them being paid to do that work rather than relying on royalties for previous work? A good songwriter should be in constant demand, if he's that good.
"Also, most workers have retirement benefits, regular wages...many have unions, collective bargaining, etc, which luxury is not afforded to the songwriter."
Increasingly large numbers of workers don't have automatic pension funds (at least not in Europe where state pensions are increasingly inadequate and many employers don't offer their own scheme, maybe it's different in the US).
A good songwriter should be able to negotiate his terms to ensure a decent income, with the help of an agent if required. It may be relatively unstable, but a regularly working songwriter with money management skills shouldn't have a problem, especially if new work is supplemented by income from licensing older work (different from simply expecting royalties).
I don't see the problem with a songwriter being expected to manage his money and pay into his own pension fund. If he wants a regular income, he shouldn't be in that industry.
"But that's not about to happen, is it? And it riles, doesn't it?"
Not really. I say good to them if they can negotiate to get these kinds of pay deals. What annoys me is that they seem to think they are *entitled* to this payment method. The industry has changed, power is back in the hands of the consumer, sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: songwriters
Exactly. So, what's the problem with them being paid to do that work rather than relying on royalties for previous work? A good songwriter should be in constant demand, if he's that good."
Sure songwriters may be in demand, but does that mean their productivity will be or should be consistent? Unlike other professions, artists have the luxury of churning out work once in a way. And to compensate them for the time taken, they get paid long after the work's published.
"Also, most workers have retirement benefits, regular wages...many have unions, collective bargaining, etc, which luxury is not afforded to the songwriter."
Increasingly large numbers of workers don't have automatic pension funds (at least not in Europe where state pensions are increasingly inadequate and many employers don't offer their own scheme, maybe it's different in the US)."
The fact that large numbers of workers don't get benefits must be addressed separately. Why deny songwriters royalty simply because others don't get what's their due?
"A good songwriter should be able to negotiate his terms to ensure a decent income, with the help of an agent if required. It may be relatively unstable, but a regularly working songwriter with money management skills shouldn't have a problem, especially if new work is supplemented by income from licensing older work (different from simply expecting royalties)."
Ah...there's the word, unstable. It's precisely because of the unstable nature of their vocation that artists are given the benefit of royalties. > Many musicians can stop being popular with the arrival of the next generation of listeners. Royalties theoretically ensure a steady stream of income once they are out of the scene.>
"But that's not about to happen, is it? And it riles, doesn't it?"
Not really. I say good to them if they can negotiate to get these kinds of pay deals. What annoys me is that they seem to think they are *entitled* to this payment method. The industry has changed, power is back in the hands of the consumer, sorry."
You certainly sound quite annoyed:-) I'd be too if I think of the number of years I have to work, when these guys write a few songs and retire to live happily ever after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: songwriters
Songwriters will still get compensated for their time and creativity, but it will be in the form of licensing and additional work opportunities rather than royalties for past work. As for the time taken, some of the best songs ever written were done in an afternoon. Creativity ebbs and flows, but more people will be interested in hearing the better songs, hence more opportunity for licensing and other ways of making money from those songs.
"The fact that large numbers of workers don't get benefits must be addressed separately. Why deny songwriters royalty simply because others don't get what's their due?"
It's not about denying them anything as such. It's just that there's an expectation by some that such royalties should be guaranteed in some way, leading to the lawsuits etc. against customers rather than changing money making tactics. Songwriters should not be made an exception when the rest of society is moving in a different direction. If I choose to go to a gig instead of buying a CD and the songwriter isn't getting paid for the songs I hear, that's their contract's problem, not mine.
"Ah...there's the word, unstable. It's precisely because of the unstable nature of their vocation that artists are given the benefit of royalties. > Many musicians can stop being popular with the arrival of the next generation of listeners. Royalties theoretically ensure a steady stream of income once they are out of the scene.>"
Many of the best songwriters have been working steadily for decades. If you can't alter your writing style to reflect current trends (or be ahead of the curve), that's your problem. Remember also that we're talking about songwriters in this particular thread. The writers are often anonymous to the mainstream listener, unless they also perform their own music. Maybe less people will be interested is seeing current pop artists in 10 years time, but the people providing their songs should still be able to work unaffected, unless they're still trying to produce 2008-style songs in 2018.
We could expand this to cover performing musicians as well, but that would be a different topic. Good musicians needn't necessarily go out of style - many artists (e.g. Madonna, Prince, Rolling Stones, Public Enemy) have been continually working for decades while others have made successful returns to touring after years of absence.
"You certainly sound quite annoyed:-) I'd be too if I think of the number of years I have to work, when these guys write a few songs and retire to live happily ever after."
I can't argue with you there. Again, I'm fine with them doing this, it's just the expectation by some that this should be guaranteed that irks me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi Mike
Aren't those who write music for movies and events already doing that? What's new? Are you suggesting popular music acts try and charge fans for coming up with new albums?
"First of all, the recorded music is not a tangible product, and as noted above, you're wrong in thinking it's the only thing he or she can sell."
Music is not tangible, but the moment it's recorded it becomes tangible. I don't understand how recorded music is not tangible, because the recorded music has to exist in a physical medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi Mike
Funny. My MP3 player, web radio and YouTube videos say different. Modern music is nothing but a stream of bits, transferred from hard drive to hard drive through the mixing, mastering, encoding and sales processes. It may be many things, but tangible is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hi Mike
Just because the bits are now easily moved around doesn't mean they don't *exist in fixed form* ... digital /= magic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hi Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi Mike
People view digital files differently, most people consider a piece of data as less valuable than something they can hold in their hand. Therefore, the acceptable price point is lower. If the acceptable price is too low for an artist to make a living by simply selling songs, they need to find other ways to do so. That's market forces in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tangible
Your MP3 player, the servers that host the music are all tangible, aren't they? You can transfer the bits but essentially they exist in a physical medium somewhere, unlike say a live performance, where the music is truly intangible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One musician was doign this in the 70-80's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is NYOP working???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More money on concerts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative Commons anyone ?
We are an independent record label and publishing company not a big bad corporation out to sue people for file sharing, we WANT them to spread our music around. Songs from our catalog have been played by hundreds of radio stations and podcasters worldwide and it didn't cost them a penny, in return we got exposure and promotion.....sounds like a good deal to me, that's why many of our tracks have been released under a creative commons license.
So what if you lose out on lost sales. You gain more in the long term (If you can survive that long)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]