Record Labels Kill Off 'Legal P2P' Before It Even Gets A Chance
from the another-shot-in-the-foot dept
One of the big discussion points at MidemNet, this year, was the idea that ISPs might start offering "legalized" file sharing offerings, where for a certain fee, you would be able to file share without worry of a lawsuit. Depending how this is implemented it could be quite problematic, but structured in a voluntary way, it would at least be an interesting experiment to watch. And, in fact, at MidemNet, folks like Feargal Sharkey suggested that it would only be a matter of weeks until we heard about such offerings in the UK. That may not be the case. The Register is reporting that UK broadband provider Virgin has killed off plans for just such a service that it was just about set to announce... due to ridiculous demands from at least two of the record labels involved. Despite the fact that the plan was to create a "legal" P2P offering that would track file sharing using deep packet inspection (ick), Sony Music and Universal Music supposedly demanded that Virgin agree to block file uploads and downloads from users' PCs.That really doesn't make much sense -- as the whole point of P2P (legal or not) is that it involves people uploading and downloading from their computers. Still, this also explains part of why Virgin was so willing to jump on the recording industry's bandwagon for sending warning notices to customers and threatening to kick them offline. It was apparently step one in a negotiation to see about working out a deal for a "legalized" P2P solution. While I still don't believe such a solution is the best way to do things, it at least seems like a step in a more reasonable direction... so, of course, the big record labels were quick to kill it off.
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: copyright, isps, legal p2p, p2p, record labels
Companies: bpi, sony music, universal music, virgin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But the theory behind it is what the ISP's and Record Label's have been asking for for a long time.
As Far as ISP Goes if all the P2P users are on its network it could reduce quite a load on its servers (since ISPs seem to be complaining about how the P2P users are hogging all the bandwidth available on there networks).
As Far as Labels goes aren't they lobbying for a music tax for all internet users? (granted the fact that this plan was supposed to be optional they don't get as many subscribers as they were hoping for but isn't 10% (random number) better than 0%?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But why do musicians need record labels now anyway?
I understand that it used to be a big hassle to record, press vinyl, package, distribute, promote etc. But now, they could pay a hack of a web designer to build a site with downloads (free or paid) for a fraction of the cost. And if they wanted to charge for discs or mp3's, the could do so, charge 1/5th the price of wal-mart and still make more money.
It seems to me that the artists are partly to blame for continuing to go along with the labels. As long as they keep signing contracts, the labels and RIAA will still have reason to exist.
It is the equivalent of someone paying a monthly fee for an email account, voicemail, pager etc. Five, ten, fifteen years ago, doing so made sense, but why pay someone exorbitant amounts of money for something that you can get for free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The reason musicians NEED the labels is to PRODUCE, EDIT and DISTRIBUTE the material.
When was the last time you saw a hack musician studio with $500k or more worth of editing equipment? When was the last time you hear a CDR of a non professionally recorded song that was worth a crap?
And can you see someone like George Straight sitting in his den packaging CD's for distribution? When would he have time to create more music?
Quit being fools, the only people benefiting from this so called crap y'all dish out are the bands that sell only a few thousand CD's a year, or that have crap for music that the labels passed on.
This site's constant babble about how the industry needs to give it's music away for free is just crap being spit out to get visitors to view the site so it can pimp it's advertising space.
It costs REAL money to produce QUALITY music and to distribute that music in the quantities that are required by the market. I would be shocked if the average PROFESSIONAL CD costs less than 500k to produce and get ready for distribution.
Grow up and quit crying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They do not like Sam I Am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
When has labels handled producing and editing? They have only funded and distributed. Nowadays Amazon, iTunes, Jamendo, P2P etc. can take care of the distribution. And only an idiot takes funding from labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
First of all, you seem to be confusing what a label is. The label has nothing directly to do with the production of the record, unless they pay for it. An unsigned musician can still pay for studio time and get the same results as if a label paid for it. Possibly better results actually, as there's no pressure to make it "more commercial" by over-producing the life out of it. Labels and financiers and marketers, and often compromise the end product to make sure they (and often not the artists) some profit.
If an artist wants to get involved with a label (and there are thousands of quality independent labels out there, not just the corporations you seem to be thinking of), that's their choice. But there's little that they can do that an artists can't do themselves if they wish.
"It costs REAL money to produce QUALITY music"
No it doesn't. It's like movies - some of the most expensive albums to produce have been some of the worst (unless you're making a case for Michael Jackson's Invincible as being the best album of all time), while some of the best have cost moderate amounts of money. It's all down to taste, of course, but over-production (read: wasted money) is one of the most common complaints about the way modern music sounds anyway.
Then again, nobody's saying that artists cannot make money. They simply can't depend on doing a few weeks' work to produce the album, then sit back and collect royalties for 50 years without doing any further work. They can certainly spend a lot less than $500k to get a good record.
"This site's constant babble about how the industry needs to give it's music away for free is just crap being spit out to get visitors to view the site so it can pimp it's advertising space."
Then why do you come here? You're spouting your own crap (for example, where in this article is giving the music away for free mentioned?), while totally misunderstanding the points at hand. It's sad that idiots like you have these opinions, but that's why I don't buy RIAA product - hopefully some of you will see some sense while I support musicians big and small who don't think like you.
By the way, you also seem to have a rather skewed perspective on the word "professional" with regard to a musician. In my mind, that's a person who makes a living from music, which almost every artist mentioned here from Trent Reznor to Jill Sobule to Jonathan Coulton to Corey Smith does. Does "professional" to you include these people (in which case what's your point), or are you only including the "artists" who tumble through the corporate filter into your RIAA-controlled radio? In which case, please shut up as you haven't a clue what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
qtrax
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: qtrax
How, exactly, can you make people use Qtrax to the same extent, and collect similar revenue? Bear in mind that it doesn't even work with all OSes yet (nor iPods if MS DRM is still depended on as it initially was - Qtrax is blocked for me at work so can't check right now). The service also depends on advertising (which traditionally doesn't make lots of profit during a recession).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Both right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: qtrax
Qtrax is the world's first free and legal peer-to-peer (P2P) digital music site.
Lies. Wikipedia says that the service was announced at the 2008 Midem conference. Jamendo was opened 2005.
Rick Riccobono - Executive Vice President, Digital Rights Management
Epic fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wouldnt buy music if i havnt heard it on the net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Virgin's tech partner made no details available to the public.
Sony made no details available to the public.
Warner is not even mentioned.
...and yet, here we have a headline touting those big, bad labels killing a deal. Why? It appears because "sources suggest" this to be the case. Of course, the sources are not identified so that their credibility and knowledge of the situation can be ascertained.
Small wonder our courts cast a jaundiced eye on hearsay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
to ac 16
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Virgin have made some very suspicious and questionable moves of late that have defied any logical explanation under normal circumstances. Then, this potential deal - in light of which previous actions do make some sense - is called off. The reasons for this are tiresomely clear and common for those of us who watch the various deals that go on, and understand the reasons they fail.
Since a) this is a blog and thus a platform for opinion and not unbiased, impartial journalism and b) nobody directly involved with the issue is making any public comment, what else are we to do other than work on educated guesses and assumptions? I'm sure that if these people were to make comments and give us more information, said details would be looked at and any incorrect assumptions above retracted. But they're not doing that yet, so a public resource for opinion and discussion is used for that very purpose. What, again, is your problem? Oh, and:
"Warner is not even mentioned."
What do they have to do with it? The article above and the article linked are both related to talks between Universal, Sony and Virgin. What do Warner have to do with it, unless they're (quite likely) one of the other major labels that were hinted as being in talks? Why do you feel their omission means anything?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
18...People who comment to posted articles are one thing, but preparation and posting of an article is quite another if it is based on something other than reliable sources of accurate and timely information. After looking at the linked article it seems clear that the headline and some of the comments in the article are unsubstantiated.
Yes, this is not a court of law, but even in private life inordinate reliance on hearsay is not a wise idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I wouldnt buy music if i havnt heard it on the net
I tend to give a CD a listen before buying since I'm not exactly rich enough to go out and buy a bunch of CD's or download them all from iTunes and then hope they were worth the purchase. I have over 200 legally purchased CD's, and about 150 DVD's. All the CD's I have I at one time did download illegally, but it lead to a purchase later down the road if it was worth it and I had the money. If I only like a couple of songs on a CDthen I'll just grab it from either iTunes or Amazon (I personally like Amazon better). So, yes...I agree with Mike on pretty much everything he writes about since it makes sense, and I know that I for one am in the gray area since I do download illegally to try out stuff, but will buy it if it is worth my money.
Oh, and the whole thing about artists having to spend $500K or more for a "professional" CD to be produced...that is just not correct at all. My cousin made his CD...writing, recording, and production for under $1K. Now, yes he only had 500 produced initially, but why would you want to produce millions of units if you only need a few hundred to start? From there he just reorders copies from the master and produces only what he thinks he'll need since there is no sense in holding on to a whole bunch of copies and hoping to push them out. He makes a decent living and actually gives away most of the CD's. Like he always has about 50 in his trunk and if we go out he will leave one with the tip for a waitress (the CD has his contact info), or if he hears someone jamming out to similar music he'll give them a copy to check out. I asked if he wanted me to upload it to a P2P and he actually said he didn't care, but he is comfortable with what he is doing since he is able to pay his bills and support his family...so all is good for him :) He said he didn't want to go commercial and become a dickhead...lmao.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I wouldnt buy music if i havnt heard it on the net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Labels did indeed have a lot to do with the production of music, not just manufacturing, distribution and promotion. They weren't merely banks as they are today, they chose producers, selected material, provided top notch studios and payed attention to something that was called artist development.In short, they earned their money, and if the industry wants to see profits again like they had back then, I'd suggest they look into that, instead of suing college students and grannies for sharing music that's already been bought.
It galls me to think how much better Corey Smith's recordings might be if he could afford a decent producer and studio, and how much better his songs might be if he were free to focus on songwriting rather than merely touring non-stop or with an occasional break for a studio quickie.
A great deal of musical commerce exists already outside label control, it's called live music and there is already a framework in place for monetizing it; bars and restaurants with jukeboxes and stages already pay a blanket license fee to ASCAP/BMI, I see no reason why ISPs shouldn't do the same with peer-to-peer, so long as they're willing to provide valuable data to the recording industry that can be used to improve their product. If everybody in the industry wasn't so busy trying to pick each other's pockets, maybe they'd see that it's in their own best interest to come up with a solution that works for fans, artists, labels and ISPs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://nonzerosum.net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why? Again, this isn't a primary news source, it's a place for comment on news. Where the primary sources leave out information, or those involved in a particular activity refuse to comment, speculation has to be made and the author's opinion expressed.
That is *exactly* what a blog is for, and you'd be better off going to other sites if you find this objectionable. Mike states his opinion, references sources for the information he's commenting upon and has a good track record for actually retracting and/or apologising where he's been proven wrong. What more can you ask for from a non-primary journalistic source?
"Yes, this is not a court of law, but even in private life inordinate reliance on hearsay is not a wise idea."
Again, what's inordinate about it? Hearsay and assumptions are being used in the absence of other information. If we don't rely on those, then this issue won't be discussed until the dust has settled, at which point it's too late to either make our feelings heard or do anything about it.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as the nature of those assumptions are being made clear. Yes, you shouldn't rely on what a random guy online says any more than you should take the guy down the pub seriously for news, but you have to be dumb to think you can to begin with...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"It galls me to think how much better Corey Smith's recordings might be if he could afford a decent producer and studio,"
If the $4.2 million figure is correct from the previous reported article, I think he can. Even if he's not able to afford the upfront costs for some reason, I'm sure that he could come to some agreement to share profits with a forward-looking producer and studio?
Besides, "better" is incredibly subjective. Maybe the albums sound *exactly* the way Smith want them to sound? No type of sound suits everybody - some bands overproduce a record to within an inch of their life, while The White Stripes mostly use equipment manufactured in the 1960s in order to achieve a raw sound. Which is "better"?
"how much better his songs might be if he were free to focus on songwriting rather than merely touring non-stop or with an occasional break for a studio quickie."
Some of the best songs ever written have been written in 20 minutes, or in a bored jam session on the tour bus. Month-long jam sessions are often tiresome and sap the creativity out of a band. Many bands prefer to try out new material on the road, adjusting the song to fit crowd reactions during the gigs, thus improving them for their audience. Again, it's subjective, and down to Smith to work out what works for him.
"I see no reason why ISPs shouldn't do the same with peer-to-peer, so long as they're willing to provide valuable data to the recording industry that can be used to improve their product."
Frankly, I do. there are a number of major concerns I have about this kind of activity. There are the privacy issues (deep packet inspection on *everything*?), questions of how the payments would be handled (if I download a track by Hybrid, I want the money to go to Hybrid, not Britney), the legal implications and the implications for other industries (opening the floodgates for everyone from photographers to movie studios to demand their cut). Meanwhile, control remains in the undeserving hands of the major labels rather than the independents who are still performing all the tasks you described (discovering and cultivating new talents rather than holding karaoke contests for their next mime artist or suing grannies).
But, this would absolutely kill the sold music market. If everyone can download legally, there's no reason to buy CDs or downloads - killing iTunes and many other players in the market. As for the "valuable data... that can be used to improve their product", you're definitely barking up the wrong tree. In fact, it can skew the industry the other way. For example, the guy who currently downloads the new Britney album from P2P and then buys the new Raconteurs album (and yes these people exist) would instead download both. This would skew the data further toward the Britney side than before (50% "sales" for both, whereas it was previously 100% sales for the latter), taking "interest" away from the Raconteurs and thus putting their contract into jeopardy. If this were to happen, another Britney-style act would be sought after rather than another Raconteurs, lowering (IMHO) the quality of music available overall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Am I really so unusual ?
I want to be able to (legally) buy MP3s so I can listen to my music on any of my devices and also have a means of discovering new music that I might like.
Amazon MP3 downloads are the first service I have found that really does that for me (now they have finally arrived in the UK). And if they could be arsed to watermark the MP3s they could prevent me from taking the piss and uploading them to the net for others to download for free. Who knows, maybe they already do.
All the other stupid DRM schemes have proved to be a royal PITA and just stopped me spending my money on downloads.
Occasionally I want to see what is on the CD box. (Maybe see the credits, the lyrics). So I hit the web for that stuff.
To carry even a fraction of my CD collection around with me I need to remove all the boxes. Then I cannot see the track list (rarely printed on the CD). But on my MP3 player I can see track names. So in fact the electronic format is more use, data wise.
Illegal file sharing as I understand it would enable me to have 1000 albums for nothing. My answer to that is the same as my answer to 400+ cable TV channels. Who in the real world has the time to actually consume any of it ?
I am sure that the people who CAN find the time to listen to huge amounts of stolen music are not spending the day earning any money, so I cannot see how they are a lost demographic from a revenue point of view.
Real "legal" music sales are falling because
- less new original music acts are being signed
- people (or thiose with jobs and money) have less time these days to listen to music
- the methods of discovering good new music (which for the bulk of the population = radio stations) are corporate owned clones with tiny formulaic playlists.
Meanwhile the "industry" are obsessing over a minor segment of the population who would find a way to illegally share stuff whatever you do.
The "industry" needs to ignore the students with no disposable inome and reconnect with me. Make it easy for me to find and buy music I like without stupid inconveniences.
OK, this is a huge generalisation, but you can see my point. Putting me off buying music loses them more sales than letting a student pass a copy of a new album round (thereby arguably promoting it).
I have illegally copied music before - a friend visited and I ripped a few of her CDs. Later I went out and bought more of the artists I found I liked. Similarly, I used to share my cable broadband with a neighbour (my wireless reached his house). Totally illegal. But when I moved out, he subscribed for his own. By breaking their rules on sharing, I got Comcast a new customer.
Jeez these people wind me up.
I feel much better now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
michial doesnt know what hes talking about
"hack musician studio with $500k or more worth of editing equipment'
Who says you need 500k worth of equipment? a computer with a MOTU interface and preamps-less than $2000..good mike like a Rode NT- $300 Pro level audio recording and editing software range from free- Audacity to mid Cubase $400 to high-end: Nuendo $1800. That doesn't seem to equal $500,000 and you will find the results these tools in many major label releases.
"the bands that sell only a few thousand CD's a year"
Um ever heard of Nine Inch Nails? Radiohead? You know those obscure bands that play arenas and sell hundreds of thousands of CDs, downloads, and merch. How about Ani Defranco who though not as big in industry terms as the former two is still a household name among the collage crowd and still, as always, releases all of her material out of her own company? How about pre-internet examples of independent artists like the Grateful Dead and Frank Zappa?
Ive been working in this industry for over 20 years as a performer and producer both live and in studio. I remember the days before computers and MIDI democratized the recording industry. EVEN in those days, my band played gigs to make studio money and we never involved a label in the deal, yet had access to what you so arrogantly term PRO recording equipment and producers. I wouldn't take exception to your opinions if they came from any real understanding about the subject. Maybe you should stick to just listening to music and let those who know and have experienced more posit INFORMED opinions about the current state of the recording/music industry. thank you for your time.
Raybone risewisestudios
[ link to this | view in thread ]
same old thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Am I really so unusual ?
No one will ever be sure, but is it possible that your neighbor would have signed up with Comcast far earlier had he not been able to piggyback on your subscription? The fact you note that once you moved he signed up suggests he would have signed up earlier but for your wireless sharing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, new ways are being discovered daily for content creators to get their creative works out to the public at large and earn income from doing so, in some cases copious amounts of income. These creators do so with the expectation, and oftentimes with explicit encouragement, that their creations will be disseminated at no charge. Of course, this is certainly their prerogative and results from a conscious decision on their part. However, not everyone feels the same way. Some, for whatever their reasons, do not want it shared without their prior permission. This is likewise their prerogative, even if one thinks they are being short sighted.
It seems to me that if one does not like being limited by what the latter group chooses to pursue, then the proper and ethical course of action is to simply look elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Am I really so unusual ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Am I really so unusual ?
It was the free trial that sold him on it. Comcast would not offer a no strings free trial because of the setup costs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Am I really so unusual ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They do not like Sam I Am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So now P2P is illegal? P2P is not illegal. Sharing copyrighted material is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
to ac 19
luckily most people are smart enough to recognize the diference and to know that only a pompous jackass lawyer who disagrees with the direction of the conversation would whip out some totally irrelevant line about hearsay. all it really showed was that your afraid the points mike makes are on target but since it goes against your ip religion the ony natural response is to make a snide disparaging remark about hearsay to divert the conversation. perhaps it makes you feel good, but to most thinking people it just highlights the fact that you are a pompous jackass.
but I guess that as long as you sleep well at night thinking that you showed everyone here, that's your perogative. denial is a powerful force.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think its about time the record industry stopped living in the past, gave more credit to their artists instead of their fat-cat directors, and looked at working with the digital age instead of against it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: to ac 19
As for "hearsay", the title and concluding sentence of the article are declarative in nature. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the linked article upon which declarative statements can be made about what the music labels did or did not do regarding the negotiations with Virgin. The only ones who appear to know what actually happened are the labels and Virgin, and none of them are talking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: to ac 19
And thus, according to MLS, our resident defender of all things IP, we should all shut up about it.
MLS, I use this blog to start conversations. It is not, as JJ pointed out, a trial. It is not reporting. It is based on what is being talked about, and I present my opinion and you are free to present yours -- or you are free to present additional facts to the contrary.
The Register presented their information, and I wrote my post based on it. While Virgin is not talking publicly about it, there seems to be pretty good support for what The Register has said.
I stand by the post. When you are in charge of running Techdirt, then you are free to determine what is acceptable to post and what is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: to ac 19
Post whatever you wish, but it helps if you support your declarative statements with verifiable information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fuck Indie Rock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to ac 19
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
No? Well, of course not...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fuck Indie Rock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: to ac 19
Oh, you haven't got one? You prefer to anonymously troll the comments sections of other peoples' blogs with unsubstantiated claims instead? OK...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: michial doesnt know what hes talking about
I look forward to hearing your stuff... Oh wait in 20 years in the industry I still haven't heard anything from your little $5000 studio... Hmmmm
Guess the results are in, $5000 gets your name on a blog to call someone an idiot or claim they know nothing. $500k gets your name and your music on every radio in the country....
I'm glad your little "studio" is working so well for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: michial doesnt know what hes talking about
Guess the results are in, $5000 gets your name on a blog to call someone an idiot or claim they know nothing. $500k gets your name and your music on every radio in the country....
Stunning ignorance by Michial. Numerous successful musical careers have been built off recordings in $5k studios.
Keep living in your dream world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
michial doesnt know what hes talking about part 2
firstly, I never ment to imply you were an idiot, only that perhaps you are a bit misinformed. Perhaps I worded my objections so strongly due to the arrogant pomposity of your original post which seemed to discount out of hand any opposing opinion or evidence. My apologies.
Second, this is a small detail, but it must be said that after so long in the industry, people like myself tend to get a hold of lots of gear over time. My contention was that about 5000 was all anyone needed to sound as professional as George Strait or Janet Jackson. You don't need to build a million dollar echo chamber when you have software that can virtually model it.
Thirdly, I have years of experience working in studios of all kinds and at all levels. I can certainly say that there is a difference between a 15,000 compressor and a software plug in. If you work with enough gear you learn that the choice of internal electronic components makes a difference and especially during the formative years of computer vs analog recording gear. HOWEVER, technology has now advanced to where that difference gets smaller every day. Because of this most of the big and famous (500,000 and up) rooms are losing money and the old analog equipment is falling into disrepair (which I lament) as the people with the skills to maintain them are dying off. As Ive personally experienced, many times an engineer or producer will choose the the plug in over the outboard gear due to a much better convenience and workflow.
As for myself, I personally never desired FAME and do not consider it a measure my success. I run my studio, I run the occasional sound production, I promote concerts, I write music and perform it in various projects. This gives me enough to buy a house and live free of any boss or grind. Yes my little studio works ok for me. When I release the new music I'm working on I will try every idea Ive encountered here and with appreciation. If my experience with this warrants attention by any here I will be more than happy to share the details once the game is afoot. Thank you for tuning in Raybone
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
michial doesnt know what hes talking about
"hack musician studio with $500k or more worth of editing equipment'
Who says you need 500k worth of equipment? a computer with a MOTU interface and preamps-less than $2000..good mike like a Rode NT- $300 Pro level audio recording and editing software range from free- Audacity to mid Cubase $400 to high-end: Nuendo $1800. That doesn't seem to equal $500,000 and you will find the results these tools in many major label releases.
"the bands that sell only a few thousand CD's a year"
Um ever heard of Nine Inch Nails? Radiohead? You know those obscure bands that play arenas and sell hundreds of thousands of CDs, downloads, and merch. How about Ani Defranco who though not as big in industry terms as the former two is still a household name among the collage crowd and still, as always, releases all of her material out of her own company? How about pre-internet examples of independent artists like the Grateful Dead and Frank Zappa?
Ive been working in this industry for over 20 years as a performer and producer both live and in studio. I remember the days before computers and MIDI democratized the recording industry. EVEN in those days, my band played gigs to make studio money and we never involved a label in the deal, yet had access to what you so arrogantly term PRO recording equipment and producers. I wouldn't take exception to your opinions if they came from any real understanding about the subject. Maybe you should stick to just listening to music and let those who know and have experienced more posit INFORMED opinions about the current state of the recording/music industry. thank you for your time.
Raybone risewisestudios
[ link to this | view in thread ]
michial doesnt know what hes talking about part 2
firstly, I never ment to imply you were an idiot, only that perhaps you are a bit misinformed. Perhaps I worded my objections so strongly due to the arrogant pomposity of your original post which seemed to discount out of hand any opposing opinion or evidence. My apologies.
Second, this is a small detail, but it must be said that after so long in the industry, people like myself tend to get a hold of lots of gear over time. My contention was that about 5000 was all anyone needed to sound as professional as George Strait or Janet Jackson. You don't need to build a million dollar echo chamber when you have software that can virtually model it.
Thirdly, I have years of experience working in studios of all kinds and at all levels. I can certainly say that there is a difference between a 15,000 compressor and a software plug in. If you work with enough gear you learn that the choice of internal electronic components makes a difference and especially during the formative years of computer vs analog recording gear. HOWEVER, technology has now advanced to where that difference gets smaller every day. Because of this most of the big and famous (500,000 and up) rooms are losing money and the old analog equipment is falling into disrepair (which I lament) as the people with the skills to maintain them are dying off. As Ive personally experienced, many times an engineer or producer will choose the the plug in over the outboard gear due to a much better convenience and workflow.
As for myself, I personally never desired FAME and do not consider it a measure my success. I run my studio, I run the occasional sound production, I promote concerts, I write music and perform it in various projects. This gives me enough to buy a house and live free of any boss or grind. Yes my little studio works ok for me. When I release the new music I'm working on I will try every idea Ive encountered here and with appreciation. If my experience with this warrants attention by any here I will be more than happy to share the details once the game is afoot. Thank you for tuning in
Raybone
[ link to this | view in thread ]