Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
from the ain't-what-the-data-shows dept
One of the key tenets of those who support stronger copyright law and stronger copyright enforcement is the idea that it is a necessary incentive for a great deal of creative output. We regularly hear claims of how creative output would drop without such strong copyright protections. However, the actual evidence has simply not supported this theory at all, with multiple studies showing that even as there was a massive increase in infringement, thanks to the internet, there has actually been a very large increase in creative output as well. But, of course, some will shoot back that just the creation of new works alone may not be indicative of what's really going on. After all, what if all of that new music is terrible because the "good stuff" can't make money. Thankfully, it looks like new research is tackling this question.Hypebot points us to some new research, by economist Joel Waldfogelm, in which he attempts to determine if the rise of file sharing has had any significant impact on the creation of quality new music and artists, and his answer is no, it has not. In other words, the very theory underlying an awful lot of the copyright industry's claims simply is not borne out by the evidence. This study does not just take a superficial look at how much new content was produced, but really tries to dig deeper and focus on quality. I won't go into all the details of the methodology, but suffice it to say that it's a creative way of trying to separate out quality, by running a statistical analysis on multiple critics' "best" lists and indices. From there, it looks at how many new albums each year pass specific "quality" thresholds, and finds that contrary to the theory, there is really no difference in output of quality works pre- and post-Napster.
Even more interesting, this study also appears to debunk the other claim by the recording industry that the rise of file sharing means that new acts are no longer developed and able to grow and release quality albums. In fact, the study finds no support for that claim:
The evidence thus far indicates no decline in the volume of new recorded music products forthcoming since Napster. It is possible, however, that the new music is coming from artists who were established prior to Napster. While products still come to market, it is possible that new artists are not establishing careers.
To explore this we examined the albums on three analogous best-of lists, for the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, from Pitchfork Media. For each of the 300 albums, we determined the year the artist released his, her, or their first recording (whether an album, a single, or an "EP"). These data allow us to calculate the career age of an artist at the time he has an album on a best-of list. The question is whether artists have continued to establish careers since 1999. To explore this, we calculate the share of best albums since 1999 whose artists’ first recordings appeared after 1999. Since 1999, 49 percent of artists on the best of the 2000s list debuted following Napster. Figure 9 shows this year-by-year pattern: there is a systematic, although not a monotonic, rise from 10 percent of albums in 2000 to 100 percent at the end of the decade. On average, about half of the best-of albums since Napster are from artists whose recording debut occurred since Napster.
Although this is clearly a substantial share, determining whether the launching of new artists has changed requires a comparison with earlier periods. To this end, we calculate analogous annual shares for the two previous decades, the annual share of 1980s best-of albums from artists debuting after 1979, and the share of 1990s best-of albums from artists debuting after 1989. All three patterns are very similar, rising fairly steadily to 100 percent by the end of each decade. A regression of a dummy for whether an artist debuted since the decade of his appearance on dummies for years since the beginning of the decade and a dummy for the post- Napster decade confirms the lack a statistically meaningful difference in the tendency for new artists to appear on the list since Napster.
Oh, there is one other interesting tidbit in the research: The only real noticeable difference that the research turned up between pre- and post-Napster music production... was that more of the successful new musicians are coming from independent labels, rather than the major labels. For the two decades prior to Napster, the percentage of successful indie artists remained constant, but it jumped post-Napster. That makes sense. The independent labels, for the most part, have been more willing to experiment and embrace new models, while the majors have fought them more. On top of that, artists no longer need to feel as obligated to go through one of the gatekeeper "major labels."
That certainly helps explain why the major labels like to perpetuate these kinds of myths... but not why anyone believes them.
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: joel walfogelm, music, napster, new music, piracy, quality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a nice attempt to paper over reality, but because it isn't something that quantifies, it is very difficult to get a real answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But Masnick will back anything that takes some of the heat off piracy, no matter how un-scientific it might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it's a made up study then that's still more than you've offered to support your position about the quality of music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should try reading the methodology and the actual study before slamming it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To me it sounds like your idea of FUD is it's all criticism you have no arguments against.
"FUD. Snore. But piracy! It's the law!! LOL!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well that is a temptation that faces us all - which is why one has to be especially careful and honest with oneself in these circumstances. However the fact that you have a reasonable suspicion of bias doesn't mean relieve you of the burden of actually analysing the methodology and demonstrating that your suspicion is justified.
When Mike slams the industry studies that purport to show the opposite he doesn't just say "well they would say that wouldn't they", he actually analyses where the data has come from and points out why and where it is in error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Probably because he expects people to not take them as face value buck check their methodology first. Of course that's too much to expect from any shilltard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's measuring the smell of garbage by the size of the bag it's in. One does not relate to the other.
You made the same sort of mistake the other day on IP addresses and piracy, making a logical jump that just wasn't there. While it seems reasonable at first pass, once you think about it for a second, it just doesn't hold water.
When you start talking "share" you obscure the truth even further behind an ever changing pie size, which is eliminated by calling it share.
It's not a very good study, but since it supports your point of view you run it like gospel. The limewire story? You can't run it straight, you have to go out and tag on the old "but did sales go up" rejoinder rather than just take the study face on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you are saying that quality is completely unmeasurable?
In that case you disqualify yourself from ever mentioning it as a reason to support any argument whatsoever.
The truth is that quality is hard to measure - but not impossible. The study here does about as well as is possible IMO. If you can suggest a better methodology then that would be interesting - but of course you don't.
You made the same sort of mistake the other day on IP addresses and piracy, making a logical jump that just wasn't there. While it seems reasonable at first pass, once you think about it for a second, it just doesn't hold water.
The fact that you don't provide a link back or a brief summary of the issue that you are refering to tends to indicate that your argument isn't very strong here.
When you start talking "share" you obscure the truth even further behind an ever changing pie size, which is eliminated by calling it share.
Another comment that is meaningless without more information.
It's not a very good study...
You would be more convincing if you offered some reasons for your assertions.
The limewire story? You can't run it straight, you have to go out and tag on the old "but did sales go up" rejoinder rather than just take the study face on.
It can't be run straight because the story isn't straight.
The study consisted of a loaded question, asked in a way designed to give the response they got. To run that "straight" would be dishonest - about as bad as running Comical Ali's press briefings "straight" during the Iraq war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't suggest there is a better methodology because you are trying to measure something that is up to personal taste. That isn't going to work out.
When you start talking "share" you obscure the truth even further behind an ever changing pie size, which is eliminated by calling it share.
Another comment that is meaningless without more information.
What part don't you get? Share is "parts of a pie", in this case shown as 0 to 1 (basically 0 - 100%). But there is no indication of the size of the pie. Example, did the total number of songs released change, did the number of songs that would quality change, the number of releases, etc? We don't know. When you trim things down to "share", you eliminate many of the sources of useful information in order to get some sort of measurement. But when you consider that artists release cycles go in about 3 year periods, measuring a single year is meaningless without knowing how much was released in a given year by each group being counted.
It can't be run straight because the story isn't straight.
The story is relatively straight. What Mike did was try to tie it back to sales in a snarky way. Instead of pointing out the interesting effects of legal action on total P2P activity, he decides to take a poke at the music industry. It's his opinion, but mostly it appears to be set to dillute the reality that legal action does appear to cut down on P2P activity. I don't think he wants to discuss that.
For the IP address thing, see:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110323/16344113603/judge-says-mass-suing-people-infringem ent-is-perfectly-fine-even-benefits-defendants.shtml#c261
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you believe that then you can't make any arguments based on things like "filesharing will destroy quality music (or prevent new quality music being written. Of course since you insist on not consistently identifying yourself we can't call you out on this - which makes this assertion somewhat underhand.
Conversely I believe some measure of music quality is possible - based on the music being identified as such over a long period by a reasonably large number of people. That is more or less what this study does - so I think it is valid. Your wish for an absolute measure of quality valid for everyone is of course a strawman.
But quantity and quality are not related in any manner,
Really? In any manner, That would be extremely surprising if true.
so a study that tries to determine quality but looking at relative quantities is meaningless to misleading.
That isn't what the study does - read closer,
What part don't you get? Share is "parts of a pie", in this case shown as 0 to 1 (basically 0 - 100%). But there is no indication of the size of the pie. Example, did the total number of songs released change, did the number of songs that would quality change, the number of releases, etc? We don't know. When you trim things down to "share", you eliminate many of the sources of useful information in order to get some sort of measurement. But when you consider that artists release cycles go in about 3 year periods, measuring a single year is meaningless without knowing how much was released in a given year by each group being counted.
Ah I now see what you (think you are) are getting at - and that last paragraph reveals that you simply don't understand what the study did. Either that or you have deliberately thought up a whole string of red-herrings to try and confuse matters
Instead of pointing out the interesting effects of legal action on total P2P activity,
The NPD study doesn't really show that for several reasons
1 They take as their baseline a point in 2007 and compare with a recent survey. Thus they cannot isolate the effects of legal action.
2. They overhype their conclusions - using words like "precipitous" that aren't justified by the numbers.
3. They lay significant emphasis on numbers which are only estimates.
4 They don't emphasize in their headline the rather large numbers who simply switched to another p2p service.
Now it is clear that one should expect some effect - especially when the evidence used is a survey - but that does amount to anything "interesting" in my book. The flaws in that survey reveal more than its results.
For the IP address thing, see:
Oh that one - well it's only a step on the road - and in the UK where ACS law had no trouble with that stage in the process they still ended up by being slapped down in court and effectively ran away with their tails between their legs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My argument on that is that as more people make more music, they are making quantity, and nothing else. The skills of song writing, performing, recording, and all that are not likely to be on the same level as the well filtered music we tend to hear, which suggests that something in the quality of the product may be lost.
It isn't the same "quality" that this study is trying to define, which is why I don't think of it as a methodology that leads to bunk results, and a bunk analysis from Mike.
Adding more music into the ecosystem doesn't for a moment suggest we are going to find more music for the ages. What it does suggest is that we will have a whole lot more semi-talented amateurs flooding us with lower quality musicianship, song writing, recording, etc. Especially when you hit musicianship and recording, those are things where quality can be measured.
Now it is clear that one should expect some effect - especially when the evidence used is a survey - but that does amount to anything "interesting" in my book. The flaws in that survey reveal more than its results.
Actually, if you believe the hype here, the hot venom spew that is often posted in the comments is that taking down one P2P site means 100 more come on line. In theory, every takedown should lead to more piracy, not less. Yet, a single takedown made a measurable dip in activity. That goes against everything that is pushed by the pirating community.
Could it be that "casual pirates" are easily dissuaded once it gets even slightly harder to find the material? Are they only able to pirate because of simplistic software?
As for the IP address thing, it wasn't to discuss the merits of the case as a whole, only to show how Mike made an incredible (and erroneous) jump in logic that pretty much called an tail and leg and then tried to walk on it. Mike is very good at this stuff, you have to pay close attention sometimes to see where he makes these jumps that seem reasonable, but in fact just aren't supported by the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have heard very few free 'unfiltered' songs on the web that were worse than 'Cum On Feel the Noize' or 'Barbie Girl' or 'Milkshake'. I have heard quite a few that were better. I have made some of them.
I don't think that people like you appreciate how much really great music never saw the light of day in the past because it wasn't 'marketable'; because the band who made it didn't have a cute lead singer; because the songs were too long, or didn't have lyrics, or weren't in 4/4 time.
I, on the other other hand, do appreciate how much great music was lost to the world due to the lowest common denominator imperatives of the industry. Which is how I know that the lawless internet has done more for music in 15 years than the RIAA has in 50. Which is how I also know that you, sir, are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for bringing that up. If, as the anon supposes, we will be flooded with crap music because people aren't having to pay for it then that music will be competing with the crap music the labels push. If anything I imagine it would be easier to find quality music without labels promoting crap music to make a quick buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is backed up by only your opinion. As opposed to this study, which while not an authoritative answer on the issue, offers a lot more substance than your opinion.
Even assuming your argument, all it suggests is that there isn't as much demand for quality music as you'd like.
That's still being generous to you, because frankly your assertion that 'people making more music are making quantity and nothing else' is simply tragic.
"What it does suggest is that we will have a whole lot more semi-talented amateurs flooding us with lower quality musicianship, song writing, recording, etc."
Why does it suggest that? Show your working. If it does suggest that, then why should that matter? You don't have to listen to them.
As you seem to like speculation so much I'll try some too. If the market gets flooded with semi-talented amateurs then people will end up paying less for low quality music, leaving more money for talented professionals to produce high quality music. Hey, it's not perfect but it sounds more plausible than yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is only logical.
When you pass from "talented professionals" to "talented amateurs" to "the masses", you get more and more people involved who aren't very good at something, but still end up with the same "standing" because there is nothing that weeded them out.
The WSOP event in Vegas works like that. Any idiot with $10K and some time can enter the main event, and they need to entries in order to the build the pot. The hopeless get filtered out quickly. But for the first minute of day 1, everyone is on level ground. If you don't know anyone's name or reputation, they are all equally likely to be good.
As more and more semi-talented and un-talented poker players have come in, the game has improved for those of us with some skill, because there is almost always a sucker at any table you play these days. It is amusing.
But applied to music, you end up with more crap and less gold. The amateurs and no-talents may occasionally hit something good, but for the most part they are amateurs for a reason.
You don't need a study to figure out that people without talent cannot match people with talent. Although auto-tune can mask a lot, but not so much.
The talented people aren't turning out much more music. So it's the untalented that are swelling the count of total songs released. That pretty much explains it all by itself.
If the market gets flooded with semi-talented amateurs then people will end up paying less for low quality music, leaving more money for talented professionals to produce high quality music.
Fail. Everyone it pirating. There is no money. Please try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for admitting that you yourself are a pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"When you pass from "talented professionals" to "talented amateurs" to "the masses", you get more and more people involved who aren't very good at something, but still end up with the same "standing" because there is nothing that weeded them out."
Well, apart from the fact that they will be weeded out - major labels still aren't the only filter, moron - this is a silly statement. it's also very elitist of you, and in keeping with your silly obesession with the idea that labels are somehow beyond reproach, even as they're releasing songs by the likes of Kim Kardashian rather than actual musicians.
What separates "amateurs" from "professionals"? Not the labels, nor the recordings, nor necessarily whether they have a day job . What separates the "talented" from the "untalented"? Often personal taste, although some distinctions go beyond that.
"The amateurs and no-talents may occasionally hit something good, but for the most part they are amateurs for a reason."
They didn't sleep with a producer? They didn't win a reality show or a TV karaoke contest? They had the audacity to write their own material? What?
Again, by your logic, Mumford & Sons (who self-financed their first record before becoming "professionals") should never have been able to record a single, while Kim Kardashian (who's famous for being friends with Paris Hilton) is a consumate professional and talented singer.
There's something wrong with that equation.
"You don't need a study to figure out that people without talent cannot match people with talent. Although auto-tune can mask a lot, but not so much."
Talented singers don't need autotune at all. A great many acts currently being pushed by the majors need it just to be able to record a single. Why are you defending that side of the argument, again?
"Fail. Everyone it pirating. There is no money. Please try again."
Wait, aren't you the one in the Limewire thread gloating about how Limewire's demise has apparently (in your mind) led to a rise in record sales? No wonder you don't create a login for people to track your contradictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does that support your statement that "as people make more music, they are making quantity and nothing else"? I'm not inclined to comment on your 'logic' if you can't even be consistent in your position without acknowledging the shift.
"Fail. Everyone it pirating. There is no money. Please try again."
I asked you to explain your own speculation and then did some of my own to show how silly such a thing is. You then respond to that, not even with the necessary questions of 'why?', but to dismiss it based on your own obviously incompatible premises. I get that you're being wilfully ignorant and don't actually want a debate, but could you at least have some pride and try not to look so pitifully stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I truly think you are just trying hard not to understand.
Let's try a simpler example. A PGA event has, what, 140 golfers? Okay. Now, that 140 are probably all in the top few hundred in the world. Not all the best golfers play professionally, or are able to play, or want to play at any given tournament, right?
Okay. Now, let's say you open the tournament up (like a pro-am) and allow 860 random people off the street to join the tournament, making it 1000 people total. Now, how many "top 500" golfer do you have in the tournament, capable of quality play? Answer, about the same number you had before you let the 860 other people in the door. You might have 1 or two reasonable talented people in the mix, but for the most part, you didn't get "quality", you got "quantity".
I asked you to explain your own speculation and then did some of my own to show how silly such a thing is. You then respond to that, not even with the necessary questions of 'why?', but to dismiss it based on your own obviously incompatible premises.
You need to learn what sarcasm is. I honestly think you are just replying to "tire me out" or "run me on". You have nothing to add, so there is nothing I can add. When you learn to read and understand other people's posts, we can chat again. In the mean time, have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't "understand" something that makes no sense.
You constantly shift your position. One moment you say quality can't be measured - then you say it has (inevitably) declined.
The only sense I can make of that is that you are trying to defend one half of your thesis with a mechanism to prevent any evidence being brought against it. To paraphase "Quality has declined (because I say so) and any evidence you bring to refute this statement is invalid because quality can't be measured". Congratulations, you have created a non-refutable position. Anyone acquainted with scientific method will tell you that such a thesis is valueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh*
When you put more stuff in the pool made by less talented people, the percentage of "quality" material drops. I didn't say that there is less "quality" material (whatever that is, please explain to me how to measure it).
The rest of your post is a rude paraphrase that is wrong from end to end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That argument still requires evidence.
It is possible that the increase in quantity provokes an increase in quality (through increased competition). That mechanism certainly works in sport - it explains for example why Brazil is better at soccer than the US - more people play.
Note that I don't claim that this mechanism definitely happens in the present case - merely that it is a possibility that cannot be discounted without evidence.
It follows that your statement also requires evidence to back it up - and seeing as you don't have any measure of quality then you shouldn't make your claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That makes no sense. The percentage of quality is a meaningless point. No one cares about the percentage because no one has to listen to all bad music to find the good music.
The only thing that matters is the amount of *absolute* quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know, I think you've taught me not to confuse music with golf.
'You might have 1 or two reasonable talented people in the mix, but for the most part, you didn't get "quality", you got "quantity"'
Your premise seems to be that although more people may be making music, they are not adding to the quality. I've allowed your premise for the sake of argument and asked why that matters. You've decided to show us through clumsy poker and golf analogies what your premise looks like, while ignoring my questions.
In your golf analogy, you have at least 100% of the quality that you had at the start, just diluted. Is the point of your analogy that musicians will have to play more games of golf to determine who gets to win?
"You need to learn what sarcasm is"
Ignoring my point and replying to something irrelevant is sarcasm? You're right, I do need to learn what sarcasm is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And after 10 years all those bad players would not have learned and improved their game?
It can be argued that there is a net gain in the quality of the production of music since anybody can now do it they will learn how to do it a certain way and learn what works and what not works for them, the pool of talents thus increase not decreases along with an increase on the level of musicality of the works being produced just like lesser golfer would learn a thing or two from the really talented ones and become better golfers in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry - you disqualified yourself from making that argument by saying that quality can't be measured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you'd care to explain to the other anon why you think their statements about the quality of music are bunk too. For consistency's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike, is this what you're talking about? Did *you* check the methodology? Did you even read through 35 tedious pages? (I didn't - a snoozer)
Yahhhzz. Well, there's no mention of "quality" (or even the word "quality" - unless my PDF reader is screwy) in all 35 pages of scientistic tripe the author himself would have giuven a C+ (for effort, great formatting and extensive citations) . It's all about *quantity* - sounds similar, but not quite the same me.
If not, point me to the study you're quotin'. Otherwise, it looks like you're (either intentionally or through shabby research) misinterpret studies, and are easily impressed with charts and important-looking formulas peppered with weirdsly mathematical symbols. Anyhow, the study's conclusion is equally wordy and bland:
"Two facts bear emphasis again. First, our sample is not representative, so
our results should not be generalized. Second, our evaluation of welfare takes
supply as given. It is entirely possible that downloading has important effects
on the quantity and types of music recorded and marketed in the first place.
This is an important area for further research."
That said, I steal music all the time - it's *cheaper* that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you'd read as far as second page then you would have seen the question: "Is the subjective valuation of downloaded albums high or low?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess whoever wrote the abstract at the National Bureau of Economics are confused too then, as they used the word quality in that abstract.
Are you seriously saying that it's wrong to use quality instead of subjective valuation? Maybe the headline should be changed to 'Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Subjective Valuation Of New Music' then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The funny part is if you read the whole study, you will realize that their true conclusion is a double whammy against everything Mike holds dear:
As a result, for the individuals in our sample,
downloading reduced expenditure by about 10 percent but possibly by much more. Supporting incomplete sales displacement is our finding that downloaded music is valued much less than purchased music
So music sales go down (10% and possibly more) and the music they do download they value less. It seems that is that "value" is some sort of measure of quality, they don't think of it that way.
I doubt Mike will address the conclusion of that report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While this is far beyond pointless semantics already I shall endeavour to explain.
From the OED entry on quality: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
The entry on value: the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
So, to measure the value of something against other things of a similar kind could be said to assess it's quality. It may not be the only indicator of quality, but it's certainly a valid one.
'So music sales go down (10% and possibly more) and the music they do download they value less. It seems that is that "value" is some sort of measure of quality, they don't think of it that way.'
I'm sorry, I'm don't understand what you're getting at there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reread the quote:
s a result, for the individuals in our sample,
downloading reduced expenditure by about 10 percent but possibly by much more. Supporting incomplete sales displacement is our finding that downloaded music is valued much less than purchased music
Read carefully, you can find it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since the statement is logical but the conclusion is sort of questionable, clearly "value" isn't a measurement of quality. So using "value" as a way to measure quality isn't workable, pretty much kicking the whole methodology to the curb.
Trying to measure one against the other on a subjective thing "quality" is never workable. It's like asking "who is the greatest guitarist of all times?". That question will get you hundreds of answers, and everyone will think they are right. Which one is the highest quality player? Same thing.
It all comes down to personal opinion, which isn't something you can draw factual conclusions from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it means that they value it less than a CD of the same music. Since the CD is part of the cost of physical media, they may value the music the same, but pay less for that music as there's no media to pay for. The quality of the music does not change.
By your logic, people who listen to the radio don't value music at all since they never pay for it, and nobody who goes to a free concert values music. Therefore all radio and free concerts are of low quality. Strange.
"It all comes down to personal opinion, which isn't something you can draw factual conclusions from."
Then, once again, why do you keep stating your own as if they are some kind of universal fact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You could measure and compare it. Then you'd have facts about people's opinions. Like in this study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're so helpful. It's no wonder people are queueing up to answer you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The first is the distinction between ex post and ex ante
valuation, which is necessary because music is an experience good[SIC]. The
second is the relationship between the decision to download and the subjective
ex post valuation. To simplify the exposition we ignore for now the distinction
between ex ante and ex post valuation and focus instead on the possibility
that downloading may be correlated with valuations. We integrate ex ante
valuation into the theory immediately afterward."
Whoa! Don't know 'bout you, but i couldn't think of a clearer way of saying "we ignore the difference 'tween expected and actual value, but assume the two are somehow related" (whatever "value" means is up to you). But hey - maybe he did mean "quality." That's the wonderful thing about great studies - like muse-inspired art and divine texts, the studies have no singular meaning - just a plethora (barf) of personal interpretations. In other words: STOP, You're BOTH right! and "Apples are fine, I suppose, but watermelon is the best thing in the world!" -D. Kharms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, because I want language lessons from someone who has an obvious disdain for academia.
[ 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:
Unless they were being really random then it would seem the joke was also about the economist's academic credentials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
New artists are still launching careers at rates comparable to the pre-Napster era, and most indicatively, more successful post-Napster artists are from indie labels.
While your assertion may apply to the study's first finding (or, may not, since we're actually talking about a consensus of expert opinions), it does not apply to its quantitative findings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While I agree in a general sense about the conclusions of this study, the idea that the writers at Pitchfork are 'experts' about anything more than what they think is cool this year is risible.
If you want expert opinions about music, it seems to me that you should ask, oh I don't know, musicians maybe?
I'm not arguing with the studies conclusions, because I think that most decent musicians would agree with them. The net, cheap audio technology, and music production software like Cubase have been nothing but good for the creation, preservation, and distribution of musical culture. Musicians who are more concerned with making music than being celebrities finally have access to the tools that they could only dream about back in the 70's and 80's.
No, I simply can't stand the idea of a bunch of musically illiterate journalists being regarded as 'experts'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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:
I'd argue, but none of these guys will let us know what they *do* consider good music. Probably because they think that the stuff released by the RIAA is the "cream of the crop".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hear, hear. If someone asked me what music I liked, you'd struggle to stop me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How, then, does the RIAA claim the opposite of what the study showed?
What's good for the goose is good for the bastard. Or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But that's just like my opinion, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyways, when I buy a CD, I like to pay for the music, not to line the pockets of labels for promotionals, etc etc when the artist created it. $12+ for a CD when I only like a couple tracks on it and the record label bogarts most for itself? No thanks.
Some years back, I worked for this fella who created his own music, did his own editing, y'know - the whole shebang. He was widely known amongst the younger gen in the city I lived in and the town next to it - around 17-28 year olds; I loved his music myself. 7-8, sometimes 10 tracks per CD was 5 bucks a pop. If he sold it for 15, Hell I'd still buy it. Because the music was good and he got a fair share of the profits, as he also laid down tracks with other people known around the area.
Yeah, I could get iTunes and get them individually or whatever, but 1) Same scenario - label mooches most of the money. 2) I'm an old fashioned home stereo/CD player in the car guy where you play plastic CDs and tune it to your favorite radio station. I could "adapt", as Mike usually suggests for copyright trolls and such, and buy me an MP3 player or whatever platform to use iTunes, but I don't HAVE to live off of buying music. Labels do.
So, until they get their claws out of the profits they won't get much, if any, of my money. I'll take the self-published artist path.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From this, we know that file-sharing has not reduced demand for new commercial music, however we simply don't have any data about what effect copyright enforcement is having on the 'underground' music scene.
We do know that in many cases, underground musicians like Kutiman exist in spite of copyright law, and you should keep in mind that fair use only exists in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You could presume that, but the study seems to provide equal support for both hypotheses - that is, none at all. The study excerpts talk about things that have happened "since Napster," not "because of Napster."
The title of this article is:
Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
If you believe that, then which of these are also not equally supported by the same study:
Study Shows that Increasingly Draconian Copyright Enforcement Has Not Resulted in A Decrease of Quality New Music
Study Shows that the DMCA Has Not Resulted in A Decrease of Quality New Music
Study Shows that Mass File Sharing Lawsuits Have Not Resulted In a Decrease of Quality New Music
Study Shows that Dot Com Bust Has Not Resulted In a Decrease of Quality New Music
Study Shows that Worldwide Recession Has Not Resulted In a Decrease of Quality New Music
Study Shows that 9/11 Has Not Resulted In a Decrease of Quality New Music
All these things have happened "Since Napster" as well.
I can't view the entire study because it's behind a paywall that Techdirt will not complain about because it's in use by people who agree with them. If someone wants to enlighten us as to the actual causation (rather than just correlation) found in the study, I'm all ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The simple truth is that people will not stop sharing anything, they will find legal and illegal ways to do it, so either way your supposed copyrights nothing but empty promises that will never materialize.
God knows I'm not going to stop sharing anything I rather stop buying from anyone who talks the crazy talk, since those are not good people and can't be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good point!
No, I'm sorry, that doesn't follow. In fact we have far tighter security and increased anti-terrorism laws since 9/11. And music quality increased. This evidence supports the proposition, then, that tighter security and increased anti-terrorism laws do not decrease the quality of new music. It is also consistent with the proposition that increased anti-terrorism laws and tighter security cause improvements in the quality of new music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good point!
----- Your head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good point!
Oh wait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good point!
I find it humorous when apples are compared to oranges, but in this case it is clearly fruit salad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good point!
On one hand we have drooling dittoheads under the illusion that throwing everybody they disagree with in jail will somehow bring back America's greatness, sitting on their couches watching their jobs get exported to countries where people make zero dollars an hour, and blaming all problems on unions, gays, illegal aliens and liberal government, while Rupert Murdoch lights a cigar with their paychecks. On the other hand we have the so-called liberals in Congress who have failed to support either their constituents or their president, instead keeping their financial sponsors happy by doing nothing, and the liberal voters who put them in office sitting patiently waiting for something to change.
If the founding fathers woke up and saw the mess we've made of the nation they left us, I think they would probably want to go to war with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
Sturgeon's Revelation, commonly referred to as Sturgeon's Law, is an adage derived from quotes by Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author. While Sturgeon coined another adage that he termed "Sturgeon's Law", it is his "Revelation" that is usually referred to by that term. Commonly cited as "ninety percent of everything is crud" or "ninety percent of everything is crap", the phrase was derived from Sturgeon's observation that while science fiction was often derided for its low quality by critics, it could be noted that the majority of examples of works in other fields could equally be seen to be of low quality and that science fiction was thus no different in that regard to other art.
Or to put it another way:
CULTURE HARD!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jamendo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
I kind of felt the same way until I started listening to some non-commercial radio stations that play a lot of local bands and indies. For a while it just sounded unfamiliar and not that great, but I stuck with it for a couple months and now listening to my former favorite stations gives me a feeling that they play the same old crap over and over. There's a lot of good music out there that isn't on 80,000-watt stations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
"having labels weed out the crap for you and present the cream of the crop."
Wow, if you consider major label output of the last 20 years to be the "cream of the crop", I really do question your tastes. You are entitled to them, but I prefer listening to outlets that don't include Justin Bieber, Britney Spears and Glee every 2 minutes. Listening to purely RIAA approved music from recent years would be a minor level of hell in my mind.
But, that's the point isn't it? You can still listen to your manufactured pop labels, your American idol "winners" and all the generic stuff that the labels produce. If somebody else prefers garage rock, or dubstep, or indie reggae or Scandinavian death metal, then they can access it just as easily. You can still listen to Clear Channel approved corporate stations and stick to the Billboard charts if that's your taste.
It sounds to me like you're just annoyed because you're getting exposed to things other than what your corporate masters want you to listen to. This is great for culture at large, even if it annoys an individual as small minded as yourself in the process. The rest of us are enjoying access to more music than ever before, and listening to refreshingly innovative music that doesn't depend on an executive meeting sales targets to be recorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bleh
We're going around in circles with these ACs. They stifle conversation by flamebaiting us into going over the same things again and again and again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
You guys never cease to amaze me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Assuming you're the same AC who crops up in all of these threads (unlike me, you haven't bothered making your comments distinguishable from others), I fail to see where that little comment was unjustified. You come into every thread, attacking those with independent sensibilities and supporting even the most egregious and harmful actions of the corporations. If they're not your "corporate masters" in a literal financial sense, they certain are in terms of ideology and ignorance of alternative media.
If you want to add anything to this discussion, try this: how are you finding so much "amateur" content, when your tastes would surely point you toward mainstream outlets that don't carry it? Why should your personal tastes determine the direction of the industry, when so many disagree with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
There have been fewer classic albums released in the past ten years than in the any other decade in the entire history of the rock/pop era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
I ask again, who is suggesting that it has? The article doesn't seem to and neither do the people on this thread. In fact, the article explicitly states that the study concludes music has not gotten better since Napster. You seem to be clinging to a straw man.
"everyone actually in music talks about that fact all the time."
Everyone? So, anyone who doesn't constantly state that music hasn't gotten better since Napster isn't "actually in music"?
"There have been fewer classic albums released in the past ten years than in the any other decade in the entire history of the rock/pop era."
How did you come to that conclusion? Did 'everyone' in music tell you so? Perhaps an explanation of what classic means to you would help us understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
There aren't enough hours in your whole life to listen to just the albums made in the past year.
And why, WHY does everyone act as if pop music is the only kind of music that exists? There is a lot more to music than pop and rock. If you payed attention to it you might find out that it is easier to hear today than ever before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
That's not the point made at all.
"There have been fewer classic albums released in the past ten years than in the any other decade in the entire history of the rock/pop era."
Please define what a classic is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Music has fragmented more and more over last few decades. Where once there was "rock", "pop" or "other", we now have hundreds of genres, none of which appeals to the same people, and even have deep rifts among those who like specific genre. Some rock fans consider modern rock to be overproduced and want a return to basics, while others gleefully mix rock with electronic music.
So, what's a "classic" album? Nobody can define it, but the modern music world is certainly more vibrant now than the majors ever wanted or allowed it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Why should your personal tastes determine the direction of the industry, when so many disagree with you?
You see, this is the other place that you make a couple of major, major blunders that undermine your credibility.
First off, I don't suggest for a second that my personal tastes determine anything except what I like to listen to (speed metal anyone? Death metal? Gwar? Love them all, none of them are mainstream). But at the same time, I am not ripping the mainstream artists a new eyehole because they don't play speed metal tunes or because they signed a record label deal. It is significant to understand that your taste in music alone doesn't change anything. That you prefer "amateur" artists to mainstream is your prerogative. It does not grant you the rights to tear down someone else's business just to try to make your preferred artist look better.
The other part is "when so many disagree with you". This is a typical argument made when someone doesn't realize the scale of the situation. You may think that you and the 50 or so active posters here are some sort of majority, but you are not. What the majority wants and buys is (sadly) Lady Gaga, Rihanna, and System of a Down (sample names only). The stuff that is most often downloaded, most often pirated? All that horrible label stuff that "so many disagree" is any good. Those same people who disagree seem to have a huge collection of this stuff on file.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. Everyone taste in music is different. What people consider as quality is different. Attempting to quantify it (by using metrics that don't really measure it) is misleading and more than a little bit dishonest (at an intellectual level). It is 2+2 = 22 math at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
And the faster the industry is torn down, the faster that will change. The recording industry's self-destruction is the best thing that ever happened to independent music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Why do you have to "tear down" or "self destruct" anything? If the "independent music" is that good, wouldn't they already be top of the charts anyway? Wouldn't they be the most popular? Wouldn't they be everywhere?
Perhaps because few are really listening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Here's an orchestral version of the song: http://fororchestra.com/2011/03/25/rebecca-black-friday-for-orchestra-53/
Look! It's an act of copyright infringement! Bloody orchestras and their piratical ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
It is perhaps the perfect example of the crap that surfaces when there is no filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
You keep saying people don't do good music today, that is true since the 60's at least and here we are in on the 10's again having the same discussions I heard in the 70's and 80's.
Just STFU I can't take this crap logic anymore it has been 50 years now and I can take that crapy logic anymore I know it is crap and have know it was crap for decades but some dumb schmucks still use it WTF is wrong with you people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
The same can be said of the 80s, where most of that new wave stuff all sort of sank into the mire never to return, except on flashback shows on alt-rock radio stations.
You can put on AC/DC and almost everyone know it. You put on Human League and mostly you draw blanks. Yet Human League was about as big as it got at one point.
Most people would recognize this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-uyWAe0NhQ
Yet most don't know it is a cover. So much of the 80s.
90s? Hmmm.
Music has it's classic and non-classic periods, it is the nature of the game. Right now certainly is not a classic period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
"There is very little from the disco era, example, that is considered classic."
By you, perhaps. Everywhere else, there certainly is a lot of classic material. Disco songs have formed the basis of a great deal of house music since the mid 80s when it was created, and a *huge* number of records from the 90s up to recently have sampled a lot of the classics. Some songs ("Last Night A DJ Saved My Life", for example) are sampled into top 10 hits every couple of years where I am.
There's a huge number of classic from that era, especially if you go to the more underground years before everybody tried cashing in on Saturday Night Fever.
"You can put on AC/DC and almost everyone know it. "
Because every one of their guitar riffs sounds the same. I kid, sort of...
"You put on Human League and mostly you draw blanks."
Human League? The band that's still touring to this day, and still releasing records? The band whose "Don't You Want Me" plays in half the mainstream bars and clubs I've been in to, not to mention weddings?
You're not proving your points very well, are you?
"Most people would recognize this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-uyWAe0NhQ
Yet most don't know it is a cover. So much of the 80s."
What about Madness' other top 10 hits, many of them still played to this day? Are those also irrelevant because one of them was a cover? Does making a ska cover of a song suddenly make the whole decade irrelevant?
"90s? Hmmm."
Wow, arrogance personified yet again. Let me guess, you didn't like music in the 90s therefore it can't be considered classic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Go back and look at the original post at the top all of this. Trying to measure "quality" through subjective means is never going to work out.
The only thing arrogant is that you are too busy trying to attack me personally to bother to try to understand. Perhaps you want to tone down the rhetoric and crap a bit and actually think, rather than just running in for the slam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Then why are you trying to argue as though it's a universal truth? It's the same as every other argument you've tried putting forward here - your opinion, nothing more. Yet, you try to pretend that your taste in some mysterious unknown acts you've stumbled across, and the fact that they don't meet your tastes, somehow means that music is doomed without the current models. You state your own opinions about 3 decades of music as if they are gospel.
It just doesn't make sense if you also accept that it's your opinion, and it's meaningless in the bigger picture.
"Go back and look at the original post at the top all of this. Trying to measure "quality" through subjective means is never going to work out."
As I've already said, I agree with this part.
"The only thing arrogant is that you are too busy trying to attack me personally to bother to try to understand. "
You're yet to present me with something to "understand" that isn't either your own subjective opinion or something I've stated before in this very thread.
What am I missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Almost all music from any given moment in time is just crap so your assertion that people need filters is just crap also, people already have filters they are called friend suggestions, groups, tribes or whatever people already filter everything and producing more of that crap doesn't stop others from producing good things also since they naturally will find a way to the top and stay there for years to come or be rediscovered by someone and remade into something else.
Just like the Amen break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
I honestly wish more people would remember this. All those rose-coloured glasses wearing people banging on about how great music was in the 70s and 80s have simply forgotten the sheer weight of crap that was around at the time.
"Just like the Amen break."
Yes, a single break has become the foundation of entire cultures. I love that, even if the "you can only make art for profit" people disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
People will create crap, almost all music from all the times is mostly crap, classics are rare and somehow people managed to discover the "classics" despite the torrential production of crap all the time, so to say that because people are producing more crap than ever before and imply that this is a bad thing is just crap.
Want to hear a classic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac
Amen break
This is from the 60's and you can find it everywhere, just like Carmina Burana in action films.
Or The Wilhelm Scream that its used over and over and over again from that silly movie in the amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Crap is what makes things happen is what fertilizes the creative minds that extract what they need from that crap and to say the creation of crap is bad is just a pile of again crap.
Any intelligent person who has passed the fourty barrier and had to discuss this crap every decade with inexperienced kids(those little idiots) knows that this assumption that because people are making more crap is just crap because if anybody looks at all that crap you either see trash or you see raw material that can be transformed into something else, now tell me what are you?
An idiot who can't make anything or a creator who uses what he got and transform things?
Where others see leftovers as crap I see it as fertilizer producing methane gas that can produce electricity, where others see used paper as useless I see papier mache walls, where you see crap music I see opportunities to create something new.
So please, please, pretty please STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Not at all. Again, look at the original report that Mike is working this stuff off of. What objective standard are they using for "quality"? None.
Popularity has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with popularity. My point is when you go back over a period of time and look at what is actually considered by people as "classic" or that is otherwise worthy of replay, you can see how things separate out.
Most of your posts are insulting. Are you always like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Was that not what the researcher did there?
That is why, mining social networks is so important to marketeers and politicians they can gauge public acceptance of something, and that would reflect the quality that the majority of people found good or bad, not the minorities I'm afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another good point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Not when the recording industry still has a stranglehold on radio airplay. This is one of the many reasons they need to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Christ, OK I apologise for my one-off use of a sarcastic comment. Can you address the actual disucssion now?
"It's hard to take you seriously when you think that everyone that disagrees with Mike are some sort of industry shill."
Not everybody. just you (or I assume just you - hard to keep the ACs separated when you can't be bothered to distinguish yourself).
"First off, I don't suggest for a second that my personal tastes determine anything except what I like to listen to"
Except you do. Everything you've said here seems to be regarding your personal taste regarding the production of the albums being released. Hell, here and in other comments you're rejcting whole genres because you dislike them, whereas they certainly do have their fans.
The same with the movie discussion a few days ago where you (again, I assume it was you) tried claiming that a business model wouldn't work because the movie wasn't to your taste.
"That you prefer "amateur" artists to mainstream is your prerogative."
Try not to make up my opinions and read the ones I actually state, please. It makes discussion so much easier.
"You may think that you and the 50 or so active posters here are some sort of majority, but you are not."
Whereas, you seem to think that the opinion you push is some kind of truth. Such arrogance is not becoming. People will listen or help you if needed (as they have offered to elsewhere in this thread).
"What the majority wants and buys is (sadly) Lady Gaga, Rihanna, and System of a Down"
Really? The best you can think of are 2 pop singers and a band that until recently had disbanded and hasn't recorded for 6 years? OK, "sample names only", but still. The public also wants everything from Eminem to Daft Punk to Linkin Park, but that doesn't mean that Mumford & Sons can't get their self-financed album sold or that Burial's next album won't make him a reasonable living.
Face it, that only clear objection you've made here so far is that you've listened to a lot of music that's not to your taste and concluded that somehow the major labels are the only filter worth using. That's crap, no matter how you phrase it.
"Attempting to quantify it (by using metrics that don't really measure it) is misleading and more than a little bit dishonest (at an intellectual level)."
For once we agree, but this is really just a response to one of the sillier cirticism you and others have made in the past - that without certain protections and major labels, music quality will go down and nobody will make music. This is being proven wrong by both the breadth and number of albums being released. Quality is subjective, but I dare say that the proportion of people disillusioned by music quality in the 2010s and those disillusioned in the RIAA heyday of the 90s is probably quite similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Actually it isn't all different its ALL Pachelbel's Canon - don't believe me - watch this.
and Pachelbel lived in a time/place with no copyright - so all the recent cOpyrighted stuff is derivative anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
The article doesn't suggest that you should. Funny that you complain about Techdirt's bias.
"I was much happier with the quality when major labels were in full force. Not that I'm a fan of major labels."
Why aren't you a fan of them? You apparently dislike everything else.
"rather than having labels weed out the crap for you and present the cream of the crop."
What do you consider the cream of the crop? If finding music you like is the issue here then I'd be glad to help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
I have seen this allegation posted here many times by various ACs, however not once has there been anything to support said allegation. In fact, there has been many posts by Mike and others which state their disapproval of copywrite infringement. And here it is again, without a shread of support for the claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
Fascinating! The record labels somehow know what music I like better than I do? I guess I can't find music I like as effectively as the majors can despite the abundance of music search engines, social networks, and aggregation sites that have served as hubs for those that seek ways to collect music they enjoy. Why would I want to find music I want myself and judge its quality when the labels do it for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
Yeah, cause that ever worked so well, LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History of the Amen Break
The Amen Break is a beat extensively used since the 80's by everyone today in music, even though it is still copyrighted and the original creator never bothered to sue anyone.
Entire genres where based on that single break, hip-hop, trance, acid and a lot of others genres use it extensively, now imagine if someone sued people for using it, todays music would sound very different indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free music on the interwebz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those who profit from this particular form of extortion will hopefully be held accountable some day. The RIAA & MPAA are not alone in thinking this is ethical, I have read that debt collectors have been doing outrageous things. They too do not seem to care about substantiating evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whatever you do DON'T PAY UP - you'll be funding further activities by these people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf670orHKcA
http://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=X9H_cI_WCnE
Tell me again how Big Music ensures only the cream of the crop reaches our tender ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
The market is flooded with bullshit amateur productions and weak songwriting.
Mike Masnick is a copyleft propagandist.
-Silicon Valley Is Gonna Burn-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
(citation needed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
"The market is flooded with bullshit amateur productions and weak songwriting."
(citation needed)
"Mike Masnick is a copyleft propagandist."
(citation needed)
"-Silicon Valley Is Gonna Burn-"
(citation needed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
(citation needed)
http://www.youtube.com
"Mike Masnick is a copyleft propagandist."
(citation needed)
http://www.techdirt.com
"-Silicon Valley Is Gonna Burn-"
(citation needed)
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sto/cafw/
Have a nice night :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
(citation needed)
http://www.youtube.com"
YouTube is "the market" now? Besides, some of the greatest songs ever written are available on YouTube, how does that support your point? Are you actually considering non-commercial garage demos from teenagers (which have always happened at that quality, just not in public) as equivalent to material from serious working bands?
If you're going to criticise non-label productions, at least consider platforms where they're being sold or being offered as competition against "professional" productions. Start with Jamendo, Amazon, iTunes, 7digital, CDBaby, Pandora or Spotify. Then, if you wish to continue this discussion, give us an example of what you consider to be a "poor" band and something you consider to be "good", then we can discuss further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
By pointing me to YouTube, you inadvertently gave me a full hour of highly enjoyable entertainment, probably more than I've gotten from any album I've bought recently. Thanks again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
Sadly, scum also rises. The difference between cream and scum in this case is dictated by the market rather than Big Music.
Tell me how this is a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
The market is flooded with bullshit amateur productions and weak songwriting.
I'm still confused as to who is forcing you to listen to that?
I'm also still confused as to how that crappy music somehow decreases the ability of others to make quality music.
In fact, the claim (and I've not seen a citation on this) that 10 million out of 13 million songs on iTunes have never sold a copy sorta supports my position, doesn't it? It shows that people ignore the crap.
So, um... thanks for supporting my point.
Mike Masnick is a copyleft propagandist.
If you believe that, you're a very confused person. But I believe that was already established.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
It doesn't, and nobody is claiming that. The only claim is that in ratio, the amount of "good" remains the same, and the amount of "bad" increases. Without appropriate filters, most of us will never find the good, because it will be buried in all the bad.
It is the difference between finding a needle in a needle factory or finding a needle in a haystack.
If you believe that, you're a very confused person. But I believe that was already established.
Way to keep it classy Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
Luckily for us, a great many appropriate filters exist. They just don't happen to be the major labels...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
Use Jamendo you get all the filters you want there.
http://www.jamendo.com/en/top
Also it may be possible to use Google to find the top download music of the moment, the Pirate Bay also have a list of the most download songs ever.
There are tones of appropriate filters out there.
You also have tones of blogs dedicated to music, you also got tones of people who talk about music to others...hmmm...that is about to end, because linking is a crime now, maybe people should just link to CC Commons music that is free to distribute and share instead of risking their life's to hear music from a label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
Um. No. You made that up. The original study was not about the ratio. That's because the ratio does not matter. Again, as I pointed out above, the ratio would only matter if you had to listen to all the bad to find the good.
Without appropriate filters, most of us will never find the good, because it will be buried in all the bad.
Good thing that there are a hell of a lot more "appropriate filters" today than ever before. I find amazingly good music all the time these days. If you don't, you need to find a better filter. Honestly, these days I'm discovering all sorts of wonderful music I never would have heard about otherwise (and which might not even have existed without the internet). I'm sorry that you seem to think you need to start at page one and go through every one, but you should learn that the internet lets you bypass the bad stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, Mike...
If all your hooks come from previously written songs, then you're either lazy or incapable of writing your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, Mike...
"Someone mentioned an easy target so I'll attack that and ignore every other point raised!"
"If someone mentions this message again, I'll pretend this didn't happen or pretend to be someone else, because I'm invincibly anonymous!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But look at you! Aren't you clever! Your catty comment made me forget that you didn't come up with a logical retort, or even a well-formed sentence. Oh, yeah ... You're mean!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there's more meanness in your four comments on this thread than in my 1,400+ on this site. I'll let others judge who's cleverer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there's more meanness in your four comments on this thread than in my 1,400+ on this site. I'll let others judge who's cleverer.
You're right - that was pretty nasty of me - apologies (no sarcasm). The only thing i can say is was meant to be sort'a tongue-in-cheek (i thought it was obvious, obviously not), but still, funny at your expense, which was pretty weak of me.
"-What'cha gonna do today?
-I'm gonna be MEAN to EVETRYONE" -Killdozer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to the internet, where humour is required to wear an identity tag at all times.
I know that you were joking, I was just a little miffed with your other comment where it seemed to me that you were poking fun at the writer of this study for no good reason. By the end of the comment I found the humour was so heavy that I had trouble working out what you were trying to say, which is why I didn't expand my reply. That might be a sign of my inability to understand things or that overusing humour can be confusing, I'm not in a position to judge which.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People still will support artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Studies like this, that show a lack of correlation, are the best kind. The record companies have made several claims with regards to piracy that this study I think does a pretty good job of disproving. If there is more music, and more new artists, then there were before piracy, then you simply cannot make the claim that piracy is a cause of this nonexistent thing that didn't happen.
Obviously quality is misleading. I feel we have had a HUGE drop in quality of music in the past decade. But you know which music feels like it has dropped in quality? The indie or underground scene? Hardly. It's all of the post britney-spears music, the introduction of autotune, and the influence of hip hop, that for me has dropped the quality in general of music. Obviously that has a huge cultural element to it, and there is a large audience who likes the direction music is going, or it wouldn't be going that way. But I really don't see piracy being the issue here.
I'm glad that cesspit of limewire is gone. There are better ways to get that stuff without suffering the spyware and fake files. Although I think legally it's pretty retarded to shut down. If a street sees a high volume of drug traffic, you usually don't shut the street down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music and Records aren't the same thing
If you love record companies, buy records. If you love musicians, go to concerts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music and Records aren't the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music and Records aren't the same thing
While this is overwhelmingly true for artists on major labels, it may not apply elsewhere. I buy music mainly from sites like Bandcamp, where artists can set up shop directly without a label. Otherwise, I will make sure that an artist is on an Indie label and try and find out what sort of deal they get if I'm buying something from Amazon or iTunes (at last count, I think I've only bought NOFX from iTunes and Adele from Amazon, although I'd never buy from iTunes again anyway).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music and Records aren't the same thing
Musicians do benefit from record companies promoting their music, but the price is very high. A standard record deal is for 7 CDs, with the record company having full control over which songs are worthy of putting on the CDs. Most bands only make one CD, it doesn't sell that well, and the company never approves another one. However, until their 7-CD contract expires the band can't go to a different record company or release a CD under their own label. They can never record again under the same name unless they buy out their contract (rare) or the company releases them (also rare). So typically the band either breaks up or changes its name. They cannot refer to themselves as "formerly band x" because that would violate their contract. These same rules apply to an individual musician recording under his or her own name. Essentially the record company owns the rights to the name until the contract is completed.
Of course nobody puts a gun to anyone's head to sign the contract, but the industry has done a very good job of promoting record deals as the holy grail, and until recently there has been no viable alternative for getting your music heard widely. Now that we have the Internet, there is. Right now there is very little chance that free distribution will generate the following of a rock superstar, but there's actually very little chance that it will happen with a record deal too. The big difference is that a record deal is a crapshoot -- if that first CD sells well enough to get a second and third, then even if it ends there the band will have gotten enough airplay to generate a decent following that will support a modest touring career, and remember -- playing live gigs is how the band is going to make a living because they'll never see any royalty cash. However, the odds are much higher that the first album will fail commercially and the band will come to an end. The band or musician will have to break up or start over using a different names, thereby getting no benefit from the fame generated by the first record. Meanwhile all future recording rights to the songs they created during that time are under controlled by the record company forever. They can't even appear on TV and perform without permission from the company, because the TV show is being recorded. A record contract actually has a much higher chance of ending your career than of paying off a big jackpot.
As for independent labels that write more reasonable contracts, sure they're around, but they lack the big money and distribution contacts to create the above benefits. Bandcamp and similar download-selling sites are one way to use the web to reach fans and make money, and I'm not saying anything against that model, but remember that the main function of records is to act as advertisements. Charging money to let people listen to your advertising when the product you're really selling is concert tickets doesn't make sense to me.
The great thing is that musicians now have many choices about how they control their destinies, if they're smart enough to take advantage of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've missed an important Detail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've missed an important Detail.
And the, "oh but the study is biased" silliness.
Seriously, one element I find getting missed in all these study's is the obvious most POWERFUL DETAIL. Whilst you all bicker about the pro's and cons of piracy and whether it is the reason for the industry's decline. I'd like to point out the main driver of this, ...TECHNOLOGY!
If you look at the number of Pro Recording Studios in downtown Los Angeles or some of the Big entertainment/production cities of the world, half of them have gone bankrupt or are no longer trading.
Why? ...... simple technology.
People record they're own music with home studios. They no longer get indebted humongous amounts of money for production on works. The fact many have started recording their own and the quality of production is slowly increasing is important in this play of events. The leverage BIG Labels had are being eroded, as are big studio fees.
This has been a factor in the flight of artists to independents and will continue if they capitalize on 'real' sensible negotiable contracts. Some are starting to show real flair for AR which is kind of lost in the BIG Label world.
Anyhow, I think you get the gist. Technology is not really factored in this study much. If you look at home studio technology which became much cheaper just prior to Napster then went into overdrive after, you'll see there is major impacts made by it. Technology is a double edge sword, in this case its the majors that are bleeding. Its not just because they've had their distribution powers revoked.
I will say this, production quality has dipped a bit, not artistic writing. They have all the whizz bang effects and software to boot. But lack real artistry. Many Pro Audio Engineers will bitch and moan. Whilst the average punter who's compressed their music at 128 kbps listening on headphones would never know the difference or how much effort went into the mix.
Personally, I can see this is only temporary. The better artist develop their production skills along the way. If they survive trial by fire, they'll be happy campers. I have faith they will. ..... No, I know they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OT Make Music NOW! or Idiot's Guide to Making Music
In a way, the 'net did something similar to music (i know, OT, not piracy - the net itself) - somehow devalued it (this is so subjective, i'm not portending that this is even a defensible stance) . [end of potentially long and weepy tangent, but ... can't resist another odd bit of trivia:]
I think it's sort'a funny that for a long time, recordings of pop music were used to promote/support sheet music sales, where labels made *real* money. Ability to read music & parlor pianos (talking US middle-class here) were the norm, not the exception. (seamless segue tosomething like "The Point")
'Puter boxen brought about a resurgence of "do it yourself" music, but in a limp way. No news to players out there, but *almost all* recording software, from Fruity Loops (pardon, FL Studio now) to Pro Tools (industry standard, as far as i'm concerned - but won't argue the poin)t - anyhow, software used by many professional (for profit) studios) - is, or is capable of being, "loop-based" (a player can record a few bars of music, and use them, like leggo(tm) blocks, to make an entire song), with collections of these loops (for instance, a collection of Acid Jazz or Trip-Hop drum loops, "alternative" bass riffs and grooves, etc, etc.) which anyone with the ability to click a mouse can turn into entire compositions. And with "all-software" real-time pitch correction (this is not just "pull-up to the closest note", but programmable to the point of modulating atonal spoken word into a perfectly-pitched vocal track with predefined melody line, volume, vibrato and harmonic content of each note), the tone-deaf could (and do) sing.
I'm not music Luddite (well, maybe), but, somehow, it seems that making music - once done by people whose lives revolved around it - is now done by anyone bored enough to bother. No more demanding than willingness to roll the dice (yes, there is software which will create random riffs/melody lines 'till the[cough] musician hears something he/she/it likes, and then come up with variations on the theme, fluff out the chords, offer choices of harmony lines, etc., etc - in other words, rolling dice and applying basic music theory to write your music). Inspired by nothing but ... the desire to dump this crap on the net. No worse than cut-up writing, i suppose, though people who did cut-up were usually already steeped in writing.
Oh, and to those who claim that the s8it/Shinolla ratio is irrelevant, as long as the amount of Shinola stays the same - nonsense. There is more gold in the world's oceans than in all the vaults in the world - wanna' stake some claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]