Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age
from the a-little-perspective dept
Music predates agriculture. That's something I suppose I always knew, but had never thought about in such clear terms until Bryan Kim illustrated it in a talk at SFMusicTech with a photo of a 35,000-year-old bone flute. This places music before farming and written language on the timeline of humanity, right alongside the earliest known cave paintings in Europe, at the very least. By comparison, recorded music has only been around for a little over a century.Viewed in that light, the idea that recordings are the central, defining aspect of music or the music industry is just plain ridiculous. Between that ancient flute and today, there have been plenty of different successful models for funding music. Kim points out that the one common thread throughout, which continues today, is that music's primary function is more community-building than anything else:
For most of human history, music was a public and participatory experience, inextricably linked to a plural of people synched in a real-time experience. As a binding agent of dancing and singing bodies, music could literally manifest community. And lest you think our modern society has evolved beyond the tribal utility of music, just think of religious services, major sporting events, weddings, nightclubs, road trips… when was the last time you attended one of these without some sort of collective music ritual?I found all this especially fascinating because of the conclusion Kim reached, and the model he's dubbed "crowd patronage" for supporting music going forward, combining the traditions of busking and of wealthy patrons that have been dominant in virtually all periods of history and, likely, pre-history. The idea is that you need an "ecosystem of fans" and then they will support you in exchange for "relationship access". It is, essentially, the same as what we've been calling CwF+RtB here at Techdirt. Using Kickstarter as an example, Kim elaborates:
...
In many ways, music is the original social network. This makes musicians founders of community. In a networked world, that’s powerful.
Just like in the era of patronage, pledgers are usually not buying a commodified product. The most successful music Kickstarter projects sell you one or more of three “values”: 1) access to artist (as discussed above), 2) exclusivity and 3) recognition/participation (especially for artist’s creation).It's great to see more people reaching this conclusion, and especially interesting to see it approached from a broader historical perspective: crowd patronage or CwF+RtB is only a new or radical concept when viewed through the narrow lens of recorded music's few decades of dominance. In the bigger picture, it's actually a return to music's roots as a community tool and a tribal experience. Recorded music is still a fantastic thing that has enriched our lives and our culture in its own way—but the notion that music cannot thrive without the commoditization of discrete units doesn't withstand an ounce of scrutiny. The next time someone suggests such a thing, remind them that humans were carving flutes out of bone 20,000 years before the last ice age ended, when glaciers were still creeping towards the Great Lakes and consuming all of the British Isles, and the last few Neanderthals were still roaming around Europe. It sure makes CDs and records seem a tad less significant.
So we’re going to see more artists open up the creation process to their fanbase. Everything from crediting fans in the liner notes, to tracking fans' recorded sounds as real stems, to skyping and polling fans during studio sessions.
As a musician, it’s already technically possible to do this. In the next few years, we’re going to find it become more culturally acceptable on both the artist and fan side. More importantly, artists are going to start finding which sorts of packages their fans actually buy, etching out the contours of a new crowd patronage “model”.
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: cwf+rtb, fan funding, history, music, opportunities, patronage
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Hi I'm Bryan...
... the guy who wrote that piece, made that preso. I realize I'm totally late to this debate but I'm staking a flag here for internet archive purposes. Bryan was here! Feel free to come at me with your best shots at twitter or FB... I'm at /@freshbreakfast at both.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
You may want to try that one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
You may want to try that one day.
You;re gonna have to wait for the next Ice Age in Hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
Humans have been making music since we've been humans--and musicians have been finding ways to be compensated for their art all that time. Recorded music has only existed for about 100 years--and going by the record labels own numbers over 90% of "professional musicians" never see a dime of money from their recorded music sales. So in all honesty, how can anyone defend recorded music sales as being a good thing for musicians. It's real good for the record labels though, which is what this whole "piracy is killing music" BS is about.
This article says nothing about tape trading or bit torrent file sharing. It's about looking for new ways--or old ways--of monetizing music. If the record labels don't want to come along with us (or are too stupid to figure out that you have to give your customers what they want in order to stay in business)--that's their problem (and I for one won't shed any tears for them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
> free is tyranny.
I guess copyright, as it has traditionally been implemented, is tyranny, then, considering it has never been of unlimited duration.
Oh, and by the way, none of the current media industries you love so much would ever have gotten off the ground if your ideal of copyright/IP had existed from the start. Read "Free Culture" by Lessig to confront some other "real facts".
For your information, this post is something called "a reply". If you want to be (consistently) ethical, to use my "reply" idea, you can pay me at the rate of $0.001 BTC per use (at BitCoin address 1HVVj8SHLQhvaxUeNqTwjsK8R53SoJRNUM). Ridiculous? So are your ideas about copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apologies to Bitcoin purists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
Sorry, who's got a gun to their head? I don't see anybody being forced to do anything (unless they've signed a label contract, but that's another argument). If artists what to ignore the progress of technology and the current desires of their fans, they're free to do so. They just shouldn't put out their hand and demand an income.
"Bob Weir of the GRATEFUL DEAD tells Barlow on Youtube at last years' music tech summit that if something isn't done about piracy there will be a lot less professional musicians in the world."
And we should all take the advice of an old man who was lucky enough to be around during the tiny blip in the history of music where selling recordings made a very small proportion of musicians rich. That world is gone, stop wasting time lamenting its passing.
"Comparing tape trading to BitTorrent is like comparing a butter knife to a bulldozer."
You're the one whose done that, not the post's author, and to do so would be to completely miss the point being made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The last screenplay I wrote for a client took years, and it got me thinking about how topsy turvy the whole process is. For example, I typically labor away for a year or more to write a story which becomes a commodity to a client, or a producer, etc... However, all the time I spend writing a story—arguably as or more interesting than the final product, especially in retrospect—stays dark to the public (in this last case, contractually dark). That process always seemed to me like poor capitalization, e.g., once a story outline is created, it can't be uncreated. The process of creation is a unique moment in time that others might want to witness... and then brag that they witnessed it. So the "time alone at the top of the tower" is actually a underexploited value add because it is exclusive access to the creation of new works, which fosters belonging.
I like seeing art grow dynamically, especially with artists I'm a fan of. My fans, I wager, likely feel the same.
Consequently, I decided back in January that the process of writing my next screenplay will be completely open, which is why the above quote really hits home. I'm going to peel back the curtain and let everyone watch as I develop a screenplay from the ground up. By showing just how much work goes into creating a story, my hope is that I'll not only find new fans of me as a writer, but also fans of the work I'm creating. Over time, I want to invite those fans into becoming emotionally invested in seeing the screenplay produced into a film so that when I launch a crowdfunding campaign, the audience for the film already exists.
The creation of the art—not just the art itself—is a great way to build community. In the digital age, where fantastic new tools pop up every week (e.g., "broadcasting" G+ chats lets anyone be their own talk show host now), all artists should take that lesson to heart and give their fans more reasons to buy by connecting with them in a way only they can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that'll be fun...
i joke...
in all seriousness...
okay, in partial seriousness, i find it difficult to envision how you 'share' this (mostly internal) creative process with people *other* than sharing the actual writing you do, and that seems fraught with problems...
otherwise, i seriously applaud your attitude and desire to create and connect in *some* manner. other than what inadequate outlets exist in the present system...
ps if you could work "MOTHERFUCKING EAGLES, bitchez!" in your screenplay, i would pay for that shit ! ! !
(heh! maybe *that* is your hook right there: have all your readers give lines they pay for you to assemble in some semi-coherent manner ! damn, i better patent that ! ! !)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Writing Fishbowl
My plan is doing a mix between short videos reviewing over my notes and outline, talking about inspirations, how stories are created from all that, and then longer videos where I do some of the actual writing. I won't do many of the long videos, but enough to sustain interest.
I did something like this as a test run for the Dimeword telethon—you can watch me talking about story creation at 55 minutes and see me writing at 58 minutes.
The video series should be educational for aspiring writers, and fun for all. Stay tuned! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bone flute? Or a big fat strawman?
Nobody says piracy is going to kill music, they are saying it's harming our best sources of music. While there may be more "content" (like your joyless noises Marcus) the reality is that the best artists, the most popular ones, are no longer recording or creating new music on a regular basis, and are instead touring or just hanging out, because there isn't much incentive for them to write new music unless they really, really feel like it and have the spare time.
The results are there, we have moved from album every year in the late 60s, early 70s to album every other year (80s and 90s) to the current 2 or 3 a decade pace for most artists.
Yes, there are more unknown artists turning out unknown music, getting played mostly in unknown places. What the people generally crave, what they generally seek isn't the unknown, but the known. Music isn't just music, it's also a social discussion, a common ground on which to meet other people, which is really the point. The sharing of the proverbial joyous noise is key and the driving element in all.
Music will survive, but it's not clear that the majority of people will enjoy the resulting product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
what he is saying is true, and should be obvious to anyone who has any industry knowledge. It is a fact that big names no longer create regular works or new albums, it is true that they have gone from 1 a year or every 2 years to 1 a decade with a clear and sharp dropoff between the 80's and 90's to today.
The analysis of why this is occurring also seems sound and accurate. As is his conclusions that people do want what they like, and not what 'is there'. Lots of crap will never match limited quility.
Mr playright, people will respect you for what you achieve, not how you achieve it. Write a good play, but dont make writing your play a play..
people are not interested in how Jimi Hendrix makes the sounds he makes nearly at as much as the fact can do it.
People will not care how you write a good play (or a bad one) but they WILL Greatly respect you if you are capable of writing a good/great play, (without turning it into a song and a dance)..
If you dont feel you can give your audience enough in the quality of your creation, watching you create it is not going to provide your fans with anything else..
they might actually be fans of what you create,, and not care how you create it,, in fact they will probably find the creation method to be distastefull (fake and false) and divorced from the fake reality you wish to portray in your play.. (you break the reality of the unreal)..
(have you ever noticed how damn boring those programs that are "the making of" type..
we dont care how they made the matrix, we want to live for a short time in the unreal world protrayed..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, it;s not like the wah-wah pedal is the most popular guitar accessory ever or anything crazy like that...
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but if those people are only a small percentage of actual fans / consumers / people who enjoy the art, it's meaningless.
Most people just enjoy the music or the movie, and don't give a crap about how it was made. They just want to be entertained.
This is the basic stuff, how can you mess this up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not as basic as you want it to be ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah!!!! Because no one goes to live performances to see how they make sounds. /s [rolls eyes]
Did you forget your /s Leigh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) The PICK
2) the TUNER
hendrix did not use whaa-whaa very much anyway, allthought he did.. most get a whaa-whaa pedal to play Clapton.. not Hendrix..
for hedrix it's a 100W marshall stack and lots of overdrive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[clip]
(have you ever noticed how damn boring those programs that are "the making of" type..
we dont care how they made the matrix, we want to live for a short time in the unreal world protrayed.."
I strongly disagree what you're saying here. You may not be interested in who music and movies are made, but many, many people are, including me. That's why I watch live performances on YouTube, so I can watch instruments being played. That's why I watch clips of workshops or interviews by musicians where they explain how and why they play the way they do. That's why I have shelves crammed full of 2-disc DVD's and DVD box sets, so I can watch all those "boring" programs that fascinate me as a movie fan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
THE BEST SOURCES OF MUSIC ARE THE RECORD COMPANIES?
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you that scared you'll lose on the manufactured pop and crap that comes out of their orifice? You clearly don't listen to any music whatsoever if you believe those factories of shit produce real music. Here's some news for you: the real music scene has never been in the music industry, only idiots think MTV stars are real musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All this major label nonsense talk is just a smokescreen; an attempt to rationalize their selfish, greedy behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have absolutely no way to know if that's true, so it's pretty obvious you're just making stuff up. Blatant lying isn't really going to convince anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we also prefer music from alternative good sources (aka the internet, our friends and so on). Which doesn't automatically means none of us refuse to pay for that music we actually like.
But of course since you don't have a point you chose to attack your dear battered straw man, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So is it indie or RIAA stuff that we're always stealing from? Make up your mind, troll!
[ 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:
To the RIAA, the best source of music is the one that makes them the most money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you've forgot to mention was the fact that the labels had closed off most traditional avenues for artist to become "known". There have been a couple of well known acts from my town, but not a single one got any applicable airtime on the local stations until they signed with a label. However, back before the labels got their fingers into everything, local acts got aired on local stations all the time.
While you pine for the glory days long since past, others are creating new avenues for artist that the labels don't control, and more new artist are becoming known through those channels every year. As for the established players, they can either break out the lounge chairs and wait for their Titanic to sail to the ocean floor, or they can get off while they still have the strength to brave the open waters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The industry's tone hasn't changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many of us don't consider the record labels "our best sources of music".
Could it possibly be because they've realized that the selling of shiny plastic discs isn't what's making them money--but touring does?
Again, [citation needed].
Who knows? Maybe they'll enjoy it more. Recorded music sales are tanking--in particular CD's. Why should we prop up a business model that the consumers obviously don't want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[citation needed]."
Read the rest of the post. When the most popular artists spend their times touring or just doing little compared to writing and performing new music, and then our best sources are harmed.
It's not record labels or not record labels, that is a tired attempt to frame this debate in a we versus they mentality. Rather, it applies to all of your artists, who must spend more and more time touring live or doing whatever else to make a living, because writing and recording new music is now a block to their making money.
'Could it possibly be because they've realized that the selling of shiny plastic discs isn't what's making them money--but touring does?"
What's funny is you answered your own question. The problem is if the bands or artists spend way too much time touring and less time making new music, we lose in the short run and the long run. The legacy of the Beatles, example, would be "Meet the Beatles" and maybe "Revolver" based on the current output of music from acts. Can you imagine how much would have been missed?
"Again, [citation needed]."
Quite simply, go see what people are still paying money for, what people are downloading like mad, and so on. It's not your latest garage band or what have you, it's certain big name artists. Understanding music as a common language and a common enjoyment allows you to understand this much more.
"Who knows? Maybe they'll enjoy it more."
They sure aren't so far. Demand for the products you seem to loath is higher than ever, just too much of it via piracy. All the artful playing around with the numbers and fiddling with the framing in the world can't change that.
"Why should we prop up a business model that the consumers obviously don't want?"
You don't have to. Don't buy. Just don't pirate it either. try to live only with your no-names and regional acts, try to have a meaningful discussion with friends about bands they know nothing about, while they are talking between themselves about the new platinum albums out there, and you will realize that you turned off your social aspects entirely. It must be lonely where you live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is precisely what I've been doing since 2008. The best part of it is turning friends to bands that I've discovered, that they would probably have otherwise never heard of. As for any aquaintences that only listen to label garbage, that's their problem, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is precisely what I've been doing since 2008. The best part of it is turning friends to bands that I've discovered, that they would probably have otherwise never heard of. As for any aquaintences that only listen to label garbage, that's their problem, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What a bullshit attitude that feeds into the major label mentality of "we make the best music and everything else is shite".
Tell you what, you stick with your Rhiannas, Biebers and Gagas and I will stick with my independent artists who have some real creativity and talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That fine. Just stop pirating the stuff you hate so much. You know you do it, admit it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you tell people to pay up when they receive Nigerian 419 scams, too? The ones who claim that someone ordered a hit on you, and you have to pay off the assassin or you're dead? "You know you're guilty; just pay up and we promise we'll make this go away!"
People can tell you on end about their own entertainment practices until the cows come home, go on an extended vacation, then come home again - and you'll still claim that their interest is in the top 20. There's no pleasing you, is there?
By the way, can you tell the AC down there who claims that we'll all rip off indie stuff? Because, you're saying that label stuff is all we ever download, and clearly you must be right, so he must be wrong, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What should be done is the encouragement of radio stations like this one about to open in Toronto: Indie 88.1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I could give two craps if musicians can make money or not on recorded music sales--I prefer having my music preformed live in a small venue so I can actually enjoy it.
Piracy is a side effect of the market telling the content creators what they want--they don't want albums, they want singles at a price they find reasonable. All of the digital music stores don't seem to be having any trouble making money. People are tired of paying $15-$20 for two good songs and a bunch of crap. So yeah--recorded music sales are tanking.
I don't buy, and I also don't pirate. there are plenty of sources for good, cheap/free music that there is no need to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
heh... seriously? Is Justin Bieber the only thing standing between you and loneliness? If so, that's sad, and I'm sorry to hear it.
And um, wtf is a "regional" act? I can't think of a single example of such a thing. In case you didn't notice, the world of media has been global for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
There are bands which are big in your area, but few people outside of the area have heard of. They are often breakout bands for your region, maybe getting some local airplay or whatnot. They may be the side stage or filler bands for larger festival shows / tours. They are hot locally, but not really known outside of a region or area.
With CanCon laws, many regional bands get a little more coverage in Canada, as radio stations try hard to fill their required Canadian content mix. It's one of the reasons why it pays to record and "distribute" in Canada, because CanCon really can boost you up all across the country.
Again, it's a pretty basic thing. Leigh seems to have a problem with the basics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
And your point? My friends happen to be in the same region and the ones that are outside will promptly receive mp3 from me so they can get in touch with the band and then we can share our opinions on a conversation. So your point again?
You are the one that has trouble with the basics. Wake up from your dreamland little boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
Your friends may be in your region, but because your regional act isn't getting any real media coverage (if they were, they would likely be more than regional), you are still having a discussion about music that your friends don't know, and possibly don't want to know about.
You can't imagine going into a nightclub (when you get to be old enough to do that) where you know none of the music, because it's only popular in the area where the DJ in the club lives. That would be incredibly dull, and the club would likely be empty every night.
"You are the one that has trouble with the basics. Wake up from your dreamland little boy."
Puta que pariu, you are a prick. Just because I don't agree with you, you sink to insults. Well, have them all back, CARALHO! Maybe when you finally get out of the barrio you can learn what the rest of the world looks like. Until then, it's farewell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
Yes, quite the reasonable response. You're definitely one to bother responding to. /s
If you don't like how people point out that you're INCORRECT and BROAD generalizations DO NOT apply to the rest of the world, perhaps you should cease making them entirely.
Also, being told to wake up from dreamland little boy is hardly insulting. I think telling someone to "FUCK OFF ALREADY" and calling them "a prick" not to mention "puta" is much more insulting. It would not surprise me in the least if you're the same AC who also calls out PaulT time and time again for the same thing. You make a generalization, he responds correcting you, then you call him a prick. In fact, I'm sure you are that same AC. Your response to Ninja is the same as most response's by said AC to Paul.
You douche. I won't sink to your level and insult you in the other languages I know and speak fluently (hint, just because someone lives in Brazil, DOES NOT mean they all live in the barrio). I speak fluent Spanish (of the Tex-Mex and proper variety), doesn't mean I'm living in a shack on the other side of the bridge asking for spare change.
Then again, broad generalizations about people you know little about are your forte. So I don't know why I'm surprised you resorted to the insult you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
He is kind of right to be mad because I did intend to use "little boy" as ways to mock him. But if he could argue with anything I said he'd have come out with a good, evidence based argumentation followed by mockery too. And it would be much more effective and I'd have *slow clap*ed at him for his epicness. But as you pointed out he can't do such thing.
I don't mind people disagreeing with me if they present evidence supporting their disagreement. And I'll even change my own opinion in those cases. I happen to understand and have contact with the copyright world (mainly musicians) and really, it's only the MAFIAA that has a Nazi stance like that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
Your problem is there. If you really honestly think that the **AAs are like nazis, then you live in a very, very fucked up world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
Yeah you are totally reasonable and not a douche you piece of shit, i know im not being respectful either, but why would i respect someone that dont deserve nor give ANY respect? Go ahead and call me whatever names you want, it just proves that im right... moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
Talk for yourself, I went to a pub these days where one of those unknown bands was playing and I got interested in their music. Totally regional and totally the type of thing you don't seem to like. Too bad for you little one.
Just because I don't agree with you, you sink to insults.
O rly? Can't think of ppl doing exactly the same all the time here in TD can we? And at least I insult with class if you think about. But pro tip for you: it wasn't an insult, it was mockery.
Until then, it's farewell to you.
You won't be missed, after all you managed to add absolutely nothing to the discussion other than teaching TD readers a few Brazilian swearing words. Good riddance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
Polished shit is still shit. Proof that you don't want to engage with anyone who doesn't agree with you.
"You won't be missed, after all you managed to add absolutely nothing to the discussion other than teaching TD readers a few Brazilian swearing words. Good riddance!"
If you don't think I added anything, why did you respond? Oh, wait, because I made points, raised issues, and the only way you could reply is "I personally don't do that, so nobody else does it either". The world doesn't run according to your standards
"it's farewell to you."
That wasn't for me... it was for you. Go away, toady.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
Music, culture, and community have many local aspects—but they are also global and borderless. These two things co-exist.
You can accuse me of not understanding basics all you want, but the issue is actually that you are far too simplistic in your own understanding, and you have no ability to see the bigger picture or the broader reality beyond the obvious, basic truisms that you spout. What's really happened is this: culture has left you behind. You're tracing borders in a world that is rapidly erasing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What Is A 'Regional' Act?
There are bands which are big in your area, but few people outside of the area have heard of. They are often breakout bands for your region, maybe getting some local airplay or whatnot. They may be the side stage or filler bands for larger festival shows / tours. They are hot locally, but not really known outside of a region or area.
With CanCon laws, many regional bands get a little more coverage in Canada, as radio stations try hard to fill their required Canadian content mix. It's one of the reasons why it pays to record and "distribute" in Canada, because CanCon really can boost you up all across the country.
Again, it's a pretty basic thing. Leigh seems to have a problem with the basics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There you go again with your attempts to paint people into a small corner. No, I don't like Justin Beiber, but plenty of people do. That happens to be a common language for a lot of teenage girls. Thankfully, popular music isn't so narrow as to be All Justin All The Time.
Why do you insist on trying to be such a prick?
My common language with people is anything from old NIN to Frank Zappa to some of the latest gen of synth-pop and synth-angst acts. You have a few in your area, like Trust that you might want to check out (they are a regional act... you might understand better one day that concept).
The world of media may be global, but since we don't have a star trek teleporter yet, the live aspects of music are still local, regional, national, and then international.
It is pretty basic stuff, things I would figure someone trying to pass themselves off as being knowledgeable in the field would know. Perhaps you need to head back to school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand it.
The world of media may be global, but since we don't have a star trek teleporter yet, the live aspects of music are still local, regional, national, and then international.
We are freaking seeing a huge global phenomenon with that funny korean ganganam music and it has absolutely nothing to do with your damn labels. Everybody talks about that because the Internet has enabled it to be a worldwide thing. And copyright has absolutely NOTHING to do with that. You disdain the regional artists but there are many regional stuff here in Brazil, hell there's even regionalized content in São Paulo that's just one state. And yet I can be in touch with what happens 1000 quilometers away from me because we have the internet. I can eve donate to regional artists that probably won't be coming to my city (due to your music business exclusivity from the damned labels and TV stations) because of the Internet.
Get a clue, you don't know what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. You mean like you have been doing the entire time by trying to belittle all indie music as worthless, and making countless broad proclamations about the listening/buying/downloading habits of everyone here?
Can't take what you dish out, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
no it doesnt, go crawl back in your shillbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Stop assuming that pirating is what most of the people here do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey give a guy a break - that's as close to correct as he's likely to get... that's why marketing works. Nothing whatsoever to do with "good music", people just "want" what people are told is good day in day out in every media they come into contact with. The fact that the experience continually dissapoints rarely prevents people from buying the next lie (um.. I meant marketing campaign). This is especially true when for many people, music is a background to whatever else they are doing so they don't care enough to seek out other sources if they can get it without effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What happens once an artist gets"taken under the wing" of a label? The label dictates what art is. Is that what we want? It is surely what we got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That artists make more money touring and "hanging out" as their brand that goes into their pocket rather than the labels?
From a system still pimping out Ke$ha singles, they sometimes have albums and shelve them for years because the tea leaves say it is to soon.
I'd rather listen to an hour of unknowns music than an hour of beiber and ke$ha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah totally, nobody has ever said that. Nobody has ever built an entire campaign around that assertion. Never. Not once.
like your joyless noises Marcus
Ooh, you're back. Thanks for being such a devoted listener! Now that you're bitching at me again I can count on another huge rush of attention to my hobby tunes. You're the best promoter I've ever had.
The results are there, we have moved from album every year in the late 60s, early 70s to album every other year (80s and 90s) to the current 2 or 3 a decade pace for most artists.
Way to get my point about recorded music. Your reading comprehension is truly superhuman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fuck you. You're a gigantic douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Any how many songs on those "every other year" albums were genuinely good songs and how many were the filler crap required to meet the label's quantity quota? In my experience, lots of the latter!
Quantity does not equal quality. Only a label hack would think so. Are you a label hack?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That would be a sad thing if it were happening. Fortunately, it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh god no, I wouldn't listen to your shit. One rousing rendition of your "talent" is enough to turn my stomach, I wouldn't dare go back for a second helping. Based on the stunning YouTube video count, nobody else is doing it either. Your stuff is so bad nobody even wants to turn it into the but end of a joke. That's sad.
Trying to pass it off as a hobby only shows a serious level of denial. You (and people like you) are the future of the music industry, if I understand you right.
Now, having said that...
"Home Taping is Killing Music": I find it incredibly interesting that you must (a) count on something nearly 2 decades, and (b) a campaign who's meaning has been completely manged by the piracy apologists
Piracy wasn't killing music in the sense of stopping people from playing music. You know that, you understand that. However, it was hurting music in taking away some of the money that would have gone to artists or been used for more new artists.
These days, seeing that piracy has helped to take away more than 50% of the income in music sales... only someone like you would try to deny those facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Piracy didn't do that. The recording industry's over-reaction to piracy did that.
[ 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:
Such a revisionism. The music market and demand for recorded music virtually exploded at that time. The "home taping is killing music" wolf-crying was completely misguided.
I am quite convinced the same story is going on now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the reality of why the 'known' artists produce less albums than they used to is because they are getting old, could easily keel over in the middle of a performance (God forbid!) and that they have made a fortune during previous years. that doesn't mean they are less enjoyed, just less enthralled by the whole process. the internet has changed how we do things. it has changed how so many things are done. it hasn't killed music off. it has made it more accessible to more people. the labels themselves are their own worse enemy. failing to keep up with what customers want, through shear stupidity, or whatever isn't helping anyone. give what is wanted and make money. dont give it and suffer. simples!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fundemental change is for a reason, hard to deny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
The best kind of culture is the kind that remains stagnant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Label manufactured pop-tarts have been doing that decades. The only thing that has changed in the last decade is that they're now auto-tuned to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This isn't new. In fact, this used to be really -really- common back in the early days of recorded music. I wouldn't be surprised, actually, if more music is being performed by the writer now than ever, though I wouldn't personally know of any place with numbers dealing with that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"because there isn't much incentive for them to write new music unless they really, really feel like it"
If this were true it would be a very good thing. Music written by people who don't really feel like it is just mass-produced, soulless "content," and there is no point giving people incentives to create any more of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The results are there, we have moved from album every year in the late 60s, early 70s to album every other year (80s and 90s) to the current 2 or 3 a decade pace for most artists. "
Oh look, they aren't pumping out a ton of crap like they used to. I love that you don't have to buy an entire album just to hear that one good song on it. I think the majority agree.
" The sharing of the proverbial joyous noise is key and the driving element in all."
Then why do you want to kill off sharing? Let me guess, MONEY. "Money, it's a crime."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they don't really, really feel like it, they are just losing their artistic urge to create.
If only monetary incentive motivates them, they are just losing their artistic urge to create.
And there's an army of people really hungry to express themselves and get heard by as many people as they can reach.
There's no loss for the public from your argument. More like describing the process by which the more artists get big and wealthy, the more lazy it makes them. It perfectly applies to many artists and bands who got big, don't really need to work for a living anymore and and only their initial few records were really defining them.
In other words copyright is also a clear incentive to rest on their laurels for those lucky enough to have gone rich from their success. Who knows what they'd had given the world had they stayed hungry.
And props to those artists who get successful and still feel the urge to create. And who never blame the public or the lack of incentive for their own lack of creativity or sometimes failing to receive a positive echo from their hard work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody? I guess all the major labels & RIAA don't count as somebody then because that's what they've been explicitly saying for at least the last 40 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you dont know that !!! you're only guessing, and making your own opinion, how do you know what that 35,000 yo whistle was used for, it might have been used in ritual sacrifice, or a 'call to war', in fact most music in pre-history is used for WAR or killing..
that at least is well documented, but for you to state that 'because someone found an old instrument' that makes recored music today any more or any less ANYTHING.. !!
I dont see how anything to do with pre-history has ANYTHING to do with recorded music in 2012..
So the Chinese had computers thousands of years ago, SO WHAT ?? what does that have to do with computers today ?
also if you look at the development of music in relation to mans evolution you will find COPYRIGHT to be extensively employed, through history (have you ever studied music history) there have always been melodies or MUSIC that you WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY, and OFTEN NOT ALLOWED TO LISTEN TOO.. only certain people of a certain status were allowed to either play or enjoy this music.
You have no idea if that applied 35,000 years ago, but the is nothing in your statements that showed that was not the case.
If you own a guitar you dont allready get the right to play any music that is for guitar, it's not the instrument that matters, it's the music itself.
if it's not the instrument now, it was not the instrument EVER, therefore finding an old flute (whistle) does not have any impact, or make any statement towards the present day recorded music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm... yes I do. You seem to be unclear on what copyright means. It doesn't stop anyone from playing anything -- it just (unfairly and unjustly) stops them from releasing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this article is based on your believe that because an instrument survived, so did the music.. clearly that is not the case.
we have the instrument, but the music did not survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
we have the instrument, but the music did not survive.
That's a lie that I'm not even bothering to address. But then again, I'm listening to the music of a regional artist that only recently got a label deal. I'd guess music died where you live, sad. We can export artists though, I know plenty of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it has cut musicians incomes in half
The first BitTorrent search engines debuted in 2004. Recorded music is down worldwide from $27B in1999 (Napster) to $15B in 2011. Video Game revenue is down 13% from 2007. Those are real jobs lost that are not coming back until the public realizes that these are your friends and neighbors whose careers are being destroyed by lack of copyright enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it has cut musicians incomes in half
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoops! Let me add something here...
Changing markets create new scarcities. Artists must adapt by selling those new those scarcities or they perish. Souza thought recordings robbed professional artists of their ability to earn a living performing. If live recordings didn't kill professional musicians, then maybe piracy isn't the devil it's made out to be, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoops! Let me add something here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoops! Let me add something here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whoops! Let me add something here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoops! Let me add something here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoops! Let me add something here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoops! Let me add something here...
Such as ?? can you give us some examples of "new scarcities" please?
so what IS IT ?? are you asking people to pay for ?? something called "new scarcities" just does not cut it..
what are these new scarce things that are going to make us like the music (work) they create anymore than liking that work on it's own merits.
and define how changing markets determine what these 'new scarcities' are and how they are to be used?
otherwise your just talking fluff and BS.
Markets ALWAYS CHANGE, a market that does not change will wither and die..
so what your saying is..
"Changing markets leads to changing markets". !!!! wow. we know that allready.. what you say is 'new scarcities' are also 'created' and can be employed !??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whoops! Let me add something here...
Convenience—this has always been a value add, sure, but convenience has shot to critical importance in the Digital Age where we all want instant access to everything. Thus, artists who position their work as stupid easy to download, use, and share will see their fan base grow faster than artists who lock up content with egregious DRM and myopic paywalls.
As for the other scarcities, I'd suggest reading Techdirt for a while. We talk about it some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and btw: THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...and btw: THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...and btw: THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ...and btw: THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...and btw: THANKS!
Except details like that aren't common knowledge, they super skerit methods are often hidden in shadow.
This is Troll 2.0
Whois with private registrar, trendy use of the web, presenting the corporate message in a less commanding tone.
Its ethical to not take other peoples hard work, pay no attention to the **AA's who get their budgets from the profits of other peoples work.
Sadly it gets cranky to quickly, like Troll v1.5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...and btw: THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...and btw: THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"People will always listen to music, just as they have since some caveman banged stones together in a way that pleased the tribe. It's the second caveman that we have to watch out for, the one who walked up and told the tribe that only the stones he licensed would be permitted"
We've learned nothing from history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its a decade old and its the same game we play today.
Unless we do something its all going to go away!!!!
But then we are further away from the Sony Rootkit fiasco now...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5020992-1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
piracy has regionally killed sailing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
probably if there were no laws against piracy, piracy would kill sailing (everywhere)..
so the laws limit the extreems at both ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough to go around
The era of more and more musicians making a 'decent' living out of their art is beginning.
Bring it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both you and I know that music isn't going to die -- there will always be people creating music. As far as the lack of quality music these days, much of that is due to the major labels manufacturing bad (non-)artists and shoving them down our throats. Even theme songs and incidental BGM for film, TV and video games have gone downhill. Our culture has taken a beating and we seriously need for quality music to return.
Perhaps it has something to do with the cultural shift from pre-programmed entertainment to the open platform that is the internet. The labels want nothing more than hostile takeover of the internet so that only the artists that pass through their corporate-biased filter get attention. So long as websites and services play their game and put the spotlight on the label artists, the independents will continue to be marginalized, regardless if their music is good.
It's going to take an incredible new artist, wholly independent, to make a substantial impact in the industry and cause others to try and follow suit. Until that happens, nothing is going to change -- we're going to keep drudging up the same old talking points, perhaps with a new spin, and the same back-and-forth arguments ad nausea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eliminating the "professional" musician
But I think the wall between musician and fan will disappear as music tools become smarter, easier, and cheaper. The revolution I see is not how to support a class of professional musicians, but how to give everyone the tools to make their own music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eliminating the "professional" musician
It's already happened to recording. A lot of people don't bother to go into a studio. They do it themselves at home.
It happened in photography long ago when cheap, easy-to-use cameras became available. It's happening even more now that so many people have good cameras in their phones. Sure, there are a few professionals who get hired, but for most photography, people do it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eliminating the "professional" musician
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason you are seeing a drop in sales with the major labels is choice. The Internet has given us access to more music than ever and the best music is outside of the major labels, who are concerned with making a fast buck rather than long term investment.
Even 20 years ago, we did not have the same access to great independent music we have today and, honestly, would you rather support the talent and creativity of independent musicians or the generic rubbish trotted out by the big record labels?
I have not even listened to the charts in about 15 years so, thank you, major labels but you can keep your shite. I will continue to support my favourite independent musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They've known about digital from the 80s, and they still are signing contracts with artists that do not clearly spell out the split for digital sales... this should make it really clear they still think digital is a fad that will die off anyday now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, it's discussed very openly (if you would open your eyes). COMBINED sales of recorded material including digital is still net dollars down 58% in a decade. It's a fact, not something that can get denied.
Licensing revenue (for use on movies and such) is up a fair bit, but nowhere near to make up for other losses. That licensing revenue mostly is because modern movies prefer known artists (and often known songs) to having their own soundtrack. It's often quicker, cheaper, and more socially connected to license known music than make your own (and another way that less new music is produced by these artists).
"They've known about digital from the 80s, and they still are signing contracts with artists that do not clearly spell out the split for digital sales... this should make it really clear they still think digital is a fad that will die off anyday now..."
... and artists keep signing them, every day.
Stupid artists, right? I guess those artists feel digital is a fad as well.
Really, what is a fad is people like you getting focused on the delivery method and forgetting the product. You are distracted by the unimportant part, and like a child, you keep yelling and trying to get people to look at the unimportant part. The music is important, it's a scarcity in real terms, and one that few people on this site ever really want to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Artists have soooo many choices to make it "big".
There is this illusion that you have to have a record deal to make money.
How did that work out for Eminem?
He had to sue them because they tried to weasel out of paying him money due to him... and then they expensed their defense of the lawsuit against what they owed him.
How did that work out in Canada where if they had to pay the same fees they demand everyone else pays for infringment, they owed over 6 billion dollars. They settled for much less and then one sued their insurance company to make them pay to cover the costs of their illegal activities.
Music is important... really. Ke$ha has super high coverage, and is an untalented addict of some variety. They waste how much money promoting her next album vs finding new acts?
How many albums have been shelved by labels trying to work out the best way to sell it... that doesn't seem to involve getting it to the fans quickly.
The music is not scarce, any asshole can sing.
What is scarce is talent, and it remains undiscovered because they waste money promoting Justin Beiber.
Every major act is now a "brand". Because that is the trend, how soon until the Black Eyed Peas release their new kitchen appliance line? Artists are adapting to a changing market where just because you recorded a popular album that one time doesn't mean your entitled to live forever on the "profits" (minus **AA's accounting fees of course).
The delivery method is nearly free, yet the price took a long time to reflect that. Some artists still think digital kills their "integrity" as an artist... because fans don't have to pay $20 for a plastic disc thats mostly crap filler anymore. They are terrified of making less money and pull back and *gasp* they make less money because they don't embrace the reality of the world.
The world changed and the **AA's have kept fighting to avoid dealing with that because it might lower their paycheck. How is it these poor broke ripped off labels were able to cough up 4 billion for the carcass of EMI (which failed due to morons at the helm not piracy) when music is so devalued and they are so broke?
Maybe because they are lying once again and hoping no one will deal with the truth that the execs are getting raises while blaming the pay cuts for everyone else on piracy and not their own greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, we are not forgetting that some people, like yourself, view music as a mere "product".
We are remembering what the joy of music is and always has been about - shared communal cultural experiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And we all know that it has nothing to do with competing with other forms of entertainment. /s
Videogames haven't blown up and become mainstream. People do not have less disposable income then they had previously. Etc etc etc. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing would make me happier than to see the major labels go belly up; bankrupt. We're down to three and hoping it reaches two. It's the one way to force a change.
I'll be cheering on the side lines when it happens. There is nothing these lobbying outfits have done that doesn't just PmeO with their greedy actions. That to me speaks far more about why they need to go belly up. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch to make them unemployed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because then it will prove that you people rip off indie labels. The major label excuse will be gone.
What will the rationalization be then? "Indie label accounting"?
[ 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:
It said:
"Yes, it will be great when the majors are all gone.
Because then it will prove that you people rip off indie labels. The major label excuse will be gone.
What will the rationalization be then? "Indie label accounting"?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to the AC above all pirates ever download is label stuff. Indie stuff is for nobodies who have absolutely no social life.
Unless you'd like to tell the other AC calling us pirates that he's wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because then it will prove that you people rip off indie labels. The major label excuse will be gone.
What will the rationalization be then? "Indie label accounting"?"
Hopefully the indies will take note of the errors the majors are making and will learn from them becoming enablers that will help spread the word and connect the artists to the fans. They will not monetize on mere sales of plastic discs or digital files but rather in providing a service to the artists and to the fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They also have to survive first, and be able to sign artists that will have wider appeal beyond just what you (and everybody else here who's commented) love to listen to-last time I checked, grunge/alternative/college-people rawk wasn't lighting up the world or making the world's people sit up and take notice. Also, in case you haven't heard or have been taking notice, most of the world's population is/are non-whites who haven't been raised on what you consider to be 'good' music to begin with-they love dance and most of the pop with a dance beat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Better thing to do (especially if you're an American?) Legislate for the radio industry (the real culprit in all of this, IMHO) to be regulated like it used to be, which might have an effect on what stations become popular enough; if said stations are the kind that emphasize artists like Bon Iver or Arcade Fire, and they become popular in their market because of what they do, then things might get 'better' (no pop music overwhelming everything) instead of 'worse'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The recording industry is a tiny, tiny fraction of the world economy. Even if it collapses all at once, I doubt it would be more than a temporary blip.
Nice idea about returning to media ownership restrictions though, and not just for radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My understanding of the sentiment is that what the record companies are doing is not sustainable and harmful to just about everyone. If you believe that they are unwilling or unable to adapt to the current realities (which all the evidence indicates), then the only question is how long until they go out of business and then we can move on to something better.
However, on the whole it's not clear to me what the best scenario would be: a slow decline giving everyone time to adjust, find new jobs, etc, or a quick death so we can get started on the next phase sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, I'll remind you that not everybody cares for what would come out of these independent record companies that everybody here hope would take over after the collapse of the four big companies. What would happen if nobody cared for white people alternative rock/punk/country/whatever? And what if said companies fill the gap for those of us (which is most of the population) that cares for and likes pop and dance? Do you or anybody else here have a plan to cater to that section of the world's population? Or do you want them to just dive off of a cliff since you don't give a shit about them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you discount the benefit to me and other commenters? Musicians will benefit by not being sucked into abusive contracts. Fans will benefit by knowing that if they buy music, much of the money will go to the artist. They will also have greater access to music services and possible free or cheaper music. Investors and entrepreneurs will be able to develop those music services without fear of lawsuits or extortionate royalties. And the economy will benefit by not sending money to middlemen who provide little or no benefit to anyone.
Again, I'll remind you that not everybody cares for what would come out of these independent record companies that everybody here hope would take over after the collapse of the four big companies. What would happen if nobody cared for white people alternative rock/punk/country/whatever?
You seem to be asserting that without a large label, it's impossible to make anything other than "white people alternative rock/punk/country/whatever". I'm confused; can you explain your reasoning?
And what if said companies fill the gap for those of us (which is most of the population) that cares for and likes pop and dance? Do you or anybody else here have a plan to cater to that section of the world's population?
If people enjoy pop and dance music, someone will make it. Again, I don't really understand what you're getting at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, how sure are you that any of the independent companies won't get and develop middlemen of their own? What makes you so sure of human nature that what happens now won't happen again? Just because a company's independent doesn't mean it's perfect; things can change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't answered it because I don't understand it and you haven't explained it. What does the major labels going out of business have to do with genres of music? I seriously don't get what you're saying.
The whole wishing for WMG, EMI, Sony, and UMG to die is (to be frank) you hating urban, pop, and dance because they're the top dog as far as what people like to listen to in music is concerned.
My taste in music has absolutely nothing to do with it. I enjoy some rap (is that what "urban" is code for?), dance and pop now and then.
Is your need to be entertained worth the loss of these companies, the jobs that people have with them, and the legacies that they represent?
Did you pay any attention at all to my earlier reply where I mentioned all kinds of benefits that we can enjoy? Now, if we can get there with the major labels, that would be even better. But so far they haven't shown any signs they're willing to do anything future oriented, other than obstruct progress.
Also, how sure are you that any of the independent companies won't get and develop middlemen of their own? What makes you so sure of human nature that what happens now won't happen again?
Middlemen are fine. It's useless middlemen I have a problem with. And it won't happen again because the reason it happened before doesn't exist anymore: natural barriers to entry around marketing and distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO IT DIDNT.. If it did you would have it right !!!
BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MUSIC, YOU HAVE THE PIECES OF AN INSTRUMENT..
THEREFORE THE MUSIC (itself) NOT survive..
All you have is an indication that there was music at that time, BUT you know it DID NOT SURVIVE, (the music)..
what you have proven is that music (itself) DOES NOT survive over long periods of time
we know that because people have found instruments, but NO MUSIC, proving music existed then, and confirming it DOES NOT SURVIVE..
we have found that THE ONLY MUSIC THAT DOES SURVIVE any period of time is music that is recorded !!!
SO recorded music survives much longer than non-recorded
therefore the ONLY conclusion you can make is that the recording industry ensures music survives for long periods
oh dear, you managed to prove (beyond boubt) the exact opposite that you intended to prove..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've come out of hibernation! Watch out for those snows down under, though!
You're missing the point massively, as usual. So what if the particular tunes on a bone flute aren't remembered. We don't know if they have or haven't found their way into other cultural leanings. But it shows that music was around for about 350x the time we've had fixed recordings of music. However, what really breaks your argument is that we've had actual music available for most of the last 500-1000 years (5-10x the label era) which is still known. Seems like a lot of composers and folk tunes got well known enough to survive, when only written down or played to a new generation. Besides, given that a CD may not be readable in 50 years, let alone 1000, it's hardly much more permanent than that bone flute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT recording KILLS MUSIC !!!
the instrument did not survive (it was broken when found)
by inference when they would the instrument they inferred it was used to make music..
BUT THE MUSIC DID NOT SURVIVE, we have none of it, we have no idea what it sounded like, we have NO evidence of it's existance (except for the instrument)..
the instrument almost survived, (but was broken) and the MUSIC DID NOT SURVIVE..
if the music did not survive, and today most music that does surive is recorded music, you can only conclude that RECORDED MUSIC last for a long time, and non recorded music DOES NOT..
So in 35,000 years time, if they find a guitar with "Hendrix" written on it, they will be able to search history and most probably have on file a recording (even video) of Jimi banging out "stars and stripes".. Thanks to the recording industry that music has a far greater chance of surviving and existing in 35,000 years than the tunes that were played on the flute 35,000 years ago..
This is clear proof that without the music industry, and the recording of works that they exist at all..
NOT having a music industry, and a recording industry is how you KILL MUSIC, for example 35,000 year old flute music. (RIP)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT recording KILLS MUSIC !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT recording KILLS MUSIC !!!
How can you come to that conclusion? We don't know how long the music was passed down to subsequent generations. For all we know it could be tens of thousands of years. All we know for certain about recorded music is that it can last about a century. Unfortunately, most of the recording media aren't designed for longevity so without backups it will be lost. It would also be a good idea to save those recordings in as many formats as possible to increase the chance that at least one playback mechanism is available in the future. It's unfortunate that the mainstream industry frowns upon that.
And have you heard some of the stuff coming out these days? The recording industry is definitely how you kill music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT recording KILLS MUSIC !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT recording KILLS MUSIC !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT recording KILLS MUSIC !!!
80's came calling.
To record anything today you don't need a big studio.
Like photographs that don't need you to build a dark room anymore or pay somebody else to develop the film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They call it piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music
* make that "bizzarre"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music
>It said music as a human activity survived,
Did you happen to read the Title of the article ??
Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age
yes, the activity of making the music survived, but the MUSIC itself is UNKNOWN to us, therefore we can conclude it did not survive
what we call cave art might have been a "user manual", what we call music might have been a "duck caller" or a method for distance communication (we do not know for sure)..
all we can do is make inferences, we find a flint spear tip we can assume they were hunting, but it's only a guess it might of been used for other purposes (cerimonial).
we can conclude that they probably made music by inference, but as we do not have ANY examples of that music we can correctly conclude that this music no longer exists, it therefore did not survive..
that means unless it's documented, or recorded (in physics, contains INFORMATION) then it does not exist.
so you can only conclude from this discovery is that music can cease to exist, and does cease to exist even today...
Ive done it myself, I have recorded my own performances (lead blues guitar), and after a time recorded over that performance, that particular piece of improvised guitar MUSIC no longer exists..
same applies to live performances, that are not recorded or the recordings are destroyed.
so if you have nothing recorded in the first place, you have nothing to pirate. music pirates rely on the fact that recordingn industries make music available to pirate, if they did not exist, neither would the pirates..
pirates fill a demand with supply derived from other sources, they by definition do not create, they copy. It will never kill the music industry or music itself, only a fool would believe or state that.
Im just saying it's a really stupid argument trying to show that because 'an instrument' was found dated to 35k yo then music itself cannot 'go away' or be killed.
the finding of an instrument but NO music would make a strong case for the exact opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music
no actual music has survived from that time, but we know that they HAD music, so we can correctly conclude that the music did not survive.. we can prove that by showing an instrument HAS survived, but (again) no music !!!
BUt there WAS music, but it did not survive.. we know there WAS MUSIC because we found an instrument..
so if wood floats she's a witch, what else floats ?? (a. A rock ?? )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in either case regardless of peoples feellings on the matter the only thing that really can be found to be non subjective and true is that these people the the epitome of extremism destruction. its one thing to go after someone for stealing a song but to say that music will end if you dont accept there refusal to innovate or that if you dont pass a law that says playing cellphone ringtones in public will have to be payed for each *use* becuase it is a *public performance* or that selling something that is made overseas at home after you have already bought it and using crazed rationalizations that have niether sense nor merit that only you and your benefactors agree with is just madness at the cliff of what humanity can comprehend. it has to be stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
Besides, plenty of other things have bad effects on the economy, such as politicians and bankers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
or mamals, sure some species of mammals may go extinct, but there will be some that continue (until the big one)..
It's too general, as if 'music' was just thing,, (only one song for example).. how do you know if there are not countless works of music that were never created because it was not viable to do so..
dont forget pirates can only copy what allready exists, if it does not exist it cannot be pirated.. pirates would cease to exist if the recording industry ceased to exist..
you NEED them, they do not NEED you.. you cannot live and do what you want (pirate) if they do not exist to provide the material for you to pirate.
but the reverse is not true, if you ceased to exist, the recording industry would still be there. they dont need you, you need them.. you just dont like playing by the rules.. and are receiving some pushback.
No I do not believe piracy will kill music, more the opposite I see the music industry killing piracy. Even if by "starve the beast methods.
the pirates like to try to 'play down' the damage they do, and the music industry likes to 'play up' the damage..
neither are probably right, and the reality would probably be somewhere between the two extremes..
at least the existing music industry players are doing their work generally within the limits of the law, the pirates on the other hand continuously complain about the existing laws, that alone says volumes about the attitude of both parties.
one group does what it can within the laws (and future) laws and the other complains about the laws and provides justifications as to why they should be broken.
I find it difficult to work out what the pirate group are complaining about !
the artists not being paid, the managers getting paid ? profits being made, music being producted ???
what is it you dont like, the artists signed a contract that they agreed with, the managers earn their money by doing their jobs and music is created and promoted
what part of that system do you have a problem with ?
if they did not do what they do, you simply would have nothing to pirate !! you NEED them.. for your product..
if they do not create that product you have no product to pirate, no matter how noble it makes you fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
but the reverse is not true, if you ceased to exist, the recording industry would still be there. they dont need you, you need them.
You went astray by assuming pirates and customers are two disjoint groups of people. They're not. People who pirate in general also pay. In fact, they pay greater amounts of money for entertainment than people who don't pirate. So in fact an artist who wants to make money from his art needs customers (many of whom will be pirates too). But the customers don't need that particular artist; there's a glut of people ready and willing to give their art to the world, and many have talent.
if they did not do what they do, you simply would have nothing to pirate !! you NEED them.. for your product..
But no laws are needed for them to do what they do. You couldn't stop people from creating if you tried, so why do we need laws to get them to do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
Know this, darryl. By your intelligence level, you will never, EVER be considered on par with the average Australian. You are the piece of piss at the bottom of the Sniper's Jarate jar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
Yeah that was me. :-)
any unemployed people are bad for a nation, and any company that goes out of business (especially companies with a prestigious history like EMI and the record companies that make up Warner Music Group, or Kodak) is bad for any nation and the world.
Actually neither of those claims are true. An economy needs a little bit of unemployment, or it's too hard to find people to hire. And businesses that don't compete effectively must be allowed to fail. Adjusting things to keep companies from going out of business is very bad for the economy long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music must be pretty much immortal by now...
Yeah that was me. :-)
any unemployed people are bad for a nation, and any company that goes out of business (especially companies with a prestigious history like EMI and the record companies that make up Warner Music Group, or Kodak) is bad for any nation and the world.
Actually neither of those claims are true. An economy needs a little bit of unemployment, or it's too hard to find people to hire. And businesses that don't compete effectively must be allowed to fail. Adjusting things to keep companies from going out of business is very bad for the economy long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi I'm Bryan...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]