Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans

from the an-artist's-an-artist,-no-matter-how-small dept

When talking about the success of musicians adopting business models around the economics we discuss here, people often complain that it "only works for big artists" or "only works for the little guys," so much so that someone dubbed the exceptionalism as "Masnick's Law." I admit that it was easy to feel this way when Trent Reznor launched the Nine Inch Nails iPhone app. How many less well known artists would benefit from (or be able to develop) their own mobile app? Well, a company called Gigdoggy recently launched a mobile "Fanteraction" platform that lets bands easily create mobile websites for their gigs. In a blog post chronicling a show in which the platform was used and promoted, the first artist to play didn't really push it, but the second artist, Greg (one of the creators), made a point of explaining it to people. Basically, by queueing up each song on the site, an artist is able to provide lyrics and additional information that the audience can access via a mobile device while enjoying the performance. It's web-based, so it's accessible from different platforms without the need for downloads (or the risk of getting banned by Apple). Greg was able to get some people interested and following along. One audience member even prompted him when he forgot the lyrics to a verse! The platform is in its early stages, but it'll be interesting to see how it develops and what people do with it. At the very least, it's a good illustration that you don't need to be playing in stadiums to find a use for this sort of thing.

Filed Under: connect with fans, fanteraction, music, musicians
Companies: gigdoggy

No Musicians Have Ever Been Guaranteed To Make Money Selling Music

from the let's-get-rid-of-this-myth dept

Another day, another "pundit" takes a righteous stand about the music business dealing with "thieves," but gets the whole story wrong again. Someone who prefers to remain anonymous alerted us to a writeup by a reporter/analyst, Ellen Ratner, entitled simply "stop stealing from artists," which discusses a musician friend who apparently is suffering because "She can't be guaranteed that what she records or performs will be compensated." Can someone point out when anyone was ever "guaranteed" compensation for recording a song?

Also, as the anonymous submitter pointed out, the artist in question seems to be doing just fine on her site, with a list of tour dates, and a merchandise site that includes some unique items (signed concert poster, handmade cowboy hats) in addition to CDs. Basically, she's like pretty much any musician both now and in the past, who has every opportunity to get "compensated," simply by putting in place good business models combined with good music. No one should have a right to compensation if they don't give people a reason to buy.

The rest of the article is a confused jumble of a few different issues, from performance rights, to China, to (seriously) comparing music sharing to copying a book on a photocopier. I can understand how someone approaching these issues for the first time might take such a simplistic view, but it's quite a jump to go from "it is hard to dispute the fact that the songwriter/artist is entitled to fair compensation for their work" to "Congress needs to recognize this and act now." Why? Every musician has numerous business models at his or her disposal to get fair compensation for their work. There's no need for Congress to get involved. What Ratner seems to be saying is that her musicians don't want fair compensation -- they want guaranteed, gov't-backed compensation. In other words, she seems to think the government should be providing welfare for musicians. If that's what you believe, then fine, defend why musicians deserve welfare. But don't claim that musicians have ever been "guaranteed" compensation.

Filed Under: business models, guarantees, musicians

More Musicians Discover That Online Is The Path To Fame

from the and-so-it-goes dept

Whenever we point to examples of musicians succeeding by embracing what the digital world enables, we always get some angry comments, often from folks claiming to be music industry insiders insisting that what we describe is really impossible -- especially for unknown artists. They say this despite repeated evidence this is untrue, including an increasing number of musicians who pulled off success stories. The response is always a search to find exceptions -- especially when it comes to live shows. One popular comment is that it's impossible for unknown musicians to ever get gigs. And, of course, there are some who still insist that you have to spend a ton of money to do a decent recording to get noticed.

This is, of course, ridiculous. The Wall Street Journal pops up with the story of Justin Vernon and his band Bon Iver. Vernon recorded a bunch of songs at his parents' hunting cabin in Wisconsin with a computer and some software, and put them on MySpace, where he was able to build up a huge following -- often by giving the music out for free. While he eventually went a more traditional route -- signing with a music label, his success suggests those criticisms are once again unfounded. This, of course, does not mean that every musician who records some songs on his computer will be a huge success, but those who say it's impossible are going to have to dig deeper, as it appears pretty much every day we hear of a few examples of musicians making all of this work despite the naysayers.

Filed Under: bon iver, justin vernon, musicians, online

Time For Journalists To Take A Lesson From (Smart) Musicians

from the the-model-has-changed... dept

These days there are a few types of stories we see and write about consistently: (1) the legacy recording industry's troubles in adapting to a changing market, (2) the ability of a bunch of motivated, smart musicians, bucking the old way of doing things and finding tremendous success and (3) the legacy newspaper industry's troubles in adapting to a changing market. Given (1) and (2), you would think that (3) might lead to the obvious (4) of a bunch of motivated, smart journalists, bucking the old way of doing things and finding tremendous success. And, in fact, that is happening, particularly with upstart blogs, but it's not getting as much attention. Romenesko points us to what should be a must-read essay over at the Columbia Journalism Review, highlighting the fact that worried journalists should be studying up on the success stories of musicians who are succeeding even as the legacy recording industry struggles.

It makes a few key points (which I'm summarizing and paraphrasing in this list) that apply to both, but which don't always get as much attention in the journalism field:

• Give away as much content as possible to build a following
• Share, don't hoard
• Really engage and connect with your audience
• Be authentic
• Build your personal brand

Some journalists (and musicians!) will likely push back on some of these, but it seems pretty clear that the market is rewarding people who follow these steps, and punishing those who don't.

Filed Under: journalists, markets, musicians, strategies

Musicians Realize They Need Their Own Lobbying Group

from the but-will-it-be-more-of-the-same? dept

Many people realized long ago, that contrary to what the RIAA (and the politicians it supports) states, the RIAA is not representing the interests of "the music industry," but rather the interests of a few big record labels. Those interests are often directly at odds with the actual musicians. It's almost amazing it's taken this long, but a bunch of musicians, including Radiohead, are now forming their own lobbying/bargaining group, called the Featured Artists' Coalition. One of the goals, actually, is to put pressure on the record labels to allow the musicians to retain the copyright on their music, rather than handing it over to the labels. At the very least, it ought to be interesting to see the two of them fight this out. Though, my fear is that this new group really just promotes more of the same, and doesn't focus on new business model opportunities, but again looks for ways to "protect" rather than to innovate.

Filed Under: featured artists coalition, lobbying, lobbyists, musicians, radiohead

Musicians Whining About Fans With Mobile Phones

from the get-over-it dept

This past Friday night my favorite band was in town, so I went out to see them perform at a club in San Francisco. It was a fun time and they put on a great show (as they usually do) -- and it struck me early on that, even though the club was mobbed, and every once in a while I saw someone pull out a mobile phone to snap a photo or take a video, most people were just dancing and enjoying the show. Apparently, that's not necessarily the case everywhere. PicturePhoning alerts us to an article where a bunch of musicians are whining about fans in the audience with mobile phones. While they do make some interesting points about how fans these days are so focused on documenting their experiences that they might miss the actual experience, the whole "controversy" seems overblown. If the experience is good, the experience is good, and why should the musicians care how the fans experience it? And, as I can tell you from my experience on Friday night, when the experience is top notch, most people don't bother to pull out their mobile phones. So, perhaps rather than worrying about what the fans are doing, musicians should concentrate on putting on a better show.

Filed Under: concerts, mobile phones, musicians

Musician Claims He Was Tricked Into Appearing In Anti-Piracy Video

from the duped dept

Australian guitarist Lindsay McDougall was asked to appear in a film that he was told would be about what it was like to try surviving as a musician -- and only later realized that it was actually part of an industry-backed anti-piracy campaign. He's quite upset about it, as he claims he would never take part in an anti-piracy campaign if he'd known that's what it was:

"I have never come out against internet piracy and illegal downloading and I wouldn't do that - I would never put my name to something that is against downloading and is against piracy and stuff, it's something that I believe is a personal thing from artist to artist.... I would never be part of this big record industry funded campaign to crush illegal downloads, I'm not like [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich. I think it's bullshit, I think it's record companies crying poor and I don't agree with it....I'm from a punk rock band, it's all about getting your music out any way you can - you don't make money from the record, the record companies make the money from the record. If they can't make money these days because they haven't come onside with the way the world is going, it's their own problem."

The folks who put together the movie claim that they were clear upfront about the movie and who was making it. They also say that the movie only has a small segment that's anti-piracy -- but that's not quite accurate. The rest of the movie basically just plays up how tough it is to be a musician on a major label and how difficult it is to make money as a musician. While there are some segments about how useful the internet is, the overriding message is definitely a combination of "think of the poor musician" and "don't file share." It's definitely not a pure anti-piracy film, and it does have some balance -- but it definitely does push the anti-piracy message.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, australia, lindsay mcdougall, musicians, recording industry

Musicians Wondering Why They're Not Seeing A Cut Of RIAA Settlements

from the hey,-wait,-isn't-that-our-money? dept

The RIAA and its associated organizations certainly have a rather long history of not sharing the windfall from various lawsuits and settlements with the artists the RIAA likes to claim it represents -- and now those musicians are getting angry. Torrent Freak points us to the news that various managers and lawyers representing some big name musicians are discussing filing a lawsuit against the record labels for keeping all of that money. The record labels claim either that they are distributing some amount (if required to contractually) or that they're still trying to figure out how to "split" the money. Of course, they're also giving the usual story about how "after legal fees" there really isn't that much left to give out. Remember, though, when it comes to talk to the press or politicians, they'll swear up and down that these lawsuits are all for the musicians.

Filed Under: money, musicians, riaa, settlement
Companies: riaa

EU Looks To Extend Copyright And Blank Media Levies

from the welfare-for-musicians dept

Over in Europe, it appears that the European Union's internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy has decided that it's high time Europe turns copyright from an incentive system (as it was designed) into a welfare system for musicians. Despite the fact that the UK wisely rejected copyright extension for performance rights, McCreevy thinks that performance rights EU-wide should be extended from 50 years to 90 years.

It's important to be entirely clear here: this is a total and complete bastardization of copyright law. Copyright law was intended to grant the creator of content a deal: you create new content and we will give you a limited time monopoly on the rights to that content before passing it on to the public domain, from which everyone can benefit. It was designed as an incentive system, providing a gov't backed monopoly in exchange for the creation of content. By creating content and accepting that deal, musicians clearly said that it was a reasonable deal. To later go back and change the terms for content already created and extend copyright makes no sense and is violating the contract made with the public. You can't newly incent someone to create content that they already created 50 years ago. Thus, the only reason to extend copyright is if you believe that it's really a welfare system for musicians. If that's the case, then we should be explicit about it, and present it that way, rather than calling it copyright.

That's not all that McCreevy has up his sleeve either. He's also apparently a huge fan of copyright levies that add taxes to any blank media for the sake of reimbursing musicians just in case you happen to use that blank media to record unauthorized material. It's effectively a you must be a criminal tax. So, basically, McCreevy's plan is to treat all consumers as criminals, forcing them to cough up extra money for musicians, while also setting up a welfare system for musicians hidden in the copyright system. Musicians must love him, but it's a bit ridiculous for him to claim these proposals make sense because "copyright protection for Europe's performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances". Does Mr. McCreevy earn a living from something he did 50 years ago? Does Mr. McCreevy get a cut every time a consumer buys something just in case they commit a crime?

Filed Under: blank media levies, copyright, eu, musicians, welfare

RIAA Still Pretending It Represents Musicians

from the feed-a-musician,-support-those-who-ditch-the-RIAA dept

The somewhat redundant new copyright lobbying organization, The Copyright Alliance (who still doesn't seem to actually understand copyright) held a little dog and pony show in Washington DC last week. It didn't sound all that well attended from the News.com description, and even copyright's best friend, Rep. Howard Berman skipped the show, despite being a scheduled speaker. Perhaps even Berman has noticed the shifting tide. However, other than a sad display of solidarity, perhaps the most ridiculous statement on the event came from the RIAA, who hung up a t-shirt saying "Feed a musician. Download legally." That suggests that the RIAA still wants people to believe it represents the best interests of musicians. Such a concept becomes more laughable every day, as musicians seem to be shoving each other aside to bail out on the record labels to take their chances making money without them. The RIAA has never represented the interests of musicians, and it's sad that so many politicians act as if it does. The RIAA has always represented the interests of the recording industry -- whose own interests have often involved treating musicians terribly. So if you want to feed a musician, you're better off not paying money to the RIAA -- but figuring out ways to pay for things where the money actually goes back to the musician.

Filed Under: copyright, lobbyists, musicians
Companies: copyright alliance, riaa