Hard News: The song is not the same
314 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
that would depend upon what the actual costs of bringing said product from artist/label to paying customer.
In an ideal world, it would but, when you own the road to the market, you can charge the toll that you like. Once Apple is no longer the pre-eminent online marketplace (and that's happening as we type) their cut will reflect that they've got to attract artists by offering better deals.
At the moment, Apple have the soup-to nuts of online delivery mechanisms because of 2 things - the iPod, and dominance of major labels. Minor labels and independents are building their own business models and sites, and also using iTunes as well, and will, eventually, compete. And there are many (completely legal) tune sharing sites where you can download new music for free.
-
Interesting interview with the digital dude at Universal Music, covering DRM, iTunes, social networking sites etc.
-
I did, the System formats them into em's and strong's in order to display them. I'd try it again for experimentation but twice might make Russell growls at me.
I thought it was quite funny when I came back to it!
The System has developed a few quirks lately ...
-
Interesting interview with the digital dude at Universal Music
Now, that's a very different approach to what we've seen previously. Excellent.
-
The System has developed a few quirks lately ...
It's preparing to go sentient and destroy us all, no doubt.
-
And there are many (completely legal) tune sharing sites where you can download new music for free.
But to be honest Mark, much of that is crap, or at least it's music that most people don't want.
People generally want the music they are told they want, be it radio, peer pressure, 'hip' media, being part of a cool scene, or whatever, with a fraction coming from live but something needs to drive people to the right live acts. For every killer track or band you hear about there are 100 killer tracks that don't have the marketing or media momentum.
Which is what the record labels and iTunes do so well. They tell most people what to buy. Essentially what an act pays hands most of their money over to a label now for is marketing and placement.
Minor labels and independents are building their own business models and sites, and also using iTunes as well, and will, eventually, compete.
Agreed. I think iTunes' time in the sun will be relatively brief but they certainly changed the way middle America / Europe / NZ etc bought their music.
I tend to use other sites much more than iTunes (eMusic, Beatport, Boomkat etc) for the range and the ease.
-
But for all that, the basic premise that the artist signs to a label, pays all the costs out of their small fraction, and then owns nothing at the end, is one of the things that will cause labels to flounder.
you underplay the role of investment capital in that equation simon.
labels front for the quite sizable cost of putting the whole dance on.At the end of the day the artist may get between fuck all and squat, but you must compare that with what the artist would get at the end of the day if they did it all themselves, quite possibly a bank loan they can't pay off ie even less. majors are evil, understood, accurate perspective is important too though.
-
Once Apple is no longer the pre-eminent online marketplace (and that's happening as we type) their cut will reflect that they've got to attract artists by offering better deals.
its hasn''t work that way with the mobile phone market in nz for far far to long.
-
you underplay the role of investment capital in that equation simon.
labels front for the quite sizable cost of putting the whole dance on.No, because most of that investment you talk about is marketing cost. The actual cost of making the record is a very small, and for many acts, increasingly smaller part of the equation. And for most acts the cost of recording and marketing is substantially less if they go the independent route, be it via a label or a production deal or the thousand other options that have opened up since digital turned the world on its end. Until 5 years ago, the only real way an artist could get a recording career was to sign one of those onerous deals. That is no longer the case, although they clearly still do.
I read NZ Musician when I was back and it had a story about a NZ musician doing well overseas in the charts, mostly from digital. He's signed to a major and you read the story and its glowing. Read between the lines and you groan with dismay though. But I agree though, he may have had little choice but to take the deal offered as the alternative in his particular cased wouldn't be a very hard, almost impossible road.
-
cased wouldn't be a very hard, almost impossible road.
case would be a very hard, almost impossible road.
-
But I agree though, he may have had little choice but to take the deal offered as the alternative in his particular cased wouldn't be a very hard, almost impossible road.
Do you mean because he's in NZ, and the audience and money is overwhelmingly overseas?
Because you'd think in theory, the internet would make distance less of a problem for at least some part of being an artist - can get your music out there and gather fans by only investing time.
Doesn't help much with the live performances etc obviously.
-
But to be honest Mark, much of that is crap, or at least it's music that most people don't want.
Let's be completely honest and say that 90% of all published music, regardless of the delivery mechanism, is crap ;-) (Sturgeon's Law)
Which is what the record labels and iTunes do so well. They tell most people what to buy.
And I think that is the main thing that is going to change. Russ was talking about the Hype Machine not so long ago. The whole nature of the business and how you get noticed is changing. People are telling each other what to listen to.
I'm a listener on one site, iCompositions.com, that allows artists to upload their recordings and make them available to their peers (i.e. all the other members) who can comment on them, advise on changes and even collaborate (if permission is given and it mostly is) by adding a killer guitar track or new vocals. The community aspect makes it viable, not the commercial aspect.
People make music because they want to be heard, as a writer wants to be read, as an artist want's to be viewed. If that's not the motivation, and it's simply to be a star or to make money, experience shows you're more likely to wash out than light up the sky. Some achieve both enjoyment and remuneration (and good luck to them) but by no means the majority.
-
its hasn''t work that way with the mobile phone market in nz for far far to long.
True, the barrier to entry is very high in New Zealand. Hasn't stopped a few from trying, though, so they obviously see a market to be cracked.
The real problem with NZ as a competitive market is that it's too small. Getting a 1% niche of any American market is probably sustainable, purely on volume - getting 1% of the equivalent NZ market is likely to have the bank manager asking for his money back.
The NZ telco market has been heavily weighted toward Telecom since 1990 when it was sold. Vodaphone was allowed to get it's foot in the door because Telecom could point to them and say "see, we're not a monopoly" but they had to allow them a significant chunk of the mobile market to enable them to be sustainable.
Vodaphone's revenues aren't even in the ball park with Telecom's, however and, now it's a duopoly, vodophone is fighting just as hard to keep new players out. Also, the market is close to saturation, so there's very little low hanging fruit left for newcomers.
-
The actual cost of making the record is a very small, and for many acts, increasingly smaller part of the equation.
the time period you base your hatred of the evil empire on was when it was quite expensive, and as you've said artists are more aware and the deals are more varied and fair.
truth is though, and I see this all the time, artists have fuck all capital, even where 500 cds are $1750 packaged and delivered, they don't have that money, and I'm also seeing many of the 'buy your own home studio' people back through after 4 years of fighting a machine when all they want to do is play their music.
labels, studios, and everyone else who takes a cut don't do nothing in the equation. some take more than others. some have taken the piss,
its got to be weighted against where you might be if they didn't come to the party. the money men and the marketing production muscle is worth a lot. ask any do it yourself artist on his or her seond or third year of burning cds, managing websites and predominantly not making music cos they have no spare time. -
Which is what the record labels and iTunes do so well. They tell most people what to buy.
Testify. One of the most interesting things to come out of a Fat Freddy's Drop feature I wrote for Unlimited 18 months ago was the fact that being on iTunes in lots of territories was very good for the band -- but not so much because of any revenue, which wasn't huge. The big value of being on iTunes was the marketing value for their live (and merch) trade, which did pay the bills.
-
they also don't have the money to master for web, do layouts the expertise to get a deal for downloading, promote it, promote it,and get it infront of people (promote it), get it in stores, get it on air, get it on sites, get it somewhere any where. and for all of those roles there's someone who's there willing to charge for it, cash up front. even more so in the new era of freedom. its a new era of freedom to pay all the bills yourself. surely you miss the majors expense account now :)
-
People are telling each other what to listen to.
and that's coming full circle to "people are paying people to tell people what to listen to". Its not so much each other either, its people are telling readers what to listen to and watch and the readers don't necessarily get to talk directly back to the writer and say what they like.
It's a lot of work to get your stuff in front of the right people if you can get past the spam filter receptionist, large dog at the gate, cos once everyone gets on board the new model of promotion it starts to get infra structure developing around it and getting to big for self management.
and that brings it full circle to pr people getting paid to do it for you only this time you don't have a money bags label picking up the bill to push your "90% likely crap album.same things happening in the film market with hype companies being paid to write fake reviews on IMDB to up the perceived coolness of it.
It doesn't seem to want to stay community based,
-
People make music because they want to be heard,
some people make music or film cos they want to express, purely for self fulfillment.
we want to hear it or see it cos their motive of self expression appeals to us, sometimes more than those who's motive is to draw attention to themselves or make some cash. -
some people make music or film cos they want to express, purely for self fulfillment.
In the spirit of jumping in on a discussion on page 14 (withoput counting the other, monster thread) having read more than 1% of the posts thus far... I got the Banksy book for Christmas, and I recommend it, but one thing I found most irritating: the sentence
Copyright is for Losers(C)TM
on the copyrights page, followed by a statement to the effect that "Against his better judgment Banksy has asserted his rights blah blah blah". And yes, as per usual the book can't be lent. It's not just the hipocrisy that is irksome, but also this idea that people that make art to live are ethically inferior to those who have another source of income, or have been helped by public institutions or private benefactors (or their parents). Creative Commons licences on people's blogs irk me for similar reasons.
In conclusion: I am easily irked.
-
icompositions sounds great. But this
By uploading music, movies, or other multimedia files to the Service, you grant iCompositions a non-exclusive license to distribute those files to visitors of iCompositions.com, including through our internet radio station and podcasts. Any text submitted to the Service, excluding lyrics and blog entries, becomes property of iCompositions. You grant iCompositions a non-exclusive license to publish blog entries and lyrics throughout iCompositions.com, including in our email newsletter, as we see fit.
is a little worrying, eh? A community where the landlord holds the copyright (to text, at any rate).
-
Excluding (slight misread there-) song lyrics- I guess that makes it better.
-
<Quote>You grant iCompositions a non-exclusive license ...</quote>
Tell me what part of that you are having trouble with, please.
The text referred to is comments on their system. This is standard boilerplate protecting iCompositions from false copyright complaints from someone who might be disgruntled.
Nothing is completely free; the question is, is the result worth the price?
-
And doesn't granting a license leave the ownership of copyright with the author?
-
Hmm, so the quote tag is case sensitive, to boot..
-
It's not just the hipocrisy that is irksome, but also this idea that people that make art to live are ethically inferior to those who have another source of income,
I don't think anybody has said that. I certainly haven't. My point is that if you make money at it, it's a bonus.
or have been helped by public institutions or private benefactors (or their parents).
I don't understand you at all. Please elucidate.
Creative Commons licences on people's blogs irk me for similar reasons.
Que? WTF has CC got to do with ethics? Have you not been sleeping properly, Giovanni?
In conclusion: I am easily irked.
Clearly ;-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.