What is Digg?91 Comments
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50Bad title, decent article.
You're not "giving your music away for free". You're advertising.
Ask any artist that isn't on a corporate "big push" list, and you'll find that they make money by playing live venues. Record sales to an artist are just an advertisement to come see them in person. If the "label" doesn't pay you up front when you sign... you're not getting it. Their business is to charge you for everything and anything they can until your royalties are gone. You're lucky if you don't get a bill from your record company after you make them millions.
No one buys CD's to discover new music anymore. So as an artist the RIAA isn't offering you anything of value anymore.
You are more likely to get a following by promoting yourself through various online venues.
Once your fans know you exist, you book and play shows... and pack the house. - skim1420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14You know, that's a wise notion - to drop the idea that we need to become millionaires to feel successful. We can in fact maintain the cycle of creating and releasing our work to the public without outside funding. Thank you for some perspective (I'm not being sarcastic).
- Firemeboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12As a published author, may I quickly add that the same thing applies for text. My last book made my publisher $100,000. I saw $3,000 of that.
My second book is licensed under creative commons, and you can get it for free. - number9ine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The concept is simple.
If an artist provides a streamlined and easy to use website allowing people to download their music for free while at the same time generating income through minimal advertising, everybody wins. Additionally, a donate button and merchandise sales will provide further income since you will have a lot more traffic (everyone who wants your music is now coming to your website for it). I know I would gladly donate 5 or 10 bucks every now and then to my favorite artists if they provided this service. This, in addition to concert revenue, should be plenty of income without much middleman. - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Yeah it was a very good article. Showed how the industry is changing. Back in the day, before the time of tapes and such, musicians made their money from concerts and performances. Now the lazy bums want to do a performance every other month and sell tons of CDs as profit. It doesnt work that way any more. Go on tour and u'll be making 100k+ every other night plus the ad money they get if they use this articles method.
- Devrdander, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The lawsuits are indirectly a source of revenue. Its a FUD campaign to get customers to conform to the old system that they so greedily cling on to. The profits from it go to firms and pretty much never get back to the RIAA. The only reason we need the RIAA is because they control so many channels of distribution they can lock out the competitors. The internet and its free forms of distribution and communication however have been a thorn in their business models side since the advent of the mp3 and the ability to distribute music digitally quickly and effectively.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12You do realize there are forms of music that cannot be reproduced live do you not?
- BevansDesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Exactly. If one out of a million bands/artists become millionaires under the old system, the new system will allow thousands more to be able to make a living doing what they love.
- BrianNowhere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7As a lifelong musician I hope that this article is exactly what happens with the music industry.
With the old model, 2% of all musicians took up 99% of the musical shelf space of record stores and 99% of all music buying revenue.
As things evolve on the internet, more eclectic musicians will be able to find thier audience and each individual listener can decide for themselves what they like rather than having TV and radio tell them what they like.
Maybe oneday, super-stardom will be an ancient concept. - Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And how much have you made off of the second book? If the answer is $0, then weren't you still better off with a publisher?
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"My last book made my publisher $100,000. I saw $3,000 of that."
Is that $100,000 in revenue, or profit? - src666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What happens? Pretty much the same thing that happens now. The writers/composers get paid performance royalties, the engineers/etc. get paid a flat rate/hourly fee for doing their job (recording/mixing), and those that don't want to participate in the new market have the option of not working under those terms. Eventually that may mean not working at all, but you have to evolve with the industry or die - period. That's true whether you write songs or build houses. Buying a guitar doesn't guarantee an income, and neither does picking up a pen or going to Harvard and getting an MBA. Life is hard.
- AndrewMayne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Some people have a very romantic idea about touring. Live music is every bit as seedy and screwed up as the recording business. Touring is not the magical way to make money in music except for a very few. Most bands are lucky to break even through touring. That's why I *buy* music from bands I like.
- bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@nanostuff
your argument would have credit if aphex twin didn't perform, and perform well, live. - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why must musicians lose the idea that hitting it big with an album can't make them wealthy? I think this article and what the RIAA is doing proves quite the contrary point, that being the music industry takes SO MUCH of the money that it requires for a band to hit it that they no longer can make a good pop out of one big hit album. Now, enter the new distribution model where bands are discovered via the free exchange of digital music files, now and again a band hits it big NOT because Sony spends $25 million bucks promoting them, rather they hit it because their music is good. Then, once they've caught the public eye's (again, without the money grubbing marketers, promoters, etc) they can take advantage of their popularity and appear on High Def specials, sell out huge venues, put together promotional merchandise people want to sell, etc., etc., etc.
Get the big music industry OUT of the way and musicians will become, musicians again. - Kronos6948, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You get money to tour by saving up money you've made from shows. If you're worried about rent, keep your dayjob and get a LOA to go on tour, or use your week's vacation for it. Play 5 venues in 7 days. Make cash off of that, and all the while you'll still be paid from your job if you get paid vacation. If you think you make money from big record labels for touring, you should read Steve Albini's article.
- spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ttntyler- That might work if the "millions" part was right.
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/
There are more labels that are a part of the RIAA than there are bands whose CDs are sold at most stores (FYE, Walmart, etc.), let alone the many bands under each label. Most bands don't get presented to millions of people, and even if one do, it doesn't necessarily get millions of fans. - Firemeboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My second book is being published, and actually comes out in three weeks. When you license something under a CC license, you aren't giving away your copyright, just allowing people to do more with it than they can under a traditional copyright.
As to how much I'll make, we'll have to see. I'll be posting updates on my blog. - jayman187um, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 ..I am a hardworking musician and I give all my music away for free. As I work on acquiring Web design skills and constructing my own band site, I am stuck with having to use MySpace as a medium. They allow 5 songs to be posted and I rotate mine to allow all to be available for download. Soon I will have My own site up with all my music there for free.. It's not even a question or a debate... the industrial revolution has put the industry into a shakedown...all the little leaches and parasites in the biz are surfacing.. it's disgusting but it has to happen to get humanity back, a little at a time...
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The middleman gets cut out... Look at the price of modern equipment! An analog four track in the 70s vs. a complete digital home studio now? A "consumer" recording setup is already as good as humans can hear. If someone wants to make their living being an engineer/mixer they can sure try, but the tools are empowering the creator, which is usually the musician, and the vendors will keep trying to do that because it sells more.
- bjbkk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I play bass, thanks, and I actually do give away better-than-average quality mp3s on the net, and have for years. But the reality of the situation is that they just don't turn into sales, even with 20k+ friends on myspace, international radio airplay, and write-ups in a large number of relevent print & web review rags. People like the music I make, they just don't feel like they need to pay for it.
- Kronos6948, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@maddvibe's 2nd post
The problem is that a lot of people think that once they get Garageband or Sonic that they're already a producer. This is not the case, as you stated with your citing of Myspace. Granted, our EP was made with ProTools, but by a guy who knew what the hell he was doing. The middleman will still have a job, just not being hired by major labels. I've always hated labels that assigned producers to the band. I'd rather listen to something someone's done, and if I like their producer, I'd like to have the OPTION of working with them. - morriscat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ah, Upon reading this article, methinks there should be a new section on Digg called:
"Obvious" - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who need warez? Audacity is free.
- ColinCampbell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Matthew Good ( http://www.matthewgood.org/folksonomy/music/ ) is streaming some stuff from his new CD on his website. Not only is he an incredible musician, but he's moving a lot of his stuff online. Check it out, and support an artist who believes in these things.
- basscleff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2good insights into thinking outside of the biz's plain old 4/4.
- DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you know a good answer to that question, let me know. History is filled with even the best musicians starving in ***** apartments playing gigs for food or booze. The rest of us get day jobs.
- mrno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hey, where do we get the money to tour? I come from a middle class family and I am a working class musician. If you have a solution that I can pay rent with music, let me know.
Web 2.0: Everyone lives on their own fantasy island. - jasnmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Disregarding the fact aphex twin is hobo music, yes there is music that cannot"
please give specific examples of music that cannot be recreated live - madvibe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ok so what if you are a song writer, producer, composer, engineer, mixer, or have one of the many other peripheral jobs connected to song creation? What!?, should they ask the artists, who are giving away their music for free and getting paid by ads and shows, for payment? I think the ideas in this article may work for for a small group of bedroom musicians but is in no way a replacement for the current model. Now don't get me wrong the current model sucks but this isn't the answer. IMO
- bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Disregarding the fact aphex twin is hobo music, yes there is music that cannot, or the creator of is unwilling to reproduce live."
well, aside from your poor taste in music, there is not music that cannot be recreated live. i'll agree that the creator may be unwilling to reproduce it live, if so, i feel sorry for such a creator of music. that's simply a musical paradigm destined to fail. - spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3[Addendum]- edit timer ran out
Furthermore, if you, as an independent musician, sell 10,000 copies of your album at $10 ea., with near-zero overhead (online indie = no label, shipping, CDs, ad firm, etc.; just a cheap Libsyn account) you've just made $100,000, which isn't anything to sneeze at. - qwertyxuiop, on 12/28/2008, -0/+1if money is your only incentive for creating "high quality" art you should quit...
creating art and having it appreciated has always been good enough for me - DrawingTheSun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@mrno
if they make good music with that , then what's wrong with that? - ElwoodHerring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought it was worth the risk. It seemed the best way to prove my point.
- bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow, i thought i recognized your name from some old buzzmachines forum or somewhere on that site. your music was great from what i remember. and yea, buzz tracker is great... even with all kinds of other software available i still use buzz, i've used it for so long it's all second nature now.
- dynamojoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"They have moved from selling music as their main source of income to creating revenue through lawsuits against their customers."
I seriously doubt this. Even if they've got 10,000 lawsuits settling for $3k per lawsuit, that's $30 million before paying off their lawyers, etc. (since legal fees are part of the settlement). The industry is making much more money selling and licensing music than by suing folks. The lawsuits are a deterrent, a tool to discourage certain behavior and encourage legislation; nothing more. Maybe they'll move from selling music as soon as they can't make money at it, but at present it's plenty profitable. - MicheBel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only problem with this great story is that they don't say how musicians can make money instead (in addition to selling singles on their own websites). Other than that, great story.
- bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1do you use buzz tracker per chance?
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think super-stardom will be a dead concept, but I do think more artists will get fairly compensated. There will still be a nice bump for the mega stars- essentially the music industry will become more of a long tail business.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to work for a local newspaper. This was in the late 80's before Desktop Publishing.
I used to have to get text from typesetter, then wax it, and a board. I would literally build the page that way.
Lines were done with press tape. Borders too, with corners cut at right angles by razor blades.
For photos I would have to go an make photostatic copies on photo paper with a screen over the photo that broke it up into dots that would print.
I would have to count the lines on the page and figure out how to break them up into columns.
When the computer took over... NO ONE tried to protect my job. My skill was thrown away almost overnight. Luckily I was computer geek and paved the way. But lots of guys just got pushed to smaller and smaller papers... until they were pushed out.
The same thing SHOULD happen to the producer, engineer, mixer, or one of the many other peripheral jobs connected to song creation. They'll either find a new niche, or go obsolete. Punishing the customer isn't going to help these people keep their jobs.
We've never protect out dated business models to prevent progress before. Why do it for the worst con artists in the history of media? - ElwoodHerring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been giving my music away for years. In fact I reckon I was doing it before anyone else on the Internet.
http://www.herring.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/catalog.htm
Challenging stuff but nearly all of it completely free. Help yourself. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ttntyler
"You sign with a major record label, and have instant exposure to millions and millions of people. You end up selling a few million units and at a dollar or two per unit you make a few million dollars."
NO ARTIST has ever made as much as a dollar of a CD sale. When Michael Jackson had the best publishing deal in the industry he only made about $0.25 per $12 CD. Most artists would feel lucky to make a dime per CD!!!
Your "few million sales" end up being far less than $250,000 per 1 million albums. Probably closer to $100,000 per million.
They never see THAT money either, because the record company take that to pay for everything THEY provided the group. Advertising costs, production costs, photography, printing the disks... in most deals the band is forced to pay all these costs in spite of the fact that the record company is making more than $11.75 to every quarter they might get.
That is your choice. The Record Industry is greedy scum. We let them rip off artists because they were the only game in town. As a result, they got rich and powerful and now they are going after our freedoms and our rights.
That's the price we pay for turning a blind eye to the injustice against the few. Now we have take on a monster to defend our rights.
Which one would you choose? Seriously. I think the only reason people are complaining about major labels is because they're either not a musician, or they are a musician that can't get signed.
I know consumers hate the conglomerates and the people behind them, but if you were an artist that had the opportunity to sign a major deal, you know you would. - pacificnoise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2most of the bands i listen to are local bands these days. i am happy to pay $8 to get in to their shows every week, essentially paying for the same content over and over gain, because it is bundled with a few things: the atmosphere of hanging out with friends, which is irreplaceable, and also the good feeling that i am supporting the band themselves and not the label.
there are currently more amazing bands out there that the major music industry could support even with all the money in the world. sadly most of those bands will never be discovered. that's why i created my own music blog/video podcast to help these local bands get more coverage: www.pacificnoise.com - qwertyxuiop, on 12/28/2008, -0/+1Having tried exactly this for the past year and a half with my own music I can tell you that no one ever donates... thousands of downloads 0 dollars... but increased live turnouts, so good enough
- src666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Where is the money coming from? Live performances, CD sales (direct to the listener, yes many will still buy), donations, merchandise. Pretty much the same places it comes from now, only it's going to the artist, not the RIAA.
What you seem to ignore is that the money that the recording labels provide to the artists isn't "free money". They have to pay it back, and it comes off the top of any income they may otherwise have earned. And the label's production costs (passed on to the artists) is hugely inflated over what a band would pay if they made the arrangements themselves. Most bands working for labels are NOT doing well, and are actually being sucked dry. They are lucky to earn a dime when the full accounting is done.
I know plenty of musicians - I work directly with at least 8 people who make a significant portion of their income from playing music. They make their money without the RIAA. The ones who record get by just fine with ProTools, friends, and occasionally paying someone for the finishing touches (producing, down-mixing, mastering, etc.). They perform live, the do studio work for commercials/local shows/etc, they sell CD's to fans - in other words they earn an honest living by doing honest work. And that's the future of music. - ElwoodHerring, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My take on the music industry runs something like this: for years the big companies have only signed artists who they think will sell well, by concentrating on the most popular forms of music. Anything that they consider out of the mainstream doesn't get a look in. Long ago they would give an artist time to develop and mature, but not any more. Someone like myself who writes music for the sheer fun of it, and isn't afraid to experiment, just doesn't stand a chance any more. The upshot of this trend is that the spread of available music styles has become narrower and narrower until the record industry literally eats itself by having to resort to forcing bad, uninspiring monotonous generic rubbish onto the buying public who by now know of nothing else. If you are made to eat beans all your life you never know any different, and never develop a palette for more exotic tastes.
So, if you're a musician, ask yourself this simple question: Am I doing this because I think I'll make millions and be a big *star* someday, or am I doing it because I appreciate music in all its forms, and just enjoy expressing myself in music? I do it for the latter reason. I don't make any money from it, and quite honestly, I think if I did it would somehow spoil the creative urge. I've seen it happen to other "big" names. Time to put an album out, throw together some old rehased stuff and half-thought out bits together and realease that - the fans will buy it, won't they? You see it happen time and time again. Yet the real musicians who have music in their bones, they just get better with age. I'm still learning and improving and hope to continue doing so until I drop. It would be nice if I could at least make a living from it, but even if I never make a penny, I will still write music. I can't help it. It's what I do.
Sorry about the rant, and given more time I might have put this together a bit better, but there you go. There's more on my Myspace page at http://www.myspace.com/elwoodherring1 if you want to read more of my ranting! - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Add a link here where we can get info. I'd like to buy a copy.
That's called putting your money where your mouth is, and support the author/inventor/artist. - FinalDoom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's still with a label, but the idea of giving your music out as advertising has worked on me. The first album I've actually BOUGHT in 18 years was the new NIN album, Year Zero, simply because Reznor's not a pompus *****, and he has good music, that I've heard because he will let me.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is