What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
68 Comments
- PxCxG, on 03/08/2009, -3/+50Digg should stop obsessing so much about the music labels...and start worrying about the rising threat that the merger of ticketmaster and livenation would represent...
- CpAmerica8, on 03/08/2009, -2/+22The world is going to end in 2012 anyway, so it really doesn't matter, does it? Even if it doesn't, Fox News says that the economy is going to completely tank and the Narco-Empire of Mexico is going to come in and take back Texas. 2011 would be the perfect time for all of us to load up on free music that we won't even be alive to play.
<sarcasm> - Destrucci, on 03/08/2009, -0/+18Just individuals but they will still go to your ISP and shut you down that way.
- macfan93, on 03/08/2009, -2/+20THERE WON'T BE AN INTERNET IN 2012 BECAUSE WE WILL ALL DIE!
OPEN UP YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!
/s - moothemagiccow, on 03/08/2009, -2/+18Ooh, a "big music label executive." I'm impressed. That sounds reliable AND non-fictional.
- lordmike, on 03/08/2009, -0/+15I miss mp3.com.... for the youngn's, back in the late 90's, when mp3's first came in vogue, mp3.com was a place where unknown artists could put up their songs and sell them to anyone who wanted them... They got sued for stupid stuff by the RIAA and were essentially driven out of business (sold to Vivendi music and now is a generic music site)... Maybe someone can start it back up again...
- MrChocolate, on 03/08/2009, -0/+8Hasn't the RIAA stopped suing people? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere.
- iamthenoise, on 03/08/2009, -1/+9PLEASE COMMENT:
this is not a defense of labels. this is a sincere question about artists.
OK, so as a musician on a major label...and as a person who isn't a total moron, i, like you, saw this coming years ago...i love what the internet has done for music, and i definitely am a part of what's killing big labels. but i do have one nagging question:
I don't need to be rich, but how is the artist supposed to survive on music revenue? better put: can an artist survive on the music he creates? there are ambitious efforts (that cost considerable money if you include what goes into making a record) made by artists all the time and while I'm not asking to be rich or a rockstar, but how would i, in the event that people really like my music, capitalize on it, in terms of music revenue. (i understand that touring/merch sales/ licensing are still in my favor). is the future of my work that i have to give it away? Im not defending big labels (although it should be said that all labels, major and independent are hit hard by this), i have just yet to hear a gameplan that helps the artist. I am part of my own problem, so please understand that i'm not against the free DL of music.
it should also be noted that recent efforts like Radiohead and NIN have been successful, largely due to a preexisting reputation, earned from a time when buying music worked. this profit (and sh*tloads of talent) allow them to continue their careers and make these kinds of bold moves. if Radiohead's pay-what-you-like tactic was employed for some Joey-Joe-Joe-Shabadoo, it would have backfired, or gone nowhere.
outside of an artist necessarily selling more than just his music, can an artist survive in the future this article portrays? - bdbr, on 03/08/2009, -0/+7..and let's face it, the only reason NIN or Radiohead can do that is because they had already succeeded through the traditional system...and, Radiohead still distributes In Rainbows through traditional distribution.
- oxdeltaxo, on 03/08/2009, -0/+7Not to mention this "executive" doesn't take hackers into account. The fact that no matter how technologically advanced we think we are a system can still worked around in one respect or another.
- Dignan666, on 03/08/2009, -0/+7Management, studio time, recording fees (producers, engineers), video production, promotion and marketing, gig booking, upfront merchandise costs, etc.
I'm not saying this is the kind of stuff that you can't do on your own, but distribution of a physical product isn't all the record companies do. They are thieves, but they are thieves with their hands on a lot of resources that are useful. Not everyone has the ability to self record and promote like, say, Nine Inch Nails or Radiohead. - smacksaw, on 03/08/2009, -0/+6Wow, isn't that great? They'll still have their fingers in every piece of the pie.
If there isn't a more useless entity than music labels, I don't know what it is. At least the Mafia protects you from petty criminals robbing your store when you pay a protection racket. - trafficlight, on 03/08/2009, -0/+6deviantart would be a great place for such a thing, but they are worried about the inevitable lawsuits that would follow.
- zwaldowski, on 03/08/2009, -0/+6Apple, like Steve Jobs? Or like the Beatles?
- JoeVet, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5That was a lie. Their law suits continue without a slowdown. See UMG Recordings v. Adams March 4, 2009. Anyone who has been interested in these suits would know better than take the word of the big record labels and their attack dogs at the RIAA.
- CaptOblivious, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5No, they haven't stopped, they said they were but have continued to file new suits all along.
- etx28, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5The truth is many artists will never be able to make a decent living in the music industry. Multimillion dollar success may also be something of the past. The younger generations have decided that music is no longer worth monetary value to them, for better or worse. You can argue the morality of this, or the right of artists to get justly compensated for their work. However, the overall trend will not change unless the governments of the world impose a Big Brother system that forces people to pay anytime they hear a song. Barring that, the future of the music industry will be of a level playing field of competition fighting for ever decreasing amounts of revenue. This may not be such a bad thing. There have always been more people playing music at high professional levels out of a hobby than people who made a successfull living out of music. Since younger generations don't attach high monetary value to music they will also feel less slighted from giving it away. Its not hard to imagine a future where kids freely give away their music, not expecting higher revenue streams, or expecting it to be a launchpad for future success. But plainly to get it out there.
- hakluytbean, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4The kind of music industry I'm waiting for is one that will let me watch live performance from concert halls/jazz clubs/Dave's garage etc. on any internet-enabled device and for a reasonable fee.
- TxRx, on 03/09/2009, -1/+5I will never forgive the music labels. Ever.
- bpwned, on 03/08/2009, -1/+5I don't want them to have a backup plan. Not after everything. I want to bury them!
- rustyvp, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4If the recording industry is/has been creating "generations" of people who are indifferent to stealing music. Why would those people ever pay again for anything except concerts?
- ZapochGenitalia, on 03/08/2009, -0/+4Your conspiracies ridicule themselves.
- NicoNicoNico, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4Marketing for concerts and merchandise, and possibly advertising revenue. In other words, what many rookie indie artists are doing already.
- sinator, on 03/08/2009, -0/+4FTA
"No longer will the labels be tied to revenue limited to sales of master recordings - by then most or all artists will be under 360 music contracts that give the labels a cut of virtually every revenue stream artists can tap into - fan sites, concerts, merchandise, endorsement deals, and everything else."
If you're no longer selling physical recordings, then why the hell would a band pay a RECORD LABEL a portion of every penny they make? It makes sense to me to think that if we do away completely with CDs then we do away with record companies as well. Already you can record your own music and market your own band online and have reasonable success. By 2011 I would imagine it will be easy enough to record, manage and promote your own band that no one will be willing to pay some old school record execs for something they can do better themselves, or with their own small staff. - Nuhaus, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4Exactly, who was he talking to? I'm thinking it was a sock puppet.
- agentsrecord, on 03/08/2009, -0/+3So... the Big Music Industries are suing file sharing websites for infringement in order to bring them down... so they can launch their own websites that do the same thing? Diabolical.
- SpeedyG, on 03/08/2009, -0/+3But only once their piece of the music distribution industry contracts to the point that they're small and nimble enough to provide a competitive service.
Until then, they're too big to compete in this space, so all they can do is try and tie up some of it in the court in the meantime and hope they catch up sooner rather than later. - Culyt, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3There are heaps of those kind of sites for unknown artists:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/ - Jamendo (free Creative Commons).
http://cherrypeel.com/
http://www.thesixtyone.com/
http://www.magnatune.com/ - highlymodified, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3You'll always make money for a big show, and for selling lots of merch. Both of those require notoriety and/or a big fan base.
Obviously this brings up new issues, but you can get publicity and fans without a big label...a lot more easily if you're music is good and you opt for some free distribution using such models as NIN and Radiohead. Check out Saul Williams, who gained all kinds of publicity (with Reznor's assistance.)
I'm looking forward to the downfall of the RIAA simply because I think more GOOD MUSIC will rise to the top, with brilliant artists in control of their own destinies, rather than becoming corporate bitches.
- zwaldowski, on 03/08/2009, -1/+4Yeah, 'cause it's such lower quality than the music I bought.
- NicoNicoNico, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3I know. There was an artist in my area (and we almost never get anyone good around here) having a concert that I missed only because I was out of town that weekend. Ironically, they were going to appear in the town I was visiting - a week after I went back home. I would've paid for the cost of the ticket (it was $5 + $5 cover for the bar) if I could have just streamed it in decent quality on my computer.
- lorductape, on 03/08/2009, -0/+3That made a little bit of sense. Wait, wait? Record Industry knows what it's doing? What's wrong with me. I'm slipping up.
- highlymodified, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3I will...if the album is not on an RIAA label.
If it is, TPB takes a lot of FLAC :) - mikebritton, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3Recording costs, distribution costs, meh.
Home recording is what I'd do if I had musical talent I wanted to market. Sure, it would sound bad at first (garage band), but real talent can be identified by people who understand what that means. Fans.
As I got noticed and started making money via touring and appearances, I'd hire an accountant and save up for better equipment.
I think people have too much reverence for the middle man. Things are playing out as they should. I also think people underestimate artists. - Cwo655321, on 03/09/2009, -1/+4did they rape you?
- stufflebean, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3FTA: CD sales continue to decline by 20% per year, and the only thing that’ll stop that trend is when those sales reach zero.
Am I the only person who still buys CDs by artists that I like? Surely I'm not the only one who likes having a physical copy and my choice of a compression method, if any (Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, etc.). - lukas2k, on 03/08/2009, -2/+4This is sickening.... But what do you expect from companies that work on payolas?
- mikebritton, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2You must be on their payroll.
- lorductape, on 03/08/2009, -0/+2Welcome to digg!
- etx28, on 03/08/2009, -0/+2Recording costs have plummetted. It no longer makes sense to have the labels cover hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some case millions, to pay for studio time when artists can achieve ever increasing results for less money at home. As far as marketing goes, it would make more sense for artists to pay a cut to companies that have already become adept at online marketing. The labels are light years behind. Similary, deals sharing revenue streams with producers could be cut, directly from artist to producer.
- SpeedyThing, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2And through no fault of their own the blacksmiths also one day found themselves out of business. What's your point here? Technological advances created their jobs and they will change them or take them away. It's called progress.
- ShootTheCore, on 03/08/2009, -0/+2So... I still don't get what he is actually saying will happen. What's the master plan and how will paying P2P sites help the labels?
- spookyttws, on 03/08/2009, -1/+3I have an odd feeling that the record companies are going to do what Apple did. 15 years ago it looked as though Apple was all but dead. Then a few really great business decisions and some even better products later they're the hottest thing around. I'm guessing once the current ***** business model is thrown out, and perhaps some young blood takes over for these dinosaurs we're going to see a revolution in music distribution.
- lasko, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2maybe, i'm reading your comment wrong, but when you finish your comment with "outside of an artist necessarily selling more than just his music, can an artist survive in the future this article portrays?", you make it seem like either a.)you make more money selling cd's then you do from touring/merch/bonus's/etc or b.) bands don't normally sell more than just music(shirts, hoodies, posters, stickers, buttons, etc). hopefulyl i'm wrong because if you meant either one of those 2, you have clearly never been in a band before. the only thing that matters with cd sales are soundscan numbers. artists make next to nothing in our royality checks. it's just like a little bit of fun money you get every couple of months(until your selling close to gold or more), meanwhile i can be in a band selling out 300-400 cap venue's(which is obviously not alot of people in the grand scheme of things) and between guarantee/door splits, bonuses(get a good TM) and merch, and every band member can easily take home $600-$1,000 a week take home, after ALL band expenses. again, not a crazy amount of money, but very liveable. touring is where the money has always been and it's where the money will always be. if you want to make money, you have to tour. and tour alot. yeah that might help you get more cd's sales(which you might see another coupe hundred bucks after a few months) but more importantly you have a greater soundscan number which helps determine your lineup in the tour (if your supporting) or help you get tours with other bands you might not of gotten without the higher numbers. the reason why it's easy to make money outside of cd sales, is because you don't make much money FROM cd sales. and now the labels want to take that from us. which is why you don't go major. sell 100,000 - 150,000 records on an indie label and you'll make more money in royalities as well as a dedicated fan base where you will be making a pretty comfortable living doing what you want. sell 100,000-150,000 records on a major.....you get dropped....and youre broke.
- stack3r, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2This is already happening with electronic genres like psytrance. The artists are basically giving away their music as promo's, then making the money from doing gigs and selling merchandise, still early days, buts its moving that way quickly.
- NicoNicoNico, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2There are people who are paying recording companies to just produce the albums. They can make the music on their own computers, but some don't want to/don't know how. Besides, it'd be hard to make a bunch of CDs from your own personal computer, and there are people who buy those still because they like the physical CD.
I actually got into an argument with someone one time about this. She had a friend who was a budding artist, but he didn't know enough about computers (he couldn't figure out youtube, nevermind professional recording software), so he *had* to go to a recording company to record his work. - inactive, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2IMHO: The "music industry" will not survive as long as it continues to require that music be constrained to conform to any predefined category or style. The spirit of creation follows no such template and forcing round pegs into square holes corrupts the essence of the music itself.
- NicoNicoNico, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2I'm an avid music fan, so I sometimes buy CDs for the fact that I own something that is really tangible, other than what's just on my ipod. Just recently, I got my mother to buy Radiohead's newest album for me. (It was awesome - I liked the stickers.)
- NicoNicoNico, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2People like t-shirts with their favorite artists. It creates a good conversation starter. If the artist offered the shirts at a fair price, say $10 - $15, then people wouldn't go through the trouble of making their own shirt.
- stack3r, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2Unless the revolution means close to free music, wont happen.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is