What is Digg?63 Comments
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -4/+23Oh no! Madonna, Radiohead, and the Nine Inch Nails are independent! The music industry of the 90's is in trouble.
- cybermort, on 10/15/2007, -2/+20how about if it stops being an industry and it goes back to being an art form.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Only one I despise is the "music tax." Aren't we already paying that on blank CD media? See how that worked out?
- shadowspawn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Give credit where credit is due. Lars from that old washed up band "Metallica" started this all, if you think about it. Money greeding ***** doing nothing but inconveniencing their paying core audience. 'Bout time the smart ones stepped up to the plate, with all of their fan's undying (and dollars-in-fist) support for the actual artists, instead of the industry that rapes both the artists and the fans.
FU Lars, thanks for playing the game. You lose. - Chewie67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Some of these ideas sound pretty good. Some sound odd. Either way, I'd like to see more exploration in this area. The idea of buying a CD is on the way out, and the DRM model of today seems to be losing it's grip too.
- ProvidenceCrow, on 10/15/2007, -4/+11You do realize it doesn't take millions of dollars to produce high quality studio music right? You also realize that the first album for most bands tend to be of lesser sound quality than their other albums right?
There are a couple reasons for this. First of all we will start with the latter. That actually coincides pretty well with this whole independent idea you have laid out. Bands just starting out tend to have less money to work with, and go to cheaper studios. You still get a fairly good sound quality, but it is that album which originally helps generate revenue for the bands (not necessarily from album sales, but through a tour supporting that album, merch, whatever you can think of) and then they can use that money to record the follow up album.
As for it being fairly inexpensive to get a high quality sound, there are plenty of studios out there that directly work for the indie artists. I can remember a couple years back I was in this one band where we went in to record an EP at this one local studio, it cost the entire band about 600 dollars (split 4 ways thats not bad at all) and it sounded great. Sure we didn't spend months in the studio, and we went in with the songs written and finalized so we just went in, laid our tracks down, and spent most of the time mixing/mastering and NOT recording. The reason a band like Metallica will spend millions of dollars in the studio is for time, not quality. They go in with nothing and spend months writing together first, then record as they go. It isnt the most economical way to do things, but if you have an unlimited coin purse it does work.
Secondly anyone who has any sense of audio and technology can do their own home studio thing fairly inexpensively. All you need is a computer dedicated to audio, then any type of audio interface you want. You will probably spend the most of your money on high quality microphones. What this allows is you can take your time recording, and not spend anything other than the initial equipment costs. Plus the beauty of computer usage in recording is you can layer an infinite amount of tracks on each other giving you room to explore as much as you want. I personally have a studio rig I made out of an old PC that i just put maybe 300 bucks extra into (for ram and storage space) that when all is said and done cost me a total (thats mics, stands, studio monitors, headphones etc...etc...) about $2000 minus software costs. If I take the proper time to do it right (i have recorded people before that want rush jobs, and it does show), I can get quite a solid sound out of it, that sounds like it came from a professional multi million dollar per hour studio.
Your assumptions about your point #3 are based in the old business and technology model that the RIAA is stuck in. There is always a cheaper option that works equally as well.
Also, a musical version of youtube is not necessarily a bad idea either - Eeqmcsq, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"Although paid-for downloads are on the increase, they aren’t rising nearly fast enough to make up for the loss in revenue from falling CD sales" - Shouldn't this be expected? When people can cherry pick the songs they want, instead of buying an entire CD, why should downloads make up for CD sales?
- yujie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Make quality music
- NuFadZoo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Another obvious one is to have an exclusive website where fans can download your music for free and then sell a ton of ad space.
- Cycline3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I don't like either alternative. CDs are overpriced ripoffs -- sorry if I don't want to be reemed for $22($19.99 on sale!) at FYE for a new CD -- and the other -- electronic distribution is poor quality and not fit for my high end stereo. Can't we get lossless downloads at some decent price? Say $5 to $8 an album? That seems like the sweet spot that would make it too cheap to bother stealing, and quality to keep me and my high end stereo happy...
- kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5My problem with the pay what you want is that if I download 100 albums from 100 artists and then listen to them for a few weeks at the end I'm not going to remember who I owe money or where to go pay them, and that assuming I bother to pay them at all. As for music as a loss leader, speaking for myself, I'm not a concert person, I don't go to them, I also don't really buy stuff from bands, I listen to music, so if they want to give stuff to me free, I'm not going to complain, but know the reason consoles as a loss leader for games and accessories works is because you need the games and accessories, the music is awesome by itself.
/turns pandora back on - Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy# ...
I remember this now. It only applies to CDs which are packaged as being for audio use ... even those are identical to the ones packaged for computer data use. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4MusicTube, SoundTube, TuneTube, TunesTube, RockTube, PopTube.
Now everybody send me money. - wdarab, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I have been in the music business for 5 years and I know how ***** it is at the top. That's why I spent the last 8 months working on this site. www.IndieTitan.com which allows artists/producers to sell their music for free, with a voting feature similar to digg.
- Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4And since the advent of filesharing *and* individual track purchasing, listeners are saying "we really don't want to buy crappy music."
- kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4That's only in Canada...(unless I am way out of touch)
- heystoopid, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Madonna , I could understand , since SONY-BMG New York not all that long ago had very deliberately with held from her some twenty five million dollars in unpaid royalties for well over a decade milking it for every cent in interest and investment income until one Eliot Spitzer of New York yanked their chain and literally flushed them down the toilet for that crappy lame scam !
You see the labels contract means that they can withhold payment of any royalty payment for more then two years whilst the PR boys can use these funds to promote the artist in an unlimited manner , thus exhausting them ! - freezeout, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5but wait, what's wrong with the model where the middle-man takes 97% of the profits and the artists usually end up in debt?
- ProvidenceCrow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4No, a musical version of youtube really is a great idea, youtube itself is a great idea. The main problem is the comments which are all written by 13 year old douchebags on halo breaks. Id like to think a musical version of youtube would kind of be more like Pandora with a search feature added in. It would indeed be a great way to find new music. Hell myspace is already on the road to doing that, there are tons of bands on there that offer up a few songs for free, and anyone can create an account and upload their music. The problem there is that it is affiliated with myspace.
- 68024, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4How about a musical version of Digg? Brilliant idea.
- betobeto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3eMusic.com worked like this some years ago and I was a happy camper. Unfortunately mindless, bandwidth-abusive leechers made that business model impractical so they began severely limiting the number of downloads per month. Haven't used it ever since.
- moxley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Some of those ideas are innovative and interesting and all of that -
But the problem I see with subscription based crap as Rick Rubin suggests is that I want to own a copy of my music. What he suggests reminds me of “On Demand” services that the cable companies have – you’re limited to what they have on tap at the time. So that doesn’t work for me…I like my ipod.
As far as “Pay what you think it’s worth” – I think that is great, and for the artists who can afford to do that or are inclined it will be interesting to see how it works out – but I don’t see that as an adequate solution for everyone.
What I think is that the record labels need to do the following:
1. Embrace digital technology.
2. Stop ***** with DRM – it causes more headaches and creates so many problems for the the users.
3. Make their albums/CDs special with art, add ons, special goodies that cannot be downloaded.
4. Realize that piracy IS NOT the same as theft, it CANNOT be claimed that every pirated song is a lost sale; in fact, I would say that MAYBE 5% of pirated CDs cost a sale if that. There are many inherent benefits of free digital distribution.
5. Stop suing or otherwise attacking music lovers (EG their customers)
6. Give the artists a fair share and stop taking advantage of them (see “Some of Your Friends are Already this *****” to understands how a first time major label deal usually affects a new band http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
7. Charge a fair price for products, and make both digital and brick and mortar version available (this relates to #3 somewhat), the digital version is just the music and a picture, etc…the special physical version would be as described in #3
8. Those labels which can’t adapt, and are clinging to the old ways and doing things t hurt the business, the artists and the consumers (music lovers) should be shunned by artists and the other progressive labels. They will then die out businesswise.
This way everyone gets what they want. Everyone makes money, the labels progress, the artists progress, the fans get what they want without being treated like criminals, people stop trying to claim filesharing is inherently illegal or has negative connotations. - adooga, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4Here is the important part:
If you want a healthy, vibrant, varied music scene then support independent artists and labels today. It doesn't matter what new business models are adopted if artists are still reliant on big companies of any kind.
Because then the terrorists win. - 68024, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Someone should start up a musical version of Digg. See what comes drifting to the surface...
- boxmonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They don't mention it but Grooveshark.com has DRM-free P2P, yet another alternative business model.
- betobeto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I also agree CD's are overpriced, but so are digital distribution alternatives a la iTMS (99 cents per sucky 128kbps bitrate song with no inventory nor CD production expenses to pay up? What a deal! - for the record companies, that is). Cost of bandwidth isn't anywhere near that of producing a physical product, even if they were lossless files. With that in mind, five bucks per album sounds like a sweet pricing spot, and that would still yield a lot of profit for all parts involved (not to mention that much more people would be willing to buy it instead of looking for it by less legal methods).
- bdbr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The big labels haven't yet understood that they've mostly been in the singles business for a few decades now. They just had the luxury of padding their singles with lots of filler for awhile.
- digghasnoethics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The only model that makes sense to me is subscription. But not subscription where if you don't pay the music stops working. Instead you can download whatever you want in an MP3 or lite DRM form and then keep it, forever.
People will stay subscribed to keep easy access to new tunes provided the cost is limited (eg $10 a month) and will stop hoarding it pretty quick as well. The supplier will quickly be able to understand what is working and what not - building up a profile of individuals to allow suggestion of new music and maintenance of value.
$10 x say 200 million subscribers in the US = $2bn per month or $24bn per year.
US CD sales revenue ~$11bn minus distribution and manufacturing costs. - HollowMarkeD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I think this will encourage people to make money from live shows more, which I think is fine. It'll be like movies these days, everyone can download films but there are still hundreds of people going to the cinema because its more a tailored expereince. We may see bands offer tunes that are only played live.
- ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2that's what AmieStreet is doing
- BurnTees, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4such a misconception and one that if you did any sort of research you'd know isn't true. artists aren't responsible for paying back advances if they're not recouped...it's the label's loss.
is anyone else SO sick of a new music industry article day after day being dugg up to the front page? we get it, you hate the record industry, the RIAA, and you don't want to pay for crappy music. - bdbr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Great, then the bands that survive will the ones who are lawyers and accountants.
- objectcode, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2=/
- bdbr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2With all this press about Radiohead and Madonna, Diggers seem to have this odd perception that the "problem" is how to sell music from artists that have established themselves through the old system. That is NOT the problem.
In fact, the problem isn't how to sell music at all. Aren't there plenty of ways to do that?
The problem for the music industry is: how to get their music to peoples' ears in the first place. It has to be heard to be bought. Only a few dozen songs have the opportunity to get US radio airplay (since four companies own everything). The other thousands of new songs per week just sort of float into obscurity. THAT is what the music industry needs to work on. - swabfalling, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1The transmission is done when you connect it back to your computer. Its just as much surveillance equipment as iTunes is.
- bdbr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Funny that people are burying your comment - I know of several people who do the same thing. We download albums, and listen to new stuff all the time. The stuff we don't like eventually just gets deleted because its wasting disk space; the stuff we do like gets into our souls and we feel compelled to buy it.
I spend considerably more per year on music now than I did during the entire decade of the 1990s. The RIAA gets none of it, because I'm doing what they ask and not downloading their music (I check riaaradar.com before I download). - lasko, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1they should just hire Starla as their business model. Solid as a rock.
- SaltySnack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yup. Media consolidation == strangle-hold on talent == crappy music. We all suffer.
Giving independent artists a venue for selling their music directly == http://www.IndieTitan.com
I vote on that site (it's sort of Digg-like) and purchased what I like, and hopefully it leads to the downfall of Payola *****. - addicted68098, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1I buy CD's there not that expensive and they are about 5 times the quality of high bit-rate MP3's with no effective way of DRM and since they are a physical format they retain value, out of print CD's sell for upwards of $200. Lets face it every business model described in this article would transfer the starving poet cliche to the starving musician cliche. I am sure they would work great for hobby artist and very defined artists but lets face the current model is perfect sans the DRM.
- bdbr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1....so you think the main problem of the music was how they were going to sell music from established artists?
- orangysb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well then you can pay the moment you download them?
- o0joshua0o, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I wish it worked like Blockbuster Online. I pay $10 per month, and they make sure I always have at least 1 CD (or its digital equivalent) to listen to.
- wdarab, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I have been in the music business for 5 years and I know how ***** it is at the top. That's why I spent the last 8 months working on this site. http://www.IndieTitan.com which allows artists/producers to sell their music for free, with a voting feature similar to digg.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Each song actually has a unique code on it, so that every time its transfered to something else (a friends PC, MP3 player, CD, etc.) it transmits that back to the master server"
That would require every data processing device to be equipped with surveillance equipment. I'm not sure if people would like that, but I am sure that I wouldn't. - swabfalling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The music tax model wasn't explained quite effectively enough.
Each song actually has a unique code on it, so that every time its transfered to something else (a friends PC, MP3 player, CD, etc.) it transmits that back to the master server, and the artist receives a piece of the pie.
Now how he talks about how the Majors will want to stop supporting new artists? Well thats a godsend in a way, because people will learn how to look past the major artists into independent music, and as the majority of people are stuck with their major artists on the radio, finally the "artform" will come crawling back, and instead of hearing the industry safe copycats, we'll start hearing more original music, and more unique music, on the radio, television and in the home, which is really the way with many of these ideas.
The advantage of the music tax, however, is the fact that the music still seems free like it is today. When you pay for it once a month, in a bill you're already paying, it seems like nothing has changed, you still go on Limewire, BitTorrent, whatever you use, and download the songs, the difference being the artists who made that, the producers that produced it, the engineers that made it sound gthe way it does, everyone who is involved, can now put food on their table. - 68024, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And Oasis and Jamiroquai as well! What is it with those 1990s... http://tinyurl.com/26yx9f
- SaltySnack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, free == artists are able to sell their own music without having to pay/share the profit with blood-sucking, greedy mega-corp record companies.
- tmh27, on 10/14/2007, -0/+0I think record labels are in big trouble if they don't do something, one company thinks so:
http://digg.com/music/Company_supports_the_new_mus ... - rocknrollsoul, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Hybrid Indie MP3 Store Offers DRM-Free Albums / Songs
mTraks.com is a true "hybrid" music download store. It has DRM-free 192 kbps mp3s available a la carte or by subscription (hybrid). mTraks is an open site, so you are not forced to subscribe like on eMusic. Songs are 99 cents a la carte and if you subscribe as little as 27 cents. They have the entire IODA catalog available of 3,500 independent labels offering 800,000 songs. Even better, they offer 30 free songs if you sign up for a trial subscription. - abomb97, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Read this follow up article from the artists perspective:
http://www.digg.com/music/Another_FREE_Legal_Album ... -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is