What is Digg?56 Comments
- uberlit, on 01/08/2008, -2/+10I was hoping 'Story of the Year' , was releasing a cd ala radiohead etc.
- fkr3, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5Where are all these "superstars" of the internet then? A handful of idiots caught being stupid on video is all it's produced.
The internet is no more help than the real world. Artists can have a website, they can use other websites, at the end of the day they're one page out of billions. - HappyScrappy, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4Radiohead did that as a publicity stunt and then went on to sign a conventional record contract. It's amazing people can't manage to pay attention to what actually happens.
- NaziHatinChimp, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5It's changed the way I illegally download music.
- Humpasaur, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3How many times will they re-write the same old article? It's not a brave new anything, it's still a business -- TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND DIY.
http://www.audiblehype.com/diy/entry/the_10000_rec ... - smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Well, you're either incredibly well-informed or unable to comprehend. Either way, you're extreme!
- noremacstew, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3decent point, but indie music as a whole seems to have a growing fan base. granted i'm coming from a college environment which means i probably notice more exposure than, say, someone in the work force, but i've noticed a lot of indie artists and bands picking up steam lately. the internet and the increase of social bookmarking is giving indie artists a lot of opportunities that weren't around 10 years ago.
now how much this translates into a 'revolution' is highly debatable. personally i don't see much changing really; i still think big labels will hold the majority of popular artists, and those artists will be getting more mainstream exposure than some random indie rock group. i think the biggest change will occur in the fans themselves. big names leaving big labels really doesn't change much except how people view the indie labels. to most people it seems 'less popular' means 'less talented;' i think it's that idea that is being redefined. i don't think any particular indie artists are going to notice a dramatic increase of fans, but i think the indie scene in general will. - smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3I would pay $0.10 per song and $1.00 per album as a package deal. That's what it's worth to me. The article is right. CDs and downloads are nothing more than advertising at this point. Radio and TV have given away music for free so long that it's changed for good.
- Nevotraz, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Look, I hate labels as much as the next guy, and I'm always happy to say "***** the RIAA", but this is a valid point. The Radioheads and Nine Inch Nails of the world are able to do what they do because they have been built up and brought to success by the massive marketing machinery and infrastructure of the record industry. Obviously their talent has something to do with their success, but there are plenty of VERY talented musicians out there who are completely unknown, who would be committing financial suicide to ignore a major label deal and say "***** this, I want to support the cause and sell my album on the internet".
In fact you can look at the relative failure of Saul Williams' new album. Sure it was big on Digg, and we all said that's great. I even bought it. But ultimately because he doesn't have the clout of Radiohead, and it wasn't an NIN album (it was simply backed by Reznor), then without a major marketing campaign (usually paid for by a major label), he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. - Billistic, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Yeah but where's all your "superstars" of the traditional recording industry? Most of the heavy hitters are still from the 80's and 90's. The big old industry mostly knocks out one hit wonders these days.
Or hanna montanna crap. - fkr3, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3It's not stealing if you put pen to paper and sign it unless someone's holding a gun to your head. You think recording contracts are the only contracts you've got to actually read first? Every business in every industry is looking to exploit someone or something to their own gain. Being a musician is not an excuse for being blind to that obvious fact.
- Billistic, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5So we're all in agreement fkr3 works for a record company?
- bdbr, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Considering how much greater the sales have been for bigger indie artists who went to the majors, like The Decemberists and Death Cab For Cutie, something must be happening. Of course, they're bound to have gotten much smaller percentages than they did from the indie labels, so I wonder if they really made any more money...and given the people yelling "sellout!" at the concert, they probably lost some fans too!
- isntreal, on 01/08/2008, -3/+5It's called the internet.
- borez, on 01/08/2008, -3/+5Death to one of the Worlds all time greatest thief's...
The major record labels - bat-21, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I like how Trent Reznor's gun is pointed at Madonna's head. PULL THE TRIGGER!
- fkr3, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3They're not stealing money any more than your boss is when you agree to a $40,000 salary instead of a $50,000 salary.
- mpobri, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I think it's helping by leveling pricing to a more normal level. While music production (recording & duplication) have continued to drop (with digital distribution, it's a fraction of what it cost to press CD's 10 years ago), the relative price has remained flat.
Radiohead is helping to shape what the price people will pay. I firmly believe 80+% of people would pay for all of their music IF it's properly priced. Using the $10-15/disc "standard" isn't working. Radiohead and NIN/Saul Williams are trying to find that sweet spot, and I commend them. - mal1964, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2in the 70's a 45 record had two songs, one side had the radio hit (side A) side B had another song from the album that no one listened to lol, average cost was .99. so really not much change.
- fkr3, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2lol.... the point is one side is producing them even if not in epic proportions while the other side is just claiming they can despite having not done so in over a decade.
- mpobri, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2$0.99 has been around for what, 5 years, and piracy continues. People have voted they are not willing to pay that much. I agree, cost of producing a CD is irrelevant now, but the labels expect folks to continue to pay the same for the license only (no distribution, no physical disc).
I don't know the magic number, but I think it's somewhere below 50% of a physical disk's price. On a per-track basis, that's probably $0.40. - Billistic, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Well name a recent superstar from traditional media.....
- mal1964, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1No one likes serious with a pun?
- tbone8978, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1THERE'S ONLY ONE AWKTOBER!!!
- m00n1, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3Just as big as the work they are doing to bypass the record labels is that they are doing it using DRM-free files. DRM is a curse on the music industry, let's hope these guys are the start of a cure.
- borez, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Say that when you've been lured in at 19 years old with a gold plated carrot, held under a ***** contract for 5 years and had all the money you thought was due to you written off by the label executives expense accounts, remixes you didn't ask for, producers who never produced a thing, bollocks marketing campaigns that never existed, bogus accounting etc. etc. etc.
Not stealing money... yeah right! - smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2I'm sorry, I will never get used to seeing Madonna's name in all of this. She's the one who started Maverick Records. She's the sellout arm of Warner Bros Music. What, she made her money signing all of these people to ***** up contracts she would never sign and now she's sorry?
Whatever. I don't believe she's had a change of heart as much as she wants a new way to make money since the Maverick thing is pretty much done for her. - mpobri, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Agreed!
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1When will major artist with talent start doing this?
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Don't forget, he started a label, TVT and they seem to be pretty cool, but not as cool as Nettwerk. Wikisearch them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettwerk#Nettwerk_and ...
I can't speak for the artists on TVT's contracts, but the ones I know of all signed contracts that were pretty good for them and I do not know of TVT having the RIAA sue anyone - though it may have happened and/or some of his artists might support such a thing. Anyone with more info on TVT could provide links...would be nice.
I can't speak - borez, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1LOL
- borez, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Ask Thom York
- Niightwitch, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1The days of "dying to get signed by a record label" are not over. Bands will still need the marketing and publicity machine of a big record label. Just because one or two already-popular and famous bands made money by releasing direct to the public does not mean that little-known/unknown bands will have similar successes and it's naive to think otherwise.
- sonicEd, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2The significance of this won't be clearly seen for three of four years... but it is huge. The days of dying to get "signed" on a major are over.
- bdbr, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah, its great from the standpoint of music fans, but in the entire world view, if this is the story of the year its been a damned quiet year! I don't think this year has been THAT quiet.
- sweetal, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0What's interesting is of all people Celine Dion anticipated the current reality 5 years ago by quitting recording and mounting her Las Vegas show. Her new CD has tanked in sales, but who cares? The Vegas gig earned $400 million.
- HanSolo69, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3I forget, what did Trent Reznor do that was revolutionary? Didn't he just leave his label? Maybe hid a few thumb drives here and there?
- seantubridy, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Oh no. Please don't let "Story of the Year" become the new "Top 10... whatever."
- UhhWTF, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1funny, i clicked this article hoping that they werent
- fkr3, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2$0.99 a song is not too much to ask, and Apple normalised that price - successfully in spite of the cheapasses on digg crying it's too much - years ago.
The cost of physically creating the CD is irrelevant. It's what's on the CD that costs to produce and costs to market.
Reznor failed miserably and said so himself. He catered to every demand that was touted as the reason for piracy, and in return not even 1 in 5 people shelled out a measly $5 for an album. - pyxopotamus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0I thought the entire game was kinda cool.
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/ ... - fkr3, on 01/08/2008, -2/+23,000,000,000+ sales on iTunes suggests they found the sweet spot, all that's left is for the pro-piracy kids to grow up, get jobs and realise it's not exactly a king's ransom.
- Artemisian, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1Old news, but always good to revel in it. It is getting tiresome to see Madonna in these stories, but she deserves at least a mention - she's a high-seller, and has strongly shifted focus from CDs to performances, always a wise move. It's the same idea as giving away the music for free - it focusses on the live revenue stream as opposed to the music sales stream.
Regarding Han Solo's comment: "I forget, what did Trent Reznor do that was revolutionary? Didn't he just leave his label? Maybe hid a few thumb drives here and there?"
Erm ... quite a bit. He was speculating about selling the music solely online ages ago, long before Radiohead or Saul announced the idea. He did leave the label, and is being a strong voice for independence from labels, especially through the Niggy Tardust online release. He's a producer and spokesman, and he gets interest up. Considering the man's nearing 43, he's /very/ digitally-minded in his industry. - Kido1986, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1Me too. Huge SotY fan here
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1How is this story of the year
- camaroz06, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1What has Madonna done? Shes with LiveNation, they are just as bad.
- notoneofus, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1They haven't created a brave new world, just indicated the shape of things to come.
- slipkn0tz23, on 01/08/2008, -2/+0HOLY *****, it's 2008!
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1No, he probably is an executive at a record company. Everyone I know that WORKS for the record companies agree with us and hate douches like him.
I'm always amazed when I make a relatively normal post as opposed to talking smack and I get Dugg down right away. I'm sure there are people I've goofed on that hate me and will Digg down anything I say, but in THESE threads I have to wonder if there aren't RIAA-types Digging down people who make good points. Especially since I have that Greasemonkey script installed that shows how many Diggs went + or - on a comment.
My Oliver Stone-ish opinion is that the RIAA goes to popular tech blogs like this and tries to hide valid arguments against their *****-tactics. Not to toot my own horn here, but my 1st comment about Madonna is spot-on and it went to 0 within a minute. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that Madonna signed all of these people to her Maverick label and then sold her label to Warner Bros. Now she has a new deal with LiveNation that all of her former artists can only dream about and she hung them out to dry. No refutation of what I said, just the Digg down. If I am so wrong, it should be a soft pitch to hit out of the park.
Thus I believe RIAA-types are here, and I go to these threads and make sure to Digg up all of the comments that tell it like it is.
And ***** fkr3 Digging everything down. I know it's him. - mal1964, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1Real Question, How is this helping me?
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is