What is Digg?72 Comments
- icehazard, on 10/13/2008, -2/+63***** the RIAA
- trakie, on 10/14/2008, -1/+21do you realize tv is ad supported?
- gabbagabba, on 10/14/2008, -1/+20My band just released a split tape. It cost us 200$ out of our own pockets to produce them, plus about 5 days worth of copying and hard work to make the tapes themselves. We then gave them out for free and sent them to magazines. We've done plenty of internet promotion and it has not given us any money. Do we care? ***** no, I would rather have people listen to my music than give me money. Bands make money from touring, and selling merchandise. Very little money goes to the artist when they have their music sold in a store, maybe 10% if they're lucky. There's no reason for a CD to cost over 10 dollars or anything at all.
- galeninjapan, on 10/14/2008, -0/+13I cant wait till every 30 seconds in a song is interrupted by dancing bears selling toilet paper,
- Khast, on 10/14/2008, -2/+15I am not Seeing the RIAA attacking P2P because of profit loss. I see that the RIAA is fearing something, something which they can't name, or they would be ousted by the people. They have kind of admitted what they fear in some of the court cases, in particular with jury instructions. (That they can sue for damages, even if they don't own the music, to protect unsigned artists.)
What I see the RIAA is fearing is the loss of control. Traditionally, the musician had to be hand picked, and the RIAA had full control over what was acceptable, and who was going to be the next hot star....times are changing.
For about $600 you can get a decent computer which can act as a full recording studio with many open source programs available.
For about $1,200 you can convert your garage into a sound room, complete with noise dampening tiles.
All in all, if the musician is serious, they can do all the recording without any high cost equipment.
Now comes distribution...the RIAA used to have 100% complete control over how an album was distributed...long gone are those days. Since for FREE you can upload your music using filesharing programs like eMule, and others. Or using Torrents. If the artist wants to get the word out, they perform a cover of a popular song, and post it in places like Youtube, ect...
The RIAA is trying to stop this...and regain control over the system....because the artists no longer technically need them...they have to do something to regain control....We must stop their efforts. - wminzlaff, on 10/14/2008, -0/+13***** the MPAA too!
- rbk303, on 10/14/2008, -0/+11"but what drives these artists?"
art. - coldkill3r, on 10/14/2008, -2/+9I would have never heard some of my favorite bands if it weren't for bittorent and rapidshare. Long live file-sharing!
- Narcowski, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6'Dugg down', and shut up.
- Kflo, on 10/14/2008, -2/+8I wholeheartedly agree with this. My band has been recording an album at home for the last few months, and when we release it (in about three weeks) we will be putting the entire album up for free download in various formats and at various bitrates.
Unknown bands like us really just have nothing to lose. Seriously, we just want people to listen. - lazyfisherman, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6You've hit the nail on the head. Worse than losing money is losing control. AND THEY ARE SERIOUSLY LOSING CONTROL of distribution and controlling what is popular lol..
For artists, though --if you're talented-- your chances of growing a loyal cult audience are better than they've been for a long time. - connieLingus, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5all i can say is...sham-wow!
- amishx64, on 10/14/2008, -4/+9***** you. Some of my would-be friends died from an abortion.
- solid12345, on 10/14/2008, -2/+7***** doing it for the fans, i'd rather have a lear jet, endless groupie sex and unlimited stock of alcohol.
- xptoast, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5Actually...that is an interesting concept.
- captainwaffles, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5comparison of the year goes to...
- inactive, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5To start with , i would download mp3z of bands i didn't know and then pick up the albums (many years ago) i think it helped the bands , these are bands i wouldn't of heard of otherwise without the internet. Even though now i can download anything i want, i find myself downloading unknown bands that are giving away music for free. I get something new i like, they get the promotion, i think it works out well.
- ThatGeek, on 10/14/2008, -2/+6i had never heard of the pragmatic. Now I'm in the middle of torrenting Circles. What a great way to introduce fans to your music
- andreanjos, on 10/14/2008, -1/+5Hello everyone,
I was interviewed for this article by Ernesto.
I'm definitely glad everybody seems to agree that this is the way to go. Labels will strip you of every right and then throw you out there to promote a record you'll barely see a profit from. And to top it off.. a lot of labels are now demanding 360 deals.. aka.. they take a piece of everything. Can you imagine? touring, merch, albums all going to the label.
I guess I understand their idea is to fulfill a need with a product. The only issue is that we as consumers are much more intelligent now and have much better taste. We can't be bullied into liking fake uninteresting and mind numbing ***** acts.
Have you noticed how hard they have been pushing the new Pussycat dolls album? They are on their third single already.. nothing is picking up. People are smarter now.. - EinZteiN, on 10/13/2008, -3/+7It's great music and a great idea to distribute music this way!
If bands like these can crack the myth that you need labels to PROMOTE your music... we're all set to a true p2p music sharing and promotion! That *is* the future of music! - Manther, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3Well...since the fans are the ones giving them millions (PLUS what the label takes out), pleasing the fans essentially keeps that dream alive... You scratch our backs, and we'll scratch yours...
- connieLingus, on 10/14/2008, -4/+7really? wow so thats how they do it...
thanks for the insightful business lesson. - oriondr, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3Sounds like Digg needs a "Music" section :P
- u8myfoood, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4And you get a free* trip to see the lawyers of the RIAA in court, LIVE!!!
*: Does not include lawyer fees or potential seizure of assets/settlements. - chrishirsch, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Everyone is against the whole "paying for music" thing, and their reason that they "aren't ripping off artists" is that an artist can make a lot of money off a tour. But say thats the case, if you knock the record company out of the way, one, an artist can make the album at a home studio, but as of now it will not sound as nearly good as using a very expensive studio. I remember reading an article by Trent Reznor about when he first released a "pay what you want" album, and his return was not enough to pay for studio fees. Then you have to pay for to get your tracks mastered and get some art for it too, or if you are releasing hard copies, then printing and distribution. It all costs a lot of money and isn't necessarily do-able at home. Then if the record company is knocked out, I would suspect that someone would want a bigger chunk out of concert revenue, and same with merchandise. It's all a cycle. I just hope we find a way so everyone wins. Sorry for my long ramble but maybe someone will find it useful, or you can bury me.
- u8myfoood, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2The BBC system seems to work nicely, even living in the US, I watch many shows that they have and I love a couple of them, great programming without all those annoying commercials, especially the ones in NYC by comcast and the ***** raping, I hate those mofos!!!
- pullablank, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2I lost friends due to their taste in music.
- juliohm, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Resistance if futile. The future is open.
- roodammy44, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2You'd go perfectly with Britney Spears and the reams of other talentless ***** from today's pop.
Becoming a musician to be rich is a retarded idea. You may as well buy a lottery ticket. - Khast, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2That is a valid point, it all goes into how much you want to spend. You will get better quality when you pay more for your equipment. The point is, if you are a starting musician and want to be heard, it doesn't cost much at all.
Yes, I am a musician. I guess you could call me a digital musician. My "equipment" isn't cheap either, but most of mine is applications, instrument patches, and the need for a fairly high end computer. Granted there is some awesome freeware apps out there, but there is in some cases a big difference between the freeware and paid quality, and usability. (I don't have any of these high cost apps, I generally use the ones which are fairly inexpensive, as they work well enough for what I do.) - roodammy44, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2While I agree with your concerns, and I think CD sales have gone on to help small artists (I myself have bought many CDs from gigs), the real issue here is the mass market exploitation of consumers and artists by big labels.
The labels exert their control on the public and the artist and what we end up with is expensive ***** music all around us (on the radio, tv, shops, etc) and the stunting of artist's creative visions due to conditions in their contracts.
We will all be better off without them. Who knows, maybe if they die there will be good pop music again like in the 50s and 60s. - OpaqueMurdock, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2@connieLingus
Every time someone says TV or radio is free a kitten is forced to smoke Lucky Strikes in an ad agency basement. I know you were trying to be sarcastic in your second post, but every time you recall a beer jingle or worse yet, can recite a catchy phone number for a local carpet cleaning service... I hope you remember that you said TV was "free".
We have all paid for it, and the fact that we ignore that payment and have fallen into perceiving such an exchange as "no cost" has lead us to this "free" culture and strange expectations about what entertainment should be produced for us to consume as we please. Please consider a halt to spreading the myth that TV has ever been "Free". I bet I could set up a quiz of 100 questions based on famous commercials that most people would be able to answer with 100% accuracy. That time... that space in your brain... thats worth far more than a few dollars. Oh, we HAVE paid sir.
Creating media to the standards that people expect these days carries a hefty price tag and most won't do it unless they can recoup those costs. The premise that video blogers and small musicians will replace big media is beautiful, but it has been tried in different forms before and always it gets ignored.
People want the polish and that comes with a big budget. Even if that big budget is spent making the music sound like it was recorded in a garage... it will sound like the best friggin garage on the planet. People may want to believe that their favorite band recorded themselves in an old barn with borrowed equipment but often thats PR speak for "we hired really good producers to give it that sound".
In the long run, a few shows, actors, & musicians will break out now and then, but without some form of direct support most wont be able to grow and get better and will just stop long before they had to in the past... meanwhile big media will tighten its belt and take less risk on avant garde and unique projects in favor of media it knows it can control so it can stick a can of pepsi and a swiffer duster in the hands of the main character or write a lyric that mentions old spice body wash.
Watch and see. - dvsbastard, on 10/14/2008, -4/+6Please do not confuse commercial entertainers with "artists"...
Sure if you are talented enough, you can use your artistic skills to support yourself financially... But it seems the music industry lost sight of this a long time ago... - xptoast, on 10/14/2008, -2/+3...then people invite you to come to their clubs and such to play. Then you get paid. If you are good enough then you can get contracts and *****. Because you are a band and you probably want to sell Cd's and such I have a great present. There is a website I know that prints shirts, Cd's, books, etc. You can create a storefront with your albums with the fancy inlay prints and stuff there too. Not a bad price in fact. You can sell shirts from there as well for your band. They tend to wash well. I have worn mine many times. Cafepress.com dude. Just look around and you will find the CD part.
Myspace.com+free mp3s+CD buying location+shirt buying location= Freaking sweet opportunity. Myspace is there because it is a great networking tool even if the majority of them are crazy insane people who make crappy crappy pages.
Just an idea of course. - Stolte, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1haha internet people make me laugh
- ivanalbright, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1My guess is the future will bring more medium sized concerts, smaller live music shows will become more commonplace and local, and a few major websites will appear as sources to buy and promote music online, with everything controlled by the artist. The websites will make their profit by offering digital downloads, merchandise production and shipment as well as ad revenue (purchased by internal users to promote their band--ala DeviantArt).
- connieLingus, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1i still dont understand what is so bad about ad-supported music?
theater (tv) and music aren't really that different...why is sponsership fine in one but not in the other?
it would really like to hear the rationale behind that. - djbon2112, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Bad analogy. TV is add supported.
All we are seeing is close to a return to the traditional music model: concerts are more important that recorded music. Which I think is a great thing. - OpaqueMurdock, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1The thing is that as a musician just starting out, it has never cost much to be heard. It used to be a 4track and a cheap keyboard and guitar. and taking that tape down to the local "I'll play anything" after hours radio DJ. Now I hear what you are saying as you read this... "OK, but my stuff sounds 50X better than what a person with that equipment could do". Yup, Exactly... and so does every other piece of music recorded on the planet in the last few years.
The EXPECTATIONS of what a "basic recording" or "demo" should sound like have gone through the roof. People no longer make a distinction between what you do on your computer and what is done in a $500 an hour studio by a team of recording pros. And thats a bit of a problem.
Heh, So also... I think I may be just a bit jealous because I started out many many years ago when stuff cost an arm and a leg and If I had invested that money instead, I could have been rich by now! lol. So keep that in mind. : ) I am very digital myself actually, an early adopter of digital recording and I used to sell music gear. Sometimes I would tell people that I saw a time when the whole studio would be in software and they would look at me like I was an idiot... lol.
Right now I am shopping for a new audio interface set-up but it needs to have a TON of inputs because I want to finally ditch any traditional mixing desk from my studio to save space and I just can't bear to part with some of my favorite legacy gear like my matrix1000 or my beloved AX80. Even though I have the software wavestation... I still haven't sold my physical wavestation! lol (I'm a sick man.)
So, I think it mostly comes down to genre and how serious you are about the polish of the music.(even glitch, industrial and punk needs to be recorded and mixed well) Even people with rough voices that sound like gravel in a cement mixer still sing into good studio mics, because don't you want to hear every ping of that gravel?
So, as correct as you are... I don't think it serves us well as musicians to let people think its "cheap" to make music. Its still pretty costly to do it in such a way that it will sound to the average listener like something comparable to a high end studio recording. People should know the truth, and the truth is that the time alone that people like us invest is worth a lot, and by the time you get to the place where you want to record good vocals and put out songs that could sit side by side with big budget tracks... you will have spent some serious money.
We don't make music to make money... at least I never have, but I don't want people thinking it didn't cost me anything either...
Good luck to you Khast! Its always good to talk to someone who still has some enthusiasm for the journey ahead. Music is a tough business... go kick its ass bud! - Atomic1fire, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Radio is essentially a form of ad supported music., but music tends to work better in an ad based model when broadcasted, not when played whenever.
Perhaps if you had an ad supported web page, with advertiser supported streamed concerts, and sold music through your web page, it would be a good idea. - temujin2012, on 10/14/2008, -2/+3Good.
If I download an album I like, I'll buy it (preferably DRM free download :D). It's kind of like a "try before you buy" thing. - chrishirsch, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1Good points. Glad some people on here know a thing or two about music production.
- pullablank, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2We need independent sources to buy up radio stations and promote music outside the mainstream. I have heard SO MANY songs from SO MANY artists and thought "*****, this would be a HUGE hit on the radio", but unless you are part of a label that pays off clear channel, you aren't getting any play time, anywhere.
- Sommerlost, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2now say it again in your robot voice...
- pullablank, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2Nor would I have seen some of my (newly discovered) favorite groups live, or bought t-shirts and cd's at their show.
- Lunarsight, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2Chris - I think you're right, to a degree. However, I do have some reservations:
It's getting to a point now where you can achieve pretty good results without a professional studio, if you know what you're doing. The audio software available on the market is pretty good, and in the right hands can level the playing field between the independent musician sitting in his home and those recording in a professional studio.
Furthermore, the mere fact somebody does record in a professional studio is no guarantee they're going to get good results. One thing that has plagued commercial music for a few decades now is the 'loudness war'. Since every song is trying to compete for your attention, producers keep compressing the audio signal, trying to make it louder and louder. The end result is a product with no variation in volume which often is badly clipped (over the 0DB mark). - chriswilson08, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1The artist can still make money aside from tours as long as the donation based system is supported by fans. It's not like the overhead is that high once the physical media is removed (Cd's, promotional media, etc) and the 3rd parties (Record Labels and Music stores) are skipped over.
- nycjap, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1This is why the record companies and others who simply live off of the ownership of other people's labors have pushed so hard for extensions of their copyright protections, because what they've got is just about all they're going to get. Their stream of content is drying up, so they've got to make what they've got last as long as possible. Once their copyrights run out, everything will be public domain and they'll have nothing to sell anymore.
As for this impacting concert prices, live entertainment prices have been going through the roof for the past 20-30 years under the control of the record companies, so why should things be any worse without them?
It's actually conceivable that with new technologies and new business models, concert prices could level off, if not go down, over time. If downloading of music could be legitimized so that downloaders could be geographically identified, this would enable concert organizers and bands to pre-screen geographically ideal venues, and even pre-sell concerts, guaranteeing that the event would only take place once a sufficient number of "subscribers" had signed up to attend an event. Concert organizers can then play with a variety of booking models, seeing whether a band was more profitable doing a series of smaller venues in a series of towns, or one big venue in a larger city. This would create greater competition for performance venues, and bring down some of the costs for concert organizers. - OpaqueMurdock, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1@connieLingus
I don't think anything is wrong with ad supported programing, but we are getting past that now because the delivery method can't be controlled. You can no longer make someone watch the ads when they can download an ad free version at will. Even if a studio embeds ads in a TV show and put it up on P2P, a version with the ads striped out would be up within a blink of an eye because someone would see it as a challenge.
If 5-7 years ago the people that have always worked so hard to create P2P networks had also put their large brains to making a system for donating micro payments to small creators of non DRM content easy and as universal and pushed users hard to support those artists over the big old greedy media outlets... Then I think we could have seen a REAL revolution. But unfortunately I honestly don't think most really wanted revolution.
As it is, it really is just going to end up being a new delivery system co-opted to push more of the same stuff, and eventually they will figure out how to get the money out of people... and it will feel like everyone "beat" them at first, until 10 years down the line people discover they just changed the way they did business. They are very tricky.
It's not like they haven't had to adapt before. They are really good at it... They are just slow. - OpaqueMurdock, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1@roodammy44
I should be clear that I have ALWAYS offered non DRM tracks of my music for free. I am progressive and want to see the record companies gone as much as any 2P2 enthusiast. My main goal is to hopefully inspire people to respect the efforts of independents and not lump them in with the corporate tools. We should be 2 sides of the same coin. But often P2P people sometimes make assumptions about independents that are pretty far off base.
I do hope it works out well, but I have a view of the music business that is based on trying to do exactly what you are suggesting for 20 years. Being an independent is far from new. Honestly, even being an independent on the internet is far from new. I have always been self recorded, self produced, and self distributed. The growing difference for true independents is the devaluation of the only product many of os have to monetize... the recordings themselves.
So I predict that in the long run this all will benefit the record companies, they have deeper pockets and can monetize in ways we can't, like getting a band to sing about a tourism destination for example. The sick think is that most of the time, if its done well, the listener will never know. (this type of product placement is going on now by the way) They also have the ability to get sponsorships and land endorsement deals that are out of reach of someone working on a small scale.
In the end it will come down to PR and promotion and thats where they will ALWAYS win. It's simply no contest. A music act that seems like an independent (for street cred), has Good PR, good stylists that help them look like the coolest losers ever, really good producers to make the music sound incredible even though the PR says it was banged out in instruments they found in thrift stores, personal trainers, and most of all a LOT of money for what has become a finely tuned art of promoting to people who don't like to be promoted to and don't want to KNOW they have been promoted to and well... and independent and their little $1200- $5000 PR budget to get music in front of people is going to get crushed ever time.
Contrary to popular belief if you just release your music on P2P networks you won't become famous. heh, You still have to promote and if you can you still have to tour... touring costs money because you have to quit or take a leave of absence from your jobs(s), pile 3-6 people in a van and drive cross country for weeks at a time playing in clubs that don't like to pay bands to play! Often they consider it a privilege to give you the space on stage. Often you are asked to guarantee ticket/door sales. You could be required to purchase a certain number of tickets in advance and then you would be responsible for selling them... most bands give them away to promote. So in essence you are being asked to pay for the opportunity to play. This is possible because they have so many bands wanting that spot that they can cherry pick to maximize profit (just good business really) but also they can use the stage as another source of income by charging bands for access to their audiences. Now imagine you are in a band doing something REALLY different and unique under that system... well, you are just screwed.
Such "all or nothing" commercial systems seem to always favor the mainstream, fimiliar and more marketable at the expence of the new and different. If bands are supposed to support themselves from playing clubs.... Then we have a lot of boring music coming down the pipe.
So does all that sound much like art to anyone? If you are lucky you have a good manager who doesn't rip you off and you get to focus on "art". But its a very hard thing to pull off the "balance" and thats why when you find an independent band that does something you like... please support them directly.
They will appreciate it more than you can know.
Thanks for reading and considering. -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is