What is Digg?167 Comments
- Shigglyboo, on 10/14/2007, -4/+116as someone who writes music, downloads music, and pays for music (including live, CD's and downloads), this does sorta bother me a bit. I have a day job, and I'd love to quit, but the profit I make from music is nowhere near high enough. most guys I know now believe that live shows are the only way to survive. as far as recorded music, here's how I see it. If you can't afford to pay for it but you want to listen to it, then you can have it. but if you can afford it and you feel it has value, please pay. I like Radiohead's idea of allowing you to pay whatever you feel it's worth. that's the direction I'd like to go in. some guys might only give you $1, but some might toss $20 or more at you, you never know. One things for sure, the money going straight to the artist with no label is awesome.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+47I stopped buying music en masse a long time ago (I've got several hundred CDs) and I stopped downloading a while back. There are only a few artists I'll give my money to for music and those artists tend to sell their CDs through their web site. I've always thought it'd be a great idea if you could choose to download some music from an artist and turn around send THEM the check. Record labels seem to unnecessary these days (as someone said in another comment for another article) and are only around to serve us the mainstream pop crap that fills the radio waves these days.
I'll gladly pay $13-$20 for a CD if I knew the artist got to decide what to do with the money. - indiefan, on 10/14/2007, -3/+45support bands by paying to see them perform
- wazzledoozle2, on 10/14/2007, -1/+33Add Radiohead to that list. On the 10th their new album "In Rainbows" will be available for download at the price of whatever you feel like paying- or nothing at all!!
- natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Agreed. Some albums, I'd pay $50 or more for because they blow my ***** mind every time I listen to them.
I don't want to give a dime to the incompetent, bureaucratic overlords of the music labels, though. They've served their purpose. Time to let the virtue of each album speak for itself, and create a real marketplace, egalitarian alternative. - zhulien, on 10/14/2007, -4/+22heck, if my business cannot make a profit and goes under, I don't try recoup my losses by suing people - perhaps the RIAA should just accept their business is going down and live with it.
- juicebag, on 10/14/2007, -3/+20I wouldn't mind paying for music if the band actually got my money, and if I wasn't supporting the RIAA. And if Tower Records didn't close and my local record store didn't burn down.
- smrekar, on 10/14/2007, -1/+16If someone makes a cool "I Buy Music" t-shirt, then i would be more than happy to steal it.
- joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11It does not need to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Talented people can record music very cheaply these days.
- indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10start touring?
- ACrazyGerman, on 10/14/2007, -2/+11Music is far to expensive just to buy and album you think MIGHT be good. I am getting dugg down because I like to listen to my music for a few weeks before I dump my money into it. If it's good I want to support the artist.
- Louis11, on 10/14/2007, -0/+8Where have you been...
http://www.jinx.com/product_listing.aspx?name=musi ... - hiphoc, on 10/14/2007, -5/+13Yea, we got to work something out with this downloading stuff. The old label model is dead. I am glad, maybe the Radiohead way of doing things would work. This is ***** because the labels have been putting out ***** and promoting people to buy albums and come home to find ***** coming out of their speakers. But this can kill the golden goose as the term goes. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a indie artist to record a record, especially if u have to hire musicians. But one good thing is that most unsigned artists can tour or perform to make money. If you are a studio diva or studio gangsta and cant perform you are *****. That's why the labels are scared. A lot of their artists cant really sing or perform on an instrument. The garbage artists are gonna be weeded out in the next few years. I just home underground folks survive. Buy indie/underground and download major label artists. That's the best way to ***** the system. That will make the indie rise up and take over.
Downloading is a great way to distribute music without getting your ass raped by a major label contract. But we got to keep working to make it profitable for indie artists. Imagine if Mozart had a record label? No too long, people dont want that - ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Someone gets it. With the internet, it's never music that is dying. It's the major labels, and they are fighting to the death. Futilely. Unless they do, for example, what Apple have done with iTunes, they will not survive. And I will gladly prepare for their funeral
- Eeqmcsq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"...allowing you to pay whatever you feel it's worth"
So it's kind of like a tips jar, where if someone really enjoyed it, they'd throw in a few bucks or more, but if they didn't then nothing is lost. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The lables rip off the artists with studio fees and the like. It's a joke.
- zhulien, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10btw, when is the Government going to impose a mandatory tax to prop up my private company?
- dennysivo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13"most unsigned artists can tour or perform to make money"
rubbish.
Have you ever tried this? It can take years to develop your act such that you can make money touring. Many acts actually pay to perform at cabaret shows
"I wouldn't mind paying for music if the band actually got my money,"
another fine myth. Standard deal is 2 bucks per unit sold going into the artists pocket. If you rip it instead of buying it you take $2 out of your beloved bands pocket. Prince and NIN don't give a ^%&* cuz they can already bathe in money.
"if my business cannot make a profit and goes under, I don't try recoup my losses by suing people"
no, but if they walk out of your retail outlet with merch that they've not paid for you tend to throw them in jail.
"Maybe when music is free the artists wont be in it so much for the money, but for the love of music."
so, we'd then no longer have professional artists. That's great. I can't wait to listen to your 5 year old cousins latest garage band smash hit. To do music well you have to dedicate a lot of time to it and often buy some pricey gear. Most musicians have a dream of having music be their day job. Are you proposing we take that away? - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Try live performances. That's where they make the bulk of their money anyways. The record labels take the majority of the profits from the CD sales.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I don't agree with making music free. Artists deserve pay for their work. Granted I do download music from time to time and listen to it to see if it is worth listening to. After that I usually buy the Albums. However I find it amusing that people want music for free yet expect to be paid when they work.
- uberkling, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"One things for sure, the money going straight to the artist with no label is awesome."
Damn straight. The irony that even if you only wire the band $1 directly for the album, that's probably more than their cut from the $20 produced CD anyway. The only people that lose in that equation are the ones I don't really think the discerning consumer *or* the jaded artist really give that much of a crap about these days. - skellener, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I still buy CDs of bands I like and will continue to do so. More and more I can buy them right from the band's website which is great. Why? Better quality, CD is a ubiquitous format and can play in anything, no DRM, can be resold if I ever get tired of it, songs can be ripped an re-ripped to whatever format I like and by having the CD it is my built-in back up. They can also be found rather cheaply at used record stores. I still find this the ideal way to collect and keep music I enjoy. I only use digital "pay" download for the the single I want without the album. I will always check Amazon now instead of iTunes since Amazon is DRM free.
- Szandor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Punctuation makes things easier to read.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yeah I have to agree with you. When given an option to pay the artist directly what I feel is right for something I truly like I will usualy over pay just to support the artist be it a painting, music, book, or whatever. I feel more people are like this than not. At least I hope they are.
- hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Everyone is different. A really good vocal mic can cost me 1g, minimum 500$, really good 2000$. Computer/Mac fully loaded minimum 5G's. Pro Tools or Apogee rig 2 G's minimum. Now that's if you want semi-studio quality in your home. Labels spend hundreds of thousands if not millions recording an album. Yea, you can get things done with a MBox or MAudio system. But we are talking about really getting ***** done on your own there is an initial set up cost.
- solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It is scary that people here want artists to work for free out of the goodness of our heart.
Like it or not art is a commercial entity. I'm going into graphic design and there is no way in hell I am going to design logos, ads, and package designs for free. I've got to eat it and it is my primary skill.
This viewpoint of "doing art for free" is just degrading ourselves and continuing the belief by many in public that talent is a commodity, that having a brilliant mind and creativity is "just a hobby." I have had people put me down thinking being a designer or an ad man is not a job, that i should have been a lawyer or a doctor instead.
It irritates me when people asked why I would charge hundreds of dollars for a logo saying absurd things like "what, don't you just draw it up?" if only life were that simple. You wouldn't ask a brain surgeon to work for free so why should we?
Michaelangelo got paid handsomely for painting the Sistine Chapel and he deserved it. His skills were worth every dime the pope paid him. He would never have been able to survive or find the time to create such a beautiful thing if he had done it for free.
Don't get me wrong, the RIAA is shady and the economic model does need to change, but asking bands to just give away music is not the answer. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Recordings will most likely become promotional tools.
- solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well people like me in the midwest, famous bands don't come our way often. Recorded music is the only way many of us would ever hear a lot of music.
- Fordi, on 10/14/2007, -1/+6He said "download". That can mean by P2P or by iTunes, for all you know. Please don't jump to any conclusions.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9The band gets exactly what they're contract says they get. The contract they freely agreed to. I'm sick of this argument. Tower closed because people don't buy CDs anymore.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Music artists are not lawyers, and the contracts they're given to sign are often given in a "sign now or no deal" manner. While that is illegal and predatory, most Artists don't realize it - nor do they normally know that they should record all negotiations to keep everyone honest.
For what it's worth, that particular type of market failure is known as 'asymmetric information', or more colloquially as de facto fraud.
Admittedly, there are a few exceptions to this rule - and those artists who *are* the exceptions make a good deal even with just a modest career.
Meanwhile, Tower close due to overextension; they got their fingers into too many pies, and too few of them were profitable. - itsbradman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Underground artists have survived forever without making $ off of their recordings and will continue to do so. The ability to distribute music online has done nothing but take $ away from the labels and the RIAA itself. The artists aren't losing out on this. Hell, most of the don't even own their music anymore after they sign to a label. The erosion of big label music is the best thing to happen to "real" music in a very long time.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If you think artists get $1-3 for album sales you're in some fantasy world.
During recording the Label forces the artist to use the Label's studio (which they charge them after the fact) and the Label provides catering (which the artist is billed for after the fact). So that $10m contract ends with you owing the label money after your first two albums. And unless you get HUGE you're going to be paying the Label off once your one hit has been forgotten by the world. - williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, he is really insensitive to those Phantom of the Opera types who live in a cave and would be attacked by a torch mob if they toured.
- blake213, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7What he fails to realize here is that digital distribution (in the form of mp3 downloads) is a *distribution* cost, not a *production* cost. Does anyone realize how expensive it is to record and produce a record? It can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So while bandwidth is cheap, you still have to factor in the cost of actually producing the music. Count in all the other costs not related to distribution, and the price exponentially rises.
- toekneebullard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6But if you're business went out of business because everyone stole your product rather than buying, you would try and prosecute those people. I'm not siding with the RIAA by any means, but your analogy is pretty weak.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8As I see it, recorded music should just be promotion for live shows. The smart ones gave their music away and packed their shows. Ala, the Grateful Dead.
Recordings aren't enough. An artist should simply charge a yearly subscription and receive x amount of songs, first shot at tickets, and some other goodies. It's the record companies that screwed up. Remove them. The artist makes more money and the fan gets a more intimate experience. - juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Tens of thousands of dollars to record an album? Nonsense. The only reason it costs that much is labels and ***** like that.
- MaxwellTD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Personally, i download most of my music, theres no possible way i could pay for it all.
However! I go to a lot of shows, and i buy a lot of merch, direct from the artist too.
every now and then i will buy a New CD (about 1 a month) instead of downloading
My dads band has put out almost all of there recordings for free.
And my band plans to do the same.
(i wear a different band t-shirt every day) - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Heh. When I had a band, we made do with a little over $500/album, and it was damned good quality - acoustically, not musically, I mean. We kinda sucked.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How can they not know how much they are paying for studio time? That's amazing to me. I sure as hell would ask. New bands should be fully aware of this by now. It's been a huge sticking point for many artists for a while now.
- shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6True, its at most 3 to 5 thousand to complete a new CD, and $500 to press every 1,000 CDs. The labels just gouge the artists.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"demo tapes"
You've just pretty much shown when the last time you've heard a home-recorded track was. Computers are wonderful things, especially when they're hooked up to about $600 worth of mid-end DSPs and recording equipment. - Szandor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So you're sort of a bipolar music consumer?
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Radiohead is an established band that can afford to give away mp3s of their music because they know that people will still buy the CDs and pay for concert tickets. An unknown band will find it difficult to reach that stage without someone investing in them for professional quality recording in a real studio and promotion so their songs get airplay. One day the internet may replace radio as the main place where people are exposed to new music, based on some sort of polling system for likeability, but until then bands need to rely on grassroots campaigns without investment from record labels or other sources (e.g. wealthy parents).
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Considerably less. I've got a friend who runs a recording studio that he paid less than $2000 in equipement for. He charges by the hour at a rate of $25, and makes a pretty penny at it. The local rap thugs love him for it.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You mean to bail out a failing business model.
- xister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"No such thing as overpriced"
What are you- a ***** record exec? Because I could only imagine an exec saying ***** like that. How much do you think it costs a record company to burn and sell a 20 year old album? Or even a 5 yo. album? Keep in mind that we as consumers can buy blank CDs for pennies. Once the promotion and basic costs are made back, (aside from the % to artists) it's all gravy for the record companies that are charging you 15 bucks for that 20 year old Metallica CD. Why haven't the costs of CDs gone down since they came out? - relentless1914, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"just because software is free doenst mean there wont be good software. the sooner more programmers realize thats its for the fun and enjoyment of other not the money and fame, the better this world will be. there is still millions of dollars available in this market. Pirating will just allow us to rid the industry of corp scumpaving the -way for money to be made individually. Sharing is caring"...
Sorry but most people who work hard to be really good at something they do have the right to attempt to make a living doing their passion. The problem here is that too many people try to turn other peoples work into a commodity. It is up to the artist and his/her designated representatives, (record label & distributor) to decide how much they wish to charge for their work, and it is up to the consumer to decide if they feel that price is worth paying.
I frequently read arguments from people who do not create content who feel that content creation is easy, and that the content is worthless, I'm not a musician, I'm an artist, and I will not allow my customers to determine the price for my work. I set the price, and if they are not willing to pay, then I don't do the work. They are free to go elsewhere and try to find a fool who is willing to work for peanuts. I see music the same way. Most musicians who I know would love to be able top focus full-time on music, but they can't because they can't generate enough revenue to feed their families unless they sign a record deal. Once a deal is signed, the artists are able to do music full-time. This is why the creativity is gone. If someone tells you to produce a certain type of music if you want a multi-million dollar contract, would you do it, or would you stick to what you want to do and stay broke? Get rid of the recording industry and you are making it harder for them...... I'm not a fan of the RIAA, and I don't buy any music, nor do I download music. I listen to what I already have, and lament about the days of higher quality and more originality.... - xister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hell yes...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 167 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