The internet will suck all creative content out of the world
October 11, 2013 6:45 PM Subscribe
David Byrne on making a living from music. 'Many a fan (myself included) has said that "music saved my life", so there must be some incentive to keep that lifesaver available for future generations.'
The labels are still getting paid, ChurchHatesTucker. The artists still aren't, just even moreso.
Same as it ever was.
posted by notyou at 6:53 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
Same as it ever was.
posted by notyou at 6:53 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
I love David Byrne. Closest thing our culture's got to a living bodhisattva.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:55 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 6:55 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
Musicians existed before records, as did subsistence farmers. And both were usually very poor. Would you want to go back to subsistence farming?
posted by straight at 6:57 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by straight at 6:57 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
"Musicians existed before records, as did subsistence farmers. And both were usually very poor."
The recording industry meant that musicians haven't been mostly very poor? Oh, you mean that the 1/100th of the 1% who are top-selling popular music artists haven't been poor.
What did the recording industry do for the rest of working musicians?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:04 PM on October 11, 2013 [17 favorites]
The recording industry meant that musicians haven't been mostly very poor? Oh, you mean that the 1/100th of the 1% who are top-selling popular music artists haven't been poor.
What did the recording industry do for the rest of working musicians?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:04 PM on October 11, 2013 [17 favorites]
David Byrne wrote a sort-of-similar article back in 2007. It's not about the dangers of streaming services, which The Guardian article covers, but rather about how the digital music market poses some new challenges. It might be an interesting complement to his current perspective. David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists — and Megastars
posted by Going To Maine at 7:13 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 7:13 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Evil evil spotify, how dare they make such great profit margins!
Wait, they operate at a loss? Hrmmmm.
posted by zabuni at 7:13 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Wait, they operate at a loss? Hrmmmm.
posted by zabuni at 7:13 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
It's true though. The big labels aren't dead. They have deep connections to various media conglomerates that can afford to keep them running indefinitely even as loss leaders, if necessary, through various commercial product tie-ins and "vertical integration synergies" (translation: they've got monopoly power and plenty of money through affiliated companies and corporate partnerships). Meanwhile, the challenges of really making it work as an independent are even more complex and demanding and many of the most important and formerly succesful indie labels have gone under. Look, if you don't think Byrne knows what he's talking about when he talks about the music business, who the hell would you say actually does?
posted by saulgoodman at 7:17 PM on October 11, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 7:17 PM on October 11, 2013 [10 favorites]
Everything is free now, that's what they say...
posted by rikschell at 7:23 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 7:23 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
If the record industry of the 20th century saved David Byrnes' life, well... I can think of a lot of artists for whom the opposite is true, but they aren't giving interviews...
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:24 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:24 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
I think this is at the heart of what he's saying:
"The larger question is that if free or cheap streaming becomes the way we consume all (recorded) music and indeed a huge percentage of other creative content – TV, movies, games, art, porn – then perhaps we might stop for a moment and consider the effect these services and this technology will have, before "selling off" all our cultural assets the way the big record companies did. If, for instance, the future of the movie business comes to rely on the income from Netflix's $8-a-month-streaming-service as a way to fund all films and TV production, then things will change very quickly. As with music, that model doesn't seem sustainable if it becomes the dominant form of consumption. "
As Bruce Sterling says all the time, "What happens to musicians will happen to everyone soon".
Also from the article:
"I don't have an answer. I wish I could propose something besides what we've heard before: "Make money on live shows." Or, "Get corporate support and sell your music to advertisers."
As @saulgoodman says, if you don't think Byrne knows something about this, who the hell does?
posted by maupuia at 7:24 PM on October 11, 2013 [20 favorites]
"The larger question is that if free or cheap streaming becomes the way we consume all (recorded) music and indeed a huge percentage of other creative content – TV, movies, games, art, porn – then perhaps we might stop for a moment and consider the effect these services and this technology will have, before "selling off" all our cultural assets the way the big record companies did. If, for instance, the future of the movie business comes to rely on the income from Netflix's $8-a-month-streaming-service as a way to fund all films and TV production, then things will change very quickly. As with music, that model doesn't seem sustainable if it becomes the dominant form of consumption. "
As Bruce Sterling says all the time, "What happens to musicians will happen to everyone soon".
Also from the article:
"I don't have an answer. I wish I could propose something besides what we've heard before: "Make money on live shows." Or, "Get corporate support and sell your music to advertisers."
As @saulgoodman says, if you don't think Byrne knows something about this, who the hell does?
posted by maupuia at 7:24 PM on October 11, 2013 [20 favorites]
What did the recording industry do for the rest of working musicians?
aspiration
posted by Mario Speedwagon at 7:28 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
aspiration
posted by Mario Speedwagon at 7:28 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
DON'T MORTGAGE YOUR ART TO A HUGE COROPRATION.
Dammit this can work if we all just pay each other. I will pay you (and have). I won't pay them. It boggles my mind that any creative artist is complaining that the old system, where they enslaved themselves to a giant corporation for a pitiful percentage of the profits, is dying
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:31 PM on October 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
Dammit this can work if we all just pay each other. I will pay you (and have). I won't pay them. It boggles my mind that any creative artist is complaining that the old system, where they enslaved themselves to a giant corporation for a pitiful percentage of the profits, is dying
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:31 PM on October 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
As @saulgoodman says, if you don't think Byrne knows something about this, who the hell does?
This isn't about morality. Your product is no longer scarce. The only solution that I can think of is either a change in moral sentiment never seen before or draconian rules that would kill the current internet. And given the choice between the Internet and the music industry, I know which one I would take.
posted by zabuni at 7:35 PM on October 11, 2013 [12 favorites]
This isn't about morality. Your product is no longer scarce. The only solution that I can think of is either a change in moral sentiment never seen before or draconian rules that would kill the current internet. And given the choice between the Internet and the music industry, I know which one I would take.
posted by zabuni at 7:35 PM on October 11, 2013 [12 favorites]
a change in moral sentiment never seen before
You mean, like making the choice to make sure that artists you appreciate receive direct dollars from you for the art you love?
I call that being a responsible consumer of music.
posted by hippybear at 7:41 PM on October 11, 2013 [12 favorites]
You mean, like making the choice to make sure that artists you appreciate receive direct dollars from you for the art you love?
I call that being a responsible consumer of music.
posted by hippybear at 7:41 PM on October 11, 2013 [12 favorites]
I call that being a responsible consumer of music.
Your personal choices matter very little. Hoping everyone makes the right choices will save the music industry about as well as they did to stop global warming, save your local bookstore, or not cause trolls on the Internet not to yell death threats.
I'll buy music from the artists I like, but I have little hope that they will be able to survive because of my own purchasing habits.
posted by zabuni at 7:49 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
Your personal choices matter very little. Hoping everyone makes the right choices will save the music industry about as well as they did to stop global warming, save your local bookstore, or not cause trolls on the Internet not to yell death threats.
I'll buy music from the artists I like, but I have little hope that they will be able to survive because of my own purchasing habits.
posted by zabuni at 7:49 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]
I think Kickstarter is the only model that seems plausible. Artists will probably have to give away recordings for free until they have a large enough fan base that they can demand money to make more.
Very few artists will be able to do that, but it might end up being a comparable number to how many won the recording industry lottery.
posted by straight at 7:49 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
Very few artists will be able to do that, but it might end up being a comparable number to how many won the recording industry lottery.
posted by straight at 7:49 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
Just throwing this out there: while the ability to obtain music via piracy or commodified channels is driving the price of music to close either zero or close to it, the tools people use to create and distribute music are getting likewise commoditized.
That's why - despite the fact that it's getting harder to support yourself as a full-time musician every day, and there's no doubt that that's a real thing that's happening - there's more amazing music being made right now than there ever has, ever.
Sure, it's rough being a musician these days, but there has never been a better time to be a music lover.
posted by mhoye at 7:50 PM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
That's why - despite the fact that it's getting harder to support yourself as a full-time musician every day, and there's no doubt that that's a real thing that's happening - there's more amazing music being made right now than there ever has, ever.
Sure, it's rough being a musician these days, but there has never been a better time to be a music lover.
posted by mhoye at 7:50 PM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
I think Kickstarter is the only model that seems plausible.
Kickstarter and patronage, yeah. When creation and distribution is approximately free, that's what's left.
posted by mhoye at 7:52 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Kickstarter and patronage, yeah. When creation and distribution is approximately free, that's what's left.
posted by mhoye at 7:52 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
As Bruce Sterling says all the time, "What happens to musicians will happen to everyone soon".
It's been happening to professional photographers nearly as long as musicians and I can tell you it sucks.
posted by photoslob at 7:54 PM on October 11, 2013 [13 favorites]
It's been happening to professional photographers nearly as long as musicians and I can tell you it sucks.
posted by photoslob at 7:54 PM on October 11, 2013 [13 favorites]
Hoping everyone makes the right choices will save the music industry about as well as they did to stop global warming
True, but I could give fuck-all about the music industry. Most of the artists I listen to, even the really big names (which are legacy bands at this point), stepped out of the industry years ago and are doing it on their own, or pretty fuckin' close to it. I buy directly from the artists, I pledge to their fundraising campaigns, I go to their concerts, I buy their merch...
I know I can't expect everyone to do the "right thing". But the fan communities for the bands I love the most mostly seem to be doing such, and so my musical world continues to be awesome.
posted by hippybear at 7:55 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
True, but I could give fuck-all about the music industry. Most of the artists I listen to, even the really big names (which are legacy bands at this point), stepped out of the industry years ago and are doing it on their own, or pretty fuckin' close to it. I buy directly from the artists, I pledge to their fundraising campaigns, I go to their concerts, I buy their merch...
I know I can't expect everyone to do the "right thing". But the fan communities for the bands I love the most mostly seem to be doing such, and so my musical world continues to be awesome.
posted by hippybear at 7:55 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
I don't see why Spotify doesn't offer artists extra-pay options. E.g. an artist could opt to say to Spotify listeners, "If you want to play my song, you have to pay me a nickel." Spotify could take 20% of that, and the label and the artist could split the rest. Win-win.
Byrne writes about a million-listen song making $16 with Spotify. Suppose they had charged under the nickel-a-listen model. Now suppose the million becomes 100,000 instead. That x .02 = $2000 for the artist. A damn sight better than $16.
posted by shivohum at 7:57 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Byrne writes about a million-listen song making $16 with Spotify. Suppose they had charged under the nickel-a-listen model. Now suppose the million becomes 100,000 instead. That x .02 = $2000 for the artist. A damn sight better than $16.
posted by shivohum at 7:57 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't see any way to avoid this, in any creative industry. It's getting to the point where being creative is a luxury that can only be afforded by those who don't need a day job to feed their kids and keep the utilities on.
posted by Anima Mundi at 8:04 PM on October 11, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Anima Mundi at 8:04 PM on October 11, 2013 [7 favorites]
The incentive need to be based in law. Laws exist for a reason, you know.
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:07 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:07 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
exactly, so musicians need to organize.
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:12 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:12 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
musicians have been getting screwed by the industry from the jump, I honestly don't see why it's suddenly my fault for using the internet. Bands won't have the earning potential they used to, but a TON of bands are making a LOT more money than they would've before the internet, it seems to me. Am I just way, way off? I am wholly on the side of musicians, by the by, but I'm sick of people rattling their canes about how technology will ruin us all.
posted by akaJudge at 8:14 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by akaJudge at 8:14 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
Funny, my wife is making a pretty decent profit doing art. Maybe musicians are doing it wrong. Of course she also doesn't assume people owe her a living just because she draws.
Anyway, if people really feel sorry for David Byrne, they could always mail him a tenner. Otherwise they might not feel it's a problem.
posted by happyroach at 8:16 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Anyway, if people really feel sorry for David Byrne, they could always mail him a tenner. Otherwise they might not feel it's a problem.
posted by happyroach at 8:16 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure if Spotify is intended to be immediately profitable. Like Bezos' Amazon (which is barely profitable and extremely expensive to operate), perhaps the purpose of Spotify is to be disruptive.
The new tech oligarchs, just like the owners of the Satanic Mills, are true Radicals bent on transforming industries and society.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:18 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
The new tech oligarchs, just like the owners of the Satanic Mills, are true Radicals bent on transforming industries and society.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:18 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
I'm sick of people rattling their canes about how technology will ruin us all.
I don't get the impression he's saying that at all. More that, "what's a viable business model for musicians?" Cos the current streaming model don't seem to be it.
posted by maupuia at 8:18 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
I don't get the impression he's saying that at all. More that, "what's a viable business model for musicians?" Cos the current streaming model don't seem to be it.
posted by maupuia at 8:18 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
This isn't about morality. Your product is no longer scarce. The only solution that I can think of is either a change in moral sentiment never seen before or draconian rules that would kill the current internet. And given the choice between the Internet and the music industry, I know which one I would take.
Whaaat? Talk about false dichotomies. This sounds like you can't distinguish between something like the SOPA legislation and an artist suggesting that maybe unlimited cheap on demand streaming of anything on demand isn't the best model for encouraging art, particularly art that requires deep investment to prepare for or make.
And music has *never* been scarce. Any able-bodied human being can literally pull it out of the air. If you've ever chosen to listen to someone else doing it instead of doing it yourself, though, then a little reflection on that might reveal where the real scarcity is: (a) time to refine music-making abilities beyond a certain level and (b) distribution of specific compositions and performances from specific artists. And why you might care about these problems getting solved in one way rather than another.
posted by weston at 8:20 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
Whaaat? Talk about false dichotomies. This sounds like you can't distinguish between something like the SOPA legislation and an artist suggesting that maybe unlimited cheap on demand streaming of anything on demand isn't the best model for encouraging art, particularly art that requires deep investment to prepare for or make.
And music has *never* been scarce. Any able-bodied human being can literally pull it out of the air. If you've ever chosen to listen to someone else doing it instead of doing it yourself, though, then a little reflection on that might reveal where the real scarcity is: (a) time to refine music-making abilities beyond a certain level and (b) distribution of specific compositions and performances from specific artists. And why you might care about these problems getting solved in one way rather than another.
posted by weston at 8:20 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
Anyway, if people really feel sorry for David Byrne, they could always mail him a tenner. Otherwise they might not feel it's a problem.
"What's at stake is not so much the survival of artists like me..."
posted by weston at 8:34 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
"What's at stake is not so much the survival of artists like me..."
posted by weston at 8:34 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
"Any able-bodied human being can literally pull it out of the air."
I think this is overly reductive.
The real issue is that humans need to care about higher-order modalities of human existence beyond eating and fucking. That and care enough to make sure that we can all share in a society that adequately funds the people who choose to live their lives making creative works.
Fighting for scraps while the rich get richer is not going to cut it.
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:35 PM on October 11, 2013 [15 favorites]
I think this is overly reductive.
The real issue is that humans need to care about higher-order modalities of human existence beyond eating and fucking. That and care enough to make sure that we can all share in a society that adequately funds the people who choose to live their lives making creative works.
Fighting for scraps while the rich get richer is not going to cut it.
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:35 PM on October 11, 2013 [15 favorites]
Here's an article on the economics of streaming.
David Hyman, [former] CEO of MOG:
Let's say MOG has 1 million subscribers and everyone's paying $10 per month. And let's say the labels got 60 percent of that. Now, each label gets their piece of 60 percent based on frequency of plays. So if Warner [Music, a major label] was 30 percent of all plays in a given month, then Warner gets 30 percent of that 60 percent," he says. "Then they get a wad of money. Once they get that wad of money, how do they distribute it internally? I have no idea.
I pay $10/month for Mog, and that's more per year that I was paying for CDs before hand (though I bought more when I was in college).
Many of us pay more for music, but musicians are getting less. How does that work? It can only work one way: musicians are getting ripped off by corporations even more than they were before.
Same as it always was.
posted by eye of newt at 8:41 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
David Hyman, [former] CEO of MOG:
Let's say MOG has 1 million subscribers and everyone's paying $10 per month. And let's say the labels got 60 percent of that. Now, each label gets their piece of 60 percent based on frequency of plays. So if Warner [Music, a major label] was 30 percent of all plays in a given month, then Warner gets 30 percent of that 60 percent," he says. "Then they get a wad of money. Once they get that wad of money, how do they distribute it internally? I have no idea.
I pay $10/month for Mog, and that's more per year that I was paying for CDs before hand (though I bought more when I was in college).
Many of us pay more for music, but musicians are getting less. How does that work? It can only work one way: musicians are getting ripped off by corporations even more than they were before.
Same as it always was.
posted by eye of newt at 8:41 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
This is weird to me, because I like hip hop and a bunch of my favorite albums of the last few years have been free. The Death Grips have given away 2 out of 3 of their albums. Das Racist, same, and now that they've broken up the former members are giving their solo albums away again. Danny Brown I think had 3 albums out before buying one was even an option. And even El-P, one of the guys who I've consistently shelled out for over the years, just gave away the Run the Jewels album. All of these guys are living off their music. Something's up. Some people are making this work.
posted by Hoopo at 8:48 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Hoopo at 8:48 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
My last comment was fighty. I'd like to walk that sentiment back a little? I'm just frustrated because I'd rather be a musician than a network engineer, but well, I also like being able to eat.
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:50 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:50 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
Kill the labels. They serve no purpose anymore. Except maybe as curators and promoters (if you need that service), and they should only be paid accordingly, which does not mean 90%.
posted by fungible at 9:02 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by fungible at 9:02 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
I think Kickstarter is the only model that seems plausible.
At the moment, at least. Five years ago that didn't even exist; who knows what models might be available five years from now?
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:06 PM on October 11, 2013
At the moment, at least. Five years ago that didn't even exist; who knows what models might be available five years from now?
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:06 PM on October 11, 2013
It's been happening to professional photographers nearly as long as musicians and I can tell you it sucks.
My father-in-law supported himself for years as a professional videographer int the Disney area (greater Orlando). The ascension of cheap digital cameras and video editors completely killed his business so quickly he didn't see it coming (in no small part because he's getting up in years a bit and isn't especially computer savvy). His situation quickly got much worse with the financial collapse and now lung cancer to contend with, so it's doubtful he could still be doing that business now anyway, but when you personally know people effected by these things, it's a little harder to see this as an abstract moral debate.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:07 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
My father-in-law supported himself for years as a professional videographer int the Disney area (greater Orlando). The ascension of cheap digital cameras and video editors completely killed his business so quickly he didn't see it coming (in no small part because he's getting up in years a bit and isn't especially computer savvy). His situation quickly got much worse with the financial collapse and now lung cancer to contend with, so it's doubtful he could still be doing that business now anyway, but when you personally know people effected by these things, it's a little harder to see this as an abstract moral debate.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:07 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Kill the labels. They serve no purpose anymore. Except maybe as curators and promoters (if you need that service), and they should only be paid accordingly, which does not mean 90%.
Among many prominent indies in the heyday of that scene, the split was 50/50% and the publishing rights remained with the artist, with the label taking only a 15% administrative cut. And those labels did a lot to benefit their artists, including providing a kind of collective bargaining power that's absent now.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:10 PM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
Among many prominent indies in the heyday of that scene, the split was 50/50% and the publishing rights remained with the artist, with the label taking only a 15% administrative cut. And those labels did a lot to benefit their artists, including providing a kind of collective bargaining power that's absent now.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:10 PM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
What was odd and unsustainable about the rock and roll era is that people were having their lives saved, their emotions given shape, the dreams brought to life by people they'd never meet. I knew so much of bands and couldn't tell you about the music made by the people I knew, because very few did. That's strange and I kind of hate it.
Now I play lots of music with friends, some of whom are terrific musicians. That adds about 1,000 times more feeling to my life than any recorded music.
If the notion of profitable music evaporated, if the celebrity musician just sort of tapered away, perhaps music would be a recreational activity. That would be lovely.
posted by argybarg at 9:12 PM on October 11, 2013 [8 favorites]
Now I play lots of music with friends, some of whom are terrific musicians. That adds about 1,000 times more feeling to my life than any recorded music.
If the notion of profitable music evaporated, if the celebrity musician just sort of tapered away, perhaps music would be a recreational activity. That would be lovely.
posted by argybarg at 9:12 PM on October 11, 2013 [8 favorites]
Dammit this can work if we all just pay each other. I will pay you (and have). I won't pay them.
How MUCH will you pay me, though? that's the key.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:19 PM on October 11, 2013
How MUCH will you pay me, though? that's the key.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:19 PM on October 11, 2013
music has *never* been scarce. Any able-bodied human being can literally pull it out of the air.I think this is overly reductive.
I'd hope the rest of the paragraph I attached that comment to would make it clear that I don't mean to reduce music or musicianship.
My real target is other reductive ideas like zambuni's comment "your product is no longer scarce", and my response is meant to point out that people saying this may not understand where the real scarcities are and could grow.
posted by weston at 9:19 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
If, for instance, the future of the movie business comes to rely on the income from Netflix's $8-a-month-streaming-service as a way to fund all films and TV production, then things will change very quickly. As with music, that model doesn't seem sustainable if it becomes the dominant form of consumption.
I guess I don't really buy this argument, either directly or by extension to the music business. Maybe it has merit, but I don't think it's being argued very well.
There might be certain aspects of the film / television business that are "unsustainable" on an $8/month/family streaming-service revenue model. But not all of it is. Some content will be produced: Netflix will produce it directly in order to keep those $8/mo fees flowing, if nothing else. And I don't see any reason why they couldn't produce pretty good TV on a subscriber-fee, rather than ad-supported, basis. HBO has done pretty well there, as have other premium networks; from a producer's perspective it would seem to be more straightforward to just concentrate on making compelling TV (viewers as customers), than to craft TV in order to sell advertising (advertisers as customers, viewers as product). It's sort of a voluntary BBC-ish system.
That doesn't seem totally catastrophic to me, so if that's the worst that could happen to the music business it could be much worse.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:19 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I guess I don't really buy this argument, either directly or by extension to the music business. Maybe it has merit, but I don't think it's being argued very well.
There might be certain aspects of the film / television business that are "unsustainable" on an $8/month/family streaming-service revenue model. But not all of it is. Some content will be produced: Netflix will produce it directly in order to keep those $8/mo fees flowing, if nothing else. And I don't see any reason why they couldn't produce pretty good TV on a subscriber-fee, rather than ad-supported, basis. HBO has done pretty well there, as have other premium networks; from a producer's perspective it would seem to be more straightforward to just concentrate on making compelling TV (viewers as customers), than to craft TV in order to sell advertising (advertisers as customers, viewers as product). It's sort of a voluntary BBC-ish system.
That doesn't seem totally catastrophic to me, so if that's the worst that could happen to the music business it could be much worse.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:19 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
argybarg: you like hanging out on the long tail of music, that's wonderful, there's a lot of weird and cool stuff happening in the fringe worlds of music. Now imagine living in a world where you were able to do more of that, and eat because of it.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:19 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:19 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Weston: I was being fighty, disregard me...
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:20 PM on October 11, 2013
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:20 PM on October 11, 2013
Why do people conflate the end of the music industry with the end of musical creativity? People were sitting on their front porches in Appalachia being creative with their voices and their fiddles and their geetars long before Alan Lomax came along and recorded it and gave some business man an idea. Just because a middle man can't make a gigantic profit off of something and in the process leave a comparative pittance off the top thus allowing some of these porch sitters to become wealthy doesn't mean the end of people playing music.
posted by spicynuts at 9:21 PM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by spicynuts at 9:21 PM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
The labels are still getting paid, ChurchHatesTucker. The artists still aren't, just even moreso.
Same as it ever was.
Start your own record company. I priced it once, it isn't super expensive for 1500 vinyl records. And downloads you can go through the big providers.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:22 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Same as it ever was.
Start your own record company. I priced it once, it isn't super expensive for 1500 vinyl records. And downloads you can go through the big providers.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:22 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
> It's amazing how little sense of history most old folks have.
I'd say it's amazing how little sense of history YOU have (and why does David Byrne's age have anything to do with it, anyway)?
Throughout all of history, musicians have been expected to be paid for their work. This stupid, selfish and short-sighted idea that musicians do not need to be paid and should work for free is a product of the last decade only.
My consolation on this is only that a lot of you sniggering about this will find your own jobs gone in the next few years, and then we can laugh at you in turn.
> Just because a middle man can't make a gigantic profit off of something and in the process leave a comparative pittance off the top thus allowing some of these porch sitters to become wealthy doesn't mean the end of people playing music.
You might have some idealized magical picture of people playing on their porches, but the reality is completely different, and it would only have taken you a second to find out. Here's a history of old-time music, which is probably the genre you're thinking of. Read it, look at the names of the people who created the techniques and the songs, and then click through. ALL of them were professional musicians.
The idea that we're talking about "becoming wealthy" is creepy in the extreme. Musicians want to live. They want to make a living from their work. When did this become a contemptible and ludicrous goal?
What exactly is the next Jimi Hendrix or Benny Goodman going to do to live? Flip burgers or sell insurance? Becoming a virtuoso musician or writing great pieces of music isn't something that happens because you have a sudden inspiration and churn out miracles - it's because you put huge amounts of time and effort into practicing and song-writing. How are you supposed to do that working 50 hours a week on a job that doesn't even give you enough money to afford an instrument to play on?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:52 PM on October 11, 2013 [32 favorites]
I'd say it's amazing how little sense of history YOU have (and why does David Byrne's age have anything to do with it, anyway)?
Throughout all of history, musicians have been expected to be paid for their work. This stupid, selfish and short-sighted idea that musicians do not need to be paid and should work for free is a product of the last decade only.
My consolation on this is only that a lot of you sniggering about this will find your own jobs gone in the next few years, and then we can laugh at you in turn.
> Just because a middle man can't make a gigantic profit off of something and in the process leave a comparative pittance off the top thus allowing some of these porch sitters to become wealthy doesn't mean the end of people playing music.
You might have some idealized magical picture of people playing on their porches, but the reality is completely different, and it would only have taken you a second to find out. Here's a history of old-time music, which is probably the genre you're thinking of. Read it, look at the names of the people who created the techniques and the songs, and then click through. ALL of them were professional musicians.
The idea that we're talking about "becoming wealthy" is creepy in the extreme. Musicians want to live. They want to make a living from their work. When did this become a contemptible and ludicrous goal?
What exactly is the next Jimi Hendrix or Benny Goodman going to do to live? Flip burgers or sell insurance? Becoming a virtuoso musician or writing great pieces of music isn't something that happens because you have a sudden inspiration and churn out miracles - it's because you put huge amounts of time and effort into practicing and song-writing. How are you supposed to do that working 50 hours a week on a job that doesn't even give you enough money to afford an instrument to play on?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:52 PM on October 11, 2013 [32 favorites]
I think Kickstarter is the only model that seems plausible. Artists will probably have to give away recordings for free until they have a large enough fan base that they can demand money to make more.
Maybe music-making as a profession will fall out of reach for anyone who isn't wealthy. We'll go back to the way things were during the Enlightenment 250 years ago, when wealthy gentleman musicians would hold salons to demonstrate to their high society friends their jammin' theorbo solos.
posted by Nomyte at 9:56 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Maybe music-making as a profession will fall out of reach for anyone who isn't wealthy. We'll go back to the way things were during the Enlightenment 250 years ago, when wealthy gentleman musicians would hold salons to demonstrate to their high society friends their jammin' theorbo solos.
posted by Nomyte at 9:56 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Artists will need patrons, monster luck, or supportive spouses/family/friends up to the day we create a base allowance for citizens. There simply isn't enough demand for all of them, keeping paid work rare and low-priced, because people who really want to make art will do it for nothing, and there are a shit ton of them.
I live in a town with a thriving music scene, with many talented folks playing every night, and the chances of any of them making it big are nearly zero. Maybe musical ability and the desire to perform just aren't that rare, especially given the wide variety of vocal styles and playing ability that popular music can accommodate. You can make some money if you hustle and have local people who will turn out. You can make more if your music is good for drunken partying. But even that will only net you an extremely modest income. It has been that way for a very very long time. The Internet didn't create that dynamic. For small time musicians, it might actually help more than it hurts.
posted by emjaybee at 10:04 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
I live in a town with a thriving music scene, with many talented folks playing every night, and the chances of any of them making it big are nearly zero. Maybe musical ability and the desire to perform just aren't that rare, especially given the wide variety of vocal styles and playing ability that popular music can accommodate. You can make some money if you hustle and have local people who will turn out. You can make more if your music is good for drunken partying. But even that will only net you an extremely modest income. It has been that way for a very very long time. The Internet didn't create that dynamic. For small time musicians, it might actually help more than it hurts.
posted by emjaybee at 10:04 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
> a TON of bands are making a LOT more money than they would've before the internet, it seems to me.
Record industry revenues have been in freefall for over a decade. Touring revenues are up recently - but nearly all of that goes to the 1% bands - what you get paid for playing in a venue that's not one of the big ones has dropped precipitously in the last twenty years. The same medium-sized venues that used to pay a living wage in the 80s, when I first started in music, now require you to pay them to get in the door - you might make money if you bring in a huge quantity of people, but you have to do it yourself because the venue won't do it for you, they don't do "promotion" any more.
And no more working in record stores. Much fewer jobs working in music stores. Fewer jobs teaching. Almost no session work at all. It's been a bloodbath.
> You can make more if your music is good for drunken partying. But even that will only net you an extremely modest income. It has been that way for a very very long time.
Actually, no. When I started in music, you could make a perfectly reasonable living out of it. You could play in cover bands - you could play in wedding bands - you'd play in jazz bands for restaurants - you'd get session work. I knew a ton of people who made a perfectly good living that way and were able to bring up a family.
I knew professional trombonists - I knew a shitload of professional drummers - I knew a professional oboist, FFS. I knew tons of people who made money as arrangers and copyists.
I'm not trying to pick on you in specific - there are at least a dozen comments above that are completely false to the actual historical fact, which is that before the twenty-first century there was a fairly common job called "professional musician", a job category that has been decimated in the last two decades.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:15 PM on October 11, 2013 [16 favorites]
Record industry revenues have been in freefall for over a decade. Touring revenues are up recently - but nearly all of that goes to the 1% bands - what you get paid for playing in a venue that's not one of the big ones has dropped precipitously in the last twenty years. The same medium-sized venues that used to pay a living wage in the 80s, when I first started in music, now require you to pay them to get in the door - you might make money if you bring in a huge quantity of people, but you have to do it yourself because the venue won't do it for you, they don't do "promotion" any more.
And no more working in record stores. Much fewer jobs working in music stores. Fewer jobs teaching. Almost no session work at all. It's been a bloodbath.
> You can make more if your music is good for drunken partying. But even that will only net you an extremely modest income. It has been that way for a very very long time.
Actually, no. When I started in music, you could make a perfectly reasonable living out of it. You could play in cover bands - you could play in wedding bands - you'd play in jazz bands for restaurants - you'd get session work. I knew a ton of people who made a perfectly good living that way and were able to bring up a family.
I knew professional trombonists - I knew a shitload of professional drummers - I knew a professional oboist, FFS. I knew tons of people who made money as arrangers and copyists.
I'm not trying to pick on you in specific - there are at least a dozen comments above that are completely false to the actual historical fact, which is that before the twenty-first century there was a fairly common job called "professional musician", a job category that has been decimated in the last two decades.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:15 PM on October 11, 2013 [16 favorites]
Hard to get paid for something when so many people are willing to do it for free.
posted by zscore at 10:20 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by zscore at 10:20 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Start your own record company. I priced it once, it isn't super expensive for 1500 vinyl records. And downloads you can go through the big providers.
Yeah, that's the ticket, I mean, I can't believe no one has thought of it before!!! I wonder why everyone I know isn't an indie record mogul multi-millionaire by now!
posted by Dokterrock at 10:26 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that's the ticket, I mean, I can't believe no one has thought of it before!!! I wonder why everyone I know isn't an indie record mogul multi-millionaire by now!
posted by Dokterrock at 10:26 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
As Bruce Sterling says all the time, "What happens to musicians will happen to everyone soon".
It's been happening to professional photographers nearly as long as musicians and I can tell you it sucks.
Hmmm, it sucks for some professional photographers, but it's been great for people with an interest in photography to have amazing, cheap tools available that means if you have some talent you can take and produce pictures as good as many professionals.
It's also great for the photographers that have used savvy web marketing skills to propel their businesses to the next level and not have to rely just on word of mouth.
posted by smoke at 10:31 PM on October 11, 2013
It's been happening to professional photographers nearly as long as musicians and I can tell you it sucks.
Hmmm, it sucks for some professional photographers, but it's been great for people with an interest in photography to have amazing, cheap tools available that means if you have some talent you can take and produce pictures as good as many professionals.
It's also great for the photographers that have used savvy web marketing skills to propel their businesses to the next level and not have to rely just on word of mouth.
posted by smoke at 10:31 PM on October 11, 2013
perhaps music would be a recreational activity. That would be lovely.
For people with enough leisure time to seriously invest in making music, and who probably don't have children to feed and big bills to pay. This privileges the contributions of the wealthier and leisure classes, people who can put a lot into creating and promoting their work because their wealth enables them too. It's especially hard (not always impossible, but always hard) to make it work as a parent with two kids in the house and a full time professional gig and serious
responsibilities in both cases
posted by saulgoodman at 10:31 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
For people with enough leisure time to seriously invest in making music, and who probably don't have children to feed and big bills to pay. This privileges the contributions of the wealthier and leisure classes, people who can put a lot into creating and promoting their work because their wealth enables them too. It's especially hard (not always impossible, but always hard) to make it work as a parent with two kids in the house and a full time professional gig and serious
responsibilities in both cases
posted by saulgoodman at 10:31 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
(Music--blues and rock in particular--has long worked as a vehicle for moving people from working class to a higher economic class. This is even a popular theme in blues and rock song lyrics, cropping up in songs like Berry's Johnny B Goode, Dire Straits' Money for Nothing, and Peter Gabriel's Big Time, just to pick a few off the top of my head.)
posted by saulgoodman at 10:39 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by saulgoodman at 10:39 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Woody Guthrie was as authentic a journeymen's musician as you'll find, yet, in his autobiography, he frequently referred to his guitar as his meal ticket. Even the greek poets had guilds that enforced rudimentary exclusivity for their original works.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:47 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by saulgoodman at 10:47 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Lupus, I can only judge based on the people I talk to who have been around and playing a long time. There was session work and weddings, but there was still a lot of poverty and struggle. Lots of talented people who still made below a solid living. It depended on where you lived of course, and who you knew, but I could point you to a lot of aging musicians who have always needed support from spouses or dayjobs to pay the bills.
I wouldn't doubt that it's worse now, but I think that has to do with factors that predate the internet like increasing inequality, the rise of DJs, the decline in needing bands for things like radio bumpers and commercials, and so on.
posted by emjaybee at 10:48 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't doubt that it's worse now, but I think that has to do with factors that predate the internet like increasing inequality, the rise of DJs, the decline in needing bands for things like radio bumpers and commercials, and so on.
posted by emjaybee at 10:48 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
it's rough being a musician these days, but there has never been a better time to be a music lover.
That is the fundamental and terrifying truth. It's hard to think of another time when artists and their audience were pitted so directly against each other.
This privileges the contributions of the wealthier and leisure classes, people who can put a lot into creating and promoting their work because their wealth enables them too... Music--blues and rock in particular--has long worked as a vehicle for moving people from working class to a higher economic class
Yes, this, exactly! I think this is likely to be the biggest loss of the post-scarcity era: the 20th century's great focus on music made by working class people, and the accompanying rapid development of "folk" forms.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 10:53 PM on October 11, 2013
That is the fundamental and terrifying truth. It's hard to think of another time when artists and their audience were pitted so directly against each other.
This privileges the contributions of the wealthier and leisure classes, people who can put a lot into creating and promoting their work because their wealth enables them too... Music--blues and rock in particular--has long worked as a vehicle for moving people from working class to a higher economic class
Yes, this, exactly! I think this is likely to be the biggest loss of the post-scarcity era: the 20th century's great focus on music made by working class people, and the accompanying rapid development of "folk" forms.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 10:53 PM on October 11, 2013
Throughout all of history, musicians have been expected to be paid for their work.
But for the overwhelming majority of that time, the only way to get paid was for live performance. The idea that you could sing a song once and then continue to get paid for it the rest of your life would have seemed ludicrous for most of human history.
posted by straight at 11:32 PM on October 11, 2013 [15 favorites]
But for the overwhelming majority of that time, the only way to get paid was for live performance. The idea that you could sing a song once and then continue to get paid for it the rest of your life would have seemed ludicrous for most of human history.
posted by straight at 11:32 PM on October 11, 2013 [15 favorites]
there are at least a dozen comments above that are completely false to the actual historical fact, which is that before the twenty-first century there was a fairly common job called "professional musician", a job category that has been decimated in the last two decades.
There also used to be a fairly common job called recording engineer. They were (and still are to a lesser degree) required to run massive amounts of expensive equipment, owned by the studios. Well, guess what, a reasonable facsimile of their gear now exists for FREE when I buy a laptop. I can have factors better equipment than The Beatles had… on my lap… running on a battery… in any location in the world… for the price of a fancy lawnmower. I think Hades is right, the last century or so was a fluke. David Byrne even nods to this notion in the article. The price is effectively free now, because the recording industry was never in the job of selling music… they were in the business of selling media. And more importantly, they were in the business of producing and selling media that we mere mortals could not produce. That's all gone now, because I can buy good-enough production means for pennies.
Hey, I like to make music too. Love it even. But never ever have I sat around and harumphed because my "skills" won't bring in money, because the "system is broken". The supply is vast. The demand, not as vast.
posted by readyfreddy at 11:46 PM on October 11, 2013 [10 favorites]
There also used to be a fairly common job called recording engineer. They were (and still are to a lesser degree) required to run massive amounts of expensive equipment, owned by the studios. Well, guess what, a reasonable facsimile of their gear now exists for FREE when I buy a laptop. I can have factors better equipment than The Beatles had… on my lap… running on a battery… in any location in the world… for the price of a fancy lawnmower. I think Hades is right, the last century or so was a fluke. David Byrne even nods to this notion in the article. The price is effectively free now, because the recording industry was never in the job of selling music… they were in the business of selling media. And more importantly, they were in the business of producing and selling media that we mere mortals could not produce. That's all gone now, because I can buy good-enough production means for pennies.
Hey, I like to make music too. Love it even. But never ever have I sat around and harumphed because my "skills" won't bring in money, because the "system is broken". The supply is vast. The demand, not as vast.
posted by readyfreddy at 11:46 PM on October 11, 2013 [10 favorites]
Also, music has changed from a passive income stream (record once and receive royalties for life) to a largely active income stream (play four hour gig, get X dollars). It's gone from a good to a service.
posted by readyfreddy at 11:49 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by readyfreddy at 11:49 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
"I wouldn't doubt that it's worse now, but I think that has to do with factors that predate the internet like increasing inequality, the rise of DJs, the decline in needing bands for things like radio bumpers and commercials, and so on."
Lupus seems to think that he's the only musician here or the only working musician. I'm a musician, but never a working musician, but I've known more than a few. And they've always struggled. That's even true of the most successful one I know, whose band played the Tonight Show and sold many records.
I've not heard that it's any harder than it used to be, but for the sake of the argument, I'll stipulate that — that there's less work for musicians who are live performers. But that has fuck-all to do with the decline of the recording industry.
The recording industry has never been a friend to music or musicians. It's cannibalized the live music industry, it's exploited the musicians and taken most of the earnings of those who were moderately successful and put the rest of the artists it signs into a form of indentured servitude, it's distorted popular and folk music out of their more natural development and into a mass-market, factory-line, focus-grouped pablum while crowding out all the other genres, and it richly deserves its long-overdue death.
If you want musicians to be able to make a living wage, then what you want is a live music culture. The recording industry paradigm is, if anything, hostile to live music. Is what we're moving toward with ubiquitous and free or low-cost recorded music also hostile to live music? At present it is. It doesn't have to be. But I can guarantee you that finding ways to perpetuate the dying paradigm is not going to help. Let it die, let the idea die that anyone more than a very few will ever make a lot of money from recorded music and find ways to nurture a live music culture where musicians can make a living wage performing.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:54 PM on October 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
Lupus seems to think that he's the only musician here or the only working musician. I'm a musician, but never a working musician, but I've known more than a few. And they've always struggled. That's even true of the most successful one I know, whose band played the Tonight Show and sold many records.
I've not heard that it's any harder than it used to be, but for the sake of the argument, I'll stipulate that — that there's less work for musicians who are live performers. But that has fuck-all to do with the decline of the recording industry.
The recording industry has never been a friend to music or musicians. It's cannibalized the live music industry, it's exploited the musicians and taken most of the earnings of those who were moderately successful and put the rest of the artists it signs into a form of indentured servitude, it's distorted popular and folk music out of their more natural development and into a mass-market, factory-line, focus-grouped pablum while crowding out all the other genres, and it richly deserves its long-overdue death.
If you want musicians to be able to make a living wage, then what you want is a live music culture. The recording industry paradigm is, if anything, hostile to live music. Is what we're moving toward with ubiquitous and free or low-cost recorded music also hostile to live music? At present it is. It doesn't have to be. But I can guarantee you that finding ways to perpetuate the dying paradigm is not going to help. Let it die, let the idea die that anyone more than a very few will ever make a lot of money from recorded music and find ways to nurture a live music culture where musicians can make a living wage performing.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:54 PM on October 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
It boggles my mind that any creative artist is complaining that the old system, where they enslaved themselves to a giant corporation for a pitiful percentage of the profits, is dying
That shit PAID.
And it still does, apparently. Just even less than before.
It's still more than the shitty alternative, anyway, which is whatever you can finagle locally and hustle up on your own. I'm not a musician like some of you all (see above), but I've known a few (one is a bona fide fucking genius*), and what the labels are offering is better than the alternatives. Which is ... die.
Still. In the Internet era.
I love how the streaming services keep an oldie like me in touch, experiencing new music, and able to find new acts (Holy cow! Tame Impala? Awesome.). But shit, I expect my 7.95 per month to go to the act, not the label. And it isn't. Godamnit.
Same as it ever was.
-----------------
*pm me for 80s REM/Costello tracks from an LA act that shoulda made it.
posted by notyou at 12:23 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
That shit PAID.
And it still does, apparently. Just even less than before.
It's still more than the shitty alternative, anyway, which is whatever you can finagle locally and hustle up on your own. I'm not a musician like some of you all (see above), but I've known a few (one is a bona fide fucking genius*), and what the labels are offering is better than the alternatives. Which is ... die.
Still. In the Internet era.
I love how the streaming services keep an oldie like me in touch, experiencing new music, and able to find new acts (Holy cow! Tame Impala? Awesome.). But shit, I expect my 7.95 per month to go to the act, not the label. And it isn't. Godamnit.
Same as it ever was.
-----------------
*pm me for 80s REM/Costello tracks from an LA act that shoulda made it.
posted by notyou at 12:23 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Awesome, hades. It's not easy.
The bona fide genius never jumped in the trench -- we begged him to. He deserved the opportunity. We knew he could navigate it. He was wary, and we respected that. His art, his decision. But then, today he's only ever some anonymous Internet dude's "bona fide genius."
posted by notyou at 12:41 AM on October 12, 2013
The bona fide genius never jumped in the trench -- we begged him to. He deserved the opportunity. We knew he could navigate it. He was wary, and we respected that. His art, his decision. But then, today he's only ever some anonymous Internet dude's "bona fide genius."
posted by notyou at 12:41 AM on October 12, 2013
The real problem with this shift to all music (and film, TV and literature) being available for free is that it's not the big brands and celebrities who will suffer - they will continue to make profits if their product is given away free through merchandising, sponsorship and product placement - but the independents. It is cheaper than ever to make music/films/print books but harder than ever to get yourself seen or heard in a marketplace swamped by overproduction.
And this is what really worries me: there is a delusion that cultural production and distribution has become democratised, we can all be artists now, when in reality those media companies with power and money dominate as never before.
posted by rolo at 12:47 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
And this is what really worries me: there is a delusion that cultural production and distribution has become democratised, we can all be artists now, when in reality those media companies with power and money dominate as never before.
posted by rolo at 12:47 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
What did the recording industry do for the rest of working musicians?
Sorry.
posted by marble at 12:47 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
aspirationThis is terrible of me but I thought this referred to aspiration... of vomit. By famous dead musicians.
Sorry.
posted by marble at 12:47 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Actually.. Not listening. The tablet interface is crap? I'd like to listen...
posted by notyou at 12:53 AM on October 12, 2013
posted by notyou at 12:53 AM on October 12, 2013
"I think Kickstarter is the only model that seems plausible..."
Oh yeah, create a fanbase and from there your career will take off because unknown musicians will never make a living. I get the idea. It seems to make sense.
But then you have people like Bootsy Collins, clearly not an unknown, he played with James Brown and Parliament-Funkadelic and Deee-lite. He's a Rock and Roll Hall of Famer. He made a kickstarter so that him, and a massive funk band, could tour the USA and bring the funk to you. He put up a kickstarter to get the funds. That failed. The kickstarter did not raise enough money for Bootsy Collins & the Funk.
This is not because his music is so passé these days, I don't think. Blurred Lines sounds like something the Parliament-Funkadelic could have made. Nor is it because he's a total unknown, even little kids know who Bootsy is. And he's an all around good guy with an internet-based Music University, so new fans there. And he was on TMZ talking about this kickstarter, so, it was not ignored by media either.
So Bootsy took it to IndieGoGo, and is attempting to raise the money for a tour there now. They're 12,027 dollars in. Do you give enough of a funk to chip in? Is this really how tours & music production shall be funded in the future when even Bootsy has trouble getting the cash to tour?
I mean it's Bootsy, not some rather obscure but passionately loved Indie band. Bootsy could not raise money for a tour on Kickstarter.
posted by dabitch at 1:01 AM on October 12, 2013 [12 favorites]
Oh yeah, create a fanbase and from there your career will take off because unknown musicians will never make a living. I get the idea. It seems to make sense.
But then you have people like Bootsy Collins, clearly not an unknown, he played with James Brown and Parliament-Funkadelic and Deee-lite. He's a Rock and Roll Hall of Famer. He made a kickstarter so that him, and a massive funk band, could tour the USA and bring the funk to you. He put up a kickstarter to get the funds. That failed. The kickstarter did not raise enough money for Bootsy Collins & the Funk.
This is not because his music is so passé these days, I don't think. Blurred Lines sounds like something the Parliament-Funkadelic could have made. Nor is it because he's a total unknown, even little kids know who Bootsy is. And he's an all around good guy with an internet-based Music University, so new fans there. And he was on TMZ talking about this kickstarter, so, it was not ignored by media either.
So Bootsy took it to IndieGoGo, and is attempting to raise the money for a tour there now. They're 12,027 dollars in. Do you give enough of a funk to chip in? Is this really how tours & music production shall be funded in the future when even Bootsy has trouble getting the cash to tour?
I mean it's Bootsy, not some rather obscure but passionately loved Indie band. Bootsy could not raise money for a tour on Kickstarter.
posted by dabitch at 1:01 AM on October 12, 2013 [12 favorites]
Another Mog user! I thought I was all alone at this point.
posted by professor plum with a rope at 1:02 AM on October 12, 2013
posted by professor plum with a rope at 1:02 AM on October 12, 2013
It's amazing how little sense of history most old folks have.
On the other hand, it's not amazing in any way whatsoever how some *young folks* have such little sense of the degree to which some the things they say are so embarrassingly stupid.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:06 AM on October 12, 2013 [7 favorites]
On the other hand, it's not amazing in any way whatsoever how some *young folks* have such little sense of the degree to which some the things they say are so embarrassingly stupid.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:06 AM on October 12, 2013 [7 favorites]
This is terrible of me but I thought this referred to aspiration... of vomit. By famous dead musicians.
"He choked on vomit..."
"Someone else's vomit."
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:08 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
"He choked on vomit..."
"Someone else's vomit."
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:08 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Here is an uncomfortable fact. The death of pay models for recorded music had aligned pretty exactly with an explosion of original local music all over the country.
I live in a medium-sized city and the music scene is excellent. We have a bunch of really good local bands that play original music, plus a regular visiting cast of similar bands from other regional cities. You can go out on a Friday and discover something new and wonderful.
Contrast to the 1990s, when local music meant some goddamn cover band. And the record industry was healthy--for the few bands that got signed. Everyone else played covers of those bands. Maybe they made a living--I don't know--but I do not regret the loss of that model.
posted by LarryC at 1:23 AM on October 12, 2013 [5 favorites]
I live in a medium-sized city and the music scene is excellent. We have a bunch of really good local bands that play original music, plus a regular visiting cast of similar bands from other regional cities. You can go out on a Friday and discover something new and wonderful.
Contrast to the 1990s, when local music meant some goddamn cover band. And the record industry was healthy--for the few bands that got signed. Everyone else played covers of those bands. Maybe they made a living--I don't know--but I do not regret the loss of that model.
posted by LarryC at 1:23 AM on October 12, 2013 [5 favorites]
It doesn't mean a whole lot to me to hear rockstars complain about streaming services, no matter how much I love them. (and I do love the Talking Heads) I mean, I can't blame them too much, because the old system worked for them and now that system's going away. But when they talk about how much streaming services hurt young, unknown acts, that's really when they show their age.
If I were in a young upstart band, first thing I would do is try and get my stuff on Spotify or Pandora. The combination of recommendation algorithms and easy accessibility virtually assures you that your stuff will be heard by somebody, even if you won't make a lot of money from recordings alone. Compare that to the old model, where you were doomed to toil away in obscurity unless you caught a lucky break somewhere. Even then, chances are you'd be a one-hit wonder, and the only way someone in the future would hear your stuff would be if they inherited their dad's record collection.
posted by evil otto at 1:34 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
If I were in a young upstart band, first thing I would do is try and get my stuff on Spotify or Pandora. The combination of recommendation algorithms and easy accessibility virtually assures you that your stuff will be heard by somebody, even if you won't make a lot of money from recordings alone. Compare that to the old model, where you were doomed to toil away in obscurity unless you caught a lucky break somewhere. Even then, chances are you'd be a one-hit wonder, and the only way someone in the future would hear your stuff would be if they inherited their dad's record collection.
posted by evil otto at 1:34 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Speaking of touring and sold out shows, Daniel Dlimi, Aeon's guitarist for the past 12 years, just quit the band because he can no longer afford to tour.
posted by dabitch at 1:36 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by dabitch at 1:36 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Word of mouth?
Posters at the record store?
Flyers on the telephone pole?
posted by notyou at 1:37 AM on October 12, 2013
Posters at the record store?
Flyers on the telephone pole?
posted by notyou at 1:37 AM on October 12, 2013
And again, re touring, in "It's a long way to the top if you wanna rock n roll" Kidsleepy spoke to DTCV and Post Honeymoon about their touring woes after DTCV's was cut short due to unforseen expenses - a crashed tour van. Neither think they can make a living from touring.
Full disclosure; my community run site but not my article.
posted by dabitch at 1:43 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Full disclosure; my community run site but not my article.
posted by dabitch at 1:43 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
You know how Bitcoins are "proof of work," each one generated by solving some nasty math?
What would it take, do you think, to generate a proof that a compressed audio file got decompressed N times on a given machine?
And could that work for currency?
posted by LogicalDash at 1:53 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
What would it take, do you think, to generate a proof that a compressed audio file got decompressed N times on a given machine?
And could that work for currency?
posted by LogicalDash at 1:53 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Just like tv and the Internet, the actual source of a majority of the revenue generated by popular music has always (since the 1920s) come from advertising, not from unit sales of records.
As a friend puts it, no laxatives, no rock and roll.
This pop musician as auteur schtick is elitist bullshit.
posted by spitbull at 1:59 AM on October 12, 2013
As a friend puts it, no laxatives, no rock and roll.
This pop musician as auteur schtick is elitist bullshit.
posted by spitbull at 1:59 AM on October 12, 2013
wow, LogicalDash, I wanna make a startup with youse. That's a really interesting idea. Quick, lets get angel money.
posted by dabitch at 2:07 AM on October 12, 2013
posted by dabitch at 2:07 AM on October 12, 2013
Because it doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet: Fans have given artists $49 million using Bandcamp, and $2.3 million in the last 30 days alone." Apparently that's across about 7 million transactions, so an average of ~$7 each, minus a 10-15% cut... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a better deal than artists would get in the traditional music industry? Especially given all the other advantages for both artists and fans?
posted by Drexen at 2:08 AM on October 12, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Drexen at 2:08 AM on October 12, 2013 [7 favorites]
Posters at the record store?
OK! I'm ready! Now... um... *where's* that record store?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:09 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
OK! I'm ready! Now... um... *where's* that record store?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:09 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
The record store? Right here.
Maan, I used to shop at Vinyl Mania in NYC.
posted by dabitch at 2:24 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Maan, I used to shop at Vinyl Mania in NYC.
posted by dabitch at 2:24 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
If the music industry is dying, why is the music better than ever?
posted by empath at 3:39 AM on October 12, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by empath at 3:39 AM on October 12, 2013 [8 favorites]
On the other hand, it's not amazing in any way whatsoever how some *young folks* have such little sense of the degree to which some the things they say are so embarrassingly stupid.
It's one of the things young and old have in common, along with the ability to recognize it disdainfully in the other group.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:02 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's one of the things young and old have in common, along with the ability to recognize it disdainfully in the other group.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:02 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not sure what to think about this? On one hand, one does love music, and receives tremendous joy from listening to it. On the other hand, he seems to be waxing for a business model that had it's time, and is not sustainable.
If I think about music, this is the history I see:
1) Musicians were paid for performances. Composers paid for compositions that musicians could play. There was no recorded music – all music was produced 'live'. The largest capital investment here was often the instruments themselves, and the time to perfect the player's skills...
2) Advent of recorded music. Musicians were paid for both performances, and recording sessions.
3) The Record – Advent of mass-replication of recorded music. This is where a 'music industry' starts to grow. Musicians are paid for live performances and recording sessions. The output of those recording sessions can be reproduced and distributed – a result of the industrial revolution.
These first iterations were consumable physical copies, which had capital costs attached to their production, distribution, and use.
4) The Tape – Reduction in cost of mass-replication of recorded music. Tremendous economies of scale, as the cost collapsed, and durability rose. There are still capital costs for reproduction, but they are much lower. This is also the advent of high-quality consumer recording, allowing non-professionals to begin generating and distributing music with the music industry.
5) The CD – Simultaneous innovation in the next cost reduction (no moving parts), bringing with it a tremendous boost in quality. This represented the power of the music industry at it's apex, for whilst this was a revolution in home recording, power in the music industry shifted primarily to control of the distribution and marketing channels.
6) Digital – Uh oh. Costless reproduction of music. This is tightly connected to the rise of broadband, basically removing the need for physical distribution channels. It was quite slow to start, however as it gathered steam, it started eating away at both the technological advantages of the music industry (large scale production plants), and destroyed distribution advantage. The sole advantage left at this point was marketing and advertising.
7) Social media – Done. Social media ate the last bastion of control, but allowing independent producers to access huge swaths of consumers... for free. Combined with the distribution advantages brought along by digital media, this basically completes the replication of the music industry value chain from start to finish. It is very low cost to record / distribute music, and is thus a return to the original cost model, where the most expensive part of the process is in fact the instruments themselves, and the time of the player to perfect their skill.
The question I have for the music industry is what value they provide? This is often a characteristic of disrupted industries. They liked it they way it was before, and point to great examples that the previous model generated.
None of the roles have been lost in the new process. Software tools do the recording and mastering to an exceptional quality. A/R is done by social media and democratic voting. Reviews are done by bloggers and other professionals.
So none of the roles have disappeared, the tools and people have just changed. And also, if we're going to talk about all the great work that was produced by the music industry, what about all the work that wasn't produced due to it's limitations of capacity? If there was lots of great work before, with a high cost structure, high barriers to entry, and opaque decision-making, when those barriers are removed, we should have a lot more music, not less.
There have always been musicians making livelihoods from music. It's hardwired into us – just go read 'this is your brain on music'. So musicians are not going to go away, rather the model has changed.
Rather than attacking digital media for destroying the old business model, I would like those that benefited most from the old business to explain what advantage those structures offer, given the new tools and potentials...
It's hard to drive a horse and carriage when the car comes along...
posted by nickrussell at 4:06 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
If I think about music, this is the history I see:
1) Musicians were paid for performances. Composers paid for compositions that musicians could play. There was no recorded music – all music was produced 'live'. The largest capital investment here was often the instruments themselves, and the time to perfect the player's skills...
2) Advent of recorded music. Musicians were paid for both performances, and recording sessions.
3) The Record – Advent of mass-replication of recorded music. This is where a 'music industry' starts to grow. Musicians are paid for live performances and recording sessions. The output of those recording sessions can be reproduced and distributed – a result of the industrial revolution.
These first iterations were consumable physical copies, which had capital costs attached to their production, distribution, and use.
4) The Tape – Reduction in cost of mass-replication of recorded music. Tremendous economies of scale, as the cost collapsed, and durability rose. There are still capital costs for reproduction, but they are much lower. This is also the advent of high-quality consumer recording, allowing non-professionals to begin generating and distributing music with the music industry.
5) The CD – Simultaneous innovation in the next cost reduction (no moving parts), bringing with it a tremendous boost in quality. This represented the power of the music industry at it's apex, for whilst this was a revolution in home recording, power in the music industry shifted primarily to control of the distribution and marketing channels.
6) Digital – Uh oh. Costless reproduction of music. This is tightly connected to the rise of broadband, basically removing the need for physical distribution channels. It was quite slow to start, however as it gathered steam, it started eating away at both the technological advantages of the music industry (large scale production plants), and destroyed distribution advantage. The sole advantage left at this point was marketing and advertising.
7) Social media – Done. Social media ate the last bastion of control, but allowing independent producers to access huge swaths of consumers... for free. Combined with the distribution advantages brought along by digital media, this basically completes the replication of the music industry value chain from start to finish. It is very low cost to record / distribute music, and is thus a return to the original cost model, where the most expensive part of the process is in fact the instruments themselves, and the time of the player to perfect their skill.
The question I have for the music industry is what value they provide? This is often a characteristic of disrupted industries. They liked it they way it was before, and point to great examples that the previous model generated.
None of the roles have been lost in the new process. Software tools do the recording and mastering to an exceptional quality. A/R is done by social media and democratic voting. Reviews are done by bloggers and other professionals.
So none of the roles have disappeared, the tools and people have just changed. And also, if we're going to talk about all the great work that was produced by the music industry, what about all the work that wasn't produced due to it's limitations of capacity? If there was lots of great work before, with a high cost structure, high barriers to entry, and opaque decision-making, when those barriers are removed, we should have a lot more music, not less.
There have always been musicians making livelihoods from music. It's hardwired into us – just go read 'this is your brain on music'. So musicians are not going to go away, rather the model has changed.
Rather than attacking digital media for destroying the old business model, I would like those that benefited most from the old business to explain what advantage those structures offer, given the new tools and potentials...
It's hard to drive a horse and carriage when the car comes along...
posted by nickrussell at 4:06 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
I love Rocknerd's article : Culture is not about aesthetics. Punk rock is now enforced by law.
"The problem isn’t piracy — it’s competition."
"There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public. This is healthy for culture, not so much for aesthetics, and shit for [professional] musicians [and record companies]."
All the new online production and distribution tools give artists much larger takes though. Indiegogo and Kickstarter take quite small amounts. Bandcamp, iTunes, Amazon, etc. take slightly larger amounts. We shall therefore pay vastly more money to musicians using these tools than we ever did through media conglomerates.
Are these payment to become so thinned out that few can make a living off producing music? Is that bad? We should not imho lament the success of hundreds of thousands of hobbyists and part timers who merely supplement their income, equipment, etc., even if their success means fewer professionals make it, assuming of course that more money flows into the hands of musicians in total.
As an aside, I love Tom Shear's preview track Rise for his indiegogo campaign for his Assemblage 23 side-project Surveillance.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:41 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
"The problem isn’t piracy — it’s competition."
"There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public. This is healthy for culture, not so much for aesthetics, and shit for [professional] musicians [and record companies]."
All the new online production and distribution tools give artists much larger takes though. Indiegogo and Kickstarter take quite small amounts. Bandcamp, iTunes, Amazon, etc. take slightly larger amounts. We shall therefore pay vastly more money to musicians using these tools than we ever did through media conglomerates.
Are these payment to become so thinned out that few can make a living off producing music? Is that bad? We should not imho lament the success of hundreds of thousands of hobbyists and part timers who merely supplement their income, equipment, etc., even if their success means fewer professionals make it, assuming of course that more money flows into the hands of musicians in total.
As an aside, I love Tom Shear's preview track Rise for his indiegogo campaign for his Assemblage 23 side-project Surveillance.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:41 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'd agree with David Byrne's case that streaming services like Spotify suck because they pay the recording industry's extortion without paying musicians, glad I've never used Spotify. At least with youtube, you could place link boxes all over the video asking listeners to click through to contribute or buy. If you need Spotify for promotional reasons, then maybe just place your most ear wormy tracks there, but leave a note that more tracks exist behind a paywall at bandcamp or whatever.
As an aside, I've noticed musicians often label their soundcloud tracks "preview" even if the track remains quite long, that one word probably helps sales.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:54 AM on October 12, 2013
As an aside, I've noticed musicians often label their soundcloud tracks "preview" even if the track remains quite long, that one word probably helps sales.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:54 AM on October 12, 2013
How are you supposed to do that working 50 hours a week on a job that doesn't even give you enough money to afford an instrument to play on?
you get a slightly better job - and actually, not too many burger flippers get 50 hours a week
no, if you're working those kind of hours at one job, you're making enough money to get some kind of equipment for yourself, if you shop intelligently - and if you manage your time well, you'll have enough to put something together
it's not easy, but it's doable
posted by pyramid termite at 5:05 AM on October 12, 2013
you get a slightly better job - and actually, not too many burger flippers get 50 hours a week
no, if you're working those kind of hours at one job, you're making enough money to get some kind of equipment for yourself, if you shop intelligently - and if you manage your time well, you'll have enough to put something together
it's not easy, but it's doable
posted by pyramid termite at 5:05 AM on October 12, 2013
The supply chain for music is changing
The old model:
Artist > recording on tape > Mixing > Mastering > Vinyl pressing > record company > Distributors > Record Stores > You
The current model:
Artist > recording on digital disc > Mixing > Mastering > record company > digital distributor > Internet > you
A future model:
Artist > recording on laptop > internet > You
A shorter supply chain means fewer people taking a cut. This is pretty much what CDBaby are offering and they let the artist keep 91% of the revenue.
Now you could argue that the sound quality of a professional studio would be better than a laptop, but given the recent insane focus on winning the 'loudness war' I think its entirely possible to give the professional studios a run for their money with a very basic setup. You don't need a million dollar studio to make good music.
posted by Lanark at 5:48 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
The old model:
Artist > recording on tape > Mixing > Mastering > Vinyl pressing > record company > Distributors > Record Stores > You
The current model:
Artist > recording on digital disc > Mixing > Mastering > record company > digital distributor > Internet > you
A future model:
Artist > recording on laptop > internet > You
A shorter supply chain means fewer people taking a cut. This is pretty much what CDBaby are offering and they let the artist keep 91% of the revenue.
Now you could argue that the sound quality of a professional studio would be better than a laptop, but given the recent insane focus on winning the 'loudness war' I think its entirely possible to give the professional studios a run for their money with a very basic setup. You don't need a million dollar studio to make good music.
posted by Lanark at 5:48 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Musicians are not the exception to the rule. It's generally the case that the wealth of the world is in the wrong hands.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:54 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:54 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure why you people are talking as if musicians are the canary in the coalmine. If you haven't noticed the miners are already all dead.
posted by srboisvert at 6:10 AM on October 12, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 6:10 AM on October 12, 2013 [9 favorites]
Throughout all of history, musicians have been expected to be paid for their work. This stupid, selfish and short-sighted idea that musicians do not need to be paid and should work for free is a product of the last decade only.
Recorded history started in 3000 BC. The vast, vast majority of people making music during that time were doing it at home or at church. While a priviledged few paid musicians, most music is still made at home.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:39 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Recorded history started in 3000 BC. The vast, vast majority of people making music during that time were doing it at home or at church. While a priviledged few paid musicians, most music is still made at home.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:39 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Would you want to go back to subsistence farming?
YES! Deal closes November 7th, wish me luck!
posted by Meatbomb at 6:49 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
YES! Deal closes November 7th, wish me luck!
posted by Meatbomb at 6:49 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
There were working musicians for centuries before recordings. People will find ways to make a living without hawking hunks of plastic (or batches of zeroes and ones).
Consider the Drive-By Truckers, who are effectively an upper middle-class band without substantial record sales and with only the most nominal income from recording revenues. How do they do it? "I'm a T-shirt salesman," says Mike Cooley. "That's how I make my living."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:55 AM on October 12, 2013
Consider the Drive-By Truckers, who are effectively an upper middle-class band without substantial record sales and with only the most nominal income from recording revenues. How do they do it? "I'm a T-shirt salesman," says Mike Cooley. "That's how I make my living."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:55 AM on October 12, 2013
Didn't he say that back in 2006? Has nothing happened since?
posted by dabitch at 7:08 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by dabitch at 7:08 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
People who are not working musicians forget that most of what is discussed here is the job of managers. A musician who is good enough to earn a living playing music will be more than good enough to attact the interest of potential managers.
posted by Ardiril at 7:12 AM on October 12, 2013
posted by Ardiril at 7:12 AM on October 12, 2013
you get a slightly better job - and actually, not too many burger flippers get 50 hours a week
no, if you're working those kind of hours at one job, you're making enough money to get some kind of equipment for yourself, if you shop intelligently - and if you manage your time well, you'll have enough to put something together
it's not easy, but it's doable
That, my friends, is the sound of entitlement.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:18 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
no, if you're working those kind of hours at one job, you're making enough money to get some kind of equipment for yourself, if you shop intelligently - and if you manage your time well, you'll have enough to put something together
it's not easy, but it's doable
That, my friends, is the sound of entitlement.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:18 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
They came for the musicians, but I wasn't a musician so I did nothing.
I didn't feel the need to as I kept all my music in a cloud.
Then one day it rained ones and zeros.
The cloud disappeared and the the sun shined.
This made me happy.
Shame all my music was gone though,
because right then I really wanted to hear Madonna singing American Pie.
posted by we are the music makers at 7:25 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
I didn't feel the need to as I kept all my music in a cloud.
Then one day it rained ones and zeros.
The cloud disappeared and the the sun shined.
This made me happy.
Shame all my music was gone though,
because right then I really wanted to hear Madonna singing American Pie.
posted by we are the music makers at 7:25 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
That, my friends, is the sound of entitlement.
It really isn't. It's quite correct. Instruments and amps of more than reasonable quality are available at amazingly cheap prices these days.
And really, accusing pyramid termite of entitlement is absurd. A cursory scan of his posting history will bear this out most adequately.
posted by Wolof at 7:30 AM on October 12, 2013 [5 favorites]
It really isn't. It's quite correct. Instruments and amps of more than reasonable quality are available at amazingly cheap prices these days.
And really, accusing pyramid termite of entitlement is absurd. A cursory scan of his posting history will bear this out most adequately.
posted by Wolof at 7:30 AM on October 12, 2013 [5 favorites]
That, my friends, is the sound of entitlement.
The overwhelming majority of people in this world do work they hate to survive. Making music or whatever art you love and assuming that of course those people should pay you for the slightest glimpse of the stuff you love to do? That's entitlement.
posted by straight at 7:48 AM on October 12, 2013 [11 favorites]
The overwhelming majority of people in this world do work they hate to survive. Making music or whatever art you love and assuming that of course those people should pay you for the slightest glimpse of the stuff you love to do? That's entitlement.
posted by straight at 7:48 AM on October 12, 2013 [11 favorites]
Didn't he say that back in 2006? Has nothing happened since?
Sure. Jason Isbell left the band and went solo. And Shonna Tucker left and started a band. So now there are three DBT-derived bands making a good living from live gigs and merchandise sales.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:11 AM on October 12, 2013
Sure. Jason Isbell left the band and went solo. And Shonna Tucker left and started a band. So now there are three DBT-derived bands making a good living from live gigs and merchandise sales.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:11 AM on October 12, 2013
That, my friends, is the sound of entitlement.
no, it's the sound of a working class factory rat who's had to sacrifice and struggle to keep his music going
so sorry if the idea that someone should actually have to work his ass off to get something he wants done offends you - so sorry if the idea that someone should have to prioritize his needs and plan for them carefully offends you - so sorry if the idea that one might just have to forgo a few nights out or pass up the latest episode of breaking bad or duck dynasty in order to make time for one's art offends you
and don't give me any grief about "well, you don't have a burger flippin' minimum wage job, blah blah blah" because guess what? - i survived for many years on the equivalent, too
you don't know me, you don't know what i've had to do and for you to make a statement like that just shows you as a judgmental, politically posturing, cant thrower, who thinks by throwing out a buzz word as a shortcut to actual thought, he's actually SAID something
what an utterly tragic waste of electrons that comment was
posted by pyramid termite at 8:29 AM on October 12, 2013 [6 favorites]
no, it's the sound of a working class factory rat who's had to sacrifice and struggle to keep his music going
so sorry if the idea that someone should actually have to work his ass off to get something he wants done offends you - so sorry if the idea that someone should have to prioritize his needs and plan for them carefully offends you - so sorry if the idea that one might just have to forgo a few nights out or pass up the latest episode of breaking bad or duck dynasty in order to make time for one's art offends you
and don't give me any grief about "well, you don't have a burger flippin' minimum wage job, blah blah blah" because guess what? - i survived for many years on the equivalent, too
you don't know me, you don't know what i've had to do and for you to make a statement like that just shows you as a judgmental, politically posturing, cant thrower, who thinks by throwing out a buzz word as a shortcut to actual thought, he's actually SAID something
what an utterly tragic waste of electrons that comment was
posted by pyramid termite at 8:29 AM on October 12, 2013 [6 favorites]
Making music or whatever art you love and assuming that of course those people should pay you for the slightest glimpse of the stuff you love to do? That's entitlement.
Characterizing musicians and artists in the way you've done with this drippingly derisive, embarrassingly silly and patronizing comment? That's straw man creating.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:35 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Characterizing musicians and artists in the way you've done with this drippingly derisive, embarrassingly silly and patronizing comment? That's straw man creating.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:35 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Folks, this thread will probably go better if you wrap up the entitlement derail. Up to you, friendly suggestion.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:57 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:57 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
Byrne made some excellent music, and it was important to a lot of people. But I suspect that for most of those people, it was not important because it was so excellent, but because of the role it played in their lives at some time, a role that could just as well have been played by the music of one of their neighbors if the local music hadn't been drowned out by the music of Byrne and other people being broadcast by the music industry.
posted by straight at 8:57 AM on October 12, 2013
posted by straight at 8:57 AM on October 12, 2013
Holy wah there's a lot of smoke-blowin' going on in this thread.
I participated in a marginally successful regional folk band for four years. I left when the time came to choose whether or not to make music "for a living." Byrne is way too dismissive of revenue from live shows.
At our peak, we played maybe one or two shows per week and rehearsed twice per week. This is pretty standard for a regionally based folk ensemble. We averaged about $1000/week in show revenue (including private events/weddings/etc). This broke out to about $12k per member per year. The question we were faced with was whether or not to take things to the next level - three to four shows per week, three rehearsals. Working six days a week.
We did the math, added in cd sales revenue and it worked out to about 28k per year per member.
That's not great money, but it's a good start. This is before any streaming revenue or licensing or anything like that. Entry-level. If we worked hard we could eventually see it grow to 35k or 40k, which seemed like a reasonable income in our part of the country for playing the music we loved for a living.
There's money in live shows. People are going out to see shows. There's also good money in private booking. People will always pay to see live music and you can't pirate that.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:58 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
I participated in a marginally successful regional folk band for four years. I left when the time came to choose whether or not to make music "for a living." Byrne is way too dismissive of revenue from live shows.
At our peak, we played maybe one or two shows per week and rehearsed twice per week. This is pretty standard for a regionally based folk ensemble. We averaged about $1000/week in show revenue (including private events/weddings/etc). This broke out to about $12k per member per year. The question we were faced with was whether or not to take things to the next level - three to four shows per week, three rehearsals. Working six days a week.
We did the math, added in cd sales revenue and it worked out to about 28k per year per member.
That's not great money, but it's a good start. This is before any streaming revenue or licensing or anything like that. Entry-level. If we worked hard we could eventually see it grow to 35k or 40k, which seemed like a reasonable income in our part of the country for playing the music we loved for a living.
There's money in live shows. People are going out to see shows. There's also good money in private booking. People will always pay to see live music and you can't pirate that.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:58 AM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
But I don't see hordes of band-members getting comfy spots in universities anytime soon.
Comfy spots in universities? Does this guy think it's still the 1970's?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:25 AM on October 12, 2013
Comfy spots in universities? Does this guy think it's still the 1970's?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:25 AM on October 12, 2013
People will always pay to see live music and you can't pirate that.
Well, technically, you can pirate live performances - see the roughly 1 bazillion shaky distorted cell-phone videos of live shows available on YouTube. I mean, I doubt those are gonna affect any musician's income stream, people aren't gonna skip seeing bands they like or skip buying their music because they've already seen a crappy video, but in the sense of "distributing an artist's material without their permission", calling it "pirating" isn't totally inaccurate.
And, shit, I make my living pretty much off of people's willingness to pay to see live music, so from a purely self-interested standpoint, of course I'm all, "Hellz yeah, more gigs for everybody!" But I can also see the point where people making original music feel that "PLAY MOAR LIVE SHOWS" is not necessarily a practical answer to the question of "How do I make a living in music?"
And I think that Byrne's essay (and some of the others he quotes or references) is more subtle than some people are giving him credit for. I read it as more of a "think-piece" or examination of the state of the music industry as it goes through a major transition period. And a lot of what he and others are questioning is the idea that various digital distribution services that have been touted as a replacement for selling physical media are turning out to not be very beneficial to the artists. Is it really a brave new world, or is it more of a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? Worth thinking about.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:44 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
Well, technically, you can pirate live performances - see the roughly 1 bazillion shaky distorted cell-phone videos of live shows available on YouTube. I mean, I doubt those are gonna affect any musician's income stream, people aren't gonna skip seeing bands they like or skip buying their music because they've already seen a crappy video, but in the sense of "distributing an artist's material without their permission", calling it "pirating" isn't totally inaccurate.
And, shit, I make my living pretty much off of people's willingness to pay to see live music, so from a purely self-interested standpoint, of course I'm all, "Hellz yeah, more gigs for everybody!" But I can also see the point where people making original music feel that "PLAY MOAR LIVE SHOWS" is not necessarily a practical answer to the question of "How do I make a living in music?"
And I think that Byrne's essay (and some of the others he quotes or references) is more subtle than some people are giving him credit for. I read it as more of a "think-piece" or examination of the state of the music industry as it goes through a major transition period. And a lot of what he and others are questioning is the idea that various digital distribution services that have been touted as a replacement for selling physical media are turning out to not be very beneficial to the artists. Is it really a brave new world, or is it more of a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? Worth thinking about.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:44 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
Agreed, soundguy99. I read his main point as :
Streaming services like Spotify should be considered "exploitive bad guys", alongside all the big labels. Yes, the generate exposure. Yes, they pay more royalties than say the pirate bay. But they pay almost nothing. And mostly they create the illusion amongst consumers that they're paying musicians when really they're paying the labels.
It's morally better to pirate your music and buy more merchandise or shows or tracks sold through less exploitive channels.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:59 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Streaming services like Spotify should be considered "exploitive bad guys", alongside all the big labels. Yes, the generate exposure. Yes, they pay more royalties than say the pirate bay. But they pay almost nothing. And mostly they create the illusion amongst consumers that they're paying musicians when really they're paying the labels.
It's morally better to pirate your music and buy more merchandise or shows or tracks sold through less exploitive channels.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:59 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Umm, if equipment is inexpensive, then equipment becomes more available, Thorzdad. Any musician who lacks the funds to buy their own equipment should make friends with as many musicians who own gear already as possible, help them out whenever possible, etc. Voila free studio time. Can you do this if you're working two 35 hour jobs? I suppose not, but income inequality is another problem. Overall, inexpensive equipment plus spreading the music income out amongst more musicians, via non-streaming music sale sites like iTunes, Amazon, etc., should increase access to the "means of production".
posted by jeffburdges at 10:08 AM on October 12, 2013
posted by jeffburdges at 10:08 AM on October 12, 2013
It's morally better to pirate your music and buy more merchandise or shows or tracks sold through less exploitive channels.
I dunno if I'm totally on board with that (although my hands are not necessarily the cleanest here) - I think pirating media is inherently morally questionable, and you can't really claim the moral high ground by supposedly compensating for your pirating by paying the artist in other ways.
And mostly they create the illusion amongst consumers that they're paying musicians when really they're paying the labels.
Yeah, absolutely, and I think this perception can help fuel the "suck it up, buggy-whip makers" attitude that often shows up in these kind of discussions.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:21 AM on October 12, 2013
I dunno if I'm totally on board with that (although my hands are not necessarily the cleanest here) - I think pirating media is inherently morally questionable, and you can't really claim the moral high ground by supposedly compensating for your pirating by paying the artist in other ways.
And mostly they create the illusion amongst consumers that they're paying musicians when really they're paying the labels.
Yeah, absolutely, and I think this perception can help fuel the "suck it up, buggy-whip makers" attitude that often shows up in these kind of discussions.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:21 AM on October 12, 2013
no, if you're working those kind of hours at one job, you're making enough money to get some kind of equipment for yourself, if you shop intelligently - and if you manage your time well, you'll have enough to put something together
Right, and you have so much time and money left over in your life to rehearse, network, go see shows, listen to records, write material, promote your band, maintain your website, interface with fans, sleep, relax, do something else for a change, etc.
All for the price of 50 hours a week flipping burgers!
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is such an ignorant perspective. This takes WORK. More work than can be adequately done by one person - to expect anyone to be able to find any measure of success with no outside help, little money, and the same amount of time in the day as everyone else is absurd.
posted by Dokterrock at 10:37 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Right, and you have so much time and money left over in your life to rehearse, network, go see shows, listen to records, write material, promote your band, maintain your website, interface with fans, sleep, relax, do something else for a change, etc.
All for the price of 50 hours a week flipping burgers!
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is such an ignorant perspective. This takes WORK. More work than can be adequately done by one person - to expect anyone to be able to find any measure of success with no outside help, little money, and the same amount of time in the day as everyone else is absurd.
posted by Dokterrock at 10:37 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
the "suck it up, buggy-whip makers" attitude
Thank you. THANK YOU! I'm so goddamned tired of reading the same goddamn comment over and over in these kinds of threads. People think they're being all forward-thinking and shit, but they're all too often just parroting an easy party line. There are SO many people telling musicians to get with the times, etcetera et-fucking-cetera, ad nauseum, as if musicians haven't thought about all this shit WAY more already than they have.
In other words, before you jump into a thread like this with yet another oh-so-enlightened buggy-whip comment, try to think a little deeper, OK? You'll be better off for it, and we won't have to plow through more of the same expert advice, you dig?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:39 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
Thank you. THANK YOU! I'm so goddamned tired of reading the same goddamn comment over and over in these kinds of threads. People think they're being all forward-thinking and shit, but they're all too often just parroting an easy party line. There are SO many people telling musicians to get with the times, etcetera et-fucking-cetera, ad nauseum, as if musicians haven't thought about all this shit WAY more already than they have.
In other words, before you jump into a thread like this with yet another oh-so-enlightened buggy-whip comment, try to think a little deeper, OK? You'll be better off for it, and we won't have to plow through more of the same expert advice, you dig?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:39 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
More work than can be adequately done by one person - to expect anyone to be able to find any measure of success with no outside help, little money, and the same amount of time in the day as everyone else is absurd.
ooh, what was i thinking the last 8 years? - i should just give up - there's absolutely no way i could have been posting 212 songs to this website, getting my equipment together, and holding down a job with 50 to 60 hour weeks
talk about a "crabs in the bucket" mentality
posted by pyramid termite at 2:07 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
ooh, what was i thinking the last 8 years? - i should just give up - there's absolutely no way i could have been posting 212 songs to this website, getting my equipment together, and holding down a job with 50 to 60 hour weeks
talk about a "crabs in the bucket" mentality
posted by pyramid termite at 2:07 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Artist > recording on laptop > internet > You
A shorter supply chain means fewer people taking a cut. This is pretty much what CDBaby are offering and they let the artist keep 91% of the revenue.
And this part is great. Distribution is no longer scarce or bottlenecked by a small number of gatekeepers. It's great for artists who can sell direct or near direct to as large an audience as they can attract, it's great for fans who get the opportunity to listen and support work they might never have heard.
Even Pandora (which Byrne casts a wary eye at) is great because it's more or less like terrestrial radio, but better -- it offers listeners a well-tailored selection of things they probably already like and are likely to like. But there's still incentive to go a step further and buy in.
Services like Spotify all but remove that incentive completely, and they don't replace the revenue with anything. That's *convenient*, but it's not wise. It means the economics of recording either go to loss-lead or to value-add for something else, and you can't use it to finance an investment in making the actual music.
Yes, recordings as a means of financing that activity are a recent and not super-long lived thing. Yes, there are other ways of doing that financing (private patronage, live performance, merchandising, licensing for commercial use). None of that changes the fact that sawing a leg off the stool is going to make it a little harder to balance.
Of course, if you're of the opinion that we've really got all the music that we need, then there's reason to feel sanguine about removing any number of legs and even overturning the whole edifice.
posted by weston at 2:39 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
A shorter supply chain means fewer people taking a cut. This is pretty much what CDBaby are offering and they let the artist keep 91% of the revenue.
And this part is great. Distribution is no longer scarce or bottlenecked by a small number of gatekeepers. It's great for artists who can sell direct or near direct to as large an audience as they can attract, it's great for fans who get the opportunity to listen and support work they might never have heard.
Even Pandora (which Byrne casts a wary eye at) is great because it's more or less like terrestrial radio, but better -- it offers listeners a well-tailored selection of things they probably already like and are likely to like. But there's still incentive to go a step further and buy in.
Services like Spotify all but remove that incentive completely, and they don't replace the revenue with anything. That's *convenient*, but it's not wise. It means the economics of recording either go to loss-lead or to value-add for something else, and you can't use it to finance an investment in making the actual music.
Yes, recordings as a means of financing that activity are a recent and not super-long lived thing. Yes, there are other ways of doing that financing (private patronage, live performance, merchandising, licensing for commercial use). None of that changes the fact that sawing a leg off the stool is going to make it a little harder to balance.
Of course, if you're of the opinion that we've really got all the music that we need, then there's reason to feel sanguine about removing any number of legs and even overturning the whole edifice.
posted by weston at 2:39 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
ooh, what was i thinking the last 8 years? - i should just give up - there's absolutely no way i could have been posting 212 songs to this website, getting my equipment together, and holding down a job with 50 to 60 hour weeks
Are you making a living at it? Going on tour? Health insurance? Is your music any good? Just because that works for YOU doesn't mean it's a sustainable way of living for everybody. Christ, wouldn't you be happier if you didn't have to work 60 hours a week to fund your music making habit, maybe even so you could devote a little more time to it as a central pursuit and not what you do around the edges of whatever else you have to do to live? Why do you insist that it should be so difficult for everybody?
I never said you should give up - the obvious point of my statement was that making a go as a musician is a lot more complicated and resource consuming than buying a cheap amplifier and having success beat down your door.
You sound like one of those right-wingers who thinks because he works hard enough for his meagre living we shouldn't provide social services for disadvantaged.
posted by Dokterrock at 5:22 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Are you making a living at it? Going on tour? Health insurance? Is your music any good? Just because that works for YOU doesn't mean it's a sustainable way of living for everybody. Christ, wouldn't you be happier if you didn't have to work 60 hours a week to fund your music making habit, maybe even so you could devote a little more time to it as a central pursuit and not what you do around the edges of whatever else you have to do to live? Why do you insist that it should be so difficult for everybody?
I never said you should give up - the obvious point of my statement was that making a go as a musician is a lot more complicated and resource consuming than buying a cheap amplifier and having success beat down your door.
You sound like one of those right-wingers who thinks because he works hard enough for his meagre living we shouldn't provide social services for disadvantaged.
posted by Dokterrock at 5:22 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I used to run a small indie label and started working as a gigging/recording musician playing original music when I was 15 (and continued steadily until my son was born seven years ago). This is another subject that just isn't much fun to think about as an abstract moral debate.
It seems to me we're basically entering an age where we've decided everything is worthless--music, literature, art, education, life. All these things are being culturally devalued at a stunning rate. I think Byrne's on to something. And I think it's sad.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:05 PM on October 12, 2013 [8 favorites]
It seems to me we're basically entering an age where we've decided everything is worthless--music, literature, art, education, life. All these things are being culturally devalued at a stunning rate. I think Byrne's on to something. And I think it's sad.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:05 PM on October 12, 2013 [8 favorites]
Why do you insist that it should be so difficult for everybody?
it IS difficult - that's not my doing, that's how it is - even if i had a 100 million bucks, it would STILL be difficult
You sound like one of those right-wingers who thinks because he works hard enough for his meagre living we shouldn't provide social services for disadvantaged
you're not interacting with me in anything resembling good faith - you've got issues with a certain kind of person and rather than confront them directly, you've chosen to twist my words around, build a straw man around them and use me as a surrogate for your frustrations, which probably have nothing to do with your experiences with music, as you've yet to say anything that would indicate you have any
go take your negativity and anger to a place where people will be entertained by them - this isn't it
bye
posted by pyramid termite at 7:09 PM on October 12, 2013
it IS difficult - that's not my doing, that's how it is - even if i had a 100 million bucks, it would STILL be difficult
You sound like one of those right-wingers who thinks because he works hard enough for his meagre living we shouldn't provide social services for disadvantaged
you're not interacting with me in anything resembling good faith - you've got issues with a certain kind of person and rather than confront them directly, you've chosen to twist my words around, build a straw man around them and use me as a surrogate for your frustrations, which probably have nothing to do with your experiences with music, as you've yet to say anything that would indicate you have any
go take your negativity and anger to a place where people will be entertained by them - this isn't it
bye
posted by pyramid termite at 7:09 PM on October 12, 2013
I have to give Mr. Byrne mad props for complaining that today's young people are dealing with obstacles that he didn't have to in his day.
posted by ocschwar at 7:18 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by ocschwar at 7:18 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
All these things are being culturally devalued at a stunning rate.
WRT music this is only true if you buy the capitalist lie that monetary value = cultural value. I see no evidence that people are listening to music less, enjoying music less, or valuing it less. In fact I see the complete opposite.
posted by wemayfreeze at 7:24 PM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
WRT music this is only true if you buy the capitalist lie that monetary value = cultural value. I see no evidence that people are listening to music less, enjoying music less, or valuing it less. In fact I see the complete opposite.
posted by wemayfreeze at 7:24 PM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
which probably have nothing to do with your experiences with music, as you've yet to say anything that would indicate you have any
go take your negativity and anger to a place where people will be entertained by them - this isn't it
Huh? I am not the one who is saying that every musician should be happy about being able to spend 50 hours a week working a different job, barely making enough money to afford equipment. I'm not creating a straw man, those are your words, in addition to describing yourself as someone "who's had to sacrifice and struggle to keep his music going."
You seem to think that the life of a musician has to self-evidently involve struggle and sacrifice and poverty - if that's not a "crabs in the bucket" mentality (again, a perspective that you weirdly accused me of having), then I don't know what is. All anybody is advocating for is a more sensible system of compensating artists. Wouldn't you like to be monetarily compensated in some way for your blood, sweat, and tears? Isn't it worth something more, or is this just a badge of credibility you like to wear?
As far as my experience with music is concerned, it's totally irrelevant to the fact that the system is not set up in favor of content creators. It's strange to me that you're arguing with somebody who is sympathetic to your cause and who understands all the work and sacrifices you've made. However, if you want to get in a pissing match about who has more time, money, and skin invested in this particular game, PM me and I'll send you my most recent student loan statement along with my CV.
posted by Dokterrock at 7:39 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
go take your negativity and anger to a place where people will be entertained by them - this isn't it
Huh? I am not the one who is saying that every musician should be happy about being able to spend 50 hours a week working a different job, barely making enough money to afford equipment. I'm not creating a straw man, those are your words, in addition to describing yourself as someone "who's had to sacrifice and struggle to keep his music going."
You seem to think that the life of a musician has to self-evidently involve struggle and sacrifice and poverty - if that's not a "crabs in the bucket" mentality (again, a perspective that you weirdly accused me of having), then I don't know what is. All anybody is advocating for is a more sensible system of compensating artists. Wouldn't you like to be monetarily compensated in some way for your blood, sweat, and tears? Isn't it worth something more, or is this just a badge of credibility you like to wear?
As far as my experience with music is concerned, it's totally irrelevant to the fact that the system is not set up in favor of content creators. It's strange to me that you're arguing with somebody who is sympathetic to your cause and who understands all the work and sacrifices you've made. However, if you want to get in a pissing match about who has more time, money, and skin invested in this particular game, PM me and I'll send you my most recent student loan statement along with my CV.
posted by Dokterrock at 7:39 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't you like to be monetarily compensated in some way for your blood, sweat, and tears?
If I'm not being compensated for a job, I quit. People have not quit the music business. They must be getting compensated somehow.
posted by empath at 2:59 AM on October 13, 2013
If I'm not being compensated for a job, I quit. People have not quit the music business. They must be getting compensated somehow.
posted by empath at 2:59 AM on October 13, 2013
I trust the opinion of David Byrne though I disagree with the lede. Not my line of work so what do I know.
Lost my shape
Trying to act casual
Easily my favorite band ever. Especially with Adrian Belew. My desert island band. Crosseyed and Painless.
posted by vapidave at 3:41 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Lost my shape
Trying to act casual
Easily my favorite band ever. Especially with Adrian Belew. My desert island band. Crosseyed and Painless.
posted by vapidave at 3:41 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure why you people are talking as if musicians are the canary in the coalmine. If you haven't noticed the miners are already all dead.
This. For whatever reason, there seems to be an overwhelming tendency to obsess over the fate of musicians in a way that seemed rather absent when farmers, steelworkers, textile workers, darkroom technicians, typesetters, machinists, typists, draftsmen, and dozens of other gutted occupations were on the New Economy chopping block.
So it's difficult to hear 'but think of the musicians' as anything but a trifle ... bourgeois. Which is not to say that the musicians in peril are themselves bourgeois, but the abundance of concern, specifically compared to less sexy/aspirational jobs, certainly seems to reek of it. A whole multitude of urban elites never spent their formative years dreaming about setting hot type or pouring steel, so the death of those industries just never hit home, I guess. But those jobs are just as gone, the people who spent their working lives perfecting their trade just as fucked as the session musician, those in the generations afterwards who might have wanted to go into that trade just as limited in their ability to pursue it only as a hobby.
If we had been busily throwing out lifejackets to every industry that found itself in mortal peril over the past few decades it might be reasonable to consider what we could do to preserve "professional musician" as a viable career option, but given that we've been more likely to beat them with the proverbial oar and get them to drown faster (cf. "go big or go home" farming, MFN status for China and manufacturing, neglect in most other cases), the precedent doesn't seem to really be there.
The onus is on those who want some sort of special economic treatment for musicians or the music industry in light of the Internet, whether by government or by consumers directly, to demonstrate why precisely musicians are different from any number of other highly-skilled trades that have become hobby-ized. Particularly given what it would take to bring back the golden days of recorded music (which begs the rather large question of whether the 20th century music industry is really something worth resurrecting) -- probably involving crippling mandatory DRM on every piece of computer equipment and insanely vicious copyright enforcement -- it seems hard to make the case, when so many occupations were themselves gutted for just a few pennies here and there in finished-goods costs.
If what's being discussed is some sort of basic living allowance, disconnecting everyone from the economic value of their desired occupation and letting them pursue whatever the hell they want to, whether it's folk music or letterpress printing or daguerréotype photography or machining gauge blocks, fair enough. But too often these discussions seem to dwell on what can be done specifically for musicians (and other self-consciously "creative" occupations), at the cost of everyone else. Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:50 PM on October 13, 2013 [9 favorites]
This. For whatever reason, there seems to be an overwhelming tendency to obsess over the fate of musicians in a way that seemed rather absent when farmers, steelworkers, textile workers, darkroom technicians, typesetters, machinists, typists, draftsmen, and dozens of other gutted occupations were on the New Economy chopping block.
So it's difficult to hear 'but think of the musicians' as anything but a trifle ... bourgeois. Which is not to say that the musicians in peril are themselves bourgeois, but the abundance of concern, specifically compared to less sexy/aspirational jobs, certainly seems to reek of it. A whole multitude of urban elites never spent their formative years dreaming about setting hot type or pouring steel, so the death of those industries just never hit home, I guess. But those jobs are just as gone, the people who spent their working lives perfecting their trade just as fucked as the session musician, those in the generations afterwards who might have wanted to go into that trade just as limited in their ability to pursue it only as a hobby.
If we had been busily throwing out lifejackets to every industry that found itself in mortal peril over the past few decades it might be reasonable to consider what we could do to preserve "professional musician" as a viable career option, but given that we've been more likely to beat them with the proverbial oar and get them to drown faster (cf. "go big or go home" farming, MFN status for China and manufacturing, neglect in most other cases), the precedent doesn't seem to really be there.
The onus is on those who want some sort of special economic treatment for musicians or the music industry in light of the Internet, whether by government or by consumers directly, to demonstrate why precisely musicians are different from any number of other highly-skilled trades that have become hobby-ized. Particularly given what it would take to bring back the golden days of recorded music (which begs the rather large question of whether the 20th century music industry is really something worth resurrecting) -- probably involving crippling mandatory DRM on every piece of computer equipment and insanely vicious copyright enforcement -- it seems hard to make the case, when so many occupations were themselves gutted for just a few pennies here and there in finished-goods costs.
If what's being discussed is some sort of basic living allowance, disconnecting everyone from the economic value of their desired occupation and letting them pursue whatever the hell they want to, whether it's folk music or letterpress printing or daguerréotype photography or machining gauge blocks, fair enough. But too often these discussions seem to dwell on what can be done specifically for musicians (and other self-consciously "creative" occupations), at the cost of everyone else. Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:50 PM on October 13, 2013 [9 favorites]
God, I am so glad I make six figures as a stock trader. Obviously I'm providing much more cultural value as another monkey in finance than I do as a composer/musician.
posted by malocchio at 3:09 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by malocchio at 3:09 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Very sharp analysis, Kadin.
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:20 PM on October 13, 2013
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:20 PM on October 13, 2013
For whatever reason, there seems to be an overwhelming tendency to obsess over the fate of musicians in a way that seemed rather absent when farmers, steelworkers, textile workers, darkroom technicians, typesetters, machinists, typists, draftsmen, and dozens of other gutted occupations were on the New Economy chopping block.
Part of the reason is that there wasn't a persistent effort to shame people who used word processors for killing the typsetting industry, combined with draconian laws trying to prevent computers at the hardware level from running word processing software.
posted by straight at 4:20 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Part of the reason is that there wasn't a persistent effort to shame people who used word processors for killing the typsetting industry, combined with draconian laws trying to prevent computers at the hardware level from running word processing software.
posted by straight at 4:20 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, we don't hear shit from photographers, writers, reporters, filmmakers or anyone else threatened by digital duplication. Fucking whiney musicians.
posted by malocchio at 4:55 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by malocchio at 4:55 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Kadin makes some good points, but I think the thrust of the article by Byrne and the general sentiment is that obviously, many people in the music industry are still making a shitload of money, but it's not necessarily the people making the music - again, it's the distributors (i.e. Spotify, labels, etc, obviously it remains to be seen if their model is sustainable). It's not that the digital economy is making musicians obsolete (as in the totally silly and not appropriate typesetter/textile/darkroom comparisons), it's making their revenue stream and process of figuring that out much more complicated. I really don't feel like anybody is "whining" - this is a new problem and it's going to take some new kind of thinking to figure out how to solve it.
posted by Dokterrock at 5:57 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Dokterrock at 5:57 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
there seems to be an overwhelming tendency to obsess over the fate of musicians in a way that seemed rather absent when farmers, steelworkers, textile workers, darkroom technicians, typesetters, machinists, typists, draftsmen, and dozens of other gutted occupations were on the New Economy chopping block.
Absent? Really? I can only assume you're not seeing the same discussions I am, because both on Metafilter and elsewhere hand-wringing over general structural employment issues from technological progress and how we deal with it as a society seems frequent to me.
what it would take to bring back the golden days of recorded music (which begs the rather large question of whether the 20th century music industry is really something worth resurrecting) -- probably involving crippling mandatory DRM on every piece of computer equipment and insanely vicious copyright enforcement
I'm not sure the business of selling recordings will ever return to or surpass its peak, but it's far from a forgone conclusion that it won't, or that it would require crippling omnipresent DRM and a (more) draconian copyright regime.
I'm aware of the downward trending graph on revenue from recordings for the first decade of the new century, but I think it's a mistake to assume it's a permanent trend. There's two big hiccups in the move from physical media to digital that have probably distorted the picture: (a) the adoption of digital music and the informal sharing/pirate economy got *way* out in front of the market and (b) right as vendors started to really sell digital recordings, we had the biggest economic crisis since the great depression, which can take a bite out of disposable income and entertainment spending.
This year, IIRC, there's slightly rising revenue rather than falling. It's from rising digital sales at a rate that now outpaces falling physical sales. Total revenue is probably about half of what it was at the end of the 1990s. But it's also probably about 50% more than it was at the beginning.
I also don't think total revenue tells the whole story of potential in the market. Because digital albums are often cheaper. And also, with a shorter distribution chain, people who make the music are often keeping more.
This really isn't a bad state of affairs. In fact, I'm slightly bullish on the idea that we will enter (if we're not already in) another golden age of recorded music.
Streaming services are a threat, though -- at least, buffet-style on-demand services like Spotify. Because, again, they remove incentives to buy, the royalty economics don't work for the artist.
It may even be worse than piracy. Most people know that they're not giving economic support for something they value when they share or obtain digital music without paying. There's various justifications for that, some decent enough, some less good, but I think that understanding is key and may even drive people to eventually participate somehow economically. Do people have the same awareness and sense of informal obligation when they're getting on-demand listening from an apparently above-board legitimate service?
And one more thing: the issues here are orthogonal from DRM. You could have perfect DRM and they'd still be present. You could change the way royalties are done for buffet-streaming (either through a different business model or in statute) and solve the problem without DRM.
posted by weston at 6:21 PM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
Absent? Really? I can only assume you're not seeing the same discussions I am, because both on Metafilter and elsewhere hand-wringing over general structural employment issues from technological progress and how we deal with it as a society seems frequent to me.
what it would take to bring back the golden days of recorded music (which begs the rather large question of whether the 20th century music industry is really something worth resurrecting) -- probably involving crippling mandatory DRM on every piece of computer equipment and insanely vicious copyright enforcement
I'm not sure the business of selling recordings will ever return to or surpass its peak, but it's far from a forgone conclusion that it won't, or that it would require crippling omnipresent DRM and a (more) draconian copyright regime.
I'm aware of the downward trending graph on revenue from recordings for the first decade of the new century, but I think it's a mistake to assume it's a permanent trend. There's two big hiccups in the move from physical media to digital that have probably distorted the picture: (a) the adoption of digital music and the informal sharing/pirate economy got *way* out in front of the market and (b) right as vendors started to really sell digital recordings, we had the biggest economic crisis since the great depression, which can take a bite out of disposable income and entertainment spending.
This year, IIRC, there's slightly rising revenue rather than falling. It's from rising digital sales at a rate that now outpaces falling physical sales. Total revenue is probably about half of what it was at the end of the 1990s. But it's also probably about 50% more than it was at the beginning.
I also don't think total revenue tells the whole story of potential in the market. Because digital albums are often cheaper. And also, with a shorter distribution chain, people who make the music are often keeping more.
This really isn't a bad state of affairs. In fact, I'm slightly bullish on the idea that we will enter (if we're not already in) another golden age of recorded music.
Streaming services are a threat, though -- at least, buffet-style on-demand services like Spotify. Because, again, they remove incentives to buy, the royalty economics don't work for the artist.
It may even be worse than piracy. Most people know that they're not giving economic support for something they value when they share or obtain digital music without paying. There's various justifications for that, some decent enough, some less good, but I think that understanding is key and may even drive people to eventually participate somehow economically. Do people have the same awareness and sense of informal obligation when they're getting on-demand listening from an apparently above-board legitimate service?
And one more thing: the issues here are orthogonal from DRM. You could have perfect DRM and they'd still be present. You could change the way royalties are done for buffet-streaming (either through a different business model or in statute) and solve the problem without DRM.
posted by weston at 6:21 PM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
It's amazing how little sense of history most old folks have. Selling plastic discs was a recent phenomenon. Artists making a living off them more recent still.
I just want to go back to this for a moment and get a show of hands from everyone who has a job that existed in its present form (more or less) one hundred years ago.
posted by malocchio at 7:23 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
I just want to go back to this for a moment and get a show of hands from everyone who has a job that existed in its present form (more or less) one hundred years ago.
posted by malocchio at 7:23 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Why? Actors made a living 100 years ago as actors, hell even back in Shakespeare's time. And actors get paid today too.
Are musicians something so special they are the only ones to be exempt from pay? Do you think the disrespect of compensating people who compose a song stays there, or might it spread to include writers of books, heck, even code? That is jobs that have only existed within the last 40 years or so. It's not just a performance that isn't being paid for, or the production of it, if you think about it this affects everyone and their jobs in some way. That's what David Byrne is saying.
posted by dabitch at 9:36 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Are musicians something so special they are the only ones to be exempt from pay? Do you think the disrespect of compensating people who compose a song stays there, or might it spread to include writers of books, heck, even code? That is jobs that have only existed within the last 40 years or so. It's not just a performance that isn't being paid for, or the production of it, if you think about it this affects everyone and their jobs in some way. That's what David Byrne is saying.
posted by dabitch at 9:36 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
farmers, steelworkers, textile workers, darkroom technicians, typesetters, machinists, typists, draftsmen
All of these occupations can have a quantifiable output subject to a relatively dispassionate and objective set of standards of quality - i.e. a machinist has to turn out "x" number of gears per day and those gears all have to have all the proper dimensions to fit with certain other gears. However much the individuals involved in these occupations are highly skilled craftspeople, the very nature of these jobs allows them to be easily integrated into an industrial capitalist society.
The creation of art often does not comfortably fit into a model of quantifiable output with objective standards of quality. So it seems to me you're comparing apples to oranges here - examining the reasons why Industrial Age skilled trades disappeared won't particularly tell us anything about the issues confronting non-industrial occupations in a largely post-industrial society.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:47 PM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
All of these occupations can have a quantifiable output subject to a relatively dispassionate and objective set of standards of quality - i.e. a machinist has to turn out "x" number of gears per day and those gears all have to have all the proper dimensions to fit with certain other gears. However much the individuals involved in these occupations are highly skilled craftspeople, the very nature of these jobs allows them to be easily integrated into an industrial capitalist society.
The creation of art often does not comfortably fit into a model of quantifiable output with objective standards of quality. So it seems to me you're comparing apples to oranges here - examining the reasons why Industrial Age skilled trades disappeared won't particularly tell us anything about the issues confronting non-industrial occupations in a largely post-industrial society.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:47 PM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'd love to read a piece from the POV of a young musician on the hustle today. Or, ideally, a series of interviews with young musicians at various points in their musical journies. We only ever really get analyses of the New World Order from the old guard. How are people living this new reality? Are they more stoked for the tools at their disposal or more bummed that they're aren't labels for them? What's the financial landscape like for a young band? Are their fans buying downloads, tshirts, 7"s? Or just streaming and never dropping cash?
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:35 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:35 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'd love to read a piece from the POV of a young musician on the hustle today. Or, ideally, a series of interviews with young musicians at various points in their musical journies. We only ever really get analyses of the New World Order from the old guard.
The Spotify Debate: A New Artist Weighs In (unfortunately the new artist direct commentary is about 2/3 the way through the piece, so scroll down to get past more Atoms For Peace / Tom Yorke "old guard" analysis).
Zoe Keating on Spotify.
posted by weston at 12:15 AM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Interesting that 'middle class' actors are getting screwed. That sounds like 100% competition plus weak/corrupt unions though. You cannot claim piracy when your still playing the star $20M.
Of course, the rocknerd article I mentioned upthread argued that competition created the whole problem for musicians too. And Byrne's article suggests the Spotify issue arises from weak/corrupt representation/unions as well.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:05 AM on October 14, 2013
Of course, the rocknerd article I mentioned upthread argued that competition created the whole problem for musicians too. And Byrne's article suggests the Spotify issue arises from weak/corrupt representation/unions as well.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:05 AM on October 14, 2013
The article by Zoe Keating is really good.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:32 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 3:32 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have a friend who is an EDM producer and is currently touring Europe and I talk to him about the music business all the time. Getting paid for selling mp3s has never been a consideration. His entire business plan has been to build relationships with touring djs by giving them his songs, which they 'sign' for some nominal fee. For six months or so, his songs will be played exclusively by 8 or 9 djs that are on the same label or booking agency, then they'll get released on beatport and sell a few hundred copies, or maybe a few thousand, if it really catches on. He'll get, at best a few hundred dollars for a song he spent a few months on. The vast majority of people who get the song won't pay for it, but that's fine. He just wants soundcloud, Facebook and twitter followers.
What he gets in return, though, is exclusive access to songs from those other djs, and name recognition, which gets him booked as a Dj all over the world, and for which he gets paid anything from a few hundred to several thousand a night.
If you want to make money making music, there are ways to do it. Your just not going o be able to do it through selling mp3s.
posted by empath at 4:00 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
What he gets in return, though, is exclusive access to songs from those other djs, and name recognition, which gets him booked as a Dj all over the world, and for which he gets paid anything from a few hundred to several thousand a night.
If you want to make money making music, there are ways to do it. Your just not going o be able to do it through selling mp3s.
posted by empath at 4:00 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Are their fans buying downloads, tshirts, 7"s? Or just streaming and never dropping cash?
From my personal limited experience of playing in bands over the past fifteen years or so, nobody is buying merch these days. It's depressing. Or maybe my band sucks. But all of the other bands I know say the same thing.
posted by Dokterrock at 1:33 PM on October 14, 2013
From my personal limited experience of playing in bands over the past fifteen years or so, nobody is buying merch these days. It's depressing. Or maybe my band sucks. But all of the other bands I know say the same thing.
posted by Dokterrock at 1:33 PM on October 14, 2013
The creation of art often does not comfortably fit into a model of quantifiable output with objective standards of quality. So it seems to me you're comparing apples to oranges here - examining the reasons why Industrial Age skilled trades disappeared won't particularly tell us anything about the issues confronting non-industrial occupations in a largely post-industrial society.
Fair enough, although I think that the kind of artists whose destruction are being lamented are not "non-industrial" but are a very much industrial-age phenomenon: playing not for an immediate audience and immediate payment (payment for labor) but instead playing to create a recording which was then reproduced and sold. That model is absolutely a product of industrial, mass production and did not exist prior to it. Recorded music is an industrialized product; it is the very distillation of Marx's alienated labor (Entfremdung).
Non-industrial musicians, i.e. those who receive compensation directly for their labor unconnected with any recording or forward-payment of royalties, etc., are not really under threat. But they never really saw that much expansion either, so they have less distance to fall. The change is in the opportunity -- as often fantasy as reality -- for huge returns as a result of mechanical reproduction disassociated with the actual grinding labor of performance.
Non-industrial music as it currently exists is probably immune to further depression from recorded music, because it would seem as though recorded music is so ubiquitous as to make the remaining live music performance notably distinct. Very few people, I suspect, employ live musicians because of the lack of similar recordings to what they desire the musicians play (that happens, I'm sure, but it's rare). Rather, live musicians are employed for the production of live music as a distinct good from recorded music (as it should be).
If the past few decades can be generalized, what I think has happened to the musician is the same thing that has happened to many other fields: the benefits of mechanical reproduction (aka "efficiency", "technology") have become centralized in corporations rather than individuals. Musicians simply had a longer period during which individuals took advantage of mechanical reproduction and thus got used to it. In more capital-intensive industries, e.g. (at the very maximum) steel production, individuals never really saw it. Their labor was always alienated, the benefits of industrialization always accruing to Capital. For various historical reasons, musicians (some of them anyway) were able to benefit individually during the industrialization of the 20th century, but they should be aware that this was an exception rather than the rule.
It is a mistake to think that musicians can somehow today eke out a settlement with Capital exclusive of other workers who have been out in the old far longer, and not draw the ire of those other workers. Any sort of preferential modification to copyright (or other sweetheart legislation), in order to preserve the 20th century status quo at the expense of music listeners / consumers, should expect a lot of opposition.
It's not so much "fuck you, got mine" as "fuck you, lost mine."
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:47 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Fair enough, although I think that the kind of artists whose destruction are being lamented are not "non-industrial" but are a very much industrial-age phenomenon: playing not for an immediate audience and immediate payment (payment for labor) but instead playing to create a recording which was then reproduced and sold. That model is absolutely a product of industrial, mass production and did not exist prior to it. Recorded music is an industrialized product; it is the very distillation of Marx's alienated labor (Entfremdung).
Non-industrial musicians, i.e. those who receive compensation directly for their labor unconnected with any recording or forward-payment of royalties, etc., are not really under threat. But they never really saw that much expansion either, so they have less distance to fall. The change is in the opportunity -- as often fantasy as reality -- for huge returns as a result of mechanical reproduction disassociated with the actual grinding labor of performance.
Non-industrial music as it currently exists is probably immune to further depression from recorded music, because it would seem as though recorded music is so ubiquitous as to make the remaining live music performance notably distinct. Very few people, I suspect, employ live musicians because of the lack of similar recordings to what they desire the musicians play (that happens, I'm sure, but it's rare). Rather, live musicians are employed for the production of live music as a distinct good from recorded music (as it should be).
If the past few decades can be generalized, what I think has happened to the musician is the same thing that has happened to many other fields: the benefits of mechanical reproduction (aka "efficiency", "technology") have become centralized in corporations rather than individuals. Musicians simply had a longer period during which individuals took advantage of mechanical reproduction and thus got used to it. In more capital-intensive industries, e.g. (at the very maximum) steel production, individuals never really saw it. Their labor was always alienated, the benefits of industrialization always accruing to Capital. For various historical reasons, musicians (some of them anyway) were able to benefit individually during the industrialization of the 20th century, but they should be aware that this was an exception rather than the rule.
It is a mistake to think that musicians can somehow today eke out a settlement with Capital exclusive of other workers who have been out in the old far longer, and not draw the ire of those other workers. Any sort of preferential modification to copyright (or other sweetheart legislation), in order to preserve the 20th century status quo at the expense of music listeners / consumers, should expect a lot of opposition.
It's not so much "fuck you, got mine" as "fuck you, lost mine."
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:47 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
That Culture is not about Esthetics link deserves a FPP. It's a very provocative and persuasive argument that we should actually shun (or maybe even ban) new books and new music.
posted by straight at 9:08 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by straight at 9:08 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
That rocknerd article is great
It's a sharp analysis, and worth reading and digesting. But be very careful:
I'd agree convenience is a real factor, but I also don't think there's any way that's the whole story. People who *could* get a lot of things conveniently for free were buying (and do in other cases related to music). You could simply say the utility of the product itself and consequent demand is really high enough for the market to sustain that price, but if nothing else that raises the question of why. My guess is that there's a combination of a sense of patronage and more particularly *participation* that's involved in a lot of the transactions. T-shirts and other non-recording merchandise don't make a lot of sense without that. Hipster fandom does make a lot of sense with it.
posted by weston at 10:05 AM on October 15, 2013
It's a sharp analysis, and worth reading and digesting. But be very careful:
(I was actually surprised iTunes works at all, ever, for anyone — people paying $1 for something of zero marginal cost. Every sale is made because the people wanted to pay for the unit in question. Convenience is worth more than I’d thought.)Here the author more or less recognizes there's at least one giant observable result which would seem to present problems for the application of the microeconomic model on which the piece is based... but then sweeps them all under the a single rug labeled convenience.
I'd agree convenience is a real factor, but I also don't think there's any way that's the whole story. People who *could* get a lot of things conveniently for free were buying (and do in other cases related to music). You could simply say the utility of the product itself and consequent demand is really high enough for the market to sustain that price, but if nothing else that raises the question of why. My guess is that there's a combination of a sense of patronage and more particularly *participation* that's involved in a lot of the transactions. T-shirts and other non-recording merchandise don't make a lot of sense without that. Hipster fandom does make a lot of sense with it.
posted by weston at 10:05 AM on October 15, 2013
So, if pulling your music from Spotify is something you can do, after reading weston's links my question is why any indie band in their right mind would allow their music to be on Spotify. It sounds like a shit deal.
It is a shit deal, but an annual cheque for one penny is more than you'd get from opting out.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:32 PM on October 15, 2013
It is a shit deal, but an annual cheque for one penny is more than you'd get from opting out.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:32 PM on October 15, 2013
Wrong. There is only one question : Will your real sales go up or down if you dump Spotify? There is obviously a middle ground where you tweak what mixes listeners find on Spotify, maybe make them extra ear wormy, maybe rotate them so availability changes, maybe leave versions that frequently get played by many different people, etc., whatever helps attract real customers. I'd expect musicians know this so the fact that many are dumping Spotify suggests they're seeing few customers coming from Spotify links.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:58 PM on October 15, 2013
posted by jeffburdges at 12:58 PM on October 15, 2013
there are a lot of other factors involved in whether you're making any CD sales
Only one that I can think of: Whether it's the 1990s.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:25 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Only one that I can think of: Whether it's the 1990s.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:25 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
I disagree with David Byrne and his Spotify stance
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:14 AM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:14 AM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
dabitch: "This is making the rounds now, rightthemusic.org"
That site characterises the typical "pirate" response as "so what?". But my response to most of them was "Cite?" or "Well, ..."
That piracy reduces revenue, especially in an overall sense, is a questionable premise.
posted by Drexen at 6:57 AM on October 18, 2013
That site characterises the typical "pirate" response as "so what?". But my response to most of them was "Cite?" or "Well, ..."
That piracy reduces revenue, especially in an overall sense, is a questionable premise.
posted by Drexen at 6:57 AM on October 18, 2013
That site characterises the typical "pirate" response as "so what?". But my response to most of them was "Cite?" or "Well, ..."
Mine was "and just what are you proposing?". Same with the original piece. I'm always afraid when people say we've got to do something, but don't really articulate what. I think it leads to heavy handed solutions that don't really solve anything. Case in point: the DMCA.
posted by zabuni at 8:45 AM on October 18, 2013
Mine was "and just what are you proposing?". Same with the original piece. I'm always afraid when people say we've got to do something, but don't really articulate what. I think it leads to heavy handed solutions that don't really solve anything. Case in point: the DMCA.
posted by zabuni at 8:45 AM on October 18, 2013
Your response was "cite", Drexen? I'm not sure I understand, isn't the site's link to where the quotes displayed are taken from obvious? You click the links and you'll end up on the youtube clip or Guardian article or whatever where the quote is seen in context.
That piracy reduces revenue, especially in an overall sense, is a questionable premise.
Cite?
posted by dabitch at 2:04 AM on October 19, 2013
That piracy reduces revenue, especially in an overall sense, is a questionable premise.
Cite?
posted by dabitch at 2:04 AM on October 19, 2013
dabitch: "Your response was "cite", Drexen? I'm not sure I understand, isn't the site's link to where the quotes displayed are taken from obvious? You click the links and you'll end up on the youtube clip or Guardian article or whatever where the quote is seen in context."
Not for the sources of the quotes -- for the claims being made in the quotes. Like, "The future for all creators is at stake," "my estimate would be about a third of what we could be making instead goes to piracy," "The recorded music industry has been [...] decimated by piracy". That kind of thing.
dabitch: "That piracy reduces revenue, especially in an overall sense, is a questionable premise.
Cite?"
Sure:
LSE: Creative Industries Not Harmed by Digital Sharing (2013)
UNC: The Effect of Filesharing on Music Sales: An Empirical Analysis (2004)
And on a broader line: Zeropaid: What Filesharing Studies Really Say – Conclusions and Links
Admittedly there's hardly a consensus on this and there's plenty of studies that contradict those. But given the basic plausibility of those and the likelihood (posited by me) that a lot of studies on the subject bake in the assumptions of the old industry -- e.g., not taking into account the rise of more modern, 'post-industry' ideas like Bandcamp, the potential 'flattening out' of revenues across artists, focussing on the decline of individual spending vs. the potential expanding of audiences, the possibility for new sorts of 'music products' and shifting consumption patterns, etc etc -- overall I think it's fair to say it's not as simple as "the internet is bad for creativity". Oh yeah, especially if you take a more flexible view on the relationship between industry revenue and creativity than Byrne does.
posted by Drexen at 11:08 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not for the sources of the quotes -- for the claims being made in the quotes. Like, "The future for all creators is at stake," "my estimate would be about a third of what we could be making instead goes to piracy," "The recorded music industry has been [...] decimated by piracy". That kind of thing.
dabitch: "That piracy reduces revenue, especially in an overall sense, is a questionable premise.
Cite?"
Sure:
LSE: Creative Industries Not Harmed by Digital Sharing (2013)
UNC: The Effect of Filesharing on Music Sales: An Empirical Analysis (2004)
And on a broader line: Zeropaid: What Filesharing Studies Really Say – Conclusions and Links
Admittedly there's hardly a consensus on this and there's plenty of studies that contradict those. But given the basic plausibility of those and the likelihood (posited by me) that a lot of studies on the subject bake in the assumptions of the old industry -- e.g., not taking into account the rise of more modern, 'post-industry' ideas like Bandcamp, the potential 'flattening out' of revenues across artists, focussing on the decline of individual spending vs. the potential expanding of audiences, the possibility for new sorts of 'music products' and shifting consumption patterns, etc etc -- overall I think it's fair to say it's not as simple as "the internet is bad for creativity". Oh yeah, especially if you take a more flexible view on the relationship between industry revenue and creativity than Byrne does.
posted by Drexen at 11:08 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I haven't trusted David Byrne's opinion on anything since his act of extreme fat-shaming.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:32 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:32 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Fat shaming? He's dancing in an oversized suit and the effect looks pretty cool. Any size person could do this. Why do you think that a larger person couldn't also wear an oversized suit to create the same effect? David Byrne is not the person fat shaming here.
Here's a joke SNL interview with David Byrne, where he nevertheless seriously explains why he wore an oversized suit.
I like symmetry and geometric shapes. I wanted my head to appear smaller.
posted by eye of newt at 11:42 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Here's a joke SNL interview with David Byrne, where he nevertheless seriously explains why he wore an oversized suit.
I like symmetry and geometric shapes. I wanted my head to appear smaller.
posted by eye of newt at 11:42 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Fat shaming? He's dancing in an oversized suit
hey, we're all just dancing
in an oversized suit
just trying to be funny
or trying to be cute
and then somebody makes
another joke about it
then yet another thinks:
"a joke? uh-uh, i doubt it"
and so misunderstandings
are born of harmless acts
every act of fiction
misinterpreted as facts
in the end you wonder
is it worth it, harmless fun?
so often we are misperceived
when all is said and done
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:31 PM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
hey, we're all just dancing
in an oversized suit
just trying to be funny
or trying to be cute
and then somebody makes
another joke about it
then yet another thinks:
"a joke? uh-uh, i doubt it"
and so misunderstandings
are born of harmless acts
every act of fiction
misinterpreted as facts
in the end you wonder
is it worth it, harmless fun?
so often we are misperceived
when all is said and done
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:31 PM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Settlements will be paid in doubloons | Breakfast Can Wait Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Easy come, easy go.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:49 PM on October 11, 2013 [12 favorites]