is the RIAA ruining music? an essay.

[furcalchick]

this is my first post here in the music forum, but i have a bit of knowledge about music, the riaa in general and how bad music seems to be right now. it's like right now, the riaa wants to hold a standard to what is real music and what is fake, and because of that, they almost ruined music for me.

when i was growing up in the 90's (im 21 now), my parents blocked mtv and told me never to listen to the radio and declared that music evil (mostly rock), and listened to slow ballards most of the time. it's okay, but it's not my type of music. i eventually got sick of it and basically turned my back from music for a time, i thought concerts were evil and anyone involved with music was a bad person, since music was evil after all. i wasn't into hearing any music again until i was in high school, and brittney and n'sync and bubblegum took over. i was in califirona now and thought that to be a real cail girl, i had to listen to what was on mtv and follow the trends and like this type of stuff, as mtv is all about music after all, and real teens listen to music by listening to the songs on the radio, buying the cds, then paying 80 bucks for the concert to listen to them lipsync and repeat all over again. well, turns out my parents turned off the music there as well, but most of my friends let me listen to their cd's and i thought that was real music (which was bubblegum).

i tried to force myself to like it to avoid being a total loser (my main interests were and still are sports, especially baseball, science and video games to an extent), because i was always bullied. music was a teenage staple and thinking music was evil pretty much could ruin your high school years. looking back, most of the songs sucked, but a few were decent. i still would like to listen to am talk radio any day of the week over fm, but more on that in a little bit. i still hated most other music at that time that wasn't bubblegum, as i still looked at non bubblegum as evil.

i did download a few songs, but mostly were bombs. i think one of the riaa's current tatics is to play a small clip of the song (like the sound too good to be true parts), make you buy the cd to hear the rest and then realize it sucks and found out you wasted 20 bucks on total garbage. also, looking back, good thing i found out that all those songs sucked early on, because i probably could have spent over a grand on sucky music with price fixing and the such. i still prefer to listen to a whole song or a cd in that matter before i buy it, to know if i like the product or not. i hate being scammed, and this was a big reason why.

also before my high school exit, pop rock was becoming popular and was the thing to do if you were tried of the brittney, but in fact, it was just more bubblegum in new clothes, but i fell for it anyway, thinking that it wasn't sucky because it wasn't bubblegum.

i somehow survived high school and went to college. i know of some students who played in bands, but i thought they weren't legit because they weren't on the radio (which i don't listen to anyway, then and now) or never heard of them before, and weren't any kind of bubblegum. i was still longing for bubblegum, as that was i was familiar with, thanks to the riaa. i then heard the songs over and over again, and it sucked after the first two plays. music at this point was forever ruined, i didn't want to hear anymore about it. i thought anyone that loved music was either brainwashed or evil at this point.

at around the same time, i was talking to a friend of mine (not revealing name) about braves baseball, as we both like the braves (our conversations still revolve mostly about the braves and baseball, we hardly talk music). after a while, they told me that they are a singer/songwriter, so i give it a chance. i loved it, better music than the trashy heap that the riaa was spoonfeeding me all these years. if they told me the music part first, i would have pulled them off so fast, but i'm glad we talked about the other things first. also, i found out that it didn't have to be big time to be good, but in fact, alot of the better stuff was on indie labels and such and wasn't big time. i won't deny there are some good big time stuff, but after that, i started to find out what my real music niche was, i went out to a few shows and no longer thought of music as evil. well, there is some music i probably won't listen to, but it's not the bad place i thought it was years ago.

i found out the riaa is using clearchannel and their playlist full of bubblegum pop, bubblegum rap and the rest and forcing people to think that the only music that is on the fm dial is music. they put too many commercials on it, they rely on the big hit songs otherwise it's not going on the radio, and they try to lure you to buy the album to have the song, when in fact most pop albums are just sucky fillers. they also jack up the prices of their music to too much money and also try to make it a big hit with the teenage crowd, saying that only real teens listen to their music and ones who don't aren't. they also don't let people determine what music they like, but they like to choose what music we are supposed to like. i think the riaa is desperate and wants total control of our audio pleasure. seriously, i think music from video games are better than alot of the songs on the radio.

to truth, i like instrumentals the best, which is calming and doesn't try to force a meaning out of the song, but is open ended in meaning. i like the easy listening stuff better as well. i can put up with songs with words, but i feel sometimes the music pushed by the riaa is just littered with words to disguise the bad music. the mood of songs shouldn't just be happy all the time, that's creepy and inaccurate, i want to see the artist's soul, as it is a work of art for them, not just some cheapo marketing tool.

it seems like the riaa is trying to define what is music, as in only music that they want to be popular, which seems to be music with lots of singing (instrumentals seem not to cut it as music, no words), the singing has a "pop accent" like you see with brittney and the other pop princesses (like when they say baby) and in most songs, the melody sucks after a few times, the words make no sense, and it seems like it's always happy all the time. they also push the idea that people that are proficient in many instruments and write music and don't sing are less legitimate "artists" than the vocalists that can barley sing and can't play or write music, but just look pretty. with this narrow definition of music they are trying to push to today's kids, i fear they are ruining music for everyone and they will grow to hate it. formula music doesn't work, all it does is ruin music. it almost did for me and it will ruin music for many teenagers growing up now. they will think one day anything that doesn't define the riaa's supposed definition of music isn't music at all, and that is a shame. everyone can be a musical artist, using any tool (i was playing around with zelda windwaker last night with the baton, and it could be used for some good music. i liked what i make, but that was a side note.

by the way, american idol i think is mostly a sham telling young people that the only way they can be in music is to sing and look good, more of the riaa's propaganda.

the riaa is ruining music. pure and simple.

any comments?

[After G]

I think the RIAA is ruining music.

I like female vocals. Doesn't matter what genre; if the person's voice "goes" with the melody and instrumentals, I like it. Doesn't even matter what language. I listen to songs in other languages all the time.

What should I buy though? Beats the heck out of me since I can't really listen to anything legally before I buy. The 30 second previews on iTunes are a start, but what about countries that don't have an iTMS? What about artists not on iTMS? People want to pick and choose, because the technology lets them, and not be limited because of "how it used to be done". All the local record stores around are closing lately, due to the megastores cropping up. I used to be able to listen to what I liked before I bought and talked with the people there. Now, no more.

Don't like the MTV style stuff for the most part.

I think if the RIAA/music entities approved low quality (~96kbps) downloads, and encouraged consumers to buy with higher quality (~160 kb or higher) that would be a step in the right direction. I understand the need to pay artists and that's why I don't use p2p ... but there is an unfilled need to share out there.

[furcalchick]

What should I buy though? Beats the heck out of me since I can't really listen to anything legally before I buy. The 30 second previews on iTunes are a start, but what about countries that don't have an iTMS? What about artists not on iTMS? People want to pick and choose, because the technology lets them, and not be limited because of "how it used to be done".

i think that's part of the big labels (riaa) plan, they will tease you with a little bit, but you have to commit to it before you get the whole song, and it usually sucks. at cdbaby, you can actually listen to a watered down drm-ed version of the cd before deciding to pull down 10 or so bucks for the high quality version. i would really like the major labels to give you one free play of the cd to see if it's worth alot (like managteure) and then decide if you want to buy it or not. and i prefer buying cds, you control what you do with it, not drm.

[Killyp]

I agree completely, and in a situation like this, there is nothing better than quoting Van Morrison:

"Music is spritual...
The music business is not."

That's gonna stick with me, because I know it's SO true. I hate major labels ect... because they are not at all interested in the quality of the music or the artist producing the music or even the welfare of the music industry (part of this is being able to listen to albums properly before you buy them). It's all about squeezing every last penny out of you even if it means buying a crap album but still having to pay for it. It puts people off music and is (IMO), partly the reason why people download illegally.

The other problem is the cost of the CDs. £5 is all that should be charged for a CD, £10 tops. The most I've ever paid is £15 for a dual CD case (Fopp sells CDs very cheap), and I refuse to pay more. It's ridiculous. They're killing the music industry by charging insane amounts for what is physically not a huge amount (although the same goes for the software industry).

[valdore]

Especially considering that most albums on CD or whatever only have one or two good songs, with the rest of the space being taken up by filler.

[After G]

and i prefer buying cds, you control what you do with it, not drm.The funny thing is that the size of the CD used to be the DRM.

Like with books - the format being the DRM; who wants to sit at a copier for two hours copying pages to save money on a book? I know this went on at my school out of necessity because people couldn't fork over $150-200 each for multiple textbooks.

The CD came out in an era when a hard drive could barely store one uncompressed album and there was no possibility of "ripping" as we know it. Now we can have a whole CD rack in our pockets, and the music industry doesn't like how information transmits so easily.

[Killyp]

Especially considering that most albums on CD or whatever only have one or two good songs, with the rest of the space being taken up by filler.

Depends. Right now I'm listening to Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, which is pretty much stunning all the way through, and some of my other favourite albums (such as Goo Goo Dolls albums, Counting Crows, and a lot of electronica) are pretty good all the way through...

Commercial stuff (like James Munt etc...) tends to have one or two good songs, with the rest being rubbish.

BTW has anybody bought the James Morrison album? I love 'Wonderful World' :o

[Hummer]

Music got ruined ever since it became an industry all about making big bucks.

[balamw]

The CD came out in an era when a hard drive could barely store one uncompressed album and there was no possibility of "ripping" as we know it. Now we can have a whole CD rack in our pockets, and the music industry doesn't like how information transmits so easily.
It's worse than you think. CDs first hit the market in 1982, at which point hard drives were still not common and capacities of <20 MB were still the norm. Note that the audio CD predates the 1984 introduction of the Mac. The oldest CDs in my collection were bought in ~'85-86.

Consumer Hard drive capacities didn't start approaching the size of a CD until the mid-to-late 90s, so audio CDs had almost 15 years of a mostly rip-free life.

B

[After G]

It's worse than you think. CDs first hit the market in 1982, at which point hard drives were still not common and capacities of <20 MB were still the norm. Note that the audio CD predates the 1984 introduction of the Mac. The oldest CDs in my collection were bought in ~'85-86.

Consumer Hard drive capacities didn't start approaching the size of a CD until the mid-to-late 90s, so audio CDs had almost 15 years of a mostly rip-free life.

B
Wow, that's like 3 songs nowadays ... Hard to believe people got work done with that. :D

[balamw]

Wow, that's like 3 songs nowadays ... Hard to believe people got work done with that. :D

That's why we got work done, there was no room in our measly 128KB of RAM for the machines to play music. :p There was no distraction from multi-tasking e-mail or iTunes or ....

Anyhow, back to the subject at hand. As the quote above from Van Morrison implies, the record industry has a long history of shady business practices (think payola) and yet, good music can sometimes still be found out there in the wild.

B

[Music_Producer]

As much as I don't like the RIAA's policies.. unfortunately, they hold true for almost every company out there. What business does not want to make profit? Additionally, it's stressful enough for an artist to copyright his/her stuff, compose it, and make a decent mix. The last thing an artist wants to do is market it, manufacture the cds and additional material.. and take care of publicity events, concerts, etc.

This is where a music label steps in. It's impossible for an individual artist to promote his/her music with the same amount of finances that a record company can. So yes, while labels squeeze the artist for every penny.. that artist is an 'investment' and they need their return. Simple.

When I was younger and was almost broke.. I would only buy a cd if i had the money for it.. and obviously if i liked 3-4 songs. If I didn't have the money, I wouldn't buy it.. but there certainly was no 'complaining' about any of the tactics that the RIAA employs. People complain about cell phone companies making profit. Geez, ok, then you launch a satellite and build your own cell phone towers.. spend billions in advertising. I bet you would charge $200 per month for a cell phone contract.

I frankly can't quite understand why everyone labels the RIAA as 'evil' Like I said.. it's a new phenomenon which has come up ever since people have been able to download for free. Blaming the RIAA's policies is just an excuse. There's lots of good music out there, you just have to look. If you don't have the money to buy a cd.. then don't buy it.. but don't complain that the cd is too expensive! These days it seems to be a fad to compare music libraries.. sort of like 'I have 4500 songs.. how many do you have in your collection?' :rolleyes:

[Music_Producer]

Btw fural chick.. the RIAA 'promotes' pop music.. because that captures a major market.

Let's make this easier. Let's say you had a budget of 10 million $. Would you invest it in a Deep Forest (one of my favourites) album which would sell maybe 1 million cds and fetch you 5 million USD.. thereby making you a $5 million loss.. or would you invest in Britney Spears (ugh) who would sell 20 million cds.. thereby making you 100 million $. Leaving you with a 90 million profit.

When I used to submit my demo material to record companies.. (trance/electronica) at the time that music wasn't popular. They would tell me 'As much as we like your music, unfortunately we can't market it as it does not have the potential to cover the marketing costs.. let alone make a profit'

I understood, and never thought "Bloody hell.. they're money hungry bastards" So I decided to set up my own independent label and sold a few cds to a certain segment.

And to someone who quoted 'music was ruined ever since this became a industry of big bucks' please.. ever since anything becomes an 'industry'.. it's all about profits and the balance sheet. Atleast nowadays the artist who is bold enough to stick to his/her style of music has so many options of releasing their material on the internet, market it online, etc.

[After G]

I frankly can't quite understand why everyone labels the RIAA as 'evil' Like I said.. it's a new phenomenon which has come up ever since people have been able to download for free. Blaming the RIAA's policies is just an excuse. While I can't claim to understand fully the economics of making music, I can't see why the RIAA/MPAA/media producers are so opposed to technology when every technology advance so far has netted them more money. When tapes came out, the media cartels were afraid that everyone would be copying to tape and nothing would sell. If this were true, why is it they are still around?

I am not for banishing copyright or patents outright like some people, as a well-designed system protects inventors and innovation. But lately the system has been used to protect old business models from new competition, which I don't like.

[ibook30]

Music got ruined ever since it became an industry all about making big bucks.

Yeah, but... I'd rather see musicians and artists make big bucks than corporate types or the sleazey swindlers who run the show. The big bucks available (to very few musicians) should go to the talent, not the labels.

[Music_Producer]

It puts people off music and is (IMO), partly the reason why people download illegally.

The other problem is the cost of the CDs. £5 is all that should be charged for a CD, £10 tops. The most I've ever paid is £15 for a dual CD case (Fopp sells CDs very cheap), and I refuse to pay more. It's ridiculous. They're killing the music industry by charging insane amounts for what is physically not a huge amount (although the same goes for the software industry).

That's a joke. People download illegally simply because its convenient.. and its free! And as i mentioned earlier, they use excuses like 'Cds too expensive.. or the music sucks.. etc' You mention that the same goes for the software industry. Because you don't understand how much money goes into making the software, paying the developers.. investing in further R&D.. maintaining tech support.

People complain similarly about how expensive Apple products are. Why do you complain? If you can't afford it.. don't buy it. If I made an album at home.. I could release a cd for $5. But if I made it in a studio.. no way would I price my cd at $5. Professional recordings in studios cost $500/hour. You're not taking into account the amount of work that goes into making an album.

I could complain about how expensive a lawyer's fees are.. or a doctor's.. or an architect or whatever. There is a reason for pricing levels, you do know that the cell phones you buy from cingular have a 100% profit margin. Why don't cell phone companies give them away for only a 10% profit margin. Because that's not how business functions, yeah it sucks.. but thats how it is.

[Music_Producer]

While I can't claim to understand fully the economics of making music, I can't see why the RIAA/MPAA/media producers are so opposed to technology when every technology advance so far has netted them more money. When tapes came out, the media cartels were afraid that everyone would be copying to tape and nothing would sell. If this were true, why is it they are still around?

I am not for banishing copyright or patents outright like some people, as a well-designed system protects inventors and innovation. But lately the system has been used to protect old business models from new competition, which I don't like.

Everyone is opposed to new technology. I love technology.. I love the fact that anyone, anywhere in the world can download a song. But technology gets abused.. and when it starts getting to the point that music companies lose billions of dollars in sales.. it's a wake up call.

Adobe probably loses billions in piracy. If they made their software cheaper (50% off) do you think it would still curb piracy? No, it wouldn't. While it would certainly convert a few people into buying the genuine product.. it really wouldn't stop piracy at all. There is nothing like a free product that you can use. Why would you want to pay even $5 for something you can get for free?

Unfortunately, technology takes the blame for this. I have personally lost a recording contract, simply because one of my songs was bootlegged and released online.. and downloaded by thousands. Trust me, that's when I hated technology as well and I remember cussing cd-r manufacturers and the internet :p I have stopped making music since then.. I only make music for certain projects where I get paid, and they use my music. I do have a family to support. All this illegal downloading bit.. kills amateur musicians.

Yes, labels do make a lot of money when you buy cds.. but artists get their royalties as well. It's better than just downloading for free where the artist gets nothing at all.

[Music_Producer]

Yeah, but... I'd rather see musicians and artists make big bucks than corporate types or the sleazey swindlers who run the show. The big bucks available (to very few musicians) should go to the talent, not the labels.

That's because the musician hasn't spend as much money as the label has.. to release that record.

If you invested $1 in a project.. and your friend invested $99.. who should get a greater share of the profit? Yes, you are the one responsible for the product and the idea, etc. But your friend is the one who can deliver it to every house, and on tv.. and make you money. Do you keep your product to yourself for life and make nothing.. or do you agree to let your friend sell it and keep a commission?

Hopefully this solves the question as to why labels get a greater share of the money.

People work for a living. Artists make music.. and they need to make a living too. We love our job, but since the last few years it has been paying nothing. I fear that the movie industry is next. People download movies because 'Oh Tom cruise is so rich.. he doesnt need the money' Yeah, like he made the entire bloody movie on his own. Let's forget all the people involved.. from the caterers, to the stunt men, to musicians, light technicians, make up artists, etc.

[After G]

That's a joke. People download illegally simply because its convenient.. and its free! And as i mentioned earlier, they use excuses like 'Cds too expensive.. or the music sucks.. etc'I think people still download because convenience also equals safety in some cases. Warez groups have little to no interest in releasing crap software because of "reputation" and there's an element of safety in that many warez groups remove protection schemes that can lock you out of your own computer. There's plenty of examples of normal people being inconvenienced for the sake of Microsoft's "Genuine Advantage.", or Starforce rendering normal gamers unable to use their drives.

But media companies happily burn any goodwill they have left with people by doing things like the Sony rootkit CD fiasco, which turns people off buying CDs, while suing grandmas, and dead people who don't even have computers, and making others pay (think Zune tax, or CD-R tax).

I have personally lost a recording contract, simply because one of my songs was bootlegged and released online.. and downloaded by thousands. Trust me, that's when I hated technology as well and I remember cussing cd-r manufacturers and the internet I have stopped making music since then.. I only make music for certain projects where I get paid, and they use my music. I do have a family to support. All this illegal downloading bit.. kills amateur musicians.I don't condone illegal downloading, but it sounds like you found a new way to make money making music despite it. I think that media companies need to do the same. The RIAA/MPAA tactics do hurt piracy, but they also hurt normal consumers more.

[iAlan]

.... Now we can have a whole CD rack in our pockets...

Is that a CD rack in your pocket or are you happy to see me...


There are many forms of music out there and a lot of different tastes -- some more popular than others. It is difficult for any company/organization to cater to everyone, the same for music.

Now, I'm not wanting to defend the RIAA or the labels but the money they make from the commercial crap helps cover the not-so-profitable stuff. But the issue is, they tend to force crap down our ears with little or no choice for variety and talent -- look at all the "[enter artist name here] featuring [enter another artist name here]" songs out there featuring samples or being a 'new take' of what was an original song but now is butchered beyond belief.

Where is the originality that used to drive the music business?

This may be a stupid analogy but McDonald's is cheap because it caters to the masses while a French restaurant is expensive because it is supposedly offering a better dining experience -- so what would happen if commercial crap is priced like McDonald's and quality music more expensive? I think most of us wouldn't be happy then either -- one good reason Apple wants standard pricing for all songs on iTunes I think.

But the record labels being what they are, even if people were willing to pay a slightly higher price for good music -- the artists will still get screwed over.

It's a no-win situation then...:mad:

[ibook30]

That's because the musician hasn't spend as much money as the label has.. to release that record.

If you invested $1 in a project.. and your friend invested $99.. who should get a greater share of the profit? Yes, you are the one responsible for the product and the idea, etc. But your friend is the one who can deliver it to every house, and on tv.. and make you money. Do you keep your product to yourself for life and make nothing.. or do you agree to let your friend sell it and keep a commission?

Hopefully this solves the question as to why labels get a greater share of the money.

.


That's a completely unacceptable answer to me. I appreciate your time explaining your view, but it doesn't seem justified. Investing in an idea or art is great - and yes it should provide a return, but the return is far too often to the advantage of the business instead of the artist / inventor. And let's face it - without the idea or the creativity, there is no product to sell. So - I say pouring money into something doesn't always make it right to claim the big bucks. And when it comes to the arts, investment should not trump creativity.

Here's another reason I sympathize with the artisits over the labels:

As new forms of distribution become available, labels have avoided paying artists that did not have contracts specifically describing payment for these revenue streams. Companies want to make money, and as Sony (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14495) has shown us, they will do it with very little concern for the artists that make it possible.

The music industry would benefit from the change available through technology.

[Music_Producer]

That's a completely unacceptable answer to me. I appreciate your time explaining your view, but it doesn't seem justified. Investing in an idea or art is great - and yes it should provide a return, but the return is far too often to the advantage of the business instead of the artist / inventor. And let's face it - without the idea or the creativity, there is no product to sell. So - I say pouring money into something doesn't always make it right to claim the big bucks. And when it comes to the arts, investment should not trump creativity.



It doesn't seem justified to you because you don't work in the music industry. Yes, investment should not trump creativity.. but without the investment.. that creativity would simply go to waste. They both need each other.

I wouldn't give an opinion on a business if I had no idea what is involved in it. Since I have been dabbling in music, and movies.. I have a good idea of the costs involved.

As a hypothetical situation.. let's say I launch my own record label tomorrow. Now I want everyone to be happy and price the album at $5. It would be a 12 song album.

At a professional studio with an experienced studio engineer.. just recording and tracking is $500 an hour. That is.. the amount you have to pay to set up microphones, etc.. to record the band - the instruments.. the vocalists, etc.

Each song easily takes a minimum of 30 hours if produced perfectly (I've seen 300 hours go into songs at times.. the complex ones.. or when the vocalist just can't do her best job) Studios do not refund your money or give you a discount if your band's drummer is drunk on the day of recording or whatever

Anyway, 12 songs @ 30 hours each = $180,000.

This is simply for recording and renting the studio. This does not take into account the engineer's fees.. but let's take into account that the studio offers to pay that.

Lunch is also not included.. but let's include it just as well.

Now, the producer's fees. You can have an artist compose a great tune.. but you wouldn't want him recording that on a $100 guitar. That's where the producer comes in. He/she hires professional musicians (or if its a band.. he gets the best instruments) Producer fees range anywhere from $200,000 to millions. Assume he/she takes $100,000 (including session musicians such as backup vocalists, bass player, guitarists, horn session players, etc)

So that's $280,000 so far.

I'm not taking into account legal fees, and songwriter royalties (usually bands play songs written by songwriters.. and a chunk of sales goes to the songwriter)


So you've got a great album recorded.. now you get it mastered. Mastering is where you make the sound 'big' and ready for radio play.. and for pressing on cd. Mastering is a separate expense (yes, its annoying - I wish everything was paid in one section)

Let's forget the mastering costs.

Manufacturing cds and artwork - let's give it the cheapest option of 10,000 cds @ $1 each. That's $10,000 but in reality it comes to more than that.

So $290,000.

Now you have a great cd recorded, mastered.. and 10,000 cds ready for sale. How do you sell them?

Here comes marketing.. and that's where the money flies.. and I mean, flies. Forget making a music video. Just promoting the album for radio play, posters, etc.. will easily come close to $500,000. Also remember that the more cds you want to sell.. the more marketing you have to spend on.

Fine, you've done all the marketing.. now it comes to distribution in stores. When Best Buy sells your cd, they do make a profit on it as well (and you thought just the RIAA was evil)

So what's my total so far? $500,000 + $290,000 = $790,000 and 10,000 cds. That comes to $79 a cd. Wait, we haven't taken the store's profit margin into this account yet. Let's say they want a 5% profit (its more.. but just an example) So you will price the cd at $83.

$83 for a cd.. produced @ the most minimal rates. And this does not make a profit.. this just covers all the expenses. So I would price it at $88 (to make a $5 profit per cd)

Ok, you argue.. its only 10,000 cds. What if it was a million cds? Then your cd manufacturing costs would make everything cheaper.. but you would have to push your marketing costs up by atleast 2 million or so.. because you are simply not going to sell all million cds in one local area. You need national/international distribution.

That's where TV airplay comes in. You don't even want to know the costs of making a music video, tv play, etc.

So yes, while all of you might argue that the RIAA squeezes artists etc.. they have to. I am an artist, do I like a label squeezing me? No, I want 50% profit atleast.. but its not possible. It's not possible if you don't understand the economics of this industry.

The next time you buy a cd.. read the album information and how many people were involved in making that project. It all adds up. Why do game dvds/cds sell for $49? They probably cost a buck to make.. but it's because the game consoles are sold at a loss. The manufacturer needs to make their money back, plus make a profit.

When I sold my first album online, I had 12 customers in a one year period. 12 - why? I was broke marketing the album. I must have spent some good money.. but nowhere near what a major label can do. Would I prefer if I only received 10% of royalties from a label.. if they could market it worldwide. Hell yeah.

[ibook30]

It doesn't seem justified to you because you don't work in the music industry. Yes, investment should not trump creativity.. but without the investment.. that creativity would simply go to waste. They both need each other.

I wouldn't give an opinion on a business if I had no idea what is involved in it. Since I have been dabbling in music, and movies.. I have a good idea of the costs involved.



Dude- you're wrong and when you make assumptions like that you loose some credibility. Why do you think I care about this? It affects me.

[After G]

Dude- you're wrong and when you make assumptions like that you loose some credibility. Why do you think I care about this? It affects me.There is a lot of hidden costs to producing music, in that everyone involved needs to get paid for their time. Creative things simply take a lot of time.

I'd try and get creative with some of the marketing, in that I might hook up with a DJ of a college radio station (I knew one who was my RA in my dorm) and let him give my songs some airtime for free, but Music_Producer's description sounds in line with what I've heard. It really is a thought-out response.

What's good about digital distribution is that the user shares the cost of replication in that the distributor can pay a fixed amount for a dedicated server/connection based on the projected demand and have the users pay their own ISP to get the songs. There could, and probably should be a way to pay the artist through the ISP, perhaps ISP-mandated download services, as they provide the bandwidth, but I won't go so far as to say a P2P fee on all internet connections.

[Music_Producer]

Oh ok, I'm wrong? And I make assumptions? About the whole making music process? :rolleyes: :D

After G.. actually the RIAA has embraced technology.. iTunes as an example. Music labels make their profits by selling mp3s.. so they don't have to spend that much in manufacturing costs. But marketing costs still remain. In my opinion, I have no idea how they are happy with a 99 cent per song structure.. $1.50 makes more sense. But they're trying to appease customers, so that's a positive step.

Additionally, I don't think the RIAA intended to sue grandmas or individuals just because they wanted to sue them and make money. It was more of a warning to consumers to stop downloading illegally.

[Mav451]

You don't need an essay to explain my stance against the RIAA. One word does it for me.

DRM.

[ibook30]

Oh ok, I'm wrong? And I make assumptions? About the whole making music process? :rolleyes: :D

.

Calm down - You're wrong to assume that I don't know anything about the industry. It was an assumption to say that. A lot of your information is on target - but I don't agree that the investment is more important than the idea. As I said before- I appreciate your time putting your thoughts and experience out there - and now I can see your passion too - but we aren't going to see eye to eye on this one.

I am seeing more and more friends cut production costs with technology. They sacrifice quality, but they get it made. I can think of a couple who have been clever enough to make this work - at least to the degree that making music is thier only job, and they survive. Low standards - but if making stuff is your passion, it's pretty exciting to be able to focus on it.
I hope the need for big investments will end as technology and gear becomes more affordable !

Labels take too much money, galleries take too much money, and publishers probly do ( OK you got me - I know next to squat about publishing :D ).

[furcalchick]

i think the problem is for me is that the riaa doesn't just overly hype pop music, they in a sense shun all other types of music away from customers, and telling people that music is only what they sell, and everything else is fake. they even claim that they have nearly all legitimate music, about 95%. in a sense, people that listen to too much pop would think everything else isn't real music at all. if they didn't try to narrowly define music to be all "pop-or-it's not music", i think i'll have a less of a grudge against them. this is about how the riaa is ruining music with their narrow definitions of music and their questionable overpoped society.

[Music_Producer]

Ahh ibook30. .you thought I was assuming that you didn't know anything about the industry.. while I thought you meant that I was making up everything that I explained.. lol.. misunderstandings :D

[After G]

Oh ok, I'm wrong? And I make assumptions? About the whole making music process? :rolleyes: :D

After G.. actually the RIAA has embraced technology.. iTunes as an example. Music labels make their profits by selling mp3s.. so they don't have to spend that much in manufacturing costs. But marketing costs still remain. In my opinion, I have no idea how they are happy with a 99 cent per song structure.. $1.50 makes more sense. But they're trying to appease customers, so that's a positive step.

Additionally, I don't think the RIAA intended to sue grandmas or individuals just because they wanted to sue them and make money. It was more of a warning to consumers to stop downloading illegally.I'm surprised that an RIAA label would be willing to sell mp3's. I would pay $1.50 for iTunes if I was sure more went to the creative people than the marketing or executives. I just don't really see the value in marketing as most of it is designed to be annoying - flash ads anyone?

I know the RIAA is not trying to make individual lives miserable but I feel that the goal of a business just doesn't suggest "we care about people".
It doesn't explain suing dead people either though ... that just boggles the mind :D

[LethalWolfe]

I've only skimmed the thread, but I agree w/what Music_Producer has said.

The only things I'll mention are that if people weren't buying forgettable pop music hand over fist the major labels would stop selling it. Also, there has always been, and always will be bad music, and there has, and always will be, good music. This is nothing new, and neither is a label/business person "creating" a band (the Monkee's were created for a TV show over 40yrs ago). As much as I don't like acts like the Spice Girls or B. Spears cash cow acts like theirs do have an upside. The profit they generate for the majors means a small, "risky" act probably has a better chance of getting signed 'cause the label has extra cash in the coffers. Just like in the movie industry how some of the profits from successful, blockbuster films get put into lower budget, indie films.

Even though advances in technology (cheaper software/hardware and the internet) have made good do-it-yourself recording more accessible the big hurdle is still marketing. How do you get your name out there? YouTube gets something like 65,000 new videos a day. If you're a band (or filmmaker) how do you get people to find your video out of the other 64,999 uploaded that day? And that's just one site. Across the internet there are probably a million new pieces up user generated content uploaded each day. How do you make yorus stick out? That's one reason why TV networks, movie studios, record labels, and book publishers are still needed pieces of the puzzle. They have the ways and means to let the masses know that you have a new CD or movie, or book coming out.

Just as an aside, the cost of developing an "A list" video game title is upwards of $20 million, and it's not rare for a budget to hit the $40 million range (whether or not this includes manufacturing, marketing, and distribution I do not know). The costs alone of licensing a brand (like the Matrix or Star Wars) can be over $10 million. I imagine the development of pro caliber software (like After Effects or Final Cut Pro) would be well above the $100 million dollar mark.


Lethal

[CanadaRAM]

i found out the riaa is using clearchannel and their playlist full of bubblegum pop, bubblegum rap and the rest and forcing people to think that the only music that is on the fm dial is music. they put too many commercials on it, they rely on the big hit songs otherwise it's not going on the radio, and they try to lure you to buy the album to have the song, when in fact most pop albums are just sucky fillers. they also jack up the prices of their music to too much money and also try to make it a big hit with the teenage crowd, saying that only real teens listen to their music and ones who don't aren't. they also don't let people determine what music they like, but they like to choose what music we are supposed to like. i think the riaa is desperate and wants total control of our audio pleasure. seriously, i think music from video games are better than alot of the songs on the radio.
...

it seems like the riaa is trying to define what is music, as in only music that they want to be popular, which seems to be music with lots of singing (instrumentals seem not to cut it as music, no words), the singing has a "pop accent" like you see with brittney and the other pop princesses..

To the OP:
Do you even know what the RIAA is?

It is an industry association, just like the Cattlemen's Association and the American Medical Association.

The RIAA exerts no control whatsoever on the style of music that gets recorded, the number of commercials, or the type of music you are 'forced' to listen to. They do not push music on you, they do not advertise 'pop' music, and they do not formulate radio playlists. The main thing the RIAA does is to attempt to protect their member companies' interests by lobbying lawmakers, and by prosecuting copyright infringement on behalf of their members. (You don't have to like the way they proceed with that, but it's their legal right to do so)

Record companies big and small publish and sell all kinds of music based on what they think will sell - and radio will play what attracts audience and sells ads. If people buy a lot of Britney recordings, then guess what: There will be more music put on the market that sounds like that. Until the next consumer fad comes out, (like boy bands, new wave, hair metal, SoCal rock, etc. in the past) and the buying public buys that.

It is an industry, a competitive market. If you want alternative, just look a bit and you will find plenty of choice, just not in Wal Mart and on corporate commercial radio. You don't like what's in Rolling Stone? Read Paste (or one of the many other mags) instead.

But buy the music. If you take music without paying the creators and publishers, you have no &^#&#37;ing right to complain.

[killr_b]

It's worse than you think. CDs first hit the market in 1982, at which point hard drives were still not common and capacities of <20 MB were still the norm. Note that the audio CD predates the 1984 introduction of the Mac. The oldest CDs in my collection were bought in ~'85-86.

Consumer Hard drive capacities didn't start approaching the size of a CD until the mid-to-late 90s, so audio CDs had almost 15 years of a mostly rip-free life.

B

This is my biggest point on the topic by far.
They got all greedy and instead of coming out with a new format they kept with the CD. Now a CD is nothing. It has now held its position as 'the standard' for longer than any other format. Which is even dumber than normal in an age where technology moves faster than ever.:rolleyes:

[killr_b]

To the OP:
Do you even know what the RIAA is?

It is an industry association, just like the Cattlemen's Association and the American Medical Association.

The RIAA exerts no control whatsoever on the style of music that gets recorded, the number of commercials, or the type of music you are 'forced' to listen to. They do not push music on you, they do not advertise 'pop' music, and they do not formulate radio playlists. The main thing the RIAA does is to attempt to protect their member companies' interests by lobbying lawmakers, and by prosecuting copyright infringement on behalf of their members. (You don't have to like the way they proceed with that, but it's their legal right to do so)

Record companies big and small publish and sell all kinds of music based on what they think will sell - and radio will play what attracts audience and sells ads. If people buy a lot of Britney recordings, then guess what: There will be more music put on the market that sounds like that. Until the next consumer fad comes out, (like boy bands, new wave, hair metal, SoCal rock, etc. in the past) and the buying public buys that.

It is an industry, a competitive market. If you want alternative, just look a bit and you will find plenty of choice, just not in Wal Mart and on corporate commercial radio. You don't like what's in Rolling Stone? Read Paste (or one of the many other mags) instead.

But buy the music. If you take music without paying the creators and publishers, you have no &^#%ing right to complain.

That was an awesome post man.
Cheers!

[LethalWolfe]

This is my biggest point on the topic by far.
They got all greedy and instead of coming out with a new format they kept with the CD. Now a CD is nothing. It has now held its position as 'the standard' for longer than any other format. Which is even dumber than normal in an age where technology moves faster than ever.:rolleyes:
Just out of curiosity, what format do you think should have replaced the CD? Sony tried it w/MiniDisc and that didn't work out too well (SACD and DVD-A didn't fair to well either). IMO, I think the CD is a very good final delivery format for audio. And the fact that it's stuck around so long means that I don't have to buy new players and re-purchase my music. I'm glad I'm not a movie nut otherwise I'd end up w/three copies of some of my movies (VHS, DVD, and hidef DVD). Screw that.


Lethal

[balamw]

They got all greedy and instead of coming out with a new format they kept with the CD.
It's not like they haven't tried to come out with other formats. SACD and DVD-Audio were two such attempts. The CDs success and longevity is due in part to its omnipresence. You can play CDs everywhere on tons of devices.

Still, I would agree with you that the CD format itself is in part responsible for the amount of really crappy music we have out there today. Once upon a time 45s ruled the pop music industry. music came in 3 minute chunks with the B side reserved for something a bit more experimental. The LP took things to ~30-45 minutes, while a CD can be as long as 74 minutes.

There are so many 12 song CDs out there with maybe 1-2 decent songs on them and yet the music industry feels compelled to not release music in smaller chunks that would be less expensive to produce in the first place.

Enter iTMS. I hope this new model gives the labels and the artists the idea that it's OK to have singles, EPs and albums where appropriate. A number of the things I have bought in iTunes are things I would not have been able to buy on CD and are thus revenue that would have been lost without iTMS. For example I've bought a number of Rhino Hi-Five 5 song collections, live EPs, etc...

These are all easy impulse buys, which an $18 full price CD isn't. All in all, I buy a lot more music these days than from ~'98-'04, but I'm not buying full price CDs anymore. I buy from iTMS, yourmusic.com, used CDs, ...

B

[MacNut]

In a way the argument that MTV ruined music is true. It became free marketing for the music industry when a new music video comes out all the teeny boppers see this played over and over. They assume that because its on TV that Britney Spears is worth the money and so she gets over prompted and her records over sell and the RIAA gets more money to repeat the process again.

[balamw]

In a way the argument that MTV ruined music is true. It became free marketing for the music industry when a new music video comes out all the teeny boppers see this played over and over. They assume that because its on TV that Britney Spears is worth the money and so she gets over prompted and her records over sell and the RIAA gets more money to repeat the process again.

Besides the (inter)national reach how is MTV different in this regard than Top 40 radio?

Anyhow, the point is moot since MTV doesn't play music anymore.... :p Do they?

B

[MacNut]

Besides the (inter)national reach how is MTV different in this regard than Top 40 radio?

Anyhow, the point is moot since MTV doesn't play music anymore.... :p Do they?

BMTV provides a visual, If people didn't see the little Britney Spears school girl video I'm sure she would not of been as big a hit as she was.

The videos are on at like 3am now.

[LethalWolfe]

In a way the argument that MTV ruined music is true. It became free marketing for the music industry when a new music video comes out all the teeny boppers see this played over and over. They assume that because its on TV that Britney Spears is worth the money and so she gets over prompted and her records over sell and the RIAA gets more money to repeat the process again.
Music is no more "ruined" now than it was 50 years ago when payola was the norm. Radio has been providing "free marketing" for record labels a lot longer than MTV has, and w/o the additional expense of making a video (and if you are talking about the likes of Britney Spears it's a seven figure expense).

MTV provides a visual, If people didn't see the little Britney Spears school girl video I'm sure she would not of been as big a hit as she was.
MTV and music videos are just an evolution of the industry. Would the Monkee's have outsold the Beatles and Elivs combined in '67 if it wasn't for TV? How many acts exploded after being on the Ed Sullivan Show? Nostalgia is nice, but if you go back and look at the Billboard charts it's pretty much 95% forgettable pop from bands you've never heard of or completely forgotten about.


Lethal

[furcalchick]

i used riaa ambiguously to refer to the major labels. i know the riaa is just their lobby front, and the process is a bit more complex than just the riaa and major labels, but i just simplified it to make a statement.

what i'm saying is that i'm afraid that the major labels desire to block off non pop music will ruin music for everyone, even indie music.

and to canadaram, i would also like to add to going to shows as well for artist support. i can't go to alot of them, but i do when i can.

[Counterfit]

Here's a solution: Listen to NPR (http://www.npr.org/). Very very little crap on there. WGBH (http://wgbh.org/) is my local station, and you can listen to streams any time you want from their website. My personal favorite show is Jazz with Eric, one of the few shows I will stop listening to my iPod for.

I avoid most of the new-music trend problems by listening to stuff written by (and sometimes recorded by) dead people, and not over-produced crap. I think maybe a third of my library consists of that.

As for the creativity being wasted without investment, I disagree. During the last few years of WWII, the musicians union was on a recording strike, and the lack or materials to actually make records essentially produced and environment free of corporate meddling in the music itself. Then, one NYC club (Minton's Playhouse) started offering free food and drinks on the one off night of the week (Monday) to anyone who came in to jam. What came from that? Bebop did. Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk.
Without the money, the music is still there. Without the music, the money is useless.

You can have an artist compose a great tune.. but you wouldn't want him recording that on a $100 guitar. That's where the producer comes in. snip or if its a band.. he gets the best instruments

Why is a $100 guitar necessarily a problem? I'll agree that most instruments purchased brand new for only a few hundred dollars generally suck (especially winds, although I'm sure many smaller percussion pieces don't cost anywhere near that much). But if the artist has figured that sound into the music, it should stay. Also, the instrument should be fit to the player, and chosen on what they think of the sound, rather than the price tag.

[LethalWolfe]

what i'm saying is that i'm afraid that the major labels desire to block off non pop music will ruin music for everyone, even indie music.

And what some of us are saying is that major labels have been pushing forgettable pop music (I specify "forgettable" because there is some good pop music on occasion) for over 50 years yet we still have a wide variety of music to this day. And with the internet it's probably easier now than ever before for people to discover artists that most likely will never reside in the mainstream.


Lethal

[benthewraith]

And what some of us are saying is that major labels have been pushing forgettable pop music (I specify "forgettable" because there is some good pop music on occasion) for over 50 years yet we still have a wide variety of music to this day. And with the internet it's probably easier now than ever before for people to discover artists that most likely will never reside in the mainstream.


Lethal

Which is sad. The problem is, if they aren't sex gods/goddesses or entirely controversial (which is perhaps why over 75% of hit music nowadays is about sex), they won't get hired.

[LethalWolfe]

Which is sad. The problem is, if they aren't sex gods/goddesses or entirely controversial (which is perhaps why over 75% of hit music nowadays is about sex), they won't get hired.
I wouldn't say they won't get signed, but they probably won't get a huge marketing push. If you got to a major's web site I bet only a handful of the acts listed are ones the masses have heard of. Same thing w/actors. Most people could probably name 2 or 3 dozen movie stars tops, but that's just a drop in the ocean as there are something like 90,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild.

It's not unique to the music industry. Sex and violence sell.


Lethal