P2P: An artists take.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by LethalWolfe, May 2, 2003.

  1. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    I'm sure this will turn into a flame fest but what the hell. ;) Someone, probably a reviewer, leaked a song from Type O Negative's new album (due out in June) onto the 'net and here is what Josh (keyboards) has to say about it.

    "My position is simple. It is totally irresponsible of who ever did this to have used Type O in this way, whatever his or her motivation could have possibly been. This is how I see it going. The Type O record comes out. 62,580 people have already download it. Now this may seem innocent under the guise that everyone will buy it anyway. But here's the deal. Without much anticipation, there's no big rush to get an album, everyone's been hearing for two months already (and I'm not referring to the people on this site). I'm talking about an average fan who figures "well next time I'm in the store or on a p2p I'll get the real thing". The effect is then a lower first week chart number (estimated to drop at 10- 20% by the corp. world due to downloads) which in turn puts less pressure on the large institutions to play Type O on the radio, or give any type of video support. Then it's time for us to move on and get another record deal. Mr.(or Mrs. or Ms.) A&R Scumbag says "look........... they're last album only entered the charts at #49. This will of course generate a smaller offer because industry scum's rarely see anything but statistics (though there are exceptions and very few). This is not purely about money (though I wouldn't mind some) but about keeping a band going strong after 13 years. Without the outward appearance of a big first week push there's no snowball effect, which causes interest in the album to fizzle out, which otherwise may have been a surprisingly strong showing. Now artistically I don't give two ****s what's out there. But in order to continue making a living through music it's necessary to pay the bills. Was this done to generate a "buzz"? No way. It is my opinion that downloading copywritten material, is the same as walking into a store and stealing a pair of pants. I know this view won't make me popular, but I don't give a ****. Other bands are doing 36 minute albums, fine for them. We do 75 min. records but due to the fact were not mega sellers we need the press to get our message across. So were stuck giving out material in advance to be reviewed for the exposure. I'd had hoped there would be a degree of responsibility exorcised during this process but never really expected it. People suck. Steal my pants? I'll shoot you in the f*cken back.

    f*ckinJosh 4.6.03"

    This was posted at their site. Link


    Lethal
     
  2. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    This is still set to bust wide open, something has to give in the industry, currently the artists are getting screwed from both sides, they can't protect internet revenue and they are still subject to the tyrannical practices of the Companies, Steve Albini wrote a damning article on the tricks used in the industry:

    http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

    Now that the digital rights thing is getting nasty it's the artist who will suffer the most, not the corporations.

    I see interesting times ahead.
     
  3. jethroted macrumors 6502a

    jethroted

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Location:
    Cyberspace
    #3
    I just hope this online music store really works out. Apple will make lots of $$ on it, and because the music industry will be getting some money finally, they will relax a bit.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    Time for a new business model IMO. Who says that the traditional label business is the way to go these days? With the internet around, who needs a label? All you need is something like the Apple Music Store, a web site and a tour manager. As far as I'm concerned, labels AS THEY EXIST TODAY are on their way to extinction. They're screwing over artists right and left, promote mediocrity as opposed to quality and exist solely for the enrichment of their CEOs and shareholders. The same goes for radio, Clear Channel isn't about music, it's about corporate profitability. With Shoutcast anyone can create their own radio station. Bundle a half a dozen like-minded artists, broadcast their music and interviews with them throughout the day and voila!

    I find it totally incomprehensible that someone isn't taking advantage of all the technology out there to truly change the industry.

    The movie industry better take note too, because it is next on the P2P bandwagon. I read somewhere that porn actually surpasses music on P2P networks. Wherever porn blazes a trail, video is soon to follow.

    I don't know where things are going but if the RIAA has its way, 1/2 the population in the world will be in prison. The US has up until now been an innovator and now all they want to do is circle the wagons and keep what they have instead of grow outward.

    It's revolution time.
     
  5. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #5
    Ugg,
    I agree about the business model, why should any artists be bound to the record labels when they can operate without them?
     
  6. springscansing macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    Ugg and macfan, you clearly have no idea what labels actually do.

    Try putting up 200,000 of your own cash to hire a good producer and buy recording time, pay for artwork, CD pressings, and promotions, concert and event management, etc.

    You can't be so naive on this issue. Labels are and will be needed in the future.

    For gosh sakes, one reel of tape alone is 300 bucks.
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    No, I don't know much about the recording industry. My main point was that the current system is failing everyone. A new business model has to be the basis of any future success and it needs to be based on new technology not yesterday's.

    Jet Blue and Southwest are showing profits not only because they are cheap and responsive but because they don't have the hordes of retirees that Delta, United, American, etc have. This continual commitment to the past is dragging them down in a huge way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the retirees should be abandoned, just that they are a definite drag on their current and future financial success.

    The same could be said for the record companies. They have a huge commitment to all these bands from the 60s and 70s. How much time and money is spent ensuring that the Stones are happy? How much time does that take away from attracting and nurturing new talent? When profitablitity is down, who is going to get more attention, the new bands or the old ones who provide a steady stream of revenue?

    Signing with a label has been the kiss of death for so many groups. There simply has to be a better way. I don't claim to know what it is but I do claim to know that the music industry has never been in worse shape than it is today and the only solution is a new model.

    PS Why don't groups record digitally?
     
  8. springscansing macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    They think analog sounds better. I personally think the slight analog saturation and harmonic distortion that analog components produce isn't nearly worth the amount of sacrifices you have to make.

    Basically.. they're a bunch of old people who think analog is "cool, man" and digital "sucks."

    If you met the people actually recording these artists, you'd not believe 99% of them.
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    My point exactly, a bunch of boomers sitting around dictating terms to today's new groups. The good thing is that they'll be retiring in en masse in a few years so the field will open up a little bit. At 40 I'm not exactly a spring chicken, but for crying out loud, even I can see the writing on the wall.
     
  10. springscansing macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #10
    My stance is the industry sucks, but that gives you no right to steal from them.
     
  11. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    Unfortunately, artists (and all the others who help them through all the steps from recording to distribution) need to take measures to protect their works from theft before they go to market. When music is your livelihood, your recordings are like cash. If you don't protect them physically and digitally, leaks take away your control. When an artist moves digital music across a network, it will have to be like a bank's electronic funds transfer. If tapes are being transported and it'll take an armored car to secure them, that's the cost of doing business.

    Apple has given people a great new way to buy music legally and conveniently, but the temptations of early possession and free access will always be there.

    Enforcement that isn't aided by technology like DRM will probably continue to be limited to the big and blatant cases, such as the out-of-court settlements, reported in today's Los Angeles Times, in which four college students (2 at Rensselaer Tech, 1 at Princeton, and 1 at Michigan Tech) each agreed to pay the Recording Industry Association between $12,000 and $17,5000 for running file-sharing systems on which music was pirated.
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    My point exactly! That is why I have already bought 4 albums and 6 singles from the AMS. It is not a solution to the problem but it is a step in the right direction.

    I WANT TO BUY MUSIC ONLINE!

    Even if I had a PeeCee I would have had to deal with all these incredibly stupid restrictions from the companies that offer music online. Then I would have to search out the music I wanted from dozens of different companies whose technology probably wasn't compatible.

    What is this stupid computer for if not to make life easier? Why is that so hard for them to understand? There are millions of us out here that are willing to PAY for music.
     
  13. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #13
    that albini essay was great. not great to hear, but great that he was able to articulate the BS the big 5 feed their musicians. Ask brit daniel what he thinks of major labels. Ask jeff tweedy. Ask john darnielle.

    i'm not advocating stealing, but the music industry has been exploiting people since day one. how much did chuck berry make in the 50's? If you ask me, anything that quickens the demise of the big 5 is a-ok with me. it won't stop the bands i listen to.

    the independants need to organize and implement a complete internet-based buisness model, so their labels and artists can "get real paid", making the BS lucritive opportunities offered by the major labels less enticing. Record labels are necessary. But not EMI, Sony, Warner, etc. It's like what calvin johnson said:
    "Rock and roll had enough lives, let it die"
     
  14. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #14
    I totally agree, downloading from P2P, music that you do not own is just like going into a store a steeling. The only reason people do it is because it is so easy. It just shows that humanity has not grown up at all over the thousands of years, if the only thing that stops people from steeling is the fear of getting caught. People cant see the concequencies of their actions or just dont care.

    Just because the labels are hurting the artists does not give you the right to steel, all you are doing is making sure the artists get even less money.
     
  15. macfan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #15
    In a digital world, who needs tape? Promotions and event management don't require nearly as much as you seem to think, they certainly don't require an artist to be bound up in an exclusive contract with a huge record label.

    No matter what rationalizations one might use, downloading music from the web that you haven't paid for is stealing.
     
  16. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #16
    it is important to note that musicians have the chance NOW to escape the industry as it is. if they play their cards right, they can do what chaplin/pickford/fairbanks did, and sure up a bigger chunk of the revenue from this new form of the industry. a united artists for music is way overdue. if musicians really want this to revolutionize the way people get music, they need to take the initiaitve to diminish the major label presence/influence in the industry.
     
  17. springscansing macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #17
    I'm just curious what your profession is and who you work for that you're able to make these statements.
     
  18. jethroted macrumors 6502a

    jethroted

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Location:
    Cyberspace
    #18
    What about my menstrual cycle? The babies of yonder have spoken and they don't want kids to be rulers of the paper cup? Eraser, knife, glue, glass, these are all questions we should ask ourselves.
     
  19. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #19
    A couple of things, true you don't need analog tape, but a lot of people choose to use it as they believe it sounds better, I can (and have) made albums on my powerbook, it's not as easy as a good studio, but it's possible, my weapon of choice is ProTools, not a Studer 2", these days.

    The main problem is marketing and distribution, an artist CANNOT make the same income from a privately funded net-based operation that they will make from a decent (note: decent) label deal, despite what Steve Albini says, the moment an individual starts making an impact on the net, the music is pirated and the income drops precipitiously. majors have the financial clout to hit traditional marketing systems and deliver the physical goods.

    Smaller distribution companies like SRD over here and private deals with companies like Amazon are an option, but still don't compete. The majors are an effective monopoly in the business, but if you really want to make it big they are still the only game in town.

    I would love to see net-based music distibution and promotion work, but it won't until the revenue streams are secured, and I really hate saying that.

    The digital world makes creation of music by anyone a reality, but that don't make it good music, producers get paid to produce saleable product, they know the market, engineers get paid to make the music sound great, I teach engineering and production at masters level, I engineered for twenty years (still do) and I know that the number of people who can really do these things is infinitely less than those who think they can.

    This will run and run, and the only poeple who are suffering is the artists.

    Stealing is stealing, you download P2P and you are depriving a musician of income from his work. OK, you're hitting the companies too, but they aren't as vulnerable.

    The AMS is a good thing, but we need to get some morals on this quickly.
     
  20. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    Fewer and fewer artists have the choice to use analog tape, even if they think it sounds better, simply because the cost to maintain high-end analog equipment in a recording studio is getting more and more prohibitive. Analog will become a tool of only the elite artists as almost all mainstream artists, not just the record-at-home amateurs, find themselves "limited to" digital recording.
     
  21. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #21
    a must read

    i highly advise those interested in the true state of the music industry to pick up the latest copy of MIX magazine( black cover that says" what can save the music industry?" ).

    many perspectives from artists, producers, label execs etc.

    and some interesting opinions about new business models.
     
  22. mozez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    #22
    sort of off topic, but i'm curious about something. it seems today that so many people who write a song think they should be instant millionares. writing and singing is a job, and maybe we are looking at this wrong, maybe if producers and directors and artists were paid a normal amount and then 8 billion in profit wouldn't be needed. you'd only need a few million in profit and still succeed. people, riaa, thinks everyone of them should be paid 12 million a year. p2p may be stealing, but lets not forget that all the things that the riaa is doing, is also, illegal, they were even supposed to lower cd prices, by court order, and did not, that's illegal, but with such profits they can continue to keep things in the courts going while illegally contiinue business.

    you have two problems here, one is downloading music, and another is the music industry itself. people need to understand that not everyone writes a song that will last forever, no matter what the label tells you. labels like to tell artists that people downloading music is why they aren't getting paid as much as they should, or that that's why the album isn't doing well. maybe it's just the song sucks, or the advertising didn't do it's job. p2p is only 1/100th of the problem the riaa make it out to be.

    really, if you stopped all the greed, made reasonable salaries, reasonable profits, after all the studio time, recording, advertising, and everything, cds could be $2 or less, nothing more, and then you'd see people buying a lot more. $1 a song is still too much. it hurts to see a dvd for 17.99 and then look next to it and see the sound track for 21.99.
     
  23. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    Labels aren't the problem. The problem is huge conglomerates that only pay attention to the bottom line. There was a time when music and studio executives had music and movie background (imagine that). But over the past 30 years the art of music and filmmaking as turned into the business of music and filmmaking so the people "in charge" of fostering, creating, and distrubuting music and film have less creative experience than a ball of silly-putty. Argh... /rant.

    Mozez, I don't remeber a court order mandating lower CD prices, but I do remember some regulations being relaxed in hopes that a CD "price war" would start and prices would go down. But instead of lowering prices and being competitive they raised the prices. And anyone who pays more than $14.99 for a CD (double discs not included) is shopping at the wrong stores. I don't shop any place exotic and the only time I pay more than $15 for a CD is if it's an import, a double disc, or something special like that. And $2 per disc is just insanely low.


    Lethal
     
  24. Ambrose Chapel macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #24
    The Big 5 (I think it was all of them) were charged by the Federal Government with conspiracy to fix CD prices. It had something to do with having a set minimum price. Stores that attempted to undercut the price (in true free-market fashion) were blackballed by the Big 5. It got settled and I think as a result the 5 did not have to admit guilt in any way. The settlement entitled consumers who bought one or more CDs in the past several years to a check for a buck or something like that. You can search around for the story; I'm too lazy to find a link, though I may have posted one on another thread some time ago.

    Just to echo what a lot of people had said, I feel for the artists but I have no compassion for the Big 5. They happily screw artists and consumers, then cry foul when the tables are turned. If you acquire music via P2P and still want to support bands, go see them live and buy some merch.
     

Share This Page