| Author |
 Topic  |
|
SpudBoy
= Cult of Ray =
Equatorial Guinea
649 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2003 : 18:26:21
|
I have actually worked out the financials on low-volume direct distribution sales in the past, and it is almost always a much better deal for the artist, assuming they have the time and wherewithal to coordinate the production, cover art, typesetting, etc., and (here's the kicker) assuming people actually buy their stuff. I have personally shoved enough time, energy, and cash into a music habit to prop up a third world country. The return has been excellent memories, great friends, a few good bands (some not so), and a job werkin fer da man where no one knows squat about how the other-other half live, so I can eat and pay bills. Not a bad deal, but I would certainly be in a different place if the industry model paid out based on effort and creativity (rather than the 15-year-old girl idolatry). Oh well, what the hell. At least now I can afford the cool gear that I drooled on as a starving artist.
I think downloading is valid as exploration and discovery. I have free stuff out there, but it is not everything in the catalog. I think that the technology will evolve to the point at which I can declare free vs commercial tracks, and the commercial(e.g. paid-for not pop-sounding) tracks will be hacked and shared to an extent anyway.
The real problem is getting the word out over the rest of the crowd. The music alone will not do it in most cases. I have seen extremely brilliant musicians fade into obscurity even in their niche communities. You, the listener decide their fate. I am not a hippie, but you gotta show the love.
 I looked for a cult to join, then decided to just play "Sink". Hey! I sank Toledo, Ohio! |
Edited by - SpudBoy on 12/02/2003 18:43:00 |
 |
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 23:53:15
|
There was a website called 'Fairtunes' (it's since been bought out and predictably sucks), which was created at the height of Napster to account for the loss of money to the musicians.
You could literally send any musician any amount of money. I sent a bunch of bands cash.
I think this is an amazing model - you could have website, with your tunes for people to download, and they can choose to leave a 'tip' in your hat, much like when busking..
I would love to see this revived... |
|
|
|
Little Black Francis
> Teenager of the Year <
3648 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 23:57:31
|
so is there a clear cut verdict about this subject?
the outcome sucks... imo
"In the old days I used to listen to my favorite bands I'd never seen over the internet..., that was before the Republican Army was defeated."
Mark Twain
|
Edited by - Little Black Francis on 12/02/2003 23:58:46 |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 00:05:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpudBoy
I have actually worked out the financials on low-volume direct distribution sales in the past, and it is almost always a much better deal for the artist, assuming they have the time and wherewithal to coordinate the production, cover art, typesetting, etc., and (here's the kicker) assuming people actually buy their stuff. I have personally shoved enough time, energy, and cash into a music habit to prop up a third world country. The return has been excellent memories, great friends, a few good bands (some not so), and a job werkin fer da man where no one knows squat about how the other-other half live, so I can eat and pay bills. Not a bad deal, but I would certainly be in a different place if the industry model paid out based on effort and creativity (rather than the 15-year-old girl idolatry). Oh well, what the hell. At least now I can afford the cool gear that I drooled on as a starving artist.
I think downloading is valid as exploration and discovery. I have free stuff out there, but it is not everything in the catalog. I think that the technology will evolve to the point at which I can declare free vs commercial tracks, and the commercial(e.g. paid-for not pop-sounding) tracks will be hacked and shared to an extent anyway.
The real problem is getting the word out over the rest of the crowd. The music alone will not do it in most cases. I have seen extremely brilliant musicians fade into obscurity even in their niche communities. You, the listener decide their fate. I am not a hippie, but you gotta show the love.
I looked for a cult to join, then decided to just play "Sink". Hey! I sank Toledo, Ohio!
I totally agree (if i understood you correct). I do much myself (pay for the recording session, cover) - and a small record company license it and sells it. I even keep the rights of the recordings. And it is not THAT unusual. The drawback - i take the (economical) risks. Talk all you like about musicians as idealists; but be one first. And then take the risks involved in paying for recordings and paying people to play for you. Yep, most people actually want to get paid for the job they do.
To get the music out to the crowd, we'll always (i suspect) be dependent on pr-people (if one can afford it), radio and tv (if it is possible) and lots and lots of touring (also if you can afford it). Even the "idealistic" little hardcore bands that tour the european punk-clubs have their own network (clubs, magazines, booking agents, and radio-shows) which does a pretty good job of marketing the bands. |
|
|
|
Little Black Francis
> Teenager of the Year <
3648 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 00:11:02
|
| totally |
|
|
|
Crispy Water
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
819 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 11:56:32
|
Apl4eris, floop, anyone else who objected to my wistful take on this subject, before my explanation let me say I wish money didn't have anything to do with anything: food, music, toilets, anything. Some people discover this and decide I'm just one of "those" people. I can tell my much-less-than-realistic outlook definitely has an effect on my attitude toward this subject, but knowing that won't change my mind.
I was kind of trying to hint around the idea that recording music is something I don't think should become a career. Performing it - definitely, which is why I wish that's where all the money was at. Only what I wish, not what I find conceivable. I don't like the way some people view recording, it seems that the attitude is "Okay, here's where the money and memories will come from, so this has to be the BEST possible performance." It's kind of like saying that everything after the recording is destined to be a letdown. So instead of performing as a means of improving upon what has been recorded, playing shows seems at times to become a market for those recordings. The number of weak and even poor live musicians I've wasted money on over the years has convinced me that this is the attitude of many. Some people I know have even told me they have created recordings just for the sake of "immortalizing" themselves; in a way I suppose that's what they're doing, but even that bugs me. I'd prefer that the ability to maintain a high standard of performance, the ability to consistently move people, demonstrated to audiences over time, be the way that a musician is remembered. Of course there are those musicians who work only to record, but if they're doing it for money that's wrong anyway. Doing anything just for the sake of money is wrong.
I stand by what I wrote, but something I should not have done, now that I've looked it back over, is try to bring painters or filmmakers or whatever it was into the picture. They are a completely different story - people don't generally "perform" paintings, so I was definitely mistaken in trying to draw that parallel. If they have copies made of their work for the purpose of sale it becomes a different story. I was just trying to make a point about the problem with making an industry out of creative effort, and it is that mediocrity will inevitably be rewarded at some point. Even if it only happened once (yeah, right) that would be enough to make it objectionable to me.
Honestly, I think I should stop now. This is not something I've spent much time thinking about, so I don't have a greatly developed argument prepared. I still think that saying downloading music is a rights violation is laughable. Performers start out wanting nothing more than an audience, then some of them decide if that audience won't financially support them it isn't worth having. Makes no sense to me.
Nothing is ever something. |
|
|
|
SpudBoy
= Cult of Ray =
Equatorial Guinea
649 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 17:02:22
|
ivandivel: sounds like you got what I was saying.
Crispy Water: In one sense I agree with you, a la Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged engineering utpoian vision of goods and services exchanged for mere nominal fees, letting each individual achieve their Maslow-esque self realization pyramid peak. Unfortunately, I still have to shuck dollars in the process of making the music (and the gear is 'SPENSIVE!). So, I want it back, and maybe a little more to keep it rolling.
In another sense, I have to disagree with the recorded music thing, since the other half of my brain designs software. I did not create the language (music is also a language in a sense), but what I create within the confines of a language and the gestalt of how that operates is my concept, and I should profit from it. If I don't, and it's free range for the avaricious, some other schlub will shrinkwrap my stuff and hawk it instead. Thus the copyright issue.
Should everything be free? Maybe, but until we elect a slew of philosopher kings it ain't gonna be. Plus, vinyl records are still way cool.
Good stuff, this topic. Thanks for the thought provoking posts.
I looked for a cult to join, then decided to just play "Sink". Hey! I sank Toledo, Ohio! |
|
|
|
Grizwald
- FB Fan -
Canada
100 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 05:46:53
|
Wow, Thats the best thing I have ever heard. Screw profit from music its retarded how so many muscicians dont appreciate their own art and are just in it for the money, Like come on most of em don't even play insturments its so disgusting.
Cult Of Ray you say?, I mean The Cult Of J www.The-Cult.vze.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
