Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment]
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
chester
Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
|
 RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Sean)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sean
quote:
As you can see - all professional musicians that are putting out their own product for the sake of making something new.
I can't see, because I would need to see their income tax return.
Being professional is not a skill level, it means you do it for a living as in your income.
If your friends make music purely for the sake of making music, art, or even something new they're what is known as amateurs, or dedicated hobbyists. There are many amateurs that are more skilled then their professional counterparts, so this as an insult.
Hobbyists should not tell professionals how to run their business, nor hold them up to their own artsy fartsy sense of idealism.
I guess you'll have to take my word for it that they make their money playing music. Like I said, this project is only one out of many. Writing music for commercials, tv shows, theater productions, being sidemen for more established artists, etc. You can check out the guitarist's work here - https://soundcloud.com/albalak1
My point is that you'd have to be crazy to think you're going to record an album and be able to make a living out of selling it. It's not because of spotify nor the general public - it's the nature of the business.
No artsy fartsy idealism - if I were to record an album and bank on the revenue, I wouldn't put it on spotify or pandora. If I wanted as many people as possible to enjoy my music - I would. Is it spotify's fault that record companies gave them streaming rights?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 28 2013 0:51:49
 |
|
Munin
Posts: 595
Joined: Sep. 30 2008
From: Hong Kong
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Paul Magnussen)
|
|
|
quote:
Record companies pulling their material and renegotiating is what was going on. PULLING THE MATERIAL...that means he had it and was streaming it without them knowing
You seriously still think that? If you want an example where this was actually true, check Grooveshark, which got hit with numerous copyright lawsuits because the uploaded music was illegally provided by users. I think they're about to close down, or have switched to legal licensing, not completely sure.
Spotify had deals in the place from the beginning, which is also why it wasn't available in the US and Germany for many years.
If anything, blame the record companies for agreeing to such deals - which they, by the way, don't limit to one particular company, but rather make wholesale agreements with multiple services, like Pandora, Simfy, etc., and there's actually a good number who refused to be on the service. Pulling your music AFTER making an agreement and realizing the numbers aren't worth it is one thing, but you keep insinuating that these companies actually exploit those poor unaware record companies by illegally streaming their music to millions. Which is wrong and that you keep making that argument, in defense of the record companies, is pretty disturbing.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 28 2013 17:24:11
|
|
turnermoran
Posts: 391
Joined: Feb. 6 2010
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Munin)
|
|
|
interesting points of view in an article on digital music:
http://stereogum.com/1204361/deconstructing-pandora-spotify-piracy-and-getting-artists-paid/top-stories/lead-story/
"... “The false expectation,” he writes, “that a handful of specific tech start-ups were going to make artists a living overnight seems deep-rooted and pervasive and I’m not sure why.”
Perhaps now we are getting somewhere. Where did these expectations come from?
In fact, stemming from those halcyon days of Napster, a strain of conventional wisdom took hold among New Media prophets that digital piracy wasn’t really a problem. The real problem was the lack of convenient, legitimate alternatives to piracy.
This line of thinking had a few consequences. 1. It offered consumers a rationalization for their own freeloading ways — they weren’t part of the problem, rather it was the record labels’ dragging their feet and foolishly fighting “the future.”
2. By implicitly portraying mass piracy as acceptable, the baseline value of music was set (and remains) at zero — this skewed the entire legitimate digital marketplace and still does.
3. This thinking communicated to artists to just be patient, because the solutions, in the form of better digital services, were indeed coming.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 21 2013 16:58:47
|
|
Florian
Posts: 9282
Joined: Jul. 14 2003
From: Adelaide/Australia
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to JJ)
|
|
|
i said it before...since everything is happening over the internet and since many people are buying up more internet than they usually would get for this reason, movies, music, youtube etc.....internet providers are the silent beneficiaries for everything else...you need to get the internet for that, they sell it to you with more and more data knowing full well why most will get it (noone gets unlimited internet to just send emails or write on forums)...they sell you tickets to a show they didn't create
there should be a share of the internet money going to those products used, or downloaded...as used ...and perhaps according to usage a cost relaid to the consumer who used this services i don't know...
I don't have a full plan ( and i dont think internet providers shouldn't be rewarded to what they are entitled to)...but if we ever hoped to get close to make it fair for everyone getting fair pay for their work and products as used should be looking in that direction IMO ...the gateway through which all of this is taking place is the internet......if anything can be done and monitored to reverse this it can only be done that way
the internet is like a third party selling you tickets to a supermarket and inside you can take anything you like for free...saying "you shouldn't do it its not enough" it hasent worked
hypothetically... if internet closed up tomorrow so would be the end of this situation does anyone not believe that ? i mean yeah there would still be the odd guy copying and sharing an album with his friends but not on this scale
weather they endorse illegal activity or not it is happening through they avenue...i think they should be at the head of those people trying to come up with a solution to help those negatively affected (if art means anything to our society anymore)...and they are the only party that CAN monitor and relay the costs to those using those services according to their usage
what is it 85% of everyone in the world has internet now ? Someone HAS benefited
Just my 2 cents...i dont have all the answers and i am wrecking my brain on how something like this could be reversed now cause living in a world without art would not be much fun...and all of it is affected, movies, music etc.. and everytime i end up at the same place Internet, internet providers would have to be involved
Saying its your choice to do art ...and dont blame the people ...ok fair enough...but eventually noone will do it if they starving ....is it going to take that ? we wouldn't be here chatting right now if it wasent for art..its a fragile thing...is it important enough to us to protect ?
they keep profiting and selling and inventing technology used for illegal use, or atleast making it easy...dvd recorders, cd ripper software, blank cd,s dvds, download software, unlimited fast internet, super large hardrives to hold 5000 movies...and everyone claims innocence ...eventually the bottom falls out and there will be nothing left to steal
technology has advanced at the cost of art
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 21 2013 20:17:33
|
|
chester
Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Paul Magnussen)
|
|
|
quote:
It offered consumers a rationalization for their own freeloading ways — they weren’t part of the problem, rather it was the record labels’ dragging their feet and foolishly fighting “the future.”
Is anyone seriously expecting people to pay more than they have to? No one likes to spend money. Do you think your boss (or clients) wouldn't hesitate to pay you less if they could?
The fact is that these streaming services are legal, and definitely a better alternative to downloading/watching on youtube (where the artist gets no compensation).
Services like spotify and pandora came along to help solve the problem of copyright infringement, and they're operating within their legal boundaries. I think it's shortsighted to blame them for an artist's difficulty to make a living.
quote:
not on this scale
quote:
technology has advanced at the cost of art
Technology has indeed increased the scale of people who are able to listen to music. Taking it out of the concert halls and bringing into anyone's home (or pocket).
Is it a good thing? I believe it is. Are there downsides? Sure, but so does everything, doesn't it? You move out of your parents house and now you can stay up all night, but you also need to pay rent and do your own laundry.
Don't forget that the whole reason you're able to listen to quality flamenco in Australia is due to technology.
quote:
they keep profiting and selling and inventing technology used for illegal use, or atleast making it easy...dvd recorders, cd ripper software, blank cd,s dvds, download software, unlimited fast internet, super large hardrives to hold 5000 movies...and everyone claims innocence ...eventually the bottom falls out and there will be nothing left to steal
If you seriously think that fast internet and large harddrives are being developed because people want to have more music and movies, you need to step outside buy a newspaper and start reading the science section. There's much bigger stuff happening than some guy plucking string on a wood box and some other guy screaming about his terrible life.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 21 2013 22:48:33
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14799
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to HolyEvil)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HolyEvil
quote:
ORIGINAL: chester
The fact is that these streaming services are legal, and definitely a better alternative to downloading/watching on youtube (where the artist gets no compensation).
this is actually true.. a lesser of 2 evil if you must.
if I was a recording atist, between being downloaded illegally (which is SO simple these days with cds being about 100mb).
Spotify would be a better option.
I'd rather not be shot with a gun at all, but if I HAD to choose, I rather my leg than my head.
Spotify reward greatly artists with a high fan base, smaller fan based genres like flamenco would have less returns for the artists. I hope the rewards would be greater but I don't control how much spotify pays the record companies.
I wished you guys would read through the thread closer. At first spotify WAS like a pirate paying small taxes to the artist they were robbing, until it caught up with them, and now they realize paying what they really were supposed to be paying all along, its hardly worth it. I wish we could just move along now and stop trying to defend "fast cheap and easy is the future" as if it is right, when it clearly is not. All anyone was saying in this topic about about spotify was YES it's better than digital download piracy, so long as they pay what they are supposed to, and now they have to but WERE NOT in the past. The end.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 22 2013 14:12:37
|
|
Xavi
Posts: 68
Joined: Jul. 10 2012
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Paul Magnussen)
|
|
|
For **** & giggles (sorry about length) - some Then/Nows about the music biz, cobled together courtesy of Lefsetz's recent column (lefsetz.com):
THEN
If you had a tiny core audience, you were financially challenged.
NOW
If you have a tiny core audience, you can raise enough money to make your album on Kickstarter, and own the copyright to boot. Just don’t think since you raised all that cash anybody other than the core is going to be interested in what you produce.
THEN
Albums all cost the same price.
NOW
Hard core fans will pay for special packages, delivered most famously by Topspin. If you’re not tapping the deep pockets of your hard core fans, you’re leaving money on the table.
THEN
You put out one album every three years, it took that long to reach every potential audience member.
NOW
You release music constantly, to satiate the core, no one beyond it cares. In the old days, your favorite act released an album when you were in high school and when the next one came out you were married and had babies. Now, if an act waits until the summer to follow up their fall release, it’s too long.
THEN
Music was scarce, so when we bought albums we played them.
NOW
Music is plentiful. Only the hard core wants to go beyond the hits. Are you playing to the core or to the masses who don’t care?
THEN
Marketing was top-down. You spent a lot of money and convinced everybody they should pay attention. I.e. Mariah Carey.
NOW
Marketing is from the ground up and Tommy Mottola is out of work and Mariah Carey is on a TV show that no one talks about anymore.
THEN
It was about the music.
NOW
It’s about the marketing. Just because you know how to use Final Cut Pro and can create an interesting visual, that does not mean anybody wants to listen to your music.
THEN
You could live off the money from your record deal.
NOW
If you even have a deal, compensation is low, you’re dependent on the promoter to keep you alive.
THEN
The most powerful person in the music business was the head of the label.
NOW
The most powerful person in the music business is the promoter. Lucian Grainge gets all the ink, but Michael Rapino has all the money. And he with the money triumphs. Universal folds and people still make music. Promoters go under and artists starve.
THEN
Music was expensive and everybody had little of it.
NOW
Music is cheap and everybody has more than they want.
THEN
People wanted your free music.
NOW
People don’t want your free music, hell, they’ve got the music of superstars free on their computer!
THEN
Facebook was cool.
NOW
Facebook isn’t cool. If bands can fade, why can’t websites?
THEN
You spent hours downloading music from P2P services.
NOW
You just watch what you want on YouTube. Just like the deficit, piracy in music is a red herring. It’s just too much effort. The reason you can’t sell your music in prodigious amounts is it’s just not good enough, not enough people care. When we had limited options and unlimited time we were interested in your substandard work, now with unlimited options and little time we are only interested in the very best.
THEN
The man wasn’t to be trusted.
NOW
Where do I sell out?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 22 2013 20:03:26
|
|
chester
Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Florian)
|
|
|
quote:
i dont know why you do this if this is your view of what flamenco is
Just putting it in perspective, doesn't mean it's not great. After a long day of practicing I feel good, but still can't help think that I spent all that time moving fingers. 
quote:
I am sure there are other things going but what else is happening ? what scientific project
Stuff like the human genome project, nanoparticle research, alternative energy sources, etc. (not that I read the science section, just live right next to a science museum).
quote:
you should have a look at a torrent site to see the kind of mass numbers we talking about here on movies and albums downloads and tell me thats not affecting the industries concerned
I'm not saying it's not affecting, or that it's alright, just that it's not necessarily the reason faster processors and larger hard drives are being developed.
quote:
anyway i cant keep arguing now, i got a student reading this over my shoulder....she might think i am unprofessional
Come on man, you know that's the secret of your charm.
Anyway now that the lesson's over, let's continue this argument.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 22 2013 21:02:32
|
|
chester
Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
I wished you guys would read through the thread closer. At first spotify WAS like a pirate paying small taxes to the artist they were robbing, until it caught up with them, and now they realize paying what they really were supposed to be paying all along, its hardly worth it. I wish we could just move along now and stop trying to defend "fast cheap and easy is the future" as if it is right, when it clearly is not. All anyone was saying in this topic about about spotify was YES it's better than digital download piracy, so long as they pay what they are supposed to, and now they have to but WERE NOT in the past. The end.
Dude I thought you're done with this topic. 
A couple of points - quote:
At first spotify WAS like a pirate paying small taxes to the artist they were robbing
Pirates don't pay anything, that's the thing with being a pirate.
quote:
now they realize paying what they really were supposed to be paying all along, its hardly worth it.
I'm not an expert on spotify's history, but I'm pretty sure they were paying all along.
quote:
I wish we could just move along now and stop trying to defend "fast cheap and easy is the future" as if it is right, when it clearly is not.
Not saying right or wrong, just that it is the future and artists have no choice but to adapt. I already gave the example of recordings and how suddenly people can just put on a CD instead of hiring a band. It closed doors but opened others.
I'd like to use John Walsh as an example. He puts in (a ****load of) time and effort into his technique, compositions, and video production and posts on youtube for people to enjoy for free. As long as people like that exist (and I believe they always will) there's no danger of 'no more music'. Maybe budgets for albums will go down, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Riqueni's "Flamenco" was recorded in three days, a lot of great Jazz albums are comprised of one-takes, etc... How many times have we heard - "so-and-so's new album is over-produced. I wish it was just one guitar"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Xavi
......
Funny, sad, and true. It's tough being a musician.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 22 2013 21:53:09
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
I'm done with this old topic. 
