RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment]

RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment]: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=224810

Message

Erik van Goch -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 15:57:29)
quote: ORIGINAL: gj Michelob quote: ... 'just a tech gltich... For some odd and unpleasent reason, most replies appear addressed to me, suggesting that I am the auhtor of the quoted language... but I am not. For some reason the foro software automatically refers to the name on top of the running page (starting with the one on top of page 1) and if that happens to be your post or comment the software automatically refers to you whenever the NEUTRAL "post reply" (located on the bottom left) is used. In your case you also happen to be the one who opened the discussion and asked for everyones opinion, so i.m.o. you are not in the position to complain at all :-) I on the other hand am, because my (this) reply happens to be located on top of page 2, so i'll be the one who'll be stalked for a while now :-( So if you want to reply on a specific post... use the post reply button located on the top-right of that post and not the one located on the bottom left of the page... I somehow gett the feeling i shouldn't have said that :-)

Munin -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 16:01:46)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sean The difference is, if people don't like your paper cranes they won't pay for them; they also won't be interested in taking them for free. You shouldn't expect to be paid anything for just making cranes, and nobody is arguing that. If someone is taking them it is only because they find some sort of value in them, and as such should pay you for them. And I didn't argue any differently, if you bothered to read my post. Following on the analogy, there was a way for people to take my cranes for free, and I didn't want that, then I could stop them from doing it. Just like Ricardo can stop his album from being published on Spotify (the notion that it's up there without any legal consent is ridiculous, since that would effectively mean a copyright violation, which a company like Spotify can hardly afford, so his beef apparently lies with CDBaby). Now the question is, how many more people would have paid for the cranes if there had not been a way to get them for free? And the answer is: not that many. If we assume that artists in these cases are vendors of products, then just like vendors of any other products, they have to adjust to the situation or go out of business. It's as simple as that. It's also hilarious how many people defend the old system, especially considering the countless cases where lesser known artists get completely ****ed with their label contracts. Or just ask Jason, who had to replace half of his album with rumbas when it was published. Now more than ever artists are in control of their own promotion, creative control and distribution. Sad for those who can't work with that, and all the better for the ones who can. People are still willing to pay for music, but not if you start antagonizing them in some sort of "us vs them" mindset.

Sean -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 17:04:14)
Charity cases, why should hard working people pay someone for just moving their fingers. That kind of antagonism? You will find more then a few comments on here, that do nothing more then belittle artists. I also found out that because art can be fun, it has no value; funny you learn something new everyday. You make a great point about the old system not being a big bowl of cherries either. Artists have to work with new technologies, and any opportunities that may pop up; if they don't, people who want to exploit them certainly will.

Erik van Goch -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 17:15:11)
quote: ORIGINAL: gj Michelob quote: ... 'just a tech gltich... For some odd and unpleasent reason, most replies appear addressed to me, suggesting that I am the auhtor of the quoted language... but I am not. Although it is not crucial, it would be only fair to pay a liitle attention, everyone, when replying and addressing a given post, so that the proper author be designated in the reply box. Funny enough this reveals an other modern day simplification/robbery of part of the royalty-system. Until recently when you gave a concert you had to precent a list of all the pieces you were going to perform to the local royalty authorities (in the netherlands Buma/Stemra) and they were supposed to give that money to the original composers. At precent day you don't have to give a list anymore which means the money they collect does not ends up in the pocked of the actual composers but in the pocked of a selected few. Every country has it's own legally approved (mafia) organization for collecting/distributing royalty-contributions for both performances and record sales. Being recognized institutes they have diplomatic immunity and if one of them decides to sell your record for almost nothing there is nothing we can do against that. The dutch Buma owned thousandths of euro's to a local artist who was told actual payment probably would take another very very very long time....unless he was willing to pay them a substantial kickback. When he published that phone conversation the person in question was fired, but once again it proves it is legalized mafia.

Erik van Goch -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 18:31:51)
quote: ORIGINAL: flyhere When a person learns something from youtube instead of buying a dvd or taking a lesson with a teacher, that a loss in income there. Especially in flamenco many teachers charge incredible amounts of money for teaching you (half-understood) falsetas that they previously have learned from a record or the internet themself to start with. Some of them only give you the notes by monkey see, monkey do, they don't correct bad fingerings/habits/sound/interpretation (quite often need a couple of lessons themself), they don't explain the mechanisms behind it and they don't offer the music on partiture. I've met enough students who need several lessons to memorize 1 falseta. If they pay 40 euro for a lesson and need 3 lessons to memorize a falseta they end up paying 120,- for 1 falseta (their teacher has previously learned from the internet himself)...daytime robbery if you ask me. I learned Paco Peña's Solea por Bulerias in 3 hours from an excellent partiture revealing all the notes and exact fingering. Another good player/teacher who couldn't read notes needed a couple of mounts to memorize that piece. I was an excellent teacher myself and my aim (and that of all good teachers) was to make them independent from me as soon as possible by teaching them the basic mechanisms behind guitar playing and the basic mechanisms behind flamenco. Despite my excellent cv (i passed the same exams Paco Serrano had to undergo to be excepted as a guitar teacher by the concervatorium of Cordoba) i only charged 15 euro for a lesson (officially 1 hour but often running up to 4 hours or longer). I only could do that because it was not my living. Quite often i told poor students to skip a lesson in order to spend that money on a good cd or flamenco concert. As a teacher your plus is to give good material that fits their level and is educational one way or the other (and preferably exiting to play as well). Your task is to make them independent of you, not to make money by keeping them ignorant and selling the same product over and over again. A good teacher offers way more than showing the notes. He shows the concept behind it and is worth his money.... as long as the student thinks he is. Claiming learning from youtube is a loss of income for a teacher is the same as claiming a teacher is a loss of income for the records he previously ear played himself....and learning from a record a loss of income for the performing artists. I don't want to go back to the times a handful of professional players was very secretive about how they managed to produce the notes (with the exception of at least Sabicas).

chester -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 18:44:48)
quote: I also found out that because art can be fun, it has no value; Sean - what I meant was that making art is a desire that transcends profit. This was a counter to Ricardo's argument that it's not "worth it" to make music. The moving fingers part was a reference to only being a player. People who make a good living from music are often involved in writing and production as well. As far as your athletes analogy - you're right. I think $15M is a correct value for someone who hits a ball with a stick. Ricardo - I'm getting tired of trying to explain what you keep on ignoring: No one is forcing you to be on Spotify - you can ask to be removed. Spofity didn't buy your album, rip it, and now letting people stream it. Like you yourself said - it looks like they have an agreement with cdbaby. In regard to making albums - these aren't the days of Alan Lomax anymore. Many things are possible in album production that are difficult to achieve by playing live (multi tracking, post-mixing, etc). Most musicians (that I know - and I know a lot) put out albums because they want to create something new, not because they think it's going to put food on the table. I've been a musician since I was 6 and taught myself how to play the recorder. I played various instruments, took private lessons, went to a music-focused high school and got a degree in classical guitar performance. I supported myself by gigging and teaching. At some point I got sick of hustling and constantly feeling that I'm not getting what I thought I deserved, so I taught myself how to program. 'Pushing buttons' as you call it - I put in a lot of late nights wrapping my head around programming concepts just like I did figuring out things like modes, french six chords, and altered dominants. Do I love it as much as I love making music? No way - I still play all the time, but I would never program if someone wasn't paying me. Unfortunately being an artist is not a good enough reason to get paid, so we need to adapt. If someone chooses to stop playing music because they can't make money off of it - it's their own loss.

estebanana -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 20:20:54)
quote: In the splendid days of Bach and Mozart, music was not a ‘product’ yet, it was a service. It became a product when technology allowed it to be stored into physical means, the ‘record’. The beauty of a product [v. a service] is that a product can be duplicated/replicated infinitely, without additional work by its maker. Service, on the other hand, is restricted by the limitation of the service-provider’s physical presence [the musician]. By Mozart's time music was published as sheet music performers both professional and amateur. In Bach's day it was more a part of religious culture. Bach's day job was running the choir of a big church which included waking the lads up at 5:30am every morning of choir practice. But as GJ says basically still service rendered. Musicians made much of their living teaching in private homes. Composers recieved commissions for but secular and sacred works. I don't like Spotify, don't use it. I think those radio stations are ripping off composers more than they help them. Radio from the beginning was a strange thing to happen to music. Radio is one of the reasons or causes for better or worse for specialization and exclusive careerism in modern music. When radios became portable, personal and cost effective to own, families began to listen to radio on Saturday nights together instead of making music. At that point the music publishing companies that supported Sibelius, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky all began to suffer loss of sales to stay home musicians. The family that formerly made music together became the family that sat passively and listened to specialists make music. So radio changing the music industry or the way we experience music is always been there from the beginning. Charles Ives is one of the most important American composers, ( who most Americans are ignorant of ) He worked as an insurance broker during the day and composed at night and on weekends. The reason was that the way he heard music was so far ahead of the time he lived in that it was not possible for him to really make a viable living as a professional, even though I see him as a professional, he had to in a sense become his own benefactor. It is really a shame he had to do that, he suffered for it. Artists, musicians, writers filmmakers are the ones in society who create the culture, when I hear or read about people saying what makes artists so special? Why should they get paid for what they do? Or how some people shallowly prattle on about how they are entitled to culture, music, art, writing for free on the internet, to them I say; go make your own culture, don't take what you don't pay for. If you don't want to pay artists to create culture make your own culture. Go to Ikea and Home Depot and Mc Donald's, purchase mono culturally grown foods, buy the materials you need to make your culture, because that is your culture. You don't get to go to the symphony because you don't support artists. You have to buy a ticket. No ticket, no Opera for you. Back in the old days when artists would complain about other artists who were fully committed saying ".....why does so and so get a gallery show? I work full time! I can't do that because I work for a living. I could have a show too if I was not working all the time." There was a name for that smarmy attitude, it was called being a "sell out." Yeah old fashioned saying, still useful from time to time. There's old Jewish saying: 'In the end you have to pay the fiddler.' Which is why I never worry about these situations because if you want culture you WILL be paying the fiddler. One way or another.

Ricardo -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 20:26:53)
quote: So who are you to judge this? Every individual in society makes that judgment by either paying or not paying chester for what he does, whatever that is. Well that WAS my point... I am an individual in society and will pay for your art if I feel I need to, "lets hear it then" was my point. If you are too shy to put it out for such scrutiny or think it's not worth it, I don't consider you a professional artist plain and simple, maybe that is harsh but unlike the average individual in society I am also a PROFESSIONAL ARTIST. quote: If I really love folding paper cranes and have put in 20,000 hours of my life folding really awesome paper cranes, do you think I should automatically receive money for that without question? Where do you draw the line? Yes you deserve money if they are so good and people want them. I don't have a right to try to exploit your talents knowing people want your cranes and try to sell a boat load of them before you even know they are hot, and already making it all "legal" by paying you equivalent to the price of the piece of paper or less that you make em with ....despite your time and skill. By the time I have paid my self and my distributing networks and "expenses" ([:D]) and realize my crane business is failing cuz you actually need more money than the price of a sheet of paper per crane, well, it's too late I already spent my salary. [:D] At least spotify is failing now...good. quote: If you don't like your album on there, pull it off Ok this if for you and CHESTER because you guys still don't seem to get it. IT"S TOO LATE. I have already been raped. And I don't really care about MYSELF...I make enough money playing and selling hard copies. I thought it was comical, the pennies. My attack on spotify was specific and I used MY SELF as an example to show how the ** went down to one guy. I expected you guys to carry the thought process forward to conclude how the cheapening of music in such a quick manner will have consequences. Seeing how spotify is failing, its a moot point already. I don't blame CD baby...it was about the BOXES I checked...mislead that I would be comparing digital downloads from Itunes or amazon to CD BAby sales....i had no clue one of those OTHER TWO throw your stuff to the four corners to scrape up pennies. Learned my lesson, great. Its FINE if you have gone out of print already, but for NEW MUSIC it makes no sense. Anyway hope that clears that thing of me fighting to remove my ** from spotify. I was more concerned about industry as whole, and it seems it's been dealt with almost as quick as it came to rape musicians. (I heard of spotify on facebook from a musicians rant so double edge sword as I said internet is). quote: Equating a pirated or Spotify-ed copy to a lost sale is quite a superficial conclusion. It was not about a one to one lost sale (although we can use CHESTER as the hard example...the point was I banned him from purchasing my album and then he rubbed it in my face privately "Ha ha I listened to your **** on spotify nanny nanny boo boo"...but he was nice enough to say he'd buy me a drink. [:D])...it was about the general direction things are moving. YOu can't make back a return for producing recordings if they will only be streamed for pennies, the implication being majority of people will go for cheap "free" streaming vs purchasing hard copies/downloads. Ok moot point, bye bye spotify. quote: No, the implication was that being an artist is hard work, but that is also the case for a lot of other professions and it's quite arrogant to state other professions involve sitting in an office, "pushing some buttons" and watching the money roll in while being a musician consists of this romantic yet thankless struggle to follow your passions. The profession of on line streaming companies that make money off of musicians art, substantial amounts way over what the actual creator made, was my point of comparing what "hard work" really was about. Not talking about say computer programmers in general or any other brain working endevour that requires button pushing. Lets take photography. You push a button and capture. where is the hard work? well, there is the "trained eye" I guess is the artistry. Be at the right place at right time and angle perhaps, but hard to compare such "work" to say painting or sculpting to make pictures. But art none the less. Now try to use professional photographs for say your album artwork. The did good protecting themselves LONG before musicians. That's why if you want some photos to use you have to pay HUNDRED BUCKS to join a site to use a single photo or many...but if you want a song it's $0.99...or you can stream it for less. All I have been pointing out is that musicians need to protect themselves in a similar manner before it's too late. At his point I guess it's broken record moot point.

estebanana -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 21:52:27)
Plus one to what Ricardo wrote.

chester -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 24 2013 23:27:05)
quote: we can use CHESTER as the hard example...the point was I banned him from purchasing my album and then he rubbed it in my face privately "Ha ha I listened to your **** on spotify nanny nanny boo boo What?? That's not how I remember it... When did you ban me from purchasing your record? All I remember is that I heard it a few times on spotify and wrote to you to tell you that I enjoyed it. After you complained about not making enough from the streams I offered to buy you a few drinks instead of buying the album. To be honest I haven't listened to it much since. Maybe you got upset that I was defending spotify and then you 'banned' me. Anyway, no hard feelings on my part. [:D] What estebanana said about radio is completely true. The way I see it is that while it allows people to be recording artists it's screwing the ones that are merely 'giggers'. That's the real double-edged sword, the internet is just an extension of that. Funny you mentioned Ives, I'm pretty sure I gave him as an example in the previous thread. Does anyone here use netflix, or hulu? These are also streaming services that are slowly becoming content providers (esp netflix with some quality shows and more coming). By ignoring the trend (ricardo's "bye bye spotify") you're only putting yourself in a position that will make you obsolete. In the end it's your loss. quote: That's why if you want some photos to use you have to pay HUNDRED BUCKS to join a site to use a single photo or many...but if you want a song it's $0.99...or you can stream it for less. If you want a photo to hang up in your room, you can download a copy and print it out yourself for free. If you want to use it for profit you have to pay. You can't buy a song for $.99 and use it on a commercial. quote: All I have been pointing out is that musicians need to protect themselves And what was your suggestion? Not to record anymore? How about protecting yourself by adapting to the surrounding world around you. Making money is business, not art. BTW - I still don't understand why its "too late" to pull it off spotify. Are you saying it's not possible, or that you don't care about it?

turnermoran -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 6:51:59)
I'm too late in the thread-post-game to read through all these, but at a skim, I don't see a pretty simple point: It costs $10k - 20k(u.s.) to produce a professional recording on par with a major label. Whether you agree or disagree with the philosophy of iTunes, Spotify, etc.. ..If I dip into my savings to make a record, and no one wants to buy simply because they have the attitude they shouldn't have to.. well, you can figure out where that model is going. And people often say 'well, if you're putting up your own money, you must not be that good, since you're not on a label'. I think you'd be shocked to know how many amazing artists are self producing these days.

Munin -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 8:47:00)
quote: ORIGINAL: turnermoran I'm too late in the thread-post-game to read through all these, but at a skim, I don't see a pretty simple point: It costs $10k - 20k(u.s.) to produce a professional recording on par with a major label. Whether you agree or disagree with the philosophy of iTunes, Spotify, etc.. ..If I dip into my savings to make a record, and no one wants to buy simply because they have the attitude they shouldn't have to.. well, you can figure out where that model is going. And people often say 'well, if you're putting up your own money, you must not be that good, since you're not on a label'. I think you'd be shocked to know how many amazing artists are self producing these days. No, it is a lot cheaper and easier these days to record on a professional level. Rafael Cortes recorded his last album at home, which is something artists in other genres have been doing a long time - and they're happy to be able to do so. quote: I think you'd be shocked to know how many amazing artists are self producing these days. And this is somehow a bad thing? When they were under major labels, many artists were crying for more creative control, independence and the power to steer their own promotional efforts. Well guess what, with that also comes increased financial risk and responsibility. You can't have the cake and eat it too. Ignoring the future will get you nowhere. Ricardo can chant "Spotify is failing" as much as he likes, but it's not, and even if it does, something else will take its place.

XXX -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 9:12:53)
quote: ORIGINAL: chester By ignoring the trend (ricardo's "bye bye spotify") I think most people listen to music still on mp3 players, or on their stereo etc. I havent used spotify and never ran out of good music during the last YEARS or so. I also wouldnt pay for streaming music or an "abonnement", i would pay for having a track physically on my pc being able to listen to it as often as i want. And i wont use an external player to play music, i have winamp. The huge thing for me that came with the ability to download music is that you dont have to buy a WHOLE Cd of which you probably only liked 2-3 songs. The internet is so connected at this point you can find every song in short time. There is no need for spotify. Spotify seems a little bit like a "dummy" program. Just like mac compared to windows or something. Its easier to use, but you sacrifice functionality.

KMMI77 -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 11:34:21)
quote: I think most people listen to music still on mp3 players, or on their stereo etc. I havent used spotify I fit into this category and i have never used spotify either. I can listen to samples of any artist on itunes. If i like it, It's cheap enough to buy it.

Ricardo -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 13:46:35)
quote: ORIGINAL: chester quote: we can use CHESTER as the hard example...the point was I banned him from purchasing my album and then he rubbed it in my face privately "Ha ha I listened to your **** on spotify nanny nanny boo boo What?? That's not how I remember it... When did you ban me from purchasing your record? All I remember is that I heard it a few times on spotify and wrote to you to tell you that I enjoyed it. After you complained about not making enough from the streams I offered to buy you a few drinks instead of buying the album. To be honest I haven't listened to it much since. Maybe you got upset that I was defending spotify and then you 'banned' me. Anyway, no hard feelings on my part. [:D] No first you had said you heard it and would NOT be buying it (you made a special point about that [;)])...THEN I replied you weren't allowed to buy it anyway. THEN you PM'd me later saying you listened and enjoyed it and would buy me a couple drinks instead of purchase of album...I replied I will have dom perignon. [:D] Anyway, water under the bridge, but don't pretend you weren't rubbing it in that you had easy access to my stuff knowing full well how I felt about spotify/free download etc. http://www.foroflamenco.com/tm.asp?m=190005&appid=&p=&mpage=1&key=&tmode=&smode=&s=#190194

HolyEvil -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 19:32:04)
quote: ORIGINAL: KMMI77 quote: I think most people listen to music still on mp3 players, or on their stereo etc. I havent used spotify I fit into this category and i have never used spotify either. I can listen to samples of any artist on itunes, If i like it, It's cheap enough to buy it. In australia, itune is so much more expensive that the US.. but WHY!! Jose Luis Monton's Solo Guitarra is AU$18.99 on itunes and I bought an actual brand new CD from the US for AU$18.18, and this is INCLUDING postage. I use Spotify alot to find new artist's albums, eg an artist from a compilation or who guest on another artist's album. etc.. All in all, I think Spotify is good revenue for very popular artists like Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga or Britney SPears (is she still popular?). All in all, crap music but with a big fan base. Small market music like flamenco would have less audience which would listen to it less and therefore generate less money for the artist.

estebanana -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 20:18:41)
No one ever gets an Ole' for sitting behind a desk.

chester -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 20:42:40)
quote: you weren't rubbing it in that you had easy access to my stuff knowing full well how I felt about spotify/free download etc. Thanks for the link. I guess I was jabbing at you. In a friendly sort of way though. I did say that I won't be illegally downloading it for free though. [:D] Anyway, what I like about Spotify is that it allows you to have access to an immense music collection without having to actually host any of the files. When I say huge, I mean huge. Like the entire naxos catalogue (hell, pretty much any piece written by any major classical composer), a ton of old and classic jazz records, all my favorite grunge albums from my teenage years, obscure prog stuff like Bruford, Betty Davis, Aphex Twin, etc. downloading all those things would take a long time and a lot of megabytes. I'm not advocating that every album in existence should be available for free or on spotify (which is a paid service). I'm saying spotify is great now, even without every new album that comes out and if you're an artist that doesn't agree with their pay structure you can pull your stuff off (unlike a site like 4shared or megaupload). I also have a record player (like a true hipster [:D]) and still buy records. We live in 2013 so why not enjoy all the cool stuff technology affords us? In my idea of a perfect world money isn't an issue for anyone and everyone is free to do whatever they want, but unfortunately we haven't reached that point yet. Blaming Spotify for the struggles of musicians is like blaming credit card companies for not being able to keep up with the interest on your monthly payments and I feel compelled to speak out against this kind of blame throwing.

turnermoran -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 20:49:55)
quote: And this is somehow a bad thing? When they were under major labels, many artists were crying for more creative control, independence and the power to steer their own promotional efforts. Well guess what, with that also comes increased financial risk and responsibility. You can't have the cake and eat it too. I have heard this argument many times. And I don't disagree. But consider that in the days of yore, you got an advance of 'x' dollars. Let's say $10k. Maybe $5k if your an indie. Who knows.. Then a company pays to make your album. So "making an album" is if nothing else getting out your art, and having $5k in your pocket. And since the label made the album, they're gonna want to promote it to sell it and make back their investment. Maybe even give tour support. compare that with making a living as an artist, saving up $10k to make an album, and to find out that you need to spend $2k on a publicist, and take out $3k of advertising so your album will register as a blip. So your not just another guy who "documented his work", and sells it on his website and gigs.. Rather than be up $5k, you're in the hole $15k. The issue i have is not about the pros and cons of the above. It's the a fact that many listeners/consumers make no distinction between the 2 scenarios. And feel as entitled to free music whether the artist put out the product themself or had label help. If you want to rail against the labels and RIAA, fine. But you can't say you're "pro art and artist" if you expect the artist to spend $15k of their own earnings to make a product for sale that someone else feels no obligation to pay for, but expects to own it just like the person who does pay.

chester -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 25 2013 21:36:05)
quote: Then a company pays to make your album. So "making an album" is if nothing else getting out your art, and having $5k in your pocket. And since the label made the album, they're gonna want to promote it to sell it and make back their investment. Maybe even give tour support. Actually they would loan you the money and you would have to pay them out of your proceeds from record sales. In addition, they would own all the rights to your music and usually have exclusive rights on any future records you make. Very few artists were offered what you're describing above. quote: But you can't say you're "pro art and artist" if you expect the artist to spend $15k of their own earnings to make a product for sale that someone else feels no obligation to pay for, but expects to own it just like the person who does pay. You're right, but I don't think anyone here was saying that.

turnermoran -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 26 2013 4:11:28)
quote: Actually they would loan you the money and you would have to pay them out of your proceeds from record sales. Kinda.. The advance is money in your pocket you never owe back. Yes, the record company recoups that money from sales, along with every other expense. But if your record fails to make all the money back (most don't), you don't owe them the advance. quote: Very few artists were offered what you're describing above. That's my point. So many artists can't get record deals partly because deals are too risky for the labels who see the return on their investment less and less likely. And thus the 50/50 deal where they want a portion of touring revenue and such. Anyway, I'm not really 'pro-label', but where is the future of recorded music going if no label wants to put up the money, and the artists are too poor. What?..a world of low-fi garage band recordings? Might be cool actually. The "classic records" of yesteryear were recorded on gear now deemed substandard

Ricardo -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 26 2013 6:00:23)
Producer's job is to get the money for the recording and try to stay on target as far as budget. Often times money source is the record label and the project goes OVER budget...in which case if the artist and producer care enough about the product they will either pay out of their own pocket, or, go look for private investors. Having an artist be a producer or at least co-producer (ie doing all the work) is not a new idea since internet/technology made it easier, it's been going on for a long time. Musicians that produce other musicians they believe in has always been a big source of pride over just playing. On my first rumba recording, after the project was finishing up, the studio engineer wanted us to give him a production credit on the album sleeve...Most self producing artists probably don't care what that means and just go "sure thing buddy you are so cool". I was like "sorry man" if he had said that at the start, not after the slick finish, I might have offered to give him production tasks instead of just PAID him for recording time. I actually DID offer him a shot by giving a minor finishing up task but he was too lazy so he and his recording studio got no credit other than recording engineer. The prime example of internet helping artist kill record company/producer/distributor etc, was when 9 inch nails made a home recorded single and sold it on itunes or whatever and made hundreds of thousand over night. It was sort of biting the hand that feeds when you think about how it was thanks to the record label and the entire machine that these guys had a name in the first place. Youtube for sure is a good tool for self promoting artists that want to circumvent the whole machine and it's great. The copyright thing was more to do with the public at large (talentless button pushers that could care less about who gets hurt from free sharing) and seems to get dealt with to some degree. Antonio Rey CD I found on youtube almost immediately, and now I see he had to sell his guitar he recorded it with. Not saying the two events are related but makes you wonder. Unlike spotify, I don't blame youtube for what people do with the service. People looking for fast cheap or free and easy is the problem. The technology certainly CAN help both fans and artists, but there needs to be some respect and care involved, or this taking advantage and cheapening of art will keep occuring. Ricardo

KMMI77 -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 26 2013 7:35:02)
quote: Youtube for sure is a good tool for self promoting artists that want to circumvent the whole machine and it's great. It was in the beginning. In it's original format you tube was a fair and unbiased distributer of content. Now google has converted it into a controlled machine of its own. quote: Antonio Rey CD I found on youtube almost immediately, and now I see he had to sell his guitar he recorded it with. Yea that sucks. And don't forget the Carlos Saura flamenco flamenco movie. That was on you tube within one day of its release. I wonder if he or anyone else will bother making another one after that? The reality is that this distributing/downloading and sharing of content, and the general who gives a s*** attitude of many, will inevitably come back to bite us all. It will result in internet access requiring detailed personal login information with facial recognition etc..., and eventual compulsory links to a bank account. All to enable fining and policing of behavior. Then people will complain that they they don't have anonymity or as much freedom anymore.

XXX -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 26 2013 7:58:36)
quote: ORIGINAL: chester In my idea of a perfect world money isn't an issue for anyone and everyone is free to do whatever they want, but unfortunately we haven't reached that point yet. We wont and we arent on the way to anyway. But the point is you are blaming "the world" for not spending 1-3 bucks on a song. Doesnt get into my head. Sonds a bit like a universal excuse. Imagine a landlord saying "well yeah there is this money thing and we dont live in a free world, so im gonna raise the rent by 10%, you know?".

kominak -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 26 2013 11:02:23)
I'm a little surprised you all think an average musician will greatly miss an income from CD sales. When I was playing in a band (10 years ago) you had to sell more than 5000CDs just to cover the production costs. Maybe in the US the situation is different, but in our country only very few artists were capable of doing that. The money were always in: 1. touring (you had to be smart enough to lure some sponsors) 2. radio airplay royalties and now easier then ever: 3. film, tv, web, music libraries, advertisement placements - this should cover your time invested in composing a new piece of music. Because of this more people then ever are making money composing music. I usually buy CDs or albums from hdtracks, because audio quality of streaming sites is not that great - especially, when you can get a great sounding CD for as little as 5-10EUR (used to be about 20EUR 10 years ago!). But I'm glad there are places you can listen to CD prior to buying it to see whether I like it or not. Just my opinions, of course.

Blondie#2 -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 26 2013 11:42:35)
quote: ORIGINAL: kominak I'm a little surprised you all think an average musician will greatly miss an income from CD sales. When I was playing in a band (10 years ago) you had to sell more than 5000CDs just to cover the production costs. Technology has meant average musicians can now produce studio quality recordings at a fraction of the cost of hiring a studio. If I record, mix and master my own CD, do the artwork as well all I have to pay are the CD pressing plant charges. Here that means around £650 for 1000 CDs. If I charge £9 per CD I have to sell just 72 to break even, assuming all music is my copyright. Given the profit margins here and given that independent musicians will have no record company organising distribution etc and overall sales figures will be much smaller, then yes, every sale counts. One of my friends, also a solo guitarist, makes most of his income from direct sales (busking) and a fraction of his income is from playing gigs.

Ricardo -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 26 2013 13:32:26)
Yes, even 10 years ago it's obvious a recording was to be a long term investment. Like I said, majority of sales are result of playing in public. On line stuff had and has potential for making a return, especially with low production costs of home studios and cheap disc manufacture etc....but HOW long is long term? At 1$ a song its not bad...but streaming at $0.01 it would take a bit longer I would think. [:D]

chester -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 27 2013 17:04:46)
quote: you are blaming "the world" for not spending 1-3 bucks on a song. Doesnt get into my head. Sonds a bit like a universal excuse. Imagine a landlord saying "well yeah there is this money thing and we dont live in a free world, so im gonna raise the rent by 10%, you know?". Huh? I dunno about "blaming", but who do you think is responsible for musicians' incomes? I'm saying it's not the general public's responsibility. About the landlord - isn't that what they do anyway? Except they don't bother with the excuse and just tell you that they're raising the rent. Even then though - you have the choice of moving out. quote: It will result in internet access requiring detailed personal login information with facial recognition etc..., and eventual compulsory links to a bank account. If you think that all this will happen because some kids are downloading a few Metallica tracks - well.... quote: where is the future of recorded music going if no label wants to put up the money, and the artists are too poor. What?..a world of low-fi garage band recordings? Might be cool actually. Here's an example of some friends of mine that are working on an album - As you can see - all professional musicians that are putting out their own product for the sake of making something new. The future's not as bleak as ricardo likes to say, and the past wasn't so glorious either.

Mark2 -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 27 2013 21:28:23)
I posted in the other thread but in short, I pretty much agree with Ricardo, except I'm more of a cynic than him. I think playing music as a profession, with the exception of the top .001% of players, has become an even more difficult road. It's not the public's fault, or anyone's IMO. It's just the way it is. Times change, and playing an instrument is not valued as it used to be by the majority of the public, especially younger folks, who have always consumed the most music, be it live or recorded. Recorded music clearly has become almost worthless in terms of what people are willing to spend. To think that people will continue to make great records simply for the pleasure of creating.....well, some will, some won't. Is that a huge problem? Not for me. There's more great recordings out there than I'll ever have time to listen to. It's a big problem for those trying to make money selling recordings. I remember being a kid and running out and buying the Beatles white album. Put it on the turntable, looked at the pictures, read the lyrics. Going to the record store and looking for new stuff, browsing for an hour or more. Going to concerts was incredibly exciting for me and my friends. There were no video games, maybe five tv channels, no computers, no internet, no DVR's............these things compete for the attention of everyone these days, and many younger people who might have looked to music to help define their experience can now create music on their pc's, or write iphone apps...... I really think music was more important to my generation than to the current 13-30 year olds. Personally, it's a bit sad but doesn't affect me. Having had the opportunity to make a living playing, and also working a day gig, I can definately say, in my case anyway, that playing music was WAY more fun. And here's where I disagree with Ricardo-I run a small business. The skill, experience, time, risk, and determination it takes me to survive in my business far exceeds anything it took for me to earn money playing music. Granted, I was not a person who "mastered" an instrument, whatever that means. When I compare waking up at 9am, practicing, hanging out with other musicians, travelling to gigs, playing gigs, the party after, etc, with getting up at 5-6am, working all day..........musicians really shouldn't bitch about the money IMO. As far as being ripped off by spotify, etc. I absolutely believe they are ripping off musicians. A lot of musicians have always been ripped off. I doubt that will ever change.

Sean -> RE: The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment] (Feb. 27 2013 21:48:39)
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.

Page: << < 1 [2] 3 > >>