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 | |
|
Munin
Posts: 595
Joined: Sep. 30 2008
From: Hong Kong
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Sean)
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 16:01:46
|
|
chester
Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Sean)
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 18:44:48
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to gj Michelob)
|
|
|
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.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 20:20:54
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14979
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Munin)
|
|
|
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" ( ) 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. 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. )...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.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here: www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 20:26:53
|
|
Munin
Posts: 595
Joined: Sep. 30 2008
From: Hong Kong
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to turnermoran)
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 25 2013 8:47:00
|
|
chester
Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
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. 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 ) 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.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 25 2013 20:42:40
|
|
turnermoran
Posts: 391
Joined: Feb. 6 2010
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Munin)
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 25 2013 20:49:55
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14979
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Erik van Goch)
|
|
|
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
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here: www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 26 2013 6:00:23
|
|
Mark2
Posts: 1891
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Erik van Goch)
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 27 2013 21:28:23
|
|
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 |
0.140625 secs.
|