Create some music music

Create some motion motion

Create some noise noise

May 28 2009

Pirating a Fundraising Album for an Italian Quake – Really?

by Jo Ardalan

Ligabue, one of the contributing artists, live in Berlin. Photo (CC) Matthias Muehlbradt.

Sure, many issues around intellectual property are gray. But contributor Jo Ardalan has a disturbing story: what happens when a fundraising album gets pirated? Did illegal file sharing users know what they were doing — is there a need for a donation mechanism for these services — or is it really this bad? Apologies if this is old news – catching up during travel – but a question well worth considering. -Ed.

We all know piracy forces labels, artists and developers to incur a huge cost. Recently, however, illegal file-sharing cost a bundle for the fundraising efforts aimed to raise money for reconstructing parts of Italy after a recent and devastating April quake. Universal Music and Italian pop artists collaborated on a track entitled “Domani 21/4/09″ that sells digitally for 2 Euros and will later be sold in stores for 5 Euros. According to Variety, the track has been downloaded illegally 2 million times.

Caterina Caselli, who produced the track for free says that this project is (translated from Italian) “sort of ‘mission impossible’: in one project between eighty artists and musicians doing almost everything in one day. All have dealt with air travel at their own expense, technicians and porters have worked for free, as do the catering…Universal does not gain anything.”

Artists inovled are Jovanotti, Ligabue, Zucchero and Elisa and many others.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003748.html?categoryid=19&cs=1
http://discomania2.myblog.it/archive/2009/05/09/domani-21-4-09-con-jovanotti-e-altri-60-artisti-serve-a-racc.html [Italian]

activism, file-sharing, intellectual-property, Italy, legal, licensing, MP3, piracy, trends,

131

131 comments 0 people listening

Sign in or Post as Guest

Comment help
Get Livefyre

Sort: Newest | Oldest

mauxuam

ah...sorry...I missed this last bit since I was away (playing live)...shame that this wonderful conversation is now dead...

@ martin brinkmann: your music is amazing..I am really glad that I discovered you here :)

@ salamanderanagram: tnx for the kind words...I might come to play at Symbiosis in SF.

@ bliss : tnx for your clear vision

@ LH : I got pretty amazing results with using cheap shit mics and ridicolous pre amps....a manley and a neumann (and autotune)are great tools to make a shit vocal (talking shit) sound amazing...but a great vocal doesn't necessary need those tools...especially if the lyrics are good.

pro kills music

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ LH

Another reminder: You solicited my opinion.

Anybody who reads your latest will observe its contradictory nature. Contrariness that spells misery.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

your entire rant is about how miserable you are.

no, it isn't. you seem to want to force the idea down my throat that I'm miserable and have come to you for advice, but I'm not and I haven't.

My 'rant', as you so graciously put it, is (for the third time) about how difficult it has become to make high-quality recordings (i.e., recordings that cost money to produce), in a world where recordings have no monetary value. As I wrote above, I'm worried that a form of art that I love is in danger of disappearing, or at least in danger of being in a much diminished state.

As for me, I'm not at all miserable and have nothing to complain about. As it turns out, I've been rather fortunate from a financial point of view, and for that I'm grateful.

How you can take away from what I've written that I'm ranting about my own misery is beyond me. Whatever. I hope you find someone who's genuinely in need of your counseling services.

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

bah: here's a tip: blow me.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ LH

Look, I get it -- you want to be right. Guess what, you are! You are right in your own right -- just not mine. You want to convince me of your point of view, but I don't share it. And I've said that I don't share your outlook several times. Yet instead of listening to that, you are still driven to convince me. It's like you're a Calvinist on a mission to reform and convert. Even when I suggest that you talk things over with your musical partner you take offense. At this point, as far as this conversation between you and I are concerned, the only thing I'm convinced of is that you want to convince me of how much you are offended by my comments.

As for taking things personally, your entire rant is about how miserable you are. If I suggest that you speak to your music partner, how exactly do I presume to have more in common with you? That doesn't make a bit of sense, and no sense at all. It's all about you. You are about you -- your issues are about you -- your music partner is about you -- general commentary is about you -- even CDM is about you because it's red and black, and you're black and blue.

As for personal attacks how's this: "Every time I stop by this forum, I’m left with the impression that anyone who actually earns a living from music is branded a dinosaur or a robber baron or whatever and is treated as persona non grata on the forums." You attack everybody because you feel like an outsider. You do this even though this blog's publisher specifically invited anyone -- anyone at all -- to participate and to be frank in this discussion.

At the most and the least I offered either/or propositions, and you were not forced you to choose anything. You can either work for what you want or not. That's what I basically said. But you seem to want musicians to be relieved from the burdens of working jobs unrelated to making music. You also demand that you get paid for your work as a musician. I say that both are possible if one work's for it, and you take offense. You don't agree with file sharing -- I get that. But you also are out of ideas of how to get people to pay you for your art -- I get that too. Two sure things I know are that people have to work for what they want in life -- and sometimes some people get lucky. So what I've also said is that if you work through your hardships to get what you want, then you also stand a chance of getting what you want. But you took offense at that too. Never mind the fact that you asked a question that can only be answered by a musician's passion and resourcefulness.

For the record, the first personal attack between us was launched by you: "What a lot of abstract nonsense! You should get out and meet some real musicians." Never mind the fact that your riposte was in response to a comment not addressed to you.

Whatever. Create your answers if you don't like what anybody else has to say.

I still say that if an artist loves his or her work and never makes a dime from it, then the artist still has love for what they do and works that they love. Which is a whole lot better than nothing. But you hate that idea -- I get that too.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

<blockquote cite="bliss">To ask that question, LH, means that you don’t know the answer, and since you don’t know the answer — that means that you’re not resourceful. On the other hand, your musical partner does know the answer.

My partner and I live and work together 24/7, and have for years. There isn't a hair's breadth of distance between the way we see the economics of the music business: we are in it together. How unbelievably presumptuous of you to suppose that you have more in common on this point with my own life and work partner than I have!

The mistake you keep making, Mr. Bliss, is to personalize this disucssion. Instead of thinking about the big picture of the music business, recording as art, the nature of copyright, etc., you make a personal attack on me (or whoever), as though the problem were no bigger than how will LH pay for dinner tonight, haha. From there you stoop even lower, to the assumption that my musical partner somehow has more in common with you than with the person who has lived and worked by her side for years on end. One ridiculous out-of-touch statement after the other comes out of your mouth.

The pity of it is that CDM really ought to be a place where matters of copyright, DRM, piracy, file sharing, net neutrality, technology, etc., can be discussed by everyone interested, including working musicians if they want to participate (why not?)

When the discussion spirals downward into personal attacks, it cuts the discussion off. But most importantly, it creates the impression that musicians aren't welcome at CDM somehow. Every time I stop by this forum, I'm left with the impression that anyone who actually earns a living from music is branded a dinosaur or a robber baron or whatever and is treated as persona non grata on the forums. It's really too bad.

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Tom Carter

oh - and im on aboput 21 mins in, and that is my orignal music playing as the soundbed track!

get dancing, good people of CDM!

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Tom Carter

I am appearing as an interviewee on the Open Thread Radio series ‘New Possibilities for Music Production and Distribution’,Episode 1, ‘The Economics of Digital Media’ alongside Dagmar Heijmans (founder of Sellaband) and songwriter Tommy Ludgate to talk about the future of the music industry.

You can listen to the whole show, presented by Kemal Rijken, if you go to my homepage! I cant seem to post the http link here...

enjoy!

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Tom Carter

hello!

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bah

bliss: here's a tip; stfu.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

E.X.P

to much intellectual bullcrap...

people do pirate cause it is easy and they love to steal when they can that is all... it has nothing to do with rights or anything else...

One day there will be a digital cop behind every computer because of those abuses , because people can restrain themself ...

that is why there are laws , because you can't trust people to be fair and honest , they love to think they are smarter than the system...

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ Andre

The desire for predictability in the marketplace is strong. The problem with that, I think, is systems that exhibit an acceptable amount of predictability tend to be subjugated to the interests of those few with financial and political power. Any new system that becomes standardized stands a good chance of exhibiting some of the more loathsome aspects of the current dying one. I'm optimistic, but perhaps we should be careful what we wish for.

But as PK says in his article: Product, self-promotion, and public image are everything. Those who put in the work building their fan base stand a chance of making a living at what they do. And what also is clear from that piece is making a living as an artist is not just about making the art, it's also about selling it and selling yourself. There are many hats that an artist has to wear: The artist hat, the marketing hat, the accounting hat, and the public relations hat. Many duties to fulfill but it's empowering, and if your business grows and your accounting is sound, you'll know when to hire assistance or not, when hiring or not hiring assistance means financial gains or losses.

But just about the only thing predictable thing these days is music will be downloaded for free -- and currently the powers that be are having a hard time wresting control of file sharer's means to do so. I think that's worth thinking about. Currently, mighty financial and political forces are trying to gain control of global digital distribution networks that facilitate sharing of music and other digital media. Typically and predictably they are trying to subjugate standardized systems that exhibit an acceptable amount of predictability. If those powers prevail, what then will independent artists do to reach global and local audiences who are not distracted by the corporatized chosen few? It's not a question that I like thinking about, because I don't know the answer. Though, I do wonder.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ LH

Like I said, "If..." and "If...". And as for the second comment of mine you quoted, what meaning am I supposed to get from this question of yours, "How do you find the time and the equipment to make good recordings in a world where good recordings are worth $0?" To ask that question, LH, means that you don't know the answer, and since you don't know the answer -- that means that you're not resourceful. On the other hand, your musical partner does know the answer. I suggest you pose the question to her and take notes. Have a nice life.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Andre

@bliss

"What’s a wider audience beyond the most important person? Five people, fifty people, five hundred, five million?"

it is, of course, very difficult to define what a "wider audience" means. For now I'll try this one: when you find yourself playing every week for dozens or hundreds of people each time, some of those times outside of your area of residence, then maybe that could be considered a wider audience. Obviously this is a completely personal/subjective take on the matter. You might have a different view (or decide it is not important to think on terms of "wider audience", period).

"Pick any artist whose music you do not like that has mass appeal, and ask yourself if that person’s music is deserving of a wider audience.

What if your opinion differs from the artist’s?"

Whether one thinks the artist deserves it, or if his work is good, is even more subjective than the "wider audience" issue.

My take on the discussion is how will the "system" work when an artist has found appeal for a certain number of people.

About this particular point, Peter Kirn posted a very interesting article over a year ago:

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/03/06/how-much...

where "1000 true, regular fans" is discussed as possible number of paying fans to support yourself in the long run.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

And for the record, I never applied any particular surmise to your situation

eh? earlier you wrote

@ LH

... If you are this kind of musician, great. If not, then you’re wasting your time here because you could be getting your hustle on elsewhere that would do much more for your bank account and time spent than arguing on a blog about something that you couldn’t care two cents about would do for either of those things.

and

@ LH

I’m sorry that you are not as resourceful as ALL the musicians I know. The musicians I know make music regardless of whether they make money or not.

Anyway, I agree with you that I'm wasting my time. See ya!

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ LH

I don't have anything to tell to your friend, she didn't ask me for my advice. And besides, she followed her passion regardless of her circumstances and, as you tell it, things eventually worked out in her favor. Sounds like she could teach you something, why don't you speak to her rather than trade barbs with me?

The other thing is that if you are not soliciting advice or opinion, why do you take issue with my comments and the comments of others? Remember, I didn't oppose anything that you said to begin with. On the other hand, you took issue with commentary that I made to no one in particular, and from that point I addressed your issues from my standpoint. If you have conflicts with my position that's fine, but it's obvious that I don't share your outlook. So we can leave it at that -- because it's boring having to suss and elucidate your insecurities from post to post, only to have deal with your snide responses. If you're an adult, you shouldn't be requesting the care of kid gloves.

And for the record, I never applied any particular surmise to your situation. I presented choices -- and then you reacted and responded as you did, choosing whichever that lent you the most frustration. So if you feel lectured and personally attacked, that's yours to figure out why. Don't accuse of trying to portray you in a certain way, when in fact you're the one who specifically sought my attention. Our exchange could have been over 24 - 36 hours ago if you had simply decided that what I said did not apply to you -- a choice that I did offer on several occasions. Or you could have ignored what I said, which would have been fine.

(My thoughts on the Italian earthquake recording were made in my first post.)

@ Andre

My approach is not to give any thought as to whether my music is "deserving of a wider audience". To me that's a waste of time because it involves variables that ultimately I have no control over. First and foremost, I have to like what I do. That's more than enough pressure. Everything else outside of that I provide a succinct, "I don't know." I don't know if my music is deserving of a wider audience, does anyone? What's a wider audience beyond the most important person? Five people, fifty people, five hundred, five million? That's just not important to me. Sure - why not make the attempt to get your music heard by as many people as possible. I don't see a problem with that, but even those who are superstars, can they really answer as to whether their music is deserving of a wider audience? Maybe. It would be easy for them to note that they do reach millions of people, but deserving of that ability? Pick any artist whose music you do not like that has mass appeal, and ask yourself if that person's music is deserving of a wider audience. What if your opinion differs from the artist's?

Trying to figure out how to make a living out of anything is not romantic bullshit, true! But having the disposition that you are entitled to a certain life and lifestyle in a capitalist society is bullshit, it's also narcissistic and if you're not careful, delusional. Not saying that you are, just saying.

But as I said to LH -- IF, IF , IF... I didn't say that you were one thing or the other. If you feel the need to explain to me why you are one thing and not the other, fine -- I'll listen, but that's your choice to say anything at all.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

@bliss

Another thing: what on earth would lead you to the conclusion from what I've written that I'm/we're not resourceful? Do you think we came up with a bunch of money to put into a recording, a record contract, etc., without being at least a little resourceful?

I mentioned, and will continue to mention publicly, the economics of our experience releasing a CD, to shed light on the music business, the fallout from piracy, the implications for recording, etc. I am not asking for anyone to pity me, and I'm certainly not asking for advice about how to pay my rent or whatever. It would be lovely to have a discussion with fellow musicians about this subject without being subjected to a tirade of ad hominem attacks, moralizing, etc.

Just to be clear once more: neither I nor anyone associated with me is soliciting advice about how to make ends meet. We have enough life experience to make decisions for ourselves about that. Neither am I writing anything in this forum as a way of crying about my financial situation, which anyway I haven't described except to say that I paid out such-and-such to make a CD and expect to earn nothing back from it, at least not directly.

As I wrote earlier: what concerns me is that it is becoming more and more difficult to make good recordings in a world where recordings have been assigned a value of $0. It is this problem, and not something about my personal finances, that I hoped to discuss here.

The Italian earthquake recording example that is not being discussed at all, since we seem not to get past beating each other up about personal finances and life choices, is a good example of the problem, actually. It has a moral dimension because of the charity aspect. But it also illustrates that even when a lot of people pitch in their time and equipment and talents for free, the whole thing amounts to a financial loss.

Is that something that interests you? Or do you write the whole thing off as a romantic delusion by the people involved, and tell them to get a job and get real?

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Andre

@bliss

I thought I had made myself quite clear...

i said,

"Is my work good enough that it deserves a wider audience in the future? That’s not for me to judge, but others.

However I take issue when people suggest I don’t love music and I’m only in it for the money."

If my music is not good enough (and like I said, that is for listeners to judge), then I should not expect to make a living out of it.

I briefly mentioned my own situation to better illustrate what I was trying to say (namely, how working full time can potentially harm your efforts). Whether I'll be sucessful in the future or not, is beside the point.

your quote:

"I have spoken in general terms, and so if you are offended then you need to examine possible reasons why."

I took issue with what you said previously - even though it was a general remark - because everyday I get people telling me musicians shouldn't expect to get paid one way or the other. So I let it fly off. Point taken.

your quote:

"Do you really expect someone like myself who has been a musician for 25 years to commiserate on some romantic bullshit about what it means to be an artist in this world, or a capitalist society? Please."

No I don't. I'm trying to reflect on the subject and watching this forum to see what answers can people come up with. Trying to figure out and trying to have a debate on how can a musician make living out of music once he has found an audience is not "romantic bullshit".

As for your painter friend - i think it's great if he's carrying on with his art whatsoever. your quote: "Someone who despite having lost a vital 20 year investment, is still making art because it is what he loves to do, and must do despite the obvious costs."

Nothing I said in my post strikes out at his example, or Quincy Jones' example, I think. Part of this discussion is about how to create a system avoid these situations when the artist has merit - like you said, there are no guarantees.

"But if you’re basing your life on what you think others should be doing for you — with no financial and political clout to back it up — then you are both delusional and foolish."

You're wrong, I'm not. I don't sit around waiting for somebody to support me for nothing, and I don't think musicians should rely on government handouts and whatnot, nor have I said anything that suggests that.

All the time I've been writing and reading other people's comments, I was reflecting on how it's being really hard to come up with a new system for compensating artists for their work, when there's an audience for their work. And my concern is that even concerts might not be enough in the future for independent artists.

I don't think it's wrong to wonder if we could come up with a system that supports artists that have found an audience for their work - whether it would be by encouraging direct dealings between artists and venues, without third parties involved, selling music through subscription services, coming up with social protection rules for people with infrequent work, etc. Any of these suggestions can potentially fail in their purpose. Even if they don't fail, it still doesn't mean the artist makes it, because obviously it ultimately depends on their work.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

@bliss,

You know, it's really tiresome to get a lecture about how to live and make music every time the subject of copyright comes up.

Let me tell you about my musical partner, a Chinese female singer. When she was not yet 20, her parents sold her as a mail-order bride to an overseas businessman. She broke out of the arrangement and set off to become a singer, with no money, no nothing. She says she couldn't sing one octave when she started, and got fired from job after job. 10 years later she had a gold record in Malaysia, had recorded film scores, commercials on TV and radio, all kinds of stuff, and she held down good singing gives nearly every night.

What do you have to teach her? Write something down here and I'll pass it on to her. Give her some of your sage counsel. Teach her something about the sacrifices that are necessary to be a real artist.

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Kleptomaniac

I've been caught stealing;

once when I was 5...

I enjoy stealing.

It's just as simple as that.

Well, it's just a simple fact.

When I want something,

I don't want to pay for it.

I walk right through the door.

Walk right through the door.

Hey all right! If I get by, it's mine.

Mine all mine!

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

Whoops!!! Sorry about those links! They are from another discussion that I am having about the difference between erotic cinema & porn. Yes, they're being used as sources for the discussion. But I would avoid them, if you're squeamish, and morally against such things. Feel free to remove them, PK!

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ Andre

Part of the problem, I think, is that some or many musicians have romantic delusions about what it means to be a musician. If you cannot write a piece of music or a song that is memorable to yourself, then you have more work to do. If your audience doesn't pay you for the privilege of listening to your music, then you have more work to do. You have to examine your practices on either account; what you practice, and your business practices.

And I really think it would help to read a biography or two of well known artists. It should be an eye-opener. Very few have lived from beginning to end with ideal circumstances in which to make art or music. Very few made much of a living at all. When they were not working to feed themselves, and in many cases their families, they worked at their craft. If one works a 9 to 5, then one has 7 hours left in the day to devote to their chosen art form. And it could be more than that depending on one's need for sleep. One can spend 30 minutes, an hour or two hours of art time before the workday begins, if one chooses. An artist can sketch on a lunch break; a writer can write on a lunch break; a musician can practice on a lunch break; a photographer can take pictures on a lunch break. The time is there, one just has to figure out how best to spend it. And if one's passion is strong enough, finding time to do what needs to be done is what one does.

At one point in time, John Coltrane danced on bar countertops and clucked like a chicken in order to help make ends meet -- and late at night he practiced saxophone silently in his bed while his wife slept next to him. His focus and work ethic are legendary. Quincy Jones was so poor his grandmother used to set traps in the field to catch rats, so that she could fry them up and serve them as dinner to Quincy and his brother. Years later, whenever Quincy was not hustling to feed his brother and himself, he worked on music. He worked on arrangements every free second that he had, and he let musicians -- musicians that could make a difference -- know about it.

I'm not concerned about people being offended. The matter is that either you're into your art because you love it, because of money, or for both reasons. Do you really expect someone like myself who has been a musician for 25 years to commiserate on some romantic bullshit about what it means to be an artist in this world, or a capitalist society? Please. One of my best friends is a painter and sculptor, and all he did was his art when not earning enough bread just to keep his studio. He did this for nearly 20 years, and sold few pieces. Well, he lost his studio a couple of weeks ago. He knew the right people, socialized in the right circles, worked at honing his abilities nearly all the time, was a fearless self-promoter, and he barely made a dime for all of his efforts. And get this, he's relieved! He's relieved that the burden of maintaining his work space for his art is off of his back. All of his art and most of his materials are now in public storage, and he's relieved! He's now working on small scale works with the enthusiasm of a much younger artist. So If I'm going to commiserate with someone, it's going to be someone like my friend. Someone who despite having lost a vital 20 year investment, is still making art because it is what he loves to do, and must do despite the obvious costs.

I have spoken in general terms, and so if you are offended then you need to examine possible reasons why. One thing is for sure, I don't have anything to do with your success or failure or misery as a musician in the marketplace. Being frank about some of the possible realities that a musician might face is not anything that should be taken as an insult. Getting out there, means getting out there and making what you deem fitting to happen in your life happen. But if you're basing your life on what you think others should be doing for you -- with no financial and political clout to back it up -- then you are both delusional and foolish. That's the reality. You are not guaranteed anything. You would do better to take care of yourself first, then your art -- and also divorce yourself from the idea that you should be able to make a living as an artist. Because it is detrimental to think that you are entitled to the life of an artist who subsists from the gains of his or her artistic genius.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Andre

@bliss & @LH

" bliss - If a musician loves to make music, then the intrinsic value of that should be greater than what they expect to earn from their music being commodified.

What a lot of abstract nonsense! You should get out and meet some real musicians.

If someone can’t afford to make music, because they are buried under an impossible burden of earning money from activities unrelated to music-making, then there is no music to be commoditized. There simply is no music in the world from them. There is a flipped hamburger or a poured espresso or a washed car or whatever from their hands, but no music. "

part of the point I was trying to make was very well put by LH. Bliss, I respect your opinion, and I can see you have thought about the subject deeply. I also make music and I completely understand that it is valuable by itself. It's as important for me as breathing, as I'm sure you can understand. But, as LH, says, I think you should get out more.

you say:

"The other point about value that I made referred specifically to musicians. If a musician loves to make music, then the intrinsic value of that should be greater than what they expect to earn from their music being commodified."

fine. That is completely true.

But how can they become skilled and truly write memorable music if most of their day is spent flipping burgers, or telemarkweting or worrying whether they'll have a roof on their heads the following month? My main question/doubt is: are we actaully managing to create a new model which supports musicians financially in the near future?

"If you are this kind of musician, great. If not, then you’re wasting your time here because you could be getting your hustle on elsewhere that would do much more for your bank account and time spent than arguing on a blog about something that you couldn’t care two cents about would do for either of those things."

I'm sorry, but that can be understood as an insult to a lot of people reading this forum - who passionately love and make music and need to take on jobs to support their basic needs - because even when they have an audience, the present system probably won't allow them to make a living out of their art.

I'm a part-time musician myself - and I also have a full-time job to support my needs (bills, a couple of meals everyday, a house, THOSE things). So I completely understand what a lot of these people (most musicians I know) are going through. The despair of having to waste 8, 9, 10 hours of your day in something completely unrelated to music, and realising your work could probably be a lot better if you had the hours to put in.

Is my work good enough that it deserves a wider audience in the future? That's not for me to judge, but others.

However I take issue when people suggest I don't love music and I'm only in it for the money.

To clarify once more: no, pre-recorded should NOT be the musician's main revenue source (and in this we agree); i DO NOT believe musicians should "sit around waiting for CD royalty checks" as you so well put it. They should practice, play gigs, get involved in related activities, whatever. I just think that if a musician finds an audience that likes his/her work, and if that audience is fairly big, the artist should be able to make a living out of it somewhow, in order for him/her to have space and time to improve further.

A quick mention to your post about CD pricing - you're right about pre-recorded music being overpriced. And, in a market system it's true that consumers have a say on what an item is worth - if they were being ripped off for some many years, a reaction was bound to happen when new and free distribution channels became available. Obviously there's no turning back, and we shouldn't long for the past in that matter.

The metaphor I used about the dark ages: I know that's not what you meant in your original post - let me clarify, I mentioned the "dark ages" (sic) because that's my personal and rather gloomy prediction of what the current state of affairs might bring about. First, we have and economic crisis, and secondly, "zero value" for pre-recorded music could also lead to a devaluing of live music ("why should I pay so much money for this concert?"). Again, this is just my view, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong on this one.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ LH

But those who love music make it because the benefit of making it outweighs the cost. And these are the people who are responsible for inspiring others to make music. Their passion for music is readily apparent. If you are this kind of musician, great. If not, then you're wasting your time here because you could be getting your hustle on elsewhere that would do much more for your bank account and time spent than arguing on a blog about something that you couldn't care two cents about would do for either of those things.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ LH

I'm sorry that you are not as resourceful as ALL the musicians I know. The musicians I know make music regardless of whether they make money or not. They teach music, they're in cover bands, they compose in their free time, they give music lessons outside of a formal environment, AND they get together with friends to make music just for the fun and love of it.

The writer of this blog, Peter Kirn, does so many music related things it's near impossible for me to keep track of what he does. He does SO MANY things that it is clear to all who follow his blog closely that he would be making music if it never earned him a dime. And he's not unique, there are many, many musicians who are as passionate as he is. Some of them are software engineers, doctors, lawyers, school teachers, plumbers, mail carriers, record store clerks, fast food clerks, janitors -- unemployed living at home with the parents for awhile types, which means they're damn near homeless but make music anyway -- and I met one guy who started his own pest control company after he got screwed over by a major label back in the 90s. He actually goes out into the field and exterminates whatever pest has invaded a customer's home that needs exterminating, and in the evening after work he - makes - music. He told me that he loves music so much that he crawls underneath homes for a living so that he doesn't have to give up music. That's passion! Period.

If you want to be a commercial musician first, despite having any love for what you do, then you can do that. In fact, many people do because they can. Because they have musical skills that translates into earning power. These people could be doctors or lawyers or politicians, but that doesn't mean that they are passionate about helping people. They are only passionate about acquiring wealth. And if you are that kind of musician, then you have plenty of company. But the clue that you don't seem to have that those kinds of musicians typically have, is that they don't sit around waiting for CD royalty checks -- they are first and foremost hustlers, and so they always have something going on on the side that's going to keep their bills paid, and being a musician is just one of those things that makes them money. If making music stopped earning them money, then they would no longer make music -- it would be replaced by something else that would earn money. Something else that fits their cost to benefit ratio much better.

But those who love music make it because the benefit of making it outweighs the cost. And these are the people who are responsible for inspiring others to make music. Their passion for music readily apparent. If you are this kind of musician, great. If not, then you're wasting your time here because you could be getting your hustle on elsewhere that would do much more for your bank account and time spent than arguing on a blog about something that couldn't care two cents about would do for either of those things.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

<blockquote cite="JN">Also, why is nobody challenging the assumption that the capitalist model is the best one for musical and artistic production, or for other forms of production?

I think several of the contributors to this thread have questioned that assumption. I for one agree that the discussion should place this question front and center. I think that this, and the closely related question of whether copyright and other forms of intellectual property have a place in the modern world, are the very heart of this issue.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

JN

I'm pretty late to this discussion, but I wanted to give Tom Carter the good news: nobody is downloading your stuff!

Also, why is nobody challenging the assumption that the capitalist model is the best one for musical and artistic production, or for other forms of production?

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

@DooKoo: +!

You don't have to wait and wonder: what you describe is happening now.

It is what has happened in China, where intellectual property is considered toilet paper and piracy is practiced openly by major companies. The government has become the most important "artistic" (cough) force in the country, and musicians scramble around looking for opportunities to get government grants of various kinds for making music. The Olympics (which was government-organized over here) was perhaps the most significant musical event of the last decade from the point of view of arrangers, composers, etc. Of course, the government has an agenda, and when a composer plays this game, something of the independence and freedom of expression of the individual artist is lost.

It is also what is happening when artists sign commercial endorsement deals with big corporations. They agree to push the point of view of their corporate sponsor in exchange for money. You won't find a music who is sponsored by Microsoft taking a public position against Microsoft's monopolistic activities, for example.

In the U.S., lots of contemporary musicians scramble for the tiny budget doled out by the NEA and other such government agencies. But of course during the Bush administration this came with a host of political and even religious strings attached. It is a system that is easily abused and manipulated by those who control the purse.

It's an irony, to say the least, and it's more than a little bit ridiculous that it's being egged on (not to say, implemented and carried out) by a bunch of folks who think they are tearing down the institutions of power, democratizing music, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But it seems inevitable at this point that we will drive headlong into the new reality before looking it squarely in the face to see whether that's really where we want to go.

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

DooKoo

Prior to some time around the mid 1800s, musicians were supported by patrons: royalty, wealthy merchants, the Church, etc. who showed off their musicians' skill as a sign of their own power. Perhaps we will return to this system; for example, a large corporation, wealthy family, or local municipality might keep a musician on retainer to work exclusively for them, creating special music for their landmark announcements and social events. In the 21st century, the university functions as a patron for some musicians, keeping them to teach students and compose/perform new music. I even know a couple of people who serve in the military by playing in the Marine band and a couple of organist/composers who have full-time gigs performing and composing for large religious institutions. Maybe the era of the individualistic/independent artist is coming to a close, and we will return to the prior tradition of "functional" music, written in support of religion, the government, and the wealthy.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

<blockquote cite="bliss">If a musician loves to make music, then the intrinsic value of that should be greater than what they expect to earn from their music being commodified.

What a lot of abstract nonsense! You should get out and meet some real musicians.

If someone can't afford to make music, because they are buried under an impossible burden of earning money from activities unrelated to music-making, then there is no music to be commoditized. There simply is no music in the world from them. There is a flipped hamburger or a poured espresso or a washed car or whatever from their hands, but no music. Because they don't have time, and even if they did have time, they are not the lucky doctor or lawyer who can buy whatever computers and other recording equipment they need to make good recordings. But the most important thing is time. What being a professional musician buys you is the time to spend getting better at music and making better music.

You speak as though the whole problem were some abstract tradeoff between spiritual value and material value. The problem is infinitely more concrete and material than that: how do you find the time and the equipment to make good recordings in a world where good recordings are worth $0? The best answer to this is: you get an unrelated job that pays you lots of money and you solve the problem using that money. This is an answer that works for a doctor but not for someone whose only skill in life is making music!

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

Anyway, your own view of the fate of vintage gear seems unnecessarily elitist. What’s wrong with a doctor hoovering up a premium mic through which to scratch out a shaky Love Me Tender after a stressful day, er, saving people’s lives and livelihoods? Am I wrong to be sensing that you believe music far too important for just anyone to play with…?

I'm sad because many good musicians that I know will no longer have access to good recording equipment, while wealthy people with no hint of musical talent will. Is that elitism, haha? I think it's the very opposite of elitism. Elitism is seeing it as perfectly appropriate that only the rich and well-heeled have access to music-making equipment, while those with talent have to do without.

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ Andre

Even when new and successful business models are created that work for the sale of music, you can bet that those models will not be used exclusively for the sale of music. Art, entertainment, and media are no longer mutually exclusive of one another. Though, if you're talking Pablo Picasso, that could be argued as an exception. But if you're talking Andy Warhol or Takashi Murakami, then you get my point.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

@ Andre

I made two basic points about value. The first referred to financial value. Do you see people willing to pay for music at the same prices they paid nine years ago? I used to make my living buying and selling music for a national record retailer. $15.99 - $19.99 was the average price range for CDs regardless of whether they were new releases, recent releases, or catalog. And even then, back in 2001, folks complained about Sony/Columbia, Prestige, and Verve catalog prices that were in the $7.99 - $9.99 range. The were basically three price range tiers for CDs: $15.99 - $19.99, $11.99 - $14.99, $7.99 - $9.99 and all distributors, majors and independents, adhered to that structure. Imports commanded prices from $19.99 - $32.99.

Customers routinely complained of new release CDs priced on sale at $8.99 or $9.99, CDs that were regularly priced from $15.99 & $19.99, but they still bought them. And they mainly bought them because anywhere one shopped, the pricing structure was the same -- especially for Top 10 - 100 titles. There might have been a little variability for some hot titles, but why travel 20 - 30 minutes just to save 79¢ - 99¢? The cost in time and transportation would defeat the savings.

Consumers determine the value of goods and services -- not the providers of goods and services. In other words, prices are determined on what the market will bear. So you can go on an on about the "dark ages", which was not the point I made, but the truth is that file sharing has impacted what people are willing to pay for music. In the marketplace, music is not worth what it used to be.

Pre-recorded music is now used as loss-leaders for big box retail chains like Wal-Mart and Target. Whereas a brick & mortar store used to be able to operate profitably from music sales alone, the sale of CDs at steep discounts is now used to bait customers into stores with the hopes of also selling them plasma TVs and surround sound audio systems. Music is not worth what it used to be.

The fact that any music title can be digitally copied an infinite amount of times at no cost to file sharers, uploaders and downloaders, means that the music being shared has no financial value --think, zero value -- between those who are sharing the music. All of the distribution systems used are available to any person on the globe with an Internet connection.

A side note: The file sharing boom really exploded with Napster. The main offenders were mostly people who could afford to buy music. Wealthy and middle class college students (people who used to spend a high percentage of their disposable income on music), and tech industry professionals (mostly Web development types). Those were the people who had easy access to broadband connections on college campuses and in tech industry workplaces. Compared to today, very few homes had broadband connections at that time. Earthlink dial-up was still the most popular way to connect to the Internet.

The other point about value that I made referred specifically to musicians. If a musician loves to make music, then the intrinsic value of that should be greater than what they expect to earn from their music being commodified. Likewise, listeners who love music don't stop at price points in order to support artists. They not only buy music, but they also attend concerts, music festivals, and some buy memorabilia.

One of the main ways music lovers have supported their favorite music artists has been by giving away copies of recordings to their friends. That is a time-tested truth that has been around since the widespread availability of audio recording devices. By giving away copies of music, music lovers helped to increase an artist's audience. Indeed many artists became musicians because a relative or friend gave them a copy of an album that he or she loved. So the value of sharing music cannot be easily dismissed.

There have been many valid points raised in this discussion, but the picture is complex and many things should be considered. We can sit and complain in our little corner all we want, but until the picture improves for most people, regardless of whether they are musicians or not, it is not likely that the picture for musicians will improve to any significant measure, financially speaking. But the intrinsic value of music can only endure within those who love music.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

gwenhwyfaer

Ah. My turn to screw up the quoting, it seems.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

gwenhwyfaer

<blockquote cite="LH">I thought that studios were part and parcel of the "dinosaur" whose extinction we are witnessing

Sorry that my use of metaphor confuses you.

<blockquote cite="LH">studios are noted for needing to pay for their equipment and electricity and rent.

And for charging hourly and daily rates to cover those expenses, and make some profit on the side.

But more generally, you seem to be suggesting that the fate of studios can be traced directly to the undermining of recording copyright. Um - I think you'll find that difficult to prove; I certainly don't accept it as a given. I think the two declines have related causes; but aside from anything else, I strongly suspect that the demise of the studio predates the rise of P2P - simply because computers became powerful enough to replace outboard gear a little while before the communications infrastructure underpinning the Internet became fast enough to allow for the fast transfer of large-ish files. Not very long, but enough to dispose of any possibility of causality.

Anyway, your own view of the fate of vintage gear seems unnecessarily elitist. What's wrong with a doctor hoovering up a premium mic through which to scratch out a shaky Love Me Tender after a stressful day, er, saving people's lives and livelihoods? Am I wrong to be sensing that you believe music far too important for just anyone to play with...?

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

<blockquote cite="gwenhwyfaer">Expensive microphones…? Again, that’s a cost that one would generally expect the studio to meet; any studio worth its salt ought to have a range of mics on tap, the selection of which should have been guided by quality and variety rather than price.

My head is spinning. I thought that studios were part and parcel of the "dinosaur" whose extinction we are witnessing and sometimes applauding and perhaps even encouraging, to make way for the fieldmice of the future. While they are not noted for receiving royalties, as you say, studios are noted for needing to pay for their equipment and electricity and rent. They certainly can't go on tour, haha, although I'm sure that before it's all over, someone will chide them for not going on tour.

Anyway: studios are going the way of the dodo. So our expensive microphone needs a new home. Mauxuam thinks it's ridiculous for an artist to own it. God knows we wouldn't want it to fall into the hands of someone who could, you know, use it. So who is going to pay for and own the wonderful microphone?

The answer is: some doctor or lawyer who likes to play rock star in his spare time at home. He will buy the microphone in a fire sale and use it to record his own bad singing on weekends, haha. Cue the field mice.

It probably sounds like I'm being snarky, but I think the scenario I've written down is realistic and is actually what is happening, by and large.

<blockquote cite="martin brinkmann">i cant even listen to

monolake(*) anymore without having to think of teenagers sued for

ridiculous high amounts, eavesdropping internet communication,

corrupt politicians making anti-democratic laws, drm and all this,

I sure am glad I read your post! Up until I read it, I thought record labels were failing right and left, going bankrupt willy-nilly and dropping like flies. I myself was signed to a record label that went bankrupt less than a year after I signed with them. Everything I read, and every first-hand contact I have with record labels indicated to me that they are finished: headed for the dustbin with virtually no hope of being saved.

But it turns out, as I learn from what you've written, that record labels have actually prevailed over the internet! They have had their way, legislatively. Far from being victims of piracy, they have imposed their will on the public, and indeed they have gone even farther than that, and have granted themselves extra advantages, the way that the most powerful monopolies always do: with impunity. All the artists whining about the loss of copyright revenue is silly and nonsensical: in fact the copyright laws are being enforced and indeed over-enforced!

The music business is in fat city.

I have to reconsider all my experience in the music business after reading this!

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Andre

PS - sorry for the typos

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Andre

@bliss

I appreciate your effort to try to bring a "bigger picture" view on the subject, but we should probably focus a little bit:

1 - it is getting harder and harder for musicians (especially independent ones) to make a living out of music (particularly in the current economic climate, capitalism's meltdown, etc)

2 - musicians should not rely solely on record sales - however that doesn't mean that shouldn't be compensated for their hard work somehow; the problem is that no one has been able to completely figure out an ideal model where a fair price is paid and where we don't have a recording industry chasing down kids who download tracks; maybe introduce an "internet tax for content" as some suggested in the past? that would probably also be tricky; i honestly don't know)

3 - as I said in my previous post, even though some sort of model should be found for paying for recorded music, musicians should distribute some of their music free - it helps capture new audiences

4 - all that considered, a musician's main revenue should be performing live; that is what music is manly about anyway.

My fear is that the current climate will end up devaluing live music as well

Finally, to quote what you said:

"Today recorded music is abundant to an unlimited extent, and that means it’s not worth as much as it used to be. That’s a fact we have to get over. If you have to work a day job, work a day job."

I respectfully (and totally) disagree. We shouldn't just accept involution, we should be lookking for a new model. You may not mind returning to a sort of dark age where music is a luxury for rich people while most people barely have the time to practice their instrument (analogue or electronic) and barely have money to afford buying the tools they need - but personally, I have a problem with that situation.

Stockhausen, Miles Davis, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, NIN, Arcade Fire, etc. All musicians I consider brilliant (that's only my opinion, of course) - and regardless of the times they lived in or in which business model they operated - they all managed somewhow to become full-time musicians - one of the main reasons they eneded up writing brilliant stuff and performing amazingly.

What you're proposing is that we simply accept a vicious circle of continuous devaluation of music and lowering of artistic standards.

Just because copying music isn't exactly like stealing (although it IS a little bit like stealing, one might argue) it doesn't mean musicians shouldn't be entitled to make a living out of their art, especially when they manage to find an audience.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

martin brinkmann

sorry, grammar error. luckiely i am still able to enjoy listening to monolake.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

martin brinkmann

@fannar

i don not talk about "how music should be free".

of course you are right concerning 'selling my records'.

i have not thought good enough about it, and

'sell that crap' was just the 2nd best i came across after

i found out that 'burn that crap' would not be ideal.

of course i should give away my collection for free, though

putting it on the street is not what i want. (i want to give

my records only to people who otherwise would have bought it)

any suggestions?

i think when i reached the point that i cant even listen to

monolake(*) anymore without having to think of teenagers sued for

ridiculous high amounts, eavesdropping internet communication,

corrupt politicians making anti-democratic laws, drm and all this,

i will do exactly that: give away my records.

(*) of course monolake is not (that ;)) evil. my monolake cds

will be among the last ones i give away.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Fannar

@martin brinkmann "i feel guilty everytime i see my huge cd/record

collection on the shelf. i helped to fund these fascists. i should sell all the crap…"

LOL it's funny to see you talk about how music should be free and by buying CD's you helped fund "these fascisct" but you still talk about SELLING your CD's !! If music is free why don't you just put those CD's out on the street... Oh wait ... you paid for it, therefore you don't want to loose money.. The artist doesn't want to loose money for his hard work either !

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

gwenhwyfaer

An aside: Rereading Tom Carter's contributions earlier, I was amused to read the phrase "the greed and selfishness of illegal file-sharing". Yes, those greedy selfish people, sharing their stuff with anyone who asks and expecting nothing in return. How dare they!

I'm sure such things were also said of the Diggers.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

gwenhwyfaer

LH:

<blockquote cite="LH">no apology necessary! I guess it follows that things like grand pianos and exotic instruments and expensive microphones and all those other remnants of the gilded age of capitalist excess in music (haha) are now things of the past.

Grand pianos are lovely for performance, and of course, they do cost rather a lot of money. But how many concert pianists gig with their own grand piano? In reality, and by necessity, the costs of a concert-ready grand piano will be borne by the venue. Or by the recording studio, of course - and recording studios are not noted for receiving royalties.

(But grand pianos are probably not the best examples available, now that Pianoteq can provide anyone with a very easily recorded, beautifully modelled grand piano for a couple of hundred bucks.)

Now granted, it is possible to gig a Stradivarius. But would any violinist worth their salt ever dare? Maybe once or twice a year, for very special occasions; even if they were more foolhardy, their insurance company would probably have some stern words on the matter. More exotic instruments? Well, oddly enough, the rarity of an instrument doesn't necessarily correspond to monetary value; indeed, some obscure instruments are actually relatively cheap.

Expensive microphones...? Again, that's a cost that one would generally expect the studio to meet; any studio worth its salt ought to have a range of mics on tap, the selection of which should have been guided by quality and variety rather than price. In any case, they're a one-off investment, to be repaid over time. That even applies to the Manley tube pre-amp.

And you know, there's a reason the high end gear is unfeasibly expensive - it's precisely because it's expected that studios (concert halls, etc) will buy it, than individual musicians. And once upon a time, you had to book studio time to make a decent recording. That all changed a decade or so ago, of course, with consequent, disastrous effects on the studio business (although venues, of course, continue to do OK... at least until some ideologue decides to ban smoking).

And, yes, if you're talking about simply making a competent recording of a musical performance, $10k preamps are unnecessary. They'll come into their own in the hands of a pro who knows exactly when they will make the difference between excellent and breathtaking, but they aren't fairy dust to sprinkle on mediocre; frankly, high end gear is wasted on someone who can't make a compelling recording with a portastudio and an SM57.

<blockquote cite="LH">I have a dear friend who has worked in the recording business in Shanghai for years. He lives in an unspeakable apartment, about 10ft square, and is forever having health problems (which he can ill-afford). As I read the posts here, I feel that many of you have no heart concerning such people. You speak of them as though they are wealthy millionaires lying around on the beach. How can you be so far out of touch with reality?

I'm sorry to hear about your friend's situation. I hope something happens to change it. But you have to understand, the amount musicians earn from copyright is of no bearing to the morality of it whatsoever. I fully understand that most musicians will never earn a living from their royalties - but the fact that they and their chosen representatives have campaigned for a series of ever-stricter laws to ensure that they are awarded more of those royalties, for longer, and have the power to throw people in prison and bankrupt them for doing perfectly natural everyday things if they don't get those royalties...? That is immoral and foul, and I cannot support it. (In particular I am disgusted beyond measure that what should be a matter of civil law between private parties is now routinely pursued through the criminal courts; I cannot adequately express how morally abhorrent I find that situation.)

As I say, I'm sorry for your friend, and I hope he finds a way out of his misery (if, indeed, he is miserable) - but holding society at large to ransom cannot and should not be that way out. If artists truly believe themselves to need financial support over and above what they can attract fairly in a free marketplace, then they should campaign for artists' welfare. But copyright has always had to be supported by statute, and has therefore never been part of a free market - and that's even less true today.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

<blockquote cite="salamanderanagram">$10,000 amps are unnecessary. sorry.

no apology necessary! I guess it follows that things like grand pianos and exotic instruments and expensive microphones and all those other remnants of the gilded age of capitalist excess in music (haha) are now things of the past.

The Brave New World is a more difficult place to make a good vocal recording than the Old World, I think it has to be said. :-)

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

aaron

haha.. some moron named Tom tried to school Martin Brinkmann.. that is something I find very hilarious.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

^^^(Pardon the grammatical errors. I copy and pasted the wrong and not fully edited version. But it's pretty much what I wanted to say.)^^^

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

bliss

LH, it's not so much being opposed to notions of property, as it is taking a close look at what belief in property ownership does to people. Personally, I think that it's much healthier to have the attitude that things which are considered property be thought of as being designated for one's use for a limited period of time. We would be much less miserable if we had the sense that natural and artificial things are not at our disposal, but rather are available for us to use in limited ways for limited periods of time. If we thought this way and it formed the core of our societal belief systems, methods of preservation, sustainability, and renewability would be naturally built into the system. But our system is based on development, consumption, and disposability. Because of this, it's not a small wonder that artists such as your friend and my friends suffer.

We being musicians is a rather insignificant point, really. The fact that humans collectively and individually impact the total value of all available human resources relative to the global economic system is far more significant. It is not a small wonder that said economic system determines that some nations are without value, and thus can be entirely dismissed.

Again, focusing solely on the financial aspect while ignoring the human aspect is what put us in this mess in the first place. That we ignored the environmental aspect is at least equally important.

Our trials as musicians are but a symptom of a larger malaise. Our system, i.e., our traditional ways of doing business is coming to a close -- but we're not exactly sure what the root cause is. We believe it to be many things; corruption at all levels of the system is one of them, a lethargic public is another, short-sightedness is another. Read the business section of any online news source to get a sense of the panic corporations, large and small, are feeling. Many are hemorrhaging, many are near collapse. As far as music is concerned, the fact is that most music production is financed to some extent, and so losing financing means musicians will suffer. Musicians are suffering because fewer acts are being signed to record labels. Loss of royalties due to poor CD sales, for whatever reason, means musicians suffer. If you have too many live acts playing locally on any given night of the week, musicians will suffer. Fewer tourists at resorts, musicians suffer. However, the obvious point here is that musicians are not the only people suffering.

Today recorded music is abundant to an unlimited extent, and that means it's not worth as much as it used to be. That's a fact we have to get over. If you have to work a day job, work a day job. No one is guaranteed a living from creating art. But -- suffer for your art if you have to. At least your pain and joy of the process are yours alone.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

salamanderanagram

i can only say it so many times - sorry that it hasn't worked out for you but the business model is changing and you will have to change with it.

"The “Manley Tube preamp” that mauxuam smirked at in his post above is a piece of recording equipment, for crying out loud"

the thing costs more than my entire studio, and the more expensive ones are more than i make in a year. music gear that expensive i think is dying out. some of the best producers in the game right now just use a daw and some plugins and some simple equipment. $10,000 amps are unnecessary. sorry.

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

dammit, I'm really not good at the quoting thing. sorry. :-P

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

LH

<blockquote cite="salamanderanagram">i think big studio bands have always toured to make money as most album sales go to paying back the studio for making and releasing the album, but i may be wrong about that. while this sucks, yelling at (non)consumers about it helps nothing, as good as it may feel.

it's such a popular myth that it is now taken as fact and used to explain why it should not matter to artists if all the money that was previously made from selling recordings suddenly disappears. the argument goes like this: since artists had to pay back all the production costs to the label anyway, then it should not matter to artists if this money disappears; because then there is simply nothing to pay back. they can keep their performance revenue. so they'll actually come out ahead!

What's missing is the actual recording, haha. This equation does not explain how new recordings of high quality will be produced. How do you produce something that costs money to produce, recordings that go beyond what can be done using only a computer and one's own individual musical efforts?

Someone has to pay for the making of good recordings. It does not matter much (to me anyway) who it is, so long as it gets done somehow. A band with no recording or only a low-quality recording is free to tour and keep its revenue, that's true, but it is much less likely to succeed than a band with well-produced recordings.

That's not to even mention promotion of the recordings, which is another big can of worms, haha.

Another thing (haha): I have not, as far as I know, yelled at anybody about anything. I have certainly never yelled at a consumer or nonconsumer, fan or critic. I know perfectly well that most people who hear our recordings listen to illegally downloaded copies, and I have never once chided or scolded anyone about that, nor even mentioned it in fact. I am much less of a scold and a moralist than the very vocal anti-copyright types who frequent this forum, haha. My partner and I (and our producer) are concerned about only a very few things: how do we make the next recording? How can we make it better than the last recording? And how do we make ends meet until then?

-LH

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Like

Gooooooal! A Soccer Ball Music Controller, and Tangible Interface Tips for Music A link to the archives Mash-Up Video Inside Ableton with a MIDI-Controlled Plug-in