The Internet: All the music in the world that nobody's buying…

[macmurphy]

I have read this thread and now feel seriously f**king confused and depressed

That is all.

[deaf dunderkwac]

How to be a commercial (music) artist:

The Questionnaire

Q.1- Do you look good?

Q.2- Do you look really really really good on camera?

Q.3- Can you almost talk clearly? (optional)

if you answered yes to questions one and two congratulations!- You're On Your WAY BABY

[lilith2k3]

I think, selling Music via the internets -as a pars pro toto for "the traditional way" (i.e. "selling music as on a medium") - is betting on the wrong horse.

If you are an artist, who want's to get paid for your work, go to the club and performe live. If you are good, people come and pay. If you are bad, you will see it immediately.

The digital age makes it possible to have data everywhere at nearly no cost; and one sideeffect is piracy. I think piracy is not the root of all evil, it is only a symptom for a changing business.

If you look at other sectors of the electonic business, e.g. news-sites, you see, that the traditional concept of "paying for content" doesn't really work. Customers aren't willing to pay for the news, so most of the newsmags made their content free accessible. Money is earned via advertising.

And btw. nobody copyies free accessible content.

If you transpose the news-concept to music, the artist sells e.g. a hit to a Carmanufacturer who places the song on their site, offering it for free download. The artist get's his pay-check and the Company brushes up its image by sponsoring the artist. And last but not least, the customer gets the song for free. So, everybody is happy.

In short: traditional music business is dead! Long live the music

[Xenos]

There is no way this is democratising. It just clogs things up to the point where peole stop trying to find the good stuff.

I think people want to listen to music, not turn finding things they like into a job.

I'd rather have a cluster f*ck of dodgy music than be spoon-fed the 'taste' of some coked-up A&R chimp. I'm old enough to remember how shyte it was to have a few dominant companies that dictated what was worthy and what was not.

You raise an interesting point that resonates with me. I'm a big fan of very experimental types of music that would be most likely thrown in the junk bin with the A&R folks. With so many people posting their music on the net, both amateur and pro, I've found some real avant-garde treasures by complete no-names which I never would have been exposed to otherwise.

@ deaf dunderkwac: You too, raise a good point. That's something that's always bugged me...how the major lables typically pick the best looking folks. How many plain looking women with serious talent you do think got passed over on a multi-million deal in favor of some barbie doll bimbo with less talent? Not cool .

[Hitch]

As the very civil tone of your post suggests, you must have realized that I was being deliberately outrageous for satirical purposes:)

I strive to remain civil whatever the provocation.

However, if I know for a fact that CC has nothing to do with legitimising piracy, I must disagree with your opening statement: " CC music is not meant to replace coyprighted, commercial music or the copyright, commercial music business". Lessig makes it pretty clear, and his followers even more, that CC are an alternative to what they call the "Big C" and its ludicrous licensing schemes.

Yes, as I said, an alternative not a replacement.

What's the point of creating a "commons" of works of art that can be freely "remixed"[tm] or criticising very harshly (and sometimes rightly so) the consequences of the Sonny Bono act if it is only to secure the outlet of amateurish works, which, by definition aren't actually raising any serious copyright licensing questions?

Well, aren't people allowed to decide for themselves if they'd like a CC licence? The objective artistic merit of a work is irrelevant. Even "amateurs" strike lucky sometimes, creating something that becomes popular, in which case they might be grateful for a CC licence. The internet has created grey legal waters for everyone. CC is an attempt to bring some order to the chaos. It's certainly not a perfect solution, but nor are the current copyright laws. I think of CC licences as an adjunct to traditional copyright.

CC licences make legitimate sharing easier. Perhaps this video will clarify CC's relationship to traditional copyright:

Get Creative!

It is clear from most of the advocacy material from CC that the vocation of their licenses is way broader than that.

Yes, Lessig and co. want to apply CC licences to a much broader spectrum of intellectual material than just music. They're very keen on making academic research more accessible. Wikipedia recently applied a CC licence on most of their entries - after taking a vote from Wikipedia members and users. However, I freely admit that I'm no expert in copyright law or in the ultimate intention of the Creative Commons community. I'm just a lone idiot who likes to thank CC musicians for their work by publicising their music as best I can.

[zircon]

If you transpose the news-concept to music, the artist sells e.g. a hit to a Carmanufacturer who places the song on their site, offering it for free download. The artist get's his pay-check and the Company brushes up its image by sponsoring the artist. And last but not least, the customer gets the song for free. So, everybody is happy.

In short: traditional music business is dead! Long live the music Wink

So, you'd rather have a world where the success of a brilliant musicians depends on how well their music sells toilet paper, cars and cell phones, rather than how many people love the music? Because that's what you're saying - that instead of catering to the PUBLIC, the consumers of music, we are now catering to giant corporations who certainly care less about music than the "evil" major record labels did.

Sounds like a pyrrhic victory to me.

[ckatrun411]

How to be a commercial (music) artist:

The Questionnaire

Q.1- Do you look good?

Q.2- Do you look really really really good on camera?

Q.3- Can you almost talk clearly? (optional)

if you answered yes to questions one and two congratulations!- You're On Your WAY BABY

Meh, well.... You need some sort of gimmick. It wont be long now before Levi Johnston has a hit single.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 31,00.html

[tjl100]

Internet(most new) Radio will be made in India(low cost 3rd world), in "creative A&R factories",like video games, stars will be rich teens dressed up and danced around for merchanisers, the national governments will control what other acts are allowed, by controlling live shows, distrubtion channels licsening(who can own a radio/tv/interportals transmitter)its scary looking from here as to what is really going on.Governments are AR groups, looking to control tax streams for some self benfit.

[GW]

There was a time when the record companies could be trusted as filters. The legendary stories are still around about how the listening person would get a bag of tapes a day and throw each one out after 30 secs of listening. The stores had the pop in with the experimental with the funk. We could buy records based on the label and pictures on the cover. I think this was ended by greed and "marketing" by the mid/end 70's. Many records I bought did not appeal to me at first listen but grew to be more significant upon further study. I really miss this kind of depth in music today. Most music is being judged on its initial appeal. I want to beleive in the new model, but I'm getting tired of wading through all the hobby music and finding nothing. The most souless music out there is (zipping up flameproof suit) all the resampled and looped repetition tunes. I think the next advancement will be proper filter reviews not linked to self interest.

[thecontrolcentre]

There was a time when the record companies could be trusted as filters.

I couldn't agree less ...

[dbrane]

How to be a commercial (music) artist:

The Questionnaire

Q.1- Do you look good?

Q.2- Do you look really really really good on camera?

Q.3- Can you almost talk clearly? (optional)

if you answered yes to questions one and two congratulations!- You're On Your WAY BABY

Meh, well.... You need some sort of gimmick. It wont be long now before Levi Johnston has a hit single.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 31,00.html

In the documentary Before the Music Dies, Erykah Badu gives the career advice "Create your own publicity, y'know do some ho shit" It's a good movie, Branford Marsalis has some funny and true things to say too. I guess it's on you tube or google vids even though its not CC.

On another note, I really dislike the idea that adverts pay for arts in general. I don't think it works generally. An example: Earlier today I was listening a Basic Channel compilation on Spotify. As I'm not a paying member I was subjected to commercials in between tracks. These commercials do probably not pay for much of anything. Rather, they are more like nag-screens to get people to subscribe to the service. E.g. I am not likely to buy Black Eyed Peas which is obvious from my history playlist. However, the commercials pause if I mute the sound (clever and annoying).

[androidlove]

not only do i appreciate industry filters and find it hard to listen to most indie music, i think pop music is an artistic rallying point for the people. music brings us together

[invitia]

The problem today is not selling your music, it's finding someone who is willing to pay you for your work.


I can't stand the attitude that "I am sooo special and I deserve to get paid for what ever shit I produce"


Sorry it doesn't work like that.

As already mentioned in this thread, all music and art we today consider to be classics were manufactured and made because someone ordered and paid for it. Michelangelo did not spend years laying on his back painting the Sistine chapel for fun, the church paid him for it. Most of the classical music pieces were ordered by someone, for the wedding, the coronation of the king or a funeral.


Either you produce something that someone wants to pay you for, or you find a daytime job outside of the music business.


If you want to be a star, be ready to sacrifice your pride and you better be good looking.


If you want to be famous singing songs about the terrible state of the world, in a voice that is out of tune and you look like a beggar, sorry the train left long ago. Dylan could do this back in the 60s, but these days are over.


Yes, any little kid can download some warez, slap some loops together and call this music. Just don't expect to make money from it.

The internets is flooded by stuff that never should have left the bedroom. I have better things to do than listen through the piles. I listen to a lot of new, unreleased music, but only where I have received a recommendation from people that I know and trust.

Amen!

[azyte]

Blaming labels for only signing attractive specimens is a red herring. They exist as a business and business must conform to the market. If the market is manipulated enough to only want attractive specimens then that's the only thing which will work. Exceptions always exist, of course. If blame is the game - and I don't play it, personally - then it rests with the shapers of society. That's us, we humans who shove and jostle and get our ideas out there and occasionally paid attention to.

If talentless blonde bimbo's are all we get, we asked for it. And there are exceptions.

There was actually a time when labels acted as reasonable filters and could be somewhat trusted. The reason for that is that up until around the late 70's early 80's many of the people who worked at labels - from teaboy to CEO - were first music fans and second businesspeople. That began changing when lawyers and accountants made lots of noise about the wasteful ways money at the labels was spent. Sign twenty bands and one might crack it was the order of the day and signing a band meant a sizeable investment. If you're designed to be an accountant, someone who makes sure the numbers stack up, what would you make of such a haphazard arrangement?

During the late 80's, through the 90's and up to the early 00's labels creamed in the cash. The legal and accounting fraternity ensured that. I'm not sure if they already knew that that process - denaturing music by reducing the entire process to cash value - would be short term in nature, that it had a finite life to do its thing, but it has turned out that way.

The record labels are over - they're a spent, anachronistic, nearly irrelevant entity on life-support. In the bigger picture they're simply a small aspect of so many once revered institutions being shown the door.

[lilith2k3]

If you transpose the news-concept to music, the artist sells e.g. a hit to a Carmanufacturer who places the song on their site, offering it for free download. The artist get's his pay-check and the Company brushes up its image by sponsoring the artist. And last but not least, the customer gets the song for free. So, everybody is happy.

In short: traditional music business is dead! Long live the music Wink

So, you'd rather have a world where the success of a brilliant musicians depends on how well their music sells toilet paper, cars and cell phones, rather than how many people love the music? Because that's what you're saying - that instead of catering to the PUBLIC, the consumers of music, we are now catering to giant corporations who certainly care less about music than the "evil" major record labels did.

Sounds like a pyrrhic victory to me.

You didn't get me right

If you want to cater the consumers of music(as you've said), go to the club and play - there you'll get the Bucks you want.
That's what i am mainly talking about.
The times, when you released CDs/MP3 and got big sales are over.

The internet doesn't work like that.

To put the last paragraph right:
It works the other way around. If you have enough popularity and perhaps are "brilliant", you get the deal.

So if you want to earn money as an artist: perform live.