Slashdot Log In
CDs Want To Be Free
Posted by
timothy
on Thu May 23, 2002 01:48 PM
from the so-do-cats dept.
from the so-do-cats dept.
Dotnaught writes: "An article that I wrote about a new music promotion service called fightcloud.com and CD pricing in general has just gone up on Salon. And heeding the advice of Dave Winer, I also posted the full transcript of the interview on my Web log, Lot 49, for those curious about what got left on the cutting room floor." Rather than complaining that Big Recording's CDs are overpriced, it sounds like this company is simply demonstrating that music (even on physical media) just don't have to cost that much.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
NOT FREE..... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I have to pay $4.95 for shipping and you are making $2.64 "profit" from that $4.95, how the hell is the $4.95 "for shipping"..??
$4.95 != Free
Re:NOT FREE..... (Score:2)
Re:NOT FREE..... (Score:5, Informative)
You know jack shit about the music industry, my friend. All those things are what are called RECOUPABLE EXPENSES.
When a record label advances money to an artist, or spends money in certain areas, to make, market or promote a record, the artist must pay back that money before the label begins to split the profits with the artist. Paying back that money out of record sales is called "recouping." If the record stiffs, even at the fault of the label, the artist of course owes nothing. But if the record sells some units, and the label decides to put out another record, the debt is NOT wiped clean if the artist is unrecouped. This nasty little fact is called "cross collateralization" and what that means is that if the artist makes Record Number Two for the label, but hasn't recouped from Record Number One yet, the back owed funds come out of the sales from the new record before the artist ever sees a dime from the new record. So you can see how difficult it is to get ahead...which is how a label (meaning Def Jam) would explain why Slick Rick is unrecouped after all these years and 5 albums later.
As an example, let's say the artist has an unrecouped balance of $200,000 on the day his record drops (his advance and recording budget were $150,000 and $100,000 was spent on the video for the first single, half of which is recoupable--that's $200,000). Let's say the label did its job properly and had a good four month set up on the album (set up is the amount of work that goes into a project to build awareness prior to its release), and the artist has a strong buzz in the marketplace. So pre-orders are looking good (the amount of records the retail stores ask for, based on the anticipation of sales for the release) and the label decides to ship 300,000 units initially. If the label is in the Universal family, for example, and offers a sales discount because it's a new artist, a $16.98 anticipated retail price will position this CD at $10.78 wholesale. So the label can anticipate an income initially of $3,234,000 (300,000 x $10.78). And by the way, the label feels as though it has already lost $189,000, because the full retail selling price of $17.98 would have brought the label $3,423,000 (300,000 x $11.41) and since they discounted the record one dollar, they're already losing money. Here's the ugly side of label accounting and recouping: the artist's contract stipulates that the artist's share of the back end is 12 points, which really means 12% of the retail price (less a whole bunch of stupid provisions for breakage, free goods, return reserves, and container charges, producer royalties, etc) which leaves the artist about $1 a record. That means that the artist's share of the income from one record sold at $16.98 is roughly $1. Recouping means that the artist has to pay back the money spent out of his share (which is $1 a record sold). So in order to pay back that $200,000 spent prior to the record even coming out, 200,000 units must sell.
After the initial order is shipped, the artist incurs promotional costs which the label advances to him. The independent radio promoters, video promoters, tour support, remixes, etc, are all shared expenses that come out of the artist's money. So you can see how easy it is for an artist to remain unrecouped. If he finishes his project two or three singles deep, it's easy to come into the next project already at a high negative balance. The artist is artificially unrecouped, however, because the label has made back the money it spent off the top. Let's look at our above example. Let's say the label gets paid (meaning every retail store sells every copy with no returns) for every copy of the initial 300,000 units it shipped at $10.78 a copy. And let's also assume they did not spend any additional money to sell those records (also highly unlikely). The label has made $3,234,000. The label has also recouped $200,000 from the artist for the expenses, so that $3,234,000 is almost pure profit (except for the unrecouped costs of running their business and the overhead of running their business). Meanwhile, the artist has made only $100,000 (less the artist's overhead costs). According to my calculator, that's only 3% of the share.
And the massive screwjob doesn't stop there, not by far. Labels pay royalties on 90% of sales which assumes 10% breakage, a holdover from the vinyl days. From that amount is deducted the advances and recoupable expenses such as studio time, engineers, producer, etc. However, a distributer is often given 15-30% of his albums free on which there is no royalty. Overseas sales and sales to military stores are at a greatly reduced royalty. Some Talent may be more popular overseas than in America which means they see very little royalties. If albums are returned and then sold at discount, Talent receives virtually no royalty on those sales.
Parent
Re:NOT FREE..... (Score:4, Insightful)
And the massive screwjob doesn't stop there, not by far. Labels pay royalties on 90% of sales which assumes 10% breakage, a holdover from the vinyl days.
Actually breakage is a holdover from *shellac* days. A very long time ago, before vinyl was invented, records were made on shellac, which was very fragile. In the process of shipping a box of these shellac records to a retailer, inevitably a few would break. Since the record label didn't know how many would break, they just arbitrarily assumed that it would be around 10%. The record label gets paid for all of them, but they only pay the artist for 90% of them.
This deduction for breakage continued even when vinyl records, which are much more durable, were introduced, continued with 8 tracks, cassettes and now continues to be applied on CDs.
How many CDs do you think get broken in shipment?
It's a crock. OTOH, the labels will just say, "Well, yeah, but what really matters at the end of the day is that our books have to balance. If we didn't deduct all those things from the royalties, we'd just have to lower the artist's royalty percentage."
Whatever. It's an industry that is so rife with dishonesty and manipulation that they figure all of the lies wash out and leave them clean.
Parent
Re:NOT FREE..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, then why do tapes cost half as much. All the mumbo jumbo you mentioned is in the prep costs. CDs cost less than $1 each to make; tapes cost more than that. Now if tapes cost $20 when CDs cost $18, then your theory would make sense.
Parent
Re:NOT FREE..... (Score:4, Informative)
So you either have:
1) way to damn many middlemen--in which case you need to improve your efficiency so that you can compete on price, or
2)a few people who are excessively greedy (and potentially fixing prices with the other labels, since everyone seems to have the same range of hyperinflated pricing).
Think hard: do the artists at fightcloud have no costs to record and engineer their music? Is it really likely that the costs of a good amateur production studio are so infinitesimally smaller than a professional studio? Do they have no gigging costs? No artwork costs? Keep in mind, the "professional" releases can spread their costs over millions of CDs whereas the amateurs are lucky to spread them over thousands--you'd expect the amateur productions to have those costs make up a BIGGER percentage of the per CD cost, even if the total costs are less.
Finally, you need to go re-read Courtney Love's essay about who bears the production costs with the majors--it comes out of the artist's royalties, which are a small fraction of that $18. That's true for big artists and small on the major labels; it's not like the label is paying that artist extra specially to stick around in most cases.
Parent
Re:NOT FREE..... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm indie: see URL above. I worked with Ampcast to help them set up their CD program and I have a pretty good idea of how much CDs really cost physically. Mine go for $12: that is with a color four-panel two-sided insert, a color but one-sided tray liner, Red Book uncompressed CD master from high-resolution originals: in other words, very very near to major-label technical quality, and in some ways (sound quality) substantially better than the average major label release. And that is why I set my price so a couple bucks go to the artist, rather than setting it so that I get nothing.
It'll cost you about 8$ to 10$ per CD to run a business that sustains itself producing CDs that are like major label releases. If you're good with having no artwork, or God forbid 'CDs' burned off mp3s and the like, you should be able to bring them in for much cheaper than that.
Note, however, that the RIAA releases tend to be mass production- even 1000 is in its way mass production- and it sure as hell costs them less than $8 to cover everything involved. There's a lot of people gobbling caviar and Chateau Lafite in that business. Many are label people. Some are artists. For the artists, it means they will never see a royalty check so long as they live- but so long as they're allowed, they'll live high as if they were going to get paid. It's relatively cheap to give an artist a limo ride rather than pay them what you REALLY owe them, and if you own the limo company, hey- even cheaper. The whole industry is a big con.
Parent
Re:NOT FREE..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget that concert tickets cover a lot of this expense. even after ticketmaster takes their cut, the remaining amount is more than the price of a new cd for most big-name artists. touring is great promotion because it usually makes money and encourages cd sales.
There's a significant cost involved in promoting new music
promotional costs are the reason why some cds that bring in tens of millions of dollars still don't turn a profit. when the promotional budget is in the tens of millions of dollars, chances are this is more than the production costs.
now, about mediocre artists. why can't these costs be avoided? shouldn't the recording industry be spending a little more money trying to figure out if a band sucks or not? it is my opinion that they spend more time considering whether they have a *chance* at marketing it successfully. they excuse away an artist's shortcomings by arguing it doesn't matter because if they throw enough money into marketing people will buy it anyway. (often they are correct) even if the labels are gambling, i think they would do much better for themselves trying to get a little more quality. initial costs probably wouldn't increase if marketing budgets were reduced accordingly (followin a theory that it costs less to sell something people are more likely to want than it does to convince people it's what they want and then convince them to shell money out for it).
as someone else pointed out, tapes cost less than cds. people don't want them as much, so if they cost more, people wouldn't buy them. the costs get bundled onto what people will buy.
my complaint isn't that cds only cost
we'd all end up with cheaper cds of higher quality.
Someone had to say it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Someone had to say it. (Score:3, Funny)
:7)
Stop the freakin' presses... (Score:2, Funny)
I'll sum up:
"CDs are too expensive, because recording labels are greedy"
Man, I should be writign for Salon.com
Re:Stop the freakin' presses... (Score:4, Funny)
You seem more like slashdot editor material to me.
Parent
someday they'll get a clue... (Score:4, Interesting)
I spend hours in second hand Cd shops looking for what I want first and then only after utter failure to find it will I buy it new. The second hand CD shops are booming, the two in my town make a killing, are always packed and always has a great selection of indie/non-mainstream/plain wierd along with the regular -popular.
hell Cd sales would double overnight if they dropped the price to $9.95 for new. but as is normal... if they cant squeeze every drop of money out of something, they dont want to sell it.
Re:someday they'll get a clue... (Score:4, Interesting)
On their balance sheets, if they've been selling 100 million CDs at a profit of $10 each, and suddenly they're only selling 50 million, the only way to guarantee the same profit is to double the price.
I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-free-market, far from it, but to me that looks like evidence of monopolistic practices. They're not allowing themselves to be affected by market forces, because they're the only source of the product.
Economically, if demand is falling for something, the price should be falling to match the demand. It follows that if you're not selling enough of a product at a certain price point, you should drop your price to make it more attractive, thus increasing demand.
The RIAA should ask Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft (or their game divisions, at least) how this works.
Parent
Re:someday they'll get a clue... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that record companies, like lots of big corporations, have forgotten about the Law of Supply and Demand. Instead, they've turned to the Law of Constant Revenue.
On their balance sheets, if they've been selling 100 million CDs at a profit of $10 each, and suddenly they're only selling 50 million, the only way to guarantee the same profit is to double the price.
Oh, come on. Do you think that the head of Sony Music got to be where he is because he's an idiot? Do you think that all of their economists just graduated from High School and learned how to use a calculator? I'm shocked at how little credit people give the music industry. These are not dumb people.
You want to know why a CD costs what it does? Because that is the *exact* amount at which revenue will be maximized. Make it cost $1.00 more, and the sales dropoff will be more than the increase in revenue per unit. Make it cost $1.00 less, and although more people will buy it, it won't make up for the lost revenue per unit.
These people spend hours going over Gallup Polls and marketing data and the census and focus groups and the music charts and whatever other information they have, to determine the cost of the CD.
Don't accuse them of just pulling the price out of their asses, and certainly don't accuse them of not knowing anything about economics.
Re:someday they'll get a clue... (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite, the only way to guarantee the same profit is double their margins, doubling the price will more than double their profit. Economically, if demand is falling for something, the price should be falling to match the demand. It follows that if you're not selling enough of a product at a certain price point, you should drop your price to make it more attractive, thus increasing demand.
Economically the price should do whatever the firm wants it to do. The firm will only drop their price if the Price elasticity of demand indicates it's worth their while. The 'Law of Supply and Demand' you cite really only applies in the long run and in competitive industries where smaller players are priced out or starved out.
Economics is not quite as simple as the Supply and Demand curve.
Re:someday they'll get a clue... (Score:3, Informative)
If I can sell a x CDs for 20 bucks, or sell 2x CDs for 10 bucks, and given that I have *some* amount of fixed cost per CD, well, I end up with more money at the end of the day at the 20 buck price point. So if I want to make money, exactly why would I lower the price?
It's extremely hard to paint the record companies as money-grubbing capitalists and foolishly missing out on money due to lost sales at the same time. Rather than totally blowing capitalism 101, stick to arguments that try to tie proposed sale prices to production costs rather than using supply/demand; it's the only way you could possibly have a point to make, and it only requires a fundamental change in philosophy on the part of most of your readers.
Re:someday they'll get a clue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cd sales would double overnight if they dropped the price to $9.95 for new
So, basically, they manage twice the inventory for the same revenue. Also, they have to pay the artist more. I'm just not seeing the benefit.
Re:someday they'll get a clue... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anywho, its not too difficult to recover them if you take precautions. I had all my discs organized and catalogued that were taken (which was easy as I had already burned them). I generally write my name on CDs on the inside cover under the disc holder thingie...you can't see it unless you take the disc apart. So, I'm at the used store looking to see if they have anything I NEED to pick up to keep my collection up to date and legit. Doing so, I keep seeing discs that looked like mine...damn I'm going to check through these as someone listens to the same music I do. Trying to remember if I had one of the discs (I can't remember these things) I turn it over and see my name faintly spelled backwards.
It took a few months to get my discs back and reimbursed, but in Indiana technically selling CDs is the same as pawning stuff, so they govern it the same way. Legit ID, Signature and thumb print. Turns out it was a former friend. He got probation for theft and had to reimburse me for the discs that were sold, and the store for the discs they had to return to me. Personally, I think the guy should have been locked up...and maybe shot. Anyone that would steal from a friend is no longer a part of the human race and deserves to be extinguished...but thats beside the point.
So no, its not difficult to prove that this stuff was stolen. Its not too hard determining who stole it, granting you don't like in a backwards state or have stores that go out of their way to hide the fact that they are specifically targetting illegal sales. In most states in the US, if this were to happen, they would be fined severly and may face the theft charges themselves...most of these business owners aren't thieves and while they ask few questions, they are more than happy to help you out in the end...
Ok...that was way longer than I expected it to be...
Hypocritcal.... (Score:5, Interesting)
all publishers are greedy! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hypocritcal.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also a game will go down in price over time, music does not.
The Big Difference (Score:5, Informative)
You can charge whatever the market will bear. So, game producers charge $50 (at least for a few months) for a new game.
How is that different from CDs? Well, the game producers didn't have to settle with the FTC because they were conspiring to inflate the price of CDs [cnn.com]. Retailers wanted to sell them cheaper, but the middle-men wouldn't let them!
Even with the antitrust allegations settled, I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of crap still goes on. The RIAA members are effectively a monopoly on the music industry. As a result, the market isn't dictating what price a CD will go for, they are.
Parent
It's WHO you're paying that is the problem... (Score:3)
Re:Hypocritcal.... (Score:3, Insightful)
ask yourself -- why is the price where it is? record companies, when explaining the price of cd's explain that much of the price of cd's is because of the budget required to promote albums. so why do you have to pay fifteen to twenty dollars for a CD that has no promotion? when you pay $20 for a cd by an actually talented musician, you're paying for the record companies to promote britney spears and n'sync. the drive to make a select few records into "hits" drives the promotions budget skywards.
meanwhile, joe consumer decides he doesn't like britney spears. he decides to shell out $18 for an old david bowie album instead.* this is one less britney spears cd sold, and so the record companies get annoyed that people aren't buying what they're supposed to be brainwashed into liking. and so they increase the promotions budget, and take it out of those david bowies cd's.
* did anybody else notice that three years ago, rykodisc charged, like $8 for bowie's back catalog? then virgin bought it. they cut the bonus tracks and more than doubled the price. there's no way any production costs warrant that kind of abuse of the consumer.
Hey, c'mon... (Score:4, Insightful)
15 bucks is NOT reasonable, and was the price point initially agreed upon to finance the cost to convert to the new format (i.e. from vinyl). CDs were supposed to cost about eight bucks in stores.
price floors already pending... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:price floors already pending... (Score:2)
This probably won't make a difference (Score:2, Informative)
Since all the artists on the site are unknown, they'll never be able to reach much of an audience because the radio stations are the pretty much beholden to the recording industry will never play their music.
I really haven't followed up with Prince's attempts in directly selling to the consumer, but I don't recall hearing much from him lately. He might still be selling records, but who thinks he'd be as well-known as he is without generating lots of dollars for the recording industry first.
It's a cynical view, but it's hard to not to have it. I do applaud attempts to go it alone, but I can't help but think these guys will be gone this time next year.
wheres my $20 going? (Score:3, Informative)
CD+ Packaging + artist cut == $1.36
$20 - $1.36 == 18.64 RIAA
Re:wheres my $20 going? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget that CDs never get from the production company to the retail store directly through magic.
Count in distributor, wholesaler, and chain, then the shipping/trucking costs between, and you'll see that the RIAA does not get what's left after packaging, CD cost and cut to artist.
Why they're free (Score:2)
I've never heard of the artists they carry, and they have a selection of approximately 10 artists.
Yeah, the reason they're free is probably that the artists CAN'T SELL their CDs, so they'll give them away for "free" to save on dispoasal costs.
Bah.
Re:Why they're free (Score:4, Insightful)
So since you've never heard of any of the artists, they're obviously no good?
It always amazes me how people who are so gung-ho about alternatives of one sort are content to follow the crowd about everything else. People use Linux, but then listen to music that's terrible. Environmentalists rant about big companies destroying the planet, and then run IIS as their webserver. People eat healthy, organic food, and then don't want to hear about hemp clothing, or are intolerant of other religions.
In short, I think it's important, in all aspects of life, to really _think_ about things. Why are you buying/doing what you are? Is it the best for you? Have you really looked at the alternatives? This is a lifelong process; saying, "Oh, I heard some indie band once and it was bad" isn't good enough. I try food that I don't like every few years just to make sure, because otherwise I might be missing out.
I guess you might not want to take the time to do that with everything, but it's not so good to talk about things if you really don't know.
Parent
Shipping? (Score:2)
Hey, if I show up at your offices, can I just take the CDs home for free? Since you're only charging me shipping and handling, it shouldn't be a big deal. Where's the office?
Marketing, warehousing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Physical stores cost money: clerks, rent, utilities, inventory overhead. Some of what Fightcloud is doing just matches the Amazon model of using the Internet to reduce many of those costs. Good for them; I applaud it.
Now comes the real question: will they have any CDs worth buying? And if they do, how will you know? Most CDs are crap. Even in a general area that you like, most CDs aren't worth the plastic they're printed on, at least to you. It's the job of marketing to match you with that CD, and that's expensive to do. We'll see if $4.95 gradually becomes $9.95. Still a better price than the RIAA wants you to pay, of course.
I just don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Why bother with the copy protection crap? If I want to pirate a game protected by safe disc, I will, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it since I am just one person out of millions.
Why not save the money? Honestly, the only thing I have pirated in the last year was Windows XP - I paid for Windows 98 and I just consider it an upgrade to a working copy. That and paying for it would have meant registering. I may just buy it and stick the shrink wrapped copy on the shelf.
I would rather see the money spent on more content than some stupid scheme to stop me from ripping a cd that doesn't even work. It doesn't stop the poor pirates and it doesn't stop the rich pirates. It doesn't stop me from making legit backups when I want. So why bother?
Born Free (plus shipping) (Score:5, Interesting)
From the Salon article [salon.com]:
Scalfani sells CDs for free. That is, if you don't count the $4.95 "shipping" charge
So, if I turn up at their offices in person, with a box, these CDs really will be free. As in free.
If I were the word free, I'd be feeling pretty raw and abused these days.
Bad marketing choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, they should've said that the CDs were $4.95 with free shipping. Then we wouldn't feel like we're being lured in by "free", it'd just be a good deal.
It's just wording, I know, but it makes or breaks this company's "image".
Apples and oranges (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apples and oranges (Score:3, Informative)
The linear notes for Nirvana's "Bleach" say that it was recorded for $400. Personally, it sounds pretty good to me; you can do a lot with a little equipment and a lot of knowledge and time. Many recording majors I know (at UMBC) use their studio project time to record their band. That means it cost them _nothing_, and they got to use some damn nice equipment. Plus, if they ever go back and decide the sound could use improvement, they've got the masters, and can go for it.
The Mountain Goat's "All Hail West Texas" is one singer/guitarist recorded on a _defective_ Marantz, which produces an interesting effect. The album is amazing, and it probably cost nothing to record; the value is in the songs.
RIAA and Advertisers. (Score:4, Interesting)
The RIAA finds some girl w/ boobies. Some dude in Nashville writes her a song. Some guy in NYC comes up with a marketing campaign. Someone in Chicago stocks the shelves. Some dumb-ass pays $15+ for a manufactured image. THE MUSIC IS INCIDENTAL! This 'artist' doesn't write her own music. Doesn't come up with her own dance moves. Does not even dress herself. And people buy this. Alot of this. And I'm supposed to let advertisers interfere with my abillity to skip commercials when it's _this_ obvious that advertising and marketing works?
Lowest common denominator entertainment.
I wish the Lone Gunmen were here. *sniff*
The point of (Score:5, Insightful)
This article explains to HER that:
> $16 of the $18 she's spends on a CD is record company profit.
Prices on CDs should be going down, not up.
A $5 CD sold direct to the consumer makes almost double the profit for the artist.
The positions of the RIAA on P2P and DRM are likely motivated by greed, not survival.
In my view, it's a LOT more important *where* this article is than *what* it actually says.
I'd love to see a big name (Madonna, U2, N'Sync, etc.) use the net to direct-market a low cost original CD just to confirm for everyone that the RIAA is obsolete. Likely, however, it'll go the other way - one of these 'unknowns' is going to hit it big and promote the hell out of this approach.
The industry makes me so mad because I want to be (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand that hiring the best engineers and studio musicians cost money
Honest, I understand that.
I understand that promoting new acts entails risk and that established acts help to buffer that.
I understand that marketing and distribution cost money.
I don't begrudge somebody turning an honest dollar doing all this stuff. Not one bit.
But $18.99 per CD?
Can you say exploitation?
$18.99 per CD then trying to make it so that I can't play it on my pc?
Can you say outrage?
$18.99 per CD to help you lobby to take away my rights with a little help from your friends Hollings and Feinstein?
Can you say I don't need your stinkin' CDs?
When you want to make an honest dollar, I may stop back by the store.
Jack Scalfani is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
On the Web Log (lot 49), he said, "Here is the biggest mistake of them all: two good songs on a CD. How many times do we have that? Remember that girl who sang "Where Have All the Cowboys Gone"? Vaguely. She was a kind of folksy singer. That was the only good song on that CD."
That was Paula Cole, and for that albumn she got nominations for Best New Artist, Best Album of the Year, Best Pop Albumn, Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, and Producer of the Year.
If this guy didn't know that, how would you feel about his business acumen? And if his musical taste is that bad (Paula Cole's This Fire is one of my top 10 CDs of all time), then I don't want to listen to what ever else he's selling (Kid Rock ripoffs?).
Read the full interview! (Score:3, Insightful)
Scalfani makes some excellent observations, predictions, and explains his business model fully. He carefully selects the artists he features on Fightcloud.
I expected this to generate some insightful, intelligent commentary here on Slashdot, but all I found was kneejerk whining about shipping and handling and the number of artists on the site.
Damn, I'm really disappointed in you all. Go read the full interview.
Thomas Pynchon's _Crying of Lot 49_ (Score:3, Informative)
For those interesting in a real headtrip, try to plow your way through Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow [themodernword.com].
Pynchon is an interesting hermit [who2.com]. He didn't accept his award for Gravity's Rainbow [google.com].
Instead, he sent Irwin Corey [hyperarts.com].
(BTW, You'll enjoy GR a lot more if you read it with a companion [amazon.com].)
Re:I guess the question to ask is.... (Score:2)
If this thing gets big enough, the record companies will have to adjust. I don't know about you, but I just bought 2 CDs, not so much because I care about the music, but because I a) want to see this model succeed, and b) want to see artists realize they don't have to get screwed over by the RIAA.
The RIAA is not the end-all be-all. There are alternatives. But the success of those alternatives depends on people who are willing to buy through them.
If nothing else, it'll piss the RIAA off, which always brightens my day.
Re:I guess the question to ask is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Assimilation would be the better of the two choices, although I don't think they'll do that either.
The majors have become less and less interested in artist development, and more and more interested in risk management. You need someone to wade through all the crap, and believe me, there's a whole lot of crap out there.
Labels are banks that loan money at really high interest rates. The benefit to the artist is that if you default on the loan (walk away from the deal or get dropped) there's not really any financial penalty - the label has taken all of the financial risk. You probably won't ever get another deal on any major, but you don't owe anybody any money. They've given you money in return for you signing away your copyrights, name, likeness, etc. For some people this is a good deal.
Unless you've been groomed by the Disney machine for stardom, you can't really even get a foot in the door unless you've already self-released at least one or two CDs, have an established fan base, and are more or less self-sufficient. An independent artist who has achieved this doesn't really need a label deal anymore unless they want a more widespread audience/fame and are willing to take a paycut (for 90% of them anyway) to get it.
So if there's a company willing to wade through the crap and can provide the labels with some hard numbers on sales, it makes the label's job that much easier and less risky. It also provides talented independents with a potentially good source of exposure and distribution which is, after the creation of quality works, probably the hardest part of any artist's job.
Remember that the majors no longer as interested in long-term sales as in increasing quarterly profits - they have stockholders and parent companies to keep happy, and let's face it - the majority of the top selling music today is disposable. There are a few standout tracks that might be popular 10 years from now, but those are getting fewer and farther between.
Assuming that this company can stay afloat, I think the majors will treat it as a semi-weeded flower bed. I know for a fact that mp3.com is surfed by several major A&R reps - think how happy they'll be if they can deal with a company that actually has some quality control going on.
Parent
Re:How ironic, it's premium Salon content (Score:2)
Re:"Free"? (Score:4, Informative)
Capital costs on the CD burner and the Hard Drive to store the master on. Paying someone to "upload" the tracks onto the server.
I'm impressed. The artists get more per disk than with a major label. Customers get more music per dollar. If they can keep their costs down and remain an ongoing, growing concern, we're all better off.
Parent