Slashdot Log In
Instant Concert CDs?
Posted by
michael
on Sat Feb 08, 2003 07:39 AM
from the taking-all-the-fun-out-of-it dept.
from the taking-all-the-fun-out-of-it dept.
NickRipley writes "Clear Channel (owner of every radio station in America) is purporting to offer a new service, whereby concertgoers can receive an official recording of the concert they just attended, within moments after the final note. How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating? Also, what kind of equipment will have to be used to produce these so fast? Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Ehh (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see why the RIAA would care. They may consider the act of individual listeners recording and distributing concert recordings piracy, but Clear Channel will likely charge $20-30 per recording, making a decent incoming in the process, "legitimizing" the act and thus rendering "piracy" in this case a non-issue.
Assuming these will be highest-possible-quality recordings (who knows) this of course would be a boon for so-called "bootleggers" who would no longer need to participate in the act of recording these shows but instead simply need to buy one copy and run off as many dupes as they need.
Clear Channel (Score:4, Insightful)
Technology gives - and technology takes away (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it too surprising, then, if technology might take it away again ?
In my personal opinion, music is about many things.......creation, art, emotion, enjoyment, life. If there is one word which doesn't belong next to the word "music", it's the word "business".
Re:Technology gives - and technology takes away (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how the technology would take it away. On the contrary, this is a serious threat to the goons who make up the RIAA, as it does two good things:
Artists get paid for their work, directly, bypassing the RIAA hands. Particularly a good thing for bands who don't want to sign bloodsucking contracts and already have established a following.
Fans get live recordings of the show they went to. Man, how many times have I attended a show and thought, "Gosh, I sure liked they way they played x, but their 'live' mixed album in the store isn't anywhere like that. I would pay $$ to get this show on CD)
The only way I could see this being any kind of victory for the RIAA goons is if artists sign a contract which requires their concert proceeds go from the promoter to the RIAA goons and what few cents are left come back to them.
As always, advice to musicians, get your own lawyer to explain terms of a contract to you before signing.
Parent
Re:Technology gives - and technology takes away (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always assumed that's because they'd prefer to sell you their old albums or the booklets full of promotional pictures. That's the old business model.
a lot of the reason for that has to do with their management and the RIAA. i don't think artists or the RIAA would ever allow a complete third party to record their shows and sell them without getting all or most of the money.
Largely due to restrictive contracts. Again, the old business model. A new artist who doesn't allow that language into a contract has complete freedom to sell recorded performances. I've seen many a bar band sell their own studio recordings. Assuming they recorded a particularly good live show and offered it for sale, nothing prevents them from doing so.
and i don't think clear channel would be overly willing to give all or most of the money away, unless we start to see a major increase in concert tickets.
Tickets have nothing to do with it. If Clear Channel wedges this door open wide enough, those artists who have the clout, are independent, or otherwise are unfettered, this will be the direction music goes. And you can bet the RIAA is paying attention to this, as it is far more damaging to the fat cats than small independent recordings.
Don't fall into the trap of believing the old business model is going to survive no matter what. It has to change because consumers expect more, and when consumers and artists are given the avenue you bet the power of the RIAA will errode fast.
Re:Technology gives - and technology takes away (Score:5, Funny)
Band: "Are you ready!?!"
Crowd: "YEAH!!!"
Band singer: "Ok, well that's cool, but first I've been asked to tell you to turn all your recorders off, because there's a legit way of doing that now.... That benefits us!"
*man in suit walks on stage*
Man: "Ah, I'm with the RIAA and we're shutting that down now, but we'll shoot the next person we see with a recorder out."
Parent
No choice? (Score:2)
This actually would be cool for smaller bands who put on smaller shows. It'd be nice to have a recording which contains all the stuff that happened while you were there - the mic mix ups, the silly stage patter where the lead singer says how he got lost in your town during college etc. But I can easily see the band getting screwed on this and that's not what I want either!
Duplication... (Score:5, Informative)
This is how it worked: we created a master tape on the fly during the program. At the conclusion of the program, the master was carried down to a workroom with tape duplication machines. We could have 16 tapes created within 4 minutes of the end of the presentation--with more coming. If it was this simple with analog equipment, I'd imagine a digital method for distributing these recordings would be a piece of cake.
Re:Duplication... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not even rare. In fact, is very common. Most churches do this routinely. The equipment investment is modest. The convenience is great.
In fact, my boss was asking me questions about technology for doing this with mp3's. In his case, they were interested in making mp3's available on his church's website. They also wanted to make an audio CD. They did end up accomplishing their goal. I might be mis-recalling his final solution. I believe they used a modest PC to simultaneously record audio along with the tape equipment. As long as they were doing a decent job of "mixing" during the live recording, they could immediately start making cassettes or audio CD's after the recording was complete. And have an mp3 file ready almost immediately as well.
easy for some concerts... (Score:4, Funny)
Given that live music is the best music... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can only imagine that the RIAA would squash this one, since traditionally, there would be all sorts of copyright issues here. Royalties go to the Label, Producer, Studio, Artists, RIAA, and who knows who else. Beyond that, a lot of the great artists play cover songs and unreleased material, which they'd have to cover royalties or permissions for that.
However, I would say that I'd pay for concerts of a lot of bands. People like BNL, Dave Matthews, etc. that throw some of the best live shows on earth would be worth it. Of course, since this article implies that you have to attend the concert, and the RIAA has little sway there, this is something that benefits the artists (and Clear Channel).
This would be great, if you can afford a ticket or get a chance. But what about the people in South Dakota that never see anyone, or people overseas who can't make a concert?
If this is something that the artists support, it would be easy to have the recordings ready. Fast burners and digital recording equipment tied into the sound system would make it easy to get these discs out minutes after a concert ends. What would be sad is that most likely, encores and bonus sets would be lost if they cut the recording early.
However, since this looks like something they're going to start in club shows, I'd imagine it's meant to boost new and smaller artists, which is great. I've seen enough small bands that never even crossed the radar of most radio, and it would have been great to hear their sets again.
Re:Given that live music is the best music... (Score:5, Informative)
www.livephish.com
Parent
Re:Given that live music is the best music... (Score:5, Informative)
Morons! (and no, I won't come back, neither with nor without IE...)
Parent
Re:Given that live music is the best music... (Score:5, Insightful)
i emailed them about this almost 3 weeks ago and haven't gotten anything back about it at all. i use the site exclusivley under linux and i've bought 2 shows from them in the past. i refuse to buy anything from them as long as that notice is up. (and i really do want to buy some of the newer shows)
Parent
Payola to the Artists? (Score:5, Informative)
If it's anything like Courtney Love's [holemusic.com] RIAA / Recording Artist math, I think it will just put more cash in the wrong pockets.
Seems like the Artists should get a higher percentage than their standard recording contract might allow, since this would be a major impulse buy on the part of many concert goers - especially considering the effect of various substances and inhibitions.
The Clearcast plan is is Out-and-out EVIL (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual accounting (also reported in countless previous links) means that after the studio's self-declared expenses are deducted, the band not only rarely makes much beyond the initial advance, but often ends up owing the studio money on paper. This can lock them in, forcing them to sign for additional albums (to have the debt forgiven) and making it hard to switch labels.
I could enumerate many more abuses, but I'm sure others will -- if they're not sick of doing so.
NOW COMES THE EVIL PART
The studios (or RIAA) don't have any right to the music the musicians play in concert, unless there is a specific concert recording clause. This was the meat on the musician's table. but now the largest promoter in the nation will be making it a term of their contracts that bands must surrender most rights to the music in their precious live performances. Note: Clear Channel never said a word about paying artists. It's be a condition of the concert: "If you don't sign over the rights, you don't play in this town". [We've also seen plenty of articles on the strong-arm methods Clear Channel has used to build and enforce precisely this sort of monopoly.
This won't improve anything for most bands. It only applies to the known successes where Clear Channel expects to make a profit; the ones where CC is already profiting as the concert promoter. If Clear Channel didn't book you for a concert or performance, don't expect their audio truck.
In short: they are reaching deeper into the artist's pockets -- and removing (coopting) a potential source of revenue for the band itself. The recording industry was a historical artifact, like buggy whip makers. It gained its stranglehold because 100 years ago, musicians could not afford studio equipment. Now they can, so the strangle hold much be maintained in other ways.
This is a coerced corporate seizure of the band's rights to the proceeds of their own live *performances* (concerts, shows, etc.) which had been the last bastion of the musician. They are doing this preemptively, because it's now a small step from the club/concert audio feed to a burned CD -- and right now sales of such CDs could well belong to the musician, if the corporations are not careful!
Parent
Re:Payola to the Artists? (Score:3, Interesting)
Please read the original "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini [petdance.com] from which Courtney stole much of her manifesto.
What About Non-Attendees? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good idea (Score:2)
Of course, after the $5 beers and $35 t-shirts, most concert-goers are dead broke by the end of the show...
Good idea (Score:2)
It is time the *IAA stopped fighting technology and started embracing it.
What a great idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
LMAO!
This sounds like a great money making scheme... making the RIAA likely to fight it tooth and nail. Just like they did with radio, and tapes, and cds, and now digital music on the 'net. Yup. And in 10 years they'll wonder how they every got by without it.
sounds like livephish (Score:5, Informative)
from the take-all-the-fun-out-of-it dept. (Score:2)
Quality (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously, there will be no post-production editing or enhancing, so you're basically just buying a fancy bootleg, not a CD you'd buy from a store of a live performance. But it shouldn't suck too bad, and it'd sure beat holding up a mini-recorder in the crowd.
(probably a moot point, as I can't see the RIAA letting this happen - unless they're getting a healthy chunk out of the pie.)
Re:Quality (Score:4, Informative)
If this is anything but a zero-budget cynical cash grab by Clearchannel, a separate CD mix will be created by splitting every audio feed prior to the sound reinforcement mix. This can be done with a dedicated sound console or by creating a submix on the house console, much as is already done for the foldback mix the musicians hear on stage.
Given how much effort and extra cost would be required to do this right (second board, isolated mixdown room, racks of processing + the talent to make it work), I suspect Clearchannel is shortcutting by using a main board sub-mix sent to portable mastering/duplicating equipment owned and operated by a third party. This also puts the onus on the band and record company to insure the sound mixer does a good job making the band sound good. Clearchannel's responsibility would be to force the contracts and pocket the cash.
Parent
This is not piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Paying for Poor Quality (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus lots of bands record with extra instruments that they don't use when they play live. Those are often added in when they make the "live album" for sale.
Note the word official (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Note the word official (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Note the word official (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. Phish still allows tapers to bring their own equipment, and allows them to freely distribute the recordings made from the audience.
What they are doing is selling official soundboard releases in parallel, under the usual conditions of commercially released albums. This has absolutely no affect on the making and noncommercial trading of audience tapes.
As a matter of fact, Phish had a taping rule that said that when they released an commercial release of a show, you weren't allowed to distribute audience tapes of that show. They removed that restriction at the same time that they started offering soundboard downloads, so the new system is actually less restrictive.
NO complaints here. Phish is doing it right. They are distributing the music in lossless SHN format as well as MP3, and there's no DRM crap to mess it up. What more could you want? I have no problem with it not being free, because hopefully the cash will provide enough of an incentive for the band to continue the program for the rest of its career.
As far as Jerry Garcia, I'm sure he would be perfectly happy with the arrangement. After all, the Dead put out lots of commercial albums of live concert recordings -- Live Dead, Europe 72, Steal Your Face, etc, and Deadheads never had a problem with buying those albums instead of copying them amongst themselves.
No piracy issues (Score:2)
No problem whatsoever.
The mixdown and mastering won't be as good as it will be quick, but as a souvenir of the concert it'd be pretty cool!
hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Excuse me? Bands have always sold CD's and merchendise at concerts without involvment from the record company - and many bands explicitly allow fan recordings of the concert. Is this just some shameless attempt to bring the word "RIAA" into the post to increase it's chances of getting posted?
Big racks of CD burners? (Score:2)
Equipment (Score:2)
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of CD-R drives?
Phish already is doing this.. as well as others (Score:5, Informative)
The have a good FAQ [livephish.com] which answers the age old question
They Might Be Giants [tmbg.com] also gives away tracks on the internet. Better than the dial a song, which used to give away free songs over the phone.
Contrast this with the FooFighters annoying extra track download feature which doesn't work with Mac (Windows Media) and uses a special program which seems to check if the music cd is in the drive.. I like the band but that experience left a bad taste in my mouth.
The bottom line here is that creative bands can have alternative music distribution. This is good, unless your band is already signed, then the label can object.
No piracry implications (Score:2)
Doesn't take anything special (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh great... (Score:3, Funny)
No thanks. I'll wait for them to produce one in the studio so I can actually hear all the instruments and vocals.
Are you sure about that pricing? (Score:3, Interesting)
"the live CDs would probably sell for around $15"
Probably, eh? Lemme break this down: concert t-shirts are generally $10 at the mall, but $20 at the concert. By that same rule, band CDs are $15 at the mall, so I'm guessing they'll be closer to $30 at the concert.
WOW, I love it, but how much will it cost the band (Score:5, Funny)
However, bands would have to worry about concert sales. I'm sure that a couple of hours after a concert ends, all of the audio would be all over the net. Would this effect record sales?
Phish started doing something similar... (Score:5, Informative)
the phish business model (Score:3, Informative)
all the sudden you have a following and a few dollars in your pocket for your troubles
i'm not a phish head, but i have been to a show. have plenty of friends who can't live without em. . . .
too bad CC has basically taken over concert promotion in addition to the radio. . . ..
How's zat again? (Score:3, Interesting)
How does the fact that a concert promoter licenses the ability to create concert CD's legitimize music pirating. This is no different then them playing the music on stations, or selling the bands other CD's. In every case I'm sure that proper royalties are being paid.
-BrentInteresting idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that I think of it, they'll be sponsoring "acts" rather than bands. Performers with nameless backup musicians, rather than groups with musicians whose names are known.
I think $15 is a little excessive, considering for a Clear Channel concert you're already paying around $100 a ticket (from what I've read).
As to the "what does the RIAA think of this" quesiton, I'm sure the licensing and fees are already part of this. The RIAA is probably just trying to figure out how to get them to cripple these "instant" concert CDs...
Re:Interesting idea (Score:3, Interesting)
All session players are NOT created equal.
Pearl Jam planning something similar (Score:5, Informative)
why would RIAA care? why would "quality" suffer? (Score:3, Interesting)
As for quality: this will come from the sound equipment straight to the recording device, and they will stamp out CDs. Much better than a crappy hand-held cassette-recorder can do. Yes, the quality will not be as good as a studio album, but you want the live album, right?
equipment needed (Score:3, Insightful)
This will work (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Artists own their own performances. This is the reason why Record Labels don't really make money off of concerts. It is up to them and their artist representation as to what they do with their recordings of them.
2) CDs distributed at street-level and concerts are an effective form of promotion - one that is very effective. . . The Wu-Tang Clan and The Grateful Dead know this cold and they did great even though they NEVER got airplay. (CCU is diluting their radio prowess a bit here - but don't thell them that).
3) Music has a great "hook" into your memory. How many times have you heard a piece of music and it reminded you of some past situation when you heard it? How great would it be to have the EXACT rendition of that concert and the good time your friends had? Bill Graham (the famous San Fran concert promoter) both understood this and encouraged it.
4) If you love a band (say RadioHead), and you go to more than one of their concerts (say MSG and Philly Spectrum), wouldn't you like to buy them both if they were unique experiences? How about a digital season's pass (over the web) to ALL of their concerts? (with video). Would you pay the equivalent of a box-set to have that kind of access? I would. . . most people would for their favorite band (if they have the coin).
The sky is the limit with these opportunities and there isn't much that the RIAA can do about it. This is the kind of liberation tha technology makes possible. . . There is more value because there is more PRODUCT. There is more product, because there is more access to the ARTIST. Let's hope this catches on before the Label's start asking for exclusive rights to concerts and concert-proceeds.