Music Industry's Future Foretold in China? 398
sapphire writes "An article today in the International Herald Tribune provides a look at music piracy from the point-of-view of pop stars in China. China is a country forced to deal with the reality of unchecked piracy of digital media products. Will their experience lead to new business models for the world-wide recording industry?"
so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"rockstar lifestyle" (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't fucking pay artists to fund their 'rockstar lifestyle'. I pay them to make music. If they get the intense rich/famous shit going on because they sell loads, well, that's a bonus. If they make enough to live on and keep producing, then they're with the rest of the population.
To me, that keeps what they say in their lyrics all the more relevant to me.
Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I know plenty of bands that just thrive to hear a live audience, no, they're not big and they don't have a flash Porsche but they enjoy what they do and get to pay the bills.
All pirating means is that people that expect that when they get into music that their life is sorted and they can go round smashing up hotel rooms and stuff.
Bah! They don't even usually write their own songs.
Wow, they reduced the price (Score:1, Insightful)
And they make more tours. A singer complains about her voice, but OTOH it means people do not have to travel a lot, more total audience, and after all singers in the past had not mics, like good opera singers (they just take care of it).
Oh what a horrible future... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really look at the article all you really get out of it is that some artists expect to make a few hit songs and be able to live in luxury for the rest of their years off the millions they supposedly make. Whenever I hear artists complain about how they are suffering from the effects of piracy, I just laugh. They are making lots of money doing something they supposedly love to do and they get made when they aren't making millions?
Re:"rockstar lifestyle" (Score:5, Insightful)
(way off topic rant sorry. ignore this post
Music One Thing, Software Another (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you talk to the developers of those projects, you'll find that the only reason they don't pirate their solution themselves is because you can't use the same software in more than one place. If you think about that, it means the software industry is highly inefficient. If you purposely have to make things non-reusable, then it is guaranteed to be less valuable and require more resources to operate in China. (Of course, labor is cheaper, but that's a separate topic.)
Of course, I also think it's pretty unfair that pop stars have to work so much harder than they really should just to survive. There's a reason pop icons over there tend to be singers, actors/actresses, spokespeople, and even porn stars all at the same time.
Don't celebrate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:China's artists not receiving royalties (Score:5, Insightful)
See Courtney Love does the Math [salon.com].
Musical Diversity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh what a horrible future... (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, this is an extrememe "worst-case" scenario; I'd really like to see what the music industry in China was like before piracy was rampant, like pre-cd.
Our system is broken, and the RIAA is evil; but this one is worse. The answer isn't to download all those mp3's of the 8 Mile soundtrack, reassuring yourself that it's ok cuz you're sticking it to the man. The point is, fuck Eminem, Brittany, and major label music in general. Expand your tastes and buy something you didn't hear about on the tv. Something local. Something original.
Those are the people getting screwed over, doing what they love and not making millions, making good music no one will ever hear because the singer wasn't in this years big action movie.
Re:Music One Thing, Software Another (Score:2, Insightful)
Excuse me while I laugh.
For the money a 'pop star' makes in one year, a dozen families could 'survive' for decades, if not longer.
Survive. Hah, that's a good one.
Re:Don't celebrate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pop is not all of music (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not the latest Devo album cost $2 or $20. But I do care if the music industry and where it is headed is going to make it impossible for me to get a DVD-Audio recording of the works of somebody who actualy making a real contribution music.
The prediction that the music industry is heading towards the current situation in China does not please me at all.
Re:This is really telling (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the truly mega-super stars are rich. Most other bands are not multi-millionaires. Most are probably still in debt after having 2 "hit" records. The ones that are getting rich are the music company execs. In a true markey economy, it would be the musicians that would be making the money since they can set up a direct marketing system and buy airtime at radio stations, etc. However, the current system is not even close to a true market economy.
The IP shouldn't even be the property of the record companies. Shouldn't the IP reside with the artists who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the melodies? Singers and other musicians, who only play other people's songs, are more like employees than artists. At least the Chinese "system" makes these people work for a living, just like everyone else. Wang Lee Hom, in the article, sounds like he does everything himself from song writing to promotion. He also doesn't seem to be starving, either.
The article itself was basically very pro-RIAA. It would be nice to know how hard is it to "break into" the Chinese system as compared to the already-industry controlled system in the U.S and Europe.
Anthony
Rome and greece had a simmilar system (Score:3, Insightful)
at only breif flickers in history has there been a middle class that could support the arts through small sales commerical routes. Troubadors may have made aa living but they were not stars, whose offerings were trades to others. Perhaps breifly in egypt there was a middle class. Perhaps briefly a few art centers, like venician glass makers held brief monopolies on desirabel art. but never for long.
it is only the rise of the ubquitous middle class, and a widespread media that has created the commerical conduits for art we have today. there is nothing to suggest these channels should or will be enduring. We as a generation or two grew up and thought these the norm but we were wrong.
To the extent that artistis are conduits of expression and the exchange of ideas, is this good or bad? its not clear. there are commmercial forces to tow the political norm on all artists whether they have patrons or must please the masses. Indeed one might claim that given the financial independence offerec by a patron is what frees the artist to challenge popular norms. You would not see many commercial artist these days advocating buttfucking small boys, but certainly many poets in greece spoke well of the idea. I know thats a bit gross, but I say it to make the point that stong ideas can come about when you dont have to please everyone.
Re:Don't celebrate (Score:4, Insightful)
This happens all the time in China; whenever one person has an even marginally successful idea, many many other people will do the same thing and nobody ends up making any money off of it. Pretty much every big and/or profitable Chinese company has either
- excellent political connections,
- a massive industrial plant, or
- lots of foreign partners
(or some combination of these three); innovation alone, be it in software or restaurant management or just about anything else, is never enough to make a successful business venture in China, and an easily-copied innovation like a proprietary RedHat knockoff is even less likely to turn a profit.Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
And the music just gets worse. There hasn't been much original music released since Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins broke in the early 1990s. It's not because the artists suck. It's because the record companies only invest in sugar-pop acts that are too watered down to be interesting. Is there a band that has artistic ingenuity or a political point? They won't get a contract, because the record company won't take a risk.
I'd pay about a dollar per song for a CD today. If I could find one I was interested in.
The whole music thing is overrated anyway. It's all just entertainment. In the end, you can get too much entertainment.
The big record companies have dug themselves into a deep hole. They're too big to release innovative or strongly artistic acts. They're too large and bulky to move nimbly. The giants are going to fall. Both music and art in general will be better for it.
Am I supposed to feel sorry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I supposed to feel sorry? Since when is it news that musicians, for the most part, have always been largely poor? It's those "posers" and "fakes" that somehow strike it rich are now bitching. They've been a part of the "corporate pop" machines for so long that they've forgotten what it meant to be creative in the first place. They've been given songs to sing and now get paid to sing a song that someone else wrote just because teens these days need to hear a new song from the same old cookie-cutter pop star.
Let's get real people. Music is good this way, honestly. We want to be able to choose for ourselves who is and who isn't "in". I'm tired of the radios force-feeding me the same old shit. I want something new, fresh, or maybe not-so fresh. Something raw but honest is way better than a "polished" whore/hottie who can sing. It's about time the fans demanded honesty in a musician's musical expression. After all, music isn't about honesty, it's about one's unique interpretation of a song, genre, or otherwise. Music is about allowing those who truly love it to choose what they love. The musician is the one who must also love music enough to effectively stress how much appreciation he or she has for music. Let us all live well together and with music, we can all continue our sanity.
Re:Oh what a horrible future... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really look at the article all you really get out of it is that some artists expect to make a few hit songs and be able to live in luxury for the rest of their years off the millions they supposedly make.
Aren't the majority of China's people considered to be living at poverty level? Has it occurred to anyone over there that music might be a considered a luxury item? When you have a choice between your rent and a music CD, what do you pick? Or better yet, what if you can pay your rent and afford a lower-quality knock-off CD of the music you like? Maybe lowering the price of music is something they should have done a long time ago. Now, everyone is used to buying the music from the "black market" and, too late, the industry is complaining about "piracy" hurting sales.
Sounds more like they were priced out of the market by a competing distributor (the article mentioned "little old ladies") that had a cheaper distribution method. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the US industry could increase CD sales by simply cutting in half the cost of the CD's and utilizing the distributed networks as a way to promote artists. Geez, that's already happening. They are just too blinded by their greed to notice.
The RIAA needs to go back to "Economics 101" and remember that the consumer is only willing to pay so much for a CD - especially if there is another more affordable way to get songs.
blue
Re:Musical Diversity (Score:5, Insightful)
get your ass out to your local bars and clubs, and support local music!!!
Re:Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you sell your records at $20 a copy, you will not sell a million of them. Anymore. But if you sell your records at $10 a copy, you might. And if you sell them at $5 a copy, it's that much more likely.
So, yes, you can get paid. But in the current economic environment, the substitute goods (Economics 101 terminology) mean that you can't charge monopoly rent for it anymore. That is to say, music downloaders would rather have the convenience of an audio CD than the poor audio quality of MP3, as long as the audio CD isn't priced too high. The current price of 15 to 20 dollars is too high.
As an alternative, put out a mega-album with 2-3 CDs, a big booklet filled with lyrics, photos, art, and interesting notes. Put it all in a quality sleeve/jacket/jewel case. If the music is decent, you could probably charge 35, 40, maybe 50 dollars for it.
The days of easy money for musicians, groupies, executives, and the rest are over. Period. No more cutting a record for five weeks that makes millions. From now on, if you want to be a musician, you're going to have to work for your money.
As for the musicians who still want unlimited money, furs, diamonds, private airplanes, giant mansions, and all the illegal drugs they can inject in their ears, from now on they're going to have to work a lot harder to get all that dough.
The real winner in this will be that art form known as music.
Re:Article summary and comparison to US system (Score:3, Insightful)
You left out one bit though. At least in the United States the consumer takes it up the backside. So we've got that going for us at least.
KFG
Shocking failiure (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result, Wu said, there are fewer than 20 professional-quality albums produced per year in China. This lack of large-scale music production inhibits the entry of talented newcomers.
Unbelievable! Granted China is a poor country, but with their population they must have millions of talented musicians. Yet only 20 professional albums are produced per year. I can't think of a sadder commentary on the effects of universal piracy. Let's hope we don't end up in the same state here in the West.
In so many ways you are wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Article summary and comparison to US system (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, to translate it into a well-known aphorism:
"Under Communism, man exploits man. Under Capitalism, it's the other way around."
Schwab
Re:In Communist China... (Score:4, Insightful)
"music industry" a misnomer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is really telling (Score:3, Insightful)
No. They shouldn't.
The proof of this is precisely because they have no control over independent duplication, nor can they ever reasonably expect to obtain that control.
Consider: Oxygen is a valuable commodity. Indeed, you cannot live without it. Oxygen is exuded from plants every day, including those in your garden. Now, given that there are significant, measurable costs to tending and maintaining your garden, and given that the oxygen it produces has clear market value, shouldn't you be able to charge for it? Aren't those who have received value from the oxygen you produced morally and ethically obliged to stuff money into your wallet? (Or, to take it to more absurd extremes: If Bill Gates bought the entire Amazon rainforest, could he legitimately start billing the world for the oxygen it produces?)
The answer, of course, is a big fat "no," because that's not how reality works. Anyone forming a business model based on this presumption would -- correctly -- be laughed into bankruptcy.
The reality of digital media is that it is easily and cheaply duplicated by anyone, anywhere, any time. It was designed to do this, making it a feature, not a bug, and, despite Micros~1's ambitions with Palladium, it's not going to change any time soon. This reality of digital media has never been a secret -- indeed, it's one of its big selling points -- and for media executives to whine shrilly about it speaks less toward their business acumen and more forcefully toward their stubborn unwillingness to face facts.
Schwab
karma strikes (Score:3, Insightful)
When they (recording industry) continue to make ever-unreasonable demands on us (the consumers) how much longer do they think we will put up with it? Just like open source, the will of the masses will become reality.
It's sad that in the China example, artists again get the shaft by the recording companies, blamed on 'pirates' (or is that terrorist? I'm no longer certain.)
Everyone on
What exactly are you saying about Devo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that Devo isn't contributing to our musical heritage? Or were you just saying that you'd be willing to pay any sum for their new album? Or perhaps you meant that their contributions are more literary than musical. That I could understand.
I'm a speed racer and I drive real fast;
I drive real fast - I'm going to last.
I'm a pirate and a like to kill.
I like to steal, so here's your bill.
Re:... aaah, you're breaking my heart! (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the "rock-n-roll" lifestyle is that people are fed up with supporting it: if they want to listen to something they might as well download it (pirate it! argh!) because the product is not worth the price when it could be had for free. This isn't a "class warfare, these people make too much and hold us peons down" problem - this is a failing business model that isn't keeping up with the times (think: buggy whips).
The GIGO of Slashdot. (Score:1, Insightful)
[1] If people are saying so and so, is true about such and such, ask them were did they get that particular impression? TV, magazines, radio, talking with the actual person? Walking a mile in their shoes?
[2] But at least you think they would make the effort.
Full of rage, and pissed of at that coward. (Score:3, Insightful)
You spoiled son of a bitch...
Yeah, mod me down I can take the karma hit, I want the karma hit. Anonymous cowards piss me off. And that one got modded UP for this nausiating trolling...I'm hoping that the modding down will come from the same moderators that upped that twisted fuck's post.
Fair and impartial? How drunk are you? The DMCA is fair and impartial? The tax cuts for the disgustingly rich are fair and impartial?
the Soviet commisars, where wealth is stolen from those who are capable and worthy and forcibly redistributed to the benefity of the lazy and dishonest.
You arrogant bastard.
You lying, dishonest, hypocrite! I'm choking on my own rage here!
Yeah, Lance Bass deserves his millions of dollars more than the men, women and children who worked 10h days in sweat shops to make his shoes! They are so damn lazy! Working themselves to death just so they can scrounge enough money to keep their children barely fed and clothes! How dare they not pay as much as his highness demands for his crappy music?
I'll be modded down as troll or flamebait for loosing my temper, but fuck it. I would jam dollar bills down your throat until you choked if I ever got the chance. You don't deserve the air you breath if you're going to pollut it so when you talk.
Someone needs to show you true pain and suffering, to get you out of your ivory tower and make you smell the sweat and the blood that the poor have to shed to make people like you so damn comfy.
Sure, the extravagance of some pop stars may lead some with a Marxist bent to argue that they don't "deserve" their wealth
Call me names all you want (Marxist? I do have a goatee...) but britney spears does NOT deserve her money. She works hard? Well so do many other whores, and they don't make as much money as her! Sure she got a better deal (duh!), all she does is tease the Johns and they give her cash without her ever needing to deliver the goods. Most other whores don't get that chance; they do it the old fashioned way. Her pimp is better than most pimps, but he doesn't deserve his cash anymore than that little bra stuffer does.
Are you so totally devoid of basic human decency that you really think that Ozzy deserves his wealth more than any other burned out drug addict with a bit of musical talent? You think that most LSD horror story deserve to slowy rot while their unemployability prevents them from earning a living, but that one married into money (he did, Sharon's dad was quite wealthy), so he deserves it?
he fact is that in a market economy, merit is rewarded with wealth
FUCK YOU
What kind of god-given bullshit are you using to justify that insane bit of rationalisation?
99% of people with money never did anything to merit that money, they were born with it. No, being born into money does not merit immense wealth.
The french had it right in 1789: Cut off their heads.
The very rich do NOT deserve or merit their wealth. They kill and lie and cheat to get it. They get liposuctions while other starves.
They
make
me
sick.
No, I'm no red commie, I don't think that a bureaucracy would be better equipped to manage the mind-boggling riches that vast industrial nations can generate, yes, I enjoy freedoms. Including freedom to earn and spend varying amounts of money. Yes, some people are lazy, and some are freeloaders...but povrety and lazyness are VERY DISTINC ISSUES. Don't you DARE tell me that there are no rich freeloaders out there...don't you dare.
merit is rewarded with wealth, and the motive for any person to work hard is the possibility of this reward.
You disgust me.
No, no and no. I have done very hard work in the past for the sole purpose of benefiting others. I give my time to charities, I volunteer and do hard work, not only for money (gotta eat, gotta work to get the money to eat), but also to help my fellow human beings. Why? Because I know I'm incredibly lucky to have been born in a rich country where its possible to do hard work for good money, and I want to be at least a tad helpfull to others who might be doing hard work for bad money...or for good. I just like to help people (and unlike you, I don't mind if I get nothing in return, a good action is its own reward...sometimes).
Money can be a great motivator, but to worthwhile persons it is not the only one. To sleezy jerks like you it is, but I don't think of people with such low morals as yours as human. More like meatbags (spoiled meat).
Lazy people might have gotten that way by being born in a world where no matter how hard you try, you'll never get out of the hole you're in. Maybe they got a learning disability and never got diagnosed because the fucking bastard of a doctor wouldn't see him without first seeing the green stuff? Maybe? Huh? Maybe a billion other stories like that...
Re:... aaah, you're breaking my heart! (Score:1, Insightful)
"you cannot condone pirating or downloading music, even if the piece of crap pop musicians getting taken arn't worth the lint from my bellybutton, because *sigh* stealing is wrong."
If some backdoor boy sings "baby-girl-baby" over and over again, and all your little daughters run out and buy it, then they deserve the money. The basis of capitalism is that your ability to make money is limited only by the demand for your product. If you want it, buy it. If you don't . .
shut the hell up already.
so how come the pirates can make money then? (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess the record companies aren't interested unless they can make obscene profits.....
TAking lessons from China? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
Counterpoint: Bruce Springsteen's "Nebraska" is considered one of the most important and influential records of the 1980s, and was recorded by himself on a portable 4-track in his basement.
Re:Shocking failiure (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much all [thewaxmuseum.bc.ca] of [deerandbird.com] my [vitvitrecords.com] favourite [salon.com] albums [krecs.com] from [thefiresideroom.com] the [corblundband.com] last [oldreliableband.com] year [justconcerts.com] were produced well by talented producers [hivestudios.net], and released on labels [scratchrecords.com] run by people who care about music [deerandbird.com]. More importantly, I've seen all the bands multiple times in great intimate venues.
I don't know if any of these acts will ever be well-known by anyone outside of Vancouver/Edmonton and area, but so what? Why should music be national? Why is that even important to people? There are hundreds of amazingly talented people in every city who could work on music full-time if more than a couple of thousand people cared to listen to something produced for the love of it and the love of doing something new rather than some celebrity death-wish.
The whole notion of national celebrities is one of the strangest consequences of copyright law and if we lost it I'm convinced we'd be ther better for it. Having the state sponser monopolies by restricting speech, funnelling money into cartels and creating the celebrity-class is at best bizzarre, at worst it's seriously fucked.
Re:Reality (Score:3, Insightful)