Magnatune - a Non-Evil Record Label?

jea6 writes "As seen on Fark and sure to intrest non-crossover Slashdotters, Magnatune is a record company with a catchy slogan. They highlight: 1) We're a record label. But we're not evil. 2) We call it 'try before you buy.' It's the shareware model applied to music. 3) Listen to hundreds of MP3'd albums from our artists. Or try our genre-based radio stations. 4) If you like what you hear, buy our music online for as little as $5 an album or license our music for commercial use. 5) Artists get a full 50% of the purchase price. And unlike most record labels, our artists keep their rights to their music. 6) Founded by musicians, for musicians. No major label connections. We are not evil. So if you are anti-RIAA (artist or consumer) and looking for an option (albeit a small option), this may be a start. The music is Creative Commons licensed, which is the brainchild of the eminent Lawrence Lessig."

Re:It may be non evil...

[IRNI]

Well it is the idea that really matters. As more and more musicians get word of this, the more likely you will be to find good music. It will just take time but this is definately a step in the right direction. This gives the artists so much more potential to prosper from their music. My friends in the Genitorturers quit their label and formed their own. They are making a LOT more money than they did with Cleopatra but aren't getting distributed as much. They have a huge fan base so it is still working out but something like this would have been ideal for a band like them.

Re:'try before you buy'

[daveo0331]

If you have coke coming from faucet at home, how much would you pay for a bottle? "

Same amount I would pay for a bottle of water, probably.

Re:Artists aren't this stupid.

[Smidge204]

New artists are exactly what they're aiming for. As the label (hopefully) gains ground, they will have more and more of a presence and attract more 'major' artists.

The big labels of today started out pretty small too. (Except maybe Sony, which probably had backing/brand recognition from their parent company...)
=Smidge=

Re:mp3

[Dysphoric]

so how man non-geeks do you know that have an ogg vorbis player. most people just use windows media player or winamp. sure there are plugins but thats just extra work.

Re:This is great except..

[Darth Yoshi]

What about all those people who have already signed their soul over to the devil? I'm sure if it were as simple as "switching" from one record label to another, many bands would.

One step at a time. First there has to be a better record label to switch over to.

the test

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Ok, Here's the big test! Now that all you music copiers have a way to get music at a reasonable price, that you can hear before you buy, where the musician is treated with respect ...

What excuses will you use for stealing the music now?

Re:Artists aren't this stupid.

[Cordath]

Actually, artists are frequently as dumb as rocks. While smart individuals may exist, as a population they have the collective IQ of a slightly moldy mango. This is why record companies find it so easy to sign them onto expoitative contracts which give it to them hard and raw in every orifice. Most artists just want to make music, not study law.

In any case, it is flat out wrong to state that this model of record company cannot give an artist the same opporunity for success as a major record label. It is certainly true that such a label won't be able to finance the mega-buck music video and media promotion that top pop tarts like Britney Speares have gotten. At least, not at first. (That may come later) However, *very* few artists signed to record labels get that treatment. Most get shelved, with their contract actively preventing them from seeking opportunities elsewhere rather than helping them.

If a service such as this were to really take off it could be an excellent way for unknown artits to find an audience. By making their entire catalogue available for sampling, artists who would otherwise not even be popular enough to be pirated would have their body of work available and easily accessable with little risk to samplers. It's a long shot, but those odds are a heck of a lot better than an artist who gets one CD pressing (and a fat bill for it) from their record label which is immediately shipped to a warehouse instead of stores. In the latter case, live performances are the only way they have to generate interest.

Now here's the kicker: An artist has to be an entire order of magnitude more popular with a major record label than they do with this service to make the same cash. The kind of artist who scrapes maybe 30K a year out of a record contract with a major label could be living very comfortably with 50% royalties instead of 5%. Even Steve Tyler could do that math.

Of course, for all this to work people actually have to check out the service. If you love music, think of it as a duty to listen to every bloody track this label has available until you find something you like. Then *BUY* it. We're voting with our wallets here, and if nobody heads to the polls these guys will die out, and that would be a shame.

P.S. These guys even have WAV's available when you buy. That flat-out *OWNS* any other music vendor out there. The lack of lossless online music vendors has been something that has kept the audiophile community at arms length from online music purchases. This site could change that. However, it would be smart for them to adopt some form of lossless compression to make their bandwidth costs more bearable. Speaking of bandwidth, I don't think they were planning on being slashdotted! There are rough seas ahead, but I sure hope they can stay afloat!

The Problem With Music

[jancastermans]

Read this essay [negativland.com] by Steve Albini (producer Nirvana)

quote "The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month."

Re:This part needs a correction...

[Andrewkov]

As others have pointed out, the M3U file is just a text file with URL's in it. To download the MP3's, first save the m3u file somewhere, then download all the MP3's with wget:

wget -i songlist.m3u

Re:Artists aren't this stupid.

[Cipster]

I agree with your point but I just want to point out one thing:
This label splits revenue 50/50 not profits. It's too easy for a label to doctor the books and make the profits disappear. RIAA labels still charge the artists a breakage fee which is left over from the old LP days when a % of the disks broke during transport. Nevrmind that CD's are nowhere near as fragile.

Re:It may be non evil...

[netbornmusic]

Depends what you consider good music. From what I can see, the RIAA and cronies tend to be pushing mass-market pop and easy listening, so they can get their money back and much more.
Absolutely right. Sure the quality (tech side) of what they release is highest, cause they spend so big $ on it. But besides this - it's all the same pop again and again, they don't want to release something really new, cause it's risky. And people (when talking about millions of people, the majority) don't really want something new, they don't care so much about the music and just want it to sound somehow familiar and not bothering...

Re:'try before you buy'

[daveo0331]

You just explained my point. If there's a difference in quality between a product that costs money and an "identical" product that is free, you can get people to pay money for the higher quality item. As you just pointed out, that's how they're able to sell bottled water. Similarly, some people have proposed a music distribution model where low-quality mp3s are free but higher quality mp3s (or CDs) cost money. It's a solution (certainly not the only solution) to the problem of how to give music away so people can sample it, but still make money selling music.

Re:'try before you buy'

[Twanfox]

You also miss a big point. Convenience. It is convenient to me to pick up a bottle of water out on the road where I don't have access to the taps and don't have anything to put it in anyways. I don't buy bottled water for quality.

mp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

wasn't this the same business model as mp3.com, originally?

music is a useless definition

[metalhed77]

Your argument is as old as time and it is eternally on the losing side. You could say the same thing about the impressionists. Oh, the true test of a good painting is if it is a perfect incarnation of man's splendor via realistic modeling / rendering. Well, let's get rid of Monet, Manet, and all art made after the neoclassical period. In fact we can apply this to every period of art history! I don't have any problem with your taste, you're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine. Let's not forget that it wasn't so long ago that the Beatles weren't considered music by many, and now they seem quite mild.

I like experimental music. You can rant about it all you want, and that's fine. Just don't try to impose your unenlightened views upon me. Almost ALL experimental musicians are classically trained before they decide to try something new.

Re:hmm

[E_elven]

Completely untrue. The monarchist cattle mentality of humans requires leaders, heroes. A quote is just an observation by a famous person.

Re:Maybe not evil, but...

[mabu]

For the most part, SSL is a PR issue more than it is a security issue. I hate to break the bubble, but it's true. As long as you use a credit card (as opposed to a debit card) you are protected against fraud according to the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1976.

What are the chances that someone is packet-sniffing the connection between the networks looking for credit card numbers, and what could they realistically do with it? Most peoples' passwords between the client and the server are in cleartext and that represents an even more substantive security/privacy issue.

Obviously SSL encryption is important, but even more important is not using debit cards and making sure the company you're doing business with it legitimate.

Let's not propagate the ignorant generalization that simply because a site uses SSL, that guarantees the transaction will be secure. Most security compromises are on the client and server level and not in between.

Re:It may be non evil...

[anon*127.0.0.1]

Well, if you're happy with the major music labels deciding for you what it good and what sucks... more power to you. There seem to be an awful lot of people like you.

I don't mind doing my own "quality control". I don't mind sifting through a bunch of crap to find a few gems. I'd rather have a few pearls and a bunch of dross then a sea of mediocre crap. Besides, if you follow your instincts and listen to the opinions of people you trust, you'll find good stuff more often then not. Stephen Hawking said that MC Frontalot had talent.... and by golly, he was right.

The Value of Editing

[sterno]

Where this goes is that with the large volume of bands out there that can be so readily distributed, the value of critics and editors will increase. You find somebody who seems to agree with your tastes and follow their recommendations. Right now, the opinions of certain power brokers determines the fate of bands.

The adventurous listeners can go out there and try all kinds of new things and then bring back what they like to the masses. Word of mouth will become a far more powerful engine for generating popularit than RIAA marketing. This is already true for many who've grown sick of pop radio.

To speak from personal experience, I don't listen to the radio (except for NPR). But I listen to lots of music that never gets played on the radio. I've got a friend who's in a really good local band [gaskit.com], and I've got some friends who are really into music that always point me towards new things. So I get their recommendations, and I find that I like a large portion of what they recommend. Finally I experiment a little, usually finding crap, but occasionally discovering something new that I like.

That's the future of music. The RIAA is screwed.

Re:'try before you buy'

[danila]

People in Zurich have better water in their faucets and city fountains than Evian. They do in fact drink water from fountains and sometimes fill the bottles from them, but AFAIK they also buy some bottled water.

People like free stuff, but they are also comfortable with paying for stuff. Hell, some people will even pay for land plots on the Moon, surely you can find some customers for your music.

Re:music is a useless definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that it wasn't so long ago that the Beatles weren't considered music by many, and now they seem quite mild.

<Milhouse> Who are the Beatles?
<Bart> They're the guys who wrote all the songs on Maggie's baby records.

Re:you can't read

[Phroggy]

if you want to part ways, don't send us any more music. We'll retain the right to keep finding money for the music you have sent us

Does this mean the artist is still entitled to their 50%? So, if the artist truly wants to "part ways" there is no established way to do so?