Web-Only Album Wins Grammy

blamanj writes "Jazz artist Maria Schneider won a Grammy last night for her album 'Concert in the Garden.' What makes this unusual, according to CNET, is that she might be the first artist ever to win a Grammy for an album distributed solely on the Web. None of the sales were in record stores, and the album was financed through Artist Share."

Music Without The Middlemen

[fembots]

Does that mean that Grammy is rewarding talented artists too?

It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.

Is publisher still an important factor?

OT:The Grammys

[MasTRE]

Was anyone else sooo annoyed at how much crap they spewed about downloading music last night?

Re:Music Without The Middlemen

[AlexMax2742]

As programs like Steam [steampowered.com] have proven, you can still pull respectable sales even without a publisher.

And in some ways it's beneficial. I didn't have to muck around with copy protection or having the CD in the drive at all when I bought Half Life 2 off of Steam. Plus, it doesn't give Vivendi Universal a dime.

And we all know how many /.ers would love to not give the RIAA a dime.

Re: that's nice

[bechthros]

Ah, but the significance is that the Grammys are based strictly on sales. Whoever sells the most albums gets a Grammy, period. Which means that internet sales are finally getting noticed and accepted as a revenue generator.

Which is very significant indeed.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time

[MetaPhyzx]

Well last night was a make-up. The guy had what (Ray Charles) won three Grammys in a 50 plus year career? What better time to make up for it than this year... when it looks like his bio pic could win best Oscar. Maybe the next fella won't have to get a movie deal and expire to get respect.

I dont mind that the major awards shows do this (You can't tell me to this day that Al Pacino "deserved" an Oscar for Scent of a Woman), it's when they choose to do it that irks. At times they choose to reward when a truly deserving or powerful film/performance is up as well. So you know what gets shafted. case in point: This year I think it will be Hotel Rwanda.

I'm very happy for Ms Schneider's good fortune; her Grammy probably was voted for by people who actually heard her music and knew how exceptional it was..versus the at large catagories and normal areas where they play favorites...

Just curious...

[Deagol]

Not having red TFA, is this artist's label an RIAA member?

Music..the other way

[pronobozo]

For someone that is coming from the bottom up, i can say that time is the key. Without millions of dollars to spend on promotion, independant artists have to find a different way to communicate with the masses.

Internet is their greatest tool, so with a bit of time and dedication you can reach millions of people from the comforts of your own home.

I don't think it's about the music industry now, it's about the new uprising of artists taking a step on freely distributed music. The RIAA has their game, but we have ours too.

Instead of changing them, lets just use our own method.

that's my .02

- pronobozo [pronobozo.com]

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time

[Quiet_Desperation]

The guy had what (Ray Charles) won three Grammys in a 50 plus year career?

Yeah, but one has to ask, so what? I can understand people's impatience with award shows that give out sympathy awards. Same thing for awards given for political reasons, although that tends to be the movie industry. Ray Charles had a enormously successful career. Everyone knows he was an amazing talent. People living on Peruvian mountaintops know who he was. He made fifty million billion dollars. What's a Grammy on top of that? And a posthumous one at that. :-\ Even if there is an afterlife, I doubt he cares anymore.

I dunno. I'm just rambling here. I sort of agree with Chris Rock's recent statement where he said, "Awards for art are f---ing idiotic." Maybe he was kidding and stirring up buzz for the upcoming Oscars, but I can see where a person might find them pointless. Art is so subjective, and there seems to be a lot of bandwagoning.

Re:Music Without The Middlemen

[bahamat]

It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.

Unfortunately, most artists aren't able to do anything like this. Case in point Poe [realpoe.com] (or try the iTunes [apple.com] link) has basically been screwed left and right by Atlantic for the past 5 years. She can't perform any of her own songs until 7 years after her contract expires, and at current, if I understand correctly, she is essentially barred from creating any new music and releasing it without Atlantic's approval.

Even Prince had to bend over and take it. His contract was so bad he wasn't even able to use his performing name until the contract expired.

All of this of course just underscores how screwed up the RIAA is.

Irony...

[argent]

Ironically (and in restrospect obviously) the album is not available on iTMS in their "Grammy Winners" section. :)

Jazz is a bad test case

[ScentCone]

My first thought was: "I wonder how many people who are normally fine with pirating music because they're sticking it to a record company..." (as if the artist isn't a piece of that picture) ..."will, out of inertia, just go ahead and run off with an unpaid-for copy of this woman's work, too." And then I realized that most Jazz fans are a little more cerebral, and have a lot more respect for the artists themselves, and typically would either go see a show, or actually pay for a recording. If her work isn't immediately torrented everywhere, that won't really indicate a sea change in this picture. Stay in the musical neighborhood, but see how it goes with, say, a new Norah Jones collection. Or, just prove that all of the "I only do it because of the RIAA" types are hypocrites by seeing if, just to make the point, Metallica or The Blackeyed Peas would do it. Their work would be immediately ripped off, and we'd have some tangible hypocrisy to point to. And this endless conversation would finally come down to: "I, um, really just don't want to pay for music, actually, you got me."

The "Social Revolution" Begins

[Dana P'Simer]

A few days ago I posted [slashdot.org] in response to another reader's comments about the "Social Revolution" that is occurring due to P2P software.

This is precisely the way in which this "revolution" should happen. This artist has choosen to distribute her music only over the internet. Because of her choice many people are able to enjoy her music that might not otherwise. She also has cut out the RIAA member middlemen. We need more artists that are willing to do this.

Her choice, though, is the key issue here. An artist that does not make a similar choice should not have thier right to make that choice usurped by a bunch of thieves with bittorrent clients.

Re:Not just the RIAA

[cronius]

This is the point that RMS is trying to make about copyright. He says sharing music should be legal.

The reason for this is exactly what we're seeing here: the artist are being screwed over by the record companies. If you're a "to be" artist, you need someone to record your songs, distribute them and give you PR. Either you sign the standard (awfull) contract, or you get nothing. Of course they sign it, they want to be artists, right?

If music distribution on the net was legal, artists wouldn't be so much under the mercy of the record companies (which you can see they are taking advantage of). They would get their PR through filesharing, more people would go to their concerts (if they're any good), and they would make more money (income from concerts are mostly theirs to keep). Instead, they're getting fucked over by the record companies, and the only option is not to be an artist at all.

The exception for this are the artists that have sold their 7 records or so, because then the contract expires. Then they are in the situation to renegotiate, and they can actually get a contract that's good for them, so that they earn money.

So big stars earn big bucks, and they will loose money if music sharing is legal, but small artists will definitly win.

Those are basicly the words of RMS, and when I hear examples like this they make sense.

Re:OT:The Grammys

[homer_ca]

Not just that. Bono and The Edge from U2 have both supported [u2world.com] fans trading their music as long as it was not for profit.

...U2 frontman BONO says,"THE EDGE is basically pro-NAPSTER. He feels that as long as people are using computers for music and not playing mindless games, that's good. My own feeling is that it's cool for people to share our music - as long as no one is making money from the process. We tell people who come to our concerts that they can tape the show if they wantto."

Re:Not just the RIAA

[bahamat]

Sounds like a good example of how screwed up poe is (or was) as well. Why the fuck anyone would sing a contract like that is beyond me, but it's not like a record exec put a pen in her hand and Luger in her mouth.

She's not, and wasn't screwed up, just screwed over. Young musically (or otherwise artistically) inclined people are not lawyers. When the record company comes by with the tantalizing offer of becoming a millionaire most of them don't know enough about business or the world in general to negotiate a contract properly. "Sign this and you'll be rich and famous, the details are just formality, no need to read them".

Think about it. Most "hits" are from artists that are in their early 20's. When have you ever known someone that young to make a fully rational decision? Record companies know the position they are in, and they know full well that they are taking advantage of someone who can't fight back.

Even industry giants have little choice but to shut up and take it. Prince went for many years with no name and referred to only as the artist formerly known as Prince. That happened because he got screwed by his publisher and wasn't even allowed to use his name because even it was under contract. I could go on and on about artists that get screwed. The list is as long as the number of musicians signed by record companies.

The record companies have a stranglehold on the music industry and only a few people are able to get out from under it. The moral of the story here guys is SUPPORT THE ARTISTS, ESPECIALLY INDEPENDANTS. The only way people like Prince, Maria Schneider, or Poe will be able to get out from under the control of record companies is fan support and lots of it.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, TAX PROTESTING TROLL

[scorp1us]

I really don't have to protest taxes. The statues are written 100% within the bounds of the constitution. The problem arises that the IRS is making people believe that the statutes are written one way, when they are actually written as another. I really don't need any court case to read the statues in my favor.

If you're not beliveing me, then I suggest that you start reading, starting from the constitution and then jump to title 26. Make sure you read it in its entirety, particularly section 3401. There are numerous "terms of art" like "employee, employer, "trade or business", "wages" in which the statues use a common word then define it specifically. The IRS capitalizes on this.

You will find that you actually have to construe words to be broader than they are defined in order for you to be liable for paying any tax.

I really challenge you to read with an open mind, the constitution and title 26. I am not wrong on this. You obviously have not read the statues or you'd be in agreement. It's ok though. No one read the statues, something that the IRS is counting on. Why do you think they got a "kinder gentler IRS"? If you piss off enough people, they look for new ways out. Voluntary compliance (Their term, not mine) was falling fast.

It is upsetting how many freedoms that people will give up for a promise of no worries.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom...Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you...and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State House, August 1776

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

The power to tax is the power to destroy.
-John Marshall Order

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury.
--Alexander Tyler

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-G. Gordon Liddy

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson

I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights.
-Abraham Lincoln

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.
-John Hay (1872)

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
-John Adams

Do any of these stir anything inside of you?