The Music Biz Is the New Book Industry 328
jonerik writes "The new issue of New York Magazine includes this intriguing article by Michael Wolff which makes the case that the music biz will soon be going the way of the book industry. Arguing that larger-than-life characters such as Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, and Dorothy Parker were the rock stars of their time, Wolff points out that 'where before you'd be happy only at gold and platinum levels, soon you'll be grateful if you have a release that sells 30,000 or 40,000 units -- that will be your bread and butter. You'll sweat every sale and dollar. Other aspects of the business will also contract -- most of the perks and largesse and extravagance will dry up completely. The glamour, the influence, the youth, the hipness, the hookers, the drugs -- gone. Instead, it will be a low-margin, consolidated, quaintly anachronistic business, catering to an aging clientele, without much impact on an otherwise thriving culture awash in music that only incidentally will come from the music industry.' Wolff also relates a recent lunch he had at Sony Music in which a sort of paralyzed acceptance had set in; 'The recent past was very bad; the future was likely to be worse. All money earned from here on in would be harder to earn. This felt like acceptance to me: We simply don't know what to do.'"
Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Screwing the customer by over-charging, over-producing and under-acknowledging the hard work of real artists as opposed to hyping studio-created filler.
Their second mistake:
Ignoring people TELLING them this
Their third mistake:
Continuing this trend by assuming it's actually creating long-term solvency as opposed to an embittered and irritated audience who will be willing to search for bands not under 'Collective Control'
The story doesn't quite agree with you, but... (Score:2)
To quote:
Self absorbed people talking of their own death, realizing they've killed the golden goose. I'd really like to hear one of their stories to see exactly what they'd say: what part of the many things that pissed me off enough about RIAA to stop buying music have they actually realized?
Don't forget the OTHER mistake... (Score:2)
Well, it'll either go that way.. (Score:4, Funny)
or all the large corporations will end up ruling the world and we will all be slaves serving under their tyranny listening to Nsync 24/7 with little advertising devices implanted into our eyes and ears.
Personally, I can't wait for my own personal add implant! I love Nsync, and where's my coke?
Re:Well, it'll either go that way.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I can't wait for my own personal add implant! I love Nsync, and where's my coke?
I discovered the power of Frank, Patsy, Dean, Hank, Sammy, Tony and Bing about twelve years ago, and life's been groovy ever since. Do you know any radio stations where I can hear *that* 24/7? I didn't think so.
Hell, I just found out about Aqua and Vengaboys!
P.S. Who the hell is N'Sync?
Re:Well, it'll either go that way.. (Score:2)
Um, you do realize that the person to whom you responded spelled it NSync, and you've corrected their punctuation while professing ignorance...
Yeah - I added that at the end because I thought it was kinda funny when I posted it. Sorry if it wasn't.
BTW, I actually like N'Sync in principle (even if I can't stand the music) because they have demonstrated publicly that they don't take themselves too seriously. They r0cked in that episode of The Simpsons where Bart, Millhouse, Ralph and Nelson formed a boy band, and they did that NFL superbowl halftime show behind-the-scenes "minidocumentary" with Ben Stiller, who I am convinced is not human - he's too frickin' funny.
My favorite line (Ben Stiller): "N'sync? That N'sucked!"
Yvan eht nioj!
Jiggy, robot, do-si-do, and close with a Matrix.
Werd...
Re:Well, it'll either go that way.. (Score:2)
Music Live (Score:5, Interesting)
In Germany, where I've spent some time, local bands are more influential than US/International stars. Although there is some influence, it's "in" to know someone who plays in a band, and bands are hired for gigs often.
I've always believed that the future of music was in Live music, i.e. performers must play to get paid. I think with internet distribution of music, this and the tone of the article, the future lies in performers doing actual work.
Torsten
Re:Music Live (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a radical idea. Getting paid for doing something. Rather than getting paid to do nothing. This whole notion that I should have to pay somebody again and again for work that they did once will eventually have to go away.
At least in the case of buying a CD, the distributor did something for me personally. Sure, they didn't know I would be the one to buy that CD. But they had to expend both labor and materials to make that particular CD that I bought. So there is actually some exchange of real value in both directions.
But if I download a song on a P2P, the copyright holders have done absolutely nothing for me personally. They didn't write the music for me. They didn't perform it for me. And they didn't even have to make the copy for me. They did jack shit. Why should they get paid?
Musicians should get paid for providing a service just like everybody else. If you work hard, you can make good money as a live performer. Especially if you don't let the record labels steal it all. On the same note, programmers should get paid to write software. Not to just sit around and sell the same software over and over again.Personally, I have no problem with watching the entire shrink-wrap music and software business go away entirely. To anybody who insists that they should keep getting paid after they stop working, I say "Screw you. Get a real job."
Re:Music Live (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight - rather than the musicians providing you a service, you stole their material; therefore, you don't have to pay for it because they didn't serve it up? I might pay less money per gallon when I pump my own gas, but I'm still paying for the fuel itself. I wouldn't blame musicians for not "providing a service" if you aren't going to pay for it anyways.
If you work hard, you can make good money as a live performer. Especially if you don't let the record labels steal it all.
Unless you allow the labels to do what they will, who's going to book the shows? Many groups tour precisely because that's the only way they can make money; but they can't get lucrative tour deals or promote the shows without a media titan (a la Clear Channel) pushing them through. The Internet has done some incredible things for indie artists, but I think it'll be a while yet before we see P2P technology booking summer concert tours to play sold-out arenas.
On the same note, programmers should get paid to write software. Not to just sit around and sell the same software over and over again.
So, let's say I write a piece of software and decide to sell it in the hope of making a profit. Everyone who pays me money is doing so to obtain the benefits of my product - regardless of how long ago I made it, how much money it's made me, or who else has bought it. I don't know how it would make sense to charge some people for a product but not others simply because "they did it once." It is a service, it was a one-time creative act; but if you want it, you have to pay like everyone else (ideally for copyright holders).
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but there are scores of artists/programmers out there who are have to stick to predetermined distribution methods, just because there's no other way. They don't wanna starve for justice, or fairness - they just want to make a living. If you want to assign blame, pin it on the realities of capitalism.
Re:Music Live (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, there's only so many venues, and everybody from the local stagehand unions to TicketBastard take their ever increasing cut of the action.
And then when you get down to it - you're not talking about a musician, you're talking about a performer. The appeal of a live show is often fundamentally different than the appeal of a music video, or recording. The live show has costumes, dancing, scenery, pyrotechnics, lights, all kinds of bullshit that the serious musician and music affictionado doesn't really need. So why be burdened with that? What if a really really good, I mean earth-shatteringly GREAT musician, for some reason, cannot tour, or cannot perform.
One example I've often mentioned is Andy Partridge from XTC. He's got a crippling anxiety disorder, and just plain can't get up on stage and perform. His contribution to music is non-trivial. He's not just another fluff stage performer like Madonna etc.
Are you saying that people like that CAN'T make a living doing music, and must flip burgers?
Granted, there's an awful lot of bullshit music out there that is not worthy of copyright protection, and there are some performers who are simply - performers. But there's also a lot of really fucking great musicians who deserve to be paid for being "recording artists" - and not be required to tour. And it's important that their recordings be protected somehow.
I'm not going to climb down THAT slippery slope, because no matter how you look at it, it's either the honor system (which apparently doesn't work) - or the untenable ugliness that is enforcement of copyright. I'm not here to solve that problem. I'm here to shoot down the absolutely brainless notion that people who only write songs and record them in studios aren't really working, and therefore don't morally deserve to make a living.
Re:Music Live (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that if you hold on to this concept of only being compensated for what you personally build/create/work you will be able to calculate your maximum income.
(based on a US 40 hour work week)
2080 hours a year X your hourly wage = your maximum earning potiental.
so $20.00/hour gives you about $41600 Gross.
While this is pretty good for a single person living an apartment, it's by no means what you could possibly be earning. Nor is it what you need to support a couple kids in daycare, college funds, a nice car (something above a beater, not a Lexus on a lease), a nice house, and a few extra toys.
Personally, I think that dollar amount is way to low for my abilities.
So, if for instance, you went about to become a consultant and managed to bill out 100% of your 2080 hours per year @ $100/hour. You would then be looking at about $208000 per year. Now we are talking about some serious cash. But, really, who's @ 100% billable?
The bottom line is that there is no way that you can make quantum dollar income based *soley* on your personal effort. It is just not possible. You must find a way to make your money work for you as this will allow you the time to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
Now, before I'm slammed for having this disgustingly capitalistic view, let me set one thing straight. It's not the hording of money that I'm after, it's what money can buy--TIME. I know that money ain't everything, but having a lot sure sdoes make things easier.
Because the more you gots the more it works for you, (Mutual Funds, Investments), and the more you can enjoy it.
money = time = quality of life that *you* choose, not chosen by someone else.
Are you working for someone else? Got a nice salaried job? Well, then you are contributing to someones compensation that is making a ton more than you by doing less. Not fair you say, well, I say take some time and originate a unique idea!
Oh, one final thing, you should probably not be contributing to a 401k/IRA, because those financial vehicles are *designed* to pay you money after you stop working. I mean, you *do* want to stop working for "the man" someday, right?
w3rd
Re:Music Live (Score:4, Insightful)
As a writer (and programmer), I have to argue here... extending the analogy to the [semi-defunct (or should I just say semi-funct)] book world, I guess the logical parallel for us 'wordsmiths' is that we should be on book tours (giving readings and signing autographs) all the time? Considering the phenomenal amount of effort required to write a decent novel--or for that matter, record an album, I believe--what you're saying is one of the most absurd rants I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. No offense.
In the future I'm getting the Parker Brothers to personally MC every game of Monopoly I play--lazy bastards.
Not just Live Music, It's going to be live art... (Score:2, Interesting)
Composer gets nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Or to phrase it an other way: In the future, the composer of music will have very little ability to get paid.
If the composer is also the performer, he will get paid, but only in his capacity as performer, not composer.
the future lies in performers doing actual work
Obviously, composing music is actual and difficult work, requiring talent, training and considerable effort.
Re:Composer gets nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Composer gets nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
1 play your composition and someone feeds you
2 teach your composition to a musician who barters something of value.
3 get room and board from a nobleman who shows off the compositions you make in his care.
4 (where we are now) Own the right to make copies of and perform your composition, an entitlement to earn a certain sum from each person who learns your composition and for each public performance or audio reproduction of it.
Composers, authors, and inventors are in a strange role in a labor economy, they do not simply get a fixed fee for a fixed time spent working or a fixed output. They are granted a reward for each time their work is appreciated (the only economic alternative it seems would be to set a *very* high one time price for the creator's contribution to humanity, if composers are to be rewarded economicly).
Re:German Music (Score:2)
I suspect that this is why the French kicked NATO out a few decades ago...they foresaw the the cultural influence of hundreds of thousands of American youth who were overpaid, oversexed, and over there. I'd be curious to know if France is significantly different in this respect.
Re:German Music (Score:2)
American culture/music/fast food/etc had nothing to do with it.
Funny how often that history degree comes into play on this site (-:
Music industry to last forever (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this different from books? (Score:2)
Music is about pop culture nowadays, and that what sells the most. The oldies buy the older, more thoughtful remasters and the releases from the older artists, while the teen generation buys the music thats in and happening.
Parallel this to even one decade ago. Kids were buy the latest "Goosebumps" book, the latest pop fiction book, dealing with teen issues of love and friends (remarkably, like pop songs). The older people are buying the latest offering from the established authors.
It sounds EXACTLY like the music industry of today. The young buy the pop books and culture, and older buy the remasters and the established artists.
The only real reason that nysync are number 1, and not that latest michael crawford album is because of airplay. They both selling the same, but the airplay is a lot more for nsync, and billboards are 75% airplay (or marketing, if your prefer), and 25% sales.
30-40K units isn't bad (Score:2, Interesting)
If I were an artist, I think I would be more than happy to sell 30,000 copies of an album... provided I got more than the $0.14 a copy or whatever the labels are paying their artists these days.
Re:30-40K units isn't bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Most artists would be be better off selling 30,000 records and making a buck or two per record. The problem is that doesn't leave the outrageous profit margins that the music industry has been used to for so long.
The music industry is facing an increasingly consolidated radio business and the rise of a new distribution method that is in many ways superior to the current distribution channel that they control. In the end the artists, the radio stations, and the Internet are going to squeeze the fat right out of the record label middlemen.
as a refugee from the music 'biz'... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh and if this comment should happen to show up as a result from a search for Clive Gabriel of Chrysalis Music? He's pure scum. NEVER trust that man.)
The "biz" is actually worse than the average
This is surprsingly plausible (Score:3, Interesting)
I find that heartbreaking, but sadly plausible.
Re:This is surprsingly plausible (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd describe it as heartbreaking. We're talking about the downfall of homoginized "best seller" media. Big deal. That's no loss to society. You think society would be worse off without Tom Clancy or Madonna?
Somehow I doubt I'll see the end of Big Media's dominance though. There's always a market for its strained and drained product.
Re:This is surprsingly plausible (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd describe it as heartbreaking. We're talking about the downfall of homoginized "best seller" media. Big deal.
It's not that they aren't reading Tom Clancy. It's that they don't read
Re:This is surprsingly plausible (Score:2)
> children's taste in books, or that they
> didn't read at all, something I've always
> found distressing: many of my friends at
> university never seem to read anything; I
> don't know what they fill that gap in
> their lives with.
Large amounts of homework, campus activities, SLEEP, and (for some people) alcohol.
I wish I got around to reading more, but it was kind of a shock to think back and realize I hadn't read anything non-technical for the entire semester.
-John
Re:This is surprsingly plausible (Score:2)
However, these friends of mine never read at *all*, ever. They have no books in their rooms, no favourite authors, no favourite book even. You miss out so much incidental knowledge by not reading novels, they open you up to new ideas and ways of thinking. I generally find people who don't read for pleasure are less interesting to talk to and certainly much less knowledgeable than those who do (with some exceptions).
Re:This is surprsingly plausible (Score:2)
Movies. Which, obviously, is an inferior subsitute: with a book you must use your imagination (and thus exercise your mind) while movies spoon feed you everything. Of course, I think that telling a tale yourself (perhaps via a roleplaying group) is better than either of these options for mental development, but that's a different issue.
And eventually, we will have people who don't listen to music at all, and don't miss it either.
Au contraire. I don't see music disappearing-- the early childhood influences factor coupled with the proven mood-altering effects will make music a perennial staple of life here on out (much as food is; disreguarding that food is physical while music is more conceptual in nature). It will, however, change in nature of distrubution and creation, back to the model of live concerts that the pre-recording era had. Just as home movies don't put theatres out of business, bands could (and currently do) support themselves easily by performing concerts.
The real curiosity is going to be seeing how in a "Napsterized" world where the Internet allows for free, worldwide information dissemination, how concerts work. After all, we can't automatically assume that a [hypothetical] Texas-based garage band is going to be able to scrounge the funds to hold a tour in Belgium, if that's where most of their audience is.
Re:Television! (Score:2)
You asked what replaced books in most peoples lives. Here's you answer: Television.
Yep... and computers, too... Games and net activities.
Music's market share... (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, I would have no problem with the "death of the rockstar." Have the musicians creating music out of passion, not out of greed. Maybe the only people to get hurt by this would be the big scary record companies.
Try pimping records of Tuvan throat singing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Music is a very individualistic art form. It isolates in a crowd.
You very rarely find li'l ol' grannies rockin' with "The Cramps" and "They Might Be Giants".
You rarely find bikers gassing on the latest "Conway Twitty" or "Boxcar Willy" CD.
I'd ruin an evening trying to find Mexicans really geting into Susanne Vega. Nor will you find much salsa music in Norwegian taverns.
Music is idiocyncratic and idiomatic.
Just to help things along, most music is sold to and bought by people who don't like it and don't listen to it.
Its everywhere at every fuckin' mall the planet over, in every bazzar, every souk, every gallery, "gallerie" and galleria. The people who shell out the bucks are merely shelling out for the "least unpleasant noise" to fill in the void between commercials.
Your buying a couple of CDs every year is squat compared to what the commercial outfits shell out for canned muzak every single hour of every single day.
That's what the media companies are protecting. They don't give a shir about you or your ears.
Bruce Springstein's "Born In The USA" was not saying that you should be PROUD of being "Born In The USA."
Nobody listen's to Marylin Manson's lyrics. Nor Trent Reznor's either. If they did. There's be nobody at the fuckin' shows.
other forces? (Score:2, Interesting)
and guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't totally agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Music has an ability to reach places that words often fail. The book business of course fundamentally depends on earning it's money from a customer base that is at least educated to the point of having a base reading level. Music doesn't require this at all.
Music finds a way to tap into the inner feelings that humans have and allows us to communicate direnctly if even for only a moment. We have grown up with music as a component of our daily lives, we will continue to consume it.
What will change is the pricing for sure. Things will be more reasonable, which will allow for more and wider competition.
All I can say for sure is that those kids hanging out at MTV during TRL are buying into an image and a way of life driven by the music ( no matter how misguided that may be)
Saying that the music biz will be extinct is like saying that there will be no more kids who discover Dark Side of the Moon and imagine that they are the first people to discover this cool music.
Music is just too important to humans. If the record industry knew this and took the time to drop the prices, I think they would make even more money and people wouldn't want to "borrow" the next Eminem record off the net...
Re:Can't totally agree (Score:2)
Showing the rest what NOT to do (Score:5, Interesting)
b) Labeling their customers criminals by introducing copy-protected formats which do more harm than good. The DMCA. The SSSCA.
c) Failing to adapt to worldwide changes, such as the arrival of the Internet, home broadband, P2P technology. Attempts to fight the future rather than embrace it.
d) Pathetically holding on to their old business model, despite telltale signs that it's already outdated.
The list can go on for pages, and the four main points above can be split into several sub-points for those slow understanding the magnitude of this...
"Music Industry"!=Superstardom (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Music Industry"!=Superstardom (Score:2)
Music is a requirement at any kind of catered affair.
Unless your art is ice sculpting, or face painting,
there is no equivalent.
I see a couple of problems with the "live performance" scenario.
Firstly, from the consumers POV, people are used to music wherever they might be. In the car, at work, and so on. There are some environments where canned music is the only way to go.
Second, from the artist perspective, it places a requirement of business saavy on the musicians. Now,
for a classically trained musician it might not be a problem, but how many pop wannabees are even capable of reading a chart, much less have a desire to deal with the business end of things?
"Get a manager" you say. Well, okay, sure. Now we have a controlling third party in the mix and I think we all know how that works out.
The current system didn't just fall out of the sky.
For ever one person who wants to be a professional,
there are a thousand who want to win the pop star lotto and think they can get by without the essential skills.
FWIW I used to earn my living as an audio engineer doing stage and studio, so I've seen both sides of the coin.
I'm sorry... (Score:3, Informative)
Music has been a part of society for litereally thousands of years. People will continue to want to purchase music (even if that means digital format). If nothing else, concerts will continue to be the true source of income for performers.
Look at how much classical music is still purchased, along with various music forms that range from decades to centuries old.
I would venture to say that music is a part of human nature as a method of creative expression. Books are as well, but they don't have the portability and the quick and powerfull effects that music can have on people. Music's portability is its greatest advantage. Being able to listen to music as you do pretty much anything helps with its pervasiveness. Hell, there are a number of activities that are more enjoyable with proper musical accompanyment.
I do believe the format in which music is aquired will continue to change and the type of music will continue to change, as it ever has. But it will always be a lucritive business.
Isn't that was it *used* to be like? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the way things were.. and we liked it!
Re:Isn't that was it *used* to be like? (Score:2)
At least these people could play music and worked hard to be heard (I mean they toured and played everywhere).
Wishful Thinking (Score:5, Informative)
1. U2, $109.7 million
2. 'N Sync, $86.8 million
3. Backstreet Boys, $82.1 million
4. Dave Matthews Band, $60.5 million
5. Elton John and Billy Joel, $57.2 million
6. Madonna, $54.7 million
7. Aerosmith, $49.3 million
8. Janet Jackson, $42.1 million
9. Eric Clapton, $38.8 million
10. Neil Diamond, $35.4 million
11. Matchbox Twenty, $28.4 million
12. Rod Stewart, $27.2 million
13. Jimmy Buffett, $26.9 million
14. Andrea Bocelli, $26.8 million
15. Ozzfest 2001, $26.4 million
16. Sade, $26.2 million
17. Tim McGraw, $24.9 million
18. Britney Spears, $23.7 million
19. James Taylor, $23 million
20. Tool, $20.4 million
No more glamour, the influence, the youth, the hipness, the hookers, the drugs...Yeah right.
Even without concert sales, people are still buying CDs anyway. After all the crap about Eminem's album being pirated before it was released [slashdot.org] he still managed to sell 1.32 million copies in his first week [yahoo.com]. I think the reports of the death of the music industry have been greatly exagerrated.
Finally, innovative musicians can parlay their fame into dollars from other means. Just look at Ozzy Osbourne who's about to pull in 20 million for his reality-sitcom [eonline.com].
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:5, Informative)
Ticket sales are revenues. What are the profits? Many bands lose money while on tour.
It varies, most bands more or less break even, some make money, some lose money.
The really popular bands (i.e. the ones on the radio) tend to lose money on touring, but they and the labels who front the cash don't mind because it helps sell CDs.
Other bands, however, see it exactly the opposite. They try to have just enough radio and CD-shelf presence to become able to attract large crowds to their concerts, and then make all of their money from tickets and sales of merchandise at the concerts (CDs, t-shirts, etc.). This is pretty much how all metal bands have made a living for the last twenty years.
A lot of the difference in profitability comes from whether or not the band and label feel like they *need* to make a profit from touring. The really big bands can afford to view touring as a marketing exercise and so they can afford huge budgets for elaborate stages, lighting, laser shows, fireworks, etc. I don't know about the last couple of years, but U2 has historically been notorious for losing huge amounts of money on concerts, because they put on such an extravagant show. Their label never minded because whenever they went on tour their album sales went through the roof, far more than making up the concert losses (which record companies generally split with the bands).
Lesser-known bands, without radio airplay to push CD sales and without the ability to sell out huge concert venues, have to settle for more modest shows because they need to turn a profit. And many of them are quite successful, particularly in genres that are a bit off the beaten path but still have a solid core audience with a concert-going tradition.
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:2)
And as far as Ozzy goes, 20 mill from the TV show is celebrity pay, not musician pay. You seem to acknowledge that, but miss the point at the same time. WRT innovation, the last time the term could apply to OO musically was "Blizzard of Oz" which is
20 some years ago, and in fact, his contributions were mainly lyrical.
Counterpoint (Score:2, Insightful)
Case in point: In the 15th century, such composers such as Bach, Vivaldi, and Handel became huge as composers, the musical "rock stars" of the time and their names are still well known. However, how many of you can think of an author from the 1600's? Even the classical literature section of About.com (which says it includes the 15th century) [about.com] couldn't come up with any 15th century literature, much less well-known authors. Now check for 1600's composers/music at the same site here [about.com] and note it's in a much more constrained time period and doesn't even include such names as Vivaldi.
So this might be a little far back to be considered a valid point. Then take, for instance, the fact that the newest Weezer album, Maladroit, is currently #3 on the Billboard chart even though every song on the album has been free to the public since two to three months before its release. And they're still becoming rich off of concert and album revenue.
Just a few thoughts...
Re:Counterpoint (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, some of these composers became well-known, but there were hundreds and thousands of other composers who never lasted. In fact until the mid 1800s even these composers were mostly forgotten; the idea of a canon of time-honored masterpieces itself doesn't go much farther back than the 1840s or 1850s.
Johannes Brahms was one of the first composers we remember that never accepted commissions for works. Even Beethoven the freelancer had to accept commissions to live. Brahms made his living teaching lessions, taking conducting posts here and there (and invariably getting frustrated and leaving), and being supported by friends and family.
All these composers came up with lots of "fill" and a few masterpieces.
Re:Counterpoint (Score:2)
1605 Cervantès : Don Quijote de la Mancha
1616 Death of Shakespeare
1631 Calderón: La Vida es Sueño
1637 Descartes : Discours de la Méthode
1637 Corneille : Le Cid
1667 Milton : Paradise Lost
1667 Racine : Andromaque
1668 La Fontaine : Fables
1687 Newton : Principia mathematica
These authors had a larger audience than Bach, Vivaldi or Haendel. For example in the middle of the 14th century, there was 120 bookshops for 30 000 inhabitants in the french city of Lyon.
But you may be right if you compare the audience of theese autors to the number of people who where listening popular music of that time (most of which was disdained by history and is now lost.)
Re:Counterpoint (Score:2)
There was no technology for reproducing a musical
performance at the time. You could reproduce a peice of _music_, given a proper chart and trained performers (including a conductor), but not a performance. It's not the same thing.
Re:Counterpoint (Score:2)
The good stuff (Score:2, Redundant)
1. It is hard to think of a more profound business crisis. You've lost control of the means of distribution, promotion, and manufacturing. You've lost quality control -- in some sense, there's been a quality-control coup. You've lost your basic business model -- what you sell has become as free as oxygen.
quality-control coup is great.
2. And then there is the CD theory. This theory is widely accepted -- with great pride, in fact -- in the music industry. It represents the ultimate music-biz hustle. But its implications are seldom played out.
The CD theory holds that the music business actually died about twenty years ago. It was revived without anyone knowing it had actually died because compact-disc technology came along and everybody had to replace what they'd bought for the twenty years prior to the advent of the CD.
That one's good too. How many people do you know with hundreds if not thousands of CD's. How many had a tape/record collection before that?
-Pete
Re:The good stuff (Score:2)
That one's good too. How many people do you know with hundreds if not thousands of CD's. How many had a tape/record collection before that?
Hell-o-o? Like *everybody*? I still have a shitload
of vinyl that is pre CD era purchases. Why do you think most teenagers had a phonograph? Two reasons
really. So they didn't break their parents hi-fi and
so they could be in their room with the door shut to contain the noise.
Hell, my dad had a jukebox and a shitload of 78's in
the late 40's.
I was gonna make a dinosaur joke till I remembered
the Flintstones.
The article ends: "This is not so bad." (Score:2, Interesting)
Which sums the whole situation up perfectly. The public has been spoon fed the commercialy canned music for a very long time..To a point where many people hear a few seconds of a song they don't know, they automatically reach for the dial. This causes the "top 40" stations to play only the top 40, to keep the vicious cycle going.
I too was such a blind music consumer as a teenager! Now I appreciate NPR, college radio stations, or any other radio station that tries to be original and bring unknown and independents in. There is so much good music out there, and most of it is not on the top 40 list.
Cheaper Recording && Cheaper Sales/Marketi (Score:2, Insightful)
This has been happening already in the digital recording industry, with hardware (and pro recording software) prices coming down dramatically. It's cheaper than ever now to record your own EP - and if costs continue to tighten, we'll start to see a lot of smaller artists sticking their heads into the limelight. And that can only be a good thing.
Got it exactly right (Score:5, Interesting)
Music is Free. For better or for worse, legally or illegally, music is now free. Period. I would submit it should be free, think of it as an advertisement for the tours. But whether or not people (including RIAA) think it should be free, it is. Improving technology and an archaeic business model based on control and scarcity has guaranteed that.
Famous musicians will earn less. Yes, Phil Collins and Celine Dion will probably earn much less than they do now. Instead of millions per year they might have to get used to earning incomes closer to what the rest of society does. Perhaps old Phil will have to scrape by on $200k a year... Then again, he sells out concerts which is where he make big bucks, anyway, so his income may be proportional to his desire to work (perform). I don't see a problem with that.
There will be more musicians. Although the most famous musicians will earn less, there will be more musicians because the barrier to entry will be greatly reduced. Eventually it will be eliminated. Some say that we'll be "flooded" with a bunch of untalented musicians and we won't be able to find anything good, but I'd submit that's the case now anyway.
The recording industry is obsolete. You used to need expensive recording equipment and studios to record quality music. A good studio is certainly still useful, but an amateur group can do a decent job at recording decent quality music that's definitely within their budget. They can burn CDs and sell them for $5/pop at concerts (pocketing $4.50 per CD), throw the music online (attracting more people to concerts). The recording industry is obsolete. Their legal attacks are, as the article mentions, a matter of squeezing the last dollar possible out of their business plan.
I live in Mexico right now. My sister-in-law is a 20-year-old Mexican young lady. She used to use Napster. That got nuked and now she has like 3 different P2P programs on her home PC connected to DSL. She has P2P programs that *I* have never heard of.
Last time I asked her she had downloaded 3200+ MP3s. That's more than 8 times what I, a techno-nerd, have downloaded. She doesn't listen to most of the music more than once, she just downloads everything she can because she likes to collect MP3s. She tells me her friends do too. She wants a larger hard drive for her birthday.
Believe me, the "music industry" is history.
Re:Got it exactly right (Score:2)
Unfortunately, like so many greedy people, they went too far. The honed, refined, and adhered to the formula to such an extent that now the vast majority of the music you hear today is drivel.
The article would place some of the blame for this on radio, however the music industry embraced this soulless form of corp-o-rock.
I gave up downloading MP3 (Score:2)
Just like jwz [jwz.org] said about Linux, its free only if your time is worth nothing.
I used to download a lot of songs(I never could bring myself to download a whole album, something about that just didn't seem right). Lately I've downloaded a lot less - and if I do its purely to sample the music.
There are several very good reasons I gave up downloading MP3.
Finding a song that is encoded at a high-quality rate and that is not purposely screwed up is getting harder to do. Someone out there is purposely seeding P2P networks with "songs" that aren't the real thing, contain 30 second loops played repeatedly, or that have large chunks of blank space.
The value of the time I would spend downloading a whole album of high-quality MP3 and burning it to CD would pay for a new CD a few times over.
I'm one of those people who can tell the difference between CD audio and MP3. I have a portable MP3 player, but generally I listen to CD's.
Also, I've been a musician for many years and have long supported my favorite musicians and groups by buying their products and going to see their shows. You are mistaken when you say famous musicians will earn less - if anything broader distribution and "airplay" will make them earn more. Also, in reply to those who think bands earn money by playing live - very few of them do. Most bands tour to sell more CD's.
There's nothing wrong with downloading something to try it out or to have technology to make backup copies of your media and to convert it into different forms. But to say its free is just plain wrong. If you listen to the same MP3s over and over again and you never support the band, and its against the bands wishes for you to do so - you're a thief, plain and simple. What gives you the right to take someone's blood sweat and tears and call it free? Only the right you gave yourself by grabbing without considering the wishes of the creator.
Re:I gave up downloading MP3 (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no doubt, whatsoever, that this isn't the act of digital vandals, but rather is a concerted effort by publishers to discourage piracy (and personally I applaud them for a pretty brilliant move, though I'm sure some "GIVE ME EVERYTHING FOR FREE! IT'S MY RIGHT!" weenie will claim that this is a violation of some amendment or other). It's quite a brilliant stroke really: Put servers covertly on all the networks serving up bogus songs (which, because of laziness, will propagate to more and more servers as people download the flawed copy and don't audition and delete it) or bogus warez files (or servers that mysteriously disconnect/freeze at 98%), and you'll build such an inconvenience around it that the $15 price of a CD or $40 for a game becomes quite palatable.
Of course there are technical solutions to piracy legitimacy, but all of them either centralize the data, or require you to explicitly become a part of the criminal process, and things like that are easy to crack by the strong arm of the law. The decentralized, everyone-is-an-equal aspect of the P2P networks is a curse as much as a benefit.
Music is free (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is copyright violation. That's been discussed here many times before. If I steal the CD from a record store, I've committed theft. If I copy a CD or download an MP3, it's copyright violation. You might call it semantics, but it's a big difference.
Either you understand the basic tenants and contracts that maintain this thing we call society, or you believe that it's all some anarchy held together by the strings of technology.
You attempt to define this as a legal and social issue. It is not. It's technology and the free market.
In 1900, musicians made and played music live. That was it. Some made money, some didn't, but that's the way it was.
Technology came along and provided a way for both the artists and their distributors (recording industry) to make even more money by recording the music and selling it.
Now, in 2002, technology has come along and obsoleted the previous technology returning musicians to the legal and practical situation they had in the year 1900.
Technology giveth, technology taketh away.
the legal nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the problem: the entertainment industry is extremely rich, and politically powerful. They won't go down without a fight. In case anybody hasn't noticed, the U.S. political system is still dominated by big business, through various mechanisms, such as a system of legalized bribery based on political contributions to the two ruling parties. So while they entertainment corporations are postponing the inevitable, they'll fight a rear-guard action that will make the law even worse than it is now. IP law will become even more unbalanced in favor of IP owners. Hardware copy protection will continue to be written into federal law, possibly with the eventual result of making free operating systems illegal. It's not going to be pretty.
not precisely.. (Score:2)
That's not to say one or neither doesn't need talent or skills or feeling, but each one draws from it's own discrete base.
Intellect is generally something reserved for the ages, and emotion is usually best witnessed in the younger crowd.
Quality counts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, production value has improved, but today's music sounds much like a movie with great special effects but no plot; it lacks substance. The industry has concentrated so hard on vacuous marketing techniques aimed at various demographics, as well as absurd lobbying activities amongst politicians that it should truly come as no surprise that folks have become disgusted with today's music, by and large.
Truly, look at what they're coming up with these days; the better tunes are rehashed oldies (where they've taken advantage of improved production techniques to bring you better sounding copies of old tunes that folks are familiar with). And even some of those are downright offensive with 'corporate appeal'.
I could only think of two more possible solutions to their problems (although it may be too late).
First, recognize that the Baby Boomers are getting older. You aren't going to see that kind of explosive buying power again (at least not until the next major disaster that wipes out a third of the population, making room for another baby boom). So don't even bother. Go with a wider range of musicians and spend a little less money on production (something that's getting easier these days). Quick little hint: scarcity of resources breeds artistic endeavor. Some of the most clever bits of music ever crafted came from truly small production budgets. No need to starve their resources, though, just force your talent to grow their techniques and composition skills before exposing them to the big production dollars.
Second, instead of lobbying your congressman for these truly insulting and offensive abuses of law, put your money into the education system to improve the state of music education in our schools. If folks have no appreciation for music, what makes you think they're going to bother to listen to any of it? Branding? Today's youth barely grasps the concept of counterpoint (multiple melodies played on top of each other), can't appreciate a good groove (preferring an obnoxiously repetitive 'beat' instead), and do not have an iota of an appreciate for music without lyrics.
Re:Quality counts? (Score:2)
Iron Maiden's "Piece of Mind" has a wonderful raw feel to it. Listen to Somewhere in Time, from 1986 - right around when the polished sound was perfected - and it just sounds too perfect. Same thing with Def Leppards Pyromania compared to Hysteria.
It's not something easy to put into words. I don't know if it's the tone or the overdubs or what. Perhaps it is that they were established bands and could afford the studio time to get it right and perfect.
As much as I love that old stuff, I've been finding myself seeking out bands that don't have the industry hooks in them yet. So far my fave is FreezePop (http://www.freezepop.net).
Re:Quality counts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Alright, what the heck, I'll feed the troll.
You'll note that I wrote obnoxiously repetitive.
As such, 'Trance' music, African rhythmic drumming, and such are not included. They aren't obnoxious. Although, to you, it seems it is (you did, after all, quote 'obnoxiously').
And if you think today's youth would appreciate a Bali singer's peculiar intonation system (when compared to Western ideas of intonation), you would be deluded. Hell, most folks today have become so used to hearing music in even-temperment they couldn't imagine the purity of sound available to them if some decent musicians would go to the trouble to use just-intonation. Listening to Eastern music, for today's youth, is inconceivable, with its unique tonal system.
My musical education, since you're trolling, includes some ethomusicology, and damn near a BA in music, with an emphasis on composition. I take music quite seriously, and would like to see the art form grow in this country.
As for dancing to music, I have never been moved enough by so-called 'house' music to feel the desire to dance to it. I have danced (privately, where no-one else could see me <grin>) to music that moves me. I'm probably not a great dancer anyway, and I doubt I could find crowds of people interested in dancing to a 5/4 beat (for example).
As for being 'an aged man clawing at the past', if the present cannot provide music worth listening to, perhaps this is indeed true. However, occasionally, I have managed to find a modern gem or two out there (however, never in the mainstream). Toby Twining [tobytwiningmusic.com] has recently released an album that promises to be good (complete with just-intonation, vocal techniques that are non-western, and tone-rows, to name a few interesting techniques), and sometimes I manage to find some really cool stuff amongst the rabble (Chrystal Belle Scrodd comes to mind). None of these artists I've mentioned will be popularized by the mainstream media, although you might find Toby Twining's work in the stores (maybe, if you're lucky.. I was). I do not consider them part of the music 'industry', hence, not a focus of my previous comment.
As for defining 'good' music, admittedly, it's in the ear of the beholder. However, when different artists are all doing damn near exactly the same thing, when the innovation is lost, the music ceases to be 'good' anymore. And without some training in music appreciation, kids will continue to grow up thinking that this drek is wonderful, when there's a wide world of wonderful music waiting for them out of the mainstream.
So what's next... (Score:2)
And best of all, our children -- all right, our grandchildren -- won't want to become rock stars.
This leads me to ask the natural question, "so what's next?" I mean, our culture seems to demand creating these icons of rebellion. People who do something that most of us cannot do and most of us wish we could do. So what's next?
Does this trend move into the film industry? That seems to be suffering the same problems as the music industry though. Too many people producing too much product and drowning out the chance to distinguish ones self.
Celebrity Hackers perhaps? I think that's more of my own little geek fantasy that somehow people like Linus Torvalds could have popular celebrity. Though as computer technology becoems more a part of everybody's lives, maybe there's a possibility there.
I wonder what happens if maybe we are just out of realms to spawn these cultural icons. When teenagers want to rebel, what's left for them to do?
Re:So what's next... (Score:2)
It's actually a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Three orders of magniture of hype, cost and pay (Score:2, Interesting)
How the fuck else do you explain Harry Potter suddenly being every where?
How about books spawning comic books spawning movies and TV shows until, in one last ditch efort to wring a buck from the whole mess, it winds up on Saturday morning comics. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, X-Men, Star-wars, Ghost Busters.
They're making a "Scoobie Do" moo-vee.
How fuckin' LAME can you get? We're talking the crap you watched on TV slackin' off from home-work, (the same two plots stretched out to 13 shows, year after year, that you eventually abandoned when you started playing with yourself, when slackin' off led to jackin'off,) made into a multi-million dollar production. Before it gets recycled into TV AD vehicles, back into comic-book form and back on Sa-turd-ay morning comics.
The print-media stars are just as rich and lead lives that are just as depraved, drink sodden and drug induced as rock stars but its not as public because you can't hum the latest Gothic horror nover in the elevator.
Stephen king's biography reads like a street-corner dealer's wet dream. Was that poor coke-addled man EVER straight?
Fact is that print has a very different band-width requirement from music and video/cinema. That's why there are three orders of magniture of hype, cost and pay.
The article is basically bogus.
Re:Three orders of magniture of hype, cost and pay (Score:2, Funny)
Ok, I give up. What was the other plot?
And its' all the library's fault! (Score:2)
And it's all because libraries let people share books at will, depriving book pub...er authors of their just rewards! Not to mention those people reading magazines in the bathroom! It's your moral obligation to buy books to read in the other "library"!
What's next? (Score:2, Informative)
But what about Movies? Movies are going to be subject to the very same dynamic, although perhaps timeshifted a few years to the right. If the shit start to hit the movie industry, the world is going to start to look pretty different because movies are _expensive_. I mean even once you throw out the union pay scales and the staffing and the rules, blowing shit up (which is a staple of a lot of movies) is expensive; As are sets and crowds and animations and all the other stuff we see in our movies. Sure, you can still make "Clerks" and "The Blair Witch Project" pretty cheaply, but those aren't the only kinds of movies out there - not even an appreciable percentage if you're looking at Hollywood output. So the big budget movie could be a thing of the (soon to be) past.
Maybe movies will go all digital. Computing cycles will be so cheap and software so good that movies can be "filmed" at low cost by some Savant in his basement with the futuristic equivalent of an iMac and some Red Bull. But I wouldn't count on it.
Krugman Had It Figured Out (Score:5, Interesting)
His model for music in a post-Napster environment is that music is delivered free to promote attendance at live concerts.
I particularly enjoyed the part where he predicts the demise of economists' perk jobs and he's writing part-time from a vet clinic.
I weep not for the end of Madonna and her ilk's excess. It's far more important what happens to the average plumber then it does for these pampered poodles.
I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're providing free entertainment, which is obviously what the music business is doing, then you have to figure out some way to sell advertising to the people who are paying attention to your free music. But nobody seems to have any idea how that might be done. Or you can provide stuff that's free, and use the free stuff to promote something else of more value that people, you hope, will buy -- now called the "legitimate alternative." (Putting video on the CD is one of those ideas -- though, of course, you can file-share video too.) Or sell the CD at a level that makes it cheap enough to compete with free (free, after all, has its own costs for the consumer)."
Here's a more realistic choice:
You're rich, powerful, influential and arrogant. Theft of your product is rampant. You buy a Senator, say Senator Hollings from SC, and you have him draft a bill that forces all hardware and operating systems to incorporate some form of anti-coping technology. It becomes impossible to copy music/video files without hacked hardware. You make it illegal to run hacked hardware and vigorously prosecute those who have the audacity not to bow to your will.
Your sales remain high. Problem solved.
solvency... (Score:2, Insightful)
Case in point: 5 x Britney Spears boom and bust = expensive.
1 x Rolling Stones = less overhead and more profit. This is a human resources problem, just like the IT industry. It has everything to do with "Knowledge management" but on a talent level. As a studio owner and attempted rockstar, it hurts really bad when music is commodotized beyond an art form.
History Lesson & Re-analysis (Score:2, Interesting)
It is true that popularity in music is becoming more decentralized. Bands are content with lower record sales, and we haven't seen anything to rival the popularity of the Beatles. However, as the number of bands increases, so does the variety of music available to the listener. And so does the size of the audience; look at the world population in the 50's when rock started and compare those numbers with today's.
Wolff also states that consumers look not only for music, but also technology when considering a music purchase. I agree with him to some point, but I believe his use of 'technology' is too strict. 'Technology' should be defined to include music videos and concert production. The influence of MTV on modern music is staggering; technologies like additional music channels and satellite radio will only increase the influence.
Streaming Concerts (Score:2)
The biggest problem about concerts is their location oriented cash flow. once you decentralize concerts you will see artists performing more and gaining higher value in the marketplace. This won't stop attendance to concerts in the same way that boxing matches and other sporting events are still attended while an at home audience views at their convenience.
Free recorded music, pay for live PERFORMED music.
When Rock Stars == Plumbers (Score:4, Interesting)
A while back I saw an interview with Lars wots-'is-name from Metallica stating that he didn't expect a plumber to come round to his place to fix his toilet for free, so why should people be able to download his music for free. And I thought that the day a plumber was able to give an interview, sitting beside his swimming pool, outside his huge mansion would the day that I'd give a toss about Lars's royalties.
The music industry has been a cash cow for years. And in an effort to make even more money they've stopped listening to what we want and tried feeding us over-priced pre-digested pap. And now, thanks to the Internet and the ubiquitous MP3 we have the ability to bypass the latest creation of the marketing department, and listen to what we want. And the music industry is desperately trying to stop us. They've used the law; and lately they've started mucking around with the CD format too.
The greed of the giant corporations has killed the goose which laid the golden egg. And I'm not at all sorry. So perhaps one-day rock-stars like Lars won't have huge mansions with swimming pools and they'll earn what I earn, and live like I live. And that will be the day that I will say copying music is morally wrong.
size isn't everything (Score:2, Interesting)
love says that unlike books, the music industry wasn't always tied to distributed media. it wasn't dead then and doesn't have to be in the future. i think the glamour was always part of the performance of music, not the record contracts. i'm in a modest band and have friends in slightly more successful punk bands around pittsburgh... they hardly rake in the dough, but still get by, and with enough booze/sex/id to satisfy your American Dream.
just because people are making 300 people scream at a local club instead of 3000 or 30000 at some massively promoted venue, does that mean rock stardom is dead? and didn't we figure out yet that when people start getting more limos, cocain, and fly company than they can possibly need, they just stop having that much to say to the rest of us? god, look what happened to Bono, over the years.
just my 2 cents...
This could be a good thing.... (Score:2)
On the other hand, I've been told by many artists "Get as much as you can upfront, because you'll never see another cent from the labels". I've heard that from too many not to believe it.
the man's got a point (Score:2, Funny)
she scares the shit outa me.
Different Mediums (Score:2)
Why not something greater? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of broadband. Right now it's used mainly for copying files and playing violent games. But imagine if it was used for music: Just as you can assemble a team of players online to go shoot up other teams, you could assemble a team of singers or instrument players. Once telephony goes CD-quality and grows from one-on-one chat to many-to-many chat, it could be used as a way of singing!
There's also surround sound. Dolby is working on surround sound through headphones. Imagine putting a tilt sensor on your headphones so you could turn your head at any angle and the sound would seem to stay in place, rather than follow your head as it does with current headphones. This would require music to be stored in a MIDI- or MOD-like format with XYZ tags rather than as a waveform recording, but it would allow a lot of flexibility and interactivity. This could soon be used in games; imagine if it was used in the creation and listening of music.
These are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head. You can probably think of much more enticing ways. But the main idea is that while everybody is talking about how technology affects the distribution process, the most important thing, in the long run, is how it'll enhance the actual art of music.
After all, what was rock and roll before the electric guitar?
I Don't Know If I Follow The Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with both ideas. Today's titans of culture will become yesterday's classics of culture, and the music industry will surely figure out more novel and brutal ways to lose money. But how is this related?
Most famous authors were not particularly rich, to my knowledge, unless they came from money or were complete and utter superstars (Lord Byron is an example of both). Faulkner, Poe, Keats, and most other authors you can think of did not die with a lot of money in their pockets from their works, even though they are remembered as literary giants today. Then there are those who are not discovered until after their death, such as Blake and Kafka, who really did not make money off of their writings.
And then there's the idea that music replaced books as the driving force of popular culture. I would grant that only in part, but I would also say film and TV took equal parts of that massive share once held by books (and religion). Besides that, books still drive an incredible portion of culture. If you don't believe me, think about the sheer number of movies that are based off of books while you drive down to your local Barnes and Noble or Borders book superstore.
The thing that really bothered me about the article though, was that the author does not present anything to take the place of music as a dominant cultural mover. There will be some cultural form to replace music if it truly falls by the wayside, but until something actually comes forward to replace it, music isn't really going anywhere. The industry will change, as the article asserts, but musicians will not become mediocritized until something else comes forward. Given that internet distribution is making artists more popular than they likely would have ever been (watch TRL for evidence) I find it doubtful that music will lose its cultural power with the advent of the internet. If anything, it'll be strengthened.
What about TV/Video/Publishing? (Score:3, Interesting)
The bigger issue is that the same things that made the music industry unprofitable are already starting to make the TV and Video industries unprofitable. Ad-skipping PVRs are gutting television's revenue stream as fast as they are sold, and file-sharing is slowly making inroads on any recorded video. But unlike music, there is no "live performance" option, local content is largely irrelevant, and real costs are much higher.
The situation for the withered book and publishing industry is even more dire. The inavailability of a screen comfortable to read off of is all that stands between it and its total collapse.
The point is this - the notoriously rotten music industry may be down for now, but they are not alone in their troubles. Their ultimate fate will not be sealed until the greater "content" industry either gains control over the distribution of their works once and for all, or loses it entirely and is reduced to patronage and selling their content at costs comparable to copying it yourself.
Re:Artists selling 30,000 copies? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing the author has missed is the trend in the publishing industry, which is moving more like the music industry, trying to aquire strangleholds on authors' works, doing deals with bookstores to charge authors for promotion and shelf space, and a whole bunch of nasty shit they've learned from EMI.
Don't forget Oprah! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We Don't Know What To Do (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't recall paying a radio tax. Radio stations are either commercial or listener-spnsored.
I don't pay a cable company, because I don't have cable, but if I did, I'd be paying for the service, not the content. That is either commercial or paid by premium to the producer (e.g. HBO).
I pay for my ISP right now. I don't download music. How do you propose that Congress handle this? A tax which is levied on all ISP customers to be given to media "content providers?"
I sincerely hope your message was tongue-in-cheek. Five digit User IDs should not post such stupidity.
Re:We Don't Know What To Do (Score:2)
Fuck that. I, for one, rarely, if ever, download music. Why should I subsidize the leeches?
If you were talking about _streaming_ content with a
large quota and a fair pricing structure for additional content, then I might buy that. A flat tax (a rose by any other name) would be unfair.
You could counter argue that the proceeds are used to fund grants for artists, but if you think music sucks
now, you'd really see some restrictions on lyrical content.
A flat "fee" scenario also doesn't address independant content producers. You have to have some kind of metering to ensure proper distribution of royalties.
There are no easy solutions to the problem.
Re:We Don't Know What To Do (Score:2)
You should want to pay for the leeches so that the industry can collect reasonable profits. Reasonable and statutory pricing means that there is not any need to protect music or other media with encryption, which will ultimately either fail (destroying the entertainment industry in the process), or succeed (destroying the public domain.) Since neither of those is a desirable outcome you should be willing to pony up a small amount to keep that from happening.
Why everyone instead of just music consumers? I admit the tax could be on 'music capable equipment' instead of on ISPs, but what computer isn't capable of rendering music these days? Any attempt to control who gets access to the data just results in the data being copied beyond those constraints, so that doesn't work too well. The only solution I can see that would work is a general levy.
Re:We Don't Know What To Do (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We Don't Know What To Do (Score:2)
While I doubt that the music industry has gotten to the point of admitting it yet, what they need to do is lobby congress to protect reasonable profits by establishing a flat license fee.
Well, there's no reason that they have to stay in business (with or without "reasonable profits")... certainly no reason for the gov't to tax us to ensure it. But hey, the gov't doesn't have to make sense, I suppose.
I really can't see what else they can do. From the technological standpoint, bits copy well.
They can either come up with a viable business model for this century, or they can make way for people who aren't so wedded to the old distribution scheme. Either way, there will continue to be music for people who want to listen to it.
Re:We Don't Know What To Do (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally look forward to the day when someone can press an album for little more than the cost of their musical instruments, and do the sound engineering/cd burning/mp3 streaming from their home PC. Ditto for film, as digital filmmaking makes visual storytelling cheap, cheap, cheap.
Re:We Don't Know What To Do (Score:2, Insightful)
And that pisses me of, because I make music, and when I use CDRs, it is to make copys of *my* material, something that in no way belongs to the RIAA.
But the vast majority of that money never makes it to the artists
That is because a RIAA member signed artist will rarely, if ever have *any* right to or ownership of the material they produce while under contract. The album belongs to the label, the song belongs to the label, even the name of the band usually becomes property of the record label. All the artist owns in the most common case is some percentage of the profit on the material they provide. The way things are now, quite literally, the label owns the artist's work, just like MS owns the work of one of their programmers.
Re:Sorry to say this.. (Score:2, Interesting)
They haven't shown any sign whatsoever of 'realizing where they went wrong' yet, despite an every-growing anti-RIAA, anti-music consolidation feeling in the first general population and the media. They still have a chance to salvage their disgusting dominance over music distribution, but I don't see them giving up short term profits for long-term stability. As evidenced by their dogmatic resiliance over pointless, unreasonable fights (file-sharing), the intelligence just isn't there at the highest levels.
As for going the way of the Book Publishing/Distro/Sales way, I doubt it. Unlike most publishers, Entertainment companies have a lot more room for imagination
Again, I disagree. A book is a book. It has content, that content can be anything the author would like, as long as it can be put into words. A music sample is a music sample. No matter how you package it, it's the music that matters. Don't forget, books have cover art too, if you really think that makes a big difference. If you mean Entertainment companies as in AOL/Time-Warner, that's a whole different beast, and it's not at all an apples-to-apples comparison.
Cetainily another advantage is that most people have to have book forced into their pocession, but almost everyone buys music
Certainly in the pre-college-age culture this is sadly the prevailing case (although 'buying' music is debatable in that case). However, maturation often brings with it interesting perks, such as the discovery of good literature (or bad literature, if that's your thing). Again, this is not always the case, but I'd venture a guess that book vs. music purchases go up hugely as age increases.
In any case, just my two cents.
-Exo (too lazy to create an account)
Re:Music goes back to the Musicians! (Score:2)
Eh-heh.. Most musicians have day jobs.
Re:Bring it on (Score:4, Insightful)
Making music has zero barriers to entry.
Tickets for the pop star lotto are expensive.
Re:Invalid analogy (Score:2)
There will always be superstar musicians because music is one of the fundamental universal human likes.
Superstar musicians are a product of the business end. The scenarios you speak of have a business angle. In the early days of the current form of the business, it was more obvious that criminals were bankrolling a lot of production. At least in hindsight.
Re:Bad value for the money? Call in the feds (Score:2, Funny)
This works for me. Can we start with *NSync and the Backstreet Boys? It may mean higher taxes and less dollars for homeland security, but it'd be worth it.