Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Indies Blossoming Despite RIAA 316

Shadow Wrought writes "We have all read the numerous RIAA articles on Slashdot, not to mention scores of other articles that discuss the industry's purported demise. An article at the Christian Science Monitor calls this assumption into question by pointing to the success that Indie Labels are beginning to enjoy. An interesting read and one that provides pretty good support against the RIAA's argument that a quartet of college students is responsible for their troubles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indies Blossoming Despite RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • by laymil ( 14940 ) <laymil@obsolescence.net> on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:08PM (#5713318) Homepage
    Of course, one these "indie" labels get big enough, they won't be "indie" anymore. Just wait for the day when the new management (RIAA friendly) takes over, and suddenly, the era of the successful indie labels is over. But wait, you're saying this could be a cycle? One of those things that happens over and over? wow...

    sorry, i'm just a jaded lil kid.
    all it takes is one major success to make a label "big" from there, its just a question of whether or not they have the guts to stick to their creed or sell out.

    and we all know how tempting it is to sell out...
    • by rollthelosindice ( 635783 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:22PM (#5713426) Homepage
      Independent labels and their success will never go away. There will always be music that major labels have no interest in, and will be put out by smaller, independent record labels.

      And there will always be people that don't listen to the music that is on the radio.

      Stab and Kill Records [stabandkill.com]

    • by GlassHeart ( 579618 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:52PM (#5713915) Journal
      Of course, one these "indie" labels get big enough, they won't be "indie" anymore.

      The main problem with the recording industry today is that there are so few players, each with a "big enough" piece of a big pie, that they have no need to really compete. Implicitly or explicitly, they have agreed on a price for a CD, and even how many songs to put on an album.

      If many indie labels become big, the resulting marketplace will be more competitive, leading to better label-artist relationships (because labels now have to compete for the best artists) and better if not cheaper products overall.

      The computer industry is full of examples of small companies becoming big ones. If we exclude the monopolies, you'll see the benefits of competition. IBM used to be able to charge pretty much whatever it wanted to, for example.

    • I don't think sell out would be the right word. Most of the people running indie labels know their music but don't know the economics of it as well as the Big 5. Sure they understand find the lowest price to create the product and sell it for the highest price, who doesn't? What might or might not happen though is the hiring of accountants, lawyers and financial planners. These are the guys who will nit pick everything and want to sue everything. If the owners of the labels can keep control of their co
    • already happened (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Trepidity ( 597 ) <[delirium-slashdot] [at] [hackish.org]> on Friday April 11, 2003 @06:13PM (#5714027)
      A very large number of 'indie' labels are RIAA members. Check the list [riaa.org], your favorite indie label is probably on it.
    • and we all know how tempting it is to sell out...

      They don't have enough money and never will. Someone noticed that everyone but the RIAA can do better without the RIAA. So what happens when the RIAA buys out hundreds of independent record lables and shuts them down or otherwise makes them suck? Hundreds of new ones sprout up. If you are a manager who was feeling furfilled making money for yourself and your musicians by promoting good music, you set up a new shop. The artists, who didn't have to give

  • I dislike the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sstory ( 538486 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:09PM (#5713324) Homepage
    and their movie friends, but I'm undecided on the larger issue--when you spend lots of money producing an intellectual property, then some retard comes along and copies it to a million of his friends for free, should he be held responsible for committing some (perhaps new variety of) theft?
    • by phorm ( 591458 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:17PM (#5713385) Journal
      If you are in Canada, and you are already paying for the cost of piracy on every pack of recordable CD's, I'd say piracy has already been assumed, and already been paid for.

      If the RIAA wants to stop assuming our guilt, I'll be a bit more pissy on piracy. As it stands, I avoid it but still pay tax on CD's - so why should I also have to worry about lawsuits?

      Of course, that being said, I've heard of a lot of RIAA against organization/user action in the US and other countries (Australia, etc)... anyone know of anything happening in Canada, or are our CD levies actually covering us (if so... time to heat up my burner and kazaa!).
      • by Jester998 ( 156179 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:51PM (#5713577) Homepage
        "already paying for the cost of piracy on every pack of recordable CD's, I'd say piracy has already been assumed, and already been paid for"

        That's the way I look at it. If they're going to charge me extra for my media because of "piracy", then I guess I'd better get my money's worth... Hence my relatively large collection (250+ CDs) of movies, anime, games...

        And they want to increase the levy VERY SIGNIFICANTLY... if that happens, my rate of piracy will go up proportionately... the new levy is more than double the current rate, IIRC.
      • Come on now. Blank CDs are not that expensive here in Canada - you can still get a 50 pack for $16 CDN (Which is like 10 cents USD ;). (Example [memoryexpress.com]. However, it's hard to find a music CD for $16 CDN but you could burn 50 of them for the same price. The levy doesn't even come close to covering the lost revenue. I'm not saying the record companies deserve that much money, but I don't think the argument stands up.
    • Who the fuck modded this up? This guy actually believes in intellectual property!
    • by alkali ( 28338 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:45PM (#5713541)
      Well, sure it's theft. The question is who benefits from worrying about it.

      F'r'instance, I bet that every time a fan A makes his/her friend B a copy of an Alison Krauss album, B buys, on average, 2 more Alison Krauss albums. (Yes, she's that good; she's nothing like the "country" music you hear on a generic Clear Channel country radio station.) Alison Krauss has been making records for 17 years, since she was 15 years old. If you are Alison Krauss or her record label (Rounder), you are interested in building a fan base for the next thirty-odd years of her career, not trying to squeeze every dollar out of 15 minutes of fame. The odd fan burning a CD for a pal is just giving her and Rounder free advertising. Anything other than a warehouse cranking out hundreds of copies really isn't going to be a problem.

      On the other hand, if you have a record company built on promoting one-hit wonders, and someone burns a CD of your current artist's album -- well, it's likely that there won't be 2 more albums to buy by that artist. (Not to be mean: Britney Spears is charming in her way and nice to look at, but I really can't imagine that she is going to record 10 albums in her career.)

      The upshot is that major labels pushing top-40 singles benefit a lot from cracking down on copyright infringement; indy labels and serious musicians, not so much.

      • by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:04PM (#5713635) Journal
        (Not to be mean: Britney Spears is charming in her way and nice to look at, but I really can't imagine that she is going to record 10 albums in her career.)

        Jesus God, don't jinx us. Knock on wood when you say something like that.
      • not theft, damnit! (Score:2, Informative)

        by SHEENmaster ( 581283 )
        If I steal your computer, you can't use it so you are deprived of something and that is theft.
        If I copy a disc, you still have what you started with.
        There is no deprevation, ergo there is no theft.

        Does anyone know what the legal definition of theft is?
        • by alkali ( 28338 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:29PM (#5713805)
          The theft isn't of a thing, it's of a right. If I copy an album, I am appropriating to myself the right of the performer to decide how and on what terms he/she will permit copies of that recording to be made. Likewise, if I showed up at your precinct on election day pretending I was you and cast a vote, then I stole your vote, even though you didn't lose any tangible thing.

          You can argue that the performer shouldn't have such a broad right to decide how and on what terms copies are made (and there are limits on that right, e.g., fair use and the right to make copies for one's own personal use). But there's no debate about whether, under current law, artists have that broad right.

          (There is no single "legal definition" of theft under American law. Many states don't use the word in their penal code; they call it "larceny" or something else depending on the circumstances.)

        • It depends on your state. In California Section 484 states: [ca.gov]

          484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or merc

    • by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:49PM (#5713571) Homepage Journal
      "when you spend lots of money producing an intellectual property, then some retard comes along and copies it to a million of his friends for free, should he be held responsible for committing some (perhaps new variety of) theft?
      "


      Well there's really not enough information to answer this question, but I'll take a stab at it. No. Simply put, I trust that most people are honest. I'm going to treat them that way. If somebody makes my content available, and somebody else picks it up, then I instantly have exposure that I didn't have previously. $20 is a lot to spend if you don't like something that you can't return.

      I don't think most of the people who would acquire my content for free would pay for it in the first place. At least then I'd have my foot in the door. If they don't like it, they're not going to download anymore. No harm done. I didn't get my $20, but at the same time they didn't get satisfactory service. If they do like it enough that they'd download it (bored perhaps?) but not enough to pay for it, then it means my prices are too high or my content just isn't good enough for them. Sorry, but I can't make everybody like anything I make. So no harm done either, especially when their acquisition of my content didn't cost me anything personally. All that's left are the people who download it simply because they don't want to pay for it. Should they be thrown in jail? I don't feel strongly they should. I can't imagine I would have gotten money from them if I had some perfect protection mechanism. At least that way there's the benefit of them sharing it with other people and getting their interest in it. Again, no losses or damage done to me here.

      If it reached a point where more people were acquiring my content than paying for it, then I think that's more of a reflection of my price tag or quality than I do of people needing the law to hammer them down. It means that I need to provide more or provide cheaper. That's easy, create an incentive for people to buy it. "Buy this DVD, and you get a statue of the main character for free." Etc. Or, make more content that'd be hard to send with it. "This DVD also contains a High Definition 1080p version of the content" (like in the earlier article about MS and Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition.) Maybe they don't want the media, maybe they want an electronic version they can store on the hard drive? Well in that case I should provide it instead of causing them to seek other methods to doing it.

      For the record, I'm an artist. That's what I do for a living. Copyright's very important to me, but jail time for somebody downloading or distributing a copy of my work is ridiculous. I'd rather just figure out a way to work with them on it. If they're willing to redistribute my work, then maybe there's a deal that can be made there. "At least advertise my deal for purchasing stuff."

      The only time I'd be really worried about somebody redistributing my stuff is if they're making money off it illegally. That's really what copyright law is for. It's not about suing America's future.
      • by xetaprag ( 657967 )
        but not enough to pay for it, then it means my prices are too high or my content just isn't good enough for them.

        In a market economy, supply and demand seeks equalibrium. Your point is VERY accurate. If kids don't want to pay $16.00/CD maybe musicians are overpaid.. why is Britney Spears a multi-millionaire (endorsements excluded)? None of Hugh Hephner's girls are..

    • Copyright laws were meant to allow someone to recover the cost of producing and circulating original works. It was never contemplated that copyright should be used to support inefficient economies (why don't we still employ scribes and sue printing press owners?) If the internet is cheaper, it should be used, but costs are lower and so prices should be lower. If the RIAA did this (lowered prices in proportion to costs) this would be a total non-issue and no P2P networks would have ever sprung up. Instead
  • Icon? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:09PM (#5713326) Homepage Journal
    We have all read the numerous RIAA articles on Slashdot

    Makes you wonder. Why we don't have an RIAA topic, but we have new 'console' based game topics [slashdot.org]. Honestly, look at how many times articles on /. speak specifically of PS2, Gamecube, XBox (or even RPGs, FPS (not Quake), strategy).
    New topics are nice, especially when you have enough stories to make one.
    • Why we don't have an RIAA topic[?]

      I was actually kinda surprised when I went to submit that there was not a RIAA section (or even a *AA section). With all the stories I just kinda figured there would have been one. I think that maybe its time has come.

      As for the M$ logo (note biased use of $ instead of S), I think that even M$ apologists would have to agree that there is a certain amount of truth to the icon. I also do not know when, if ever, Slashdot has ever purported to be unbiased. There is no suc

      • "I think that even M$ apologists would have to agree that there is a certain amount of truth to the icon."

        Not when MS does something good, like supporting AMD's 64-bit chip or porting their media stuff to Linux. At that point it's just childish.
        • I think by their own admission that M$ and the Borg have similar goals- total domination. That is exactly what the icon portrays.

          I am not in support of the icon because M$ has never done anything good for the computer industry, I am in support of the icon because it is accurate. M$ goal is to dominate the computer industry, and they rely upon their market share to force the issue.

          As for the Linux icon being a guy with a beard, thick glasses, and bad hygeine, I chuckled at that one as well. Icons are, a

    • Re:Icon? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:52PM (#5713585) Homepage Journal
      Here's [ukcdr.org] my nomination for the icon.
  • by mcgroarty ( 633843 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ytraorgcm.nairb}> on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:10PM (#5713333) Homepage
    Indie labels nothing. The best stuff comes from the struggling self-published artists!

    Thanks to CD burners costing dirt these days, you can find individual bands all over the net who are publishing on their own. CDBaby.com [cdbaby.com] offers a storefront and listening booth for hundreds of these bands. Dig around a little and listen with an open mind. You will find something you like.

    If they still offer it, try and get your hands on one of the sampler discs (100 MP3 tunes from different bands, broken down by genre) and see if you don't find a dozen albums you want.

    There's a HUGE amount of good stuff here, and the bulk of the cash goes to the band. You pay less than you pay for most mainstream commercial music, and sometimes the band even writes directly to ask what you thought of the disc afterward. Virtually all of the bands are accessible and love it when you write them to chat as well.

    After the band, the rest of the cash goes to the guys you see on the CDBaby website [cdbaby.com]. NO RIAA GOUGING HERE. No subsidizing bastard lawyer cabals. They even run OpenBSD and Apache. It's ALL good! :-)

    No, I don't work for them, I'm just a very happy customer. I've bought over a hundred discs, and I don't miss pouring through the old over-hyped and mass-produced sludge to find the rare gem one bit!

    Can you tell I like CDBaby?

    • by deanpole ( 185240 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:15PM (#5713367)
      Like porn, music has become cheap to produce and distribute. There are lessons to be learned.
    • Oh, and hey -- The president of CDBaby visited my journal at one point and chimed in with tips when we were chatting over how to get the best MP3 encodes out of lame & CDEx.

      See if Hillary Rosen ever does that for you. ;-)

      • The president of CDBaby visited my journal at one point and chimed in with tips when we were chatting over how to get the best MP3 encodes out of lame & CDEx.

        It would be more insightful if that person were advocating not using codecs that are not freely available. Perhaps the president of CDBaby could spend some time helping to popularize Ogg Vorbis [vorbis.com] and give portable digital music players more reason to pursue a market not based on patent encumberance (that many people claim sounds better than MP3


    • They even run OpenBSD and Apache. It's ALL good! :-)

      What!? OpenBSD!?!? I could _never_ support a site that doesn't run NetBSD!!! INFIDEL!!!!

      Seriously, it is a good idea; there are other similar sites around as well - country specific and sometimes genre specific as well. They are well worth taking a look at.

      The real trick for this to work is of course to make samples (as in whole, representative songs) available very easily. If you can buy the rest of the songs directly, without having to go through t
    • "Indie labels nothing. The best stuff comes from the struggling self-published artists!"

      Hmmm.

      Here's the real deal... buying music is like eating in a resturant. Go to McDonald's and you know what you're going to get. Go to the local hole-in-the-wall (ie: independent) and you could get anything.

      Now, I've put substances into my mouth that instigated immediate convultions. I've heard music like that, too.

      Some people like having their food and their music pre-processed for them. Some people like to eat dirt
    • by linuxbaby ( 124641 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:13PM (#5713687)
      Cool! Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it.

      Yeah CD Baby is blossomming, too. It's really funny when you hear those stories from the major labels saying that the whole music industry is declining (cough cough).

      I suspect it's just the majors that are declining because all the independent musicians I know are reaching more people than ever, and are more in control of their own career than ever before!

      Look at this most recent sales chart [cdbaby.org] for our one little store.

      Slump? What slump?

      - Derek

    • If they still offer it, try and get your hands on one of the sampler discs (100 MP3 tunes from different bands, broken down by genre) and see if you don't find a dozen albums you want.

      Very interesting idea - however, I can't find sample MP3 CDs on the website. Are you talking about this [cdbaby.com], or something else? If it's an actual CD, can you please post the name? I'd be willing to pay for a CD like this, to figure out which artists have some potential...

  • by villain170 ( 664238 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:13PM (#5713347) Homepage
    The article mentions that many of the fans of these labels ("adults") are still willing to pay for the music. I don't see the point.

    Eventually, when big business wraps their hands around these labels and starts infecting them with their jaded business model, these "adults" will probably get just as irritated as the "quartet" of college students.

    I'm going to stick with the idea that the RIAA needs to stop ignoring its customers and fundamentally alter their business model to reflect how people want their music. They don't want a CD consisting of 1 good song with 10-15 more crappy songs just so the label can jack up the price 500%. People want to be in complete control of how and when they get the songs they actually listen to. I refuse to be forced to buy a CD for $18+ just so the RIAA and the labels can enjoy a profit.
  • by elykyllek ( 543092 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:13PM (#5713349) Homepage
    I've bought cd's from CDBaby.com [cdbaby.com] and they were great. Most cd's you can listen to 2 minute clips of a lot of the songs.

    ALL music on the site is indie music

    Check out one of my favorite bands on there:
    Human [cdbaby.com]
  • by Auckerman ( 223266 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:13PM (#5713352)
    The model of hiring young, nearly naked people, who can't sing, as public icons isn't very profitable compared to actually having artist publish thier music. Somehow this is news?

    I've known this for years.Fugazi [dischord.com], demonstrated this years ago.
  • Go Indie! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RyansPrivates ( 634385 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:14PM (#5713362)
    Personally, with the advent of MP3s, I have been able to learn about bands, and experience their music that would have otherwise been inaccessible to me. If i really enjoy them, I end up purchasing a CD from an online retailer [drivethrurecords.com]. If anyone truly supports a band, they will not be content with downloadable content. Don't be so scared corporate america!
    • Re:Go Indie! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shawnywany ( 664241 )
      Very true, especially the internet purchase thing. Until a few years ago, I heard nothing that wasn't on the radio. I finally got connected around Napster time, and started to dig deeper into music and the like. There's been times when even Best Buy (where I had always bought my CDs) wouldn't have the disc I was looking for.
    • Re:Go Indie! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by deke_2503 ( 569986 )
      I wouldn't go so far to say I wouldn't be satisfied with downloadable content regarding CDs, per se. Sure, album art is cool, having a pressed CD is better than a burned one, but the cost is a bit much for me. However, with that said I think that it's true for other stuff. If I like a band, I might willingly pay the standard prices for stuff like posters, t-shirts, etc. Bands need to focus on non-music marketables more. I might not buy the latest Dave Matthews CD, but I would rather buy a tshirt to sho
  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06&email,com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:16PM (#5713381)
    I have in the past and will pay money for their music. I support quality artists.

    Major label content: Circular filing cabinet, thank you very much.

  • by petronivs ( 633683 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:19PM (#5713397) Journal

    These days, just spinning yourself as an 'independent' label gives PR dividends.

    How many 'independent' labels are members of the RIAA? If you look at their membership list (someone give me a link, please), you'll see more than just the 'mega-biggies'.

    I'd be willing to bet that many indies buy onto the RIAA's DRM position. Many artists do, for that matter. So why do we assume that a label is non-RIAA compatible if it's indie?

    • RIAA members (Score:3, Informative)

      by gorbachev ( 512743 )
      http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm

      Looks like 50:1 on Indies vs. Big 5 in there...

      Though I'm not sure how many of the members are subsidiaries of the major labels.

      Proletariat of the world, unite to kill RIAA
  • by HeroicAutobot ( 171588 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:19PM (#5713399) Homepage
    This reminds me of the Hit Charade [msn.com] article by Mark Jenkins on Slate [slate.com] which talks about declining record sales in the late 70s. (This was reported on Slashdot, but I can't find the story anymore.)

    The record companies claimed that cassette tapes allowed easy "pirating" of music and evil thieves weren't buying records anymore.

    However, sales climbed back up in the 80s, despite the fact that cassette tapes weren't outlawed. Jenkins theorizes that it was actually "personality-free" disco that convinced people to stop buying records. He then draws parallels between disco and today's "teen-pop".

    Both are intellectually underachieving, cookie-cutter styles that have made stars of performers not known primarily for their skills as singers, songwriters, or musicians.

    It's an insightful article. Definitely worth a read.

    Personally, I was never a big music listener, but the RIAA has pretty much turned me off every buying a CD again.

    • I've read that the resumed sales in the 80's were due mostly to MTV. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but a lot of the popular bands back then (Culture Club, Duran Duran) became so because they had popular videos.

      Maybe the RIAA should pressure MTV to start playing music videos again. :)

      I'm surprised I haven't seen a slashdot article on how Clear Channel is going to start blowing off all the independant promoters. Could Clear Channel actually be doing a good thing?
    • Another article I liked was here [newyorkmetro.com]. It compares the cyclical up-and-down of the music industry with that of the literature industry decades earlier. It begins with this tone, which I love:

      Hemingway had rock-star status (and even impersonators). Steinbeck was Springsteen. Salinger was Kurt Cobain. Dorothy Parker was Courtney Love. James Jones was David Crosby. Mailer was Eminem. This is to say -- and I understand how hard this is to appreciate -- that novelists were iconic for much of the first half of th

    • My take on the cyclical nature of the record industry is that we're at about the same point in the trough as we were in the late 1970s.

      The early 1960s were the blossoming of a new rock n roll sound that was in many was fundamentally different. It reached a zenith in about 1970 and just got beaten to death with theme and variation by the late 1970s.

      The late 1970s (in the UK) and early 1980s in the US saw the blossoming of another new era in music ("alternative" -- hate the word, but its vague enough to su
  • by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:20PM (#5713408)
    I wonder why Ani DiFranco was only given a passing mention in the article? [actually I could probably wager a guess...] She's released 20 of her own albums over the past 13 years, and at least 5 other albums. She dislikes corperate record companies, and has at least a few songs specifically about the subject. Take a look at any local CD store and she'll be there, and been doing it for years.
  • You mean... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jdunlevy ( 187745 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:20PM (#5713411) Homepage
    Finally, it occurs to the mainstream press that RIAA labels might actually be getting killed be legitimate competition and NOT by "pirates"??

    And this despite the various "taxes" independents have to pay the RIAA for the right to compete with them (built-in fees on DAT tape, CD-R media; attacks on webstreaming, etc.)

    • The Christian Science Monitor is not mainstream press. That one is to Christian Science (not Christianity) what Watchtower is to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • Despite RIAA?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:21PM (#5713418) Journal
    Indies Blossoming Despite RIAA

    Seriously, if the RIAA weren't into heavy handed tactics, sueing students, making virtually-unusable copy-protected CD's, and charging unreasonable amounts for music... how would Indie music be doing?

    Hell, I think that the RIAA is helping Indie music. People don't want to pay for overpriced music anymore, they're looking at alternatives... copying is free but becoming less attractive due to lawsuit... so the next cheapest route is indie and others (not to mention some often damn good tunes).
  • by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:25PM (#5713438)
    "Another secret of their success is that the (indie) labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free"... The simple fact is this: in this dumpy economy, adults have the most disposable income, while kids have LESS money to spend. Yet, the 'big five' still cluelessly market primarily to kids! It's no wonder why their sales are down! One other thing not mentioned in this article though: If you go to most of the artists' web sites mentioned in the story, you'll find that you can listen to and/or download their music there. These artists don't have airplay, so they rely on the web as their 'radio'. They USE the web to get their songs heard. The web and downloading is BENEFICAL to them! This runs entirely opposite to the 'big five' who see the web as evil, something to be sued out of existance! Gee, I wonder who's wrong here? Even stranger, I wonder why Congress seems to always listen to the 'big 5 losers' instead of the winners when they pass their laws concerning the Internet!
  • by GamezCore.com ( 631162 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:29PM (#5713459) Homepage
    Normally I do not watch MTV, but it was on and one new musician's story caught my attention. A guy by the name of Cody Chesnutt, who has a bit of oldschool R&B sound and flair, was being featured. He created his first album all by himself in his bedroom studio, and released his two-CD set called "The Headphone Masterpiece" in a limited amount on his own. The CD sold out everywhere, and major record lables were courting him to release his CD on a much bigger scale... Cody turned them all down.

    His CD is only available via his website (codychesnutt.com) and he is going it alone to make a stand against the music industry. I can appreciate this man's efforts, and it parallels a lot of what we in the OSS community are up against. If you're wondering, I have no ties to this guy at all... I just heard about him a couple hours ago, but I wish him nothing but the best... and his song "Look Good In Leather" is pretty damn catchy as well :)
    • It's actually available [amazon.com] on Amazon.com. Moral of the story: If you will provide your product in a reasonably businesslike way, Amazon will distribute it for you, god bless their patent-happy little hearts. It's also available through at least some record stores, though probably not the record store at your local mall (unless it's a big one like Tower, HMV or Virgin).
  • The RIAA... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Peterus7 ( 607982 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:39PM (#5713518) Homepage Journal
    Another secret of [indie band's] success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free.

    You'd think the RIAA would try to do things like that, or at least try to appeal to the older generation of music listeners, maybe even try to get them to stop their kids from using P2P networks before they get into college, etc. But no... The RIAA probably eliminated their HR and Marketing board a while ago to pay for their Anti P2P hackers...

    */conspiracy rant*

    What I don't get is why they are still doing the same old thing (poisoning P2P networks instead of enhancing their own.) They have a bad reputation as it is. I would try to see if Hilary Rosen or some RIAA/ex-RIAA could do an Ask /. article, but... no. That could be bad, although it would be interesting to see how they answered the questions... Would they lie or just squirm?

    • My conspiracy rant: ;-)

      Too many people don't understand what the RIAA and members are really afraid of. Their entire business model is based upon limiting choices and controlling distribution. When lots of people are able to go to any artist's site (or p2p) and check out the music, they all won't choose the same artists. This fragments the market and allows any small timer to compete.

      Before the internet, I didn't know much of anything about independent music. Most of the local stuff is hardcore christia

  • Bah! (Score:2, Interesting)

    It's real easy to not be greedy when you don't have any cash. People always talk about how "indie" labels don't screw over their artists, and about how the music is so much better. While this may be true in some respects, look at the other side.

    The local band I can't sing but my tits are great, are more than willing to accept the major label money when it is offered to steal them away from the local record label, based out of Bobs garage. ("It doesn't pay well, but we love making music") The label then
    • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by teamhasnoi ( 554944 )
      I think you're off base. T&A is more often a result of manufactured 'artists' INSYNC, Brittney and the like. Indie labels don't have tons of cash, and if they did, they wouldn't throw it at a 'shit' band, especially one that doesn't leave their home turf and tour around. There are no DJ's left (in major markets) and that is sewed up tight. I would be highly suspicious of the 'MTV Cribs' view of these newer bands, most are paying their label back for recording costs and the 'crib' is part of it. It
  • by Peterus7 ( 607982 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:46PM (#5713553) Homepage Journal
    9 percent dip in CD sales in 2002 that it [the RIAA] blames for largely on online file sharing.

    No, your music just sucks as of late. Indie bands are so much better.

  • Deja Vu George (Score:4, Insightful)

    by icewalker ( 462991 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:46PM (#5713554)
    This all sounds familiar.

    Yup, I guess you could say that the RIAA is feeling the pinch. Let me think. I bought on average 50 CD's a year at roughly $15.00 a pop. That comes out to $750 a year. But since the RIAA has decided take up an attitude that we are all crooks, I have decided to support the INDIE groups instead. If it's an RIAA music company, I don't buy the CD. Well, looky here, that's a 100% drop in business from one person. One does not make a pattern, but I know for fact I'm not alone!

    Just read [slashdot.org] my [slashdot.org] comments [slashdot.org] from other posts.
  • Music will continue as a business this is just part of the cycle. But there will come a point when the big production isn't cost effective in most cases. Actually it's now. The number of active acts currently being pushed on radio has fallen. As the effect of a big media push isn't going as far, the labels are misinterpeting it as oversaturation. So the concentrate on the big money makers. Too many Acts deluting the limited buying power of the sheep (opps, record buying public). In some cases it's that Fad is just over, and in some it's just that you hear too much and you don't need to burn a copy, you got it in your head.

    Smaller 'Indie' labels don't need to move 4 million units to show a profit. True social Darwinism.

    • ....in some it's just that you hear too much and you don't need to burn a copy, you got it in your head.

      Does this mean that your head is in violation of the DMCA? I mean, you are afterall playing a copyrighted work in your head. Look out folks, next "they" will be coming at us with axes to destroy the neural anti-circumvention devices!

  • Dischord (Score:5, Informative)

    by good soldier svejk ( 571730 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:47PM (#5713561)

    I am glad the CSM published this, but disappointed they did not mention pioneering Dischord Records. [dischord.com] Dischord is truly "in the business of making music, not money." They charge fans exactly what they charge record stores and forego distributors entirely. Send Dischord $10 and they send you a CD, post paid. In some cases you can even get vinyl. Dischord are just good people.

    Plus, Amy Pickering is a fox. :-)
  • by zenasprime ( 207132 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:47PM (#5713562) Homepage
    ...and it's been dreadfully hard to get people to buy cds. We are actually looking to release more music on vinyl now because it seems to be the current trend in our market. Personally, I buy all my music from indie labels directly which has been cheaper and a much more enjoyable process then going to the local music store chain, but I don't think most people are doing that. We have been around for almost five years and we sell just enough to keep the releases flowing. Which is OK by me but I am sure that the artists and those of us doing the work (that would be me and my partners) would like to benefit finacially from our labors. :)

    zenas(prime)

    http://www.zenapolae.com
  • Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free.

    Uh, so doesn't this mean that these indie labels are succeding becuase they purposely target their music to those who will pay for music? Sorry I don't see this as an argument against the RIAA, more likely it's an argument that downloading music does effect sales.

    • I hardly think that is the case. They have a 11% drop during a major economic crisis? WTF does everyone expect? Only having an 11% drop is doing very well.

      Why don't we do a poll for those young whipper snappers out there:

      I'm not buying any CDs because...

      • I don't have any money.
      • I'm boycotting the RIAA.
      • I like indies better.
      • I can "steal" them for free on the internet.
      • all my favories are given away using licenses such as EFF's OAL.
      • I don't know what they're talking about, I'm buying more CDs than befo
  • In my mind, mp3.com *should* have remained the premier indie band site but they screwed themselves with their my.mp3.com section where they provided mp3's of big studio albums for d/l. Since they got bought out, they've dried up as a source for indie artists.

    Anyone know of an alternative distribution site that deals only in indie artists and:

    * provides a percentage of the songs for free d/l
    * provides the entire album for d/l once purchased
    * allows the artists to retain copyright
    * has a good variety of styles / artists
    * has a long laundry list of albums $10

    cdbaby.com looks promising, but pricey.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:05PM (#5713639)
    One problem here though - the way many small indie labels works is that they sign a band in the hopes that they will become large enough that a big label will want to buy out their contract, and they can make some cash.

    It's somewhat analogous to some shareware authors that make a really badass app in the hopes that a large corp. will want to buy their code. The whole thing is that you risk losing some effort that might end up making a small profit, in hopes of making the big discovery that wins you the lottery, which should hold you over until the next time you find gold.

    Especially in the "indie" music genre, that's how things work - you start out on an indie label, but if you are successful, you get signed to someone big and you get more cash, your previous label makes some cash, and the only one that might lose in the equation is the customer (due to RIAA). For many, however, this is the only way to make your dreams comes true of playing your own music full time.

    I just thought I'd shed some light on the symbiotic nature of the two worlds of music publication.
  • I'm really surprised big music artists haven't banded together to form an entity similar to a co-op. It seems to me, anyway, that given today's technology distribution isn't nearly as difficult as it used to be and that big companies finance/promote more than distribute. Could you imagine how much more $$$ sell outs like metallica could make if they didn't have to deal with a selfish company that feeds only to stockholders?

    But, then, I guess I'm not an expert in this...

    -Sean
  • CD Baby (Score:4, Interesting)

    by linuxbaby ( 124641 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:07PM (#5713650)
    10 Reasons You Should Check Out CD Baby [cdbaby.com]:
    1. We carry 34,000 CDs from independent artists that are not affiliated with the RIAA. (Meaning: you can boycott the RIAA and still buy damn good music.)
    2. We only work directly with the musicians, not distributors or labels. So we pay the artists every week. Unlike buying the majors, your money spent on CDs goes directly to the artists. We've paid over $3 million directly to musicians already.
    3. We actually listened to every one of those 34,000 CDs before selling them, and can tell you which ones we highly recommend, here: http://www.cdbaby.com/picks [cdbaby.com]. (It's somebody's full-time job, listening to 75 new albums a day, writing internal reviews, and linking up to other albums in the store, for the last 5 years.)
    4. We've made some fun collections (flavors) of CDs: music for Long Drives / Road Trips [cdbaby.com], CDs to Have Sex To [cdbaby.com], albums for Academics and Musicologists [cdbaby.com], ones where someone is Naked on CD Cover [cdbaby.com], and more [cdbaby.com].
    5. If you enter the name of your favorite famous artist [cdbaby.com], it'll show you the best new artists in that style. (Yes, it really works. It was built by ears not computers.)
    6. Miss walking the aisles of a record store, looking at album covers? Check out the album art gallery [cdbaby.com] .
    7. You can listen to about 8 minutes of every single CD in the store, in 128k streaming MP3
    8. We're ditching RealAudio for OGG soon. (Only reason we use RealAudio is that I started this site in 1997 when that's all there was!)
    9. We never use any Microsoft products [cdbaby.com] . Even the desktop computers in the office are FreeBSD running Opera.
    10. The founder & president is the programmer is a Slashdot addict is me [cdbaby.com].
    • that all sounds fantastic, and i'm definitely going to check it out, but i have a question... how does someone listen to 75 albums a day??
    • Having never heard of CDBaby.com before, I'm now browsing and enjoying that. I do have to ask though, why you posted a line to 'Music to have sex to' on /.'

      Another question - Have you bought the copies of Opera on the office machines seeing as you know how it feels to be the underdog ?
  • Indies are a threat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:13PM (#5713683) Homepage Journal
    You are right on the mark with the ascertion that Indies are a big threat to the media moguls. The media giants know it and find every way possible to thwart independent film and music development.

    Independent film makers are a threat in two big ways: There is direct competition in that the indies take attention away from Hollywood. They also are a prime example of how new technologies are making way for new voices...going square in the face of the RIAA's claim that piracy is leading to cultural doom.

    The RIAA wants to create a Star Wars theme of evil pirates stealing from artists. The surge of independent film making is showing the opposite...that the technology is opening ground for new voices. As we see independent artists making in roads with new technology, we see that the true pirates of the silver screen are the big media moguls and Hollywood super class that has dominated film for the last century
    • by Soko ( 17987 )
      I agree with your stance, but would like to add one more.

      With the availability of easy distribution, indie artists/labels threaten to legitimately undermine the current business model of the whole industry. Instead of cultural doom, they're in reality afraid of a loss of cultural control. No control of the culture mans they will simply have no way of creating the next big thing. That's what they're afraid of in the end - they'll have no reason to exist.

      That being said, the record execs are doing thier job
  • Christ is this an attempt at google bombing or what.
  • by hoovs ( 44014 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:25PM (#5713772) Homepage
    Instead, they build relationships with college and public radio stations and local retailers who are more receptive to less mainstream music.

    If you live in a decent-sized city or have interent access you can find "Triple A" stations that play a lot of the artists mentioned in the article.

    Here is a list to get started with, but many other can be found here [triplearadio.com]

    WYEP [wyep.org]
    WXPN [wxpn.org]
    WNCW [wncw.org]
    WMVY [wmvy.com]
    KCRW [kcrw.org]
    KPIG [kpig.com]
    WKOC [thecoast.com]
    WFUV [wfuv.org]
    KRCL [krcl.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Thanks to places like Cd baby [cdbaby.com]

    and to a lesser extent Metropolis Records [industrial-music.com]
    and Middle pillar [middlepillar.com]

    and labels like

    Projekt Records [projekt.com] - Who said napster was a good thing
    Flaming Fish [flamingfish.com]
    UR-realist (Russian) [lenin.ru]

    I can get a lot of good music and avoid the crap that the majors sell. I hope more artists begin to realize that majors are not the way to go to sell their music, your better off going independent and actually make money.

  • by anon*127.0.0.1 ( 637224 ) <slashdot AT baudkarma DOT com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @08:31PM (#5714533) Journal
    One thing I've noticed about my own music buying habits over the past 25 years. The amount of music I'm buying has stayed relatively constant. But the type of music I'm buying lately has shifted radically, away from the more popular bands and towards the less-appreciated ones.

    Popular music is relatively easy to find on the p2p networks. Type in "Eminem" or "Korn" and you'll come up with hundreds of hits. Downloading and burning a CD is easy. Why go through the hassle of ordering online or driving to the mall when downloading is simpler and cheaper?

    The less popular stuff is a lot harder to obtain. Usually I can find a song or two, enough to make me know I want to hear more, but finding the more obscure stuff is an exercise in frustration. It could take me hours or days of searching and downloading and listening to locate all the tracks I want. In that case, it's a lot easier to just break out the plastic and order the CD.

    From a Karma standpoint, I'd much rather spend my money supporting a struggling artist then helping Christine or Britney put another platinum album on their wall. I understand the legally, pirating is pirating, and it doesn't matter whose music I steal. But Paul McCartney isn't going to have to take a second job because I ripped "Help!" instead of buying it.

    I think this is what the RIAA members are really worried about. Not that music sales will drop, but that they'll be spread out a lot more evenly. Once an artist gets popular enough, it becomes easy to pirate their music. Sales for those artists will tend to "cap out" when it becomes easier for people to pirate the album instead. Meanwhile, less popular groups will tend to sell more albums, because more people will be exposed to their music. That means more work for the record companies, because they'll have to start promoting ALL of their artists, not just the popular few that they know will sell the most.

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...