Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Media Music The Internet

Web-Only Album Wins Grammy 290

blamanj writes "Jazz artist Maria Schneider won a Grammy last night for her album 'Concert in the Garden.' What makes this unusual, according to CNET, is that she might be the first artist ever to win a Grammy for an album distributed solely on the Web. None of the sales were in record stores, and the album was financed through Artist Share."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web-Only Album Wins Grammy

Comments Filter:
  • that's nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frizzle Fry ( 149026 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:35PM (#11670628) Homepage
    This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.
  • by fembots ( 753724 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:35PM (#11670630) Homepage
    Does that mean that Grammy is rewarding talented artists too?

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

    Is publisher still an important factor?
    • As programs like Steam [] have proven, you can still pull respectable sales even without a publisher.

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

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

    • by bahamat ( 187909 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:07PM (#11671035) Homepage
      It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.

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

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

      All of this of course just underscores how screwed up the RIAA is.
      • Sounds like a good example of how screwed up poe is (or was) as well. Why the fuck anyone would sing a contract like that is beyond me, but it's not like a record exec put a pen in her hand and Luger in her mouth.
        • Re:Not just the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cronius ( 813431 )
          This is the point that RMS is trying to make about copyright. He says sharing music should be legal.

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

          If music distribution on the net was legal, artists wouldn't be so much u
        • Re:Not just the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bahamat ( 187909 )

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

          She's not, and wasn't screwed up, just screwed over. Young musically (or otherwise artistically) inclined people are not lawyers. When the record company comes by with the tantalizing offer of becoming a millionaire most of them don't know enough about business or the world in general to negoti

  • OT:The Grammys (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MasTRE ( 588396 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:35PM (#11670635)
    Was anyone else sooo annoyed at how much crap they spewed about downloading music last night?

    • i didn't see it. what do you mean?
    • No; that would have required me to watch the Grammys.
    • Re:OT:The Grammys (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 )
      Was anyone else sooo annoyed at how much crap they spewed about downloading music last night?

      Yeah, that was annoying. It's almost as if these people, that earn their living by being paid to entertain their audiences, are annoyed when people decide that they like their music, but not enough to pay for it. Pretty obnoxious, expecting to actually get paid for their work. Jerks! Soooo annoying.
      • Yeah, it's okay to record it off the radio, but if you want to download it, you're scum! How dare you download via the internet on-demand what you are supposed to be downloading from the radio station on their schedule? Shame on you! The funny thing is that the artist basically gets jack shit from the money paid to the label for putting the song on the air...

        Say it with me, a download does not necessarily equal a lost sale.

      • Re:OT:The Grammys (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Colonel Cholling ( 715787 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @06:19PM (#11672463)
        Pretty obnoxious, expecting to actually get paid for their work.

        Almost as obnoxious as expecting to make money on an album, instead of accepting an advance which then gets taken out of album sales and paid back to the record label, so that you never actually see any money from it even if people do buy it. Look at the figures. []
  • by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:35PM (#11670641) Journal
    Wake up call....

    Dear RIAA,


    Toddy boy
    • by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:49PM (#11670830)
      RIAA boardroom transcript

      Exec 1: Oh my god we are toast!

      Exec 2: Why?

      Exec 1: The grammy awarded a non-CD winner last night!

      Exec 2: No problem. We'll just hire more lawyers and sue the grammys.

      Exec 1: Brilliant!

      Exec 2: We just need a lawyer with morals, only buy CDs and doesn't do P2P.

      Exec 1: Ok, we are toast.

      • by ed.han ( 444783 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:23PM (#11671179) Journal
        in AD 2005, war was beginning.

        RIAA chairman: "what happen"
        RIAA flunky: "somebody set us up the bomb!"
        RIAA flunky: "we get signal!"
        RIAA chairman: "what?"
        RIAA flunky: "main screen turn on!"
        RIAA chairman: "it's you!
        schneider: "how are you gentlemen. all your sales are belong to us. you are on the way to obsolescence."
        RIAA chairman: "what you say!"
        maria schneider: "you have no chance to survive. make your time."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:36PM (#11670650)
    See how it works RIAA? people release albums to be LISTENED to, not to be controlled... and when they do they SUCCEED.

    I've downloaded most of Maria's album, and am looking for the final pieces. This is how distribution can and SHOULD work
  • What ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by JaffaKREE ( 766802 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:36PM (#11670654)
    This can't be right. The RIAA told me in my latest session, where I get hooked up to this machine.... with electrodes and stuff.... it shocks me :( ... that only mass-marketed artists are successes, and that the internet gives you herpes.

  • by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:36PM (#11670660)
    More to the point, look at the manufactured crap the record companies are spitting out - Maroon 5, retreaded Green Day and a dead Ray Charles.

    Come on, when a dead guy nearly sweeps the awards (regardless of the fact that Ray was talented), truly this an industry running out of options.

    • in all fairness (Score:2, Informative)

      by dknight ( 202308 )
      that Green Day CD really is very good. Admittedly, I've been a green day fan for years, but American Idiot really is a whole new thing for them. I've always really liked the fact that Green Day was willing to try really unique and unusual things.

      Yea, most of the rest of the RIAA stuff produced is crap tho.
      • Re:in all fairness (Score:2, Insightful)

        by thedbp ( 443047 )
        No, you're totally wrong. Green Day has never ONCE done anything that hasn't been done before. Their lyrics are trite, their music is unimaginative, and this whole "concept album" business is BS. They started wearing makeup like those loser sellouts from Metallica and put 4 chords into a song instead of 3, and now everyone thinks their breaking rules. Please. If you want unique and unusual, try Mr. Bungle. Or Naked City. Or Marc Ribot. Or Tom Waits. Or a million other artists that not only have MAS
        • really?
          have you heard a lot of rock/punk bands using mandolins in their music?

          I'm the first to admit that Billy Joe cant play guitar, but Tre is an EXCELLENT drummer, and mike is a decent bassist and is very talented at writing lyrics.

          I cant really speak for the makeup part of your argument. But frankly, even if they are, I dont care. That's a stupid thing to base your argument on.
          • "mandolins in their music?"

            REM, the Dead Milkmen, They Might be Giants, the White Stripes...

            But honestly, Green Day's catchy and all, but the only reason they did pop-punk was cuz the Mr T Experience showed em how. And the only reason they're trying new things is cuz the Mr T Experience showed em how. Dr Frank literally taught BillieJoe how to play guitar. Listen to the MTX song "dumb little band" one time.

            And if you wanna hear revolutionary, experimental, and incredibly beautiful, you might wanna pic
        • Typical alt-rock elitest bullshit.

          Billie Joe Armstrong will probably never win any solo god guitar awards, but he's extremely talented. Mike Dirnt and Tre Cool are absolute monsters.

          Have you even LISTENED to American Idiot? Obviously not. It has more of a message than the snobbish music critic crap you listed.
      • That song from the Grammys was "Welcome to Paradise" rehashed. Aside from that, I particularly like how they pretend to be "punk" and "rock and roll" after making that God-awful "I hope you have the time of your life" song ... my grandma loves that song. Punk indeed.

        If GD came out and said "hey, we're a bunch of sellouts -- we are just trying to get paid" I would have some respect for them. For the record, Dookie was a great album. It just got a little old the fifth time. And to reiterate, anybody claiming
        • If you can believe MSN [], they admitted this a while ago...

          The Welcome to the Machine Award: Also to Green Day. Frontman Billie Joe Armstrong, to his credit, long ago admitted the band stopped being punk the day it signed with a major label. But releasing an actual concept album, " American Idiot," and seeing it lauded by the music establishment as best rock album, has got to be the most un-punk move in the history of punk. Then they topped it all off with Grammy accept

    • by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:40PM (#11670715) Homepage
      Come on, when a dead guy nearly sweeps the awards (regardless of the fact that Ray was talented), truly this an industry running out of options.

      But he was still alive when it was recorded, which does make a difference. Otherwise I agree with you.

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

      I dont mind that the major awards shows do this (You can't tell me to this day that Al Pacino "deserved" an Oscar for Scent of a Woman), it's when they choose to do it that irks. At times they choose to reward when a tr
      • The guy had what (Ray Charles) won three Grammys in a 50 plus year career?

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

      • Definatly wasn't one of Al Pacinos best. But compare it to the rest of the crap that year, definatly the winner.
    • by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:51PM (#11670862)

      "More to the point, look at the manufactured crap the record companies are spitting out - Maroon 5, retreaded Green Day and a dead Ray Charles."

      For what it's worth, Maroon 5 got their start posting their stuff to However, I agree that they're pretty mediocre.

    • by wankledot ( 712148 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:03PM (#11670989)
      You jackass.

      Maroon 5: The fact that they are successful suddenly makes them crap? I forgot, selling records make you suck They put out Songs About Jane in 2002. The fact that it is a really good album is what made it succeed, not some plot by the labels to push "crap." New bands like Maroon 5 disprove your point that the industry is running out of options.

      Green Day: Retreaded? Once again, people like to slam green day as not being punk because they're popular. Nevermind that they continue to put out good songs. Ray Charles: He died less than 9 months ago. The RIAA didn't trot out a corpse to sell records, he recorded (obviously) and released the album before he died.

      Can you even fathom that these people are musicians and not just pawns of the RIAA? They work hard (none harder than Ray) and try to get as many people as they can to hear their art. And then some pissant like you dismisses them as crap because they happen to be popular.

      Your opinions on music are not the only ones that matter (shocking!) The fact you feel like Maroon 5 is crap, Green Day is re-treaded, and Ray Charles' album is a publicity stunt doesn't change the fact that they are all really good artists, and really good albums. But it's your loss for not appreciating them.

    • Come on, you didn't read the three rules of winning a Grammy!

      1. If a Grammy can be awarded post-humously, it will. No disrespect to Ray Charles at all, he is one of my favorites, but did his duet album deserve to win EIGHT Grammies? He won for pretty much every award he was up for. The same thing happened in the past with Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, and George Harrison. There are much better records by Ray Charles out there that should have deserved more when they came out, but to get all these awards p
  • by gatorflux ( 759239 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:36PM (#11670662)
    How will the RIAA remove her from the public eye? Or will they just make her an offer she can't refuse and bring her to the dark side?

    As a musician, I hope her win is a precedent that will be emulated over and over.
  • by TomTraynor ( 82129 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:39PM (#11670688) Homepage
    When they realize that they now are losing control of their artists. I have not heard of her before, but this is nice in that web based distro of music won a Grammy and I hope that this is the first of many more for here and other artists.
    • by Golias ( 176380 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:55PM (#11670912)
      Every time a post like this is made, an RIAA lawyer gets his wings.

      Look, the RIAA doesn't "control" anything. They do the bidding of the big record labels, and take all the heat from people like you so Sony Music and the other actual villains in this story don't have to.

      The last decision which the RIAA made was the standardized design of that little preamp that goes into the "phono" input of most stereos prior to 1998 or so.

      All they do now is serve as a mouthpiece (and lightning rod) for the record labels in their efforts to lock down their IP. Ranting about how eeeeevil the RIAA is simply plays right into the hands of the labels behind it all.
      • They do the bidding of the big record labels, and take all the heat from people like you so Sony Music and the other actual villains in this story don't have to.

        Do you think they do all this out of the goodness of their heart?" There's good reason they do the bidding and representation - they're compensated for it. It's just another cog in the music machine.

      • Look, the RIAA doesn't "control" anything. They do the bidding of the big record labels, and take all the heat from people like you so Sony Music and the other actual villains in this story don't have to....

        All they do now is serve as a mouthpiece (and lightning rod) for the record labels in their efforts to lock down their IP. Ranting about how eeeeevil the RIAA is simply plays right into the hands of the labels behind it all.

        Smartest post I've ever seen on /. Finally someone realizes that huge compan

  • by GatesGhost ( 850912 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:43PM (#11670760)
    i didnt think the grammy's were about commercial exposure or success, but rather about the quality of music...(checks online) wait, maroon 5 won a grammy? well, fuck that, i was wrong.
  • First goes the RIAA, then goes the MPAA, then goes the GNAA! :-D

  • To be fair... (Score:5, Informative)

    by lpangelrob2 ( 721920 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:46PM (#11670790) Journal
    To be fair, I've heard of Maria Schneider, and I in general have no ear for music (or the next best music great/talent) at all... I know she is well known in the jazz subculture... this is jazz, it thrives in the underground... and Maria Schneider was well-known long before her Grammy-winning record. Oh, and people that admire jazz tend not to care a lick for the RIAA.

    Still, a good sign.

  • by kasek ( 514492 ) <> on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:48PM (#11670818)
    she will probably have to sell the award on ebay to compensate her webhost for the server that just went down in flames.
  • Stupid question (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Chundra ( 189402 )
    Is that the same Maria Schneider of Pathetic Geek Stories [] fame?
  • by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:49PM (#11670826) Journal
    The fact that it was solely distributed on the web really isn't the amazing part - I mean, there are iTunes exclusive tracks all the time. I'm sure it would be easy for a major artist to convince their record company to let them only distribute an album online, and it could get plenty of publicity and possibly a grammy.

    What's really interesting is that the album was made with no involvement of a record company at all.

  • ...long live the business model.
  • Music..the other way (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pronobozo ( 794672 ) * <pronobozo&pronobozo,com> on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:59PM (#11670946) Homepage
    For someone that is coming from the bottom up, i can say that time is the key. Without millions of dollars to spend on promotion, independant artists have to find a different way to communicate with the masses.

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

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

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

    that's my .02

    - pronobozo []
  • Great... (Score:2, Funny)

    by game kid ( 805301 ) we're slashdotting Grammy-winners' Web sites.

    I guess they had to *ahem*face the music soon, though.
  • I'm going to start playing with Apple's Garageband and start releasing my own albums.

    It'll be the most derivative crap ever created. but, hey, lots of people have become wealthy doing *that*. :)

    Progressive jazz metal, maybe. Hmmm. Instrumentals only, because my singing kills cows at fifty paces. I'll sell *that* disc to the farming industry, although PETA might protest it as being more cruel than a pneumatic bolt to the skull.

  • by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:11PM (#11671070) Homepage Journal
    For promoting this kind of crackhead lesbo communism. Next thing ya know people will object, object I tell you, to our crawling up their asses for the sheer fucking thrill of complaining how bad it smells. Got to nip this in the bud.

    Steps will be taken.
  • by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <> on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:17PM (#11671127) Journal
    Sucked like every Industry show.

    Highlights include:

    Animating Ray Charles corpse to sell box sets and tribute albums. Look at the dead guy dance! Reminded me of last year's "Cash in on Johnny Cash".

    The most god-awful rendition of 'Across the Universe' ever. Hey, if I wanted wooden performances, I'd hang out with a drugstore Indian. And Slash, you don't need to lean that far back when you're playing a quietly phased 12 string. Save the rock pose for something that isn't being butchered right before your eyes.

    The internet-inspired 'mash-up'. You can't tell me that someone didn't get that idea from searching Livejournals, and thinking, "This is super-hot! The kids will eat this up! LOLLERS!"

    Industry fuck talking about the usual, "downloading music is illegal". Unless you don't own the rights to it. Great crowd shot during that speech. So many 'fuck you' expressions on the audience that had been screwed by industry contracts. Or boredom, apathy and 'get this over with'. I would have been yelling, "Michael Bolton called, and he wants his hair back!". Or something funny.

    The endless 'we care' about the tsunami or fill in the blank tragedy of the moment' blathering. How about you kids spend more time making a listenable record, and less time pandering to your bleeding heart market share?

    Once again, the Grammys show that the RIAA is not relevant. When are we getting rid of them again?

  • Buy Her Music (Score:5, Insightful)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) <> on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:20PM (#11671157) Homepage
    How many of you are going to support her by buying her album?

    If you truly want music to be free (as in speech), put your money where your mouth is for once. The success of such artists depends on the financial backing of people who claim to support independent music.
  • by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:31PM (#11671281) Journal
    IANAL, but it was pretty obvious. In doing Constitutional research this past weekend, I came across the fact that US District courts (the one that RIAA sues in) are all (except one) Article 1 courts. It takes an Article 3 court to be effective throught the United States of America. What is the difference? Article 3 courts enforce the laws of the land throughout the USA. The Article 1 courts enforce laws of the Federal governement (federal territories), so therefore, they only pertain to federal lands. The one exeption that I mentioned is Hawaii who has been given an Article 3 court, though it is operated as an Article 1 court.

    Therefore, if you find yourself the victim of a MPAA or RIAA lawsuit, you just should stay out of Federal parks, buildings, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa. Voluntarily appearing before the court is admission of jurisdiction. Furthermore, if you are asked to serve on a federal grand jury, in an article 1 court, make sure you are from a federal territory.
  • Irony... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter&slashdot,2006,taronga,com> on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:37PM (#11671358) Homepage Journal
    Ironically (and in restrospect obviously) the album is not available on iTMS in their "Grammy Winners" section. :)
  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:40PM (#11671397)
    My first thought was: "I wonder how many people who are normally fine with pirating music because they're sticking it to a record company..." (as if the artist isn't a piece of that picture) ..."will, out of inertia, just go ahead and run off with an unpaid-for copy of this woman's work, too." And then I realized that most Jazz fans are a little more cerebral, and have a lot more respect for the artists themselves, and typically would either go see a show, or actually pay for a recording. If her work isn't immediately torrented everywhere, that won't really indicate a sea change in this picture. Stay in the musical neighborhood, but see how it goes with, say, a new Norah Jones collection. Or, just prove that all of the "I only do it because of the RIAA" types are hypocrites by seeing if, just to make the point, Metallica or The Blackeyed Peas would do it. Their work would be immediately ripped off, and we'd have some tangible hypocrisy to point to. And this endless conversation would finally come down to: "I, um, really just don't want to pay for music, actually, you got me."
  • by Dana P'Simer ( 530866 ) * < minus pi> on Monday February 14, 2005 @04:43PM (#11671431) Journal
    A few days ago I posted [] in response to another reader's comments about the "Social Revolution" that is occurring due to P2P software.

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

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

  • by klevin ( 11545 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @05:07PM (#11671713) Homepage Journal
    The article says she made 10,000 copies and pre-sold 9,000. The album cost her $87,000 to make. She'd need to be selling them for at least $12 a pop to be getting much of anything back. That's assuming the $87k includes her production cost for the 10,000 CDs. In a small run, the packaging costs could easily run $2-3 per CD.

    Her site has gone down in flames (no coral cache available), so I can't check how much she was charging. Granted, a jazz artist with her tallent is likely doing a fair amount of live performances, so the album's not her only source of income, but still . . .
  • by broohaha ( 5295 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @05:14PM (#11671803) Homepage
    She was mentioned in a 3-part piece on NPR's Morning Edition [] titled "Paying for Music in the Internet Age" [].

    She's interviewed in part 1 of the series which was aired on the 15th of September [clip length: 5' 42"]. Odd, though, that clip one is the middle link among the three.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14, 2005 @05:15PM (#11671812)
    For immediate release:

    The RIAA has today shown further proof that non-conventional Internet Music systems are flawed, and costing the artists money. The recent Grammy success of a relatively unknown artist, Maria Schneider, through an unconventional medium is hurting artists. Sure, her method of direct sales, thereby lowering the overhead of record stores, executives and others in the chain seems innocuous enough.

    But it's not.

    You see, since her record was not released through the RIAA, we missed out on that chunk of profit. That's money straight from our profit coffers, err, I mean our lower employee payrolls. Now, since she cut our profit on her work off, we have to compensate to meet our annual profit-for-executives margins. So, we had to cut into other artists's payments. Now, Maroon5, Britney Spears, and Metallica will NOT be able to upgrade the toilets in their pet's private jets to a gold plating, versus their current silver plated models.

    In addition, the RIAA said that without direct control over what the content of the music was, they couldn't tell people what they wanted to hear. One executive was flabbergasted "How the hell are we going to tell the radio stations we want people to listen to this if we don't control it. It's outrageous! I know people aren't smart enough to think about what they want to hear, so how are we going to tell them about this music. It's just a stupid career-limiting move."

    Britney was quoted as saying "All those people buying those records they want are hurting my dog. I hope they can sleep at night, knowing my Poopsie will have to deal with the pain of only a silver toilet seat. They all should die in a tire fire."

    They also reported that in addition to not distributing through the RIAA or a major label, she was able to control the content. The RIAA has said that they are considering lobbying Congress to get this "potential for free-radical thought" listed as a terroristic activity. No response yet from Capitol Hill or the White House on these allgations yet.
  • by hot_wasabi ( 683963 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @05:26PM (#11671925)
    I'm a jazz sax player, and have been a big fan of Maria Schneider for several years. She has been creating some of the most sophisticated and musically interesting big band music around since her first album in 1995 (Evanescence, which was also nominated for two Grammys). She has 3 or 4 other albums, and most have received Grammy nominations. She has been regularly winning Down Beat reader & critics polls since 1994. Schneider is the heir apparent to her mentor, the late Gil Evans, who's music includes the famous Miles Davis collaborations Birth of the Cool, Porgy & Bess and Sketches of Spain. Her music is very accessible, though she's explores complex meters, harmonies, textures, and timbres. Her pieces tell a story, and often make reference to visual images. I bought her latest album over the web a few months ago. It was something like $9.99 for 128kbps, $14.99 for 320kbps. It's an excellent album, but I still think that Evanesence is her best effort so far. By all means check out her band live if you ever have the opportunity. She always has some of the best jazz musicians in NYC in her group. Evanescence [] ( Concert in the Garden review [] ( And, she's a babe! -Hot Wasabi over & out
  • by yelvington ( 8169 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @06:04PM (#11672309) Homepage
    ArtistShare has a patent application [] that would cover its business model:

    The present invention is directed to a system and method for raising financing and/or revenue by artist for a project, where the project may be a creative work of the artist. The method including registering, by at least one artist, with a centralized database, at least one or more projects, offering, by the at least one artist, an entitlement related to the artist in exchange for capital for the project of the artist. The method and system may also include searching, by an interested party, the centralized database, for the least one artist, registering, by the interested party, with the centralized database and accepting the offer by the interested party for the entitlement related to the project. The capital may then be forwarded to the artist and the entitlement provided to the interested party.
  • Ms. Schneider's site (Score:3, Informative)

    by Almost-Retired ( 637760 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @08:12PM (#11673435) Homepage
    I just came back form about a half hours wading around in a site that apparently is off on a 56k dialup someplace.

    To become eligible to buy the album, something I'd do out of curiosity and because I think the ARTIST should be supported by a method that purports to funnel the monies to the artist as opposed to funneling it thru the accounting dept of some faceless record company where any number of charges are made against the net sales of an album, whatever it takes to make sure they don't have to cut the artists a royalty check being the order of the day.

    To continue with the first sentence above, one must open an account, complete with usernames and passwords. Somehow, it didn't like something and looped around to have me fix it, but when I fixed it, then it just loops forever asking me to login, something about an expired security certificate was being reported by my browser. And I was unable to get past that, so I never got a chance to drop my card and actually make the purchase.

    FWIW, its $16.95 USD & probably a hefty shipping fee if that site is like most.

    But I'm a little put off, not getting the chance to support what, from the sounds of things, must be a worthy artist to support, by buying her output.

    If you are copying the mail here Ms. Schneider, grab a ball bat and go see your web designer, and don't leave until it works as intended. We really should be able to purchase it without all this 'membership' crap as long as our card has a sufficient line of credit to support the purchase. And I believe $30K+ should be enough to buy your cd unless you'd like to have a really really exclusive club that doesn't mind playing the starving artist scene for real.

    Cheers, Gene
  • by ReadParse ( 38517 ) <`john' `at' `'> on Monday February 14, 2005 @09:37PM (#11674075) Homepage
    All your bass are belong to us


"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas