Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

TMBG to Release MP3 Album 63

Posted by CmdrTaco from the ain't-that-sweet dept.
Stardate writes "MP3 is building up momentum from bands who know what's going on... the GoodNoise label will release a new album by They Might Be Giants in the spring, as well as offering some old albums for purchase." I own 6 Giants albums. I've ripped 5 of them. I'll be first in line to download that bugger. They have a couple of older tracks already there.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TMBG to Release MP3 Album More

TMBG to Release MP3 Album

Comments Filter:
  • >> you gotta love 'em!

    > Yes, if I had an IQ of 3, I probably would.

    You aspire to an IQ of 3?

  • "If you've got to ask, you ain't never gonna know."
  • I'm showing my age here, but how could someone call himself a hacker, and not have at least 5 Yes albums?

  • Can you guess my favorite TMBG song?

    Signed,
    Particle Man

  • (What It Really Should Mean...)

    First off, I'm going to compare the Music Industry with another segment of the market that neatly parallels it, and ultimately which (hopefully) both will follow the same model: the publishing industry (specifically: books).

    In both industries, you have a large number of potential sources (ie performers and authors), with a very small number of intermediaries (the labels and publishers). The publishers (music & book) serve to promote the product and provide distribution/manufacturing channels in order to facilitate large-scale sales. Let's look at the Internet's effect on these three functions of the publisher (in reverse order):

    1. Manufacturing As everyone knows, copying a digital file is free (for all real intents and purposes). There are no manufacturing costs here whatsoever. However, the artist still has some costs, since the production requires physical access to equipment (ie a recording studio). Likewise, the author needs profesional editors and typesetting people/equipment to produce the final work. While the manufacturing end of the deal from the publisher is no longer needed, the publisher still provides significant value-add by providing the skills/equipment to aid in the original production of the work.
    2. Distribution This is probably the largest effect the internet has. In both cases, the artist/author can bypass the publisher completely - the sophisticated retail channel for distributing the resulting work is not needed, as the artist/author can contact third party distributors (ie, pick your web site!), or possibly do it themselves. This is what has the Record Industry scared. Currently, they make HUGE profits on the distribution of stuff.
    3. Promotion This is what the big value-add for the publisher is. They're able to push sales through promotion. No band/author has the kind of contacts and resources available to do this.

    MP3s aren't going to kill the Music Industry (maybe in the longggggg run, but certainly not for several decades). What they fail to see is that it's a different channel for sales. What scares the RIAA is piracy. What they don't realize is that for all intents and purposes, piracy is controllable to minimal damage with two easy steps (the first of which is by far the most important): proper pricing and aggressive attack on known (and discovered) pirates.

    The problem here is that the RIAA folks have gotten fat on the big profits you get from CD sales. They love the $5 or so profit they get from a typical $15 CD. Yes, that's right - your typical artist sees maybe $1 from each CD in royalties, another $3 or so goes to the retail outlet you bought it from (from which they have to pay rent/promotion/etc.), about $2 goes to manufacturing and distribution, and $3 goes to promotion and in-house costs of the labels.

    Given what my reading of the market for MP3s is (and I in no way pretend to be a professional marketing person (Please, Shoot me!)), I think that you could probably sell MP3s for:

    • $0.25 each for B-sides and less-popular stuff.
    • $0.50 for "big-hit / eating-all-airtime" song

      A side note: the proposal of someone previous that bands should release their music for free and make money off the tours is stupid. Tours are massively expensive, and only those with large backing can do it to begin with. Sure, bar-style touring is possible, but from all the people I know that do this, you make virtually no money (well, you can eat, but no real cash) doing it this way. The big tours do make significant cash, but it's a case of "Have money to make money". You need several hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy all the equipment, rent the facilities, hire the techs, etc. And you need it up front - you can't do all that after ticket sales. That's what the record companies provide - resources for bands.

  • If the big 5 only sign one new band per year per label, you'd better start using mp3 if you ever want to get discovered.
  • Might it be possible that the Music industry is moving from the cathedral to the bazar? Sort of like the fact that you don't make money from open source products but from support and other services (_you_ figure out what this means for artists).

    TMBG (and every artist that gains publicity from these "So-and-So to release MP3s" stories) gained their stature, to a large degree, from the Cathedral paradigm. Wake me when some obscure, unsigned wretch achieves a "brand name" status solely via the use of MP3s (bypassing mainstream and college radio outlets; bypassing the gatekeepers of major labels and large indies). Why don't you try being the guinea pig? Be sure to give us frequent status reports.

    There may, in time, be a "free music" success story, but I think the frequent cheerleading of "free the music" wrongly attempts to shoehorn everything-and-the-kitchen-sink into the box of Free Software. The major labels and commercial radio chains form a Cathedral portal that will cling to every inch of its authority every bit as much as Microsoft does.

    --

  • You remember "fun", don't you?

    From before you got that telephone pole lodged in your ass.
  • The thing is that you get more of a choice
    what songs you want, and you can not get (or
    pay for) the bad songs, and get all the good
    ones.
  • I've gone to both of their concerts in Houston over the past two years and had a blast. They put on an excellent live show - I think somebody here put it best when they said that TMBG was a fun band. Their lyrics on most songs are far more intelligent than anything that a group like Matchbox 20 could ever put out. The lyrics that aren't "intelligent" oftentimes are tongue-in-cheek - I find it hard to pass negative judgement on Them because they are one of a few groups who don't insist on writing songs that are exact copies of each other (e.g., Gin Blossoms, Matchbox 20). I can understand many people's dislike of Them, but your post lacks any sort of intelligent criticism and gives me the image of someone foaming at the mouth.
  • Same deal as The Dead. Don't underestimate the role of The Man in Phish's success either. Like I said in my first post, The Man's portals (CD distribution / retail chains / concert venues / promoter$ / print-media coverage / airplay) still play a huge part even in "underground" successes - and in the case of Phish, I can deal with it; it means they can get to be Mickey Hart's age and still have the financial wherewithal to make and distribute and perform new music (if they choose to do so; who wants to see a bunch of bloated fiftysomethings doing it just to pay their alimony).

    --

  • I was excited about this until I learned that it's not really a new album. They've just repackaged some b-sides and other stuff from their Then: The Earlier Years box set and are trying to pass it off as something 'new'.

    I picked up Then for $20 at Media Play and it contains all 5 albums that goodnoise has available on two cd's. It took me less time to drive the 15 miles to Media Play and get the CD than it would to download the mp3's. Maybe if this was an actual new album w/ material that wasn't already released then it'd be something revelutionary.
  • There are three (3) albums which feature common elements from "They Might Be Giants," "Lincoln," and the "two" B-Sides/Dial-a-Song collections. These albums are:

    "They Might Be Giants"
    "Lincoln"
    "Then: The Early Years" . This one includes as the second half of the first disc the first B-Sides collection. On the second half of the second disc is the second B-Sides collection.

    If GoodNoise is splitting the B-Sides up then, yes, they are changing "which track goes where."

    They're charging 99 cents per track -- but TMBG has a long history of releasing much smaller tracks (like 2 seconds - 1 minute) as just "interjections" ... If they start charging for each track of "Fingertips" from Apollo 18, the MP3LP will cost MUCH more than the CD.
  • I have more musical talent in my pinky than these hosers have in their whole pathetic little band.

    Of course you do. You're the next Tom Lehrer, in fact.

    Of course, it's a might difficult to make that Judgement ourselves, since you're Anonymous.

    But then, maybe that's the point, eh?
  • It means touring and performing (the actual services themselves; the show). I always thought the music industry would be better if it was all focussed on real performance, instead of shoving a single recording of a single song down the necks of every target induhvidual on the crust of this Earth.

    It's all real, and everyone deserves compensation, whether it's the producers, recording engineers, luthiers, studio acousticians, or even the dreaded $uit$ who clog the industry. I would dearly love to see a GNU/Linux way for everyone (minus a lot of the suits) to Get Paid; I discovered Linux by accident many years ago, via an ad in the back of BYTE - I didn't need to be told how kewl it was by Berst or Petreley, or see it get covered by CNN. Linux achieved some degree of success without having to put five full-page ads in every issue of PCMag.

    I hope that, in time, artists will not have to pander to the suits - which even the "rebel" or "underground" ones do. But there's a need to build alternative portals; newsgroups, mailing lists, fan sites, and such, are great - but they tend to reach only the converted. To really emulate Linux's success, you'll need more bandwidth for everybody, and then the knowledge that these alternative portals exist. MP3.com and Shoutcast are lame and insufficient compared to what The Industry has at its disposal.

    We shouldn't just bitch about the unfair share that Sony gets for a CD by saying "free everything" - you already have "free" in that the "banner ads" used on commercial radio and MTV pay for your free "enjoyment" of Mariah Carey and Puff Daddy; why not work for a solution that allows bands to bypass The System completely and make a bigger pie-slice off their non-corporate CDs? Recordings are as real and legitimate a form of profit-making activity as touring is.

    Who's gonna tell Brian Eno to his face that he has to go on tour twice a year to earn his livelihood? Who's gonna tell the composer Gorecki that he has to form a 90-piece orchestra and arrange a tour, just so people can hear his next symphony without starving him to death? Who's gonna pay Steve Albini in your scenario? Not all music (or musical activity) has to do with putting on a "show". Music != Showbiz.

    --

  • just got even more appropriate. :-)
    I couldn't resist.
    I think that TMBG and other music groups who are willing to take the risk of release mp3 albums will find themselves very happy. A amateur musicain friend of mine would never had gotten the audience he has if it wasn't for mp3's and sites like Mp3.com [mp3.com]

  • (What It Really Should Mean...)

    First off, I'm going to compare the Music Industry with another segment of the market that neatly parallels it, and ultimately which (hopefully) both will follow the same model: the publishing industry (specifically: books).

    In both industries, you have a large number of potential sources (ie performers and authors), with a very small number of intermediaries (the labels and publishers). The publishers (music & book) serve to promote the product and provide distribution/manufacturing channels in order to facilitate large-scale sales. Let's look at the Internet's effect on these three functions of the publisher (in reverse order):

    1. Manufacturing As everyone knows, copying a digital file is free (for all real intents and purposes). There are no manufacturing costs here whatsoever. However, the artist still has some costs, since the production requires physical access to equipment (ie a recording studio). Likewise, the author needs profesional editors and typesetting people/equipment to produce the final work. While the manufacturing end of the deal from the publisher is no longer needed, the publisher still provides significant value-add by providing the skills/equipment to aid in the original production of the work.
    2. Distribution This is probably the largest effect the internet has. In both cases, the artist/author can bypass the publisher completely - the sophisticated retail channel for distributing the resulting work is not needed, as the artist/author can contact third party distributors (ie, pick your web site!), or possibly do it themselves. This is what has the Record Industry scared. Currently, they make HUGE profits on the distribution of stuff.
    3. Promotion This is what the big value-add for the publisher is. They're able to push sales through promotion. No band/author has the kind of contacts and resources available to do this.

    MP3s aren't going to kill the Music Industry (maybe in the longggggg run, but certainly not for several decades). Artists still need the labels for their facilties and promotional savvy, and for their normal retail & manufacturing stuff. What they fail to see is that it's a different channel for sales. What scares the RIAA is piracy. What they don't realize is that for all intents and purposes, piracy is controllable to minimal damage with two easy steps (the first of which is by far the most important): proper pricing and aggressive attack on known (and discovered) pirates.

    The problem here is that the RIAA folks have gotten fat on the big profits you get from CD sales. They love the $4 or so profit they get from a typical $15 CD. Yes, that's right - your typical artist sees maybe $1 from each CD in royalties, another $3 or so goes to the retail outlet you bought it from (from which they have to pay rent/promotion/etc.), about $3 goes to manufacturing and distribution, and $3 goes to promotion and in-house costs of the labels.

    Given what my reading of the market for MP3s is (and I in no way pretend to be a professional marketing person (Please, Shoot me!)), I think that you could probably sell MP3s for:

    • $0.25 each for B-sides and less-popular stuff.
    • $0.50 for "big-hit / eating-all-airtime" song
    • $1.50 for a complete album of a not-so-big name
    • $2.00 for a complete album of a big name.

    If the record industry goes after pirate MP3 sites seriously (as MP3.com says they should), you should be able to limit your losses to pirates (probably about to what they "lose" now to people ripping off CD and making Live recordings...) They'll just have to get used to living off of smaller profits. But on the other hand, if I can get my favorite songs cheap, I'll probably buy more of them. So, the total amount I spend on music won't change - I'll just get more music, while the RIAA people will still have my (total) amount of cash. Win-Win.

    Not all of my Music Industry arguments apply to the Book Industry, but there are enough parallels for interest. That's another discussion.

    A side note: the proposal of someone previous that bands should release their music for free and make money off the tours is stupid. Tours are massively expensive, and only those with large backing can do it to begin with. Sure, bar-style touring is possible, but from all the people I know that do this, you make virtually no money (well, you can eat, but no real cash) doing it this way. The big tours do make significant cash, but it's a case of "Have money to make money". You need several hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy all the equipment, rent the facilities, hire the techs, etc. And you need it up front - you can't do all that after ticket sales. That's what the record companies provide - resources for bands. You have to remember, maybe 0.1 of 1% of all artist out there do a "big" (ie stadium) tour. Maybe 10% of all signed artists get to headline their own tour. The rest tour with another (bigger name) band, or in smaller-settings (ie few 1000s). And remember, music is similar to game sales: almost 90% of all sales is within 3 months of release. The rest is residual.

    Music has intrinsic value, and I have no problem whatsoever with an artist profiting by selling me his music. What I don't like is the massive markup I pay to the middleman these days.

  • How about singles?
  • I really need to get a CDR now.

    Mmmmm. MP3s on CD.

  • I still think that The Dead wouldn't have gotten nearly as far had Warners not hopped aboard the feeding frenzy over the San Francisco bands; the bootlegs and the Deadhead community in general did a lot, but first the Warner money'n'muscle did much to build a critical-mass of mindshare outside of SF.

    --

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close