Are MP3 Web Sites Unfair to Indie Artists? 213
dafunn writes "CNN is running a story [from Salon] about how times have changed, but not really. The new breed of music distributors, the online mp3 sites, are still pulling the same old 'screw the artist' tricks..." This article sure paints a bleak picture. Anyone have any personal experience from the band/artist perpective you'd like to share?
Self-distributed artists...why not? (Score:2)
I am neither a programmer nor a network engineer, but I have the ability to mpeg-encode an audio source, and to create a website to showcase these wares (note the lack of a "z") and sell them, through widely available free or near-free software. A bit of talking-around would find me an ISP capable of hosting my site and handling heavy downloads. Licensing/ copyrighting of work as I understand it can be done directly through BMI/ASCAP by the artists or their managers, no?
The only things that I or any musician would need to net-distribute their music that they are unlikely to be able to do themselves are a) the studio mixing and mastering of the music before it's encoded and b) the e-commerce part of the website. Both of those can be done by hired professionals, along with any other parts of the above plan that the musicians would rather not do.
As far as publicity to draw buyers: a) most music purchasers these days are web-savvy and likely to be able to find their favorites du jour on the web if those artists have a website, and b) a niche would quickly emerge to collect listings of and links to what's available and to direct buyers, just as has happened with shopping-search, airfare-search and similar web services already.
I don't get it. Why are the seven monolithic music companies still a factor at all?
Outmoded Thinking (Score:2)
Bands needs to majorly refocus to fit this emerging paradigm. It's useless to flail and scream against the tide on this one -- look at the incredible resources of the RIAA and notice how inept they are at actually getting anything done.
The brief time in history when people would pay for recorded music is over.
----
Re:The Baptist Death Ray speaks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's a vanity press (Score:1)
In a traditional setup, the record company decides you have a marketable sound, then they take the risk of paying for promotion, recording, distribution, etc.
I think there's room for a music site which carefully selects the music they would like to host. They would then promote the music they have chosen, both on the web site and off, and make money from sales. However, they then start to resemble the traditional record companies.
Sony, CBS, et al may be screwing the little guy, but in between screws, they are selecting the artists they think are saleable, promoting them, distributing discs, etc.
Traditional media companies are running scared because they think that all they have to offer is buggy whips (printing presses, broadcast studios, etc). What they don't yet realize is that content selection is a necessary and valuable service.
It's not worth my time to sift through thousands of mp3s to find the few bands that I like. I would rather listen to radio stations (online or other) where I like the DJs taste. I then discover that I like Basia, Maria Muldaur, Tuck and Patti, Madeleine Peyroux, and Diana Krall. If I want to expand my horizons, I listen to a different radio station for a while. You might say this is lazy of me, but remember: I am the consumer. I'm allowed to be lazy. If you want to sell to me, it's your job to get your content to me. I'm not going to spend hours looking for a needle in a haystack when there are people out there who will do most of the sifting for me.
AMP3.com First to Pay Royalties to MP3 Artists (Score:1)
AMP3.com was the first free MP3 site to offer royalties to it's artists.
Here's the top ten royalty earners:
Killer Spam's Comedy Bits, Comedy, Culver City, CA $3314.27
Stargrass, Techno, Rodekro, Denmark $1436.23
DNA Trance, Techno, Brynmawr, Wales $ 789.24
DJ Pye, Techno, Nancy, France $ 748.31
Big Sky, Rock, Minneapolis, MN $ 607.95
Laura Van Der Rhoer, Classica,l Munich, Germany $ 535.80
F.o.N., Alternative, San Diego, CA $ 481.60
Michael Chernen, Classical, Toronto, ON $ 444.65
Fred, Rock, Paris, France $ 427.25
TranceSunDayProject, Techno, Toronto, ON $ 419.00
In addition, 30 aritsts were awarded $1000 each for earning a "pick hit gold" award. Also, over 290 artists have been awarded $50 for earning a "pick hit."
Without AMP3.com, both MP3.com and IUMA.com would be taking your music with no compensation.
Doug Cornell
Music Director, www.AMP3.com [amp3.com]
Editor, www.amp3review.com [amp3review.com]
MC, www.hitsession.com [hitsession.com]
Re:Outmoded, Yes. But Bands can Still Make Money (Score:1)
What about that Quake 3 bus or whatever? :) Or do you mean something more glitzy where you get to touch the developers or something :)
Re:Amp3.net payed out way before mp3's "payback" (Score:1)
Doug
Re:Tales from an indie... (warning : bleak) (Score:1)
I think the message is simply that *nobody is going to become mega rich from their music any more*. Make new music, give it to the people, maybe we'll pay you a bit, but you're not going to become (insert millionaire band here).
You can still have lots of fun at your live gigs though.
Re:The Baptist Death Ray speaks (Score:1)
Without AMP3.com's Artist Royalty Program, both MP3.com and IUMA.com would be exploiting your music without any payment at all.
Doug
Re:Tales from an indie... (warning : bleak) (Score:2)
Exactly, give it to everybody.
I know a lot of local bands, and a friend of mine is starting up an MP3 site (mostly using Icecast, but he wants songs to be dloadable as well..) for them (well, he hopes to expand to more bands later..) he asked me for help in designing it..
umm, saving a stream is a function of the client, at least on my machine. Promote a diff. client than WinAmp.
the first thing is that he doesn't want the artist to get screwed.. so #1, is he doesn't charge for space/listings, and (when he gets the credit card bit set up) he'll charge 30% of any CD's sold through the site.
That sounds better. Running your own site can be like your own radio station. Radio stations exist to promote music, and web sites are great at making it easy to buy, it's a match made in heaven.
Please don't think of listening to MP3s as bad. The laws that make them illegal are ridiculous. I equate MP3 streaming with the radio. If I save it to disk that's like using a tape. I don't see any of this as wrong. My case in point for open music is bands like Phish, who have thrived, especially on the 'Net, by allowing free flow of their music. Yes, it is more difficult to make a living this way, but if you started playing music to get rich, you don't deserve to. It can happen tho, for Phish's new year's show there will be 150k-200k people who paid $150 a piece to hear it live, which, IMHO, is how you should hear music anyway.
Stuff like Napster (which I used for the first time to get a quick and easy Tribe fix last night) will make any semblance of control of music a pale dream. Just open your music up, pass it out, and try to get people to your site and live shows to buy a CD, it's a perfect permanent backup in case your computer takes it on the chin from a HERF gun.
What Problem? (Score:1)
I just copied the following from the artist signup page of mp3.com. I had to sign up as an artist to get to it, but here it is. I don't see any issues with this agreement. I don't see why an artist can't sell their songs to another label and I don't see anything about an artist giving up any rights. In other words, what is MP3.COM doing that specificly hurts the Indie artists?
From mp3.com ->
The following terms apply to both the Standard Program and to the DAM System:
1. Ownership. You retain ownership of the copyrights and all other rights in your songs, subject to the non-exclusive rights granted to us under this agreement. You are free to grant similar rights to others during and after the term of this agreement.
2. Termination. You may terminate this agreement at any time by so notifying us; the agreement will terminate upon our actual receipt of such notice. We may terminate this agreement at any time by so notifying you; the agreement will terminate upon your actual receipt of such notice or three days after we have sent a notice of termination to the e-mail address which you supply to us below. Upon termination, all of our license rights terminate, except that we retain those rights necessary for us to sell any CDs or other tangible goods which we have produced prior to the date of termination which incorporate any of your Material (as defined in section 3 below). Our obligation to pay you amounts due to you under this agreement survives termination. Also, sections 3 and 6 below survive termination.
.... sections 3 and 6 hold them harmless and make sure you have the rights to give the music away in the first place.
Few artists make any $ from record sales anyway (Score:1)
It takes more luck than talent to get the majors' attention, so every little bit of exposure helps. While the freeware-music movement may not bring actual $$ to the artists, it does give us a small amount of exposure that we were not getting otherwise.
Methinks that's a good thing.
--Bill
Home: http://bw.org/ [bw.org]
Actually, this agreement kicks ass (Score:2)
This is actually so much better than the record company deals it's not even funny. (It's not funny, actually. It's tragic.) Sure, Joe Schmoe isn't guaranteed income as a Rock And Roll Star- when has he ever been? Sure, you have to do ALL your own promotion: guess what, you would in the mainstream industry as well. Record companies _don't_ promote new signed bands. They promote the Spice Girls. In the case of something like Hootie or whatever, you're talking about a local band that had a _killer_ marketing machine and network and did a lot of work without asking the record company to do it for them (which ain't happening).
Lastly, nothing is stopping you from setting up shop as an indie label. Press your own CDs- it'll be about a dollar a CD including labels and sometimes also throwing in cassettes, you supply artwork, you pay shipping and fill orders yourself and keep _all_ the profit after taxes. Nothing in the mp3.com agreement is forbidding you from doing all the work, not to mention you can make higher quality CDs from stuff that hasn't been mp3ed first.
The one thing mp3.com takes is this: everything you put up, they can spread around in any way they choose. Well, duh- that's the point! If they were not going to let people download it, splash your little graphics around, drop your name in their email mailings, do a web-radio station and play your songs all they want, what would you be there for, why would they be giving you lots of HD space? You can back out (unlike the regular industry), it's nonexclusive (unlike the regular industry), it's clear that you aren't losing copyright to your own work... (unlike the regular industry... are we seeing a pattern here? Ever wonder why certain artists 'seem' to be really into selling their songs to crappy compilation album producers?)
Thanks for the link. I made a copy on my HD of the agreement to go over at my leisure- but I gotta tell you, I'm impressed with it. I don't see much of a gripe, compared to existing industry practices. They were supposed to provide MP3-sized HD space to zillions of unsigned musicians for nothing maybe? ;)
Re:MP3's don't sell because... (Score:1)
Furthermore, perhaps lots of those bands who are bleating about not getting paid for their MP3's are also using HotlineHQ to rip off somebody else's movies...
Perhaps this whole thing just boils down to showing some people the consequences of their actions when they're playing a different keyboard?
Re:Different outlook (Score:1)
Re:Seriously now (Score:3)
Too often do I hear "Well, they're in the business of making money" as justification for ripping people off. Because you make a buck off of it does *not* mean it's OK to rip off small-time bands.
That said, I think it's surprising that no one's actually fufilled the potential for an online cooperative music label. Instead of paying the bands for the CDs they sell, why not give the bands 85% of mp3 sales and use the 15% to run the site?
You could offer the bands all the marketing info, let them keep the copyright to all their stuff, and then sign the really popular ones with your traditional music label.
According to the article, there'd be a fairly large market for this kind of service. Why sign up with mp3.com when you can sign up with music-coop.com (or whatever) and get a much better deal?
What amazing things you could do if you didn't rip your fellow humans off. But hey... if you're in the business of making money...
This idea, BTW, isn't really mine, nor is it special. If you have the motivation to carry through with it, please do. I've got my own gig going, so I'm not likely to go from programmer to music-industry-guerilla.
Oh well. (Score:2)
I don't really understand this all, what's all the complaining about? More people get to hear your music, and you're about $3 a month better off than you were if you hadn't bothered.
Of course, the selling of rights is kind of worrying, but no one says you have to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
any mp3 band success stories? (Score:2)
Re:More to do with the internet than the company (Score:2)
Now if you want to talk real e-commerce with credit card processing and other fun stuff, yeah, that'll get to be expensive.
Doh, not everybody sells. But we can lower the bar (Score:1)
So what if only 16K CDs were sold for 26K artists in August. Face it that is the harsh reality:
Not all artists sell (doh!). The Internet will probably make it more brutal if anything. I bet a very small bunch of artists sold a lot of CDs, then a medium bunch sells a few cds, and the rest sell nothing. Probably the media just interviewed artists who'd make a newsworthy story.
What would make things better for musicians, opensource/GNU coders would be this:
Sites to help Joe Public pay money directly to them (with 2% charge to card company and maybe 1% to cover costs). So if someone only likes ONE song, and doesn't want to pay for the entire CD of 95% crap, that person can still pay you, plus add comments. Then the artists could work accordingly [1].
Then in fact musicians/sessionists/coders could even pay each other for help and other stuff. For example X helps Y to write a "device driver" or a chorus, and Y pays X for it, and maybe even gets other people to pay X for a job well done.
I suggested this system to the GNU people. Open Destination Donation. Basically people can donate to the main GNU fund (which goes to "salary"), or donate directly to programmers. Everyone sees how much everyone is getting. If the programmers themselves figure a bunch are not being compensated fairly (low profile but great work), they can go compensate them directly too.
It does seem rather too money driven to me. But that's the world for you.
Cheerio,
Link.
[1] You can still suffer for your art if you want- e.g. if everyone says that they like song #1 but you hate doing that type, it's your choice.
Re:It's just proof that ignorance still prevails. (Score:1)
There are a lot of very, very lazy people out there. They want:
1. to sell their music for huge money because they saw U2 do it, and
2. not to have to pay for things like marketing, and
3. not to have to learn anything new, like what the Web is all about, and
4. to move to cloud cuckoo land, please.
They are slowly discovering that, guess what, there's no such thing as a free lunch again. As one person said: "...it's all about getting noticed. Imagine that there are ten thousand radio stations out there and you're one of them. How are you ever going to be heard?" Answer: you might, but not by many, and not for long.
Let's also not forget that as well as 'stifling many artists who thought they should get a recording deal', those labels also 'protected the listening public from having to wade through buckets of dross to find a couple of gems'...well blow me down, it's the same thing!
*BUT* it's not all bad news. If they put their stuff out there and some of us find it and like it, we'll tell our friends. If they like it too, they'll tell their other friends. We'll all tend to visit the band's Web site, and when they come to our town, just watch us line up to pay *big bucks* (maybe five, or ten, or fifteen at a time) to see them play live.
For example, I came across the Fantastic Plastic Machine on Emperor Norton, and if he ever plays Marbella I'll buy a ticket, and with real folding money too. I'd never heard of him nor Norton until I happened to read some Web article somewhere.
Of course, TicketMaster will still destroy the band's profits anyway, unless somebody stops them by putting up a free Web site for buying tickets...
Re:Open Source Music (Score:1)
Re:eh? you're full of crap (Score:2)
Open Source Music (Score:1)
if ($noise > $signal) {ignore} (Score:1)
The mp3 sites have a very low noise to signal ratio for the indie artists. Most of their indie selections are a) Poorly recorded (and I don't mean in the charming sense) b) Poor songs (Yes, this is a value judgement, but if you can't play the local clubs, why do I need your mp3?) c) crap. (Hey, what is this "Voyetra Jam Box" program I got with my Packard Smell??) This would create a problem for me if I were running a site like mp3.com for the following reasons.
Do I really want/need to cater to the bedroom rockers etc. out there? If all of my submitters are good quality bands with good tunes, sure, I want to give them all the bells and whistles to maqke sure they come back and to help them along the path to stardom. It's just good business. If one big band got their start on friggin-mp3.com (TM), I'd be set. But do I want to deal with the added overhead of catering to "DJ Whimpleteats" and his GW2K Mixmaster? No. So you scale back service to the lowest common denominator.
Consider this like
Now the flipside of the coin reveals this: Who am I to make the decision that what you are sending is crap? Ever had a post moderated down when you didn't think it needed to be?? So how can you challenge the status quo of the recording industry yet turn people away right and left because content is not up to snuff?? (Besides the fact that you would actually have to listen to all of it to make the valuation.) Plus you now get into bruised egos, and a possible
This really isn't the recording industry. Any artist who thinks that they are going to make big money would also believe that the moon is made of cheese. The name of the game is exposure, and that is the best you can hope for with these sites.
Running you own website is a good proposition, but you cannot generate the traffic that these large sites do, and the large sites are also a good way to drive traffic to your individual site.
The mp3 sites have their place, but the indies will need to find a new way to get better and cleaner exposure. Look at
~Jason Maggard
"America is the home of the hypocrite
The American Dream is only a dream"
~The Violent Femmes
here's an indie label (Score:4)
Anyway, if you are looking for a great indie "label" where the artists are the MAIN attraction, check out NoType [notype.com]
Anybody with a mixer? (Score:3)
I mean, go ahead, but that's very much like saying "Anyone with a 486 and Red Hat can write the next Q3test and do serious work on the kernel". To some extent it's the equipment...
Now. Seemed to be a lot going on in that hack, wasn't there? Why would I, a soundengineer hacker with his own music, be giving away secrets like that?Because that WASN'T enough. It'd help. But if you don't know how to make cables that will get as much of your signal to the A/D converters as possible... if you make the mistake of doing a lot of destructive digital changes on your data (it can be better to re-digitize a track than to normalize it over a simple gain change)... if you're using a crap digital mixer working in only 16 bits and not dithering properly, it's not going to be enough! You'll need help.
This is normal for any skilled profession, craft, or art. You wouldn't go out and get some random guy off the street for your drummer- it's no different for the sound engineer. The difference is, the audio geeks and equipment tweekers and snotty audiophile types now have a market value- and there are just as many of them out there as there are unsigned musicians.
Not everybody gets to be George Piros or Wilma Cozart or even Bob Ludwig or (shudder) Bob Clearmountain (if you don't know those names you're not a sound engineer geek. Show of hands? I bet some slashdotters know _all_ of them and why I shuddered at Clearmountain ;) ) but it's just the same as linux hacking- there are countless things to learn, it's a tremendously deep field, and you _can_ put together a 'garage' operation that competes with the big boys just the same as Linux competes with Windows NT.
It might involve a lot of geeky work. My mixing board had over 100$ of capacitors alone put into it. Not wizzy 'audiophile' caps of matching values- I increased values radically, now my board will put out bass on the order of 2 hz >:) there are most definitely audio hacks that can be done with equipment, it's a whole subculture.
I guess the long and the short of it is, at home with your PC or Mac you can _top_ the results of your average industry studio- if you're really willing to spend some years being a mad scientist audio hacker, or know someone who is. I always figure, I've been doing it for nearly 20 years, I can afford to give away everything and I'll still top ya in execution ;) so, here's a list of things to do/use/remember...
- Get serious monitoring. Learn how to place speakers in the right places from audiophiles. Get classical music or classic rock sounding great over the system- the stuff that requires the system to reproduce a soundspace (not synthesise one tho!)
- If you're using bass reflex speakers, stuff a sock in the ports. To mix very deep bass you've gotta be able to hear it. A sock will also provide resistive damping. You can enjoy port thunder later, now you need to hear what's actually happening.
- If you're using speaker wire try cutting the ends off AC extension cords (heavy duty indoor) and using those. If you're using those, try separating them all the way down into two individual wires, getting rid of capacitance effects. Crude but effective in getting more control of your highs.
- Litz wire is better than stranded or solidcore wire at transmitting analog audio in such a way that it digitizes nicely. You can make amazing cables from using all the wires in outdoor phone cable (four little wires rattling around loose in a big plastic sheath) because they'll work as sorta-litzwire and any shielding around the wire has a serious air gap for zilch capacitance over even long runs.
- Running cheap digital multitrack (like an old ADAT) into a reasonably decent analog mixer and then digitizing the result 'dithers' better than crap digital mixing software. (this is actually my next audio move- ADAT used in a hopped-up analog-uber-alles studio)
- Pitch shifting is destructive. Digital EQ is destructive. Normalizing is destructive. As with something like JPEG or MP3 these are cumulative. Don't ever edit things around like mad without backup- keep master digital copies in case you want to do a neatly executed series of digital edits on a clean copy. Screw up on this one, and your tracks will have all the life and interest of Radio Shack Casiotone demo tunes. Don't get track rot.
- Typically you can only afford to have a few sounds be 'big' or glossy or fancy- different genres approach this in different ways. Some great MODs have all the sounds big, but there's only about 2 or 3 tracks going at any one time! Conversely, some great rock mixes have, for instance, really big guitar sounds against a simple direct, dense bass tone without a lot of detail, and a very 'dry' drum tone. Even John Bonham's Led Zeppelin drum tone tended to be pretty 'dry': it just tended to sustain. When it was really wet and dense, the _guitar_ tended to be dry.
- Drum tones only sound right in context. You'll only hear what a bassdrum is doing when coupled with a bass guitar- the weight of it can be way more than you expected combined with the bass's transient attack. A snare can sound clear but boring until it's in context and sounds great- if you add stuff to make the unaccompanied snare sound hot and exciting, when it's in context you might lose most of the actual impact because everything gets muddy and confused. Think of the backbeat as a composite of drums and instruments- as if the guitar or whatever is _part_ of the snaredrum. Mix it as such.
- Never mix over headphones. Any headphones. It's a totally different presentation from speakers- your body needs to feel the sounds (even at a low volume, subliminally). Headphones are for tracking not for mixing over.
- Build monster speakers if you want to make club or house or rock music. You need to monitor over something comparable to what you'll be played on, only more accurate. I run towers with 12" 10" 8" and 6.5" woofers for (infinite baffle) bassbins. No one resonance dominates and the low end is understandably huge when required. Makes it easier to mix really serious bass content, you can hear exactly what it's doing. I also make my own tweeter elements. Audio geekiness is fun
:) also, using them as computer speakers makes games and such more fun. Big explosions, and I've occasionally encountered stuff like this one alpha-quality game in which the guy had made the sounds carry _major_ subsonic rumble for the explosions. Very neat. - Geek out on it. It doesn't take that much money, you just end up very well known at Radio Shack and very familiar with what you can get from MCM, Mouser catalogs et al. It's kind of like Linux in a way- you can DIY, and even beat hell out of the industry's approach in certain areas.
Good luck!Seriously now (Score:2)
Re:O.S. guitar picks, banjos & TP for my bunghole? (Score:1)
More info (Score:5)
Need a payment system. (Score:2)
tThen the artist can make more then they're current cut, and we, the consumer, can get lower prices for music. Any ideas on how such system could be setup?
bash: ispell: command not found
Re:(ending #6) bazaar correct ending (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Music (Score:1)
mp3OS, all music, no annoying spreadsheets, built in quake, automagically knows when you need caffeine!
Re:(ending #3) Politically correct ending (Score:1)
Welcome to the curse of the straight white male. The whole "play to the minorities" that North America's (it's not just the US) political system abides by makes me sick.
You can have Black TV. Or Feminist TV. Or Gay Pride week. But if I want to do something along those lines for whites, or straights or males... I'd be arrested.
Mind you we've got another problem in Canada that you guys don't have: the Seperatists. In Quebec it's illegal to have an all-English sign (and in some areas it's illegal to have ANY English on your signs!), yet the rest of the country is forced into bilingualism. What utter bullshit!
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2)
Actually, there already is an effort to "open source" music... check out:
Mutopia [cs.uu.nl]
It's an effort to "freely distribute" music by using LilyPond's music definition language. The motivation is to "free" music written by composers who are no longer alive, so it makes little sense for some corporate body to still hold the copyright. However, the stuff here is only classical so far... I suppose more variety will be included when LilyPond gets more complete. Not sure how the Mutopia philosophy would fit with contemporary music, though (ie. those whose composers are still around). I suppose they'd have to "open-source" it themselves for this to be legal.
Re:The Baptist Death Ray speaks (Score:2)
Advertising comes homes again. I think this is fair. And a million downloads could do pretty well for everybody. Advertising as a revenue source also relies on massive distrubution, something mp3 is good for. Charging directly for the music ain't gonna work.
I think most media will end up in two areas. Basic and Premium. Basic you pay by watching commercials, and the HBO model where you pay for quality content (Sopranos, 1st run Hollywood).
MP3: Good for music "startups", debatable later (Score:1)
It's just proof that ignorance still prevails. (Score:2)
Re:Open Source Music (Score:1)
it's simple, really. Almost all but the most famous musicians make whatever money they do, not from CD sales but from performances and stuff. You have to sell a lot of CDs to actually make profit on them.
What this means is that 'Free music', if it works as intended, will most allow musicians to use recordings as promos for their real product -- live performances, merchandise, etc. Quite similar to OpenSource, actually.
--
(off topic) (Score:1)
You don't need middlemen (Score:2)
But you can't run away from the changing environment, you just have to make sure that it doesn't screw you in future. There's one very good general principle you can apply to avoid getting screwed, and that is: "Avoid the Middleman".
The way you can achieve that in this context is reasonably straighforward. Set up your own website with an Internet provider that provides download stats. (You get that for free with typical "shell account" providers anyway.) You're buying a networking service here, as opposed to introducing a middleman into your own line of business as would be the case if you hooked up with MP3.COM.
Then develop your online identity and communicate with your fans through all the usual mechanisms: website promotion, search-engine priming, newsgroups, IRC channels, etc. And create merchandise for your growing fandom to buy online. Note that this has to include more than just plain CDs, because the reality of the new online environment is that payment per copy doesn't work: your fans may like you, but they won't pay for replication that they know they can do themselves for virtually nothing. But merchandising gives you a chance to capitalize on the exposure that your free downloads give you. Offer posters and t-shirts and you're into a different ballgame!
Re: (Score:1)
Cooperative For Artists (Score:3)
The commercial music does not serve most artists well; we can certainly take that for a fact. Some artists hit it big, but the vast majority do not get fair recognition for their work.
In the days of the internet we have the establishment of a new means of reaching lots of people with a far less investment of capital than was previously required. It is quite possible to bootstrap oneself into national recognition ala
Farmers have long recognized that a single farm cannot gain direct access to distribution channels because of capital and volume requirements. However, by forming a cooperative they are able to provide enough capital and volume to in fact 'cut out the middleman'. Artists now have the same opportunity to take matters into their own hands. Sites like mp3.com are obviously using the same business model that the conventional music industry does, but via a new distribution channel. This business model does not serve the needs of most artists.
I believe that the correct approach would be the establishement of a artist's cooperative designed to use the internet as a distribution medium. The business philosophy could be taken from examination of farmer's cooperatives, and the distribution model from examination of several successful low-capital or bootstrapped internet startups.
Musical gift culture (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Need a payment system. (Score:1)
No cut of the profits to website! (Score:2)
Instead, just treat the website as a fixed business expense, just like the coffee and milk. You don't give Nescafe and the milkman a cut of your business, and nor should you give a website owner any. Or perhaps a better analogy is that you don't provide AT&T or BT with a share of your business just because they provide you with a phone line.
Make it so also with websites. And these days, that will be a minimal expense or even free, at least initially when you start with a small web presence.
Babies and bathwater (Score:2)
The moral of the story is that we don't need yet another raft of blood-sucking middlemen. Musicians can have their own presence online without needing any of that old nightmare, without signing away any of their profits, and without being told how to arrange their own promotion. All they need to do is show a little business initiative and go it alone.
You're right though that people won't pay for the music itself -- that's the nature of the beast, and you can either moan about it or ride the wave. In practice what this means is merchandising, ie. offering your fans more than just plain pressed CDs of the music: lots of additional material to go with it, and of course the traditional t-shirts, caps and mugs. And that is something that fans definitely are willing to pay for -- it's a multi-billion dollar industry.
It only seems funny to "give away your primary product" and make money on ancillaries because we've been brainwashed into thinking of music as property. It isn't. Music is a shared experience, shared between the composer and musicians and each listener separately and all the fans collectively. It's a real oddball of a phenomenom, and it fits perfectly in the new environment of online freedom. It is very different from a washing machine.
Re:Different outlook (Score:2)
Then perhaps what we need is a way to make it easier to sort through the crap.. Maybe a review system of some sorts?
Another idea I had: If we had a standard for packaging mp3s and a web page together and the player suported it (maybe just a tar file with a button to spawn a web browser) then artists could include visual art and information on how to purchas their CDs in the mp3.. it might make the whole exposure through mp3s thing a little more practical.
Jeff
not CD sales, but new audiences and concerts (Score:2)
But MP3s have gotten me interested in genres of music I haven't previously listened to, and I'm much more likely to go to performances of music that I would otherwise not have considered going to.
(off-topic as well) (Score:2)
i dont display scores, and my threshhold is -1. post accordingly.
Re:Develop distributed info systems for online mus (Score:2)
Let's assume that a "good recording" by a modern rock band takes one month and $30,000. YMMV, but most of the indie bands in the Chicago scene would be able to put out a great record for that.
Let's also assume that you play 4 gigs a month in a big city's nightclub district, and 4 more out in regional clubs, whether in surburbia, or on mini-tours, or colleges, whatever.
Let's also assume that each gig takes 10 hours, from load-in to load out. Multiply by 5 band members, two of whom (let's assume) are supported by their girlfriends/mommy/daddy.
You've just spent 400 man-hours away from three good money-earning jobs, plus you've bought equipment, a van, and beer. You've pulled in an average of $150 per show, if you're playing originals at Metro - $500 per show, if you're willing to play Third Eye Blind covers for the chicks in Delta Delta Delta.
Guess what? You're broke.
I don't care if the new distribution system exists or not - you need to prime the pump with money before you can use that system. The best way to do that is to not suck, get played on radio, get signed to a label, take advantage of the economies of scale involved with major label marketing, hope that you've got enough points on your deal, and put out your record. Once you've got your record, you'll want to be on MTV anyway, so the new distribution system is (currently) just gravy...
The same problems facing all other web sites (seperating oneself from the chaff) face indie-rock and/or MP3 distribution sites. On MP3, you're lumped in with everyone else. Actually, going it alone might be better than signing up with MP3.com or CDbaby.com or whatever - as long as your site is cool...
The question for all wannabe creative types is still "How can I be famous tomorrow, so that everything else becomes easy?"
Before I leave, here are my tips: 1) Get cool shoes. 2) Get a cool haircut. 3) Date international sex symbols. 4) Or just quit.
Support = Concerts (Score:2)
It's really not so different from the hugely popular tape-trading networks that bands like the Grateful Dead have been using for years and years, except in that case people _do_ pay for the music (they have to buy tapes, stamps for mailing, etc.), but the band never saw a dime directly. Most people agree that tape-trading is something that sustains the life of the bands, though - Dead shows sold out every time.
In the Internet age, as music is distributed quickly over the world, it can be difficult for people to make it to concerts, if only for reasons of proximity. So there's a little incongruity between the distribution & "support" methods (if you will), because most people can't take advantage of the support. That's why I think we'll see a lot of effort put into the creation of "virtual concerts", which people will pay to see if the show is good enough.
As a member of an underground music community... (Score:2)
Really, we've been using the net for our own advantage very effectively. Thanks to the net, this small group of outcasts
We have a newsgroup dedicated to our music (rec.music.a-cappella), we have an organization (CASA [casa.org]) that works by 80% through the help of online media, there are internet mail order shops for a capella albums that were online before amazon.com was such a hype it is today. Most vocal bands have been among the earliest to set up web sites long before the mainstream music biz discovered it.
And of course, most of these bands have been using digital audio files to promote their albums from the very beginning. (I may be wrong, as I don't use Be-Os, but one now-professional group called The Housejacks is featured on the Be-Os install disks...)
So yes, MP3 (and Realaudio) have been a MAJOR factor to help contemporary a cappella find a larger audience.
I myself don't think that online music distribution is unfair. To the contrary. My own group's album [sechsrichtige.de] had a few additional sales only due to the fact that people had a chance to hear snippets from it online.
BTW, if you happen to visit a record store, check out an a cappella album! Rockapella, Housejacks, m-pact, Nylons - you name it!
------------------
Perspective? You asked for it. (Score:2)
But what's going on in music right now is way overdue. Had this technological revolution been happening then, the sleazy producers who then had the studio knowhow and took our $$ for it wouldn't have held us back; the local radio stations wouldn't have prevented more people from hearing us. It would have been more efficient. And that's what technology is all about--efficiency.
I have a vision of a time when middlemen no longer exist in the music industry--or are much reduced in their roles. Bands put their music on the net and fans learn about it through genre-based sites and download it. A standard EULA for music allows personal usage for free, but commercial usage requires payment to the artist. And artists who are particularly popular and ambitious can gain additional revenue by going on tour. The notion that touring will not make $$ is wrong; current practices simply need updating.
The gross windfalls that many popular artists have received are often a curse. Elvis, Aerosmith, Kiss etc. etc. etc. all have been victims of their own excesses. Good music is not written for $, it is written to express emotion. Now Aerosmith pumps out insincere crap because they are status quo establishment artists. Tom Petty was quoted as saying when his music gets old, he promises not to "hand around and suck." Aerosmith, are you listening?
Re:Tales from an indie... (warning : bleak) (Score:2)
I think the problem is that you were overenthusiastic, and it led you to make some bad decisions..
First thing, NEVER, EVER give exclusive distribution rights to someone else.. you'll just get screwed..
I know a lot of local bands, and a friend of mine is starting up an MP3 site (mostly using Icecast, but he wants songs to be dloadable as well..) for them (well, he hopes to expand to more bands later..) he asked me for help in designing it.. the first thing is that he doesn't want the artist to get screwed.. so #1, is he doesn't charge for space/listings, and (when he gets the credit card bit set up) he'll charge 30% of any CD's sold through the site.. also, there is _NO_ obligation to the artist... you can pull out whenever you want, and you don't have to give him any permanent copyrights.. it's a win/win situation for him and for the artists...
The URL is http://wmp3.net/ [wmp3.net]
The bottom line is that not everybody involved in the MP3 scene is out to rip the artists off..
Mastering not that hard (Score:2)
What going to a studio and recording gets you is a) your landlord doesn't get complaints about you playing too loud (grin), b) better acoustics than the typical garage (but you can alter the acoustics of the typical garage to be suitable by, e.g., hanging drapes over all the walls and draped across the ceiling to muffle the echos), and c) the expertise of the recording engineer. Having attempted to do some recording myself, I can attest that it takes a LOT of work to make it come out right... e.g., a typical problem is "too hot" miking (clips your input) or, more insidious, "too cold" miking (ends up sounding muffled because you lose some of the dynamic range). The problem is that the "heat" varies depending upon your playing style, placement of microphone, mixer settings, and sound card input settings, and getting all of that right is a pain in the @%@!. Then getting a good mix at the end is important. You want the sound to be similar to what they'd hear live, for most music. The worst mix I ever heard was for a South Louisiana band called "The Bluerunners", which played "accordian grunge" (my best estimation of what they played). I'd heard them live at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival and loved their sound, which was hard-driving, distorted, and mixed to perfection -- think grunge before grunge was cool. Then I bought their CD. *BIG* mistake -- the mix was clear, put the vocalist up front instead of as a background to the driving guitar and accordian (he was NOT a good enough vocalist to be up front!), and it would have been a great mix for Simon and Garfunkel but *NOT* for the BlueRunners, who needed a grittier, grungier mix to duplicate their live sound.
Anyhow, the expertise of a good recording engineer, as noted above, is probably the only thing you can get by going to a studio that you can't cheaply do at home with your PC, but as the BlueRunners example shows, it doesn't always result in a good mix (grin).
-E
Re:Reviews (Score:2)
Jeff
Re:(ending #5) culturally correct ending (Score:2)
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Sound engineering/producing is not black magic (Score:2)
Not to mention that I've DEFINITELY heard "bad" mixes off of studio labels -- mixes that in no way properly represent the band and its sound. Unless you're Garth Brooks or some other big name, you'll probably get the bottom of the barrel at any major label to mix your album.
-E
No, your analogy breaks down (Score:2)
But since you mention medicine, it might as well be said that the medical establishment uses fairly similar tactics to hold on to its own power base, limiting what pharmaceutical chemists can prescribe over the counter despite the fact that more than a few GPs are old dodderers that are well out of touch with modern medicine compared to a well-trained specialist in Boots. And also let's not forget the power they have to marginalize alternative practitioners even in areas where "scientific" medicine has nothing better to offer. The picture is not as black and white as one might think.
The MP3 Music Site Revolution (or how I was sucker (Score:2)
Anyways.....
This is from my band's web page. It has been there since August. It took Salon and CNN to find out about this only now. Well, The mainstream media is always 6 months or more later than the rest of us.
So....
The MP3 Music Site Revolution (or how I was suckered)
I was posting the band's music on several sites between October 1998 and August 1999. No longer.
I first started with MP3.com in October of 1998, I joined AMP3.com in June 1999. These two sites had been my mainstays. Then in July I looked for other venues. I was hoping to get more exposure. Ha Ha. I was invited to one: Riffage.com, and decided to post to UBL.com and join Rollingstone's MP3 site.
I couldn't get any traffic to these sites. And the sites were no helpful either. You would expect them to post your song with other new songs/ new arrivals. You would expect to be listed in the new artist arrivals. These sites did none of this. Very disappointing. I've now abandoned all of these sites. They have been nothing greater than a disappointment. I figure if you are interested enough in my music you can get the CD quality songs or the CDs directly from me (or HotBands.com).
It seems these sites are not interested in artists with a small {miniscule} fan base. They go after the head liners, the artists that give them the big downloads. I became nothing more than a number to boost their egos:
"We have xx thousands of bands. We have xx thousands of songs."
Woopie flipping deal. They don't even bother to promote the bottom 98%. I have to use my resources wisely. These places offer no help and less traffic.
MP3.com has become the worst with this. Since they went public, MP3.com has given no care or attention to the lesser artists on their site. It has become so vast with bands and songs. They're boasting over 100,000 songs and over 10,000 bands. Who cares when only 2% get 98% of the downloads. I used to think it was a great place for me to be. But, there is no chance to get any type of exposure through them any more. Any traffic I have received to my songs there was through my own initiative. If I'm going to spend my energies generating traffic, I'll do it for myself and not some uncaring song site.
So I'm on my own. I'll still work with link sites like Free Music Archive. But the posting of my music on other MP3 sites is finished.
Zero Factor.
http://members.home.net/zero.factor
email: zero.factor@home.com
More to do with the internet than the company (Score:2)
Its all about the money ! (Score:2)
This one paragraph in my view basically sums up not only online distributors but the music business in general. Its all about money, the artists want some, the distributors have some and we the people have to pay through our ears to get the music.
Comment removed (Score:4)
My personal experience (Score:2)
the bottom line: I don't care if i am getting screwed by riffage; i'll have the last laugh, becasue i'm not a "starving artist," i'm a future computer science major, and perhapse soem day i can help make what they claim as fact to come about as reality.
That's all i have to say about that.
This isn't exactly facism here. (Score:2)
MP3s have made me go out and get cds... (Score:3)
Every new opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. -Thomas Carlyle
Re:More info (Score:2)
When you click "Post Anonymously", it's not
the same thing as logging out:
Undoing moderation to Comment #8
Undoing moderation to Comment #61
Undoing moderation to Comment #70
Undoing moderation to Comment #71
Undoing moderation to Comment #146
So I just wasted an hour or so carefully reading
and moderating. I think I'm going on strike.
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2)
Thimo
--
Tales from an indie... (warning : bleak) (Score:5)
So we signed up with a 'service' (that will rename nameless as long as I remain named). Mistake.
Here's the picture: we paid for top billing for a week, and had over 6,000 downloads. One of our songs was on a 'sampler' CD. Great, right?
Nope. we made exactly $0 from all this, and only sold 43 CDs. The profit we were paid lost us money over OUR costs to press each CD (our profit was about $.45 per CD, had we sold them all at that rate. But since we didn't we lost lots of money on the CDs we pressed in anticipation)
We were not told anything about the demographics of the audience downloading our CDs (I'm sure 'service' sold that information to someone else, though), and we made no money. We now have two songs that we can not ever put on CDs (at least we can play them live.) that are not sold through the 'service', and life generally sucks.
Now, even though we had a small local following, we are broken up. Could we have been contenders had we sticked it out? Probably not, but who knows... if a traditional label had signed us, we would certainly have sold more, made more, and still be playing...
Moral of the story: The record industry screws artists. The e-music industry is much worse, however, and should be avoided at all costs. Hell, I'd rather have had our mp3s pirated.
Why do people do this? (Score:2)
I think MP3 technology allows people more leeway. You don't HAVE to sign over the rights to anything to get your music out to a lot of people. You CAN still, as this article proves, but
Another impact it seems to have is that the people previously making a quick buck off of someone else's work are now making a quick $0.08.
Replying without a license :-) (Score:2)
"Practicing law without a license" comes from exactly the same stable as "replicating music without a license". They're both empty handwaving, the product of institutions of yesteryear desperately trying not to lose their power base in an environment where it is the individual that has been empowered by technology rather than they.
the open source experience (Score:3)
My point is that there is a lot of room for music in the "open source experience." Alot of musicians could gain exposure if their music was distributed with open source software. The music could be part of the installation program, the documentation, or even the app itself.
There is a lot of effort made to make open source software visually appealing (see e.themes.org [themes.org].) But there is another sense to be tapped.
Adding music may seem like useless overhead, but is it really if it adds another dimension to the experience of using your software? Bandwidth will continue to open up and after a while adding a couple tunes and musical cues to your tarball/rpm won't make a significant difference.
If you find an unsigned band you like on mp3.com, e-mail them, see if they want to be involved in your project. Maybe you can work something out. Or, if you're a musician, find an open source project that interests you and offer to work with them. If the project takes off, then everyone benefits. If not, nothing really has been lost.
Just a thought...
numb
MP3.Com helps whom? (Score:2)
After reading the CNN article it seems that there's a lot of bands on the on-line MP3 sites, but very few of them are seeing a lot of downloads or CD sales. At least I know that my band is typical. My band is posted on one of those sites, herearfter called "Behemoth.Com" just to keep it anonymous. Last month we got 227 page views, and 150 downloads. Total CD sales: $0.00. (That's in US dollars, by the way).
I can look at this two ways. My "Behemoth.Com" site is a complete failure, and I should pick up my toys and go home. Or, I could look at it that 50 people hit the site and liked a song enough to download it to their hard drive. Similarly, I've found a few bands that I really like on "Behemoth.Com", bands that I probably wouldn't have found elsewhere.
Yes, it's simple to set up a web site and server -- I've done it many times myself -- but I like the fact that "Behemoth.Com" deals with the hard drive space and maintenance. So it seems that the people that really benefit from this type of service are the garage bands or "weekend warriors" who just enjoy the exposure but aren't necessarily looking to make money.
Most people, however, are interested in music from music professionals. That's not to say that some people don't like indie music, but I think it's a fair bet to say that most people like established, professional musicians. So this means that that these online sites are designed to cover a niche market filled with players who have little desire to earn money. So how long will this last? I expect that eventually "Behemoth.Com" and other sites will start to drop artists that don't have a certain number of page hits or downloads.
You know your favorite music genre is dead when it's played during a GAP commercial. Sig altered so this post won't become a commerical.
Re:any mp3 band success stories? (Score:2)
Looking at the subject line and the question, I wonder if this isn't a bit loaded. Is getting signed my a "MAJOR" label considered a success story? Part of the appeal of selling music over the 'Net is to avoid signing ownership of your songs over to a label.
---
But how's anyone going to know (Score:2)
Hell, I have a hard enough time finding music I like as it is.
what works for me. (Score:2)
keeping the free distribution looking illegal, influences honest people to buy the actual cd. dishonest, cheap, people would probably not buy the cd anyway.
this stance, i understand would not work for major labels... but for indie music, where the biggest difficulty is getting people to know of the existance of a band, this strategy has worked very well.
lexicon
Where's the /. source code? (Score:2)
One could speculate that the decision to keep new
Don't get me wrong, it's their right not to release source code - it's their code! It's just that for such a big open source advocacy site not to do so is a little hypocritical, and for them not to do so in violation of a long standing statement of intention ("It'll be out someday. Maybe. I hope.") is a little disappointing.
On the bright side, as far as I can tell there aren't any other negative consequences of Andover's investment, so if it's keeping Rob & Hemos supplied with food, beer, and silicon, it's an overall win.
Wanted: public domain music for software (Score:3)
The nice thing about public domain (or freely redistributable, anyway) music is even if a software project using it fails, and code written for it becomes useless, all the music is pretty much 100% salvageable.
Develop distributed info systems for online music (Score:2)
That's a very good point you make, but it needs closer examination.
For a start, "without marketing" almost seems to lead us back to the bad old mega-studio system, but it doesn't have to: they don't have a monopoly on marketing, and in any event, the mechanisms of marketing are totally different in this new online environment. Secondly, "marketing" to whom -- is it the same ol' kind of audience as before, or is a new audience being formed, one to whom old-style marketing may no longer be quite so relevant? And finally, the whole idea of "market" may be slightly off the mark here, because we're certainly not talking about business as normal.
Well I think your second sentence itself hints at what the main problem is, and therefore at the solution. It's not that "marketing" as such is needed. The problem is that the new audience simply isn't being offered a means by which it can find the online music that it wants. The closest thing we have so far are well-known sites like MP3.COM, but relying on such single points with vested interests just takes us back to the bad old days.
And then there's Napster. Looking beyond the specifics to the wider implications, there is a general solution ready for the making in this area: a distributed, investment-free, unsponsored mechanism for distributing information about music available online.
If that were available, you would know where to find the music you want, and the indies wouldn't need a traditional marketing machine behind them, and new musicians would have the same audience as everyone else.
All we have to do is create such a system, and heck, that's merely programming. In fact, it may already be being built as we speak. And then, bye bye for good to the old blood-sucking marketing collosus, it'll be totally obsolete.
CNN misses the real problem (Score:2)
For some reason, CNN, and to some degree mp3.com, seem to think it is possible to create a great big label, represent tens of thousands of artists, and just sit back and watch everybody get rich. I don't understand why anyone is suprised when this does not work, but it represents a problem with current label paradigms and not a problem with MP3's.
What they are quickly discovering, and what slashdotters know intimately, is that without community, identity, and good old fashioned hard work, you are going nowhere.
What is the future of mp3? I think it will be a hybrid of sites like slashdot, complete with news, discussion, and moderation, that then point to particular label web sites. These web sites would have clear identities and missions... personalities.
For examples of labels with personalities, check out Blue Jordan Records [bluejordan.com] and Paste Music [pastemusic.com]. These are both labels that have a clear identity, and if you like some of the artists you have heard of, you will likely enjoy some of the other bands on the label that you have not heard of. The labels did a lot of work finding an identity, and brought together a community of like minded talents for people that share their tastes (sound like slashdot?).
Where MP3's will really fly is when these labels give the customer the kind of flexibility, low cost, and speed of delivery that online delivery of MP3's can provide. After buying one too many really BAD CD's for $15, I am getting pretty loathe to take any kind of gamble on an artist I don't know pretty well.
But online delivery of two tracks for a buck, for a band on a label that has given me three or four artists I really like, with songs that are getting great reviews from people with gobs of karma on www.slash^h^h^h^hmusicdot.org, that I can have playing on my desktop 5 minutes from now? Sure... take my credit card number. Heck, just give me the whole ten track package...
Bill Kilgallon
What's so funny about peace love and free distro (Score:3)
The article does not talk about any artist that has been harmed by this agreement.
Recently, I had buisness in Orlando, and was packing for my trip the next morning. I went to MP3.com to download some songs for the plane ride, and I found an artist that I kinda liked. As it turns out, the band was from the town I was visiting the next morning.
[click] over to the bands home page . .[click] over to there schedual [click] over to the bars home page [click] over to a mapquest link to get directions, and boom . . I'm there! I'm seeing them live!
Now I ask you, where else can a band attract over-weight white guys from another time zone to come to a club, buy some drinks, and pick up a CD to take home?
To not get screwed, don't sign with a pimp (Score:3)
The revolutionary thing about Internet distribution of music isn't that there are new institutions to replace the old. It is that there are no cartels nor power brokers at all, so that each band can reach out to its audience on an equal footing, without spending much money, and without signing rights away to anyone.
As has been pointed out, it verges on the trivial nowadays for a band to set up its own website and marketing machinery, and if they don't have the tech ability or desire to do it then there are countless others that will be glad to help for a very small fee.
You don't need MP3.COM guys! Go it alone, and be your own masters.
Re:Different outlook (Score:2)
That hasn't been my experience. I have come across very little there that hasn't been of decent quality. I think it depends on the genres you're browsing, perhaps. I usually stay in Bluegrass. There are a lot of good artists in there.
I've put several of those artists CDs on my Christmas list. I feel good about having people buy those CDs, unlike CDs from RIAA-controlled artists.
If they didn't pay out AT ALL, I'm sure that people would still be uploading songs.
Agreed. And isn't that really a good thing? One would hope that artistic expression, not money, would be the driving force in music.
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2)
To get from under record companies, whether they be major or indie labels, I think the artists should promote themselves over the Internet. I saw an interview with Chuck D of Public Enemy and he's all for the free distribution of MP3's. He thinks it will give many artists from all over the world the chance to have their music heard whereas with the old regime, that would have been virtually impossible. I tend to agree with him. As far as how the artists would make money, I think a small fee for the download of the song (say $1 per) is reasonable. Kind of like shareware, where software is concerned. If you like it, be respectful and send the artist their due. If an artist truly loves their art, they'll continue to do it whether they get paid or not. However, if they expect to make a living from it, they better produce a decent product that people like or they'll end up like the cliched "starving artist". Another way to make money and propagate the success of their music could be tours. I would think that a major source of revenue for today's artists is touring. If they have fans and those fans would like to see the artist live, they will pay for that experience. Again, the cream will rise to the top (just like Open Source software) and the people making good music, could conceivably make a living.
Or am I just plain crazy?
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
"The artists .. lack business savvy" (Score:3)
I just took a look at mp3.com's Submission Agreement (conveniently mirrored here [xoom.com]), and it is fairly direct about what you're agreeing to. The meat is all in the first part, and it's not overly long.
If people submitting to the site are so blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes that they can't read the agreement before clicking "I agree", it's a problem that no amount of education will fix.
The people who have posted (for the most part) already disagree with the idea that the sites are ripping off the artists. I personally think that with the huge amount of crap on those sites, half a CD per artist is an incredibly high rate of sales. What do I know, you say? Tell me, then.
------
i would love to get screwed. (Score:2)
there is, like anything in the world, a good and bad way to go about it. some artists can choose to spend all day encoding and getting their entire first local release just right for the web. your music site gets half. ~most of the time,~ that's acceptable. i hate having 950 out of 1000 cd's sitting in boxes anyway.
mp3.com makes sign up a snap. i would ~love~ to get screwed by mp3.com. oh damn, my song is being played on the radio in baltimore, and here i am i texas. there is no downside to that for the hobbyist or indie label. have you heard of OneTon [onetonerecords.com] records in dfw, tx or Last Beat Records [lastbeatrecords.com]? all of the local musicians have. indie label showcases occur. the luckier ones get to tour. nothing like paying $5 for a cd and then special ordering the bands other cd over the phone. well, briefly, don't put all your songs up. make your mp3 cd's cheap. if use of one of your songs really chaps your behind, that song is being listened to! i can imagine only ~wild~ situations where the exposure is not worth it. everyone has to credit the artist anyway, period. so don't worry. Y2K threat:slashdotters::online audio:serious or smart musicians. the best music? Gropius [mp3.com] and that's not even my band.
That would screw the artist... (Score:2)
Re:Tales from an indie... (warning : bleak) (Score:2)
I'm trying to work out if you were conned on the price of pressing, or you were selling your CD's incredibly low.
Pressing even a modest amount of CD's shouldn't cost more than $1, the availablity of cheap CD-ROM's has forced the price down.
Re:(ending #3) Politically correct ending (Score:2)
Warning: this is an off-topic rant appended to an already off-topic thread.
I am sick to death of the way our media, our political systems, our culture, and our education systems are being hijacked by a single minority. For this I'm branded a homophobe. Actually, I'm just normal. And I'd like the chance for my children to grow up normal without being "educated" about "alternative life choices".
OK, flame away. If anyone's still here that is...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:To not get screwed, don't sign with a pimp (Score:2)
2. If the folks leaving the gig liked you, they'll spread the word a bit. You'll start selling.
3. If you're really good, you'll start wave of emails (think hamsterdance). Otherwise, you'll still be stuck with a small niche of a fan base, but hey, at least you're not getting ripped off by a record company.
I think you are missing the point. (Score:2)
Hmmm...this sounds awfully pro-RIAA and friends (Score:2)
I can't help wondering, after hearing her defend the big record companies, if Emily Vander Veer perhaps "has a dog in this race." In other words, does anyone know if she has some connection to the old-line record companies? It sure feels that way when you read the article.
I, for one, am glad mp3.com came along, as I have discovered a lot of great music that I would never have gotten to hear otherwise, if I were stuck listening to the mainstream drek pushed by the major labels.
Well that kind of sucks (Score:4)
CNN says an artist can create his own web site for about $20 a month, but if they're going to be selling CD's and accepting credit cards, it's going to cost considerably more. If all you want to do is promote your band, a $20 a month web site might be OK, but if you do things like goat sacrifices on stage you might want to pick an ISP that won't bow to pressure from the FBI, religious nuts and assorted other riff-raff...
Another potential issue of running your own site is that you lose the one-stop shopping that sites like MP3.com gives you. Although I suppose a yahoo category or something similar would get pretty close.
Payment per copy won't work (Score:2)
If you're a musician, I think you'd be better off creating your own website, developing a recognized online identity for your band, and using a system of patronage by your fans, ie. marketing stuff for them to order online (not just your music in CD form). You'd be your own master too, and that's worth a lot in its own right.
The Baptist Death Ray speaks (Score:3)
MP3.com, before it went public, talked big. The president would talk about how MP3.com was a revolution in music against the big industry players. He'd talk about how they were breaking the old model and giving artists a chance to be heard directly. And he implied, heavily, that people would be able to make a living using their D.A.M. CD system.
He was wrong on all counts -- but it's still useful, to a certain extent.
MP3.com talked a big game about being for indie artists but at the same time it was doing all sorts of favors for the "big name" artists who would grace their site. That's understandible, it's a business decision, but they wouldn't acknowledge or even mention the contradiction.
They had (and still have, as far as I know) some real problems with the way they sold and made the artists web CD's, but weren't interested in fixing them quickly or even acknowledging them. And so the primary way for artists to make money on their site was very, very underutilized.
It's quite impossible for someone to wander in and notice your band... because there are thousands and thousands and thousands of artists on that site, and you're just one.
Still, MP3.com is useful, because your music is out there.
AMP3.com has taken a somewhat different model. They tack advertisements to the front of your MP3s and you get five cents a download. I made $25.00 last month.
AMP3.com isn't perfect either, and they're sometimes slow to respond to artists demands. They're a bit disorganized (they'll start up new ideas, contests, and that kind of stuff and have to postpone them halfway through because they didn't cover all their bases) but as far as I can tell they're following through on their core promise -- pay the artist.
Some people might get very angry that AMP3.com is putting commercials (five second commercials) at the start of all the MP3 files on that site, but really -- it's five seconds, you don't pay for the MP3s, and the artist gets five cents every download. That's not a bad model, as far as it goes.
There are lots of other sites out there. MusicBuilder.com has a very nice CD-making program, even Rollingstone.com has MP3's on line. MP3.com and AMP3.com are the ones I have the most experience with, though.
The Baptist Death Ray
http://www.mp3.com/baptistdeathray
http://baptistdeathray.amp3.net
http://www.baptistdeathray.com
Our friends at IBM may have a solution (Score:3)