This is why, fuck you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysyZF-DZFY).
Damn. That's a pretty good breakdown of it.
It does explain a lot. :horrormirth:
:lol: :lol: :lol: That pleased me.
Um.
That was insanely awesome, and has actually changed my mind about who the evil fuckers are.
:lulz:
MTV isn't evil, it's just what we asked for, when we decided that stealing music was morally okay.
It's not like artists should be PAID or anything. That's for people with Real Jerbs(TM).
Its true that record labels are evil corporate entities that take most of the money from an album sale. But theres a reason for why they exist and why musicians sign even still. You know. Marketing. Tour funding. The lawyers for whatever lawsuit or criminal trial brought against you.
I might have mentioned before:
"Capitalism: If it feels like stealing, you're doing it right"
So about the whole "stealing" music thing... yeah...
(edit: I was going to rant a bit about services such as iTunes killing the age old recording industry's business model, but... meh. who cares)
Quote from: Random Probability on August 08, 2013, 08:47:27 PM
I might have mentioned before:
"Capitalism: If it feels like stealing, you're doing it right"
So about the whole "stealing" music thing... yeah...
(edit: I was going to rant a bit about services such as iTunes killing the age old recording industry's business model, but... meh. who cares)
Business models change.
But suddenly deciding that stealing is okay because it's easy, well...WELCOME TO AMERICA™.
I actually think MTV's business model was changing before the large-scale adoption of filesharing, by the likes of Napster, became widely used.
But even if that is the case, that the business model for the music industry changed rapidly, they were going to become irrelevant if they had not changed anyway. Like the video says - the internet renders much of their business model obsolete, even in the legitimate music market, with iTunes, Pandora, Youtube etc taking their place.
Incidentally, there is an MTV Music, which does nothing but play music videos. Guess who the most popular artists on it are?
Actually i have no problem with digital distribution as the unsigned musician gains a global market and a significantly greater percentage of sales. The problem is that they dont have the resources a label provides. Musicians themselves seem to be adapting well enough but the industry as a whole seems to have trouble figuring out how to make the whole thing work together.
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 08, 2013, 10:24:07 PM
I actually think MTV's business model was changing before the large-scale adoption of filesharing, by the likes of Napster, became widely used.
But even if that is the case, that the business model for the music industry changed rapidly, they were going to become irrelevant if they had not changed anyway. Like the video says - the internet renders much of their business model obsolete, even in the legitimate music market, with iTunes, Pandora, Youtube etc taking their place.
Incidentally, there is an MTV Music, which does nothing but play music videos. Guess who the most popular artists on it are?
FUCKING BOARD HAS EATEN MY REPLY TO CAIN 4 TIMES. LEAVING FOR A WHILE, TO GO PUNCH SMALL ANIMALS UNTIL THEY EXPLODE.
Damn.
I hope these aren't the same small animals that power your work's internet. Or else I ain't ever gonna see that post.
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 08, 2013, 10:31:57 PM
Damn.
I hope these aren't the same small animals that power your work's internet. Or else I ain't ever gonna see that post.
My internet at work is PISS AND BALLS. We have 200 people in our IT department, and all THAT accomplishes is that our password cookies reset every time we log off. And the internet is 1/3rd as fast as the shit I have at home, which I assure you does not require 200 NECKBEARDS.
Granted, I AM fucking off via the internet, and could easily do 99% of my job without it, but my sense of American exceptionalism is seriously taking a beating, here.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 10:29:23 PM
FUCKING BOARD HAS EATEN MY REPLY TO CAIN 4 TIMES. LEAVING FOR A WHILE, TO GO PUNCH SMALL ANIMALS UNTIL THEY EXPLODE.
I hate when that happens. But yeah people have always stolen music. Those of us who are old enough to have bought a cd or a cassette tape have done it at least once too. But theft is still theft. The internet just makes it incredibly easy to do so and has also fostered a mindset that since information is free creative works should be as well.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 10:34:15 PM
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 08, 2013, 10:31:57 PM
Damn.
I hope these aren't the same small animals that power your work's internet. Or else I ain't ever gonna see that post.
My internet at work is PISS AND BALLS. We have 200 people in our IT department, and all THAT accomplishes is that our password cookies reset every time we log off. And the internet is 1/3rd as fast as the shit I have at home, which I assure you does not require 200 NECKBEARDS.
Granted, I AM fucking off via the internet, and could easily do 99% of my job without it, but my sense of American exceptionalism is seriously taking a beating, here.
You could always punch neckbeards until they explode. Small ones, if you wish.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on August 08, 2013, 10:37:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 10:29:23 PM
FUCKING BOARD HAS EATEN MY REPLY TO CAIN 4 TIMES. LEAVING FOR A WHILE, TO GO PUNCH SMALL ANIMALS UNTIL THEY EXPLODE.
I hate when that happens. But yeah people have always stolen music. Those of us who are old enough to have bought a cd or a cassette tape have done it at least once too. But theft is still theft. The internet just makes it incredibly easy to do so and has also fostered a mindset that since information is free creative works should be as well.
Yeah, and the best part is, the legal and ethical sides of the argument are completely divorced from each other.
If I right click and save on a picture of the Mona Lisa, am I ethically or legally wrong? Probably both, but who is suffering? The artist is dead, and the persons owning the property are not going to continue producing artwork. I am uncertain about this.
If I download a song, I am both. And while the recording companies suffer for it, the artists suffer as well, and I see no upside to that.
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 08, 2013, 10:40:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 10:34:15 PM
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 08, 2013, 10:31:57 PM
Damn.
I hope these aren't the same small animals that power your work's internet. Or else I ain't ever gonna see that post.
My internet at work is PISS AND BALLS. We have 200 people in our IT department, and all THAT accomplishes is that our password cookies reset every time we log off. And the internet is 1/3rd as fast as the shit I have at home, which I assure you does not require 200 NECKBEARDS.
Granted, I AM fucking off via the internet, and could easily do 99% of my job without it, but my sense of American exceptionalism is seriously taking a beating, here.
You could always punch neckbeards until they explode. Small ones, if you wish.
This is America. They only come in one size, and that size isn't "TripZip".
The mona lisa is a bit different because if the concept of copyright existed back then it still would have expired centuries ago. If i remember correctly us law states copyright is still in effect until the last contributor has been dead for seventy years.
I think one of the problems with how napster went was that musicians didnt do a particularly good job helping people realize how the music industry works and why screwing over a large corporation affects the listener and even the fans. So instead we here metallica sounding like whiney rich guys.
CAUTION: UNINTENTIONAL RANT AHEAD
Quote from: stelz on August 08, 2013, 06:53:54 PM
It's not like artists should be PAID or anything. That's for people with Real Jerbs(TM).
IN A PERFECT WORLD*,
Musicians would be paid like any other artist. Unfortunately for musicians, music is not a temporally limited medium like painting or sculpture. A musician's piece of art is easily copied with absolute fidelity. In times past, a musician could expect to be rewarded for sales of the medium on which his or her music was reproduced; but in today's world that medium is pure information, which inherently strives to be free from the values that are attached to limited, physical objects.
Music is indescribably valuable as an art form, and producing it ought to be rewarded. But like anything for which one expects to be compensated monetarily, it must have more than a sentimental value in order to be worth actual money. So it seems like rather than engineering larger, more dangerous and more draconian measures to try and postpone the plainly inevitable future where digital information is free by definition, it would make more sense for musicians to capitalize on the things they do produce that are physically and temporally limited: their performances.
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Of course, there are many musicians who already embrace this reality. In general, the ones who don't aren't actually musicians. They're business people and contest winners who happen to be good at singing and/or playing an instrument, and what they produce isn't actually music, it's corporate-backed jingles engineered specifically to hook people into soulless and artificial subcultures, either to deepen the divide they feel between themselves and other parts of society, or worse, just to get them to buy shit.
I don't buy the idea that P2P filesharing is evil, even when it comes to the "livelihood" of musicians, because all the
real musicians I have met in my life are absolutely DYING for people to hear their music. They will give that shit away for free
themselves (on the Internet). Not because they are hoping for someone to turn around and buy their entire catalog from a record store (a
what store?) but because they are hoping to seduce listeners with their art, and convince them to show up at their next gig, so they can build a following and eventually live off a combination of performance and reputation. Like any other actual artist does.
*In the
ACTUAL world, thinking like this has a greater-than-zero probability of landing you in prison.
Either you own what you create, or you don't.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.
The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.
A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not
monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.
The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.
You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on August 09, 2013, 12:15:47 AM
You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.
I am not arguing that it is
right, only that it
is. Music is the first of the major arts to succumb to digitization, but it has succumbed and there's no putting the cat back in the bag. I do think, though, that the economic and logistical arrangements surrounding the music industry are still striving to understand what everyone's job is in this age of information. Some people may be left without a role at all (looking at you, major record labels), but for obvious reasons the musicians can't be the ultimate losers unless society decides we just don't want to have music around anymore (and I don't think that's very likely).
I believe things will run their course somewhat naturally, and though I can't predict what they will look like when the revolution is over, I can't imagine that the whole human race will say "well, there's no money in making music, so I guess I'll just bottle up all this funk and rhythm, and be an accountant instead." On the other hand, just because society has enshrined rock stars and entire royal families of pop for the last century doesn't mean that is the "natural order" of things. I think ultimately we will return to the more historical model where the centerpieces of musicians' careers will be their performances, with the added benefit of people being able to listen to their music even when they're not around.
It will evolve but major labels will continue to exist. The days of the recording sound guy are going to be over though since anyone can make a decent quality recording using their laptop if they toy around with it enough. That will become the musicians job as will distribution. The label will retain the roles of promotion and booking and courtroom matters. Like i said i think its a good thing just that the roles and logistics still need figuring out.
I mean theoretically in this century you can become a career musician and quit your day job without ever signing to a label given sufficient organizational skills networking skills spare time and good timing/luck. And thats whats great about it. But try finding a musician with all of those qualities.
Before the commercial viability of recorded music, musicians played shows, got paid. They also played events, at restaurants, bars, etc. because you couldn't just pay for an electronic music delivery system if you wanted music. The venue made most of the money, of course, but the musicians got their cut. You could copyright compositions, of course, but not performances.
After the commercial viability of recorded music, being a star became a thing, but most of the money went to those who distributed the music. The musicians, nonetheless, got their cut.
I don't know about all the moaning about things changing. I'm not convinced that music filesharing is a bad thing, I just think it's important for everyone to figure out how those musicians are gonna get paid, because if they don't get paid for it, they won't have time to make that sweet sweet music.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 09, 2013, 02:23:07 AM
Before the commercial viability of recorded music, musicians played shows, got paid. They also played events, at restaurants, bars, etc. because you couldn't just pay for an electronic music delivery system if you wanted music. The venue made most of the money, of course, but the musicians got their cut. You could copyright compositions, of course, but not performances.
After the commercial viability of recorded music, being a star became a thing, but most of the money went to those who distributed the music. The musicians, nonetheless, got their cut.
I don't know about all the moaning about things changing. I'm not convinced that music filesharing is a bad thing, I just think it's important for everyone to figure out how those musicians are gonna get paid, because if they don't get paid for it, they won't have time to make that sweet sweet music.
Exactly. It's one thing if a musician opts to give music away for free for promotional purposes so that they can get to the point where people will pay for it, but at some point, it's got to at least pay for itself, if not turn a profit. And like I said earlier, generally speaking, if you're out there and playing, you're lucky to break even. Because if you play far away, you're not just paying for lodging and food, you're also paying for gas, vehicle insurance, string replacements, drumhead replacements, fixing any Spinal Tap moment, etc. And it's quite nice to get a check in the mail from CDBaby, even if it is for $11.
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.
The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.
A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.
The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.
Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on August 09, 2013, 12:15:47 AM
You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.
I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.
I don't think anyone every said it
wasn't.
Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.
Right. It's easy to steal music now. You can like the musician all you want but unless the musician explicitly says that this song is up for grabs, it's theft. Even if you're stealing from the label, you're indirectly stealing from the musician (and, I might add, the people who were involved in the recording. There are different kinds of royalties. One type of royalty rewards the writer(s) another rewards the performer(s) of a specific recording. Singer-songwriter? Maximum profit, and not in a creative-distributive sense.)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 04:42:33 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on August 09, 2013, 12:15:47 AM
You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.
I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.
I don't think anyone every said it wasn't.
Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.
I won't argue that. And I usually do buy music legally, just because they've figured out how to make that easier and more convenient than pirating it. Even if it's offered for free, I'll pay something for it if there's an option to (recent releases by NIN and Radiohead come to mind). I'm not saying that piracy is "ethical," only that it's inevitable given the state of technology now. So there's a cap on the amount of money that's going to be generated through direct music sales.
That isn't necessarily a terrible thing, even for musicians. Yeah, it makes it harder to become a mega-star, and there's going to be battles between artists and labels and producers over every dime that does get generated, but that's where I'm a fan of "let the market figure it out." Just don't block technological progress to artificially preserve an industry that itself only exists because of the technological advances in recorded music. And
definitely don't use it as an excuse to stamp out freedom of information (side note: Part of SOPA is being resurrected (http://readwrite.com/2013/08/06/obama-administration-sopa-streaming-felony-policies#awesm=~odZr1pFwrBhelM) by the Department of Commerce).
I don't think it's necessary to redefine morality here. The simple fact is that technology and the billions of people who don't even consider the ethical implications of their actions are going to dictate to the music industry what recorded music is worth. News flash: The days of paying $18 for a single copy of 10 songs are over, and they're not coming back. In broad terms, I can see the music industry splitting into two models: one where music is created and distributed freely as marketing material and rhetorical context for various subcultures (pretty much exactly as it is now, minus the paying for it part); and one where high-quality musicians are contracted by patrons to compose specific works (like in the good old days). Either way the greatest share of the money that's made by artists is going to come from performances, not the sale of licenses to listen to the music as it is now.
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 05:51:49 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 04:42:33 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on August 09, 2013, 12:15:47 AM
You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.
I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.
I don't think anyone every said it wasn't.
Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.
I won't argue that. And I usually do buy music legally, just because they've figured out how to make that easier and more convenient than pirating it. Even if it's offered for free, I'll pay something for it if there's an option to (recent releases by NIN and Radiohead come to mind). I'm not saying that piracy is "ethical," only that it's inevitable given the state of technology now. So there's a cap on the amount of money that's going to be generated through direct music sales.
That isn't necessarily a terrible thing, even for musicians. Yeah, it makes it harder to become a mega-star, and there's going to be battles between artists and labels and producers over every dime that does get generated, but that's where I'm a fan of "let the market figure it out." Just don't block technological progress to artificially preserve an industry that itself only exists because of the technological advances in recorded music. And definitely don't use it as an excuse to stamp out freedom of information (side note: Part of SOPA is being resurrected (http://readwrite.com/2013/08/06/obama-administration-sopa-streaming-felony-policies#awesm=~odZr1pFwrBhelM) by the Department of Commerce).
I don't think it's necessary to redefine morality here. The simple fact is that technology and the billions of people who don't even consider the ethical implications of their actions are going to dictate to the music industry what recorded music is worth. News flash: The days of paying $18 for a single copy of 10 songs are over, and they're not coming back. In broad terms, I can see the music industry splitting into two models: one where music is created and distributed freely as marketing material and rhetorical context for various subcultures (pretty much exactly as it is now, minus the paying for it part); and one where high-quality musicians are contracted by patrons to compose specific works (like in the good old days). Either way the greatest share of the money that's made by artists is going to come from performances, not the sale of licenses to listen to the music as it is now.
Actually, my point is that it's EASIER to become a mega-star. You can become a rock star now, on your own, with no labels, and no expenditures. Matter of fact, you're probably MORE likely to make it in this day and age. I'm talking to people in Europe, the Americas and Australia, right now. You might buy my music, just because you know me and want to support what I do. Now picture me trying to do this in say, 1990. Nothing. Right now, I can do a half-assed hit song over the course of a week providing I used up my vacation time and slept little. Like right here with just me and a decent drum machine. I mean, drum program, since drum machines are obsolete. Laptop, guitar, microphone, keyboard and pitch-shifter to make my guitar sound like a bass. There.
It's just all about working it right, as a musician, and the industry evolving alongside that.
I talk to people here, from as far away as Australia and Norway. That's the reach of my music right now, just, HERE on PD. Am I ever going to play in Sidney or Oslo? Maybe. I've played as far East as Kinsale, Ireland, and as far West as Allentown, Pennsylvannia. And Kinsale was a fluke, sort of like, "Oh, you're staying in our inn and play guitar?" I was on vacation. My live performances nowhere near approach my contacts.
I would love to be a mega-star. I could, with modern technology, with $0 in my bank account, if I was savvy enough. I'm not. No one who is focused on the music is. Don't get me wrong, I'm never going to quit this. But everything needs to fall into place for this to be a viable career (even if I just tour New England for the rest of my life), and not fuck up my outside of music life. I'm lucky. My girlfriend is a musician too, and even though she is my bassist, she would tell me to go on tour immediately without her. Because she knows.
That was a bit rambly. Sorry.
I don't agree that "no one who is focused on the music" is marketing-savvy enough to become a self-made star...
...but that's a whole other thread, and probably involves a lot of my own resentments as an artist who worked in a medium where anyone who became successful and famous was frequently accused (usually by people with significantly less skill/talent) of just "being good at marketing".
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 06:51:30 AM
I don't agree that "no one who is focused on the music" is marketing-savvy enough to become a self-made star...
...but that's a whole other thread, and probably involves a lot of my own resentments as an artist who worked in a medium where anyone who became successful and famous was frequently accused (usually by people with significantly less skill/talent) of just "being good at marketing".
I may have misspoken there, since I like bands who have been accused of just being good at marketing. I like them on their own merits, even though occasionally, I really really didn't want to.
It's unfortunate that art needs to be marketed to be profitable.
Let's put it this way- I was a huge Metallica fan. I was annoyed with their playing with their genre change because it wasn't what I wanted, but I lost respect when they went back to metal. The not metal wasn't bad and showed a potentially promising progression, if done right. When they went back to metal, I lost respect for them. It felt like they were caving.
Conversely, other bands evolve gradually and pull it off, because it's not abrupt, and you can see the progression, and you know, you might be ambivalent at first, but you give them the benefit of the doubt and you end up liking it despite yourself. Iron Maiden comes to mind. Then you have others that largely stick to the formula but throw in something different each album. Rammstein comes to mind.
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.
Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.
Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.
Ramen, Big Macs, and Dunkin Donuts<----musician chow
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:42:33 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on August 09, 2013, 12:15:47 AM
You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.
I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.
I don't think anyone every said it wasn't.
Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.
I won't touch album torrents. Pre-code movies, sure, all those people have been dead forever. Fuck Ted Turner. But fifteen dollars for a cd or a record won't kill me.
Best I ever saw was $200 and unlimited beer for a St. Patrick's Day gig. Which was damn sweet. Bear in mind it was St. Pat's at an Irish bar playing Irish music and it was just me and an accordion player. And I felt bad taking that money. Not because it wasn't a good show, but, damn, that seemed like a lot of money.
Second best was $80 playing Irish music at the bar down the street.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 08:05:59 AM
Second best was $80 playing Irish music at the bar down the street.
No unlimited beer?
WHAT THE HELL KIND OF IRISH BAR WAS THAT?
You need a rider. :lol:
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.
Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.
Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.
So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 08:09:07 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 08:05:59 AM
Second best was $80 playing Irish music at the bar down the street.
No unlimited beer?
WHAT THE HELL KIND OF IRISH BAR WAS THAT?
You need a rider. :lol:
I did get free beer to a degree at that one too. But mainly because me and the owner were friends at that point.
Also, speaking of riders, I remember my friend from high school was playing a gig at O'Brien's (I'm sure you know the place), and an out of town band was complaining that their rider was not fulfilled. Well, Bren and I started laughing. "Riders!" we said "What do you think you're playing, the Palladium?" but you know, they were right. You should never take a gig without a rider, even if it's a basic rider. You as a band are doing contract work, and the necessary equipment for both parties and the pay-out should be put into writing. It's a JOB. But, we local guys, are just happy to get a gig. We don't ask for riders even though we should.
My aunt once asked me if I was in the Musicians Union. I laughed. I don't write jingles. Though, I probably should.
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.
Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.
Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.
So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.
Yes, it was a fluke.
But a lot of working musicians are charity cases these days.
http://www.myhaam.org/
http://simsfoundation.org/
etc.
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.
Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.
Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.
So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.
I'm fine with not being a rock star in the current model, and yeah, I think those days are done. I would like being a musician to be.... ok. If you're a musician, you're either poor as dirt, working a day job, or a plutocrat. That's what it is. I'd like to see it be a day job again. Or a night job, as it were, but one that could sustain itself.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.
Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.
Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.
So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.
I'm fine with not being a rock star in the current model, and yeah, I think those days are done. I would like being a musician to be.... ok. If you're a musician, you're either poor as dirt, working a day job, or a plutocrat. That's what it is. I'd like to see it be a day job again. Or a night job, as it were, but one that could sustain itself.
THIS
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).
Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.
Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.
Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.
So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.
I'm fine with not being a rock star in the current model, and yeah, I think those days are done. I would like being a musician to be.... ok. If you're a musician, you're either poor as dirt, working a day job, or a plutocrat. That's what it is. I'd like to see it be a day job again. Or a night job, as it were, but one that could sustain itself.
THIS
I mean, this is largely a part of why Anarchangel went on hiatus.
Pat needed to take over the family business. The other main thing was Villager's medical problems, which have now subsided enough to not get in the way of her gigging.
Pat is now comfortable enough in the role of owner that he can gig again.
Twid,
Stoked.
Either way though, we're not leaving to go on any tours outside of the region. We can all take a fortnight off and do the Northeast, but that's that. We're never going to go as far south as DC or as far West as Allentown. And that's an optimistic assessment.
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.
The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.
A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.
The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.
Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.
Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.
The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.
A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.
The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.
Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.
Please see my previous posts on the role that the label plays.
Ultimately, screwing over the label still screws over the band as well as the fan, at least how the system works now.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 09:23:26 AM
Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.
The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.
A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.
The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.
Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.
Please see my previous posts on the role that the label plays.
Ultimately, screwing over the label still screws over the band as well as the fan, at least how the system works now.
Yes, that is true now. Hence the conditional statement implying a different situation in the future.
What is it about conditional statements that makes them invisible?
Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 09:23:26 AM
Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.
The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.
A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.
The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.
Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.
Please see my previous posts on the role that the label plays.
Ultimately, screwing over the label still screws over the band as well as the fan, at least how the system works now.
Yes, that is true now. Hence the conditional statement implying a different situation in the future.
What is it about conditional statements that makes them invisible?
Yeah, sorry about missing that part.