Meet the new boss

Henry II
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:23 am

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby Henry II » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:28 pm

drumnhands wrote: It seems odd to me that in an industry that is predominantly liberal minded, that the idea of someone who works hard and is successful has to share the rewards of that hard work with someone not as successful is somehow unsatisfactory or unfair. I am of the mind that it is, you should be paid for the work that you do, not what someone else did. I also have a problem with the "free download" unless it's provided by the creator(s) of the music. You like it, you wnt it, you buy it, they get paid for their hard work and creativity. If someone else has skin in the game it's up to the parties involved to negotiate the split, but on't complain about it after the fact. Much like the pro athlete that wants to negitiate their contract for "over-performing" 9to me that's not possible. You sign a deal to perform at 100% and the results are what they are).


Hahaha! You're such an idealist. How cute!
Ok, ok! My real name is Go F. Yourself Facebook, III
Henry II
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:23 am

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby Henry II » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:32 pm

littlegrooves wrote:
langmick wrote:Hey, Communism is like sharing what you have.

So share away...capitalism sucks anyway. Oh yeah, corporations suck, except when they give you a check.

This just goes to show that you reap what you sow...artists bitch about the evils of the United States' development of trade and capitalism, but then want lots of money.

Go figure. It just falls from the sky.


Benrand, is that you? It's been a while! :D


Good call! I forgot about our resident Fox News junky.
Ok, ok! My real name is Go F. Yourself Facebook, III
User avatar
deseipel
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby deseipel » Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:18 pm

Josiah wrote:
My point was that, while I don't agree with, in particularly, people just amassing huge collections of music - literally more then you could ever listen too. My point is that, it's not like that volume of music would have (or even could have) been purchased legally.



well, no one knows. it's pure conjecture after the fact. But that's the type of argument that someone would make who has no issues defending piracy. It's the same lunacy that says "After I listened to the CD, I wouldn't have bought it anyway."

consider If I stole a semi-trailer of canned food, and lived off of it for a year or two. And if the supply of canned food was unlimited and 5 out of 10 people stole a semi-trailer of food also... do you think that the high value of all those goods, stolen in a short period of time, makes it less illegal or less-wrong? That's like saying, "I'll never have enough cash to build a home studio, so I'll go out and steal from construction sites for materials.

It's not a very good point (your point).


edit: actually, you were questioning the true, measured impact, correct? My mistake.
User avatar
langmick
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:38 am

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby langmick » Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:43 am

Good call! I forgot about our resident Fox News junky.


Oh Hank, you're so cute.

Image
Henry II
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:23 am

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby Henry II » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:08 am

langmick wrote:
Good call! I forgot about our resident Fox News junky.


Oh Hank, you're so cute.

Image



Ahh, trying to make a point, are you! Let's see . . . if you really were a Fox News junky, you wouldn't even know about Abbie Hoffman, or his books?
Ok, ok! My real name is Go F. Yourself Facebook, III
Josiah
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 11:15 am
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby Josiah » Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:30 pm

deseipel wrote:edit: actually, you were questioning the true, measured impact, correct? My mistake.



Ya, that's all really. I mean we know people spend more money on lots of other things, so sans the downloading music, I would still have expected sales to drop anyway.


None the less I make an effort to support the music I like, concerts, swag, stickers, posters, etc

Interestingly as well I support the local classical station, which of course is public music but the station still needs money to operate.

But also things like, for instance, The Beatles - I really have no qualms with someone downloading the Beatles tunes. Why? Because the Beatles sold the rights to it long ago, it's just a traded commodity at this point and long ago ceased to be providing the actual musicians who made the music with income.
User avatar
Steve Holmes
Site Admin
Posts: 1339
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:15 am

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby Steve Holmes » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:41 pm

*opens door*
*pops head in*
*exits and closes door*
amoergosum
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby amoergosum » Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:42 pm

John Mellencamp on online piracy (new article) >>>

I love music. I love all kinds of music... old music, new music, country music, jazz, and popular music. I care about the future of music and about the well being of those individuals who will be making it in the future. Music has been my passion my entire life and I have been fortunate to never have worked a "straight" job because of it. I am one lucky guy to be able to pursue what I love and to have gotten paid for it. Who could complain?

I've been doing this a long time and I'm confounded by the apathy of those who have participated in music-related successes and are now witnessing the demise of the entertainment business as it has existed since the beginning of recorded sound and moving pictures. So here I plan to ask some questions and my hope is offer a solution to the problem.

Tell me where, under today's conditions of de facto indentured servitude, will the new artists come from? If I were a young songwriter today, I would definitely be looking for another way to earn a living. The same would go for the young screenwriter or novelist. And what about the guy who only had one or two hit records 10 or 50 years ago? What happens to this guy who depends on that income to support his family if people are stealing those songs now? Tough luck, right? This is the thread of failure in front of all artists today. Art exclusively as a hobby -- that's the "new model" it seems. And to all you bloggers who have prophesized that this new way is going to somehow provide sustainable careers? Your prophecies did not and will never come true. If there is the occasional sparkle of success, it usually turns out to be nothing more than a novelty, not a new business model. We need to restore intellectual property to its rightful owners and reconstruct the business that has lost thousands and thousands of jobs plus billions of dollars in revenue.

Why is thievery allowed to continue on the Internet? And why do people think it's so impossible to correct? Right after radio was invented, they played music and sold advertising. Then it dawned on some: "Hey, they're playing our music, and they're selling advertising on our backs; we should get paid." So performing rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI were established with the express intention of protecting the intellectual property of artists who create it.

These, in essence, turned into collection agencies. They were able to collect money from radio stations, jukeboxes, movies, television which were all then fledgling delivery systems, and provided a livelihood for their members. They were able to keep track of what was being played and sold all over the world with pencil and paper. The government held these systems responsible for keeping track of their respective broadcast neighborhoods. They turned new delivery systems into multi-billion dollar businesses. That was progress.

But where are ASCAP and BMI today on the new delivery system -- the Internet? Where are the record companies? Where are the book publishers? Where are the unions to which we pay dues that are supposed to protect actors, writers, songwriters, and producers? And, most importantly, where's the government? Apparently everybody's too busy making excuses and shrugging their shoulders to realize their gravy train has gone up the waterspout.

Yes, there's a mechanism called SoundExchange that collects statutory royalties from satellite radio, Internet radio and other sources of streaming sound recordings but it's powerless to deal with those who have simply helped themselves to the intellectual property of others. It's a laudable effort but not the answer to this problem.

There is a law that exists to deal with copyright and the Internet that dates back to the good ol' days of 1990s: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It was supposed to bring U.S. copyright law into the digital age but it included something called "Safe Harbor Provisions" that basically says that each artist is responsible for retrieving his own merchandise and shutting down anyone stealing their property, which is kind of a joke. The law was written at a time when there were only a couple of kids running a handful of file trading sites in the world and was created to protect internet service providers from being sued if they facilitated the distribution of pirated material. This law now, unintentionally, allows big search engines -- like Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. -- to be the equivalent of a department store as both provide and sell many services and products. Let's say that Ralph Lauren has his merchandise in Macy's. If someone shop lifts it out of the store, he's told, "Hey Ralph, your stuff's being stolen off of our shelves. You better go try to collect your money for it. It's not our problem or responsibility since all we do is make your stuff available to non-paying customers..." In other words, under the Safe Harbor Provisions, search engines behave like unpoliced department stores where anyone can steal whatever they want with no real threat of significant repercussions.

There's an added bonus, even better... on top of everything, they're collecting advertising money from Madison Avenue. So what's happening is your search engine leads you to an illegal downloading site where you can download -- you name the artist -- their entire catalog and, at the same time, see products and services offered for sale ranging from soft drinks to pornography and, adding insult to injury, that merchandise appears to be endorsed by the artist to whom it's attached. The artist, who is already being stolen from, now appears to be shilling for these products. The gangsters are making money, but the artist? Squat. (And I do mean gangsters.. this is not just a couple of kids file trading anymore, these are criminals, quite literally.)

To put it plainly, radio kept track of their playlists, record stores kept track of their sales, each movie theater counted tickets, each bookstore kept track of books sold, and why? Because the law required it and the manufacturers demanded it. And so the same should apply to search engines. They should be governed in the same manner but they're not. The Safe Harbor Provisions allow intellectual property to be stolen because the search engines are not held accountable. There's actually Safe Harbor litigation going on right now between Viacom and YouTube. YouTube is claiming that it had nothing to do with the posting of copyrighted material because Safe Harbor puts the burden on whoever did the posting. But all of that is really a hair-splitting, distraction in the grand theme of things.

Why is it that people feel that this problem is unconquerable? Often, when I talk about it, I just get an eye roll and the comment, "It's just gone too far now. This is just the way it is." No, this is not the way it has to be. This is the way we've allowed it to become, this faulty "new model." Recent history has shown that things can, in fact, change. When online gambling, once a huge and thriving underground business, was determined to be illegal sites went out of business almost overnight. Why? Because legal gaming enterprises and government regulation brought the hammer down where it hurt the most - credit card companies were told they could not be part of this dubious trade and they complied immediately. In the same way, if anti-piracy legislation were the order of the day servers, wherever they may be including the mythical "cloud," could and would be shut down thanks to technologies that have been developed and successfully employed during the fight against terrorism. The means to get this done actually exists; what we're lacking, at the moment, is the will to do it.

My answer, and it's really quite logical, is that current search engines and any that emerge in the future (the brazen thieves at Pirate Bay have smugly threatened to start their own search engine) need to be held responsible in the same fashion as any other business in this country. The law needs to be changed. ASCAP, BMI and intellectual property creators need to work to get rid of the antiquated Safe Harbor Provisions. We need to write a new law that should declare, something to the effect, that if you own and operate a search engine, you cannot allow criminal activity to take place in your virtual town.

The entertainment business has been criminally assaulted by wrong-headed thinking that says we need to keep up with the Internet. No, search engines need to abide and adhere to the laws that have governed this country for over 200 years. It's a moral imperative. Thou shalt not steal. Ring a bell? Calling it progress, ol' Hoss, don't make it right.


Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mell ... 18332.html
User avatar
Paul Marangoni
Posts: 1925
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:39 pm
Location: Indio, CA

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby Paul Marangoni » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:28 am

Nice!
User avatar
electrizer
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:35 am
Contact:

Re: Meet the new boss

Postby electrizer » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm

We're talking about the new bosses and who the gatekeepers are now but I don't think anything's changed. In order to hit it big you need a contract, period. You need the big daddy. It was like that years ago and it still is. Social media is ok but your ultimate goal is to be on Good Morning America/BBC Breakfast to become a household name.

As they prepared to record their new album, Not Your Kind of People, Garbage received a crash course in the new realities of the music business. Having parted ways with Geffen, their former home, the band began investigating new ways to distribute its music. "We're used to the old system," says singer Shirley Manson, "so we thought, 'Let's see what's out there,' because we've been gone so long."

Unwilling to sign with another major label, Garbage decided to follow in the groundbreaking footsteps of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails and release the album themselves. In doing so, the band realized it had to pay for recording and videos out of its own pocket. "The freedom it affords you is so amazing," Manson says, "but it's nerve-wracking. We've put our own money into it. Bringing the record out on our own label poses some problems for us."

Garbage Make Their Big Comeback

As Garbage and newer bands are learning, the music business is no longer what it was in the Nineties – or even five years ago. In the past, bands would receive respectable cash advances from labels to make albums and videos. After their records were released, they'd tour for months, or perhaps a year. With any luck, mass outlets like MTV would promote them and air their videos. Then bands would take a break before starting the cycle once again.

In a business hobbled by recession and declining CD revenue, few of those rules apply anymore – in ways that can be both encouraging and demoralizing. To compensate for the fall-off in record sales, musicians are touring for longer stretches and are being forced to cobble together a living by any means necessary, from licensing songs to any TV show or video game that will have them to asking fans to contribute to their recording costs.

"I used to hear the word 'overexposure' more than I do now," says Dan Reed, music director of NPR's World Café, who sees more bands than ever visiting his studio. "In this crowded media market, I don't think there's such a thing anymore. Bands are vying for any spot they can where they can reach a sizable number of people. We're all working harder. The music business is no different."

To satisfy fans who've grown up with the Internet, musicians are expected to churn out new material as quickly as possible. Tennis opted to release their second album, Young & Old, 13 months after their 2011 debut. "The demand for music and output is so high," says singer and keyboardist Alaina Moore. "If you stop altogether, which bands used to be able to do, people will assume the worst and move on and forget about you. Our management will message us on tour, saying, 'We could use another B-side.' And we say, 'Well, we're not even home, but OK.' It's crazy."

The rise of Twitter and Facebook has helped bands connect with their followers like never before, but it also means another distraction from the creative process. "Fans expect things to come directly from the artist," says Tennis manager Rob Stevenson. "You have to get yourself to the next gig and do a good gig and do your social media stuff. And there are still only 24 hours in a day."

Former Dresden Dolls singer-keyboardist Amanda Palmer was tweeting with fans while sitting at her piano and writing a song for her new solo album, Theater Is Evil. "I felt kind of silly, and my superego was saying, 'Really, Amanda?'" she says. "But hundreds of people were writing, 'I can't wait to hear the song.'"

The new rules of the shrunken music business begin in the studio, where recording budgets, especially for new and indie acts, have been slashed. "The big difference is that there are no longer big advances," says Richard Grabel, a music business attorney who represents bands like Passion Pit and Ra Ra Riot. Jeff Castelaz of Dangerbird, home of Silversun Pickups and Liam Gallagher's Beady Eye, says his bands rarely get to spend more than $10-15,000 making a record.

"Everybody is under major constraints to drive down the cost of making records," says Castelaz. "You have to watch every penny. You're not going to spend $50,000 to make a record that's going to sell 5,000 copies. That would be a bloodbath."

To get around diminished budgets – or labels altogether – some bands have begun turning to Kickstarter, the "crowd-funding" service that lets musicians pay for recording costs by way of contributions from fans. (The site also helps fund movies, video games and other creative endeavors.) On the site's music category, fans have contributed an average of $25, according to a source at the company, and bands have been able to raise in the area of $20,000. In return for their investment, fans receive autographed records, concert tickets and other memorabilia.

9 Ways Musicians Actually Make Money Today

Thanks to thousands of fans, Palmer raised more than $1 million to help pay for and promote Theater Is Evil. The biggest number of contributors, 7,000, paid $25 for a special-packaging edition of the album. Thirty-five backers paid $5,000 each for Palmer to perform in their homes; one paid $10,000 for Palmer to visit and paint his portrait. Palmer says $250,000 of what she raised will go toward recording and production costs, along with $105,00 for producing a coffee-table CD and art book; after multiple other expenses, she'll be left with less than $100,000. "People say, 'Don't you feel awful begging your fans for money?'" Palmer says. "And I say, 'You don't get it – I'm doing my job.' Musicians used to think that if they worked hard, they'd be a star like Madonna. Hopefully we're seeing a new understanding of what it means to be a working-class musician. It's a job."

Record sales were never a major income generator for musicians, thanks to high recording and promotion costs that were charged against the artists' accounts. In the current climate, they're even less of a factor. Last year, the L.A. R&B party band Fitz and the Tantrums prepped for a major breakthrough when they performed at the VH1 Critics' Choice Movie Awards.

"It was a huge opportunity," says co-manager Lisa Nupoff. "There we are playing in and out of every commercial, in front of Spielberg and Scorsese." But the following week, the band's debut album, Pickin' Up the Pieces, only sold 300 more records. "That's the new music business," says Nupoff.

Digital streaming sites like Rhapsody and Spotify are not yet proving to be viable financial substitutes for CDs. According to Moore, Tennis' typical digital-streaming royalty checks are minimal: "You'll get a check for $100 in six months." Managers are equally skeptical. "You have to sell a thousand copies to equal a few cents," says Brian Klein, co-manager of Fitz and the Tantrums. "As a user, I like Spotify. But as a business, I don't think it's going to be profitable for an artist. It wouldn't even buy coffee for the whole band."

Bands like Fitz and the Tantrums and Dawes are also spending more time than ever on the road. Both acts left home to promote albums – and stayed out for up to three years, performing sometimes multiple shows a day at clubs and for online outlets. "In the last 16 months I've been home maybe two months collectively," says Fitz lead singer Michael Fitzpatrick. "It's really exhausting. You're doing a performance for a website and you know they have almost no readership, but you do it anyway. You're in somebody's garage doing a taping and you know no one will see it, but you think, 'OK, five more fans here or 10 more there.'" As a result of the nonstop roadwork, Fitz broke up with his girlfriend, and drummer John Wicks defaulted on his mortgage and had to find a new home. The band has to earn $3,000 a night to satisfy its overhead – a figure it only began hitting last summer, after almost two years of touring.

Thanks to the role touring now plays with bands, it's become increasingly common for your favorite act to come through town multiple times during the lifespan of a new album. "We never used to see third cycles for tours," says Andy Cirzan, a promoter at Jam USA in Chicago. "It's increasingly commonplace. Bands want to build momentum, or they just need money." Yet that strategy has its pitfalls. "You have to make sure you don't hit markets too much," says Stevenson. "You might get a short-term financial gain, but it might hurt you – 'Oh, I saw them already,' or, 'I'll catch them next time.' That's the kiss of death. Familiarity breeds contempt."

Yet musicians also say the altered landscape of the music business is affording them opportunities they never had before, like creative freedom. "We were immensely relieved not to have any major label influence whatsoever," says Manson, who claims Geffen executives rejected a solo album she cut right before Not Your Kind of People. "I turned in some songs and they were met with unbelievable contempt," she says. "They were telling me that because they weren't pop songs they were worthless, and I should make a record like Duffy. Fuck that."

Bands and managers are also becoming adept at using social media to sell music and tickets. To get the word out about shows at Madison Square Garden, the reunited cult band Dispatch cut a deal with Facebook for a special fan page. "We spent no money and sold 58,000 tickets," says manager Steve Bursky. Fitz and the Tantrums initially gave away free MP3s of their music to spread the word – and, in the end were rewarded with respectable album sales of 120,000 copies.

As for the song she wrote while on Twitter, Palmer says the track, "The Killing Type," was worth it: "It's the best song I've ever written. I emerged from it thinking, 'Whatever it takes.'"


Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/survival-of-the-fittest-in-the-new-music-industry-20121108

Return to “Drumming Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests