Meet the new boss

[DSOP]

it seems to me more bands are doing better now then ever before, and doing it independently of corporate backing.

You obviously didn't read the whole article.

[Josiah]

it seems to me more bands are doing better now then ever before, and doing it independently of corporate backing.

You obviously didn't read the whole article.

I didn't. It was too long and too poorly written to bother reading in it's entirety. The opening thesis was ill supported and it didn't get much better as it went.

[circh bustom]

I did read the whole article, and in some ways it does seem like bands are doing better. They also seem to be doing it all by themselves, which was the battle cry of the independants for the longest time. Im not sure what to make of this. When the record companies were assuming all the risk, they controlled the money. Pretty much rightly so. They "shared" profits from one artist, with another artist. not doing as good. That sounds wrong to me. Now, artists do not have to share with other artists, they have more control over the path they take, but this guy is still upset that there is a middleman? Does he want everybody to have their own personal music distribution store to sell music with? Let him start one and he can pay the artist as much as he wants. In his "research" he puts up that when albums were 15.99 artists received around 2.50$ when all they had to risk was touring. Now, the cost of the album was cut by at least 6$ and all their take dropped was .40 cents, give or take. Yes they assumed more risk, but now the artist gets a higher percentage of the deal. yes they have to assume more responsibility, but Ive heard of artists demanding more control over their careers for a long time. The good side of that always brings the bad. I could be off base here, but really, what does this guy want? I understand in a nutshell, he wants the artists to have more, but in my eyes that more means more of everything. Now the artist has more control so they assume more of the cost and the risk. I may be wrong, but what is the issue there?

[deseipel]

it seems to me more bands are doing better now then ever before, and doing it independently of corporate backing.

You obviously didn't read the whole article.

I didn't. It was too long and too poorly written to bother reading in it's entirety. The opening thesis was ill supported and it didn't get much better as it went.

one who genuinely wants to debate the validity of something must be willing to see the other side's view in it's entirety before passing judgement. Otherwise, you're argument for your own views become poorly supported themselves based on your unwillingness to have an open mind.

[DSOP]

In the last few years it’s become apparent the music business, which was once dominated by six large and powerful music conglomerates, MTV, Clear Channel and a handful of other companies, is now dominated by a smaller set of larger even more powerful tech conglomerates. And their hold on the business seems to be getting stronger.

On one hand it doesn’t bother me because the “new boss” doesn’t really tell me what kind of songs to write or who should mix my record. But on the other hand I’m a little disturbed at how dependent I am on these tech behemoths to pursue my craft. In fact it is nigh impossible for me to pursue my craft without enriching Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google. Further the new boss through it’s surrogates like Electronic Frontier Foundation seems to be waging a cynical PR campaign that equates the unauthorized use of other people’s property (artist’s songs) with freedom. A sort of Cyber –Bolshevik campaign of mass collectivization for the good of the state…er .. I mean Internet. I say cynical because when it comes to their intellectual property, software patents for instance, these same companies fight tooth and nail.

Meet the new boss, he wants to collectivize your songs!

The other problem? I’ve been expecting for years now to see aggregate revenue flowing to artist increase. Disintermediation promised us this. It hasn’t happened. Everywhere I look artists seem to be working more for less money. And every time I come across aggregate data that is positive it turns out to have a black cloud inside. Example: Touring revenues up since 1999. Because more bands are touring, staying on the road longer and playing for fewer people. Surely you all can see Malthusian trajectory?

Musicians are constantly derided by the Digerati. It’s usually after someone like myself suggest that if other people are profiting from distributing an artist’s work (Kim Dotcom, Mediafire, Megavideo, Mp3tunes,) they should share some of their proceeds with the artists. At this point the Digerati then proceed to call us “dinosaurs”, “know nothings” or worse. Suddenly your Facebook page is filled with angry comments from their followers that seem to all be unsuccessful Canadian hip hop artists who proclaim:

“We are gonna turn you into Lars Ulrich and bitch your band sucks anyway”.

(At the risk of getting the Canadian non-lethal equivalent of a “cap in my ass” I have to say: I am so scared!)

The most virulent of these folks are almost always unsuccessful musicians. It fascinates me. I can only surmise that part of their anger seems tied to the hatred of the record companies that rejected them. Successful even marginally successful musicians are often viewed as some kind of traitors. A special kind of hatred is reserved for these apostates. The file sharing/ cyber locker industry has figured this out and purposely stokes stokes them with a faux populism. I would say it’s juvenile but it’s really more medieval. That’s why I call them Freehadists. People like me are actually looking out for these young musician’s rights. I am trying to keep the new boss from screwing them. They dont’ realize they are doing the work of The Man.

[DSOP]

But what many of you forget is that IT IS MY CHOICE whether I choose to give away my songs or sell them. IT IS MY CHOICE how and where to distribute my songs. IT IS MY CHOICE to decide which websites get to exploit my songs. Like it or not, the right to control one’s intellectual property (like songs) is a constitutional right. It is also part of every international human rights agreement. Technology company funded blogs that think there should be no song copyrights are actually advocating violating my constitutional and human rights!

Many in the digital music industry rightfully condemn the past exploitation of artists by record labels. But at the same time they seem to be doing the same thing. Trying to bully artists into giving up their rights so that companies like MegaUpload or YouTube can make money is the same thing.

With exploitative record contracts The Old Boss tried to take your songs a dozen at a time and pay you pennies. The New Boss wants to take ALL of your songs, past present and future and pay you nothing.

I’ll make technologists a deal, I’ll give up my song copyrights if you give up your software patents. Software patents are even less unique than your typical song. So this should be easy right?

Talk the Talk. Walk the Walk.

[circh bustom]

DSOP, that last part you put up, does make the most sense out of his whole essay. Although, he does neglect to say that diving head first into a career as a musician was also his choice. The business has always been mediated by sharks, and the harsh realities of doing business as a musician are not new by any stretch.
I look at the current music business model this way. I worked at a CD shop for four years. Not long before i started there, the store was a CD Warehouse franchise. Boss made good money, built up a good clientele but was under the thumb of corporate. So he bought the store and changed the name. He now assumed more duties, and actually made a little less money. But he was happy as a clam because the decisions were all his. No corporate model that he had to follow. No minimum amount or type of product. he could sell what ever he wanted. He was always a nice guy, but was even nicer when the buck stopped with him. Same thing now with music. It'sakin to starting your own business in my eyes. Maybe im just a failed unsuccessful canadian hip-hopper.

[Josiah]

The business has always been mediated by sharks, and the harsh realities of doing business as a musician are not new by any stretch.

If you change that to "The harsh realities of doing business." You're spot on. Doesn't matter what kind of business. It's always going to be cut throat.

Want to see a REALLY nasty business? Get into restaurants. Go take a gander at the fail rates in the US for the food business.

one who genuinely wants to debate the validity of something must be willing to see the other side's view in it's entirety before passing judgement. Otherwise, you're argument for your own views become poorly supported themselves based on your unwillingness to have an open mind.

I disagree. As soon as you see it's based on a flawed premises, it doesn't matter anymore, the foundation is bad. Nothing can correct that later in the argument.

"when albums were 15.99 artists received around 2.50$ when all they had to risk was touring."

Since when did major label give artist 15+% of every album sold?! And the only risk was touring? That's a laughable statement.

[deseipel]

let me guess, you disagree that things are worse for musicians nowadays, so this whole article, being in opposition to your viewpoint, is flawed. So anything that conflicts with your established views are flawed? nice.


I'd like to know what the flawed premise is.

[DSOP]

he could sell what ever he wanted. He was always a nice guy, but was even nicer when the buck stopped with him. Same thing now with music.

No, it's not the same. The big tech companies are taking content and profiting from it illegally. It would be akin to your old boss's stock being stolen out the back door every night. He would have stayed in business for about two weeks before losing everything.