It's childish to attempt to reduce the anti-RIAA argument to "they don't want me to steal music so I don't like them". I couldn't really take your post seriously with that kind of characterization coursing through it.
It's childish to think the general population shares your sentiment.
What you're basically saying is you want to eliminate the record companies and give money directly to artists.
Why?
Isn't that ignoring what the record companies give to artists? Why do artists sign with the RIAA? Is it because the RIAA holds guns to their heads?
No, it's because they KNOW they'll get more money with a large corporate backing and taking a hit on the margin than no corporate backing and a higher margin.
Why are you anti RIAA? Out of curiosity, what have they done wrong?
Is it because their prices are high? Well fine, don't pay them. Music is not like air, you can theoretically live without it.
People are breaking the law, and they're suing them for it. They didn't make the laws, YOUR elected representatives did.
It's the CONGRESS that has instituted the DMCA, not the RIAA. Sure, they want it, but if you keep blaming corporations for wanting and lobbying for things that eventually get passed, you'll get precisely nowhere.
And why is it childish to call anti-RIAA childish? As I've illustrated above, the RIAA has no power outside of what your government gave them.
They aren't breaking into houses and confiscating computers, the police are.
Part of maturity is not getting angry at people, but ideas. You can't change people, just policy.
Also, you think if they reduce the price down to 10¢ a song, suddenly people will choose that over FREE? Yes, you've said repeatedly that YOU would do this, and maybe a lot of people would. To say, however, that everybody would do this is just being presumptuous. Not to mention, for that price, they might as well give it away. Even if sales went up by 100 times, it still wouldn't make up for all the money they've lost.
As I said before, their margins are slim as it is, and you think by making them smaller they'll somehow recoup those losses? Don't you think they would've done it already if they thought that were so?
It's extremely naive to think that corporations will do anything but try to make the most money possible. If there were a way for the RIAA to make more money, they would've done it already. The facts remain the same: it is a HUGE risk to take on artists, it costs a LOT of money to promote them, the music business is DYING as it is, and piracy is partially to blame.
Again, if I had my way, the recording industry as we know it would probably be dead. However, this post assumes that the way things are now (legally speaking) are optimal.
What you're basically saying is you want to eliminate the record companies and give money directly to artists.
When did I say that or even anything like it?
Quote:
Why are you anti RIAA? Out of curiosity, what have they done wrong?
Welcome to the thread. I suggest you read it.
Quote:
And why is it childish to call anti-RIAA childish? As I've illustrated above, the RIAA has no power outside of what your government gave them.
Why would government approval preclude me being anti-RIAA? That is an illogical premise.
Quote:
Also, you think if they reduce the price down to 10¢ a song, suddenly people will choose that over FREE? Yes, you've said repeatedly that YOU would do this, and maybe a lot of people would. To say, however, that everybody would do this is just being presumptuous.
People would pay that in a heartbeat. I can get high-quality rips nicely organized. I can actually download entire discographies on some torrent sites I am a member of. Joe Schmoe cannot, he's left to fumble around Kazaa praying that this version of "Hit Me Baby One More Time" is actually the song he's looking for.
I quote my sister: "Why should I buy from iTunes for $10? I can get the same CD for $11 at Target."
And you know what, she's completely right.
Digital sales are doing well, but as long as they are priced like CDs they won't take off like they should.
Quote:
Not to mention, for that price, they might as well give it away. Even if sales went up by 100 times, it still wouldn't make up for all the money they've lost.
Pricing for this model should not be based on keeping their current obsolete methods profitable.
It's the CONGRESS that has instituted the DMCA, not the RIAA. Sure, they want it, but if you keep blaming corporations for wanting and lobbying for things that eventually get passed, you'll get precisely nowhere.
Who do you think was the driving force behind congress?
Money is power, and the RIAA/MPAA had plenty of it. They supported the bill until it passed and that gave all the power they wanted. We really need to separate business interests from our government because when they are intertwined, it gives companies too much power. With the right funding in the right places, organizations like the RIAA and MPAA can strengthen their monopolies and stifle their competitors. This kind of leverage is ripe for abuse, and in the wrong hands, leads to our exact situation today.
I have always thought that RIAA dug its own grave with this P2P fiasco. They were faced with a threatening technology, and underestimated its significance. But the worst thing they could possible do is draw attention to "illegal networks" and association it to P2P. Now anybody half awake knows P2P is where to go for all your music needs.
But the MPAA has not learned from the RIAA's mistakes. Right now, by suing people, they are starting to associate movie downloading with Bittorrent networks. This pisses me off to no end because the Bittorrent community started as a mostly honorable class that, until recent events, didn't draw the attention or the type of people who will tarnish its name. Yet the MPAA will use this scum to give Bittorrent a bad rap like other P2P.
XJ: How do you feel about the fact that some of your fans are downloading your music for free?
David Byrne: It's a mixed bag. Sure, I would love to have compensation for that. But the argument of record companies standing up for artists rights is such a load of hooey. Most artists see nothing from record sales -- it's not an evil conspiracy, it's just the way the accounting works. That's the way major record labels are set up, from a purely pragmatic point of view. So as far as the artist goes -- who cares? I don't see much money from record sales anway, so I don't really care how people are getting it.
I've known a number of musicians over the years (mostly struggling, a handful not-so-struggling) so I'm not unaware of this. A friend of my girlfriend's plays in a fairly well known group that've had several succesful albums (at least one did +1m), but they still tour nine months a year to actually make money.
I was actually thinking more in terms of the kind of high-profile millionare musicians who speak out against file sharing as hurting their income. They've become accustomed to high income generation from recorded output because of the way that the distribution of media had to work in the pre-digital (or at least, pre-internet) era. What I was getting at was questioning whether or not this expectation should continue now that the playing field has changed.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
...Even if you are at the top of your field you aren't making close to what people at the same level of other fields (law, medicine, software, business) are making.
Don't even get me started on CEO salaries...
Anyway, w/r/t the topic at hand, Groverat is 100% OTM. There is no reason for digital downloads to be priced the way they are, it's nothing the last remenants of an obsolete way of distributing content. Sites like allofmp3.com prove that consumers with disposable income will happily pay for high-quality, immediately available content over potentially low quality content that they have to search for.
And if their sales are in the hundreds of millions, why shouldn't they expect it?
I don't necessarily disagree...if millions of people place value on having a copy of a song to play again and again, the artist should certainly be rewarded. But if the rewards that go to the most succesful artists from their recorded output is reduced by the changing nature of the business, why should they expect to continue to see the kind of rewards that existed in the past?
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
Sure many argue is that many artists wouldn't get the exposure w/o major labels, or that it is the company taking the financial risk.
That's the problem though...if the record labels weren't stuck in the past (or didn't try to polish so many turds with $5m video clips), there wouldn't BE such a financial risk and the music could be available cheaply enough for all artists (even the ones of marginal interest) to see some return on every download.
Groverat, I've lost some respect for ya, Coheed and Cambria????? That shit is awful. In the days before mp3's tower records would actually let you return opened cd's, but of course people started taking advantage of the policy by buying a whole bunch of cd's and ripping them then returning them.
Quote:
t's just another industry that will be dragged into the modern age kicking and screaming.
As well it should be. I'm not sure you guys understand my point of view on this so allow me to try and summarize:
I hope the Supreme Court sides with Grokster. A decision in favor of MGM would be horrible.
This is a much bigger issue than music. It applies to all content.
Copyright holders should get paid. People work very, very hard to make this stuff and it costs a lot of money to create.
The current copyright laws need to be rewritten. They were written by industry hacks with no consideration for the public.
People like to bitch about the record companies, but they sure do seem to like their product. I highly doubt much of what's traded on P2P networks is not either directly or indirectly released by a major label. Also major labels are like venture capitalists and in business high risk should equal high reward. I think the labels take too much reward, but putting out a record by an unknown artist is seriously risky and should be rewarded well. Those successful records have to pay for all of the failures.
I have no doubt a new business model will evolve. I'm sure some smart, lucky executive or entrepreneur will come up with a new way of doing things in the record business and make a lot of money.
Groverat, I've lost some respect for ya, Coheed and Cambria????? That shit is awful.
Let me tell the story.
I was in Target with the wife and she says "I want something new."
I look over at the rack and see what I haven't heard of, so I see Coheed & Cambria. I hadn't heard of them. "Fine," sez me, "Let's get this. I listened to the new Cake and it sucks ass, so let's get this and go."
I get home, pop that thing into my little stereo and ye gods... my ears.
I hadn't heard of them. I use my nieces and nephews as warning signs. If they tell me they like a new band I know not to touch it. They hadn't said a word about these guys.
Damned impulse puchases!
I've lost some respect for myself as well. I knew I should've gotten that damned Ray Charles CD.
Quote:
Copyright holders should get paid. People work very, very hard to make this stuff and it costs a lot of money to create.
Yes.
Quote:
The current copyright laws need to be rewritten. They were written by industry hacks with no consideration for the public.
Yes.
Quote:
People like to bitch about the record companies, but they sure do seem to like their product. I highly doubt much of what's traded on P2P networks is not either directly or indirectly released by a major label.
Would you say Radiohead's OK Computer is a product of Capitol Records? No, it's Radiohead's.
I like Snickers. I get it from Wal-Mart but it's still a Snickers.
Quote:
Also major labels are like venture capitalists and in business high risk should equal high reward. ..
I have no doubt a new business model will evolve. I'm sure some smart, lucky executive or entrepreneur will come up with a new way of doing things in the record business and make a lot of money.
As Fred Durst would say, we are in "agreeance" on some things here.
Granted: CD purchases support the current model. A lot of cost built into the CD is meant to support that model.
Well, I hate that model. I don't want to support it. I want it to die.
I'm probably skewed because of how I get music. I get recommendations from small music review sites/mags and from friends either in the industry or those whose opinion I trust.
I don't see why my music cost should include getting some jack-ass big-market DJ a few lines of coke. I don't see why my music cost should include greasing palms at MTV for commercials and placement.
Would you say Radiohead's OK Computer is a product of Capitol Records? No, it's Radiohead's.
While I know what you are saying think about this. Without Capitol records you would most likely have never heard of Radiohead and without Capitol Records advance money Radiohead would most likely have not had the cash to live on while they developed as a band and probably would not have developed their music to the degree they have.
Quote:
I don't see why my music cost should include getting some jack-ass big-market DJ a few lines of coke. I don't see why my music cost should include greasing palms at MTV for commercials and placement.
Apple doesn't need to advertise to me, but I still have to pay for it. Also think about this, let's say it takes a band a year to make a really great album. Say it takes eleven months to write and develop the songs and a month to record. Say there's four guys in the band and they each need 30k to get by for the year. Then the studio costs 30k for a month and the producer gets another 10k. That's 160k before you even manufacture or market the album and remember that you know most of the albums you put out are going to fail. There's a lot of bullshit costs in the record industry, but there are some costs that don't go away.
One more comment about our friends the record labels...
These companies purposefully leak certain tracks and albums to P2P as a viral marketing tactic. I have worked directly with labels, management, and artists and have seen it happen! Of course, like in Mission Impossible, they will disavow all knowledge of it.
Instead they'll just keep filing lawsuits and hope everyone looks the other way.
These companies are very much run by the seat of their pants, shooting from the hip and keeping things off the record. There's enough layers (and lawyers!) that, if caught, they could play it off as one rogue employee.
A single line item "online marketing" will cover the acts and they'll charge it back to the artist to boot!
While I know what you are saying think about this. Without Capitol records you would most likely have never heard of Radiohead and without Capitol Records advance money Radiohead would most likely have not had the cash to live on while they developed as a band and probably would not have developed their music to the degree they have.
Take into account the amount of work and creativity that record companies squelch in the name of "marketability" and I think it is, at the very least, a wash.
Extraordinary Machine is sitting on a shelf and has been for two years. You can't hear it unless you pirate it.
Quote:
Apple doesn't need to advertise to me, but I still have to pay for it. Also think about this, let's say it takes a band a year to make a really great album. Say it takes eleven months to write and develop the songs and a month to record. Say there's four guys in the band and they each need 30k to get by for the year. Then the studio costs 30k for a month and the producer gets another 10k. That's 160k before you even manufacture or market the album and remember that you know most of the albums you put out are going to fail. There's a lot of bullshit costs in the record industry, but there are some costs that don't go away.
Of course there are costs that don't go away, but it happens all the time. I have a lot of friends who put out records and have websites (and are even on iTunes) who all hold hourly jobs and do club gigs to fund their passion.
Two of my best friends from high school have two CDs. All without outside funding.
And that bar is only going to be set lower as technology improves. This is probably the most important part. You're still going to need talented musicians and good lyricists, but they will be able to record, produce and distribute much easier and cheaper than they ever have been able to.
Xool:
What's baffling about that is... why not just do it openly?
"Hey everybody, free track off the Fiona Apple record. Check it out! And if you like it give us $5 and we'll let you download a nice quality mp3 rip of the whole album!"
Then again I'm some kind of mad crazy loon.
---
I don't think album costs should be uniform.
Weezer doesn't deserve as much for their 28 minute album as Tool does for their 60 minute album. Maybe artists would start padding their songs with 8-hour-long instrumental sections (Dave Matthews would become the richest man on earth), but damnit that's a risk I'm willing to take!
Maybe just put a ceiling on that. You can go over 60 minutes for 10 tracks if you want but you're not getting any more money for it. And any track under 50 seconds doesn't count.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
It's childish to attempt to reduce the anti-RIAA argument to "they don't want me to steal music so I don't like them". I couldn't really take your post seriously with that kind of characterization coursing through it.
It's childish to think the general population shares your sentiment.
What you're basically saying is you want to eliminate the record companies and give money directly to artists.
Why?
Isn't that ignoring what the record companies give to artists? Why do artists sign with the RIAA? Is it because the RIAA holds guns to their heads?
No, it's because they KNOW they'll get more money with a large corporate backing and taking a hit on the margin than no corporate backing and a higher margin.
Why are you anti RIAA? Out of curiosity, what have they done wrong?
Is it because their prices are high? Well fine, don't pay them. Music is not like air, you can theoretically live without it.
People are breaking the law, and they're suing them for it. They didn't make the laws, YOUR elected representatives did.
It's the CONGRESS that has instituted the DMCA, not the RIAA. Sure, they want it, but if you keep blaming corporations for wanting and lobbying for things that eventually get passed, you'll get precisely nowhere.
And why is it childish to call anti-RIAA childish? As I've illustrated above, the RIAA has no power outside of what your government gave them.
They aren't breaking into houses and confiscating computers, the police are.
Part of maturity is not getting angry at people, but ideas. You can't change people, just policy.
Also, you think if they reduce the price down to 10¢ a song, suddenly people will choose that over FREE? Yes, you've said repeatedly that YOU would do this, and maybe a lot of people would. To say, however, that everybody would do this is just being presumptuous. Not to mention, for that price, they might as well give it away. Even if sales went up by 100 times, it still wouldn't make up for all the money they've lost.
As I said before, their margins are slim as it is, and you think by making them smaller they'll somehow recoup those losses? Don't you think they would've done it already if they thought that were so?
It's extremely naive to think that corporations will do anything but try to make the most money possible. If there were a way for the RIAA to make more money, they would've done it already. The facts remain the same: it is a HUGE risk to take on artists, it costs a LOT of money to promote them, the music business is DYING as it is, and piracy is partially to blame.
Again, if I had my way, the recording industry as we know it would probably be dead. However, this post assumes that the way things are now (legally speaking) are optimal.
Originally posted by giant
The music business is not dying
True. Better to call it dead.
But seriously.. is it really the music business we are talking about here or the copywrite business?
THAT is the *big* picture.
What you're basically saying is you want to eliminate the record companies and give money directly to artists.
When did I say that or even anything like it?
Why are you anti RIAA? Out of curiosity, what have they done wrong?
Welcome to the thread. I suggest you read it.
And why is it childish to call anti-RIAA childish? As I've illustrated above, the RIAA has no power outside of what your government gave them.
Why would government approval preclude me being anti-RIAA? That is an illogical premise.
Also, you think if they reduce the price down to 10¢ a song, suddenly people will choose that over FREE? Yes, you've said repeatedly that YOU would do this, and maybe a lot of people would. To say, however, that everybody would do this is just being presumptuous.
People would pay that in a heartbeat. I can get high-quality rips nicely organized. I can actually download entire discographies on some torrent sites I am a member of. Joe Schmoe cannot, he's left to fumble around Kazaa praying that this version of "Hit Me Baby One More Time" is actually the song he's looking for.
I quote my sister: "Why should I buy from iTunes for $10? I can get the same CD for $11 at Target."
And you know what, she's completely right.
Digital sales are doing well, but as long as they are priced like CDs they won't take off like they should.
Not to mention, for that price, they might as well give it away. Even if sales went up by 100 times, it still wouldn't make up for all the money they've lost.
Pricing for this model should not be based on keeping their current obsolete methods profitable.
Originally posted by slughead
It's the CONGRESS that has instituted the DMCA, not the RIAA. Sure, they want it, but if you keep blaming corporations for wanting and lobbying for things that eventually get passed, you'll get precisely nowhere.
Who do you think was the driving force behind congress?
Money is power, and the RIAA/MPAA had plenty of it. They supported the bill until it passed and that gave all the power they wanted. We really need to separate business interests from our government because when they are intertwined, it gives companies too much power. With the right funding in the right places, organizations like the RIAA and MPAA can strengthen their monopolies and stifle their competitors. This kind of leverage is ripe for abuse, and in the wrong hands, leads to our exact situation today.
I have always thought that RIAA dug its own grave with this P2P fiasco. They were faced with a threatening technology, and underestimated its significance. But the worst thing they could possible do is draw attention to "illegal networks" and association it to P2P. Now anybody half awake knows P2P is where to go for all your music needs.
But the MPAA has not learned from the RIAA's mistakes. Right now, by suing people, they are starting to associate movie downloading with Bittorrent networks. This pisses me off to no end because the Bittorrent community started as a mostly honorable class that, until recent events, didn't draw the attention or the type of people who will tarnish its name. Yet the MPAA will use this scum to give Bittorrent a bad rap like other P2P.
XJ: How do you feel about the fact that some of your fans are downloading your music for free?
David Byrne: It's a mixed bag. Sure, I would love to have compensation for that. But the argument of record companies standing up for artists rights is such a load of hooey. Most artists see nothing from record sales -- it's not an evil conspiracy, it's just the way the accounting works. That's the way major record labels are set up, from a purely pragmatic point of view. So as far as the artist goes -- who cares? I don't see much money from record sales anway, so I don't really care how people are getting it.
Originally posted by giant
...few musicians make anything near this amount.
I've known a number of musicians over the years (mostly struggling, a handful not-so-struggling) so I'm not unaware of this. A friend of my girlfriend's plays in a fairly well known group that've had several succesful albums (at least one did +1m), but they still tour nine months a year to actually make money.
I was actually thinking more in terms of the kind of high-profile millionare musicians who speak out against file sharing as hurting their income. They've become accustomed to high income generation from recorded output because of the way that the distribution of media had to work in the pre-digital (or at least, pre-internet) era. What I was getting at was questioning whether or not this expectation should continue now that the playing field has changed.
Originally posted by giant
...Even if you are at the top of your field you aren't making close to what people at the same level of other fields (law, medicine, software, business) are making.
Don't even get me started on CEO salaries...
Anyway, w/r/t the topic at hand, Groverat is 100% OTM. There is no reason for digital downloads to be priced the way they are, it's nothing the last remenants of an obsolete way of distributing content. Sites like allofmp3.com prove that consumers with disposable income will happily pay for high-quality, immediately available content over potentially low quality content that they have to search for.
Originally posted by LiquidR
And if their sales are in the hundreds of millions, why shouldn't they expect it?
I don't necessarily disagree...if millions of people place value on having a copy of a song to play again and again, the artist should certainly be rewarded. But if the rewards that go to the most succesful artists from their recorded output is reduced by the changing nature of the business, why should they expect to continue to see the kind of rewards that existed in the past?
Originally posted by LiquidR
Sure many argue is that many artists wouldn't get the exposure w/o major labels, or that it is the company taking the financial risk.
That's the problem though...if the record labels weren't stuck in the past (or didn't try to polish so many turds with $5m video clips), there wouldn't BE such a financial risk and the music could be available cheaply enough for all artists (even the ones of marginal interest) to see some return on every download.
t's just another industry that will be dragged into the modern age kicking and screaming.
As well it should be. I'm not sure you guys understand my point of view on this so allow me to try and summarize:
I hope the Supreme Court sides with Grokster. A decision in favor of MGM would be horrible.
This is a much bigger issue than music. It applies to all content.
Copyright holders should get paid. People work very, very hard to make this stuff and it costs a lot of money to create.
The current copyright laws need to be rewritten. They were written by industry hacks with no consideration for the public.
People like to bitch about the record companies, but they sure do seem to like their product. I highly doubt much of what's traded on P2P networks is not either directly or indirectly released by a major label. Also major labels are like venture capitalists and in business high risk should equal high reward. I think the labels take too much reward, but putting out a record by an unknown artist is seriously risky and should be rewarded well. Those successful records have to pay for all of the failures.
I have no doubt a new business model will evolve. I'm sure some smart, lucky executive or entrepreneur will come up with a new way of doing things in the record business and make a lot of money.
Originally posted by trick fall
Groverat, I've lost some respect for ya, Coheed and Cambria????? That shit is awful.
Let me tell the story.
I was in Target with the wife and she says "I want something new."
I look over at the rack and see what I haven't heard of, so I see Coheed & Cambria. I hadn't heard of them. "Fine," sez me, "Let's get this. I listened to the new Cake and it sucks ass, so let's get this and go."
I get home, pop that thing into my little stereo and ye gods... my ears.
I hadn't heard of them. I use my nieces and nephews as warning signs. If they tell me they like a new band I know not to touch it. They hadn't said a word about these guys.
Damned impulse puchases!
I've lost some respect for myself as well. I knew I should've gotten that damned Ray Charles CD.
Copyright holders should get paid. People work very, very hard to make this stuff and it costs a lot of money to create.
Yes.
The current copyright laws need to be rewritten. They were written by industry hacks with no consideration for the public.
Yes.
People like to bitch about the record companies, but they sure do seem to like their product. I highly doubt much of what's traded on P2P networks is not either directly or indirectly released by a major label.
Would you say Radiohead's OK Computer is a product of Capitol Records? No, it's Radiohead's.
I like Snickers. I get it from Wal-Mart but it's still a Snickers.
Also major labels are like venture capitalists and in business high risk should equal high reward. ..
I have no doubt a new business model will evolve. I'm sure some smart, lucky executive or entrepreneur will come up with a new way of doing things in the record business and make a lot of money.
As Fred Durst would say, we are in "agreeance" on some things here.
Granted: CD purchases support the current model. A lot of cost built into the CD is meant to support that model.
Well, I hate that model. I don't want to support it. I want it to die.
I'm probably skewed because of how I get music. I get recommendations from small music review sites/mags and from friends either in the industry or those whose opinion I trust.
I don't see why my music cost should include getting some jack-ass big-market DJ a few lines of coke. I don't see why my music cost should include greasing palms at MTV for commercials and placement.
Would you say Radiohead's OK Computer is a product of Capitol Records? No, it's Radiohead's.
While I know what you are saying think about this. Without Capitol records you would most likely have never heard of Radiohead and without Capitol Records advance money Radiohead would most likely have not had the cash to live on while they developed as a band and probably would not have developed their music to the degree they have.
I don't see why my music cost should include getting some jack-ass big-market DJ a few lines of coke. I don't see why my music cost should include greasing palms at MTV for commercials and placement.
Apple doesn't need to advertise to me, but I still have to pay for it. Also think about this, let's say it takes a band a year to make a really great album. Say it takes eleven months to write and develop the songs and a month to record. Say there's four guys in the band and they each need 30k to get by for the year. Then the studio costs 30k for a month and the producer gets another 10k. That's 160k before you even manufacture or market the album and remember that you know most of the albums you put out are going to fail. There's a lot of bullshit costs in the record industry, but there are some costs that don't go away.
These companies purposefully leak certain tracks and albums to P2P as a viral marketing tactic. I have worked directly with labels, management, and artists and have seen it happen! Of course, like in Mission Impossible, they will disavow all knowledge of it.
Instead they'll just keep filing lawsuits and hope everyone looks the other way.
These companies are very much run by the seat of their pants, shooting from the hip and keeping things off the record. There's enough layers (and lawyers!) that, if caught, they could play it off as one rogue employee.
A single line item "online marketing" will cover the acts and they'll charge it back to the artist to boot!
While I know what you are saying think about this. Without Capitol records you would most likely have never heard of Radiohead and without Capitol Records advance money Radiohead would most likely have not had the cash to live on while they developed as a band and probably would not have developed their music to the degree they have.
Take into account the amount of work and creativity that record companies squelch in the name of "marketability" and I think it is, at the very least, a wash.
Extraordinary Machine is sitting on a shelf and has been for two years. You can't hear it unless you pirate it.
Apple doesn't need to advertise to me, but I still have to pay for it. Also think about this, let's say it takes a band a year to make a really great album. Say it takes eleven months to write and develop the songs and a month to record. Say there's four guys in the band and they each need 30k to get by for the year. Then the studio costs 30k for a month and the producer gets another 10k. That's 160k before you even manufacture or market the album and remember that you know most of the albums you put out are going to fail. There's a lot of bullshit costs in the record industry, but there are some costs that don't go away.
Of course there are costs that don't go away, but it happens all the time. I have a lot of friends who put out records and have websites (and are even on iTunes) who all hold hourly jobs and do club gigs to fund their passion.
Two of my best friends from high school have two CDs. All without outside funding.
And that bar is only going to be set lower as technology improves. This is probably the most important part. You're still going to need talented musicians and good lyricists, but they will be able to record, produce and distribute much easier and cheaper than they ever have been able to.
Xool:
What's baffling about that is... why not just do it openly?
"Hey everybody, free track off the Fiona Apple record. Check it out! And if you like it give us $5 and we'll let you download a nice quality mp3 rip of the whole album!"
Then again I'm some kind of mad crazy loon.
---
I don't think album costs should be uniform.
Weezer doesn't deserve as much for their 28 minute album as Tool does for their 60 minute album. Maybe artists would start padding their songs with 8-hour-long instrumental sections (Dave Matthews would become the richest man on earth), but damnit that's a risk I'm willing to take!
Maybe just put a ceiling on that. You can go over 60 minutes for 10 tracks if you want but you're not getting any more money for it. And any track under 50 seconds doesn't count.