Music Industry is clueless
The music industry is going in the toilet:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_music_sector
haha. And its all because of piracy, not the quality of the music currently being released. Right.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_music_sector
haha. And its all because of piracy, not the quality of the music currently being released. Right.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
I think they need to bring more lawsuits to bear. Suing people solves everything.
I bet the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding... If they could just come up with another law to say its illegal to steal, I bet that would help too.
Global sales of recorded music such as CDs slumped by about 11 percent in both value and units in the first half of 2003, hit by rising piracy and illegal downloads from the Internet, an industry body said.
This happens in virtually EVERY article about CDs that I read. The effects of Piracy and Downloading are presented as FACT. I don't think the Industry has provided any substantial proof that downloads are causing the slump. At the height of Napster CD sales were not seeing these levels of depression.
Frankly it disgusts me that something can be said ad naseum and eventually become fact. Think about that next time you read your History books.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Perhaps the lack of quality new music is because more and more musicians are slowly waking to the fact that it's becoming impossible to make a living at it, if all the product of their labor is available for free.
This is true... I've been asked numerous times to gig as a guitarist, "but we can't pay you because guitarists are a dime a dozen."
Originally posted by sammi jo
Perhaps the lack of quality new music is because more and more musicians are slowly waking to the fact that it's becoming impossible to make a living at it, if all the product of their labor is available for free.
Did someone start stealing the gate at all the concert shows again?
Musicians have by and large always made their living PERFORMING. It has only been for a short time that we have been able to capture one performance and let someone sit back on a sofa and collect a check from it.
There are still plenty of acts that tour regularly, receive no promotion, have no recording contract and make tons of money nowadays. There are likely plenty of facts that won't even sign a record contract since it stipulates the company owns everything and you were nothing more than a paid performer.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Did someone start stealing the gate at all the concert shows again?
I've heard all about that!
Musicians have by and large always made their living PERFORMING. It has only been for a short time that we have been able to capture one performance and let someone sit back on a sofa and collect a check from it.
That's true to an extent. But many tours wouldn't exist if not for tour support subsidies by (mostly major) record labels which enable bands to go on tour and perform...for the purpose of promoting a record. Of course that has only been the case since the technology has existed to make sound recordings. Computers and the net has changed things still further by leveling the playing field to such an extent that any novice who fancied themselves as a recording artist can make (and distribute online) an album recorded in their own bedroom studio using hard disc recorders with plug ins which technically emulate (or attempt to) a commercial recording facility of the 1980s the likes of which only well-funded artists could afford to use. But there's the problem...just go to any of the download sites like mp3.com etc etc and you will find millions of songs there....99.9% made by rank amateurs, and sound like it too. The artist & repertoire departments of those much-maligned record labels (that everyone seems to hate so much these days) at least performed one valuable function...a junk filter...which meant that there was intended to at least some degree of musical ability in the invested talent....in theory. Even that has changed now....record labels used to invest in talent for the long haul....the first 1, 2 or even 3 albums may do nothing.....and if the 4th flopped, then the band would probably get dropped. The trend now is to drop a band by default if first album doesn't fly. And that is almost a likely outcome....some 98% of artists signed by major labels do not have their record promoted according to the terms of their contracts. But imagine being a newly signed artist (ie at the bottom of the ladder in the music industry), and the label reneges on its deal? What do you do...if you sue the label, you will be up against an army of lawyers who will string you along until you're broke...and then the industry will probably black you. Incidentally my (jaundiced) and opinionated view is mostly because a close friend of my dad is (was) a rock musician who has been right through the mill...and emerged the other side of it, relatively unharmed. The stories I've heard about industry malfeasance would make anyones' hair fall out. Even though he had some degree of commercial success in a 20 year career, he always says to aspiring musicians....music is a wonderful thing to be able to do...and don't ruin your relationship with it by trying to make your living at it...ie...don't give up your day job!
So... duh. To get paid as a guitarist you have to start your own band (one that's good enough to get paid gigs) or else be really, really good and be invited into a good band. It's not impossible to do so. It just takes a little more work. Just like life. Deal with it.
You must not know a single musician. It's near impossible to make a decent living making music these days. I have an acquaintence who has an incredible voice, makes great records, tours, has been written up in Rolling Stone etc, opened for an icon at MSG blah, blah, blah and they still need a day job. What you wrote is just clueless and rude.
Back on topic.....the record companies would be well served to think about the damage that clear channel and the destruction of commercial radio has caused. Prolly more of a problem than downloading, but a more complex issue.
Then, when I get sued by the copyright-holders maybe I can use the whole MP3 deal as my defense ! If it's OK for someone to take compyrighted music, then it should be OK for me to take copyrighted printed material!!!
.
.
.
If you don't think the musicians are good enough, then don't buy their music ... but don't steal it either !!! ... just because they get paid for their live shows doesn't mean they should't also get paid for thier recorded music !!! ... That's akin to saying "Windows sucks and I won't buy it ... so that makes it OK to steal a copy of MS Office Mac !"
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
I'd like to go to a library and just start copying books ... just for my personal use mind you ....
I don't think you've fully grasped the concept of a library.
Bear in mind that if the copyright holders had their way then there would be no such thing as a library, or video store, or video recorders for that matter. Nor cassette tapes, or borrowing CDs or DVDs from your friends, or mix tapes or bands doing covers live.
I can't believe some of the whining in this thread. In an economy where people with several degrees are struggling to find work, a singer/songwriter having to work a day job is seen as an indictment of mass peer-to-peer piracy.
Read about any of your favourite artists and tell me which one's swanned into fame and fortune and which one's slogged it out for years in the industry before making any money (not even counting the ones that basically never got paid, like the Small Faces).
If it was good enough for Dylan and the Beatles then it's good enough for you.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
haha. And its all because of piracy, not the quality of the music currently being released. Right.
Agreed. Too often do I see songs that were made for their film clip. There are so many songs now that rely on their film clips to sell, using mainly sex to appeal. While it might look good, it won't make me go to a store and purchase an album. I mean what good's an album if you can't see the sexy film clip? m.
Yes, they need to have day jobs.
So I guess by your measure they are not very good? BTW, this isn't whining and it's not support for the RIAA. I just don't think we value musicians enough. I mean you'll get people to gladly pay ten bucks to see a movie or for two beers at a bar, but if you want to hear whining just try and get them to pay five for a local band.
Originally posted by sammi jo
That's true to an extent. But many tours wouldn't exist if not for tour support subsidies by (mostly major) record labels which enable bands to go on tour and perform...for the purpose of promoting a record.
I'm sorry, sammi, but this is simply wrong. All you have to do is look at the ascap numbers. According to them, a songwriter can only expect ~$80,000 for 1,000,000 albums sold. 1,000,000 albums! That would mean you are one of the huge artists. That's MTV level. And all the songwriter can expect is $80,000. That's just about the furthest thing from a steady income you could possibly come up with. And how would you support a family?
I grew up around musicians. Every single one of my male friends is in the music industry. A few are nationally known in each's genre, others work in distribution, etc. The simple fact is that the average yearly income for a musician is less than $30,000. That's why any musician you meet that's not nationally known will either have a day job or living off of their spouse.
Musicians simply don't make money with records. In fact, free copies of recorded music give much more exposure to musicians so more people are drawn to their concerts. Most people with large collections of music not purchased from a store would not have purchased much of what they have in the first place and would never have been exposed to that musician. By opening up distribution, musicians can reach a wider audience that will then go to their shows and buy their merchandise, which is where musicians actually make their money along with licensing. Period.
The vast majority of musicians only hope to break even on album sales. The same thing with labels. Some of the most well-known labels actually work off a sort of Loss Leader kind of model. But some don't even think it through that far.
I can think of two great examples from my personal life. One is a famous independent label owned by a famous musician. His day job is a software engineer making audio software, but he is also internationally famous (cover of magazine famous). He makes money performing and that's about it. The other example is a label I have done work for that is owned by the son of a household name in the film industry. Even though it is a very well-known label, it makes zero money. What I'm saying is that it's important to realize that the musicians and labels you know of very well might not be making any money off of their music, even if it appears they are. And even if they are making some money, it is very rare for them to make enough money to support a family. Not to mention that any income is very, very unstable and can not be expected to continue even for ten years.
Young musicians and the naive public are sold the idea of stardom and success, but in the end, it is just a pipe dream for musicians.
But in the end, the real issue is that major labels need to adapt, not legislate. Their model is failing for a variety of reasons, piracy actually being the smallest, and some have even pointed out that the RIAA's numbers don't indicate any losses at all due to piracy with sales per album actually rising and at the highest point they have ever been. They need to deal with the changing landscape.
Originally posted by tonton
So... duh. To get paid as a guitarist you have to start your own band (one that's good enough to get paid gigs) or else be really, really good and be invited into a good band. It's not impossible to do so. It just takes a little more work. Just like life. Deal with it.
Perhaps the fact that most bands don't offer to pay you is a reflection of your skill, and not of the industry?
And there is indeed a lot of signed good music out there. The record labels just promote the canned crap du jour instead because it's a quicker buck. No long-term planning involved.
You're obviously a complete retard.
Originally posted by tonton
I do know musicians very well. Yes, they need to have day jobs.
Case and point. obviously they don't have demanding day jobs or else they wouldn't have the hours upon hours that are needed to practice to be a giging musician. I did it, I know. And I've never met anybody that didn't tell me I was a great guitarist after hearing me. Problem is, so is everybody else. Being a professional musician is much like winning lotto. Good luck!
Originally posted by tonton
I do know musicians very well. My good friends are the Winners of the Soundbase 2002 acoustic band competition in Hong Kong (didn't compete this year because of schedule conflicts) and individually won Hong Kong's best guitarist and best bassist at both Soundbase and Asia Beat. They have a decent fanbase and generally pack venues when they play and a small label is funding their first studio record, with no rights claim to the songs (only the recordings) from the band. It's happy, funky pop, by the way, so most Americans wouldn't think it had enough of an "edge" (read: they're not Angry White Men). Yes, they need to have day jobs. But they do make money from their gigs.
um.... Hong Kong. big whoop
Originally posted by applenut
um.... Hong Kong. big whoop
Care to expand on this comment? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Originally posted by tonton
Be honest, is there anything else about you that might hinder your ability to get a paying gig? I know it's not fair, but it's not always just because "gutarists are a dime a dozen".
Well, maybe you can help me with my image:
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/trailerim...00824-cdbcda6d
Also, what's wrong with having a day job? Just because you're a musician gives you some magical right to not have to work eight hours a day? AND DONT TELL ME MOST MUSICIANS PRACTICE THAT MUCH.
If you only practiced 8 hours a day you wouldn't make it, sorry.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
If you only practiced 8 hours a day you wouldn't make it, sorry.
I couldn't figure out what your point was before, but now that I have: you're wrong.
Oh, and Tonton, I'd love to live in Hong Kong. When I was younger I had this fascination with the walled city in kowloon. I wish I could have seen it.