Prev Topic | Next Topic
| Author |
Posts
(Read 1440 times)
|
|
On Piracy
Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 10:29 AM CDT
Techdirt has an interesting post on some musicians reacting to piracy in the music industry (by Tim Cushing). Excerpt:
There's a lot in Bunny's post (which runs a few thousand very entertaining and informative words) discussing what's wrong with these assumptions. While piracy has affected some artists ability to sell music, for the most part, that wasn't where they were making the most money anyway. Touring is where the money was and still is for many (though not all) artists. Piracy can't touch that.
The other positive aspect of piracy is that it has changed the music landscape from an industry that sold artists (and their art) to consumers, presenting the artists as "idols" and "icons," to something more democratic, more varied, and perhaps most importantly, more personal: For better or worse (read: better) piracy is here and it's changed things. These days an artist has to have a presence over data-rich streaming sites such as soundcloud and bandcamp if they accurately want to gauge the size of their audience and tour efficiently enough to get money out of it and start building a reputation. And even then, it's risky, but it negates the main problems with piracy and money can, and will, still be made. I certainly wouldn't say that piracy is killing music. In fact, it's making a lot more music more widely available, which increases the amount of different breeding grounds there are, technically (though not necessarily) increasing the amount of interesting acts and artists out there.Just as there are those whose musical stasis prompts them to ask questions about who the next "Dylan" or "Led Zeppelin" or "Beatles" will be, there are those who wonder how today's severely fractured market and wealth of distractions will ever produce another 25-million-album seller like Michael Jackson (or even $35K a year). Those that blame this lack of multimillionaire chart dominators solely on piracy, rather than on underlying cultural shifts, economic woes, a multitude of new distractions and other disruptions are merely settling for a convenient whipping boy, rather than actually working on fixing their problems. And this is one of many reasons I really appreciate how piracy has changed the face of musical culture (along with the internet in general, of course): it has forced musicians to stop the whole rock 'n' roll, "untouchable", get-the-fuck-away-from-me attitude that beleaguered "legends" for some time, and encouraged artists to interact with their fans. This not only creates entirely new platforms for interaction other than just through audio, but has also de-fangs and de-mystifies these people, which then decreases the amount of "artist anxiety" someone faces when looking to create. Yearning for idols and blaming piracy for today's "weak" music market is nothing more than rose-tinted nostalgia rewriting the history of the recording industry, turning it from an exploitative commercial venture into the deflowered victim of millions of basement dwellers. Those who rail against the "level playing field" are constantly working to conform this disruption to fit their favored narrative. My biggest gripe with the whole "legends" argument, however, is that there needs to be some form of monopoly on 1) record sales, and 2) the public consciousness in terms of music. The second point, I fear, is the impulse of monoculture - that same impulse that abhorred subcultures in times past (which is slowly also being eroded, thankfully - be who you want! choose your friends! etc. - another wondrous example of what technology can bring you). Either way the suggestion is that, the way musical culture has been headed for the past few years is utterly wrong.There's a thought: Support your favorite artists directly, rather than hoping a small portion of your $14.99 makes its way to them after passing through an entire office full of unrelated staff and a multi-level supply chain. |
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 11:48 AM CDT
Good and valid points. There is no turning back the clock. We can be nostalgic about mega acts dominating the scene and making fortunes off their recordings - but was it the best model for creativity? And in actuality the labels were making the biggest bucks while the artists where fighting for their fair share.
Direct marketing along the lines of Radiohead and other bands has freed artists to pursue more adventurous territory while making a living and touring - keeping the music alive and fresh - and fans more closely connected. Not a bad thing. It's better to regret something you have done, than something you haven't done. |
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 12:35 PM CDT
The cultural aspects of file sharing continue to shake out in the market place? Naw, done shook out! The hegemony essential in producing the phenom of MJ's "Thriller" LP or the current version of The Holy Boy Band is not forgotten. The industry continues to cycle in same manner it has since pseudo popular Hawaiian music was used to sell the first phonograph machines in the 20s.
File sharing threatened the companies because of cultural hegemony and the platform issues. As long as the companies control the culture on the media, and the production and sale of the devises that are used to access the media there will be peace and happiness in the corporate house. What the corporations feared most was the loss of control of the marketplace. This was a threat from 1967 until about 1988. It is no longer a threat. Certainly they lost a big part of their payday on millions of say Eagles recordings booted by file sharers. Still no commodities like the Eagles were produced outside the industry. In the final analysis of file sharing's impact on the recording industry this will be the only issue that matters, at least to the corporations. What made 67- 88 so dangerous, so difficult for the companies? The potential for neo-regionalism and the proliferation of sub genre marketing. Until Penny Lane was on muzak in the supermarket where Mom bought the detergent to remove the stains there was a potential for trouble... there are no clothing requirements that are associated with file sharing. Daug |
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 12:00 AM CDT
I can't stand that people are abusing the abilities of the internet with piracy and file sharing. Perhaps it's something we as musicians need to adapt to and embrace, but I can't see how. Perhaps for a signed recording artist who has the funding for tours and such like to generate income, piracy is a little less of an issue, but for us smaller folk it's a real pain. Take an example of my problems a while back - it's textbook:
I released onto iTunes, Amazon and a few other online stores through an independent distributor, so I paid for all the listing fees and promotion myself (which believe me, took me to being broke within a few months). But then the sales started coming in and I began to make back what I'd invested. Then a tracker went up on The Pirate Bay, my sales dropped and eventually zeroed. And six months later, the tracker was nearly dead and I'd had to cancel my listing because I could no longer afford the fees. I've since been unable to afford to release another track. |
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 12:53 AM CDT
.... get ..... a ..... grip ...... 2012
|
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 07:34 AM CDT
I think the social website, MJ and the torrents are a good way to get your music out there. You can build up a relationship with people who like it, and make them want exclusive or special material, or simply wish to support you by paying for recordings. It seems to be working for writers. The only people for whom this system is repugnant are the big record companies, who want to keep the right to rip off their own artists.
"You read him his rights while I shave his legs." |
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 07:53 AM CDT
So how, when music needs to be the primary income factor for a small-time musician, is one meant to earn a living while giving out everything for free?
|
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 07:58 AM CDT
This is the issue exactly, allow me to open the book a bit more. We as a group can not break the control of the companies under the business plan they dictate. The cost of playing their game, if you will this is what you were attempting to do, is too high. Cds I have worked on have sold hundreds of copies with the point of sale at a music event where that music was featured. Outside of a live event there is little opportunity to move product without reputation to precede the consumer. A business model featuring robust regional appearance by a group of say 12 people, to include business and logics folks easily costs $50,000 a year to maintain. And that's if the people work because they love the deal and have day jobs. The band of brothers model can not be self supporting under the current economic conditions, in other words, it don't work if you gotta pay people. The house band model works if the guys are making it on gratuity. Again, this model requires everyone have a day job. As a hired gun, I have to make $200 to leave my house to play anything. The economics of small club venues can not support this cost per, which is why jam night works so well... To break it down to the lowest common denominator: If a guy is not worth $30.00 dollars an hour to you, then the gig is not worth doing for the money. Robust live appearance is the only way I have personally seen music payoff. Most of the time the musicians do not cover costs. The venue makes their money on alcohol sales. Based on my experience, as an independent if you don't get a piece of the bar, stay home- and you will save money. BTW, the talent agency that serves the area may pay your band to stay home, so they can book the guys they want to promote if you sign a contract not to perform in opposition to their boys. Easy money? Daug |
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 08:52 AM CDT
Very interesting post - I'll have to read through it a few times to get my head around it! |
||
|
Re:On Piracy
Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 09:11 AM CDT
Music is an art form - like painting, writing, dance, theater, film making, photography, etc. What it shares with dance is that it is also performance based - but it differs in also being a commodity that people can enjoy at their leisure. Having worked with them - I know a number of dancers who have made a very modest living pursuing their art. Usually they also teach and their concerts are often supported by grants. Musicians have never had it easy and very few make a living at it. Many who do are teachers - similar to dancers. No one can expect to make a living solely in the arts without working extremely hard to find every possible way to eke out that living. From my perspective it has always been that way. Pop culture has put stars in the eyes of many who feel that they should be rewarded for their artistic efforts - because so many mediocre talents are so successful. The internet has given another tool to musicians who are willing to give it their all and try to "make it". I honestly think that the benefit (exposure and availability) far outweighs the detriment (piracy). It's better to regret something you have done, than something you haven't done. |
