On Gaining Visibility Through Grooveshark: Mike Masnick vs. Bruce Houghton - hypebot

« Nick Cave Shows How Much Support It Takes To Be An Indie Success | Main | REWIND: The New Music Industry's Week In Review »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

@dannydee

Both of you gentlemen really should go to the Grooveshark offices in Florida, you will be amazed & inspired.

TJR

This band willingly came to Grooveshark and offered their music and brand in exchange for promotion (I will assume that they didn't have to pay GS any money for the sake of argument).

But it doesn't change the fact that no company or person has the right to decide how an artist work should be distributed (much less profit from it), without permission from, and compensation to the artist. And THAT IS WHY THEY ARE BEING SUED.

It's very nice that this band got some promotion from Grooveshark, but honestly this article felt like nothing more than a long winded variation of the: "These companies are giving you promotion so you should let them violate your rights as an artists and let them use your music for their profit and gain without any compensation", argument that keeps getting thrown at us ad infinitum.

Nelson

Love the part about new distribution model. Does that means a tech company get's your tunes and get's investors to give them money for it, is that's the new distribution model?

Chancius

Whoa, is it true that Grooveshark is being sued?

Bruce Houghton

Danny - You know I respect your opinion. Tell us more.

Bruce Houghton

This is a decent summary of Grooveshark's legal problems: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark.

We always try to be fair, so I've asked Grooveshark to provide me with 3 execs and major labels or digital distributors that will tell me that Grooveshark pays them fairly. If they do I'll publish.

ZoSo

absolutely correct TJR

Manny Chien

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Grooveshark has just delayed its day of reckoning through litigation rather than "effectively shield itself"? Also was hypocritical in trying to censor Digital Music News through scare tactics?

ZoSo

You guys might actually want to talk to the band... Here's what they say,

"“After everything, I’m not sure there is a new model. The old model is still the model, it’s just that the Internet made it way worse.”

Sounds like they are more in agreement with David Lowery than Mike Masnick. Sorry Mike. The New Boss is Worse than the Old Boss afterall.

Wehaveaghost

Fascinating debate. Along my path as an artist, I've heard Grooveshark pop up here and there, but was a bit confused about their offerings. This article was balanced and insightful enough to leave it up to me as to whether I think it's good for artists.
Here's my take:

The 1st thing I noticed (as far as impact) was in YouTube plays. Clearly had a measurable impact for a band who primarily had a local fan base.

- Anytime I hear of a company trying to leverage it's platform to try to 'break' a band I get excited - the biggest hurdle DIY artists face is EXPOSURE. You can be sitting on the best album on earth, and it will do NOTHING if it rots on your hard drive unheard.

- The band willingly came to Grooveshark and made the best of it.
- The manager / band learned from this experience (as I believe readers of this case study) will learn from this.

- as far as the debate goes - the 1st question that came to mind after reviewing the links: what's the difference between what Grooveshark does vs the emerging BitTorrent model for artists?

Both platforms *can* be used for 'evil' or used to the Artists' advantage. Especially in the hands of ninja's behind the scenes. (Also a recurrent theme - it always takes a team.)

Then I thought of Billy Van and Fame House - "HISHAM!" - referenced back a few links, and sure enough, in addition to BitTorrent, they used Grooveshark - which had a similar (measurable) impact on Billy's YouTube plays in particular.

- So, then I looked for my work on Grooveshark. And I see I have 2 songs on there with incorrect album titles, and I see why some rights holders have issues with their service, but then again, I don't see how that's different from vessels like BitTorrent and YouTube (in the early stages at least.) And clearly, seeing my work there (when I know I didn't put it up) tells me I should GET ACTIVE there.

It's clear there are a ton of users on Grooveshark, and that you should be where the fans are, so after I get done typing this response, I am going to take over my presence and push it to the limits (minus the ninja's) to see where I can go with it. I have my own case study happening and would be happy to share my findings at a later date for anyone who is interested.

This article also validated something I am learning: focusing on building an international fan base, rather than starting local. Music transcends language barriers and the internet allows us to be a million locations at once. I view location as electricity, currents. I'm learning about different cultures through connecting with my fans in various places. Someone bought an album last night from Latvia.
With a little help from Google Translate, I'm going to get to know this guy.

Thanks to analytics, I know where most of my fans are. Thanks to individual responses via social media I know who my potential superfans are. Thanks in part to Hypebot I adapt to this rapidly changing space.

The legal stuff will work itself out. The people want music. Give it to them. Use social media to engage. Form actual RELATIONSHIPS. The money, for those who care about it, will be a byproduct of those relationships.

See you on Grooveshark, and anywhere my analytics or Hypebot tells me the fans are.

Ghost

zoso

good luck with that...

The comments to this entry are closed.



Musician & Music Industry Resources


SEARCH HYPEBOT