25 Comments

1. You have a point, but I don’t see much to be positive about. Spotify users may stop downloading, but it’s not like the money from Spotify is going to do much for the artists’ bottom line (not with the revenues they’re generating at present and they’re only going to have so much money to burn).
   More than anything, negativity hurts the artists themselves (I know it’s hurting me and I’m the cynic’s cynic). I’d much prefer to be telling people about the new cool music I’m working on, than telling other artists why the “new great future model of the music industry” is a load of hogwash. Someone has to do it though and I don’t see many takers.
   People like me or Lily Allen aren’t doing this for personal gain. We do it because we are concerned about what is happening and feel that the way the debate is going, things are only going to get worse.

2. “Artists – particularly rich and successful ones – and business people whose motivation is by definition profit, that complain about lost revenue, will never win the hearts and minds of an audience whose connection with music is primarily an emotional one”
   BRUCE —- While i agree that that being negative with your fans and/or accusing them of outright thievery is never a good thing, the statement above is very misleading and completely naive. Fans have ALWAYS had an emotional connection to music, that’s why they would buy an album or go see the artist perform. And the music business has always been a BUSINESS, with bottom line and profit motivation.
   It’s only been in recent history that fans have taken the attitude that they have a RIGHT to have any music that they want, simply because it’s available due to technology. And certainly an entire generation of fans have grown up thinking that no one should have to pay for anything. Whether or not artists pander to that kind of thinking or not is their own decision. But to say that music NEVER had an emotional connection or was never about being a business is completely WRONG.

3. I agree. Negative speak is never the way to win. Instead of harping on what’s not working, get excited about finding new ways to do what we do. Most of us here were bored with the old formula years ago. Now is our time to be innovative, creative, and succeed.

4. I think you need to read the quote again Bob…

5. I think I did Darragh. But if not, please explain what i misinterpreted. I am all ears.

6. Where is the money going to come from in order to fund artist development and the promotion and marketing of talented new artists ? It’s too easy to say Lily Allen doesn’t get the internet. She has a legitimate point.

7. It’s not about positivity or negativity so much as it is about being mistaken.
   Lily and co. offer lame, regressive, oppressive and impossible to implement “solutions” for a “problem” they see. They are driven by corporate profit motives and wanting to protect the status quo ante.
   The old guard clings to it’s slipping power.
   They suggest such ugly measures as policing the Internet and forceful removal because they are motivated by dollar signs only.
   Their “solutions” are like throwing matchsticks in a river to stop the flow: ineffective and to my opinion plainly ignorant of the big-picture cultural milieu in which these issues exist.
   We need to point out these stupid ideas or risk the chance that they will be implemented.
   I agree with the underlying point of this article.
   Artists need to start looking at what can be done in a positive sense and stop complaining or trying to fight the the inevitable.
   We need to move forward and evolve the music and the business for the post-web world. This doesn’t mean “a new model”. It means artists need to look at their business and find their own opportunities.
   Discussion around what artists are successfully doing will be more useful and profitable than turning to institutions to police the Internet.
   We need to figure out how to make this work for artists without becoming ugly about it in the process.
   Marius van Dyk

8. There’s no reason to fund “artist development” in a vacuum. If your artist isn’t good enough to gain income off their music and turn a small fan base into something bigger, why should they be getting money anyway?
   But, to answer your question: the artist needs to fund that themselves.

9. I have to disagree with “certainly an entire generation of fans have grown up thinking that no one should have to pay for anything”
   There’s clearly a subset of downloaders who feel it is their right to get music for free, but in my experience, most casual downloaders are somewhat on the fence — they buy sometimes, and they download sometimes (and feel ambivalent about it).
   I’d agree that the scope of sharing is massively increased, but I was dubbing my friends’ CDs 15-20 years ago. ‘Piracy’ has been around since the first cassette recorder. To say that it’s a fundamental flaw with a ‘new generation’ is missing something.

10. I see a VERY positive side to this…the idea of hope that, as I type, begins to supplant the Napoleonic old school writhing it’s tortuous death struggle before me in real time.
    In the future how about we look to:
    Young, new thought and passionate, small scale, sustainable creation that seeks to regain the respect of the art fan while embracing the tech family, whom despite our arrogant, ignorant attacks, continues patiently to offer us the solutions to our problems. Solutions they have tirelessly poured their own intellectual property into.
    For this to succeed we must forgo our plans for world domination and punitive prosecutions.
    Who’s with me?
    DL Guard, an Australian based company, makes a customizable, variable Price Point Widget that you can integrate into your own website. You can take e-mail addresses for your list and donations directly into your paypal account for the music you make…It, like all good things that last, starts small, takes time and requires a steady give and take, conversational ethic, to yield results. I think this is a step in the right direction and I can tell you that for us, offering our record, for free download or donation has opened up a new relationship paradigm with the people who would be interested in our music.
    Positively on to the next,
    bbb
    wheatus.com

11. I find it interesting that Hypebot is chiding folks for negativity, but when they express their honest opinions and concerns, like Lily Allen – the Hypebot headline says she’s “babbling”.
    I’d also like to take the opportunity to suggest that you folks not wholeheartedly dismiss people trying to fight piracy – or those who simply call people on it. They are expressing what in their eyes is a legitimate concern. I don’t think it unreasonable that an artist worries about how to create their art and survive. And, if you’re actually about music, I also don’t think it unreasonable that you take that seriously either.
    Thanks for listening.

12. Fair comment Mark. But my piece about negativity is much more about how the industry treats fans/consumers which is very different than open debate.

13. There’s so much creative content (art, video, music, writing) available for free legally that I think the discussion of what the industry should do in terms of charging for it is increasingly irrelevant.
    The wall between professional creators and amateur/hobby creators is crumbling; I think we’ll all be creators to one degree or another. So I’m now contemplating that world.

14. As am I. I’ve had a “pending” blog post for about 3 weeks now ruminating about retiring the term “indie”… 🙂

15. No doubt… and I apologize for dumping my Hypebot-based rant solely in your lap. Been hanging on to it for a little while. Sigh.
    As Suzanne points out below, there are many many many of us out here who, while technically “indie”, make up the majority of music makers. In short – we ARE the industry.
    Reminds me of a great quote from Blade Runner:
    “I’m not in the business… I am the business.”
    Which leads to a separate question – also based on Suzanne’s post. How do we as the industry insure in some way that artists can eat? 🙂
    Have a great weekend.

16. I am trying to get my head around it. I think people will pay for something that makes them feel better or more creative or more engaged. So the artist-as-facilitator may become the new model.
    Here’s my first blog on the subject.
    http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/09/people-formerly-known-as-fans.html
    I’ll be writing more as I find more info on the whole concept. If anyone can point me to examples of community-type events that tap into a collective artistic effort, I’d be interested in reading about them. I’m thinking that all these flash mob dance videos we are seeing, like 21,000 Oprah fans dancing to Black Eyed Peas, is a step in that direction.

17. Excellent article.
    The problem is that in the past it has been easy for artists, and the industry behind them, to take their fans for granted. It’s simply shifted the other way: fans take the artists for granted.
    I agree that the best spokespersons for a real movement need to be credible artists – ones that don’t simply appear to have eaten sour grapes.
    I’ve been working with a few associates to design a new model. We’re in the US, we’re called Weathervane Music, and in a nutshell, we’re a non-profit, member supported artist development organization. We produce a series of high-end audio and video called the Project Series. Through the series a select set of sophisticated independent musicians have a unique opportunity to make recordings they can use and/or license to other for-profit companies, while the creative process is documented in video for purposes of exposure for the artists, and promotion of Weathervane’s mission. 2010’s series will include special guest curators, well known, well respected musicians, who have a chance to expand the significance of their taste in music, by selecting OTHER great artists for the series. You can see the projects at http://weathervanemusic.org/projects.
    We can look at this era as a period of Natural Selection for the fittest business models, but I don’t think we can simply expect that the industry and consumer will naturally do what is best for the future of music in our culture. Just like the environmental movement required education and a shift in attitude throughout society to get started, music needs to be saved in the same way: by fans, artists and industry TOGETHER.

18. “We can look at this era as a period of Natural Selection for the fittest business models, but I don’t think we can simply expect that the industry and consumer will naturally do what is best for the future of music in our culture.”
    Yes, I pretty much agree. Anyone who is already in music, like the labels, have a vested interest in trying to market what they already own.
    And the fans, as a group, have been moving toward obtaining as much music as possible for as little money as possible.
    So if we ask what is best for society as a whole, without trying to perpetuate what currently exists, we may end up with an entirely different model/concept that what exists today or what is currently being proposed as the evolution of the music business.
    On the one hand, we are seeking ways to sustain and encourage those who are especially gifted at art, music, etc. On the other hand, we are also looking for ways to allow as many people as possible to create their own works of art and to participate and enjoy art. As more people create art, whatever income that comes from it is likely to be spread among more people.
    YouTube seems to foster varying degrees of creativity. People of varying degrees of talent and time investment put up their creations which may or may not find an audience. And the professional videographers are not necessarily more likely to find an audience than the amateurs. So it works as a participatory format.
    On the other hand, YouTube exists because it is underwritten by Google. If it had to be profitable in order to survive, we might not have it. Depending on who you talk to, YouTube is or isn’t doing well financially. So its existence depends on whether or not Google decides to keep it afloat.

19. Whether the conversation is positive or negative isn’t the issue at all.
    If Apple left the door open to their warehouse, there were no cameras or security guards, and everyone knew about it, everyone would help themselves. No one would be buying Macbooks and ipods.
    If Apple wanted to stop their ‘rapidly declining sales’ they would not need to get positive about their relationship with people who love ipods, they would need put a lock on the frikkin warehouse door!
    This is the current situation with the music business. Arguing the rights and wrongs of it are not going to change things.
    Like it or not, this needs to be policed if we want to be able to get our hands on decent music, recorded well, on a regular basis. Declining revenues from TV led to a proliferation of terrible reality TV muck. Unless something changes soon, music will go the same way.
    Padma
    http://www.padmaland.com

20. As a DJ, Remixer & Musician and owner of a small independent record label myself, I totally understand the view of many artists. I wouldn’t people illegally downloading my music either. It’s a loss of revenue and makes it especially difficult for us independent artists to make a living. Something should be done about it.
    On the other hand, I feel like many artists vent their frustration in the wrong direction. Many artists complain about people illegally downloading their music but they fail to direct their frustration to where it really belongs…the record labels.
    I don’t see any artists complaining about how their record labels make tons of money while they only make between 40-60 cents per CD sold and even less for digital downloads. The bogus fees and royalty reductions due to things like “CD Development”, “Free Goods”, “Reserves”, “Returns” etc. that record labels collect from their artists before the artists see any money from their sales.
    For example, a typical royalty for every CD that retails for $14.98 (which is a typical retail price), the typical artist will see only 55 cents in royalties. Keep in mind, you only get this small royalty only after you as an artist have paid back your record label for everything they have spend on your project.
    So the question is…who is getting the other $14.43? The record labels, distributors etc! Why don’t artists use their time and energy to band together to demand higher royalties from their record labels? The reason is no one wants to do this is because artists don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. They tolerate getting ripped off by their record labels and then have the nerve to blame their fans and the people who often times would have never bought their music or even heard of them in the first place. This is the dirty little secret of the music industry.
    Record labels for the most part are basically banks to musicians. Artists deal with it because they often can’t get the money and distribution resources to do it on their own. This is why artists need to tour, develop merchandising lines, pursue acting and other projects etc. to make a living. Many artists still make tons of money even after getting ripped by their record labels. They then have the nerve to complain about people downloading their music illegally. Artists don’t realize that those people who illegally download music often buy more CD’s and downloads than anyone, they also tell their friends about your music, go to your shows, buy merchandise etc. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. This is why it’s hard for many people to feel sorry for rich musicians.

21. I guess Bruce is not a musician, because if he was, he would understand that songwriters deserve to get paid for their music, no matter how successful they already are. Sure, people have been copying music since they found out how to do it, but today’s music industry is becoming increasingly harder for the creator of the music to get paid the money that they are deserved for their works.

22. Songwriters need to be business people – we need to see a way around this (as the article states there are several bands doing this). If you put your stuff out on your stoop over night chances are it won’t be there in the morning – don’t put your stuff on the stoop if you don’t want it taken – same goes for the Internet.

23. I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t whether piracy is bad for songwriters (it obviously is). The question is what can songwriters do about it? And I think Bruce makes a good case that ‘going negative’ does more harm than good. Particularly when coming from famous/successful artists, accusatory/defensive statements tend to alienate fans. In contrast, maybe the only way you’ll get fans to choose to pay for (rather than steal) your music is to connect with them. It’s not a matter of ethics; it’s a matter of pragmatism.

24. POint to be noted, I have got habit that I need my iPod while working in office……..i could sue some music artis for it….LOLzzzzzzzz.

25. I don’t know what the solution is for all of us to better support our favorite artists and show respect for the others, but I will say that it is one thing to say, get with the times and be more creative about selling, and it’s another to do it. Businesses put together a business plan and then try to follow it. If it doesn’t work, they may not be able to just eat the cost of that and switch to a new idea. When an industry is built up around a model, only the newbies and those lucky enough and aggressive enough to adapt will survive. That’s all fine to say too bad, until your friends or favorite artists are getting screwed over.

Comments are closed.