So Now Everything Is Google’s Fault
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Except that it's not google's content, is it? It's content that's owned by the songwriters, as google themselves acknowledge. Why is this so difficult to understand?
If a product or service is not profitable for a company, it is correct for the company to discontinue that product/service. All other parties should just live with it and work around it.
I mean, what exactly are you saying here? That royalty paychecks are wrong or immoral? If so, then, in your considered opinion, how exactly should musicians be remunerated?
> No wonder everyone wants to be a musician
No, in fact, people want to be musicians because music is beautiful and people like doing beautiful things. If they wanted money, they would go into banking or IT -- you'll note that Pat Metheney doesn't have his own 747, but Larry and Sergei do.
And, finally, for insinuating that music nowadays isn't vibrant, and heaping scorn on the totally reasonable desire by musicians to earn a decent living: fuck you, you pompous twit.
And that poster is hardly alone in his tone -- look at any thread that even tangentially touches on the music scene. Yes, my language was (is) strong, but get this: I live in London, and I'm quite active in the music scene here (you can check out my band at http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk, and my solo music at http://www.myspace.com/martinpercossi), and I know quite a few musicians that would have found funding by a label ten or so years ago (check out http://www.myspace.com/oliexplode, for instance), but sadly, there's not enough money to fund people who don't pander to commercial tastes.
These are not guys earning fat paychecks from your IBMs or Googles etc. They're pulling pints, struggling on 7 quid or so an hour. And I find it truly insulting the lack of compassion with which well-earning hackers here regard musicians. The constant railing about us having some sense of entitlement (when all we're asking for is our property rights to be respected, for god's sake), about us having making easy money (again -- it's Larry and Sergei who have a private 747; name me a record exec or artist that has one!) -- it really angers me to read this. So sorry if I'm the only one with necessary perspective to call a spade a spade. I feel strongly about this, and I stand by my comment, as I'm sure any number of my musician friends would. If that upsets your delicate sensibilities, well then so be it: we're talking about peoples' livelihoods here, people who really are passionate about music and want nothing more than to share it with the public in a way that's fair and mutually beneficial.
Another pair of downmods -- again, no one addresses the points I make.
I ask again, what are these other, benign, interpretations?
Hacker News is becoming a ghetto.
To respond to your "argument" as succinctly as possible: musicians are terrific, but musicians who demand that a hosting service like Youtube pay them when Youtube never offered that up as an arrangement are musicians who are greedy and trying to take money from an honest service. Some people get a million views on Youtube and become famous and get a contract. Maybe if your band did the same, you'd stop thinking it's totally unfair. In the meantime, companies do offer you the ability to get royalties off your videos. Just not Youtube, which happens to be the most popular one. You have a choice about using Youtube or not.
Meanwhile, my favorite new musician, Joanna Newsom, a harpist who has a bizarre voice, managed to release a Steve Albini-backed album in 2006, which I can't imagine happening were it not for the insane amount of freedom that the Internet provides. So this "inability" of musicians to get funded? Doesn't make sense to me, when you can self-release a CD for no cost at all. Get Logic Studio, learn a teensy bit about music recording, release yourself an album. If you're decent, people will hear it despite the shoddy recording, and you'll have leverage to get a deal.
So yes. You are entitled. You do not have a right to make any more money than people think you have a right to make. If you were superawesome, you would rise up. A friend's band recently signed on to a subset of Sony and they've gotten 4 million plays on MySpace. They're on the rise. I bought their album on iTunes and it was almost worth the money I paid, which is saying a lot since I'm broke.
Meanwhile, you defend yourself not with logic but with swears and Britishisms, which makes me think you're just a jerk rather than a sincere guy.
You use this word, "metaphorical", a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Also, what on earth makes you think I, or my musician friends (who I expressly told you work low-paid jobs as bartenders) don't have jobs? I'm a developer at a equity stat arb hedge fund, and I'm doing just fine, thank you very much. However, unlike you, I have the ability to empathise with my musician buddies who are less fortunate and didn't have the benefit of obtaining a Masters in Maths and Computing from Imperial College.
> I get downvoted for things I say pretty much constantly, but I don't call that a ghetto.
It certainly is ghetto behaviour to downmod somoeone while being too lazy to offer anything in way of riposte. Although, in f airness, you didn't do that, so kudos to you.
> musicians who demand that a hosting service like Youtube pay them when Youtube never offered that up as an arrangement are musicians who are greedy and trying to take money from an honest service.
Who cares if YouTube never offered that arrangement? If you recall, the idea was that YouTube was supposed to be the forum fo r which Joe internet user could post funny videos about himself, not for the wholesale ripoff of established and up-and-comin g artists. Do you really think that YouTube would have achieved the traffic it enjoys without the flagrant hosting of copyrig hted material? And, just to repeat, seeing as you don't seem so bright: the material is COPYRIGHTED. Far from being greedy, i t is absolutely right and proper for musicians to demand remuneration for the the use of that material.
> which I can't imagine happening were it not for the insane amount of freedom that the Internet provides.
Yes, the internet does empower artists in some sense. But food and rent don't grow of trees. People need to pay for music in order for musicians to continue making it.
> You have a choice about using Youtube or not.
The implicit threat from YouTube is "accept our staggeringly low royalties, or deal with the piracy issue on your own." If yo u'd bother to read Waterman's statements for example, you'd know that on the basis of around a million views of his Rick Aste ly songs, he got 11 quid. Is that fair?
> So this "inability" of musicians to get funded? Doesn't make sense to me, when you can self-release a CD for no cost at all . Get Logic Studio, learn a teensy bit about music recording, release yourself an album. If you're decent, people will hear i t despite the shoddy recording, and you'll have leverage to get a deal.
It doesn't need to make sense to you. You are obvioulsy a layman who has no real expertise or interest in the music business. If you did, you would know that getting Logic Studio -- which, incidentally, costs 200 pounds, hardly a small amount for someone working behind a bar (not to mention a pair of AKG 414s -- 500 pounds each, in order to record drums, a few SM57s at 60 pounds a pop, a decent mike preamp, ... shall I continue?) (all the tracks on my myspace were recorded like this, all programmed by me, all done on cubase, so pardon me if I laugh when you say "learn a teensy bit about music recording") -- is far from being enough to record an album. Remember that generally speaking half of a labels budget for an album goes to marketing and promotion, not to the actual recording of an album. Plugging a record on the radio, putting up advertisements, etc. all cost money. Why would a label finance this for anything more than sure-fire hits in the face of widespread piracy? And then people here complain about a lack of "vitality". It's so hypocritical!
> You do not have a right to make any more money than people think you have a right to make.
No, you see, actually, it's the other way around. YOU have the right to listen to my music, IF you pay the price that I deem fit. Otherwise, you shouldn't listen to it, because then you're breaking the law, and trampling roughshod over my rights. Capiche? If you walk into a shop and want to buy a skateboard, then it's the shopkeepers prerogative to set the price, is it not? Why should it be any different for music? The seller sets the price, and the buyer can exercise his vote of disapproval by not buying -- and using -- the product. Not by engaging in some self-serving so-called "civil disobedience" and just stealing the product. That one even needs to state this point is astonishing.
> If you were superawesome, you would rise up.
Of course the "superawesome" will rise up. And, of course, I believe The Signals belong in that category ;) However, and this is the point, when an industry sees its revenues fall by 50% in less than ten years, you can be sure that many interesting but perhaps more niche acts will be left by the by. And that's sad.
> A friend's band recently signed on to a subset of Sony and they've gotten 4 million plays on MySpace. They're on the rise. I bought their album on iTunes and it was almost worth the money I paid, which is saying a lot since I'm broke.
Good for them, I wish them much success!
> Meanwhile, you defend yourself not with logic but with swears and Britishisms, which makes me think you're just a jerk rather than a sincere guy.
Britishisms? I chuckled when I read that.
As for not using logic, well, I think my posting record is clear for anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty. I addressed the original posters remarks. I justified my use of strong language. Where is the lack of logic?
As a near-English major who's gotten into prestigious writing programs on the quality of his writing ability, I think "Hacker News is a ghetto" is indeed metaphorical, unless people here by downvoting you are in fact popping caps in your ass. I extended your metaphor in what is known as a conceit, or extended metaphor. Think of it like the "love sonnet" from Romeo and Juliet, only instead of wooing you, I told you that you were being silly for calling Hacker News a ghetto. (However, anybody who quotes Princess Bride can't be all bad, and you are making good points. I just don't like people complaining about downvotes.)
Also, what on earth makes you think I, or my musician friends (who I expressly told you work low-paid jobs as bartenders) don't have jobs? I'm a developer at a equity stat arb hedge fund, and I'm doing just fine, thank you very much. However, unlike you, I have the ability to empathise with my musician buddies who are less fortunate and didn't have the benefit of obtaining a Masters in Maths and Computing from Imperial College.
Congrats! You have money. Finance yourself, go indie. It worked for a ton of really talented bands who hit it big after recording in their garage. "Garage bands", that's a familiar concept.
Who cares if YouTube never offered that arrangement? If you recall, the idea was that YouTube was supposed to be the forum fo r which Joe internet user could post funny videos about himself, not for the wholesale ripoff of established and up-and-comin g artists. Do you really think that YouTube would have achieved the traffic it enjoys without the flagrant hosting of copyrig hted material? And, just to repeat, seeing as you don't seem so bright: the material is COPYRIGHTED. Far from being greedy, i t is absolutely right and proper for musicians to demand remuneration for the the use of that material.
If it's copyrighted, you can demand it be pulled.
Yes, the internet does empower artists in some sense. But food and rent don't grow of trees. People need to pay for music in order for musicians to continue making it.
That's definitely a problem, but the solution isn't demanding arbitrary fees. You can't fight the system: you can only adapt to it and figure out what the new optimal solution is. Part of me thinks that we should go back to musical patrons: rich people with taste funding poorer artists and giving them room. Groups like the Normative Music Company do that, in a way, and I like the results a lot.
The implicit threat from YouTube is "accept our staggeringly low royalties, or deal with the piracy issue on your own." If yo u'd bother to read Waterman's statements for example, you'd know that on the basis of around a million views of his Rick Aste ly songs, he got 11 quid. Is that fair?
Why didn't he ask Youtube to pull them, then? I don't think this is an "implicit threat", even if it is a problem for artist. They aren't threatening. They've stated their terms pretty unequivocally.
You are obvioulsy a layman who has no real expertise or interest in the music business. If you did, you would know that getting Logic Studio -- which, incidentally, costs 200 pounds, hardly a small amount for someone working behind a bar (not to mention a pair of AKG 414s -- 500 pounds each, in order to record drums, a few SM57s at 60 pounds a pop, a decent mike preamp, ... shall I continue?) (all the tracks on my myspace were recorded like this, all programmed by me, all done on cubase, so pardon me if I laugh when you say "learn a teensy bit about music recording") -- is far from being enough to record an album.
Look, we're in the new millenium. Things have changed. If you really, really think it's worth it, pirate Logic Studios and pay for it once you've made enough money. I'd argue that's a noble thing to do. Or hey, stick to Garage Band.
I'll state this pretty straightforwardly, because your attitude is a pretty pampered one. If you want to record an album, all you need is a computer with a microphone and amateur editing software. You sing into it, you play your guitar into it, you get the band all playing. No, it won't sound "pristine", but it doesn't need to be if all you're making is a demo. Record it rough, release it, spread things around. If you're any good you'll get people interested.
Remember that generally speaking half of a labels budget for an album goes to marketing and promotion, not to the actual recording of an album. Plugging a record on the radio, putting up advertisements, etc. all cost money. Why would a label finance this for anything more than sure-fire hits in the face of widespread piracy? And then people here complain about a lack of "vitality". It's so hypocritical!
Yeah, well fuck that system of thinking. You don't need it. Look at the Fleet Foxes, who started with nothing, recorded a terrific EP, distributed it online, and then became a huge hit. I found them on Something Awful. No advertising budget. Just word of mouth. That's also how I discovered Joanna Newsom, and nearly every musician I listen to that isn't classical. (And classical music I usually follow recommendations as well. Somebody here just recommended Einaudi last week.)
No, you see, actually, it's the other way around. YOU have the right to listen to my music, IF you pay the price that I deem fit. Otherwise, you shouldn't listen to it, because then you're breaking the law, and trampling roughshod over my rights. Capiche? If you walk into a shop and want to buy a skateboard, then it's the shopkeepers prerogative to set the price, is it not? Why should it be any different for music? The seller sets the price, and the buyer can exercise his vote of disapproval by not buying -- and using -- the product. Not by engaging in some self-serving so-called "civil disobedience" and just stealing the product. That one even needs to state this point is astonishing.
I listened to your music. I followed both your links. It's mediocre at best. I wouldn't pay for that. If I pirated it I'd probably delete it from iTunes to free up space. But at least I listened to it. If you were charging me money, I wouldn't have paid, because my expectations were low. At least with free distribution, I had a chance to hear it. Meanwhile, with this Joanna Newsom I keep talking about, I pirated her debut album, fell hardcore in love, and then bought copies of it for all my friends. She deserved my money, so I gave it.
Of course the "superawesome" will rise up. And, of course, I believe The Signals belong in that category ;) However, and this is the point, when an industry sees its revenues fall by 50% in less than ten years, you can be sure that many interesting but perhaps more niche acts will be left by the by. And that's sad.
I disagree. That's a sign of an overinflated industry losing some air. Too much money goes into music right now. Having the industry lean up and smarten up will encourage more musical diversity.
As for not using logic, well, I think my posting record is clear for anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty. I addressed the original posters remarks. I justified my use of strong language. Where is the lack of logic?
Don't get me wrong, your original post is great! So's this one: it deserves upvotes. But once you got downvoted, you could have either waited for upvotes to happen again, or you could have attempted to clarify your statement in a follow-up post, in the hopes that it would right some wrongs. I've done that a few times, and it helps. But posting complaining about people downvoting you only alienates the people who're on your side. That's what I was complaining about: not at all about posts like this, which are absolutely contributing to the conversation.
You're of course entitled to your opinion ;) But Mick Jones of Clash fame disagrees with you. My manager is in negotiations with him, along with the guy who produced a few Pink Floyd records, to produce our EP -- recording sessions are slated for mid-June. And it's most certainly going to be a notch above a Logic gig! I'm really excited about that, actually. The Signals will soon be broadcasting on all frequencies!
Plus, I'm booking the studio for three weeks, 24 hours a day, which means I'll be able to get my talented friend Ollie Ipkins in the studio -- something which would be totally prohibitive for him. His music is lovely; I've provided a link above. Even if you don't like my music, listen to his, he's the UK's answer to Ray LaMontagne!
So unlike the chattering classes here on hacker news, I'm actually putting my money where my mouth is. I invite Paul Graham to do the same and drop USD 50K on the business model that saves the music industry; from his comments elsewhere, he seems to think it's a very easy task indeed that is only hampered by the record labels being staffed by utter morons. (The fact that Guy Hand's hire of a tech honcho from Google, had zilch impact on sales, either eludes or fails to interest him).
Great -- now you're suggesting that I rip off programmers!
It goes without saying that I have too much respect for what I do, both in the programming and music domains, to break the law. It's wrong, and as you mention I can afford to pay, so I will. It's a question of principle for me; how can I expect people to do the right thing and pay for Spotify or iTunes if I don't follow my own dicta?
And, in any case, I think it's unfair to call this a "model". In one case, we're talking about a GBP 200 product, in the other -- spotify, it's GBP 10 a month for unlimited access to music. There are really not that many people in the UK that couldn't pay for that. And you can even get it free if you're willing to put up with ads. So there is a legal alternative. If you're living in the UK or US, my contention is that if you're filesharing you don't have a foot to stand on from a moral standpoint. It really is totally clear cut.
Your argument is effectively that because it's easy to copy music, it should be allowed. And that's the cyber-equivalent, to my mind, of saying that because it's easy to grab some fruit from a stand in Portobello Market and bolt, I should be allowed to do so! In fact, the only reason people don't do so is because they know there's a good chance they'll be held to account. And they'll be held to account because the state invests considerable sums in order to maintin a police force and courts, whose duties obviously include enforcing property rights. I don't see why they can't be enforced on the internet. And I understand that you can't make it impossible; that's obvious. What you can do,though, is make it sufficiently painful that only someone with significant amounts of spare time will want to use that method -- and at a risk of being disconnected or being taken to court. That could act as a sufficient deterrent to turn off most people provided you have an attractive alternative. And to my mind, the Spotify model increasingly looks like that model. Personally, I think it could extend to written content, like ft.com or nytimes.com articles too. That would be pretty cool. And videos. Basically anything. You either pay flat, or it's a single click (like iTunes) to buy an item of content. The motto should be: all my content, anywhere, anytime....but for a price!
Brave new world indeed! One where the customer gets what he wants, and the creator can make a living doing it. I think in the long run it's a fair and healthy deal. Where someone is charging in excess of fair value, people will simply cease to purchase that product and go to alternatives. Consumers will steer the creator to the fair price on the basis of their demand.
I agree that the CD days are over and that they were indeed an aberration. It's true that the industry will become more lean. Whether it will be good or bad for music is in the last instance an empirical, and at that rate, highly subjective question.
Somehow, I very much suspect that had my vitriol been directed at "fat cat music execs", my comment would have been upmodded and nobody would have batted an eyelid at at the strong language.
And the strong language is there for a reason. It's intended to wake people up from the slumbering, lazy groupthink that is so in evidence whenever the music industry is the subject.
Yes, I did. Else how do you interpret my asking him how he thinks musicians should be remunerated? And my response to his suggestion that musicians are just in it for the money?
The easy path is through the mainstream - if you're willing to give in to The Man (tm).
Especially of the mega pop star variety. The highest-grossing band in the US last year was Bon Jovi. The idea that the new emphasis on live gigs somehow benefits new or "alternative" is a fiction. It in fact benefits well-established acts with long and successful recording careers.
Incidentally, how is recording in a studio not "performing"? Why should it be less deserving of audience's cash?
> I would go so far as to say that musicians should make most of their money by giving concerts.
I'm guessing that this is because it fits your romantic view that a musician should be essentially like a bard in the middle ages.
Also, as other another poster pointed out, some acts are not designed to be "live" acts. Like Steely Dan. Some can't perform live, or at least not to the extent necessary if there is no revenue from recorded music. The late Michel Petruciani would fall in this category (he had esteogenesis imperfecta).
BTW, sorry I pissed people off, it wasn't my intention.
I wish Jonathon Coulton the best of luck with Creative Commons licensing. But as a model, I'm not convinced it will work. The benefit of having healthy labels is precisely the fact that artists don't get all the money. Some of it is siphoned off to find new acts. Let's not forget that the industry invests 20% of gross in R&D, which is a respectable figure in any industry. And of course you get economies of scale and the network of industry contacts, allowing you to market in different countries and across differient mediums.
In effect you're describing a model where the entire job of the label is taken on by the artist himself. I think that's a step backward rather than forward: if people pay for their music, the artist can concentrate on doing what he does best, which is make it. Not sell it. And, one way or another, he will need to sell it!
They either need to adapt or die. And they’re choosing a very noisy and annoying death.
I think they're probably a bit like chickens. Heads already severed but still running around.
With Googles additions into the free music market in china earlier last week, one might be lead to believe that they would look have music videos in the UK.
The overall voice Michael seemed to write the article in was one depicting the G20 Riots in the UK.
Much as it irritated me not being able to play music videos from youtube, seems like they did exactly the right thing taking them down.
And before people start posting replies along the lines of "it's not google's business to subsidize music execs" -- it is if a significant driver for google's traffic is interest in music content. And last I checked, it's not the music execs flying around in their own 747s, it's Larry and Sergei.
Don't be evil? Please.
Nobody really knows, but the suspicion is that it's more expensive to do online distribution. Here's Mark Cuban on a similar subject:
http://blogmaverick.com/2009/01/27/the-great-internet-video-...
"If you want an interesting excercise, call up a CDN and ask them how much it would cost to support an audience that is never smaller than 10k simultaneous viewers for a 1mbs stream, 24 hours a day, for 365 consecutive days. Then call up one of the satellite providers and ask how much they would charge you to deliver to 100pct of their customers, and then call up a cable company and ask the same question. Total up the cable and satellite numbers and compare them to the internet costs. You may be surprised to see which is cheaper."
He's talking about mass distribution, but distribution on a small scale is going to be even more expensive per stream served. Of course, it's still possible to generate cash from serving content online because Hulu does it. Whether .22p/song is a possibility, I have no idea.
> And if it can't, then I prefer for the content to be removed
That's what they did, unless I totally misread the article.
I totally agree, that's why I mentioned Spotify as well as iTunes. Although Spotify works off a flat-rate model, it could equally work on a per-play micropayment model.