Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ultimate Guitar.com)   Most musicians say that the internet has helped them make more money, despite P2P programs   (ultimate-guitar.com) divider line 141
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9150 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2004 at 6:33 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-27 10:24:24 PM  
I personally feel this survey is pretty accurate. I also think that the inet will be a great asset to my band. I mean i already have people in england, ohio, florida, cali, new york, texas, and more liking our music. but none of that would have happened without the inet.
 
2004-12-27 10:38:50 PM  
I bought the soundtrack to Lost In Translation.

I tried to rip it to my iPod. I couldn't get the disc to load onto my computer.

A friend said he thought it was because the disc was copy protected.

So I went on the internet and downloaded the MP3s.

Someone please explain to me how anyone got screwed except me (out of a few minutes of time. Big deal, I know, but still.)

I understand that there are plenty of illicit uses for MP3s. That's what happens when you ignore emerging technology. The RIAA sat on their fat ass and waited until there was a problem, now there's no way to fix anything without tremendous damage to all concerned.

I'm moving out of the US in a few months. I want to take my MP3s with me (about 300 Gigs, all legit. I'm a critic, have been for 15 years...I get my music for free anyway. Took me about 2 years to rip 'em all.) This is most likely going to be a clusterfark, all because some group of doofuses (doofi?) ignored MP3s for years, then ran to the Government, asking them to fix their lazy ass mistake.

Suck it, RIAA. Long and hard.
 
2004-12-27 10:41:58 PM  
Pocket Ninja:

If you're some stupid 9-5 lackey who gets assigned to write a report, one that might make or break your career, and I come along and steal it, you'd be pretty ticked off. But why? I mean, it's not like you *own* it. It's just thoughts and ideas. You can't own those, right? They should belong to everybody.

Wow. You've apparently never worked for a major corporation (or haven't read your employment agreement in its entirety).

Most, if not all, come from a rubber stamp agreement that states that anything that you come up with on company time is the intellectual property of the company that you're working for. At that point, they can do whatever the hell they want to do with your report, whether or not you get any credit at all.

I've been there. Just go ahead and try to fight your hire agreement. Good luck, my brother.
 
2004-12-27 10:45:25 PM  
To add to it, all examples of failed Communist countries... blah blah...

There has never been a communist country.

Ever.
 
2004-12-27 10:46:31 PM  
The pocket ninja does not kid.
 
2004-12-27 10:49:02 PM  
The_Ancient: Taken from : http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Negativland? You had me at hello!

(not really, but Negativland is the shizzle, and they're part of the collection that I actually paid for... "Helter Stupid", for one. Sucks that they got ripped.)
 
2004-12-27 10:49:53 PM  
The_Pole_Of_Justice:

I understand that there are plenty of illicit uses for MP3s. That's what happens when you ignore emerging technology. The RIAA sat on their fat ass and waited until there was a problem, now there's no way to fix anything without tremendous damage to all concerned.

That was their game plan all along. They are not seeking to end piracy, they are seeking to channelize all internet music through themselves, in the name of anti-piracy. If anything, they are feeding the flames.

They are trying to convince the government to put them in charge of regulating "their" industry, and doing a good job of it.

Fark the RIAA/MPAA.
 
2004-12-27 10:49:53 PM  
WakaWaka

There has never been a communist country.

There's never been a country where the means of production were owned by the state and where the transition to said state was brought about by violent revolution?

Since I can think of at least one, I imagine you must have a different definition of Communism than the one put forth by Marx and Engels.
 
2004-12-27 10:52:23 PM  
late to the party, but may I suggest http://www.mp3search.ru/ ?
As long as you are connected to the internet, you can listen to any song on their site- for free, and they have alot, mainly big named bands.
 
2004-12-27 10:57:20 PM  
I used to leech on Gnutella.

Then came the lawsuits...and iTunes. I didn't want to be sued and didn't have to pay $15 or more for one good song anymore, and now gladly use iTunes when I don't feel like buying the whole record.

Yeah, the quality isn't quite the same annd Steve Jobs owns my butt, but I can't tell the difference between 128K AAC and uncompressed CD on my equipment, and if Apple decides to give us all trouble about media files the entire marketplace is doomed anyhow (Quicktime, anyone?)
 
2004-12-27 11:01:12 PM  
Downloads are a great tool for finding music but the quality of burned cds suck balls. I buy for the sound quality. Besides you should support the bands you like by buying their CD in the store, interweb, whatever.
 
2004-12-27 11:24:02 PM  
Even before P2P, analog cassette copies of albums and bootlegs built legends around bands that all the planned marketing in the world couldn't generate.
 
2004-12-27 11:27:31 PM  
I'll download music if I feel like it. If I can tape something off of the radio, then I can have an MP3 as well. The slippery slope is already there. You can't have mp3's? Get rid of blank audio cassettes then. Get rid of blank CDs too.

It's been a year or two since I've purchased CDs. I don't buy into this top 40 pussy shiat. I don't like it one bit.

Truth be told, I'd rather listen to videogame music anyway. There's much more talent there than most music out there today.

http://www.vgmusic.com and http://hvsc.c64.org are good places to start for gaming music (VGMusic has stuff from various consoles and HVSC is the High Voltage SID Collection, which has just about every Commodore 64 tune you could possibly imagine, plus more).
 
2004-12-27 11:34:03 PM  
Remfin:

$2.00 may go "to" the band, but the record companies charge them for the studio time, the CD pressing, most avertising, etc etc etc. Essentially almost no artist actually makes any money off CDs until they've put out quite a few good ones and got the chance to negotiate a new contract, or ditch their label for their own

It gets even better. (Or worse, depending on which end of the $$$ spectrum you're on) Just to sidetrack a bit...

Artists are essentially paying back advances to the label before they see dime one. The ones who are hit the hardest are non-songwriting performers. This is because performance royalties (radio/video play, concert royalties, etc.) are recoupable by the label. OTOH, Mechanical royalties --- basically, payments to the author of the work --- are not recoupable to the label. They didn't write that hit song, you (the artist) did. At least, theoretically.

This isn't to say that artists don't sometimes finagle writing credits where they don't really exist, but generally the songwriter is at least getting a free-and-clear check by virtue of that particular talent, while the "performer" is in thrall to the label honchos.

/just felt like sharing...
 
2004-12-27 11:34:11 PM  
2004-12-27 11:01:12 PM drewsclues

Downloads are a great tool for finding music but the quality of burned cds suck balls. I buy for the sound quality. Besides you should support the bands you like by buying their CD in the store, interweb, whatever.

That's why I like FLAC and shn.

If anyone hasn't gotten around to that part of the internet music community yet,

a) you're WAY behind the times
and
b) go google it because I'm sleepy and headed for bed.

Of course right now it's mainly artists that WANT their stuff out there, but not always, if you know where to look ;)
 
2004-12-27 11:40:40 PM  
Add my voice to the chorus of, "p2p led me to buy cds". How the hell else would a guy in the Deep South get into German-language heavy metal? (No, not just Rammstein, either.)

Pop music is shiat. The radio is shiat. Satellite radio is even bigger shiat.

Do you guys have any idea how much awesome stuff there is out there for the taking? I hate snobby indie rockers, but seriously, take the road less travelled and find some MP3s from unsigned bands' websites. I'm having a love affair with 80s chip-wave band Trash80 right now. After Christmas is all settled down, I'm SO buying their album Hologram.
 
2004-12-27 11:57:49 PM  
pshaw:

Volume, my friend. You are fogetting volume. If a major release album goes platinum...

$340,000 of total profit for the sale and production of one platnium album. If $340,000 is "very little" for you, then I'm a starving artist. Can you feed me?


The tour is paid for out of that alleged $340,000. Any advance to record is paid out of that $340,000. Management is paid out of that $340,000. The list goes on.
And anything that gets contracted to Columbia House or BMG comes out of the artist, there is a per-sale fee.


/been there, done that as a $1500/wk sound tech
//and as a performing artist. The techs made more than we did.
 
2004-12-28 12:51:14 AM  
As a former touring sound tech and a current studio engineer, I always get paid way more than the artists, but they generally get way more tail so theres a trade off I suppose.
 
2004-12-28 01:02:07 AM  
To the musicians complaining about P2P;
You are just mad, because you sucked someone off to promote your crap. Now you wanna make money off of it.


To the musicians praising P2P;
You are just happy, because you know your music r0x9rZ and you want people to get exposure to it. Then you can make a living being an artist who gives a fark about creating and performing the fruits of their sincere labours.
 
2004-12-28 01:15:52 AM  
Okay I'm back. I'm reading through the thread and reading people complain about how much my math is wrong. Some of it's fair (i.e. SchlingFo). Some of it is just a rehash of other posters' points that I've already discussed (i.e. TOG88). I'm not going to repond to everyone individually.

First off, look at my math. In the figure that came up with $340,000, I figured that each artist only gets 34 cents per dollar of each record sold. The real figure is somewhere between 34 cents and $1.99 (depending on how thrifty the band is, and much less if the band is called TLC). While you beat me down for overshooting the number, I actually undershot the estimated value. The artist would get more than the $340,000 that I estimated per album (ignore aspects of the music industry that do not involve the sale of albums). Double check my math.

SchlingFo:


There hasn't been any causative link established between P2P filesharing and an increase/decrease in music sales.

You must mean that there was no confirmed study to prove this. To say that P2P did not significantly hurt record sales is like saying the digital camera isn't hurting Kodak.
 
2004-12-28 01:21:10 AM  
The music industry has a lousy business model geared to them and a few artists. They force fans to buy crap filled albums for one song they wish to own. They limit choice of artists the company picks in order to re-coop the money of a lasivh contract awarded to said artist. The music companies want to pass along the cost of their mistakes to me! Well Fa la la la la la to that!

Meanwhile, music by bands I'd like to buy goes unheard by me because those bands have no access to the public at large such as radio and TV. Or even music no longer produced by the record company, yet still would sell if the public had access to it. Dark side of the Moon has been on the charts a very long time and is an example of still maketable older music. Pink Floyd remained active for many years and still is, kind of. Well, when that album came out, there were many bands who produced music just as good if not better, however, the bands didn't stay togther. The public has zero access to that music because the record companies do not want to expend the monies to market it.

Then came the net! It will one day force the recording companies to do business the way I want to. Also I think many bands may just by-pass the record companies all together which is happening now. There is so much good music I would have never heard that I picked up in usernet and then bought from a bands web site. My only other option is record/CD swaps but you have to know which band it is you're looking for. MY last store bought CD was a Sound Garden CD and that was like 8 years ago!?! I mostly perfer Blues which has no real outlet, but I can't buy music I haven't heard yet.
 
2004-12-28 01:23:17 AM  
The artist would get more than the $340,000 that I estimated per album

EDIT: The artist would get more than the $340,000 than I estimated per 1,000,000 units.
 
2004-12-28 01:26:08 AM  
Has anyone noticed that I've argued both FOR and AGAINST filesharing in this thread? I should be a politician.
 
2004-12-28 01:37:04 AM  
pshaw: I should be a politician.

Holy heck! I thought you were! Well, you have my vote. ;-)

Anyway, why or what led everyone to talk about money? Isn't it more likely most people are interested in access to music? I'd love to go through every single Rhino record compamy tape that exsists! What gems lay there ~ for Blues fans ~ that I've haven't heard and would buy in a second?
 
2004-12-28 01:57:29 AM  
country_boy: Holy heck! I thought you were! Well, you have my vote. ;-)

Man... That just made it to my profile. I don't know if you were sarcastic or not, but that's just too funny.

And you are right... who wouldn't want to uncover the depths of their favorite record label? But the only thing that matters to the men in suits is the bottom line. Turn on your television today. Over 20,000 people died over the weekend in the most tragic event in decades. How are the networks reporting the story? By telling us how it effects the global stock market (while important, it completely ignored the human crisis of the event). Yes, America is all about money. While we worry about 34 cents or $1.99 cents, artist are in their garages and park stages around the country trying to be noticed. They just want to be noticed and spread their art and entertain others.

Ever heard the album of "The Wall" by Pink Floyd. The last song applies to the plight of the artist:
Outside the Wall

All alone, or in twos,
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall.
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands.
The bleeding hearts and artists
Make their stand.
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall.
 
2004-12-28 02:08:59 AM  
California's supposed to be the sue me state, I feel like I've missed out cause I've had a million reasons to sue people but haven't ever. If I made some crappy music that wasn't selling, why the hell would I sue people because they were trading it and giving me free publicity?
 
2004-12-28 02:26:42 AM  
ya know, when i toured nationally as a musician/performer with the renouned further festival, the friggen bus driver made more than me and my fellow players

/enough said
 
2004-12-28 06:59:41 AM  
DIGITALgimpus: Then again, some said the US was hostile to change for not becoming communist when that fad was becoming popular... it ends up Communism, while looking like a utopia (the math even worked)... didn't quite work out in reality. The human flaw of greed made it ineffective, while in theory it was the ideal.

Oh please, you had to drag communism to the conversation, did you? Well, look below - I can't believe, nay, I know I am not the only person in the world who would pay voluntarily for stuff I download. There is always a loss that is factored to all sales, like shoplifting. The situation right now is that you can a) buy stuff in the outdated way the big companies want you to or b) get it in a easier way, while becoming a criminal in the process and not having a way to pay even if you wanted to.

Interestingly enough, I write to some adult entertainment magazines and one of my jobs was to review some sites where you could download porn, pay an euro for two and watch them for a set amount of time. All the services I ran into were streamlined and functional, being a pretty good proof of the concept that it can be done and people do pay for the stuff they can get for free, if packaged well enough.

The real solution here is for cheaper DVD manufacturing. Get away from these box sets, and move to cheap AOL style distribution. Order online and get the DVD of the episode in a thin piece of cardboard packaging. No frills menu's... just the video. It would be cheaper.

I agree you with this one, cheap-o dvd-circulation would be a good getting-there -solution while waiting for the internet to get more mainstream. What I meant with the pay-per-download -idea is that there should be a way for those people who _already_ download most of their stuff to pay for it. These are the people who are internet-savvy and already watch the episodes in shiatty quality, making themselves criminals while downloading it. Offer a slightly better quality, guaranteed to be the real stuff and not donkey-porn with a wrong filename and charge a buck or two. Perhaps I am funny in the head, but if there was a donate button in some series' home pages, I would gladly pay for even that stuff I can download now for free.

FrankGecko:On the other hand, the television companies might have something to say about this business model.

As long as it's not available before it airs... I highly doubt that.


Well, aired where? I am in Finland and I can see how the local television companies might be a bit sour about people downloading series' they are going to show in a year or so.
 
2004-12-28 07:57:24 AM  
The_Ancient


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.


Record company: $ 710,000
Producer: $ 90,000
Manager: $ 51,000
Studio: $ 52,500
Previous label: $ 50,000
Agent: $ 7,500
Lawyer: $ 12,000
Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25


That's how a begining artist gets. First of all, a begining artist doesn't have good gear, good understanding of recording and also of image etc. They know how to play guitar and write a few songs etc and show some sort of promise.

Go to graduate school, the stipend is low low. Go work in a studio, they pay low coz' you're inexperienced. It's all about the experience of knowing the music industry at that stage for the band and the musicians. It's about starting a career.

At least the artist has catering and housing all taken care of. And, the talent they have are something that they will develop in the future as they make more albums. If it weren't for the expericed recording engineer, they wouldn't sound good. If it weren't for the all the other people involved the music would go nowhere.

After you've established yourself as an artist, then anywhere you tour people will come to see you. Good producers and musicians will want to work with you. Anything you put out will get a listen from the critics and lead to sales. After you're an artist that sold quater of a million CDs, you're set man. That $4000 fee is small but it brings so many non-monetary benefits.

The first 1-2 albums are like that low paying internship. After that you can tour, record and make decent money.

You know that it isn't the producer's first CD he's made, or the manager's first band he's handled. At the same time, there is a young engineer probably fetching coffee for the master engineer and getting paid $8/hour or a management intern who has to fill in all the spreadsheet.

But, when things gets into multi-platinum and arena tours, then you know that Nirvana, U2 etc etc aren't exactly getting just $4,000/CD.
 
2004-12-28 10:07:49 AM  
What the mullet-headed execs don't realize is that P2P is basically free promotion.

Advertising and promotion are the number one money drainers on any sort of sales enterprise. With P2P, they're doing all that for you, or at least a significant amoutn.

Hence, the artists who don't have access to mega-corporate promtion budgets can see a hefty return on nothing, whilst the monolithic labels with their saturation campaigns and high-priced ad executives are left footing the bill for services that are becomming less relavent as folks just figure out what they like and zero in on it.

In other words, it's providing more choice, making the market harder to predict, and destroying the label's ability to engineer safe money hits.

What they don't realize is that by embracing this approach, they could reap the benefits of that lowered promotional cost.
 
2004-12-28 10:32:30 AM  
squishydrew

They make very little from album sales... almost .02 cents per dollar of the album. Most money a musician makes is from live performances and merchandise.

I think that's a myth for most bands. (and bands get more than .02 cents, it's more like $1.25 or so). Live performances and touring are both extremely costly and are intended to promote the band so more CDs can be sold, not to make money.
 
2004-12-28 11:46:11 AM  
Well, no duh. The vast majority of bands and artists aren't against P2P.

All major labels and some of the perhaps the 100 or so richest artists are against P2P. That's an entirely different thing.
 
2004-12-28 11:50:55 AM  
DarwinEffect: What the mullet-headed execs don't realize is that P2P is basically free promotion

No, they understand that very well. That's why they're against P2P. It has nothing to do with lost album sale revenue. That's just a red herring they throw out.

Record company execs make their money because 'til now they're the only way for bands to buy promotion. As long as the only way to get yourself heard is by signing a wildly unfair contract with a record label, bands are going to keep signing wildly unfair contracts with record labels. When that ends, the record labels are going to discover that the product they sell -- promotion to bands -- is no longer valuable, and they're going to have to start selling *music*.
 
2004-12-28 12:58:32 PM  
pshaw:

I'm listening to a band called The Shins. Go buy their album!

The movie 'Garden State' called. It wants their plug back.
 
2004-12-28 02:21:17 PM  
I will never buy another CD again.

The RIAA was sued for overpricing albums, specifically CDs. There was an online petition that garnered over 20,000 signatures (last that I know of - it could have been much more). The RIAA was supposed to send a check to everyone who signed the petition, but never did, b/c they said that the costs of the checks alone would be more than the total amount sent to each person. They were eventually let off the hook.

So the RIAA doesn't want to pay up, b/c it will cost a lot of money - but they sure don't mind suing 12 year-olds for 2 grand a pop. And somehow, they don't think 2 grand is a lot of money for 12 year-olds or their families. Hypocrites.

On top of that, live event ticket sales are much higher than they've ever been, in an effort for the bands to retain some sort of profit lost by P2P. But now that the RIAA is suing like crazy and many P2P sites have been shut down, have ticket prices gone down? No. So now instead of CDs costing $18 and tickets costing $25, CDs now cost $10 and tickets usually cost more than $50.

And lastly, Wal-mart recently asked some record companies to lower the cost of CDs so Wal-mart wouldn't lose money on them anymore (b/c Wal-mart sells music for less than the invoice price in an effort to get people in the store). In their defense, some record companies listed the breakdown of where every cent of the proceeds go. More than $3.50 of every CD goes back to the record companies (and other expenses, such as advertising, packaging, etc, are external to that cost). Only a couple of cents went to the artists. The record companies are making 175x what the artists make.
 
2004-12-28 02:51:40 PM  
pshaw:

$340,000 of total profit for the sale and production of one platnium album. If $340,000 is "very little" for you, then I'm a starving artist. Can you feed me?

You haven't paid back any of the money you owe the record company yet...

Google "til Tuesday" for a reality check.
 
2004-12-28 03:02:05 PM  
rush22:

I think that's a myth for most bands. (and bands get more than .02 cents, it's more like $1.25 or so). Live performances and touring are both extremely costly and are intended to promote the band so more CDs can be sold, not to make money.

Umm, no. CD's pay off the label, tours ensure the band gets to eat (merch sales.)
 
2004-12-28 04:11:04 PM  
People are forgetting some of these "poor" artists are selling albums in 8 or 9 countries, if they go platinum in maybe 4 of those the $340,000 from one country pays all the bills and then they get $1,020,000 just to spend, then merchandising and tours
 
2004-12-28 05:11:12 PM  
vodkaman:

People are forgetting some of these "poor" artists are selling albums in 8 or 9 countries, if they go platinum in maybe 4 of those the $340,000 from one country pays all the bills and then they get $1,020,000 just to spend, then merchandising and tours

When was the last time you paid for studio time or mastering work, or priced cartage and lodging for a typical four piece band with a typical two to three touring techs/roadies?
 
2004-12-29 01:21:44 AM  
Well... I'm sure we can all agree that WHATEVER Jessica Simpson is earning, it's TOO FARKING MUCH!!!
 
2004-12-29 02:15:21 AM  
TOG88:

/been there, done that as a $1500/wk sound tech
//and as a performing artist. The techs made more than we did.



Amen, bro. I was in a band on Sire back in the late 90's and our F.O.H. guy banked better than I did every week.
 
Displayed 41 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report