Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
nice idea but will it stop you firing up p2p or using mp3 blogs?
it's an increasingly grey area, as it is now considered promotion, however the bloggers don't really have the right to give music away for free. technically they should only be blogging links to tracks on label websites but obviously that doesn't happen, especially with all the blogs run by the pirate bay which uploaded entire albums (although hype machine has rules and doesn't include those sort of blogs)
A lot of PR emails will give a link to a single track, and often give permission to rehost it for a blog. However, as with a lot of the claims made when Google ended a few blogs a couple of months back, there's no easy way for the hosting service (especially if it's Blogger, Google-related and all that) to know whether what a blog is doing is legal - short of contacting the record company or PR company themselves, which with hundreds of blogs just ain't gonna happen.
Legal mp3 blogs/daily mp3s from sites like FACT or XLR8R are great though, and really do give a lot of exposure to great new stuff.
we've given away tracks and the US label has pressed legal action and vice-versa. or we were given a shearwater track a few weeks back, which was also being given away on the 4ad site but because we uploaded it to soundcloud for people to stream, as well as download, we got in a whole heap of hot water, which is kinda crazy (and was incredibly time-consuming).
at one point we had the prs asking us to pay royalties for youtubes we have embedded in the site. and we can't do a podcast, even if it's made up of tracks available for free online, without paying about £15k per show?!
the rules prevent people legally being able to be passionate but at the same time, heaps of people downloaded the youthmovies and jeniferever albums for free, and very few people, comparatively, bought them, so i can certainly see it from both sides of the fence.
i still think charging an internet tax or metering bandwidth/data usage as if it was water, allowing us to download and share as much as we want, whilst monitoring what we consume (even if it's some kinda last.fm scrobbling) either legally or illegally, is the only real way things can progress. either that or you have to block all but the legal outlets, which is unpopular for various reasons but far better than trying to sell something when an audience knows they can get it for free elsewhere.
I don't think monitoring what we consume would be a step in the right direction...I guess an internet tax like you suggest is essentially a way of recouping some of the 'lost' revenue from illegal downloading and whatnot, and an acknowledgement of this, really.
google is already monitoring most of what we do anyway to bring up relevant adverts, etc. it'd make so much more sense, especially for micro-payments, if it was just taxing tiny bits of a penny for what you access, which would obviously help publishers like dis. not that i think this idea has enough legs, it just seems the most logical.
oh and I meant PRS, as in the performing rights society, rather than press officers :)
Well, still fairly ridiculous.
there are a lot of problems with their approach. They're confabulating 'enjoying music' and supporting the current industry model.
They've also got their bit about streaming and downloading wrong. The current model doesn't allow you to 'purchase' anything; when you download a song file, that doesn't mean that the song is yours. You've obtained a recording of it that does not infringe copyright is all. In a sort space of time, there's going to be very little difference between mobile streaming and downloaded material in practical terms, and all of these arguments are going to be turned on their head again.
The two things completely don't add up! Blind Willie Johnson was poor, and made incredible music! If anything this is encouraging people to download illegally! Unless it's saying we don't want people to have their houses burn down and die of pneumonia, but there's probably little chance of that happening to most people nowadays.
...was probably drawn in by the aura of Cronin.
that most great painters and poets died penniless, and later their works became multi-million quid properties of an elite.
i still think the music 'industry' should be a philanthropic pursuit, rather than a business at the axis between art and commerce. obviously there is an art to commerce and some music is pure 'product' rather than an outpouring of passion and imagination, yet it's all treated the same. i'd happily pay £30+ per track for an mp3 of some of my favourite songs and (if i had the money) pay thousands to see some of the bands i love in venues i like or amenable contexts, rather than, i dunno, watching radiohead at reading behind some 7' guy, whilst some beered up lads shout the lyrics to idioteque in my ear.
i think this campaign is coming from the right place, a very similar place to the campaign to save 6music in fact but i'm not quite sure it will work, in much the same way i see people turn over the images on fag packets.
Painting as always been an industry with succesful artists becoming really rich...
Although it does depend on what you mean by 'great' and how it's defined now. None of the classical masters were poor - they depended on wealthy patronage to keep their studios running. It was only in (comparitively) recent times that the idea of a solo artist has really come about, and even then they needed patrons - if you didn't, then you did something else for a living or were an aristocratic dillitante.
That said, the artists that made the most money were not necessarily the greatest ones of their time. or those that we regard as great now. Like in music, there were hack artists that churned out shit for clueless and vain patrons.
even if "churned out shit" might be a bit excessive...
Just go to any country house and look at the portraits on the wall of the owners, their families or their pets. They're on a level with Jack Vettriano and Sue Howells.
why do people still cringe when they hear a song of their fav artist in a commercial or commercial film or series or whatever? For painters in those days those requests earned them the money to create the things they wanted to make, and of which they weren't sure were going to make any money. So by selling old songs or create new songs on request artists get paid and so can create the things they want, which then can be consumed by fans.
Also, in terms of artists who were poor most of their lives, Van Gogh is a correct answer, isn't it? Admittedly I haven't read any biographies or anything, but popular myth states he did I believe.
Please do. But only artists who never got anything, not the numerous ones who died broke after losing their fortune...
"Le Salon" has been replaced a long time ago by le salon des artistes francais, which still exist, as well as le salon des indépendants, le salon d'automne and many others...
thing has led to the emergence of a very strange culture. You have labels looking for music that can be monetised, labels and pundits who ripen genres for making money, bands who want to make the sort of music that labels can monetise, bands who don't care about money but still become successful anyway, bands who don't care about money and sink without a trace.
So you have commerce picking and choosing from art, but also art shaping itself to appeal to commerce. You can't help but wonder what would happen if the bottom fell out of all those industry/music careers. Perhaps:
Less incentives for moderately successful bands to stick together over time (ie. those who previously would have broken into commerce) -> fewer album artists?
Better pop music? People would still want pop stars and culture, but the popularity of the songs would have to come first.
Worse pop music? Over-reliance on X-Factor winners?
Relating to the last one, promotion would still happen, but via different channels. You'd still have people promoting artists and manipulating their popularity, but these wouldn't be the people who are in the music industry now. They'd be youtube and google.
Music will always make money even if it isn't sold much anymore, because of gigs, adverts, uses in movies or TV shows...
How artists will rise to fame and get that sort of money, is the problem. Having the right team of people working "for" you, still seems to be the best way, at the moment, perhaps even more than before.
And how will the others survive...
you'd get people who knew how to play the content provision systems in the right way, and the services of the people would be in high demand by artists who wanted to become popular.. on the other hand, you'd ideally want those content provision systems to be set up to enhance word-of-mouth or grassroots popularity; filtering popularity lists by user demographics, perhaps? I dunno.
a track 'going viral' is publicity most PR's don't have the skill to achieve and/or money to buy - if it's a stream or an embed from the acts' bandcamp site or whatever, who would be so short-sighted as to call foul and try to squeeze a blogger for cash?
to me streaming (not offering for download) a track online is basically the evolution of sitting in your bedroom, handing your friend your headphones and saying 'wow, you gotta hear this'. as a musician, i'd be incredibly happy to see it happening with tracks i'd recorded. it's done in a completely different spirit to torrenting entire albums.
can't help but feel sometimes that there are a few too money men and freeloaders banging their fists on the table while the musicians still have to grind out and work months and months of day jobs to finance short tours/recordings, regardless of who wins the argument.
ironic. like 'appreciating' a 'legendary artist' years after we let him just 'die in his own shit'. willie johnson should've gone into sub-prime lending and taken shares in a repossession firm, he'd be king of the fucking castle in our culture by now.
In terms of enjoying the same piece of music, over and over again, wherever you are, it's little different to owning a downloaded version.
and paying for the data again and again (and be in an area with decent signal) so it's significantly more expensive and inconvenient though
you are breaking the law letting your friend listen to your headphones. not that anyone would prosecute you for it but it's technically broadcasting copyrighted material, without a licence (not that such a licence exists for the loaning of headphones to hear your music collection). to play a radio in a shop you have to pay for a PRS licence, for instance. hospital radio requires a licence. etc, etc.
theoretically, if you could pay £50 a year to run an mp3 blog and post whatever you wanted to, would more or less people be blogging? currently, if you worked out the royalty rates bloggers should be paying for each download (at least 1.5p mechanical royalty and 1.5p performance royalty, per download) it'd add up to a huge amount across the course of a year but obviously wouldn't really replace the revenues acts once earned... this was kinda the idea behind RCRD LBL (they worked out what Gnarls Barkley would have earnt if a percent of people who downloaded 'Crazy' for free had done so with an advert on the page) but no acts really got rich off of it and few bloggers or artists want to embed the RCRD LBL widgets, as they kinda have drm on them, etc... same kinda goes for Vevo, most people using that are watching Lady Gaga vids. And OkGo aren't getting super-rich from Youtube royalties. blahblahblah... i shan't go on...
I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT!!!!!!!!!!!!1
so if i'm listening to a record at home and my friends knocks the door I should turn it off?
That's a serious question, I have no idea. If they mix two tracks together, does it become 'original material'?
but it's quite complex http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/Clubs/Pages/clubs.aspx
the venue has to have the licence. when bands play live they're meant to provide a setlist, not sure djs in superclubs have to do the same thing
and DJing comes under that.
I doubt any of the acctual artists whos music is being played on the night see any of it though. I mean you don't see DJs handing in a tracklist at the end of their sets so the cash can go to them. I think its just a licence so that raves don't happen.
Music is not at risk. It never has been. As highlighted by their hilariously inappropriate Willie Johnson animation, music - great music - has existed before billion-dollar record companies and will continue to do so long after they're gone.
Seems to me it's label profits that are at risk. And I don't give a fuck about that.