Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Maybe he only sells between 10,000 and 100,000 records because, y'know, that's how good he is and how many people like him?
I can do that with 3p to my name
ok, low-mid-level acts who could sustain a living out of selling records cant anymore. We get it. Anyone who decides to "retire" and stop making music because of that probably wasn't in it for the right reasons anyway. This whole bullshit idea that because something kinda worked for some of these artists for 50-odd years it is now the end of time because that business model failed is just tired. There was plenty of good and great bands who didn't get signed to Touch and Go or Rough Trade or Subpop or whatever and never made any money, had to keep full time jobs to fund their music. People have been making music regardless of this for thousands of years, do something new if you want to make money or stop moaning, things change.
It's the same old argument.
didn't mean to sound dismissive
is that it relies on this notion that releasing records and touring the nation is the be-all and end-all of being in a band or making music. If that isn’t financially viable then you can still get together with your buddies and play, or gig at friends’ parties, or jam out in your front room. Just because someone isn’t distributing records for your convenience it doesn’t mean that they’ve abandoned “the code of the musician” or are sell outs or phonies. Maybe they were just happy doing it for themself
he doesn't even mention it himself
being fairly open and accepting about his future as an ageing musician. How did this end up anything to do with illegal downloads?
If so many people (not me, mind) rip off everybody's s--- then there's no such thing as selling out.
I think it makes total sense not to want one of your songs used on an advert / a tv show / a movie. Songs aren't JUST a commodity once they're written.
Selling out isn't monetising your output, it's completely disregarding your moral outlook cos it gets in the way of earning more money.
I'll take out a line of credit before I would do such a thing. I've borrowed albums for a few listens and given them back. Other than it's straight dosh all day every day.
What strikes me as kind of interesting is that he doesn't invoke the spectre of digital, or the past of relative plenty, but just talks frankly about being a musician as it is - reliant on youth, short-term and insolvent. It may be reality, but it certainly takes some gutsy maturity when your future as a working musician is crumbling like so much crispy dogshit.
The clear solution is that older musicians shouldn't have to tour, we should all go round to their house. A sort of "meals on wheels" deal for popmusicians. Then they can have their declining days free to work in call-centres and supermarkets, as the market dictates they should.
and actually pay for a download (well, 4 tracks actually) and I am now out of pocket without any mp3's. never again.....
i always thought blast first (petite) were a decent label, now i know they are bunch of cunts. ignoring my emails. i shan't even bother buying any of their vinyl in future.
is a really great guy, fantastic records and the few times i've seen him live have been some of my favourite gigs for ages, but having just read his 'reply' and picked up on this line - 'and we keep our CD, LP, and t-shirt prices at $10.00 a piece.' - i thought, i'd see about picking up a T-shirt or something, so i clicked on the link on HIS website, which led me to here - http://tedleo.cinderblock.com/ - i dont see anything on there for $10 (although i do quite like that green logo shirt)
nothing to add really, as you were
...and if the money ain't good enough, get a proper job like the rest of us and stop complaining, Ted, and fuck off!
...apart from the first Dead Weather single.
I'm all up for free or illegal downloads. I buy a lot of records and if I had more money I'd buy more, but I don't so if I can get it for free why not!
The problem is not illegal downloads, but the fact records are often way overpriced, and more often than not are quite simply shit, so no wonder people aren't buying - shittyness is killing the music industry, not illegal downloads!
nah. tenner for an album, euro a track? nah.
you should just be able to have their music for free?
Your attitude kind of holds water where the major labels peddling shit is concerned. But if you think labels such as Sub Pop, and it's artists, should not expect you to pay for the music they create. Then you are a complete and utter cunt.
I've often thought that a lot of companies would benefit from putting their entire catalogue online for free download at a low (very lossy - 64k) bitrate. They could make file-sharing their stuff pretty much pointless. This is pretty much what Spotify is anyway, but the company themselves could benefit in all sorts of ways from the increased traffic to their site.
You could then LEGALLY check anything you might wanna buy before spending the money on a decent quality proper download. And if they made the download a fair price - £4 at the very most - many more people would go the legal route.
Any situation that means that SO MANY people are breaking the law (or being "complete and utter cunts") is clearly flawed and unsustainable let alone being unprofitable, so it needs a creative solution. Maybe not this one but SOMETHING, SURELY???
most people won't care if the album is low quality, most people who download music illegally don't think twice about that kind of thing and making the music even lower quality won't phase them. If it's such low quality that it's full of artifacts and almost unlistenable then people aren't going to even want to bother and if it's not crummy sounding enough to pick out for most then it's going to be good enough to keep. Streaming entire albums is probably a better solution but then that won't stop illegal downloads either.
that they're doing it anyway. There's no way to stop it. So lets think of a possible way that millions of kids don't have to be doing something illegal, plus direct some of them towards ways the labels could still squeeze some money outta them somehow.
I don't really care about it from a label survival sense, I just think that any situation when very very large numbers of people are criminalised is clearly not going to work.
Streaming entire albums means that people will mostly end up listening while sat in front of a computer screen, which I personally find a pretty lame way of listening to music, but it's probably the way more stuff will go - make the leaks pointless and get people to engage with the band's/label's website where they can be discretely led to other stuff they might like, shown adverts and shit, whatever.
bandcamp dude. http://harmlessnoise.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/this-summer-at-bandcamp/
Bandcamp's one of em and it's something that my band uses, but my post was about LABELS doing this shit with established artists and existing recordings. To be totally honest I don't really care if they survive or not but anyway...
This is a good quote from the article you linked to "Going on our own experiences as music fans, we felt that people would appreciate the chance to get to know the album in advance of its release. We reckoned that these days people don’t just buy CDs on a whim, they have to have a good reason to buy"
but to those that are interpreting it that way, I don't think it's right to say well since people like him are retiring due to low record sales we should just give in to the crummy options from record companies.
it's simple. if you can afford it, pay for the music. there's a tendency to dress it up as some kind of rebellion, which is the thing that really pisses me off. i'm perfectly fine with people downloading on the sly if they're skint and can't afford it. but this 'oh it's the record companies fault for charging so much'..no, shut up.
+ legal downloads ARE too expensive.
"And as far as the industry goes... well, the genie’s out of the bottle, they’re not going to put that back. Our record leaked two days ago, and there’s not much that we can do about that. What’s going to end up happening is that the day is going to come, and relatively soon, that making albums just isn’t viable. We maybe have one more album that we’ll make in a traditional sense, and after that we won’t be able to make any money on it. If you can’t make any money on it there’ll be no one willing to give you the money to make one, even a small advance for a recording. Those days will be over. Nobody seems to understand that; I understand it, and I’m not worried about it. That means that we go into a more boutique type of experience with our music where we concentrate on packaging, cool things that you can put in your hands, and become more artistic along those lines, we’ll continue to play live, it won’t hurt us any. We’ll just have to think outside of the box."
about the impact of downloading. Artists have to "think outside the box" with packaging, touring and promotion. Look at Liars viewfinder album cover or Radiohead's In Rainbows model or the boom in lofi bedroom artists. Adversity breeds creativity.