100% agreed. While technically illegal, watching a profitable multi-million dollar industry go after kids and students in court was an amazing display of greed and stupidity. They shot themselves in the foot with an entire generation. I used to download songs, and if I liked them, purchase the CD. On average, I probably bought 2-3 CDs per week. When Napster was taken down by the recording industry, I essentially quit buying CDs. I thought the South Park take on the issue was brilliant, Lars Ulrich complaining about having to buy a smaller pool for his mansion.:D

One thing about the internet, anybody can get exposure. Just look at how YouTube has made overnight celebrities out of people with absolutely no talent. If nothing else, this should make it easier for good bands to get "out there". It seems that breaking into the recording industry is the hardest part of making it, now that obstacle has been removed. With a generation of internet savvy consumers, I can see this becoming the new direction of music.

Furthermore, the musician can still profit. Does anyone know how much the artist makes off of a $15 CD sale? I can't see it being much after everyone else takes their piece of the pie. Selling directly, musicians can sell their music for less money, but still make a better profit. It's win-win, unless you're a music company exec.

So because you dislike ASCAP, BMI or RIAA, that means their copyrights are optional? And illegal downloading is ok? I played in cover bands throught high school and college and made money doing it in college, even got sponsored and paid by Anheuser Busch playing covers. Never heard a peep about copyright infringement from any club owners or A&R reps. Well, there was one gig at a place that billed itself as all original music and they made a comment when we did all of side 1 from Rush's 2112 as an encore. But I slept ok that night. And IIRC, every band that records a cover has to cite the original artist on the album jacket. I don't know if they share royalties or whatever. Old Van Halen sure did a lot of covers on their albums and played them live. Rush did an entire CD a few years of all covers. I'm sure they all have lawyers for that stuff.

How do they make money if people steal their music with illegal downloads? Record co. or not, there's still no money being paid for the songs. Is $.99 a song really too much?

Rick, I saw it as a victimless crime. If I liked the music, I bought a CD. Now, I don't download or buy CDs. Do you speed? Jaywalk? Park in no-parking zone? There's a lot of little stuff that we all do that is against the law, it's all a matter of the impact that it has on others.

Your argument doesn't really hold much water, the recording industry was still doing well in the Napster days. Companies like iTunes have shown that people will happily pay a small fee for downloaded music. Apply this same business model to individual bands, and there's every reason to believe that people will pay money for music they like, purchased from the bands themselves.

Couldn't have said it better...

Well, then my argument does hold water, because you say people are willing to pay $.99 for iTunes. If they're not willing, then it's stealing and it's not a victimless crime. You may hate the victims, but they are the ones who bankrolled the production of the music you illegally download. Speeding or jaywalking truly are victimless crimes. I've never hurt anyone by doing both on a regular basis. But I've never downloaded a song I didn't first pay for either. Sure the recording industry wasn't hurting in the days of Napster. But that was around eight years ago and the effects have definitely filtered into the industry's bottom line now, which is why the RIAA is suing people. They didn't do it back then because they hadn't started feeling the pinch.

I have plenty of friends who've recorded and pressed their own cd's. That studio time can easily run $500 an hour and then you have a few thousand cd's to press and pay for. I'd much rather sell cd's at my gigs that people can get autographed and then throw right into their car's cd player on the way home than announce my band's website and ask folks to download songs. And if they don't pay for the songs, how do you even begin to recoop your production costs, let alone make any money?

Despite your "experience", I know of what I speak. I said nothing about illegal downloading being OK, please reread my post. If you played in a "cover band" that performed in restaraunts, clubs, etc. (i.e. public venues), then either the club owner was paying BMI and ASCAP, or he was in violation of copyright laws. Just because you never heard a peep doesn't mean squat...

I hope not. Not to bemoan the fate of record companies, but the kiddies down loading one song.....can you imagine not having the experience of Dark Side, or Close to Edge, or Grace, or Blood on the Tracks, or OK Computer or the White Album or Sgt Peppers...music and recordnig is more than Beyonce, I hope.

Or probably Im just old.

The new Radiohead is actually quite good. Stand out tracks are the first one, House of Cards and All I Need. Although I'm sure they have been listening to Boards Of Canada. A few of the tracks sound just like them.

I hate the fact that when I have my sons birthday party at Chucky Cheese, we can't sing "Happy Birthday", we have to sing some stupid "Chucky Cheese Birthday Dance N Clap Song" because the real song was copywrited eons ago. The song that everyone grew up with and sings in their homes cant be sung in restaurants because they dont wanna "pay for use". Thats horse****!

In the "old" (recording contract) model? They (the record company) will usually let you pay back your "contract" loan at about $1 per copy sold. And, about the time you break even, they'll find more expenses for you. My band has sold almost 2 million copies of it's first Warner Brothers release, and never seen dollar 1 from actual sales of the record.
I agree that selling a product (record) that you own IS better, but it's all about volume. Think of M&K versus Magnaflow.

You have to contact the publisher of the song and pay a set fee, which I think now is somewhere around 9 cents per song, per copy. If you record your own version of YYZ and sell 1 million copies, you'll owe Rush's publishing company about 90 thousand dollars.

Rick, the record companies started suing people years ago. They took down Napster, and started suing hardcore users. That was before they even felt a significant pinch. My actions at the time were not having any impact on the industry, as I purchased CDs from the artist's whose downloaded music I liked. To me, downloading was an easy way to make mix CDs, and preview new artists. I no longer download music, nor do I purchase CDs. I've pretty much lost interest in the industry as a whole.

Illegal downloading is a moot point these days, there's really not a good site out there. However, bands allowing fans to download their music for free/cheap is a good way to build their popularity. You make a valid point when it comes to studio time, but bands had to pay to make a demo in the past to submit to record companies. Now they can record their music, then distribute it for free online. CDs do still have their place, but their relevance is fading fast. My wife's younger siblings get all of their music from iTunes, they no longer mess with CDs. It's the way of the future.

Exactly.
I'm an independent artist, and for every song I sell on iTunes, I personally get around 65¢. That adds up QUICK! I get as much return from iTunes as I do from selling actual CDs after you include distro and shipping and all that.

iTunes is a god-send for the independent music industry, no matter how many people complain about Steve Jobs and/or Apple.

The other god-send is CDBaby.com. Amazing company for independent artists.

I do not buy CD's in Stores as I said before. I buy at concerts or when I encounter bands performing in street festivals etc...

We just picked up a coupe of CD's from these guys when they were performing in Bush Gardens.
http://www.basicrockoutfit.com/

I saw Jeremy and gang (sooooo looking forward to you coming through again) and picked up a CD there as well.
http://www.bigheadtodd.com/

A couple of years ago in Palm Springs we saw a band performing on the street. The artist was called Benise. They were quite good live and I ended up with a couple of CD's and a DVD from them purchased at the street festival.
http://www.benise.com/

I still buy CD's just not in record stores anymore, I prefer to go and get it directly from the artist.

You're kidding right? There's more volume now, and higher quality, then when Napster was at its height.

I just read something about how Limewire was being taken down, and that there were no good alternatives. Lots of sites, but not anywhere near the song selection as Napster had in it's heyday. Also issues with spyware and viruses.

It's not my thing anymore, so I can't personally comment.

More News: "Madonna Dumps Record Industry"

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/10/and-the-walls-came-tumbling-down-madonna-dumps-record-industry/

Excerpt:
Since reporting Monday that Nine Inch Nails had dumped its record label and was to offer future albums direct to the public, Oasis and Jamiroquai have also joined the move away from the record industry, but the biggest announcement of all is news today that Madonna has dumped the record industry.

According to reports, Madonna has signed a $120million deal with L.A. based concert promotion firm Live Nation to distribute three studio albums, promote concert tours, sell merchandise and license Madonna’s name.

Whilst the deal differs from Nine Inch Nails in that Madonna is not offering direct-to-public albums, Live Nation isn’t a record company. The deal shows that even for a world famous act, a record company is no longer required in the days of digital downloads and P2P music sharing.

This is getting really good. :D

Best,

Kurt

Thanks for chiming in...I was hoping you'd see this thread!

Good for Her. It will definitely spark a whole new series of debates. Is the transfer of money from one department of a huge corporation to another considered 'payola'? Since the promoter-cum-record label also owns the radio stations on which they will play everyone's favorite new Madonna songs every 15 minutes?

I thought she had her own label... Maverick? She dumped herself?

I think the point is that she is dumping the "industry" - the fast becoming "old" model.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

It's no longer required especially for a world famous act.

Exactly my point with the comment on the ADD generation... so many tracks on those and many more albums I would have never heard and loved had I just picked out the hits off those albums.

Can you imagine someone going to Beethoven and asking him to cut out part of one of his symphonies?

I should sue them all...we gave away our album online in '04. AND made remix tracks available for free

http://www.simpleflower.com/sounds.php

http://www.simpleflower.com/remix.php

I agree, now Madonna as powerful as she still is, is able to sign with the Live Nation (or whatever they are called) to promote her records...but I still do not see how they will handle DISTRIBUTION of the CDs, (85% of CDs are still bought in stores believe it or not).

KC911 -- Led Zeppelin Credited Willie Dixon for "You Shook Me" and I believe he ended up getting royalties for it.

WhippedPuppy -- Downloading music for "free" (aka stealing) for most people means never having to pay for it. You are in the exception if you really do buy the CDs of bands who's music that you liked after you downloaded it.

Most artists have MySpace or some other form where you can preview the music, often the entire song before you purchase it..... so would that eliminate the need for folks such as yourself who download first before buying? heck now you could just go to their MySpace and listen to some cuts before you buy... Note, im not being critical here...just saying.

Most artists who are established get about $1 out of a CD store sale. But note that it comes out of the wholesale price to the store...which is more like about $11.99... and then you have other considerations cause it is usually 90% or even as low as 80% of the retail -minus- packaging costs -minus- "breakage" -minus- returns -minus- recoupable recording costs and other associated costs... so there is your $1 for the best of artists, and actually lower than that for the less established artists.

Now, there we are talking about Mechanical Royalties, there are other forms of royalties which include publishing, statutory and synchronization rights etc.

Obviously the traditional Record Company does its best to keep as much money as possible and pay the artist as little as possible.

I do not think the RIAA will die, it will just need complete restructuring to survive.

How do you get yourslf into iTunes without label help? Is this something anyone can do? How much do you have to front?

And who gets the royalties for all the millions of cd's of Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, etc.? Their families? Estates? How does that work? I always wondered who got royatlies on Bibles or Mein Kampf too.

Ifot, checked out your music, very nice stuff. The concept of the film and music together is great.

Works registered before 1/1/1923 - Copyright protection for 75 years has expired and these works are in the public domain.

See Public Domain Music

With this movement to downloading, doesn't it bother anyone that the quality of the recordings you are d'loading and/or buying sucks? Compression is compression is compression & whether mp3 or aac or whatever, it ain't as good as the original recording. And yes, you can tell.

Ian

It would only bother me if the recording was something worth listening to in the first place. Most of the over-produced noise coming out now isn't worth a discriminating ear.

Thanks much!


I get digital distro through CDBaby.com. So I'm actually available just about anywhere in the world music is sold on the internet. For each album on CDBaby, they charge you I think $35. That includes CD sales and shipping and distro to digital outlets. Of course, that doesn't mean you'll automatically be on iTunes. They have some sort of approval process. But past the first album from an artist, it happens much faster.

All compression is not created equal :). You are indeed correct regarding MP3, etc. but serious audiophiles avoid these like the plague. "Lossless compression" is indeed indentical to the original when decompressed. FLAC, SHN, etc. are "lossless" and the only compressed formats that I use. MP3 is fine for ipods, etc. imo.

That's what I was getting at with my earlier post. Somebody was mentioning the initial recording process too, which I'd love to learn more about, but definitely not all digital music is the same.

Madonna was at Warner Brothers, and still owes them one record according to this from Variety. Of course, WB says this is no big deal while it's stock has lost 2/3 of its value in the past year:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117973901.html?categoryid=18&cs=1


A Madonna exit won't trouble WB
Studio issues statement regarding departure
By PHIL GALLO

Madonna

The day after news leaked that Madonna was close to leaving Warner Bros. Records and hitting the road with concert promoter Live Nation, Warner Music was quick to issue a report from a Bank of America subsidiary explaining why the former material girl is no longer worth a nine-digit payday.
Knowing that Warner will still receive a Madonna disc next year, Banc of America Securities analysts wrote a report titled "For $120 Million, She's All Yours." Here are some of the highlights:

There is "headline risk associated with a Madonna defection. However, the bigger risk would be to overpay for an artist that does not seem to be generating the revenue to support the contract being discussed."
Beside the fact that Madonna will turn 60 years old in the last year of the proposed deal, it is "fantastic" for her but does not "make economic sense" for WMG.
"Her loss will not meaningfully impact Warner's near-term sales."
Banc of America has a "buy" rating on Warner Music Group stock, which closed down 16¢ on Thursday at $11.13. BofA figures WMG will rise to $16 based on its strength in the digital delivery department. Over the past 12 months, WMG's stock has dropped from $27.24 to a low of $9.41 last month.

Wednesday's news did not do much for Live Nation as its stock price dropped 87¢ to $22.49.

Digital encoding compression is one thing.... but one of the other major reasons why music today 'sounds like crap' is the overuse of audio compression that is used during the tracking, mixing and mastering process of both the individual instruments and the entire mix. This is to "get everything to sound loud" but in many cases sqashes the life and dynamics out of a song. Compression IS important to the recording, mixing and mastering process...but the overdone compression which has really become prevalent from the early 90s on to today is one of the major reasons why the music can sound bad.

Regarding digital compression loss during encoding...yeah it may be there but
not as big of a deal to me personally...as I grew up listening to scratch records and hissy cassette tapes. To my ears the major concern is the music, how it is recorded, mixed and mastered...

What about an artist links network?

The way it would work:
Each artist has a homepage with previews, direct downloadable music (choice of several brokers), with a standardized itemized list of:
1)Favorite bands in each music catagory, with multiple tags for some.
2)Favorite recent upcoming bands seen in concert, etc..
3)Other favorite other media-books, movies.

The user/consumer could just follow direct links from their favorite artist sites to find references to new bands.
--------------Or---------------------
From a direct search site(or three) the user could enter their favorite bands and tag words to find music.
For example, [Favorite=NIN and Favorite=Madonna], [Find=rockabilly, best recent concert]).
A set of algorythims would search outwards from a [5 link layer] for any common band references, each additiional layer, of course, being exponential.
[Results in order of numerical occurences=Line Dancing Fools[Link, from Link], Buck Tooth Morons[Link, from Link], Wailing Violas[Link, from Link].

This way artists can get paid directly, help supprt other unknown artists they like, and the user/consumer can find bands they never would have discovered on their own, and not be force-fed the latest fad by the RIAA.

Here is just one example of a site that bands use for live show downloads while generating an income stream for the bands. Most of these sites are a smaller "grassroots" type of effort, but there are lots of them out there "under the mainstream radar" and it's the future imo. The "bigger" artists will go it alone as they have already begun to do. It's a good thing... for artistic freedom imo.

edited: ps: forgot the link: digitalsoundboard.net

Record companies with their distribution networks have been sucking artists dry and commercializing their art. The new developments are good ones. Artists can now access markets much more easily and directly. The Man is going to get a big raspberry from the artists.

The Man has focused on revenues. That's not the same as artists' goals. Artists are more focused on distributing their expression to the widest audience. Not the same goal as the record companies.

As I say, these new developments are positive. Very much so.