|
Unsung Forum » Unsticking it to The Man |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
IanB 5464 posts |
Edited Jun 22, 2012, 06:37
Jun 22, 2012, 06:34
|
||
|
Five wrote: I definitely see iTunes/Spotify as symptomatic of the larger problem, more than I worry about bloggers. my 5 cents ... My 5 cents of experience is that iTunes is a very equitable way for musicians to sell music if the chain is short enough that they are collecting at-source or one step remove from the source. If there is a label in between then they may well be getting ****** over. Fact is that there is more money for a label in net terms when selling an album on iTunes for £7.49 than there is in selling a physical album in HMV for £10. Fact. Spotify has turned out to be a bad joke on musicians. It is a fantastic concept with one major problem - it is simply legitimised "free" for the benefit of major labels and there is no trickle down to the artists that makes a difference to anybody. If they had started with an EMusic style all you can eat for fixed $$$ model then there might be something to talk about but once they made free the entry level price there is almost no going back. Once free is the price point you are going to struggle to get people to pay as much as $1 for the same service even if it is enhanced. I have given these numbers out before but a client's account figured out (and I have checked the numbers) that their new album would have to be listened to 1500 times in its entirety on Spotify before the band made the same money from one sale on iTunes (about £4.50). If you are Universal and you have hundreds of thousands of copyrights then that is a big cheque coming in that they weren't getting from Napster. For artists the transition from Napster to Spotify is like going from slavery to the subsistence of feudalism. An improvement but not so as you would notice when it comes to life's essentials. Also when industry commentators say "people will upgrade their Spotify accounts and pay for better audio quality" then they haven't experienced the no-bass / low-res devices on which a lot of people are happily listening to their music these days. It's simply not true.
|
|||
stray 1822 posts |
Jun 22, 2012, 06:42
|
||
|
IanB wrote: For artists the transition from Napster to Spotify is like going from slavery to the subsistence of feudalism. I wouldn't be that charitable, its not even subsistence level. At least in feudalism landowners appreciated that it was a good idea that the peasants who worked their land had enough to eat.
|
|||
|
IanB 5464 posts |
Jun 22, 2012, 06:57
|
||
|
stray wrote: IanB wrote: For artists the transition from Napster to Spotify is like going from slavery to the subsistence of feudalism. I wouldn't be that charitable, its not even subsistence level. At least in feudalism landowners appreciated that it was a good idea that the peasants who worked their land had enough to eat. True!
|
|||
Spaceship mark 1599 posts |
Jun 22, 2012, 10:10
|
||
|
Which leaves me with a big dilema. There's no way, on our income, that I could afford to buy anything like the amount of new music i get to listen to via my (£10 a month subscription) Spotify account. That £10 a month pretty much is my music budget, and that includes saving up for instruments, realising I can't afford instruments, and buying cheap iPhone apps that pretend to be instruments. So, I either cut back on some other luxuries (food, drink, mortgage etc.) and buy CDs/LPs/iTunes downloads, or I go on a Spotify hunger strike and don't hear any new stuff. I do try and buy stuff I find and like, especially if it is clearly a 'small' artist on an independent or self releasing, but I just don't have the space or cash to get hold of all the back catalogue stuff I listen to... (BTW I haven't illegally downloaded anything for years, after a brief feeling that it was great 'Music for free!' I quickly realised how bad it was)
|
|||
anthonyqkiernan 6934 posts |
Edited Jun 22, 2012, 10:43
Jun 22, 2012, 10:42
|
||
|
IanB wrote: freetard Really? That's where you're going with this? Steve Albini wrote: If nobody is willing to pay you to do something, then it isn’t as valuable to the world as it is to you. You then decide if it’s worth doing for its own sake. If it isn’t, quit. If it is, carry on and who knows, maybe people will see value in it later and reward you. If not, you’re still doing something you want to do.
(via)
|
|||
|
stray 1822 posts |
Edited Jun 22, 2012, 11:22
Jun 22, 2012, 11:19
|
||
|
Well yeah but its not as simple as Albini puts it. You're ignoring the fact that grabbing a copy of something for free is so incredibly easy. It has nothing to do with if someone sees that it has 'value'. Sure it has value, or they wouldn't have nicked themselves a copy now would they ? Its just a value that it has become acceptable to think isn't an actual monetary value. I think David Lowerys longer presentation hits the important marks, that although musicians aren't making any money plenty of organisations are making money out of their work. http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post/ There is a 'new model' and its one where musicians aren't getting paid. Theres fuck all that can be done about it though. Apart from rely on the basics of market theory that if a model is untenable (as in the supplier in this case gets no renumeration) then it will fail.... eventually. He also highlights well how internet traffic itself has been taken from musicians/bands. Completely concur with the 'still doing something you want to do' thats where we stand pretty much. Everything we do is put out there for free. I've always put my own stuff out thru CC licence on netlabels. The music with Anna goes out under standard copyright/licence but is downloadable for nowt. I've never been under any illusion that there is a living to be made here, except maybe the odd chunk from licensing (I'm off to get an account on Track and Fields today, have a punt, chance me arm etc). Day jobs (or currently Jobseekers allowance and housing benefit) pay our bills. Its not a question of us having a specific ethical stance here, its a question of having no fucking choice in the matter. Filesharing sites, google, facebook etc make the money from other peoples creative content. I don't see that changing in the near future (if at all). All I see is that there will be less musicians/artists/labels around that can rely solely on their creative works to make a living. Thats the real 'triumph of the swill' Jello was talking about many years ago. Incidentally I find freetard a really offensive term, and Lowerys Freehadist term even more fucking offensive.
|
|||
|
anthonyqkiernan 6934 posts |
Edited Jun 22, 2012, 11:53
Jun 22, 2012, 11:50
|
||
|
stray wrote: Well yeah but its not as simple as Albini puts it It was just one bit pulled out of a longer blogpost (which mentions the Lowery talk) intended to make one small point not address the entire issue. I actually like the Jagger quote ("...Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone...") best.
|
|||
|
IanB 5464 posts |
Edited Jun 22, 2012, 12:35
Jun 22, 2012, 12:33
|
||
All we can do is keep calling people out on their stupidity and how their greed dressed up as anti capitalism is fattening Socialistic enterprises like Goggle, Facebook, Sky and the telecoms giants. Some revolution where Apple are paragons of virtue!
|
|||
|
anthonyqkiernan 6934 posts |
Jun 22, 2012, 15:12
|
||
|
RE Spotify: This article (among others) actually looked at the facts and figures following the "Gaga earns $167 for one million plays" stories. As an interesting postscript, there is a link at the top of that to why the author has not taken his music off the service. In short, major label money and the PRS; y'know the old boss
|
|||
Moon Cat 8976 posts |
Jun 22, 2012, 15:18
|
||
|
anthonyqkiernan wrote: stray wrote: Well yeah but its not as simple as Albini puts it It was just one bit pulled out of a longer blogpost (which mentions the Lowery talk) intended to make one small point not address the entire issue. I actually like the Jagger quote ("...Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone...") best. Hope Mick's not got a NatWest account or there'll be no 'satisfaction' this weekend. Not Ashamed of Manchester.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
- ©2013ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page Twitter