Yeah, sounds like some good old naturalistic fallacy there: “It exists, so it must be good”. By that logic anything from cancer to murder is A-OK. Then again, I guess it’s the kinda company that suits record companies: pernicious, persistent blights upon humanity, that we despite all efforts have so far failed to eradicate…
1 Like
The means of production started becoming “democratized” in the sense of “available to the common man without massive funding” in the 80s when devices like the Tascam PortaStudio hit the market. Thats how long I’ve ben producing and selling music. Before then even making a demo required booking studio time as setting up a recording studio was something that required serious funding.
Music itself, the playing or writing of music seems to have been “democratized” since Adam and Eve.
As for talent shows and ad revenue, that has been an income stream all along for any well run label of any size.
Performers can distribute only as far as one audience on their own. If I left out the words “mass market” which has defined the concept of pop music in the 20th and so far the 21st centuries, forgive me.
I’ll address you both here. Any label big or small does something like what VCs do, they bet money on the potential success of a creative product. Sometimes you make money, if you are lucky you break even but most often you lose money. Whether you are investing in bananas or songs, the size of your treasury helps when times get tough. This is the fundamental justification for any type of business that makes markets.
30 odd years of doing just that at a very small level has given me a perspective on all this which as far as I can tell, no one who writes for or comments on BoingBoing seems to have. Not to be insulting but these threads are dominated by armchair quarterbacks shouting into the echo chamber. I rather enjoy being the one to interrupt the circuits sometimes by actually understanding a bit of how things work.
Oh and @dacree your “isn’t that like” is a poor followup both in terms of logic and in terms of debate, its just another form of “so you are really saying …”
This is exactly what I meant, and I’m sure most people understood. The means of production and distribution have become democratized.
…Until copyright. Then the playing of music was severely curtailed.
Not my quote, although with nested comments, replying to the wrong poster happens to me too.
This makes no sense. Please elaborate.
You’ve just stated the bleedin’ obvious. Business takes a gamble on success of product, if your cash pile is big enough, you can stay afloat during lean times.
Not news.
And the methods with which these companies acquired said cash pile are questionable. This is what is being discussed.
He said, sneeringly.
‘These threads’ (whichever threads you may be referring to) have hardly been ‘dominated’ by anything other than mostly intelligent debate from doctors, nurses, biologists, businesspeople, historians, electronic engineers, theologists, students, musicians, producers and the occasional trolley, to mention a few. 'Armchair quarterbacks have yet to feature, although I don’t read sports articles so I may have missed those.
The only circuits you’re interrupting are your own, by not understanding where this is headed
TLDR; recorded music is only an advert. Fast-diminishing are the days where it has value of its own. Live shows is where the money in music is.
If you don’t think that the Recorded-Music industry is hemorraging money, fragmenting and attempting to make up the difference through product licensing, talent-spectacle and litigation, then perhaps you’re in the wrong business.
3 Likes
It’s called rephrasing and it’s something people do to illustrate the logical result of a position. Further, since this is not a debate, I don’t give a damn about following the forms of debate. And yes, it is another form of “so you are really saying …” It often helps to strip bullshit down to the grass so you can see the worm underneath.
Exactly right. Maybe that’s because we haven’t drank the industry kool-aid and can still smell BS when placed under our noses. Or, as Sinclare put it “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
I mean, I get it, your industry operates under a set of rules the rest of us would go to jail for. But you go ahead and defend it. Someone always will.
Let me introduce you to this thing called the internet. It’s gone global. You might even call it a world wide web.
4 Likes
About 70 percent of the money a listener pays to Spotify (which, to its credit, has tried to illuminate the opaque payment system) goes to the rights holders, usually the labels, which play the largest role in determining how much artists are paid.
Which is to say, this really isn’t about “streaming music” at all.
2 Likes
“Survival is justified by having not died” is something of a tautology.
What I would say makes them unjustified is that they are simply entrenched, while not providing a necessary or useful service to anyone. The whole reason behind music labels was originally that it was a centralized distribution system, where even fairly successful artists could not afford to press their own records or start radio stations. At the time, having a publisher/distributor was the only way to get the music out there to people, apart from live performance. But through the technological changes of tape, CDRs, and streaming - the costs of recording and distributing music have become only more negligible over the decades. There really is no reason for “labels” to exist now, apart from people being used to their poor curation of talent.
Not unlike in the movie “industry”, the media channels and studios have a completely incestuous relationship which exists only to exclude anyone they aren’t exploiting. And it is enough of a monopoly in popular media that people are willing to pay them exorbitant amounts only because most are still unaware of clear alternatives. It is detrimental to artists and the public alike. At least movies have the excuse of huge budgets and crews, which don’t even apply to music.
It is not streaming technology which is to blame. That is a complete ruse. It is streaming - or any other kind of distribution - where the artist is not involved in setting the terms of the agreement. The irony is that anybody can stream their music to people without using any of the big labels, and remain completely unexploited. But somehow they keep suckering people. There are still no shortage of bands and musicians, as well as other artists, who assume that securing a pimp is their ticket to autonomy.
2 Likes
It’s not only a tautology, it’s pretty piss-poor as far as a moral argument goes, but instead of a straight answer to that allegation, all we got was bluster and hot air…
1 Like
You do know that the vast majority of recording artists are not rich superstars… people like Madonna, Taylor Swift, or Miley Cyrus are statistical outliers in the recording industry. The average salary of a recording artist is more like $61,000, which is a respectable, but not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, income:
http://www.simplyhired.com/salaries-k-recording-artists-jobs.html
This website says $52,000:
http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Recording-Artist-l-United-States.html
So most musicians are lower middle class.
Which historically, they haven’t. Even the Beatles got screwed over, especially after they formed Apple Records.
I think we can all agree with that…
Of course, not all artists argue for this, as they see radio/online plays as promotional.
Sometimes this is without the songwriters consent. The Beatles strongly objected to Revolution being used for a Nike commercially, and they fought against it
If that’s the ONLY way it’s getting in front of people and they receive no compensation for their labor?
It was standard practice for the label to hold the publishing rights, and the artists were often represented by the same lawyers who worked for the labels. Sometimes, especially back in the 20s and 30s, songwriters would be a few hundred dollars (or in the case of Tin Pan Alley, were on salary) for a song, and then the label would turn around and make a mint off of it. it’s far better now than it used to be. More artists are on artist run labels, which are more mindful of this sort of thing, more artists write their own songs and own the publishing rights, more artists understand how the majors work and what to avoid. As always, Albini’s essay on how the industry works is enlightening:
http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
yes. exactly. People imagine that all rock stars are filthy rich, but that’s rarely the case. Most are living off their advances and are in deep debt to their label for any number of things.
Depends on the rights holder, no? If it’s some faceless corporation, I agree with you. If it’s the artitsts who wrote the song, I do think we should think about them.
You could say until the recording industry began ? I don’t think sheet music had the same effect on making music that the ability to record and sell a piece of music did…
4 Likes
Sheet music sales were big in the day. True, not to the same degree as recorded music, but copyright, even then, curtailed freedoms. It’s the principle, not the degree.
Having a quick looksee, I learned that music-publishing copyright was older than I’d imagined.
1 Like
Agreed, but it doesn’t put the same constraints on performers that the modern copyright regime does.
yeah, Elizabethan… It’s been a debate for a long time.
Good lord no, not even close. I fully agree.
Modern constraints are so tight as to be restraints.
We can blame abuse by entertainment lobbyists for that.
1 Like
Mostly it’s the idea that IP is a fungible economic unit whose transfer should be respected beyond its reason to exist.
2 Likes
All the issues you raised with regards to my comments are solved by fixing the middlemen and contracts - it’s got nothing to do with the streaming model.
If you’re saying the publishers, labels and agents are taking advantage of artists, then yes, I completely agree. But at no point in history has any artist expected wealth from their labour of love… except now. I guess it’s all just tied up with modern entitlement.
In the 80s it was not that hard to do distribution either, I just wrote to zines and mail order companies and found ways to sell the tapes I produced.
Actually no, you are confused between playing and reproduction/distribution. Nonetheless, people have always been able to make their own music.
Without reproduction/distribution and sales promotion, a performer is limited to the audience they can perform in front of. Given that for a while these things can be done by the performer, the limitations are somewhat lifted but not entirely. If you want to create/perform AND run a business around it, time and skill for both are required or you hire someone to do it for you.
The major exception being that now anyone can take a video of their performance and post it to the internet for free and get limitless distribution. The prosumer quality level possible here aint bad at all but really monetizing it, actually making more than a few pennies still involves actual work and business skill. Doing it really well involves lots of both.
Figure of speech in American English. I’m not a sports fan myself, but its common enough that I figured it would be understood. Maybe my bad.
Point being, I’ll take David Byrne more seriously than the average internet commenter as he actually knows what he is talking about from first hand experience. That plus he has demonstrated his ability to express himself in writing persuasively. The fact that he is a nice person and quite modest in my experience also lends me to be favorable to him. Possibly the nicest “international superstar” I ever spoke to. His book How Music Works was quite good.
There are actually plenty of better ways to monetize music than live performance. Performing is OK once you have already established yourself as a performer but the path to getting there is long and costly.
Actually earnings are good in part because big business has proven it can adapt to changing conditions. Its much harder for small businesses to adapt to the current market conditions but possible. I can’t afford to fund any performer I work with to tour locally much less internationally since the local market here is pay to play. I can afford to get them international distribution or licensing income though.
Leaving aside all the talk of tautology and the functional mechanics of distribution, I agree, that streaming isn’t the point. Most musicians are terrible at basic finance much less business and crawl through sewage to sign on the dotted line without thinking of what they sign up for. Shame really but its the truth.There is no need to “make them an offer they couldn’t refuse” they will hold the gun to their own heads for the chance at stardom. The great counter example is Mick Jagger who had been to business school. There have been plenty of other cases where a performer or band had a manager who looked out for their interests and understood the contracts but they are the exception not the rule.
@anon61221983 I dont understand your animated gif. Did my mixing of metaphors cause you to develop a drinking problem?
Absolutely… this has been a long term problem with the industry…
I’m not sure with that… let’s fix the contracts first and find out.
Well, the reason why people “expect wealth” is because of the mythology around rock and how it works, how the genius musician will become rich off his labor (like Elvis, the Beatles, the Stones, etc). The well-published excesses of the 60s and 70s set up a certain expectation of mainstream rock music (into the 80s with the rise of hair metal too).
However, most artists are arguing for MAKING A LIVING off their work, not ended up in debt, with all the proceeds going to some corporations. I don’t think that’s entitlement, that’s just wanting to be paid fairly for what one does.
Oh, no. I had a drinking problem long before you! No worries there… I just meant that you’re not the only one around here who understands the biz or has worked with or has been around indie labels… 
2 Likes
Let me try to summarize.
Yes, you could distribute music in the 80s, but true democratization didn’t happen until computerization. Not even close.
And yes, in most cases if your forte is in making music then your business skills are probably not foremost in managing. It’s probably advisable to find a manager. It is not advisable to sign a contract with a recording company.
As a musician it is advisable that you get your live act together, because really, musical recordings these days are worth squat unless it’s licensed together with some other form of media (advert/film), and becoming worth less each year. There’s very little money left in selling recordings on their own merit.
So what? So is any career. Nothing comes easy and everything involves hard work unless you win the lottery. The days of retirable mega-stardom on the strength of a recording are ending very quickly. Get off your arse, pick up your instrument, and go out and do some work.
I understood the quote, I was taking umbrage at your arrogance and self-centered sense of business superiority.
Still not getting it yet? Despite it being pointed out to you several times, the ‘adaptation’ of big business has been to poison the well with litigation, lowest-common-denominator pop and lobbied copyright-extension. In short, behaving badly and treating musicians badly, with very little in the way of actually improving things for musicians and music in general.
Actually no, I’m not. If you think that copyright hasn’t ever prevented people playing cover-tunes publicly (for free), then I’m afraid it’s you who is confused.
I realise you run your own small label, and I can respect that, but I cannot see where your surreal defense of the music corporations is coming from.
Ok, so not really a summary, but there you have it.
2 Likes
I think this misses the point of art in the first place, which is externalization of the psyche. It really does not matter at all how many/few people experience or like the results. This is when the creative process gets diluted by egotism, and concerns about how the work will be perceived by others.
There have been ways to stream quality audio for many years prior to video. Distribution of most media has been global and of negligible cost since the mid 1990s. Video is hardly a rare exception.
That’s the point, and a more primary consideration than what he actually writes about it? From what I have read exceoprted on the net, I think he does make valid points. But I think it would be pompous to assume that his experiences are innately of more value than other musicians. People don’t need favor or persuasiveness to be accurate, those are personal problems.
What’s the point? It is mainly business people who decide that exploiting art is worth their while - it helps provide them content for commerce, but doesn’t help the artist to create. Artists are almost universally encouraged to pimp what they do somehow. I think it’s better to leave business to its own devices and not mix it with art.
IIRC you have looked at those things from the outside and written about them. AFAIR, no one here besides myself has commented about their experience on the inside. I could be wrong of course.
Looking back thats not what I said or meant to imply. Please go back and read again.
From what I’ve seen, I’d say that even lmited touring, the paying of dues for performers isn’t just “any career” as most jobs don’t involve so much time away from home and even washing dishes tends to pay better. Most careers don’t involve living in a van or car for extended periods, not having regular opportunities to bathe or eat right either. Few other jobs have as many chances to have one’s working tools stolen or damaged to the best of my knowledge.
Its kind of fun at the early stages, mostly a road trip kind of mentality. But if a performer or band makes it past the gigging at surrounding towns watering holes stage, there’s a whole lot of burnout from the suckieness.
The music business we are talking about isn’t a charity, nor is it an arm of the church or an arts organization that exists for the betterment of humanity. Of course there are aspects of the greater music industry that are charities and exist for the betterment of the arts but I have no direct experience with them so I don’t comment about what it takes to keep a civic opera company running for example.
I think perhaps we are talking at cross purposes in that you seem to be insisting on ideals while I’m more concerned with practicalities and reality.
I do understand this perspective, absolutely. I also admit I don’t know where to draw the line between commerce and art or in this case between pop and “serious” music. Where does “I wanna hold your hand” fall? It made millions happy and expressed one of the most basic human emotions but was it art? I can’t say. I think however that this question is a bit too far off topic to this thread.
Not sure about that date. At that time by my memory of working with internet companies in NYC, the server side software was expensive, encoding was still very much fiddly and problematic and bandwidth was very expensive. Things like mobile data plans which we now take for granted when we discuss digital streaming did not even exist at that time.
Not many musicians with careers spanning the “before and after things changed” write on these matters and fewer still write well on them. I respect that Byrne has the experience and writes well. Since we are discussing an article written by him, I commented on his writing style and seeming integrity on these matters. Its not “personal” per se in that I abhor his politics, or at least those I’ve encountered.
There are certainly cases where the label makes decisions as to what will or won’t be released based on commercial interests. Rather unpleasant cases for sure. OTOH I’ve known people whose music benefitted from simply not having to work a 9-9 shift 5 days a week to make rent due to advances from a record label. Those stories don’t get as much attention, certainly not on Boing Boing where the flavor of the week is whatever will generate the most outrage.
As for not mixing art and commerce, I don’t know what to say as per the above.
Now you’re making sense.
