Taylor Swift’s new album 1989 is the first and only to go platinum this year. And the year is just about over. At the same time, Swift is making headlines because her label Big Machine (a label she and her family own) has pulled all of her albums from Spotify and other streaming services. As David Lowery’s artists rights blog The Trichordist has been pointing out this week, streaming company representatives and Internet industry cheerleaders have revealed some rather sexist overtones in their criticisms of artists like Swift, Adele, and Beyonce for their strategic decisions to restrict streaming of their tracks. Certainly, this kind of response is SOP by the brash, young boys of Silicon Valley, who like to tell everyone, especially silly girls, that they just don’t understand new business. The arrogance of male money losers lecturing successful female entrepreneurs is something to behold, but let’s move on…
What I find particularly interesting are the lessons to be learned from the brief report on NPR this morning in which Sam Sanders describes Taylor Swift’s ingredients for success. I say this because all of the tactics employed by Swift are consistent with a marketing strategy that blends the best of the digital age with the best of pre-internet business models. Taylor Swift does the following:
- Create a product people actually want. Check. Clearly.
- Connect with fans via social media. Check. Swift is a long-time user of Twitter and responds directly and personally to her fans.
- Promote like mad. Check. Swift is constantly self-promoting with live appearances.
- Tour. Yep. Got it.
- Give people a real reason to buy your product. Check. Read on…
As Swift explains, 1989 did an exclusive deal with Target that has three extra songs and a unique photo collection. This is a real-life example of the often vague suggestion that artists need to “add value” or “give consumers something they can’t get online.” But right there is the trick, isn’t it? Swift did add value by creating a limited edition CD with extra stuff for her most ardent fans, but the other component to get people to buy the album was — and this is really mind-blowing — to not make it available for free right away. Genius, right? This is not to say that infringers have not uploaded files from the album to YouTube, which is a whole other problem. What this story really makes me think about, what I am always thinking about, is the middle-class band or singer/songwriter, partly because that’s where I think some of the best music is produced. People can speculate all they want about whether Big Machine is providing a guide to success for other major artists; but my question is what do artists do who aren’t quite so huge as Taylor Swift?
For instance, I recently discovered a band I like after attending AmericanaFest 2014 in New York City. It was clear their fans had showed up because everyone crowded around me knew the lyrics to the songs, but I did wonder if these fans were album purchasers, streaming listeners, concert attendees, or all of the above. I happen to know through an industry source who knows this band personally that they are very typical of the middle-class band today in that their album sales are a loss leader used to promote touring and that they have to tour constantly to make any kind of living. This colleague explained, “This is one of those bands that’s just over that line of making a living, playing just big enough venues to make it work; go one notch below them, and you’re pretty much operating at a loss.”
Now, this band is doing more or less everything Taylor Swift is doing as well as everything the know-nothing web gurus tell them to do. They use social media, sell tee shirts, tour constantly (leaving families behind); and of course they’ll never be as popular as Swift or Beyonce and are unlikely to get invited on the Today Show to promote a new album. And that’s nothing new. But in a pre-internet market, this middle-class band would be doing pretty well, still working hard, but not operating quite so on the edge of survival. And while nobody may care, they ought to for selfish reasons alone. Because the longer a band like this continues to work, perform, and experiment, the higher the probability is that both they and society will be the beneficiaries of some new song or album that becomes a favorite hit that lasts for decades.
There are hundreds or thousands of artists who match the profile of this band, and if all of them are surviving (or not really surviving) on touring and merchandise alone, their days of playing are likely to be more limited than their predecessors simply because they’re mortal. Album sales are a form of passive income, and passive income translates into time — time to spend writing a new song or experimenting with a new sound rather than booking a tour or approving the design for another stupid tee shirt. So the question is whether or not a band this size should take a page from Swift’s playbook, pull or limit its tracks on streaming services and effectively force, rather than beg, their fans to buy CDs or digital downloads or even vinyl? Would there be the backlash against the artists that so many predict? I sometimes wonder. Certainly, the owners of Spotify and Pandora would like us to think so. But of course, if the options are zero income or mere drippings from streaming that don’t sustain, more than a few artists may be willing to find out.
At Taylor’s level, there is literally a small army of people doing nothing but DMCA takedowns 24-7 ..most intensified around the month of release. You’d be surprised how much this helps sales. (and how expensive it is to hire that army)
But what really helps (after accounting for her being talented and hardworking and every else she does to deserve the success she’s seen) is staying OFF streaming platforms. At least for a window peroid like the movie industry does (and we all can take a lesson from that)
iT is quite simple: Streaming cannibalizes sales. period. the money from streaming doesn’t come any where near where it would need to be to make savvy business sense for anythin other than being treated like those old penny clubs of the 90’s. ie, bargain bin, after sales are done, then you can make danny ek another half-billion dollars… but not before. If everyone would follow this lead, we would have some bargaining power again.
* just a footnote; we aren’t allowed to opt out of non-on-demand streaming, as we are compelled by Congress as to who we must do business with. So you may notice how Taylor is still on the ‘radio’ portion of Spotify (and all of Pandora et al), for instance.
If she/we had an actual choice we would be on none of the above.
Good point.
And that’s the thing, isn’t it? There’s nothing wrong with Streaming just like there’s nothing wrong with Netflix, but its tertiary market at best being promoted as prime market.
Lets recall that the Beatles didn’t tour after August 1966. Sgt. Pepper, White, Abbey Road and the rest were all recorded after they stopped touring and worked exclusively in the studio.
At Taylor’s level, there is literally a small army of people doing nothing but DMCA takedowns 24-7 ..most intensified around the month of release. You’d be surprised how much this helps sales.
Does it really help sales? I pirate most of my media and have literally never encountered any difficulty, at all, getting songs by artists as popular as Taylor Swift within days or hours of their release. The DMCA army is obviously out there, but they’re so vastly outnumbered by uploaders that I would have guessed their impact would be de minimis and a waste of money.
I do think you’re right about streaming cannibalizing some traditional sales — but of course, streaming cannibalizes piracy, too. There are far fewer torrents for South Park than you’d expect given its popularity and target demo…but that’s because they’ve always streamed the show online for free.
It is people like you, Calico, who are the real problem. Streaming may be bad news for artists, but pirate sites are certain death. If more people had the moral aptitude to pay for the things that they appreciate we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
It is true, however, that artists have been historically screwed – by governments, record companies… etc. It was my hope that digital technology would somehow remove some barriers and give power to artists to showcase themselves. And to an extent it has, for some. But it has also introduced new challenges. It is easier to publish, but harder to get people to pay attention.
The musical economy is not unlike the larger economy of the US – there is a shrinking middle class.
South Park is a poor example – because there are very few shows that have such an enormous following or lengthy lifetime. They are the Taylor Swift of TV, invincible. Saying that giving away content for free works because it works for South Park is like saying that it is okay to poison the water supply because it won’t kill Superman.
If you appreciate the music (or any media, really) you steal – then you will start paying for it. If you don’t, then your opinion really isn’t worth bull.
David, like where you went with this by including the “other band” and what a have and have’s not world we are living in. We are gutting the mid-level artists, some of whom would have been our next greats and trading that for a much smaller roster of highly commercial ‘safe’ artists.
We are losing the diversity of cult acts, always the most meaningful music for true fans. Loyalty that comes from a special connection, my band.
I highly recommend Cory Doctorow’s new book: “Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free.” He presents a similar “give the fans a reason to pay for something argument” while trashing the DMCA as anti-artist and off-the-mark of the original intent of copyright law (spoiler alert: not to criminalize what individual users do). It’s not perfect, but it’s a fresh entry into the “copyfight” that eschews the libertarian “make it all free” view while demonstrating why DRM isn’t a winning strategy for creator-rewarding business models.
As for Swift, except to make a statement about the business model (and industry sexism) on principle, it makes little sense for her to stay off any platform that gets her music to her fans (who then may buy something–tickets, merch, back catalog, etc.), unless she can prove she is replacing the lost revenue with an alternate strategy. If she can do it, and the industry takes note, artists will benefit from her activism. If the industry shrugs it off–and they might since there are a lot of people making money through channels that have nothing to do with platinum sales–it’s nothing but symbolic and the problem of DRM-profiteers sucking artists and rights-holders dry continues unabated.
Given the squeals from the tech industry they realize that they don’t have a business without the content. A decade ago they may have got away with simply stealing the content (wave to Google), today that option is no longer available to them.
Mike- what exactly is a “DRM-profiteer..” ?
Mikw says- ” As for Swift, except to make a statement about the business model (and industry sexism) on principle, it makes little sense for her to stay off any platform that gets her music to her fans”
Really? Another fella that knows best for this young woman? I think she has more business smarts than every single critic of hers put together.
Why would she (or any artist for that matter) hand over hard won (and expensive) promotion, and fans [or “eyeballs”, as the leeches see them] over to some internet company vampire that sucks all the revenue out but contributes ZERO to anything? And if you say “exposure” , I’m going to throw this electronic device right out the window and go on a shooting rampage…
I think you’re right that we have to be somewhat cautious with what lessons we draw from this. This definitely seems to have been a good move for Taylor Swift. But she’s one of the few unarguable superstars that’s arisen in the new music business. She’s an outlier.
What this story really makes me think about, what I am always thinking about, is the middle-class band or singer/songwriter, partly because that’s where I think some of the best music is produced.
Really? I’d suggest that it’s the opposite. Frequently, the best music comes from artists from working class backgrounds. And that’s something that’s changed for the worst in the corporate music sector. This is from the UK, but the late lamented Word magazine did some research into this back into 2010. They found that more than 60% of successful rock and pop acts had gone to private school (including stage schools), compared with 1% back in 1990. I don’t want to go full on class war about this, but I think it’s an issue. One of the things that previously has given rock and pop its diversity is the fact it was one of the few places working class kids could get a voice. There’s a very strong argument that Keith Moon wouldn’t get a look in if he was around today. The fact we’ve lost that is bad and it can’t be put down to streaming or piracy; it’s an industry issue. (That only applies to chart acts, which is where the research was done. But it’s a reason the modern chart is often so dull).
But in a pre-internet market, this middle-class band would be doing pretty well, still working hard, but not operating quite so on the edge of survival.
Or they’d be touring constantly to try and pay back their advance, split up and their masters would still be owned by their record company. I’m all for trying to compare the situation today with the past (I just did on class), but I think you’re wearing rose tinted spectacles here. Any serious comparison needs to take into account how many musicians were making a living wage in the past, not how many were able to put out an album on an advance that they never paid back. I’ve found those stats are really hard to come by though. I have my own suspicions why that might be.
There’s nothing wrong with Streaming just like there’s nothing wrong with Netflix, but its tertiary market at best being promoted as prime market.
The big question is whether it can either become a prime market or at least replace some of the losses from direct sales, with or without windowing. Which is a different question then whether that will happen with Spotify specifically. I suspect it can, but at the moment there’s a big elephant in the room when it comes to Spotify. Equity deals (of which I don’t believe the artists have seen a penny) and unequal per stream payments. There’s no way that streaming can even be evaluated properly while that’s the case. Because I’m pretty sure (despite the sneaky NDA agreements), that the major labels and Merlin are doing alright from Spotify. It’s just that artists and labels outside of that aren’t, at least in part because of the stitch-up that’s taken place. That also puts the lie to any idea that the major labels are somehow on the same side as creators. It’s just that some people have staked their reputations on the idea that the old boss is qualitatively better than the new boss (they’re even the same damn people in some cases) and don’t feel able to accept reality.
Sam I balked at ‘middle-class’ too, but I think he’s using the phrase differently, meaning middle ranking.
Fair point. We may have cultural differences here? Divided by a common language and all that.
Yes, once again, I think my friends across the pond and I use the term middle-class very differently. Regardless, I don’t mean to suggest that the best artists are born into middle class lives — great artists come from the streets, from factories, and from ivory towers. I meant to say that a lot of the best music, certainly a great deal of diversity, is found in that broad strata between struggling-in-obscurity and off-the-charts-famous. Those musicians who didn’t sell out stadiums and make untouchable fortunes, but who might predictably have filled a 2-5,000-seat hall and sold a sufficient number of albums to call the entire enterprise a solid business.
@ m
Wait, we live in a communist utopia where people don’t need money now?
Did I miss the revolution? I was probably in the pub. 🙁
Wait, we live in a communist utopia where people don’t need money now?
Like I care that they “need money”. Drug dealers need to make money too. There is no way 90% of the stuff on television or producing as “pop culture” should be rewarded. And before you are like “bullshit equivalency”, you are right. There is no equivalency. Drug dealers aren’t nearly as good at fucking up civilization. Fuck artists.
PS: Fuck artists.
PPS: Fuck artists.
That just feels SO GOOD to type. 🙂 I’m done with treating artists like some kind of holy untouchable caste. Examine their craft for what it really is. It does not take much deduction to realize we should not be encouraging people to become artists, we should not be financing art, we should not be glamorizing, glorifying and revering artists (actors and musicians especially, fanboy/girlism just modernized cult worship). There is just something so fucked up about what art (esp. commercialized art) does to people. If you just stop and think about it, this whole way society is structured, the fact that almost nobody gives a shit about the origins of life or the Universe, but are greatly concerned about what some pop star ate for lunch. The ONLY reason you can find this acceptable, you can only accept this state of society if you are hopelessly dependent on it. I want to live in a world without this intellectual darkness, without this manufactured idiot culture. And no, you didn’t miss the revolution.
I’ve said it before, M, but I do wonder if you honestly live according to that attitude. No books, no music, no movies, no TV, no art of any kind? Unless you restrict your experience to shun all creative works (and I would never recommend anyone do so), you’re a hypocrite. I suspect instead that you’re making the mistake of blaming all creative endeavor for what is often glib, pop nonsense spoon fed to semi-literate fans. And, yeah that sucks, but I’d recommend removing the monumental chip from your shoulder. You can’t have the world as you want it. I’d love to restrict the voting rights of anti-science, hyper-religious zealots sometimes, but I know that preserving universal rights is actually more important than silencing that kind of stupidity, though it can be quite dangerous. At best, we can preserve systems that allow all voices to sing.
No I don’t. I’m definitely a hypocrite. Not a TV watcher, or music nutter, but my guilty pleasure for many years has been video gaming. Notice I call it guilty pleasure. I’m not under any illusion that playing video games has any substantial value. It’s just a thing to do in absence of anything more important to do.
I think what really changed my viewpoint was when I went to a fast food joint a few months ago and got myself some food from a worker there. And it dawned on me that this guy, who contributed in some quantitative way to society (not like hand-wavy artists), he’s poor and he is gonna die unknown.
While A-list celebs and rockstars, who primary job in society is to distract and turn people into unthinking morons, these people are going to be revered and deified by society. And this profound disgust with the way things are has stayed with me since. It dawn on me, that your industry, the “content” industry, musicians, artists, actors, fucking talking heads on TV. Fiction writers (whose work when treated as reality, becomes truly evil). All “you people”, all you “creatives”, are the cause of literally everything that is wrong with how the world is today.
And you have the tenacity to lecture me about how I can’t do anything about it? Well you know what, I’m a person on a planet that lives in infinitesimal cosmos with largely nonsensical properties. The fact that I even exist as a thinking human being is beyond any astronomical possibility. The hard part is already done. And you have the tenacity to lecture me about how I can’t do anything about it? Well you know what David, I will do something about it. My goal is and will always be to change the world, no, to change the Universe to be a better place. Deal with it.
And there we have it “I’ll scream and scream until I am sick”
Oh man, M. Not all this madness again. This is the same tract you got stuck on back at The Cynical Musician. And I’m going to tell you the same thing I said back then, which I honestly mean sincerely: please seek help. You’ve started, again, to veer from argumentative into full-blown manifesto writing. I worry about you.
Why do you come to a site dedicated to discussing the creative pursuits just to get angry and accuse people of being worthless? That is the definition of troll-ish behavior. Do you really think you’re going to accomplish anything other than painting yourself as a petulant child?
And while we’re at it, put down the manifesto, turn off the video games, and pick up a dictionary. The word you’re looking for is audacity, not tenacity. For someone so obsessed with “all the world’s knowledge,” you ostensibly refuse to avail yourself of it.
Again, I mean this, you need to talk to a therapist, not write angry comments on blogs.
M wrote:
All “you people”, all you “creatives”, are the cause of literally everything that is wrong with how the world is today…
…Well you know what David, I will do something about it. My goal is and will always be to change the world, no, to change the Universe to be a better place. Deal with it.
See? This is what I’m talking about. That sounds pretty ominous. For all your accusations that people here are the same as the Unabomber, you’re the one actually behaving like him.
John,
Scream? The great thing is I don’t have to much of anything. The world is already converging to a place that is diminishing the influence and profitability of commercialized culture. Isn’t that the whole point of the blog, to somehow argue that this is a horrible thing?
I’m already on the winning side of history. You are the one failing to get what you want.
Screaming yet?
Patrick,
Thanks for your concern, but I don’t need help. 🙂 If anything, as a musician, you are the one that should seek help. Especially financial help. Or career help.
See? This is what I’m talking about. That sounds pretty ominous. For all your accusations that people here are the same as the Unabomber, you’re the one actually behaving like him.
I can see how that comes off as ominous for someone on the side of commercialized art. Unabomber had a coherent philosophy, a philosophy that could easily have made him a guest writer on this blog. Just because you seem to share Unabomber’s philosophy, doesn’t make you the Unabomber. Here is the difference: It is completely unethical to murder people (especially technologists [self-preservation 🙂 ]). What he did was fucked up. I hope that is not hard to understand?
For me there will always be culture. There will always be books written written by experts, they may cost a bit more than they do now, I may well have to pay extra for a decent recorded music. My colleagues and I may go to see operas, classical music concerts, perhaps a rock or jazz concert, or a Shakespearean play. Our education and jobs in technology means that we can not only afford to do so, but also appreciate the experience.
You on the other hand are welcome to wikipedia, pop idol, and the discovery channel. But I think that is sad. A friend told that he was 14 before he ventured into the local art gallery. It wasn’t something that someone from his background did, he came from a place where any green space was covered in dog shit, and he expected to get chased out of the place. He wasn’t chased and he saw modern art hanging on the wall for the first time. He used to go there every week or so secretly without his mates knowing.
Nobody wants to question art or the work the artist itself because they are made perhaps through years of Romantic indoctrination untouchable. When people like you attack people like me, you say things like “you are anti-artist”. “Dont listen to him, he’s anti-artist”. I’ve been called “anti-artist” before I realized I was anti-artist.
Kind of like how people were called “pirates”, and now that’s no longer some kind of fatalist insult because the accused embraced the term so now they are called “thieves”. Some Congressional committee recently changed their name in such a manner, to reflect thievery as the new vogue.
Well I’ve become proud to be called “anti-artist”. I feel like found philosophical reasons to be anti-artist. So that can’t work anymore. What’s left? I’m ‘homeless’, I’m ‘Indian’ (is that an insult?), I work in a call center in Mumbai (is that also an insult?). None of these things are true, although I don’t care to prove it otherwise.
But you bring up a more interesting insult. That I’m crazy. For questioning the value of art, the one thing in life that should be without question? For not believing the work of an artist is axiomatically valuable? For wanting to change the world?
The ‘crazy’ insult is interesting to me. I do feel like I think differently from many other people. That’s interesting, because crazy people think differently too. I’ve asked myself before, am I simply bonkers? Wrong headed? That I think it is interesting that the Universe’s expansion is accelerating is that something a normal person shouldn’t find interesting or is even aware of? That I spent hours learning about all the weirdness results quantum mechanics for leisure? That I value science so very much, is that nuts? If I am right headed, should I not be interested in the fine music of Taylor Swift and all her profound insights on her Twitter account?
But I look at the evidence, my psychological state has not often been called into question. It’s possible that the few instances in my life where interacted with a psychologist, they got it wrong, and I’m really nuts. I haven’t even been able to convince a psychologist that I have Aspergers, even though I’ve been convinced at times of my life that it has me. I’ve done things in life where being insane would be a major disqualifier. I’ve also never done any of the things crazy people do. What psychological syndrome do you think I suffer from? I’m very interested in knowing why I think the way I do. Is it that I’m clearly not thinking right, that I’m missing some important idea of life that the Swift fans and the Honey Boo Boo enthusiasts have? I don’t know. All I know is life is too short and too precious, and the cosmos too large and amazing to spend life being like everyone else.
🙂
For me there will always be culture.
Indeed. But, it will not be commercialized.
(in the U.S.) most of the middle-class here are working-class families. It (middle-class) is a term that refers to families that live anywhere over the poverty line and under the wealthy in terms of income.
too add: the poverty line is consistent throughout this country (it’s an income level defined by the federal government), but you can still “live in relative poverty” and technically still be ‘middle-class’ depending on where in this very large nation you live, as the cost of living varies tremendously depening on locale.
That’s really interesting, thanks. Out of interest, do you have a concept of the “living wage” (separate from the legal minimum wage)?
Are you asking about what a living wage in the US is or about proposals to create a Basic Minimum Income? If it’s the living wage question, it varies dramatically region by region of course, but a family of 4 living in a region outside a major suburb or city, using public schools, with a total household income of about $60k/year would probably just be paying all their bills, struggling a little if they have any debt, and likely saving next to nothing. And of course, health care is a total mess. I personally set the bottom line of a middle class lifestyle in America, no matter what one does for a living, as one in which a person or family can reasonably afford the median cost of living without major struggle, cover medical costs as needed, and save at least something. Fewer and fewer people are able to do all or any of that. There are those who would define that bottom line differently, but that would be my personal definition for fostering a healthy economy overall.
Oops, you were asking AudioNomics. Ah well.
Whether we’re talking music, filmed entertainment, or books, I think it’s a safe bet that the companies we think of right now as distributors (fair or not, above board or not) will become the new producers. I think the question is when Google becomes a movie producer, for instance, what will they have done to the market and to copyright policy, and will this new boss be better or worse than the old boss? Why wouldn’t they simply reconstruct some of the same models people hate about corporate, producing entities but in a market where suppliers have given away their leverage and where there is little or no competition?
But with both music and books (films may be different), there’s a real rise in self-published works as well. That’s sometimes dismissed sniffily as being the work of “hobbyists”, but some of it’s great. Most of it isn’t, but I’d argue that’s just because of Sturgeon’s Law.
That’s nothing new anyway. Throughout the 80’s, the lead singer of Manowar was working on a meat deli counter. (There’s other examples. But that’s my funniest one).
I don’t dismiss self-publishing or self-producing at all. A “hobbyist” can be considerably more talented than a professional. God knows there are any number of works out there I don’t want to read, hear, watch, etc. But like you say, that isn’t new.
I started to write a longer answer including predictions about where this might be going but realized it’s kind of a big thing to tangle with in the comments section. Suffice to say that I will not be surprised to see some SV companies move into production to the extent that they could end up owning both production and distribution. This puts creators in a tenuous negotiating position, and I wouldn’t count on self-producing to be a very effective alternative. I will predict though that when Google, for instance, starts making movies, they’ll suddenly discover the secret to stopping piracy. 🙂
Maybe in the absence of a commercial culture, people will start to appreciate an actuality that is truly their own. 🙂
“iT is quite simple: Streaming cannibalizes sales. period.”
Technology cannibalizes sales, not streaming. Streaming is just a modern form of radio play, as is youTube, facebook, twitter, etc. Are you suggesting that someone who only likes a song to listen to it on the radio was a lost sale? I don’t think so.
Now access, yes, THAT definitely does affect sales. You can stream anywhere, any time, in full quality, no commercials, no filler, just the music you want, when you want it. So what is the incentive to buy a record? Consider the sheer amount of music available. The similarities between artists and songs and presentation… Why bother choosing one over the other?
What has changed as technology has advanced? Access. Back in the day if you wanted to hear “Purple Rain”, you either waited for it on your favorite radio station, or you went out and bought the ALBUM, even if the only song you cared for was “Purple Rain”. No one forced the industry into offering music piece meal. Not really. It was a response to consumer demand. They noticed a trend, and capitalized on it.
So what should artists do? How does a mid range artist succeed? How do they compete?
– Create a product people actually want. Check. Clearly.
– Connect with fans via social media.
– Promote like mad. Check.
– Tour. Yep. Got it.
– Give people a real reason to buy your product.
David nailed it with that analysis. But I think he forgot a few things that are only truly relevant to artists just making a living.
– Utilize technology to cut production costs.
Making a record is a cheap or expensive as you want it to be. Do you do it yourself at home? Find a good studio? A combination of the two? The technology is there that allows just about anyone to make a professional sounding album. Gone are the days of tape recorded garage demos. We made our last record for under 5k. We took our time, and ended up with something easily comparable to most modern releases. I would say, were we willing to go through one more round of mixing at the end, a few niggles with the bass and kick drum could have easily been smoothed out. There is absolutely no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making an album. I know a ton of bands with pristine sounding records who did for under 10k. By limiting your costs, you are one step closer to profitability from day one.
– Limit your exposure.
Focus on the distribution avenues that make the most sense to you AND that you can easily keep track of. Most distribution packages will allow you to put your music on every site imaginable from day one. Look back I wish I had limited that so that I could better understand where and how our music was being listened to.
– Meter out your releases.
Consider that repeat engagement is the best way to create a fan base. Take your time doling out your music, letting people digest it in small parts. New albums are easily forgotten, there is just too much being put out there. A steady stream of media, while you are working on your next project will keep people engaged. If you can generate anticipation, you can get out of the feast or famine cycle and create a steady stream of revenue, just by being more patient with your releases.
Are these the end all and be all of profitability? No. Just some ideas based on how successful businesses and artists seem to keep people interested in the things they produce. You can spend your time chasing down rouge download sites. Or you can try to create a relationship with the people actually interested in supporting your work.
IMO, the choice is yours.
theangryvillager–
Charles Stross, a British novelist, has said that one of his strategies has been to write many books that can serve as the beginning of a series, each in a somewhat different sub-genre, as a way of hedging his bets. If one turns out to be popular, he can follow up on it, and if one isn’t popular, he can work on something else.
While that specific approach might or might not be useful for a band, the broader point about being careful as to what risks one accepts, and how exposure to risk can be managed surely is.
“-limit your exposure”
Yeah, I didn’t see Taylor Swift appear on any talks shows or do interviews for this album.
Oh, wait…
M trolls ..err writes? -” PS: Fuck artists.
PPS: Fuck artists.
That just feels SO GOOD to type. 🙂 I’m done with treating artists like some kind of holy untouchable caste.”
lol,
Look, we’re all sorry that your mommy ran off and whored herself out to the band (damn was she loose..) , butt really? what planet are you from?
“done treating artists … holy untouchable caste” LOL. ok, besides that ive literally never seen you do this, with the explosion of piracy, your comment seems a little two ‘decades late’…
Now that we know you’re from India, why don’t you tell us what caste we should live in? “M” is that for “Mumbai”? And are you the one who keeps calling saying “The Windows ma-chine has virus, please install my malware”?
Well, what can you expect from someone who obviously needs some serious mental health (or a swift kick to the head with a steel-toed boot)? He sees artists as the problem. Well, so did fascist dictatorships, if I’m correct. I don’t know what put him on this anti-artist path, but I suppose the best thing that can be said is that he is a sad, strange little man….but he ain’t getting my pity.
I don’t know what put him on this anti-artist path
To be fair, reactions like this has helped a lot. Hard to like people that want to kick your face in.
But the end of the day the question still remains. Why does art (esp pop art and like) need to be valued?
I keep asking this question over and over, but no one ever wants to answer it, perhaps because it’s easier to threaten violence!
But it really interests me, the fact that this question so hard to answer. The pedestal is made of sand.
Honestly “M”, I really wish you didn’t value art or artists. For all your (many) “fuck artists” trolling rants, you obviously want attention from us or you wouldn’t post here twenty times a day.
Seriously, no one cares if you don’t like art, that is your choice and your tastes… good for you… move along now. But you can’t, can you? no, you are so seriously jealous that some artist gets attention, but none is afforded to you, and you are just so obviously superior, right? I mean you like science! wow. you must be the only person who thinks science is good. (let alone that I’m personally a physics junkie, but that doesn’t make sense in your one-dimensional world, now does it? )
I belong to a different “caste” (that is where the Indian comment came from, and there wouldn’t be anything wrong with being Indian…but I find their old caste belief system abhorrent) as you say…i must only have one interest in life…and you must only have one too (which seems to be posting here).
I could post in some tech website and get more sympathy and get hive fives and what not. I post here because posting in an adversarial environment is better for intellectual development.
It forces you think a lot more when people are going to pick everything you say apart.
I apologize if you would prefer this comments section to be a artist/copyright circlejerk, but I shall remind you the reason David’s comment section is so lively is because he does seem to allow debate, even on things he seemingly vehemently disagrees with. He’s the only pro-copyright blogger that seemingly does so too.
I’ll also say that I think David is a swell fellow. He is my opinion, the most genuine of the copyright bloggers. You can tell that his opinions also come from the idea that he just wants best for the world. Another reason why I keep coming here.
“[I want an] intellectual debate”
“fuck artists”
“fuck artists”
“did I mention fuck artists?”
….rrrrrright…..
Yo, thought I’d chime in.
I don’t know how many of you guys (or girls) are actually musicians, but anyway, I figured I’d just flat out say that I am one and all of these problems with the industry and whatnot are problems I know all too well, being an independent songwriter trying to promote my music these days. What I know is that whining doesn’t really help the musician’s cause, but its pretty easy to whine about all of this shit, since a lot of these problems are very real and are pretty much all the reason me or any of my contemporaries need to pack it in and see if that meat counter where the Manowar guy works is hiring. Plus, there’s also guys like M who are like “Fuck art…ah, that feels good!” (paraphrasing), so its not like us poofy-haired musicians are going to get any sympathy from the guy that doesn’t laze around in a studio, trying to dream up the next “big hit”. M probably works at the call center and doesn’t give a fuck about “artists”, and happily steals everything from Pirate Bay without a second thought. I’m not condemning, just guesstimating. In fact, basically where I’m from most of my friends are aspiring musicians, and they’ve been at it a long time as well. I’m from The Great White North, by the way. The routine where I’m from is get a job, get married, forget about taking music seriously in any way. I’ve watched over the years as everyone has slowly dropped out of the game, and I will say that a lot of these people and bands could have found an audience if they were plugged into the right channels. But who’s fault is that? Everyone knows that you need to blame yourself first for any perceived failures. Which is why most people I know quietly just get that job, put down that instrument, and never mention it again. Sure, everyone is still “into” music. All of my friends still excitedly talk about bands and buy albums at the remaining record stores that are out there. But the “dream” is definitely dead for my peeps. I don’t really know why I’m still at it. I know the deck is pretty stacked out there. Its my OCD I’m pretty sure. Plus, for me, there’s always this delusion that one day I’ll “figure it out” and people will check out my music and say “Hey, your music is cool!” At this point I don’t even care about sales, though I should… just getting heard at all has become the main problem. So go play a show, you might say. Well I do, and I enjoy that, but also, where I’m from, all the good venues are closed because…well…I guess my town sucks. So move somewhere else where there are good venues, you say. Yeah, perhaps. I think for me the bottom line is that in order to succeed in this world where artists are either vapid and revered, while the sub-superstar has to grind along, I feel like you need a bunch of degrees in marketing, which I’m going to be getting post haste! Oh, and I may as well shamelessly plug my music well I’m here, since musicians need to be their own advocates, right? Guess I’m going to have to be a one man-army of T-Swift social media drones.
youtubemusicsucks.com
I personally don’t see pointing out our reality as ‘whining’, I see it informing an ignorant public.
A public that doesn’t understand that while they may enjoy free quality music and other media, that they’ll soon have to decide whether they like the quality media part or the free part, as they can’t both exist in this world at the same time.
Same as the 900-pound glutton must realize the food he loves so much will soon kill him if he doesn’t figure out moderation.
I don’t see it as whining either, but it is seen as whining. Unfortunately, 900 pound gluttons are more apt to die than realize their habits are terrible and turn it around. The path of least resistance has always been the most popular path. Musicians need to be savvy these days, one way or another. Luckily, I’m not the laziest person on the planet so I’m up for learning about all this new stuff, but I also know a lot of old school musicians who basically will never catch up. They believe in the old fashioned way, eg. just get out there and play and don’t worry about all this other shit, which, as it turns out, brings us full circle to minstrel days when guys just wandered around playing music to spread the news and making up folk songs, but not even considering their “brand” or any shit like that. Worrying about your “brand” I think detracts from the art of it, because it means you’re always worried about who will like you, or buy you, but luckily, people are more and more being conditioned to not care about “the art”, thinking its essentially worthless. That is, until they go to a country that values art and culture and they see what a wasteland it can be here in “the west”. I think there’s a perception that if you’re making music, you must be privileged because it means you’re not scrubbing a floor somewhere. Floor scrubbers scrub floors and deserve $10 / hour where as musicians are just fucking around and not “contributing” to society, so they deserve nothing. As a small aside, in my corner of the globe, they’ve now made it completely illegal to busk anywhere. Cities make you pay to get a license, private property just treats you like a bum. So you’re paying for a license to make pocket change, if you’re even good enough to earn that. Actually, for a little while I was basically getting minimum wage at it and I thought it was a decent deal and at that exact moment it became illegal to do it anywhere in my area. They treat you like you’re a beggar, which is fucking ridiculous and on top of that, creates bad vibes. It just goes to show that the air you’re breathing might seem free, but if you’re on government property or private property, you are subject to their rules at all times. On the other hand, some buskers will most definitely drive away customers or scare people, so it makes sense maybe to ban them, because a lot of them don’t abide by any kind of code and are more like beggars and someone who can actually play out in front of the liquor store and produce a decent sound that people might actually accept as “music”.
The routine where I’m from is get a job, get married, forget about taking music seriously in any way.
…
Which is why most people I know quietly just get that job, put down that instrument, and never mention it again.
So what you are saying is people are maturing? This should be celebrated! Music is not a higher calling. Music is what people go into when they have no idea what to do with their lives. That’s why you see people “giving it up”. They find something more important. Which isn’t hard.
Any time someone tries to explain the value of music it comes off as nutty. One of the best things to happen in recent memory is when Brian Cox decided to stop making pop music and become a science communicator.
The value of music is that it makes life more enjoyable, more bearable, for many different stripes of people. It greases social interaction and gives people something to connect with. Dancing isn’t so bad either, and it’s good exercise.
Is that too nutty for you to understand?
Patrik,
Ignorance is bliss? I think there is something more to to being human then existing in a manufactured reality.
How would you know? I mean 30 minutes after you wrote the above you wrote Just a while ago you said “Not a TV watcher, or music nutter”. So how would you know anything about Brian Cox?
Geez, I couldn’t see your response coming a mile away, M. Your use of italics does not indicate you have any particular insight into this matter, as I’m sure most people reading your remark will find obvious. Maybe you think these people who aspire to be musicians “nutty” because you are not open-minded. You probably think being a lawyer, or recycling plant operator to be “higher callings”. They’re jobs, yes. But people often do them because some jerk of a father has pressured them into it (dad, is that you?), or they can’t figure out what to do. Or they like money (the lawyers anyway). Either that, M, or you just don’t value music. Seems you don’t. Which is fine. Uncultured people are everywhere even where I’m from. I know plenty of people that don’t care about music one way or another. Some people hate lizards too…they’re icky. Fluffy bunnies are good, bugs are gross. As daffy duck would say, “what a maroon”. The thing I guess I can agree with you on is that music isn’t a higher calling, because I don’t really believe in higher callings. Sounds rather mystical. That said, giving up on music isn’t necessarily maturing. Especially when you can get someone to admit that they’re just giving up because its not financially feasible to continue. That’s like saying “I gave up being gay because people kept kicking my ass”. To which some people, in their great wisdom would say “Yeah, exactly.” to which I would say …exactly. 🙂
There is literally no legitimate reason to encourage music as a profession. Sure, some people want to be musicians, but we as a society should not be providing economic incentives that encourage people to manufacture culture for profit. Or any art for that matter.
lol, M, you’re so cute…
Where on this green earth are musicians being “encouraged”?
“Music is what people go into when they have no idea what to do with their lives. That’s why you see people “giving it up”. They find something more important. Which isn’t hard.”
Well, I have been supporting my family (wife and 2 kids, cars and a mortgage) as a professional musician for 17 years now. Not sure why I would want to do anything else and I am pretty grown up.
I can only guess, but I think the reason you don’t understand artists is simply that you do not create. It is possible at one point in your life you were creative. Someone (a friend or family member) probably told you that you suck at what ever it was you just poured your heart into creating. It might not have been said in a mean way either – you did a drawing perhaps and they said “What’s That?” and you told them and they said something like “Really?” and made a face. They probably didn’t even realize the harm they just caused. I am sorry that you believed it. That their opinion of your creation mattered more than the joy of creating to you.
The Value of Music (an incomplete list)
Birthdays without singing, movies without a soundtrack, video games without themes, wedding ceremonies and funerals, receptions without dancing, advertisements without jingles, religious services without choruses or chants, – every right of passage in every culture in the human experience is accompanied by music – the first sense to develop in the womb is hearing and it is the last to stop functioning when you die, music expresses that which silence and words can not. Music causes armies to march, couples to fall in love, it makes you dance and sing and fall to your knees in reverence. It is the sacred and the profane.
Good luck to you M, I hope you find what you are looking for.
Thanks Joshua.
I’m actually interested in the psychological effects of music and art in general. But that what makes it disturbing for me, the idea that you can effect people’s emotional state, you can captivate people, through music and through art in general. It’s a kind of psychological manipulation.
So like art and music is obviously used in science communication too, in the really good science documentary, they use really effective music in the right times to perhaps increase the interesting or deepness of what they are saying. If you watched Cosmos without its music, well it wouldn’t be nearly as interesting. News media uses it too. They often like to use this scary/horror music actually, it’s a staple of news reporting. In both cases it’s a kind of psychological conditioning. Obviously, the first case I don’t have really a problem with. It’s a trick to get people more interested in science, so what?
Obviously when used right, this conditioning can do good. But artists have no incentive to use their work to do right. All the incentive of producing that art, the incentive is to create whatever is most effective at captivating others, that’s what brings money in. So it starts to converge to the absolute worst places, idiotic content and music, this ends up winning at the market because for whatever reason it is most captivating.
And that’s a big part of why I don’t like what you do. There is something already kind of distributing with what art does to people, any art, it’s a kind of psychological conditioning. But the fact that the industry itself has no reason to do anything with this power except compel people as a goal in itself, that’s just completely horrible.
Einstein would disagree, quite vehemently.
Monkey–
Stopped reading after three words, did you? It’s pretty clear from the post that he meant to limit the different means by which music is distributed, in reasonable ways. Theangryvillager probably is not suggesting that musicians not engage in publicity, given that in the same post he advises musicians to “Promote like mad.”
M – You obviously are very proud of your position. Since we all know what your position is, what kinds of jobs do you think “we as a society” should provide economic incentives for? By the way, where are you from, and what do you do for a living?
Thank you Young Coconut. I work as a computer scientist and I do artifical intelligence research, especially with neural networks. If I had a goal in all of this, I mean, what I do, what I try to do, it would be to help develop intelligent systems that help us solve the problems that prohibt us today from visiting the stars.
I think advancing science should be the focus of our civilization. I think advancing science really embodies it means to be sentient, what it means to be human. I think we are all born scientists, but it is robbed from us over the years through interactions with popular culture.
Science has been bad at captivating the minds of people. I think this has some to do with the way science as a profession is organized in society. We have people like Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasee Tyson, Brian Cox, Bill Nye – these people are all saints to me. They are doing the most highest calling in my opinion – communicating science to the public.
But science in the end of the day is the search for natural truth. Scientists can not easily compete with people who’s profession is to captivate, this is the profession of the artist. So art wins in the minds of the public. That’s my problem.
I don’t have anything against you as a person, but I don’t what your profession seemingly does to people. I see it all the time, in these kind of seminars with free food and what not, but you have to listen to someone lecture about a new discovery in science. I’ll be in the audience and watch people wearing headphones, obviously listening to music. Many someone will initiate banter with me about how this guy is maybe talking about galaxies were formed, something profound like that, but it is just inherently boring to them and they are only here for the food and they can’t wait for the guy to shut up already.
I don’t get annoyed by these people. I am annoyed with what caused them to be this way. I view them as victims of a system that can somehow make fundamental truths of nature more boring then Taylor Swift repeatpeatpeating tautologies into a microphone.
If we didn’t have commericalized art, there would be much less trite idiocy out there to distract people. And we’d advance so much more as a civilization. I don’t think it’s an overstatement that pop culture’s grip on the population can eventually imperial the human race. It’s really one of the key problems in the world.
lol, mr.kurzweil, so sorry you’ll be dead before we infect the rest of the galaxy with our particular human virus species. what makes you think humans are so special (besides presumably being one?)
what makes you think humans are so special (besides presumably being one?)
Evidence seems to point to that fact.
1) The fact that we can’t see any visible effects of life in the Universe (presumusly advanced civiilizations would alter the sky much like we alter our surface).
2) The value of the cosmological constant is perhaps the most profound findings in science. The so called fine-tuning.
Personally I think (2) provides perhaps some circumstantial evidence for the many worlds hypothesis. It can’t be proven however, but it’s interesting to think about. If it is a cosmic inevitability that we end up living forever, it’s worth creating a world where living forever isn’t a kind of hell.
Well, wouldn’t it be grand if our entire universe is just a dust particle about to be flushed down the toilet in some grander beings universe, and all the galaxies are just atoms making up the cell of this particle. We like to think humans are special, but we are probably so insignificant it would hurt our brains just contemplating just how insignificant we actually are. That we can’t “see” something isn’t proof it doesn’t exist and it could likely turn out there is ‘nowhere else to go’ but earth….so let’s get along here, eh?
I’m all for space travel and investment into the sciences (and yet I’m a musician and artist… did your mind just explode?) but I have grave doubts about the feasibility of such travels, seeing how we treat this planet and the inhabitants here…
what makes you think humans are so special (besides presumably being one?)
Evidence seems to point to that fact. …
This doesn’t answer the question. As far as we know scrab beetles are just as important. Indeed this planet seems to favour beetles over all other lifeforms (J. B. S. Haldane).
I work as a computer scientist and I do artifical intelligence research, especially with neural networks.
For those that can’t be bothered AI and NN are the children of University departments, IOW they are, to a large extent, government funded. The application of the research rarely escapes outside of the Universities and when it does it is applied to ‘Big Data’: Government surveillance, and data mining by the likes of Google and Facebook are the typical applications. Also these applications require big expensive hardware to run and as such are deployed in the cloud. This isn’t something you can simply download and run yourself, toy apps not withstanding. It is also incredible secretive, search online for business applications in NN and you’ll mostly get 15-20 year old papers. “neural networks in business forecasting” gives you a book published in 2003.
John,
http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/43022.pdf
The secretive stuff is the details of using machine learning for financial trading. Is that what you mean? Obviously, I can’t blame the creators of such systems for wanting to keep their techniques secret, they are, of course, making a lot of money from them.
I’m all for space travel and investment into the sciences (and yet I’m a musician and artist… did your mind just explode?) but I have grave doubts about the feasibility of such travels, seeing how we treat this planet and the inhabitants here…
We don’t need investment in science! All you will do is enrich people who are already scientists.
We need more people who want to do science. And yes, too long have, yes, you artists, you content creators, have been so good at distracting people with your own work, especially young people, that science’s influence is largely vanished amongst the youth.
We are on a path towards darkness, and it’s not religion’s fault this time around. It’s Taylor Swift’s fault, it’s Miley Cyrus, it’s prime time TV’s fault. It’s talk shows. It’s rockstars. It is the content industry’s fault. Pop art is the new religion, and in a way it’s worse, because it trains people to be passive consumers (“fanboys”) in a way even the most anti-intellectual religions never did.
One pdf does not make a library.
BTW why in your mind should financial trading data be exempt from “information wants to be free?”
BTW why in your mind should financial trading data be exempt from “information wants to be free?”
I don’t have a problem with protecting information in principle. I have a problem with the extent some people are willing to go to protect information.
M writes- “We need more people who want to do science.”
Hey, I actually agree… but I think you all need a much better recruiter than “M”..
Damn. I go work for a day and it gets really testy in here. I really do appreciate the dialogue but have to admit that once it gets repeatedly personal, it gets a little dull. This is one of the reasons I criticize the web as a forum for debate while simultaneously hosting such a forum. Yeah, that’s a puzzle, but also an experiment. And over the last two years, I’ve been happily surprised that the level of trolling and ad hominem attacks on this site has been very low; I’ve blocked fewer than five comments in all that time because they were utter rants. Anyway…
M, I appreciate that you think I’m swell, and I’ve said in the past that I suspect you mean well, but you know saying “fuck artists” is going to garner responses that sort of end discussion. I also said that I don’t really understand why you champion science in a world devoid of art, which is a position not held by any of your named saints. Every scientist I’ve ever read or listened to, including those you name, talk humbly about a fine line between science and artistic expression. On the most basic level, there is no science without hypothesis, and what is hypothesis other than imagination? Art and science proceed from the same, fundamental human activity of observation. How many scientists owe ideas and inspiration to Arthur Clarke or Isaac Asimov? How many scientists are artists and vice versa? Neil deGrasse Tyson, in Episode One of the new Cosmos credits Giordano Bruno with a view of the universe that was on the right track even though, as Tyson points out, Bruno was not a scientist. So, either Bruno was gifted with a creative vision like an artist, or God really did plant ideas in his head because God likes his prophets to evangelize concepts that get them burned at the stake. The examples are too many to name, but you simply cannot have science and “fuck artists.”
Yeah I obviously hit a lot of nerves with that, since obviously most of the people here are artists. I think a lot of people feel the same way but keep it to themselves because they know they’ll get attacked harshly. I think commercialized culture is the new “Catholic Church”, as agents of the Church setting the behaviors and norms of the world in the past, today it is artists and pop culture that does this.
I apologize to any person (besides the AI algorithm that goes by a single letter..) that may have been offended by my response to its trolling attempts.
@monkey – Her people controlled the release. Knowing full well it would be out there everywhere eventually. By controlling the release they are able to maximize profits.
@M – The flaw in your logic is that you assume how you value art is the same way that everyone else values art. Coincidentally, that is the flaw in the logic of most other people here taking up the position that creation deserves compensation. Objectively, neither point of view is correct.
Art ONLy has value to the people who are willing to pay for it. If a song is written, and people are ONLY willing to download it for free, then it is not valuable to them, regardless of what the artist may feel.
Conversely, menial jobs, like the fast food job mentioned above have an actual quantifiable value, which happens to be, VERY little. Not because of some conspiracy in society to deify artists, but rather because any semi-capable person can operate a cash register and a fry machine. Couple this with the over abundance of people willing to fill that position and you have a job that is not very lucrative.
Neither side in this debate truly seems understand the ACTUAL value of art. Hint: It has nothing to do with money…
Fair enough theangryvillager. Part of my reaction is just I’m getting fed up with the way art and artists are treated as something beyond question, I probably would have said it differently without the frustration added. It comes down to I really dislike the idea that we need to think about funding art without ever questioning why we are funding art, or even the idea that all art inherently deserves funding.
I think the core thing though, is we need to stop treating art’s value is self-evident, and especially consider the effects of popular art (pop music, TV, etc.) on society, and that *gasp* it might not even be a bad thing if those things became unprofitable to make.
Really analyze it. I’m genuinely scared of a world where big media companies suddenly had 3x more money to make products with. Why would it lead to “smarter content”? I think it could lead to more compelling pop stars, more compelling reality TV shows, stuff that keep more people glued to their televisions and not out there questioning things. That’s just scary.
M – I agree that there are a lot of distractions in society, and pop art is just as guilty as eating pizza pops, or any other thing that exists so that people’s overall intelligence seems to dwindle. It would be nice if more people would stop standing around drooling over their phones, which, I might add, is a convergence of both science and art back-handedly doing a disservice to humanity. Actually, wouldn’t we all be smarter and healthier if all of us got up and stopped participated in this forum. Go appreciate a sunset or something, right? I do think that taking funding away from the arts is a very bad idea, even though “the arts” produces people like Miley and Taylor, or does it? I think there’s a distinction between cutting funding for the arts and the kind of “art” Taylor Swift is producing. There’s a huge difference. Artistic things, even T-Swift, make people happy, and if it does that, I think its at least partly successful, since we live on a fairly unfair and cruel planet full of hateful, self-centered and aggressive individuals. So when I hear you talk, I start picturing a world like THX-1138 at least in terms of how happy people are to be alive, if not the conditions of the planet itself in that fictional scenario. I agree that science is a good thing, generally, but then again, we do have bombs, guns, etc. etc. as a result of “science”, or whatever you want to call the type of people that are looking for new ways to kill people. And I’m not even a hippy!
Bullshit. People on pirate sites are willing to pay for art – only those people are advertisers. The trouble is that the Pirates refuse to share that money with the artists.
@monkey – No, people are willing to pay for access FREE art. To them the value the content is immaterial, because they are not paying for a specific piece. Pirate sites filled a need. Whether you agree with that need or not, they filled that need for the consumer. Consumers who do NOT care what is being produced by who. Consumers so inundated with “art” that is would be impossible to sort/search it out for themselves. Streaming is actually the BEST way to cut the balls off of piracy sites. Because while there will still be downloads, it allows for artists to quantify plays, and thus aggregate an actual market value to their work.
@M “I think the core thing though, is we need to stop treating art’s value is self-evident, and especially consider the effects of popular art (pop music, TV, etc.) on society, and that *gasp* it might not even be a bad thing if those things became unprofitable to make.”
Bingo. Too many people that I have seen posting here and on other forums believe content created is content value. They think someone willing to download a piece of work for free, equates to a lost sale, that all digital content shares the same inherent value they attribute to the creative works.
They are mistaken.
So long as the elitists(not true artists), are clambering after pennies, the true artists, you know the people who actually make music to, um, express themselves, will be buried under a sea of nonsense.
They are mistaken.
No you are mistaken. When I post an image on some site such as flickr, or Encyclopedia of Life I have no sense that those that subsequently view it are in any sense purchasers of the image. OTOH when some commercial entity takes the image and converts it into a poster that they sell, or a guidebook then the image does have value and their use is a lost sale.
Content has no value up until it is reused. Once it is reused then some one has thought it had value. Even if it remains unused (not downloaded) from a 3rd party site it still has value to the 3rd part site even if it is presence is only to allow the claim that the site offers N million songs rather than N thousand songs.
Actually no, it’s not free. Just because the consumer isn’t paying, that doesn’t mean someone isn’t. The advertisers are paying to keep those sites in business. It’s actually nothing new – the first commercial radio station started in 1920. Or did you think the little people in your radio performed out of the kindness of their hearts?
The only difference is that pirates refuse to pay for labor. It’s actually a terrible business plan, subsidized by advertisers with apparently zero conscience.
@John Warr – “Content has no value up until it is reused.”
Sold, not reused. And copyright protects a creator from someone else selling their work. But that is neither here nor there. The argument has been made that piracy and streaming detract from sales, which I guess to some extent they do, HOWEVER, that tends to assume people who are listening to a song, or watching a movie would do so if the only way to access the content would be through purchase. There is no way to know that for sure.
When you talk about re-purposed work, you are in fact talking about the theft of intellectual property, which is, as stated protected via copyright. A third party can’t just go out and start selling media that belongs to someone else. I mean, technically the could do such a thing, but it would not be legal. And there is an avenue of recourse for content creators in such instances, right?
What I have been saying however has nothing to do with blatant violation of copyright. Sites who sell media, without attribution and compensation should absolutely be shut down. But people who share music with their friends, or only listen to streams are not “stealing” anything from the artists. The content is available, if it weren’t they may choose to buy it, or they may not. Again, there is no way to know for sure. Value is determined by what people are willing to pay, if no one buys your content, but they are willing to stream it, then your perceived value is not in line with the actual market value.
The only true way to be sure of your contents marketability is to control access. Or at the very lease control it’s initial availability. As was the case with Swift.
I may not be able to stop people from downloading my music, but I could, quite easily limit the initial source. Which would in turn allow ME to monetize traffic and thus generate revenue in addition to whatever stuff I actually sell.
In the end, I am not “pro-piracy”. I do not want to see people being robbed, that was never my point. But in using a tool such as the internet, we all risk unwanted exposure. That is simply the nature of the beast. Focus on content control. Voraciously defend your copyright. And present content in a manner that encourages sale as opposed to sharing/streaming. Complaining about random downloads is not going to help the real artists.
What do you honestly think hurts artists more? Downloads of songs that may or may not have been actual sales or increased access via technology and an overabundance of media? I think it is the latter.
There is nothing in copyright that talks about selling at all. Copyright is concerned solely with control over who can make copies. The value is to the person that makes use of copies.
The copyright holder may place a financial value on the copies, they may not. I could allow any nature charity to use a work for free, and deny Monsanto reuse right regardless of any money offered by them.
By choosing to make a copy, the person making the copy indicates that the work has somne value to them. It might not be the same value that the copyright holder places on it, but there is value there, otherwise the copy wouldn’t be being made.
I personally just struggle to get people to even hear my music, much less buy it. I’m not even at the point where I can get offended at people for stealing my hard work… I’m on the tier below where its hard enough getting people to pay attention for two seconds to anything I do. I may be exaggerating, but its for effect. My view is that I think the number of bands have increased exponentially in the past 20 years, which means that the number of vapid musicians and bands have also increased exponentially to the point where people are uploading themselves to friggin’ Pirate Bay just so that some random person might hear them. Which totally brings the value of everything down to zero, and which is why U2 decided to give the world a gift last month by saying, basically, that since no one (relatively speaking) will buy their album, they might as well just give it away, since they make all their money in merch and touring anyway.
Copyright give you permission rights over who can use your work. It does not protect you as to who can view/hear it. So while you can argue that a person listening to a downloaded copy violates your copyright, fair use could easily be argued as a reason behind said download.
So while selling your work is not prohibited via copyright. By law they would have to get permission to do so. Thus the protections I and recourse I mentioned above.
As for value, @Young Coconut (LOL) hits on another important point. The value has declined in line with the excess and access of available content. MP3s do not have value in and of themselves.
People have greater access to music than ever before, that has little to do with piracy and a lot to do with the industry. It is easier to make music, plain and simple.
It very well may get to a point where “selling” music is not a viable means of revenue. Not because of people “stealing”, but rather, because there will be no reason to pay for something from you that someone else is giving away for free.
Unless you want to force artists to sell their works…
I don’t think you understand either fair-use or copyright itself. If I take a photo of a mosquito, copyright lets me control that it doesn’t appear on a packet of pesticide. I take a landscape photo and it doesn’t appear in promotional content for some petrochemical company. Someone writes a song about driving along an empty highway and it doesn’t appear in adverts for Toyota.
If you think that it is “easier to make music, plain and simple.” that may well be the reason why you’re not a full time musician. OTOH I note that you talk about ‘online development’ though I’m never too clear what that actually means I suspect its most likely web programing in PHP, ephemeral stuff that no one cares about.
That said our CAD/CAM programs were being pirated, but they aren’t now because we took the nuclear option and made it impossible for the cracker to alter the code, and the resulting files from cracked software are not interoperable between different versions of the software. Suffice to say we’ve not seen a crack in the wild for that last 4 years. The move now is cloud deployment. IOW you’ll no longer have a fully functional application installed on your machine. You’ll have to have license paid for yearly and a connection to the internet to run it.
A technical solution exists for music piracy too, shut down the payment processors to the pirate sites,
Taylor swift is talented. However her huge success is simply due to financial backing from a corporate world. Radio promotion,television, internet promotion,publicists,stylists,producers,recording,design,duplication,photography,spin, live production, tour support,merchandise, etc.. at that level is in the millions. She did not create that herself. That money is only spent by corporate backers who can count on a safe sure thing which can partner with many other safe sure thing products and programs. Her move from streaming is not as high minded as publicists make it to be. Only her name is being used to iconize the move. Corporate backers will deffinitely have more control of the market with the middle class bands held where they are.
@John, what did I say that contradicts your description of copyright or fair use? We agree, it grants the creator control over how their work is used EXCEPT when used under the terms of fair use(education, critique, etc.)
No one can legally sell(or use) your work without your permission.
As for development, I have done pretty much anything and everything related to presenting, storing and managing data in an online environment. This includes but is not limited to front end development(you know that ‘ephemeral’ stuff you discount as meaningless).
The type of content locking you mention works great for software, and also illustrates the reasons why DRM techniques were abandoned in regards to media content. Device locking, and obtrusive licensing punished legitimate users with a multitude of hoops to jump through, just to utilize the content they paid for legally. People were not ready for or used to the idea(even though it has always been the case), that they were licensing their music, not actually taking ownership of it.
These days, people are a LOT more receptive to this type of distribution, and with advances in technology, most notably the implementation of a true multi-device license and unlimited location access via the cloud. Perhaps the time is right for another go at DRM in regards to music.
Offer streaming as a benefit of purchase as opposed to an alternative to purchase. That said, there will always be ways for people to gain access to unlicensed copies, but that is neither here nor there.
You controlled access to your content. That did not involve wasting time going after the pirates. You cut off access at the source. The question is how do you do this with media? Users are now accustomed to free access to those files after purchase. Do you wean them off of MP3’s/MP4’s and on to a more controllable source container? Do you create codecs that only play through specific software?
In either case you have to convince the user that any new access point is better than the free and open system they have now. That is the challenge. IMO.