Advert In Guardian Today

[Brainaddict]

Musicians know about Creative Commons, they know about what the internet can do for them, they know damn well how many opportunities there are for getting their music out there. What they don't know is HOW IT WILL MAKE THEM MONEY.

I don't pretend I know the full answer either, and I know that the transition period might be difficult for bands, but the point is, we are witnessing the death of the record industry and it's hilarious


There have also been pointers to how musicians can make money. Radiohead releasing the album on their website and letting people pay what they liked for it was a good idea, though annoyingly I think they never released the results of that.

The Handsome Furs, a moderately obscure band I like, put their entire new album on their myspace page and said they would make money from live performances.

A lot of obscure genres of dance music have thrived solely on people passing round pirated copies of stuff - I guess the musicians had day jobs but it didn't seem to stop them.

Do you really think music won't get made? What exactly is the nature of your worry?

 

[matt m]

I don't have a 'worry' as such: I'm a musician who's rarely made any money out of music anyway (with the exception of a couple of session tours), and most of my musician friends are the same. And in terms of recorded music, it wouldn't be the end of the world if no musicians ever recorded another note - I'd love to see a proper resurgence of the live scene, which at the moment doesn't get anything like the critical attention that recordings do.

I guess going to hardcore punk gigs as a teenager was a formative moment for me: trestle tables on which anarchist pamphlets, animal-rights petitions, fanzines, T-shirts and DIY vinyl and CDs nestled against each other made gigs more of a social activity – not just an exchange of cash for sound (though there's nothing wrong with that).

So, sure, that kind of experience can't be downloaded and is still around. The Offline gigs, I suppose, are like distant cousins of that scene almost.

But I kind of resent the blasé attitude that forgets that bands and musicians are part of "the music industry". I'd take comments that welcome the death of "the music industry" a lot more seriously if the people that made them had ever voluntarily, uprompted given some money to a band cos they'd enjoyed listening to them on youtube or wherever.

 

[Brainaddict]

But I kind of resent the blasé attitude that forgets that bands and musicians are part of "the music industry". I'd take comments that welcome the death of "the music industry" a lot more seriously if the people that made them had ever voluntarily, uprompted given some money to a band cos they'd enjoyed listening to them on youtube or wherever.

I think expecting other people to take the initiative in giving money ignores a lot of what we know about human nature It's up to the bands to take the initiative in setting up new dynamics between them and the fans in which it would seem sensible and 'normal' for the fans to give money (whatever that might be for).

 

[BigTom]

Surely there's a basic problem with paying to download music: you need a credit card.

pre-paid "credit" cards will work for this.. payg mobiles were invented becuase the phone industry wanted a way to get their mobiles to under 18's, and mastercard/visa/etc. are not going to miss out on online payments by under 18s either.. parents can pay onto the card instead of cash pocket money.

 

[matt m]

Yeah, well, if I was in a band with a following, and did actually make music people genuinely wanted to listen to, there’s a whole bunch of things I’d do. For a start, I’d caption any youtube videos I posted with a paypal URL and a caption saying words to the effect of “please put some money in that hat, if you’ve enjoyed this music”. I’d also make sure any CDs I pressed up also featured the URL on the sleeve, with a similar message; I’d send the majority out as review copies to journos and concert organisers and festival promoters, then give the rest away. You could then claim the majority of costs of doing so as promotional expenses in accounts, and therefore a tax deductible expense.
I’d also try to organize as many gigs on my own steam as possible; certainly any hometown gigs – I really don’t see why any bands that have a following would use an outside promoter in their hometown when they could do it themselves and keep 90% of the cash themselves.
There’s loads of other things bands could do – I think the sort of ‘fan club’ model/subscription service could work with bands that have a following. Producing fanzines etc

 

[chazegee]

I don't have a 'worry' as such: I'm a musician who's rarely made any money out of music anyway (with the exception of a couple of session tours), and most of my musician friends are the same. And in terms of recorded music, it wouldn't be the end of the world if no musicians ever recorded another note - I'd love to see a proper resurgence of the live scene, which at the moment doesn't get anything like the critical attention that recordings do.

I guess going to hardcore punk gigs as a teenager was a formative moment for me: trestle tables on which anarchist pamphlets, animal-rights petitions, fanzines, T-shirts and DIY vinyl and CDs nestled against each other made gigs more of a social activity – not just an exchange of cash for sound (though there's nothing wrong with that).

So, sure, that kind of experience can't be downloaded and is still around. The Offline gigs, I suppose, are like distant cousins of that scene almost.

But I kind of resent the blasé attitude that forgets that bands and musicians are part of "the music industry". I'd take comments that welcome the death of "the music industry" a lot more seriously if the people that made them had ever voluntarily, uprompted given some money to a band cos they'd enjoyed listening to them on youtube or wherever.

This. Fuck 'em, bands thinking they're owed a living, welcome to the world of a million other artists with comparable skills.
And the record industry? Burn baby burn.

 

[newbie]

I didn't know Andy Falco or the Future of the lefts. That's quite an interesting marketing/advertising idea.

well it's not marketing them at all - if I didn't know Falco was what he called himself, and that they were on Too Pure / Beggars, I would have needed to type in a really unwieldy URL to find out who had written it, and I doubt many would have bothered.

you'd just wait until someone better informed posts a thread on a messageboard. That's the way virals work, and this one has worked out quite well so far, about 100 posts and 30+ contributors on here (any one of whom could be posting on behalf of a social media placement company) and a conversation on drownedinsound.com plus a random repost to a blog.

Not bad, likely more than the original blog post in April managed.

 

[ouchmonkey]

This. Fuck 'em, bands thinking they're owed a living, welcome to the world of a million other artists with comparable skills.
And the record industry? Burn baby burn.

you seem to have misread his post a bit, but I'm more inclined to agree with yours.

the model that's falling apart is based on technology from the middle of last century when radio and 7" vinyl made possible the sudden distribution of 3-4min songs to a massive and, relatively quickly, paying audience.
the huge success of both those technologies made possible a big and very lucrative business around music but both are now getting outmoded

I like vinyl. and radio. but vinyl is a relic and radio does a lot of things well but has been surpassed as a channel for new music.
before either arrived we had music. and we still will if they disappear altogether.

It's not musicians who are in trouble here but a way of doing business and, largely, fuck it,
"a shallow money trench in which good men die like dogs and pimps and hustlers run free, there is also a downside" as some drunk old feller once remarked.

 

[YouSir]

Matt, you're right to a certain degree, a few artists do know about the CC movement but haven't figured out how they can profit from it yet; no one really has, it's a very, very new model comparatively speaking and whilst there are plenty of people experimenting with ways to make money within it there's still no consensus on the best way. It's an evolving thing and, imho, it makes a damn sight more sense to invest in the intellectual and practical debates taking place around it than to just lament the demise of the old model. Plus it's a remarkably un-publicised movement at the moment, the lack of coverage CC bands and the theory itself get within the mainstream media means that the ideas potential will take a lot longer to manifest itself. Such is life of course, but it's a slow process.

I'd also question your assertion that most musicians know about the CC movement, in my experience very few do and most seem confused by the concept initially, it's a major failing of the CC movement that it's too introverted, there are very few attempts to promote the ideas to people in simple and concise terms. Again though, that's an issue for the community to confront, which'll take time and effort.

And if, as you say, most of those people who'd consider using the Creative Commons are already doing so, or at least using a comparative distribution model, then it may just be a dead end for a lot of people. If musicians want to hold on to the old model, which is evidently failing both them and the fans, then so be it, maybe they'll change their minds as matters continue to get worse. And yes, at the moment the alternative is far from appealing but it is what it is, there's no ready made solution to the problems facing professional musicians, there's no solid, alternative model waiting to be unveiled, a new one's got to be built and as exciting as that is it's also a real pain in the arse to deal with in the early days.

 

[YouSir]

But I kind of resent the blasé attitude that forgets that bands and musicians are part of "the music industry". I'd take comments that welcome the death of "the music industry" a lot more seriously if the people that made them had ever voluntarily, uprompted given some money to a band cos they'd enjoyed listening to them on youtube or wherever.

Just for the record, I have

 

[DRINK?]

i thought bands only really made money from live shows these days?....the cost of a stadium tours is a fraction of what it used to be what with technology and the like and if they are flogging tickets at £50 a pop doesn't take long to make huge amounts of cash....thats why all the old bands are reforming as their music is pirated to f*ck, though the flip side is more people listening to it and more likely to shell out on a ticket???....maybe I'm wrong though to be honest couldn't give a f*ck about muso's...they are all sell out f*ckers and if they weren't they be still in their bedroom playing to their mam....if they love it so much money shouldn't come into it

 

[El Jefe]

yeh, cos Future of the Left are definitely charging £50 for their stadium shows.

 

[twistedAM]

i thought bands only really made money from live shows these days?....the cost of a stadium tours is a fraction of what it used to be what with technology and the like and if they are flogging tickets at £50 a pop doesn't take long to make huge amounts of cash....thats why all the old bands are reforming as their music is pirated to f*ck, though the flip side is more people listening to it and more likely to shell out on a ticket???....maybe I'm wrong though to be honest couldn't give a f*ck about muso's...they are all sell out f*ckers and if they weren't they be still in their bedroom playing to their mam....if they love it so much money shouldn't come into it

Within that rant comes a point I've been trying to tell people going on about how cool it is that Pavement are reforming and that Pixies are touring again. Thing is, is that it's so much easier and cheaper for all the rats in the music industry trenches to rebrand and remarket something than it is to develop and market new talent.

Welcome to the retro era where we are just going to be reshovelled shit from the 60s onwards (they'd do the 50s too but all apart from The Shadows - currently on tour! - are dead).

On the bright side, the underground might focus itself a little more and forget about "crossover appeal".

 

[DRINK?]

yeh, cos Future of the Left are definitely charging £50 for their stadium shows.

whatever its all relative, how many people would buy the album worldwide? I bet not that many more would nick it, so if it is their fans ripping them off they shouldn't have such c*nty fans

 

[El Jefe]

whatever its all relative, how many people would buy the album worldwide? I bet not that many more would nick it, so if it is their fans ripping them off they shouldn't have such c*nty fans

point<................................> drink?

 

[DRINK?]

point<................................> drink?

I'm soooooooooooooo right

 

[Silva]

Surely there's a basic problem with paying to download music: you need a credit card.

I saved up my pocket money and bought my first record when I was 7. I spent a small fortune buying records before I finally got a credit card in my early 20s. How is the huge teen/pre-teen audience supposed to pay for downloads? Not everyone's parents will trust them with their credit cards. Not everyone can get a credit card.

There's a generation of younger music consumers who can't pay to download music. And they'll get used to getting music for free.

I've seen a few people suggesting that mobile network operators might play a part in distributing music - every kid has one, some actually have a model capable of reproducing MP3 and even downloading directly the tunes. Even those who don't have one, can get a password to the online control panel.

There's a reason why ringtones sold like hot cupcakes a few years ago - the whole thing was as hassle-free (except those downright nasty subscription service with longlinesoftextscrollingsofastandohyou'llbecharged5quideveryweekuntilyoutextstopto1001 notices) as you can get. People felt comfortable and secure with the transactions - no credit cards involved, just sending a text (or browsing an online store), receive the file, pay directly from the phone card, and it's done.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Mobile networks already operate music downloading systems, only they're bollocks.

 

[Silva]

They're just there to flog the latest singles, which is as far as the MNOs thought went. I'm talking something with the depth of iTunes. Even half of that would be an incredible improvement.

 

[Spandex]

I've seen a few people suggesting that mobile network operators might play a part in distributing music - every kid has one, some actually have a model capable of reproducing MP3 and even downloading directly the tunes. Even those who don't have one, can get a password to the online control panel.

There's a reason why ringtones sold like hot cupcakes a few years ago - the whole thing was as hassle-free (except those downright nasty subscription service with longlinesoftextscrollingsofastandohyou'llbecharged5quideveryweekuntilyoutextstopto1001 notices) as you can get. People felt comfortable and secure with the transactions - no credit cards involved, just sending a text (or browsing an online store), receive the file, pay directly from the phone card, and it's done.

You're probably right - someone will always find a way to separate people from their money.

If mobile phones become the main way for youngsters to access music I guess one model they'll look at is a subscription streaming service, like Spotify or something. As internet speeds and mobile phone web conectivity gets better there won't be a need to download music at all. All there needs to be is a big database with loads of tunes that can be played at a whim. It could be paid for as part of the mobile phone package. Who knows, building individual music collections that you own could become as minority an activity as buying vinyl is now.

Fuck. That's a depressing thought. *hugs that new 12" that got delivered this morning*

 

[matt m]

As internet speeds and mobile phone web conectivity gets better there won't be a need to download music at all. All there needs to be is a big database with loads of tunes that can be played at a whim. It could be paid for as part of the mobile phone package. Who knows, building individual music collections that you own could become as minority an activity as buying vinyl is now.

But ringtones get their *power* from the songs they are abbreviations of. They are the electronic equivalent of a band T-shirt. A band T-shirt couldn't exist without the band that it is advertising. So unless they start making 3-minute long ringtones of entire songs, I think it's safe to say people will carry on listening (downloading/buying from shops on whatever format) to music in that conventional way.

...On the other hand, the situation you've described is not all that different from Spotify. With spotify you listen to music 'on a whim' like that, and you don't need to 'own' any music at all. But I think Spotify is actually a healthy development, because it pays musicians money.

 

[Spandex]

...On the other hand, the situation you've described is not all that different from Spotify. With spotify you listen to music 'on a whim' like that, and you don't need to 'own' any music at all. But I think Spotify is actually a healthy development, because it pays musicians money.

I guess I'm getting away from the inital point of the thread. I don't know if I even have a point beyond speculating on the future of music distribution.

With a subscription streaming service, whether it's Spotify or someone doing something similar, there could be a revolution in how musicians are paid: if roylaties are paid per play, then musicians (or whoever owns the rights to the songs) would get paid not on the number of people who choose to own a tune, but on how much people like it. If you play a song over and over, then more would be paid to the musician (or whoever) than if people listen once or twice and never play it again.

This shit makes my head spin. I buy most of my music on vinyl, haven't got an Ipod and my ancient mobile phone doesn't do much apart from phone calls and texts.

 

[hammerntongues]

Like others here I really only buy music that I can hold and look at ie CD / LP , being honest it really has nothing to do with guilt or the desire to contribute to the musicians finances but purely because of my age and maybe a little sentimentality ,ask my 13 year old son if he wants a CD for birthday or Christmas and he would look at me as though I was mad .

The Music industry has always morphed , shit , cassette tapes were going to kill the industry many years before PC`s were even thought of , If I were a musician and was thinking about giving up my day job to try and " make it " would it be any different now than it would have been 20 years ago , personally I doubt it.

 

[matt m]

With a subscription streaming service, whether it's Spotify or someone doing something similar, there could be a revolution in how musicians are paid: if roylaties are paid per play, then musicians (or whoever owns the rights to the songs) would get paid not on the number of people who choose to own a tune, but on how much people like it. If you play a song over and over, then more would be paid to the musician (or whoever) than if people listen once or twice and never play it again.

As far as I know, that is exactly how Spotify does indeed work at present.

 

[El Jefe]

As far as I know, that is exactly how Spotify does indeed work at present.

or rather doesn't work - it's a financial black hole at the moment, apparently, and if it doesn't start delivering royalties soon labels are going to start pulling their product

 

[Nanker Phelge]

But ringtones get their *power* from the songs they are abbreviations of. They are the electronic equivalent of a band T-shirt. A band T-shirt couldn't exist without the band that it is advertising. So unless they start making 3-minute long ringtones of entire songs, I think it's safe to say people will carry on listening (downloading/buying from shops on whatever format) to music in that conventional way.

...On the other hand, the situation you've described is not all that different from Spotify. With spotify you listen to music 'on a whim' like that, and you don't need to 'own' any music at all. But I think Spotify is actually a healthy development, because it pays musicians money.

Spotify's a good start, and is playing a role in changing the way we 'own' music. Those behind Spotify also have the good sense to offer levels of engagement for it's user through a free and subscripted choice.

Half of my flat is taken up not by music, but by the product music has been packaged within for the last 60 years, but now we are able to have our music collections contained within an external hard drive, or as Spotify is developing, on a server somewhere else in netword.

If Spotify can marry up the storing and playing of music with payment to the artists then I think that is going to feel like a great option to younger generations with no interest in filling their world's with decrepit old junk like records and CDs. Kids want to have a world in the mobile phone, or their notebook, laptop....they don't want to collect - album art means nothing to them.

Infact, Spotify could expand itself to becoming a fully live online music community, with events listings, podcasts, and live broadcast, allowing bands to market themselves through their song plays etc, and build up their followings etc...this could feed into bigger live events and showcases which could be worldwide, involve many countries and types of music, involving known and unknown acts etc.

The death of the music industry may just be the re-birth of musical freedom and collaborative, honest, music.

Musicians will always be required because music will always be required - it's like water and air to many of us. making money out of music has never been easy, but there could be more chance as the industry shuts it doors and our ears go in search of what's really out there.

 

[sim667]

you could read the thread?

I have

it doesnt actually clearly state anywhere who 'andy falco' is

So stop being so fucking presumptuous