File-sharing – view from a small label

[FridgeMagnet]

I've been listening to some tremendous ambient music but the only way to get it legally (that i could find) was to order from the US based label + shipping. That's crazy; they could have made the music available direct to me on their website.

It's basically IMO that they just don't fucking get it. It's not just that small labels expect that people will mail order stuff from another continent for some huge price and with a huge delay - undoubtedly making them less money than having things for download would - it's stupid international licensing stuff. I tried to buy a remix EP on iTunes which was available in the States - it wasn't here. Why not? I would have paid them for that. Instead, I P2Ped it

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'd be hard pushed to pay their prices for a cd, nevermind a download. Squarepushers latest for £7 download. Nah.

It's still not quite at the level that will stop people P2Ping, but at least they're trying I suppose. I'm sure they get a few sales, which they otherwise wouldn't have at all.

 

[skyscraper101]

The thing is that as you say in the last paragraph it would have to remove the benefits of illegal downloading. Only, the steps to which the service would have to go are beyond what the labels want at the moment. They not only want you to pay 99p a track, they want to be able to determine what you can then do with the music so they can charge more if you want to put it on your iPod or stream it to TV. That just isn't going to work, it doesn't let people do what they want to do and what they're used to doing with purchased music, and while the labels may slowly be realising this they're not doing it in time.

I know..and I agree it is ridiculous. Trust me, I'm on the side of the fan. It would be near on impossible to get a system like I suggest up and runnig because it would require a global agreement, probably with the WTO and against heavy pressure from ISPs like AOL and Microsoft etc.

BUT, because it is modelled on the same principle that the PRS accounts for performing royalties, and (whether we agree with it or not) the BBC licence - it does at least ensure that we can accurately pay royalties to artists - which is all they deserve, whilst ensuring that music lovers aren't stung by the majors hiking up the price of tracks simply because they have the power.

 

[Skim]

So... £7 for a new album from Bleep. Out of interest, what does everyone think is a reasonable price to pay for an MP3 album? I don't think seven quid's that bad. There's no artwork and the MP3 format isn't that great quality-wise, but £7 is a collection of new music from someone for the price of two or three drinks at the pub. And unlike a beer, I can enjoy the music over and over again...

 

[wishface]

It's still not quite at the level that will stop people P2Ping, but at least they're trying I suppose. I'm sure they get a few sales, which they otherwise wouldn't have at all.

i don't doubt they are moving in the right direction, they just haven't arrived yet.

 

[wishface]

So... £7 for a new album from Bleep. Out of interest, what does everyone think is a reasonable price to pay for an MP3 album? I don't think seven quid's that bad. There's no artwork and the MP3 format isn't that great quality-wise, but £7 is a collection of new music from someone for the price of two or three drinks at the pub. And unlike a beer, I can enjoy the music over and over again...

With a worldwide market at their fingertips, perhaps sites could charge 25p a track mebbe?

 

[skyscraper101]

Albums cost less than £5 on the US iTunes Music Store. I don't think its that bad.

 

[jbob]

Skim makes a good point. Labels are still necessary for filtering out poor music and generally representing those of quality so we don't have to wade through tons of average bands who aren't going anywhere fast.

This simply isn't true. Again, you're suggesting that artists lack any concept of quality control, when the reality is that artists are the best placed people to judge how they want to sound and what they wish to release. The consumer is the best placed person for filtering out what they may subjectively feel is 'poor music'. As I'm sure you're aware, there are far more artists that get signed to labels and achieve little to no success than there are those that do; how then can the labels be 'filtering out poor music'? And 'poor music' is an entirely subjective concept that I suspect you conflate with commercial success, which is no barometer for the creative worth of music.

It's nonsense to suggest that this idea of 'filtering' out music has ever been done by anyone other than the consumer. I used to buy loads of records, some were rubbish, some were good, some you took a chance on, some you were more sure of. That and reading the music press, listening to Peel and others, going to clubs/gigs, recommendations by friends was your filtering process. If you're passionate about music you've always had to dig about; it's actually far easier now than its ever been - you sit behind your laptop and click on a few things. I take skim's point about certain smaller labels being generally good indicators of certain genres of music as an entirely valid one, but this is in no way applicable to majors who never invest in new scenes or talent - they just want tried and tested.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

i think the digital debate is always around the small label not the big artists. The big label artists will always sell in some way and have financial clout.

Back to the small labels, it's hard to know what the answer is other than 'do it live' but as we all know people are just as reluctant to fork out £7 for a gig as they are a CD.

Dunno what the answer is. Labels i think are still important, artists are not the best judge of their work all the time. You could same for the listeners but let's not go there....

i feel 4 Mike P , i saw him on the breakcore documentary featured as some kinda heavy weight in the scene, his conclusion seemed then that it wasn't really paying the bills.

 

[skyscraper101]

This simply isn't true. Again, you're suggesting that artists lack any concept of quality control, when the reality is that artists are the best placed people to judge how they want to sound and what they wish to release.

Is not the artist who choses if they are liked. Its their audience.

The consumer is the best placed person for filtering out what they may subjectively feel is 'poor music'. As I'm sure you're aware, there are far more artists that get signed to labels and achieve little to no success than there are those that do; how then can the labels be 'filtering out poor music'? And 'poor music' is an entirely subjective concept that I suspect you conflate with commercial success, which is no barometer for the creative worth of music.

Yes, because the consumer really has all the time in the world to trawl through endless myspace sites and demos and EPs and unsigned band pages. The whole point of labels is to filter (subjectively of course) 'good' music from bad and develop acts into profitable performers. Its called A&R and its as old as the hills.

It's nonsense to suggest that this idea of 'filtering' out music has ever been done by anyone other than the consumer. I used to buy loads of records, some were rubbish, some were good, some you took a chance on, some you were more sure of. That and reading the music press, listening to Peel and others, going to clubs/gigs, recommendations by friends was your filtering process.

Wot so YOUR method of random purchases and Peel reccomendations accounts for the entirety of the music buying public? Therefore there was never any purpose for record companies to exist. Do me a favour. Half the bands on Peel were signed anyway and wouldn't be in a position to make half decent recordings had it not been for the financial backing of a label. They were just too 'alternative' for most other shows. This isn't even an argument about major labels. Its a simple fact that without record companies, many bands wouldn't have the finance, business developmet or legal assistance to make a living. It's just representation at the end of the day.

 

[soulman]

Albums cost less than £5 on the US iTunes Music Store. I don't think its that bad.

That's £5 more than it costs to download it for free.

 

[Skim]

That's £5 more than it costs to download it for free.

So is there any music you think is worth paying for, or do you expect it to be free? Would you make a distinction between the majors and the smaller labels when making a free download?

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Personally I would pay for music, But I'm abroad with no credit card, so free downloading is the only way for me to get decent music at the moment.

What are people's views on downloading of other stuff via p2p, e.g. Match of the Day? If BBC made some way that I could download match of the day (and I would pay the equivalent of a licence fee if there was a way to, to be able to download all the BBC programmes), then I would pay it, but they don't. In many ways these pirates, especially sites like UKNova, are merely filling a gap that the companies are too slow to provide.

 

[Skim]

Personally I would pay for music, But I'm abroad with no credit card, so free downloading is the only way for me to get decent music at the moment.

What are people's views on downloading of other stuff via p2p, e.g. Match of the Day? If BBC made some way that I could download match of the day (and I would pay the equivalent of a licence fee if there was a way to, to be able to download all the BBC programmes), then I would pay it, but they don't. In many ways these pirates, especially sites like UKNova, are merely filling a gap that the companies are too slow to provide.

I regularly watch BBC shows from torrents because I can watch them exactly when I want, not when some schedule dictates. I've paid for the programmes through the licence fee already, so have no problem using a P2P site. I'd like to think the BBC is working out how they're going to make their huge library of programmes avaliable for download and make some money from the rest of world – if they're not doing that, they're fools.

 

[art of fact]

its such a shame. i know quite a few people who have released on planet mu, who are pretty big in their relatively small field... its funny how they are selling out pretty big raves of 1000 people but struggling to sell that many records... thinking that most of those people own their music illegally thats why they have gone to see them play. the only money in the scene is in gigs nowadays which is a shame because from going on forums and file sharing sites/programs they still have a decent underground fanbase but have to go out and play sets in between writing albums (boo hoo some would say) where as years ago would have the time the put the effort in full time to make a more coherant album.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I think it's an issue of the whole of the media organiseations being incredably slow at taking up and runnign with new technology.

And in order to survive then you need to evolve to the predomenant form of point of sale in any era. Each and every time a company or group has done this they have owned the market place. Ebay, Amazon Etc...

So what are these dinosaurs doing then to own the new medium and get on top of it?

what have they done in the last 5 years when the technology has matured and evolved almost exclusively to provide on demand content?

fuck all...

nothing...

well actually they have bitched and moaned that they have become a past history and irrelevance in the modern world.

They have neither embraced nor developed the technology, as a result people have found sources for their music else where for their commodidites...

as will always be the case. I accept it must be shattering for an indiependant lable or small lable to be thinkign shit can we afford to make this album or will it get so kained that we'll end up in debt because of it.... but then i'm afraid that this is the 21st centry it's not hard to set up an ecommerce site it costs less than the cost of having a cover designed for the album in the first place to set one up, that works is secure and ready to take payments from the get go... so it's not as if it's even hard to do that....

The fact is that in order to compeate in this day and age you need a strong internet pressence and to be selling a commoditiy which people feel is reasonably priced easily accessable and they have full useage and controll over.

until record compaines realise this then they are goning to continue to struggle and lose money and will continue to go down the protectionist route of attempting to quash the very distribution technology which would actually make them into very profitable companies again if they only choose to embrace it rather than like the countless luddites before them insist on attempting to smash the weaving looms...

 

[Fruitloop]

Skim makes a good point. Labels are still necessary for filtering out poor music and generally representing those of quality so we don't have to wade through tons of average bands who aren't going anywhere fast.

I thought this was what a DJ did, not a record label! Why would you want to trust to a Label rep's taste anyway, when the chances are they aren't looking for what has musical value, but rather what they think they can make a profit out of?

 

[sleaterkinney]

So... £7 for a new album from Bleep. Out of interest, what does everyone think is a reasonable price to pay for an MP3 album? I don't think seven quid's that bad. There's no artwork and the MP3 format isn't that great quality-wise, but £7 is a collection of new music from someone for the price of two or three drinks at the pub. And unlike a beer, I can enjoy the music over and over again...

I've actually bought a few albums off bleep, 7 quid is reasonable, but it's reasonable only if you want the music, if you just want to check something out or think you might like something then would you pay?

 

[rhod]

Technology is driving the pace of change, just as it always has.

I imagine the sheet music publishers of the late 19th C imagined the gravy train would continue indefinitely, as people would surely want to continue to buy "official" printed sheet music to play around the piano, wouldn't they? Whilst there may have been "pirate" publications it wouldn't have eroded their income stream too much as the distribution wasn't possible. At the same time, the thousands of little bands and orchestras that played in the music halls probably thought they had a job for life, as people would always need entertainment, and those instruments wouldn't play themselves.

The arrival of recorded music changed EVERYTHING. For better and worse. Firstly with jukeboxes, then with affordable home equipment.

Now the sheet music publishing is a shadow of what it once was. Wheras many families may have bought sheet music to play from, most families now just switch on the TV for entertainment.

I think within a couple of decades, the whole record company business model will cease to exist. As others have pointed out in this thread, the monolithic "middle man" will will disappear. Artists will do their own music production/recording/publicity/videos/merchandise/tour management or hire sub-contractors to do this for them. Most of this is possible today, anyway.

We'll probably see a revival of live music. Perhaps the big social-networking sites will start to charge nominal amounts to bands for the publicity they provide. In some respects they may begin to resemble the old record companies in the way that they handle music. But we'll never see a return to the type of contracts that made so much for the record companies, often at the expense of many of their artists.

 

[soulman]

So is there any music you think is worth paying for, or do you expect it to be free? Would you make a distinction between the majors and the smaller labels when making a free download?

Live music, and no I wouldn't make a distinction.

 

[jbob]

That's where I differ: I will generally pay for music from small independents. I'd actually like to know just how widespread this is affecting the smaller labels; I don't think Planet Mu is particularly representative, tbh. As I said before, I'm willing to bet the Burial album shifts a decent amount.

 

[maya]

I don't understand those who claim to 'only enjoy live music'- I never enjoy live music as much as the recorded variant and much prefer home listening!
(unless I go out primarily to dance and socialize, not listen- something i usually don't enjoy because music is so all-encompassing to me it always dominates the entire sense field and i have difficulties in trying to focus on other things when music is present)

And with music you own, you can select exactly the tracks you want to hear and when you want to hear them- Unlike live gigs where some twat pushes his elbow in your face and try to chat you up on some hopeless line while smelling of fart and beer

 

[Skim]

I've actually bought a few albums off bleep, 7 quid is reasonable, but it's reasonable only if you want the music, if you just want to check something out or think you might like something then would you pay?

If I want to check something out I can listen to it first – online record stores provide some way of listening to give a taster.

I have checked out plenty of music through free downloads though. Sometimes it's led to me buying something by an artist, sometimes not. I tend to save my money for dance music on vinyl, the kind of thing I might play if I'm DJing. Oink (and Limewire before) was useful for trying out things like rock, which I don't listen to so much these days. If I had more disposable income to spend on music I'd probably buy the originals, but as it stands I will generally pay money for records from small labels and not have too many qualms about downloading anything else if I want to give it a go.

Last FM has fulfilled my need for music very well. I don't have absolute control over which exact track to play, but I can explore new genres and artists without having to own the music.

I'm willing to bet the Burial album shifts a decent amount.

It probably will, but I wonder how much more units will be shifted because of Oink's demise?

 

[jbob]

Unlike live gigs where some twat pushes his elbow in your face and try to chat you up on some hopeless line while smelling of fart and beer

Come on, not all Fall gigs are like that.

 

[jbob]

It probably will, but I wonder how much more units will be shifted because of Oink's demise?

It'll be on some torrent or other somewhere (probably already is) - had mine on pre-order so can't say I've looked.

I do wonder just how much difference there is compared to the taping music scenario of old. I know plenty of poeple who never bought records then and just used to swap tapes. Okay, it's on a bigger, global scale, but the principle remains much the same. I'm quite sure a great deal of what is downloaded is simply discarded after half a listen, and the person who d/l it probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

 

[soulman]

Post script to this. There's an interesting article in the latest Big Issue (In The North) that covers this. Interview with a musician from Liverpool who is using the internet to share his music for free, or donations from fans if they want/can afford to. He reckons his latest album has been completely funded by donations via the net.

 

[art of fact]

my mate jono mccleery is funding his album with donations on his myspace... i reckon he must of got about a grand so far...

www.myspace.com/jonomccleery

 

[Meltingpot]

Two answers to that:

1. a TV license is not optional if you own a TV. Yet we all pay the same TV license regardless of how much of the BBC we consume. This is seen to be fair on the most part so I think it would work for this too.

I disagree, I think the BBC license fee is increasing being seen as unfair now that there are so many other choices for news, TV and home entertainment (not to mention sport). I wouldn't be surprised if within the next ten years there was a serious grassroots movement to scrap it.