I agree with a lot of this ... but how about the idea of multi-millionaire rock-star musicians is going away? I wouldn't feel bad for musicians that make 50-70K per musician a year touring and selling t-shirts. But really ... how rich do they think I want them to be? Because I'm in my 40s with a college education and wads of experience ... and I am earning less than a song on spotify.
I wouldn't feel bad for musicians that make 50-70K per musician a year touring and selling t-shirts. That's a great point. I don't have a problem with musicians who make a boatload of money, but it seems like for musicians, they're either starving or multi-millionaires. I know that's not factually true, but what would happen if there were many more musicians making a middle-class salary from their music? For one, I think it would legitimatize music in the eyes of many people, that is, make it a "real" job. Of course, that would rely on a much broader consumption of music and a whole lot of other factors, but I do think that if there is some way that could be found for artists of all stripes to do their thing and live, instead of these planetary bodies that some of these pop-stars or New York Times best-selling authors are, then that would be better all around. I really think that that competition and legitimacy would drive the quality a lot higher than the passing consumption of the fairly rare art objects that are now created. I'm sure that there would be problems with my vision and I'm not proposing it as a viable solution, though I do think that monetization of the arts needs to be implemented in a much different way.I agree with a lot of this ... but how about the idea of multi-millionaire rock-star musicians is going away?
Wow. I didn't know any of that. The value of internet companies seems to arbitrary. How do they arrive at these numbers?Another chunk of change is soon to follow. The labels also got equity; so they are now partners and shareholders in Spotify, which is valued at around $3bn. That income from equity, when and if the service goes public, does not have to be shared with the artists. It seems obvious that some people are making a lot of money on this deal, while the artists have been left with meagre scraps.
Lack of imagination about new revenue streams by aging musicians is hardly going to result in a lack of creative content. Look at how much more diversity and creativity there is on the music scene now than 30 years ago, this is largely due to the democratizing effect the internet can have on such industries. I think there is an interesting parallel with comic strips (think funny pages, not spiderman). Pre-internet, you made a comic strip and then sold it, selling to just one person or newspaper was not profitable so you would sell it to an organization that could distribute it for you, a syndicate. The rise of the internet brought us some of the first web-comics, syndicated by the internet. But how do you make money off of that? Well, they had to do a lot of trial and error, but there are now a growing number of people capable of maintaining a living (and doing it better than traditional syndication ever did) and they are doing it in a gigantic diversity of ways, not just by creating product X (the comic strip itself) and selling it. Music still feels like it's stuck in the pre-internet era. Musicians create a 2-3 minute song and try and sell it. That seems like a really inflexible model, there is no technical reason music needs to be packaged this way and I'm guessing that the people capable of finding a new way to package their talents could start a revolution. I don't have answers, but all this fatalism about how music is dying is silly and short-sighted.
I largely agree with the point you're making in the rest of your comment- But webcomics are not the best choice for a medium that's doing "well" profit wise. I mean, yes, you have comics like Questionable Content that are able to do it full time- but the vast majority of the time web comics are a profitless medium. It hasn't drained creativity from the medium of comics- but I would say the internet was bad for the profit margins of comics.The rise of the internet brought us some of the first web-comics, syndicated by the internet. But how do you make money off of that? Well, they had to do a lot of trial and error, but there are now a growing number of people capable of maintaining a living (and doing it better than traditional syndication ever did)
The point was really that web comic people diversified. Look at penny-arcade, Scott Kurtz, randal Monroe, Ryan west (I mean North), the oatmeal, kris straub. Questionable content is almost traditional by their standards, making one product, one way and selling it. All the other talent in comics have branched out, using that art to make more diverse things than a formula driven 3-panel comic. EDIT: Also, all those people do make a good living, heck, penny-arcade has a staff of like 7 people, a multi-million dollar charity and an international expo, they are doing pretty good. I can name more people living off web-comics than I ever could for syndication. EDIT: Ryan North, Ha!
Ryan North, for example, drummed up a lot of sales for his anthology Machine of Death, it's sequel, and his recent Hamlet book just because people are fans of his writing. He's got enough popularity that he's writing now for the Adventure Time print comic. Most of the time, people are interested in his stuff because, hey, it's by "the guy that writes Dinosaur Comics". KC Green writes the Regular Show one. Kate Beaton did some work for Marvel. Anthony Clark has done covers for Marvel, and I'm sure there's a few more examples that are slipping my mind. They've built themselves a loyal fanbase who will provide interest in their other endeavors.
Me, personally, I buy vinyl simply because they're more fun. I find the physical record is worth the extra cash, even on my very limited budget. I don't buy vinyl simply to support the artist, and I think that's a terrible reason to do so. The music industry needs to stop simply asking people to pay more "Just to help out the artists" and focus on marketing. Make people want to buy your product, because they think it's worth the money. Brand it, make it cool, advertise. Don't ask for charity.
I somewhat agree, and somewhat disagree with this. I think what's killing the creative content in the world is trying to adapt old models into new surroundings; as opposed to developing a new model for current mediums. IE: Why do we still have record labels? I'm probably in a vast minority, but I'm of the opinion that listening to music should be free. As a guy that (used to be a) musician, I don't want to take anyone's money if they want to appreciate my work. Let's be honest; I'm writing and creating because I pretty much feel compelled to do so. It's just been something that I do. If someone wants to appreciate it, even better! For the most part, we don't pay visual artists to look at their work. I find it strange that it's considered a social norm that we expect to pay musicians (at least) something to listen to their work, but we don't pay a sculptor, or a painter to view their piece. When someone buys an album, they're not actually buying the music, they're buying the right to listen to the music. Quite frankly, it's pretty easy to steal it anyway these days... why make criminals out of people? On the other hand... if someone wants to take my otherwise FREE work, and use it within some creative piece of their own to generate profit, I should absolutely get financially remunerated. So... if someone is writing a movie, and wants to take my song, and put it in their movie... well... pay me. Open source music for the regular listeners; and there's a charge to people that want to re-use my music for their own works. In my experience, people typically listen to music that's new to them because someone recommended it. Word of mouth. If my song becomes popular due to word of mouth - other content creators are going to want to use it. As a musician, I can make money in other ways than album sales... merchandising is a huge way, licensing for television is another, selling sheet music and (verifiably correct) TAB is one, putting on an AMAZING live show is another. I'm not at all a fan of their music, but KISS is a great example. There are plenty of people that love KISS, and will buy anything KISS related. No one can go on a torrent site and steal the experience of going to a live show; nor can they torrent a physical product (yet). The music itself, being open sourced... well... I think that just seems right and fair. It's just a model that isn't for everyone. I'm not going to get in to too much more detail on the matter, but it's something I've been thinking about for a while now. Musicians all know that the record labels aren't appropriately reimbursing them anyway. Let's just kill off the needless middleman by making their commodity non-existent. What is it that they do these days anyway? Get you exposure? How? What's a record store? Radio station? I can't recall the last time I listened to radio in my car that wasn't talk radio. Marketing and promotion? I can do this on my own for a while, then if it becomes too much to handle, hire a web marketing person, maybe more... I can get my own attorney too when I get large enough to necessitate. It is my product afterall... so essentially, it's my business to manage. Can someone remind me what it is that the RIAA did prior to going after people for downloading? How about ASCAP, BMI? They only exist to sustain themselves; they don't actually create anything.
When I was younger I never really felt guilty about pirating music because I didn't have the ability to buy anything over the internet, lacking a debit card, and having little income to buy albums from HMV etc. So when I started growing up and had some money hanging around, I started buying a few albums. In my head it's around £11-16 for an album and I could afford a few, but my current music collection is a few hundred artists and their works. When I talk to my friends about music there's a constant "Have you heard X? I stopped listening to Y a while back, now I listen to Z who are kinda like if A and B had a child who grew up with C" - I feel expected to be aware of a great deal of music as if what I listened to and what I enjoyed reflected on me as a person. No offence to artists, but I can't exactly afford that at any point. I'm expected to be aware of several hundred artists and buying one album of each artists means I need to spend several thousand pounds which keeps growing year on year. The fight was always going to be black and white; you pay for everything with minor exceptions or you pay for nothing with minor exceptions and I can't afford the first category. In my room at the moment I have two physical albums which I bought because I love the artist and can't go see them. One of my favourite rappers; Scroobius Pip, I go see every year he comes to my city and I've considered going to his other shows in London. It's becoming difficult however to decide who I support and where. Do I buy the album of the indie band because they have less income and does that mean I don't morally have to buy the album of the megaband because they earn so much already? Music purchase doesn't seem to be a trade that way; it's charity. Google Play/Spotify aren't selling music, they're selling convenience. That's why they don't care how much they pay the artist.
When I was in school, I saved every last dime I had to buy music. One day I was helping clean out my Uncle's garage and found a Metallica Single cassette tape (remember those). I played that tape nonstop for months until I had the $12 for the whole Kill 'Em All album. It wasn't long before I had every one of their albums. Soon later, I began collecting CD's of my other favorite bands. I joined up with Columbia House during one of their 12 cd's for $1 deal. I had two jobs in high school and spent every red cent on one of two things, drumsticks and CD's. These were the days before file sharing, streaming music, and easily obtained media. Without the purchasing power of Columbia House, I could never have afforded the music I was exposed to. The impact that music had on my life in high school cannot be understated. Without it I would be a much different person. There are a lot of us that have this connection with music, so we are passionate about our favorite artsists and support them by going to shows and buying shirts & albums. When mp3's and filesharing became all the rage, we all assumed that the price of digital music would be a fraction of the cost of an actual CD--but it isn't. The cost of entertainment is still inflated by the "distribution" costs created by the record labels. I see the solution as musicians retaining their production and distribution rights, cutting out the middle man. Utilizing these streaming services to promote select songs and offering complete albums or remixes through the artist's page only.
More people should be using services like bandcamp for music distribution. Record labels are the past, independently released music is the future. Many people are making music that wouldn't have been possible without the widespread use of the internet, in the form of mashups. And everyone knows that the world is a better place now that we have stuff like this.