"Bono calls for control over internet downloads"

[toscano]

Yes ISPs allow data transfer, yes some people use that bandwidth to steal, why should everyone's data be monitored and everyone charged to fund record companies?

This is exactly the issue(s) most sane people have with Bono/McGuine$$, not the piracy itself but the solutions being proposed by them.

 

[torn vinyl]

And I'm telling you the day of the indie band being able to tour is dead. I've seen it, and it's only going to get worse. Labels were a necessary evil for this... Just like every other fucking industry out there, I'm sure yours has them too.

Seriously? From what I've heard, the touring industry has never been better. There are multiple good gigs every night. I've never heard any indie bands complain about downloading. The ones in my town usually acknowledge it for helping spread their music because the RADIO WONT PLAY IT and MAJOR LABELS WONT TOUCH IT. Downloading has weakened the major labels hold on the public imagination; they no longer dictate what people listen to and create consensus.

Emily Haines once spoke about playing a big gig in spain or something and everyone sang along to every song...because they downloaded the music for free. Many bands wouldn't be able to survive without downloading because they would have no way to get their music out there. A bogger hears a Deerhunter song, posts is, it spreads, Pitchfork hears it, Deerhunter can now tour the world and actually make money. Sure, there may not be any multimillionaire rock stars, but that's probably a good thing.

The loudest complainers are the rich guys and the music divisions of multinational corporations.

And consider this: downloading began at the end of the boy/girl band era, when more and more people were complaining that records only had two good songs and the album sucked...so why buy it? The majors don't treat MUSIC with respect, they don't treat the bands or the fans with respect. So why should anyone give a fuck about them? If they treated the music as more than a product maybe people would respect it more. The labels piss on art. It's sick. Trent Reznor, Billy Corgan, Pearl Jam, radiohead...they have the right idea. They know that the machine is corrupt and they don't need it. U2, however, are ... they're just greedy I guess.

 

[MikeyJB]

Trent Reznor, Billy Corgan, Pearl Jam, radiohead...they have the right idea. They know that the machine is corrupt and they don't need it. U2, however, are ... they're just greedy I guess.

I agree with what you're saying. Sadly the above seems more and more true.

 

[BVS]

Seriously? From what I've heard, the touring industry has never been better. There are multiple good gigs every night. I've never heard any indie bands complain about downloading. The ones in my town usually acknowledge it for helping spread their music because the RADIO WONT PLAY IT and MAJOR LABELS WONT TOUCH IT. Downloading has weakened the major labels hold on the public imagination; they no longer dictate what people listen to and create consensus.

Emily Haines once spoke about playing a big gig in spain or something and everyone sang along to every song...because they downloaded the music for free. Many bands wouldn't be able to survive without downloading because they would have no way to get their music out there. A bogger hears a Deerhunter song, posts is, it spreads, Pitchfork hears it, Deerhunter can now tour the world and actually make money. Sure, there may not be any multimillionaire rock stars, but that's probably a good thing.

The loudest complainers are the rich guys and the music divisions of multinational corporations.

And consider this: downloading began at the end of the boy/girl band era, when more and more people were complaining that records only had two good songs and the album sucked...so why buy it? The majors don't treat MUSIC with respect, they don't treat the bands or the fans with respect. So why should anyone give a fuck about them? If they treated the music as more than a product maybe people would respect it more. The labels piss on art. It's sick. Trent Reznor, Billy Corgan, Pearl Jam, radiohead...they have the right idea. They know that the machine is corrupt and they don't need it. U2, however, are ... they're just greedy I guess.

So much short sighted about this post. Billy Corgan, Pearl Jam, Radiohead they all have the luxury of leaving labels because they are established, and honestly the way their business models are set up they make more money this way than they all did on their last major label album. So to say who is and who is not greedy is bullshit.

A new band starting tomorrow, will not have that luxury. Where will they get the capital to fund that first tour? Yes indie bands are surviving right now, but most had some name recognition within the last 4 to 5 years, that's when things started to make a drastic change.

People have always complained about albums, why do you think album tracklistings changed so much during the time of cassettes? All the singles were placed on the A-side due to the fact that if you were a casual fan you would fast forward to the end of the side or flip it over.

So I ask, how will a band tomorrow be able to fund a tour? If they can't fund that first tour, how will they survive? And then it leaves the rest of your post moot.

 

[mama cass]

A new band starting tomorrow, will not have that luxury. Where will they get the capital to fund that first tour? Yes indie bands are surviving right now, but most had some name recognition within the last 4 to 5 years, that's when things started to make a drastic change.

People have always complained about albums, why do you think album tracklistings changed so much during the time of cassettes? All the singles were placed on the A-side due to the fact that if you were a casual fan you would fast forward to the end of the side or flip it over.

So I ask, how will a band tomorrow be able to fund a tour? If they can't fund that first tour, how will they survive? And then it leaves the rest of your post moot.

they will need to adapt and start sourcing different types of funding! survival of the fittest and all that! maybe the whole music industry needs to be reformed and overhauled if it wants to stay in the game - how about starting special music industry "business incubators" and "seed funds" etc. for promising new bands, like in other industries? treat them more like businesses than up-and-coming celebrities, and make them work hard for their rewards just like the rest of us? i dunno...

how about looking at it like the art industry? you don't get fine artists getting crabby about people viewing or copying crappy digital images of their paintings etc do you? maybe a new structure or type of company could be set up within the music industry which buys the "original" from the artist for a good price so the artist (musician) gets a good reward for their original piece of work at least, which would encourage musicians to get productive... keep up royalties for commercial use, advertising, sales of hard copies etc, but maybe grit their teeth and quit whining about "internet losses"

i think it's a much overdue payback time for the music industry - they have fleeced us for years with crazy cd prices which were way out of proportion to production costs and artist cut... and i feel blanket monitoring of internet use is a breach of civil liberties

ps- i always thought U2 were ok about the exchange of music free of charge, which has always gone on, but just used to get pissy about people charging others for bootlegs??

plus what about the secondhand record market and taping in the "olden" days? this really is nothing new! it's just that technology has made "sharing" so much easier

 

[mama cass]

plus the Arctic Monkeys did alright with the internet didn't they?

 

[Salome]

there are definite deep issues in the way the music industry was working
but I don't see how the solution can be found by stiffling creativity cause of letting popular appeal decide whether anyone will even make it past posting some songs on their myspace
which is what will happen when other means of funding disappear

 

[Saracene]

plus the Arctic Monkeys did alright with the internet didn't they?

Arctic Monkeys and who else, though? They're always brought up as an example in these arguments, but one swallow does not make a spring. Plus it's not like they remained an unsigned band.

 

[popshopper]

So I ask, how will a band tomorrow be able to fund a tour? If they can't fund that first tour, how will they survive? And then it leaves the rest of your post moot.

They get a loan? Basically all a record deal is these days is a loan of money and access to a PR company and music 'expertise' which you have to pay for from the loan. You then get to pay off the entirety of the loan before you see a dime. An artist pays the record company for everything.The Arctic Monkeys were selling out ballrooms across the UK before their record deal on the basis of word of mouth and internet sharing, if they can do it why can't everyone else? Typically at the moment people are running to the 'easy money' of a record company advance the first chance they get, the Arctic Monkeys were different because they refused to take liability for costs upfront, so they waited until they got a deal which suited them, but they could have easily have continued their growth without a record company, most people don't because it's simply easier to take the money up front and the expertise offered and that's the way everyone does it.

 

[BVS]

they will need to adapt and start sourcing different types of funding! survival of the fittest and all that! maybe the whole music industry needs to be reformed and overhauled if it wants to stay in the game - how about starting special music industry "business incubators" and "seed funds" etc. for promising new bands, like in other industries? treat them more like businesses than up-and-coming celebrities, and make them work hard for their rewards just like the rest of us? i dunno...

Oh, so now all bands are lazy and seeking celebrity? You don't mind treating it like a business, yet you don't want to pay for what they give you? So much wrong with this post.

What do you do for a living?

how about looking at it like the art industry? you don't get fine artists getting crabby about people viewing or copying crappy digital images of their paintings etc do you? maybe a new structure or type of company could be set up within the music industry which buys the "original" from the artist for a good price so the artist (musician) gets a good reward for their original piece of work at least, which would encourage musicians to get productive... keep up royalties for commercial use, advertising, sales of hard copies etc, but maybe grit their teeth and quit whining about "internet losses"

Bad analogy. Who do you know who hangs crappy digital images? Artists get paid for prints and their images used, let alone the original.

So you mean sell their masters? Prince is saying shame to you!

But you're right, as of now the only way new artist are going to make money off recorded music is to sell to commercials, like I said no more Pearl Jams, so be careful what you ask for...

i think it's a much overdue payback time for the music industry - they have fleeced us for years with crazy cd prices which were way out of proportion to production costs and artist cut... and i feel blanket monitoring of internet use is a breach of civil liberties

I hate this attitude, it's so wrong. Crazy cd prices? Cd prices have changed very little since the late 80's especially factoring in inflation. You can buy a CD for the same price as one entree at PF Changs, how is that fleecing? A little perspective people.

ps- i always thought U2 were ok about the exchange of music free of charge, which has always gone on, but just used to get pissy about people charging others for bootlegs??

They were ok about live music, which most bands are...

plus what about the secondhand record market and taping in the "olden" days? this really is nothing new! it's just that technology has made "sharing" so much easier

Well some artists tried to go after them at one point as well, but then realized it's only shitty albums that get sold back

 

[hatrickpatrick]

I don't see what the controversy is. U2 make incredible music and they don't want people stealing it. It doesn't matter how rich a band is or isn't, they have a right to their own work and to decide how to distribute it.

 

[BVS]

They get a loan? Basically all a record deal is these days is a loan of money and access to a PR company and music 'expertise' which you have to pay for from the loan. You then get to pay off the entirety of the loan before you see a dime. An artist pays the record company for everything.

Yeah, you don't know much about labels do you? Loans come with interest and monthly payments, labels come with advances, PR, access to equipment, etc...

The Arctic Monkeys were selling out ballrooms across the UK before their record deal on the basis of word of mouth and internet sharing, if they can do it why can't everyone else? Typically at the moment people are running to the 'easy money' of a record company advance the first chance they get, the Arctic Monkeys were different because they refused to take liability for costs upfront, so they waited until they got a deal which suited them, but they could have easily have continued their growth without a record company, most people don't because it's simply easier to take the money up front and the expertise offered and that's the way everyone does it.

So why did they sign? Yes the Artic Monkeys are the exceptions, there are exceptions to every rule, but think about that for awhile, look at whatever industry you work for, do you want the exception to become the rule? Most of the time, not... They had big support by the BBC, would a band in the states have the same forum? I can't think of one.

 

[VintagePunk]

Seriously? From what I've heard, the touring industry has never been better. There are multiple good gigs every night. I've never heard any indie bands complain about downloading. The ones in my town usually acknowledge it for helping spread their music because the RADIO WONT PLAY IT and MAJOR LABELS WONT TOUCH IT. Downloading has weakened the major labels hold on the public imagination; they no longer dictate what people listen to and create consensus.

Emily Haines once spoke about playing a big gig in spain or something and everyone sang along to every song...because they downloaded the music for free. Many bands wouldn't be able to survive without downloading because they would have no way to get their music out there. A bogger hears a Deerhunter song, posts is, it spreads, Pitchfork hears it, Deerhunter can now tour the world and actually make money. Sure, there may not be any multimillionaire rock stars, but that's probably a good thing.

The loudest complainers are the rich guys and the music divisions of multinational corporations.

Are you Canadian? I ask because you mentioned Emily Haines. Have you ever heard of the Canadian Music Creator's Coalition? They are a group started to speak out against legislation that would punish fans for file sharing. Here's a statement from their website and a list of those who have signed up.

Canadian Music Creators Coalition

We are a growing coalition of Canadian music creators who share the common goal of having our voices heard about the laws and policies that affect our livelihoods. We are the people who actually create Canadian music. Without us, there would be no music for copyright laws to protect.

Until now, a group of multinational record labels has done most of the talking about what Canadian artists need out of copyright. Record companies and music publishers are not our enemies, but let's be clear: lobbyists for major labels are looking out for their shareholders, and seldom speak for Canadian artists. Legislative proposals that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels' control over the enjoyment of music are made not in our names, but on behalf of the labels' foreign parent companies.

Here's the list. Sorry about the formatting and the length, but I'm posting it to prove a point. If you're not interested in reading it, scroll past. There are artists from every genre on here, and there are artists of all levels of fame. Many of them, I've never heard of before, so they must be just starting out, or indie indie. Others are some of the biggest acts we have in Canada right now, ones that actually do sell records. The point is, they don't seem concerned about the future of sales, or their inability to tour in the future. In fact, from what I've read and heard from this group, the opposite to what BVS is saying seems to hold true - these artists recognize that getting their music out to the public by any means possible enables them to tour, which is where they make their real money. They build up a following gradually, through word of mouth, and then if they appeal to enough people, they're off.

Granted, the Canadian music industry and the US music industry are very different. Ours is smaller, more close-knit, and I'd vehemently argue, better. At least I'm far more interested in Canadian artists than I am US artists, typically. So, maybe Canadians don't expect to become super famous and rich, and that's the difference, they just want to play, and make a comfortable living. Or, maybe it really is the industry people feeding some artists and us a line of shit that if record sales dry up, many bands won't reach their potential. I do know though that enough bands have flourished without major label support, at least here in Canada, to make me very skeptical.

So, do these 200-odd artist not know what's good for them? Are they misguided? I don't know, but I sort of take their word for it.

[Edit - I felt guilty putting up 85 screens of poorly formatted crap, so I did clean it up, and I left up some of their quotes. The complete list can be found here: Canadian Music Creators Coalition ? artists and most of the artists have included websites where you can hear their music.]

‘Til Thursday
2 Cubic Feet
Aaron Saloman
Acres Of Lions
Adam “Vudu” (In tha Chamber)
Adam Gauthier (Acoustic Reality)
Adaptive Reaction
adcBicycle
alexisonfire
Alison Vardy
Allison Outhit
Andrew Cash
Andrew Vincent
Andy Curran
Arek Koziikowski (St.Rock, St.Roll, Private Property, 3th Generation)
Arlen Thompson (Wolf Parade)

"My band has benefited immensely from people being able to share our music, and I doubt we would have had the reach that we have been able to achieve if the ability to share music was stifled by heavy handed copyright law."

Ashwin Sood
Astroknaughts
Avril Lavigne
Barbara Shackleton
Barenaked Ladies

Barenaked Ladies
"This effort is not about giving our music away, it's about encouraging innovative approaches that will compensate musicians and protect music fans from litigation." Steven Page: Barenaked Ladies

Ben Arnold (Stecker)
Ben Bowen
Ben Grossman
Ben’s Imaginary Band

"I, as a maker of music, find bittorrent and other file sharing services an invaluable tool, not only for promotion techiques, but for sharing content in general." - Benjamin Romvari

Big Joe Burke
Bill Colgate
Bill Henderson (Chilliwack)
Billy Bryans
Billy Holmes
Billy Talent
Blair Packham
Blaise Alleyne
Bob Ezrin
Bob Wiseman
Brenda MacIntyre
Broken Social Scene
BronweN
Captain Tractor
Carll Parkes
Carlos Bastidas (Mapale Latin Band)
Carrie Catherine
Chad Nelson
Chantal Kreviazuk
Children of the CPU
Chris Hatton
Chris Hogan
Chris Tate
Christian Hurst
Christopher Eckart
Colt Harley
Country Church vs The Crotch Rockets
Crackdale
Craig Browne (Memory Bank)
Craig Sheppard (Johnny Favourite Swing Orchestra)
Dafydd Hughes
Dany Bryk
DarkBlueWorld
Darylectones
Dave Bidini (Rheostatics)
David J. Taylor
Dead of Winter
Deathstyle
Debashis Sinha
Del Phillips
Dennis Ellsworth (The Little Pilgrims)
Derek K. Miller
Des McKinney
Din Yalonen
DJPumpsta
Don Mallet
Doug Boyer
Dream Theory
Ebony & Ivory
Edmonton Block Heater
Egger
Erik
Escape Goats
Feist
Fishkiss
Flattstreet
Frank McTruck
Gaelin Brown
Gary Murphy
Golden Seals
Greg Keelor (Blue Rodeo)
Greg King (Hatevil)
Gumption
Hollowmind
Howie and the Ringtones
i.martron
Infotourist
Jake Robins
Jan Randall
Jarrett Martineau (No-1 and Lost Tribes of the Sun)
Jeff Lazare
Jerry Fielden (AraPacis)
Jim Boraas
Joel Scott
John K. Samson (Weakerthans)
Johnathan Arkell
Jonathan Seet
Jordan Nobles
Juliana Sparks
Justin Rutledge
Karol Thorsteinsson (One Blue Door)
Keith Jolie (Endsville)
Ken Dirschl
Kevin Wright
L.C. Di Marco (LiANA)
Leah Main
Lighthouse
Likewater
Limbo
Lindsay Jane
Lionel Dean Jarvis (Music Director/Bassist for Nelly Furtado)
Lloyd Litke
Lola Dutronic
Luc Normand
Luke Doucet
Matt Paxton
Matthew Good
May Ip
Mayraygun
Metric
Michael Dorsey
Michael Marton
Mike Flynn
Moneyshot
Moon Circus
Nat Jay
Nathan Stafford
Neil Haverty
Neil Leyton
Neon Tetra
NulSiDécouvert
Oddities
OMNIBOL
One Bad Son
Oneyedjacks
Or the Worms Will Get In
ory no’man
Out the Garage
Paper Rock Scissors
Partick Gaul
Peter Anthony
Propellor
Put On Your Drinking Cap Records
Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace)

http://www.ourladypeace.net/home.php
"I think you're going to find that the major labels are not speaking on behalf of the artists anymore and the coalition is going to make sure the artists -- which are the people that make the songs and drive the business -- have a voice."

Randy Bachman
Ray Boulay
Rhythmicru
Rich Hope
Richie Hawtin
Rick Worrall
RIVIR
Rod Hayward (Risen From The Ashes)
Ron Brogdon (Moron)
Ronnie King (The Stampeders)
Ryder Graham
Sébastian Hell
Sam Roberts
Sarah McLachlan
Schizoid
Shehzaad Jiwani
Simon Nakonechny
Sloan
Slow down, Molasses
Sonata Vocé Records
Stars
Steve Heavy Sheilds
Steve Hupé
Steve McKay
Strawberry Vale
Sule Heitner
Sum 41

http://www.islandrecords.com/sum41/site/home.las
"It's essential that any new copyright law allows the fans to share music without the threat of litigation" Derek Whibley: Sum 41

Sunday Night Cruise
Tabby Johnson
Tallyho
Tara MacLean
Team Captain
Terry Dobbin
The Angry Parrots
The Ashton Starr
The Cosmonauts
The Cranston Foundation
The Deviance
The Flints
The Habit
The Johnny V Trio
The Johnstones
The Makitas
The New Pornographers
The No Big Deal Band
The Sonic Defence
The Sweet Homewreckers
The White Pixies
Thehipcola
Three Days Grace
tobias c. van Veen
Tom and Lori (Lulu and the TomCat/LuLu et le Mantou)
TonMeister K
Uncle Nestor
Uncle Seth
Violet Lab
Volcanoless in Canada
Wide Mouth Mason
Will Wong
Yvon Loiselle

 

[ozeeko]

it's pretty simple.

artists should get paid for their work.

it's their job.

the end.

(and i download a lot of stuff, but i can also acknowledge the fact that it's stealing)

 

[BVS]

Granted, the Canadian music industry and the US music industry are very different. Ours is smaller, more close-knit, and I'd vehemently argue, better. At least I'm far more interested in Canadian artists than I am US artists, typically. So, maybe Canadians don't expect to become super famous and rich, and that's the difference, they just want to play, and make a comfortable living. Or, maybe it really is the industry people feeding some artists and us a line of shit that if record sales dry up, many bands won't reach their potential. I do know though that enough bands have flourished without major label support, at least here in Canada, to make me very skeptical.

So, do these 200-odd artist not know what's good for them? Are they misguided? I don't know, but I sort of take their word for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have social programs that help support unsigned artists? I could be wrong but if I remember right I remember purpleoscar bitching about certain programs I'll have to do some research.

And maybe you're right and this is more a US thing. I have some pretty good relationships with a few indie bands, two of which get mentioned in here quite a bit by others, so they've hit a fair amount of notoriety. But they have truly struggled, one had to file bankrupt for two years and is still dealing with credit issues despite their "success", and the other begrudgingly sold their song to a commercial in order to stay alive.

And one of my very close friends was in a band signed by a Sony sub label, had two singles in heavy rotation, selling out clubs nationally, and is now a waiter playing local gigs again. The label went under, the sales from the album barely covered the two year tour, and then two members had babies and they couldn't afford food. They didn't do drugs or any of the excess, but because they were a five piece on the road the expenses, etc they couldn't fund themselves. He always told me if it were two years earlier they could have at least broke even that first tour and hopefully booked bigger venues the second time around, and been able to make a living as a live band. And they were honestly one of the best live acts I've seen...

 

[VintagePunk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have social programs that help support unsigned artists? I could be wrong but if I remember right I remember purpleoscar bitching about certain programs I'll have to do some research.

And maybe you're right and this is more a US thing. I have some pretty good relationships with a few indie bands, two of which get mentioned in here quite a bit by others, so they've hit a fair amount of notoriety. But they have truly struggled, one had to file bankrupt for two years and is still dealing with credit issues despite their "success", and the other begrudgingly sold their song to a commercial in order to stay alive.

And one of my very close friends was in a band signed by a Sony sub label, had two singles in heavy rotation, selling out clubs nationally, and is now a waiter playing local gigs again. The label went under, the sales from the album barely covered the two year tour, and then two members had babies and they couldn't afford food. They didn't do drugs or any of the excess, but because they were a five piece on the road the expenses, etc they couldn't fund themselves. He always told me if it were two years earlier they could have at least broke even that first tour and hopefully booked bigger venues the second time around, and been able to make a living as a live band. And they were honestly one of the best live acts I've seen...

Well, you know what it's like in socialist countries, wealthy artists galore are sucking off the teat of the government, while the poor conservative working man struggles to get ahead. I'm sure, as you've probably deduced yourself, that although there are some select grants out there, no one is supporting themselves or getting rich off of them, by any means, no matter what purpleoscar says. In fact, one of the biggest and best known grants to Canadian musicians comes in the form of VideoFact/MuchFact funding for music videos, which is funded by the private sector, Much Music, our MTV. Just a quick look at their website told me that they offer up to $25,000 to cover up to 50% of production costs, so we're not talking big budget productions, here. And these grants are FAR more common that government ones.

I think one of the main differences here is that our population is so small compared to yours that even big artists here are not going to get wildly rich unless they make it in the US or internationally, so they probably accept that they're in it under the terms I stated before, for getting to do something they love, while earning a relatively modest to decent living.

Just a thought - I'm no expert here, but decades of being a pretty hard core music fan has given me some knowledge of how the industry works - but it seems to me that the scenario(s) you're describing could have easily happened pre-downloading era. Some bands don't make it because their appeal isn't wide enough. Some bands have shitty luck, and things happen beyond their control that cause them to fail. Sometimes downloading might be used as an easy excuse when there could be other reasonable explanations.

Anyway, I just wanted to offer another perspective, and show that some artists actually do favour downloading (or at the very least, don't want their fans to be punished for it), and seem to be of the belief that it's helped their careers rather than hurt them. And, as I said earlier in this thread, although I do download, I appreciate how hard it is for up and coming bands, or Canadian bands, so if I hear something I like, I make every effort to buy it, to support the band.

 

[mama cass]

Oh, so now all bands are lazy and seeking celebrity? You don't mind treating it like a business, yet you don't want to pay for what they give you? So much wrong with this post.

hey man i don't download illegally - if i want music i would rather buy hard copies than download mp3s alright... i am just suggesting that maybe a whole new business model needs to be found which is sustainable and viable for musicians, and maybe the music industry can learn some lessons from the way other industries operate

What do you do for a living?

ha ha you're so funny BVS

Bad analogy. Who do you know who hangs crappy digital images? Artists get paid for prints and their images used, let alone the original.

people copy digital art images all the time, put them on their computers and look at them (which equates to listening to downloaded music), or even just view them on the internet, whatever, and don't pay the artist, no?

So you mean sell their masters? Prince is saying shame to you!.

oh please don't put words in my mouth sweetheart

But you're right,

thank you! i always am! lmfao!!!!!

Crazy cd prices? Cd prices have changed very little since the late 80's especially factoring in inflation. You can buy a CD for the same price as one entree at PF Changs, how is that fleecing? A little perspective people.

i don't know where you're from BVS but in the UK i remember paying a lot of money for cds years back sometimes around £15-£18 a time in the early days - weren't cds much cheaper in the US though?? but obviously with the internet and online ordering things have changed a lot since then at least - plus the artist gets such a small cut of the cd price which means the music industry have been raking in huge profits!

Well some artists tried to go after them at one point as well, but then realized it's only shitty albums that get sold back

well that's a watertight argument isn't it BVS

the fact of the matter is technology has changed so the music industry has to find a way to adapt and survive, just like other industries do!

 

[mama cass]

Arctic Monkeys and who else, though?

The Last Shadow Puppets...?

 

[BVS]

Well, you know what it's like in socialist countries, wealthy artists galore are sucking off the teat of the government, while the poor conservative working man struggles to get ahead. I'm sure, as you've probably deduced yourself, that although there are some select grants out there, no one is supporting themselves or getting rich off of them, by any means, no matter what purpleoscar says. In fact, one of the biggest and best known grants to Canadian musicians comes in the form of VideoFact/MuchFact funding for music videos, which is funded by the private sector, Much Music, our MTV. Just a quick look at their website told me that they offer up to $25,000 to cover up to 50% of production costs, so we're not talking big budget productions, here. And these grants are FAR more common that government ones.

My point about the programs was that they help with those initial costs, this seems to be the hardest part for starting bands especially touring.

And yeah those scenarios could have happened pre-downloading, but these were definately attributed to downloading. In otherwords they weren't due to stupid mistakes or low popularity. Without mentioning who I'm talking about, most would know all three artists...

 

[BVS]

people copy digital art images all the time, put them on their computers and look at them (which equates to listening to downloaded music), or even just view them on the internet, whatever, and don't pay the artist, no?

Yes, but to me this is the equivelant of streaming a song. Just like you want art to hang on your walls, you want your music to be able to take with you, streaming and viewing online is just a sampler...

sweetheart

plus the artist gets such a small cut of the cd price which means the music industry have been raking in huge profits!

Well, this is true to a certain point. Every band has a different cut, true some artists' get screwed but this is true in every industry... for the most part if you ever looked at the real breakdown it's often not as bad as most people think.

the fact of the matter is technology has changed so the music industry has to find a way to adapt and survive, just like other industries do!

Yes, but can you think of any other industry where the product or services became "worthless" overnight, yet the public still wanted the industry to keep producing said product or service? I can't think of one.

 

[mama cass]

Yes, but can you think of any other industry where the product or services became "worthless" overnight, yet the public still wanted the industry to keep producing said product or service? I can't think of one.

i can think of phone calls... we can all have free or practically free phone calls now if we want to, thru various phone deals and packages, skype etc, but also rely on the telecommunications infrastructure to do so...

my phone bills used to be sky-high, but now i pay next to nothing (for my normal landline, though could have free calls with skype if i wanted to)... that's one example i can think of...

also, before the internet was widely available, i needed to transfer files internationally, and it would take ages and ages to send a file modem-to-modem and so the phonecall itself would cost a fortune! i still need to transfer my files, but now pay a fraction of the price for a far better service... British Telecom and France Telecom have to live with that and still provide the infrastructure i need...

i dunno, i'm just thinking off the top of my head really, but those are a few examples that come to mind...

 

[BVS]

i can think of phone calls... we can all have free or practically free phone calls now if we want to, thru various phone deals and packages, skype etc, but also rely on the telecommunications infrastructure to do so...

my phone bills used to be sky-high, but now i pay next to nothing (for my normal landline, though could have free calls with skype if i wanted to)... that's one example i can think of...

also, before the internet was widely available, i needed to transfer files internationally, and it would take ages and ages to send a file modem-to-modem and so the phonecall itself would cost a fortune! i still need to transfer my files, but now pay a fraction of the price for a far better service... British Telecom and France Telecom have to live with that and still provide the infrastructure i need...

i dunno, i'm just thinking off the top of my head really, but those are a few examples that come to mind...

But this is example of telecommunications just replacing themselves, not the same. AT&T may lose landline business but make up for it in internet/cable/cellular. So they aren't giving up anything.

 

[VintagePunk]

My point about the programs was that they help with those initial costs, this seems to be the hardest part for starting bands especially touring.

What I was trying to say though is that other than the privately raised and administered fund for helping with video costs, I've never once heard of a rock band say "oh, we got a government grant to help fund our tour/recording costs." Never. And if it were actually happening, I'm sure I would have heard something over the years. They do this on their own, and manage somehow.

 

[BVS]

What I was trying to say though is that other than the privately raised and administered fund for helping with video costs, I've never once heard of a rock band say "oh, we got a government grant to help fund our tour/recording costs." Never. And if it were actually happening, I'm sure I would have heard something over the years. They do this on their own, and manage somehow.

Why would Oscar lie?

 

[mama cass]

But this is example of telecommunications just replacing themselves, not the same. AT&T may lose landline business but make up for it in internet/cable/cellular. So they aren't giving up anything.

but overall i'm still paying less (or nothing) for more...

maybe the music industry needs to find some other way of making up for their losses then as well...?

 

[BVS]

but overall i'm still paying less (or nothing) for more...

maybe the music industry needs to find some other way of making up for their losses then as well...?

You personally might be paying less, but they are making more.

Well they tried by incorporating video into the CD format but it wasn't too long before that easily became downloadable as well. The only viable alternative that I see in the near future is one that most here won't like but it's the way I see music going... and that's more of the music you love will be tied in with advertising. We've already seen it, bands with "indie cred" selling songs to candy and car commercials. It's gonna get worse.

 

[VintagePunk]

Why would Oscar lie?

Ha! Because liberal arty types are a drain on society?

I looked on google and found this http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/arts/music/12leed.html?pagewanted=print so I guess it does happen more than I thought it did. I stand corrected. It does sound like it's quite normal in many countries, though. And many of the amounts that they're talking about aren't huge - and I've heard of bands borrowing more from friends and family to get started.

 

[mama cass]

You personally might be paying less, but they are making more.

Well they tried by incorporating video into the CD format but it wasn't too long before that easily became downloadable as well. The only viable alternative that I see in the near future is one that most here won't like but it's the way I see music going... and that's more of the music you love will be tied in with advertising. We've already seen it, bands with "indie cred" selling songs to candy and car commercials. It's gonna get worse.

peter gabriel for one was talking about all this years ago... i think he's involved with we7 isn't he? full of ads... ha

i don't mind bands selling songs for advertising to be honest... there's far worse ways to make a living when you look at the bigger picture...

 

[mama cass]

What I was trying to say though is that other than the privately raised and administered fund for helping with video costs, I've never once heard of a rock band say "oh, we got a government grant to help fund our tour/recording costs." Never. And if it were actually happening, I'm sure I would have heard something over the years. They do this on their own, and manage somehow.

that is a shame... i mean, dance and theatre companies are able to apply for funding from government and arts councils etc so why not bands? (ha ok so they do! just saw your other post - cool!)... a couple friends of mine are constantly applying for funding and they swear you just need to be really really good at filling in forms and selling your project from a "business" angle... they also have sideline activities to fund their projects though, as in workshops in the community and schools...

how does it work for "composers" in the classical field? are they mainly commissioned i wonder?? there's funding for classical music surely?

also how about a "book-deal" approach for new musicians? how do book publishers do it?

 

[VintagePunk]

Hasn't it become much more acceptable for indie artists to sell songs to advertising, now? Since Moby did it with Porcelain? I think what sticks in people's craws is when an established band sells a much loved classic track and ruins it for people. U2 would be slaughtered if they ever did this, for example, and I'm glad they haven't. They don't need to. But I think most people recognize the difference between the two situations.