Amanda Palmer And OK Go Get Together To Celebrate Being Dropped From Their Record Labels

from the party-time dept

Recently, we've noted some similarities between Amanda Palmer and the band OK Go, in that both had been signed to major record label deals, both had built up an amazing (and amazingly loyal) group of fans through various means (different for each) using methods totally outside of their major label marketing effort (which was somewhat lacking in both cases)... and last month, both were officially dropped from their label deals.

In the past, getting dropped from a major record label deal was seen as a bad thing -- a sign of trouble for the band. But in both of these cases, the process of getting dropped was initiated by the musicians themselves, who realized they could do much more outside of the major label system, than within it. So it seemed like a bit of serendipity, that both acts had aspects of their ongoing tours overlap in San Francisco this week -- leading to an event put together by Creative Allies at the Ex'pression College for the Digital Arts, where both acts performed and did some chatting about music and the music business as part of a webcast. Thanks to Amanda, I was able to attend in person with a small group of folks in the studio, and it was a fun time -- as both acts basically celebrated their freedom from their record label deals.

You can see the webcast in two parts below (not sure why it's two parts, and it was not easy at all to find the second part):



It's yet another reminder of how the role of the major labels is totally changing. Historically, the only way to be successful in the music business was to get a major label deal. They were the gatekeepers, and without a deal, you were out of luck. Being dropped from a major was effectively the end of your career as a performer with a very small number of exceptions. But, these days, artists are realizing that there's so much more that can be done without major label help, and that actually being on a major can hinder or block those opportunities, that it's become a cause for celebration when you get "dropped" -- or, perhaps, more accurately, freed!

While there's plenty of music, there were two key points on the whole business model side of things that came up that are worth repeating (in case you don't feel like watching both videos -- though, you should, since they're pretty cool). The first is that during the interview session between acts, Amanda was asked about "direct to fan" stuff, and she made a point that I've been trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to highlight for quite some time: and that's that each act needs to do something that fits with what works for them. Her fear is that there's so much talk about "direct-to-fan" offerings, that people are going to start just trying to all do exactly the same thing, rather than charting a course that's unique to them.

We've tried to point this out as well, in noting how different the various success stories are. Inevitably, of course, someone says that we're saying everyone should do what one of these artists are doing (a favorite of critics is the false idea that we've said everyone should go to Disneyland with some fans, like Josh Freese). But that's not the case at all. For Freese, it was a part of his personality (and his life, as he basically grew up at Disneyland, and performed there as a kid). The whole point of learning how to better connect with fans and giving them reasons to buy, is not that everyone has to use Twitter, or that everyone has to offer "tiered" offerings. Or that everyone has to tour, even. It's that there are many different ways that each artist can connect with fans and give them a reason to buy directly, and that each artist has to figure out the way to apply the concept in a way that fits with their own personality and sensibilities. It's great that Amanda was able to really drive home that point during her interview.

The second part is actually an amusing exchange between OK Go and Amanda after OK Go's second song. Lead singer Damian Kulash asks the audience for questions, and if you listen closely on the video, you can hear Amanda ask about how the band was able to not just get dropped by Capitol/EMI, but also to take the last record with them (something she was unable to do with Roadrunner/Warner Music). Kulash tries (not all that successfully) to dance around the legalities by setting up a hypothetical version of EMI -- but basically admits that with EMI more or less fighting every day to avoid defaulting on massive loans -- while at the same time fighting with the Beatles and other top acts, the label apparently found the fact that Kulash might occasionally pen op eds for the NY Times that made the label look totally clueless on digital things, that it was better to just usher the band out the door as quickly as possible. And, as such, the band had a bit of leverage, which was used to not just get out of the contract, but to take the last record with them.

Of course, the business model stuff was a minor part of the overall evening, which really was very much about music, and a rather celebratory mood from both acts about their freedom to stretch out creatively -- as both demonstrate beautifully in their separate performances. Among the many highlights, there's Kulash forgetting lyrics and later getting a case of the giggles in the middle of the band's hit song "Here It Goes Again" -- plus a rendition of "What To Do" performed entirely by the band using a table full of hand bells... And Amanda playing a song from her upcoming EP of Radiohead covers played on the ukulele because, as she noted, she can.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 10:59am

    there is always room to stretch artistically when few people are around. congrats to the winners, and these people too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    charlie potatoes (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 11:37am

    Profound ....

    Anything to be first, huh? To hell with relevance, just comment first. Cute remark. Asinine, but catchy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 11:44am

    Re: Profound ....

    Lower Case Coward doesn't care about being relevant, or even making sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Zoe, May 25th, 2010 @ 12:28pm

    Advances

    I am curious about their process. Did they repay any advances the labels paid them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Why we can't extrapolate

    We've tried to point this out as well, in noting how different the various success stories are. Inevitably, of course, someone says that we're saying everyone should do what one of these artists are doing (a favorite of critics is the false idea that we've said everyone should go to Disneyland with some fans, like Josh Freese).

    I think everyone does agree that Palmer and Freese are successful for their own reasons. But therefore it also means there doesn't seem to be much anyone can really learn from their examples because they are too unique.

    Or we can go the other direction and emphasize that selling anything is about connecting to buyers. All business is based on the concept. So in a nutshell what we learn then is that people who connect to people can sell them stuff and people who don't connect don't sell as much stuff. We don't need to cite Palmer and Freese for this. In fact, we might want to look beyond music and find the world's top sales people for advice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    I think everyone does agree that Palmer and Freese are successful for their own reasons. But therefore it also means there doesn't seem to be much anyone can really learn from their examples because they are too unique.

    I think that's both wrong and a gross distortion of what was said. The *concepts* behind these are the same. The specific tactics are different.

    So in a nutshell what we learn then is that people who connect to people can sell them stuff and people who don't connect don't sell as much stuff

    That's equally ridiculous, Suzanne, and you know it. There are clear patterns in what's happening, which we keep pointing out. You, for whatever reason, seem to want musicians to fail, so you have to knock each and every example. I don't quite understand what motivates you to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 1:48pm

    Too Fluffy

    each artist has to figure out the way to apply the concept in a way that fits with their own personality and sensibilities.


    This is no simple concept for your average, run-of-the-mill executive sociopath. Do you have anything less touchy-feely, more color-by-numbers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    the pattern is no more clear than looking historically at bands and acts that connected well with fans but had an overall middling career. phish and the greatful dead are two excellent examples, both absolutely driven by a smaller but extremely dedicated and loyal fanbase, but mostly getting only somewhere near the limelight for most of their careers. if you studied them, you could conclude that connecting with fans was working really well, but in reality they are unique cases, and nowhere near the mainstream of music.

    "You, for whatever reason, seem to want musicians to fail, so you have to knock each and every example. I don't quite understand what motivates you to." - nice personal attack there mike. i am noticing a trend on how you treat people who dont agree with you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    I think that's both wrong and a gross distortion of what was said. The *concepts* behind these are the same. The specific tactics are different.

    But people want to talk about tactics. They already grasp the concepts. House concerts are tactics and they are applicable to many singer/songwriters. The concept is to play non-traditional venues and it's useful for people to exchange ideas on what works.

    There are clear patterns in what's happening, which we keep pointing out.

    We may disagree on what those patterns are. I think the user-generated model will overtake the artist-led model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    But people want to talk about tactics.

    Indeed. You were the one insisting that there was nothing to be learned from the tactics. I was the one disagreeing. I talk about the tactics all the time. But there's a big difference between learning from the tactics and saying "everyone must use the same tactics."

    They already grasp the concepts.

    If they did, there wouldn't be so many questions about the concepts, and I wouldn't have musicians contacting me all the time thanking me for going over the basic concepts.

    We may disagree on what those patterns are. I think the user-generated model will overtake the artist-led model.


    That's a prediction, not a pattern.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 3:48pm

    Re: Advances

    What process? They didn't quit. The contract was up, and the label dropped them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 5:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    If people are looking for tactical discussions and want to learn from Palmer, I'd put her in the personality-driven model. She's an open and creative person, so people follow her to follow her. It isn't really a music business model as such. It has everything to do with charisma and relatively little to do with music per se, which is why it won't work for many musicians.

    So yes, you, I, and Palmer agree that what she does isn't applicable to anyone else.

    As for Freese, he's gone on record himself saying that he was spending so much time doing the promotions that he wasn't doing music. To me that is a very important point. How are you going to spend your time generating money? Once what you are doing to make money steps away from the act of making music, it's a form of a day job.

    Whenever someone like me tries to explore the nuances of why Palmer does or does not work as a model, you try to shut off the conversation. I think you'd have a far more interesting thread if you let people talk about the problems they run into. In fact, please encourage us to share our experiences rather than telling us we're stupid. If you have musicians coming to you for advice, then this is a great forum for us to discuss all aspects of the music business. And that's why I interject a few points here and there to use it as a learning experience for those who would like to know more.

    The reason I pointed out that Lady Gaga's success has everything to do with Interscope is so people understand how her success came about. Both her manager and the folks at Interscope have said the label has promoted the hell out of her. When her own team gives more credit to the label than to file sharing, that's an important thing to point out to further the discussion. She's got a 360 deal and the label gets a piece of everything she does so as long as she makes money no one really cares where it comes from. The same with the Pussycat Dolls. They were a brand owned by Interscope. A very similar approach.

    Pussycat Dolls' Marketing Plan Shows Just How Far Interscope Will Go To Make People Care About Nicole Scherzinger

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 6:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    If people are looking for tactical discussions and want to learn from Palmer, I'd put her in the personality-driven model. She's an open and creative person, so people follow her to follow her. It isn't really a music business model as such. It has everything to do with charisma and relatively little to do with music per se, which is why it won't work for many musicians.


    You are only discussing what she did to connect, not what she did to earn money. She's done some creative things to make money, built on connecting with fans. I'm not sure why you ignore and/or discount that.

    So yes, you, I, and Palmer agree that what she does isn't applicable to anyone else.


    I've said no such thing. What I said was each artist needs to figure out what works best for them and fits into their own style. I think much of what Palmer has done is very much applicable to many different artists.

    As for Freese, he's gone on record himself saying that he was spending so much time doing the promotions that he wasn't doing music. To me that is a very important point. How are you going to spend your time generating money? Once what you are doing to make money steps away from the act of making music, it's a form of a day job.

    Do you have that quote?

    Whenever someone like me tries to explore the nuances of why Palmer does or does not work as a model, you try to shut off the conversation

    Suzanne, challenging you to back up odd assertions is not shutting off the conversation.

    I think you'd have a far more interesting thread if you let people talk about the problems they run into. In fact, please encourage us to share our experiences rather than telling us we're stupid.

    I ask people to share their experiences all the time -- and many do. I've never told you you were stupid. Just because I have challenged your assumptions and asked you to back up some claims that I, personally, don't see any evidence of whatsoever, it does not mean that I am calling you stupid. I'm just asking you to provide ANY proof.

    The reason I pointed out that Lady Gaga's success has everything to do with Interscope is so people understand how her success came about.

    But did anyone suggest otherwise? Gaga is most certainly a product of the major label system, but that discussion wasn't about that at all. It was about the specifics of what she said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 6:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    "nice personal attack there mike. i am noticing a trend on how you treat people who dont agree with you."

    Irony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    You have called me a liar. I've told me I don't know much about music. You've said I don't care about musicians. Maybe you didn't use stupid specifically, but the point has been made.

    Here's the Freese quote:

    Drummer Josh Freese Sells Himself, Famous Friends, Dinner at Sizzler to Promote His New Album: "I'm driving back to the Cheesecake Factory for the 11th time this month, and I'm turning down other work because, yeah, I've got a guy flying down from Canada. People will call me for a session, but I can't show up because I've got to give someone a tour of the Queen Mary and a drum lesson, and then they gotta come over and pick stuff out of my closet."

    In terms of what you and Palmer have said, which I agree with:

    Amanda was asked about "direct to fan" stuff, and she made a point that I've been trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to highlight for quite some time: and that's that each act needs to do something that fits with what works for them.

    In other words, what Palmer does works for Palmer. I agree with that. You and she seem to be saying that, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    "If they did, there wouldn't be so many questions about the concepts, and I wouldn't have musicians contacting me all the time thanking me for going over the basic concepts." - why not use your famous "we have already shown" and point them to the discussion of the basis, rather than going over and over it again and again? it isnt hard to assume that you are a little shy of getting into specifics, because that is where the real proof of the situation comes out. that is where you would have to admit that it is all much more about personality and force of will, rather than any great marketing concepts or process. nobody will ever exactly follow facepalm (thank god, we only need so much ukulele cover songs), because without her personality and attitude, others wouldnt even come close.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 6:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    so what you are saying is that freese has basically stopped being a musician (his strength) in order to be some sort of semi-celeb rent-a-buddy?

    that is classic. mike, do you remember the lessons of opportunity costs? would you care to explain it to the class?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 7:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    Try harder. Use your famous "bootstrapping" argument, or even better, refer to Mike as The Masnick. You could talk about how bitorrent is the most inefficient thing out there, you have so much choice in your back catalogue you really should make use of it more.

    Perhaps you could do that greatest hits album idea? That one I mentioned where you can then complain that no one is buying it because of piracy. You could do it so it had nothing unique about it and had no advertising, then claim it had nothing to do that. You should've made millions regardless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 7:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    You have called me a liar. I've told me I don't know much about music. You've said I don't care about musicians.

    You are making statements totally out of context. I don't recall calling you a liar, so if you have a direct quote on that, I would appreciate it.

    I have questioned how much you know about music, but the context was specific. You had claimed that fans were totally fickle and would immediately switch from one band to another. I found that hard to believe. People who are fans of an act that they really like don't just drop them for another act. You insisted that wherever you live in Colorado this is not the case, and people choose what bands to go see based on what's cheapest, rather than who they like. I just found that hard to believe.

    As for the claim about "not caring about musicians," it was because every example we show of musicians doing something smart, you pop up quickly to tell musicians not to bother coming up with any business model at all, because it's impossible. Instead, you say, they should give up a music career and get a job. I find that troubling and suggests you really do not care about musicians building a career being a musician.

    Here's the Freese quote:


    Thanks for passing that on. Good info. Though, it basically shows that he might not have calibrated his offerings correctly. Other musicians we've spoken to have done a better job of pricing things so that the really time consuming aspects really are priced high enough not to get in the way.

    In other words, what Palmer does works for Palmer. I agree with that. You and she seem to be saying that, too.


    Yes, it works for Palmer. And that means it might not work for others. But it might. You falsely claimed I said there was nothing in what she did that was applicable to others.

    You must realize those two statements are quite different. I can say "I can teach people how to drive, though it will only be helpful to those who have cars." If your response is "well, Mike is saying that learning how to drive is useless because people don't have cars" I would suggest you are misreading what I am saying. But that appears to be what you said above.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 8:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    Here's where you said I was lying.
    _________

    Is The Fan Who Buys A Product He Wants A Big Dope? | Techdirt: Virtually anything that one musician is offering for sale, I can find the equivalent, just as good or better, for free or less.

    Really? I'm sorry, but you're lying. Or you just don't like music very much. I've given hundreds of dollars in the last few months to my favorite bands, because you CANNOT just replace the scarcities they provide.


    _______________

    I went on to write my thoughts on the matter. While you may not agree with me, I'm not the only person who has put forth these ideas. I don't see how it advances discussion for you to say I was lying.

    Hypercompetition, Scarcity, and the Economics of Music
    ___________

    As for the claim about "not caring about musicians," it was because every example we show of musicians doing something smart, you pop up quickly to tell musicians not to bother coming up with any business model at all, because it's impossible. Instead, you say, they should give up a music career and get a job. I find that troubling and suggests you really do not care about musicians building a career being a musician.

    What I am suggesting is that soon technology will allow everyone to be a music creator. As a result, the economics of the industry will change. It will be very hard for most musicians to make a living wage. Look, everyone complains that the major labels didn't react fast enough to Napster and MP3s. So now I am saying the same thing about the current system, too. Technology, via music apps, is changing everything now. No, it hasn't fully hit yet. But before long, your music player will be able to create original music for you that you can claim as your own. Why be a fan who consumes music when you can be a rock star who makes music?
    __________

    I can say "I can teach people how to drive, though it will only be helpful to those who have cars."

    I'm saying exactly the same thing. To paraphrase: "I can teach you how Palmer does it, though it will only be helpful to those who are Palmer."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 10:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    hat I am suggesting is that soon technology will allow everyone to be a music creator.

    No it won't. It'll give the possibility for that, but it's still dependant on time, interest and knowledge (of which you need the prior 2 at least to begin with).

    It will be very hard for most musicians to make a living wage.


    No they won't if they find new business models and the role of a musician still carries some expertise others don't have or won't be able to easily recreate, especially when you're looking for or to create entirely new songs.

    Why be a fan who consumes music when you can be a rock star who makes music?


    Maybe because I don't have the time, knowledge, nor inclination to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 10:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    You might want to take a look at this. You'll start seeing more people saying the same thing.

    YouTube - TEDxCardiff - Dave Haynes - Everybody's a Music Maker

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 10:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    "Thanks for passing that on. Good info. Though, it basically shows that he might not have calibrated his offerings correctly. Other musicians we've spoken to have done a better job of pricing things so that the really time consuming aspects really are priced high enough not to get in the way." - the issue is price. i suspect that he is in a sweet spot right now of maximum rent-a-buddy revenue, where he has the most people buying it. if he raises the rate, perhaps he will suddenly be too expensive to by anyones buddy.

    i would have to say mike you are fast to call other people liars and not realize you did it. you seem often to make the mistake of not understand the full implications of your own words, assuming that everyone reads it in your voice, which clearly isnt the case, as there are more people having the same issues with your writings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 10:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    The video gets really interesting around 11:00.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 11:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    Here's where you said I was lying.


    Aha. Same as the context before. You made a claim that simply is not true. You claimed that people would immediately switch to another musician based on price. That's simply not true. I'm sorry if you took offense to the claim that you were "lying," but the claim is so preposterous that that's what it seemed like to me.

    You still think that any scarcity can easily be replaced by someone else? Just so I'm not misunderstanding you, are you claiming that if Josh Freese offers lunch for $250, a Josh Freese fan will, instead, have lunch with a musician who's offering it for $200 instead... just because it's cheaper?

    Or are you saying something different? Because that's what I took your statement to mean, and that's preposterous. Someone who's a fan of Josh Freese wants access to Josh Freese and doesn't care how much another musician is charging for lunch.

    I'm saying exactly the same thing. To paraphrase: "I can teach you how Palmer does it, though it will only be helpful to those who are Palmer."

    Wow. Suzanne. It's when you make statements like this, which blatantly misrepresents what I said, that causes me to challenge you so directly. I said nothing of the sort. You just blatantly made up something I did not say. The point was that there are hundreds of millions of people who drive, and you interpreted my statement to mean I can only teach myself to drive.

    So your paraphrase is totally, blatantly, wrong. The point was that *1* any musician can learn something from what Palmer is doing and *2* depending on the musician, there may even be specific tactics that are useful to learn as well.

    How you get from that to "it will only be helpful to Palmer" is ridiculous. It's why I challenge you. You make such ridiculous, blatantly false statements about what I said and then you make other statements that seem to have no basis in reality.

    It's why you confuse me so much. You are so focused on this market, while at the same time insisting the market is dead and everyone should go get other jobs. Why would someone do that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 7:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    In terms of whether people will switch, I'll call it the Jesse James argument. He had Sandra Bullock. Why did he screw it up with other women? People do have wandering eyes. Yes, if they like Josh Freese and other also musicians, and someone else is cheaper, they may very well go for what the other person has to offer. There are competitive forces in music just like every other industry.

    As for Palmer, it is very confusing for people to hear, learn from Palmer, but don't assume that if you do it her way, it will work for you. I'd love to have some extensive discussions here about the nuances. I've tried and tried to explain why things work for some artists and not others. The usual retort to musicians who run into problems is, "Well, you're not talented enough." That isn't always the case. I've worked with a lot of musicians, I've seen massive changes in what is happening, and my viewpoint is that the reason it works for Palmer, and isn't likely to work for others, is that she's been a street performer, really likes to connect with people, and only uses music as a means to an end. Her motivations are not typical of most musicians. She's not looking for ways to make music all the time. But most musicians want to do music to do music.

    As for discussions, have you other thought of just saying, "You know, that's interesting. I'd like to hear more about that." But it's usually, "You're wrong. You're lying." Etc. Okay, then the conversations migrate elsewhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 8:10am

    Let's talk competition

    A lot of the concepts proposed on Techdirt will likely result in increased competition.

    What's happening in music is competition. We've already seen how it has affected the labels. It will also affect individual artists. Other artists are trying their damnedest to woo away fans. It's constant. Everyone is looking for ways to connect to fans and to sell them something.

    There are no real barriers of entry in music anymore. Pretty much anyone can make music and distribute it. And tools are coming fast and furious to allow even people of limited talent to make some decent music. That allows lots of people to feel creative, but it changes the economics of people who used to specialize in music. Computers fill in the gaps when people don't have the training or talent.

    The major label system, when it works like with Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, is to focus on relatively few artists and market the hell out of them. And the other end are all the artists trying to find their niches. They are hoping to get a small piece of that long tail. We've got millions of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2010 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate

    actually, bittorrent is ineffecient enough and a big enough bandwidth pig that they are releasing a new version to try to get rid of some of the issues. but you know that, right? if mike can use 101 links off his stories to just bootstrap opinion into fact, cant he use them for something that would actually help advance things, like sending beginners to the beginning and allowing everyone else to have and advancing discussion? dont you think this site goes over and over the same flattened ground a lot?

    more importantly, why cant you actually contribute to the discussion with a view as opposed to just insulting other posters? you know that mike uses boostrapping, you now know that bit torrent isnt effecient (except perhaps for companies and individuals who dont want to pay hosting), and that your comments are meaningless in the context of discussion. come on in the pool, its all for the lulz anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This