Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans

from the everything's-possible dept

Over the last few years, we've covered many of the moves by the band Ok Go -- to build up a fanbase often with the help of amazingly viral videos, ditch their major record label (EMI), and explore new business model opportunities. In the last few days, two different members of Ok Go explained a bit more of the band's thinking in two separate places, and both are worth reading. First up, we have Tim Nordwind, who did an interview with Hypebot, where he explained the band's general view on file sharing:
Obviously we'd love for anyone who has our music to buy a copy. But again, we're realistic enough to know that most music can be found online for free. And trying to block people's access to it isn't good for bands or music. If music is going to be free, then musicians will simply have to find alternative methods to make a living in the music business. People are spending money on music, but it's on the technology to play it. They spend hundreds of dollars on Ipods, but then fill it with 80 gigs of free music. That's ok, but it's just a different world now, and bands must learn to adjust.
Elsewhere in the interview, he talks about the importance of making fans happy and how the band realizes that there are lots of different ways to make money, rather than just selling music directly:
Our videos have opened up many more opportunities for us to make the things we want to make, and to chase our best and wildest ideas. Yes, we need to figure out how to make a living in a world where people don't buy music anymore. But really, we've been doing that for the last ten years. Things like licensing, touring, merch, and also now making videos through corporate sponsorship have all allowed us to keep the lights on and continue making music.
Separately, last Friday, Damian Kulash wrote a nice writeup in the Wall Street Journal all about how bands can, should and will make money going forward. In many ways the piece reminds me a bit of my future of music business models post from earlier this year -- and Kulash even uses many of the same examples in his article (Corey Smith, Amanda Palmer, Josh Freese, etc.). It's a really worthwhile read as well. He starts by pointing out that for a little over half a century, the record labels had the world convinced that the "music" industry really was just the "recorded music" industry:
For a decade, analysts have been hyperventilating about the demise of the music industry. But music isn't going away. We're just moving out of the brief period--a flash in history's pan--when an artist could expect to make a living selling records alone. Music is as old as humanity itself, and just as difficult to define. It's an ephemeral, temporal and subjective experience.

For several decades, though, from about World War II until sometime in the last 10 years, the recording industry managed to successfully and profitably pin it down to a stable, if circular, definition: Music was recordings of music. Records not only made it possible for musicians to connect with listeners anywhere, at any time, but offered a discrete package for commoditization. It was the perfect bottling of lightning: A powerful experience could be packaged in plastic and then bought and sold like any other commercial product.
But, he notes, that time is now gone, thanks in large part to the internet. But that doesn't mean the music business is in trouble. Just the business of selling recorded music. But there's lots of things musicians can sell. He highlights Corey Smith and Smith's ability to make millions by giving away his music for free, and then touring. But he also points out that touring isn't for everyone. He covers how corporate licensing has become a bigger and bigger opportunity for bands that are getting popular. While he doesn't highlight the specific economics of it, what he's really talking about is that if your band is big, you can sell your fan's attention -- which is something Ok Go has done successfully by getting corporate sponsorship of their videos. As he notes, the sponsors provide more money than the record labels with many fewer strings:
These days, money coming from a record label often comes with more embedded creative restrictions than the marketing dollars of other industries. A record label typically measures success in number of records sold. Outside sponsors, by contrast, tend to take a broader view of success. The measuring stick could be mentions in the press, traffic to a website, email addresses collected or views of online videos. Artists have meaningful, direct, and emotional access to our fans, and at a time when capturing the public's attention is increasingly difficult for the army of competing marketers, that access is a big asset.

...

Now when we need funding for a large project, we look for a sponsor. A couple weeks ago, my band held an eight-mile musical street parade through Los Angeles, courtesy of Range Rover. They brought no cars, signage or branding; they just asked that we credit them in the documentation of it. A few weeks earlier, we released a music video made in partnership with Samsung, and in February, one was underwritten by State Farm.

We had complete creative control in the productions. At the end of each clip we thanked the company involved, and genuinely, because we truly are thankful. We got the money we needed to make what we want, our fans enjoyed our videos for free, and our corporate Medicis got what their marketing departments were after: millions of eyes and goodwill from our fans. While most bands struggle to wrestle modest video budgets from labels that see videos as loss leaders, ours wind up making us a profit.
Of course, that only works if you have a big enough fanbase, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that less well known bands can use to make money as well. He talks about an up-and-coming band in LA that doesn't even have a manager that was able make money:
The unsigned and unmanaged Los Angeles band Killola toured last summer and offered deluxe USB packages that included full albums, live recordings and access to two future private online concerts for $40 per piece. Killola grossed $18,000 and wound up in the black for their tour. Mr. Donnelly says, "I can't imagine they'll be ordering their yacht anytime soon, but traditionally bands at that point in their careers aren't even breaking even on tour."
The point, Kulash, notes, is that there's a lot of things a band can sell, focusing on "selling themselves." And, the thing he doesn't mention is that, when you're focusing on selling the overall experience that is "you" as a musician or a band, it's something that can't be freely copied. People can copy the music all they want, but they can't copy you. "You" are a scarce good that can't be "pirated." That's exactly what more and more musicians are figuring out these days, and it's helping to make many more artists profitable. And, no, it doesn't mean that any artist can make money. But it certainly looks like any artist that understands this can do a hell of a lot better than they would have otherwise, if they just relied on the old way of making money in the music business.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Yogi, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 2:22am

    Wrong

    Mike, again, you're totally off base.

    "What America, and the entire world should be really concerned about right now is not if musicians are making money because, really, who gives a f-k about them - but whether the three big labels, which constitute nearly the entire music industry and which are responsible for 90% of GDP in this country, are making enough money to shit goldbricks over the rest of you miserable slaves." - anonymous RIAA executive.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 3:38am

    haha

    ya know hes about 80% off but its growing(RIGHT) cause they have outsourced tech, and manufacturing....
    WHY NOT outsource musicians and acting
    OH WAIT they make more tv and movies up in canada cause its too expensive to be made in the USA....

    wink wink nudge nudge.


    "YOUR NOT REALIZING ONE THING....
    The rest of the world no longer needs labels.
    IN time pioneer one like productions will grow and the networks will cry cause they will have to pay $$$ to get liscensing for stuff we all can watch free." --Anonymous Human being

    THIS IS THE END GAME
    and if i am to eventually get capped to 25gb it will be god damn 25gb of fucking free shit i watch."

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 4:10am

    I apologize for the following post:

    "fan's attention" there should be "fans' attention".

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Colin, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 5:32am

    "You" are a scarce good that can't be "pirated."

    And what happens when the cloning begins, Mike? Then what will artists sell?!?! Cloning will ruin the music industry!

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 5:40am

    It always comes back to the same basic error: Hoping to make a living by finding the 1 in X fan who will pay enough to make up for all the freeloaders. It is a wonderful model until everyone realizes that they don't have pay at all, and the 1 in X fan disappears.

    It puts artists in the unfortunate place of having to whore out their real lives in order to pay for their music.

    It is incredibly disappointing to see that so called fans aren't able to bring themselves to part with a few dollars to support their favorite artists. Instead, the artist has to hope like heck that he can find a few people to pay a lot of money for a meet and greet or some other odd social event unrelated to the music, because that is the only thing people will pay for anymore.

    I can picture the future musician: "I would make some more great music, but I have to go take some guy to the roller skating rink for two hours to be able to make my car payment. Maybe I will write music next month instead".

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:07am

    Re:

    If artists are so worried about the money then maybe they should get better paying jobs?

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:24am

    Re:

    Actually, you are making a very common mistake. You are saying that there are only three possible ways for a musician to make money:

    1) Sell records (let me give you a hint here - music is WAY older than any recorded media)
    2) Charity
    3) Selling meet and greet opportunities

    There have been hundreds of other WORKING business models explored on this site. Why not work in a few of them to make a living? Have you seen the recent commercials featuring Pomplamoose?

    Even worse, this makes an assumption right from the beginning that may not be true. You are saying that musicians SHOULD be able to make a living from their music. Now, let me be clear - I think they should be able to. I think their contribution to society is important and that should be rewarded and encouraged - and our society seems to think that money is the way to do that (perhaps I don't agree with that part). However, it is not clear that society as a whole agrees with that statement.

    Historically, music was free - it was a way to passing down history and culture and people did not make a full living off of it. The idea that someone can live off of making music is a pretty new concept in our history. Claiming that we owe these artists a living for what they have produced is odd. We do not owe anyone a living - most people have to work for a living and sometimes they work really hard and come up empty. If I decided to put a billboard outside your house, is it reasonable for me to charge you for looking at it? Would you pay? Would it be ok for the government to tax you for it? But I worked really, really hard on it...

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re:

    They aren't worried about the money as in how to get rich, they are worried as in "how can I do this for a living instead of flipping burgers?". Most real musicians will subscribe to a life on par with minimum wage living as long as they get to hit the stage, sit in the studio, or pass their time writings songs and perfecting their craft.

    Now they are put in the position of chasing the mythical Jackalope (the thing, not the band). They have to find the one person out of maybe 1000 who will give them enough money to continue for another day. Now just being a good musician isn't enough. They have to be somehow personally entertaining to someone who isn't paying for music, they are paying for a game of air hockey and beer at the local pub.

    Worse yet, as more and more artists offer the same thing, the market will get flooded with offers, meaning that laws of supply and demand will come into it. With a very small market of people willing or able to pay for special things and a larger and larger field of artists having to slut out their time for cash, the market price drops. Finally, like everything else in the scarcities market, it stops being scarce enough to matter.

    Maybe at that point, they will just go back to selling music.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:30am

    Re:

    "I can picture the future musician: "I would make some more great music, but I have to go take some guy to the roller skating rink for two hours to be able to make my car payment. Maybe I will write music next month instead"."

    That's not the future of music. That's been the reality of it since the record companies entered the game. Many great musicians have had to choose to make a living over their art. They could not get a golden ticket from a record company. The internet actually seems to level the playing field quite a bit by making recording, distribution, and generation of a fan-base something that can be done by anyone who can produce good music and come up with a creative business plan. That sounds like a better world to me.

    Oh, and find me the great song in which the artist will say:
    "I would never have written this without someone paying me to". Most great art seems to be motivated by something other than money.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:32am

    Re:

    It is incredibly disappointing to see that so called fans aren't able to bring themselves to part with a few dollars to support their favorite artists. Instead, the artist has to hope like heck that he can find a few people to pay a lot of money for a meet and greet or some other odd social event unrelated to the music, because that is the only thing people will pay for anymore.

    If they aren't then it isn't their fault - it's your fault
    I've spent more on music this year than ever before. The biggest single part the money has gone to musopen to fund orchestral recordings that will be released to the public domain.
    The next biggest chunk was spent on a weekend singing course with one of my favourite musicians.

    After that comes spending on live concerts plus CDs bought at the concerts from the musicians (the only way I buy physical CDs these days).
    Finally there was a relatively small amount spent on paid for downloads from a site that charges reasonable prices (a tenth of iTunes prices).

    If you can't make a living out of this spend then the problem is yours not mine.

    The real problem for musicians these days is that there are really too many of them trying to make a living. Since the internet has lowered the entry barriers the numbers of would be musicians has rocketed. In these circumstances most will inevitably struggle - but it isn't the fans' fault.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "They have to find the one person out of maybe 1000 who will give them enough money to continue for another day"

    Again, weird that you would say this. 10 years ago, they had to find the record company that would pay (used loosely) for them to continue to produce music. It was MUCH harder to do. Countless big name bands will tell you their stories of eating crackers and living in a van so they could play two shows every night and somehow some talent scout happened to need to use the restroom in the club that night and heard the band playing.

    ...and then the record company took all of the money and they sold millions of records and never recouped...oops, I'm off topic.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re: Re:


    Worse yet, as more and more artists offer the same thing, the market will get flooded with offers, meaning that laws of supply and demand will come into it.


    You put your finger on the real point - but don't seem to understand. The problem these days is that there are far too many people trying to make a living from music. In this market it is inevitable that most will fail.
    In the past the record labels acted as gatekeepers and controlled the number of musicians trying to make a living - nowadays the public does it directly.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 6:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You are correct and incorrect at the same time. Anyone trying to run their own business, and that's exactly what's happening in your hypothetical example, is chasing that Jackalope. It's not going to be easy, it's going to be work. But that's what happens when you take your hobby and turn it into a job, it turns into work. And a lot are going to fail, just like most start-ups fail.

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:20am

    Re: Wrong

    Quick Question. Sarcasm or an actual quote? If its a quote could you post a link.

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:22am

    Re:

    "Cloning will ruin the music industry!"

    But with all the sheep we will have wandering around the scotts are going to be very happy ... ;)

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:45am

    Hey when is you next case study going to be? Could we see ...

    1) Marketing to corporations to fund Music videos
    2) Web Based resources for bands starting out in the new music business broken out by
    2a) Sales of online music (as long as this lasts)
    2b) Tee shirts and other manufacturing-drop shipping
    2c) Bulk and short run CD + DVD pressing
    2d) Online promotion of shows
    2e) Online Promotion of bands

    etc

    TechDirt could become the central resource for new bands online.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    catullusrl, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:49am

    Masnick = paid shill

    As per usual, Masnick gives a highly distorted summary of the article and leaves out any countervailing points.For example, one hilarious fact that the article revealed is that Corey Smith has just signed to a label! For the past year you have been quoting Corey Smith as an example of DIY success ; maybe he has realised that DIY can only take you so far.If Corey Smith was earning all the money that is claimed couldn't he just hire the services he needs from marketing and distribution companies? Furthermore,Kulash states explicitly that there is a problem in replacing the risk capital function that a label provided for emerging artists.No wonder people are being to realise that Mike Masnick is nothing more than the paid whore of the economic interests of Silicon Valley.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:58am

    Re: Re:

    Do you know how tired music people are of having tech geeks/nerds tell them how their life should be lived?

    You guys had a nice free run; 10 years. But the landscape for you is changing very quickly. And at this very moment work is being finalized on our own tech, that will monetize recorded music far into the future.

    Hope you'll be able to adapt to the change.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    BigKeithO (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 8:16am

    Re: Masnick = paid shill

    Paid shill for whom? The "Pirates"? I thought they didn't pay for anything...

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re: Masnick = paid shill

    At the very least he's paid by the advertising on this site and the "consulting" he does for whoever it is he "consults". This site is a well-known mouthpiece for pirates and the tech lobby, who have been getting rich on the backs of illegal content for 10 years.

    Masnick is a piracy advocate because he knows it means more money for himself.

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    ChadBroChill (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Masnick = paid shill

    LOL what a troll.

    There is no big pirate conspiracy. Who has gotten rich off of piracy other than large corporations who practice illegal corporate espionage? Some would argue that Microsoft was founded and subsequently succeeded because of piracy

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 10:18am

    Re: Masnick = paid shill

    As per usual, Masnick gives a highly distorted summary of the article and leaves out any countervailing points.For example, one hilarious fact that the article revealed is that Corey Smith has just signed to a label! For the past year you have been quoting Corey Smith as an example of DIY success ; maybe he has realised that DIY can only take you so far.If Corey Smith was earning all the money that is claimed couldn't he just hire the services he needs from marketing and distribution companies?

    Heh. Did you not read the part where he didn't sign a traditional label deal at all, but more or less hired the company to handle marketing & distribution for a fair revenue split? In other words, yes, he did hire the services he needed.

    Furthermore,Kulash states explicitly that there is a problem in replacing the risk capital function that a label provided for emerging artists.

    That's because I covered his very next part where he gave examples of where that IS happening and the new ways to get that capital.

    o wonder people are being to realise that Mike Masnick is nothing more than the paid whore of the economic interests of Silicon Valley.

    Heh. The reality is the opposite is happening. I hear from more and more content creators on a daily basis about how much what I've written about has helped them succeed themselves.

    And I'm really curious about how I'm a "paid shill". For whom?!?

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Masnick = paid shill

    At the very least he's paid by the advertising on this site and the "consulting" he does for whoever it is he "consults". This site is a well-known mouthpiece for pirates and the tech lobby, who have been getting rich on the backs of illegal content for 10 years.

    I love the bizarre conspiracy theories of clueless record label people who don't actually have any knowledge of what we do as a company.

    Masnick is a piracy advocate because he knows it means more money for himself.


    I've never advocated "piracy" at all, and why would I? And, I find it pretty funny that you think "advocating for piracy" means more money. From whom exactly?

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Colin, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Re: Masnick = paid shill

    If Corey Smith was earning all the money that is claimed couldn't he just hire the services he needs from marketing and distribution companies?

    Maybe he could. You don't know what other benefits he's getting from a label. Who are you to tell him how he should run his business? (And yes, music is art, but if you're trying to make money from it it becomes a business.)

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    bob, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re:

    Free? No way. The king had to pay the piper. That's where the phrase comes from "Whomever pays the piper calls the tune." The blithe disregard of reality of tech geeks really bugs me some time.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re:

    Ricahrd, your point is well taken, but you are failing when it comes to really doing anything to perpetuate the music.

    How do you fund the orchestral recordings? You work. What happens when perhaps you run a little short of money, and you can cough up the major dough required to make these recordings (and to keep all those musicians paid and living)? The music dies.

    Now, if someone came in with some risk capital, and financed the recording of the music, and sold it at a reasonable market price to recoup their risk, and to make enough money to also pay for the musicians, wouldn't it be better? Each of one us could buy a $10 download from Itunes or whatever and we could all enjoy the music, happy knowing that we contributed to making things work out? They call those risk capital guys "record labels". You tech types call them "venture capitalists" or "Incubators".

    See, what you did was be the 1 in X that overspent incredibly to allow the freeloaders to enjoy the music. The funny part is that one day you will realize it, and you will stop spending money for other people to enjoy. You work hard for your money, it should be for yourself, not the 100 or 1000 freeloaders who didn't bother to pay for something.

    See, you aren't a fan, you are a fool. The fool and his money are soon parted, but the smart man eats the feast laid on by others. When you realize that you have been a fool, things will change.

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Your own technology? And what might that be? I am curious, could you explain it for us?

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 11:53am

    In the future, musicians will be replaced by robots.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick = paid shill

    "LOL what a troll."

    I was thinking about offering him a time share under the golden gate ... the one across the street from that now defunct record store.

    "There is no big pirate conspiracy."

    Shhh!! Stop denying it!!! he will figure out you are denying it because there really is a big pirate conspiracy.

    (do I need to put a sarc tag in?)

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick = paid shill

    ".... I find it pretty funny that you think "advocating for piracy" means more money ...."

    Oh, Oh, Oh, (dave waves hands) pick me, pick me!!!

    For the artists.

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 12:09pm

    Re:

    "In the future, musicians will be replaced by robots."

    So will hookers, the people that pick food from plants, and people who post Anonymously on blogs :)

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 12:15pm

    Re:

    Mostly TD could create false hope. It's sort of like claiming to have a "lead to gold" magic spell, when it fact it is gold to dust that really happens.

    Corporations aren't going to fund many videos. They want return, and in a billion video universe, there is likely no return. Remember, the new music world is a chaotic system with no leading players, no leading sources, and little in the way of true eyeball (or ear hole) aggregation. It is a high level noise floor with little sticking above the noise.

    For the rest of it, you keep falling in the same trap. There is little indication that there is an ongoing market for any of that stuff. As the noise floor continues to rise, fewer and fewer individual acts or bands will make enough for it to really matter. If millions of "musicians" are all offering t-shirts and mugs and other junk, will any of them really make any money doing it?

    If you think there is a market for such a central system, make it yourself. Just don't quit school to do it.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Do you know how tired music people are of having tech geeks/nerds tell them how their life should be lived?

    They can't be as tired as I am of having cigar-chomping, txakoli-sipping empty suits who work for record labels, "performance rights" organizations, and trade groups telling me what music I can listen to and how much of my money needs to fill their coffers.

    The market establishes itself. And currently, the market has come to the obvious conclusion that infinite goods are free. All the wishful thinking in the world will never change that.

     

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

  34.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Each of one us could buy a $10 download from Itunes or whatever and we could all enjoy the music, happy knowing that we contributed to making things work out?

    The only thing that would contribute to is a monstrous organization that sues single mothers for $2 million for swapping 24 songs online, then gloating about destroying her life. I don't mind paying artists. I will never pay a record label.

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Do you know how tired music people are of having tech geeks/nerds tell them how their life should be lived?


    I love how our friend here blames the messenger. Dude, it's not about "should." It's explain what *has already happened* and suggesting ways to deal with it in a manner that makes you more money.

    We've had this conversation before, and we've noted that the artists who work with you are not making money (you've stated that upfront). Yet, the artists who have worked with me, seem to be doing quite well.

    So, um, why should people listen to you? I'm honestly curious.

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    Christopher Bingham (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 3:01am

    Re: Wrong

    90% of GDP? Riiiiight. More than health care? More than the military industrial complex?

    Puleaze. A few years ago when the majors still owned the market, the music industry was a $14 billion a year industry.

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    Christopher Bingham (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 3:10am

    Re:

    115,000 titles released in 2008. Does every one of those who "deserve" to make a living?

    I just had a really validating weekend: we had a cd release party where we said "No one goes home without a cd - pay what you want. 25 cds went out the door and we averaged exactly we'd normally charge, $15 each. But the folks that paid less, were just as excited (maybe more) than the folks who paid $25.

    On top of that, a fan who has been wanted to donate for years, received an inheritance and donated $2000.00 and said "Make more art and music!"

    You have to give them a reason to buy.

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 9:31am

    OK Go and similar stuff

    Same old, same old - important stuff gets a small paragraph, trivia gets ten times the exposure.
    It's a shame. Techdirt would be so much more valuable if it stopped groveling to the "artistic" world.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    herbert, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re:

    i dont think it is because there are too many musicians that are trying to make a living. it is more a case of too much of what is earned going to the music labels and anyone/everyone else and far too little actually going to the musicians/singers/artists themselves. the majority of musicians etc can see the internet as the future and are embracing it. it is the labels executives that WONT, not CANT see it and wont change. that is why they are so intent on (bribing politicians to introduce) newer and tougher anti-file sharing laws, simply to preserve THEIR own way of life. they are not worried about the artists in the least!

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    PunksUndead, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm ok with paying certain labels. Like Fat Wreck Chords for instance.
    (from the Fat FAQ page)
    "What the fuck is the RIAA and is Fat part of it?

    They are the Recording Industry Association of America. Are we a member? Not only no, but FUCK NO! We spent three years having our label's name (which was mispelled) removed from their members list. A year went by, then our name showed up again on their fucking list! Who are these sonsabitches?! Needless to say, we're in the process of having our name removed again, but they aren't being too cooperative."

    or Quote Unquote Records...
    read the "about us" here
    http://www.quoteunquoterecords.com/info.htm

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I should have specified a "major label." I've purchased music through non-RIAA affiliated labels in the past, although I generally don't even do that anymore, since I found out that majors own portions of many of them or at least handle their distribution.

    Not that all of them do, mind you, but I tend to avoid all labels on general principle.

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 24th, 2010 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Now, if someone came in with some risk capital, and financed the recording of the music, and sold it at a reasonable market price to recoup their risk, and to make enough money to also pay for the musicians, wouldn't it be better?
    No No No No No!

    The music I funded will go straight to the public domain. It will be free. Anyone can use it any way they want. That is what I chose to do with my money. Your way is the old way and it doesn't deliver free music. Now that copying costs nothing the old way makes no sense at all.

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 24th, 2010 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What happens when perhaps you run a little short of money,
    Then I can't afford to buy your rented music - bu the free (as in freedom) music that I funded is still available to me.

    BTW the cost of the recording was shared between many people - so my contribution was no greater than what it used to cost to buy a domestic HiFi system plus a few records...

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 24th, 2010 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You work hard for your money, it should be for yourself, not the 100 or 1000 freeloaders who didn't bother to pay for something.

    I hope I never sink to that way of thinking.

    I'm very happy that the music I funded can be enjoyed by many other people. That is precisely what I did it for.

    Your philosophy seems to be founded on selfishness.

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 24th, 2010 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    i dont think it is because there are too many musicians that are trying to make a living. it is more a case of too much of what is earned going to the music labels and anyone/everyone else and far too little actually going to the musicians/singers/artists themselves.

    I think it is inevitable that most musicians will struggle. That is just simple economics. Earning a living from music is such an attractive proposition that it will always be oversubscribed. What has happened recently is that the internet has enabled more musicians to make a living - and as a byproduct even more are trying.

     

    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