If You Behave Like Your Own Fans Despise You, They Probably Will

from the it's-dead,-jim dept

So we recently had a bit of a debunking of writer Ewan Morrison's nearly 100% factually incorrect discussion of what the failure of ACTA in Europe means. Morrison made a few responses on his Twitter feed -- bizarrely claiming (for example) that I'm wrong about the DMCA and that it wasn't celebrated by the entertainment industry and decried by the tech industry. There's no way to respond to that other than to laugh. It's not hard to find historical accounts that show techies were protesting against the DMCA and trying to fight it in court. Morrison is flat out wrong on this one.

But what's more, is that he goes on to raise a very common trope we've heard from copyright maximalists: claiming that this is all about people not wanting to support artists they like, and that this is because they're jealous of artists. As Ewan stated in a series of tweets:
What amazes me is the vehemence towards the idea that there might be people who make a living out of their art.

A lot has to be said for the theory that this is based on jealousy and resentment. Do consumers actually despise artists?
While, perhaps, there are some people who are jealous of artists, it's hard to see any truth to those claims on a widespread basis. In fact, as we've detailed over the years, fans seem to be absolutely ecstatic when they find out that artists they really love are successful. Let's take two recent examples. First up, Louis CK and his direct to fan offering that involved him being really cool to his fans and connecting with them -- and then asking them, politely, to pay for his video special (which was inexpensive and had no DRM). And it worked. Less than two weeks later and he'd made $1 million... and his fans loved it. They weren't jealous. They didn't have any resentment towards him making a living (and a super comfortable one at that). They were thrilled.

Next up. Amanda Palmer and her Kickstarter campaign. She sought to raise $100,000 for her latest album release... and ended up with $1.2 million. And once again, her fans were thrilled about how much money she made. There wasn't jealousy or resentment. Instead, they celebrated both online and off (there was a big party in Brooklyn, and it appears that party is continuing over into her current tour).

Those are just two datapoints, obviously, but we're actually seeing it more and more. Jonathan Coulton making a ton of money. Trent Reznor making a ton of money. Mathew Ebel making a living. Corey Smith making millions. Jill Sobule doing an early version of fan funding. Kevin Smith bucking the traditional way of doing things and making lots of money elsewhere. Erin McKeown crowdfunding her new album. Joe Konrath making lots of money by shifting to self-publishing. Paulo Coehlo watching his sales jump massively every time he "pirated" his own works.

Over and over and over again we see the same pattern. Fans don't resent artists they love making money. In fact, they quite often are so invested in the success of those artists, that they get vicarious joy from the success of those artists. I've seen no evidence that true fans are jealous of artists or that fans get upset at the idea of artists making a living. Quite the opposite. They seem to celebrate such success stories, because it's really awesome.

So where's the disconnect? If you start going through folks like the ones listed above, and how they relate to their fans, you find a pretty common pattern. These are artists that really truly connect with their fans. As Amanda Palmer told us, you have to build an army of supporters, day by day, connecting one by one. This is hard work. But go through the list above and look at some of the things they do to reach out to fans and connect with them. Look at the levels they go to in order to be truly open, human and awesome for their fans.

And you begin to see the pattern.

The artists who truly connect... their fans support them as far as they possibly can. There's no jealousy about their success. There's no one who wants to somehow deny them a living. It's the exact opposite.

The problem, then, is that for some artists who fail at this, it's difficult for them to understand why. They think their content is good. They think they're nice to their fans. And maybe they're right. But, for whatever reason (and sometimes it's just something that's in the air), that connection didn't stick. People don't support them. It's not because they are jealous. It's not because they want to deny them a living. In many ways, it's worse and much harder for those artists to come to grips with: it's because people just don't care that much about the artist. Not because of "piracy." Not because of some moral failings. The artist just failed to "build an army." Sometimes it's because the artist just isn't that good. Sometimes it's because the artist doesn't treat fans right (and "blaming" fans or calling them "criminals" or calling them "unethical" and wrapping stuff up with DRM is a pretty good way to not treat fans right). Yes, in some cases, the failure can be self-induced, but it seems in those cases we see the most vocal lashing out by the artists who simply refuse to do any sort of self-reflection.

So, can we finally dispense with this myth that the great masses out there don't want to support artists? Or that they're jealous of their success? If that was the case, we wouldn't see the examples we see above. We wouldn't see people exclaiming all over Twitter how much they love people like Louis CK and Amanda Palmer, and how freaking thrilled they are when they see the stories of the massive success of their fan-friendly approaches. But we do see that with those artists and many more, because they learned the secret: connect at a really deep level with fans, and those fans won't be jealous. They'll support you wherever you want to go. Happily. And they will shout it from the mountains for others to hear. Treat your fans right, and they give it right back to you.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 7:52pm

    If people don't care about artist...

    ...then there wouldn't be an "entertainment industry" in the first place. The lie is that the "entertainment industry" cares about the artists. They don't.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 8:04am

      Re: If people don't care about artist...

      ...then there wouldn't be an "entertainment industry"

      Quick! Someone name just one person not making money off the "entertainment industry" and not wanting to make money off the "entertainment industry" that ever, for even one millisecond, wanted an "entertainment industry".

      People want entertainment. Period.

      For thousands of years before there ever was an "entertainment industry", people got entertainment. And people will get entertainment long after the “industry” part is rightly dead.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 5:21pm

        Re: Re: If people don't care about artist...

        Yes, that was my point.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        TtfnJohn (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

        The Entertainment "Industry" has always existed

        Put another way there has been an "entertainment industry" since modern man appeared, and probably long before, and will continue to be when we evolve to the next level of, say "homo internetus" or something similar.

        Our nearest primate relatives seek to play and entertain each other as well, so we come by it all honestly.

        Cats play with and entertain their nearest feline friends, dogs do the same though it's much easier to see because their not the loners cats are supposed to be.

        In adults of all social mammals play for its own sake is commonplace. It probably is in other species who are social. Birds play for the hell of it. Being the true "last of the dinosaurs" it's a good indication that social dinosaurs did too.

        So the "entertainment industry" is cross species, timeless and common among higher orders of life it seems.

        None of that changes the fact that T-Rex would have used humans as toothpicks but remember they were social too and that their closest descendant is the common barnyard chicken.

        So if they start getting enormous again and suddenly sprout very sharp teeth we humans may have to beware!

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 8:02pm

    Hate to point it out but neither one of you appears to understand the definition of the word "vehement."

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 8:20pm

    "Trent Reznor making a ton of money" - yeah, Trent made so much money that he stopped making albums and started making movie music instead - just to assure that he would get paid!

     

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

    •  
      icon
      blaktron (profile), Jul 13th, 2012 @ 8:43pm

      Re:

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:15am

        Re: Re:

        You suck at reading.

        3 albums, 2 sound tracks for movies and 1 sound track for a video game - completely proving my point. He's not making music for music, he's making music for other people's projects. It pays better.

        Thanks for proving my point.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Only in your world does producing soundtracks mean that other avenues of music creation are not profitable.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 8:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It only means that Reznor has chosen not to go down the usual route of making albums, and has moved to the very profitable movie music domain.

            It should be pointed out that his last few NIN albums were declining in popularity on the charts, as he moved into the world of "free". Basically, he has to do something for money, right? Soundtracks pay very well (because you get residuals for every DVD sold, every time the movie plays, etc...).

            Then again, Mike wouldn't want to accept the idea that Reznor is getting his money "the old way", on licensing his copyrighted works.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 9:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Then again, Mike wouldn't want to accept the idea that Reznor is getting his money "the old way", on licensing his copyrighted works.

              Does it ever get tiring being so wrong about Mike's position all the time?

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 9:37am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                No, on this one put down the koolaide, trent is making money the old way, and mike doesn't like to say that

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:10am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Asking people for their money?

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 5:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You're saying that, due to piracy, Reznor can't make money selling typical albums of music so instead he's supplying music for movies and video games.

                  But movies and video games are also pirated. Why would those movies that are going to be failures because of piracy pay for Reznor's music?

                   

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

            •  
              icon
              Hephaestus (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You are to funny! Nowhere does it say he can't make money in both ways, the "old" and the "new". That would be like saying someone can't make money off real estate and have a day job also.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 12:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, I'm sure he did it just for the money. There's no possible way someone wants to work on a project because they find it interesting.

               

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

        •  
          icon
          blaktron (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 8:06am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Its been 4 years since his last NiN album, which is 1 year less than the time between all his other NiN albums.

          Trent Reznor has been making movie / video game music at about the same pace since Quake in '96.

          You simply don't know enough to argue this point, and maybe you should read more and type less. Just a thought (not that you know what those are)...

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Let's be fair here. I was a big fan of Trent and NIN long before most people could figure it out. Most of the rest of you tuned in around the downward spiral and thought you were cool. That's okay.

            What I think is really funny is that Mike holds him up like some great example, but really Trent has pretty much ignored his fans the last little while. His twitter account has about a dozen tweets this year, the nin account even fewer, the nin.com site is up to date for 2011, and so on. Worse yet, most of this tweets appear to be aimed at directly selling stuff, talking AT his fans and not with them.

            It should be noted I tuned out a long time ago.

            "You simply don't know enough to argue this point,"

            I do. That's why you are having a problem with it, and why I call Mike out on it every time he tries to push it.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Lowestofthekeys (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 1:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I do. That's why you are having a problem with it, and why I call Mike out on it every time he tries to push it."

              If you had actually read the article, the reference to Reznor's success was what he did in the past, not present, so no you apparently do not know enough to realize what Mike was talking about.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 9:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I understand what Mike is talking about. Sadly, what Mike doesn't want to talk about is the very people he holds up as "great shining examples" are often the ones who walk away from those positions because they aren't particularly tenable.

                Reznor has 1.2 millions followers on Twitter, and can't be bothered to make a post, it's almost all retweets. Talk about great fan interaction, right?

                When you talk about replacing a music industry that has lasted almost since the start of recorded music, you should be talking about putting something out there that works and has some legs, not a transient social media trender.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Leigh Beadon (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 10:37am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  If you thought that by connect with fans we meant "tweet all day" and nothing else, then you have missed the point.

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Mark Harris (profile), Jul 16th, 2012 @ 12:53am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  If you'd followed Reznor on Twitter, you'd know that he stopped tweeting because of a particular stalker who made trouble for him.

                  And the "music industry that has lasted almost since the start of recorded music"? No, the current exploitative model grew in the 50's and 60's - recorded music dates back 100 years. The music industry goes back even further if you include publishing, and performance for pay has been the standard since the first ape said "Ook!" in front of the fire.

                   

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

        •  
          identicon
          Karim, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 9:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          He's not making music for music, he's making music for other people's projects.

          So making music for other people is not really making music? Care to elaborate, troll?

           

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

          •  
            icon
            dwg (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 11:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Dude, thank god someone pointed this up. The troll apparently thinks that "making music for music" is qualitatively different from making a song for use in a film. If the contrasting examples were writing a song and writing a commercial jingle, I'd be more onboard, but (1) that's not the contrast that the troll presented; and (2) Moby.

            In fact, "making music for music" is probably the dumbest phrase I've ever heard.

             

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

        •  
          identicon
          Michael, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 6:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "He's not making music for music, he's making music for other people's projects."

          And the problem with that is? Is he not allowed to pursue other avenues as a working musician? Should his album sales fall into a sales slump, precisely whose fault is that? Don't blindly point your finger in accusation at the general public as if it were somehow their *responsibility* to go out and support his work. As an artist, Trent Reznor is either providing or enhancing a form of entertainment. Being commissioned to work on projects is actually a practical business decision for an artist -- indeed, it happens all the time. Nothing unusual about it.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Paul`, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 8:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Who says musicians must only work for themselves? Maybe he enjoys composing audio to accompany the medium of film. Its a different artistic experience and takes a different skill set to just writing a song that sounds good.

          You make a non point.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jul 16th, 2012 @ 10:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          He's not making music for music, he's making music for other people's projects.


          I am having real trouble seeing the point of this statement. Making music for a movie is somehow less than making music for other reasons?

          Two of my favorite Pink Floyd albums are movie soundtracks. I've never seen the movies, but the music is fantastic and stands on its own. It's art, and in no way diminished by having been written and performed specifically for use in movies.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Jul 17th, 2012 @ 1:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Lots of great artists have moved from rock/pop to soundtrack work, and many have created incredible work as a result (off the top of my head - Danny Elfman, Clint Mansell and BT spring immediately to mind). Reznor did, of course, make film scores earlier in his career and will no doubt return to album work in the future. There's definitely nothing wrong with it, and it can be a great creative exercise as well as something that informs later creative endeavours. There's also no reason why Reznor couldn't just return to other work if he wants.

            "I am having real trouble seeing the point of this statement"

            It's the standard troll mindset. They are utterly incapable of either understanding the true motivations of artists, or admitting even for a second that an artist has been successful using alternative business models. They don't even seem to pretend to support artists any more - every time the name of a successful independent musician comes up, there's always an excuse as to why they don't count ("I didn't like Sita Sings The Blues so it doesn't count!" or "Jonathan Coulton didn't make the Billboard #1 therefore he's irrelevant!"). This is just another tired example.

            The point that this particular moron is trying to make is that Reznor could only have moved to soundtrack work for financial, not creative, reasons, and that this move undermines everything else he's done with new business models. He's also apparently incapable of interacting without his Twitter account, for some reason, and all sorts of other claims. It's a bunch of crap, completely stupid, and doomed to fail as soon as Reznor releases his next successful NIN/solo album work, but it's just another excuse for him to hang his attacks on in the meantime.

             

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 8:24pm

    "Kevin Smith bucking the traditional way of doing things and making lots of money elsewhere"

    Only after seeming to prove that he can't appear to make a Hollywood style movie that makes money.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      blaktron (profile), Jul 13th, 2012 @ 8:44pm

      Re:

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 8:52pm

        Re: Re: Need more?

        You mean providing him with FREE THINGS. He would never click on those links, and read them for FREE. if he does, the voice in his head would scream FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDD

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 9:06am

          Well done!

          Please keep posting like that! It saves me time and keeps my blood pressure lower when trolls use such an obvious lack of style to compliment the lack of any semblance of intelligence. I can just eyeball it and skip the troll horseshit altogether.

          You should stop shooting yourself in the foot! Take better aim and shoot yourself in the head instead. It's not like you ever use it anyway.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 9:49pm

            Re: Well done!

            Not sure who you are responding to.

            The troll who said "Only after seeming to prove that he can't appear to make a Hollywood style movie that makes money.'

            Or the funny ass post that says "FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARR R RRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDD"

            If you are calling the second a troll, you are obliviously a troll and just don't get it.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 12:52am

            Re: Well done!

            compliment the lack of any semblance of intelligence

            Your lack of any semblance of intelligence is awesome.

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 9:51pm

        Re: Re:

        Clearly if an artist cannot be attributable to record labels, no matter how much money they make they must be a failure in the eyes of the trolls. Because to the trolls the success of an artist is all about the labels. Not because of fans, or quality, or talent - everything must be about the labels, and whoever says otherwise must be reputationally smited.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Clearly if an artist cannot be attributable to record labels, no matter how much money they make they must be a failure in the eyes of the trolls"

          Total crock of shit.

          Where in hells name do you get that from?

          Kevin Smith is a success, provided he sticks to making cartoons, doing lower budget movies, and making, as he calls it "dick and fart" jokes.

          When he moved up to doing Hollywood style movies, he hasn't had such a good track record. The movies are often well received by his fans, and get mixed reviews from the press. But at the boxoffice, they aren't doing all that well.

          An example would be Cop Out, his last Hollywood movie. 30 million budget, 55 million boxoffice worldwide. With numbers like that, it's very likely to have been a money loser (and not just in Hollywood accounting terms, but straight up).

          Zack and Miri? 24 million budget, 42 million worldwide. Probably close to break even.

          Jersey Girl? 35 million budget, 36 million worldwide. Can you say "bomb"?

          His real successes have been the Clerks and Clerks II deals, with Clerks being micro budget and Clerks II being a small 5 million budget. That one made some cash.

          Basically, as a Hollywood type director, he hasn't had too many big scores.

          Oh, and... those are facts, not some weird troll against the guy. I suggest you open you eyes and start understanding the facts, you might be a happier, better informed person.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            The eejit (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 11:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Hang on, how the fuck does a gross of nearly twice the film's budget (at the box office, no less) mean it's lost money?

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hollywood is a magical place specially on the accounting lands.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              That One Guy (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              He's obviously assuming Hollywood Math(tm) is in effect, where it doesn't matter how much a movie makes, it's still never profitable.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 4:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Hang on, how the fuck does a gross of nearly twice the film's budget (at the box office, no less) mean it's lost money?"

              It's because the budget you see is ONLY the shooting budget, and nothing else. it doesn't cover promotion, it doesn't cover distribution, it doesn't cover duplication, and everything required to actually get the movie into the theaters. It doesn't cover that glitzy opening night, it doesn't cover radio ads, TV ads, that setup for the interviews, getting people to the events, etc.

              It is not unusual for a movie to have many millions of dollars of promotion alone (radio and TV).

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 7:05am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                That is before the creative accounting though.
                Ask Peter Jackson

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 9:43am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I am not even playing in creative accounting... I am just looking at straight up, real, easy to understand stuff.

                  The budgets posted online are the production only budgets, not the full cost of making and selling the movie. So trying to take the ticket sale gross and the production budget to figure out if a movie made is very hard.

                  Safe to say that a bigger budget movie tends to have a fairly solid marketing and distribution cost structure, such that 45 million gross against 25 million cost doesn't leave much money on the table.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    PaulT (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 11:15am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "So trying to take the ticket sale gross and the production budget to figure out if a movie made is very hard."

                    If they made the true figures available, we'd discuss those but right now we only have assumptions. For example, the assumption would be that while there would be distribution and marketing costs to consider, it's also unlikely that those costs would be higher than the production budget. That film made money, even if you ignore the home and other secondary markets (which you clearly are, for whatever reason).

                     

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 11:37pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Then you don't know how the accounting is really done do you?

                    For all you know, they get the contracts for distribution in advance and know how much it will cost and budget for that, putting those costs elsewhere in the spreadsheet.

                    What we need is to audit Hollywood and take a great interest on where all that money goes.

                     

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 5:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You completely proved my point. Since the guy isn't making money as a result of "the old system" (or whatever the hell that means) he's resorting to a system you don't like, and for that you have to call him out on his previous failures.

            I'm not attempting to say that he hasn't failed, but the vibe I'm getting from you is "He's pandering to pirates because he's a big fat loser otherwise! How dare he make money not as a result of the model I like; I'm going to go to a forum thread and rant about his previous failures because it gives his current successes less legitimacy somehow!"

            For someone calling me to be more open-minded, you are being extremely bitter about the whole affair.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You ARE some weird troll when you show proof that all Smith's movies were in the black and you then you say "Basically, as a Hollywood type director, he hasn't had too many big scores."

            It shows a disconnect from reality maybe someday you will overcome.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 5:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Umm, maybe you can learn the difference between "production budget" and "total cost" and then try again.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I wouldn't count on that.

                The idiots here just plug their ears, stomp their feet and yell "Creative accounting! Creative accounting!" anytime they're faced with facts.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 11:40pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Facts?

                  I see no documents shown that show how the accounting is done, do you?

                  What I do see is several lawsuits from authors, actors and others against studios and distributors, whith many court docs documenting the acts committed to defraud people from what was agreed upon.

                  Ask Peter Jackson dude.

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  PaulT (profile), Jul 16th, 2012 @ 1:11am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "facts"

                  You keep using this word, etc...

                   

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 5:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Instead of merely saying there is a difference between production and total cost, why not put some numbers where your mouth is.

                 

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

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 11:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm intrigued as to how you count Zack & Miri as a "Hollywood style" movie. There's not a lot to separate it from his other comedies in style other than perhaps the presence of a current star, it was produced independently, and distributed independently.

            As for the others, I can't help but notice that you deliberately ignored many of his films, in order to concentrate on films that even he acknowledges as flops. Jersey Girl and Cop Out were bad experiences for him, and he's talked about them at length - they were the worst performers of his career, as well as the studio produced Mallrats. You also fail to take into account video and TV sales, despite the fact that even his most successful films have found their audience on video, not theatres.

            Either way, I'm not sure why you harp on about this. If he's making money, who gives a crap whether it was from the "old" and "new" business models? Who cares whether the film cost $2 million or $200 million as long as it's successful? Who cares what "style" it is? Smith is making money, and he's doing it the way he wants. Why is that a problem?

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:12am

        Re: Re:

        You need to brush up your reading skills. Hollywood movies, well, he hasn't been very successful. His latest Hollywood movie was pretty much a null that didn't even earn back it's budget, let alone pay for any other costs.

        Also, claiming "profit" from comparing the budget to the box office is pretty lame. They have this thing, called marketing. They have another thing, called distribution costs. They have... you get the idea. Your not very good at this.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The comment above yours says it all.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 8:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh and

          Your not very good at this.

          You'RE not very good at spelling.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          blaktron (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 8:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You know they budget those things, right?

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 4:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You really don't know what you're talking about.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I guess I do need to brush up on my reading skills. All I read in you post is.

          "I'm a Hollywood shill who likes to make up shit because the facts don't support me. I like to go on blogs and be an arrogant twerp and make lame posts because I have an overinflated ego and want to cram my opinion down everyone's throat instead of discussing anything. Oh, and then I like to say some more bullshit that I can't back up.

          Then I like to make lame attempts at saying you all don't know what your talking about and I'm totally right...... to infinity. No take backs"

          Well after thinking about it, I think my comprehension is pretty good (Thank you 8th grade English teacher) and you pretty much failed.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 4:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Then you are just a jackass with such a hardened point of view, that you can't even read a simple comment of someone trying to explain the basics to you. Too bad for you, you can keep going through life ignorant. Have another cup of hateraid.

             

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

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), Jul 13th, 2012 @ 9:15pm

      Re:

      POST MOAR LIEZ.

      Here, I'll help:

      "Corey Smith making millions."

      Only after being run over by a bus and then deported to a North Korean gulag. That's not what I call success


      Hope that helps!

      Aside, how does one seem to prove that they can't appear to do something? There's a lot of weasel in them there words.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Jul 13th, 2012 @ 11:45pm

      Re:

      What's your point exactly? The fact that he's had more financial success outside the Hollywood system says more about the Hollywood system than it does about Smith.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        blaktron (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:06am

        Re: Re:

        The big issue is that he hasnt had *more* success outside the hollywood system, because he hasnt. He has had success both ways, which is an important point. Those who would have succeeded will still succeed, just maybe not as many times over. Its all the new people who wouldnt have succeeded but now will that is the big story.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 8:29pm

    He's totally wrong about consumers not liking artist success. What they don't like is pricks complaining they don't have a yacht or something.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

      Re:

      No, those people are just kinda annoying, it's the ones claiming those 'no good dirty pirates' are responsible for them not being able to own two yachts(and a couple of houses, and a fleet of cars, and...) that are the ones that get the mockery.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        JEDIDIAH, Jul 16th, 2012 @ 11:13am

        Shattering the delusion.

        Being a crass jack*ss destroys the fantasy. It destroys the fantasy that artists are living a dreamlike existence above and apart from crass corporate concerns. They are the rebels that do what the rest of us don't have the courage to.

        Once an artist starts to look like Shylock, a lot of the mystique dies and that's a bit part of the appeal of pop music.

        Once you reduce an artist to a carpenter, or plumber, or investment banker the whole thing loses it's glamor. Once an artist looks like an investment banker, then all of the class envy can start.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    sheenyglass (profile), Jul 13th, 2012 @ 9:04pm

    Disintermediating the connections

    "But, for whatever reason (and sometimes it's just something that's in the air), that connection didn't stick."

    One of the major functions provided by intermediaries such as record labels is their marketing abilities. In addition to the straightforward advertising of artists, this also includes crafting the public image of the artist and arranging media exposure of that image through things like photo shoots for Rolling Stone, "unguarded" interviews in the New Yorker and public appearances. In other words, big content is an intermediary not just for the distribution of the art itself, but for the humanizing things that traditionally lead fans to view artists as a person with whom they have a connection (Stars, they're just like us!).

    Dis-intermediation then doesn't just favor artists who are able to take over the logistical functions of getting art to fans and the money back to the artist; it also favors artists who are able to replace the PR intermediaries with their own form of engagement with fans. So artists who aren't comfortable with this role or who view this role as being extraneous to the art are going to be hostile to taking it on. And if they view working at creating this engagement as comparatively unimportant (or beneath them) they will probably suck at it.

    Although, to be fair, I think quite a few artists are probably introverts who find developing these connections to be a bit demoralizing and overwhelming.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 11:40pm

      Re: Disintermediating the connections

      In other words, big content is an intermediary not just for the distribution of the art itself, but for the humanizing things that traditionally lead fans to view artists as a person with whom they have a connection


      Thing is, most of the publicity provided by the gatekeepers is actually dehumanizing, not humanizing. Most of the time, there seems to be this real tendency to paint potential stars as being perfect, superhuman, and idealized. Even when they show the artists as being flawed, the flaws are like something off of a soap opera; you never hear anything genuine or personal expressed.

      I think this type of publicity stands in direct opposition to the sort of things that Amanda Palmer or Louis CK do. Both those artists are notable for relating to their fans as actual human beings; not just treating their fans as being human, but acting human themselves. The difference is huge.

      So, while I take your point that big media also tries to create connections with fans, I'm not really sure that it's equivalent to what independent artists do. I think about the best that can be said is that big media publicizes all their artists the same way; they'll give roughly the same publicity regardless of who the artist is. Independent artists have to base their publicity on who they actually are.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        sheenyglass (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 4:44pm

        Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

        "most of the publicity provided by the gatekeepers is actually dehumanizing, not humanizing."

        I would agree that this is a significant chunk of what is put forth. When call the PR humanizing, I'm thinking less of the top-level publicity that comes from press releases and cover shoots than I am of the second level of PR that sells itself as journalism, but happens for PR reasons. Like when that superhuman image on the cover of the magazine is accompanied by one of those interviews in which they seem to rip away the mask and reveal deep truths about themselves. Coincidentally, these interviews tend to happen at the same time as the PR campaign for their new record/film/book. But I'm sure its unrelated and publicists are not at all involved in vetting or soliciting interviewers beforehand.

        Both the straightforward PR and the false genuineness work together. If there was no mask to rip away, then the revelation wouldn't leave the reader feeling special. The insight into the artist from the interview is likely genuine in a sense, but it is also calculated in that the artist (or their management) decides to make the revelation for a reason.

        I'm not arguing that it is equivalent to what Louis CK and Amanda Palmer are doing--I too find the creation of an actual connection to be far more appealing than the manufactured image--just that the goal is the same. For some people, the effect is comparable as well. Why else would people have these weirdly personal affections for major celebrities?

        "Independent artists have to base their publicity on who they actually are"

        Although they will probably end up doing this to a greater degree, I think its kind of unlikely that an artist, particularly a performing artist, whose livelihood is often based on projecting an entertaining persona, is going to be incapable of crafting their image. It will be less of a mass produced image, but it will still be an image (Maybe we could call it artisanal PR?). The difference is genuineness will be real, but a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind.

        I think the real benefit to removing disintermediation in the process of connecting with fans isn't that the publicity will be more genuine. Rather the benefit is that as the power between artist and fan shifts so that artists have to take fans into account as individuals rather than members of a mob, the artist will be meeting fan desires more effectively.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          drew (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 3:39am

          Re: Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

          The thing is, as I think your first post points out, that there's still a huge amount of value the established industries could add. If they chose to focus on that rather than trying to shore-up their old business models.
          There is a place for middle-men who add value in loads of these models, what's losing its relevance is the old "all or nothing" type deals.
          You can actually see this happening with some of the smaller, truly-independent labels already. They've figured out that the magic comes from getting the content in front of the fans and they work on making that happen in a way that provides some return to the artist without screwing over the fans.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Jul 13th, 2012 @ 11:49pm

      Re: Disintermediating the connections

      "In addition to the straightforward advertising of artists, this also includes crafting the public image of the artist and arranging media exposure of that image through things like photo shoots for Rolling Stone, "unguarded" interviews in the New Yorker and public appearances."

      And most people see straight through that fabricated BS and realise it's simply marketing, and is rarely genuine. That is not connecting with fans in a meaningful way.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 5:27am

      Re: Disintermediating the connections

      Fans are elated whenever an independent artist they like succeeds. The reason for this is likely an amalgamation of various factors. We love watching the underdog succeed despite great odds. We enjoy watching major label acts get defeated by independent artists. And we tend to view indie successes as a shared victory because the populace had a hand in creating it, as opposed to major label acts whose success is manufactured by corporate suits.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:26am

      Re: Disintermediating the connections

      One of the major functions provided by intermediaries such as record labels is their mass marketing abilities.

      Since their distribution model has (historically) very high fixed costs they have required very large sales to make a profit.

      Modern distribution does not require those large costs and therefore the mass marketing model is obsolescent.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:27am

        Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

        Sorry - the word "mass" should have been picked out bold - since I inserted it into the quoted text.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          sheenyglass (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 4:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

          Definitely - the rise of big content was aided by economies of scale that no longer exists. Lean marketing (just like lean production, lean distribution etc.) is destroying the advantages large content purveyors have over individuals. Marketing is probably the one area where large entities can provide some non-trivial economic advantage, with ad-buys and access to journalists etc., but that is going the way of the dodo as well due to the fragmentation of taste-making media into smaller units.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 11:56am

        Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

        The mass media's distribution model relies entirely on an unethically granted government established communications monopoly. There is no merit to their distribution model beyond exploiting their wrongfully granted monopoly for what they can. These government established cableco and broadcasting monopolies ought to be abolished or, at the very least, they should be regulated in the public interest.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 12:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

          The mass media's distribution model relies entirely on an unethically granted government established communications monopoly.

          It does now, but historically it was a consequence of the technology of the time.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 4:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

            I don't believe that for a second. It was purely a consequence of the government-industrial complex selfishly taking that which doesn't rightfully belong to them, my right to freely broadcast on whatever station I want as I please.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 4:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disintermediating the connections

              Anti-competitive laws are and have almost always been an act of pure selfishness on the part of the government-industrial complex. That includes IP, govt. established taxi cab, cableco, and broadcasting monopolies, and most others.

               

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

    •  
      icon
      markmeld (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 11:24am

      Re: Disintermediating the connections

      Agree with your last point and it is huge. Artists who have been unable to promote their work for personal reasons can use and appreciate the support of small labels. It would be nice to hear from the recording artists that benefited from labels like Sire and IRS. I'm a big believer in disintermediation for most businesses but I don't think it can be applied as a blanket solution.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      trollificus (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 8:23pm

      Re: Disintermediating the connections

      This is insightful and perfectly true. But ultimately, it merely rearranges the relative importance of inputs into the whole "success" aspect of art (as opposed to the "making art" part).

      If instead of say, musical groups becoming successful by making good music AND being really good-looking or dressing up like a pirate/robot/mage/ninja/superhero version of the Village People, they instead gain success through the quality of their music AND being "...able to replace the PR intermediaries with their own form of engagement with fans", I don't see anything unethical, unfair or tragic about it.

      The artists whose music is less accessible (already called "niche" artists) or who are "demoralized" at the prospect of engaging with fans or promoting themselves were NOT being made into stars by the existing mechanism of promotion. So appealing on their behalf is like trying to slide billions in subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland by trotting out hard-working American Gothic family farm operators.

      And for any promotion expenditure the labels ever did for non-mainstream, new or niche musicians, they spent ten thousand times as much trying to get top stars' sales from x to x*2. Which at least is defensible, business-wise (the "lesser known" artists' sales being .001x or sth).

      People will find ways, ways that don't involve some giant corporation that runs everything from production to distribution to bookkeeping. If there are introverted artists who can't be arsed to be concerned if anybody is, you know, liking what they do, they're already starving in garrets or the modern equivalent thereof.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 9:16pm

    Historical revisionism

    Mike -

    The article you linked to in order to bolster your claim that the tech community was upset about the DMCA related to the anti-circumvention provisions. As you know, Morrison's point was that the tech community regarded the intermediary safe harbor provisions as a net positive when they were enacted.

    You are being intentionally misleading.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Dave Xanatos, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 10:19pm

      Re: Historical revisionism

      AC- Please provide your links to the stories where the tech industry is fighting to get the DMCA passed despite strong opposition from the **AA's.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Prisoner 201, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 1:30am

        Re: Re: Historical revisionism

        "AC- Please provide your links to the stories where the tech industry is fighting to get the DMCA passed despite strong opposition from the **AA's."

        I want an answer to this one. Not holding my breath though.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 12:22am

      Re: Historical revisionism

      Honestly I think the tech community would just rather not even have the DMCA at all. It is sensible though they'd want the safe harbor provisions.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 1:14am

      Re: Historical revisionism

      No, they weren't. You look at the tech stuff aroudn that time, and yiou will see that most of tose companies that weren't oenwd by content companies fought tooth and nail for that ONE provision in what looks to be bad and expensive law for businesses everywhere.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:01am

      Re: Historical revisionism

      "The article you linked to in order to bolster your claim that the tech community was upset about the DMCA related to the anti-circumvention provisions."

      What is the above sentence attempting to state? It has a well developed subject, but then ....

      The DMCA safe harbor provisions provide hosts with minimal protection from draconian measures in order that they not be totally destroyed by ridiculous claims allowed by the DMCA, how can this be a net positive for the host?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

      Re: Historical revisionism

      The article you linked to in order to bolster your claim that the tech community was upset about the DMCA related to the anti-circumvention provisions. As you know, Morrison's point was that the tech community regarded the intermediary safe harbor provisions as a net positive when they were enacted.

      You are being intentionally misleading.


      Actually, Morrison's point was that the tech industry celebrated the DMCA and Hollywood decried it. Morisson reached that conclusion by looking at the safe harbors and ignoring everything else, which is what allowed him to believe something so wildly incorrect. He completely ignored the fact that, while the safe harbors were good, Silicon Valley was strongly opposed to pretty much everything else in the bill and by no means celebrated its passage - and the linked article clears that up. It's Morrison who was being misleading (can't say if it was intentional, or just stupidity).

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 3:42pm

        Re: Re: Historical revisionism

        The safe harbours merely clarified existing law. They were not a win - they were just the avoidance of a huge loss.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jul 13th, 2012 @ 9:35pm

    jealousy and resentment

    There is TONS of jealousy and resentment, but its coming from the old gatekeepers and the artists still bound in servitude watching those that are embracing new ways making way more money than they can ever dream of actually getting a check for.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    CK20XX, Jul 13th, 2012 @ 10:08pm

    As a corollary to the main point in this post, I've noticed that creators tend to attract the kinds of fans they deserve, especially on the internet. An academic person like JesuOtaku is more likely to attract academic fans, while people like Yahtzee end up getting migraines from fans that are just as intolerable as they are. Around TechDirt, you see a lot of thoughtful and meaningful comments from readers, while around Hollywood you see a lot of fruit and nuts.

    We all make our owns beds that we must sleep in later. This shouldn't be a new concept, but it seems to be something many people have to keep relearning and some people never learn at all.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Titania Bonham-Smythe (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 3:15am

    missing word?

    I think this sentence might need an extra word?

    "Fans don't resent artists they love [them] making money"

     

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

  •  
    icon
    JeroenW (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 3:16am

    Despising is a bit strong

    But there's plenty of artists out there that have lost my support, interest and custom. Tweeting is one way to do that, pumping out mediocre crud products is an even better one.

    Mind you, there's companies who's products I start buying because they think cruelty to animals makes a fine TV commercial

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    quawonk, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 3:57am

    No, fans don't like fat cats in suits taking all the artists' money.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    the cleptoid, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 4:37am

    when you says "artists connect" with their fans you really mean artists connect whilst searching for an income or monetizing strategy. these artists go away once the money does not come, drys up or the artist locates a larger remuneration process. so the connecting has little value without the money. not a bad thing but when you and others throw the term "love" around so frequently in this debate, one has to ask, what does love mean in this context of fans of music and money farmers who claim to be musicians?

    what is lamentable is that the artists you promote on here as being successful with crowdfunding schemes is their music is ripped from other musics. the artist who a fan loves is nothing more than someone reappropriating in different ways what has went before. these artists are famous for a while for their crowd sourcing abilities, their music is way down the list of importance. way down the list of music for music makings sake and rather, music for a living. which is why the musicians copy or reinterpret what has went before.

    in effect, musicians are ousted from the paydirt if they present their own ideas and get to join the money club by doin the same tired old thing.

    for example trent reznors music. do his live shows on youtube, they are full of lights. if the music were so vital to a fans live experience, why have a light show dominating, or silting up a fans perception process at the gig towards light. i rather think reznor is a light entertainer than a musician.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 6:57am

      Re:

      these artists are famous for a while for their crowd sourcing abilities, their music is way down the list of importance.

      I agree. Who's this Trent Reznor asshole? He's never had any significant effect on the music landscape.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:35am

      Re:

      when you says "artists connect" with their fans you really mean artists connect whilst searching for an income or monetizing strategy. these artists go away once the money does not come, drys up or the artist locates a larger remuneration process.

      There are a small number od artists that I know personally. I can assure you of two things.

      1) They do the "connect with fans" thing brilliantly.

      2) They do it totally unselfconsciously, not as part of a strategy for making money - but rather because it is simply who they are and a big part of the reason why they are in music in the first place.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      for example trent reznors music. do his live shows on youtube, they are full of lights. if the music were so vital to a fans live experience, why have a light show dominating, or silting up a fans perception process at the gig towards light. i rather think reznor is a light entertainer than a musician.

      I agree - and that Wagner bloke was the same wasn't he? All those stage effects in his operas. I mean - if the music was any good you wouldn't need that would you?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 12:00pm

      Re:

      WELCOME TO BUSINESS, PITIFUL MEATBAG!

       

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

    •  
      icon
      drew (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 3:51am

      Re:

      You're entire post seems to be based on your personal opinion of the quality of the music created by the examples given. That seems to be a bit of an arbitary standard to me.

      Let's take the "Trent Reznor and his light show" example you give at the end. This is an absolute, nailed-on, pitch-perfect example of the difference between the infinitely abundant (the mp3) and the scarce (the show). The former is available for free, the latter is where people are happy to pay money to get/view/share/be-part-of something rare.
      I don't think you could have illustrated Techdirt's repeated theme better, thank you.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), Jul 15th, 2012 @ 10:33am

      Re:

      the artists you promote on here as being successful with crowdfunding schemes is their music is ripped from other musics. the artist who a fan loves is nothing more than someone reappropriating in different ways what has went before. these artists are famous for a while for their crowd sourcing abilities, their music is way down the list of importance.

      WTF are you talking about? Amanda Palmer isn't a remix artist; Dan Bull's actual albums use original beats; Trent Reznor is considered one of the most original people in modern music history; Joe Konrath is a novelist...

      Seriously, who are you talking about? We're big fans of remixing and appropriation art here - because it's awesome, and valuable culture, and your dismissal of it is very pretentious and wrong - but even setting that aside, I don't think many (any?) of the crowdfunding/alternate business model success stories we offer as examples involve remix artists...

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 5:10am

    I applaud artists who make money in the free market, but I dispise those who think they have a moral right to state granted monopoly and use them to attack the very public that are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the monopoly.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 6:44am

    Apparently for some only them have rights and nobody else is allowed to voice their opinions and concerns and I am not talking about the "pirates", I am talking about the sorry people who believe in exclusionary laws and don't think about the impact those laws have on others.

    These people deserve to have their monopolies challenge, I say it is a duty of every man, woman and child in this planet to do that, no matter how much those people kick and scream.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 7:57am

    What amazes me is the vehemence towards the idea that there might be people who get enjoyment out of art.

    A lot has to be said for the theory that this is based on jealousy and resentment. Do media industries actually despise consumers?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Loki, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:19am

    What amazes me is the vehemence towards the idea that there might be people who make a living out of their art.

    A lot has to be said for the theory that this is based on jealousy and resentment. Do consumers actually despise artists?


    Actually, no we don't. We despise an institution that treats its customers like criminals and its clients like indentured servants. I support a large number of artists (mostly directly), many of whom I've either discovered through this site, or found elsewhere first but still get written about here a lot. Among artists I've spent a fair amount of money on and a fair amount of time promoting/sharing:

    Nice Peter (Epic Rap Battle of History - which I'd much rather listen to than most of the crap I hear on the radio today)

    George Watsky

    Mac Lethal

    Oxhorn

    Lindsey Stirling

    Dan Bull

    Wil Wheaton

    In fact, I've spent considerably more money, and time reading, the writings, bloggings, and textings of Wil Wheaton than I ever will for Ewan Morrison.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Ewan Morrison should release his products inside a box where people to use it has to introduce some form of currency like Telemeter

    If he can't keep his shit inside his box, that is not a problem for others to solve.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    markmeld (profile), Jul 14th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    Art does not have a market solution...

    Many artists do not think about "connecting with the public." An artist with a personal version may not connect with the public. Further, many artists believe that shaping their art to make the public love them and support them is not art. I remember when California supported artists with tax money, including artists that would never be popular with a large segment of the public. I don't believe there is a market solution to art and many countries in the world still recognize that fact.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2012 @ 7:49pm

    Ewan is hilarious.

    I can see why his students are not swayed by his arguments.

    He seems to think that "such and such said it" is a defence to "this assertion in your opinion piece is stupid", that the Dark Ages was 1200 years with one book (and with little music), and that he can conduct market research by asking random twitterers what they do for a living.

    Logic does not appear to be something he has made even the most casual and superficial acquaintance with, and he either lacks common knowledge or the smarts to interpret facts coherently.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Seegras (profile), Jul 16th, 2012 @ 6:01am

    One Book

    He twitters:
    Really? Maybe you should take a look at the years 36O AD to 1540 AD. Only one book in the west. Not much music.

    Maybe he means this one from 1340. It only contains several hundreds of songs (totalling 6000 verses). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse

    Or maybe he means 540AD. I'm pretty sure nothing was written between 360AD and 540AD because the copyright protection of the roman empire didn't exist anymore.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2012 @ 11:32pm

      Re: One Book

      He chose to look at a period of time without literacy, replication technology, and general free time to work on music when you're not trying to survive (unlike today, where is a comparative abundance of the above), and attributes the lack of music then to a lack of copyright?

      This guy's portrait should be next to the dictionary entry for "disingenuous".

       

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


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