Thank God for concerts, that's for sure. But at the risk of repeating myself, the fact that U2 had a good year live has only a marginal effect on the recorded music industry. It's a well-known fact that new Rolling Stones albums are non-starters, no matter how much they tour. What's more, these major tours only showcase songs by the major artists. So the effect on writers' revenues overall is zero. There is simply too much concentrated in too few hands, one of the unusual side-effects of the new landscape.
It's silly to think that artists do not need structure unless you want the recorded music industry to be DIY albums with local followings. The same effect is now hitting the movie industry, which is suffering from plummeting DVD sales. Upfront finances are drying up. The difference with music is that it far harder to find $5 million to produce a movie than to work evenings and pay for an album. So on the one hand, we'll have a mountain of Blair Witch wannabees and Avatar on the other.
Odd debate, as the question of whether YouTube should pay for showing content was never an issue. The issue is how much.
It's also odd to see how so many people are actually against the very idea of creators or labels making money off music, as if [insert favourite band/performer] was living off an inheritance and can afford to record, release and promote music just for the sake of it. We can grumble about labels. But the harsh reality is that without them, not much actually happens. The battle for the UK n° 1 was between two Sony acts, not two indies or two self-produced acts. Only large labels can create and sustain that level of awareness.
Radio tried to not pay rights, arguing it was "promotion". Go down that path, and ads that use music could say the same thing (and guess what, they do occasionally). MTV would refuse to pay rights to put music in their shows (yes, they do that as well). Movie producers would look over their desk and say, "Think of the promotion man" (yes, I hear that one regularly too). So at the end of the day what would happen? Musicians giving everything away again. But then, what's new? Every time someone comes up with a new business/gizmo, there's always a smart spark somewhere that will say "And musicians can promote their music for free". Restaurants don't get bullied into giving everything away so they can sell T-shirts. There's a balance to be found. The Ascap 30-second thing will rightly be shot down. Holland recently back-tracked on charging for YouTube videos embedded in sites. Meanwhile, thanks to everyone that supports music!
Producers are always asking for music for free (think of the promotion, guys). So publishers and savvy artists often reply, "OK, but we'll charge you for other uses". If the producers were too tight to pay for the full licence upfront where it costs less, more fool them.
At a time when people are trying to legislate for free music, I think it's bit rich knocking publishers that are trying to turn a buck on a song. Why is it Pearl Jam's fault if the producer of a show neglected to secure all rights or use his imagination and choose another topical song? Sounds like a double fail to me.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Michael A-Lyric.
Re:
eMusic.com is still alive and well. It does seem a little old by now, but the promise of lots of music at a low price is still valid.
The live music industry
Thank God for concerts, that's for sure. But at the risk of repeating myself, the fact that U2 had a good year live has only a marginal effect on the recorded music industry. It's a well-known fact that new Rolling Stones albums are non-starters, no matter how much they tour. What's more, these major tours only showcase songs by the major artists. So the effect on writers' revenues overall is zero. There is simply too much concentrated in too few hands, one of the unusual side-effects of the new landscape.
It's silly to think that artists do not need structure unless you want the recorded music industry to be DIY albums with local followings. The same effect is now hitting the movie industry, which is suffering from plummeting DVD sales. Upfront finances are drying up. The difference with music is that it far harder to find $5 million to produce a movie than to work evenings and pay for an album. So on the one hand, we'll have a mountain of Blair Witch wannabees and Avatar on the other.
"Whether" they should pay?
Odd debate, as the question of whether YouTube should pay for showing content was never an issue. The issue is how much.
It's also odd to see how so many people are actually against the very idea of creators or labels making money off music, as if [insert favourite band/performer] was living off an inheritance and can afford to record, release and promote music just for the sake of it. We can grumble about labels. But the harsh reality is that without them, not much actually happens. The battle for the UK n° 1 was between two Sony acts, not two indies or two self-produced acts. Only large labels can create and sustain that level of awareness.
Slippery argument
Radio tried to not pay rights, arguing it was "promotion". Go down that path, and ads that use music could say the same thing (and guess what, they do occasionally). MTV would refuse to pay rights to put music in their shows (yes, they do that as well). Movie producers would look over their desk and say, "Think of the promotion man" (yes, I hear that one regularly too). So at the end of the day what would happen? Musicians giving everything away again. But then, what's new? Every time someone comes up with a new business/gizmo, there's always a smart spark somewhere that will say "And musicians can promote their music for free". Restaurants don't get bullied into giving everything away so they can sell T-shirts. There's a balance to be found. The Ascap 30-second thing will rightly be shot down. Holland recently back-tracked on charging for YouTube videos embedded in sites. Meanwhile, thanks to everyone that supports music!
Music is not the culprit
Producers are always asking for music for free (think of the promotion, guys). So publishers and savvy artists often reply, "OK, but we'll charge you for other uses". If the producers were too tight to pay for the full licence upfront where it costs less, more fool them.
At a time when people are trying to legislate for free music, I think it's bit rich knocking publishers that are trying to turn a buck on a song. Why is it Pearl Jam's fault if the producer of a show neglected to secure all rights or use his imagination and choose another topical song? Sounds like a double fail to me.