i think that if a musician takes the artistic approach, he will make artful music. if he takes the business approach, he will make commodity music that doesn't mean anything.
And making quality music is the best business decision an artist can make - he or she may never see the kind of money that someone like Lady GaGa has likely made in the past year, but their music (and their career) will likely last much longer.
His perspective is certainly valid from an artistic standpoint. It also highlights the tension between music as art and music as business. The goals of the two different approaches are often downright contradictory. One says music should be spread and enjoyed by all, the other says music should be spread by licensed distributors and enjoyed only by those who have paid for the privilege.
Someone may already have pointed this out, but the money awarded to the RIAA in the Tenebaum case (and probably the Thomas case as well) will be going back into the 'fight against piracy.' None of it will go to the artists (big surprise.)
"Treat people with respect and as partners, and they will partner with you.
Treat people as a threat or as criminals, and they will threaten your institution and ultimately bring it down.
This path doesn't have to be scary."
I wish more people would get this, especially in the music industry. Instead they pull out a big gun to defend the old system. The consumer responds by pulling out a bigger one, and around we go.
I agree. Even though the downloaders are conciously choosing the ad sponsored version, I think that it may cheapen the artist's image as an artist. The fan culture these days is much less worried about 'sell-outs' than it was a few years ago, but this is a bit iffy. Besides - I looked at one of the emails they are sending out to the eligible members and if you read it there is clearly a $50 limit for at least most participating members. $50? That hardly seems worth it to risk sullying the artists' brand.
Perfect example: some band did a tribute to John Williams by singing through the Star Wars trilogy using a re-edited version of the famous score. The record company who owned the rights forced them to take it down. The title of the video was "John Williams is the Man" or something like that.
How could that POSSIBLY be anything but good for the record company? These guys made a film score seem cool and trendy. I would be very surprised if it didn't sell a couple copies of the score.
The labels and publishers are in such a defensive posture right now that they can't see the value that these types of fans bring to their products. They also are also actively looking to squeeze every dime out of everyone they can find.
Defense is not a sustainable position for a business. Eventually, the one's who are on the OFFENSIVE will overtake them and render them obsolete(not that fans are trying to take these institutions down - at least not the fans we're talking about.)
Businesses need to be proactively adapting and finding new ways of adding (or in this case, simply allowing others to add) value to their product offering. That's why the majors will fail.
It is fine to have the dream of a utopian marketplace where all of your ideas of how things should be are a reality. At a certain point, though, you have to step back and actually look at what you are saying.
If you need the government to step in and enact regulations that ensure you will be compensated for your product than one of two things is likely to be true: A. You are not selling something that people want, or B. You are not selling it in a way that people want to buy it.
This is the case with any industry - music is no different. To suggest that it is just causes it to lose yet more credibility.
"Is inflation actually a factor with infinite goods?"
Sure. It may not, technically speaking, but when people have more money they buy more so prices go up. That includes anything consumers are willing to pay for - infinite or scarce.
Not only is the idea that 'word of mouth' marketing like what you find on Twitter is less desirable because it can't be tracked unfortunate, but it is also bogus. I have no trouble at all tracking who is talking about my blog on Twitter. Every link I post is from Cli.gs, a URL shortener with analytics. I can see how many people clicked and from where. I can also just search for the name of my blog, the topics I've been writing about, etc. I can see when people retweet my messages or reply back to me. Twitter has made word of mouth extremely easy to track.
More importantly though, the whole reason for tracking anything is to figure out your return on investment. It makes a lot of sense to make that a high priority with most marketing campaigns because they are extremely expensive and logistically complex. But with word of mouth and peer-peer marketing, the investment is usually very low. So the ROI should be worthwhile simply because of how little you have to put in, right? So who cares if you don't know exactly who is saying what? Are people buying your product or hitting your site? That's what's important from a business perspective.
Twitter is extremely useful if you know what you want to get out of it. It's more open than Facebook or other social networking sites, so I have had the chance to interact with people I would never have had access to otherwise. It is also proved to be a way of keeping people up to date on what's going on at my blog that is much more interactive than RSS.
A lot of bands and artists are also using it to further engage their fans and are seeing huge success. I tell all of the artists I speak with to get on it and start reaching out to fans. Trent Reznor, Imogen Heap and Matisyahu are three artists in particular that I like to use as examples. Imogen used it recently to promote her 'heapstreams' - live streaming video of her playing the piano and writing music. That's good stuff.
Anybody that raises their prices during a well publicized recession shouldn't be surprised when sales drop. DRM free is not worth a 30% price increase when you can get the same songs for cheaper (free) elsewhere. Not good business.
I remember an interview with the guitarist of a band that was popular for a while (can't remember who it was) who said "good guitarists borrow, great guitarists steal." He then went on to say how he had taken the guitar riff in their current single directly from a Bjork vocal melody. That's just how songwriting works. This is all nonsense.
I agree - it's better to have both. I use Facebook to stay in touch with family and friends, and Twitter to meet new people, find interesting information, extend my network and promote my blog.
I will say this though - because of it's 'openness' I spend a lot more time on Twitter.
I was surprised to see this post - Lou is a good friend of my dad's. Great guy - it's a shame to see him go. Loved what he did, too. Hopefully this free publicity will help him land a new gig.
By the way, I would certainly not say that he 'ripped them a new one' in the link Rogers provided...
You said that people in the music industry have been trying to find alternative business models and "and nothing viable for an industry has yet emerged." Don't confuse industry-wide acceptance as viability. Just because one single model has not yet become the dominant solution doesn't mean the other's aren't viable. This is just what it will probably look like for quite some time - pockets of innovation that represent a myriad of different, new business models that give smaller entities (bands) more control over their careers and give consumers and music-lovers more options.
I just love it that he used the phrase 'sorry dude.'
Re: Re: Art vs. Business
i think that if a musician takes the artistic approach, he will make artful music. if he takes the business approach, he will make commodity music that doesn't mean anything.
And making quality music is the best business decision an artist can make - he or she may never see the kind of money that someone like Lady GaGa has likely made in the past year, but their music (and their career) will likely last much longer.
Art vs. Business
His perspective is certainly valid from an artistic standpoint. It also highlights the tension between music as art and music as business. The goals of the two different approaches are often downright contradictory. One says music should be spread and enjoyed by all, the other says music should be spread by licensed distributors and enjoyed only by those who have paid for the privilege.
Where the money is going
Someone may already have pointed this out, but the money awarded to the RIAA in the Tenebaum case (and probably the Thomas case as well) will be going back into the 'fight against piracy.' None of it will go to the artists (big surprise.)
Great quote
"Treat people with respect and as partners, and they will partner with you.
Treat people as a threat or as criminals, and they will threaten your institution and ultimately bring it down.
This path doesn't have to be scary."
I wish more people would get this, especially in the music industry. Instead they pull out a big gun to defend the old system. The consumer responds by pulling out a bigger one, and around we go.
Yikes.
Well, the RIAA is funded for another year or so. Sweet.
Re: It's annoying
I agree. Even though the downloaders are conciously choosing the ad sponsored version, I think that it may cheapen the artist's image as an artist. The fan culture these days is much less worried about 'sell-outs' than it was a few years ago, but this is a bit iffy. Besides - I looked at one of the emails they are sending out to the eligible members and if you read it there is clearly a $50 limit for at least most participating members. $50? That hardly seems worth it to risk sullying the artists' brand.
Re: It
Labels/publishers on the defensive
Perfect example: some band did a tribute to John Williams by singing through the Star Wars trilogy using a re-edited version of the famous score. The record company who owned the rights forced them to take it down. The title of the video was "John Williams is the Man" or something like that.
How could that POSSIBLY be anything but good for the record company? These guys made a film score seem cool and trendy. I would be very surprised if it didn't sell a couple copies of the score.
The labels and publishers are in such a defensive posture right now that they can't see the value that these types of fans bring to their products. They also are also actively looking to squeeze every dime out of everyone they can find.
Defense is not a sustainable position for a business. Eventually, the one's who are on the OFFENSIVE will overtake them and render them obsolete(not that fans are trying to take these institutions down - at least not the fans we're talking about.)
Businesses need to be proactively adapting and finding new ways of adding (or in this case, simply allowing others to add) value to their product offering. That's why the majors will fail.
Will somebody think of the artists?!
It is fine to have the dream of a utopian marketplace where all of your ideas of how things should be are a reality. At a certain point, though, you have to step back and actually look at what you are saying.
If you need the government to step in and enact regulations that ensure you will be compensated for your product than one of two things is likely to be true: A. You are not selling something that people want, or B. You are not selling it in a way that people want to buy it.
This is the case with any industry - music is no different. To suggest that it is just causes it to lose yet more credibility.
Does this mean no more Weird Harold?
Maybe that's why we haven't seen him around in a while.
Re:
"Is inflation actually a factor with infinite goods?"
Sure. It may not, technically speaking, but when people have more money they buy more so prices go up. That includes anything consumers are willing to pay for - infinite or scarce.
Re: not managable
Not only is the idea that 'word of mouth' marketing like what you find on Twitter is less desirable because it can't be tracked unfortunate, but it is also bogus. I have no trouble at all tracking who is talking about my blog on Twitter. Every link I post is from Cli.gs, a URL shortener with analytics. I can see how many people clicked and from where. I can also just search for the name of my blog, the topics I've been writing about, etc. I can see when people retweet my messages or reply back to me. Twitter has made word of mouth extremely easy to track.
More importantly though, the whole reason for tracking anything is to figure out your return on investment. It makes a lot of sense to make that a high priority with most marketing campaigns because they are extremely expensive and logistically complex. But with word of mouth and peer-peer marketing, the investment is usually very low. So the ROI should be worthwhile simply because of how little you have to put in, right? So who cares if you don't know exactly who is saying what? Are people buying your product or hitting your site? That's what's important from a business perspective.
You just need to know why you are using it...
Twitter is extremely useful if you know what you want to get out of it. It's more open than Facebook or other social networking sites, so I have had the chance to interact with people I would never have had access to otherwise. It is also proved to be a way of keeping people up to date on what's going on at my blog that is much more interactive than RSS.
A lot of bands and artists are also using it to further engage their fans and are seeing huge success. I tell all of the artists I speak with to get on it and start reaching out to fans. Trent Reznor, Imogen Heap and Matisyahu are three artists in particular that I like to use as examples. Imogen used it recently to promote her 'heapstreams' - live streaming video of her playing the piano and writing music. That's good stuff.
Why is anybody surprised?
Anybody that raises their prices during a well publicized recession shouldn't be surprised when sales drop. DRM free is not worth a 30% price increase when you can get the same songs for cheaper (free) elsewhere. Not good business.
All songwriters copy.
I remember an interview with the guitarist of a band that was popular for a while (can't remember who it was) who said "good guitarists borrow, great guitarists steal." He then went on to say how he had taken the guitar riff in their current single directly from a Bjork vocal melody. That's just how songwriting works. This is all nonsense.
Better to have both
I agree - it's better to have both. I use Facebook to stay in touch with family and friends, and Twitter to meet new people, find interesting information, extend my network and promote my blog.
I will say this though - because of it's 'openness' I spend a lot more time on Twitter.
Re: Blame Canada
You forgot to give credit to the content creators for your use of their song lyrics. ;)
Lou Carlozo
I was surprised to see this post - Lou is a good friend of my dad's. Great guy - it's a shame to see him go. Loved what he did, too. Hopefully this free publicity will help him land a new gig.
By the way, I would certainly not say that he 'ripped them a new one' in the link Rogers provided...
Re: Anonymous Coward
You said that people in the music industry have been trying to find alternative business models and "and nothing viable for an industry has yet emerged." Don't confuse industry-wide acceptance as viability. Just because one single model has not yet become the dominant solution doesn't mean the other's aren't viable. This is just what it will probably look like for quite some time - pockets of innovation that represent a myriad of different, new business models that give smaller entities (bands) more control over their careers and give consumers and music-lovers more options.