EmbattledWarrior said:

nd33 said:

Yes you're right in that the industry will have to adapt.

That doesn't change the fact that for some reason we've gotten to a place where 95% of youngsters will steal music without even having a second thought about it. It's become too easy and too ingrained.

No one that does anything for a living would support people stealing the very product that his industry produces.....

Oh, you own a fruit store, how bout I just take a few bananas off the rack whenever I walk past, a few won't hurt ya...

How about you, the doctor, give me free checkups and prescriptions whenever I have a niggle....

No, it doesn't fly in any industry that's not digital. It shouldn't be accepted in the music/publishing/movie industry either. There' a SHITLOAD of people that put their hearts into it and they deserve to be fairly paid if you want to be entertained by their results.

it's kinda forced to adapt.

Radiohead pretty much paved the way for artist, by generating over 10,000,000 dollars from the sales of their latest album In Rainbows (2006.)

This is astonishing because they initially offered it as a free download, and than as a "pay what you want"

its the most money they've ever made

If the industry doesn't adapt, the artist sure will.

This kind of success will obviously only work for artists that have been turned into stars during the era when there was money in the music industry. This doesn't have much relevance to anyone unestablished.

NDRU said:

Sometimes I wonder about music as an art form becoming less popular. These issues make me think there might someday be less music in our lives, the same way fewer people are interested in painting, sculpture, ballet, poetry, plays, and even reading novels.

I know it is not file sharing that kiled painting, but still I felt as a musician that I was lucky that my artform was so popular (compared to my friend who writes plays) but now I am seeing that is not the case so much. Not that many people actually are interested in "real music by real musicians"

Add to it these industry problems and it will just get worse before it [hopefully] gets better.

I don't think it's less popular at all. Less valued, yes. Less popular, no.

Pretty much everyone has music with them at all times on their phone or iPod type device.

In the 90's this wasn't the case. Not everyone could afford or justify a discman.

People have libraries of albums in the hundreds or even thousands. Not legally though I might add.....Nevertheless, music is EVERYWHERE!

nd33 said:

NDRU said:

Sometimes I wonder about music as an art form becoming less popular. These issues make me think there might someday be less music in our lives, the same way fewer people are interested in painting, sculpture, ballet, poetry, plays, and even reading novels.

I know it is not file sharing that kiled painting, but still I felt as a musician that I was lucky that my artform was so popular (compared to my friend who writes plays) but now I am seeing that is not the case so much. Not that many people actually are interested in "real music by real musicians"

Add to it these industry problems and it will just get worse before it [hopefully] gets better.

I don't think it's less popular at all. Less valued, yes. Less popular, no.

Pretty much everyone has music with them at all times on their phone or iPod type device.

In the 90's this wasn't the case. Not everyone could afford or justify a discman.

People have libraries of albums in the hundreds or even thousands. Not legally though I might add.....Nevertheless, music is EVERYWHERE!

I am impressed by all the great responses on this thread, it started out with the usual knee-jerk posts, but there are a lot of good thoughtful responses on both sides of the issue.....on Prince.org Who would have thought?

nd33 said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

It's near impossible to make a livng out of touring/merchandise in NZ as it's far too small a country and flights to anywhere are expensive as hell. Tours are loss makers for us. I can see in the USA or Europe that being a valid option with alot of cities within driving distance.

There are other reasons not to tour either such as family or job commitments, so making records is the option of artistic expression for many. If the record can't sell any copies and pay for itself, things start looking a bit grim for starting any new projects that will have costs to incur.

And now we enter back into this whole morality issue of why people where stealing in the first place.

Two words, filler tracks

I say the industry ripped off the consumer by developing lackluster albums, with only a few gems usually only the hit singles.

Believe it or not, people will pay for music, when its good.

So in a roundabout way this whole ordeal promotes originality and artistry.

It's bittersweet.

Yeah its sad the Superstar is gone.

But face it, alot of them were train wrecks anyway, do we really need them?

No.

Yes, I agree that the quality of albums as a whole in terms of songwriting and actual performing talent in the pop realm has taken a nose dive in the last 10-15 years. The downfall of the major labels will surely shift some focus in music generally back to talented peeps rather than image. I also hope we can find some ground where the quality in crafting of albums technically doesn't follow the same fate that songwriting/performance has over last decade.

[Edited 9/28/10 20:03pm]

I really hate to say this to artist. But this hasn't changed since The Music Industry.

You have to be in the right place.

Mind you on don't know much about the business side of things on that side of the pond.

But if your area is affecting your business. You have to move.

I know for a fact that Australia has a big indie following artist that are self releasing material.

Try marketing over there.

But its the truth here in the states.

There are only 2 real places in the states where you can actually make a confomfortable living doing music on a day to day basis.

Thats New York and L.A.

and I'm in New York, so I have that luxury.

Any manager in the states tells you that you have to move to those places.

or nashville if you do country.

This isn't a pipe dream. You gotta do the research.

If you take it seriously, you'll do anything to make it work.

In addition I don't agree that the quality of music has shifted to poor.

On the contrary, the quality of music is too good, and too perfect.

I miss the imperfections.

Identity said:

September 22, 2010

As far as solving the music industry’s financial woes, U2 manager Paul McGuinness still hasn’t found what he’s looking for. But he's not about to stop beating the drum.

The new issue of Rolling Stone has an abridged version of a piece McGuinness wrote for the UK edition of GQ addressing the file-sharing and piracy issues that he believes are largely the source of the meltdown of the music business in recent years.

It’s an update and expansion on ideas he put forth at the international MIDEM music conference in Cannes two years ago, an event at which I spoke with him at length about some very specific recommendations on how to address those issues.

Now, as then, he holds Internet service providers — and the giant telecommunications corporations that control the vast majority of ISPs — responsible, arguing that they’ve built their industry to a large extent by providing free content, often irrespective of the intellectual property rights of musicians and other creative types responsible for that content.

When I sat down with him in Cannes, he noted that ISPs have no qualms about promptly shutting down the accounts of users who don’t pay their ISP bills; they should do the same for those who illegally share copyrighted Web content like music.

More than two years later, he writes that little has changed in that regard.

“For the world’s Internet Service Providers, bloated by years of broadband growth, ‘free music’ has been a multi-billion dollar bonanza,” McGuinness writes.

"Unfortunately, the main problem is still just as bad as it ever was.

“Artists cannot get record deals. Revenues are plummeting. Efforts to provide legal and viable ways of making money from muse are being stymied by piracy. The latest industry figures, from IFPI [the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], show that 95% of all the music downloaded is illegally obtained and unpaid for….A study endorsed by trade unions says Europe’s creative industries could lose more than a million jobs in the next five years.

“Finally,” he adds, “maybe the message is getting through that this isn’t just about fewer limos for rich rock stars.”

Many of those rock stars have been reluctant to go on the offensive, because the problem is often cast in precisely those terms: millionaire musicians whining that they aren’t making even more money.

McGuinness still thinks, as he did back in early 2008, that music subscription services should be the way of the future and that ISPs should be sharing their windfall profits with the artists and labels that have helped them pull in that money. If they don’t do so voluntarily, government intervention should be the next step.

He points to laws passed in France, England, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand aimed at tipping the scales back toward equity for musicians. But that still leaves much of the world without any such protections.

“I think we are coming to understand that ‘free’ comes with a price,” McGuinness writes, “and in my business that means less investment in talent, and fewer artists making a living from music.”

The $64-billion question is: How many musicians, managers, record company executives or even ISP bigwigs will be willing to get behind McGuinness?

To be honest i am alright with piracy. Its the best thing on the internet since AOL 5.0!

PoppyBros said:

Identity said:

September 22, 2010

As far as solving the music industry’s financial woes, U2 manager Paul McGuinness still hasn’t found what he’s looking for. But he's not about to stop beating the drum.

The new issue of Rolling Stone has an abridged version of a piece McGuinness wrote for the UK edition of GQ addressing the file-sharing and piracy issues that he believes are largely the source of the meltdown of the music business in recent years.

It’s an update and expansion on ideas he put forth at the international MIDEM music conference in Cannes two years ago, an event at which I spoke with him at length about some very specific recommendations on how to address those issues.

Now, as then, he holds Internet service providers — and the giant telecommunications corporations that control the vast majority of ISPs — responsible, arguing that they’ve built their industry to a large extent by providing free content, often irrespective of the intellectual property rights of musicians and other creative types responsible for that content.

When I sat down with him in Cannes, he noted that ISPs have no qualms about promptly shutting down the accounts of users who don’t pay their ISP bills; they should do the same for those who illegally share copyrighted Web content like music.

More than two years later, he writes that little has changed in that regard.

“For the world’s Internet Service Providers, bloated by years of broadband growth, ‘free music’ has been a multi-billion dollar bonanza,” McGuinness writes.

"Unfortunately, the main problem is still just as bad as it ever was.

“Artists cannot get record deals. Revenues are plummeting. Efforts to provide legal and viable ways of making money from muse are being stymied by piracy. The latest industry figures, from IFPI [the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], show that 95% of all the music downloaded is illegally obtained and unpaid for….A study endorsed by trade unions says Europe’s creative industries could lose more than a million jobs in the next five years.

“Finally,” he adds, “maybe the message is getting through that this isn’t just about fewer limos for rich rock stars.”

Many of those rock stars have been reluctant to go on the offensive, because the problem is often cast in precisely those terms: millionaire musicians whining that they aren’t making even more money.

McGuinness still thinks, as he did back in early 2008, that music subscription services should be the way of the future and that ISPs should be sharing their windfall profits with the artists and labels that have helped them pull in that money. If they don’t do so voluntarily, government intervention should be the next step.

He points to laws passed in France, England, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand aimed at tipping the scales back toward equity for musicians. But that still leaves much of the world without any such protections.

“I think we are coming to understand that ‘free’ comes with a price,” McGuinness writes, “and in my business that means less investment in talent, and fewer artists making a living from music.”

The $64-billion question is: How many musicians, managers, record company executives or even ISP bigwigs will be willing to get behind McGuinness?

To be honest i am alright with piracy. Its the best thing on the internet since AOL 5.0!

How are you with doing some work for me for free?

nd33 said:

NDRU said:

Sometimes I wonder about music as an art form becoming less popular. These issues make me think there might someday be less music in our lives, the same way fewer people are interested in painting, sculpture, ballet, poetry, plays, and even reading novels.

I know it is not file sharing that kiled painting, but still I felt as a musician that I was lucky that my artform was so popular (compared to my friend who writes plays) but now I am seeing that is not the case so much. Not that many people actually are interested in "real music by real musicians"

Add to it these industry problems and it will just get worse before it [hopefully] gets better.

I don't think it's less popular at all. Less valued, yes. Less popular, no.

Pretty much everyone has music with them at all times on their phone or iPod type device.

In the 90's this wasn't the case. Not everyone could afford or justify a discman.

People have libraries of albums in the hundreds or even thousands. Not legally though I might add.....Nevertheless, music is EVERYWHERE!

Let me rephrase. I am not wondering if it IS less popular, I am wondering about it becoming less popular in the future. If record companies can't make money off of it, and musicians don't make money off of it, and with record companies already treating the artistic side of it as secondary to the commercial side of it, there might not be as much good music readily available to the public, and it might become less popular as an art form.

Pureley speculation, I know, but just something I have thought about.

1. One problem with “filtering” who defines what is or is not valid copyrighted material? It seems that we are creating a situation where a content provider can simply assert copyright ownership without any necessity to prove that they actually have an ownership stake.

2. It doesn’t take much imagination to guess that companies will use “filtering” to disable a consumers ability to access a competitor’s website.
3. When caught doing something abusive, companies will claim it is not their fault, simply a technological “glitch” that they are working hard to fix.
4. We are descending into an economic/political system where corporations are making law, declaring “abusers” guilty of violating the law, and imposing punishment on the so-called abusers. All without any due process for those targeted as abusers.

Why is it that some people think this is OK, because it’s easy to do with computers. If AT&T, Comcast, MCI, Verizon, said they were going to listen in to every call to see if anyone was doing/planning to do something illegal, everyone would be outraged. But U2 manager wants to do the exact same thing on the internet, this isn't good idea.

I know people download movies, too, but it doesn't seem to be as big of a problem for that industy. Gaming & software, too, for that matter. What are they doing that the music industry is not?

NDRU said:

I know people download movies, too, but it doesn't seem to be as big of a problem for that industy. Gaming & software, too, for that matter. What are they doing that the music industry is not?

I gotta think the price of a movie has got to factor in the downloading thing. The price continually goes up.

Vendetta1 said:

NDRU said:

I know people download movies, too, but it doesn't seem to be as big of a problem for that industy. Gaming & software, too, for that matter. What are they doing that the music industry is not?

I gotta think the price of a movie has got to factor in the downloading thing. The price continually goes up.

could be. Actually the fact you can't buy a movie (legally in a store, I mean) & copy it a million times while it is in theaters gives movies an edge over music.

Whatever the reason, you don't hear [yet] about the collapse of the movie or videogame industry. People keep renting movies & buying games

NDRU said:

Vendetta1 said:

I gotta think the price of a movie has got to factor in the downloading thing. The price continually goes up.

could be. Actually the fact you can't buy a movie (legally in a store, I mean) & copy it a million times while it is in theaters gives movies an edge over music.

Whatever the reason, you don't hear [yet] about the collapse of the movie or videogame industry. People keep renting movies & buying games

For some reson, I think it's harder to copy video games.

And movie bootleggers can't keep up with the prices of someone like Netflix. Blockbuster is pretty much gone though. So is Hollywood video.

Vendetta1 said:

NDRU said:

could be. Actually the fact you can't buy a movie (legally in a store, I mean) & copy it a million times while it is in theaters gives movies an edge over music.

Whatever the reason, you don't hear [yet] about the collapse of the movie or videogame industry. People keep renting movies & buying games

For some reson, I think it's harder to copy video games.

And movie bootleggers can't keep up with the prices of someone like Netflix. Blockbuster is pretty much gone though. So is Hollywood video.

I think it's harder to copy a dvd, too, at least the first time from the original copy.

There is probably something to the fact that people rent movies to watch once but want to own music to listen to over & over. If you coud "experience" an album for $1 from Redbox or 4 at a time from Netflix, people might do that.

Vendetta1 said:

NDRU said:

could be. Actually the fact you can't buy a movie (legally in a store, I mean) & copy it a million times while it is in theaters gives movies an edge over music.

Whatever the reason, you don't hear [yet] about the collapse of the movie or videogame industry. People keep renting movies & buying games

For some reson, I think it's harder to copy video games.

And movie bootleggers can't keep up with the prices of someone like Netflix. Blockbuster is pretty much gone though. So is Hollywood video.

Other than a couple of exceptions, video games sales were never through the roof like music sales, plus for the console platforms it's a hassle to copy and pirate games, not to mention there's subscription fee for the online-multiplayer games that are so popular. Hence why they are nowhere near as deep as record labels.

Movies are a bit more puzzling for me, while I understand going to a cinema is like a concert, it's all about the feeling, a social event, but it's kinda weird DVD sales are still going really well. The Mamma Mia movie less than 2 years ago sold millions in its first week alone, more than a lot of music artists can only dream of. I guess it's because if you're not a computer-freak, you'll find downloading movies in HQ being a hassle, codecs, torrents etc, not many people have the patience. Plus unlike CDs, movie DVDs are often loaded with bonus features that make a purchase worthwhile.

The problem with "owning music" is that there's no appeal in buying a disc in 2010 that can only hold 80 minutes of music. You can now create endless playlists on iPods, you're not forced buy the filler tracks anymore. In mainstream music, the "album" is really just a format/product pushed by the label (it's only fans of the respective artist who view the album as a 'complete artistic statement', the general public bought albums because they liked the hits, but in theory the artist is forced out to fill at least most of the CD even if they are not inspired to do so, a lot of fans ignore this aspect) and now the music buyers have a way to avoid that. Individual songs are still selling for the hyped acts, but they are so cheap that they are not giving the labels the luxuries they got used to when they were selling CDs. So yeah, complaining that music is now treated the way as it is, is more about complaining that technology evolved and suits can't force their products on anyone now.

LiveToTell86 said:

Vendetta1 said:

For some reson, I think it's harder to copy video games.

And movie bootleggers can't keep up with the prices of someone like Netflix. Blockbuster is pretty much gone though. So is Hollywood video.

Other than a couple of exceptions, video games sales were never through the roof like music sales, plus for the console platforms it's a hassle to copy and pirate games, not to mention there's subscription fee for the online-multiplayer games that are so popular. Hence why they are nowhere near as deep as record labels.

Movies are a bit more puzzling for me, while I understand going to a cinema is like a concert, it's all about the feeling, a social event, but it's kinda weird DVD sales are still going really well. The Mamma Mia movie less than 2 years ago sold millions in its first week alone, more than a lot of music artists can only dream of. I guess it's because if you're not a computer-freak, you'll find downloading movies in HQ being a hassle, codecs, torrents etc, not many people have the patience. Plus unlike CDs, movie DVDs are often loaded with bonus features that make a purchase worthwhile.

The problem with "owning music" is that there's no appeal in buying a disc in 2010 that can only hold 80 minutes of music. You can now create endless playlists on iPods, you're not forced buy the filler tracks anymore. In mainstream music, the "album" is really just a format/product pushed by the label (it's only fans of the respective artist who view the album as a 'complete artistic statement', the general public bought albums because they liked the hits, but in theory the artist is forced out to fill at least most of the CD even if they are not inspired to do so, a lot of fans ignore this aspect) and now the music buyers have a way to avoid that. Individual songs are still selling for the hyped acts, but they are so cheap that they are not giving the labels the luxuries they got used to when they were selling CDs. So yeah, complaining that music is now treated the way as it is, is more about complaining that technology evolved and suits can't force their products on anyone now.

But the videogame industry is now bigger than the film industry.

Part of it may be the codes you need to enter to register games in order to play them, part of it may be that each game is very expensive, so they may sell fewer, but each game makes more money. They do add security, like DVDs, which probably discourages people.

I think rentals are a huge business, plus cable, pay per view, and even seeing it in the theater, all of which costs less than a cd. Honestly I don't know why anyone buys DVDs. I have not bought a single one.

I think you are right about people not wanting whole cd's. That is part of why iTunes actually is doing well while the rest of the industry struggles.

errant said:

but new artists are not going to get record deals like the U2's and Madonna's or the Michael Jackson's of the world. the marketplace will no longer support it. the marketplace will no longer support the superstar icon. in a way, that's kind of sad.

No! It's not sad! It's about high time.... these people are making their living with something others consider as recreation! Why should they be able to work once and live off of that for the rest of their lifes? They are "just" making music and thus are grossly overpaid... at least the super and megastars! If they want to make additional money, they should work for it and go on tour! I'm not sad about the industry going down! The glory days indeed are over and it's not one minute too early!

PatrickS77 said:

errant said:

but new artists are not going to get record deals like the U2's and Madonna's or the Michael Jackson's of the world. the marketplace will no longer support it. the marketplace will no longer support the superstar icon. in a way, that's kind of sad.

No! It's not sad! It's about high time.... these people are making their living with something others consider as recreation! Why should they be able to work once and live off of that for the rest of their lifes? They are "just" making music and thus are grossly overpaid... at least the super and megastars! If they want to make additional money, they should work for it and go on tour! I'm not sad about the industry going down! The glory days indeed are over and it's not one minute too early!

Grossly disagree with that.

Just Music?

If its just music why the hell are you on a site who is primarily based on a MUSICIAN.

To quote Willy Wonka (who in turn quoted from Arthur O'Shaughnessy)

"WE are the Music Makers

and WE are the Dreamer of Dreams"

The foresaken losers who write the songs that give your life a melody.

Well, there is a reason why I used ""... but at the end of the day it's that... "just" music! They don't provide solutions to the problems of the world, save lifes or educate people or anything else like that! They provide entertainment! There is no reason why they should get paid more than people who do work which is acutally considered work (and that also goes for actors, sportsmen and any other person working in entertainment)!

BlaqueKnight said:

Its too late.

That's the fact. ITS TOO LATE.

ISPs are not going to fall in line with what "artists" want. (and by "artists" I mean the greedy ass execs who are using artists as a posterchild/scapegoat so they can keep living on easy street by doing next to nothing and profitting from it) The movie & music industry has been trying to get ISPs to police for them for the past few years. Its not EVER going to happen because its a BUSINESS for them. Its like the police giving a pimp a badge and asking him to go and arrest all of the johns that visit his hookers...and do it for free.

A rule in business is not to shit on your customers if you expect repeat business.

Most of the people of that mindset are 30 years behind and completely out of touch.

Private industry's basic motto is "keep the government out of out business" so there's no way any other industry outside of entertainment is gonna back that move.

The days of the superstar are over. Make your music. GIVE IT AWAY and charge like hell for your shows and merchandise. This should be set in stone for artists. I have been saying that on this site since 1999-2000. Some people still don't get it.

The only thing that's permanent is change. Change happens. Adapt or die.

[Edited 9/27/10 12:41pm]

nd33 said:

PoppyBros said:

To be honest i am alright with piracy. Its the best thing on the internet since AOL 5.0!

How are you with doing some work for me for free?

Really! Piracy is the reason why 77% of the population uses the internet.

PatrickS77 said:

Yeah! You might be right in general, but I was mainly responding to the sentiment, that it is sad that the industry no longer will support the superstar icon, which is not sad! The average studio or hired live musician probably is not overpaid, but I was not really talking about those... I was talking about the stars and superstars! The ones, who expect to live off their past works without having to work a single day anymore!

Of course it's only idealistic talk... if thousands and millions of people like one musicians work, it's inviteable that they will make a shitload of money off of it! But still i don't have to agree with it and if downloading levels the field, then I'm fine with it! Studio and Session workers will always get their pay!

PoppyBros said:

nd33 said:

How are you with doing some work for me for free?

Really! Piracy is the reason why 77% of the population uses the internet.

Exactly. Nobody has a legal version of photoshop do they?

Marrk said:

PoppyBros said:

Really! Piracy is the reason why 77% of the population uses the internet.

Exactly. Nobody has a legal version of photoshop do they?

I get the whole piracy argument but there's more to it than just piracy.

Think about the people that aren't buying cd's and may be burning copies

from friends who have bought the cd. So U2's manager is gonna sue me if i decide to burn 8 copies

of Stevie Wonder's Original Musiquarium Vol 1 for friends.

vi0letblues said:

Marrk said:

Exactly. Nobody has a legal version of photoshop do they?

EmbattledWarrior said:

lastdecember said:

Agreed however labels did take chances on artists, mostly the people at the label took the chances but now thats not an option. Back in the day a group like INXS could have 5-6 albums with no hit selling about 100,000 each album, now IF a label invested say a million in a deal and promo, they better sell a million or there gone. So none of the artists then could exist today and get the play and spotlight they had. Lets remember that artists like Prince and u2 and rem and inxs were all not "superstars" for quite awhile, at least 5-6 albums, but were also getting videos made, and doing the promo thing and touring, and someone was footing the bill, now, that wouldnt happen.

Believe it or not though alot of artists were not DUMB, and alot got ripped off by people in their own camps, how many artists went broke because of Managers, i mean look at Billy Joel, this guy practically owns all his shit, has a great masters deal with sony, and yet he was ripped off by two managers and lost everything twice, though he is very wealthy still, that wasnt a labels doing, Duran Duran had the same issue, as did u2, Bon Jovi etc...so even though the system sucked, they actually read the deals, but got ripped off by their own people

Thats still pretty dumb. Because it means he didn't pick the right people in his camp, and more importantly he didn't WATCH them. Or have his lawyers watch them, and have someone watch the lawyers. you can negoatiate great deals, but if you don't have a trustworthy camp, your just as good as fucked.

If your going to work in this business, DTA, Don't Trust Anybody.

Cause even your mother will turn into satan in a sunday hat once you get some money.

Not really though, its easy to say "dumb ass Billy Joel" for getting ripped off, however, it happens to all of them, when theres no money around everyone is pushing you and helping you, but then when ALL the cash rolls in everyone takes what they can get, and when money is involved in large sums, and lawyers accountants etc....even your family members and wives and husbands and friends will rip you off for what they think is there cut