> Fair point. But then if you picked the basic `genre` that > your new interest lies in, surely you could find other
> bands or artists from the said genre.
Finding the ARTISTS isn't a problem for anyone who bothers to do it. But say I like folk music. Just because I like, say, David Wilcox--does that mean I'm going to enjoy John Gorka too? No. Mining your favorite genres is a good way to find new music, but it can also become prohibitively expensive without a way to hear it first. My personal feeling is that the major labels know most of what they're releasing isn't worth the $18.95 list price, which is why they have resisted digital downloading. Why allow people to pay a buck or two for the one good song on the crummy CD your company just released, when you can strongarm them into buying the whole thing?
Regardless of your feelings on Napster, this whole mess is likely going to lead to new business models for the majors. And once they're forced to pony up for the server farms and the staff that widespread digital-download programs will require, my prediction (fervent hope) is that entire label catalogs will be made available, and the term "out of print" will no longer apply. If it's approached properly, this whole digital-download thing could effectively wipe out the bootleg market.
> But isn't that the way it is with all albums? Pick the
> Lou Reed or Bob Dylan album of your choice and you'll
> like some songs less than others. Varying from my
> original opinion, if you're listening to artists that are > that inconsistent (again) you deserve all you get.
As wildly inconsistent as Reed and Dylan have been, their albums, as a whole, are typically relatively even. (Even "Metal Machine Music.") Also, you're talking about two artists whose careers have never been particularly singles-driven. They're the real deal. I'm talking about bands like Sugar Ray and Smash Mouth. Regardless of how you feel about the dopes who buy these albums, I maintain that it's still wrong to dangle the sugar-coated single out to Top 40 radio just to fool a couple million people into buying the entire CD. It's consumer abuse, and it's widespread. Plus, the majors jack up the list price for topline product on a regular basis. It's a hoary argument, but remember when CDs were introduced, and the industry said prices would fall as time went on? Snake eyes on that roll.
> So with that said, I don't think Napster is any real
> solution. It's only good as a quick cure for folk who
> want access to music.
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Napster IS no real cure, and it ISN'T the main problem facing the industry today. The fidelity of even the best MP3s isn't CD quality. MP3s also don't come with artwork or liner notes. Like I said, this war isn't being fought on behalf of the artist. Small-market artists, like the ones on my label, are generally very happy about MP3s. Sites like mp3.com afford them the opportunity to disseminate their work on a widespread level for very little money. Artists like Baerwald, whose work is out of print--this medium makes their work readily available to the fan.
> Surely one of the real solutions could be with rebel-
> artists like David Baerwald (with this kind of direct
> interaction/musical circulation with fans) Ani DiFranco
> (releasing albums through her own label) the Scottish-
> Folkie Jackie Leven (sticking one finger up at the big
> record deal in favour of going with the smaller label
> who'll get his music out there) and all the other
> unsigned artists who are trying to market their product
> on there own without the support of a corporation.
It's a burgeoning market. Don't forget Brian Wilson, Jude Cole, Billy Pilgrim, Aimee Mann, Jon Brion, etc. What these artists are discovering is that their profit margin explodes outside of the major-label system. They aren't being double-billed on advances, studio pizza, and promo cutouts. Their marketing is nearly done for them on their websites. And in some cases (I know I've seen reviews for the latest Wilson and Cole efforts in Mojo and/or Q), they're still able to find press support.
The label system is a fucking scam, one that's sent many artists to an early, bitter grave.
> It's easy for the `big ticket` artists to let out sighs
> of righteous indignation when their stuff is being
> `traded`. But for as long as they are up in their ivory
> tower of `a major record deal` and the fans get the
> impression they are being played for fools by the tower's > money men, then Napster and it's variations will always
> exist.
True. I read an interview with "that guy from Metallica" the other day. I'm paraphrasing here, but part of what he had to say was basically that he thinks digital watermarking has reached the point where anyone who trades files will be effectively shut down before they can do much damage. I think it's the other way around. SDMI is a joke, and now that the technology is out there, it isn't going to go away.
> Another question remains though...am I living a double
> standard by badmouthing Napster and trading a concert
> tape or two with friends of mine? At least with concert
> tapes, I'll have purchased between 3-15 official albums, > attended a few gigs and got promo items (t shirts,
> posters etc)....
Depends on the philosophy of the artist you're trading, I guess. Seems to me that a growing percentage are of the opinion that as long as no one else is making money from it, they don't need to either. They're generally rewarded for this stance, too--Phish fans, for instance, are some of the most fanatical bootleg-sale police on the 'net.
rantz kant danz
DeWester
location: Bay Area, CA
listening to: anything and everything
registered: 2000.07.03
posts: 343
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
D
DeWester
(view)
> Fair point. But then if you picked the basic `genre` that > your new interest lies in, surely you could find other
> bands or artists from the said genre.
Finding the ARTISTS isn't a problem for anyone who bothers to do it. But say I like folk music. Just because I like, say, David Wilcox--does that mean I'm going to enjoy John Gorka too? No. Mining your favorite genres is a good way to find new music, but it can also become prohibitively expensive without a way to hear it first. My personal feeling is that the major labels know most of what they're releasing isn't worth the $18.95 list price, which is why they have resisted digital downloading. Why allow people to pay a buck or two for the one good song on the crummy CD your company just released, when you can strongarm them into buying the whole thing?
Regardless of your feelings on Napster, this whole mess is likely going to lead to new business models for the majors. And once they're forced to pony up for the server farms and the staff that widespread digital-download programs will require, my prediction (fervent hope) is that entire label catalogs will be made available, and the term "out of print" will no longer apply. If it's approached properly, this whole digital-download thing could effectively wipe out the bootleg market.
> But isn't that the way it is with all albums? Pick the
> Lou Reed or Bob Dylan album of your choice and you'll
> like some songs less than others. Varying from my
> original opinion, if you're listening to artists that are > that inconsistent (again) you deserve all you get.
As wildly inconsistent as Reed and Dylan have been, their albums, as a whole, are typically relatively even. (Even "Metal Machine Music.") Also, you're talking about two artists whose careers have never been particularly singles-driven. They're the real deal. I'm talking about bands like Sugar Ray and Smash Mouth. Regardless of how you feel about the dopes who buy these albums, I maintain that it's still wrong to dangle the sugar-coated single out to Top 40 radio just to fool a couple million people into buying the entire CD. It's consumer abuse, and it's widespread. Plus, the majors jack up the list price for topline product on a regular basis. It's a hoary argument, but remember when CDs were introduced, and the industry said prices would fall as time went on? Snake eyes on that roll.
> So with that said, I don't think Napster is any real
> solution. It's only good as a quick cure for folk who
> want access to music.
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Napster IS no real cure, and it ISN'T the main problem facing the industry today. The fidelity of even the best MP3s isn't CD quality. MP3s also don't come with artwork or liner notes. Like I said, this war isn't being fought on behalf of the artist. Small-market artists, like the ones on my label, are generally very happy about MP3s. Sites like mp3.com afford them the opportunity to disseminate their work on a widespread level for very little money. Artists like Baerwald, whose work is out of print--this medium makes their work readily available to the fan.
> Surely one of the real solutions could be with rebel-
> artists like David Baerwald (with this kind of direct
> interaction/musical circulation with fans) Ani DiFranco
> (releasing albums through her own label) the Scottish-
> Folkie Jackie Leven (sticking one finger up at the big
> record deal in favour of going with the smaller label
> who'll get his music out there) and all the other
> unsigned artists who are trying to market their product
> on there own without the support of a corporation.
It's a burgeoning market. Don't forget Brian Wilson, Jude Cole, Billy Pilgrim, Aimee Mann, Jon Brion, etc. What these artists are discovering is that their profit margin explodes outside of the major-label system. They aren't being double-billed on advances, studio pizza, and promo cutouts. Their marketing is nearly done for them on their websites. And in some cases (I know I've seen reviews for the latest Wilson and Cole efforts in Mojo and/or Q), they're still able to find press support.
The label system is a fucking scam, one that's sent many artists to an early, bitter grave.
> It's easy for the `big ticket` artists to let out sighs
> of righteous indignation when their stuff is being
> `traded`. But for as long as they are up in their ivory
> tower of `a major record deal` and the fans get the
> impression they are being played for fools by the tower's > money men, then Napster and it's variations will always
> exist.
True. I read an interview with "that guy from Metallica" the other day. I'm paraphrasing here, but part of what he had to say was basically that he thinks digital watermarking has reached the point where anyone who trades files will be effectively shut down before they can do much damage. I think it's the other way around. SDMI is a joke, and now that the technology is out there, it isn't going to go away.
> Another question remains though...am I living a double
> standard by badmouthing Napster and trading a concert
> tape or two with friends of mine? At least with concert
> tapes, I'll have purchased between 3-15 official albums, > attended a few gigs and got promo items (t shirts,
> posters etc)....
Depends on the philosophy of the artist you're trading, I guess. Seems to me that a growing percentage are of the opinion that as long as no one else is making money from it, they don't need to either. They're generally rewarded for this stance, too--Phish fans, for instance, are some of the most fanatical bootleg-sale police on the 'net.
> bands or artists from the said genre.
Finding the ARTISTS isn't a problem for anyone who bothers to do it. But say I like folk music. Just because I like, say, David Wilcox--does that mean I'm going to enjoy John Gorka too? No. Mining your favorite genres is a good way to find new music, but it can also become prohibitively expensive without a way to hear it first. My personal feeling is that the major labels know most of what they're releasing isn't worth the $18.95 list price, which is why they have resisted digital downloading. Why allow people to pay a buck or two for the one good song on the crummy CD your company just released, when you can strongarm them into buying the whole thing?
Regardless of your feelings on Napster, this whole mess is likely going to lead to new business models for the majors. And once they're forced to pony up for the server farms and the staff that widespread digital-download programs will require, my prediction (fervent hope) is that entire label catalogs will be made available, and the term "out of print" will no longer apply. If it's approached properly, this whole digital-download thing could effectively wipe out the bootleg market.
> But isn't that the way it is with all albums? Pick the
> Lou Reed or Bob Dylan album of your choice and you'll
> like some songs less than others. Varying from my
> original opinion, if you're listening to artists that are > that inconsistent (again) you deserve all you get.
As wildly inconsistent as Reed and Dylan have been, their albums, as a whole, are typically relatively even. (Even "Metal Machine Music.") Also, you're talking about two artists whose careers have never been particularly singles-driven. They're the real deal. I'm talking about bands like Sugar Ray and Smash Mouth. Regardless of how you feel about the dopes who buy these albums, I maintain that it's still wrong to dangle the sugar-coated single out to Top 40 radio just to fool a couple million people into buying the entire CD. It's consumer abuse, and it's widespread. Plus, the majors jack up the list price for topline product on a regular basis. It's a hoary argument, but remember when CDs were introduced, and the industry said prices would fall as time went on? Snake eyes on that roll.
> So with that said, I don't think Napster is any real
> solution. It's only good as a quick cure for folk who
> want access to music.
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Napster IS no real cure, and it ISN'T the main problem facing the industry today. The fidelity of even the best MP3s isn't CD quality. MP3s also don't come with artwork or liner notes. Like I said, this war isn't being fought on behalf of the artist. Small-market artists, like the ones on my label, are generally very happy about MP3s. Sites like mp3.com afford them the opportunity to disseminate their work on a widespread level for very little money. Artists like Baerwald, whose work is out of print--this medium makes their work readily available to the fan.
> Surely one of the real solutions could be with rebel-
> artists like David Baerwald (with this kind of direct
> interaction/musical circulation with fans) Ani DiFranco
> (releasing albums through her own label) the Scottish-
> Folkie Jackie Leven (sticking one finger up at the big
> record deal in favour of going with the smaller label
> who'll get his music out there) and all the other
> unsigned artists who are trying to market their product
> on there own without the support of a corporation.
It's a burgeoning market. Don't forget Brian Wilson, Jude Cole, Billy Pilgrim, Aimee Mann, Jon Brion, etc. What these artists are discovering is that their profit margin explodes outside of the major-label system. They aren't being double-billed on advances, studio pizza, and promo cutouts. Their marketing is nearly done for them on their websites. And in some cases (I know I've seen reviews for the latest Wilson and Cole efforts in Mojo and/or Q), they're still able to find press support.
The label system is a fucking scam, one that's sent many artists to an early, bitter grave.
> It's easy for the `big ticket` artists to let out sighs
> of righteous indignation when their stuff is being
> `traded`. But for as long as they are up in their ivory
> tower of `a major record deal` and the fans get the
> impression they are being played for fools by the tower's > money men, then Napster and it's variations will always
> exist.
True. I read an interview with "that guy from Metallica" the other day. I'm paraphrasing here, but part of what he had to say was basically that he thinks digital watermarking has reached the point where anyone who trades files will be effectively shut down before they can do much damage. I think it's the other way around. SDMI is a joke, and now that the technology is out there, it isn't going to go away.
> Another question remains though...am I living a double
> standard by badmouthing Napster and trading a concert
> tape or two with friends of mine? At least with concert
> tapes, I'll have purchased between 3-15 official albums, > attended a few gigs and got promo items (t shirts,
> posters etc)....
Depends on the philosophy of the artist you're trading, I guess. Seems to me that a growing percentage are of the opinion that as long as no one else is making money from it, they don't need to either. They're generally rewarded for this stance, too--Phish fans, for instance, are some of the most fanatical bootleg-sale police on the 'net.
