|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 18, 2014 1:05:40 GMT
Further to my previous passionate defences of Spotify, I would like to highlight the behaviour of YouTube, a company which receives far less vocal criticism, towards the smaller and independent artists and labels, including Cooking Vinyl, which MM had released records on (no agreement by MM qwith my opinion or the linked article is implied here) I don't know quite how to react as I consume plenty of non-musical content that would not exist without YouTube, but if anyone sees an organised petition or boycott coming along I would encourage them to give some serious thought to it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27891883 |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jun 18, 2014 8:15:40 GMT
How surprising, another company screwing and destroying the life blood of its industry! Twenty years on and the entertainment business still doesn't know what to do about the Internet. Finding ways to make money out of music and entertainment on the Internet; they are clutching at straws, but working together ...Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google...etc, are quite powerful, to say the least!
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 18, 2014 9:12:40 GMT
I think the really dark thing in this situation is that YouTube already had a profitable and at least somewhat agreeable model, finally started getting music on their site legally and sharing advising etc, then used their market position to try and force different terms on the labels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jun 18, 2014 11:01:17 GMT
You're right, Matt. Also, that none of this actually affects the giants of the music industry. I recently had a conversation with someone who works with a current music giant, and they said that they structured their own deal with Spotify. These companies can force the major and independent labels to do whatever they like, but the music giants are in a position to force them to make deals in their favour.
I have been reading articles about 'xxxxxx screwing artists' for so long that I just take it for granted. A well known recording artist once said to me "...they all screw you, so sign with the label that screws you the least"
Happy days!
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 18, 2014 11:56:07 GMT
I'm glad the small and independent labels have at least taken the initiative on this, now there's Spotify, YouTube, Beats Audio etc all in competition, hopefully collectively withholding their material might have some impact when they can continue to offer it through rival services
|
|
|
|
Post by zak71 on Jun 18, 2014 15:12:40 GMT
Fan ignorance and artist ignorance have done more harm to the music industry in a decade than record labels ever could have in a century.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jun 18, 2014 18:38:48 GMT
Zak, there is a lot of truth in what you said. I don't think it is any different to the past, but it is now on such a big scale. Prior to Internet explosion of music, the music business was struggling because the retailers were pushing the record companies and distributors into a corner by paying the lowest possible price....and some, for product. This put many indie labels out of business.
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by slide496 on Jun 18, 2014 21:02:13 GMT
ASCAP and BMI as responsible for making liscencing deals for their members with record companies and not confining the deal to then existing technologies has alot to do with the successful development of alot of these places IMHO. There was no protection in place to protect musicians from the streaming age.
Yet I feel fairly certain from the liscencing contracts that I have seen and had to sign as an illustrator - and I have worked for Island Def Jam, there was probably corporate provision for use of the material in not then existing technologies - to the effect that the record company could use for what it wants in existing technologies and if a future opportunity came along that they want to use the music for then they can use it for that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jun 19, 2014 7:53:25 GMT
Harriet, your absolutely right about contracts containing provisions for non existing technologies. We just didn't realise what that actually meant in reality, it was something way off in the future that may or may not happen.
My back catalogue is constantly being reshuffled and repackaged as compilation mp3 download albums by the record companies that made the original recordings...'best of the blues'...'worst of the blues' ....'British blues'...'experimental blues'...etc...etc.. I don't have any problem with that at all, it's legal, it's within the parameters of the original contracts and although I didn't understand the future of music sales, it is 'kind of' what I agreed to. What I don't like are the companies like Spotify, Youtube and various other social networks, that in my opinion have too tight a hold over the industry.
It's a dilemma because I love the new technology and what it offers us, I use it every day of my life.
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by slide496 on Jun 19, 2014 18:29:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mitchfit on Jun 21, 2014 21:32:43 GMT
way too much dealing off the bottom of the deck in the music business. in order to bypass same, the "Grateful Dead Model" of self ownership was created by Hal Kant, music lawyer extraordinaire. for a band that never really had any mega hits per se, they did pretty good by reaping ~all~ of the rewards of their name and music catalog. to fully appreciate how far fetched these royalties can reach beyond just the music: www.dead.net/store/stickers-etcwww.dead.net/store/accessorieswww.dead.net/store/apparelwww.dead.net/store/posterswww.dead.net/spring1990storewww.dead.net/store/may-1977-store..."out on the road today i saw a deadhead sticker on a cadillac a little voice inside my head said don't look back, you can never look back"... [Don Henley--"the boys of summer"] they did make an agreement in 2006 leasing rights to Rhino Entertainment for 10 years. call it a retirement pension. imagine how much money Pink Floyd could generate by just reissuing their "Dark Side of the Moon" stickers and selling them: www.google.com/search?q=original+dark+side+of+the+moon+stickers&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=weSlU-jNLciV8AH5ioGQDQ&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1590&bih=673 ..."the band is just fantastic that is really what i think oh, by they way, which one's pink?"... [Pink Floyd--"have a cigar". better called, Contract Signing Primer, course 101, 3 credit hours] "The Long and Winding Road". remember reading a Paul McCartney interview where he recounted telling Michael Jackson to invest his "Thriller" proceeds into something that ~he~ was well informed about, rather than paying a percentage to investment counselors. [who may/may not have his best interests at heart] fr'instance, that he and Yoko Ono were negotiating to buy back the entire Beatles catalog. they had [wisely/foolishly?] transferred same rights to Northern Songs in order to get out of the 90% tax bracket** direct ownership created in their peak sales period. oddly, i can only find vague references to that incident now on the internet. do your own research into the next catalog owner of the top seller reissue collection: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%28The_Beatles_album%29i think, from reading MM's postings that him and his wife now handle/manage his tours. just another link in the parasite chain he fortunately removed there. nearly every phase of the industry, when they aren't scamming musicians, it's because they are outright ripping them off. the problem stems from promotion. back in the day one had to sell their soul to the publishing companies to "get their name out there" with tours/publicity. as per Robert Johnson's crossroads story, these sorts of negotiations can come with unforeseen costs. up and coming artists do not have the capital to do this, or the time. few are lucky enough to run into a Hal Kant when they are beginning to become famous. or the chance the "Dead" had to play at many free outdoor events in the circa 1960's bay area hippie scene. they still hold the record for playing "more free concerts than any band in the history of music". [Lillian Roxon's Rock Encyclopedia] so it wasn't without their own personal cost to become famous on a self made basis. $0.02, mitchfit **not just chance that he eventually moved to Ireland. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2014 15:07:21 GMT
Fan ignorance and artist ignorance have done more harm to the music industry in a decade than record labels ever could have in a century. Do you mean ignorance of how the record industry works, or ignorance of music history? TT |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 20:20:01 GMT
BUMP!
Well, I have in the last few days put my whole 2002 album as AVI/mp3 on youtube, and 'monetarised' it. I believe that means that every view with an advert pays me something (maybe 0.001p for all I know).
Who knows - one of my tracks is very commercial, and if a youtube clip of an emu falling in a pond can get 1 million hits, this could get a few too. I've also started putting my iphone reso stuff on it, and these tracks are also now 'monetarised'.
With regard to the music industry, I firmly believe that there is a right now a massive amount of talent everywhere producing more than enough great music for a whole lifetime - if it ever gets heard. I helped organise a local festival (which was on last weekend) and I was staggered how good some of the acts were - local acts, either with indie labels, no labels but 'working the media', or just doing it for fun / beer.
The days of bands sitting in studios for months with all the trappings are gone. Make way for these savvy, hard working kids who are far from ignorant. They might make a wage with some luck.
TT
|
|
