this whole new music business model seems to be making artists fund everything and also be cheesy and cute and gimmicky and desperate. i was a solo artist and for me to have to deal with venues (and lackthereof) and pretty much a dead town that is stuck in 1998 (milwaukee!) and then be cute or come up with more gimmicks is just too much. the idea seems to be to give the music away but to make your money on the live show and merch but being modern (i sound post 1998!) and solo (and in amateur ass milwaukee) has made things a nightmare and i cant afford to just up and move again to high priced chicago. some of the best artists ive heard were on myspace and they didnt play shows. they just made music and sounded good and went to school and did other shit.
with all this cheap and available software we are seeing that music is not as difficult and amazing as we once thought. move on move up to more intellectual things

right now we are in the whirlwind of the “uncontrolled” music business model which seems to be headed toward a re-controlled business model where internet providers detect known share sites and give you 3 strikes and your service is cut. its happening in japan and being threatened in ireland and elsewhere.

This is my opinion and nothing more. Therefore, I dont think its right to accuse anybody for having a different opinion as fake musicians. If I had to invest my money on a music company, I’m gonna put my money who thinks file sharing is ok. If I’m right Ill get rewarded.

I vaguely remember a joint interview with Bowie and Moby around that same time period when Bowie’s online gig was massive, and they were both predicting the collapse of the record companies within a decade… and essentially for all of the reasons being discussed now.

Illegal downloaders ’spend the most on music’, says poll
Crackdown on music piracy could further harm ailing industry
- Independent -UK [2009]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

‘Free’ is only one step in the right direction towards giving musicians back some creative and financial power, but copyright is still important. We need to keep on innovating. We need to continue to connect fans to artists in a way record labels won’t. We suddenly have the power (as a consumer) to reject the rubbish they force on us through the radio and learn to explore real music again. As I stated in my blog last week, ‘free’ music is just one stage in this innovative process.

Looking forward to this ‘much bigger plan’ unfolding… oh, and Grant, my wonderfully-connected friend… wake up! Twitter may sound a bit bent as a name but it’s changing communication in the same way that mobile phones did in the 90’s. But I guess 30 years in the music industry has made you allergic to change.

Playing with the Girls Aloud example – although, frankly, they never made it to the US so I’ve never actually heard one of their tracks, just seen the hype – I don’t think it’s the music that people want as much as it is the experience. The full production, the hype, the silly outfits, the smoke machines, the gossip in the Daily Fail.

That desire for the big production actually supports your advocacy of micropatronage. Regardless, no big record company is going to deliberately damage or accept criticism of their silly pop groups because they live off that money. Instead, show them that they can make more money and thrive longer using modern systems.

As for Avril… ha! I said that specifically because last night my mp3 player’s shuffle gave me, in the following order:

The Hollies – I’m Alive
Itzhak Perlman – Il Postino
The Who – My Generation
Couperin – Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Avril Lavigne – Girlfriend

I might as well point out that all of the above were downloaded sans purchase.

There’s a place for silliness and there always has been. Much of Shakespeare was silly fluff for his contemporary audience. The silliness issue, though, is tangential. People will buy what they want to buy, etc etc. The key here is trying to open the music industry to a free-market environment. Keep the governments out of the process. Let the market force artists and record companies to adapt to modern realities.

Gary, the storm is coming, you’re right. And very soon.

Lorien, I agree that the real thing has changed and that musicians need to find what it is that people will happily pay for. However, I do think that there is still a market, albeit an audiophile one, for physical product.

And you’re right, I am a music snob! But I really don’t think that anyone will have Avril whatever her name is sitting on the same iPod as my album. However, even as I write that, there’s a part of me that is saying I’m probably wrong. After all, how can someone discover new music if they can’t have a diverse collection?

Question is, would people really want the silliness of Girls Aloud if they were aware of the wealth of independent and intelligent pop music that was available?

“If I like the album I will buy it since I won’t be satisfied with a compressed digital version, I’ll want the real thing.”

This is an attitude that is disappearing rapidly. I’m 27; I haven’t purchased a physical CD in about eight years. I’m not alone, and I don’t think that I’m in the minority for the under-30s. Systems like iTunes, et al., do make it easier to purchase albums… but even then, I’ve purchased only a handful of albums digitally.

The desire for the “real thing” just does not exist to the same degree as it did in the past. The “real thing” has changed.

Micro-patronage, however, works even within the post-post-modern context. Micro-patronage offers degrees of exclusivity.

Record companies can easily establish systems like Bowie’s from ca. 1999-2001 (I’ve no idea what it’s up to now). Subscribe to the company’s service ($25/year), receive discounts on digital albums, merch, tickets, and pay to subscribe to individual artists ($2/month) for unique content – like HD videos from gigs, subscriber-only merch, etc.

On a side note:
You’re going to get absolutely nowhere with your advocacy – and with the opportunity for consultancy, if you’re looking for that – as long as you push the “support real art and knock the pop-trash” bit. You’re a music snob; fair enough, you’ve earned it via work and talent. The interesting people, however, are going to know that alongside their purchased Ashley Morgan album in their iPod sits a freely downloaded copy of Avril’s “Girlfriend”. The companies you’re trying to convince exist off of silliness like Girls Aloud, and that’s because oodles of people genuinely want their hype. Let them have it. Show companies how to make micro-patronage work for the POP, and the rest will follow.

Maybe you’d like to have a look at this for some more “sad bloggers”:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/05/0508_ceos_who_twitter/2.htm

Real world is, nobody cares about you businessmen, we put music on in the background when we make love, not press kits or calculator sounds. Musicians are remembered all people’s lives when nobody cares about you but you. Well, maybe some people. but most, nope.

My question, and forgive me if this got lost in the shuffle, is how then will musicians make lots and lots of money? Gigs? Gigs are great but the guys I know who are really successful have lots and lots of mailbox money coming in. Can you clarify?

I respect the fact that everyone has and is entitled to their own opinion, but a comment like that has no ‘relevance in the real world’ as you so eloquently put it.

Just my two cents…

Is your world any more “real” than theirs? If anything, being on the business side of the entertainment industry for over 30 years, it is your perception of the “real world” that scares me.

I smell a storm comin…

For example: “You musicians need to shut up and learn that you are never going to succeed without business people.” Wow. If any one statement exists that so clearly expresses in one neat little package the contempt the biz types have for the creatives they exploit to make their fortunes, this is it.

But I have to think, from the anger evident in your post, that musicians are, in fact, starting to find success without business people and it’s freaking you out. Well, count yourself lucky. If you really have been involved with the traditional music industry for 30 years, you must be pretty close to retirement. I have to think you’ll be able to get out just in time.

Though twitter maybe used by a vast majority of people to advise us that after a long days work they are looking forward to a nice cup of tea, there are however, more practical and serious uses. For example the BBC use twitter prolifically, to firstly advise of breaking news, and also as a way for people to inform them of important things happening in the world. The fact that twitter, is a cross platform tool, which is extremely efficient makes it an invaluable tool. As you may be aware. The bbc has always been at the forefront of technology, developing new way to use existing equipment, researching and designing new technology, and the fact they have chosen to adopt this service i think speaks very highly of it. but like any service it is dependent on how you use it.

You Talk about the music industry, having been industrial, lets now talk about the music business being business. As we all know, the bottom line for any business is their shareholders, and the constant need to give them a return. And as we have seen with the recent collapse of the financial markets, business stop at noting to ensure this happens, and if that involves hoodwinking the general public then so be it.

Taking in to point the labels affiliated to your friend Pete Waterman, whom i do respect in some aspects, as i believe, to begin with he was an innovator in the music industry, but, their best and most progressive time was when they were on the poverty line. An example of this is that i believe the the birth of the modern disco can be credited to SWA with the triggering of disco lights by using the kick drum in their tracks. However, its quite clear to see that it quickly became about the money, with the release of such artists as:
Roland Rat
Samantha Fox
Sonia
Mel & kim
Pepsi & shirley
reynolds girls
Rick astly
Jason Donovon
Kylie (with exception)

All of which were written in effect by formula. In this we can attribute much of the rot we have in today’s music.

SAW and PWl were one of the first in the breed of production stables, of which the labels now do themselves. The problems with this practice is, there is a massive conflict of interest, when a record company who can manufacture an artist and retain the vast majority of the revenue, is then to take on genuine musicians. The musicians lose in this deal. Even where the artist does sign to a smaller label, as soon as they make it big, the bigger labels come knocking, tempting the labels to sign distribution deals in return for rights. Often the artist has little to no say over this, as it is business between the labels.

However, the internet has, and will continue to change this. P2p, is the liberator of musicians. Providing the kind of distribution record labels can give, at a fraction of the cost. Providing the level of marketing the labels can give, at a fraction of the cost, and providing a direct link between the fans, and the artists. So no more a&r men blowing smoke up your ar*e, genuine feedback from genuine fans.

Music has been around for thousands of years, and people have always listened, have always paid in some way or another to listen to something they want to pay for. The music industry has been around for 50 years give or take, and Pricing itself out of the market with their greed, and obnoxious behavior towards the very people that keep it in business. Please carry on this route. We can live without you.

PS: Any artist looking for digital album mastering or engineering email dan@electro-flashback.com Fee; credit on album sleeve.

Cheers.

This reads like something from a decade ago. The public has a myriad of choices to listen to music, more than ever before. I know it’s hard to swallow, but the fact is there are people who simply like what others would consider “bad” music. It’s not from lack of choice or exposure; it’s just taste, lifestyle, preferences and in some cases fitting in with peers.

To say that “the music industry” controls radio is a statement that lacks understanding and nuance. If by “the music industry” you mean the four major labels, they do not control radio. They are complicit and they follow commercial radio’s research dictates to make money. The people who don’t like it have turned it off and started turning it off years ago.

As for fans not wanting to pay the middlemen, there are certainly vocal contingents online who espouse this. However, the masses of fans don’t care. They just want what they like and will support who they like.

I think it’s clever that you’ve chosen this topic, asking people to retweet. Your rhetoric is inflammatory enough that you might get some traffic for Genesis Rocket. However, if you’re a real musician concerned about earning money from your music, then I would suggest ignoring the activity of major labels and commercial radio, opting to focus on positive actions you can take to sell your tunes.

The fact that you see the music industry as a business is the biggest problem, and it’s a business minded approach that compromises artistic integrity and results in programs like X Factor generating shit artists who are just designed to make a quick buck. The music industry is called the music industry because it involves music.

I’m a real life person that uses twitter. Lots of real life people use twitter.

The music industry is called the music industry because it is built by industrial people who worked hard for a living unlike all the “give everything away for free” crowd who think everything should just be given away.

Blogger and Twitter are both just an easy way for people who would never make it in the real world get attention. The music industry isn’t going to change no matter how hard you lot try. I doubt more than a handful of people will even read this anyway so it will never matter whatever you think.

Instead of continually being part of the problem, why don’t you try and be part of the solution. The people that actually pay your salary, your customers, want digital downloads. Why do you think Apple has made a fortune and sold more music than anyone? Because they stuck to the old methods of doing business? I don’t think so. They broke the mold and did what their customers wanted. They let them download music one song at a time. Guess what? It works……..Maybe you should WAKE UP!!

I’ve been involved with the business side of the music industry for over 30 years and I’m now watching people like you, upstarts, musicians who think they know it all, try an rip down the business that people like Pete Waterman has built up using hard work and real business talent.

You musicians need to shut up and learn that you are never going to succeed without business people.

As for your ridiculous claims that you are going to change the music industry using Twitter, wake up, no one uses Twitter apart from sad bloggers and people who live in their parent’s basement.

Let’s say I release an album online and give it away for free. If you decided to also give it away for free I still benefit from that as long as you don’t pretend or claim to have written it yourself.

Giving it away, sharing it, letting it be heard or releasing it into the wild is all good news for me and that’s why I want that to be something that all musicians can benefit from. Taking away my copyright or otherwise claiming ownership of my work doesn’t benefit me.

You don’t have the right to sell it on to anyone but you can give it away to whoever you like for free as long as you don’t modify it or claim legal ownership of it. This goes right to heart of the legal problem with the ownership of music. Music will always legally be work of the person that wrote and recorded it unless a legal agreement is arranged to the contrary.

You can modify it, mix it, remix it, and then redistribute your derivative work as long as the proper credit is given. Arguably all music is like that already. I listen to a lot of Miles Davis. It’s absolutely possible that any number of my gigs or recordings have contained improvisation that is, subconsciously or consciously, influenced by the music I listen to. Should I be prosecuted for that? No, of course not.

There is no threat of anyone selling something that I have made available for free online since if anyone were to approach you and offer to sell you my album you would, presumably, respond by saying “I don’t want to buy it from you, I can get it for free from Ashley, the guy who wrote it”.

If I play a gig and someone records it and then says to me “I have a blog with millions of readers, can I give them all your album” I’m going to say yes because I want my music to be heard. If a million people listen to my album and enjoy it I will have a million fans. Those fans will then, if they like my music enough, want to learn more about me and, maybe, buy uncompressed physical product or support me in some other way.

That’s the big question. Why don’t these artists, the ones that hide behind their major label pay masters, want their music to be heard by as many people as possible?

Jonathon, I know what you mean. Let’s hope the industry has a big enough mouth and a long enough neck!

You and I (and probably the majority of people reading this blog) already know that Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Lily Allen etc. etc. and owned by the industry and can’t even go to the toilet without permission from their managers. Add to that list Beyonce, Rhianna, Muse, Mark Ronson, Mik, Girls Aloud, Sugarbabes, and countless others and it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt one very unfortunate truth – that the majority of the public are pretty gullible.

What you are attempting to do is akin to forcing the industry to eat its own head by getting the fake artists to step out of line, perhaps in bravado, perhaps in an attempt to prove you wrong, which would just prove you right, and their handlers would tell them that and stop them. We’d all love to see it happen but I just can’t, well, see it happening.

I really hope I’m wrong though since the music industry is one establishment that desperately needs to be brought crashing down.

do i have the right to sell/distribute/use ‘your’ music however ‘i’ want?