vampirefish - Controversy in the age of the MP3

vampirefish
« Controversy in the age of the MP3 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 29, 2009, 9:41am

vampirefish :: General :: Miscellaneous :: Controversy in the age of the MP3

Author

Topic: Controversy in the age of the MP3 (Read 502 times)

deathbysexy
New Member

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Sept 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 5
Location: Kitsap County
Karma: 0

Controversy in the age of the MP3
« Thread Started on Sept 10, 2006, 1:04am »

Ok, I'll get this board going with a little controversial discussion... How do you feel about free music distribution? For it or against it?

What are your thoughts and opinions on this?

This is how I feel:

In this day and age, if a band feels like going the record industry route to get their music to the masses, that's their choice. But said band should realize that if their music is good, people will download it, rip it, share it, regardless of what laws are in place. They can't stop this. Arresting and/or fining these individuals is futile, and a stupid way to thank your fans for liking and appreciating your art, exposing your work to others.

Really, what percentage of album sales typically go directly to the artist?

I'm not saying that an artist shouldn't copyright their work. Of course they should. And other artists should respect that by not stealing the work of others (recording, or using material commercially without permission).

Musicians and artists have so many tools, that have come a long way technologically, to record and propagate their work at an independant level, without sacrificing quality, and ultimately increasing integrity. Getting your tracks online costs little to no money, and grants you a potentially worldwide audience. If you have a website with booking information, a strong work ethic, and people really like what you do, you stand a good chance to make a great living off of touring and performing, merchandising, and liscensing.

So many artists fall into the trap of owing their label for the "generous" advance they recieved to record their album, and end up washing some record industry execs car for the next ten years. I don't support an industry that operates that way, and I don't mind taking down anyone who does.

Free music distribution levels the playing field, and I think that's what alot of sub-par musicians and artists are afraid of.

Do you agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear your commentary.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

kary cook
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2006
Posts: 24
Karma: 0

Re: Controversy in the age of the MP3
« Reply #1 on Sept 15, 2006, 11:32am »

interesting thoughts. i think i'm in the middle of the road here. why? at first i was steadfast on the whole sharing/download for free dealio, but i don't make my living as a musician (sigh...) so it would directly effect me if i did. yes, people will share and some people will steal... i think if someone REALLY likes you, they'll go out and buy your cd (splurge a little). so what am i trying to say? not sure.... except that there should be some protection for the artist but also, the artist should have enough intelligence to understand that in our digital world, if their music is being 'shared' that's a good thing! can't stand ol' lars because of that - what a boob!

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

deathbysexy
New Member

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Sept 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 5
Location: Kitsap County
Karma: 0

Re: Controversy in the age of the MP3
« Reply #2 on Sept 20, 2006, 3:15am »

Quote:

at first i was steadfast on the whole sharing/download for free dealio, but i don't make my living as a musician (sigh...) so it would directly effect me if i did.

If you did make a living as a musician, it seems that it would only effect you "negatively" if you were signed to a major label, which is what I'm getting at. It's your decision to go that route or not (provided the offer is there). What do musician's these days think they need a major label for?

Back in the days of the Lars/Napster fiasco, Labels were whining about how Napster was damaging album sales. But the industry as a whole had a record breaking year then. This, after Napster!

Check out http://www.downhillbattle.org, and just browse some of the articles...

You don't need a label to tour, you need a tour manager.

Today's musicians are expected to do more than just play their instruments, write songs, or sing... You've got to network, develop artwork, street team, and do many other things that all come together to get your music to the masses and get your act on the road. You don't need your album cover plastered everywhere like Pepsi ads in order to make a good living as a musician. You need to have fans.

Fugazi never charged more than $10.00 for a show, and they did pretty well for themselves, no? I don't recall ever seeing an
advertisement for a Fugazi album or some big store display that a label would have flipped the bill for (of course, you as a potential music buyer are actually the ones paying for that sort of thing)...

Artist management and tour management are where it's at, I think. I don't know, I could be completely off base.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

cybergothpunkfreak
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Jun 2009
Gender: Male

Posts: 2
Karma: 0

Re: Controversy in the age of the MP3
« Reply #3 on Jun 25, 2009, 4:57am »

personally they dont make the big money on cds. . its mostly the shows, the other merchandise and any other stuff they do i mean a song is 99 cents.... thats not big money when you get people paying $30 each to see you live thats good money and dvds for like $25 each i mean 99cents each is just a very small drop in the bucket and the songs people download get them more into the band so there more likely to actually go see the band when there in town.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged