People, I'm kinda stuck in a situation and would love to hear what you think about a tiny idea I had. Little background info: last week I did the entrance exam to the composition department of the local conservatory. I presented the project (that I havent much mentioned here yet) hoping it would be considered good enough to be allowed entrance. After hearing 20 minutes or so of the track (which lasts almost five hours, so they couldnt hear it all) they rejected me saying I had reached a point where I should not 'hide behind the walls of a music institution' but instead just bite the bullet and 'start my carreer'.
So now I'm thinking about things I could do in the future that might help a bit towards paying the rent. One of the things that popped in my mind was a 'subscription' of sorts and I am wondering what you all think about the idea. Please note it's not about me or my music, just pretend it's about yoru favourite artist. Now let's imagine that artist normally releases one album a year, with a retailpice of $20 and a download (Itunes and such) price of $10. This band/artist is much more productive though and has the need to explore different kinds of music. For example the Stones doing a project mixing Jamaican influences with country&Western, Radiohead doing classical music or whatever. Would you be interested in paying a fixed price anually to be able to get unlimited access for that year to an online database with downloads to these projects?
For the poll, let's assume that the artists puts up between three and five hours of music each year, with every bit of attention payed to it as the 'regular album'. As the music is stylistically more varied and different from the 'regular anual album' you do run the risk of hearing styles you either dont know or don't care about, or both.
I know it's a rather vague question but your input would be much appreciated!
First, usually I like and I agree each new procedure, method or 'system' that the people do in order to do anything. Innovative, imaginative and creative solutions are always welcome. Thus, yes I would subscribe.
Now, I had a dinner with some colleagues from other universities. One of them play keyboards. We was speaking about music, instruments, and bands. He told me that a band does a similar thing. You pre-pay for a limited edition of a DVD. They use the money for creating and producing the DVD and then they send it to your with many 'extras'. The rest of the DVD are sold as usual. I like very much the idea. The band is Marillion.
harks back to the patrons of yore! I ktthink it an excellent idea, and could help free an artist from worry about commercial viability (which even a lot of exerimental artists consider) and it sidesteps the thorn in the music industry's side atthe moment of people downloading for free. I'd definitely sybscruce to an artist like Jeff Beck for more music, and think the standard of music could be raised as a result.
Unfortunately, JB would probs spend itall on hot rods...
I think it would depend on if we get the album in the subscription price as well. But Im game for that, I think it's a great idea!
In Space, no one can hear me sing!
I voted $10 - 25. but I blithely expanded the assumptions (and would even pay more depending) to the availability of certain material NOT generally available to non-subs: demo tracks, special streamed events ...
disclosure: I work for a subscription sat/streaming music/talk/entertainment company. generally, once people are exposed to the right subscription service (no commercials, special programming, large variety, certain personalities) they stick with them.
-=tension & release=-
oh yeah, and would not only sub to JB, but also Beck (Hanson), who might donate his money to a certain institution.
there are artist bundling opportunities here.
-=tension & release=-
I think you have a good idea. it sounds similar to the CSAs popping up all over the country. a CSA (Community Sustained Agriculture). a farmer gets subscriptions for vegetables he grows. each week he delivers to each subscriber a box of vegetables that are in season. the grower does well and the subscriber gets fresh food. you may not like all the food you get each week. just like you may not like all the music an artist produces.
this cuts out the huge factories growing food.
I see similarities with record companies.
power to the people
power to the artist.
I think it's worth following up - the Dandy Warhols had a subscription thing going a while back that got people free downloads and such stuff.
You need to look at what you think about your favourite artist. I like Rush, I have every studio album and the latest live album. I have every live DVD. I'm first in the queue when there are concert tickets going on sale, and I'm first up to the merch for T-shirts. I spend a lot of money at concerts; we always make an evening of it when we're at concerts, with food first and plenty of beer on top of the travel cost.
I suscribe to the Rush newsletter - it is free, and this is where it starts to get to the question of "What are you getting" If you're going to get free downloads and stuff that you can't get anywhere else, then it's worth paying for. The Foo Fighters newsletter gets me priority concert tickets, and it's a free newsletter. Would I pay for that? Probably not as the ticket price isn't any cheaper and I'm connected to the regular ticket agencies to complete the bookings.
So there's a middle ground somewhere. You've got to have something to offer that can't just be bought at your local shop. Backstage passes for winning subscribers. Dinner for two with Ignar and things like that. Autographed washing machines.
A :-)
"Be good at what you can do" - Fingerbanger"
I have always felt that it is better to do what is beautiful than what is 'right'" - Eliot Fisk
Wedding music and guitar lessons in Essex. Listen at: http://www.rollmopmusic.co.uk
I would not subscribe.
There's just no band or artist I'm that enamored with, that I would pay for their side projects in advance. If they end up with something good enough to be released, it'll be released. And even then, I often buy individual tracks that catch my ear, not full albums.
I guess i should have responded since I was the one that voted for the I don't pay for downloads but Gabba Gabba said it all. There is no one artist that I could ever be that much in awe of or want their music that bad that I would want to subscribe to regular downloads.
I have not found one artist who I can say I love everything they've ever done and I wouldn't expect that to change.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
All I buy is the occasional bargain bin CD, or very occasionally I'll buy something specific that I want to listen to. I don't know of anyone I'd subscribe to. I don't download music, for fee or for free.
"A cheerful heart is good medicine."
I guess i should have responded since I was the one that voted for the I don't pay for downloads but Gabba Gabba said it all. There is no one artist that I could ever be that much in awe of or want their music that bad that I would want to subscribe to regular downloads.
I have not found one artist who I can say I love everything they've ever done and I wouldn't expect that to change.
ditto :wink:
#4491....
Hi,
I think that the idea has merit, and has historical precedent too. As Scrybe said various styles of artist patronage have been around for centuries. Apparently early books were often sold by subscription, which meant that a number of potential readers (which I guess mostly meant the wealthy back then) underwrote the printing and writing costs. They then got a nicely bound, and presumably limited edition, once the author was done.
As with any commercial project, the quality of the material is only part of the deal though. Without a strong marketing strategy it's hard to reach sufficient people often enough, and keep their enthusiasm going.
I'd certainly give such a scheme a try (assuming I ever get around to setting up a method of paying for things online....) but there are so many things vying for my musical attention now that I'm not sure if I would become a regular or not.
All the very best with carving out your career, and congratulations on impressing the interviewers enough that they advised you to go for it. :)
Cheers,
Chris
There wasn't a space to enter "I'd like to pay as I go". SOMETHING needs to be done to get recompense to the artists. They need to earn a living just like anyone else. I get royalties but I'm pretty much exempt from being robbed because...well...who would steal a diaper jingle??? In times past...I HAVE been robbed from some mainstream album material...and eventually got paid...but only AFTER a stint through the courts.
So this is a sore spot with me.
There WILL be some sort of new paradigm that will adequately recompense artists sooner or later. (Hey, probably later!) The internet is here to stay...and so are Chinese counterfeit copies. Maybe "albums" will end up as a website with the attached advertising bringing in money??? I mean...if you put out something GREAT...and it's FREE...and everyone needs to go to a defined site to download it...the amount of hits will determine your marketability as far as advertisers go.
Perhaps several albums will coalesce onto one site to bulk up their hits in aggregate...with the site splitting up ad revenues according to who gets the internet hits???
This may well make a nice new GN thread.
Any ideas???
Cat
"Feel what you play...play what you feel!"
This may well make a nice new GN thread.
Any ideas???
Cat
I'm in if you start one. There was an article in the paper a week or two ago, along the lines of "$0.00 is the new price point". They were talking about a pub offering free gas for the barbecues in a beer garden and covering the costs by selling beer. It's also found in many other industries - free to air TV being an obvious example. Publicans can also put on bands, with no entry fee, and cover the cost through bar sales. But there must be other ways for the music industry to adapt to the current reality - which is that recorded music is easy to rip off and simple to share. Maybe we should debate some ideas in a separate thread as you suggest?
Cheers,
Chris
