Would you subscribe to your favourite artist?

Probably, if he could make some good music.

There's a shared attitude by all too many that something so etherial as digital "ons and offs" shouldn't cost anything. They just do NOT consider it as stealing. The mainstream royalty collection agencies "guesstimate" what kind of airplay an artist "should be having" and they pay out accordingly. This, as well, needs to be changed. I do think that since hits are tallied up on sites...this will cut out the equivocation by the collectors, too. Besides...they ALWAYS "guesstimate" a larger figure when they dig into a user's pocket for payment but "guesstimate" rather thinly when they turn around to pay the artist. Who can argue with them??? They are, after all, just anudder bizz and they're gonna take advantage of BOTH the artist AND the end user if they get the chance! Sure, you can get a "forensic audit" done...but YOU pay for that, yourself!

This is a tough nut to crack. But artists need to be paid so they can earn a living from their work...and not have to hang it up so they can feed their families.

In the 1980's I was robbed for some mainstream stuff...that ended up selling extremely well. I got reamed, steamed & even drycleaned. It took years in court to get paid and...if I didn't have an older brother with a big law firm in metro NYC...I'd have had to give up along the way. I mean, WHO can put up with that??? In fact, this REMAINS so much of a trauma to me that...now...in the midst of writing and producing a debut album for my sons...my wife's in law school chasing after a Talent Management and Copyright Law ticket! Hey...even after 600-something posts I've NEVER ducked into the "songwriting threads" here on GN!!! Lord knows who can surf on through GN and rob ya blind!

Still...the fact is that the internet is here to stay and the way we get paid needs to be changed. Oddly enough...the well-worn music industry term "hits" even takes on a more defined meaning! Like I said...if you put out some awesome stuff...and it's free...and the user needs to access your site to get it...you'll sell advertising space...T shirts...nose hair clippers...toasters...Dutch seeds...hey, whatever.

Cat

I am into waaaaaayyyy too many bands to pay in this manner. I would be broke if this was put into place.
The one thing I could see happening (to speak to some of Cat's points) is that if I paid for this special "insiders only" downloadable stuff, I can guarentee that it would be up on the sharing sites instantly. So why bother?

in my case things are a bit easier. The biggest problem I'm facing is that I'm way too productive, it's just not financially possible to press and release each of them physically. Let's take some completely random numbers I just pulled out of my butt: :D

1) Suppose I release 10 hours of music a year. Based on the past six months that's grossly underestimated.
2) Suppose I sell each between $15 and for the physical copy, and pressing cost for 500 copies is $800/release.
3) That would mean I would have to pay $8000 pressins costs anually, plus costs for artwork, shipping, registration and so forth. It would add up to about $15.000. I'm a student, I dont have $15.000 and I dont expect to see that kind of money anytime soon, if ever.
4) I can't expect 500 people to buy every album, they would need to spend almost $150/year which is just absurd. I cant print less copies, pressing 300 is as expensive as pressing 500.

So let's approach it differently: Instead of having 500 people buy 10 albums each year trying to get 10x500 people to buy one album. As my expenses stay more or less the same (except bandwith) as the number of interested people increase and a LOT of expenses are gone by default I dont have to charge $15 for one album (or 150 for them all) but $25 for all of it. I think it's already a lot more reasonably and realistic, and it would go a long way towards paying the rent. As for digital pirates: I dont care. Yes, people can take it, and probably will. What's the difference with any other profession? There's not much stopping me from going to my neighbour, slitting his throat and taking his HD-TV except for a sense of decency. I dont expect the whole world to be filled with decent people but I have good hope that I will be able to get my act together enough so that worldwide 500 decent people will like my music.

The advantages for me are numerous: I can release material much more directly, I have full control over every aspect (so no lame 'the font used for the album title needs to be this big' etc), I'm not stuck to physical media restrictions (either lenght, audio quality etc) and mostly: I can offer it much cheaper then through regular distribution. I've been in contact with an aggregator to get my Big Thing on Itunes as digital download. The thing is they apparantly dont get that albums can be larger then 74 minutes so according to Itunes a decent download price (non-changable!) for my album would be 5x$10. That's retarded, prices like that will prevent a lot of people from being able to legally listen to my music. Some very generous people here pre-ordered my first album, which lasts one hour. At the end of the day I'll probably generate more income then I ever did with anything else yet I will turn little or no profit at all. That's messed up, so either people should pay me more (which is something I oppose, music is already too expensive IMHO) or others should leech less of me.

So basically all I'm trying to do is find a way to release a lot of material, as I see fit, for as cheap a price as possible while being able to pay the rent. Ideally I'd be able to eventually bypass the regular distribution system completely, I dont need much to live a happy life but freedom is a big one. Thanks for thinking with me folks!

Hey, Ignar...please excuse the foreshortening of your post, but:
I have full control over every aspect

No you won't.

Cat

And why is that, Cat? Anything I'm grossly overlooking/underestimating?

I need to say something, but I only have time to put it in short ideas. that isn't fair.
the internet today is like the Wild West back in the 1800's in America. new law, no rules and tons of freedom.
music/artist/ commerce is experiencing very new territory. some major store in NYC just dropped carrying CD's, saying the medium is passe and outdated.
ones and o's. digital. (did you know Ry Cooder, back in the late seventies early eighties, recorded the first digital album,'Bop to You Drop").
Arjen is making forays into the new territory. it has to be tough. even as digital music is exploding the old rules of the music game seem to yet apply. that rule book has to be tossed in order for Arjen to make a living from his idea.
as yet, I think one needs a 'day job' to keep the Muse end of things happy.
I don't have any answers yet.
I think the question is still be formed because this is such new ground.

Dog, the 'day job' thing is something I'm considering. In the Netherlands we have a law called something like the 'Artist Work and Income Law'. It states that if you consider yourself an artist (whether it's music, dance, film/animation, visual arts, whatever) you can apply for government support. They'll then check if you meet the criteria, mostly whether you managed to earn atleast E1200,- in the previous year with art-related activities and if you play an active role in the national art community (basically if there's something for people to hear/see and if the press writes about it). If you do they'll financially support you for up to four years as long as your art-related income increases every year. It's not a whole lot of money, 30% less then what a regular unemployed person gets (whis is already quite tight), but you'll be allowed to focus on your work without being forced to actively seek a proper job. I'm considering going this way, it'll be four years of water and bread but it gives me four years to get things going and become financially self-sustaining (and start paying inccome tax to re-compensate the state for the support).

Come to think of it, if things ever get rough on your end just get yourself a Dutch passport and come chill out over here. :D

Hi,

The internet has opened up great new opportunities for delivery, but the major tasks remain the same - 1) Finding a market. I.e getting the material known, publicised, and actually desired by somebody and then 2) Working out a way of getting them to pay for it.

This might sound easy, but it's not. There are zillions of established artists and wannabes with some kind of net presence, both with and without talent, with new ones added every hour. They'd all like the punters to pay them some money to listen to their stuff. Heck, most of them would be happy to be listened to at all. Professional careers are not built simply by playing music, however well. There's a long chain of people between the artist and the CD shop, who all play a part in promoting the artist's work. Taking away the CD doesn't remove the necessity for all the other people who help turn a few songs into something resembling a paying career. Just making the music 'available' isn't enough, because there's an ocean of the stuff available. One way or another it has to be sold, and a paying following cultivated.

The idea of annual subscriptions is neither particularly good or bad - it's how well you can sell it to people that matters. You either have to develop some marketing and promotional skills and flair yourself, or you have to hire people to do it. And it helps to be producing something that people want to hear, in a format that suits them. For instance, there are very good reasons why most popular music tends to have a certain length range. The market for concerto or symphony length material is undoubtedly quite small compare to a 3 minute pop song. Who has the time or interest in concentrating that long now?

I think you could probably have as much control as you want, but if you really want total control the cost may be impractical to pay. All the best with steering a course that suits you though.

Cheers,

Chris

Gidday, all...you too, Ignar.

Yes...you ARE missing some things. At your age you are obviously talented enough to start worrying about "your financial future" right now. Me? I was a dumb hippy and didn't care about that sort of stuff..JUST like you....until years later when I wish that I had! I lost MILLIONS to crooks and the BIGGEST crook of all: The Internal Revenue Service! I NEVER thought that what I played and what I wrote and where I gigged would make me that much money. I still spin over what happened to me.

At your age I was as content as you seem to be...for the moment...to "live like a freakin' chipmonk"! It wears thin, believe me. Give it time. At your age I was living at the foot of Owl Head Buttes (north of Tucson) in a parachute...doing session work in town. I was eating rattlesnake, porcupine, and prickly pear. When it rained...it was terrible. When it was 110 it was awful. I had holes in my clothes and my '59 F-100 only got going after a good push down the road.

Actually...weren't the first posts between us associated with "looking out for the tax guy"???

Lemme say that spending Aussie winters in The Whitsunday Islands on a Nautor Swan is MORE than it's cranked up to be! Sure, an occasional guitar starts to ooze green schmutz...but now I can pay to get that fixed! But "where I've been" has still stayed with me. Only a week ago I "went off me nut" when my wife brought home some plastic drinking glasses! :lol:

Nah! Ignar...go for it!

Cat

I am reading "Shakey" , Neil Young's biography. my conclusion so far is that the music business is ruthless, crazy, and watch your back.
I believe Cat has been testifying that . wow.

The artist can only get ripped off iff. his music is used in a manner to which he has not agreed. If an artist goes the subscription route and e.g. gives permission for their tunes to be redistributed or reused in any way by the subscriber, and is happy to make this concession, then the artist is not being ripped off. Not saying the artist should do this, but let's be accurate about what "ripped off" actually constitutes. This isn't an absolute concept, it's a subjective one. An example - I gave clear instructions on how to perform a song I wrote to babydoclaz on this forum and said I'd be honoured if she wanted to perform it any time. Now, should she get the opportunity to perform my song at the Grammys, I have not been ripped off since this falls under the agreement I entered into. I seriously doubt the folk at the Grammys will call, but in our hypothetical situation, I'd have no legitimate basis upon which to argue about that performance. If I'd said "you can perform it, but only in private", then I'd have been ripped off. Especially if it involves a duet with Justin Timberlake, but that's OT....

If an artist goes the subscription route, yes some people will undoubtedly share the files they've subscribed for. But if an artist goes the major label route, that will happen to them also. Actually, if anything, I'd argue it more likely to happen to the major label artist, since most people who share files in this way rationalize it (at least in part) by the large share of profits and power held by the recording industry (by which I mean record labels and publishing houses). Many people who download hundreds of (insert your own currency here)'s worth of music would feel a stronger moral culpability about sneaking in to see a local band perform for free, than they would about downloading the latest pussycat dolls album for their kid sister, as they are often inclined to support struggling musos. (this argument is based mainly on personal observation). when Radiohead allowed fans to choose how much to pay for their In Rainbows album, many downloaded for 1 penny (no doubt including many who wouldn't normally have bought a Radiohead alb), but many also paid a fair or reasonable price for it. It simply defies recorded fact to suppose that all people always put personal profit (in this case, saving a few quid on the Radiohead album) above all other motives. Sorry, but that kind of argument just doesn't wash.

Further, it isn't really justified to dismiss a new scheme because it is as equally open to corruption as the present one. If it was touted solely (or primarily) as a way to stop piracy, then sure, kick the hell out of the proposal. But if it offers other tangible benefits (such as greater productivity, creativity, and dedication to the craft), then provided it isn't more susceptible to corruption than the present scheme, knocking that aspect is a bit of a straw man line of thinking. A counterargument would have to also question the plausibility of these other possible benefits in order for it to have any real force.

I think it is fair to say that, were this scheme adopted across the music industry, some acts would put out a lot of crap, filler, and noodling. Those acts wouldn't survive. I think it also fair to say that, generally, acts are constrained in their creative choices by record companies, chart sales and whatnot. With this scheme, a quality act could potentially put out one album of commercial(ish) tunes and one or several more experimental works per year, and devote themselves equally to each project. The release of archive material from many major artists usually demonstrates why those archives became archives collecting dust, rather than massively influential albums or singles. But that doesn't mean that under Ignar's proposed scheme this would continue to be the case. Under the current framework, artists are pressured to focus on their more commercially viable work, so the archive stuff hasn't been given nearly as much attention, and a lot of it gets forgotten once an album track list has been finalised. The industry framework goes some way to explaining why those "lost tapes" ended up lost in the first place. A change in the industry framework would arguably result in a change in the material produced. Maybe there'd still be a fair amount of filler and crap, but maybe there'd be less filler and crap than currently sits in EMI's vaults (and others). So, arguing that it isn't worth subscribing to get more material than is currently released by artist X because the unreleased stuff is crap also doesn't fly. The crapness is, at least in part, by virtue of the system Ignar is proposing an alternative to. How much of an improvement (and whether this is achieved in the short-term or the long-term) under his scheme is open for debate. But to simply dismiss the effects the business of music has over the creation of music is just shoddy arguing.

Personally, I think some artists I like could respond well to a scheme like this. And I'm optimistic enough to give it a punt, should it ever be implemented. Jeff Beck might well release some smoking stuff. Or he might go off and build hot rods. I'll take that chance. And I would with a few others, too. No offence to Ignar here, as I really like his music and enjoy watching his progress as he continues to compose, but I'm reluctant to buy his new album. Why? It isn't to do with musical quality, as I rate it highly and have a great respect for him. It's just that my current funds are severely limited and, when I can obtain music for free (and have an impressive collection of bought and paid for music as it is), buying new albums falls rather low on my list of things to spend on. Sorry Ignar, but I value my daily bread and water a little higher than getting your album on the day of release. However, I'd definitely be way more inclined to invest in his work under a scheme like this. I'm guessing I'm not the only to have faced this dilemma when it comes to a new album they want to get. As for the security of the scheme, I think it just as susceptible to piracy as any other, but possibly less so, since it removes some of the frustration consumers feel with the music industry and thus removes some of the motivation/rationalisation for piracy. In short, I'm not comfortable with writing off the potential for good in humanity just because the current conditions aren't the most conducive to nurturing that good, and I'm willing to try new ways of doing things if it can benefit artists and consumers. Hardly revolutionary, I think the technical term for it is that liberal paradigm of "progress".

It all boils down to the simplest of realities: is stealing right or wrong???

Cat

It's not all about stealing. It's also about whether you can interest someone enough to put out the moolah to hear your "experiments." I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't "steal" it, either. And as I said, I don't know of anyone at present that I'm interested in enough to pay ahead to subscribe to whatever they come up with. This is something for established hard core fans of an artist. You've got to have a rabid fan base before this'll work.

this mode of distribution doesn't make it any easier or harder to steal music than the mode of distribution in place in the industry at the moment. It's a redundant argument in assessing the merits (or flaws) of this proposal.