#1782632 - 07/16/07 05:26 PM
EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
|
Amall Gib
Member
Registered: 07/16/07
Posts: 5
Loc: Michigan
|
Offline
|
|
I can't believe that EQ would actually publish something like the "DRM Manifesto" (July '07). I can't verify the credibility of "Moses Avalon", because it turns out there is no such person (apparently i'm the only person on the web who wasn't already aware of this). I've got some questions and comments that i guess would be directed to Craig Anderton and/or Matt Harper. If you could even respond to *some* of these, that would be cool.
1. I thought i was fairly familiar with internet radio fighting it out with the RIAA over royalty rates for webcasting. I don't understand how the Copyright Royalty Board's decision to adopt the royalty rates put forth by SoundExchange ties in with EMI's decision to offer DRM-free downloads on iTunes. Please explain this to me.
2. In what capacity does the major label system serve as a "filter" saving me time toward discovering new, good music?
3. I have definitely benefited from advances in technology, including being given new choices in how to create, record, and distribute my own music and that of others. In what way(s) are we "diluting the musical pool"? (i can't begin to express how offended i am by such a statement)
4. You say "the technological world and the world most commercial musicians reside in are at war." You then go on to define these two worlds as A. hardware and software manufacturers & ISPs, and B. the four major record/publishing companies.
Please explain how Steinberg, Millennia, Pace, fxpansion, Yamaha and Digidesign are at war with most commercial musicians. If EQ Magazine is going to spend two pages warning me about the enemy, i'd prefer a better description than "the Tech Masters".
5. You say that the "tech masters" use pop music as loss leader to attract new consumers and i obviously wouldn't disagree with you. Is this part of a greater warning, or just limited to ISPs, Steve Jobs and Hewlett Packard?
Last time i turned on the TV i thought i saw commercials that had... music playing. Even the TV shows themselves have music playing. Come to think of it more and more of the movies i've seen lately have had some type of music playing. It's almost as if there's this whole "music industry" where people get paid to write, perform, record, mix, master and distribute... music. Since i'm a musician *and* an engineer *and* a consumer; how do i know if i'm providing/being provided a valuable service or just exploiting/being exploited?
6. EQ states that downloads have a much narrower profit margin than CDs. What data do you base this statement on? Please post your breakdown of cost per MP3 (packaging, distribution, breakage, etc.).
7. Comment: In my mind the RIAA isn't "humanized". I *do* believe that the record companies are too dumb and greedy to see the "logical" path for the future. I thought that my opinions were based upon the RIAA putting cash in the pockets of our government for years and years in order to get favorable legislation passed. I thought it was all of the lawsuits and running to avoid technology (while wearing blinders). I thought it was based on their ridiculous lawsuits brought against internet-illiterate parents. I thought it was crying about being exploited by terrestrial radio and then being found guilty of collusion and payola. And yes, i have noticed the "attempts at musical monopolization". But you're telling me it's the "tech masters" who have succeeded in brainwashing me? They're doing a really good job.
8. EQ Magazine states that the Tech Industry (you know, the ones trying to screw us all over) grosses about $160 billion a year. How are you arriving at this number; i'm curious as to who you would include in the "tech industry". I'm not kidding here: if EQ responds to one single part of this post, i want it to be the source(s) from which this number is arrived at. Should this be our new "enemies list"?
9. Comment: Illegal P2P file-sharing does NOT exist in the first place *because* of Steve Jobs or the head of any other company. A *legal* protocol (several actually) is and was used to do something *illegal* by many people of their own free will. When i was a kid i knew somebody who would steal Matchbox cars from Kmart – i never once blamed Levi's (the pants he carried them out in).
10. Comment: You state as "fact" that the major labels are the "banks" of our industry. For "Moses Avalon" i would assume that statement to be correct. For many readers of EQ i'm sure that statement is correct. But to imply that the "music industry" is limited to those receiving royalty checks and/or those who can claim membership in small circles of people who absolutely make their money off the majors is ludicrous.
The music industry as i see it also includes the millions of musicians around the world who use a USB microphone, Tracktion, and MySpace to get their art produced and distributed without any interference ("filtering"?) from the major labels. It includes the millions of music-lovers who benefit from this addition to the "musical pool". I too think that Steve Jobs is a tool, but i have yet to hear of anybody getting screwed in their contract with iTunes.
Amazing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1783590 - 07/18/07 12:58 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: Amall Gib]
|
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 11855
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
The music industry as i see it also includes the millions of musicians around the world who use a USB microphone, Tracktion, and MySpace to get their art produced and distributed without any interference ("filtering"?) from the major labels. It includes the millions of music-lovers who benefit from this addition to the "musical pool". I too think that Steve Jobs is a tool, but i have yet to hear of anybody getting screwed in their contract with iTunes.
Yes...millions and millions and millions...(right on Carl Sagan  )….
Seems like everyone with a $49 microphone and a free copy of some "DAW" is automatically an "artist" posting up tons of "music" they "created" in the privacy of their bedrooms/basements.
Mind you...I have nothing against freedom of expression and allowing people to create what they feel is "art" (in whatever environment they can).
But....when there are so many millions of people posting up every note…every noise…every "effort"...
...yeah, that is SERIOUS dilution of the music pool.
Like...how many millions of years would it take you or me or anyone to sift through all that “stuff”…? 
The reality is that while millions and millions now have the ability to post/promote their music on the Internet...very little of it actually sees the light of day, and most of it is nothing more than personal vanity/ego…disguised as "art".
Yeah..."in the old days"...a song…an artist had to get past several people before even being considered.
Sure...some good music got tossed by the wayside...and yeah, some lousy music also managed to sneak by.
But...the millions and millions and millions of postings that you now find on the Internet...
…well, it really does need to be filtered, otherwise, the majority of that “stuff” will NEVER get heard by any greater audience. 
The general public has always wanted someone else to tell them what is good, what is fashion, what is art.
At one time, you had to be well trained or properly schooled in art…and/or you had to truly exhibit some serious talent to even be considered an artist.
The Internet has completely removed any prequalification.
Imagine if during the Renaissance…we had the Internet….
Everyone would have been an artist…a painter…and the sheer volume of “art” would have suffocated the really true gems that existed. That are now worshiped and coveted.
As I complete my current album project...even though I have the website thing going, and the MySpace (and other) "outlets" set up...and I plan to give it a big Internet push…
...I honestly believe that MY music...has less chance of ever getting anywhere under this "open", Internet system…than it would have following the "old school" way of working through the proper channels and accepting the “filters” of the day.
At least if you got past the “filters”…you stood some chance of really making it.
As it is now….amidst the millions and millions and millions of new “artists” on the Internet…there is actually less chance of making it (if you have any desire to make it at all). If you just want to use the Internet as a depository where some wanderers can stumble upon your music…then don’t worry about any of this.
Just post away.
The same as the record company reps have piles and piles of unsolicited music sent to them every day...music they will NEVER listen to...
...the Internet only compounds that reality a hundred fold…for all of us.
The “free” Internet really helps NOTHING towards properly exploiting YOUR music in any substantial way. It’s no more interesting or accessible to people than some bit of graffiti on a construction wall site wall that you see for 10 seconds while passing by….
The worst thing for artists who are looking to sell THEIR art…is this new trend of removing copy protection and/or just tossing music on the Internet for anyone to grab.
I agree with “Moses Avalon”:
…they will eventually turn pop music into the free toy at the bottom of their proverbial cereal box.
Heck…it’s already happening.
Music has lost most of it’s value that it had 30-40-50 years ago…and every day it transitions more and more in to being nothing more than “background noise” that we hear (not listen to) while we multitask our way through our lives. 
Yup…that is serious dilution of the music pool…IMO.
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1783748 - 07/18/07 06:00 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: miroslav]
|
Amall Gib
Member
Registered: 07/16/07
Posts: 5
Loc: Michigan
|
|
Offline
|
|
Yea i do know of people who actually follow links and email each other about music they find on MySpace (acoustic & indie rock, mostly). Even if i had the time i certainly wouldn't have the patience. But these people, some of them non-musicians, are constantly turning me (and each other) on to cool new stuff. This is my main filter.
A couple of years ago i kept hearing all these totally cool tunes coming from my wife's laptop as she sat on the couch "working from home". Like, it would be something that sounded like a cross between the Hellacopters and Fishbone, then something along the lines of the Smiths. She was killing me finding all this cool new stuff and you know how she "found" it? She would tag songs as *favorites* and then similar songs would be automatically programmed in by her radio station (probably Yahoo music).
Amazon has been doing this for years ala "Customers who bought This Is Spinal Tap also bought: Still Crazy, The Rutles, Get Crazy and Phantom Of The Paradise..."
In fact, my wife turned me on to Corinne Bailey Rae *way* before i started hearing her on the radio.
Believe me, plenty of money is already being spent on utilizing advanced data-mining algorithms in search of a great music search engine. Here is one example (imo a *decent* example):
http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-28_search_inside_music.html
As a "filtering mechanism" the major labels haven't done anything that could compare to the above. If i ever did see a commercial on TV promoting an artist i guarantee it would be someone everbody already knew about (Celine Dion). The only filtering the majors have ever done for me personally is in making a ton of great music difficult to discover.
Yeah..."in the old days"...a song…an artist had to get past several people before even being considered.
Sure...some good music got tossed by the wayside...
How do you know? Did you come across something on MySpace recently?
and yeah, some lousy music also managed to sneak by.
Yea, nobody noticed the Backstreet Boys OR N'Sync - barely heard a word about them until it was too late i guess.
The general public has always wanted someone else to tell them what is good, what is fashion, what is art.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that this is a good thing? And if so, how does this affect me beyond what is made available to me as a consequence of what the general public has determined is "good"?
In 2002, Kind of Blue went triple platinum. It took 43 years for that to happen. Here are some other artists that've seen that number: Justin Timberlake, Hanson, Poison, Ricky Martin...
Let me guess; you're gonna tell me "well, the system's not perfect". And if the system you're talking about is the *general public*, i'll go ahead and agree with you.
Look at bands like Budgie and Smack and the influence they have had on SO MANY diverse and influential musicians (Jimmy Paige, Curt Cobain). The general public had/has no clue who those bands are/were; would you say those bands diluted anything, or can we now agree that it's really about perspective?
At one time, you had to be well trained or properly schooled in art…and/or you had to truly exhibit some serious talent to even be considered an artist.
I don't want to seem sarcastic here, and believe me, i LOVE Elvis Presley *and* KISS, but...
Cher, Michael Bolton, The Spice Girls... I mean we *are* talking about music and/or art here, right? Not hair, sex appeal, killer stage shows? Ask Mike Stern what he thinks about Kenny G and the general public.
At *what* time exactly in the history of recorded music did you have to be "considered an artist" in order to be taken seriously and/or get your songs on the radio, your records sold, or an audience to pay to see you perform live? Who was doing this considering? I understand that this happened with the labels, but it certainly *is not* the only way things worked before the internet.
Making any kind of an argument for or against something being considered "art" is a cat's game and you know this. It's all relative. I will never EVER be able to convince my wife that the Flight Of Icarus is anything but ridiculous; yet she *won't* turn the dial if Naughty Naughty comes on? Both songs are fairly stupid, but that doesn't make them any less 'valid' (can't think of a better word) for all of the people who enjoyed them while growing up (or who refuse to turn the dial on them now!).
You're being diluted?
Let's assume you've done (and are doing) stuff strictly for *others* (musical talent or engineer). Let's assume you're also doing stuff for *yourself* (as the same). Let's also assume that you are both "properly schooled" *and* that you exhibit some serious performance/writing/freq'ing talent.
You produce and put forth your wares. Are you getting the numbers you want? Could things be better? Are people finding you and if not why? Of the people who do find you, is this not translating into sales, and why not?
It could be that you're doing something wrong (or could simply do something *more*). If that's the case, that's *your* fault; it's not another artist diluting you.
On the other hand, it could be that part (or all) of the reason people aren't finding you and/or paying you in the numbers that you expect (or desire) is because other musicians are offering their wares in the same places you are, and therefore you're taking a hit.
Let's assume that the latter is the deal (as you state clearly you think it is). You can say all you want regarding the legitimacy of those "artists" who are stealing your thunder (or however you want to word it), but the fact remains you feel "diluted".
So, is it that these other artists are more properly schooled than you? Do they exhibit a greater talent than yours? Remember, ultimately you're being judged by the general public who basically make up their own minds as to what is "good" and what is "art".
If all that other music sucks then you're obviously doing something very wrong. But the general public is choosing that other stuff over yours – and so per your argument *you're* diluting the pool. I mean you'd at least have to admit that for everyone who has more talent, experience, school, whatever... you are absolutely diluting their pool., right? Somebody's always diluting somebody else's pool i guess.
I have no reason to doubt that you probably are a talented guy and i *sincerely* wish you the absolute best of luck with whatever you're working on (i'll go and check it out).
However, there are at LEAST as many people (probably billions and billions ) that are your peers who could say the exact opposite regarding *their* opportunities under the "old school" system versus their opportunities using DIY production & promote/distribute via the internet methods.
You say that you believe that "pop music will turn into the free toy" and i say we've been there since before the internet and mp3s. Sometimes music is an "art" and sometimes it's a *product* and sometimes it's both. I recently heard You're Gonna Miss Me (13th Floor Elevators) on a commercial and i think that sucks (as a fan) but i also understand that whoever owned the rights wanted to make some money and that's the way it goes; record companies and writers have been in it to earn a profit from the get-go and i don't hold that against them.
Are you saying that music *hasn't* always been used to sell things in addition to the records themselves? Cars, cola, clothes, movies/tv, books (Moses Avalon).
To blame it on the internet, or on people offering music for free, or on mp3 manufacturers is something i disagree with.
People that are giving their music away for free are not in the same pool as you. Comparing yourself to them seems like kindof a weird argument to me. I mean if your gig was VO then you'd be in the VO pool, or if you were doing solo acoustic stuff then that'd be your pool. Not sure what type of music you're working on right now, but if it's NOT along the lines of Hayseed Dixie then i don't think any amount of free mp3s posted by them would have any affect on what you're doing, negative or positive.
I've obviously seen many of your other posts and i know you're a passionate guy about lots of stuff. Anyway i just wanted to say that even though we disagree on this one, i'm not trying to be confrontational so i hope there's no hard feelings. I seriously just can't believe that EQ would post the Avalon thing.
But isn't it ironic (and hopefully a bit humorous) that i would post this *here* instead of at HC *because* i knew the chances of it actually being read by somebody other than the "yea me too" or the "screw you for asking" crowd would be greater? Yes, i'll admit it; this post would've been *diluted* over there! hehe
amall
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1783796 - 07/18/07 08:34 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: Amall Gib]
|
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 11855
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
I would like to know what real opportunities these billions of new artists are actually seeing on MySpace and similar outlets?
How much are they REALLY being "discovered" by any large audience…???
I think in most cases…when music is posted on the Internet (especially for free)…the creator has little knowledge of his audience’s size, or of his true potential.
It’s just a lot of 0’s and 1’s floating around on the Information Super Highway…
And the reality is that most of those artists would LOVE to be discovered by a major label…one of the exact labels that many of those same artists pooh-pooh while waiting to be discovered.
No one is preventing anyone from freely giving away his or her art if that’s what they want to do.
But…why do those decisions have to directly/indirectly impact artists who like getting paid a fair royalty rate and who do not want their music copied/duplicated for free by millions of people and have their copyrights pissed on....?
With this current push to further devalue music and to remove copy protection schemes…those artists looking to sell their music on a grander scale, have less and less incentive to do so.
And…for the millions of new artists who ARE looking for legitimate exploitation/sales of their art…when their presence on the Internet becomes just one small drop in an ocean of new music…well, that’s a pretty diluted pool!
It almost doesn’t matter how “good” or “bad” that music is…because the shear volume will prevent most of it from ever being truly discovered.
Sure…having millions and millions of new offerings to tap into and download may be great for the listener…but what’s that do for the millions of artists who would like some kind of real compensation…and who will probably be lucky to just sell a few CDs on the Internet, but nothing much to really live off of or call a career…?
I’m sure that 9 out of 10 people that say they are NOT interested in any real financial success from their art…are only hedging their bets because they don’t believe they ever will see any real financial success…
...they know they are just a drop in the ever growing ocean called The Internet.
The only people making any real money off of the millions of new artists posting tons of new music on the Internet every day…are the websites and the advertisers…
…the Yahoo, MySpace, YouTube…etc
And so it’s no surprise they will try and lead the surfer/listener towards more “great new music”.
They want you coming back to their websites…that’s how THEY are making money.
So…you’re just trading “Sony Records” for “Yahoo”…
I would rather have some major record label exploiting/selling my music…than a Yahoo or MySpace…etc.
A least with a real major record company…there is the possibility of serious music success, and not just ending up as a briefly memorable (usually forgettable) hyperlink on some website that a bunch of kids click through every day…among the millions and millions and millions of other hyperlinks popping up every day.
Yup…that’d one diluted music pool…. 
Edited by miroslav (07/18/07 08:39 PM)
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1783982 - 07/19/07 08:53 AM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: miroslav]
|
Amall Gib
Member
Registered: 07/16/07
Posts: 5
Loc: Michigan
|
|
Offline
|
|
So your point really comes down to "i'd have a better chance if there were less competition" and you're just bitching about it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1784030 - 07/19/07 10:51 AM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: Amall Gib]
|
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 11855
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Nope...that's just how you're choosing to read it, and I didn’t expect anything more, as you obviously have your perspective already chiseled out.
If the so called “competition” you talk about actually allowed each and every artist/song on the Internet to be heard by whoever(?) was judging that “competition”…I have no doubt that the right cream WOULD float to the top.
And as far as my own music…I feel it would have a pretty good shot, as I do spend a good amount of time crafting my songs, and it’s not just something I throw together and post up to satisfy my vanity.
But…the Internet approach you praise so much…has NO real system for judging who is good and who is not. It’s all about the lowest common denominator.
How many “friends” you can get to sign up on your page.
Yeah, right…”friends”….
It’s all just a lot of “stuff” that is posted like so many business cards and hand-written ads that you find on car-wash bulletin boards.
Often stacked 3-4 layers deep…and no one ever bothering to sift through it all…they just skim over the topmost layer as they pass buy.
THAT is exactly what you have with Internet music “promotion” done by individuals who think the Internet will somehow give them a better shot at the brass ring than any real record company could (so lets do away with the record co’s!!!) ….
There is really NO possible way for ANYONE to sift through millions and millions of those “creative offerings”….to REALLY discern how much of it all is good and how much is bad.
So…there is NEVER any real competition.
It’s mostly just random stumbles that turn up something decent…though too often you turn up crap.
There are millions of half-baked demos that were done very poorly, in a hurry, by people who have little understanding about the writing/arranging/recording process….they just think it’s cool that with a couple of gadgets…they can produce “music”……YIPPEE!!!
And many believe that the technology will actually improve or hide their lack of talent.
And that approach is MUCH worse than expecting/waiting for some A&R rep at a major label to review a pile of CDs and pull out the ones he/she really likes enough to push further…music that actually HAS some potential.
While there has been garbage music promoted by the majors…it is nowhere near in quantity to the amount of great music that the majors have churned out…and no where near the amount of crap that is floating around on the Internet right now…
…in that huge music pool.
Oh…and while I don’t personally care for some of the offerings put forth by the majors…like the “Britney Spears” type of offerings….
…the reality that you seem to have a problem with is that millions of fans DO exist and DO buy that type of music OVER stuff that you might consider is “better”.
Hey…the record companies are not ramming anything down anyone’s throat.
If an artist manages to churn out one platinum record after another…there’s gotta’ be some appeal that is acceptable to a very large audience.
You may not like it…but it’s there.
Since you obviously can't answer the questions in bold in my previous post (and I really didn’t expect you could, as NO ONE has any real answer)…I can only come to the conclusion that you too are expecting technology to deliver you and your art.
Well…best of luck to you.
I’m sure if your music is really good….someone may stumble across it one day amongst the millions and millions and millions of other hyperlinks…
Edited by miroslav (07/19/07 10:56 AM)
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1784255 - 07/19/07 08:42 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: miroslav]
|
Amall Gib
Member
Registered: 07/16/07
Posts: 5
Loc: Michigan
|
|
Offline
|
|
I thought my one sentence response was appropriate given what you'd written. It appears to me a familiar thing: Mastering engineers bitching about the use of hardware/software "mastering" devices; original bands bitching about the popularity of cover bands; large studios bitching about all of the pre and post being done at smaller facilities (or at home)... I'm old enough to remember all of the UNIX & AS/400 people bitching about how horribly bad things would be with users being able to control their own computers as OS6 and Win3.x were being bundled with stand-alone machines. Their message was a theme and it went like this:
"This is not what i am used to; it may make things better for a large number of people but i am not a part of that group – therefore, progress blows."
There are a whole bunch of things that you didn't respond to, but that's probably my fault as i hadn't properly bolded my font. I'll go ahead and address your previous (bolded) question first.
I of course can't speak to the actual (or estimated) number of artists with a presence on the web. I certainly have no method by which to put forth a summary of their own perceived satisfaction and/or "successes" (however they measure it) with regard to any audience they may be getting. The best i could do toward this end is start listing the things i personally know of (Janis Ian), but that's obviously not practical.
Based on all that you've said, you don't spend time searching for new music on the web (or have thus far been unsuccessful). By what metric do you measure the amount of illegitimate non-art ego-centric stuff in your end of the pool? Is this negative affect on you limited to the places where you have an internet presence, or is it everything everywhere?
There are a considerable number of people out there who for whatever reason (fame, money, self-satisfaction/promotion, ego, hobby, for free & for ca$h) are able to get their stuff produced and distributed BECAUSE they are facilitated by technology (hardware, software and the internet). My best guess as to the number of these would be as good as anybody's guess. But you would have to agree that everything i just said is true: even the number of people doing this is "considerably large" (enough for you to say it's affecting you personally in a negative way).
I'll use your number here - just give it to me: How much of that other stuff out there do you think is unworthy of getting a recording contract with the majors? Give me a percentage. THAT is one huge group of people who back in the 80's would've been extremely hard-pressed to get something produced (let alone self-produced) using a 57 and a 4-track rental. And if they wouldn’t have gotten signed anyway, what would be their distribution method? Kmart wouldn’t be able to stock them then; but iTunes has no problem with that now.
Even if you are unaware that there are thriving music scenes out there (live and studio-only) you can't sit there and tell me you really don't see the opportunity for these people. Come on.
Your problem is that you don't think those people should *have* the opportunity. I think the filter *you're* really looking for is this: 1. Scan the internet and identify everything that you personally find no artistic and/or commercial value in. 2. Disallow its availability throughout the entire internet.
And if something's not "valid" for you as a *consumer*, that's fine; don't listen/purchase. But as an artist, to lay blame for your lack of success at the door of *everyone else*?? [that smiley-face thumbs-up icon is never around when you need it]
Do you think that if you could go through and start removing MySpace (or whatever) artists that you'd sell more records or be more likely to get picked up by a major? If 'yes'; what do you base this on?
IMO, your "pool" isn't everything everywhere at all times on the internet. Your pool is the type of music you're producing and it's limited to where you're making it available (and/or promoting it) and it is absolutely limited to ONLY those who would pay for it in the first place, whether you are signed or not.
McDonalds might lose a sale to Burger King because some guy wanted a burger that day and BK was easier to pull into, but that has no affect on the KFC sitting right next door. (and as a consumer, i'd like to see the availability of TacoBell in this same pool)
If you really believe that jazz flutists are suffering significant monetary losses to garage metal bands then i can see why you feel the way you do about the internet's population of musicians. We agree to disagree on this one.
You're very passionate in your defense of "legitimate exploitation/sales" (nice, i especially liked that one) & copyright holders. Here's an opposing viewpoint from somebody extremely well-respected (unlike me):
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
Read that and then come back and tell me nobody's (true "artists") making money and/or boosting sales through the use of downloads (yes, even free downloads). Read it and tell me that somebody who holds copyright claim (to some fairly legendary work) is being screwed by the same.
"...you're just trading Sony Records for Yahoo" is slightly more analogous than your "what if there had been internet during the renaissance?" thing, but it's still ridiculous in my opinion. I'll give you that Sony and YahooMusic are both corporations whose business models are centered around exploitation of (usually original) music for the purpose of turning as large a profit as possible (whether through advertising or licensing or any means available).
Most download service providers make their cash from ad revenue (ala EQ Magazine). iTunes of course also sells ipods.
With the exception of on-site promotion and a few other things (accounting, statistics, etc) they are basically nothing more than large non-discriminatory distribution service providers of a single form of audio (mp3s). Sony Records and Yahoo are diametrically opposed in their methods and relationship with artists: isn't that point paramount to your argument against internet availability of music for all (as opposed to just *some*) versus the old-school way of getting signed?
Oh…and while I don’t personally care for some of the offerings put forth by the majors…like the “Britney Spears” type of offerings….
…the reality that you seem to have a problem with is that millions of fans DO exist and DO buy that type of music OVER stuff that you might consider is “better”.
Hey…the record companies are not ramming anything down anyone’s throat.
If an artist manages to churn out one platinum record after another…there’s gotta’ be some appeal that is acceptable to a very large audience.
You may not like it…but it’s there.
Um, i don't think so. __Dude, *you're* the one who claimed the general public a valid protagonist (historically and presently) in support of your argument; you brought them into this, not me. Go back and read what you wrote.
You asserted that somehow it was better when the general public had a say in what was "good" and what was "art". All i did was to ask if you were serious and for further explanation, using the extremely ridiculous (n'sync, et al) as a snarky device.
And this is what you had to say about the general public and how great they are in your response to me: [insert tumble weeds here]
If it makes you feel better i'll state what i believe right now.
Yes i do understand that there are millions of consumers out there who by and large find Britney Spears a more desirable purchase than Alan Holdsworth.
I do believe that Alan Holdsworth is "better" than Britney Spears, but i would never consider her product OR her fans "invalid" just because i don't personally like it.
I cannot conceive that Alan might possibly be taking any kindof a hit because of Britney, even with all of the illegal and/or DRM-free legal Britney downloads available, because i don't believe they are in the same pool.
I do believe that those millions of Britney fans have an affect on some of what i might see on TV or at the movies or in the stores, but again, i don't believe those Britney fans have any affect on the crap i've posted on my website OR on the web-based sales of somebody like Janis Ian (for example).
millions of fans DO exist and DO buy that type of music OVER stuff that you might consider is “better”.
Hey…the record companies are not ramming anything down anyone’s throat.
If an artist manages to churn out one platinum record after another…there’s gotta’ be some appeal that is acceptable to a very large audience.
You may not like it…but it’s there.
I can't believe you actually said this. The irony in this contradiction is such that i can't imagine you reconciling it.
You're ok with the millions of consumers choosing for themselves, saying that the record companies aren't ramming this stuff down their throats. You're saying you're ok with an artist that YOU think is putting out "crap/garbage" (these are your words) being able to hit really high numbers. You offer that (i) "may not like it, but it's there"??
So is it that people buy all this crap to the detriment of your stuff because there's more crap to choose from? Which, you're ok with because "there's gotta' be some appeal..." and we "may not like it but it's there".
Or, is it that people buy all this crap to the detriment of your stuff because the people obviously choose for themselves what they want ("good/art")? Which you're also ok with because having the general public decide on their own is definitely better than having everybody with a USB mic putting out stuff on the internet.
Yea, i know; i wouldn't try to answer that either.
Maybe the numbers that Britney hits have far less of an affect on you than all of that other stuff on MySpace. You know the stuff i'm talking about; stuff that would: "take millions of years for anyone to sift through"; that "very little actually sees the light of day"; all of those small "drop(s) in a ocean of music"; those "briefly memorable (usually forgettable) hyperlinks"; the stuff that "no one ever bother(s) to sift through at all"... THAT's the stuff that's giving you such a hard time?!
You said:
The “free” Internet really helps NOTHING towards properly exploiting YOUR music in any substantial way. It’s no more interesting or accessible to people than some bit of graffiti on a construction wall site wall that you see for 10 seconds while passing by….
And so, when you say...
Well…best of luck to you.
I’m sure if your music is really good….someone may stumble across it one day amongst the millions and millions and millions of other hyperlinks…
... are you talking to *me*, or *you*?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1784489 - 07/20/07 10:34 AM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: Amall Gib]
|
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 11855
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Dude...you are now just spinning this thread off into outer space...and you are turning it into some personal dispute about *MY* music...which I did not initiate. You did so starting in your second post, first response to me.
As far as any *bitching*...it seems to me that's EXACTY what got you here in the first place! 
All I've done is tried to counter some of your bitching.
I have NO problem with using the Internet or with people that do…and I plan on using it to its fullest….it’s just one more tool in my quest to find a major label deal.
You on the other hand appear to want the majors to just go away…to die off.
I am saying that no one seems to really have any proof of just how much better this Internet “freeform” promo/distro method is….and/or how many new artists are actually getting their music heard by a *substantial audience*….AND…how many are really seeing any solid, sustained *sales-success* from it…????
You go on about how great the Internet model is over the major label approach…but you prove nothing.
I do not have to prove anything about the majors…as there are about 50 years worth of proof already. Lot’s of great albums and lot’s of very sales-successful artists.
And, you seem to be suggesting that just because a million new artists are *able* to sign up with a MySpace type website and toss out some songs and some bio/promo material on some web page…
…that somehow they’ve *succeeded* and achieved something substantial…???
Hey…a 9 year-old kid can set up a website these days….there’s nothing “major” about that.
My point is that while there may be millions and millions of people doing that…there is NO greater number of new/successful artists via the Internet approach as far as *real sales* are concerned.
Only a very small number have managed to see some real sale-success from their self-promoting artists...everyone always uses Ani DiFranco as their poster girl for self-promotion. And like her, in most cases, many of those artists already had a “foot in the door” before going that route.
I’m saying that 1.) the Internet does not guarantee any better sale-success than what you get with major label promotion/distribution (actually worse), and 2.) with the millions of new artists posting on the Internet, the chances for any ONE artist to push through and realize sale-success…is actually less now than what you get with the major label route.
How does any music lover manage to sift through the millions of new offerings in order to find all that is good?
All they might find, is SOME of it…so, you still end up with a lot of good artists never really getting heard by hardly anyone.
Just because it’s on the Internet…it doesn’t mean a large audience is actually listening to it.
Please PROVE me wrong.
And as far as my music habits and interests….you have NO CLUE as to what I listen to and what websites I go to…so how can you comment on that? 
You’re obviously just trying to stir things up by taking little personal shots, and also assuming that my responses about Internet promo/distro are based on some “inadequacy” I feel about my music.
Oh brother…how crass....
I’ve heard thousands of offerings on the Internet…and much of that stuff is actually total crap. And I probably have broader tastes and musical interests than most people do. I’ve been listening to music since the early 60’s…every style/genre to date…so my critiques are based on a solid and broad music appreciation foundation.
It’s not about “my pool”…it’s about what is out there in the total pool.
I’ve found good music on the Internet…I never denied that….I only say that there are a lot more tossed-together offerings than pro-level, well polished material with any large audience appeal.
But yeah…I know…the new trend is to NOT try and sound too pro/polished...and a lot of people say they intended for it to sound rough and lo-fi…
Yeah…right….whatever…
Now…since YOU are the one that came here to bitch about the DRM Manifesto and EQ’s decisions to publish it…
…I have yet to really hear your arguments against all that is stated in the DRM Manifesto. All you’ve done is asked the EQ editors to answer a bunch of questions to help you understand their position/reasons…but you have not proven in any way that “Moses Avalon” is wrong…or that Internet self-promotion/distribution is better than major label promotion/distribution…or that millions of new artists really ARE finding solid, sustained sale-success on the Internet doing it themselves.
And as offended as you seem to be about the “diluting the musical pool” remark they made (not sure why you felt it was addressed at YOU and YOUR music…?)…
…I also get a little bothered when I hear how crappy the major label offerings are and how many great new artists are out there who will never get a shot BECAUSE of the major labels…
… it’s just not true. 
Well…they’re all on the Internet now…the new, young lions… so let’s see how many really achieve sale-success doing it themselves just through a website or two….and NEVER tapping into any major label support.
Also…I do not wish to get into a personal confrontation with you…so don’t try so hard to turn this into a personal dispute about my music and how I feel about it.
Trust me….I have great confidence in my music, and I feel NONE of the frustration/disappointment with the major label approach that you seem to.
I just don’t see the Internet self-promotion/distribution approach as some cure-all that will provide a lot of new artists with any real sale-success.
But…I do see a lot of people happily clicking heals and keeping fingers crossed…
And if you do want to continue this…it might be easier to do it one-point at a time…so things don’t get lost in some spin-cycle.
I would love to see some other people give opinions on the DRM Manifesto and the Internet vs. Majors....it's a good/important debate topic...
...but if you continue turning this into a personal dispute...few will want to get involved.
Edited by miroslav (07/20/07 11:16 AM)
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1784541 - 07/20/07 12:05 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: miroslav]
|
Amall Gib
Member
Registered: 07/16/07
Posts: 5
Loc: Michigan
|
|
Offline
|
|
We're definitely having continuity issues.
You ask: "what real *opportunities* are available to artists through tech/inet?" I respond with obvious examples that we all know exist. You then tell me that it seems i'm suggesting that "because they're *able* to do it, they've somehow *succeeded*".
What i actually said was:
I of course can't speak to the actual (or estimated) number of artists with a presence on the web. I certainly have no method by which to put forth a summary of their own perceived satisfaction and/or "successes" (however they measure it) with regard to any audience they may be getting. The best i could do toward this end is start listing the things i personally know of (Janis Ian), but that's obviously not practical.
You go on and on about how bad the internet is for "legitimate" artists looking to make "real sales". You identify the cause: a completely open platform (facilitated by bedroom recording) – too many other people crowding the pool, etc etc. And then you say:
I have NO problem with using the Internet or with people that do
Look, sincerely (as in "swear to God"), if you feel i was taking "personal shots" at you because (i) "brought your music into this" and i have offended you in doing so... I offer you my apology for this. I always assume that when something is public (like posting opinions on a bbs) it's open for discussion, praise, and criticism.
But the thing is, imo just about everything we've discussed is absolutely centered around our music (yours, mine, and everybody else in the pool). So when you say...
and you are turning it into some personal dispute about *MY* music...which I did not initiate
... i can't take you seriously.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1784585 - 07/20/07 01:31 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: Amall Gib]
|
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 11855
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
OK...then don't me seriously. 
Yes...as aspiring artists, when we talk about promo/distro approaches we ARE always thinking about how it applies to our music.
But, you went on implying that maybe my views just stem from me feeling sorta’ disappointed about my chances because of all the other artists out there competing against me...and/or that maybe I’m sensing some kind of inadequacies about my music and so I’m looking for ways to limit my competition....
…yada, yada, yada...
THAT was a bit of a personal shot, IMO.
I don't recall saying or suggesting any of that which you were/are implying about me or my music.
The fact that I stated it's more difficult now than ever to break through and make it...applies to ALL new/aspiring artists...not just me and my music because I “can't cut it” or whatever you were alluding to...
So...if we can put that type of stuff aside...we can continue to debate.
And yes…I am reading your posts.
The Janis Ian comments and all that is after the fact, as you already seemed VERY opposed to the points made in the DRM Manifesto from your first post…and that plainly suggests to me that you feel the Internet approach rocks….and that the major label approach sucks.
Though interestingly enough…you never REALLY say one or the other…you just kinda’ stir the pot with ever new post. 
You never directly address any of the actual points in the DRM Manifesto.
Your views seem to be based on the assumption that the new Internet approach *WILL* be better than major label development/promotion and distribution.
Well…the Internet approach has been around for a good number of years now…and there are millions and millions and millions of “MySpace” pages out there with new material posted by the minute.
So…how many have really broken out and become major sales-successes via their home-made Internet promo/distro methods and without using ANY major label support…???
Come on…give me some kind of numbers.
If you or anyone can prove with numbers that Internet promo/distro is trumping major label efforts left and right…then I will happily accept it and agree that the major labels should go away.
And...you don’t seem to be reading my posts.
While I do feel that the Internet has little chance of trumping or providing major label-quality support for any serious sales-success…I can still say I have NO problem with ALSO using the Internet as just one more tool in my quest for major label support.
But you know…unsolicited material mailed to a record company is NO DIFFERENT than unsolicited material posted on the Internet.
Believe me…the major labels are NOT pulling stuff off the Internet any faster than they were pulling it out of the millions of submissions they got in the mail.
To me…the only real *extra* I get out of using the Internet is that it becomes a “share-point” that I can direct interested parties to for ease of viewing and listening to my music…BUT…I still believe that the interested parties HAVE to be major labels IF I hope to ever realize any kind of sale-success.
The millions of Napster-raised web surfers that are just looking for downloads and not really willing to pay a fair price for the music they are listening to…
…well, I truly do NOT expect them to generate a lot of sale-success for me.
And in fact, many are looking to turn Internet music into a totally free commodity.
Like “Moses Avalon” stated: “… they will eventually turn pop music into the free toy at the bottom of their proverbial cereal box.
Edited by miroslav (07/20/07 02:12 PM)
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1786295 - 07/24/07 04:25 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: miroslav]
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
|
Offline
|
|
I can't believe that EQ would actually publish something like the "DRM Manifesto" (July '07).
Why not? It makes people think, presents a different side of the story, and causes people to make forum posts 
1. I thought i was fairly familiar with internet radio fighting it out with the RIAA over royalty rates for webcasting. I don't understand how the Copyright Royalty Board's decision to adopt the royalty rates put forth by SoundExchange ties in with EMI's decision to offer DRM-free downloads on iTunes. Please explain this to me.
Read the article. It's not a direct quid pro quo type of tie-in, the tie-in was that in both cases, both actions caused questions to be raised with uncertain answers. And that in both cases, certain parts of the record industry acted with shock and disappointment.
2. In what capacity does the major label system serve as a "filter" saving me time toward discovering new, good music?
Because they used to spend a lot of time and effort on A&R, combing through endless gigs to find the few bands deemed worth signing. During the 80s, specialty labels appeared that offered consistent musical themes, like Windham Hill, the Mango division of Island, Alternative Tentacles, etc. If you liked one Windham Hill release, you were likely to enjoy others as they were a product of the same A&R and even sometimes production teams. Ditto Narada records.
This still holds true to some extent today. For example, Armada's State of Trance records with Armin Van Buuren can always be counted on (at least in my opinion) to deliver good trance music. If I go to a record store with $20 in my pocket and the have State of Trance 2007, I'll by it because I trust the artist and the label.
3. I have definitely benefited from advances in technology, including being given new choices in how to create, record, and distribute my own music and that of others. In what way(s) are we "diluting the musical pool"? (i can't begin to express how offended i am by such a statement)
If you are offended by that kind of a statement, I wonder if you have a thick enough skin to make it in the music industry. Okay, I'm just tweaking you, but still...I know what Miroslav means when he says something to the effect that everyone with a recording setup thinks he's a musical genius. Now, I'm very happy that the technology exists for people to make music and express themselves. More people should! But how many are "ready for prime time?" You can be a purist and say "let the audience decide," but I don't have time to wade through 4,339,678 MySpace pages to find the few examples of music I do like. That's a very diluted pool. That normally wouldn't be a problem in itself, except that as a result, I don't look at ANY MySpace pages unless a few people say "you really need to check out this band"...in which case they're acting like filters.
4. You say "the technological world and the world most commercial musicians reside in are at war." You then go on to define these two worlds as A. hardware and software manufacturers & ISPs, and B. the four major record/publishing companies.
Please explain how Steinberg, Millennia, Pace, fxpansion, Yamaha and Digidesign are at war with most commercial musicians. If EQ Magazine is going to spend two pages warning me about the enemy, i'd prefer a better description than "the Tech Masters".
Maybe you get a different magazine than I do, but I didn't see any of those companies mentioned. It was obvious (well, at least to me) from the context he's talking about big hardware and software companies, not a company like Steinberg that would fit in Apple's petty cash drawer. Avalon defined these hardware/software companies as those that "use pop music as a loss leader to attract new consumers." Do any of the companies you mention follow that business strategy? I dunno, I just can't imagine Angus at Fxpansion using pop music as a loss leader to attract new customers...
5. You say that the "tech masters" use pop music as loss leader to attract new consumers and i obviously wouldn't disagree with you. Is this part of a greater warning, or just limited to ISPs, Steve Jobs and Hewlett Packard?
Last time i turned on the TV i thought i saw commercials that had... music playing. Even the TV shows themselves have music playing. Come to think of it more and more of the movies i've seen lately have had some type of music playing. It's almost as if there's this whole "music industry" where people get paid to write, perform, record, mix, master and distribute... music. Since i'm a musician *and* an engineer *and* a consumer; how do i know if i'm providing/being provided a valuable service or just exploiting/being exploited?
If I understood your question, I'd try to answer it.
6. EQ states that downloads have a much narrower profit margin than CDs. What data do you base this statement on? Please post your breakdown of cost per MP3 (packaging, distribution, breakage, etc.).
What is it with this "you state" and "EQ states?" We publish articles by authors, who have opinions. If some engineer says that mixing in the box sucks, is that a statement by EQ magazine? Well then we're pretty schizoid, because in the same issue, another engineer might say that mixing in the box is the only way to go. Anyway, just ask Apple: The make next to nothing off of downloads, the whole point of the iTunes store is to feed iPods, which are tremendously profitable and offset the expenses of running iTunes (which includes hefty payments to the rights holders). As to further breakdowns, you'd need to direct your question to Mr. Avalon himself, but it's common knowledge that Apple doesn't make much from downloads, and it's common knowledge that the profit margin for CDs is relatively high, particularly because record companies pulled a quick one when CDs were introduced and negotiated royalty rates simiiarly to less expensive vinyl and cassettes, on the premise that "This is technology, the price will go down and we don't want to be stuck with paying huge royalties based on much lower prices." We all know the price of CDs most certainly did not go down, except in isolated cases.
7. Comment: In my mind the RIAA isn't "humanized". I *do* believe that the record companies are too dumb and greedy to see the "logical" path for the future. I thought that my opinions were based upon the RIAA putting cash in the pockets of our government for years and years in order to get favorable legislation passed. I thought it was all of the lawsuits and running to avoid technology (while wearing blinders). I thought it was based on their ridiculous lawsuits brought against internet-illiterate parents. I thought it was crying about being exploited by terrestrial radio and then being found guilty of collusion and payola. And yes, i have noticed the "attempts at musical monopolization". But you're telling me it's the "tech masters" who have succeeded in brainwashing me? They're doing a really good job.
I guess they have :). They're just one element of the picture; the other elements you presented are correct, too.
8. EQ Magazine states that the Tech Industry (you know, the ones trying to screw us all over) grosses about $160 billion a year. How are you arriving at this number; i'm curious as to who you would include in the "tech industry". I'm not kidding here: if EQ responds to one single part of this post, i want it to be the source(s) from which this number is arrived at. Should this be our new "enemies list"?
Add up the earnings for Apple, Microsoft, Compaq, Dell, HP, Creative Labs, etc. etc. and I think you'll come up with something in that ballpark.
9. Comment: Illegal P2P file-sharing does NOT exist in the first place *because* of Steve Jobs or the head of any other company. A *legal* protocol (several actually) is and was used to do something *illegal* by many people of their own free will. When i was a kid i knew somebody who would steal Matchbox cars from Kmart – i never once blamed Levi's (the pants he carried them out in).
But would you blame the person who drove him there, using a legally registered car and a valid driver's license, if he was told "Hey, would you drive me to KMart so I can shoplift?" That's as irrelevant and oversimplified an analogy as yours.
10. Comment: You state as "fact" that the major labels are the "banks" of our industry. For "Moses Avalon" i would assume that statement to be correct. For many readers of EQ i'm sure that statement is correct. But to imply that the "music industry" is limited to those receiving royalty checks and/or those who can claim membership in small circles of people who absolutely make their money off the majors is ludicrous.
The music industry as i see it also includes the millions of musicians around the world who use a USB microphone, Tracktion, and MySpace to get their art produced and distributed without any interference ("filtering"?) from the major labels. It includes the millions of music-lovers who benefit from this addition to the "musical pool". I too think that Steve Jobs is a tool, but i have yet to hear of anybody getting screwed in their contract with iTunes.
Oh, I see, you get to define what you think the music industry is, and Moses Avalon doesn't? How about this: I see the music industry as being anyone who drives a Chevrolet and plays harpsichord. You can't argue with that, because I said I see it that way.
Anyway, I don't think I'd say that millions of people using USB mics to make music is an industry. They are pretty much consumers. The "music industry" has had a well-defined meaning for decades, and I can't fault Mr. Avalon for not straying from that conventional definition. You're welcome to make up new definitions, like "the music cottage industry," but don't expect everyone to automatically shift from the conventional definition to yours.
Amazing.
My feelings exactly.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1786299 - 07/24/07 04:27 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: Anderton]
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
|
Offline
|
|
Update: Check out what Prince is doing, essentially giving music away in return for payment in cash from a media conglomerate.
It's the free toy in the cereal box. For real, and here now.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1786314 - 07/24/07 05:07 PM
Re: EQ Magazine's DRM Manifesto
[Re: Anderton]
|
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 11855
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
It's been a long time coming... 
...but I agree with you Craig, 100%.
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Anderton, Matt Harper
|
|
|
