Recording artists getting screwed by the internet etc.

freakboy1610

One of my favourite bands is Camper Van Beethoven and when they first split up their singer David Lowery started a new band, Cracker and had a minor hit in the early 90s with a song called Low. I say minor hit but, in the States at least, it's one of those 'golden' tracks that seems to get played on the radio forever. Anyway David Lowery has become an eloquent and vocal opponent of artist exploitation and has this website called The Trichordist. I had to laugh when I read this feature in which he shows how his song got played over a million times on US internet radio/streaming site Pandora and he got a cheque for $16.89!

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/

I bought the single, the LP and went to see them (I think it was the Camden Underworld?) so I don't feel bad about posting the link to the video.

not_the_dj

I love the Cracker album "Kerosene Hat". Saw them open for Counting Crows when 'Low' was being played a lot (back on Virgin 1215 ;-) )

guitarfishbay

The issue I have is that most people don't care.

They only see the distinction between bad (stealing) and good (paying/streaming through legitmate sites).  Most people do not care what % the artist receives if they are paying for or using a free legitimate streaming site as they already feel morally justified through that action alone.

Cirrus

No one cares, and most of the rest think torrenting etc is ok. The stupid ones stick to stupid justification, the clever ones come up with all kinds of clever justifications - stuff about the intrinsic value of art, wouldn't have bought it otherwise, copying isn't stealing as the original still exists... and they genuinely believe in the morality of their actions because it's what they've grown up with.

My stance is that it's wrong to enjoy the fruits of someone's effort without paying for it if the creator has set a price for it. I'll happily argue my case with anyone who cares, but most people don't and I'm also pragmatic - it is the way it is, art is undervalued. The downside is that human nature being what it is, once something is free it becomes worthless no matter what actual artistic value it has. We can only put the most into what we do and embrace whatever paradigm exists to interface the world of art and the world of having to eat.

frankus

Part of the problem is that the PRS are pretty indifferent to identifying specific artists and prefer working out the percentage likelihood of it being Robbie and giving him a load more money he doesn't deserve

Cirrus

frankus said:

Part of the problem is that the PRS are pretty indifferent to identifying specific artists and prefer working out the percentage likelihood of it being Robbie and giving him a load more money he doesn't deserve

Don't speak ill of the PRS, my cheque for £3.20 went straight towards my summer holiday! :P

ICBM

I do try to take something of a moral stance on this. I do illegally download. I use it as a free tester - if I like the album, I'll buy it - and often more by the same artist. OK - usually eventually rather than immediately, almost never at full price, and often second hand... but if I like the artist enough I'll try to go and see them live and then I'll buy the albums direct from them, very occasionally with some other merchandise. If I don't see them live and want to buy the album I prefer to buy from their website or small record company direct, rather than from shops or iTunes. That way there is at least some hope they're getting a better percentage.

I won't pay for streaming services, or even iTunes if I can possibly help it, because they're a legal rip-off. I'll also never pay for a 'premium' download or file-sharing site account, because that's just theft - selling access to something that doesn't belong to you. I only ever download from publicly-posted sources. I'll never upload anything - I know that makes me a freeloader to most torrent site users... tough.

If some people still have a problem with all that, I'm OK with it too - I'm probably doing better than most without cutting off my nose to spite my face. I spend more on music than almost anyone I know other than a friend who collects old vinyl (none of which benefits the artist either obviously) - and it is also true that if I had to buy everything I own at full retail, I simply wouldn't - much of it I don't like enough to really, and I probably couldn't afford it all anyway.

PolarityMan

Cirrus said:

No one cares, and most of the rest think torrenting etc is ok. The stupid ones stick to stupid justification, the clever ones come up with all kinds of clever justifications - stuff about the intrinsic value of art, wouldn't have bought it otherwise, copying isn't stealing as the original still exists... and they genuinely believe in the morality of their actions because it's what they've grown up with.

My stance is that it's wrong to enjoy the fruits of someone's effort without paying for it if the creator has set a price for it. I'll happily argue my case with anyone who cares, but most people don't and I'm also pragmatic - it is the way it is, art is undervalued. The downside is that human nature being what it is, once something is free it becomes worthless no matter what actual artistic value it has. We can only put the most into what we do and embrace whatever paradigm exists to interface the world of art and the world of having to eat.

Sadly there is a huge differential in the worth of art in the eyes of the creator and in the eyes of consumers. Of course a creator is highly likely to value their own output highly but I also think musicians and artists value music and art in general much more highly than the general public do. I fear for most people music is a highly disposable commodity.

Cirrus

PolarityMan said:

Sadly there is a huge differential in the worth of art in the eyes of the creator and in the eyes of consumers. Of course a creator is highly likely to value their own output highly but I also think musicians and artists value music and art in general much more highly than the general public do. I fear for most people music is a highly disposable commodity.

I agree, and what you've just said is often the first thing clever proponents of illegal downloading say - that the art is being over valued by the creator.

But my belief is that if you think it's overvalued, you walk on by. It is the creator's right to set a price - if no one buys it because it's not worth that price, then tough shit to everyone. It doesn't give the consumer the right to take it anyway.

stickyfiddle

ICBM said:

I do try to take something of a moral stance on this. I do illegally download. I use it as a free tester - if I like the album, I'll buy it - and often more by the same artist. OK - usually eventually rather than immediately, almost never at full price, and often second hand... but if I like the artist enough I'll try to go and see them live and then I'll buy the albums direct from them, very occasionally with some other merchandise. If I don't see them live and want to buy the album I prefer to buy from their website or small record company direct, rather than from shops or iTunes. That way there is at least some hope they're getting a better percentage.

I won't pay for streaming services, or even iTunes if I can possibly help it, because they're a legal rip-off. I'll also never pay for a 'premium' download or file-sharing site account, because that's just theft - selling access to something that doesn't belong to you. I only ever download from publicly-posted sources. I'll never upload anything - I know that makes me a freeloader to most torrent site users... tough.

If some people still have a problem with all that, I'm OK with it too - I'm probably doing better than most without cutting off my nose to spite my face. I spend more on music than almost anyone I know other than a friend who collects old vinyl (none of which benefits the artist either obviously) - and it is also true that if I had to buy everything I own at full retail, I simply wouldn't - much of it I don't like enough to really, and I probably couldn't afford it all anyway.

I'm exactly the same. I make a big effort to see bands when I can, particularly any smaller ones I like, and I regularly buy a reasonably priced T shirt if I like the design.

In terms of downloading, torrents are often the only way to get a lot of stuff. CDs are £15 minimum out here, and that's if you can even find what you want. Amazon doesn't exist yet and most streaming sites don't even work.

lustycourtier

Whats Pandora?

guitarfishbay

lustycourtier said:

Whats Pandora?

Internet radio.  Not available in the UK currently http://www.pandora.com/restricted

bobblehat

 I  have a spotify premium account and its fantastic. I know there are issues with artists not getting much out of it but they do have a choice as to whether or not they want their music on there.There are also thousands of artists getting their music out to a whole new audience and getting paid for it. 

I listened to 2 hours of Country and Western on Monday.Still not sure why I did but there was a country and western playlist and it seemed like a nice change. That's around 30 rednecks who are better off .They may not have enough for a deposit on a new Tractor ,but its more than they would have got without Spotify. 

ESBlonde

The world is changing, once we paid £10+ for material on a CD that would have cost £7.50 on vinyl but the artist got a pittance. All the time the 'industry' had huge investment in plant and studios and artists some of which paid of handsomely and some which shafted artist and label at the same time.
Now artists can record and publish material for very little cost and the 'industry' largely get sidelined. In the middle are some who fell down the crack and others who starve to achieve any kind of recognition.
It's a cruel world to be sure.

Axe_meister

Before the advent of recording media. Bands/musicians had to get out there an gig/entertain and that is where the money was made. The equivalent to recording in those days where, either printed sheet music or people replaying the music themselves from ear. How much did the artist get from that? Nada

Then we suddenly got recorded music and if the artist wasn't ripped off by management they made a fortune, but those big bucks have only been around since the 50s, and internet streaming/pirating since about 2005, so about 50 odd years of good times and now back to bad times.

However there are not enough live performance venues around and people want everything for nothing, so we can't make much of a living that way.

Add to that the likes of X-Factor, etc and getting airplay is even more difficult. To make money out of your own music you have to somehow go viral to get the exposure, royalties and gigs . That is where you have to make the effort these days. Marketing!!!

 

digitalscream

I have pretty much the same approach as ICBM. The thing is...a lot of artists who I want to listen to are particularly unfriendly when it comes to getting music in a format that I need.

I don't use CDs. I don't even have a computer with a functional optical drive. I don't use iTunes either, because I don't need that junk on my computer. Bearing that in mind, I tried to get a couple of Andy Timmons albums...these are current releases. Off I go to Amazon - nope, can only buy AT stuff from them if I'm in the US (CDs-only in the UK). Okay...so I go to his website - no downloads. At all. I searched around for ages, and the only places which did have them were either illegal or broken to the point where I couldn't complete a purchase.

One of my friends has the albums I want, and offers to send them over in FLAC format. Brilliant, thinks I - so I email every address on AT's website asking for a method by which I can give them money (after having explained the situation). No reply after a week, so I try again - this time with email, Facebook and Twitter.

That was over a month ago, and still no reply.

This isn't an isolated case. It strikes me that while some people have been screwed by the way the industry approaches and uses the Internet (eg PRS), quite a few have been actively screwing themselves over by using it badly.

PolarityMan

Cirrus said:

PolarityMan said:

Sadly there is a huge differential in the worth of art in the eyes of the creator and in the eyes of consumers. Of course a creator is highly likely to value their own output highly but I also think musicians and artists value music and art in general much more highly than the general public do. I fear for most people music is a highly disposable commodity.

I agree, and what you've just said is often the first thing clever proponents of illegal downloading say - that the art is being over valued by the creator.

But my belief is that if you think it's overvalued, you walk on by. It is the creator's right to set a price - if no one buys it because it's not worth that price, then tough shit to everyone. It doesn't give the consumer the right to take it anyway.

That is one model. But since now the marginal cost of distribution is essentially zero I would really like to see a patronship model emerge. Sites like Kickstarter and PledgeMusic prove it can be done.

ToneControl

I think artists could have a tips jar for the honest amongst us who wish to sponsor their work. A bit like busking on a large scale, but it could work - all the money goes to the artist,

sinbaadi

$16.89 is a bit ridiculous, but I'm interested to know what he thinks would be a fair amount for a million internet radio plays of a single. It's not that many and certainly you couldn't value those "listens" as highly as youtube views from an advertising standpoint. http://theunderstatement.com/post/53867665082/pandora-pays-far-more-than-16-dollars I found this whilst researching what sort of money a commercial fm station might pay. Seems the $16 is not quite the entire story.