7 ms·

Crowd Patronage: How A 400 Year Old Model Can Save The Music Industry

62 points by schlichtm 14y ago

blargher 14y ago
@aw3c2 - I think it all depends on how you personally define the music industry. In your mind, is the industry defined by the record labels or is it defined by the community of artists?
freshbreakfast 14y ago
Hey guys, I wrote this thing, and ready to discuss it here on HN. Come at me with your best shot!
- IsaacL 14y ago
  http://i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-before-the-phonograph/ http://i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-before... I wrote an article discussing similar themes on my blog a while back, and I too think the Kickstarter model is the future of the creative industries. (I might do a follow up to that article with some further thoughts. Basically, I think the reason the crowd patronage model is the future is because it allows the artist to cover their fixed, up-front costs. Since the Internet has made distribution costs effectively 0, covering your fixed costs is the way to go)
- freshhawk 14y ago
  Great job. I am probably biased since this is nearly exactly how I see things going (and want them to go) as well, but your explanation and the historical examples chosen make a great argument. If you are demanding I take a shot then I have a nitpick: First paragraph has the Traditionalists, Incrementalists, Apologists, and Defeatists. What about the school of thought that the widespread ability to freely share music is inevitable and artists, as they always have, will find a way to make money because people love music? What school of thought are you and I in? Do you think this model will turn the music industry into even more of a hits based business (like the app store model has done to software) or less of one? I can see books moving to this model as well, but movies seem a bit more problematic unless budgets fall drastically.
  - freshbreakfast 14y ago
    hey freshhawk. first of all, I'm totally jealous of your handle. Second, I would say I'm not in any of those camps I define. I'm in the "crowd patronage" camp ;-). I think music will always have hits and superstars, whether the gatekeeper is radio or internet. What we call "viral" today will be upgraded to how we think of "hit" today. Overall though, I'm more excited about the "middle class" of musicians the new era of music industry can support. I personally think maintaining a profitable and real relationship with your fans will require a lot less overhead in the future. And, they can go direct to fan, which is beneficial for independent artists, imo.
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      Yeah, I don't think we'll ever get away from hits and superstars, that's just how humans behave. I am excited about the possibility of a potentially larger middle class of musicians as well but I can also see pressure from the need for virality that works against a healthy middle class. "You need to make the kickstarter music top ten page or else you make nothing!" is something I can see happening. At the same time, it's unlikely to be worse than the selling CD's model for those people so maybe that's just complaining about it only being "better" instead of "perfect", which is silly.
- theevocater 14y ago
  Awesome well thought out article. Agree on many points. Mike Masnick (of www.techdirt.com) has been blogging about very similar models for years now. The fundamental point he gets at is that you want to 'Connect with Fans' more than anything. This is why people like Amanda Palmer, Trent Reznor and the Juggalos (oh my) have been so successful. People connect with their music and their persona. The second part is to give those fans a 'Reason to Buy'. In your article you talked about things like close up access, neat events, and being added to the liner notes: these are all concrete reasons to buy. That formula is sort of what you were hinting at. Use the infinite goods (the smell of the food in your metaphor) to sell the finite goods.
  - freshbreakfast 14y ago
    awesome, i've never heard of Mike Masnick (fail!), but he sounds like a smart man ;-). Thanks for the heads up, I'll probably be digging into his stuff pretty soon.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
aw3c2 14y ago
I'd like to think that this would rather make artists more independant and kill the music industry.
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  I personally define "music industry" as whatever generates revenue for artists and their managers. I do agree that there's a lot of old growth in the current ecosystem of the music industry that's inevitably going to die off.
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
TL;DR The arts used to be (like Mozart's time used to be) supported by wealthy patrons who commissioned works that were subsequently enjoyed by the public. The notion of music as a commodity to be consumed like sugar and paprika is a modern one, and, M Kim argues, a historical quirk whose time has passed. We should thus separate consumption from patronage, with the latter greatly enhanced by crowd-funding technology, e.g. Kickstarter. Artists should raise funds from crowds directly and then release their recorded music for free, with private perks accruing to the patrons. My comments: I like the structure, but am concerned about the separation of consumption and patronage. Our society has become far more consumerist since Victorian times and ignoring that cultural shift could be problematic. I propose fortifying crowdfunded patronage with a matching fund that would match crowd patronage dollars. In college I was cheap and pirated music. Now I care more for convenience than a few dollars and so download my music via iTunes, where cover art, filing, and synchronising is taken care of. I suggest adding an optional (or maybe not) extra $1 (or whatever) to be directed into a matching fund. This fund would then match, at a ratio to be determined after further thought (would probably be a moving scale), crowd patronage dollars to artists. Thus, the consumption and patronage are joined somewhat. One could still have free music for those who value dollars more than time. The downside is the iTunes of this analogy would be a power centre. That said, it would be naive to assume any such system wouldn't concentrate power. It might be good to have an iTunes figure opposing the Kickstarter one.
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  I personally hate anything that "feels" like charity to the artist, I don't think that's sustainable. Even though I call this theoretical model "crowd patronage", I feel it would only work if the fan "feels" like he's getting more than some altruistic warm feelings of supporting something. They should also feel the real value of relationship access. Just the illusion of having a closer relationship to artist will only enhance the feeling of supporting the artist. But at a minimum, there must be that value back of some sort of relationship reciprocation. Does that make sense?
  - nancyhua 14y ago
    I think they try to do this to some extent with "perks." As a crowdfunder and crowdfundraiser, I can see a divide between people who donate bc they want emotional pleasure and people who donate bc they want to receive something. It should be possible to segment patrons to address different donors' desires. Maybe if you're a music patron seeking stuff, you get options to buy particular tickets/seats or are the first to get songs or limited editions or something. If you're seeking status maybe they put your name somewhere on their website or send you a special Facebook logo, etc.
blargher 14y ago
I can only wonder what copyright law might do to such a model. Would patronage allow one to play the artist's music in a public space without prior permission/consent? Think about all the recent political campaigns that used songs in such a manner. Also, I wonder if the patronage model would make it that much harder for an artist to sustain his/her career.
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  This is just my opinion, but I feel copyright will be less enforceable in the future when it doesn't actually generate revenue. I have to think over time, artists will not want to gate their content, and provide distributors free access to their music to businesses and public spaces in exchange for them, well, playing it and getting exposure. Just like they're doing now with their fans. And all this will be accelerated when people stop buying music altogether. This is sort of a stretch hypothesis, I'm actually not super familiar with how ASCAP and BMI works.
citricsquid 14y ago
Music without the music industry (labels etc) is the internet without aggregators (reddit etc) What happened on the internet before content aggregators (or before you had access to them)? you'd see a cool website and tell a friend the website address or you'd send a link to a friend and they might pass it on if they cared enough, they might not. That's a few people, unless the website was seriously incredible it would never be seen by maybe a hundred people. Now with sites like reddit a "pretty cool" website can be seen by millions of people. Music is like that. There are so many artists that produce great music but nobody has ever heard of them because their "network" extends to maybe a couple of friends and friends friends and some of their friends friends friends, unless they get a big break (like shared by an already famous artist) they'll remain pretty small, forever. I bet everyone here knows of an artist they like but who couldn't make a living from their music, whether that's a friend or someone they've seen in an obscure Youtube video. The music industry (big labels) provide huge value to artists, so many artists would never have the reach they have now if they didn't have labels. Would Justin Bieber be known by hundred of millions if he was still making songs on Youtube? The idea that sites like kickstarter are the future for creative endeavours is partly true, they can help fund some projects and open up artists to new ways to fund their work, but they can't replace the music industry. Very few people care enough about music to not need to be told who to listen to, or to invest in their favourite artists, they need to be given music to choose from (see: top 40) and decide what they like and buy it. Things like selling a CD for $10 or a download for $1 are what fund the music industry, if the music industry dies so does the way we consume music. No longer will we be able to just consume, we'll have to find it too. I want the option to seek out new music, I want the option to fund artists I love that want to be independent, I don't want it to be a necessity. Music is so much more than sounds – how else do you explain the Gathering of the Juggalos? marketing
- Shorel 14y ago
  Reddit is not asking for 70% of the income the rest of the Internet gets.
- politician 14y ago
  "reddit for music" sounds so much better than the current model, "play the same thing on loop 10 times an hour".
Aloisius 14y ago
Aren't Kickstarter & Indie-Go-Go effectively patronage systems?
- tomasien 14y ago
  Did you read the article? That's kind of the point he's making, that they're the start.
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  Yeah I, would agree they're modern versions of crowd patronage. I do think though that in the future, musicians will have a more fleshed out platform catered to their needs. With their music, community, CRM admin, etc.
Baba_Chaghaloo 14y ago
Nice, well written article but... how about just lowering the damned prices on Mp3s before giving up on selling music? Like to $0.10 a song.
aneth4 14y ago
TL;DR Artists can use the Kickstarter model to collect from their most ardent fans instead of trying to sell units to everyone. I think this makes a lot of sense and can work in some cases, but it remains to be seen what happens when the market is saturated with artists looking to collect voluntarily from their fan base. I suspect people will fatigue from the euphoria of being generous and the model will fade, but I hope I'm wrong.
- rabidsnail 14y ago
  Each artist only needs a few patrons, so as long as the tail of patronage is as long as the tail of consumption each consumer only needs to patronize (is that the right word?) a few artists. I've seen this work for small indie bands with small but loyal followings (ex: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/745015920/the-new-giraffes-giraffes-album http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/745015920/the-new-giraff...). Basically, it assumes that each band has a few people that like them a lot as opposed to a lot of people that like them a little.
dougsharp 14y ago
Bryan, you may get a kick out of drip.fm. It certainly satisfies the first two prongs of your model (access+exclusivity).
chris_mahan 14y ago
Last paragraph: And a few great customers is better then THAN!
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  Good catch! Thanks, and fixed!
firefoxman1 14y ago
You make some great points, but I think the "Internet Apologists" school of thought is closer to your "Crowd Patronage" idea than you realise. As you said, recorded music is fairly recent, but gathering around to enjoy a show goes waaaay back...and I think it's a great business model going forward. One great example of this in action is Hoodie Allen. He releases all his music free on Soundcloud[1] and Youtube[2], where he funds/makes his own (pretty impressive) music videos to gain his audience. No record label required. His music is on iTunes, but I'm guessing the real money is made in concerts. [1] http://soundcloud.com/hoodieallenmusic http://soundcloud.com/hoodieallenmusic [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t431MAUQlQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t431MAUQlQ
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  I actually agree with you, I'm an internet champion myself, so I didn't mean to pigeonhole anyone. My main point was to say that increased revenue in the concert and merch sector will not come close to replacing the gaping hole of content revenue. We have to go one step further. As for Hoodie Allen, I've actually talked to him before on the phone about his Facebooking strategy! I like him, he's smart! He's definitely the type to succeed in the new music industry. Check out the song "No Sleep till Brooklyn"... my buddy Jhameel sings the hook on it!
transmit101 14y ago
Great article. Have you read Musicking by Christopher Small? If not, you definitely should. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-Listening-Culture/dp/0819522570 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-Listen... Also, it might be interesting to chat a bit more. Drop me an email - rob at [see profile for domain].
brentm 14y ago
This is being done right now it's just segmented and no real platform has emerged as the place to do it. The real problem with the model from my perspective is that in artists (and their label/mgmts) desperation to remain relevant & earn a better living they are constantly on social media & watering down their celebrity. Combine that with the fact that any cute kid on YouTube can suddenly become a celebrity in his own right you have a) way more celebrities and b) way over exposed celebrities. The internet has basically commoditized being famous in some ways and in most artists desperation to try and get 'bigger' and make more money they make it worse. There will always be the massive artists where the masses go insane and people line up down the block to video chat with. Those artists don't have a problem now. The ones that are really in trouble are the every day middle of the road full time working artists (selling 50-300K records). This kind of platform will not work with enough scale & consistently enough to even begin a conversation about it replacing old record sales revenue. I think he touched on the real key to the long term music business which is embracing streaming and getting as many fans as possible to listen to your music and care enough to go to your shows. Any money a band makes from recorded music will forever be a bonus.
- dmorgan 14y ago
  >I think he touched on the real key to the long term music business which is embracing streaming and getting as many fans as possible to listen to your music and care enough to go to your shows. Any money a band makes from recorded music will forever be a bonus. Why do people keep saying that? About the shows, I mean. The reality is that most bands LOSE money on shows. Shows are historically a loss leader for record sales.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
malkia 14y ago
I've posted this before, but what Francis Ford Coppola said is very relevant to the topic: http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O.. http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O.... "We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money? In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, “Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it."
- corysama 14y ago
  Did Coppola get his other job in wine before or after making tons of money from his films?
NickKampe 14y ago
Great write up! This is exactly what we're trying to accomplish with Listener Approved - https://ListenerApproved.com https://ListenerApproved.com

62 points by schlichtm 14y ago

@aw3c2 - I think it all depends on how you personally define the music industry. In your mind, is the industry defined by the record labels or is it defined by the community of artists?

freshbreakfast 14y ago

Hey guys, I wrote this thing, and ready to discuss it here on HN. Come at me with your best shot!

IsaacL 14y ago
http://i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-before-the-phonograph/ http://i.saac.me/post/what-if-bittorrent-was-invented-before... I wrote an article discussing similar themes on my blog a while back, and I too think the Kickstarter model is the future of the creative industries. (I might do a follow up to that article with some further thoughts. Basically, I think the reason the crowd patronage model is the future is because it allows the artist to cover their fixed, up-front costs. Since the Internet has made distribution costs effectively 0, covering your fixed costs is the way to go)
freshhawk 14y ago
Great job. I am probably biased since this is nearly exactly how I see things going (and want them to go) as well, but your explanation and the historical examples chosen make a great argument. If you are demanding I take a shot then I have a nitpick: First paragraph has the Traditionalists, Incrementalists, Apologists, and Defeatists. What about the school of thought that the widespread ability to freely share music is inevitable and artists, as they always have, will find a way to make money because people love music? What school of thought are you and I in? Do you think this model will turn the music industry into even more of a hits based business (like the app store model has done to software) or less of one? I can see books moving to this model as well, but movies seem a bit more problematic unless budgets fall drastically.
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  hey freshhawk. first of all, I'm totally jealous of your handle. Second, I would say I'm not in any of those camps I define. I'm in the "crowd patronage" camp ;-). I think music will always have hits and superstars, whether the gatekeeper is radio or internet. What we call "viral" today will be upgraded to how we think of "hit" today. Overall though, I'm more excited about the "middle class" of musicians the new era of music industry can support. I personally think maintaining a profitable and real relationship with your fans will require a lot less overhead in the future. And, they can go direct to fan, which is beneficial for independent artists, imo.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    Yeah, I don't think we'll ever get away from hits and superstars, that's just how humans behave. I am excited about the possibility of a potentially larger middle class of musicians as well but I can also see pressure from the need for virality that works against a healthy middle class. "You need to make the kickstarter music top ten page or else you make nothing!" is something I can see happening. At the same time, it's unlikely to be worse than the selling CD's model for those people so maybe that's just complaining about it only being "better" instead of "perfect", which is silly.
theevocater 14y ago
Awesome well thought out article. Agree on many points. Mike Masnick (of www.techdirt.com) has been blogging about very similar models for years now. The fundamental point he gets at is that you want to 'Connect with Fans' more than anything. This is why people like Amanda Palmer, Trent Reznor and the Juggalos (oh my) have been so successful. People connect with their music and their persona. The second part is to give those fans a 'Reason to Buy'. In your article you talked about things like close up access, neat events, and being added to the liner notes: these are all concrete reasons to buy. That formula is sort of what you were hinting at. Use the infinite goods (the smell of the food in your metaphor) to sell the finite goods.
- freshbreakfast 14y ago
  awesome, i've never heard of Mike Masnick (fail!), but he sounds like a smart man ;-). Thanks for the heads up, I'll probably be digging into his stuff pretty soon.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

aw3c2 14y ago

I'd like to think that this would rather make artists more independant and kill the music industry.

freshbreakfast 14y ago
I personally define "music industry" as whatever generates revenue for artists and their managers. I do agree that there's a lot of old growth in the current ecosystem of the music industry that's inevitably going to die off.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

TL;DR The arts used to be (like Mozart's time used to be) supported by wealthy patrons who commissioned works that were subsequently enjoyed by the public. The notion of music as a commodity to be consumed like sugar and paprika is a modern one, and, M Kim argues, a historical quirk whose time has passed. We should thus separate consumption from patronage, with the latter greatly enhanced by crowd-funding technology, e.g. Kickstarter. Artists should raise funds from crowds directly and then release their recorded music for free, with private perks accruing to the patrons. My comments: I like the structure, but am concerned about the separation of consumption and patronage. Our society has become far more consumerist since Victorian times and ignoring that cultural shift could be problematic. I propose fortifying crowdfunded patronage with a matching fund that would match crowd patronage dollars. In college I was cheap and pirated music. Now I care more for convenience than a few dollars and so download my music via iTunes, where cover art, filing, and synchronising is taken care of. I suggest adding an optional (or maybe not) extra $1 (or whatever) to be directed into a matching fund. This fund would then match, at a ratio to be determined after further thought (would probably be a moving scale), crowd patronage dollars to artists. Thus, the consumption and patronage are joined somewhat. One could still have free music for those who value dollars more than time. The downside is the iTunes of this analogy would be a power centre. That said, it would be naive to assume any such system wouldn't concentrate power. It might be good to have an iTunes figure opposing the Kickstarter one.

freshbreakfast 14y ago
I personally hate anything that "feels" like charity to the artist, I don't think that's sustainable. Even though I call this theoretical model "crowd patronage", I feel it would only work if the fan "feels" like he's getting more than some altruistic warm feelings of supporting something. They should also feel the real value of relationship access. Just the illusion of having a closer relationship to artist will only enhance the feeling of supporting the artist. But at a minimum, there must be that value back of some sort of relationship reciprocation. Does that make sense?
- nancyhua 14y ago
  I think they try to do this to some extent with "perks." As a crowdfunder and crowdfundraiser, I can see a divide between people who donate bc they want emotional pleasure and people who donate bc they want to receive something. It should be possible to segment patrons to address different donors' desires. Maybe if you're a music patron seeking stuff, you get options to buy particular tickets/seats or are the first to get songs or limited editions or something. If you're seeking status maybe they put your name somewhere on their website or send you a special Facebook logo, etc.

blargher 14y ago

I can only wonder what copyright law might do to such a model. Would patronage allow one to play the artist's music in a public space without prior permission/consent? Think about all the recent political campaigns that used songs in such a manner. Also, I wonder if the patronage model would make it that much harder for an artist to sustain his/her career.

freshbreakfast 14y ago
This is just my opinion, but I feel copyright will be less enforceable in the future when it doesn't actually generate revenue. I have to think over time, artists will not want to gate their content, and provide distributors free access to their music to businesses and public spaces in exchange for them, well, playing it and getting exposure. Just like they're doing now with their fans. And all this will be accelerated when people stop buying music altogether. This is sort of a stretch hypothesis, I'm actually not super familiar with how ASCAP and BMI works.

citricsquid 14y ago

Music without the music industry (labels etc) is the internet without aggregators (reddit etc) What happened on the internet before content aggregators (or before you had access to them)? you'd see a cool website and tell a friend the website address or you'd send a link to a friend and they might pass it on if they cared enough, they might not. That's a few people, unless the website was seriously incredible it would never be seen by maybe a hundred people. Now with sites like reddit a "pretty cool" website can be seen by millions of people. Music is like that. There are so many artists that produce great music but nobody has ever heard of them because their "network" extends to maybe a couple of friends and friends friends and some of their friends friends friends, unless they get a big break (like shared by an already famous artist) they'll remain pretty small, forever. I bet everyone here knows of an artist they like but who couldn't make a living from their music, whether that's a friend or someone they've seen in an obscure Youtube video. The music industry (big labels) provide huge value to artists, so many artists would never have the reach they have now if they didn't have labels. Would Justin Bieber be known by hundred of millions if he was still making songs on Youtube? The idea that sites like kickstarter are the future for creative endeavours is partly true, they can help fund some projects and open up artists to new ways to fund their work, but they can't replace the music industry. Very few people care enough about music to not need to be told who to listen to, or to invest in their favourite artists, they need to be given music to choose from (see: top 40) and decide what they like and buy it. Things like selling a CD for $10 or a download for $1 are what fund the music industry, if the music industry dies so does the way we consume music. No longer will we be able to just consume, we'll have to find it too. I want the option to seek out new music, I want the option to fund artists I love that want to be independent, I don't want it to be a necessity. Music is so much more than sounds – how else do you explain the Gathering of the Juggalos? marketing

Shorel 14y ago
Reddit is not asking for 70% of the income the rest of the Internet gets.
politician 14y ago
"reddit for music" sounds so much better than the current model, "play the same thing on loop 10 times an hour".

Aloisius 14y ago

Aren't Kickstarter & Indie-Go-Go effectively patronage systems?

tomasien 14y ago
Did you read the article? That's kind of the point he's making, that they're the start.
freshbreakfast 14y ago
Yeah I, would agree they're modern versions of crowd patronage. I do think though that in the future, musicians will have a more fleshed out platform catered to their needs. With their music, community, CRM admin, etc.

Baba_Chaghaloo 14y ago

Nice, well written article but... how about just lowering the damned prices on Mp3s before giving up on selling music? Like to $0.10 a song.

aneth4 14y ago

TL;DR Artists can use the Kickstarter model to collect from their most ardent fans instead of trying to sell units to everyone. I think this makes a lot of sense and can work in some cases, but it remains to be seen what happens when the market is saturated with artists looking to collect voluntarily from their fan base. I suspect people will fatigue from the euphoria of being generous and the model will fade, but I hope I'm wrong.

rabidsnail 14y ago
Each artist only needs a few patrons, so as long as the tail of patronage is as long as the tail of consumption each consumer only needs to patronize (is that the right word?) a few artists. I've seen this work for small indie bands with small but loyal followings (ex: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/745015920/the-new-giraffes-giraffes-album http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/745015920/the-new-giraff...). Basically, it assumes that each band has a few people that like them a lot as opposed to a lot of people that like them a little.

dougsharp 14y ago

Bryan, you may get a kick out of drip.fm. It certainly satisfies the first two prongs of your model (access+exclusivity).

chris_mahan 14y ago

Last paragraph: And a few great customers is better then THAN!

freshbreakfast 14y ago
Good catch! Thanks, and fixed!

firefoxman1 14y ago

You make some great points, but I think the "Internet Apologists" school of thought is closer to your "Crowd Patronage" idea than you realise. As you said, recorded music is fairly recent, but gathering around to enjoy a show goes waaaay back...and I think it's a great business model going forward. One great example of this in action is Hoodie Allen. He releases all his music free on Soundcloud[1] and Youtube[2], where he funds/makes his own (pretty impressive) music videos to gain his audience. No record label required. His music is on iTunes, but I'm guessing the real money is made in concerts. [1] http://soundcloud.com/hoodieallenmusic http://soundcloud.com/hoodieallenmusic [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t431MAUQlQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t431MAUQlQ

freshbreakfast 14y ago
I actually agree with you, I'm an internet champion myself, so I didn't mean to pigeonhole anyone. My main point was to say that increased revenue in the concert and merch sector will not come close to replacing the gaping hole of content revenue. We have to go one step further. As for Hoodie Allen, I've actually talked to him before on the phone about his Facebooking strategy! I like him, he's smart! He's definitely the type to succeed in the new music industry. Check out the song "No Sleep till Brooklyn"... my buddy Jhameel sings the hook on it!

transmit101 14y ago

Great article. Have you read Musicking by Christopher Small? If not, you definitely should. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-Listening-Culture/dp/0819522570 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-Listen... Also, it might be interesting to chat a bit more. Drop me an email - rob at [see profile for domain].

brentm 14y ago

This is being done right now it's just segmented and no real platform has emerged as the place to do it. The real problem with the model from my perspective is that in artists (and their label/mgmts) desperation to remain relevant & earn a better living they are constantly on social media & watering down their celebrity. Combine that with the fact that any cute kid on YouTube can suddenly become a celebrity in his own right you have a) way more celebrities and b) way over exposed celebrities. The internet has basically commoditized being famous in some ways and in most artists desperation to try and get 'bigger' and make more money they make it worse. There will always be the massive artists where the masses go insane and people line up down the block to video chat with. Those artists don't have a problem now. The ones that are really in trouble are the every day middle of the road full time working artists (selling 50-300K records). This kind of platform will not work with enough scale & consistently enough to even begin a conversation about it replacing old record sales revenue. I think he touched on the real key to the long term music business which is embracing streaming and getting as many fans as possible to listen to your music and care enough to go to your shows. Any money a band makes from recorded music will forever be a bonus.

dmorgan 14y ago
>I think he touched on the real key to the long term music business which is embracing streaming and getting as many fans as possible to listen to your music and care enough to go to your shows. Any money a band makes from recorded music will forever be a bonus. Why do people keep saying that? About the shows, I mean. The reality is that most bands LOSE money on shows. Shows are historically a loss leader for record sales.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

malkia 14y ago

I've posted this before, but what Francis Ford Coppola said is very relevant to the topic: http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O.. http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O.... "We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money? In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, “Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it."

corysama 14y ago
Did Coppola get his other job in wine before or after making tons of money from his films?

NickKampe 14y ago

Great write up! This is exactly what we're trying to accomplish with Listener Approved - https://ListenerApproved.com https://ListenerApproved.com