20 ms·

"Basically all their mixtapes are promotion for the live events." I think that is a great model, personally. I want artists to not care about getting rich off

"Basically all their mixtapes are promotion for the live events." I think that is a great model, personally. I want artists to not care about getting rich off of downloads. I think it's great when artists ranging from Deadmau5, Lil Wayne or Wiz Khalifa, release mixtapes for free. That seems to be the "artist" mentality, fuck getting paid; I'm doing this (making music) because I love doing this. It shows passion, commitment to their craft, and a true level of artistry. You could even argue the same thing for developers who release their apps for free because they want everyone to enjoy it regardless of price. I obviously want artists to make as much money as possible, so releasing great mixtapes does make me, personally, want to go see their concerts. It seems to be a great way to market yourself and with labels taking so much from artists anyway, the place where most new artists make money is touring and live shows. I don't want to go to a concert wear essentially the artist is just playing their latest CD to a crowd of people.

eli 14y ago
Sort of a bummer though in some ways. What if you make great records but suck live? What if you make great records and just don't want to have to relentlessly tour to get paid?
- dublinben 14y ago
  Then get a real job! There is no rule that musicians have to make a living plying their craft. Alternatively, get a sponsor. If it was good enough for Mozart and Beethoven, it's good enough for you. Art has never really (nor should necessarily) be commercially viable.
  - eli 14y ago
    Harsh! I'm not saying the situation you propose is inhumane or immoral... it's just a bummer.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Oh, those artists, expecting to get paid for having fun. Here, this song is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag
    - vacri 14y ago
      "This video contains content from UMG. It is not available in your country. Sorry about that." :)
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        Dire Straits/Money for Nothing.
- pyre 14y ago
  There is a lot of software that would be "nice to write," but wouldn't necessarily pay the bills. You don't see me turning to the law to make a business model.
  - eli 14y ago
    Hey, don't make me into some protectionist, anti-copyright reform strawman. If there's cool software that doesn't exist because the universe lacks an equitable way to compensate you for its creation, then that sucks.
tptacek 14y ago
No, it's a model that works only for the very most popular acts. Independent artists who compose original music and tour clubs make McDonalds wages (or often less) doing that. Which is to say nothing about the idea of creating a structural requirement that professional musicians have to live an itinerant lifestyle. You can want artists not to care about their recording rights as much as you like, but wanting recording rights not to matter is not the same thing as them actually not mattering.
- hello_newman 14y ago
  It does and it doesn't. I see a lot of similarities with the recording industry and the current start up "scene". In the music business, you get noticed by labels for having an awesome mixtape, much like developers getting noticed by VC's for having a popular website/app. Touring clubs makes a couple bucks, probably on par with a "McJob", but more often then not even small acts have a sponsor or some backing so they don't have to work full time and can fully commit to performing. My cousin got popular the same way; performing in small clubs, his record got noticed, hacked is way into a radio Christmas Show which got him noticed again, got a couple acting gigs, a movie roll, and now he's actually pretty big in the Midwest and overseas. Here he is; Tylerhilton.com "You can want artists not to care about their recording rights as much as you like, but wanting recording rights not to matter is not the same thing as them actually not mattering." I do agree with that. I want them to be compensated for their creative efforts, which means the artist, not necessarily their label, holds those rights. I wish they didn't matter as much as they did so everyone could enjoy their music much easier, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too I suppose.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Even that last sentiment oversimplifies the economics. The C.W. is that rapacious labels took an undue share of the proceeds from artists, so that buying a CD was essentially just subsidizing a middleman. But it turns out, most major-label albums never recouped, and the artists kept the advance regardless. Labels served a similar function in commercial music as VCs serve in startups: they'd subsidize near-market wages for 9 money-losing bets in exchange for large proceeds from one breakout success.
anigbrowl 14y ago
It's a terrible model for musicians that aren't famous or who don't make music that's fashionable enough to attract a large crowd. That seems to be the "artist" mentality, fuck getting paid; I'm doing this (making music) because I love doing this. It is part of the artist mentality, but it's also great marketing. If you go to Soundcloud or similar sites, loads of artists are giving music away for free (not least to conduct musical conversations with their peers and get feedback etc.), but that doesn't mean they're all getting gigs out of it. The artists you mention are all already famous and can write off the time spent on doing free mixtapes as a promotional expense.
- hello_newman 14y ago
  "The artists you mention are all already famous and can write off the time spent on doing free mixtapes as a promotional expense." True, they are famous now, but all of them used mixtapes to become famous. Wiz came up as a rapper through mixtapes. Lil Wayne released "I'm Me" as a mixtape, which was supposed to be "The Carter 3" but it was leaked so he released it for free. Not to mention, he pretty much invented the "free mixtape to use a marketing tool" which I think he did by accident. His music sucks now, but The Carter 2 is a great CD and I don't think I would have found out about him at 16 unless it had been for his mixtape work.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    he pretty much invented the "free mixtape to use a marketing tool" I find this assertion hilarious, but that's probably because you're 24 and I'm 42. People have been doing this sort of thing for ages.
PavlovsCat 14y ago
What about music that can only be crafted, but not played live? What about music that works best with headphones? What about music that doesn't lend itself to the consumption of alcohol? What about those who want to make music, not T-Shirts or mugs or what-the-fuck-ever? Congrats, you just restricted musicians to live entertainers, just because that's all you care about.
flyinRyan 14y ago
>fuck getting paid; I'm doing this (making music) because I love doing this. It shows passion, commitment to their craft, and a true level of artistry. And it also shows that they're either already successful, already rich, or somehow able to avoid any kind of steady expenses. I'd love to do research in software. I don't care about making CRUD apps over and over, there are tons of things I'd like to experiment on and I bet at least one of them would end up benefiting others. But I'll likely never get to do any of this stuff because work demands the monopoly of my time and my wife and kids fight over what's left.

eli 14y ago

Sort of a bummer though in some ways. What if you make great records but suck live? What if you make great records and just don't want to have to relentlessly tour to get paid?

dublinben 14y ago
Then get a real job! There is no rule that musicians have to make a living plying their craft. Alternatively, get a sponsor. If it was good enough for Mozart and Beethoven, it's good enough for you. Art has never really (nor should necessarily) be commercially viable.
- eli 14y ago
  Harsh! I'm not saying the situation you propose is inhumane or immoral... it's just a bummer.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Oh, those artists, expecting to get paid for having fun. Here, this song is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag
  - vacri 14y ago
    "This video contains content from UMG. It is not available in your country. Sorry about that." :)
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      Dire Straits/Money for Nothing.
pyre 14y ago
There is a lot of software that would be "nice to write," but wouldn't necessarily pay the bills. You don't see me turning to the law to make a business model.
- eli 14y ago
  Hey, don't make me into some protectionist, anti-copyright reform strawman. If there's cool software that doesn't exist because the universe lacks an equitable way to compensate you for its creation, then that sucks.

tptacek 14y ago

No, it's a model that works only for the very most popular acts. Independent artists who compose original music and tour clubs make McDonalds wages (or often less) doing that. Which is to say nothing about the idea of creating a structural requirement that professional musicians have to live an itinerant lifestyle. You can want artists not to care about their recording rights as much as you like, but wanting recording rights not to matter is not the same thing as them actually not mattering.

hello_newman 14y ago
It does and it doesn't. I see a lot of similarities with the recording industry and the current start up "scene". In the music business, you get noticed by labels for having an awesome mixtape, much like developers getting noticed by VC's for having a popular website/app. Touring clubs makes a couple bucks, probably on par with a "McJob", but more often then not even small acts have a sponsor or some backing so they don't have to work full time and can fully commit to performing. My cousin got popular the same way; performing in small clubs, his record got noticed, hacked is way into a radio Christmas Show which got him noticed again, got a couple acting gigs, a movie roll, and now he's actually pretty big in the Midwest and overseas. Here he is; Tylerhilton.com "You can want artists not to care about their recording rights as much as you like, but wanting recording rights not to matter is not the same thing as them actually not mattering." I do agree with that. I want them to be compensated for their creative efforts, which means the artist, not necessarily their label, holds those rights. I wish they didn't matter as much as they did so everyone could enjoy their music much easier, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too I suppose.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Even that last sentiment oversimplifies the economics. The C.W. is that rapacious labels took an undue share of the proceeds from artists, so that buying a CD was essentially just subsidizing a middleman. But it turns out, most major-label albums never recouped, and the artists kept the advance regardless. Labels served a similar function in commercial music as VCs serve in startups: they'd subsidize near-market wages for 9 money-losing bets in exchange for large proceeds from one breakout success.

anigbrowl 14y ago

It's a terrible model for musicians that aren't famous or who don't make music that's fashionable enough to attract a large crowd. That seems to be the "artist" mentality, fuck getting paid; I'm doing this (making music) because I love doing this. It is part of the artist mentality, but it's also great marketing. If you go to Soundcloud or similar sites, loads of artists are giving music away for free (not least to conduct musical conversations with their peers and get feedback etc.), but that doesn't mean they're all getting gigs out of it. The artists you mention are all already famous and can write off the time spent on doing free mixtapes as a promotional expense.

hello_newman 14y ago
"The artists you mention are all already famous and can write off the time spent on doing free mixtapes as a promotional expense." True, they are famous now, but all of them used mixtapes to become famous. Wiz came up as a rapper through mixtapes. Lil Wayne released "I'm Me" as a mixtape, which was supposed to be "The Carter 3" but it was leaked so he released it for free. Not to mention, he pretty much invented the "free mixtape to use a marketing tool" which I think he did by accident. His music sucks now, but The Carter 2 is a great CD and I don't think I would have found out about him at 16 unless it had been for his mixtape work.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  he pretty much invented the "free mixtape to use a marketing tool" I find this assertion hilarious, but that's probably because you're 24 and I'm 42. People have been doing this sort of thing for ages.

PavlovsCat 14y ago

What about music that can only be crafted, but not played live? What about music that works best with headphones? What about music that doesn't lend itself to the consumption of alcohol? What about those who want to make music, not T-Shirts or mugs or what-the-fuck-ever? Congrats, you just restricted musicians to live entertainers, just because that's all you care about.

flyinRyan 14y ago

>fuck getting paid; I'm doing this (making music) because I love doing this. It shows passion, commitment to their craft, and a true level of artistry. And it also shows that they're either already successful, already rich, or somehow able to avoid any kind of steady expenses. I'd love to do research in software. I don't care about making CRUD apps over and over, there are tons of things I'd like to experiment on and I bet at least one of them would end up benefiting others. But I'll likely never get to do any of this stuff because work demands the monopoly of my time and my wife and kids fight over what's left.