6 ms·

When I was a kid (Napster era) I paid for nothing. The artists weren't stream-able, so there were no royalties either. Today I buy every damn song I listen to,

by AJ007 13y ago

When I was a kid (Napster era) I paid for nothing. The artists weren't stream-able, so there were no royalties either. Today I buy every damn song I listen to, thousands of dollars worth. When an artist I like comes out with a new CD, I buy it immediately. I don't use Spotify or Google Music. I don't know what they pay to the artist. What I do know is my friends that use them have zero reason to buy a CD. I also know even the more obscure stuff shows up on there. Once they are older and have a family, they certainly don't have time to go to more than a couple of concerts a year, and they most likely are not wearing band t-shirts past 30. The way radio worked, you heard a song once and a while, liked it, most of the artist's other songs you rarely or never heard. There was a big incentive to buy the CD. Musicians need to have a freemium model, where you get free, unrestricted access to some songs, and then if you absolutely love the band you pay for the rest (or you can pirate it, but there are a few hoops to jump through for that one.) It has to be convenient, on demand, and a single standard. May be its lossless audio, or may be its just mastered differently. Someone who knows more about music would have to figure it out. Despite all of this, my favorite musicians regularly release new albums. There are a few duds, but the music is good. Countless genres blended together and mutated, with virtually unlimited choices. As far as I'm concerned, this is a music renaissance.

bartwe 13y ago
bandcamp is where that freemium model lives.
jyap 13y ago
"Today I buy every damn song I listen to, thousands of dollars worth" Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? Do you buy the physical CD or do you buy the song on iTunes? The vast vast majority of people do not have thousands of dollars to spend on music.
- aidos 13y ago
  I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. Is it a problem that he spent thousands on music? In the last 7 years I've spend circa $6,000 on one service alone (emusic). I used to spend $500+ per month on vinyl. Hell, I even steal it sometimes too. I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it?
  - chill1 13y ago
    > I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it? Mail them a check. Mail them cash. Hand them cash in person. Send them bitcoins; if they're tech-savvy enough.
    - metachor 13y ago
      That's disingenuous. How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? There is a very good reason that many musicians become involved with labels, promoters, distributors, etc., which is to free up the time of the artist to focus on what they are actually interested in doing: writing and playing music.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? Like many scaling problems, that's a good problem to have: at that point, you can afford to have people working for you depositing checks, which is pretty much the inverse of the power relationship artists have with labels.
        yardie 13y ago
        > the inverse of the power relationship artists have with labels. You don't know what the relationship with the label is. Some artists come in with their own label and only need distributor to reach a bigger audience (artists $$$/labels$$). Some come in completely unknown and the label has to front all the money (artists $ / label $$$$), and some are quite happy to be on a smaller label and let the label handle the business side of things. > at that point, you can afford to have people working for you depositing checks ...and paying royalties for samples, collaborators, songwriters. Well now we have to hire a guy to handle all of this and you can either pay him/her a salary or a cut of the sales. Now we've slipped back into the label distributor problem.
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  > Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? Do you buy the physical CD or do you buy the song on iTunes? You know that if you spend $0, the artist gets nothing, right? Then their label drops them because they aren't profitable.
  - philhippus 13y ago
    >if you spend $0, the artist gets nothing, right? not necessarily. I'm quite happy to be shown ads while I stream that generate revenue for the artist.
    - shawnc 13y ago
      Right. Cause you're totally just staring at the screen that is playing the music, not at all doing something else while the music plays.
    - melvinram 13y ago
      The share that the artist gets doesn't change just because it's ad revenue. You simply pay less and the artist gets less.
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        Unless you do what I do, which is mail a check directly to the artist. I'm not even kidding. Nothing is stopping you from writing a $50 check and sending it as a donation.
        melvinram 13y ago
        I buy at least $30 of music each month from iTunes. Finding the addresses of these artists, writing a check and sending it their way would be more hassle than I care to go through. If the artists don't like the deal that labels are giving them, they don't have to take it. They can build their own fan base, learn marketing, get exposure and sell their own stuff through iTunes and other places. A lot of artists are opting to do just that.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  It's an interesting question. Do you have a moral resposibilty to make sure the money you spend makes it to the artist, or did you just justify your lack of moral effort by saying "well I 'paid' for it, meh..." and how might this be different that just paying a few bucks for a Pandora membership.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? You don't know that, because you don't know what sort of music he listens to or what deals those artists have with their labels. There are certainly cases where labels fuck artists, but there are a lot of others where they deliver value. This idea of blaming all the big bad labels is little more than an excuse not to pay for music. Along the way, it's crushed lots of small independent labels that had great partnerships with their artists but get blamed for the perceived moral failings of the majors.
  - shiven 13y ago
    So why didn't those small independent labels ask their artists to come out swinging for them and champion their cause? Or better, why didn't the artists who (apparently) loved their labels advocate for them in the greater public media?
gonzo 13y ago
... " they most likely are not wearing band t-shirts past 30." hey there now, sonny. I'm 51, and some of them still fit just fine, thanks. I even go to several concerts each year.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Seriously. My father, while he was still alive, wore way more band shirts than I ever did.

by AJ007 13y ago

bartwe 13y ago

bandcamp is where that freemium model lives.

jyap 13y ago

"Today I buy every damn song I listen to, thousands of dollars worth" Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? Do you buy the physical CD or do you buy the song on iTunes? The vast vast majority of people do not have thousands of dollars to spend on music.

aidos 13y ago
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. Is it a problem that he spent thousands on music? In the last 7 years I've spend circa $6,000 on one service alone (emusic). I used to spend $500+ per month on vinyl. Hell, I even steal it sometimes too. I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it?
- chill1 13y ago
  > I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it? Mail them a check. Mail them cash. Hand them cash in person. Send them bitcoins; if they're tech-savvy enough.
  - metachor 13y ago
    That's disingenuous. How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? There is a very good reason that many musicians become involved with labels, promoters, distributors, etc., which is to free up the time of the artist to focus on what they are actually interested in doing: writing and playing music.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? Like many scaling problems, that's a good problem to have: at that point, you can afford to have people working for you depositing checks, which is pretty much the inverse of the power relationship artists have with labels.
      - yardie 13y ago
        > the inverse of the power relationship artists have with labels. You don't know what the relationship with the label is. Some artists come in with their own label and only need distributor to reach a bigger audience (artists $$$/labels$$). Some come in completely unknown and the label has to front all the money (artists $ / label $$$$), and some are quite happy to be on a smaller label and let the label handle the business side of things. > at that point, you can afford to have people working for you depositing checks ...and paying royalties for samples, collaborators, songwriters. Well now we have to hire a guy to handle all of this and you can either pay him/her a salary or a cut of the sales. Now we've slipped back into the label distributor problem.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
> Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? Do you buy the physical CD or do you buy the song on iTunes? You know that if you spend $0, the artist gets nothing, right? Then their label drops them because they aren't profitable.
- philhippus 13y ago
  >if you spend $0, the artist gets nothing, right? not necessarily. I'm quite happy to be shown ads while I stream that generate revenue for the artist.
  - shawnc 13y ago
    Right. Cause you're totally just staring at the screen that is playing the music, not at all doing something else while the music plays.
  - melvinram 13y ago
    The share that the artist gets doesn't change just because it's ad revenue. You simply pay less and the artist gets less.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      Unless you do what I do, which is mail a check directly to the artist. I'm not even kidding. Nothing is stopping you from writing a $50 check and sending it as a donation.
      - melvinram 13y ago
        I buy at least $30 of music each month from iTunes. Finding the addresses of these artists, writing a check and sending it their way would be more hassle than I care to go through. If the artists don't like the deal that labels are giving them, they don't have to take it. They can build their own fan base, learn marketing, get exposure and sell their own stuff through iTunes and other places. A lot of artists are opting to do just that.
noonespecial 13y ago
It's an interesting question. Do you have a moral resposibilty to make sure the money you spend makes it to the artist, or did you just justify your lack of moral effort by saying "well I 'paid' for it, meh..." and how might this be different that just paying a few bucks for a Pandora membership.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? You don't know that, because you don't know what sort of music he listens to or what deals those artists have with their labels. There are certainly cases where labels fuck artists, but there are a lot of others where they deliver value. This idea of blaming all the big bad labels is little more than an excuse not to pay for music. Along the way, it's crushed lots of small independent labels that had great partnerships with their artists but get blamed for the perceived moral failings of the majors.
- shiven 13y ago
  So why didn't those small independent labels ask their artists to come out swinging for them and champion their cause? Or better, why didn't the artists who (apparently) loved their labels advocate for them in the greater public media?

gonzo 13y ago

... " they most likely are not wearing band t-shirts past 30." hey there now, sonny. I'm 51, and some of them still fit just fine, thanks. I even go to several concerts each year.

dllthomas 13y ago
Seriously. My father, while he was still alive, wore way more band shirts than I ever did.