[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2011/03/HAfavZ.jpg[/newsimage]Musician and staunch critic of the very industry he works in, Moby holds some strong beliefs: on the recording industry; major labels; and free music. While a band like Metallica is synonymous with efforts to limit or prevent file sharing, Moby is the antithesis - a crusader for consumer rights who isn't afraid to willingly give away his music since it typically ends up helping in the long run. For him, building bridges is more important than taxing existing ones. The artist offered a thoughtful if provocative opinion on the current state of the music industry, along with a bold ultimatum. Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/mobys-suggestion-to-the-music-industry-reinvent-or-die-40962/](http://www.myce.com/news/mobys-suggestion-to-the-music-industry-reinvent-or-die-40962/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
Moby is right. The RIAA can’t sue everyone into complying with their view of how things should work. When people en mass decide what is acceptable behavior, their will can not be denied. The RIAA has only swayed public opinion to turn against them faster with their “sue 'em all” strategy. They have lost the fight and they’re the last ones to figure it out.
The RIAA has become rather pointless. There like a middleman that does nothing by cyphen of cash. They’re not good for the consumers, they’re not good for the artists. It’s a lose lose situation.
[QUOTE=Zod;2578343]The RIAA has become rather pointless. There like a middleman that does nothing by cyphen of cash. They’re not good for the consumers, they’re not good for the artists. It’s a lose lose situation.[/QUOTE]
The RIAA needs to just go away and never come back! Moby is right, the music industry needs to be re invented, as the RIAA screwed it up!
There are plenty of other venues for those that won’t/can’t get into mainstream music. Several musicians have came to Jamendo, and actually proliferate a very, very strong following. Some of those artists have made a jump to a major label. Good luck for them.
iTunes, Napster, iMesh, Ad nauseum other music stores offer plenty of music; singles or albums. That’s what is important. Single songs make up more sales than whole CD’s. The day of buying the latest ABC or XYZ cd is all but over (well, staunch collectors keep on keeping on.) If there be more than 1 song that catches a persons ear, word gets out and another single is moved. That’s what makes the major labels pissy. They put so much into marketing that when the latest doesn’t sell, then they resort to crying ‘foul’ it’s those pirates doing it… Pffft, get over it…
I wish a could remember the name of the band or artist ( I have a terrible time with names. ) but I do remember an article about a band or artist that gave away the music on the 'net then made the money on the tour and, in particular, a limited number of special edition packages with the CD and materials from the tour all bundled together; instant collector’s item and with a premium price attached. Every package was sold at the list price and made the band a nice profit. Not like the current situation where the plain CD or DVD sits on the regular price shelf for a while then drops into the discount bin then finally is set outside in a rack in hopes that someone will just steal the dang thing. I love finding last year’s greatest movie DVD in this year’s $5 bin.
Anyway, that’s the way to make the money, items ancillary to the music itself and not just the CD. That’s just a form of transmission, like radio and the 'net.
I agree if a band has previous popularity, ie was established before napster I suppose, there in spot to do unique things like kpoole mention. Record Labels are good for one thing, well sometimes, they get your music out there, on radio etc… While there are other means of disitributing music, record companies were strong at getting it played in front of lots of people.
This means the older bands that wrapped up their original record contracts, can sell there own music, or give it away for free, focus on touring revenue.
The new acts though, they’re really not well off. Not only do record companies/riaa take the profits form their album sales, but now there putting their hands on tour revenue.
I’m surprise the artists don’t come up with their own collective for music distribution. Their own label maybe. Music Company run by artists…, hmmm.
Which old publishing company do you work for? Sorry, it wasn’t an old band with an RIAA contract and long pre-established popularity. It was a newer group.
Moby’s and my point are that the NEW groups / artists no longer need to use the RIAA to get the music out. They can self publish through the internet. A few good pieces of music will “go viral” very quickly and bring the new group notoriety in a way that they might never have reached through the RIAA. How many times has a reviewer or company exec panned a group or a movie because it didn’t meet their personal idea of worthiness only to have the general public love it? More times than is deserved.
NEW groups no longer need to pander to the RIAA, signing away all their rights and most of their profits to a company that now really is only an impediment to new artists reaching the public.
Old groups that are already grandfathered into the old system are the ones that will be suffering when the new paradigm sorts itself out unless they can break their ties to the old publishing companies and start their own. Or, if the RIAA wakes up and realizes that CDs are actually just another transmission medium, an old, slow and wasteful transmission medium.
My ral concern now, being Canadian, is a new version of copyright law being introduced in the house that would make media shifting illegal. In other words no copying music from a CD to an mp3 players or from your iPod to your computer for backup. If you wanted to hear a copy on your home stereo you’d buy a CD, if you wanted to hear a copy on your iPod you’d have to buy a new copy for that device. If your iPod dies and you cannot back up your music to your computer then you must re-purchase all your music for your new iPod. That’s the suggested law being backed by the Canadian versions of the RIAA and MPAA. Now who really benefits from such a law? Not the consumer and not the artist trying to remain independent of the RIAA in Canada.
[QUOTE=kpoole;2578488]I wish a could remember the name of the band or artist ( I have a terrible time with names. ) but I do remember an article about a band or artist that gave away the music on the 'net then made the money on the tour and, in particular, a limited number of special edition packages with the CD and materials from the tour all bundled together; instant collector’s item and with a premium price attached. Every package was sold at the list price and made the band a nice profit. Not like the current situation where the plain CD or DVD sits on the regular price shelf for a while then drops into the discount bin then finally is set outside in a rack in hopes that someone will just steal the dang thing. I love finding last year’s greatest movie DVD in this year’s $5 bin.
Anyway, that’s the way to make the money, items ancillary to the music itself and not just the CD. That’s just a form of transmission, like radio and the 'net.[/QUOTE]
This is what Smashing Pumpkins are doing at the moment. Releasing their next album track-by-track as they are recorded…not sure how many more tracks are coming but 8 are up on their site at the moment, for FREE download!
I think the music industry is heading toward a model that lets the artists make the bulk of their income from live events. The release of their music will be the new form of advertising to get people to their concerts and get them paying gigs from TV, corporate events etc. The good thing about this is the money will mostly go to the artists and the middle men that have been taking advantage of them will no longer serve a purpose. In the end, the artists will make more money.
I’m not from a record company, and I understand Viral can allow things to take off on the internet, but so far, most things viral get watched then tossed. There’s so much stuff on the internet, there’s no widely used medium to expose people to new content, while mixing it in with the old.
I don’t think I was speaking to the need of record companies, moreso what radio has historically done to spread new music. While new music from the last while has rather sucked, radio is still there to spread it (and there has been a gem here or there in the last 15 years as well).
I’m just saying the internet is such a widespread place, and there’s so many things that go viral, then are forgotten two weeks later. I think it’s going to be harder for artists to establish themselves without their record companies bribing radio to play them. Albeit record companies grossly overtook their cut, they did help establish alot of bands.
If viral music works, then that’d be awesome. I just have doubts as to the long terms benefits of things that go viral, when viral tends to only bring short term notice. There’s no widespread online version of FM radio. You can find new music, but its just not the same. How do bands get the same exposure they do when they get they’re songs played across countries on Radio? How do they differentiate themselves from the rest of the crap on the internet The internet is such a big plan, I don’t think its as easy to get noticed as one would think.
I think there will be a music version of Youtube before long and artists will be made popular by the end users (i.e. the end listener). The website could spotlight musicians but in the end their success will be determined by overall popularity. Then maybe we can get some originality and creativity back into the music industry. Now all we get is retreads of past artists’ original talent manufactured by members of the RIAA. What a refreshing thing it would be to have a band come along with the originality of say, Nirvana, Yes, Queen, Boston etc. Now we get canned bands and singers that couldn’t write an original sounding hit song to save their lives. They are created out of thin air and raw, original talent has little to do with their success.
I hardly ever buy CDs anymore. I have a Zune Pass for my Zune HD player which entitles me to unlimited DRM downloads from their collection, which is quite extensive, if not complete, to stream these same tracks, and the right to purchase 10 MP3 tracks per month, all for $15.00, slightly more than I would pay for a CD alone. I am not familiar with the ITunes business model, but judging from it’s popularity, it must be somewhat similar.
Obviously, the era of people buying retail recordings, whether on CD, Vinyl, or tape is drawing to a close. The question is - what will replace it?
We do indeed live in interesting times.
[QUOTE=Zod;2578618]. There’s no widespread online version of FM radio. You can find new music, but its just not the same. How do bands get the same exposure they do when they get they’re songs played across countries on Radio?[/QUOTE]
There are, or were, internet radio stations but, the last I heard, the record companies had rammed through such an exorbitant royalty for playing the music that many of the internet radio stations were going out of business. There are a few independent internet radio stations where they only play music not associated with the big record companies. That’s where the new bands will be able to get their air time, as it were.
Keep watching, the landscape is changing but, like anything else, it takes a lot of effort or time to change something that’s been in place for too long.