Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Cut cut cut and it starts to sound better, trying to make some sense out of MFTB< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
starfish Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: June 2009
Posted: May 16 2011, 18:48

I think this will be my last post on quite an interesting thread!

My last word on copyright is this: I fully believe it is the right of any artist to determine how their work is shared and distributed.

Some artists, such as perhaps yaco here, don't mind seeing their art copied and distributed all over the internet, as is their right, of course. I suppose the main argument is that such freely-distributed art garners a wider audience than it might otherwise.

Others, such as myself (and Mike Oldfield), would rather retain a degree of control over who has access to their art. Oldfield himself has been very vocal on the subject, even making sure that some of his albums were released on 'Copy Protected' discs. This is his right as an artist.

My point is, how a piece of work is shared should be determined by the artist and the artist only (or those persons nonimated by the artist). If someone wants their work to be shared freely, then brilliant, good stuff.

But if others want their work and their income protected, we should respect that, both as fans of the artist and as law-abiding citizens. Mike has gone on record saying he does not wnat his music illegally distributed - and we have a duty (morally and legally) to abide by his request.

Copyright violation is theft, pure and simple.
Back to top
Profile PM 
yaco Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: Feb. 2002
Posted: May 16 2011, 23:56

well i agree with most of what you have said, at least in spirit. but i understand one thing that is always taken into account when dealing with legal issues is plain old common sense. ie: without some common sense the remixes forum is full of pure and simple thieves!

i believe there's a big difference between a fan-made remix posted here, in the "The largest and most well-established Mike Oldfield website" (wikipedia), and on the other hand using some of his music without permission for a porn movie, or stealing ideas from them (ever played any computer or console game? there's tons of mike's ideas in there!), or selling pirate copies of his CDs on the street, or downloading them from the web or p2p networks.

anyway, if an admin or mike's attorneys wanted me (or any other of the thieves around here) to cease and desist liking the music so much we can't stop playing with it for hours, then i for my part wil (reluctantly) take them off the internet, of course!

best,

yaco\


--------------
music is dressed silence
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
ex member 892 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: July 2008
Posted: May 18 2011, 20:57

Quote (starfish @ May 16 2011, 18:48)
I think this will be my last post on quite an interesting thread!

My last word on copyright is this: I fully believe it is the right of any artist to determine how their work is shared and distributed.

Some artists, such as perhaps yaco here, don't mind seeing their art copied and distributed all over the internet, as is their right, of course. I suppose the main argument is that such freely-distributed art garners a wider audience than it might otherwise.

Others, such as myself (and Mike Oldfield), would rather retain a degree of control over who has access to their art. Oldfield himself has been very vocal on the subject, even making sure that some of his albums were released on 'Copy Protected' discs. This is his right as an artist.

My point is, how a piece of work is shared should be determined by the artist and the artist only (or those persons nonimated by the artist). If someone wants their work to be shared freely, then brilliant, good stuff.

But if others want their work and their income protected, we should respect that, both as fans of the artist and as law-abiding citizens. Mike has gone on record saying he does not wnat his music illegally distributed - and we have a duty (morally and legally) to abide by his request.

Copyright violation is theft, pure and simple.

I agree completely.

I have a lot of love for the sharing atmosphere of the free music community, but not for their attitude that all art should be free - whether the artist wants it or not. The Creative Commons license is nice, because it allows the consumer more freedom, while still giving the artist a degree of control.

But this cannot be overstated: the artist should have 100% control over what is or is not done with his or her music.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: May 19 2011, 07:49

Quote (Syd B @ May 18 2011, 20:57)
But this cannot be overstated: the artist should have 100% control over what is or is not done with his or her music.

I'm not trying to cause an argument, but did Mike want Milamber to release the Tubular.net 2011 Album, which is full of remixes and covers of his music? Did he want so many fans to be strongly influenced by his style of writing and playing?

I think the fact here is that the only way an artist can have 100% control over his music is to lock it all up in a safe, with a combination only he knows, and never, ever publish it. Otherwise, it's inviable and impossible. You just can't control art and you can't control people that much -- maybe back when the digital medium was still a hallucination and cassette tapes were a distant dream, there indeed was a lot of control over how, where and when music was heard, but the world has changed. And you know what's the only thing a human being can do in a changing world: adapt.

For an artist, it's dumb to expect nobody will listen to his music without paying. It won't happen. What he should expect is that there are always people willing to pay for a nice, neat package, and the only way to get through to those people is by getting heard. That's basically how the world works now. Say, I put all of my music out under the Creative Commons, and it is my wish that people listen to it for free, anywhere. But what if some folks like it so much that they'd pay quite a bunch of bucks to have it on an LP? It would make them happy and, as an added bonus, would generate income, so that would be a smart thing to do. But if I was an established, famous artist and only put out my music on vinyl, you can bet there would be a few digital rips floating around on Torrent sites. What could I do? Go lawsuit happy?

The artist "should" have 100% of control. Well, "should" have points to an ideal, an utopia, perhaps. But in out world, what is the best alternative? I think that is the real question. Ideal worlds are useful in Physics, but not much here. :)


--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
starfish Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: June 2009
Posted: May 19 2011, 08:25

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ May 19 2011, 07:49)
I think the fact here is that the only way an artist can have 100% control over his music is to lock it all up in a safe, with a combination only he knows, and never, ever publish it. Otherwise, it's inviable and impossible...

The artist "should" have 100% of control. Well, "should" have points to an ideal, an utopia, perhaps. But in out [sic] world, what is the best alternative? I think that is the real question. Ideal worlds are useful in Physics, but not much here. :)

I know I said I'd stay out of this thread, but I can't believe I'm hearing all these justifications for breaking the law.

You're basically saying that, because copyright theft is popular, and there's no way to fully protect yourself, then it's inevitable. And artists should just accept the fact and move on.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There are many rapists in the world. There's no way to fully protect yourself from rape. So maybe women should just accept this and shrug their shoulders when they are attacked?

Yes, I realise it's a bit overdramatic to liken copyright violation with sexual violation, but the point still remains.

"Lots of people do it and there's no way to fully stop people from doing it" is never, ever, justification for crime - either for so-called minor crimes such as copyright theft or speeding, or even for major ones such as rape or murder.
Back to top
Profile PM 
ex member 892 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: July 2008
Posted: May 19 2011, 09:15

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ May 19 2011, 07:49)
I'm not trying to cause an argument, but did Mike want Milamber to release the Tubular.net 2011 Album, which is full of remixes and covers of his music? Did he want so many fans to be strongly influenced by his style of writing and playing?

Okay, good point, but it should be pointed out that nobody is making any money from the tubenet album.

Quote
What could I do? Go lawsuit happy?


Hey, that's what Metallica did. ;)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Milamber Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2263
Joined: Feb. 2010
Posted: May 19 2011, 09:38

Does the Album make me a pirate ?

The Avatar was a good choice then :laugh:
Back to top
Profile PM 
ex member 892 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: July 2008
Posted: May 19 2011, 09:47

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ May 19 2011, 07:49)
The artist "should" have 100% of control. Well, "should" have points to an ideal, an utopia, perhaps. But in out world, what is the best alternative? I think that is the real question. Ideal worlds are useful in Physics, but not much here. :)

Oh, and who said I wasn't speaking idealistically? I'm not an idiot, I know there's no way to stop file sharing - I've partaken in it myself. But I do buy everything I download eventually.
Back to top
Profile PM 
yaco Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: Feb. 2002
Posted: May 19 2011, 09:51

Quote (starfish @ May 19 2011, 08:25)
You're basically saying that, because copyright theft is popular, and there's no way to fully protect yourself, then it's inevitable. And artists should just accept the fact and move on.

again, i think it doesn't make any sense to put every case to the same rigid, unreasonable laws. in real cases the things are never black or white, and that's why you need attorneys and such.

there's an enormous difference between:
- a group of fans working with an artist's ideas and sounds to make a non-profit tribute, or just trying to enjoy the music better.
- someone downloading an album instead of buying it from a local shop or via the web.
- someone making thousands of pirate cds and distributing them for sale on the streets.
- someone using a fragment of an artist's work without permission or respect just to avoid paying a musician to create a proper soundtrack.

i bet all these cases would end up being treated very differenty in a court. and the first one probably wouldn't even get there!


--------------
music is dressed silence
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
starfish Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: June 2009
Posted: May 19 2011, 10:18

Quote (yaco @ May 19 2011, 09:51)
a group of fans working with an artist's ideas and sounds to make a non-profit tribute, or just trying to enjoy the music better.

Just to make it clear, I have no problem with this whatsoever. Once you buy music, that gives you the right to copy it, edit it, do basically whatever you want with it... insofar as it's for your own personal use, or if you trade with other people who also own a copy of the original music. That's all fine. And perfectly legal.

The moment you post this stuff publicly on the internet, or make it freely available to people who don't own a copy of the original music, that's when it becomes illegal, and when I have a problem.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: May 19 2011, 15:45

Quote (starfish @ May 19 2011, 08:25)
You're basically saying that, because copyright theft is popular, and there's no way to fully protect yourself, then it's inevitable. And artists should just accept the fact and move on.

It's not simply "inevitable": it's irreversible, it's become a reality, it has shifted paradigms and standards completely. Things like that happen regularly: the world changes, innovation happen and laws become obsolete.

And let's not talk about when laws get explicitly manipulated and distorted just to suit the economic interests of a minority.

Quote
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There are many rapists in the world. There's no way to fully protect yourself from rape. So maybe women should just accept this and shrug their shoulders when they are attacked?


Why not use a better example? Alan Turing, the father of computer science, was convicted about 60 years ago because homossexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom back then.

In 2009, Gordon Brown publicly apologised for that.

Things change.


--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
starfish Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: June 2009
Posted: May 19 2011, 17:43

These are some really interesting points. I have to say, I’m really enjoying this intriguing debate.
Quote (Sir Mustapha @ May 19 2011, 15:45)

And let's not talk about when laws get explicitly manipulated and distorted just to suit the economic interests of a minority.

There’s a tired and inaccurate view that copyright laws are there just to protect the fatcats and line the pockets of the rich and famous. The major film studios. The big record labels. The millionaire artists.
But they are great laws. Brilliant even – because they protect the little people just as much (if not more so) than the major corporations.
Every time some of my stock music library is used on a production, I get paid. It’s not my main source of income, but it helps pays the bills. Sometimes it’s a lot, sometimes it’s very little (for example, I get a cheque through the post for two pence every time someone buys a certain CD compilation of ‘on-hold’ telephone music!)
Now, how could I make any money from the system if no-one had to pay to use my work, if it was all freely downloadable online? How would I get paid? Last month a few of my pieces were used as incidental music on a new range of safety videos for the HSE, for which I got a four-figure sum.
Sometimes I rely on paydays like that, I need that money to live. How would I earn this money if all my work was free to download?
Big, rich rock bands such as Radiohead can afford to release new music via their website for a minimal fee. Prince can afford to give away his new album as a freebie with the Daily Mail. But what about those of us who rely on small, steady sales of back-catalogue music to earn a modest living?
Quote (Sir Mustapha @ May 19 2011, 15:45)

It's not simply "inevitable": it's irreversible, it's become a reality, it has shifted paradigms and standards completely. Things like that happen regularly: the world changes, innovation happen and laws become obsolete.

I’m really interested in this future you forsee for the music industry.
Already, paid legal downloads are outstripping physical formats. High-street giants such as Woolworths, Zavvi and (inevitably) HMV are falling by the wayside because physical releases are becoming a niche product as more and more people head to iTunes. Indeed some releases (the latest singles by Kate Bush and Feeder spring to mind) are download-only, without a physical release at all.
So this raises the question – in this future where copyright laws have fallen by the wayside and everything is free – how do any artists get paid? What’s in it for them (other than job satisfaction, of course)? How can they commit to music full-time if they’re not getting any income from the music? Especially when, as already stated, the physical format is slowly going extinct?
Quote (Sir Mustapha @ May 19 2011, 15:45)

Why not use a better example? Alan Turing, the father of computer science, was convicted about 60 years ago because homossexuality[sic] was illegal in the United Kingdom back then.

Yes, I’m aware that laws change with the times. Alongside homosexuality you can add slavery, witchcraft, smoking indoors and a ton of other things whose legal status has changed over the years.
But where do you draw the line? Who decides when something illegal should be made legal and vice versa? Lots of people have underage sex. At school a lot of my classmates were ‘at it’ with their girlfriends when they as young as 13. Should we make that legal? Lots of people drive their cars over the speed limits. Should we make that legal? Even if it results in more fatal accidents? Lots of people do drugs. Lots of people are bullies. The world is full of people who break various laws. Should we legalise everything?
We can’t and shouldn’t second-guess what the world or the laws are going to be in a few years’ time. If and when the copyright laws are relaxed by the government (heaven forbid), then people will be free to download whatever they want, and at no charge.
But until then, shouldn’t we all abide by the laws as they stand?
Back to top
Profile PM 
starfish Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: June 2009
Posted: May 19 2011, 17:54

Sorry about the double-post, hope I'm not boring anyone!

But I've had an idea as to how Sir Mustapha and yaco's dreams of free music could become a reality, and ensure that artists still get paid for their work.

What if the government were to impose an 'art tax' on internet use - all the proceeds of which would be divided between the artists whose songs / movies / photos have been downloaded.

For example, when you buy your internet service (BT, Sky, Talk Talk and Orange being the main providers in the UK), instead of paying, say, £10 per month, you instead have to pay triple that amount, £30.

Of this £30, £10 goes to the internet provider company as normal, and the remaining £20 is 'art tax' which is then redistributed to the artists and performers.

That way, people can download whatever they like and the artists still get paid. That way, everyone is happy.

That's one possible workaround, anyway.
Back to top
Profile PM 
ex member 892 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: July 2008
Posted: May 20 2011, 08:10

Quote (starfish @ May 19 2011, 17:54)
What if the government were to impose an 'art tax' on internet use - all the proceeds of which would be divided between the artists whose songs / movies / photos have been downloaded.

For example, when you buy your internet service (BT, Sky, Talk Talk and Orange being the main providers in the UK), instead of paying, say, £10 per month, you instead have to pay triple that amount, £30.

Of this £30, £10 goes to the internet provider company as normal, and the remaining £20 is 'art tax' which is then redistributed to the artists and performers.

That way, people can download whatever they like and the artists still get paid. That way, everyone is happy.

That's one possible workaround, anyway.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Keep the government out of it!

Sorry, but I am infuriated by people who rely on government to fix all of their problems.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: May 20 2011, 14:23

Quote (starfish @ May 19 2011, 17:43)
There’s a tired and inaccurate view that copyright laws are there just to protect the fatcats and line the pockets of the rich and famous. The major film studios. The big record labels. The millionaire artists.

Tired, maybe, but why? Because it has been proven wrong, or because people are trying to trample it as hard as they can?

As for inaccurate, I don't know. We've all heard by mass lawsuits by the RIAA, which included lawsuits against 9-year-olds and very old citizens who get nowhere close to a computer. We've all heard about artists trying to stretch the duration of copyright beyond infinity so that their cash-cows don't fall into the public domain (did I hear Paul McCartney?).

Quote
But they are great laws. Brilliant even – because they protect the little people just as much (if not more so) than the major corporations.


Sure thing. But that doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be revised so they're still relevant in our changing world.

Quote
How would I earn this money if all my work was free to download?


One possibility is to differentiate personal, non-profit use from commercial, for-profit use. That's one of the principles of the Creative Commons: there's a license that allows anyone to download and play your work for free, but if someone wants to use it in a production, or for some other applied use, they have to pay. That's a pretty logical and fair possibility. There are others; we just need to keep researching.

Quote
I’m really interested in this future you forsee for the music industry.


The future is drawing itself. Jamendo, SoundCloud and other similar sites are thriving, and offering alternate means of income to its artists. The big MP3 stores are quickly abandoning DRM, which will, in a short while, become a ghost from a distant past. On the other hand, people are making profit by selling vinyl records. The alternatives are there: I'm not naïve enough to try and make predictions, because such predictions are almost always wrong. But the tendency is towards freedom of choice and possibilities, and I'm trying to walk along with that.

Quote
But where do you draw the line? Who decides when something illegal should be made legal and vice versa?


Basically, there is no simple and easy answer for that. I believe we can narrow down a not 100% accurate and not 100% complete set of basic human rights which can't be violated under any circumstance -- for example, the right to walk on the streets without the risk of being killed, raped or run over by a speeding car that ignored a red light. But when it comes to art, there are many rights to be considered, and no definitive solution can be offered by a single person. I don't think that's how it should be done, and I think that governments and laws are there to steer society towards fairness and justice, but not fight against currents and cause injustice in the name of a rich minority.


--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
ex member 892 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: July 2008
Posted: May 20 2011, 15:40

I'm actually finding myself somewhat in agreement with you, Musty. As we've established that I was speaking idealistically in my first post, let us now face reality. :D The music industry has to find a new paradigm or it will die. I like to have CDs because it's a physical package that you can hold in your hand, but I'm a minority. So how do you approach the problem of illegal downloading? I don't know. I do know that most bands derive the majority of their income from touring, not CD sales. Maybe if you actually buy a CD or download legally, record companies could offer a discount to see the band live. But how about artists that don't tour? These are tough questions.

But I know that starfish's idea is horrible. Sorry, but it's true.
Back to top
Profile PM 
yaco Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: Feb. 2002
Posted: May 20 2011, 16:14

Quote
(did I hear Paul McCartney?)

or maybe his friend Mickey Mouse?


--------------
music is dressed silence
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
starfish Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: June 2009
Posted: May 20 2011, 16:40

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ May 20 2011, 14:23)
We've all heard about artists trying to stretch the duration of copyright beyond infinity so that their cash-cows don't fall into the public domain (did I hear Paul McCartney?).

What's Sir Paul Doing wrong here exactly?

Together with his fellow Beatles, he wrote and performed a bunch of songs which a lot of people love. Why exactly shouldn't he have control over this work? Why should he be denied the right to exploit the fruits of his labour? He wants to ensure future income for his children, his heirs - how is this such a terrible thing?

In other forms of art - such as literature and television - these copyrights last more than a lifetime. The estates of James Joyce, JRR Tolkein and even Terry Nation (creator of the Daleks) are still making money from their forbears' work. Why should this be different with music? Why should musicians be singled out  - it's not their fault that a song can be copied and transferred precisely whereas, say, a good oil painting cannot.

As a musician myself I can sympathise with my colleagues whose output is being copied and spread all over the public domain, whose income is being reduced by thieves who are too cheapskate to pay even 79p for a song.

And when such musicians dare to complain that their intellectual property is being abused, they're branded by self-proclaimed radical hippies as being old-fashioned capitalists who need to move with the times! It's a lose-lose situation!

You're reticent to predict the future, but I've got a scenario for you - a future where music is freely downloadble...

All the big brands and big labels will survive, simply because they are big companies and they can afford to bear the heavy losses. We'll be inundated with even more plastic, manufactured pop music.

Wheras the little bands and the indie labels won't make enough to survive, and they'll fall by the wayside. In such a world, small brands like the fledgling Virgin label (as it was in the 1970s) would never have made any money. Tubular Bells would never have been released. Already we're at the stage where some bands have to self-fund their albums as a labour of love, and pray that they'll sell enough copies to cover the costs.

If they can't make any money from music, then the smaller indie bands just won't be able to afford the studio time. And the music just won't get made.

And while the public are lapping up middle-of-the-road X-Factor pop music and the thousandth Glee album, the smaller bands will go defunct, and the music world will be smaller and sadder as a result.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: May 20 2011, 17:05

Quote (starfish @ May 20 2011, 16:40)
What's Sir Paul Doing wrong here exactly?

Together with his fellow Beatles, he wrote and performed a bunch of songs which a lot of people love. Why exactly shouldn't he have control over this work? Why should he be denied the right to exploit the fruits of his labour? He wants to ensure future income for his children, his heirs - how is this such a terrible thing?

He wants to ensure his income? Well, keep on writing songs, then.

Basically, the principle I'm applying here is similar to the principle you've applied yourself to some of your points: dura lex, sed lex. It's maybe just a little unethical for an individual to change the law in a way that he has sole benefit. That's not how laws are supposed to work.

Quote
In other forms of art - such as literature and television - these copyrights last more than a lifetime.


Well, I disagree with that, not with the relatively short length of music copyright.

Quote
You're reticent to predict the future, but I've got a scenario for you - a future where music is freely downloadble...

[...]

And while the public are lapping up middle-of-the-road X-Factor pop music and the thousandth Glee album, the smaller bands will go defunct, and the music world will be smaller and sadder as a result.


I take your cataclysmic scenario with a grain of salt, but it's not mere antipathy in my part. For the RIAA and similar institutions, music has been killed at least three times: by the Internet, by recordable CDs and by cassette tapes!

Yes! The BPI made a campaign saying that CASSETTE TAPES were killing music! There's even a Wikipedia article about that!!

All those predicted catastrophes were, instead, proven wrong by what turned into a new, brilliant perspective for music. I don't see why it should be so different this time around. Indie bands would have difficulty getting off the ground? They already have! Getting a big label contract is completely against the odds, and the successful cases we see are tiny exceptions in a sea of failures. Tubular Bells was a case of mere luck, one happy incident, and I don't doubt there have been thousands of "Tubular Bells" and thousands of "Mike Oldfields" that never reached our ears.

Realistically, we already have a scenario in which music is "free". Yet, there are people who WANT to pay for music, who WANT to support their favourite artists; they may be a minority, but they are enough to keep the boat sailing. Like I said, producing vinyl records is profitable. Vinyl records! How many people buy vinyl records nowadays? Answer: enough for them to keep being produced.

I think your prediction is flawed mostly because it's biased and incomplete, much like my own predictions would be, and much like pretty much everyone else's. Everybody has an incomplete and flawed vision, and that's inherent to our human nature. I do think, however, that you have extremely valid views and concerns, and I'm not one that thinks you should be dismissed as a "capitalist pig". I know there are freaks like Richard Stallman who think that intellectual property should be banished completely from the world, but I'm not like that. I don't think any radical solution should be adopted. I don't carry a flag saying "ALL MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE!", because I think things should happen naturally -- and the way I personally see it, things are converging towards a balance.


--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
yaco Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: Feb. 2002
Posted: May 20 2011, 17:39

Quote
You're reticent to predict the future, but I've got a scenario for you - a future where music is freely downloadble...

All the big brands and big labels will survive, simply because they are big companies and they can afford to bear the heavy losses. We'll be inundated with even more plastic, manufactured pop music.

Wheras the little bands and the indie labels won't make enough to survive, and they'll fall by the wayside.

funny thing: the future you foresee is already here, and it's working exactly opposite to your vision.

the ones having lots of trouble with this future are the big labels. they can't find a way to make the outrageous amounts of money they are used to make if they can't control the product they're selling. they were also quite used to controlling (to the point of censoring and manipulating) both who got a chance to record and what they did record, a perfect example being mike's years of fighting with virgin because the company wanted hits and he wanted to make whatever he pleased... crazy guy, who thought he had the right to control his life!!!

right now the small bands using the internet get a lot of exposure. music (even the most popular, commercial music) has been atomized. even if you're not a web freak who searches in strange places for new music, you can be exposed to very small bands and labels that wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for things like last.fm, iTunes, and the like. statistical music suggestion machines don't know much about big companies and big bucks, they just count song plays and suggest things that other people like!

the music business has changed, and after the latest hit by Madonna my sister (a 100% radio girl, not a music explorer at all! ) will be listening to a small town band know to her and about 10000 more people. and she likes them both, enjoys them, even buys their (digital, downloadable) records!

Quote
In such a world, small brands like the fledgling Virgin label (as it was in the 1970s) would never have made any money. Tubular Bells would never have been released.

you put virgin as an example, but virgin was a giant exception to the rule. if you check the big music world right now there are just four companies (Universal, Sony, Warner and EMI) that control the music industry. things were about the same when virgin started, but RB (and MO) were just lucky... most small companies back then didn't last long. right now there are thousands of small labels, net labels, local labels. and they publish a lot. and a lot of people listen to music that they publish. and they live!

Quote
Already we're at the stage where some bands have to self-fund their albums as a labour of love, and pray that they'll sell enough copies to cover the costs.

If they can't make any money from music, then the smaller indie bands just won't be able to afford the studio time. And the music just won't get made.

well "back then" in what you seem to think were good-old-days there was no way a band could get a decent studio without some kind of record label supporting them. and record labels chose to support the bands that would make them some money. and they got the power to manipulate the artists in ways we would now think almost tiranic. and it was ok ( !!! )

right now musicians work at home, mostly. all of them, not only the ones who were lucky enough to sell a million pounds and build a "home" studio near the Hergest Ridge hills! i've been listening to TubularTos' M42 lately. it's 48 minutes of layers and layers of synths and guitars and samples. he did it at his home with just a computer (not a specially powerful one i bet). and besides the music (which is great, btw), it sounds much better technically than anything recorded in huge expensive studios in the 70s. TubularTos is not distributing his music (yet! ), but he could choose a lot of ways to do so, and get some money, and decide for himself each and any tiny sound that gets in there.

the future is here, and it's amazing!

best,

y.


--------------
music is dressed silence
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
46 replies since May 09 2011, 10:22 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net