My new article on copyright is now online!
Lynn
My long-awaited article on "Copyright - The way forward for the music
industry" is now online on the home page of my site
http://www.wobblymusic.net. Please visit when you have around half an hour
to spare as it is quite long.
At the end of the article is a link to a petition. If you think my
observations are valid, please go and sign my petition.
I am hopeful of your support.
There are a number of updates to the site, so please browse further if you
have the time to spare.
Cheers!
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
Michael
say: "Now, of course, things are immensely different! It now costs
virtually nothing to sell a download on the net. It has no physical form
and therefore no manufacturing costs, and there are no shipping costs
and breakages to worry about... So why do the major record companies
persist in keeping a large chunk of their back catalogues offline?"
Em, two reasons: 1. they might not have the right to do so by contract,
and 2. I suggest you approach someone like The Orchard and ask how much
it will cost to take a catalogue of say 250 albums, digitise each track
into the various formats (MP3, WM, the i-Tune format, etc.), incude all
the metadata (such as composers, publishers), scan the sleeves, and
maybe add some biographical details. You basically need an army of
monkeys to do that. Then you have to invest in the marketing to let
people know it's available.
etc. etc.
Free and "virtually nothing" are very relative terms.
Lynn
news:ed555$43538aea$c3a2da6f$19...@news.chello.be...
So why do the major record companies
persist in keeping a large chunk of their back catalogues offline?"
>
> Em, two reasons: 1. they might not have the right to do so by contract,
That is a valid reason. Yes, a few contracts can have certain "get-out"
clauses. But I am talking about the record companies here. The people who
supposedly OWN the copyrights to those recordings and should theoretically
have the right to sell them whenever they wish. Provided their copyright
hasn't expired, of course. Then anyone would be able to release it.
> and 2. I suggest you approach someone like The Orchard and ask how much it
> will cost to take a catalogue of say 250 albums, digitise each track into
> the various formats (MP3, WM, the i-Tune format, etc.), incude all the
> metadata (such as composers, publishers), scan the sleeves, and maybe add
> some biographical details. You basically need an army of monkeys to do
> that. Then you have to invest in the marketing to let people know it's
> available.
Granted, it does take time to do that stuff, but they've already had about
10 years to get it done. Surely they would have most of it online by now ...
IF they wanted to...which of course they don't.
Also, I was speaking in terms of the comparible cost of manufacturing and
distributing vinyl and CDs, including shipping costs, etc. Compared to those
costs, encoding a track and putting it online for download, would cost
peanuts!
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
Kernix
- never made it to the end. Less is more.
I'm going to send my tunes to be copyrighted soon - 20 bucks per CD I
think.
Jim
Honcho
Jim"
________________
I know what you mean, I started to glaze a little towards the end. The
best bit for me was doing away with territories, that's a wonderful idea,
musicians would be able to abolish war at the same time (Sorry, Lynn,
cheap shot). Actually, irrespective of the www there are reasons for
having territories, not only that, now that even Albania recognises
international copyright...
Lynn, I would love to see a system where more musicians get a bigger slice
of the cake rather than it all going to just the top 10% of artists and
their associate record companies, managers and .... but I don't think
you've found the solution. I know it's getting worse, in the old days a
record company would sign up five acts with the hope one would make it,
now they sign up one and expect it to be successful, which makes it
worse.
As for record co contracts, if anybody doesn't like what they are offered
they don't have to sign!
Now I am no longer dealing with any kind of copyright (non music), I don't
have a axe to grind in any direction, but for a musician to get a product
together costs money and unless he can recoup money on the internet from
the other side of the world he's not going to get plane loads of Aussies
coming the UK for a live concert.
Furthermore musicians are in competition with every other form of leisure
activity for money, whether it's sport (participatory or otherwise),
electronic games, clothes, alcohol etc etc. It takes one hell of a lot of
marketing to get that message across.
Regarding putting old catalogues on the net, I know somebody who tried it
with material 50+ years old (when mechanical rights run out) and it wasn't
a success. Note to Americans - The Library of Congress has a wonderful
collection older than 50 years it could put on the net. OTOH It would be
good for record companies to make a little money from their old catalogues
- they certainly did it when CDs first came out!
Meandering perhaps, but not ranting, I hope!!!
Richard
Lynn
> Interesting topic, but the web article was way too long for me to read
> - never made it to the end. Less is more.
Yes, it is long. I did warn you! but you can go straight to the petition
page where there is just a brief description of the benefits.
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
>
> I'm going to send my tunes to be copyrighted soon - 20 bucks per CD I
> think.
You mean you are going to "register" your copyright. You already own the
copyright. Registering only gives you the benefit of some kind of proof that
you wrote the stuff. I don't feel it is a service worth paying for. However,
it's somewhat of a requirement in the US. Like an insurance policy, I
suppose.
My campaign aims to replace that with a FREE service.
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
"Kernix" <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129736498.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim
>
Lynn
"Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam> wrote in message
news:7a3cb9da8f4a391e...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
> The
> best bit for me was doing away with territories, that's a wonderful idea,
> musicians would be able to abolish war at the same time (Sorry, Lynn,
> cheap shot). Actually, irrespective of the www there are reasons for
> having territories, not only that, now that even Albania recognises
> international copyright...
Good for them!
I can't see any good reason for having territories. Perhaps you could
enlighten us with some!
> Lynn, I would love to see a system where more musicians get a bigger slice
> of the cake rather than it all going to just the top 10% of artists and
> their associate record companies, managers and ....
Wouldn't we all! I am not saying that my system would make that happen. Of
course it wont. Those with the biggest marketing budgets will continue to
get the largest slice of the pie. What my system does do is ensure that a
few pennies from any and every download will go directly to the people
involved in writing and making that music. That is in addition to any
licensing and specific commercial uses of the product. More importantly,
those who always want their product to be available for free, can ensure
that it is, without any contractual problems surrounding the copyright.
> but I don't think
> you've found the solution. I know it's getting worse, in the old days a
> record company would sign up five acts with the hope one would make it,
> now they sign up one and expect it to be successful, which makes it
> worse.
I still think the record company (in its traditional role) is on the way
out.
Not only have I found a solution, but I believe it is the only solution.
Otherwise you can bet your life that this bickering will continue for many.
many years (Its been going on for around 10 years already and shows no signs
of slowing down). The result will be a lot of ill will between the
consumers, the artists and the record companies and their relative bodies.
I didn't think many people would warm to my idea straight away. That's why
the petition will be online for over a year.
> As for record co contracts, if anybody doesn't like what they are offered
> they don't have to sign!
True. But many are so eager to sign, they will do so regardless of the legal
advice they are given. With my system, most people wont even need legal
advice because the system will be much easier to understand and contracts
will be a lot smaller.
> Now I am no longer dealing with any kind of copyright (non music), I don't
> have a axe to grind in any direction, but for a musician to get a product
> together costs money and unless he can recoup money on the internet from
> the other side of the world he's not going to get plane loads of Aussies
> coming the UK for a live concert.
No, but most musicians tend to go to their fans, rather than the other way
round. That is why they go on tour!
Yes the money is still going to be needed, and some Artists are still going
to need the old kind of record company that loans them the money to make a
record. But they will be in the minority, as the costs of making a
commercially viable recording have become affordable to the masses. When I
recorded with my pop group back in 1980, a single cost us around £5000 to
make (just the recording). Now many professional musicians record their
tracks at home then take them to a good producer/mix engineer/mastering
suite to finish it off. The whole thing will probably cost £2000 tops.
Independent musicians with the neccessary skills can do the whole thing at
home for next to nothing (after investing in a good DAW), and still end up
with a record that sounds as good as the ones that cost my band £5000 each!
>
> Furthermore musicians are in competition with every other form of leisure
> activity for money, whether it's sport (participatory or otherwise),
> electronic games, clothes, alcohol etc etc. It takes one hell of a lot of
> marketing to get that message across.
I'm not disputing that at all. Marketing will always be needed to sell a
product. No matter what it is.
> Regarding putting old catalogues on the net, I know somebody who tried it
> with material 50+ years old (when mechanical rights run out) and it wasn't
> a success. Note to Americans - The Library of Congress has a wonderful
> collection older than 50 years it could put on the net. OTOH It would be
> good for record companies to make a little money from their old catalogues
> - they certainly did it when CDs first came out!
That is fine, but what about all the product that the record companies still
hold the copyright to, but refuse to put on line? Some of it only a few
years old. What about the product they release in the US but not in the UK?
Even if it's a British Band? I think that is ridiculous, and unfair to the
consumer. Even unfair to the band.
My band for instance, heard that our record company had released an album of
our material in Spain (nowhere else). Our British fans would have loved to
get hold of it, but never could. In fact, I've never even seen a copy of it
myself!
> Meandering perhaps, but not ranting, I hope!!!
Meander for a few more days, then go and sign my petition! :o)
Lynn
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights
Honcho
"I can't see any good reason for having territories. Perhaps you could
enlighten us with some!"
_______________
I may come back to some of your other points, but I'll start with this
one.
Firstly, there is no country which is going to relinquish any economic
control ie see UK/EU squabbles for example - which is trying to create a
large territory.
It is fairly common to break down the marketing of any product into
territories, whether it's just, say, a UK product in the UK. And record
companies are a marketing organisation with manufacturing.
In a worldwide market what price do you set, where the wages are a dollar
a day, or a hundred dollars an hour?
You mention your album was recently available in Spain, but not in the UK.
What was the reason, something in the contract? Different musical taste
between Spain & UK? - Remember different "territories" work automoniously
for this very reason. I knew a Brit band who only had their 3 albums
released in the States (not that that did any good, either - no
touring!).
Although, from what i can see, record companies are less inclined to
differentiate (probably their loss) but in the old days a band might
release one set of songs for an album in the UK and in the States some of
the songs will be different on the same album. Again, pandering to
territorial (or regional preferences, if you prefer).
I know the net has changed much of above, but all the net really does is
remove effective marketing, with no "hot" hit, what do the radio stations
play? either golden oldies from the 50s through to the 90s, or hours of
music which nobody has heard before and will never hear again.
Richard
Lynn
"Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam> wrote in message
> Lynn wrote (snipped)
>
> "I can't see any good reason for having territories. Perhaps you could
> enlighten us with some!"
> Firstly, there is no country which is going to relinquish any economic
> control ie see UK/EU squabbles for example - which is trying to create a
> large territory.
That may be so (I didn't say it was going to be easy), but the fact that it
may be almost impossible to get a worldwide agreement, doesn't mean that the
idea itself isn't what the industry needs. This is the same ridiculous
reason as someone NOT voting for a politian they believe in, simply because
he/she is in a minority party that they think wont win.
I think that both local and universal politics would be quite different if
people were to vote for what they believe in, rather than what they think is
more likely to "win".
> It is fairly common to break down the marketing of any product into
> territories, whether it's just, say, a UK product in the UK. And record
> companies are a marketing organisation with manufacturing.
So?
I realise that in the material world there are good reasons (usually
financial) for only distributing goods to certain areas, but on the
Internet, the cost of "selling" a download is the same no matter where it is
downloaded to.
> In a worldwide market what price do you set, where the wages are a dollar
> a day, or a hundred dollars an hour?
Yes, there are many places that wouldn't be able to afford UK prices .. In
fact, I struggle to afford our prices myself! :o)
But it is SO unfair to charge people a different price for the same product
from a global store-front. Obviously the price should be set by the seller
at the ecomomy that befits his own country. Those who wish to buy that
product will then decide themselves whether they can afford it or not.
If that means someone in Poland is selling their CD at £1.50p, then it could
mean that the relatively low price to someone in the UK, would encourage a
larger numbers of sales. The person in Poland would be happy at selling more
copies, and the buyers in the UK would be happy at getting a "bargain".
I think this would be a benefit in that global economies may even out over a
period of time.
> You mention your album was recently available in Spain, but not in the UK.
> What was the reason, something in the contract?
I have no idea! This wasn't a recent release. We had a number 1 in
Gibraltar, so that may have had something to do with it. Contractually, our
music was licensed for Worlwide distribution, but since at that point, we
had only gigged in the UK, that is where most of our fans were. As in most
cases, record companies are free to make their own decisions about releases
without consulting the artist. I've never seen that album, and I have no
idea how many were sold. Since we barely recouped our "advance", we never
saw any sales royalties. I'd be very interested to hear from anyone in Spain
who may have seen or heard of it. The band was called "The Flatbackers" and
it would have been released in 1980-81.
> Although, from what i can see, record companies are less inclined to
> differentiate (probably their loss) but in the old days a band might
> release one set of songs for an album in the UK and in the States some of
> the songs will be different on the same album. Again, pandering to
> territorial (or regional preferences, if you prefer).
Pandering to "perceived" regional preferences only further reduces the
freedom of choice of the consumers in that area. It's like that age-old joke
of "You can't sell a fridge to an Eskimo". Or ... Why should people buy
bottled water when they can get it out of the tap for free? Albums released
with different tracks in different territories are a well-publicised bone of
contention among fans and consumers of music. It was such that if a fan
wanted to own all their favourite artist's records, they would have to
purchease several releases and end up with many duplicated tracks just for
the benefit of getting hold of all the recordings they wanted. My new system
would dispense with this situation.
I'm sure many of the people on this group who have songs available for
download, will confirm that owners of their downloads are based in more than
one country in the World. In fact, I probably have more fans in the USA than
I have in the UK, yet I have never gigged in the USA. In fact the majority
of the music I have available on the Internet has never been played live at
all.
> I know the net has changed much of above, but all the net really does is
> remove effective marketing, with no "hot" hit, what do the radio stations
> play? either golden oldies from the 50s through to the 90s, or hours of
> music which nobody has heard before and will never hear again.
...and I'm sure many people would breathe a sigh of relief! :o)
Perhaps radio stations would have the chance to choose for themselves,
rather than being conned into playing a certain record company's biggest new
prospect several times a day for several weeks until we are all sick of
it.... Well we could but dream. But I don't think that is likely to happen,
even under my new system! Sadly, money will always shout the loudest.
Thanks for your comments, Richard.
Honcho
....I realise that in the material world there are good reasons (usually
financial) for only distributing goods to certain areas, but on the
Internet, the cost of "selling" a download is the same no matter where it
is downloaded to.
Yes, there are many places that wouldn't be able to afford UK prices .. In
fact, I struggle to afford our prices myself! :o)
But it is SO unfair to charge people a different price for the same
product from a global store-front. Obviously the price should be set by
the seller at the ecomomy that befits his own country. Those who wish to
buy that
product will then decide themselves whether they can afford it or not.
If that means someone in Poland is selling their CD at £1.50p, then it
could mean that the relatively low price to someone in the UK, would
encourage a larger numbers of sales. The person in Poland would be happy
at selling more copies, and the buyers in the UK would be happy at getting
a "bargain".
I think this would be a benefit in that global economies may even out over
a period of time.
I have no idea! This wasn't a recent release. We had a number 1 in
Gibraltar, so that may have had something to do with it. Contractually,
our music was licensed for Worlwide distribution, but since at that point,
we had only gigged in the UK, that is where most of our fans were. As in
most cases, record companies are free to make their own decisions about
releases without consulting the artist. I've never seen that album, and I
have no
idea how many were sold. Since we barely recouped our "advance", we never
saw any sales royalties. I'd be very interested to hear from anyone in
Spain who may have seen or heard of it. The band was called "The
Flatbackers" and it would have been released in 1980-81.
Pandering to "perceived" regional preferences only further reduces the
freedom of choice of the consumers in that area. It's like that age-old
joke of "You can't sell a fridge to an Eskimo". Or ... Why should people
buy bottled water when they can get it out of the tap for free? Albums
released with different tracks in different territories are a
well-publicised bone of
contention among fans and consumers of music. It was such that if a fan
wanted to own all their favourite artist's records, they would have to
purchease several releases and end up with many duplicated tracks just for
the benefit of getting hold of all the recordings they wanted. My new
system would dispense with this situation.
I'm sure many of the people on this group who have songs available for
download, will confirm that owners of their downloads are based in more
than one country in the World. In fact, I probably have more fans in the
USA
than I have in the UK, yet I have never gigged in the USA. In fact the
majority of the music I have available on the Internet has never been
played live at all.
Perhaps radio stations would have the chance to choose for themselves,
rather than being conned into playing a certain record company's biggest
new prospect several times a day for several weeks until we are all sick
of it.... Well we could but dream. But I don't think that is likely to
happen, even under my new system! Sadly, money will always shout the
loudest.
Thanks for your comments, Richard.
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
_____
Some good arguments there Lynn, I shall continue the discussion, not with
any firm convictions any way, but as a way of thrashing out a personal
opinion (let's face it, nobody in the industry has phoned us up and asked
for advice on the matter!).
You are right the net has to change how we listen to music, and for us
that are already "into music" it is boon (or at least it would be if I got
the sound working on my net computer). It has also annoyed me somewhat
having to buying expense imports for odd tracks I couldn't get on UK
releases - but OTOH if this didn't happen some of those tracks wouldn't
be available anywhere.
As an aside, did you know the US has legislation so it isn't swamped with
Australian culture? France similarly for foreign content of any kind.
Probably a few other countries too.
The glorious time for live music was probably before the tv, the glorious
time for music was the album whena artists could stretch themselves beyond
the 2/3 minute single which continues to act as the "selling point" for an
artist - so far.
You and I, and I daresare the majority of RMMSers got into music via
radio, a specific artist and widened our horizons from there. In the net
future I think I might be interested in listening to music, I go to
Napster where there's over 1M potential downloads, where do I start? I
look at Soundclick, same problem, oh bugger it, I can go and watch a
football match, buy video game, or some such that has been advertised on
the tv.
As the present generation of music fans stop buying records or die there
is no facility for the next Beatles or Destiny's Child to rise to the top
- and this is where the future listeners come from.
As for radio stations, and I have always seen an endless stream of
complaints about play lists, but why do the play lists exist? To satisfy
the needs of the listeners which brings in the advertisers... We may not
like what the radio plays, but only a fool would accuse a radio station of
not knowing what is doing!
So, you want internet success, and by success I mean a living. So for the
UK you would need an income of approximately £500 ($750) per week, out of
this you have had to pay for promotion - you can't put a site up and
expect visitors, and that situation must be getting worse daily, you have
to pay for equipment etc. ASsume the artist gets 50p per download net -
that means 1000 downloads a week - every week. How are you going to
collect this money - 50p from a credit card? I don't think so, so then you
have go to dedicated supplier - Napster etc. and then you are amongst 1m
other people. How are you going to stand out enough to make you £500 per
week. Not only that, but when the SOundclicks and Napsters realise this,
they will quickly recognise the only way they can make money is charge the
artist. You have now swapped Record Co for an ISP, who will hold the same
power as before. The only loser will be the musicians because now they
have nothing to make them stand out from the crowd.
So you've got a song on Napster, how are you going to get the radio
stations to play your song? This is nearly the only way to get those
downloads moving.
Oh and if you do get your 1000 downloads a month your fan base will be
truly international. So no making up the money with live performances for
you fans - unless webcam performances take off, and I would think that's a
long way from being a reality at the moment.
What will happen is the spend on music will decrease and more people will
be fighting for a smaller slice of that.
Still meandering... but hopefully makes some kind of sense!
Richard
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
>
> > Lynn, I would love to see a system where more musicians get a bigger slice
> > of the cake rather than it all going to just the top 10% of artists and
> > their associate record companies, managers and ....
>
> Wouldn't we all! I am not saying that my system would make that happen. Of
> course it wont. Those with the biggest marketing budgets will continue to
> get the largest slice of the pie. What my system does do is ensure that a
> few pennies from any and every download will go directly to the people
> involved in writing and making that music. That is in addition to any
> licensing and specific commercial uses of the product. More importantly,
> those who always want their product to be available for free, can ensure
> that it is, without any contractual problems surrounding the copyright.
>
Lynn, I can see you put a lot of effort into your essay on copyright.
It looked good to me. I signed the petition and I encourage others to
sign as well.
One thing that I think will help offset the power of the Big 4
recording
companies: Warners, Universal (Viacom), BMG, and EMI
is to change the rules of what counts.
They base sales on publicity. I suggest sales on quality.
Here's the rub, there are too many cd's out there to tell one from
the other. Everyone claims to be the best and the consumer
is lost. Only the loudest voice - the most often publicized
cd (and that is just budget not talent) will get heard and bought.
IF a FAIR and NO AD review site could review the bulk of
CD's out there and dwindle the gazillions down to a thousand
or so of top quality (if there are that many)
- then the consumer would know where
to at least start. And with quality the judge - not advertising budget,
it would likely not reward the bland clone stuff of the majors.
Ex. let's say Joe X from South Dakota, is an incredible musician/
songwriter.
Every review is great. He is at the top of the indie review site's
best list. (Whereas the new Stones or McCartney cd is at
689th and 801 place). Then those who study the reviews
would most likely give Joe X a chance, - and they would take
a minute or two before blindly buying the latest clone music.
IF we had one central site (or a handful) to sort it out
or that sorted out a lot of the junk (take away the press puff pieces
and almost all mainstream stuff is junk IMO)
then quality will be rewarded.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Tom Hendricks
musea.us
hunkasaurus.com
Comment?
Michael J. Anthony
tomhend...@cs.com says...
> One thing that I think will help offset the power of the Big 4
> recording companies: Warners, Universal (Viacom), BMG, and EMI
> is to change the rules of what counts.
Tom, I can't help but think that the big 4 in this world could be self-
importance, denial, obsolesence and nausea.
> I suggest sales on quality.
Are you saying something about my songwriting?
--
Michael J. Anthony
Duckmares are coming
www.michaeljanthony.com
Lynn
"Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam> wrote in message
news:3e79f43d81496073...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
(let's face it, nobody in the industry has phoned us up and asked
> for advice on the matter!).
Precisely! They ask the people who are at the top, the major record
companies, the superstars ... but not the average working musicians.
> It has also annoyed me somewhat
> having to buying expense imports for odd tracks I couldn't get on UK
> releases - but OTOH if this didn't happen some of those tracks wouldn't
> be available anywhere.
Please elaborate.
> As an aside, did you know the US has legislation so it isn't swamped with
> Australian culture? France similarly for foreign content of any kind.
> Probably a few other countries too.
Yes. The intercontinental squabbles, never cease to amuse me. Just last
month a consignment of Bras from the US were stopped by customs in the UK
because France insisted that we had exceeded our import quota for
undergarments! Fortunately, the importers managed to get HM customs to
classify the garments as "accessories", so they were allowed through without
having to get a bill passed in parliament!
Also, did you know that Sausage rolls aren't meat products until they are
cooked! True! LOL :o)
Anyway, back to the music!
> The glorious time for live music was probably before the tv, the glorious
> time for music was the album whena artists could stretch themselves beyond
> the 2/3 minute single which continues to act as the "selling point" for an
> artist - so far.
There is no reason why this won't continue to be a selling point. A single
is like an excerpt .. to advertise the artist, or their album. The love of
an audience is often won or lost on those 3 minutes.
> You and I, and I daresare the majority of RMMSers got into music via
> radio,
Most people are surprised to learn that my main musical influence was not
from radio, but from the silver screen ... in the form of the Marx Brothers.
I still say they were one of the most talented musical families ever!
> a specific artist and widened our horizons from there. In the net
> future I think I might be interested in listening to music, I go to
> Napster where there's over 1M potential downloads, where do I start? I
> look at Soundclick, same problem, oh bugger it, I can go and watch a
> football match, buy video game, or some such that has been advertised on
> the tv.
The site that would be the entry portal to the master database, would not be
an advertising site. We would leave that to the advertisers and their
marketing budgets. There should be no "charts" on the site. There are
already too many "charts". If there are any listings at all, it should just
be a list of new uploads. The list can be added to in real time as new
compositions, arrangements, and recordings are received. So this will still
leave space for the marketing companies and record companies to promote
their artists in the same fashion as they do now, through other sites,
advertising, radio airplay, etc. What the site will have, is a special kind
of search engine that will enable the users of music (primarily), but also
casual listeners, to search for music that meets their specific criteria.
For instance, if you want a recording that will reflect a certain scene in
your film, you could search the lyrics database for certain subjects,
keywords, or phrases that you want to hear in a song. Or you could search by
mood, by instrumentation, or by genre. Other search fields could include
Artist, Title, Songwriter, Musician, Band, Arranger, Producer, Language,
Country, or Studio. All songs would have the moral preferences of the
authors attached, so that you would know in advance what songs you could use
for your purpose. So the only way a song wouldn't be available to a certain
user or location, would be if the authors had requested it. So, as a
producer; if I were looking for a song that I wanted to record and sell
Worldwide, I would automatically avoid any song where the authors had
restricted its use to only certain countries.
> As for radio stations, and I have always seen an endless stream of
> complaints about play lists, but why do the play lists exist? To satisfy
> the needs of the listeners which brings in the advertisers... We may not
> like what the radio plays, but only a fool would accuse a radio station of
> not knowing what is doing!
I agree. Radio stations know exactly what they are doing. They are in
business to make money. One of the main reasons why the US have their own
kind of copyright system is because the radio stations don't want to give up
their right to be able to play music for free. Now, you may hate me for this
but I agree with them!
I think it is unfair for any artist to use radio airplay as an advertising
medium for their new single, yet still expect the radio station to pay them
for the priviledge of playing it. No other trade or business gets free radio
advertising, so why should we? So, in that respect, the record companies, by
paying a station to play their new artists, are merely offsetting the
performance royalties that the radio station is expected to pay. At least,
in countries such as the UK, it may be justified. But in the US, where
airplay is already free of royalties, it is a scandal!
So before you all lynch me... I think the question here is that performance
royalties should only be applied to music that is already sufficiently
well-known to be considered attractive to an audience, and therefore a
source of revenue for the station.
I think new artists would be more likely to get radio airplay if it was free
of performance royalties. So with my system being able to monitor and count
the number of downloads or uses, it would be easy to just slap the royalty
on airplay once they rose to a certain number. It could then be considered
to have earned it's status as something that an audience may have heard of
and would want to listen to. It would then be feasable to suggest that the
radio station should begin to pay for its further use. I think both the
radio stations, and the new artists would be much happier with that
arrangement ... and the US might sign my petition! :o)
> So, you want internet success, and by success I mean a living. So for the
> UK you would need an income of approximately Ł500 ($750) per week, out of
> this you have had to pay for promotion - you can't put a site up and
> expect visitors, and that situation must be getting worse daily, you have
> to pay for equipment etc. ASsume the artist gets 50p per download net -
> that means 1000 downloads a week - every week. How are you going to
> collect this money - 50p from a credit card? I don't think so, so then you
> have go to dedicated supplier - Napster etc. and then you are amongst 1m
> other people. How are you going to stand out enough to make you Ł500 per
> week. Not only that, but when the SOundclicks and Napsters realise this,
> they will quickly recognise the only way they can make money is charge the
> artist. You have now swapped Record Co for an ISP, who will hold the same
> power as before. The only loser will be the musicians because now they
> have nothing to make them stand out from the crowd.
No. My system isn't based on "buying downloads", it is based on a small
statutory license fee that is paid monthly by everyone through their ISP.
Yes, I know some people will detest not having the choice, but with internet
costs coming down all the time, I think a small charge would barely be
noticed. BTW, I am opposed to the "tax" on recordable media that is already
imposed by some countries. Whereas, most media is used for data and
legitimate purposes; almost everyone who is connected to the Internet will
have at some stage either downloaded or listened to music. Even if there are
a few who have never downloaded music, the fact that they have a license to
do so legally, will probably encourage more people to use the service,
because they know that it will be earning revenue directly for the people
who made that music. Furthermore, whereas much of the current revenue from
royalties are unevenly distributed to those who are already at the top
(regardless of whether the music that was used was theirs or not), my system
would ensure that the money goes precisely to the people whose music is used
or downloaded.
This would in turn lead to music (at least in it's MP3 format) being
"percieved" as free. This would have the beneficial effect of killing
piracy.
It would also would mean a fairer and more evenly distributed wealth. The
rich and successful probably wont be quite as rich, but the likes of the
average semi-pro musician would be in a position to earn a little more from
his recordings than he does now. Large marketing and advertising budgets
will still make a minority more successful than everyone else.
Where it would win out is on the search facilities for the commercial users.
It would enable them to find music that perhaps isn't represented by a
publisher. The opportunity for earning large license fees would be available
to many more people. So if my latest film was about a war between ducks. We
all know what song would be at the top of my search results, don't we? :o)
> Oh and if you do get your 1000 downloads a month your fan base will be
> truly international. So no making up the money with live performances for
> you fans - unless webcam performances take off, and I would think that's a
> long way from being a reality at the moment.
Webcam performances may be few and far between, but they are definately a
reality.
> What will happen is the spend on music will decrease and more people will
> be fighting for a smaller slice of that.
That is true!
Honcho
I will come back and comment myself later, but in the meantime I quote in
full from a UK music publisher (unattributed for obvious reasons) who
reads the "One Minute" I send him:-
"Well, with what is going on in the industry now with all those who
were/are complacent about copyrights and phonographic rights terms it
would not surprise me. All coming out of the woodwork shouting the odds
now that their precious rights are under attack when in the past they
couldn't give a damn until it started to affect them. Hypocrites. Only
the re issue labels kept the archived phonographic material alive. Now
they want a piece of that action so they say we care....bollocks.
Who is running this country anyway. It seems that the music industry
moguls are smoothing the way with financial considerations in every
aspect.
Tried getting your music played on radio lately? Now if anybody's
lifestyle and bank accounts should be examined....well you know??? Deals
with broadcasters, deals in government, lock out deals affecting
publishers and writers, stop those independents getting a share, drive
them into the ground. Oh yes the OFT????????!!!!!!!!. Now who are they
in bed with????? Was it you who voted Labour? Blair trying to muscle in
on the youth vote through music!!!!. What we need is transparency in all
matters with fair even playing fields and fair competition. Oh dear am I
supporting a utopia where fairness prevails???
Copyright legislation, those who sit on boards who are in direct
competition with others and who control royalty payments to composers /
authors and publishers, well we are not a lone voice understanding the
scams of governments and their pawns in the game of backhanders, and la,la
la, la la. Well you know.
Ther is much to tell and show over a jolly pint one day.
All you can do is go head to head with them and compete as best you can.
Seems like the level playing field is all uphill. Still never mind we
won't be corrupted and will continue to have faith for what it's worth.
Did you really get me going on this? And oh yes Clucky, is he really in
tune with it all,? I don't think so!!!!
Hey ho. "
_____________________
Obviously not one of the "music business moguls" but I wouldn't worry too
much about his income if I were you!
Richard
Michael
mentioned on this NG:
Lynn wrote:
> "Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam> wrote in message
> news:3e79f43d81496073...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
>
>>As an aside, did you know the US has legislation so it isn't swamped with
>>Australian culture? France similarly for foreign content of any kind.
Em, I'd like to read that piece of legislation. France was a founding
member of the European Union, one of whose central principles is the
free circulation of goods and services within the Union. I don't think
you'll find any legislation against James Bond, Bridget Jones or cheddar
cheese in France. Just recently, it even opened its cherished film
investment funds to foreign production companies.
>>Probably a few other countries too.
>
>
> Yes. The intercontinental squabbles, never cease to amuse me.
I'm glad they amuse you, because they might also be protecting your
interests.
Just last
> month a consignment of Bras from the US were stopped by customs in the UK
> because France insisted that we had exceeded our import quota for
> undergarments! Fortunately, the importers managed to get HM customs to
> classify the garments as "accessories", so they were allowed through without
> having to get a bill passed in parliament!
Fortunately for who? ASDA? Marks&Spencer's? Wonderbra? I've had
significant hits in various countries over the years. Getting money from
the US is consistently like getting blood from the proverbial stone. I
now get more royalties from Poland - where piracy was about 70% not so
long ago - than from the US. Mathematically, something is wrong there.
Didn't the Irish rights society IMRO have to bring a lawsuit to get its
members' performance rights to be paid in the US? Talk about David and
Goliath. The idea of an open market is a lie. Even where international
agreements exist, you still need a big stick to ensure they are
implemented. And that big stick is the quota system.
Another example is the fact that authors (the world over) earn rights
when films are shown in Europe, which is not the case in the US. I
wonder what would be the reaction if it was decided to stop paying
rights on films in Europe as most of the cinemas are "mom and pop
operations"? We all know where 80% of that money is going.
I just did a very quick A9 and came up with this UK link:
http://www.bmr.org/html/news/news52.htm
It gives an idea of the complexity of int'l agreements. Taking bras as
an example is amusing. But the debate is actually a serious one for
anyone involved in intellectual property.
> Also, did you know that Sausage rolls aren't meat products until they are
> cooked! True! LOL :o)
>
> Anyway, back to the music!
>
>
Right!
Honcho
_____________
I'll jump in here, Michael, because it was my slur on the French you are
replying to! I understood, that some time ago (maybe 10 years so things
might have changed, but not EU-led) that French radio stations had to play
a certain percentage of French product. This is positive discrimination,
however for non-French people it is still negative discrimination (or
quotas, if you prefer). I am certain that my source was accurate, but it
would be no use me looking at the legislation, my English might be bad,
but my French is non-existant. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to check again
and see if the French radio stations are still under any quota system?
Many thanks.
With regards to getting royalties out of the US, I have heard the same
story several times. They just don't like paying foreigners ;( A couple
of years ago I was on the starting grid to earn some serious $$ from
copyrights, and knowing they don't like foreigners I was going to set up a
Delaware company to hold the copyright and let the money be paid into a US
bank. Of course you still have to get the money out of the country...
Best one I heard was a UK record company being sued by Harry Fox for not
paying Harry Fox mechanicals on a song which wasn't even with Harry Fox!
It is an American fault, they set things up to suit themselves (which is
fair enough) then think it is right for the rest of the world (which isn't
fair).
I couldn't comment on films at all.
Richard
Michael
As far as I know there are still quotas. I don't know if this explains
if France had until very recently one of the most healthy recorded music
markets in Europe, but I'm pretty sure it helped. It's also worth
bearing in mind that Bono, Ismael Lo and (I think) Lou Reed have been
given some sort of official title in France, Chevalier de la Légion
d'honneur in Bono's case. Not really the actions of a government on a
cultural witch hunt. They are also very active supporters of "cultural
diversity", offering all sorts of support to the arts in developng
counties. Again, I'm not sure if that is why France is such an
enthusiastic market for quality World music, but it helps.
If I get more info on the quotas, I'll start another thread. I know
Canada has or had some sort of similar system in place as well.
Honcho
Quick reply:
As far as I know there are still quotas. I don't know if this explains
if France had until very recently one of the most healthy recorded music
markets in Europe, but I'm pretty sure it helped. It's also worth
bearing in mind that Bono, Ismael Lo and (I think) Lou Reed have been
given some sort of official title in France, Chevalier de la Légion
d'honneur in Bono's case. Not really the actions of a government on a
cultural witch hunt. They are also very active supporters of "cultural
diversity", offering all sorts of support to the arts in developng
counties. Again, I'm not sure if that is why France is such an
enthusiastic market for quality World music, but it helps.
If I get more info on the quotas, I'll start another thread. I know
Canada has or had some sort of similar system in place as well.
_______________
The quotas are a limitation! but
As a blues fan I shall raise a glass to France & Paris for the warm
welcome they gave to so many black American Blues men who moved and lived
there in the 50s and 60s.
(And Sweden, and the UK to a lesser degree)
Richard
Irene Jackson
> If I get more info on the quotas, I'll start another thread. I know
> Canada has or had some sort of similar system in place as well.
>
Yes, here it's called "Canadian Content". Radio jocks, most of them anyway,
have always hated it. Canadian artists and record labels have not :-) In
many cases, an artist or band still has to go to the US to make it, but
there are plenty of them who have created an impressive following here and
had little or no success down south. Whether Canadian Content contributes
to any of that, I just don't know.
IJ
--
IJ
http://www.irenejackson.com
http://www.irenejackson.com/tips.html
Honcho
<because I don't post thru' Outlook or Google, I have marked my response
with an "H" because I wanted to answer some of the points line by line
apologies for this if anybody doesn't like it, but tough... LOL>
> It has also annoyed me somewhat
> having to buying expense imports for odd tracks I couldn't get on UK
> releases - but OTOH if this didn't happen some of those tracks
wouldn't
> be available anywhere.
Please elaborate.
H- Sometimes tracks are left off albums for "artistic reasons" ie they
don't sit easy with the rest of the songs, sometimes these tracks are
never released, not every song an artist records is released, never has
been and never will be - there are always other considerations besides
getting the "product" out there.
> As an aside, did you know the US has legislation so it isn't swamped
with
> Australian culture? France similarly for foreign content of any kind.
> Probably a few other countries too.
Yes. The intercontinental squabbles, never cease to amuse me. Just last
month a consignment of Bras from the US were stopped by customs in the UK
because France insisted that we had exceeded our import quota for
undergarments! Fortunately, the importers managed to get HM customs to
classify the garments as "accessories", so they were allowed through
without
having to get a bill passed in parliament!
H - Don't you mean China? OTOH There's always a hold up in Customs. LOL.
Also, did you know that Sausage rolls aren't meat products until they are
cooked! True! LOL :o)
H : Frenchman & Englishman : Englishman says to the Frenchman, "you're
bread is so wonderful" and the Frenchman says, "but so is yours, but why
must you call it a sausage?"
Anyway, back to the music!
> The glorious time for live music was probably before the tv, the
glorious
> time for music was the album whena artists could stretch themselves
beyond
> the 2/3 minute single which continues to act as the "selling point" for
an
> artist - so far.
There is no reason why this won't continue to be a selling point. A single
is like an excerpt .. to advertise the artist, or their album. The love of
an audience is often won or lost on those 3 minutes.
H: No so, the "album" is artificially created medium because it first
fitted on 12inch vinyl and now on CD - In the mp3 future listeners will
generally pick the tracks they want, and create they own personal
"greatest hits" of mixed artists - which are the biggest selling albums
now anyway.
Most people are surprised to learn that my main musical influence was not
from radio, but from the silver screen ... in the form of the Marx
Brothers. I still say they were one of the most talented musical families
ever!
H: That Karl could blow a mean trumpet!!! LOL
H: I didn't realise you thought setting up one large conglomorate monopoly
as a utopia. Trust me, it doesn't work. Just look at all the complaints
about "Clear Channel" to get my drift ;-)
I agree. Radio stations know exactly what they are doing. They are in
business to make money. One of the main reasons why the US have their own
kind of copyright system is because the radio stations don't want to give
up their right to be able to play music for free. Now, you may hate me for
this but I agree with them!
I think it is unfair for any artist to use radio airplay as an advertising
medium for their new single, yet still expect the radio station to pay
them for the priviledge of playing it. No other trade or business gets
free radio advertising, so why should we? So, in that respect, the record
companies, by paying a station to play their new artists, are merely
offsetting the performance royalties that the radio station is expected to
pay. At least,in countries such as the UK, it may be justified. But in the
US, where airplay is already free of royalties, it is a scandal!
H: What you are saying, in effect, is that radio stations shouldn't pay
for the music because it is promoting the music. Yet at the same time the
music is promoting the radio station, but still the musicians (and
songwriters) shouldn't be paid. I don't think I like this scenario at all.
Seems very one-sided.
So before you all lynch me... I think the question here is that
performance royalties should only be applied to music that is already
sufficiently well-known to be considered attractive to an audience, and
therefore a
source of revenue for the station.
H: I got news for you, in the UK PRS already unofficially operate such a
system, they would much rather pay Sir Paul McCartney an extra £50 than to
the authors in "The Flatpackers." Your solution does sound muchly like the
present situation, "only when you have recouped!"
I think new artists would be more likely to get radio airplay if it was
free of performance royalties. So with my system being able to monitor and
count the number of downloads or uses, it would be easy to just slap the
royalty
on airplay once they rose to a certain number. It could then be considered
to have earned it's status as something that an audience may have heard of
and would want to listen to. It would then be feasable to suggest that the
radio station should begin to pay for its further use. I think both the
radio stations, and the new artists would be much happier with that
arrangement ... and the US might sign my petition! :o)
No. My system isn't based on "buying downloads", it is based on a small
statutory license fee that is paid monthly by everyone through their ISP.
Yes, I know some people will detest not having the choice, but with
internet costs coming down all the time, I think a small charge would
barely be noticed. BTW, I am opposed to the "tax" on recordable media that
is already imposed by some countries. Whereas, most media is used for data
and legitimate purposes; almost everyone who is connected to the Internet
will have at some stage either downloaded or listened to music. Even if
there are a few who have never downloaded music, the fact that they have a
license to
do so legally, will probably encourage more people to use the service,
because they know that it will be earning revenue directly for the people
who made that music. Furthermore, whereas much of the current revenue from
royalties are unevenly distributed to those who are already at the top
(regardless of whether the music that was used was theirs or not), my
system would ensure that the money goes precisely to the people whose
music is used or downloaded.
H: A "small statutory licence fee" is a tax. Levied not only on the tone
deaf, but the deaf as well!
This would in turn lead to music (at least in it's MP3 format) being
"percieved" as free. This would have the beneficial effect of killing
piracy.
H: Agreed.
It would also would mean a fairer and more evenly distributed wealth. The
rich and successful probably wont be quite as rich, but the likes of the
average semi-pro musician would be in a position to earn a little more
from his recordings than he does now. Large marketing and advertising
budgets will still make a minority more successful than everyone else.
H: Agreed. Save that nobody will make any money. This is my objection to
all internet solutions regarding music (notwithstanding that it will
happen anyway). Everybody that wanted a record deal will have his music
out there - some will be of a quality equal or better than record company
released music undoubtably, but then there's the dreamers, the amateurs
and frankly musically clueless (bit like sitting through the prelimary
rounds of X-factor on your computer - there might be some gold, but
there's shovel-loads of shit too). Only a genuine music fan with a minor
masochistic bent could sit through that...Which is why I think the gross
receipts for music will drop drastically in the future.
Where it would win out is on the search facilities for the commercial
users.
It would enable them to find music that perhaps isn't represented by a
publisher. The opportunity for earning large license fees would be
available
to many more people. So if my latest film was about a war between ducks.
We all know what song would be at the top of my search results, don't we?
:o)
H: Yes, then the only remaining way for musicians to get some real income
will be via synch fees, and we know what will happen to them - they will
drop through the floor via our old friend, "supply and demand" - too many
supplying and not enough demand.
> What will happen is the spend on music will decrease and more people
will
> be fighting for a smaller slice of that.
That is true!
H: But I want the spend on music to increase... and shared
more...orchestra pits that once held a dozen musicians have one lonely
muso on a synth, pre-recorded,
H: Man do I feel like a dinosaur!
Richard
Lynn
news:1130259651.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Lynn, I can see you put a lot of effort into your essay on copyright.
> It looked good to me. I signed the petition and I encourage others to
> sign as well.
Thanks for your support, Tom!
> One thing that I think will help offset the power of the Big 4
> recording
> companies: Warners, Universal (Viacom), BMG, and EMI
> is to change the rules of what counts.
>
> They base sales on publicity. I suggest sales on quality.
> Here's the rub, there are too many cd's out there to tell one from
> the other. Everyone claims to be the best and the consumer
> is lost. Only the loudest voice - the most often publicized
> cd (and that is just budget not talent) will get heard and bought.
Perhaps unfortunately, but it is a fact of life that advertising shouts the
loudest. Those with the largest budgets will almost always sell the largest
quantity. Sometimes the quality and percieved value of the product helps.
With my system, MP3's will be perceived as "free", and to sell CD's they
will have to have a lot more added value than the average CD today. The
record companies will no longer be able to get away with albums full of
"filler" material that are cheaply mass-produced.
> IF a FAIR and NO AD review site could review the bulk of
> CD's out there and dwindle the gazillions down to a thousand
> or so of top quality (if there are that many)
> - then the consumer would know where
> to at least start. And with quality the judge - not advertising budget,
> it would likely not reward the bland clone stuff of the majors.
There will always be room for review sites, but music is an art form. Each
individual who listens to music will have a different perception of quality
and different preferences for the music. Many people still find the quality
of MP3's acceptable on most listening devices, but the bar is getting higher
every year. Once 24bit audio on DVD becomes a consumer average, MP3's may
just be too low-fi to be acceptable. We shall have to see!
> Ex. let's say Joe X from South Dakota, is an incredible musician/
> songwriter.
> Every review is great. He is at the top of the indie review site's
> best list. (Whereas the new Stones or McCartney cd is at
> 689th and 801 place). Then those who study the reviews
> would most likely give Joe X a chance, - and they would take
> a minute or two before blindly buying the latest clone music.
I agree. Reviews do have an impact on occasion. There have been a small
number of Garageband "hits" who have found "fame" in the real World through
the consumer reviews on the site.
> IF we had one central site (or a handful) to sort it out
> or that sorted out a lot of the junk (take away the press puff pieces
> and almost all mainstream stuff is junk IMO)
> then quality will be rewarded.
>
> That's what I'm trying to do.
Well that is also what I'm trying to do. Although, my quality standards are
based on audio quality. Whereas, you appear to be setting a standard for the
music or song itself (correct me if I'm wrong). Setting a standard for a
"song" or "artist" is too fragile a line to tread. You cannot pigeon-hole
music (I know a lot of people try!). The love of a song (or artist) is in
the ears of the beholder. No-one should dictate who, or what we, as
individuals, should like. The big 4 record companies have been doing that
for too long already!
With regard to the artists that I link to on my site (I still haven't got
around to putting everyone I want to on there!) I've set my "bar" at
reasonably good qualty productions by independent artists. This often isn't
as good in audio quality as what the top studios produce for the major
labels, but it is, in my opinion, the kind of quality that is clear and
pleasant to listen to. Sadly I've already had to turn down a few people
who's recordings didn't meet my quality standards. That's not to say that
their music wouldn't be quite acceptable to others, but I have set a
standard that I hope my visitors will find acceptable to listen to. So, I'm
sorry, but on my site you wont find links to any music recorded through a Ł5
mic, positioned at least 3 metres from the sound source, recorded onto a 30
year-old cassete deck at a very low level with too much echo or reverb!
That said...There are a lot of people into that retro stuff these days!
My quality standards are only set for the music I link to, and in no way
reflects my personal opinion of a song or artist. As a production company
(now a record company!), I will always offer production services to people
whose recordings are of poor quality, especially if they are planning to
pitch their music to publishers, etc. Sadly there are still many
professionals who will not bother listening to a song that isn't well
recorded. I bet a lot of good songs get missed that way.
Regards,
Lynn
mu...@bighitproductions.com
not listen to poorly-recorded songs, either, and it's not sad that a
professional publisher or record exec won't listen to a
poorly-recorded song. It's business. If the demo doesn't shine, how
are they going to be able to turn it into a hit? You're asking that
publisher to front more cash to make a clean recording by not
providing a studio-quality demo, and he or she is gonna say no,
because the artist in the meeting after yours DID produce a killer
recording.
Ed Roland of Collective Soul actually wrote the entirety of the first
CS album as a solo effort. All the guitars, drum machine work,
vocals... all Ed. The record company released it as it was recorded
(with minor tweaking) because Ed had done such a fabulous job.
The better the demo, the better the chance for commercial success.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
Lynn
"Irene Jackson" <ijno...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
news:P7O7f.305206$1i.210160@pd7tw2no...
>
>> If I get more info on the quotas, I'll start another thread. I know
>> Canada has or had some sort of similar system in place as well.
>>
>
> Yes, here it's called "Canadian Content". Radio jocks, most of them
> anyway, have always hated it. Canadian artists and record labels have not
> :-) In many cases, an artist or band still has to go to the US to make
> it, but there are plenty of them who have created an impressive following
> here and had little or no success down south. Whether Canadian Content
> contributes to any of that, I just don't know.
Some years ago when I was in concert sound, I heard about a similar kind of
"positive discrimination" system in Australia. I had an offer of touring
Australia with a band I worked with regularly, and was told at that time,
that if I were to accept the tour, I would have had to allow a local sound
engineer at each venue to operate the rig. If he/she was only an
enthusiastic amateur, I would have had to "teach" them how to use the
equipment before they would allow the gig to take place. Needless to say,
the band decided against doing the tour.
I hope they don't still persist with such ridiculous rules.
Lynn
"Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam> wrote in message
Very interesting. What a fascinating and outspoken fellow! Just how we need
to be these days if we want to get our opinions noticed.
I'm not quite sure whether he is agreeing with me or not, but it is apparent
that he is on the side of fairness to all, and therefore has the same aim as
myself.
We have all been manipulated for too long in this business. It's time to
stand up and make it known that we all have different wishes and
requirements when it comes to managing our intellectual property. My ideas
are for a system that comes the closest to allowing everyone the freedom
they want, musicians AND consumers.
Honcho
Very interesting. What a fascinating and outspoken fellow! Just how we
need
to be these days if we want to get our opinions noticed.
I'm not quite sure whether he is agreeing with me or not, but it is
apparent
that he is on the side of fairness to all, and therefore has the same aim
as
myself.
We have all been manipulated for too long in this business. It's time to
stand up and make it known that we all have different wishes and
requirements when it comes to managing our intellectual property. My
ideas
are for a system that comes the closest to allowing everyone the freedom
they want, musicians AND consumers.
______________
To be fair, he didn't expect this personal e-mail to go public, his first
comment was "Er, I don't think the copyright & patents act is any danger,"
I then responded with David's comment that a re-write was due and the
above was the response.
Furthermore, to be fair to my correspondant, he has done more than his
fair share fighting certain parts of the business and standing up for the
artists.
Richard
mu...@bighitproductions.com
inconvenience? That seems like a wasted opportunity. Couldn't they
(or you) hire just one engineer to travel throughout Australia on the
tour and get that person trained up to your specs?
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
mu...@bighitproductions.com
contract that gives control of their art to a label/publisher/etc.
To change the system, just avoid it.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
> "musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1130259651.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Lynn, I can see you put a lot of effort into your essay on copyright.
> > It looked good to me. I signed the petition and I encourage others to
> > sign as well.
>
> Thanks for your support, Tom!
>
> > One thing that I think will help offset the power of the Big 4
> > recording
> > companies: Warners, Universal (Viacom), BMG, and EMI
> > is to change the rules of what counts.
> >
> > They base sales on publicity. I suggest sales on quality.
> > Here's the rub, there are too many cd's out there to tell one from
> > the other. Everyone claims to be the best and the consumer
> > is lost. Only the loudest voice - the most often publicized
> > cd (and that is just budget not talent) will get heard and bought.
>
> Perhaps unfortunately, but it is a fact of life that advertising shouts the
> loudest. Those with the largest budgets will almost always sell the largest
> quantity.
On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
Sometimes the quality and percieved value of the product helps.
> With my system, MP3's will be perceived as "free", and to sell CD's they
> will have to have a lot more added value than the average CD today. The
> record companies will no longer be able to get away with albums full of
> "filler" material that are cheaply mass-produced.
>
> > IF a FAIR and NO AD review site could review the bulk of
> > CD's out there and dwindle the gazillions down to a thousand
> > or so of top quality (if there are that many)
> > - then the consumer would know where
> > to at least start. And with quality the judge - not advertising budget,
> > it would likely not reward the bland clone stuff of the majors.
>
> There will always be room for review sites, but music is an art form. Each
> individual who listens to music will have a different perception of quality
> and different preferences for the music.
There has been a real brainwashing over the last 2 decades from
the handfull of conglomerates. They are preaching two things -
don't believe either.
1. only good art is expensively done art or most publisized (they say
this because
they have the most money and it gives them the edge)
2. art is subjective. (they say this so they can put out trash and get
away
with it. But truth is this Shakespeare really DID write better than
just about every
lyricist alive today.
And though personal taste counts for personal taste - any good listener
will respect qualtiy whether he personally likes it or not - certainly
any reviewer will make that distinction.
The truth is there really is good art and bad, and
the advertising budget can't help bad art be better.
Many people still find the quality
> of MP3's acceptable on most listening devices, but the bar is getting higher
> every year. Once 24bit audio on DVD becomes a consumer average, MP3's may
> just be too low-fi to be acceptable. We shall have to see!
>
> > Ex. let's say Joe X from South Dakota, is an incredible musician/
> > songwriter.
> > Every review is great. He is at the top of the indie review site's
> > best list. (Whereas the new Stones or McCartney cd is at
> > 689th and 801 place). Then those who study the reviews
> > would most likely give Joe X a chance, - and they would take
> > a minute or two before blindly buying the latest clone music.
>
> I agree. Reviews do have an impact on occasion. There have been a small
> number of Garageband "hits" who have found "fame" in the real World through
> the consumer reviews on the site.
>
> > IF we had one central site (or a handful) to sort it out
> > or that sorted out a lot of the junk (take away the press puff pieces
> > and almost all mainstream stuff is junk IMO)
> > then quality will be rewarded.
> >
> > That's what I'm trying to do.
>
> Well that is also what I'm trying to do. Although, my quality standards are
> based on audio quality. Whereas, you appear to be setting a standard for the
> music or song itself (correct me if I'm wrong).
For a review to be fair it has got to cover everything. I couldn't say
I was
doing a fair review if I just reviewed parts. High quality counts as
does
originality. I even have specific sections of each review that say
just that
technical quality, innovative quality. Ex. Dylan - great songwriter,
interesting singing voice (that I like more and more) terrible
harmonica
player - but overall incredible.
Again you have to watch the quality idea and not overdue it.
Renoir was said to have horrible quality cause he was daubing away
and it looked to some like he wasn't finished. Respect the artists
gifts no matter what they are - and be fair about his/her shortcomings.
That gives you a fair review.
Setting a standard for a
> "song" or "artist" is too fragile a line to tread. You cannot pigeon-hole
> music (I know a lot of people try!). The love of a song (or artist) is in
> the ears of the beholder. No-one should dictate who, or what we, as
> individuals, should like. The big 4 record companies have been doing that
> for too long already!
>
> With regard to the artists that I link to on my site (I still haven't got
> around to putting everyone I want to on there!) I've set my "bar" at
> reasonably good qualty productions by independent artists. This often isn't
> as good in audio quality as what the top studios produce for the major
> labels, but it is, in my opinion, the kind of quality that is clear and
> pleasant to listen to. Sadly I've already had to turn down a few people
> who's recordings didn't meet my quality standards.
Pam Irwin is mixing my 2nd CD now. It is not a band - but II'm not
trying to be a band - I'm trying NOT to be a band. Does that mean
I don't fint the quality? I don't think so. The recording is high
quality
vocals, instruments, mix, etc.
But because I'm not a band many will say its a demo or some other
nonsense. So quality is important - but quality is more than just
money spent - something that those Big 4 have not learned.
That's not to say that
> their music wouldn't be quite acceptable to others, but I have set a
> standard that I hope my visitors will find acceptable to listen to. So, I'm
> sorry, but on my site you wont find links to any music recorded through a £5
> mic, positioned at least 3 metres from the sound source, recorded onto a 30
> year-old cassete deck at a very low level with too much echo or reverb!
>
> That said...There are a lot of people into that retro stuff these days!
>
> My quality standards are only set for the music I link to, and in no way
> reflects my personal opinion of a song or artist. As a production company
> (now a record company!), I will always offer production services to people
> whose recordings are of poor quality, especially if they are planning to
> pitch their music to publishers, etc. Sadly there are still many
> professionals who will not bother listening to a song that isn't well
> recorded. I bet a lot of good songs get missed that way.
There are a lot of idiots everywhere. But one can't let them dictate
the mores or the rules of what is good art. I heard one woman say
she never read any novel that was written in the first person. Should
all novelists that write in the first person stop?
I know as a musician there are some that will never like ANYTHING
I do, some will like all. Most will pick and choose. That's true of
anyone.
It comes with the territory.
Tom
>
> Regards,
>
> Lynn
Antti Luode
> Lynn wrote:
>
>>"musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message
>>news:1130259651.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Lynn, I can see you put a lot of effort into your essay on copyright.
>>>It looked good to me. I signed the petition and I encourage others to
>>>sign as well.
>>
>>Thanks for your support, Tom!
>>
>>
>>>One thing that I think will help offset the power of the Big 4
>>>recording
>>>companies: Warners, Universal (Viacom), BMG, and EMI
>>>is to change the rules of what counts.
>>>
>>>They base sales on publicity. I suggest sales on quality.
>>>Here's the rub, there are too many cd's out there to tell one from
>>>the other. Everyone claims to be the best and the consumer
>>>is lost. Only the loudest voice - the most often publicized
>>>cd (and that is just budget not talent) will get heard and bought.
>>
>>Perhaps unfortunately, but it is a fact of life that advertising shouts the
>>loudest. Those with the largest budgets will almost always sell the largest
>>quantity.
>
>
> On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
A little rant:
The consumer has radio. The consumer can hear Franz Verdinand, the
consumer can hear black eyed peas, the consumer, does not give rats ass
about anything else but the music. If the music sucks like most amateur
music does. Well, radios do not want to play it, the consumer wont hear
it and that is the end of the story.
I think it is silly for us to feel bad about it.. There are people here
who can write stuff good enough for radio, seth jackson, Irene, Toy
Stein.. (off the top of my head..) I think all of them have some degree
of success.. Because their product sells itself.. If your songs do not
sell themselves, they are not good enough.
It has nothing to do with corporations..
It is nothing to feel upset about.
I just wrote a shitty song and then proceeded on deleting it.
It is good to do that. To realize when you write shitty songs.
Because once you start thinking that your shitty songs are good,
then you are truly lost..
Antti
Michael
Antti Luode wrote:
> m...
>> On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
>
>
> A little rant:
>
> The consumer has radio. The consumer can hear Franz Verdinand, the
> consumer can hear black eyed peas, the consumer, does not give rats ass
> about anything else but the music. If the music sucks like most amateur
> music does. Well, radios do not want to play it, the consumer wont hear
> it and that is the end of the story.
>
> I think it is silly for us to feel bad about it.. There are people here
> who can write stuff good enough for radio, seth jackson, Irene, Toy
> Stein.. (off the top of my head..) I think all of them have some degree
> of success.. Because their product sells itself.. If your songs do not
> sell themselves, they are not good enough.
>
> It has nothing to do with corporations..
>
> It is nothing to feel upset about.
>
> I just wrote a shitty song and then proceeded on deleting it.
> It is good to do that. To realize when you write shitty songs.
> Because once you start thinking that your shitty songs are good,
> then you are truly lost..
>
> Antti
I know what you're saying. But to rake up any measure of success in your
writing (and I'm talking bill-paying rather than back-slapping), there
are three elements of unequal importance: good product, good
distribution and good promotion. The bad news is that with the last two,
you can go further than with just the first two or the first and the
last. Radios won't hear it unless someone puts it in their hands. And it
won't sell unless shops stock it and websites have files. It's tough,
but that's the way it is. The product is the less significant element of
the trio. So inevitably, the major corporations will continue to
dominate the market as they can fund the last two, the critical elements
in actual monetary success, whereas the product is a much harder element
to control.
Gosh, that sounds awful dry doesn't it? It sill won't stop me plugging
away at the "product"!
Irene Jackson
> >
> > On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
Indies might have a "better" chance at reaching a few more people, but first
they have to break through the hundreds of thousands of other indies online
yelling for attention. It still takes being out on the road and working your
butt off to develope a fan base. I think the promise of the net creating a
fair playing field is wonderful, but a bit idealistic on its own.
"Antti Luode" <antti...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:<djt9mh$gsr$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>...
> I just wrote a shitty song and then proceeded on deleting it.
> It is good to do that. To realize when you write shitty songs.
> Because once you start thinking that your shitty songs are good,
> then you are truly lost..
Then again, maybe not Antti...I know a publisher, for instance, who always
asks to hear your "worst" song :-) I think he knows that sometimes what we
might consider to be shitty might actually be the beginning of something
good.
But for the most part, you're right...we can't get too caught up in
ourselves. We have to have enough discipline to step away from our creations
and be critical, otherwise we'd never improve.
IJ
http://www.irenejackson.com/tips.html
http://www.soundclick/irenejackson
.
IJ
Michael J. Anthony
antti...@kolumbus.fi says...
> Because once you start thinking that your shitty songs are good,
> then you are truly lost..
Not even my mother likes my shitty songs. Why is she so cruel?
Honcho
A little rant:
The consumer has radio. The consumer can hear Franz Verdinand, the
consumer can hear black eyed peas, the consumer, does not give rats ass
about anything else but the music. If the music sucks like most amateur
music does. Well, radios do not want to play it, the consumer wont hear
it and that is the end of the story.
I think it is silly for us to feel bad about it.. There are people here
who can write stuff good enough for radio, seth jackson, Irene, Toy
Stein.. (off the top of my head..) I think all of them have some degree
of success.. Because their product sells itself.. If your songs do not
sell themselves, they are not good enough.
It has nothing to do with corporations..
It is nothing to feel upset about.
I just wrote a shitty song and then proceeded on deleting it.
It is good to do that. To realize when you write shitty songs.
Because once you start thinking that your shitty songs are good,
then you are truly lost..
Antti
________________________
You don't say much do you? But when you do you hit the nail right on the
head.
And it the new internet music age there's going to be maybe 10,000,000
songs going up every year, who's gonna wade through that lot for a gem or
two?
It's one thing to complain about lack of choice, another to be buried
under it.
BTW Not all your songs deserve deleting and you have been told often
enough.
Richard
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
That's what word-of-mouth and review services and on-line communities
are for, like the "radio stations" on soundclick. When you find one
you like, you'll find new music that you've not heard of before. The
really bad stuff won't be included on anyone's "radio station".
I believe more of that will develop, so that at some point you'll be
able to go to Antti's site, for example, and see a list of songs *he*
has identified as being worth listening to - and since you know you
like Antti's taste, you get the benefit of his weeding out the bad
ones and only recommending the good ones.
Honcho
"That's what word-of-mouth and review services and on-line communities
are for, like the "radio stations" on soundclick. When you find one
you like, you'll find new music that you've not heard of before. The
really bad stuff won't be included on anyone's "radio station".
I believe more of that will develop, so that at some point you'll be
able to go to Antti's site, for example, and see a list of songs *he*
has identified as being worth listening to - and since you know you
like Antti's taste, you get the benefit of his weeding out the bad
ones and only recommending the good ones."
________________
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
But from what I have seen of the stations they are musicians catering to
other musicians and exchange links accordingly - it's nothing to get Joe
Public involved in - yet. And with so many putting out their music for
free anyway.
And it still doesn't help musicians' income - you can create an mp3 from a
stream - and you have to stream to let people hear...
I have a sneaking feeling that in the future musicians will be wishing for
the bad old days of record companies.
Richard
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>Wilbur wrote :-
>
>"That's what word-of-mouth and review services and on-line communities
>are for, like the "radio stations" on soundclick. When you find one
>you like, you'll find new music that you've not heard of before. The
>really bad stuff won't be included on anyone's "radio station".
>
>I believe more of that will develop, so that at some point you'll be
>able to go to Antti's site, for example, and see a list of songs *he*
>has identified as being worth listening to - and since you know you
>like Antti's taste, you get the benefit of his weeding out the bad
>ones and only recommending the good ones."
>
>________________
>
>
>Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
>
>But from what I have seen of the stations they are musicians catering to
>other musicians and exchange links accordingly - it's nothing to get Joe
>Public involved in - yet. And with so many putting out their music for
>free anyway.
The key word is "yet". I think this stuff will develop.
>
>And it still doesn't help musicians' income - you can create an mp3 from a
>stream - and you have to stream to let people hear...
>
>I have a sneaking feeling that in the future musicians will be wishing for
>the bad old days of record companies.
Yeah - you may be right about that. It's one thing to use the
internet to distribute your music - it's another thing to figure out
how to get *paid* for your music.
Ben Bradley
<wil...@wilburslice.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:15:48 -0400, "Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam>
>wrote:
{ snip conversation }
>>I have a sneaking feeling that in the future musicians will be wishing for
>>the bad old days of record companies.
>
>
>Yeah - you may be right about that. It's one thing to use the
>internet to distribute your music - it's another thing to figure out
>how to get *paid* for your music.
There's itunes. It's probably still a small fraction of total
downloads, but it surely accounts for the majority of PAID downloads.
I recall reading once that it was major-label stuff only. Is it now
possible to put indie-label or even "no-label" stuff on it? If so, it
could be interesting...
Honcho
"There's itunes. It's probably still a small fraction of total downloads,
but it surely accounts for the majority of PAID downloads.
I recall reading once that it was major-label stuff only. Is it now
possible to put indie-label or even "no-label" stuff on it? If so, it
could be interesting..."
_______________________
Another good point. However, and this is nub of my questions regarding the
internet. An indie artist goes on i-tunes, fine, but the artist still has
to sell downloads, still has to stand out against the major artists, still
has to have effect and costly marketing to reach Joe Public in fairly
substantial numbers.
I don't know, or don't remember, the number of radio listens to generate a
sale, but speaking roughly of the UK market, back when there was only one
major pop station with an audience of, say 8 million, rotation of a song
every 2 hours would be approx. would generate 224,000,000 listens per week
(8M listeners x 4 plays a day x 7 days)might generate half a million sales
in the extreme.
IOW, Approximately 450 listens for one sale.
Assuming you need 1,000 sales to be a full time musician, that's 450,000
streams per week! Anybody at RMMS expecting those kind of figures?
And my assumed figures are based on times when there were "gatekeepers"
but with everybody and his dog having songs floating around...
Richard
Antti Luode
> You don't say much do you? But when you do you hit the nail right on the
> head.
>
> And it the new internet music age there's going to be maybe 10,000,000
> songs going up every year, who's gonna wade through that lot for a gem or
> two?
>
> It's one thing to complain about lack of choice, another to be buried
> under it.
>
> BTW Not all your songs deserve deleting and you have been told often
> enough.
>
> Richard
Hi Richard.. When I was teen.. I did not have much friends.. But I had
music. And I loved music.. I would drink coffee and listen to Eric
Clapton play bell bottom blues and feel it in my gut. I did not make
music back then.. I just enjoyed it. Playing different music for
different occasions.. AC DC for exercice.. Chris Rea for a stroll
in the city.. Rolling Stones to drive the car too fast.. Leonard
Cohen to deal with depression.. (There is a crack in everything)
A good song.. If you are willing to let it move you.. If you are
willing to let it talk to you.. Is nothing short of a emotional
transporter.. It can take you to places.. Out of the place you
do not want to be in..
Then you grow older.. And you know what.. Feelings fade..
That is why teenagers make one hell of a audience..
But they do not like bad songs. Can not blame them really.
I have been making songs with a laptop.. And there is one thing
I recognize painfully clearly.. And that is.. That it is very hard
to put emotion into notes. It is very hard to make that good
song I described above.. It is a sum of its parts.. If all its
parts are not good, then one of them has to shine.. Leonard
Cohens voice / lyrics.. The glitter twins chemistry / the emotion
Mick puts to his voice.. The calculated hell leashed by AC DCs
"Thundestruck"..
Same goes for modern songs.. "self righteous suicide" by
System of a down.. When you crank up the volume and you are
feeling like that.. It hits you like a f5 tornado that tears
you up to stars to swirl on the sky..
Yet often, even these guys miss what made them great.. Mick has had
a lot of solo albums that bombed.. Thinking that he can just
try to sound cool and sing something rad..But Mick aint a rolling
stone alone..
So.. If even these godlike figures struggle to make good songs..
Who are we to think we can make hitsongs ala BHP.. We can do our
damn best.. But lets face it.. It is almost impossible to write a
good song.. A song that stands the test of time..
That is why it is so damn addicting to try to do it..
So we struggle. I listen to radio a lot these days.. Usually
when I exercice.. Hoping to write a medicore song.. Good song..
I do not think I ever will.. And that is okay with me.
Antti
Michael J. Anthony
antti...@kolumbus.fi says...
> Then you grow older.. And you know what.. Feelings fade..
Maybe that's why there's a market for nostalgia. But maybe feelings
don't fade. They just get less black and white. When you're older you
see more sides, so it's harder to know how to feel. A lot of that
struggle is in my music. That's what moves me to write.
> I have been making songs with a laptop.. And there is one thing
> I recognize painfully clearly.. And that is.. That it is very hard
> to put emotion into notes.
Don't try to put emotion into notes. Feel the emotion and let the notes
come out of you.
> It is very hard to make that good song I described above
It's rare to find order amongst chaos, and maybe that's why a great song
is such a jewel.
Michael J. Anthony
www.michaeljanthony.com
The ducks are reproducing vast armies as I speak
Honcho
So.. If even these godlike figures struggle to make good songs..Who are we
to think we can make hitsongs ala BHP.. We can do our damn best.. But lets
face it.. It is almost impossible to write a
good song.. A song that stands the test of time..
That is why it is so damn addicting to try to do it..
So we struggle. I listen to radio a lot these days.. Usually when I
exercice.. Hoping to write a medicore song.. Good song..I do not think I
ever will.. And that is okay with me.
Antti
______________________
It's refreshing to see a songwriter who isn't telling all and sundry, "I
am the greatest songwriter in the world" but you actually hit the nail on
the head (again) although I don't think you saw it yourself...
What makes a great song is right time/ right place, you could have just as
easier mentioned Brubeck, Baker and Bessie Smith if that's where your
"nostalgia" rested. A lot of the fairy dust that the names you mentioned
was accumulated because they were on the radio in your formative years.
It's only on boards like RMMS where we hear songs where the craft
sometimes isn't quite right, and irrespective of taste, the craft is
99.999% there on record company released material - even on bombed
songs!!!
Are you really telling me that if you'd had an album out that bombed like
a Mick Jagger solo album you wouldn't appreciate that some of your songs
actually do have fairy dust on them?
And there have been songs written with a computer that have fairy dust.
By all means look to improve, all of us hope our next song will be the
best, otherwise we wouldn't keep writing, but don't be a martyr to your
negativity!
Richard
Antti Luode
> Are you really telling me that if you'd had an album out that bombed like
> a Mick Jagger solo album you wouldn't appreciate that some of your songs
> actually do have fairy dust on them?
>
Do not get me wrong..I love the stuff Mick makes. But listening to his
solo things, I am always craving for Keith and Charlie Watts to be
there. Same thing goes for Keith.. Listening to his songs like
bodytalks.. You know.. He aint that good of a singer.. Makes me wish
Mick was there..
What I am trying to say is that.. Most of the time.. It takes the
absolute best effort of multitude of great talents to write good songs..
Fairy dust.. I do not know if there really is fairy dust.. Just great
talents feeling interesting emotions inside and able to portray them
through the song..
Having said that.. A solo artist can do great songs.. But that means
that the solo artist has to be able to do everything.. Keyboards,
guitars, vocals, drums, base, Lyrics.. And that is not a very easy thing
to do..
> And there have been songs written with a computer that have fairy dust.
>
Ofcourse.. Moby stuff.. Darude Sandstorm.. Most modern music of today
has been written using pro tools.
Heck, I could not make music without computer.
> By all means look to improve, all of us hope our next song will be the
> best, otherwise we wouldn't keep writing, but don't be a martyr to your
> negativity!
>
> Richard
Never.. Just venting out. :)
It is a pretty day, I think me and the wife are going for a walk..
Antti
Antti Luode
> In article <djuhia$6bs$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>,
> antti...@kolumbus.fi says...
>
>
>>Then you grow older.. And you know what.. Feelings fade..
>
>
> Maybe that's why there's a market for nostalgia. But maybe feelings
> don't fade. They just get less black and white. When you're older you
> see more sides, so it's harder to know how to feel. A lot of that
> struggle is in my music. That's what moves me to write.
The period of intense emotions gets shorter.. When I was sixteen,
I could feel very intensly all day long.. These days, if I have to
write a song that takes a lot of emotion.. I better not waste time..
Actually, writing a song on the computer.. I usually just chill.. But
when I go downstairs to sing.. I usually try to stir up emotions
a little.. Drink a little strong coffee..
>
>
>>I have been making songs with a laptop.. And there is one thing
>>I recognize painfully clearly.. And that is.. That it is very hard
>>to put emotion into notes.
>
>
> Don't try to put emotion into notes. Feel the emotion and let the notes
> come out of you.
Exactly.. Great instrumentalists / vocalists can colour every note with
a little tremolo.. Just the right amount.. At just the right place..
And often they do it without thinking.. The emotion just comes out of
them.. It can sound deceivingly easy.. Until you try to do the same
at the local karaoke bar.. lol
>>It is very hard to make that good song I described above
>
>
> It's rare to find order amongst chaos, and maybe that's why a great song
> is such a jewel.
I think i am the chaos in the order.. :D
Antti
Wilbur Slice
You can download my CD from iTunes - DEFINITELY "indie" stuff. In
fact, I actually did download one of my own songs, just to verify that
it could be done. Paid 99 cents for it. I've never seen a dime in
royalties from them, though, nor have I ever heard a peep from them
about anything.
anebla999M...@hotmail.com
We have had our CD on sale at CDBaby since Jan this year. They also
convert all the tracks to mp3s and send em to MSN I_tunes and about 20
other companies. But you are up against millions of other bands and who
is going to hear you? Saying that, we jsut earned our first income
stream!!!!! Sounds good don't it, until you realise that the 14 x some
people bought our tracks resulted in a profit to us of 1 US cent.... :)
Still, we don't gig so this is ok. I reckon if any of you on here are
gigging you could generate a fair few sales. I am not on commission but
I can tell you that CDBaby is a great place to have stuff for sale on.
They can get you to an audience of millions worldwide and their back-up
and support is brilliant. They take 9% - which is not a lot. We owe
them 0.09 cents!! Better to have them take 9% off somehting rather than
have 100% of nowt, says I! imho of course....
Keep on rockin everybody! Keep em comin!
Dave
Honcho
Dave
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/amnesiacs
_________________
Dunno about right, thinking aloud, more like. Good to see you didn't
forget all about your old buddies!
There was a guy around RMMS some years ago who saw all these problems and
his solution was to approach commercial companies and put a short advert
in front of every tune - the fans get free music and commerce pays. Nobody
liked it for the obvious reasons. Although I see something similar
happening in the US where some artists have some music only available from
certain non-music retail outlets (get a rap record with every gun you buy,
sort of).
The bonus for musicians has been when there has been a "mass movement"
within music, whether Sinatra, Beatles, Prog Rock, Puck etc, what I don't
see happening with the net is a mass movement coming to the fore -
listening to net music appears to be a solitary activity - which is
probably why dance music has such a hold on the charts at the moment.
As for you, you have to work it if you want to come to something ;-))
Richard
mu...@bighitproductions.com
it. You've got to market your product.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
anebla999M...@hotmail.com
arsed gigging any more :)
Dave
anebla999M...@hotmail.com
arsed gigging any more :)
Rich, nice to hear from you. I have been around and never forget rmms
ever, I often lurk and sometimes listen to songs when soundclick is
still working :) Great to see you still on here. I will never forget
my roots - people on here helped me so much over the years. My finest
moment was when I sent a CD to Gary in OZ and he said one of the songs
was radio ready...this is a great group and welcome to everyone old and
new. Keep em comin!!!!!!!!!
:)
Dave
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
So you're saying the best music is on mainsteam radio?
I am a consumer and I care about illegal behavior in the music biz.
Why don't you? Why do you not care about making a biz fair for
all?
If the music sucks like most amateur
> music does.
I review music. I know a LOT of local Dallas music that is
better than anything on the radio - tech quality included.
I doubt that you have heard all the millions of indie songs
out there to generalize.
What I have actually heard on mainstream radio in the
last 2 decades is consistently poor quality. The best of
indie music is superior. That's a fact.
Well, radios do not want to play it, the consumer wont hear
> it and that is the end of the story.
No that's illegal nowadays - and you should care enough
to oppose illegal corporate behavior. You let them push you
around and tell you what to like and not only don't complain ,
you support them in opposing others who care!
>
> I think it is silly for us to feel bad about it..
Why feel passion at all eh?
There are people here
> who can write stuff good enough for radio, seth jackson, Irene, Toy
> Stein.. (off the top of my head..) I think all of them have some degree
> of success.. Because their product sells itself.. If your songs do not
> sell themselves, they are not good enough.
>
> It has nothing to do with corporations..
Yes it does.
>
> It is nothing to feel upset about.
Not if you're an unfeeling wimpy zombie that lets others control
your every move.
>
> I just wrote a shitty song and then proceeded on deleting it.
> It is good to do that. To realize when you write shitty songs.
> Because once you start thinking that your shitty songs are good,
> then you are truly lost..
But some DO right good songs.
>
> Antti
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
>
> I know what you're saying. But to rake up any measure of success in your
> writing (and I'm talking bill-paying rather than back-slapping), there
> are three elements of unequal importance: good product, good
> distribution and good promotion. The bad news is that with the last two,
> you can go further than with just the first two or the first and the
> last. Radios won't hear it unless someone puts it in their hands. And it
> won't sell unless shops stock it and websites have files. It's tough,
> but that's the way it is. The product is the less significant element of
> the trio. So inevitably, the major corporations will continue to
> dominate the market as they can fund the last two, the critical elements
> in actual monetary success, whereas the product is a much harder element
> to control.
I hope this isn't too mean but here goes. You sound like somebody
from the echo boomer generation. If you are not - it doesn't apply
to you.
No generation has kowtowed to
big brother faster or more completely. No generation in history has
turned over their culture to corporate control faster or with less
whimper.
Look - and this goes FOR ALL ECHO BOOMERS. There are so
many of you that IF tomorrow you all collectively said
WE WANT INDIES ON RADIO OR WE WON'T LISTEN .
It would be done in a month. Period.
You have the power to open the door to all indie artists -
practically overnight - and you won't do it.
Why as a generation are you so afraid to oppose the
illegal and immoral behavior of media/art corporations?
Let's hear some echo boomers respond.
Tom Hendricks
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
> > >
>
> > > On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
>
> Indies might have a "better" chance at reaching a few more people, but first
> they have to break through the hundreds of thousands of other indies online
> yelling for attention. It still takes being out on the road and working your
> butt off to develope a fan base. I think the promise of the net creating a
> fair playing field is wonderful, but a bit idealistic on its own.
>
A central fair review site that went through all those indie songs,
and came up with
the best and links for you to hear, would do the same thing.
This is another corporate lie that says, if you do all this work you'll
get a contract. No you have to kowtow to their wishes, put out
pale imitations of watered down art, and then wait till they drop
you.
Truth is NOTHING works as long as you have given all music control
to 4 corporations and won't challenge them.
First ,all of us must end the control of these dull dinosaurs that
demand sameness before you get a contract
This lie about all this work gives you false hope.
Until indies unite against the dull 4 nothing will work on any scale.
Oppose corporations and go for the best of indies.
Stop running away from confronting them. Stop thinking that you
can work with them. Stop thinking that if you just do everything
they say it'll work for you when it hasn't worked for anyone
in about a decade.
Tom Hendricks
musea.us
hunkasaurus.com
Lynn
"Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam> wrote in message
news:2f0c57d46f6777b5...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
> H- Sometimes tracks are left off albums for "artistic reasons" ie they
> don't sit easy with the rest of the songs, sometimes these tracks are
> never released, not every song an artist records is released, never has
> been and never will be - there are always other considerations besides
> getting the "product" out there.
L - Yes, I agree that there will always be songs that "don't work" in the
way envisaged. I've already come accross a few myself! What I am saying is
that once a songwriter deems their song to be good enough to warrant a
copyright, it should not then be refused permission for anyone to record it
(aside from any possible moral issues). Then once a producer or record
company deems their recording good enough to warrant release for commercial
sale, it should never be withdrawn from access by the consumer.
> L - There is no reason why this won't continue to be a selling point. A
> single
> is like an excerpt .. to advertise the artist, or their album. The love of
> an audience is often won or lost on those 3 minutes.
>
> H: No so, the "album" is artificially created medium because it first
> fitted on 12inch vinyl and now on CD - In the mp3 future listeners will
> generally pick the tracks they want, and create they own personal
> "greatest hits" of mixed artists - which are the biggest selling albums
> now anyway.
L. - That may have been the case for the original idea of a collection of
recordings, but after that came the marketing. It was soon found that
selling a collection of songs was more profitable than selling them one at a
time, so it was then turned around to make a single song into an "advert"
for an album or artist. At least that has been the case since the 60's ...
Now things seem to be reverting back to each song being sold on it's own
merit. My idea encourages this, so it appears we are in agreement here. But
at the same time, my idea doesn't stop record companies from marketing
collections of songs from each artist in the same way that they have for the
past 40-50 years. Don't forget, some albums are created especially to be
heard as a collection. Concept albums may not be as numerous as they were in
the 70's, but they still have merit as a "listening experience" in their own
right.
> H: I didn't realise you thought setting up one large conglomorate monopoly
> as a utopia. Trust me, it doesn't work. Just look at all the complaints
> about "Clear Channel" to get my drift ;-)
L. - I've never heard of "Clear Channel". I will look it up.
OK, I looked it up! :o)
Clear Channel is nothing like the service I am suggesting. Clear Channel is
a business who it seems at first glance are trying to "own" all the media
outlets in the world. This, as you say, is a monopoly and is, rightly so,
frowned upon. A business monopoly is never a good idea and I can quite
understand all the opposition.
My idea is NOT a business, but a non-profitmaking service, and therefore a
"monopoly" is the only way that the system will work efficiently. I am
merely trying to replace all the different societies, organisations and
agencies that currently operate independently of each other in different
countries (but for the same cause) by one far simpler collection point that
will mean less confusion for rights owners, commercial users and consumers.
In fact, I am cutting out the necessity to become a member of anything. You
do not have to assign your copyright to anyone...you do not have to pay to
have your copyright registered....you do not have to pay to join this or
that collection agency or organisation, but every use of your work will be
logged and payments made directly to you. Running costs will of course be
deducted from the main income, but it will not be used to line the pockets
of a large board of directors and managers with extortionate salaries. Nor
to provide plush offices in an expensive area of some major city. Not if I
were running it, anyway! I could guarantee that it will use a much smaller
percentage of the income than any other existing collection agency out
there.
In my spare time (er, do I have any?), I work for a £multi-million
mail-order catalogue (that's how I came to know about those Bras from the
US), and I still conserve paper and suggest cost-saving measures to them,
even though I am merely a lowly admin! The amounts of money and resources
that large companies and governing bodies waste every day is phenominal, and
totally unnecessary.
> H: What you are saying, in effect, is that radio stations shouldn't pay
> for the music because it is promoting the music. Yet at the same time the
> music is promoting the radio station, but still the musicians (and
> songwriters) shouldn't be paid. I don't think I like this scenario at all.
> Seems very one-sided.
L. - What I am saying is that new artists and music is not promoting the
radio station, because how many people want to listen to that stuff?
Relatively few, most of whom are other musicians! So in order to get to the
point of where a new artist's music IS going to be promoting the radio
station, it will have to have already been played enough times for those few
listeners to spread the word. The quickest way of doing that is to play it
alongside more established artists. So if the music has no royalties
attached to it untill it had sold a certain amount of copies, it will
encourage more new artists to be included in the average radio programming.
I think that would be fairer to all.
> H: I got news for you, in the UK PRS already unofficially operate such a
> system, they would much rather pay Sir Paul McCartney an extra £50 than to
> the authors in "The Flatpackers." Your solution does sound muchly like the
> present situation, "only when you have recouped!"
L - Yes, and it it this unfairness that I am trying to put a stop to. So we
are still in agreement!
> H: A "small statutory licence fee" is a tax.
L. - Try telling that to the BBC!
> Levied not only on the tone
> deaf, but the deaf as well!
L. - Fair point! I will have to talk to a few deaf people I know. I think it
would be relatively easy to exclude the registered deaf from paying the
license.
> L . - It would also would mean a fairer and more evenly distributed
> wealth. The
> rich and successful probably wont be quite as rich, but the likes of the
> average semi-pro musician would be in a position to earn a little more
> from his recordings than he does now. Large marketing and advertising
> budgets will still make a minority more successful than everyone else.
>
> H: Agreed. Save that nobody will make any money. This is my objection to
> all internet solutions regarding music (notwithstanding that it will
> happen anyway). Everybody that wanted a record deal will have his music
> out there - some will be of a quality equal or better than record company
> released music undoubtably, but then there's the dreamers, the amateurs
> and frankly musically clueless (bit like sitting through the prelimary
> rounds of X-factor on your computer - there might be some gold, but
> there's shovel-loads of shit too). Only a genuine music fan with a minor
> masochistic bent could sit through that...Which is why I think the gross
> receipts for music will drop drastically in the future.
L. - Yes I do agree with you. But to be honest, I'd much rather get the few
pennies that are actually due to me, plus the same chance of hitting the big
time as i have now; than a few empty promises from the sharks, and my few
pennies helping to line the pockets of the big 4 and their handful of stars!
Then again, my system does not stop any enterprising person or company from
investing, promoting and marketing, either themselves, or whoever they see
as the next big thing. All it does is make sure that the individuals
involved in the writing and the production of music are rewarded in some way
for their efforts, and that consumers get the access to the music they want.
There is nothing out there at this moment that effectively ensures that.
> H: Yes, then the only remaining way for musicians to get some real income
> will be via synch fees, and we know what will happen to them - they will
> drop through the floor via our old friend, "supply and demand" - too many
> supplying and not enough demand.
L. - Yes, but there will be no more imbalance in the supply and demand than
there already is. In fact there may even be less because a copyright will
have to be issued, rather than it being an automatic right for every bod who
cares to put a few words to paper and call it a song lyric! :o)
I can even see new businesses cropping up that serve the non-musical
songwriter by creating the midi files required to apply for the copyright.
> H: But I want the spend on music to increase... and shared
> more...orchestra pits that once held a dozen musicians have one lonely
> muso on a synth, pre-recorded,
L - Hmmm ... maybe we should campaign to ban all TV, Video, Computer games,
books, magazines, DVDs & mobile phones ... then people will only have music
left to spend their money on! :o) .. Hang on though ... five of those need
to use music, so that's more work for us!
> H: Man do I feel like a dinosaur!
L - Me too!
Thanks for all your comments, Richard!
Lynn
Lynn
You are taking what I am saying out of context. I actively encourage people
with poor quality recordings to get a better one made if they are seriously
looking to pitch it to publishers.
Whereas, once upon a time a publisher would listen to the song and imagine
it as a finished production, many of them no longer have the time to do
this, so they only bother listening to the good productions. This can mean
that good songs do occassionally get put aside without a proper evaluation.
Wrong as this may be, if the songwriter has already invested some money in
a good demo himself, it is, at least, some indication that the song may be
worthy. Now, as more songwriters are producing good demos themselves, or are
paying for a demo to be made, the publishers have realised that they can put
their time to better use in finding outlets for good songs rather than
sitting in the office all day listening to poor meanderings, trying to
imagine a finished production. After all, that is a producers job!
As a producer, I listen to any and all demos sent to me, whatever the
quality. I can usually make a marketable recording out of an average song,
but I would never claim to be able to make a "hit record". I do know whether
something has potential when I hear it, but in the end it boils down to how
much help the artist or songwriter wants to accept. In most cases I can only
advise. If it is a free production, I will put more of my own artistic
influence into the song, but if they are paying for a demo, I have to do
what the client asks, regardless of whether or not I feel it would ruin the
song's chances on the commercial market. On the other hand, it is only my
opinion. No-one can be certain with an art form what is best for it. In the
long run, I always advise my clients to choose the option that makes them
happy, rather than to try and sound like their heroes, or accept something
that they don't feel is right for them.
A good song, performed well, will shine regardless of the quality of the
audio. It is wrong to assume that most people will not listen to this. In
fact there is even a genre for it "Retro"!
You only need to pop into one of the recording newsgroups to get this
impression...
"Once upon a time, music had tape hiss, distortion, buzzes and hums and a
poor frequency response. Engineers tried for years to get rid of these
imperfections. And it came to pass that one day, they succeeded! Verily...
Humans suddenly realised that perfection is not so good after all, and
wanted to go back to the "Good old days" Thus ... the engineers built
plugins to put all the imperfections back into the music. Now they all
living happily ever after!" Lynn
A good producer can turn any reasonable song into something like a hit.
Whether it actually becomes a hit is almost always due to the size of the
marketing budget. Otherwise it is merely speculation and cannot be
guaranteed.
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
<mu...@bighitproductions.com> wrote in message
news:9ee2m1pqoa1610rv4...@4ax.com...
> Just a brief addition: Most people (i.e., the buying public) will
> not listen to poorly-recorded songs, either, and it's not sad that a
> professional publisher or record exec won't listen to a
> poorly-recorded song. It's business. If the demo doesn't shine, how
> are they going to be able to turn it into a hit? You're asking that
> publisher to front more cash to make a clean recording by not
> providing a studio-quality demo, and he or she is gonna say no,
> because the artist in the meeting after yours DID produce a killer
> recording.
>
> Ed Roland of Collective Soul actually wrote the entirety of the first
> CS album as a solo effort. All the guitars, drum machine work,
> vocals... all Ed. The record company released it as it was recorded
> (with minor tweaking) because Ed had done such a fabulous job.
>
> The better the demo, the better the chance for commercial success.
>
>
>
> Ricketts Douglas
> www.BigHitProductions.com
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:19:17 +0000 (UTC), "Lynn"
> <lynnmonk...@btclick.com> wrote:
>
>
>>pitch their music to publishers, etc. Sadly there are still many
>>professionals who will not bother listening to a song that isn't well
>>recorded. I bet a lot of good songs get missed that way.
>>
>
Lynn
> On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
Agreed.
>1. only good art is expensively done art or most publisized (they say
>this because
>they have the most money and it gives them the edge)
True. This is rubbish.
>2. art is subjective. (they say this so they can put out trash and get
>away
>with it. But truth is this Shakespeare really DID write better than
>just about every
>lyricist alive today.
I wouldn't agree with that. You can't even begin to compare Shakespeare with
today's writers. Even the language has changed beyond all recognition. IMO,
Shakespeare was successful, because he wrote amusing or entertaining plays.
His English teacher is known to have commented that his use of English was
poor at best and that he would never make it as a writer. I'm sure everyone
can think of several examples where an art form has gained appreciation from
the masses after having been turned down as worthless by critics and
business advisors.
>The truth is there really is good art and bad, and
>the advertising budget can't help bad art be better.
It can't help the art to be better in your opinion, but it can make people
believe they should buy it. Whether the people who buy this art are doing so
because they think it is good art, or because they have been brainwashed by
the advertising companies, is a subject for debate.
IMO, there is no such thing as good art and bad art. Only something that
appeals to a person, or doesn't appeal.
>For a review to be fair it has got to cover everything. I couldn't say I
>was
>doing a fair review if I just reviewed parts. High quality counts as does
>originality. I even have specific sections of each review that say just
>that
>technical quality, innovative quality.
Yes, any good reviewer would do those things. A good reviewer decribes
something in detail without revealing their personal feelings. They leave it
up to the listener to make up their own miind about it.
>Ex. Dylan - great songwriter,
>interesting singing voice (that I like more and more) terrible harmonica
>player - but overall incredible.
So what, in your opinion, was so incredible about Dylan? I could tell you,
and I personnally hate Dylan. So you tell me.
> Respect the artists
>gifts no matter what they are - and be fair about his/her shortcomings.
>That gives you a fair review.
Precisely! So why, then, do you dismiss so many, and categorise so much?
What IS bad art?
>Pam Irwin is mixing my 2nd CD now. It is not a band - but II'm not trying
>to be a band - I'm trying >NOT to be a band. Does that mean I don't fint
>the quality? I don't think so. The recording is high quality
>vocals, instruments, mix, etc. But because I'm not a band many will say its
>a demo or some other
>nonsense. So quality is important - but quality is more than just money
>spent - something that those Big >4 have not learned.
Your recordings pass my quality control! And it wouldn't bother me whether
you had a band with you or not. I don't consider your music "unfinished" or
"demo quality". It is complete as it needs to be, to be YOU.
Fans, however, are far more fickle. Like the thousands who deserted Dylan
when he progressed (as all musicians do in their own way) from acoustic folk
to electric rock!
>There are a lot of idiots everywhere. But one can't let them dictate
>the mores or the rules of what is good art.
You're contradicting yourself again, Tom! :o)
>I heard one woman say
>she never read any novel that was written in the first person. Should
>all novelists that write in the first person stop?
That is precisely what I mean by having a personal opinion. If that's what
the woman likes, why question it? Nobody has the time to read every novel
ever written, anyway!
>I know as a musician there are some that will never like ANYTHING
>I do, some will like all. Most will pick and choose. That's true of anyone.
>It comes with the territory.
"You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the
time!"
Lynn
Lynn
> illegal and immoral behavior of media/art corporations?
> Let's hear some echo boomers respond.
>
> Tom Hendricks
>
I think you should go to the Radio One message board at www.bbc.co.uk to get
the real answer to that, Tom!
Incidentally...what records did you buy in your teen years? I'm curious!
Lynn
Lynn
"Irene Jackson" <ijno...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
news:5Hq8f.328305$oW2.207268@pd7tw1no...
>> > Lynn wrote:
>
>> >
>
>> > On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
>
> first they have to break through the hundreds of thousands of other indies
> online yelling for attention. It still takes being out on the road and
> working your butt off to develope a fan base. I think the promise of the
> net creating a fair playing field is wonderful, but a bit idealistic on
> its own.
>
the net does give you the opportunity of a more level playing field, it
means that in order to be spotted, you need to put in many hours of very
hard work building your fan base. There is no chance of being seen or heard
otherwise. But the great thing about it is, that anyone who IS determined,
can achieve much more, and at relatively small cost than they could have
done before. Thus, not so many need to sign with a record company any more.
Although I am now a record company. I don't operate in the same fashion. I
encourage all my clients and partners to be independent of a long-term
binding contract.
> I know a publisher, for instance, who always asks to hear your "worst"
> song :-) I think he knows that sometimes what we might consider to be
> shitty might actually be the beginning of something good.
That's a pretty good ploy. I often find that songs that a writer perceives
as their best are often less commercial, and the ones they are not so proud
of turn out to be the most liked! Even if this doesn't ring true on
occassion, it would then mean that all the other songs in their catalogue,
MUST be better!
Lynn
Irene Jackson
news:dk36lf$j9m$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Irene Jackson" <ijno...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
> news:5Hq8f.328305$oW2.207268@pd7tw1no...
>>> > Lynn wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>
>>> > On the net it's more egalitarian - and indies have a better chance.
>>
>> Indies might have a "better" chance at reaching a few more people, but
>> first they have to break through the hundreds of thousands of other
>> indies online yelling for attention. It still takes being out on the road
>> and working your butt off to develope a fan base. I think the promise of
>> the net creating a fair playing field is wonderful, but a bit idealistic
>> on its own.
>>
> That was Tom's quote, Irene.
Sorry...I need stronger glasses :-(
IJ
Lynn
> Truth is NOTHING works as long as you have given all music control
> to 4 corporations and won't challenge them.
>
> Oppose corporations and go for the best of indies.
> Stop running away from confronting them. Stop thinking that you
> can work with them. Stop thinking that if you just do everything
> they say it'll work for you when it hasn't worked for anyone
> in about a decade.
>
> Tom Hendricks
> musea.us
> hunkasaurus.com
Well, I'm doing my bit! :o)
I need more signatures on my petition! Stop dithering, you guys, and go and
sign it now! It certainly won't hurt, but it may even do some good!
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
Cheers!
Lynn
Lynn
"Wilbur Slice" <wil...@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
news:d725m1t1f29keov4g...@4ax.com...
> Yeah - you may be right about that. It's one thing to use the
> internet to distribute your music - it's another thing to figure out
> how to get *paid* for your music.
>
Isn't the answer to that, what this thread was all about? My system does let
you distribute your music on the net AND get paid for it. Pennies, perhaps,
but you get paid!
Now go and sign my petition!
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
Lynn
Lynn
<mu...@bighitproductions.com> wrote in message
news:qlm2m1tdn9e6u7tgr...@4ax.com...
> The band decided against going on tour based on just one
> inconvenience? That seems like a wasted opportunity. Couldn't they
> (or you) hire just one engineer to travel throughout Australia on the
> tour and get that person trained up to your specs?
Apparently not. There was some rule at the time to enforce local working
opportunities. The band wanted me to do their sound, and since that wasn't
possible, they wouldn't risk doing a tour that they couldn't guarantee a
good sound on. Reputations have been lost on bad sound at a gig. Many
punters don't blame the engineer for a poor sound, they blame the band.
mu...@bighitproductions.com
both names, so whichever works for you is fine. One thing I must take
you to task on is that BHP is not promising ANYONE that their song
will be a "big hit." I feel that once the revamped web site is
completed, with a better explanation of the mission, that such
confusion between the name "Big Hit Productions" and the project
vision will be clearer.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
mu...@bighitproductions.com
over control to "Big Brother" as quickly as this generation. Just
look at Hitler's Germany. Or Great Britain at the time George Orwell
actually wrote "1984." The book was designed to be a direct allegory
to the events happening in that time, a book he wrote between August
and November of 1948. ......48 --- 84. Not too much of a stretch for
the final title, eh?.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
. On 29 Oct 2005 19:09:04 -0700, "musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD"
mu...@bighitproductions.com
efforts anyway, there's too much money at stake. Don't get me wrong,
I'm not encouraging violence or anarchy!
To change the system it must be avoided. Only then will the new
models (that are already emerging and have been for over a decade)
will be able to take hold and supplant the "sameness" that drives the
major companies.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
On 29 Oct 2005 19:21:49 -0700, "musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD"
Lynn
> To be fair, he didn't expect this personal e-mail to go public, his first
> comment was "Er, I don't think the copyright & patents act is any danger,"
> I then responded with David's comment that a re-write was due and the
> above was the response.
>
> Furthermore, to be fair to my correspondant, he has done more than his
> fair share fighting certain parts of the business and standing up for the
> artists.
I'm sure he has. And I agreee that it is unlikely that my campaign will have
any impact. But that is no reason to purposely ignore the fact that
something needs to be done.
I mean...who would we have in government if no-one was to receive a single
vote?
Or ... who would we have in government if everyone were to vote for who they
believed in, rather than who they thought stood the best chance of winning?
We all know something needs to be done. My ideas would alleviate most of the
current problems. So why are people so sceptical. As your friend says...it
is unlikely to change anything. So why be so afraid to sign???
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
Go on....go on ... go on.....
:o)
....please!!!
:o)
You know it makes sense!
Lynn
mu...@bighitproductions.com
a tour. What a crappy requirement THAT would be!
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
Lynn
news:esm2m1df5l7l2u848...@4ax.com...
> No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to sign a
> contract that gives control of their art to a label/publisher/etc.
>
> To change the system, just avoid it.
Easy to say, but what about all the other problems ... piracy...copyright
infringment ... not having control over whether your music is used for free
in some instances and for a fee in others ... not having the chioce of equal
pricing and distribution to any country you choose....not having the choice
of being an independent artist and collecting performance fees... not being
allowed to perform on TV without being a member of some union or
organisation...the list goes on.
Anyway ... you have a business where people sign over 25% of their rights to
your organisation, don't you? So are you saying, that people should avoid
signing your contract?
Lynn
Antti Luode
>>It is nothing to feel upset about.
>
>
> Not if you're an unfeeling wimpy zombie that lets others control
> your every move.
Ok, I am unfeeling wimpy zombie.
Whoooo!
Happy Halloween to you too..
Antti
Antti Luode
>>I know what you're saying. But to rake up any measure of success in your
>>writing (and I'm talking bill-paying rather than back-slapping), there
>>are three elements of unequal importance: good product, good
>>distribution and good promotion. The bad news is that with the last two,
>>you can go further than with just the first two or the first and the
>>last. Radios won't hear it unless someone puts it in their hands. And it
>>won't sell unless shops stock it and websites have files. It's tough,
>>but that's the way it is. The product is the less significant element of
>>the trio. So inevitably, the major corporations will continue to
>>dominate the market as they can fund the last two, the critical elements
>>in actual monetary success, whereas the product is a much harder element
>>to control.
>
>
>
> I hope this isn't too mean but here goes. You sound like somebody
> from the echo boomer generation. If you are not - it doesn't apply
> to you.
> No generation has kowtowed to
> big brother faster or more completely. No generation in history has
> turned over their culture to corporate control faster or with less
> whimper.
>
> Look - and this goes FOR ALL ECHO BOOMERS. There are so
> many of you that IF tomorrow you all collectively said
> WE WANT INDIES ON RADIO OR WE WON'T LISTEN .
> It would be done in a month. Period.
www.99x.com (Atlanta) plays local bands every Sunday on sunday school..
"Sunday nights from 8:00-10:00.
Sunday School is taught by Jay and features the best in indie bands,
rarities, imports, and deeper cuts from bands you're already familiar
with. In addition, there is a local band featured every week.
e-mail requests: jha...@99x.com"
Antti
mu...@bighitproductions.com
your best interests at heart are two separate things. I think 25% of
future royalties on the recording produced by BHP is totally fair if
the lyricist is only contributing words. That doesn't stop the
lyricist from recording a different version, or selling the words to
someone else, or adding them to a book of poems, does it?
I have a question for you, based upon the following structure for a
three-to-four minute song:
A lyricist writes the words.
A musician composes the melody.
A vocalist sings the song.
A guitarist performs rhythm and solo work..
A drummer plays his/her part.
A producer/engineer records (and fills in the rest of) the music.
What percentage do you feel each party should receive?
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
Honcho
"Copyrighting and signing your music over to entities that do not have
your best interests at heart are two separate things. I think 25% of
future royalties on the recording produced by BHP is totally fair if
the lyricist is only contributing words. That doesn't stop the
lyricist from recording a different version, or selling the words to
someone else, or adding them to a book of poems, does it?
I have a question for you, based upon the following structure for a
three-to-four minute song:
A lyricist writes the words.
A musician composes the melody.
A vocalist sings the song.
A guitarist performs rhythm and solo work..
A drummer plays his/her part.
A producer/engineer records (and fills in the rest of) the music.
What percentage do you feel each party should receive?"
______________________
Well, as it's BHP Production I think they should all get 25%. That way you
can be assured that I will buy a few hundred copies - in the unlikely
event there is actually a release.
Actually, I thought I was the resident comedian at RMMS, but now I am not
so sure.
BTW Just in case you really think you won't get a release, you could
finish up on something like this :-
Richard
Seth Jackson
>Copyrighting and signing your music over to entities that do not have
>your best interests at heart are two separate things. I think 25% of
>future royalties on the recording produced by BHP is totally fair if
>the lyricist is only contributing words. That doesn't stop the
>lyricist from recording a different version, or selling the words to
>someone else, or adding them to a book of poems, does it?
>
>I have a question for you, based upon the following structure for a
>three-to-four minute song:
>
>A lyricist writes the words.
>A musician composes the melody.
>A vocalist sings the song.
>A guitarist performs rhythm and solo work..
>A drummer plays his/her part.
>A producer/engineer records (and fills in the rest of) the music.
>
>
>What percentage do you feel each party should receive?
Lyricist - 50%
Composer - 50%
All others - 0%.
The others are paid upfront and are not part of the songwriting
process. The songwriting royalties should be divided strictly among
the songwriters. The producer gets paid producer points from the
label. The vocalist also may be entitled to royalties from the label,
but these do not come out of the songwriter royalties.
mu...@bighitproductions.com
There are six parties listed, and all with varying degrees of talent
and contribution. How do you figure they EACH should receive 25%?
That doesn't add up, at all.
I thought this group was a consortium of writers. Do you get some
pleasure out of useless confrontation?
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:34:45 -0500, "Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam>
wrote:
mu...@bighitproductions.com
question was about the actual recording.
There is no "label" involved, just the parties listed.
Does this mean that, if you directed movies, only the screenwriter(s)
and the actors would get residuals?
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:52:42 GMT, Seth Jackson <a...@mindspring.invalid>
wrote:
Wilbur Slice
Jeeze - I finally read your very long-winded proposal. Well, I didn't
read it - I don't have that kind of time to invest. But I scanned
through it. And because I don't care to invest significant time in
it, I won't tell you all the reasons WHY I think it's a non-starter,
I'll just tell you that I don't believe your proposal is going to go
anywhere.
The one thing alone that dooms it is your proposal that everybody with
an internet connection just pay a fee, and then all music downloads
are free after that. NEVER happen. For a lot of valid reasons, not
the least of which is that not every internet connection would be used
for music, so people are not going to want to pay. And everybody
would pay the same, which is not fair to those who use itn sparingly
if at all compared to those who download 40 albums a day. A business
that has 40 computers at the office - do they pay 40x the fee? Even
if nobody at that office is supposed to be downloading music? If not,
then what if people at the office DO use it to download music?
etc. etc. etc. Nice try, but it's a non-starter.
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
> "musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1130467708....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >2. art is subjective. (they say this so they can put out trash and get
> >away
> >with it. But truth is this Shakespeare really DID write better than
> >just about every
> >lyricist alive today.
>
> I wouldn't agree with that. You can't even begin to compare Shakespeare with
> today's writers. Even the language has changed beyond all recognition. IMO,
> Shakespeare was successful, because he wrote amusing or entertaining plays.
> His English teacher is known to have commented that his use of English was
> poor at best and that he would never make it as a writer. I'm sure everyone
> can think of several examples where an art form has gained appreciation from
> the masses after having been turned down as worthless by critics and
> business advisors.
You're missing the point. Art is both objective and subjective.
And to say that a 3 year old finger painting that you like a lot is
just as good as a masterpiece of Renoir is absurd.
It negates everything as being meaningless in art:
It suggests that talent, hard work, paying your dues, learning
your craft, great technique and innovation are meaningless.
No there are really people that are much much much more talented
than others and it is reasonable for all people whether they like
the art or not to see its worth and respect it as great art.
You wouldn't say all this subjective stuff when you choose your
doctor or the person to fix your car breaks - because it is clear
some are qualified and talented and some are not.
Art is no different.
It is so obvious to me that I refuse to argue the obvious anymore.
Any who still don't see it should see musea.us - it has about
>
> >The truth is there really is good art and bad, and
> >the advertising budget can't help bad art be better.
>
> It can't help the art to be better in your opinion, but it can make people
> believe they should buy it. Whether the people who buy this art are doing so
> because they think it is good art, or because they have been brainwashed by
> the advertising companies, is a subject for debate.
>
> IMO, there is no such thing as good art and bad art. Only something that
> appeals to a person, or doesn't appeal.
So why even try in the arts - its just a popularticy contest and
talent , hard work and innovation are a waste of time right?
See above - you're mixing up two things: appreciation of
art and personal favorites - they are not the same at all.
> >For a review to be fair it has got to cover everything. I couldn't say I
> >was
> >doing a fair review if I just reviewed parts. High quality counts as does
> >originality. I even have specific sections of each review that say just
> >that
> >technical quality, innovative quality.
>
> Yes, any good reviewer would do those things. A good reviewer decribes
> something in detail without revealing their personal feelings. They leave it
> up to the listener to make up their own miind about it.
>
> >Ex. Dylan - great songwriter,
> >interesting singing voice (that I like more and more) terrible harmonica
> >player - but overall incredible.
>
> So what, in your opinion, was so incredible about Dylan? I could tell you,
> and I personnally hate Dylan. So you tell me.
Don't confuse the two things. There is an accurate appraisal of his
skill
He is a great songwriter, and at his best a sincere and quite moving
singer - and a reasonably good guitar player. And a so-so harmonica
player.
As to what I think of him outside of appreaciation for his skill -
what I personally think - I like some songs - and some I don't .
I prefer lyrics that are clear - sometimes his are not - but that
doesn't mean his way is wrong - it just means I can appreciate
his way, while keeping my own preferences - they aren't the same thing.
My personal preference in no way gets in the way of my appreciation
of his gifts - they are totally diffent.
>
> > Respect the artists
> >gifts no matter what they are - and be fair about his/her shortcomings.
> >That gives you a fair review.
>
> Precisely! So why, then, do you dismiss so many, and categorise so much?
> What IS bad art?
Read about 50 reviews I've done at Musea.us Then read my
best art guides there - it'll clear it up with hundreds of pages to
spare.
>
> >Pam Irwin is mixing my 2nd CD now. It is not a band - but II'm not trying
> >to be a band - I'm trying >NOT to be a band. Does that mean I don't fint
> >the quality? I don't think so. The recording is high quality
> >vocals, instruments, mix, etc. But because I'm not a band many will say its
> >a demo or some other
> >nonsense. So quality is important - but quality is more than just money
> >spent - something that those Big >4 have not learned.
>
> Your recordings pass my quality control! And it wouldn't bother me whether
> you had a band with you or not. I don't consider your music "unfinished" or
> "demo quality". It is complete as it needs to be, to be YOU.
Well thanks.
>
> Fans, however, are far more fickle. Like the thousands who deserted Dylan
> when he progressed (as all musicians do in their own way) from acoustic folk
> to electric rock!
But actually when he went electric, he finally got fame and large
appreciation because of his singles. He became much more popular
after that.
Again people's tastes change but that doesn't mean great art goes
bad.
>
> >There are a lot of idiots everywhere. But one can't let them dictate
> >the mores or the rules of what is good art.
>
> You're contradicting yourself again, Tom! :o)
Don't think so.
>
> >I heard one woman say
> >she never read any novel that was written in the first person. Should
> >all novelists that write in the first person stop?
>
> That is precisely what I mean by having a personal opinion. If that's what
> the woman likes, why question it? Nobody has the time to read every novel
> ever written, anyway!
You're mixing two ideas again. There is personal preference, and then
there is a subjective appreciation of real talent. They are not the
same
thing at all.
>
> >I know as a musician there are some that will never like ANYTHING
> >I do, some will like all. Most will pick and choose. That's true of anyone.
> >It comes with the territory.
>
> "You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
> some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the
> time!"
Agreed. And for anyone that is a musician, this is a tough idea to
accept,
but if you don't you'll have a tougher time.
Tom Hendricks
musea.us
hunkasaurus.com
>
> Lynn
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
These mega art/media corporations have
done what I call cultural genicide - and taken away the culture of an
entire generation - and that echo boomer geration has accepted it
without a whimper.
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
the music that says after 40 years bands have
turned rock and roll into everything it started out
opposing - so dump ALL bands new music
new anti-band music?
If it's really indie it'll break that corporate tie too.
Tom Hendricks
musea.us
hunkasaurus.com
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD
of great music and lousy.
But as I got older I began to become
educated enough to appreciate
all great art - and to keep that
separate from my personal choices.
I started buying records with the
British Invasion - so Meet the Beatles was my
first album. But I bought Herman's Hermits
but also the Stones, Monkees but also Laura Nyro.
BTW what's on the Brit radio newsboard -
a zombie jamboree? Ha Ha
Seth Jackson
>Damn, Seth. I agree with you about songwriting residuals, but my
>question was about the actual recording.
>
>There is no "label" involved, just the parties listed.
Of course, there's a label. You are making and selling CDs. You,
therefore, are a label.
Since I've never worked at a label, I can't give you industry standard
numbers for producers and singers. Musicians are paid upfront,
however, and receive no residuals.
mu...@bighitproductions.com
>Does this mean that, if you directed movies, only the screenwriter(s)
>>and the actors would get residuals?
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
If On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:01:30 GMT, Seth Jackson
Honcho
"I asked a serious question and received an inane reply.
There are six parties listed, and all with varying degrees of talent and
contribution. How do you figure they EACH should receive 25%?
That doesn't add up, at all.
I thought this group was a consortium of writers. Do you get some
pleasure out of useless confrontation?"
________________
Just for the record I am a purely amateur, non-professional, not wanting
to be professional etc songwriter with an interest in the business side -
while you are purporting to be a professional in the music industry.
You got an "inane answer" to an "inane question." Why don't you learn
sometime about the business you are involved in?
So much better to argue a point with knowledge, don't you think?
Richard
mu...@bighitproductions.com
Seth's motivations for constantly belittling the BHP project. Your
comments were inane, and little more than an interruption. I know
quite a bit about this business, thank you very much.
Whether you're an amateur or not doesn't matter to me. It shouldn't
to you, either. Either one IS a songwriter, or one ISN'T.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:25:16 -0500, "Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam>
wrote:
Honcho
"I was asking because I was trying to get better insight regarding Seth's
motivations for constantly belittling the BHP project. Your comments were
inane, and little more than an interruption. I know quite a bit about
this business, thank you very much.
Whether you're an amateur or not doesn't matter to me. It shouldn't to
you, either. Either one IS a songwriter, or one ISN'T."
________________
I repeat, Inane questions get inane answers. You got an inane answer. If I
were you I'd be satisfied with that. As for your claim, "I know quite a
bit about this business, thank you very much." I am not convinced.
As for your comment regarding songwriters being songwriters, I agree, but
it does need pointing out sometimes. You can run a record company without
knowing what a diminished chord is and you can be songwriter without
knowing what a diminishing return is, but you can't be a recording studio
offering a demo service without knowing what both are!
As for interuptions, you are far ahead of me in the game, your posts are
little more than(and forgive me for relating to another troll post)running
onto the set of a porn movie offering penis extensions. Quite unnecessary!
We are songwriters at RMMS, most do both music and lyrics and the rest
generally collaborate.
I have collaborated with lyricists from this board and my fee? Zilch, Zap,
Nothing, Zero. As it should be. Any money coming in? I'd settle accepted
percentages.
Richard
Wilbur Slice
>I was asking because I was trying to get better insight regarding
>Seth's motivations for constantly belittling the BHP project. Your
>comments were inane, and little more than an interruption. I know
>quite a bit about this business, thank you very much.
>
No you don't. You apparently don't know some very basic stuff, like
how much various people get paid (up fron and in royalties) for
various aspects of a song - nor even what the distinctions are between
those aspects (i.e. songwriter royalties, publishing, perfromance
royalties, recording sessions, etc.). There are some pretty standard
conventions in all these things that have been worked out over many
years, and you really need to know what they are.
>Whether you're an amateur or not doesn't matter to me. It shouldn't
>to you, either. Either one IS a songwriter, or one ISN'T.
And you're looking to take $250 from people who AREN'T songwriters by
telling them you can MAKE them songwriters.
mu...@bighitproductions.com
wrote:... a load of negative tripe.
My point is (and was) that you were not the person the question was
directed at. Do you do that at parties, too? Do you jump in to
insult people you don't hardly know, while they're trying to discuss
something with someone else?
I am familiar with many things diminished, including my diminished
interest in unecessary and inconsequential confrontation.
I also do not care if you think I know what I'm doing or not.
Good luck with all you do.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
mu...@bighitproductions.com
I'm not taking $250 to "make" people songwriters. BHP is a service
which, for one, can provide musical composition and accompaniment for
lyricists who have little to no musical experience. That was a weird
claim for you to make, and also a bit exclusionary. I believe
EVERYONE has something to share, and whether a person's method for
communication meets your specific (and somewhat elitist) criteria or
not is inconsequential to my plans.
I believe that every single person who performs on a recording that is
sold and/or distributed for any kind of public performance (airplay,
etc) deserves compensation. I don't care whether there's an
"accepted" way of distributing royalties or not. No one will be
holding a gun to anyone's head to perform or sign, right?
Thanks for the advice on publishing, etc, but you're a bit late. The
contract is already being revised to include the relevant topics that
you seem to think are beyond me.
I don't recall any attempt on my part to insult your intelligence, yet
here you are trying to do so to me. You have no idea what BHP is
planned to become, and here you are trying to tear it down.
I remember reading somewhere, "Those who are doing should not be
interrupted by those who are not doing."
You think you know what I'm doing, but you're not right. Once the web
site is finished and the contract details finalized, then I hope
you'll see that all the negativity you've flung my way was for naught.
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
Flying Tadpole
musea/Tom Hendricks/H&PD wrote:
<snip>
>
> BTW what's on the Brit radio newsboard -
> a zombie jamboree? Ha Ha
>
Actually, Tom, I quite liked the Zombies, and I still enjoy
playing my own (piano/vocals) arrangement of "She's Not There"
;|
--
Flying Tadpole
-------------------------
http://music.download.com/internetopera
http://music.download.com/timfatchen
http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole
Honcho
"My point is (and was) that you were not the person the question was
directed at. Do you do that at parties, too? Do you jump in to
insult people you don't hardly know, while they're trying to discuss
something with someone else?"
____________________
You're too much. You post on Usenet, which can be read by, and answered
by, anybody and everybody, and you get pissy because other people actually
read, use and reply on Usenet.
The good news is that when anybody does a search for your company they
will find all the threads you have posted to and all the reasons why
nobody should use your service.
As you are now descending to the personal comment I feel a biblical
revelation coming on, which I must impart to you, "Go forth &
multiply..."
Richard
Lynn
Wilbur said...
> I won't tell you all the reasons WHY I think it's a non-starter,
> I'll just tell you that I don't believe your proposal is going to go
> anywhere.
Ah yes, I've been waiting for someone to come up with that argument. I knew
it would be the biggest stumbling block.
The problem with blanket charges such as certain taxes, Licenses, etc, is
that there always will be those who have to pay regardless of not using the
service.
A very small minority of people never listen to music. If a statutory fee
were to be placed, some of those people would be encouraged to download the
odd piece of music simply because they know that they are now paying for it.
Deaf people, for instance, (as previously mentioned), shouldn't need to pay.
Quite rightly so. There are relatively easy ways of acknowledging this so
that they may be exempt. Businesses, as you rightly say, often have systems
in place to stop their employees from downloading music. In such cases, I'm
sure that there will be ways of monitoring this so that those businesses can
be exempt. This is precisely the kind of thing that will need to be
investigated and policed by departments like the current collection and
licensing agencies.
My aim is to make the whole thing as fair as possible. Currently this is not
happening. The Music organisations and the filesharers have now been
bickering for years and it shows no sign of slowing. My ideas may be
radical, but they are really not that far removed from measures that are
currently starting to be put in place by the people currently controlling
the industry. The problem is that they are only seeing the picture from
their own little windows. No-one seems to be looking at the whole picture.
I myself, very rarely download music that hasn't been offered for free by
the copyright holders. So I could easily end up paying more than my current
spend on music. In my case (and I suspect for many others like me) this
would probably encourage me to build up a collection of music that I
currently don't bother about. Tracks that I quite like, but not enough to
warrant spending money on. Something I may listen to once in a blue moon
just for a change of mood.
The real difficulty with this kind of levy, is in setting a level which is
acceptable to those who currently don't spend anything on music. Most of my
spare cash currently goes on DVDs or computer software. I haven't bought a
CD since about 1993! ...and why should I, when there are so many good
artists on the net who are giving their music away for free? At the same
time, a certain percentage of those will be whinging that they earn nothing
for their musical efforts.
When I first bought my broadband connection in 2000 it was 512Kbps and cost
me £40 + VAT per month. Now it is 2Mbps and only costs £24.95p + VAT per
month! Since I am already at least £15 per month better off than I was, I
would be happy to give some of that back to the musicians whose music I
listen to on the net. Even if they were to receive as little as 1p per
stream and 2p per download, it is still better than what they get now!
So the big question is... Do you really want the bickering, lawsuits, and
unfairness to musicians and consumers to continue? Don't dismiss a good
idea just because it will "never work". Give me a real reason why you don't
want to pay a very small sum that will go directly to the creators of the
music you currently listen to.
People go into a pub and pay 20p to listen to one song on a jukebox, that
they can't even hear clearly because of all the noise. Why don't they want
to pay even 1p to listen to it at home, where they CAN hear it clearly?
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
"Wilbur Slice" <wil...@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
news:va3bm1l9gsgcifkp2...@4ax.com...
Lynn
of business. :o)
The arguments that are ensuing in another thread, need not bleed into this
one. The simple fact is, no-one seems to be distinguishing between the
songwriting copyright (c), and the phonographic copyright (p).
Some of the songwriters here, think you are stealing a part of the
lyricyst's copyright, (partly due, I'm sure, to the poor wording of your
original contract), whereas, you believe you are taking the 25% for the
"production". They are two completely different things and should not be
confused.
Please goto my page at... http://www.wobblymusic.net/Songwriting.htm which
explains this difference in further detail.
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
<mu...@bighitproductions.com> wrote in message
news:n1ham15k991isdo27...@4ax.com...
Wilbur Slice
It's not that I think it will never work because *i* don't want to pay
a fee. I wouldn't care - I'm sure I would be one of the ones who was
getting the great deal because I listed to a lot of music. A lot of
OTHER people would squawk.
But that's not even the real reason why your proposal has no chance of
success. The real reason is that you proposal, at its base, is a
huge, fundamental change to the entire world's legal systems and
concepts of copyrights. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's just
not going to happen.
It's like that old Steve Martin routine about "How To Be a Millionaire
And Not Pay Any Taxes": First, get a million dollars. Then...
Your proposal is, basically, "First, get all the countries of the
world to agree to change their legal systems and definitions of
intellectual property to match my idea and define a global database to
keep track of all this, then..."
When You get past that first part, THEN you can start on the problems
with the rest of it.
>
>People go into a pub and pay 20p to listen to one song on a jukebox, that
>they can't even hear clearly because of all the noise. Why don't they want
>to pay even 1p to listen to it at home, where they CAN hear it clearly?
Ultimately, that may be the model that emerges - you never actually
OWN any music, you just dial it up on your ubiquitous device and you
pay some fraction of a penny to listen to the song. Nobody would ever
actually NEED their own copy of a song, because it would be always
available everywhere at any time via the net.
mu...@bighitproductions.com
question, does not indicate complaint. You are making uninformed
claims about my motivations.
"Go forth & multiply..." uh... okay? And that has WHAT to do with
the price of tea in China?
Ricketts Douglas
www.BigHitProductions.com
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:35:58 -0500, "Honcho" <richhoncho@nospam>
wrote:
Honcho
Firstly, I think Wilbur has hit the very nub of the matter saying that the
world isn't going to agree (bit like RMMS, eh?)
What I see happening is what we warned about many years ago by a former
RMMS regular. The record companies will disappear and music will become
the property of the ISPs. This will be even more detrimental than record
companies. IMO.
I understand your concern that the present copyright laws need to be
looked at and updated, they, like most legislation, run behind the
actuality and the internet has certainly changed the terms of reference.
I cannot under any circumstance support the idea of one quango monopoly
running the whole thing, if you think large mail order companies are
wasteful just look at our our Dept of Works and Pensions - £1.5Billion
lost each year through fraud and a further £1.5Billion lost through Civil
Service inefficiency. Trust me I know, I have earnt a very good income for
most of my working life supplying services which Civil Servants were
incapable of doing even though that was they were paid to do. Similarly I
think the Americans get a better deal from the PROs because there is
competition. Us poor Brits have Hobson's choice and we know the stories...
If the merger between PRS & MCPS goes through musicians and songwriters
will be screwed even further. The idea of a global monopoly collecting
royalties for public performance in downtown Wigan... the idea just
boggles the mind, let alone the practicalities.
As for the idea of new acts not earning royalties for playing - even if I
accepted this was a good idea in the present situation (which I don't)
what happens when there are changes in circumstances - how long to change
the laws - 50 years? 100 years. In fact a successful band breaks up, each
go solo - are they new acts or old acts. Imagine the problems your
well-meaning scenario causes.
The real problem is to ensure that music has a value for Joe Public.
Bitching about bands, Big 4 record companies, payola, record company
contracts, recouping and on and on isn't the answer. The only way to prove
that is ensure that it is sold in some form or another - and as soon as it
is sold then common business sense will (should) take over. That's why
there are 4 big record companies - because it made economic sense at the
present time. Thousands of independents isn't the answer either - being
independent is not, and has never been, a guarantee of fairness either. In
fact, independents have to dodge around so much just to stand still,
you're much more likely to lose everything to an independent.
So, while I have no idea where the future lies, at least we do agree that
musicians and songwriters should get a fair chance.
Richard