Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
The old model: 1) Musician makes music 2) Record company records music, makes record, promotes artist, distributes music to stores = Record company controls music production and distribution The current model: 1)Musician makes music, *can* record music, *can* press master cd and pay for duplication, *can* self promote, very hard and expensive to distribute music on a large scale 2) Record company *usually* records music, *usually* arranges for media duplication (same company or other), promotes artist (depending on who you ask), controls wide spread distribution of music recordings to stores = technology has given artists more ability to produce quality sounding recordings fairly cheaply (in comparison), the Internet has given some artists more exposure outside of their communities (impact?), record companies still control wide spread promotion and distribution (and take a pretty good cut for the priviledge) What does the MP3 and Napster and it's ilk mean?: 1) Physical media will eventually become less prevalent, it's not as convenient or portable. All-digital storage and distribution of music will eventually become commonplace (it's harder for your kids to scratch RAM, and high-bandwidth or wireless data networks will continue to grow). I don't know when eventually is, but it sure is starting to look like soon. 2) Simple standards based distributed file sharing will allow ANYONE with access to the internet to be a mass distributor, potentially. This alone threatens the ability of anyone to generate revenue based on the current model. This need not be centralized. It would be so easy to create online communities (such as this!) with subscribers that share, trade, or sell music to each other. Combine that fact with the ever increasing ability of musicians to produce and encode all of their music themselves (or with a few others) and you've blown the above two models out of the water. The only caveat is, how is anyone going to make money distributing music with this technology? *scratches head* Is that really the point? Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tiktok" <tiktok@sprintmail.com> To: "Looper's Delight" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:43 PM Subject: Free Music >1) Everyone's for free music until it's their music they're not being >*fairly* rewarded for. One's definition of "fair" varies according to the >perception of how much money is being personally lost. > >2) The "music industry" is not a synonymous term for "musicians". >So, statements such as "Napster is a boon to the music industry, just as >home taping was" are probably not cause for musicians to rejoice. >Musicians benefit when they feel transported by playing music. >People who are also musicians can benefit when they get paid for their >music, since the last time I checked there was no Napster equivalent for >gassing up your tour van or buying recording gear. >Making music at anything above the dilettante/hobbyist level requires a >lot >of money. > >3) The "rise of alternative music" was due to the Music Industry deciding >to >promote some Alternative bands, not to home taping. > > >TH > >-- >"For over half a century rock 'n' roll music has acted as a kind of >umbrella >under which the noblest elements of society have gathered. Today, the very >word "rock" is a synonym for everything that's most decent, honorable and >moderate in Western society. The model behavior of both its stars and fans >is eclipsed only by the probity and rectitude of the men and women at the >business end -- that corps of managers, accountants and recording >companies >whose transparent honesty and compassion have made the industry such a >pleasant environment for musicians to work in." > >--John Perry, from a discussion of the Napster situation > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com