Nonetheless, it's a service in very high demand. People actually want large corporations to be the gatekeeper of culture, as evidenced by the type of entertainment most people like to consume.
I think you're making a leap that isn't supported by the facts, in my opinion. Sure, a lot of movies, particularily those with special effects, are big budget, which biases them towards large corporations.
However, for large corporations to be the gatekeepers of culture - no way. First of all, they won't do it, they'll do what makes money, or the shareholders will have the head of management. If you're lucky, an enlightened corporate leader may look fondly at certain types of culture, and be more inclined to approve expenditures there, when choosing between equally attractive money making propositions, but that's about as far as it goes.
Corporations are about profit, not culture, period. Which is ok, as long as they're not monopolies. Now if you have monopolies, you don't have competition and if you don't have major regulation/oversight of those monopolies, you have abuse, period.
In my view, the culture comes from the independents, and movie studios, for example, are all gravitating this way (making sure to make accomodations for them, checking out places like Sundance) - like, how many cookie cutter re-makes can the accountants make, anyway? People who are passionate about stuff/creative tend not to do well in large corporate environments, in general. In a sense, the movie business seems further along than the music business (in spite of the fact that its more expensive to make a movie).
A six-month cap on copyright would be extraordinarily bad for independent/non-mainstream artists, who often labor for years and years before anyone hears their stuff. Even worse for contemporary "classical" composers, whose works often only begin to achieve any kind of recognition near the very end of their lives -- or after they are dead.
I'm personally in favor of life plus one year (to help the artist's family with funeral expenses, and to allow them to benefit from the usual one-time post-death windfall). Death plus 70 years (the current arrangement) is obviously absurd. As for corporations, I think they should be able to hold a copyright for 10 years, maximum, before it reverts to the original creator. (The creator could then re-negotiate terms every 10 years, or simply hold on to the rights himself.)
Oops, miscommunication. What I meant was that a marketing company couldn't hold the copyright for a long time, and that it would automatically be returned to the artist after a period (who could then re-negotiate it back to the marketing company, if they wanted). In other words, no long term lock-ins with corporations. 6 months, 1 year, maybe 2 years, whatever is reasonable to get it out there. But not a very long time.
What would seem to be fair, would be a cap of, say, 20 years for copyrights (like patents). This way, the stuff would be out there, making money hopefully, but, regardless, would go into the public domain, without exception. This way, artists would hopefully be encouraged to keep producing. As long as the marketing company didn't keep it, without renegotiation, even for a large part of the period, I could go either way on this, however - life of the artist + 1 year isn't a deal breaker, as long as its to the artist, not a corporation, even if the artist is paid as an employee by that corporation.
Since a patent, also a creative work, is limited to 20 years, why not copyright?
I find it interesting (and troubling) that corporations, the primary user of patents, manage to get only 20 years, whereas consumers, the primary users of copyright, get, forever (the current life of the artist + 70 years will, based on the past, be magically extended once mickey mouse's copyright is about to expire, again).
Think we're saying pretty much the same thing here, other than for duration.
So you're saying that musicians shouldn't have the right or the ability to recoup that investment?
Of course not. I'm talking about what are the actual costs of production, that is, what costs would you incur if you produce, vs. if you don't produce.
Profits from the production, will, hopefully, pay for the equipment and put bread on the table.
Additional costs to record with reasonable quality?
Anywhere from $40,000 to $500,000, depending on the type of music and how much studio time you need.
Maybe I'm just showing how little I know about music production, but I just can't understand how it can be that high, assuming one is trying to keep costs down, isn't doing a video. Remember, I'm talking strictly about productions costs.
Modern equipment a lot cheaper?
Not really. Sure, the demo you record in your parents' basement can now sound a lot better than it used to, but to get a professional-sounding record that will allow you to compete with the big guys, you need a real studio and real expertise on the recording/production/mixing/mastering end.
Maybe the point here is that this money thing has polluted more than just the record companies. Now people are convinced they have to have 128 tracks, a studio etc. etc. Based on past successes, I submit this isn't true.
And musicans like to help out other musicans starting out, don't they?
The public isn't interested in buying Chevrolets. Hell, you can't give 'em away. There are hundreds of thousands of indie bands putting their stuff up on their websites or MP3.com or voluntarily uploading it to P2P networks, etc. So far, not one band has broken via this route. P2P networks were supposed to be the big equalizer for independent artists, but so far, that's just a pipe dream. The only people who download tracks from indie artists are the same people who used to buy records from indie artists, i.e., a tiny minority of the population. Everyone else on P2P (probably 95% of P2P users) just wants to get the latest hits for free.
I respectfully submit that a lot of successful stuff is Chevrolet, as regards studio editing. Consider live recordings, for example.
Now, I'm not saying that production and distribution are all that is required. Some marketing, particularily smart marketing is required. Note that smart marketing isn't expensive marketing.
I'm sorry -- I really don't mean to offend, but that's just unbelievably naive. "If the product is good, the marketing will come"? What evidence would you offer to support that?
I'll pick a couple of examples from the motion picture industry: The Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Production costs $60,000 (as I recall), $5,000,000 respectively. Sales $240,500,000, $356,500,000, to date (sales require an unknown amount of marketing expense to be deducted, of course).
The point is to #1 have basic equipment, skill, (for music) like minded people - a band (unless you're a solo act). #2 make something decent (this is the hard part), spending money is only peripherally related to being decent, witness all the expensive duds (particularily in movies) #3 get it out there, but smartly (blindly dumping on a P2P network is not enough) #4 get it in front of people who want to make money.
That's how the marketing will come. I should have said - if the product is good, and you have some basic capability and work at it, the marketing will come.
It sure sounds to me that a number of music genres have less production costs today - they're just a simpler type of music that is easier to produce. Remember that a lot of music started out on street corners.
Neil Young used to play on Yonge St. in Toronto, originally. Better than practicing in his basement, and I'm sure it was a net revenue positive (i.e. he made gas money/bus fare).
Do you really believe the music that sells the most sells because it's the highest quality? Records sell because they are pushed hard by record companies, who control all the avenues of promotion
And this is the corruption/monopoly part - controlling all the avenues of promotion should be a severe anti-trust violation. And its certainly not true with some types of music advertising - you can run ads in magazines.
Haven't looked into this, but surely record stores accept cd's of independent musicans for sale + demo.
and virtually all of the avenues of distribution -- so much so that most of the demand in the one avenue of distribution they don't control (P2P) is for the same artists they're pushing hard on the radio, in magazines, in movies, etc etc etc.
There are issues being raised with exclusive promotions on radio (Clear Channel, a large radio station company is accused of mandating playlists from head office, specifically), another severe anti-trust violation, hopefully. What happened to having a decent song recording and going down to the radio station and playing it for the dee-jay? Presuambly one of the reasons there are dee-jays is to make these kinds of decisions.
And why can't there be music indie festivals like Sundance is for movies? And a whole industry behind it?
To be fair, Sundance was originally largely Robert Redford, and he had to struggle for a while to do it, initially. Maybe the problem is that music doesn't have a Robert Redford.
And of course all of these media outlets belong to the same company.
Again, the corruption/monopoly issue. We're in agreement that the current system is broken.
If you're an independent artist, what do you think the odds are of having one of your songs picked up in a Warner Brothers movie or TV show? Why on earth would they want to promote you, instead of a Warner Records-affiliated artist?
Because failing to do so is a violation of anti-trust. But, I recognize that currently, this is an issue, to some degree.
You can't rise to the top if you can't break into mainstream media, and mainstream media is a members-only club controlled by the same multinational corporations that own the five major record labels. And, if Monday's FCC ruling goes as I fear it will, you can expect that club to get even smaller and even more exclusive.
The FCC just did it, and you're right, a bad situation is getting worse.
Dude, nothing is wrong with alternative distribution channels. It's our last possible line of defense against the media borg. But it should be up to the artist what to make available, and when, and in what form.
I freely share my demo and will mail a physical copy to anyone who asks. When my website goes live, I will make the demo available there, but I will probably pull those tracks when the "official" record comes out -- not because I don't want people to have them, but because the versions of those songs on the release will be way better than the demo versions, and given a choice, I'd rather people heard the album cuts. I will have highlights from all tracks available for free download, and some concert performances -- that sort of thing. And of course, there's no way I can control what happens to my stuff once it gets out there, and I don't actually have a huge problem with that. After all, my main goal is to have lots of people hear my music. But I still need the people who like my stuff to actually buy the record, or I'll have to spend less time making more music for public consumption, and more time on my day job(s).
No problem with any of this. In fact, I submit that it should be easier - you shouldn't have to make a web site, there should be a massive artist run web site for you that will post your stuff for next to nothing. And, as I was saying, a lot of independent review. And a big Sundance like music festival for all the indie bands, once a year.
Because that's not how human beings work. Humans are basically a bunch of non-risk-taking lemmings, and are only interested in things that everyone else is already interested in. There are a tiny handful of people out there who are willing to take a chance on someone they haven't heard of, and those people are the lifeblood of creativity in this world. But there are very, very few of them, and even if what you do would appeal to them, you still have to find a way to reach them, somehow. Everyone else is quite happy to buy (or steal) whatever the media borg tells them to buy.
For stuff people are only marginally interested in, people go with the mainstream (this is why these people, today, mostly buy pee cee's, in my view).
One would like to think, that, for entainment, people would NOT check with their friends before they decided if they liked something. Sadly, this isn't true, altho in my view, this is a sign of serious immaturity/insecurity.
Its a bit of a leap to infer what it would be like if the media borg was dismantled. Being an optimistic person, I think we'll be pleasantly surprised. I also thing that the various borgs out there will, as borgs always do, overreach and thereby fail. Still, sadly, humanity will lose in the meantime, relative to what could have been acheived.
And that's what indie bands do -- build up a regional following through sweat and hard work. But it's a lot harder if you work in a truly alternative genre -- in jazz or contemporary classical music or other forms of creative, experimental music that might not go down so well at the local punkrock dive. There's also the problem of distribution of audience -- there may be 4000 people in the country who like your music well enough to buy your CD, and at $15 a pop you might actually recoup your investment if you kept recording costs down. But those 4000 people may be scattered across the country, and there may be only 10 people in your city who would pay a $5 cover charge to hear you live.
Then you need to gravitate to a musical area, typically a downtown major city, and try there. Sure, it sucks to move, but sometimes you have to.
Shareware is only ever successful if there's at least a nag screen -- ask Dave how many donations he got before he added the nag to Acquisition. And shareware registration fees only really start to come in if we're talking crippleware, or a time-limited demo. Even then, piracy abounds, as Dave knows all too well, and he's extremely vigilant about tracking down illegal serial codes and punishing those who use them. There's no way to do that with music -- unless you want to interrupt all of your songs halfway through with a plea for cash.
Don't mean to be disrespectful, but so what? The nag screen is a 'how', the model has proven it works - there is lots of good shareware out there. And what about Linux, and open source - that's exploding, in no small part due to disgust with the Microsoft Felon.
Yes, nagware for music doesn't work. But, people get bored of a song, and will go back for more - this is where you ask for $, as you were saying.
What is missing is the big artist's web site/the review industry/the big indie festivals. The itunes indie store could serve as the web site, possibly, but posting has got to be free, and the price has got to be artist settable, and the IntDows support needs to be released. The labels would, of course, notice the buzz and jump in once the stuff reached a certain critical mass.
In fact, now that I think about it, I can't believe that the musicans haven't done this. Talk about a missed opportunity... Sorta like sourceforge but for music. Yes, a backer will be needed - find a big name musican who hates the labels - shouldn't be hard, plus look at all the publicity they'll get. Look at all those fan sites people create - if only that energy could be used to create a generic site, for new musicans.
Anyway, my point is that I believe in the concept of IP. I don't believe people have the moral right to take my music without asking and without paying and do whatever they want with it. I also happen to think it is in the best interest of artists to make a good sampling of their work available online for free -- and many, many do -- but I believe that decision is up to each individual artist. [/QUOTE]
No disagreement here.
