Yes, MP3.com is a big supporter of new and lesser known artists, unlike the RIAA. Spinner, your argument there only really applies to bands that the RIAA thinks will sell well enough that they'll be willing to sign a contract with them. This seriously limits the musical variety available to the public via CDs, unless the lesser-popular-but-still-GREAT artists release their CDs independently. Those artists typically pay for their own rehearsal space, and their own recording and production costs. That doesn't make the music any less quality than something the RIAA pays to produce, and it doesn't make me enjoy listening any less. It just means that when I pay $10 for that artist's CD, that artist is getting A LOT more of the money from the CD than they would if it were an RIAA release. I'd be much more willing to pay an artist $.25 per track download directly than to give the RIAA $15 and the artist $2 for a CD I buy at the mall... one that only (these days) typically contains 10 tracks and is 38 minutes long!
GHoosdum said Yes, MP3.com is a big supporter of new and lesser known artists, unlike the RIAA. Spinner, your argument there only really applies to bands that the RIAA thinks will sell well enough that they'll be willing to sign a contract with them. This seriously limits the musical variety available to the public via CDs, unless the lesser-popular-but-still-GREAT artists release their CDs independently. Those artists typically pay for their own rehearsal space, and their own recording and production costs. That doesn't make the music any less quality than something the RIAA pays to produce, and it doesn't make me enjoy listening any less. It just means that when I pay $10 for that artist's CD, that artist is getting A LOT more of the money from the CD than they would if it were an RIAA release. I'd be much more willing to pay an artist $.25 per track download directly than to give the RIAA $15 and the artist $2 for a CD I buy at the mall... one that only (these days) typically contains 10 tracks and is 38 minutes long!
...I'd be much more willing to pay an artist $.25 per track download directly than to give the RIAA $15 and the artist $2...
Firstly, the RIAA is a representative body for the majority of the large record companies, they do not sign artists, and they are not a record company and when you buy a CD you don't give them any money!
...the lobby group that works on behalf of the large, mostly foreign-owned, music conglomerates that own the music copyrights and distribution channels
99.99% of all music you download, buy or here on the radio is produced and created by a record company, whether it be a major label or an indie label. All artists, who hope to be heard by anyone other than their friends and relatives need a label. Like I said, it's not just about production costs of the music, it is so much more than that, marketing etc etc all play a very large factor in making an artist or artists successfull. Even if it were just about production costs of a record, only the big names can afford to produce their own material, a band which is just starting out, doesn't have a hope in hell of producing an album worthy of distribution, online or not. Unless they are filthy rich, they won't be able to afford it.
Lets say though a new up and coming artist trying to make it big, does manage by some feat to manufacture a grade A piece of production work. How is anyone going to know about it? are they going to be able to foot the cost of advertising and promoting their album. It doesn't matter whether it's on the shopshelves or on a website, people need to know about it so they can choose whether or not they want to download it. Just because someone uploads a few tracks to a webserver it doesn't mean instantly the whole world are going to become aware of it and start downloading their music. It doesn't matter whether you're an established artist or a new kid on the block, you need a record company! The RIAA isn't a record company, they don't sign artists, and they don't distribute music, make it or sell it. They just represent the people who do.
On my own personal website, I have a collection of songs which I have produced myself. They aren't very good, at least production wise, but nevertheless I have managed to get my music onto the web. Why am I not famous? why don't people know about me? why aren't my songs being played on the radio? because I don't have the ability to get that kind of exposure for myself, which is why I need a record label.
MP3.com is great, but half the music on their is still produced by a record company of some sort. Obviously more likely by an Indie label, but nevertheless. Even artists like myself, who have managed to produce thier own tracks without financial and adminstrative assistance, I still won't become succesfull just because I submit my tracks onto MP3.com. There just isn't enough exposure.
Am I making sense about this? the principal of online music purchase and download is sound, it will be cheaper than buying music on the high-street because of saved distribution costs, but the music still needs to be produced, it still needs marketed, it still needs promotion, and it still needs all the things which record labels and bodies of that sort give. The industry will never become just about the artist and the comsumer, because for those two types of people to be able to communicate, they need a middle man, which of course is the record companies.
The RIAA is just a representative body, which is enforcing the law, and supporting record labels interests. They will always be there in some form or another. Like I have now said, about 5 times , the problem at the moment is only a result of the music industry neglecting to get onboard with the internet age, and embrace it. For the considerable future you will always be able to buy CD's in the shops. What the industry (not the RIAA) is trying to do now, is find a place for itself online! but before they can do that, the demand for it needs to be their. Because currently music on the web, for the most part is free, there is no demand. That is what the RIAA is trying to fix, why? because the only reason why the demand isn't their is because of people obtaining music illegally on the web. While that is still taking place, no online revolution will happen for the industry, so the majority of labels and their artists will still be forced to sell overpriced music on the shop shelves, in the real world.
Firstly, the RIAA is a representative body for the majority of the large record companies, they do not sign artists, and they are not a record company and when you buy a CD you don't give them any money!
Please note that when I said "RIAA" in my post, I meant "the major record labels embodied and represented by the RIAA." However, I didn't want to type the whole thing every time, so I simply said "RIAA" ... please insert the above phrase for each use of "RIAA" in my original post. Since the RIAA represents the major record labels, they're still trying to protect the profits of the record labels, rather than truly trying to protect the rights of the artists.
And those major record labels are still getting the lion's share of the money spent on a CD. Which these days is more and more money for less and less music as the trends go...
In conclusion, your statement was not a very thorough rebuke to my comment that you quoted, in which I basically meant: I'd rather give the money to the artists themselves and maintain the protection of their intellectual property, while still getting to download the music immediately and directly from them, than to give a whole lot of money to the record label and very little money to the artist.
...In conclusion, your statement was not a very thorough rebuke to my comment that you quoted, in which I basically meant: I'd rather give the money to the artists themselves and maintain the protection of their intellectual property, while still getting to download the music immediately and directly from them, than to give a whole lot of money to the record label and very little money to the artist.
That's fair enough, and I respect that, but their is a reason why the artist only gets such a small percentage of the profits, and that is because basically the record company pays for the production, promotion etc etc of the record, not the artist. Why? because the artist can't, and even if they could, they couldn't afford to.
Hey, I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, and in an ideal world it would be great if you, the consumer, and me the artist could strike an arrangement to cut out the middle man, but unfortunately that just isn't how things get done in the industry, and it is so fundemental it will not change for quite some time.
Also bare in mind that the high prices of CD's on the highstreet, are just as much the specific retailers fault as it is the record companies. At least over here in the UK, the increase in the cost of CD's are more because of retail chains, like HMV and Virgin Megastore trying to make more money, not... the record companies.
Like I said, I agree with what you are suggesting, and it would be great, but unfortunately, because of the way the industry works, and has worked for over 50 years, that option of having the middle man cut out, just isn't plausible, and even if it was, the artist would simply have to take on the role of the record company, with regard to every aspect of the music creation and promotion process, which in turn would still result in the same cost of production for the music.
Because essentially, it doesn't matter who foots the bill, it still costs a certain amount of money to produce music. Yes, profits are involved, and yes record companies can be greedy, but who's to say the artists won't be equally as greedy.
Spinner said
Also bare in mind that the high prices of CD's on the highstreet, are just as much the specific retailers fault as it is the record companies. At least over here in the UK, the increases in the cost of CD's is more because of retail chains, like HMV and Virgin Megastore trying to make more money, not... the record companies.
You're definitely right there. That's why over here in the states, you can buy a CD for $12.99 at Best Buy, and the same CD at one of the mall retailers costs $17.99... hmph.
Comments
And CDs are CHEAP! 8-10$ for a CD where I know the whole content will be worth the buy...The RIAA needs to take note.
Firstly, the RIAA is a representative body for the majority of the large record companies, they do not sign artists, and they are not a record company and when you buy a CD you don't give them any money!
99.99% of all music you download, buy or here on the radio is produced and created by a record company, whether it be a major label or an indie label. All artists, who hope to be heard by anyone other than their friends and relatives need a label. Like I said, it's not just about production costs of the music, it is so much more than that, marketing etc etc all play a very large factor in making an artist or artists successfull. Even if it were just about production costs of a record, only the big names can afford to produce their own material, a band which is just starting out, doesn't have a hope in hell of producing an album worthy of distribution, online or not. Unless they are filthy rich, they won't be able to afford it.
Lets say though a new up and coming artist trying to make it big, does manage by some feat to manufacture a grade A piece of production work. How is anyone going to know about it? are they going to be able to foot the cost of advertising and promoting their album. It doesn't matter whether it's on the shopshelves or on a website, people need to know about it so they can choose whether or not they want to download it. Just because someone uploads a few tracks to a webserver it doesn't mean instantly the whole world are going to become aware of it and start downloading their music. It doesn't matter whether you're an established artist or a new kid on the block, you need a record company! The RIAA isn't a record company, they don't sign artists, and they don't distribute music, make it or sell it. They just represent the people who do.
On my own personal website, I have a collection of songs which I have produced myself. They aren't very good, at least production wise, but nevertheless I have managed to get my music onto the web. Why am I not famous? why don't people know about me? why aren't my songs being played on the radio? because I don't have the ability to get that kind of exposure for myself, which is why I need a record label.
MP3.com is great, but half the music on their is still produced by a record company of some sort. Obviously more likely by an Indie label, but nevertheless. Even artists like myself, who have managed to produce thier own tracks without financial and adminstrative assistance, I still won't become succesfull just because I submit my tracks onto MP3.com. There just isn't enough exposure.
Am I making sense about this? the principal of online music purchase and download is sound, it will be cheaper than buying music on the high-street because of saved distribution costs, but the music still needs to be produced, it still needs marketed, it still needs promotion, and it still needs all the things which record labels and bodies of that sort give. The industry will never become just about the artist and the comsumer, because for those two types of people to be able to communicate, they need a middle man, which of course is the record companies.
The RIAA is just a representative body, which is enforcing the law, and supporting record labels interests. They will always be there in some form or another. Like I have now said, about 5 times
Please note that when I said "RIAA" in my post, I meant "the major record labels embodied and represented by the RIAA." However, I didn't want to type the whole thing every time, so I simply said "RIAA" ... please insert the above phrase for each use of "RIAA" in my original post. Since the RIAA represents the major record labels, they're still trying to protect the profits of the record labels, rather than truly trying to protect the rights of the artists.
And those major record labels are still getting the lion's share of the money spent on a CD. Which these days is more and more money for less and less music as the trends go...
In conclusion, your statement was not a very thorough rebuke to my comment that you quoted, in which I basically meant: I'd rather give the money to the artists themselves and maintain the protection of their intellectual property, while still getting to download the music immediately and directly from them, than to give a whole lot of money to the record label and very little money to the artist.
You're definitely right there. That's why over here in the states, you can buy a CD for $12.99 at Best Buy, and the same CD at one of the mall retailers costs $17.99... hmph.