How you killed the business of music

[Angstrom]

http://rocknerd.co.uk/2013/09/13/cultur ... ed-by-law/

Record companies complain the Internet will destroy music. Musicians complain that they can’t make a living any more. The unsympathetic public, feeling the squeeze themselves, tell them to get a proper job.

The problem isn’t piracy — it’s competition.

There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public. This is healthy for culture, not so much for aesthetics, and shit for musicians. Musicians in the early ’90s were already feeling the pressure of competition from CD reissues of old stuff; here in the future, you can get almost anything that has ever been digitised for free and listener time is the precious commodity.

You thought it before, but what the hell.

[murgatroid]

aaaawww fukkit

[Johnisfaster]

While I agree with most of the sentiments here I do have to say that I think there is still a place for truly talented innovative and motivated people to make a living doing what they do. Most people don't see that cause truly talented innovative and motivated people are rare.

It's one thing to look at the situation and say "this is the way it is now" but that's not helpful to you or anyone else, the result really just ends up being a complaint that it's not like the good ol' days. Sure I miss the good ol' days but they are long over never to return. The only thing you can do with the current situation is attempt to be as innovative and motivated as possible, be genuine, be engaged in what you're doing and most of all I think be passionate about it. People are sick to death of rehashed music and even more sick of disingenuous music. In the end you might make something, you might not, and that's the way it's really always been.

It used to be if you were a really good copy cat you'd do okay. Now if you're a really good copy cat you're practically shooting yourself in the foot. Now, the absolute best way to ensure you'll get somewhere is to be the best you that you can be.

[Tarekith]

Well said, I agree completely.

[Machinesworking]

Look at the methods of people who've made it for one.
Whether or not you're a fan of Die Antwoord is irrelevant to the point that they are a new group, as in the last couple years, who used Youtube and their talents as video and story producers to elevate their music careers. Without the relevance of album cover art, and the death of cable music video channels, it was incredibly smart to create a storyline background for their music and to exploit the media available to get attention.
Music videos as promotional tools are still very relevant. It's IMO more relevant than releasing an album, and as important as live shows if not more.

[Angstrom]

I agree that the article ends weakly, I like my cultural overviews to have some speculation. At least he could have provided a little coverge of how people actually work now compared to the supposed idyll of the 90's.

And it's of course true that people are still working, I thought the article had some merit because it addresses those people I still meet who still dream the old dream: I'll make these tracks, get picked up by a label, and they'll fly me around the world.

I would advise against praying to the gods of authenticity to resolve the situation. This mantra of "be authentic, work hard, be creative" is not addressing the real issues, it is merely a paliative for the creative person, not for their situation. I'm sorry, but every artist has delusions that success is a meritocracy, and success within that meritocracy is built on being special, and the thinker of these delusions also beleives that they are special, because it takes an egotist to get on stage and face the opposite direction to everyone else in the room!

Analogy time:
Picture a diamond miner, he's got a personal diamond mine and is selling diamonds for £1000 a pop. Shit happens, and now diamonds can be made at home from water. So the advice to the diamond miner would be , what ? "be authentic, work hard, be creative". Will that affect the glut of diamonds in the market? No.

Here's my solution:
Still comparing to diamonds, the difference between selling DeBeers diamonds and desktop diamonds. The sole difference is : DeBeers controls a market, and DeBeers markets their diamonds as having specific meaning. Marketing. So the two diamonds are exactly the same, but now a DeBeers diamond is worth the cost of the ingredients for the home fabricator.

The value of an artifact is in its cultural significance.
It exists in a context and it's resonance in that context is what assigns the value.
This is the same for Die Antwoord , Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Barry Manilow, Skrillex, etc. It's not that these people worked harder than their peers, and it's certainly not that they were more authentic to themselves, it's that they found a cultural resonance.
Ninja is a modern example of how to do it, and he's a culture artist. He has done for Die Antwoord what a team of stylists did for Lady Gaga. What a record company still does for a boyband. Make them relevant.


Letting musicians assign the value?
Of course, you are free to believe that musical merit, and hard work are what's required and that music is the most important thing in the equation - but I say that music is a culture product and musicians delude themselves. Musicians fetishise the music, but culture is about connection. I've seen many very talented musicans fall by the wayside (who I expected to be massive) while lazy nitwits prospered ... because the nitwits were lovable / roguish / sexy / dark and evil / all about da partaaay / artistic / angry . These are all cultural signifiers.

In this networked age the music is valueless, whats valuable is societal meaning.



Tl;dr : start a cult : sell them box-sets

[Johnisfaster]

A different perspective on the role of an artist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm-Jjvqu ... ature=plcp

[dsu]

Johnisfaster.
Very cool video

One has to remember is one is talking about success in music or success in the music business. As the video points out. They are not the same thing. Nor are they mutually exclusive.

[Tarekith]

A different perspective on the role of an artist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm-Jjvqu ... ature=plcp

Thank you very, very much for that, outstanding.

[TheNobleNemesis]

I killed the business of music, huh?

I beg to differ. The "business of music" as you call it just died out like anything would. Nothing lasts forever, we just do what we can to fill in the void. In essence, the music of yesterday would have slowly lost support regardless, and now that they turn to this new paradigm of music, we somehow killed the music? No.

For example; if Taco Store A is successful, and over time, people get bored of Taco Store A and turn to Taco Store B, that somehow, Taco Store B killed Taco Store A, when in reality, Taco Store A killed itself by not being able to meet the demands of it's customers.

[Forge.]

well, it's also important to remember that some very big artists from the good old days actually earned fuck all from record sales because they signed ridiculous record contracts that gave them something stupid like 8% royalties when they were young and naive.

we grew up being sold a pretty warped view of what a music career is supposed to be, based on a very unrealistic and artificial environment that was a unique point in history that had never happened before and never will again.

Someone pointed out recently that in any other industry if you make an investment and see a 10% return over many years that would be considered a good investment, but in music for some weird reason the idea is if you don't get back everything you invested in it within a year then go on to see a 1000% return you are considered a failure.

People just really need to readjust and develop a realistic set of objectives and decide what they actually want and what their idea of "success" actually is, and drop any notions that it means being like the beatles or whoever.

The music business is still there, and it's actually very healthy, and it won't go anywhere because people will always want music. But people need to develop realistic expectations about what it is and how it works.

[eyeknow]

A different perspective on the role of an artist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm-Jjvqu ... ature=plcp

I'm sorry, I'm crying bullocks!!!!!!

In fact, the bubblegum machine is in a stronger swing than ever. Mass consumption and "fitting in" has never been stronger. "The young" are just products of the "presses" still. Trying to pretend otherwise because the tech is different sounds pretty lame imnsho. So as an old curmudgeon I say two things to that video:

a) it's just a video from someone who is everything that she is talking about......and.....
b) GET OFF MY LAWN!

[su]

I dunno, I'm having a hard time placing someone who creates doodle animations of math concepts and who persuasively eschewed traditional avenues for reaching mass audiences in that video into a mainstream bubblegum category.

Nice post 7 posts back Angstrom.

[Johnisfaster]

Johnisfaster.
Very cool video

One has to remember is one is talking about success in music or success in the music business. As the video points out. They are not the same thing. Nor are they mutually exclusive.

Certainly not the same thing, but I see parallels. Video just like music is hugely over saturated with many people just trying to cash in. Just like music, video used to be a corperate game and is now open to the public. In fact many of the same methods to get attention are identical. Take from it what you will.

[Buleriachk]

There is good news and bad news:

The good news:
The tools of production are at last in the hands of the workers...
The bad news:
The tools of production are at last in the hands of the workers...

The news: Everyone and no one is listening to the music all the time and none of the time, except for some who are listening to the music some of the time....