Are Some Big Name Bands Learning from Internet Musicians?

[Jim of Seattle]

Oh, the Grateful Dead were download-only back in 1972?

Seriously, though, that's a good example. See, it could happen.

[jack]

Oh, the Grateful Dead were download-only back in 1972?

Seriously, though, that's a good example. See, it could happen.

more in the sense that as long as the grateful dead have been around, they have encouraged and embraced the free distribution of their music. and as a result of this, they are arguably the most successful rock act in history (easily the most money made touring for sure)

[jb]

....... starts getting airplay on non-commerical college radio stations, starts to tour, gets some notoriety, and never sells a single CD in a record store? Maybe that will never happen, and maybe things won't change. But it's a vision of the future of music that doesn't take me a lot of stretching to imagine.

hm. sounds a bit like the grateful dead to me.

Yeah, except no. The Grateful Dead have sold millions of CDs in record stores. For most of their existence if you wanted a Grateful Dead tape or album you went to a record store. I am not dissing their touring revenue by saying this, I only mean to recognize that they made a lot of money in the "traditional" fashion and weren't completely and totally unorthodox, as much as deadheads would like to think so.

The problem with Jim's scenario is that I can't figure out how he intends this hypothetical band to make enough money to EAT while they gain this notoriety and tour for years (all while their families miss them and the world goes on without them, remember.)

Regardless of whether this sort of thing is going to happen (it probably is), that's the aspect of it that makes me SO ANGRY. Often people who try to spin piracy as a moral act say that a)the industry doesn't let artists make money anyway and b)they can just make money by touring, like the old days. Both of which are complete bullshit, and not just bullshit, they're callous and cruel and completely insensitive towards the artists who make the music pirates love so much they'll fight to the death (figuratively speaking) to preserve their ability to get as much of it as they can stuff into their cheeks without choking. But that's beside the point.

That's the big question today. The traditional revenue streams for musicians are going to die in the next decade or so. What will replace those streams, or will there simply cease to be a musician caste that makes a living solely from their creations? That wouldn't be progress, imo. Today's top-heavy success pyramid sucks, but not as much as if there had never been The Police would suck. And from what I read in Rolling Stone this month, if they weren't making a living at it there would be no Weezer.

[jb]

Oh, the Grateful Dead were download-only back in 1972?

Seriously, though, that's a good example. See, it could happen.

more in the sense that as long as the grateful dead have been around, they have encouraged and embraced the free distribution of their music. and as a result of this, they are arguably the most successful rock act in history (easily the most money made touring for sure)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/04/18 ... vy_letter/

[jack]

well, speaking now as someone who has been firmly part of the grateful dead culture for over 20 years now, i think i can safely say that the majority of people who listen to the music of the grateful dead aren't buying it in the store. before there was such a thing as a CD, or an internet, people would trade cassettes. it was how people listened, learned, and were exposed to the music. to this day, i have probably 500 friggin grateful dead bootleg cassettes gathering dust in my closet. yes, they had commercial CDs, and yes, they sold a few, but that was miniscule compared to the money they made on tour and through merchandising. alot has changed within the band since garcia died, and his widow is pretty much universally despised by the rest of the band. getting cease and desist letters from lawyers doesn't mean it reflects the intent or opinion of all the band members, and at the end of the link you posted, it mentions john barlow's opinion (he was garcia's lyricist), which encourages free distribution.

as a commercial entity for a major label (arista), the grateful dead were an acknowledged bust. yet, they managed to do alright for themselves.

[erik]

Hmmm... perhaps. How long do you think it will be before some free-only Internet band "breaks out" and starts getting airplay on non-commerical college radio stations, starts to tour, gets some notoriety, and never sells a single CD in a record store? Maybe that will never happen, and maybe things won't change. But it's a vision of the future of music that doesn't take me a lot of stretching to imagine.

I don't know Jim, when are we going to get a lesbian President? Or a Dominican-American president? Neither is impossible, but I wouldn't accuse you of having a poor imagination if you thought it wouldn't be for a while. And how long after the first lesbian president will it take until like every other president it a lesbian? I have never suggested that I can't imagine how one person could distribute free music online and leverage that into notoriety. Just because that happens once, or even several times, doesn't mean that all music in the future will be free.

[jb]

well, speaking now as someone who has been firmly part of the grateful dead culture for over 20 years now, i think i can safely say that the majority of people who listen to the music of the grateful dead aren't buying it in the store. before there was such a thing as a CD, or an internet, people would trade cassettes. it was how people listened, learned, and were exposed to the music. to this day, i have probably 500 friggin grateful dead bootleg cassettes gathering dust in my closet. yes, they had commercial CDs, and yes, they sold a few, but that was miniscule compared to the money they made on tour and through merchandising. alot has changed within the band since garcia died, and his widow is pretty much universally despised by the rest of the band. getting cease and desist letters from lawyers doesn't mean it reflects the intent or opinion of all the band members, and at the end of the link you posted, it mentions john barlow's opinion (he was garcia's lyricist), which encourages free distribution.

as a commercial entity for a major label (arista), the grateful dead were an acknowledged bust. yet, they managed to do alright for themselves.

You're right. However, the lawyers in question were not from Arista. This was a while ago. But my point is that one means of trading tapes might be fine with the Dead, and another might be just one step too far. There's a difference between trading tapes hand-to-hand at shows and putting up mp3s for download. That's why nobody's against the Library, but they shut down Napster right quick. I guess it's mostly a matter of scale.

But I think the Dead can only be used as an example of a successful "non-traditional" group for so long before you start running into contradictions. Not to mention that you might be hard pressed to find another such example. And how much of the Dead community's focus is the music, and how much is the community itself with the music as backdrop. Perhaps Jimmy Buffett would be another example, in some respects.

But I really do wish people would come up with an example that wasn't a band that I personally can't stand. If music in the future has to be jam band hippie stuff, or frat boy fluff, then I'm going back to the orchestra where I apparently belong.

[deshead]

as a commercial entity for a major label (arista), the grateful dead were an acknowledged bust. yet, they managed to do alright for themselves.

This kinda speaks to one of Puce's original questions, that I haven't seen anyone address:

How the hell do you convince your record label to make the whole album available (in a restricted sense) for free before it comes out?

I think, outside of huge bands that can dictate their own terms, it simply wouldn't be possible with a traditional record label. They're all gonna look at The Grateful Dead and say "well, that's a no-win proposition."

If this type of distribution appeals to you, and you're not one of the 20 largest bands in the world, then your only option is a non-traditional label. Magnatune, or what have you.

(Tangentially related: I think Magnatune are at the vanguard of the coming wave of change that JoS mentioned. They seem to "get it".)

[erik]

Magnatune sells music, they are missing the point.

[roymond]

Hmmm... perhaps. How long do you think it will be before some free-only Internet band "breaks out" and starts getting airplay on non-commerical college radio stations, starts to tour, gets some notoriety, and never sells a single CD in a record store? Maybe that will never happen, and maybe things won't change. But it's a vision of the future of music that doesn't take me a lot of stretching to imagine.

I don't know why "free-only" is important. I need money. I suspect professional musicians still do, too (I did when I was one). I have nothing against paying for music, reasonably. I don't know about the surcharge models being discussed (treating it like water or other utilities, or like the DAT tax). It is interesting, though. And attractive.

I've met Scooter a number of times, heard him play and was on a discussion panel with him last fall at The Global Entertainment and Media Summit in NYCand we email about music industry stuff, how he's going after it. He has no agent, no manager, no label, no contract. He got the 2003 Songwriters Hall of Fame: Best of the New Writers Award. He warms up for people like Jewel, Dave Matthews, and Nils Lofgren.

He makes good money. Enough. He distributes some music for free, offers the rest for money. His latest video is being distributed for free. Whether or not you like his music, he's working his butt off with self-promotion and gigging. This is what it's about. The new music industry may make it easier to distribute, but it isn't going to make it any easier to be successful. Especially without the resources that record companies have. But these things will emerge and the models (there will be many) will come about as a result of these types of discussions.

[jack]

You're right. However, the lawyers in question were not from Arista. This was a while ago. But my point is that one means of trading tapes might be fine with the Dead, and another might be just one step too far. There's a difference between trading tapes hand-to-hand at shows and putting up mp3s for download.

i completely agree. but my sense is that the catalyst for this stance against free distribution may not have come from within the band. maybe it was their label who had issues. phish (yes, i know, another jam band...) has had similar issues, previously looking the other way towards bootlegs, which in turn creates this rabid sort of cottage industry of people passing the music around, keeping track of setlists, posting show information and setlists. phish was one of the first bands that could offer soundboard quality downloads of shows within 24 hours of the show for a modest price. even though people could perhaps find free bootleg copies, they created a model that gave the fans what they wanted at a fair price. it won't be uncommon to see something similar in the future, where you go to a show and after the show, you stick a flashcard into a kiosk and download a soundboard quality version of the show you just saw.

open and free access to at least some of their music helps create this fanaticism within the fanbase. hell, you could argue that what i just said applies equally to songfight and it's archive.

[jack]

But I really do wish people would come up with an example that wasn't a band that I personally can't stand. If music in the future has to be jam band hippie stuff, or frat boy fluff, then I'm going back to the orchestra where I apparently belong.

actually frontalot is a pretty good example. he sort of created this unique niche for himself, does excellent work, doesn't take himself too seriously, and has given the majority of his music away. when he plays a SF live show in san francisco, the majority of folks that show up are probably there to see him, and he can bring the folks. and they found out about him through his free music. he's a good example of someone who's famous to a smaller group of folks, but as those folks talk about him, his notoriety will inevitably grow as well.

[roymond]

actually frontalot is a pretty good example. he sort of created this unique niche for himself, does excellent work, doesn't take himself too seriously, and has given the majority of his music away. when he plays a SF live show in san francisco, the majority of folks that show up are probably there to see him, and he can bring the folks. and they found out about him through his free music. he's a good example of someone who's famous to a smaller group of folks, but as those folks talk about him, his notoriety will inevitably grow as well.

I agree. If he did take himself seriously, he has the potential to become very successful...uh...famous.

[Jim of Seattle]

Jack, your point goes right back to the basic economics of this whole thing. Recording and distributing music of high audio quality is so much easier than it used to be, that the traditional music industry simply can't maintain its stranglehold on it. So perhaps a kiosk doesn't get built. Someone bootlegs the show anyway and it gets distributed on the web, which accomplishes the same thing.

JB, your point about musicians making a living at it is indeed disturbing. But I don't think that's going to go away. I think that what's going to go away, or rather, get a whole lot smaller, is the legions of non-musicians who also make a living at what the musicians do. And again, I'm not trying to paint the music biz as evil. It's just the way it is. I agree that not every musician is going to want to give away his music on the web. But a musician can sell it without help from a whole bunch people in a tall building in Los Angeles.

What I really regret about this change is that the era of songs that everyone knows is pretty much over.

My scenario of the future of music is admittedly radical. It's not going to really be like I'm saying, it'll be somewhere in between. As Roymond said, "there will be very successful artists who don't rely on that corporate machine. And they will collectively become a powerful force, or at least a distracting alternative, to the current record industry."

[deshead]

Magnatune sells music, they are missing the point.

They give it away too (and do a host of other things that traditional labels eschew, like fair royalty sharing and leaving copyrights in the artists' possesion. Maybe I'm missing what the point was supposed to be.)


Erik's comment made me think, though: The CC license under which Magnatune releases music allows for free, non-commercial use. You only have to pay if you want to use the music commercially. This model appeals to me, and I realized that my subscription to the "music should be free" ethos therefore has limits. I'm happy to throw my tunes at the world for free, via Songfight or my web site or whatever. But if I discovered that someone was making money off them without my consent, I'd be pissed.

Most of the debate about free music focuses on the casual listeners. Joe iPod and his brethren want to party with their free tunes, and damn the fusty old record executive who gets in the way. But what about commercial music consumers? Should they be invited to the party too?

I'll wager most of us feel the same: no f'n way.

But a musician can sell it without help from a whole bunch people in a tall building in Los Angeles.

Not a loaded question, Jim: do you believe musicians will want to sell it themselves? For my part, I'd happily pay someone a share of my royalties if it meant I didn't have to deal with customers. If a lot of musicians feel the way I do, maybe the "music industry" is inevitible ...

[jb]

But a musician can sell it without help from a whole bunch people in a tall building in Los Angeles.

Can they though? I can put my music up on a web site (I have), and I can create a mailing list and I can play live around town and occassionally take the weekend off to go play nyc or something like that.

But that still requires support. Managerial support. Promotion support. Equipment support. If you want to do it as anything but a hobby, that is.

The thing about taking all the parasites out of the equation is that the means for doing that is by attacking the FOUNDATION rather than just the parasites. So the parasites will die off at the possible expense of the host, because he's got to learn to breath a whole new kind of air. "Free Music" isn't just making it a snap for us to find people to listen to our music, it's making it impossible to FORCE somebody to pay for our music.

So the new proposals are to give it away and rely on the good nature of people to pay for things they appreciate. Making anyone who wants to survive off their music into a sort of mini-PBS beggar. "You like this? You want more? PLEASE GIVE, or we can't support the production of another episode of This Old House!"

[jack]

What I really regret about this change is that the era of songs that everyone knows is pretty much over.

dude, quit flip flopping. one minute you're all cheguevara-like talking "viva la revolution" and now you're bemoaning the change. make up your mind already.

also, here's what i'd love to see. i'd love to see The MC Frontalot Show done up all off-broadway like, combining music and theatre. like eric begosian/talk radio meets an urban, bent version of prarie home companion.

yeah, that would be cool. i'd pay my hard earned bread to see that.

[Jim of Seattle]

No flip-flop. My stance, if it isn't clear yet, isn't how good or bad this is going to be, but how inevitable it seems to me. I love that I or anyone with talent can get their music heard by a fairly large number of people with little financial investment outside whatever it took to get good in the first place. But I don't like that there will probably never be another "Somehwere Over the Rainbow", by that I mean a song everyone knows by heart.

[jb]

actually frontalot is a pretty good example. he sort of created this unique niche for himself, does excellent work, doesn't take himself too seriously, and has given the majority of his music away. when he plays a SF live show in san francisco, the majority of folks that show up are probably there to see him, and he can bring the folks. and they found out about him through his free music. he's a good example of someone who's famous to a smaller group of folks, but as those folks talk about him, his notoriety will inevitably grow as well.

I agree. If he did take himself seriously, he has the potential to become very successful...uh...famous.

Well, I love Frontalot, and he works on what I would call a "pro" level. But his sound is very niche. Same with MC Hawking. There's a dedicated audience for it, but they are spread way out all over the country. So for example if the "just go tour" mechanism were the only way to make money at music, they would both be sunk.

Those SF shows are nearly free, and the people who show up don't number in the hundreds. The show I was at, Front did generate the most interest, but the crowd still probably reached 50 at the most.

They also both rely on somewhat of a gimmick. And I don't mean just nerdcore hip-hop, which is already a narrow-genre gimmick (gimmick is not a negative to me, fyi). But Front relies on a "nobody knows my face" thing to a large extent, and Hawking relies on the Stephen Hawking thing. To be really well known would remove those conceits from their acts, and who knows how much of their current appeal is tied up in those conceits?

There's the rub. Front could probably generate enough interest, when taken globally, to support himself from his music IF EVERYONE WHO LIKED HIM PAID HIM-- and not just once, but on a regular basis. There must be a replacement of the consistent revenue stream. If you remove CDs and DRM downloads, which we are, there is currently no mechanism on the internet that would guarantee such payments to artists.

On a local basis, it will be difficult to find enough of a concentration of possible Frontalot fans in order for him to make a living.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but these are the issues, and they're not insignificant. I don't think we can have a serious discussion about the future of music without being realistic about the situation.

Lemme just tell you, I do a lot of this free giveaway sort of thing, and it is VERY VERY DIFFICULT to generate interest in a project. Mild interest for a day? No problem. Sustained interest over a period of time? Difficult. Where you're asking for money? EVEN MORE DIFFICULT.

JB

[erik]

Magnatune sells music, they are missing the point.

They give it away too (and do a host of other things that traditional labels eschew, like fair royalty sharing and leaving copyrights in the artists' possesion. Maybe I'm missing what the point was supposed to be.)

My point was this: Magnatune give away music, and yet they still offer it for sale because (enough) people still want to buy music. People want musicians to have money in exchange for their songs. I don't think that Magnatune can be used as an example of how one day all music will be free.

[frankie big face]

I guess what I'm getting at is that music as an "industry", with thousands of non-musicians earning a living off it, is changing. Of course it's great for musicians to get paid for what they do, and of course that's been going on since forever. But when most music listened to became recorded instead of live, then there was a whole 'nother industry consisting of the people who could record, package and distribute that music. So musicians had a potentially much larger audience, and eventually, the idea of musicians being "successful" only when they make money for a whole lot of other people (who were not responsible for the original music but got them over that gigantic hurdle between the instrument and the ear) became the norm. Historically the distance between instrument and ear has been much shorter, and the digital music age is again shortening it, squeezing out all those other people.

I haven't (yet) read all of the pages that popped up since I posted early this morning, but this explanation makes much more sense to me and doesn't bother me like your original comment.

[Jim of Seattle]

I'm sure I went on to resume bothering you somewhere after that.