Crisis in Music

Nacci

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
1,434
Location
Roxbury, NH.
Why would the Music Industry find Gioia controversial? His entire talk is geared towards making end users pay for music again, or at the very least seeding that idea into people's minds.

The problem; YouTube where content is both stolen and free.

The working model or what he aspires to: HBO where one must pay considerably.

The Alternative if you don't pay for HBO: Cable, where the content is both Vapid and predictable.


I think this guy is Crypto but assuming he is not place what he is saying into the context of the EU's Article 13 Copyright directive and how that will effect this music on YouTube. Then think of these ads you are seeing on YouTube for it's YouTube TV where you pay a subscription fee for select content and advertisement free viewing and you begin to see what Gioia is seeding the ground for.

It is classic problem, reaction, solution and bait and switch rolled into one. EU article 13 will eliminate all content from the internet that it does not want disseminated and usher all of this "Free" music into a pay to play section. Everything else on YouTube will be both Vapid and predictable.
 
Last edited:

mtarrani

DFO Master
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
8,615
Reaction score
400
Location
Deltona, FL
Why would the Music Industry find Gioia controversial? His entire talk is geared towards making end users pay for music again, or at the very least seeding that idea into people's minds.

The problem; YouTube where content is both stolen and free.

The working model or what he aspires to: HBO where one must pay considerably.

The Alternative if you don't pay for HBO: Cable, where the content is both Vapid and predictable.


I think this guy is Crypto but assuming he is not place what he is saying into the context of the EU's Article 13 Copyright directive and how that will effect this music on YouTube. Then think of these ads you are seeing on YouTube for it's YouTube TV where you pay a subscription fee for select content and advertisement free viewing and you begin to see what Gioia is seeding the ground for.

It is classic problem, reaction, solution and bait and switch rolled into one. EU article 13 will eliminate all content from the internet that it does not want disseminated and user all of this "Free" music into a pay to play section. Everything else on YouTube will be both Vapid and predictable.
You are one of the few who actually gets what Gioia is saying. Bravo!
 

Beatnik

Johnson
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
218
Location
Moved on
Thought time.

Some have mentioned "live" music disappearing. The main reason is because the people that frequented these shows used this as a reason to get out, let loose, be stupid, get drunk/high and smoke, it's all been sterilized and banned to the point they just stay home. We have all complained about these people, but they always paid to be there.
 

dsop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
306
Reaction score
232
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Do you know that many younger folks? I don't disagree that there is a strong base of them who are into old rock but it is very much a niche thing. The vast majority of them listen to pop singers, rappers and electronic artists.
Rock music is not the most popular music. I think Rap or Hip-hop took the mantle sometime last year. There's no accounting for taste, but I was merely pointing out that music is being listened to and 'consumed' more than ever, while musicians and songwriters are being robbed by Google and their ilk.
 

ThomFloor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2017
Messages
459
Reaction score
164
Rock music is not the most popular music. I think Rap or Hip-hop took the mantle sometime last year.
For sure, hiphop has been the most popular music form for many years, and most downloaded/streamed by a huge margin. Followed by 'country' which has of course morphed to 'pop'. Good ole 'Rock'.....only for the over 40 crowd.
 

drummerjohn333

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
161
Location
Michigan
Funny how we bellyached about being raped by the record labels.

Now we have the steering wheel and there are so many options and unsettled dust that our heads are spinning a bit now.
I guess sometimes more structure is good, and thus what we have here is the prime time with prime problems.

Allow me to introduce you to my music marketing system.........
 

Whitten

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
203
Reaction score
71
Personally I never 'bellyached about being raped by the record labels'. I worked with too many niche artists in the 1980's who wouldn't have been heard or earn a living without a record label.
I've been involved in this debate online for over ten years, close to fifteen. It's a very complex issue, which is not at all black and white. There are many different opinions, often wrong-headed, sadly like Ted Gioia. Difference between entertainment and art? I give you The Beatles, which in one example debunks his snobbery in an instant.
But 'troutstudio' is 100% right. The main problem is there is no longer a way to earn income from your recordings any more, unless you are in the top 10% of artists.
I have a track with 10,000 streams on Spotify. It took me about 8 weeks to write, record and mix the track and I think I'm projected to earn about $200 from those plays on Spotify. So we have gutted the mid-level artists out of the industry.
Right at the beginning, with Napster and then Youtube and Pandora, the argument was made to me that the internet was going to completely democratise the music scene. That's fine - it has, but if 90% of those who now have access can't even cover their costs, let alone finance their next project, what is the point?
The next line of argument was that music is no longer a big part of people's lives. In reality, the Summer festival season has become an absolutely HUGE phenomenon, especially in the UK and Europe. I live about half an hour from Glastonbury.
When you point this out, people counter that it is a social phenomenon, like a rite of passage for the young. Sure....maybe it is, but at the same time music is CENTRAL to the experience. If you watch the tv coverage (which I do every year), there are 100,000 very happy faces, singing along to the band, knowing every lyric, looking like they are enjoying an emotion they will remember for the rest of their lives. If there were no artists and no music, these festivals simply wouldn't exist.
The bottom line for me is that the whole thing has become a transfer of wealth, from the workers, the creative people, to the suits - the tech industry and it's owners.
They pay as little as they can, often because they have become a dominant force, while earning themselves billions. these tech company owners have so much money they don't know what to do with it. They splash out on 20 bedroom mansions, huge classic car collections, or collect multiple Stradivari violins. At best they give some of their millions to charity. Meanwhile, the vast majority of musicians are working for no pay. What little pay they earn usually doesn't cover their costs.
 

supershifter2

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
5,930
Reaction score
558
Location
Lost Angeles , Ca.
This speaker maybe highly educated, but he is seriously mixed up.
Record companies care about one thing and one thing only......UNITS SOLD.
If a female jazz singer who weighed 300 pounds and did not look like a fashion model
came out with a record...called..."the fat lady sings" and it sold 10 million units.
The "Fat lady sings volume two" would soon be on its way.

This dude needs to grow up.
yep ! its all about M O N E Y ! Anne Wilson is huge
 

swarfrat

tympanus laqueus XV
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
5,399
Reaction score
589
The flaw in your argument is assuming that the female jazz singer who weighed 300 pounds would be taken seriously enough to be given a change to record the album in the first place. The dude, IMHO, knows what he is talking about and his whole presentation in that video avoided logical blind alleys and unrealistic assumptions when he laid out his case.
Except that it happened in 2009. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Boyle
 

Topsy Turvy

Very well Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
577
Reaction score
106
Location
United States
Personally I never 'bellyached about being raped by the record labels'. I worked with too many niche artists in the 1980's who wouldn't have been heard or earn a living without a record label.
I've been involved in this debate online for over ten years, close to fifteen. It's a very complex issue, which is not at all black and white. There are many different opinions, often wrong-headed, sadly like Ted Gioia. Difference between entertainment and art? I give you The Beatles, which in one example debunks his snobbery in an instant.
But 'troutstudio' is 100% right. The main problem is there is no longer a way to earn income from your recordings any more, unless you are in the top 10% of artists.
I have a track with 10,000 streams on Spotify. It took me about 8 weeks to write, record and mix the track and I think I'm projected to earn about $200 from those plays on Spotify. So we have gutted the mid-level artists out of the industry.
Right at the beginning, with Napster and then Youtube and Pandora, the argument was made to me that the internet was going to completely democratise the music scene. That's fine - it has, but if 90% of those who now have access can't even cover their costs, let alone finance their next project, what is the point?
The next line of argument was that music is no longer a big part of people's lives. In reality, the Summer festival season has become an absolutely HUGE phenomenon, especially in the UK and Europe. I live about half an hour from Glastonbury.
When you point this out, people counter that it is a social phenomenon, like a rite of passage for the young. Sure....maybe it is, but at the same time music is CENTRAL to the experience. If you watch the tv coverage (which I do every year), there are 100,000 very happy faces, singing along to the band, knowing every lyric, looking like they are enjoying an emotion they will remember for the rest of their lives. If there were no artists and no music, these festivals simply wouldn't exist.
The bottom line for me is that the whole thing has become a transfer of wealth, from the workers, the creative people, to the suits - the tech industry and it's owners.
They pay as little as they can, often because they have become a dominant force, while earning themselves billions. these tech company owners have so much money they don't know what to do with it. They splash out on 20 bedroom mansions, huge classic car collections, or collect multiple Stradivari violins. At best they give some of their millions to charity. Meanwhile, the vast majority of musicians are working for no pay. What little pay they earn usually doesn't cover their costs.

See, the thing is, the model has to change. It will never be what it was, and therein lies the problem with many (most?) musicians. Want to make money on your record? Do a Kickstarter to get it recorded/pay yourself. Some bands are doing living room shows and making a good living at it. Sure, it's not an ideal situation, but musicians are making money.

Do something different than the same model that has not been working. If musicians are waiting for big business to treat them fairly and equally, they are going to be waiting a long, long time. Skip them altogether and try a new method- whatever that may be.
 

GeeDeeEmm

Very well Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
944
Reaction score
630
Location
Arkansas
Whether you agree or not, one fact really stuck with me:

In the 1930s there were thousands of places to see live music. With the lack of live music venues today it is estimated that opportunities for musicians to play has been reduced by 90%. Most bands in the 30s had many players with little to no soloists are duos. Most folks in the US don't have access to regular live music.


To all of us that play live on a regular basis we carry the ten percent torch.

Keep playing live as often as you can; it's of a privilege for both you and the audience.
THIS! The most important point that he made in this excellent lecture.

We've literally made a conscientious choice to settle for the convenience of listening to music being reproduced, versus music being produced. Good or bad, I don't know. But there is no doubt that the opportunity to hear live music is a detriment to us all.

GeeDeeEmm
 

dsop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
306
Reaction score
232
Location
Los Angeles, CA
See, the thing is, the model has to change. It will never be what it was, and therein lies the problem with many (most?) musicians. Want to make money on your record? Do a Kickstarter to get it recorded/pay yourself. Some bands are doing living room shows and making a good living at it. Sure, it's not an ideal situation, but musicians are making money.

Do something different than the same model that has not been working. If musicians are waiting for big business to treat them fairly and equally, they are going to be waiting a long, long time. Skip them altogether and try a new method- whatever that may be.
I think you're missing the point. More music is being enjoyed by more people now than at any other time in history. More profit is being generated from that as a result as well. The issue is that almost all of that profit is being funneled to those who had NOTHING to do with the creation of that music.
Laws and their enforcement need to catch up with technology. This has happened many times in the past. Eventually public outcry leads to regulation. Technology can solve all of these problems very simply. Don't be fooled into thinking that some sort of genie is out of the bottle.
 
Last edited:

dsop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
306
Reaction score
232
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I have a track with 10,000 streams on Spotify. It took me about 8 weeks to write, record and mix the track and I think I'm projected to earn about $200 from those plays on Spotify.

 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,219
Reaction score
1,334
Location
California
The flaw in your argument is assuming that the female jazz singer who weighed 300 pounds would be taken seriously enough to be given a change to record the album in the first place.
But here you are cheery-picking between the realities of new times vs. old times to make your point.

New Times Fact - no one must wait to be given a chance to record an album. The ability for anyone to release anything globally has never been more available and inexpensive.

Old Times Fact - The gatekeepers of old were not solely motivated by artistic merit - sure phenomenal talents were supported, but frankly tons of music was marginalized, ignored and left to die for lack of ANY means to distribute it effectively.

So basically there has never been a time that a 300 pound female jazz singer would've not been a much tougher sell than some cute, sexy ingenue lesser singer.

This is part of the business of music has not ever changed - and likely won't. But it is not now or then as black and white as you're suggesting or we would not currently be in a world where both Beyonce and Adele share in the same pop marketplace.
 


Top