Rangerland Forum Information

[Knight of Dight]

I don't get the AC/DC venom. When I was an eighth grader, they were my favorite band. My musical tastes have evolved, but I still love them. Yeah,they haven't evolved, but they found a sound THEY liked, and their fans liked. Why should they change?

I hate them because there was a period a few years ago when my local "rock" radio station literally played one of three AC/DC songs just about every time I went to go anywhere. I got SO fucking sick of hearing "Dynamite," "Dirty Deeds," and "Back in Black" that I would turn the radio off any time I heard anything by AC/DC come on.

Why not just change the channel, or if you're that passionate about music, invest in Satellite or download Pandora Lite for free?

Most commercial radio stations are in the business of making money. If playing Angus and Co. every time you wanted to go somewhere got the station ratings, then they should play AC/DC at that time. Even if the station overplayed the band, how is it the band's fault?

There is only really one station in my area that plays music I like. Everything else is rap, pop, or country. So changing the station isn't really a viable solution. Usually, I'd turn the radio off for a bit.

And it's not the band's fault. I should have phrased it differently. I don't have anything against the band itself, I was just tired of repeatedly hearing their music. I feel the same way about GnR, for the same reasons. Actually, they are a bit more annoying than AC/DC because many of their songs are five minutes or longer.

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Jul 15 2012, 12:27 PM

[Mike B.]

Here's an incident that happened to me at a show last night, which reminded me of some of the discussions we've had in this thread.

I went to see Sharon van Etten at this club in upstate New York, called Helsinki. Some of you know her - folk rocker, very powerful voice, often collaborates with Zach Condon and The National. Helsinki is a nice place, but had a weird vibe because it's small yet has seating and an empty area between the stage and first few tables in front. So there's a kind of distance from the performer in a space that would otherwise be intimate.

At one point, they started letting people stand in close to the stage. I was one person deep, dead center, and she asked the girl in front of me what the girl wanted to hear, and she would play it. The girl froze up, so I shouted, "Leonard", a song off her latest album, which would have been a great choice had she not already played it. Sharon then repeated as much to the entire crowd - "well, I already played Leonard, but maybe I'll play it again, just for you!"

So aside from feeling like a complete dick, I thought that maybe a consequence of the digital era is that while you might hear and like a lot more music, it's too hard to focus on all of it and learn it all well unless you just do it as a career. I usually have 4-5 albums a year that I am completely locked into - lyrics, tune, song names, etc. Then, there are another 4-5 that I know fairly well, and maybe another 10-15 after that where I like the recording, the sound of it, but frankly barely even know the song names or lyrics. Her latest album is somewhere in the two latter categories for me. So while I heard van Etten play "Leonard" earlier in the set, and liked it very much, I knew it by the refrain and a few lyrics here and there. I just mixed up the song names.

I'm sure that is really annoying for the artist, but I don't think it's some tragic decline in how people enjoy music. I probably lock in on as much music as I ever did, there's just more now to enjoy casually. Or, I'm just rationalizing feeling like an asshole.

[Sed]

Admit it - you actually yelled FREEBIRD!

[Puckforbrains]

Here's an incident that happened to me at a show last night, which reminded me of some of the discussions we've had in this thread.

I went to see Sharon van Etten at this club in upstate New York, called Helsinki. Some of you know her - folk rocker, very powerful voice, often collaborates with Zach Condon and The National. Helsinki is a nice place, but had a weird vibe because it's small yet has seating and an empty area between the stage and first few tables in front. So there's a kind of distance from the performer in a space that would otherwise be intimate.

At one point, they started letting people stand in close to the stage. I was one person deep, dead center, and she asked the girl in front of me what the girl wanted to hear, and she would play it. The girl froze up, so I shouted, "Leonard", a song off her latest album, which would have been a great choice had she not already played it. Sharon then repeated as much to the entire crowd - "well, I already played Leonard, but maybe I'll play it again, just for you!"

So aside from feeling like a complete dick, I thought that maybe a consequence of the digital era is that while you might hear and like a lot more music, it's too hard to focus on all of it and learn it all well unless you just do it as a career. I usually have 4-5 albums a year that I am completely locked into - lyrics, tune, song names, etc. Then, there are another 4-5 that I know fairly well, and maybe another 10-15 after that where I like the recording, the sound of it, but frankly barely even know the song names or lyrics. Her latest album is somewhere in the two latter categories for me. So while I heard van Etten play "Leonard" earlier in the set, and liked it very much, I knew it by the refrain and a few lyrics here and there. I just mixed up the song names.

I'm sure that is really annoying for the artist, but I don't think it's some tragic decline in how people enjoy music. I probably lock in on as much music as I ever did, there's just more now to enjoy casually. Or, I'm just rationalizing feeling like an asshole.

Douchenozzle.

You're lucky it wasn't a Megadeth concert. Dave Mustaine would have told you to fuck off and tried piercing your skull with the head stock of his guitar.

[Mike B.]

Douchenozzle.

You're lucky it wasn't a Megadeth concert. Dave Mustaine would have told you to fuck off and tried piercing your skull with the head stock of his guitar.

Well, point being, I listen to and go to shows for artists that I'm not necessarily the most devoted fan of, because I like the experience.

The lesson to learn though, is maybe don't scream out song titles unless you're absolutely sure you're right.

[Puckforbrains]

Douchenozzle.

You're lucky it wasn't a Megadeth concert. Dave Mustaine would have told you to fuck off and tried piercing your skull with the head stock of his guitar.

Well, point being, I listen to and go to shows for artists that I'm not necessarily the most devoted fan of, because I like the experience.

The lesson to learn though, is maybe don't scream out song titles unless you're absolutely sure you're right.

Oh I get it man - I wish I had the time in my life to get to see more shows. Live music is generally an excellent time. Just pokin some fun is all.

[xcdudesquadloves...]

Don't worry Mike, I've had several embarrassing experiences in places known as Helsinki.

One was in the actual city of Helsinki where I caused a 35 woman to become violently ill when she tried to out-drink a 20 year old college student. Another was in a bar known as Helsinki in Estonia where I watched the US mens hockey team lose to Finland where a bunch of Finns yell gibberish to me.

Oh Live music embarrassments? I actually paid to see Foster the People about a month ago, so don't feel so bad.

[Charlie]

I wouldn't relate. Live music is best enjoyed standing completely still with arms crossed. Slight head nodding is acceptable only in extreme circumstances.







Just kidding, I rock the fuck out at concerts.

[Mike B.]

Douchenozzle.

You're lucky it wasn't a Megadeth concert. Dave Mustaine would have told you to fuck off and tried piercing your skull with the head stock of his guitar.

Well, point being, I listen to and go to shows for artists that I'm not necessarily the most devoted fan of, because I like the experience.

The lesson to learn though, is maybe don't scream out song titles unless you're absolutely sure you're right.

Oh I get it man - I wish I had the time in my life to get to see more shows. Live music is generally an excellent time. Just pokin some fun is all.

Yeah, I know. I was gonna say that I would damn sure never be caught at a Megadeth show, but I actually used to be somewhat of a fan.

[hoser]

I can't even name track songs anymore. When I used to use a CD player, it would be by track #. Now it's...is it near the top, middle, or bottom of this playlist?

[Bleedin-Blue]

Mike, I never thought you could actually become more of a music dork but...well, there you go.

Did you at least anonymously grope the girl next to you during one of that dumb broad's 'heavier' so...HAHAHAHA!! I can't even finish that sentence! You're such a musical turd.

[Mike B.]

Mike, I never thought you could actually become more of a music dork but...well, there you go.

Did you at least anonymously grope the girl next to you during one of that dumb broad's 'heavier' so...HAHAHAHA!! I can't even finish that sentence! You're such a musical turd.

I'm not really sure what your problem is with me lately, but if you don't want to participate in these discussions, then just don't. Stop trolling.

[Puckforbrains]

Mike, I never thought you could actually become more of a music dork but...well, there you go.

Did you at least anonymously grope the girl next to you during one of that dumb broad's 'heavier' so...HAHAHAHA!! I can't even finish that sentence! You're such a musical turd.

I'm not really sure what your problem is with me lately, but if you don't want to participate in these discussions, then just don't. Stop trolling.

I think he was joking around Grumpy-stilskin.

[Bleedin-Blue]

Absolutely. What the crap? Usually you just tell me I'm a brain-dead metalhead with shitty taste in music and that Mastodon sucks or something along those lines. Isn't that how the dance has been going recently?

[Mike B.]

Absolutely. What the crap? Usually you just tell me I'm a brain-dead metalhead with shitty taste in music and that Mastodon sucks or something along those lines. Isn't that how the dance has been going recently?

OK, fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding.

[Kusand]

Oh hey, I finally listened to Rush's new album. Caravan is a ton of fun, but after running through the first six to seven track a couple times, it's very... well, Rush? If this is what Leeds means by seeking novelty, so be it. I like Rush, I'll listen to Red Barchetta or Spirit of Radio pretty much whenever, but Clockwork Angels just doesn't feel all that new or interesting to me. It reminds me a lot of Test For Echo, whether that's a fair comparison or not, so I kind of would prefer to check out the new releases for a sound I haven't heard before.

[rightbug]

Oh hey, I finally listened to Rush's new album. Caravan is a ton of fun, but after running through the first six to seven track a couple times, it's very... well, Rush? If this is what Leeds means by seeking novelty, so be it. I like Rush, I'll listen to Red Barchetta or Spirit of Radio pretty much whenever, but Clockwork Angels just doesn't feel all that new or interesting to me. It reminds me a lot of Test For Echo, whether that's a fair comparison or not, so I kind of would prefer to check out the new releases for a sound I haven't heard before.

I'm a huge fan of just about everything Rush did up to Hold Your Fire but I find the new album, exhausting I guess. It's all very one-note.

[rightbug]

AC/DC Super-fan Arrested For Rocking Too Hard.

[Mike B.]

Thought this was interesting: http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09...c=fb&cc=fmp

The streaming music service Spotify has garnered some 2 million users in the U.S. since its introduction a little over a year ago. The service includes many big acts like Katy Perry, but many musicians have mixed feelings about it. Some, like Adele and Coldplay, resisted putting new albums on Spotify, citing the service's low royalty payments to musicians. Others, like the Black Keys, won't allow full albums on the service at all.

Some interesting thoughts in there:

- artists in the U.S. still generate much more revenue from iTunes than from streaming services
- the move away from ownership of music (digital or physical) to streaming seems to be hurting smaller musicians (looking at you, BEARDO)
- BUT - this may be a function of the relatively small numbers of users in the U.S. - in Sweden, where more than 10% of the population uses Spotify (wow), artists seem to do very well
- so maybe, as (or if) streaming services become more popular, they can become a good source of income, but it seems like we're far from that now

[Kusand]

- the move away from ownership of music (digital or physical) to streaming seems to be hurting smaller musicians (looking at you, BEARDO)

For what it's worth, before Spotify, I still wasn't really buying music, so they can have a small shred of money from me, or no money from me. Their call.

Gotta read this article now, though.

[rightbug]

There's actually an infographic that's been floating around for a while which illustrates this pretty starkly. It's a PNG so I'll link to it rather than posting it:

http://mashable.com/2010/04/15/music-artis...ne-infographic/

[Kusand]

There's actually an infographic that's been floating around for a while which illustrates this pretty starkly. It's a PNG so I'll link to it rather than posting it:

http://mashable.com/2010/04/15/music-artis...ne-infographic/

That's... wow. That's a lot of streaming required. It's tough. I can see the argument from a "support your artists" standpoint. It's still not an interesting financial investment to me. I really have no interest in "owning" music anymore. I won't blame any artists who hold their stuff off the service. It's just a losing proposition for me to buy the singles/albums of all the different artists I listen to, and I'd end up switching back to NPR or podcasts or something.

[Mike B.]

One of the questions I don't think the NPR article really explores is how much additional exposure these artists are getting because of streaming services. In other words, it looks terrible when you compare revenue from iTunes sales to revenue from streaming services, but maybe it's better to think of it as additional revenue. The article does say that the artists are "losing" consumers from better revenue sources, but that doesn't seem to be considering the whole picture.

Still - I always liked buying CD at shows as souvenirs, but seeing the numbers like this just give me much more incentive to do so.

[Kusand]

This seems like the place for this article: Is The Frank Ocean Coronation Premature?

"It’s symptomatic of music critics’ affection for the incomplete. I want to tread lightly here, because some of my best friends are music critics, and it’s something I still dabble in myself. But I know from firsthand experience that it’s in the critic’s nature to praise potential and distrust the accomplished. The unassailably good is tough to write about without sounding like a PR flack, or a joiner. And because critics spend a lot of time sorting through slickly undistinguished work, sometimes the disjointed has a more immediate appeal, just because it stands out. But speaking as someone who now approaches music primarily as a consumer, I’m increasingly dismayed by how many acclaimed rock and pop albums contain a few decent melodic ideas that have gone unfinished in the name of sounding more raw. As someone who relies on music critics to point me toward records I might like, I feel ill-served."

[Mike B.]

This is pretty amazing to contemplate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/business...tml?hp&_r=0

Even for an under-the-radar artist like Ms. Keating, who describes her style as “avant cello,” the numbers painted a stark picture of what it is like to be a working musician these days. After her songs had been played more than 1.5 million times on Pandora over six months, she earned $1,652.74. On Spotify, 131,000 plays last year netted just $547.71, or an average of 0.42 cent a play.

(link behind the Times paywall, which I finally surrendered to)

That is really bananas. 1.5 million plays, $1600. I really hope that as these streaming businesses grow, they loosen their wallets and start paying higher royalties, or the number of users eventually reaches a tipping point of sustainability for the artists, or something. Spotify is such an amazing product from a consumer standpoint, but I'm starting to feel like it's exploitative of the artists.

[Chris4]

See:

Chris4, 27 years old.

Freshman in college, 2013.

[Mike B.]

I think that as the number of users grows, streaming will become a more viable revenue stream for artists. The article makes the point later on that CDs were seen as gimmicky when they were first introduced, and given lower royalty rates than albums, and as the format became more accepted, the royalties were increased. But still, streaming just seems so brutal right now.

[Chris4]

I seriously just x'd out a post that took me over 30 minutes to write.

“Artists didn’t make big money from CDs when they were introduced, either,” Mr. Passman said. “They were a specialty thing, and had a lower royalty rate. Then, as it became mainstream, the royalties went up. And that’s what will happen here.”

CD's eventually eliminated an entire medium, though. Tape. I don't see streaming doing the same.

[Kusand]

CD's eventually eliminated an entire medium, though. Tape. I don't see streaming doing the same.

Well, you're right in the sense that streaming isn't a medium in and of itself, it's more of a "wiring" class. It'll never replace whatever the latest, greatest memory media is, just make it so you don't have to have it in your pocket. That said...

Why not? In the long term, we're probably looking at ubiquitous wi-fi, giving you on-the-fly access to your collection anywhere you are. Locally stored files will only last for as long as unreliable mobile internet access, I suspect.

This post has been edited by Kusand: Jan 29 2013, 10:59 AM

[Mike B.]

Well, you're right in the sense that streaming isn't a medium in and of itself, it's more of a "wiring" class. It'll never replace whatever the latest, greatest memory media is, just make it so you don't have to have it in your pocket. That said...

Why not? In the long term, we're probably looking at ubiquitous wi-fi, giving you on-the-fly access to your collection anywhere you are. Locally stored files will only last for as long as unreliable mobile internet access, I suspect.

Yeah, and as a consumer I totally welcome that advance. Will be great, even though I still like having tangible products, if for no other reason than to have collectibles to look at in CD racks on my wall. I just hope that something viable for the artists equillibrates out of that model.

[Chris4]

Yeah, and as a consumer I totally welcome that advance. Will be great, even though I still like having tangible products, if for no other reason than to have collectibles to look at in CD racks on my wall. I just hope that something viable for the artists equillibrates out of that model.

And I truly believe lack of aethetics and tangibles are what keep the digital numbers down to begin with, in addition to the continued outright stealing that still occurs, but this is beer conversation, Mike. My thoughts are so all over the place on the topic, I can't even put into summation how I feel about it.

My hope is the same, though.

[Kusand]

I dunno. People talk about royalties going back up, and there being more money, but isn't the modern music industry and selling recordings for a living a pretty recent societal thing? Guys like Sean Parker talk about "It’s the right model if you want to build the pot of money back up to where it was in the late ’90s, when the industry was at its peak. This is the only model that’s going to get you there." But why is that pot of money natural? I can't help feeling like we're going to find out that the Internet is boosting the supply of music and the money to be made is just falling naturally now that you don't need a record label or radio to get people to hear your music. The upside of the long tail is that the tail is long. The downside of the long tail is that the tail doesn't make a whole lot of money.

I don't say this as a futurist who doesn't care about artists; I say this as a realist who isn't sure what there is to be done to make record sales viable again outside of trying to cultivate that niche "I like owning physical things" market that vinyl is trying to tap into.

[Beamer]

Yeah, and as a consumer I totally welcome that advance. Will be great, even though I still like having tangible products, if for no other reason than to have collectibles to look at in CD racks on my wall. I just hope that something viable for the artists equillibrates out of that model.

I couldn't wait to ditch all those CD cases. So ugly and taking up so much space.


The issue with Spotify is that it's free. So is radio, but radio seems to have more commercials, more varied commercials, local commercials, and doesn't let me choose what to listen to. Spotify has 99% replaced Winamp for me. Yeah, some things aren't on it, but by and large I just live without those things.

To me, music is now worth exactly nothing. 15 seconds of annoyance ever 3 or 4 songs, maybe. It'll be extremely hard to put that genie back in that bottle. So Spotify will have to enhance its ads, start doing local ads, etc., if it wants to pay more, but I am not convinced advertisers would care and follow, anyway.

Back 5 or 6 years ago the primary thinking amongst bands was that they get so much more money from touring than from sales that it didn't matter - the more people that listened the more that will go to shows and the more it will benefit them. But I think that, as they're seeing listeners rise faster than concert goers and t-shirt sales, they're starting to feel ripped off.

[rightbug]

What is the traditional radio royalty structure? Could Spotify expand their ad sales to accommodate such a structure? I suppose the more relevant question is "Do they want to?"

[Kusand]

To me, music is now worth exactly nothing. 15 seconds of annoyance ever 3 or 4 songs, maybe. It'll be extremely hard to put that genie back in that bottle. So Spotify will have to enhance its ads, start doing local ads, etc., if it wants to pay more, but I am not convinced advertisers would care and follow, anyway.

Yeah, there's also the loss of the price anchor that streaming causes. Music is worth $10/month to me because I hate advertising. I paid out a lot more as a teenager, but I decided I would be legit and stop pirating, and honestly? I didn't miss it all that much. Internet radio was "good enough."

[Beamer]

Yeah, I went legit and stopped pirating.

I pay a fortune in cable and video games, but that's about it. With reduced time I tend to watch reduced movies, so I spend maybe $5-$7 per month on it. $0 on music.

[xcdudesquadloves...]

Paying for Spotify was the best decision I made in regards to music. I do hate I don't "own" any of it but I am okay with that. I don't need 10000 songs on my phone anyway.

[Mike B.]

I never really got into iTunes, jumped straight from CDs to streaming. Although, funnily enough, I probably buy more music now than I have at almost any point in my life. I stream an album, if I like the artist I go see them, then buy a CD at the show, and often other merch (especially posters) too. I like it because I like supporting artists, and I like to have tangible souvenirs of the show. I am a very uncommon kind of consumer though, I'm sure.

[Beamer]

I'd go see artists if any were willing to come to the middle of nowhere. But none are, so... boner.

[Rocha]

This is pretty amazing to contemplate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/business...tml?hp&_r=0
(link behind the Times paywall, which I finally surrendered to)

That is really bananas. 1.5 million plays, $1600. I really hope that as these streaming businesses grow, they loosen their wallets and start paying higher royalties, or the number of users eventually reaches a tipping point of sustainability for the artists, or something. Spotify is such an amazing product from a consumer standpoint, but I'm starting to feel like it's exploitative of the artists.

Nooooooo! This is why there's been such a obviously orchestrated push on this front lately, to make you feel bad. Spotify costs $10 a month and is legal. You pay the fee. Why do you feel bad? I would like to make more at my job. Will Arcade Fire help me negotiate for more money? I have really been taking offense to all these "Wah, Spotify hardly pays us anything!" sob stories in the music press lately. Sure, I'd like it if artists could make tons of money, but that's a damn complicated issue I am not going to solve by shunning Spotify. What the fuck do they want me to do? I'm not breaking the law. Go whine at your record label. If they want the age of $16 CDs to come back, it's not ever happening.

[Kusand]

Well, legal has nothing to do with exploitative or not. The lowest possible price is not necessarily in your best long-term interest. I think it's more a concern that the artists so many of us seem to like are mid-tier types who weren't going to make big money to begin with, and if they get squeezed financially, do we lose those artists?

I'm not sure, personally. I'm not saying this to try to guilt you, I'm sure as hell not giving up Spotify either. $10/month is right in my sweet spot. But I'd also be potentially interested in a premium tier beyond that, particularly if it meant more money went to the artists.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Well, legal has nothing to do with exploitative or not. The lowest possible price is not necessarily in your best long-term interest. I think it's more a concern that the artists so many of us seem to like are mid-tier types who weren't going to make big money to begin with, and if they get squeezed financially, do we lose those artists?

I'm not sure, personally. I'm not saying this to try to guilt you, I'm sure as hell not giving up Spotify either. $10/month is right in my sweet spot. But I'd also be potentially interested in a premium tier beyond that, particularly if it meant more money went to the artists.

I'm gunna take an asshole capitalistic response here. While it's great and all that some of these musicians get to be heard, this is the price of being heard. It's not like these musicians don't fully understand the lifestyle they are entering into when they start up a band. No one put a gun to their head and said "start playing music"

I don't see how this is any different from the band who plays for years touring bars that never quite catches on. Now the bar scene is the online scene. If you are good enough, you will begin touring at bigger venues, therefore making more money and having it be a viable career choice.

If you don't catch on, you don't catch on. Nobody every cried for the local band that never caught it's big break.

Nobody cries for the really talented starving artist, they say they made a bad career choice. I don't know why really talented musicians should be treated any differently. It's a different medium of art.

[Kusand]

Um, ok. None of that is incompatible with saying "I would like if there was a bigger pool of money to keep more artists afloat." I didn't ask you to cry for them. I even specifically said I wasn't trying to guilt anyone. Soooooooo.

[Beamer]

No, I get exactly what you're saying. Being in a band is difficult and expensive. Most of the bands I listen to usually never sold more than 3,000-20,000 copies of any given release, but at least they'd get that kind of interest to help put gas in their van.

Spotify seems to be defeating even that. It's fantastic for a consumer, but it isn't so fantastic for the bands. Ultimately it will discourage some from bothering, and are we going to be discouraging the Nickelbacks or the bands we actually enjoy?

[Andy from the LE...]

No, I get exactly what you're saying. Being in a band is difficult and expensive. Most of the bands I listen to usually never sold more than 3,000-20,000 copies of any given release, but at least they'd get that kind of interest to help put gas in their van.

Spotify seems to be defeating even that. It's fantastic for a consumer, but it isn't so fantastic for the bands. Ultimately it will discourage some from bothering, and are we going to be discouraging the Nickelbacks or the bands we actually enjoy?

This is why I play in and work for cover bands (in addition to my day job); they're the only bands that consistently get paid. Not that I don't write my own music or play in original bands from time to time, but being "on the scene" is such a money pit.

This post has been edited by Andy from the LES: Jan 30 2013, 10:14 AM

[Chris4]

Nooooooo! This is why there's been such a obviously orchestrated push on this front lately, to make you feel bad. Spotify costs $10 a month and is legal. You pay the fee. Why do you feel bad? I would like to make more at my job. Will Arcade Fire help me negotiate for more money? I have really been taking offense to all these "Wah, Spotify hardly pays us anything!" sob stories in the music press lately. Sure, I'd like it if artists could make tons of money, but that's a damn complicated issue I am not going to solve by shunning Spotify. What the fuck do they want me to do? I'm not breaking the law. Go whine at your record label. If they want the age of $16 CDs to come back, it's not ever happening.

This was the critical mistake the industry as a whole made in the 2000's decade.

If Napster and internet piracy was the shot across the bow of the music business, the cannonball that totally sunk the bitch was the business' complete and utter lack of willingness to adapt to the digital. Even after sales fell, the HUGE budgets continued. The majors should have cut funding to these idiot bands and greedy half-million dollar producers and antique studio owners 10 years ago. It all would have fallen into relative place.

Do you know that Mike B. could cruise down to Guitar Center, spend under $5k on a Mac Book Pro, the newest version of Pro Tools, and a couple mic's, learn the software, and than come down to my house and we could record a more than competent sounding record? (I may have just created a monster, btw)

You mention the Arcade Fire. Great contemporary example. Big, but not big enough. Not Radiohead big to the point where they own all their own shit and can fumble around in their own multi-million dollar facility on their own time and budget. I would bet they spent $5K PER DAY, maybe more (!) recording The Suburbs. Why? Because Win Butler's dick got big enough to get a budget for 1940's ribbon mic's. Ultimately.. did it fucking matter? Of course it didnt. The material on that record was brilliant. That's why that album sold. Now I don't know that for a fact, but I'm sure its somewhere in the ballpark.

The bigger business side still uses operating budgets like its 1995, the Arcade Fire bitches they're not seeing enough of your $10 dollar a month Spotify membership, the little shit indie band that DID make their great record for a couple bucks see's nothing, and here we are.

Your $10 a month Spotify membership should have been entirely sufficient, but for some reason.. cost control was just never made an issue.

[Mike B.]

Nooooooo! This is why there's been such a obviously orchestrated push on this front lately, to make you feel bad. Spotify costs $10 a month and is legal. You pay the fee. Why do you feel bad? I would like to make more at my job. Will Arcade Fire help me negotiate for more money? I have really been taking offense to all these "Wah, Spotify hardly pays us anything!" sob stories in the music press lately. Sure, I'd like it if artists could make tons of money, but that's a damn complicated issue I am not going to solve by shunning Spotify. What the fuck do they want me to do? I'm not breaking the law. Go whine at your record label. If they want the age of $16 CDs to come back, it's not ever happening.

Kusand and I see this very similarly, I think - there's a difference between legal and exploitative, and more money to go around would support more quirky and small artists that would otherwise never be heard. I agree fully that one of the great accomplishments of the digital era in music is the destruction of the "nineteen dollar CD with one good hit song, one OK song, and seven shit filler songs" business model. It just seems like there's more room for artist revenue in the Spotify business model. Killer product, growing user base that seems to be only the tip of what they can tap into, and multi-billion dollar enterprise.

EDIT: And I think that one of the reasons why artists are upset about this right now is that streaming services look increasingly like the wave of the future. As I said, I like to own hard copies of music for the collectible aspect, but other than that, why own? If almost everything out there is available for streaming, and mobile devices become more and more potent, why would you ever buy anything anymore?

This post has been edited by Mike B.: Jan 30 2013, 11:03 AM

[Sed]

Nooooooo! This is why there's been such a obviously orchestrated push on this front lately, to make you feel bad. Spotify costs $10 a month and is legal. You pay the fee. Why do you feel bad? I would like to make more at my job. Will Arcade Fire help me negotiate for more money?

LMFAO covered one of my classes for me when I was away on grant business. Red Foo shed all over everything.

[Dunc]

This was the critical mistake the industry as a whole made in the 2000's decade.

If Napster and internet piracy was the shot across the bow of the music business, the cannonball that totally sunk the bitch was the business' complete and utter lack of willingness to adapt to the digital. Even after sales fell, the HUGE budgets continued. The majors should have cut funding to these idiot bands and greedy half-million dollar producers and antique studio owners 10 years ago. It all would have fallen into relative place.

Do you know that Mike B. could cruise down to Guitar Center, spend under $5k on a Mac Book Pro, the newest version of Pro Tools, and a couple mic's, learn the software, and than come down to my house and we could record a more than competent sounding record? (I may have just created a monster, btw)

You mention the Arcade Fire. Great contemporary example. Big, but not big enough. Not Radiohead big to the point where they own all their own shit and can fumble around in their own multi-million dollar facility on their own time and budget. I would bet they spent $5K PER DAY, maybe more (!) recording The Suburbs. Why? Because Win Butler's dick got big enough to get a budget for 1940's ribbon mic's. Ultimately.. did it fucking matter? Of course it didnt. The material on that record was brilliant. That's why that album sold. Now I don't know that for a fact, but I'm sure its somewhere in the ballpark.

The bigger business side still uses operating budgets like its 1995, the Arcade Fire bitches they're not seeing enough of your $10 dollar a month Spotify membership, the little shit indie band that DID make their great record for a couple bucks see's nothing, and here we are.

Your $10 a month Spotify membership should have been entirely sufficient, but for some reason.. cost control was just never made an issue.

One of my old puck buddies has worked at a recording studio out here for years (he mastered soundtrack the Lonely Island short from SNL last week). Just renting the studio for a day is multiples of your $5k/day figure.

[Mike B.]

Do you know that Mike B. could cruise down to Guitar Center, spend under $5k on a Mac Book Pro, the newest version of Pro Tools, and a couple mic's, learn the software, and than come down to my house and we could record a more than competent sounding record? (I may have just created a monster, btw)

You laugh...it kind of reminds of the album that Damon Albarn put out last year under the Gorillaz name, The Fall. Recorded completely on his iPad while he was on tour. Didn't love it, but there were some tracks that I really liked. Hooray, we can all be superstar musicians!