Windows Geniune Pain in the Arse

[Calum]

Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.

not a good start tbh. why didn't you read what he said before putting your oar in?

The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants.

that's definitely one opinion. Is it true? i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.

So, let's take the travel out of the equation, since that's what's obviously causing the expenses, yes? This means playing gigs in Edinburgh. Edinburgh's not that big, but there are literally dozens of gigs a night, many of them free. You expect me to be able to charge for a gig and make money? I have done it before, but this was a special case (of the three bands, one was launching a CD, the other were making their debut appearance). It's DEFINITELY not an issue of being good enough, it's an issue of looking at a situation where punters could go to any gig, and they are less likely to choose the one that costs a fiver to get than the one that's free. In my world money can ONLY be made on merch sales, which is why it confuses me that many of my favourite Edinburgh bands have no CD even! 

For one a million more people will get to enjoy his work (is that not important to an artist? I think you're being very one-dimensional), the more people that do will not only go to his gigs, but will probably offer donations e.g. he could raise around the time of new releases.

hmm, millions? How much will that kind of promotion cost? We always hear the "radiohead released their album on a 'pay what you want' model..." argument, but they were already huge, and they had EMI pushing them. Where would i or any of the hundreds of similar performers i know get this kind of money, or have this kind of time? I do agree with you, by the way. You can listen to my album as many times as you like for free on bandcamp.com but i made it so you have to pay to download it. To me, this is the compromise at the moment. Other musicians draw the line differently. i know plenty who release extra non-CD tracks for free, and one person i know has made it impossible to download tracks individually from iTunes, to make people pay for her whole album if they want one or two songs in particular. 

Besides, everybody's stealing music already and the artists are getting no money from their customers!!111 (did I make my sarcasm clear enough?)

no you actually didn't, where's your sarcasm? This issue is actually one with such diversely held opinions and no clear truth in it that sarcasm is virtually indetectable. Anyway, unauthorised copying is NOT stealing, it's perhaps a violation of the owner's rights (if they didn't allow copying in the licence the stuff was released under) but it is not stealing.

Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.

i was at a music industry forum this week, and one of the panelists in a seminar about the future of music said that home taping was ok in the 80s when tape copies were usually crap, and forced you to buy the album if you liked the music, but now you can copy a perfect digital copy so this is no longer true. My opinion is that that's crap. But that's the sort of opinions you hear, even from industry professionals. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe that guy was right? I'm not an industry professional.

[piratePenguin]

Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.

not a good start tbh. why didn't you read what he said before putting your oar in?

I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.

The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants.

that's definitely one opinion. Is it true?

In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).

I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.

Anyways, this seems to be the question everyone wants to know: how will artistic volume be effected in a free culture world. I hear a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that all the money will be sucked out of the industry, but in my opinion A) this isn't even the most important question and B) these people don't know this. The thing is, if you are simple minded about it, all of the money being sucked out of the industry seems like a no-brainer, but what I'm saying is it is NOT a simple problem, and even if money is sucked out, there are other societal benefits of a free-culture world to be considered.

i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.

If you're making a loss on this tour, how are you paying for it?

Btw, we get plenty of free small gigs in our town sometimes, but that normally means the pub is paying the band. Some of my local friends get 50 quid each a night in a band, a nice price for students who learned to do the music because they enjoy it.

Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.

i was at a music industry forum this week, and one of the panelists in a seminar about the future of music said that home taping was ok in the 80s when tape copies were usually crap, and forced you to buy the album if you liked the music, but now you can copy a perfect digital copy so this is no longer true. My opinion is that that's crap. But that's the sort of opinions you hear, even from industry professionals. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe that guy was right? I'm not an industry professional.

I don't think you need to be an industry professional.

[Kintaro]

I think the problem is, you don't really explain what the benefits of a so-called 'free-culture' world are, that and I just don't see any. In fact I see nothing more than detriment in the concept. It alienates everyone but the artist from the concept of contract and profit which both as an end to themselves are not a bad thing. You basically want to turn artists into rightless slaves who perform like beggars for that de-facto pittance of goodwill. I believe artists just like any other provider of a service should be entitled to the implied agreement of copyright. That those enjoying the artists work are expected to uphold certain contractual obligations. Everyone else gets this benefit in a civilized society with courts and the law. It seems you are trying to promote the slavery of artists for the so called greater good of your consumption of art, and personally I think it is disgusting and will have no more of this pointless conversation with a rotter.

[worker201]

I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy.

I recently finished a book about the DIY histories of some of the American bands who booked their own tours and released their own albums in golden age before Nirvana's "Nevermind" flipped the music industry inside out.  Bands like Minor Threat (and later Fugazi) actually made money on their tours, because they lived so spartanly - booked their own shows and slept on people's floors.  Spending a couple weeks in a sleeping bag on someone's floor could make you a lot more money.  Or rather, you would save money that could be used for other things.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Well I can see plenty of advantages of a society free from copyright, at least in the music industry: people will be free to exchange information, artists can freely mix and improve the work of others and it will result in a more level playing field.

Who really benefits from copyrights anyway?

Certainly not the small unsigned artists who probably couldn't afford a lawsuit, even if they manage to catch people pirating their music. The people who benefit most are the big artists and record companies who have plenty of resources available to take on even the most minor breach of copyright.

A world of free music wouldn't be a world without music, it'd just be a world without large record companies and pop stars who get paid huge sums of money to record a few songs. The music industry would probably go back to how it was before the big record companies existed. Before most people owned a record player, there were classical music concerts and Broadway for the rich, the poor people would only listen to folk and a gospel at Church which probably differed greatly depending on where they lived. Of course the Internet and better transport would mean, it wouldn't be quite like that but it would mean that most music would return to being mostly produced by those who do it for the joy of it rather than for the money which might not be a bad thing.

Hell I can see the downside, I like pop music just as much as real music, sometimes even more so. I think if a record producer can get hold of the best singers and song writers, it's no surprise that they often produce some of the best music. I accept the criticism that too much attention is often paid to appearance that the music suffers but I don't think this is always the case. For example I think the cast of Glee's cover version of Journey's Don't Stop Believin' is musically superior to the original, the harmony is near perfect and it seems more in tune than the original. Normally I prefer originals to covers, probably because of nostalgia and that the cover is often a totally different style but Don't Stop Believin' is an exception to the rule, I'm too young to remember the original and it's in the same style as the original. I'm not knocking Journey as they probably didn't have the same technology when they released it: pitch correction was unheard of back then.

EDIT:
Here's links to the Youtube if anyone living in a cave hasn't heard either of the songs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ffuCVLECpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0

[Refalm]

I'm not knocking Journey as they probably didn't have the same technology when they released it: pitch correction was unheard of back then.

I generally don't like anything that in my opinion degrades the quality of music, like

• pitch correction (sounds unnatural and without passion)
• wall of sound (ugly poppy echo effect that sounds better on FM radio than on a music album)
• vocoder (it was cool when Cher and Kanye West did it on just one album, but it's generally for people who can't sing)
• side instruments that don't add anything but annoying background noise to the song
• album mixers that went crazy with reverb

[Aloone_Jonez]

Wow, I'm surprised I haven't got a load grief for suggesting a pop remake is better than the original, well It's a matter of opinion I suppose.

I think pitch correction is good because it allows the singer to make a fuckup without having to rerecord anything, although I can see why it's controversial as it can make any shit singer sound good but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Vocoder effects are nothing new and have their place, for example I think the Electric Light Orchestra used the vocoder brilliantly on Mr. Blue Sky - much better than Cher's Believe which came 20 years later.

[worker201]

Wow, I'm surprised I haven't got a load grief for suggesting a pop remake is better than the original, well It's a matter of opinion I suppose.

Journey is a terrible band.  The fact that they wrote a couple listenable songs doesn't redeem anything.  And covering a listenable song is barely noteworthy.

[Kintaro]

Pitch correction will make a good signer sound shit as well.

[Calum]

I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.

maybe i am misunderstanding you. are you saying my argument is simpleminded? or that you chose not to read the post you were replying to because you assumed it had only simpleminded content?

Basically: if you don't read something, you can't reply to it. You can call it names, but you are talking from a position of ignorance unless you read it, am i wrong? did i just misunderstand what you meant?

In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).

that's not something i can agree with, you propose prohibiting creators from licencing their own works under a licence of their choosing? It's not inherently evil, but it is censorship of a very strong kind (quite Orwellian as they say). Why do you imagine that prohibition is ever the solution? History has shown us that prohibition never works.

I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.

would you? or are those "medium" bands just "big" bands with fashionable PR. Anyway how do you imagine a band gets to that status anyway if hamfisted legislation (such as the digital economy act, which comes dangerously close to forcing creators and rights holders to licence their music in a certain way) has destroyed the music industry so that the only people able to make money are X-Factor finalists? You haven't thought this through. I'm not trying to be condescending but i have devoted a lot of thought to this and talked to a lot of people, many of whom are industry professionals, and i can't see any clear solutions myself, and haven't really met anybody (except within this thread!) that seems to think they know the hard and fast solutions to the current digital copying situation.

Anyways, this seems to be the question everyone wants to know: how will artistic volume be effected in a free culture world. I hear a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that all the money will be sucked out of the industry, but in my opinion A) this isn't even the most important question and B) these people don't know this.

in a way i have to completely U-turn here because i agree that what you just said is really important. 

The thing is, if you are simple minded about it, all of the money being sucked out of the industry seems like a no-brainer, but what I'm saying is it is NOT a simple problem, and even if money is sucked out, there are other societal benefits of a free-culture world to be considered.

yeah, and with music, people will be making it anyway, the money is just an indicator of how well the industry is providing mechanisms to turn that creativity into business and marketing models.

i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.

If you're making a loss on this tour, how are you paying for it?

i have a job. Also, i have found i have no choice but to put my efforts into music. I've made a loss (so far) on the CD too, but i had to do it. So basically with the tour, i just said "right, i'll do it" and i'll have to make up whatever losses from my own pocket. I do know one or two people who are professional musicians, but i have no idea how i could ever get to that point.

For software, i could be wrong but i can't imagine the drive to code is as strong as the drive to create art, such as music, painting and poetry. Maybe i'm wrong.

Btw, we get plenty of free small gigs in our town sometimes, but that normally means the pub is paying the band. Some of my local friends get 50 quid each a night in a band, a nice price for students who learned to do the music because they enjoy it.

yeah, that'd be excellent. this doesn't seem to be too common from what i have seen. depends on the area though, and the venue.

[Calum]

that final nested quote is actually my reply, sorry. Also, the digital economy act doesn't only force rights holders, it legislates pointlessly for lots of other related issues too.

[Calum]

I think pitch correction is good because it allows the singer to make a fuckup without having to rerecord anything, although I can see why it's controversial as it can make any shit singer sound good but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

did you actually mean that? Have you ever heard pitch correction used? it doesn't make anybody sound good!

it's an amusing effect, but highly limited in its practical use (like phased drum fills or backwards guitar solos). If you (or a recording artist, more's the pity) thinks it is the solution to poor singing, they are clearly as tone deaf as they would need to be to sing that badly in the first place.

No, your ear's the judge, and saying pitch correction's the answer for people who can't sing is like saying this is the solution for people who can't be bothered to learn how to play the guitar.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Yes, I've heard pitch correction used and I simply disagree, it's brilliant if used correctly. There was an item on the radio about it, some DJ who couldn't sing recorded a song, got some expert in pitch correction software to play with it and he sounded great. Apparently nearly everyone in the audio industry uses it these days and no doubt you've heard it without realising it.

[piratePenguin]

I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.

maybe i am misunderstanding you. are you saying my argument is simpleminded? or that you chose not to read the post you were replying to because you assumed it had only simpleminded content?

Basically: if you don't read something, you can't reply to it. You can call it names, but you are talking from a position of ignorance unless you read it, am i wrong? did i just misunderstand what you meant?

I assume you have read all of my posts in this thread?

I didn't read your post entirely Kintaro, reason number 1 is that this isn't something I want to battle out over the internet, here no less, this is something I want to study and research more at some point in my life [...]

Notice that I was saying those things to Kintaro, not to yourself.

In my mind, the questions are complicated and they deserve open-minded considerations: not knee-jerk reactions or dumps of feelings. In Kintaros mind he has all the right answers, which imo are not open-minded or considered enough, and are certainly not going to help me. So, I will happily skip or skim his posts, let him know basically what I think of his remarks, without wasting my time reading a complete page of trash.

I have read everything you have said on the other hand.

In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).

that's not something i can agree with, you propose prohibiting creators from licencing their own works under a licence of their choosing? It's not inherently evil, but it is censorship of a very strong kind (quite Orwellian as they say). Why do you imagine that prohibition is ever the solution? History has shown us that prohibition never works.

Huh?
What I am advocating is prohibition of licenses that prohibit sharing, if you want to put it like that.
I don't understand your point here whatsoever, because therefore we're screwed eitherway.

I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.

would you? or are those "medium" bands just "big" bands with fashionable PR. Anyway how do you imagine a band gets to that status anyway if hamfisted legislation (such as the digital economy act, which comes dangerously close to forcing creators and rights holders to licence their music in a certain way) has destroyed the music industry so that the only people able to make money are X-Factor finalists? You haven't thought this through. I'm not trying to be condescending but i have devoted a lot of thought to this and talked to a lot of people, many of whom are industry professionals, and i can't see any clear solutions myself, and haven't really met anybody (except within this thread!) that seems to think they know the hard and fast solutions to the current digital copying situation.

I am not saying I have the hard and fast solutions. I simply believe that the world can operate like this, without the roofs falling from above artists heads (and I believe that's all I've tried to defend thus far). This doesn't mean I believe we will have more or better art, or that I know what the world will look like. But certainly, if we aren't prepared to consider the idea, then we'll never know.

[Kintaro]

Lyrics are wasted time between solos.