Other people still see the creation or music as a healthy and positive thing... I need to remember this.
Some things that kill a conversation:
People don't want to know the depth of the rot in the industry and they don't want to know about all the heartbreak I have witnessed as people who have worked like mad, driven, creatures and sacrificed so much "made it" only to have all that work and time stolen from them because the record companies could make a few more dollars if they "adjusted the lineup" in the band even if it meant replacing founding members.
People don't want to hear that "popular music" is all still horribly broken and that almost everything about it is basically a lie. A magic trick that has been growing in size and scale year after year and that they are the patsy. We used to laugh about The Monkeys... They seem honest now... like quaint folksy media pioneers, at least they were funny and they got Jimmy Hendix open for them and had Tim Buckley on their show singing Song To The Siren as if to whisper..."Hey kids, here is the REAL stuff... don't tell your folks!"
No one wants to think about the fact that their favorite singer may not be able to sing that well... or that they don't need to have the talent any more, real time pitch correction makes it possible to give the modestly talented a live mic if you are feeling brave.
Its not A good move to mention that many music acts are only partially responsible for their own sound... talented producers often shape them dramatically into the finished product you eventually hear.
Here is a social tip, Since most musical acts are not that original and can be traced back to someone they where trying to emulate... don't ever point this out to the person who likes that band, they will hate you for it, even if you honestly think they might enjoy the music of the first band... I mean, clearly their heroes were fans of the earlier band... why wouldn't they want to check them out? : P
Never talk about how making music is "serious" for you. People don't want to think of music that way. It is supposed to be fun and joyous even though most rock is about alienation and anger, somehow making it is supposed to be about having a good time... weird. I know very few musicians who are "happy" most are poor as crap and are wishing for something better... I guess thats all part of the illusion (lie).
All of this leads me to the point of this post...
Even though you would imagine I would be pretty good at it... This is why I don't want to play Rock Band with you when you ask,
It's a lie.
Showing posts with label independent recording artists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independent recording artists. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Selectively Utopian (Or... Small Content Creators Are The Redshirts Of The 21st Century)
I finally figured it out... People that share files and have this moral attitude that they are doing nothing wrong are not just misguided or using the technology to justify a arguably questionable act, They are just Star Trek fans!
They are trying to force the first steps of a Roddenberrien vision of the future where there is no money, there is no work other than what you do to better yourself and here is the good part... Technology has advanced to the point were all basic human needs are met at zero cost.
Relevant Utopian Points of a Star Trek future:
- Energy is essentially free
- Food can be "replicated" using the free energy
- Living space and shelter is free (somehow)
- People create art because they can, not out of a need to earn a living from their talent
- All human knowledge, entertainment and information, is freely accessible to anyone
So, we have the beginnings of point 5... without any of the other points to support it! What I think people who share files are basically doing is putting the IDEA of intangible media having no monetary value before the needs of the real people that still depend on the income from that content!
The file Sharing community is fond of repeating mantra like "Information wants to be free" well I think I have coined the perfect response by saying that what they are are proposing is a "Selective Utopia"!
They want certain obtainable elements of a futuristic utopia without other supporting elements that make it all plausible to a working society, and they are willing to sacrifice the well being and rights of other human beings in order to get those first elements.
They want the parts of the "perfect future" that they can have now even if that will cause hardship and difficulty to the very people trying to create interesting, unique, or simply new content for them because the other parts of the "perfect human utopia" are impossible with our current technology. I honestly think some of them understand this but instead of being sympathetic or trying to find a interim solution, it is simpler to blame large media companies and and ignore the very existence of small, independent content creators because that causes a moral dilemma for them.
In other words, they see us as expendable, much like a poor guy who made the poor choice to wear red on the day he got picked to beam down with the lading party. Problem is, I don't think this will be a reversible trend and I don't think these attitudes will be "undone" once the war with "big media" is over. How will new art be supported in the future? Good question. Its one that doesn't seem to be getting asked... let alone answered.
I have never had a problem with file sharing really, I do have a problem with the growing lack of respect for the talent of the people that create content. It seems to get worse as time goes by. I am fearful that recorded music, photography, programing and other inherently digital skills will just be seen as valueless in the future, and thats sickening if you understand how much effort can go into becoming good at those things. I don't want file sharing to end... I just want it to grow with a healthy respect for the content being shared and to find ways to support new and unique artist... I realize this is likely a pipe dream at this point but I keep trying.
There is apparently a movement going on to grow file sharing, to legitimize it. The idea being that if enough people do it then it become the legal standard. That makes sense, I am betting it will happen in some form, but I am afraid the people pushing for this haven't really thought it out, at least from the viewpoint of a small independent content creator.
If enough people buy into the idea that they should not have to pay for intangible media, many people stand to loose their livelihood. This goes for photographers, musicians, illustrators, programers, writers, filmmakers, painters, anyone whose work starts out or can eventually be converted into ones and zeroes.
Sometimes its only a portion of their livelihood, but it could be the difference between being able to continue to create art or not being able to continue to afford the costs associated with it. In any case, taking income away from hard working people that may need it to survive or to continue making the art that others enjoy.
We are not just talking about huge record labels and movie studios here... The same technology that has given rise to file sharing has also empowered artist and programers worldwide to take charge of their own destiny.
The concept of "Pro" and "amateur" is as outdated as the CD and SoundWarehouse. If a person can make $1000 a year off their photography then by god they should $1000 a year off if and don't let ANYONE call them a hobbyist. When was the last time any of us had a job for more than 2-5 years? If Someone can make music for the rest of their life and sell a few thousand downloads a year then its likely that music may end up being the single highest grossing job they will ever have regardless if they never have a "HIT".
That is of course if people continue to apply any value to recorded music...
We may all just end up living in a selectively utopian world and such a person just ends up working extra shifts at the Sack-N-Save because they can't yet heat their house with free power or replicate free food to feed their kids.
Art takes time and effort, it has value. If it is eventually delivered in a digital form... that dosen't mater! If you make a copy you still are receiving the VALUE when you enjoy the work that was done. If the Content creator offers a digital file for free. GREAT! I do, and I will continue to. But if you are asked to support the art by paying a licence... well, until the time that we have invented dilithium reactors, food replicators, and transporters, you have an obligation, especially to independent content creators.
You could say that the way the file sharing community is currently implementing the progression of the march towards their Selective Utopia, Will end up possibly permanently denying any hope of a Artists Utopia in the foreseeable future.
(Note about the art: The image of The Mona Lisa in a red Star Trek uniform that you see at the top of this post was created especially for this article. I then uploaded it in its basic form to see if it would spread across the internet and to see for myself how often I was credited, linked to, or to see how often the watermark was removed. "Red Shirt Mona Lisa" or "Star Trek Mona Lisa" has traveled far and wide, so far, I haven't come across anyone selling T-shirts made from the art or anything like that, and mostly I have been happy that people leave the watermark. Every once and a while someone will link back to the original or even spends a few moments to find me and ask before using it... So it has been interesting. And, trust me the fact that it is a modest manipulation of one of the worlds most famous paintings is not lost on me. I don't usually do mash-ups, I strive to be as original as I can. So, I find the fact that it has caught on amusing, hopefully others do also).
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Destroy or change the music industry?
Today it was announced that Last.FM would be allowing users to steam songs in full length for 3 plays and offer a subscription model if you want to open it up to play those songs indefinitely. Aditionaly they will be paying artists directly for the plays out of the money generated from advertising and subscriptions.
Seems like a step in the right direction to me. But once again I am freaked out by the lack of respect for the artists themselves on the message boards. Shouts of "Music wants to be free!" and "down with the music industry!" were common. People that know me might understand that this set my head spinning with what is wrong with this line of thinking.
File sharing people and unlimited streaming people feel that it is them versus the evil suits that have been getting rich for decades off of overpriced record and CD sales and they are screaming for the end if the music industry!
Don't they realy mean, the end of the music industry... as we know it?
I don't think many people would be happy if the hard working people that make music all stopped because they had to get jobs at walmart. You have to think about all the people involved in music creation... musicians, producers, recording engineers, even the talented independent artist that has invested a huge amount of time learning the craft and money on decent equipment.
Anyone who has ever tried to make a great song knows just how hard, expensive, and time consuming it is. Even with the vast advances in music technology over the last few decades it still takes a lot of skill, imagination and time. If you are someone who has never tried, and you think I am full of it... then I challenge you to go make an interesting original song that is ready for distribution. Go ahead, I'll wait here... no? yeah, It's not so easy as most people assume. Dire straights were being sardonic suckas!
The music industry is not just a few vastly wealthy jerks at the top. Any new model needs to consider how to compensate the "worker class" people that put themselves into bringing you music that doesn't suck. Hopefully Last.FMs announcement is a step in the right direction.
Now if we could just get the average joe thinking about the people that make music as being worth supporting.
Seems like a step in the right direction to me. But once again I am freaked out by the lack of respect for the artists themselves on the message boards. Shouts of "Music wants to be free!" and "down with the music industry!" were common. People that know me might understand that this set my head spinning with what is wrong with this line of thinking.
File sharing people and unlimited streaming people feel that it is them versus the evil suits that have been getting rich for decades off of overpriced record and CD sales and they are screaming for the end if the music industry!
Don't they realy mean, the end of the music industry... as we know it?
I don't think many people would be happy if the hard working people that make music all stopped because they had to get jobs at walmart. You have to think about all the people involved in music creation... musicians, producers, recording engineers, even the talented independent artist that has invested a huge amount of time learning the craft and money on decent equipment.
Anyone who has ever tried to make a great song knows just how hard, expensive, and time consuming it is. Even with the vast advances in music technology over the last few decades it still takes a lot of skill, imagination and time. If you are someone who has never tried, and you think I am full of it... then I challenge you to go make an interesting original song that is ready for distribution. Go ahead, I'll wait here... no? yeah, It's not so easy as most people assume. Dire straights were being sardonic suckas!
The music industry is not just a few vastly wealthy jerks at the top. Any new model needs to consider how to compensate the "worker class" people that put themselves into bringing you music that doesn't suck. Hopefully Last.FMs announcement is a step in the right direction.
Now if we could just get the average joe thinking about the people that make music as being worth supporting.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Is only 18% of people who download an album paying for it bad?
In a word...Yes.
Recently an interview was posted with Trent Reznor and in it he expressed his disappointment that people had not supported the direct distribution of the The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust project he had worked on with Saul Williams. Digg and the talkback forum went nuts with people doing napkin math and claiming that the record had made $140k in 2 months.
*sign*
People don't seem to know or care what goes into making a record... The recording and distribution cost is a big point. studio time and hiring people to put out what is considered a "Pro" product still costs a lot. if you do it all yourself and forego those costs then you have to invest a hell of a lot of time. Another point is that this project was promoted by Trent Reznor, a very popular artist with lots of fans. Imagine being a small or new artist without that support? Your costs are still the same... but the percentage of people paying will likely be much lower because someone well respected isn't essentially asking fans to support it.
Now do that same napkin math on a new artist without a record company or a big name behind him or her it looks pretty dismal. For future independent artists to hope for this model to work the sales would have needed to be dramatically better.
Once again people are only seeing the tip of the iceburg and ignoring all thats underneath. If friggin Radio Head or a project promoted by Trent Reznor can't sell enough to make it worth wile, then what chance do the thousands and thousands of talented independent recording artists have... not to get rich mind you, just to make a modest living.
Recently an interview was posted with Trent Reznor and in it he expressed his disappointment that people had not supported the direct distribution of the The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust project he had worked on with Saul Williams. Digg and the talkback forum went nuts with people doing napkin math and claiming that the record had made $140k in 2 months.
*sign*
People don't seem to know or care what goes into making a record... The recording and distribution cost is a big point. studio time and hiring people to put out what is considered a "Pro" product still costs a lot. if you do it all yourself and forego those costs then you have to invest a hell of a lot of time. Another point is that this project was promoted by Trent Reznor, a very popular artist with lots of fans. Imagine being a small or new artist without that support? Your costs are still the same... but the percentage of people paying will likely be much lower because someone well respected isn't essentially asking fans to support it.
Now do that same napkin math on a new artist without a record company or a big name behind him or her it looks pretty dismal. For future independent artists to hope for this model to work the sales would have needed to be dramatically better.
Once again people are only seeing the tip of the iceburg and ignoring all thats underneath. If friggin Radio Head or a project promoted by Trent Reznor can't sell enough to make it worth wile, then what chance do the thousands and thousands of talented independent recording artists have... not to get rich mind you, just to make a modest living.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
People Show Failing Respect For Creatives
Recently I came across a story through Digg about Creative Commons and photographers.
http://rising.blackstar.com/why-photographers-hate-creative-commons.html
The posts in the comment thread were somewhat brutal and many people seemed to be adamant that photography and creativity no longer had value because it was so commonly available for free. One person even insinuated that if people expected to be paid for creativity then they should be paid for bodily functions... nice.
This was my response that immediately started getting buried by negative ratings one would assume because I dare to want something in-between "only pros get paid" and "all information should be free".
***snip***
I am not sure that CC is really working to foster and protect creativity. Actually, I have not seen much work done as it relates to the web to promote a photographers ability to earn fair compensation for what they do. Honestly, I think we have a deeper problem here, as reflected in these comments. Creativity is losing value in the minds of people.
The line between pro and amateur is the real outdated concept here... We had a great opportunity to bring in hordes of new contributers and content generators and allow them to be good at what they do while earning a modest income from...*shock* art! There is no reason people shouldn't make some portion of their income from creativity even if it never becomes their main source of income. Saying a work has no value depending on who the creator is and what title they have is ridiculous.
Talented people should be informed that their work has value. Often I think they just assume it doesn't and others take advantage of that. Maybe thats the real issue. Even if you take one great image in your whole life... its still a great image.
***snip***
I understand why people would want to share and I certainly don't mean to imply that they are wrong to do so, But I think there are also a lot of talented non-pro people that are not being given an opportunity or encouragement to use their skill to help pay their bills because the current vibe seems to be "set it free or you are being antisocial"
We are spending lots of effort on sharing content and not enough effort on creating a system/attitude that supports creatives throughout the range of skill, equipment, and creativity. All I am wishing for is something in between "no value" and traditional "over priced pro". A range of "creative middle class artist" supported by licensing system that allows much of the freedom of CC but also encourages modest compensation when it makes sense. I have spent quite a bit of time at Creative Commons trying to figure out if it would fit that goal and honestly I just haven't found a way that I think it could. Someone here mentioned dual licensing and I need to put some thought into that before closing the book on CC though.
If we are going to tear down the status quo, maybe we should consider finding ways to include the talented people that have traditionally been left out. Do I want to continue to pay Getty $500 for a rights managed image? Hell no! But I would be glad to pay $10-$50 to a struggling person who is studying photography at night and managed to get a great shot that was similar to the $500 one.
***snip***
This person had some good points... but still he was sort of an "all or nothing" advocate... summed up by this statement. "You seem to be suggesting that 'creative output' deserves some form of income. It does. It deserves the income that their customers are willing to pay for it. No more, no less. "
Yes, and I am trying to encourage people to be honest with themselves about the value of that output... lets say someone makes a decent living and also has a popular blog on the side that promotes them and therefore indirectly increases their income. One day you see an image on flicker that you think would be perfect to communicate the "feel" of a post. Instead of just taking it because the person has put it up under a CC license and you are in the "gray area" perhaps they should offer to pay a small fee for it. I would like to change peoples minds in a broad way about what that value for creativity IS. (crazy I know) We don't seem to be talking about a scale of worth... either its free, nearly free, or it is prohibitively expensive. There could be a huge range of value and affordability.
Content creators and content users could ultimately benefit from a system that made it simple and convenient to freely share, or pay on a sliding scale depending on the quality and the usage. I see this as one of the largest wasted online opportunities of the last decade. Call it "having a micro job" or "The Creative Middle Class" but the trading and exchange of digital content for (very small) payments never evolved the way I had hoped it would and it seems to me that just people that use the content or want to make money distributing / organizing of that content are getting most of the advantage, while people that are good at making images, music, etc... have not. You mentioned that the worth of "creative output" is set by the market and competition – I would say that the worth is set by the market and competition and modified by the tools available to deliver and license it. Its easy to leave a tip for a waitperson because the system and the social standard is in place. It is a huge pain to try to pay a small fair fee to a web based creative.
I am not advocating things returning to the way they were... I was just hoping for something different and perhaps better than what has happened.
*****Snip*****
I don't know why I still fight it... Its not new, people have always had a low opinion of "artists". The idea that you should be able to make a living doing art is still foreign and confusing to most people. Its just that now the web has uncovered so many people with artistic leanings and since we all are so convinced of our own worthlessness by all the lack of respect... we are just giving away all we create even if it does have modest commercial worth. Nothings going to stop the landslide... Soon the dream of the web allowing for an "creative middle class" will be fully crushed and only the very rich or people willing to live in poverty or off the kindness of others will have the time to develop artistic skill... much like its always been.
http://rising.blackstar.com/why-photographers-hate-creative-commons.html
The posts in the comment thread were somewhat brutal and many people seemed to be adamant that photography and creativity no longer had value because it was so commonly available for free. One person even insinuated that if people expected to be paid for creativity then they should be paid for bodily functions... nice.
This was my response that immediately started getting buried by negative ratings one would assume because I dare to want something in-between "only pros get paid" and "all information should be free".
***snip***
I am not sure that CC is really working to foster and protect creativity. Actually, I have not seen much work done as it relates to the web to promote a photographers ability to earn fair compensation for what they do. Honestly, I think we have a deeper problem here, as reflected in these comments. Creativity is losing value in the minds of people.
The line between pro and amateur is the real outdated concept here... We had a great opportunity to bring in hordes of new contributers and content generators and allow them to be good at what they do while earning a modest income from...*shock* art! There is no reason people shouldn't make some portion of their income from creativity even if it never becomes their main source of income. Saying a work has no value depending on who the creator is and what title they have is ridiculous.
Talented people should be informed that their work has value. Often I think they just assume it doesn't and others take advantage of that. Maybe thats the real issue. Even if you take one great image in your whole life... its still a great image.
***snip***
I understand why people would want to share and I certainly don't mean to imply that they are wrong to do so, But I think there are also a lot of talented non-pro people that are not being given an opportunity or encouragement to use their skill to help pay their bills because the current vibe seems to be "set it free or you are being antisocial"
We are spending lots of effort on sharing content and not enough effort on creating a system/attitude that supports creatives throughout the range of skill, equipment, and creativity. All I am wishing for is something in between "no value" and traditional "over priced pro". A range of "creative middle class artist" supported by licensing system that allows much of the freedom of CC but also encourages modest compensation when it makes sense. I have spent quite a bit of time at Creative Commons trying to figure out if it would fit that goal and honestly I just haven't found a way that I think it could. Someone here mentioned dual licensing and I need to put some thought into that before closing the book on CC though.
If we are going to tear down the status quo, maybe we should consider finding ways to include the talented people that have traditionally been left out. Do I want to continue to pay Getty $500 for a rights managed image? Hell no! But I would be glad to pay $10-$50 to a struggling person who is studying photography at night and managed to get a great shot that was similar to the $500 one.
***snip***
This person had some good points... but still he was sort of an "all or nothing" advocate... summed up by this statement. "You seem to be suggesting that 'creative output' deserves some form of income. It does. It deserves the income that their customers are willing to pay for it. No more, no less. "
Yes, and I am trying to encourage people to be honest with themselves about the value of that output... lets say someone makes a decent living and also has a popular blog on the side that promotes them and therefore indirectly increases their income. One day you see an image on flicker that you think would be perfect to communicate the "feel" of a post. Instead of just taking it because the person has put it up under a CC license and you are in the "gray area" perhaps they should offer to pay a small fee for it. I would like to change peoples minds in a broad way about what that value for creativity IS. (crazy I know) We don't seem to be talking about a scale of worth... either its free, nearly free, or it is prohibitively expensive. There could be a huge range of value and affordability.
Content creators and content users could ultimately benefit from a system that made it simple and convenient to freely share, or pay on a sliding scale depending on the quality and the usage. I see this as one of the largest wasted online opportunities of the last decade. Call it "having a micro job" or "The Creative Middle Class" but the trading and exchange of digital content for (very small) payments never evolved the way I had hoped it would and it seems to me that just people that use the content or want to make money distributing / organizing of that content are getting most of the advantage, while people that are good at making images, music, etc... have not. You mentioned that the worth of "creative output" is set by the market and competition – I would say that the worth is set by the market and competition and modified by the tools available to deliver and license it. Its easy to leave a tip for a waitperson because the system and the social standard is in place. It is a huge pain to try to pay a small fair fee to a web based creative.
I am not advocating things returning to the way they were... I was just hoping for something different and perhaps better than what has happened.
*****Snip*****
I don't know why I still fight it... Its not new, people have always had a low opinion of "artists". The idea that you should be able to make a living doing art is still foreign and confusing to most people. Its just that now the web has uncovered so many people with artistic leanings and since we all are so convinced of our own worthlessness by all the lack of respect... we are just giving away all we create even if it does have modest commercial worth. Nothings going to stop the landslide... Soon the dream of the web allowing for an "creative middle class" will be fully crushed and only the very rich or people willing to live in poverty or off the kindness of others will have the time to develop artistic skill... much like its always been.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Creative Middle Class, Part 1
I have been reading online arguments regarding DRM/copyright and it has me thinking about this touchy subject again.
I wish that in these arguments people would consider all content creators, not just big studios/record companies. As a self published photographer, musician, and short film maker, it seems like no people don't stop to think about the new "creative middle class". People just want digital content to be free even if it means hobbling someone who relies on a modest income from digital works.
I know that the model is to "set it free" and hope for a return... but I only see that working on a very large scale. For example, if I made a well produced instructional video for a rarely used art technique and the 5000 people in the world who where interested in using it could either pay me a modest $10 or download a hijacked version of it... I hate to say it but the number of people that would choose to just snag it for free would most likely make the project not worth doing and thus a valuable bit of fairly priced content would never be made. If you are a well established and famous band with a very devoted fan base you may be able to get a minority portion of them to pay a modest price for your works and that would be OK because of the scale. The rest of us... good luck with that.
I wish that in these arguments people would consider all content creators, not just big studios/record companies. As a self published photographer, musician, and short film maker, it seems like no people don't stop to think about the new "creative middle class". People just want digital content to be free even if it means hobbling someone who relies on a modest income from digital works.
I know that the model is to "set it free" and hope for a return... but I only see that working on a very large scale. For example, if I made a well produced instructional video for a rarely used art technique and the 5000 people in the world who where interested in using it could either pay me a modest $10 or download a hijacked version of it... I hate to say it but the number of people that would choose to just snag it for free would most likely make the project not worth doing and thus a valuable bit of fairly priced content would never be made. If you are a well established and famous band with a very devoted fan base you may be able to get a minority portion of them to pay a modest price for your works and that would be OK because of the scale. The rest of us... good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)