|
SilverManifesto
Haven't really applied much thought recently to the future of online music though the more that time passes the more correct (though slightly naive) I think I was in my dissertation conclusion. The world seems a more cynical place than some of us hoped it would turn out to be but I guess I'd begun to see that. The whole subject of digital distribution, file sharing, artists rights and all that has been done to death. For posterity I'll leave this page here for now. "There is no paradigm shift in the fundamental way the music industry operates. The shift is theoretical, motivated by the conspiracy theorists for the major record companies and the mp3 evangelists. The industry and the essential rules haven’t changed, just the way they are applied. The actual paradigm shifting is occurring primarily on a technological level and subsequently in the way artists and consumers deliver and receive music. In the same way that the Internet can allow music to feel free to consumers (through subscription or even in the current context of free file sharing at Napster), so artists too can feel free, liberated to distribute their work outside of the establishment. Both feelings to an extent are illusions. The harsh reality is that with or without the Internet and Digital Distribution both scenarios involve good old fashioned money, either from the consumers perspective in the purchase of time and/or rights to access material or from the artists perspective in the costs of creating, marketing and selling work. Stuart Till the Deputy Chairman of the British Film Council speaking at the All Together Now conference Nov 2000 stated, ‘There will be enormous changes but within the existing paradigm,’ he continued, ‘The traditional cycle of distribution channels is the most effective.’ New forms of relationship with organisations such a record labels and dotcoms that have the foresight and flexibility to offer more modern, equitable and mature relationships with artists are being heralded as the way forward for artists. Whilst there have been initiatives such as the Rosenberg's deal with Robert Fripps’ Discipline Global Mobile Label (Appendix 5), truly innovative possibilities for emerging artists to bypass the label system and operate independently on a professional basis are rare. Most non-corporate independent relationships exist irrespective of the Internet and Digital Distribution. Forms of traditional ‘indie’ 50/50 deals that have to be more flexible and generous as the labels offering them have less financial power and marketing infrastructure to commit to the relationship. Independent artists will always be perfectly free to contribute their work to music dotcoms but whether they’ll be financially rewarded to a level that provides them with the ability to work outside of the established paradigm remains in doubt, ‘You need intermediaries to reach a large audience. And if that is what you want, these parties need to get a slice of the cake as well. That is the crucial question: which intermediaries do I want. The choice is broader now,’ Dolfsmar (2000) The irony in the majors conversion to a belief in file sharing as a viable business model is that in order for a legitimised file sharing system to work all the majors need to get involved. Majors embracing file sharing and new forms of digital distribution may well signal a new form of dominance, an online dominance extending and strengthening their offline control and the paradigm as it already exists." Here's some thoughts from 2000 and early 2001. Well
you've got to give BMG credit for breaking ranks and deciding to work with Napster.
Ofcourse it's a self interested 'business decision' but what the hell. Early and
fascinating days. The first steps in the
subscription based 'celestial jukebox' where Napster are legitimised, artists
rewarded and the labels starting to get their heads round what's going on? Or
just a distraction ???????? Dynamic business models???? .........Love it !!!! Check these
out for more details on the Napster/BMG arrangement.....Inside
, Wall Of
Sound
We think Silverman's music deserves to be heard. We sweat blood over our music, our lyrics, our art. Our music is who we are, what we are. The more people who hear us the better and when they do they seem to like it and that feels great. We're not unique, there are hundreds/thousands of bands and songwriters the world over who this might apply to. You may be one of them. Mp3 is just the mechanism of distribution to potentially millions of music lovers that doesn't rely on the whim of record company A&R. Courtney Love wrote a very interesting article in which she relabeled the labels as 'distributors'. She's right, they are (or rather were) the gatekeepers of distribution. Now that's not the case and many many bands like us can take our tapes off the studio shelf and our music can live and breathe. Empowering, liberating self-determination. Why should unsigned artists be locked out of the opportunity to reach people who might enjoy their music? There's no reason now, the distributors aren't necessarily the arbiters of good and bad. Signed = good, Unsigned = not good, sorry but that's not the way it works now. Why should a new artist sign away 86%, 87% of their ownership of their records in exchange for the advances (loans), distribution and marketing that companies (often ineffectively) offer when now the opportunities are emerging for artists to do a great deal for themselves? Steve Albini also has an interesting analysis of the maths involved. More Questions Than Answers Seeing as we're currently unsigned and own our rights we might as well try to promote ourselves in anyway we can. The internet is a great way to do that. It isn't necessarily an alternative to releasing cds it should be seen as complimentary, though it would appear that up 'til now it's only the bands who own their rights who can use the net as dynamically and creatively as it can be. Making physical records in my opinion will continue to be mission critical for any band wanting to break out of the garage. New forms of 'deal' might be the way forward. Multiple partially-exclusive relationships with independent offline labels and other organisations, providing the role of 'label', with off-line industry expertise such as press and radio plugging, video production/web casting, tour support etc. It's very early days and such models are uncommon but are bound to evolve. This is an area we're looking to try to explore with Silverman. So What's New ?
From the artists point of view this is a
wonderful opportunity to be heard and hopefully appreciated by a worldwide
audience. The reality of potentially millions of people hearing and enjoying
your music is everso empowering and emotionally rewarding (isn't that what
motivates many musicians and songwriters in the first place?). Being ignored
is hell. The internet offers an audience and lets your music live. The
boost to self esteem and confidence that we get when receiving kind
emails from 'fans' and even just knowing that Silverman
have sold a cd in Australia or Sweden has meant a huge amount. I do
appreciate that the whole thing may be regarded by some as a mirage to an
extent but if the internet can provide the encouragement and instill the
belief to keep on keeping on then that's ok with us. What's the alternative?
Stuffing tapes into jiffy bags sending them off to the 47 people who you
think might be able to help you career? Why not do that anyway?
People (I'm going to go off on one here)
proclaim the internet as the end of record companies. They want to portray
it as an artistic revolution that will put the power of the corporations
back into the hands of artists; I'm inclined to partially disagree. It all
sounds very 'right on' but people have to ask themselves what a record
company actually even is.
They forget that record companies are (in their
purest sense) fans of bands and their music who work with artists to
get as many people in the world to hear and ultimately buy their bands
records. We're not
anti record company. While people still want to buy physical records there will
be companies to sell them. We appreciate
the fact that Ochre, 4AD or
Chemical Underground will filter through a whole mountain
of horse shit before they find something they feel strong enough and
believe in enough to financially and emotionally invest in. I have neither the
time nor the inclination to
suffer death by demo. In many respects we owe the labels a great debt of
gratitude, they are the established filters through which many fantastic bands
have been developed, recorded and moved us. On the other
hand I'm no apologist for the corporate cynicism of some labels in the same way that I'm
no apologist for a band who I feel to be crap.
If you're lucky you can come up with some gems on the net. www.mp3.com/lorna and ofcourse www.mp3.com/silverman for example. I'm sure most people who've spent any time at any of these sites have their own little discoveries. If a band is good and has a little savvy then they deserve to be promoted and marketed. As many people should hear about them as possible. The internet is an increasingly powerful tool to help do this but it isn't the whole story. Blair Witch = an exception that proves the diminished rule. A record company will still provide the A&R and marketing role that fortunate (and often the best) acts enjoy. Yes I agree that there has been a shift in the balance of power but it won't be a case of mp3.com artists storming the gates of Universal or Sony. Bands are money pits and there's no end to our expenses. That's just a fact of life. Whilst new revenue earning opportunities for bands (e.g. Payback for Playback at mp3.com) are appreciated only a handful of bands can make anything like enough at the moment to even approach covering their costs. When the royalty collection agencies get their act together and the majors legitimise companies like Napster by forcing them to the negotiating table in order to strike deals that reward copyright and intellectual property rights then things might change (Napster would love to be legitimised). Internet Music dotcoms in my opinion as do the labels have a responsibility to organise representation for all artists whether signed or not. It's an ethical imperative. I'd like to think that we're in a period of transition. Everything's shades of gray. New ways of thinking need to be adopted that stop the creation of barriers and artificial ways of restricting access to music. 20 million Napster subscribers have got to be telling the establishment something surely?. The expensive development of encryption systems is futile in my opinion. Energy and money would be far more usefully expended developing systems where music feels free (I pay a TV license, I don't feel like I'm actually paying when I watch my favourite programme, the better quality TV is, the more I watch it, the better value for money I get, TV 'feels' free) liberated and accessible to anyone and everyone. An 'eat (listen to) as much as you like' system based on subscription that apportions royalty payments though software analysis of file traffic as opposed to random sampling that's currently used. Whether the old school can get their heads around such an eminently sensible solution remains to be seen. There's so much vested interest and empire building based on old ways of thinking that it may be depressingly unlikely. That's not to say it shouldn't though. Like I said before, the royalty collection agencies and the 'industry' have a responsibility to start to understand these new technologies and begin to represent their artists and members by collecting royalties through making deals that reward writers and performers. This is a new paradigm for musicians, those who purport to represent musicians rights and music distribution. Napster may be ethically dubious in some minds but at least through putting the wind up the RIAA they're forcing the industry's hand, similarly to the MyMp3 battle earlier in the year. It's not singularly up to Napster or MP3.com to resolve the questions of new technology, this technology exists and should be used to empower and reward all artists. The new establishment including labels and dotcoms hosting songs have a critical role to play in the way they treat artists and music fans. In light of the recent US Judgment for the RIAA against Napster I've added my responses to a couple of interview questions I was asked. I appreciate that it's a bit ranty and repeats much of what I've already said but what the hell......
Heard metallica are getting really arsey about their rights after the
napster thing ie reviewing the release of sheet > music etc(this is just a rumour by the way so no one sue my poor student ass please) Metallica Schmatallica. Napster is (was) a sort of a file sharing system. Metallica's beef was that people shared copies of their records on Napster and this enables people to download their songs for free thereby cutting poor old Metallica and their poor old record company out of the retail loop. The genie's out of the bottle. What you gonna do about it boyzzzzzzzzzz? Stop Press - They've done it. Congratulations. Just what we need, more barriers more corporate empire building. Maybe 20 million Napster fans and how they wish to access music don't count. For fuck sake what's wrong with these people? (nothing that an additional several million dollars won't make worse I'm sure). Why aren't they or can't they see the opportunities that they're missing???? > How do you feel about artists/groups and the ownership of their music? .See Courtney http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html The walls of distribution have been smashed down by technology. Control of product distribution has been lost forever by the majors (the gatekeepers) and they're scared stiff. They should be. This is Technological punk. DIY and it's fucking fantastic. i think Metallica missed an opportinity in one sense. They had the ip addresses of 350,000 fans and managed to alienate them. Mind you they picked up plenty of copy out of their stance and they did nail Napster's balls to the wall in the end. The royalty collection agencies and the 'industry' have a responsibility to start to understand these new technologies and begin to represent their artists and members by collecting royalties through making deals that reward writers and performers. This is a new paradigm for musicians, those who purport to represent musicians rights and music distribution. Napster may be (have been) ethically dubious as it exists (existed) but at least through the litigation with the RIAA they're forcing the industry's hand, similarly to the MyMp3 battle earlier in the year. (and look where that's got them). It's not singularly up to Napster to resolve the problems of new technology, this technology exists and should be used to empower and reward all artists. The new establishment including labels and dotcoms hosting songs have a critical role to play in the way they treat artists and music fans. MP3 dotcoms in my opinion as do the labels have a responsibility to organise representation for all artists whether signed or not. It's an ethical imperative. I'd like to think that we're in a period of transition. New ways of thinking need to be adopted that stop the creation of barriers and artificial ways of restricting access to music. The expensive development of encryption systems is futile in my opinion. Energy and money would be far more usefully expended developing systems where music feels free ( I pay a TV license, I don't feel like I'm actually paying when I watch my favourite programme, the better quality TV is, the more I watch it, the better value for money I get, TV 'feels' free) liberated and accessible to anyone and everyone. An 'eat (listen to) as much as you like' system based on subscription that apportions royalty payments though software analysis of transactions as opposed to random sampling that's currently used.
> How d'ya feel about Napster (dont feel pressured to say
something
contraversial here but feel free to if you want - I'll word it > right so we all cant get sued - am I paranoid?) The more people who hear us the better. It's up to us to make our cds and our 'official product' the preferred option to a poxy file off Napster. That's what Metallica and the majors have to face up to. If it's not going to be Napster it'll be someone else, http://salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/07/27/napster_shutdown/index1.html See Porter's 5 forces and three generic strategies
Porter, M.E. (1998) On Competition,
USA, The Harvard Business Review.
In light of the recent judicial ruling
against Napster maybe the world is afterall completly fucked. Music should
be free (as in accessible) it should also feel free (as in how much does
it feel like you're paying to watch Eastenders?). This whole Napster saga
depresses us. We agree it's an imperfect situation as it stands.
Artists should be rewarded for their work however why the fuck can't the
labels sit down with Napster and negotiate some sort of licensing based on
subscription? (Isn't 20 million x $5 a month enough??????).Why can't they
work a win/win situation for music fans, the artists they say they
represent and themselves. Well fucking done majors, well done RIAA,
congratulations on 'not getting it'. Wankers.
|
