| Author
|
"The flop industry" article by Dj Yaniv Tal discussion
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 19:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 10:55, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 09:27, shahar wrote:
The truth is that unless we create a model that will support artists to work on their art professionally (not for making money) we will less and less deep and meaningful art.
|
|
Oh really?
So you find a correlation between the depth and meaningfulness of music and if the artist can survive professionally on it?
In that case I guess pop and rock played on the radio is deeper and more meaningful than music in small obscure genres like ours?
|
|
I think he ment the opposite. IF we NOT create a NEW model to support, we will loose meaningful art totally, exactly because at this time meaningful art doesn't pay out.
I think you misunderstood him.
  Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 21:03
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 19:38, subconsciousmind wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 10:55, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 09:27, shahar wrote:
The truth is that unless we create a model that will support artists to work on their art professionally (not for making money) we will less and less deep and meaningful art.
|
|
Oh really?
So you find a correlation between the depth and meaningfulness of music and if the artist can survive professionally on it?
In that case I guess pop and rock played on the radio is deeper and more meaningful than music in small obscure genres like ours?
|
|
I think he ment the opposite. IF we NOT create a NEW model to support, we will loose meaningful art totally, exactly because at this time meaningful art doesn't pay out.
I think you misunderstood him.
|
|
I don't think so. Look at what is commercially viable music and tell me that it is generally deeper and more meaningful than less commercial music.
Sure, one can try to make the argument that it would be good for less commercial musicians if they also could earn a living from their music, but the fact remains that unless you have enough listeners you will not be able to do that...and people in general is not looking for the deepest and most meaningful music.
It has nothing new or to do with file sharing, if you choose to make music that doesn't appeal to the masses you will not be able to earn a living from it.
So unless we are talking about some kind of government grants that will not happen.
And as soon as an artist manages to make a living from the music it tends to be commercialised. I have seen it myself with several musicians I know.
Imagine you get just about enough from your music to live off, doing just the music you like.
Now a label owner ask you for a track for an upcoming compilation that would bring in some nice bucks, and you give him a couple of tracks to check out.
He gets back to you and says that it is nice tracks, but they will not really fit on the comp and he needs something more along the lines of a certain style.
Now you have the choice of adopting to the demands of the market or not being able to pay the rent or buy food.
The temptation to make a track that will fit on the comp will be very big, but it will probably not lead to a deeper and more meaningful track than if you would just have made what you feel like.
And if you earn a few €100 per track there is no time for messing around...you need to get a few tracks released per month to be able to continue to make a living from it. From what I have seen that is hardly a nice growing ground for creativity.
That is commercialism in music...it's easy to imagine financial rewards being a nice motivation for creativity, but in reality it's many times the opposite since there are certain criteria to be filled for your music to be commercially viable.
But in theory I'm all for trance producers becoming financially independent and not having to worry about money to be able to sit and play around in their studios without any commercial pressure, but I figured this discussion is about the reality rather than some utopian dreams.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 22:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 21:03, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 19:38, subconsciousmind wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 10:55, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 09:27, shahar wrote:
The truth is that unless we create a model that will support artists to work on their art professionally (not for making money) we will less and less deep and meaningful art.
|
|
Oh really?
So you find a correlation between the depth and meaningfulness of music and if the artist can survive professionally on it?
In that case I guess pop and rock played on the radio is deeper and more meaningful than music in small obscure genres like ours?
|
|
I think he ment the opposite. IF we NOT create a NEW model to support, we will loose meaningful art totally, exactly because at this time meaningful art doesn't pay out.
I think you misunderstood him.
|
|
I don't think so. Look at what is commercially viable music and tell me that it is generally deeper and more meaningful than less commercial music.
|
|
dude, you are totally missing the point 
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 22:41
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 22:37, subconsciousmind wrote:
dude, you are totally missing the point
|
|
Err...maybe try reading the post before responding next time.
Or are you suggesting that we should get government grants for making the music we love to ensure that there is no commercial pressure?
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 22:47
|
I did, but read your first words. They totally miss the point.
The rest is about if there should/could be a different model etc. mostly good thoughts. It's just how you opened your argumentation. You actually disagreed in your opening, but what you write later either agrees or talks about something different
Anyways, as I said at first. its all a missunderstanding.
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 22:49
|
and for the record, I find your explanation how musicians get into commercialism and away from meaningfulism very good!
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 23:19
|
Writing a track myself and watching people dance to it is worth way more than some colored paper. If people's hearts are there, the music will be good, no matter if they are being paid or not.
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Apr 7, 2009 23:23
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 09:27, shahar wrote:
Is it so fresh? Really?
Think about it a little beyond the colorful design of Wired...
Nothing fresh in it. The same old story:
[...]
Anderson is basically saying that aggregators are gonna make big money in the new situation- that is a good observation, but that’s nothing new. They have always been making the money. They were just aggregating differently. Actually this new era in a way makes things worse. Because the tail is getting longer it means that the aggregators will be making a lot of money from a lot of people who make very very little money or none at all.
This “Free” economy is not very free really and it works for few- usually for those who already have a lot of money (like the Daily Mail & Prince in the free CD example), and for a lucky few that “make it”. Again, nothing new.
[...]
The truth is that unless we create a model that will support artists to work on their art professionally (not for making money) we will less and less deep and meaningful art.
And this is, btw, not a question of “guilt trips”, it’s a question of education and realization. |
|
The article is "fresh" in the sense that it brings a new perspective to this cyclical discussion of industry practices. It is by no means a solution to all our problems but there are concepts here worth addressing IMO.
Anderson is most known for his work on Long Tail theory which you describe in the beginning of your post. Indeed, this is mainly of interest to large-scale aggregators (online shops and distributors), not labels and artists (although they can benefit from ensuring their whole catalogue is available for purchase somewhere).
Granted, it is easy to cite Radiohead, Prince, and Nine Inch Nails when hyping up the free economy; these bands were already successful before the impact of downloading changed the industry forever. What about everyone else?
I am doing my best to develop a new model of music distribution for psytrance labels and artists. This is a response to changes in the industry--changes that are both fundamental and irrevocable. Like it or not, Anderson is right--recorded music is destined to become free. But this doesn't mean that there will be no way for producers to work professionally to create meaningful art, far from it!
Consider the proposed models for profit in a free economy. Tom Cosm might be operating something close to a "freemium" model; with a single email he raised enough money to buy himself a new studio laptop. How? He's nurtured a farflung fanbase by giving away his music and sharing his expertise (particularly in Ableton). In another era you might call this patronage. Whatever it is, it appears to be working for Tom Cosm, and I think other artists could benefit from studying his way of doing things.
Cross-subsidies: as noted, giving your music away can lead to paying gigs. It's been working well for Ekoplex; he's off to Europe this summer after the success of his free album release last year. Organizers want to book artists that have a following. Some already have it and can afford to continue releasing in the traditional way (think Dino Psaras, GMS, Space Cat, and so on). This does not help anyone trying to crack into the scene, however. For new artists, limiting access to your music is kind of crazy if you ask me. Set it free, do a professional job of it, and follow it up with festival organizers. If it isn't already apparent, free music is also great promotion for the events themselves--to let people hear what they're coming out for. And remember, those of us within the industry over-estimate how well-known many acts truly are. In Toronto, if the name on the flyer isn't Infected Mushroom, Vibrasphere, Shpongle, or Skazi, most people coming out to the party aren't going to know the act--they're attending because of the organizer's own brand.
The other models offer less for musicians. As noted, just giving music away is enough for some--not everyone needs to make money from their artistic work. I would cite Jikkenteki as an example of this; few artists in this scene explore the boundaries of the psytrance form as much as he does... and he consistently shares his music with the world for free (not for gigs or anything else, although that might be nice). I agree that there needs to be a certain level of professionalism or expertise in this scene... but it isn't impossible to achieve this outside of the commercial economy. "Amateur" artists can make great music as well--though not as freely as a paid professional, surely. In any case, the division between amateur and professional is very blurred in a counterculture such as ours.
My perspective on the changing nature of the psytrance industry is not cynical nor myopic. I don't feel as if artists shouldn't be supported for what they do. I simply realize that recorded music is no longer as commercially viable as it once was. People will pay for experiences; a CD is not enough any more. When the music industry had a virtual monopoly on distribution (i.e. before the Internet) it was a different story: the physical product sold well. But that monopoly is broken forever. Going on as if nothing has changed is an uphill struggle against the forces shaping our future. I'd rather get ahead of the curve and find a way to make the free economy work for creative minds and listeners alike.
|
|
|
|
shellbound
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
14
Posts :
601
Posted : Apr 8, 2009 00:36
|
|
Fragletrollet
Fragletrollet
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
1748
Posted : Apr 8, 2009 14:17
|
|
KundaliniRising
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
163
Posted : Apr 8, 2009 14:43
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 23:23, Basilisk wrote:
People will pay for experiences; a CD is not enough any more. When the music industry had a virtual monopoly on distribution (i.e. before the Internet) it was a different story: the physical product sold well. But that monopoly is broken forever. Going on as if nothing has changed is an uphill struggle against the forces shaping our future. I'd rather get ahead of the curve and find a way to make the free economy work for creative minds and listeners alike.
|
|
+++1 |
|
|
|
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Apr 8, 2009 14:55
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Apr 8, 2009 16:42
|
|
shahar
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
155
Posts :
2035
Posted : Apr 9, 2009 08:49
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 10:55, Spindrift wrote:
Oh really?
So you find a correlation between the depth and meaningfulness of music and if the artist can survive professionally on it?
In that case I guess pop and rock played on the radio is deeper and more meaningful than music in small obscure genres like ours? |
|
You got it wrong. It’s the other way around. If we don’t find a way to support musicians as I said, we’ll have either mainstream pop products / cut & paste “successful” formulas or interesting immature music that doesn’t reach its potential.
---------------------------------------------
"Be the change you want to see in the world!"
M.K. Gandhi
"There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self."
Aldous Huxley
|
|
|
|
~d2~
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
751
Posted : Apr 9, 2009 09:04
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-09 08:49, shahar wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-07 10:55, Spindrift wrote:
Oh really?
So you find a correlation between the depth and meaningfulness of music and if the artist can survive professionally on it?
In that case I guess pop and rock played on the radio is deeper and more meaningful than music in small obscure genres like ours? |
|
You got it wrong. It’s the other way around. If we don’t find a way to support musicians as I said, we’ll have either mainstream pop products / cut & paste “successful” formulas or interesting immature music that doesn’t reach its potential.
|
|
That is based on the presumption that the current model doesn't change. I am betting it will  |
|
|
|
