Megaupload down, 7 charged with online piracy
Discussion
thinfourth2 said:
I beg to differ
Especially in the area of music.
You can make an album in your bedroom with a laptop and some software and it can be excellent
Name one.Especially in the area of music.
You can make an album in your bedroom with a laptop and some software and it can be excellent
You can make an album in your bedroom on a laptop, but it will sound like an album made on a laptop.
Real drums with a great drummer?
Real vocals with a great singer?
String section?
It can work for people like Calvin Harris but, is that all you ever want to hear again?
The big record labels struggle with their profit margins because their operating costs are so insanely high. To make and record decent music you don't need enormous office buildings, legions of executives or an advertising budget equalling a small countries GDP. The cost of distribution is also now essentially zero.
Yes, studio and sound engineer time isn't cheap. Easily 5-10k a track for professional quality. Those aren't insurmountable numbers that need a monolithic company to back them though. Touring and releasing 'laptop in a bedroom' quality initial tracks can easily build up a following for bands that are actually worth listening too. Once a band's filling midsized venues it's not exactly a risk for a small label to back a recording of a professional album.
The only stuff that will suffer is mass produced pap that people only buy because it's pushed at them through every available media outlet.
Yes, studio and sound engineer time isn't cheap. Easily 5-10k a track for professional quality. Those aren't insurmountable numbers that need a monolithic company to back them though. Touring and releasing 'laptop in a bedroom' quality initial tracks can easily build up a following for bands that are actually worth listening too. Once a band's filling midsized venues it's not exactly a risk for a small label to back a recording of a professional album.
The only stuff that will suffer is mass produced pap that people only buy because it's pushed at them through every available media outlet.
Marf said:
That's the crux in my view, especially for music.
I don't work on mass produced music.Everyone is suffering.
Budgets are down every time a new album is started.
It is getting to the stage now where studios are being forced to charge less for their time than a minimum cost business.
Instead of striving to improve and develop the best results, they are simply trying to survive.
The notion of laptops in the house is lovely but, the reality is most of the laptop interfaces sound pretty crap. The ones that don't cost a lot of money and are therefore only any use to proper professionals. Back to the beginning again.
Then there is the environment, someones home. This may work for some people in certain cases but the majority of the time it means for poor acoustics and lack of comfort for artists when they are supposed to be at their most creative.
KB_S1 said:
Marf said:
That's the crux in my view, especially for music.
I don't work on mass produced music.Everyone is suffering.
Budgets are down every time a new album is started.
It is getting to the stage now where studios are being forced to charge less for their time than a minimum cost business.
Instead of striving to improve and develop the best results, they are simply trying to survive.
The notion of laptops in the house is lovely but, the reality is most of the laptop interfaces sound pretty crap. The ones that don't cost a lot of money and are therefore only any use to proper professionals. Back to the beginning again.
Then there is the environment, someones home. This may work for some people in certain cases but the majority of the time it means for poor acoustics and lack of comfort for artists when they are supposed to be at their most creative.
KB_S1 said:
Everyone is suffering.
Budgets are down every time a new album is started.
Ok, I don't get it. Using your figure of £40-100k for a top 20 quality album from a previous post. That's not a massive figure to my mind. Maybe a band that's not easily going to sell a few 10's of thousands of albums shouldn't be paying for that level of recording quality? Budgets are down every time a new album is started.
Rather than the model of leaping in with a contract, big advances, celebrity producers bands should establish themselves with touring and a cheapo recorded album or two first? Am I missing something? The problem you seem to be saying is that the massive up front investment needs a big company that can absorb the risk.
Those figures are tiny for a professional budget.
That doesn't involve 'celebrity' producers or even a top level studio.
These are the sort of numbers that bands are struggling to get for fairly big projects. There are of course some that still get a much bigger budget to play with.
Most albums I work on have much smaller budgets, maybe £12-30k. That is for everything.
Studio, engineer, musicians, press/promo and pressing of CDs.
It makes it really tough to do things properly and it also means there is no surplus to support yourself through any quiet spells.
Money is not what makes a great album.
Having the best people in great environments (whatever is the best fit for that project) with the necessary time and resources is where great albums come from.
The model of leaping in with huge budgets doesn't really exist. Never has. Bands that break nationally/internationally have generally been working very hard on their own for some time building a fan base, getting attention and honing their craft.
Some bands are of the type that can walk straight into stardom. Others need some help and guidance.
Democratisation of opportunity doesn't necessarily mean we will get more great music emerging. It just means those with great potential and talent have to develop their music with the same amateur approach as everyone else.
That doesn't involve 'celebrity' producers or even a top level studio.
These are the sort of numbers that bands are struggling to get for fairly big projects. There are of course some that still get a much bigger budget to play with.
Most albums I work on have much smaller budgets, maybe £12-30k. That is for everything.
Studio, engineer, musicians, press/promo and pressing of CDs.
It makes it really tough to do things properly and it also means there is no surplus to support yourself through any quiet spells.
Money is not what makes a great album.
Having the best people in great environments (whatever is the best fit for that project) with the necessary time and resources is where great albums come from.
The model of leaping in with huge budgets doesn't really exist. Never has. Bands that break nationally/internationally have generally been working very hard on their own for some time building a fan base, getting attention and honing their craft.
Some bands are of the type that can walk straight into stardom. Others need some help and guidance.
Democratisation of opportunity doesn't necessarily mean we will get more great music emerging. It just means those with great potential and talent have to develop their music with the same amateur approach as everyone else.
It is not pessimism. It is simply looking at the trends and evaluating the marketplace.
There are far less good studios available now compared to 10/20 years ago.
Budgets are going down every day.
The gap of what people think is involved in making a good recording and what is actually required is massive.
The biggest irony is people who want free content from musicians and bands whilst saying this model frees them from corporate masters (the labels) whilst those same people are telling them to use advertisers money to support their art.
What happens when Tesco tell a band to change their lyrics slightly or they will pull their advertising?
There are far less good studios available now compared to 10/20 years ago.
Budgets are going down every day.
The gap of what people think is involved in making a good recording and what is actually required is massive.
The biggest irony is people who want free content from musicians and bands whilst saying this model frees them from corporate masters (the labels) whilst those same people are telling them to use advertisers money to support their art.
What happens when Tesco tell a band to change their lyrics slightly or they will pull their advertising?
KB_S1 said:
The content.
Why would anyone put up money to produce something if there is no way to receive a return?
The megaupload guys model was essentially like itunes without Apple. The artist uploads the track, people pay to download it. The artist receives 90+% of what they pay. No flogging of CD's in supermarkets.Why would anyone put up money to produce something if there is no way to receive a return?
hairykrishna said:
The megaupload guys model was essentially like itunes without Apple. The artist uploads the track, people pay to download it. The artist receives 90+% of what they pay. No flogging of CD's in supermarkets.
I didn't mention supermarkets. I was talking about advertisers.Have you ever seen figures reporting how much was paid to artists?
That model is great, if it works and is accountable, like iTunes actually.
The problem is still becoming established, getting exposure and enough revenue to work professionally.
90% of very little, is still very little.
Then there is the fact that Google and the ISPs make more money from pirated material than the creators and the copyright owners yet somehow, the arument still is about the big money businesses being the film and music companies.
hairykrishna said:
The megaupload guys model was essentially like itunes without Apple. The artist uploads the track, people pay to download it. The artist receives 90+% of what they pay. No flogging of CD's in supermarkets.
Not at all. Megaupload paid out based on the number of downloads, getting revenue from ads and subscription.I think the figures were around $20 for 1,000 downloads - i.e. $0.02 per download. That is admittedly about 10 times more than you get per play on Spotify (or, if you're downloading the whole album, about the same, but that's presuming you only ever listen to it once). On iTunes you get about 70p per song (based on a 99p download) if self-released - very easy to do on iTunes - or about 10p per song if through a label that has invested in you.
(some of these figures may be slightly inaccurate, but I think they're approximately right. Anyone who knows more, please feel free to correct them)
samwilliams said:
hairykrishna said:
The megaupload guys model was essentially like itunes without Apple. The artist uploads the track, people pay to download it. The artist receives 90+% of what they pay. No flogging of CD's in supermarkets.
Not at all. Megaupload paid out based on the number of downloads, getting revenue from ads and subscription.I think the figures were around $20 for 1,000 downloads - i.e. $0.02 per download. That is admittedly about 10 times more than you get per play on Spotify (or, if you're downloading the whole album, about the same, but that's presuming you only ever listen to it once). On iTunes you get about 70p per song (based on a 99p download) if self-released - very easy to do on iTunes - or about 10p per song if through a label that has invested in you.
(some of these figures may be slightly inaccurate, but I think they're approximately right. Anyone who knows more, please feel free to correct them)
hairykrishna said:
Ah, I had misunderstood their business model.
Their business model worked brilliantly ... if you completely ignore the process of creating the content and imagine that it just appears out of thin air.For anyone interested, this appears to be quite a good breakdown of artist revenue from various forms of music distribution. I've never personally worked in the music industry, so can't comment on its accuracy, but at first glance seems ok (but don't ignore the bit that incorporates the songwriting royalties too - that's a very important part of many artists' income).
http://bit.ly/DigitalRoyalty
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff