1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
     
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Byrne's on File Sharing

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by sevdog, Oct 11, 2013.


  1. sevdog

    sevdog

    Mar 2, 2008
    ATX
  2. AaronVonRock

    AaronVonRock

    Feb 22, 2013
    Bangkok
    Good article. Thanks for sharing.
     
  3. hrodbert696

    hrodbert696 Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    It's not really on file sharing, but on streaming media - Pandora and Spotify. But yes, good article. He also links to this one - http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/ - which gives some actual numbers on how much money artists make from these services.
     
  4. Turxile

    Turxile

    May 1, 2011
    Interesting.
    An important point in there is the the streaming services are generating revenues and income. For many, including the labels. The money is not trickling down to the artists, but most of it remains with the labels. Not only through royalties but through share holdings etc.. So the only thing that changed is that the labels keep a larger %?
    Another thing I agree is that the new channels spell disaster for today's artists. But imho more so for the established artists whose fame and income depends on the labels' decision and choices.
    There is a whole bunch of new artists who would have never been signed by labels, who manage to get an audience. The Internet is not only enabling fans to access greater (and yes almost free) content, but it also enables the artists to access fans they weren't able to reach before. Unfortunately this doesn't really make things financially good for the artists, this is a big transition period and artists are suffering more than any other.
    One thing I disagree with is the title, that "the Internet will suck all creative content out of the world". If anything it is fueling creativity, with all the content stimulating people's creativity all over the world like never before.
     
  5. halfjackson

    halfjackson

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston, MA
    Good read. Thanks for posting. In any case, I'm grateful for growing up in the days of taping songs off of the radio; making mixed tapes; and shelling out $18 for a CD, just hoping that I'd like more than a song or two. I love my portable mp3 player and I love the access to music these days, but it has made a lot of music somewhat disposable for me.
     
  6. gkbass13

    gkbass13 Supporting Member

    Mar 29, 2006
    Chicago
    Great read. I generally approve of anything David Byrne does.
     
  7. hrodbert696

    hrodbert696 Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    There's a very good chapter in his book "How Music Works" on the business side. He breaks it out into about six different artist/label relationships, ranging from 360-degree deals where the label does everything (and takes nearly all the money) to DIY artists who do without labels altogether, and he goes into the pros and cons of each.
     
  8. sevdog

    sevdog

    Mar 2, 2008
    ATX
    I think I agree with him in that it is an even bigger homogination tool than that of the previous mtv/major label set up that popular music was basically ruled under. In so far as EVERYONE can see everything all the time, and for something to make it to "Rock Star" status it had better reach A LOT more people than previously necessitated (even though [and because] record sales were exponentially higher). I'm not sure though, only time will tell, but I think that he might be right.
     
  9. jet_king

    jet_king Supporting Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    Chicago,IL
    I will always always appreciate a physical copy of anything because from that point on I know I have something that cant be lost or at any point unavailable to me.
     
  10. hrodbert696

    hrodbert696 Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Ditto. I was talking about this with a colleague, on the topic of academic libraries, and whether they would all become paperless digital databases of books. He said that, according to a representative of one of the relevant tech firms who presented at a conference or meeting he had been to, the digital formats roll over and become obsolete every seven years or so on average. Which means there will always be reason to have at least a core collection on paper, which doesn't become obsolete and unreadable by new technologies.

    I feel the same kind of suspicion about the "cloud" storage that's being pushed so hard right now. Anyone remember Netscape? What happens to my vast expensive "cloud" collection of music (or anything) when the company running the servers goes belly-up?

    And while I'm on a roll, I'm also skeptical from an environmental standpoint. You have to kill trees to make books, sure, and CDs have to be manufactured and all. But every time you access online digital content, power is getting burned - not just your computer or tablet or whatever, but relays and power lines and servers and I don't know what all - zap zap zap, all the way down the line and back. And all that power has to come from somewhere - wood or coal or oil or nuclear or whatever kinds of power plants. And you burn that power over and over again every time you access the content. Is all this "virtual" property any better for the earth than plain old manufactured objects, that get made once and then place no additional strain on the environment when you use them?
     
  11. charlie monroe

    charlie monroe Supporting Member

    Feb 14, 2011
    Buffalo, NY
    Do you have a magic tape deck or record player that doesn't use electricity?

    Jump off of that stump while there is still time...
     
  12. hrodbert696

    hrodbert696 Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    No, my point is that there's a lot of "hidden" power consumption. If I play an mp3 on my computer, or a CD on a CD player, then that one computer or CD player is using electricity. But if I'm playing it on a device that's accessing Spotify or pulling it from a Cloud, then there are a lot of OTHER devices simultaneously using additional electricity in order to deliver the signal to my device, in addition to the power the device itself is burning.

    What I would like to see numbers on is a comparison of the environmental impact of manufacturing a CD, shipping it to a store, and playing it at home, vs putting an mp3 on a cloud and accessing it repeatedly online, over, say, a 5-year period. Maybe someone's done the research, I don't know, I haven't seen it. I don't know, but I'm suspicious, that the Cloud is more of a problem than the manufacturing was.
     
  13. sevdog

    sevdog

    Mar 2, 2008
    ATX
    That's an interesting thought...I'd be ready to give you a Nobel Peace Prize if you could prove that Vinyl is better for the environment than MP3s.
     
  14. jet_king

    jet_king Supporting Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    Chicago,IL

    This seems relevant.