Online albums, stores and piracy

[redshot]

I didn't really know exactly where to put this.

I have a progressive metal band and we recorded and produced a CD in my home studio. A few weeks ago we started distributing it digitally through Spotify, iTunes, Google Music, and a few others. Not 24 hours had passed since the album was available through those platforms, and I googled and found a few torrent websites with our album there, for free. We were expecting it to happen eventually, it's no use trying to stop any sort of piracy; Besides, we're not doing it for profit, so we were happy that somebody had taken the time to do that - I felt slightly proud of myself.

Well, three weeks have passed and now every time I put the band's name and the album in Google or Bing or any other search engine, I see the Facebook page, and the other results are only torrents and downloads. Spotify links are in the last relevant pages.

It's getting a little bit frustrating, because the legal stores should be in the first page, but aren't. Not even Google Music's page appears in Google.

I don't know what or whom to complain. Is there anything I can do? Or something we did wrong, perhaps?

 

[Korbl]

From my perspective, I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. This happens to everything and everyone.

I had the same kind of thing happen with my metal band Bellicist. We recorded, mixed and mastered by ourselves, posted the album and after a couple of days and sales for the album, we found it posted on quite a few sites. Since we just enjoy writing and releasing music ( not pursuing a career with it) it doesn't bug us. Over time, we lowered the price for the album and soon to be switching to pay what you want kind of thing. As for the album, we've even found that a German website had the link for download and found some funny comments from people who downloaded it from that site. Apparently, Germans are not fans of our music.

Anyways, I have a new band that I've been working on and with the way cd sales are now in general, we just decided that when we get music done for release, we will release the music online for free. "If you want the music, you can have it. If you want to throw some cash towards it, awesome. If not, that's cool too. Thanks for taking time to check out the tunes kind of thing." We plan on having some physical copies of the music for sale since there are still people out there that like physical media instead of digital but since it costs money to make the cd's, it will cost a couple of bucks.

My personal thoughts on downloading and whatnot has changed and evolved over the years. I just think that digitally, music should be free. It not only allows your fans to download the highest quality of your music, not some poor rip off, and may give your fans more incentive to spread your name around more or come to more shows. It shows more of a connection to you and your fans, not a business transaction. Yes, album sales are important but from my touring experience, merchandise is where the money is. So think about it. Here is your band, you got a killer album and you are allowing people to have it for free? Honestly, I would for sure go to a show and pick up a shirt or two. Hell, why not a physical copy of the cd as well? It just builds a stronger connection to your fans.

I like the idea of free digital music because new music is not just exciting for you but for your fans. They will be hungry for it so why have this barrier up ( charge for a digital copy) for the music? Yes, we all put our blood, sweat, tears and money into it but it's about the music right? Not money? I just think that having that wall up enforcing money to be given for a digital copy forces the fan to search elsewhere for other music or a link to torrent the music.

Just my thoughts but I hope this helps in some way.

 

[bearfoot]

I hate this so much. Is an album now an advertisiment for a t-shirt? I will never accept the theft paradigm as being ok, and the quality hit the music industry has taken is very noticeable.

I guess one angle is, only release a few songs online, charge the going iTunes rate per song, and let it be.
One thing I notice in festivals and such is, every artist has a nice, jewel case, fully produced CD for sale, $15-$20, and they often don't sell well.
So as I've been going over some new material, my thought is to specialize in EP's, which are not expensively printed or produced, but having a wide variety of them, at a $5 price point. And to have the nice full LP also, for those that want them.

 

[Son of Wobble]

One thing I notice in festivals and such is, every artist has a nice, jewel case, fully produced CD for sale, $15-$20, and they often don't sell well.

Great thread, guys. I'm 51, but have a good number of friends 25 and under, and my impression is people that age are not interested in the CD format.
They don't tend to utilize CDs, and handing them one which they will then have to "digitize" is perceived as adding to their busy work. In fact, I read an article suggesting that most young people are behind in their digital consumption and maintain a que, and that adding a new piece of material to the que often makes them feel a surge of resentment toward it. Intrigued by this observation, I polled a small group of UCSB students about it and they confirmed the emotion described was indeed a familiar one.

Add this to the general human tendency to disregard new things, particularly things arriving from alternate sources, and you'll begin to appreciate the steep slope of this particular uphill battle.

More posts, please - great stuff.

 

[Syxz_ML]

From my perspective, I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. This happens to everything and everyone.

I had the same kind of thing happen with my metal band Bellicist. We recorded, mixed and mastered by ourselves, posted the album and after a couple of days and sales for the album, we found it posted on quite a few sites. Since we just enjoy writing and releasing music ( not pursuing a career with it) it doesn't bug us. Over time, we lowered the price for the album and soon to be switching to pay what you want kind of thing. As for the album, we've even found that a German website had the link for download and found some funny comments from people who downloaded it from that site. Apparently, Germans are not fans of our music.

Anyways, I have a new band that I've been working on and with the way cd sales are now in general, we just decided that when we get music done for release, we will release the music online for free. "If you want the music, you can have it. If you want to throw some cash towards it, awesome. If not, that's cool too. Thanks for taking time to check out the tunes kind of thing." We plan on having some physical copies of the music for sale since there are still people out there that like physical media instead of digital but since it costs money to make the cd's, it will cost a couple of bucks.

My personal thoughts on downloading and whatnot has changed and evolved over the years. I just think that digitally, music should be free. It not only allows your fans to download the highest quality of your music, not some poor rip off, and may give your fans more incentive to spread your name around more or come to more shows. It shows more of a connection to you and your fans, not a business transaction. Yes, album sales are important but from my touring experience, merchandise is where the money is. So think about it. Here is your band, you got a killer album and you are allowing people to have it for free? Honestly, I would for sure go to a show and pick up a shirt or two. Hell, why not a physical copy of the cd as well? It just builds a stronger connection to your fans.

I like the idea of free digital music because new music is not just exciting for you but for your fans. They will be hungry for it so why have this barrier up ( charge for a digital copy) for the music? Yes, we all put our blood, sweat, tears and money into it but it's about the music right? Not money? I just think that having that wall up enforcing money to be given for a digital copy forces the fan to search elsewhere for other music or a link to torrent the music.

Just my thoughts but I hope this helps in some way.

Great post and great modern mindset I think. I can see how older cats might have a complaint since touring might be the younger mans, no wife no kids, game. But the part that relates to me the most is doing it for the art and just glad people dig your personal material. I carry the same mindset and am currently recording my own material and plan on doing the same "pay what you can" approach. Interested in hearing others stance on the issue.

 

[40Hz]

Great post and great modern mindset I think. I can see how older cats might have a complaint since touring might be the younger mans, no wife no kids, game. But the part that relates to me the most is doing it for the art and just glad people dig your personal material. I carry the same mindset and am currently recording my own material and plan on doing the same "pay what you can" approach. Interested in hearing others stance on the issue.

As long as you have an outside source of income, or you're a child of privilege, you can afford to be a patron of the art. Back before the advent of the notion of professional artists, the "arts" were pretty much the exclusive domain of the wealthy amateur. Literature and music were the playground of "gentlemen" and "ladies." Not the working classes who couldn't afford the time to be that involved in artistic expression for the pure joy of doing art. But so it goes. Most people who think everything today represents a complete break from everything that went before can't be bothered to read history anyway.

(BTW, that same argument was made back in the late 60s: "Why should anybody have to pay anything for music? It's all just so beautiful man! Power to the People! Off the pigs!!!" )

Yeah. Right.

 

[Syxz_ML]

As long as you have an outside source of income, or you're a child of privilege, you can afford to be a patron of the art. Back before the advent of the notion of professional artists, the "arts" were pretty much the exclusive domain of the wealthy amateur. Literature and music were the playground of "gentlemen" and "ladies." Not the working classes who couldn't afford the time to be that involved in artistic expression for the pure joy of doing art. But so it goes. Most people who think everything today represents a complete break from everything that went before can't be bothered to read history anyway.

(BTW, that same argument was made back in the late 60s: "Why should anybody have to pay anything for music? It's all just so beautiful man! Power to the People! Off the pigs!!!" )

Yeah. Right.

Honestly at this point most musicians need to be realists that they need ro have an outside source of income. Its just the way the game works. Eventually grow to maybe it being the only source but don attempt to go into it as the only means. And although i agree with the part of the arts being for those wealthy amateurs ages ago, that only refers to recognized art. Art has always been around for all social classes and in some cases even more profound in the lower classes. Maybe just not to make it into the history books. Hell the blues didnt come from wealthy upper class citizens, thats one example just in music.

 

[fdeck]

As long as you have an outside source of income, or you're a child of privilege, you can afford to be a patron of the art. Back before the advent of the notion of professional artists, the "arts" were pretty much the exclusive domain of the wealthy amateur. Literature and music were the playground of "gentlemen" and "ladies." Not the working classes who couldn't afford the time to be that involved in artistic expression for the pure joy of doing art. But so it goes. Most people who think everything today represents a complete break from everything that went before can't be bothered to read history anyway.

You've forgotten the middle class, which includes the skilled trades. Throughout the past few centuries -- at least going back to the baroque era -- the great musicians and composers were consummate professionals, employed by churches, towns, kings, etc. Bach was conscious of the need to earn a living, and even argued with his employers over pay. Much of the most important contemporary "classical" literature can't even be played by amateurs.

At the same time, that kind of music always coexisted with folk music that was the domain of the working class. There were always multiple domains.

 

[BazzTard]

you may as well give it away for free in the first place.

Streaming services pay nothing in real terms. At least if you offer it for free you get an indication of how many people have downloaded it.

 

[bearfoot]

Great thread, guys. I'm 51, but have a good number of friends 25 and under, and my impression is people that age are not interested in the CD format.
They don't tend to utilize CDs, and handing them one which they will then have to "digitize" is perceived as adding to their busy work. In fact, I read an article suggesting that most young people are behind in their digital consumption and maintain a que, and that adding a new piece of material to the que often makes them feel a surge of resentment toward it. Intrigued by this observation, I polled a small group of UCSB students about it and they confirmed the emotion described was indeed a familiar one.

Add this to the general human tendency to disregard new things, particularly things arriving from alternate sources, and you'll begin to appreciate the steep slope of this particular uphill battle.

More posts, please - great stuff.

I wasn't referring to young people, though. If they feel "resentment" about putting a CD in a tray and pressing "rip" that's not my problem, as they are not my audience for the most part.
I get that CD is pretty much dead, but its the last (and best) of the tangible hard copy that an artist can easily self produce. And they do sell, and are asked for. When the DVD compatible drive disappears, we've got a problem, Houston.
But, what I've been observing, while running a stage the last 8 years, is rare sales of full albums. (By middle agers) But, Some years prior I had accidentally made myself an EP to sell on the road - I ran out of time and just put together what I had - and that EP sold much faster.
So I'm thinking that $15-20 is just not the impulse range for most people, and $5-10 is. So IF one is still in the game of trying to sell physical copies of their music, having an EP could be helpful. If it annoys young people, so much the better.

I have always put the art and craft first, but times are hard, and my writing is worth...something. Seems to me we can control the supply end, to a certain extent, knowing how voracious the thieves are, it might be good to always have something up your sleeve that can't be had on the internet.
And though I despaired of Tshirts, that is one format that isn't changing much.

 

[BassFishingInAmerica]

My guess is that the people who download your music know you from your shows. I would only sell the music from the shows. If digital format is a bust, why bother? CD's (even labeled) are cheap. Use paper sleeves, and sell them for 5 bucks at gigs.

 

[Bajo Clarkko]

Great thread. I think that, to a large degree, it's a generational thing, as many of the TB posters have suggested. Back in Janruary, Eric Johnson and Mike Stern played a show up in San Diego's East County, as they were out West for the NAMM Show.
At the show, was a merch table. With CDs and T-shirts. Middle aged people with cash were lined up to buy stuff, so as to compensate the artists for their effort. What a concept, huh?.

 

[wintremute]

I saw a girl playing bass this past Friday (at an outdoor "festival"). She was selling CDs for 5 bucks, so I thought , "why the hell not?", and bought one. I think $5 is a good impulse point.

 

[Bajo Clarkko]

I saw a girl playing bass this past Friday (at an outdoor "festival"). She was selling CDs for 5 bucks, so I thought , "why the hell not?", and bought one. I think $5 is a good impulse point.

Good for her! And good for you, too!

 

[leegreenman]

Same deal with my newest album. It's popped up on tons of sites for download. No point wasting energy trying to resist. It's a battle which can't be won.

 

[RickyT]

With my band we have released 3 EP's through iTunes & BandCamp (we've sold enough copies that we all still work full time jobs LOL). Each time we release a new one the older one becomes a free download on BandCamp.

The way I look at it is a bit like OP, I'd rather have people listen to it for free than have 0 people listen to it for $5.

We make music because we love it. If others dig it great, if not, it's not going to stop us doing what we love.

 

[redshot]

Thanks for all the replies. We did produce physical copies, the CD includes beautiful artwork and a 10 page booklet; the online versions don't. After the first concert, we sold about 10 CDs (we only had 50 to sell), 4€ each. It's not expensive, not at all. All we wanted is to see the initial investment paid off, we don't want real profit out of this.

I shall speak with my band mates and we'll discuss this. Thank you very much for the replies, but feel free to continue if you must

Cheers!

 

[Gasman]

I would be interested to know the exact route your album took from "legit" online sales to pirated/free sites. In other words, are these random individuals doing it (seems kind of unlikely in the span of 24 hours) or are the torrent sites actively grabbing stuff? Worse, are the sites like iTunes sending it directly to them?

I agree with what has been said regarding the current state of music sales. Heck, there's more stuff on YouTube than anything else, and many times put there by the artists themselves to gain exposure. No one buys CD's anymore. Vinyl is making a comeback, but I doubt much money from vinyl sales actually makes it back to the artist. If one were to look at music as a career, it certainly seems that album sales, either physical or online, aren't going to pay any bills. Which leaves live performance and studio work the only reliable source of income. And maybe that's how it should be- everyone can name some famous "musician" who got mega rich and famous despite a lack of real talent 20 years ago.

The industry seems to be on the ropes. Record companies don't seem interested in much artist development, settling on the known selling formula resulting in the myriad of pop acts that basically sound the same, just have different looks.

The last rock act that really shook things up that I can think of was Nirvana. I wonder how they would have made it today. Part of me is wistful for the past, but then again, maybe this is a long overdue correction in the market. After all, Nirvana did result in a bunch of crappy copycats that rode their coattails to "success".

 

[Bajo Clarkko]

My older brother was born in '56, and I was born in '60. So I can remember around '70, when I was 10 or so, we started to get our first albums.
My brother got Led Zeppelin II, Steppenwolf (Born To Be Wild), Creedence (Cosmos Factory), Iron Butterfly (Ball), Beetles (Abbey Road), and the album with the cover that blew this 10 year olds mind, 'Wheels Of Fire', by Cream. Anyone remember tha big shiny thing? Wow...
We did'nt have MTV yet, and even 'Don Kirshner's Rock Concert' was a few years off. Yeah, there were fanzines, but we weren't going to spend our limited funds on those. So, for a while anyway, staring at the album covers, with their liner notes, was all we had.
So, that brings me to this: When we buy physical CDs, I think we're still trying to relive that bonding experience of looking at the pictures, and reading the liner notes. (Even though they are much smaller.)
Younger people, who grew up downloading their music, lack that bonding experience. After all, they can use their smartphones to download pictures off the net, or view their favorite bands playing on You Tube clips.
(Now, if you will excuse me, I think I have to go chase some kids off my front lawn. Heh heh!)

 

[40Hz]

Somewhat ironic.

In the past, recording musicians had the pleasure of being regularly screwed over by the record labels.

Today they have the pleasure of being regularly screwed over by their own fans - who often make the excuse they're fighting "the industry" (i.e. The Man) - even if the group or musician isn't "signed" with The Man.

Either way the musicians creating the music still get burned, so it's just "business as usual" in the music world. You've got the makers and the takers.

When it comes to the treatment of music makers, so much for the new generation being any different from the previous one so many of them claim they despise.