flyfisher Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Well, if you zoom in and keep your blinkers on then I'd agree with you that's it's not a difficult issue at all. Of course you need have no regard to anyone else about the value of your songs and all the hard work you put into them but, widening the issue a little and you may understand that no one else need have any regard to the value of your songs either - which is why millions of people are quite happy to copy and share music for free, because they don't value it like you clearly do. But legislators can't afford the luxury of wearing blinkers. They have to consider the wider issues and implications if they are to avoid bad laws. As for having a 'strange set of ideas', perhaps they're just different to yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardHimself Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324130073' post='1471118'] Well, if you zoom in and keep your blinkers on then I'd agree with you that's it's not a difficult issue at all. Of course you need have no regard to anyone else about the value of your songs and all the hard work you put into them but, widening the issue a little and you may understand that no one else need have any regard to the value of your songs either - which is why millions of people are quite happy to copy and share music for free, because they don't value it like you clearly do. But legislators can't afford the luxury of wearing blinkers. They have to consider the wider issues and implications if they are to avoid bad laws. As for having a 'strange set of ideas', perhaps they're just different to yours? [/quote] I can see where you're coming from, no matter how much musicians may value their work, that doesn't mean the buying public will in the same way. I don't think it's just music TBH. I think there are a lot of people out there who honestly think that everything they buy, eat, listen to, watch, etc all just appear magically out of thin air and don't appreciate what goes into making them. Edited December 17, 2011 by EdwardHimself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) 20 minutes to write a song that could connect with millions? I can do it in under half that time and restring a bass into the bargain. Including checking the intonation. So don't give me all that bollocks. As for the 'distillation' thing, well, I'm vastly talented and I've had a far more interesting life than most people, so that might help, I suppose. But it also means that - pro rata - my songs are better than everyone elses. Do I care that nobody hears them? Do I f**k. Don't feel sorry for me. I'm fabulously wealthy, so money isn't my 'thing'. For me, it's all about the moral high ground and I'm top of [i]that[/i] heap. [color=#ffffff].[/color] Edited December 17, 2011 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoombung Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Anyone read this yet: [url="http://nsfreepress.com/story/music-devalued"]http://nsfreepress.com/story/music-devalued[/url] $167 for a million plays on Spotify.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceH Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 So...who are these logic-defying musicians whose piece was the 'culmination of a lifetime's work' that then go on to live another 90 years?! Personally I think if they've got an extra (pretty damn generous) lifetime than the rest of us they're lucky enough already. I know a fair few musicians from 60s got into reincarnation but still... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Lawson Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1324068556' post='1470629'] Sorry for Steve but major labels don't hope that he will cease to exist as they are probably unaware of his existence in the first place. edit for tin hat [/quote] As someone else pointed out, you read it wrong - I hope they cease to exist. I have little to no concern what anyone within that particular world thinks of me. As you say, the vast likelihood is that very few people there have any idea who I am, or any inclination to find out. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324129243' post='1471105'] ... but at least they actually go to work every day whereas disaffected youths such as Lennon & McCartney made hundreds of millions from knocking out 3-minute wonders while bunking off school. [/quote] Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha! It's a nice quote and a lovely idea, but so far removed from any aspect of the truth that it's genuinely hilarious. No offence intended, but there are some excellent biographies of The Beatles out there. You could do worse things over Xmas than reading one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Lawson Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='Panamonte' timestamp='1324081223' post='1470793'] I'm not sure if I entirely understand why Steve has taken his music off Spotify - the precise difference between the low payout per stream (which he doesn't object to) and the role of the majors in dictating the payout policy (which he does object to) is maybe a bit too subtle for me. [/quote] Like I said, it's about fair trade. It's the difference between 'fair to me' and 'fair'. If by listening to my music, people are generating revenue for the very organisations who are lobbying so hard to censor the internet in ways that will ruin an awful lot of good and legal things about it, and for the right to do so with impunity and across international boundaries, I don't want to be a part of that. I don't want my music to be used to make money for them, even if it was also making money for me or allowing me to be 'discovered'. As it is (in reference to a later comment in this thread), I have no evidence (as I mentioned in the post) that Spotify was working as a unique discovery point for my music. I also said that at this point, for me, the fair trade argument is more important to me than the vague possibility that some people will discover me on Spotify. If I had evidence that over the last two years of me being on spotify, they'd caused x number of people to come to my shows/start reading my blog/buy or download my music from my site, then it would possibly have been a slightly harder decision to make, but my guess is that I'd have arrived at the same point. I don't think a Spotify-type service run largely to the benefit of the major labels and their lobbyists is good for music, good for culture or good for the internet. At that point, whether or not it's 'good' for me on any speculative level is moot. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkypuncher Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324065016' post='1470584'] Interesting piece. [url="http://www.stevelawson.net/2011/12/why-ive-taken-my-music-off-spotify/"]http://www.stevelaws...ic-off-spotify/[/url] I haven't used it since about a month after I signed up, which was ages ago. [/quote] Wake me up when it's finished zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1324633484' post='1476396'] Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha! It's a nice quote and a lovely idea, but so far removed from any aspect of the truth that it's genuinely hilarious. No offence intended, but there are some excellent biographies of The Beatles out there. You could do worse things over Xmas than reading one. [/quote] Well I've read the Hunter Davis authorised biography as well as the Lennon, Macca and Harrison ones. Perhaps I'm missing the full story having not read Ringo's biog? Of course I was exaggerating a bit, but I'd dispute it's 'so far removed from the truth'. The Beatles were multi-millionnaires by their mid-20s and could have comfortably lived off their ever-increasing royalties from then on. The fact that they chose to continue making music is irrelevant. It's also well known that even at the end of their Beatles career, they we're pulling out songs they had written during their schooldays. Look up One After 909 for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monckyman Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) I think I understand Mr Lawsons point of view, but only if I consider him to be an active opponent of the music industry as we know it. So, independent shows, releases, promotions etc. No label involvement. Fine. But I can`t agree that labels are the Devil, yes they make money, but we are capitalists,we all want to make money.Don`t we? Music as an art.OK ,it is an art, but art is possibly the most expensive thing I can think of.When has Art ever been free? How about you? I use Spotify a lot, it`s my main interface between the musical world and my living room. I happen to think that since I started using it, I and my partner have bought more music than the previous 5 years,simply because of exposure to more music than ever before. I realise that the revenue raised by it, directly or indirectly may not be accountable or deemed enough by some artists,but neither was Radio income in it`s heyday,and most of the royalties from them went to the large artists too. In my opinion, you can use your music (or Art,if you must) to promote itself via software like Spotify, and reach an audience of millions,or you can withdraw and hope it isn`t downloaded in enough quantities to damage your retail sales,providing of course you have an audience aware of your existence. Maybe at the end of all this moaning and arguing, you might even find time to write a few songs. MM Edited December 23, 2011 by Monckyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mykesbass Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='Steve Lawson' timestamp='1324632868' post='1476381'] As someone else pointed out, you read it wrong - I hope they cease to exist. I have little to no concern what anyone within that particular world thinks of me. As you say, the vast likelihood is that very few people there have any idea who I am, or any inclination to find out. Steve [/quote] Apologies Steve, yep, got two words round the wrong way and completely mis-interpreted the meaning! Should have put the reading glasses on rather than rely on the contact lenses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324642763' post='1476551'] The Beatles were multi-millionnaires by their mid-20s and could have comfortably lived off their ever-increasing royalties from then on. The fact that they chose to continue making music is irrelevant. It's also well known that even at the end of their Beatles career, they we're pulling out songs they had written during their schooldays. Look up One After 909 for example. [/quote] Unfortunately, [i]One After 909[/i] is pretty much the only example. By the time they wrote [i]Please Please Me [/i]and [i]Love Me Do,[/i] Lennon & McCartney had been full-time professional musicians for four years, in the process serving an apprenticeship that few young bands today would be able to cope with. Schoolboys they definitely were NOT! Those two songs weren't hits because they were so great, but because there was so little competition and because they had novelty value (musicians writing their own music? whatever next?). Their reputation is based on the work they did between Rubber Soul (1965), or if you prefer Revolver (1966), and the break-up in 1971. They were hugely experienced gigging and studio musicians reaching their creative peak. Hence my astonishment at your description of boys bunking off school to write massive international hits. Edited December 23, 2011 by Happy Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324123463' post='1470996'] Conversely, why should an artist spend 20 minutes writing a song, a couple of hours recording it, and then be able to reap millions from that half-day's work for the rest of their life? Sure, it's an extreme example, but we can all think of plenty of examples so it's a well-know phenomenon. At least artists are actually doing a job of work when performing, which is something the audience can actually relate to. [/quote]20 minutes, 20 hours, 20 weeks wtf has that got to do with anything? Sorry, the above sounds a little like jealousy. [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324123463' post='1470996'] Am I the only person to have felt rather uncomfortable about the sight of multi-millionaire artists such as Sir Cliff Richards lobbying for a change in the law because they felt that 50 years 'protection' of their royalties was not enough? [/quote]Yeah, much better that any royalties ends up in the pockets of some (stereotype alert) [i]overweight, cigar wielding, money-man, [/i]or anyone else who had sod-all to do with the songs creation. Edited December 23, 2011 by SteveK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1324662789' post='1476866'] 20 minutes, 20 hours, 20 weeks wtf has that got to do with anything? Sorry, the above sounds a little like jealousy. [/quote] Damn right it's jealousy. I certainly take Happyjack's point about The Beatles being a pro band from a very early age and having endured an intense apprenticeship to hone their craft and I'd equally agree that their acclaimed Rubber Soul and later output wouldn't have happened without the previous years, but even start to finish, it was all over in less than ten years, which is a remarkably short time really for such an impact on the music industry. But we're getting a bit off the point, which was (I think) the fairness of 50 year, 90 year, or more, royalty protection for a piece of work. Actually, I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm always surprised by inconsistencies in views - in this case the view that it's basically OK for musicians to make tens of millions out of a few years work but it's basically not OK for bankers to do the same sort of thing. Sure, I can hear the arguments that musicians enrich our cultural life (assuming you actually like music, and we all know that millions don't really care for it particularly) and bankers are just parasites, but anyone drawing a pension probably owes more to bankers than they'd like to admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324663722' post='1476884'] Actually, I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm always surprised by inconsistencies in views - in this case the view that it's basically OK for musicians to make tens of millions out of a few years work but it's basically not OK for bankers to do the same sort of thing. [/quote]Oh, come on, comparing musicians to bankers (?)... I've heard it all now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Yeah I know. I've heard bankers say the same about musicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted December 23, 2011 Author Share Posted December 23, 2011 Jesus mate. How many musicians actually make millions out of writing credits? f*** all mate. That's your answer. And bankers are no more parasites than anyone else living in the UK who buy their food and drink and furniture and clothes and technology from producers and sellers who exploit people in poorer countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 But my point was about consistency, not about numbers. How many bankers make millions? You're dead right - f*** all (in relative terms), yet we tend to despise them while adoring the relatively few musicians (and footballers etc) who do. I just find the whole psychology of such things fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardHimself Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324670169' post='1476991'] But my point was about consistency, not about numbers. How many bankers make millions? You're dead right - f*** all (in relative terms), yet we tend to despise them while adoring the relatively few musicians (and footballers etc) who do. I just find the whole psychology of such things fascinating. [/quote] I think the problem people have with bankers is the fact that they continue to pay themselves ever increasing amounts of money whilst everyone else is tightening their belts and their banks are still making losses. I don't think you can hold lennon and mccartney responsible for the global financial crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It could be argued that you can't really blame the banks either. Last I heard, it's not actually possible to force people to take out stupid loans that they can't afford to repay. And now the banks are being blamed because they won't lend as much money as they used to. Banks are a convenient scapegoat and their demonisation helps us to avoid looking into the real problems we all face. I'm not suggesting they're blameless by any means, but neither are they wholly responsible. But hey, it's Christmas so let's not get ourselves too depressed, let's exercise our flexible friends and have a good time - we can always deal with the after-party repercussions later. Er, hang on . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.