Illegal downloading, file-sharing and what i think- what do you think?

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361138328' post='1981812']
Ha, so not anyone who actually makes music then.
[/quote]

Of course it affects people who make music.


[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361138622' post='1981821']
So why does this upset you so much?
Do you think the music industry appreciates your concern?
[/quote]

I expect people to do the right thing, and not actually argue that they should be allowed to continue to not pay for something which they enjoy which should be paid for. Just because somebody can make a perfectly good argument as the why they should do it still does not mean that they should.

[Hot Tub]

The problem here is "the music industry", which doesn't make any money from music. It makes its money from videos, advertising, and "reality" tv shows. It's got nothing to do with music. Look at the history of MTV. (For our younger viewers, that's Music TeleVision). If you want the history of MTV, look it up, I'm not going to go into it here.

As a general rule, professional musicians don't die of starvation. I'm Facebook friends with a guy (bass player) who has done pretty much everything. Seriously, if you've watched tv over the last 30 years, then you've heard him. File sharing doesn't harm these people at all. File sharing, if it harms anyone, only harms a record company, and only in the very shortest of terms, when people download a "current" song. As for the "artists", well, if they're only going to last for one song or one album, then I'm probably not going to download their "music". I download songs one by one, as I want to learn them. Over the years I've ended up with an amazing library of music. I don't think I've contributed to the demise of any band or business.

Musicians survive by playing live. Record companies survive.... unfortunately.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361139281' post='1981839']
Of course it affects people who make music.
[/quote]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361138115' post='1981802']
Oh, nobody really, just record companies, the people who work with record labels and the music industry in general.
[/quote]

Which is it? The effect on people who make music is that they don't need record companies any more.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Mr. Foxen

[icastle]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361137946' post='1981796']
Edit: bah, video not embedding.
[/quote]

Fixed

[Russ]

[b]tl;dr [/b]- Record companies deserve to die. Music and its publication has been democratised by the internet and downloading. Things move on, and the old music business has done nothing to stay ahead.

Simply put, file sharing exists. There's no way for the music industry powers-that-be to stop that. But It's the industry that's hurting, the musicians themselves are in much the same position they were in before. And it's about time - record companies have been abusing musicians for decades now, and they deserve to crumble and die. Musicians never made much from record sales before file-sharing - it all went to everyone else in the supply chain, with a big chunk to the record company, who doled out a pitiful amount to the musicians. For most musicians, an album is basically an audio advertisement for their live shows or their merchandise. With the internet, there are now many ways to completely bypass the bloodsuckers in the music biz, sell yourself and keep all the money. It requires a little more marketing nous and entrepreneurial spirit from the musicians, but the rewards are much greater since you're no longer beholden to these bloated gatekeepers and dictators of taste.

The other side of the coin is that albums used to be really expensive to record and the cost of the recording itself had to be recouped. Nowadays, anybody with a computer, some inexpensive add-on hardware, a copy of Pro Tools and the time to sit through a bunch of YouTube tutorials can record professional-sounding stuff for a fraction of the cost of a studio, producer and engineer. You no longer need to hire Abbey Road and a team of engineers for a month to make a good album. There'll always be work for those on the production side, since some musicians want that kind of input, but they are no longer essential to the process.

The music industry have also totally failed to innovate. They haven't come up with a product that is better than a CD or an MP3 download. The CD is well over 30 years old, and the MP3 format has been around since the early 90s. There are plenty of people out there who are audiophiles and who still value sound quality over convenience - where's the super-high-resolution audio medium and the hardware to reproduce it? Where's the medium with 7.1 surround sound? They made a half-hearted attempt with DVD-Audio, but it died on its arse. All they need is a popular and well-respected musician to record an album using this new format, whatever it may be, make it amazing, and then watch the hardware and albums fly off the shelves, the same way Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits sold millions of CD players back in the 80s. And I suggest they make it an analogue format - vinyl for a new generation. Something that can't be reproduced properly through a computer - despite digital music existing for over 30 years, many vinyl junkies still maintain it doesn't sound as good. And something where the album cover is more than a small thumbnail image on a computer screen.

Yes, I've downloaded a fair bit of music over the years. Most of the time, if I've liked it, I've then gone on to buy it. Sometimes even on CD if I've liked the artwork or packaging. But the next recording I contribute to will be released digitally, probably for free, and, with that in mind, anybody who downloads it, either through an official channel or otherwise, will just be another person who'll have heard the material and who might show up to a gig or buy a T-shirt. Maybe we'll even press a vinyl record with nice cover art for those people who want the physical article. And any money we do make will be pure profit that's not subject to being manipulated out of existence by a record company accountant.

[TimR]

So. Before recorded music, musicians got paid for their time in the same way that practically every single other profession does.

If I was an architect I wouldn't get paid everytime someone walked into a building I designed.

If I worked for Heinz and formulated a new ketchup recipie I wouldn't get paid everytime someone bought ketchup.

Musicians essentially struck a deal with the distributors that everytime they sold a unit then the musician should get a share. No other industry works in this way.

This enabled some musicians to become much more wealthy than their initial efforts warranted. It allowed distinutors and the people who initially invested in the musicians to become far more wealthy than their investment risk warranted.

Far more wealthy than the initial purpose of copyright which was to ensure that musicians were not taken advantage of and were able to continue making music.

Making, recording and distributing music has become easier and cheaper, the rewards are becoming realigned.

It's harder to make money from sales, but then it's harder for everyone to make money now, regardless of their profession.

[redstriper]

This topic seems to come up quite regularly on here and it's interesting how attitudes have changed.
The first time I entered this debate here was about 3 years ago and I was in a minority and got attacked from all sides for my views.
Now, the tide has changed, with more folks accepting the changes and I am pleased.
Not because I want to 'win' an argument on the internet, but because it reflects a wider acceptance in society.

File sharing is part of a greater revolution in our culture, which gives me hope for all our futures - power to the people

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1361144923' post='1981956']
So. Before recorded music, musicians got paid for their time in the same way that practically every single other profession does.

If I was an architect I wouldn't get paid everytime someone walked into a building I designed.

If I worked for Heinz and formulated a new ketchup recipie I wouldn't get paid everytime someone bought ketchup.

Musicians essentially struck a deal with the distributors that everytime they sold a unit then the musician should get a share. No other industry works in this way.

This enabled some musicians to become much more wealthy than their initial efforts warranted. It allowed distinutors and the people who initially invested in the musicians to become far more wealthy than their investment risk warranted.

Far more wealthy than the initial purpose of copyright which was to ensure that musicians were not taken advantage of and were able to continue making music.

Making, recording and distributing music has become easier and cheaper, the rewards are becoming realigned.

It's harder to make money from sales, but then it's harder for everyone to make money now, regardless of their profession.
[/quote]

+1; this is how I see things too. Yes, I have been a professional musician. No, I don't believe it's right to get rich through 'copyright'. An hour's work is worth an hour, whatever your trade, imho.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361145387' post='1981964']
This topic seems to come up quite regularly on here and it's interesting how attitudes have changed.
The first time I entered this debate here was about 3 years ago and I was in a minority and got attacked from all sides for my views.
Now, the tide has changed, with more folks accepting the changes and I am pleased.
Not because I want to 'win' an argument on the internet, but because it reflects a wider acceptance in society.

File sharing is part of a greater revolution in our culture, which gives me hope for all our futures - power to the people
[/quote]

I started off basically in favour of protection of copyright work, but in these discussions, the arguments for were incredibly weak, entirely reliant on false analogies, pretty much brought me round. The persistent use of 'file sharing' to avoid the false term 'illegal downloading' in the UK when taking an anti positionshows up the nastyness, since sharing is a good thing.

[daz]

Hey maybe musicains should make money the old fashioned way. ie: playing live for a flat fee, a percentage, or selling tickets.

Back when Rock n Roll was just a twinkle in his [s]japs[/s] dads eye, the only way for bands to make dosh was to tour. which they did constantly. All you needed was a manager (with a trusty cricket bat.[i] Just in case[/i]) to make sure the band were paid in full.

surely not such a bad life ?

[The Dark Lord]

The great one has spoken on this subject ........

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8571948.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/8571948.stm[/url]

..... and whatever Hugh says is true, infallible and a holy edict which we must all follow and loyally obey without question.

Edited February 18, 2013 by The Dark Lord

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='daz' timestamp='1361167229' post='1982047']
Hey maybe musicains should make money the old fashioned way. ie: playing live for a flat fee, a percentage, or selling tickets.

Back when Rock n Roll was just a twinkle in his [s]japs[/s] dads eye, the only way for bands to make dosh was to tour. which they did constantly. All you needed was a manager (with a trusty cricket bat.[i] Just in case[/i]) to make sure the band were paid in full.

surely not such a bad life ?
[/quote]

Not a bad life, but you wouldn't waste time in the recording studio to make a recording to not make money from it. It would literally get rid of a lot of business. Let's be honest, how many bands do you have on your iPod, or whatever you use to listen to music? So if they were giving out the recordings for free just on the idea that everybody who accepts one will attend a gig at some point in the bands tour, the venues would need to be massive, the tours would be endless, and everybody would be spending an absolute fortune on going to gigs. Obviously everybody would love to go to every gig of their favourite bands, but it's just not reasonable to expect that.


[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361147346' post='1981990']
I started off basically in favour of protection of copyright work, but in these discussions, the arguments for were incredibly weak, entirely reliant on false analogies, pretty much brought me round. The persistent use of 'file sharing' to avoid the false term 'illegal downloading' in the UK when taking an anti positionshows up the nastyness, since sharing is a good thing.
[/quote]

I think you will see from the first post that there are equally as false analogies on the other side. I would say those arguments were particularly weak. Lucky for you, you make a well reasoned argument. I have agreed that most of the analogies are fairly dubious, but that doesn't always mean that the views behind it are necessarily right or wrong.

[MiltyG565]

Any aspirations i have as a musician are based firmly around recording. I'm not saying that i wouldn't tour, but i would like to write and record more than gig. I certainly wouldn't go on a 3 year every-city-in-the-world tour.

[Prunesquallor]

There's a lot on here about musicians and the record industry being somehow separate. It appears to have slipped some peoples' minds that a lot of artists own their own labels. Musicians ARE the industry in many cases.

Here's what Michael Gira of the Swans has to say about his label now:

"It’s unsustainable. And in fact, I’m very proud of what I’ve done with Young God Records, helping people like Devandra Banhart and Akron/Family and James Blackshaw. Helping all these people either gain or expand upon an audience and really investing thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours working with them. Helping produce their records in many cases.

Five years ago I could sustain it. I was getting paid for it so I could live and do the work that God meant me to do. But now, at this point, I’m not continuing the label because there’s no money. I can’t do it. So the people who are on the label right now I’m continuing to work with, but I won’t help anybody else. I won’t bring anybody else into the label because it doesn’t pay anymore."

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='Prunesquallor' timestamp='1361175835' post='1982109']
There's a lot on here about musicians and the record industry being somehow separate. It appears to have slipped some peoples' minds that a lot of artists own their own labels. Musicians ARE the industry in many cases.

Here's what Michael Gira of the Swans has to say about his label now:

"It’s unsustainable. And in fact, I’m very proud of what I’ve done with Young God Records, helping people like Devandra Banhart and Akron/Family and James Blackshaw. Helping all these people either gain or expand upon an audience and really investing thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours working with them. Helping produce their records in many cases.

Five years ago I could sustain it. I was getting paid for it so I could live and do the work that God meant me to do. But now, at this point, I’m not continuing the label because there’s no money. I can’t do it. So the people who are on the label right now I’m continuing to work with, but I won’t help anybody else. I won’t bring anybody else into the label because it doesn’t pay anymore."
[/quote]

I completely agree. There are obviously some very intelligent people on this site, but i think sometimes their intelligence overtakes themselves. Of course the music industry and musicians are ying and yang. The part about asking somebody to invest in something you wouldn't is bull- the amount of money it takes to produce a high quality album, and then marketing that album costs an absolute fortune. Unless you already have a fortune, or assets which you can secure a loan against (which puts a lot of risk in your hands, and you are never the best judge of your own work. You could have something you think is brilliant, but nearly everyone else thinks it's horrible, you will likely loose whatever assets you have you loan against.). Record labels are needed. To say that they aren't involved in making music is just silly.

[RockfordStone]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361168457' post='1982054']
Not a bad life, but you wouldn't waste time in the recording studio to make a recording to not make money from it.
[/quote]

sorry mate but that comment is bollocks. musicians write and record for themselves, cos they wan't to. money isn't the driver behind it.
how many of us here spend time and money in the studio with the intention of making money from it?

i spend hours writing and recording, and have spent a lot of money in studio's and tours with no expectation of making money, if people have thought my music good enough to pay me for then fair play. but i as many muso's do it cos i love music and not money.

if you are going into a studio to make music for the soul intention of making money... then you are in the wrong game

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1361181249' post='1982177']
sorry mate but that comment is bollocks. musicians write and record for themselves, cos they wan't to. money isn't the driver behind it.
how many of us here spend time and money in the studio with the intention of making money from it?

i spend hours writing and recording, and have spent a lot of money in studio's and tours with no expectation of making money, if people have thought my music good enough to pay me for then fair play. but i as many muso's do it cos i love music and not money.

if you are going into a studio to make music for the soul intention of making money... then you are in the wrong game
[/quote]

Of course you are completely right, but you have to look at that in context of everything else here. I agree with what you are saying. I have made my own recordings, and spent a lot of money on buying equipment to record, and spent many many hours researching how to record etc. and i have never made any money from it. But if i wanted to make writing and recording my life, it would be a waste of my time recording it if i was going to give it away for nothing. Writing, sure, write away, you can play those songs live, that would be cool, wouldn't it? yup, it would. But how could you continue to record music, given the time and amount of money it costs to to record, if you won't be able to recoup some of that expense? It's unfeasible and unsustainable as a job or source of income. Of course, it's not just about that, but like i said, how can you do it if you don't have money to live off so you can spend time writing and recording?

[RockfordStone]

but now you are making out that recording is the only element a band uses to make money, which just isn't the case.

the real money makers for bands are touring and performances and then the merch to go with it, which has been the case for a long long time

you have to have the songs to offer something to perform, otherwise 4 blokes standing around for a while isn't much fun.

if i was a plumber, my paid performance would be fixing a sink, but i have to invest time and effort into buying my tools, which i will get no direct income from ever again. after i've fixed the sink i wouldn't expect to earn money every time people drank from it.

Edited February 18, 2013 by RockfordStone

[flyfisher]

Perhaps we should zoom out a bit for a sense of perspective?

When was it that Edison invented audio recording? 100 years ago? Whatever, before that time, there was ONLY live music. Think about that for a minute - it can be quite difficult in our current time of wall-to-wall music emanating from loudspeakers everywhere. The ONLY way to hear music before Edison was to listen to real live musicians playing real live music.

So imagine the revolution that recording brought about. Imagine all those musicians arguing that it would be the end of music because once recorded there would be no more work for real live musicians and everyone would just play the same records over and over, so few musicians could earn a living, so less and less new music would be written. Disaster for the music business!

Except it didn't happen did it? Music adapted to the most revolutionary technology ever - recording. It completely transformed how the world consumed music. Back then, music was inseparable from musicians. if you weren't in the same room as a musician you would hear no music. Simple as that. Today, people can spend their entire lives listening to constant music without ever being in the same room as a real live musician.

The point being that music will always survive, despite whatever technologies are invented. it's the music business that's having problems, not music itself. it's the music business that is going to have to change, whether it likes it or not - not the music. If it wasn't for change, the music industry wouldn't even exist in its current form and it is utterly ludicrous to think that things can be kept the same forever. ANd even if they could, it would be a very bad thing.

[Russ]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361178039' post='1982138']
I completely agree. There are obviously some very intelligent people on this site, but i think sometimes their intelligence overtakes themselves. Of course the music industry and musicians are ying and yang. The part about asking somebody to invest in something you wouldn't is bull- the amount of money it takes to produce a high quality album, and then marketing that album costs an absolute fortune. Unless you already have a fortune, or assets which you can secure a loan against (which puts a lot of risk in your hands, and you are never the best judge of your own work. You could have something you think is brilliant, but nearly everyone else thinks it's horrible, you will likely loose whatever assets you have you loan against.). Record labels are needed. To say that they aren't involved in making music is just silly.
[/quote]

Record companies are not needed. Not any more. All they ever were were glorified marketing agencies and loan sharks anyway. Many people see them as the gatekeepers, the arbiters of taste. In the digital age, that job is now the responsibility of the listeners. The more an artist's work is listened to, shared, added to a Spotify playlist, tweeted about, etc, the more visibility they'll get, the more potential fans they'll reach and the more potential they have to make money from gigging, merch, endorsements, use in other media (soundtracks, adverts and so on), etc.

With cheap DIY recording technology, advances for recording aren't needed anymore so the whole "loan shark" element becomes unnecessary. With social media, you're playing on the same marketing playing field as the labels since social media is the biggest influencer these days. There is basically nothing a label can do for a band these days that they can't do for themselves for little to no expense.

If you like a band, share it. Tell other people. That's how it works these days. Labels are becoming an anachronism.

Milty - have you ever been professionally involved in any other creative field? When you're first trying to break into the field, you've got to spend a lot of your own time (and probably a fair bit of money) on building a portfolio. A recording is a musician's portfolio. The fact that they've got to self-finance it just means they're in the same position as every other aspiring creative professional. Once you get the gig (literally and metaphorically) you find yourself in the same boat as more or less any other small business - it's just that now the customers have changed from the labels to the fans themselves, with various upselling opportunities on the back of your loss leader (your recordings).

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='Russ' timestamp='1361142702' post='1981929']
There are plenty of people out there who are audiophiles and who still value sound quality over convenience - where's the super-high-resolution audio medium and the hardware to reproduce it? [/quote]

Like Flac or high-bitrate MP3?


[quote]All they need is a popular and well-respected musician to record an album using this new format, whatever it may be, make it amazing, and then watch the hardware and albums fly off the shelves, the same way Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits sold millions of CD players back in the 80s. And I suggest they make it an analogue format - vinyl for a new generation. Something that can't be reproduced properly through a computer - despite digital music existing for over 30 years, many vinyl junkies still maintain it doesn't sound as good. [/quote]

Vinyl junkies are a dying breed (and they're demonstrably wrong that digital doesn't sound as good, but thats another debate). People aren't going to buy new hardware to buy a new album anymore. They just won't. CDs flew off the shelves because the benefits of cds over vinyl were obvious to everyone---smaller, harder to damage, etc. The benefits of some new format over what we have at the moment will be very technical and not very accessible to the public---they just won't care.

[Russ]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1361183921' post='1982247']
Like Flac or high-bitrate MP3?

Vinyl junkies are a dying breed (and they're demonstrably wrong that digital doesn't sound as good, but thats another debate). People aren't going to buy new hardware to buy a new album anymore. They just won't. CDs flew off the shelves because the benefits of cds over vinyl were obvious to everyone---smaller, harder to damage, etc. The benefits of some new format over what we have at the moment will be very technical and not very accessible to the public---they just won't care.
[/quote]

No. FLAC and high bitrate MP3 are still 44.1KHz but are lossless (FLAC), or less lossy with less artifacting (MP3). FLAC is the same as a CD. High bitrate MP3s are still not as good as a CD.

And whether a new physical audio format can take off is, like most technology these days, entirely dependent on content. If there's enough great showcase material for a new format that highlights what it can do that other formats can't, then there's going to be an audience for it.

Vinyl junkies aren't as much of a dying breed as you think, they're just becoming much more genre-specific. There's still quite a lot of people out there who are buying the high-end turntables, top-end speakers, etc, but they're mostly listeners of classical, jazz, reggae, prog rock and some kinds of dance music. These are almost always people who take the time to listen and concentrate on their music rather than having it as audio wallpaper. But these people will often also use digital formats when they're out and about, but prefer vinyl for home listening.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1361183298' post='1982232']
if i was a plumber, my paid performance would be fixing a sink, but i have to invest time and effort into buying my tools, which i will get no direct income from ever again. after i've fixed the sink i wouldn't expect to earn money every time people drank from it.
[/quote]

See my original post.


[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1361183298' post='1982232']
but now you are making out that recording is the only element a band uses to make money, which just isn't the case.

the real money makers for bands are touring and performances and then the merch to go with it, which has been the case for a long long time

you have to have the songs to offer something to perform, otherwise 4 blokes standing around for a while isn't much fun.
[/quote]

No i'm not. Some musicians just record and don't gig, so yes, CD's or digital downloads and maybe a bit of merch is most of their income, and others gig heavily, but regardless of that, sales of the recordings make them money too.

Dude. we really aren't disagreeing here, you're kind of just taking things that i have said out of context.

[redstriper]

I have been writing and recording music for many years including 10 years signed to EMI.
Now I produce music with a band on basic gear in my front room.
We make our own CDs to sell at gigs and via other outlets.
We don't sell as many as I used to, but we make more money than we would if a record label was taking the lion's share and all our profits go straight to us.
We give away our music freely for anyone wanting to download it and this has led to airplay and gigs in various new territories.
Airplay has always been the most lucrative form of income for most musicians like me, currently the BBC pay approx. £15 per minute for radio One and around £1.00 per minute for local stations.
There are many thousands of radio stations all over the world and I receive revenue from Japan, USA, Europe and the far east, mostly due to people hearing our music from free downloads.
Only last night, I had an email from a national radio station offering to play our music - I will inform PRS and they will collect our royalties.
We also play gigs and festivals, for which we receive fees and PRS royalties, which increase with the size of gig.
There are other ways of making money in the music business, but this model suits us and we are in total control of it.
There are many other musicians like us, using the new models to produce and distribute their music, instead of moaning about the good old days.
I believe this is the best time ever to be a musician, with so many ways to take control and get your music heard.
We would have been amazed back in the 70s to think this would be possible and I am happy to be part of the revolution.

We don't do it to make money and we are not rich, but we are happy

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361185775' post='1982284']
I have been writing and recording music for many years including 10 years signed to EMI.
Now I produce music with a band on basic gear in my front room.
We make our own CDs to sell at gigs and via other outlets.
We don't sell as many as I used to, but we make more money than we would if a record label was taking the lion's share and all our profits go straight to us.
We give away our music freely for anyone wanting to download it and this has led to airplay and gigs in various new territories.
Airplay has always been the most lucrative form of income for most musicians like me, currently the BBC pay approx. £15 per minute for radio One and around £1.00 per minute for local stations.
There are many thousands of radio stations all over the world and I receive revenue from Japan, USA, Europe and the far east, mostly due to people hearing our music from free downloads.
Only last night, I had an email from a national radio station offering to play our music - I will inform PRS and they will collect our royalties.
We also play gigs and festivals, for which we receive fees and PRS royalties, which increase with the size of gig.
There are other ways of making money in the music business, but this model suits us and we are in total control of it.
There are many other musicians like us, using the new models to produce and distribute their music, instead of moaning about the good old days.
I believe this is the best time ever to be a musician, with so many ways to take control and get your music heard.
We would have been amazed back in the 70s to think this would be possible and I am happy to be part of the revolution.

We don't do it to make money and we are not rich, but we are happy
[/quote]

That's great, and i'm happy that it's working for you. But this thread was more born out of getting music that hasn't been paid for when it should be. It has gone off in a bit of a tangent, i admit, but i never said that you couldn't be successful in the music industry without a label. That would just be a load of balls, and you are right, there are plenty of ways today to make music, and to make money from that music, and yeah, i wouldn't know about the past really, but it probably is the best time for music.

With regards to the loan shark marketing labels- it's a bit of an over-simplification. They provide a service which is quite effective. No, they aren't the be all and end all in how to be successful in the music industry, of course being signed means you need to work incredibly hard to make it work, but they will provide the collateral and marketing that you need to make a great album and to get it out there and heard, so that they and you can make money from it. Yup, you definitely can do it all without a label, but they are still relevant in the music industry today. But this still isn't the purpose of this thread.