What people pushing this scenario always neglect to remember is that a band playing too frequently in their home area rapidly burns out their audience. In fact many bands do much worse in their home area than they do elsewhere when it comes to draw. This is particularly true of midlevel acts.

Why do I mention touring???
Seriously, you really do take the biscuit.
You've been on this forum for several months right? You've been following most of the threads and contributing to many right?
Please find anywhere where I said touring was going to provide the income lost through filesharing.
In fact, it's not my argument, it's the argument of the pirates, the free music lobby. You knew that didn't you? Or have you not been reading this forum?
Just about every thread about the fall in income from recording has included numerous posts suggesting playing live is the only way to make money in the new paradigm.
It's NOT my idea. It's NOT my 'OLD way', or the way I am 'used too'.
This really does deserve the

I'm addressing the big idea from the piracy apologists.
I'm against it. I think it's naive and not based in real world economics.
But there you go, we agree. We finally agree on something.
Playing live isn't going to replace income from record sales.
Next time one of the free music advocates tosses the suggestion into the pot on this forum, maybe you'll back me (for once).

EXACTLY!!!!

The problem is that there doesn't appear to be any clear way at all for the vast majority of (working, competent, professional) musicians to make money under the so-called "new paradigm". Or rather, there doesn't seem to be any way to make money FOR THEMSELVES; there are plenty of ways for them to make money for other people - and especially for big corporations.

If it's not your question, why are you asking it?

Ya... once again, you're arguing with yourself, dude. I think it's quite possible for some bands to earn a better living playing more live shows (replace income). I don't think there's a single answer though, which appears to be what you are looking for.

Since you are in the industry, I think you might be better positioned to answer the question. I seem to remember a thread where you suggested musicians were going back out on the road to make money, as a result of loss of income from CD sales... or am I remembering incorrectly? if that's so, wouldn't it follow that artists are able to replace CD sales income loss with some touring income?

I'll back you if you actually make a statement that is not all or nothing. To you, either touring is the answer, or it's not... except... IMHO maybe it's part of the answer, or maybe it's part of the answer for some bands but not others? Maybe there's no one answer? Maybe some will not tour and make youtube videos? Maybe some will just tour and be OK?

Do you really think that Imogen Heap's touring troubles mean it is not possible for anyone to make up some of CD sales loss by touring?

Do you think that Pomplamoose has proven that youtube plays is the answer?

Of course not. There is no one answer, IMHO.

That's a fair point, as I don't think the situation is played out yet. There are clearly musicians who are taking advantage of the new paradigm and making more money, but that doesn't seem to be the majority.

OK... should any new paradigm provide equal opportunity to all musicians? Things change, and sometimes not for the better.

it appears the issue is much broader than just imogen heap...
I guess touring isn't going to save music . . .

"New paradigm"?????

What "New Paradigm"??????

I don't see any new paradigm at all. All I see is a confused, chaotic mess as people try to figure out some way to survive after the primary source of income in the industry has been gutted by thieves. And not even by professional thieves, which would be bad enough, but by a rampaging mob of mindless amateurs who don't have the slightest idea of the damage they're doing and don't care - some of them are so out to lunch that they actually think they're doing musicians a favor by robbing them of their livelihood.

That's not a paradigm, it's a disaster.

Sure. You call it "new disaster." I'll call it new paradigm. I'm a glass full kind of person.

A "paradigm" generally refers to something that works.

Well Put John.....There is no new music business model, just a dying death of professional produced and recorded music......

I listen to old classic radio, stones, beatles, Bon Jovi, who is making music like this anymore.. everything today really sounds like crap....

As a fully recapp my 3 studer A820 24 track machines.. I am going back to analog......f^%$#((ck digital

Your glass is certainly full!
(of something)

Why is it that the "new paradigm" or "new reality" or "new way" or "web2.0" or "future model" or "revolution".... ALL involve me being robbed? Does this not seem like a twisted viewpoint to anyone else?
Why am i the bad guy, when all i want is current laws to be enforced? That would kill any need for a "new paradigm"... which is interchangable with "no direct income" from your product.

Really?
I thought I was discussing the 'new paradigm' with the many, many people who come on this forum and post that playing live is the future. That's where the money is.
I was already talking about the hard job internet bands seemingly had to translate their online notoriety into finance for an International tour when you butted in.
Bob asked if the internet had fostered any 'major international' act.
You proposed Pomplamoose as an example of 'success' via the web.
That was your choice not mine.
When their touring schedule consists of a support slot in San Francisco, it only makes my point for me.

Yes, that's a different subject and not a suitable one for this forum. However I must say that the vast majority of people involved in the music business do not agree with your viewpoint.

I'd also like to point out that over the past year or so purveyors of adult films have taken a leading role in the fight against piracy.

I doesn't really matter because deep packet inspection doesn't really work anyway because it's really not that deep. How many layers of alternate zip and rar compression accompanied by breaking the files into sections of different size for each level of compression, plus encryption, are they going to go through looking for signatures? How slow can they make the process before it's intolerable?

AFAIK right now their "deep" inspection looks through one layer.

Of course right now these measures aren't really in use by music pirates and if they had to be that would probably cut the level of music piracy by at least 50%. Music pirates aren't as savvy as software pirates and having to run each music file through multiple levels of zip and rar decoding is probably more hassle than they'd put up with.

And of course those techniques work better on larger files, so they're less likely to be used on individual songs.

Well, we can start with the basic freedom of speech and artistic expression that people like Mr. Cross appear to be eager to deny us.

It is a primary cause, yes. There are other contributing factors, but piracy is almost certainly the primary cause of loss of revenue.

No. But it can be reduced to a level where it no longer constitutes a serious problem.

Of course it's wrong. Only a flaming a-hole would argue otherwise.

Do you have references? I'm very interested in cases like this.

What was the documentary? Who is the legal content owner?

This is likely another case of a ham-fisted major overstepping themselves and making everybody else look bad by association.

Or it's another case of made-up propaganda.

Please give us details.

Ah, yes - Techdirt, that leading freetard apologist.

Yep. Propaganda.

In all fairness that slump was when the majors lost sight of the demands of the marketplace when punk rock hit and they were heavily invested in arena rock and disco bands. They made a lot of pretty silly excuses for the failure of their A&R departments back then - and also provided the impetus for the modern indie label movement.

It was still misuse of the DMCA. The company who asked YouTube to remove the video wasn't the owner of the content.

John,

I'm not quite sure this applies to the European markets of that time.
The various European charts were packed with independent releases, or major label punk/post punk artists.

Maybe that's why Chris said: "I honestly can't remember a 'sky is falling' moment in 1980."
There was a regular gold rush in the early 80s, as far as I can remember.

By the late 70s the independent labels had successfully demonstrated that it was possible to sell significant numbers of records with very low production costs. Of course the majors picked up on that. They either lured promising indie acts into signing with them, or made deals with anyone capable of holding a guitar or finding the power switch on a synth. Because it was so easy to make insane amounts of money with very little effort.

It seemed like everybody could be a "star". Of course it backfired after a while. The gatekeepers just weren't very good at gatekeeping. No sufficient quality control. That gold rush ended in 1983/84, I'd say. For about three years the US had lost its dominance over the European markets. And the American industry certainly wasn't very happy about that. The first step to reclaiming the old position probably was the release of Michael Jackson's Thriller. I'm quite convinced Thriller would have bombed over here, had it been released in, say, '81.

As for the subject of "Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it. ": Daniel Miller, the founder of Mute Records, possibly the most successful British independent label of all time, said it was necessary for him to sell his label to EMI a few years ago. With the advent of broadband connections Mute's market in Germany virtually disappeared over night. I'm more inclined to trust Daniel Miller's word on it, than the freetards' rationalisations. Especially when it confirms my personal experience. Unauthorised downloads DO harm artists and labels. I'm fairly optimistic that we will find a way out of this mess within the next five years. Another five years and there's a new generation of listeners and fans who will have no idea why illegal downloads were such an issue in the first place.

Piracy sucks. No question.

However, the parts of the new paradigm I like include ability to record in my garage with super high quality for very low cost, the ability to distribute my music to anyone in the world for low cost, the ability to freely post promotional HD music videos I've created for anyone to watch, etc. I understand it sucks to have your music taken without payment, but that is just one aspect of where we are today. As a music listener, the ability to download almost any song I want from iTunes or Amazon, the ability to find an online radio station that plays music I like when I want to her it, the ability to find information about the most obscure music/genre and hear samples.

It's not all bad.

I think options are great.
Technology and equipment advances are wonderful, lowering the price of admission - great.
People went ApeSh*t over "big bad labels" in a false-misguided crusade, and in turn screwed the little guy even harder than the labels ever could...
A few cases of questionable accounting turned into full-on anarchy, the musician in the middle was the casualty.

Lets not let the silly-con valley investment bankers off the hook. If they hadn't put up millions in a legal defense of Napster an injunction would have stopped the propagation of mass file looting dead in its tracks.

You should watch this video Ian posted:
"Super Agent" Ari Emanuel on the Web's Impact on Entertainment [VIDEO]

You keep asking for hard data, while attempting to diminish the evidence from those of us who are experiencing this first hand. This guy (Ari Emanuel) covers most of the topics we've been discussing lately. He pretty much echoes what I've said, and a bunch of others here, many who work in the industry.
Frightening that's he's seems to write off the music industry as a lost cause already.
Some of the open questions express the sentiments you've posted here.

Yes, I've been talking about that for a while on the forum.
I was in America in 1980 and there was an independent movement there also. Maybe it took longer for the stadium bands to retreat a little in comparison to the new blood.
Certainly I toured the USA with post punk, indie bands in the mid-80's and found a very enthusiastic audience there.

Me too. Sad story.

Cool, will do.

I don't "diminish" any "hard evidence." Anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily representative of a trend. I have a friend who is a full timer who is busier than ever. Does that mean I can extrapolate that out to suggest that San Francisco musicians are doing great? Of course not.

It might be, the way it currently exists.

I will watch it when I have time. Thanks.

'Hard evidence' is not easy to establish in the creative arts.


It can be more valuable if it's pretty overwhelming, as opposed to the odd case.

Ari Emanual couldn't be more different to me, and yet he's another who sees the same things playing out that I do.
He's also plugged into the tech industries. Talking to them regularly, and involved in detailed negotiations with them.

This is true. The problem I spoke of was one of the US record industry.

Except that you don't actually have that.

You THINK you record in your garage at "super high quality" - but you don't. Depending on your gear and acoustics you can record at barely acceptable to fair quality. You can't come close to competing with professional studios. Sorry, you just can't.

With my band in "my little home studio" we just made the change to preproduction recording to a typical 24 channel DAW to tracking for an album on a 2 inch Studer tape machine. Nothing else changed much but the difference in quality was nothing short of STUNNING. I'm sorry, but affordable prosumer gear just does not deliver "super high quality". For that you need professional equipment.

So yes, your "revolution" represents a definite step downward in quality.

As far a distributing anywhere in the world goes - what's the point if you don't get paid for your work? I've probably spent over $35,000 on recording gear so far to make a professional quality album. I'd like to be able to make some of that back.