Here Today... Gone To Hell!

By way of gnrdaily.com & jukebo.cx


Turning A Bicycle Into A Car - by Bumblefoot

I?ve been an independent musician all my life. I?ve dabbled in business with the ?music industry?, 99% of it a disappointing experience. More like your worst nightmare. I?ve always pushed the idea that musicians should be self-sufficient, and shouldn?t sell their souls and empower an industry that can?t support them. I write my own songs, engineer my own recordings, manufacture and distribute my own CDs, arrange my own promo and tours. In the past I?ve posted unreleased recordings of my band on download sites for those that might enjoy it. I post full songs on MP3 sites like MySpace. I make MP3s of CDs I?ve bought. I download MP3s of obscure albums I bought as a kid but can no longer find.

I also play guitar in a well-known band that is often faced with internet-based drama, from rumors that misinform the public to the spread of leaked recordings that misrepresent the band?s music. That makes me an unknown, unsigned artist in a major-label rock band, who funds his own albums as a little D.I.Y. label but is illegally downloaded in proportion to the exposure of the major-label band, and I?m an illegal downloader myself. Kinda puts me in the vast gray area between sides of the tired ol? issue of downloading.

Overheard a good conversation about it the other day. Went something like this?

?????????????-

I bought 1000 albums, and then CDs, over the past twenty years. I bought them once, why should I have to buy them again every time there?s a new format? Isn?t it ok to just make my own MP3s so my music collection can be portable? And if so, why isn?t it ok to download the MP3s from someone else, rather than making them myself?

You don?t have to re-buy your albums in a new format - if you want to listen to the albums you bought, dust off your turntable and play your albums. Buying one thing doesn?t entitle you to the other - buying a bicycle doesn?t give you the right to a free car.

OK, but if I can turn my bicycle into a car, why can?t I still ride it?

You?re buying the objects that carry the music, not the music. Today, the physical object is not something you hold in your hand, the physical object is a file on your drive - you need to buy the file.

OK, what if I -want- to buy files of an album that?s out-of-print and unavailable. Isn?t it ok to download MP3s from someone who has the album, rather than going without the music?

Who says you can have everything you want?

Yeah, but if there?s nothing available to buy, no one?s losing a sale, so what?s the harm in just letting me enjoy the music that someone else wants to share with me? Idealistically, maybe people will start getting into the band again, they end up with one of the songs licensed for a big movie, and it revives their careers and music??

You don?t own the rights to the songs to make these decisions.

OK, well a music career doesn?t go very far without listeners, so you shouldn?t undermine our importance and strength.

It sounds like you?re fighting to take away our power to govern our own music.

Sure, we?ve been treated like we?re the enemy for a while now, now there?s opposition.

When you steal from us, you are the enemy.

You?ve denied us options and don?t listen to what we want, and make things difficult for us. We started downloading as the new way of getting music, and you sued children, took away our favorite websites, tried to destroy everything instead of being part of everything. You could have easily embraced downloading ten years ago instead of putting us through unnecessary crap all this time. We had all these great sites for getting independent music like mp3.com and the old Napster, and you killed them.

No, YOU killed independent music. You took artists that pay out their pocket for studio time, manufacturing, everything, people who barely make a living selling 1000 CDs but do it for the love, and you put their albums on Torrent sites and stole half the food out of their families? mouths.

Well, whoever downloaded those albums obviously didn?t like them enough to go out and buy them, so they didn?t lose a sale. If you like an album that much, you?ll show your support, and buy the album. It?s like getting a free sample at a supermarket - if you didn?t like the album enough to buy it, you wouldn?t have bought it anyway, whether there was a free sample or not. But at least there was a free sample - if anything, that free sample might have created more sales.

It?s not a free sample, it?s a free entire-product - like giving away a whole movie instead of a preview. And do you really think a 12-year-old kid is gonna go ask his mom to buy an album for him, when he can just quietly steal it off a torrent site?

OK, but the kid is gonna become a fan of the band, maybe enough of one to go to shows, buy merch, buy the next album.

There won?t be a next album, because too many people stole the first one.

OK, well at least there are ways for indie artists who can?t get on iTunes to be part of the system - stuff like SNOCAP on MySpace.

The music industry is dying?

It should. It?s a flawed system that leaves artists starving and labels scurrying, it doesn?t work.

At least it was a system that didn?t leave an open door for people to give into the temptation to steal. We want to get your spending money, but we can?t ?sign? every kid on myspace that sells his own music on there. I guess we?ll have to wait for enough kids on myspace to break copyright laws, sue myspace, take over myspace, and turn the site into something that benefits the industry.

Go ahead. We?ll just open another site to give us what we want. And another, and another.

Great, together we?ll keep lawyers rich.

You?re only complaining because there?s nothing keeping -you- rich. We?re simply not satisfied doing business with you anymore - we?re in an age where we?re willing to trade a little sound quality for a little more convenience and access to a lot more music than you make available. We stopped buying CDs because you stopped supporting artists and art, and don?t give us enough quality and diversity. A band like Pink Floyd would have never given us "The Wall" or "Dark Side Of the Moon" if they were signed today, because you would have dropped them after their first album didn?t sell enough.

Their album wouldn?t have sold enough because you would have illegally downloaded away all the reportable sales.

So you?re saying that the consumer killed music and the music industry?

Are you saying the consumer holds no accountability for how the stealing added up?

Are YOU saying that the industry holds no accountability for how they treated us when we got on board with the new downloading technology and the industry refused to be part of it, and gave us no choice but to move ahead without them and trade our own MP3s?

?????????????-

I buy music, I steal music. I also sell music. People buy my music, people also steal my music.

In the end, people just want their music. And we?ll get it the easiest way we can.

Posted by Bumblefoot on Thu 10 May @ 8:02 pm

in other words dont download the leaks he wants the royalties!

The whole thing is kind of contradictory...

I mean he says downloaders are killing the industry, but he does it himself.
And he says the industry dying might be a good thing.

I don't know what to make of it yet, but it's an interesting "editorial."

contradictory???? its meant to be an argument between two people, showing both sides of the argument.  Of course its gonna be contradictory if you read it as one person's thoughts!

Of course it's contradictory.? There are no easy answers to this issue.?

The internet has changed the music industry.? Forever.? Period.? End of story.? There's no going back.

Ron's a really smart, interesting dude.? I always enjoy hearing what he has to say.? Axl's so very lucky to have Ron Thal on his team.? That guy's done more for Guns N' Roses than anyone since the early 90's.

I don't see how die-hards listening to demos or boots hurts though.  Axl wasn't going to release these demos anyways.  He's not losing money.  If demo leaks are the worst he has to put up with, then I think he should just learn to cope. 

I can understand the gripe about leaks misrepresenting the band, but I think Axl makes that an issue when it doesn't have to be.  The number of people who care enough about CD to download leaks is sooooooo small.  When Axl throws a shit fit about it, it attracts much more media attention.  Then it ends up on Rolling Stone or some shit, and that could do harm.  But if Axl wouldn't try to be such a control freak and could just be cool with the fact that his most loyal, must long-suffering fans had a few crappy demos during the wait, then maybe the leaks would be a quiet thing between fans and wouldn't have to get all the way to the mainstream press.

How can you not download something, if you know its a 50/50 chance that it's coming out or not....?  That's the question that needs to be thrown to Axl so he understands our frustration.

Ok, the opposing viewpoints makes more sense. ?However I still think it IS contradictory in its own way.



I agree almost completely! ?I really like Ron and what he has brought to the band. ?

The only thing I have to say is as far as I'm concerned, Axl can take his time. ?When it's ready and released, i'll be there to buy 2 copies. ?Until then, I'll just be chilling. ?8)

I feel like I download responsibly.  I don't do it to cheat artists.  If I LIKE what I download, I delete and buy.  If I dislike what I download, I delete and don't buy. 

One thing I think is missing from the "argument" is about the possibility of returning albums.  Music is one of VERY FEW items that, once opened, cannot be returned.  I don't download to rip off artists...I do it because I've been ripped off one too many times.  In the pre-downloading era, you'd hear a cool single, buy an album, and it'd have twelve other tracks that were inferior to the single.  I'm sure it's happened to most of us.  But, when you buy an album like that, you can't return it to get your money back.  If I order dinner, and it's nasty or cold, then I can get my money back.  If I buy a TV and it's too big for my entertainment center, I can get my money back.  But not with music.  Hell, the comparison can't even really be carried over to DVDs!  After all, you can go to see a movie for 1/3-1/2 the price of eventually owning it, and most of that cost is for the experience of GOING to the movie, rather than knowing what it's about.  You can even RENT the movie, for $2-3, before buying.  In other words, you know EXACTLY what you're getting.  But not with music.  Someone HAS to buy it first, to take that risk that it will be a rip-off.   

Now, if the music industry wants to appeal to people like me to NOT download, then they should do a LOT more of what Nine Inch Nails just did, which is to stream the entire album on a website.  I didn't want to STEAL it!  I wanted to HEAR it, so I could decide if it was WORTH buying!  And I appreciate an artist that's confident enough in the quality of his/her/their music to allow me to hear it in its entirety before buying it. 

If the music industry wants to know why album sales decline, they can look to themselves!  For years, they've produced an inferior product, and charged for it the same as if it's a great product.  Led Zeppelin IV probably costs about the same as an album by "Fergie."  ::)  But, I'm willing to bet there's a difference...   :hihi: 

I can understand the point of view the musicians have about downloading,but in the case with GN'R making the fans wait for son long it shouldn't really surprise Axl that the fans are downloading anything that they can find.I download most of my favorite music by my favorite bands and then I'll go out and buy it if I like it,so not everyone that downloads any music just burn it to cd's and sell it,unless ofcourse they're live boots of shows,even then I still won't buy them because for some reason the so called "traders" sell for really high prices,but anyway back on topic.I will download anything I want but I still buy the product either way. :smoking:

I for one am not bying something I don't know anything about. If I don't like the preview you're not getting my money.

Downloading can be such a preview.

This is an old article, but it's interesting in that it cites evidence that "illegal downloaders" spend much more money on music than other fans do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm

To be fair, so can checking out myspace and iTunes.  Myspace often lets you hear complete songs without the option of downloading, and iTunes lets you "preview" each track to hopefully get a feel for the song.

That said, I feel much better when I've heard enough COMPLETE songs to know that I'll be getting my moneys worth and feel satisfied with an album I buy.  As said elsewhere, too many times a great single was used to sell an album of inferior songs to unsuspecting (if not misled) buyers.  I find myself in the camp of the self-proclaimed "ethically responsible downloader" - who uses the option sparingly and solely for the purpose of making the decision of whether or not to buy an album, or to just purchase the individual song(s) I like.  Given the iTunes and myspace options, it's been literally years since I've downloaded any song that I could pay for somewhere else...

Bumblefoot presents some valid points, it makes me wish the music industry was still like it was in 1987.

That's not what I took away from what he said at all. If all Ron was worried about was money, he'd have just posted a message saying "Don't download the leaks, I want the royalties".

He took the time to start an interesting debate on the subject then posted a point/counterpoint that he'd overheard.

I agree with Ron that the music industry needs a revolution and control needs to be back with the artist.  I also agree that downloading tracks isn't ripping the artist off in respect of if you like, you buy.  The music industry is so backwards it seems the lawyers are getting their pennies or dimes.

I have d/l gnr tracks from Chin Dem in anticipation for the release. I have been into GNR since they first released back in the 80s and I know I will buy it regardless.  Am I wrong? after all the waiting? I think not!  and in the early days we used to trade cassette tapes with friends to get the PREVIEWS and then later buy the Magazines and buy the posters and buy the 12inch buy the patches for our jackets buy the bandanas buy the posters buy the other shit that i haven't mentioned. This d/ling is just another method to it, cassette tapes were traded in the exact same manner but obviously the internet makes things more available.  Its the same thing on a grand scale. I personally don't care and if previewing is wrong then stop it and watch what happens to musicians!!!!! If we can't hear it then what?

i wasn't trying to slate ron or anything, i was just joking around, perhaps i should've put a smiley  :hihi:

anyway for what its worth i think there are both pro's and cons to the issue, and for what its worth i dont think the industry will ever recover form the downloaders. by recover i mean make millions instead of billions.

I believe artists gets the most from touring anyway. Most income from records go to the record companies.

The artists who still make quality music have not been hurt that badly, as most of the big money to be made in music is out on the road.

The artists who have been hurt the most by downloading are those that used to have 1 or 2 good songs and an album full of filler stuff. People used to have to buy their whole album to get the song they wanted, now you can just download the song if you're really only looking for one.

This will hopefully push more artists to make better music throughout the whole album, as that is becoming one of the only ways to really push the idea of buying an album. The lack of record sales dollars for the record companies should also have the effect of decreasing the outrageous advances artists used to get. By not receiving millions and millions up front the way artists used to get in the late 80's/ early 90's, they will be forced to get their act together and get focused about recording a record and getting out on the road to earn their money. Without having an everlasting cushion to sit on, artists will hopefully become more motivated, which will in turn hopefully lead to a generation of better music to come.

What I seem to be hearing a lot of is people unhappy with the thought of taking a risk and maybe, just maybe, having a pleasant surprise.   I've bought albums on the recommendations of friends or music journalists whose tastes I know to be similar to my own, and yes sometimes I have been disappointed with the outcome.  But it doesn't make me want to stop taking a chance.

I'm not sure but perhaps it's merely an expression of the attitude prevalent in today's society that it's not only possible, but indeed it's our right, to have our personal expectations met in full.  Or maybe, people today are just more demanding, I don't know.

However, I do know that it's possible to resist the lure of illegal downloads; it's called self-control.   : ok:

that was the longest, most drawn out fake dialogue i've ever read. ?All of the points nicely danced around one another and whenever there was nothing to say, the response was "you're killing the music industry!" or "our families are starving!" blah blah. ?Also, it appears even bumblefoot steals music and is completely indifferent towards it all... so what the hell was the point of posting it.

Yes all people steal music, but the bands that I love, I will go out of my way to purchase their albums, like most people. ?But if I'm checking out an artist for the first time (i.e. - Bumblefoot's music) I'm not going to blow $15 for an 10 song album filled with potentially mediocre songs. ?But since i've checked them out, I've grown to love some of them (i.e. - a friend gave me a couple ryan adams albums and I have since fallen in love with that music and make it a point to buy the new CD's.)

This, I feel, is the best philosophy to have on the issue.

Personally, i completely agree with Ron.  I think the industry is currently in dire need of reformation, around the internet.  Itunes is undoubtedly leading the charge, but it needs more power to itself.  I think Apple ought to make their own record label (beatles jokes aside) and that would really stir things up.

On the other note, i think that I myself am a perfect example of what Ron is talking about. 

I'm 17, and using bittorrent, i downloaded Appetite for Destruction.  I now own all Gnr albums.  I downloaded Led Zep IV, and i know own nearly ever Led Zep album.  I could name various other groups who I've heard through bittorrent, and since paid money too.  I only ever heard the music of these groups through the internet, as for one reason or other, there are no classic/hard rock stations where I live. 

So I am technically a downloading motherfucker.  But I have given Gnr plenty of my money, and intend to support them in any concerts that should come to the UK.  So surely I should be encouraged...not sued and chased by these guys. 

Having read this, I have a lot more respect for bumblefoot, I gotta say. 

I think its difficult to speak to what does and does not hurt the artists involved when *you* aren't an artist, and it's not your music being shared/stolen/dowloaded/previewed/insert-you-own-word-choice-here. ?I'm sure the situation varies for many artists depending on their differing levels of popularity and success, which makes the ability to generalize in this situation increasingly difficult.

I believe downloading without the artists receiving compensation -in whatever form- is wrong. ?It doesn't matter to me if they make more money by touring or not. ?Furthermore, I don't feel it's my place to presume where an artists' money comes from, let alone how much they might legitimately depend on income from album sales in order to continue doing what they love and make a living in the process.

To me, digital music - in all of it's forms and aliases - is both a) a means to decide on which albums become part of my collection and b) a safeguard to ensure that I put my money into an album that I (subjectively) feel is worth owning. ?Too many times, I've bought an album because I love the single only to find 11 additional crap-tastic tracks that sound like a different band recorded them.

Then again, I'm a guy who loves buying CDs and albums - tangible, tear-the-wrapper-off, CD's with album artwork, booklet inserts, liner notes, etc. - the whole package the way the artists intended it to be consumed. ? I'm sure I'm in the increasing minority, but I'm a sucker like that. ? :beer:

Count me in to that minority too!  And that includes hearing an album with the tracks in the order in which the artist intended it ; I can't bear any of that shuffling tracks business either.   :D

It's true. It seems I actually like CD's I buy more than those I download. The whole experience around it really, reading the lyrics and studying the cover while listening...  :drool:

Interesting to hear Ron Thal say this - he didn't condemn it as such, he said it misrepresented the bands music, but he didn't condemn anyone for downloading it, he definately understands why we do it, which is kinda cool.

I wish we could just buy music directly from artists and cut out the huge asshole corporations that ran their industry in a way that totally gave way to the rise of internet downloading.  Now those dinosaurs are wasting their time and money trying to keep the future from happening.  I say fuck them.

I think it would be cool that if you were into an artist and wanted to get a new album from them, you could pay them fifteen bucks (or the price of a CD) which they would use to create new music and live off of.  As long as they're loyal to their fans and hardworking, there's no reason to think their fanbase wouldn't continue to support their work as an artist.  Kinda like how Izzy does it.  Just recording and releasing music to your fans.

It probably means there won't be so many super-rich multi-media mega stars, but I'm fine with that.  Doubt Axl would though.  He would have lost the support for recording Chinese Democracy a looooooooooong time ago, I'm afraid. 

But maybe that'd be a good thing.  It would prompt him to really work hard.  And encourage him to be at least aware of the fact that he has a fan base.

Well, seeing as how he admitted downloading stuff himself, it would have been rather hypocritical of him to condemn others.

That's the only way to do it in my eyes!  8)

If you don't mind me saying, I find that an intriguing, but somewhat bizarre, notion as to why I, as a fan, would support Axl's musical endeavours.  I can't even begin to imagine the criteria by which I would be expected to judge his efforts.


I'm in no doubt that Axl is aware of exactly the kind of fan base he has.

BBF might be confusing his and other artistis' fan base to that of Axl's.  And I think we can all basically agree that Axl fans are a unique entity unto themselves.

"Axl fans" will download every note of anything he does (or is rumored to have done) and download every bootleg video of every concert he's done AND STILL will purchase anything and everything when it is made "legally" available to them, whether they (the Axl fans) feel it is totally top quality thru-n-thru or not. 

How many other artists have as rabid a fan base as Axl?

MY POINT BEING:  IMO, BBF is now MISTAKENLY looking at the "downloading" issue from a perspective that includes the "Axl factor".  And we all know that,  as fas as the fans are concerned, Axl is the exception to every rule!

Even though I'm sure BBF posted that to encourage a debate on the issue, he's being a hypocrite since he admits he does it himself.

My question to him would be ...  "if you know how much harm it does to the artists (including yourself), what's your excuse for doing it?"

i think he doe it coz it doesnt do that much harm and can in fact encourage more sales.

He also, like many, wants to send the music industry a message to hurry up and get the hell in line with the way of the world now!  Legit downloads are too expensive, there is little opportunity to try beforte you buy, and not enough labels/artists have made the necassary agreements to make their work available to download - there isnt the same diversity and availability in one place, like there is in a music chain store. Plus, they need to drop restrictions on what you can do with the file once you have bought it.

These issues must be rectified.

What I find really interesting is,


where discussing poitnless shit, eg downloading , which can never be stopped, and which in turn, means artists have to literally
get of their arse and tour to make money (which is a good thing) as it seperates the fakes, from the perfromers...

And as to Ron doing the interviews, debates/whatever,
is this a good sign that gnr have completely finished everything? considering ron is doing sosososososomany interviews, spending time on the net,
you think this might be a good sign???


I
freaking hope so

could be a realy bad one too.

I just dont kNOW what bumble's intentions are when he wrote this,


is he trying to persuade us as to buy cds instead of downloading them, because no matter who reads this,
we all have predetermined opinions on whether or not we buy or download illegal stuff, its our choice after all.

And bumble knows that probably only fans would really read what he says, and knowing that, fans of course will buy chinese democracy,
so What was bumbles intentions when he wrote this, its not like it was an assignment for school or something???

since this wasnt on his site or grn.com or posted by jarmo , it just seemss as a light heated blog entry to a anonimous site , I see nothing to get worked up about

Oh, all in 'good' humour. Riiight! Your 'humour' is in very poor taste.

Good read. Very insightful.

Here's an idea that hasn't been considered ? when Chinese Democracy is released as an album, I won't have any reason to look for leaks.
I don't download stuff, I borrow stuff from friends (actual CDs), except when it comes to GNR stuff. But I'm going to buy their stuff anyway, so what does it matter?

Downloading (non-leaked material) hurts nobody except the record industry.

This is an old argument used to guilt the consumer into buying more albums.  The problem is the record industry has one goal...to make money.  If they really cared about the artist, they would pay them more than 2% of the CD revenue.  I remember the Dixie Chicks complaining that the three of them earned less than a million dollars combined from the sales of their first two albums.  Their albums sold a combined 30 million copies worldwide, earning Sony Nashville revenue over 250 million dollars.  Sony Nashville = 250 million.  Dixie chicks = 1 million.  Who is downloading really hurting in this scenario? 

To put this in perspective, the band Clap Your Hands Say Yeah was an internet darling last summer.  They had no label but were talked about by all the big music blogs...who even offered multiple tracks fro FREE from their album.  Because of this CYHSY sold almost 250,000 copies of their album, earning them revenue of close to 2 million.  CYHSY made twice as much money selling 250,000 copies as Dixie Chicks did selling 30 million.  Did downloading hurt CYHSY? 

One thing that no one ever talks about is Napster and record sales.  When the original Napster was live, record sales were at their highest of all time.  When Napster was shut down, record sales took an immediate dive.  In the first month alone, record sales dropped almost 10%!  Within 3 months, it was down almost 20%. 

The record industry is made up of talent-less idiots who ride the coattails of people with talent.  I used to work in this industry and saw the frivilous waste of money on a daily basis.  Catered sushi lunches, trips to Disneyland for entire departments, late night private plane flights to Vegas, free steak dinners because certain employees had to drain their petty cash.  And that's what would happen in a typical week!

The record industry killed itself, abusing their releationship with the customer.  Now someone needs to come up with a way to download oil.

i think a world in which all recorded music became free could be cool.  free downloaded songs become like a type of advertisement to see the band live, and those who put out the best songs and put on the best show get the best reputation and are the most successful through ticket sales and merchendising.   that way there's a huge incentive for bands to puton fantastic live shows and only the truly talented achieve success.  people like fergie would dissappear because no one would want to pay to go see her foot-face singing scom live in concert... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1kCs7Gbg_A

Why do you think there's so many artists marketed at kids?

Little girls don't download, they buy albums (or make their parents buy them).....






/jarmo

Some adult males tuck it back, and then buy albums, too.  Or, um...that's what a friend told me.  :nervous:

Ron's such a nice guy. Good musician too.
I downloaded his "Normal" CD off of a torrent site and I liked it.

Thanks Ron for making music, and thank you Mr. Mp3 for giving it to me.

I very rarely download at all, I buy all my cd's(I have about 900 at the moment) but if Axl or anyone thinks Im not going to download the leaks then they are mad.  I remember thinking in 2001 that I wasnt going to download the live performances of Madagascar, The Blues etc from Rock in Rio thinking that the album would be out soon and I could wait, but after waiting for an album for so long of course I want a sample of what is going to be on it. 

Im going buy the album even if it only had 4 songs and Axl farting for an hour. Ive waiting so long as we all have.  I want this album bad, im going to download any leaks and im going to buy tickets to see them live, buy merchandise and probably buy at least 2 copies of the CD when it comes out.  So they should quit with this whole "dont download the leaks" thing.

Also, being a musician myself, I think they should be happy with the feedback recieved from the leaks, its got people talking about them again, in a POSITIVE way, its been negative for so long but when I let people listen to the leaks they are blown away, and being in an unsigned band its hard to get your music heard and you spend alot of money making your masterpiece and you have to give it away so people can hear it, it hurts but thats what you've gotta do. 

To end my rant - The leaks are the best thing to happen to GN'R since ......well a long time anyway 8)

Fire away with your comments -

Pop stars get millions from touring (their main source of income) and then complain about illegal downloading...

It's like a billionnaire crying after losing a $10 bill...

I posted this at the BumbleForum;

 I dont agree with your post at all, I dont think artists should make all their money from touring, what about the ticket touts?? I gig sells out in minutes then the tickets are on ebay over priced aswell,  so no that is not the way forward for music my friend.

What about the touts?  The artist is getting the same amount for the tickets regardless of whether they are sold on.  Plus, touts only succeed when a venue is sold out, which suggests the artist is getting the maximum return from that performance anyway.

I'd like to hear your alternative solution to the problem.

The only solution is thus:

- get rid of digital music, cd's, legal mp3's etc
- bring back vinyl and tape but in better quality than yesteryear.

I hear that the major players in the music industry are thinking of doing this, seriously.
It won't stop illegal downloading but it would seriously curb it.

As far as im aware the Goverment are planning to take action against the touts, so I guess we'll see what outcome we get form that, there are various ways they could work something out but this isnt the section for that discussion, I have ideas on how to stop touts but am gonna bore you with them.
And touts only succeed when gigs sell out???..... the touts buy most of the tickets then sell them at an inflated rate, people are more out of the pocket and the band miss out on extra revenue.
Ive went to get tickets for gigs, sells out, randomly check ebay(I dont even have an account or buy anything from ebay) and the tickets are stupidly expensive and over priced.  Have I ever bought form a tout? Only when the tickets were face value.
Im sticking to my guns on this one, touts are a problem.

How does the artist lose out if the show is sold out, regardless of who bought the tickets first hand?

I've got an mp3 that was only released as a 7" vinyl b-side. 

In other words, that's only a very short term solution, I'm betting.

Because the tickets are getting sold at an increased rate, its still money that they are not receiving that is gong to the hand of a random who has nothing to do with the band.  if touts sold tickets at favce value then there wouldnt be a problem.
example - T in the Park ?140 a ticket, sells out in a couple of hours, they appear on ebay for around ?300 less than an hour after they sell out, and the prices only ever go higher.
example - Arcade Fire - Glasgow - ?20 a ticket, gig sells out, they appear on ebay for ?75 less than an hour after they sell out.
wnat more examples, go check ebay....

No, you are misunderstanding my point.

I know this happens, and agree that is despicable to exploit the desperation of the fans.

This is essentially an issue of revenue loss for the band by people downloading their music, instead of paying for the album, or paying for a legal download.

The business model I suggested originally, is based purely of concert revenue, you are arguing touts are hurting the band by inflating the ticket prices, I am arguing they are creating revenue the band would NEVER HAVE GOT.  I am NOT defending these parasites, I am simply saying touts, in this instance, are irrelevant to the bands revenue.

I could possibly concede that paying an excessive amount for a ticket, could potentially stop someone seeing the band multiple times, but thats clutching at straws.

I dont download much at all, to be honest the only songs I can remember downloading are the leaks recently and last year, so am not big on that but at least you could download some tracks and buy the album and singles if you like it.  You cant do that with gigs, you either get a ticket at face value or some ridiculous increased price, and fair enough the band arent losing that much money but still there is a middle man walking away with X amount of money that he doesnt deserve.
Downloading music can and possibly will be the way forward, Touts however are not, they are a parasite and maybe ive put my feelings into words incorrectly and thats why you are replying like you are, I just dont like them, I have my reasons, and thats that.

Though scalpers piss me right off, I agree with your stance.  To compare it to album sales, the original ticket seller (the venue) is, at least for concerts that are in demand or, at the VERY least, for the best seats, like a wholesale distributor.  Scalpers and ticket brokers, on the other hand, are more like a store that actually sells an album to the public...they want to find that point at which to maximize profits, which is pretty damned expensive for an in demand ticket. 

The bands also don't receive any revenue from the stores that sell their albums.  They (and the label, mostly) receive it from selling TO stores.  So, complaining about lost profits from brokers/scalpers is essentially the same as the profits they don't get from stores selling their albums...the difference being that one is seen as slightly shady, while the other is perfectly accepted.

Of course, eventually a band will come along that is smart enough to say "Hey, we're getting $.25/cd sold to stores, while our label gets a lot more."  And then the band can sell it for, say, $8, which pleases fans, and puts more money where it belongs...in the BAND'S pocket!  It would take a MAJOR band to really get a trend like that going.

Yep, that's exactly my point, this is an area that simply isn't replicable.  Therefore perhaps this is the area that can be maximised financially for the artist.

 :beer:

The music industry is in a transitional state at the moment, as power is beginning to slip away from the executives. People are starting to realize exactly how much control the executives have, how much money they are being overcharged for a cd, and how little of that money actually makes it back to the artists. To wish that the music industry was the way it was in 1987 is to basically say 'i wish we were ignorant all over again'. I'll be damned if I am going back to paying $20+ for a compact disc only to have pennies on the dollar go back to the artist. The major reason cd's are so damn expensive is the built in overhead from the label to cover the cost of every act they sign that doesn't make it.

Sure things are kind of messed up now, but that's because the paradigm is shifting. Consumers want some quality control over what they spend their money on, and the record industry execs only see their bank accounts getting smaller and are trying to do everything to not have to change with the times. It's insane. Go watch 'I Am Trying To Break Your Heart', the Wilco documentary for how far up it's own ass the industry has become. Long story short: Wilco makes Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, probably one of the most challenging, daring and all around great albums in recent memory. The label doesn't hear 'the hit', and gives Wilco an ultimatum. 'Fix the record, or we'll drop you'. They don't change the album and AOL/Time Warner drops them. The band signs to Nonesuch and puts the album out to rave reviews, and excellent sales. The best part, Nonesuch is owned by AOL/Time Warner. They basically paid for Wilco's album twice. It cost them twice as much money in the end to try and fight their way to control over the band, only to lose.

It's like any political overthrow or power shift. There is a shaky period. We are in the middle of it. In the end we will hopefully be better off as consumers, and have more control over the quality of music we are paying for. Unfortunately the industry has yet to really figure out that they need to step up the quality of music they are releasing. I think we'll all be happy to pay money for good music. But to wish it was the way it was back in '87? That's just sticking your head in the sand. You have to vote with your dollars if you want to see any change for the good in the record industry. And it will get worse until it gets better. Because as I once heard Henry Rollins say, it's only when nothing else works that the record execs will consider releasing better music or lowering their prices as a means to restimulate the record industry. We survived disco, we'll survive boy bands, teen girl pop singers, shitty music, overpriced music, and rampant piracy.

But when you cut the label out of the picture though who gives the band the advance to record the album, market it, distribute, and all of the other things that go into an album? If it were just as easy as recording it and releasing it you would be right, but most bands don't have a couple million bucks sitting around to pay for every step mentioned above that would coincide with the release of a "MAJOR" band's album. Typically a "major" band has "major" costs that someone (the label) has to pick up so the band can focus only on making music instead of how to fund it or potentially running out of money and not being able to finish a project.

That Wilco documentary is great...I wouldn't be suprised if Axl was going through some of those issues right now..... >:(

In the grand scheme, the internet is pretty young. And even more so in the context of using it as a form as commerce for music (the reason we have drm, and all of the debates surrounding it), but we're slowly learning that it can be effective as a marketing tool. In time it can be just as effective as any major print campaign or big budget marketing campaign. Sure, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah or the Arcade Fire aren't as huge as the latest top 40 sensation, but the fact that they made their name on their own without those big budgets points to a time in the not so distant future where independent acts will be on equal footing with the majors.

And bands make way more from touring and merch sales than they do record sales. Wilco did just fine for themselves touring on an unreleased Yankee Hotel Foxtrot without a label supporting them before the signed to Nonesuch. Jeff Tweedy himself said he wasn't terribly concerned about rushing into a record deal because they were plenty successful on the road.

The internet isn't just a way to pirate music. It can be a very sophisticated marketing tool. I think Trent Reznor did a good job of proving that. I think Axl Rose would be wise to pay attention as well. Almost all of the hype surrounding Chinese Democracy has been via the internet and people talking about it on the internet. I don't remember any point where Interscope made an effort to market CD.

This may have been pointed out already - I didn't feel like reading every reply - however:

There is one section in  that little dialog (which reminds me a lot of old Philosophy and English classes so kudos to bumble on his choice of formats) that is completely false:

"You?re buying the objects that carry the music, not the music."

You are *not* buying the media the songs come on.

You are buying the songs.

How so?

For years the record industry has repeated, ad nauseum, that the reason there is no guarantee on the CDs and DVDs we purchase is because we are purchasing the *content* - not the media. This is why most labels wouldn't replace damaged media. It's why there is no warranty on CDs that, after a decade or two, due to shoddy manufacturing, have begun oxidizing after their sealant has withered away and are slowly becoming unplayable.

CDs and DVDs were marketed as an "indestructible" media - that's right from the horse's mouth (the horse being the recently deceased ex-MPAA chief Jack Valenti). Only, they obviously are not and are just as fragile as records were.

Which is why the copyright laws in almost every nation - before draconian measures like the DMCA were created by bought-off politicians living off campaign donations - allowed for users to make a backup.

Media shifting - the right to move copyrighted material that you have purchased from one format to another - is also part of copyright law in many nations.

No one buys the media. Without the content, the media is just a bright shiny disc that makes a lame frizbee. We pay for the content - we buy the content, no matter how badly the industry now wishes to claim otherwise (contradicting their own past statements). We do not "license" the content, which is the latest gimmick  the RIAA likes to contend in their quest to further milk the cash cow they believe Joe Consumer is.

We pay for  the content, and yes, we can transfer it.

*** /rant over

Aside from that... bfoot put together one of the most coherent looks at the copyright debate I've seen thus far. And his conclusion sums it up nicely (as it should):

People want their music (or movies, or TV shows).

But there's an addition that needs to be made:

People want their entertainment... in a quality format that is not restricted or forces them to jump through hoops to get it, and at a price that is fair for the product in question.

That means, no DRM, no "you must have an HDCP compatible TV," no rootkits (Sony), no defective discs (EMI), no price fixing, no bullshit.