Dubstepforum.com

^jinx

A friend has done that on his Bandcamp. To date, I don't think he's sold a single unit....

deadly habit wrote:what about artists who don't perform?
burial for example
some producers shouldn't/can't dj and vice versa as well

Fair point - but that is a choice of the artist. I'm pretty sure artists everywhere how much cash is in it if they're willing to perform for the crowd. I would personally love to see a live Burial set, holy moly that would be great

Just creating music and not supporting it with other music-based talents is a sure-fire way to your own artistic obliteration. Just like any job where you only do one thing.

As for the free music - I completely agree with you Deadly. I was only saying that it worked for someone like me because I already have a job that I love, and music is purely a hobby. If it goes somewhere, great. If not, I don't care - I'm enjoying producing no matter what I also think I'm just about past the age where doing live acts is expected. I'm beyond the whipper-snapper age of partying, but not old enough that I don't party occasionally. hehe

hmm this thread makes me think I should get into djing more...

Sharmaji wrote:
to be fair, i don't think you can even call the current state a problem. The game has shifted; as an artist, either you deal with it and grow, or you don't, grumble about it, and get left behind.

Pretty much, we're in the information age now. Shits gonna change very rapidly over the next few years.



Also, alot of companies like Apple etc, who will be backed by big labels like Unviversal will begin to pour millions of dollars into coming up with a fool proof way of erdaricating piracy. Whether it be them changing the medium once again or researching into a more complicated form of DRM, I ask you what is the worst situation - Piracy rife as it is now or EVERY listener being effected by a select few peoples personal greed?

I wont be surprised if in a few years time you'll be having to get your copy of Windows or OSX "chipped" so you can play mp3's that we'rnt downloaded from iTunes or any other "authorized dealer".

With the rapid approach of cloud based computing it's only one small step to having your entire harddrive online. Some people allready do do this, its just not so mainstream yet. Soon as that happens it's a piece of piss to code some software to stop you playing illegally downloaded mp3's. (or jpges, or word .docs, or .pdf's fuckin ANYTHING.)

Thank fuck for the super smart russian computer programers who are ready to reverse engineer any shit Apple or otherwise throw at us. I salute you!

deadly habit wrote:what about artists who don't perform?
burial for example
some producers shouldn't/can't dj and vice versa as well

This gets to me. A lot of promoters will book producers, not for their dj skills, just because they have had a few releases and got a name for themselves as a producer. Don't get me wrong, most of them can hold down a good show, but it seems, nowadays, single dj's don't have a chance unless you produce.

Capture pt wrote: Also, alot of companies like Apple etc, who will be backed by big labels like Unviversal will begin to pour millions of dollars into coming up with a fool proof way of erdaricating piracy. Whether it be them changing the medium once again or researching into a more complicated form of DRM, I ask you what is the worst situation - Piracy rife as it is now or EVERY listener being effected by a select few peoples personal greed?

And therein lies another problem, there will never be a foolproof system for DRM. As long as a song can be heard, it can be pirated. You can rip a vinyl to mp3 and share it, or even copy it (http://mikesenese.com/DOIT/2010/07/how- ... yl-record/).

The only way to make it foolproof would be to find a way to get music into peoples heads without them being able to hear it, but these companies don't seem to realise this. (I sense this quickly wandering off topic so I'll stop now).

EDIT: I'd like to make a personal point. I wasn't planning on buying Skreams latest album, I had little interest in owning the CD and I'm not big on buying whole albums anyway. Then he gave out the Freeizm series and I downloaded every one. As a result, I felt compelled to get the album, so I went and got the deluxe edition from HMV. I only did that as a way of repaying Skream for all the hard work he's put into it, and for a repayment for all the free tunes he's given out (I know a better alternative would be to go to a live show, but there's bugger all chance of that happening near me any time soon).

wormcode wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:Also, you can go on pretty lights' website and download any of their albums/EP's for whatever you like, like radiohead did. I thought that was the coolest thing ever

Yeah the "pay what you want" is something I think can be good and it's nice to see people experimenting with it. Bands like NiN, Radiohead, etc can do this and expect decent figures as they are long since established, but I'd be interested to see data from some of the independent electronic artists doing that on Bandcamp for example.

we did it this year, and blogged about it. You can read the whole series here - http://bassmusicblog.com/?tag=diaryofafreealbum

but if you want the summary: 42,000 track streams, about 35,000 tracks downloaded, total income was about £957, for 6-8 weeks full-time work by 2 people; no appreciable upturn in gigs. It was an interesting experiment but we'll be selling our shit in future.

Phigure wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it's all well and good to bitch and debate about the subject, but really what are labels, companies, people and the ilk doing to be proactive about the situation rather than reactive with ridiculous drm, destructive media, proprietary formats and copy protection schemes/devices.
it's always irritating as a consumer to be punished or expected to jump through hoops for doing the right thing vs the pirates.

bingo

who are these labels? this would have been a relevant argument in 2005, but these days it strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Don't get me wrong, I'm an indie artist and I think the major labels are a bunch of stnuc, but seriously, who uses DRM and proprietary formats and all that shit in 2010? It's a genuine question - I don't know of any. But then maybe I'm too caught up in the indie scene to keep an eye on what the majors are doing...

deadly habit wrote:and prices for nights/booking bigger , established etc names will go up to compensate for those lost record sales (assuming they want to keep the same style salary)
there's a yin and yang to it all

unfortunately this is not the case. if anything, the reverse is happening (unless you're a Caspa or a Joker) - since people can't make a living out of selling music anymore, more "non performers" are having to go out to DJ. the result is that more people are competing for the same amount of gigs; supply is up, demand is steady, prices therefore go down. You see mid-ranking DJs in Europe these days doing gigs where their fee is less than the cost of their flights.

I don't mean to come across all 'piracy is bad' here - piracy is an unstoppable typhoon, and anyway it's rapidly being negated by the likes of legal stuff on spotify and youtube and last fm - but having been releasing dance music since 2004 and a full time producer/DJ since 2006, it's getting a lot harder to get by, and much of that is because sales have fallen through the floor. (another part of it is that the supply of music has increased massively, and I guess that's a good thing in many ways, although it does mean there's a lot of shit out there too)

I think one likely effect is that producers could almost stop releasing tunes altogether, just put clips up on soundcloud and force people to come to their shows if they want to hear the tracks. We're already at the stage where a mid-ranking producer/DJ can release a tune and not make a penny from the vinyl; thus all their income has to come from gigs, and I think people will be looking this as a way of generating some demand for their live shows...

Capture pt wrote:Also, alot of companies like Apple etc, who will be backed by big labels like Unviversal will begin to pour millions of dollars into coming up with a fool proof way of erdaricating piracy. Whether it be them changing the medium once again or researching into a more complicated form of DRM, I ask you what is the worst situation - Piracy rife as it is now or EVERY listener being effected by a select few peoples personal greed?

I wont be surprised if in a few years time you'll be having to get your copy of Windows or OSX "chipped" so you can play mp3's that we'rnt downloaded from iTunes or any other "authorized dealer".

With the rapid approach of cloud based computing it's only one small step to having your entire harddrive online. Some people allready do do this, its just not so mainstream yet. Soon as that happens it's a piece of piss to code some software to stop you playing illegally downloaded mp3's. (or jpges, or word .docs, or .pdf's fuckin ANYTHING.)

Thank fuck for the super smart russian computer programers who are ready to reverse engineer any shit Apple or otherwise throw at us. I salute you!

Piracy isn't the main reason for them wanting DRM on your computer, that's just an excuse. Anyone remember Sony's attempt at recording information about you when you used one of their CDs a while back?

As for apple and universal.. I doubt it. Adobe a few years back let the world know they were working on an awesome algorithm that couldn't be broken to protect their software. The next day they received an email from a notorious hack group, saying that they'd have it cracked within days. Adobe decided to save the few million it would cost them and keep developing the software. Also, for Adobe - it pays them to have their software used by everyone, whether it's pirated or not - because companies will buy software that is used by the major populace. I realize this is a little different than music production, but the same issues and principles apply.

Jack The lad wrote:This gets to me. A lot of promoters will book producers, not for their dj skills, just because they have had a few releases and got a name for themselves as a producer. Don't get me wrong, most of them can hold down a good show, but it seems, nowadays, single dj's don't have a chance unless you produce.

Lot of DJs are also pretty shit - doing nothing but mixing track after track in with one another. In fact I've found the dubstep scene generally lacks DJs wanting to mix it up. However that said - you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Wanna DJ? Produce.

bassmusic wrote:

wormcode wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:Also, you can go on pretty lights' website and download any of their albums/EP's for whatever you like, like radiohead did. I thought that was the coolest thing ever

Yeah the "pay what you want" is something I think can be good and it's nice to see people experimenting with it. Bands like NiN, Radiohead, etc can do this and expect decent figures as they are long since established, but I'd be interested to see data from some of the independent electronic artists doing that on Bandcamp for example.

we did it this year, and blogged about it. You can read the whole series here - http://bassmusicblog.com/?tag=diaryofafreealbum

but if you want the summary: 42,000 track streams, about 35,000 tracks downloaded, total income was about £957, for 6-8 weeks full-time work by 2 people; no appreciable upturn in gigs. It was an interesting experiment but we'll be selling our shit in future.

Phigure wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it's all well and good to bitch and debate about the subject, but really what are labels, companies, people and the ilk doing to be proactive about the situation rather than reactive with ridiculous drm, destructive media, proprietary formats and copy protection schemes/devices.
it's always irritating as a consumer to be punished or expected to jump through hoops for doing the right thing vs the pirates.

bingo

who are these labels? this would have been a relevant argument in 2005, but these days it strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Don't get me wrong, I'm an indie artist and I think the major labels are a bunch of stnuc, but seriously, who uses DRM and proprietary formats and all that shit in 2010? It's a genuine question - I don't know of any. But then maybe I'm too caught up in the indie scene to keep an eye on what the majors are doing...

deadly habit wrote:and prices for nights/booking bigger , established etc names will go up to compensate for those lost record sales (assuming they want to keep the same style salary)
there's a yin and yang to it all

unfortunately this is not the case. if anything, the reverse is happening (unless you're a Caspa or a Joker) - since people can't make a living out of selling music anymore, more "non performers" are having to go out to DJ. the result is that more people are competing for the same amount of gigs; supply is up, demand is steady, prices therefore go down. You see mid-ranking DJs in Europe these days doing gigs where their fee is less than the cost of their flights.

I don't mean to come across all 'piracy is bad' here - piracy is an unstoppable typhoon, and anyway it's rapidly being negated by the likes of legal stuff on spotify and youtube and last fm - but having been releasing dance music since 2004 and a full time producer/DJ since 2006, it's getting a lot harder to get by, and much of that is because sales have fallen through the floor. (another part of it is that the supply of music has increased massively, and I guess that's a good thing in many ways, although it does mean there's a lot of shit out there too)

I think one likely effect is that producers could almost stop releasing tunes altogether, just put clips up on soundcloud and force people to come to their shows if they want to hear the tracks. We're already at the stage where a mid-ranking producer/DJ can release a tune and not make a penny from the vinyl; thus all their income has to come from gigs, and I think people will be looking this as a way of generating some demand for their live shows...

i was referring drm wise more to hollywood/software companies rather than music wise, but apple is a good example. if you want to shop at itunes, you are forced to install their software and submit your info in that application, while they have a large library of material it's not exactly consumer friendly, plus creates extra steps for people who are willing to purchase and not pirate the material.

regarding full time musicians and performing, yea that is true, but the established bigger names are always going to be in demand and can compensate for lost sales through higher booking fees, which can't really be said in the middle or lower tiers. also people are always greedy for the gimme gimme new material thing, with artists forced to tour more and be on the road it can put a damper on the rate they can work on tunes. as nice as it is to just have material and dubs etc just for gigs it's going to give pirates more incentive to snatch and share them in some way due to the bragging rights factor in the "scene"

just some thoughts

You have to realise something is wrong when people are willing to put in the effort to manualy rip poor sounding music from youtube rather than pay 89p.

I don't think its even an arguement of price anymore. The internet has made music so accesible that it has lost its value. I don't think this is sad, people still get the same enjoyment from music, I just feel there is so much of it that supply is near infinite, and therefore the price has to go down.

DRM is over. itunes abandoned it, and while movies are such large files that the context is different, i wouldn't be surprised if they went drm-free as well.

what'll replace 'em?

hi-res streaming. Spotify, Pandora... shit even apple, w/ the new apple TV, you don't download movies or TV shows, you rent them. We almost never use our dvd player, as we just stream off of netfilx--- who wants shelves and shelves of DVD's anyway?

people pay a monthly subscription fee, you as an artist collect your miniscule share based on either actual times you've been played, or a prorated # based on a random sampling (like how ascap/bmi figures royalties for independent stations).

unless something very big changes very quickly, that'll be the way media consumption goes in the US and probably Europe. It could even render piracy dead: sure, you can stream it and record it, for times when you're off the grid, but you've already paid for it.

yea, but as always companies are 2 steps behind what has been available for ages. it's a shame that instead of trying to improve as a whole the technology and formats available they all seem to be trying to make some proprietary format or delivery system which just gives cracking groups and bored programmers a temporary new challenge to conquer.
if they would stop focusing so much on wasteful spending to protect their monopoly maybe there would be an upswing in their profit margin due to being on the cutting edge.
hell google seems to be doing pretty damn well and they support open source, yet you have apple with the "think different" slogan of trying to punish people for trying to jailbreak and use their products with different OS's etc
even something so simple as torrent based distribution used by the open source community as a quicker and more efficient delivery system has yet to be embraced by the private companies.

hurlingdervish wrote:the more exclusive you try to make something , eg: dubplates, unreleased tracks, vinyl only etc, the more its gonna blow up in your face.
its absurd that good tracks should fade into oblivion because someone wants to control who has the tune.
those tunes should be uploaded and distributed, and if the label or producer wont do it, so be it that someone records the vinyl to an mp3 and uploads it.

Tell that to DMZ!!

Probably not financially since most wouldn't have bought it anyway, and not immediately... but I think it just adds to the whole thing. Lots of people don't see music the same way any more. They see files on a computer, which I think depreciates music as a whole after time. My little cousins didn't understand my vinyl when they saw it recently. Being asked "why do you still buy music?" by more than a few people makes me feel odd. Like I'm doing something wrong, haha. Anyone ever get that question?

Damn that probably makes me sound like an old grump but I swear I'm in my mid 20s. I'm not anti-digital either... that's just some of my thoughts.

hahahaha, all the time i get that.
The conversion always manages to wangle it's way into making me sound like i'm a grumpy old man, 16 going 66.

But yeah, i said to a friend "yeah i'll buy that tonight", and someone said "buy it?" as if it were alien.

piracy is cool

I know that I am probably in the minority here, but I am happy to purchase software, music and movies (I actually just rent and do netflix streaming live)

I feel like the money I do make from music, I deserve it because I didn't have to steal to get to the end result

I don't understand why people are happy to put up with low quality youtube rips and those annoying rips which have 'MISTAJAM EXLUSIVEEE' every 30 seconds compared to paying 79p for a song?!

I get asked so many times 'you buy music?!' as if it's a completely alien concept and all music is in fact free, but then when I'm playing stuff I bought on speakers with mates I always get the response 'woah, how come this sounds so much better than my copy?!' and it's kinda like 'Cos I paid for it, I get an extra 5khz that you're missing out on'.

When I was a bit younger I ripped of youtube, but then after realising the error of my ways and how absolutely crap the rips sound compared to a 320 or FLAC of the tune I started paying for my music, and I've never looked back!

Although, I do have a kinda funny story - my first ever release (under a different name) was pirated, which gave it a lot more exposure than it ever should have got (was not a very good release TBH), and the label which released it mysteriously have never been online ever since the day of the release, and would not send me the masters of the tunes, so I ended up downloading the pirate rip to get the mastered copy of my own release... .

Still haven't seen a penny from it even though I know people who have bought it, I'm half tempted to encourage people who ask about it to download the pirate version because that paticular label don't deserve the money... .

Piracy is a very touchy issue in general however, people need to realize the amount of upsides to it.

Many artists have actually gotten most of their fame from being pirated. A lot of newer artists are having their material released through p2p networks before an actual physical release intentionally. They get it titled as a leak, people eat it up, then when it drops and gets radio play or whatever, its either a thousand times more successful or an instant failure. It's a very high risk high reward playing field. Personally speaking, if anybody ever bothered to pirate my music, I'd be honored that people actually want to listen to my work.

An artist who is still running who said something similar is Ronald Jenkees. Not a Dub by any means, but still a production artist none the less. He said "If someone has no way of paying for my music, or if it's "against their religion" to pay for anything digital (LOL), whatever the reason, I'd personally rather those people be able to enjoy my music rather than to not hear it at all. I'm not going to give a tutorial on how to download torrents of my album (google it, it's simple stuff) but I'm also not going to hate on anyone that downloads my music or shares it with a friend. That said, I still think it's important to support the stuff you like whether that's software, music, whatever."

As far as software goes, I would gladly pay for software synths and DAW's if they weren't ridiculously expensive. I mean, without getting to into it, by the rules of supply and demand... software should be worth next to nothing considering the supply is infinite. Anyway, if synths were like $40 and DAW's were like maybe $150 (sorry guys, I'm from US and don't know euro conversions) I would definitely pay for it, no problem. However, DAW's are like $600 for the exclusive producer has everything you need (only not really) versions and the good synths go for like $200 a piece. I'm sorry but as an independent artist, with no label, who isn't making any money off their work, and just wants to make music for creative purposes and fun, I find it a little ridiculous that I should have to pay close to $1000 to get started and do what I love.

^
to the above poster

You know why DAWs and Synths cost so much?
because these companies have lot of employees who work their arses off to code and create a piece of complex software that has to cater from the inexperienced hobbyiest to the professional sound designer.
And to put the pieces of the puzzle together is a digital logistical nightmare. You do realise that audio engines and sound generation in general is amazingly complex and hard to code...

People take it for grated that a virtual plugin instrument or effect makes or manipulates sound... they never see the 'back end' or the companies struggling to survive to keep on creating awesome sound products...