Olive Juice Music Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Barry N. Bliss

Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #1 
 I have not read these, so I have no idea what is said:

David Byrne: 'The internet will suck all creative content out of the world'

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world

Why David Byrne is wrong about Spotify

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/16/why-david-byrne-wrong-spotify-thom-yorke

Cannonball

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #2 
David Byrne is saying that even an extremely popular band couldn't pay their bills based on their Spotify royalties alone. Meanwhile, from what I can tell, the other writer is saying that Byrne is wrong, and musicians should figure out some way to work with the new market, and not against it. But he doesn't really give any ideas as to how, other than to not appear "elitist" or "luddite". At some point, he also makes a crack about how Thom Yorke thinks dying corpses can fart.

As far as musicians I know, I can say the ones who actually make a living from their music, tend to be making a living from playing in other bands, and not just playing their own music. They're also making most of their income (and fans) from touring and playing shows. And that makes sense. Live concerts (and open mics) are a great way for people who like music to hang out with their friends, get drunk, hear new music, hear music they already know, get drunker, meet new friends, and maybe spend more money on a band's merch than they would if they were sober. Sitting alone in front of a computer screen listening to Spotify or Pandora is still not as appealing for a lot of music fans.

Of course, a band can play a show in NYC and make less than $50 (or absolutely nothing, or even end up "paying to play"), but their fans, who wouldn't be there otherwise, might be the venue's only source of revenue the entire night, because many NYC clubs have no "built-in crowd". And even though most people find out about my music through shows and open mics, there was one time when a dog trainer who I didn't know personally at the time, and who has a popular YouTube page, added me on FB with one mutual friend, and a few months later I ended up recording a personalized song for one of her videos, which now has 2,000+ views (1,900 more than any of my own). There was no money involved, but I did make some new fans, both human and canine.
Barry N. Bliss

Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #3 
I have since read them both myself.
 David Byrne we know, and the other dude was (is?) in Gang of Four, so both have experience making money playing music.
 I am not sure I agree entirely with either of them, but maybe I am more with Byrne on this.
 Personally, I am glad to know that one day, if people are still around, we'll be back to no recorded music.
 I make maybe $30 when I play, and about $30 when a new cdr comes out (after spending hundreds to record it).
 This time I didn't print up any, but instead just put it on bandcamp available for free listening or $5 or more for download.
 I made about $30 and now sales have slowed.
 I am looking for a job.

 As it stands now, I have no interest in putting anything on Spotify.
Cannonball

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #4 
I actually hadn't checked until you mentioned it. Yeah, he was in Gang of Four, it isn't in the article but it's on his profile on the Guardian's site. That clarifies a lot, because it's hard to know where he's coming from without knowing that.

From how I see it, Spotify isn't that great for musicians, it's not that great for music fans, and it might be good for big labels. It's good for itself, because it keeps itself and its employees alive, but I don't think it's breaking any new ground for music fans discovering new bands, or bands discovering new fans.

That sort of pointlessness seems to happen with a lot of the Internet. Facebook is constantly changing its look and features in ways that don't really improve on anything, and the majority of FB users will complain about it. FB doesn't make any extra profit from these changes (except for in a few cases), but they must be paying some team to program them. So FB, a business, is losing money for something that makes its users more miserable. Am I missing something here?
labra

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #5 
Facebook doesn't care whether you like their service.  They are not being stupid either.  They care whether they get what they're after, which is money.  They get money the more people use their system, put their communications and information and knowledge in, which they can then sell to advertisers, marketers, and governments.  They also get lots of people to pay money to send messages through Facebook (email is free, but the more people only use Facebook, the more they're the only way to communicate with those people, and so it's a way to make more money by locking people in), and people pay money to promote their posts (which just means, if you don't pay Facebook, your posts won't be shown to other users).

Look around - do you see most people not using Facebook because they don't like the changes?  Do you see Facebook's billionaire CEO going broke?  Facebook wins.  Your mistake is not realizing what game this is.  It's not about being liked.  No more than the president cares what you think of the government.
Cannonball

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #6 
Of course FB is going to be making a considerable amount of money, no matter what they do, for the reasons you mentioned. But until they started charging to send messages, which was kind of recently, they did somewhat frequent redesigns of parts of their site (anyone who's used FB for long enough would remember). And these redesigns were normally somewhat pointless -- design and coding shifts that wouldn't make any big difference in who uses or invests in the website, so unless they weren't paying their programmers/designers, why even bother? There could be lots of reasons, of course - maybe it was a psychological experiment to see how different people respond to a website being altered unexpectedly.
Barry N. Bliss

Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #7 
I have never been a facebook member.

 The time it's most tempting is when a favored author or musician has a page and I don't know any other way I can contact them.
 I suppose, for me, it's not worth putting up with the negatives for the conveniences.
olivejuicemusic

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 103
Reply with quote  #8 
I think Facebook can be okay as long as you see it for what it is, which is a closed network of people sharing stuff. If you are trying to get much more out of it than that I think it can get frustrating. It's true that it can be a trap. But so are donuts.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!