IDM Mailing Archive

?Why you shouldn't worry (ethically)(and why you should - because as we know crimes against property are the worst according to those who "own" everything) Where does the money from the selling of music go? The "artist" usually gets fractions of a cent for the use of their music - radio play, mechanicals (retail purchased), use in soundtracks, etc. This amounts to very little money in reality, even for a popular artist with lots of airplay - like Metallica for instance... To share their music will take fractions of a penny from them over the course of a year. Of the rest of the money (better than 99 percent usually) most goes to the record company and some little goes to the owner of the publishing rights for the artist's music (who is often not the artist - a company owned by Michael Jackson owns a lot of the publishing rights to many Beatle's songs - the owners of the rights to much music are usually, surprise! subsidiaries and holding companies of - the record companies!) Most artists will only make money by performing, because the returns are often greater than the costs. If an artist has their own production company and can control the costs and the profits of touring themselves, rather than the way it typically is with a record company footing the bill and then charging the artist for it later), they can make OK money if they can play at the right sized venues on their tours. Artists can also make money with merchandise - T-shirts and CDs, etc sold at shows - I urge you to buy direct from the artist as much as possible, especially at shows. Artists should not sell their publishing rights to anyone. If they keep their rights, and they reserve the rights to other uses in their recording (slavery) contracts, they can theoretically sell the song in a secondary market - like for a film soundtrack or a commercial, etc. A musician is not usually allowed to do this until they have a lot of clout (sales) because the record companies are not inclined to let a penny slip by unpinched. Musicians are not hurt much at all by downloading mp3s of their music. You are stealing, in a sense, yes, but mostly from the money-grubbing entertainment conglomerates who reallly really need that money more than ever to pay for their growing packs of attorneys and to offset their (debatable) drop in profits due to their inability to consistently offer quality products. (unquestionable). Besides, most of us who open source share are only stealing in the sense of Robin Hood and not in the sense of Enron or Bank of America. Many musicians I know use Limewire or suchlike. They have no ethical objections to it. In fact, many of us use it to "test drive" the music - a kind of shopping. If I come across something I like - Oval, Autechre, Mouse On Mars, Climax Golden Twins, Sufjan Stevens - I want the whole thing, artwork and all, at the best quality, so I'll buy it. Hell, sometimes I'll buy two! Anyway, I guess what it really comes down to is a dichotomy that splits the world - do you come down on the side of some of the world's largest corporations and their stupid puppets, like Metallica, or do you come down on the side of the mass of people who love music so much that it is woven into the everyday fabric of their lives in a truly meaningful, personal way that has little to do with the deep wading in the cesspool of commerce, and everything to do with the impulses and idealisms that create music. Yawn. Keep your ears open and your chin up. Slippery. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

But then again, you're talking to a list who's artists and musicians are rarely signed to major label deals. Reading below it could be said that they are in fact the exception to the rule. According to your(?) theory below, stealing from such independent artists does them quite a lot of harm because most of the money would in fact end up in their pockets otherwise. My personal opinion however is that sharing music means more exposure and more exposure means more interest and that's really all an independent artist is wishing for init? Shimone/Justes http://www.staticbeats.com http://www.jungle-life.com http://www.boomboombap.com --- "avianwayfilms@juno.com" <avianwayfilms@juno.com> wrote:

quoted 93 lines Why you shouldn't worry (ethically)(and why you

> Why you shouldn't worry (ethically)(and why you > should - because as we know crimes against property > are the worst according to those who "own" > everything) > > Where does the money from the selling of music go? > > The "artist" usually gets fractions of a cent for > the use of their > music - radio play, mechanicals (retail purchased), > use in soundtracks, etc. > This amounts to very little money in reality, even > for a popular artist with > lots of airplay - like Metallica for instance... To > share their music will take fractions of a penny > from them over the course of a year. > > Of the rest of the money (better than 99 percent > usually) most goes to the > record company and some little goes to the owner of > the publishing rights for > the artist's music (who is often not the artist - a > company owned by Michael > Jackson owns a lot of the publishing rights to many > Beatle's songs - the owners of the rights to much > music are usually, surprise! subsidiaries and > holding companies of - the record companies!) > > Most artists will only make money by performing, > because the returns are often greater than the > costs. If an artist has their own production company > and can control the costs and the profits of touring > themselves, rather than the way it typically is with > a record company footing the bill and then charging > the artist for it later), they can make OK money if > they can play at the right sized venues on their > tours. > > Artists can also make money with merchandise - > T-shirts and CDs, etc sold at shows - I urge you to > buy direct from the artist as much as possible, > especially at shows. > > Artists should not sell their publishing rights to > anyone. > If they keep their rights, and they reserve the > rights to other uses in their > recording (slavery) contracts, they can > theoretically sell the song in a > secondary market - like for a film soundtrack or a > commercial, etc. A musician > is not usually allowed to do this until they have a > lot of clout (sales) because > the record companies are not inclined to let a penny > slip by unpinched. > > Musicians are not hurt much at all by downloading > mp3s of their music. You are stealing, in a sense, > yes, but mostly from the money-grubbing > entertainment conglomerates who reallly really need > that money more than ever to pay for their growing > packs of attorneys and to offset their (debatable) > drop in profits due to their inability to > consistently offer quality products. > (unquestionable). Besides, most of us who open > source share are only stealing in the sense of Robin > Hood and not in the sense of Enron or Bank of > America. > > Many musicians I know use Limewire or suchlike. They > have no ethical objections to it. In fact, many of > us use it to "test drive" the music - a kind > of shopping. If I come across something I like - > Oval, Autechre, Mouse On Mars, > Climax Golden Twins, Sufjan Stevens - I want the > whole thing, artwork and all, > at the best quality, so I'll buy it. Hell, sometimes > I'll buy two! > > Anyway, I guess what it really comes down to is a > dichotomy that splits the > world - do you come down on the side of some of the > world's largest corporations and their stupid > puppets, like Metallica, or do you come down on the > side of the mass of people who love music so much > that it is woven into the > everyday fabric of their lives in a truly > meaningful, personal way that has > little to do with the deep wading in the cesspool of > commerce, and everything to do with the impulses and > idealisms that create music. Yawn. > > Keep your ears open and your chin up. Slippery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Shimone/Justes wrote:

quoted 4 lines My personal opinion however is that sharing music

> My personal opinion however is that sharing music > means more exposure and more exposure means more > interest and that's really all an independent artist > is wishing for init?

Actually, most of us are hoping to make enough money making muzik to quit our stupid day jobs and focus on music exclusively. I very rarely hear that exposure-as-holy-grail sentiment come from a serious musician (although I hear it often from the hair bands out here in LA), but then nor do I hear the money-as-holy-grail sentiment either. Its sort of a complexity, but one I always summed up as above: I just want to get paid so I don't have to flip burgers/sweep floors/answer phones/shovel shit anymore.

quoted 1 line avianwayfilms@juno.com wrote:

> avianwayfilms@juno.com wrote:

quoted 2 lines Artists should not sell their publishing rights to

>> Artists should not sell their publishing rights to >> anyone.

This isn't really a reality these days for a new artist, and its one of the many reasons I quit the music biz. I was never interested in signing with a smaller "boutique" label (I'd start my own if I only wanted to sell 10 albums and get no promo $$$ behind me) so I went for the larger label, and quickly found a dying empire struggling for new ways to keep their revenues up. One of those is firmly putting their foot down on taking publishing as part of the contract. They used to do this when they could get away with it, now its practically "my way or the highway." One has to decide whether he or she wants to sign over lifetime publishing to a dying empire or not. I worked out a 5 year deal, but the bitterness had already set in. An artist can do quite well on publishing, and trust me, for anyone reading this on the idm list, that's where the money's at, not touring. Which brings me 'round full circle to StaticBeats' initial statement that sharing mp3s is ethically ok. Yes, I agree, just for different reasons. Truely, the odds of anyone ever making a buck on CD sales is nil. iTunes, on the other hand, offers something else entirely. My per album take with a label was 1.00 -- PER ALBUM. On compilations, I would generally get .15 -- PER ALBUM (=song). Over iTunes, Napster, Sony Connect et al, my cut is .25 PER SONG. I think you can see why I've gone exclusively digital. So I'd prefer they (mp3s) get bought, but everyone needs to be realistic enough to know that 99% of the people with a Rick Strom mp3 on their drive would likely never spend a buck on one. And yet people do. Hmm. -- V, ~Rick Strom Glowdot Productions On Glowfoto: http://users.glowfoto.com/Strom ============================ Photo: http://www.glowfoto.com Music: http://www.glowdot.com Strom: http://www.rick-strom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

--- Rick Strom <rick@glowdot.com> wrote:

quoted 23 lines Shimone/Justes wrote:

> Shimone/Justes wrote: > > > My personal opinion however is that sharing music > > means more exposure and more exposure means more > > interest and that's really all an independent > artist > > is wishing for init? > > Actually, most of us are hoping to make enough money > making muzik to quit > our stupid day jobs and focus on music exclusively. > I very rarely hear > that exposure-as-holy-grail sentiment come from a > serious musician > (although I hear it often from the hair bands out > here in LA), but then > nor do I hear the money-as-holy-grail sentiment > either. Its sort of a > complexity, but one I always summed up as above: I > just want to get paid > so I don't have to flip burgers/sweep floors/answer > phones/shovel shit > anymore.

Well I hear your point but I'm not a musician. I'm a music enthusiast, and after spending well over $30k over the past few years running a free webcast I can safely say that it's my day job I'm interested in. Keeping my day job allows me to put aside a few hundred dollars a month to continue spreading the gospel. It's certainly not about money, and it is only about the music. God bless those who hope music will provide for house and home but I'm just trying to keep it within the realm of the realistic. If I dream a little harder I may even consider working towards breaking even. I receive numerous promos each month and not one artist or label mentions a desire to make money. All they want is exposure and none are under any illusions that IDM as a genre makes for anything more than a non-profit industry. Shimone/Justes http://www.staticbeats.com http://www.jungle-life.com http://www.boomboombap.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines Keeping my day job allows me to put aside a few

> Keeping my day job allows me to put aside a few > hundred dollars a month to continue spreading the > gospel.

To put it as mildly as possible: apples and oranges. Look, since I quit making music, I've thrown myself headfirst into nerdery and programming (glowdot, glowfoto, et al) -- something I love, but something that doesn't blend well with creativity. Or I should say, its a different kind of creativity. That is one thing I have heard from a lot of musicians, especially the working ones: the day job and the nighttime composing sessions butt heads in horrible ways. Ideally, one should be able to choose. For me, and for many I know, combining the two just doesn't work. Ask yourself this, of all the idealistic young demo pushers you hear from over the years, how many stay with it? Usually, those that attain some sort of success. The rest just fall off........

quoted 5 lines I receive numerous promos each month and not one

> I receive numerous promos each month and not one > artist or label mentions a desire to make money. All > they want is exposure and none are under any illusions > that IDM as a genre makes for anything more than a > non-profit industry.

Except that IDM is the genre du jour for the advertising industry right now, which shoots that theory all to shit. I mean, I hope to God Dabrye made a reasonable deal pushing the hot phone of the moment, because that's the stuff a boy can retire on. -- V, ~Rick Strom Glowdot Productions On Glowfoto: http://users.glowfoto.com/Strom ============================ Photo: http://www.glowfoto.com Music: http://www.glowdot.com Strom: http://www.rick-strom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

This is the stuff flame wars, or at least some long relatively fruitless discussions, are made of, but I would like to point to this article on firstmonday.org discussing artists' earnings, copyright, and distribution (among other things): http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_1/kretschmer/ Very well written, not to mention peer-reviewed, and worth a read, IMHO. And I agree with you Shimone. t.

quoted 114 lines My personal opinion however is that sharing music

> My personal opinion however is that sharing music > means more exposure and more exposure means more > interest and that's really all an independent artist > is wishing for init? > > Shimone/Justes > http://www.staticbeats.com > http://www.jungle-life.com > http://www.boomboombap.com > > --- "avianwayfilms@juno.com" <avianwayfilms@juno.com> > wrote: > > > Why you shouldn't worry (ethically)(and why you > > should - because as we know crimes against property > > are the worst according to those who "own" > > everything) > > > > Where does the money from the selling of music go? > > > > The "artist" usually gets fractions of a cent for > > the use of their > > music - radio play, mechanicals (retail purchased), > > use in soundtracks, etc. > > This amounts to very little money in reality, even > > for a popular artist with > > lots of airplay - like Metallica for instance... To > > share their music will take fractions of a penny > > from them over the course of a year. > > > > Of the rest of the money (better than 99 percent > > usually) most goes to the > > record company and some little goes to the owner of > > the publishing rights for > > the artist's music (who is often not the artist - a > > company owned by Michael > > Jackson owns a lot of the publishing rights to many > > Beatle's songs - the owners of the rights to much > > music are usually, surprise! subsidiaries and > > holding companies of - the record companies!) > > > > Most artists will only make money by performing, > > because the returns are often greater than the > > costs. If an artist has their own production company > > and can control the costs and the profits of touring > > themselves, rather than the way it typically is with > > a record company footing the bill and then charging > > the artist for it later), they can make OK money if > > they can play at the right sized venues on their > > tours. > > > > Artists can also make money with merchandise - > > T-shirts and CDs, etc sold at shows - I urge you to > > buy direct from the artist as much as possible, > > especially at shows. > > > > Artists should not sell their publishing rights to > > anyone. > > If they keep their rights, and they reserve the > > rights to other uses in their > > recording (slavery) contracts, they can > > theoretically sell the song in a > > secondary market - like for a film soundtrack or a > > commercial, etc. A musician > > is not usually allowed to do this until they have a > > lot of clout (sales) because > > the record companies are not inclined to let a penny > > slip by unpinched. > > > > Musicians are not hurt much at all by downloading > > mp3s of their music. You are stealing, in a sense, > > yes, but mostly from the money-grubbing > > entertainment conglomerates who reallly really need > > that money more than ever to pay for their growing > > packs of attorneys and to offset their (debatable) > > drop in profits due to their inability to > > consistently offer quality products. > > (unquestionable). Besides, most of us who open > > source share are only stealing in the sense of Robin > > Hood and not in the sense of Enron or Bank of > > America. > > > > Many musicians I know use Limewire or suchlike. They > > have no ethical objections to it. In fact, many of > > us use it to "test drive" the music - a kind > > of shopping. If I come across something I like - > > Oval, Autechre, Mouse On Mars, > > Climax Golden Twins, Sufjan Stevens - I want the > > whole thing, artwork and all, > > at the best quality, so I'll buy it. Hell, sometimes > > I'll buy two! > > > > Anyway, I guess what it really comes down to is a > > dichotomy that splits the > > world - do you come down on the side of some of the > > world's largest corporations and their stupid > > puppets, like Metallica, or do you come down on the > > side of the mass of people who love music so much > > that it is woven into the > > everyday fabric of their lives in a truly > > meaningful, personal way that has > > little to do with the deep wading in the cesspool of > > commerce, and everything to do with the impulses and > > idealisms that create music. Yawn. > > > > Keep your ears open and your chin up. Slippery. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I think that this is a very good subject to be debating. I have a love-hate feeling about recorded music. On one hand it is great to be able to purchace a copy of an artist's music that you love, but at the same time this medium tends to quantify the worth of a particular artist. Alot of times unit sales of a particular release is completely based on the distribution contract that the band or producer has and alot of times has little to do with the quality of music that is being marketed. I love buying records, but I find myself wondering why it is that I even have access to a record recorded by someoone in Barcelona,New York,Berlin, or Hamburg. or if there are other artists that deserve my purchace that I don't even know about, but lack a decent distribution contract. I am leaning towards liking the concept of hard copy recordings becoming an outdated concept and shifting toward an online/digital medium of distributing music. At least it gets closer to leveling the playing field.... "avianwayfilms@juno.com" <avianwayfilms@juno.com> wrote: Why you shouldn't worry (ethically)(and why you should - because as we know crimes against property are the worst according to those who "own" everything) Where does the money from the selling of music go? The "artist" usually gets fractions of a cent for the use of their music - radio play, mechanicals (retail purchased), use in soundtracks, etc. This amounts to very little money in reality, even for a popular artist with lots of airplay - like Metallica for instance... To share their music will take fractions of a penny from them over the course of a year. Of the rest of the money (better than 99 percent usually) most goes to the record company and some little goes to the owner of the publishing rights for the artist's music (who is often not the artist - a company owned by Michael Jackson owns a lot of the publishing rights to many Beatle's songs - the owners of the rights to much music are usually, surprise! subsidiaries and holding companies of - the record companies!) Most artists will only make money by performing, because the returns are often greater than the costs. If an artist has their own production company and can control the costs and the profits of touring themselves, rather than the way it typically is with a record company footing the bill and then charging the artist for it later), they can make OK money if they can play at the right sized venues on their tours. Artists can also make money with merchandise - T-shirts and CDs, etc sold at shows - I urge you to buy direct from the artist as much as possible, especially at shows. Artists should not sell their publishing rights to anyone. If they keep their rights, and they reserve the rights to other uses in their recording (slavery) contracts, they can theoretically sell the song in a secondary market - like for a film soundtrack or a commercial, etc. A musician is not usually allowed to do this until they have a lot of clout (sales) because the record companies are not inclined to let a penny slip by unpinched. Musicians are not hurt much at all by downloading mp3s of their music. You are stealing, in a sense, yes, but mostly from the money-grubbing entertainment conglomerates who reallly really need that money more than ever to pay for their growing packs of attorneys and to offset their (debatable) drop in profits due to their inability to consistently offer quality products. (unquestionable). Besides, most of us who open source share are only stealing in the sense of Robin Hood and not in the sense of Enron or Bank of America. Many musicians I know use Limewire or suchlike. They have no ethical objections to it. In fact, many of us use it to "test drive" the music - a kind of shopping. If I come across something I like - Oval, Autechre, Mouse On Mars, Climax Golden Twins, Sufjan Stevens - I want the whole thing, artwork and all, at the best quality, so I'll buy it. Hell, sometimes I'll buy two! Anyway, I guess what it really comes down to is a dichotomy that splits the world - do you come down on the side of some of the world's largest corporations and their stupid puppets, like Metallica, or do you come down on the side of the mass of people who love music so much that it is woven into the everyday fabric of their lives in a truly meaningful, personal way that has little to do with the deep wading in the cesspool of commerce, and everything to do with the impulses and idealisms that create music. Yawn. Keep your ears open and your chin up. Slippery. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Seriously... That's the most retarded and ill-informed piece of writing I've ever seen about all this. -your average well selling indie artist makes more then "pennies" per sale (try about $1.00-$2.00, plus mechanicals). -by not buying not only are you not supporting, but you're also contributing to unsold stock, decreased record store budgets (thereby not encouraging stores to take chances), and many many other things. -people have bills to pay. Do you all do your day jobs for the "recognition"...."I feel I'm a great web programmer, and I'm so happy to be recognized as such that I don't care if I can actually make a living from what I like doing. I just sit around all day masturbating in the glow of all the recognition I get" -keeping your publishing is a myth. By all means keep it if you're actually going to do something with it, but I challenge any of you to get an ad agency or film producer or music supervisor to actually take your phone calls or open your package without someone who knows what they're doing in charge of it. And have fun dealing with all the performing rights societies around the world making sure you're getting the money you're owed...oh what's that... you did all that but now you don't have any time to make music anywhere...maybe get some friends to help you out... maybe put out some records by your other friends while you're at it... shit wait you've started a label... man when did you become such a greedy corporate fuck? -indie tours rarely make money. By all means buy shirts and CD's and whatever at the show but realize that the money generated there is contributing to the artists losing a bit less on the tour then they thought they would.

quoted 1 line

>

quoted 2 lines Besides, most of us who open source share are only stealing in the

> Besides, most of us who open source share are only stealing in the > sense of Robin Hood and not in the sense of Enron or Bank of America.

Really you've actually politicized the act of on-line music sharing and given yourself some Robin Hood complex? What are you giving downloads to the poor. Yeah, real radical. There's wars going on. Get a fucking life idiot. Stop taking myths and calculations done on a major label/massive artist scale and then presenting them as fact as the way it works on an indie level. Stop watching MTV cribs. It's not how it is. Look I've got no problem with file sharing that encourages growth/recognition of an artist, but if there's no contribution at some level then it shuts down the supply eventually. Or worse, forces people to have to look for underwriting for their projects. By all means download every Aphex Twin song and don't pay for it, but don't bitch and moan if his next record is sponsored by Pepsi so that's he able to actually go about doing what he does. Jeff On 24-Aug-05, at 5:38 AM, patrick haenelt wrote:

quoted 107 lines I think that this is a very good subject to be debating. I have a

> I think that this is a very good subject to be debating. I have a > love-hate feeling about recorded music. On one hand it is great to be > able to purchace a copy of an artist's music that you love, but at the > same time this medium tends to quantify the worth of a particular > artist. Alot of times unit sales of a particular release is completely > based on the distribution contract that the band or producer has and > alot of times has little to do with the quality of music that is being > marketed. I love buying records, but I find myself wondering why it is > that I even have access to a record recorded by someoone in > Barcelona,New York,Berlin, or Hamburg. or if there are other artists > that deserve my purchace that I don't even know about, but lack a > decent distribution contract. I am leaning towards liking the concept > of hard copy recordings becoming an outdated concept and shifting > toward an online/digital medium of distributing music. At least it > gets closer to leveling the playing field.... > > "avianwayfilms@juno.com" <avianwayfilms@juno.com> wrote: Why you > shouldn't worry (ethically)(and why you should - because as we know > crimes against property are the worst according to those who "own" > everything) > > Where does the money from the selling of music go? > > The "artist" usually gets fractions of a cent for the use of their > music - radio play, mechanicals (retail purchased), use in > soundtracks, etc. > This amounts to very little money in reality, even for a popular > artist with > lots of airplay - like Metallica for instance... To share their music > will take fractions of a penny from them over the course of a year. > > Of the rest of the money (better than 99 percent usually) most goes to > the > record company and some little goes to the owner of the publishing > rights for > the artist's music (who is often not the artist - a company owned by > Michael > Jackson owns a lot of the publishing rights to many Beatle's songs - > the owners of the rights to much music are usually, surprise! > subsidiaries and holding companies of - the record companies!) > > Most artists will only make money by performing, because the returns > are often greater than the costs. If an artist has their own > production company and can control the costs and the profits of > touring themselves, rather than the way it typically is with a record > company footing the bill and then charging the artist for it later), > they can make OK money if they can play at the right sized venues on > their tours. > > Artists can also make money with merchandise - T-shirts and CDs, etc > sold at shows - I urge you to buy direct from the artist as much as > possible, especially at shows. > > Artists should not sell their publishing rights to anyone. > If they keep their rights, and they reserve the rights to other uses > in their > recording (slavery) contracts, they can theoretically sell the song in > a > secondary market - like for a film soundtrack or a commercial, etc. A > musician > is not usually allowed to do this until they have a lot of clout > (sales) because > the record companies are not inclined to let a penny slip by unpinched. > > Musicians are not hurt much at all by downloading mp3s of their music. > You are stealing, in a sense, yes, but mostly from the money-grubbing > entertainment conglomerates who reallly really need that money more > than ever to pay for their growing packs of attorneys and to offset > their (debatable) drop in profits due to their inability to > consistently offer quality products. (unquestionable). Besides, most > of us who open source share are only stealing in the sense of Robin > Hood and not in the sense of Enron or Bank of America. > > Many musicians I know use Limewire or suchlike. They have no ethical > objections to it. In fact, many of us use it to "test drive" the music > - a kind > of shopping. If I come across something I like - Oval, Autechre, Mouse > On Mars, > Climax Golden Twins, Sufjan Stevens - I want the whole thing, artwork > and all, > at the best quality, so I'll buy it. Hell, sometimes I'll buy two! > > Anyway, I guess what it really comes down to is a dichotomy that > splits the > world - do you come down on the side of some of the world's largest > corporations and their stupid puppets, like Metallica, or do you come > down on the side of the mass of people who love music so much that it > is woven into the > everyday fabric of their lives in a truly meaningful, personal way > that has > little to do with the deep wading in the cesspool of commerce, and > everything to do with the impulses and idealisms that create music. > Yawn. > > Keep your ears open and your chin up. Slippery. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Seriously Jeff, BIG THANKS for being a voice of reason. always enjoy hearing your thoughts on this subject. chris/scarcelight --- Jeff/Ninja Tune <jeff@ninjatune.net> wrote:

quoted 202 lines Seriously...

> Seriously... > > That's the most retarded and ill-informed piece of > writing I've ever > seen about all this. > > -your average well selling indie artist makes more > then "pennies" per > sale (try about $1.00-$2.00, plus mechanicals). > -by not buying not only are you not supporting, but > you're also > contributing to unsold stock, decreased record store > budgets (thereby > not encouraging stores to take chances), and many > many other things. > -people have bills to pay. Do you all do your day > jobs for the > "recognition"...."I feel I'm a great web programmer, > and I'm so happy > to be recognized as such that I don't care if I can > actually make a > living from what I like doing. I just sit around all > day masturbating > in the glow of all the recognition I get" > -keeping your publishing is a myth. By all means > keep it if you're > actually going to do something with it, but I > challenge any of you to > get an ad agency or film producer or music > supervisor to actually take > your phone calls or open your package without > someone who knows what > they're doing in charge of it. And have fun dealing > with all the > performing rights societies around the world making > sure you're getting > the money you're owed...oh what's that... you did > all that but now you > don't have any time to make music anywhere...maybe > get some friends to > help you out... maybe put out some records by your > other friends while > you're at it... shit wait you've started a label... > man when did you > become such a greedy corporate fuck? > -indie tours rarely make money. By all means buy > shirts and CD's and > whatever at the show but realize that the money > generated there is > contributing to the artists losing a bit less on the > tour then they > thought they would. > > > > > Besides, most of us who open source share are only > stealing in the > > sense of Robin Hood and not in the sense of Enron > or Bank of America. > > Really you've actually politicized the act of > on-line music sharing and > given yourself some Robin Hood complex? What are you > giving downloads > to the poor. Yeah, real radical. There's wars going > on. Get a fucking > life idiot. > > Stop taking myths and calculations done on a major > label/massive artist > scale and then presenting them as fact as the way it > works on an indie > level. > > Stop watching MTV cribs. It's not how it is. > > Look I've got no problem with file sharing that > encourages > growth/recognition of an artist, but if there's no > contribution at some > level then it shuts down the supply eventually. Or > worse, forces people > to have to look for underwriting for their projects. > By all means > download every Aphex Twin song and don't pay for it, > but don't bitch > and moan if his next record is sponsored by Pepsi so > that's he able to > actually go about doing what he does. > > > Jeff > > > > On 24-Aug-05, at 5:38 AM, patrick haenelt wrote: > > > I think that this is a very good subject to be > debating. I have a > > love-hate feeling about recorded music. On one > hand it is great to be > > able to purchace a copy of an artist's music that > you love, but at the > > same time this medium tends to quantify the worth > of a particular > > artist. Alot of times unit sales of a particular > release is completely > > based on the distribution contract that the band > or producer has and > > alot of times has little to do with the quality of > music that is being > > marketed. I love buying records, but I find myself > wondering why it is > > that I even have access to a record recorded by > someoone in > > Barcelona,New York,Berlin, or Hamburg. or if there > are other artists > > that deserve my purchace that I don't even know > about, but lack a > > decent distribution contract. I am leaning towards > liking the concept > > of hard copy recordings becoming an outdated > concept and shifting > > toward an online/digital medium of distributing > music. At least it > > gets closer to leveling the playing field.... > > > > "avianwayfilms@juno.com" <avianwayfilms@juno.com> > wrote: Why you > > shouldn't worry (ethically)(and why you should - > because as we know > > crimes against property are the worst according to > those who "own" > > everything) > > > > Where does the money from the selling of music go? > > > > The "artist" usually gets fractions of a cent for > the use of their > > music - radio play, mechanicals (retail > purchased), use in > > soundtracks, etc. > > This amounts to very little money in reality, even > for a popular > > artist with > > lots of airplay - like Metallica for instance... > To share their music > > will take fractions of a penny from them over the > course of a year. > > > > Of the rest of the money (better than 99 percent > usually) most goes to > > the > > record company and some little goes to the owner > of the publishing > > rights for > > the artist's music (who is often not the artist - > a company owned by > > Michael > > Jackson owns a lot of the publishing rights to > many Beatle's songs - > > the owners of the rights to much music are > usually, surprise! > > subsidiaries and holding companies of - the record > companies!) > > > > Most artists will only make money by performing, > because the returns > > are often greater than the costs. If an artist has > their own > > production company and can control the costs and > the profits of > > touring themselves, rather than the way it > typically is with a record > > company footing the bill and then charging the > artist for it later), > > they can make OK money if they can play at the > right sized venues on > > their tours. > > > > Artists can also make money with merchandise - > T-shirts and CDs, etc > > sold at shows - I urge you to buy direct from the > artist as much as > > possible, especially at shows. > > > > Artists should not sell their publishing rights to > anyone. > > If they keep their rights, and they reserve the > rights to other uses > > in their > > recording (slavery) contracts, they can > theoretically sell the song in > > a > > secondary market - like for a film soundtrack or a > commercial, etc. A > > musician > > is not usually allowed to do this until they have > a lot of clout > > (sales) because > > the record companies are not inclined to let a > penny slip by unpinched. >

=== message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 5 lines Seriously...

>> Seriously... >> >> That's the most retarded and ill-informed piece of >> writing I've ever >> seen about all this.

Rad. That pretty much echoed what I said about all this. I was just chuckling that my long, detailed response about exactly this was pretty much ignored, while the whole list jumped all over the autoerotica of the "I'm not in it for the money" ridiculi. Maybe its because I'm a little older. I'll be 31 this year. I haven't been such an idealistic tart since I was in my early twenties. Incidentally, and not coincidentally, when my parents still paid a lot of my bills. -- V, ~Rick Strom Glowdot Productions On Glowfoto: http://users.glowfoto.com/Strom ============================ Photo: http://www.glowfoto.com Music: http://www.glowdot.com Strom: http://www.rick-strom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Speaking of artists getting their fair share of sales of recorded music, I would like to ask a few questions to everyone. We are currently in the planning stages of setting up a small digital music distribution shop. Nothing big like iTunes, just something where we can feature independant artists and labels as well as our own music and friends' music. To be upfront, we are looking to make a modest living with this, but are not trying to get rich or anything like that. Anyway, we would like to offer 30 cents of each track to artists and 40 cents to labels. Then, we would offer about $2.50 for albums to artists and $3.20 to labels. These figures would be roughly 30% of each sale to the artists and 40% to the labels. What I would like to ask the artists and labels on here is if that seems fair? If not, what would you suggest? If it meant getting a larger percentage of each sale to release your tracks independantly rather than through a label, would you release tracks exclusively for digital distribution (I don't mean here only through one store, I hate when people do that)? For everyone buying music, would you be more inclined to buy music digitally if you knew exactly how much of each sale was going directly to the artist? Thanks everyone in advance for your insightful comments. I look forward to any opinions you may have on this. Naomi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:10:10PM +0200, Enaomi18 wrote:

quoted 8 lines Speaking of artists getting their fair share of sales of recorded music, I

> Speaking of artists getting their fair share of sales of recorded music, I > would like to ask a few questions to everyone. > > > Anyway, we would like to offer 30 cents of each track to artists and 40 > cents to labels. Then, we would offer about $2.50 for albums to artists and > $3.20 to labels. These figures would be roughly 30% of each sale to the > artists and 40% to the labels.

if i'm reading this right, it means 30c of each sale goes to the artist, and another 40c to the label. if i'm misreading it, it means an independant artist gets 30c, while an artist with a label gets 40c to split between them? i'm assuming it's the former, anyway... my first observation is that this is about the same as itunes, except the proportions are different. my primary question to this model, whether through them or you, is... what exactly is the label doing to justify getting the lion's share of the money? if you're distributing it, and this is for "independent" artists/labels, so it's not like people are picking up on any big corporate branding, then all i see the label doing is sitting in the middle soaking up money. do they give big advances to the artists to facilitate recording? no, they're a small independent label. do they give lots of marketing and promotion? no, they're a small independent label. do they distribute the records? well, maybe, by themselves, but under this model, you would be doing the distribution. this seems ridiculous to me, so much money is wasted on something that as far as i can see, has no relevance to creating the music, or getting it to people who will listen. fuck the label, contact artists directly through mediums like this, make sure they get the best return for their creativity that they can. as a sometime artist, i don't see the need for any intermediaries anymore. i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can get some more exposure by going on itunes, or another store. i see no need for a label in that scenario. as a consumer, i would rather know the artist is getting the bulk of the money, not that it's being decimated by a bunch of middlemen. david -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Oh no wait... This might be even more retarded than the original post. Yeah, you're right dude. Labels don't do anything. Which is odd considering my 12-14 work days. I wonder what I do during all that time. On-line porn only kills a few hours... There's absolutely no risk or money investment made by labels, nor any function of promotion or business management. Just sitting here counting all my middle-man cash. Fuck I've been found out. I guess it's time to get a real job. Jeff On 24-Aug-05, at 8:22 AM, david@modernangel.org wrote:

quoted 23 lines if you're distributing it, and this is for "independent"

> if you're distributing it, and this is for "independent" > artists/labels, so it's not like people are picking up on any big > corporate branding, then all i see the label doing is sitting in the > middle soaking up money. do they give big advances to the artists to > facilitate recording? no, they're a small independent label. do they > give lots of marketing and promotion? no, they're a small independent > label. do they distribute the records? well, maybe, by themselves, > but under this model, you would be doing the distribution. > > this seems ridiculous to me, so much money is wasted on something that > as far as i can see, has no relevance to creating the music, or > getting it to people who will listen. fuck the label, contact artists > directly through mediums like this, make sure they get the best return > for their creativity that they can. > > as a sometime artist, i don't see the need for any intermediaries > anymore. i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can > get some more exposure by going on itunes, or another store. i see no > need for a label in that scenario. > > as a consumer, i would rather know the artist is getting the bulk of > the money, not that it's being decimated by a bunch of middlemen. >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Thanks very much for your thoughts David. We share many of your sentiments, however I will explain our reasoning. The second option you refer to is what we are planning. An independant artist would get 30 cents of each sale, while a sale through a label would get 40 cents to split between the artist and label. The reasoning for this is to try to give the artist as high of a percentage as possible in either case although it would give them a higher profit to sell independantly than through a label depending on their agreement with their label. While it would seem most practical to just sell straight from the artist, in order to have a decently sized catalog and selection of already existing works, we still need to work with labels. I don't know how iTunes works their percentages out although I have heard some people complaining that they don't give enough to the artists. So, basically, what we are trying to do is find a balance where everyone is happy; the artists, the labels, and ourselves. This is why I am interested in what everyone thinks of these percentages. While that may be impossible to do (making everyone happy), we are most interested in compensating the artist fairly first. I'm hoping this makes sense! Naomi david@modernangel.org wrote:

quoted 2 lines if i'm reading this right, it means 30c of each sale goes to the artist,

> > if i'm reading this right, it means 30c of each sale goes to the artist,

and another 40c to the label. if i'm misreading it, it means an independant artist gets 30c, while an artist with a label gets 40c to split between them? i'm assuming it's the former, anyway...

quoted 2 lines my first observation is that this is about the same as itunes, except the

> > my first observation is that this is about the same as itunes, except the

proportions are different. my primary question to this model, whether through them or you, is... what exactly is the label doing to justify getting the lion's share of the money?

quoted 2 lines if you're distributing it, and this is for "independent" artists/labels,

> > if you're distributing it, and this is for "independent" artists/labels,

so it's not like people are picking up on any big corporate branding, then all i see the label doing is sitting in the middle soaking up money. do they give big advances to the artists to facilitate recording? no, they're a small independent label. do they give lots of marketing and promotion? no, they're a small independent label. do they distribute the records? well, maybe, by themselves, but under this model, you would be doing the distribution.

quoted 2 lines this seems ridiculous to me, so much money is wasted on something that as

> > this seems ridiculous to me, so much money is wasted on something that as

far as i can see, has no relevance to creating the music, or getting it to people who will listen. fuck the label, contact artists directly through mediums like this, make sure they get the best return for their creativity that they can.

quoted 2 lines as a sometime artist, i don't see the need for any intermediaries anymore.

> > as a sometime artist, i don't see the need for any intermediaries anymore.

i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can get some more exposure by going on itunes, or another store. i see no need for a label in that scenario.

quoted 2 lines as a consumer, i would rather know the artist is getting the bulk of the

> > as a consumer, i would rather know the artist is getting the bulk of the

money, not that it's being decimated by a bunch of middlemen.

quoted 2 lines david

> > david

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

wait a sec. am i reading this right? your saying you (as the online reseller) are going to be keeping 60% to 70% of the sale of a song. i was under the impression that a total of 70% would go to the label and the artist to split and if NO label was involved then the artist gets all 70%. this means you would get 30%. which is a lot compared to other companies. so i don't understand where it is you came up with this. cdbaby pays out 91% BTW. take a look at this link and start restructuring your business plan, because your not going to be up very long without doing so. http://cdbaby.net/dd?f=4 steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Enaomi18" To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] about music and money Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:08:52 +0200 Thanks very much for your thoughts David. We share many of your sentiments, however I will explain our reasoning. The second option you refer to is what we are planning. An independant artist would get 30 cents of each sale, while a sale through a label would get 40 cents to split between the artist and label. The reasoning for this is to try to give the artist as high of a percentage as possible in either case although it would give them a higher profit to sell independantly than through a label depending on their agreement with their label. While it would seem most practical to just sell straight from the artist, in order to have a decently sized catalog and selection of already existing works, we still need to work with labels. I don't know how iTunes works their percentages out although I have heard some people complaining that they don't give enough to the artists. So, basically, what we are trying to do is find a balance where everyone is happy; the artists, the labels, and ourselves. This is why I am interested in what everyone thinks of these percentages. While that may be impossible to do (making everyone happy), we are most interested in compensating the artist fairly first. I'm hoping this makes sense! Naomi david@modernangel.org wrote: > > if i'm reading this right, it means 30c of each sale goes to the artist, and another 40c to the label. if i'm misreading it, it means an independant artist gets 30c, while an artist with a label gets 40c to split between them? i'm assuming it's the former, anyway... > > my first observation is that this is about the same as itunes, except the proportions are different. my primary question to this model, whether through them or you, is... what exactly is the label doing to justify getting the lion's share of the money? > > if you're distributing it, and this is for "independent" artists/labels, so it's not like people are picking up on any big corporate branding, then all i see the label doing is sitting in the middle soaking up money. do they give big advances to the artists to facilitate recording? no, they're a small independent label. do they give lots of marketing and promotion? no, they're a small independent label. do they distribute the records? well, maybe, by themselves, but under this model, you would be doing the distribution. > > this seems ridiculous to me, so much money is wasted on something that as far as i can see, has no relevance to creating the music, or getting it to people who will listen. fuck the label, contact artists directly through mediums like this, make sure they get the best return for their creativity that they can. > > as a sometime artist, i don't see the need for any intermediaries anymore. i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can get some more exposure by going on itunes, or another store. i see no need for a label in that scenario. > > as a consumer, i would rather know the artist is getting the bulk of the money, not that it's being decimated by a bunch of middlemen. > > david --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org -- _______________________________________________ Outgun.com free e-mail @ www.outgun.com Check out our Premium services - POP3 downloading, e-mail forwarding, and 25MB mailboxes! Powered by Outblaze

Thanks, Steve. Actually, we wouldn't keep 60-70% of the sale. We are figuring this way because 30% would go directly to transaction and overhead costs before anything else. So, if costs are at 30%, that would give the label/artist 40% and us 40% or the independant artist 30% and us 40%. These direct costs are also before things like marketing, promotion, and administration that we would also do and would later cut our part of the profits further. We are looking for input on this, not setting anything in stone here. We are also going to be a store and not a distribution to other stores, which also makes a difference compared with what CDBaby is doing. We have looked around at other stores as well and noticed that they have this same structure, but that is not the most important thing here. Looking at the graph on the link you sent, it looks like the most an artist would make would be with iTunes and MSN which would be 70 cents per song minus 9%, which goes to CDBaby. So, that would make 64 cents or about 64% of each sale of a song. This would be great except for the fact that both Apple and MSN have admitted that they don't make any money from their stores. Loudeye also just reported, for example, that they have made just a 2% profit in the last quarter. Here is an article about it why these models don't work: http://www.sharkjumping.com/2005/08/digital_music_d.html As I mentioned before, we are trying to be fair most of all to the artist, but we would also still like to be here this time next year so we are trying to find a happy compromise for everyone. Naomi ----- Original Message ----- From: "steven roeder" <crashsick@outgun.com> To: <idm@hyperreal.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:29 PM Subject: Re: [idm] about music and money wait a sec. am i reading this right? your saying you (as the online reseller) are going to be keeping 60% to 70% of the sale of a song. i was under the impression that a total of 70% would go to the label and the artist to split and if NO label was involved then the artist gets all 70%. this means you would get 30%. which is a lot compared to other companies. so i don't understand where it is you came up with this. cdbaby pays out 91% BTW. take a look at this link and start restructuring your business plan, because your not going to be up very long without doing so. http://cdbaby.net/dd?f=4 steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Enaomi18" To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] about music and money Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:08:52 +0200 Thanks very much for your thoughts David. We share many of your sentiments, however I will explain our reasoning. The second option you refer to is what we are planning. An independant artist would get 30 cents of each sale, while a sale through a label would get 40 cents to split between the artist and label. The reasoning for this is to try to give the artist as high of a percentage as possible in either case although it would give them a higher profit to sell independantly than through a label depending on their agreement with their label. While it would seem most practical to just sell straight from the artist, in order to have a decently sized catalog and selection of already existing works, we still need to work with labels. I don't know how iTunes works their percentages out although I have heard some people complaining that they don't give enough to the artists. So, basically, what we are trying to do is find a balance where everyone is happy; the artists, the labels, and ourselves. This is why I am interested in what everyone thinks of these percentages. While that may be impossible to do (making everyone happy), we are most interested in compensating the artist fairly first. I'm hoping this makes sense! Naomi david@modernangel.org wrote: > > if i'm reading this right, it means 30c of each sale goes to the artist, and another 40c to the label. if i'm misreading it, it means an independant artist gets 30c, while an artist with a label gets 40c to split between them? i'm assuming it's the former, anyway... > > my first observation is that this is about the same as itunes, except the proportions are different. my primary question to this model, whether through them or you, is... what exactly is the label doing to justify getting the lion's share of the money? > > if you're distributing it, and this is for "independent" artists/labels, so it's not like people are picking up on any big corporate branding, then all i see the label doing is sitting in the middle soaking up money. do they give big advances to the artists to facilitate recording? no, they're a small independent label. do they give lots of marketing and promotion? no, they're a small independent label. do they distribute the records? well, maybe, by themselves, but under this model, you would be doing the distribution. > > this seems ridiculous to me, so much money is wasted on something that as far as i can see, has no relevance to creating the music, or getting it to people who will listen. fuck the label, contact artists directly through mediums like this, make sure they get the best return for their creativity that they can. > > as a sometime artist, i don't see the need for any intermediaries anymore. i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can get some more exposure by going on itunes, or another store. i see no need for a label in that scenario. > > as a consumer, i would rather know the artist is getting the bulk of the money, not that it's being decimated by a bunch of middlemen. > > david --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org -- _______________________________________________ Outgun.com free e-mail @ www.outgun.com Check out our Premium services - POP3 downloading, e-mail forwarding, and 25MB mailboxes! Powered by Outblaze --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

this is prolly gonna get me shat upon.. but thats the present situation anyway.. so here goes. -- Enaomi18 wrote:

quoted 5 lines i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can get some more

>i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can get some more >exposure by going on itunes, or another store. i see no need for a label in >that scenario. > >

this only makes sense if you're working with <1000 copy labels who dont "care" about promotion, who dont "care" about getting distribution, who "dont have the money" to send promotional copies out, who dont maintain a steady stream of releases, and who take the "its just a hobby" type attitude. this is all well and good if these "its just a hobby"-labels are releasing music by "its just a hobby"-musicians - in fact, it probably doesnt matter to either of the two (label/musician) since they both have a job "gotta pay the bills" stylee -- which basically means that there is no passion, and NO lust to make the machine work better. this type of thinking, when massively repeated by huge amounts of labelbosses/musicians, leads to the result that even the consumers think "they got day-jobs.. they'll be ok .. i dont need to support this" and just ignore everything. i look at these "30 cents to artists" things and man oh man.. digital distribution is all great, I SUPPOSE, but last i checked, most digitaldistribution-sites are full of labels, and full of artists -- and it would seem (i wont bet my life on this) that most do not have any kind of promotion going on for the tracks.. "30 cents for a track" is probably great, if you already have food on your table, electricity, water, heat, and a home, you can use it to buy a lollipop -- but what i really - what i REALLY dont get is.. if 30cents per track, means that 10 people are going to download it, within a few years (yes, its a caricature - but do ya get me??) , that'll mean that the hours spent working on the track have amounted to a magic 3USD. im currently in the process of working out a digital-distribution-test. my albums "container" (deFocus/2000) "spaces" (u-cover/2001) "showcase" (merck/2003) are all going to be released on various digital distribution sites - where it will be me, and the guy facilitating the multiple digitaldistribution-site-contracts putting it on. i have no idea how things are going to work - and as far as i can see, it does seem like i will have to push the fact of this, with the hopes that i will get a few dollars out of it. if i get 50cents, i'll be pretty happy - because it'll be _something_. i have no utopian dreams that thousands of people are going to opt to downloading them from said places (interestingly - the list of DD-sites they will be on, seems to change daily, from 35 to a max of 40, but without me being told which ones they are -- again, its a very low-risk, it could help -- but what im looking at is -- is there going to be any kind of promotional machine promoting the information that they are going to be available? how is it going to work out? i see no reason in jettisoning any new music to such a venture before i see that there is an interest.. i mean, whats the use of having something on a DD-site if you're going to get say, 15cents per download -- and no-one downloads? - again, for some of you, it'll probably be great if one person downloads something, because you have a dayjob - i on the other hand, do not... so it'll be interesting to see how this pans out))) what i have to say is this: if an artist has a shop, if they go to a gig, and they bring cds, - then if you really believe its worth it - support them. you might be surprised to later find out, that at least a handful of people actually see their daily bread out of these sporadic support/sales/donations.. its a risky life - and seeing other people treat your lifeblood as a hobby - i.e., half-day label-bosses - later on leads to a distinct lack of impetus to actually finish anything. also, there is NO identifiable difference between musical-hobbyists trying to get demos heard, and musicLIVERS trying to get demos heard - with the desperate hope of getting some food on the table. its also interesting that anyone who speaks openly of their venture to support themselves entirely out of their musical work - gets told "get a day-job".. this kind of "taking the unsustainability of life with a musical career for granted - and denying the possibility of it being possible to actually make any headway, denying it - and presenting that denial as TRUTH" is extremely distressing. i will work my utmost to get to the position where 99% of my time isnt spent wondering how im going to eat next, or if im going to have a roof over me - and i have been working at it since april2002 - when the company i briefly worked for (my only job, ever, im 27 as of 26.oct) went bankrupt. i do NOT intend to work. i REFUSE to listen to people who say "get a job - this'll never get you anywhere" - what do THEY know - except they're basically repeating a negative, hopeless view of how this world works, and affecting everyone around them with that attitude of 'you cant make it - get a job'.. the only sources of money i have are: - finding a few cents on the street (you'd be surprised how much finding a 5 cent coin on the ground means when you have nothing) - getting paid for performing live - selling records out of my own webshop (getting your own records from labels that released you -- seems to be much more of a given than "advances" and "royaltystatements" (what with most labels not knowing what those two things mean - as they're too "business-like") - producing a remix for an artist (and this normally means getting a few copies of the record (see the one before)) - getting random donations from people who feel what im doing. - being foodwise supported by my significant other - she refuses to see me starve (which i, basically, would.) - and also believes that music is what im supposed to be doing here, on this planet, in this life. this is how i survive. it somehow works out - but its a very stop/start venture. from this type of viewpoint, to see anyone taking the piss about 'labels dont mean anything' - i feel the person is being ridiculous. if you look at any of the more on-top-of-it labels, they do these things: 1) organize album launches 2) organize record tours 3) organize worldwide tours 4) license tracks to other labels 5) publish tracks / licensing them to commercials 6) they have their machine ready to get money out of radioplay, or any other such 7) have proper worldwide distribution 8) have a promotional circuit of press-reviewers/interviewers/ magazine contacts / DJs, etc - to create the hubbub, to raise the profile of the artists that they are pushing. 9) have multiple means of getting the record out there (label-shop, digital distribution shop, creation of musicvideos and promoting thereof) 10) send royaltystatements, - and pay the agreed-upon sums of money, on time, resulting in 11) they ARE _caring about the welfare of the artist_. - and those are the labels that everyone (music-hobbyist and music-liver) are trying to get on. and - again - the music-hobbyists crowd out the music-livers, and who's to say whats more worthy etc - but for everyone who "gets thru" there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people who have worthy creations - but never get heard (or they settle for less - and get a little ditty out every once in a while - whilst being sent one copy of the record..) it also doesnt help that most forums seem to be full of extremely bored people who are nonplussed by everything, signed or unsigned - just because they can put something down and disrespect the effort involved - they get on a powertrip and basically raise a stink where once was a savour.. once you have a suitably run, well-setup label behind you, that supports you, and allows you time to develop, that gives you an advance (=basically commissions you to do an album or an ep), all the while the label having such a profile that marketing people get in touch wtih them to get their music on commercials - i do NOT see how anyone can say that labels dont matter - and that they're a completely useless waste of time. and, ALSO, one thing i come across most of the time is this: 'you're not gonna get on a label like that - so why dont you start your own?' this basically means having to reinvent the wheel, and keep reinventing it, whilst no-one cares about your fledgling label, you have to put all amounts of hours into getting the distribution/promotion-circuit going - and you're starting out of NOTHING. again - its probably a great hobby to press a few hundred records and send promos and its probably VERY fun - but man - how many other people think exactly like that - whilst commuting home from their dayjob? the type of investment required to press a decent amount of records, and the time invested into getting the recognition and assuring the flow of sales - means that you can basically give up on music altogether. those who can set up a label of their own and sell self-published cds/vinyls and survive - kudos. its probably easier with bands (more people to waste time on that).. but it is impossible to make happen for someone who doesnt even have the money to press 50 CDs and send them out. yes i would be very interested in seeing what bleep total sales, or even average sales are, per a label that is on bleep - just to see how many people actually pay for digital music - when a label such as warp records is behind it. i find it singularly interesting how consumers are like 'oh.. an euro per track.. ohhh.. if only it were like. 20cents.. i'd go for it in a second'.. like a single SONG isnt worth more than an euro? i'd rather sell 1 copy of a CD of mine to a person, for 20eur - over paypal - than see 100 people download a track via digital distribution - and get 1USD out of the whole result. a pet isnt just for the summer - its for life. same with music. ---- humbly yours, esa juhani ruoho http://www.lackluster.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On 8/24/05, esa ruoho <esaruoho@dlc.fi> wrote:

quoted 9 lines this is all well and good if these "its just a hobby"-labels are

> > this is all well and good if these "its just a hobby"-labels are > releasing music by "its just a hobby"-musicians - in fact, it probably > doesnt matter to either of the two (label/musician) since they both have > a job "gotta pay the bills" stylee -- which basically means that there > is no passion, and NO lust to make the machine work better. > > >

Hey, fuck you and your high horse, buddy. I make good music as a hobby. Some of us do it because we love it and don't give a shit about making money. I don't have the time or the energy to deal with an industry that is sincerely and hopelessly fucked right now. Guess what? I love my day job too. www.resistanceisntfutile.com <http://www.resistanceisntfutile.com> -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jason Clark

Anyone who's had any interaction with Esa or who bothered to read his post would realize he doesn't ride a 'high horse". On the other hand, you seem pretty smug and quick to flip up your middle finger based on your little corner view. Be careful eyeing up other peoples' horses. You might fall off your own - and it looks like a nasty drop to me. Jason Clark wrote:

quoted 22 lines On 8/24/05, esa ruoho <esaruoho@dlc.fi> wrote:

>On 8/24/05, esa ruoho <esaruoho@dlc.fi> wrote: > > >>this is all well and good if these "its just a hobby"-labels are >>releasing music by "its just a hobby"-musicians - in fact, it probably >>doesnt matter to either of the two (label/musician) since they both have >>a job "gotta pay the bills" stylee -- which basically means that there >>is no passion, and NO lust to make the machine work better. >> >> >> >> >> >Hey, fuck you and your high horse, buddy. I make good music as a hobby. Some >of us do it because we love it and don't give a shit about making money. I >don't have the time or the energy to deal with an industry that is sincerely >and hopelessly fucked right now. Guess what? I love my day job too. > >www.resistanceisntfutile.com <http://www.resistanceisntfutile.com> > > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On 8/24/05, Jason Clark <strangeloop@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted 12 lines On 8/24/05, esa ruoho <esaruoho@dlc.fi> wrote:

> On 8/24/05, esa ruoho <esaruoho@dlc.fi> wrote: > > > > this is all well and good if these "its just a hobby"-labels are > > releasing music by "its just a hobby"-musicians - in fact, it probably > > doesnt matter to either of the two (label/musician) since they both have > > a job "gotta pay the bills" stylee -- which basically means that there > > is no passion, and NO lust to make the machine work better. > > > > > > > Hey, fuck you and your high horse, buddy. I make good music as a hobby. Some > of us do it because we love it and don't give a shit about making money.

If you could make a living off music and thus spend more time making music, do you think you could make better music?

quoted 3 lines I

> I > don't have the time or the energy to deal with an industry that is sincerely > and hopelessly fucked right now.

As was pointed out by Esa it's this kind of...defeatism(?) that's crippling the inudstry at the moment. Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Very well put. Always nice when stupid blanket statements eventually turn into reasonable/sensible discourse. As an addition to one of your last comments. I'm always fascinated by people's range of worth they attach to things, like : "$14 is to much for a CD, especially when you can get a DVD for the same amount...and that's like...a film" Well congrats. I'm sure you'll be very happy watching that DVD three times in your life, as opposed to that record. I mean really. I love Planet Of The Apes (...the original) as much as I love say Slayer's "Reign In Blood". Financially speaking I've probably contributed about the same amount to owning both (bought the LP, bought the VHS, bought the CD, bought the DVD). I can verify that my money has gone a lot further with the music in terms of cash vs. enjoyment. "$1 is way to much for a song". Which in fairness people can make their own opinion as to relative worth, but I love when people who say that have a $3 ring tone on their phone. Like a $1 is way to much, but $3 for 15 seconds of the track totally rules. Yeah, anyway. Back to work. Honestly there's work to do here. I know it seems crazy, but after most of the day gets eaten up counting money there's still a few more things to do. Jeff On 24-Aug-05, at 5:08 PM, esa ruoho wrote:

quoted 198 lines this is prolly gonna get me shat upon.. but thats the present

> this is prolly gonna get me shat upon.. but thats the present > situation anyway.. so here goes. > > > -- > Enaomi18 wrote: > >> i can sell tracks myself with a website and paypal. i can get some >> more >> exposure by going on itunes, or another store. i see no need for a >> label in >> that scenario. >> > this only makes sense if you're working with <1000 copy labels who > dont "care" about promotion, who dont "care" about getting > distribution, who "dont have the money" to send promotional copies > out, who dont maintain a steady stream of releases, and who take the > "its just a hobby" type attitude. > > this is all well and good if these "its just a hobby"-labels are > releasing music by "its just a hobby"-musicians - in fact, it probably > doesnt matter to either of the two (label/musician) since they both > have a job "gotta pay the bills" stylee -- which basically means that > there is no passion, and NO lust to make the machine work better. this > type of thinking, when massively repeated by huge amounts of > labelbosses/musicians, leads to the result that even the consumers > think "they got day-jobs.. they'll be ok .. i dont need to support > this" and just ignore everything. > > i look at these "30 cents to artists" things and man oh man.. digital > distribution is all great, I SUPPOSE, but last i checked, most > digitaldistribution-sites are full of labels, and full of artists -- > and it would seem (i wont bet my life on this) that most do not have > any kind of promotion going on for the tracks.. "30 cents for a track" > is probably great, if you already have food on your table, > electricity, water, heat, and a home, you can use it to buy a lollipop > -- but what i really - what i REALLY dont get is.. > if 30cents per track, means that 10 people are going to download it, > within a few years (yes, its a caricature - but do ya get me??) , > that'll mean that the hours spent working on the track have amounted > to a magic 3USD. > > im currently in the process of working out a > digital-distribution-test. my albums "container" (deFocus/2000) > "spaces" (u-cover/2001) "showcase" (merck/2003) are all going to be > released on various digital distribution sites - where it will be me, > and the guy facilitating the multiple > digitaldistribution-site-contracts putting it on. i have no idea how > things are going to work - and as far as i can see, it does seem like > i will have to push the fact of this, with the hopes that i will get a > few dollars out of it. if i get 50cents, i'll be pretty happy - > because it'll be _something_. i have no utopian dreams that thousands > of people are going to opt to downloading them from said places > (interestingly - the list of DD-sites they will be on, seems to change > daily, from 35 to a max of 40, but without me being told which ones > they are -- again, its a very low-risk, it could help -- but what im > looking at is -- is there going to be any kind of promotional machine > promoting the information that they are going to be available? how is > it going to work out? i see no reason in jettisoning any new music to > such a venture before i see that there is an interest.. i mean, whats > the use of having something on a DD-site if you're going to get say, > 15cents per download -- and no-one downloads? - again, for some of > you, it'll probably be great if one person downloads something, > because you have a dayjob - i on the other hand, do not... so it'll be > interesting to see how this pans out))) > > what i have to say is this: > if an artist has a shop, if they go to a gig, and they bring cds, - > then if you really believe its worth it - support them. you might be > surprised to later find out, that at least a handful of people > actually see their daily bread out of these sporadic > support/sales/donations.. its a risky life - and seeing other people > treat your lifeblood as a hobby - i.e., half-day label-bosses - later > on leads to a distinct lack of impetus to actually finish anything. > also, there is NO identifiable difference between musical-hobbyists > trying to get demos heard, and musicLIVERS trying to get demos heard - > with the desperate hope of getting some food on the table. its also > interesting that anyone who speaks openly of their venture to support > themselves entirely out of their musical work - gets told "get a > day-job".. this kind of "taking the unsustainability of life with a > musical career for granted - and denying the possibility of it being > possible to actually make any headway, denying it - and presenting > that denial as TRUTH" is extremely distressing. > > i will work my utmost to get to the position where 99% of my time isnt > spent wondering how im going to eat next, or if im going to have a > roof over me - and i have been working at it since april2002 - when > the company i briefly worked for (my only job, ever, im 27 as of > 26.oct) went bankrupt. i do NOT intend to work. i REFUSE to listen to > people who say "get a job - this'll never get you anywhere" - what do > THEY know - except they're basically repeating a negative, hopeless > view of how this world works, and affecting everyone around them with > that attitude of 'you cant make it - get a job'.. > the only sources of money i have are: > - finding a few cents on the street (you'd be surprised how much > finding a 5 cent coin on the ground means when you have nothing) > - getting paid for performing live > - selling records out of my own webshop (getting your own records from > labels that released you -- seems to be much more of a given than > "advances" and "royaltystatements" (what with most labels not knowing > what those two things mean - as they're too "business-like") > - producing a remix for an artist (and this normally means getting a > few copies of the record (see the one before)) > - getting random donations from people who feel what im doing. > - being foodwise supported by my significant other - she refuses to > see me starve (which i, basically, would.) - and also believes that > music is what im supposed to be doing here, on this planet, in this > life. > > this is how i survive. it somehow works out - but its a very > stop/start venture. > > from this type of viewpoint, to see anyone taking the piss about > 'labels dont mean anything' - i feel the person is being ridiculous. > if you look at any of the more on-top-of-it labels, they do these > things: > 1) organize album launches > 2) organize record tours > 3) organize worldwide tours > 4) license tracks to other labels > 5) publish tracks / licensing them to commercials > 6) they have their machine ready to get money out of radioplay, or any > other such > 7) have proper worldwide distribution > 8) have a promotional circuit of press-reviewers/interviewers/ > magazine contacts / DJs, etc - to create the hubbub, to raise the > profile of the artists that they are pushing. > 9) have multiple means of getting the record out there (label-shop, > digital distribution shop, creation of musicvideos and promoting > thereof) > 10) send royaltystatements, - and pay the agreed-upon sums of money, > on time, resulting in > 11) they ARE _caring about the welfare of the artist_. > > - and those are the labels that everyone (music-hobbyist and > music-liver) are trying to get on. and - again - the music-hobbyists > crowd out the music-livers, and who's to say whats more worthy etc - > but for everyone who "gets thru" there are dozens upon dozens upon > dozens of people who have worthy creations - but never get heard (or > they settle for less - and get a little ditty out every once in a > while - whilst being sent one copy of the record..) it also doesnt > help that most forums seem to be full of extremely bored people who > are nonplussed by everything, signed or unsigned - just because they > can put something down and disrespect the effort involved - they get > on a powertrip and basically raise a stink where once was a savour.. > > once you have a suitably run, well-setup label behind you, that > supports you, and allows you time to develop, that gives you an > advance (=basically commissions you to do an album or an ep), all the > while the label having such a profile that marketing people get in > touch wtih them to get their music on commercials - i do NOT see how > anyone can say that labels dont matter - and that they're a completely > useless waste of time. > > and, ALSO, one thing i come across most of the time is this: 'you're > not gonna get on a label like that - so why dont you start your own?' > this basically means having to reinvent the wheel, and keep > reinventing it, whilst no-one cares about your fledgling label, you > have to put all amounts of hours into getting the > distribution/promotion-circuit going - and you're starting out of > NOTHING. again - its probably a great hobby to press a few hundred > records and send promos and its probably VERY fun - but man - how many > other people think exactly like that - whilst commuting home from > their dayjob? the type of investment required to press a decent amount > of records, and the time invested into getting the recognition and > assuring the flow of sales - means that you can basically give up on > music altogether. > those who can set up a label of their own and sell self-published > cds/vinyls and survive - kudos. its probably easier with bands (more > people to waste time on that).. but it is impossible to make happen > for someone who doesnt even have the money to press 50 CDs and send > them out. > > > yes i would be very interested in seeing what bleep total sales, or > even average sales are, per a label that is on bleep - just to see how > many people actually pay for digital music - when a label such as warp > records is behind it. > > i find it singularly interesting how consumers are like 'oh.. an euro > per track.. ohhh.. if only it were like. 20cents.. i'd go for it in a > second'.. like a single SONG isnt worth more than an euro? i'd rather > sell 1 copy of a CD of mine to a person, for 20eur - over paypal - > than see 100 people download a track via digital distribution - and > get 1USD out of the whole result. > > > a pet isnt just for the summer - its for life. same with music. > > ---- > humbly yours, esa juhani ruoho > http://www.lackluster.org/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 2 lines while the whole list jumped all over the autoerotica of the

> while the whole list jumped all over the autoerotica of the > "I'm not in it for the money" ridiculi.

I think the problem is less with 'I'm not in it for the money' (or rather, I'm happy to do it part time for no money') than with 'nobody else should be either.' OTOH 'I like working full time at music so the money comes in handy' doesn't translate into 'and nobody not working full time on the music is worth considering' either. Keep it calm, people... it's too serious an issue to get offensive over. David This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Ok guys.... enough is enough..... pleeeeeease : ) Can you take this off topic and email one another, my email is just full of this. Valid points all round, Im not taking sides.... just chill. Come on wanna hear what moosik you guys have been up to when not emailing each other and getting upset... Lets get a plan for world domination together or even talk about what new equipment we are buying or using.... software too... anyone just use a cassette deck and a ruler to make music???? There's loads more interesting topics that I was hoping to discuss when joining this group... lets topicise!!! : ) Why not set up a IRC channel too for this chat and how about a thing where by we all upload a new track by the end of the month for other to listen too!?!? Something like this to keep up busy writing and doing what we love. Anyway dont shoot the messenger... just trying to keep the piece. Nice one all - bit --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I actually found this topic to be quite interesting. I was very interested in the viewpoints and philosophies that were shared. It actually got me thinking a lot about myself as a musician, and how i relate/incorporate business into the mix. To be honest, sometimes the steady influx of promo site and mp3 links can get tiresome. Hearty controversial discussion is just what the doctor ordered for a guy like me. And to be more honest, if you think things were getting offensive or hairy, they weren't. Ive been a bystander of some pretty harsh hatred driven forums and i have to say the IDMlist is a very VERY welcome change of pace from that ego driven ignorance riddled bullshit. *cough*hiphop*cough* To keep this on music - i say: check out my tiresome music link. www.mantrakid.com Love nate www.neferiu.com mATT hODSON wrote:

quoted 33 lines Ok guys.... enough is enough..... pleeeeeease : )

> Ok guys.... enough is enough..... pleeeeeease : ) > > Can you take this off topic and email one another, my email is just > full of this. > > Valid points all round, Im not taking sides.... just chill. > > Come on wanna hear what moosik you guys have been up to when not > emailing each other and getting upset... > > Lets get a plan for world domination together or even talk about what > new equipment we are buying or using.... software too... anyone just > use a cassette deck and a ruler to make music???? > > There's loads more interesting topics that I was hoping to discuss > when joining this group... lets topicise!!! : ) > > Why not set up a IRC channel too for this chat and how about a thing > where by we all upload a new track by the end of the month for other > to listen too!?!? Something like this to keep up busy writing and > doing what we love. > > Anyway dont shoot the messenger... just trying to keep the piece. > > Nice one all > > - bit > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

-- www.neferiu.com <http://www.neferiu.com> calgary *·* alberta 403*·*852*·*6801 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Yes it was interesting and its good to hear others opinions and thoughts.... but it was really nothing new, and it was boring me.. thats my viewpoint and philosophy on it. : ) - bit On 25 Aug 2005, at 17:31, mantrakid wrote:

quoted 72 lines I actually found this topic to be quite interesting. I was very

> > I actually found this topic to be quite interesting. I was very > interested in the viewpoints and philosophies that were shared. It > actually got me thinking a lot about myself as a musician, and how i > relate/incorporate business into the mix. > > To be honest, sometimes the steady influx of promo site and mp3 links > can get tiresome. Hearty controversial discussion is just what the > doctor ordered for a guy like me. > > And to be more honest, if you think things were getting offensive or > hairy, they weren't. Ive been a bystander of some pretty harsh hatred > driven forums and i have to say the IDMlist is a very VERY welcome > change of pace from that ego driven ignorance riddled bullshit. > *cough*hiphop*cough* > > To keep this on music - i say: check out my tiresome music link. > www.mantrakid.com > > Love nate > www.neferiu.com > > > mATT hODSON wrote: > >> Ok guys.... enough is enough..... pleeeeeease : ) >> >> Can you take this off topic and email one another, my email is just >> full of this. >> >> Valid points all round, Im not taking sides.... just chill. >> >> Come on wanna hear what moosik you guys have been up to when not >> emailing each other and getting upset... >> >> Lets get a plan for world domination together or even talk about what >> new equipment we are buying or using.... software too... anyone just >> use a cassette deck and a ruler to make music???? >> >> There's loads more interesting topics that I was hoping to discuss >> when joining this group... lets topicise!!! : ) >> >> Why not set up a IRC channel too for this chat and how about a thing >> where by we all upload a new track by the end of the month for other >> to listen too!?!? Something like this to keep up busy writing and >> doing what we love. >> >> Anyway dont shoot the messenger... just trying to keep the piece. >> >> Nice one all >> >> - bit >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> > > -- > > > > www.neferiu.com <http://www.neferiu.com> > calgary *·* alberta > 403*·*852*·*6801 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Let's all chat about what point it is that a successful artist has sold out. ;) just mantrakidding love nate www.neferiu.com mATT hODSON wrote:

quoted 84 lines Yes it was interesting and its good to hear others opinions and

> Yes it was interesting and its good to hear others opinions and > thoughts.... > > but it was really nothing new, and it was boring me.. > > thats my viewpoint and philosophy on it. : ) > > - bit > > On 25 Aug 2005, at 17:31, mantrakid wrote: > >> >> I actually found this topic to be quite interesting. I was very >> interested in the viewpoints and philosophies that were shared. It >> actually got me thinking a lot about myself as a musician, and how i >> relate/incorporate business into the mix. >> >> To be honest, sometimes the steady influx of promo site and mp3 links >> can get tiresome. Hearty controversial discussion is just what the >> doctor ordered for a guy like me. >> >> And to be more honest, if you think things were getting offensive or >> hairy, they weren't. Ive been a bystander of some pretty harsh hatred >> driven forums and i have to say the IDMlist is a very VERY welcome >> change of pace from that ego driven ignorance riddled bullshit. >> *cough*hiphop*cough* >> >> To keep this on music - i say: check out my tiresome music link. >> www.mantrakid.com >> >> Love nate >> www.neferiu.com >> >> >> mATT hODSON wrote: >> >>> Ok guys.... enough is enough..... pleeeeeease : ) >>> >>> Can you take this off topic and email one another, my email is just >>> full of this. >>> >>> Valid points all round, Im not taking sides.... just chill. >>> >>> Come on wanna hear what moosik you guys have been up to when not >>> emailing each other and getting upset... >>> >>> Lets get a plan for world domination together or even talk about >>> what new equipment we are buying or using.... software too... anyone >>> just use a cassette deck and a ruler to make music???? >>> >>> There's loads more interesting topics that I was hoping to discuss >>> when joining this group... lets topicise!!! : ) >>> >>> Why not set up a IRC channel too for this chat and how about a thing >>> where by we all upload a new track by the end of the month for other >>> to listen too!?!? Something like this to keep up busy writing and >>> doing what we love. >>> >>> Anyway dont shoot the messenger... just trying to keep the piece. >>> >>> Nice one all >>> >>> - bit >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> www.neferiu.com <http://www.neferiu.com> >> calgary *·* alberta >> 403*·*852*·*6801 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> >

-- www.neferiu.com <http://www.neferiu.com> calgary *·* alberta 403*·*852*·*6801 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org