Do any of you /mu/ nerds have any ideas about how to distribute music in the modern age? I'm tired of the meme-tier distribution that's been flooding the market lately - vinyl and cassettes have no business being sold in 2000+15. Not only is pressing digital files into analog mediums absolutely retarded, it's too expensive for the average artist to make a profit. Obviously digital is a superior format in terms of quality, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility, but no one gets that thrill out of just downloading a file. Music videos are also getting to be totally lame, as well as inaccessible to the average musician.
Is music just turning into something for rich people and niche nerds? Do I have to fork it out for vinyl just to have my independent music be bought by a few dozen people?
welcome to the digital era
give it for free of be a douche
>>61244436
>meme-tier distribution
What the fuck does that even mean?
>>61244486
There has to be a way to monetize "giving it away for free" on the internet. Even getting enough streaming plays will pay decent royalties. The challenge is partly getting in front of people and impressing them with the product, which seems harder to do in a market saturated with flashy vinyl packaging and million dollar music videos
>>61244538
Exactly what I said after it: vinyl and cassettes, and the like. It's hipster bullshit, in other words.
>>61244546
bandcamp?
plus i kinda agree with first fag, art is as subjective as it's price and those who want to listen to it independent of liking it should not be forced to pay for it.
>>61244572
So buying physical copies of music is meme? You probably started high school in like 2012 or something if you're this delusional
>>61244610
I do like Bandcamp, but there's still the issue of getting people to the page. If you don't have a publicist or a fat advertising budget, you're going to have to work your ass off just to get a dozen likes on an album you may have spent months making.
I don't see it as forcing people to pay for anything. People are already spending $20 - $30 on vinyl in record numbers, clearly they want to blow their money on something. I just want to know how to get those people interested in spending similar amounts online.
>>61244665
If you're making music for likes you deserve not to be heard.
>>61244664
Buying digital files that have been pressed into analog mediums is absolute slack jawed retard material. You are being utterly duped by record companies. If you want a physical copy, buy a CD. It will last longer, sound better and not have dust on it right out of the package.
>>61244665
so you want to charge PHYSICAL price for DIGITAL products, is that it?
>>61244702
I enjoy owning a physical copy of the music I like & supporting the artists I listen to. If you call that being retarded please refer to the last sentence of my last post
>>61244684
Art and business are not mutually exclusive. If you have a product that people will enjoy and a place where they can find it and pay money for it, why not take advantage of that? I'm just trying to brainstorm ways to drive those sales.
>>61244735
>you're going to have to work your ass off just to get a dozen likes on an album you may have spent months making
This is not trying to make a living on the art you create, but trying to create art to make money. If the sole reason you make music is to get likes and money you don't deserve to be heard.
Why don't you post some of your stuff here if you want to be heard, btw?
>>61244718
>so you want to charge MONEY for something you WORKED HARD ON
Get real man. If you have an issue with paying $10 for some music, you're the delusional one.
>>61244731
What I'm saying is that if you choose to pay more money for outdated mediums, you're an idiot. Almost every single band around sells CDs. Stop fueling an industry that encourages ignorance and the use of fossil fuels.
>>61244735
>why not take advantage of that?
becouse it wont be art anymore
>>61244777
But I enjoy collecting and listening to vinyl. And why do you consider vinyl such an outdated medium when you too clearly aknowledge that they're really popular these days?
>>61244771
I'm talking about promotion. Most independent artists do not have the advertisement budgets, or budgets in general, that bigger artists have. Therefore, they have to work their asses off just to put themselves ten steps below someone that might not even be creating a more compelling product.
You also appear to be discounting the work done by people in film scoring, or ad placement.
> i want to be famous and live out of my music, but it sucks
>how do i make people like it?
>>61244813
Because it is literally outdated. There are other formats that are higher quality, period. They're popular because of a push from record labels because - holy shit surprise - they can turn a huge profit off of them.
>>61244785
So a song is art until someone pays money for it? What if you hear a song you really like, call it art, and then hear it in a commercial? Is it still art?
>>61244824
I'm not discounting anything, I'm just saying that making music or any art for that matter for attention and money is not a viable reason to make music.
Independent artists have bandcamp which lets you listen to the songs and buy the album if you like it. You get free FLAC download and most of the time artists offer physical copies of their stuff too. Artists can also name their own price and none of it's going to any corporations.
Post your stuff here and I'll give it a listen
>>61244436
OP phrased this in a stupid, baity way to get replies.
I'd say that the future of music distribution isn't going to be much different from what we have now. We'll probably see more albums pushed to devices, much like the last U2 album. I'm sure we'll get some sort of "digital subscription box" for music in the next few years, if it isn't a thing already. Maybe we'll see services like Spotify start to push music on people unwillingly.
I really think we're pretty much done with "new" distribution techniques though, once you go digital, what's left? Some new physical format?
>>61244850
when you make it expecting money, it isn't
and when it's your only way to get money and you are forced to make it to survive, it gets even worse
>>61244718
why not? allowing people to rip from physical formats was the biggest mistake that the record companies made. physical has a nice package but takes up space, digital comes along with you and doesn't. the only reason record companies let it happen was because no one took the digital marketplace seriously
granted, i think this is a shitty mentality, but there's logic behind it, even if it is pretty shitty logic.
>>61244883
Hence the vinyl revival. Even fucking cassettes are trying to make a comeback. I suppose MiniDisc will be next. There's nothing new under the sun I suppose.
>>61244904
All music costs money to make though. What if the artist wants to break even?
>>61245002
Then you're making music to make money, ergo a commercial product not art.
>>61244572
>if I don't personally like it, it's hipster bullshit
lel
Also
>>61244436
>music deserves to be free!
Ugh.
>>61245040
All music is made for money by this logic. Why complain at all?
>>61245040
>>61244904
So somehow, there's no in between?
>An artist creates art, because they like doing it
>Someone decides they like the art, offers money for it
>Artist takes money, uses it to create more art
What the fuck is wrong with this? Like I asked earlier, if you like a song but then find out it was used in a commercial, does that change your opinion of it? Art has emotional value, especially music, and that can be paired with other things effectively in ways that people want to pay for.
>>61245066
It's hipster bullshit if it's a fad that flies in the face of intelligence or common sense. Go to your nearest college campus and tell me the few dozen faggots listening to digitally recorded music on their Crosleys aren't hipster shits.
>>61245096
I never said that there's no in-between and would never say something that foolish.
Most good music come exactly from the inbetween of artists making music because they want to make their own art and then it ending up being a huge success and they potentially make money off of it.
All I've been saying is that if you go thinking like "hmm, today i shall make an album to make money and get famous" you're not going to be making art worth buying
>>61245127
>intelligence or common sense is only what I personally like
Yikes
>>61245138
Nice backpedaling
op you should probably delete this thread considering you got BTFO
>>61245138
Right, and that's not what this thread is about. It's about finding appealing ways to distribute music digitally.
>>61245040
>>61244861
>>61244813
>>61244771
>>61244731
>>61244684
These are my posts so far, please point me to the part where I said there's no inbetween?
>>61245149
Keep it up, meme lord. Is this you again? >>61245171
If you're trying to argue that digital isn't superior to vinyl, you are, in fact, unintelligent. But hey, that's not what this thread is about.
Anon, I like buying vinyls because it makes me feel better about pirating the living shit out of an artist.
Best of both worlds for you, the artist gets money and I get my high quality music!
>>61245232
>vinyl
>high quality
Just stop. If you want high quality music and you want to support an artist, pay for the FLAC.
>>61245225
>If you're trying to argue that digital isn't superior to vinyl
It's not relevant.
The artist chooses the medium it's released on as a part of the art's aesthetics. If you are discounting the medium, then you are not looking art correctly.
Besides most vinyl and cassettes released these days comes with a free digital download, so you are getting both. Your argument is thus invalid.
>>61245264
> pirating the living shit out of an artist.
I think he meant this part
>>61245217
See >>61245040
>All music costs money to make though. What if the artist wants to break even?
>Then you're making music to make money, ergo a commercial product not art.
As you can see, we gave you a chance to acknowledge the in-between, but you goofed.
>>61245264
Yeah man, should probably get that comprehension tested. >>61245281 nailed it.
>>61245276
>The artist chooses the medium it's released on as a part of the art's aesthetics
Says someone that probably has never dealt with record labels. A label is trying to maximize profit. Selling vinyl for $25 to teens is the best way to do this. Any artist that records digitally and then presses the files to vinyl is literally degrading their own music.
>>61245334
>Says someone that probably has never dealt with record labels
I run one.
>Selling vinyl for $25 to teens
Bands I usually perform with sell their own records, for around $13.
>is literally degrading their own music.
How so?
>>61245304
Nice
>>61245372
Do you even know what you are doing?
>>61245407
Not really
>>61245367
You run a label, and your artists sell vinyl? For $13? You must be rolling in money.
>How so?
What is the RIAA EQ Curve? What are the physical limitations of vinyl? What is dust?
>>61245439
>You must be rolling in money.
Nope because not all artists think "hmm, today i shall make an album to make money and get famous". Do you really think every artist is signed to Sony Records or something?
>What is the RIAA EQ Curve
What's wrong with it?
>What are the physical limitations of vinyl?
What are the physical limitations of digital?
>What is dust?
What is CD scratches?
See, it applies both ways.
>>61244436
>how to distribute music in the modern age?
soulseek
>>61245485
>What are the physical limitations of digital?
that's philisophical as fuck
reply to this post or santa won't get you anything for christmas
>>61245485
>Didn't get the joke about being a broke record label selling vinyl
lol
>What's wrong with it?
The fact that it removes frequencies from the music that were originally recorded. The loss of high highs and low lows.
>What are the physical limitations of digital?
Literally none since it's not a physical medium
>What is CD scratches?
What is ripping digital files to other storage mediums?
>>61245532
Damn...
So I want to get a few things clear in this thread.
At face value the OP seems to be a stubborn person who can't seem to beat it into their head that older forms of disitribution won't die as the oldest method of selling music has made a comeback three times now in over a century. They're also not just saying there are better methods of quality distribution than vinyl, which of course there are, but they seem to be condemning vinyl for the hate of hipsters that only buy them (not true, by the way).
So with that laid down, Vinyl is a fucking awesome medium to distribute music. Most of the time you can find the music online anyway or at least re-released in another method, compilation or re-releases. If it bothers you so much go suck Apple's dick and use iTunes, you seem to be so hurt about quality and fucking around have a company that is more than happy to charge you for doing everything.
>>61245532
The problem with it is the lack of physicality. If it was a physical medium, you are more likely to pay attention and assign value to the music itself.
>>61245553
>Didn't get the joke about being a broke record label selling vinyl
I don't acknowledge ad hominems, sorry. Maybe create a better argument.
>The fact that it removes frequencies from the music that were originally recorded.
Unessential. Research it.
>Literally none since it's not a physical medium
Read above.l The lack of physicality creates poor listening habits and entitlement.
>What is ripping digital files to other storage mediums?
Which also can become outdated or broken or lost...
>>61245573
>Vinyl is a fucking awesome medium to distribute music
why do you think that?
i like the way it gives value to the cover art, but that's all for me.
>>61245573
>the oldest method of selling music has made a comeback three times now in over a century
You can't call it a comeback when major labels flood the market and create the new fad.
>condemning vinyl for the hate of hipsters that only buy them (not true, by the way)
Who else buys them? Ignorant college students? Certainly not the adults that grew up with them, saw them become obsolete, and now purchase digital music.
Vinyl is objectively a shitty way to store music. That's not what this thread is about.
>>61245367
>>61245485
>>61245553
>>61245598
UUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHH
POST LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE YOU FUCKING CHIMPS
>>61245598
>create a better argument
How about this: Your record label is shit because it sells shit vinyl by shit bands. Whine about being called names on the internet all you want.
>Unessential
What a joke. Sub bass is not reproduced with the RIAA EQ curve. High frequencies (>12k) are lost.
I'm not getting into some feel good philosophical argument about the physicality of music. Music is sound. It speaks for itself.
No digital music is going to be lost unless all electricity ceases to exist. Especially if it's uploaded to the internet.
>>61245632
>You can't call it a comeback when major labels flood the market and create the new fad.
There is more independent music than major-label music. This is not a valid argument.
>Who else buys them? Ignorant college students? Certainly not the adults that grew up with them, saw them become obsolete, and now purchase digital music.
It's actually older people, in their 50s. See:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/vinyl-sales-tesco-lps-labels
>>61245693
>Your record label is shit
Not relevant.
>Sub bass is not reproduced with the RIAA EQ curve. High frequencies (>12k) are lost
Prove it's essential
>I'm not getting into some feel good philosophical argument
Afraid to be proven wrong? Yeah I'd shy way from a fight too if I knew that I'd be proven wrong
>No digital music is going to be lost unless all electricity ceases to exist. Especially if it's uploaded to the internet.
Servers go down everyday. There's also lots of music that doesn't exist in a digital medium, only physical.
>>61245693
dude lets be real how you like to listen to and purchase your music is subjective. and it's really silly to argue over it with your giant hate boner for vinyl
>>61245618
Because Vinyl has that old feel for everyone, and it persists.
Even if everything went digital there's no real association with the artist. You may have all of NiN bought from their online store but at the end of the day you're no better off than the guy who spent 15 minutes googling "nin all music torrent".
A collection of vinyls is as outdated as Cds or casettes but it's the oldest of the medium and to me the most satisfying to have a collection of. I guess it comes down to personal choice, as it should.
>>61245753
>Major labels begin pushing vinyl, create a market
>Indie bands and labels follow suit
Did you even read that article? Not even the people selling vinyl like it. Major labels have created a bubble.
>Not relevant
Yes, it is. If your record label is selling vinyl, you're taking advantage of a fad.
>Prove sub bass is essential
>In a musical culture that increasingly asks for louder bass tones
>In a musical culture centered around digitally created beats
Holy shit, really?
>>61245913
>>Major labels begin pushing vinyl, create a market
This is the opposite of what happened, actually. Feel free to do the research
>Major labels have created a bubble.
They couldn't have because it's a medium driven by local/DIY/indie artists.
>Yes, it is
Your opinion on my label is not relevant. Cry more about it if you want though.
>In a musical culture that increasingly asks for releases on vinyl
See how that works? You are not very good at this. Anecdotal evidence never works.
>In a musical culture centered around digitally created beats
Think of all the Hip Hop/electronic music still being released on vinyl, which pretty much kept the medium alive in the 90s. They clearly don't care. Why? It's inessential.
>>61245913
You understand that in the midpoint 90's and 2000's, when vinyls died down, a lack of vinyls in the market is what caused the vinyl surge we have today? If anything at this point not making vinyls was the fad.
>>61245982
Clearly you would rather live in a culture made up of willfully ignorant consumers.
The evidence against vinyl and other formats is abundant. Feel-good appeals to nostalgia are, as you might say, irrelevant.
>>61246174
>Clearly you would rather live in a culture made up of willfully ignorant consumers.
See >>61245149
>Feel-good appeals to nostalgia
This is almost all music that isn't scholarly music. Nice try.
>>61246174
I really pity you if all you can think about is the output of a music file.
Buying a vinyl from somewhere, going to a friends house and listening to it all night with them is the msot chill thing you can accomplish on this planet, but if you feel that's just a fad that really says a lot about the state you're in.
>>61245693
>Music is sound. It speaks for itself.
Then the medium--digital or analog--doesn't matter at all.
>>61246265
Feel good appeals to nostalgia - you know, as in, saying that vinyl is better because it feels better.
>>61246301
What's stopping you two retards from putting on a lossless file over some nice speakers?
>>61246322
...Unless you want to hear what was actually recorded, not a version of it that was mixed and mastered in such a way that allows it to be distributed on a limited medium.
>>61246430
>lossless file
Face it, you don't like music at all, you're just an audiophile.
>>61246430
>Feel good appeals to nostalgia - you know, as in, saying that vinyl is better because it feels better.
I don't think you understood what I meant.
Music itself appeals to feelgood nostalgia.
>What's stopping you two retards from putting on a lossless file over some nice speakers?
It breeds lazy listening habits and entitlement to the music.
>Unless you want to hear what was actually recorded
You mean the mastertapes in the recording studio, being played on their monitors?
>not a version of it that was mixed and mastered
Digital music is also mixed and mastered. Frequency spectrums are limited to audible frequencies in the mixing process, and applied to all mediums. if you think you listen to a flac and hear everything that happened in the studio when it was recorded, you are an idiot.
And, as I said you wouldn't be able to hear the things you are talking about because it's beyond the human hearing spectrum. Unless you are a greyhound or something?
>>61246430
>vinyl isn't lossless
Are you for real?
>>61246520
>It breeds lazy listening habits and entitlement to the music
Sitting around listening to a record is a lazy "thing to do" in the first place.
>you wouldn't be able to hear the things you are talking about because it's beyond the human hearing spectrum
The human hearing spectrum is around 20Hz-20kHz. There are large parts of this spectrum missing in the RIAA EQ curve to accommodate the physical limits of vinyl. If you can't hear the difference, you have hearing damage.
>>61246590
You cannot honestly tell me that you understand what you're talking about. I don't have to fucking explain the RIAA EQ curve to all you dumb motherfuckers.
>>61246617
>There are large parts of this spectrum missing in the RIAA EQ curve to accommodate the physical limits of vinyl
If you research it, not all cutting plants follow it...
Feel free to A/B a vinyl rip of an album with it's digital counterpart. Not only do they sound virtually identical, most audiophiles will choose the record.
>inb4 The Hipster Defense
>>61246634
The RIAA EQ curve is not a lossy medium. Your are retarded
>>61246617
sitting lazily =/= lazy habits.
Me sitting in my room relaxing listening to a vinyl does not equate me leaving my vinyls on the heater.
>>61246617
>There are large parts of this spectrum missing in the RIAA EQ curve to accommodate the physical limits of vinyl.
>large parts of this spectrum missing
Yeah nah
>>61244436
>pressing digital files into analog mediums absolutely retarded
You won't notice the difference anyway, only if it's from a literal CD master.
