:'(
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
> We are SO mad at Youtube! HOW DARE YOU STREAM OUR MUSIC!
> Most of these losers haven't released anything good in over a decade and wonder why people don't give a fuck about them
> Goddamn Reznor, thought you hated the music industry when you released Ghosts and the Slip and leaked new content? Need money for the kid's college fund eh?
>>65846817
what a bunch of hypocritical fucks
do you they really think that it's going to make people buy their shit
You can't own a digital file. I am extremely fiscally conservative, but I will defend that statement to the death.
>>65846817
>Desiigner
>>65848194
>White X6, panda
>I sign petitions with Lambert
>Yoko so mad at the YouTube
>Homo named Elton gon sue you
wtf reznor
ITT: retards
> haven't released anything good in over a decade
Oh why do you think this is?… People just started being lazy in mid 2000s, right?
You stupid fucks make me sick
>>65846817
So why are all these artists listed? Are they standing up for stronger copyright law enforcement?
>>65848922
Goddamn, are you stupid or what? Do you really think the overall quality of music has gone down in the last decade because musicians won't make a profit off of it. If anything, it should remove the hacks who are only in it for the money. I think you've just got a bad case of lewronggeneration.
>>65846817
greedy fucks, every person on that list is fucking loaded
>>65849018
> Do you really think the overall quality of music has gone down in the last decade because musicians won't make a profit off of it.
Exactly, you stupid retard. You have to be an autistic child like yourself to not grasp that.
>>65849098
Well you know what, good. They shouldn't be making money off of recorded music. Before the invention of copyright, people either made music because they liked it, they were commissioned to do, or they were fucking bored. Now we have these fuckers who pump out shit made for the lowest common denominator to make money for themselves and for the fucking rich guys who got them famous. Fuck everyone on that list who thinks that their music is worth anything because it fucking isn't.
This situation reminds me of the South Park episode about musicians boycotting because of torrenting (i think). And yeah, those guys are loaded, why should they be complaining? At least people are listening to their music. If it were more indie/less multi-millionaire acts, then it would be slightly more understandable.
SHIIIT THEY GOT THE YING YANG TWINS
I want to count how many of these people got extreme boosts to their careers from youtube exposure but I don't really want to go throgh that list
Trent Reznor is a fucking Apple shill and a jew.
Wow.
i think they're not doing it for themselves and I think they have a point honestly. Not for the same reason. I think the value of music has gone down because how easy it is to get it. Everything's oversaturated and too convenient.
>>65849637
So what'ya gonna do? YouTube's DMCA is alreadly fucked, do they wanna fuck it up even more?
If anything, people have discovered much more music thanks to YouTube, I wanted to support Trent not so long time ago, but seeing what he is doing, no, fuck him and fuck every single mother fucker on this list.
All the songs Trent wrote are so fucking funny, he is attacking himself in those song right about now, holy fuck.
>YouTube gets fucked
>people just turn to pirating
>music companies panic, create YouTube 2.0 for music
>same issue
>consumers just go back to pirating when it's done
like do they learn
>>65849789
Hopefully the next YouTube focuses more on sound quality.
scum
someone link the chris ott video on spotify, basically the same thing and he hits the nail right on the fuckin head
Fucking hacks.
>>65849235
How can a human possibly be so retarded. Go back to plebbit please
> Before the invention of copyright, people either made music because they liked it, they were commissioned to do, or they were fucking bored
Yeah right. Most pre-XXth century composers were noblemen who could afford to fuck around and learn marketable skills. The rest played for money, wrote music for money. No famous piece has been written by someone poor out of boredom.
And then surprise! Evil copyright helped pop music flourish! Artists in XXth century could finally could afford to live off music. 99,9% of everything discussed on this board wouldn't exist without copyright, no one would even bother making music when they have to work day job as waiters to feed themselves.
But then Internet came and destroyed all that. Because fucks like you believe that copyright is wrong and real creators will continue to make music for free. Then you complain why music today is shit. You don't account that guitar players, mixing engineers, and everyone else need to eat something. You don't account for gear, booking venues and all that costs money. You think selling music is evil and everything should be for free. Then don't be surprised you won't get any.
It's very easy to muse on commodification of music when you're a NEET and you think creating music is like snapping your fingers. Here's a question for you: why there are no good free games, books, movies? Why do you think music should be free, because it tickles your leftist teen ego?
>>65849892
link me
>>65849892
>>65850477
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cLp5zGcO-k
>>65850290
> THERE ARE NO GOOD FREE GAMES
But there are
> No good free movies!
There are
>>65846817
Notice how Metallica didn't sign this.
>>65850290
I think in the popular consciousness music is basically taken for granted, like oxygen or water. I know it sounds elitist but most people are content with listening to music that sounds good and is most immediately available, whether it's produced by a corporation according to market prospects or by revolutionary indie artists.
I don't know if it has ever been different, even when people had to put in more effort to listen for free. I guess it's up to the public to decide what we value, as we get the culture we foster.
what kind of change do they want though? dmca is pretty effective on youtube as far as I know: if you have the copyright to some material and flag it, it usually goes down within hours
>>65850634
Good—yes, great—not really. Which great free game can you name? I mean totally free—not free-to-play, not freemium, not ad-supported.
And I'd like to see your GOAT free movies—not sarcastically.
But realistically, I doubt all of these come even close in quality to what is made for money, and that's exactly the point. Shitty local bands are shitty for reasons.
>>65850748
This is an interesting topic. To be realistic: I totally agree.
Copyright IS a construct. Intellectual property will never be treated the same way as material property. You can steal music—you can copy it without someone's content.
But you know, let's judge a tree by its fruit. Yes, copyright made people pay $15 for albums. Yes, some poor kids couldn't afford it. But it helped usher the era of amazing albums with rich production, recorded by top musicians with talent. Today, no one makes such albums anymore. The few exceptions like Random Access Memories by Daft Punk only serve to prove the rule.
I always imagine what would Mick Jagger do with his business school degree if music in the '60s paid like it does today. I highly doubt he'd go to sing with the Stones. I highly doubt the Stones would even exist. Why the fuck would you buy Marshall stacks and all that shit to make $100,000 album that people would torrent for free? That's why rock music is in the gutter today.
In any case, something must be done. Maybe ad-supported streaming is the way to go. But unless there's a good environment in which musicians and labels are paid well for their contributions, both mainstream and indie will continue to shrink.
>>65851197
But YouTube IS add supported and it gives the revenue to the artists.
>>65851197
A good free game would be Beneath a Steel Sky
>>65851197
>Which great free game can you name
Cave Story
>>65851197
>But unless there's a good environment in which musicians and labels are paid well for their contributions, both mainstream and indie will continue to shrink.
I get that it's sort of joked about on /mu/, but the Bandcamp model really works well imo. Most of my favorite independent labels have moved to that platform. As a consumer it feels really fair to me - particularly how they don't have on upcharge on FLAC or WAV files.
>>65851197
>tfw your favorite musical artists started recently and are mega obscure/make no money
ahhh, Music Industry death, I'm ready for you
>>65851378
who are they
(not asking to be a dick, genuinely curious)
I like how this turned into a "I was born in the wrong generation" thread.
>>65851216
Hahaha, yeah right. I'm not sure if artists actually receive money from albums uploaded by some people over YouTube, but even then it's fractions of cents—literally. See picrelated—you need 4,200,000 plays on YT as a signed artist to earn 1,260$—minimal monthly wage in US.
>>65851293
Yeah man but c'mon. It's been made freeware in 2003 because it's an old DOS game, technically outdated in a fast-paced world of computers and graphics. In 1994 you had to shell the full price for it, and call the video game tips phone line when you got stuck.
>>65851304
That's why it's an exception from the rule.
It's 1) 2D 2) been developed for 5 years 3) uses mechanics almost entirely borrowed from games of the past 4) short 5) made by one man on a PC with no additional staff required 6) luckily got popular by chance.
>>65851390
kind of exaggerated but dean blunt and inga copeland made their best shit while obscure, the little money they got ruined them.
james ferraro and lil ugly mane probably make less than 40k a year off music
then the countless bands that existed for two seconds and made great albums like asterisk*, jerome's dream, gasp
i don't think music as an artform will ever die, decomercialization is a good thing from my perspective
Isn't Youtube the main place to release music videos nowadays? Is that somehow an exception or something? Also I feel like Youtube doesn't replace having a physical or digital copy of an album or a song just like Youtube videos of concerts don't replace actually being at the concert. I really do think removing all music from Youtube would do more harm than good because I at least have learned of a lot of good bands and artists from being linked Youtube videos or just browsing. Between that and being able to listen to anything anytime with torrenting, if those two were completely gone I think the ability to discover music would shrink dramatically.
>>65851445
good free games: cave story, within a deep forest, la mulana
good free games that are more original than any commercial game: cryptworlds, space funeral, noctis iv, knytt
>>65851320
Yeah, see the pic in >>65851445 —if the chart is accurate they only take 15% which isn't much in comparison.
But, at the same time, I know of very few really popular artists that use Bandcamp, except for vaporwave—and you know what vaporwave is.
If you're unsigned, you need to do the label's work for yourself—book gigs, create hype and so on. Then good luck selling even those 150 records a month—maybe just enough to cover the rent and maybe afford to eat meat once a week.
It's cool when you're a legend like Kevin Shields and you release your album independently. Or like Radiohead with their In Rainbows distribution experiment.
But when you're literally nobody, and even /mu/ tells you to fuck off with your self-promotion—it's far from easy. Good luck even managing to sell an album for $10 to someone beside your friends.
>>65851031
The main change the artists want is to what they're allowed to litigate over. If some shitlord steals, idk, Swans' new album two weeks before it comes out and posts the entire thing to youtube, under current copyright laws, Swans could post a DMCA takedown notice and have YouTube remove the videos and potentially ban the user's account. The change THEY want is, if that same dude posts the album before it comes out, then Swans can sue the user out of existence, and sue YouTube for copyright negligence for letting it happen in the first place.
It'll annihilate any video streaming site and anything that hosts downloads, torrents, all of that stuff. Nobody will be brave or stupid enough to host material that can result in total bankruptcy IN ADDITION TO the criminal intellectual property theft laws that are already on the books, which don't normally affect websites, just the users.
>>65851586
>I know of very few really popular artists that use Bandcamp
Well, I listen to a lot of dance music/experimental electronic music and I've noticed that more and more of those sorts of labels are moving there (for example 1080p or Bunker NY or Blackest Ever Black or Editions Mego etc.)
But I definitely get what you're saying about unestablished and unsigned artists. I can't imagine being a musician and trying to make a career of it in this day and age 2bh.
>>65851493
> within a deep forest
> knytt
Again—I don't know the full story, but to repeat my post >>65851445 : it's 1) 2D 2) been probably developed aside from the author's main job 3) uses mechanics almost entirely borrowed from games of the past 4) short 5) made by one man on a PC with no additional staff required 6) luckily got popular by chance . And surprise—new games cost money and have been ported to everywhere from Nintendo DS to whatnot. Again, these are exceptions from the rules, games which by chance became popular enough by word of mouth.
Maybe one person can make a good album/game or two/write a book on pure enthusiasm, it's true. But it will take lots of time and dedication, they will have to work a day job, stuff like that. It's good when you're a programmer and you already have skills in your disposal to write a game. But when you're a musician and have no other skill?
Also, it's more or less inexpensive to, say, write a book, draw a manga; slightly more expensive to make a 2D video game. But 3D game or a movie? Expensive and time consuming as shit. You need a team of people, unless you're making a Goat Simulator or a B-movie starring your friends.
>>65851445
That problem is inherent with Internet based streaming companies. I remember Geoff Barrow said him and the rest of Portishead made less than $3,000 dollars for 34,000,000 plays on Spotify. I'm not sure if it's credible or if I'm quoting it right, but man that's ridiculous.
Also it has changed from the 60s, in that, instead of artists being paid to be played on the radio, artists and their companies need to pay to get played. That's what I'd say causes stagnation in the music industry.
Things made for money also get popular by chance?
>>65851476
I'll be frank: YouTube is full of shit.
To begin with, it barely returns profit. It's fine because it's owned by Google, but they've been really struggling with lawyers and whatnot to keep it going.
Then, there's streaming and ads. I'm not sure how it works at all. Say some random dude from Brazil uploaded some moderately famous indie release from the '80s. Will the band get any money? Or even the label? Who gets the ad revenue, how does it get distributed—and more importantly, does it do more good than harm, when instead of paying $10 on iTunes, people play it on YouTube and give an artist literally $0,0018 of revenue?
I think if it wasn't owned by Google, YT would be completely different in regards to how they handle music. Right now as I see it, YT like Megaupload for streaming, with vague promise of miniscule profit, sometime and maybe.
>>65851783
Yeah, I fully agree here: streaming provides miniscule returns, while cutting away album sales. Say instead of 1,000 album sales you'll get 10,000. But what's the fucking point in this """exposure""" when you've earned 10 times less?…
That's why I'm more than skeptical of all that talk about the growth of streaming. Maybe it's good for the streaming companies, but so far I'm yet to see any artists that actually profited on streaming. Feels like the tech world is ripping the music world off, only slightly better than Megaupload.
>>65849373
It was Napster so pre-torrenting but yes.
>>65849617
It didn't used to be that way. Then he had kids.
>>65849663
pretty hat machine
>>65852079
Exactly. Kids ruin personalities. Fuck kids
>>65851783
>Also it has changed from the 60s, in that, instead of artists being paid to be played on the radio, artists and their companies need to pay to get played. That's what I'd say causes stagnation in the music industry.
[citation needed]
https://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/
>Radio: A play for a three-minute song on Radio 2 generates £59.73 (collected by PRS for Music) for the songwriters, and a similar figure (collected by PPL) is split between the label and the performing artists.
So they still get money. One play of a song on Radio 2 (a rather lucky case but anyway) generates around $84. In the case of this article, a million of plays on Spotify generated only $16. Personally, I'd tell Spotify to fuck off if I was a creator, I wouldn't want to break my back for their investors.
>Things made for money also get popular by chance?
That's exactly the contrast I'm talking about.
If we're talking about games, big publisher titles:
1) have advanced 3D graphics
2) are developed intensively in several years by people on full-time employment
3) use mechanics developed specifically for them, with specifically tuned balance and so on
4) contain at least 30–40 hours of gameplay plus DLC and shit, have supported online servers
5) made by teams of hundreds of people
6) get marketed like movie blockbusters through media.
The last point is the most important one. People like Chris Ott like to say that art will inevitably find its auditory. That is a naive thing to say the least because thousands of acts have forever remained nobodies/broke up because of lack of exposure. It's cool if you make it big like Blag Flag; it's not cool if you have had a band for 10 years, barely made any money/fans and have nothing saved for retirement.
And on Bandcamp, with piles and piles of releases, maybe one Will Toledo out of 10,000 can make it.
>>65852079
He was a notable OiNK user back in the day aswel (what.cd predecessor)
really bums me out that tvotr is on this.
I've been to 3 of their concerts
>>65852153
Also he left flash drives in bathrooms with leaked mp3s for fuck's sake.
>>65851690
It's a little easier for electronic artists, with rock you need some upfront payment for gear and so on.
>>65849373
You silly fuck. First of all, no one would listen to your favorite literally-who indie acts.
Second, if you really devote your life to creating music, you can't work a day job. But the current musical situation only leaves this opportunity for young artists. And let me remind you that most musicians have no other skills, they'd have to wait tables to earn living. While releasing their music so that you'd grab it from the sharethread, called it shit and rated it 2/5 on RYM.
And my favorite: "at least people are listening to their music". You know, artists get absolutely nothing from you hearing their music. It's like eating for free at a restaurant and saying, "at least people are eating their food, they should be grateful people respect what they make. I even said thank you to them".
That's why artists sell t-shirts on their gigs. And as for exposure, it's like likes on Facebook, which get literally nothing to some poor kid with cancer who really could use some money to survive.
Youtube needs to go down. As the infographic on >>65851445 illustrates, it's fucking creators right in the ass.
>>65851320
>Bandcamp model really works well imo
Nope. Car Seat Headrest's most famous Bandcamp release sold less than a thousand copies. At $9.99 a copy, that's 10k - 15% = 8500 dollars. For one of the most sold Bandcamp releases in history. James Ferraro's latest album didn't even hit 400 copies.
>>65852324
> Youtube needs to go down
Not gonna happen. Ever
>>65852347
I get your point but at the same time the heat death of the universe is still inevitable.
I read somewhere that online radio is the final hope for the industry. Either that or a different business model for streaming, with more privileges to paid subscriptions/less content for free subscriptions.
>>65852395
No one would come to that service
>>65852195
>>65852153
>>65852079
>>65852095
>>65852099
>>65849663
>>65849787
>>65849617
>http://www.stereogum.com/6464/trent_reznor_to_australia_steal_my_shit/video/
I am kekking so hard that Trent Reznor of all people is trying to tell us that piracy is this nebulous evil thing, when HE encouraged stealing Year Zero, and personally posted the only high-quality rips of the music video film/snuff porn he made in the 90s, "Broken."
Or, to quote Trent Reznor, "If you can't get it? Just steal it."
>>65851940
>But what's the fucking point in this """exposure""" when you've earned 10 times less?…
A larger audience for live performance is a potential benefit for some. If I remember correctly I read an interview with Steve Albini where he talked about they played sold out shows in Eastern Europe, where their albums had no distribution whatsoever.
>The last point is the most important one. People like Chris Ott like to say that art will inevitably find its auditory. That is a naive thing to say the least because thousands of acts have forever remained nobodies/broke up because of lack of exposure. It's cool if you make it big like Blag Flag; it's not cool if you have had a band for 10 years, barely made any money/fans and have nothing saved for retirement.
Totally agree, any given band can find AN audience, even if it's just one maniac record collector, but is that the same as a band finding ITS audience? There's an unjustified conflation here.
It's like, if you enjoy a band you have to have heard it, but not everyone who would potentially like a certain band is ever going to hear it.
It's easier to select and reject what you like/dislike when you only choose between stuff you're going to hear even if you don't try, stuff you're promoted through every media outlet.
I feel like we're basically at a standstill unless something changes the way people want to experience or consume music. The Internet and piracy isn't going anywhere, you can't surmount the ultimate inconvenience of having to pay for something you can get for free.
Implying most bands make jackshit from record sales. It's all going to the record company.
And who cares if these children drop out from making records over money, I'll just continue to listen to Bandcamp acts that actually enjoy making music as a hobby.
1) Modify DMCA so people have a hard time uploading copyright-protected content to Youtube.
2) More severe laws against torrenting/file-sharing (both uploaders AND downloaders)
3) Slightly more expensive subscriptions to streaming services with very limited free of charge options.
There you have it, industry is saved.
>>65852324
This 100 times. You know, I get all that—we all like music, it's a unifying piece of culture and so on. But people upload whole albums and it goes unpunished while profiting pretty much only YouTube. Everything must have its limits.
It's not 2002 anymore when the only kid in town with broadband connection downloads a single song off Napster. It's 2016 and music industry has been shrinking for 15 years . Music is such a dying medium that many people buy it out of pure respect. It's like music is an endangered species poached down to death.
>>65852395
"Something has to change". That's the state that record industry has been in for years now. It's been promised iTunes would save music, then "pay-what-you-want" scheme got memed too based on some anecdotes. Now it's streaming's turn.
IMO, if it goes like this, I see only one realistic outcome: everything continues in the same way. Indie will again get smaller and smaller, and only the unsinkable top-40 acts will survive. And even that is not certain, as people in their 40s get smarter with tech.
Also, realistically, if we look at software market, it's been going towards freemium/ad-supported or subscription based model. We already have ad-supported and subscription-based streaming, but it pays like shit. It'd be fun to have IAP in albums to see those Will Toledo nudes you've always dreamed of, but jokes aside, how the fuck would you even insert something like this in music? You could insert audio ads into albums—great way to get thousands of haters. So I only see some partnerships with designers/magazines/whatever as reliable sources of additional income—much like Grimes does today. Perhaps that's what she does best.
>>65852621
>as people in their 40s get smarter with tech.
Some of us are way smarter with tech then you give us credit for. I know how to torrent but do it as a last resort. If I want a song I go to IRC to get it. But I buy their music I like to support the artists with my wallet. I may pre listen but anything I truly care about I purchase the physical media. I'm 55 by the way and have been in the computer related industry since 1985.
>>65846817
I hate people who think pop music should be some kind of job to earn money with. Get a real job people.
>>65849663
This. Youtube exposed me to so much better music than all of that lowest common denominator crap that that group of "artists" pump out for the masses. So in that sense they're right. But going after YT is the wrong move. All the kiddies who visit daily won't stand for it.
>>65852429
> If I remember correctly I read an interview with Steve Albini
Why am I not surprised it was him…
While I agree that an album has a worth as an advertisement/preview of the tour, it means that it doesn't make sense to pour money into production. And again, you have to come to these countries to reap the profits.
Anyway, bands used to be paid well, in comparison, for the albums they made, up until late '90s–'2000s. Now this source of income is gone. So… Why make good new albums? That people will pan/not care about anyway? Just hype up your "reunion", appear on SNL with "oldies", maybe reissue old stuff. Did I just describe the last 10 years in music?
> Totally agree, any given band can find AN audience, even if it's just one maniac record collector, but is that the same as a band finding ITS audience? There's an unjustified conflation here.
Can you please explain/rephrase, I'm not sure I understood your point
>I'm an artiste
>music is my art
>but I deserve squillions for it
Back of the line you fucking hacks. No one cares. If you wanna restrict content, 100 more are lined up ready to take your slot on normie.fm for the exposure alone.
>>65852686
Here's an anecdote.
I'm Russian and obviously we had almost no IT here until early '90s. Even after it, it was very limited, and piracy was through the roof. So a lot of people who were 30 then are now in their 50s are pretty inept with tech.
Now I met some American guy in his 60s here in Russia, and he worked in IT. I was blown away—he was really good with tech and generally much smarter than anyone I've seen here. Not kidding—it was a very inspiring experience.
Our old folks fear PCs like fire.
In my opinion the whole industry can just die. The standardized shit they try to force feed down everyone's throat is now firing back at them. Everyone can afford a home studio and do music in the spare time, if you're good enough you can even earn some money in live concerts. The less money is earned with music, the better, though. The guitar hobo on the streets of my town gets more sympathy from me than lady Gaga, "Trent Reznor" and rush together
>>65852857
>but when I (ME) make music, then it should be sold
>please don't pirate/torrent it you fucking POOR pieces of shit
ok anon
>>65852790
>Can you please explain/rephrase, I'm not sure I understood your point
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I reject the deterministic idea that the audience a band ends up with is the only one they could have had.
>>65852699
It should. Because to devote yourself to music, you should be able to sustain yourself at least. Not to mention have something saved for retirement.
Otherwise, it's always the same old "corrupted industry fatcats vs brave rebellious music pirates" meme… You know, in Soviet Union, they thought that if only they'd give factories back to the workers, let them own what they produce, they'd be full of enthusiasm, treat work like a creative task. And therefore work for little or no pay. 40 hours a week or more. Now find a flaw.
>>65852989
Yeah that's work. Music however is nothing less than holy holy holy.
Ask the shitty black metal bands I love so much what they made with their music.
>>65850290
>why there are no good free games
The best freeware games are better than literally any corporate release
>>65852882
Nice straw man faggot. What are you even quoting? It's a free market - there's no right to sale let alone guaranteed price for anything made.
If there was no "industry" for music, no meaningful market or whatever it's not going to mean music stops being made. It's an intrinsically human act. Incidentaly the barriers to creating are almost non existent nowadays so this goes about a million-fold.
My point is that if you think your music is art, prepare to be paid like most artists: not a lot and half of that while you're alive. But if you think your music is a commodity item, then prepared to be undercut when you try to restrict the free market you're retailing in.
The only way Musicians make any decent money in the 21st century is through touring.
Streaming basically killed any hope of musicians earning a living based off their music sales alone.
>Bryan Adams
>Ryan Adams
>in that order.
Ha. I'm sure Ryan's having a fit somewhere.
Also the artists who signed are upset because they're all majors who made the stupid mistake of signing away their publishing rights from the start for a cash advance because they were all in a rush to become rockstars. Even before The Internet that shit was fucking over artists like James Taylor for example, who doesn't own any of the songs on his first three albums.
But these millionaires want to jew their way out of that situation and so what if YT goes down in the process. Kids can go back to playing outside and watching Satellite TV i guess.
Juxtapose those major label artists with a YT-grown one like Justin Bieber who was tech-savvy enough to make the medium work for them rather than let it fuck him over. Shawn Mendes did the same thing over on Vine.
Is Ad revenue going to allow them to continue living extravagantly? No. Mid-tier YT creators with less than 500,000 subscribers still hold regular jobs or go to school and do YT on the side for extra cash. All I see on that petition are college dropouts with limited skillsets, outmoded and unprepared to survive in a world where you have to be able to multi-task to get ahead. Successful Youtubers can do more than whatever they're known for. Markiplier and PewDiePie scream and make jokes but they're also good with computers and promoting themselves on social media and making connections with sponsors and operating with low overhead and minimum expenses.
Meanwhile Fifth Harmony are on that petition. They could streamline and lose a slut or two and nobody would give a damn save on a shit ton of makeup and hooker get up right there. Invest in their education and learn to make their own beats. One of them could take a sewing class and design their own clothes.
They really don't want to make enemies out of the Youtube community though. That's the wrong approach.
>>65852866
>Everyone can afford a home studio and do music in the spare time, if you're good enough you can even earn some money in live concerts.
So, you first, anon. Show us the example with your success. Bonus points if you're uglier than 6/10.
>>65852857
Do you realize that beside them, there are marketing people, recording people, mixing people, cover art people, etc?
Also, if you want to restrict content—go ahead. From now on, don't torrent or use YT. Let's see you listen to your "normie.fm" artists that supposedly live off exposure. I assume people in supermarkets simply give them food for free because they're famous—that's how it works, right?
>>65852955
The thing is, of course it's good when a band finds people who genuinely care about them, not just some faceless buyers of tickets.
That's the duality of pop music: it's a fusion of for-profit entertainment and art. In the XVIIth century setting, it could be represented like street entertainers vs noblemen composers. The latter, IMO, are the reason people of "art" tend to think of themselves as superior and look down on "plebs" who they think make music only for profit; the fallacy here is of course that the noblemen composers were born with silver spoons in their mouths, not knowing what it is like to play a show to earn $10. That high-brow mentality is deeply conceited and hypocritical.
So, IMO, if a band gets people who truly care about their music, it's great. But you can't tour and work a day job. So in this trade-off, every ticket sold helps. Every band will always have AN audience and ITS audience. AN audience helps it buy its bread. ITS audience is for its mental needs. People can't ignore either needs, no matter what some people with extreme views might say.
>>65846817
>mfw i don't like any of these
feel good
You know, just wanted to share some stories for this thread. We all know famous musicians' success stories; few know of the other side of music.
Few talk how Dan Treacy of Television Personalities was incarcerated from 1998 to 2004 for shoplifiting to feed his drug habits.
Few know that Sonic Youth have lived in dirty apartments in NYC crime-riddled slums, were many times close to total bankruptcy, only saved by very lucky circumstances. Or that they could only quit their day jobs after Daydream Nation—yes, they had to work AND play music.
Many don't know that Kurt Cobain was evicted out of his house when he finished working on Nevermind. He failed to pay the rent and was pretty much on a downward spiral with no idea how he was going to earn his living.
Or that John Lydon, aka Johnny Rotten, grew up with his four brothers in a crime-ridden area of London, having to look after his ill mother. Or that he had to star in a butter ad just to fund another PiL tour.
And these are only the musicians you've heard about. So many of those who were never recognized, or only when it was too late. People would rather paint rockstars as cocaine-sniffing bourgeoise fatcats.
>>65853415
Is that supposed to make me feel sorry for those guys?
>>65846817
>only major artists
>most old enough to remember the pre-piracy music industry
What a fucking surprise.
We get it, you're not able to be get filthy rich with one album and one tour every five year and nw you actually have to do some work to afford your private jet. On the other hand, smaller artists can make a better living with the current system than they could 15 years before.
I really expected to see Gene Simmons on there though.
>>65853268
>you first
I don't want musicians to be successful in the financial sense so I don't know what you are on about
>>65853415
And that's the problem, few talk about how artists now don't have to do this to the same extent because monetization provided by online services can make their situation a bit more sustainable if they handle it correctly. The current system is most beneficial for smaller artists but detrimental to the highly succesful ones.
Which is absolutely fine.
>>65846817
>The Black Keys
>Chicago
>Chris Cornell in 2016
>deadmau5
>Fall Out Boy
>Cee Lo Green
>Sammy Hagar
>Jon Bon Jovi
>Kings Of Leon
>Yoko Ono
>Linkin Park
>Maroon 5
>Ne-Yo
>One Republic
>Pearl Jam in the year 2016
>Katy Perry
>Pharrell "le big hat man" Williams
>Pink
>REO Speedwagon
>Kenny Rogers
>Britney Spears
>Sting
>Taylor Swift
>James Taylor
>Thirty Seconds To Mars
>Toto in the year 2016
>Meghan Trainor
>Steven Tyler
>U2
>KENNY FUCKING G
Why does anyone give a shit? There's literally 3 good artists on that entire list, there's so many awful bands on here it isn't even funny. Most of them have already made it blatantly clear they're either money grabbing jews (Taylor Swift) or they're just autistic about who can and can't have their stuff (Jack White)
>>65853244
>They really don't want to make enemies out of the Youtube community though. That's the wrong approach.
Yeah!!! We will dislike their videos!!! We made them famous, I'm only 14 but I think Justin Bieber is shit.
Such a shitty opinion. First of all—you're dumb, because they don't want to close down YT, only new copyright laws. YT can keep its minecraft videos.
Then you mention Justin Bieber—one of very few examples of artists who got big off YT, along with other undoubtedly great acts like Rebecca Black and Psy. All of them got there mostly based on their looks or MTV appeal. It's funny how in this argument, you make it seem that Justin Bieber is actually respectable as a businessman. But definitely not the old hacks who sold albums—mind you, those fatcats don't deserve a penny from the mighty YouTube community.
Then you say: "Ha! Either make art, or get jobs! Hacks". Wow. I'm speechless. As we all know, creating music requires no skill, time or effort. You just fart into a microphone—just like that. All of them, from Fripp to Eno, should have had real jobs, not make that music shit.
What can I say? Enjoy the new era of shitty, half-assed music made as a hobby. I strongly advice you listen to some BrokeNCYDE in your free time—it's a very liberating music made by open-minded individuals. Really makes you think what people can make with total artistic freedom in their bedrooms. Oh, and stop pirating albums if you don't respect artists' career decisions so much.
>>65853583
What do you think that someone from Congress will see Chicago signed it and dismiss it as pleb garbage?
It has named people recognize.
>>65853583
Don't forget, it's
>Yoko Ono Lennon
Actually.
>>65846817
Vince Staples makes music about robbing yet people stealing his music is too far ok then
>>65853624
Nah, they will dismiss it because they will be lobbied by people with actual money.
for once I'm glad Hamburgeristan is corrupt as shit.
>>65846817
Hey look, none of the artists who signed it are artistically relevant
what a shocker
>>65853583
Most of these people are enemies of music as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in what actual "aspiring creators" have to say about this than anyone signed to a major label.
>>65853543
How is it beneficial to smaller artists again? See >>65851445 chart. Even if you're unsigned, you still have to have shittons of listens just to get by. How you're gonna record the album and spread the word is a different story.
>>65853503
Wow. What a great position. "I think musicians should live in the gutter, if they truly want it they should make music for free". I forget, all the best albums in the past were made for free by street musicians, recorded on cellphones.
It's always the same: artist should live up to some higher standard and do the work for free. No wonder so many people choose not to dabble into music at all—it's simply not worth it with people like you around.
>>65853702
>I forget, all the best albums
define best
musicians like Faust and Captain Beefheart are considered some of the best and they were pretty deviant from the sugar-coated pop musicians you list in your posts. not to mention underground.
>>65848760
Kek
>>65850290
>classical is the only genre that existed
Get out of your euro-centric bubble faggot.
>>65853702
>How is it beneficial to smaller artists again?
Gee I dunno, it's like Iceage or Joey Badass have never gone on world tour while remaining independant during their 4 years of career
>>65853611
>you either support strict copyright laws that profit jewish record labels or you're gonna be left with Rebecca Black and BrokeNCYDE!
Wew lad.
Ironically BrokeNCYDE is precisely the kind of commercial trash that mainstream record labels want to shove down people's throats.
Nothing was lost.
>>65846817
Well, i guess this is the new avoid list
>>65853611
>they don't want to close down YT
all the impending lawsuits they'll be hit with if this petition goes through will effectively do that. pretend that isn't Apple's endgoal if you want. It's the usual Apple shit. More control, less options.
>>65854080
I hate putting Trent there. But he made me
What have you become?
My sweetest friend
Everyone I know goes a shill
In the end
>>65853611
>get jobs
Touring. Touring is the job. Take poetry for example. The phrase "the starving poet" is a thing because you can't make $ writing poetry. Most poets have jobs as teachers like the late Miller Williams for example. Actors make $ doing commercials, etc. You're seeing it more & more these days. These young musicians coming up just don't want to do the work. They don't want to tour. They want instant celebritydom handed over to them via IG and Twitter. Fine. Some people do it for the fame. Just don't expect to make $ if all you're willing to do is throw your art out there & let go & let God. It's a whole new world. A new game. New rules. You can't just be a singer in a band anymore. You can't just be a songwriter or a gifted horn player. You have to be able to do other things as well. If you're not willing to work at that level then you need to accept your diminished position in the new musical heigharchy and step aside and make way for the younger, hungrier talent coming up who will always be willing to do it for less.
In case you missed it, we nearly had a second Great Depression in this country. There wasn't exactly a lot of miscellaneous cash floating around to afford things like albums. Back in the first Depression musicians were hit hard. Some starved. Had to find legit, real work. But somehow this group of rock n rollers feel like they should be able to continue living safe in their bubbles where everything is ok and as it should be.
It's also worth noting that for some reason, the music industry is the only artistic medium that's still having such a difficult time adapting to the internet age. Video games? Nintendo have their shit on lockdown. Steam. Gamefly. They've adapted. Film? Netflix. Taken care of. They have people devoted to rooting out piracy. Even literature with the Kindle.
>B-but, music files are easier to pirate because they're smaller in size!
Books clock in at half the size of your average 3 minute pop hit & so do most app games. The music industry has always treated the internet as a boogeyman & now that the www has gone mainstream it's out of step. It's adapt or die out there. Real survival of the fittest shit. & there's no going back. If these technophobes can't make it work anymore then they deserve to die off. They won't be missed.
>>65854138
>the music industry is the only artistic medium that's still having such a difficult time adapting to the internet age
The iTunes Store came out in 2003, that was long before any of the services you mentioned made a fully digital transition. Many artists used Napster as a legitimate platform.
There's no streaming service of any other medium with the capacity and availability of Spotify and Apple Music. You're speaking nonsense based on the whining of a few.
>>65854280
These whiners have a loud dangerous voice.
>>65854138
But the music industry has stepped up and changed, it's o ut of touch rtists who still want to live pretending they are 1920s jet-setters while doing little, which was possible when most of their revenue came from radio play and album/singles sales. Now that this regular income is smaller they have to either release more (which, you might note, is what independent artists are doing) or tour more.
The music industry has changed and has adaptated to youtube monetization, sponsoring events, streaming contracts etc. the problem is that Elton John doesn't want to let go of his manor, Dave Grohl of his private jet, Deadmau5 of his Nyan-cat Ferrari and some youner artists aspire to that as well. Had there been some independent artists on that list saying that despite hard work they can't live then we could take it seriously. If you've had Killer Mike, Mr. Oizo and Autechre saying that despite regular o utput and touring they cannot live decently then it might have been credible. But all in all what you have is immensely rich artists complaining they can't maintain their overblown train of life.
>>65846817
I thought Elvis Costello literally told fans to pirate one of his albums he wasn't happy with
>>65854568
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2004/11/elvis_costello_.html
This?
>>65853928
faust and beefheart had their records bankrolled by pretty big labels though
>>65854604
no, it was some live album that they overcharged massively
>>65854634
faust were signed to a big label under the condition that they become the german beatles and got kicked out after the release of faust (the album)
>>65854659
...and apparently got picked up by another big label in the wake of that incident
>>65849663
>>65849789
Youtube is fine for streaming, it's Apple music, and Spotify, and Tidal and all these other subscription streaming services that need to go down.
At least Youtube is focused on user-generated content.
I never understand why people who don't pirate bother coming her to complain about those who do.
>>65850748
>I think in the popular consciousness music is basically taken for granted, like oxygen or water.
This is the fundamental problem, music has become so prolific that it has become banal and worthless.
And so, finding new music requires virtually no effort, which means that people want to be spoonfed new music instead of searching for it as previous generations had to do, which makes shit harder for artists despite having far more channels of distribution in the past.
Not only this, but since music now lacks value, it means that it is no longer culturally important, nor culturally relevant. It's not just bad for musicians, it's bad for everyone.
>>65854975
if music is banal and worthless then why do people listen to it? Maybe they enjoy it and enjoy the diversity of musical genres that exist thanks to the mass proliferation of music through the Internet?
Christ you lewrongeneration fags are annyoing.
>>65855018
>if music is banal and worthless then why do people listen to it?
Precisely because it has for many people become a daily commodity. Your average pleb has some youtube playlist in the background while doing other things.
In that sense music has now taken the background noise role that TV once had.
>>65846817
Half of the names I don't recognize and the other half of them are has-been pop stars pleading for us to bankroll their outstanding debts on their prematurely purchased luxury goods. If there was someone on there that was actually not very wealthy but still putting out good, non-commercial stuff I might be a bit sympathetic.
Honestly these people should be thankful just to make minimum wage doing something cool and largely useless but fun and on their own terms, while also achieving top tier social prestige for it too as apposed to everyone else who has to flip burgers and stare at spreadsheets for 8 hours a day for far less pay and far less social prestige with a shit boss breathing down their necks. Then these people who, if not for their insatiable appetite for luxury, could be set for life never lifting a finger again, see that the unemployed and the underpaid would prefer to listen to music for free and put their spare few hundred bucks a month elsewhere than bankroll some rich fucks ferrari and start trying to strongarm new laws into play that take away liberties of all peoples just to line their pockets. They play out the drivel about aspiring artists because they know no poor fuck is going to care about a rich artists plight but then the huge list of artists supporting the movement are all commercially successful and commercially concious pop stars. How about you actually talk to the aspiring artists and see if any of them fancy their name on the list instead of using celebrity product branding for your greedy get-rich-quick scheme? Fuck this shit.
That entire list is made up of shitty musicians who make nothing of value.
It's no wonder why people listen to it on YouTube.
>>65846817
>Kenny G
you cheeky motherfucker
>>65855846
>going through the list trying to call the tripfag a pleb cause he is not appreciating XY
>he's right
>the list only consists of shit
>literally
I liked Meat Loaf when I was like 5 because of the beauty and the beast.
>>65846817
I have no problem with this
People who exclusively listen to music on youtube should be shot
>>65849437
FUUUUUUUUUUUU
For real though are there any people on this list that we should actually be upset about? I dopn't see Swans, Animal Collective, or Burzum
>>65853583
Wash up talent less hacks: the list
Thank God Hunter Hunt Hendrix isn't on that list.
trent reznor literally had an oink account lol, fuck him
dissappointed in chick corea and bootsy but wow holy shit that list is pretty bad. Any good artists on there are long past their prime anyway.
>>65850290
>No famous piece has been written by someone poor out of boredom
SWING LOW
SWEET CHARIOT
Is there any wonder why there are so many HUGE names on this list in terms of fanbase?
Lots of the people on this list are the kind of people who want to make huge sums of money within the music industry, Kiss-style. The kind that really like their ham-fisted merchandising, double LP vinyl box set-preorders with special edition dragon dildos, and disgustingly over-budgeted tours. I'm not surprised to see a single one of these names on here. Not even Kenny G.
But, it's not even that. It's the fucking record labels who were so kind to plaster their logo feces all over their masterpiece. The ones who are convulsing, screaming, crying, and doing literally everything they can to let the world know that they can't handle the thought of having to adapt to technology, and try and find a model that actually works.
>David Byrne
He won't let you listen to his music unless you pay him, no siree
>>65855814
The second half of this post is one of the most contrived and bitter things I have ever read.
People who are able to do what they like for a living are often able to do so because they had the vision and drive to achieve it.
