Steve Albini on the music industry

[platzangst]

Steve Albini, noted record producer and musician, gave a keynote address at an event in Australia recently:

You can read the address here if you don't want to sit through the video:


http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/n ... ic-in-full

A reminder that Albini was the one who wrote The Problem With Music, a fairly harsh critique of the music industry in the 90s...

[sharpblue]

hell yes to this >
"Music has entered the environment as an atmospheric element, like the wind, and in that capacity should not be subject to control and compensation. Well, not unless the rights holders are willing to let me turn the tables on it. If you think my listening is worth something, OK then, so do I. Play a Phil Collins song while I’m grocery shopping? Pay me $20. Def Leppard? Make it $100. Miley Cyrus? They don’t print money big enough."

[Gaja]

Thanks for sharing this platzangst!

[selig]

hell yes to this >
"Music has entered the environment as an atmospheric element, like the wind, and in that capacity should not be subject to control and compensation. Well, not unless the rights holders are willing to let me turn the tables on it. If you think my listening is worth something, OK then, so do I. Play a Phil Collins song while I’m grocery shopping? Pay me $20. Def Leppard? Make it $100. Miley Cyrus? They don’t print money big enough."

I'm generally in agreement with everything Mr. Albini says, which is why I'm left scratching my head trying to understand this. I can't say whether I agree or not because I'm not at all sure exactly what his point is on this subject…anyone?

[platzangst]

I can't say whether I agree or not because I'm not at all sure exactly what his point is on this subject…anyone?

I don't know that it's an actual point so much as a bit of closing snark. He's taking aim probably at the ubiquity of background music in public spaces, and it's obvious he doesn't like having Phil Collins, et al, being played at him without his consent. He's asking for money to offset his annoyance.

But of course the holder of the rights of Phil Collins' music - whether that's Collins himself or some record label or some joint custody - aren't the ones who decide to play it in a supermarket. That's the supermarket that does that. So, taken as an actual serious policy suggestion it kind of falls flat. Getting a brief chuckle at the end of a speech, however, it'll serve.

[Gaja]

hell yes to this >
"Music has entered the environment as an atmospheric element, like the wind, and in that capacity should not be subject to control and compensation. Well, not unless the rights holders are willing to let me turn the tables on it. If you think my listening is worth something, OK then, so do I. Play a Phil Collins song while I’m grocery shopping? Pay me $20. Def Leppard? Make it $100. Miley Cyrus? They don’t print money big enough."

What?

You pay Phil for listening his music in grocery shop, if you don't like it, just don't pay attention & wait for another song!

Arrogant dude!

I won't even watch that video!

Well there actually is a context to that quote, and it did make a bit of sense, at least to me...
I understand he says that most artists wouldn't like people to not hear their music due to copyright infringements. Like I can't listen to many songs on youtube and services alike, because I live in germany. So Youtube (or royalty services, I don't know) assumes that the interest of an artist is that his copyright is protected, rather than the music to be heard. Albini argues that the interest of the musician would likely be the broadening of the audience, meaning more ticket and merch sales, rather than protection of the copyright, meaning more royalties, but less audience and merch. The music industry according to him used to ge more about making money for the construct around the bands instead of for the bands. Nowadays, he claims, the internet delivers possibilities of promotion and financial gain far superior in both organization and efficiency than record companies could deliver back in the 70's&80's. He didn't come across arrogant at all. Actually rather considerate of the artists and their different visions.

[MarkTarlton]

I have seen this before and I always watch everything related to Albini cuz after all he worked on some great records like the Pixies, Nirvana, and Slint just to name a few. He can be extremely arrogant but he backs it up with his opinions and facts so I have no issues with this kind of attitude..it's the guys that have a chip on their shoulder with no ethics or records to back it that bother me...for example he has never asked a band for a point on a record or tried to make money on sales after he is paid his daily rate.. I applaud him for sticking to his philosophies, but if he had taken royalties he probably wouldn't be in the financial day to day that he is right now and most likely would have been able to retire on the thousands of records he has produced that sell still to this day. He is for the working man and doesn't try to rip people off or over charge bands that work hard for their money..that is very respectful to me and I don't always agree with everything he says but I appreciate his opinions on the business.

For those of you who haven't read his diaries on his tour with Big Black...it's a fun read

http://www.petdance.com/actionpark/bigblack/tourdiary/

[normen]

Agree with what he says as well, especially this:

From my part, I believe the very concept of exclusive intellectual property with respect to recorded music has come to a natural end, or something like an end. Technology has brought to a head a need to embrace the meaning of the word “release”, as in bird or fart. It is no longer possible to maintain control over digitised material and I don’t believe the public good is served by trying to. 
There is great public good by letting creative material lapse into the public ownership. The copyright law has been modified so extensively in the past decades that now this essentially never happens, creating absurdities whenever copyright is invoked. There’s a huge body of work that is not legally in the public domain, though its rights holder, authors and creators have died or disappeared as businesses. And this material, from a legal standpoint now removed from our culture – nobody may copy it or re-release it because it’s still subject to copyright.

This is exactly why I don't see the issue with how Discover is set up. And he gave enough examples of why that doesn't mean that you can't make a living as a musician. If you're really interesting and into what you do theres even more chances now, even without "copyright" and "royalties". Nuff said

[platzangst]

This is exactly why I don't see the issue with how Discover is set up. And he gave enough examples of why that doesn't mean that you can't make a living as a musician. If you're really interesting and into what you do theres even more chances now, even without "copyright" and "royalties". Nuff said

I've recently read the Cory Doctorow book, Information Does Not Want to Be Free, and his analysis of digital rights in general echoes much of what Albini says. (Doctorow's book is a decent read, though if you've been alive for a decent time and observant as changes have gone on around you, nothing in it is going to be revolutionary.)

My biggest issue with the new paradigm, as it were, is that my own music centers around the recordings. I am a studio musician/creator - I do not play live, I do not tour, nor does the prospect of doing that appeal to me. So what's going on lately, according to Albini and Doctorow, is that the recording is becoming not the object to be consumed, but the advertising for something more profitable, namely live performance. But if that's true, where does it leave me? Broke, mainly.

But where the major labels and such are trying desperately to corral the new systems and retain all the control they can, Albini and Doctorow are saying, in effect, this is how the world works now and you should deal with things as they are, not as how you wish they were... and that's what I and others like me have to do - adjust to the situation, not hope the situation adjusts to me...

[normen]

I've recently read the Cory Doctorow book, Information Does Not Want to Be Free, and his analysis of digital rights in general echoes much of what Albini says. (Doctorow's book is a decent read, though if you've been alive for a decent time and observant as changes have gone on around you, nothing in it is going to be revolutionary.)

My biggest issue with the new paradigm, as it were, is that my own music centers around the recordings. I am a studio musician/creator - I do not play live, I do not tour, nor does the prospect of doing that appeal to me. So what's going on lately, according to Albini and Doctorow, is that the recording is becoming not the object to be consumed, but the advertising for something more profitable, namely live performance. But if that's true, where does it leave me? Broke, mainly.

But where the major labels and such are trying desperately to corral the new systems and retain all the control they can, Albini and Doctorow are saying, in effect, this is how the world works now and you should deal with things as they are, not as how you wish they were... and that's what I and others like me have to do - adjust to the situation, not hope the situation adjusts to me...

Basically you're right and this is how the world works now but there IS enough opportunity for you to make money, even if all your music is in the public domain and you only make recorded music. Heck, people buy T-Shirts from people who just play games on youtube. Get together with somebody who knows how to make money off what you are doing as an artist or try to find out and do it yourself. Theres certainly enough people around the world who would love to give you money for what you do so that you keep on putting out soundscapes for them to listen to. If you spend so much time on doing what you do and enjoy what you come up with you are definitely not the only person on the planet who enjoys it

[selig]

This is exactly why I don't see the issue with how Discover is set up. And he gave enough examples of why that doesn't mean that you can't make a living as a musician. If you're really interesting and into what you do theres even more chances now, even without "copyright" and "royalties". Nuff said

I've recently read the Cory Doctorow book,

Information Does Not Want to Be Free

, and his analysis of digital rights in general echoes much of what Albini says. (Doctorow's book is a decent read, though if you've been alive for a decent time and observant as changes have gone on around you, nothing in it is going to be revolutionary.)

My biggest issue with the new paradigm, as it were, is that my own music centers around the recordings. I am a studio musician/creator - I do not play live, I do not tour, nor does the prospect of doing that appeal to me. So what's going on lately, according to Albini and Doctorow, is that the recording is becoming not the object to be consumed, but the advertising for something more profitable, namely live performance. But if that's true, where does it leave me? Broke, mainly.

No one has yet proven live performance is a proven path to profitability these days, especially for unknown acts. It seems to be a common myth that bands just simply need to tour and all will work out in their favor. Several bands have documented the difficulties of this "reality".

Already posted this recently, but here it is again:
https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoo ... 435851ba37
Spoiler alert - they lost money - a good deal of money by most folk's standards.


Here's another, saying basically the same thing:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... 09/25/lies

Lie #6: “The real money’s in touring”
 
The Lie: If artists just give away their music for free, and let it be social and free-flowing, they’ll make it up on the road.
The Truth: Fabulously true for artists like Pretty Lights and plenty of EDM artists, but not most other artists.  In fact, most artists are struggling to survive on the road, and even established names have been forced to can tours because the money just doesn’t make sense (see Imogen Heap).

Sure, some bands make money on the road, but they are typically the more established bands that have been honing their touring skills for years. I'd say you're just about as likely to make money touring as by selling CDs/Downloads. In fact, you're probably better off staying home and making youtube videos and working that angle IMO!

[Benedict]

The internet has been great in that my latest album is technically as accessible as Phil Collins latest but it doesn't work. People know who Phil is so they search for him and notice his new record. They don't know who I am so they pass me by. In a record shop I would buy some records from people I didn't know because I liked the hair (Classix Nouveaux) or hat (Chris Ledoux) but at the same time, I knew someone released that record because they felt it was worth hearing so it was a relatively safe shot. Me, no one has ever heard my record. There isn't that curator to oversee the clutter of the internet.

Sure the internet means people can hear me on YouTube, Bandcamp etc but people just don't. Most plays on Bandcamp are too short for anyone to really appreciate a piece of music. Sure it may be that my music sucks so hugely that ten seconds is more than enough. But I don't think that is the case as most artists would get the same. The internet encourages people to move on. Scan and click, scan and click... Settle and digest is just not what the internet encourages. Web pages are increasingly build without content. They don't even want me to stay and digest, engage etc. If someone does listen for that 10 seconds an like what they hear they are unlikely to buy as they say, oh I'll come back to get that. They don't. Radio presents the same track a few times. The internet doesn't want us covering the same ground.

People then say get into areas of influence like some Blog or other and that will tell people you are worth listening too. Tell you what, from what I can see most Bloggers etc are just as tied to the self-interest train as the Payola scams Steve Albini despised (yet made him rich and famous as that Nirvana cover was everywhere). Bloggers are playing the safe bet far more often than not. Rubbish Phil Collins, Def Leppard to get a safe chuckle then promo the other safe bet like Ed Sheeran. It is still a closed shop.

Sure the record industry was a bloated whorehouse but we must not forget the amazing things it did deliver. Sure The Sex Pistols may not have been paid properly but without the industry we wouldn't have gotten that important piece of Bollocks and everything it inspired. 

Being there is not enough. I popped an album on iTunes and they priced it above every other outlet. Sure I could be flattered that they they thought it was worth $16 but it was $10 on CD Baby and $5 on Bandcamp. I didn't get improved sales anywhere so no one was buying at any price. What point in having a level playing field? They say letting the music go free would set me up to tour. I couldn't fill a toilet cubicle in a caravan from those sales. But guess what I don't play live. The live argument assumes all artists play live (or should). Rubbish. Pet Shop Boys barely played live and sure didn't get a start from the pubs. Without a record industry we would never have had their amazing output and influence. If I were to play live I would need an audience but I would need to pay 4-5 musicians to learn and tour my tunes. How? 

The industry needs to change but it needs to get back to delivering artists of merit at a price point that people are happy to pay. Sure people will steal but it is not the industry that can control that. Just present things that people will want in specialist channels that are curated by people who are there to promote the listeners and the art they want to hear. The money will be less but it will come in. These days that should be easy as getting playable music is super easy. Many of us in this forum could have our music on a "radio show" today with no real cost from a record company. With a bit of "development" from a real A&R guy and Producer there would be money. There would be joy and we'd feel like it was the 60's again.

[Flandersh]

It looks like the very old problem of 'private' versus public performance.

So first one must decide if their musical endeavour is 'private' or public. Given one take it as 'private' (as I prefer to do) there are still possibilities to deliver it public without breaking its private stance, and as 'private' there is not really much a question about property and right since it has by its nature both property and rights. The real problem today is when one decide that the musical endeavour is to be public. Then one has to ask questions like Albini in relation to what this public endeavour should contain. And as I understand it, this discussion is not too different from the questions about public endeavour in general (like in example the discussion to which extent science should be based upon its publications), and in the end is a mirror of the project of Enlightenment which is yet to succeed.

[Ocean of Waves]

That was a great read, thanks.

[Gaja]

Ok, I hear ya, but for example my YouTube set on Worldwide & I can watch/listen pretty much anything!

Yeah I tried that as well, but it doesn't work here. Fucking GEMA...