I met Steve Albini at NAMM in 2008. He was pretty cool, he was yelling and flipping off this guy who was showcasing Battle DJ equipment huling insults at him and bragging about owning a callipoe. that same day there was commotion at the Dean Markley booth, I didnt see it, i only heard it, but a friend did see it and allegedly, Albini tugged really hard on a man's goatee and a fight broke out. NAMM used to be wild. We need Steve back up there.
"Play a Phil Collins song at me while I'm grocery shopping? Pay me twenty dollars. Def Leppard? Make it a hundred. Miley Cyrus? They don't print money big enough." Love it!!!
EVERY. MUSICIAN. SHOULD. WATCH. THIS. If you don't have time, then read The Guardian's transcript of it here: www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full I don't particularly share Steve's musical tastes and this is quite a dense listen, but his optimistic analysis of the future for music, musicians and music fans is absolutely spot on in every respect. I couldn't agree with him more. Far from blaming file sharing for bringing about the end of civilisation as we know it, his conclusion in eight words is: "The Internet Has Solved The Problem With Music".
Been Throught ..Sucess.Nothing...legal biz Lawyers....""""I Was suing Tom Watkins I was a Director.....I won ..did not recoup....cause another court and another........spent over on lawyers 200;000
all he says is easy to say for someone who faced the "internet revolution" as a renowed sound engineer, whose services are paid as a "superstar producer", and whoose recording studios are built with the money earned in the PRE-internet era. I would have been there to ask "excuse me, but if music is worldwide accessible in an instant and in a free way, where the money someone need to LIVE out on what he does (music) can be earned?". he talks about making "money to record a new album", maybe he forget that many of us can't be on tour like him in east europe for a month, because other than the money to pay for a new recording one have to earn money to eat, pay a rent, taxes and gasoline, reharsal rooms, and this money can come only from a daytime job.
so you think a "good personal recording studio" goes with 40k? 50k? when a single ssl mixing desk (with only 16 chans) goes for 50k? yeah. and you then record with the mics form you cellphone and the drumkit from hell by EZdrummer (cracked)? and then you will launch your professional-grade-mixes on the market (what market? who's gonna buy the cd and give you the money to pay the loan you got?). you clearly don't know what are you talking about, and what HE is talking about. ask him why he owns a million dollar studio instead of a mac-pro and a focusrite daw.
Of course, 30 years ago (1980s, we're not talking of 60s or 70s...), when the average sound quality (for an amateur recorder) was a 8 track tape recorder (and just a few ould afford it), and the average listener was doing it through a relatively cheap walkman headphone. if you go out today with a "Piper at the gates of dawn" quality CD, no single person would tell you that is even listenable, even it is considered one milestone of an album. At the same time, if you're going to get a "the Wall"-like sound with a home recording studio and home-recording technique, you lost before starting (ask why Gilmour bought a whole studio-boat to record "the Division Bell" and payed Bob Ezrin to produce it). More, if you hope to record a Piper-like CD and being ringed by the big boss of a record company, which today are looking for PRODUCTS not for POTENTIALS, you are going to have a bad time waiting for that phone call.
It is better for artists and listeners in a lot of ways. It just sucks that people still expect "radio quality" from an independent band or artist. In a way we are used to the polish in todays songs on the radio that a lot of people compare it. Not every musician can become an sound engineer, music marketer, social media marketer, manager, booking agent, photo and video editor and still do the music side of things. Albini motivates me tho. Its hard with all that stuff and wanting to do music the best on top of being the best all around. Im trying to incorpoarate some of the struggles and lessons along the journey. Just sharing some of my thoughts. But I love Steve and motovated to make music by his outlook to.
Always interesting. Steve's a very important historical figure who represents a lost time that was very dear to so many of us in the Midwest. And his brain cells are still in tact, obviously. And to think we never really understood what it was they (they being ' the machine' inside the music industry) until "they" signed a bunch of our ("our" being the people in the underground scene) bands in the early 1990s and proceeded to rip most of them off by charging off their expenses against the band's earnings. Helluva racket that nobody really understood at the time, evidenced by the fact that so many bands wanted to get in the door. On another note, Steve is under-reporting how broke everybody in the underground was in the late 1980s - you can only survive on the kindness of landlords for so long. He's right about how much freedom everyone enjoyed once they got their heads around the idea that you were never going to get signed by the majors,, and that "they" thought your Midwest city was a joke. But there weren't that many of us, even in Chicago (though Chicago had its population advantages over, say, Milwaukee, Detroit or Cleveland), and distro was not that great - you had to be very austere to survive -and Big Black and Steve and Touch and Go tried to teach us how to do that, in a way. The underground network in the Midwest was a beautiful thing, big population centers, easy ways to get around, college radio downtown, shitty economy filled with dilapidated property owned by landlords who were satisfied to see a little something every now and then. If the mainstream hadn't stepped in and tried to be competent for a couple of years, we might have held out a little while longer, but it was not meant to be. Eventually they were going to find out what was going on and figure out a way to get their hands in it. I remember when Pearl Jam and Alice and Chains were the big business anti-christs that nobody wanted to emulate -- I guess the 12 year olds of the day had other ideas, leading to Nickelback and nu metal, and that's whose money the record industry is always after, Brittany Miley Cyrus. I do love how the internet has opened things up, but as Steve mentioned - you're still gonna hear Phil Collins while you're grocery shopping. If I go to the neighborhood bar, somebody's going to play Pantera or Pearl Jam or Miley or Def Leppard whatever garbage was shoveled down their throats when they were 12 and didn't have the resources to acquire better sounds. In a way, the internet has solved this problem, yet it has a cocooning effect. I miss the days when there were active scenes outside your door, downtown somewhere in a broken down warehouse building that still had electricity and where you could find other urban noise people, puking their guts out on some sidewalk somewhere because they drank too much Mad Dog or Thunderbird. We lost that, and Steve's right -- it's never coming back.
Great keynote. Speaking as someone who read 'The Problem With Music' back in 94 it is staggering to see how much things have improved. Sometimes I talk to young people with totally misplaced nostalgia for a 'good old days' of bands and a culture that never went away.. they just got better. It used to be so easy to miss a band back then (the horror when you discover the band you love played London last week) and when you did get to a gig you would scramble for a fanzine for scraps of info (I will take a blog any day). In about 1998 my first internet search was the word 'Slint', for the last 5 years I had only ever seen one photo of the band (the cover of Spiderland) and then 'boom' the thing you love opens up in front of you. what next.. 'What guitar does Steve play?'.. 'what do Rodan look like?'.. 'what's the deal with Bitch Magnet, every one I like says they are great?' casual questions that where near impossible before the internet. And then the Music, and then the social networks.. I pretty much never worry I'm going to miss out when a band I love play live (so much less anxiety!). I already know that the internet cured most of my problems.. and it's nice to know that it's kicking the record industry in the balls as well.
As someone born in the early 90's, I sometimes wish I was a part of the kind of subculture bands like Rodan, Slint, Shellac, and all of them came from. I don't see much of that in my hometown at all (being in north Texas, it's mostly country and cover bands) but then I realize, man, without the internet, I wouldn't even know these bands existed. I would still be listening to just whatever came on the radio. With the amount of obscure music that I have found and how many of my friends I have influenced to some post-whatever, blahblah-step subgenre, I think the internet definitely outweighs some of the stuff that may have been lost. Now that the last used CD store is closing just months after I moved to a new part of Texas, I am sad that I didn't get to experience much of that part of music culture, but when it comes down to it, buying vinyl off Discogs.com is way cheaper than in the store anyway.
viralinfecticide People said the the same thing back then. gee I wish I was around when it was Big Black or Minor Threat or the Ramone's in their day, or Jimi Hendrix etc. No matter who you are or when you are you feel sort of late to the party you just have to go to shows now. No one says they are going to be history before they play.
Philip Markwick Nope, I was 13 in 1993, and I could feel the genius around. To me it was as good as Led Zed or Hendrix...Guns and Roses, Metallica RHCP, Faith no More...then Pantera on TV ??? man what a shock. Nirvana then came....I didn't miss other era, this one was the last good one. 2000's = purge ( britney syndrome) 2010's ? yes internet and music gets along and new great music comes along, but man those 1999 till maybe 2012. ugh
Interesting speech. He's bang on about John Peel, great guy. Fiercely championed bands he thought were worth it. Seems so easy yet proves to be so difficult for most.
Steve has superbly summed up the state of the "Music biz'" today. As an old muso ,can he help our band Fairport Convention who abandoned the "biz" in 1979 and have been self supportive ever since find a label in the U.S. and Oz. as we have a new album nearly finished? Cheers, Dave Pegg.
I find it amazing no-one on the promotion side in the US wants to take you on; there's plenty of fans out there who'd be delighted to see you guys. As it is they have to pull stumps and head over to Cropredy.
Dave Pegg hey Peggy - only just seen this and obviously Myths & Heroes is out now. But give me a call when your followup is on the way - there are plenty of avenues the Fairports could explore... Have a great Cropredy 2015 Tx
This was a great video. As someone who never cared about music in general and ignored the entire music scene for the longest time, this was extremely interesting to hear about. I'm now motivated to look more into the history and downfall of the music industry.
Some awesome thoughts there by a very talented and experienced guy. For people interested in this kind of stuff I also recommend David Byrne's book, "How Music Works"
I love how in the end he mentions how if Spotify becomes "politically unattainable" for him he can just take his music off the platform pretty easily, and as of 2023, Shellac's records have been pulled off Spotify precisely because of their shitty politics.
I agree with him. Most record labels destroy music when they record, auto-tune, and tell artists what they want to be in there songs. Also, why don't they sell songs in formats other than mp3 or aac. They recorded everything uncompressed, mixed it uncompressed, thought man that's great uncompressed then cut it down from a 32bit uncompressed file to a mp3 file that's 16bit 256kbps. Where's the other half of the song that i paid for, and you spent all that time creating. & Yes, I pay for music by bands I want to support. I want to be able to hear the dance of the cymbals, the emotion of the singer, the fingers sliding down guitar strings, if i didn't I wouldn't buy the song I'd just listen to it on youtube.
Alluring Bliss whatever......you need professionals.....to deliver the highest quality.....and professionals can't plie their trade or apprentice or study on no... industry and poetry.....it's impossible.....there is food for the soul ....so make your own bread....if you to your grocery and deliver poetry you will get thrown in jail for theft.....have fun making your own food...after all it existed before groceries and it will exist after.........good luck with that.....
Extremely lucid and realistic. It's a political view as well. The overload of music, bands in the internet, it's one side of the problem that is not mentioned.
this is a really interesting talk, so insightful wrt to where the independent industry was 9 years ago. Sadly with the economic stagnation since then and huge numbers of artists competing to play a few struggling venues, at least in the uk, these astronomical touring profits are no longer a thing. The recent widely shared guardian article explains this well. It's another flashpoint where we gotta get diy n find a new way
At 14 minutes, it brought to mind something that Ralph Tresvant said about New Edition. After their last album, where Sean Combs wanted a bunch of guys in their late 30s to appeal to teenagers, they decided that they had to be a working band. They weren't making money from the post-reunion albums so they're better off touring for their established fanbase and splitting the proceeds.
If the children who get their knickers in a twist about 'what this guy has said about their liked/favorite 'band x,' he's got a lot of very common-sense things to say.
He definitely feels comfortable with the way things are right now, because when the internet happened he already had an audience. What about us 'mortals'? I've just uploaded a mini EP of my band to the band camp for FOR FREE. Nobody even wants it for free!! Cause nobody care for music anymore it's just as abundant as dirt. So yeah right "i'm totally buying" the story where someone put their stuff on the web and became famous the next day.
konstantingroove you still have to promote yourself if you want to build up a fanbase. playing live locally, giving it to local radio stations, putting your music on more than one site, creating a facebook page, having your friends share your music with others, etc. plus there's always been the huge matter of luck and talent involved. keep working and good luck.
Maybe if you feel like music has become abundant dirt, as you said, you should something else to do with your time. I've been in a band for almost 7 years now, we've recorded over 50 songs, haven't made 1 dollar doing it, and I could care less. Because I enjoy music, playing it, listening to it, recording it, and on and on. Point is, maybe the problem is your assumption that because you are doing something, the rest of the world will care. The rest of world doesn't care and probably never will. So if you need the validation of others in the form of their praise and their money, well..... Good luck with that.
Or maybe you haven't become famous because you're not very good at making music. That's also a possibility. I don't know that, you might be great. The history of music is littered with bands that were amazing yet never found an audience. Just saying, if you really loved or cared for music, the act of playing, recording, etc. would be enough. You wouldn't need to be idolized by the masses, or anyone at all for that matter.
2019 - The Rolling Stones made / profit was $177 million for sixteen dates, US$1200 for some tickets, such thievery by them & the Corporations who "OWN" them forever until & after the death of these Corporate controlled musician's. Their insatiable greed will never end, believe that. Want to live in debt for your entire adult life? Become an Artist/Musician in the late 20th & early 21st. century. Steve talks the truth and is one of the main reasons we don't hear from Steve that much, Corporations HATE him as is clearly seen when they tried to get Steve who was the original Producer to completely redo/re-mix "In Utero" by Nirvava, he refused as did the band and the album was pretty much how they wanted the album to sound thank God! Corporations clearly need to die, NOT the people who are born Artists or Musician's dying prematurely do to being broke and exploited and squeezed like a lemon until anything creative left in them is sucked out!
Interesting laughter at the concept of setting up a booth to 'sing someone a song for a dollar'. Folk In A Box, folkinabox.net/ does exactly that. One of our artists had fun doing that recently. It's a relevant business model to include as one revenue stream among others
I have a lot of respect for this man, but honestly, I'm not sure I really buy into much of what he's saying. I agree that it's wonderful that your music can be heard so easily and the ability to communicate so easily and personally with your fans is amazing too. However, music is still art, there is still a product, and just because the internet makes it easier for your music to be stolen/heard for free doesn't mean it's ok that people aren't paying for it. From a business point of view it is very simple: The song is the product, just as a painting is a product, and that is what should be sold. That is direct business. Also, you can't just charge an arm and a leg for shows just because it is now your ONLY real means of making money off your art, due to the fact that the internet has stripped the artist of every other facet of selling power... And in fact, you aren't directly making money off your art by doing a show anyway, seeing as how it's more about the performance and light show than it is about the songs. I am optimistic too Mr. Albini, for out of struggle comes true change. But as for right now... No, I am not "excited" or "satisfied" with the way the industry is.
Albini clearly laid out how back in the pre-internet day, all the money that the band was allegedly being paid via the record label was in actually being taken from the band to pay for all the "benefits" that the the label was allegedly providing, i.e. radio exposure, promotional materials, touring, etc etc. Albini's incredible article from 1993 "The Problem With Music" literally shows the math by breaking the figures down. As Albini also discussed in the video, back in the day the label would inefficiently flood markets, regardless of the demand/interest in the band and all those advanced promos going to radio stations and clubs and whatnot would be sold to record stores to profit the stations while the bands themselves had to pay for that "shotgun approach" from their record deals. In contrast, now fans without any geographical boundaries - the only real boundary being access to the Internet - can discover music and directly contact/interact with the band. There have been multiple bands (and comedians for that matter) who essentially tell their fans through social media "if you can guarantee, via advance tickets/event pages/etc a minimum turnout, even as little as a few hundred we will come to YOU and perform" and it's worked. Also, "seeing how it's more about the performance and light show than it is about the songs" is a very bizarre and far from accurate statement. An apt synonym for a concert is a musical performance so I'd hope there'd be attention paid to the performance. Now what performance means depends on the performer. For one of Albini's own bands, that's going to mean an entirely stripped down/zero stage design set with some dudes probably wearing "street" clothes making some beautiful cacophony. For Lady Gaga, that's going to mean innumerable costume changes, dancers, video screens, in a word, a spectacle. Regardless of how you feel about their music or alleged artistry, those can both be memorable shows. And unless someone goes into either one of those shows entirely ignorant of the band's music and personality, Albini's fans are probably going to expect and desire his type of performance and Lady Gaga fans are probably going to expect and desire her type of performance. Let's not let nostalgia cloud the reality of the past while we're at it: over the top musical spectacles have been around and quite popular far before the first internet connection and far before Albini started making music. Was part of the origin and appeal of punk rock from the 70s not a reaction to the bloated, over the top music and light shows of huge stadium acts? Lastly, the DIY, cut out the huge record label middle men behavior that Albini talks about and engages in definitely predates the internet. Those fanzines he talked about writing for were just one aspect of the hugely influential, albeit non-mainstream creation and evolution of the DIY punk rock underground scene that took off in the 80s when bands realized they could start their own labels, distribute their own records, manage their own tours, communicate directly with their own fans, reap a larger percentage of their music (records, publishing, concerts, etc). Those bands were never going to gain the favor of large record labels, and in the rare chance that they did, whatever short term "huge" advance and "great" deal they got inevitably ended up screwing them in the end.
record labels were a great deal just for the 0.0001 % of bands. Now you don't need market surveys in order to share your music, to be recorded, promoted etc. You can make the same or more amout of money just with patreon without a record label stealing 90% of your money.
steve. you are basing your thesis on your experiences and frustration with the old system.. and your travels to the balkans and europe, where there is a vibrant live music scene still. Talk to a variety of great musicians today and you'll find few besides taylor swift or some hiphop artist who are able to make a living. we do need a system that works...for the musicians and their fans. where are these north american live music venues that pay artists so much? or anything that covers costs? examples??? i will happily pay big bucks directly to a musician I like who puts out a good quality product, such as a well produced sacd or lp. and maybe that's the new system that we need, one that truly does work for everyone, meaning the fan and the musician both.
I'm from Australia and I find it strange how, at every single one of these seminars or whatever, everyone has a really thick, goofy accent. I barely meet anybody who sounds like these people, except when I go to things like this. I am confused as to why
The Canadian punk band BFG put out an album with a great sarcastic title: "There's No Solution.....So There's No Problem." And that is the problem I have with this genie-out-of-the-bottle argument Albini presents. Yes there IS a problem!! We used to have a mainstream and a solid underground, now we have a two-tier system: those who star and those who disappear starving. How is this good?
So I'm all for Albini's point of view, but then I have to ask: "Why the hell doesn't Shellac have their albums in Spotify???" And I'm not calling him a hypocrite at all. I'm really just confused.
Andre Isidro It really depends who owns what rights to the other material. They may not have been able to come to agreeable terms on the other material. Spotify is going to use those songs to make money. How much is the band going to make? If a business wants to use your music, those relationships are still pretty enforceable.
Because they don't have to. They already have an audience. They don't make their livings from being in Shellac. They don't believe that the whole world should have Shellac thrust in their faces. And because, financially, there's no upside to being on Spotify.
Andre Isidro, you've probably seen it for yourself, your comment being a month old, but Shellac's lastest "Dude Incredible" is on Spotify right now. Hopefully the earlier albums are due to follow.
you went The Finchdon Maror George Lywood..ect...Wow I was Younger They mattress on the floor and the fees......I went a Great small Prep/Boarding..Skool half the price
if you are looking for something rare -like an old childrens record, and not legally released stuff like big black-but you don't want to pay the equivilant of a million dollars from a private collector:How about hearing John Lennons fathers recorfd release instead of looking for it.john paul jones pre led zeppelin 45 rpm single....how about BOOTLEG LIVE CONCERST OF BIG BLACK? ALSO NOBODY REMEMBERS RECORDING ONTO CASSETTE TAPES AND 8 TRACKS AND REEL TO REEL TAPES?
Some good points made but the old "I suppose some people are out of work but so were the blacksmiths when cars replaced horses" doesn't wash. The situation is not the same. The blacksmith became obsolete, the demand for his services dried up. The music creator has not. There is still huge demand for what he/she creates. People still want it they just don't want to pay for it. Until people en'masse take it upon themselves to purchase directly from independent acts or support them via crowdfunding, the industry will continue to degrade.
He got some good points, but he missed so many ones, I mean it's ok if Prince is not your music of choice, but facts matter (right?), Prince was the first mayor artist that went against corporations, he was the creator of the myspace/Itunes model and when he banned that "little girl dance video" it was a statement against You Tube not the people. This is a cool talk, Albini rocks, but it seems to me that he is using this topic to project so much resentment. I mean "Purple dwarf "? "His music is posion"? totally ruined the whole thing for me.
"i enumerated too much complaint" then don't ! make a point? With all due respect, You lost me with all the confident moaning and hip counter-view of the obvious. and the Prince insults ? wise.
So extrapolating Albini's outlook into the recording realm, he should be happy to record artists for free. I mean, just think of all of the potential exposure he stands to get.... as a guy who works for nothing! FUCK THIS!!!
you've missed the point... he's saying that the people necessary to making music will still be paid for this, for instance if you cant record music yourself, then you will pay someone to do it for you. he's saying it's good that there wont be a huge number of leaches draining at the money of the musicians making the music. he's also not saying "YEAH FREE MUSIC YEAH MUSICIANS WORK FOR FREE" or whatever tiny nugget of complete shite you gleaned from this whilst managing to overlook everything else which was incredibly valuable. he's made it quite clear that the value of music as a musician comes from playing the music - aka live shows. recordings of music are simply a way to get the music out there, the money comes from the gigs, not the recordings. this is good because bands that are bad live will not be able to continue to earn money and will have to get better, or give up. this means that music will be pushed into being better, as opposed to the current system where the musician doesnt have to be able to play/sing at all as long as something can be created digitally in the studio
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you're not really a musician...if that's not the case than please forgive the assumption. This is a big topic so I'll employ an analogy to hopefully illuminate at least a portion of it... Now using the latest Hobbit film as an example, imagine that upon completion of the film, the only way that the people involved in making the movie could hope for any compensation would be to take the show on the road and perform a recreated stage version of the movie all over the world. After all, the multi-million dollar film they just made was only "advertisement" for the subsequent live theatrical performances. Again this is a HUGE, multi-faceted topic and it's probably unreasonable to expect any sort of resolution within the confines of the UA-cam comments section ;)
Saint Germain I'm a musician man it's my only aim in life, i'd rather live on the streets trying and failing to make music than give up on my dream. But you have to accept the way the world has changed. there is literally no point trying to argue against something that cannot be changed at all, there is no possible way of stopping the free distribution of music without clamping down way too much on people's freedoms. therefore, we are presented with a new paradigm and so rather than trying to cling on and make a living from the old system, which is dying fast, you have to figure out ways of making a living from the new one. as this mate in the video explains, ticket prices for shows are going up 10 fold and as such the bands are getting paid directly the difference in ticket prices. we are admittedly at an awkward transitional phase whereby it's not possible to make a living off of digital sales, and it's also not that possible to make a living off of gigs. however, this will change as the whole idea of paid digital music will inevitably crumble (i'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that it is an inevitability). as one pillar crumbles, the other must pick up the slack, this is also an inevitability because there is still a supply and demand in music (the musicians being the suppliers, fans being the demand). as such, there will always be profit in music in some form or another, and the newer model of being paid for live work is just going to have to be an accepted fact. now you can concentrate on the negatives of this or the positives, that's up to you, but fortunately or unfortunately, this will become the world as we know it
I don't think you heard him or understood him. And Madonna wrote a piece about this years ago too. It isn't the first time that someone explained that "Unless you were a Super Star, your band can generate Million$ and you wont see a cent of it because of all the middle persons that get paid from your work FIRST! They already work for free. That all changes today. Even a luke-warm band making a fraction of those Million$ can not only make a decent living but more than they would have in the past with today's Internet and technology. See Kickstarter.
Yea we get it, you hate labels. There's a reason 99% of the major acts are still on labels even though in theory they could go it alone. Promotional muscle that cannot be matched and an infrastructure that deals with the minutia so that the band/artist doesn't have to. Don't get me wrong nobody wants to go back to the days when the labels held all the cards, the artist should be top of the deck, but in my area live venues are closing down year after year and dedicated promoters have become a rarity. Finding exposure has become increasingly difficult. Sure, savvy marketers will continue to push forward using stunts and gimmicks but nine times out of ten their music sucks almighty balls. How will the consumer hear the great new bands who don't have advanced promotional acumen? Bands that just create the best shit? Answer=they won't. I only hope that crowdfunding becomes more of a passive interest rather than a directed one and that bands of substance can find the platform they've worked for.
+SupesCoob your argument doesnt touch on bands that arent major acts. you ever been in a band on a label - held hostage to a multi-album contract? the only shit you argue about is the bands that are making cash at the moment. if you go look at mid-tier acts that are support on tours a lot of the time they can be in major debt (i have personal friends who were 99k in debt to Elektra records through their subsidiary label that was one of Elektra's bought out tentacles) or are making minimal money through their deal. it comes off more of a hobbyist fantasy while theyre working secondary jobs. labels are just parasitic/strip mining regimes. they work for bands that skew more towards being a business (what all major acts are. don't kid yourself) posing as once artists.
SupesCoob 99% of bands aren't major artists. This speech is aimed at the bulk, not the very few sitting on the top. There are more bands than ever and every one of them has the ability to push themselves to the limit of their own ability without need to deal with anyone other than their potential fans. That's a game changer and can only be a good thing.
So Albini is fine reducing music creators to essentially using their music to sell clothes and everything other than music, to be able to afford food, transport and a bed? Copyright is a vital concept. Our society progressed into incentivising idea-creation. It's regress to go back to the dark ages where the rich can just pillage the ideas of the poor, because they have an infrastructure that enables exploitation already set up. Copyright levelled the playing field. It allowed for a meritocracy, where people were paid for having great ideas. It will be disastrous for society to devolve to such a copyright-less, robber-baron situation again.
"Our society progressed into incentivising idea-creation." Idea creation does not need to be incentivised, and in fact doing as such has a negative effect on creative drive. You should read up some on psychology on the topic of incentives and motivation. The purpose of copyright should not be to incentivise, but to protect. No matter what, people are going to create ideas, because people love creating ideas, what people need is protection so they are actually able to invest resources into doing it.
People are not going to create inventions and great ideas beyond the urgent, if they're focussed on urgently gathering food for the day. It's the whole concept behind specialisation. Intellectual property means those with the best ideas, can specialise on coming up with great ideas, rather than have the already rich and powerful, taking ideas they come across, to maintain the status quo.
ganondorfchampin the concept of protecting copyright is an incentive to create. Why would someone keep putting great ideas/music out there, if it's only going to make the rich richer? Think about it. Why would I bother spending time away from my kids, or having a swim, or singing songs/making art for my own enjoyment, to make someone else richer? Protecting copyright incentivises artistic creation. Removing it is a serious disincentive.
Pwyl Pollock "if they're focussed on urgently gathering food for the day. " Which is why it acts as a protection, not an incentive. Once one's basic needs are fulfilled, people move onto other things. It's basic psychology.
Pwyl Pollock "Why would someone keep putting great ideas/music out there, if it's only going to make the rich richer" Because the claim that it's only going to make the rich richer is bullshit. The reason people come up with ideas is NOT to make money. " singing songs/making art for my own enjoyment," There you go. It's not an either/or. "Protecting copyright incentivises artistic creation. Removing it is a serious disincentive. " I'm not against copyright, I'm saying that phrasing it as an incentive is wrong because that's not the way people work.
Wrong. taking someone else’s labor output and calling it sharing is the most basic violation of civil liberties. the right to property as an extension of ones labor is contramand to slavery. Albini is ok. But he doesn’t have the provable moral position to defend the adage of taking simply because one desires it
![Steve Albini & Joe Steinhardt in Conversation [Drexel Music Industry Program]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IYVhX38jR5Y/mqdefault.jpg)
This dood went from being an abrasive malcontent to being punk rock's reasonable dad. I'm a fan of both versions.
😆👍 Agreed.
The shirt he’s wearing added 10 years to my life.
haha yes
i wish he could say the same
@@totalSLACK lmao
I met Steve Albini at NAMM in 2008. He was pretty cool, he was yelling and flipping off this guy who was showcasing Battle DJ equipment huling insults at him and bragging about owning a callipoe. that same day there was commotion at the Dean Markley booth, I didnt see it, i only heard it, but a friend did see it and allegedly, Albini tugged really hard on a man's goatee and a fight broke out. NAMM used to be wild. We need Steve back up there.
"Play a Phil Collins song at me while I'm grocery shopping? Pay me twenty dollars. Def Leppard? Make it a hundred. Miley Cyrus? They don't print money big enough." Love it!!!
EVERY. MUSICIAN. SHOULD. WATCH. THIS.
If you don't have time, then read The Guardian's transcript of it here: www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full I don't particularly share Steve's musical tastes and this is quite a dense listen, but his optimistic analysis of the future for music, musicians and music fans is absolutely spot on in every respect. I couldn't agree with him more. Far from blaming file sharing for bringing about the end of civilisation as we know it, his conclusion in eight words is: "The Internet Has Solved The Problem With Music".
Been Throught ..Sucess.Nothing...legal biz Lawyers....""""I Was suing Tom Watkins I was a Director.....I won ..did not recoup....cause another court and another........spent over on lawyers 200;000
all he says is easy to say for someone who faced the "internet revolution" as a renowed sound engineer, whose services are paid as a "superstar producer", and whoose recording studios are built with the money earned in the PRE-internet era. I would have been there to ask "excuse me, but if music is worldwide accessible in an instant and in a free way, where the money someone need to LIVE out on what he does (music) can be earned?". he talks about making "money to record a new album", maybe he forget that many of us can't be on tour like him in east europe for a month, because other than the money to pay for a new recording one have to earn money to eat, pay a rent, taxes and gasoline, reharsal rooms, and this money can come only from a daytime job.
so you think a "good personal recording studio" goes with 40k? 50k? when a single ssl mixing desk (with only 16 chans) goes for 50k? yeah. and you then record with the mics form you cellphone and the drumkit from hell by EZdrummer (cracked)? and then you will launch your professional-grade-mixes on the market (what market? who's gonna buy the cd and give you the money to pay the loan you got?). you clearly don't know what are you talking about, and what HE is talking about. ask him why he owns a million dollar studio instead of a mac-pro and a focusrite daw.
Of course, 30 years ago (1980s, we're not talking of 60s or 70s...), when the average sound quality (for an amateur recorder) was a 8 track tape recorder (and just a few ould afford it), and the average listener was doing it through a relatively cheap walkman headphone. if you go out today with a "Piper at the gates of dawn" quality CD, no single person would tell you that is even listenable, even it is considered one milestone of an album. At the same time, if you're going to get a "the Wall"-like sound with a home recording studio and home-recording technique, you lost before starting (ask why Gilmour bought a whole studio-boat to record "the Division Bell" and payed Bob Ezrin to produce it). More, if you hope to record a Piper-like CD and being ringed by the big boss of a record company, which today are looking for PRODUCTS not for POTENTIALS, you are going to have a bad time waiting for that phone call.
***** Um, try Googling "15 Legendary Albums That Were Recorded in Bedrooms, Kitchens, and Garages"
Of course most people disagree. He cares about music, not money. That's why he produced Nirvana and you're complaining about money.
It is better for artists and listeners in a lot of ways. It just sucks that people still expect "radio quality" from an independent band or artist. In a way we are used to the polish in todays songs on the radio that a lot of people compare it. Not every musician can become an sound engineer, music marketer, social media marketer, manager, booking agent, photo and video editor and still do the music side of things. Albini motivates me tho. Its hard with all that stuff and wanting to do music the best on top of being the best all around. Im trying to incorpoarate some of the struggles and lessons along the journey. Just sharing some of my thoughts. But I love Steve and motovated to make music by his outlook to.
Always interesting. Steve's a very important historical figure who represents a lost time that was very dear to so many of us in the Midwest. And his brain cells are still in tact, obviously. And to think we never really understood what it was they (they being ' the machine' inside the music industry) until "they" signed a bunch of our ("our" being the people in the underground scene) bands in the early 1990s and proceeded to rip most of them off by charging off their expenses against the band's earnings. Helluva racket that nobody really understood at the time, evidenced by the fact that so many bands wanted to get in the door.
On another note, Steve is under-reporting how broke everybody in the underground was in the late 1980s - you can only survive on the kindness of landlords for so long. He's right about how much freedom everyone enjoyed once they got their heads around the idea that you were never going to get signed by the majors,, and that "they" thought your Midwest city was a joke. But there weren't that many of us, even in Chicago (though Chicago had its population advantages over, say, Milwaukee, Detroit or Cleveland), and distro was not that great - you had to be very austere to survive -and Big Black and Steve and Touch and Go tried to teach us how to do that, in a way.
The underground network in the Midwest was a beautiful thing, big population centers, easy ways to get around, college radio downtown, shitty economy filled with dilapidated property owned by landlords who were satisfied to see a little something every now and then. If the mainstream hadn't stepped in and tried to be competent for a couple of years, we might have held out a little while longer, but it was not meant to be. Eventually they were going to find out what was going on and figure out a way to get their hands in it. I remember when Pearl Jam and Alice and Chains were the big business anti-christs that nobody wanted to emulate -- I guess the 12 year olds of the day had other ideas, leading to Nickelback and nu metal, and that's whose money the record industry is always after, Brittany Miley Cyrus.
I do love how the internet has opened things up, but as Steve mentioned - you're still gonna hear Phil Collins while you're grocery shopping. If I go to the neighborhood bar, somebody's going to play Pantera or Pearl Jam or Miley or Def Leppard whatever garbage was shoveled down their throats when they were 12 and didn't have the resources to acquire better sounds. In a way, the internet has solved this problem, yet it has a cocooning effect. I miss the days when there were active scenes outside your door, downtown somewhere in a broken down warehouse building that still had electricity and where you could find other urban noise people, puking their guts out on some sidewalk somewhere because they drank too much Mad Dog or Thunderbird. We lost that, and Steve's right -- it's never coming back.
What a dude inscredible. Please write a book steve. A very long one that I can crush other books with.
Great keynote. Speaking as someone who read 'The Problem With Music' back in 94 it is staggering to see how much things have improved. Sometimes I talk to young people with totally misplaced nostalgia for a 'good old days' of bands and a culture that never went away.. they just got better. It used to be so easy to miss a band back then (the horror when you discover the band you love played London last week) and when you did get to a gig you would scramble for a fanzine for scraps of info (I will take a blog any day). In about 1998 my first internet search was the word 'Slint', for the last 5 years I had only ever seen one photo of the band (the cover of Spiderland) and then 'boom' the thing you love opens up in front of you. what next.. 'What guitar does Steve play?'.. 'what do Rodan look like?'.. 'what's the deal with Bitch Magnet, every one I like says they are great?' casual questions that where near impossible before the internet. And then the Music, and then the social networks.. I pretty much never worry I'm going to miss out when a band I love play live (so much less anxiety!). I already know that the internet cured most of my problems.. and it's nice to know that it's kicking the record industry in the balls as well.
As someone born in the early 90's, I sometimes wish I was a part of the kind of subculture bands like Rodan, Slint, Shellac, and all of them came from. I don't see much of that in my hometown at all (being in north Texas, it's mostly country and cover bands) but then I realize, man, without the internet, I wouldn't even know these bands existed. I would still be listening to just whatever came on the radio. With the amount of obscure music that I have found and how many of my friends I have influenced to some post-whatever, blahblah-step subgenre, I think the internet definitely outweighs some of the stuff that may have been lost. Now that the last used CD store is closing just months after I moved to a new part of Texas, I am sad that I didn't get to experience much of that part of music culture, but when it comes down to it, buying vinyl off Discogs.com is way cheaper than in the store anyway.
viralinfecticide
People said the the same thing back then. gee I wish I was around when it was Big Black or Minor Threat or the Ramone's in their day, or Jimi Hendrix etc. No matter who you are or when you are you feel sort of late to the party you just have to go to shows now. No one says they are going to be history before they play.
Philip Markwick Nope, I was 13 in 1993, and I could feel the genius around. To me it was as good as Led Zed or Hendrix...Guns and Roses, Metallica RHCP, Faith no More...then Pantera on TV ??? man what a shock. Nirvana then came....I didn't miss other era, this one was the last good one. 2000's = purge ( britney syndrome) 2010's ? yes internet and music gets along and new great music comes along, but man those 1999 till maybe 2012. ugh
Interesting speech. He's bang on about John Peel, great guy. Fiercely championed bands he thought were worth it. Seems so easy yet proves to be so difficult for most.
Was there for this.. def inspiring to get Steve's clear overview of the industry as he has experienced it over the years.
Fantastic job...you old optimistic curmudgeon! You're a gift to the city of Chicago. Great keynote.
RIP Steve!
This view is utter heresy in my hometown of Nashville. I love it.
What a legend!
"If such a thing were possible when I was a teenager I'm sure I would have been a right nuisance to the Ramones..." :-D
Steve has superbly summed up the state of the "Music biz'" today. As an old muso ,can he help our band Fairport Convention who abandoned the "biz" in 1979 and have been self supportive ever since find a label in the U.S. and Oz. as we have a new album nearly finished? Cheers, Dave Pegg.
I have four vinyl records with you playing on them. Go for it! I recognized your name even before I saw 'Fairport Convention' :)
I find it amazing no-one on the promotion side in the US wants to take you on; there's plenty of fans out there who'd be delighted to see you guys. As it is they have to pull stumps and head over to Cropredy.
Dave Pegg hey Peggy - only just seen this and obviously Myths & Heroes is out now. But give me a call when your followup is on the way - there are plenty of avenues the Fairports could explore... Have a great Cropredy 2015 Tx
This was a great video. As someone who never cared about music in general and ignored the entire music scene for the longest time, this was extremely interesting to hear about. I'm now motivated to look more into the history and downfall of the music industry.
Steve reminds me a little of Noam Chomsky here (voice, body language, mannerisms, etc).
Wow! I literally was just going to comment that he is the Noam Chomsky of audio! lol. Seriously though, he's fucking brilliant.
The thumbnail is the most Steve Albini thing ever.
Some awesome thoughts there by a very talented and experienced guy. For people interested in this kind of stuff I also recommend David Byrne's book, "How Music Works"
I love how in the end he mentions how if Spotify becomes "politically unattainable" for him he can just take his music off the platform pretty easily, and as of 2023, Shellac's records have been pulled off Spotify precisely because of their shitty politics.
Ha. Tim Heckler.
This is a fantastic keynote!
Steve is a legand... he should be in the hall of fame
Love you Mr.Albini
Is anyone else's thumbnail steve albini doing Richard Nixon fingers?
Andrew Ware Yeah lol!
I agree with him. Most record labels destroy music when they record, auto-tune, and tell artists what they want to be in there songs.
Also, why don't they sell songs in formats other than mp3 or aac. They recorded everything uncompressed, mixed it uncompressed, thought man that's great uncompressed then cut it down from a 32bit uncompressed file to a mp3 file that's 16bit 256kbps. Where's the other half of the song that i paid for, and you spent all that time creating.
&
Yes, I pay for music by bands I want to support. I want to be able to hear the dance of the cymbals, the emotion of the singer, the fingers sliding down guitar strings, if i didn't I wouldn't buy the song I'd just listen to it on youtube.
Download Flac files
42:00 record stores used record stores second hand stores still sell LIMITED EDITION VINYL
Wow this is really insightful. Makes me look at the industry in a different way
People won't stop making music because of money. Music has been around before money; it's the language of the soul.
Alluring Bliss whatever......you need professionals.....to deliver the highest quality.....and professionals can't plie their trade or apprentice or study on no... industry and poetry.....it's impossible.....there is food for the soul ....so make your own bread....if you to your grocery and deliver poetry you will get thrown in jail for theft.....have fun making your own food...after all it existed before groceries and it will exist after.........good luck with that.....
Extremely lucid and realistic. It's a political view as well. The overload of music, bands in the internet, it's one side of the problem that is not mentioned.
this is a really interesting talk, so insightful wrt to where the independent industry was 9 years ago. Sadly with the economic stagnation since then and huge numbers of artists competing to play a few struggling venues, at least in the uk, these astronomical touring profits are no longer a thing. The recent widely shared guardian article explains this well. It's another flashpoint where we gotta get diy n find a new way
The Best what i had hear about the Music Industry the last Years. Great***
The only what i hear from the Music Industry, they "celebrate themselves".
this is inspiring
At 14 minutes, it brought to mind something that Ralph Tresvant said about New Edition. After their last album, where Sean Combs wanted a bunch of guys in their late 30s to appeal to teenagers, they decided that they had to be a working band. They weren't making money from the post-reunion albums so they're better off touring for their established fanbase and splitting the proceeds.
Outstanding.
If the children who get their knickers in a twist about 'what this guy has said about their liked/favorite 'band x,' he's got a lot of very common-sense things to say.
Tim Heckler! 😂
41:00 and high sound quality
His opinions are as mystical as his t-shirt.
around the 24 minute mark writing letters back and fourth is another way also IT WORKS
back in the day there was mix tapes .
He has a point, digital doesn't sound as good anyways, so it maybe like a giant universal cassette tape or radio.
He definitely feels comfortable with the way things are right now, because when the internet happened he already had an audience. What about us 'mortals'? I've just uploaded a mini EP of my band to the band camp for FOR FREE. Nobody even wants it for free!! Cause nobody care for music anymore it's just as abundant as dirt. So yeah right "i'm totally buying" the story where someone put their stuff on the web and became famous the next day.
konstantingroove you still have to promote yourself if you want to build up a fanbase. playing live locally, giving it to local radio stations, putting your music on more than one site, creating a facebook page, having your friends share your music with others, etc. plus there's always been the huge matter of luck and talent involved. keep working and good luck.
Does your music sound as bitter?
nick moran As bitter as Shellac? lol
Maybe if you feel like music has become abundant dirt, as you said, you should something else to do with your time. I've been in a band for almost 7 years now, we've recorded over 50 songs, haven't made 1 dollar doing it, and I could care less. Because I enjoy music, playing it, listening to it, recording it, and on and on. Point is, maybe the problem is your assumption that because you are doing something, the rest of the world will care. The rest of world doesn't care and probably never will. So if you need the validation of others in the form of their praise and their money, well..... Good luck with that.
Or maybe you haven't become famous because you're not very good at making music. That's also a possibility. I don't know that, you might be great. The history of music is littered with bands that were amazing yet never found an audience. Just saying, if you really loved or cared for music, the act of playing, recording, etc. would be enough. You wouldn't need to be idolized by the masses, or anyone at all for that matter.
"his music is poison and he hits women"
people still use tapes
2019 - The Rolling Stones made / profit was $177 million for sixteen dates, US$1200 for some tickets, such thievery by them & the Corporations who "OWN" them forever until & after the death of these Corporate controlled musician's.
Their insatiable greed will never end, believe that.
Want to live in debt for your entire adult life? Become an Artist/Musician in the late 20th & early 21st. century.
Steve talks the truth and is one of the main reasons we don't hear from Steve that much, Corporations HATE him as is clearly seen when they tried to get Steve who was the original Producer to completely redo/re-mix "In Utero" by Nirvava, he refused as did the band and the album was pretty much how they wanted the album to sound thank God!
Corporations clearly need to die, NOT the people who are born Artists or Musician's dying prematurely do to being broke and exploited and squeezed like a lemon until anything creative left in them is sucked out!
The internet has fucked the major labels over >>>>> GOOD
PS - The way that he carries that Macbook triggers me to no end 😂
Interesting laughter at the concept of setting up a booth to 'sing someone a song for a dollar'. Folk In A Box, folkinabox.net/ does exactly that. One of our artists had fun doing that recently. It's a relevant business model to include as one revenue stream among others
is it just me or does he constantly have an 'end of speech' tone from about the halfway point of this video?
Not a single thumbs up in 4 years?
I'd say, it's just you.
@@beigela lol
He's right, it's a helluva a time to be in music - more opportunities than ever before I
What did you do 'in music' in the last 3 years?
Thought this was Ozzy from the thumbnail
I have a lot of respect for this man, but honestly, I'm not sure I really buy into much of what he's saying. I agree that it's wonderful that your music can be heard so easily and the ability to communicate so easily and personally with your fans is amazing too. However, music is still art, there is still a product, and just because the internet makes it easier for your music to be stolen/heard for free doesn't mean it's ok that people aren't paying for it. From a business point of view it is very simple: The song is the product, just as a painting is a product, and that is what should be sold. That is direct business.
Also, you can't just charge an arm and a leg for shows just because it is now your ONLY real means of making money off your art, due to the fact that the internet has stripped the artist of every other facet of selling power... And in fact, you aren't directly making money off your art by doing a show anyway, seeing as how it's more about the performance and light show than it is about the songs.
I am optimistic too Mr. Albini, for out of struggle comes true change. But as for right now... No, I am not "excited" or "satisfied" with the way the industry is.
Albini clearly laid out how back in the pre-internet day, all the money that the band was allegedly being paid via the record label was in actually being taken from the band to pay for all the "benefits" that the the label was allegedly providing, i.e. radio exposure, promotional materials, touring, etc etc. Albini's incredible article from 1993 "The Problem With Music" literally shows the math by breaking the figures down. As Albini also discussed in the video, back in the day the label would inefficiently flood markets, regardless of the demand/interest in the band and all those advanced promos going to radio stations and clubs and whatnot would be sold to record stores to profit the stations while the bands themselves had to pay for that "shotgun approach" from their record deals. In contrast, now fans without any geographical boundaries - the only real boundary being access to the Internet - can discover music and directly contact/interact with the band. There have been multiple bands (and comedians for that matter) who essentially tell their fans through social media "if you can guarantee, via advance tickets/event pages/etc a minimum turnout, even as little as a few hundred we will come to YOU and perform" and it's worked.
Also, "seeing how it's more about the performance and light show than it is about the songs" is a very bizarre and far from accurate statement. An apt synonym for a concert is a musical performance so I'd hope there'd be attention paid to the performance. Now what performance means depends on the performer. For one of Albini's own bands, that's going to mean an entirely stripped down/zero stage design set with some dudes probably wearing "street" clothes making some beautiful cacophony. For Lady Gaga, that's going to mean innumerable costume changes, dancers, video screens, in a word, a spectacle. Regardless of how you feel about their music or alleged artistry, those can both be memorable shows. And unless someone goes into either one of those shows entirely ignorant of the band's music and personality, Albini's fans are probably going to expect and desire his type of performance and Lady Gaga fans are probably going to expect and desire her type of performance. Let's not let nostalgia cloud the reality of the past while we're at it: over the top musical spectacles have been around and quite popular far before the first internet connection and far before Albini started making music. Was part of the origin and appeal of punk rock from the 70s not a reaction to the bloated, over the top music and light shows of huge stadium acts?
Lastly, the DIY, cut out the huge record label middle men behavior that Albini talks about and engages in definitely predates the internet. Those fanzines he talked about writing for were just one aspect of the hugely influential, albeit non-mainstream creation and evolution of the DIY punk rock underground scene that took off in the 80s when bands realized they could start their own labels, distribute their own records, manage their own tours, communicate directly with their own fans, reap a larger percentage of their music (records, publishing, concerts, etc). Those bands were never going to gain the favor of large record labels, and in the rare chance that they did, whatever short term "huge" advance and "great" deal they got inevitably ended up screwing them in the end.
record labels were a great deal just for the 0.0001 % of bands. Now you don't need market surveys in order to share your music, to be recorded, promoted etc. You can make the same or more amout of money just with patreon without a record label stealing 90% of your money.
The Grateful Dead did it. They toured constantly. Now, get your ass out on that stage n earn your keep.
22:46-22:49
DEATH! SUCH AN AMAZING STORY!
Im actuallly listening - but you caught me on a bad day ATOMIZER rules
Journal For Plague Lovers 🤙
HOW ABOUT TAPES?
lot of incorrect statements in that but on the whole, Albini has it right.
5:15 that laugh sounds Australian
like like like like like.
28:59
steve. you are basing your thesis on your experiences and frustration with the old system.. and your travels to the balkans and europe, where there is a vibrant live music scene still. Talk to a variety of great musicians today and you'll find few besides taylor swift or some hiphop artist who are able to make a living. we do need a system that works...for the musicians and their fans. where are these north american live music venues that pay artists so much? or anything that covers costs? examples??? i will happily pay big bucks directly to a musician I like who puts out a good quality product, such as a well produced sacd or lp. and maybe that's the new system that we need, one that truly does work for everyone, meaning the fan and the musician both.
I'm from Australia and I find it strange how, at every single one of these seminars or whatever, everyone has a really thick, goofy accent.
I barely meet anybody who sounds like these people, except when I go to things like this. I am confused as to why
+that one ary americans think the same of the kiwi and brit accent.
The Canadian punk band BFG put out an album with a great sarcastic title: "There's No Solution.....So There's No Problem." And that is the problem I have with this genie-out-of-the-bottle argument Albini presents. Yes there IS a problem!! We used to have a mainstream and a solid underground, now we have a two-tier system: those who star and those who disappear starving. How is this good?
So I'm all for Albini's point of view, but then I have to ask: "Why the hell doesn't Shellac have their albums in Spotify???" And I'm not calling him a hypocrite at all. I'm really just confused.
Ok, scratch that. I found that Dude, Incredible just got released on Spotify. Then why not all their other stuff?
Andre Isidro It really depends who owns what rights to the other material. They may not have been able to come to agreeable terms on the other material. Spotify is going to use those songs to make money. How much is the band going to make? If a business wants to use your music, those relationships are still pretty enforceable.
My guess is because Tough & Go kinda needs some publicity right now..
Because they don't have to. They already have an audience. They don't make their livings from being in Shellac. They don't believe that the whole world should have Shellac thrust in their faces. And because, financially, there's no upside to being on Spotify.
Andre Isidro, you've probably seen it for yourself, your comment being a month old, but Shellac's lastest "Dude Incredible" is on Spotify right now. Hopefully the earlier albums are due to follow.
you went The Finchdon Maror George Lywood..ect...Wow I was Younger They mattress on the floor and the fees......I went a Great small Prep/Boarding..Skool half the price
if you are looking for something rare -like an old childrens record, and not legally released stuff like big black-but you don't want to pay the equivilant of a million dollars from a private collector:How about hearing John Lennons fathers recorfd release instead of looking for it.john paul jones pre led zeppelin 45 rpm single....how about BOOTLEG LIVE CONCERST OF BIG BLACK?
ALSO NOBODY REMEMBERS RECORDING ONTO CASSETTE TAPES AND 8 TRACKS AND REEL TO REEL TAPES?
Is that a speech or is he just reading a bed time story to everybody?
Some good points made but the old "I suppose some people are out of work but so were the blacksmiths when cars replaced horses" doesn't wash. The situation is not the same. The blacksmith became obsolete, the demand for his services dried up. The music creator has not. There is still huge demand for what he/she creates. People still want it they just don't want to pay for it. Until people en'masse take it upon themselves to purchase directly from independent acts or support them via crowdfunding, the industry will continue to degrade.
Coobs Kerl He's saying record company people would lose their jobs.
He got some good points, but he missed so many ones, I mean it's ok if Prince is not your music of choice, but facts matter (right?), Prince was the first mayor artist that went against corporations, he was the creator of the myspace/Itunes model and when he banned that "little girl dance video" it was a statement against You Tube not the people. This is a cool talk, Albini rocks, but it seems to me that he is using this topic to project so much resentment. I mean "Purple dwarf "? "His music is posion"? totally ruined the whole thing for me.
In just 6 years... this did not age well.
i just liked the 666 like.
boooo hooo steely dan
"i enumerated too much complaint" then don't ! make a point? With all due respect, You lost me with all the confident moaning and hip counter-view of the obvious. and the Prince insults ? wise.
So extrapolating Albini's outlook into the recording realm, he should be happy to record artists for free.
I mean, just think of all of the potential exposure he stands to get.... as a guy who works for nothing!
FUCK THIS!!!
you've missed the point... he's saying that the people necessary to making music will still be paid for this, for instance if you cant record music yourself, then you will pay someone to do it for you. he's saying it's good that there wont be a huge number of leaches draining at the money of the musicians making the music. he's also not saying "YEAH FREE MUSIC YEAH MUSICIANS WORK FOR FREE" or whatever tiny nugget of complete shite you gleaned from this whilst managing to overlook everything else which was incredibly valuable. he's made it quite clear that the value of music as a musician comes from playing the music - aka live shows. recordings of music are simply a way to get the music out there, the money comes from the gigs, not the recordings. this is good because bands that are bad live will not be able to continue to earn money and will have to get better, or give up. this means that music will be pushed into being better, as opposed to the current system where the musician doesnt have to be able to play/sing at all as long as something can be created digitally in the studio
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you're not really a musician...if that's not the case than please forgive the assumption.
This is a big topic so I'll employ an analogy to hopefully illuminate at least a portion of it...
Now using the latest Hobbit film as an example, imagine that upon completion of the film, the only way that the people involved in making the movie could hope for any compensation would be to take the show on the road and perform a recreated stage version of the movie all over the world.
After all, the multi-million dollar film they just made was only "advertisement" for the subsequent live theatrical performances.
Again this is a HUGE, multi-faceted topic and it's probably unreasonable to expect any sort of resolution within the confines of the UA-cam comments section ;)
Saint Germain I'm a musician man it's my only aim in life, i'd rather live on the streets trying and failing to make music than give up on my dream. But you have to accept the way the world has changed. there is literally no point trying to argue against something that cannot be changed at all, there is no possible way of stopping the free distribution of music without clamping down way too much on people's freedoms. therefore, we are presented with a new paradigm and so rather than trying to cling on and make a living from the old system, which is dying fast, you have to figure out ways of making a living from the new one. as this mate in the video explains, ticket prices for shows are going up 10 fold and as such the bands are getting paid directly the difference in ticket prices. we are admittedly at an awkward transitional phase whereby it's not possible to make a living off of digital sales, and it's also not that possible to make a living off of gigs. however, this will change as the whole idea of paid digital music will inevitably crumble (i'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that it is an inevitability). as one pillar crumbles, the other must pick up the slack, this is also an inevitability because there is still a supply and demand in music (the musicians being the suppliers, fans being the demand). as such, there will always be profit in music in some form or another, and the newer model of being paid for live work is just going to have to be an accepted fact. now you can concentrate on the negatives of this or the positives, that's up to you, but fortunately or unfortunately, this will become the world as we know it
You seem quite certain about what the future holds.
I don't think you heard him or understood him. And Madonna wrote a piece about this years ago too. It isn't the first time that someone explained that "Unless you were a Super Star, your band can generate Million$ and you wont see a cent of it because of all the middle persons that get paid from your work FIRST! They already work for free. That all changes today. Even a luke-warm band making a fraction of those Million$ can not only make a decent living but more than they would have in the past with today's Internet and technology. See Kickstarter.
Yea we get it, you hate labels. There's a reason 99% of the major acts are still on labels even though in theory they could go it alone. Promotional muscle that cannot be matched and an infrastructure that deals with the minutia so that the band/artist doesn't have to. Don't get me wrong nobody wants to go back to the days when the labels held all the cards, the artist should be top of the deck, but in my area live venues are closing down year after year and dedicated promoters have become a rarity. Finding exposure has become increasingly difficult. Sure, savvy marketers will continue to push forward using stunts and gimmicks but nine times out of ten their music sucks almighty balls.
How will the consumer hear the great new bands who don't have advanced promotional acumen? Bands that just create the best shit? Answer=they won't. I only hope that crowdfunding becomes more of a passive interest rather than a directed one and that bands of substance can find the platform they've worked for.
+SupesCoob your argument doesnt touch on bands that arent major acts.
you ever been in a band on a label - held hostage to a multi-album contract? the only shit you argue about is the bands that are making cash at the moment. if you go look at mid-tier acts that are support on tours a lot of the time they can be in major debt (i have personal friends who were 99k in debt to Elektra records through their subsidiary label that was one of Elektra's bought out tentacles) or are making minimal money through their deal. it comes off more of a hobbyist fantasy while theyre working secondary jobs.
labels are just parasitic/strip mining regimes. they work for bands that skew more towards being a business (what all major acts are. don't kid yourself) posing as once artists.
SupesCoob 99% of bands aren't major artists. This speech is aimed at the bulk, not the very few sitting on the top. There are more bands than ever and every one of them has the ability to push themselves to the limit of their own ability without need to deal with anyone other than their potential fans. That's a game changer and can only be a good thing.
Bands that need labels need to make up for their 'talent' and replace it with a spoon that shoves shit in everyones ears.
But that doesn't explain why music in 70s and 80s was better than in the internet era. Internet actually ruined the music.
Sure grandpa, go back and listen to your Stones records now.
No It didn't Boris
That's bullshit
So Albini is fine reducing music creators to essentially using their music to sell clothes and everything other than music, to be able to afford food, transport and a bed?
Copyright is a vital concept. Our society progressed into incentivising idea-creation. It's regress to go back to the dark ages where the rich can just pillage the ideas of the poor, because they have an infrastructure that enables exploitation already set up.
Copyright levelled the playing field. It allowed for a meritocracy, where people were paid for having great ideas.
It will be disastrous for society to devolve to such a copyright-less, robber-baron situation again.
"Our society progressed into incentivising idea-creation." Idea creation does not need to be incentivised, and in fact doing as such has a negative effect on creative drive. You should read up some on psychology on the topic of incentives and motivation. The purpose of copyright should not be to incentivise, but to protect. No matter what, people are going to create ideas, because people love creating ideas, what people need is protection so they are actually able to invest resources into doing it.
People are not going to create inventions and great ideas beyond the urgent, if they're focussed on urgently gathering food for the day. It's the whole concept behind specialisation. Intellectual property means those with the best ideas, can specialise on coming up with great ideas, rather than have the already rich and powerful, taking ideas they come across, to maintain the status quo.
ganondorfchampin the concept of protecting copyright is an incentive to create. Why would someone keep putting great ideas/music out there, if it's only going to make the rich richer? Think about it. Why would I bother spending time away from my kids, or having a swim, or singing songs/making art for my own enjoyment, to make someone else richer?
Protecting copyright incentivises artistic creation. Removing it is a serious disincentive.
Pwyl Pollock "if they're focussed on urgently gathering food for the day. " Which is why it acts as a protection, not an incentive. Once one's basic needs are fulfilled, people move onto other things. It's basic psychology.
Pwyl Pollock "Why would someone keep putting great ideas/music out there, if it's only going to make the rich richer" Because the claim that it's only going to make the rich richer is bullshit. The reason people come up with ideas is NOT to make money.
" singing songs/making art for my own enjoyment," There you go. It's not an either/or.
"Protecting copyright incentivises artistic creation. Removing it is a serious disincentive. " I'm not against copyright, I'm saying that phrasing it as an incentive is wrong because that's not the way people work.
Wrong. taking someone else’s labor output and calling it sharing is the most basic violation of civil liberties. the right to property as an extension of ones labor is contramand to slavery. Albini is ok. But he doesn’t have the provable moral position to defend the adage of taking simply because one desires it
Copying is not theft
Steve is a legand... he should be in the hall of fame
18:18