Does Anyone Make Money Online With Their Music?

Question:

IMO Artists who have signed over thier copyright to a company have sorely been cheated, even if they are millionaires.This is a terrible wrong and a grievous abuse of human rights. Yes, these millionaires are crying all the way to the bank. Far better to make a

I agree these milionaires are "cheated" in a theoretical sense, but I believe fair becomes relative when you bathe in champagne and groupies. Perhaps they can’t do *anything* they want with their music, but millions listen to and enjoy their work, and most still have the freedom to pursue their own musical interests privately, even if they can’t record and sell it or something. Hell, that’d be satisfying to me. And for those utter bullshit acts which are nothing more than faces put to music written by studio musicians, I certainly can’t feel bad for the loss of their musical integrity and the studio musicians doing the writing are probably making out just fine, and knew what they were getting into. The success of their work is due pretty much to the media company anyway in that case. It’s those far more numerous musicians who get fucked without making any cash I believe is the moving example… relative pittance in music and retain all rights. In the system in which we live, product is product.

Huh? Dave —- Check out my instrumental guitar album at: http://www.davechisholm.net (Last updated on 11.14.01)

Response:

(Dave C.) writes: The music industry is now moving on to try to secure internet distribution and online promotion as part of their monopoly.

Oh, absolutely. It’s very interesting to watch the voraciousness with which "The Industry" eats everything that looks either promising or tasty. You should read Douglas Rushkoff about this, and I hope you caught his excellent PBS _Frontline_ program, "The Merchants of Cool" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/ about how it seeks out and co-opts every genuine artistic and cultural flowering that’s outside its own hothouse, particularly in fashion, bands and music. I’d hesitate to say the music business has "always" ripped off artists as it’d less than a hundred years old. There’s no reason things *have* to be that way.

I do; it’s inherent in the adversarial relationship between creativity and commerce, and certainly inherent to the kind of people who succeed in the marketing end of the entertainment industry. Brother, I _know_. On the other hand, it’s hard to make a decent product outside the majors, and popular music is above all _product_. 80%-90% of a hit is usually the production (not the artist or material), and production is expensive. Producers are the real artists and they don’t work cheap. The jump in quality from indy release to major release is breathtaking when the right producer is contracted for the right band. What being signed by a major does, even if it doesn’t make you a lot of money, is get you _access_ to production, packaging, promotion and distribution. Without which you’re just some guy in his basement, at least so far as alternative models have panned out as of today. Being a hit act is more like war than art. It involves an army of people, all of whom have to be producing their part of the effort well, though most will never see each other. So far, I haven’t seen where anyone has been able to do this himself. There are many on these forums who still think that being a star is a matter of playing well or having a decent band. These are almost utterly irrelevant. It’s only raw material, and there’s always plenty of that. Some guy who can write decent songs and sing them almost certainly doesn’t have the great chops for production, management or marketing, among a dozen or so things that _have_ to get done, and done _well_, to move a act into the mainstream, or even get a cut done that someone will pay for. If the Internet is to ever be a serious threat to The Music Industry, it _must_ do so by integrating and networking the other folks who can independently perform these functions. So far, I don’t see this happening. There’s no reason why it can’t, but it hasn’t. There are just thousands of individual acts beavering away in a veritable vacuum trying to reinvent the wheel, finding they have to learn about twenty people’s different jobs from scratch just to make a really good MP3. bongolation<ATworldmailer.com – Change <AT to @ symbol to reply. See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good – view them.

Response:

to listen to mp3’s by a commercially successful artist visit: [snip]

Is that supposed to be a recommendation? Britney Spears is a commercially successful artist too, but I’d rather check out a "commercial failure living in his garage and recording on a 1980’s yamaha 4-track" than visit her site. —- Check out my instrumental guitar album at: http://www.davechisholm.net (Last updated on 11.14.01)

Response:

[Cut-&-Paste error in earlier message...sorry!] I think it’s wonderful your kid has such hustle – I did too as a kid, though it always seemed to gain me no profit and much adult misunderstanding. The music business has _always_ comprehensively ripped off artists and composers, not merely through surrender of copyright ownership, which in fact seems quite rare these days. The hokey-poky with licensing, publishing and royalties are where the skinning takes place for more moderately successful acts.

The music industry is now moving on to try to secure internet distribution and online promotion as part of their monopoly. They didn’t kill napster b/c they were losing money (which they weren’t) or b/c of "intellectual property" (ha ha ha) but b/c they realized that within the next decade, e-distribution will prove to be the most efficient and lucrative form of distribution to date. Unless people realize this (most won’t and will just follow whatever microsoft endorsed media format the RIAA eventually settles on) we can look forward to more of the same. I’d hesitate to say the music business has "always" ripped off artists as it’d less than a hundred years old. There’s no reason things *have* to be that way. Not saying it’d be easy to change, or even that I think it will, but I can be idealistic if I want to, and this would also be the best time for it, as music distribution is undergoing one of its more dramatic times of change. Dismissing efforts to find out what online work can do for a musician *independantly* of traditional channels as childish or fruitless is exactly what Sony, BMG, and co. want you to do. Sure, most are unsuccessful, but the effort as a whole is not insigificant. But really what I’m trying to establish is whether or not anyone knows of an independent act that has managed to become truly professionally profitable through Internet self-marketing and self-promotion, or of any who have received much commercial airplay or made the charts.

I don’t think any have done so *exclusively* through the internet, but I know artists like Neil Zaza and Marc Pattison have become alot more popular b/c of it. Also, the Internet provides a new, powerful form of "word of mouth" – I can immediately check out songs my friends tell me about, and contrary to the RIAA’s bullshit propaganda, I often buy it. (CD Sales have increased since P2P became popular). I wouldn’t be suprised if this has contributed to some of the newer band increase in popularity, although there’s no way to be certain really. —- Check out my instrumental guitar album at: http://www.davechisholm.net (Last updated on 11.14.01)

Response:

Bongolation wrote If the Internet is to ever be a serious threat to The Music Industry, it _must_ do so by integrating and networking the other folks who can independently perform these functions. So far, I don’t see this happening

I would say that the internet already poses a serious threat to the Music Industry. A threat that will become more serious as time goes on. This is not because the internet will catapult any single artist to the kind of mega stardom that 20th Century rock stars have enjoyed, but because it threatens to divide the music consumer pie into smaller and smaller slices. A key ingredient to the Music Industry ’s success in the 20th Century has been it’s ability to limit the choices of the consumer to a very small number of artists. With the internet, this monopoly is lost. As a result, instead of a few artists making a lot of money, a lot of artists will make a little bit of money. The big names will find their sales dwindling as a result. Ultimately the artists who will survive in the music business of the 2000’s are the people who suceed in bring their production and marketing budgets down to such a degree where they can still make a profit. Big spenders and lavish productions will be on their way out over the next 10 years. Jarl Sigurd to listen to music involving a production crew of one person, visit: http://www.ampcast.com/search/band.php?id=9098

Response:

Bongolation wrote On the other hand, it’s hard to make a decent product outside the majors,

I would disagree. Of course my concept of what qualifies as decent may be different from someone elses. It’s not hard to to record good music with a low budget. What is difficult is to record "Heavy" sounding music on a low budget. Also it’s not hard to record music that sounds good on HI FI playback. What is hard is to record music that sounds good on Lo Fi playback. It takes a lot more production to record something that will sound good on a transiter radio or ghetto blaster. and popular music is above all _product_. 80%-90% of a hit is usually the production (not the artist or material), and production is expensive.

Again I disagree. 80% to 90% of hit is marketing and promotion. Back in the 1950’s and 60’s, far less production went into hit records but just as much marketing. The hits of the 50’s and 60’s sold well. Producers are the real artists and they don’t work cheap. The jump in quality from indy release to major release is breathtaking when the right producer is contracted for the right band.

I find it’s more noticeable when you are dealing with Lo Fi playback. The real studio wizardry lies in getting music to sound good over a ghetto blaster, transister radio or streaming 24 kbps mp3. What being signed by a major does, even if it doesn’t make you a lot of money, is get you _access_ to production, packaging, promotion and distribution.

The packaging , promotion and distribution are far more important than the production. Jarl Sigurd to listen to 12 songs that will soon be available on CD, visit: http://www.ampcast.com/search/band.php?id=9098

Response:

to listen to mp3’s by a commercially successful artist visit: [snip] Is that supposed to be a recommendation? Britney Spears is a commercially successful artist too, but I’d rather check out a "commercial failure living in his garage and recording on a 1980’s yamaha 4-track" than visit her site.

Ask and it shall be given. www.zoogzrift.4mg.com/ — Ian Muir

Response:

I’m enjoying reading this thread, except for Jarl Sigurd’s continued annoying as shit self righteous spamming which obviously done away with the sooner the better, and I’d like to add my two cents if that’s worth anything. The Nuclear Warrior IS the biggest musical event in History. I firmly believe that because of Nuclear Warrior there shall be a rising up; a rising up the likes of which this world has NEVER before seen. So all the theorists can take their now obsolete theories and take a hike. That’s all there is to it. Nuclear Warrior = Total Domination of the music market. Now & forever. This is not a hard concept to fathom once you become accustomed to The Nuclear Warrior Theme Song, the greatest musical masterpiece imaginable. Don’t kid yourselves or undersell us. This is sick shit. Scott The entire concept of music’s on his way out, thank you

Response:

Oh, absolutely. It’s very interesting to watch the voraciousness with which "The Industry" eats everything that looks either promising or tasty.

Interesting, sickening… You should read Douglas Rushkoff about this, and I hope you caught his excellent PBS _Frontline_ program, "The Merchants of Cool" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/

There’s a professor here at Stanford who deals in copyright and cyber law. Professor Lessig. He was involved in the microsoft case and possibly the napster one too I’m not sure. He explains exactly how the industry does this type of stuff, in a legal, lobbying sense, more eloquently than anyone else I’ve heard. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu Hopefully I can checkout the program you menion. I do; it’s inherent in the adversarial relationship between creativity and commerce, and certainly inherent to the kind of people who succeed in the marketing end of the entertainment industry. Brother, I _know_.

I’d suspect they are only inherent adversarily in a very money, commercially oriented society. Obviously that’s a moot point, since it doesn’t bother me enough to make me move or something… On the other hand, it’s hard to make a decent product outside the majors, [...] production, packaging, promotion and distribution.

Well, everything you’ve said is true, and insightful, but it seems to equate "success" with "commercial success" or even "sales." I’d hesistate to do that. Then again, I’m a musician (and an engineer when that doesn’t pay the bills heh heh), not a businessman or copyright lawyer so I can afford to be all idealistic and dreamy about things. (Perhaps "afford" is not the best diction here…) Without which you’re just some guy in his basement, at least so far as alternative models have panned out as of today.

I’ve heard some good music from guys in their basement, and met or emailed alot with some of them. Sure it’s not "success" but that kind of activity happens alot and in some sense its probably satisfying, and also I think its a good thing that more music is becoming easily and widely available, even if its very rarely popular and often of lower quality by some measures (heh – some of its lower quality by *any* measure!). It’s also just fun sometimes to make music in your basement and throw it on the web. [...] If the Internet is to ever be a serious threat to The Music Industry, it [...] There’s no reason why it can’t, but it hasn’t. There are just thousands of individual acts beavering away in a veritable vacuum trying to reinvent the wheel, finding they have to learn about twenty people’s different jobs from scratch just to make a really good MP3.

I agree completely. Although I would say it already was a serious threat, which is why RIAA and co. is taking such swift brutal action to get control over things before enough people realize it to make a change in how things work. —- Check out my instrumental guitar album at: http://www.davechisholm.net (Last updated on 11.14.01)

Response:

Ah, to become a meme in one’s own time! Postmodern fame, if only for fifteen minutes…

Why go just for fifteen minutes? Why reach for something that benefits the record industry and not the artist? Are people artists for fifteen minutes, or a lifetime? Maybe it should be the other way around? The music business has _always_ comprehensively ripped off artists and composers, not merely through surrender of copyright ownership, which in fact seems quite rare these days. The hokey-poky with licensing, publishing and royalties are where the skinning takes place for more moderately successful acts.

Artists are people, not shampoo or potato chips,not some disposable product to be consumed and replaced for maximum profit. But really what I’m trying to establish is whether or not anyone knows of an independent act that has managed to become truly professionally profitable through Internet self-marketing and self-promotion, or of any who have received much commercial airplay or made the charts.

Here is the problem that Ms. Courtney Love so elequently put forth in her Salon article. An independant artist gets signed by a small not so evil independant label which promises great distribution, then the sucessful independant label gets hoovered in by Mega-Suck records who then sucks the life and blood out of the artist. I doubt this, though there are many people who have been predicting such for years now. I just can’t see it. It seems like any moderately successful indy act just gets co-opted eventually. bongolation<ATworldmailer.com – Change <AT to @ symbol to reply. See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good – view them.

You can’t get hoovered by Mega-Suck records if you don’t sign with an independant, and if you have an alternative to mp3.com and ampcast ect… that is managed and co-opted by the artists for the artist. Independant labels no matter how well meaning have thier limitations in being small,and being businesses that can be bought and sued into becoming a benign part of a cancerous major label. Major labels put out the FUD and psych to try and trick artists into thinking that signing with a major label is thier end goal. Sure they want successful artists to sign with them,so they can suck all the profit out of them for themselves. Any artist they can’t suck the profit out of,successful or not is thier enemy and competition. Charts are artificial creations, a back-patter to congratulate themselves for sales. They do not represent the sales of outside independants who are not registering thier sales with them. Independant sales are booming, Record Industry sales are at the same time plummeting from sales going to the independants who have found innovating ways to bypassing record stores ect… Looking at the record industry radio play and charts, you will not see the success of independants,because the independants success is real not a manufactured chart. Andrea Andrea

Response:

Here’s something that I’ve been wondering about lately: We’ve all repeatedly seen articles that say the Internet, MP3s and the distribution of music online is going to change the music business, improve artist profits and soforth. There are even reputedly signed acts that are backing out of contracts to go "internet-distributed independent." What I want to know is this: Are there any indy bands, soloists or songwriters who are genuinely making substantial money with this direct online marketing approach? How did they do it? I have had many friends who have been signed acts and never saw more than pocket change after recording, critical raves, decent sales and touring, so it’s not like doing it on the Internet could be much worse, but I’d like to know if the Internet self-distribution has indeed lived up to the hype for _anyone_ yet. Thanks. If there are better newsgroups in which to pursue this question, let me know. bongolation<ATworldmailer.com – Change <AT to @ symbol to reply. See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good – view them.

Response:

Jarl Sigurd claims to have made a few C notes on the Net. We all know how he does it. I haven’t even broken even yet. But then my music doesn’t have the commercial appeal of Jarl’s. Maybe my more mainstream xmas CD will sell a few copies. Mike Sandler

Response:

I’ve made about $500 this year on mp3.com and ampcast. Other people who have made money are Johnny Asia www.mp3.com/JohnnyAsia and Steve Sklar of Big Sky www.mp3.com/BigSky Both have made a couple of thousand thru their mp3’s. The biggest money maker on mp3.com I’m aware of is the German power metal band Blind Guardian who earned around $14,000 on mp3.com I’m not sure if you would call this substantial. It should be pointed out that Johnny Asia, Big Sky and Blind Guardian joined mp3.com early on. Mp3.com and more recently ampcast gave changed their TOS policies making it much harder for indie artists to make money through them. Still with that said, CD’s are a sunset industry. People aren’t going to pay $15-$20 a CD when they can download mp3’s for free. Over the next few years were going to see the whole CD industry, both the labels and the retail oulets that sell them take a nosedive. Jarl Sigurd to listen to mp3’s by a commercially successful artist visit: http://www.ampcast.com/search/band.php?id=9098 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have had many friends who have been signed acts and never saw more than pocket change after recording, critical raves, decent sales and touring, so it’s not like doing it on the Internet could be much worse, but I’d like to know if the Internet self-distribution has indeed lived up to the hype for _anyone_ yet. Thanks. If there are better newsgroups in which to pursue this question, let me know.

Response:

Mike Sandler wrote Jarl Sigurd claims to have made a few C notes on the Net. We all know how he does it. I haven’t even broken even yet. But then my music doesn’t have the commercial appeal of Jarl’s. Maybe my more mainstream xmas CD will sell a few copies.

Mike, I keep telling you. The key to commercial success is to play lots and lots of guitar solos! But will you listen? No? Look at Carl Fiadino. He made $2000 selling his gear demonstration video online and he played nothing but guitar solos on it. Steve Feder, on the other hand with his "I wont play a solo unless the song calls for it?" philosophy hasn’t earned a cent online. What you and poor SEF don’t realize is that online audiences aren’t like the boozed up barflys that attend live gigs. Online audiences LOVE guitar solos. If you want to make money online, you’re going to havev to play them, whether you want to or not! Jarl Sigurd to listen to 12 songs incorporating 92 guitar solos, visit, http://www.ampcast.com/search/band/php?id=9098

Response:

Bongolation heard this from a homeless drunk: Well, interesting… I think the reasoning behind the ‘ditch the companies’ is that sooner or later, companies get more out an artist’s work than the artist does. On the big level, a band’s music is owned by the company, and the band has to basically work to A: create the music, B: tour to promote (performing radio and interviews too), and C: fulfill a contract which may become stifling as time goes on. Then with all that work, the artist still doesn’t own the music they created, and the company does. To NOT owe anyone but yourself the benefits of your work is the guiding principle behind the indie movement. The charm of the internet is now fast and immediate feedback is. The things you need most are your product, a strong message and some determination, and a way to actually GET your stuff to the user. Advertising is cheap–websites, when used correctly and imaginatively, can be key elements in shaping the band’s image and promoting the product in a way that is vastly more sensitive than the traditional means of doing a campaign that involves bigger, slower means– if you want to change your web site often to change your selling strategy, you can do it in a really short time, without having to change the whole movement. One key thing is to create a website that doesn’t scare people off with ads, premature requests for information, etc. Let the visitor hear your stuff first, then guide them to the sale, page by page. Don’t make them fill out any form before they understand what they are getting into. It’s kinda like leading a girl to bed…(!) Of course, you need to have people know about your stuff, otherwise you’ll be dressed up and nowhere to go. This is where old fashioned repetition is gonna help. Posters, shirts, stickers to make people aware of your site are gonna be fan-borne billboards. Don’t be afraid to slap www.MYBAND.com on everything you can that might be seen by a potential buyer. Keep the URL easy so people can get to it–nothing is more maddening than having to see ‘geocities’ and some cryptic string of alphabet soup and think that the whole thing has to be typed in! People have other things to do with their time. You need to get past any fear of self promotion–if you can’t, good luck. Have a few powerful quotes from a known, respected entity in your field or local press ornament your promo flyers– a few lines will help. Go see bands, make a CDR run with a couple of definitive songs in paper envelopes and give them to anyone who will have them with your web based contact info–having an mp3.com address or some such place to try out tunes for free helps. Www.mp3.com/EVESELIS is an example of a band that has no ‘company support’ yet goes out, plays a mean show and *connects* with the audience. They have an image, a really successful web presence and they move product. Everyone still plays in other bands to some degree, but they are a very successful band using these new forms of promotion. More later… E — The Artist Presently Known As Ed: Receiving CD now for sale! $10 (US) plus postage. Reply to TAPKAE at TAPKAE dot COM to order. Listen to music samples at www.mp3.com/TAPKAE – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here’s something that I’ve been wondering about lately: We’ve all repeatedly seen articles that say the Internet, MP3s and the distribution of music online is going to change the music business, improve artist profits and soforth. There are even reputedly signed acts that are backing out of contracts to go "internet-distributed independent." What I want to know is this: Are there any indy bands, soloists or songwriters who are genuinely making substantial money with this direct online marketing approach? How did they do it? I have had many friends who have been signed acts and never saw more than pocket change after recording, critical raves, decent sales and touring, so it’s not like doing it on the Internet could be much worse, but I’d like to know if the Internet self-distribution has indeed lived up to the hype for _anyone_ yet.

Response:

Mike, I keep telling you. The key to commercial success is to play lots and lots of guitar solos! But will you listen? No?

Correct. Mike Sandler

Response:

Britney Spears seems to do pretty good over at CDnow.com. So does that boy band. Can’t remember the name but they dance better than they sing… Steve

Response:

Www.mp3.com/EVESELIS is an example of a band that has no ‘company support’ yet goes out, plays a mean show and *connects* with the audience. They have an image, a really successful web presence and they move product.

Yes, but do they make any MONEY, and if so, how much? The other stuff is fine, but it’s irrelevant to the question at hand which is about making MONEY as an Internet/Indy band. Only MONEY. Whether they make this MONEY through downloaded MP3s, online CD sales, merchandising or whatever, it all counts, but I am specifically and exclusively asking about the profitability of the Internet/Indy enterprise. Anything other than MONEY is for a different discussion. I harbor the deep suspicion that nobody has done this successfully – "success" here being defined as netting as much as a second- or third-string major label act – but I would love to be proven wrong in detail. Has _anyone_ done it yet? bongolation<ATworldmailer.com – Change <AT to @ symbol to reply. See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good – view them.

Response:

This year I’ve made $1500 US and received a free guitar, for not putting out any product or spamming any groups since last January I figure that’s pretty good. Even better is that I live in Canada so that $1500 US turns into almost $2500 Canadian. The bigger thrills were the exposure and "fame". Getting write ups in "Guitarist" and "Making Music" magazines and actually talking to guys like Steve Vai (about me going with Favored Nations) and Seymour Duncan on the phone was a once in a lifetime thing. Pretty fucking cool for some guy working out of his basement. Mind you it’s still the live gigs with a cover band that pays the mortgage, LITTLE BASTARD www.mp3.com/littlebastard Endorsed by Steinberger and www.MusicYo.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here’s something that I’ve been wondering about lately: We’ve all repeatedly seen articles that say the Internet, MP3s and the distribution of music online is going to change the music business, improve artist profits and soforth. There are even reputedly signed acts that are backing out of contracts to go "internet-distributed independent." What I want to know is this: Are there any indy bands, soloists or songwriters who are genuinely making substantial money with this direct online marketing approach? How did they do it? Jarl Sigurd claims to have made a few C notes on the Net. We all know how he does it. I haven’t even broken even yet. But then my music doesn’t have the commercial appeal of Jarl’s. Maybe my more mainstream xmas CD will sell a few copies. Mike Sandler

Response:

Pretty fucking cool for some guy working out of his basement.

I agree. Congratulations on this. I have known acts that have signed and worked hard and scarcely got even this much. I’ll check your site and see what it’s like. bongolation<ATworldmailer.com – Change <AT to @ symbol to reply. See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good – view them.

Response:

The other stuff is fine, but it’s irrelevant to the question at hand which is about making MONEY as an Internet/Indy band. Only MONEY. Whether they make this MONEY through downloaded MP3s, online CD sales, merchandising or whatever, it all counts, but I am specifically and exclusively asking about the profitability of the Internet/Indy enterprise.

My 10 year old son has two albums up on mp3.com. http://www.mp3.com/ElliotMusic He makes money offline by selling his CD to other kids at school, and by composing for post production video work. Most post-production music is work for hire,but not his,he gets paid to licence a work to a client.My son retains the copyright.He has copyright and control over all of his work, and he makes money making music. This would not have happened if he hadn’t of put his music online at mp3.com.He’s not the only one, a lot of people I know have done the same thing. If anything I don’t see the internet as being a moneymaker, but an oppertunity to advance and make money offine with online tools and marketing(through memetics). never before in history have so many artists had control over their own copyright,and make money without giving anything up. IMO Artists who have signed over thier copyright to a company have sorely been cheated, even if they are millionaires.This is a terrible wrong and a grievous abuse of human rights. We should all work hard to get those copyrights that were strongarmed and coerced from the artists back to them. Andrea

Response:

IMO Artists who have signed over thier copyright to a company have sorely been cheated, even if they are millionaires.This is a terrible wrong and a grievous abuse of human rights.

Yes, these millionaires are crying all the way to the bank. Far better to make a relative pittance in music and retain all rights. In the system in which we live, product is product.

Response:

If anything I don’t see the internet as being a moneymaker, but an oppertunity to advance and make money offine with online tools and marketing(through memetics). never before in history have so many artists had control over their own copyright,and make money without giving anything up.

Ah, to become a meme in one’s own time! Postmodern fame, if only for fifteen minutes… I think it’s wonderful your kid has such hustle – I did too as a kid, though it always seemed to gain me no profit and much adult misunderstanding. The music business has _always_ comprehensively ripped off artists and composers, not merely through surrender of copyright ownership, which in fact seems quite rare these days. The hokey-poky with licensing, publishing and royalties are where the skinning takes place for more moderately successful acts. But really what I’m trying to establish is whether or not anyone knows of an independent act that has managed to become truly professionally profitable through Internet self-marketing and self-promotion, or of any who have received much commercial airplay or made the charts. I doubt this, though there are many people who have been predicting such for years now. I just can’t see it. It seems like any moderately successful indy act just gets co-opted by a major label eventually. bongolation<ATworldmailer.com – Change <AT to @ symbol to reply. See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good – view them.

Response:

[Cut-&-Paste error in earlier message...sorry!] If anything I don’t see the internet as being a moneymaker, but an oppertunity to advance and make money offine with online tools and marketing(through memetics). never before in history have so many artists had control over their own copyright,and make money without giving anything up.

Ah, to become a meme in one’s own time! Postmodern fame, if only for fifteen minutes… I think it’s wonderful your kid has such hustle – I did too as a kid, though it always seemed to gain me no profit and much adult misunderstanding. The music business has _always_ comprehensively ripped off artists and composers, not merely through surrender of copyright ownership, which in fact seems quite rare these days. The hokey-poky with licensing, publishing and royalties are where the skinning takes place for more moderately successful acts. But really what I’m trying to establish is whether or not anyone knows of an independent act that has managed to become truly professionally profitable through Internet self-marketing and self-promotion, or of any who have received much commercial airplay or made the charts. I doubt this, though there are many people who have been predicting such for years now. I just can’t see it. It seems like any moderately successful indy act just gets co-opted eventually. bongolation<ATworldmailer.com – Change <AT to @ symbol to reply. See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good – view them.

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism