Everybody who gets this kind of exposure is on the make. And, just like for
those who control the money, the goal is to make a lot, now - not later.
With a focused solution targeting a demographic already well modeled and
understood, not a divers, dynamic commercial/artistic ecosystem that
actually reflects the market as a whole. That would take too much effort and
too long for the make. It might also reassemble the conditions for the
creation of a new generation of decent pop music, but that is way outside
the relevant scope. Today we exploit existing taste, we don't presume to
make taste. It violates the money-for-nothing paradigm.

BTW, has anyone here seen David Byrnes' appeal for commercial broadcast
royalties? There is a campaign in place. http://irespectmusic.org/

"We artists and musicians have the right to expect from our profession what
others expect from their professions. That through hard work and
determination, perspiration and inspiration, we'll have the same fair shot
to realize our dreams, answer our callings, support our families. I respect
my profession. I respect artists. I respect music." -Blake Morgan, Recording
artist, producer, label owner

How quaint!

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interested in Emerging Trends and Distribution
Models? Watch this

There have been plenty of "Everything old sucks! This is the new paradigm!
Go there or die!" 
statements over the past 20 years or so. Most of them have turned out to be
BS and those who "went there" lost time and money in their failure.
Streaming is just radio without airwaves (well, actually it's radio if it's
done over a cellphone). The main difference is that it's customizable radio,
because we now have a generation of listeners who want robots to pick their
music rather than human taste-makers (who pretty much ceded the field in the
age of Clearchannel and Evergreen). Many, many people, myself definitely
included, will still want to OWN and HAVE good-sounding digital files or
physical artifacts (ie CDs and/or LPs with real graphics and liner notes).
Yes, your best way to digest Mecklemore or Gaga may be via your cellphone,
but permanent music will always gravitate to permanent formats. I am quite
confident I will be proven right in 24 months, and 24 years.

For what it's worth -- and I know my "model" is unlike any kid, but I bet I
actually spend more on music so the industry should be paying at least as
much attention to me -- I have never bought lossy downloads unless there is
no other option to hear the music. The ONLY non-physical format I am willing
to spend any significant chunk of my money on is high-resolution downloads,
which I think are great as long as they start out as a great
transfer/remaster or original recording. I buy, on average, a half-dozen or
more CDs per month. And in recent years, I'm buying nearly as many vinyl
platters, both used and new. What I spend is many times what a kid will pay
per year for one of those streaming services. I consider those things less
appealing that satellite radio, and would never pay for either. I do use the
free version of Pandora sometimes, but it often gets stuck in a rut or only
plays stuff I already own so it's marginally useful at best. The folks
behind Beats headphones now have a streaming service, so there is big money
trying to strongarm the record companies into giving away music, yet again.
If I were them, I'd sit in the room with Dre and Iovine and stick to my guns
that they will pay artistic, performance and copyright royalties for
everything they stream, every time it's played. Or, probably a better deal
is to demand a direct percentage of gross revenue. Figure each record
company should get a piece of the pie based on number of offerings, so if
Warners offers up 1000 tunes it gets X% and if UMG offers up 10,000 tunes it
gets XX%.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 11:09 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Interested in Emerging Trends and Distribution Models?
Watch this


> You might not agree with Marc Geiger (of William Morris) has to say. But
> this sure provides a lot of food for thought.
>
>
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/5893871/wmes-marc-geiger-s
tresses-streaming-in-vision-of-100b-recorded
>
> Dave Lewis
>
>