Profile
Search
Register
Log in
'Is a Nirvana-style breakthrough looming w/90's revival?'
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:


But I'm not a music industry insider, and I'm not an artist, so I can't truly speak to the intricacies of either. Though I strongly suspect that they would never do this, Sage, Slug, Sole and even kHill and Shane Hall could illuminate how this process worked a bit more. Shit, even Jesse could drop some knowledge on the topic. But that's kind of taboo, so I doubt we'll ever know about it while they're still in the game, or even after.



Sage has actually dropped knowledge on this topic a lot over the years, and has talked about things like spotify and bandcamp. I'd search for them, because he's very good at explaining where that shit is at. It's worth noting most of Sage's music is up on spotify, and both of Dolan's SFR albums are up there as well. I think for the most part that type of service is where the plays are going to be at going forward. So if you want your music to be listened to, you're going to want to get on board. I doubt anyone is going to get rich on the artist end of it though from just spotify.


Quote:


One thing that does strike me as interesting, however, and is a very real example of building a fanbase, is Sole's kickstarter campaign for his forthcoming record. He set a goal, received donations in excess of it, and effectively made an album for free based solely (haha) on the support of his fans. In return, he releases a free track from time to time, and gives out hugs. So everything after the touring expenses is 100% profit. I'd say that's a pretty awesome accomplishment.



It's weird because kickstarter has been really helpful in comics because it's kind of needed, because of the shitty strangehold the direct market has on the industry, and the way things are slanted unfairly toward superhero comics. But I am slightly more sort of skeptical about kickstarter when it's used by musicians to bankroll their albums. But whatever people use to get their stuff out. The only kickstarter i've ever contributed to was some guide to bejing video project that sounded cool. But then I am poor, and most of my money goes into food and art supplies.


Quote:


So it's all about artistic control in the end. How owns the music, or how much do the own? What's the fine print on the contract read? Who's putting in the legwork? And so forth.



Meh. I don't think most people care. I mean people pretty much just murdered the music industry for the past 15 years with illegal downloads, and now that it's basically dead--you want to get all moral about a service that actually does kick money back to the artists involved(albeit at a minimal rate)? It just seems like the type of stand that is a dollar short and a day late.


Quote:


As for Netflix, I'm not opposed to it. I'm not opposed to Spotify either from an objective standpoint. If someone wants to use it, cool, but there's a cost attached to that usage, and it's not coming out of their pocket, or the label's pocket. So if you use Spotify as background music and/or a way to discover new tunes, but you still buy music, I think you're in pretty good standing with artists. Anyway, Netflix isn't quite the same thing, is it? It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison, but I'll indulge in it for the sake of argument.



If you only have a set amount of money each month--say you have 20 dollars each month that you can spend on random shit. Are you going to use that 20 dollars to buy two albums(or one)--or are you going to use it to have almost unlimited access to movies and music? I mean it's nice that you feel this moral compulsion--guilt really. But that kind of decision where you can buy the album or whatever--almost seems like a luxury at this stage in the game. If you're in that spot where you can just spit money at things which you already have access to--I mean cool. most people these days I don't think have the monetary means to pursue the degree to which they are interested in pop culture.

So that is why you are seeing the rise of services which offer some compensation to the artists involved AND are predicated upon cheap access for the people. I think streaming something is also a much more user friendly experience for the average person than downloading. Without even getting into the hoops you have to jump through to illegally download something. I just think this is the way things are going and it is irreversible. Cloud based media is the way things will move. I don't know what the next step from that in ten years would be. But ten years ago I don't think I could have even imagined that we'd be a post-downloading culture. It is incredible the rate at which things are changing on this front.


Quote:


And jukeboxes? Seriously? I don't really know how those things work, but I imagine that the jukebox distributor has to pay the label, who then pays the artist their royalty, for the right to play a song. I don't know if this is a flat fee or a continuous royalty. I imagine it depends on whether the jukebox is old school or one of the new digital ones, where it's likely easier to track how many times a given song was played. But the bottom line here is that I don't partake in jukeboxes. Never will. I'm just fine with the Skynyrd and Sublime playing.


You don't "partake" in jukeboxes? Well la-di-da, lookit the fancy pants here. Too good for the jukebox. :P
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:37 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Brynjar wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Cloud based media is the thing right now. And even if you don't think it has much use for you personally, I can say with almost 100 percent certainty that that is the direction things are moving. And that in two years this is the main way that people will listen to music. It may or may not be with spotify(it probably will be though).


While I agree with you on that cloud based media is the direction things are moving I can't agree with you on the time. 10 years minimum for it to be the main way at least here and we fucking love the internet. I think over 97% of households have internet and we spend the most time on Facebook according to Facebook. None of my friends use cloud based media and nobody at (film) school talks about it and all people there talk about is tech, music and movies.


Obviously as was already mentioned--we already ARE using cloud based media. User generated cloud based media no less. Spotify is the music side of a wave that has already hit most every other medium.

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but 10 years? What is the last major internet development that you know of that took 10 years to blow up from it's inception?

I like when I come here and have these conversations, because I deal with a lot of out there futurists on twitter that are talking about like printing their brains and uploading them into bea robot drones and shit as like viable around the corner things--so it's nice to see people who like still think it takes ten years for a social media app to blow up--or who would see something like twitter and be like "that will never catch on". Because I think it's pretty obvious that these things are catching on. And it is the way things are going. At least here it is.
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:45 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

So what if I'm taking a moral stand out of guilt after the bomb has already started ticking? I'm not condemning others for what they're doing. I was only talking about my personal experience with this sort of thing, and what my preferences are. You can do whatever you want. And I don't buy albums, which I said before. I download with my "$20." I said this too. That's because, like yourself and the average person, I don't have a large amount of money to spend on non-essentials. We're just talking here.

And I don't think the industry is dead or even dying. It has evolved, sure, but when it actually dies I think it will be fairly obvious on some Gabriel's trumpet shit. If there's money to be made, regardless of the given format, somebody will figure out how to make and maximize it. The music industry will continue as long as their is a mainstream. It's just not the only way for artist's to swim anymore.
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:21 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

why not just paypal the 20 to the artist directly, and then stream the album? If you're worried about the cut the artist will get--most download options do tend to take their cut. If you sent the 20 directly to the artist, they'd get more of it. And you don't have to clutter your harddrive with mp3s?
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

I've really gotten on board to the idea that artists are going to make art regardless of whether they get paid fer it. And they'll be happy to do it.

And now that there's internet and social networks and good ass technology, the old idea that you need corporate backing and tons of dough to achieve a large audience and make facemelting work is not so true anymore.

Is it so bad to not have artists be professionals? I don't think the quality has suffered all that much. Actually I think this has been the richest period in music yet. And a ton of that is coming from Joe recreational's in their bedrooms and home studios making no significant dough and not caring, because they have jobs they like and they like making art too.

I buy about 20 bucks worth of media a month, but it's more out of some kind of reflexive moral habit and plain happenstance. If I was really looking out humanitarian thinker style I'd be contributing that money to something like healthcare or education or the 'people not getting facefucked and decapitated then eaten and smoked in witchcraft rituals while high on gasoline cocktails fund'
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
AdamBomb



Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3183
Location: Louisiana
 Reply with quote  

Nirvana was way over produced. I dug it at the time, but the in your face totally smashed rock mix just has no soul. The only really listenable Nirvana album for me in the Unplugged one, because it sounds so rich. I wish someone would remix/master Nevermind but with a more "earthy" raw mix, because there are really good songs on there.
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7795
 Reply with quote  

the only over produced nirvana album was nevermind and thats still great , i enjoy the others much more though, its all soul
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Nevermind and Unplugged are my favorite Nirvana albums. In Utero is third. I think In Utero has more production missteps in it than Nevermind. Nevermind is a well put together album with the only filler being the huge gap of silence before you get to the hidden track.
Post Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Nevermind isn't a great album because of it's production. Granted, that certainly helps. I mean, I know I don't want to listen to something that sounds like it sounds like it was recorded in a tin-shack during a dust storm. It's a great album because the songwriting is absolutely immense and well above just about everything else that came out around this time. Because of this fact, the album holds up really well over time, and is still better than everything that has come out since its inception. Butch Vig and Nirvana knew exactly what they were doing and the product is a timeless masterpiece. To me, that show's artistic progression over time, especially if you listen to Bleach, In Utero, and then Nevermind in succession.

It's also staggering to think Nevermind was released over twenty years ago. Fuck me, I'm getting old.
Post Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6498
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Am I the only one here who still buys records as their main source for music?

Bummer.
Post Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

really? Is that a bummer?
Post Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2581
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:32 am
 View user's profile Send private message
wesfau



Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 702
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
that show's artistic progression over time, especially if you listen to Bleach, In Utero, and then Nevermind in succession.




I'm pretty sure that In Utero is chronologically last.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2581
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

ah, only missed it by 2 years.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:02 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

wesfau wrote:
Captiv8 wrote:
that show's artistic progression over time, especially if you listen to Bleach, In Utero, and then Nevermind in succession.




I'm pretty sure that In Utero is chronologically last.


Well fuck me latitudinally, you are correct. It's always been in my head that Nevermind was their last album. Look's like I'll have to eat a bit of crow then. I still stand by Nevermind being their best album.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:28 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:07 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon