Myspace to sell music online using paypal

[Rambler]

I see what you're saying Blunt, but...

I'm sure Murdoch will pay a handsome license for use of the SnoCap software

99c has always seemed inflated for iTunes anyway (and I believe it is set at this rate because of the demands of the music majors who want to retain a big cut); for an unsigned act it sounds even more inflated. I'd have thought one of the strengths of selling music through MySpace, and one that utilises the community interlinking of it, would be the sort of on-the-spot recommendation and impulse purchase of things. 99c is perhaps too much to encourage much of this totally speculative purchase of music - a lot of which could be pretty iffy.

 

[bassnation]

And even if they did, should not the people that wrote the software that supports the transactional process be rewarded for their efforts?

i think you mean the shareholders and city investors, not the people who wrote it. they'll get shafted the same way the artists will.

 

[swears]

It would be class to just write a couple of tunes a month, upload 'em, sit back and watch the money stack up...of course the music has to be good in the first place, and people have to give a shit.

But giving Murdoch a cut goes against any sort of independent music ethics in the first place.

And this seems strictly for the teenyboppers. What sort of music fan really can't be arsed googling a musician's name or remembering their URL? Anyone can set up a site with MP3 downloads and a Paypal option.

 

[Gabba Flamenco Crossover]

Anyone can set up a site with MP3 downloads and a Paypal option.

Not true, as I know from experience. Setting up and maintaining a decent website takes a lot of knowhow & work. To build an online music store from scratch, you need all kinds of back-end database knowledge. If it was easy, there wouldn't be programmers charging £300 per day to do it (and they are constantly busy, at least the ones I know are). The reason myspace works so well is that it's based on a template that musicians can get their head around, and it includes the networking features. You could build that into a standalone site, but most musicians dont want to learn programming to that level - if that was what they wanted to do they'd be web designers, not musicians.

i read myspace will take 45% of takings, which is better than (major) record companies, but they have far higher costs e.g. manufacturing, marketing etc.

Blunt is spot on to point out that online co's have costs too... I would say in addition that major record companies do have fixed costs, but they also use every contractual opportunity to fleece artists - some of their scams are hair-raising. Their manufacturing costs are also nowhere near as much as they claim (I know, I used to work in a pressing plant).

Basically, the whole economics of the music industry is about getting artists into as much debt to the label as possible and keeping them there - labels will throw money around on video shoots and marketing, because the costs are then passed on to the artist and untimately get deducted from their royalties (like a bank giving you a credit card, because they know they'll collect many times over as you struggle to pay it back). Bear that in mind when assessing what major labels say about their costs.

i find it ironic and amusing that people seem to regard murdoch as the great new hope for music. least bad option? what the hell are the others like?

to say that "he's sincere in his vision for the future of media and I think he's bought myspace as a central part of that, not just as a cash cow" goes against his whole history in business too.

Bassnation, where do you want me to start? Conrad Black? Richard Desmond? The beancounters at Bertlesmann & Universal, who are currently trying to slip a merger past the EU which has already been rejected once? Look in every media boardroom and there are usually far, far more odious people than Murdoch in there.

Matt, I can't see much evidence in Murdoch's business history to support that. All his big acquisitions are strategic - there's no major company that he's asset stripped or killed off through neglect, and how many career CEOs can you say that about? He's been the main driver of developments in the UK media for the last 2 decades, whether that's a good or a bad thing is open to debate but it shows that he does and must work strategically. People quite rightly have a problem with him because of his political meddling and the consequent bias on Fox and in his papers, but on a business level I think he's one of the more enlightened operators in the media (*ducks*).

a burgeoning network of DIY music...

I dont see a burgeoning network of DIY music, as far as online sales are concerned. I just see tiny, isolated labels and artists shouting into a void. Like I say, I would love for there to have been a genuine indy collective emerge to make use of the web's potential for DIY musicians but nothing like that has happened. If you compare the model proposed for Myspace to what's actually on offer to DIY musicians at the moment, instead of to what they would have in an ideal world, it's got to be a good thing.

F&ck me, can't believe I'm using my evening to defend Rupet Murdoch :slanted:

 

[blunt]

i think you mean the shareholders and city investors, not the people who wrote it.

That's right, they'll continue to turn up to work every day on a strictly volunteer basis. Sorry, bassnation, but this, and other arguments that represent Murdoch et al as some kind of cartoon puppetmaster are pretty lazy; real knee-jerk contrarian stuff.

[...]Giving Murdoch a cut goes against any sort of independent music ethics in the first place.

I think independent labels, and the artists that appear on them, are concerned more with matters of editorial control, and driven primarily by the desire to see their sound find a sympathetic audience. I'd say that any ideas of sticking it to The Man are, for the most part, a secondary consideration - and even then inspired primarily by The Man's reluctance to represent them to the wider world, and the inevitable impact of that, both personally and politically.

But all of that was a reaction to an age of mass consumption. It seems to me that we are entering a rather more participatory phase - this, to my mind, at least, is the real significance of "reality TV", blogs, online forums such as this one, social networking, grass roots activism, fab labs, the trend for personalisation and customisation etc.

Now, The Man will inevitably try to monetise this phenomenon - that's what He does. But thanks to ideas like Creative Commons and copyleft, He can't shaft you unless you let Him.

It would be class to just write a couple of tunes a month, upload 'em, sit back and watch the money stack up...

It would, wouldn't it?

You have editorial control. You have the means of production. You have the means of distribution. And now , it seems, you may have a means of profitting from it. Indeed, whether it's MySpace that ends up doing something like this or not is neither here nor there - someone will.

Anyway, my point is: the circumstances in which music/film/photography/whatever can now be made and distributed are completely different from those that preveiled in the 20th century. So I'm not sure how the standard arguments apply.

Equally, I'm not saying it's all plain sailing from here - a new set of personal/political problems will undoubtedly present themselves. The political and cultural landscape is certainly unrecognisable to that described in RIUASA - and no less challenging. But it's simply no good to trot out the same old (lazy) arguments. We'll certainly never get here if we do. What we need now is vision, and it comes to something when Rupert fucking Murdoch has more of it than some of the people on this board

 

[Canada J Soup]

But giving Murdoch a cut goes against any sort of independent music ethics in the first place.

Because it's Murdoch? I can see why people might have that reaction, but he could well be the right person for the job. Evil right-wing piece of shit he may be, but based on what I've read in interviews with him he appears to have an incredibly good grasp of what works in terms of doing business online. (I hated myself for agreeing with him as much as I did in his recent Wired interview). The fact that Murdoch's such a total capitalist (his politics follow his love of money rather than vice versa) will be exactly what drives development of the 'right' kind of model: One that operates efficiently and keeps users happy. iTunes doesn't quite cut it 'cause it hasn't cut out the record labels. (A necessary business decision on Jobs' part in order to boost iPod sales.) Media distribution costs are now close to zero, so a new type of middle man is needed. A community where people can find what they like based on what their peers recommend is ideal.

Murdoch provides the infrastructure and the DRM (necessary not so much so people can't copy music, but so that they can't profit by selling someone else's music), so why shouldn't they take a cut? If a musician wants a bigger pay-off from selling a song, they can just jack up the price to $1.45. If they want wide exposure and are keeping their day job, they can charge $0.50.

 

[UFO over easy]

^I can see that, so let me break it down for you. Most of them don't give 2 shits about time or trouble or paying for something. If they can get it for nothing they will.

Nice to see your faith in the integrity of youth is still alive and well :slanted:

Generalisations are ugly.

My problem with this whole thing is that it's just completely unnecessary. Why should bands need a myspace feature in order to sell their music? What's stopping them saying "hey, paypal us five bucks and we'll send you some mp3s/a cd-r"? That takes Murdoch out of the picture nicely, and it's what most of the bands with a reasonable following are doing already..

 

[matt b]

I can't see much evidence in Murdoch's business history to support that...

i rushed my response a little- his 'strategy' is to make lots of cash and have power/influence.

oh, and PLEASE don't use my comments in support of major labels!


DIY was all about the idea that music is far more than a commodity. this route seems to be the dystopian future promised by the corporatisation of the internet, and the fact that 1/2 of us are saying 'its not too bad' etc scares the shit out of me!

 

[Canada J Soup]

Why should bands need a myspace feature in order to sell their music? What's stopping them saying "hey, paypal us five bucks and we'll send you some mp3s/a cd-r"? That takes Murdoch out of the picture nicely, and it's what most of the bands with a reasonable following are doing already..

They can do that too...but using MySpace makes it easier for them to reach a wide number of listeners who are more likely to be interested in hearing what they do. Equally, it saves listeners having to sift through stuff they have no interest in to find something they like, as the network of users with similar tastes will help them filter the potentially vast amount of content out there.

 

[blunt]

DIY was all about the idea that music is far more than a commodity. this route seems to be the dystopian future promised by the corporatisation of the internet, and the fact that 1/2 of us are saying 'its not too bad' etc scares the shit out of me!

Of course good music is more than just a commodity. I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise. But tell me honestly: does paying for good music really diminish your enjoyment or appreciation of it? Does any of that shit even cross your mind when you listen to it?

And nobody is saying artists have to charge for their music, either (not even Rupert fucking Murdoch). But anyone who makes it a realistic possibility for an artist (of any description) to make money from their own work - to pay their rent, to feed themselves, to feed their kids, to make possible all the banal shit that is real life - or maybe even to put money towards making their next project bigger and better - gets my vote.

Or would you rather artists keep having to do truly cock sucking work that takes away from the good stuff that they have inside them? Because, realistically, that's the alternative right now.

 

[the undisputed truth]

But tell me honestly: does paying for good music really diminish your enjoyment or appreciation of it? Does any of that shit even cross your mind when you listen to it?

Paying for music adds value to it and increases my appreciation. I do admit to trying before I buy by downloading but what I dislike I dont burn to CD, I just trash thinking, I wouldn't pay for this or yeah I'll hunt this out and buy it because it's worth it and I want to support the artist. I'm kind of reluctant to pay for major label releases especially for stuff like hiphop. The way I figure it is if they got bling and lowriders, drink hennessey and cristal, have pool parties with diddy and the hot tang every other day then I'm not shelling out to support that and from the looks of it they don't need my money but I do.
I can't believe the popularity of the hiphoppers and even the grimeheads on myspace. If anybody is going to make dollars of it it's going to be them even if their stuff is the most pirated of genres out there.

I'd imagine you'll be able to buy different advertising packages soon to 'pimp yo shit' to the largest audience and have dedicated myspace pimps who would do it for a commission of course. Also how easy would it be to license tracks for myspace compilations and mixtapes only call them podcasts and not have to pay licensing and broadcasting copyright at all ?

 

[matt b]

blunt:

it has nothing to do with paying for music, rather who you're paying and also the reasons why it is being created and sold.

that absolutely crosses my mind when buying/ listening to music, but then my formative years musically were mainly diy hardcore, where such issues were central to the creation of music. i still refrain from buying music from hmv/virgin/tower etc (as well as avoiding major labels wherever possible) for those reasons.

re: music as employment. i don't think that better music is always created when the musician is doing it as a career, because money can get in the way, music shouldn't be devalued by being viewed merely as an income stream.

"Or would you rather artists keep having to do truly cock sucking work that takes away from the good stuff that they have inside them? Because, realistically, that's the alternative right now."

that is such a false argument!

 

[blunt]

"Or would you rather artists keep having to do truly cock sucking work that takes away from the good stuff that they have inside them? Because, realistically, that's the alternative right now."

that is such a false argument!

Why? You don't say. I guess it's so because you say it is. Way to debate!

It stands to reason that time spent working purely and simply to pay the bills is time spent not developing the craft. I have no beef with the digital potlatch per se; but so long as the enforced free-for-all that is digital culture continues, there'll be no new Prince, no Bowie, no Elvis, no Ellington.

You know, maybe you're right. Maybe artists should go back to living in penury, suffering for their art in their garrett, stricken with emphysema and christ-knows-what, regarded with suspicion by the rest of society. That was a much better state of affairs. It was so fucking real.

 

[matt b]

Why? You don't say. I guess it's so because you say it is. Way to debate!

no, because you seem to think its an either / or situation, which is clearly not the case.

i've had/have friends who a) work and do music for fun/pleasure and b) have been on major labels and have attempted to make a living purely from music. without exception group (a) are the happy contented ones who continue to make music in the long term.

how many musicians do you think (as a percentage) make their living purely from their own music? it ain't many.

 

[blunt]

no, because you seem to think its an either / or situation, which is clearly not the case.

On the contrary - and, if anything, I think developments like that which we are discussing are helping elide the 2 discrete groups you describe...

i've had/have friends who a) work and do music for fun/pleasure and b) have been on major labels and have attempted to make a living purely from music. without exception group (a) are the happy contented ones who continue to make music in the long term.

... and therefore we should not worry about anyone in group B - whom I suspect also make music for fun/pleasure - who might have aspirations beyond the strictly hoppyist/onanist? Maybe group a) is 'happier' because their sights are set so very low...

how many musicians do you think (as a percentage) make their living purely from their own music? it ain't many.

It ain't enough. And it's getting less. That's my point, exactly.

 

[the undisputed truth]

Call me old fashioned and in spite of what Miles Davis said. I believe musicians should suffer for their art. It breeds character. Character is what makes music and musicians stand out from the crowd and seems to be whats missing in a lot of music coming out lately.Prince had it, Bowie had it, Elvis had it and coming up they didn't have it easy. Once they got it easy, their music turned to shit and so did their taste in clothes.

Please excuse me while I put my sequined asbestos suit on and pop my collar :slanted:flame on.

 

[matt b]

... and therefore we should not worry about anyone in group B - whom I suspect also make music for fun/pleasure - who might have aspirations beyond the strictly hoppyist/onanist? Maybe group a) is 'happier' because their sights are set so very low....

but then you're assuming if you don't do music as a job you have low aspirations/ lower sights, which is utter rubbish- people like albini have jobs- is he a music hobbiest?

i don't feel sorry for people who chase myths that they'll be the ones to make it big- in 99.9% of cases it doesn't happen and the processhas a negative effect on both the music and the individual.

myspace seems to be feeding these myths, while helping mr murdoch to make cash and concentrate power.

... It ain't enough. And it's getting less. That's my point, exactly.

it was ever thus- see point above

 

[blunt]

but then you're assuming if you don't do music as a job you have low aspirations/ lower sights, which is utter rubbish [...]

Quite. But I'm not making that assumption for all of them. I'm not making assumptions for anyone. I'm just trying to explain a system that might be the best of both worlds for everyone.

i don't feel sorry for people who chase myths that they'll be the ones to make it big- in 99.9% of cases it doesn't happen

And yet there are stars, some of whom are actually worth a damn - see upthread. Amazing how that might work...

it was ever thus- see point above

And forever will be? It is this way, don't bother trying to change it. Women should stay subservient to their men, blacks are inferior to whites, gays are degenerate and have no place in society. Yawn.

It was not ever thus - artists were for the most part much maligned until the 20th century. Now everyone wants to be one, even if it is just in their spare time.

So I'd say your point holds neither generally nor specifically.

 

[swears]

Not true, as I know from experience. Setting up and maintaining a decent website takes a lot of knowhow & work. To build an online music store from scratch, you need all kinds of back-end database knowledge. If it was easy, there wouldn't be programmers charging £300 per day to do it (and they are constantly busy, at least the ones I know are). The reason myspace works so well is that it's based on a template that musicians can get their head around, and it includes the networking features. You could build that into a standalone site, but most musicians dont want to learn programming to that level - if that was what they wanted to do they'd be web designers, not musicians.

What do you mean by a decent site? I think building a functional, mostly text based site with a few MP3's and a paypal account would be a piece of piss as long as you kept it basic and didn't go overboard with Flash animations, etc. If you really care about getting your music out there, then I don't see learning a bit of HTML or Frontpage as a huge struggle.
MySpace looks like shit anyway, really ugly. One of the biggest web searches is "MySpace layouts" because people hate the standard setup so much. If you really have to have a MySpace, then stick a link up there for your site with your 100% royalty tunes.

 

[matt b]

And forever will be? It is this way, don't bother trying to change it. Women should stay subservient to their men, blacks are inferior to whites, gays are degenerate and have no place in society. Yawn..

nice touch :slanted:

So I'd say your point holds neither generally nor specifically.

well, we just view music and its methods of production/distribution differently then.

if you want to see a thriving and progressive music scene based on diy /not for profit ethics. visit leeds, but i'm not sure you'd see the point of it.