Will piracy kill off prog rock ?

What seems clear is that we will not see again Pog bands touring in a dedicated jet plane 

Does anybody remember the ad inside some old vinyls:

friso wrote: What about: The internet SAVED progressive rock. Sharing music that was forgotten about has greatly improved interest in the genre.

I understand your point as I know many younger people that got into older prog through the Internet but the ends do not justfy the means.

If the few people that actually listen to prog purchase their favorite artists material, like CDs, that can be a help. Most artist's work are now licensed to record companies/distributors, so they get a bigger share of the profits then in days of old. It will not make the artist rich, but again, it does help.


Edited by SteveG - September 24 2014 at 15:21

Well, it would seem the kids are no longer alright...

Edited by uduwudu - September 24 2014 at 06:00

55 bands played Isle of Wight in 1970, 500,000 attended - ticket sales = £1.5 million (equivalent to £22 million today)

Complicated times.

I noted a couple of interesting point sin the music creation observation "many bands / artists making music the way they want as well as someone "not connecting on a human level with what is created." Roughly cited.

Firstly most artists do that (if it's popular it' selling out if not it's integrity).

The record companies did used to invest and in some cases still do but primarily the, for want of a more attractive phrase, lowest common denominator oriented artist. Piracy of the hugely backed pop stars hurt the record companies. A very small indie artist getting pirated - well that might actually be encouraging and a record company may view piracy of someone withiout the backing as worthy of note.

Recently people resented being given an "apparently" free (no cash off the consumer) download of one of the most popular bands on the planet - U2. While I think it is the imposition of an unauthorised file set on someone's hard media that really caused the resentment, instead of saying thank you I'll smoke it later (d/l to Pc) to free phone space) they got angry.

The choice had been taken out of their hands. I think an authority will tell people to do something and they will do it - look at armies conscripting civilians and getting them to kill.

Music commerce has moved from rich patrons of composers, to include concert attendees, and finally the shopping fan. Now who pays for it? The player, producer in the hope that someone will hear and like. I think many of the artist now, thanks to the technology) are probably the listeners of not so long ago.

Most people are not as music / commerce conscious as PA fans (I know I've studied this.) It's all down to the creation of scarcity in capitalism. Fewer people with fewer jobs getting paid less wages against a slowly spiraling inflation means the usual "pirate" young, male, wanting the usual weekly priorities (Music, petrol, means of getting high and laid, looking the part ,all cost$. Saving on something means cash freed up for something else. Nothing new there.

(Piracy btw I refer to the illicit download of commercial official product, bootlegs are another matter).

It's females who do the best buying. In my city's retail music shop I once over heard a couple of Justin Bieber fans (c. 12 - 13 years vintage) breathlessly relating how they bought everything issued. Sort of trainee music consumers perhaps. But that was quite positive really.

Gigging is not an option for so many (what if an artist is disabled?). Not everyone can or wants to hop in cars and vans and hit the road hoping to sell a few CDs and t shirts. Very dodgy, very unreliable and so many comfortably assume this will work. Go there, Try it. It might. But so much can go wrong so easily at any time. Artists toured with support, in support. Now it's almost cold hard charity.

The problem for income generation are the streaming sites. I've seen the fabulous .007th of a cent plays on what I laughably call a statement. Perfomance rights organisations (mine's APRA) don't push for rates so long as something gets paid - it's streaming it's not like radio and money filters back to record companies whether major old or new like CD Baby. It's not going to work for too long. But it will dawn on people in 10 - 20 years that the music of the 20th century was culturally significant because there was financial support. Remove that support and it collapses into a cloud of dust.

Other things like on line gaming are more popular than music because gamers are doing something rather than being passive listeners.

So there are many hurdles to over come, the psychological barriers in the individual and collective consciousness to buy or not to buy, the cost / price ratio of product, the perceived quality of audio versus convenience.

Well a record company has released a CD of mine (wow!) in the US only yesterday. Apparently I'll find out how well that goes in a week.

The only real consistency in this thread is the perception of the Cloud. Don't think so. I'll keep confidential documents on inaccessible external hard drives. Too many viruses, too much hacking and the possibility therof to make anything other than non-line storage the only way to keep digital matter.

Oh, by the way, I may have mentioned this before but... again. On the doco of the 1970 Isle Of Wight fest the very same subject (free music) reared it's head. "Music should be free" claimed concert goers unable to find the necessary pound to get in the field. (Tix weren't that cheap, one has to balance the cost of these against the miniscule wages doled out by the mighty).

"The artist survives, how?" Asked the interviewer.
"Record sales" was the response. I'm sure Fripp liner note readers know how reliable that is. Plus ca change, n'est pas? as Geddy and his French friends might have said in the Trees.

We have an abundance of music, varying quality and perceptions of the audio, most people who use it as background (not PA subscribers obviously), scarcity of cash, an abundance of producers. Even the concert players have to compete for the ticket prices and merchandising dollar  / pound  / euro /  groat.

Couple of solutions. Streaming services to pay good rates, both company and artist and listener still benefit. Obviously the performing rights organizations will need to be more active in ensuring a minimum wage here, business has little or no ethics and they need  policing. Major music companies to issue good product not dump over licensed compilations and dilute their own profit.

I would like to see more 24 bit audio out there to demonstrate the value of quality sound - it works for the Beethoven Piano Concerto (3) just finished here and can work for rock and pop as well.

It may be that the central factor in all this - bandwidth may see ISPs paying rates to video / audio publishers as their consumers "probably" pirate. Costs passed on to you know who.

Cheers.

What about: The internet SAVED progressive rock. Sharing music that was forgotten about has greatly improved interest in the genre.

Almost no prog artists make their living from their music. Piracy can't kill passion.

King Crimson776 wrote: Prog bands already know they won't make any money, thus it will be one of the least effected genres by this. Also, Kylie Minogue is actually pretty decent for modern pop music.

SteveG wrote: Don't despair Smurph, Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips worked as a dishwasher for the first four years that his was signed to Warner Bro. Records. Most of the business end in music recording, publishing and distribution made the lion's share of the profits over the years so I don't see that really changing with the "Robin Hoods" of Piracy. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Just keep on doing your thing but you should always keep this in mind.