Re: state of the music business
Not speaking for David at all, but your question seemed interesting, so here's a response:I think that the ability of artists to self-record & self-distribute via the internet on sites like YouTube is a positive thing, as said artists can now get paid in a different way than they were previously, and it (potentially) skips over the whole "signed/non-signed" thing. In the past, listeners/consumers/fans had to buy an artist's album (or single, etc) to take part in the process by which that artist was paid. Now, artists can put stuff out in a way that is much more reminiscent of how magazines work--that is to say, it is the advertisers, not the subscribers, that pony up the dough to keep things running. In the meantime, groups like Pomplamoose (whose work I adore), and argumentative folks like Thunderf00t (whose work I 97% adore), get to reach audiences they never could have just a short time ago.Here's a Pomplamoose; you can hunt for Thunderf00t on your own.http://www.youtube.com/user/pomplamoosemusic?blend=1&ob=4That video was posted just a short time ago, and I see it has over one and a quarter million hits already. Although the song in the linked video is a cover, I have to imagine that some percentage of that 1.25 mil has also by now had a look at some Pomplamoose originals, and maybe purchased a thing or two.If what you want to do is put out music (or other types of entertainment that lend themselves to the medium), and if you're prepared to spend a lot of time devoting yourself to the craft, it seems to me that we're entering the golden era.Not so much for books, I'm afraid. I feel pretty sure that sustained attention to printed books is one of the things that we lose as a direct result of the ability of advertising to keep itself so firmly in our sight.What do you think?
Herring405
H
Herring405
(view)
Not speaking for David at all, but your question seemed interesting, so here's a response:I think that the ability of artists to self-record & self-distribute via the internet on sites like YouTube is a positive thing, as said artists can now get paid in a different way than they were previously, and it (potentially) skips over the whole "signed/non-signed" thing. In the past, listeners/consumers/fans had to buy an artist's album (or single, etc) to take part in the process by which that artist was paid. Now, artists can put stuff out in a way that is much more reminiscent of how magazines work--that is to say, it is the advertisers, not the subscribers, that pony up the dough to keep things running. In the meantime, groups like Pomplamoose (whose work I adore), and argumentative folks like Thunderf00t (whose work I 97% adore), get to reach audiences they never could have just a short time ago.Here's a Pomplamoose; you can hunt for Thunderf00t on your own.http://www.youtube.com/user/pomplamoosemusic?blend=1&ob=4That video was posted just a short time ago, and I see it has over one and a quarter million hits already. Although the song in the linked video is a cover, I have to imagine that some percentage of that 1.25 mil has also by now had a look at some Pomplamoose originals, and maybe purchased a thing or two.If what you want to do is put out music (or other types of entertainment that lend themselves to the medium), and if you're prepared to spend a lot of time devoting yourself to the craft, it seems to me that we're entering the golden era.Not so much for books, I'm afraid. I feel pretty sure that sustained attention to printed books is one of the things that we lose as a direct result of the ability of advertising to keep itself so firmly in our sight.What do you think?
Herring405
