#1
Underlined material entails edits.

With the advent of file sharing (over the internet and inter-personal), I've screwed over many, many bands deserving compensation for their artistic talent. I've bought around 10 CDs, and have over 2000 downloaded (or ripped) songs on itunes. Most people have even more than 2000, and that's exactly my point.

We need to revamp the way we purchase music. I propose a centralization of the music industry.

I think we should send payment, monthly, to this regulatory committee (hereon referred to as "the corporation". We, in turn, get credits with which we use to purchase music online. It would be a fixed monthly fee, with a fixed amount of credits.

The percentage of credits an artist amasses will be directly proportional to the paycheck of the band/group (hereon referred to as "the artist"), all regulated by the corporation through use of an algorithm.

The corporation will take the requisite funds it needs to operate.

The corporation cannot be a private institution.

The money reserved for the payment of the artists will be taken from pool of total funds minus the capital needed to sustain the corporation.

There won't be any selection process in regard to signing the artist, but the artist will, of course, have to fill out the requisite paperwork and wait for approval.

Approval constitutes a verification of said paperwork.

CDs would still be available for purchase through the artist.

This eliminates the constrictive influence of the Faustian contract with whatever label, allocates more funds to the artist in general, and doesn't screw over the public.

It is a prerequisite that the money paid per month will yield significantly more music than if used to purchase cds.

This is purely hypothetical, of course. What do you people think?
What's wrong with it?
Originally posted by Capua47:

Oh well if your from austrailia then grades shudn't matter considering your just gonna grow up to be ol' stevie erwin eh?!


Gear:
Schecter Omen-6
Peavey Valveking 212
Metal Muff
Metal Zone
Jimi Hendrix Wah
Last edited by listless at Oct 13, 2007,
#2
I'm really, really, not trying to be an ass, but that, undoubtedly, is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
[SIZE=
#3
Hah, ok. Enlighten me.
Originally posted by Capua47:

Oh well if your from austrailia then grades shudn't matter considering your just gonna grow up to be ol' stevie erwin eh?!


Gear:
Schecter Omen-6
Peavey Valveking 212
Metal Muff
Metal Zone
Jimi Hendrix Wah
#4
Many examples of why that would be terrible for the industry. It takes away so much of a band's freedom. What if you want to charge five dollars for an album, instead of twenty? Who's to say whether an artist gets "approved" and what dictates whether they can be or not? If an artist isn't approved, where do they go from there? Why waste the capital needed to keep such a business afloat? What if you want to purchase hard copies of music, be it CD, vinyl, or anything else? What about tours and merchandising? Would that have to be handled by the corporation as well? If this is a government run system (you said no private ownership), who's to say they won't censor and promote music the way they see fit? Not to mention it completely undermines the idea of the free market economy, though I won't pass judgment on whether that's a good or bad thing.
[SIZE=
#5
I think that would be a good idea to get artists more money because there would be no labels to take the majority of it, but it would just never work unfortunately. I think it could be a good thing, but it just wouldn't work.
We Rock With Our Cocks Out: UG Naked Club FTW!!

Quote by HeavenlyVirus
how many George Bushs does it take to fix the economy? -1
#7
Quote by SupImJimmy
Many examples of why that would be terrible for the industry. It takes away so much of a band's freedom. What if you want to charge five dollars for an album, instead of twenty? Who's to say whether an artist gets "approved" and what dictates whether they can be or not? If an artist isn't approved, where do they go from there? Why waste the capital needed to keep such a business afloat? What if you want to purchase hard copies of music, be it CD, vinyl, or anything else? What about tours and merchandising? Would that have to be handled by the corporation as well? If this is a government run system (you said no private ownership), who's to say they won't censor and promote music the way they see fit? Not to mention it completely undermines the idea of the free market economy, though I won't pass judgment on whether that's a good or bad thing.


This doesn't have to limit freedom at all, if anything, it could give them more. If they want to charge 5 dollars, they can, because they're getting the left overs of what it charges to keep basically a nonprofit organization afloat. If an artist doesn't get approved, it's just like if an artist doesn't get signed to a record label, they can do things independently or get better. Why waste the capital? We're eliminating big, greedy corporations and giving the artists a larger share of the income. Where does it say that there can't be hard copies of music too? I mean, people could still burn the songs to CDs and things. Tours and merchandising could be run by the bands' people or the organization, just like if a record label would plan things. Also, this proposal never said anything about the corporation being government run.
We Rock With Our Cocks Out: UG Naked Club FTW!!

Quote by HeavenlyVirus
how many George Bushs does it take to fix the economy? -1
#8
corporations are evil, they will most likely take about as much money from the bands as you are stealing from them.

If you support a band, buy their cd or download from itunes, it's really not that hard
my gear:
Jackson DKMG(the one with EMG 81/85's)
b-52 AT 212 100 watt amp
old gear i'll probably sell eventually:
yamaha beginners guitar
gunmetal grey Fender squire strat
Fender 65R amp
#9
What this guy is saying is in his proposal, those corporations are eliminated, which I think is great.
We Rock With Our Cocks Out: UG Naked Club FTW!!

Quote by HeavenlyVirus
how many George Bushs does it take to fix the economy? -1
#10
Quote by lyingfromyou118
I think that would be a good idea to get artists more money because there would be no labels to take the majority of it, but it would just never work unfortunately. I think it could be a good thing, but it just wouldn't work.


+1
"Sticking Feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken"--Tyler Durden

Cufk, TisH, Sips
#11
So basically, you are proposing all record labels are somehow shut down to instead, more or less, sign all bands to one massive label. However, then you say it's ok for bands to strike out independently to do what is basically form their own label? That would eventually just end up in the reformation of the same indie, and eventually major, labels there were around previously. It's a good idea in the way communism is a good idea. It sounds good on paper, but once you think about it for more than thirty seconds you realize the innumerable holes in the theory and how it has no chance of ever working.
[SIZE=
#12
This isn't a hard and fast thing, I was actually looking for feedback and possible revisions.

Approval, i admit, was ambiguous.

"There won't be any selection process in regard to signing the artist"

Approval constitutes verification of the papers.

The artist uploads the music to a database, and self-promotes.

Tours and merchandising, those are subjects I know nothing about. I suppose the artist would have to hire a separate group to run those facets of the business for him.

I am considering CDs obsolete. Also, that's not exactly a big choice. People will pay for the cd what they want to pay, so if the artist decided a price too high (assuming they set them, i have no idea) then it would eventually be reduced anyway to whatever the consumers want. The artist will get paid what consumers want either way.

I did NOT mean government run. I meant publicly owned.

Okay, so the vast majority of music would be centralized. Those looking for independence, though going totally against capitalism, would form a small record label which benefits no one but their own egos.
Originally posted by Capua47:

Oh well if your from austrailia then grades shudn't matter considering your just gonna grow up to be ol' stevie erwin eh?!


Gear:
Schecter Omen-6
Peavey Valveking 212
Metal Muff
Metal Zone
Jimi Hendrix Wah
Last edited by listless at Oct 13, 2007,
#13
Quote by SupImJimmy
So basically, you are proposing all record labels are somehow shut down to instead, more or less, sign all bands to one massive label. However, then you say it's ok for bands to strike out independently to do what is basically form their own label? That would eventually just end up in the reformation of the same indie, and eventually major, labels there were around previously. It's a good idea in the way communism is a good idea. It sounds good on paper, but once you think about it for more than thirty seconds you realize the innumerable holes in the theory and how it has no chance of ever working.


I can certainly see what you're getting at, but that proposal obviously couldn't just be it. Laws would have to be formed, like it would be illegal to form a competitive corporation. Plus, I think that any band should be able to get accepted, I mean, the corporation doesn't have to give up any money to accept these bands, so I think that anyone should be able to make their music available online, and when people buy it, they get the money. This would lower the cost of music and simultaneously increase the income of artists.
We Rock With Our Cocks Out: UG Naked Club FTW!!

Quote by HeavenlyVirus
how many George Bushs does it take to fix the economy? -1
#14
Right for most of it.

But what the hell? Laws against competing industry?

No, any competing industry would be self-destructive.
Originally posted by Capua47:

Oh well if your from austrailia then grades shudn't matter considering your just gonna grow up to be ol' stevie erwin eh?!


Gear:
Schecter Omen-6
Peavey Valveking 212
Metal Muff
Metal Zone
Jimi Hendrix Wah
#15
But he made a great point, then we just go back to what we have now.
We Rock With Our Cocks Out: UG Naked Club FTW!!

Quote by HeavenlyVirus
how many George Bushs does it take to fix the economy? -1
#16
I don't see the economic benefit of joining those minority systems.

When confronted with a choice between a system that takes advantage of the entire market and one that doesn't and is rapidly becoming outdated, which would you choose?
Originally posted by Capua47:

Oh well if your from austrailia then grades shudn't matter considering your just gonna grow up to be ol' stevie erwin eh?!


Gear:
Schecter Omen-6
Peavey Valveking 212
Metal Muff
Metal Zone
Jimi Hendrix Wah
#17
sounds like a pretty communist idea.

when you pirate music, you're mainly ripping off the record label, and i personally have no sympathy for them. artists make most of their money from touring, merchandise, other guest appearance/celebrity perks/sponsoring type deals.


My mind is going. I can feel it.
#18
sounds like a pretty communist idea.

when you pirate music, you're mainly ripping off the record label, and i personally have no sympathy for them. artists make most of their money from touring, merchandise, other guest appearance/celebrity perks/sponsoring type deals.

that being said, i buy pretty much all my music because i just like the satisfaction of the material record.


My mind is going. I can feel it.
#19
isn't there some way that artists can screw over the system by like fooling the algorithm? or just hackers for that matter? anything official on the internet is a bad idea. plus, this is just plain ludacris. the last thing artists want is for the music industry to have total control over them.
#20
Some of us actually like owning the physical CD.. as far as I can tell, this would make that extremely difficult, and it would turn music too digital. I don't like :|




#21
No money from album sales goes to musicians. Musicians only get money from touring and their record companies, and other endorsements.
#22
Two gigantic flaws with that.
1. Markets. The music industry is a free market, and all governments encourage competition in that market. They government would have to go completely against multiple national and international laws.
2. People would still download. If your idea somehow did get implemented, what would stop people from downloading? Cheaper music? People download music because they don't want to spend their cash on music and so they can spend that cash on others goods and services, even if it is cheaper they are still fore-going the cost of other wants.
Quote by Vornik
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to put it, along with your other advice, into a book, the pages of which I will then use to wipe my ass.
#23
Well... If bands sold their CD's for 5euro's instead of 20, I'd have around 40 cd's instead of 5.
100euro's more profit.
#24
Glen's Heroic Act - Yes, hackers would be a huge problem. I'd thought of this, and hoped that someone would propose a solution.

And the point is that the music industry does NOT have total control over the artist. Just because they pay them for their CD sales (current record companies pay their artists too, if you remember, albeit differently) does not mean that they have control. There is no contract stating that they have to produce X records per year.

SaintSatan - the idea is that bands would make money from their CD sales.

Damn Blood - Good point. How's this for a remedy:

The artist will set the CD/song price. No credit system.

That would make the system completely laissez-faire. The corporation would be obliged to give daily appraisals of the average CD price total, average CD price of bands of similar renown, etc.

The system will exist merely as a focal point and to allocate salaries.

Of course, people will still download. However, I think my point will be explained if you go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff and look at the first diagram there.

Scarlatti - If bands did that, they would make more money, right. Unfortunately, prices are high because of the middleman, the record label, who screws over everyone else. Minimizing this factor greatly reduces the amount artists need to charge to make any money.

Again THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE BUYING THE CD.
Originally posted by Capua47:

Oh well if your from austrailia then grades shudn't matter considering your just gonna grow up to be ol' stevie erwin eh?!


Gear:
Schecter Omen-6
Peavey Valveking 212
Metal Muff
Metal Zone
Jimi Hendrix Wah
#25
and after the person gets the song they will mostlikely send it to there friends or something in that means, really no point its kinda like itunes but les complicated
#26
its a nice idea, but it would never work, still a nice idea though.

on the point of ideals in revolutioning the music industry, i would like to go back to a few years ago, when pretty much all music was bough in a record shop, but ideally there wouldn't be the big chain stores like HMV, Virgin or music zone(R.I.P.) but the local small ones when you are on 1st name terms with the owner and he orders in and saved you stuff, that would be cool
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.
#27
Quote by Nirvana_RATM2
and if a band refuses to sign with the corporation?

They are silenced via lynching.

Artists make enough money; you can't download a live show or merchandise, they make a healthy living off of what they have now. Why do guys that work two hours a day for five months of the year have to make millions? It's unfair to make you buy the album to get a taste of the band. The money should come from putting out a good album. so people come and see you live, and buy the shirts and hats and patches.
Dickless.
#28
I thought doing gigs for beer was already a high point as far as a musician's income goes


Quote by pangui
Some of us actually like owning the physical CD.. as far as I can tell, this would make that extremely difficult, and it would turn music too digital. I don't like :|


CDs are already 1s and 0s as it is
#29
How can a new artist get the money together to buy studio time to record his/her debut?
Quote by GlamSpam

I developed a thought experiment to explain why you can't remember anything before you were born:
#30
I agree that its unfair but dont you understand that the artists only get a small small proportion of what you spend on there things?
#31
i gotta hand it to ya. YOu used some pretty big words.
I like to write, and support Chemistry For Improved Life.

Please, recommend me any bands or artists of any genre or medium. Paintings, poets, writers, books, paintings, songs, musicians.

Anything, anything at all. Please.
#32
This wouldn't solve the problem anyway. Most musicians make the majority of their money from performing, not recording. It's only the hugely successful musicians who sell millions of albums who make a big portion of their money from CDs.
Death to Ovation haters!