what happens if SOPA passes?

suspect LCD gets used on a lot of soundtracks etc

I thought his Superbowl appearance did it...?

from what I know, ppl are making more money off of licensing than anything else

suspect LCD gets used on a lot of soundtracks etc

^^^strongly suspect this and the commercials is where he really made his dough

i'm not saying that when the labels die all good music will die, of course it won't, i have like 100s of records my artists that never made any money, were totally obscure etc

but i think it's silly to say that the system didn't work sometimes, and also it's silly to say that specific albums and artists could not have done what they did without it

to use more recent examples of stuff that a lot of ppl on ILM have felt were significant...take say my beautiful dark twisted fantasy...or lady gaga

neither one of those examples could work outside of the big label system, gaga's video budget for one song could bankrupt an indie and there's no way you could self-fund that...

dark twisted fantasy, which i'm not a huge fan of but obv some ppl think is a classic, is more akin to my neil young example...i just flat don't think kanye would have had those songs or those ideas or lyrics or anything without having been a huge coked up millionaire star

yeah, well obviously something has to go, the industry isn't going to sustain itself like this. I would think it's much harder to sustain the mega-millionaire stars w/ license to do whatever

i assume they're easier to maintain because they sell a lot of records?

I think he got famous because people on the internet liked the music he was making and then other people also liked the music he was making

my question was more, "when did this all happen". he was getting plenty of hype in 2005 but from what I had seen few people had heard of him or came to the shows.

from what I know, ppl are making more money off of licensing than anything else

this is probably true, I think the goal for most young artists is just to get a song in Madden or Tony Hawk 16

a lot of bands don't get anything for being in EA Sports titles, lots of times A&Rs work really hard to get placement in games as promo

it's different in the case of GTA where rockstar takes a lot of pride in curating a soundtrack to capture and era and vibe

well, i've heard the opposite (that they do get paid), but yeah I think getting in a game like GTA is so huge regardless b/c you now have millions of people listening to your song over and over again where the more "traditional" exposure methods like radio/MTV are kinda dead to most bands

but i think it's silly to say that the system didn't work sometimes, and also it's silly to say that specific albums and artists could not have done what they did without it

this goes back to what I was talking about w/ avatar upthread. could that movie have been made without a 1/4 billion dollar investment? no. is it cool that you can still make 1/4 billion dollar investments in a work of art and make money? sure. will this model last forever? no. you can say the model we're trending towards in the music business is a good thing or a bad thing, but either way it's still a thing.

well, i've heard the opposite (that they do get paid), but yeah I think getting in a game like GTA is so huge regardless b/c you now have millions of people listening to your song over and over again where the more "traditional" exposure methods like radio/MTV are kinda dead to most bands

m@tt works in the videogame industry iirc pretty sure he knows what he's talking about. plus you realize that in the former scenario you describe you imply the band should be grateful for simply getting exposure, whereas in the latter scenario they would have actually gotten paid.

maybe they should be grateful for simple getting exposure when there are 100,000 other bands out there

simply

well, i've heard the opposite (that they do get paid)

sometimes but matts right abt the EA games

it's pretty obvious from the acts that get on FIFA games that it's a plugging exercise

i wish i had that problem

"thanks for all of the exposure, I plan to use it to pay my rent this month"

I'm a video game character and matt's wrong

it's an honor to meet you waluigi

omfg lol

maybe they should be grateful for simple getting exposure when there are 100,000 other bands out there

sure but you can't deny that the goalposts have moved significantly - ie, from "I can make a living at this" to "I need to make a living at something else, but at least some people know about me". that's a huge shift.

the goalposts are shifting for most americans tbh

"you should just be grateful for getting the exposure, we could've given this opportunity to 100,000 other bands" is the eternal mantra of the music industry scumbag who doesn't want to pay a musician for their work fyi

music industry scumbags are gonna have more trouble finding work than musicians in the long-term

sorry i didn't say more broadly "entertainment industry scumbags" since we're talking about why bands might not profit off of video game soundtrack placement as much as they could

they don't profit because there's a lot of music out there and the difference between hearing band x's okay song and band y's okay song is really not that big for most people playing madden

People equate fame with fortune. They think if you're on TV, you're making alot of money, rather than a standard industry rate.

Also, you do not need a ton of funding to have your band live in a house doing drugs together and recording music. People do this with zero label support all the time.

well i don't know if we're talking about the difference between a band getting a FAIR royalty rate or any kind of usage fee and nothing else or getting screwed out of even that, maybe m@tt could clarify. but honestly you're just parroting the mindset of every label and club owner for the past 50+ years that says "why should i pay you? any other band in town would die to be in your shoes, you should be thanking me."

xpost

I'm not parroting their mindset, I'm explaining why there's financial logic to it. that doesn't mean it's 'fair'. I see what's happening here as analogous to other things that are happening in our economy that might look 'not fair' - overall it's harder and harder for people to get paid for 'work they do'. I don't think that's a good thing! but I do think that there are amazing social gains from having total freedom of information and because of that it's worth it for the gov't to just pay people to be artists. not that much money in the big picture. fin.

does the NEA even still dole out grants?

lol pisschrist

The people making music that earn a living wage off record sales is probably close to the number of people earning a living wage off playing professional sports.

btw this is one of those awesomely compelling sounding arguments that is actually 100% wrong. theres lots of people making a living wage off of music, its just not in the cool i am in an indie band way.

"cool"

O RLY

am happy for orchestral musicians to get paid in full

well tbf people who sell yankees caps are 'making a living wage off professional sports' if you want to expand that in the other direction

Roy Blunt has pulled sponsorship.

i guess it depends what 'pro sports' means. i mean there are a LOT of people playing in a LOT of leagues of a LOT of different sports, it adds up. but yeah still probably more gigging musicians.

yeah those orchestra dudes are doing alright (altho not forever in some markets obv) but also yknow sometimes u have to shit your way through some godawful tribute band to have the time and $$ to record stuff you actually care about, and thats ok frankly.

"thanks for all of the exposure, I plan to use it to pay my rent this month"

i think the issue is not so much artists working for free to record music for a video game as it is video game companies using music that was already recorded and for sale in their games

i seriously doubt there was any confusion with anyone about that.

ze german pov

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaXR9dsQGn8

xp i know, but that's how a lot of this is reading

i assume they're easier to maintain because they sell a lot of records?

well, one kinda begets the other. i'm not sure what you're suggesting is going to happen here

I've always been under the impression that the musicians that are most likely to earn a living are wedding bands, smooth-jazz-standards-for-'classy'-bars bands, some session dudes, advertising jingle writers etc. Figure it's similar to the way in which most actors who earn a living by it are not film stars, y'know.

but I do think that there are amazing social gains from having total freedom of information and because of that it's worth it for the gov't to just pay people to be artists.

Sorry, no, a government that "just pays people to be artists" also gets to decide who is and isn't one. Do you trust the fucking Republican House of Representatives not to just give all your money to Ray Stevens and that chick from Northern Exposure? I sure don't.

I mean, shit, I play the bass and guitar and have been in bands and have an entry at AllMusic and a bunch of songs with BMI. Where's my check?

i would think it would be based on something like "who's getting the plays on Spotify" rather than anything the government controls

Well, that's kinda cart before the horse territory, isn't it?