MP3.COM signing A. Morissette, T. Amos 41
Tony Garcia writes "According to this article on USA Today, MP3.COM is
signing deals with Alanis Morissette and Tori
Amos. Seems like "big time" artists are joining
the mp3 wave "Now, if only DJ Shadow and Tom Waits would agree to that-Nirvana reached.
As someone who's been there (Score:1)
The same thing goes for actors.
MP3 is interesting in that someone could do other work less often, have their own web site, post some songs, figure out a tour from emails of people who would let them crash (which is how it usually works) and where they could get a few live gigs. For those popular enough to be household names outside of their touring region, this isn't so hot; but for most artistes, this is really cool.
Will in Seattle
MP3 is the future, now. (Score:1)
Not quite. Didn't the complany who originally created it (Fraunhofer Gesellschaft) start requesting liscencing fees from people putting out mp3 encoders. Even though they submitted it to MPEG, and their format was approved and titled MPEG Audio Layer 3, they still legally own a lot of the rights surrounding the format.
Wonder what Madonna thinks.... (Score:1)
10%?? More like 1%! (Score:1)
If only it were 10%. Your average CD costs around 13 pence (around 20c?) to produce. Most albums over here cost around 100 times that.
Add to that the fact that most artists get around 1UKP ($1.57?) per album sold and... I wonder where all the money goes.... :(
Nirvana reached? (Score:1)
Now that would be an impressive signing...
DJ Shadow... Old UC Davis alum! Go Ags! (Score:1)
Lateef, Asia, Gab, etc. Gab lived with me for a few months. The freestyle sessions were unreal. Major blunts were passed. Those were the good ol' days.
Josh (Shadow) was always kind of to himself. I didn't see him around as much. I knew of him when Lateef would break out the new Latyrx or Blackalicious joints and we'd get the session started.
Now that I'm learning about icecast, I'm gonna be putting the sessions on the net.
KILLA KALI FREESTYLERS GET 'NUF RESPECT.
doncha no tha sicca luffa made it good?
Biiiiaaaach! No need for the ambulance that boy ain't gettin up! Call the coroner....
But Compressed Digital Audio in general, should be (Score:1)
http://www.kjofol.org/
Supported File Formats:
HTH,
Kris.
Win a Rio [cjb.net] (or join the SETI Club via same link)
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction (Score:1)
"People used to make a record, as in a record of an event" -- some music lyric, I forget.
Stoked,
Kris.
Win a Rio [cjb.net] (or join the SETI Club via same link)
record streaming? (Score:1)
curious to see how successful you are.
Re: (Score:1)
Alanis had nothing to do with it. (Score:1)
Isn't it ironic? Don'tcha think?
Oh sorry. This is hypocrisy.
--
Oh, God, could it be the weather? (Score:1)
Now, as long as I'm on the proper side of the country at the proper time, I'll be all set.
Anyhow, it's good to see folks like Tori and Ms. Morrississippi (sp?) jumping on the bandwagon. A bit more corporate/artistic support and MP3 may be able to secure a position for itself as the official audio compression format of the New World Order. :)
(...hand me my leather...)
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction (Score:1)
In one paragraph:
"Reports indicate that Morissette will post live versions on MP3.com of songs recorded on the tour.
In the next paragraph:
"Amos' plans for posting songs are not known, but she likely will be governed by the same rules as Morissette. Both record for labels owned by Time Warner, which prohibits artists from offering any music on the Internet other than 30-second streams."
It seems to be a flat-out contradiction.
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction (Score:1)
:)
But Compressed Digital Audio in general, should be (Score:1)
The sound quality is *not* sufficient. Why step-back again? LP's had the widest dynamic range of any mainstream music format, but suffered from limited portability. 8-tracks, cassettes, and yes even CD's have offered less dynamic range for more convenience. It's a shame that most people under 30 are convinced that CD's are the highest quality audio. It was a lame standard to begin with and MP3's really don't even compare to CD's when played on anything more advanced than computer speakers.
MP3 is just the format de jour. What's important here is that some artists are starting to take advantage of compressed digital audio and Internet distribution. If it's some other file format in 5 years, that's fine.
The artist is *still* losing. Instead of the major record company pimping the artists you now have a bunch of hackers with hard drive space becoming the pimps.
Somehow, I think it will be easier for artists to hire and fire server operators, than it is for them to hire and fire record companies.
Sure MP3.com is a professional organization but we all know where the real traffic for MP3's is: illegal copies of pre-recorded music. For all the terrible things one can say about the record industry, your favorite artist is benefiting much more from you buying the CD than downloading a MP3 copy of it.
Obviously the artists currently make more money on CDs than MP3s, but that's because they haven't been selling the MP3s up to now. So far, the "illegal copies" have been only useful for promotional purposes. This whole article is about that changing -- some pop artists are going to give real sales a try.
Before the portable players arrived you could make the argument that illegal MP3's increased CD sales, but now we can bypass the CD completely.
And in some people's minds, that is a desirable goal. The CDs are physical and therefore require more middlemen to take a chunk of the artists profits. Of course, I know what you're really suggesting: people will steal the MP3s instead of buying them. The funny thing is, the software industry has faced the same potential problem, yet it doesn't appear to have crashed yet. Face it: some people happen to think that stealing is wrong, and they simply don't do it.
The standard is too young and too unstable to support industry acceptance.
The "industry" is obsolete, and neither the artists nor the listeners have any reason to care whether the industry accepts it or not. One of the main advantages of compressed digital audio over the 'Net is that it bypasses the "industry."
Granted, this might change soon, but I would hate to reinvest yet again in a new music format that changes as quickly as technology. Music media formats usually last 15-20 years - do you think people will want to listen to crappy sounding MP'3 in 2015? Probably not. But then again would you want to purchase your music collection over again everytime a new version comes out? I realize this is the weakest of my arguments but it still bothers me. Music is timeless, unlike computer programs. The media should be more stable.
It all depends on whether the MP3 format sounds "good enough". In your case, I guess it isn't. So don't buy MP3s. I'm sure someone will be willing to sell you CDs for a while -- that format is not going to disappear any time soon. For those of us who do think MP3 is good enough, our collections will never become obsolete. Keeping an old MP3 player around isn't going to be much trouble (geez, we still have software for reading tar archives) and if a more desirable format comes along, conversion will be trivial.
With all that said, I'm for shaking up the music industry. I just don't think that MP3's in their current incarnation are the way to go.
I think most people would agree with you. From a technical standpoint, MP3 is already behind. It's just what is most widely supported right now, kinda like Windoze. Unlike Windoze, though, there isn't anything to keep people locked into it. Switching to newer formats will be easy and costless.
But Compressed Digital Audio in general, should be (Score:1)
The sound quality is *not* sufficient. Why step-back again? LP's had the widest dynamic range of any mainstream music format, but suffered from limited portability. 8-tracks, cassettes, and yes even CD's have offered less dynamic range for more convenience. It's a shame that most people under 30 are convinced that CD's are the highest quality audio. It was a lame standard to begin with and MP3's really don't even compare to CD's when played on anything more advanced than computer speakers.
MP3 is just the format de jour. What's important here is that some artists are starting to take advantage of compressed digital audio and Internet distribution. If it's some other file format in 5 years, that's fine.
The artist is *still* losing. Instead of the major record company pimping the artists you now have a bunch of hackers with hard drive space becoming the pimps.
Huh? How?
Sure MP3.com is a professional organization but we all know where the real traffic for MP3's is: illegal copies of pre-recorded music. For all the terrible things one can say about the record industry, your favorite artist is benefiting much more from you buying the CD than downloading a MP3 copy of it.
Obviously the artists currently make more money on CDs than MP3s, but that's because they haven't been selling the MP3s up to now. So far, the "illegal copies" have been only useful for promotional purposes. This whole article is about that changing -- some pop artists are going to give real sales a try.
Before the portable players arrived you could make the argument that illegal MP3's increased CD sales, but now we can bypass the CD completely.
And in some people's minds, that is a desirable goal. The CDs are physical and therefore require more middlemen to take a chunk of the artists profits. Of course, I know what you're really suggesting: people will steal the MP3s instead of buying them. The funny thing is, the software industry has faced the same potential problem, yet it doesn't appear to have crashed yet. Face it: some people happen to think that stealing is wrong, and they simply don't do it.
The standard is too young and too unstable to support industry acceptance.
The "industry" is obsolete, and neither the artists nor the listeners have any reason to care whether the industry accepts it or not. One of the main advantages of compressed digital audio over the 'Net is that it bypasses the "industry."
Granted, this might change soon, but I would hate to reinvest yet again in a new music format that changes as quickly as technology. Music media formats usually last 15-20 years - do you think people will want to listen to crappy sounding MP'3 in 2015? Probably not. But then again would you want to purchase your music collection over again everytime a new version comes out? I realize this is the weakest of my arguments but it still bothers me. Music is timeless, unlike computer programs. The media should be more stable.
It all depends on whether the MP3 format sounds "good enough". In your case, I guess it isn't. So don't buy MP3s. I'm sure someone will be willing to sell you CDs for a while -- that format is not going to disappear any time soon. For those of us who do think MP3 is good enough, our collections will never become obsolete. Keeping an old MP3 player around isn't going to be much trouble (geez, we still have software for reading tar archives) and if a more desirable format comes along, conversion will be trivial.
Tori/Alanis tour details (Score:1)
Check out this page for the details (as provided by Ticketbastard). [livedaily.com]
MP3 should not be the future (Score:1)
But Compressed Digital Audio in general, should be (Score:1)
VQF isn't it?
I have a question. Is there any decoder or any encoder for the vqf format freely available
(at least like in beer, but I would prefer like in speech) under Linux???
Mistakes in article (Score:1)
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction (Score:1)
record streaming? (Score:1)
Ok, I admit I haven't tried, but how hard is it to record a streaming song and convert it to mp3?
-- ravenskana
record streaming? (Score:1)
MP3Spy finds servers streaming MP3, from either shoutcast(win) or icecast (linux). It organizes them by ping (and genre) and allows one click streaming through WinAmp. It's the MP3 equivalent of Quake/GameSpy. The URL is www.mp3spy.com
record streaming? (Score:1)
MP3 is the future, now. (Score:1)
Allright, I have preached about this before, but it probably won't be well received until a Linux version becomes available.(so take it with a grain of Time)
Many folks have mentioned that MP3 is not sufficient as a music medium. Citing low quality, artist support, the vaporware lock (something better will come along), industry resistance (wouldn't you), and others. I don't think any of these stand, but other have commented enough on them that I don't feel the need to. Instead I'd like to talk about why it is sufficient and will become the "CD" of the next 20+ years.
1) It's a standard. I don't know tech. specs. but I do know there is an official way that MP3s are made and that any player built to play them can. There aren't incompatible MP3 formats, it's a standard.
2) It's free. I think we all know how much that matters. Freedom from licensing fees make a huge difference.
3)The Internet. Again the Internet takes on the form of Middle-Man (lowering prices near you). Because of their shared digital nature, MP3 and the Net go hand in hand. So obvious I feel silly pointing it out.
4)Rippers. Widely available, and to the best of my knowledge, legal. The change from your old music collection medium to the new was never this easy.
5)Size. I'm talking physical size here folks. How many MP3s can you burn on a CD? a DVD? an Empeg
6)Convenience. see Size, also Internet.
7)MP3Spy. (no linux version yet, but it's gotta be coming) This is the real kicker and the program that will cause widespread use of MP3 (even amoung your mamas) If you've ever used Gamespy (I wonder
Let's take a quick look at a *possible* distribution model using these points.
1. You want to listen to music. You click the Spy.
2. You have to pick a kind of music, so you do (or create your own).
3. You see a list of stations (with Ping, Capacity, and Quality) and pick one.
4. Streaming audio through Winamp.
How will people make money? I'll be the first to say that making millions in music will become MUCH more difficult, but that's what's the horrendous competitive environment of the Net does. What I envision is a scenario that when you are surfing through various Mp3 servers, you happen to find a song you like, click a link, visit a page, and make a purchase. It really is that simple.
Many have said that such a thing wouldn't work becuase everyone would steal music and make illegal copies. That's the way it is now, but only becasue the vast majority of users and those who see nothing wrong with such actions (students and teenagers). I beleive their parents might feel differently, I've certainly matured in regards to digital theft (although I refuse to give M$ money). So there will be a market that will pay money, not much but I think a middle ground can be reached.
What this does to the music industry?
Bu-bye big companies. The model won't support huge promotions or even huge profits, sorry but competition does that. It goes local. Now you can hear local bands (local bars set up a server and promote whoever is playing that week) with the same exposure as national. Good music becomes popular, as opposed to popular music being considered good. Live music becomes a bigger draw. Local bands also can gain an advantage because of better pings (gotta love that speed of light). I could go on, but alas I have to work.
Real quick, I knew this was cool, but I didn't appreciate how cool it was until I found a particular stream. I happen to be a fan of the band Phish. Phish, like the Dead before then, feel that music, once it's been presented, should be available to those who wish to hear it (a philosophy that should be well accepted here) and following this philosophy allow tapers (DATer's?) at each and every show. Much of this music has found it's way to the Net and MP3. Do you see how cool this can be?! Anytime I want to listen to live Phish it's two clicks away! ANY band could do this, ANYone can do this.
The times they are a changin' and getting damn cool if you ask me.
record streaming? (Score:1)
record streaming? (Score:1)
______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Finally (Score:1)
Oh, really? (Score:1)
OK, I'm just testing out my new preferences
Major Artists (Score:2)
Major Artists (Score:2)
___________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Digital distribution -- more variety, or less? (Score:3)
A few years ago, there was an article in The Economist about the economics of the recording industry. Basically, their take on it was that the introduction of CD's had greatly increased the variety of music available. As we all know, even though CD's are cheaper to make than vinyl ever was, you still pay more for your music. Of course, the physical medium costs little in either case: 10% or so of the total consumer price.
The Economist's take on this was that, in effect, the extra cost of CD's was subsidizing a greater variety of music. Getting everyone to pay $15 for that Nirvana CD meant that the industry had a little cash to use on experimenting with . Vinyl had found an equilibrium point with a much more mainstream-oriented music culture. CD's, having an initially higher price in the 80's that was never really reduced, eventually came in far greater variety (they backed this up with stats -- vinyl never had nearly the number of titles that CD's got).
What interests me is, what economic equilibrium will be found by digital distribution? I like a lot of pretty obscure music, so I am a big winner from a system that overcharges the Celine Dion fans in order to take a chance on promoting smaller artists! But Celine Dion doesn't benefit from that -- she would certainly prefer NOT to subsidize them. If she can distribute directly, she can choose not to.
Ideally, those smaller artists will be able to promote themselves, at least enough to catch my attention. I can then pay whatever premium necessary to get their music, and Celine Dion can sell her own music directly to the fans for less. That may also eliminate lots of gross inefficiencies in the sort of indirect subsidies the CD medium has -- record companies are really pretty inefficient at turning big-artist profits into small-artist promotion.
Potentially, what will happen instead is that small interesting artists, deprived of any marketing savvy from a system that can now get away with just squeezing whatever profits it can from the big names, will disappear into obscurity and the noise of the net. That would make me sad.
MP3 should not be the future (Score:4)
1) The sound quality is *not* sufficient. Why step-back again? LP's had the widest dynamic range of any mainstream music format, but suffered from limited portability. 8-tracks, cassettes, and yes even CD's have offered less dynamic range for more convenience. It's a shame that most people under 30 are convinced that CD's are the highest quality audio. It was a lame standard to begin with and MP3's really don't even compare to CD's when played on anything more advanced than computer speakers.
2) The artist is *still* losing. Instead of the major record company pimping the artists you now have a bunch of hackers with hard drive space becoming the pimps. Sure MP3.com is a professional organization but we all know where the real traffic for MP3's is: illegal copies of pre-recorded music. For all the terrible things one can say about the record industry, your favorite artist is benefiting much more from you buying the CD than downloading a MP3 copy of it. Before the portable players arrived you could make the argument that illegal MP3's increased CD sales, but now we can bypass the CD completely.
3) The standard is too young and too unstable to support industry acceptance. Granted, this might change soon, but I would hate to reinvest yet again in a new music format that changes as quickly as technology. Music media formats usually last 15-20 years - do you think people will want to listen to crappy sounding MP'3 in 2015? Probably not. But then again would you want to purchase your music collection over again everytime a new version comes out? I realize this is the weakest of my arguments but it still bothers me. Music is timeless, unlike computer programs. The media should be more stable.
With all that said, I'm for shaking up the music industry. I just don't think that MP3's in their current incarnation are the way to go.
MP3 should not be the future (Score:4)
I'll adress this FUD first, if you are releasing music as MP3 you are not limited by the 44.1 that you are limited to on CD therefore you can actually make an MP3 that is of higher quality than CD. If you care to argue this point I can you spectral analysis of stuff from CD and stuff done digital direct to MP3. I work in the recording/sound industry as a DJ/sound tech/studio musician/and remixer so I have researched this fairly well.
The artist is *still* losing. Instead of the major record company pimping the artists you now have a bunch of hackers with hard drive space becoming the pimps. Sure MP3.com is a professional organization but we all know where the real traffic for MP3's is: illegal copies of pre-recorded music. For all the terrible things one can say about the record industry, your favorite artist is benefiting much more from you buying the CD than downloading a MP3 copy of it. Before the portable players arrived you could make the argument that illegal MP3's increased CD sales, but now we can bypass the CD completely.
FUD again I say. the prohibitive cost of the portable devices along with the fact they can only carry about the same number of songs as a CD has made them not much more than a cute toy. If an artist releases a song and charges, hmmm lets say $ 0.75 to d/l it, people will pay it, when calcualte that out to full album ( ten songs for the sake of this argument) thats $ 7.50 for the whole album, 90% of which is kept by the artist. That works out to be more than the artists make now per CD/cassette. If you want more info on why MP3 is good for the artist and the industry check out Chuck D's MP3 commentary [wired.com] on Wired.com [wired.com].
3) The standard is too young and too unstable to support industry acceptance. Granted, this might change soon, but I would hate to reinvest yet again in a new music format that changes as quickly as technology. Music media formats usually last 15-20 years - do you think people will want to listen to crappy sounding MP'3 in 2015? Probably not. But then again would you want to purchase your music collection over again everytime a new version comes out? I realize this is the weakest of my arguments but it still bothers me. Music is timeless, unlike computer programs. The media should be more stable.
MP3 will be the door to digital music for the masses, it might not be on top in the end, but it is the start of a new era in music. I will refer to the afforementioned Wired.com article to dispense with this further.
Flesh 99, flinging MP3 FUD right out the window
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99