Alternatives to the RIAA labels?

[SD PokeMom]

It's boycott the RIAA week: a week-long protest against the RIAA lawsuits against filesharers. For me, it's not too hard to do; I can count on both, if not one, hand the number of new CDs I've purchased in the past year. Can't say I listen to commercial radio either anymore; there's just nothing played that interests me. If I'm not listening to things I have loaded on my mp3 player when driving, I'm listening to NPR.

So where DOES one find good new music now? Any suggestions?

My personal suggestion would be www.magnatune.com (http://www.magnatune.com/) . It’s an online-based music label out of the SF Bay area. EVERY album in EVERY genre is available streamed, as well as genre-specific “stations” which play a mix of the artists/albums within that genre. As they say on the front page of their site:“We're a record label. But we're not evil. We call it "try before you buy." It's the shareware model applied to music. Listen to hundreds of MP3'd albums from our artists. Or try our genre-based radio stations. If you like what you hear, buy our music online for as little as $5 an album or license our music for commercial use. Artists get a full 50% of the purchase price. And unlike most record labels, our artists keep the rights to their music. Founded by musicians, for musicians. No major label connections.
We are not evil."There’s something for almost anyone, unless you’re a ‘top-40 only’ listener: Classical, Ambient, New Age, Electronica, Punk, Metal, World, Rock…with more being added all the time.

Please don’t fall into the ‘if it was good, it would be on the radio’ trap. When a mere handful of media corporations decide what will be played on it’s stations all over the country, it’s all but impossible for anything ‘out of the box’ to get played...not to mention anything longer than a radio-friendly 3 or 4 minutes.

Contrary to the RIAA-model, Magnatune is working from the philosophy that a label CAN ‘share the wealth’ with it’s artists and succeed. The RIAA insists that it’s going after filesharers to ‘protect’ it’s artists; actually, it’s only protecting its own interests. There is something very very wrong with the RIAA “standard” contracts for artists when a group as commercially successful as the Backstreet Boys were during their heyday made not a penny in CD sales royalties despite the millions upon millions of CDs they sold.:nonono:

I’ve ordered several albums, in different genres; my personal favorite artists are in the ‘ambient’ and “new age” categories. Purchasers decide how much they want to spend when they buy an album from Magnatune…anywhere between $5 and $18. The ‘recommended’ price is $8; 50% of what one pays for an album goes to the artist.

Once PayPal goes through, you’re taken to a page where you can choose what format(s) you’d like to download said album in: .wav, 128k mp3, OGG, FLAC, or vbr-mp3. Download to your HD, burn your own CD, and you’re good to go. :) The only downside to this is if you don’t have broadband, a .wav download can take a LONG time. But the streaming works for everyone, as you can choose a hi-fi or lo-fi stream, depending upon your connection. I like to let the 'mix' streams run for a certain genre, then when something catches my ear, check WinAmp to see who/what's playing; if I like the artist enough, I'll stream their album(s)...then buy.

The “why” of the label, here: http://www.magnatune.com/info/ (http://www.magnatune.com/info/) is very interesting, and eye-opening, considering all the news lately about the RIAA and filesharing,

Any other suggestions as to where to find good, legal downloads of music?

Thanks, and enjoy! :)
'mom

[yoshi1001]

Well, I could make Wizpog Paridise availible again. And then there's What Was that You Said? which I'll be recording soon (hopefully). Then there's ocremix.org, which has lots of great video game remixes (some of which are on PIRN). And then of course there's always that band out of Chicago called Team Rockit (no, I'm not kidding).

And hey, it's my job to rail on the RIAA. ;)

By the way, here's a list of labels affiliated with the RIAA:

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

The list is a little awkward, and I'm sure there are a few omissions.

[SD PokeMom]

Ummm, I'm looking for GOOD, downloadable/purchasable music...in the realm of DAC Crowell, Rapoon, and Ehren Starks, on Magnatune...not videogame remixes...:nonono:

'mom

[yoshi1001]

But someone else might be. You never know.

[onederlnd]

Can't really say this is completely related, but when FNR (Freenode Radio) was around, they had a very large selection of music. Fortunately, there are free sites such as mp3.com (http://www.mp3.com) that allow you to get a taste of great music.

[GymLeaderPhil]

I'm a TMBG junkie (Particle Man, Istanbul, Birdhouse in Your Soul, etc.) They have several ways to recieve some free music... to screw "tha man"

TMBG Clock Radio - http://www.tmbg.com/radio.html
You have to download this Flash program to your computer, but it three different channels: Rare Tracks, Current Releases, and Live Recordings.

Dial A Song Online - http://www.dialasong.com
A bunch of demos and rarities.

Original Dial A Song - 718-387-6962
25 hours a day, 6 days a week. Free when you call from work. Always busy, often broken.

On another note, if your willing to pick up the phone, you might want to download this MP3 to go bug the RIAA: http://www.zug.com/pranks/riaa
-Phil

[UncleBob]

While I have nothing against independant lables and such, I must say the entire "Boycott the RIAA" stuff is nothing but a load of horsepooie.

The RIAA is simply protecting their rights. If someone was screwing you over, wouldn't you try to protect yourself? If someone started stealing from you, wouldn't you want to put a stop to it?

I've heard thousands of excuses ("I'm too poor", "The RIAA is evil", etc...) but what it simply comes down to is, if someone is downloading illegal MP3 files, they deserve to be punished. That's what I love about today's world. It's all take, take, take, gimme, gimme, gimme, except, of course, when someone is *taking* from you, then you're the first to cry foul.

[yoshi1001]

The RIAA has been accused of (and basically admitted to) price fixing. I don't support file sharing in the least, but there are enough other reasons to dislike the RIAA. They're ignorant, slow to change, and greedy. They don't understand technology at all and need to be taught a lesson.

[UncleBob]

Excellent! Wanting to dislike the RIAA is just dandy - if you do it for the right reasons.

Disliking them because they want to protect their rights is *not* a valid excuse.

Many of these other reasons may or may ot be good reasons to dislike them, no doubt, though when it all comes down to it I'm left wondering how many people actually care about how much money the artists make or what types of music the RIAA-related companies press out (most of the independant stuff sounds like the same crap you can buy in stores) and how much they actually care about the fact that the RIAA is saying "Hey, stop being dirty, cheap THIEVES and stop STEALING from us and everyone in the industry. Get some RESPECT for yourself and others."...

[SD PokeMom]

I don't Kazaa; never have, never will.

But I have NO RESPECT for the RIAA with their stance that they are 'protecting' the artists from thieves. They're not; they're protecting their own fief...and could very easily be considered the thieves, themselves.

The vast majority of recording artists make NOTHING in royalties for CD sales...because EVERY PENNY of 'expenses' has to be made back before any royalties are paid. As I said above, commercially successful performers like the Backstreet Boys have made NOTHING on their CD sales because of the creative accounting practices prevalent in this industry. Performers make their money by doing concerts and selling merchandise.

Read the reasons John Buckman had for starting Magnatune, and read the articles singer/songwriter Janis Ian wrote, here: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html and the follow-up article, here: http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html .

The industry itself is corrupt. Add to that the corporate control of the airwaves, and you have a snake eating it's own tail: nothing 'new' can be played, because it doesn't sell...and nothing 'new' can sell, because it doesn't get airplay. If it doesn't fit firmly into that 'adult-contemporary' or 'smooth jazz' or whatever box...ClearChannel or whoever won't program it for their thousands of stations. And you wonder why radio all sounds 'the same' even when you travel from city to city or state to state, down to the station ID jingles?

Artists themselves dispute what the RIAA is doing in their names; read some of the artist bios on Magnatune or these articles from Zeropaid.com: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09122003f.php and http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09112003i.php .

'mom

[UncleBob]

Again, it goes back to exactly what I said before. If you want to hate the RIAA, there are plenty of possible "just" reasons.

But I have NO RESPECT for the RIAA with their stance that they are 'protecting' the artists from thieves. They're not; they're protecting their own fief...
What? Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves?

Here's the interesting thing. Some artists/entertainers complain about how their record label treats them... Now I wasn't there when it happened, but I serously doubt any record label ever held a pistol to a kitten's head and said "Sign this or the kitten gets it!". No, what typically happens is the label gives the artist/entertainer a fair deal at the time, then the artist/entertainer hits it big and they want *more* - which, in theory, they should be entitled to. But the thing is, if the label put up the majority of the money (risk) to produce the album, shouldn't they get the money made (reward) from the album? Think of it this way, you have a friend going to Las Vegas. You give your friend $1 to throw in a slot machine for you. If it hits, you should get the majority of the money from it. If it misses, you're SOL. Same thing. The label gives the artist $X to produce an album. If it hits, the label should get the majority of the money. If it misses, the label is SOL...

And one thing I get sick of hearing is the "All music on the radio sounds the same" arguement. A radio station is (typically, NPR-type stations aside) a business. They're here to make money. Unless this business is in a large market, they're not going to make money by catering to a nitch market. No advertiser in their right mind will pay to have their commericals played on a radio station with about two or three dozen listners. And what it comes down to is, unfortunatly, the general population doesn't want to hear much more than Top-40 format radio and the like. (What's amusing is THIEVES who download music try to use this arguement that they want different music than what's on the radio , etc... - and yet the same copyrighted canned product that is on the radio is what they're downloading...)

Granted, I'm sure that some of the angery people are mad at the RIAA because of their practices, but how much uproar did you hear about them before all this MP3 hoopla started?

[SD PokeMom]

The problem is, there ARE NO 'niche markets' when it comes to broadcast radio anymore, not with huge chains like ClearChannel buying up stations left and right with the blessing of the FCC.

Right here in San Diego, ClearChannel owns TWELVE radio stations. So where is the 'choice'? Where is the non-corporate controlled programming? How does a 'niche' artist break into a tightly controlled playlist? They don't.

As for a 'fair deal' contract wise...no, a standard one, which is a take-it-or-leave-it situation. Did you read Janis Ian's articles? How can it be 'fair' for the company to lock up an artist's work to the point where even if the label lets the album(s) go out of print, the artist is still not allowed to even make a LIVE, different recording of a song from said album available on their own website? It sounds like classic dog in the manger: we don't want to re-issue the work, but YOU can't, either.

Perhaps the thing about the label making back studio costs, etc. made more sense in the days when studio time ran into the hundreds of dollars per hour. With the advent of digital recording and multitracking, those costs are minimal; an album like David Gray's "White Ladder" was done in a HOME, or personal studio. Where are the costs to the label for studio time when they are presented with a completed master?

The industry itself if corrupt, and has been long before the mp3 controversy...look at the cases of artists from the 50s, for example who had huge hits yet never made a penny from them because of fraud. Look at payola...which still continues today: pay to get the song inserted into radio playlists.

That's why the future is on the internet, with internet 'radio' and labels such as Magnatune. Why do you think the RIAA, etc. were lobbying so hard for the outrageously high royalty rates internet radio is charged as opposed to broadcast radio? Because the industry as it stands does not control internet broadcasts...and it is a THREAT. What they can't control, they'll try to destroy.

'mom

[yoshi1001]

"Why do you think the RIAA, etc. were lobbying so hard for the outrageously high royalty rates internet radio is charged as opposed to broadcast radio? Because the industry as it stands does not control internet broadcasts...and it is a THREAT. What they can't control, they'll try to destroy."

Yep.

By the way, if you're wondering where that money I'm paying (okay, Live365 is paying for me) goes? RIAA lawers. Seriously, until those millions or so in legal expenses they've incurred fighting this is paid, the artists won't see a penny.

Of course, my friend Russ (http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_telecom.html) has some ideas about Clearchannel.

[tyais]

In the words of Bill Maher, "The record industry execs are pimps without people skills." Overcharging for something that isn't there's and they shouldn't be tapping into at all.

The RIAA could legitimately win all these cases they're bringing out, but, I'm seriously waiting for some band from some label who gets into the RIAA to find some decent lawyers and sue the pants of the RIAA, because that too is a legitimate case.

[UncleBob]

The problem is, there ARE NO 'niche markets' when it comes to broadcast radio anymore, not with huge chains like ClearChannel buying up stations left and right with the blessing of the FCC.

The lack of 'nitch market' stations is not due to who owns the stations. It's due to the fact that a station can rarely run profitable when it caters to a nitch market. Look at some of the numbers provided by some of the "nitch" Internet Radio stations - and pretty much *anyone* can listen to these stations (not just those who live in the area). They have few listners. Why? Because not enough people want to listen to them...

Right here in San Diego, ClearChannel owns TWELVE radio stations. So where is the 'choice'? Where is the non-corporate controlled programming? How does a 'niche' artist break into a tightly controlled playlist? They don't.

I never said there was much of a choice. I simply said that a radio station is a business. They are there to make a profit, not to please every single person out there.

As for a 'fair deal' contract wise...no, a standard one, which is a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

What's wrong with that? If the contracts were soooo horribly bad, then no artists/entertainers would sign them and the lables would be out of business - n'est pas?

Did you read Janis Ian's articles? How can it be 'fair' for the company to lock up an artist's work to the point where even if the label lets the album(s) go out of print, the artist is still not allowed to even make a LIVE, different recording of a song from said album available on their own website? It sounds like classic dog in the manger: we don't want to re-issue the work, but YOU can't, either.

Hey, if I shelled out tons of *my* cash producing and promoting a product, I'd probably not be thrilled with someone else profiting from it. Think about it, LabelX spends thousands to produce a song, get it played on the air, get it put on the soundtrack to the hot summer movie, etc., etc... the song gets big and catches on. Then, the artist/entertainer decides they want to leave LabelX and re-release the song (that, most likely, never would have never really made it popular if it wern't for the money LabelX spent) and make a bunch of cash off of it. Is that fair?

Perhaps the thing about the label making back studio costs, etc. made more sense in the days when studio time ran into the hundreds of dollars per hour. With the advent of digital recording and multitracking, those costs are minimal; an album like David Gray's "White Ladder" was done in a HOME, or personal studio. Where are the costs to the label for studio time when they are presented with a completed master?

There's more than studio costs to making a CD. Who pays to mass produces the CDs? The packaging, the shipping, the promotion... etc... It sure as heck isn't the artist/entertainer. Not to mention if the studio has to do any further editing to the CD...

[quote]The industry itself if corrupt, and has been long before the mp3 controversy...[...blah blah...][quote]

I don't doubt that at all. Most big industry probably is corrupt in some way or anther. My point is, very few people seemed to care what the industry did. Now that the RIAA is going after people for stealing from them, everyone and their brother has an anti-RIAA site with stories about how the RIAA is evil. It's like Metallica. As soon as they complained/went after Napster, suddenly all these Anti-Metallica sites started popping up complaining about how bad their music sucks... (which opens the question, why would you be downloading it if it sucked?)

Again, I'm not saying the RIAA is right in it's business practices. My initial and main point is all of this "Boycott the RIAA because it wants to protect its rights" BS is nothing but that - BS. The majority of it is nothing but "Boycott the RIAA because they won't let us have unlimited, uncontrolled free music."

[yoshi1001]

"What's wrong with that? If the contracts were soooo horribly bad, then no artists/entertainers would sign them and the lables would be out of business - n'est pas?"

Actually, most groups make their money on tour, but in order to tour they need to make music. See how it works?

[onederlnd]

Most bands dont make much money on tour, since the tour typically costs as much as the money they'd make.

[yoshi1001]

More money than they make selling CDs.

[PokePop]

Most bands don't make money.

Period.

[yoshi1001]

Why do you think I broadcast music instead of trying to sell it?

Mewtwo: I thought that it was because you couldn't sing.

I can sing.

Mewtwo: Walk the Bulbasaur proves otherwise.

I'd like to hear you sing.

Mewtwo: Really?

No.

Anyway, the point is most musicians aren't making the money they deserve, when they're doing the real work (trust me, producing, packagin, and marketing is nowhere near as difficult).

I should point out, hoewever, that I'm not boycotting the RIAA. Call me a hypocrite, but as much as I hate them, most of the music on PIRN is created by their labels (specifically, Koch, Atlantic, and Rhino). I may not like them, but I don't feel not buying their stuff.

[UncleBob]

Actually, most groups make their money on tour, but in order to tour they need to make music. See how it works?

(About the contract thing) Are you saying there's absolutly no way for an artist/entertainer to make music without an RIAA-labeled contract?

[yoshi1001]

No, but it's the best way (seemingly) to reach a mass audience. Many groups start on small time labels then work their way "up."

[UncleBob]

Exactly! These new artists/entertainers want instnat/fast success and fame, so they try to take the easy route. No one makes them sign the contract - they choose to do it because, as an artist/entertainer, they don't have the time or money to invest into what it takes to make it *big*. So, in the contract they agree to, they get all this stuff done for them (at the label's risk). Then, once they're big (thanks to all the promoting and such from their label) and they decide they don't like their label (possibly for good reason), they want to leave and run off of the success that the label created for them.

Anywhoo...

[SD PokeMom]

But again, how does the 'small, beginner label' get any airplay for its artists if it doesn't have the $$ for payola? How do they get their artists into the concert venues which are also owned by ClearChannel? How do they get their CDs into large chain stores without being forced into giving them a ruinously high discount as the 'price' for getting them into the store?

It's STILL a Catch-22: the way the industry is set up now, you're locked out UNLESS you go with the large label and its standard contract, whether it's 'good' for you or not. That's why I hope to god things like Magnatune take off and not only prove that a label CAN treat its artists fairly but also show that there IS a market for music different than what's played on the radio.

'mom

[yoshi1001]

It's not that simple. First of all, I don't know how much better (if at all) the minor labels are. Second, whichever route the artist chooses, the path is not easy. Ever seen the show "Making the Band"? That should give you an idea of how "easy" it is to break into music.

[onederlnd]

Making The Band is full of crap, I'm sorry, but it is. Too many bands are "put together" and most of the time the band isnt in it for the love of the music. They are in it for the big bucks, and fame. Same goes for most jobs nowdays. Compairing a REAL band, and a manufactured band isnt a very good comparison.


Anyway, the point is most musicians aren't making the money they deserve, when they're doing the real work (trust me, producing, packagin, and marketing is nowhere near as difficult).
Why do you say "trust me", have you spent the time doing every ne of those jobs? Are you so knowledgeable about every aspect of those jobs? I'm sorry to say, but the jobs of the producing, packing and marketing teams go much further than what you seem to think it is.

[yoshi1001]

"Making The Band is full of crap, I'm sorry, but it is."

I never said it was a quality show. I was merely using it to demonstrate the difficulties entailed in being a performer

"Too many bands are "put together" and most of the time the band isnt in it for the love of the music."

Perhaps.

"They are in it for the big bucks, and fame."

Neither of which are assured

"Same goes for most jobs nowdays."

Money, maybe, but not fame. Most jobs have roughly zero prospect for fame. Then again, as the song goes:

"There is no total logic, it's just a simple game
But everyone's out there for the glory and fame
I guess they are
I guess they will
I guess they do
That's just the way things are here through and through"

-Wizpog Paradise

"Compairing a REAL band, and a manufactured band isnt a very good comparison."

Depends for what purposes you're comparing them.

[UncleBob]

Yes, if you're an artist/entertainer on a non-RIAA label, it's hard to get your name ot there. After all, you don't have the connections that RIAA labels has with stores, radio stations, promoters and all.

Which is what you get with your standard RIAA contract. They use their already existant connections to help promote you - at their cost.

Why should a Clear Channel station play music from an artist/entertainer who's never done a thing for Clear Channel when they can easily promote an artist/entertainer who's affiliated with someone who *does* do things for them? Seriously, let's say you have an extra seat in your car for a road trip. You have two people wanting to go. Are you going to bring the one that's never really stuck their neck out for you, or the one who helped fix your fan belt?

[Broken Lizard]

I for one am really glad that Clear Channel owns most of the radio stations in this country!

Fortunately, they also own most of the concert venues.

In fact, they own most of the songs the artists play!

That way, we can be sure that we will always get the same homogenized mediocrity we've all come to know and love... FOREVER. :clap:

[yoshi1001]

'Why should a Clear Channel station play music from an artist/entertainer who's never done a thing for Clear Channel when they can easily promote an artist/entertainer who's affiliated with someone who *does* do things for them? Seriously, let's say you have an extra seat in your car for a road trip. You have two people wanting to go. Are you going to bring the one that's never really stuck their neck out for you, or the one who helped fix your fan belt?"

Depends, how long is the car ride? The second person might be really annoying. ;)

Remember, what is montitarily adventageous is not neccessarily the correct thing to do. It may explain actions, but it is not always right.

Life is far more complex than anyone ever gives it credit.

[onederlnd]

yoshi: No offense, but your attempt at witty remarks is annoying.

Secondly, when you made that post to me, you never did answer the second half.

[UncleBob]

Anywhoo, my main point isn't if the RIAA is good or evil, right or wrong. I don't agree with everything they do, but then again, I look at some of these complaints that other people bring up and all I can do is scratch my head and wonder where they come up with this crap.

My main point is this: If the RIAA wants to go after people who are stealing from them, they should have every right in the world to do so. Arranging and supporting boycotts because of this is stupid, petty, and just plain ignorant. If you want to arrange/support a boycott of them for another (good) reason, by all means, do so. Just make sure you know what you're protesting against before you do it, kay?

[onederlnd]

I have to agree. Boycotting when you dont understand the situation does show your ignorance. As long as you understand what you are boycotting, I'll support your ideals.

[yoshi1001]

yoshi: No offense, but your attempt at witty remarks is annoying.

Secondly, when you made that post to me, you never did answer the second half.

1. It's my style, I enjoy humor. I feel it's my duty to try and liven things up a little.
2. The reason I never answered the second part of your post is I didn't have an answer for it.

[onederlnd]

Do yourself a favor and dont make false comments like that, it only shows ignorance.

I'm not going to try to stop you in your humor. I have a very leveled sense of humor, I just thought I'd let you know that some of us are starting to find it annoying :) Now, enough chatting.

I think I'm going to leave this topic as it is since things are now off topic.

[PokePop]

Back on topic please.
Personal complaints (such as would be made when someone uses the phrase "as the song goes" when quoting one of their own songs) can be made by PM.