But will they accept Songsmith songs?
July 20, 2009 1:42 AM Subscribe
The Rock Band Network allows any band to make their songs playable in Rock Band, "set their own price (50 cents to $3 per song) and receive 30% of any resulting sales."
I have Rock Band on the PS3. I really hope that eventually it shifts from the "popular" tracks migrating to the PS3 to just ALL of them being cross platform.
That said, this could end up being REALLY cool, potentially. I suppose we'll see though.
posted by Stunt at 2:08 AM on July 20, 2009
That said, this could end up being REALLY cool, potentially. I suppose we'll see though.
posted by Stunt at 2:08 AM on July 20, 2009
I am a musician and I love videogames. I can play most of the songs on guitar hero on a real guitar, but I like the game too.
So much of the criticism of games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band over the last few years seems to have revolved around the complete creativity disconnect. The user is not paying a real instrument, and is only playing content provided by the game. There isn't really a great creative component.
This functionality is what I've been waiting to see happen for years now. This is a great, great thing.
I mean really, so many possible applications.
Another key partnership is with the software developer Cockos, which customized a version of its Reaper audio production application that developers will use to program the audio stems needed to create each instrument and vocal track within "Rock Band." Reaper will also allow developers to customize the avatars, camera angles and lighting for the background video rather than using the automatically generated default setting. Cockos is working with Audible Magic and Gracenote to identify rights holders.
How about an indie band maps out their entire tour. Modeling the actual clubs. Released online for a buck. 4 hours before the show, on the day, globally. With 1 new track from the album they are touring for added per night, and then supplemented with artwork or interviews or club promotion or promotion for the opening acts. Maybe they take some photos or meet some fans after each show. Maybe they release patches for past shows with their art team modelling the avatars on the fans they met that were actually there. Maybe people that come to a show and buy a record or a t-shirt have a chance to be in the game. Maybe they record the shows and add live tracks from each show as free content to supplement the studio record.
And of course, the most hopeful aspect being the woman or man that hasn't ever played a show but likes to record music as a hobby. They have a friend who is good with computers, and acts as their Creator for 3 songs. Maybe 1 of them turns out to be a really damn good song that's fun to play. Maybe it sells 100k copies of the song at a buck a pop. And now that fledgling artist has 30k to spend on a studio album.
Maybe Merge records puts their whole catalog on it. $1.00 to purchase audio files of every song (like iTunes) and an extra $0.75 to purchase the game audio file.
Yes, xbox only for now, and Microsoft has it's hooks in it, and MTV owns Harmonix and has ultimate approval rights, and yadda yadda yadda. There are a lot of things that could fuck it up. It pretty much boils down to this quote:
"Recorded music on its own no longer leads the charge for artists," MTV's DeGooyer says. "It's now this aggregated value proposition of recorded music, touring, merch, branding, Web presence and now videogames . . . If we get this right, music creators will start to think about what they're releasing in terms of interactivity."
If they get this right, it will a Good Thing.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:18 AM on July 20, 2009 [9 favorites]
So much of the criticism of games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band over the last few years seems to have revolved around the complete creativity disconnect. The user is not paying a real instrument, and is only playing content provided by the game. There isn't really a great creative component.
This functionality is what I've been waiting to see happen for years now. This is a great, great thing.
I mean really, so many possible applications.
Another key partnership is with the software developer Cockos, which customized a version of its Reaper audio production application that developers will use to program the audio stems needed to create each instrument and vocal track within "Rock Band." Reaper will also allow developers to customize the avatars, camera angles and lighting for the background video rather than using the automatically generated default setting. Cockos is working with Audible Magic and Gracenote to identify rights holders.
How about an indie band maps out their entire tour. Modeling the actual clubs. Released online for a buck. 4 hours before the show, on the day, globally. With 1 new track from the album they are touring for added per night, and then supplemented with artwork or interviews or club promotion or promotion for the opening acts. Maybe they take some photos or meet some fans after each show. Maybe they release patches for past shows with their art team modelling the avatars on the fans they met that were actually there. Maybe people that come to a show and buy a record or a t-shirt have a chance to be in the game. Maybe they record the shows and add live tracks from each show as free content to supplement the studio record.
And of course, the most hopeful aspect being the woman or man that hasn't ever played a show but likes to record music as a hobby. They have a friend who is good with computers, and acts as their Creator for 3 songs. Maybe 1 of them turns out to be a really damn good song that's fun to play. Maybe it sells 100k copies of the song at a buck a pop. And now that fledgling artist has 30k to spend on a studio album.
Maybe Merge records puts their whole catalog on it. $1.00 to purchase audio files of every song (like iTunes) and an extra $0.75 to purchase the game audio file.
Yes, xbox only for now, and Microsoft has it's hooks in it, and MTV owns Harmonix and has ultimate approval rights, and yadda yadda yadda. There are a lot of things that could fuck it up. It pretty much boils down to this quote:
"Recorded music on its own no longer leads the charge for artists," MTV's DeGooyer says. "It's now this aggregated value proposition of recorded music, touring, merch, branding, Web presence and now videogames . . . If we get this right, music creators will start to think about what they're releasing in terms of interactivity."
If they get this right, it will a Good Thing.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:18 AM on July 20, 2009 [9 favorites]
What happens if a "real" (read: established) band decides they want to do this? I wonder what will happen when a band tries to go over the heads of its label (and we all know that someone will).
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:07 AM
Yeah I imagine a bunch of recording contracts are going to get about 3 paragraphs longer and a new sub-heading soon.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:27 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:07 AM
Yeah I imagine a bunch of recording contracts are going to get about 3 paragraphs longer and a new sub-heading soon.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:27 AM on July 20, 2009
I can't wait to see some Metafilter Music people start using this.
posted by sambosambo at 2:42 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by sambosambo at 2:42 AM on July 20, 2009
What happens if a "real" (read: established) band decides they want to do this? I wonder what will happen when a band tries to go over the heads of its label (and we all know that someone will).
It's been a few years since I saw a recording contract but they tended to have catch-all clauses for all kinds different media. Many contracts had to be re-negotiated when the CD format arrived and since then they've tried to cover ever possible option.
The great thing about the way the music industry is going is that the old record company model is becoming, if not completely redundant, marginalised. Access to any act & their music is so direct and easy and the smart people in the industry are coming up with ever more creative ways to get stuff out there.
But...they have to get it right as lazaruslong says.
The App Store model seems to be spreading.
posted by i_cola at 2:44 AM on July 20, 2009
It's been a few years since I saw a recording contract but they tended to have catch-all clauses for all kinds different media. Many contracts had to be re-negotiated when the CD format arrived and since then they've tried to cover ever possible option.
The great thing about the way the music industry is going is that the old record company model is becoming, if not completely redundant, marginalised. Access to any act & their music is so direct and easy and the smart people in the industry are coming up with ever more creative ways to get stuff out there.
But...they have to get it right as lazaruslong says.
The App Store model seems to be spreading.
posted by i_cola at 2:44 AM on July 20, 2009
Most main stream large selling recording artists don't own their songs or the recordings of the songs. Legally speaking, they would be in as much trouble for trying to sell "their" music as you or I would be. There is no legal need to change the contract.
posted by idiopath at 2:48 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by idiopath at 2:48 AM on July 20, 2009
I'd love to include some ambient tunes. Push the green button in bar 1 and the red one in bar 32. Tempo = 50bpm. Mmm.
posted by hoskala at 3:10 AM on July 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by hoskala at 3:10 AM on July 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
lazaruslong So much of the criticism of games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band over the last few years seems to have revolved around the complete creativity disconnect. The user is not paying a real instrument, and is only playing content provided by the game. There isn't really a great creative component.
Definitely. One of the many, many things that annoy me about those games is that you can't record yourself and play yourself back all without the prepackaged content, nor can you just play whatever random tunes you want. You must attempt to duplicate a sequence that some other person created. There's not even as much scope for you to have input as there is in Super Mario. It's the ultimate game of dumb compliance.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:13 AM on July 20, 2009
Definitely. One of the many, many things that annoy me about those games is that you can't record yourself and play yourself back all without the prepackaged content, nor can you just play whatever random tunes you want. You must attempt to duplicate a sequence that some other person created. There's not even as much scope for you to have input as there is in Super Mario. It's the ultimate game of dumb compliance.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:13 AM on July 20, 2009
Its an interesting idea, but I'd like to see more clarity on the numbers.
So the bands get to keep 30%? A little hard to view this as a fair deal since, by Steve Jobs' own admission when discussing iTunes, "Apple only keeps 30 percent of each program’s sales price, passing the other 70 percent to the publisher".
So where is this particular 70% going then?
If this were being rolled out by a small startup I'd suggest the cut might be fair as they'd have to fund a relatively large infrastructure and hire people to provide the service, but I'm kind of thinking MTV already has ample facilities in place, as well as access to necessary technical and business talent, so the money does in fact concern me as the bands should be treated fairly here.
I would suspect some is going for copyright fees (content as well as the platform creators), etc, but a breakdown of the numbers would go a long way towards assuaging my fears that a disproportionate part of that 70% would simply end up in Viacom's coffers.
posted by Mutant at 3:40 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
So the bands get to keep 30%? A little hard to view this as a fair deal since, by Steve Jobs' own admission when discussing iTunes, "Apple only keeps 30 percent of each program’s sales price, passing the other 70 percent to the publisher".
So where is this particular 70% going then?
If this were being rolled out by a small startup I'd suggest the cut might be fair as they'd have to fund a relatively large infrastructure and hire people to provide the service, but I'm kind of thinking MTV already has ample facilities in place, as well as access to necessary technical and business talent, so the money does in fact concern me as the bands should be treated fairly here.
I would suspect some is going for copyright fees (content as well as the platform creators), etc, but a breakdown of the numbers would go a long way towards assuaging my fears that a disproportionate part of that 70% would simply end up in Viacom's coffers.
posted by Mutant at 3:40 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd love to include some ambient tunes. Push the green button in bar 1 and the red one in bar 32. Tempo = 50bpm. Mmm.
posted by hoskala
Rock Band: Sunn 0)))
posted by slimepuppy at 3:50 AM on July 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by hoskala
Rock Band: Sunn 0)))
posted by slimepuppy at 3:50 AM on July 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
So MTV/Harmonix are outsourcing all the actual work to the bands to do themselves (for nothing) and then paying them (probably) a smaller percentage (30%) than they paid for say The Beatles to License an album where MTV / Harmonix do the work.
posted by mary8nne at 4:05 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by mary8nne at 4:05 AM on July 20, 2009
I can't wait to see some Metafilter Music people start using this.
posted by sambosambo at 5:42 AM on July 20 [+] [!]
matthewchen is JAMMIN'!
posted by emelenjr at 4:24 AM on July 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by sambosambo at 5:42 AM on July 20 [+] [!]
matthewchen is JAMMIN'!
posted by emelenjr at 4:24 AM on July 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Interesting. I'd seen this news, but didn't know that Cockos was involved. That's the latest project of Justin Frankel, who created WinAMP, Shoutcast, and Gnutella.
posted by CaseyB at 4:32 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by CaseyB at 4:32 AM on July 20, 2009
As for the 30%- It notes that Harmonix-trained freelancers do the actual note coding, no small task. So that's part of that 70%, it's not pure greed.
posted by GilloD at 5:15 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by GilloD at 5:15 AM on July 20, 2009
It notes that Harmonix-trained freelancers do the actual note coding
Maybe I'm dense, but this is a little unclear to me, because it also seems that the Reaper plug will allow the submitting artist or label to chart the songs, too. And yeah, 30% is a small amount, maybe too small, but when you consider the scope of the infrastructure (which includes a dedicated appliance that users paid a whole lot of dough for), it could be worse.
posted by uncleozzy at 5:30 AM on July 20, 2009
Maybe I'm dense, but this is a little unclear to me, because it also seems that the Reaper plug will allow the submitting artist or label to chart the songs, too. And yeah, 30% is a small amount, maybe too small, but when you consider the scope of the infrastructure (which includes a dedicated appliance that users paid a whole lot of dough for), it could be worse.
posted by uncleozzy at 5:30 AM on July 20, 2009
Am I the only one who is disturbed that the artist only gets one third of the income from their own output? Am I reading that right? So, does a typical label or agent really take 70%?
posted by nax at 5:33 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by nax at 5:33 AM on July 20, 2009
The note-coding will be done by freelancers? I guess that's better than doing it automagically (sorry, Audiosurf), but I'm still very wary--rhythm games live and die by the note patterns, and if the patterns in the Rock Band Network songs are consistently inferior, the RBN will quickly become about as popular as Xbox Live community games.
posted by box at 5:58 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by box at 5:58 AM on July 20, 2009
Am I the only one who is disturbed that the artist only gets one third of the income from their own output? Am I reading that right? So, does a typical label or agent really take 70%?
We believe in wealth concentration. Payments made to labor are dissipation.
posted by nervousfritz at 6:03 AM on July 20, 2009
We believe in wealth concentration. Payments made to labor are dissipation.
posted by nervousfritz at 6:03 AM on July 20, 2009
So where is this particular 70% going then?
I'm sure MTV/Harmonix takes a cut, then MS/Xbox Live takes a cut. Its the same reason music costs $1.99 if you download it over your cellphone vs 99c/1.29 on iTunes - not only is the music distributor taking a 30% cut, so is the cell phone company. At some point you have to make the pie larger so those 30% numbers are sufficiently large to appease all parties involved.
MS originally took up to 60% of XNA (indie developer/home made) games, until the App store paradigm hit and they reduced it to 30% across the board.
posted by SirOmega at 6:23 AM on July 20, 2009
I'm sure MTV/Harmonix takes a cut, then MS/Xbox Live takes a cut. Its the same reason music costs $1.99 if you download it over your cellphone vs 99c/1.29 on iTunes - not only is the music distributor taking a 30% cut, so is the cell phone company. At some point you have to make the pie larger so those 30% numbers are sufficiently large to appease all parties involved.
MS originally took up to 60% of XNA (indie developer/home made) games, until the App store paradigm hit and they reduced it to 30% across the board.
posted by SirOmega at 6:23 AM on July 20, 2009
> It's the ultimate game of dumb compliance.
Yeah, I liked it better when it was called Simon. That snarked, the more money making its way to hard-working bands, the better.
posted by you just lost the game at 7:13 AM on July 20, 2009
Yeah, I liked it better when it was called Simon. That snarked, the more money making its way to hard-working bands, the better.
posted by you just lost the game at 7:13 AM on July 20, 2009
So MTV/Harmonix are outsourcing all the actual work to the bands to do themselves (for nothing) and then paying them (probably) a smaller percentage (30%) than they paid for say The Beatles to License an album where MTV / Harmonix do the work.
I would hope that most bands would get a smaller percentage than The Beatles.
posted by jscott at 7:29 AM on July 20, 2009
I would hope that most bands would get a smaller percentage than The Beatles.
posted by jscott at 7:29 AM on July 20, 2009
One of the many, many things that annoy me about those games is that you can't record yourself and play yourself back all without the prepackaged content, nor can you just play whatever random tunes you want. You must attempt to duplicate a sequence that some other person created.
That's what musical instruments are for.
That said, there are drum fills in Rockband where you can free form it, and there's a freestyle mode in both games for the drums.
If you buy the Drum Rocker kit for Rockband you've actually got a full midi drum kit that you can play real music on if you like:
For Example
(that's not Rock Band, that's a guy just playing free form over the song.)
posted by empath at 7:42 AM on July 20, 2009
That's what musical instruments are for.
That said, there are drum fills in Rockband where you can free form it, and there's a freestyle mode in both games for the drums.
If you buy the Drum Rocker kit for Rockband you've actually got a full midi drum kit that you can play real music on if you like:
For Example
(that's not Rock Band, that's a guy just playing free form over the song.)
posted by empath at 7:42 AM on July 20, 2009
So the bands get to keep 30%? A little hard to view this as a fair deal since, by Steve Jobs' own admission when discussing iTunes, "Apple only keeps 30 percent of each program’s sales price, passing the other 70 percent to the publisher".
So where is this particular 70% going then?
Some goes to us (Harmonix), some goes to Microsoft, who is providing the infrastructure for the whole thing. Microsoft takes a significant cut of regular DLC too.
posted by dfan at 7:49 AM on July 20, 2009
So where is this particular 70% going then?
Some goes to us (Harmonix), some goes to Microsoft, who is providing the infrastructure for the whole thing. Microsoft takes a significant cut of regular DLC too.
posted by dfan at 7:49 AM on July 20, 2009
As for the 30%- It notes that Harmonix-trained freelancers do the actual note coding, no small task.
The article was a little confusing on this subject. You (the band/label/freelance guy you hire) do all the tracking/authoring/note-placement; we just vet it.
posted by dfan at 7:51 AM on July 20, 2009
The article was a little confusing on this subject. You (the band/label/freelance guy you hire) do all the tracking/authoring/note-placement; we just vet it.
posted by dfan at 7:51 AM on July 20, 2009
we just vet it
I would expect, having been around for the age of custom DDR layouts, that that vetting is no small task itself-- would that be a correct assumption?
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 8:05 AM on July 20, 2009
I would expect, having been around for the age of custom DDR layouts, that that vetting is no small task itself-- would that be a correct assumption?
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 8:05 AM on July 20, 2009
I can't wait to see some Metafilter Music people start using this.
I can hear strains of Jingle Rock Bell already...
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 8:12 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can hear strains of Jingle Rock Bell already...
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 8:12 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can't wait to see some Metafilter Music people start using this.
I wonder if it will be ready by Halloween. I have a very bad plan that could make me 30 cents.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:34 AM on July 20, 2009
I wonder if it will be ready by Halloween. I have a very bad plan that could make me 30 cents.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:34 AM on July 20, 2009
Am I the only one who is disturbed that the artist only gets one third of the income from their own output? Am I reading that right? So, does a typical label or agent really take 70%?
Obviously, this wouldn't be a good deal for a band that has a high enough profile that Harmonix would seek them out. But I think a lot of indie bands would jump at the chance to do this. And maybe even some one-hit wonders from the 60s and 70s. Or people who play regional sub-genres like Go-Go that might sell huge in DC and no where else...
posted by empath at 8:34 AM on July 20, 2009
Obviously, this wouldn't be a good deal for a band that has a high enough profile that Harmonix would seek them out. But I think a lot of indie bands would jump at the chance to do this. And maybe even some one-hit wonders from the 60s and 70s. Or people who play regional sub-genres like Go-Go that might sell huge in DC and no where else...
posted by empath at 8:34 AM on July 20, 2009
Is it asking too much to have "Punch 'em in the Dick" available for Rock Band?
posted by explosion at 8:39 AM on July 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by explosion at 8:39 AM on July 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Am I the only one who is disturbed that the artist only gets one third of the income from their own output? Am I reading that right? So, does a typical label or agent really take 70%?
That's still 200% more than CD sales or iTunes song sales, where the artist gets a measly 10%.
posted by tybeet at 9:12 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's still 200% more than CD sales or iTunes song sales, where the artist gets a measly 10%.
posted by tybeet at 9:12 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sweet. Anybody know if you can "gift" tracks or how that works? I wanna have some more music the next time we can wangle DaShiv into setting up his kit for us to screw around on.
posted by klangklangston at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2009
Rock Band: Sunn 0)))
Heh.
Rock Band: Music for Airports
Rock Band: AMM
posted by porn in the woods at 10:15 AM on July 20, 2009
Heh.
Rock Band: Music for Airports
Rock Band: AMM
posted by porn in the woods at 10:15 AM on July 20, 2009
I love playing Rock Band, but the limited song choices have always been my biggest complaint.
My wet dream would be if you could upload songs from your own collection to Rock Band, say from your ipod or computer.
posted by too bad you're not me at 10:31 AM on July 20, 2009
My wet dream would be if you could upload songs from your own collection to Rock Band, say from your ipod or computer.
posted by too bad you're not me at 10:31 AM on July 20, 2009
That's still 200% more than CD sales or iTunes song sales, where the artist gets a measly 10%.
To be fair, Harmonix is saying the 30% goes to the music owners, which in this case is probably the label. So whatever cut the artist gets comes out of that 30%.
Publisher contracts and royalty issues aside, this is awesome. I've felt for a long time now that the Rock Band model was being held back by the limited stream of DLC, and wondered if Harmonix could just hire a boatload more music programmers and somehow pay them back with the increased DLC revenue. This sounds like a solution that could benefit those of us looking for more eclectic selections that Harmonix would never be able to produce, even though they've actually been pretty good at covering lesser-known artists (TWO songs from Lush is more than I would have ever hoped for).
The one thing that sucks is the 360 exclusivity, though it makes sense given the tie-in with the XNA Creators program. I really, really, REALLY hope Harmonix can hammer out an agreement with the Playstation Network, or else I'll be one sad puppy until I cave and buy YET ANOTHER set.
posted by chrominance at 10:55 AM on July 20, 2009
To be fair, Harmonix is saying the 30% goes to the music owners, which in this case is probably the label. So whatever cut the artist gets comes out of that 30%.
Publisher contracts and royalty issues aside, this is awesome. I've felt for a long time now that the Rock Band model was being held back by the limited stream of DLC, and wondered if Harmonix could just hire a boatload more music programmers and somehow pay them back with the increased DLC revenue. This sounds like a solution that could benefit those of us looking for more eclectic selections that Harmonix would never be able to produce, even though they've actually been pretty good at covering lesser-known artists (TWO songs from Lush is more than I would have ever hoped for).
The one thing that sucks is the 360 exclusivity, though it makes sense given the tie-in with the XNA Creators program. I really, really, REALLY hope Harmonix can hammer out an agreement with the Playstation Network, or else I'll be one sad puppy until I cave and buy YET ANOTHER set.
posted by chrominance at 10:55 AM on July 20, 2009
Why isn't there an open source clone? For a controller, you could access a real guitar or drum through the sound card input (or maybe some midi port). Ideally, you'd sell the program as dual purpose video game and guitar instruction.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:55 AM on July 20, 2009
posted by jeffburdges at 10:55 AM on July 20, 2009
Hey, has anyone edited "Jingle Rock Bell" to put it back in order?
posted by Pronoiac at 5:05 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Pronoiac at 5:05 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is a really, really, bad deal for bands. The only people who will make money from this are the people who own the distribution. The new labels. Microsoft, You Tube, Myspace. Congrats, musicains, the labels are gone, and you're succsessfully allowing new mega-corporations to take their place. With the added benefit of no legal representation or a legislated system of royalties / copyright protection. Yay!
posted by The3rdMan at 11:17 PM on July 20, 2009
posted by The3rdMan at 11:17 PM on July 20, 2009
This is a really, really, bad deal for bands. The only people who will make money from this are the people who own the distribution. The new labels. Microsoft, You Tube, Myspace. Congrats, musicains, the labels are gone, and you're succsessfully allowing new mega-corporations to take their place. With the added benefit of no legal representation or a legislated system of royalties / copyright protection. Yay!
I work in this field and I can't parse this statement. Care to elaborate?
posted by lazaruslong at 10:56 AM on July 21, 2009
I work in this field and I can't parse this statement. Care to elaborate?
posted by lazaruslong at 10:56 AM on July 21, 2009
I was perhaps combining several issues facing the music industry into one. Basically, I am arguing that a system in which content creators provide their content "freely" to content distributors (who can then sell that content) for a pay-by-play system (with, at that, a stingy 30% pay out of profits) leaves distributors with all of the power and the only form of financial stability. The distributors (X Box Live, You Tube, Rock Band Nation) get - FOR FREE - a store shelf stocked full of merchandise that they do not have to pay for, yet make some large percentage of the profits from. Better yet, they can sell advertising in this marketplace - probably the single most lucrative aspect of having all that shelf space - and not have to give a penny to the content creators.
There is not enough discussion happening regarding what form we as musicians want these new labels to take. Right now it's all up in the air - if systems like Rock Band Nation and You Tube become a primary avenue for music content to reach an audience, are we sure artists are getting a fair share of this deal? Should we settle for "oh, well, 30% is better then nothing" or should we get deeper into the actual revenue that is generated for these networks by these marketplaces and figure out if the wealth is being distributed appropriately?
As for my comment about royalties and copyright I'm referring to the fact that, really, venues like You Tube and Rock Band Nation are becoming the new "radio." With the "old radio," a band that had a "hit" would receive public performance royalties from BMI and ASCAP for being played on air, proportional to the # of plays they had. No such system has been defined for digital downloads, digital streams, mixed media visual sites, gaming, etc. And it needs to be if musicians hope to make a living (And I mean lower middle class for most of us).
Too big a topic to cover here. I wish I was a lawyer and knew more. Oh well. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about anything I've typed above.
posted by The3rdMan at 2:09 PM on July 21, 2009
There is not enough discussion happening regarding what form we as musicians want these new labels to take. Right now it's all up in the air - if systems like Rock Band Nation and You Tube become a primary avenue for music content to reach an audience, are we sure artists are getting a fair share of this deal? Should we settle for "oh, well, 30% is better then nothing" or should we get deeper into the actual revenue that is generated for these networks by these marketplaces and figure out if the wealth is being distributed appropriately?
As for my comment about royalties and copyright I'm referring to the fact that, really, venues like You Tube and Rock Band Nation are becoming the new "radio." With the "old radio," a band that had a "hit" would receive public performance royalties from BMI and ASCAP for being played on air, proportional to the # of plays they had. No such system has been defined for digital downloads, digital streams, mixed media visual sites, gaming, etc. And it needs to be if musicians hope to make a living (And I mean lower middle class for most of us).
Too big a topic to cover here. I wish I was a lawyer and knew more. Oh well. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about anything I've typed above.
posted by The3rdMan at 2:09 PM on July 21, 2009
I was perhaps combining several issues facing the music industry into one. Basically, I am arguing that a system in which content creators provide their content "freely" to content distributors (who can then sell that content) for a pay-by-play system (with, at that, a stingy 30% pay out of profits) leaves distributors with all of the power and the only form of financial stability. The distributors (X Box Live, You Tube, Rock Band Nation) get - FOR FREE - a store shelf stocked full of merchandise that they do not have to pay for, yet make some large percentage of the profits from. Better yet, they can sell advertising in this marketplace - probably the single most lucrative aspect of having all that shelf space - and not have to give a penny to the content creators.
Okay, I see what you are getting at here. And I agree to some extent. I think it's important for the purposes of this discussion to make a distinction between the content that is being created being music or a game. In this particular instance, it is a hybrid of both but the primary focus is on the gaming aspect. That is, if what you are after is the acquisition of music from alternative distributors, Rock Band Nation isn't where you go. iTunes or torrents seems the method du jour. This business model is revolving around the demand for interactive, playable game versions of songs.
In this sense, it's important to recognize the worth of the content to the creator as being secondary. No one is going to go out and start a band just to make video game songs. And I really doubt that a creator (in this sense, a musician) is going to try and make their primary income from the game version of their song. The real worth is the exposure. The hope being that because a gamer likes the song and likes playing it, they will then go purchase the music from the actual label / distributor, resulting in more money for the artist.
I agree with the advertising aspect. If what is driving the ad revenue is the quality of the content being provided, the providers should share in some percentage of that revenue. I fear it may be logisitically impossible to work out a reasonable system for measuring the impact a particular artist has on the total ad revenue and then paying out a percentage to them of that revenue, especially when the marketplace scales to thousands of artists and songs.
There is not enough discussion happening regarding what form we as musicians want these new labels to take. Right now it's all up in the air - if systems like Rock Band Nation and You Tube become a primary avenue for music content to reach an audience, are we sure artists are getting a fair share of this deal? Should we settle for "oh, well, 30% is better then nothing" or should we get deeper into the actual revenue that is generated for these networks by these marketplaces and figure out if the wealth is being distributed appropriately?
I really don't think that making game versions of music an artist creates is going to be the primary avenue for the music to reach their audience. Instead, it seems to fall into the promotion category for the actual music, in tandem with social media marketing and touring and PR and merch and so on. So in this case, it doesn't seem like as big a deal. And to be honest, I think that the internet has made independent distribution and sales for artists so much easier that I am not sure how much regulation we really want to have in that field.
As for my comment about royalties and copyright I'm referring to the fact that, really, venues like You Tube and Rock Band Nation are becoming the new "radio." With the "old radio," a band that had a "hit" would receive public performance royalties from BMI and ASCAP for being played on air, proportional to the # of plays they had. No such system has been defined for digital downloads, digital streams, mixed media visual sites, gaming, etc. And it needs to be if musicians hope to make a living (And I mean lower middle class for most of us).
Again, I think these arguments apply to the sources you mentioned last like digital downloads and streaming, and not to Rock Band. It's a game that utilizes music for its interface, but the game versions are not great quality reproductions, are played on televisions, and don't happen in a live radio or streaming fashion.
So basically, I agree with all of your points regarding the lack of structure and artist protection with regards to the digitization of music, I just don't think that those arguments apply to the topic at hand since at the end of the day we are talking about a videogame compatible version of a song versus the quality portable listening experience provided by physical CDs / digital music.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:35 PM on July 21, 2009
Okay, I see what you are getting at here. And I agree to some extent. I think it's important for the purposes of this discussion to make a distinction between the content that is being created being music or a game. In this particular instance, it is a hybrid of both but the primary focus is on the gaming aspect. That is, if what you are after is the acquisition of music from alternative distributors, Rock Band Nation isn't where you go. iTunes or torrents seems the method du jour. This business model is revolving around the demand for interactive, playable game versions of songs.
In this sense, it's important to recognize the worth of the content to the creator as being secondary. No one is going to go out and start a band just to make video game songs. And I really doubt that a creator (in this sense, a musician) is going to try and make their primary income from the game version of their song. The real worth is the exposure. The hope being that because a gamer likes the song and likes playing it, they will then go purchase the music from the actual label / distributor, resulting in more money for the artist.
I agree with the advertising aspect. If what is driving the ad revenue is the quality of the content being provided, the providers should share in some percentage of that revenue. I fear it may be logisitically impossible to work out a reasonable system for measuring the impact a particular artist has on the total ad revenue and then paying out a percentage to them of that revenue, especially when the marketplace scales to thousands of artists and songs.
There is not enough discussion happening regarding what form we as musicians want these new labels to take. Right now it's all up in the air - if systems like Rock Band Nation and You Tube become a primary avenue for music content to reach an audience, are we sure artists are getting a fair share of this deal? Should we settle for "oh, well, 30% is better then nothing" or should we get deeper into the actual revenue that is generated for these networks by these marketplaces and figure out if the wealth is being distributed appropriately?
I really don't think that making game versions of music an artist creates is going to be the primary avenue for the music to reach their audience. Instead, it seems to fall into the promotion category for the actual music, in tandem with social media marketing and touring and PR and merch and so on. So in this case, it doesn't seem like as big a deal. And to be honest, I think that the internet has made independent distribution and sales for artists so much easier that I am not sure how much regulation we really want to have in that field.
As for my comment about royalties and copyright I'm referring to the fact that, really, venues like You Tube and Rock Band Nation are becoming the new "radio." With the "old radio," a band that had a "hit" would receive public performance royalties from BMI and ASCAP for being played on air, proportional to the # of plays they had. No such system has been defined for digital downloads, digital streams, mixed media visual sites, gaming, etc. And it needs to be if musicians hope to make a living (And I mean lower middle class for most of us).
Again, I think these arguments apply to the sources you mentioned last like digital downloads and streaming, and not to Rock Band. It's a game that utilizes music for its interface, but the game versions are not great quality reproductions, are played on televisions, and don't happen in a live radio or streaming fashion.
So basically, I agree with all of your points regarding the lack of structure and artist protection with regards to the digitization of music, I just don't think that those arguments apply to the topic at hand since at the end of the day we are talking about a videogame compatible version of a song versus the quality portable listening experience provided by physical CDs / digital music.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:35 PM on July 21, 2009
« Older Military pictures from around the world. | Why's he calling me meat? I'm the one driving a... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by DoctorFedora at 2:07 AM on July 20, 2009