

WhoseTube?  - bootload
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/opinion/20kulash.html

======
jasongullickson
_If record companies can’t adapt to this new world, they will die out; and
without advances, so will the futures of many talented bands._

I think there is a bit of a double-standard here. While digital music
technology is _disabling_ the ability for record companies to make money using
their current model, it is _enabling_ musicians to do more of what the record
companies used to provide.

A talented musician today can record, edit and mix an album using computers
and software that can be obtained for free or less(1). They can then
distribute and promote a single world-wide and make the album available in
both electronic and physical formats with small or no up-front cost and no
ongoing risk (excess inventory, etc.). As this article points out, videos can
be made for small amounts of money and distributed world-wide (as long as you
haven't already sold your right to do so) to promote the band and the album as
well.

There certainly are things that are still hard to do without a record company
behind you but a significant amount of the risk these companies used to incur
(namely studio time, marketing and distribution) are now all within the reach
of anyone with talent and ambition.

Essentially musicians (and to an extent, novelists and filmmakers) are
enjoying the position that software developers have enjoyed for decades. That
is to say, it is not easy, or common, to see "rock stars" emerge from this
process but with the reduced overhead it allows, it is possible to "make art
your day-job" with a much smaller fan/customer base than it would be if you
had to foot the bill for an entire studio and all of the other musicians that
come with it.

So I believe, that to imply that the demise of record companies (as we know
them) will be anything but a net gain for good music, is a dubious assumption.

(1)Many companies now pay to have computers capable of these tasks disposed of
so you may even get paid to acquire the hardware, and there have been open-
source applications capable of multitrack digital recording for years.

~~~
mattmanser
I completely disagree, the total number of amazing indie games, for example,
can be written on the back of a matchbox.

The total number of paid for by publishers games numbers in the hundreds each
year.

The number of amazing movies paid for by studios? Compared to the two or three
indie films I can even think of in my entire lifetime.

It is delusional to believe that one person can have the skills to create
great music, market that music, perform PR for the band and manage themselves.
Those kind of people are so few and far between that if you want to bet the
future of music on them that then we're in for a rough period musically
speaking.

Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for these types of artists (Amanda
Palmer is one that immediately springs to mind whose music I love).

But if it makes you feel better about the impending financing disaster
approaching music by telling yourself that anyone can become a jack-of-all-
trades you're just plain wrong.

~~~
axod
>> " then we're in for a rough period musically speaking."

Come now. Recorded music is a very very recent invention. There was absolutely
fantastic music before, there'll be absolutely fantastic music after.

I don't think it's useful to compare music to movies or games. The effort and
range of skills required is completely different.

Also as I say, music has been around since forever. Movies and games are a
more modern invention.

~~~
mattmanser
_Recorded music is a very very recent invention._

And that recorded music has meant a massive decline in paid live bands. So you
can't get paid for gigging. So how are you going to get your 10,000 hours in
like the beatles? You don't get resident bands in bars and pubs anymore.

 _I don't think it's useful to compare music to movies or games. The effort
and range of skills required is completely different._

Aha, you think it's EASY don't you! Oh yes, anyone can be Nirvana if they grow
their hair long huh?

It's not, grow up. The pure fact there are so many people who wanted to be a
rock star and never were is a testament to the difficulty.

Also in the past movies = plays, games = Chess, backgammon, cards, etc. Plays
cost money, chess boards cost money. And a poor person would never have had a
chance to listen to Bach 300 years ago. All forms of entertainment have been
around forever, the format changes with the times, but amazingly people always
got paid.

So what is your point exactly?

~~~
axod
Before recorded music, people just played music for fun, or were mainly
employed by very rich people to play music.

If we go back to that, I don't think music as such will suffer. People create
music mainly because it's fun, not because they want to be rich.

You certainly do get live bands in good pubs. Find a better pub.

And yes, I think creating music is far far easier than creating a movie or a
modern game, where you have to organize music, lighting, casting, voices,
graphics, gameplay, camerwork etc etc

~~~
jasongullickson
Having done all three, I disagree that any one is categorically more or less
difficult than the other.

------
henrikschroder
This was something I actually hadn't seen before in this debate:

 _companies are cutting back spending on all but their biggest stars, and not
signing nearly as many new acts._

I can sort of see how the big labels could stumble along their old path using
heavy-handed techniques and lobbying for stronger copyright laws keep
themselves in power as long as they actually supplied a constant stream of new
music.

But not investing in their own future - that makes their demise a certainty.

~~~
gizmo
Not exactly. There are new stars born every minute, so even if a couple of the
big labels decide to sit out for a year or two they can easily get back in the
game later. They can watch which mistakes the competitors make, think of new
and better ways to adapt to the shifting music market, and so on.

It's better to make no investment in the future than to make investments you
know to be bad.

------
wmf
This touches on something that I have been wondering for a while: why embed
videos? On the Web, we don't embed text or images (if someone "embeds" one of
your Web pages, many people would call that plagiarism or spam) but we embed
videos. A video _has_ to be embeddable to be seen as having value. Why? How
did we get to this place?

~~~
Lazlo_Nibble
There are definite UX "costs" to following a Youtube link rather than watching
an embedded video: it breaks the reading flow, it distances you from the
context that the embedding site often provides, it opens a separate tab or
window that you'll need to manage, you need to wait for the Youtube page to
load, etc. These might seem like minor things but watching videos is often an
impulse act, so _any_ operational or psychological obstacle to the user acting
on that impulse makes it less likely that they'll follow through. And the
opposite is true too; an embedded video is more visually interesting (think of
the still frame) than a generic link, making it more likely that you'll bother
to actually watch the video.

There's also a cost to the embedding site -- embedded videos keep the viewer's
attention local, whereas linked videos send them offsite, possibly never to
return. Many sites will just pick something different to embed rather than
risk losing the viewer to the endless morass of distracting content on
Youtube.

