Youtube or not?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Was recently trying to play some stuff on Youtube and a lot of Artist no longer allow their music to be played on sites such as Youtube openly.

Question:

Is it better to allow your music to be played or is it better to prevent it? Obviously, as fans, you want to be able to access it but is it better from a career stand point or not?

 

[EST_1986]

I think it's good on YouTube because rarely anyone pays for music anymore so one way or another they will get it free and if you are a guy trying to be heard YouTube is probably the best vehicle for that too.

Music has just changed and I think making money off the music is way different. I don't think artists bank on selling music much but the concet sales, merchandise sales and endorsements that come from people loving your music is where it's at.

 

[iceberg]

youtube is trying to google indie artists.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...use-our-pay-service-or-well-pull-your-videos/

The independent music trade organisation on Friday said YouTube had refused to withdraw threats over the Silicon Valley giant’s plans to launch a music streaming service, despite 24 hours of negotiations.

The Worldwide Independent Network (WIN), the body that represents the global independent music community, is angry at warnings from YouTube that it will remove its members’ content unless they sign up to its terms for the new service.

Sources at WIN told AFP that its officials had been locked in talks with YouTube and had told the Google-owned company that it wanted the demands withdrawn by the end of the week.

In a statement released on Friday, WIN said YouTube’s threats were “unnecessary and indefensible”.

According to the statement, YouTube has already negotiated separate agreements with three major labels -– Sony, Warner and Universal –- but has yet to reach a deal with independent labels.

 

[Jenky]

Better for exposure IMO. The strength of youtube.

 

[MonsterD]

youtube is trying to google indie artists.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...use-our-pay-service-or-well-pull-your-videos/

The independent music trade organisation on Friday said YouTube had refused to withdraw threats over the Silicon Valley giant’s plans to launch a music streaming service, despite 24 hours of negotiations.

The Worldwide Independent Network (WIN), the body that represents the global independent music community, is angry at warnings from YouTube that it will remove its members’ content unless they sign up to its terms for the new service.

Sources at WIN told AFP that its officials had been locked in talks with YouTube and had told the Google-owned company that it wanted the demands withdrawn by the end of the week.

In a statement released on Friday, WIN said YouTube’s threats were “unnecessary and indefensible”.

According to the statement, YouTube has already negotiated separate agreements with three major labels -– Sony, Warner and Universal –- but has yet to reach a deal with independent labels.

I don't get it, what is stopping any band from making a channel on YT and putting up their own songs? This streaming thing is it something more? I think it sounds like a perk more than anything, if a band wishes to be independent then stay on regular YT.

The other thing that I can think of is the auto content warnings as they pertain to copyrighted material etc, that would be able to be rectified but it does take them a long time to put the video back up or stop the money from going to an erroneous claimant.

 

[iceberg]

well, as i understand it, youtube is starting up a "new" service to be "ad free" (bwahahahahahaha - google doesn't know the meaning of the words) and forcing all artists to agree to the new terms of service that force them to pay to be a part of the service. if they don't do it, not only will they *not* be a part of the new service, but their youtube normal videos will be removed.

 

[jobberone]

Exposure is the key to success.

 

[vta]

The Worldwide Independent Network (WIN), the body that represents the global independent music community, i

That doesn't sound very independent...

People have become so accustomed to something that was seemingly free, they've created a commodity of it that they can't do without.
So it goes with business; kick backs for the avenues you've used to that end.

Exposure is only good if it leads to sales, I don't know if watching videos on Youtube does that or not, but they're going to find out. Both the artists and Youtube

 

[DallasEast]

From the artist viewpoint, piracy is the main motivation for restricting any freely disseminated public assess to their work. It is a valid concern. I can download a video, strip the audio from it, and use it any way I want. The quality of the stripped audio may or may not match what is professionally and legally produced for the public to purchase but it was obtained without compensating the artist.

Marketing is a variable in deciding whether to go the YouTube route or not. If an artist is already well established, it does not make much sense in losing an undetermined percentage of profits lost through video promotion. However, if the artist is new, it does make some sense to build an sizeable audience while sacrificing a portion of current probable sales. It's a gamble and you got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them...

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Was recently trying to play some stuff on Youtube and a lot of Artist no longer allow their music to be played on sites such as Youtube openly.

Question:

Is it better to allow your music to be played or is it better to prevent it? Obviously, as fans, you want to be able to access it but is it better from a career stand point or not?

The answer to your question is... It's a free platform.

Cost you nothing. Have everything to gain.

Ask Bieber, replacement lead singer of Journey... I think Lourde too.

 

[Nova]

Even in the past, I've heard from artists in interviews that the real revenue is in concert tours rather than album sales so exposure is probably more important.

If that holds true, throw in appearances and potential endorsements and I'd say exposure is ultimately the most important thing.

 

[Nova]

In addition to that, some people are going to pay for music and some people aren't.

The best way to combat that is to find point of cost where people are willing to pay for music.

Technology has allowed for artists to deliver their music for less money. Sure they're probably getting less of a cut from that, but it's better than charging $17.99 for a CD and people opting to download their stuff illegally. At least they control their profit (somewhat) and maybe more importantly, the quality of their music to better help with exposure.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I can download a video, strip the audio from it, and use it any way I want. .

That's a lot of work when you could just DL the song by itself. I seriously doubt anyone is doing that.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

its up to the record label whether they allow or remove it from youtube

 

[iceberg]

its up to the record label whether they allow or remove it from youtube

it's also up to youtube to decide that if you do NOT agree to their terms and conditions, you not only will NOT be on their no ads music streaming service, but you also will have your videos removed.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The whole music thing is messed up. Really, what a crummy set up right now for artists who aren't in the upper echelon. It's darned difficult for most singers/bands to make any money.

Here was Bette Midler's tweet about how much she "earned" from Pandora...

."@Spotify and @Pandora have made it impossible for songwriters to earn a living: three months streaming on Pandora, 4,175,149 plays=$114.11."

That's just pathetic. Should a CD be $17.99? Probably not but should each play of her music be only worth

The whole "music should be free" mindset has taken away a lot of incentive for new music/groups IMO.

 

[Denim Chicken]

The whole music thing is messed up. Really, what a crummy set up right now for artists who aren't in the upper echelon. It's darned difficult for most singers/bands to make any money.

Here was Bette Midler's tweet about how much she "earned" from Pandora...

."@Spotify and @Pandora have made it impossible for songwriters to earn a living: three months streaming on Pandora, 4,175,149 plays=$114.11."

That's just pathetic. Should a CD be $17.99? Probably not but should each play of her music be only worth

The whole "music should be free" mindset has taken away a lot of incentive for new music/groups IMO.

Bette Midler has an estimated net worth of $200 million. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Bette Midler has an estimated net worth of $200 million. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear.

I think you missed the point.

And quite frankly it shouldn't matter if the artist is worth $200 mil or $2.

It's all about fair compensation for someone who creates a piece of music that others want to hear.

 

[DallasEast]

That's a lot of work when you could just DL the song by itself. I seriously doubt anyone is doing that.

True.

 

[Hoofbite]

Even in the past, I've heard from artists in interviews that the real revenue is in concert tours rather than album sales so exposure is probably more important.

If that holds true, throw in appearances and potential endorsements and I'd say exposure is ultimately the most important thing.

I'd imagine that was the case some time ago but many artist are signed to independent labels or just create their own.