Youtube or not?

[RastaRocket]

If they make their own YouTube channel they can make good money off of it.

 

[Hoofbite]

Artists most definitely should put their music videos on YouTube. I think a lot of artists have come to realize that the real pirates are the record labels. I think that's why so many artists are signed to the labels that are run by other artists.

People who want to acquire music illegally will do so regardless of what is put on YouTube. There are FireFox extensions that allow 1-click downloading of the video in each different quality, and also to download just the audio as a MP3. Incredibly simple but if it weren't there it's not really a huge step up in difficulty to torrent the entire album at once instead of song-by-song.

I generally just buy the single I am looking for and if I am a fan of the artist and want more than the single I will buy the album.

I torrented music in the past but I have found that I am rarely at my computer when I have the itch for a new song and using the Apple Store app on my phone is more convenient anyway.

I think I quit torrenting after getting a job in undergrad at a Hastings where they buy back movies, games and CDs. Shady people would often sell back new releases on the day of release and I could scoop a brand new release for 6-7 dollars. Take it home, rip at the quality I wanted and sell it back for a buck or two less than I bought it. Same with older albums. I'd even check the buy back price and run them through the buffer before purchasing.

Kinda became an addiction and pretty much spent many hours of my monotonous undergrad job locating CDs with buy back prices as close to my employee purchase price as possible just so I could add to the collection.

 

[Hoofbite]

If they make their own YouTube channel they can make good money off of it.

I saw an article that said Gangnam Style pulled $8M in ad revenue from about 1B views at the time it was written.

I dunno what portion goes to Google and artist but that's gotta be serious cash.

Eminem looks to have about 1.5B views for songs off his Recovery album. Those videos may have pulled an amount similar to what he earned from the sale of the CDs.

Kinda wonder if artists create videos because it's not money the record label is entitled to.

Anyone know?

 

[RastaRocket]

I saw an article that said Gangnam Style pulled $8M in ad revenue from about 1B views at the time it was written.

I dunno what portion goes to Google and artist but that's gotta be serious cash.

Eminem looks to have about 1.5B views for songs off his Recovery album. Those videos may have pulled an amount similar to what he earned from the sale of the CDs.

Kinda wonder if artists create videos because it's not money the record label is entitled to.

Anyone know?

Also you see a lot of songs on the Vevo channel. I highly doubt that Vevo just uploads those songs for free, and they probably have a deal with the record labels. I believe that artists do want their songs on YouTube, some just may be against a random person like us slapping their songs on a highlight video or something without giving any credit.

 

[Hoofbite]

Also you see a lot of songs on the Vevo channel. I highly doubt that Vevo just uploads those songs for free, and they probably have a deal with the record labels. I believe that artists do want their songs on YouTube, some just may be against a random person like us slapping their songs on a highlight video or something without giving any credit.

Apparently it all had been going to VEVO, passing some to the labels who were supposed to pass a portion to artists but were not.

VEVO pulled $150M in 2011.

http://www.thewrap.com/music/blog-post/time-vevo-pay-35129/?page=0,1

Unreal. Record companies just bend the artists over.

 

[RastaRocket]

Apparently it all had been going to VEVO, passing some to the labels who were supposed to pass a portion to artists but were not.

VEVO pulled $150M in 2011.

http://www.thewrap.com/music/blog-post/time-vevo-pay-35129/?page=0,1

Unreal. Record companies just bend the artists over.

That is pretty ridiculous, but it does show that plenty of money is out there to be made off of YouTube. Artists get bent over when they sign on to a label too soon. If you look at a guy like Macklemore, whether you like him or not, he held off from signing to a label and it payed dividends for him. It's a lot of hard work to produce everything and gain exposure yourself, but the equipment is there for these guys to wait until they are in high demand. If you are desperate and sign, the label will bend you over.

That is some good information on Vevo though, I had no idea about all of that.

 

[Hoofbite]

That is pretty ridiculous, but it does show that plenty of money is out there to be made off of YouTube. Artists get bent over when they sign on to a label too soon. If you look at a guy like Macklemore, whether you like him or not, he held off from signing to a label and it payed dividends for him. It's a lot of hard work to produce everything and gain exposure yourself, but the equipment is there for these guys to wait until they are in high demand. If you are desperate and sign, the label will bend you over.

That is some good information on Vevo though, I had no idea about all of that.

Came across another link where it says they're working on some structure that makes artists receive some of it.

 

[iceberg]

well, not many people are prone to signing with labels anymore. labels are also not out to "develop" talent and you need to have pretty much a turnkey solution these days to even get a look at to be signed to a label. more and more, labels are a dying breed to be honest.

is youtube a money making solution? well, when i think "hey, where do i go find new music" youtube is NOT on my list of where to go search. people can link me to their video but to be honest, that video can be anywhere. youtube, by forcing an issue like this, is going to lose more than they stand to gain. a commercial free radio stream? been doing that since 2000 google, keep up. trying to match up with pandora and spotify at this point is going to be very difficult and simply having artists upload music and turning that into radio is just a bad idea.

artists can put their videos on vimeo or other solutions and still simply link to their videos. hell, having your own website is becoming the rage again and they can link off facebook, or other social media. i use youtube less and less simply cause i get tired of "you can skip this ad in 5 seconds" or having to watch another geico commercial just to see some video made in 1974 cause i recalled an old song.

so again, do you go to youtube cause you were linked there, or do you actually look for new music there?

 

[jnday]

I watched a Kid Rock interview a few days ago and he stated that he didn't care if they give his music away because he makes most of his money from touring. I appreciate his position as a fan. It makes it easy to access his music and from his point of view, he gets his money as well. His videos are on YouTube and I wish more artist would follow his thinking.

 

[Denim Chicken]

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.

If an arist doesn't want their stuff on those sites, they don't have to. I'm not sure what you consider to be the upper echelon, but I think artists are doing just fine when they get to the point of signing to a label and getting radio play.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

If an arist doesn't want their stuff on those sites, they don't have to. I'm not sure what you consider to be the upper echelon, but I think artists are doing just fine when they get to the point of signing to a label and getting radio play.

But getting to the point of a label and getting radio play isn't like it use to be. And in the mean time they still have bills to pay.

Labels are only interested in sure things. They aren't into nurturing talent like they did prior to the "Hey, all music should be free" mindset that took hold with the advent of the Internet.

 

[Denim Chicken]

But getting to the point of a label and getting radio play isn't like it use to be. And in the mean time they still have bills to pay.

Labels are only interested in sure things. They aren't into nurturing talent like they did prior to the "Hey, all music should be free" mindset that took hold with the advent of the Internet.

I really think that has less to do with pirating and more to do with the increasing corporate nature of labels. People pirate music that is popular, not really up and comers. Besides, most good music comes out if the struggle anyhow. New bands shouldn't expect to make any kind of income until they cut an album, signed, and getting play and that's really the way it's always been.

The only artist reallay affected by pirating our established, popular artist who are well off anyway.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The only artist reallay affected by pirating our established, popular artist who are well off anyway.

Probably ought to start calling you "Comrade Chicken". LOL!

 

[iceberg]

I really think that has less to do with pirating and more to do with the increasing corporate nature of labels. People pirate music that is popular, not really up and comers. Besides, most good music comes out if the struggle anyhow. New bands shouldn't expect to make any kind of income until they cut an album, signed, and getting play and that's really the way it's always been.

The only artist reallay affected by pirating our established, popular artist who are well off anyway.

people pirate music cause they're a POS who is inconsiderate and loves to be a huge part of the problem.

as for youtube, again, do you go to youtube cause you were linked to a video or looking for something specific, or did you go cause someone said "hey, check out this video" such as in here, fbook or whatever? i know of NO ONE who goes looking for new music on youtube. yes it's popular, yes it serves a purpose and yes, it can make *some* people money. but me, if i go to watch a video and it says "your video will start shortly" and shoves an ad down my throat, i leave. i simply won't watch it and don't feel like i missed anything other than another lousy way for google to make another nickle.

now, as for the up and comers, name a few. if you can, where did you find out about them?

as for your last sentence, wow. i guess you totally missed the 80s where any half baked band with a gimmick that was just like the other guy was signed to a mega contract and in the end were barely an afterthought on the one hit wonder countdown.

any attempt to justify pirating is bull****.

period.

 

[Denim Chicken]

people pirate music cause they're a POS who is inconsiderate and loves to be a huge part of the problem.

as for youtube, again, do you go to youtube cause you were linked to a video or looking for something specific, or did you go cause someone said "hey, check out this video" such as in here, fbook or whatever? i know of NO ONE who goes looking for new music on youtube. yes it's popular, yes it serves a purpose and yes, it can make *some* people money. but me, if i go to watch a video and it says "your video will start shortly" and shoves an ad down my throat, i leave. i simply won't watch it and don't feel like i missed anything other than another lousy way for google to make another nickle.

now, as for the up and comers, name a few. if you can, where did you find out about them?

as for your last sentence, wow. i guess you totally missed the 80s where any half baked band with a gimmick that was just like the other guy was signed to a mega contract and in the end were barely an afterthought on the one hit wonder countdown.

any attempt to justify pirating is bull****.

period.

I usually find new music through the radio (artist already signed), at a show, or word of mouth. We have some local bands around here and I can guarantee that is not illegal DLs keeping them from fame. Funny you wont put up with advertising for using a free product because you don't want to give Google a dime. Could make the same argument against record companies.

We are living in a new technological age and the market will just have to adapt. It's nothing new. Would your 'morality sense' be buzzing from people making a copy of their friends cassette, or recoding a song from the radio, or a TV show on their VHS? How about simply letting a friend borrow a CD? It's the same thing on a grander scale. The $$ it takes to record an album has decreased and so has the $$ and effort it takes to make copies. Hell, people are making albums on the PCs now. I'm not saying it's morally justified, I'm just saying it's happening, it cant be stopped, and considering the massive profits if those of whom it really affects--I don't care.

 

[Nova]

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

Probably.

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

That's it!? That is pretty pathetic.

While still technically better than nothing, that's not what I had in mind.

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

I don't think that's just your opinion. Makes sense. Just like most art (or so it seems), it's becoming less and less profitable unless it's commercialized. A lot of good/great artists are in ad agencies now, concentrating their efforts into getting you to buy that new BMW now.

At least to pay the bills.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Just like most art (or so it seems), it's becoming less and less profitable unless it's commercialized. .

This.

Everything is. I often comment to my wife when on long car rides across states; there will be soon be no reason to travel because everywhere is looking exactly the same. Same franchise restaurants, auto parts, stores, etc...

 

[Roadtrip635]

I think it really comes down to each artist. You Tube can provide a certain amount of exposure, but for the most part exposure still comes the old fashioned way by gigs and word of mouth. Sites like You Tube does it make easier for that word of mouth to spread, though. At least now when a buddy tells me how great some new band is he saw, he can send me a link to check out. Piracy has always been around to some extent, whether it's ripping an audio track from YT or copying a friends cassette tape, I'm not saying it's right. Generally speaking fans will spend money on their favorite bands music or merch, it's those new bands or music they're unsure of, that people are probably more likely to rip tracks of.

Signing to major labels vs indy labels is very artist dependent as well. There is a price with the big labels and not just the cut they take. A big label is great because they have the connections to get wide exposure through, radio, TV, opening for other major acts with the label and the rest of their marketing machine, but the artist loses some of their independence. Robert Earl Keen received pressure after signing with Arista to change his songwriting style towards more main stream country versus his natural story teller style. He wasn't happy with it, so he went back to indy labels where he controlled what he wrote, toured and dressed.

I have known several other artists that followed that same line of thinking. It wasn't that there weren't opportunities with major labels, they just weren't willing to give up any creative or personal control of their music or persona. In some cases their style of music just isn't conducive to mass markets and main stream music. In some of those cases it's not about seeking fortune and fame on that level, it's more important about having success on their own terms and the art they want to create.

 

[iceberg]

I usually find new music through the radio (artist already signed), at a show, or word of mouth. We have some local bands around here and I can guarantee that is not illegal DLs keeping them from fame. Funny you wont put up with advertising for using a free product because you don't want to give Google a dime. Could make the same argument against record companies.

We are living in a new technological age and the market will just have to adapt. It's nothing new. Would your 'morality sense' be buzzing from people making a copy of their friends cassette, or recoding a song from the radio, or a TV show on their VHS? How about simply letting a friend borrow a CD? It's the same thing on a grander scale. The $$ it takes to record an album has decreased and so has the $$ and effort it takes to make copies. Hell, people are making albums on the PCs now. I'm not saying it's morally justified, I'm just saying it's happening, it cant be stopped, and considering the massive profits if those of whom it really affects--I don't care.

So you don't go to YouTube to find music.

I'll stop until arguments quit getting mixed.

 

[Denim Chicken]

So you don't go to YouTube to find music.

No. I don't even know what I would search for.