That's a rich and fascinating essay, Pseudo. The mind boggles as to what to make of this shift from CD to live performance as generator of revenue precisely.

But if this...

QuoteBut this is not the case with Ambush Reality. The marketing of Take to the Skies was undertaken largely by the band themselves, who have played nearly 700 gigs since forming in St Albans in 2003. Word of mouth, coupled with the inevitable presence on MySpace, has done the rest. In November 2006, they became only the second unsigned band (after the Darkness) to sell out the 2,000-capacity Astoria in London. Five months later, Take to the Skies entered the British album chart at number four. In May, Enter Shikari started out on their first American tour.

...and this...

QuoteThis is not a local phenomenon. The $690 (£345) it cost to watch Elton John at Las Vegas in May set a new record for an American rock show. In Hong Kong last year, Robbie Williams charged £180. Even the less prosperous citizens of Chile were asked to pay £80 to watch Coldplay in Santiago's Espacio Riesco, a considerable sum in a city where the average monthly salary is around £250. Ticket inflation with smaller bands is less intense. But even a relative unknown like the American singer-songwriter Laura Veirs charged £15 for her London show at Bush Hall this July. More telling is the ubiquitous presence of touts outside low-key venues where no secondary market for tickets existed ten years ago.

...is the new reality, then whoa.

Touring is nice. But if it's suddenly now the major source of income for bands, man... then it's a huge strain, and ultimately a limited resource. You can perform only so many times (and not suck and/or die of exhaustion), and you can only charge so much.

Quote from: dansebieOh, I suppose I should say something about my vote on the poll, too.

I voted yes, and I'm finding it difficult to explain why. For me, morality just doesn't enter into it. It's like asking me if I think jaywalking is morally acceptable. I will say, however, that I think rewarding someone for creating a cultural artifact you appreciate is morally commendable.

The word "moral" tends to raise everyone's hackles right from the start, so a better word could have been used.  People immediately (consciously or subconsciously) associate morals with all those people who have preached that what you're doing is morally unacceptable (whether what you're doing is being gay, smoking weed, having premarital sex, etc.).

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIndeed. I think paying artists and creators for the labour they did, and rewarding them for having interesting ideas is a good thing. I just don't think the latter part is a duty we have unless we explicitly agree to have one by say, signing a contract with them or something.

Pseudoephedrine, I thought you said you were an anarchist?  Would an anarchist be bound by a contract?  I'm not making a dig, here (I know there are many different kinds of anarchists).

Pete

Quote from: pspahnWell, that's damned honest of him.  I wish more people would follow that procedure, but you know as well as I do that that's not how it usually happens.  Did he delete the AFMBE sourcebooks or did he keep them?  

He deleted all of them and bought Dungeons & Zombies.
And in my experience, this is the way it usually happens, if we ignore the hoarders who never buy anything but never read anything either.

Heh, I just realized that with one exception, the sizes of the DVD collections of my closest friends are directly proportional to the number of movies they pirate.

Edit: I realize that my experience may not be representative

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe mind boggles as to what to make of this shift from CD to live performance as generator of revenue precisely.

I've got friends in two different bands, each with 2 CDs put out by decent-sized labels.  If they didn't play live performances (at clubs, festivals, concert halls, etc.) they would starve.  As it is, they still go hungry, they just get free beer.  

Pete

Pierce> One possible outcome benefits precisely the mid-range labels you were worried about. If it costs US$150 to see a popular act, then the high cost will drive many people to less well-known bands with lower ticket prices, encouraging musical diversification. Labels catering to lower price-points than superstars would then have an economic advantage they could leverage.

Quote from: dansebieAnd in my experience, this is the way it usually happens, if we ignore the hoarders who never buy anything but never read anything either.

I think you and I must hang out with a different class of people, sadly.  My friends are happy to pirate anything for whatever game I'm currently running.  

Just to be clear, I'm no saint. I picked up a lot of Star Wars WEG stuff after they went belly up and used quite a bit of it.  If I could have bought the books that I used from anywhere besides ebay auctions, however, I would have.  And, I bought pirated copies of the theatrical releases of all three Star Wars prequels and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but only because I KNEW that when the movies were finally released I would be first in line to buy the DVD (and I did).  I'm very nitpicky when it comes to permanent objects sitting on my shelves and I like to have "official" releases (whether they be books, CDs, movies, RPGs, etc.).  What I did was still illegal, though.  There's no doubt about that.
 
Pete

Quote from: pspahnPseudoephedrine, I thought you said you were an anarchist?  Would an anarchist be bound by a contract?  I'm not making a dig, here (I know there are many different kinds of anarchists).

Pete

An anarchist who wasn't just a selfish jerk and who had signed the contract without any coercion (and with the knowledge of what it entailed) ought to honour it. Many real contracts fail those two criteria though (no coercion, and full understanding of what it requires of both parties). Most anarchists who aren't just jerks in disguise believe in people being autonomous, which means "self-ruling". Part of that "self-rule" is the capacity to accept duties for one's self.

Quote from: dansebieHe deleted all of them and bought Dungeons & Zombies.
And in my experience, this is the way it usually happens, if we ignore the hoarders who never buy anything but never read anything either.

Heh, I just realized that with one exception, the sizes of the DVD collections of my closest friends are directly proportional to the number of movies they pirate.

Edit: I realize that my experience may not be representative

I think I've related this story before to Mike Mearls through the internet (though I doubt he remembers it), so hopefully it doesn't shock him, but I pirated Iron Heroes, and liked it so much I bought a copy. I convinced my friends to read it, but since we only had one to split amongst five people, they pirated it, and then bought copies. So piracy sold five copies of Iron Heroes (including mine - one dude didn't buy a copy), plus one legitimate PDF version, plus some subsidiary material (Bestiary, Mastering IH, PG).

I think piracy was especially important here for me because it gave me the chance to read thoroughly through the text. IH is a D&D variant, so some of the differences are not readily apparent from a browse in an FLGS (different flanking rules), even though they can be quite distinct in play. I had to read the book through a few times to really get some of the finer points which have since become my favourite parts of it (style descriptors for weapons, frex). Without the ability to do that, I would have just shrugged my shoulders and tossed it back onto the shelf.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAn anarchist who wasn't just a selfish jerk and who had signed the contract without any coercion (and with the knowledge of what it entailed) ought to honour it. Many real contracts fail those two criteria though (no coercion, and full understanding of what it requires of both parties). Most anarchists who aren't just jerks in disguise believe in people being autonomous, which means "self-ruling". Part of that "self-rule" is the capacity to accept duties for one's self.

OK, that makes sense.  I don't support anarchism (just like I don't support socialism, communism, etc.), but I do think it gets misrepresented a bit.  Too many people associate anarchy with the old anarchist Punk Rock movement, many of whom I recall being "jerks in disguise" as you put it.    Thanks.  

Pete

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf it costs US$150 to see a popular act, then the high cost will drive many people to less well-known bands with lower ticket prices, encouraging musical diversification.

That has never happened to anybody I have ever talked music with in my entire life, evar.

"I can't afford liking band X, well I guess I'll listen to Y instead": that's just not how it works.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat's a rich and fascinating essay, Pseudo. The mind boggles as to what to make of this shift from CD to live performance as generator of revenue precisely.



Touring is nice. But if it's suddenly now the major source of income for bands, man... then it's a huge strain, and ultimately a limited resource. You can perform only so many times (and not suck and/or die of exhaustion), and you can only charge so much.

I've been aware of that since roughly 2000. Courtney Love, of all people, pointed out in an online essay that even the really big names in music don't make much, if any, real money from making and selling an album. She claimed that she could make more money producing an album online and selling it directly for donations than the label would actually pay her.

Note: The thrust was, yes Labels hand over huge signing bonuses to bands, and even to established stars to record albums. Then they charge for studio use, printing the cds, distribution, etc... essentially taking back every single dime by the time the process is done. Probably an exaggeration to some extent.

Spike, sure, all of that is true: witness a famous online post by legendary producer X*--the man who tried and almost succeeded to make Hole sound like a substantial band. He laid down the numbers for you in all their naked terror.

Even so, at the end of the day, a band would get *something* from selling their albums. And it looks like even that something has vanished now, with nothing to replace it.

*Blanking on the name right now. Jesus. You know who I'm talking about... NOT Rick Rubin, the other guy... early 1990s, second Nirvana album and a million other things...

Quote from: Pierce InverarityEven so, at the end of the day, a band would get *something* from selling their albums. And it looks like even that something has vanished now, with nothing to replace it.

This doesn't have much to do with piracy, though. Growth in other sectors of the entertainment market (DVD sales, console/computer games and mobile services in particular) is the real problem the music industry is facing.

Quote from: dansebieThis doesn't have much to do with piracy, though. Growth in other sectors of the entertainment market (DVD sales, console/computer games and mobile services in particular) is the real problem the music industry is facing.

Well, I'm glad we cleared this up.

You win the internet, it's huge, start downloading now.