Statement on artist compensation in the digital age from Neil Young's Archive site.*

But they've proven their point over and over again: they really don't want to discover new music. They just want to complain about how much worse everything is compared to their good old days. New music is merely the entry point for those complaints, because they really, truly don't want to know.

 

Has anyone found out yet why this "statement" is "incredible"? Clickbait...

 

Technology has been both a blessing and a bane to the economy of music.

The barrier to entry is a lot lower, but so is the revenue.

The modernization act being put forth to congress is an attempt to swing more rights/royalties back to songwriters (via performance rights organizations) in this digital age. One aspect of the act would force improved oversight of tracking/matching for streaming revenues.

It was unanimously passed by the house, but is now already being tweaked in the senate as described below. (I know there's another thread on the forum but this a very relevant and related to the topic)

On Wednesday (May 23), Sen. Wyden introduced the Accessibility for Curators, Creators, Educators, Scholars, and Society (ACCESS) to Recordings Act, which would essentially federalize recordings made before 1972, which are currently covered under state law. This would allow rights holders and performers to collect royalties when their works are streamed online, which they currently can’t do. But the bill wouldn’t be as good for creators and rights holders as the current version of the Music Modernization Act, which would grant them this right without otherwise changing the way they’re covered under state law. How much support the bill will gather isn’t clear, but it’s possible that it could slow down -- or alter -- the broader legislation.

While the relevant provision of the Music Modernization Act would let rights holders of pre-1972 recordings collect money until 2067, Wyden’s bill would have these acts enter the public domain sooner: either 95 years after they were released or 120 years after they were recorded, whichever comes first. That means that some recordings would begin entering the public domain before 2067. The most valuable pre-1972 recordings, made in the 1960s and very early 1970s, would begin doing so in 2055.

 

Do you really, really think Patti Smith would be signed to Arista Records if her first album came out in 2018 instead of 1975? Think long and hard about this if you must. (I'll even give you a hint: who released the "Piss Factory" single?)

It would not even occur to 2018's Patti to approach a major label. She does not need them.

 

Well put.

The 'need' for a major label to fund recordings and distribute and promote physical product is over. Up until the late 90's the majors called the shots on everything from who could make a record, who would be played on the radio and where the product would be placed. Technology changes have taken away all of that control from the majors.

Nowadays it's a lot easier for an artist to make a recording and get it played (aka streamed). But...

Getting paid for that play is harder than it ever was because the Performance Rights Organizations (who represent songwriters and publishers) lost their ability to monitor and collect revenues due to archaic laws- which the streaming companies have been exploiting.

 

I'd argue that it was more like the late '70s. I'd wager that more than half of the records I've bought since 1985 have been on indie labels.

 

Same here. I love music on labels like "erased tapes records" . I'm a huge rock fan..not much new stuff sounds exciting. I'm really into sountrack, ambient, experimental music. I also like interesting EDM music. JoJo Mayer and NERVE is exciting to me.

 

That was sort of my point. If all of today's Patti Smith's are on indie labels, where are they? Certainly not making any cultural relevance. I've heard Courtney Barnett referred to as the new Patti Smith, which is a joke. She's the exact opposite.

 

Just because you've never heard of them doesn't mean they're not there.

 

The record business also put their money back into financing more new records. That’s what bothers me (and Neil) about tech — they exploit all the content that's out there without investing in any themselves.

 

How bout if nobody can seem to provide or name them? Is it some secret?

 

Discovering new music isn't the issue; it's how to nurture and maintain that talent so it can flourish.

 

The whole post is Neil’s statement ....isn’t it?

 

lolnope

I've seen what happens when people name new artists here. Not gonna happen.

They're not for you. Don't worry about it.

 

The Steepwater Band just celebrated 20 years as a band, have put out over a half dozen albums, and how they aren't more popular is beyond me.

The music IS out there, but even music fans are hard pressed to actually spend money on new artists - they spend it on speakers and styli and cables and reissues and remasters and deluxe editions...

But new artists get the shaft all the way around.

 

Ah, so they're just so good they need to be hidden? They're just as good as Patti Smith, but those who know Patti Smith wouldn't get them. Sounds like a winning formula.

 

Although that's not actually what that exchange was discussing, I'll bite: even when nurtured and maintained, most artists have a relatively brief period of creative life. In pop music, acts like, say, Yo La Tengo (still releasing fantastic records 35 years into their career, with only one very brief period of major label distribution in all that time) have always been the exception rather than the rule. More common are bands whose entire recording career lasts seven or eight years. The Beatles, for example.

 

Sure. The DIY ethos has been around since the record was invented and it's a wonderful thing to support independent artists.

 

But TODAY, most won't ever even get the chance - the turnkey deal we were offered was bad. Like, seriously bad.

 

No, I'm just saying that history has shown me that when you play the "name one current artist as good as [insert classic rock heroes here]!" game hereabouts, the results are always hilarious, but invariably the same. I'll never forget the guy who claimed that Angel Olson sounded exactly like the Bangles, a comparison that suggests he'd never heard of the Bangles either.

 

I'm sure it was. And yet people are still out there going the DIY route for as long as they want to. You choose to stop. That was the choice you made, but not everyone has to make that choice.

 

Right, the economic reality of it forced my idealism to turn to cynicism.

Do I provide medical insurance for me and my daughter, or do I get a song mixed?

Do I do it myself? How much is my time worth?

'Rock and roll means well but it can't help telling young boys lies...'

Growing up ain't easy, but it's not like I had to really agonize over my choice - ultimately, I'm okay with what happened...I'm trying to explain why, even though we had gig offers stuff happening, why people would choose to stay home.

Chris Chew drives Kenny Chesney's tour bus now, because he makes way more driving the bus for a superstar than he did playing bass for band that is a fairly successful touring/recording band on the blues/roots/jamband circuit.

It is what it is.

 

Iirc, C.C. had health issues.

 

Right.

Needed the health insurance, joined the union, drives Chesney's bus now.

Actually, iirc, Chew owns the bus and Chesney's leases.

 

Anyone who has to ask "where are they?" isn't going to be convinced no matter how many artist names I throw at them.

If @PlushFieldHarpy you really want to know, you know where to look. How the lot of you manage to go year after year complaining about how new music sucks is well into comedic territory by now. Heck, there's a web site dedicated to your poats.