Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Topic: YouTube vs Prog Posted: January 18 2018 at 06:17
Has anyone else noticed that, as far as King Crimson is concerned... They have virtually no presence on YouTube anymore (outside of live performances and bootlegs)? Is this due to the band, or the record label they're on? Why specifically them?
Just as TOOL removed all access to their music from music streaming services, is this an expected move / trend that more musicians and bands will soon follow? Any thoughts?
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Posted: January 18 2018 at 06:45
Fripp doesn't agree with giving music away for free IIRC. I think their virtual absence on YT and Spotify is his choice. It's a shame on the one hand, but I do sympathise with his position. If that IS his position.
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67381
Posted: January 18 2018 at 06:58
I'm actually more surprised that the majority of artists do allow their music to be (legally) streamed, considering they get practically zero royalties from it. I would imagine it takes a lot of effort to keep your music off of Youtube (which is why so few bother to even try), but why would you give your label a permission to put your albums on something like iTunes or Spotify when you have nothing to gain from it?
As a musician, I understand that the medium and delivery of music has changed drastically over the years. Older musicians are still trying to fight for record sales, when to be honest, the only sure-fire way to make money from music is playing live (or sponsors). When you rob people of their ability to listen to your music, trial or other-wise, you're robbing them the ability to sample before a purchase.
Seems like a no brainer... Especially when your music is over 20-30 years old, and with the constant change of direction musically within progressive bands, you would want to showcase that.
Joined: March 09 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 12352
Posted: January 18 2018 at 07:23
PanzerTarkus wrote:
As a musician, I understand that the medium and delivery of music has changed drastically over the years. Older musicians are still trying to fight for record sales, when to be honest, the only sure-fire way to make money from music is playing live (or sponsors). When you rob people of their ability to listen to your music, trial or other-wise, you're robbing them the ability to sample before a purchase.
Seems like a no brainer... Especially when your music is over 20-30 years old, and with the constant change of direction musically within progressive bands, you would want to showcase that.
I've been pondering about this for a long time, and I think you just hit the nail on it's head. Selling music is not really the best option these days, but the older generation finds this quite troubling. Many people make money with free apps, like WhatsApp, facebook, etc. You don't have to pay, but through advertisement and other things, they make millions. It seems that the music industry needs an update on this, though many artists have found commercial success with you tube, like many Korean Rap artists, without even recording an album.
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14103
Posted: January 18 2018 at 07:27
PanzerTarkus wrote:
As a musician, I understand that the medium and delivery of music has changed drastically over the years. Older musicians are still trying to fight for record sales, when to be honest, the only sure-fire way to make money from music is playing live (or sponsors). When you rob people of their ability to listen to your music, trial or other-wise, you're robbing them the ability to sample before a purchase.
People don't own King Crimson's music, so surely nobody can "rob" it from them.
It's fair enough that many musicians are happy to get their music out for free, but we shouldn't take our "right" to listen for free for granted.
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67381
Posted: January 18 2018 at 07:29
Manuel wrote:
PanzerTarkus wrote:
As a musician, I understand that the medium and delivery of music has changed drastically over the years. Older musicians are still trying to fight for record sales, when to be honest, the only sure-fire way to make money from music is playing live (or sponsors). When you rob people of their ability to listen to your music, trial or other-wise, you're robbing them the ability to sample before a purchase.
Seems like a no brainer... Especially when your music is over 20-30 years old, and with the constant change of direction musically within progressive bands, you would want to showcase that.
I've been pondering about this for a long time, and I think you just hit the nail on it's head. Selling music is not really the best option these days, but the older generation finds this quite troubling. Many people make money with free apps, like WhatsApp, facebook, etc. You don't have to pay, but through advertisement and other things, they make millions. It seems that the music industry needs an update on this, though many artists have found commercial success with you tube, like many Korean Rap artists, without even recording an album.
Perhaps we need a new music format with embedded ads and spyware.
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1092
Posted: January 18 2018 at 08:20
Most modern prog bands have other careers, besides relying on their music.. It would fair to say, if you are promoting an album, you need to promote it somehow.. YouTube, Bandcamps and Soundclouds offer the best in regards to sampling music, otherwise would never hear in your life time. Radio stations where I live, suck in regards to hearing prog music/new bands etc... So sites like this help in regards to expanding your music discovery..
Older bands on the other hand, have relied over concerts sales and noticed a huge trend in increased costs over the years. maybe this makes up for some of the lost revenues in CD sales. Whilst record or music shops have declined over the years, we rely on the internet for our purchases.. With well over 2000 cds in my collection and failing eye site, I've relied on music sites offering downloads, most common for me is band camps, which is both cheaper then apple and amazon. With downloads you have the added bonus of no postage, which can soon add up.
Not all bands will post on YouTube, but thankfully most will
Joined: December 09 2017
Location: Now
Status: Offline
Points: 9233
Posted: January 18 2018 at 08:21
Fripp has them all taken down ASAP; this is a known trend for a few years now. You'll see people uploading ITCOTKC and all comments are like "enjoy before this is taken down this week", etc.
The problem is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. There are other bands people will download/stream before they spend money on something they can't even hear at all. You can't do that these days IMHO. This is why I don't play music for money anymore; it doesn't work and you end up just getting spiteful instead of remaining passioning and creative.
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Joined: March 29 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2029
Posted: January 18 2018 at 09:00
PanzerTarkus wrote:
As a musician, I understand that the medium and delivery of music has changed drastically over the years. Older musicians are still trying to fight for record sales, when to be honest, the only sure-fire way to make money from music is playing live (or sponsors). When you rob people of their ability to listen to your music, trial or other-wise, you're robbing them the ability to sample before a purchase.
Seems like a no brainer... Especially when your music is over 20-30 years old, and with the constant change of direction musically within progressive bands, you would want to showcase that.
I'm torn. On one hand, I have no problem with a musician getting fairly compensated for their art. On the other hand, places like YouTube have allowed me to discover more music than I could ever have hoped for back in the 80s, which has led me to actually purchase some of those discoveries.
What I wouldn't have given to be able to sample before buying in those days, instead of buying something and hoping I'd like it?
We all live in an amber subdomain, amber subdomain, amber subdomain.
Joined: March 29 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2029
Posted: January 18 2018 at 09:08
Lewian wrote:
PanzerTarkus wrote:
As a musician, I understand that the medium and delivery of music has changed drastically over the years. Older musicians are still trying to fight for record sales, when to be honest, the only sure-fire way to make money from music is playing live (or sponsors). When you rob people of their ability to listen to your music, trial or other-wise, you're robbing them the ability to sample before a purchase.
People don't own King Crimson's music, so surely nobody can "rob" it from them.
It's fair enough that many musicians are happy to get their music out for free, but we shouldn't take our "right" to listen for free for granted.
I agree. It's almost as if some people believe that an artist should not be paid for the music they make. It used to be that the only ways to sample new music would be if you heard it on the radio or a buddy bought the album or single. These days we have far more options but it's certainly not a right to expect it to be available free.
We all live in an amber subdomain, amber subdomain, amber subdomain.
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8443
Posted: January 18 2018 at 09:54
Of course artists should be paid. I totally empathize with the position of the labels and artists who want to be paid for their work.
But from a market position, there is a glut of music, and only the most dedicated fans are listening that way. The supply far outstrips the demand. Via Apple Music, I can find a hundred interesting albums to me with very little effort and at no additional cost.
When I switched from CDs to digital, I told myself I'd still buy from bandcamp for the artists I 'had' to hear - but I've learned that artists I 'have' to hear that I can't listen to side by side with my other music becomes artists I don't hear. I'm sure it's the same for many. It's why I'm way behind on Cuneiforms releases this year (just picked them up a couple weeks ago) - because I had 100 other available albums to listen to that didn't require me to spend a penny more than I already was to listen to them. Some of them I ended up buying after the fact, but Cuneiform wasn't in that pool. If I was a new consumer, I'd never hear of Cuneiform, because I'd be so sated on the music I already have access to.
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8443
Posted: January 18 2018 at 09:55
Which isn't to suggest an artist needs to put out everything they have on these services. But enough that people who are looking there can find them, and start to care enough to put in more effort for their remaining work.
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8571
Posted: January 18 2018 at 10:43
When possible, I always pay for music I like. But I am a huge fan of try before you buy. I ended up with a lot of stinkers over the years because that option was not presented to me and in general shied away from the stuff I didn't have some previous exposure to. Now there are countless bands that I would have never previously opened my wallet for that have my patronage due to the fact I got to hear their whole album on Bandcamp.
But I understand the flip side (or the Fripp side if you will). Unfortunately, a lot of people choose to not support through this medium and will just stream indefinitely. That is their right. It just doesn't give them much of a chance in today's marketplace without some previous standing or airplay/label support.
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4591
Posted: January 18 2018 at 10:59
Never noticed this before...then again I already have all the King Crimson albums I could ever want (about 45) and any new box sets or additional live stuff I'd buy direct from DGM without needing to pre-screen it. What completely amazes me is all the previously released albums that have been uploaded to YT and how YT licensing allows this but not other things.
For example, a couple years ago I uploaded a synthesizer only cover I did of the Beatles, "Because". Within a couple weeks I got a message from YT saying I was violating copyright, but it was ok because they had an agreement with the copyright holder to embed or include ads with my song. I didn't like the sound of them saying, "we know you're violating copyright but we'll let you slide because we can monetize it" because it also meant next week they could change their mind and I've now willingly violated copyright so I took it down. OTOH, do a search for "Beatles Abbey Road Full Album" and you get dozens of hits from people who've uploaded the entire album without a problem...which seems to me a more serious copyright infringement than posting a cover tune, yet that's somehow acceptable to YT. Go figure
Forum & Site Admin Group
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl & Eclectic Team
Joined: March 16 2007
Location: Boston
Status: Online
Points: 20179
Posted: January 18 2018 at 11:02
TheGazzardian wrote:
Of course artists should be paid. I totally empathize with the position of the labels and artists who want to be paid for their work.
But from a market position, there is a glut of music, and only the most dedicated fans are listening that way. The supply far outstrips the demand. Via Apple Music, I can find a hundred interesting albums to me with very little effort and at no additional cost.
When I switched from CDs to digital, I told myself I'd still buy from bandcamp for the artists I 'had' to hear - but I've learned that artists I 'have' to hear that I can't listen to side by side with my other music becomes artists I don't hear. I'm sure it's the same for many. It's why I'm way behind on Cuneiforms releases this year (just picked them up a couple weeks ago) - because I had 100 other available albums to listen to that didn't require me to spend a penny more than I already was to listen to them. Some of them I ended up buying after the fact, but Cuneiform wasn't in that pool. If I was a new consumer, I'd never hear of Cuneiform, because I'd be so sated on the music I already have access to.
You can listen to the whole of all the Cuneiform releases on bandcamp, it's only in the first few months of release that Steve restricts availability to one or two sample tracks.
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com
Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538
Posted: January 18 2018 at 11:25
It`s not just youtube, Crimson hadnīt been spotify also...but now somehow there is two latest live albums. I remember, when I listened Discipline from youtube some years ago, then going to listen Beat when noticed both Beat and Discipline have disappeared there. I think I will buy those eighties vinyls someday, but really would have wanted to hear them. They are not into my townīs library, so I canīt listen them anywhere.
Also, I have bought almost all my Crimson vinyls second hand, so Fripp havenīt got any of my moneys.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.191 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
YouTube vs Prog
Topic Options
PanzerTarkus wrote:
