delet... Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesomeperson Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Reading on a screen is awful so the better experience is still getting the actual book, kindle and other e-readers may take some of those sales if they offer a similar experience to the average person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Good little video. This is how i see it for the most part too. I saw something a few days ago about a study that found anime sales are boosted by piracy. http://torrentfreak.com/internet-piracy-boosts-anime-sales-study-concludes-110203/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springymajig Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I don't think this is a new concept at all but it's nice to see someone high profile like Neil Gaiman spreading the message. However there is still one fault with people like Neil Gaiman spreading this message: he would have already selling LOTS of books and had been living off the profits of his art before his work started being pirated. He already had a high profile, which is why his work got spread so widely through piracy. If I released a book tomorrow in both free online versions and hardcopy, I can assure you it wouldn't be as effective. Same thing happened with Radiohead and Saul Williams. In Rainbows only sold well from the pay what you want scheme because a) Everyone already knew Radiohead and was gonna buy the album regardless and b) no other popular major label rock bands had done that before. When Trent Reznor followed with a similar idea for Saul Williams, it failed: As of 1/2/08,154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record. 28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning: 18.3% chose to pay... ...is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage - primarily from fans - seems disheartening. Add to that: we spent too much (correction, I spent too much) making the record utilizing an A-list team and studio, Musicane fees, an old publishing deal, sample clearance fees, paying to give the record away (bandwidth costs), and nobody's getting rich off this project. He does go on to say that it was good exposure and publicity, more people are now listening to Saul Williams than before they did that. But the argument that Gaiman is trying to make is that piracy is good for sales. I don't think that's true unless you're already selling well. And this is of course, why Mike Paradinas get's so upset (and rightfully so) when Planet Mu's albums leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy marathe Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 any exposure, whether it be through piracy or not, is exposure. i think it's an idiotic misconception that if you're not already established you absolutely must sell your work as opposed to offering it up for free in a wide variety of formats. as this vid says, you're advertising. and i'm a pretty big radiohead fan and didn't pay a dime for in rainbows. but i ended up buying it later on, after i had lived with the album for a bit. that's what i do with anything, whether it's a major label established artist or someone who only releases music on the net and has one album out. i think someone, it may have been steve albini, basically debunked the idea that piracy damages sales, a long long time before this video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I'm sure piracy does damage sales, without a doubt. Also books are in a bit of a privileged position compared to tunes. That said, anyone who argues that piracy will make it impossible for artists to make a living is blowing things out of proportion. Things are certainly changing though. Our definition of celebrity seems to be changing too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dylan Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Who cares if the words are written on paper or a fucking LCD screen... Nobody paid before for the words, they paid for the distribution of a bunch of paper sheets tied together and stocked at a store. Now those words are stocked on a digital files, but it's still the same function: Somebody gets a bunch of words together for others to read, and those readers decide if they want it or not. People pirate to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy marathe Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 i also don't think it's necessary for an artist to make their living solely off their art. i think most of the time the stuff that's produced is going to be interesting if they have a "normal" day job that they're holding down and the art is just supplementing that income. i think the whole notion that artists somehow deserve to make a living off their art is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorjamb Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarion Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I think the game has simply changed, irreversibly. It's easier to get your dayjob art out there; it's harder to focus solely on it and make a living. Swings and roundabouts; what can we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 My brother, who listens to music a lot more than me, as a daily activity underneath his gaming and what have you. Has bought many albums due to me previewing releases through soulseek (every year or so i'll go on a binge looking for new music). I'll play the releases a couple of times for myself (mostly skimming tbh) and say what i think is hot, and he grabs a bunch of folders and then a few weeks later you'll find he's gone out and bought some of it. Me on the other hand, I generally never listen to the music again, the motivation to listen to other peoples tunes having passed. So neither of us are pirates, and neither did we waste money on stuff we didn't get to test drive properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springymajig Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 any exposure, whether it be through piracy or not, is exposure. i think it's an idiotic misconception that if you're not already established you absolutely must sell your work as opposed to offering it up for free in a wide variety of formats. as this vid says, you're advertising. and i'm a pretty big radiohead fan and didn't pay a dime for in rainbows. but i ended up buying it later on, after i had lived with the album for a bit. that's what i do with anything, whether it's a major label established artist or someone who only releases music on the net and has one album out. i think someone, it may have been steve albini, basically debunked the idea that piracy damages sales, a long long time before this video. Well obviously exposure is good, and I don't know if Saul Williams as I used as an example before is now much better off as an artist but I'm sure he is. I'm not denying that. But I still think he would struggle financially, and that's what the whole piracy argument is about really. The only people who care are the ones missing out on some money (whether it be filthy rich bastards in charge of mega-labels who are complaining because they can't buy a new ivory back scratcher, or small indie labels who are struggling enough as it is and haven't quite coped well with the shift in the way the music industry works with all the digital distribution and stuff). So really, if you're going to make an argument that piracy is "good" you have to somehow prove that it's making artists of all kinds better off financially. If all art was free, piracy of this sort wouldn't exist. i also don't think it's necessary for an artist to make their living solely off their art. i think most of the time the stuff that's produced is going to be interesting if they have a "normal" day job that they're holding down and the art is just supplementing that income. i think the whole notion that artists somehow deserve to make a living off their art is ridiculous. Coming from the perspective of an animator, it is really hard to agree with you on that. If you think that it takes 12-14 drawings for every second of film, there are thousands of drawings that have to be made for every minute. If I had work on a traditional, hand drawn animation now, with a day job, it would take me several years to make something only 3 minutes long. Good art is about expression, and I'm certain that if I started something now, in 8 years time, that point I was trying to express would be completely irrelevant to me, and therefore, I would lose the passion for the film. Sure, I could still keep working on it anyway, but everyone would notice that parts of the film lack passion, it's so easy to see. You cannot produce really good art consistently and regularly unless you're immersed in it. So let's just say "that's being selfish, why should artist's demand to want to make good art?" Then let me ask you: Do you ever want to hear another Aphex Twin/Autechre/BOC/Squarepusher/Clark album ever again? Or will you be satisfied with elevator music? Or a world completely devoid of art? Another point I would like to make is that artists don't want money, they want to make art. But unfortunately, you need money to make art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy marathe Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 well, for every example you take like that i can give you an example of a writer with a day job, who has to support themselves through teaching or technical writing or whatever else, yet is able to produce a novel or a short story every couple of years. and the quality is almost invariable better. now, does this work for an animator? probably not. but then we could get into a big debate over how much work different types of art require and that would just a really long argument to have. i think using aphex as an example is a spurious point. i disagree that you have to be in some kind of art bubble 24/7 to create art. but then my examples are almost always going to be writers and some musicians. adversity usually fuels great art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 well, for every example you take like that i can give you an example of a writer with a day job, who has to support themselves through teaching or technical writing or whatever else, yet is able to produce a novel or a short story every couple of years. and the quality is almost invariable better. now, does this work for an animator? probably not. but then we could get into a big debate over how much work different types of art require and that would just a really long argument to have. i think using aphex as an example is a spurious point. i disagree that you have to be in some kind of art bubble 24/7 to create art. but then my examples are almost always going to be writers and some musicians. adversity usually fuels great art. to say there is one right way to approach making art is ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy marathe Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 did i say that, at any point? i'm defending a point i made. i think the entitlement that certain artists have, and i'm not talking about springymajig because i understand how labor intensive animation is, but that entitlement that they should simply be able to produce "great art" without having to maintain a job is a delusion. if you're going to make great art, or, let's be realistic, any art, you're going to do it whether or not you're a barista at a starbucks eight hours a day. and if you read my post, which i don't think you did, since this seems to happen fairly often on this board, i'm saying that my point only really stands for writers and musicians, and even then, it's a flimsy argument. what i'm saying is that there isn't any one approach to making art, but there is also no guarantee that you're going to be able to produce art at any consistent rate throughout your life, or that you somehow deserve to do this simply because you can. i would love to write novels every year and have them published and never have to work again, but that isn't how the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 did i say that, at any point? i'm defending a point i made. i think the entitlement that certain artists have, and i'm not talking about springymajig because i understand how labor intensive animation is, but that entitlement that they should simply be able to produce "great art" without having to maintain a job is a delusion. if you're going to make great art, or, let's be realistic, any art, you're going to do it whether or not you're a barista at a starbucks eight hours a day. and if you read my post, which i don't think you did, since this seems to happen fairly often on this board, i'm saying that my point only really stands for writers and musicians, and even then, it's a flimsy argument. what i'm saying is that there isn't any one approach to making art, but there is also no guarantee that you're going to be able to produce art at any consistent rate throughout your life, or that you somehow deserve to do this simply because you can. i would love to write novels every year and have them published and never have to work again, but that isn't how the world works. sorry yeah I didn't fully read your posts, mainly cause I think the whole discussion is a little bit bizarre. Basically you are saying people who are successful at being self employed artists... shouldnt be able to be successful at it? Or.... Im a little drunk so pardon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy marathe Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 no, i'm saying if you're successful at it then that's fantastic, you win. but there's no guarantee that you'll be successful at it. if there was a way to pull every great mind with potential out of society and have them produce great art in any medium for the remainder of their lives then i'd completely get behind that, but there isn't. instead we have an imperfect system based on commodity and that system ebbs with changes in economy, technology, etc. and this is one of those major sea changes that we're seeing that will take a few years to complete. artists just have to adapt to it. if you're really an artist, you'll just make art, despite the hardship behind it. or you won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 ok agreed, sorry bout that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 a lot of the problem with underground music is the same as it has always been. Low to NO exposure through the normal channels of the mass media. Looking around for people to blame cause you're no longer part of some lucky bandwagon you may have tripped off 15 years ago assplain nothing. *disregard, dleetr drunk, plz forgive, dleetr wasted on rhum. * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springymajig Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 well, for every example you take like that i can give you an example of a writer with a day job, who has to support themselves through teaching or technical writing or whatever else, yet is able to produce a novel or a short story every couple of years. and the quality is almost invariable better. now, does this work for an animator? probably not. but then we could get into a big debate over how much work different types of art require and that would just a really long argument to have. i think using aphex as an example is a spurious point. i disagree that you have to be in some kind of art bubble 24/7 to create art. but then my examples are almost always going to be writers and some musicians. adversity usually fuels great art. I see where you're coming from and I think I agree that it is different for different artists, however, I think great artists usually produce art about the adversity they face coping with life, not coping with creating art... I would assume the ones that struggle to make their art would produce art about... art. And that's fine, but I mean, it's not really the same as say... a tragic love story, or a song about suicide, or a painting about depression. Unless you're talking more about restrictions imposed upon an artist thereby forcing the artist to be creative, that is one thing I entirely agree with. Animation is a medium which imposes restrictions on itself without any outside interference (just because no matter what medium you work in it's REALLY FUCKING HARD :P) although that would just be the animation itself, the writing is entirely another matter altogether. I don't think an artist needs to STRUGGLE to have these restrictions placed upon them, I think they just need to practice a bit of self control and restraint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 yeah, that struggle thing is just stuff for hipsters to talk about to make that abortion on their wall seem like it was worth the purchase. Really it's just that some people are talented in certain fields, and further they are probably more likely to act on that talent in a supportive environment than in the midst of a struggle. Hence the middle and upper classes filling the ranks in most fields of art. Given their struggle free backgrounds of course, and with this generalization about struggle being seen as a necessary prerequisite for the honing of the individuals talent. Some of these people have to resort to tales of mental disorders or drug abuse, to satisfy the markets demand for art out of adversity. --- Springy is right about practise and focus though, you ain't getting ahead of the pack unless you pick your lazy arse up. And for ultimate slackers like me that could be defined as somewhat of a struggle. "Listen to this piece by deleter, you can really hear how he finally dragged himself up off the couch and away from watmm and put a few hours in on fruity. Magnificent !" hehe *-gives everyone a huggle-* ;-] :: [-; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braintree Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 i think the whole notion that artists somehow deserve to make a living off their art is ridiculous. I think the truly exceptional or unique should be able to do so. Also, I think if I had more time to focus on music, and more projects to improve myself, then I would produce better work. I understand not everyone operates like this, but why does a computer programmer who loves his job get to make a living from it and I don't deserve to make a living from what I love to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 i think the whole notion that artists somehow deserve to make a living off their art is ridiculous. I think the truly exceptional or unique should be able to do so. Also, I think if I had more time to focus on music, and more projects to improve myself, then I would produce better work. I understand not everyone operates like this, but why does a computer programmer who loves his job get to make a living from it and I don't deserve to make a living from what I love to do? good question, seems like an odd thing to say, too bad Remy can't followup since he is no longer with us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkaholic Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 i think the whole notion that artists somehow deserve to make a living off their art is ridiculous. I think the truly exceptional or unique should be able to do so. Also, I think if I had more time to focus on music, and more projects to improve myself, then I would produce better work. I understand not everyone operates like this, but why does a computer programmer who loves his job get to make a living from it and I don't deserve to make a living from what I love to do? good question, seems like an odd thing to say, too bad Remy can't followup since he is no longer with us i believe Francis Ford Coppola said something similar recently http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-On-Risk-Money-Craft-Collaboration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ego Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 but why does a computer programmer who loves his job get to make a living from it and I don't deserve to make a living from what I love to do? Well for most programmers the programming we do to make a living is not fun, creative work. It's tedious, hard work for stupid clients with ridiculous demands. There are few programmers that can make a living of programming stuff that's near to their hearts, just like it is for artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.