Altrock, the label

[Trane]

You can say it. You can even say it in bold. But it's not true.

I only bolded it up to make clear as to what comment Udi was making and responded to it (I'll even go unbold it), but I'll take your word for it.

sadly, even music avantheads are also in for a free ride, then.

[moecurlythanu]

^ In all honesty, and not to sound like a rich guy, but I'm often surprised reading about how people agonize over whether to purchase a $15 CD. Money must be really tight for way more than I would have guessed.

[battema]

^ In all honesty, and not to sound like a rich guy, but I'm often surprised reading about how people agonize over whether to purchase a $15 CD. Money must be really tight for way more than I would have guessed.

I'm not sure it's tight as much as, "suddenly I can get it cheaper elsewhere or for virtually nothing via some subscription service or YT...so maybe it's not really worth it anymore to spend the money."

Edit: also, shipping across the pond in either direction flat out sucks nowadays. Someone might still be down for a $15-$18 CD for an independent band but then the additional 30-40% for shipping a single unit can be a dealbreaker.

Just my $0.02.

[Steve F.]

It has nothing to do with tight.
It has nothing to do with desperation.

It has to do with the fact that illegal file sharing made recorded music valueless.

The fact that recorded music became valueless led to streaming services and YouTube that for nothing (I consider unlimited, commercial - free music for $10.00 per month or as part of your cell phone bill to be nothing - YMMV) give you more recorded music than any sane human could even consider consuming, and does so in overwhelming quantities truly did make recorded music valueless.

AND the fact that in today's world, artists feel that they need to give away their music this way in order to reach 'their fans', reinforces the valueless-ness.

IMO

[battema]

^^^ yep, that.

[Buddhabreath]

^^^
Yeppers.

Not just music, this is an artifact of corporate consolidation and the concentration of resources in fewer and fewer hands. There are myriad examples such as the destruction of mom & pop retail by Amazon and "big box" stores and the destruction of family farms by corporate farming. It makes me wonder, what kind of sick society to we want? How long will the sheople tolerate the destruction of the artist, the worker, the independent small entrepreneur?

[Zeuhlmate]

And face it - less people are interested in 'serious' music than before.

When you see what HiFi-equipment shops are making their money on, it's not HiFi, but Surround/TV/Home movie/Streaming stuff.
Even the classic HiFi-equipment companies makes extremely expensive CD-machines, amplifiers etc. that is made for streaming (mostly 128kbps).

[aith01]

It has nothing to do with tight.
It has nothing to do with desperation.

It has to do with the fact that illegal file sharing made recorded music valueless.

The fact that recorded music became valueless led to streaming services and YouTube that for nothing (I consider unlimited, commercial - free music for $10.00 per month or as part of your cell phone bill to be nothing - YMMV) give you more recorded music than any sane human could even consider consuming, and does so in overwhelming quantities truly did make recorded music valueless.

AND the fact that in today's world, artists feel that they need to give away their music this way in order to reach 'their fans', reinforces the valueless-ness.

IMO

Yeah. Sadly, I really do believe this is the case. And then the fact that since some of these streaming services are technically legal (except for YouTube, which is hit or miss), I think that allows for most people to feel absolved of any responsibility; that the artists are being compensated, so everybody wins. Except that's not true.

Even though I use Spotify and Apple Music, I'm still an avid music collector (both CD and LP) -- but I realize that makes me the exception rather than the rule, and that we are probably a dying breed at this point. And maybe I'm part of the problem, since I've been supporting these streaming platforms with my own money...

Losing AltRock is another hard pill to swallow.

[Steve F.]

Yeah. Sadly, I really do believe this is the case. And then the fact that since some of these streaming services are technically legal (except for YouTube, which is hit or miss)

ALL of them are 100% legal except for youtube which isn't ONLY IF a third party uploads the material and the copyright holder/artist doesn't want it up.

I think that allows for most people to feel absolved of any responsibility; that the artists are being compensated, so everybody wins. Except that's not true.

I agree, but denial about the severe downside(s) of 'free stuff' is hard to argue with. See the unbelievable argument I had at RIO 2007 with Uri Breitman. I knew it was all over then. It just took a while for the body to realize it was dead.

[Crawford Glissadevil]

No more new stuff? That's too bad. I really like Altrock.

[calyx]

ALL of them are 100% legal except for youtube which isn't ONLY IF a third party uploads the material and the copyright holder/artist doesn't want it up.

Forgive my naivety here, but I don't get how YouTube works. On the one hand it seems very easy for anyone to put up entire albums that they provably have no right to put up; on the other hand, when I upload on YT a video that uses, even as barely audible background music (usually to interviews), released music, they seem VERY good at detecting its presence and identifying it. Now, the videos in question don't get taken down, just demonetised. There is one case where a video was taken down because of a video (not just audio) excerpt I'd used.

YT seem very "good" at censoring all sorts of stuff (usually on, broadly speaking, political criteria), but for some reason seem to have a very, let's say, "open-minded" view of what constitutes "fair use" in the use of copyrighted music. For me, "fair use" is basically using EXCERPTS of complete works as part of otherwise ORIGINAL content. I just don't get why entire albums, at the very least, can't be automatically taken down. I don't particularly condone streaming sites, but at least they are technically authorised by the rights holders to stream the stuff, whereas YT seems to operate in total anarchy.

[Steve F.]

^^^^^^^^^

Your questions require much more than I can give you here, especially without understanding fully what has happened to you.

Skype?

[calyx]

Your questions require much more than I can give you here, especially without understanding fully what has happened to you.

To be more specific, I used a clip from Baker-Gurvitz Army DVD in a segment from an interview with Peter Lemer in which he discussed his time in that band. As I uploaded the video on YT, I was immediately notified that there was a "copyright dispute" (that's before the video had even been fully uploaded) and that a notification had been sent to the rights holders. I was asked if I had anything to say in my defense and I basically pleaded "fair use" - which after a month was rejected, and the video was taken down.

So far it's been the only video of mine that's been taken down although I have used similar (usually shorter, and with people speaking over them) excerpts in my videos. I've also tried various tricks like slightly slowing down or speeding up or altering the audio in various ways, which has sometimes worked, sometimes not, just as an experiment - because I'm happy as long as my videos aren't taken down, I'm not after "monetising".

I was just using my personal experience to stress how YT basically has the tools to detect copyrighted material but doesn't use them, whereas it has been known to be much less forgiving in its concept of "fair use" in other instances - where, for some reason, it seemed inclined to look for excuses to censor stuff.

So, I am just wondering what YT's professed "philosophy" on these matters is, and what their rationale for letting people upload full albums is when they clearly could make (most of) that impossible.

[Steve F.]

Their philosophy and rationale? Making money. As much as possible.

[calyx]

Their philosophy and rationale? Making money. As much as possible.

I guess that's what I meant when I prefaced my post with "at the risk of sounding naive", or something !

I'm not really THAT naive, of course. I was just interested in knowing what their public discourse is on that issue, especially when presented with the argument that they have all the tools needed (and then some) to enforce respect of copyright, at least in instances of entire works being uploaded. Has the issue been publicly raised with them and, if so, what is their official stance on it ?

[Steve F.]

^^^^^

I keep phoning their CEO to ask these very same questions about why they aren’t making stronger efforts to protect my copyrights.

I’m sure they’ll have a full explanation for me exceedingly soon!

[NogbadTheBad]

They are only interested in protecting their advertising revenue stream & subscription fees, anything else doesn't "add shareholder value"

[Udi Koomran]

You can say it. You can even say it in bold. But it's not true.

not true

[Trane]

^^^^^

I keep phoning their CEO to ask these very same questions about why they aren’t making stronger efforts to protect my copyrights.

I’m sure they’ll have a full explanation for me exceedingly soon!

you are probably forgetting the enveloppe under the table, or not sending your sexy assistant to plead your cause directly from face to dickhead

JK of course

[Crawford Glissadevil]

Independent creators spent millions of hours building Youtube's brand. More folks get their news off YouTube than MSM. MSM came late to the party. Over the last two years, Youtube welcomed MSM while silently suffocating independent creators with copywrite strikes, shadow banning, burying search results, and demonetization. CNN, FOX, Will Smith, Taylor Swift could insert a clip from Baker-Gurvitz Army DVD without fear of a copyright strike. It's two tier system.

[Scrotum Scissor]

See the unbelievable argument I had at RIO 2007 with Uri Breitman. I knew it was all over then. It just took a while for the body to realize it was dead.

I only remember that debacle from a later confrontation between the two of you in here. But I do remember your reference to the 2007 incident in question.

Strange to think that this was the same year you issued Time of Orchids' Namesake Caution, a release which struck my heart as a "full circle" conclusion of just about everything I ever associated with the "progressive" in rock and ironically made me think and feel that yes - indeed - it is all over. Nowhere left to go, little left to say.

It's sad still. it was a good run and a decent existence. Younger folks here in Norway for the most part don't first and foremost "not get" music itself - but the whole phenomenon of culture which once surrounded and embroidered it. They do not understand why anyone would want to "own" musical products for longtime repeated listening consumption, and they certainly don't grasp it when there's music emanating from a stereo more than ten minutes at a time; I mean, with that racket going for so long how are you supposed to attend to vital activities like gaming, chatting, apping and crapping?

Of course, there are the feinschmekkers; vinyl geeks, collectors, old farts, jockey tarts. But that army's not THE army anymore.

[calyx]

Independent creators spent millions of hours building Youtube's brand. More folks get their news off YouTube than MSM. MSM came late to the party. Over the last two years, Youtube welcomed MSM while silently suffocating independent creators with copywrite strikes, shadow banning, burying search results, and demonetization. CNN, FOX, Will Smith, Taylor Swift could insert a clip from Baker-Gurvitz Army DVD without fear of a copyright strike. It's two tier system.

Well put, thanks, I think you nailed it.

[Steve F.]

how are you supposed to attend to vital activities like gaming, chatting, apping and crapping?

Here it's mostly spending amazingly large amounts of money at restaurants. Talk about a fleeting experience....

Chefs are the new rock stars. Until they can be downloaded. Then they won't be.

BTW, I'm a pretty good cook, but I am no rock star...

[Steve F.]

I've been carrying around this particular bit of poison for over a dozen years. Maybe it is time to let some light and air in.

I know it doesn't belong in a thread about AltrOck, but I hope folks understand why I am putting it here.

I don't think anyone knows this story other than Udi (who semi-witnessed it) and my wife, who didn't hear it until 2017, when I decided to close down Cuneiform. It upset me so much that i basically tried to put it out of my mind, although, of course, I never truly succeeded.

It's May, 2007. I am at the first Rock In Opposition festival. I have traveled down to south France on a train with my good pal Aymeric and taken a beautiful trainride through the countryside. I am on my own because our dog, Sam, is 17 years old and is too old and frail can not be left alone, so Joyce is home with Sam.

I think it was the first morning of the festival, having gotten there the day before. I am really excited I am going to see a bunch of my friends who I rarely get to see due to distance (Kerman, the Guapo fellers, etc) and a bunch of my bands are playing and I'm feeling very 'validated' about what I have spent my life doing.

I'm sitting alone at the cafeteria at breakfast, drinking coffee, when this person I don't know comes over and sits down next to me. He knows who I am. He wants to talk to me. OK.

He tells me how much he loves what I've done with the label and how important the work is. I thank him. He says more nice stuff. I thank him. It all leads up to:

"And I love what you do so much and admire the artists so much that I take all your releases I can get and I upload them for other people to be able to love and admire them too."

I tell him that this is extremely upsetting to me and really hurts me.

He babbles on about how important the music is and how important it is that everyone can hear it.

Again I express complete shock and disbelief that he is saying this to me and how upsetting it is.

He ignores me and continues to babble. I interrupt him and tell him he's really upsetting me and he should leave. NOW.

He doesn't leave. He keeps on telling me how he is helping the music too by his actions. I keep asking him to go the fuck away.

FINALLY I pick up a chair and I SCREAM "Get the fuck away from me NOW or I am going to KILL YOU NOW."

Finally, he runs off.

I sit back down. I am completely wound up and upset and freaked out and SHAKING with anger and upset. Jean-Herve Peron of Faust - who I barely know - has witnessed some of it. He comes over and gives me a real and genuine human hug and says, "I'm sorry. They just don't understand sometimes."

Like I said, I knew it was all over when that happened. It just took a while for me to realize I couldn't fight those forces and those trends and that mindset.

[Poisoned Youth]

YouTube, Amazon, Netflix, and Apple did more damage to the old business model than CDRs and file sharing imo.

Additionally, over the last 10 years there has been an absolute explosion of content (music, tv, movies, books, social media, news feeds, etc.) vying for our attention. The impact of this on last-gen content models cannot be understated. I’d argue that 80% or higher of all content released is “lost in plain sight”.

Even when you consider how popular streaming models (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Spotify) organize their content, a great deal of it has to be searched for as it is not highlighted on the main page.

There are three challenges imo that need to be overcome for musicians etc. to make some money for their work.

1) Better royalties from streaming services. This seems the most likely to occur, despite everyone scoffing at me when reading it. It still may never be perceived as “fair”, but I can see it getting improved.

2) The proliferation of content makes attaching yourself to a brand hugely important. In our little world, we are more likely to pay attention to a new release if it connects to a previously established brand (label, crossover artist, endorsement, appearing at a festival, etc.). Completely independent releases in this day and age should expect poor results.

3) Get paid for your work up front. Indie artists create music thinking it has value because it exists. This is bull crap. And with the glut of music out there today, an aging/fickle fan base, and people embracing streaming models, it’s only getting worse. If artists want paid, they should seek major label support (likes the old days) or consider crowdfunding.