A good or bad thing?

[apriatels]

I just learned that an album I co-produced has made its way to a big file-sharing network.

Even though I expected it at some point, now that it's happened a battle is raging in me.

On one hand I guess it can be considered a good thing, in that it signals a certain measure of success.

On the other hand, I'm ticked-off because of the several thousand hours of work that went into the making of the album.

How would you guys feel?

[Myst and rain]

You can expect this kind of thing nowadays. That's how I'd feel. If I was in it just for the money I wouldn't like it, but if I were in it for others I'd be happy the album was a succes.

Alwin

[apriatels]

Thanks for replying Myst and rain!

I guess it was just the "moment of discovery" that triggered the unanticipated conflict. My usual optimistic demeanor is returning now.

My concern has and always will be for the artist and not myself.

Life goes on.

[michblanch]

Is it your livelihood?

If so then you have every right to be upset. Lots of producers make their money based on sales.

Lets say you produce 4 So-so albums a year for bands that are struggling, then those 4 albums make up your revenue for the year. Then you should be upset.

If you are just happy that the band is getting publicity and getting their name out and you are gonna get dibs on the next release, then be grateful.

[Reaper]

Well, to look at the positive side, the more popular the album, the more work that will come your way...

[sick-boy]

I think I would just be happy and view it as a sign of success.
The file-sharing problem is an inevitablity that you almost just have to accept.

[Demiurge]

That's a toughie. On one hand, exposure from file-sharing may lead people to actually buy the whole album.... or people will just download the album. Maybe it's the case that piracy is a form of flattery...

Trouble for you is that your benefit vis-a-vis "getting the word out" is less than the band's. The band's name is still on the files people download. Your name is only in the CD booklet. Furthermore, some rips from CD's don't sound that good in lower bitrates and may not properly give justice to your production efforts.

[jb4674]

Originally Posted by apriatels

I just learned that an album I co-produced has made its way to a big file-sharing network.

Even though I expected it at some point, now that it's happened a battle is raging in me.

On one hand I guess it can be considered a good thing, in that it signals a certain measure of success.

On the other hand, I'm ticked-off because of the several thousand hours of work that went into the making of the album.

How would you guys feel?

I have to ask.... How are you compensated on albums you produce? Is it based on sales, on how the contract is structured, or do you get paid a certain fee for your services once the project is finished?

I could see it being an issue if you get paid by the amount of sales the album makes and, if that's the case, how do you really earn a living? I would imagine that the label gets its money, then the band and whatever else goes to the other folks involved.

If it's the latter, I really don't see a problem with the music being shared. You already got paid, so let people do what they wish with the music.

I hope I didn't offend you. I really have no firm idea as to how it works in the real world, hence my questions.

Jimmy

[GilkyBear]

Yeah, this is a tough nut to crack. Bottom line, I'm afraid, is the industry will have to change. Producers and all the support jobs will no longer be able to tie their pay to album sales, they will just have to be paid cash. Bands will no longer be able to rest on album sales, but will have to earn more from the venues for live performances, from selling their song to an advertisement, etc etc etc.

[Clonetool]

I took the Quiz on the Dimi what the heck is name is site. 4 out of 11 people think he sounds lke Satriani. Sounds well produced but a direct rip-off of Satch. There are MP3s on the site to listen too. See what you guys think.

[jemsite]

Originally Posted by apriatels

I just learned that an album I co-produced has made its way to a big file-sharing network.

Even though I expected it at some point, now that it's happened a battle is raging in me.

On one hand I guess it can be considered a good thing, in that it signals a certain measure of success.

On the other hand, I'm ticked-off because of the several thousand hours of work that went into the making of the album.

How would you guys feel?

well, i deal with this in my software venture so i know how it feels to some extent. We use software licensing controls, but i have support inquiries where people are lying thru their teeth about licensing and other stuff (ie. blatent theft).

It's 100% a part of doing business. Music is a business.

it's probably best you learned sooner that the music biz is mostly about lawyers and songwriters making $$$ and artists and performers have to fight for revenue from things such as merchandise, appearances, etc.

i think it also highlights spending "several thousand of hours" as probably a poor business investment... i know you're an artist but sometimes you gotta put the brush down, step back and say it's done.

best regards... glen

ps - this is really the crux of why the MPAA/RIAA, etc are so vehemently against file sharing while many artists endorese it. it's because it hurts THEM more collectively ALOT MORE than it hurts artists. Think about it... the artists have some tangible gains possible from file sharing such as free exposure and publicity (advertising is expensive) while losing some sales revenue sure (which they know they get peanuts from). OTOH the lawyers and such lose alot of "hypothetical revenue" since the music is unpaid and that is a large source of their revenue.

[Clonetool]

Dimitar Nalbantov should pay Satriani a groove fee.

[apriatels]

Thanks for all the replies guys!

A lot of things to address here...

First, I'm not naive about the music business or file-sharing and my initial conflict over the news is waneing. As I said, I expected it at some point. The news just set me off - something I didn't expect and is out of character for me. I'm now resolved to focus on the good.

Secondly, "my" livelihood is not affected by this. It "could" however have an effect on the artist's ability to continue making great music, but I am (as well as others) determined not to let that happen.

I never considered the time spent as an investment, but rather a labor of love - a love for instrumental rock guitar music that has its roots with Hendrix. I met Jimi as a wide-eyed teenage lad and that love has continued through Schenker, VanHalen, SVR, Vai, Satriani, etc., etc.

As for the "sounds like" thing - I doubt any artist would say they didn't have any influences. To me, great music is great music regardless of the source.

Thanks again guys, your replies have been a big help in my "recovery".