RA: Month to Month - Analysis of Vinyl and Techno...hmmmm

[RDR]

http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature-read.aspx?id=880

[rhythmtech]

good article..

[MARK ANXIOUS]

brilliant article.. well written and well thought out.

thoroughly enjoyed reading that :)

[djshiva]

i really dug this article. one of my main gripes with people refusing to release digitally is that they feel somehow like the genie can be put back into the bottle. digital isn't going anywhere, and neither is vinyl. but expanding our market to include not only djs, but fans of the music is nothing but a good thing.

at the end of the day, i want to be able to put good music in the hands of people who love it, and to be able to buy the music i love so that the artists can make the music they love and perhaps even make a bit of money.

my financial situation has gotten considerably bad over the last year, and i have been unable to spend a lot of money on vinyl, but have still been buying music on a regular basis (more regular than when i just bought vinyl, to be honest). if i did not have the digital option, i wouldn't be buying ANY music. which is better for the labels and artists?

[Darkmode]

The people refusing to release digitally are basicly sacred of change I don't see anything wrong with digital releases as they are reaching more people all over world which I see as a good thing also another good thing with digital releases they raise artists profiles. I love vinyl & I would hate it to see it go but there will always be a market out there for vinyl lovers as the old saying goes every each to their own

[Martin Dust]

Oh no, vinyl dead again. Pointless.

[rhythmtech]

Oh no, vinyl dead again. Pointless.

pointless? how so?

surely reaching a larger audience is a good thing?

when i first got into techno "non djs" would actually buy the music because it was music they liked.. these days how, besides the hardcore fans and djs, is going to shell out silly money for 2/3 tracks?

like sheeva said, we need to get fans listening and buying again..

[Martin Dust]

pointless? how so?..

Read it, it's written to get links and a reaction - he knows half of nothing if you ask me.

surely reaching a larger audience is a good thing? ?..

Why? Does it actually exist? Weak argument, if you want a big audience, if that's what it's all about, join a ****ing boy band.

when i first got into techno "non djs" would actually buy the music because it was music they liked.. these days how, besides the hardcore fans and djs, is going to shell out silly money for 2/3 tracks? like sheeva said, we need to get fans listening and buying again..

Stop worrying about things you can NOT influence, make your music and do your thing - **** them all :)

[rhythmtech]

Weak argument, if you want a big audience, if that's what it's all about, join a ****ing boy band.

^^ THAT is a sad way to think. surely you want your music to get to as wide an audience as possible? or are you missing the good old days of techno elitism?

"hey, heard this fukin awesome tune m8... but dont tell anyone.. it'll be our little secret"

bollox to that..

[djshiva]

Why? Does it actually exist? Weak argument, if you want a big audience, if that's what it's all about, join a ****ing boy band.

well it's the chicken and the egg argument here tho, isn't it? does the wider audience exist to market the music to? CAN the wider audience exist without wider accessibility of the music? ad infinitum...

it's not about giving into some boy band commercialization notion. it's about understanding how you can keep your music fresh and even (dare i say it) underground, bypassing the common notion of "big labels" and still being able to get your music into the hands of people who love it, using a method that can still stay separate from the "big music business" mentality.

like i said, if it weren't for the digital option, right now my poor ass wouldn't be buying ANY music. and i ask you, from a purely logical (and not emotional) standpoint, which is better? all vinyl, no digital, and less music sold, meaning more money lost and less good music heard...or digital <i>options</i>, music sold, tunes played, people happy, musicians making something for their work, labels surviving to put out more music?

you say it's not about money, but martin, let's face it...if you can't pay rent or put food on the table, music becomes secondary to survival. and i know most musicians have day jobs, and aren't trying to get rich, but the ability to at least make a little scrilla off their work is nice. and frankly, if the labels are not making sales, they won't survive. so sales are, at some point in this debate, very relevant.

i WANT to buy the music. i want the musicians to get paid. i want the labels to survive. now i have more options. sure i want to see vinyl survive, but in all honesty, it's more important to me that the MUSIC survives.

at the end of the day, it's all soundwaves bouncing off of eardrums. how they get transported there is less important to me than the fact that they do.

[RDR]

Oh no, vinyl dead again. Pointless.

Cmon martin, you obviously have a position on this, can you be a bit clearer? I know you could put something into this debate that comes from personal experience, something interesting!

please?

;)

[Jay Pace]

All fair - but if a label chose to only release its music on betamax tapes and denied everyone lacking a betamax player the opportunity to listen to them you'd be entitled to point out that they were missing a trick...

Music is meant to be heard and appreciated shurely?

[rhythmtech]

Music is meant to be heard and appreciated shurely?

:BigThumbUp: whats the point otherwise?

[Jay Pace]

This quote summed it all up for me:

James Masters who runs the UK label Rekids along with Matt Edwards (Radio Slave), claims that their experiment with vinyl only releases had exactly the opposite effect: "We tried vinyl only with our 008 & 009 releases but the file sharing was so massive we took a decision we could not miss out on making digital formats available too."

Might as well get paid for your efforts.

[Martin Dust]

This quote summed it all up for me:

Might as well get paid for your efforts.

DS93 001 and 002 where a great success, thus proving the Jim's findings don't apply to everything and everyone. There's no one size fits all.

[Jay Pace]

Sure, there's no one rule for all things but could those two releases not have benefitted even more from a mixed format release?

I think making music available in the formats that people want to buy them in just makes good sense. I don't really understand why labels refuse to supply a demand for their music. I can't see who it benefits or protects.

People just resort to filesharing to meet the need, so the artists and labels lose out on the revenue and the exposure. Seems counterproductive to me.

[Martin Dust]

Sure, there's no one rule for all things but could those two releases not have benefitted even more from a mixed format release?

I think making music available in the formats that people want to buy them in just makes good sense. I don't really understand why labels refuse to supply a demand for their music. I can't see who it benefits or protects.

People just resort to filesharing to meet the need, so the artists and labels lose out on the revenue and the exposure. Seems counterproductive to me.

Because they don't want to, it's as simple as that, not everyone wants to conform to a general accepted point of view.

Sometimes it's just the right thing to do, just say NO to mass production and other peoples desires ;)

[Jay Pace]

Because they don't want to, it's as simple as that, not everyone wants to conform to a general accepted point of view.

Sometimes it's just the right thing to do, just say NO to mass production and other peoples desires ;)

To an extent I can understand this....

Maserati could make a cheap sports car for everyone and sell hundereds of thousands, but they choose to sell in tiny numbers to people who are passionate enough about them to pay crazy money. Not the greatest analogy, but some of it holds up.

So sure, labels can opt not to release digital because they aren't interested in their product being bought or played that way. Seems a bit weird to me - but I suppose if the label has a ethos they are committed to, and have artists who support that ethos its their collective decision. And on that basis they aren't missing a trick, they're opting not to take it.

Fair enough if people want to go down that route. Guess you'd have to be doing pretty well financially though to turn down money for your music. I don't know many artists who wish they'd sold less music and made less money...

[Martin Dust]

Fair enough if people want to go down that route. Guess you'd have to be doing pretty well financially though to turn down money for your music. I don't know many artists who wish they'd sold less music and made less money...

Your looking at this completely wrong Jay, not everything and everyone is about £££.

And you say you don't know anyone, well we've just finished our tracks for DS93 005, I'm going to sell less, make less money but produce a hand finished 12", rubber stamped, hand numbered with a screen printed sleeve and when I have it in my hands I'll be happy.

[Jay Pace]

Your looking at this completely wrong Jay, not everything and everyone is about £££.

You could release it on betamax wrapped in raw silk if you wanted, or limit your release to 100 hand carved solid gold plates. If thats what does it for you cool, not griping its a passion and unique and individual preference and all that.

Where it gets a little weird - is when people start complaining that people won't buy their music in the format they want them to. They won't buy vinyl/betamax/solid gold discs and instead just get the music in whatever format suits them best, legitimate or not.

People moan about the state of the industry, vinyl sales and the fickle public, but then they deliberately choose to solely cater for an increasingly niche audience. If thats their intention then good luck. If not, they've got not really got a valid reason to moan.