Lunch with AJ & JC (by Skype) lottery?

[FanDeAliFee]

Here's an idea for financial patronage of new art from the Chatelain family -

A lottery, whose winner can have lunch (a two-hour post-meridien déjeuner) by means of Internet videoconference (Skype) with Alizée and Jérémy (European time, in Paris or Corsica as they find convenient.) Perhaps, in summer, in honor of "Gourmandises," it can even be a "déjeuner sur l'herbe." (But EVERYONE will be conventionally attired, like in the video, thank you!) Maybe one would standardize doing this on up to one Saturday each month.

The winner also would be posted a DVD of the event, but on which the producers reserve full commercial rights. Food at the winner's end would be his/her responsibility, but perhaps some suggestions might be forthcoming in advance from France, e.g. to eat similar things. For a reduced chance to win for a given investment, a language translator at the French end could be provided.

The lottery would be conducted via the Internet, and one could pay as much as one wanted above a certain minimum for a proportionately greater chance of winning. It would continue until at least a certain minimum total sales total was reached, e.g. €10000 after sales and marketing expenses. Fan clubs might want to band together to invest greater sums than could individuals, and lease a large screen display for a gathering with one another when the big day arrives! One could also imagine optional multicasting for a third-party service fee after the winner is announced.

An alternative to lunch might be a match using a multiplayer Internet game, e.g. via X-Box Live, including video feeds on the side. (Did X-Box Live ever sponsor celebrity players as a marketing tool?)

Yet another alternative might be a walking/driving tour by wireless Internet videoconference. ("Mlle. Alizée, could we please stop here and look around?") Pretty soon there will be great wireless broadband coverage to make this possible in many affluent countries.

Naturally, everyone will be very well behaved and would most likely participate with their spouse or boy/girlfriend to make a foursome or more. Remember:

<i>Gare à qui se comporte
Sans l'once d'un tact, et
Son sang n'est pas du lait!</i>

<table align="center" width="50%" cellpadding="10" border="5"><tr><td><center>(added 2010.03.13)</center>
[Would you] ...accept a dinner with a male or female fan?

<i>Yes! And I will even say no problem. Most fans that I have met have been calm and respectful with me. In these conditions, I don't know why I would refuse to share a meal with one of them.</i>
-<a href="http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92000&postcount=11">2008 interview</i> of Alizée
</td></tr></table>

And wouldn't it be nice to make it a pleasurable time for the Chatelains, who might become known for posting some dried, pressed foliage from the maquis (picked by guess who?) to those lottery winner whose company they most enjoyed during the run of a calendar year?

This is all just daydreaming for now, but technology makes it possible - especially with a "James Bond Girl"!

Would you be set up for a videoconference now? If the lottery existed, would you manage to set up in that manner for the opportunity to partcipate?

How much might you invest for a value-proportional chance at winning, if the pot was set at €10000 (now about £8682, US$14091 and MXP180098). i.e. if you buy €100 of "tickets," you have a 1% chance of winning, et cetera. Do you think €10000 is too high for a two-hour lunch/walk/drive/gameplay with two celebrities living in an expensive city? Remember, all the money will go into funding the next art project the couple want to undertake. It is really mainly venerable sponsorship, and not just a chance for personal delight!

Your comments and suggestions are encouraged.

[Deepwaters]

My sense is that Jérémy Châtelain is never going to participate in any of Alizée's fan activities. My impression is in fact that he has no role in the creation of the new album, but that may not be a permanent change; however the separation of their private life from her public life is an old story. Thus, as you have described it, this will not happen.

Now, some kind of skype or other on-line interaction with Her Grace alone might be possible but of course she would have to agree to it, and in the past she has never done anything like this for any ONE person, only for smallish groups, as she did for the chat event during the Psych promotion. So again, as you have described it I doubt it will happen even without the J-man involved. But something sort of kind of along those lines might.

Needs more thought, in short.

EDIT: I forgot, on two occasions she did do something remotely like this for single fans, namely the two episodes of Stars à Domicile with her in them. But in recent years it's always been with more than one.

[User22]

Here's an idea for financial patronage of new art from the Chatelain family -

A lottery, whose winner can have lunch (a two-hour post-meridien déjeuner) by means of Internet videoconference (Skype) with Alizée and Jérémy (European time, in Paris or Corsica as they find convenient.) Perhaps, in summer, in honor of "Gourmandises," it can even be a "déjeuner sur l'herbe." (But EVERYONE will be conventionally attired, like in the video, thank you!) Maybe one would standardize doing this on up to one Saturday each month.

The winner also would be posted a DVD of the event, but on which the producers reserve full commercial rights. Food at the winner's end would be his/her responsibility, but perhaps some suggestions might be forthcoming in advance from France, e.g. to eat similar things. For a reduced chance to win for a given investment, a language translator at the French end could be provided.

The lottery would be conducted via the Internet, and one could pay as much as one wanted above a certain minimum for a proportionately greater chance of winning. It would continue until at least a certain minimum total sales total was reached, e.g. €10000 after sales and marketing expenses. Fan clubs might want to band together to invest greater sums than could individuals, and lease a large screen display for a gathering with one another when the big day arrives! One could also imagine optional multicasting for a third-party service fee after the winner is announced.

An alternative to lunch might be a match using a multiplayer Internet game, e.g. via X-Box Live, including video feeds on the side. (Did X-Box Live ever sponsor celebrity players as a marketing tool?)

Yet another alternative might be a walking/driving tour by wireless Internet videoconference. ("Mlle. Alizée, could we please stop here and look around?") Pretty soon there will be great wireless broadband coverage to make this possible in many affluent countries.

Naturally, everyone will be very well behaved and would most likely participate with their spouse or boy/girlfriend to make a foursome or more. Remember:

Gare à qui se comporte
Sans l'once d'un tact, et
Son sang n'est pas du lait!

And wouldn't it be nice to make it a pleasurable time for the Chatelains, who might become known for posting some dried, pressed foliage from the maquis (picked by guess who?) to those lottery winner whose company they most enjoyed during the run of a calendar year?

This is all just daydreaming for now, but technology makes it possible - especially with a "James Bond Girl"!

Would you be set up for a videoconference now? If the lottery existed, would you manage to set up in that manner for the opportunity to partcipate?

How much might you invest for a value-proportional chance at winning, if the pot was set at €10000 (now about £8682, US$14091 and MXP180098). i.e.
if you buy €100 of "tickets," you have a 1% chance of winning, et cetera. Do you think €10000 is too high for a two-hour lunch/walk/drive/gameplay with two celebrities living in an expensive city? Remember, all the money will go into funding the next art project the couple want to undertake. It is really mainly venerable sponsorship, and not just a chance for personal delight!

Your comments and suggestions are encouraged.

very good idea, and not that i have the money too, and would be very embarrased to put myself up to them. But anyway, how would you get them to do it???

[FanDeAliFee]

very good idea, and not that i have the money too, and would be very embarrased to put myself up to them. But anyway, how would you get them to do it???

Of late, thinking about ways to finance the work of artists in the age of digital piracy has become a sometime small hobby for me.

Before the mass-market art era enabled by the printing press, audio recording media and so on, artists relied upon either patronage or theatrical entrance fees. As it grows increasingly impossible to enforce a copyright regimen for fixed art (vs. interactive art like network-based video games), we may have to again rely upon the older methods. The latter old method is rather wasteful in an age of almost-free global telecommunications, or at the least, a limited source of income for artists who are not superstars and can draw large in-person audiences. That's why I have thought about trying to find new methods of patronage, which can finance the artist to create work which can then be released, reproduced and communicated freely using modern information technology. My lottery idea might be one method which accomplishes that.

Aside: When you submit the string "win lunch with" to the Google search engine, you get almost a MILLION hits.

Perhaps Alizée will again be a superstar who can fill whole stadiums like Madonna. But what if that is only in her past, and she might retire from her career rather than settle for the life of a "working class" artist performing in a few smaller venues, and only in a few large cities at that? IF embraced, the lottery method permits, say, 100,000 fans widely (and thus THINLY) scattered around the world to financially support her with their "ticket" purchases, despite the fact that the largest in-person audience in any one place she performed live might only number 500.

Thus, I am not looking to persuasion, but potential NECESSITY, to lobby for the cooperation of the Chatelains. I would be only too pleased if they elected to continue working to create media files, despite the impossibility of legally licensed sales, should that be their fate.

[Deepwaters]

Thus, I am not looking to persuasion, but potential NECESSITY, to lobby for the cooperation of the Chatelains.

It's not at all a bad idea, but as I said, Jérémy won't participate. Also, it might be wise to adress Alizée by her correct (or else no) last name. ;)

[FanDeAliFee]

Also, it might be wise to ad[d]ress Alizée by her correct (or else no) last name. ;)

What surname would you have us use for the pair? Perhaps the Great Mexican Salvation might suggest a Hispanic-style hypenated hybrid surname. ;) Or will a girl soon entering school be called Annily Chatelain?

[jung_adore_ALIZEE]

Of late, thinking about ways to finance the work of artists in the age of digital piracy has become a sometime small hobby for me.

When have CD sales been a major part of an artists income in the first place? There are plenty of these money making schemes out there some are decent ideas and some are just off the wall. The thing that many forget when doing such though is, what is the artist doing in the entertainment industry in the first place? Artists still make a fine living off of touring, it's just a matter of knowing what type of Venue one can do. It is obvious that Alizee is shooting too high at the moment, so one has to downsize a bit and work up from there.

Regards,

Jung

[lefty12357]

Actually, at one time record sales were a more significant part of an artist's income, but those days are long gone. It has much to do with how the record companies currently share the revenue, which in my opinion is terribly unfair. So yes, touring is a big source of income for an artist.

Alizée seems to want to remain a "mainstream" artist, so she will tend to stick to the conventional "artist/record company" model of doing business. I think if she lost her ability to be under contract with a major label, she might possibly consider exploring less conventional ways of marketing her music.

[Deepwaters]

What surname would you have us use for the pair? Perhaps the Great Mexican Salvation might suggest a Hispanic-style hypenated hybrid surname. ;) Or will a girl soon entering school be called Annily Chatelain?

Don't use any name for the pair. They don't do anything publicly AS a pair. That's what I'm saying. Jérémy is part of Alizée's private life, and on Psychédélices he was an important figure behind the scenes, i.e. composed a lot of the music. On UEdS he doesn't seem even to be that. But even in the Psych promotions, you didn't see him appear with her to things like autograph signings, did you? No. They don't do things like that as a couple. They keep their private life completely separate from her public life and make it none of the public's business. So there is simply no chance the Jérémy would participate in what you're talking about. She might. He won't.

As for the last name, Alizée and Jérémy are not legally married in France. In the U.S. they are, but they live there, not here. When they got married in Las Vegas, she did not change her name, and there is no evidence that she has filed a legal name change since. It is nearly 100% certain that her last name is Jacotey, not Châtelain. Nor is there any evidence that he has changed his name, so it's still Châtelain, not Châtelain-Jacotey or anything like that.

What Annily's last name is, is a good question. One that, so far, her parents don't seem to think the public needs to know. And I'm OK with that.


Actually, at one time record sales were a more significant part of an artist's income, but those days are long gone. It has much to do with how the record companies currently share the revenue, which in my opinion is terribly unfair.


I wonder if music may be approaching, or on the edge of, a revolution such as is occurring in publishing now. In this day and age, is there really any need for a physical CD at all? Could the artist have more control over the music and its distribution, and keep a larger share of the proceeds, by in effect self-publishing digitally? Everything available by download, with outlets paying royalties (BIG royalties, it should be, since their costs are minimal) to artists while keeping enough to make a decent profit themselves? Cut out the record companies altogether and let them dwindle and die the way the big publishing houses are going.

Alizée probably has enough money to do that on her own, without using a middleman of any sort, but there's a niche it seems to me for a distributor business such as I've described for smaller artists or those just beginning. This would likely bring a lot of music to the market that in today's system would never get there, so it would be better for the listener, too.

[lefty12357]

I wonder if music may be approaching, or on the edge of, a revolution such as is occurring in publishing now. In this day and age, is there really any need for a physical CD at all? Could the artist have more control over the music and its distribution, and keep a larger share of the proceeds, by in effect self-publishing digitally? Everything available by download, with outlets paying royalties (BIG royalties, it should be, since their costs are minimal) to artists while keeping enough to make a decent profit themselves? Cut out the record companies altogether and let them dwindle and die the way the big publishing houses are going.

Alizée probably has enough money to do that on her own, without using a middleman of any sort, but there's a niche it seems to me for a distributor business such as I've described for smaller artists or those just beginning. This would likely bring a lot of music to the market that in today's system would never get there, so it would be better for the listener, too.

I think it's quite possible, but without the promotion of the big record company one may end up being one voice buried among millions on the internet. Alizée would have to do a complete 180° on how she interacts with her fans. Also, this could put an end to TV appearances and other mainstream media which we fans have enjoyed immensely.

I, for one, really enjoy having a physical object like a CD which I can hold in my hand, along with the artwork that goes with it. I have nothing against e-publishing music, and it may offer a great alternative to those who can't get past the traditional gate keepers. But for someone like Alizée who still has a connection with the record companies, her best bet may be to stay the course of the "mainstream".

[rcs]

I like this idea.

[Tchaikovsky]

I think it's a nice idea.

[FanDeAliFee]

They don't do anything publicly AS a pair. That's what I'm saying... So there is simply no chance the Jérémy would participate in what you're talking about. She might. He won't.

I won't split hairs with you, but I think they are doing something publicly as a pair here: Dernier morceau enregistré ! (http://yfrog.com/3lrjbvj). I'm assuming that is Jérémy (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Chatelain) on the right - I've virtually never seen his photo. As best I know, you are certainly correct that, to date, he does not shadow Alizée when she does publicity.

Then why did I include the J-man? Well, I know La Methode Cauet played for laughs, but I think A was being sincere when she visited the show and stated that it was impossible for J to take a meal alone with a female friend. That's why I stipulated the videoconference include J: goose and gander parity; no salacious undertone.

And I think it would creep out fans, even the adolescent boys with raging hormones, to even fantasize A doing a raunchy JenniCam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley#JenniCam) act or something. Not that hell wouldn't freeze over a MILLION times first, thank you. Perhaps people who aspire for something else might hope that Britney's career pops a couple more rivets?

Alizée has grown up and married. Maybe eight years ago, her Mom might have joined Alizée for lucky-winner-fan lunchtiime videoconferencing. Or her Dad or grandma. On the other hand, perhaps Tahiti Boy and a couple more of the Palmtree Family could take J's place now if he is an unwanted distraction to fans, in the estimation of the Chaterlains ( ;P ). But I think you have to give fans something more intimate than a Fun TV SMS prompt and the chance they might get a single-Q&A audio link to get them to really invest in the sponsorship lottery I suggest.

Edit:


I wonder if music may be approaching, or on the edge of, a revolution such as is occurring in publishing now. In this day and age, is there really any need for a physical CD at all?

Excellent point, Deep. In fact, that is EXACTLY the tacit assumption which underlies the potential need for the lottery scheme. Wal-Mart, selling music on CDs, USED to be the biggest music retailer in the US. NOW the biggest music retailer is Apple iTunes, which delivers only digital files. By the way, while there was rampant clandestine digitally-mediated book piracy by the dawn of the century, music got all the public attention and went legitimately media-free long before legitimate e-book use achieved traction.

Increasingly many clueless lay people are becoming aware at this late date that files can be copied for free. Copy protection fails if you - or anyone you know or can meet, if only on the Internet - has the minimal skills required to redigitize the analog audio feed. Roughly speaking, there is now about one digital audio player (most of them iPods) per household in the US. And US cellphones are bundling in this capability fast, too. Most in Korea did so long ago.

You might learn more by reading something like End of the world as Hollywood knows it (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10378654-261.html).

Supposedly, Alizée "Toc de Macintosh" Jacotey herself said (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?p=93082)

Mp3 players are not at the source of piracy, it's the price of progress and the Internet... we can't do anything about it, we made a lot of laws, it was a battle lost before it begun, unless we go back to vinyl records. I think we should prepare for the death of the CD...

We hear you, princess, and are struggling to brainstorm plan B!

[User22]

sorry to kill your idea but Jeremy won't and its not like you know Alizee so you prob couldnt get her to since her fan mail list is still probably stacked for a couple of years....

[FanDeAliFee]

I like this idea.

You would! I looked you up and discovered you had a mental dry run at it in 2006, more or less:
A Day With Alizee Sweepstakes (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140)

[Deepwaters]

I won't split hairs with you, but I think they are doing something publicly as a pair here: Dernier morceau enregistré ! (http://yfrog.com/3lrjbvj). I'm assuming that is Jérémy (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Chatelain) on the right


Definitely not. I believe that's one of the musicians she's working with on the new album, although I'm not sure which one.


Then why did I include the J-man? Well, I know La Methode Cauet played for laughs, but I think A was being sincere when she visited the show and stated that it was impossible for J to take a meal alone with a female friend. That's why I stipulated the videoconference include J: goose and gander parity; no salacious undertone.


Well, I thought you were talking about a conversation on skype over lunch, not a romantic evening on the Riviera by moonlight or a cruise through the Caribbean. (Although if you were to offer something like THAT as the prize . . . :D but she'd never go along with it.)

Bear in mind that anything she does with fans is going to be in full public view with photographers and the whole nine yards, so there's no possibility of getting up to mischief. If Jérémy is going to get jealous about something like that, he's being ridiculous. Of course, maybe he IS ridiculous, what do I know :p . . .

In any case, I'm quite certain that he would not participate in any fan activities for Alizée. That would be totally out of pattern for both of them.

I hear what you say about "something intimate," but there's intimate and then there's intimate. I mentioned the chat session that she had in 2008. In that session, fans who won a drawing or some such got to chat with her over IM for a time. That's not unlike what you were talking about, except that no money changed hands. (Incidentally, in that chat session it became very clear that she follows her fan site forums, because she knew all about the people she was chatting with.) And Jérémy did not participate in that, either.

So don't worry about it; the only thing along those lines that could threaten their marriage would have to happen in private without tout le monde looking on, and that's not what you're proposing.

I understand what you're saying about copy protection not working, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the great majority of people are trustworthy about such things. There will be piracy, sure, but as long as artistic work (music, books, whatever) is offered at a low price and easily, most people won't avail themselves of the opportunity for theft. People will buy her new album, not just steal it, I think we can be confident of that, especially if they can buy it digitally. So I believe that your idea is actually better as a promotion than as a money-raiser.

[FanDeAliFee]

I understand what you're saying about copy protection not working, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the great majority of people are trustworthy about such things. There will be piracy, sure, but as long as artistic work (music, books, whatever) is offered at a low price and easily, most people won't avail themselves of the opportunity for theft. People will buy her new album, not just steal it, I think we can be confident of that, especially if they can buy it digitally...

I think Apple iTunes and NetFlix demonstrate what you say has some validity, at least for now. However, ponder this (http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091231_183323.htm):

In 1999 consumers spent $39 billion on music, mostly CDs.
Today it's a $17.6 billion industry and CDs are clearly on the way out.

And don't you find many responses I got at Would you pay to watch an Alizée video on Youtube? (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5329) discouraging?

[djwise]

I like the idea, but I feel there are a good amount of unknowns. Of course, with research, those unknowns can be taken care of. So if you can get them taken care of, I think it'd be pretty cool. =]]

[Deepwaters]

I think Apple iTunes and NetFlix demonstrate what you say has some validity, at least for now. However, ponder this (http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091231_183323.htm):
In 1999 consumers spent $39 billion on music, mostly CDs.
Today it's a $17.6 billion industry and CDs are clearly on the way out.
And don't you find many responses I got at Would you pay to watch an Alizée video on Youtube? (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5329) discouraging?

No, I don't. What I saw was that people were confused, and understandably so. There are a lot of Alizée vids on YouTube already, most of them fan-produced and of amateur quality. When you ask, "would you pay to watch an Alizée video on YouTube?" naturally people think of the kind of videos that are already on YouTube. Would I pay to watch one of those? Hell, no! But how about a longer, professionally-produced video like a mini-concert, high quality, Alizée at her best? Yes. And I think most people would. The thread didn't make that clear.

As for the stats on music, remember that's gross revenues. CDs cost more than downloads and should, since they involve production costs where downloads don't. Are people buying less music today than in the past? They're certainly not listening to less. Book prices are dropping, too, thanks to e-books. Gross price for my novel is $4.95, where in print when that happens it will cost $14.90. But I get almost the same royalty regardless of which version someone buys. Same rule should apply for music, and if it doesn't yet, that's only because the record companies still have a stranglehold, something that I expect them to lose. I think record companies are probably on the way out just like publishing houses.

I published a blog entry yesterday on this very subject, called The Decline and Fall of the Gatekeepers. Might be worth checking out, if you don't mind reading something long.

[lefty12357]

The business model for book publishing is in many ways quite different from the music publishing model. (I wish it were the same.) First of all, recording an album can be quite expensive. Producing one music video at the level of production the public is accustomed to is also quite expensive. And I’m not including the cost of producing the physical CD. There is no equivalent to these costs in e-book publishing as far as I can see.

There was a time when a record company was founded and/or run by people who knew and loved music. They actually performed a useful function as gatekeepers back then, at least to some extent. They were better at finding artists with raw talent that could be nurtured into producing good music. For example, look at the role George Martin played in the career of the Beatles. Of course a few multinational corporations have since bought up most of these record companies. They are powerful and the laws are skewed on their behalf. It will be hard to break their stranglehold on the business.

If each artist is forced to “go it alone”, it will be hard for them to fund projects to the level we currently expect. Even Alizée may have trouble affording all of it, and keep in mind the money she has came from the current system. How would new artists with no money fit into this new model? No new business model will be successful if it doesn’t sustain music on into the future and allow for new “Alizée’s” to be discovered and developed. As much as I dislike the current model, I would hate to see music devolve into a lot of poorly made recordings and video because of a lack of professional funding and artistic support.

Maybe the answer is a new music business entity, like a musician’s co-op, so to speak, that could exist under the umbrella of labels like Institubes. Musicians could pay a percentage of their profits in dues and this money could be leveraged to fund projects. Maybe they could also get their fans to subscribe for a few bucks a month, as well as raise money from wealthy private, corporate, and governmental benefactors who are interested in music.

If we want to see the level of production quality we are accustomed to, and if we want to see the current corporate structure out of the mix, there needs to be a way to fund these artists’ projects in any new model of doing business.

[Deepwaters]

Lefty, consider what you are able to do now with just a little software. What would it have taken 20 years ago to do something like that? Now project a few more years into the future. The trend is for costs of all of these things to come down, and control to be decentralized.

I'm sure it will never be the case that producing music is as cheap as writing a book, but it doesn't have to be. All that has to happen is for professional-quality music recording -- separate from distribution -- to be within most people's reach. We are surely not far from that now. If you could partner with other musicians, so that you didn't have to hire professional accompaniment; i.e., if you were recording as a band not as an individual, how close could you come in your home studio to professional studio-quality? How much would you have to spend to bridge that gap? OTOH, suppose you wanted to record your work with your band in a studio -- bearing in mind that you wouldn't have to pay the musicians a dime, only the studio itself -- how much would it cost to record a half hour or so of good music? What if you and your band members were splitting that cost? Suppose there were four of you. Would that be within reach?

I understand that the sales model will always be at least a little different, but as things continue to decentralize through advances in technology, the control of the record companies will decline and record companies themselves will become dinosaurs headed for extinction, nothing surer.

[lefty12357]

There is no doubt that the cost of putting together a recording of reasonable quality in the home has been dropping dramatically. This is a big help on the way to a new model of doing business. But one must consider that many musicians are not trained, interested or technically savvy enough to do a good job at recording themselves. There is so much involved that knowing how to do it right is a career in itself. Also, it helps to have a second pair of professional ears to help get the sound right. Many home studios can’t supply properly treated rooms for good recording like a pro studio can. Currently, the best way may be to record basic tracks at home, and then do the sweetening, mixing and mastering in professional facilities.

As for cost, it varies dramatically. I've seen studio costs to record an album vary from $5,000 to $30,000, and it can go much, much higher. I’ve seen a lot of studios that charge around $500.00 a day, and these aren’t necessarily world class. It also depends on the kind of music you are recording. I have at least $30,000.00 invested in my humble little studio, but you can get a reasonable start for a lot less. And I’m sure you know that 1 hour of studio time doesn’t equal 1 hour of recorded music. Even though I work fast, it’s not uncommon for me to invest 40 hours of studio time into a piece of music that is 8 minutes long. And when it comes to producing a professional video, the cost can go through the roof.

There will always be those rare artists who can do everything themselves. But so many other good artists will be excluded. That’s why I proposed the co-op idea so artists can share resources and knowledge. I’m with you 100% on moving away from the current model of doing business, but the recording companies still play a valuable role and we need to find a replacement for that, because if you read this (http://business.songstuff.com/article/recording_contract_basics/) you can see what pigs they are.

I’ve posted this video before, but it really shows what you miss when recording a self-produced album at home. You can also see the time that goes into producing world class recordings, and the producer’s knowledge is invaluable to this particular artist. I doubt she would get the same results doing this herself at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMpM-oxoYX8

Knowledge may be a much bigger factor than cost, but both are part of the reality of doing your own recording.

[User22]

This conversation slowly went from a failureish idea of Alizee doing a video conference with Alizee(although most of our member's ideas of Alizee-related ideas(also some of mine) are complete failure ideas(besides the Open Letter to Alizee Project)) to how much money it costs to record a cd hahaha

[FanDeAliFee]

There is no doubt that the cost of putting together a recording of reasonable quality in the home has been dropping dramatically...

I thought people might like to check out USA's National Public Radio report, Recording Studios Face Uncertain Future (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121304883), dated December 10, 2009. It writes in part:

Jim Anderson, a longtime recording engineer and NPR alum, who now teaches at New York University... says digital technology has gotten a lot better over the past 10 years — to the point where you can make an almost professional-quality recording on your laptop, for a fraction of what you'd spend in professional studios.

------------------------------------------

...ponder this (http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091231_183323.htm):

In 1999 consumers spent $39 billion on music, mostly CDs.
Today it's a $17.6 billion industry and CDs are clearly on the way out.



As for the stats on music, remember that's gross revenues. CDs cost more than downloads and should, since they involve production costs where downloads don't. Are people buying less music today than in the past? They're certainly not listening to less.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry read what folks like Deepwaters wrote and now offers these (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/global/22music.html) points:

It argues that the decline in gross revenue is not coming largely from the efficiency of CD-free virtual distribution...

Legitimate digital sources accounted for [only] 27 percent of recording industry revenue.

but from massive piracy...

Worldwide, the industry federation says, 95 percent of the music downloaded via the Internet is pirated.

Overall gross industry revenue was down to about $15.8 billion in 2009. Does anyone think net revenue hasn't also declined in the last decade? (Albeit I agree that decline would be less dramatic and more useful to read.)

The implied fallout for artists is stuff like this:

In France... the number of albums released by domestic artists has fallen by 60 percent.

[Deepwaters]

What's the date on that piracy stat?

Edit: Doing the math, those figures seem contradictory. Listing them:

Revenues declined 55% over X years (need a date there, too).

27% of revenues are now digital

95% of music is pirated

Doesn't add up. If 95% of downloaded music was pirated, that should have resulted in a MUCH larger drop in revenue.

What if zero music was pirated (obviously not true, but just playing with numbers here)? If 27% of revenues are now digital, and that alone produced a 55% drop in revenue, then the difference in price from CD to download would need to be .45 * .27 = .12, i.e. downloads cost only 12% of CDs. Reversing the logic: take the actual price ratio and substitute it into that equation, or rather the one solved for it, and you can find what the losses should have been if that price ratio accounted for 100% of it. The difference between that and the actual loss of revenue is what piracy truly accounts for.

As for the decline in number of albums released, we see a similar decline in the publishing field. It's not due to piracy, but due to the availability of books published outside the conventional publishing house -- like mine. Are there stats on how much new music is released in non-conventional fashion?

[Ben]

Doesn't add up. If 95% of downloaded music was pirated, that should have resulted in a MUCH larger drop in revenue.
I don't know the numbers, but not necessarily if overall music consumption has gone way up. My mom always says how she'd buy a couple albums a year growing up, and that's all the music she'd listen to. I can't imagine living like that. Despite the damages, one element of piracy that could end up being beneficial in the long run is that people are listening to a lot more music, and music they would have never heard otherwise. French pop, for example ;).

Don't get me wrong, piracy definitely is eating into profits, but I think sometimes statistics are used to exaggerate how much. Say 10 people buy a CD in 2001 and no one pirates, while in 2009 10 people buy a CD and 90 pirate it. Now there's 90% piracy, but profits are still the same and more people have heard the music. Overall I think that's a good thing! Of course I'm over simplifying, and fewer people are buying as well, so it's not so cut and dry.

[lefty12357]

Another factor to consider is the quality of the products being offered by the record companies. Maybe sales are partly down because of a lack of imagination and foresight on their part as to what artists they sign and what music they promote. I find myself having to go farther afield to find music that interests me. French pop, for example ;).

It seems that in the past the mainstream would get infiltrated by new musical ideas and undergo a significant change. Each decade seems to have its own sound. But I think this process has slowed down and weakened. I blame it partly on the fact that a few multinational corporations have taken over most of the music industry. I believe the industry was in better hands when it was run by people whose first love was the music itself.

Add to that a bored and apathetic music buying public that has less regard for intellectual property rights and has easy access to music without paying for it and you end up with things being as they are today.

[Deepwaters]

Another factor to consider is the quality of the products being offered by the record companies. Maybe sales are partly down because of a lack of imagination and foresight on their part as to what artists they sign and what music they promote. I find myself having to go farther afield to find music that interests me. French pop, for example ;).

I keep coming back to this, and I do recognize the differences, but exactly the same thing is happening in publishing. Falling sales and profits over the past decade or more have destroyed such courage as ever existed in the industry. Now, only old established writers or musicians who can almost be guaranteed to sell well can obtain an outlet in the traditional way. It's the kiss of death, because the only way to reverse the decline is to take risks and offer the new and different, but the industries have become so cautious and timid that they have lost the ability to do this. The consolidation of control into a few giant companies is not the cause of this, I think, but a parallel symtom.

Ultimately, the only way out of the bind is going to be the removal of the middleman.

[lefty12357]

I keep coming back to this, and I do recognize the differences, but exactly the same thing is happening in publishing. Falling sales and profits over the past decade or more have destroyed such courage as ever existed in the industry. Now, only old established writers or musicians who can almost be guaranteed to sell well can obtain an outlet in the traditional way. It's the kiss of death, because the only way to reverse the decline is to take risks and offer the new and different, but the industries have become so cautious and timid that they have lost the ability to do this. The consolidation of control into a few giant companies is not the cause of this, I think, but a parallel symtom.

Ultimately, the only way out of the bind is going to be the removal of the middleman.

I agree that what you say is definitely going on now. But also what caused a big wave of consolidation in the music industry was the CD. When the CD started to catch on, record companies began releasing all their old catalogs on the new digital format. They sold like crazy and there were no artist development, recording or promotional costs. It was easy money and no risk.

Companies like Sony got wind of this and wanted to get in on this easy money, so they bought up many of the record companies. The situation eventually ran its course and more effort had to go back into new artists and music, but now there was a lot of non-music people running the show. I think that contributed to where we are today, and these are the middlemen between the artist and the public.

[User22]

wow....so I see this thread as totally pointless and off track haha. but hey we all run into those. But it is interesting watching you two battle to the death about CD revenues.

[Deepwaters]

wow....so I see this thread as totally pointless and off track haha. but hey we all run into those. But it is interesting watching you two battle to the death about CD revenues.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, and I recognize that you're young and have a good excuse, but that is one of the most clueless things I've ever seen posted here.

This thread is not "off track" and it certainly isn't "pointless." Did you not understand why the OP presented the idea of the lottery? Does it completely escape your comprehension what that has to do with declining music sales and revenues? Can't you see that the entire idea was to create an alternative way for a musician we admire to make money? And so a general discussion of the realities of the music business is completely on target?

Nor is anyone "battling to the death." If you think that Lefty and I have ever behaved towards one another with the slightest degree of animosity, you're completely wrong. We don't even seriously disagree here, and although I remain convinced that the future of the music business just as in publishing is both digital and decentralized, I am inclined to bow to his superior knowledge of the realities of making music as it exists right at this moment.

You're the one who's off-track here, not the thread.

[User22]

Look, I don't mean to be rude, and I recognize that you're young and have a good excuse, but that is one of the most clueless things I've ever seen posted here.

This thread is not "off track" and it certainly isn't "pointless." Did you not understand why the OP presented the idea of the lottery? Does it completely escape your comprehension what that has to do with declining music sales and revenues? Can't you see that the entire idea was to create an alternative way for a musician we admire to make money? And so a general discussion of the realities of the music business is completely on target?

Nor is anyone "battling to the death." If you think that Lefty and I have ever behaved towards one another with the slightest degree of animosity, you're completely wrong. We don't even seriously disagree here, and although I remain convinced that the future of the music business just as in publishing is both digital and decentralized, I am inclined to bow to his superior knowledge of the realities of making music as it exists right at this moment.

You're the one who's off-track here, not the thread.

Sorry I like listing:
1)yes i'm young and this is probably why I look stupid to you.
2)I guess I'm translating this thread in the wrong way.
3)You can ask any of the regular guys like Plaz,Jung,Joey,Uni on chat that I have the weirdest/Totally exaggerated ways of saying what things are like. So yah sorry that "battling to the death." was the wrong choice of words.
4)Maybe I got lost in your guys earlier posts so thats why the whole Lottery all the way to the future of the music business just as in publishing is both digital and decentralized thing.
5)But yah your right, I'm not even contributing to this thread so I'll go, and I have no idea why or how I got in here haha.

Sorry If I messed things up, O and I'm really tired and thats the reason I usually write stupid pointless stuff

[lefty12357]

@aaroniu31, it's cool, don't worry about it. As Deep said, we are hardly arguing. As a matter of fact we are in pretty much total agreement on the main points of the discussion. I'm just adding a few details from my perspective for informational purposes only. But those details still support Deep's conclusions.

[User22]

yah I guess I just take fact-stating as arguing sometimes haha

[FanDeAliFee]

Edit: Doing the math...

Doesn't add up. If 95% of downloaded music was pirated, that should have resulted in a MUCH larger drop in revenue.

Ben pointed out (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/report.php?p=149927) the fallacy in that inference. As price falls (e.g. to "zero" with pirated wares), elasticity in demand is manifested.


the difference in price from CD to download would need to be... i.e. downloads cost only 12% of CDs

That's not so. Here is the correct calculation.

"Legitimate digital sources accounted for [only]
27 percent of recording industry REVENUE." (NOT UNITS)

Assumptions:
CD-equivalent units purchased per year (N) constant
CD prices (P) constant

Define:
D as the number of non-CD units now sold per year
d as the fraction of non-CD units sold now = D/N
r is the ratio of the non-CD to CD price for a unit

Original revenue R(0) = NP
Current revenue R(t) = (N-D)P+D(rP)

Stipulating R(t) = (1-0.55=0.45)R(0) meaning
[1] (N-D)P+DrP = 0.45NP
and stipulating
[2] DrP = 0.27((N-D)P+DrP)

Divide [1] & [2] by P

[3] (N-D)+Dr = 0.45N
[4] Dr = 0.27((N-D)+Dr)

Divide [3] & [4] by N

[5] (1-d)+dr = 0.45
[6] dr = 0.27((1-d)+dr)

Solving [5] for d in terms of r

[7] 0.55 + d(r-1) = 0
[8] d = 0.55/(1-r)

Note d<=1 so therefore r<=0.45
Note r>=0 so therefore d>=0.55

Simplifying [6]

[9] 0.73dr = 0.27(1-d)

Substitute d from [8] into [9]

[10] (0.73x0.55)r/(1-r) = 0.27(1-0.55/(1-r))

Multiply [10] by (1-r)

[11] (0.73x0.55)r = 0.27(1-r) - (0.27x0.55)

And solve for r

[12] (0.73x0.55+0.27)r = 0.27(1-0.55)
[13] r = (0.27x0.45)/(0.73x0.55+0.27)
= 0.18[0938198064035740878629932985853]

Use [8] to obtain d

[14] d = 0.6715

To account for the stipulations and assumptions, in round numbers,
About 2 of 3 sales have to be non-CD
And a non-CD price must be 1/5 of the CD equivalent

But aren't ACTUAL non-CD prices always MUCH closer to CD prices?
(See below for some documentation of this.)

(One interesting possibility is this: Did buyers who liked only one song
on a CD always buy the whole CD anyway? If so, then by selling pro
rata by the song via non-CD means, sales can fall a lot even in the
absence of any displacement by piracy.)

=======

For fun I dug out and looked at numbers directly from the RIAA here:
http://76.74.24.142/1D212C0E-408B-F730-65A0-C0F5871C369D.pdf
as cited at http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ida99bf36787f149a2d75f2b49bfe450c

See the file for subtleties. Note also some slight
differences from some previously reported numbers.

(in millions) year 2008

Digital
Download Album
(Units Shipped) 56.9
(Dollar Value) 568.9
=> Average price $10.00
(sales of singles are about double in size)

Physical
Compact Disk
(Units Shipped) 384.7
(Dollar Value) 5,471.3
=> Average price $14.22

Non-CD album prices are 70% of CD prices
(NOT 18% as in the simple model calculation above)

Physical (CD-like) units (in millions) by year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
847.0 938.9 942.5 881.9 803.3 746.0 767.0 705.4 619.7 511.1 384.7

CD units in 2008, relative to 1999, are down to 41%
(NOT 33% as in the simple model calculation above)

% of Shipments (value, not units - RF)

2005 2006 2007 2008
Physical 91% 84% 77% 68%
Digital 9% 16% 23% 32%

=======

Deep, in fact I do very much appreciate your point
about the potential input savings in non-CD distribution.
But consumer prices are not very different, as noted above.

That was NOT the case for encyclopedias, as I discussed
several years ago here:
Libraries in transition from paper to electronics (http://hchistory.com/BHPL/FOTL/Progress/PaperToBits.htm)

And since you are an e-book guy, Deep, you might enjoy
the new page I just assembled here:
A very incomplete history (500-2010) of intellectual property law, the codex and the e-book (http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/o/docdtv/Geocities/neohephaestus/links/BookHistory.htm)

=======

Aside: Note when I asked...
Would you pay to watch an Alizée video on YouTube?

I got some answers like these:

"kinda pointless... these days movies, music, etc leak
even before they are finished..."

"They say that time is money. Considering the time I've
spent watching Alizée videos, I would say I've already
paid quite a bit."

Do you think these answers would make the RIAA feel better? <G>

=======

Of course, now there is another challenge facing people who want
to earn income creating new art which is entertaining, but not
especially of our times.

With digital storage and communication now so dirt cheap, ALL of culture
from all eras is coming online for instant gratification - some of it free,
some ad-supported and some fee-based. The Wall Street Journal
has an interesting perspective piece here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126136236068199631.html

It notes that now that anyone with a laptop has near-instant access
to a near-infinite array of art objects, it's becoming harder for anyone to
sculpt the tastes of millions of people into anything remotely resembling a
lemming-like consensus.

Thus one will compete for the attention of people with damn near
everything that has EVER been created - including almost limitless
amounts of virtually free stuff out of copyright!

[User22]

Ben pointed out (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/report.php?p=149927) the fallacy in that inference. As price falls (e.g. to "zero" with pirated wares), elasticity in demand is manifested.



That's not so. Here is the correct calculation.

"Legitimate digital sources accounted for [only]
27 percent of recording industry REVENUE." (NOT UNITS)

Assumptions:
CD-equivalent units purchased per year (N) constant
CD prices (P) constant

Define:
D as the number of non-CD units now sold per year
d as the fraction of non-CD units sold now = D/N
r is the ratio of the non-CD to CD price for a unit

Original revenue R(0) = NP
Current revenue R(t) = (N-D)P+D(rP)

Stipulating R(t) = (1-0.55=0.45)R(0) meaning
[1] (N-D)P+DrP = 0.45NP
and stipulating
[2] DrP = 0.27((N-D)P+DrP)

Divide [1] & [2] by P

[3] (N-D)+Dr = 0.45N
[4] Dr = 0.27((N-D)+Dr)

Divide [3] & [4] by N

[5] (1-d)+dr = 0.45
[6] dr = 0.27((1-d)+dr)

Solving [5] for d in terms of r

[7] 0.55 + d(r-1) = 0
[8] d = 0.55/(1-r)

Note d<=1 so therefore r<=0.45
Note r>=0 so therefore d>=0.55

Simplifying [6]

[9] 0.73dr = 0.27(1-d)

Substitute d from [8] into [9]

[10] (0.73x0.55)r/(1-r) = 0.27(1-0.55/(1-r))

Multiply [10] by (1-r)

[11] (0.73x0.55)r = 0.27(1-r) - (0.27x0.55)

And solve for r

[12] (0.73x0.55+0.27)r = 0.27(1-0.55)
[13] r = (0.27x0.45)/(0.73x0.55+0.27)
= 0.18[0938198064035740878629932985853]

Use [8] to obtain d

[14] d = 0.6715

To account for the stipulations and assumptions, in round numbers,
About 2 of 3 sales have to be non-CD
And a non-CD price must be 1/5 of the CD equivalent

But aren't ACTUAL non-CD prices always MUCH closer to CD prices?
(See below for some documentation of this.)

(One interesting possibility is this: Did buyers who liked only one song
on a CD always buy the whole CD anyway? If so, then by selling pro
rata by the song via non-CD means, sales can fall a lot even in the
absence of any displacement by piracy.)

=======

For fun I dug out and looked at numbers directly from the RIAA here:
http://76.74.24.142/1D212C0E-408B-F730-65A0-C0F5871C369D.pdf
as cited at http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ida99bf36787f149a2d75f2b49bfe450c

See the file for subtleties. Note also some slight
differences from some previously reported numbers.

(in millions) year 2008

Digital
Download Album
(Units Shipped) 56.9
(Dollar Value) 568.9
=> Average price $10.00
(sales of singles are about double in size)

Physical
Compact Disk
(Units Shipped) 384.7
(Dollar Value) 5,471.3
=> Average price $14.22

Non-CD album prices are 70% of CD prices
(NOT 18% as in the simple model calculation above)

Physical (CD-like) units (in millions) by year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
847.0 938.9 942.5 881.9 803.3 746.0 767.0 705.4 619.7 511.1 384.7

CD units in 2008, relative to 1999, are down to 41%
(NOT 33% as in the simple model calculation above)

% of Shipments (value, not units - RF)

2005 2006 2007 2008
Physical 91% 84% 77% 68%
Digital 9% 16% 23% 32%

=======

Deep, in fact I do very much appreciate your point
about the potential input savings in non-CD distribution.
But consumer prices are not very different, as noted above.

That was NOT the case for encyclopedias, as I discussed
several years ago here:
Libraries in transition from paper to electronics (http://hchistory.com/BHPL/FOTL/Progress/PaperToBits.htm)

And since you are an e-book guy, Deep, you might enjoy
the new page I just assembled here:
A very incomplete history (500-2010) of intellectual property law, the codex and the e-book (http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/o/docdtv/Geocities/neohephaestus/links/BookHistory.htm)

=======

Aside: Note when I asked...
Would you pay to watch an Alizée video on YouTube?

I got some answers like these:

"kinda pointless... these days movies, music, etc leak
even before they are finished..."

"They say that time is money. Considering the time I've
spent watching Alizée videos, I would say I've already
paid quite a bit."

Do you think these answers would make the RIAA feel better? <G>

=======

Of course, now there is another challenge facing people who want
to earn income creating new art which is entertaining, but not
especially of our times.

With digital storage and communication now so dirt cheap, ALL of culture
from all eras is coming online for instant gratification - some of it free,
some ad-supported and some fee-based. The Wall Street Journal
has an interesting perspective piece here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126136236068199631.html

It notes that now that anyone with a laptop has near-instant access
to a near-infinite array of art objects, it's becoming harder for anyone to
sculpt the tastes of millions of people into anything remotely resembling a
lemming-like consensus.

Thus one will compete for the attention of people with damn near
everything that has EVER been created - including almost limitless
amounts of virtually free stuff out of copyright!

My brain just crashed from all those Physics problems and that National Spelling Bee-grade vocabulary haha....but interesting stuff there, thx Doc!

[FanDeAliFee]

Supposedly, Alizée "Toc de Macintosh" Jacotey herself said (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?p=93082)

Mp3 players are not at the source of piracy, it's the price of progress and the Internet... we can't do anything about it, we made a lot of laws, it was a battle lost before it begun, unless we go back to vinyl records. I think we should prepare for the death of the CD...

We hear you, princess, and are struggling to brainstorm plan B!

It seems that the <a href="http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?p=150660"><i>Opendisc</i></a> initiative is an attempt to address the "file-sharing" crisis killing CD sales which uses a methodology in the spirit of the very suggestion made at the start of this thread. (I will abstain from offering a technical analysis, in the hopes of helping this method succeed as long as possible.)

But another revenue stream exists for <i>celebrated</i> artists as well. Long before <i>YouTube</i> and other free video hosting sites threatened the legitimate marketing of movies, a wiseman named <i>Yogurt</i> explained the way forward:
<center><object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvmZ9SPcTzU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1&showinfo=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvmZ9SPcTzU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1&showinfo=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object></center>

[Ruroshen]

Heh. I would totally buy Alizée, The Breakfast Cereal. :p

[FanDeAliFee]

Heh. I would totally buy Alizée, The Breakfast Cereal. :p

Evil people trying to wreck Alizée's business prospects have suggested that consuming same would give you WIND. I don't buy it, do you?

By the way, some woman named Ensler or something like that encouraged me to ask you: What would <i>Alizée, The Breakfast Cereal</i> taste like? A brief answer will suffice; there's no need for a whole soliloquy!

And you do know that John Harvey Kellogg, MD, invented Corn Flakes™ (the breakfast cereal) to <a href="http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/02/20/100-years-of-fighting-masturbation-one-spoonful-at-a-time.htm">help curb</a> the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#.22Warfare_with_passion.22">"dreaded affliction of onanism,"</a> right? (Gosh - and here I had thought that supposedly <i>idle hands were the Devil's instruments</i> - go figure!) Do you think the proposed product would prove at all useful in this regard?

P.S. See also <a href="http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?p=149857"><i> Alizée, good enough to eat!</i></a>

[FanDeAliFee]

Check this article out. http://emusician.com/interviews/industry_insider/industry_insider_panos_panay/ It covers some of what is going on in the music industry, but the last section is really pertinent to the discussion about artists communicating with fans, and how important it's becoming for success.

(I have nothing to add; this is a cross-posting.)

[FanDeAliFee]

Can you make lots of money with music despite Napsterism?

Consider buying
You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadget-Manifesto/dp/0307269647)
by Jaron Lanier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier)
ISBN-10: 0307269647
$13.72 at Amazon

I've never been more impressed by someone's ability to think on their feet than the time I spoke with Lanier. Maybe he just got lucky? ;)

Of interest to the topic raised in this post is the following:
For how "file sharing" is killing the artistic middle class, see pages: 89 (http://books.google.com/books?id=sqNWqEB8Ie0C&pg=PA89),90 (http://books.google.com/books?id=sqNWqEB8Ie0C&pg=PA90),91 (http://books.google.com/books?id=sqNWqEB8Ie0C&pg=PA91),92 (http://books.google.com/books?id=sqNWqEB8Ie0C&pg=PA92),93 (http://books.google.com/books?id=sqNWqEB8Ie0C&pg=PA93).

[FanDeAliFee]

Is Warren Buffet hotter than Alizée? ;)

Maybe not, but the Wall Street Journal reports that someone was willing to pay MILLIONS for the opportunity to eat lunch with him:<blockquote>The 11th annual charity auction of lunch with Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Warren Buffett brought in more than $2.6 million on Friday night... Proceeds from the auction, conducted online by eBay Inc., benefit the Glide Foundation, a charity serving the homeless in San Francisco's Tenderloin district.</blockquote>Hot or not, I still think Alizée (and other artists) could help fund their artistic endeavors by running a lottery to pay for personal appearances via videoconference, as posited at the head of this thread. And with the surging interest in visual stereoscopy ("3D") over the last year, it may not be long before 3D videoconferencing becomes common. Taking a 3D videoconference lunch will then be far more visually intimate than any in-person concert attendance.

A nascent community of Alizée fans who are exploring videoconferncing with one another is organized on Facebook at:
alliance fans d'alizée sur visio conférence (http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=103073806400815).

[FanDeAliFee]

Contents: Music industry economic analysis; new opportunities for enhanced show incomes opened by technology.

In this young century, the music recording industry has shed not a few tears over Napsterism, and some of us have shared more than a few words here about it and the future of the music industry as well. Of course, Napsterism, by which I mean the de facto loss of copyright protection, has profound implications for all sorts of intellectual property beyond music, a far more anxious subject about which to contemplate. But this is an Alizée music site and so I will focus on music, including observation about some considerations peculiar to it.

People remain willing to travel to physically attend extended musical and theatrical performances, something they would not do to access book text or software, for example. This provides additional avenues for revenue not available to those who own other types of intellectual property.

I believe it was Lefty who asserted some months ago that the income of musical artists has never mainly relied upon that part deriving from recordings. Thus I am pleased to now come across a study published online late last year which examined the economics, including factor shares, of the British music industry over a half-decade interval during this century. Find it online at: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

I know little about the music industry, and so was pleased to read so many qualified details about its macroeconomics. The take-away from the study is that while recording industry income is plummeting, the music industry as a whole is actually growing, because of the steady licensing income from public performances, plus vigorous income growth from live events.

While this surely is terrible news for the recording industry, it is still not necessarily good news for ALL performing musical artists. Readers who comment on this report make the point that probably the lion's share of live performance income goes to the enterprises of the very biggest musical stars. Anecdotes portray the desperate difficulty with which many lesser-known entertainers struggle just to break even by relying upon performance income.

I will not try to analyze the implications all this has for the nuturing of new musical performers and compositions. Surely there will always be some income for those who create and perform new advertising jingles, protest songs, vanity compositions for the exclusive pleasure of the wealthy or special occasions like weddings, and the like. It's not terribly clear to a Phillistine(?) like me that the rest of us will terribly miss the diminution of other NEW musical art, given the VAST ARCHIVE of recorded music from around the world which has already escaped, or in only a few decades will escape, the bonds of legal copyright protection - to say nothing of the practical copyright protections I lament (as a matter of justice) they have already lost through technological advances.

But what are the implications for our dear friend Alizée, who remains a star - but hardly a superstar? To take a number out of a hat, say she has 100,000 fans around the world who would pay to attend her live performance, if it was given more or less in their community. It can still be problematic to find any place where at least 1,000 of them can come together at one time in person! And the smaller your box office, the less of an unmediated live show you can produce at one venue at a time, even if you are willing to work for little.

Having almost never attended any live, unmediated entertainment myself - concerts, theater, sports, political rallies, etc. - I am not the best person to ask about the appeal of in-person attendance at some event. That said, I very much enjoy Alizée's En Concert DVD (for which I was happy to pay, even if its entire contents were too easily available illicitly.)

But you see, the En Concert DVD is the OPPOSITE of a live, unmediated event - it is a highly-edited recording! Sure, the "live" interaction of the star with the fans is part of its appeal - but to a DVD viewer, they are simply "extras," and extras who have not even worked for free - they have paid for the privilege! Note also, my personal pleasure in watching it would not diminish if the crowd was entirely synthesized, rather than only partly so, or not at all. (As yet, we still cannot do a decent job of synthesizing the clear natural voice of a real singer - but the sound and appearance of a crowd is something else.)

And please note that the audio and video quality I enjoy via a DVD is, at least potentially, aesthetically superior to what is available to a random attendee even in the most luxurious theatrical setting. If you electronically mediate a performance and give everyone their own hidef screen and headphones, they can all sit in front row center - and even enjoy dramatic visual stereo, even without glasses.

All video productions live under the shadow of creeping Napsterism. But at least mass-market productions are cheap enough per capita to be supported by advertising, product placement and modest viewing fees, which for now holds at bay much illegal copying. Narrow-interest productions like the show of a particular musical star are not that lucky, unless maybe the star is a superstar.

Webcasts are nothing special these days, but since at least the 1990s, a nontrivial number of cinema theaters in the developed world have enjoyed satellite down-links and electronic projectors, whereby an event produced in one city can be reproduced live in many other cities; for example, to host a stockholder conference or corporate training session. I myself attended these when I subscribed to the Microsoft Developer Network. By 1996, there was enough Internet deployment to start Webcasting these particular Microsoft events, called WorldWide Live, (see http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18488694.html ) but the theaters remained essential venues for years to come; the live broadcast on July 16, 1996 was sent to more than 50 movie theaters in major U.S. and Canadian cities.

<table width="75%" align="center" cellpadding="10" border="10"><tr><td><center><big><big><b>Digital projectors in US cinema theaters</b></big></big></center>
On March 21, 2007, NPR reported<blockquote><i>For at least seven years, film studios and theaters have been hyping digital projectors and the crisp, clear picture quality they will bring to movie screens... Despite the economic and visual advantages of digital projection, out of the nation's more than 38,000 movie screens, only around 2,200 have digital projectors.</i></blockquote>On February 15, 2010, the Wall Street Journal wrote<blockquote><i>As of the beginning of the year, less than 10% of the U.S.'s roughly 40,000 screens were 3-D enabled, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners.</i></blockquote>On August 2, 2010, <i>The New York Times</i> wrote<blockquote><i>By year’s end, there will be more than 5,000 digital screens in the United States, or 12.5 percent of the roughly 40,000 total, easing a traffic jam... [for] ...3-D hits...</i></blockquote>On February 8, 2010, NPR hosted Jon Forman, president of Cleveland Cinemas, who said<blockquote><i>To convert a traditional, 35-millimeter auditorium that shows films using celluloid, it's about $100,000 investment and that's give or take depending on the kind of equipment you use and the whistles and bells, but it's less if you're just converting to 2-D digital.</i></blockquote></td></tr></table>
In the years since then, while theatrical electronic projector deployment has continued, its pace has remained cautious, as has the very recent deployment of electronic projectors supporting visual stereo. But such venues do exist, and one can aggregate multiple sites as a large virtual theater enjoying a common live entertainment feed. Such a network would allow one to aggregate an audience of thousands at one time, all seated in comfort with superior visual and auditory accommodation, even if only hundreds could be gathered at any one of the individual locations. This is not a new idea, as you can confirm at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Opera#High-definition_video which writes in part the following:<blockquote><i>Beginning on December 30, 2006, as part of the company's effort to build revenues and attract new audiences, the </i>[Metropolitan Opera Association of New York City]<i> ...broadcast a series of six performances live via satellite into movie theaters called 'Metropolitan Opera: Live in HD'.... The series was carried in over 100 movie theaters across North America, Japan, Britain and several other European countries... The Met reports that 91% of available seats were sold for the HD performances. According to General Manager Peter Gelb, there were 60, 000 people in cinemas around the world watching the March 24 transmission... The New York Times reported that 324,000 tickets were sold worldwide for the 2006/07 season, while each simulcast cost $850,000 to $1 million to produce... </i>[Note that with such an extravagant production budget, one needed about $20 a seat to break even.]<i>

The 2007/08 season...planned to broadcast to double the number of theaters in the US as the previous season, as well as to additional countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. The number of participating venues in the US, which includes movie theatre chains as well as independent theatres and some college campus venues, </i>[was]<i> 343... By the end of the season 920,000 people attended the 8 screenings bringing in a gross of $13.3 million from North America and $5 million from overseas.</i> </blockquote>By undertaking this program, the Met not only did an end-run around long-delayed HTDV deployment, but possibly was able to extract a much larger revenue per viewer than otherwise possible, due to the highly chaperoned environment of the theaters, where the creation of an illicit video copy of the productions could be effectively prevented, defeating Napsterism. (The Met now also supports a fee-based Internet VoD service, using a proprietary player, which in the final analysis - beyond script-kiddyism - allows pirating of its content.)

Surely Alizée and many of her peers could not attract over 100,000 viewers per show like the Met did, but it is not idle fancy to imagine one could use economical encrypted terrestrial Internet streams, and a MUCH more modest production budget, and scale down this kind of effort, making it financially plausible for hosting the far more modest live concerts of individual artists.

And that is to say nothing of the idea of creating a non-live high-def concert movie shown ONLY in theaters, for the sole purpose of trying to prevent piratical copying. (For some years it has been a felony in the US to illicitly photograph a movie shown in a commercial theater.) At least a few years ago, Disney continued to do limited theatrical-only showings of certain of its film classics, presumably for just such reasons. I also remind you that a concert movie, as an edited product, can be of enormously better quality than a live event - even with idyllic live seating - because a non-live event can do things like removing (or creating!) flubs, multi-track recording a performer, etc. No wonder it is common for "live" acts to lip-sync studio productions!

Of course, a mediated concert, even if live, is still not "in the flesh." One cannot throw any teddy bears on the stage the performer is using - but neither can one launch any bullets that way either. (It would not be that hard to let remote audience members throw virtual teddy bears, flowers, etc. if they were willing to pay extra to lease a wireless game controller and augmented reality was used to present the remote live performance. See a related event of recent years described at: http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/906351/paula_deanda_to_perform_worldwide_live_concert_eve nt_in_virtual/index.html )

I will concede it would not be possible to shake hands with, or smell the body-impelled perfume of a remotely located performer. (I would not buy authenticated vials of body fluid, like saliva, posted in advance to the remote venues, but neither will I condemn fans or performers who engage in such commerce. Um, did I hear Lily Allen cough?) Yet such constraints do not prevent deploying return feeds of the remote sites back to the performer, simulating a monolithic venue, nor the much more intimate possibility of adjunct [I]séance sessions, whereby a few lucky members of the audience at each venue, drawn by lot, could enjoy a short live visual stereo videoconference with the performer, who could personalize CDs, DVDs or other merchandise they buy, for shipment at a later date. And surely you've seen films like Forest Gump. Should you want your photo taken with the entertainer, they need not be in your room for such to be fabricated! Heck, one could even make a video recording of your entire genuine séance interaction, posted online at a place only you can download.

One should also point out that if a performer creates an elaborate show with a large stage and backstage staff and lots of heavy, fancy gear, it becomes very expensive to move all that stuff from place to place to do shows. But a single performer and manager could make the same trips some date after an electronic show for far less money, and attend catered parties open to the audience members at each respective site, for an appropriate additional admission fee.

Imagine it - A theatrical concert in Paris before a small live audience, with live hidef stereo video feeds to Mexico City, Lyon, Brussels, Toulouse, Marseille, Nantes, Lille, Nice, Bordeaux - and maybe even Moscow, Berlin and New York City. The most problematic aspect could be the time-zone differences, which likely land up putting Mexico City and New York City together in a separate show. Couldn't you imagine yourself attending such a show, especially if (allowing that you might be evil) you knew there would never be a video copy of it you could illicitly acquire for free via the Internet - or maybe even buy for years to come? This might well be the way second-tier stars could soon access the live performance opportunities not available at any single location which could make their careers very profitable.

[FanDeAliFee]

In this thread, I have tried to put forth some realistic ideas to help the creators of artistic works accrue an income which can compensate them for doing same, in the face of the increasing impossibility of enforcing copyright protections. Pathetically, law enforcement officials try to protect their jobs by undertaking copyright enforcement stunts which do little to address an impossible problem.

With a vast, flexible, high-speed global communications system like the Internet, what US officials do within their own country has very limited impact. Moreover, the actions of the US in this century have so alienated so many peoples and nations in the world, that even if the simple diversity of the planet would not prevent universal cooperation with an attempted Pax Americana, bitter sentiment will now surely do the job effectively anyway. And ironically enough, in the 19th century, the US itself was one of the world's great copyright pirates, as distinguished US jurist Lawrence Lessig reminds (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.01/view.html?pg=5) us, making any self-righteous posing very unconvincing.

The latest stunt (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/in-anti-theft-effort-officials-seize-9-domain-names/?pagemode=print) is the seizure (http://filespump.com/SiteSeizedNOTICE.JPG) of some Internet subdomain names - as if it takes more than a few lousy bucks to get a new one and it was impossible to instead use numeric IP addresses at no charge. Does this really placate anyone whose business model is undermined by the want of an enforceable copyright scheme, or is Washington simply content to provide endless comic relief à la James Traficant (http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/o/docdtv/lit/FurbyMenace.htm)?

<table align="center" width="75%" cellpadding="10" border="10"><tr><td><big><b><i>Bit by bit, everything that can be digitized will be digitized, making intellectual property ever easier to copy and ever harder to sell for more than a nominal price. And we'll have to find business and economic models that take this reality into account.</i> - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06krugman.html">Dr. Paul Krugman</a>, laureate, 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics

As I always note, there's one STRIKING exception, which may in consequence attract much more creative input than it does now - INTERACTIVE media provided remotely ("online") by publishers directly. In such a model, you subscribe to PARTICIPATE, short- or long-term, rather than lease or buy easily copied FIXED content. You never receive anything you can copy or pass on to another customer free. (And even this modality is at the mercy of the integrity of the staff running the service not to pirate the industrial secrets on which it is based.)</b></big>
</td></tr></table>

[FanDeAliFee]

Read a New York Times profile of Sony Music, Alizée's current uber-label, here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/technology/companies/05iht-sony05.html).

It notes that total employment at Sony Music has fallen to fewer than 5,000 from more than 9,000 in 2003... and the CEO is quoted so: “Three years ago I said, look, we are dying, we have to go into new businesses..." While Sony offers no official numbers, estimates now put Sony Music revenues at US$3 billion and profits at under US$160 million, about 5% and roughly $30,000 per employee. The article writes Sony has perhaps gone further than its rivals in moving beyond its traditional business... and then provides details.

[FanDeAliFee]

Could this be a new funding source for Alizée music videos?

As reported here (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/youtube-will-back-its-most-promising-video-creators/?pagemode=print):

YouTube says it will reach out to [video] creators whose work appeals to large audiences and mainstream advertisers, and who are adept at marketing their work across the Web. Average contributions will range from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand dollars.

This Partner Grants Program will total $5 million.

[wasabi622]

Well, to answer some questions:

I used to work for Kerasotes Showplace Theaters, which was recently bought out by AMC, so lemme give ya'll some insight. :p
We did, in fact, show live events. Some of them were random opera stuff, concerts by groups I can't remember, as well as certain showings. I guess if we reach our goal, Alizée's concerts could be screened live.. that would be the day.. :D
We also do have 3D projectors. We recently got a new version, though I'm not sure what the differences are, other then that we use different 3D glasses now.

Hope that helps, if any! :)

[FanDeAliFee]

I used to work for Kerasotes Showplace Theaters, which was recently bought out by AMC... We did, in fact, show live events. Some of them were random opera stuff, concerts by groups I can't remember, as well as certain showings... We also do have 3D projectors.

Let's continue with spadework for live 3D Alizée concerts in comfy theaters!

Thanks so much for your testimony. I have some follow-up questions:

1. About how many seats were available for a 3D show?
2. How much were ticket prices for the live shows?
3. Did anyone ever mention to how many theaters live material was simulcast?
4. Was there any live link back to the location originating material. (e.g. phone)?

[wasabi622]

Let's continue with spadework for live 3D Alizée concerts in comfy theaters!

Thanks so much for your testimony. I have some follow-up questions:

1. About how many seats were available for a 3D show?
2. How much were ticket prices for the live shows?
3. Did anyone ever mention to how many theaters live material was simulcast?
4. Was there any live link back to the location originating material. (e.g. phone)?


No problem, happy to help! :)

1. It really depends. Though when it first comes out, it's in our biggest theaters, which seat, I think, over 250 people. We have 4 theaters that do that. Though after a while, the popularity of the 3D movie drops a little, and it's moved off into one of the smaller theaters. The seating basically depends on the demand. The more popular it is, the more theater's they'll open up for it.
2. The ticket prices, I'm not sure of. The people bought their tickets online, rather than at the door.
3. Not exactly sure what' you're asking. :confused:
4. Nope, the theater is not in any way, linked to the live action. We just show it like how you'd watch live sports on TV. Only, without the ads. :p

[FanDeAliFee]

...in our biggest theaters, which seat, I think, over 250 people. We have 4 theaters that do that. Though after a while, the popularity of the 3D movie drops a little, and it's moved off into one of the smaller theaters...

1. How many seats are in the smallest theater with a 3D projector?

...The ticket prices, I'm not sure of. The people bought their tickets online, rather than at the door.

Since I have not been in a theater since the 1990s, this comes as confirmation of what I had only guessed about ticket acquisition means these days. Online ticket sales let the event producer sell the tickets, and thereby audit sales, while the theater gets to audit sales by counting bodies. A variety of trustworthy business deals can be struck between event producer and venue operator.

And if one looks to a theatrical showing to obviate Napsterism, only a little more trust is needed between the show partners. The producer need only trust the theater to prevent patrons from making event recordings, and abstain from doing so itself. Of course, the producer could also employ its own on-site (perhaps spot-check) guard if the cost/benefit balance made sense.


docdtv asked "Did anyone ever mention to how many theaters live material was simulcast?"
Not exactly sure what' you're asking. :confused:


2. Were the live events sent to multiple theaters, either in your chain or others, at the same time? I think the answer could well be yes, but I had hoped you might know how many theaters were ganged together in this way. The bigger the audience for a live event, the more money can be put into producing it.


Nope, the theater is not in any way, linked to the live action. We just show it like how you'd watch live sports on TV. Only, without the ads. :p

Obviously, even a laptop computer with a Webcam and a broadband connection could provide a video feed from the theater back to the event producer. Even if the theater lacked a wired connection that could be relayed via WiFi, ever more places are getting 3G cellphone service that might be picked up within the theater, especially with a temporary local relay.

The reason for a return feed is to partially reproduce the interactivity of an in-person performance. The audience could sing along, make requests, vote by applauding, take part in Q&A sessions and other gimmicks to make the experience much more than like watching TV or a film! Local attendees who get to individually interact with the star by winning an in-theater lottery could also get the address online where a video of their special encounter is stored to use as they chose - as a private keepsake, something shared with friends, or even released to the whole world.

[Tchaikovsky]

comic relief à la James Traficant (http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/o/docdtv/lit/FurbyMenace.htm)?

Best. Toupée. Ever.

[FanDeAliFee]

How would you like to receive a live telephone call from Alizée?

One type of personal appearance business has the celebrity attend a fair, convention or other meeting all day long. But in an age of the cheap communication and storage of information, much smaller opportunities with comparable hourly compensation rates exist as well. This post will examine one firm specializing in such.

The site HollywoodIsCalling.com (http://HollywoodIsCalling.com) was created in 2003. Its goal: "...to make it possible for people all across the globe to be inspired and entertained by live phone calls from actual celebrities..." And since then, it has embraced other media as well. Prices start at US$20 for a standard live call or US$30 for a custom-scripted call, neither longer than 30 seconds. Curiously, you cannot yet ask that you be sent a high-quality audio file instead (or additionally).

A less than fawning four-minute interview of the site's founder was undertaken by National Public Radio (NPR) in the United States, the recording of which can be accessed here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1432903). A truly snarky short satirical take on the site is here (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/print.html?oid=oid:173107). And finally, a friendly syndicated article from a journalist who personally tested the service is here (http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Web-site-arranges-celebrity-phone-calls-64564.php), among other places.

The site itself offers an FAQ here (http://www.hollywoodiscalling.com/faq.php). If you want to go whole hog, you can even purchase a scripted video press release, described here (http://www.hollywoodiscalling.com/cvpr_order.php). You are informed "Your Message Must Be Professional, Polite, Courteous And Non-Offensive." Be prepared to pay US$300 for 3 minutes, US$500 for 5 minutes, or US$1000 for 10 minutes of video. There is no mention of the ability to solicit singing, LOL! But I imagine one might well script segway material for favorite music video playlists! The aforementioned page includes a short sample video featuring Marina Sirtis, better known to many as Counselor Deanna Troi of the Starship Enterprise.

All the celebrities who participate were once familiar to American audiences. So don't look for any French songbirds at this site any time soon. But what can be done for Americans might well be done for the French or other nationalities. For all I know, perhaps it is being done already.

One interesting thing about HollywoodIsCalling.com is that all the celebrities are financial peers - no one's time is charged at a higher or lower rate than is anyone else's. Web site name notwithstanding, that regimen surely has nothing to do with Hollywood!

How much would you pay Alizée to record bumper monologs for your personal playlist?

[FanDeAliFee]

The now-closed Facebook account called Melle Alizée Bis, at which place Alizée at one time acknowledged reading messages which fans posted to her there, suggests a revenue opportunity.

It did not take long for fans to start making numerous posts there, and often of the most trivial and silly nature (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177600&postcount=29).

The problem of "spam" reared its head as soon as the very first types of no-cost electronic messaging emerged. A solution I offered then is now practical to implement and can be a useful way to monetize celebrity.


Here's how it works. If you want to send Alizée a message to read, you go to the AlizéeStore and select a new messaging service. You pay three Euros via PayPal and then you are given a text-entry field of "tweet"-size in which to enter your message. When you are done, you click a "Send" button and your message is dispatched.

All messages are previewed by a staff member, who discards those which are rude and forwards to Alizée those which are civil. Within a week (or is it a month?) Alizée reads the message and responds in one of two ways, to verify she has seen what you have written. Most of the time, the message is of no deep interest to her, and she responds to your "Two Cents" message with a PayPal payment of two centi Euros. But sometimes, she is delighted to receive your message, in which case she uses PayPal to send you two Euros.

One can argue about the exact money amounts, but I think this could prove to be a system which can appeal to everybody.

[FanDeAliFee]

I would like to follow up the lengthy post titled Chaperoned multi-venue live hidef electronic shows (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showpost.php?p=170635&postcount=43), which detailed a potential new business model for Alizée and others like her, by pointing you at a detailed new article in The New York Times titled Orchestras on Big Screens: Chase Scene Needed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/arts/music/09hd.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print).

The article writes in part:
<blockquote><i>Opera houses, ballet companies, even the National Theater in London, are competing to lure audiences to live high-definition broadcasts in movie theaters... Now orchestras are jumping on the HD bandwagon... The best-known purveyor of cultural movie-casts is the {New York City] Metropolitan Opera, which pioneered the practice five seasons ago... The Met said 2.4 million tickets were sold last season alone... About one-third of the nation’s 39,000 movie screens have acquired digital capacity in just the last five years.

High-culture performances were common on television in past decades... [Now] the market is flooded with DVDs of recorded performances... the latest media strategies, [also] include online streaming, satellite radio broadcasts and on-demand playback... What is new here is that the showings are live, on a big screen and part of a collective experience.</i></blockquote>.

[FanDeAliFee]

Contents: Music industry economic analysis; new opportunities for enhanced show incomes opened by technology.

...I believe it was Lefty who asserted some months ago that the income of musical artists has never mainly relied upon that part deriving from recordings. Thus I am pleased to now come across a study published online late last year which examined the economics, including factor shares, of the British music industry over a half-decade interval during this century. Find it online at: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/


The chart below, titled US Recorded Music Revenue - 2011 Dollars (by medium, 1973-2009), is from an article dated Feb. 18, 2011 and titled The REAL Death Of The Music Industry (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2)

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg

[lefty12357]

The chart below, titled US Recorded Music Revenue - 2011 Dollars (by medium, 1973-2009), is from an article dated Feb. 18, 2011 and titled The REAL Death Of The Music Industry (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2)

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea3314bd7c8600a090000/music-industry.jpg

Actually, artists used to get a lot of income from record sales, but over the years the recording industry has decreased the artist's overall share through various means in order to increase their own from what is left of the dwindling revenues. So what I asserted was in reference to more recent times. Therefore, an artist is more likely to make money from live shows.

In a typical recording contract, an artist gets a percentage of sales. However, the record company pockets the artist's share until all expenses are paid off. Once that point is reached, the artist will start receiving money. The artist must waive his or her rights to any audit of the record company's books, so there is no way to know if a proper accounting was done on those expenses.

[FanDeAliFee]

...artist must waive his or her rights to any audit of the record company's books, so there is no way to know if a proper accounting was done on those expenses.

See also Hollywood accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting), LOL.

An important point about the chart I just reproduced above is that when the Corsican fairy entered showbiz, the industry had no trouble selling LOTS of CDs, and they grossed four or five times as much as they could by 2009. So an album which now sells "only" 20,000 units should hardly be judged as harshly as one which had such sales at the turn of the century. So to speak, it is what we only recently called a 100,000-seller - at least under the assumption of constant title-creation velocity.

I think the loss of musical recording sales is due not only to the trivial ease of piracy, but also to the vast and ever-increasing supply of cultural and entertainment material which is legitimately available for free, or all-but-free. This is because technology has "manumitted" out-of-copyright matter (cf. Google Books), and artists of all kinds must now give away so much of their copyright-protected produce in order to be visible amidst the ever-growing cacophony.

Live performance revenues to musical performing artists are actually growing, but much of this may be going to top-tier stars doing mega-concerts. And of course, it is hardly a secret that live performance is by far the most expensive (http://books.google.com/books?id=BfyFFCyRvX0C&dq=%22Entertainment+Industry+Economics%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s) method to deliver entertainment.

Again, I see the upgraded neighborhood film theater (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showpost.php?p=170635&postcount=43) as the vehicle to enable a distributed live performance venue which second-tier artists will be able to exploit. It offers the tempting possibility of high-production-value shows, without the expense of repeated travel and setup by artists and excessive travel by attendees, while retaining the physical intimacy of attendees, the possibility of interactivity with the performers, and the security against media piracy due to sequestration.

[FanDeAliFee]

Institubes R.I.P.

Jean-René Etienne and Emile Shahidi now offer a requiem (http://institubes.tumblr.com/) for Institubes, of late the artistic home of Alizée, which I excerpt immediately below. Their words echo the economic anxieties we have voiced in this thread, and sought to ameliorate.I could write ten pages about the realities and difficulties of the music business... We never lived those halcyon days some industry elders tend to rave about. We always moved through a post-apocalyptic, terminally pauperized landscape... It’s always been a bit of an uphill battle. But it got worse and worse... We’re closing shop because the operation is losing too much money... ours is a struggling industry, where 90% of your time is spent “staying afloat”... our post-Napster economy itself is defective... The only honest way for a record label to make money is by selling records. We’ve always been uneasy about selling anything else.

And our current cultural economy isn’t healthy either... Consumer practices are fucked. You don’t need me to tell you that music is devalued... tracks are peaking faster than tumblr memes. In our historical moment, music is everywhere but second or third or tenth to many other interests and areas of culture...

a closing event (= a massive party) is going to be announced very soon. Keep checking www.institubes.com for updates... Pretty much every mailbox we ever had is clogged so we’ve just set up this new e-mail: byebye@institubes.com

[FanDeAliFee]

The New York Times published Investors Are Drawn Anew to Digital Music (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/business/media/01music.html) on February 28, 2011, writing in part:
Since it emerged in the 1990s, digital music has been hugely popular with fans, but for online music companies and their investors it has almost never been profitable. And yet the [investment] money has again started pouring in... Even Apple, the largest music retailer, has long maintained that it makes little profit from its iTunes store, which has sold more than 10 billion songs since 2003... [But] since the end of last year, at least $57 million in venture capital has gone to digital music start-ups...

And I explore another way for musicians to make money in the post-Napster age, encouraging them to migrate closer to the advertising business, at Not Queen of the desert - Queen of the Nile! (http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showpost.php?p=201431&postcount=5)