Comments on: Deconstructing Michael Lynton http://mistypedurl.com/2009/05/deconstructing-michael-lynton/ | Digital Detritus from Michael Castello Wed, 23 May 2012 10:41:37 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: The “Right” to Get Paid? | mistypedURL http://mistypedurl.com/2009/05/deconstructing-michael-lynton/comment-page-1/#comment-123 The “Right” to Get Paid? | mistypedURL Fri, 29 May 2009 19:57:24 +0000 http://mistypedurl.com/?p=712#comment-123 [...] of people-to-people (P2) networking to make money from creative efforts that myself and others have discussed previously. Yet the bottom line is this: artists today stand in the same place as everybody else: if you are [...] [...] of people-to-people (P2) networking to make money from creative efforts that myself and others have discussed previously. Yet the bottom line is this: artists today stand in the same place as everybody else: if you are [...]

]]> By: Mark http://mistypedurl.com/2009/05/deconstructing-michael-lynton/comment-page-1/#comment-121 Mark Fri, 29 May 2009 02:56:02 +0000 http://mistypedurl.com/?p=712#comment-121 You really hit home with the last 2 paragraphs. People will always pay to see something they enjoy. You really hit home with the last 2 paragraphs. People will always pay to see something they enjoy.

]]> By: SteelWolf http://mistypedurl.com/2009/05/deconstructing-michael-lynton/comment-page-1/#comment-120 SteelWolf Wed, 27 May 2009 23:29:57 +0000 http://mistypedurl.com/?p=712#comment-120 I don't disagree that this is a model that has worked well for many people for many years. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) this model is in its death throes. Bands that still think being signed by a corporate entity is entry into the Promised Land are the ones whining about filesharing. The reality is that being creative, be it musical or otherwise, is not the multimillion-dollar "career" it once was. The new path to success for today's garage band is to distribute their music as widely as possible online to build their listener base. Each person who hears their music is a potential financial contributor, be it through donations, ticket sales, or merchandise. If they plan on making money off of recordings that can be digitized and shared, they are fighting a losing battle. The bottom line is that quality bands who have worked hard to build a listener base are going to thrive in this new world. Not only can they reach more people than ever before through the internet, they will be able to see a higher financial reward through avenues that are more direct - like ticket sales, merchandise, and the like. The people who lose in this new world are the Michael Lyntons who make their fortune as middlemen, and the terrible music acts, movies, and TV shows that expect to recoup their losses in physical media sales. These are the Paris Hiltons who release an album but will never give a concert, the direct-to-DVD sequel, and their brethren. I don’t disagree that this is a model that has worked well for many people for many years. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) this model is in its death throes. Bands that still think being signed by a corporate entity is entry into the Promised Land are the ones whining about filesharing.

The reality is that being creative, be it musical or otherwise, is not the multimillion-dollar “career” it once was. The new path to success for today’s garage band is to distribute their music as widely as possible online to build their listener base. Each person who hears their music is a potential financial contributor, be it through donations, ticket sales, or merchandise. If they plan on making money off of recordings that can be digitized and shared, they are fighting a losing battle.

The bottom line is that quality bands who have worked hard to build a listener base are going to thrive in this new world. Not only can they reach more people than ever before through the internet, they will be able to see a higher financial reward through avenues that are more direct – like ticket sales, merchandise, and the like.

The people who lose in this new world are the Michael Lyntons who make their fortune as middlemen, and the terrible music acts, movies, and TV shows that expect to recoup their losses in physical media sales. These are the Paris Hiltons who release an album but will never give a concert, the direct-to-DVD sequel, and their brethren.

]]> By: Charles H Murphy http://mistypedurl.com/2009/05/deconstructing-michael-lynton/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Charles H Murphy Wed, 27 May 2009 23:16:16 +0000 http://mistypedurl.com/?p=712#comment-119 Interesting. I agree in part with your response. However, I wouldn't necessarily say that being creative shouldn't be a fast track to wealth. In the event that a creative artist is signed on by a record label, most of these bands have played in garages and small-town venues for years--likely earning little or no money. When some corporate entity finally recognizes their talent, they should be able to be compensated for their years of effort. Granted there are a number of pop bands that are complete crap, and the record label and millions of dollars is handed to them in a sense. But I would say that the vast majority of signed bands worked their tails off to get onto a label that is able to help them generate a lot of publicity (which most bands deserve). On the other hand, I agree totally that the unique experience is important. Radiohead, for example, adds an aesthetic appeal to their concerts that cannot be matched by many. Because of this, people pay millions for the merchandise and what not. This also allowed them to offer last year's album, In Rainbows, initially for free and still make money off of it by saying that people could donate if they chose to. Yes, more bands need to learn to put on shows that deserve our money, but that shouldn't mean that they should be punished for taking the time to work on an album. While the corporations are making money off of it, the bands too are reaping the benefits that they have sought for many, many years. Interesting. I agree in part with your response. However, I wouldn’t necessarily say that being creative shouldn’t be a fast track to wealth. In the event that a creative artist is signed on by a record label, most of these bands have played in garages and small-town venues for years–likely earning little or no money. When some corporate entity finally recognizes their talent, they should be able to be compensated for their years of effort. Granted there are a number of pop bands that are complete crap, and the record label and millions of dollars is handed to them in a sense. But I would say that the vast majority of signed bands worked their tails off to get onto a label that is able to help them generate a lot of publicity (which most bands deserve).

On the other hand, I agree totally that the unique experience is important. Radiohead, for example, adds an aesthetic appeal to their concerts that cannot be matched by many. Because of this, people pay millions for the merchandise and what not. This also allowed them to offer last year’s album, In Rainbows, initially for free and still make money off of it by saying that people could donate if they chose to. Yes, more bands need to learn to put on shows that deserve our money, but that shouldn’t mean that they should be punished for taking the time to work on an album. While the corporations are making money off of it, the bands too are reaping the benefits that they have sought for many, many years.

]]>