Yes Tomas....Im am wine drinker too, but Ive been watching some All Blacks Rugby history recently and some how wine just does work in that scenario, though New Zealand makes great wine so maybe.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I also suspect that we need to rethink *who* the consumers are in this genre. I assume the potential market for ambient music isn't college students who like to attend dance parties. It is probably composed of people who are collectors, audiophiles, and musicians themselves. So, finding ways to get more money from Spotify, for example, might not be the right kind of strategy for increasing the financial viability of ambient labels. But exploring other options, such as bundling digital downloads (available on purchase, as with BC) with purchases of the physical product, might be one solution that both embraces new technology while appealing to the collector mentality. I also think one solution is to focus on high-quality releases. Just because you can release something doesn't mean you should. Also, simply acknowledging that there are communities out there and embracing them can help a lot. I know people here have expressed their disdain for self-promotion. I can relate to that. But simply "knowing" who someone is--even via online platforms--makes them more human. And, at least for me, that makes me want to buy their work.
Ultimately if I want to promote the music I love and want to bring it to the attention of others I suppose I will have to live with any negative, unseen scenarios because the worst thing possible would be silence.
Wouldn't the worst thing possible would be being sued by Lars Ulrich?
It's sort of funny in a way, the last Youtube post I made here was "Disintegrating Loops #6" in the now playing thread without a thought to anything we are discussing....it was just there. I did not think.
Should I have?
In my opinion: yes.
There are two outcomes for people who hadn't heard the album before. After listening to the samples you linked:
(a) they decided not to buy the album
(b) they decided to buy the album.
In the first scenario, the artist neither lost nor gained anything. (And there is always a chance that the listener was intrigued enough to return to the choice in the future.) In the second, the artist gained something. Something > nothing.
There is a chance that there was someone out there who was considering buying the album "site unseen" in 2014, but who has now realized that there is no point in doing so (thanks to your link) because they can hear it for free on YouTube. My intuition is that this probability is smaller than that associated with outcome (b).
At the end of the day there are only 2 kind of listeners…those who can "live or feel the music" and are willing to support the artists and those who rip them off by just having "something new" in their collection.
This past week, Sam at Projekt made me aware of a site that not only had links to my music that had been posted to youtube in video form, but also had stripped the music from the videos and made them available as MP3s. The fidelity is of course not the same, but besides the rights issue, that's a problem, too, if you don't want to see your music being presented in a lo-fi fashion.
Ultimately, if musicmaking can no longer pay for itself and, instead, musicians continue to lose money paying for mastering, licensing of photos and artwork, you will have fewer musicians able or willing to do this at a continued loss and I think the pool of available music will gradually become the poorer for it. If listeners truly respect the musicians whose music they like, they should pay for it, unless the musician chooses to make it available for free
I would vote against the Audient, I think Antelope is higher level stuff, it is a non brainer if you ask me... for this price there is no competition..