so, i think that bandcamp is providing the closest thing to a proper business model for independent artists in the internet era. it's not perfect, but it's vastly superior to what something like spotify is offering. those streaming sites are hypercapitalism, in the sense that they're bankrolling a bourgeoisie and giving the artists the finger. you shouldn't support that shit.
but in order for something more artist-friendly like bandcamp to exist, it has to be supported. i'm on the receiving end, and it's far from paying my bills, but i feel i should be supporting it, as well. so, i'm going to be investing a few dollars a month of money i'm making as profit to try and keep it spinning.
this is also going to function as a component of my review presence by drawing attention to independent artists that i think are doing something that's worth paying for. i do quite a bit of scouring and am incredibly selective. so, this page is going to be somewhat of an elite list of totally obscure music in a few months :)
https://bandcamp.com/deathtokoalas
regarding the streaming sites, i'd hazard a guess that google play will drive the others to irrelevancy within a few years because they're paying out upwards of a thousand times as much. i generated 20,000 hits at youtube over 2014. i've turned the ads off because it's not worth distracting people for fractions of a cent; maybe they might follow the ad instead of listening to the song, and then what's the point? but it would be about $20 on that 20,000 hits. yeah. ad revenue for youtube users is basically nothing.
spotify is even less than youtube ad revenue. i'd get pennies on 20,000 hits. google play is about 5 cents a stream - hundreds of times as much. now, i don't know what that means. 50% of a stream? just clicking play? it's about $1000 if any old hit counts. even if half of the hits count, it's worth signing up for.
but, like i say, i think this is a tactic and not sustainable in the long run. and, i don't see a way to drive traffic. rather than my 20,000 youtube hits as a baseline, it's more reasonable to look at my 2500 partial or complete bandcamp streams, which is more like $100. worth paying the signup fee for? not clear, really.
bandcamp maintains the buy-the-fucking-record-if-you-want-to-listen-to-it idea, which i'll admit i'm just kind of attached to. i do all these singles. but i make records, not singles. i'm willing to bend some ways as the technology changes, but in the end i have no intention or desire to modify the nature of the product. the marketing or distribution, sure. but not the thing itself. it's almost more that the streaming sites are borderline useless to me, other than as a way to convert the process of shopping for music into a profit making experience. which is weird.
i mean, i look at youtube as advertising. i'd look at google play as advertising as well. it's not the end purchase point; it can't be. you can talk about models and technology all you want, it can't be the final transaction. so, should i make money by advertising? it's a weird idea. and, the consumer ends up paying to access advertising, which is just as fucked. people think it's a great deal: $10/month for a huge library. but, it can't be the end transaction. so, it's more like $10/month to get access to the store to shop. like a costco type model...
even at five cents a stream, there's essentially no way to live off of this. so, everybody is getting ripped off except the people hosting the site. i just don't see where this goes, unless they plan to shut down youtube altogether....
....in which case, the torrents get even more traffic.
it has to be something like bandcamp, which lets you listen to it as a stream all you want but charges when you want to download it or add it to a library. nothing else is going to get artist support, or be able to maintain independent music.
if you search around online, the best argument anybody has for signing up to spotify is "exposure". but nobody explains what this means. personally, i haven't a clue how signing up to a library with millions of songs is going to increase exposure. rather, it seems like a good way to get your tunes lost. i mean, the chances of some algorithm throwing me up seem pretty remote. the only way to get people to hear things is to market it. i need to give people links. where it's hosted is not important. so, it's just another hosting site, as far as i'm concerned....just one with a really bad payout.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
i expected this was going to happen...
my isp is cutting my plan out. they just doubled my usage cap from 75 gb to 150 gb and increased my bill by $3. but, these are my actual usage stats recently:
nov: 15 gb
dec: 9 gb
jan: 8 gb (so far)
i wouldn't want lower than 50 gb, for the security blanket. but i'm rarely going to go over 20 gb. 150 gb is completely useless to me.
i'm not going to make any changes, because it's still under $30, which is my breaking point. for now, i can just treat this as inflation. i refuse to pay more than that. why? because i always had unlimited access for less than that. i don't want or need more bandwidth. i want a cheap plan in the 3-10 mbps range, and i'll take as low as a 50 gb limit if i have to.
but, it's coming up on it. and if i can't find the cheap enough option, i'm willing to cancel altogether. if you don't believe me, take note: i believe phones are overpriced and haven't paid for one in over five years.
i have no problem going to the library every few days instead...
like, i guess i'm ok with usage-based billing on some level - if you cut the flat rate. go ahead and charge me $1/gb or something. if you make it flat, i'm going to save money, in the long run, because my usage is so low.
but don't sell me a service i don't want, and then deny me the opportunity to downgrade....
i guess i'm still old-fashioned, in the sense that the dominant thing i do on the internet is READ.
my isp is cutting my plan out. they just doubled my usage cap from 75 gb to 150 gb and increased my bill by $3. but, these are my actual usage stats recently:
nov: 15 gb
dec: 9 gb
jan: 8 gb (so far)
i wouldn't want lower than 50 gb, for the security blanket. but i'm rarely going to go over 20 gb. 150 gb is completely useless to me.
i'm not going to make any changes, because it's still under $30, which is my breaking point. for now, i can just treat this as inflation. i refuse to pay more than that. why? because i always had unlimited access for less than that. i don't want or need more bandwidth. i want a cheap plan in the 3-10 mbps range, and i'll take as low as a 50 gb limit if i have to.
but, it's coming up on it. and if i can't find the cheap enough option, i'm willing to cancel altogether. if you don't believe me, take note: i believe phones are overpriced and haven't paid for one in over five years.
i have no problem going to the library every few days instead...
like, i guess i'm ok with usage-based billing on some level - if you cut the flat rate. go ahead and charge me $1/gb or something. if you make it flat, i'm going to save money, in the long run, because my usage is so low.
but don't sell me a service i don't want, and then deny me the opportunity to downgrade....
i guess i'm still old-fashioned, in the sense that the dominant thing i do on the internet is READ.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
wow. i've been calling myself an evangelical atheist for years, and thought it was a sort of a unique description. is mr. eno also an alphabetical egalitarianist and general grammar anti-authoritarian? you know what they say about great minds...
...and regarding u2 and christianity, bono's position has always been very skeptical of organized religion, despite wanting to connect to the moral underpinning. i'd interpret him as a secular humanist. i mean, it's kind of weak to suggest he needs to share philosophical positions with the artists he produces. but there's not much hypocrisy, if you really follow what bono was actually saying.
"i'd break bread and wine if there was a church i could receive in."
as for what's he's saying...i get his point..
but, if you legitimately reject the concept of faith, it's not really a debate of whether you should or shouldn't have control. i think this is kind of meta - he's discussing the question of whether we can choose to be in control, which necessitates us being in control in the first place.
and, ironically, if you really don't believe there's a power, that breaks down to really not being in control - you're at the whim of the universe. it's not just some kind of pantheism. it's the inevitable consequence of really seriously diving into atheism. atheism is not some randian thing about free will. in fact, it's christianity that gives us free will (calvinism aside, but calvinism is very weird in relation to most religions). atheism rejects that and replaces it with stochastic processes, randomness, chaos...
...and regarding u2 and christianity, bono's position has always been very skeptical of organized religion, despite wanting to connect to the moral underpinning. i'd interpret him as a secular humanist. i mean, it's kind of weak to suggest he needs to share philosophical positions with the artists he produces. but there's not much hypocrisy, if you really follow what bono was actually saying.
"i'd break bread and wine if there was a church i could receive in."
as for what's he's saying...i get his point..
but, if you legitimately reject the concept of faith, it's not really a debate of whether you should or shouldn't have control. i think this is kind of meta - he's discussing the question of whether we can choose to be in control, which necessitates us being in control in the first place.
and, ironically, if you really don't believe there's a power, that breaks down to really not being in control - you're at the whim of the universe. it's not just some kind of pantheism. it's the inevitable consequence of really seriously diving into atheism. atheism is not some randian thing about free will. in fact, it's christianity that gives us free will (calvinism aside, but calvinism is very weird in relation to most religions). atheism rejects that and replaces it with stochastic processes, randomness, chaos...
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Monday, January 5, 2015
deathtokoalas
the point is that he doesn't own the rain. therefore, he has no right to prevent it from flowing downstream and he has no right to modify the eco-systems around his property. use of public resources needs to be determined collectively, not individually. that being said, the jail time is an unfortunate penalty; a little direct action in the form of blowing up his dam would have been preferable.
George Vasquez
100% correct. That asshole got off light.
deathtokoalas
well, like i say: it's a little ham-fisted to put somebody in a cage over something that can be easily resolved by activism.
Young Master Gandalf
Then tell me, who does own the rainwater that falls on your land????? imo everbody has the right to collect rainwater for use on their land. You Americans are really nuts. And you could even claim it's a gift from God, knowing most of you are Christians, so what's wrong by using Gods gift he gave you? If God didn't want him to use rainwater, he would not have let it fall down on his land.
deathtokoalas
it is because nobody owns it that it must be allowed to flow through.
i mean, putting out a coffee can or something is one thing. but, this guy is building a dam. he's not just collecting a bit of water falling on his property, he's expropriating it from miles around.
the right way to look at rainwater is that you take what you need and let the rest run by, so it's accessible to the other creatures (human or not) in the region that also require it. the theft in damming is from everybody, miles around.
there have been wars fought over this, when one country decides they want to dam water in such a way that prevents it from flowing into another country. and, for good reason. that's theft.
Young Master Gandalf
That was over 150 years ago, now there is water plenty. And the states don't own the rain. But I know, you Americans have stupid rules and laws. And imo this has nothing to do with collecting rainwater, it had to to with blocking rivers and streams of water, it was never about collecting rainwater, cause your neigbour could just do the same with the rain that falls on his land. It would be something else if he had blocked a river, a brook, a stream, a chanal, then you are right to imprison him, but for rainwater??????????????????
deathtokoalas
i was unaware that rainwater patterns changed that dramatically in 150 years. but, there are two contemporary examples of this: proposed dams on cataracts on the nile are creating tensions between ethiopia and egypt, and chinese engineering programs are upsetting the indians.
i'm a canadian. but, i believe these rules are set on a state-by-state basis and generally allow a certain level of collection for personal use.
we seem to agree that this is well beyond that.
it should be illegal just on the basis of affecting the wildlife in the region.
Young Master Gandalf
I live in the Netherlands and there is no law that prevents me from collecting rainwater for personal use. If I had some land, and want to make a pond or a small lake on that land, nobody can prevent me from doing just that. If however there would be a creek, or small brook on my land, then I'm prohibited to block that waterstream, imo those are two different things!! The example you give, is about the NILE, a natural river, and that's something complete different.
deathtokoalas
i'm not well read on dutch law. however, i would have to think that if there's enough water running through your land that you can dam it, then that qualifies as a stream.
that would be different from a free standing pond.
Young Master Gandalf
Just dig a hole in the ground, and wait for the rain to fill it up, there you have my free standing pond.
deathtokoalas
it's not quite that easy - it's going to evaporate, seep or spill over.
regardless, what he was doing was rerouting runoff from a broad area with pipes (you can see it in the video) and damming it. that run off would have found it's way into streams - and as you can see, it was a substantial amount. so, it's still not comparable.
the issue here is less in the collection of rainwater and more in how much he was collecting. it was clearly beyond any reasonable concept of personal use. i'm not sure how the netherlands interprets common law (i know you had an early parliament, but i suspect your law is probably based on civil law from years of spanish domination), but that's how english law works - it tries to determine behaviour relative to an abstract "reasonable person" and then rules based on that criteria.
turns out the roots of modern dutch law are napoleonic, rather than habsburg. good to know.
the point is that he doesn't own the rain. therefore, he has no right to prevent it from flowing downstream and he has no right to modify the eco-systems around his property. use of public resources needs to be determined collectively, not individually. that being said, the jail time is an unfortunate penalty; a little direct action in the form of blowing up his dam would have been preferable.
George Vasquez
100% correct. That asshole got off light.
deathtokoalas
well, like i say: it's a little ham-fisted to put somebody in a cage over something that can be easily resolved by activism.
Young Master Gandalf
Then tell me, who does own the rainwater that falls on your land????? imo everbody has the right to collect rainwater for use on their land. You Americans are really nuts. And you could even claim it's a gift from God, knowing most of you are Christians, so what's wrong by using Gods gift he gave you? If God didn't want him to use rainwater, he would not have let it fall down on his land.
deathtokoalas
it is because nobody owns it that it must be allowed to flow through.
i mean, putting out a coffee can or something is one thing. but, this guy is building a dam. he's not just collecting a bit of water falling on his property, he's expropriating it from miles around.
the right way to look at rainwater is that you take what you need and let the rest run by, so it's accessible to the other creatures (human or not) in the region that also require it. the theft in damming is from everybody, miles around.
there have been wars fought over this, when one country decides they want to dam water in such a way that prevents it from flowing into another country. and, for good reason. that's theft.
Young Master Gandalf
That was over 150 years ago, now there is water plenty. And the states don't own the rain. But I know, you Americans have stupid rules and laws. And imo this has nothing to do with collecting rainwater, it had to to with blocking rivers and streams of water, it was never about collecting rainwater, cause your neigbour could just do the same with the rain that falls on his land. It would be something else if he had blocked a river, a brook, a stream, a chanal, then you are right to imprison him, but for rainwater??????????????????
deathtokoalas
i was unaware that rainwater patterns changed that dramatically in 150 years. but, there are two contemporary examples of this: proposed dams on cataracts on the nile are creating tensions between ethiopia and egypt, and chinese engineering programs are upsetting the indians.
i'm a canadian. but, i believe these rules are set on a state-by-state basis and generally allow a certain level of collection for personal use.
we seem to agree that this is well beyond that.
it should be illegal just on the basis of affecting the wildlife in the region.
Young Master Gandalf
I live in the Netherlands and there is no law that prevents me from collecting rainwater for personal use. If I had some land, and want to make a pond or a small lake on that land, nobody can prevent me from doing just that. If however there would be a creek, or small brook on my land, then I'm prohibited to block that waterstream, imo those are two different things!! The example you give, is about the NILE, a natural river, and that's something complete different.
deathtokoalas
i'm not well read on dutch law. however, i would have to think that if there's enough water running through your land that you can dam it, then that qualifies as a stream.
that would be different from a free standing pond.
Young Master Gandalf
Just dig a hole in the ground, and wait for the rain to fill it up, there you have my free standing pond.
deathtokoalas
it's not quite that easy - it's going to evaporate, seep or spill over.
regardless, what he was doing was rerouting runoff from a broad area with pipes (you can see it in the video) and damming it. that run off would have found it's way into streams - and as you can see, it was a substantial amount. so, it's still not comparable.
the issue here is less in the collection of rainwater and more in how much he was collecting. it was clearly beyond any reasonable concept of personal use. i'm not sure how the netherlands interprets common law (i know you had an early parliament, but i suspect your law is probably based on civil law from years of spanish domination), but that's how english law works - it tries to determine behaviour relative to an abstract "reasonable person" and then rules based on that criteria.
turns out the roots of modern dutch law are napoleonic, rather than habsburg. good to know.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
you know, for once, it'd be nice to see a parody of existentialism that doesn't miss the point altogether (and i'm not sure how he's characterizing the statement about artistic integrity as randian except by wording it in a bizarre way, although i'll admit i ran into a few people at occupy that tried to merge worker politics with support for ron paul - and were promptly made fun of).
see, it doesn't matter if he gets through college and gets a higher paying job or if he takes the job as an office temp (although reality is that he'll be lucky if his college diploma gets him a paying job in an office, that's where mom's social standing plays a role). whether he's making $50/hr or $10/hr, his life will still lack meaning. he'll still be forced into employment he has no interest in. the point is that the effort and the social standing that comes with it doesn't make a difference in an individual's happiness.
nor is the doctor's ferrari anything more than a temporary alleviation of the deep emptiness that defines his existence.
it would be easier if more people realized all of this, as building a movement to create a system that provides meaning would actually become possible. alas, we're instead persistently driven into the false promises of illusory happiness that consumer culture provides for us.
now, if you'll excuse me, i am going to ponderously play a single chord on an out of tune guitar for an hour as i meditate on the purposelessness of capitalism.
see, it doesn't matter if he gets through college and gets a higher paying job or if he takes the job as an office temp (although reality is that he'll be lucky if his college diploma gets him a paying job in an office, that's where mom's social standing plays a role). whether he's making $50/hr or $10/hr, his life will still lack meaning. he'll still be forced into employment he has no interest in. the point is that the effort and the social standing that comes with it doesn't make a difference in an individual's happiness.
nor is the doctor's ferrari anything more than a temporary alleviation of the deep emptiness that defines his existence.
it would be easier if more people realized all of this, as building a movement to create a system that provides meaning would actually become possible. alas, we're instead persistently driven into the false promises of illusory happiness that consumer culture provides for us.
now, if you'll excuse me, i am going to ponderously play a single chord on an out of tune guitar for an hour as i meditate on the purposelessness of capitalism.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
obligatory influential on song of the month post...
i can't figure out what the hell was influencing me on this particular track, but i can hear a bit of deleo in the short guitar solo, and it's head-scratching enough that it fits. i'm reaching, though. it's not characteristic of my own work.
this record? i think it's aged well. i gotta lean towards the preceding record as the better crafted disc, but this is a perfectly worthy follow-up - and remains the only thing they've released that comes close to matching that universally acknowledged classic.
(relevant tracks: nothing to say, but deleo is a general guitar influence with that jazzy classic rock grunge fusion of his)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSuyEpcj_D0
i can't figure out what the hell was influencing me on this particular track, but i can hear a bit of deleo in the short guitar solo, and it's head-scratching enough that it fits. i'm reaching, though. it's not characteristic of my own work.
this record? i think it's aged well. i gotta lean towards the preceding record as the better crafted disc, but this is a perfectly worthy follow-up - and remains the only thing they've released that comes close to matching that universally acknowledged classic.
(relevant tracks: nothing to say, but deleo is a general guitar influence with that jazzy classic rock grunge fusion of his)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSuyEpcj_D0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)