Can a musician sell their music online?

http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-02-26-2.html

by sevib • 17 years ago

94 67 17 years ago

zedshaw.com

pg2• 17 years ago

http://www.popcuts.com/

bk• 17 years ago

For those who are wondering, they're funded by YC. Just posting it because I had to look it up.

unalone6• 17 years ago

I don't like the looks of that. It doesn't thrill me. I want any music site I go to to be alive and in love and above all passionate. Perhaps it's a good technical solution, but if I were an artist who was pouring his life into creating music, I wouldn't want a site that feels generic.

(Perhaps something like muxtape.com? Though Zed marked it as a site found wanting, I'd say there's a chance it moves to letting musicians sell their music directly, considering the people involved with its direction now.)

run4yourlives4• 17 years ago

I think you're being overly critical of a very underdeveloped idea.

The theory behind it is worth much more than the current lack of presentation.

pg2• 17 years ago

Believe it or not, the site looks that way on purpose. It's supposed to be coolly bleak-looking. I don't love it either, but its not an accident.

jonny_noog2• 17 years ago

The sparse design of the site actually appeals to me. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I may not be a typical example of the general population of musicians but I was at least once an "artist who was pouring his life into creating music".

The music must speak for its self eventually... why not immediately?

TrevorJ• 17 years ago

I gotta say, the idea sounded a bit off to me at first but after poking around the site I really think the possibility of getting in-store-credit or even a partial return on your purchase makes the site sticky in a good way. I doubt anyone will be getting wealthy off of it but it does seem to encourage user involvement in a really interesting way.

raheemm• 17 years ago

Cool site - I really liked it but it maybe because the featured music just so happened to be in my taste. But I also like the idea of getting paid back for buying music. Very creative concept

run4yourlives4• 17 years ago

Now that's pretty ingenious.

I'm sure they'll eventually run into gaming issues, if they ever care (after all they'll be raking in the cash on every purchase).

Great way to think of music distribution in a totally new way. I hope this catches on, since it may actually be a replacement for the current model that might actually work for everyone's benefit.

If only someone at the labels actually wanted to be productive...

ssharp• 17 years ago

This site seems a bit too "pyramid-y" to have a long lasting appeal. However, I think the model is at least worth experimenting with -- at this point, just about ANY model in music sales is worth experimenting with.

ulf• 17 years ago

This one is located in Germany: http://justaloud.com/

thetable2• 17 years ago

This is Hannes from Popcuts. What Zed describes ("Competitors Don’t Get It") actually did exist for a while. Snocap used to offer a service where you uploaded music and could sell it through an embeddable ministore. AmieStreet has something similar. And, of course, so do we.

But I think the author oversimplifying a bit. Sure it's technically easy to sell music online. The stuff that's hard to come by is people's attention.

And while it's true that the Internet lowers distribution barriers, it has also decreased the perceived value of music recordings. Because access has gotten so much easier, people tend to think of music less as something you can own, but rather of something you have access to, be it through MP3s on your hard drive or streaming. We at Popcuts set out to address that. Because we think there's a deeper sense of ownership possible than simply having access to a sound file. And we do think music should have a price tag.

Our site is based on the idea that buyers of a song get a share of the revenue that song makes in the future. So when you buy a song on Popcuts, it's in your interest that that song does well. You might tell your friends about it, but you probably won't seed the file to a BitTorrent site. In addition, we try to reward the behavior that a lot of music fans already show: They know of a hot new band before everyone else, and they want to show it off. </selfpromotion>

joshuarr• 17 years ago

That's an interesting idea, but doesn't it suggest that the better a song sells, the less revenue the artist receives?

thetable2• 17 years ago

No, we have a fixed portion that goes to the fans, and the artist decides how much that is. Also, early buyers get bigger cuts, so it pays not to wait if you like a song.

Goladus• 17 years ago

This is a terrific idea, in that it exploits one of the big reasons people listen to music (others recommend it).

However, I think there is a real decrease in the real value of music recordings. While the internet does cheaply connect fans with musicians in widely different geographical regions, overall the supply of music has gone way up. Why should I pay one band for music when there's another band, just as good, giving away their music for free one click away?

sho4• 17 years ago

"So when you buy a song on Popcuts, it's in your interest that that song does well. You might tell your friends about it"

The huge and fatal flaw in that idea is that as soon as word gets around that people have a profit motive to recommend songs from PopCuts, and it will, then any such recommendation becomes suspect. Would you buy a song on the recommendation of someone who you knew was getting a commission for recommending that song? Of course not.

Wishful thinking about human nature, I think. Ain't gonna work. People are ultra-sensitive to that kind of thing.

But you know what, I don't think anything is going to work. Chalk me up in the camp that thinks there are basically two options now for music sales: compulsory licensing (ie, $10/month pass to absolutely everything), or no sales at all.

I think the music industry has a year or two to implement the first option. If they don't, Oink 2* will be born, decentralised, completely P2P and un-shutdownable, and then the age of paying for sound recordings of any type will come to an end forever.

* Oink was a huge BitTorrent site which was basically the best music resource in the world.

ph0rque• 17 years ago

>I think the music industry has a year or two to implement the first option. If they don't, Oink 2* will be born, decentralised, completely P2P and un-shutdownable, and then the age of paying for sound recordings of any type will come to an end forever.

I'm no pirate, but I hope the music industry takes its sweet time.

RK• 17 years ago

Would you buy a song on the recommendation of someone who you knew was getting a commission for recommending that song?

Yet advertising still works...

I think their scheme is actually pretty clever. First off, you assume that if people out to make money are willing to "invest" in a song, they are assuming that it's good enough that other people will actually buy the song. Secondly, if you buy the song, you can also make money from it.

The really interesting part will be when someone decides that they want to see how well they can game this system as an investor, especially using some quantitative analysis tools, tracking other high earners, etc. This is mostly assuming that they switch to cash credit vs store credit.

run4yourlives4• 17 years ago

People get commission on all sorts of things, from car sales to health insurance. Markets still buy product.

Would I buy a song on your recommendation alone? No. Would I buy a song that I enjoy that you've recommended, knowing that you get a commission? Of course, why not?

jamesbritt• 17 years ago

"Would you buy a song on the recommendation of someone who you knew was getting a commission for recommending that song? Of course not."

Of course not? How so?

I don't usually care what the motive is if I can determine the veracity of the information. For example, there are many people who blog about books, with an affiliate-tagged link to Amazon. (I do that myself.) I know they are getting a cut, but a) it does not change the price I pay, and b) if I trust their judgment I'm more interested in getting a good book than spiting someone out of some loose change.

Besides, I take all reviews with a grain of salt, and if I do not know the reviewer I consider possible ulterior motives (financial or otherwise).

Basically, everything on the Web is suspect until shown otherwise. People still find the means to establish trust and reputation and act on shared information.

patio11• 17 years ago

Chalk me up in the camp that thinks there are basically two options now for music sales: compulsory licensing (ie, $10/month pass to absolutely everything), or no sales at all.

I suppose this is true, if your business model is selling music to people who don't pay money for music. It is also true in software, if your business model is selling software to people who don't pay money for software.

I generally recommend selling software to people who pay money for software. It is probably good advice for music, too. (These people exist! Step away from the techy cocoon and you will meet a whole world full of all types of interesting people. Many of them have strange habits like working from 9 to 5, routinely paying money for goods and services, and using weird non-electronic implements to cause glyphs to appear on paper -- which they sometimes even use for paying for goods and services!)

run4yourlives4• 17 years ago

I think you're sitting on a goldmine. I wish you the best of luck and hopefully a record label with brains picks you up.

ilamont• 17 years ago

I had high hopes for mp3.com in the late 1990s -- they had a system that was kind of similar to MySpace, but also let artists produce and sell on-demand CDs, and take a cut (50%, I believe). While the downloads and CDs were never big moneymakers for artists I heard of one local band in the Boston area that managed to build up a respectable fanbase thanks to the service. The on-demand CD pressing arrangement was also convenient for creating and selling limited numbers of CDs to sell at shows.

That iteration of mp3.com's business model didn't survive, but I really think that has more to do with the power of major labels and existing distribution/sales channels. In my opinion, it's hard for Band X to make it as an indie artist without the backing of a major label's marketing budget and arrangements with Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc.

blackguardx• 17 years ago

As I recall, mp3.com was doing fine until they were bought just for the domain name. The site was shut down and nothing useful replaced it.

greendestiny• 17 years ago

I was an mp3.com artist back in the day. It was truly the independent music revolution that people cry out for - basically it was good enough that normal listeners came there to find music - no alternative has successfully provided that marketplace since. It was killed by a $200 million settlement against them for allowing streaming of copyright content that had nothing to do with the independent artists.

ricree• 17 years ago

Garageband.com ended up taking over a large portion of their database and has fairly similar capabilities. I've found a number of artists I like from that site.

prateekdayal• 17 years ago

This is Prateek from Muziboo.com, listed as one of the competitors who doesn't get it :)

While Zed has excellent points, here are somethings I find kinda moot

"Even if these companies open things up for musicians to sell their music, you’d still be stuck at having to sell through another company that doesn’t really add value." I don't think this is entirely true. The company is giving you a distribution channel, helping you accept payments and lots of other things in general. The very popular musicians with a dedicated following may be able to sell on their sites easily but I am not sure about the other 90%. I think these companies provide a lot of value to them

* They don’t ask you to prove you’re the author or that you’re “signed”. I agree about the signed part but I don't think its a good idea for the sites to allow people to sell whatever they put up and assume they are not selling someone else's stuff.

Another problem that I have certainly seen in places like India is the fact that bands really crave for an audience and give out their music for free a lot of times. The same music is also available for purchase on some other sites. I feel thats cheating the guy who is buying music. He should know that he can get the same music for free elsewhere and then pay if he wants to. I think this is where the companies providing such services will have a lot of overhead and they do need to take a cut out of the sales.

omouse• 17 years ago

This is absolutely fucking retarded. We are in the age of the internet where I can communicate directly with someone who likes my work, and yet I’m still paying some middle man to do nothing other than move some bits around on a piece of plastic.

That's the most important part. There's a lot of stuff that should be made quicker and easier by the Internet, but nope, there's still the middle man waiting to delay the process and make some cash.

redrobot50502• 17 years ago

Wow, Zed Shaw basically described what my friend I wanted to build and applied for VC from. Except we had (independent) labels on board to give us a catalog of about 200 (minorly) successful artists and a fanbase.

Too bad we got rejected. =(

jasonkester• 17 years ago

Why didn't you build it then? Because you had a single meeting with a VC and they didn't offer to give you tons of money?

That seems a bit of a silly thing to say to this crowd, many of whom have built bigger things than this article describes without any funding or support.

Go build version one this weekend, launch it on Monday and report back here so we can give you some feedback!

redrobot50502• 17 years ago

We are building it. And we were rejected by 3 VC firms, not just one. =)

On the other hand, we do have to compete against both SoundCloud.com and BandCamp.com, both of which accomplish some/most of our idea.

Its should be an interesting year for music.

mileszs• 17 years ago

I think http://amiestreet.com might solve a subset of Zed's problems (or, perhaps just the "you can't charge for your music" problem). On AmieStreet, a song starts free or cheap, and rises in cost as its popularity grows (capped at 98 cents per song). AmieStreet has a "REC" system that is similar to PopCuts' fan-revenue-sharing model that "thetable" mentions in these comments, somewhere. On AmieStreet, when a fan recommends (RECs) a song, and from that point on it continues to rise in price (and in popularity), they put money into your AmieStreet account. The site also suggests music based on your previous choices, you can preview everything, it has a player widget built in that will allow you to start previewing one album while browsing to other artists on AmieStreet, etc.

AmieStreet is a really great experience, for the fan. I cannot testify as to the experience for the musician. I could see not being able to set your own price point as annoying. Artists do keep 70% of the proceeds after $5 (so, AmieStreet is still a middle man), paid quarterly.

AmieStreet's Wikipedia entry is short but interesting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amie_Street#cite_note-ForArtist...)

I have not used PopCuts, but I'm checking it out now.

EDIT: For the record, I have no affiliation with AmieStreet, other than being a user. I do have a bit of an infatuation, though.

blurry• 17 years ago

A friend of mine makes sells a decent amount of his music on beatport.com.

simianstyle• 17 years ago

Beatport is mostly an outlet for electronic music, thus satisfying a particular niche. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, as I've bought music from Beatport before, however I think it's a bit harder in the general sense to sell music online.

sachimartin• 17 years ago

jhhkhloo

latortuga• 17 years ago

It seems like you could easily step into a huge spider web of having to ensure that everything uploaded to be sold is legitimate and not restricted by other copyright holders.

grandalf2• 17 years ago

this is a very good point..

also, one purpose of the "gatekeeper" is to ensure a very minimal level of quality... not the best approach but one that is used often in retail... exceptions are sites like youtube and zazzle...

gills2• 17 years ago

Quality is important if you are the gatekeeper trying to sell other people's music. But if I am an artist, and I record something that everyone thinks sucks, so what? The only consequence is a low rank in the aggregators, just like low-quality submissions here on HN.

gills2• 17 years ago

It sounded like his solution was the idea of the sampled-down rss-esque feed, with the only purchasing taking place through the artist's own paypal-or-whatever basket. The feed protocol needs to have some sort of cryptographic audit trail so that users can always reach the artist's sales page, and the artist can inspect, if necessary, where and how the distribution is flowing.

coolnewtoy• 17 years ago

What about TuneCore? http://www.tunecore.com/ Their prices don't seem that bad to me - nothing like what a label takes from you.

lyime2• 17 years ago

This is exactly what Mugasha ( invite @ http://www.mugasha.com/signup/hack) is doing for electronic dance music. EDM genre is all based on promotions. Promoting music through live sets, DJ sets, and weekly podcasts. The problem is how these sets are distributed. iTunes is a great source for podcasts but they way it distributes these live sets is inherently flawed in terms of a good user experience.

As a EDM fan you want to know what track is playing, so you can come back to it on a later day and listen to it again. Or perhaps you want to buy the song you are listening to on a set/podcast. What we have done on Mugasha is built a player that streams these long (1-2 hours) podcasts on-demand and allows the user to listen to them as if the set was an album.

Embdeeded in the track listing for each set is a buy button (through amazon [iTunes and Beatport](coming soon). We are partnering with Bandsintown to provide live event(tickets) information for the artists that you are listening to i the set. This is not the best way to monetize (for us), but it is great for the artist (thats the goal). We are here to promote EDM in a more effective way and make it easier for users to enjoy this kind of music, as well as for them to easily buy and support the artist.

So if you like dance(including trance) music, please check out Mugasha.

fortybillion• 17 years ago

Interesting site. My biggest issue with listening to DJ sets/podcasts in iTunes is the lack of trackname visibility and accessibility. I really wish iTunes supported an Audiobook chapter-style interface for these types of tracks.

I really like what you guys have done with the interface, and have a fairly good selection of sets. I think the biggest problems are portability and integration. Whenever I'm listening to a streaming set through a browser, I inevitably tap the "pause" media key on my keyboard out of habit, setting off a nice random mix of streaming audio and whatever happens to be cued up in iTunes. I also tend to download sets to my iPhone and listen to them in car.

I wonder if down the road you could address the portability issue with a iPhone app that mimics your site's UI, and the integration by providing custom streams to iTunes (or winamp, or whatever) that include tracknames in the stream.

Do you have any plans to support user-submitted DJ sets?

lyime2• 17 years ago

All good questions.

Our whole philosophy behind mugasha is accessibility and portability. So Mobile apps including streaming iPhone app are next steps. Our main focus right now is to get licensing worked out so we are in the green area.

Keep watching our blog and/or @mugasha. or find me on IM if you want to chat more. dodeja - gmail.com

tjogin• 17 years ago

I think "selling" is the wrong model to begin with. Spotify is the kind of model you're looking for.

micahphone• 17 years ago

Agreed! Selling downloads is a very short-term business model. iTunes and Amazon know it won't last forever and are just making what money they can while waiting for streaming everywhere to become commonplace. I'd say we're about three years away in terms of mobile phone technology before streaming becomes the dominant business model. Early adopters right now are using Spotify, Pandora, Slacker Radio, etc. and not looking back. When all music is streaming artists will be paid royalties funded by either subscription or advertising. At that point downloading an mp3, paid or otherwise, will seem like a chore.

jamroom• 17 years ago

Jamroom pretty much allows artists to do this - they are 100% in control, as they run the software on their own site:

http://www.jamroom.net

We've been selling and supporting Jamroom for over 5 years - it really began as an alternate to mp3.com, but has taken off from there.

cvinson• 17 years ago

There are tons of places bands can sell their music without a middleman or fees. Our site, Bandzoogle.com is one (if you want a full blown website), but you can also use one of dozens of widgets like Bandcamp.mu if you already have a site.

In terms of paying the middleman to be on sites like Amazon and iTunes -- this is really just based on the policies of those stores. They make you go through a middleman because they don't want to deal with artists directly. Because of this, someone has to track royalties, encode the tracks in proprietary formats etc, which does incur a bit of work, which is why they are all fee-based.

Cunard22• 17 years ago

I think labels will continue to play a role, if only for the legacy that they already control. Also, I don't think artists want to have to or should have to be their own record-store-managers. Handling all of that daily grind artist-by-artist is contrary to the fundamental principle of specialization in economics. Lastly, I feel that even if an emerging artist wants to self-start and promote using a blog (which worked just fine for Lily Allen), will they want to handle t-shirt distribution in Australia ten years from now? Is that what guitar-players are struggling to get to?

Incidentally, my startup is all about solving this problem by disengaging the license from the file. Let's see if it works. I have to get it built first.

jonursenbach• 17 years ago

With someone like Zed, I'd of thought that he'd know about CDBaby.

rs• 17 years ago

Think he does mention CD Baby (few paragraphs into the article)

vermontdevil• 17 years ago

One problem it seems to me is that once a site like this becomes successful, RIAA will enact stealthily measures to screw the site.

I can see them flooding the site with copyrighted music and then suing the site in court for copyright violations, putting demands that music gets screened for copyright, etc.

That will drive up the costs to a point where it's not profitable anymore.

That is unless there's technology available that can accurately screen any uploads for copyright violations.

klon• 17 years ago

I work with http://www.klicktrack.com/mdt/ which is a turn-key download store for artists and labels. We also offer a widget for integration with Myspace and blogs.

Can a musician sell their music online?

Related Stories