Download Only Song to Crack the Top 40

nagora writes "The BBC is reporting that next week's UK music chart may have the first sign of the end of the recording industry as we know it. From this week (7th Jan, 2006), all downloaded music sales are counted in the official UK chart, not just tracks which have had a physical media release. Now, an unsigned band called Koopa is poised to enter the top 40 without any old-world recording, distribution, or production deals. Band member Joe Murphy says "If someone comes along and gives us an offer, we'll talk to them." before continuing on to add the words the recording industry has been having nightmares about since the introduction of the mp3 format: "If we can get enough exposure and get in the top 40 by the end of the week, do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." Is this finally the crack in the dam we've all been waiting for to wash away the entrenched monopolies of 20th century music production? Or just a sell-out waiting to happen?"

Don't stop at just the labels...

...keep moving forward by working to repeal laws that instill any form of anti-market monopoly, such as copyright. I promote and produce for a few bands in the Chicago area, and I've worked hard to get them to repudiate monopoly. The bands that do make more money! Why?

Small bands want their music out their -- the CD sales aren't where the cash cow is. Live venues can be very lucrative for even a small band -- getting 300 people to a show can net you $1 a beer or $2-$4 per head. Also, you can upsell your new fans on items they can't easily copy, such as T-shirts, autographed posters, etc. My brother's band Maps & Atlases [maps-atlases.com] just received a major article in Guitar Player, and they're moving forward with picking up sold-out shows, all without any representation. They do just fine on cover charges, new T-shirts every month or so, and autographed screen-printed show posters. If they can do 50 shows a year (1 a week), there's no reason that each of them can't make a very respectable 5 figures a year, after expenses.

Sure, CD sales account for some profit, especially on tour, but there is little reason to think that a band needs a label just for radio exposure or MTV. Both are great for the rare groups that can break 50,000 albums a year or sell out to 3000+ crowds -- and the chance of being one of those bands is so rare that it is almost impossible. Even worse, the labels utilize the force of copyright against even the bands that "succeed" by wrapping up all their future income in the form of residuals and management fees.

If you're a small band that wants to make it big -- tour. If you're a medium-sized band that is starting to form an audience -- get a street team. If you're a large band, make more products for your consumers to buy that isn't easily copied. Sometimes that 5 minutes you spend with a fan is worth a lifetime of them wanting your products, even if they get the easily-copied products for free.

The best form of marketing is piracy -- if you're part of the 99% of the artists out there who can't get into the big industry because you have no clout or nepotism pull.

Is it easy either way? NO. Simple laws of supply and demand will show you that most artists won't cut it -- it is very easy to get into the market (financially). The skills can mostly be learned. The production tools are getting cheaper and cheaper. There is a near limitless supply of people who want to get into the market. Surely, few are talented, but the simple fact that there is SO MUCH SUPPLY and so little demand means that most bands will make nothing (or worse, lose a ton of time and money trying). Still, the web will surpass the radio and MTV as the prime networking engine, and I do believe that collaborative filtering engines such a CRITEO [criteo.com] will really take off when more small sites start utilizing them to get their microcosm of users to collaborate on what they like and don't like.

Sidenote: If any bands are out here that are interested in trying this theory, and have any touring experience beyond a few local shows, hit me up with an e-mail, we have some money to invest in those who repudiate copyright in exchange for the free promotion that torrents and fileshare offers.

Congrats to KOOPA for proving that you don't need might -- or force -- to be more than a starving artist.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

The GNU Public License rests solidly on copyright law. Take away copyrights, and anybody can take GPL software and release it as closed source.

The right answer is to limit copyrights. I think that 30 years from creation, plus another 30 years IF the copyright holder explicitly renews his rights is fair. When the copyright expires, after either 30 or 60 years, it goes directly and permanently into the public domain. The Library of Congress should hold the official registry of copyrighted works in the USA. Corporations should not have terms that exceed or are different from the rights given to individuals.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Don't remove those, because those are contractual restrictions, and therefore voluntary. People have the right to enter into contracts if they want to. I don't think outlawing non-disclosure agreements is very smart at all.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Copyrights protect creative works once they are released into the public

No, they protect works upon creation. Further, there is some desirability in them doing so, or else we might have people stealing manuscripts in order to get around copyright. This has happened in the past, more or less, and should be dealt with.

I can put a circle-C (©) on a piece of original work and it is protected by law from that point forward.

Actually it's protected once you fix the work in a tangible medium of expression. But I would agree that strict notice formalities are a good thing and should be brought back.

Now, copyrights can be contested if prior art existed before you released your work and made your claim to copyright on it.

I think that you're confusing copyrights and patents. Copyrightable works have to be original, but they don't have to be novel (i.e. never done before). Patents have to be novel. It's entirely possible for Alice to create a copyrightable work, and for Bob to independently create and identical work and for Bob's work to also be copyrightable. So long as Bob doesn't copy from Alice, it's fine. That the works are identical doesn't matter.

free speech as they are not restricting original oration or free thinking

Free speech has nothing to do with originality. If I recite Hamlet, I use my right of free speech just as much as if I recite something I wrote myself. Both original and unoriginal speech are the same for first amendment purposes.

then an NDA is a good way to protect the rights of ownership

No, not really.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

In some other discussion here about copyright I said why not have copyright last as long as the artist lives, or 30 years, whichever is longest? (In case the artist dies shortly after creating a work, their family should benefit from profits).

Why shouldn't an artist continue to reap the rewards of a creation of theirs for the entire lives?

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

So would it be true to say that the purpose of copyright is to mimic depreciation in real-world goods?

No. The purpose of copyright is to provide the greatest benefit to the comunity by providing an incentive to create in the form of an artificial monopoly for a limited duration.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Artists don't have a natural right to control how their work is used after they distribute it. Copyright is a contract between creators and society, where we give them a short term monopoly on distributor to encourage them to contribute to the public domain. Setting copyright lengths to life defeats the purpose.

Honestly, I'd say 5 to 10 years is more than fair. If you haven't made money off of your stuff by then, then you're not likely to.

Point being that copyright is supposed to benefit us by benefiting them.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

I guess I still just don't get how someone else can make profit from something that I created just because X years have gone by. If the thing I created 10 years ago is no longer making money because no-one wants to buy it, then that'll make me create something else. But if I've created something that is desirable to people for decades after I first made it, and there continues to be people who want to buy it... why shouldn't I be making money from it, rather than someone else?

The whole 'It will make you do more work' point seems a little off to me... A creative person will create based on the desire to create more so than to make money... those who do it purely to make more money probably aren't really making worthwhile contributions anyway.

I dunno... I suppose my measure for it being a good argument is that I can agree with the reason and convince someone else... and I just can't see the point of it being forced into the public domain while the original creator could still be making a living from it. Being able to extend indefinitely past the creator's death is a load of bull, and does nothing to benefit the creators of the works... but during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

But if I've created something that is desirable to people for decades after I first made it, and there continues to be people who want to buy it... why shouldn't I be making money from it, rather than someone else?

Because you live in a society that makes it possible for you to create that thing. As in incentive to make society better, you're given a monopoly over said thing for a brief period. Then the thing should be made available to everyone in society so new, better things can be built without having to start from scratch. To argue for infinte copyrights is to argue that you should be able to use stuff that came before you, but no one after you should have the same opportunity.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

And when that creator is a corporation and immortal?

In any case 28 years from first commercial publication (otherwise the life of the creator) is plenty.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

I guess I still just don't get how someone else can make profit from something that I created just because X years have gone by.

Your problem is that you are looking at it backwards.

The real question is, why should everyone in the world give a creator a monopoly over his work, merely because he created it? The natural state of a work is the public domain, where everyone can enjoy it. And the natural state of man is to have freedom of speech, which copyright is an infringement on.

The answer is that if people think that giving a creator a monopoly will help the people more than it harms them, then it is in their own best interest to grant it.

Think about a municipal cable tv company. They get a monopoly from the municipality to operate cable tv services for a period of time. No one thinks that they should just get one -- it's because the municipality is exploiting the tv company, getting them to install and maintain expensive infrastructure that they have to have in order to supply (and charge for) cable tv. Once the monopoly runs out, the municipality gets the infrastructure and can open it to competition (which is ideal, free markets, and all) or put it on the block for another time-limited monopoly, if it's worthwhile to do so. This is the deal, and both sides know it, and both find it to their advantage, so it works.

In copyright, the public wants works to be created and published and in the public domain. Giving up a little of the latter temporarily results in a lot more of the former, so it is worth it to the public -- so long as it's limited in time and scope. The author wants as much of a monopoly as he can get, so he'll be happy with anything, but will also push for more, even when it's against the public interest, since it is in his interest to do so. This is where the false idea of 'I should get it forever merely because I created it' comes from. It's never actually been like that, you know.

But during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.

They should get the absolute minimum copyright that would still have caused them to create and publish the work. That's what the public wants from them. Giving them more is wasteful. It's like the city paying a billion dollars to have a contractor build a parking lot when a ten thousand dollars would've sufficed. Admittedly it is impossible to read the minds of authors, so we can't go case-by-case, but it's still possible to set things up so that it's better than a wasteful one-size-fits-all kind of thing.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Correct GPL is based on copyright. But you are only half right about the "taking open code and closing it". It is true that under a non copyright regime (which I support) such taking and closing is possible. But even where there is no copyright there is the _fact_ of authorship. That is the closing can only legally be done with the correct attribution ie, "derived from project X" or based on code from "Jo Public". Take away those attributions and the closing author is committing fraud, claiming something that is their work independent of the true author. This damages the reputation (or rather fails to enhance it adequately) of the original source of the code. Which is a very simple wrong. And easy to fix. Much good flows on from this situation.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Take away copyrights, and anybody can take GPL software and release it as closed source.

Oh come on. Without copyright there IS no closed source. There would be no law to keep me from using it.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Art's expensive. Paint, canvas, pianos, harpsicords, guitars, theatres, lights, studios, tour buses, dancers in cages, and hand-sorted m&ms all cost money.

Gone are the days when it took hundreds of thousands of dollars--if not millions--to publish a book, release an album or make a film. F*ck the "artists" who don't like the way the world is changing. I'd much rather toss a 20 to a brilliant performer on open mic night than a shrink-wrapped CD any day.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Hate to burst your bubble but bar bands don't make money as a rule. I have a lot of friends that do it and what little they make comes from CD and tshirt sales and it ain't much. Generally doesn't pay expenses. Back in the day some groups used to make money at it. I used to know one of the Flying Burrito Brothers, they were a hot bar band in the 70s. They stopped playing in the 80s because there just wasn't any money in it. Too many garage bands willing to play for free to get exposure. The problem is exposure for what? If everyone wants free downloads and small venues don't pay then it's no longer a profession.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

That's completely false. I've produced 3 bands in 2006 (basically, fronted them the money for marketing, promotion and equipment) that have done fairly well doing relatively small-club tours. Many of them saw significant profits from selling their $3 t-shirts for $15, their $0.50 posters (signed) for $10, and other dookie. Art isn't necessarily a profit center -- getting a job and meeting regular needs is.

A musician can get a job making music for industrial purposes (movies, TV shows, even local productions such as local TV commercials, etc). A musician can get a job teaching others how to play music. A musician can get a job working on soundtracks for video games or other goods. That's where the consistent money is. Otherwise, it is risk/reward: you're out there competing against thousands or tens of thousands of bands, the risk is huge for a very slim chance of a huge reward. Why is this? Because the content is controlled by copyright -- any one band invests 200 hours total in making an album. 1000 bands do this. 1 band succeeds and never has to work again. 999 bands fail and continue to try. Why is the first band any better than the others? Usually because they're colluding with the distribution monopolies (designed this way by the FCC, mind you) who control copyright.

If you're a tiny band and I bootleg your music, you have NO chance of suing me and winning -- I probably have more money than you, if I was a pirate. Copyright only helps the distribution cartels -- and cartels are generally formed by government force.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

bar bands don't make money as a rule.

True, as a rule, but not because there isn't a market capable of supporting bar bands. Most bar bands don't make money for the same reason most new business fail, poor management. I've been playing in bar bands for 25 years, 10 of those years playing bars provided my sole income. I only backed off due to a temporary medical problem. A bar musician can make $50,000+ per. year if they treat it like a 'REAL' job. They can't forget the business in "music BUSINESS." Be flexible, find your target market(s), play to those markets, keep your expenses to a minimum, and work at it 40+ hours per. week. Those are the kinds of things that one does when they run any kind of business.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Are you kidding? Business? You are aware that musicians create art? They don't do this "business" thing. Create the art, and the money should appear. If not, it's the pirates fault.

MAFIAA

If we can get enough exposure and get in the top 40 by the end of the week, do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't.

I'm sure some burly men in suits from the RIAA would have something to say about that. You wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, would you?

The answer

Is this finally the crack in the dam we've all been waiting for to wash away the entrenched monopolies of 20th century music production? Or just a sell-out waiting to happen?

Yes.

Re:The answer

Before you mod this guy down note that he isn't being a tool. He is just parsing the GP's comment using boolean logic, and is therefore correct.

Observer affecting the experiement

Unfortunately, now that they've gotten this extra publicity due to not being part of a big label, the results are largely meaningless. Much as I'd like to say that this signals the end of the big labels, this almost proves that you do still need them for the halo of hype that surrounds the industry. When a song or album is hugely successful for no reason other than the quality of music, then we will finally have moved on from the artificial reality created by the big music labels.

A sensible way to measure popularity

I had no idea the Brits were so forward-thinking in this area.

Of course, the RIAA would never agree to legitimizing downloads like that...at least not until several more management changes happen and they get someone in their leadership who's actually owned an iPod.

Half of the record labels' power comes from...

...making artists *believe* that they (the record labels) are the only way to make it big. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Grammar police

The header should be 'Download-Only Song to Crack the Top 40'. When I first read it, I thought it was a request to download the only song ever to get into the Top 40. Which doesn't make sense for several reasons. :)

I told them this.

Well, at least I told a young BMW-driving yuppie from a major label. It was back in the mid 90's. "Adapt or die" I said. "Hah! You don't know what you're talking about," he repied. "We filter out all the crap music you don't want to hear!"

Yeah, right. I now repeat: Adapt or Die!

SLM

In Polish, the band name means...

poop.

Having sampled some of the music, I must applaud them on truth in advertising.

Here the song

The song is Blag, Steal, and Borrow and they have a Video [youtube.com], if you wish to hear the song.

Likelihood of selling out?

Probably slim, considering the lyrics of the music being anti-sellout...

Unless they're REALLY hypocritical, which is always possible I suppose.

This must be last years news.

From this week (7th Jan, 2006), all downloaded music sales are counted in the official UK chart.

2006!

arctic monkeys

From my understanding, the arctic monkeys played a bunch of shows, and got a cult following of sorts. Some of their fans started bootlegging the shows and sharing them so successfully that there would be sing alongs to the choruses of "yet-to-be-released" songs.

If you believe the hype, they didn't set up their myspace page, people posted it on their behalf.

If you believe all of this, then the grassroots movement is alive and well in the UK.

Or else it could just be a form of "guerilla marketing". Either way, the band, and their manager(s) get paid.

Already a sell out?

I'm suspicious, this seems like it could be a manufactured media phenomenon. Their song includes lyrics about getting into the charts. Their logo is a parody of the UK's age-rating logo. Their site is really slick, it's all a bit too knowing for their "underground" image.

Their whois points to a local web design/media branding firm, maybe they just laid it on a bit thick. From their myspace:

"Listen to KOOPA and you realise that this is not that watered- down, manufactured sound designed to impress your younger brother, little sister and please your parents."

Hint: it's not cool to say you're cool.

On they other hand they supposedly come from my home town (Colchester, UK), and are gigging here tomorrow. Might as well check them out for real...

Isn't it funny

How they sound just like every other pop punk boy band on the major labels for the last decade.

But they're not bad. That song "Hold" is pretty catchy.
http://www.myspace.com/koopa [myspace.com] (easy place to hear their stuff)

Not a bad independent achievement though. Hopefully other genres will follow.

Marketing

Internet or not, the one thing that bands don't have is the marketing engine to consistently push their songs they way that the major labels do. The real break through for internet-only unsigned bands is when internet-only/word of mouth advertising is enough to get them into the Top 40 consistently, and on top of the record label pushed songs.

It's great that this band has made it to the top on their own, but how many other homebrew bands will be able to do this? If they are just an anomaly, then it doesn't mean much. I'm not holding my breath until this starts happening more often.

Hang on a sec...

Download Only Song to Crack the Top 40

It can't be the only song to crack the top 40 - there had to have been 39 others there already! And besides, you didn't give a link to the song, so how can I download it?

Er, no wait. That's not right at all. I'll tell you what - I'll just grab a spare hyphen from my giant bag of them here, and you're free to use it wherever you like in the headline that makes it mean what you intended.

Labels are sooooo last-millenium

Clearly, this is not a good millenium to be a business whose profit model consists of controlling access to information channels.

First they came for the travel agents, but I did not speak up because I am not a travel agent.
Then they came for the stockbrokers, but I did not speak up because I am not a stockbroker.
Then they came for the newspapers, but I did not speak up because I am not a newspaperman.
Then they came for the record labels, and there was great rejoicing.

Need a Big-name label?

"If we can get enough exposure and get in the top 40 by the end of the week, do we necessarily need a large label?"

No - if you've got $25-$50K laying around to get a few thousand cd's printed, and have a marketing team ready to burn shoe-leather talking the stores into putting the cd's on their shelves, and a management & accounting firm to press the retailers for your receipts.

Or - hire some grunts to run a print-on-demand setup, and a flunky to run a website and take orders paid by paypal while you cut tracks for a 2nd cd.

Who are the good guys?

I keep reading these articles and it always seems to come down between greedy, callous, paranoid record labels on one side, and greedy, sanctimonious, flippant music fans on the other side, with the bands in the middle trying to figure out how they can be rich and famous and retire at age 26. It's all self-serving bullshit on all sides.

There is no music industry unless someone, somewhere pays for the music, and there better be a fair number of someones to make the money worthwhile, at least for the winners of the game. You can and will get inspired amateurs willing to work for nothing, or for gig money, but you won't get the explosion of creativity that comes from lots of talented people working their butts off for years trying to reach stardom.

So, being from the USA...

If I buy this CD with my USA credit card and my USA address, will it count towards the total tally?

If it'll help get them in the top 40 without major label backing, I've got two bucks (or whatever 77 pence is in dollars nowadays), but I don't really like the song very much :P.

It's amazing that...

a download would be the only song to crack the Top 40.

Had to be done

I read recently that in the UK some artists who cater mainly for older clientelle were making it into the charts. The reason being that their aged fans did not know how to download their songs. Other more web-savvy younger users were downloading so many songs from their favourite artists that they no longer needed to by their albums, so the artists who were actually popular just didn't make the charts anymore.

This move to include download sales is not just a natural progression to indicate popularity of artists, but a commercial necessity for the music companies. How can they promote a platinum-selling artist who has only really sold a handful of albums?

Of course, if they really want to gauge the popularity of artists, they could also start to look at how many people are searching for their music at BitTorrent sites or on Limewire. Eventually this will also have to go into the mix if they want an accurate gauge of what people want to listen to.

Re:Had to be done

Of course, if they really want to gauge the popularity of artists, they could also start to look at how many people are searching for their music at BitTorrent sites or on Limewire.

But the Top 40 is not about gauging popularity. It's about gauging sales.

Where does/could/will/whatever this lead?

Generally, I can see a few roads this can walk down.

The first, and obvious one, is that some label approaches them, dumps out a sack of greenbacks and they grab it. Who wouldn't? It's one of those win-win situations. The bands makes good money, the studios do too (and they keep the business free from the stain of non-labeled success), sure, the customer loses in that deal, but then, who cares 'bout him?

The less obvious, more the 'deamer' version, is that the label approaches them and receives the finger. That would get them a ton of exposure for sure, and probably quite a few people who'd just buy their stuff, whether they like it or not, just for the sake that they told the label to count to four in binary with their fingers. I could see the RIAA to respond with a lot of red tape and pulling out some songs to claim they are copying something and make them spend more time in court than in studios to silence them.

And then there's of course the possibility that the labels themselves see the new venue of selling content without the expense of pressed CDs. I predict a botched job, as usual, but I'm almost certain they'll try to copy the idea.

INTERNET PENETRATION NOT 100%

I know this is a difficult concept to get your head around, but there are some people that do not download music. There are some people that do not have access to the Internet for entertainment.

The question for this band is "Can you live without these people?" If the answer is yes, then they are headed in the right direction.

So far, the answer has been a resounding "No way".

what I would do

If it got to the top 40, if I was them, I would totally make a recording company meet to talk over dinner at a fancy restaurant and pretend to be interested then say I'll be right back then get up and moon them and run out on the bill. I think their popularity would drop simply by selling out so they're right, they don't need some big, greedy, money whores breathing down their necks telling them what to do and where to go and all that BS.

At last

This has been tried a few times before but this time by a band with a good enough song to make it. I hope they don't sell out and that they make the top 10. That would cause major heart problems throughout the RIAA. More power to this band and I hope they make it.

Re: Download Only Song to Crack the Top 40

"Is this finally the crack in the dam we've all been waiting for to wash away the entrenched monopolies of 20th century music production? Or just a sell-out waiting to happen?" No pressure.

Still need good production and promotion

Not yet. I think the Slashdot crowd massively underestimates the impact that experienced producers and recording techs have on music quality and popularity (not that the 2 always go together). Then of course there's good management and yes, marketing.

Of course there will be times when a band/artist gets enough right to make the charts (or even just a decent living) independently. However, there's an obvious problem with this idea that bands should just record their own music, put it out there and then allow market forces to pick the best stuff.

What if they can't afford a decent studio, or don't have the discipline to do enough takes until the sound is right, or the drummer sucks? Good production has turned a lot of bad music into good. An artist can be incredibly gifted musically but that doesn't mean they know the best way to record their music, or the point where a guitar solo stretches from cool to self indulgent wankery.

I think the tide will turn, but it needs to involve more people than just the artists themselves. I think we'll need to see a bunch of small to medium level labels dedicated to talent scouting, production, recording tech, management and marketing before the biggies start to get squeezed.

there can be real value in big labels...

There can be real value in big labels. What if, say, the Beatles had tried to make it without a label. Would they be able to succeed today? Maybe. But part of what made them so great was the contributions made by folks like their producer George Martin and the various sound engineers they worked with. They added real tangible value to the music, especially as the Beatles started wanting more complex arrangements. They might not have ever come together if not for the recording label that employed Martin and the engineers. On the other hand, today we have so much great music technology that it's much easier to make a whole wonderful recording without leaving your bedroom. But you still have to know how to use that technology. Some bands do. Some do not. For those that do not, the labels may still offer some benefits. That said, some of the labels also seem to offer other things that aren't necessarily beneficial to the artists...

Wow, great, something new...

Wow, so an independent artist hit the UK Top 40. Good for them. Ever heard of the Grateful Dead? How about Phish? Both sold out huge venues across the nation (and world) without the help of any major label for a combined 30+ years before the internet even showed up for the vast majority of America, let alone the mp3 format and broadband and online music distribution.

And now? With the .mp3 format and the internet and the whole "information age," what big independent act is around to follow in those footsteps? Koopa? Sure, there are independent "jam" acts all over the place trying to fill that void (Umphrey's McGee [umphreys.com], Gov't Mule [mule.net], Tea Leaf Green [tealeafgreen.com], String Cheese Incident [stringcheeseincident.com] as well as smaller acts like Soldiers of Jah Army [sojamusic.com] and The Bridge [thebridgemusic.com]) but, even with the help of the information age and the internet, have yet to really take off.

"...do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." No, you don't. The Dead proved that over 30 years ago. Also proved you don't need the internet or any fancy information age form of communication, either.

Don't get me wrong. The most powerful way (especially for independent musicians) to get your music out is word of mouth. And sure, cell phones and the internet and sites like the Internet Archive [archive.org] all help, but likely it will still take a friend to tell you they saw [insert band here] and really liked them for you to do anything about it or to take notice of said artist. Great, so bands have websites and people can go there and possibly download music, or buy their CDs, or read all about them. People still need to have some motivation to go to that website.

called Koopa?

Now, an unsigned band called Koopa is poised to enter the top 40 without any old-world recording, distribution, or production deals.

Doesn't this infringe on marks owned by Nintendo [wikipedia.org] and Chamillionaire [wikipedia.org]?

Free Music??

does that considers only the music that is bought? Consider a Free MP3/MPEG (read amature Pr0n) being downloaded by zillions of geeks - should this make it top of the charts? interesting. hmmmm.

Singles

The chart has been based on singles sales since it was introduced. But who actually buys singles on physical media anymore? Judging by the shelf space allowed in record shops, they must account for a very small portion of total record sales. And it's not surprising. They're as expensive as an album to manufacture and sell, so will end up costing more, and they're less convenient for most people.

So clearly these must be bought primarily by collectors and hardcore fans. It's hardly surprising that download sales are so substantially more important to position than physical media sales.

A week late

The rules started last week.

Several singles whose CDs are not on sale anymore cracked the top 75 including "Mad World" from Donny Darko, a former number 1 which is now used in the Gears of War ad which at #58 made its first chart appearence for 3 years.

Not ALL downloads

Despite what the story says, it is NOT all downloads which count. If you look at the chart rules (http://www.theofficialcharts.com/docs/NEW_Single_ Chart_Rules_2007.pdf [theofficialcharts.com], there are very stringent conditions on a downloaded track being counted for the chart. Amongst these are the minimum dealer price of £0.40 per track. This will immediately preclude any tracks released under Creative Commons etc. It also only seems to apply to track downloaded from 'official' online retailers.

Only one more step now...

At the moment, only download purchases count towards the top 40. Lets see if they get round to counting songs that are downloaded for free too.

That way, bands would be given the incentive to provide at least one good song from every album as a free download in the hope of hitting the charts; the consumer can only win!

It's also be nice if they tweaked the rules to exclude downloads with restrictive DRM from counting towards chart success... ;-D

I don't get it..

Between the article and the summary, there seems to be some confusion between 'No record label' and 'download only'. Not helped by the BBC article saying

Until 1 January, an artist needed to release singles on CD or another physical format - and therefore have a record deal - to qualify for the chart."

Didn't "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley (who did have a record deal) get to No. 1 (UK) last summer on downloads only? So is the January 1st date that the article is referring to 2006? (which, according to the summary is last week. Man, 2005 dragged on and on.)

We already know what the response will be

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6244461.s tm [bbc.co.uk]

A major record seller immediately decided to drop the top 40 and use its own version (not including downloads).

They can see the threat - and they're prepared to meet it head on.

ambiguous headline

"Download Only Song to Crack the Top 40" is a bit ambiguous.

Paraphrased, it might be:
"you can download the only song to ever crack the top 40".

Please use hyphens when necessary:
"Download-Only Song to Crack the Top 40"

Sellouts?

Will they or won't they?
I sat through the late '70s-mid'90s watching band after band start out "stickin it to the man" on an indy only to sign with the majors and become watered down drones.
The Clash sang it best in"Death or Glory":
"Every gimmick hungry yob,diggin gold from rock n roll
grabs the mic to tell us he'll die before he's sold.
But I believe in this and it's been tested by research,
He who f##ks nuns,will later join the church."

Steve Albini previously of "Big Black",now a bigtime producer and industry insider had the most relevant observations.Lenghthy but worth noting.

The Problem With Music
by Steve Albini

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an "A & R" rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire." because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly. These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave.

Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well. There are several reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip to the current musical "scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences. The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it. When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast. By now all rock bands are wise e

I bought it

For what it's worth, I went straight to iTunes, listened to a few of their excerpts, then purchased the song that's poised to make the top 40 (Blag, Steal & Borrow.) I guess that qualifies this article sort of as a slashvertisement, but whatever. I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is. I don't necessarily agree with the "eradicate copyright" argument, but I'm very interested in supporting alternate distribution channels. Because of iTunes, I have very little incentive to download music in violation of copyright. $0.99 is a price I'm willing to pay for a single that I like.

Record Label Seeks Curl Scripter

Job Opportunity

Major record label seeks Perl programmer with expert skills in curl scripting.

record exec: *snorts line off the Bentley dash* "Dude, I can't believe they fell for this, we'll scan a number one for anything we release now for the low low cost of $0.99 per sale" "I was so sick and tired of tracking those scan sheets over a fax machine too."

It's a smokescreen. Deep pockets will buy their scans even more than they do now with radio payola.

What?

What about this: Download-only Single Becomes UK Number One [slashdot.org]

Didn't Gnarls Barkley's "Crazty" hit #1 back in April? I guess the distinction was that"crazy" later had a physical single you could buy. This isn't the first download-only song to break the Top 40. Rather, it is the first download-only song to hit the Top 40 that did not have a follow-up physical CD. Or something to that effect.

Summary: Not as big as the headline suggests, still important.

Hyphens are good, mmkay.

Really? I can download the only song in the top 40? But shouldn't there be 40 of them?

Exposure? Slasdot!

"If we can get enough exposure..."

...and then the Slashdot effect pummeled their server.

Sure ting, bay bay.

I'm sure an ugly girl who gave out free BJs would get a hell of a lot more business than ones sittin' around waitin' for a marriage proposal, too.

I'll give it a 7/10...not bad

I paid out the 0.77 just to be iconoclastic. Not a bad song. Hope the lads do well in the future (unless they are another PreFab Four).