Artist Authorized - Big Thumbs Up?

[Mustin]

Check this out: http://www.artistauthorized.org/

What do you think of this? After the recent hoopala in the recent thread I pretty much killed, I'm curious as to what the musicians on here think about this Artist Authorized regarding their original work. Could be a neat idea, or it could just fizzle out.

What do you think?

[FlagshipAmadeus]

It seems like a pretty cool idea in theory, but since there is nothing to prevent people from misusing it, there is of course the possibility of it just not working. If it took off well though, I would probably consider using it.

[big giant circles]

After reading the home, about us, and FAQ, I'm still a little unclear as to what exactly it is. I don't mean to sound ignorant--I just woke up so maybe I'm just missing the obvious.

What exactly does it do for the people who sign up? Besides getting the thumbs up logo put on your album, I mean.

[Mustin]

You get a big thumbs up!

Plus it tells consumers that the artist is in control of the music and how the money is going to the artist, and not most of the money going to a record label.

Because there are people who want to buy music but feel most of it is grossly portioned towards people who aren't the artist themselves. This would let them know that the artist has approved all monetary compensations and that the artist is going to get paid.

So mostly, it's a thumbs up.

[Olarin]

It's an interesting idea, anyway, but I have to admit it seems a little too nebulous to be of much use. It supposed to indicate that the artist is getting a "fair" deal, but what exactly is fair? If you can con an artist into signing a bad contract in the first place, it doesn't seem like it would take much more to get them to approve the use of this logo at the same time. Perhaps it would be a little more meaningful if there was some coherent set of standards that it stood for, and it was administered by some entity such as the musician's union that could maintain publically-available records of who was and wasn't using it legitimately - sort of a better business bureau of the music industry.

I'd also be curious to have some data on how much of an effect this would ultimately have on consumers. If a band they like puts out an album they want, are they going to refuse to buy it in the absence of such a sticker? There's no direct "replacable good" in this situation - you could buy something else in the same genre but it won't sound like that band - if that was the album you wanted, that's the album you're going to get, one way or another. Perhaps a few people might take a chance on a purchase because they see the sticker, but that's unlikely to have a large effect. Mostly it seems they're trying to combat the excuse of "well I pirate all my music because the artist doesn't really get compensated if I buy it legit anyway" by giving some indication that everything is somehow on the level. The problem is, everything technically already is on the level - when you see an album in a store, the artist approved that album at SOME point or it wouldn't be there. They may have agreed to a bad deal and gotten shafted, they might be less approving later on when they become unhappy with their cut, but somewhere at the beginning of the process they slapped their John Hancock down on a dusty sheet of parchment and said YES let's do this thing. I suspect that ultimately, the best solution for preventing artists from getting conned out of their share of the pie is for the artists to be better prepared in terms of business and legal knowledge.

There are other factors at work here too. First of all, we all know the artist isn't the only one that has to get paid from an album sale. As many of the people who contribute to this site are acutely aware, jobs like mixing and mastering are key elements in the process, and those people earn their paychecks too. Even publicity is vital - most of your potential audience members don't have the time, energy, or interest to spend hours online seeking out indie bands that might provide them incrementally more enjoyment than whatever mainstream dredge is pouring out their radio. In light of all that other work that can go into an album, how do we accurately determine what the artist's fair share really is? Secondly, there are simply too many of us professional musicians! Supply and demand is working against us, especially in a world with technology that allows for massive force-multiplication - a rock power trio can use amplification to fill an arena with more sound than a hundred-and-fifty person orchestra could have produced two centuries ago; one guy with a guitar can be recorded, overdubbed, duplicated, distributed, and played in millions of homes at the same time.

Don't get me wrong. I'm entirely in favour of artists getting their due. I'm certainly not trying to defend unethical practices by large companies (or anyone else). I'm trying to make a career as a musician myself. Ultimately, though, I don't think this little logo is going to make a significant dent in the problems facing the modern musician. If it ends up proving me wrong, great.