Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
I've found that YouTube is an amazing resource for jazz piano ideas, tunes, and concerts.
Here are some ways that I use Youtube to help with my playing. I'm leaving aside issues of copyright and fairness. The content downloading that I do is for personal, non-commercial use.
Audio
Whenever I'm working on a new tune, I find several instances of it on YouTube and download them to see how others interpret the tunes. I might then use "Best Video Downloader" to download the audio for listening away from the computer.
It's very easy to use: once installed, a "Download" button appears below all youtube videos, and you simple click it and select what format you want to download. If you choose "mp3" of "m4a" it will download an audio file that you can burn to disk.
If you don't want to install anything, you can go to http://www.mediaconverter.org/ , and enter the URL of the youtube video you want, then follow the instructions.
You can then import the audio into your iPod or iPhone, enter tune title and artist, etc.
Video
I recently discovered that I can download high-def concert videos from youtube, burn them to DVD then watch them on my large flat-screen TV from the comfort of my couch. This beats sitting at my laptop. Even the non-HD videos look pretty good on the big TV.
This is a good one:
To do this, download the video as described above (but choose the MP4 video format), then use DVDFlick (dvdflick.net) to convert it to DVD format and burn it to a DVD.
Money circulates in this industry..it's not static. When we buy music and keep money circulating through the arts it leads to more gigs, more support for the arts, more music fans, and better music...and we all win that way.
There are less gigs for everybody if we continue to bleed money out of the industry like this.
IMO musicians need to respect other musicians in this way. I know it's not the big picture solution to the problem but it's a start at least. As musicians we know better and should do more.
-----------------
One more thought....now some people may say, "Well Diana's rich and famous so she won't miss the extra money." To that I would say...what about the other musicians on stage?
I can assure you they'll miss the extra money. They're working musicians with families and bills to pay just like the rest of us.
While I understand where you are coming from, I feel like you are Over simplifying message by saying support the artist by buying their CD/DVD. The problem is that with the current model of distribution, money isn't really circulating to the musician, it's mostly going to the middle man.
This infograph shows just how much money musicians actually make from their CD's and DVDs on major labels. For every $1000 of music being sold, the musician makes about $23.40
Here's an article by Courtney Love on this issue. She also quotes figures on how much bands make per album (which is around 10-15 cents/CD http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
So if this is true, the out of the $14 you pay for Diana Krall's DVD on amazon, she is going to get maybe .25 on it. And let's not forget, she makes nothing if you buy a used copy.
I know this is a lot of legwork for us, but If you want to support an artist we really need to make sure the money is going to where it's supposed to.
IMO if you really want to support the artist, you should go see them live, because more of your money goes directly to the artist. Also, the music industry is changing, so I think it's important that we be on the lookout for for these musicians and see if they are distributing music through different channels. Some musicians sell their music directly from their websites and they profit more that way. I know Louis CK(Comedian), Radiohead and other entertainers/musicians have tried different methods and have been very successful. It may be rare now, but we might be seeing more of this in the near future.
The problem is Diana is not getting paid for her performance. The original source file was taken illegally.
Maybe you know the answer to the question I've had about this: If it's true that Diana Krall would not want this illegally uploaded content on YouTube, why hasn't she (or Verve) instructed YouTube to take it down?
One possible answer is that there are just too many videos, and it would take too much time to do that. However, I'd think Verve could do it pretty efficiently, even have an app to notify youtube of the copyright infringements.
The problem is Diana is not getting paid for her performance. The original source file was taken illegally.
Maybe you know the answer to the question I've had about this: If it's true that Diana Krall would not want this illegally uploaded content on YouTube, why hasn't she (or Verve) instructed YouTube to take it down?
One possible answer is that there are just too many videos, and it would take too much time to do that. However, I'd think Verve could do it pretty efficiently, even have an app to notify youtube of the copyright infringements.
Excellent question Al. I think all of this is happening in the background as we speak...
There are so many lawsuits going on behind the scenes w/ record labels and content distributors it's almost dizzying.
Here's the thing...like I said before we as musicians know deep down what is involved in making great music...time, blood, sweat, tears, emotions, money, sacrifice, discipline, etc.
It's only fair that we respect our fellow artists.
The problem is that with the current model of distribution, money isn't really circulating to the musician, it's mostly going to the middle man.
EDIT: Just be clear, this is mainly about someone on Major record label like Diana Krall. But either way, I think consumers have to be more aware
Totally agree here. Whether or not major labels create fair contracts is definitely an excellent question and a valid debate.
Even if it's diluted there is still money involved that artists should be receiving.
Independent artists that aren't on major labels are being taken advantage of as well. The problem is even worse for them.
_________________
Here's a different way of looking at taken from my own life.
I'm a full time musician. I happen to be an internet geek too. So, I know at least 15 different ways of getting free Barry Harris recordings online.
Would it be nice to not spend that $7 bucks on his album and spend it on something else?
Maybe, but the thing is though I've learned so much from Barry's music that I feel indebted to him as a musician. I feel like I should pay him and so I do.
The ethics of the issue are clear: You should not listen to a minute of youtube video content that was uploaded without the artist's permission. I'm saying that seriously and not sarcastically.
But that's such a hard standard to live up to. Let's say I'm going to play Bye Bye Blackbird. I search on Youtube and see this video:
Should I not listen to it?
If I decide it's OK to (a) listen to it, where do I draw the line? Can I (b) listen to it any time I'm on the Internet? Can I (c) download it so that I can listen when I'm not online? (d) Can I put it on my iPod? (e) Can I burn a CD to share it with the other guys in my band?
Note that b, c, d and e are simply more convenient options than a.
What if my library has that CD, and I can take it out any time and listen?
Then I find these:
Saying that the artist doesn't get much money, or that I'm not going to buy those albums anyway, or that Keith Jarrett ruins the recording by making noises with his mouth are justifications for something that is clearly wrong.
I think most of us will decide that we will at least listen on youtube even though it is not ethically right.
Here's my take on it. I remember my teachers bootlegged A LOT of music, and they had no problem sharing that with us. They were always lending out CD's to students to listen to. A lot of the CD's and bootlegs are of people he's worked with, or something he bootlegged himself, but as far as I know, his musician friends didn't mind either.
I think the benefit we got is that we were able to absorb more music than we were able to because the music was free to us. It also allowed us to go see live music instead of buying CDs.
This is a difficult issue because different musicians have different take on file-sharing. Some bands like Radiohead embrace it, and feels that the exposure they get from it helps them more than it hurts them. Some might actually appreciate the fact that you are listening to them on youtube!
Besides copyright laws are kind of messed up, and it seems like the original creator of art really isn't rewarded enough for their work, and it can easily be exploited by people who's sole purpose is to make profit.
If it was up to me, I wish I could just donate $ directly to the artist. I feel ambivalent about paying for CD, knowing that how the industry works, and I am feeding into that system. I guess that's why for me, I'd rather focus on supporting live music in general. I am much more inclined to buy a CD if I know it's self-produced.
So tromboneal, to answer you question, if we are going to listen to all that music for free(and everyone here is guilty of it I suppose), then maybe we should just be more active supportive live music, where musicians are making most of their money. It's not the perfect solution, but at least you are contributing somehow. Besides considering how cedar walton is playing in half empty venue last time I saw him jazz does need more audience.
On the other hand, I think it's musicians' responsiblity to figure out better method of distribution too.
regarding the Diana Krall and Youtube discussion, let's not forget that Youtube make money from advertisement that are shown along the videos and it's quite possible that they share this revenue with the artists.
just a quote: When someone uploaded a recording of the Eminem song “Not Afraid,†for instance, instead of taking down the recording, YouTube ran pop-up ads that let people buy the song or the ring tone and shared the revenue with the copyright owner.
The problem is Diana [and the combo, and the orchestra] is not getting paid for her performance. The original source file was taken illegally.
Just because the technology exists to rip her gig doesn't mean it's fair.
Bravo, Steve! And you are not the only one who is voicing the concerns. Here is a thread I started on the Teachers' Forum. It would be nice to keep it in the forefront of folk's minds.
The ethics of the issue are clear: You should not listen to a minute of youtube video content that was uploaded without the artist's permission. I'm saying that seriously and not sarcastically.
I can't agree with that. Who do you think owns the publishing rights to these videos? Do you think it is the artists? Of course it isn't, it is the record companies, many of whom have licensing deals with youtube which allows their content to be shown. Even the big companies seem to be close to a licensing deal (as far as I can tell - not that I am any kind of expert). If the owner of the copyright is allowing youtube to show the content then there is nothing remotely unethical about watching it.
In short the ethics are far from clear in my view. The issues are beyond complicated.
. . . Who do you think owns the publishing rights to these videos? Do you think it is the artists? Of course it isn't, it is the record companies, many of whom have licensing deals with youtube which allows their content to be shown. Even the big companies seem to be close to a licensing deal (as far as I can tell - not that I am any kind of expert). If the owner of the copyright is allowing youtube to show the content then there is nothing remotely unethical about watching it.
I agree, BeeBoss, that the issues are complex, but in this case, Steve is not complaining about the arrangements that are made “above boardâ€.
Originally Posted by Steve Nixon
The problem is Diana is not getting paid for her performance. The original source file was taken illegally.
We recently had a similar thing happen to “one of our own†on this Forum. There is a highly skilled player and teacher who has his instructional material professionally published, and it is for sale. Many on this very Forum have purchased such material, including me. Suddenly, and without any sort of official agreement, one of his DVDs has been pirated, and is appearing “for free†on YouTube.
Every bit of this “everything is free†mentality adds to the dilution and decay of the music profession as we know (knew) it. Every single bit!
Ed
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.
It is not up to the watcher to police YouTube and assume everything commercial is not to be watched. That's ludicrous, it's the copyright holder's responsibility. And YouTube does remove content that it has received notice of.
Since it is much easier for the copyright holder to search their stuff and get it removed than have YouTube check every single upload and verify it only makes sense. And as pointed out, having stuff on YouTube can be as valuable as having it on the radio. Radio has been hit time and time again for 'Pay to Play' which is illegal. So obviously for commercial success its best to get stuff out there. Ask Justin Bieber where he would be without YouTube.
A long long time ago, I can still remember How that music used to make me smile....
[quote=Steve Nixon]The problem is Diana is not getting paid for her performance. The original source file was taken illegally.
But my point was that we have no idea if the source file was taken illegally because we have no idea about the relationship between the copyright holder and the licensing agreement they may or may not have with youtube, and we have no details about the person who has shared this content or of the views of the copyright holders about that. In this particular case we know nothing about any of this so it is impossible for us to make any assessment about the legality (or ethicality).
The reality is that many companies are happy for this kind of content to be available because some people see the video then go on to buy the dvd, which leads to profits for the record company (but probably not for Diana's band).
Originally Posted by LoPresti
We recently had a similar thing happen to “one of our own†on this Forum. There is a highly skilled player and teacher who has his instructional material professionally published, and it is for sale.
If I remember correctly didn't this member provide a link to that video? My point is that frequently the record companies do not act in the interest of their artists. I personally know of musicians who have been trying to buy back the rights of the own music that was recorded many years ago from labels that just leave it in the vault (there being no real money in re-releasing it). The musicians often want their music to be available rather than sitting in the vault, even if it is for free, but record companies are not interested in anything but profits.
Originally Posted by LoPresti
Every bit of this “everything is free†mentality adds to the dilution and decay of the music profession as we know (knew) it. Every single bit!
I don't think there is a decay of the music profession. I believe that standards of musicians and the availability of live music for the audience have never been higher (this a bit of a generalisation, local conditions vary). It certainly is harder to make a living now for many musicians but this is mainly because there are so many amazing musicians around chasing not enough jobs. The systems are changing that is for sure, and there is no way back to the old model. Who knows where it will lead but I am all for getting information into the public domain. I think is just amazing that we can now see endless videos of old concerts and tv material that we could have never dreamt of seeing only a decade ago. Many of these performances by the great musicians deserve to be heard and should be available for all eternity in the great library of human culture (and not controlled by a few self-serving global entertainment corporations).
I don't think there is a decay of the music profession. I believe that standards of musicians and the availability of live music for the audience have never been higher (this a bit of a generalisation, local conditions vary). It certainly is harder to make a living now for many musicians but this is mainly because there are so many amazing musicians around chasing not enough jobs. The systems are changing that is for sure, and there is no way back to the old model. Who knows where it will lead but I am all for getting information into the public domain. I think is just amazing that we can now see endless videos of old concerts and tv material that we could have never dreamt of seeing only a decade ago. Many of these performances by the great musicians deserve to be heard and should be available for all eternity in the great library of human culture (and not controlled by a few self-serving global entertainment corporations).
Well, BeeBoss, we certainly think about this subject very, very differently. Without going point-for-point with you, which most will not take the time to read or digest, I’ll leave it simply with a question: *Is YouTube (for example) really “the public domainâ€, as you suggest, or is it just another of your “few self-serving global entertainment corporationsâ€?
. . . and with an old saying: *When you have everything, you cherish nothing.
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.
*Is YouTube (for example) really “the public domainâ€, as you suggest, or is it just another of your “few self-serving global entertainment corporationsâ€?
Youtube of course is in it for the profit (google are taking over the world), but the videos on youtube are in the public domain in the sense that anybody (more or less) can access them and view them for free. They are not owned by youtube and youtube does not control the content (except when copyright owners complain and videos get removed).
