Is YouTube Good for Musicians ?

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 13 Apr 2013 4:29 pm

Like most people, I get hours of entertainment downloading movies, plays and documentaries from YouTube onto my hard disk and watching them later.

But I've noticed that some musicians have their entire repertoir of CDs posted. For instance, someone has posted onto YouTube everything Hank Williams III ever recorded, including live performances. How can anyone make a living selling their music when it's available free on the internet?

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 14 Apr 2013 5:21 am

I believe YouTube can help you. There are steel players who probably would not get the recognition had it not been for YouTube and the internet.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 14 Apr 2013 5:38 am

There are two sides to every coin.

Artists have the right to have their material removed, if they wish, but many don't because it's invaluable advertising. A lot of artists make their most income from personal appearances, and in many cases, online videos actually increase their audiences at personal appearances. These artists care less about losing music sales because so many other people get a portion of those monies.

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 14 Apr 2013 8:33 am

I think it can be Good or Bad...If you have a very good presentation like David Hartley has for example, it has it's plus...But if you hang something that's not Glossy, it can Hang you also!!! I wouldn't do it with my peck peck at the Steel.

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 14 Apr 2013 9:46 am

it helps me by offering free music to listen to and learn from.
i'm not sure if it helps a musician in the ego and promotion areas.
i've seen lots of terrible stuff that i would think won't help.

Joe Goldmark · Post by **Joe Goldmark** » 14 Apr 2013 11:45 am

I've been doing a project for the last year of loading everything I've recorded onto YouTube with picture videos (pictures of the players, etc.). I came to the realization that they don't sell anymore (a few downloads) and they're just sitting on my shelf. Why not put them out there for the world to see and hear? There's also a possibility that I'll get some sessions out of it, or somebody might want to use a tune in a movie, or whatever. Also it's nice to think that people want to view them. It's the new way of doing business, so we may as well embrace it.

Joe

James Kerr · Post by **James Kerr** » 14 Apr 2013 11:47 am

Donny Hinson has it spot on, with all the illegal downloading and Record Company rip - offs, an artist can make nothing from a CD issue, almost all artists today make their income from Live Appearances and CD sales at those venues. You Tube is a great shop window to attract booking agents and an audience.

I don't play in public or try to earn anything from Music, but if you look at my channel you will see I have almost a million views which would be Gold Dust to a new Artist.

http://www.youtube.com/user/kerrsteel

James.

Michael Robertson · Post by **Michael Robertson** » 14 Apr 2013 3:40 pm

"These artists care less about losing music sales because so many other people get a portion of those monies."

Could not have said it better.

Steve Hinson · Post by **Steve Hinson** » 14 Apr 2013 4:23 pm

"Is YouTube good for musicians?"

I'd have to say that it depends on the musician...

New records on major labels are posted on YouTube and stolen by people who have managed to convince themselves that they don't need to pay for music anymore...

...less records sold=less recording sessions...

...less songs published and written=less demo sessions...

YouTube is not good for all musicians.

Franklin · Post by **Franklin** » 15 Apr 2013 5:00 am

Are downloads really free? or does someone pay for that free ride?

Sid Hudson · Post by **Sid Hudson** » 15 Apr 2013 5:39 am

Steve, Paul, I am on your side of this topic.

With that being said;

It's difficult for me to believe that the music industry did not solve that problem when the problem first surfaced many years ago.

Not from an enforcement approach (which would never work) but instead from a technological approach.

Sadly, now they don't have the money to solve it.

I know one thing for certain. Free MP3 download software, Free MP4 download software, free format converters, free CD burner that come installed in your new computers, the vast majority of folks that download music and videos from Youtube are unaware they are doing anything wrong.

With everything being thrown at them for free, it never crosses their mind.

Remember, these people don’t know the name of the vice president. You have to prevent people from doing things. If you rely on their good will your gonna be disappointed.

p.s. Band in Box. Same problem. Topic for another day.

Jim Peter · Post by **Jim Peter** » 15 Apr 2013 6:35 am

Are downloads really free?

They can be if you know where to look.

There is also a website called http://www.music-clips.net/ that will take any video posted on you tube and turn it into a .mp3 and download it to your hard drive.

Sid Hudson · Post by **Sid Hudson** » 15 Apr 2013 6:47 am

I rest my case

Mike Sweeney · Post by **Mike Sweeney** » 15 Apr 2013 7:12 am

Like the old saying goes, " Why buy a cow when you get your milk free" or something like that

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 15 Apr 2013 7:35 am

Are downloads really free?

I think what Mr. Franklin is alluding to is not whether there is a place to get them without pay, rather, aren't we all stealing something of value every time we save music, transfer it - and even listen to it. There is a moral component to each and every "freedom." And this is a very thorny rose. Just about everyone I know who has music for sale in any format can tell you their sales are abysmal, and it's because of all the "freedom." And I don't know anybody - at ALL - who won't plug into Reverbnation or YouTube and use it as their own radio station, sometimes even as they're complaining about how little they make from their own stuff! The guy I play with does this, and laughs at the paradox....

BUT: if there's one single word I would use to describe our current "rewards for musicianship" system, it would be unsustainable. So, would you pay a dime for every YouTube view? If you knew it was going to the artist? Would you pay $50 a month for 10 videos a day, and a surcharge when you kick over 300 a month? Because something is going the break here, and if my instincts aren't totally throttled, it's not likely to break in favor of free music for everyone!

That's not how rich people think.

And you may notice, rich people own all the big stuff.

And they didn't get rich from giving stuff away.

And, you won't get to vote on this - that's not how rich people do things either.

Bud Angelotti · Post by **Bud Angelotti** » 15 Apr 2013 7:48 am

And you may notice, rich people own all the big stuff.

And they didn't get rich from giving stuff away.

Bingo !
I would assume the folks that run youtube are doing fairly well.
Does anyone remember a site called MP3.com ?
It's still up & was bought up by a french conglomerate. Don't know who owns it now, but at one point my little band and I were using it, trying to do self-promotion. We had to compete with some guy named Bruce Springsteen or something like that. We didn't get alot of promotion but we got some experience and we let them sell us CDs, of ourselves.

Bill Miller · Post by **Bill Miller** » 15 Apr 2013 8:52 am

In a way Youtube has replaced AM/FM radio for many people. The big difference is that you have the ability to choose your own playlist instead of waiting for a dj to play it. I use it for at least an hour a day, every day, primarily as a practice tool for playing along with a virtually unlimited variety of songs. I don't have any more sense of guilt about it than when I switch on the car radio. It's out there whether or not I tune into it. It's legal, and it isn't entirely free to me in that I'm paying a monthly fee for my Internet connection.
Youtube is making a lot of money as are most of the Internet Provider companies. If radio stations have to pay a 'per-song' fee back to the recording industry then a system should be in place for Youtube to do the same thing. It is understandable that artists are frustrated with their work being doled out without them being compensated but it isn't the consumers who are at fault. My Sirius Satellite radio service only costs me less than $20 a month whereas my Internet connection which I use for Youtube more than anything else costs around $60. Hardly free but unfortunately the people who are writing and performing the music aren't seeing any of it. Therein lies the real problem.

Bud Angelotti · Post by **Bud Angelotti** » 15 Apr 2013 9:26 am

Bill - Youtube is not an internet provider.
Youtube makes money thru advertisments, just like a radio station.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-youtube. i think it's great that folks can create music or video and have it seen all over the world - FOR FREE!
It's wonderful that we can see video and picture, and hear songs that were created in the past, on local TV or old film. Love it! We live in a majic time!
As far as copywrite issues and so forth, did you know that if you run a business and like to have the radio playing, like an ice-cream stand or doctors office, you CAN be prosecuted if you don't pay ASCAP fees IF ASCAP decides to go after you. They "protect" their members, or don't.

Is youtube good for muscians?
I think it's fantastic!

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 15 Apr 2013 10:38 am

Bud Angelotti wrote:...As far as copywrite issues and so forth, did you know that if you run a business and like to have the radio playing, like an ice-cream stand or doctors office, you CAN be prosecuted if you don't pay ASCAP fees IF ASCAP decides to go after you. They "protect" their members, or don't...

Does that mean that if I make a video of myself singing one of my own compositions, then post it on YouTube, that ASCAP can come after me?
That's scary.

I think a lot of us could end up in court.

Ron Whitfield · Post by **Ron Whitfield** » 15 Apr 2013 10:41 am

Overall, it's great for musicians, you just have to know the right flaming hoops to jump thru to protect your investments and garner the most exposure. Just don't expect to quit your day job and keep your home.

Bill Miller · Post by **Bill Miller** » 15 Apr 2013 11:33 am

I'm starting to feel like I got out of bed speaking a foreign language today

Bud, I am aware that Youtube is not an ISP. What I meant was that both Youtube ( as a facilitator or intermediary) and the ISPs who connect me to it should be paying fees back to the music industry out of the considerable profit they make. As I pointed out, I don't feel I am stealing anything by using Youtube. It is available on the Internet. I pay a considerable monthly fee for Internet service. Where's the "free" in that? In the course of watching Youtube videos I am also forced to endure advertising for which someone is paying Youtube handsomely. So my ISP gets rich off me and Youtube gets rich off their advertisers but they keep all the money for themselves. That is very unfair to many in the music industry but it sure as heck isn't the consumer's fault.

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 15 Apr 2013 1:00 pm

Interestingly, no outside civilian actually knows whether YouTube is even profitable yet. It apparently wasn't in 2010, or 2011, and owner Google is both shy about publishing anything about revenue, expenses, PROFIT; and they are remarkably adept at keeping the shells moving. If you want to google (:lol:) "YouTube profitable 2012" you will find their 2012 revenues (not profits) are guessed at 3.6 billion, or maybe 1 billion (by the same guesser!) or maybe they finally start being profitable in the 4th quarter of 2012, or... or... hey, they don't HAVE to tell us anything. And it doesn't do any good to say "Well they darn sure better be or they're retarded!* Why, I could run a peanut stand with narde narde nar nar...."

One of the interesting aspects of them not telling us jack-doodly is it makes it kind of hard for ASCAP or Sony/BMG or Eric Clapton - or YOU - to say "I deserve a fair share of the profits from my video!" Yes, pipsqueak, and what profits would those be? Good thing I'm not cynical, cause then I might even think that it's planned that way. $:\$ I'm changing my middle name to "Vevo" next week, I'll let ya know....

*(I'm pretty sure they're not retarded.)

Bill Miller · Post by **Bill Miller** » 15 Apr 2013 1:47 pm

David, there may be some question as to whether Google has turned a profit yet. But Youtube was launched by three young guys in 2005 for a startup cost of roughly $12 million and sold to Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion. Looks like they made a few bucks off it alright. And with a current tally of a billion hits a month and full bore targeted advertising Youtube must either making a profit or Google is doing a lot of creative accounting.

Stephen Cowell · Post by **Stephen Cowell** » 15 Apr 2013 2:18 pm

YT pays BMI IIRC.

Steve Hinson · Post by **Steve Hinson** » 15 Apr 2013 2:38 pm

I just read where they were supposed to pay ASCAP too,Stephen...

Sid,seems like it was Sony who tried the encoding approach on some CDs...seems like it crashed a bunch of computers,some terminally...the labels tried,but no one could come up with anything to stop the theft...

As for BIAB...I don't think it has hurt my work any...

Love your strings!

SH