Why that? This is simplifying everybody’s work! You mean all this unclaimed money isn’t sleeping…?

@@victorradulescot6865 I don't think you understand just how much IP theft occurs in the industry

@@victorradulescot6865 Because there are some people who want to keep it complicated so that they can claim the black box unclaimed money. Why wouldn't they want to keep what they have been taking for years?

"Men in suits very nervous" what's your problem with wedding bands?

@@sirborges Clever, gave me a chuckle.

I really hope so.

Agreed. Less complaining about how rock music isn't in the top 50 anymore, please.

What is why? Because of his channel? Because of this Swedish guys app? The f are ya going on about, mate? Your statement is very random, yet vague

@@jett70710 He's offended about something or other. 'Tis a hobbyist activity these days.

@@buttsbuttsbutts68 Oh right, my bad.

He addresses splits mid way, almost 10 min discussion (nearly to end of video), and shows a feature set to propose and collaborate on deciding what’s fair, and confirming the splits, is there something beyond that we should understand?

r @ItsWesSmithYo I have to agree it would be super useful to have the option to have a statistically modeled split to use or at least work from in negotiating the eventual split. For example: I wrote all the music and lyrics of a song and hired a session singer who 1) sang a "wrong" note during the bridge. When I isolated the vocal track I liked the note enough to change the chord progression to make it "not wrong. Without his unintentional alteration, the song would not be the same. Should that entitle him to a 50% split? I don't think so. But to be fair, he's entitled to something. One note out of all the the other notes would be maybe one percent and the changed harmony and bass line among all the other would be (guessing again here) another 1%. He also added some outdo vocal riffs, repeating lyrics sung earlier but those were also HIS original contributions that added to the song. Guessing those word were another 2% of all the word sung. So, a t a minimum, statistically speaking, at a minimum, he fairly contributed 4 % of the song. I'd round it up to 10% just cuz.

As the software creator mentioned, there are non-statistical elements to a split that only human negotiation can develop. In my case above, we are both non-famous songwriters and performers. If he were famous enough to make the song much more notable, exposed, pitched to other famous folks, then his statistically tiny contribution could well earn a 50% share. In such a case, the ability to accept or reject a "proposed" split within the software is super useful...moving it from the realm of discussion into a documented back and forth. Brilliant!

Once you've got 12 people who supposedly put in 4% and you round up to 10%, they've got 120%. Did they really contribute more than the real songwriter? And the real songwriter then gets how much? Remember, no one would have worked or been paid without the initiative and follow through of this now unpaid writer.

If I create a new song and I don't want to be with any record label would I be able to have a lawyer help me with ensure I make money from it in case it were to become a popular song? If so what type of lawyer would it be best to work with? Thank you in advance.

Agreed. Proud to be a Swede😅

@@byggloket2590 Ha, my sister who lived in Finland and now lives in Norway told me... they only have 3 sun-shiny days a year up there. No wonder the place is full of "bookworms" they never come outside.

Fr! Hope it works. I may try it out. It may be easier than being apart of 3 or 4 different royalty groups.

You know when it comes to US shores they gonna change it up, add more to it to make it confusing, and have different companies make 10 different apps.

Big tech companies being first and foremost.

"stop using things that create holes in the ozone layer" - Same govt that also detonated over 200 nuclear devices over the South Pacific in the 60s.

People doing reviews of songs on KZfaq are making more than the musicians. As long as they stop the song a few times they technically stay within the rules of fair use. Comedians and other content creator videos are also being used by review channels. It's out of control.

That's literally how capitalism works.

The face of fraud was culturally mistook for free market capitalism. Most people were fooled into jumping on the bandwagon of blaming capitalism by the media.

Yup, kinda hoping he has solid infrastructure, devops, security... could see a real use case here for a public blockchain (one of the few).

A simple E-R diagram from a software architect's perspective, a big leap forward for the musicians

Yeah, wonder if they would use blockchain and be decentralized.

What part of I.T are you educated on

@@indi2174 Cyber Security

In the UK, I think it all goes to Elton John. Or Ed Sheeran, maybe.

​@@TheWaterboardershe can't keep getting away with it

and the Queen@@TheWaterboarders

​@@jasonfanclub4267 Freddie can't use all of it where he is. His mum should give a bit to Brian & Roger. And don't forget about Pink.

Indeed, academic scientists face a similar problem. However, outside of the patent and industry world not about revenues but rather credentials. Especially, when hundreds of scientists participate in a single project. Another problem have been identical author names (e.g., Smith, Kim etc.) which has been solved by unique personal identifiers. The same is true for article titles which hase been solved by digital object identifiers (DOIs). Unlike with patents, a remaining problem is the contribution (number of ideas, the amount of work, who drafted the text etc.) of the individual authors to a publication. Many journals therefore ask for the addition of a statement regarding this issue. The system is still not perfect (e.g. there is only one first and one last/senior/corresponding author position and statements regarding equal contributions may not help because readers still drive conclusions from the order of authors). However, rather than judging a paper based on the journal it appears in we can nowadays base the judment on the relevance of a paper on how often it has been cited and use this to judge the work of a single scientistbase on the citations of all his works (Hirsch- or H-factor). Still, there are many issues that still need to be addresse (honary co-authorship for people not involved in the research, re-publishing already published data under a different titles, predatory and fake journals etc.). One issue that in my opinion is much more serious in science than in music is plagiarism. While the citation of a phrase may contribute to a musical piece without acknowleding the original author in the credits you can only (and actually have to) cite prior work with proper references.

Seems pertinent to the actors strike issue.

Ditto! I envision leveraging this to other creators as well. Curious of the impact such a system can have on the struggles so many KZfaq creators are facing.

I also agree, as an accountant and tax consultant , this tool is In The Money

Relevant for all sorts of project management and implementation

Musicians, under the label system, have always made their money playing live. Radio and then MTV were used to promote acts. Streaming has replaced radio and is probably the best way for indie acts to promote themselves.

I haven’t bought merch since Kurt Cobain passed

They're learning English. In the future everyone will speak English. It's the universal language.

Agreed.

I am a part-time musician. The most discouraging (and a pet-peeve) is how much time & money you have to spend being a videographer and garment-designer just to offset the music costs! The music is literally a cost center in your musical journey. Imagine if restaurants or plumbers had to live off t-shirt sales!

Are you full time? If you are how did you break into it may I ask?

100%

That's kind of how it works. Many of the top priced works have been sold multiple times and the creator only gets their cut from the first sale.

Artists sell paintings outright for the agreed upon price as it's a one of a kind work of art but that doesn't give you the right to make prints of the work. "When an artist creates a painting, the artist owns both the copyright in the artwork, and the physical artwork. Ownership of the copyright is an intellectual property right. Ownership of the physical artwork is a personal property right. A sale of the physical artwork does not transfer the copyrights in the artwork." So the streaming model is more making prints of an original and not paying the artist fairly who owns the copyright

Great pic!

Bands have even broken up over such things. Like Sabbath and Dio, someone had gone in at night and changed the mix and the next day they all started accusing each other of trying to make themselves louder and the argument escalated and the singer left, not to work with them again for 10 years. With this you can just see, hey Dio is in the studio making himself louder etc... And of course credits. It's very easy to cheat someone out of their part and if they aren't aggressive and insist they wrote part or the song that's it. There are so many songs where multiple band members claim to have written it alone. This solves so many problems. I hope it gets adopted. And of course the record company just lying to the musicians about revenue and "don't worry we take care of the money just tell us if you want to buy something". And then suddenly a super succesful musician has no money anymore. Labels will hate this but musicians will love it. And if the labwl doesn't want to do it, who cares. Today it's much simpler to self publish with Spotify for instance or just directly pay someone in China to make CDs.

1 habit 2 habits 3 oh No 😆

pls what is the best platforms for music streaming

Artists tryna eat and realized non artists don’t care;)

The ONLY way to make money in the Music 'Biz' .... Is .......................... MAKE SURE THE WIFE WORKS !

@@RayTheGuitar lol

That's amazing Zak! What Tascam? I did tons of recordings on a 248. Even got radio airplay from a cassette mult-track recording. So sorry about the loss of your Dad.

@@MusicMotivator Hello and thank you! My dad acquired a tascam 244 back EARLY 80s and used that for most of his recording. I still have it and a tascam 388 reel to reel he used for some later recordings.

What genre music you make?

?

That’s awesome you are doing this for your father. He would be Very happy and proud.

Can you describe the process of doing this...im a songwriter...

I tried but it’s such a big thing

Systems like this exist for quite a while. Basically any European country has something like this that get's the money from each source of income to the label. The problem is to get used by more or less everyone. Many labels don't want this because they make good money by providing the service of doing this stuff for you.

its a app that allows fully build out to completely kill labels. its the new label. you get everything inside of it, faster, cheaper and better, when everyone uses it the problem is solved and we can figure out how make music without thinking a lot about other things. its the musicians dream, having it independently feeling like all structures are automated. just enjoy music making.@@MrHaggyy

now sitting here and enjoying some good music over my new Sony headphones. these 360s are really a beautiful thing.

(1) Not "literally". That word is not to be used for emphasis. (2) Disagree about Dancing Queen being one of best songs ever written. Could squeeze it into the top 600 - 800 but not better than that. Update 11/12/23: Just decided to change my ranking of Dancing Queen from "600-800" to 300 - 400. Maybe that makes it one of the best written songs of all time. Who knows?

@@thomasluby1754 It's just my opinion that it is literally "one" of the best songs ever written. There's another thousand I could add to that but I'm more than pleased to know that it's this song and not say, "Friday", by Rebecca Black. ☮

@@damienmacrae Never heard of "Friday" or Rebecca Black. I LOVED Dancing Queen when I was a senior in HS and for a few years more. Now, I just considered it a nice song. I have over 500 songs on my Spotify list and Dancing Queen is not one of them. Maybe I will vote it in in the next 500 😃. As far as the word, "literally", is concerned, I was just trying to be helpful. It seems most people, these days, misuse that word. They use it for emphasis. I think you mentioned somewhere that you are a lawyer. I guarantee you some people you work with/for find it as irritating as I do. I recently retired and my career depended on how well I spoke. Take care.

@@damienmacraePS I just listened to that god awful song, "Friday". Woosh! I see your point.

@@thomasluby1754 Yes, the overuse of 'literally' is a real bugbear of mine. TBH too, Dancing Queen isn't in my top 500, but is definitely a well crafted song, especially when you take a deep dive into how the song was written .

Please can you explain how this could make any difference? The vast majority of “Creators” have absolutely no platform or outlet for their music other than the well known outlets - Spotify etc - that pay virtually nothing? Serious question! ✌️🎸✨

@@jamescassidy3995 You are right, it doesn't make you any more famous or pays you more for that matter.. but it does help to get you organized and collaborate with others which is a big plus regardless... i am going to test it but the fact that the metadata of the song is outthere it also helps to find the creators/collaborators and get paid if the song is being used which is also another plus.. it does have some interesting opportunities that could potentially drive a more direct music business approach (you write a song), someone wants to use it (ie: a movie producer), you get paid directly for that license.. and it's done.. no need to go try to sell your soul to some media company that gets a million application of other music creators... or hopefully that is where this will end up...!

@@jamescassidy3995 pls what is the best platforms for music streaming

Like you, I have 20 songs streaming and another 50 on my website. I have made about $20 in the last 6 years. A commercial success I am not, but my other job supports me. Sadly, I made more money playing proms, schools and weddings in the 60s than I do today.

Audius is an attempt, but lack of transparency to reimburse content creators is a turn off.

and some people still believe in free market

With support from many people in the BEATLES camp I tried doing this thirteen years ago. Also got support from the AFM, the largest Union in the world for musicians. And what happened? All the musicians who liked the idea would NOT give me one dollar to build this new Platform. NO SOLUTION in sight for PRO musicians

@@rogercraig7203 That is awfully sad Roger. At the end of the day the best outcome would surely be that music is curated and managed by the democracy of musicians. Rather than the domination of some faceless geek who owns an algorithm. Ironically we as producers, musicians have the the very thing that feeds them and ultimately starves us.

It won't stop payola/corruption

We add metadata to anything and everything. Wavs, flacs etc.

Yup

What is over ?

@@Ponchiboy444 people valuing music at $10-20 per album.

Yup, Napster and the thieves who “file shared”, knifed writers and publishers in the back, while smiling to their faces.

@@RealHomeRecording That is long gone for sure, thank god

If artists did that, they would never get hired/signed/money. There should be new legislation that defends artists.

@@RhythmAddictedState So, the thing with what you are saying is that you are assuming HOW the artists would behave with that kind of control, and therefore HOW the market would react to this. Artists can and should be smart yielding their power, as in being practical and pragmatic, which, I believe, is absolutely possible and necessary. As technology progresses, the power-albeit slowly-is changing hands to the artist, no matter the field really. This is a tremendous thing.

@@Pinko_Band I never said the artists shouldn't advocate for themselves and be in control. I was replying to the "cut out and refuse to negotiate" part of the OP's comment. You're underestimating the power labels still have. Now labels are offering 360 contracts by default (giving them rights to revenue coming from not just the music of their artists, but from merch, touring etc), leaving artists with no other choice (it's basically a unilateral contract). The artists you see in the charts or on Spotify are being pushed by major labels (and yes, payola is still a thing). Major label artists are the only ones who get awards. Meanwhile, those who are signed to indie labels and/or only have a publishing/ licensing/distribution contract are struggling to pierce through the noise. Sure, now you can be in control of all your revenue streams as an artist, but you will be at a disadvantage when it comes to promoting your music, management, legal issues, you name it. Try to write up your own contract and get a deal when typical label contracts are still legal. What should be done is ACTUAL LAWS that make today's extremely disadvantageous contracts illegal. Advocating for artists shouldn't solely be an artist's duty. You could be doing everything to get your coin and proposing your own contracts, but it's useless with today's legislation. There's nothing to defend you as an artist. The whole system needs to be reformed, unfortunately. For now, the only thing an artist can do is use their energy to control all their work and revenue while still being in a system that only benefits labels and not the artists.

@@RhythmAddictedState Everything you say is true. I think there are still a large chunk of artists out there that still think that they need the support of a major (or any, I guess) label in order to “make it”. And its a completely logical maneuver that the labels attempt to grab at every aspect of potential revenue generated by the artist (logical from their perspective, I don’t mean fair by any means). However Im just saying that the tide is turning, meaning that if you want to “make it”, you have to have a unique and/or at least a high quality product. And the resources, for an artist who has this, are more readily available for them to where they could operate as their own label in a sense and move forward independently. It just depends on what the goal is and how they define “making it”. KZfaq and streaming services alone are enough to get you going, build an audience. Performing live is probably a bit more difficult to break into, depending on how much of that you’re willing to do. But while I dont think labels are going anywhere, they are going to have to get a lot smarter in order to justify their existence and services.

What we need to do is to reach out to people in person instead of social media nonchalant.

I know, but a lot of the time musicians don't know terms like PCI compliant. They do understand NASA.

@@sirena7116true!!😂

He probably meant “NSA quality” not NASA quality but yes, he could just data is encrypted in the cloud and only authorized persons will be allowed to have access to it (so long as the encryption/Secuirty isn’t flawed). His main point is that it’s not just out there in the cloud unencrypted for hackers to easily steal.

I had similar thoughts. No software is invincible. It would have to be extremely restrictive in order to make it almost hack proof. But that would render it useless. Let's see how it goes. We have all seen software that promises the world only for it to disappear form existence. For this one to work it needs to reach a critical mass. Its cooperative so without a certain amount of users it is just a specialized database. If they can get the big guys in there it might catch on. Hope so as anything that makes this business easier is welcomed!

Good point, I worked for DOD, but many don’t recognize NSA, by name.

Rick didn't explain a damn thing. It was all the other guy