Remove ads, unlock a dark mode theme, and get other perks by upgrading your account. Experience the website the way it's meant to be.

Thrice Post Studio Update

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Melody Bot, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. Melody Bot

    Your friendly little forum bot. Staff Member

  2. chhholly123

    i’ve been meaning to tell you

    Every time I think I can't get more excited for the album, they throw something else at me. I'm glad they went with an outside producer on this album, sounds like he had some good input.
    Chase Tremaine and fenway89 like this.
  3. Ska Senanake


    That instrumental sounds pretty sweet! I'm definitely liking everything I've heard so far from and about this new album and the recording process.
    Chase Tremaine and fenway89 like this.
  4. Eric Wilson

    Trusted Prestigious

    Going to be so good. Can't wait.
    Chase Tremaine likes this.
  5. Best video yet.
    Eric Wilson likes this.
  6. IceStationZebra


    Can someone remind me why I can't pay $500 for access to a secure stream instead of waiting another 38 days and paying the band only $10?
    Dirty Sanchez likes this.
  7. My assumption would be, because even if the risk to reward was worth it (a secure stream is pretty much a myth, and the price of leak is very high), there also comes a belief I think a lot of music creators have (and I'm betting Thrice are in this camp): they don't create so only the rich can experience their art, and the optics of faking scarcity and bestowing access to only the rich seems counter to the moral fiber of the band.

    I'm sure some artists would try this technique (and the album would leak after a group of people piled money together and ripped it) ...but, I would bet that same $500 Thrice would not be the kind of band to even attempt it.
  8. IceStationZebra Apr 20, 2016
    (Last edited: Apr 20, 2016)


    As I've said in prior posts, I would easily sign my life away to ensure no leak would take place. Heck, they could put a custom voiceover over each song to identify that it's me who leaked it (even though that wouldn't happen). That way, any legal proceeding is open and shut with minimal attorneys fees required from the band, if any. In other words, I will hand my assets over to the band, without a fight, in the event that I leak their record (which I won't).

    Thrice is a successful band but they're not a successful band. In an era where record sales are non-existent, I just feel like the pre-release time period is being wasted by artists and labels as fans will easily pay more out of impatience. Once that release date comes, that period of heightened demand is over and done with as I'm only obligated to pay $10 or so.

    Bands shouldn't feel any shame from accepting my $500 since I am willing to pay it. And I'm sure others would too.

    Jason, I know you're press, but promotional/press streams provide just as much risk for the band. In your case, they're banking on your professional obligation to not do anything that would put them at risk while your company can be held responsible in the event of a leak. I know this would never happen on your watch, but this is just a point for argument's sake.

    So, I'm simply proposing the fan alternative to this. I want Dustin, Riley, Teppei and Ed to make a comfortable living playing music so they can keep playing/writing/recording music. Yes, I'm extremely impatient but I'm also extremely loyal, loyal enough to pay a more substantial amount instead of having to wait to pay less by way of an antiquated model. That antiquated model was developed during the record store era, not the digital era.

    In closing, I know there's a solution that would work in this regard if artists/labels/managers/lawyers put their heads together. Perhaps, it's not exactly as I described, but if I'm willing to pay the price, judgement falls on me, not the band.
  9. coleslawed

    Eat Pizza

    it's harder to hold individuals who you know nothing about accountable than it is a well-known music publication.

    also, if you really care about Thrice being able to "make a comfortable living playing music" (which I'm pretty sure they already do), and are willing to spend $500 for it, why not buy 25 of their preorder bundles, giving them a nice little bump in sales and chart numbers, and gift them to friends who aren't fans but you think could be, earning the band more fans in the long run. more people win in more ways than just you hearing the album some amount of time before anybody else, which will probably seem inconsequential in a few months when the album has been out for a little while, and $500 in the bands pocket.
  10. IceStationZebra Apr 20, 2016
    (Last edited: Apr 20, 2016)


    That's why I proposed the idea of signing a NDA as well as a binding agreement that allows the band to sue me for everything I'm worth. I'm also waiving my rights to contest such a suit in order to keep Thrice's attorney fees to a minimum. The case would be open and shut. I'm that confident that I won't leak the record that I will bet my assets to prove it. I'm also willing to not say a word about the record until its release (the purpose of the NDA). That way, music critics aren't minimized either.

    On top of that, I will pay an exorbitant amount to support the band to a much greater degree than the antiquated model allows. Other fans like myself, instead of waiting 37 more days, could be paying larger sums of money to securely stream the record early, not own the record early.

    I've said this repeatedly in several posts now so forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but we're adhering to an antiquated model from the record store era where release dates mattered far more than they do now. Now that record stores are gone and we're in a digital era, record sales have all but diminished. So, it's important that labels/artists find new ways to generate revenue, but to do that, you have to be willing to change the business model a bit. Following the same record store-era model just doesn't make sense when music can be streamed in seconds.

    What better way is there than to capitalize on fan impatience leading up until the release? The industry has tried everything else and nothing's worked. Nobody's holding a gun to my head when I willingly pay $500 to stream the album early so the band shouldn't be judged negatively for this if I am willing to pay the price necessary to hear the album early. They'll still have their usual release schedule for everybody else who wants to pay $10 for the album as well as their other packages.

    Another poster in a previous thread made a great point that, as music fans, we're not given a theatrical release like movies receive. As music fans, we simply have to wait for the in-home Blu-ray release. You could potentially stream the record at a venue, giving the record its own theatrical-type release. The label could host the events so people can pay more to hear the record early, only at a great venue, with their own headphones, while ensuring that nobody can leave the premises with the record.

    I want my favorite band to survive in an era where making a living as an independent rock band is almost impossible, even with a track record like Thrice's. Bands have to work so much harder now than they did during the record store era.

    Once the record comes out, the demand I currently have will be gone as I'll only have to pay the regular amount. Also, I do buy more bundles and gifts for friends than you probably realize. I bought at least 10 copies of M/m in order to support the band more than usual since I heard from a reliable source that they were calling it quits upon completion of the album cycle.

    I'm not saying I have all the answers, but there has to be a solution if labels/artists/managers/attorneys/JasonTatesoftheWorld put their heads together.

    Also, I know it's morbid to think about, but we're not guaranteed a tomorrow. So, I want to know that I heard the new Thrice record as soon as possible, just in case I'm involved in a freak gasoline fight accident over the 37 days.

    Right now, the record is sitting on a shelf and waiting to be heard when it could be making capital for the band and label. I don't need a copy of the album or even a link to stream it unlimited times before the release date. One stream would suffice.
  11. carlosonthedrums

    Cooler than a polar bear's toenails Prestigious

    Is fan impatience really that much of a prevalent problem? I adore music with every fiber of my being, and as much as I miss that feeling of waking up on a Tuesday and running to the store to annoy the employees at 10 a.m., I don't think it's such a terrible thing for a band to say "We're really proud of what we've worked on, and we can't wait for you to hear it when we feel the time is right." Even having been on the other end of the spectrum where I can't wait for people to hear something I've been a part of, half the fun is the anticipation. At least for me it is.

    I think what you're talking about is admirable since you have that kind of money, but I feel like it loses something, even in today's age where many don't care about full albums, much less the notion of paying for one.
  12. Anthony Brooks

    brook183 Supporter

    Why the fuck would Thrice want only people that could afford to shell out $500 to hear this album early
  13. Dannynat88


    Solution: Pretend the album drops July 12th, mark it in your calendar, feel special when you get your hands on it May 27th.

    I'm as obsessed a Thrice fan as they come but I am so happy the release date is late May, way earlier than I had originally anticipated. The wait is gonna drive me insane and I'm abstaining from the studio vids now and any other single, but I feel it always pays off when that date comes. I almost think getting it today would cheapen my experience rather than enrich it.
    coleslawed likes this.
  14. There are a multitude of problems here — if we accept this is something this band would do (I still don't think it is even in the realm of possibility for the reasons previously given) — but let's start with: you can't control that. Even if you're able to control your own listening, if this option is available, you have to assume bad actors. Your own morality doesn't need to come into the equation at all — your signing of a document means next to nothing. The singularity of your goodness is irrelevant when we're talking about some shop that opens up the album to the internet.

    And what happens when the server hosting the files is hacked? Hell, at that point, what happens when your system is compromised? What happens when the super-fan convinces her parents to let her buy this advance album and a week later the dad clicks a porn link and that computer is now compromised? You're thinking way, way, way, way too small here and assuming your personal ability to keep an album from linking is absolute and applicable at scale. It's not.

    My argument in this particular case is not that band would feel shame from accepting your money. You could go throw that in the tip jar at a show right now and I doubt it's turned down. My argument is that, in this specific case, I think the "shame" many artists would feel is that they're excluding fans based upon the ability to pay. That the rich are given access to something others are not. As I previously said, the fan goodwill that would be lost through optics alone is enough to not do this. The internet backlash would be rightfully swift and intense, the rise in piracy once the album is released would probably not make up the difference. However, if you think Thrice, specifically, are the kind of band that would do something like this ... you're not a very big Thrice fan, or you haven't been paying attention. Turning music itself into a metaphor for the "haves" and "have-nots" seems to be diametrically opposed to this band's very existence.

    But it's not a very good point for a variety of reasons. One, the band's albums have been leaked by press in the past. Two, in my specific case they're banking on a 10+ year long relationship with the band, the label, and a much higher disincentive to leak the band's album. My entire existence is built into the security I employ to avoid albums leaking - this is definitely not "just as much as a risk" as allowing an album to be for sale to anyone with $500.

    No one is stopping you from giving your money to the band. If your motive is that you want the band to have money and keep making music, the date you hear the music shouldn't change that. In today's model people are basically renting the music for $10 a month for perpetuity. I don't deny that there's economic incentives to raise the price for those most willing to part with the most money for a good. But I don't think the trade-offs in risk, fan goodwill, and most band's own moral feelings on music, are worth it. I think selling a variety of pre-order packages of varying prices is a far better, and cleaner, way of capturing the price sensitive market compared to turning the ability to hear the music itself into "whoever has the most disposable income" — a practice I think is antithetical to many musicians' core beliefs about the music they create.

    This is analogous to the cryptography debate, there's no such thing as "just for the good guys" in regard to the digital world, however, I think you continue to miss the core reason this would turn off most bands: they will think it's gross, a large % of their fanbase will think it's gross, it'll turn off the good will they have with most of their fans. I don't think bands write music thinking "I can't wait for my richest fans to get to hear this!" — I think it will actively repel casual fans and actively revolt members of bands in this music scene.
    coleslawed and chhholly123 like this.
  15. LightsOut


    Good read here in this thread...ive never tought about streaming the records in theater first...

    P.S. i'll write it for french speaking trying my best to write in english . So sorry about all my futur mistake
    teebs41 likes this.
  16. Ska Senanake


    This whole coversation could make an interesting piece on the podcast
  17. IceStationZebra Apr 21, 2016
    (Last edited: Apr 21, 2016)


    First off, thank you for the time you've taken to address my posts.

    However, let me remind everyone that I already acknowledged how I don't have all the answers and that there were bound to be obstacles I never would've expected. This was simply a conversation starter.

    That being said, we're still adhering to an antiquated model that was meant for the record store era. This was an era where artists once benefited from record sales because there were actual record sales.

    Now it's the digital era and nobody has adapted the business model to the artist. Music-buying (or renting) is more convenient but it's also less meaningful as a consumer while artists make pennies on the dollar if they're lucky. Nobody is making money anymore from record sales and as much as we want to cherish the art of it all, this is still a business.

    Side Note: The first time I heard Thrice was at The Forum Shops' Virgin Megastore as Identity Crisis was on display with headphones. I stood in that store, barely moving, because I was so engrossed in that record until I finished it in full; I was floored. This was around 2000. Within a couple years, I was at their IoS CD release show at Costa Mesa's Virgin Megastore. So, my idea is rooted in such moments in order to recapture the community buying/listening experience, only prior to the digital and physical releases so artists can gain a new revenue stream via a theatrical type release.

    Again, I am not saying $500 should be the entry point.
    I'm just making a point that I am willing to pay $500, at this very moment, to hear the new record from my favorite band just in case I'm hit by a bus during my morning run.

    The bigger idea here is that there is NO "theatrical release" within the music industry. We're all just waiting for the Blu-ray to come out in essence. The film industry would crumble without that window of exclusivity where studios and theater chains have the first distribution run by way of the "theatrical release."

    I want the music industry to have its equivalent to the film industry's theatrical release. Take the 2 months that is placed between the announcement of the release date and the actual release date, and use it for a "theatrical release." Allow the album to be streamed early without the band/label being put at risk. Release the first single as you normally would as that's the trailer to get people in the door. This is a listening party that we pay to attend at a nice venue. Nobody leaves with the record. We show up to listen while paying for each full stream of the album, just like you'd pay to watch a movie. The difference is we're hearing it before the digital and physical release date. That way, the band capitalizes on this time period, like movie studios and movie theaters do before everything transitions to the in-home release once the window of exclusivity closes for movie theaters.

    Why not give the music industry its own version of a theatrical release since its longtime revenue stream, the in-home release, no longer earns the revenue that it once did? Why not give bands/labels an added revenue stream by providing a window of exclusivity that motivates people to go out and hear the record in a community-type environment where our impatience and excitement can be an event that we share and experience together?

    I'd be happy to go to a venue that the label/artist control so I can sit there and pay per each listen. Again, make it an experience. Give me a comfortable, reclining chair, plus a great pair of headphones, as well as audio settings that I can control on a touchscreen. Or let me bring my own headphones. Let me munch on some trail mix while drinking a craft beer in the process.

    Perhaps you could play the record out loud for the entire group in attendance, via a great sound system, as long as people are expected to be quiet, just like a movie.

    It's utterly ridiculous that I have to sit here, knowing there's a new Thrice record in existence, and there's nothing I can do to hear it at this very moment. I have to beg Jason to share a few adjectives about it since he's provided the album early enough to where he can write a review that motivates people to buy it on its release date. I'm willing to pay to listen to the record right now; Jason can still review the record as he normally would while catering to those people who prefer the in-home experience still.

    Ideally, I want Jason's reviews to be available so the consumer can decide whether they're going to opt for the theatrical release of the record or the in-home release.

    Money can be made somehow, someway during this time period so everybody can win (labels/artists/fans). This isn't limited to the wealthy. And I'm not suggesting that I am wealthy. I'm just that eager to hear this record that I'll part with a big chunk of my cash on hand to accomplish that.

    Again, create a theatrical experience during the two month time period that precedes the in-home/digital/physical release and monetize it. $20 entry for one listen. $30 for two listens. You're giving the music industry as well as the artist/label a new revenue stream instead of asking for $10 preorders 2 months in advance before anyone can hear anything. By placing it at a venue, we minimize bootlegging as the quality would be garbage, just like movie bootlegs are. Do you really want to experience the new Thrice record in the lowest quality possible? Of course not. The theatrical experience solves many of the problems that the 'secure feed to the highest bidder' idea creates.

    As I've said from the start, there has to be something that would work as long as the powers that be put their heads together. I'd rather you guys brainstorm a solution that works instead of telling me how my proposed options do not work.

    To those who criticize the high-priced secure stream idea (an idea that I admit is less-appealing and more dangerous than the theatrical idea) for phasing out the average fan who can't afford such a luxury, do the concert-going fans on the lawn resent the VIP fans, as well as the band, for monetizing access in this fashion?

    Should every fan be allowed VIP access, not just those who can afford it?

    The important thing is that we're all supporting a band that we want to have around for many more years to come.

    If you want to wait until the release date and pay what you can afford, nobody is taking that option away from you. If I want to pay $500 (or whatever) to hear the album in advance, that option should exist too, as long as it's secure for everyone involved. However, the theatrical idea is just better all around (and safer).

    Either way, let's find a way to monetize the pre-release time period and create some kind of theatrical release if nobody wants to take my $500 for a private/secure feed that only I can access.

    Create a window of exclusivity, like movie studios do, and capitalize on it. If people want to wait for the in-home release at a lower price, they can do that.

    If people want to pay more to hear the record early, only at a great venue, then something should be developed to do so.

    The record comes out in 36 days and once it's released, that window of exclusivity is over. My desire to pay $500 is no longer.

    God forbid should we help bands succeed in an era that doesn't allow them to succeed.
  18. suicidesaints

    Trusted Prestigious

    Why is this even a conversation? Wait a month and you'll have the record.
  19. coleslawed

    Eat Pizza

    it would only work, at best, as a very limited "theatrical" release/listening party.
    most people, if given the option of paying to hear an album once in a public setting, or waiting a month or two to get their download/vinyl/CD and listen to it from the comfort of their own home/car/wherever, will probably choose the latter.
    I don't think very many people would choose the listening party on a national level, probably not enough to make it worth renting out a venue in every major market. maybe if the band did a mini tour along with it and were present for each listening, but that definitely wouldn't be financially viable, unless it was closer to the price of a full concert ticket than a movie ticket.
  20. I think my main point is that it's a non-starter when discussing a band like Thrice. I believe the idea is diametrically opposed to the kind of people they are and the beliefs they have about music. The idea, in general, is maybe worth discussing, but I still believe it is fundamentally flawed in ways I'm uncomfortable with (economically, technically, and morally).

    I actually disagree with this premise. Virtually every artist I know, with the exception of the biggest of the biggest, do not see record sales as a part of their business. They are a means to an end: touring, merch, fan experiences. The album sale itself is only part of their entire existence — I would argue this is the exact opposite of the record store era, where the album was paramount to an artist's existence. I don't actually know any artists that still rely on that model for income. Their balance sheets are far more diversified and the conversion of music to money is not as direct as it was before, but the various streams and diversification is what allows them to have a career.

    Again, I disagree. It's changed, but it hasn't lost meaning. Bands used to sell singles for dimes back in the day and the profitability of record sales being the main driver of revenue for musicians really only was during a very specific era in the industry. Before, and after, it hasn't been. That brief moment of overcharging for a stuffed good (filler, duplicatable) was an anomaly in the industry, not the standard. And I would also argue it's a misnomer that artists really were seeing the benefits of that era anyway. I think we've been wrongly conditioned to believe that album sales used to lead to artists making money.
    And that explains why huge megastars like Lyle Lovett have pointed out that he sold 4.6 million records and never made a dime from album sales. It's why the band 30 Seconds to Mars went platinum and sold 2 million records and never made a dime from album sales. You hear these stories quite often.

    No, I understand your point, but that doesn't change my reasoning for why I think it is untenable at scale and unrealistic with most bands, especially in this music scene.

    I disagree with almost all of this. What sees the most profit because of theatrical releases are a very small group of movies. The blockbusters. These are what pay for almost everything else in the movie industry, and there's a lot of data that shows the movie industry itself isn't doing all that great to begin with. So, first up: The amount of movies that are released per year, due to a physical restriction on the amount of time in a day, the amount of theatres, the amount of seats in a theatre, means that there are less in the market than a good like music. The analogy is to the super-star musician. And what do those smart musicians do? They window their release. That's why Adele and Taylor Swift don't put their albums on streaming services right away.
    This is the obvious decision for Adele (she did the same thing with 21), but that doesn’t make it any less interesting. In effect Adele is pursing a windowing strategy not unlike that used by movie studios: the album will be available for those willing to pay today, along with her singles on YouTube, and eventually, when everyone who cares has purchased it, 25 will be available on the streaming services where it can continue to make some amount of money and be available to fans discovering Adele for the first time.

    The blockbuster artists can do this. Again, from Ben:
    It’s true that I have spent the past few Weekly Articles making the point that trying to enforce some sort of scarcity on infinitely copyable media is a bit like rolling a stone uphill, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and the payoff remains tremendous. Perhaps a more nuanced point is to note that, as always, context matters: Adele and Swift and the other artists successfully employing a windowing strategy are already big, so they don’t need to worry about not reaching new customers or not selling out their tours. The calculation is different for someone just getting started, and said calculation is particularly nuanced for artists in the middle — those in a niche may be better with windowing, those looking to get bigger should be free — but the only thing I think is “hostile” is pretending like all music, or all IP for that matter, is the same.

    The issue is that this doesn't work very well for artists with relatively smaller fanbases, just as a theatrical run is usually not very profitable for small indie movies, or TV shows, either. Forcing scarcity only works if you have enough people willing to pay and not wait. With music the substitution (wait a month and listen to any of a million other bands or artists readily at their fingers) is more of the default. I would argue that a band has a better chance of instead trying to find their 2-3,000 more die hard fans and put together something for them that maximizes a return on each. I don't think this is tied to early music, but experiences, merch packages, tour packages, meet-and-greets, and a variety of other things. And to build those kinds of fans you need to use the music itself as, basically, a loss leader to build that affinity.

    First, because there is a massive, massive risk. The moment that two month period starts the album will be available, for free, to anyone that wants it. You can't fake scarcity with a digital good. It is impossible to do. Second, I think you are greatly over estimating the amount of people that would pay to go stand in a room and listen to an album play over speakers. Kanye West's numbers for something like this were nowhere near what he streamed online after and weren't even that impressive in retrospect — and he's Kanye West. The upfront cost of a venue, of security, of looking at locations where you play live, and hope to get a thousand people there, and then you are asking people to take off school, work, to show up and just listen to an album. I think the numbers for something like that would be very small, the experience would be very poor, and what you could charge would be limited. Maybe before a show offering a meet + greet and playing some songs for the album would work, but still, the experience of hearing music sitting in a room with other people over speakers or whatever, sucks. It's not a good one. And when compared to the alternative: wait three weeks and have this in high-quality, anywhere and time I want, and I don't have to go anywhere — the alternative is pretty damn awesome. (I can think of maybe three bands off the top of my head I'd even want to go do this for, and only if it was in walking distance, and only if they served alcohol at the venue.)

    Because of the sheer number of bands that exist, the smaller than you'd think number of people that would go to something like this, the upfront costs, the risk of piracy, and the reality that the ROI on listening parties has never been one of profit, but usually a trade for goodwill. Look at what it costs to rent a place and how many people you'd need to show up and how much they'd need to pay to even make your money back on that investment - before getting into the cost of the workers and opportunity cost of those putting the entire thing together.

    Each comma adds $ to the overhead cost. Each additional thing you want means it costs more to put on, more to plan, and you have to charge more per head. Each dollar it goes up, you lose more willing participants in an already not very large pool for most bands, people think movie tickets are expensive, what you're describing for an hour is pushing three figures, easy, and already pricing out most fans and looking less like anything remotely profitable.

    That sounds like a horrible experience, but that's just me. Also plenty of bands have done early listening parties for fans before, this is a thing that's been going on for years in some pockets. The music equivalent of a "Fathom Event" may work for some very, very big artists — I don't think it does in the vast majority of geographical locations in this country. The big cities, maybe you'll have fan density to a degree that it would be profitable. But Thrice only have 60k Twitter followers, LA, San Diego, NYC. Maybe Florida. That's probably where you could do this kind of thing and hope to turn a profit.

    There's plenty of "new" things out there that you don't get access to right when you want them. That doesn't make it ridiculous, it means it's not up to you when you get the things you want. Like I said before, I think most of the member of Thrice would make the argument that just because rich people want things and are willing to pay for them, doesn't always mean they should get them first.

    But the average consumer doesn't give a fuck. That's the problem. Music is important to people but where it fits into their lives is very different than a movie. Active consumption vs passive consumption.

    If you have $500 to hear an album early, you're at least privileged enough that we're already talking about a very select few. Your argument boils down to is there more money to be made before an album is released to the masses with die-hard fans. My argument is that this segment of the market is captured in more expensive, and exclusive, pre-orders and packages and that shifting to a scenario where only those with the most money get to HEAR the album first is one which will cause a massive fan backlash, will directly lead to more piracy, and will hurt the artist more than any potential (which I also think would be little) profits there are to be made during that time period. The artists this doesn't apply to are the massive blockbuster artists that can, and do, put together a windowing strategy with their music.

    See above.

    I reject the premise that something magical just has to work. The moment music became an infinitely reproducible good at zero marginal cost, music itself is going to be tied to the realities of economics. The outliers in that scenario are the blockbuster artists.

    Of course in many ways they do - just look at the complaints about scalping and price gouging at shows. But at least at a show everyone is still seeing the show at the same time. (And the comparison is probably that bands do charge more for FLAC vs 192 or more for vinyl than a CD in most cases. But they don't charge a 500% increase and flaunt how much better it is for the rich.)

    My argument would be yes. I don't think I've ever seen VIP seating at any Thrice show though.

    I disagree that it's safer or better, and I don't think it's remotely profitable. I don't think that an argument of because it can exist it should exist holds water. I think there are very real people at the center of this and a discussion of the economic realities are only one step — the moral and human realities are a whole other ball game. Again, I say that if you think this is something a band like Thrice would employ, you haven't been paying attention to the band and their overarching message for the past decade. This seems like the absolute opposite of what Thrice as a band would stand for or even think of taking part in. The option existing doesn't mean it fits with the band's belief system. They do not seem like the kind of band that would even attempt something like this, and their fanbase does not seem like the kind that would be receptive to it.

    If you want to give the band $500 drop it in their tip jar.

    Adele, Taylor Swift, etc., can do this because of scale.

    I'd argue that the demand you purport does not exist. If it did the band could charge much more for tickets to their shows.

    If exclusivity is what you care for more than supporting the band, that's totally your decision ...

    ... but how you help them succeed can be independent on your own gain.
    coleslawed likes this.
  21. IceStationZebra Apr 22, 2016
    (Last edited: Apr 26, 2016)


    I just remembered that iTunes has been monetizing the time period in between a film's exit from theaters and its actual digital/Blu-ray release. You have to pay more to buy the film from the iTunes store but you can get it earlier than everybody else as long as you're willing to pay the price.

    Once again, the movie industry is capitalizing on exclusivity at every turn while the music industry just sits around for a release date. Then, they ask us to cushion their cash flow until that release date comes while we receive nothing in return.

    Once again, I'm willing to pay more right now to receive the album early. I'm willing to pay any price to hear the record early AND because it also supports the band at the same time. I'm not going to pay $500 to buy the record if I have to wait like everybody else. That being said, I bought 10 copies of M/m and gifted them to friends who hadn't heard Thrice yet (or in a while). I support the band well beyond the norm; I just don't want to wait when the record is able to be heard now. For the tenth time, there's a revenue stream that's untapped at the moment: the time period in between the release date announcement and the release date.

    The bigger point is, the window of exclusivity should be used to support the music industry and its artists while making up for the billions of dollars lost in the digital era. Meanwhile, the impatient fans, such as myself, get the chance to hear their favorite band's record earlier than usual.

    The band/label don't even have to create a venue for this. A location (more on this below) can be created that streams new releases from ANY artist. You buy a ticket for the album you want to stream that day, just like a movie theater, and you're given access to a listening room where you experience the new record in an incredible environment. It'd have a comfortable chair, with perfect sound/headphones, great food/drink etc. Maybe a laser show and massage? Perhaps, there will come a day where it can become a VR experience as well.

    As I continue to gripe about this, the new Thrice record is done and yet it's just sitting around waiting to be heard. Imagine if Disney let everyone know that The Force Awakens was finished 2 months ahead of its Blu-ray release and that you had to wait until that Blu-ray release in April since they weren't doing a theatrical release. It sounds insane, doesn't it? But that's what the music industry is doing.

    Why is new music treated with such a lack of showmanship? Make the record release an event or experience, just like going to the movies is.

    The movie industry creates an experience: the moviegoing experience. We can recline at many theaters now, drink a $12 Heineken Light and eat gelato in the process. Then, before its Blu-ray release, Apple will let you buy the film weeks before the in-home release as long as you pay the price.

    How about this: Apple sets up a music department within every Apple Store where we can show up and stream records early for a higher price. This is just like the iTunes store option where can you watch a film earlier than its more affordable digital/Blu-ray release a few weeks later.

    In this case, you're also pre-ordering the album if you paid the more expensive price to stream it in-store. In-store is simply meant to prevent piracy as Apple can rig the listening stations to play what you paid to hear. There's no risk, just a high reward for all those involved including the overzealous fans like myself as well as the artist and label.

    Ignore the $500 for a minute. That's all you guys are focusing on since I mentioned what I'm willing to pay to hear this thing right now.

    The music industry should be monetizing the time period in between digital/physical release dates instead of waiting around for pre-orders which give fans nothing in return.

    I can't believe how much resistance I'm getting over such a simple solution to an ailing business model. Nobody is taking away the old business model for people who prefer to wait at a more affordable price. I'm just trying to add another revenue stream that capitalizes on the exclusive window between the release date announcement and actual release date as well as fan impatience. I don't need a copy until the release date; just let me stream the thing at a particular price and secure location until its physical release date.
  22. I'm not going bother responding if what I write isn't at least read.

    Virtually all of that was already discussed, in detail, and for some reason ignored.
  23. coleslawed

    Eat Pizza

    that's one of the problematic parts, but not even near what the majority of jason's posts have been about.
  24. IceStationZebra Apr 26, 2016
    (Last edited: Apr 26, 2016)


    I'm not ignoring you; I'm just clarifying my points as you were only focused on select points of mine, such as what I'm willing to pay to hear the album early, which didn't factor the bigger idea in mind here.

    I'd love for you to brainstorm as to how YOU would capitalize on the exclusive window between the release date announcement and actual release date. That time period would allow the artist/label to gain an added revenue stream while the fans are able to stream the record early without actually owning it or putting the band/label at risk.

    If the film industry is able to monetize the time period in between the theatrical release date and the in-home release date (as well as the time period between the theatrical exit and in-home release date), then there's no reason why the music industry can't monetize the time period in between the release date announcement and actual release date.

    The film industry puts hundreds of millions of dollars into some of their films, yet they don't cower at the notion of sharing their product before it's able to be owned by everyone at home.
  25. I already did in the posts I wrote — thereby again showcasing my issue with this discussion: you didn't read what I wrote.
    teebs41 likes this.