How much is MQA conversion?

cj1965

A much brighter future for both technology and the "starving artists" is possible when artists bypass the useless parasites that make up the "record label" consortium. With streaming, there is no huge manufacturing overhead required to manufacture/distribute physical media. Any mom/pop shop can stream media online. You don't have to be a Warner Brothers or Sony with hundreds of "executive vice presidents" sitting on their duffs attending meetings about scheduling marketing meetings.

Many musicians have already gone the independent route, and streaming wasn't a prerequisite. They've long since bypassed the "useless parasites" that you feel infect the music industry.

Open source digital audio technology doesn't have to give way to big player monopolies with never ending licensing fees and absolute control over distribution that stifles technological progress and innovation. Artists in the future can and hopefully will have more control ...

It sounds like you're living in the past - artists already have the freedom to exert this independence, and many have.

The old model using big record labels with their leagues of fat cat lawyers and overpaid "management" is no longer necessary and hopefully will go extinct sooner than later ... Artists don't need the big fat cats to prosper ... the music industry will do just fine without the blood sucking monopoly players ... There is so much that is wrong with the old model ...

You might consider separating your anger towards the music industry from your feelings about MQA. While I share your cynicism about MQA, I don't see it as the doomsday scenario you portray.

Yes I am happy for artists making money on their music... and they do with streaming sites. Not convinced that MQA will ruin music. There are many other things in life getting ruined for me to be concerned about MQA.

@cleeds

The use of technology to completely control the channels of creative content distribution - superimposed on the traditional music industry model, is a recipe for disaster.  I'm sorry you can't see this. In the end, it really doesn't matter how clueless the music buying public is. As a community, artists will ultimately determine whether or not large corporations will be able to call the shots in the music industry. I'm guessing open source technological methods will continue to dominate and artists will continue to seek out ways to leverage that technology in  marketing their creative output without interference/exploitation from large corporation middle men. The motivation for greed/survival will continue to motivate them just as it has motivated the corporate middle men. But the desire to maintain creative freedom will add more incentive for artists. Tension between the two is as old as the industry itself.   On a reasonably level playing field, the bean counter's influence in selecting creative talent and technology will remain limited. IMHO, the more limited, the better.

cj1965

The use of technology to completely control the channels of creative content distribution - superimposed on the traditional music industry model, is a recipe for disaster.

You sound like Chicken Little. There may have been a time when the music industry had that kind of power, but those days are l-o-n-g gone. Technology has democratized all media. The real power today is in the hands of content creators. The decline of the music industry, newspapers and magazines, radio and broadcast television are all reflections of that simple truth.

I encourage you to be critical of MQA, which looks to me like a cure in search of a disease. But I don't think it represents any kind of potential disaster.

@cleeds "The real power today is in the hands of content creators."
Not exactly. Alas, the real power today resides in the internet digital distribution providers--no search engine, no recorded music. Technology distribution is not democratized--see Google and Facebook. I second the statement about MQA appearing to be a cure in search of a disease.