Leyland Kirby - Eager To Tear Apart The Stars

I wish I had the cash to buy this/wish I had jumped on the mailing list offer thing... Oh well.

LEAKED

I thought you did. Based on your 30 day music challenge you have some pretty cool taste in music as well.

What's funny about "They are all dead, there are no skip at all" is that it sounds like another one of Kirby's beautiful dramatic song titles, but it's actually a reference from this video that he kept obsessing about on facebook for the past several months.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a7h71Azfcs

Edit: Post is directed at Troon.

  On 9/2/2011 at 6:38 AM, Murveman said:

What's funny about "They are all dead, there are no skip at all" is that it sounds like another one of Kirby's beautiful dramatic song titles, but it's actually a reference from this video that he kept obsessing about on facebook for the past several months.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a7h71Azfcs

Ronald Jenkees' dad ?

  On 9/2/2011 at 5:45 AM, bubbhasdance said:

LEAKED

Really not cool, support this mans music he deservers it!

And only had chance for a quick listen thus far but this is sounding absolutely gorgeous

Went through it twice already. So good, especially the 2nd and 5th tracks.

  On 9/2/2011 at 5:45 AM, bubbhasdance said:

LEAKED

How depressing.

The thing is it hasn't even been leaked - He fookin' sent out emails to us all yesterday with links to download the album. Stoopid pirating wankers .....

  Quote

I would ask you if you can please keep this audio close

 

and don't share it till after the Compact-Disc is released

as it's always a risk making things these days and trying

ultimately to break even.

This album is hit or miss imo. Subsequently I re-listened to Persistent Repetition Of Phrases and I can clearly tell there's quite a difference in the quality of his work.

  On 9/2/2011 at 10:35 AM, Jamesqdot said:

  On 9/2/2011 at 5:45 AM, bubbhasdance said:

LEAKED

 

How depressing.

what's depressing about it ? people who were going to buy it will buy it, people who weren't will not.

  On 9/2/2011 at 8:58 PM, eugene said:

  On 9/2/2011 at 10:35 AM, Jamesqdot said:

  On 9/2/2011 at 5:45 AM, bubbhasdance said:

LEAKED

 

How depressing.

 

what's depressing about it ? people who were going to buy it will buy it, people who weren't will not.

Nevermind. Everyone should just do exactly what they want in a consequence free environment forever. It doesn't hurt anyone after all.

bubbahsdance seems to gloat about albums 'leaking' whenever they're made 'available to legitimately download'. Although the legitimate part may be open to question all the same.

It is shitty since the guy specifically asks those of us with the subscription to not share the links, and someone puts it up on what.cd. Pretty much all of the blogs I go to will take down the links when musicians/labels ask.

pretty naive of him, he seems like a guy that's aware of the current dynamics of music sharing.

there have been 59 snatches on what, so i don't believe he's at the stage where illegal sharing will hurt him financially.

do you not know how file sharing works Eugune? 59 snatches on what.cd amounts to an insane amount of snatches elsewhere (mediafire, rapidshare, other torrent sites, etc). And how are you one to judge if somethings hurting him financially or not, do you know how income he makes to support himself? talk about self entitlement

  On 9/3/2011 at 12:58 AM, eugene said:

there have been 59 snatches on what, so i don't believe he's at the stage where illegal sharing will hurt him financially.

I don't know what the fuck that means, but as Tauhid said (as well as myself), the man himself asked subscribers not to share advanced links to his music. As I remember, part of his motivation for the subscription this year is to help fund future releases. So I'd imagine any illegal sharing might be detrimental to that.

59 snatches means 59 downloads, there will be no insane amount of downloading simply because his fanbase is very small. no question that it's available for free for anyone who wants it from now on, though.

the only way you to know whether illegal downloading actually hurts sales is to know whether people would buy his album if they didn't have the option to download it, which is impossible to really know.

what i gather is that he's kind of a cult musician with a very small and devoted fanbase who will continue buying his stuff, his financial situation is also well know, so i believe those fans won't suddenly switch to illegal downloading but on the other hand those who download might buy something sometime. he's not a pop star whose fans suddenly realize the wonders of illegal file sharing, file sharing is a matter of fact for him and for his fans. i wouldn't buy his stuff because im currently much worse financially than he is, but with file sharing he's got another fan in a faraway land who might chip in someday, can't be worse than not buying and not listening to his music.

I understand why people illegaly download, god knows we all have done it at some point! What i dont understand is why people leak shit, the depressing thing is it was prob done by someone on the digital subscription! I also dont understand why people pop up in threads to go "LEAKED"

Anyhow fuck all that shit, this is lovely took me a few listens for it to proper click with me but had it on loads last night and loving it now. Really nice to fall alseep to as well

If you release music digitally (or indeed in any format that has the capacity to be recorded onto the computer) then it's going to be shared "illegally" online. Simple as that.

The only way to stop music leaking early is to not supply MP3s until after the official release date... especially important if you're doing a physical run. Oh and don't send promos to shitty online blogs and/or big magazines that don't give a shit anyway.

In Kirbys case, he obviously wanted to do his fans/subscribers a favour by releasing early and that is to be applauded. Unfortunately, even amongst his subscribers, there will be people who buy it with the express intent to share it the moment they get it. It cannot be stopped, but if you're taking a risk doing an expensive physical cd/vinyl run, then someone like Kirby (who has been involved in music for decades now and probably knows more about copyright/filesharing than anyone) really should have just waited until the actual vinyl was out before giving away the MP3s.

I know personally that a lot of the people who buy my records are involved in filesharing websites and it's not a problem post-physical release, but I sure as fuck wouldn't dare give the digital versions away beforehand if I knew that breaking even on the physical run was going to be difficult. When you spend £2000 manufacturing a record, you simply cannot risk it. Sure, some people will never buy the music anyway and that's fine, but I bet there's also a silent chunk of people out there who think "hey fuck it, i've heard the album now on MP3, I won't bother buying the record anymore". On the flipside, there's also a lot of people out there who just want the vinyl/physical version, so the whole thing kinda evens out eventually.

  On 9/3/2011 at 3:26 AM, eugene said:

59 snatches means 59 downloads, there will be no insane amount of downloading simply because his fanbase is very small. no question that it's available for free for anyone who wants it from now on, though.

 

the only way you to know whether illegal downloading actually hurts sales is to know whether people would buy his album if they didn't have the option to download it, which is impossible to really know.

 

what i gather is that he's kind of a cult musician with a very small and devoted fanbase who will continue buying his stuff, his financial situation is also well know, so i believe those fans won't suddenly switch to illegal downloading but on the other hand those who download might buy something sometime. he's not a pop star whose fans suddenly realize the wonders of illegal file sharing, file sharing is a matter of fact for him and for his fans. i wouldn't buy his stuff because im currently much worse financially than he is, but with file sharing he's got another fan in a faraway land who might chip in someday, can't be worse than not buying and not listening to his music.

Your post is worth highlighting simply because it represents the views of a lot of listeners who don't fully understand the process involved in releasing music.

Firstly (and as previously mentioned in this thread) those 59 snatches on what.cd eventually propagate to the hundreds/thousands of mediafire-style links you see in online blogs and russian websites. The torrents, slsk, etc.. his fanbase may be small next to someone like Lady Gaga, but I bet his music is still downloaded thousands of times on blogs and such. If only one of those people stop buying the album because they got it for free, then it hurts the artist. And I guarantee it won't be just one person who thinks like that.

The whole "he's got another fan in a faraway land who might chip in someday" is pretty daft too and just reeks of self-entitlement. Whatever happened to waiting and saving up money to buy the things you want? If you decide you need a new 50" plasma TV, do you just take it from the shop and say "oh i'll pay for it later when i've got the money"? Of course you don't. It doesn't happen on the internet because everybody thinks they're entitled to every piece of music ever made, even if they can't afford it, simply because it's out there and "free" to download. It always makes me laugh reading blogs and their little "disclaimer" saying something like "these files are for preview purposes only and should be deleted within 24 hours". LOL. Most artists have bandcamp pages now anyway (including Kirby), which let you stream the album in it's entirety for free. That should be all the preview you need to decide whether you want it or not. I realise sat at a computer is not always the ideal listening environment, but still...

The absolute key problem with filesharing (or specifically, leaks) is that your average listener doesn't think they're hurting the artist by putting their music online, for free, early. In fact, many actually think they're doing the artist a favour. Here's how it actually works:

1) The artist makes the music, probably spending hundreds of hours of his/her own, unpaid time doing so.

2) The album gets mastered. An album, mastered professionally at D&M (who Kirby uses) costs 120 euros/hour. It will take at least 3/4 hours to master a full album, so that will cost approx 360 euros at a minimum.

3) The album gets manufactured. A 2xLP album, 250 units, on coloured vinyl, in a full-artwork gatefold sleeve will easily cost in the range of £2500+ and probably much, much more. Don't believe me? Click Here and see how much it costs at the absolute cheapest vinyl manufacturing place in the world for just one 250 run record in a standard sleeve. Double this and add extra for the gatefolds.

4) Once it's all ready, it's sent to the distributors who take a massive cut of all records sold. We used to sell our 12s for £6 and we got £2 in return for every sale, after both the record store + distro take their cut. Unless you're selling direct, you earn fuck all.

5) Digital sales. Different companies take different amounts. Bandcamp takes 10-15% of every sale, whereas Itunes takes 40% I believe. Spotify sales revenue is so pitiful for indies that it's not even worth mentioning them.

Assuming (and true, there is a lot of assuming here, but this is the basic principles of breaking down sales) this new Kirby album is 500 copies and cost £3500 to manufacture/master (and i'm almost certain it will have cost more) and that he makes 1/3rd of the money back on every sale (£15 on boomkat, so £5 per album sold) then he'd make £2500 back once he sells every one of his 500 records. That's an instant 1k loss right there. Digital sales will bulk this up, especially with his subscriber thing, but I bet he still struggles to make his money back on every release, let alone turning a profit.

Your casual listener has absolutely no clue at the cost and effort involved in releasing music is these days. In a way, their ignorance is justified because unless you're actually putting music out there, there's no incentive to learn about it anyway. But I assure you, these leaks DO hurt the artist and eventually will stop many people releasing music in physical formats entirely. Yeah, filesharing is good in that it brings a whole new audience on board, but unless than audience is actually supporting the artist, then it doesn't really help them. Sad but true.

  On 9/3/2011 at 2:04 PM, brisk said:

Don't believe me? Click Here and see how much it costs at the absolute cheapest vinyl manufacturing place in the world

Sorry, updated link Here. It break down to the following for 1 12" record in approximately the same spec Kirby uses:

500x 12" Vinyl Record Quote Price

Base Package: 500x Colour Vinyl Package (Regular Weight)

Package Includes: setup, processing, DMM mastering, 2-colour printed Labels, delivery to most EEC countries. £795

Extra: Paper Inners + Outer Sleeves (500 units @£ 0.12 per unit) £60

Extra: Full Colour Printed Sleeves £325

Shipping To United Kingdom

Shipping to most EU countries is free of charge. FREE

IMPORTANT: This quote machine is provided as a courtesy for customers. It does not constitute a legally binding price and we are not responsible for any mistakes or miscalculations.

TOTAL PRICE exc. VAT

(including 20% UK VAT of £236) £1180

(£1416)

Times that by 2 for a double LP of course + add mastering costs/promo/etc

Wasn't Leyland Kirby's digital offer limited to a few hundred subscriptions only? I bet he sells most of his copies from Boomkat (where he is constantly a featured artist), which usually run out. He even has a bandcamp page with all his releases at a low price. I still don't believe leaks of super limited releases affect the artists in any way. Some people just try really hard to act like music justicemen.

  Quote

If only one of those people stop buying the album because they got it for free, then it hurts the artist. And I guarantee it won't be just one person who thinks like that.

well i still believe that in his case there are very few people like that, while the benefits of file sharing are very significant for an artist like him.

  Quote

The whole "he's got another fan in a faraway land who might chip in someday" is pretty daft too and just reeks of self-entitlement. Whatever happened to waiting and saving up money to buy the things you want? If you decide you need a new 50" plasma TV, do you just take it from the shop and say "oh i'll pay for it later when i've got the money"? Of course you don't. It doesn't happen on the internet because everybody thinks they're entitled to every piece of music ever made, even if they can't afford it, simply because it's out there and "free" to download.

in my case i know i'm doing something unlawful but not immoral, when looking at it objectively no one really loses from it, i know for sure that i wouldn't buy or hear this record if it wasn't up for a free download. i don't believe kirby would object this view of things either. i understand how it may be perceived as a very cynical view but that's just how it is for me. we've been blessed with those technologies so we might as well exploit them. when there wasn't any internet i would just swap tapes and rip stuff from library cds.

now regarding physical releases i have a very simple opinion: they have no reason to exist in an internet age and i hope they disappear from the discourse as soon as possible. this whole vinyl ordeal seems just laughable to me, sure when there were no computers there was no other choice but to have those crackly things that take a lot of maintenance, but what's the reason now ? big artwork ? just print it out.

the ideal distribution plan imo is putting an album on an artist's website with a paypal thing, none of that 19th century bullcrap.

  On 9/3/2011 at 3:22 PM, eugene said:

the ideal distribution plan imo is putting an album on an artist's website with a paypal thing, none of that 19th century bullcrap.

Except you just spent the previous paragraph justifying why you don't pay for music and never have. How does putting a paypal link alongside the music encourage people to buy the music when they share your viewpoint? Pointless.

You can say that it's not a lost sale because you never had any intention to buy it anyway, but it doesn't help the artist in any way either.