Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Web-Only Album Wins Grammy

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the kids-are-alright dept.

Media 290

blamanj writes "Jazz artist Maria Schneider won a Grammy last night for her album 'Concert in the Garden.' What makes this unusual, according to CNET, is that she might be the first artist ever to win a Grammy for an album distributed solely on the Web. None of the sales were in record stores, and the album was financed through Artist Share."

cancel ×

290 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

that's nice (5, Insightful)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670628)

This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.

Re:that's nice (0)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670686)

Congrats to Maria though. Like me, she succeeded it.

Re:that's nice (3, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670710)

This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.

Better ceremony: "The Torrents"

Re:that's nice (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670712)

Only RIAA-brainwashed USians don't care about them. Get over it, fagot. Go buy some Eminem-CDs.

Re:that's nice (-1, Troll)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670751)

Or jazz, for that matter.

Re:that's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670791)

philistine

ObSimpsons (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670776)

Hey! Don't throw your garbage down here!
*BONK*

Re: that's nice (3, Interesting)

bechthros (714240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670806)

Ah, but the significance is that the Grammys are based strictly on sales. Whoever sells the most albums gets a Grammy, period. Which means that internet sales are finally getting noticed and accepted as a revenue generator.

Which is very significant indeed.

Re: that's nice (5, Informative)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670896)

Ah, but the significance is that the Grammys are based strictly on sales. Whoever sells the most albums gets a Grammy, period.

Not according to their web site [grammys.org] , where it basically states the the awards are based on a multi-tiered voting process.

Two words (3, Funny)

bechthros (714240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671099)

Milli Vanilli. No, it's an industry award, and, like most other industry awards, goes to the people who made the industry the most money.

Oh, but it's on their official website. Well then. I'm sure they woulnd't bend the truth to not look like corporate whores.

Mis-mod (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671029)

I think this guy was trying to be funny....if I had a couple mod points, that the way I would have rated it ;)

Re: that's nice (1)

xa0s (128789) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671122)

you're thinking of the Billboard Music Awards.. Grammys are kinda like the Oscars.. buncha old out of touch record associates masturbating^Wvoting to decide who wins

Re: that's nice (1)

bechthros (714240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671161)

The Billboards are worse, you're right. But can you name the last act to win a Grammy that didn't have at least a Gold record (besides this internet chick)?

Re: that's nice (3, Funny)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671147)

Yes, it would be more interesting if an internet-only album won a Juno, which is A Canadian Music award. Junos are not based on sales, as Canadian albums do not sell.

Re:that's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670843)

Anyone who'd get naked with Marlon Brando [imdb.com] deserves an award.

Music Without The Middlemen (4, Interesting)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670630)

Does that mean that Grammy is rewarding talented artists too?

It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.

Is publisher still an important factor?

Re:Music Without The Middlemen (2, Interesting)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670693)

As programs like Steam [steampowered.com] have proven, you can still pull respectable sales even without a publisher.

And in some ways it's beneficial. I didn't have to muck around with copy protection or having the CD in the drive at all when I bought Half Life 2 off of Steam. Plus, it doesn't give Vivendi Universal a dime.

And we all know how many /.ers would love to not give the RIAA a dime.

Re:Music Without The Middlemen (1)

FiReaNGeL (312636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670903)

You sure don't have to mock around with copy protection or have the CD in your drive, but steam must be online... or you can't play :( Major flaw in my book.

Re:Music Without The Middlemen (4, Interesting)

bahamat (187909) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671035)

It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.

Unfortunately, most artists aren't able to do anything like this. Case in point Poe [realpoe.com] (or try the iTunes [apple.com] link) has basically been screwed left and right by Atlantic for the past 5 years. She can't perform any of her own songs until 7 years after her contract expires, and at current, if I understand correctly, she is essentially barred from creating any new music and releasing it without Atlantic's approval.

Even Prince had to bend over and take it. His contract was so bad he wasn't even able to use his performing name until the contract expired.

All of this of course just underscores how screwed up the RIAA is.

Re:Music Without The Middlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11671104)

the marketing is more building a hype machine. it is easier to create one 10million album group, than half a dozen 2 million album groups.

because the half a dozen wouldnt need to be marketed like the RIAA does, the ten million album group does. that is why the RIAA remains in control, because that is what people are used to, not the smaller groups (that still do well).

OT:The Grammys (3, Interesting)

MasTRE (588396) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670635)

Was anyone else sooo annoyed at how much crap they spewed about downloading music last night?

Re:OT:The Grammys (1, Redundant)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670750)


i didn't see it. what do you mean?

Re:OT:The Grammys (2, Insightful)

weenis (656512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671084)

the dude came out and talked about how we need to "own" the music to help keep the music alive. his example was quite weak; he used how the artists sang the beatles song, across the universe, to raise money to send to teh tsunami victims.
i personally think that was lame, because those rich bastid artists (Damn i hate bono) could have easily shelled out way more money than will be made off of their raping of the beatles.

Re:OT:The Grammys (2, Funny)

Hasai (131313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671139)

No; that would have required me to watch the Grammys.

Arrr matey (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670637)

Anyone got a .torrent?

I think the term is: (5, Funny)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670641)

Wake up call....

Dear RIAA,

PWNED,

Toddy boy

Re:I think the term is: (4, Funny)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670830)

RIAA boardroom transcript

Exec 1: Oh my god we are toast!

Exec 2: Why?

Exec 1: The grammy awarded a non-CD winner last night!

Exec 2: No problem. We'll just hire more lawyers and sue the grammys.

Exec 1: Brilliant!

Exec 2: We just need a lawyer with morals, only buy CDs and doesn't do P2P.

Exec 1: Ok, we are toast.

no, no, no... (5, Funny)

ed.han (444783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671179)

in AD 2005, war was beginning.

RIAA chairman: "what happen"
RIAA flunky: "somebody set us up the bomb!"
RIAA flunky: "we get signal!"
RIAA chairman: "what?"
RIAA flunky: "main screen turn on!"
RIAA chairman: "it's you!
schneider: "how are you gentlemen. all your sales are belong to us. you are on the way to obsolescence."
RIAA chairman: "what you say!"
maria schneider: "you have no chance to survive. make your time."

ed

Don't you mean INTERNET? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670647)

"Web only"? I didn't know audio files were HTML.

Re:Don't you mean INTERNET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670681)

Don't go complaining to slashdot about YOUR ignorance.

Re:Don't you mean INTERNET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670802)

Yeah. The songs are on the interweb. I heard about it on the Google Groups.

I'd give you more info, but Archie seems to be having problems.

Re:Don't you mean INTERNET? (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670820)

Err, Web != HTML. You can download other files over HTTP too.

Re:Don't you mean INTERNET? (2, Insightful)

settsu (839887) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670866)

ok, Dr. Semantic

what TYPE of "audio files"?!

and since when was the "web" just "HTML"?!

Booyah!

See how it works, RIAA? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670650)

See how it works RIAA? people release albums to be LISTENED to, not to be controlled... and when they do they SUCCEED.

I've downloaded most of Maria's album, and am looking for the final pieces. This is how distribution can and SHOULD work

Re:See how it works, RIAA? (2, Insightful)

fracai (796392) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670902)

Distribution should work in that you successfully receive most of a product and then search for the rest of it? I prefer to get all of a product. Or do you mean that your torrent was incomplete? I doubt the RIAA, or any other artist, is all that interested in a distribution method that works how you've proposed.

Re:See how it works, RIAA? (2, Insightful)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670939)

From TFA: This record cost $87,000 to make

Don't be a dick. Pay for the album.

Re:See how it works, RIAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670985)

Of course I'll pay for it once you tell me where I can buy it. What? I can't buy her CD? That's stupid, sorry, I only buy CDs, not files.

Reality Check (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670974)

and when they do they SUCCEED
A single success does not a general principle prove.

Pfffft... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670651)

That grammy ain't half as valuable as this first post.

What ? (5, Funny)

JaffaKREE (766802) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670654)

This can't be right. The RIAA told me in my latest session, where I get hooked up to this machine.... with electrodes and stuff.... it shocks me :( ... that only mass-marketed artists are successes, and that the internet gives you herpes.

Re:What ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670669)

the internet gives you herpes

I tried to explain that to my wife. She didn't buy it.

Re:What ? (0, Offtopic)

Red Weasel (166333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671002)

Ok, now that was funny.

Re:What ? (1)

FCAdcock (531678) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670979)

You mean you didn't update symantic to stop herpies_b.exe yet? Neanderthal!

Re:What ? (1)

JaffaKREE (766802) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671046)

well... I guess it doesn't matter at this point.

Records Cos on borrowed time (4, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670660)

More to the point, look at the manufactured crap the record companies are spitting out - Maroon 5, retreaded Green Day and a dead Ray Charles.

Come on, when a dead guy nearly sweeps the awards (regardless of the fact that Ray was talented), truly this an industry running out of options.

in all fairness (2, Informative)

dknight (202308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670699)

that Green Day CD really is very good. Admittedly, I've been a green day fan for years, but American Idiot really is a whole new thing for them. I've always really liked the fact that Green Day was willing to try really unique and unusual things.

Yea, most of the rest of the RIAA stuff produced is crap tho.

Re:in all fairness (1, Insightful)

thedbp (443047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670938)

No, you're totally wrong. Green Day has never ONCE done anything that hasn't been done before. Their lyrics are trite, their music is unimaginative, and this whole "concept album" business is BS. They started wearing makeup like those loser sellouts from Metallica and put 4 chords into a song instead of 3, and now everyone thinks their breaking rules. Please. If you want unique and unusual, try Mr. Bungle. Or Naked City. Or Marc Ribot. Or Tom Waits. Or a million other artists that not only have MASTERED THEIR INSTRUMENTS (instead of just getting by with a few chords) and actually have SOMETHING TO SAY (other than the rehashed disaffected youth BS).

I only responded to this because I feel that your opinion illustrates the real problem w/ the RIAA and organisations like it. They have lowered the standards that people have in music, and overshadow truly talented artists w/ a swath of oversaturated advertising ... that is the ONLY explanation for calling ANYTHING Green Day does as unique and unusual.

GD's crap wouldn't have been unique or unusual in 1984, let alone 2005.

Re:in all fairness (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671009)

WO!!! Metallica has NEVER worn make-up. Just because they had long hair doesn't mean they were KISS :)

Re:in all fairness (1)

dknight (202308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671021)

really?
have you heard a lot of rock/punk bands using mandolins in their music?

I'm the first to admit that Billy Joe cant play guitar, but Tre is an EXCELLENT drummer, and mike is a decent bassist and is very talented at writing lyrics.

I cant really speak for the makeup part of your argument. But frankly, even if they are, I dont care. That's a stupid thing to base your argument on.

Re:in all fairness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11671130)

Are you kidding me? I've been playing the drums for 20 years and the most common insult that gets lobbed at someone is calling them "Tre cool". He is a horrible drummer and quite often outshines Billy Joe's Lollipop lyrics when it comes to bad music.

Re:in all fairness (1)

slagdogg (549983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671023)

That song from the Grammys was "Welcome to Paradise" rehashed. Aside from that, I particularly like how they pretend to be "punk" and "rock and roll" after making that God-awful "I hope you have the time of your life" song ... my grandma loves that song. Punk indeed.

If GD came out and said "hey, we're a bunch of sellouts -- we are just trying to get paid" I would have some respect for them. For the record, Dookie was a great album. It just got a little old the fifth time. And to reiterate, anybody claiming to be "punk" after that "time of your life" song (been to a high school graduation in the last 5 years?) is pathetic.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (4, Funny)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670715)

Come on, when a dead guy nearly sweeps the awards (regardless of the fact that Ray was talented), truly this an industry running out of options.

But he was still alive when it was recorded, which does make a difference. Otherwise I agree with you.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670770)

True, but everyone knows if he was still alive, he probably wouldn't have gotten anything. Ray Charles benefitted from the usual Grammy policy of rewarding big name artists AFTER they die.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670828)

...Grammy policy of rewarding big name artists AFTER they die. Or of rewarding anyone other than the latest flash in the pan.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670837)

Well, that... and that there was a movie about him that everybody liked. Movies sell albums, newly-dead guys sell albums, and music execs really like sales.

Add it all up, and it's Grammy Time for Ray (who never got crap for recognition when he was in his prime. Most of those southern crackers who run the record business never even knew who he was until he recorded a Country & Western album.)

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671034)

Yeah, dead people are really lousy performers. Except Bruce Willis, of course.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (1)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671155)

Yeah, dead people are really lousy performers

Yeah, but you can still record new albums with old material, like the Nat King / Natalie album, which was "recorded" long after his death.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11671075)

baw, haw, haw,...
I believe it would be diffucult to record an album after your dead,...

(notice I said, 'record' not release,... I think Tupac, Elvis and Jimi Hendrix will 'release' a 'new' album every year forever. (or at least unitl the estates cant even find raw demo practice tapes,...)

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (2, Interesting)

MetaPhyzx (212830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670808)

Well last night was a make-up. The guy had what (Ray Charles) won three Grammys in a 50 plus year career? What better time to make up for it than this year... when it looks like his bio pic could win best Oscar. Maybe the next fella won't have to get a movie deal and expire to get respect.

I dont mind that the major awards shows do this (You can't tell me to this day that Al Pacino "deserved" an Oscar for Scent of a Woman), it's when they choose to do it that irks. At times they choose to reward when a truly deserving or powerful film/performance is up as well. So you know what gets shafted. case in point: This year I think it will be Hotel Rwanda.

I'm very happy for Ms Schneider's good fortune; her Grammy probably was voted for by people who actually heard her music and knew how exceptional it was..versus the at large catagories and normal areas where they play favorites...

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (2, Interesting)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670967)

The guy had what (Ray Charles) won three Grammys in a 50 plus year career?

Yeah, but one has to ask, so what? I can understand people's impatience with award shows that give out sympathy awards. Same thing for awards given for political reasons, although that tends to be the movie industry. Ray Charles had a enormously successful career. Everyone knows he was an amazing talent. People living on Peruvian mountaintops know who he was. He made fifty million billion dollars. What's a Grammy on top of that? And a posthumous one at that. :-\ Even if there is an afterlife, I doubt he cares anymore.

I dunno. I'm just rambling here. I sort of agree with Chris Rock's recent statement where he said, "Awards for art are f---ing idiotic." Maybe he was kidding and stirring up buzz for the upcoming Oscars, but I can see where a person might find them pointless. Art is so subjective, and there seems to be a lot of bandwagoning.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671030)

Definatly wasn't one of Al Pacinos best. But compare it to the rest of the crap that year, definatly the winner.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (3, Informative)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670862)

"More to the point, look at the manufactured crap the record companies are spitting out - Maroon 5, retreaded Green Day and a dead Ray Charles."

For what it's worth, Maroon 5 got their start posting their stuff to MP3.com. However, I agree that they're pretty mediocre.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (5, Insightful)

wankledot (712148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670989)

You jackass.

Maroon 5: The fact that they are successful suddenly makes them crap? I forgot, selling records make you suck They put out Songs About Jane in 2002. The fact that it is a really good album is what made it succeed, not some plot by the labels to push "crap." New bands like Maroon 5 disprove your point that the industry is running out of options.

Green Day: Retreaded? Once again, people like to slam green day as not being punk because they're popular. Nevermind that they continue to put out good songs. Ray Charles: He died less than 9 months ago. The RIAA didn't trot out a corpse to sell records, he recorded (obviously) and released the album before he died.

Can you even fathom that these people are musicians and not just pawns of the RIAA? They work hard (none harder than Ray) and try to get as many people as they can to hear their art. And then some pissant like you dismisses them as crap because they happen to be popular.

Your opinions on music are not the only ones that matter (shocking!) The fact you feel like Maroon 5 is crap, Green Day is re-treaded, and Ray Charles' album is a publicity stunt doesn't change the fact that they are all really good artists, and really good albums. But it's your loss for not appreciating them.

Re:Records Cos on borrowed time (1)

Mr. Capris (839522) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671153)

They work hard and try to get as many people as they can to hear their art.

Come now, we all know deep down inside that all these people want to do is make a cheap buck...like most of the human beings in the world. If these guys really wanted their music heard by the masses, they would give *free* public concerts, free CD'S...

The big question... (5, Insightful)

gatorflux (759239) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670662)

How will the RIAA remove her from the public eye? Or will they just make her an offer she can't refuse and bring her to the dark side?

As a musician, I hope her win is a precedent that will be emulated over and over.

Re:The big question... (5, Funny)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670714)

"How will the RIAA remove her from the public eye?"

Two words: Kurt Cobain

The Josie and the Pussycats movie had a spoof of this where they disappeared the goth-punk girl from the record store.

Re:The big question... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670785)

"How will the RIAA remove her from the public eye?"

Tell /. about her.

Connecting to www.mariaschneider.com[216.130.189.66]:80... failed: Connection refused.

Re:The big question... (0, Flamebait)

socratesone (859148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670793)

I think that this is an attempt to legitimize the grammies. You know how these archaic lame-duck institutions are desperately trying to be "hip", they figure they can give a grammy to one of them there "world wide interweb" musicians so that they are new and cool like the internet is.



It's kind of like giving a grammy nomination to "blame canada" in the south park movie.

Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670667)

A great day for new nethods of distributing music.

but the internet is BAD for music, right?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11670670)

firts potes? and none of her sales were LOST to MP3s... how about THAT, mecording industry jerks?

Nervous times for RIAA & MPAA... (3, Insightful)

TomTraynor (82129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670688)

When they realize that they now are losing control of their artists. I have not heard of her before, but this is nice in that web based distro of music won a Grammy and I hope that this is the first of many more for here and other artists.

Re:Nervous times for RIAA & MPAA... (4, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670912)

Every time a post like this is made, an RIAA lawyer gets his wings.

Look, the RIAA doesn't "control" anything. They do the bidding of the big record labels, and take all the heat from people like you so Sony Music and the other actual villains in this story don't have to.

The last decision which the RIAA made was the standardized design of that little preamp that goes into the "phono" input of most stereos prior to 1998 or so.

All they do now is serve as a mouthpiece (and lightning rod) for the record labels in their efforts to lock down their IP. Ranting about how eeeeevil the RIAA is simply plays right into the hands of the labels behind it all.

Re:Nervous times for RIAA & MPAA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11671082)

OHMYGAWD!! an RIAA apologist. I see something new every day. Like dude, its the RIAA that has been saying all along. YOU WILL LISTEN TO WHAT WE DISTRIBUTE AND LIKE IT. How much are they paying you?

Re:Nervous times for RIAA & MPAA... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671210)

They do the bidding of the big record labels, and take all the heat from people like you so Sony Music and the other actual villains in this story don't have to.

Do you think they do all this out of the goodness of their heart?" There's good reason they do the bidding and representation - they're compensated for it. It's just another cog in the music machine.

Oh my gawd (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670696)

OhmygawdArtistShareisthenewmp3.com!

Re:Oh my gawd (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671209)

OhmygawdArtistShareisthenewmp3.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again.

respond from RIAA? (1)

coolcold (805170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670702)

Guess RIAA won't notice this since she didn't make any cash for it

Starbucks (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670738)

OTOH, an album that sold over 500,000 copies through Starbucks alone won 8 Grammys...

Does it matter? (5, Funny)

GatesGhost (850912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670760)

i didnt think the grammy's were about commercial exposure or success, but rather about the quality of music...(checks online) wait, maroon 5 won a grammy? well, fuck that, i was wrong.

it's coming down (1, Funny)

Knights who say 'INT (708612) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670787)

First goes the RIAA, then goes the MPAA, then goes the GNAA! :-D

To be fair... (4, Informative)

lpangelrob2 (721920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670790)

To be fair, I've heard of Maria Schneider, and I in general have no ear for music (or the next best music great/talent) at all... I know she is well known in the jazz subculture... this is jazz, it thrives in the underground... and Maria Schneider was well-known long before her Grammy-winning record. Oh, and people that admire jazz tend not to care a lick for the RIAA.

Still, a good sign.

sad thing is (5, Funny)

kasek (514492) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670818)

she will probably have to sell the award on ebay to compensate her webhost for the server that just went down in flames.

Stupid question (1, Offtopic)

Chundra (189402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670822)

Is that the same Maria Schneider of Pathetic Geek Stories [patheticgeekstories.com] fame?

Not so much the distribution... (5, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670826)

The fact that it was solely distributed on the web really isn't the amazing part - I mean, there are iTunes exclusive tracks all the time. I'm sure it would be easy for a major artist to convince their record company to let them only distribute an album online, and it could get plenty of publicity and possibly a grammy.

What's really interesting is that the album was made with no involvement of a record company at all.

The business model is dead... (1, Funny)

bechthros (714240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670845)

...long live the business model.

If web-only can invade the grammys (0)

flinxmeister (601654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670849)

Makes you wonder what's happening in the world of real music......

"The Man" may be in more trouble than he thinks.

Just curious... (1, Interesting)

Deagol (323173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670908)

Not having red TFA, is this artist's label an RIAA member?

Re:Just curious... (4, Informative)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671177)

The artist has no label. The album was self-financed, and she managed to recoup her expenses with web sales.

Music..the other way (5, Interesting)

pronobozo (794672) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670946)

For someone that is coming from the bottom up, i can say that time is the key. Without millions of dollars to spend on promotion, independant artists have to find a different way to communicate with the masses.

Internet is their greatest tool, so with a bit of time and dedication you can reach millions of people from the comforts of your own home.

I don't think it's about the music industry now, it's about the new uprising of artists taking a step on freely distributed music. The RIAA has their game, but we have ours too.

Instead of changing them, lets just use our own method.

that's my .02

- pronobozo [pronobozo.com]

*might*? (2, Insightful)

SmokeHalo (783772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670971)

From the blurb:
she might be the first artist ever to win a Grammy for an album distributed solely on the Web
Fact 1: The album was distributed solely on the web.
Fact 2: She won a Grammy for the album.
Fact 3: Ain't no *might* about it.

Great... (2, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11670983)

...now we're slashdotting Grammy-winners' Web sites.

I guess they had to *ahem*face the music soon, though.

Well... damn (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671008)

I'm going to start playing with Apple's Garageband and start releasing my own albums.

It'll be the most derivative crap ever created. but, hey, lots of people have become wealthy doing *that*. :)

Progressive jazz metal, maybe. Hmmm. Instrumentals only, because my singing kills cows at fifty paces. I'll sell *that* disc to the farming industry, although PETA might protest it as being more cruel than a pneumatic bolt to the skull.

Just a small wrinkle (1)

theendlessnow (516149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671039)

So now the RIAA has to use an ice pick to break out of their confines.... just a minor set back.

tubgirLl (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11671049)

successes with the [ogay-sex-access.com]? ofone single puny

I hope the RIAA sues the Grammies (2, Funny)

gelfling (6534) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671070)

For promoting this kind of crackhead lesbo communism. Next thing ya know people will object, object I tell you, to our crawling up their asses for the sheer fucking thrill of complaining how bad it smells. Got to nip this in the bud.

Steps will be taken.

In related news... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11671072)

She had to sell the clothes off her back to afford the plane ticket to the Grammy's and is now homeless, hungry, and can't afford to get back in the studio.

Quick review of the Grammys. (3, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671127)

Sucked like every Industry show.

Highlights include:

Animating Ray Charles corpse to sell box sets and tribute albums. Look at the dead guy dance! Reminded me of last year's "Cash in on Johnny Cash".

The most god-awful rendition of 'Across the Universe' ever. Hey, if I wanted wooden performances, I'd hang out with a drugstore Indian. And Slash, you don't need to lean that far back when you're playing a quietly phased 12 string. Save the rock pose for something that isn't being butchered right before your eyes.

The internet-inspired 'mash-up'. You can't tell me that someone didn't get that idea from searching Livejournals, and thinking, "This is super-hot! The kids will eat this up! LOLLERS!"

Industry fuck talking about the usual, "downloading music is illegal". Unless you don't own the rights to it. Great crowd shot during that speech. So many 'fuck you' expressions on the audience that had been screwed by industry contracts. Or boredom, apathy and 'get this over with'. I would have been yelling, "Michael Bolton called, and he wants his hair back!". Or something funny.

The endless 'we care' about the tsunami or fill in the blank tragedy of the moment' blathering. How about you kids spend more time making a listenable record, and less time pandering to your bleeding heart market share?

Once again, the Grammys show that the RIAA is not relevant. When are we getting rid of them again?

Buy Her Music (4, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671157)

How many of you are going to support her by buying her album?

If you truly want music to be free (as in speech), put your money where your mouth is for once. The success of such artists depends on the financial backing of people who claim to support independent music.

Awwww, its only a grammy (1)

megarich (773968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11671204)

The grammy awards is a sick joke. I'm sorry but any award show that disgraces one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time, led zeppelin, by giving them a lifetime achievement award and only mention it in passing needs to be thrown out the window.

And the winner of best hard rock album goes to.....enimem! *appluad, now here comes the 30 minute looooong speech while hundreds of other awards scrolls along the bottom including best flatulant album of the year award*

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>