Riffage is Shutting Down!
Recovered from the Internet Archive. This page comes from a ListenSmart.com capture saved by the Wayback Machine on January 24, 2001. The original text is preserved where it survives; links and layout have been adapted for this restoration. Historical account, search, posting, voting, playback and download features are inactive; their labels remain as plain text. Images that were never archived are left out. Audio files were not recovered for this archive.
Source: Wayback Machine capture of ubb.listensmart.com:80/ubb/Forum12/HTML/002491.html.
Removal requests: email seanfenlon@yahoo.com with the page address.
Email This Page to Someone! |
 Artist Only Boards [all categories]
 Artist Area
 Riffage is Shutting Down!
Post New Topic |
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Riffage is Shutting Down! |
| #1
stanley Newbie Posts: 66 |
posted 12-08-2000 02:56 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for stanley  Edit/Delete Message 
http://www.wirednews.com/news/business/0,1367,40561,00.html Wired News "The deals we had on the table fell through," said Riffage.com CEO Ken Wirt. "The one we thought was most certain –- from an old economy company –- fell through after they did their financial projections for the next year. A second deal fell through when investors in a new economy company pulled their next round of funding. "And that was it for us." Wirt declined to name either company involved in the acquisition talks that had been progressing over the past several weeks. Once the final deal fell through last Tuesday, the company sought the services of corporate consulting firm Diablo Management Group to dispose of the assets of the company, Wirt said. Wirt emphasized that the Great American Music Hall would continue to operate under its current management. "We'll find it a good home," Wirt said. "Just because we have an Internet finance problem doesn't mean the Hall has to suffer too." The Diablo group will also be shopping around 1500 Records as well. Friday will be the employees last day at the company, and they will will be an undisclosed severance package, Wirt said. Funding began to dry up throughout the industry, and Wirt became desperate to keep his operation afloat. After venture capitalists and private investors turned aside, Wirt looked into selling the assets of the company. Riffage added substantial physical assets throughout much of this year. The company first signed a deal with the Bear college cable network to broadcast a television show, which featured bands chosen from the stable of artists who had uploaded their music to the site. In July, Wirt's team purchased San Francisco's Great American Music Hall and immediately began rewiring the venue so the company could webcast shows. Riffage.com launched in July 1999 as just another website that offered bands the opportunity to upload and store their music. However it quickly established itself as a player in the space. When Riffage purchased Los Angeles record label 1500 Records, the label became a new division of Riffage, but continued to operate as an independent label offering tour support, retail CD sales and traditional A&R. Sources at 1500 Records said the entire staff would be laid off on Friday as well. 1500 Records' President Gary Richards is attempting to purchase the assets of the company back from Riffage. However, the label staff would have to be let go as production and A&R bills haven't been paid for the last two months. 1500 Records is expected to resume full operations in February when cash comes in from the sale of the label's first release from the band the Ugly Ducklings. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #2
StrumminDude Newbie Posts: 40 |
posted 12-08-2000 03:11 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for StrumminDude Edit/Delete Message
Good news for us since our music has been hijacked on the site since more than a year back. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #3
ShakyTee Guru Posts: 952 |
posted 12-08-2000 03:48 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for ShakyTee Edit/Delete Message
I was able to get in there just now and pull my stuff off. (Remember AMP3.com?) I'm really sorry this happened. I had some of my best promotion at that site, and, despite some bad reviews, I did very well there. Hmm...I wonder who'll be next. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #4
loren Guru Posts: 272 |
posted 12-08-2000 08:54 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for loren Edit/Delete Message
So much for the revolution...  ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #5
CBH3 Records Guru Posts: 486 |
posted 12-09-2000 02:27 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for CBH3 Records Edit/Delete Message
They had the most corrupt review and chart system I've seen. You could login under 5 names and boost your rating to 5 stars and climb the charts and then your enemies could easily trash everything and give 1 star. Most bands averaged out at 3 stars, big surprise. Good riddance. Blech. Besonic has the most inovative ideas of any OMD yet. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #6
RyanAvery Guru Posts: 168 |
posted 12-09-2000 04:20 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for RyanAvery Edit/Delete Message
quote: Well, sadly, I think I can guess at who'll go next, and it's right under our noses. "Lack of funding", "deals fell through"... sound like any site you've heard of recently? ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #7
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-09-2000 05:19 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Hmmmm....pubezboard? No? Yes? Well, actually based on the economics presented so far? About the costs of operating any OMD? Versus the existing revenue sources for low volume websites? And the lack of a coalesced artists community? I'd say they all should be going down soon. Every single solitary one. Except for the ones owned wholely or in part by the RIAA. Which is why I have suggested in another thread here that the independent artist community needs to be looking at a cost effective way to distribute independent music on the web. So far, Bill House and Musicians-United are the only group that has expressed interest. And that seems to be going slow. Depending solely on Bill House's ability to develop a peer to peer interface, I guess. So many artists. All their fates resting on one man. Gotta go. Paisley may have put up a new funny topic at pubezboard. 2 for 1 downloads/I have cable ------------------ [This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 12-09-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #8
STILL Guru Posts: 323 |
posted 12-09-2000 03:07 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for STILL Edit/Delete Message
So my argument stands: artists MUST control their own destinies. Anyone who had most of their eggs there are totally fucked now, and this could happen to almost any site at any time, though I agree with Kenny that the ones with RIAA links will probably do ok. Build your own websites! And promote them, not someone else's sites with your material on them. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #9
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-09-2000 03:22 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Well, Wade. That does work. But from what I see? It is extremely limited. In other words, I can build my own store to sell my recordings in a remote location with no traffic. But it would be better to be in a store in the mall that already has lots of traffic. There is strength in numbers Wade. No way around that. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #10
STILL Guru Posts: 323 |
posted 12-09-2000 04:35 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for STILL Edit/Delete Message
I guess you're just trying to provoke me eh Kenny? If that's how you read what I said, then you're dumber than a box of Cheerios. And if you believe that I mean that you should go build a website and then sit in a corner and then wait for everybody to avalanche your doorstep - well that's just plain insulting. Everytime I come on here and say something lately, you have some platitude or cliche to throw up like you're some sort of "Old Dude on the Block" that commands respect and should be listened to. But all I see you advocating is this tired-ass "swap-downloads", rig the system, "lay down and take it" attitude. What's YOUR idea? Go out there and put your stuff on every site and wait to see when the orders start piling up? Yeh, that's been working real well for..........uh....who? Sit around all day typing "Please Download Me" messages to a bunch of other losers who do the same lame ass thing? That's so fucking sad I can't comment on that......... I'm curious, how often have I been wrong about what's going on in this environment? Have you got any idea when I started advocating that artists control their own destiny, and how much of what I said WAY back then has come to be true? I'm no messiah, I don't have all the answers, and I'm not ready to take over and show everyone how to "Do It", but I DO know that if you put your eggs in someone else's basket, then your eggs go where they go, not where you go. That's pretty simple. And if you don't have your own website, and direct your efforts to promoting that site, then every time one of these sites starts biting the weenie - either in policy changes or straight-up failing, then all you have to show for it is arthritic fingers from having to go back out there and pump up another half-assed site on some other cheesy chart-based, download-begging, easily-cheated, non-merit-based, corporate site that promises to change your life as long as you don't mind submitting to an ass-fucking of biblical proportions - and then they don't do SHIT for you to boot! Quit trying to pee on my leg Kenny, you piss me off. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #11
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-09-2000 06:56 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Well, I'm not trying to piss you off, Wade. Or piss on your leg. I'm just discussing the situation. With a person that is good to discuss things with. No personal attacks here. No vitriol. No name calling. Humor is Kenny Lee's stock in trade. And I'm having fun with being a download swapper. I see absolutely nothing wrong with download swaps as a form of promotion. It reflects what artists have to do in the real world to succeed. Networking. That is why we are here. To get downloads. In a cost effective way. I have no problem with your stance of. "Start your own website, dammit!" I just think that it is limited. I mean, most artists already have their own website. And it appears to me they have found they need more than that. Now tell me why I am wrong. I already have been told I'm a loser.
[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 12-09-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #12
STILL Guru Posts: 323 |
posted 12-10-2000 01:36 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for STILL Edit/Delete Message
I think I've explained well enough a million times.....do you really not know why I think what I think? The short version is that I think the Internet is not the way small indie artists are going to further themselves. I wrote a long post about that some time ago which was generally well received and agreed with, I had thought you saw it. Basically I have yet to see or hear of someone that had any real success based on Internet only promo, it doesn't work. Don't say Fisher or Gunburner cause it's not true no matter what mp3.c likes to say. What works is getting in front of people - period. The net is a useful tool in that context. But that's all, and anyone who thinks that the pittance of money or recognition that can be gained from either your own site or a feature at a larger scale site alone is smoking crack. BUILD YOUR OWN WEBSITE - THEN GET OUT THERE AND BRING YOUR PEOPLE TO IT! THEN it becomes useful. In the last 2-3 months since I shifted my priorities back to where they shoulda been all along, I've sold more CD's, made more fans, gotten way more radio and promo help, than the entire year up to that point so far. A huge difference in money, effect, and satisfaction. The web site helps to do all the things I don't want to be on the phone for, makes it easy to send out concert info, makes it easy for people to check in on wat I'm up to, and I don't have to go around to 10-15 sites and update it all. I still have songs at sites, so they can get recognized if that were to happen, but they get to those sites through me, not because I promote that site, but because I use it. That's the short version.... You seemed like you were being contrary just to be contrary Kenny, if no harm was meant, then none taken........ ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #13
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-10-2000 02:26 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: What you seem to saying, to me, is this: Nothing works on the internet for the professional musician! At least on any significant scale. And I agree. For the overwhelming majority of musicians, such as myself. The return is negligible. I don't even promote my internet presence to the outside world anymore. I think it hurts my real business. It puts me in an environment that is negative to most customers. Cheap or free product. Confusing information. etc. People that are my "fans" tell me they have found my work on Napster, for example. Not MP3.com or IUMA, etc. Because to the general public right now? Music on the internet is Napster. But, since the internet has the potential to be a worldwide distribution avenue for my recordings? I'm still working at it. Trying to find something that works. I don't feel that I can do anything significant from my own page. At least on a worldwide significant level. From what you have described to me? It seems that you feel the same way. Hence, my comment to you about strength in numbers. And my push to develop a low cost way for independent musicians to distribute their works worldwide. So, Wade, we seem to be in agreement as to what doesn't work. Since we have both found that nothing works. And we are not in agreement as to what possibly will work.
[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 12-10-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #14
notesleb Guru Posts: 496 |
posted 12-10-2000 03:34 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for notesleb Edit/Delete Message
Good to see you guys have cleared up your disagreement a bit  .
quote: I tend to agree BUT asking for multiple downloads. 2:1, 10:1, etc. just plain sucks and is very pitiful. This doesn't help you enough (at .06 cents a download) to warrant fucking the site you're supposed to be partnering with. Ampcast is able to offer this money based on the fact that they'll be bringing in more people, not just more visits from the same small group of people. I'm all for offering to download (and listen to) tracks from a fellow artist in exchange for him/her doing the same for me. That's networking and good for both parties. The highly embarrassing swap-a-thons that the MP3.con crowd started and plan to try to do TO Ampcast is just really lame. In the long run it's not good for anybody, maybe you'll make $20-50 bucks but you lose AmpCast and your self-respect. Fuck you ahead of time for your disagreeing reply [This message has been edited by notesleb (edited 12-10-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #15
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-10-2000 04:18 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Boy, the venom is coming out this weekend. Whas the matter? Can't handle the discussion on the merits alone, Stephen? I would hate to not have a disagreeing reply then. And waste a perfectly good "Fuck You". Thank goodness I have one prepared. ------------------- 1 to 1? 112 to 1? It doesn't matter to the website. (ampcast, by the way, allows one unique download per computer) Traffic is traffic. As explained to us by the struggling Sean Fenlon? There is a break point of web traffic where ad revenue increases dramatically. OMD websites are counting on artists to get them there. The low cost way for artists to do this is networking. We can't all take out big Billboards on Madison Avenue to promote our product. Or hire a team of PR people and distributors to push our work. Any value judgements you are making about this form of promotion are your own. Any personal value is contained in the work itself. Not in the way it is promoted. Networking is essential to any start up business. Which is what any artist concerned about distributing or deriving income from his work is. A start-up business. Thank you and Fuck you very much. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #16
notesleb Guru Posts: 496 |
posted 12-11-2000 02:47 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for notesleb Edit/Delete Message
No Venom really, that was a friendly, tongue in cheek "Fuck You" .
quote: Ampcast may only allow one unique download per computer but there are plenty of hacks who will attempt to game that system. Traffic is traffic but a bunch of clicks by 10-20 ip addresses probably won't help AmpCast's cause much. If people manage to trick them into paying for more unique downloads than actual unique visitors it seems it could feasibly break the bank. Don't want to get in an argument over it though, you're much more persistent than I am when it comes to debating. Now go download my new tunes IP: Logged |
| #17
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-11-2000 04:07 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: I will download your new tunes, Stephen. As far as our argument goes I think I see where our disagreement lies. It is a different view of the facts. You are assuming that if ampcast.com gets a million unique downloads a day/costing them $60,000.00 a day? That is a bad thing. But my view is that if ampcast gets a million unique downloads a day? That is a good thing. In fact, the greatest thing. That will make the owners of ampcast.com millionaires. Like Michael Robertson. So at least we know where we differ. Have a nice fucking day. ------------------ [This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 12-11-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #18
notesleb Guru Posts: 496 |
posted 12-11-2000 04:20 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for notesleb Edit/Delete Message
You're probably right. I downloaded both BBQ Blues Band tunes and I'm enjoying them very much. IP: Logged |
| #19
dond Guru Posts: 184 |
posted 12-11-2000 06:07 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for dond Edit/Delete Message
A MILLION DOWNLOADS A DAY??????? DREAM ON!!!! It takes a fortune to generate that kind of traffic. Even a thousand downloads a day is a very big deal. If you're honest with yourself, and, you have a following, you can probably generate a 100 downloads a day, from loyal fans, for a few days! AND THEN????? Ampcast, and all the other sites rely on you...the lowly independent. What can you contribute? What kind of traffic hits your website? What are your artists contributing to total advertising revenue? How many warm bodies are you ading to the internet? What are your hits worth? Who knows? WElcome to the new dot.com reality. What are you worth? How valuable is your audience? Are you earning your current PfP in current sales? It's your call! ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #20
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-11-2000 08:43 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Uh, dond? The first 10 days of December at MP3.com show this: Number 1 artist: DoubleN Totals My.mp3 listens 765 mp3.com listens 133,748 payback $6,308.20 averaging this month, 13,375 listens a day! averaging $630.82 in payback income a day! How do they do it? Hell, I don't know. Seems like nobody ever heard of these guys. But, anyhow dond. Just because we can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. ------------------ [This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 12-11-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #21
dond Guru Posts: 184 |
posted 12-11-2000 09:53 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for dond Edit/Delete Message
Kenny, If you take the total number of music plays on MP3.com per month, and, divide it by the total number of songs housed on the site, what average number do you get? I got my info off their shareholder statement, and, my 100 download per day figure is very generous. Their average per song, and, average per artist statistics are dismal! Go look it up! Even Amway produces a better return then MP3.com! You can name maybe 200 artists with exceptional figures. There are thousands of others doing diddly squat. Not everyone can do well, but, when 95% of the suppliers can't, something is wrong with the system. The average P4P stats I saw show an average return of less then $11/artist per month, out of a million dollar base. What's right with that picture? Do 95% of the artists suck? ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #22
notesleb Guru Posts: 496 |
posted 12-12-2000 12:31 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for notesleb Edit/Delete Message
Interesting dond, I stopped paying attention to MP3.con's traffic a while back, those are telling figures. IP: Logged |
| #23
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1241 |
posted 12-12-2000 05:34 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Well, dond. My opinion is that they all suck. Except for me, of course. But then I can be rather ego centric. OK. Back to reality. Seems like everybody wants to get into equating traffic with sucking or not sucking. When the truth is? Quality generally does the least traffic. And always has. Compare the great artists and their sales versus "popular" music. Who sells more records? Kenny Wayne Shepherd or Muddy Waters? Luciano Pavarotti or Sonny Bono? Charlotte Church or Britney Spears? John Coltrane or Kenny G? ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad vertising. Hey, don't get me started. Anyhow, according to MP3.com stats, certain unknown artists have found a way (whatever the hell it is) to get monstrous download numbers. Even though the average is dismally low as you say. And they do this without any visible promotion method known to man. In fact, their numbers are so high? They eclipse the traffic of the major label household names that are now on MP3.com. Acts with videos and worldwide media airplay. Aw hell, dond. I don't want to argue with you about artist traffic. I think Mp3.com just makes up all the numbers anyway. The truth will come out one day. ------------------ IP: Logged |
.All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Post New Topic  |
Hop to: Go |
Contact Us | ListenSmart.com
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.41a
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.