You need to calm down and read.

My argument all along in this thread has been that Radiohead cannot be used as a good example because they have been popular for years and have been selling out around the world for years. They got that popularity through the marketing and help of a major label.

They will sell out every place they play no matter if they gave their last album away or not. They would sell out even if they had no new album.

My question still stands: Show me one act that has sold out stadiums world wide who's only avenue of promotion is via online? Don't give me an established act like NIN or Radiohead that has been huge for years then ditched their label and gave away their album. Give me someone who has done it on their own.

This will be interesting to see. In the next 5-10 years we could start seeing major acts born from the internet. We may not as well. I personally think that until the radio/TV model changes that internet will be the home of those acts that can make some money and sell some tickets, but that don't quit make it to that big level of stardom. A lot with music is simply the bands ability to put on a good live show and their willingness to tour non-stop and build up a fan base. Those that are willing to do that and can use the internet can find success.

No no... The CD wise the dude gets like $1 - and the assholes get the rest. So me paying $10 or whatever or a music CD is screwed up. Now when I pay for a DVD - I know the talent is making money, writers, a crew talent and people - far far far larger than the Music Industry costs..

If something costs more to make, I'm willing to pay more for it.. that's VERY easy to understand.

[QUOTE=kane;15710359]When you go to the movie theater your money isn't going directly to the writer, director or cast.

No theaters - ever now.. Period.

A new band - does not cost millions to make music for or market.. Music and Movies - Very different ball park. The smallest - cheapest movies are still more expensive than just about any music production, in cost.

How the people are paid out, or when.. it doesn't make a difference. That's business.


More people dig deep into music than you think. Canadians for example - my god them people are MAD about music -- ask any Canadian they are very proud of it.

I figure this is why the Industry is prob hurting the most - people are 'still looking.'



The Internet is quickly becoming the central Entertainment center for families. People are starting to turn to it first, then turn to the real world.

But time will only tell.. I do think it will happen.. It may take them a bit longer to get moving, but someone with some cash flow is bound to step up to the plate and show us all how it's done one day.

Some great info - I had no idea that it sucked so bad for them. No wonder they produce book after book after book... besides getting a name, I get that - but out of the huge group of books they produce, only a few are good - but now I understand why.

world wide tour no
but she did play a stadium
she is part japanese, has a good fan base there so she played in tokyo (given their population density) she was in a major stadium (60k)

it took U2 years to get to the point of doing a world tour, where every night they were playing to packed house in every country so it would be unreasonable to expect someone to match that instantly by internet promotion.

But that was not what you asked, you asked about someone who successfully played at the stadium level, given the conditions (japanese heritage, strong fan base in that country, high population density, limited engagement dates) she met your criteria.

In the future she may get to the britney spears level.


actually it has nothing to do with what i believe about downloading. and everything to do with weather the RIAA is telling the truth or not. They are claiming that downloader (in this case) has recieved no authorization from artist. Well if the artist says, it ok to share/download my music, that is in fact authorization.

I realize it is hoop the RIAA does not want to jump thru (finding out if the artist has ever authorized the sharing) before they file suit. But i believe they should, and i don't think admitting that they don't care, and that the RIAA is lying about no authorization thing is wrong.

so we both agree your consultancy analogy is bullshit good.



i don't scour the internet

i subscribe to mininova music catagory feed
and run a filter on it for my music preferences

http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?cat=5

it goes right into my torrent client, and automagically downloads all that music
i simply put the newest stuff on my ipod/zune/stereo and listen to it.
If i don't like the song, click delete, gone.

I guess it all depends on the band/music.

A small band or indy band can record an album, mix it and master it pretty cheaply. If you have the space for a studio you can buy all the stuff you need for about 20K and do it all yourself.

If it is a major act it will quickly reach big money. Jive records had about 8 million invested in Britney Spears before her first song was ever even on the radio. There is a great book called, "so you want to be a rock star." It is written by one of the guys that was in a band called Semisonic. It is a great insight into just how much money goes into marketing a band to the masses. You might be shocked. No it isn't that of movies because their are different mediums and have a lot of different expenses. To me it is just different forms of art and choosing a price point for one is kind of like saying, " I will 20K for this panting by this artist because it is a painting and took a lot of effort to make, but I will only pay 3K for this drawing because drawing is easier and takes less to make."


I know a lot of people do dig for music, it is just not the masses. The masses watch American Idol then buy the CD of the winner. The masses tune into TRL (before it was taken off the air) and buy the music of the videos they like. The masses listen to the popular radio stations. There are diggers, but they have nothing on the masses.

The Britney thing is a great example of HORRIBLE music forced on us by people willing to dump money into total shit until it makes it's money back. :)

I know it costs big money, but even if it costs 20, 50 or 100k or even a million.. It still doesn't even come close to the cost of a Movie.. well, most movies.

Or maybe if we look at movies they know will make it vs. singers they know will make it. Both big time... I don't have exact numbers but I'm pretty sure nobody boasts about the cost of making a Music CD or even the overall costs of the Music Videos...

Not like Movies at least.

Maybe she will. Maybe she won't. Again, my point is that U2 benefited from millions in promotion from Island records. It is going to be very difficult for the internet to match that type of ad machine.




See to me it is a slippery slope. For me a record label deal is a partnership. It is the artist that creates the music, but they have a partnership deal with the label to sell it. If the artist gives the okay to give the music away and the label doesn't should they still be able to?

I a way I still think my consulting business thought holds some water. My thought is that the owner of the business helped that person get to a level where they could then walk away and take many of the clients with them. Sure the business still has other clients and may be able to profit on the work that person had done for them in the past by reselling it, but what if that work was now available for free online? That business might not be the best analogy but look at it like it is a software company. The company helps a programmer get enough notoriety that they can walk away and work on their own and take many of the companies clients with them. They still have the software that the programmer made for them to sell, but what if the programmer then told everyone, "Just go here and download it for free?" Now you could argue the programmer is hurting the company.





While you may not spend a lot of time doing this, I would still venture to guess you spend more time than most. As I have argued before for most music is something of convenience so they listen it he car or at work or while doing the dishes. They don't put a lot of thought into seeking out new bands. Maybe I am dead wrong about this, but I think the masses don't care enough about music to look any further than their radio dial.

I would disagree. Most labels spend about 200-500K per video shoot and if they think an act is going to make it big they will often shoot 2-3 videos before the album even comes out. Add in a million plus to hire promoters to get you on the radio and the cost of flying the act anywhere and everywhere they can to promote it and it adds up really fast.

The thing about both industries is that there is no sure thing. You can make a movie with big name people and an idea you think will be a hit and it bombs and then you have a small movie come out of nowhere and do huge business. The same can be said for music.

Britney Spears is a great example, to me, of what the music industry has done wrong. They have gotten away from selling art and are selling a "product." She has fans and they love her. I don't like it, but millions do for whatever reason. That said, the success of Britney will allow that record label to sign a dozen other acts and try to develop them. Maybe they will be successful, but most of them will fail. It is that way in movies too. A movie does huge numbers and it helps support the dozen other movies that don't turn a profit.

In the end the costs are not the same, but they are different mediums. To distribute a movie you have to make a few thousand prints and get it in theaters. For music it is on the radio and people can "consume" it while driving down the road or walking on the treadmill. No they are not comparable when it comes to how much it costs to make them, but I guess it still boggles me why that should be relevant to how much you are willing to pay for it. To me art is art and the format of it shouldn't determine the price.

:thumbsup

The ignorance in this thread is mind boggling.

this doesn't change anything regarding what a faggot you are if you listen to radiohead...

Without record labels how would Radiohead had this much success over the last 10+ years? Radiohead is BEFORE the internet being mainstream.

The record labels do an incredible amount for the band and it costs an incredible amount of money.

Are The Rolling Stones broke?

In 10 years the internet has given bands the ability to cut out the record label.

and reach fans more easily.

The internet also created a easy way to pirate music and if you look at the NUMBERS THE SALES FIGURES.

The numbers have done nothing but go down the last 10 years.

What the fuck does that have to do with torrents and stealing music?

Dude this thread is not about "Is the internet a good marketing tool for bands" that is fucking obvious.

If the fans don't pay for the music.... HELLLLOOOOOOooo :1orglaugh

AFF ads painted on the sides of their tour bus :thumbsup

One Republic is really the only band to sell out stadiums thanks to the "Internet" and even then it wasn't until Timbaland and his label worked with them before they took off.

and their Fan base is mostly females.

FACT: Women pay for music.

You guys live in a Fantasy World were people are "Good" and only use torrents to "Try" and if they like it they buy.

You fuckers have your heads soo far up your asses it's not even funny and it's costing us all money.

thats awesome

i haven't bought an album in like 3 years :2 cents:

PS I only brought up the Stephen King issue because his experiment also showed that the internet (free to pay what you want people) were not supportive enough to have him finish a project and this includes his own core fans.
If someone who is known can not produce enough to justify project (not even his lifestyle, he was not expecting same results), then how in the hell often will an unknown pull it off.

Hence the whole damn radiohead could not do it before they were famous argument.

Are you slow to understand that if the studios didn't screw over the bands, that if they didn't force the bands hand on every issue, like piracy - which most bands don't have a problem with - because it makes them more money - the bands would stay the band wouldn't hate them for attacking the fans directly....

Why in hell would you stay with anyone that keeps burning your fans? Why would you support an Industry that is dieing because they will not listen to the bands - that is killing the entire Music Industry?

I understand what they are fighting for... it's not what the are fighting against.



Are you talking about all music sales, across everything or just the music industries sales of over priced cd's that the majority of the world was bitching the day CD's came out?

Because overall music 'sales' is far from being down... More bands are selling more music today than ever before in History. The amount of music sold is way up, now if income is down... well, sounds like something was over priced then - and that's how the market works..



~

I don't think its his fan base isn't supportive enough - I just don't think it's big enough and his ego played into that. For example, I knew what radiohead doing, like most of us. But I had no idea SK did this, I asked my Dad which is a SK fan, he had no idea.

The guy let his ego kick in, which he really has - and his marketing sucked balls.

Maybe it's just the Music aspect? I just don't see a book author packing stadiums around the world, hell.. even bars to the level as some local bands do.


But.. then again, some of these online book sales are rocking it. You own it, no hassles - you can set your prices, drop it based on age. So many mediums online you can cover, so many ways to market it, the exposure can almost be instant and it's endless, for sure. And some of these guys started to produce series with monthly subscriptions.. brilliant..


Stephen King must have sucked...

That could also be because the quality of what's been put out has steadily declined over the last 10 years too. The 90s had it going on whereas this decade has sucked balls for music.

I really do think each decade says that about the previous decade.

Well look - maybe it's just me but I started to see this some in the 90s and it snowballed this decade - record companies focusing less on getting talented/good artists and putting out quality albums and focusing more on getting MARKETABLE artists (i.e. hot chicks/guys or "radio friendly" music) and putting out 1-3 decent singles per album, not giving 2 shits about the rest of the album because people will buy the album based on the singles anyways. If record companies' sole goal wasn't how to best get people to pay $15-$20 for 1-3 songs, people might be more apt to buy albums vs. pirate them.

Sure, there's a lot of freeloaders that could care less about "supporting their bands" and happily download thousands of songs, loving them all and thinking "who gives a shit, I'm getting my shit for free, everyone else can just deal with it". But there are a lot of people that WILL buy albums if they know the band is good or feel the album might be good even if they can dl it all through torrents or hear it whenever they want on YouTube. But there's just less and less quality stuff out there that such people would want to buy.

Hell, Lonely Island is a fucking comedy act and is putting out better songs than most legitimate artists right now - THAT is sad.

but U2 actually pays for that millions of promotion out of their share of the album sales. When a new band comes up thru the ranks island records mails the U2 fans to tell them about, and cross promotes those new bands as the under card to U2 concerts. The reality is that in the future, bands like U2 will sell that "promotion" to the smaller bands directly. The only difference it will be on a CPA bases not you give up 90% strong arm bases.




why not, the copyright is owned by the artist, it only licienced for distribution thru the normal channel to the record company. The bit torrent distribution is just another distribution channel that the record company doesn't want to use, but would benefit the artist if it was used.

They should have a right to licience it to that distribution channel if they want too.

but the point for you analogy to be vaild it would have to be software code that was written by the programmer himself. it licienced for sale in retail stores, but he then decides to open source it. The original company made a profit from the term of the contract and now all the money they are getting is gravy.

The company can adapt sell support for the software, compete because they have all the experience in previously supporting it. or it can bitch about it.






but the point is that discovering music for me is as simple as turning a switch on a radio. Every moring i have gigs of new music to listen too, i sync my zune, android phone, with that days collection and play brand new music.

i basically have a radio station of music, matching my musical tastes playing commercial free. If i like a song i keep it, if not it good, i delete it it disappears from the list and when i sync back up to my computer it disappears from the folder too.

And the record company put those millions into them up front with no guarantee of any payback. If the band failed and doesn't sell any records the record label doesn't get that money back and they eat the loss. Again, nobody forces anyone to sign a record deal. If you want to be a huge rock star and you want to use the multi-million dollar marketing machine they have you are free to do so and you know what you are getting into. If you don't want to, you don't have to.





You are correct... as long as they are not under contract with the record label. If they leave the label, as Radiohead did, they can and should be allowed do to whatever they want with their new music. If that means give it away for free, so be it. If it means selling CD's for $100 each, that is fine too.

When I have a problem with it is when the record label puts up the money to pay for the recording, promotion and distribution of the album then the band just tells people to download it for free and not pay. They are knowingly trying to cut the label out by doing that. If they want to give it away for free they shouldn't be taking the advances they get and letting the label pick up the check on the recording, distribution and promotion costs. Yes, I know they have to pay that money back to the label, but the label puts the money up in advance. If the album/band fails the label loses that money. It is no different than investing in a business. If the business succeeds you get your money back plus profit. If the business fails you may lose everything you have put into it.


Maybe my analogy software isn't correct. In the end this is how I see it playing out in some cases. A label helps an act become hugely famous and successful. The act records 4-5 albums for the label and all is fine. The act then leaves the label at the end of the contract and starts giving away its new music online. No problem. If they want to give away their new stuff, so be it. The act owns the publishing to all their music so the label gets little or nothing from radio play and licensing of the older songs. This leaves the label with the option of still selling the older records. That is fine. That is the deal. To me it undermines the label when the artist then goes out and encourages people to download all of their stuff. The original agreement was they (the label) gets to sell the old records, but the band is undermining that by encouraging fans to just download them. I know the label has already profited from the sales of the records, but the agreement is they still get to sell the old stuff and they should be allowed to defend that agreement if they want to.








Again, I say you are the exception. The average person discovers new music by switching the radio station. Maybe in 5-10 years that will change, but for now that is just how it is. It is easy for you, but I know this much, I know a lot of people who listen to music some even consider themselves real fans of music and you are the only person I have heard of doing this. Maybe you are part of a growing trend, but you are still an exception to the rule.

but if i hit, meet the terms of my 5 year deal, should i not have a right to monetize my generated fame. I paid the record company back out of my share, and they got to keep 90% to compensate them for all the other failures.






the record companies are really not taking any risk, they are leveraging their monopoly to squeeze profits out of the system.

If the band succeeds they take 90% off the top, and get paid back in full from the artist 10%
if the band fails they still take 90% which blunts their cost.
the record company gets to basically keep 100% of the revenue until the artist pay back all production cost plus their advance.
so break even point is really quite low.

the artist who fail are in an even worse spot, because they no longer make money of their old music and they lose the support. So both side are taking a major risk.

well no the agreement is to tell the old stuff thru the retail channels. anything else would represent an anti-trust level monopoly action.

If you licienced your stuff to a dvd for sale, and then licienced it to the web. The dvd guys saying we have a right to sell, you are now creating competition for us on the web.

You should have a right to do that.







but that the point, it can never be a growing trend if the record companies are allowed blindly and deliberately lie, claiming that the sharing is not authorized by anyone in the creation cycle. When the artist themselves say they don't care/want it to be shared.

Yes, I have said all along if the band meets the terms of the contract and decides to leave they should be allowed to go on and do whatever they want.







Both sides are risking something, but the label is risking actual cash, the band is risking a potential success.

If you are in a band and the label signs you and they put millions into getting your record recorded and distributed and promoting you that is real risk. That is millions out of their pocket and if you fail they spent that money on nothing.

yes they do take the cost out of your commissions until they are paid back and you can argue if that is fair or not. Again, nobody is forcing your to sign with them, you are free to do whatever you like. But if your band fails and fails big the label could lose millions so they are taking a risk any time they sign a band that they are putting a lot of money into.


Forget DVD sales. My argument was that the agreement, as you say, was to sell CDs through retail channels. If you are on my label and record 5 albums for me then at the end of the contract you leave, that is fine. I still get to sell your old albums in stores. But if you go out and tell everyone to just download your old albums online instead of buying them, that is hurting my ability to sell them.

including giving their fans permission to download all their stuff?



i am not saying it unfair, i am simply pointing out that there is no downside risk for the record company. If you don't believe me, find one launched artist that has lost a million dollars (your number not mine) for the failed launch.

Record companies front cost is the advance and the recording time, the average markup on the recording time is 100%. The test launch is going to be small, and with itunes now in the picture, allowing them to test launch a single at a time, with NO UPFRONT COST. they pretty much know which bands they have to cut their losses on.




they are telling their fans that it ok to download their stuff, so what, mp3 quality is less then what could be bought on the cd. the old masters have life well beyond just as the bands music, dvd that layered all the different tracks, behind the scene photage, instremental tracks for karoke..... an let not forget about actually leveraging the bit torrent to promote their next big thing, by cross recomendation. There is tons of money to be made.

Even if there wasn't the record companies deal already paid them in full for the establish artist.

The ultimate point is should an artist have a right to give their fans permission to download their stuff after they have met the term of their contract.

You can't say it ok, and then complain about the next.

Either they do have a right to do anything they want (your first statement) or they don't.

No. They should be allowed to give away anything new that they make, but the old stuff is still for sale in retail by the label so they should not be allowed to give fans permission to download that for free.



The modern era does allow them to test the market and see what happens before they put a big launch on an artist. Another tactic they use is having an artist guest on an established artists record and see what kind of reaction they get.

Finding the failed bands would not be easy because many of them are signed, record and never get released then are cut from the contract and nobody ever hears of them.

Here is one example I know of for sure from my past. The band was a local Portland band named Hazel. They had a couple of records out on a small indy label and were starting to build up a fan base. Elecktra records signs them. They get an 800K advance. They go into the studio and record the album. The studio cost ran in the area of about 75K. They hand the record into the label and the label hated it. They wanted a few more songs so the label pays for them to go back and record a few more songs and they don't like those either. This band was kind of a alt.rock band and clearly the label thought they could mold them into something more pop. After much arguing the the label dropped them. The label agreed to let them keep the record and do with it as they pleased. As per the contract they had to pay back 50% of the advance. So the label spent around 475K on them in advance and recording costs and never earned a penny.





you cant be naive enough to think that most people will download an album online then listen to it and say, "oh, the quality isn't as good as the CD so I will go buy the CD." There is money to be made yes, but it is a give and take. The label provided the means to make this music so they should be allowed to have a say in how it is marketed and sold. If there is that much money to be made, the labels and the artists will find a common ground and produce the content.

My original statement still stands. If the satisfy their contract (part of which allows the labels to retain retail rights to their old CDs) they should be allowed to give away any NEW music or content they create. If they tell the fans to just download the old stuff from a torrent site they are harming the potential sales that the label has a right to and they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

We're already awash in garbage music, and mostly because of the big labels not wanting to go into the hassle of working with real talents. They just want to make money by selling a "product", not music. And to use some "technology", best of all a computer program, to get that product done that phases out a real talent that takes too much time to grow and is too difficult to deal with.

I'd shell out $15 any day for an album the "Dark Side of the Moon" quality, but I will not pay even $1 for those one-hit wonders' albums simply because I appreciate my time and hate listening to the garbage music. I wouldn't even download it for free, because for me I'd either listen for quality music or wouldn't listen for anything at all.

In nowadays world, any business should have a compelling reason to exist. For big labels it could be that they scout for real talents (which was what they were actually doing in the past), help them grow and promote them to the public. That's something that is worth asking to get paid for. But it is painfully obvious that they're in here just for money and do not care about music at all, that's why they gain no public support of their efforts to protect their business. Although maybe their claims are at least half legitimate, and they have contractual rights to the music that gets distributed now free online - their "business" is not bringing anything better to the world and people tend to think of $15/CD as an unfair tax that goes to those useless "suits".

The music labels are very much to blame for the problem they are in right now. I have said all along that they used to be in the art business. They used to develop acts and really promote talent. Then the fast money started coming in and they got into the "product" business. It is mainly why the singles business has taken off. People were sick of paying $15 for a CD that had 1 or 2 good songs on it and the rest was crap. Now they can just pay a couple of bucks for the songs they like. In the past people had no choice. If you wanted a song you had to plunk down and buy the CD. Now you don't and you can just buy the single. The labels built that mistrust and are now paying for it.


Here is my argument:

The labels, in a way do act as a filter of sorts. Sure, they put out a bunch of crap, but it takes a certain amount of dedication to get that crap out on the airwaves and into the peoples ears and hands. With that it narrows down your choices and that isn't always a bad thing. When I wrote for a music magazine I used to get 30-50 CDs a week from various record labels hoping that I would review them or write about them. If I got 50 CDs 45 of them were garbage. The songs sucks. The bands couldn't play very well and there is a reason those guys are now working construction. Everyone who ever picked up a guitar or learned a bass line or a few chords on the piano are net meant to be pro musicians. They can have fun and play a little but, but they just are not pros. The labels help to at least filter out a bunch of those people. In the end developing an act is expensive and often those quality acts don't sell really large amount of albums. The labels need acts like Britney Spears and NSync in order allow them to develop a lesser known band and give them a chance to grow and develop an audience. Also, while I am not a fan of Britney or NSync million worldwide have bought their CDs and have paid to go see them in concert so there is a market for that music.

Sure, there are good acts that get passed over and never get the due they deserve, I won't deny that. If there is no filter when you go to your local music store there would be thousands of CDs by thousands of bands that you never heard of. How many of them are you going to just pay for and try? If it is all online then there would be maybe even more to pick through. How much drek are you willing to sift through to find something you like?

The labels are not the be all end all and I know they screw people over, but I think the do serve a purpose and for the casual music fan they are a good thing. If you are a hardcore music fan that likes to dig and look for different acts there is plenty of options for those people as well.

so you want the label to have more power then the contract grants them.

going back to the dvd example
look at the tv show sarah conner the terminitor chronicles
the tv show airs on fox, is sold on itunes per episode and sold on dvd by warner bros home.
Three different distribution companies who all pay C2 for the licienced right to distribute in their channel.

What you are saying is the equivelent to allowing fox to sue, itunes and warner bros home for copyright infringement because they marketed the show first.

Those streams compete against each other

Having an artist "legalize" the bit torrent distribution channel by giving permission is exactly the same as C2 legalizing the DVD distribution channel by using a competing company.


but that doesn't happen any more, contract have a buy out earlier
record companies test market songs at the single level using itunes.
so your talking about much smaller advances, and much less recording time spent, before the work get tested.

That the point i am making, and you are ignoring. The downside risk is getting smaller and smaller for the record company.




please if the fox could find a way to force C2 to licience DVD sales to their distribution arm, so the could make the most money they would do it.

Your arguement falls into the same catagory, fox could say they spent millions branding and building an audience for the show with their tv spots. Just like the record companies in your example they could re run the shows on fox on demand. Say that DVD sales reduce their profits from the reruns and attempt to stop them is just as legitimate as your record studio example.

The record companies are not entitled to maximize profits by stopping other licienced (by the artist giving permission) competitive streams.


the record company is not Entitled to zero competition from competing technological distributions just like fox is not entitled to zero competition from dvd sales.

That is obviously a valid argument, I was just stating to the fact that this filter is getting worse by day. People who view music solely as a "product" just cannot be a good filter. If they got new Led Zeppelin and Abba as their sales pitch that helps developing lesser known bands, I really doubt the world would be bitching that much about their business practices. But they got themselves Britney Spears and NSync and that just doesn't fly anymore. I used to buy almost everything that was on the rach shack - not doing that anymore, and not because I'm out of money or because I can download it for free. It just sucks, that's the sole reason for it. So much for a filter :)

I believe that big labels would rather extinct than go back to their filtering business - in theory, they can change, but I do not see how the back transformation is possibe. Where they'd get people who have a taste for the good music and can work with real talent. They're all gone now, only suits left who got a taste of making money in the music business without having to deal with the actual music - just a PC generated tune and a monkey singer + 10mil for promotion and here we go.

I agree completely that the filtering system is necessary, but I do not agree that big labels are up to the task nowadays. Quite contrary, they're themselves the reason why the filtering system is necessary. I used to trust their filtering system - as I have already stated, I used to grab about anything that was on the rack shack because I knew there will be a quality product. I may not like it eventually, but quality product is a quality product - you may not like it but you do not feel being ripped off when you bought it. But it got worse and worse until I stopped buying new CDs completely. I was ready to pay for the filtering system - and I used to regard it as such - but it just doesn't work anymore, for me at least. Do not trust their rack shack promos anymore. So why should I pay them at all if they're not doing their job of finding good music and bringing it to my attention? Yes they're still filter of a sort because Britney is still better than Joe's Garage band, but that filter is not what it used to be and already got to the point where it is not worth paying for in my eyes.

They're not a useful filter anymore. They're just "business" that has no compelling reason to exist and is desperately trying defend it's right to sell me something I'd have no choice but buy. From what it looks like, music has grown to be an annoying factor for them that just stands in a way of getting more and more money - they'd better lobby some bill that orders everybody to simply send them a $150 check every month.

What will be a new filtering system, I don't know, there's plenty of room for speculations. Maybe community based websites, maybe something else.

You can't use the DVD argument here because it is two different things. Fox created SC. They own it. They pay the writers, directors, actors and crew to be in it. They have all the rights to it. If they want to license it, no problem they own it and they want capitalize on it. There is no partnership. There is no collaboration. The studio owned everything from minute one. With music it is often a partnership. The artist creates the music and the label promotes and sells it so there is the chance that the two will eventually part ways and both now have interest to protect. If the entire crew and cast of SC quit tomorrow, Fox still owns the show and the cast and crew have no say in what happens with it.

For me it all comes down to the contract. You can't say the labels want more power than the contracts gives them because every contract is different. If the label retains the right to sell the old CDs on a retail level even after the act leaves the label then the act shouldn't be allowed to do things that could potentially hurt those sales. That is all I am saying. I'm not saying the labels should have infinite power, but if the contract allows them to sell on a retail level then that should be protected in some way.




I agree the modern technology does help reduce risks but my example above happens more often then you might think.

Another example. A guy named Shaun Mullins. He started his own record label, recorded his own albums and pretty much ran everything himself. He built up an audience by touring non-stop and was made a living playing small clubs and selling some records. He writes a song called Lullaby. Hi manager hears it and thinks it is a hit. This guy is more of storyteller than a pop song writer, but this song is catchy and has hit written all over it. He and Mullins decide to pursue a major label deal with this song. The song is a hot item. Several executives hear it and like it and they all think it is a hit. Mullins is in a good position because the labels now want him, but he doesn't need them. He ends up getting more than a million dollars in advance. The list goes on Pearl Jam got a huge advance. The contract/advance Nirvana got is still an industry standard. Yes, things like downloads, itunes and Myspace help to reduce the risk a label takes and it helps to test the market, but the label does take risks. Music goes in stages. When Britney spears hit, every label in the world went out and signed a good looking girl singer and many of them overpaid her and lost money. Now the emo/skater rock thing is hot and every label is trying to sign the new fall out boy or AFI and most of them will fail and lose money for the label. I was in the northwest right when the "grunge" sound with Pearl Jam and Nirvana exploded. I saw bands that had only ever played 2-3 live shows but had a decent demo get six figure advances because they had a sound the labels were looking for and that sound was hot so the labels wanted to cash in.

Lets just say for example an artist has a song the label thinks will be a hit. They sign him, release the song on itunes and make him a myspace. The song ends up selling around 500,000 copies and gets a ton of listens on myspace. Fantastic. It is a huge hit. The label gets what, about 50-75 cents per song sold. So even at 75 cents per song sold they have made around 350K. They now put the guy in the studio to record a record, pay to make a couple of videos and crank up the promotion machine. That is going to cost far more than the 350K that they got from the sale of the song. There is a better chance that the CD will sell because the guy already has a hit song, but it is still a risk. The public is fickle. If it took 3-6 months from the time the single hit until the CD hit the guy may not be hot anymore. He may not have another hit song on the album. The public might have changed and moved on. There are a lot of factors that go into it. The musical landscape is littered with the bodies of one hit wonders.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the labels are risking everything they have when they put an artist out there. This is their business and they know it is a gamble. It just seems to me like you think it is no gamble at all and there is no chance they could lose money and I'm trying to point out that that is not the case.




Again I say it is all in the contract and again you can't compare a TV show and a music CD. With a music CD they give away a few songs (the singles) they sell them on itunes or often give them away for free on the artists sites. You can also hear them for free in the videos or on the radio and they do this in hopes you will buy the CD. The TV show was free to start with. If you have a TV and an antenna you could watch the show for free. All they were trying to sell you is commercial time. They hope you watch the commercials during the show. If they make more money beyond that, great. Selling the shows on itunes and on DVD and on demand or anywhere else is all gravy. With music the label wants to sell you the CD right from the start so the two are not comparable. A more comparable thing would be a movie that gets a theatrical release. They put in in the theater then want to sell you it on DVD or pay per view. They also want to sell it to cable and TV and things like that. So you might argue if the movie comes out on DVD and pay per view at the same time the pay per view is hurting the DVD sales. Or if it comes out on HBO it is hurting the DVD sales. But those things are all times. Those that wanted it first paid for it in the theater. Then people bought or rented the DVD. Those that were not in a hurry to see it wait for HBO so the previous revenue streams had all but dried up when they open up a new one.

I have never said that the label should be allowed to cut off any and all future revenue streams. I have said that if they retain the rights to sell the CD on a retail level they should get the chance to protect that right. By encouraging fans to just download the CDs for free the artist is potentially damaging the label. If the artist owns the publishing to their music they are free to license it to TV shows, commercials, games whatever. If they want to give away every new song they write in the future they should be free to do that. But they shouldn't be allowed to purposely damage the label by telling fans not to buy the CD, but to instead just download it.

Much of this I agree with. It used to be that if a band got a record into a big store it was probably pretty good. That is not the case now. I also agree that as the internet is used more and more to promote acts and seller unknown acts music a filter of some sort will need to be in place for it to be successful.

As I have said before most music fans are casual listeners. Whatever is on the radio is fine with them. For the more intense fans even most of the radio sucks these days. We could end up in a situation where there are so many acts out there online that just sifting through them could be a full time job and great acts get lost in the shuffle. What we will possibly see is a new form of "big label" where those that are able figure out the best way of marketing themselves online get success and those that can't/don't do not. The best bands may not rise to the top, just the ones that can get views on their site and downloads of their songs.

i am well aware of the liciencing relationship for SC, which obviously you are not.
SC was created by a company called C2. it was licienced to fox thru standard first distribution deal. While the liciencing fees did fund the production and part of fox lots were used in the filming it still is a C2 production. So you are dead wrong. The analogy fits really well.

That being said, record companies have to be very careful what they put in their contracts, as you pointed out the ONLY way to get to the mega star level of fame is to sign with a record company, that makes them a monopoly and anything that locks an artist out of the marketplace/restrict their actions significantly after the contract is done, could face very severe anti-trust sanctions (see the mpaa screener ban)


unless the contract explictly prevents the artist from giving away, authorizing the non commercial gifting of their music (outside the scope of the record companies exclusive distribution rights) you are demanding that they be given rights not defined in the contract.

Given the anti-trust liability, i am absolutely certain that no such declaration exists in any contract of any artist on the record companies books.




again the key is the contract
and given the anti-trust implications of having such a lock out clause in a contract, i am certain radio head does not have such a clause.

in fact given the amount of time between when they had a studio contract and themselves being self produced the technology that studio is trying to sue didn't even exist in the marketplace to consider.

Ok. I'm wrong about SC.
You would be surprised at what goes into a record contract. Some artists sign away all publishing rights and just about every other right they have when they sign a record deal. There are many acts out there these days that had some hit records and are now broke because they had bad deals.

A record company is not a monopoly. If there was only one company that would be different, but there are many different records labels. You can sign, or not sign, with any number of them. If there was only one record label then it would be a monopoly for sure, but there are many to choose from.

The record labels don't own the radio stations (well, I think some of them may own a few now) nor do they own companies like MTV and VH1 and other media outlets. They simply have access to them.




Again you would be shocked what is in these contracts because unless the artist sues the label can and will get away with it and most artists don't sue.





I have said a million times Radiohead is a different story than many bands. They started small and built up a career for themselves so they were able to dictate more of the terms of their old contracts and walk away from it when they did.

Current new acts may not have that freedom.

publishing rights, not gifting rights. As for seeing the contracts yes i am aware of them. One of the future projects (seekingsongs.com) is designed to work within the restrictions of the contracts. The hoops we had to jump thru to create a bit torrent base alternative to the record label, that would allow artist to leverage was insane. But it is possible


1. there is a lot more vertical intergration than you realize (as the viacomm vs youtube case proves)
2. RIAA is a collective trade body, which by its structure is an oligopoly. It grants it members a monopoly power, and when their decisions mirror each other, it is under the law as if they were a single legal entity.

Contract changes that would in fact eliminate the right of the artist to authorize bit torrent sharing (non commercial distribution) of their work would in fact be sherman anti trust violations. again from the seekingsongs project.



again, the limits of the contract are bound by the sherman anti-trust laws.

I suggest you look up the MPAA screener ban

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4730.cfm

record companies thru their representation of the RIAA face a similar problem. Given the fact that the RIAA is in fact the one procecuting this "pirate" such a uniform dictate from the group would have the same anti trust implications as the MPAA screener ban.

Especially because the RIAA is suppose to represent both the rights of the artist and the record companies without prejudice to either party.

or they could just do what radio head is doing in this case, explictly testify that they authorized the sharing, and cut the legs out from under the RIAA case.

publishing rights VS gifting rights? Please. This makes it sound like you are grabbing for straws. I still stand by my original statement. If the agreement with the label is that they get to sell the old CDs in the retail market and the artist does something to potentially hurt the labels ability to sell those CDs the label should have some recourse to protect itself. If the artist wants to sell the songs on itunes or license them to streaming services like Rhapsody or Napster fine. At least there they have a price attached to them and the label can adjust their pricing of the CDs to compete, but when the artist just wants to go give it away they can no longer compete. Price Vs Free is not a competition.




This is my understanding of a monopoly: A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service. In the absence of government intervention, a monopoly is free to set any price it chooses and will usually set the price that yields the largest possible profit.

By that definition large record labels and the RIAA are not a monopoly. There are other options. A person can use the internet or create their own record label and use that to distribute their music. You have gone to great lengths in this thread to show any number of acts who are using non-record label techniques to get their music out there and make money off of it. You yourself are creating an alternative to the big label system. A person could record an album and go from radio station to radio station talking to the program managers and trying to get it on the air. A person could use pay for play options with a radio station. There are other options a person can do on their own without the help of any record label to get themselves noticed. Musicians have been doing it forever and will always do it.

Of course most of these people are using these techniques as a way of getting the attention of the major labels, but that isn't the point, the point is they can and do distribute their music.

The RIAA is a recording industry trade group. So if they are a monopoly is then every union a monopoly? Is the United Auto Workers? If you're a car manufacturer and don't negotiate with UAW they strike and could cost your company millions in lost work. If you try to go outside them they will do whatever they can to obstruct it.


The RIAA and MPAA are trying to fight pirating. Maybe they are not going about it the best way they could and maybe they need to rethink their strategy, but I don't think they are purposely trying to oppress their members. If Radiohead wants to testify that they don't care if this kid downloads their music, great. If the kid wins, that is fine by me. But if Radiohead's old record label then decides to go after them for potential lost sales or breech of contract (again depending on what their old contract said) they should not be surprised.

In the end most people use torrents to get free copies of movies and CDs. you can kid yourself all day long that it is fair use or that it is okay. You can argue the technicalities of bit torrent sharing, but the reality is that people are not getting back up copies of CDs or movies that they have bought. They are not downloading to replace a damaged or lost copy. They want something for free and the torrent sites offer it to them. Go to any torrent site that lists the top 10 movie downloads for that week and in any given week at least half of those movies are going to be movies that are still only available in theaters. That is getting something for free, not timeshifting your already owned content. The MPAA and the RIAA are trying to fight this and that should be their right. Maybe there is better ways of doing it, but that is something they need to figure out for themselves.

Maybe there are artists who don't want their stuff downloaded for free but they fear if they speak out they will get bashed by the fans so they let the RIAA do the dirty work. I'm pretty sure there are more than just a few of those types out there.

I understand that often acts get screwed by the major labels. But if you want to see acts get fucked over just allow torrents to run rampant with no stopping them. We are already seeing bands that are signing over part of their merchandise, publishing and touring incomes to the labels because the label knows when they release the album there is going to be a ton of people who just download it for free. Maybe they could monetize these bit torrent streams. That, again, it is up to them to do that. Just as it is up to the act to decide if they want to sign with a major label it is up to that label to decide how they want to market it. If the act wants a say in the marketing, they need to state that when they sign and make sure it is in the contract. Maybe you should offer your services to the labels. Maybe once you show them the way they will have a change of heart. In the past artists got screwed on royalties but made good money through publishing and touring. In the future these artists are going to get screwed on royalties, publishing, touring and many other things as the labels try to deal with the rampant downloading of the music.

Maybe one day the internet will overtake the major label system and all of this arguing will be moot. Bands will just all give their music away for free in hopes of cashing in on other revenue streams or they will determine a way cash in on the downloading of their music.

Lastly I ask this: Is it too much to ask for people to behave responsibly? If the label has a contract with an artist to sell its old CDs at the retail level even after the artists has left the label is it too much to ask for the artist to not sabotage that and respect the agreement? Maybe they don't like the deal, but they made it and they agreed to it so they should honor it.