Tweet
69
-
-
We really enjoy file sharing!Comment
-
a-ha!Comment
-
Bumpityperump!Comment
-
I am for downloading to sample music and look for the rare hard to find shit. At the same time, artists that I dig, and want to support, I will go out and buy their CD. If you support an artist, buy their album to support them.
The music industry, and I mean the BIG SHIT, the big 3 or 4, and Clear Channel and Viacom, have mostly promoted and dumped their millions in promotions into shit. The last major movement of Music as Art to the masses of people through the MAJORS was druing the late 80' up through the early 90's to maybe 95 or 96...
At the same time, I have no sympathy for the music industry at all...fuck em'(and I worked in it for a short time, and have many friends in it, or who were in it as well)....they have been raping the artists for decades, making 90% of the profits for merely acting as a credit card...yeah monopoly and power get abused because it is human nature to be a greedy talentless shit head....Comment
-
Yeah, here's a related article from a Toronto weekly. (It was the first time I'd thought about the shit-radio-leading to-filesharing connection, when I read it):
All we hear is radio ca-ca
Do you know JACK? Sure you do. The ads for Toronto's newest radio station are all over the subway: "Playing what we want" goes the slogan, with the station's logo bursting out of a jack-in-the-box, implying that the station's programmers are out of control! The posters list off what kind of crazy musical combinations you can expect: Tom Petty! Springsteen! The Cars! Meat Loaf! Now, proudly advertising Meat Loaf as a selling point in 2003 may constitute a bold, revolutionary act, but really, JACK FM is just the latest addition to a radio dial littered with microscopically focused niche stations boasting unintentionally ironic slogans that only draw attention to how rigid, formulaic and safe their playlists truly are.
JACK joins the likes of MIX 99 (whose mainstream-rock mix rarely veers more than a centimetre or two from the middle of the road), Q107 (whose definition of "Classic Rock" is flexible enough to include a regular rotation of Saga records), to the worst offender, 102.1 The Edge, whose conception of edgy music begins with the first Our Lady Peace album, ends with the latest Evanescence single, and wedges every last fake brow-pierced, phony-angst nü-metal mook into the sliver between. The irony is that JACK's former incarnation, KISS 92.5, while adhering to a top 40 format, managed to achieve something resembling true variety, bouncing from Eminem to Destiny's Child to Coldplay.
Now, for those of us who routinely seek musical guidance from college radio or CBC's Brave New Waves, and who spend more at Rotate This and Soundscapes than on food and shelter, the relentlessly uninspiring state of commercial radio is a topic as tired as the insincerity of televangelists. But as much as we are loath to admit it, radio is still an important cultural arbiter. For the casual music fan -- someone who buys maybe 10 CDs a year, simply based on liking something they heard on the radio or MuchMusic -- radio airplay represents validation, in the same way hipsters rely on New York or London to tell them what's cool. And more often than not, radio assumes the masses are brain-dead automatons incapable of appreciating anything beyond whatever narrowly defined genre parameters the station's corporate bosses deem most profitable.
The troubled state of the music industry is often portrayed as a battle between greedy major labels and unscrupulous music fans stealing music online. While the former portrays the latter's actions as cold-hearted theft, the question is rarely asked: did radio make them do it? The keys to any industry's growth are brand (in this case, band) loyalty and regeneration through the introduction of new products. The music industry is unique in that it relies on radio (instead of traditional advertising methods) to broadcast new-product information to consumers. Radio is failing them. As a result, those consumers have had to seek alternative outlets -- e.g., Kazaa -- to get that information.
Each week eye receives, on average, 75 CDs submitted for review, ranging from superstar acts like Radiohead down to indie techno artists burning beats off their laptops. This in itself is just a fraction of what's produced every week. Contrary to the music industry's doomsday prognostications, the actual amount of music being created has increased as the means of production (laptops, four-track recorders) and distribution (internet mail order, for example) have become more accessible.
Strangely, radio's response to this proliferation has been to become more conservative, and in doing so, it does a disservice to the music industry. Retro-minded stations like JACK and Q107 do nothing to promote the continued survival of the industry by playing songs we've heard a million times before from records we bought 20 years ago. CanCon regulations, initially devised to expose emerging homegrown talent, can now be satisfied by dropping the Hip or side one of 2112. And given that the careers of most Edge-endorsed alterna-rockers last about as long as their target listener's first sexual encounter, it's not exactly inspiring band loyalty among a new generation of music fans. Anyone remember Eve 6? Mudvayne? No wonder kids today would rather buy videogames.
We're not saying these stations should scrap their Zeppelin records and play nothing but godspeed you! black emperor, but there's no reason a Neil Young fan wouldn't appreciate The Flaming Lips, or a Coldplay fan wouldn't dig the emotional space-pop of Broken Social Scene. There's also no reason one of these stations couldn't just up and transform themselves into a station that could play both The Rolling Stones and The Constantines. As JACK (formerly KISS) and CHUM (formerly sports, formerly rock) have made abundantly clear, it takes very little time or thought to repackage.
Yes, radio is ultimately a business, concerned with the bottom line more than giving unknown artists exposure. But given the limited channels for quality new music on Toronto radio, soon these stations won't have any nostalgia left to sell.- eye magazine"What we've been doing, which is great and certainly cost saving, is I train in the sand pit in McDonald's. I do a few laps. I go through the tunnel a few times. The kids don't mind if I smoke. Plus, when I'm done, lunch is right there."- DLR 2003Comment
-
I appreciate your characterization of myself and my associates. We don't need your sympathy. I say, if you say, fuck us, how do you explain the indie labels and such who get ripped, probably much more than we do? I guess fuck them too..no wonder you didn't survive in the business. Yes, I know that was a cheap shot, but it was a counter to your cheap shot..Originally posted by DLR'sCock
At the same time, I have no sympathy for the music industry at all...fuck em'(and I worked in it for a short time, and have many friends in it, or who were in it as well)....they have been raping the artists for decades, making 90% of the profits for merely acting as a credit card...yeah monopoly and power get abused because it is human nature to be a greedy talentless shit head....
Comment
-
Well, there are two sides to every story, eh? I too have been involved in one way or another in the buisness since the late 70s.
The argument about Major Labels and their predatory practices do hold water. BUT, now due to the fact that if you buy a new computer, you can own a record company in a box, and the argument (while still valid) will not have such a drastic effect, as the labels no longer control distribution of product.
Anyone can get the most primitive sequencing software, and if they have any talent at all (whether it be musically, in business, or in marketing, they can distribute product to the masses. WITHOUT the narrow tunnel vision of the radio conglomerates and playlist consultants, and without the padded expense accounts built into recoupable advances and recording budgets.
If someone told me that I could sign a major label album deal, and owe $500,000 minimum to the label, with no guarantess they will even RELEASE the fucking thing, I would tell them to GET FUCKED!
My profit margin is going to be much greater if the public enjoys what I do WITHOUT the meddling talking heads at the "Major Conglomerates" (They are not labels any more, they are conglomerates).
The odds favor an independant anyway. Independent labels are more nimble, and work with limited budgets, forcing them to be creative when developing marketing strategies, etc.
The odds are against your album getting released if you sign to a major conglomerate. And of course, even if it does, then you have to see how radio accepts it. THEN you get to see if the public really likes it. This is, of course, if you have not signed any previous record deals, maybe have a following, but are an "unkown" artist.
So even if you do sign a major deal, the odds are you will get struck by lightning twice, die from an asteroid hitting the earth, and be eaten alive by a Great White shark in the middle of Death Valley (need I mention Hell freezing over?) before your album is ever heard on the radio at all.
Sure, there are always exceptions to every rule, but I do feel the major labels have been ripping consumers off as well as screwing their own artists since the existence of recorded music for sale.
In addition to the study mentioned above, the RIAA was trumpeting at this time last year how sales were down, when that was not true at all.
Here is the article....it is interesting reading:
This guy has a lot to say about the industry (though some stuff I feel is bullshit).
Last edited by Hardrock69; 03-25-2005, 02:10 AM.Comment
-
So, all that said, WHERE are all these magical bands who WOULD be so huge without our help? There are very few barriers to entry here and more bands than ever. You would think there would be a whole tide of great music, but in fact the opposite is true. Go figure.
If you look at a site like say Big Champagne, the top 10, 20 and 100 are all MAJOR Releases, not some indie bullshit. So what are people interested in really? Discovering new music my ass. 3 Billion downloads a month and probably 1/2 them are 50 cent.Comment
-
Yes out of all those releases, how many of them actually make money by Major Conglomerate accounting practices?
And how many artists will actually make unrecoupable earnings?
Not even as many as one might think.
It is not necessary for an indy label to even have a Top 200 album release for them to make a profit.
Certainly if they are a small label.
They have limited overhead, and can actually
make a profit for the artist as well as themselves (if the artist is not an idiot when it comes to business matters), whereas with a major label, the chances of the artist emerging with any money in the black are much less.
I never said these bands would be SO HUGE without your "help". I said they were more likely to have some money in their pocket, instead of more than likely becoming indentured servants of the Major Conglomerate machine, in debt like they never imagined.
And contrary to your opinion, there is a tide of great music out there. Sounds like standard major label BS to claim that unless a major conglomerate releases it, it does not exist.
Last edited by Hardrock69; 03-25-2005, 02:41 AM.Comment
-
Thats all fine and good. The point I'm trying to make is that FOR YEARS we have been accused of failing to push bands who WOULD be huge if we signed them. With all of these labels and means of distribution, where are they exactly?
Being that you are somewhat well educated on the business, you should know making money goes FAR beyond our accounting practices. OUt of 33k records released last year, only about 50 will make a substancial profit. Out of those, 20 will make enough money to sustain the rest.
Shouldn't the success rate be higher on non major label stuff, since we are so much of the problem?Comment
-
Hmmm Big Train, are you familiar with a band from Japan called the B'z? You should be since you're a record exec shithead.
They don't make shit music unlike all those fucking shit bands you promote. They especially started to take off AFTER THEY FUCKING LEFT THEIR LABEL AND STARTED THEIR OWN SO MORON'S WHO CAN'T EVEN PLAY A INSTRUMENT DON'T TELL THEM HOW TO MAKE MUSIC.
Let's see, having people such as Billy Sheehan, Shane Gaalas, Barry Sparks, etc etc coming in to drum and bass for them, now THAT is fucking marketing strategy.
Not this fucking promoting some ugly ass dipshit spoiled sister who think's shes punk shit.
Guess what? They made enough money to build a DISNEYLAND from their profits. Do they get played over and over on T.V?
No. But they do have the occassional commercial when a new CD is released. They barely even go on T.V. at all. But they Do get some exposure from that.
Do you see anyone from JAPAN complaining about downloads and shit?
No.
Why the fuck do you guys have to always promote SHITTY ass CDs. SOME FUCKING LOGIC YOU HAVE THERE. Why are you promoting fecal matter when you can be promoting diamonds?
Fuck, even the GOOD old Cds are getting hard to find. I can't even find fucking testament albums at tower records anymore. All they have is a best have album for sale.The name Sammy Hagar conjures up a variety of emotions from music fans--from hate to contempt, from disgust to revulsion.
-TheSmokingGun.comComment
-
Scat,
Your a dumb fuck who isn't even worth the time of day responding too.
That post is so stupid it would take all day to reply..Comment
-
Originally posted by Big Train
I appreciate your characterization of myself and my associates. We don't need your sympathy. I say, if you say, fuck us, how do you explain the indie labels and such who get ripped, probably much more than we do? I guess fuck them too..no wonder you didn't survive in the business. Yes, I know that was a cheap shot, but it was a counter to your cheap shot..
Didn't survive? No....Actually it was my choice to leave, it wasn't for me.
Well, you know what comes around goes around. If you're business was built on theft and ripping off the artists any time you can, then that shit comes back, and it has....unfortunately it has ramifications upon the artists...
I am for supporting the artists only. Any business that forces artists to give up 90% of the profits from the artists 100% effort for merely acting as a credit card...then fuck em'...
It's too bad about the indie labels, since they actually are more willing to support their artists....but I can only speak for myself and I buy the CD's of bands I dig, because I want to support the artist, and I do, I go to alot of shows, I buy merch, t-shirts etc...
But the simple fact is that the industry will have to adapt, and maybe hire some people that know good music, and maybe not be so concentrated on selling crap....But if the crap sells, who cares right? It's only about the duckets....$$$
God, I can just smell it....Comment
-
Originally posted by Hardrock69
Well, there are two sides to every story, eh? I too have been involved in one way or another in the buisness since the late 70s.
The argument about Major Labels and their predatory practices do hold water. BUT, now due to the fact that if you buy a new computer, you can own a record company in a box, and the argument (while still valid) will not have such a drastic effect, as the labels no longer control distribution of product.
Anyone can get the most primitive sequencing software, and if they have any talent at all (whether it be musically, in business, or in marketing, they can distribute product to the masses. WITHOUT the narrow tunnel vision of the radio conglomerates and playlist consultants, and without the padded expense accounts built into recoupable advances and recording budgets.
If someone told me that I could sign a major label album deal, and owe $500,000 minimum to the label, with no guarantess they will even RELEASE the fucking thing, I would tell them to GET FUCKED!
My profit margin is going to be much greater if the public enjoys what I do WITHOUT the meddling talking heads at the "Major Conglomerates" (They are not labels any more, they are conglomerates).
The odds favor an independant anyway. Independent labels are more nimble, and work with limited budgets, forcing them to be creative when developing marketing strategies, etc.
The odds are against your album getting released if you sign to a major conglomerate. And of course, even if it does, then you have to see how radio accepts it. THEN you get to see if the public really likes it. This is, of course, if you have not signed any previous record deals, maybe have a following, but are an "unkown" artist.
So even if you do sign a major deal, the odds are you will get struck by lightning twice, die from an asteroid hitting the earth, and be eaten alive by a Great White shark in the middle of Death Valley (need I mention Hell freezing over?) before your album is ever heard on the radio at all.
Sure, there are always exceptions to every rule, but I do feel the major labels have been ripping consumers off as well as screwing their own artists since the existence of recorded music for sale.
In addition to the study mentioned above, the RIAA was trumpeting at this time last year how sales were down, when that was not true at all.
Here is the article....it is interesting reading:
This guy has a lot to say about the industry (though some stuff I feel is bullshit).
http://www.mosesavalon.com/mosupposefr.htm
Agreed!Comment
Comment