Tom Petty on Corporate Radio, Record Companies, and TV studios (a VERY good read)

[MrBond]

Saw this on Fark

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=16913&cf=399

 

[ElFenix]

meanwhile christina agular is plastered all over the article

 

[aircooled]

It's ridiculous to make people pay twenty dollars for a CD
"It's funny how the music industry is enraged about the Internet and the way things are copied without being paid for. But you know why people steal the music? Because they can't afford the music. I'm not condoning downloading music for free. I don't think that's really fair, but I understand it. If you brought CD prices back down to $8.98, you would solve a lot of the industry's problems. You are already seeing it a little -- the White Stripes albums selling for $9.99. Everyone still makes a healthy profit; it might get the music business back on its feet."

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
meanwhile christina agular is plastered all over the article

I agree... The Tom Petty article quotes:

Only a sick culture would sexualize young girls
"It's disgusting. It's not just pop music, it's fashion, it's TV, it's advertising, it's every element of our culture. Young women are not being respected, children aren't being respected. Why are we creating a nation of child molesters? Could it be that we're dressing up nine-year-old women to look sexy? And even if we're wrong, let's not do it anyway. I really don't put it past these advertising people to say, 'Well, look, we made a lot of money when we brought the nine-year-old out and made her look like a hooker. Let's do it again.' "

and it's right next to an ad with Cristina Agulara, just her long hair covering her boobs... (dont get me wrong, I like the pic, it's just kinda ironic) ;-)

 

[MrBond]

For what it's worth, she is 21. But she's got lots of little girls looking up to her.

I think it'd be interesting if someone conducted an anonymous, nationwide poll of people to find out how many were actually turned on by underaged children. The results would be staggering, and make a lot of people (myself included) sick.

 

[polypterus]

Even more ironic is the fact Tom Petty's new record is on Warner Bros.

I agree with what he's saying, but he needs to walk the walk.

dc

 

[GTaudiophile]

Good read. My respect for Petty just went up a few notches. I've always liked his music.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dougcio
Even more ironic is the fact Tom Petty's new record is on Warner Bros.

I agree with what he's saying, but he needs to walk the walk.

dc

Ever hear of a thing called a contract? What's Petty supposed to do anyway, sign with an indie lable that won't be able to distribute the record worth a crap? Remember that most Petty fans are just going to do what my father does and go to Best Buy for CDs. Also, it's not Petty's fault that Rolling Stone put Christina's pics all over his interview page.

I can't believe that radio stations are banning "The Last DJ". They're all high and mighty about "artistic freedom" when they play crap with swearing in it, but heaven forbid they play a song that criticizes them.

ZV

 

[tcsenter]

(Andy Rooney imitation)

"Ever wonder why top billed artists raking in lots of money are never the ones to criticize the music industry; instead, its always formerly top-billed artists who are now having trouble selling records?"

If you brought CD prices back down to $8.98, you would solve a lot of the industry's problems. You are already seeing it a little -- the White Stripes albums selling for $9.99. Everyone still makes a healthy profit; it might get the music business back on its feet."

Good grief....$8.98 for a CD? What the hell year does he think this is....1982?

I was paying $8.98 for newly released albums on CASSETTE TAPE in 1986, CD's were always $2 - $3 more than cassette. Of course, I couldn't afford a new album every week at $8.98, either, given that I was only 15 years old in 1986. There were always a dozen or more albums I WANTED but couldn't afford at any given time, so did I steal them because I couldn't afford them?

THAT is the ONLY difference between then and now. Stealing the music involved a risk I and most other kids weren't willing to take, getting caught and prosecuted. But now that you can steal music from the safety and security of your bedroom, everyone can do it. lol!

 

[bubbadu]

thanks!!! i am working on my anti-RIAA paper and this definlty helps!

-Bubbadu

 

[pulse8]

I was paying $8.98 for newly released albums on CASSETTE TAPE in 1986, CD's were always $2 - $3 more than cassette. Of course, I couldn't afford a new album every week at $8.98, either, given that I was only 16 years old in 1985. There were always a dozen or more albums I WANTED but couldn't afford at any given time, so did I steal them because I couldn't afford them?

Another wonderful post by you.

Just because tapes were $8.98 in 1985 what makes you think that CDs shouldn't be $8.98 now? Are we supposed to charge the same price for new technology for the duration that the technology lasts in society regardless of how cheap it gets to make? Should we all still be paying $5000 for new computers, too?

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: dougcio
Even more ironic is the fact Tom Petty's new record is on Warner Bros.

I agree with what he's saying, but he needs to walk the walk.

dc

have you ever heard it is easy to change things from the inside than standing outside?

Not saying he will be able to change anything but at least he is voicing his disgust and I happen to agree with most of it. I am far from a hippie. I consider myself a libertarian but the music industry has gotten out of hand with it's strong arm tactics. I definately don't want any laws to fix the problem. I think hitting them in the wallet is the best way but they have such deep pockets it almost seems to make no difference.

Tom Petty is using WB to get his voice out. At least someone is doing it. I still think that his concert ticket prices are still priced very high. I usually only go to local band's shows where I can get in for less than $9. The money hasn't corrupted these guys either and when I do buy a cd I know that the money is going to the artist not some CEO of the record label.

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
(Andy Rooney imitation)"Ever wonder why top billed artists raking in lots of money are never the ones to criticize the music industry; instead, its always formerly top-billed artists who are now having trouble selling records?"

Just because they don't play Tom Petty on MTV doesn't mean he's having trouble selling records. He's got a TON of older fans still buying his music. If anything, his music is probably bought more then downloaded, because he attracts older fans who may not be as tech savvy as the kids.

The banning of "the last dj" from radio stations really bothers me. This is actually the second time I've seen that happen. After 9/11, clear channel banned a TON of songs from airplay because they deemed them "unsensitive". I don't know if that ban has been lifted, because I don't listen to clear channel owned stations. What's to stop them from deciding some band goes against what they believe in and banning all their music?

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: pulse8

I was paying $8.98 for newly released albums on CASSETTE TAPE in 1986, CD's were always $2 - $3 more than cassette. Of course, I couldn't afford a new album every week at $8.98, either, given that I was only 16 years old in 1985. There were always a dozen or more albums I WANTED but couldn't afford at any given time, so did I steal them because I couldn't afford them?

Another wonderful post by you.

Just because tapes were $8.98 in 1985 what makes you think that CDs shouldn't be $8.98 now? Are we supposed to charge the same price for new technology for the duration that the technology lasts in society regardless of how cheap it gets to make? Should we all still be paying $5000 for new computers, too?

Exactly, when it costs like $0.20 to make the cd, it is insane to charge $15 for it. Don't give me the, "It costs money for the studio", "It costs money for the producer","INSERT LAME EXCUSE" crap. I have heard many local bands around here that have EXCELLENT quality cds that are produced very well. The cds usually only cost arond $4-5. They look to make a $3 profit per cd. If the big record labels did the same they could still make HUGE profits. Of course a $2 profit for each cd is not enough, they have to get greedy. They need a $14 profit on every cd and since they only give the artist like $0.05 per cd that makes it all good for the label. If they want to do that then they shouldn't be amazed when people use a technology to steal their stuff. I hate it for the artists that are relying on cd sales to keep the label and tour. I hate it for them because that just sucks. The consumers and the artists are the victims of the greed of the record labels.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Good read. My respect for Petty just went up a few notches. I've always liked his music.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: MrBond

Originally posted by: tcsenter
(Andy Rooney imitation)"Ever wonder why top billed artists raking in lots of money are never the ones to criticize the music industry; instead, its always formerly top-billed artists who are now having trouble selling records?"

Just because they don't play Tom Petty on MTV doesn't mean he's having trouble selling records. He's got a TON of older fans still buying his music. If anything, his music is probably bought more then downloaded, because he attracts older fans who may not be as tech savvy as the kids.

The banning of "the last dj" from radio stations really bothers me. This is actually the second time I've seen that happen. After 9/11, clear channel banned a TON of songs from airplay because they deemed them "unsensitive". I don't know if that ban has been lifted, because I don't listen to clear channel owned stations. What's to stop them from deciding some band goes against what they believe in and banning all their music?

Actually the Clear Channel "ban" was a recommendation and most stations chose to ignore it. In any case, the local station I listen to is Cumulus.

ZV

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Good read. My respect for Petty just went up a few notches. I've always liked his music.

Agreed.

 

[sandorski]

Tom Petty is da man. My nephew is always wondering why I listen to "Country" music LOL!

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: MrBond

Originally posted by: tcsenter
(Andy Rooney imitation)"Ever wonder why top billed artists raking in lots of money are never the ones to criticize the music industry; instead, its always formerly top-billed artists who are now having trouble selling records?"

Just because they don't play Tom Petty on MTV doesn't mean he's having trouble selling records. He's got a TON of older fans still buying his music. If anything, his music is probably bought more then downloaded, because he attracts older fans who may not be as tech savvy as the kids.

The banning of "the last dj" from radio stations really bothers me. This is actually the second time I've seen that happen. After 9/11, clear channel banned a TON of songs from airplay because they deemed them "unsensitive". I don't know if that ban has been lifted, because I don't listen to clear channel owned stations. What's to stop them from deciding some band goes against what they believe in and banning all their music?

Actually the Clear Channel "ban" was a recommendation and most stations chose to ignore it. In any case, the local station I listen to is Cumulus.

ZV

Ahh yes, Cumulus is firmly entrenched in Toledo. I don't particularly like the radio options we have there, so I usually listen to 88.7 from Detroit/Windsor which is far superior to either of the rock stations in Toledo. I do like 94.5 for classic rock when I'm in the mood, not sure who owns them though.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

"Ever wonder why top billed artists raking in lots of money are never the ones to criticize the music industry; instead, its always formerly top-billed artists who are now having trouble selling records?"

Maybe, probably, but that doesn't change the value of what he said.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: pulse8

I was paying $8.98 for newly released albums on CASSETTE TAPE in 1986, CD's were always $2 - $3 more than cassette. Of course, I couldn't afford a new album every week at $8.98, either, given that I was only 16 years old in 1985. There were always a dozen or more albums I WANTED but couldn't afford at any given time, so did I steal them because I couldn't afford them?

Another wonderful post by you.

Just because tapes were $8.98 in 1985 what makes you think that CDs shouldn't be $8.98 now? Are we supposed to charge the same price for new technology for the duration that the technology lasts in society regardless of how cheap it gets to make? Should we all still be paying $5000 for new computers, too?

Exactly, when it costs like $0.20 to make the cd, it is insane to charge $15 for it. Don't give me the, "It costs money for the studio", "It costs money for the producer","INSERT LAME EXCUSE" crap. I have heard many local bands around here that have EXCELLENT quality cds that are produced very well. The cds usually only cost arond $4-5. They look to make a $3 profit per cd. If the big record labels did the same they could still make HUGE profits. Of course a $2 profit for each cd is not enough, they have to get greedy. They need a $14 profit on every cd and since they only give the artist like $0.05 per cd that makes it all good for the label. If they want to do that then they shouldn't be amazed when people use a technology to steal their stuff. I hate it for the artists that are relying on cd sales to keep the label and tour. I hate it for them because that just sucks. The consumers and the artists are the victims of the greed of the record labels.

Since you don't want any "insert lame excuse" crap I'll cut right to the chase. Yer wrong. Are CD's over-priced? Yes. Are they as over-priced as you'd like to believe? No.


Lethal

 

[wfbberzerker]

i agree with pretty much everything petty says.

as for the $3 cd's, i dont think thats feasible right now. yes i know you can buy cd's that sound great from local artists for under $5 dollars, but remember that those local artists arent paying millions (through the recording labels) for advertising, wages, and recording. would i be happy paying $9-10? damn right i would. but asking for anything less than 7 or 8 bucks simply isn't going to happen (well, lowering them now to $10 aint gonna happen probably, but at least its in the realm of possibility)

 

[tcsenter]

Another wonderful post by you.

Hey, thank you, I'm sorry I cannot reciprocate your nice words, because I don't find your post wonderful on any level.

Just because tapes were $8.98 in 1985 what makes you think that CDs shouldn't be $8.98 now? Are we supposed to charge the same price for new technology for the duration that the technology lasts in society regardless of how cheap it gets to make? Should we all still be paying $5000 for new computers, too?

Well, hey, shouldn't we all be paying $40,000 for 1800 sq.ft., 3-bedroom, 2-bath, ranch homes on 1.5 acres like they were in 1975? C'mon, you're smarter than that (???).

More goes into the final retail cost of a CD (or any medium for that matter) than just the physical production of a little plastic disc; plastic, acrylic, paper, ink, vinyl, whatever. You're not buying blank CD's for crying out loud.

Why is it that a guitar costs more today than it did in 1985, yet there have been virtually no substantial 'improvements' in guitars during that time. Why is it that drum sets cost more today than they did in 1985, yet there have been virtually no substantial 'improvements' in drums during that time? Why is it that stage monitors cost more today than they did in 1985? Why is it that the MSRP of a 1987 Honda CR125R motorcross bike was $2199.00, while the MSRP of a 2002 Honda CR125R is $4,999.00 (!!), yet they have changed very little in those 15 years? Oh sure, you arguably get a 15% increase in overall performance and handling, but they have the same dry weight despite all the "new" alloy use and are fundamentally the same bike. You get a 15% better bike for 120% increase in cost...what gives?

Shall I steal a 2002 CR125R because I'm "entitled" to have it at 1987 prices? Why not 1976 prices? Hell, since we're (including Petty) arbitrarily tossing out prices we would "impose" upon companies with no explanation whatsoever to justify the number other than "it was cheaper then", why don't we go way back? A Honda CR125R in 1976 carried a MSRP of around $1000.00, which adjusted for inflation, probably means Honda would be giving them away. Weeeeeee!

When Petty suggests "If you brought CD prices back down to $8.98, you would solve a lot of the industry's problems", my question is, when the hell have CD prices EVER been $8.98?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Another wonderful post by you.

Hey, thank you, I'm sorry I cannot reciprocate your nice words, because I don't find your post wonderful on any level.

Just because tapes were $8.98 in 1985 what makes you think that CDs shouldn't be $8.98 now? Are we supposed to charge the same price for new technology for the duration that the technology lasts in society regardless of how cheap it gets to make? Should we all still be paying $5000 for new computers, too?

Well, hey, shouldn't we all be paying $40,000 for 1800 sq.ft., 3-bedroom, 2-bath, ranch homes on 1.5 acres like they were in 1975? C'mon, you're smarter than that (???).

More goes into the final retail cost of a CD (or any medium for that matter) than just the physical production of a little plastic disc; plastic, acrylic, paper, ink, vinyl, whatever. You're not buying blank CD's for crying out loud.

Why is it that a guitar costs more today than it did in 1985, yet there have been virtually no substantial 'improvements' in guitars during that time. Why is it that drum sets cost more today than they did in 1985, yet there have been virtually no substantial 'improvements' in drums during that time? Why is it that stage monitors cost more today than they did in 1985? Why is it that the MSRP of a 1987 Honda CR125R motorcross bike was $2199.00, while the MSRP of a 2002 Honda CR125R is $4,999.00 (!!), yet they have changed very little in those 15 years? Oh sure, you arguably get a 15% increase in overall performance and handling, but they have the same dry weight despite all the "new" alloy use and are fundamentally the same bike. You get a 15% better bike for 120% increase in cost...what gives?

Shall I steal a 2002 CR125R because I'm "entitled" to have it at 1987 prices? Why not 1976 prices? Hell, since we're (including Petty) arbitrarily tossing out prices we would "impose" upon companies with no explanation whatsoever to justify the number other than "it was cheaper then", why don't we go way back? A Honda CR125R in 1976 carried a MSRP of around $1000.00, which adjusted for inflation, probably means Honda would be giving them away. Weeeeeee!

When Petty suggests "If you brought CD prices back down to $8.98, you would solve a lot of the industry's problems", my question is, when the hell have CD prices EVER been $8.98?

I would like to see these production and promotion costs you're talking about. In my estimation, granted based upon ignorance but I've been a Vice President of Sales and a Corporate Division Manager in my life, the CD production and packaging cost is probably in the range of $1.00 to $1.25. Overhead, is probably averaged at about $1.00 per CD or less.

So that's a total cost of say $2.50 per CD. If they're distributing the CDs at 100% markup, which is a lot for Manufacturer/Distributor, they're selling to the retail outlets at $5.00 who then markup 100% and sell for $10.00.

The fact is, they have been overcharging for music since at least the 70's and saying that just because they have always overcharged for music, they should be allowed to continue is ridiculous. Simple fact is pricing is based upon what the market will bear; this is probably 80% of what you will see pricing based upon in a real world market regardless of production and overhead, to an extent. The market is no longer bearing the overcharging of music sales by the Recording Industry; they can either get with the program or die. Or they can pay legislators to create laws to protect their overcharging practices and get the public even more pissed off at them which is the case now.

I don't believe, and never have, that CDs should be priced at $5.00 to $6.00; that's just too low. The top CD price should be about $10.00 and go down from there with promotions, special sales, etc and you should be able to generally pick up a CD on store promotion for about $8.00.

Personally, I don't have any mp3's. I don't like them and I have all of my CDs already that I'm going to buy from years past. There's nothing new in music that I want to listen to enough that I can't just hear on the radio when I want to. I am glad that people are pirating music because it is exactly what the recording industry needs, a serious hit to their pocketbook from the consumers; they've needed it for a long, long time.

 

[BillGates]

Tom Petty is the most handsome man in the entire world, ever.