What does it say when even the artists don't like the recording industry?

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
NOFX is not genuine punk, but that's a different discussion altogether.

I'd like to hear your reasoning behind that.

Because punk bands don't have nation-wide record deals. Real punk is MUCH harsher than what pop culture thinks it is. Blink-182, Green Day, all those guys, are power pop, not punk.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Course, your favorite bands are creations of the record industry, so I guess you would disagree with this opinion, wouldn't you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tell me good sir, who are my favorite bands? I was unaware that several of my favorite artists right now were even SIGNED by a record label, let alone created by one.

That may be, but you know who I'm referring to, don't play dumb. Half the members of AT have made fun of you for loving N*Sync and Backstreet Boys, and while I don't join them in this (I don't make fun of people for what music they listen to, listen to what you like), I still stand by my point that they are created by people in the recording industry.

 

[Kev]

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
NOFX is not genuine punk, but that's a different discussion altogether.

I'd like to hear your reasoning behind that.

Because punk bands don't have nation-wide record deals. Real punk is MUCH harsher than what pop culture thinks it is. Blink-182, Green Day, all those guys, are power pop, not punk.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Course, your favorite bands are creations of the record industry, so I guess you would disagree with this opinion, wouldn't you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tell me good sir, who are my favorite bands? I was unaware that several of my favorite artists right now were even SIGNED by a record label, let alone created by one.

That may be, but you know who I'm referring to, don't play dumb. Half the members of AT have made fun of you for loving N*Sync and Backstreet Boys, and while I don't join them in this (I don't make fun of people for what music they listen to, listen to what you like), I still stand by my point that they are created by people in the recording industry.

Johnjohn320 I usually agree w/yer posts, but the "you can't be successful w/o being a sellout" line is such a load of crap. So the Ramone's and the Sex Pistols aren't punk 'cause they're famous (infamous? )?

BTW, I like the term "pop punk" better than "power pop" 'cause "power pop" can be used to describe so much (Creed, Linkin Park, Nickelback, etc.,).


Lethal

 

[tcsenter]

Never heard of a theoretical example, huh?

Sure, theoretical examples are fine, but not when they're referred to as "actual figures".

Anyway, in her example, we're not dealing with some little band that doesn't sell anything - on the contrary, this fictitious band has sold 1,000,000 records, and they don't get anything back for it! The record company, on the contrary, makes $6.6M.

Sounds fair to me. Whose money was being risked?

I will amend my previous business investor analogy, in that if your idea or invention turns out to be a flop and you cannot pay the loan principle + expected return, you probably won't owe any money. It will be considered a wash, since that was part of the risk profile undertaken by the investor.

In this particular industry, it is extremely flawed and misleading to look at any one particular band, thoeretical or actual, because like it or not, successful bands (the minority) subsidize the money lost to unsuccessful bands (the majority). Its classic risk sharing just like the insurance business and there's no way around it in a fickle business where there is no reliable "formula" for success.

So instead of taking a 'snapshot' of one theoretical example of one band, you have to also consider how many bands on which that promoter or record label LOST money. It is simply wrong to always presume the $6.6M made by the record company is pure profit. How many bands did the record label loose fist-fulls of money on before they made that $6.6M??

I guess if you believe that the corporations of America have the right to take away all of our privacy so they can be sure that we only observe and/or listen to their content when, where, and how they specify, then you have no problem with the aforementioned scenario.

That has nothing to do with anything we are discussing, really.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Never heard of a theoretical example, huh?

Sure, theoretical examples are fine, but not when they're referred to as "actual figures".

Anyway, in her example, we're not dealing with some little band that doesn't sell anything - on the contrary, this fictitious band has sold 1,000,000 records, and they don't get anything back for it! The record company, on the contrary, makes $6.6M.

Sounds fair to me. Whose money was being risked?

I will amend my previous business investor analogy, in that if your idea or invention turns out to be a flop and you cannot pay the loan principle + expected return, you probably won't owe any money. It will be considered a wash, since that was part of the risk profile undertaken by the investor.

In this particular industry, it is extremely flawed and misleading to look at any one particular band, thoeretical or actual, because like it or not, successful bands (the minority) subsidize the money lost to unsuccessful bands (the majority). Its classic risk sharing just like the insurance business and there's no way around it in a fickle business where there is no reliable "formula" for success.

So instead of taking a 'snapshot' of one theoretical example of one band, you have to also consider how many bands on which that promoter or record label LOST money. It is simply wrong to always presume the $6.6M made by the record company is pure profit. How many bands did the record label loose fist-fulls of money on before they made that $6.6M??

I guess if you believe that the corporations of America have the right to take away all of our privacy so they can be sure that we only observe and/or listen to their content when, where, and how they specify, then you have no problem with the aforementioned scenario.

That has nothing to do with anything we are discussing, really.

For the most part I have to agree w/tcsenter here. You also have to ask yerself this question: who signed the contract? The bands know what they signed (or if they don't they're dumb for not having an attorny<sp?> explain the contract to them). Besides that every band is gonna get hosed sometime in their career it's all part of the "biz." Everyone from an aspiring editor to a lead actress to a news anchor is gonna get screwed and used at one time or another (and probably more than once). It's a weed out process, a hazing ritual, and a right of passage. If they don't like it they don't have to sign on the dotted line. Is it screwed up? Yeah, but it's the way the game is played. When you have millions of people fighting for thousands of "jobs" theres got to be something that thins the heard.


Lethal

 

[Deeko]

That may be, but you know who I'm referring to, don't play dumb. Half the members of AT have made fun of you for loving N*Sync and Backstreet Boys, and while I don't join them in this (I don't make fun of people for what music they listen to, listen to what you like), I still stand by my point that they are created by people in the recording industry.

You're askin for it kid.

1) Ohh so i listened to alot of pop music 2 years ago. While I don't dislike the music anymore, I rarely listen to it nowadays.
2) Do you REALLY want me to get into how pop musicians like that got started? No, you don't, because i will tear you a new a$$hole, so don't push it.
3) I garuntee you groups like nofx and them are more popular & more directed by the record industry than what I listen to now. Most of the stuff I listen to ISN'T signed period, the only way they get sold is if some DJ puts them on a mix CD.

 

[abaez]

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html

Infamous article by Steve Albini a major producer.

 

[tcsenter]

Infamous article by Steve Albini a major producer.

Yep, Albini's diatribe is a perfect representation of the fatal flaw in taking only a 'snapshot' of one particular band's situation.

Albini and others who share his sentiment also share something less flattering in common: absolute ignorance of even the most essential principles of business. Albini must hold the same sort of 'misconceptions' about business widly abound in the general population.

I cannot count on my fingers and toes all of the times I have went around and around with someone who thinks that a 'business deduction' in reality works like a tax credit. You know who these people are, "They just write it off their taxes, deduct it as a business expense, so it doesn't cost them a penny...blah blah I have no clue what I'm talking about". Yeah, those ones.

Unfortunately, Albini probably never will "get it" because he always gets paid as a producer, straight from the advance that a record label gives to a band, he never has to worry, not for one second, whether or not he will get paid because the band or album isn't a success. He gets his before the album even goes on sale, his cut is assured, unlike the record label, who may never recoup what they have invested.

Why doesn't Albini work like the record labels do? Work under the terms that his cut is conditional upon the success of his projects? BAHAHAAHAHAH! Not a chance in hell.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
NOFX is not genuine punk, but that's a different discussion altogether.

I'd like to hear your reasoning behind that.

Because punk bands don't have nation-wide record deals. Real punk is MUCH harsher than what pop culture thinks it is. Blink-182, Green Day, all those guys, are power pop, not punk.

NOFX isn't real punk cause they sell records across the whole country? I think that's a pretty weak argument, seeing as how they've toured around the entire world. They could only sell CDs at thier shows and they'd still have sold records nationwide. They release thier records on Epitaph. If releasing records w/ Epitaph makes you not punk, then someone better let Rancid and Pennywise know.

 

[tcsenter]

NOFX isn't real punk cause they sell records across the whole country? I think that's a pretty weak argument, seeing as how they've toured around the entire world.

Ah yes, I remember being part of the 'OMG, my favorite anti-establishment band is getting played on mainstream radio! Sell outs! I can't listen to them anymore" crowd. haha

What the hell are they supposed to do? Tell radio stations 'Don't play our records' and music store chains 'don't carry our CD, only little hole in the wall alternative record shops can carry them!' lol!

I was heavily into the anti-establishment 'thing' between the ages of 14 and 16. Imagine in a rural, 'Christian', semi-agrarian, blue collar Michigan town, a kid with purple hair, shaved in the back and long in the front, a Powell Peralta skateboard, wearing tie-dyed T-shirts, ear rings, a tattoo, and Chuck Taylor Converse with a skull and crossbones pattern...17 years ago. Yeah, it didn't go over real well. Now, of course, its trendy. lol!

What a mind-numbingly stupid movement. "We're more cool than you because we're anti-cool."

 

[Zebo]

The artists signed the deals freely it's not a "offer you can't refuse" contract so they must live with the consequenses. Instead what most do, who sell a million, is think they are rich and take limos everywhere, trash hotels, spend money on expensive vacations, videos, etc forgetting THEY are responsible for the tab they are running up living thier nuevo rich lifestyle. Then they complain they are in debt or sue for re-negotiation. Record companies are really good thing for artists because it's gets them known though promotion radio play and production instead of playing at thier local street corner or fair grounds. Plus they absorb the cost of one hit wonders and no-hit artists who would have never had a chance were it not for the Madonna's of the world.

Anyway they have a choice sign a record label or be independant like String Chesse Incident. No one is hoilding a gun to thier heads.

Edit Arn't these types of threads looking for justification for sampleing sorta vigilante style. "see the record companies are screwing so and so, therefore I feel better about myself when I steal from them" Well that would be OK logic if YOU where the victim but as a third party it sounds pretty lame. If you want to steal just do it, I do.

 

[tcsenter]

You gotta call 'em like you see 'em, and the fact of the matter is, bands fail miserably at being their own best advocate.

In ANY negotiation between two parties, each having something the other wants, you have to be your own best advocate, because if you don't, nobody will and you'll get exactly what you bargained for; no more and no less. Be it buying or selling a vehicle, a home, ANY sort of contractual or quasi-contractual relationship.

The record companies are protecting their own interest, that is undeniably true. My question is, why the hell wouldn't they? Why the hell shouldn't they for that matter? They're freaking SUPPOSED to. 'Why aren't the bands protecting their own interest' is the real question.

When you are buying a car, is it the salesman's obligation to ensure that you get a good deal, favorable terms, and a warranty? If you're selling a car, is it the buyer's obligation to ensure that you get the price you want for it?

Its absurd to hold that one party is obligated to protect the other party from themselves, or vice versa. It turns on its head the whole nature of these kinds of relationships.

 

[skace]

The sad thing is that there are millions of great bands out there that will never 'make it' because of the way the industry is right now. These people have more chance to make money off fvcking winamp.com than they do from the industry. Infact LOTS of bands have a better chance of making money off winamp.com, and that makes me think something is broken. You can consider your 90% canned music that makes it to be great.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: skace
The sad thing is that there are millions of great bands out there that will never 'make it' because of the way the industry is right now. These people have more chance to make money off fvcking winamp.com than they do from the industry. Infact LOTS of bands have a better chance of making money off winamp.com, and that makes me think something is broken. You can consider your 90% canned music that makes it to be great.

Well, good point, at least if I understood it correctly.

In a way, it is partly the band's fault if they get screwed by the industry, since they should have done their research and known not to sign in the first place. Maybe if more bands used alternate distribution methods, the industry would get the point and realize that they will have to stop screwing almost everybody if they want to have any business. Unfortunately, given their monopolistic tendencies (a la Microsoft), I doubt they will be getting any competition anytime soon.

 

[Red Dawn]

he record companies are protecting their own interest, that is undeniably true. My question is, why the hell wouldn't they? Why the hell shouldn't they for that matter?

They do so at the expense of the Artists and they buying public. Right now there isn't an atmosphere of creativity among those on the Recording Industry. They thrive on formulated success. That's why there really isn't any innovative music coming out today. That's why the top sellers are crap artists like Britney Speares, Nsynk, Eminem and Nelly!These artists are just recycling the same old crap that's been popular for the last 5 years while the new innovative music is being ignored by the Industry.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

he record companies are protecting their own interest, that is undeniably true. My question is, why the hell wouldn't they? Why the hell shouldn't they for that matter?

They do so at the expense of the Artists and they buying public. Right now there isn't an atmosphere of creativity among those on the Recording Industry. They thrive on formulated success. That's why there really isn't any innovative music coming out today. That's why the top sellers are crap artists like Britney Speares, Nsynk, Eminem and Nelly!These artists are just recycling the same old crap that's been popular for the last 5 years while the new innovative music is being ignored by the Industry.

You sell what sells. You have a formula that works and you stick with it. Why change if you continue to make money selling britney. IF you were in charge I doubt you would fire brintney and tell her to take a hike. She is a cash cow for thoose that created her. IF I know I can make a new britney and sell 15 million records I would do it tommorow, some people like crap and your product should meet the customers desires

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

he record companies are protecting their own interest, that is undeniably true. My question is, why the hell wouldn't they? Why the hell shouldn't they for that matter?

They do so at the expense of the Artists and they buying public. Right now there isn't an atmosphere of creativity among those on the Recording Industry. They thrive on formulated success. That's why there really isn't any innovative music coming out today. That's why the top sellers are crap artists like Britney Speares, Nsynk, Eminem and Nelly!These artists are just recycling the same old crap that's been popular for the last 5 years while the new innovative music is being ignored by the Industry.

You could say the same thing about the TV, movie, video game and book publishing industries too. How many movies, TV shows, games and books come out in a given year? How many aren't crap? There is more innovative music coming out than you think it's just not all getting shoved in yer face, and the reason the likes of Britney, Nsync, and Nelly are top sellers is because that's what people buy. If so many people didn't like it and buy it then it wouldn't sell and it wouldn't get played. You can yell at the industry to stop releasing cookie cutter pop until yer blue in the face, but as long as millions of people are buying it they're gonna keep releasing it.


Lethal

 

[tcsenter]

They do so at the expense of the Artists and they buying public.

Right, just as when I ask $5,000 for my car instead of $4,000, I do so at the expense of the buyer who pays my $5,000 instead of $4,000? You're not making any sense.

The recording industry has not only the right, BUT THE EXPECTATION, that it will look out for its own interests, period. No 'but they do so...blah.' The recording industry is in business to make money, not to ensure that 'creativity', 'originality', and 'innovation' are promoted in music. That's the job of the performing arts, musicians, music patrons, local music scenes where up and coming bands get their start, and society in general. The recording industry will promote creativity, originality, and innovation in music ONLY to the extent that the public will buy it and make it a worthwhile risk to take. Guess what? The public buys Britney Spears, Eminem, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey. Not all of them, but a whole damned lot of them.

The "Recording Industry" isn't one giant behemoth corporation pursuing one narrow type of music promotion, no more than the book publishing industry is one giant behemoth corporation pursuing one narrow genre of fiction. There are a half dozen reasonably large labels, each promotes some of the same music styles, but not all. Each of those labels owns at least one smaller label that specializes in a few particular genres of music their parent companies don't. Then you have independent labels who do what they do.

Its simply irrational and untrue to ascribe to the "Recording Industry" one unilateral objective to suppress innovation and quash originality in music. If the public demands it, you damned well better believe the record labels will provide it because it means $$.

So what if Sony doesn't have any bands that you personally like? Ford may not have any cars that I like, so should I piss and moan as though I have no other choices? Accuse the 'Automotive Industry' of failing to promote innovation because I don't like anything the Big Three has to offer?

Right now there isn't an atmosphere of creativity among those on the Recording Industry. They thrive on formulated success. That's why there really isn't any innovative music coming out today. That's why the top sellers are crap artists like Britney Speares, Nsynk, Eminem and Nelly! These artists are just recycling the same old crap that's been popular for the last 5 years while the new innovative music is being ignored by the Industry.

This is purely subjective opinion. So your tastes in music don't jive with the masses, neither do mine. Boo hoo.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

he record companies are protecting their own interest, that is undeniably true. My question is, why the hell wouldn't they? Why the hell shouldn't they for that matter?

They do so at the expense of the Artists and they buying public. Right now there isn't an atmosphere of creativity among those on the Recording Industry. They thrive on formulated success. That's why there really isn't any innovative music coming out today. That's why the top sellers are crap artists like Britney Speares, Nsynk, Eminem and Nelly!These artists are just recycling the same old crap that's been popular for the last 5 years while the new innovative music is being ignored by the Industry.

You could say the same thing about the TV, movie, video game and book publishing industries too. How many movies, TV shows, games and books come out in a given year? How many aren't crap? There is more innovative music coming out than you think it's just not all getting shoved in yer face, and the reason the likes of Britney, Nsync, and Nelly are top sellers is because that's what people buy. If so many people didn't like it and buy it then it wouldn't sell and it wouldn't get played. You can yell at the industry to stop releasing cookie cutter pop until yer blue in the face, but as long as millions of people are buying it they're gonna keep releasing it.


Lethal

Yet when sales are down the Industry accuses those who download music as the reason. Could it really be that besides the formulated garbage they sell to teeny boppers, all the other sh!t they have for public consumption is tired an old and the buying public is just refusing to waste their money on it? I think that's more the reason for the decline in sales than people downloading MP3's

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Everytime you download an mp3, God kills an RIAA manager!
Please, think of those poor RIAA managers!

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yet when sales are down the Industry accuses those who download music as the reason. Could it really be that besides the formulated garbage they sell to teeny boppers, all the other sh!t they have for public consumption is tired an old and the buying public is just refusing to waste their money on it? I think that's more the reason for the decline in sales than people downloading MP3's

Agreed.

And if that were not enough, they conveniently ignore the fact that the economy isn't doing its best right now. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that they might be pushing an agenda, and it isn't just to sell more records (ever hear of the CBDTPA?)

Of course, any business is going to look out for its own interest, but when their own interest gets in the way of the technological progress of the whole frickin' world, I start to loose sympathy. Some of you will prefer to ignore this fact (you know who you are), but in case you didn't know, the Sony vs. Universal case shows that they (Edit: well, the MPAA, the sister of the RIAA - they are both very close, if not identical, when it comes to anti-fair-use copyright beliefs) have always been against technological progress, unless it can increase their already extremely insane profits.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Everytime you download an mp3, God kills an RIAA manager!
Please, think of those poor RIAA managers!

I heard that was just a rumour...

 

[Kyle]

woah...I seriously was just listening to that song when I clicked the link...weird

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

he record companies are protecting their own interest, that is undeniably true. My question is, why the hell wouldn't they? Why the hell shouldn't they for that matter?

They do so at the expense of the Artists and they buying public. Right now there isn't an atmosphere of creativity among those on the Recording Industry. They thrive on formulated success. That's why there really isn't any innovative music coming out today. That's why the top sellers are crap artists like Britney Speares, Nsynk, Eminem and Nelly!These artists are just recycling the same old crap that's been popular for the last 5 years while the new innovative music is being ignored by the Industry.

You could say the same thing about the TV, movie, video game and book publishing industries too. How many movies, TV shows, games and books come out in a given year? How many aren't crap? There is more innovative music coming out than you think it's just not all getting shoved in yer face, and the reason the likes of Britney, Nsync, and Nelly are top sellers is because that's what people buy. If so many people didn't like it and buy it then it wouldn't sell and it wouldn't get played. You can yell at the industry to stop releasing cookie cutter pop until yer blue in the face, but as long as millions of people are buying it they're gonna keep releasing it.


Lethal

Yet when sales are down the Industry accuses those who download music as the reason. Could it really be that besides the formulated garbage they sell to teeny boppers, all the other sh!t they have for public consumption is tired an old and the buying public is just refusing to waste their money on it? I think that's more the reason for the decline in sales than people downloading MP3's

You only download music you like and then do not buy the CD then you do hurt sales. You will never really know if you would have bought the CD because the free option was there and you took it. The RIAA and the MPAA are looking out for there interests and the fact is that many people who download music NEVER BUY the CDs they claim to like. WHatever your taste may be. Basically people are saying "I really like your product BUT Not enough to give you any money for it." WH7y would you buy something if you could get it for free? I know people that never buy CD's but have GIGs of Music on there hard drive and they say well I wouldn't have it if it wasn't free.

The fact is that you can get music for FREE over a samll device that can be bought for just a few dollars and that is free in almost any car sold called a radio. Of course that little device does not give you the ability to listen to your favorite song when you want to for that upgrade you do need to buy the CD.

No artist is forced to get a record contract and many choose to do it on there own yet fail. Chris Leduex recorded his own stuff because for TEN YEARS because he couldn't get a recording contract and he sold out small clubs every time he played. Had it not been for a line in s gsrth brooks song the record companies might have never found him. His MOTHER was the one copying the tapes on the home stereo. and they sold thoose tapes at his shows. He makes alot more money now and sells alot more records. THe record companies give the artist alot they would not beable to get without them.

I create any where from 12-22K in revenue for my company in LABOR billed. This is a only labor and the main costs associated with this amount is me. Now they are nice enough to allow me to keep one third. Now I could argue that without me they would not have me to generate this amount of revenue and the could conter that without them I would not have the mechanism to create that revenue and we would both be right. Without me they would have to hire and train a new guy and without them I would hav to to my own accounting and scheduling. It is a sysmbiotic relationship we need each other. I would not be in a postion to generate that amount with out them and they need me to go out and generate that revenue. We choose to co-exist.

This arguement has been played in athletics and music as well as many other industries and no one has forced anyone else into any agreement. But without MCA skynard never gets as bis as they did. Without Motown we may have never know who diana ross was. These companies gove the artist the mechanism to get the product to the masses and they have expenses that need to payed. I don not agree with everything that the RIAA has done BUT I do understand why they do it.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Deeko

That may be, but you know who I'm referring to, don't play dumb. Half the members of AT have made fun of you for loving N*Sync and Backstreet Boys, and while I don't join them in this (I don't make fun of people for what music they listen to, listen to what you like), I still stand by my point that they are created by people in the recording industry.

You're askin for it kid.

1) Ohh so i listened to alot of pop music 2 years ago. While I don't dislike the music anymore, I rarely listen to it nowadays.
2) Do you REALLY want me to get into how pop musicians like that got started? No, you don't, because i will tear you a new a$$hole, so don't push it.
3) I garuntee you groups like nofx and them are more popular & more directed by the record industry than what I listen to now. Most of the stuff I listen to ISN'T signed period, the only way they get sold is if some DJ puts them on a mix CD.

1) That's good.
2) Bring, it on, bitch! J/k of course. Hey, I watched that show about em, no I dont mean making the band, I mean the behind the music of Nsync. Some of them were already together, true, but Nsync got started by the same guy who started the Backstreet Boys. That's why the one who was working at Disney World in the Beetlejuice show was pumped before the show, cause he knew it was basically his audition for this guy's "new band." Anyway, it doesn't really matter, I meant my comments more as a joke, but I guess I poked a few ribs there.
3) I never said they weren't. Anyway, it's good you support Indie bands, they need it and appreciate it. And a lot of them rock! While we're on the topic, check out a Chicago-based band called "The Screaming Bluedogs", they're a phenomenal group and the members are really nice, they're not singed yet, but they deserve to be!