From: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org (oppositeview-digest) To: oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Subject: oppositeview-digest V4 #271 Reply-To: oppositeview@smoe.org Sender: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk oppositeview-digest Wednesday, October 30 2002 Volume 04 : Number 271 Today's Subjects: ----------------- OV: OT: more on (or is it moron?) Hilary Rosen/RIAA [SngWrite1@aol.com] Re: OV: OT: more on (or is it moron?) Hilary Rosen/RIAA [doug brown ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:38:19 EST From: SngWrite1@aol.com Subject: OV: OT: more on (or is it moron?) Hilary Rosen/RIAA Nice try Doug but it's like I said, artists are split - not every recording artist is part of musicunited.org. And several of the artists listed (like Don Henley who I greatly admire for his work as a champion of artists' rights) can be found lobbying AGAINST Hilary Rosen and the RIAA's practices in other areas (like label contracts' exception to California's 7 year statuate). Just ask Don, who heads the Recording Artists Coalition - I don't think he'd exactly praise Hil for watching out for his financial interests! And Doug, by your own theory - Hilary Rosen is a woman, and therefore IS to blame for the problems of the music industry. The argument would be stronger if more of the artists were actually first in line for any money from downloading. They're not though, the record companies are - so it makes downloading more of a "Robin Hood" enterprise for those who do it. Aimee Mann is an indie artist though, with her own record company. So yes, downloads may actually impact her bottom line. But she was also smart enough to have her entire new album available on her website for preview with streaming audio for over a month before it's release. People could hear it all and be sure that they wanted to spend their money on it. And I think for an indie she sells pretty well (and she makes more money selling fewer records than she did on a major). But then again, according to Doug, she's a woman and therefore is to blame for the problems of the music industry. It's a difficult situation. Labels could curb it if they'd come up with a legitimate business model for a pay-for-download system. The ones they have now don't cut it. Too much is NOT available through their subscription services, so the incentive for people to "go legit" is not there yet. They could also bring back a cheaply priced single and lower list prices on CD's. Once a disc is no longer on sale, are you gonna spend $20 on one CD? No, you're gonna first try to find it used for $8 or try to download it somewhere for nothing. I'm trying to figure out an answer to Mitch's question. Would I make my entire album available for downloading? I could ask, if it's out there free why would people buy it? But on the other hand, how many of the people who would download it would have bought it in the first place, since they never would have heard of it? I'm more inclined to just give clips of songs for now. My website eventually will have the entire album as streaming audio. So I'm giving the opportunity to try before you buy. It's something I think about a lot though, because it might be a benefit to do in the long run, but I haven't made up my mind yet. I read an interview with John Mayer, who said initially his reaction was being upset that people were stealing his music (people would even get his autograph on homemade discs!), but then he realized that the downloaders had actually been expanding his fan base. Word-of-mouth grew for him via the file-swappers, and his major label debut is selling really well. Janis Ian said that she gets people who now come to her shows and buy her albums because they had downloaded a few tracks for free. It does present a way for people to hear new stuff that they might not ever hear on the radio, or see on TV. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:33:49 -0800 (PST) From: doug brown Subject: Re: OV: OT: more on (or is it moron?) Hilary Rosen/RIAA > Nice try Doug but it's like I said, artists are > split - not every recording > artist is part of musicunited.org. Uh, obviously. Which is why I am pointing out that your view is not shared by all artists either - especially those associated with major labels and those that own much or all of their own music. > Just ask Don, who heads the Recording > Artists Coalition - I don't > think he'd exactly praise Hil for watching out for > his financial interests! Don is an idiot but I'd still like to ask him. It has nothing to do with liking Hilary Rosen. Go to riaa.com, read all the copyright issues, read her response to Janice Ian. It is an intellectual property issue and I completely and totally agree with the RIAA no matter what I think of the music industry and I seriously doubt that Don disagrees with this. > And Doug, by your own theory - Hilary Rosen is a > woman, and therefore IS to > blame for the problems of the music industry. True true. > The argument would be stronger if more of the > artists were actually first in > line for any money from downloading. They're not > though, the record > companies are - so it makes downloading more of a > "Robin Hood" enterprise for > those who do it. As pointed out over and over by many people the music industry is comprised of a huge variety of people from the recording artists to the Tommy Mottolas to the A&R reps to the secretaries to the people cleaning the floors to all the people involved in marketing and distributing the music. When you steal music you are taking money away from all of them. > Aimee Mann is an indie artist though, with her own > record company. So yes, > downloads may actually impact her bottom line. But > she was also smart enough > to have her entire new album available on her > website for preview with > streaming audio for over a month before it's > release. So? Cold Play did this too, a lot of people in the music industry like this idea. Why? Because it's harder to steal streaming media and it sounds like crap. :) And don't forget the biggest issue here. You are still listening to WHAT AIMEE MANN HAS AUTHORIZED YOU TO LISTEN TO WITH HER PERMISSION. > It's a difficult situation. Yep it wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't difficult. How do you provide downloadable music that people aren't just going to rip off and pass around? And get them to pay for it when it's so easy to steal it for free. > Labels could curb it if > they'd come up with a > legitimate business model for a pay-for-download > system. The ones they have > now don't cut it. Too much is NOT available through > their subscription > services, so the incentive for people to "go legit" > is not there yet. I've seen a lot of good ones. I think Liquid Audio is very well done. Point is still why pay when you can get if for free so easily? They need to cut off P2P before there is any chance of these things succeeding. > They > could also bring back a cheaply priced single and > lower list prices on CD's. > Once a disc is no longer on sale, are you gonna > spend $20 on one CD? No, > you're gonna first try to find it used for $8 or try > to download it somewhere > for nothing. Completely agree, music is very overpriced as I have posted before. But part of the problem is still exactly what Andrew pointed out. He buys less music because he can download so much for free. Sorry man but if you can't see that Napster, Kazaa etc. have hurt the music industry badly you are the truly ignorant one. > I'm trying to figure out an answer to Mitch's > question. Would I make my > entire album available for downloading? I could > ask, if it's out there free > why would people buy it? You missed his point. Currently most major releases are available in their entirety through download via P2P within days of their release, without the label's or artist's permissions. How many of the people that can get the whole album in mp3s when it comes out are going to buy it? > John Mayer, Janis Ian blah blah Once again, so? They want to put their stuff out there go right ahead. But it should be under their control, not Kaaza's. As the law says. - - Resident Ignorant Misogynist "When the Gap went online, T-shirts didn't become free." - The Barenaked Ladies ===== - -Doug . HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:14:07 EST From: SngWrite1@aol.com Subject: OV: Doug misses the points >Which is why I am pointing out that your view is not shared by all artists either - >especially those associated with major labels and those that own much or all of >their own music. Duh! My saying that artists are split IS saying that artists are split. You're "pointing out" what I just said and somehow thinking it's different. >Don is an idiot but I'd still like to ask him. It has >nothing to do with liking Hilary Rosen YOU were the one who stated that Hilary Rosen was protecting the interests of artists. That blanket statement was what I took issue with. Hilary Rosen is a paid lobbyist that works for the major labels. They pay her salary, she is beholden to them. She is only concerned with intellectual property rights that are controlled by LABELS who are part of the RIAA, if some of her actions benefit others then it's merely a trickle down effect. Don Henley is no idiot. I don't like the Eagles music, and I don't like Don's music either. But he knows that artists get the shaft, and is spending his time and money to try and change things. He certainly doesn't have to, he makes a boatload of cash and could easily take the position of "it's not my problem." You say to check out the RIAA website and her response to Janis Ian. I did that long time ago (this has been going on for a long time). But you miss out on an important distinction. Who owns the copyrighted material in question? You say it should be up to the artist to decide on giving it away and I couldn't agree more. But the truth is, a tiny percentage of artists have ownership of their work. This allows for the "Robin Hood" mentality I mentioned (more on that later). And you missed the point on John Mayer. He did NOT give his consent to have his work available for free downloading, but he saw that it helped him out, so he chose to not see it as a negative thing. Now the RIAA wants to be granted an exception to the Patriot Act. They want to hack into P2P computers and trash em. They can't do this yet because it's considered a terrorist act under the Patriot Act. Who is going to be the one deciding whose computer gets trashed? How do they know what files came from illegal downloading, and what files came from stuff you bought and made into MP3's yourself? Do you want Sony or Vivendi rummaging around your hard drive because they THINK you've got illegally downloaded material? >As pointed out over and over by many people the music >industry is comprised of a huge variety of people from >the recording artists to the Tommy Mottolas to the A&R >reps to the secretaries to the people cleaning the >floors to all the people involved in marketing and >distributing the music. >When you steal music you are taking money away from all of them. Sorry man >but if you can't see that Napster, Kazaa etc. have >hurt the music industry badly you are the truly >ignorant one. Again, you've missed the point. I did not say that illegal downloads were right or justifiable. I said that it CAN be a positive thing for some. I said that the RIAA is NOT looking out for artists. And I said that there IS a Robin Hood mentality among the heavy P2P users that they are only stealing from the "rich" - the labels. THEY don't see it as taking money from the janitorial staff at Warner Brothers. The labels blame want to blame P2P for all their troubles. They should look a little more closely at their own business practices. P2P certainly isn't innocent, but neither is it the real root cause of the industry's problems. Killing P2P isn't gonna turn things around for the majors. >You missed his point. Currently most major releases >are available in their entirety through download via >P2P within days of their release, without the label's >or artist's permissions. How many of the people that >can get the whole album in mp3s when it comes out are >going to buy it? No, YOU missed his point. He was asking me what I feel I would do because I've got records that I've made. I own my record, and if I choose to put it up for free, that's my decision. But if someone else had put it out there for free, I'm not sure that it would be a completely negative thing. Your question just restated one of the questions that I did ask. And you still can't answer my question (neither can the RIAA) - how many of those people would really have bought the record anyways? Andrew is just one person, I don't think he'd claim to be indicitive of every P2P user on the planet. Besides, you consider him a criminal! Better give Hilary a call and have him busted. >Resident Ignorant Misogynist Well, you got one right. So to recap (just so there's no confusion): Artist's rights/control of copyrights by artists - GOOD. P2P swapping - BAD (though can have positive effects for some) Piracy (selling someone else's stuff) - VERY VERY BAD Hilary Rosen/RIAA - BAD for consumers, GOOD for major labels (on RARE occasions good for artists, but mostly BAD for them) Major label music industry - digging their own graves Artist owned labels - the future ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:13:16 -0800 (PST) From: debbsc67 Subject: Re: OV: OT - The recent Oxford Union Debate - Re: State of the Music Industry Well, not really, though...at least with a second hand CD the artist DID get paid for it the first time 'round, unlike the "stolen" mp3 where NO one paid for it, so it's not *exactly* the same. Let's say I buy a CD and I don't like it so I give it to you. Have you stolen from the artist from not buying it first-hand yourself? I don't believe so. If, in another scenario, you bought the CD from me for a nominal fee at some sort of sale, you still haven't ripped the artist off, you've just helped me recoup my cost for a CD I didn't want. The artist was still compensated for that CD just as much as if you'd bought the thing first, it's just that it's now in the hands of someone that wants it is all. You've just stopped another unwanted disc from floating around out there. You haven't added any *additional* funds to the artists pocket, that's certainly true, but you really haven't ripped them off. Now, if the second hand disc you bought (or were given) was duplicated from the original, then you'd be ripping off the artist, absolutely. That said, I am "guilty" of buying second hand CDs from time to time, but I'm not going to feel bad about that. I'm just trading my cash for someone's CD they bought but no longer want. I too think the companies overinflate the price of CDs and tend to shop around for the best deal, myself, when I can. It's just smart. I also think you've got the right idea...the musicians need to take back control of their music. There are too many middle men sticking their fingers in everybody else's pie. I'm also seeing a trend in musicians producing & marketing their own CDs (The Mission UK and Colin Vearncombe for example). And since I'm not in the UK, I'm using the Internet, but in a good way...the money I'm spending is going to the artist or at least closer to the artist by going to the distributor, for the most part, and not some big company that will give a small portion to the artist and keep the rest for themselves. But, until they're all going this way, we'll still be "slave" to the big name record stores, we just have to be smart about it and shop around for the best deal. have a good day, debbie - --- Libby Graham wrote: > This is a really complex argument. However, one of > the main reasons for the > reduction in sales is the more efficient way the > second hand music market is > working. The dealers are all over the web. people > can sell of their > unwanted CDs on ebay etc - and people can buy them > way below the grossly > inflated proces that record shops charge. Instead > of us bemoaning a bad > purchase we can re-sell it to recoup some of the > loss! And people looking > to buy can do so from the comfort of their own home > instead of trudging > around record fairs and 2nd hand music shops. Both > of whom are now > suffering from the competition from the Web. > > For new stuff I tend to use CD Wow > (http://www6.cd-wow.com/) because #8.99 > for a new CD is a reasonable price to pay (this > includes postage) if I am > not going into Reading in the near future. So I can > pick up Mark Knopflers > last 2 CDs for that price, however with HMV one is > #13.99 and the other is > #16.99. But, there is a local independent record > shop which will sell new > releases at #9.99 to #10.99 on average - I tend to > go there rather than the > major shops in Reading. > > It's a choice we all make - but buying second hand > does NOT get any money to > the recording artists either. The record companies > are bloated by excess > which they pass on to the record buyer - how can > #16.99 for a CD be > justified - they cost substantially less to record > than vinyl did - but at > no time has this price reduction ever been passed > onto the consumer. > > I personally don't download music (because I can't > be bothered and already > have too much to listen to) but I can't see the > difference between it and > buying second hand CDs when it comes down to what > the recording artists get. > Both have the same effect. > > Artists need to utilise the new technology for > themselves, have some tracks > downloadable as "tasters" and cut out the labels and > organise their own > lives. They will get more of the profts back to > them and they won't be in > eternal debt to megacorps. When we swent to see The > Christians - they had > produced their own live CDs, had new album samplers > for sale - and they came > out to speak to the people. Simple, easy and > effective. They sold loads. > And I bet they got a very large part of the price if > the CD. > > Libby > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "doug brown" > To: HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:54:52 -0800 (PST) From: doug brown Subject: OV: But I Got Both Dave's CDs on CD-R For Free! > Duh! My saying that artists are split IS saying that > artists are split. > You're "pointing out" what I just said and somehow > thinking it's different. So if we both agree that artists are split why do you keep bringing it up?! Like we don't have plenty else to argue about! > Hilary Rosen is a paid lobbyist ... She is only >> concerned with intellectual property rights > that are controlled by LABELS who are part of the > RIAA, if some of her actions benefit others then it's merely a trickle down effect. And the point is ... that this is bigass trickle down effect that is going to affect EVERYONE. Laws made, interpreted and enforced as a result of her will apply to everyone. > Don Henley is no idiot. I don't like the Eagles > music, and I don't like > Don's music either. But he knows that artists get > the shaft, and is spending > his time and money to try and change things. This is an entirely seperate discussion and maybe we should wait a week to subject everyone to more of us haha. But in a nutshell big surprise I disagree. Everyone knows how horrible music contracts have been including the people in the business but Don wants artists to be like free agents in sports with huge salaries and labels taking all the risk and loss if they produce crap. Look at what free agency has done to pro sports. You think you're paying too much for music right now wait until it's completely controlled by the corporate bands like the Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, U2, Metallicas. Look at the situations where they do have control - say ticket prices for concerts. $250 (or more) for McCartney - no thanks. > He certainly doesn't have to, > he makes a boatload of cash and could easily take > the position of "it's not > my problem." I'm not convinced. Big money for celebrity artists just means less chance of the little people getting heard. > And you missed the point on John Mayer. He did NOT > give his consent to have > his work available for free downloading, but he saw > that it helped him out, > so he chose to not see it as a negative thing. The point is, as discussed above, that artists are divided on the issue. Struggling artists ignore the piracy because they like the exposure, successful artists who already have the exposure and need to sell lots to recoup expenses see it only as the piracy which it is. > RIAA ... hack ... P2P ... trash ... terrorist >act ... illegal downloading... Do you want Sony or >Vivendi rummaging around your hard drive > because they THINK you've got illegally downloaded > material? I'm not worried until they get to Microsoft. See more on anti-piracy below. >I did not say that > illegal downloads were > right or justifiable. I said that it CAN be a > positive thing for some. You're contradicting yourself, you ARE trying to justify it. > I said that the RIAA is NOT looking out for artists. And you're wrong. These people aren't fools. There is no music industry without musicians. Except Britney Spears. This reminds me of the Pat Benatar story I just saw on Lifetime (yes the women's channel). She whines about how Chrysalis made her wear miniskirts and had artistic differences with her and it's so much better now that she's got millions and is free to do what she wants. Who helped her get all that money in the first place?! > The labels want to blame P2P for all their troubles. Oversimplified. But they do see pirating in general as a huge problem, which it is. And it's not just the music industry, it's pretty much any media that can be copied including movies and software. RIAA is just a cog in the anti-piracy machine. > They should look > a little more closely at their own business > practices. P2P certainly isn't > innocent, but neither is it the real root cause of > the industry's problems. > Killing P2P isn't gonna turn things around for the > majors. You're entitled to your opinion no matter how misguided. But like I said people are not going to pay for stuff that they can easily get for free and not get arrested for. Download for money is not going to work until download for free is gone. > No, YOU missed his point. He was asking me what I > feel I would do because > I've got records that I've made. No YOU missed his point. This is great, I feel like we're drunk in a bar yelling! But anyway, his question was rhetorical. > Your question just restated one of the questions > that I did ask. And you > still can't answer my question (neither can the > RIAA) - how many of those > people would really have bought the record anyways? > Andrew is just one > person, I don't think he'd claim to be indicitive of > every P2P user on the > planet. Besides, you consider him a criminal! Of course he's a criminal, he's Irish. > Better give Hilary a call and > have him busted. HILARY, GIT HIM! There that ought to work she doesn't live too far away. > >Resident Ignorant Misogynist > > Well, you got one right. You know it was difficult but I think the only person I've called a name so far was Don Henley! > So to recap (just so there's no confusion): > Artist's rights/control of copyrights by artists - > GOOD. Doug has to vote divided on this one. This isn't about music for art it's music for cash. You don't want to play that game don't play it and try to sell your stuff on your own. You know I work for the largest photographic and imaging company? You know any intellectual property that I develop as a part of my work belongs to them no matter how many millions it makes? Do I care as long as they keep paying me? Welcome to the real world. > P2P swapping - BAD (though can have positive effects > for some) Agreed. > Piracy (selling someone else's stuff) - VERY VERY > BAD Agreed. > Hilary Rosen/RIAA - BAD for consumers, GOOD for > major labels (on RARE > occasions good for artists, but mostly BAD for them) Disagree! Most of the music I have listened to and liked over the years has been brought to me by the same major labels that she represents. They can certainly do a better job but I just can't agree that if it's bad for the music industry it's good for me. > Major label music industry - digging their own > graves > Artist owned labels - the future Not a chance buddy but you can dream. Love, Doug ===== - -Doug . HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:31:06 -0600 From: "Jen Woyan" Subject: OV: ...I think I'm gonna stop sending these 'innocuous' articles to OV for awhile... Ta for conducting one of the more revealing debates I've been witness to in a long time... Cheers, Jen _________________________________________________________________ Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:49:52 EST From: SngWrite1@aol.com Subject: OV: the future is now Doug doesn't think that artist run labels are the future, well he should take a look around. It was that way before, and it's coming back around to that, at least for many artists who we all seem to like. Del Amitri signed to A&M Records, a label started by an artist. It garnered a reputation as an artist-friendly label, where careers were built and the people running things understood artists because they were often artists themselves. With each subsequent purchase of the label (bought by Polygram, bought by Seagrams, bought by Vivendi) the people who made that label artist-friendly were jettisoned for people who thought more about the bottom line, who looked for a quick money maker. I guess we're lucky that CYDMG? even got released anywhere. The label could have just shelved it and kept the band tied up. How many of the following artists do people on this list listen to?: Aimee Mann Michael Penn Lloyd Cole Peter Himmelman Bob Mould Gillian Welch David Gray Tom Waits All of these people are former major label artists who now own their current work and release their own stuff or license it to a label for distribution. Control in the hands of the artist. Risk in the hands of the artist. But the artist tends to reap a greater reward, even with fewer sales - simply because the overhead is dramatically lower. Even U2 own their records, and simply license them to Universal for release. They control their career. Tom Waits literally has a handshake deal with Epitaph/ANTI. He can walk away any time he wants, and until he does they'll put out whatever he gives 'em. When Beck got signed, his deal allowed him to still release stuff on another label if Geffen didn't want it. This gave him the option of following his creative instincts without having to wonder if the label would shelve it. Some major label artists start their own labels to provide an outlet for others who may never get the attention of a major label: Rami Jaffee (of the Wallflowers) and Pete Yorn started a label called Trampoline. Aimee Mann created the United Musicians collective as a umbrella for artist/owners to join together for distribution and marketing. A band to watch will be Pearl Jam, who's upcoming album is the last under their contract with Epic. There is much speculation on what they will do once they're out. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:52:11 -0000 From: "Andrew Douglas" Subject: OV: Re: But I Got Both Dave's CDs on CD-R For Free! I'm actually a little worried that the hired goons are gonna come round to my door some night and take me away. Oh yeah, and quit buggin' on the Irish, Doug, we know you guys just love our accents and are just jealous we've got a culture of our own!!!;) You'll all be pleased to know I bought 2 CD's at a gig on Sunday night. Josh Ritter, he's pretty good but I couldn't get the damn things anywhere, except by dwnloading them!!!! Got'em now though. Can we have a poll somewhere to see who agrees with Doug and who agrees with Dave? And girls, you're not allowed to base your decision on looks, Doug is gettin' old it wouldn't be fair!!! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "doug brown" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:54 PM Subject: OV: But I Got Both Dave's CDs on CD-R For Free! > > Your question just restated one of the questions > > that I did ask. And you > > still can't answer my question (neither can the > > RIAA) - how many of those > > people would really have bought the record anyways? > > Andrew is just one > > person, I don't think he'd claim to be indicitive of > > every P2P user on the > > planet. Besides, you consider him a criminal! > > Of course he's a criminal, he's Irish. > > > Better give Hilary a call and > > have him busted. > > HILARY, GIT HIM! There that ought to work she doesn't > live too far away. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:07:54 EST From: SngWrite1@aol.com Subject: OV: Biting the hand that feeds This is the text of a half page ad Rolling Stone magazine placed in the NY Times a few days ago: A BIG FAT THANKS TO RECORD EXECS Thank you for fighting the good fight against Internet MP3 file-swapping. Because of you, millions of kids will stop wasting time listening to new music and seeking out new bands. No more spreading the word to complete strangers about your artists. No more harmful exposure to thousands of bands via Internet radio, either. With any luck, they wont talk about music at all. You probably knew you'd make millions embracing the technology. After all, the kids swapping were like ten times more likely to buy CD's, making your cause all the more admirable. It must have cost a bundle in future revenue, but don't worry - computers are just a fad anyway, and the Internet is just plain stupid. Rolling Stone ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:35:30 -0600 From: "Ed Minton" Subject: OV: Sound salvation, ad nauseum >who agrees with Doug and who agrees with Dave? I think I'm with Dave, but old Doug is a pretty sharp character. To begin with, pop music and the artists who perform it have always been disposable for the most part. Most of it is awful. It has always been marketed to kids whose tastes change as fast as their moods. Seems to me that it's a rare case to find an "artist" that is both critically acclaimed and consistently at the top of the charts. It has happened, but I'll venture a gross generalization to the effect that it used to happen more frequently. At this late date, the only artist that comes close to fitting that description on the American singles charts is U2, and they are an anomaly. Springsteen and a few others sell albums and are cash cows on the road, but have no impact on today's youth culture or singles charts. And what's to say about the current crop of commodities? Which boy band, which rap-metal band, which virgin in braids was served up on a silver platter first? Because sex appeal created a marketable niche, does that mean the music is of consequence? Time was when it could create a revolution. The labels are no longer interested in career artists, so they are no longer willing to nurture aspiring musicians through lean times in order to develop a career. The reason is that the labels are more profitable with the one-hit wonders. The "corporate" artists Doug referred to, like the Stones or McCartney, got smart long ago and negotiated deals that shocked their labels at the time. Those artists pocket more from each unit sold that 99 percent of their struggling contemporaries. I'm sure that most everyone on this list has at one time or another been amazed at how the Beatles "Abbey Road" album is always significantly more expensive than virtually any other single album on the shelf and rarely if ever goes on sale. You can rest assured that the price difference goes to the artist. So, the struggle against the labels has been going on for a long, long time. As Joni Mitchell said, it's an insane business. Bob Marley never had a hit single in America, but look at the millions his career generated. In the absence of what used to serve as being indicative of some certain measure of quality, something like a god given golden voice and the talent to use it, like Justin Currie's, (token Del reference), for example, it's not too surprising to find that the basest instincts are the selling point for much of the currently successful "music." Yes, the same was said of Elvis wasn't it? Maybe the sky didn't fall, but the world did change. In this age of instant gratification, of virtual stimulation, the labels have only the slightest need for artistry or vision, and they'll probably get what they need from someone other than the artist, like the producer of the video that accompanies the music. What they need is a sales pitch. Beyond that, all they need is tits and ass and violence and they know it. And they know that there's a new crop of dumb kids ready to sell their asses every day of the week. Since most of us on this list aspire to something a bit more elevated, some kind of human touch, or at least like to think that we do, it appears we can look forward to having to search harder and harder to find it in the future. Doug>Don (Henley) wants artists to be like free agents in sports with huge salaries and labels taking all the risk and loss if they produce crap. Spoken like a true "company man," Doug! We don't need no stinkin' socialists around here, right? Doug>Look at what free agency has done to pro sports. You think you're paying too much for music right now wait until it's completely controlled >by the corporate bands like the Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, U2, Metallicas. Look at the situations where they do have control - say ticket >prices for concerts. $250 (or more) for McCartney - no thanks. What? Now you got a problem with capitalism? Well, you're right about one thing anyway. Baseball may very well be as completely screwed up as the music biz- (the real cherry on top goes to organized religion of course). But the prices we pay are not dictated by those "corporate artists," (since when have Jerry Garcia and Keith Richards been the epitome of the Blue Meanies?), it is the labels themselves. They shuck their labyrinthine legal maneuvers on young, virtually legally defenseless artists who find themselves broke and slaved out to the road to recoup "expenses," while their hit single is lining the pockets of some corporate board members and attorneys that they'll likely never lay eyes on. That "artist" will probably NEVER own the song that makes their label and it's shareholders wealthy. On the other hand, the artists you mentioned actually determined those concert ticket prices you're crying about. (Keith said it was Mick's idea, and that he thought it would be "bad for business"). I think that perhaps what is going on there is that these artists are trying to eliminate the margin that ticket brokers have been pocketing. Good for the artists, bad for the brokers. Doug>Big money for celebrity artists just means less chance of the little people getting heard. That is just plain old mismanagement. In a capitalistic society, it is punishable by the death of the business. In our litigious society, the only recourse at that point is to figure out whom to sue? >There is no music industry without musicians. Don't blink, we're nearly there. And they're workin' on it. I remember about ten or fifteen years ago reading about a Tom Petty recording session that Ringo was setting in on. He had to show the engineers how to mike the drum kit, 'cos they didn't know how to do it. They had only worked with samplers and drum machines. Ringo called 'em a "bloody typists pool." As I said, they don't need musicians or artists, all they need is T & A with a little violence sprinkled on top. Dave>> The labels want to blame P2P for all their troubles. Doug>>Oversimplified. But they do see pirating in general as a huge problem, which it >is. And it's not just the music industry, it's pretty much >any media that can be copied including movies and software. RIAA is just a cog in the anti-piracy machine. I'd say Doug's on the money there. No easy answers either. Until people get over their possessive nature, that old idea that, (Daffy Duck voice), "It's mine, it's mine, it's mine," is gonna be the final negative answer to the issue and we're stuck with the problem. What if we no longer need to "own" it, or physically possess it? I mean, what's the big deal? It's information, be it a movie or music, right? So what if we could access it anywhere, anytime we want- we just have to pay for it's "use." Would you sign up for a library card that costs X amount of dollars per year, and that would be able to provide you with any "information" you want, be it a book, a piece of music, a movie- anytime, anywhere? The artist would receive royalties based on number of "downloads." Would solve the problem of keeping your discs in alphabetical order, wouldn't it? And all that storage space. No need to copy anything, it's there, available at all times. What a concept. Imagine all the people. oh, nevermind. Doug>>But like I said people are not going to pay for stuff that they can easily get for >free and not get arrested for. Download for money is not >going to work until download for free is gone. True enough. A rose by any other name, in this case, is still thievery. Doug>>This is great, I feel like we're drunk in a bar yelling! Then can I get a Beck's Dark over here? Dave>>> So to recap (just so there's no confusion): > Artist's rights/control of copyrights by artists - > GOOD. Theoretically looks good. But, the labels and Doug would have us believe that it's a quaint idea whose time has passed. Just because somebody dreamed up a wonderful idea, song, story, or whatever, there is no reason whatsoever that someone else shouldn't "deal" it away from them through legal chicanery. Hmmm, didn't Jesus throw the money-changers out of the temple, though? Doug>>Doug has to vote divided on this one. This isn't about music for art it's music for cash. You don't want to play that game don't play it and >try to sell your stuff on your own. You know I work for the largest photographic and imaging company? You know any intellectual property that I >develop as a part of my work belongs to them no matter how many millions it makes? Do I care as long as they keep paying me? Welcome to >the real world. Good try, Doug, but then what incentive to excellence is left on the table? Why should you put forth more than the minimum that is expected of you for your company? When you created something that makes millionaires of people who really only knew how to swindle you, and leave you with "Not a Thank You, Not a Christmas Card," (as Little Richard put it), you're not gonna develop an attitude? Now who is the real thief here, anyway? Dave>>> P2P swapping - BAD (though can have positive effects for some) Doug>>Agreed. So lemme get this straight: Bad to steal, good to share. I don't think we're getting anywhere fast, but maybe it's a start. Dave>>> Hilary Rosen/RIAA - BAD for consumers, GOOD for major labels (on RARE > occasions good for artists, but mostly BAD for them) Doug>>Disagree! Most of the music I have listened to and liked over the years has been >brought to me by the same major labels that she represents. They can certainly do a >better job but I just can't agree that if it's bad for the music industry it's good for me. Despite the fact that most of the music we've grown up listening to was brought to us by the labels, Dave is right to say that the RIAA is bad for consumers. The labels are short sighted and are only interested in short term success for their artists, because that is the most profitable arrangement for them. The longer an artist's career continues, the smaller share the label makes. I have never heard of a single artist saying how great their deal was. Jeff Tweedy of Wilco, a significant songwriter who has been on a major label for over ten years, and who's records typically sell upwards of 400,000 units, says he has never been paid a nickel by the label, and neither did the label follow through on promised promotion for their work, either. Unfortunately, this the normal way that the labels do business, and his was one of the so-called artist friendly ones, A & M. Dave>>> Major label music industry - digging their own graves > Artist owned labels - the future Doug>>>Not a chance buddy but you can dream. Becoming more common everyday. Fans are loyal to artists, not labels. Boy. Lying, stealing and cheating is so complicated! Hope I didn't offend anyone here- Ed ------------------------------ End of oppositeview-digest V4 #271 **********************************