Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Modern music


BillWelcome Home Studios

Recommended Posts

OK.. I'm on it. You're diverse in styles, but you're big on strong, semi-conventional songwriting.

 

Have you heard Neko Case? I think you might dig her.

 

How about Stereophonics?

 

On the trippier side, Black Mountain is fun.

 

Grails is kinda crazy intrumental, movie soundtrack stuff.

 

Not all are brand new acts, but they're current, and you may not know of them. I'll drop some more on you later.

\m/

Erik

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

--Sun Tzu

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply
"...if you think that the record companies are spotless companies that only want the musicians and singers best intrest at heart,..."

 

I don't think that anyone can point to a time when I've ever said anything like that.

 

But the 'greed' excuse was used, not by signed bands who might have a reason to feel that way, but by college kids as an excuse for poor behavior. "I can steal from the record companies because they are greedy." Yeah. Explain that moral stand to your mom.

 

I'm not going to go into the long complex explanation of how the entertainment industry works and how crucial the record industry's role was in the process. I just want to point out that like stupid kids everywhere, we've pissed in the well, and now we're getting thirsty. What to do, what to do????

 

When the destruction was underway I constantly posted all over the web suggesting that before we burned down our house we might want to put up a tent.

 

Okay, I kind of agree with you...

 

I'll split the blame between that generation, who do have somewhat of a sense of entitlement to digital music files, and a music industry that got a little screwy.

 

Still, the younger people I know who do a lot of filesharing also have certain bands they are obsessive and completist about, and who they travel to see or follow around the country as well as buying anything they put out in every format available. That makes them no different, in my experience, from previous generations who had a few faves like that and made cassette copies of stuff they weren't as dedicated to...

 

I spent my early youth taping complete albums off of FM rock radio every night during the summer when they played an album in its entirety. It's where I learned a lot about music (and learned a great deal about how to play) and I couldn't have afforded to buy those 80 or so records, even used (which is how most of my music purchasing happened). I have always been a live music supporter, though, even to the extent of being an independent show promoter.

 

But back to the point - this expectation that there would be records every year that 8 million people purchased... and everything was geared to having that payoff. That was screwy. And what developed when that waned - the practice of the band, their management and the A&R guy grabbing as much money in advance as they could because they knew the record might not even ever get released - screwed things further.

 

Of the 300,000,000 people in American I'd say about 800,000 are actually personally invested in music as more than an entertainment commodity like a TV show or whatever, and not all of those people like the same things. Expecting records to resonate continually with people who really don't invest themselves in the art form deeply seems unsustainable to me.

 

Besides which, most musicians are like lottery winners: since they didn't attain money by learning to be good with money they don't necessarily handle it wisely, and that seems to extend beyond personal habits into their business dealings with the industry.

 

Has "Chinese Democracy" made back that $13,000,000 in production costs (which doesn't include promotion costs)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" my parents thought Elvis, The Beatles, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were the coolest thing since sliced bread. And they HATED and dissed everything their parents were admiring... (Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, etc)

The old folks on the contrary thought that Elvis, the Beatles and Eric Clapton were HORRIBLE singers and could not play guitar at all!!!! They actually called them "monkeys"... but not musicians."

 

 

I know what you mean, but I'm kinda in between. My mom and dad were between the big band and Elvis, they liked both, and there was always music in the house.. even jazz and classical.

 

When I was brought up, I didn't HATE their music, I just had my own, as each generation should. This is a diffrent kind of discussion, as we're not talking about what we as youth liked. We're talking about musicians who have had a lasting impact over several generations, and how some younger players are asking us to find someone else to talk about. Okay. Who?

 

I guess Bill, truth is: we are getting old -"

 

I seek out good music all the time, and have listened to many of the recommendations made here, as well as other places. It is really hard for an over-30 adult to find new music.

 

Music has taken a bad turn; these young people have no idea how to write a melody, they just give us shavings, which they dress up to look like a lion's mane and shake at us... It's as if they avoid melodies, for fear of having perhaps stolen them from someone else.

 

- Wilhelm Richard Wagner, June 21, 1880

 

I came across that quote yesterday and was cracking up that it could be attributed to anyone from any time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in a society full of preventable disorders, preventable diseases, and preventable pain; of harshness abd stupid unpremeditated cruelties. (HG Wells)

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda thought that this would be the gist of it. What it shows is a missunderstanding of business in general and the recording industry in particular. It is a popular myth, really gets cheers in certain circles, but it is not true. Like most myths, there is a grain of truth in it, but it does not begin to tell the whole story, and is based on a couple of false premises.

 

Bill, I've seen the contracts. I was offered one back in 2000, and turned it down flat.

 

I have to agree with Griff here.

 

Back in the 80's, our band leader was offered a recording contract with the band he was in at the time. Amongst other things, they wanted a percentage of all income generated by each band member, for the life of the band member. When their lawyer looked it over, he said to turn it down as it meant, if they broke up and dropped out of the music business and started up...selling cars for example, they would still have to provide a percentage of their pay checks to the record company.

 

Freakin' ridiculous.

 

Yeah, that was the language they tried to slip in to make sure that even if the band broke up, they'd get a piece if one of the members put together a successful solo career.

 

That's why you never sign ANYTHING without a lawyer, and I mean Show Biz lawyer. You could wind up singing "I owe my soul to the company store" and really meaning it.

 

I think I'd try negotiating the unreasonable stuff and if they wouldn't budge, then I'd walk. But then, I'm a more-or-less normal human being, and not a soulless lawyer with acid in his veins, a lump of lead for a heart, and a stable of slave musicians he owns for life.

 

I have read that these days, the consensus suspicion is that Mike Jeffreys, the manager (read "money") that made Jimi Hendrix famous, had Jimi killed because his contract was ending and he wasn't going to renew. Some contracts are worse than others...

Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why doesn't the music industry explain to THEIR BUYING PUBLIC how they rip off artists and dozens of them have taken them to court over it...how about that? "

 

You seem to have really strong feelings about this, why don't you explain it to us as you see it?

 

It also seems you think that the industry is spotless.

 

Try reading this article, which gives you a breakdown from an actual music contract and EXACTLY what it does to the artists they claim to represent:

 

http://futureofmusic.org/article/article/major-label-contract-clause-critique

 

This was written in 2001 when they were the big five (now the big three) but the music contracts have not seemed to change much.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It also seems you think that the industry is spotless."

 

I've never said that. I have repeatedly said that we have nothing to replace it. Having a tool to do a job is better than NOT having a tool to do a job.

 

All the ranting about how the whole industry was a rippoff AND THEREFORE DESERVED TO BE DESTROYED BY STEALING THEIR PRODUCT is what I disagree with. A lot of really decent people lost their livelihoods, and saying that everyone was corrupt and greedy and bad is completely out of line.

 

I've seen contracts. I shredded three filing drawers full of contracts, riders, performance contracts and related paperwork a few months ago in preparation for retirement.

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone earlier mentioned that "if Napster had been handled properly..." Napster was an offense unbelievable. They took stuff that wasn't theirs and used it to generate income by selling ads to their site. In their minds they were not doing anything wrong, as they were not selling the songs.

 

That is a LIE Bill, plain and simple! Napster did not have any pirated music on their site. Period. The music people shared was on their own computers. Again, I am not saying that what they did as far as sharing music was right, but neither was the heavy handed response from the industry!

 

And may I remind you that ONE of their OWN members (Bertlesman music group or BMG) offered to try to work something out with Napster and the big five so that they could have a central distribution center for their music on the web. Their reward? They were sued by the other members

 

But you cannot use someone elses work without their permission, period; and it is additionally onerous if you profit from it.

 

Which is EXACTLY WHY SONY IS BEING SUED, "practice what you preach" would be a phrase I would say to the music industry. Sorry, Bill but you are not going to paint the industry as some poor industry that people stole from and THEY THEMSELVES never stole a dime! That is a lie pure and simple. Both sides are at fault and if you think it is all one sided, you have to be sticking your head in the sand.

 

The labels expected someone to enforce the existing laws on the books, which DO NOT specify or limit the medium used, so the cry "But its the INTERNET!!!" holds no legal water. Didn't happen. And when it finally did, the hue and cry was, "but these are just college students!" fuck. If I'd known that being a bright student at a prominent university was an excuse, I'd have been rich a long time ago. Even now, "shes a mother! why are you ptosecuting her!" Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law? Whatever happend to "if you ca't do the time, don;t do the crime"?

 

Again, buddy same can be said for music industry executives that stole a WHOLE LOT MORE than some college kid on the net by ripping off artists of millions in royalities! Oh, but that's right, you seem to think they should have just been savy, when it came to legal matters.Well so should the industry have been savy and not acted stupidly when they had a chance to make a real deal through BMG!

 

Oh, I forgot. We're all special,and the rules do not apply to ME. (If you want to know what I'm talking about, just look around the next time you leave your house.)

 

And I can say the SAME can be said of the MUSIC INDUSTRY! After all, they are just special...who cares if they rip off artists and then claim that "it is just business". But when it is THEIR butt on the line, sales fall because of THEIR greed and then they have the audacity to cry foul??!

 

Sorry, but they do not get a whole lot of sympathy from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It also seems you think that the industry is spotless."

 

I've never said that. I have repeatedly said that we have nothing to replace it. Having a tool to do a job is better than NOT having a tool to do a job.

 

That is about like saying if you only have the mafia to police your neighborhood, well, it is better than no police at all. I think that is wrong.

 

I guess it would depend on if you were the one doing the policing or the one being policed that might change your point of view.And it would be even WORSE if the police like the industry itself were corrupt!

 

And I don't think the music universe will fold and go away if the RIAA or even the big three they represent go away. Music was made WAY longer than the music industry has been around. So I don't think it is as bad a picture as you seem to paint!

 

Bill, your whole post was about how no one hears the greats on the radio anymore. But what you DON'T want to recognise, is the fact that it was greed by taking over radio stations play lists in the first place that brought this about! And just exactly WHO was behind that? The music industry of course.

 

This way they get to push who the industry wants to push on the airwaves. And instead of a DJ playing something that might actually get popular because the people LISTENING may want to hear it, they get this regurgitated junk of what a record exec thinks they should hear. Is it really any wonder that we are in this position? No. But it is NOT because of someone sharing a file on napster, it is because of greed, plain and simple!

 

And as far as the heavy handed response from the music industry charging $80,000.00 a song and somehow thinking it will win respect and fear, has gotten the opposite effect! It is in fact like the mafia going after someone in a "legal" way. The end result is the same, though they may not be physically dead....but they sure are financially and emotionally!

 

You can spout "they deserve it" all you want, but the music executives should be rotting in JAIL for what they have done to artists, if the balances were even.

 

Now people loathe and hate the industry and people like you wonder why? Go figure....

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"That is a LIE Bill, plain and simple! Napster did not have any pirated music on their site. Period. The music people shared was on their own computers. "

 

as we all chuckle behind out hands, wink wink. There was no other reason to go to Napster except to obtain pirated music.

 

"Sorry, but they do not get a whole lot of sympathy from me."

 

It is apparent that you live in a black and white world. So long as all the black is on the side of those with whom you disagree. The thieves are 100% right, the labels 100% wrong. And you are right by vigorous assertion. (shrug..)

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, link didn`t work and this isn`t even the article I`m looking for but anyway, have to do a partial copy and paste. Food for thought-or a food fight, more likely...

 

 

[As a rock star and actress, Courtney Love knows how to grab the spotlight. At a new-media conference last month in Manhattan's SoHo, she delivered her keynote address in '70s-style hip huggers and angrily shouted at paparazzi who were blinding her with their camera flashes.

Love's message was similarly striking. "Stealing an artist's music without paying for it is absolute piracy," she said. "And I'm talking about major-label recording contracts, not Napster."

 

In siding with Napster, the free Internet music-swapping service that has become the record labels' archenemy, Love demonstrated that the continuing power struggle between the labels and the musicians is taking a new turn.

 

"I'm leaving the major-label system and there are hundreds of artists watching my court case and wanting to follow me," Love declared. She and her band, Hole, are in a legal fight to end their recording deal with Geffen Records, which is owned by the Universal Music Group, itself part of the Seagram Co.

 

Love is among the musicians raising the revolutionary notion that the Internet may offer them a better shake than the labels, which they accuse of imposing burdensome contracts.

 

Though some prominent acts like Metallica and Dr. Dre side with the labels against the free download sites, a loose pro-Napster coalition is forming that includes rock bands like the Offspring and Limp Bizkit (which is touring with Napster sponsorship this summer), as well as rappers like Chuck D and the Beastie Boys.

 

At a congressional hearing last month, Sheryl Crow, a singer and songwriter, criticized the labels' insistence on owning the copyrights to most songs. Aimee Mann and Jonatha Brooke, two midcareer artists, have found new careers marketing directly to fans via the Web, offering free downloads, CD sales and concert schedules. Some small labels are offering free music downloads as well as selling discs.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Same old surprises, brand new cliches-

 

Skipsounds on Soundclick:

www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"s the fact that it was greed by taking over radio stations play lists in the first place that brought this about! And just exactly WHO was behind that? The music industry of course. "

 

Completely incorrect. Read my articles about the 1996 Telecommunications Act... incorporated into some college textbooks now.. about how our government permitted corporations to buy up the radio stations and turn them from nice little independent regional entertainment to carefully crafted advertising vehicles, each station aimed at a particular demographic, sold to advertisers on that basis. The music, which used to be the hallmark of most stations, is incidental. But like most of the rest of your arguments, you've gotten a bit muddled. Its okay, you're towing the popular line. Relax. Have a beer.

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say that I bemoan the demise of the record store... it was like a candy store to me. A lot of the fun went out of that with the market domination of cds, though. Not as fun to dig through as racks and racks of records. As a kid, if the family went to the department store or mall I'd be entrenched in the record store after taking care of whatever I had to get. There was a world just within that artwork... and I ended up going into graphic design in large part due to being fascinated with it... just in time for vinyl records to vanish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with that Little Steven speech posted here a while back. The industry has just come back around to the beginning in a sense, and it needs creative business people to take it somewhere new... and artists need to think outside of the rote "instant auteur career path" and reexamine the relationship with their audiences.

 

I heard a bit ago that Radiohead said they wouldn't be rushing to record another long player any time soon. In this age that makes sense. The length of vinyl albums was determined by mechanical things, the length of cds for a while there got too long without those time limitations (and almost suffered from being unfocused and so compressed and peak limited they were certainly prone to inducing ear fatigue)... Maybe the mp3 or some multimedia format e.p. will be what people do for a bit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as we all chuckle behind out hands, wink wink. There was no other reason to go to Napster except to obtain pirated music.

 

It seems you have no clue about Napster. In the first place, there WERE indie artists on there thatb did not mind thier music being shared. It was not all pirated material. You fail on that point.

 

It is apparent that you live in a black and white world. So long as all the black is on the side of those with whom you disagree. The thieves are 100% right, the labels 100% wrong. And you are right by vigorous assertion. (shrug..)

 

It seems also apparent that you are nothing more than an industry shill. You seem to think the industry can do no wrong and anything they do is OK with you. But there are artists that would disagree with you. And YOU want to talk about thieves? How about stealing from your own artists and calling it smart business?

 

Save your righteous indignation buddy, because you don't have a leg to stand on!

 

Go ahead and believe a lie, because that is exactly what it is.

 

If you don't want to admit that what the induistry did to their artists was just as bad, that is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.

 

So take your preaching somewhere else. I never said that piracy was justified, stop PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! But I will not back down from saying that the industry has acted JUST AS BADLY In RIPPING OFF ARTISTS.

 

Weather or not you agree, I could care less. It is the truth anyway, weather you want to admit it or not.

 

"s the fact that it was greed by taking over radio stations play lists in the first place that brought this about! And just exactly WHO was behind that? The music industry of course. "

 

Completely incorrect. Read my articles about the 1996 Telecommunications Act... incorporated into some college textbooks now.. about how our government permitted corporations to buy up the radio stations and turn them from nice little independent regional entertainment to carefully crafted advertising vehicles, each station aimed at a particular demographic, sold to advertisers on that basis. The music, which used to be the hallmark of most stations, is incidental. But like most of the rest of your arguments, you've gotten a bit muddled. Its okay, you're towing the popular line. Relax. Have a beer.

 

It also opened the way for the music industry to control the radio stations and what music they play. Which was my whole point!

 

You don't think the music industry wanted that bill to pass?

 

Get off your high horse Bill! Please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"stop PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!"

 

That is all you have done. You constantly say that my position is that the industry has done no wrong. Never said that. Never even suggested it. It was a very successful industry that ran for 70 years. Of course in that time period there are going to be good and bad guys involved.

 

There were NO good guys involved in piracy.

 

" you have no clue about Napster. In the first place, there WERE indie artists on there thatb did not mind thier music being shared."

 

More of the wink wink. Nobody gave a shit about them. Nobody went to Napster to download you or me, they went for the popular bands.

 

"It also opened the way for the music industry to control the radio stations and what music they play."

 

Sure. Explains perfectly why the labels are now so successful... oh wait... they're NOT! Are you really so blind? The music industry is not a player in radio stations anymore. The advertisers are, and the couple of corporations that own those stations. They also tried to buy the performance sites, and some of the production companies, and that would have led to a total American Idol music industry. The companies that own the radio stations are not the music industry. The symbiotic relationship

that existed between the music industry and the radio stations is gone.

 

"How about stealing from your own artists and calling it smart business? "

 

You keep saying this. Your point... that you sign a contract that isn't in your best interest.. is a far cry from being ripped off. Yes, there were thefts in that 70 year history, but your contention is not theft.

 

You can call me an industry shill if you like.. quite incorrect, but I've given up expecting you to be rational or reasonable. It is a complex topic, far from black or white. But you have to see and understand all sides to get to the real issues.

 

 

 

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK.. I'm on it. You're diverse in styles, but you're big on strong, semi-conventional songwriting.

 

Have you heard Neko Case? I think you might dig her.

 

How about Stereophonics?

 

On the trippier side, Black Mountain is fun.

 

Grails is kinda crazy intrumental, movie soundtrack stuff.

 

Not all are brand new acts, but they're current, and you may not know of them. I'll drop some more on you later.

 

Thanks for the links. I'll have to give them some time, none just popped out and grabbed me; but sometimes the best music is like that.

 

Didn't care for the Grails. Seriously... sounds like my band jamming when we got our first effect pedals back in the 1960s. Incomplete or only partially formed in terms of composition. I 'get it', but it's not my thing.

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neko Case is wonderful, and her band are seasoned pros... some of whom are older and from the Woodstock generation. One of my bands was supposed to open a show for her but the pedal steel player had a heart attack a couple of days before and that caused her to cancel the tour. She has some cool Gibson 4-string Tenor guitars from the early '60s...

 

http://fusion45.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/neko-case.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, all the best videos were made in the '60s.

 

What do videos have to do with music? Networks can't make money showing music videos (people change the channel if they don't like what's next) so they've gone for reality TV or whatever longer form thing can hold their audiences attention.

 

There's some GREAT recordings being made by younger bands now, and they're being made on the exact same valve and analog gear used to make classic recordings, and increasingly being listened to on vinyl. The songs are great, too.

 

I don't really get your statement at all.

 

I thought Bill had a great point that a lot of people are being prejudiced against his generation just to try to make their own look better, and I don't agree with the practice working the other way, either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I don't agree with the practice working the other way, either.

 

I agree. I can't comprehend the idea that someone should be bagged on for "using vintage gear" when it works for them, and is significantly less "hit or miss" than the newer boutique copycat stuff.

 

I was grateful to have the chance at playing a full rehearsal through a boutique tube bass head last year prior to buying it. I figured out pretty quick it wasn't clean enough to avoid destroying the bottom end on my active 5-string bass. Saved me $2700.

 

All that said (and back on topic) I'm not digging what I've heard from Neko - not because I don't like acoustic music, but because there wasn't anything that really jumped out at me about any of the songs I've heard. Give me some Paul Simon grooves any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really getting Guitarzan's take on this. If I like it then it is good. All the marketing and trends really just sometimes get in the way of what we are all here for, listening to and playing music we like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really getting Guitarzan's take on this. If I like it then it is good. All the marketing and trends really just sometimes get in the way of what we are all here for, listening to and playing music we like.

 

of course and agreed. But (like so many other post in this wandering journey of a thread...), it is not germane to the point/purpose of the original post. We've certainly taken this one around the Horn. So, how 'bout 'em Steelers?

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I was just throwing some stuff out there to see if anything grabbed anyone, especially Bill, because I actually would be really pleased if he found something he dug in relatively current music.

 

Personally, I dig Neko Case. I wouldn't have recommended her to Bill if I didn't. Not only does she have a cool voice (reminds me of Patsy Cline a little), but she's also got some fun material--solo and with The New Pornographers. And, not for nothing, I've met her before--she's a total sweetheart.

 

Meanwhile, Bill... on another angle...

Check out Pearls and Brass. Kind of a Blue Cheer thing with a lot of blues and some Captain Beefheart thrown in.

 

Have you heard Mogwai? Interesting stuff.

 

On the heavier side, how about Torche? Yes, it's highly de-tuned, but there's actual singing and some more textural guitar stuff happening.

 

Have a whiff...

 

 

\m/

Erik

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

--Sun Tzu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I was just throwing some stuff out there to see if anything grabbed anyone, ...

 

I've got an idea... how about we start a new thread, focused on new music that we each like? Then anyone could toss out some recommendations, we could discuss them, and they would be under a thread title wherein everyone could find it.

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with most people is they can't see or quantify a difference between the "Wow! That's amazing" response and the response that makes you say "Oh God, my heart is breaking!"

 

Well said. What makes music great isn't groundbreaking technique, but the ability to evoke an emotional response in the listener. You not only have to know the chords and scales, but you have to be able to play them with heart and soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is all you have done. You constantly say that my position is that the industry has done no wrong. Never said that. Never even suggested it. It was a very successful industry that ran for 70 years. Of course in that time period there are going to be good and bad guys involved.

 

Yes and the thing YOU are so blind to, is the FACT that there were people in the industry that made a profit from ripping off bands in contracts. They did it all the time. Fact NOT fiction!

 

You want to call those people good?

 

There were NO good guys involved in piracy.

 

So.... Most people according to your warped sense of integrity, that downloaded songs are all crooks, is that what you are saying? Even though a lot of studies showed the exact opposite. Moist had HUGE collections of music and STILL bought CDs.

 

Again, you still sound like someone who has his head in the sand.

 

More of the wink wink. Nobody gave a shit about them. Nobody went to Napster to download you or me, they went for the popular bands.

 

BULLSHIT! How the hell do you know what they were downloading? Sounds like you are just guessing and trying to turn this to your advantage. A lot of studies after Napster colapsed showed that a lot of indie artists as well as popular artists were downloaded.

 

Sure. Explains perfectly why the labels are now so successful... oh wait... they're NOT! Are you really so blind?

 

And are you really so blind to believe that the industry plays NO part in radio anymore? And newsflash for you Bill, they WERE powerful and it was their GREED brought that them down. Not Napster and not some college kid.

 

The music industry is not a player in radio stations anymore. The advertisers are, and the couple of corporations that own those stations. They also tried to buy the performance sites, and some of the production companies, and that would have led to a total American Idol music industry. The companies that own the radio stations are not the music industry. The symbiotic relationship

that existed between the music industry and the radio stations is gone.

 

According to YOU? Sorry, but I will get my facts elsewhere than from someone who THINKS they have all the answers and is so slanted in their responses. And the industry is NOT totally out of radio. But maybe you think that the industry itself were the be all, end all of radio, I sure don't! It was the local DJs and the artists that made the songs they played so special...NOT those who controlled the stations. The ONLY thing the industry did differently than the corporations was give more control to the DJs but eventually they would have taken even that away.

 

Look at what the industry is doing to live concerts. For years they let the artists have the major share of the profits, which the artist used to live on, but now they want a cut of even that! Since they are not making as much on CDs, they now want to cut into live concert profits. And again, you think the file sharers are crooks? Try to open your eyes to the fact that they are not they ONLY ones STEALING!

 

So we would still have the SAME MESS the radio stations have, it just would have taken a little while to get there. "Meet the new boss, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS"!

 

 

 

You keep saying this. Your point... that you sign a contract that isn't in your best interest.. is a far cry from being ripped off. Yes, there were thefts in that 70 year history, but your contention is not theft.

 

Sorry Bill , but that is an OUTRIGHT LIE! And I think you know it! You don't have a leg to stand on this. The WHOLE "standard contract" was slanted tword the music industry. Forget which label you sign with, if you don't make it big, you're screwed. Period.

 

Even then, if you did not have a lawyer with you, which a lot of bands could not afford one, they might still be screwed because the record company could take as much as they wanted.

 

I really don't see how you can call taking advantage of someone like that, NOT being dishonest or being a thief. The industry had thousands of lawyers, the musicians had only their music to offer....not much of an even scale now is it?

 

You can call me an industry shill if you like.. quite incorrect, but I've given up expecting you to be rational or reasonable. It is a complex topic, far from black or white. But you have to see and understand all sides to get to the real issues.

 

What you are really saying is because I DON'T AGREE with YOU, that I must not have a grasp on the issues. Give it a rest!

 

Sorry, but I there is more points in this argument that yours and the industries, period.

 

And I have also given up on you being honest about the way the music industry was really run. So no more pompuus bullshit please.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...