Lily has something to say ... and so does Steve

PaulBrewer

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=36707169&blogId=510114316


Lily Allen has some thoughts on File Sharing, what do you think ?

Steve Albini has a good point too -
"if my band was going to put a song up on the Internet...we would get nothing (if it were free)
which is not that much worse than a penny...and the great advantage to the customer would be that they
wouldn't have to pay a dollar in order for me to get nothing... "

http://www.massenburg.com/c/gml/naras_panel.html?open=

starbelgrade

Is there a point to Lily Allen?

studiorat

Down with British music!!!

So happy to see Lily on Porter Wagoner.
I kind of fancy Lily Allen but I do think the video for "it's not fair" is really fake. Cause with that suit in the real world you would have probably seen some camels toe action.

What were you doing on Lily's myspace anyway paul?

dav nagle

studiorat wrote: »

Down with British music!!!

So happy to see Lily on Porter Wagoner.
I kind of fancy Lily Allen, do you?

1.Theres no 'kind of' about it

2. She has a point about Radiohead yappin on

'Take our music for free, donate if you like, we have already made millions we don't want to be greedy' as if Tom Yorke would be giving away 'Creep' when he started off as a youngfella.

Meh..to be honest..people might as well get used to it..With the advances of modern technology the youth of today expect music to be free..and are they that wrong?..In reality how much does the artist get as opposed to the record company..and the PR company..Should an artist be in it to make money?..should it not be about the art?..Its getting a lot cheaper to produce music these days..the record industry is dying slowly..The artist can still make money if they can go out and play a gig that people will go to..End of rant


ps...Lily Allens hot...and the new album is quite good too..
And Pink Floyd are the greatest band in the history of everything..

iamhunted

i tend to agree. I was talking to Rat Scabies a while back about this same idea and he couldnt get his head around the idea of giving stuff away for free, or making music available for free as part of promotion. In his head - and in a lof of heads involved in the business - its still 'that album cost me money to make and you arent getting it for free'.

I think there has to be a new way of doing things, which will have to involve musicians giving away free music. thats just the way it is, right or wrong. give away music for free and then its no longer pirating. Sell little amounts of a lot of songs, rather than sell a large amounts of one song (and you do that by giving away even more songs). The long curve I think its called.

Granted, it does mean musicians have to be able to actually write songs and it will kill off the management/label manufactered 'i only have 10 songs' bands, but in my book thats a good idea. Plus it might also mean that there'll be no more bands as rich as led zepplin got ... but then again, these days bands arent making money anyway, moreso than the labels.

Then think of the other options - bands running themselves, selling music for themselves by giving away other good music. No middle men, no cuts for labels etc etc ... bound to make the musician more profitable rather than make the hangers on more richer.

PaulBrewer

CDQ and Iamhunted -

I think you both have points.
But I also think Lily's core point is also valid, namely without investment Music will probably retreat into an amateur 'parlour' activity with everything being small and intimate. No 'bands like Zep or U2 or Queen or Muses in the future would be a pity I think.

The reason you could see Artic Monkeys or whoever in Whelans for a 10er isn't because the gig generated enough money to cover that - it's because someone subsidised their tour on the hope of future return.

I agree the old model is entirely broke - but unless there is a way for new bands to generate proper money it might be singersongwriters in the back of the pub from here on in!

iamhunted

i agree the old model is broke but i dont think file sharing broke it - plus though it did bring through bands, the likes of Zep or U2 or Queen or Muses all broke through years back when there really was investment going on.

Where has the investment been in the past decade? in been in Cowell esq 'Britinas/AMericas get talent etc etc which we all know is really just a cheap and cheerful way for the music majors to road test some sellable acts all while trying to find them.

I think the music industry fcuked this up on their own, have been too interested in lining their pockets and not interested enough in finding quality, original talent. We end up with hardly any decent bands making it due to label investment and label confidence. Instead we see bands like Director and FLAs taking their own routes - which lets be honest, is probably the best thing.

To be honest, I dont think theres a need for labels as we know them anymore. They used to finance recordings, tours, finance manufacture and look after distribution. Most labels no longer look after financing tours anymore, and bands can do the rest of it themselves these days - so why have a 'music industry'?

iamhunted

i dont think theres going ot be any easy answers to this over the next few years. But. look on the brightside. This is an opportunity for bands and musicians - its a brave new world where we no longer know whats possible and what isnt. Its the punk revolution of our time if you ask me.

ZV Yoda

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh..to be honest..people might as well get used to it..With the advances of modern technology the youth of today expect music to be free..and are they that wrong?..In reality how much does the artist get as opposed to the record company..and the PR company..Should an artist be in it to make money?..should it not be about the art?..Its getting a lot cheaper to produce music these days..the record industry is dying slowly..The artist can still make money if they can go out and play a gig that people will go to..End of rant

ps...Lily Allens hot...and the new album is quite good too..
And Pink Floyd are the greatest band in the history of everything..

Art for art's sake is well & good, but it doesn't pay the bills. Why shouldn’t an artist be “in it for the money?” Nothing wrong with that.

I disagree that it's "getting a lot cheaper to make music these days"... it's always been possible to make music cheaply... likewise it's always been possible to spend a fortune making it too. The Beatles recorded their first few albums in a matter of hours (not even days!). They didn't exactly rake up the studio bills. U2 effectively recorded their last album twice – once with Rick Ruben, once with Eno/Lanois & co… they doubled their costs before ever releasing the album.

I don't think the cost of making the music is relevant anyway. Music is only "worth" what people are prepared to pay for it.

In reality, the real change in the music industry has nothing to do with what it costs to make the music itself... it's about how the music gets distributed/marketed to the consumer. For years it was all about getting a physical product (cassette, vinyl, CDs, DVDs etc) to a point of sale so the consumer could buy the music. So, you have manufacturing costs (to produce the CDs etc). Then you have the cost of packaging, artwork etc. Then there’s shipping costs (from factory to wholesaler to the retailer). Then there’s overheads (to buy/store the product). I’m no expert, but I’d say the average €15 CD in your local record shop has a least €3-4 tied up in the costs above.

Today, those distribution costs are effectively gone. It’s now possible to sell without any physical product. The middle man/distributor (who in many cases are the same as/or are affiliated to the record companies) now has less obvious value/purpose in the whole chain.

So, while the business model of distribution/marketing of music will continue to change, it doesn’t change the fact that artists are perfectly entitled to make money from their music – if they don’t, then why would they bother? What remains to be seen is how that changes over time. Seems to me a more direct relationship between buyer & seller is likely, but then there’s the “monthly subscription model”, or the “pay your internet provider” option. Interesting times ahead…

iamhunted wrote: »

i dont think theres going ot be any easy answers to this over the next few years. But. look on the brightside. This is an opportunity for bands and musicians - its a brave new world where we no longer know whats possible and what isnt. Its the punk revolution of our time if you ask me.

Nail on the head I think...

Rockshamrover

I like the bandcamp model of music distribution. Sell at the price you are happy with and give away at the sound quality of your choosing.

How about this for an idea. Radiohead, or whoever, release their new album digitally and you pay your normal price. but Radiohead include 2 tracks (not on their own album but as a seperate download) from an up and coming artist/band that they like or artists who have them on tour.

You get free music, the new band get the chance to be heard by a massive audience. The music biz gets a way to support new talent without having to spend millions.

I have just saved the music industry again.

PaulBrewer

What if you put lots of bands on it ?

Maybe call it something like 'A Compilation' ? :rolleyes:

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

What if you put lots of bands on it ?

Maybe call it something like 'A Compilation' ? :rolleyes:

Why not?

The important thing though would be that band allowing the piggyback, would have to be really into the band/artist and think them worthy of the free ride.

It wouldn't look good having Kajagoogoo's comeback album associated with Radioheads latest opus:D

PaulBrewer

Matty Speaks

Matt Bellamy from Muse (who are supporting U2 in the US) has chimed in with his comments on File Sharing.

11811

Hmm he has the right idea about taxing the ISPs, how they would go about implementing this would be interesting.

Another thing that really annoys me is the amount of DJs up and down the country using filesharing to get tracks played in clubs etc, thats really taking the pish, be good to see a crack down on that sorta carry on too.

iamhunted

to be fair, anyone using music for their own commercial gain, like DJs, should really go out and buy the stuff.

iamhunted

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Matty Speaks

Matt Bellamy from Muse (who are supporting U2 in the US) has chimed in with his comments on File Sharing.

i think he's made a pretty big boo boo when he says "but someone who downloads 1GB per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly."

Its not that clear cut. Designers, printing companies, software companies, other musicians etc could easily be uploading and downloading a gig of their *own* work every day and then end up getting charged extra. theres no way yet to determine just what people actually are downloading - theres no way to say its all illegal downloads.

whiterob81

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I like the bandcamp model of music distribution. Sell at the price you are happy with and give away at the sound quality of your choosing.

How about this for an idea. Radiohead, or whoever, release their new album digitally and you pay your normal price. but Radiohead include 2 tracks (not on their own album but as a seperate download) from an up and coming artist/band that they like or artists who have them on tour.

You get free music, the new band get the chance to be heard by a massive audience. The music biz gets a way to support new talent without having to spend millions.

I have just saved the music industry again.

but why would I pay to download an album, that I can get for free from a file sharing site, just because it has 2 has free tracks I didn't want in the first place.

I still buy cds occasionally because I'm old fashioned and like havin a physical product but i think i'm a dying breed.

I think bands and record labels just have to get used to the fact that in the future albums will just be brought out to promote tours. i don't think music will suffer because of this. for years, record labels have been pumping loads of money into promotional tools for bands that don't give an immediate monetary return such as music videos, wardrobe etc. I think it will just become the same for albums. record labels should be able to recoup most of their expenses through ticket sales and merchandising. At least that's how I see things going for the major labels.

It'll probably be a different story for indie labels. I can see the creation of music not being released by major label's basically turning into a rich man's hobby in the future.

Of course, I could have all this completely wrong!

ZV Yoda

ZV Yoda wrote: »

I disagree that it's "getting a lot cheaper to make music these days"... it's always been possible to make music cheaply... likewise it's always been possible to spend a fortune making it too. The Beatles recorded their first few albums in a matter of hours (not even days!). They didn't exactly rake up the studio bills. U2 effectively recorded their last album twice – once with Rick Ruben, once with Eno/Lanois & co… they doubled their costs before ever releasing the album.


In reality, the real change in the music industry has nothing to do with what it costs to make the music itself... it's about how the music gets distributed/marketed to the consumer. For years it was all about getting a physical product (cassette, vinyl, CDs, DVDs etc) to a point of sale so the consumer could buy the music. So, you have manufacturing costs (to produce the CDs etc). Then you have the cost of packaging, artwork etc. Then there’s shipping costs (from factory to wholesaler to the retailer). Then there’s overheads (to buy/store the product). I’m no expert, but I’d say the average €15 CD in your local record shop has a least €3-4 tied up in the costs above.

Today, those distribution costs are effectively gone. It’s now possible to sell without any physical product. The middle man/distributor (who in many cases are the same as/or are affiliated to the record companies) now has less obvious value/purpose in the whole chain.

QUOTE]

Well, whether you agree with it or not, its getting a lot cheaper to produce music these days..For example..Florence and the machine's album Lungs was recorded in her garden shed..Elbow's album was recorded with a firepod and cubase?...Its now possible to record an album in your own house that will be of a standard that would get played on the radio..There's know-how involved, but thats available if one has the time to put into it..The money is in the marketing side of things, which is probably why you get a lot of the average fad sh1t-hop and the like all over the airwaves..Its possible to gain recognition through myspace now though, so even thats not vital..The only money in it now, for the artist, is in playing live..
Im not saying I necessarily agree with the situation..But at this stage is there that much that can be done about it?..Your average 18 yr old in the street expects music for nowt..and to be honest they're probably not that concerned with sound quality cos they're listening to it on their phones..

And U2 can afford to record an album twice..seeing as they refuse to pay tax here..

whiterob81

ZV Yoda wrote: »

I disagree that it's "getting a lot cheaper to make music these days"... it's always been possible to make music cheaply... likewise it's always been possible to spend a fortune making it too. The Beatles recorded their first few albums in a matter of hours (not even days!). They didn't exactly rake up the studio bills. U2 effectively recorded their last album twice – once with Rick Ruben, once with Eno/Lanois & co… they doubled their costs before ever releasing the album.

I think you've almost disproven your own point there. The beatles recorded their first few albums in a few hours for next to nothing and most of them as still regarded as classics over 40 years later.

U2 spent millions recording an album twice that has gotten a fairly indifferent response from the public and critics. Metallica spent 2 and a half years and countless millions recording st anger and it sucked balls. They recorded kill em all in the space of 2 weeks and it's still regarded as a classic. Spending a fortune on an album doesn't really gaurantee quality. I could be very wrong about this but when a band spends too much time and money on an album, it seems to be more indicative of a downward creative spiral.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, whether you agree with it or not, its getting a lot cheaper to produce music these days..For example..Florence and the machine's album Lungs was recorded in her garden shed..Elbow's album was recorded with a firepod and cubase?...Its now possible to record an album in your own house that will be of a standard that would get played on the radio..There's know-how involved, but thats available if one has the time to put into it..The money is in the marketing side of things, which is probably why you get a lot of the average fad sh1t-hop and the like all over the airwaves..Its possible to gain recognition through myspace now though, so even thats not vital..The only money in it now, for the artist, is in playing live..
Im not saying I necessarily agree with the situation..But at this stage is there that much that can be done about it?..Your average 18 yr old in the street expects music for nowt..and to be honest they're probably not that concerned with sound quality cos they're listening to it on their phones..

And U2 can afford to record an album twice..seeing as they refuse to pay tax here..

i'd agree with most of what you're saying except that myspace isn't really going to help break any new bands. And before you say Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen, think of when was the first time you heard of either of them. It was probably in NME or on Mtv 2, not from myspace. I've heard musicians commenting before that there's so much music available on myspace that it's impossible for anyone to really stand out. In general, people are still finding out about music through the regular routes of magazines and radio. Unfotunately, bands still need someone to push for more exposure for them

PaulBrewer

whiterob81 wrote: »

The beatles recorded their first few albums in a few hours for next to nothing and most of them as still regarded as classics over 40 years later.

Whilst technically what you say is true The Beatles did record in Abbey Road , then as now a Top Studio (originally opened in 1931!) and worked as the technology of the day allowed i.e. more or less live. So no different than anyone else of that era.

U2 spent millions recording an album twice that has gotten a fairly indifferent response from the public and critics. Metallica spent 2 and a half years and countless millions recording st anger and it sucked balls. They recorded kill em all in the space of 2 weeks and it's still regarded as a classic. Spending a fortune on an album doesn't really gaurantee quality. I could be very wrong about this but when a band spends too much time and money on an album, it seems to be more indicative of a downward creative spiral.

You could be onto something here!

i

'd agree with most of what you're saying except that myspace isn't really going to help break any new bands. And before you say Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen, think of when was the first time you heard of either of them. It was probably in NME or on Mtv 2, not from myspace. I've heard musicians commenting before that there's so much music available on myspace that it's impossible for anyone to really stand out. In general, people are still finding out about music through the regular routes of magazines and radio. Unfotunately, bands still need someone to push for more exposure for them

I think you're right here too.
As I've said before I think MySpace is the Golden Pages of Bands - hear or read about a band and that's the first place one looks to find out more.
I've never believed it to be any more than that.

whiterob81

whiterob81 wrote: »

i'd agree with most of what you're saying except that myspace isn't really going to help break any new bands. And before you say Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen, think of when was the first time you heard of either of them. It was probably in NME or on Mtv 2, not from myspace. I've heard musicians commenting before that there's so much music available on myspace that it's impossible for anyone to really stand out. In general, people are still finding out about music through the regular routes of magazines and radio. Unfotunately, bands still need someone to push for more exposure for them

Well, yeah, thats true...but the only reason they got on mtv2 or into NME was due to the myspace thing..and it is true that there's so much its hard to stand out...the point i was making though was that you dont need a deal anymore to get somewhere..playing good gigs will get ya recognition..christ if they were so inclined a band could just get a PR company themselves, cutting out the middle man..

ZV Yoda

Deleted User wrote: »

ZV Yoda wrote: »

I disagree that it's "getting a lot cheaper to make music these days"... it's always been possible to make music cheaply... likewise it's always been possible to spend a fortune making it too. The Beatles recorded their first few albums in a matter of hours (not even days!). They didn't exactly rake up the studio bills. U2 effectively recorded their last album twice – once with Rick Ruben, once with Eno/Lanois & co… they doubled their costs before ever releasing the album.


In reality, the real change in the music industry has nothing to do with what it costs to make the music itself... it's about how the music gets distributed/marketed to the consumer. For years it was all about getting a physical product (cassette, vinyl, CDs, DVDs etc) to a point of sale so the consumer could buy the music. So, you have manufacturing costs (to produce the CDs etc). Then you have the cost of packaging, artwork etc. Then there’s shipping costs (from factory to wholesaler to the retailer). Then there’s overheads (to buy/store the product). I’m no expert, but I’d say the average €15 CD in your local record shop has a least €3-4 tied up in the costs above.

Today, those distribution costs are effectively gone. It’s now possible to sell without any physical product. The middle man/distributor (who in many cases are the same as/or are affiliated to the record companies) now has less obvious value/purpose in the whole chain.

QUOTE]

Well, whether you agree with it or not, its getting a lot cheaper to produce music these days..For example..Florence and the machine's album Lungs was recorded in her garden shed..Elbow's album was recorded with a firepod and cubase?...Its now possible to record an album in your own house that will be of a standard that would get played on the radio..There's know-how involved, but thats available if one has the time to put into it..The money is in the marketing side of things, which is probably why you get a lot of the average fad sh1t-hop and the like all over the airwaves..Its possible to gain recognition through myspace now though, so even thats not vital..The only money in it now, for the artist, is in playing live..
Im not saying I necessarily agree with the situation..But at this stage is there that much that can be done about it?..Your average 18 yr old in the street expects music for nowt..and to be honest they're probably not that concerned with sound quality cos they're listening to it on their phones..

And U2 can afford to record an album twice..seeing as they refuse to pay tax here..

whiterob81 wrote: »

I think you've almost disproven your own point there. The beatles recorded their first few albums in a few hours for next to nothing and most of them as still regarded as classics over 40 years later.

U2 spent millions recording an album twice that has gotten a fairly indifferent response from the public and critics. Metallica spent 2 and a half years and countless millions recording st anger and it sucked balls. They recorded kill em all in the space of 2 weeks and it's still regarded as a classic. Spending a fortune on an album doesn't really gaurantee quality. I could be very wrong about this but when a band spends too much time and money on an album, it seems to be more indicative of a downward creative spiral.

i'd agree with most of what you're saying except that myspace isn't really going to help break any new bands. And before you say Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen, think of when was the first time you heard of either of them. It was probably in NME or on Mtv 2, not from myspace. I've heard musicians commenting before that there's so much music available on myspace that it's impossible for anyone to really stand out. In general, people are still finding out about music through the regular routes of magazines and radio. Unfotunately, bands still need someone to push for more exposure for them

... but that's exactly my point - yes, it's possible make music cheaply today (like you said - if you have the know how). I'm simply saying that's always been the case (The Beatles, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Sex Pistols... & countless others made classic albums without spending a fortune recording them). I also agree that spending more money does not mean an album's any better. I wasn't suggesting that U2's album is any good - I think it's rubbish.

My point is that the real change in the industry is not how much or how little it costs to record an album... it's in how the album gets distributed to the consumer. Like I said, artists are entitled to make money from their work. All that's changed today is how the album gets to the consumer & how the artist ultimately gets their share. Like another poster said, I think it's likely to be either via a direct artist-consumer relationship, or else through a tax/levy of some description though an ISP.

ZV Yoda

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Whilst technically what you say is true The Beatles did record in Abbey Road , then as now a Top Studio (originally opened in 1931!) and worked as the technology of the day allowed i.e. more or less live. So no different than anyone else of that era..

Yip, no doubt... top studio with a top producer... but as George Martin said himself, The Beatles were special. They had the talent & that's one of the reasons why they only spent a few hours lashing the album down. Another band would have taken weeks to do the same thing in the same studio & still produce a heap of sh*te.

But that's what I'm saying... you could make a great album on the cheap back in the 60's... and you can do the same today... but you could also spend a fortune back then too... wasn't there some stuff on another thread about Pink Floyd?... didn't they spend yonks working on their albums in the 70's?

The point is though, whether it was a "cheap" Beatles album or an expensive "Floyd" one, there were still substantial costs/infrastructure required to get the albums to the punters back then. That's not the case anymore

eigenboggle

I'd love to see vinyl make a come back but with digital download. Maybe codes or something with the purchase so that I could stick it on the ipod but still have my nice vinyl to play at home, hold, touch, hang up on the wall, sleep with, etc.

henessjon

the technology is killing the biz



just imagine if an ipod was the size of a ghetto blaster not many downloads or cds will be sold then


there is a perception - audiophiles - audio and vinyl sounds better...


so why did it die the death.

ban the small earphones is the only to save it make it illegal for health reasons

Dragan

The music business is merely paying the price for it's own rot and excess to be honest.

Ridiculous money spent on find the next disposable one hit retard.

Dragan

Dragan wrote: »

The music business is merely paying the price for it's own rot and excess to be honest.

Ridiculous money spent on find the next disposable one hit retard.

This is true..

PaulBrewer

Some interesting opinions here -

Has anyone here had any long term relationship with the Majors or their offshoots ?

Or are comments just speculation?

Dragan

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Some interesting opinions here -

Has anyone here had any long term relationship with the Majors or their offshoots ?

Or are comments just speculation?

I purchased my first ever tape at the age of 7 years old. It was a second hand copy of Jive Bunny and the Master Mixers. The transaction was completed on a Sunday.

At the age of 12, I purchased my first official tape. A copy of Metallica's "Ride the Lighting". I was inspired to do so by the bootleg copy of their Black album which had been gifted to me by my brother, along with his old ****ty single tapedeck Sony stereo. I spent the next year gathering up the money to buy the rest of Metallica's back album, along with various albums by the likes of Black Sabbath, the Beatles and heavier metal acts.

By the time i was 16 i was spending the vast majority of both my pocket money, and money from odds jobs, on music. I was an avid reader of music magazines...from Metal Hammer to Mix Mag.

By the age of 18 I had a job earning me in excess of 500 ( then pounds ) a week. I was spending roughly 33% of that in music shops all over the country. At one point, the lads in Hot Traxx in Galway noted i was purchasing anywhere from 5 to 10 albums a week in their shop alone.

At this point i had a CD collection in the thousands, tapes gallore and had also purchased plenty of songs on Vinyl.

At the age of 17 I had left home, and became a regular at live shows, traveling where ever the bands were, spending money on tickets and t-shirts.

In the 11 years since i have continued to support bands through the purchase of their music, there merc and seeing them at live shows. I would say i average about gig/DJ night ever two weeks. Even on the nights where i am on the guest list, i still pay my way to ensure I am doing what i can do help the artist i am choosing to support.

I have been the music industry's target audience for about 21 years now.

Sorry Paul, but i think that entitles me to have the opinion that the music industry is a bloated mutant , carrying too many talentless pricks because they look good in a video, or have a voice suitable for heavy autotuning.

Obnoxious levels of costs going into equipment, studio time and live show shenanigans...because the performance itself is weak.

Whatever way you want to slice it, a decent percentage of the music produced today is produced solely for the implied monetary benefit to those involved.

I wasn't aware I needed to have a relationship with the music industry beyond the one i have had to be able to have an opinion of it.

Good to know, especially as i get deeper into the music industry.

PaulBrewer

Dragan wrote: »

I purchased my first ever tape at the age of 7 years old. It was a second hand copy of Jive Bunny and the Master Mixers. The transaction was completed on a Sunday.

At the age of 12, I purchased my first official tape. A copy of Metallica's "Ride the Lighting". I was inspired to do so by the bootleg copy of their Black album which had been gifted to me by my brother, along with his old ****ty single tapedeck Sony stereo. I spent the next year gathering up the money to buy the rest of Metallica's back album, along with various albums by the likes of Black Sabbath, the Beatles and heavier metal acts.

By the time i was 16 i was spending the vast majority of both my pocket money, and money from odds jobs, on music. I was an avid reader of music magazines...from Metal Hammer to Mix Mag.

By the age of 18 I had a job earning me in excess of 500 ( then pounds ) a week. I was spending roughly 33% of that in music shops all over the country. At one point, the lads in Hot Traxx in Galway noted i was purchasing anywhere from 5 to 10 albums a week in their shop alone.

At this point i had a CD collection in the thousands, tapes gallore and had also purchased plenty of songs on Vinyl.

At the age of 17 I had left home, and became a regular at live shows, traveling where ever the bands were, spending money on tickets and t-shirts.

In the 11 years since i have continued to support bands through the purchase of their music, there merc and seeing them at live shows. I would say i average about gig/DJ night ever two weeks. Even on the nights where i am on the guest list, i still pay my way to ensure I am doing what i can do help the artist i am choosing to support.

I have been the music industry's target audience for about 21 years now.

Sorry Paul, but i think that entitles me to have the opinion that the music industry is a bloated mutant , carrying too many talentless pricks because they look good in a video, or have a voice suitable for heavy autotuning.

Obnoxious levels of costs going into equipment, studio time and live show shenanigans...because the performance itself is weak.

Whatever way you want to slice it, a decent percentage of the music produced today is produced solely for the implied monetary benefit to those involved.

I wasn't aware I needed to have a relationship with the music industry beyond the one i have had to be able to have an opinion of it.

Good to know, especially as i get deeper into the music industry.

Of course you're entitled to an opinion and I welcome it.

But as anyone who works in the industry knows the perception of it is much different to the reality ( the artists quoted above are an example of that)

I remember one of the first shocks I got as a kid working in a studio was the fact that it was mostly session bands who played on Country bands records here - not a thing I'd have ever considered as a consumer.

I'm interested in hearing from someone who has dealt with Major or their Minor labels to hear their opinions.

I note too Dragan, you're Mod on Ranting+Raving

Dragan

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I note too Dragan, you're Mod on Ranting+Raving

Indeed, when i requested the forum i wanted it to be called "Angry Bastards".

As i felt it suited better.:D

PaulBrewer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8274072.stm

Here's a bit more - it's interesting that it's artists who are getting together, as opposed to just leaving it to their labels.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8097324.stm

And another view.

trackmixstudio

Artists need to realize that selling music is a thing of the past.
The money is in touring these days.
Never again will there be a situation like the Beatles when they decided to stop touring then released sgt peppers then the white album and did no gigs to promote them.
Trent Reznor gave his last album away free on his website but offered a limited edition collectors pack which he will make a ton of money from since there is no record label getting a cut.
Prince gave his album away free with the daily mail. He got 250,000 pounds for this and he got blanket coverage and sold out his o2 gigs in a flash.
Times have changed and artists need to accept that and stop moaning.
PS I fuppin' hate Lilly Allen.
I think I will now go online and download her albums from bit torrent even though I won't even listen to them:p

iamhunted

she is highlighting a genuine issue - i think though the causes she gives for the problem are off skilter. The music industry has to see that as long as the internet exists, there will be illegal downloading.

Somebody has to work out a way where that can happen but money will still be generated. It might mean a complete change in how the music industry works, who knows?

I think thats a tough one to solve properly but if the wrong moves are made, I and other musicians might find it tricky to actually freely give music away. People might think its illegal.

And these days, music fans are no longer happy buying 12 songs once a year (in general) from a band and hoping the purchase was worth it - they want to get free music and decide if a particular band's music is worth buying. The days of fans blindly following an act and buying everything they present is gone. These days many music 'fans' are listeners whowant good music. Maybe thats a good thing as the factory made pop bands/reality tv music competition winners wont have a chance. I think they'll be the main losers. Hang on, maybe Im saying the labels who create them will be the real losers.

OK - theres also a lot of freeloading w*nkers who just want free music regardless, but we cant limit their freedom without limiting everyone elses, including musicians who dont mind giving away free music. It reminds me of a few years back when the word 'mp3' meant 'illegal music' to the general public due to how the music industry was reacting to mp3s when the format got popular online. They're doing the same now to the words 'music downloading'.

What was it moby said? Something along the lines of how bad it is people are being punished for being interested enough to listen to music?

Rockshamrover

Maybe it's bands/artistes who need to think about why they make music.

Is it purely self expression or ego? Is it to make money? Would you stop making music because you can't make money from it?

Maybe the future will not have superstars or super groups, is that a bad thing?

I personally think that if your music is good enough and people connect with it, you will make make money (a living and maybe more). It's the connection thing that's important as it's the audience who decides how good you really are.

It doesn't cost a fortune now to make a good album. It costs a fortune to market it and to get your image just right.

I was watching Later with Jools Holland last Friday and the best band on it imho where the Jazz group. They won't make millions but by the same token they won't be illegally downloaded (much).

Lilly has now decided to give up making music because she can't make money from it. What do you think of that?

Awaits backlash:o

PaulBrewer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20090925_FAC.shtml

iamhunted

Personally, I agree with you. Maybe its about time there was a clearout in the music industry and the focus went back to letting people hear good music and not about trying to make an awful lot of money in the shortest time possible.

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Maybe it's bands/artistes who need to think about why they make music.

Is it purely self expression or ego? Is it to make money? Would you stop making music because you can't make money from it?

Maybe the future will not have superstars or super groups, is that a bad thing?

I personally think that if your music is good enough and people connect with it, you will make make money (a living and maybe more). It's the connection thing that's important as it's the audience who decides how good you really are.

It doesn't cost a fortune now to make a good album. It costs a fortune to market it and to get your image just right.

I was watching Later with Jools Holland last Friday and the best band on it imho where the Jazz group. They won't make millions but by the same token they won't be illegally downloaded (much).

Lilly has now decided to give up making music because she can't make money from it. What do you think of that?

Awaits backlash:o

iamhunted

PaulBrewer wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20090925_FAC.shtml

i wait with bated breath to find out just how they will be able to determine from the packets of information being received and sent via a users internet account on what is an illegally downloaded file and what isnt. Unless of course they bring back some form of DRM. Jebus, I could go off on a conspiracy theory on the music industry's need for DRM .....

PaulBrewer

Or the legality of 'restricting' internet supply, that you've bought and paid for ...

dav nagle

RANT 1.

So what’s under Lillie’s hood? A record company telling her to write that or else some kind of business advisor milking her plate (MEOW! PRRRR!). Artist are business people, it's all business, especially the Lilly 'oh no is that another upskirt shot of me?' Allen band wagon.
ACT 1:

''Hi I am Johnny CD collection look how cool I am! I have more useless CD's than anyone in Ireland or at least more than you or your mates, want some coke? Oh look at my huge CD collection, oh you sap you broke my CD, oh you sap you are using my CD as a Frisbee, '' who gives a fuk about the CD, it is useless.''

RANT 2:
Compare CD wallets to an IPod, it's so much handier to have it all slapped on a hard drive the size of a spiders ball sac. They need to release new music in 2010 with a new coding system that can only be cracked by the guy who uses a stick on his head to type and is a regular guest in the Simpsons, any takers?
RANT 3:

These days a complete knuckle head who sniffs coke up his ass can release a CD out his backside on Itunes. The truth is it is all boiling down to the simple fact that we make music because we love music and anything else that comes of it is a bonus. Damien Rice I heard believed he would sell 1000 copies of his big blowers daughter album and he madde a fortune so it can be done, maybe the question is down to this:
LECTURE 1:

Maybe your music is not popular enough to warrant a mass die hard dedicated fanbase of people who will actively hunt your album down and buy it, maybe your music is just not that appealing to 'warrant' demand.


Rockshamrover + 1 for your post well said.

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20090925_FAC.shtml

Interesting.

I think half the problem with illegal downloads is that people think they are taking something from a big faceless corporation and not from individual musicians.

It's considered a cool thing to do because you are beating the system. The more the "system" tries to impose it's rules, the more likely those rules are to be broken. Also, it's the fact that it's relatively easy to do and you are never likely to be caught.

I'm not saying I agree with it as I think the artist deserves payment for their efforts, but I can certainly see why people do it.

I am not personally convinced that if we lived in a world were illegal downloading was impossible, that Lilly's albums would have sold many more copies:D How many people here only get their music through illegal downloads? Not many is my guess.

Some of the reason for the drop in sales has got to be down to the high levels of not great music that's being churned out. And also to peoples boredom with the latest manufactured band or what have you.

By the way, I liked your post too Dav:) +100

seannash

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Interesting.





Some of the reason for the drop in sales has got to be down to the high levels of not great music that's being churned out. And also to peoples boredom with the latest manufactured band or what have you.

not really interested in the topic but im curious if you can name any good bands who have appeared in the last 5 years(surely theres some bands out there making great albums)
people are slating lily allen for delivering the message but ill bet that if you name any decent band from the last 5 years or so they would have all been affected by illegal downloads,regardless of the quality of there music.

basically if the beatles had have been around now they too would suffer at the hands of illegal downloads no matter how great or groundbreaking there music is

Rockshamrover

seannash wrote: »

not really interested in the topic but im curious if you can name any good bands who have appeared in the last 5 years(surely theres some bands out there making great albums)
people are slating lily allen for delivering the message but ill bet that if you name any decent band from the last 5 years or so they would have all been affected by illegal downloads,regardless of the quality of there music.

basically if the beatles had have been around now they too would suffer at the hands of illegal downloads no matter how great or groundbreaking there music is

The Killers. Kings of Leon. Dare I say it Coldplay. They are all selling lots of albums. Quality will always sell. That's the point I'm making.

iamhunted

ive no idea who dan bull is but he deserves a medal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY&feature=player_embedded#t=157

Welease

"British pop star Lily Allen has topped the blogosphere this week over posts made to her anti-piracy blog “It’s Not Alright“. The singer came out in favor of proposed UK legislation that would cut off the Internet connections of those found to be downloading copyrighted material three times.

However, it was found that one of her posts had been copied in part from the Techdirt blog, creating an obvious irony. Allen also admitted she distributed mixtapes of other artists’ work early in her career, somewhat undermining her case.

In a change of heart, Allen deleted the blog posts, apologized to Techdirt and said she will abandon her stance. The blog TorrentFreak claims that Allen continues to support bandwidth throttling of infringers, but not total disconnection."

http://mashable.com/2009/09/26/dear-lily-allen/

Is it ok to laugh now?

Rockshamrover

Cery's Matthews (Catatonia) was on a Sunday morning program promoting her new album and one of the presenters had a go at her.

He was advocating file sharing and illegal downloads. Cery's was not a happy bunny.

Strange that the BBC would let one of it's employees advocate illegal activity on tv.

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Cery's Matthews (Catatonia) was on a Sunday morning program promoting her new album and one of the presenters had a go at her.

He was advocating file sharing and illegal downloads. Cery's was not a happy bunny.

Strange that the BBC would let one of it's employees advocate illegal activity on tv.

A very fair point Rock. Whether one approves or not it is, as you say, illegal.

Welease

Just to clarify.. I don't, nor have I ever approved of illegal downloading.

However, if you are going to publically advocate changes to laws that have already been thrown out by several European courts, it might be prudent not to be stealing the source of your text without permission.
And if you are going to change your stance upon being caught, then it makes me wonder why you bothered to take a public stance in the first place..

Somehow I feel we won't be immune to her next bright idea.....

PaulBrewer

Welease wrote: »

Just to clarify.. I don't, nor have I ever approved of illegal downloading.

However, if you are going to publically advocate changes to laws that have already been thrown out by several European courts, it might be prudent not to be stealing the source of your text without permission.
And if you are going to change your stance upon being caught, then it makes me wonder why you bothered to take a public stance in the first place..

Somehow I feel we won't be immune to her next bright idea.....

Who's that aimed at Welease ?

Welease

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Who's that aimed at Welease ?

More at myself

Even though I was glad to see Lily getting public knocked down a peg or two.. I didn't want to it too seem that I am pro piracy, my initial post could be construed that way, as people seem to break it down into 2 polarised camps.

Edit - Post was about Lily's stance, but a clarification on my position about piracy.