We knew X Factor et al was bad, but not this bad...

madtheory

Thread here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056286956

The exposé could be a scam of course, who knows?

mkegvn

found it very obvious watching last nights show!

dav nagle

The X factor or BGT was never meant to be a show based on integrity, musicianship you can rule out and originality you can forget about lol. But after reading this interesting article from the inside I am neither surprised or amazed by the rigging that goes on.

Business is business and fair play to Syco and Simon, I hope they remain a savvy group of money making moguls.

krd

Let's get the Bsatard.........He's stealing our scam.

Let's kill him.

madtheory

dav nagle wrote: »

Business is business and fair play to Syco and Simon, I hope they remain a savvy group of money making moguls.

I would agree with you, except that according to the above article it goes much further than that.

dav nagle

madtheory wrote: »

I would agree with you, except that according to the above article it goes much further than that.

Ill read it again i must have missed something !

krd

dav nagle wrote: »

Business is business and fair play to Syco and Simon, I hope they remain a savvy group of money making moguls.

Sleazy knackery scuzz bags.

If you're doing business with people you're doing business. If you're ripping them off you're a crook.

Never say fair play to scumbags. How would you like it if Syco Simon fff'd you over?

Cowell isn't that Savy. He just knows one big thing. Mainstream television exposure works. He's more or less doing a pub talent contest with higher production values. He's a knacker with a karoke machine.

He's possibly one of the most tight fisted meanest fff'ckers ever in the business. I've read follow ups on "winners" from his show. Most of them are dropped shortly after their stars begin to fade. And Simon has the whole thing set up so he siphons nearly all the money off - most "winners" only end getting a few grand out of it at the most. They end up earning less than if they'd spent the time stacking shelves in Tescos. And plus, you have to work with slime people like Simon, and undoubtedly, with the slime ffffckers he employs.

dav nagle

krd wrote: »

Sleazy knackery scuzz bags.

If you're doing business with people you're doing business. If you're ripping them off you're a crook.

Never say fair play to scumbags. How would you like it if Syco Simon fff'd you over?

Cowell isn't that Savy. He just knows one big thing. Mainstream television exposure works. He's more or less doing a pub talent contest with higher production values. He's a knacker with a karoke machine.

He's possibly one of the most tight fisted meanest fff'ckers ever in the business. I've read follow ups on "winners" from his show. Most of them are dropped shortly after their stars begin to fade. And Simon has the whole thing set up so he siphons nearly all the money off - most "winners" only end getting a few grand out of it at the most. They end up earning less than if they'd spent the time stacking shelves in Tescos. And plus, you have to work with slime people like Simon, and undoubtedly, with the slime ffffckers he employs.

The people involved in the show or anything related to the industry have two choices, have a shot or don't. I really find it hard to believe that Mary Byrne and Leona Lewis have earned less than working in Tescos. It's his show, his label and he is entitled to make as much money off the back of whoever he wants as they wouldn't have any chance of success otherwise.

krd

dav nagle wrote: »

The people involved in the show or anything related to the industry have two choices, have a shot or don't. I really find it hard to believe that Mary Byrne and Leona Lewis have earned less than working in Tescos.

There was an article in the Irish Independent a few months back - I can't find it now. But, Mary Bryne was claiming she'd received SFA from Simon. They were living off her daughters savings and borrowing money from people. Simon is really cheap. He probably messes with the money as a means of control.

The only real way to make money from Simon's show is to get as far away from him as possible after the initial exposure. Leona Lewis has made money because she got away from him.

It's his show, his label and he is entitled to make as much money off the back of whoever he wants as they wouldn't have any chance of success otherwise.

You're legally entitled to make money anyway that's legal. If you're a scuzz bag ripping people off, you're still as scuzz bag. You're not entitled to make as much money as you can off the backs of other people. I know that's a really common attitude in Ireland - the greedy cute hoor who runs the country into the ground attitude. Piss stains on the crotch of his nylon pants - eyes rolling in his head, trying figure out who he can rip off next for a few coppers.

And it's no success if you end up back on your arse after a few months. Only a dumb knacker would think the cheering of a television studio audience for a karoke performance is worth anything in itself.


Anyway the whole thing was a hoax. http://justpaste.it/cpn

dav nagle

I think your eyes are only watching one side of the business


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BewknNW2b8Y

DamagedTrax

dav nagle wrote: »

It's his show, his label and he is entitled to make as much money off the back of whoever he wants as they wouldn't have any chance of success otherwise.

fortunatly this is not the case. he's entitled to make as much money as he can while offering fair and correct compensation to artists, writers and above all, copyright holders.

just because someone "wouldn't have any chance of success otherwise" doesnt mean that they are fair game to be screwed.

and i agree with most people's sentiments. he's a sleazy scumbag and karma will catch up with him some day. i hope he's ready to write a list...

dav nagle

Some artist have in fact made loads of money

DamagedTrax

nobody is questioning that fact. but for every one that has made money there are dozens that he has screwed over in one way or another.

dont get me wrong, im aware its the music business but it's still disgusting. every business has the option to be either ethical or scum, he chose scum.

woodsdenis

dav nagle wrote: »

Some artist have in fact made loads of money

Guys this is getting silly and and best severely misinformed. The notion that Simon Cowell is any different from any other major record company is nonsense. If you win the x factor ALL you are guaranteed is a recording contract, which would be virtually no different from any contract for an artist of that il from any other company. In fact in a lot of ways considerably more generous.

The same rules then apply. Any future commitment beyond the initial advance would be based on the potential perceived earnings. This is standard operating proceedure with any type of artist. If you make money you will get a second term. Do you really think it's correct that an xfactor winner gets to make records ad infinutum when plainly the public doesn't buy their records. If there is a valid complaint about the xfactor, it is that the hit rate of winners is very bad. But it's not like anyone participating doesn't know this.

As for making money Susan Boyle, Westlife, Leona Lewis to name a few have no complaints about Simon Cowells way of doing business.

Mary Byrne for the record is signed to Sony records. Why would anyone think that Simon / Syco have any responsibility to pay her anything beyond the show.

Leona Lewis is still a Syco artist who is handled by Clive Davis in the states.

There is a reason why this is called the music business.

DamagedTrax

woodsdenis wrote: »

There is a reason why this is called the music business.

but its the seedy end of the business.

i was signed with a band aswell as a solo artist, made some good money and never had to deal with much bad stuff at all. maybe i was one of the lucky ones.

like i said businesses make a decision to be ethical or not.

cowell does not operate on an ethical level.. while thats completley legal and above board, on a moral level its just disgusting. if a business chooses that path then so be it, just dont expect those of us with higher values to swallow it and come back for more.

woodsdenis

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but its the seedy end of the business.

i was signed with a band aswell as a solo artist, made some good money and never had to deal with much bad stuff at all. maybe i was one of the lucky ones.

like i said businesses make a decision to be ethical or not.

cowell does not operate on an ethical level.. while thats completley legal and above board, on a moral level its just disgusting. if a business chooses that path then so be it, just dont expect those of us with higher values to swallow it and come back for more.

I am certainly not going to defend general record industry paractices. But what makes Simon/Syco any worse ethically than anyone else. IMO he is just an easy bogeyman target for the masses.


He has always, pre xfactor fame worked on a commercial level. Sinitta,Westlife, Robson and Jerome etc. It's a disposable MacDonalds part of the industry. He just does that now on TV.

I have seen loads of "cred" bands getting signed from Ireland and getting dropped after one album.

I really don't see the difference.

krd

woodsdenis wrote: »

Guys this is getting silly and and best severely misinformed. The notion that Simon Cowell is any different from any other major record company is nonsense. If you win the x factor ALL you are guaranteed is a recording contract, which would be virtually no different from any contract for an artist of that il from any other company. In fact in a lot of ways considerably more generous.

Well, the money starts rolling in on those people before they've even made their first record. Simon does not share the pool of cash from the TV show with the performers. He cannot be accused of generosity on that count.

But usually things are the other way around. The record company signs a contract with the artist, then they make a record. If it makes money - they divide the money up. If they don't they don't. Simon makes his money up front on the TV show, if he loses interest in the winners, they get a lukewarm recording and no push - apart from out the door. Simon would need to sign a fully developed version of U2 to make as much money from a record as from that TV show. He'd probably need more than one U2.

The same rules then apply. Any future commitment beyond the initial advance would be based on the potential perceived earnings. This is standard operating proceedure with any type of artist. If you make money you will get a second term.

The thing is, these people have made the money - they often just don't get their cut.

If it were Simon Cowell up at the mic no one would watch. The people on the show - I don't like their music. But they have likely put in thousands of hours of work to get to get there. Simon sits on his fat arse and rakes in the money. Using, abusing and humiliating the people as he goes.

Do you really think it's correct that an xfactor winner gets to make records ad infinutum when plainly the public doesn't buy their records.

No one believes that. But it's like no one buys new Rolling Stones records - they still make them. They do not recoup their costs. It's not where they money is being made on them. And it's the same for lots of other performers, the albums lose money or barely break even.

If there is a valid complaint about the xfactor, it is that the hit rate of winners is very bad. But it's not like anyone participating doesn't know this.

It's down to the kind of records they make. It's actually quite funny. 400,000 may be considered an absolute failure. 800,000 break even. Even 2 million in comparison to what Simon makes from the television show, wouldn't be worth his while.

Even the winners Simon's dropped had have all sold records in respectable numbers - but not enough for the machine. And many of the dropped have come out of it without a bean. When there is, or was, enough there for them to have a reasonable career, with much smaller records. There are many people in music, who sell only a few thousand records, but they are able to make decent livings from it.

As for making money Susan Boyle, Westlife, Leona Lewis to name a few have no complaints about Simon Cowells way of doing business.

All artists who sign with Simon, have to sign a contract stipulating they can not criticise Simon, they cannot criticise the show. They are gagged.

Susan Boyle is retarded - she probably gets the best treatment as Simon couldn't get away with screwing with her. Leona Lewis turns icy in interviews whenever she's asked a question about Simon. Westlife are no longer with Simon - they're on RCA.

Mary Byrne for the record is signed to Sony records. Why would anyone think that Simon / Syco have any responsibility to pay her anything beyond the show.

Simon has already made a fortune on her. And I believe it's a full 360. Up to recently she hadn't received a single bean from him. A 9 grand personal appearance cheque she was promised vanished into a puff of smoke and mirrors.

Leona Lewis is still a Syco artist who is handled by Clive Davis in the states.

She's big enough for him not to be able to screw with her. Had she only had a minor hit in the Uk - Simon wouldn't have put the extra effort and cash into taking her talent the distance - he would have dropped her. After of course keeping her clinging on for months or years until her chance was gone - so he could drop her and not look bad.

There is a reason why this is called the music business.

There's a reason business is called business and crime is called crime.

Nothing personal - jus' bizness.

woodsdenis

krd wrote: »

Well, the money starts rolling in on those people before they've even made their first record. Simon does not share the pool of cash from the TV show with the performers. He cannot be accused of generosity on that count.

But usually things are the other way around. The record company signs a contract with the artist, then they make a record. If it makes money - they divide the money up. If they don't they don't. Simon makes his money up front on the TV show, if he loses interest in the winners, they get a lukewarm recording and no push - apart from out the door. Simon would need to sign a fully developed version of U2 to make as much money from a record as from that TV show. He'd probably need more than one U2.




The thing is, these people have made the money - they often just don't get their cut.

If it were Simon Cowell up at the mic no one would watch. The people on the show - I don't like their music. But they have likely put in thousands of hours of work to get to get there. Simon sits on his fat arse and rakes in the money. Using, abusing and humiliating the people as he goes.



No one believes that. But it's like no one buys new Rolling Stones records - they still make them. They do not recoup their costs. It's not where they money is being made on them. And it's the same for lots of other performers, the albums lose money or barely break even.



It's down to the kind of records they make. It's actually quite funny. 400,000 may be considered an absolute failure. 800,000 break even. Even 2 million in comparison to what Simon makes from the television show, wouldn't be worth his while.

Even the winners Simon's dropped had have all sold records in respectable numbers - but not enough for the machine. And many of the dropped have come out of it without a bean. When there is, or was, enough there for them to have a reasonable career, with much smaller records. There are many people in music, who sell only a few thousand records, but they are able to make decent livings from it.



All artists who sign with Simon, have to sign a contract stipulating they can not criticise Simon, they cannot criticise the show. They are gagged.

Susan Boyle is retarded - she probably gets the best treatment as Simon couldn't get away with screwing with her. Leona Lewis turns icy in interviews whenever she's asked a question about Simon. Westlife are no longer with Simon - they're on RCA.



Simon has already made a fortune on her. And I believe it's a full 360. Up to recently she hadn't received a single bean from him. A 9 grand personal appearance cheque she was promised vanished into a puff of smoke and mirrors.



She's big enough for him not to be able to screw with her. Had she only had a minor hit in the Uk - Simon wouldn't have put the extra effort and cash into taking her talent the distance - he would have dropped her. After of course keeping her clinging on for months or years until her chance was gone - so he could drop her and not look bad.



There's a reason business is called business and crime is called crime.

Nothing personal - jus' bizness.

A short reply I can't do the multi quote thing as well as you can:D

As I said in my original post, I am not going to defend industry practises. IMO
Simon/Syco are no different from anyone else in their recording deals so why all the hate.

You are of course correct in saying the major difference is the TV show revenue involved preceding any deal. It really would be setting a precedent for a contestant on any TV talent/game/quiz show to share in revenue if they didn't win. In essence I see no difference between xfactor and "who wants to be a millionaire". A contestant on the latter doesn't get the big prize unless they win. They don't get a share of the shows profits for participating. They know that when they sign up and participate on that basis. The xfactor is a TV
compitition run on the same basis as any other. Op Knocks/WWTBAM/Jeopardy etc. Winner takes all

Now before you start picking this apart by saying that on WWTBAM you can win something even if you don't win the million the same can be said for xfactor too. The runner-ups have also gotten deals aswell.

Now if the discussion is on the general issue of TV show contestants sharing in revenue then that's a valid discussion but to isolate xfactor as a unique case of unethical and criminal behaviour is incorrect and way over the top.

dav nagle

Look at U2 (not that I care), wtf have they done with their millions for bands ??????? We can all paint targets and have a go and Mr 'C' is just one of hundreds who could 'genuinely help and support new artists and treat them ethically' but isn't too pushed whatsoever. His ethics are the same as most people's. Make what you can and do it again and never mind the fallout it is bound to happen.

krd

woodsdenis wrote: »

Now if the discussion is on the general issue of TV show contestants sharing in revenue then that's a valid discussion but to isolate xfactor as a unique case of unethical and criminal behaviour is incorrect and way over the top.

Well. The deals these people have are 360. Once they're in the running in the competition they've already signed an exclusive deal with Simon. They can only sign up with someone else if Simon drops them.

They're already signed before they even win or lose. Simon is making money on the deal from the word go. He has a full 360 dibs on their income - but they don't have any call on what he can make through their personal appearances.

The show is mixture of acting and music - if they were treated as other performers normally on TV they would get paid.

woodsdenis

krd wrote: »

Well. The deals these people have are 360. Once they're in the running in the competition they've already signed an exclusive deal with Simon. They can only sign up with someone else if Simon drops them.

They're already signed before they even win or lose. Simon is making money on the deal from the word go. He has a full 360 dibs on their income - but they don't have any call on what he can make through their personal appearances.

The show is mixture of acting and music - if they were treated as other performers normally on TV they would get paid.

This is a statement from Sony which contradicts some of your assertions.

Artists who are voted out of the show are still under contract to Cowell's label for up to three months. So not an exclusive deal with Simon if you are voted off. 3 month pay or play deal

Now I have not ever seen an xfactor deal so I will leave this to an attributed quote from Sony as to what it is. If you have seen one then fair enough.




But Sony said the £1m had always referred to the overall value of the deal. "The prize for winning The X Factor is a recording contract with Sony BMG. The value of recording an album can be around or in some cases, far in excess of £1m and The X Factor contract is a standard recording contract."

The £1m headline figure is calculated after taking into account location costs, filming, costumes, marketing and enlisting some of the music industry's best known producers. A source from Sony BMG said: "It's enormously expensive. Some people have flown to LA to record with top producers. We have photo-shoots, wardrobe costs, travel, production costs, vocal training, sound costs every time someone does a TV appearance."

The winner gets 15 per cent from single and album sales. Headlining a tour brings 7.5 per cent of show profits and 15 per cent of merchandise sales.

The 12 contestants are given three weeks to peruse and sign the contract before the beginning of each series and offered a choice of three independent solicitors, whose fees are paid by Cowell, The X Factor creator.

Artists who are voted out of the show are still under contract to Cowell's label for up to three months.

But Sony said that left artists free to collect profits from live appearances as well as TV and corporate events.

The winner has to sign up with the agent, Modest Management, in a deal having the potential to last 14 years.

The record label has "final say" over tracks for albums, and can choose producers and single releases.

Another clause states that artists leaving the show may have to give 5 per cent of all future live earnings to Cowell for a year.

krd

dav nagle wrote: »

Look at U2 (not that I care), wtf have they done with their millions for bands ??????? We can all paint targets and have a go and Mr 'C' is just one of hundreds who could 'genuinely help and support new artists and treat them ethically' but isn't too pushed whatsoever.

If you want to know. They used to have their own label for new bands - Mother records. Bjork got her first big break on it.

They don't do it anymore. Mother also became known as kiss of death records. So I wouldn't be surprised if U2 gave it up as a thankless task.

But what do U2 owe any other bands in the first place? It's not like they rely on hundreds of young bands for their music or anything else.

His ethics are the same as most people's. Make what you can and do it again and never mind the fallout it is bound to happen.

Listen, that's a really f'ked up attitude to have about the world. Not everyone is running around trying to screw each other. And it won't make you more successful. Most people who think like that, end up spending some time in jail. You might get lucky in the short term. And other bolloxes might admire you for being a bolloxes, but that bad blood will come back on you.

Simon Cowell is successful by the fortune of his birth, he was literally born into the record company. At first he was a very unsuccessful executive - but like well connected people everywhere, he didn't get the sack because he was so well connected. His job was novelty records - he even made one himself, as a rapping dog.

Eventually, he stumbles on a specific combination of television and music - Robson and Jerome. A mixture of cheap sentimentality and prime time TV exposure.

To give Simon his due, he's a little like a cheap and tacky version of Andy Warhol. People are tuning in to see what his unseen hand can do.

Simon was responsible for Cliff Richards' Mistletoe and Wine. He was in on the production and he took Warhol's maxim; Nothing succeeds like excess to the extreme, by throwing in every Christmas cliche he could think of and then some more.

madtheory

The misinformation is mounting up in this thread, despite the efforts of woodsdenis.

FYI U2 have been making significant contributions to music education in Ireland. But don't rely on hearsay, look it up. Although it is a red herring in the first place...

woodsdenis

madtheory wrote: »

The misinformation is mounting up in this thread, despite the efforts of woodsdenis.

FYI U2 have been making significant contributions to music education in Ireland. But don't rely on hearsay, look it up. Although it is a red herring in the first place...

Absolutely correct. U2's contribution the the music industry in Ireland,wether by employment/direct contributions or any other means far exceeds what any other band or individual has ever done.

woodsdenis

krd wrote: »

If
Simon was responsible for Cliff Richards' Mistletoe and Wine. He was in on the production and he took Warhol's maxim; Nothing succeeds like excess to the extreme, by throwing in every Christmas cliche he could think of and then some more.

Please stop, you make very valid points and then come up with total inaccuracies like this. Simon Cowell did work for EMI in A and R and publishing but left years before this was released in 1988 on EMI. It was not written or produced by him either.

http://www.45cat.com/record/ems78

krd

madtheory wrote: »

The misinformation is mounting up in this thread, despite the efforts of woodsdenis.

FYI U2 have been making significant contributions to music education in Ireland. But don't rely on hearsay, look it up. Although it is a red herring in the first place...

Yes. U2 do actually put their hands in their pockets and divy up cash.

They're giving something like a million quid to some new music education thing.

They got where they are through a combination of luck and hard work. And honestly I think they're good people.

They could have been unlucky. Had they been signed up to different people they could have ended up being forced to sound like Bow Wow Wow.

I don't think they owe anyone anything. Any time I've ever bought one of their records, or been to one of their shows, I think I got a very good deal.

DamagedTrax

krd wrote: »

Listen, that's a really f'ked up attitude to have about the world. Not everyone is running around trying to screw each other.

i wont get into the U2 thing cause as much as i dont like bono or his way of doing things i dont think its got anything to do with cowel but i do agree with the statement above.

just cause half the industry is running around trying to get one up for themselves, it doesnt mean its the right way to do it.

krd

woodsdenis wrote: »

The 12 contestants are given three weeks to peruse and sign the contract before the beginning of each series and offered a choice of three independent solicitors, whose fees are paid by Cowell, The X Factor creator.

Just because you're given a choice of three does not make them independent.

The solicitor works for whoever pays them. If Cowell is paying them directly, and giving them repeat business they work for Cowell.

And I know how those record deals work. Most of the time they're structured in such a way, it's virtually impossible for the artist to make any money from them.

A record company accountant can turn a spend of 100k into a million, with a few strokes of a pen. And since the "advances" are recoupable, the artist may never see a penny, as their cut goes to pay off the "advance".

Record companies often exploit the fact young artists have very little power. It's usually only when the power relationship changes artists can make some money.

EMI, spend a 100k on albums for new artists. Their break even is about 20,000 units. But the artist may not see a penny until the sales are well up into the hundreds of thousands. In fact on a 360 deal, they could work for years, paying off money that was never spent.

Meatloaf's famous nervous breakdown, that saw him vanish for nearly 20 years was down to the contracts he had signed. They were so bad something like for every dollar he grossed, he owed a dollar fifty. The more successful he became, the more debt he was in. His only way out was to feign mental illness - it took him years to get out of the contracts.

The Stone Roses record deal before they signed to Geffen was awful. It had bizarre things in it like, for every record they sold in South Africa they didn't receive a payment, but they had to pay for breakages and returns for every record sold in South Africa.

krd

DamagedTrax wrote: »

just cause half the industry is running around trying to get one up for themselves, it doesnt mean its the right way to do it.

That's not just a music business thing. That's a life thing. You'll find cute hoors trying to screw you everywhere.

The funny thing is people who often think they're getting one up on people are actually shooting themselves in the foot. They're too stupid to realise, that often by helping other people out, you're helping yourself. And by screwing people over, they're screwing themselves.

And something about business. People get the impression that the most successful business people are the ones who f'ck everyone over. This isn't true. If you get a reputation for screwing over your customers and suppliers, you won't last. Look at all the Irish business hotshots that are now facing bankruptcy. They were all greedy sneaky C's. And we're screwed as well on their account. Part of the problem was people spreading the idea that cute hoorism was essential to vitality of Irish capitalism. In the end we all got F'd in the A by greasy Paddy Whacks.

I play around with music as a hobby. The bullsh1tters and **** you meet even around the fringes make me want to vomit.

I have a theory about music though. That peoples personalities actually shine through the music. If there's something sickening about the people, the sickness shines through. And ultimately, that could be the reason most people fail - no one wants to listen to a singing penis.

krd

woodsdenis wrote: »

Please stop, you make very valid points and then come up with total inaccuracies like this. Simon Cowell did work for EMI in A and R and publishing but left years before this was released in 1988 on EMI. It was not written or produced by him either.

http://www.45cat.com/record/ems78

Well then maybe he is a liar. I've seen him give an interview about it. It was on one of those ITV shows - 100 greatest Christmas records.

Then again - I could be completely wrong. But I have a clear recollection of seeing him give the interview.

flyswatter

I remember reading that the X factor theme is written by 4 composers and Simon Cowell is one of them.

Simon admitted himself that he can barely even play guitar, is he actually a composer or is this another of his ways of getting even more rich?

I'd like to think artists will now see the X Factor for what it is and go about a different route of getting into the music business.

I've seen a good bit of American Idol. As judges, they have more talented musicians and seems to be more of a musicians show. I prefer that show to be honest.

I hope X Factor in the US flops!

dav nagle

Business is like this:

I want to make money and have everyone else do most of the hard graft for me, if you don't like that ethic your not a business man. How many people that are preaching on this thread about ethics have at one point or another illegally downloaded copyrighted material? Well then if you have your a thief no better than Mr C. You saved yourself money and allowed someone else to do all the work (i.e. make the record, cut it, publish it, distribute it etc..) Preaching on this thread it's like an American mass to save your soul. Respect people and treat them well, you'll climb the ladder of the above. Don't listen to people trying to box off making money off others. At some point you worked hard as nails and your responsibility level is much greater which adds stress.

DamagedTrax

I want to make money and have everyone else do most of the hard graft for me, if you don't like that ethic your not a business man.

actually no, i want to make money from doing the hard graft. if i didnt i wouldnt work 14 hours a day 6 days a week and love it.

How many people that are preaching on this thread about ethics have at one point or another illegally downloaded copyrighted material?

if i cant listen to an album i will download it. if i like it i buy it. preferably on cd/vinyl but i will buy downloads too.

and by the way, comparing what SC does to downloading the odd album is twisting an ethical issue into something it is clearly not.. how many of us nicked a packet of sweets from the shop when we were kids? its not comparable to a bank job, is it?

i think you have a very different business ethic to those of us that dont agree with mr cowell's. thats fair enough, its your choice how to run a business but it doesnt mean that i agree with it or would ever be willing to work that way.

dav nagle

For your info mr I work 14 hours a day too, my point is that I hope that one day I can do less work and make more money, is that not okay! God someone has a hot bum bum.

And on your point about illegal downloads it all adds up! Its still theft!!!

My point is why blame Cowell for ripping off artists when YOU all do it in your own little way so STFU preaching out your holes!

DamagedTrax

For your info mr I work 14 hours a day too, my point is that I hope that one day I can do less work and make more money, is that not okay! God someone has a hot bum bum.

nobody said you didnt. you questioned our business ethic. dont get all defensive because you get an answer.

And on your point about illegal downloads it all adds up! Its still theft!!!

so i download an album, like it & buy it. its theft? the only thing that adds up is the sales of the album because ive bought it. totally invalid argument. if i dont like the album it gets deleted, i certainly havent got a crap album fetish... if i listened in tower/hmv and didnt like it i wouldnt buy it. testing an album by downloading it is no different at all.

do you honestly believe that any artist is going to complain about someone doing this if it results in a sale? considering the amount of people literally downloading the internet and never paying a penny, what i do is about as morally sound as you can ask for.

My point is why blame Cowell for ripping off artists when YOU all do it in your own little way so STFU preaching out your holes!

please explain how exactly im ripping of any artist?

dav nagle

DamagedTrax wrote: »

nobody said you didnt. you questioned our business ethic. dont get all defensive because you get an answer.



so i download an album, like it & buy it. its theft? the only thing that adds up is the sales of the album because ive bought it. totally invalid argument. if i dont like the album it gets deleted, i certainly havent got a crap album fetish... if i listened in tower/hmv and didnt like it i wouldnt buy it. testing an album by downloading it is no different at all.
do you honestly believe that any artist is going to complain about someone doing this if it results in a sale?
considering the amount of people literally downloading the internet and never paying a penny, what i do is about as morally sound as you can ask for.



please explain how exactly im ripping of any artist?

'Testing' an album is illegal, you are not meant to be downloading your test subjects and analyzing them before purchase. Your either hay or nay. When you download an album for 'testing' you are in fact not buying the album at all but supporting other 'testers' or sorry whats the word 'leechers', so even if you buy the test subject after testing it you are contributing to mass testing/leeching. This is the problem. You see if we all claim to be testing the goods before we buy there will be no need to buy the goods because you have tested them already you dig? So maybe once you DT have tested the album you then go and buy it, fair play. But free 'testing' can often lead to testers suddenly finding themselves less encouraged to buy the test subject and hense the tester has already has had his/her fix and the test subject doesn't get a penny. So testing is another word for leeching. A leech sucks what it needs and then drops off, Simon Cowell is leeching off others in order to gain wealth but he is no better or worse than anyone of us. He is in the position he is in and good for him. He used his singers or test subjects as experiments. Those who fail in the labratory get binned, so what. Some of his test subjects get a raw deal, so what, it is his lab and thats my point. The test subject openly volunteers to be a testee!

DamagedTrax

you see you're tying my morals into those of others. other peoples morals are not my responsibility, if they havent got the decency to buy an album it really isnt any concern of mine beyond what i think of them. what is a concern of mine is that i buy the product and the artist gets paid.

the same applies for cowell et all, other than what i think of how he operates he really isnt any concern of mine so i've no idea why you're defending him so vehemently... but im as entitled to moan about him as you are to defend him. just because you agree with his practices and try to justify them, doesnt suddenly make them acceptable in my eyes.

there's no argument here at all dav, some people like him, some people think he's scum. trying to compare him to someone who downloads the odd album and then buys it is completly ridiculous.

dav nagle

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you see you're tying my morals into those of others. other peoples morals are not my responsibility, if they havent got the decency to buy an album it really isnt any concern of mine beyond what i think of them. what is a concern of mine is that i buy the product and the artist gets paid.

the same applies for cowell et all, other than what i think of how he operates he really isnt any concern of mine so i've no idea why you're defending him so vehemently... but im as entitled to moan about him as you are to defend him. just because you agree with his practices and try to justify them, doesnt suddenly make them acceptable in my eyes.

there's no argument here at all dav, some people like him, some people think he's scum. trying to compare him to someone who downloads the odd album and then buys it is completly ridiculous.

It's no more ridiclous than hating a brother who is running a fantastic rat lab!

Thanks removed for having a hot bum bum

DamagedTrax

dav nagle wrote: »

It's no more ridiclous than hating a brother who is running a fantastic rat lab!

that in itself is (to me) whats horrible about his practises.

i think we have very opposing views on what the music industry should be.. thats not a problem though. we're all entitled to opinon

dav nagle

DamagedTrax wrote: »

that in itself is (to me) whats horrible about his practises.

i think we have very opposing views on what the music industry should be.. thats not a problem though. we're all entitled to opinon

How do you know what my view is on ''what the industry should be'' based on a discussion about SC and his rat lab??? I certainly haven't shared or expressed my views on my music utopia here???

DamagedTrax

dav nagle wrote: »

How do you know what my view is on ''what the industry should be'' based on a discussion about SC and his rat lab??? I certainly haven't shared or expressed my views on my music utopia here???

dude, whatever. if you agree with cowell's way of working you have very opposing views to me. lets leave it at that.

dav nagle

DamagedTrax wrote: »

dude, whatever. if you agree with cowell's way of working you have very opposing views to me. lets leave it at that.

I don't agree or disagree I couldn't give 2 fuks about SC. I am just sick to the teeth of cliche contradictory idiots blaming him for all their music industry wowes. Fuk SC and Fuk people who hate SC. If you want to change the way it is then do so by actively changing the industry or business model instead of having cheap jabs at some half monkey creature you have never even met. Thats my view and I am entitled to it....

DamagedTrax

i do so everyday in how i conduct my own business practices.

dav nagle

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i do so everyday in how i conduct my own business practices.

So you actively change the industry/business model on a daily basis, in what way??

DamagedTrax

dav nagle wrote: »

So you actively change the industry/business model on a daily basis, in what way??

i actively change it in whatever dealings that i'm involved in. clearly its not going to affect the bigger picture that is "the industry" but theres not many of us that can really do that, is there?

how i do it is by treating people in my way. it works for me. it works for my clients. how i go about doing that is of no real consequence to anyone else.

dav nagle

Don't be offended man, everyone else is the same, sitting on their ass doing nothing but talking about it, complaining like whinning maggots.. It's sad to see so many fools blaming SC for the way things are when they admit themselves they are 'inactive folk' who don't believe that they could change the industry/business model.

DamagedTrax

how is working in a different way and keeping clients happy not doing anything about it?

im active in keeping my clients happy. thats enough for me.

madtheory

Zzzzzzzzzzz...

SeanHurley

But sure its all just panto anyway. SC is the nasty villain the contestants the hapless heros of the piece. It also helps to have contestants who are in someway a triumph of the human spirit e.g. Subo, Mary Byrne. Throw in Cheryl/Louis as the fairy princess and you're good to go.

My point is its entertainment and nothing to get your knickers in a twist over lads. SC is a business man, he is the Michael O'Leary of entertainment. Is it pretty? No. Is there a market? Yes.

I dont think we should confuse X-Factor and its ilk as the "music" business, it's "show business", which is an entirely different thing. In my opinion no credible "artists" come out of these type of shows. They are popularity contests. SC sees that he can make money out of people's need to be a star and popular, and for their part I think most of the contestants are happy to go along with that.

jtsuited

dav nagle wrote: »

His ethics are the same as most people's. Make what you can and do it again and never mind the fallout it is bound to happen.

What? Exploit the mentally retarded (often literally) and bewildered on television holding out a dream life like a carrot on a stick?

I'm sorry but that's absolute nonsense. There are ethical boundaries in this life and somebody who can't tell the difference between propagating a freak show for profit and somebody stealing music online has a seriously fcuked moral compass.

Make your money whatever way you can, but ffs don't ever pretend that the exploitative freak show that is X-Factor etc. is just the same as being a money hungry label head only interested in profit.

One exploits a few artists trying to be famous. The other actively encourages the absolute dregs of society to go on national television and embarrass themselves.

I couldn't give two flying fcuks if SC signs artists on ludicrous 360 deals where he gets his balls licked every time the artist appears on TV and the artist gets nothing. But what I do have a problem with is when they line up the clearly mentally ill, deluded headcases of this world and orchestrate a freakout by one of them, and that qualifies as entertainment.

This argument of 'sure it's a business, it's what you have to do to get ahead, you have to respect him for what he has achieved' (in any business, music or otherwise) is a sure sign of someone knowingly acting the kunt and trying to come up with some new-fandangled moral perspective that allows them to be equally exploitative and pathetic in how they conduct business.

Go do business how you want, but if you're being a dick, you're being a dick, and don't pretend it's the only way to 'get ahead', because it's not. If it is, then you really have to look at your life and wonder 'how did i get to a position in life where the only way I can live day-to-day is by being a professional dick-head?'

krd

I've heard Louis Walsh say something along the lines of don't screw people over.

And I don't know about these days, whether he has the time - but he has been known to run a turkey sanctuary.

Remember the Carter Twins? Jedward mark I. I think he was still getting them into pantos years after anyone wanted anything to do with them.

Dave, sometimes I think you've lost your god damn mind and gone dog gone crazy.