You are aware that here at the SDMB we fight ignorance, we don’t compound it, right?
Apparently not.
Barry Gordy is not a lowlife, talentless parasite. He is a very good songwriter who just happened to found MoTown Records.
Herb Alpert is not a lowlife, talentless bottomfeeder. He is the leader of the Tijuana Brass Band and has had a number of Top Ten hits including two #1’s. He is also the co-founder of A&M records.
I’d advise you to actually go to a library and look at some books because you sure as hell aren’t getting any factual information form whatever sites it is that you visit on the 'Net.
Yeah, a good book to start with is The Hit Men by Fredric Dannen. You can read about payola, mob ties, price fixing, exploitation of artists and all kinds of other upstanding and honorable activities.
As far as exploitation of artists goes, yes that happened in the past, mostly to black artists. as for the present day, it’s not the record companies fault if the artists doesn’t read the recording contract very carefully, but instead just blithly signs on the dotted line. Spare me the crap about naive and oh-so innocent musicians.
Or perhaps has to sign it to get a record contract at all. you make it sound like a songwriter can just waltz into a record company and get a contract.
You’re absolutely right. This is why I don’t try to justify it. I’m getting something for nothing, and it doesn’t bother me one iota. After all, isn’t it kind of stupid to pay for something I can get free of charge? Does that make any financial sense at all?
My provacative rhetoric aside, I think MP3’s and file sharing have simply imposed a new economic reality on the recording industry. There is a very real possibility that a band could make as much money from their recorded songs by selling them for $1 apiece off their own website as they can signing a record deal with Capitol or Death Row. I think Prince once made this very point: by selling online, he makes as much money off 250,000 albums as other artists do from a platinum record.
I’m all for this kind of change, and I think it’s only a matter of time until it happens. Record companies have always been the classic middleman, who takes the biggest cut of all. But their profit margin is not ordained by God, and I owe them absolutely nothing.
I would gladly have shelled out $1 apiece to the performers of all 700 songs on my hard drive. Over a few years, that’s not such a big bite. But instead, I would’ve had to probably put out $12,000 to buy all the CDs, the biggest chunk of which goes to into a music exec’s pocket. Will I do that? Um, no. Am I going to stop listening to music, simply because there is no easy way (and a lot of my stuff I’ve never seen on CD) to directly compensate the artist? Nope.
I’m in the solid majority, and no amount of raving about “stealing,” no amount of threatened lawsuits, no amount of wasted effort trying to make music “unrippable” is going to stop us.
RealityChuck… it seems to me that in the last few years, artists that actually have some talent have been getting more exposure while the “fluff” acts like the boy bands and bubblegum pop singers have suffered decreasing sales. While I do attribute some of this to the recent trend towards idolization of “raw” artists like the White Stripes, it doesn’t excuse the fact that bands like Wilco are getting a LOT more exposure these days- and I guarantee you that a good portion of this came through people downloading or sharing their songs and thinking “hey, this is pretty good.”
The scenario Beadlin describes is honestly not that uncommon. 90% of the CDs I’ve purchased in the last two years have been from artists that I would never have heard of if it weren’t for MP3 technology. That’s a good dozen or so artists getting profit from sales that would not have existed had I not previously downloaded some of their songs. I make a point of purchasing any music I deem worthy of remaining in my hard drive, and if my personal experiences are any indicator, I’m not the only one.
Incidentally, the other 10% comes from artists whose albums I listened to in stores prior to purchase. That’s ZERO percent from artists that I’ve encountered through conventional means (i.e. radio, in-store advertisements, MTV, etc.), not because I consider such mainstream methods of advertising “evil,” but because I did not hear anything worth my $12 in any of those media. There was nothing there that I hadn’t heard a million times before, which isn’t surprising considering the extremely corporate mindset behind mainstream music marketing. In any case, I’ll trust the recommendations of my friends over Clear Channel any day.
You are quite possibly the most self-centered, selfish, "*It’s all about * ME, ME, ME, ME, ME and MY happiness and satisfaction. Screw everyone else." unscrupulous, immoral AH I’ve seen on this board in quite a long time.
You sicken me.
Truly.
You disgust me.
Going by your logic, if you were walking by a car dealership and saw a new car with the keys in the ignition, it would be quite all right for you to jump in and drive off. To quote you, “Isn’t it kind of stupid to pay for something I can get free of charge?”
To give another example, you could get free groceries simply by cruising up to the front of the store and emptying someone’s cart into your car and then driving off. "After all, isn’t it kind of stupid to pay for something you can get free of charge? "
Why is it so easy for me to picture you and your buddies waiting by the exit of a movie theater for your firend to let you inside for free.
Tell me, what are the 40-50,000 people who would lose their jobs if the recording industry collapsed because of you and everyone else who illegally downloads music going to do for work?
Wait, I forgot. You can’t be bothered to worry about them. It’s all about YOU
Your sense of entitlement is astonishing, not to mention dangerously misguided.
Well, it’s really not about entitlement. It’s about taking what I can get. Would I steal cars and groceries, if I knew I would never be caught? Possibly. So might a lot of other people. Just why do you think people follow the law, anyway? It’s not because we are all so honest. It’s the fear of getting caught.
You’re kind of naive, Payton’s Servant. As for what you think of me, eh, I really couldn’t care less. Which was my point to begin with. Your opinion is irrelevant to the reality of the matter at hand, and is pretty much just a fart into the wind.
I haven’t been paying attention to this thread, but I assume you are directing this at the record companies and their devious and extremely immoral tactics, such as surreptitiously “lobbying” for a bill that makes artists nothing more than hired help, and for their despicable price fixing campaign.
But wait, the record companies can do any vile thing they want, right? If we don’t catch them and stop them that’s our fault. The record companies sneak in a sleazy, abhorrent law? Should have stopped them. The record companies rip off artists? The artists weren’t smart enough, they deserved to get ripped off. The record companies get together for some price fixing fun? Should have caught them and stopped them earlier. They were perfectly in the right.
Yeah, you have the moral high ground here man. Your defenses are way different and better than those of file sharers who use mp3s to decide to buy an album or not. You do a great job of excusing your execrable and corrupt demon lord, the recording industry.
Oh, and as I’m sure you are aware, the recording industry is manufacturing the file sharing “problem.” Music sales increased because of Napster, and in response the music industry reduced releases.
Even now indie labels are increasing sales. And major labels are seeing decreases in sales that are LESS than the decrease in releases. And yet, they don’t make that public do they? If they did, people might release that their contemptible crusade against file sharing is based on smoke and mirrors.
Perhaps the record companies realize that if music had a chance to be heard, good bands would no longer willingly sell their souls to the dark lord in exchange for a little publicity. Competition would take place, and the trash that the record companies put out would be far less attractive in comparison.
Perhaps they realize that it is a blatantly unfair business model to force people to buy an album unheard, with no option to return it, especially now that it is so easy to let them find out if they like it beforehand.
In fact, I am sure they realize all these things, and that is precisely why they are going to such extreme and unethical lengths to keep their depraved, scummy industry as it is.
Radiohead’s Kid A and Eminem’s The Eminem Show were all over the file sharing systems for weeks before they were available in stores… yet they went on to sell record numbers.
Could it possibly be true that increased exposure is good for sales? :eek:
