First of all, like I said before, very few musical artists have ANY control over how their work gets distributed. Hell, most of them don’t even get paid. Ever watch VH1’s “Behind the Music”? Try and see how many episodes you can count where the artist does NOT bitch about being screwed over financially by management / labels / bad record deals / etc. And don’t worry if your job at the canning factory has left you short a few fingers. You won’t need them.
And nobody is “forcing” anybody to do anything. Well, I take it back. It is the music industry, specifically the RIAA and anti-mp3 bands like Metallica, who are “forcing” the public to accept their terms. Except, it ain’t gonna work. If it were possible to shut down mp3-trading completely, then they’d have a shot. But it’s not. They simply won’t accept that fact.
So all I am saying is, the anti-mp3 bands and the RIAA are missing a golden opportunity to PROFIT FROM the downloading of individual tracks. Just think, how many people who pay to download “Another Brick in the Wall Pt 2” will be inspired to spend even more more money on more songs, and eventually buy the full album? Quite a few, I’d wager. And even if they don’t, the music company has already profitted from that $1/song sale, from people who would have otherwise downloaded it for free anyway.
I still don’t understand why I’m not making myself clear on that particular point.
What’s hypocritical about this? The bands have chosen not to let people download their songs through iTunes. Unless they’d previously expressed support for it or said they would - and I’m pretty sure they haven’t - it’s not hypocrisy.
I suppose what’s meant here is that Metallica was so anti-Napster and yet doesn’t support iTunes. That’s not hypocritical, it strikes me as being rather consistent: they want to sell their music their own way. They’re entitled to do so. Big whoop.
Yes, it’s obviously a financial decision (although I don’t think the album format comment is totally invalid). So what? It’s their music and their livelihood, they can do what they want with it. As others have said, if you don’t like it, don’t buy the albums.
“Our artists would rather not contribute to the demise of the album format,” said Mark Reiter, with Q Prime Management Co., which manages the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica and several other artists.
It’s dead, dead as buggy whips, whale oil and bleeding sick people to restore their health. I’ll never understand what makes these people think that somehow, someway they’re going to turn the clock back and preserve an obsolete business model in the face of progress.
It would be as if IBM decided way back when that they didn’t want to contribute to the demise of the manual typewriter and “paper” office model so they refused to fund or develop computers.
It boggles the mind… Do they honestly think that 20 years from now people will be going into a brick and mortar store to purchase a single storage medium with music pre-recorded on it over which they have little to no control pertaining to the content? Or even more ludicrously buy a single pre recorded storage medium over a vast and capable information network using a computer capable of producing, editing, recording and broadcasting the exact same product (given the same content) and wait for it to be hand delivered to their door?? Because of their ‘artistic vision’ and outmoded business models I am forced to pay for a store’s rent, shipping, packaging, labor, utilities, warehousing, badly focused marketing and random advertising when a vastly more efficient and cheaper means is available?
I could understand the “our artistic integrity” is on the line bit if we were talking about high concept art albums which are meant to be listened to as a whole. But Metallica and RHCP haven’t made such albums. They release songs as singles for radio and video. They don’t make the claim that the individual songs on their CDs can’t stand alone – except when it comes to having legal, licensed downloading from the iMusic store.
Logical disconnect, much?
The more baffling this is that there is no downside for artists in allowing their music to be a part of legal download programs. They get an increased level of public awareness and access to their music, they make money they would not have made otherwise. This deathgrip on the opposition view, this luddite “no, the internet is bad!” perspective is just beyond comprehension.
Considering that the Apple Music Store already has some albums that you can only get as a complete set (no sales of individual tracks allowed), you’re right to dismiss their arguments as bullshit. And as the staff of As The Apple Turns point out, Metallica et al already sell various “Best of” albums, featuring a mix of individual tracks from their earlier works, which further undermines the whole “preserve the integrity of the album” argument.
You make a very good point. Indeed, the only “hypocritical” thing about Metallica is how they did a complete 180-degree turn from their original artistic vision and mission. And even then, “hypocritical” isn’t a word that really fits. “Betrayal” is closer.
I think you’re missing the point: the statements are being criticized because they CLAIMED it was more about creative stuff than financial matters, and the OP doesn’t think that’s true at all. Thus the charge of hypocrisy (or at least outright fibbing).
Plus - if they were really concerned about “artistic integrity” of their whole album, they wouldn’t sell their CDs to anyone, for fear they had a multi-CD swapper, or a random-track-play facility on their CD player.
Why is this such a moral imperative, and in any case, what artists have that privilege today? As pointed out repeatedly in this thread, bands are rarely granted this kind of full artisitic freedom by their record companies.
Not really, and who is forcing them anyway? But if they want to sell their things at all, it doesn’t matter whether it is high art or pure shit: it will sell best in the manner the buyers want to purchase it (in principle). And if there is a strong enough desire to obtain music in a certain way, whether or not the artist has a pure right to control its distribution doesn’t stop matters-of-fact. This is unfortunate, but pragmatic. When communism fails, you don’t blame the people (and I mean you, Sam Stone), you blame the system itself for failing to live up to what people need from social and economic organization. But bring “art” into the name and suddenly people must live up to principle? No, I don’t think so. Well, I mean yeah, I agree it is theft (or, as me, an illegal sample which I use to purchase or decide not to purchase), but no, I don’t think they can sit on their laurels and the rest of us will just say, “Well, that’s the way things are, what can we do about it?” Fuck, we go get it.
Who is forcing anyone to do anything? They don’t have to release it at all! Should I be forced to carry uninsured motorist insurance? It is practical. Musicians want their shit out there, but there are two parts to this, the creators who should retain the rights, and the consumers who simply partake in the experience. But, like if god didn’t exist we’d have to create them, if a need isn’t satisfied on the open market then it will be satisfied somewhere else.
Is it wrong? I think so. Will shaking my finger at P2P networks make them all realize the error of their ways?
Well, this is where we might end up, true. If the artist wants to take that risk, they should be able to. But ignoring the practicality of how products marketed to the public, and what happens given different distribution scenarios, is a little arrogant. A successful artist is not a self-made man; a happy listener is not a self-satisfying individual.
They want a choice? Here’s their REAL choice: they want to make a living off their music? Then they appeal to their customers. Fuck, Sam, I think this argument can be completely inverted. We have an open market because we’ve found it the best way to please people and allocate resources. Like talent, for example.
I am my own worker, but I cannot dictate terms to my boss if I accept the fact that I want to make a living doing [this]. Neither does my boss get to dictate all terms with me if he accepts the fact that he wants me as an employee.
Truthfully, I think musicians not willing to partake in this are fucking arrogant pricks relying on a pseudo-monopoly that larger labels try to stand behind. Metallica didn’t get famous purely by making good music. People made copies of their tapes, played it for friends, let others borrow the tape, etc. It was word of mouth. They are really assholes if they think that their popularity is strictly due to their incredible talent.
Neither does their desire to make a living at selling music dictate that I must “take it or leave it” on whatever terms they dictate. Intellectual property rights such as those on music are so far and away a different beast than tangible property that it amazes me the model has lasted as long as it has.
Umm, I have to correct you here. Back in the day, Metallica was a band of incredible talent. Never mind that they stole their sound from the NWOBHM scene and sped it up Motorhead-style. Never mind that half the songs on their debut album were actually written by Dave Mustaine of Megadeth (a band that never lost its soul, thank God.) You are right, of course, that they filled a niche and became popular, not by radio or MTv, but by letting their fans trade tapes of their demos. Indeed, many have taken Lars, Inc. to task for this. But I would never accuse Metallica of being a no-talent band, at least up until “Load”. Plus, they were one HELL of a live band – and still are, some people tell me.
rjung also makes a good point about the bands releasing “greatest hits” albums when they are trying to claim “artistic vision”!! (Did Metallica release a greatest hits album? I didn’t know that. I know RHCP did.) OTOH, remember that the statements come from the bands’ management, and while we all know Metallica has the power to make their own decisions, I’m not yet convinced that RHCP, Green Day, et al are really complicit in this, or are being forced along against their will. So until I hear an official statement from Anthony Giedis or Billie Joe Armstrong, I’ll reserve passing judgment on them.
Metallica has NO official “greatest hits” album. The only thing even close to a compilation is “S&M - Symphony and Metallica” where the San Francisco Orchestra arranged orchestral versions of their music to play with them.
Anybody else find it odd that the market for music is going in the direction of the one-song-at-a-time business, while the market for movies is going in the direction of the endless-sequels and three-movie-trilogy thing?
<Music Snob=ON>
Radiohead is another band that doesn’t want to offer their music as single tracks, and I can understand why in their case. I think anyone downloading any one track from any of their albums (excepting “Pablo Honey”, perhaps) is missing the point. (The only exception I could see is “Paranoid Android”, which is such a great track that it stands up on its own as well as a part of “OK Computer”. Maybe “The National Anthem”, but “Kid A” really needs to be taken as a whole.)
(Of course, by the same token, they shouldn’t release singles, and I would agree with that, but I appreciate the reality of the music business. My guess is that most people who buy “Hail to the Thief” are not buying it because they heard the single.)
But the Red Hot Chili Peppers? Metallica? Fucking Green Day? Definitely tied for this week’s Prince Rogers Nelson “Get Over Yourself” Award. The first two would be better off if nobody bought any of their recent output, so people can think fondly on the bands that made “Master of Puppets” and “Blood Sugar Sex Magik” without seeing the dim shadows they’ve become. And Green Day is still around?
A visceral reaction, to be sure. Maybe the RHCP and Metallica (and, Og help us, Green Day) believe that their respective albums are coherent pieces of musical vision just like Radiohead does. The difference is that they’re wrong.
If such a store still exists, there is no doubt I will use it. Give up on the experience of counting down the days to an albums release date, making the journey to the store the very day it comes out, searching the racks for that album, staring down over the artwork, perusing it from all angles, then, as soon as you get it outside, ripping open the bag, removing the plastic wrap and studying the liner notes and artwork? Buying an album isn’t about music! It’s about ritual! It’s about holding a physical missive from band to fan, saying this is us for the past year. This is how we’ve spent our time. We hope you get something from it.
I had all of Radiohead’s Hail to the Thief on my computer about a month before it came out in stores. Doesn’t matter - I bought the limited edition the day it came out anyway. While there are still people like me, and I know there are, there will be music stores, and there will be albums.
Leading nicely into my next point: Metallica et al. have to realise that the market’s changing, and they can’t go on selling music the way they use to. This doesn’t necessarily have to result in the demise of the album. What it will result in is the demise of the album from shite bands, something that can only be a good thing.
Have a secret fondness for that novelty Liam Lynch song extolling the virtues of apathy (I don’t, but it seems many do)? Don’t want to weed through 50 minutes of crap to get to his 90 seconds of hit? Download the thing. Voila - no Liam Lynch album; the world is a better place.
Hence, the only albums that get made are the ones where people are going to love every song. Perfect.
Besides, even if RCHP and co don’t want people listening to their songs out of context, it wouldn’t be hard to just put the singles up there, right? I mean, most people who aren’t buying Metallica’s album, but still want some of their stuff are going to be after Enter Sandman rather than… (some Metallica album track… Of Wolf and Man?)
Here’s a point I don’t think anybody here has mentioned. If a band puts all of the songs from an album on-line, and sells each one individually, they could, in theory, sell the whole album to someone who buys a song every now and then, until they have the whole album. Kind of like how a credit card works. Say a CD comes out at $18 but John or Jane Doe is in a financial crunch, and doesn’t have that kind of money for a luxury item at the moment. No problem, they log on, download a song, or as many songs as they can afford. Then, when they get paid again, they buy some more, until they have the complete album.
Sure, not everybody is going to want every song, but this just proves that it’ll still be possible for artists to sell whole albums.
