Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
couple of points
1. you keep ignoring all the examples i give you independents who made it without the label (JC for example)
|
And I point out that all of them (except for maybe that nerd rock guy, are all on major labels now. They used the internet to get signed to a major label. If their internet success was so fantastic why not just stay there.
Quote:
2. many established artist who took it up the ass for years, are now trying to use the technology to break away but when every i mention them you argue they "owe" the record company for their success (as if taking it up the ass with the 90/10 split is not enough)
when eagles and other artist file copyright revokation notices to put their songs in the public domain so they can compete against the record companies selling their own music
you bitch about
when artist like radio head gift their music to their fans authorizing their downloading activities (hell their is an entire organization of some 250 major artist including the bare naked ladies who have made similar offers)
you bitch about.
the record companies signed the contracts that way, they knew the artist had a right put their music into the public domain by revoking the copyright, why should we feel sorry for them.
|
My complaint has never been with artists who decide when their contracts are up to go their own way and dsitribute their music however they see fit. I actually give Radiohead credit. They could have gotten tens of millions in advance money from any number of record labels, but they decided they wanted to be independent. That is cool and it take courage.
All I have pointed out in the past is that these types of people are not good examples of the internet allowing success to happen for music acts. These acts are world famous. It is fame their earned during their time with the major labels when millions of dollars and enormous staffs of people were used to get them exposure. They now have that big name and they can capitalize on it if they want. They paid for it, if they want to go their own way, so be it. But you can't compare Radiohead to someone singing cover tunes on Youtube. One is a world wide famous band and the other is someone with some Youtube videos. The playing field is not fair nor is it balanced. Head to head Radiohead is going to destroy that person in downloads and no amount of keyword stuffing or seo will change that.
Quote:
The new technology creates opportunities for the artist (who would have believed that an artist could make more money voiding their copyright and competing with everyone to sell their music) and the record companies are trying to change the LAWS and there for the conditions of the contract they agreed too. Technology usurped their power, and granted the artist a new opportunity and the record companies want to put the yoke back on the artist.
the arguement cuts both ways why should i feel sorry for them since the market has changed.
record companies can hold a band hostage to a deal for years, so while you claim that most artist keeping quiet are doing so because they don't want to piss off their fans (which should be considered a basic principle of marketing) i think they are keeping quiet because they are afraid of being stuck in development hell (think about if you were afraid of pissing of your fans, and you could make a pro filesharing statement get tons of good press and good will why would you be stupid enough to not make the statement)
The only established artist who make such statements have either sweetheart (my own studio does the production ) deals or are truely independent now.
|
If you sign a contact you should have to stick to it. I have said it a million times and I will say it again and again and again and again. If it is a bad contract for either party, that is their fault. They entered that contract of their own free will, they have to deal with it.
There have been big names that have come out against file share. Kid Rock is one, Sheryl Crow is another. When the Red Hot Chili Peppers put out their last album Flea mad a statement saying how he was pissed off that the album was online and being illegally downloaded before it was even for sale. The very next day he went on MTV and said he mis-spoke and the doesn't care, feel free to download it. Why did he say that? Not because he was worried about development hell, because he didn't want backlash from the fans. There are a ton of artists who don't care one way or the other.
If an artist wants to use the new technology to market themselves, I don't care. All I want is for those who don't want their stuff downloaded in mass by anyone who wants it to have the ability to stop that.