Slashdot Mirror
Musicians Get Together For Anti-RIAA Concerts
DarkZero writes "The Sacramento Bee is currently running an article
about several different bands getting together for five concerts to raise money for the Recording Artists Coalition with the express purpose of fighting the RIAA and the
unfair treatment of its musicians. The acts lined up include Elton John, Billy Joel, Ozzy Osbourne, Stevie Nick
s, The Offspring, The Eagles, Weezer, and plenty of other bands. Good for them. (And for those that are wonderi
ng, the RAC's site, ArtistsAgainstPiracy.com, is actually an anti-RIAA and somewhat pro-Napster site, not what you would immediately expect it
to be.)"
Yep, Britney Spears, et al are still riding on their relatively new-found fame and fortune, considering themselves lucky and haven't had their accountants tell them exactly how much more money has gone to the label.
Artists who have been around the block a few times have had more opportunity to get screwed repeatedly by the RIAA.
The RIAA (and recording labels in general) have been living on the same scheme since the 40's: Keep the artists working for new contracts, constantly touring and promoting themselves while the labels cash in on the recordings. That doesn't work so well if the artist is allowed to collect the full amount of royalties that they really deserve on past recordings.
The RIAA has been screwing the artist for years, its about time they fought back. Haha... I mean how long did the RIAA think all this could last? Lets see what exactly do they do? They write the music right? No wait. They play it? Again no. So then... they record it? Nope. Basically they get rich, I think thats all they really do. Now they're going to get what they deserve due to the fact that at least in the US the govt and people are easily influenced by famous people with money. This along with the bill proposing to allow online music distribution to break the RIAA's choke hold (seen last week or so on slashdot), should be enough. When the shit hits the fan, I wish it'll be on pay-per-view, I'd love to watch the RIAA's lawyers try to weasel up some good reasons justifying their actions.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
This "shadow" of negativity over technology, which the recording industry has used Napster and other peer-to-peer systems to grow, now over shadows our new technological achievements as mankind, and demeans the ability for artists to understand the truth of the options available now to them.
Because of the existence of the new system of distribution enabled by technologies progression into the new century, artists need to understand that a recording contract is not necessarily needed to become successful and reach the masses with their artistic impressions. This I wish to seriously stress unto everyone. Now is the time for the options for the artists be removed from these shadows of negativity, and that we enable the true digital music revolution to shine unto the world. Giving back to the artist the very art which they create to make the this industry, and allowing them to reclaim the control.
Man and Goat
... this whole thing would have never happend.
At first we had napster, the CD sales increased. Somehow the RIAA didn't like this, nobody knows why.
Now they try to copy-protect CDs (which is not going to work anyways). What is the simple consequence? People won't buy such "defective" CDs, instead download the songs they like.
But it comes even better, some sickminded consulting people think that a pay-for-download-AND-listen system would work.
Now some bands have to jump in and tell the RIAA that they are going the wrong way.
And what's the outcome:
The RIAA spent more money on copy protection and lawsuits than they will ever get back from it.
Guess who they think has to pay for this... and guess who is not going to pay but download instead, and it goes on like that...
Can anyone tell me where this stuff is going to end?
I'm sick of it.
The fundamental problem is that musicians sign their lives away for multi-album contracts at an early stage in their careers. These contracts are signed with the artist at a huge disadvantage (for instance the artist often signs away their right to negotiate with any other studio without realizing that it was legally binding, let alone what they are now in for). And studios are under all incentives to take full advantage of this.
But as actors realized decades ago in movies and as professional sport after professional sport has found out, if you give talent the ability to renegotiate contracts early and often (ie make them free agents) then the top talent gets an absurdly better deal, and the average talent gets something much closer to a decent shake. Make musicians free agents and studios will have incentives to treat artists better, not worse.
Oh, people talk about having a studio founded by the artists, for the artists. But such a studio will have all of the same incentives as the existing ones, and in the end will turn out the same. Therefore until musicians wake up and start demanding to be free agents, I confidently predict that their treatment will continue to suck.
"If I know that 90% of the money I pay goes to productive people like musicians, sound tehcnicians, etc... (and this is possible with internet distribution and without spending money in pushing marketroid manufactured culture) I wouldn't mind to pay for my music."
Every time I hear this argument I can't believe anyone can possibly say it with a straight face. In modern society, there's a common understanding of payment for services or goods. If I offer a service or product you like, at a price you believe is fair, then you purchase it. You do not set the price (except by market demand) and your unwillingness to meet my price does not give you the right to steal. If you don't agree to the price, then don't buy.
Based upon your philosophy, who sets the price for goods and services? Is it when you're satisfied all others must pay? If someone else doesn't like the price or workers compensation, does that mean both of you still won't pay, or does that mean they must pay because you're now satisfied? Where on your birth certificate does it clearly state "Not required to pay for any goods or services I feel don't meet my moral and financial standards for cost and worker satisfaction?" What do your 'feelings' say about the cost of cars, medicines and gold coins? Do those also become fair game when you don't believe in the selling price or production methods ($1US a day to work hundreds of feet down in a gold mine sure doesn't sound fair to me but I'm not out stealing, instead of buying, jewelry since I don't feel the workers are being treated unfairly).
I won't argue the point of the RIAA, CD costs or artist compensation, that's a subject where we probably both agree. But, in my humble opinion, refusing to buy their products is a better solution instead of trying to mentally justify my theft of all compensation from the artists and workers (meager as it may be).
To clarify, the artists in this case want
Their music to no longer be classified as a "work for hire," aka a pointless industrial design owned by the system... such as the look of a car, the shape of a replica statue of liberty, or N' Sync. There isn't much money to be made creating "works for hire," nor is there many legislated rights associated with them.
Compulsory licencing for online music content with compulsory compensation for artists. Much in the same way that radio was working up until Clear Channel, compulsory licencing would mean increased online distribution and competition and with a per-song fee paid to artists. Artists would also like to have the option of licencing "their" music to free services like limewire and napster, in the hopes of making more on concert sales and merchandising.
An end to long-term contracts. This makes sense, as artists don't have much barganing power with their labels when they first sign that 10 year piece of paper. At the time it looks like a much better prospect than returning to Mc Donalds.
All of these things are aimed at making more money for the existing, successful (and unsuccessful but signed) artist, but with little real attempt to reduce the grip of the Recording Industry from the musical world.
I know a dozen musicians, all of whom have in-house recording studios capable of producing some truly professional quality audio and burning it to disk. And I know dozens of people who run sites, some of which involve payment authentication systems. Add a buck for postage, a few downloadable sample MP3's, and make the artists do all the legwork and you have a replacement for the traditional music distribution system. Why, then, do we not have benefit concerts to startup alternatives like this? (Hint - look at the dinner tables of the artists throwing this concert... )
While the tweaks to the system advocated by these artists are by and large good ideas (lord knows we could use a compulsory licencing scheme for online music), they are not in reality as revolutionary as some people here seem to think.
The ______ Agenda
'They'll dump you and then just phone up the model agency and ask for 5 more people who look OK and can sort-of dance. No singing ability required.'
Have you seen an 'nsync or a britney and a christina show? There's some major work and choreography involved. These people are far from talentless. There's a reason why they are so popular and it's certainly not just because they're good looking or 'can soft-of dance.' The music industry might have hoards of money but they can't just buy talent. They find talent and exploit it for all it's worth until they find the next successful artist.
The music industry aren't creators of musical culture as much as they are opportunists with dollar signs in their eyes. Whether it is song&dance or metal or electronica or cajun, they don't care as long as their's profit to be made.
That's Pop Idol (I think - don't really watch these things myself). I think that there is an element of the Great British Public which knows that it will annoy the people behind the show so they are voting in droves. They know that the record company doesn't want anything new or original which might be difficult to sell. To paraphrase Pirsig:
The whole system cautions against originality. Doing the same thing will get you an 'A', originality will get you anything between an A and an F.
There's a lot of artists over the years who have lasted and haven't been that attractive: Buddy Holly (OK - he didn't last but the work did), Mick Jagger, Iggy Pop, Shane MacGowan, The Pixies. The record company behind stuff like Popstars clearly do not want anyone with talent or anyone who will last. The reason that the artists behind this protest are mostly the older ones is because they can survive without their record label. A1, Hear'Say, Backdoor Boys etc. cannot.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
The irony is, they were only discovered after someone got hold of their demo tape.
> Have you seen an 'nsync or a britney and a christina show? There's some major work and choreography involved.
Ah. So ballet has finally become a trillion-dollar branch of the entertainment industry.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> If I know that 90% of the money I pay goes to
> productive people like musicians, sound
> tehcnicians, etc... (and this is possible with
> internet distribution and without spending
> money in pushing marketroid manufactured
> culture) I wouldn't mind to pay for my music.
Do you think 90% of your grocery bill goes to the dudes picking the produce? 90% of your car payment goes to the people on the factory floor?
At some point, you're beholden to others: you have to earn a living, insure against tragic loss, etc. But, you save a little for retirement, reach the point of not needing insurance (estate tax issues aside), and generally become independent of those to whom you were beholden in the past (employers, insurers, etc.)
You now have time to reflect: did they treat you fairly? Did the relationship over time appear equitable, or was one side ("them") excessively leveraging your vulnerabilities against you? Do other people in the same situation think so as well?
If the answer is yes, now that the "ties that bind" are broken, as it were, maybe it is time to voice your opinions of the injustice that was perpetuated, and try to end it for people now in the same position as you were.
I keep reading and hearing of absurd recording contracts, with no chance for legal review, and I can't help but think, "who would bend over so far for a recording contract?" Someone naive, vulnerable, and desperate, that's who.
As much as I am a libertarian, and think that whatever the market will bear is fair, I do not particularly like participants in a free market that (a) leverage their counterpart's vulnerabilities to their advantage, and more importantly (b) fight tooth and nail to prevent their counterparts from seeking alternatives. It's like the baker saying, "Oh, you're hungry? Well, the bread costs twice as much today as yesterday." Accepting it might be fair, but it certainly isn't nice, and I, for one, prefer to do business with nice people.
You could've hired me.
The Monkees were assembled not as a misucal band but as a comedy team. Despite the fact that both Peter Tork and Mike Nesmith were musicians, they didn't play their own instruments on the show or in their recordings for several years. After several years of success due to the show, Mickey Dolenz started actually learning how to play the drums he'd been faking for years, and Davey Jones (who had a pretty good singing voice) started studying seriously.
The telling point is when the Monkees had a well-watched meeting with the Beatles ("The Fab Four Meets the Prefab Four!" shouted the headlines) John Lennon looked at Mickey Dolenz and said (paraphrase here; I don't remember the exact quote), "I finally get it. You're the Marx Brothers!"
So, in short, the Monkees were chosen by how well they worked as a comedy team, not for their musicianship. This makes them a bad example of a "manufactured band" since they weren't really intended to be a band at all. They just grew into the role. And yes, this also goes for the Partridge Family.
Virg
I notice a lot of people are complaining about mass marketed music like NSync and Britney Spears. The problem is that, the RIAA isnt responsible for this watered down content manufacturing - people in general are. Take a tally of how many people listen to Linkin Park or the Offspring or something, then square it against the number of adolescents who buy BS and NSync. Sorry folks, but cheese pop seems to be where all the money's at, and if you're like Katz and think that people shouldnt follow simple market forces then go back to writing for Pravda :P
If you and others like you like music by these bands and buy it, fine. If there's money in it someone will service that niche, be it the RIAA or autonomous artists. However, until more people buy 'proper' music as one might refer to it, that's all it's gonna be, a niche.
So even though it's one group of rich bastards against another, "fuck the RIAA" is about to become a household phrase.
-Legion
How brilliant! But maybe, enjoying economies of scale, these venture capitalists should also provide the production facilities to press the CDs. They could coordinate the marketing too! I even have a name for these "venture capitalists" who put up the money behind bands ... we could call them "record labels"!
Seriously, why do you think that venture capitalists will want less money than record companies. Take a look at the books of EMI some day. Sure, on one superstar band, they make out like bandits. But that's ignoring all the flop acts, on which the musicians haven't paid them back a cent. Across the whole portfolio, they are substantially less profitable than many other industries. This mythical surplus profit which "could go to the musicians" just doesn't exist.
-- the most controversial site on the Web