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.)"
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.
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
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
> I mean how long did the RIAA think all this could last? Lets see what exactly do they do?
I'm just speculating, but I suspect they actually served a purpose when the electronics industry was young and not every superstarwannabe had a digital recording studio in his bedroom and an internet to lead the world to his bedroom door.
Nevertheless, dinosaurs will not go willingly into the night.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
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