Slashdot Mirror
Musicians vs. RIAA At USA Today
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today has an article about the growing friction between recording artists and the 5 major labels which make up the RIAA. Many issues are covered, including copyright reform, fraudulent accounting on the part of record labels, and how selling a quarter million albums can leave you owing your label $14,000."
So, if the musicians don't like them, and we don't like them... why do they still exist?
levine
Take a look at P.Diddy (or whatever the hell he calls himself), he's sold millions upon millions of CDs, and yet he was dropped by his label for spending more money than he was making. Lavish demands... I agree the RIAA is evil, but these artists aren't that much less evil themselves... Especially the POP/RAP superstars... they are insane when it comes to their spending habits...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Non-musicians, like Brittany Spears, are the ones selling millions of records to people NOT like us.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Its a shame the RIAA won't accept its fate. Just like the typewriter gave way to the computer, they are steadily becomming obsolete. Artists will find ways to distribute their music cheaper and to a larger audience through the internet.
I hope that legislation doesn't allow a big dying industry to survive longer than it should.. it impedes both artists and consumers from moving forward and finding the best way for musicians (not the associated industry) to succeed.
An interesting article by all means. Perhaps the time has come for all artists, new upcomers or old timers, to seek an alternative distribution model. I have often thought, considering the very slim royalties most performers receive from CD sales, that simply selling tunes direct to the customer on a website could put the power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people who have the talent.
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Michael Jackson's recent high-profile leap onto the bandwagon was met with skepticism. In rallying support for his financial grievances against Sony Music, he asserted, "If you fight for me, you're fighting for all black people."
Sorry, I may have missed something. Why the link between Michael Jackson and black people?
"Miles Copeland, chairman of Ark 21 Records, predicts that passage could significantly harm 'the entire music business because of the very visible complaining by a few successful recording artists. If the mega artists succeed with this effort, I feel strongly that it would be at the expense of those artists who have not made it yet.'"
:)
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it might be bad to an executive like Copeland, who relies on sub-talented "artists" like Britney Spears to generate income for that new yacht. But this actually be the wakeup call needed to actually *develop* new artists, rather than toss them out there like so many Big Macs for huge immediate profits.
The whole industry needs an enema, and I am very happy to see some *real* artists starting to voice their concerns. There may be hope after all
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
You can read the original piece by the brilliant Steve Albini here, and probably lots of other places. Thanks to some slashdot comment I read last week but have since lost.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
I never thought of it like this before, but that's really what happens. What's worse - there's nothing more frustrating than a band changing labels -- the old label still owns all the band's old music, which unfortunately means that they take some pretty good stuff and stick it in a basement somewhere. This is where Janis Ian's suggestion of letting artist re-release their out-of-print stuff would really be of use. Of course, that would require the RIAA to give up some control...
Boy, did she get screwed.
First, her parents signed her up with Curb Records for TEN albums when she was 12. She grossed over $300,000,000 for Curb Records. That's right, a third of a billion dollars.
When her parents got divorced, her mom got to ride horses with the WalMart heirs, her dad lives in luxury, and Leann has enough to buy herself a used car.
There are laws that are supposed to protect child stars from getting fucked like this. There isn't a single honest judge to enforce them, though. Leann is suing her dad, her label, and probably her mother, agents, and promoters. It's the judges that will do her in.
If Jimmy Buffett has his way (and looks like he is attracting some takers), the RIAA has more to fear from J.B. than from P2P. Check out this article on Buffett leading the charge against the big labels. With CD's cheap and easy to make, the RIAA and the big labels that make it up are going to have a harder and harder time justifying their existence. They can keep blaming P2P, but they'd better wake up to the fact that they can't keep treating their artists and customers like dirt -- the artists and customers CAN and WILL get together with or without them. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore -- from Fruitcakes by J.B.
Life is short: void the warranty.
the article says that labels tend to contract 6-8 albums for an artist to produce. I wonder if this is a source of the poor music that has been coming out in recent years. Some artists may simply have one or two hits at the start of their career, getting the attention the labels, thus signing the artist. Then it turns out that the artist, having to roll out that many albums, does not have the talent in them to come up with enough good tunes that people want, leading to a decline in CD sales. All the one-hit-wonders are the ones getting signed by the big labels before the realization that they are one-hit-wonders.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
...Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore's music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits.....
I wonder if this includes the artists who died penniless. (Back pension to the widowed families)
What would be nice is if they could reverse the law that lets the Big-5 keep the copyrights forever. Retrieval of copyrights back to the family of deseased artists could be a form of income for them.
Although it's possible the Big-5 think of these as revenue for themselves, the fact is, they sit on them without re-releasing songs because it's not "profitable" to them. These families have smaller overhead, and it could be profitable for THEM.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid.
bingo!
-- james
"It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight."
Welcome to capitalism.
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system," says Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. "The time where accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots."
Someone UNDERSTOOD something Richards SAID!?
He talks like Prince writes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
5 major labels which make up the RIAA
RIAA exists to further the interests (as they perceive them anyway) of the 5 major record labels that created it. The odd thing is that the record labels would rather legislate and sue themselves into further power and existance rather than deliver any sort of value to the customer. It seem to be a loosing strategy to me.
I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots.
Anyone else get a laugh out of the fact that Keith Richards is derisively calling anyone a dinosaur ??
The price of CDs themselves is way too outrageous. In many cases, the cd isn't worth the 20 dollars you have to fork over to buy it with. Somewhere, some place down the line, someone is making a fat profit on these cds. Does it really cost that much money to get a plastic case, a little booklet, and maybe a bit of paint on a cd? In this mass-producing-touch-of-a-button world? Say the most expensive CDs would only cost 9 or 10 dollars. Sales would surge since you could buy double as many disks. I for one would love to buy more cds, espically if they cost less. Sure you can find cds that are that price already online, or maybe in the bargin bin of your local Best Buy, but I mean major new releases. Don't you think more copies would fly off the shelf if the new pop hit cd came out at $9.99 instead of $18.99 in your local mall? Sell 10,000 copies at a lower price, and make more than you would if you sold 5,000 copies at a higher price. Of course from the industry's point of view, if you can sell 10,000 copies... sell 10,000 copies at the highest price possible. Got to get that gold plated Lexus, after all.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Many issues are covered, including copyright reform, fraudulent accounting on the part of record labels, and how selling a quarter million albums can leave you owing your label $14,000."
Meanwhile, at the bottom of the article page, it says "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. -- Alexander Pope"
very fitting.
See, this is why i don't buy anything from the RIAA anymore, aside from the fact that I don't want my money going to fund copyright laws that I don't want. If i want to hear them bad enough, I'll go see them when they come to town, if I hear about it, since I don't listen to the radio...but thats what band websites are for.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
"And these renegotiated deals don't tend to tack on a lot of extra albums or dramatically increase the artist's obligation"
Which is to say that they could tend to tack on a few extra albums or moderately increase the artist's obligation, in addition to tacking on a lot of extra albums and/or dramatically increasing the artist's obligation in a smaller proportion of cases.
What it comes down to is this: If they're conning the artists who have been in the business a long time, they're hardly going to tell it to USA Today straight, are they?
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.
Perhaps they'd lose less money (and maybe make some?) if their tastes and qualifications were a little more discriminating.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Well duh! Hello! They're performers, they're supposed to be vocal, or instrumental or something. I bet the writer was saving that one up for years.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Face it, most people want to hear the stuff that's on the radio-- over-produced, simplistic, commercialized goo, and we can't stand if it's not a singable tune. That's why only 5% of the artists have a hit-- because the record companies know they can't make money unless they find a musician who happens to fit that (very rare) formula. Even if they do sign an innovative group or individual, they know hardly anyone will buy the record, because they know we have horrible taste, or that we, for whatever reason, are less likely to buy it.
I work at a music store, and 99% of the requests I get are for musicians who they heard on the radio or TV. People want to be hand-fed good music, then complain when it's not good. The record companies are only trying to feed the customer what they seem to want, which is not necessarily good music.
...the nasdaq lost 5% today after the merger between Brittney Spears (BOOB | -19.5%) and Justin Timberlake (NSUK | +2.3%) suddenly came to an end, with Justin now in talks for a future merger with Janet Jackson (VOLD | -4.6%) while it appears Brittney will attempt to go on her own...
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Yeh, brilliant. And then, after your favourite band sells a quarter of a million albums, they find that they're left owning ... well, nothing, because they sold off all the rights to their profits in the IPO. Then we get the same dull article about whiny stars who thought they could have their cake and eat it, except instead of "recording companies" insert "shareholders".
-- the most controversial site on the Web
I was a record producer for fifteen years and got out of the business because it simply sickened me. Here's an example:
Artists are paid a points royalty on sale of master recordings (while songwriters are paid publishing royalties on the sales of songs). 15% (15 points) is quite a good royalty for a new band, or even one with a hit under their belt.
But does that mean 15 points off all sales? Nope.
It means 15% of 90% of the worldwide gross. Why 90%?
Because in the 1940's (when the label business models we hate so much were established) lacquer records were still sold and many of them broke in shipment. A 10% "breakage allowance" was standard.
It still is. CDs don't break. But the labels, almost without exception, skim 10% off the top for "breakage" before even getting to recoupment. If IBM skimmed 10% off their earnings before issuing dividends the Board would be crucified. But music labels? No problem!
As for recoupment, the example given in the USA Today article is tame. I won't mention the name, but there is a band who has sold millions, for each of their more than five albums. But each time, video costs, recording costs, marketing/promotion costs, plane fares (for huge label entourages), hotel bills (for these same label execs) were all paid for by the band.
Sum total? They sold 35 million records and still OWE the label over 2 million dollars.
The system was devised in the 40's and has no place in the 21st Century. Hilary Rosen can whine all she wants, but the labels are truly in serious trouble due to their religious adherence to these ancient business models.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
Corporations will try to screw you no matter what happens. Labor unions Exsits to make it so that easier for employees to negotate contracts, improve work situations, and get higher wages.
Unions make sense for the most part autoworks truck drivers school teachers. these are groups that need repesentation and have very little power, (they are easy to replace).
Millionars shouldn't have unions like the MLB players union is stupid.
As for the MOB the mob exsits to make money any way possible. If the mob could make money easly by running down the street naked they would. and they would have their budies do and their employees do it to increase their profit. The mob is a group of buisness men they just take it a bit more searously then the rest of the world.
madness takes its toll please have exact change
I'm not really a big music fan (only listen to it on my way to/from work.) My wife, on the other hand is an avid fan of several bands. She has told me of several that have made their own records under their own label, and built from that to making records for other bands under those labels. Those bands, incidentally, are also big supporters of operations like napster.
:-)
Unfortunately, most sheep (er, consumers) don't care about the politics or anything because they're not told to. They're just told to go buy such and such's album because it is cool. You don't want to be different, do you?
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
...Wayne Kramer, founder of punk's seminal MC5, felt some empathy for embattled record execs after he established his label, MuscleTone, last year.
"I have a new respect for how hard it is to run a label, and I know record companies lose money on most bands," Kramer says....
What the hell? True, I'm not an ex-punk band leader or label maker, but not being able to sell bad music in a 10 block radius shouldn't be a gauge.
Maybe some type of co-op is needed. A huge number of artists get together, and with power in numbers (and dollars) able to procure the cheapest marketing, distribution, and processing they can get for their dollars. Figure out the costs, and that's what you charge the artist to put out a new record. Profits can go to the artist, with maybe a small percentage going to the investment of the co-op. Merchandise, touring/concerts, part of the working equation. Make rMTv channel (r=real) to play their own videos. Crack into the radio stations market to play their own music only.
*sigh* Probably impossible to do with the monopoly in place.
But then again, maybe it has been done, and the RIAA = the co-op.
While intentionally not paying royalties is obviously fraudulent accounting. The traditional system of applying overhead to jobs also needs to be eliminated because they're charging artists for idle time that's not the artists' fault, but the fault of the Labels. Take recording for instance. If a recording studio applies overhead based on the estimated number of studio hours they think they'll incur throughout the year, the overhead cost will be more per studio hour than if the studio applied overhead based on capacity of recording hours available which is the way it should be done. Artists should only have to pay for the time, labor, and materials it takes to produce their own albums, not the studio's idle time because they can't get enough business. While this will result in underapplied overhead for the studio and an increase in cost of sales, that's not the artists' fault and it shouldn't be their problem. The Labels and the studios need to find a way to bring their actual recording hours closer to capacity to get their profit margin back rather than overcharging the artists for it which is, unfortunately, still legal in the USA. This is why an album can sell 250,000 copies and still leave an artist owing money, because they're sticking it to them by overapplying overhead.
The income statement is a little hard to follow. For one thing, it doesn't have proper indenting for sub-items, so it's hard to tell which things should really be added up.
For those who think it's okay for bands to make nothing on recordings since they make all their money on tours--this band lost money on tours, which is typical, from what I understand.
Here's a shocker: Hilary is on a salary of $1.4 million a year, with all travel, clothing, food and personal incidentals added as expenses, plus three "business" residences.Total comp package: about 2.7 million a year. Jack Valenti gets at least 1.5 million more. A YEAR.
And you wonder why she is so tencious about ideas which any sane person would laugh at?
Because she only cares about what most people care about: their own asses. If the music industry no longer has a need for the RIAA, what else could she possibly be qualified for?
"In the past 20 years, an industry that was led by visionaries and music lovers has become dominated by accountants, financial analysts and people who can't think ahead more than 90 days."
Sounds a lot like the software industry
It is clearly time for change. When artists have such slave-like contracts - low pay and few rights - there is no wonder talented, smart people stay out of the recording industry.
Stop the brainwash
Considering that they're having no problems buying legislation in our country now, I doubt they could find a more favorable country!
"Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."
Hillary Rosen was just tugging at my heart strings with this quote. I mean, who knew that the record publishing houses were really just there to work for the artist and to pour millions of dollars into making records just so one poor little musician could recognize their dream!
This shows the reality for most musicians. Of course there are few that are paid correctly, the most famous ones, of course, like Metallica. These musicians think that everybody else receives their payments the way they receive.
It's a shame, but by paying right for some, they create a small legion of artists that try to convince people that everything is ok the way it is (and of course fight for RIAAs interests)
Now we all have proofs that Metallica fought against Napster because they really believe that every other musicians receive their payments.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
> As for recoupment, the example given in the USA Today article is tame. I won't mention the name, but there is a band who has sold millions, for each
> of their more than five albums. But each time, video costs, recording costs, marketing/promotion costs, plane fares (for huge label entourages), hotel
> bills (for these same label execs) were all paid for by the band.
>
> Sum total? They sold 35 million records and still OWE the label over 2 million dollars.
Clearly expenses need to be recovered, and these are real expenses for the label. A side issue here is the old, "somebody else's problem." In this case, the labels can rack up any sort of expenses they see fit, and chalk it up against the artists' royalties. They have even less incentive to control their costs than a government contractor!
The USA Today article mentioned "transparency", but clearly even what was proposed didn't go far enough. Transparency is also needed on the label's overhead expenses. Perhaps artists would look to sign with a label with more competitive expenses.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
For the better part of my 20's, I was in 'the industry'. Either in a band trying to crack it or livin the poor musician lifestyle with most of my friends being either musicians or in 'the industry'.
The Stevel Albini blurb is an excellent read. If you're not a Hootie or Britney or Korn type (even korn being huge is weird) they you're either 100% screwed or you're never gonna make it or you're gonn land on an indie or start your own label.
Me, I tried the start your own label after 'not making it'. 'The industry' is not anything remotely to do with bringin artistic capabilities to the listening public. It is 100% about 'product', how to get that 'product' into the hands of as many people as possible and what the next 'hit' is gonna be. When 'the industry' says it loses $6mil on most acts, big fucking deal, it's your own fault. Because:
- they've completely run all the mom and pop record stores outta biz = no loyal fanbase at a word of mouth price = $3mil for radio (ugh, clear channel) & mtv promotions = Accountant: 'shit, we couldn't clear out the other 10mil units of Susie Johnson cuz people are sick of her already.' CEO: 'scerew her then. alright, dump the cd's in some poor country and jack up the fees 10% on the next 10 new acts'.
- recording an album in a pro studio is horrendiously expensive ($5k for a guy to come in a tune the room is pretty fucked up)
- they sign shitty cookie cutter bands! any orginality, forget it.
- Jim Lawer charges $500/hr. John CEO makes 10x more than Jim.
This being said, I would vomit profusely like a posessed demon and kill myself if it wasn't for many of the real musicians and labels. Look at Fugazi and Dischord. That is it!. They live the music, they do well and they don't fuck eveyone ever and drive away at the end of the day to their mansion on the hill and preach all this rhetoric shit like Rosen does.
Once you get back to the real deal about music, which is (and I don't give one rats ass what Kid Rock says - yah, lets see what he thinks in 10 years when he's been milked dry and tossed aside) that it's art and expression. Period!
Sure, you can make money at it, but 'the industry' is soooo lopsided right now that the RIAA/Rosen claims make me laugh. This stuff all ties in also with the MPAA and p2p (duh!) and DRM. These groups have been stifling artists rights for some time and now their only recourse, after 'the people' as in we, have spoken, is to go after us. Threatening to pass legislation to get 'copyrighted' material off our computers if need be!
What you can do:
1. Don't buy trash crap from Britney and the like
2. Smash your MTV (they're literally nothing but a delivery vehicle for the big 5, period!)
3. Get into your local scene. This is where the best stuff always is. And if there isn't one, make one!
4. If you find you have a p2p song that's been 'doctored' remove it. This will keep the good stuff flowin and the rage against the machine growin.
So, there is stuff we can do. We just have to get off our asses and do it. Or, lay down with the wolves...
Remember that some of the lavish lifestyle is paid for by studio advances. Which can put the artist in debt to the studio more or less forever. But more to the point, studios (music or movie) have encouraged the glitteratzi lifestyle since waaaaay back, because glamour SELLS. They don't really give a damn if an artist lives in a cardboard box, so long as it has a fantastic facade to attract the buying public's notice.
Tho IMO this is itself an outdated technique from the 1950s, when the average American was still thinking in terms of pinching pennies to buy his first used car. The glamour front gave the public something to dream about and wish for, and that SOLD movies and music.
Over the past decade or so, the typical first-world lifestyle has moved "upward" and there's no longer such stark contrast between the average consumer and the "artist lifestyle", and we're no longer all wide-eyed with wonder at the marvelous novelty of recorded film and music.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Rev. Sharpton seemed to have no problem with the speech when it was made. It was only have the guys that kick back the $$$ to him did he change his tune a day or so later. If you watched a video of the speech Jackson made at NAN, you will see the African American audience was in complete support of Jackson's comments. They believed Jackson's beef.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Al Sharpton is an opportunistic vulture. Nobody's taken him seriously for several years. Besides, Michael suprised even Sharpton when he called Tommy Mottola a racist (see the MTV article).
Race is entirely a social construct. There is only one race, the human race. We're all the same color, just different shades. It is easily possible to be closer genetically to a person of a different so-called race, than somebody that looks fairly similar to yourself.
And you state this as an Anonymous Coward?
Hmmm...Pot, Kettle, Honky.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I can state with some certainty that you are full of shit.
"U R Racist" trolls are like fart jokes... they are lame and ineffective. When you grow up to be an adult troll you will learn this for yourself.
In the meantime, you should probably know that your opinion carries no more validity here than any AC posting. How do you like them apples?
- Toby
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
That is not entirely true. Sharpton made no negative comments about Jackson's speech until after he was confronted by several African American artists with financial interests in SONY and fund Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network through donations. Rev. Sharpton is also, according to latest polling data, a more respected Democratic Presidential Candidate than Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. That appears to be an individual that is being taken seriously. The African American community takes him very seriously as shown by his widespread support.
Race is entirely a social construct.
Try telling that to Sam Moore. His life might have been more financially constructive if he was white.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
If sharpton is representing the majority of black people arround the world, I feel very sorry for them. That guy has almost not credability anymore.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
While you might have a point with the critque. It is being a bit harsh. Sure enough race is not a skin colour. But you have to admit that he has some serious mental issues.
Consider this way. If I was white and decided to run around with black makeup all over my body all the time and it was obvious that I was white, what would you say? Honestly what would you say? You would say I am nut and totally politically incorrect. You might even say I am insulting the black race or something like that. I think that is what people have an issue with when it comes to Micheal Jackson and not his skin colour.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Because when she signed her contracts, the idea of an artist retaining the rights to their music would get you laughed out of the label.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I didn't know you could determine the contents of my digestive tract. Makes me wonder where your head must be.
"U R Racist" trolls are like fart jokes... they are lame and ineffective. When you grow up to be an adult troll you will learn this for yourself.
Saying Michael Jackson is white as an insult is racist. The man suffers from a skin disease that causes the pigmitation to dilute called Vitiligo. Only an insenstive jerk would verbally punish a man because of a disease.
In the meantime, you should probably know that your opinion carries no more validity here than any AC posting. How do you like them apples?
Coming from someone that delights in the verbal torture of a man because of a skin disease, I think I can stomach those Apples.
Nice try, Troll.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
According to Democratic President Candidate polls, Reverend Sharpton has a lot of credibility in the Democratic Party.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
A couple of weeks ago I got an email advertising Tom Petty's new single, "The Last DJ", mentioned in this article. Although I'm not even a casual fan, I checked it out anyway... Definately worth a listen for anyone opposed to the Clear Clannel-ification of radio and the trend towards pay-per-play. Hard to beleive his label let him put this song on the CD let alone promote it as his first single!
It seems the streaming version is gone but you might be able to request it at a local rock & roll station.
"The Last DJ"
Well you can't turn him into a company man
You can't turn him into a whore
And the boys upstairs just don't understand anymore
Well the top brass don't like him talking so much
And he won't play what they want to play
And he don?t want to change what don't need to change
CHORUS:
There goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey hey hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
There goes the last DJ
While some folks said you gotta hang him so high
Cause you just can't do what he did
There's some things you just can't put in the minds of the kids
As we celebrate mediocrity
Our boys upstairs want to see
How much you want to pay for what you used to get for free
CHORUS
Well he got in a station down in Mexico
And sometimes it'll kind of come in
And I'll bust a move and remember how it was back then
CHORUS
If you have a skin disease that makes you black, I could understand. Michael Jackson suffers from Vitiligo. That is why his skin is light, it is being discolored by the disease and he is trying for a constant tone with his medical treatment. I know a few people with the disease and the verbal torture that they receive from those that do not understand it is shameful.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Perhaps artists would look to sign with a label with more competitive expenses
Such as have somebody like Bad_CRC, Neil Cicierega or Veloso make their video. If it worked for "Invasion of the Gabber Robots" by TLMOM featuring Toaplan, "Hyakugojyuuichi" by Nintendo, and "Yatta" by Happatai, it'll work for any song.
Or you could just drink Ritalin like most Dance Dance Revolution players do.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Race is not a skin color but an ethnicity.
Here is the usage note from
1.A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3.A genealogical line; a lineage.
4.Humans considered as a group.
So, there are many sides to race, one of them being skin color, another ethnicity. In light of this, I think Jackson fails on both accounts. Aside from the obvious skin color bit, he is so far removed from 99.999% of the U.S. population, it is difficult to imagine that he has anything in common with other African Americans at this point.
Casca
I think this is a trap that people without competition fall into. They start to think that a problem they are having is a problem anyone else who tries to do what they do would have. Or whatever obstacle they are facing would be just as bad or worse for someone else.
In this case, they are suggesting that they couldn't do their job without wasting millions of dollars on failed artists. That seems rediculous to me, but I bet they (or at least some of them) believe it.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
I've been hinting at something like every time this topic has come up. The artists who rely on the RIAA are every bit as much a part of the problem as those who continue to buy the media produced by the RIAA. It is a systemic problem, and unless the RIAA is forced to change (not by law, but by necessity), it won't happen. And if it does, there will be a few bumps in the road along the way.
BTW...when I say "by necessity" I mean this: The artists will not sign with them, and the consumers will not buy its products, UNTIL it changes its business practices. I do NOT mean that it's OK for self-proclaimed freedom fighters to continue stealing copyrighted material.
Blacks vote over 90% Democrat, and also largely vote black when given the opportunity. Sharpton and Jackson are the only two "name" people at that level. Basically, Sharpton has the "honor" of being considered better than Jackson. He's only a frontrunner due to an even greater lack of true leadership than exists throughout the rest of the political system. That's not being taken seriously -- it's winning by default.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
>Is there a way to avoid the label? To buy the
>music without supporting the label?
The only suggestion I have is to buy it used. At least that way you aren't directly supporting the RIAA, and used recordings provide some competition for the new stuff, in theory helping to drive down prices.
In practice, the labels collude, so prices remain more or less fixed. However, sales are tanking, and with them the labels' profits. Sooner or later, something will have to give.
Unfortunately, he keeps reinforcing a victim mindset.
Is this the promised end? Or image of that horror? KING LEAR
An interesting article by all means.
It might have been somewhat interesting but it most certainly could have been better. Take this snipit, for example:
Industry studies point out that for every hit the business scores, it loses $6.3 million on albums that tank. Fewer than 5% of signed artists deliver a hit.
These are meaningless statistics because it doesn't say how much money a hit is worth. If every "hit the business scores" is worth $50 million, than that $6.3 million number is quite acceptable. They shouldn't compare apples with oranges -- that doesn't help us understand whether the point being made is valid or not.
GMD
watch this
My sister has that disorder. It causes small (SMALL) patches of white due to the body's immune system killing off pigment cells.
The condition can be arrested, and the skin will return to its usual color most of the time, given enough tanning. Of course, if you're nuts, you could just bleach the rest of your skin to match.
I don't think that even occured to my sister at the time.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Other reasons:
I'm sure there's lots of other things to take onto that list, but my point is the RIAA has a lot more control over that statistic than they will admit. Therefore one must conclude that they really like the status quo.
Here's a thawp from a clue stick then.
RIAA wants to control how we use the content we purchased
RIAA wants to make it impossible to exercise fair use
RIAA controls the price of most music
RIAA members control which band "makes it" by turning on the payola tap
RIAA members expect to cheat artists out of roylity payments, has done it in the past, and independent reports confirm it's still happening.
RIAA members use contracts that are the next best thing to slavery.
RIAA paid a congressional aide to add language to a bill, bypassing congress and debate.
"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot, is a fool; and he who dares not, is a slave." -- Byron
So which are you?
For every superstar that makes the record company a million dollars there's five failures that lose the record company a couple hundred thousand.
That's if you trust their figures. It's already been said that RIAA makes Enron look like amature hour.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
black & white are also not skin colors, and technically, are not even colors. I noticed that afro-americans are more of a dark brownish shade, and caucasian american are yellowish-pink. Even asians are not yellow. Get your pentone together before lashing at someone over something so futile.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
So funny, so true!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The RAC has a good web site: http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/
Would you still share music illegally if the artist was getting the money directly?
I think the biggest reason that a lot of people laugh off issues about music sharing is because we all know that the people complaining about music theft are the company fat cats, not the starving artists. The individual artist really isn't that affected when people share their music.
Check the numbers.
The RIAA lists around 800 recording companies as members. There are probably around 1,000 artists per recording company.
Say Billy BadGuy hooks up with his 50 friends, each of which has 200 CDs that they have all ripped.
By some magical twist of fate, no two people have the same CD, so we have a total of 10,000 different CDs that exist on the network to be illegally shared.
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 800 recording companies = $200 per company
Realistically there are probably only about 20 recording companies that likely produced the majority of those CDs.
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 20 real recording companies = $8,000 per company
On the artists side of the fence, if we assume that we have 10,000 different artists:
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 10,000 artists = $16 per artist
Realistically there are probably a few repeats, let's say 1/4 of the CDs are paired up with one other from the same artist. That means that 2,500 CDs belong to 1,250 artists, and the remaining 7,500 CDs belong to 7,500 artists.
(2,500 CDs * $16) / 1,250 artists = $32 per artist (for 1,250 artists)
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 8,750 artists = ~$18.29 per artist (average for artists)
Pair all of this up with the average number of (signed) artists in the world:
(7,500 artists + 1,250 popular artists) / 800,000 artists = 0.0109375
That means that 1 percent of the artists are paying about $18 per 50 geeks sharing files, with the majority of them paying only $16.
Now to poke at the RIAA's numbers some. They reported that they lost around 600 million dollars from 2000 to 2001 because of illegal file sharing. Using our above example:
$600,000,000 lost / (10,000 CDs * $16) = 3,750 occurrences
That means that the above example of 50 people with 200 unique CDs would have to have been repeated (uniquely) almost 3,750 times in order for the RIAA's posted losses to be correct.
3,750 cases * 51 people per case = 191,250 unique naughty people
(How many users are on SlashDot?)
On top of that, their numbers would fail again if any one of the almost 200,000 people bought any CDs based on what they heard on these networks.
Now any monkey with a keyboard should be able to sit here with these numbers and crunch out some figures, but in 99 out of 100 calculations, you're going to see this:
Recording Artists + Recording Companies = RIAA Monopoly
Besides all our fun number crunching, the article had some pretty good points.
"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid."
Not only do they still own the house, they can kick you out of it, sell it, and keep all the money.
Then when you try to buy a new house with a different bank, they sue your ass!
"...virtually all contracts renegotiated after a hit album added terms favoring the artist..."
Well that's a no-brainer. Think of it as a poor man with a $5,000 house that the bank is trying to repossess. All of a sudden he wins the lotto and has $500,000,000. You can bet that bank will be a lot nicer, hoping he will keep all of his money in their bank accounts.
"Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."
Wonderfully vague statement that should be fun to pick apart.
They neglect to mention that the blood they give is being sucked out of all the other artists that they've screwed over, and that the dreams they are realizing are for their own billion dollar mansions in La Hoya.
Artists know record companies have been screwing people out of their dreams for years.
To make another parallel, imagine that you want to buy a car so that you can go to work and make some money. So you go to your local GM dealer and find out that you have to pay them a bunch of money over a few years for the car. Ok that's not too bad, but wait...
It's not surprising that independent artists end up happily riding horses for most of their career. Sure you might not be able to get on the expressway, but if your ass hurts from too much riding at least you can get off of the horse.
"You have record companies bought and sold on the strength of copyrights created by artists who sign away all rights in perpetuity to a faceless corporation."
Who knew Don Henley was so eloquent?
With you guys??
... "
"... It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight
Sheesh, an opportunity to get rid of the only thing the labels do - be middleman between artists and consumers.
P2P Networks and the technology is being sued out of existance by big labels and the RIAA. These guys are trying to get around the labels from the other side and we should be supporting and encouraging their efforts. I know my life would probably be better off without big labels, and the RIAA out there.
Telephone companies are not our friends, but artists? Come on...
Between consumers and artists the big labels could be squeezed out completely.
Quit with the hypocracy, the complaining and realize this is an opportunity to ditch the labels that apparently lots of artists AND fans hate.
m
I read the article in question, and I've heard before the arguments that the major recording labels regularly withhold as much as 40% of artists royalties, but there were 3 things in this article that really leaped off the page for me...
...this may sound a bit like heresy, but I reluctantly agree. Recording artists are *not* employees. They are not paid a wage. They don't get paid by the hour. What they have is purely a contractual arrangment of service for renumeration. It's up to *them* to put away a portion of their earnings for retirement JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE who is self-employed. End of story here...
...maybe if the *execs* weren't swanning about in limos and helicopters like they insist their artists do to maintain their "Image", there might just be a few more bucks left over after the whole recording/tour shebang is over. No?...
...boy o' boy, they sure have. And when they are not giving the artists what they want (i.e. a fair go), and they are not giving the consumers what they want (i.e. a *viable* purchasing and fair-use alternative), then I see any number of sites doing similar to what Prince is doing, and acting as the middle-man for downloading their music, becoming all the more common.
"Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits."
"...earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties."
"They've alienated consumers and artists."
I can't remember the details, my dad (a serious music collector and follower of music news) told me about just such a thing. They are still small, but it's a recording label that allows musicians to keep their copyrights and has more musician friendly contracts. If I can find some details I come post them later tonight.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
If their last gasp defense, "digital rights management", fails, I predict that those music industry executives who survive the shake-out, will try and claim that it was all their idea in the first place.
According to Democratic President Candidate polls, Reverend Sharpton has a lot of credibility in the Democratic Party.
Not according to this poll. Sharpton's at the bottom of the pack as of about a month ago, with support from 2% of Democratic voters.
Anyone have an idea what Richards is worth today? In 1998, he was reportedly worth 105 million pounds.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
No wait, I'm serious. This is how it works. You sign up with people with broadband and charge them with selling your music (or whatever), recorded onto CDR (or whatever) and sold to people for a small fee. People can bring their own media (but then if the burn fails for any non-obvious reason of hardware failure then they're out a piece of media) or buy media from the street salesman.
The street salesman needs only a laptop with a CD burner and a sizable disk, or collection of burned CDs to copy, or an inverter to run a PC with a burner and a disk. Just pull some shit down off the 'net. Then the burner charges the customer the flat royalty fee (of whatever) plus whatever the market will bear.
Obviously this works just fine in stationary locations as well.
Now I hate to give any props to any DRM scheme like palladium, but if you used something like that you could actually have a system by which you paid for licenses for each kind of CD. Maybe they would loan you out so many licenses at a time or so many dollars, and increase the number you could have unpaid at once. Using that kind of model you could even sell software this way. So you buy so many cryptographic certs which can be used once (by plugging them into some burning app, or maybe to just decrypt the album/whatever, and it eats the cert) but to do something like this you effectively need a live network connection. So maybe that's overkill. I'm sure someone will do that part someday, though.
In the case of music you can even distribute as MP3 and say that anyone can sell the album as long as they send you a cut. You'll probably get some money, right? If you could somehow establish a reliable network of dealers maybe you could actually make money this way reliably.
Furthermore you can offer incentives to put your ads up. Like, if they display a 22x30" poster of your face and the name of your album (or whatever) they get to sell a few albums without paying a royalty fee. So you gain brand recognition and they gain money... I tell you, it's the american way.
What with broadband internet extending all over the world lately, and CD burners showing up in cracker jack boxes, this seems like an idea whose time has come. A rollerblader with a laptop in a backpack and a sign on his tee shirt could easily roll around making money legally, helping the artist, and helping himself. We could put the (shitty) record stores out of business, while the good ones (IE, big used places like Rasputin's) could stick around as nexuses for all these weird indie backpack recordings. It would be beautiful! And we could make it happen!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I studied this one at university, they had a course all about it, called economics. I'll see if I can break it down.
If you make more than you spend, it's called a profit. If you spend more than you make, it's called a loss. Was that simple enough?
Just because an album sells 250,000 copies, doesn't mean it is automatically profitable. They may have spent vastly more than they made, in advertising it, to get those 250,000 sales. Micheal Jackson's latest was a great example: He complained not enough had been done to promote it. Sony's counter was that they spent $50million advertising and producing a record that sold 2 million copies - that's $25 costs/record. How much more should they have done?
So, in summary:
Volume != Profit
oversimplification
n. 1. excessive simplification (to the point of misrepresentation)
-- wordnet
Synonyms: Your post.
perhaps he doesnt invest in these companies because he believes the points he made in the post above yours to be true. this would indicate that he places what he thinks is morally correct above the ability to make money.
That's a pretty stupid plan. If you invest in a stock, you're not helping the company any. You're merely taking profits away from the person you bought the stock from and giving them to yourself.
there are many companies i would not invest in. for example, i wouldnt invest in microsoft. there is no doubt that many have made money from investing in microsoft, but i would consider those ill gotten gains.
That's stupid. The best way to get a company to change its ways is to buy stock and then vote for a new board of directors.
really though, if you think slashdot sucks, why do you troll here so much?
I never said I think slashdot sucks, and my post was not a troll.
I'm not saying that people should talk a certain way based on what color they are. I'm saying a) people shouldn't try to pretend to be things they're not, and b) imitating the speech of a violent subculture (what I'm talking about isn't "black talk," it's "gangsta talk," which is as much "black" as stereotypical "I'll wack you, you fuckin' mook" Mafia talk is "white") is a really fucking stupid thing to do. Particularly if you have no experience with real violence. Which, after eight years as a medic (including Desert Storm) and a year as a civilian EMT in one of the busiest inner-city hospitals in the country, I do. More than I'd like.
;)
Here's an example without the racial overtones. (Well, okay, different racial overtones.) My Dad's side of the family is Eastern European (Russian and Lithuanian) Jewish. His parents talk like, well, what everyone expects E.E. Jewish immigrants to talk like. He himself, having lived here since he was a teenager, has hardly any discernable accent at all. I, having been born here and lived most of my life in Colorado (where they send broadcasters to train because we have such a neutral American accent) just sound, well, American. It would be absurd of me to start throwing "oy, vey" into every other sentence; that may be my heritage, but it's not who I am. It would be even more absurd of me to adopt some other immigrant group's patois -- capisce?
And yes, it bothers me when black kids talk that way too, especially those who didn't grow up In Da Hood and are trying to adopt the gangsta image when they know nothing about it. I may be a middle-class white kid, but given my life experience, I know a hell of a lot more about it than most of them do, and It Is Not A Good Thing.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Are black people restricted in what forms of cosmetic surgery they receive or they cannot talk about their own racial struggle? I have never heard any bitching about a white person getting "black featured cosmetic surgery" (if there is such a thing). Its amazing all the restrictions African Americans have to face in our country so they "fit" in a smartly categorized group and allowed to speak about it.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Of course, times change, and so do old justifications. I'll posit that "out-of-print" is as obsolete as 8-track tapes and that the RIAA are sitting there hording the art instead of looking into other revenue streams. This allows them to blame new technologies like P2P and home CD burning for lost sales.
Put simply, there is no reason why anything has to be "out-of-print" now, and certainly no reason why the record labels should get away with sitting on their asses for the last 4-5 years complaining that their business model is now in jeopardy due to the acts of "ingrates, thieves and college students". They could have had a working system online by now whose sole purpose would be to dole out "out-of-print" tunes for $0.99 to $1.99 a pop (allowing you to mix and match them on a custom CD). The overhead for such a system is minimal compared to the outlay of capital they have paid on lawyers over that same time frame.
This outlines the RIAA's motives, quite nicely, of course. Last person on the "proirity-totem-poll" is you and me. A few steps up is "the musician", whomever that may be. Above that? Every other link in the music distribution chain.
I've said this once and I'll say it again: the name of the game here is "evolve or die", and the RIAA has refused to "evolve" so now it's time to do our best to kill them off. Everyone on all sides of the equation (artists, producers, and listeners) need to think about looking into other alternatives for our music enjoyment. It will be hard, but in the long run, it may be better than what we currently have.
...i'd have to say: Yes, people will still steal music, even if the RIAA was totally out of the picture. enough people have zero regard for copyright laws (regardless of who holds that copyright) that unless severe technological measures are forced on all of us, music and video pirating will still exist.
for example: crackers spend a lot of time making sure small software companies can't make money on any general market application (as opposed to big-iron stuff). they apparently think it's some kind of game, where the software company spends hundreds of hours of time and money making something purely for them to crack and redistribute.
without going into wether software should be free (beer) or not, note the parallel: independent content producer sell directly to customers. children (and those with childish minds) feel it's a wonderful thing to pass this content around. content producer suffers from loss of sales. and yes, there is a loss becuase there is a non-zero percentage of people who will get the free version if possible, and not pay. and, the point here isn't even really about sales: it's about the fact that people don't give a shit about IP laws.
(yes, i feel a little sick using the word "content" so often)
all of this complaining about the evil RIAA is just hot moist air.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
You might as well use Kazaa. It's not like you're going to make a real dent. People like me will continue to do a lot of swapping, so the RIAA will always have a finger to point at.
I couldn't agree more. With only 1,000 cd's to sell, I doubt people getting to hear the music on p2p will HURT your sales.
In this case, I would imagine the scenario would be: downloaded it from internet... fell in love with it... downloaded more.... know her name... noticed she is coming to town for a gig... had a great time at the gig with my friend... bought a cd while I was there.
(everything but the last one might come true, but if they weren't there in the first place, then they wouldn't have bought the cd there either)
The only thing that could make Jackson a hypocrite would be his statements not his appearance. I don't ever recalling him say that, "I'm not black, I don't care about black people because I am rich". Picking on people because of their physical being is not cool. One of the reasons he has had plastic surgery is due to his Vitiligo.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Quantum uncertainty.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Good luck. Selling 1,000 by word of mouth or through the web (which is surfed by mostly freeloaders) doesn't sound like any fun.
I wonder if you'll even sell 1000.
I know that Nirvana were getting successful when they sold 10,000 (right before they signed). Obviously they were pretty big in the Seattle area.
Again, good luck
I found your smokinggun link very informative. Especially the intersection between it and the above discussion of Phish. Most of the riders for the "rock stars" were amusing because of the detail of description for the catering and amenities. I was amazed by the volume of alchohol that U2 requested for each show. The Phish riders, in contrast, deal entirely with making sure the venue is safe and secure for the fans. It contains things like warning the venue that they will have people dancing in the aisles unless they have enough ushers keeping the aisles clear. I'm not a Phish fan, but I applaud their attitude.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I believe the problem is with people glamourizing the gansta culture, regardless of colour.
And thinking that gangsta talk is "black" is like saying red-neck speak is "white".
The point is that people should not cop an image from a culture which promotes violence, white or black. This is not a colour issue, its a culture issue. You do not have to be a certain colour to try and cop a certain culture.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The sad truth is that Sting may have written the lyrics and melody, worked it out for months in his little basement studio then had to sell the rights away to get it published. well actualy Sting probably has enough pull to avoid that but most don't.
So if you pay a labled artist for his music, you are very probably paying someone who has no right to sell it, the RIAA or lable may own it lock-stock-and-barrel.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Wow nice comeback, calling me a troll after I call your bluff for playing your worn out race card. The equivalent of saying "I know you are but what am I"... keep it up rocko.
Like another poster said, if you want to see a real racist you need to look in a mirror.
- Toby
As for the MOB the mob exists to make money any way possible.
The Mob is a more competent version of the RIAA?
May we never see th
Toby, you are defending the denigration of a black man because he has a skin disease that dilutes the pigmentation of his skin. Because of this disease, you are asserting that he does not have the right to speak out against racism that he feels that has been pressed upon him by SONY because he has gone under treatment to re-establish a consistent skin tone. What other diseases remove the right of people to speak out on political issues under your mind set? Are AIDS suffers to be ignored? Breast cancer victims? The diabetic? Vitiligo is a disease that is more obvious to the people around them--than that of the others I have mentioned and much easier for someone to discriminate against.
The Reverend Al Sharpton, a major African American political leader, hosted him to express that view point among his followers. So, no offense to you, I tend to believe the audience that raucously applauded his speech at the National Action Network HQ. There were no dissenting voices in that audience. I know, I watched it, thanks to Public Interest Broadcasting in NYC.
I think you need to rethink your discredit on someone that does not match your preconceived notions of what "black" is. I think publicly mocking a person because of a disease is bad sport--And most likely below your normal standards of personal conduct in public. As for trolling, which is more the troll, defending someone that has a disease or someone bashing them because of it?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
if those profits are made using a method that i do not agree with, on a moral basis, then i do not think i would want the stock.
So do you accept interest from the bank, or do you have no moral problems with their usury? What about stocks of companies which invest in stocks of other companies which make their profits immorally? Is that OK, or it that wrong too? Would you invest in a company run by me, or does the fact that I invest in Microsoft taint that?
I just don't see how it's immoral to buy stock. Buying stock does not in any way support the company from which you are buying the stock.
the point is that i could invest based solely on the ability of a company to provide returns. if that were the case, then the media giants that are members of the riaa would be good to invest in.
Well, frankly, that's just not true.
i have other constraints which would prevent me from making those investments. while you, in your eloquent demeanor, consider this to be a stupid reason, i do not.
Well, maybe if you'd explain your reason other than just some constraint which comes from no where then maybe I'd change my mind, but I doubt it. Investing in companies doesn't harm anyone. So, I don't see how there can be a moral problem with it.
i suppose i was confused by your homepage (slashdotsucks.org) which i found to be misleading if you do not think slashdot sucks. since you appeared to own this domain, i simply inferred that you indeed thought slashdot sucks.
Bad inference.
also, i still think you are a troll.
And I think you make statements without backing them up.
"They face challenges from increasingly vocal performers "
should be
"They face challenges from increasing numbers of vocal performers"
But what about the instrumentalists?
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
"Record companies see it as mutiny. Musicians call it an overdue rebellion. Either way, the artists' rights movement has set the stage for combat that could revolutionize the music industry."
Just like napster did?
All we (artists and music lovers) need to do now is find each other, and direct sales will cut out the middlemen.
"Ready to launch ship B, the planet is doomed" said the scientists and engineers to the middlemen...
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
How did this get modded up? I want recipies, not mods! Karma doesn't fill my belly! ;)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
If you can't speak the language, you are at a handicap in life. That's the way of things. I fail to see why those who bothered to learn to speak correctly should have to even try to talk to those too lazy to learn.
If I go to a foriegn country and can't speak the language, I'm at a disadvantage. Period. I don't care if I know enough to get my point across by pointing and using a few words, my treatment will be worse than if I spoke effectively.
And in THIS country, the people who have the money, power, and jobs do NOT speak ghettoese (mostly). They speak what is known as American English, and if you do not: they won't hire you. And, most importantly, they shouldn't have to.
And that just leads us into the supposed "racism", affirmative action, and all that crap. Instead of telling a segment of the population "You need to learn this just like the rest of us. Be proud of your heritage, but you are a member of THIS society now and need to learn these basic skills", we are instead lowering the bar and yet again giving out handicaps left and right.
Not only does this cause resentment among the part of the population who bothered to learn and DOESN'T GET the handicap, but it also keeps perpetuating those nagging little differences that cause so much friction in our society. From MY OWN EXPERIENCE, it is not the skin color that is the problem: it is the attitude that a "free ride" is in order, fostered by the very tolerance of ignorance based on race that you espouse in your post.
In summstion, like it or not, the first step toward acceptance and success in a society is learning to speak as that society. Ideals are nice, but making excuses and lowering the bar is only harming the very people you are trying to help.
Murphy was an optimist.
I understand your point, and appreciate your closing humor. I'd thought of doing that, myself. The thing is, for every one evolution that takes (such as dropping Shakespearean English), there are thousands (or more) that do not.
Language needs to evolve, there is no doubt about it. Every day we are adding new words in the technology areas alone. The only thing you can do is learn the most commonly used dialect of the language you have. After all, we are not all speaking hillbilly, are we? :-)
Therefore, the idea of 'proper" English is still the one I proposed: it is the one that the majority of society speaks. Yes, there is a southern drawl, and the Bronx accent, and whatever the heck they do in Alaska (I'm f-f-f-f-frrreeeezzinngg!!!) ???). But all these groups are still easily intelligible to each other, and that is the distinction. I think someone speaking ebonics or cajun has a communication gap as opposed to someone that just speaks a local dialect, since it is a much more radical departure fron the average. Nationwide TV ads want to reach as many people as possible. how many of those are aired in "ghettoese"?
I'm not too white, too insecure, or too narrowminded: I'm just being realistic, and speaking from experience and personal observations.
Murphy was an optimist.