Slashdot Mirror
Artists Protesting Single-Song Downloads
prostoalex writes "The 99 cent downloads are stirring some discussion in the music community. Linkin Park, Radiohead, Madonna, Jewel and Green Day are protesting music stores' policy of single-song downloads and introduce some stipulations, requiring their work to be sold as albums. "The fear among artists is that the work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past," says attorney Fred Goldring, whose firm represents Will Smith and Alanis Morissette."
I think in the end they are going to find that while a band might sell 500 thousand albums at $15.00-plus, they might sell 2 million of that one good song for .99 cents...and 1 million of that other song on the album that was pretty good. And then the die hard fans are still going to buy the whole thing, so they will make money off of the rest of the "filler," too.
Go that way really fast, if something gets in your way, turn.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
I wouldn't call Radiohead a "big crap artist".
They have some of the most loyal fans out there. If Hail to the Thief had been on the iTunes Music Store, I would have bought it there. It's not, so I ended up going to best buy to pick it up.
If Madonna wants to insist that her music is only available as an album then let her have her way as long as she can't force every artist to do the same thing. If she's truly an artist then million dollar mansions aren't of primary importance to her and the resulting loss of income shouldn't bother her.
If, however she's in it for the money, then she's a business, and as a business she has customers to satisfy. If she can't or won't supply what her customers want they'll move elsewhere.
The only way this could matter is if a few top names are able to control the entire industry with regards to single song downloads. That is, Madonna knows she'll lose customers if she doesn't allow single downloads so, out of spite, she somehow is able to end single downloads altogether.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
As a very serious exercise, try to name albums where every track is good or great. Off the top of my head, I can only name a few from my own collection. I did a quick review of my 120 CDs and only 6 of the CDs fit this description. That's only 5% of the total.
;-)
By the way, what albums of yours fit this description? What are some "perfect" albums that are good from start to finish? I'm always looking for good stuff, especially hard rock and heavy metal!
How to Download YouTube Videos
The only album that jumps straight to my mind as a work of art that is not complete unless it's whole is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Each song flows into the next creating an essentially unbreakable hour-long song. None of these artists do anything remotely close to that and I can't agree that these albums they talk of are a singular work of art. Mostly they are poorly arranged collections of small works of art (such as a private home gallery).
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Name the last album you listend to that had a theme, thematic or musical, through the whole album...soundtacks don't count!
The music industry has worked hard to kill songs that tell stories...song that make you think. With no songs that tell a story, the songwriting paradign that comes to us from the dawn of time, through the Celtic Bards and Troubadors, and into our time, there is no need for albums...for albums are for stories that are longer than one song.
And with the death of the album, the record companies are maybe hoping to reduce recording costs by just having their "made" artists (N'Sync, Spears, Idol stars, etc.) go in and record a new song whenever their demographics department thinks that a new song by that artist will be successful.
And if you want a really cynical view of ths music industry, hunt down a book called _Little Heros_ by Norman Spinrad, borderline cyberpunk, and some good Erisian in-jokes.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
In the US, there are anti-trust laws that say that you can not (under specific rules) force people to buy one less desireable product in order to get a more "desireable" product. It is called bundling and in some cases it is a violation of anti-trust law.
This is one of the area's that Microsoft was getting in trouble for with bundling the browser with the OS since in order to get the "desireable" product (cough...windows) you HAD to buy (bundled) the Browser.
So, apparently the artists are in favor of Big Money/Anti-competative/Corporate rip-offs...As long as it is in the name of art.
You know, I think strip mining is an important artistic commentary on our world today..I think I will try to bring it back in the name of Art.
At least Madonna and Alanis Morissette will be on my side.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles
- The Beatles, The Beatles (the white album
- The Final Cut, Pink Floyd
- Pornography, The Cure
I am sure others exist, and I am sure people can bring up lists of their own favorites. My point is more that out of the hundreds and hundreds of CDs and LPs I own, I only consider 4 to be artistically harmed by pulling them apart. That's just sad.Here is something even sadder.
I have ripped all of mine and my wife's CDs onto a server in my house. That is 22 GB of music.
I then went through and rated all of the songs I liked. Of the 22 GB of music, I consider only 7 GB worth listening to in the quirkiest of moods. That is 15 GB I consider complete worthless crap.
Now, it is true you can dismiss some of the crap as "what the hell was I thinking back then" or "what relative thought I listened to this shit" or "why does my wife like heavy metal". That accounts for 2-3 GB.
Under a charitable view of things, this suggests that 12 out of every 19 songs released is considered crap by an artist's own fans! And they want to keep forcing me to pay for this shit?
No more buying albums for me. No thanks. I will preview each new song on the Apple Music Store. If it is any good, I will buy it. If I like the band, I will preview it several times. This will also prevent me from buying crap like REM's Up.
As a musician, I have always felt that it's not even the whole song that leaves the impression on the listener. Certainly any musician wishes to leave some sort of impression on the listener, maybe impart a certain message to the listener. Really, all it takes is one vibe. You can have many cool vibes in one song, typical song being 5 minutes (pop music).
Those vibes add up in the forms of choruses, verses, and catchy melodies. You could call it a "hit" if you want, but that's not every musician's goal. It's not as simple as having a nice album to put on your wall. I don't think that's it.
It shouldn't matter if the listener hears the song on the radio, or from a passing car, or in some other temporary, incomplete setting. One vibe, one chorus, one chord, one sound should be enough to get the message across.
I find it hard to believe that any artist would find that it takes an entire album for a listener to derive something positive and beneficial, or just cool and funky, or upbeat and exciting, or slow and introspective. It should only take 5 seconds of music from a passing car to share a good vibe through music.
I am not sure that insisting that people buy the whole album is all it's cracked up to be. It's probably best to make sure that anyone who wants the album can buy it just as easily as they can the single (i.e. have a link next to the single that says "buy album" or something similar).
The thought that music that you make will be heard by millions of people around the world should be enough to realize that one song is all that you really need to take that first step on the path towards expressing yourself. Certainly, people buying your work hardly qualifies as something that stands in your way!
I would rather have millions and millions of people listen to part of one song than hundreds of thousands of people listen to a whole album. Better yet, there shouldn't be any reason to not have both, unless you are just in it for the money, or the fame, or the luxuries, etc...
It's an imperfect world - as an artist, I prefer to concentrate on the good parts - knowing that music you create is going to be heard by lots and lots of people you will probably never meet is REALLY COOL - it's better to step back and just let it happen (in my opinion). The minute you get eccentric and strange you lose a certain connection, and the music becomes less meaningful than it has the potential to be.
Saying that Radiohead 'sucks from now' just because they prefer their output to be seen as a collection of songs rather than randomly selected songs seems to be quite vacuous to me. It also implies a distinct lack of musical appreciation, as you are rating the band on their statements and opinion rather than their music. Surely if you like the music, what the band says (within reason) is unimportant. If you like the songs, then how can you say the band sucks because they want you to buy their album? It makes no sense. If, of course, you don't like the songs, then fair comment, and in your opinion Radiohead 'suck' anyway, regardless of what they say or do.
Indeed, there is definately a market out there. Whats I was ranting about was people trying to hide behind some dumb excuse, rather than just admit they were stealing it because they could.
If you look around the bulletin boards and ask around you will see that many people who used to download are now using the iTMS because it meets their needs.
Many people want to pay but simply didn't like the payment options available.
Does that justify stealing? No. But it's not dumb. And it's not stealing "just because they could." If it were, these people would just have continued to steal.
There is a market. The artists just need to find it! Apple's iTMS is a good start.
I've listened to Radiohead for a *long* time and to see them jumping on the bandwagon with Madonna and the likes has bummed me out.
Look, yah, they probably get paid less, but if they're such artists then they should realize that people will still buy the cd for the art. Why should, for arts sake, it be any different if I downloaded the entire album vs. song by song? Or is it the whole 'you-get-the-cd-art' argument? Regardless, this specific issues doesn't really seem about art but obviously more about money.
And frankly, I hold people's art and opinions and thoughts all together. If someone made a totally political song and then went out and did the opposite, I'd think that's pretty lame. I'm not gonna necessairly write Radiohead off as a suck band now, but this statement will definitely call into question how I veiw them and their art.
I think the single song download has to stay alive - it's a way to keep artists in check. If an artist is really a kick ass artist, then everything they put out should be interesting. But if they're so-so, then why put up with the crap you don't like? This, if anything, should help the artist since labels want them to pump out as much crap as possible so they can sell as much and profit as much. The individual tune will let the 'consumer'/fan/whatever hold the power to actually say what they will and will not buy.
It's common knowledge the record industry is one step short of a crime syndicate (others may disagree). If artists are bitching about not making enough money, then disband and reband under a different name with an indie or some other label that will give you a bigger cut - bands do it all the time. There are plenty of people who still love the art and still make money and still have integrity. When the likes of Madonna and Linkin Park start whining about cash, then that's when my 'fuck-off' light goes on... *shrugs*
...the case that the labels will start to realise most artists can only put three or four decent tracks on an album and the rest is filler material ? I know I know, there's exceptions to this, but let's face it, 90% of the stuff churned out by today's manufactured bands is crap. I think it's more a case of the artists running scared that instead of signing a mega-bucks 3 album deal, which is gonna be mostly them treading water in the studio, it might set a precendent where they get paid purely by commission on how popular individual songs are. Hey who knows, the Top 40 might have relevance again!
Now, for Linkin Park, these guys have no room to bitch. They got noticed by UPLOADING SONGS IN DIGITAL FORMAT and posting on other bands' web forums asking their fans to try out their music. And now their bitching about the same-style format that got them where they are today. What a whiny bunch of prats.
Nothing new under the sun, my friend. How do you think Metallica built a cult following back in the day? Through the bootleg scene... they positively encouraged fans to tape live shows and trade the tapes. Hell, I was there.
Now Metallica are coasting along on past glories... from the Black Album onwards, everything they've done has been complete rubbish. James Hetfield tells the old-skool fans to fuck off, and Lars Ulrich, that petulant little runt, whines that bootleggers are stealing the bread from his mouth. That's what he does, he doesn't complain or rant, or even bitch, he just whines.
On principle, I'm gonna download me some Metallica. I won't listen to it, but I'll just keep it there on my HD, so I can smirk whenever I read them and their whining every time this topic comes up. Figure I'll do my best to get copies to anyone who wants 'em, if anyone does.
1) The copyright may be in the name of the author, but if you look at the contracts the publisher has exclusive rights to print and dictate how the book is printed. A writer can buy the plates and then do what they may. The writer has NO flexibility. I give you an example. I know a writer who used to write for WROX. WROX went belly up and his rights to his books went belly up as well. Result? Other companies scooped up the books and can print the titles without paying a DAMM cent to the writer? Why because bankruptcy law allows it.
2) I was comparing apples with oranges. The 12 cents was calculated on the dollar. A writer does not typically calculate on the dollar, but on the amounts that the publishing house receives. Therefore subtracting from the article the amount that the seller and middle person receives you get about 20% to 30% royality rate for the artist.
When I saw those stats the artist is not that badly off!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I also believe that a true artist creates works that can and should be enjoyed as a subset. One does not have to listen to the entire performance of Swan Lake to be moved by oft played love theme. One can enjoy a photograph of a Kandinsky painting, even though it is difficult to appreciate the colors and textures.
Which is to say that the current protest is still about money. Look at the artists. They are all reasonable good. I own stuff from most of them. However, most of these artist are either at the end of their career, with no new blockbusters, or looking toward a time when they have no more block busters. How will they make money. Well, traditionally, they would put out over priced boxed sets, which the retail chains can sell, and do cross promotions for comeback tours and the like. The die hard fan will buy the boxed set just out of loyalty, and the casual fan might buy the boxed set because they never bought the original albums.
But what happens now? All but the most die hard fan is not going to buy the boxed set because they already have created the box set themselves. The low level fan is totally lost because they have already downloaded the 12 songs they like for $12, and certainly are not going to spend $20 to just to get the 3 more songs they hate. This is bad for the artist and label. They did not sell the albums up front. They cannot sell the compilations now. It screws up the business model.
The best example I have seen of this is on Apple with the song American Pie. Don McLean knows on which side his bread is buttered, and therefore does not sell this song alone. You can buy any other song on the album as single, but not this one. It makes good business sense to do this, but don't insult our intelligence by claiming artistic integrity.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I'm sorry, I love radiohead as much as the next guy, but I remixed my own Kid A and Amnesiac album. I found KID A to be laden with fluff.
Once you combine the best of one with the best of the other, you get the album that I would want to buy. If they can't understand that, then I can't be bothered spending money on "Hail to the theif"- due to "artistic difference between me and the band."
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
The latest Blur CD, Think Tank is, like many techno CD's, seamless. All the songs are meant to flow into each other with no breaks.
..except.. the damn player inserts 1 second pauses between tracks. Since the album is supposed to be seamless, these pauses are jarring to say the least.
That is.. until you put the thing into your computer. Whereupon the Digital Restrictions Management loads it's little mickey mouse player (mickey mouse both for its power and the DRM associations) to play the CD for you..
So what I want to know is, how come we don't hear about Madonna, Linkin Park, etc., bitching about how DRM players are "killing the art" of the album?
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
...I don't think I had to. It's pretty obvious these so-called "artists" are only interested in one thing, money.
I've seen big-ticket artists' albums go for up to $35 in stores, for a measly 15-song CD and I think these rich-ass bastards like it that way. Someone must have told them that if only 5 of the songs on the release are any good, they stand to lose that $30 worth of "filler" tracks they recorded as an after-thought over a weekend to get the album released on time.
I mean, Radiohead is one of my favorite bands, but they release 3 albums a year!
Why?
What happened anyways? 50 Years ago being a musician wasn't the height of society, and now they get more respect, privelage, and money than any other profession!
I seriously think this whole digital music revolution is nothing more than the long overdue wake-up call for everyone in the music industry who thought this was going to last forever.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
Two ways these "artists" can solve the problems they face with single son downloads:
1. Stop making 1 or 2 creative songs and then stuffing the rest of the album with filler noise.
2. Try their hand at "rock operas": Each song on the album is part of a story and theme centric. Getting just one song wouldn't make alot of sense since it is just one part of the album.
Of course, this will be effective in weeding out the real talent from the zero talent and that would send alot of "stars" back to flipping burgers...
#vancouver-free on undernet