Slashdot Mirror


Paul McCartney On Music In the Digital World

Rachhpal writes "Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney will release his new album today — it's called 'Memory Almost Full.' In an interview with the L.A. Times, he talked about ending his long-time relationship with EMI and making the new album fully downloadable through his new relationship with Starbucks' Hear Music label. Some of his comments on the music industry: 'I was bored with the old record company's jaded view,' McCartney says... 'They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways — because they've been at it for so long — to what they call "market" it. And I find that all a bit disturbing.'"

276 comments

  1. Bug Me Not by Evets · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of you still in the dark out there...

    http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.latimes.com

    It has a list of account logins and passwords that you can use for this article.

    1. Re:Bug Me Not by elfin_spectre · · Score: 5, Funny

      Proxy at work has classified that BugMeNot as "Criminal". I'm expecting the Internet Police any moment now...

    2. Re:Bug Me Not by kars · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fact, why not install the BugMeNot extension for Firefox?

      http://roachfiend.com/archives/2005/02/07/bugmenot /

      --
      Take life easy: one bit at a time.
    3. Re:Bug Me Not by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've seen similar proxy blocking of bugmenot at a couple of the clients I do work for.

      Seems like poor security to me - if they had their heads screwed on right, corporate security would not want their employees to be easily trackable on the internet, never know what sorts of sensitive information my leak out around the edges that way.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Bug Me Not by Kj0n · · Score: 1

      At work, I get the error "Forbidden file extension : COM".

      Apparantly it doesn't like "www.latimes.com".

    5. Re:Bug Me Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At work, I get the error "Forbidden file extension : COM".

      Good thing too! Get them to ban .EXE as well.

    6. Re:Bug Me Not by ronadams · · Score: 1

      Right, except it works two ways. Bugmenot can be abused to allow circumvention of a company's internet security policies as well.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    7. Re:Bug Me Not by dosquatch · · Score: 1

      You jest, but that actually is the case where I work. I'm just a lowly support critter here, separate from the network group. They have our filter set up to catch anything with .EXE in the address, meaning when I'm simply trying to do my job* the filter kicks me out. I've tried explaining that they can restrict ".EXE" while still allowing ".EXE?" (I know, I'm familiar with the filter they use), but it falls on deaf ears.

      * - http://kb.palmone.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New, Kb=PalmSupportKB,ts=Palm_External2001,problem=obj( 39316) - note that the CGI is posted as an EXE. I do not consider this good form, and have told Palm so, which also seems to fall upon deaf ears.

      --
      "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
    8. Re:Bug Me Not by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. The Internet Police are easy to spot. They're overweight, dressed in fursuits and have Nazi armbands.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:Bug Me Not by elfin_spectre · · Score: 1

      That's the Oracle DBA in the corner desk! I'm sneaking out now...

    10. Re:Bug Me Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you expect us to RTFA? You must be new here...

    11. Re:Bug Me Not by thegnu · · Score: 1

      but it falls on deaf ears...
      also seems to fall upon deaf ears.
      Maybe they wouldn't all be deaf if you didn't whine so much... ;-)

      Cheers!
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    12. Re:Bug Me Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the top entry for those of you who can't see bugmenot:
      Username mail3084500@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com
      Password 123456

    13. Re:Bug Me Not by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Just curious: does replacing EXE in urls with %45%58%45 work?

      Heh it shouldn't work but who knows...

      --
    14. Re:Bug Me Not by vitalyb · · Score: 1

      Offtopic but just would like to share a way (in my case) to bypass the work proxy:

      1) Install a proxy at home from here: www.peacefire.org
      2) Now with every site that is blocked, you could just go from your very own proxy. However going to your site every time you get blocked can get annoying.
      3) Install Firefox (duh) and Greasemonkey
      4) Create a custom Greasemonkey script to go to auto-use your proxy whenever you're blocked. A script can look something like that: // ==UserScript== // @name Proxy runner // @include http:/// // ==/UserScript==

      var titles = document.getElementsByTagName('title');
      if(titles.length == 1 && titles[0].text == 'Blocked by WorkProxy') // CHANGE THIS TO YOUR PROXY TITLE
      {
              var newlocation = window.location.toString().replace('http://', 'http/');
              if(window.location.toString().indexOf('nph-516051. cgi') == -1)
                      window.location = 'https://1.1.1.1/cgi-bin/nph-516051.cgi/000110A/'+ newlocation;
      }

      5) Enjoy your new proxy free environment.

    15. Re:Bug Me Not by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Bugmenot is blocked by my work proxy as "Pornography." That's a new one.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    16. Re:Bug Me Not by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      How?

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
  2. confused? by uolamer · · Score: 1

    They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do...

    Raise the white flag and surrender? that would be nice.. actually they do seem like a confused rabid dog, might have to put them down..

    --
    s/©//g
  3. Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by pipatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, no matter how interesting some piece of news is, unless it's posted on a site that everyone can access, don't link to it. It just annoys the hell out of most people, and gives the website in question undeserved registrations. If they don't want to show the information to everyone equally, I'm not interested.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    1. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by giorgiofr · · Score: 0

      Fine. *I*, on the other hand, am. And apparently most people around here agree.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    2. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently most people around here agree.
      And pray tell, how have you determined that?
    3. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please, no matter how interesting some piece of news is, unless it's posted on a site that everyone can access, don't link to it. It just annoys the hell out of most people, and gives the website in question undeserved registrations. If they don't want to show the information to everyone equally, I'm not interested.
      I wholly second this motion.

      Oh the irony! While we are talking about one industry where the deadness goes up to eleven, this article is posted on the site of another industry that is beginning to pine for the fjords.

      This log-in business for newspaper sites is an example of how they do not understand their new customers, nor how their business has changed. If you listen really closely when you are on the LA Times site you can hear the slow heavy footfalls of the grim reaper approaching.

      Anyway, I vote we change the expression "deader than vaudeville" to "deader than the RIAA". You must, surely, realize your business is in trouble when an wholly unrelated one like Starbucks is wiping the floor with your tried and tested artists. Especially since Starbucks is also a big corporation and likely just as bureaucratic as any RIAA dinosaur, I woud guess the business processes to launch a new idea in Starbucks is comparable to that in any record company.
    4. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      Articles like this keep appearing and people readily use BugMeNot. That's quite telling.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    5. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by montyzooooma · · Score: 1

      You think the Bugmenot guys are posting these articles to build traffic for their app?

    6. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      No, what makes you think so? I simply think that the fact that articles like this keep appearing and that people use BugMeNot to read them mean that registration-only content is not disliked by the majority of /. You must have missed the AC I was replying to.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    7. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by magores · · Score: 1

      You might be hearing about some people using bugmenot. But, you may not be hearing about the people that aren't.

      I'm willing to be that the number of people just saying "Oh, screw it", is actually larger than the number of people that use bugmenot.

      Of course, since I have no reliable way of testing this, I will not use all-encompensing statements. /That's a subtle hint

    8. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by asninn · · Score: 1

      ...vaudeville dead? Say it isn't so, good Sir! I was just looking to buy tickets to the Barrison Sister's next performance!

      --
      butter the donkey
    9. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by giorgiofr · · Score: 1
      Well, I never claimed I had scientifically accurate data about the preferences of /. It's not rocket science, so I won't blow my budget of wasted time by conducting accurate studies on this subject.

      The majority of /. *seems not to dislike* these articles as much as has been claimed; otherwise they wouldn't be voted up in the firehose and the editors would stop accepting them. Is that too all-encompassing now?
      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    10. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by zhenya00 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you're that guy that reads /. for the articles!?

    11. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      this article is posted on the site of another industry that is beginning to pine for the fjords.

      'Beginning'? The fjord-pining began at least a decade ago.

      Almost every newspaper company missed the boat, and failed to ride the New Media wave as they should. Classifieds departments took tentative steps into online listings, but continued to pander to their traditional customer base (employment agencies, real estate brokers, and auto dealerships) instead of paying attention to what the actual audience wants, and Craigslist etc. grabbed up all the eyeballs.

      This log-in business for newspaper sites is an example of how they do not understand their new customers, nor how their business has changed.

      I don't agree with this. The New York Times not only requires registration for access to their site, but also charges for access to some content -- and yet, they're one of few online newspaper operations to be turning a profit. They must be doing SOMETHING right; but then, not every paper is like the NY Times, and what works for them probably does not for other papers.

      Newspapers will not die, but they will evolve into something different, just as they did 20 years ago when USA Today was launched, just as they did 50 years ago when television took off, just as they did 100 years ago when radio blew up.

    12. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the WSJ, who is quite profitable in their online business using logins.

    13. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      I hope they don't get replaced by blogs. 90% of the blog articles I've seen posted to slashdot exist only to generate traffic. Not only that, it seems like none of the blog authors can do any form of research outside of reading articles from real newspapers. What, exactly, is the point of disseminating a paraphrase of exactly what a newspaper said, only with the omission of 1/4 of the information? If you're going to do stuff like that you might as well just copy and paste the entire article onto your website.

      Every blog opinion piece I've read makes me feel dumber for having read it. I can count the number of informative blogs I've seen on one hand, while I can go past my toes on uninformative blogs. This is just from Slashdot links.

      --
      SRSLY.
    14. Re:Stop posting links to password-ridden sites by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1

      Let me start with I hate Starbucks. They have predatory practises that I have seen first hand in my community. However, from everything I have read about Starbucks and everything I have heard about them from the people who have worked there, Starbucks is not like other big corporations. They have a very "employee-centric" approach".

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  4. Non-Registration Link by Gids · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Non-Registration Link by Yenya · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wrong. Even this link wanted me to register.

      --
      -Yenya
      --
      While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
    2. Re:Non-Registration Link by Yenya · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm, it seems it requires that cookies for www.latimes.com are enabled. With the cookies enabled, the GP link works.

      --
      -Yenya
      --
      While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
    3. Re:Non-Registration Link by Zoolander · · Score: 1

      Huh? Flamebait? Lay off the crack.

      --
      Meep.
  5. Perhaps slashdotters ought to ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    e-mail Macca and explain their ideas for open distribution of music?

  6. Never in a million years.... by svunt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't believe it, here I am reading Paul McCartney's words and nodding in agreement. I feel a little dirty, but that's ok.

    1. Re:Never in a million years.... by tygerstripes · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I felt pretty much the same way when I heard his single come on the radio the other night. I was humming along, tapping my feet and generally enjoying myself. Then the DJ decides to tell me AFTERWARDS that it's Paul McCartney's new release, and I come over all peculiar.

      It felt like that moment when the police tell you she was in fact 15...

      --
      Meta will eat itself
    2. Re:Never in a million years.... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when he actually makes some good music again. Remember 'Freedom' his post-911 song, one of the worst songs I have ever heard. In fact has he done anything good since the Beatles? Other than that Simpsons episode.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    3. Re:Never in a million years.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 3, Funny

      No ! No ! Luckily I had heard Sir Paul introducing his new song before they played it. I think he was saying something like this:

      Yes, it's a great song - fantastic in fact. Like all the brilliant songs I've written it was based on a moments inspiration. I had a few friends around and as I was telling them how bloody amazing I was just tapping this fabulous beat out on the kitchen table and this little kid was just loving it and dancing to it and we all danced around and sang and it was the beat I was doing, it was amazing - a stroke of pure genius. So I made the record, it'll certainly be number 1 and is an amazing record. Of course the whole album is just awe inspiringly brilliant, without doubt I'd say it's certainly my and greatest work and therefore definitely much better than anything else anyone else has done but it's because I have such a great life you know, so great and totally deserved. A lot of people say I'm smug but I'm not, I just know I'm greater than they will ever be.

      I thought the song was rubbish too.

    4. Re:Never in a million years.... by phantomflanflinger · · Score: 1

      Makes good music again? You're talking 1970.

      You can determine how important/talented each Beatle was by the standard of the work they did AFTER the Beatles broke up. Frog Chorus anyone?

      --
      shin phantomflanflinger
    5. Re:Never in a million years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, come on. Band on the Run wasn't that bad.

    6. Re:Never in a million years.... by tcdk · · Score: 1

      I felt the same way.... but then I watched some "art" by Yoko Ono, and the by the feeling of mounting doom and the need to puke, I knew that I was still (relatively) sane ...

      --
      TC - My Photos..
    7. Re:Never in a million years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      thomas the tank engine count?

    8. Re:Never in a million years.... by jbreckman · · Score: 0, Troll

      So they all sucked?

      Seriously, Lennon's solo stuff was mostly awful. He had a couple of great songs, but only a handful. Plus he died in 1980, so we don't have John's album that he released when he was 65 to compare it to. Paul's first album after the Beatles broke up ("McCartney") was REALLY good. He also had a bunch of good songs when he was in wings (get the best of album).

      By 1980 I'd say that Paul was beating John as far as song quality. Since then of course his quality of songs has dropped dramatically. He just writes albums and releases them, very very quickly. This is his TWENTY SIXTH album.

      I always imagine him picking up a guitar, playing 8 random chords in a row and saying "I am PAUL MCCARTNEY!!" I can do no harm! I am a genius, hence these 8 chords are genius!" Then he follows it up with the same technique for lyrics. They all sound like the first draft of a song.

    9. Re:Never in a million years.... by phantomflanflinger · · Score: 1

      Lennon solo tracks: Imagine, God, Happy Xmas (War Is Over), Instant Karma!, Jealous Guy, Power To The People, Mind Games, Woman is the Nigger of the World, Crippled Inside... and more.

      McCartney solo tracks: Mule of Kintyre, Live & Let Die, Frog Chorus, Jet... that's enough.

      Harrison Solo Tracks: My Sweet Lord, Got My Mind Set on You, When we was Fab, hare hare thingy

      Ringo Solo Tracks: Thomas the Tank Engine.

      --
      shin phantomflanflinger
    10. Re:Never in a million years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It felt like that moment when the police tell you she was in fact 15... No, it's more like when you find out she's sixty-four.
    11. Re:Never in a million years.... by purple_cobra · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the knowledge that this is the same idiot the BPI have wheeled-out - along with Cliff Bloody Richard - to speak to the UK parliament about drastically increasing the length of copyright will help you feel even worse.
      I saw him and his band performing tracks from that album last Friday; he looks like a three-week drowned corpse and sounds godawful, and by the gods he *needs* to up the ante to make us forget about Wings. A friend of mine also saw the show and commented that McCartney is 'turning into George Formby', something that's sadly close to reality.
      Turned out crap again, hasn't it?

    12. Re:Never in a million years.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I felt pretty much the same way when I heard his single come on the radio the other night. I was humming along, tapping my feet and generally enjoying myself. Then the DJ decides to tell me AFTERWARDS that it's Paul McCartney's new release, and I come over all peculiar. It felt like that moment when the police tell you she was in fact 15..."

      Just curious...why would you feel like that? Just because he is a bit old now...a former Beatle? Why would you feel bad enjoying a new song of his?

      Just curious...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Never in a million years.... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, to avoid confusion I don't think McCartney has done anything good since the 70's either it's just that Freedom, which is quite recent, is literally the worst song I have ever heard. Honestly worse than any boy band crap.
      Lennon it seems did some good songs, Harrison funded The Life of Brian and Ringo did Thomas the Tank Engine.
      So for me after the Beatles, Ringo did the best, followed by George, John and then lastly Paul. - Unsurprisingly Paul has made the most noise (although I am aware John stopped competing in that respect a long time ago!)

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    14. Re:Never in a million years.... by btlzu2 · · Score: 1

      seriously though, why? he's always been a pretty reasonable, liberal kinda guy. while he's "old", he's a pretty smart dude and created some of the most awesome music ever.

      honestly, his new album is freakin' great pop music (with a lot of depth) too! :)

      --
      Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
    15. Re:Never in a million years.... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      I think the album title just about sums it up.

      Memory almost full?

      Well, Macca - it is on my MP3 player - too full to fit your crappy album on it, in fact.

      The guy's made enough money now - could someone close to him persuade him to put his feet up and take it easy, rather than inflicting rubbish like his latest single on us?

      Granted, I won't buy his record, but the bloody DJs still play it on the radio and annoy me while I'm driving...

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    16. Re:Never in a million years.... by btlzu2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      oh man, i have to take you to task for this.

      how about:
      band on the run, ebony & ivory, my brave face, here today (ode to john lennon), junior's farm.

      nothing like presenting a lop-sided argument. while i love lennon's music, mccartney made a LOT of great music.

      he also made at least 4 classic albums: Ram, Band on the Run, Tug of War, and Flaming Pie. They're all albums of depth, quality, and craftsmanship.

      harrison is another one you short changed, but we'll leave it at that.

      --
      Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
    17. Re:Never in a million years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aahhh, bite me.

      The new album is spectacular. Just cuz you're too close minded to try it out doesn't mean you have to bitterly bash what you have no idea about.

      God, haters suck. What good does a post like this bring to the conversation?

    18. Re:Never in a million years.... by Crizp · · Score: 1

      And Postman Pat!

    19. Re:Never in a million years.... by buswolley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only credible reason to believe in al the "Paul is Dead" conspiracies is his poor music since the Beatles. However, the Backyard one was not too bad.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    20. Re:Never in a million years.... by buswolley · · Score: 1
      - on Flaming Pie. Overated.

      "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard" was better

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    21. Re:Never in a million years.... by volpe · · Score: 1

      As a huge Beatles and McCartney fan, I echo the bewilderment.

    22. Re:Never in a million years.... by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Beatles' collective solo work proves that they were greater than the sum of their parts. Plastic Ono Band, All Things Must Pass and Band on the Run are fine examples of each artists capabilities when they still had something to prove. However, it didn't take long before the novelty of their solo careers waned and they lost their muse. No doubt, they needed a break from each other by 1970 (if not sooner, but it's hard to argue against an album like Abbey Road). They should have met up every 5 years or so for a project - I'm sure they would have appreciated each other's input so much more under less of a grind.

    23. Re:Never in a million years.... by btlzu2 · · Score: 1

      well i guess it just depends on your PoV. :) i think flaming pie was much better--although chaos was very good.

      --
      Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
    24. Re:Never in a million years.... by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have to hate anything that other people like if you want to be nerdcool.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    25. Re:Never in a million years.... by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
      felt pretty much the same way when I heard his single come on the radio the other night. I was humming along, tapping my feet and generally enjoying myself.


      The aforementioned single.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTNXrkBSp_o

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    26. Re:Never in a million years.... by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      These are just my opinions, but... John's solo work tends to be angsty emo crap. Jesus, *I* wanted to shoot him after hearing "Mother" for the first time. Paul's solo work tends to be superficial pop fluff. It's pretty and catchy but utterly meaningless. I think that's why they worked so well together, even immediately after the Beatles split when each still had ideas they'd bounced off the other. John gave Paul's work an edge, a darker, more cynical REALness. He's the guy who said "She was just seventeen / Never been a beauty queen" was crap, and turned it into "She was just seventeen / You know what I mean". Paul was the guy who gave beauty to John's whining, who turned self-indulgent rants into SONGS.

      Personally, I think that by the end of the Beatles George was the best individual songwriter in the group.

    27. Re:Never in a million years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes! it is great!

    28. Re:Never in a million years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So glad to hear that! I never hear his new stuff on the radio! I hope they play it more and more, as this is some of his best sounding music in ages, and I've been waiting for this from him for over a decade. I'm glad to hear the DJs are playing it! Paul's new music deserves to get heard by everybody! He's also a great guy!

    29. Re:Never in a million years.... by jbreckman · · Score: 1

      "memory almost full" is an anagram for "for my soulmate LLM"... kind of clever I think.

    30. Re:Never in a million years.... by tygerstripes · · Score: 1
      If you'd been at Glastonbury a couple of years ago, and suffered the acoustic assault he waged upon the crowd on that fateful day, you'd understand. I mean, I like the Beatles, some of the Wings stuff was great, but...


      Look, you remember how you had a favourite Uncle who was always a laugh, didn't mind what you got up to, very accepting, good fun to be around when you were a kid? Remember how he was the first person to get you drunk? Remember how you were pleased he was going to be at your 18th birthday party because you hadn't seen him in 2 years and were convinced he'd be the life and soul of the party? And remember how you felt about him at the end of the night when he'd either embarrassed or pissed off everybody else by getting roaring drunk, being abusive and incoherent, repeatedly telling your girlfriend how beautiful she was while she just put up with it with a smile because it was your birthday, until eventually he tried to slow-dance with her & grab her arse before throwing up on your shoes and then accusing you of stealing his keys?

      Remember how you were so disappointed, and couldn't decide whether it was because he'd always been that bad and you'd just grown up a bit, or he'd just had a particularly bad night and your fond memories were justified?

      That was Paul McCartney at Glastonbury.

      /tongue-in-cheek

      --
      Meta will eat itself
    31. Re:Never in a million years.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Look, you remember how you had a favourite Uncle who was always a laugh, didn't mind what you got up to, very accepting, good fun to be around when you were a kid? Remember how he was the first person to get you drunk?
      Do you like movies about gladiators? You ever seen a grown man naked? Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. If I had 800 million in the bank by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the freedom to do as I please I would find lots of things boring and disturbing as well. Its funny how those who are no longer dependent upon anyone after reaping the rewards of the current systems are the ones telling us all how things should be.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:If I had 800 million in the bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If it's failing guys busting their ass working shitty jobs, and guys at the top earning boxcars of boulion, it's pretty much failing everyone.

    2. Re:If I had 800 million in the bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He also started his career as a musician over 40 years ago when the current system worked well. Now he realises things don't work as they should, he's decided to go his own way and has been successful enough to do it. What's the problem here?

    3. Re:If I had 800 million in the bank by ElBeano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your logic is flawed. His success within "the system" actually gives him more authority to criticize it. Someone who doesn't succeed could simply be regarded as having a "sour grapes" perspective. All you are saying is simply a form of an ad hominem attack.

    4. Re:If I had 800 million in the bank by thelexx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep. Someone who was able to understand and work within a system to become successful should always be ignored when they comment on that system. Particularly if they have anything bad to say. Brilliant.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    5. Re:If I had 800 million in the bank by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "He also started his career as a musician over 40 years ago when the current system worked well."

      More to the fact. He started his career BEFORE there was really a system. This was early in modern music, there had never been anything like the Beatles before...no one had seen that kind of fame and money on a worldwide basis before. No one had seen longevity like they had at the time. Not only that...at that time very few artists wrote their own music, and got the publishing $$'s off it.

      He started before the BIG music companies took full control over everything, before they found this to be a huge source of $$.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. Here's my solution to the whole msuic industry. by F34nor · · Score: 4, Funny

    We boycott the recoding indutry untill they are bankrupt. Once the companies are in liquidation we pool our resources, by up the IP, and sell it back to the artists who can then publish it in the format they want on the web. We make a profit, the artists get their art back, and a whole bunch of asshole have to look for new work.

    1. Re:Here's my solution to the whole msuic industry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We boycott the recoding indutry untill they are bankrupt.

      Boycotting them has been tried already. It only makes them go complain to the politicians: "Look how low our earnings are because of those pirates", and then they will get another couple of laws to ensure profits.

    2. Re:Here's my solution to the whole msuic industry. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      ...for the small price of the US (and in turn global) economy.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Here's my solution to the whole msuic industry. by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Where's the profit? Who pays for the content you bought up? It's a given that it will be available on p2p. We'd end up in the same boat as the record companies.

    4. Re:Here's my solution to the whole msuic industry. by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1
      ...for the small price of the US (and in turn global) economy.

      Yeh, good one. The record industry is tiny. A few billions - peanuts. The beaver fur trade probably makes more money. Its just visible is all. Any one of the top ten chemical companies could buy the entire music industry without raising a sweat.

    5. Re:Here's my solution to the whole msuic industry. by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Or flood the music market with our own copyleft music.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    6. Re:Here's my solution to the whole msuic industry. by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Berkshire Hathaway is looking for something to do with thier money this might be a good bet. My favorite quote from the after the meeting meeting was a guy describing the hose of money turning into a pipe of money in the last few years. Warren Buffet might be a good choice. He is totaly divorced from the primadonna complex and would just find the most profitable delivery method. Which in an economic system that has no real scarcity seems to be low cost high volume. Either that or a 20 disk Blue Ray set will all of one label's music on it.

  9. Paul McCartney on people being in music too long? by sien · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What's next, Rupert Murdoch telling the Rolling Stones that they've been at it too long?

    Is Mr McCartney trying to be ironic?

  10. Translation: by C+A+S+S+I+E+L · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sir Paul: I'm sick of this scene of corporate greed, market-driven business plans, aggressive practices and monopolistic behaviour, always pushing out the little guy and the independent ventures. That's why I've signed with Starbucks.

    1. Re:Translation: by simong · · Score: 1

      In the end, I suppose Starbucks isn't part of a megacorp that sells weapons, but the very fact that they're extending into the music business makes me feel itchy. Then again, I doubt that the new Mars Volta LP will be released by them.

    2. Re:Translation: by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Informative

      Starbucks isn't part of a megacorp that sells weapons

      Starbucks had a little get together called 'bowling for Israel', to raise funds for Israel.

      you'd never guess who the Israeli side of things was organised by, yes the very same person who organises fund raising for Israel's troops.

      maybe not a megacorp that sells weapons but certainly one that supports oppressive regimes.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:Translation: by brainhum · · Score: 1

      On one hand, given the fiasco of last summer in Lebanon, you could characterize the IDF as being heavy handed in its response to the terrorist activities of Hezbollah. But on the other hand, Israel is surrounded by countries that have attacked them in the past.

      I am glad that the issue is so clear-cut for some, but it is certainly not a clear issue for me. If I lived in a country surrounded by enemies, where going to get groceries might get you killed, I might be quite enthusiastic about a heavy and brutal military response to idiots lobbing bombs into my hometown.

    4. Re:Translation: by zotz · · Score: 3, Funny

      "In the end, I suppose Starbucks..."

      And in the end....
      The mug you take....
      Is equal to the mug.....
      You break.

      All I need is a grande a day...

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    5. Re:Translation: by cliveholloway · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ever ask yourself why you live in such an atmosphere? Or are all of your answers to that question black and white too?

      Oh, it must just be blind hatred eh? After all, the Israeli government is one of the most progressive in the region and must be put on a pedestal for its stellar efforts in promoting peace in the region. Yeah right.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    6. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another British fuck up, and they have been messing with the world for centuries and the whole isreal situation was created because of world war 1 support and promises etc etc etc... You have to look at the much bigger picture here with a whole lot more history then the simplification you are stating...

    7. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe not a megacorp that sells weapons but certainly one that supports oppressive regimes.

      HAHAHA, what amusing inaccurate information. You've made my day! Israel an oppressive regime!? All they're doing is protecting their land from being unfairly taken and their people from being killed. What a strange definition of "oppressive" you have.

    8. Re:Translation: by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you were moderated informative, when there is no evidence anywhere to back this claim up. I'm fully aware that the chairman of Starbucks has close personal ties with Israeli officials, but as far as I can tell, he does not use the company to push any agenda in that regard.

      There are many reasons to dislike Starbucks, but whatever your opinion of Israeli politics, supporting oppressive regimes is not one of them.

    9. Re:Translation: by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      Israel protects "their land" which was taken from its previous owners* by a British Empire in its death throes, from what I hear.
      If only the bloody tea-drinking wankers had had the foresight to pay off the natives with some plague-infected blankets, we might not have such turmoil in the middle east today.

      Here in the States, we call that "American Know-how".

      To bring it back on topic, if the United States are the Beatles, then the Bush administration is Yoko. Go ahead and digest that one, I'll be waiting behind this lead shield while you self-destruct.

      * I only respect claims of ownership to things which you have been stolen from you during your lifetime. So no talk of promised lands, chosen tribes, or Civil War slavery reparations, please.

    10. Re:Translation: by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

      Happiness is a warm mug.

      Ebony and Ivory,
      live together in perfect harmony,
      side by side in my vente non-fat latte,
      why can't we?

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    11. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in your opinion, only some elderly palastinians should have any claim?

  11. Available on emusic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This album is available DRM-free from emusic (I know, I was shocked too!)

    http://www.emusic.com/album/11044/11044254.html

    1. Re:Available on emusic by GastonTheTruck · · Score: 1

      ...and much cheaper than iTunes. Go get it. If you sign up, you can get it for nix in your free downloads. I downloaded it, not so much because I like McCartney, but to say in a way thanks for bypassing the normal ripoff channels for music aka At least he isn't that fatuous twit Bono.

    2. Re:Available on emusic by Technician · · Score: 1

      I hit the Listen button on the page and an EULA popped up for iTunes. I declined. I wanted to listen to the songs, not install unauthorised software on a company computer.

      Too bad the DRM free music is not in a Windows playable format and requires a software install and EULA agreement.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    3. Re:Available on emusic by the_arrow · · Score: 1

      I liked emusic in the start, they had cheap non-DRM mp3s. Good.
      Then they made everyone use their own custom download manager, which now only exists for Win and Mac.
      I no longer use emusic, no matter how much good music they have.

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    4. Re:Available on emusic by ancarett · · Score: 1

      You've been had by your own computer -- sounds like you've got mp3s set up to default play via iTunes, there. Uninstall iTunes from your computer and set up something else as your default mp3 player. There are lots of choices (like JetAudio or Winamp or whatever's your choice).

      I bought the album as part of my monthly eMusic subscription, downloaded it as I always do using the eMusic downloader and played both the preview and the files without a problem. Never a whiff of that annoying iTunes software on my computer!

      --
      ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
    5. Re:Available on emusic by thc69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have an old Linux version of the download manager, but you won't need it. Yesterday I discovered that you can use emusic without using their download manager.

      1. Sign in
      2. Click "Your account"
      3. Click "Change download manager" on the left side
      4. Click "Disable eMusic Download Manager"
      5. ???
      6. Profit!

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    6. Re:Available on emusic by magicchex · · Score: 1

      iTunes is set as your default app for playing mp3s. Fault's on your end, not theirs.

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
    7. Re:Available on emusic by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      I was curious to hear some samples, so I naively pointed my ubuntu box at hearmusic.com, and, surprisingly enough, everything Just Worked. It's 100% flash, but it worked fine for me.[1] It's a very slick looking interface, and reasonably responsive (more responsive than iTunes on my wife's mac, although that may be a bit of an unfair comparison, since my linux box is newer than her mac). You can listen to snippets from the songs, just like on iTunes. It's too bad that the popular audio and video codecs are patent-entangled, and that ogg vorbis has zero mainstream adoption, but at least flash works. No, I don't like installing a binary blob from Adobe on my machine, but for the average person, at least it takes care of the ability to, e.g., watch videos on youtube, which they take for granted.

      [1] BTW, what is everybody complaining about with x64 and flash? My system is an x64, ubuntu fiesty. Flash 9 was trivial to install, worked great.

    8. Re:Available on emusic by grege1 · · Score: 1

      You have never needed to use the download manager, I am an Ubuntu Linux user and simply download each song by clicking on the download icon for each track. It is more tedious than downloading the whole album with on click, but works in any browser. I like eMusic because they allow Linux people to use it, the big names tell you to bugger off as your operating system is not supported. I was never a fan of Sir Paul, but I downloaded this album and can only support his pushing the non DRM line. Hey Mick and Keith, if you are reading - catch up.

  12. From him to you by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    If there's anything that you want (to ear),
    if there's anything I can do (with music):
    just call your ISP
    and it'll send it along
    with love from me to you!
    (And your money from you to me)

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  13. Interesting comment... by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was listening to the Howard Stern show yesterday and they had Adam Levine, lead singer and songwriter from Maroon 5.

    Now Howard is one of those dinosaurs when it comes to distributing music; he constantly rails against YouTube, thinks file sharing is ruining the music business, etc etc.

    Anyway, Howard said to Levine (and I won't have these quotes quite right): "I feel really bad for you guys, it's tough to make it in the music business because people won't pay for music anymore, they want to get it for free"

    And Levine said something interesting "Don't feel bad for the musicians. The music industry is screwed up, but musicians have so many ways to make money from the internet. We couldn't have made it without the internet".

    Levine didn't stop there, he said what other musicians have confirmed... "Of all he ways we made money, despite selling 10 million records [might've heard this wrong], we made *no money from CD sales*. All of our money came from touring and merchandising"

    Unfortunately, Howard can be quite insightful on when to follow up, but he ignore this little exchange, probably because it doesn't fit his opinions, but maybe because he was bored with it. But to sell so many CD's and not make any money from it. I just wish somebody would take these quote from successful musicians and play them in front of Congress so that somebody will say "Well gee, who are we protecting with these draconian copyright and copyright extension laws? It doesn't appear to be the musicians at all!"

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:Interesting comment... by Evets · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In my experience in the music industry (and granted it was a long time ago), musicians would get typically less than 10 percent of sales, usually 6 percent. If it was a group, that 6 percent was split with the group.

      The Producers and Labels would invest money in getting the album put together, but it was all contractually recouped if anything came of it. Very rarely do the labels actually lose money on an artist. They at least make enough to cover their investment, and they do a great deal of free/low cost research about how the music will be accepted. A lot of producers own radio stations or other music related businesses that gives them easy access to the target market.

      They also charge pretty huge for "studio time", which is almost all profit since the equipment has all long since been paid for and with the number of recording studios in LA the rental rates really should be next to nothing.

      Very rarely does an unknown band get to keep their own copyright. The studio will push for changes to the music and changes to the words in order to achieve at least "collaborative" standing in the unlikely event of a dispute.

      I've watched as guys got bullied into contracts. It's brutal to the extreme (mentally, not physically). I remember an incident where a mother got involved. She was pretty tough, but all she really got in negotiation was a guaranteed video production. They passed the video project off to a student with a minuscule budget - basically the lead singer on the roof with a brief scene coming out of a studio limo.

    2. Re:Interesting comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It was never the musicians, even when supposedly was about the musicians.

    3. Re:Interesting comment... by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, seeing as their make no money from CD sales, perhaps the artists should openly distribute their music for free on the internet.
      It wont cost them much, they can use p2p so they have very little bandwidth costs. Each download will serve as an advert for their merchandise, live shows etc. Artists wouldnt lose out, because they make no money anyway. Not to mention all the new fans it would attract:
      A lot of people would never download pirated music, and wouldnt want to waste their money buying a CD from a band they'd never heard of (it may not be a waste, but how are you to know before you listen?). If these people can download legit music for free, they can listen to lots of new acts they wouldnt otherwise have experienced.
      This way, the legit user would gain the same advantages pirates have had for years. Not to mention that, a lot of people who bought CDs anyway did so because they thought they were supporting the artists, the money they save is more likely to be spent on other things associated with the artists they like.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Interesting comment... by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This essay by Steve Albini pretty much sums up the situation. It's quite old now but I'm sure it still applies - in fact it's probably worse now.

      Bob

    5. Re:Interesting comment... by DuncanE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've read that essay a number of times and they way I see it the band has 3 choices:

      - Get a good music lawyer before signing anything. If the record company refuses to deal with you once you've "lawyered up" then walk away
      - Try distributing and marketing your stuff yourself. Internet. Radio. CD's. Whatever. Do the hard yards yourself. If you are good enough it will be heard yeah?
      - Accept the deal. Make no money, but get famous/chicks/To tour.

      Seems like most bands/musicians prefer option 3.

      And worse it seems most listeners don't care which of the 3 options the muso chooses in the first place.

      And the saddest thing of all? There are so many bands and musicians out there that the marketing *IS* 99% of the costs. Why else is do we mainly download and P2P top 40 crap.

    6. Re:Interesting comment... by Evets · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That makes sense but...

      1) Contracts - existing contracts prevent popular acts from doing it. All of the one-hit wonders are under contract for future albums. Those that have sustained success through the 3-6 album contracts end up with other issues. That's the reason why Prince is now "The artist formerly known as Prince" - he doesn't own his own name anymore.
      2) Marketing - small acts have a tough time getting their name out there. Even bands that enjoy extreme local popularity can't go national without help. Major networks like clear channel don't push new acts very much, and small stations are generally owned by music industry execs. No radio = no buyers = nobody knows who you are.
      3) Knowledge - Guys who make music don't know how to manage the game online. You can do a lot of marketing online but not a lot of people have tried it and none that have have achieved a billboard hit that I know of. If someone around here put a decent plan together, I bet it would be more successful than any existing online indy site.

      It will be a shame if the market goes to retailers with strong B&M presences like Starbucks. A record company isn't that hard to reproduce. Take away the major equipment costs with modern tech and it's that much easier. Really, all you need is a series of 5 great bands, a bit of help from the magic LAMP, and marketing. A few viral videos, some well placed reviews, and maybe a spam jam to the top of some charts (iTunes, etc.) and you've got yourself a replacement business model for the music industry and something that has a legitimate shot at toppling the big boys.

      Their ideas consist of advertising at the end of TV shows, unmanaged online ad buys, and the same old bag of tricks that got things moving in the mo-town days. They can't even decide how to think about iTunes. The guys that run those companies aren't smart, they've gotten successful based on greed and bullying. They are all worried about the online world, but they have no clue how to morph their business models to take advantage of it. It's a situation ripe for the picking.

    7. Re:Interesting comment... by oever · · Score: 1
      Prince got his name back in 2000. From wikipedia:

      On May 16, 2000, Prince ceased using the O+> moniker and returned to using "Prince" again, after his publishing contract with Warner-Chappell expired.
      Too bad he did not get back the drive he had up to and including the album Come. It's been mostly downhill from there.
      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    8. Re:Interesting comment... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Sibling post has a point. Let me add, though:

      The artists don't 'make no money'. They make minimal money that barely covers costs, but they also gain world-wide advertising and promotion. How many bands do you know that have figured out how to promote themselves locally, let alone world-wide? They all have agents for that, so they can concentrate on the music.

      Don't get me wrong... The RIAA is raping everyone. But the artists don't get 'nothing' from it. If they did, they wouldn't have signed that contract in the first place and wouldn't have the contractual obligations.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    9. Re:Interesting comment... by east+coast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Levine didn't stop there, he said what other musicians have confirmed... "Of all he ways we made money, despite selling 10 million records [might've heard this wrong], we made *no money from CD sales*. All of our money came from touring and merchandising"

      But how much of that tour money was really generated from CD sales? You see, this band (not knowing them) would have probably ended up in the small club tour circuit had it not been for the label promoting and backing them. While they may have not made money from the album directly, when they're making more money by playing in from of 16000 at an amphitheater setting instead of 500 in a small club the record deal has paid off.

      Find me real examples of bands that have made it strictly off the web with no label backing. Sir Paul is going to sell no matter what. But had he and the blokes from Liverpool been trying to win fans over on the internet of today could they have pulled it off? The one downside of the net is that anyone can put out crap and get away with it. That makes the "pool of talent" much much larger and it makes it that much harder to find good musicians.

      Sure, word of mouth will get around in time but how much time does truely independent artists have until they need to show a profit or be forced to go back to school and get a 9 to 5?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    10. Re:Interesting comment... by mythar · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as their make no money from CD sales, perhaps the artists should openly distribute their music for free on the internet. i have a better idea: why not use the internet to find "new" ways to make money from cd sales. perhaps they can sell their cds at sites that showcase independent artists (like cd baby), or at sites that offer mp3 downloads. they can offer their music more cheaply than they ever could with a big label, and still make more money than they ever would have with a big label.

      A lot of people would never download pirated music, and wouldnt want to waste their money buying a CD from a band they'd never heard of (it may not be a waste, but how are you to know before you listen?). If these people can download legit music for free, they can listen to lots of new acts they wouldnt otherwise have experienced. even if an artist got zero radio time, zero word of mouth, and zero promotion, there's still this thing called the internet. most online music stores i've seen offer samples of songs from practically any artist, so that not only can you listen to the music before you buy, you also have a nice way of discovering new artists. many online sites can recommend new music that is similar to artists and genres that you already know. and lastly, what is the internet but cheap & easy self-promotion for the masses? what could be simpler for an independent artist than getting your music out there on the inter-web? so, there really shouldn't be a problem finding music that you like on the internet. why not actually support them with some cold hard cash?
    11. Re:Interesting comment... by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      Find me real examples of bands that have made it strictly off the web with no label backing.

      How about the Arctic Monkeys?

      Bob
    12. Re:Interesting comment... by endianx · · Score: 1

      What is the point of a record company these days? It isn't hard at all to burn your own CDs, or have a website where users can download your music (for free or for a fee).

      Do they do anything for you besides advertising? (Deals with radio stations and such.)

    13. Re:Interesting comment... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      They still signed with a label. They never put out a truely indie album. Granted, they did very well for themselves but why would they go off an sign a record deal if they really had the kind of clout where they did not need it?

      It's a fairly unconvincing example, IMHO.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    14. Re:Interesting comment... by clifyt · · Score: 1

      "Get a good music lawyer before signing anything. If the record company refuses to deal with you once you've "lawyered up" then walk away"

      You know, I've never understood why this is soooooo fucking hard for musicians to understand. It is a business deal. Its not called the Music Nonprofit Organization, its the MUSIC BIZ.

      The fact is, a good lawyer will be your manager and represent you. A good lawyer won't take the easy way out and kick under some side deal because they know better than 'Uncle' Frank about the consequences -- and a good lawyer might be slimey, but they are YOUR slime.

      My band got thrown out the minute they found out I had a lawyer...next thing I knew, I had two others fighting over me because the word was that we were good enough to bring in the big guns (and the thrown out part was probably a negotiating tactic because I did get a few calls after that from the same guys).

      Showing up without a lawyer is like the old phrase, showing up to a gun fight with a pocket knife.

      Sadly, of the three options, most of my friends have gone with #3 on your list (sign the deal, 'get rich')...rarely works out (at least on the recording side). Heck, #2 isn't without just as many pitfalls as #3 -- pretty much have to give up most of the time you'd be out being a musician and learning to be a corporate whore, learning the ins and outs of business deals, equipment loans, insurance, accounting, and all that crap...I'd rather be a musician and leave this up to the folks that know what they are doing, so I can do what I know how to do.

      Getting a good lawyer is the only real option. If the labels won't deal with you with one, have to say, your band sucks and you'd never have had a chance anyways...

    15. Re:Interesting comment... by Darth+Cider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Counterexample: Ani DiFranco and her own label, Righteous Babe Records. She's been mentioned on Slashdot many times before in the context of labels exploiting artists.

      Labels try to dictate what artists can do, what their music should sound like--not to make the music "better" but to conform to what already sells. They keep about 90% of revenues. Artists receive royalties only AFTER paying the label for the costs of studio time, so break-even is about half a million units sold.

      Ani DiFranco is in the black after selling a few hundred albums, if not immediately. Quite a difference.

    16. Re:Interesting comment... by dlim · · Score: 1

      Find me real examples of bands that have made it strictly off the web with no label backing. I'm not sure what your criteria for "made it" is, but I believe the band Clap Your Hands Say Yeah is the best example of an unknown band who has built an audience on the web. Not anything comparable to the Beatles fanbase, but they're only on their second record. They do, OTOH, sell their music on iTunes and in most brick and mortar stores. They've also been reviewed on numerous websites and magazines, including Rolling Stone. It's really pretty impressive.
    17. Re:Interesting comment... by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      Why else is do we mainly download and P2P top 40 crap.

      Short answer : because you are idiots.

      Long answer : because piracy really is price discrimination. The cost of a pirated album on bittorrent is "configure your client right, then click download on your friendly torrent site" and that's a price most people seem happy to pay.
      The cost of an album in online stores is ridiculous. They have no costs! "Yes but bandwidth" is negligible because if you charge anything at all from 1cent up then you obviously cover that. "Yes but maintenance" is nearly a fixed cost and if you need it [and you charge anything at all for songs] then it's paid for, too. "Yes but hardware" don't make me laugh THAT hard, I might die. "Yes but content" has to be paid for simply to the artists and the store takes a marginal cut.
      The cost in B&M stores ... well, it's hardware. It can break, but it can't be erased. And even the case will last longer than any current hard drive, even if using both as intended.

      Insight : because they are the common denominator. Lots of people know they want the Top40 crap, even if there are much more more people trading lesser-known music. 172 seeds for the Madonna's discography and 1 for the doom-metal band Avrigus (who give away their music to download for free, because they never saw £1 in royalties from their label) - does it mean that there exists no interest at all in like small obscure bands? Or is it because there are so many people seeding every other obscure bands, that pop music has more copies floating around of the same. It's a dilution process, the Top40 scene is concentrated in a smaller set of artists.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    18. Re:Interesting comment... by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

      Get a good music lawyer before signing anything. If the record company refuses to deal with you once you've "lawyered up" then walk away.
      Did you actually read the article? If you did, you would have seen this:

      Well, they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected. They figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer--one who says he's experienced in entertainment law and he hammers out a few bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They'll be great royalty: 13% [less a 10% packaging deduction]. Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever.
      There is no way to lawyer up with the music industry. They have been doing this for many years, know how to creatively account and under report profits, and have these contracts down pat. At this point, the music industry won't offer a fair contract to a new acts. If new acts don't like it, they can go it alone, self publish, and get no radio play.

      So the band really has two choices: go it alone or sign a bad deal.
    19. Re:Interesting comment... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      That's actually a fairly good example.

      Labels try to dictate what artists can do, what their music should sound like--not to make the music "better" but to conform to what already sells. They keep about 90% of revenues. Artists receive royalties only AFTER paying the label for the costs of studio time, so break-even is about half a million units sold.

      Labels have a right to dictate as much as they want, it's their dime. If a band fails to sale they're the ones taking the loss. I don't know why people have a problem with this. The alternative is to produce on your own. If there wasn't some reason to go with a label why would anyone do it?

      Ani DiFranco is in the black after selling a few hundred albums, if not immediately. Quite a difference.

      I was nearly going to let this slide but if you honestly think that she pays for distribution, studio time, physical production and other costs associated with making an album in a "few hundred albums" sales you must not know much about what it takes to put out a well produced album and have it produced in any great number. And certainly not immediately.

      Again, there is a reason people turn to a label to put out an album. Frankly I don't see it as being taken advantage of anymore than I see lazy (or wealthy) end users being taken advantage of by The Geek Squad by paying to have memory put into a PC.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    20. Re:Interesting comment... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I think they did Ok and fit into the criteria for the most part. You will note that if you check out Witchita Records that they have signed a deal to get distribution. This is one of the things that labels provide that a 100% indy artist simply can't. Getting your music out to a wide audience is great but if they can't buy it and you're not putting on massive tours you're not going to pull a profit from it. I don't know how hard it is to get songs on to iTunes but my guess is that as an unknown with no backing I'm going to find it a hard swing, at best.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    21. Re:Interesting comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will note that if you check out Witchita Records that they have signed a deal to get distribution. This is one of the things that labels provide that a 100% indy artist simply can't

      Wichita is the UK distributor. The band themselves handles domestic (US) distribution.

    22. Re:Interesting comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ""I remember an incident where a mother got involved. She was pretty tough, but all she really got in negotiation was a guaranteed video production. They passed the video project off to a student with a minuscule budget - basically the lead singer on the roof with a brief scene coming out of a studio limo.""

      you know fred durst's mother?

    23. Re:Interesting comment... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      And worse it seems most listeners don't care which of the 3 options the muso chooses in the first place.

      And just how is that worse? I really would like to know how not caring how an artist goes about becoming released is a detriment to the listener and what role you really think the listener can take regardless of the artists choice.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    24. Re:Interesting comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To play devil's advocate, this is what Howard could have said:

      Yes, but why is it that they sold 10 million CDs in the first place? Probably not because Maroon 5 is 10 million times better than the next guy. There are plenty of great acts out there; why did Maroon 5 hit it big? It's because a large chunk of the profits from those 10 million CDs went to very effective promotion and marketing, which is the main business of the record labels. Without that promotion, Maroon 5 would not have been popular enough to support themselves with merchandising and touring profits. So to say that Maroon 5 did not hugely benefit from the proceeds of those 10 million sales is disingenuous, even if they didn't get the money transferred directly into their bank accounts.

    25. Re:Interesting comment... by beyondkaoru · · Score: 1

      ok, counterpoint: suppose there were significantly less tv or whatever advertising for music? basically, suppose the big record labels didn't exist and therefore all musicians did their advertising via word of mouth. in any case, anyone who seeks music events/concerts/whatever, will be drawn to the concerts/merchandise/whatever of bands that have music they like and are advertised heavily; decrease the advertising in general, and the concert-goers will be drawn more by music they'd like than music that's being marketed.

      so, other posters have mentioned i think some people who have some following via the web, but the record companies don't serve any great necessity to society, i think.

      --
      the privacy of one's mind is important.
      you do have something to hide.
    26. Re:Interesting comment... by argent · · Score: 1

      Find me real examples of bands that have made it strictly off the web with no label backing.

      People like Jonathan 'Code Monkey' Coulton are making a living through YouTube backing.

      Sure, word of mouth will get around in time but how much time does truely independent artists have until they need to show a profit or be forced to go back to school and get a 9 to 5?

      I think you have cause and effect reversed. Artists start out with a 9-5 playing on weekends until they make enough money to make a living off their music. It's around the time that they're beginning to "make it" that the labels get involved.

      If they're good, the web just makes it easier for them to get to the point of making a living off their music before the labels swoop down.

    27. Re:Interesting comment... by The_Spud · · Score: 1
      What did the Romans ever do for us?

      You missed a step. Step 1 record the album.

      That's the part thats hard and expensive to do well. You could theoretically do so on your own computer using one of those prosumer usb interfaces. If you want to do real drums you need an acoustically treated room and decent mics to make even a basic go of it.
      That also assumes you have a vague clue about recording, producing and mastering.

      Admittedly David Gray managed to record most of White Ladder in his house but he said it severly limited the style of songs he could do and affected the sound of the album.

      "We hardly had any equipment, (so) we had to kind of keep it within a certain sphere," he says. "We couldn't get too loud or too big because we just didn't have the stuff. Basically we kept it quite simple and quite mellow."

      http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/28/w b.gray/

      It costs almost nothing to copy songs, but the first copy costs thousands to do properly. We still need record companies because most musicians aren't prepared to re-mortgage their house to pay for the recording and promotion costs.
    28. Re:Interesting comment... by endianx · · Score: 1

      Yeah that is a good point. But it would seem to me that should be the kind of thing you could rent for a day, for a few thousand dollars. "You recorded your music in our studio so we get all the profit from it forever." That just doesn't seem right. There must be more too it, otherwise I am going to invest in a studio and rent it out to people.

      And again, promotion is nothing special. Companies promote their products in this country every day without signing over the rights to those products.

    29. Re:Interesting comment... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      in any case, anyone who seeks music events/concerts/whatever, will be drawn to the concerts/merchandise/whatever of bands that have music they like and are advertised heavily; decrease the advertising in general, and the concert-goers will be drawn more by music they'd like than music that's being marketed.

      Why why why is this always the argument on slashdot? Why?

      What difference does it make if a band is advertised or not in the face of large record labels? Who's not to say that the kind of bubblegum pop that slashdotters seem to rail against in these arguments isn't the kind of music the majority of people want to hear? In any case, it's a business. Businesses advertise their products. Even small indy bands advertise their products. Large labels are not alone in this. Get over it!

      the record companies don't serve any great necessity to society

      Yeah, neither do most things people are involved with. If the argument really came down to social benefit would we really be on a thread discussing Paul McCartney and Starbucks? What about crap like cable TV and YouTube? Record companies certainly did have a place and they still occupy it today even if it's not 100% necessary. At least to us they don't seem necessary but as far as the distribution and production of music they're still doing a lot that I think we take for granted. 100% internet distribution of music only works for those online. High end music production would see to it that only those with the funds to do it would get the advantage of the technology. I know you think advertising isn't needed but word of mouth isn't good enough, IMHO, I don't trust most people's musical tastes.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    30. Re:Interesting comment... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I think you have cause and effect reversed. Artists start out with a 9-5 playing on weekends until they make enough money to make a living off their music. It's around the time that they're beginning to "make it" that the labels get involved

      I have seen established bands do the opposite of what you're trying to say. As their fan base eroded they had to leave the industry because it was too expensive to try to keep up with the game which caused conflict within the band and eventually their demise.

      Record contracts don't mean that you're set for life by any means and, playing along with the crowd here, the scenario I'm putting forth involves independent artists making it without a label.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    31. Re:Interesting comment... by argent · · Score: 1

      I have seen established bands do the opposite of what you're trying to say.

      I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

      My point was that having a recording contract isn't really relevant when a band is getting established. I didn't say anything about whether it was relevant to staying popular. Or were you meaning to reply to the article I was responding to?

  14. Well, I think its a start... by janrinok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sir Paul has come in for a bit of criticism in this thread so far, but I think the fact that he is saying what he is, is actually a good thing. The music industry will not listen to most musicians but perhaps they _will_ listen to him. It matters not whether you like his music, whether you think he is past it and irrelevant to today's music scene, or whatever. He is actually saying what many of us have been saying for a long time. The way music and musicians are managed today is out-of-date. The public has changed, the medium has changed, and now the industry must change. Is that such a bad thing, no matter who says it?

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    1. Re:Well, I think its a start... by setagllib · · Score: 1

      Two words: associative bias. Just like how when people hear Microsoft say anything at all, they know it's actually to create more vendor lock-in and stifle competition. The words just feel dirty because you know what the person is thinking. I don't know the whole story about Paul, but if anyone is bitter towards him for whatever reasons, they'll be especially suspicious if he seems to agree with them. That's usually an enemy's best tactic, to seem like a friend and still serve their own interests. As soon as your interests clash with theirs, you're the one who gets screwed. Which is why you should probably just switch to Ubuntu now if you haven't already. Did I sidetrack there?

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    2. Re:Well, I think its a start... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      It's a very good thing, it's just that slashdotters are generally experts on attacks ad hominem.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    3. Re:Well, I think its a start... by janrinok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, I didn't follow your argument at all.

      Sir Paul changed the company who market his music. He didn't like the way that EMI were too hide-bound and stuck in their traditional ways. He thinks that his new company is more forward looking and he is, for the time being, content with his choice. Where is the problem?

      If you expect all musicians to simply decide to do their own marketing then you are dreaming. Some will not have the first clue how to go about it. Others will not wish to do it - they want to make music, not manage the distribution. Some, like Sir Paul, will chose to change to a company that is able to market their music more effectively. It is not about getting free music for the masses, although that seems to be the Utopian dream of many who read and respond on /.. Sir Paul is willing to pay his new marketeers for the service that they provide. Those who want to listen to his music will still have to pay.

      Try as I might, I cannot make 'vendor lock-in' or 'stifle competition' fit anything that is said in the article or my earlier post.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    4. Re:Well, I think its a start... by janrinok · · Score: 1

      oops s/chose/choose/

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    5. Re:Well, I think its a start... by setagllib · · Score: 1

      I repeat, I am not commenting on Paul at all, I am talking about how it is very natural to associate negative things with a person's words just based on a negative opinion of the person. And that could explain cases like this where people are off-put even when somebody agrees with them, based on other qualms they have with that person. Paul is the subject here, but that's not what I'm talking about at all. I hope that's clear on this revision.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    6. Re:Well, I think its a start... by eggywat · · Score: 1

      I agree the message and not the identitiy of the messenger is whats really important.
      As someone who admittedly has no direct knowledge of the music industry. I'd doubt that they are that confused. They know that digital technology, the web and file sharing are unstoppable in the long run. Perhaps they simply running interference until they have developed business strategies and infrastructure that allows them to monetize product using these same technologies and mechanisms. Like all large corporates they resemble to tankers which require lots `of time and space to change direction. Aggressive legal tactics and lobbying are being employed to give them that time and space.

    7. Re:Well, I think its a start... by mythar · · Score: 1

      Sir Paul changed the company who market his music. He didn't like the way that EMI were too hide-bound and stuck in their traditional ways. He thinks that his new company is more forward looking and he is, for the time being, content with his choice. Where is the problem? i don't quite understand his position on this. emi is offering drm-free music, and is soon going to offer beatles mp3s. it's being bought by terra firma, which realizes that "the global music industry is undergoing significant change," and wants emi to "accelerate the development of its digital and online strategy to fully exploit this long-term growth opportunity."

      and, paul is ditching emi. why?

      when will it be okay to buy emi, again?

    8. Re:Well, I think its a start... by ErikZ · · Score: 1


      Listen to him say what? That their solutions are "Boring"?

      Apparently they need to get more monkeys involved in their solutions! And tequila! That would make things interesting, wouldn't it?

      Big business *is* boring. It centers around getting predictable results.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  15. Re:Translation (continued): by mykdavies · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sir Paul (continued): I'm really excited about the energy and commitment involved in making new music, and hate all these guys who try to hang onto the past. That's why I'm supporting the extension of copyright on music recordings in the UK.

    Paul McCartney supports a call for copyright on music recordings to be extended from 50 years to 95 or even 'life plus 70 years'

    --
    The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
  16. the industry is an ex-parrot - everyone agrees by djupedal · · Score: 1

    McCartney says... "They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call "market" it. And I find that all a bit disturbing."

    ...what he said!

  17. Its tricky by Wiarumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As much as I realize that the music industry needs to adapt, its much easier to state the problem and analyze it rather than come up with a solution. Competing with free can be done... but I haven't heard a viable solution that makes me realize the industry still has potential. Honestly, I could care less. If music was knocked back into the stone age and no name bands struggled to get any publicity at all... I think that would be the greatest thing that ever happened since Robert Johnson.

    --
    I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    1. Re:Its tricky by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      You're not competing against free, you're competing against the artists who choose an online distribution model. The problem is the studios still want to sell you individually plastic wrapped discs, since for whatever reason, they think it's less at risk to piracy. The solution for many is simple, sell your collections online.

      Judging by itunes I'd say there is a market for people buying tunes online. That would put less pressure on making CDs and ultimately increase their profit margins since it costs less to upload an mp3 than to ship a plastic disc.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Its tricky by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite: How can you compete with free but not compete with CD sales?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Its tricky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You offer your customers that which they don't normaly get from the p2p networks.
      -Really high quality or a range of quality\file sizes
      -consistant fast download speeds
      -easy to use service
      -a huge libary accessble from one place with very little effot.
      -readly available infomation on the band\singer, there other works, similar material etc

      The point is that while p2p is free and pretty good distrobution method is far from perfect, theres money to be made simply by fixing its flaws.

    4. Re:Its tricky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "couldN'T care less", dorkface.

  18. actually it was released a week ago... by fartymenams · · Score: 2, Informative

    Last Tuesday. I got it off of emusic.com. And it was DRM-free LAME MP3, too. $14.99 for 50 downloads meant that it cost me just under $5.

    1. Re:actually it was released a week ago... by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you paid $5 for PAUL MC CARTNEY SONGS! Have some pride, man.

      --
      Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  19. Also along the same vein. by yogurtforthesoul · · Score: 1, Informative

    Trent Reznor has been very angry over some of UMG's decisions as of late. Trent does a good job of providing reasons to buy his album in this digital age. He even puts up all his new music on his Myspace page. http://www.myspace.com/nin Here is a link to some of his current concerns regarding UMG. http://nin.com/tr/

    --
    Something witty goes here.
    1. Re:Also along the same vein. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NIN Rules!

    2. Re:Also along the same vein. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, look! the 12 year olds are posting! we never thought you would have gotten so far, so fast.

  20. The old generation breaking the mould too? by fruey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Say what you like about McCartney's music (particularly his solo career). One thing that sets him apart from Elvis, Lennon, Cliff Richard or even Mick Jagger is his pure songwriting output. He's penned most material on his 21 albums, he was a key catalyst in getting the best out of Lennon/McCartney collaboration and some books even go so far as to make him the "number one" Beatle.

    His music has been commercially successful over four decades, so he spans a longer career than Elton John, Billy Joel or Jimmy Buffett. He's been with a major label - EMI - and been through vinyl, cassette, CD and now MP3/AAC digital formats. He is a songwriter as well as a musician, and he has a big catalogue.

    So, it's refreshing to hear him state that the music business is out of marketing ideas and out of tune with possibilities. Even if you don't like him...

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I don't like him but sometimes even idiots can be right.

    2. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by FiveLights · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There's nothing quite like quantity over quality...

      I'm talkin' about freedom
      Talkin' 'bout freedom
      I will fight
      For the right
      To live in freedom

      I'm talkin' 'bout freedom
      I'm talkin' 'bout freedom
      I will fight
      For the right
      To live in freedom

      Everybody talkin' 'bout freedom
      We're talkin' 'bout freedom
      We will fight
      For the right
      To live in freedom

      -Sir Paul

    3. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Considering the wide variety in his song writing career, it would be surprising (to me, at least), to find someone that listens to music in English but doesn't like anything that McCartney had a hand in writing.

      Now, I'm sure that a bunch of people will come over and say they really don't like anything he wrote, just to make a point. But, heck, a guy that was part of the duo with 25 platinum singles on the Beatles alone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Beatles_hit_s ingles#Singles_sales_figures ) probably knows how to write a good tune.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    4. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by fruey · · Score: 1

      Indeed... notwithstanding the sheer diversity of artists who've covered his music, adding their own interpretation and musical style to it, and pleasing audiences that don't like McCartney the man at all.

      He gave the Stones a big hit in the early sixties (I Wanna Be Your Man) and has penned material with Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, taken part in fundraising for numerous charities, etc.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    5. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice that the lyrics of that song make for an excellent self-parody when read without music.

      There's actually very little talk about freedom, but there's much talk about talking about freedom.

    6. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      And despite all that output, there is nothing of his I can recall more recent than "Take it Away" (ugh).

    7. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by Crizp · · Score: 1

      ...I've always heard the message of the song as that which you just said.

    8. Re:The old generation breaking the mould too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you and everyone else can purge any questionable memories of Paul, and refill it with this awe inducing new music!! Purge your memory device and refill it with this!! This is the stuff, people!!! for the WORLD!

  21. Try 1.5 billion by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Paul McCartney is worth over $1.5 Billion.

    Not $800 million.

    He's pretty much the richest entertainer alive to my knowledge - I think richer than Oprah (who I wouldn't really consider an entertainer anyway).

    1. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Wookietim · · Score: 1

      Why does it matter how much money he has? If he gave away all his money and got a job as a greeter at Wal-Mart, would that suddenly make his ideas better? Personally, I agree with him and his ideas - because I can look past the money and see what he is saying.

      --
      http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
    2. Re:Try 1.5 billion by CyberSnyder · · Score: 1

      The point is that it's a bit hypocritical to start speaking out against the "system" after you've reaped $1.5 billion from said system.

    3. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Wookietim · · Score: 1

      So, using your logic, one should speak out against the system when one is young (And therefore doesn't know much about "The System") so that one can remain poor. Sounds sort of like a silly idea to me - Plus is seems mildly bigoted of you to assume that a person who is rich shouldn't be listened to simply because they are rich.

      --
      http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
    4. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Teux · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think this is very significant.

      If someone who has reaped as much wealth from music as McCartney thinks that there is something wrong with the current system, other people may take this more seriously and copy his actions.

      His statement will probably not make a huge difference, but it is a good indicator of a shift in general opinion about the music industry.

    5. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Paul McCartney is worth over $1.5 Billion.
      Not $800 million.
      At the moment. But has the divorce settlement been finalised yet?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    6. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clue: Paul McCartney is British, not American.

      Today's Sterling/Dollar exchange rate is about 1.97, so converting 800 million pounds sterling into approx. 1.5 billion US dollars.

    7. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $1.5 billion question: "Was the internet and mp3 compression around when he did it?"

    8. Re:Try 1.5 billion by tgrimley · · Score: 1

      Being worth 1.5B and having 800M in the bank are too completely different things.

    9. Re:Try 1.5 billion by vain+gloria · · Score: 1

      Being a Brit, I recognised the first figure as one regularly bandied about. Grandparent post is talking in £££, not $$$, which makes you both right.

    10. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      And I don't think it is significant because all it is is talk.

      A man with $1.5 billion goes through Starbucks to put out an album and acts like it is some heroic act of casting off his chains? Big deal. Like Starbucks isn't another cog in the machine.

      If the guy believes that the traditional music industry is a lost cause maybe he could go the Slashdot way and toss together an album in the professional recording studio he almost certainly already owns and point everyone toward the torrent. Then maybe add 'come see me live'. Then we could somehow gauge whether the business model recommendations of the Slashdot crowd, almost none of whom own any actual businesses, can usurp the RIAA's crown.

      Short of that this is just grandstanding to boost his ego and thumb his nose at EMI.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    11. Re:Try 1.5 billion by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "Being worth 1.5B and having 800M in the bank are too completely different things."

      Yes, one is filthy rich, the other just stinkin' rich.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    12. Re:Try 1.5 billion by seriesrover · · Score: 1
      Paul McCartney is worth over $1.5 Billion. Not $800 million.


      He didn't say $800 million, he said 800 million. You may want to consider that McCartney is a Brit and we're talking sterling.

    13. Re:Try 1.5 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      800 million pounds.

  22. Music = no | Industry = yes by El-Wrongo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The music industry is looking at making music the same way the automotive industry is looking at making cars. For them it is just all about assembling the parts (3 cup of sexy (make sure you remove any talent), 5 spoons of digital remixing, 10 liters of marketing, mash it up, stick it in bowl then devour). Besides that, what is really up with this love theme in music? There is around zero pop songs that isn't about sex, love, boyfriends, breakup etc. If you name one I will give you a cookie. Metãl for life \m/

    1. Re:Music = no | Industry = yes by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race by Fall Out Boy.

      Anyway, pop music is a style, people like it, the genre has elements that unite it as a genre. It's a gross simplification to say there is all the same, and unfair to say there is no talent involved.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    2. Re:Music = no | Industry = yes by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Besides that, what is really up with this love theme in music? There is around zero pop songs that isn't about sex, love, boyfriends, breakup etc. If you name one I will give you a cookie.

      I've often thought that, myself. On reading your comment, I decided to find out.

      Billboard's Top 40 track #2 (was #1 last week) is Nickelback's "If Everyone Cared". It's some hippy crap, saying "everybody be nice to eachother and cooperate and the world will be a better place". It does seem to mention romantic love but that isn't the main theme.

      LOL! #3 is Maroon 5's "Makes Me Wonder" and it is about sex and/or love, but the lyrics are so funny that I have to share them.

      For comparison, I googled for Pantera lyrics and got this, an album with ten songs, one of which is not about love or sex. Okay, a newer album has not a single song about love.

      Metal kicks ass, partly because the usually incomprehensible lyrics can sometimes be interesting, but mostly because of the music. Since you're into non-love lyrics, you might want to consider some alt country music too. There's quite a bit of metal crossover. Hank Williams III has been in lots of metal and punk bands, and has his own metal band Assjack, but his country music with his Damn Band is hardcore. Listen to the song "Bad Magick" by Shooter Jennings to feel like you're hearing a dusty old recording of Led Zeppelin collaborating with Bad Company. Shooter Jennings effortlessly segues from country to metal and back in the song "Busted In Baylor County", playing part of Black Sabbath's "Sweet Leaf" (the Live At Irving Plaza version has a much longer portion of "Sweet Leaf" than the album version). Rebel Meets Rebel is said to be the last project Dimebag Darrel did before he was killed; it has The Cowboys From Hell playing and aging country outlaw David Allan Coe on lead vocals (and the song "Get Out Of My Life" has Hank III in it too). Jay Berndt of Kilgore Smudge now fronts a country band called The Brimstone Assembly, which offers a style of hardcore country similar to that of Hank III.

      Holy shit. I need to get a life.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    3. Re:Music = no | Industry = yes by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Hey, people keep buying it. When people give up on it and move on the labels will be sure to accommodate. I see this type of debate much as I see the auto industry vs. the environmentalists: Some of the tree huggers want more fuel efficient cars to be offered while they still drive crappy MPG suvs. It's not that the auto industry is against offering more fuel efficient cars but that requires tons of R&D and until the more fuel efficient cars that they make today get a serious share of the market it's just not economically viable.

      People need to stick to their guns on this. You start by doing what you claim you want to see done. The environmentalists need to keep buying the most fuel efficient cars to get the industry to offer better. Music fans need to go away from pop and stay there. Not to say that pop music is a problem but if the audience is truely sick of it they're going to have to abandon it to get something new to come to the surface.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:Music = no | Industry = yes by TheLink · · Score: 1

      But what if a large number of tree huggers totally stop buying cars and switch to something else (bicycles, public transport, walking etc)

      While the car market would shrink, the car market for fuel efficient cars might shrink even more. So might car makers start focusing on non fuel efficient cars instead? ;)

      --
    5. Re:Music = no | Industry = yes by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think that could be the case. It sounds kind of like a joke at first and it does have a humorous bend to it but I don't see why it wouldn't happen either.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:Music = no | Industry = yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good obscure stuff. No doubt metal is for people who already absorb the mainstream and need a kicker! The Beatles were the first band to play their music 10x heavier than anyone before them, if not for the reason that Paul was one of the first kids to have an electric bass guitar in his band. That amped up the music a lot more than the 1950s acoustic bass rock n roll songs. That, and playing their music at eleven, in tiny cramped cellars, basements, strip clubs, bars, coffee shops, and thousands of other small venues. They had a reputation for being exceptionally loud early on. Just listen to their version of "Red Sails In The Sunset" live in 1962, compare it to Fats Domino's original version! All the piano and horns replaced by blistering guitars. Compare their 1962 version of "I'm Talkin Bout You" to Chuck Berry's. It sounds at least 10x heavier. Same with nearly all their covers of 1950s rock songs. Other bands followed suit.

      It wasn't until technology caught up with the Beatles when they started playing coliseums and gigantic stadiums. The technology for overpowering speakers wasn't there yet and they were drowned out in some concerts by the crowd. The speakers that ruptured eardrums in small venues had a hard time projecting in a baseball stadium of constantly screaming hysterical fans.

      Some artists who saw the Beatles play in the deafening smaller venues before they hit it big, are artists like Ozzy Osbourne and Lemmy Kilmister. It obviously left an impression on them, and motivated them to get into music!

      You can hear a heavy metal tribute to the Beatles' music on the new album "Butchering The Beatles", featuring Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead and others. John Lennon always claimed "Ticket To Ride" was the first-ever heavy metal riff (before distortion was available).

      http://www.rykodisc.com/Catalog/dump/rykoalbums_17 41.asp

    7. Re:Music = no | Industry = yes by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      If you name one I will give you a cookie

      "Flood" by Jars of Clay.

      Everything written by the band "Presidents of the United States of America" (including the three songs that got a lot of play on the pop stations).

      Everything written by They Might Be Giants - including Istanbul and Particle Man, both of which were pretty big in the charts.

      More recently "Walkin' On the Sun" by Smashmouth (which, if you can't read between the lines, is about the commercialization and lack of positive influence from musical movements since the sixties).

      Music is like every other form of media: insightful stuff is in limited supply; most people stick to the basics of human experience because connecting to the piece requires less imagination. Read, watch TV, play video games, etc. It's all the same. Quality is hard to come by, but you can find it if you look.

      You just have to wade through a sea of crap to get to it.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  23. Doonesbury by cob666 · · Score: 1

    Doonesbury recently ran a little parody of this:

    http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2007/06/04//

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    1. Re:Doonesbury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's also painfully unfunny.

  24. Really ? by aepervius · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But practicing "targeted" assassination, which as the same time kill civilian and kids, is the best way to bring peace to the region, isn't it ? Collateral damage is acceptable , as long as YOU are not the collateral, he ? Think about this : maybe there is NO GOOD GUY in that story. Some of us think both side are as sick and bad than the other one.

    From my point of view the only difference is that Israel due to historical reason has a stronger lobby in the US, and the US a veto in the security council. But that is it.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Really ? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Have you ever wondered why the "targets" in Palestine are always surrounded by their cousins, nephews and nieces, assorted random children from the street, etc? They're not *really* just always going to a wedding or a family reunion obviously. It's for protection and giving their people something to get angry about when they're injured or killed.

      The whole situation is sad, but that does not make Israel a "bad guy". Yes, they could just never attack anybody because they are always surrounded by their extended family, or you could say the people planning attacks on Israel should have the decency towards their own people to endanger them as little as possible. I agree with the latter more than the former. Using women and children as shields is more despicable than anything Israel does.

    2. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever wondered why the "targets" in Palestine are always surrounded by their cousins, nephews and nieces, assorted random children from the street, etc? They're not *really* just always going to a wedding or a family reunion obviously. It's for protection and giving their people something to get angry about when they're injured or killed.


      Right. How inconsiderate these Palestinian dudes don't paint a big fat neon pink target mark on their back. Won't someone think of Israeli assassins?
    3. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      From my point of view the only difference is that Israel due to historical reason has a stronger lobby in the US, and the US a veto in the security council.

      That, and in the US you can be fined $50,000 and imprisoned for 5 years for knowingly participating in a boycott of Israeli goods.

      Boycott Israel!

      There. Now every US citizen or resident who reads this post must go and report to the Dept of Thought Pol^H^H^H^H^H Commerce within 3 months, good little comrades that you are.

    4. Re:Really ? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Have you ever wondered why the "targets" in Palestine are always surrounded by their cousins, nephews and nieces, assorted random children from the street, etc?

      Because.... they live in cities?
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:Really ? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Hezbollah shares one very important characteristic with the Nazi's. They like to put their weapons stockpiles near schools and hospitals in order to dissuade more civilized opponents.

      Israel infact LET LEBANON OFF EASY. They should have not bothered with anything outside of Hezbollah weapons range. Mebbe they could have buggered the Beruit airport a bit just as a symbolic gesture. Other than that, anything north of the Litani should have been off limits.

      South of that line, Israel should have done their best to make sure that any enemy weapons implacements were destroyed. Attempts by Hezbollah to use civilians as human shields should not have been a consideration.

      The politics and liberal whining surrounding this entire situation (and modern warfare in general) rather sabotages such a straightforward and pragmatic approach.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Really ? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      From my point of view the only difference is that Israel due to historical reason has a stronger lobby in the US, and the US a veto in the security council. But that is it.


      It also might have something to do with the geopolitical chess game between the US and the USSR that went on for several decades.
    7. Re:Really ? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well son of a bitch, I thought this was a troll, but when I read the requirements, it's spelled out pretty clearly:

      "The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy."

      If that isn't as interventionist as it gets, I don't know what is. That's just flat out nuts!

    8. Re:Really ? by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      Hezbollah shares one very important characteristic with the Nazi's. They like to put their weapons stockpiles near schools and hospitals in order to dissuade more civilized opponents.

      I always find comments like this extremely curious. Do you think the U.S. has some minimum distance a hospital or school must be from a military base? Pick any military base in the United States and do some Google searches for nearby schools and hospitals. You know, for your kids to go to while your stationed. Hell, often enough your kids can attend K-12 right there on the military base itself.

      And that's in the U.S. where we have plenty of room to put schools a good distance from any sort of military location. Try checking more densely populated areas like Europe or, oh, the Middle East and it's damn near impossible to find a military base that isn't adjacent to some brand of civilian facility.

      One would also point out that if Hospitals are considered military targets if they treat soldiers (wtf else are they supposed to do with injured soldiers?), then you better have a nice stockpile of weapons nearby to defend it. Further, if hospitals are so overwhelmed that every bed is vital, what are you supposed to do with civilians that need treatment? "Sorry, sir. This is a military hospital only. Could you please move a safe distance away to die, we wouldn't want you to be inadvertently targeted."

      Here's the facts buddy: Israel didn't exist till 70'sh years ago. That's less then many a single life span. There are islamic peoples alive today who remember being forcefully removed from their homes by the Israeli aggressors and many, many more who were raised in soil poor squalor while being told their grandfather tilled the land that Israel stole from the family. Israel can't even claim the shield of time for their actions like Europeans/Americans can for the Indians. They are, in fact, the new Crusaders reclaiming the Holly Land from Islam. Don't doubt that for a second. They may politicize it, plea to history, etc. but when it comes right down to it there is only ONE reason they would choose that little ball of dirt out of all the available places on earth to go: God gave it to them and they're willing to murder, kill, and commit genocide to get it.

      Does that justify and absolve all atrocities by the Islamists? Of course not, but when genocide is being perpetrated by a vastly militarily superior opponent with a willingness to bulldoze peasants, kill your children, and assassinate your leaders uncompromisingly a nation can be pushed to take some pretty horrific countermeasures. To say that Israel is defending against aggressors is a gross misrepresentation of historical fact. It would be akin to if Mexico invaded Texas, kicked all the Texans out of the fertile areas, took over all the ports, rerouted roads etc to circumvent their shanty towns, denied the fact that "Texan" is an actual culture, and then bitched about the U.S. constantly attacking and trying to reclaim the area for the next 100 years.

      Of course, Mexico would have a vastly more legitimate justification for doing so then then Israel could ever dream. But I think you get the point of my loose analogy.

    9. Re:Really ? by maop · · Score: 1
      Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon that had nothing to do with Hezbollah. This is according to eyewitness accounts reported by Australia's investigative journalism program, Four Corners.

      About 200 Australians were trapped in Aytaroun as the village was pummelled by Israeli bombs and nearby Hezbollah fighters lobbed rockets onto Israeli towns.

      "It's just beyond fear, beyond fear," recalls Sydneysider Michael Ibrahim. Etched into his memory is a dead child, aged two or three, burnt beyond recognition. He helped bury some of the 12 people who were killed in one family when an Israeli jet dropped a bomb in the centre of the village.

      Thirty-eight civilians died in Aytaroun. They were among more than 1000 Lebanese people who died in 34 days of war between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah meanwhile fired nearly 4000 rockets into Israel, killing 43 civilians.

      It is possible to find entire episode on the Internet if you look hard.
    10. Re:Really ? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      You apparently "forgot" this part: "nearby Hezbollah fighters lobbed rockets onto Israeli towns"

      That sounds strangely familiar. Oh yes! Never mind, it doesn't really matter that Hezbollah attacked from civilian areas on purpose to draw Israeli fire there... Israel is evil no matter what!

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    11. Re:Really ? by maop · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but according to eyewitness accounts Israeli aircraft bombed areas where there was no rocket fire. In the situation reported in the account there was rocket fire outside of town in the wilderness but when the pilot couldn't stop the rocket fire with bombing the wilderness the pilot decided to bomb inside the town where there was no rocket fire.

      Whatever you are describing is a separate case.

    12. Re:Really ? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. What's documented is that Hezbollah attacked, and then ran away quickly and/or hid their weapons, so that when Israeli troops returned fire they would hit where the Hezbollah cowards used to be.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    13. Re:Really ? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Obviously I didn't mean "surrounded by" in the way you seem to have interpreted it, which would be "within a few miles of".

    14. Re:Really ? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      That's a good point about US military bases, but I would ask (and I don't know the answer): If the US was in the middle of a war and we were actually being bombed on our own territory, would there be children in the schools that are ON military bases? I really doubt it, but who knows. I certainly wouldn't let my children go to school there in that time! Furthermore, and again I don't know, but in the US military bases are fairly large, so if these weapon stockpiles are bombed, would that even damage the schools, which are likely at least a mile away (this is only judging from the few large military bases I've seen)? It's not the same as storing weapons literally in the school's (or mosque's) gym or basement.

      I don't get your point about military hospitals -- they're not considered valid targets are they? Are you saying that the US stores weapons INSIDE its military hospitals DURING a war? I would be very surprised by that because as you say that makes them a target.

      Your whole paragraph about Israel is stuff I've heard before, but genocide? That's really abusing the term, since they're not going around killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with their superior military.

    15. Re:Really ? by maop · · Score: 1

      What you just described in no way out-rules the eyewitness account in the news report. So the cowardly Hezbollah moved around? That just reinforces the notion that the Israeli air attacks didn't get the Hezbollah fighters in wilderness.

    16. Re:Really ? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Hezbollah fighters in the wilderness? What do you mean? These terrorists attacked from their own civilian areas and UN bases to draw Israeli fire there!

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  25. Doonesbury foresaw this! by moranar · · Score: 1

    Suddenly, last weeks' Doonesbury strips seem prescient:
    http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.ht ml?uc_full_date=20070604

    --
    "I think it would be a good idea!"
    Gandhi, about Internet Security
    1. Re:Doonesbury foresaw this! by moranar · · Score: 1

      Oh, the news was dated June 3. Not so much foresight, then.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
  26. Linux Download Managers by ancarett · · Score: 1

    They're working on a new version of the manager that runs Linux: http://developer.emusic.com/ and I know that there's also a Python eMusic, Dromanova, that's getting rave reviews and can be downloaded here: http://boykin.acis.ufl.edu/?p=97

    --
    ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
  27. open source emusic download manager (java) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try eMusic/j:

    http://www.kallisti.net.nz/EMusicJ/HomePage

    This works on fine on my Linux setup. Haven't had to use the official software at all.

  28. A bit rich by maroberts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Beatles and Lennon/McCartney some of the last music to be electronically available due to obstructionism from *both* the original group and the label.

    It's almost like Saul being converted on the way to Damascus.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:A bit rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't because of Paul. He doesn't own any of the right to his songs (if I recall correctly). I'm pretty sure they're all owned by Michael Jackson.

    2. Re:A bit rich by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      Whoops posted that as AC ...

    3. Re:A bit rich by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      No, Michael Jackson does not own the rights to the recordings. AppleCorps owns the rights to the recordings. Michael Jackson *used to* own the publishing rights for the sheet music (not the recordings).

    4. Re:A bit rich by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 1

      Michael Jackson sold his rights to the Northern Songs catalog a year or two ago, but otherwise you're right.

      Northern Songs was formed in 1963 to publish the songs written by Lennon and McCartney. They each had a 15% stake in the company until 1970, when they both agreed to sell their shares in exchange for getting out of the contract that required they continue their songwriting partnership through 1973: the band was in the middle of self-destructing at the time, and neither wanted to see the other, let alone have to share songwriting credit. In a sequence of messy legal maneuvers, the rights to Northern Songs were eventually sold to ATV (a British television company).

      ATV held onto the rights until 1985, when they put them up for auction. Paul McCartney bid for them, but was outbid by Michael Jackson, who had apparently been encouraged to make an offer by Yoko Ono. McCartney had approached Ono about making a joint bid, but she had rebuffed him. This put Jackson and McCartney on bad terms, and after Jackson refused to raise McCartney's royalties (which had remained unchanged since the 1960s, despite continued sales) their friendship effectively ended.

      In 1995, Jackson sold half of his shares in Northern Songs to Sony Music. This formed the basis of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which was jointly owned by Jackson and Sony (at 50% each). In 2005, as I mentioned before, Jackson put his half up as collateral on a loan to pay off his massive debt. The ultimate fate of the catalog remains in limbo.

      Also, to be precise, while the Northern Songs catalog comprises most of the Beatles' output, it doesn't comprise all of it. Although George Harrison's early work was produced under contract to Northern (an arrangement that annoyed Harrison enough that he wrote a song about his disillusionment, "Only a Northern Song"), his later material was published under his own company. Also, there are a number of early Lennon/McCartney compositions that were published prior to the formation of Northern Songs, including "Love Me Do," the rights to which have since been purchased by McCartney's own company, MPL Communications.

      To further muddy the waters, this is only part of the reason why the Beatles' catalog has yet to appear online. The Beatles' Apple Corps has been engaged in a number of legal battles with a variety of groups, including Apple Computer over trademark issues and EMI over unpaid royalties, that have cast a cloud over things. Since both of these cases have recently been resolved, there's been a lot of speculation that the catalog will be made available online soon. Regardless, most of this can be said to stem from the same root cause, namely the poor management and general disinterest of the Beatles themselves during the period of the group's breakup in the late 1960s/early 1970s. In that sense, one might be able to blame it on McCartney (and Lennon, Harrison, and Starr), but it's not like McCartney made a deliberate decision to keep the Beatles' songs offline.

      --
      Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
  29. War crime by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hezbollah fired a bunch of low tech rockets at Israel. Total victims is on the order of a few dozens.

    Israel responded by dropping thousands of 1-ton bombs, fragmentation bombs and laser-guided missiles on the whole Lebanese territory. Casualties in the hundreds, if not thousands. And Hezbollah is *not* Lebanon. It's a shiah organization. Not all shiites are members. And Lebanese has christians and sunnis. Well, guess what, all of them got fragged.

    Plus Israel specifically targetted infrastructure, such as bridges and Beyrut's oil refinery (resulting in the worse oil spill in the mediterranean ever), which had nothing to do with terrorists. See, militants carry their RPG by foot or moped; they don't drive armored vehicles, and don't really need those bridges to do their guerilla.

    1. Re:War crime by rlp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hezbollah fired a bunch of low tech rockets at Israel

      Yeah, over four thousand of them at Israeli cities. Hezbollah fired them from positions in civilian areas or sometimes even built-in to civilian homes. And a large percentage were heavy duty rockets they'd obtained from Iran.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    2. Re:War crime by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      1) Hezbollah fired a bunch of low tech rockets at Israel.

      2) Israel responded by dropping thousands of 1-ton bombs

      Given that anyone with an IQ above his shoe size could work out that 2) was a fairly likely response, why did Hezbollah start it in the first place? Are they completely stupid, or do they care about the ordinary Lebanese people even less than the Israelis do?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    3. Re:War crime by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      How is a christian or sunni Lebanese supposed to influence what Hezbollah does?

      Or even a non-member shiah, for that matter.

      Again, for the 100th time, Israel didn't just target Hezbollah, they bombed ALL of Lebanon. And those Iran-supplied weapons you speak of? How do they compare to US-supplied frag bombs dropped by US-supplied F-16s? Do they have US-supplied GPS targetting? Do they have US-supplied laser guidance systems? You say Hezbollah fired on civilian targets. Israel bombed the CITY of Beirut, including, again, its refinery. Is this not a civilian target? Were militants hiding in between the distillation towers? Are you kidding me?

      Israel *deliberately* targetted civilians in this war. So did Hezbollah, true. That's my point: what we have here is two equally evil (but not equally powerful) terrorist organizations. One is Hezbollah, the other is the Israeli gov't.

    4. Re:War crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hezbollah fired a bunch of low tech rockets at Israel. Total victims is on the order of a few dozens.


      Yes, yes... Hezbollah are terrible shots. Thanks for pointing it out and keeping score.
    5. Re:War crime by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Israel didn't just target Hezbollah, they bombed ALL of Lebanon.
      Er, no. They attacked Hezbollah positions, and they took out targets of military importance.

      Israel *deliberately* targetted civilians in this war.
      No, they did not. Civilians were killed because Hezbollah attacked Israel from civilian/non-combatant targets on purpose, to draw Israeli fire there.

      what we have here is two equally evil (but not equally powerful) terrorist organizations.
      No, we do not, since Israel did not target civilians, but Hezbollah. That Hezbollah chose to use their own civilians and UN bases as shields is not Israel's fault.
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    6. Re:War crime by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      And those Iran-supplied weapons you speak of? How do they compare to US-supplied frag bombs dropped by US-supplied F-16s? Do they have US-supplied GPS targetting? Do they have US-supplied laser guidance systems?
      You seem to consider having military strength as a bad thing. Are you French, by any chance?
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  30. Really? by east+coast · · Score: 1

    And I find that all a bit disturbing
     
    Oddly enough Sir Paul didn't find it disturbing when he was sucking off the teat of the industry and wasn't disturbed when the brokering of the rights to "his" music was making him the richest musician in history.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Really? by gsslay · · Score: 1
      the rights to "his" music


      OK, I'll bite. Whose music was it, if it wasn't his? And after all those millions of people bought it, who should have got the money?

  31. 10 minute mail by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Or you can use 10minutemail to create an account yourself, and then post it on bugmenot.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:10 minute mail by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Mailinator addresses are free and they don't expire. Which can be handy if you forget your password for some account you used them to sign up for

      http://www.mailinator.com/

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  32. DRM by init100 · · Score: 1

    From the summary:

    he talked about ending his long-time relationship with EMI

    At that point, I thought that he was disappointed that EMI would be publishing music without draconian DRM, and that this was the reason why he ended his relationship with them.

    Turned out to be slightly different. :)

    1. Re:DRM by C+A+S+S+I+E+L · · Score: 1
      At that point, I thought that he was disappointed that EMI would be publishing music without draconian DRM, and that this was the reason why he ended his relationship with them.

      Or maybe it was because EMI is now dead.

  33. From the article: by montyzooooma · · Score: 1
    "He noticed it when his cellphone, stuffed with too many text messages, voicemails and phone numbers, started flashing at him: "Memory almost full." It was remarkably like his own brain, weighted down with half-written songs, daughter Bea's schedule, the lyrics to old Beatles B-sides, the blurring faces of long-buried loves and friends. Delete? Re-record?"

    Or this being Slashdot, perhaps a backup strategy relying on a Beowulf cluster of somethings.

  34. Re:Paul McCartney on people being in music too lon by tokul · · Score: 1

    Is Mr McCartney trying to be ironic?
    Sir James Paul McCartney
  35. Good old Paul... by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

    Going in and out of style, but still guaranteed to raise a smile.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  36. Re:Here's my solution to the whole music industry. by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

    To make things easier and handle all the possible channels, the artists could band together into a group. Perhaps they could call it the Independent Recording Artists of America. This group would facilitate pushing the music out through various electronic media, and would fund its activites by taking a percentage of the gross income. Perfect plan!

  37. Re:Translation (continued): by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Paul McCartney supports a call for copyright on music recordings to be extended from 50 years to 95 or even 'life plus 70 years'

    "Will you still need me, will you still feed me
    when I've been dead for 64 years" ?

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  38. At least copy and paste the texts! by antdude · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't mind the logins as long as BugMeNot has accounts for me to use. Anyways, I am surprised no one copied and pasted the article. Here it is:

    Paul McCartney is a man on the run
    He has a new album, a new record label, new living arrangements and even a new plan about putting the Beatles' music catalog online this year.
    By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer
    June 3, 2007

    What's in a name?
    What's in a name?
    click to enlarge
    Winchelsea, England -- HE noticed it when his cellphone, stuffed with too many text messages, voicemails and phone numbers, started flashing at him: "Memory almost full." It was remarkably like his own brain, weighted down with half-written songs, daughter Bea's schedule, the lyrics to old Beatles B-sides, the blurring faces of long-buried loves and friends.

    Delete? Re-record? Which parts go, and which -- the carpets of bluebells outside Liverpool in spring, sitting on twin beds in a hotel room with John Lennon writing "She Loves You" -- stay locked in the hard drive of time?

    "Your memory is always almost full these days. There's so much going on, so I thought it was a poetic way to sum up modern life. Just overload, information overload," Paul McCartney says of his 21st solo album, "Memory Almost Full," which explores the persistence of memory, preparing for the settling of scores and a life too full to hold it all.

    "It's been pointed out to me that since the album is heavy on retrospective stuff, there's a sort of finality about it. 'Memory almost full,' any second now it will be full, and, 'Goodbye cruel world.' It's not what I meant about it at all, but I can see that meaning, and I like, you know, people to have different interpretations. "Abbey Road" to us was a crossing outside the studio. I'm sure to some people, it meant Monastery Lane, and we liked that sort of quasi-religious feel of it too."

    The album (out Tuesday) marks the 64-year-old McCartney's plunge into another kind of digital age. Ending his relationship with Capitol Records/EMI that began in 1962, McCartney has hooked up with Starbucks' new Hear Music Label and unlocks the new album (along with the rest of his solo catalog) for online downloads. McCartney also says the Beatles catalog is on deck for online release near the end of the year, although EMI has not announced a date.

    The video for "Dance Tonight," the party-tune, mandolin-laced foot-tapper that opens the record, made its world premiere on YouTube, in a bid to charm a third generation with the kind of winsome songs their grandmother should know.

    "I was bored with the old record company's jaded view," McCartney says, plopped on a sofa in the large, comfortable farmhouse that doubles as a rehearsal studio here in the rolling, tree-studded hills of rural East Sussex. Outside, there is an old windmill, and in the near distance, the hazy blue carpet of the English Channel.

    "They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget ... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call 'market' it. And I find that all a bit disturbing.

    "I write it, I play it, I record it, and that's all fun. And you go to the record company, and it gets very boring. You sit around in rooms with people, and you're almost falling asleep" -- he rolls his head down midchest --"and they're almost falling asleep.

    "My record producer [David Kahne] said the major record labels these days are like dinosaurs sitting around discussing the asteroid. They know it's going to hit. They don't know when, they don't know where it's coming from. But it's sort of hit already. With iTunes, and all of that."

    McCartney heard that Starbucks' content development guy, Alan Mintz, loved his music; better, he was a bass player. They arranged to meet in New York, along with Howard Schultz, the chief executive who turned Starbucks from

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:At least copy and paste the texts! by spiedrazer · · Score: 1

      "I am surprised no one copied and pasted the article"... Probably because it's copyright infringement???

      --
      Keep passing the open windows...
    2. Re:At least copy and paste the texts! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Pfffbt. So, what if we print out the story and we share with people (not making money here)?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:At least copy and paste the texts! by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      HOW DARE YOU SHARE INFORMATION!!! What do you think this is, the age of the intarwebz?

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  39. What is your beef with him? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    He is one of the most important figures in pop music, respect to that.

    So what is exactly wrong with him?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:What is your beef with him? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      At one time, oh about 40 years ago, he was an "important figure" in popular music.

      Now? Pretty much completely irrelevant.

      What's wrong with him? He's still deluding himself that he's relevant.

      Hell, Mick fucking Jagger is a more relevant figure in pop music, and Mick's completely irrelevant....

      If those old fucks weren't so pathetic, they would almost be funny!

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    2. Re:What is your beef with him? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Hell, Mick fucking Jagger is a more relevant figure in pop music, and Mick's completely irrelevant.... If those old fucks weren't so pathetic, they would almost be funny!"

      Oh c'mon...you at least gotta be rooting for Keith Richards...I mean, just the mere fact that the 'human-riff' is still breathing, and inspiring pirate characters, and banging out open-G chords on a 5 string telecaster....

      Well...at least you gotta root for one of the last of the rock and rollers...I doubt we'll see the likes of that creativity and longevity, and plain old survival (sex, DRUGS, and rock and roll takes its toll) ever again.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:What is your beef with him? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I argee, most #1 tracks of all time (~70, all original) and still a household name 40yrs after the peak of his career. Damn kids wouldn't recognise talent if it bit them.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:What is your beef with him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, idiot, are a fucking asshole. You have no clue. After reading what you've posted here, I'm convinced that what you consider relevant is UTTERLY irrelevant.

      When you grow up and stop typing ignorant, hateful posts from your parent's basement, you'll realize how stupid you were.

    5. Re:What is your beef with him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And after reading what you have posted, Mr. Coward, I can tell that you are as clueless as you think I am. You see, I was around back when he was relevant. I know relevance when it comes to popular music. Paul McCartney is utterly past it as far as "popular music" goes.

      Go back to masturbating to your old Beatles album covers, I'll keep moving forward in the real world.

      You British are such fucking tossers!

    6. Re:What is your beef with him? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      artists such as Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have backed a call for an extension of copyright on sound recordings from 50 years to 95 years.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6216152.s tm
      Not only is he an unabashed recipient of the current egregious copyright extensions and lopsided radio play tracking, the greedy git wants MORE.
      Since he fails to appreciate what he already has, I see no point in giving him anything further. There are far more deserving artists competing for my money and attention.
      I grew up with him and his cohorts music, but unfortunately he fails to "get it", and worse, abuses his position in the attempt to change the deal we agreed upon after the fact.
      If he truly deserved the "Sir" I would expect from him the good grace of something along the lines of "the public has been very good to me over the years and I look forward to having fulfilling my obligation to the public and releasing those works to be a lasting part of our culture and posterity". Perhaps, if he feels strongly about artists that MAY be dependent upon royalties and have neglected to invest, create new works or otherwise fend for themselve and their families he might start a trust with some small portion of of his hundreds of millions and identify those artists truly deserving of a stipend rather than calling for the theft (nay, piracy) of the public domain and asking us to shoulder the additional burden for himself, U2, Tull, et al to continue their over-privledged lives.
      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    7. Re:What is your beef with him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm not british, i just have good taste. you fail it. :)

  40. Logical fallacy: kill the messanger. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    What he is saying is truth: the music industry execs have not got a clue and he, as the old pro he is, he finds it disturbing.

    Your ad hominem does not address the valid points he is making.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  41. I disagree by JudgeFurious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think he's probably reaped 1.5 billion in spite of said system not from it.

      If one took all the money that the Beatles made from their work (collectively and individually as solo artists) and stacked it in a nice neat pile I'm sure that pile would fit easily inside the shadow cast by the mountain of money that other people have made off of their work.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    1. Re:I disagree by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      I think he made his loot mostly by buying up a lot of Motown content.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  42. ob Alan Partridge by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

    Wings - the band the bbeatles could have been.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  43. Oh please, don't be puerile. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    What would have you done hero?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Oh please, don't be puerile. by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't have been a hypocrite and slandered the record companies that supported my ass through it all.

      If you think I'm one of those "record companies just rip off artists" types you're dead wrong.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Oh please, don't be puerile. by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Times have changed and the music industry has not. That's his point.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    3. Re:Oh please, don't be puerile. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      >I wouldn't have been a hypocrite and slandered the record companies that supported my ass through it all. Umm...I think you have it ass backward. He was the one supporting THEM.

    4. Re:Oh please, don't be puerile. by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he was supporting them when he was living in poverty in Liverpool trying to get things going with some other unknowns as a professional musician. Yeah, right.

      Not even to bring up the fact that he had enough money and opportunity to go on his own earlier in his career. Why would he have stuck with a bad deal? Because he must have been getting something out of if.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:Oh please, don't be puerile. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      You're point escapes me. No, he wasn't supporting EMI when he was 14. And they weren't supporting him? So?

  44. in spite of said system by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Or one could view "Taxman": http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=101

    I find it interesting that the Beatles, or at least the royalties on their music, may well be one of the driving forces for copyright extension/abomination in the UK.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  45. Re:Translation (continued): by tibbetts · · Score: 1

    That's because he owns the copyrights to Buddy Holly's catalog, and February 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the day Holly's plane went down in an Iowa field. My understanding is that the Holly catalog is a significant source of Sir Paul's 800 million.

    --
    :wq
  46. ...so? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    In my experience in the music industry (and granted it was a long time ago), musicians would get typically less than 10 percent of sales, usually 6 percent. If it was a group, that 6 percent was split with the group.

    You're making a moralistic assumption here: that it's the musicians who ought to be making at least as much money as everybody else in the industry, if not more.

    The facts remain the following:

    1. The music industry brings to the deal a network for promoting music and artists, distribution, and management of things like royalties. The demand for these services enormously exceeds the supply: for every sucker who wants to sign on to a major label, there's another sucker who's willing to undercut them.
    2. The musicians bring to the deal their music. The supply of this good, in the aggregate, greatly exceeds the demand. There's tons and tons of very good musicians out there that most people will never hear.
    3. Music doesn't have to be very good to sell very well. Labels can leverage their economies of scale to make a lot of money on bad music.

    Now that is why most of the money in the music business isn't made by musicians. Not because of some insidious and evil plot to deny the musicians of what ought to be theirs.

  47. Of coure HE doesn't need "marketing" by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call "market" it.

    Oh yes, "marketing." Such a useless function when you're already a musical legend who has been thoroughly marketed for decades.

  48. No iTunes+ by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Oddly, it's not available as an iTunes+ purchase... at least not that I could find.

    Luckily, I also subscribe to eMusic and can now make use of the subscription...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  49. Recording Contract Math by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 1

    I worked in show business for over 25 years, you know, last I checked they still pay the Band cash for live performances, care to ask why?
    This link info is old but ultimately relevant.

    Courtney Love Does the Math (2000)

    "They can't torture me like they could Lucinda Williams."

    http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/l ove/print.html

    Not the "dumb chick" they make her out as.

    McCartney's no fool. Surround yourself with quality people.

    "Because we were bloody brilliant. Pure genius, that's all. 'We were very good,' he [McCartney] said modestly,' " and he smiles for his failure to conjure up the requisite humility. "The good thing is, now you can say that. People used to say, 'Don't you think you're a bit conceited?' And I'd say, 'I know what you mean, you could say it's conceited, but I really do know we're good. I can feel it every time we write a song.' Because John and I were very good collaborators. We really helped each other massively and admired each other greatly."

    No brag, just a fact. [flamewar ensues]

    Funny thing about his music, a personal thing, I'd buy his latest album/CD - whatever, slap it on and without fail I'd HATE it, put it away, then come back to it - find myself playing it more and more - to where finally it was my favorite album - most every time ... this would happen.
    "Something in the wayyy ...."

    My all time favorite? His first:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCartney_(album)

    --
    ~hylas
  50. Sorry boomers, but your idol is full of shit by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    They're just words. McCartney is full of shit and has been almost from the beginning of his career. The reason that he left EMI and is going to this lame Starbucks model is because he's greedy and doesn't want EMI to sell his music DRM-free on iTunes for $.99 a song (of which he only gets a small percentage). If Starbucks hadn't offered him a larger chunk of money than EMI per song--with DRM lockdown to boot, you can bet he wouldn't have went anywhere.

    All this "I'm just sooooo excited about Starbuck's great new music model!!!!" crap is just a bunch of horseshit that some Starbucks PR exec wrote for him.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  51. Not just music, how about games by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    With games consoles and PC games you still often buy a disc and install.

    With the Wii Nintendo have sort of shown us the future, download games through the console. They're not ruling out distributing Wii games in this manner either.

    1. Re:Not just music, how about games by east+coast · · Score: 1

      With the Wii Nintendo have sort of shown us the future, download games through the console.

      Yeah, because Steam wasn't doing this long before the Wii was ever announced.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  52. Olds for nerds? by jcoleman · · Score: 1

    This album came out LAST week.

    1. Re:Olds for nerds? by davo_1 · · Score: 0
      Pheah

      free legal.

      when those two words form a sentence it is time to run away when it comes to 'online music'. >;-)

  53. Weapons/Isreal GAS/Iran/Iraq/etc by bdjacobson · · Score: 1

    Starbucks isn't part of a megacorp that sells weapons

    Starbucks had a little get together called 'bowling for Israel', to raise funds for Israel.

    you'd never guess who the Israeli side of things was organised by, yes the very same person who organises fund raising for Israel's troops.

    maybe not a megacorp that sells weapons but certainly one that supports oppressive regimes. Nice troll OP. If my country were 50 miles wide and I were in danger of losing my life every time I left my house, I'd be making weapons too. How can you be so insensitive?

    If you stand by what you say then that very same logic will tell you to stop buying gas because you're indirectly funding the people invading Israel and causing all the problems in the first place. You should probably stop buying Happy Meals too since those little toys say "Made in China" on the bottom. Can't be supporting Communist China now can we?
  54. Is it just me, or by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    is this 'article' the sort of rambling, meandering nonsense you'd expect in a second-rate blog rather than a well-known newspaper? I know we complain about /.'s editorial process, but whoever published this shit deserves a swift kick in the butt.
    Mentioning Steve Jobs is a non-sequitur, and the article goes downhill from there. Either talk about the Apple/Apple deal, or don't. Just don't half-refer to it without giving any real information. And the allegations about his marriage are a cheap shot.