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.'"
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++;
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
Is Mr McCartney trying to be ironic?
It was never the musicians, even when supposedly was about the musicians.
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 The way music and musicians are managed today is out-of-date.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
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.
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
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/
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
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.........
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.
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.
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.