Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Paul McCartney On Music In the Digital World

Posted by kdawson on from the all-you-need-is-MP3 dept.

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.'"

14 of 276 comments (clear)

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

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

  2. 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
  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. 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 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.