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.'"
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.
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++;
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-mccartn ey3jun03,1,5298355.story
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.
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
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.
Is Mr McCartney trying to be ironic?
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.
This album is available DRM-free from emusic (I know, I was shocked too!)
http://www.emusic.com/album/11044/11044254.html
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
... 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.
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
"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).
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.
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.........
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!