Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Attacks Free Prince CD
Mike writes "You might not like Prince, but he's planning on giving away a free CD in a national British newspaper. Harmless publicity, right? The music industry disagrees. Executives are practically going insane over the idea and are threatening to 'retaliate'. 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behavior like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores. And I say that to all the other artists who may be tempted to dally with the Mail on Sunday,' said Entertainment Retailers Association spokesman Paul Quirk, who also said it would be 'an insult' to record stores. Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?"
Should make for utterly gripping testimony in the antitrust lawsuit under Sherman Act Part One.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
We could of our own free will send Prince $1 for each free CD he gives us!
Do RIAA execs throw chairs?
Disclaimer: I love Prince's work, have seen him live many times, and his guitar is amazing and every bit as good as Eddie Van Halen or Eric Clapton, who yes, I've also seen live.
Prince is rich. He is content with his career. He was already in one tizzy with the labels and bolted, which made him more money. He became Prince again, made more money. He already owns his own recording studio. Okay, so he may lose a distributor or two. Prince has never shown himself to care about the NORMAL way of doing things.
Bearded Dragon
I bristle at the thought of a 'right to retaliate'. Right to defend one's self, sure. But vengence isn't a 'right', is it? Or is this a case of two wrongs making a right? I'm confused...
I don't particularly like his music, but I'm inclined to buy a CD just to support him.
I, on the other hand, haven't been buying (or downloading) much if any music for years. But not long ago I hit a Prince video on the cable and was impressed by how good (IMHO) the music was. (The stage show was a separate issue - but doesn't come across on the audio-only CD. B-) ) Tastes vary.
This gives me an excuse to go out and buy a CD I can expect to be decent, supporting a good artist AND tweaking the RIAA's nose simultaneously.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Exactly. Who would not read this and think: 1) Big business record companies crying about this? 2) Little ole Prince...who is a man of the people. (He really has looked out for his fellow recording artists...and helped many escape the trap that is the RECORDING companies contracts.) 3) How will this tantrum help the record companies...it wont. Prince who was already a hero in my book for fighting the record companies and kickin their asses. (over his name / music)....is now approaching GOD status. I hope he does this again and again...and continues to PISS on the record companies. They have everything to fear from him. he does not NEED THEM AT ALL!!! and he is gathering new artists to the cause. He is getting their music made without the contracts for ownership of the musicians soul and he is breaking the mold. You may not like his music but as far as the man goes...there is little not to like. A lot think he was just an oversexed pop star...but truth is he is quite talented and very smart. Go Prince Go. I will do what i can to buy your music and your produced music. One last thing about the big record companies...you would think they would have learned that squaring off against Prince has been nothing but a dismal loss for them...yet they continue to act in ways that destroy them. As for the retaliation....BRING IT ON MFer's....I know Prince aint scared of you...and in a caged death match my moneys on Prince.
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
Disclaimer: I'm a musician. I'd prefer people to buy my music rather than just download it for free because, obviously, I can use that money that they pay to do things like pay my rent, eat something other than ramen noodles, fix/replace equipment, and put gas in the van (not to mention maintenance). Touring is "where the money's" at, so people keep saying, and I keep seeing "touring" as a break-even proposition at *best*, and most artists, if you bother to ask them, will tell you they're losing money by touring. Unless you're pulling in thousands of people to see you where economies of scale work better for you, merch sales are "pleasant bonuses" which means I might can eat something that's not on the 99 cent value menu for a meal. Not to mention that this is with a pretty decent network of people to give up couches and floors to save on Motel costs. Now, at age 34, it's harder and harder to do these kind of tours. Let's face it: I'm not in the next Green Day or Metallica or whatever. Those guys are the exceptions. Even Fugazi (who make a small mint touring and on record sales) are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of working artists are not rich. We rely upon our friendships and networks to keep us fed and sheltered when we're out on the road. We all have to quit jobs after saving up a small wad of cash just to tour, and once we get back, we come back to stacks of unpaid bills, eviction notices, storage room fees, unfaithful significant others, and the realization that the drummer (guitarist/bassist/etc) is a fucking prick and have to kick him out and look for a new one. Touring bands rarely keep jobs for more than a few months (imagine how that looks when you're applying anywhere), rarely have time to "improve skills" for better paying jobs (say, programming), and generally have a really tough time. Many bands break up during tours due to the fact that once you're in close proximity with your bandmates 24/7 for months at a time, stuffed in a van, sleeping next to each other on a cold, hard floor, and that every character flaw is magnified due to lack of proper sleep, nutrition, and stress. Not everyone can hack touring constantly.
/ranting at work (at least I have a decent paying tech job to support my losing effort)
And those of us who can, well, we generally love what we're doing. It's worth it.
So, from the artist's standpoint, I want you to buy my music. I want you to pay the $5-$10 we charge at the door and come see us because that $5-$10 really just gets us to the next show. Hell, I want you to buy a T-Shirt for $10 (HA!), a bunch of stickers ($1), a button ($1.50), and give the band a blowjob, because, well, I'm selfish that way.
But, if it comes down to strictly exposure, I want everyone to experience my music, whether they pay for it or not. If someone finds my music on Limewire, I want them to get it and hear it. You'll find most musicians have the same notion.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
No, he changed it on his own. He was trying to distance himself from their marketing machine, which is why he chose that goofy "symbol" as his name. Made it really tough on the marketing department, because he had no prounouncable name. He also said some typically bizarro Prince-type stuff about how he was "abandoning his slave-name" or something like that.
Also, his birth name really *is* Prince. It's not a stage name. Prince Rogers Nelson is the name on his birth certificate.
Prince is awesome. He best music is FAR behind him, but he still does some good stuff, and, well, his old stuff is so great that it doesn't even matter what else he does.
Okay, I was just being silly when I first posted about Prince, but, because I do love His Purpleness, I'll point out one of the many things that makes Prince amazing that those other bands don't have: read the liner notes of most Prince albums and you'll see...
Music and lyrics by Prince
Guitar: Prince
Bass: Prince
Drums: Prince
Keyboards: Prince
Vocals: Prince
Backup Vocals: Prince
etc.
Stevie Wonder actually did a lot of the same kind of thing and a lot of people don't know that about either of them. Now, on to your list, an (almost) alternate version might have something like:
40s - Charlie Parker
50s - Chuck Berry
60s - The Funk Brothers (the backup band on almost all the Motown records)
70s - James Brown
80s - Prince
90s - Dr. Dre
2000s - ??? (I live in hope, there's always something cool going on, even among all the crap.)
Now, what's different about my list?
I'm just sayin'.
Ok, but there's nothing wrong with working a 9 to 5 job to make a decent living, so you can play weekend tours on the side, and hope to get a little cash and exposure. You don't have to be the next Green Day or Metallica to taste success. Every time someone buys a CD or a shirt you've been succesful.
I feel you on the band member situation. I've been lucky to play with the same guys for over 10 years, but I know all the horror stories.
I gave up on joining the big leagues a long time ago, and it doesn't bother me. The quarterly cdbaby check is meager, but I have a real job...stay away from that 99 cent menu!
disrespectful to record stores? Hwah? How? Because they don't get to sell the CDs Prince decided to give away? I recently gave a camera to a friend... should the local camera shop be angry? I dinged their sales!
Replace "camera" with "music," and "local camera shop" with "giant media conglomerate," and the answer, I think, is yes.
It seems that in the past 10 years or so, many corporations have decided to treat anything that denies them revenue as if it's identical to actually taking something they already had. Personally, I think it's an effect of the type of cash-flow accounting and projection that's now overwhelmingly popular, where the entire worth of your business (read: stock price) is based on how much money you think you're going to make. When it turns out that, oops, you didn't actually make that much money, they go absolutely berzerk and start looking for anyone to pin the blame on. Because, to them, they've already made that money, in some weird way, as soon as they started projecting it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I think the AC makes a valid point. I also think he draws a wrong conclusion. If you make a knock-off of something a merchant creates either the original isn't valuable in itself, or the original will retain its value (or it could do both). Take the situation of knock-off designer bags. The original bag still sells for as much (arguably more - due to increased visibility increasing desire) while the people both buying and selling the knock off are also benefiting.
No number of obnoxious people on E! claiming that knock-offs "dishonor the brand" is going to make it true, just as no number of people calling copyright infringement theft will make that true. The difference is that fashion designers, along with artists, have figured out a viable business model, whereas the RIAA has not. Designers and artists understand the value of having an original prestige item and charge for it, the secondary market doesn't harm them at all. OTOH the RIAA fails to understand that something easily copied cannot be a mass consumer good. They're trying to have it both ways. They'd be better off selling albums for $3 and concert tickets for $50 (sort of how the MPAA is slightly more relevant due to the value of a movie screening) or sell authentic original CDs for $200.
Companies have found ways to be successful in spite of (sometimes because of) knock-offs, generics, reproductions, or piracy basically forever, why the RIAA seems so intent to buck this trend is beyond me.