PDA

View Full Version : Why you should rob the music industry



JON9000
03-30-2005, 07:27 PM
Because they have been stealing from you. The record industry over the last twenty years has lied time and time again to justify the raising of prices on music. :greedy:

LIE #1 First, we have the advent of the CD. CDs were priced at around $13 when they came on the market, in contrast to record albums and cassette tapes that they charged around $7 for. While the sound quality was “better” and allowed for easy track access, they were much cheaper to produce, and were cheaper to ship than record albums. Less CDs were returned to the manufacturers due to breakage as well. In other words, they charged a lot more for a product that was cheaper to produce. :stupid:

LIE #2 CDs climbed to $18 retail for no reason at all in the early nineties. After failing to get used record stores closed, the record industry cited used CDs cutting into sales as an excuse for the price raise. Used CDs were a negligible part of the market, as the bulk is made up in new album sales. Catalogue titles were important, but not to the tune of another $5 per purchase. :stupid:

LIE #3 the industry has no money to discover and develop new talent. Without the profits of the major hit albums to buoy them, they can no longer do quality A&R. This is a load of crap as well. Since the mid nineties, the industry has churned out Britney Spears and her minions, truly the attack of the clones. The labels find a hot trend and copy it ad nauseam, a safe and profitable strategy. Also, it seems much of the A&R work is now done through the American Idol television show. :greedy:

LIE #4 Now, they are at it again. Legit music downloading from i-tunes is the subject of recent industry saber-rattling. The industry would have you believe that $1 per song is killing their profits and that the rate must be raised. The truth is that via downloading, the industry doesn’t have to pay a dime for storage, distribution, or breakage. They simply have to pay for album production and marketing (which they recoup from the artists anyway). The reality is that downloading offers the consumer flexibility, and the problem for the labels is that no one is going to give them $18 bucks for two good songs and 45 minutes of what is euphemistically called “filler”. :mad:

The industry would have been happy to continue charging ridiculous rates for the monopolies it has on the distribution of music, but super-retailers were eventually able to use their retailing power to argue prices down. The real friend of the music purchaser, however, is the free downloader. The industry realizes people will not pay exorbitant prices for a product they can substantially get for free, so the industry dropped new release prices to around $13 again. I currently download from i-tunes, but if the industry gets cute and raises my download prices, I may join the consumer revolt and the wild west of free music. Tommy Mottola will just have to live with one less super mansion to show off on “Cribs”. :Pirate:

Turbowars
03-30-2005, 08:39 PM
Take that LARS!!! Wuss!! Damn I hate him.

Reefer Shark
03-30-2005, 08:43 PM
I agree with you 100%. So much greed in the music industry....

Oh yeah... and I agree with you on Lars too Turbo! He's a total chump.

LusiferSam
03-30-2005, 10:40 PM
JON900, your Lie #3 is the one that really ticks me off. #1 I can live with, #2 I'm indifferent towards, and #4 is more annoying. But #3, that get my boiling. With crap like boy bands, bleach blonde clones, and "idols" being stuff down the throat of the market no wonder there's money left to go find any new acts.

Sure it takes money to go find and research new talent. But develop it? Come off if the band or person isn't good enough on their own before the record company steps in, they have no business with a record deal. Let them develop on their own. I think you'll get better music in the long run.

Kidhuman
03-30-2005, 11:01 PM
Aint no different than going tape to tape back in the 80's.

JON9000
03-31-2005, 12:20 AM
Take that LARS!!! Wuss!! Damn I hate him.
The problem I have with Lars is a little different. If anyone deserves the money, it is definitely the artist more than the label. The trick is, the reason you see Lars up there and not some relative unknown is because artists have to be extraordinarily successful before they see so much as a dime from record sales. Lars would not give a crap if he weren’t in that rarified air and therefore fabulously wealthy to begin with.

Remember, the record company gives the artist an “advance” to cut an album. The advance is then recouped from the $1 or so that goes to the artist out of every sale. If the artist is lucky enough to sell 500,000 copies, perhaps he will have paid the label back. Many artists never sell enough records to cover the advance, so they really make their money touring. Metallica makes a ton off both (and merchandising).

I think most artists out there really don’t give a crap, because they will never make much off record sales anyway.

Slicker
03-31-2005, 02:20 AM
I can't remember the last time I bought a CD. I get all of my music from file sharing sources. When these artists stop releasing crap and actually make a CD that has more than one song that I like then I may buy them but until then I'm going the free way.

arctangent
03-31-2005, 06:39 AM
When these artists stop releasing crap and actually make a CD that has more than one song that I like then I may buy them but until then I'm going the free way.

just out of interest slicker, which artists are you refering to by use of the word 'these'?

Slicker
03-31-2005, 06:52 AM
I'm mainly talking about rap as the "rock" nowadays just isn't very rockish so I don't even bother listening to it. It seems like 50% of rap albums are those little skits and such where they just talk and that stuff just bores me. If I buy an album I want music.

Bobby Fett
03-31-2005, 09:21 AM
What gripes me, using SW as an example, is that you can usually buy the movie DVD cheaper than the soundtrack CD. If I remember correctly, the DVD INCLUDES the soundtrack. So how much work can be involved in making the CD?

JediTricks
03-31-2005, 04:51 PM
Take that LARS!!! Wuss!! Damn I hate him.
Now now, to be fair, Lars Ulrich's only real complaint was about trading files of music that was not yet complete, thus undermining the artists' rights. Unfortunately, his big stupid mouth got him into trouble because he couldn't express himself without being a massive jerk, and labelled him the Napster-killer.


I don't buy music anymore, I don't download music anymore, I don't even listen to the CDs I already own. The labels have ruined music for me, I don't see them willing to take a pay cut in order to "save their troubled business". Fire the suits and drop the prices of CDs to $10 and under and the industry will thrive, until then it will continue to wither as it removes all artistic merit from the industry as it chokes the life out of real bands and creates more pop BS.

Jargo
03-31-2005, 05:29 PM
Ethically speaking, I'm opposed to illegal downloading of music. Which doesn't stop me doing it. However, I try to only download music from back catalogues where the artist has doubtless made their money back already. as in stuff from the 1970's and 1980's.
I try to buy CD albums when they're fairly new. but have to admit to waiting for them to hit the sales bins. Or buy them in three for two type deals. Or use an online supplier that offers them at cut price because of bulk purchasing.

There again. Thankfully the british music scene is still fairly healthy and alive despite the pop/rap/R'n'B malaise that throttles all creativity out of the music scene. (BTW what's EMO? see that a lot on US sites where music is discussed)

Pop is just music by numbers, randomly chosen tried and tested riffs laid down with lyrics a 13 year old might have written in poetry class all about teen angst. Even the pop artists aiming their stuff at an older audience still revel in those same sentiments. Rap is mostly depressing whinging and carping stream of consciousness drivel by men with an emotional/mental age of about 15. And R'n'B is what exactly? coz it's not really rhythm and blues to my ears. Usually it's just someone like Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey wannabes warbling arpegios and then mispronouncing words or using some sort of retard language of their own making. much like rap in that respect.

Sampling. Now there's another killer of the music industry. screw creativity and talent just hack chunks of someone elses work and lay down nonsensical lyrics over the top. Stick a non matching beat to the top and voila! A billboard top ten hit.
Dance music used to be creative in the use of samples. quite subtle crafting of various bits and pieces together in an intricate weave of synthetic but harmonious noise. Now it's just a drumbox and a couple of random samples thrown at it. possibly with some tone deaf wannabe pop star warbling the same word over and over and over and over and.................

Really, these days there's nothing much out there to make you want to go out and spend the money on a CD album. And yet in the UK at least CD singles are on the way out because everyone is really getting into downloading music. Legally or otherwise.

It's really natural progression for the CD album to die out like the cassette tape did. And as the world embraces the internet connectivity for the purchasing of music to go that route instead. And people will only buy what they want. Fewer people buy an album because they don't want the fillers. So buying by the track seems the best way to do it. Bands like U2 are going to be laughing all the way to the bank as they've done the big stadium album performance thing and now turn their hands to the art of perfecting the single track. Take the pressure off artists by not forcing them to produce hit album after hit album and maybe the creativity will start to flow again as they concentrate on single tracks instead.

Most up and coming artists only get a singles deal to begin with anyway.

And now I've run out of steam here. tata.

Reefer Shark
03-31-2005, 05:41 PM
I still buy CD's, but I don't pay more than $12 for 'em. I'm not into to any mainstream crap at all, it all sounds the same to me. I mostly order my CD's from Relapse Records.com (mainly underground metal/hardcore stuff). A buddy at work does the same, and we burn copies for each other.

It may be unethical - but I really don't give a crap. When has the music industry ever been ethical anyways?

El Chuxter
03-31-2005, 06:06 PM
Jargo! How goes it, O Mighty Captain of the Death Star Junior? :)


There again. Thankfully the british music scene is still fairly healthy and alive despite the pop/rap/R'n'B malaise that throttles all creativity out of the music scene. (BTW what's EMO? see that a lot on US sites where music is discussed)

I wondered for a while what "emo" was as well, until I was trying to find some info about a song I thought was pretty cool that supposedly is considered emo. It's basically one of those completely meaningless terms that younger fans will buy into wholeheartedly, only to realize years later that it meant diddly squat. (Remember "grunge"? "Alternative"? "Trip-Hop"?)

In a nutshell, a band is considered emo if they'd be really filthy liars to say that their main musical influences were anyone but The Cure, Depeche Mode, Radiohead, and The Eels.

Back to the subject at hand, I think the fact that you chose to use the word "rob" completely undermines your arguments. "Rob" implies a conscious decision to take something without permission from someone, knowing it's wrong.

Is illegal downloading wrong? There's no question about it. Despite what most people seem to believe, most musicians are not multimillionaires who sleep on massive stacks of money with many beautiful women (or men, or whatever they prefer). If you don't believe me, check out the Tendercrisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch commercial. Hootie needs the money, and he's better off than the vast majority of musicians.

The recording industry is a bunch of complete tools, no question. But they're just a method of delivery (admittedly a monopoly), and it does not good to steal from the artists. if I decide the food shipping industry is corrupt, should I steal tomatoes from the farmer? This isn't really that different.

People like Lars get a worse rap than they deserve. They have the clout to say there's something immoral going on and be heard. No matter how jerky they come across, they're doing their job. I seriously doubt anyone would listen if some starving musician complained about not being reimbursed for their songs being downloaded.

That said, I think if a song is completely unavailable (cough, cough, Y Kant Tori Read, Buckingham-Nicks) and there's no alternative, it's acceptable to download music. Still not entirely right, but how else can you hear it?

JON9000
03-31-2005, 08:31 PM
Is illegal downloading wrong? There's no question about it. Despite what most people seem to believe, most musicians are not multimillionaires who sleep on massive stacks of money with many beautiful women (or men, or whatever they prefer). If you don't believe me, check out the Tendercrisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch commercial. Hootie needs the money, and he's better off than the vast majority of musicians.

The reason Darius Rucker is broke is because he was unlucky in that Hootie's first album was a smash hit (one of the best selling of all time). Debut artists have almost no bargaining power, so their contract terms are generally slung highly in favor of the label. If an artist sells 15 million units and is still broke after being judicious with his money, there is something wrong with the system.


The recording industry is a bunch of complete tools, no question. But they're just a method of delivery (admittedly a monopoly), and it does not good to steal from the artists. if I decide the food shipping industry is corrupt, should I steal tomatoes from the farmer? This isn't really that different.

Ironically, what the industry fears most is that if online distribution, legit or otherwise, takes over, their reason for being in the business is completely over. The record industry is essentially recording, physical production, distribution, and marketing. Take away physical production and distribution and you've eliminated a lot of the reason they exist. To use your analogy, the record industry is afraid you could go straight to the farmer. Hence, if there were no illegal downloading, there would be no legit alternative.

The aforementioned problem is that the labels say to new artists (and the industry is driven by new artists): we take 9 out of every 10 dollars (10 out of 10 for the first $500,000), and you cannot get a better deal anywhere. The artist would do well to hope the album can drum up interest to see them perform, because that revenue is not shared with the label (although a lot of other sleazebags have their fingers in that pie).

If you would like to support an artist or songwriter, the best thing you can do is go see them live, or play their song on the jukebox. The labels are trying to get their beaks into tour profits and publishing as well, however.

This is guerilla warfare.