ClumsyMonkey.net

the whole thing is bullshit. music is public domain, it is a form of art and as soon as the artist releases it, it is property of the general public. sharing music is not illegal, as long as you do not gain profit by it. if i were to sell songs for a profit, that would be illegal. i used to do that back in the beginning day of burners... sell burned cds for 5-10 bucks a pop but ive stopped now because everyone and their brother has a burner now. oh well. anyways, the RIAA can lick my balls.

Agreed. lol.

Maxwell Murder wrote:the whole thing is bullshit. music is public domain, it is a form of art and as soon as the artist releases it, it is property of the general public. sharing music is not illegal, as long as you do not gain profit by it. if i were to sell songs for a profit, that would be illegal. i used to do that back in the beginning day of burners... sell burned cds for 5-10 bucks a pop but ive stopped now because everyone and their brother has a burner now. oh well. anyways, the RIAA can lick my balls.

No, music is the result of the work and talent of an individual, or individuals who (should) put a lot of effort into their work and deserve to be compensated for their efforts.
If an artist chooses to not be compenstated that's fine, but they don't get to make that choice for all other artists.

do u know how much money the artist gets from a cd sale?

almost nothing.

they make their money from touring.

That would be the result of some very one-sided contracts from the major labels. There are artists out there (Aimee Mann comes to mind) who run their own label and put out their own music. Many independent record labels are reporting higher sales than ever, and since they don't have those crappy contracts the artists they represent are actually making money.

Your statement doesn't change the fact that an artist deserves compensation for their work just the same as any other person.

I don't agree with burning cds, but here's my knowledge on the situation.

I spoke to Rob of the band, Koufax. They're on Vagrant Records, an independant record label. My friend Aaron was deciding whether or not to buy their newest cd at a show, and Rob told me about the money they'd make off a cd. He said that if I were to give the four band members $0.50 each, they would make more money off of me than they would if my friend bought the cd. The cd was being sold for $10 at the show. That means out of the $10, $8 would be going elsewhere, and not to the band. That isn't a good deal.

I just found that to be interesting, seeing that most stores charge $15 for Koufax's latest release, and they still don't make $2 off that cd. Sad.

I realize fully that record labels typically bend their artists over and hide behind the "well, it's expensive to get into the current music market," while forgetting to mention that they are the reason the market is currently so money-driven.
I do recall TLC going bankrupt with the number 1 album in the country a while back because their record contract was such a pile of shit. They (as a group) got something like 8% of album sales, and were required contractually to pay their label back for the expenses of studio time and making videos.
I am aware of the RIAA essentially conning California into fucking artists over. "Mitch Glazier, acting at the RIAA's request, then chief counsel for Congress' copyright subcommittee, inserted the "sound recording" amendment to an unrelated bill. (The bill in question, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, had been green-lighted for safe passage through Congress.) This made all music recordings as works for hire, robbing musicians of their right to get back their masters, after 35 years. It took special legislation to be passed by both the House and Senate, Congressional Hearings, and President Clinton's signature to get this changed. What was so despicable about the way it was done was that the bill was finished, and this was added in by Glazier. NO debate, NO public commentary, no artist comments or input and it was changed."

So on and forth so.

The point is that I realize artists are fucked over as a matter of routine. That doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean that music is part of the public domain. All it means is that the RIAA is a bunch of fuckers who continuously abuse the legal system to continue their fucking.

*applause*

You see, you have to reach popularity as an independent artist if you want to actually get a good record deal in this country.

For example... Dave Matthews Band was making $1 million a year based off of their grassroots promoting. RCA offered them something like a 10 or 15-album contract, but because DMB didn't really NEED the money, they were able to negotiate a much more even-sided contract. So now the band owns all the rights to all their songs, they have a higher royalty rate, and much more of their merchandising sales goes towards them then other bands.

Another example? Dashboard Confessional. Carabba has an incredible contract. Of course, Interscope's president is orgasmic over him, because here's a rock star icon that isn't a glossed image; the people actually believe in him, they raised him to that level. When Vagrant had like 20% sold to Universal Music Group, father company of Interscope, Carabba was allowed complete creative control for his work, and ownership of every song he writes.

The White Stripes also have total creative control. In other words, Dashboard and the Stripes can put out any series of collection of their songs, and there won't be a peep against it. It won't be a Wilco situation, where the record label can say "go back and record some singles -- this record won't make money". The record label would distribute Meg and Jack rhythmically farting if that was what was delivered to be pressed.

Of course, there's always the Metallica way of running through, which is get big, and then happen to have your record contract be about to end (Metallica signed a 4-record deal with Electra, first... and given that the deal was ending after ...And Justice For All, and Metallica was getting simply HUGE at this time, they freaked and gave in to whatever Metallica wanted -- which was full control over music copyrights, and I believe each band member gets 30 to 50 cents off EACH album sold; the catch that the label gave them was that they won't give them money to record in exchange for the high payrate the band gets per album sold; that money comes straight from Metallica's pockets, as does an amount of the printing, which is why they sued Napster -- according to Jason Newsted AFTER he left Metallica).

Or there's the U2 way -- which is get the record deal, but give up a certain royalty rate to retain your song's rights. It hurt them a bit on the earlier albums, but after Rattle & Hum, the band was entirely self-propelled, in a way. They could spend as much time as they wanted in the studio, because they owned the songs, so they owned the time.

And, then, there's the Prince route, which is get big and then bitch about it until they change the contract for you.

The most major problem with the RIAA attacking P2P networks and the idea of file-sharing is that they're not allowing the artists the choice to say whether they want their music to be free or not. Of course, funny thing is, a lot of bands that have the money and the good contracts these days -- U2("I'm over... I'm over-nourished, overpaid for what I do" - Bono), Korn("Don't pay $3.99 for one fucking song... download it instead" - Jon Davis), Linkin Park ("once the CD's out... go ahead, download that shit!" - Mike Shinoda), Dashboard("I don't care how anyone gets my music" - Chris), and so on, they support file-sharing. As far as I figure, the record labels themselves want to hold on to their archaic system because file-sharing and song/album downloading isn't going to provide them as much money -- downloading an album for $9.99 you can burn to an iPod playlist or CD three times from iMusic.com isn't going to make near as much for a label as $15.99 per album in a record store. The labels have gotten away with disrespecting the artist for a long time; now that the system they've had for so long is being swept away in the wind, they'll fight to the death, even if it means sawing down the tree that they can cling to (loyal CD buyers that also happen to download -- a.k.a. suing kids for downloading).

I mean, the entire system needs to be changed. FM radio has to open a lot more. Artists need to get a fairer deal. Formats all over the place must be changed. Marketing should be pointed towards the music -- not the image.

But, will that ever happen?

Or will we find the record industry in disarray, just blowin' in the wind?

Face it Ray, most musicians are greedy. Once you've hit it big and are on a major label, record sales is the only thing that matters to your record company. It's expected that the record sell a certain amount to stay with the contract to begin with, not to mention, if the record is a total flop, the musician has to pay back all the debts somehow. I can understand people in that situation being worried about record piracy.

Now there are bands like Metallica, who are well off for life and make horrible music, and expect people to rush out and buy their albums immediately. It doesn't work that way. They're, in general, assholes. They think they deserve $15 for a lackluster cd at best, and complain when someone would rather download that one good song they make off an album instead of buying the entire thing. I have no compassion for them at all. They don't strive to make good music. They make utter crap and put it out on the market, and are able to make money that way.

I've interviewed Rich Egan, the owner of Vagrant Records, and he said he doesn't care what people do with the music. He said he doesn't mind people downloading the songs, as long as they download them after the album is out. He has a problem with people stealing and ripping demos, but after the album is released, he doesn't mind if someone buys the album. That's just how it is.

I don't know if this has anything to do with anything, but I sure as hell said it.

The reason artists say they don't care if people download their mp3's is:

1.) It's the cool thing to do and saying so makes fans appreciate you
2.) It doesn't affect them because they make little to no money from CD sales. After all, they already got paid.

Case in point:
How many bands put their entire CD in mp3 form on their site for download? If they really didn't care and thought it was a good thing then they would do so, right? They do care, they just pretend not to in order to keep their fan base.

The people who do make money from CD sales are also the ones who risk their fortune on their production. Half if not all of the artists you all grew to love owe their reputations to their labels. Labels which do a great deal of spending to get these bands into studios, promote, and distribute the music that people buy. If instead, people download the music and not pay for it then it was all for not. Well, then I guess we should do away with labels and then the responsibility of distributing music will rest solely on the shoulders of the musicians. Impossible. Starting musicians don't have that kind of money.

Also, how many of you download legitimate music from free sites? Not too many because it is garbage. Why do you think Napster went bankrupt?

So keep downloading your mp3's and "sticking it to the man". All it will do is reduce the sort of quality of music we could expect from the future. This is why today's music is mostly crap and music from the 70's and back was so great.

OK Corey, you say the music from the 70s and before was so great, and that is true, it is. But what is the excuse for music sucking in the 80s and 90s when we didn't have Napster? Why did music suck so much then? It doesn't make much sense. Maybe it's the artists' fault their music sucks and not the fans. I mean, it is the musicians that make the music, is it not? I can't see how downloading the one or two good songs off an album will completely ruin music as we know it.

There is a simple solution to this problem. It's called making good music. Not too many bands strive to put out a complete record anymore. Most bands strive to get those three or four big radio hits and let the rest go to hell. That is why I've given up on the popular music scene. I know if I were to get into rap music, I would never own a complete album again. As long as there's people out there like Chingy who will make one great song and let the other 10 tracks on there suck, there will be people downloading music. Like I've said 100 times before, I refuse to buy a $15 cd if it only has the one good song on there. I, however, do buy records all the time, but they're from bands that strive to put a complete 12 song cd out on the market for music fans to underappreciate.

yeah, and I'm the same way but we don't represent the whole consumer base.

I'm going to try and save my case here...

the 80's music wasn't ALL bad and neither was the 90's but there was a gradual decline in quality. I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to make an excuse for it... as lame as it might sound. In the 80's tapes started to take over which happen to be VERY easy to duplicate. Also, you can tape songs from the radio. In the 90's CD's came out but it wasn't long before those too could be copied. It's pretty hard to copy a record. Maybe there's some correlation there.

Okay, first off, Corey:
The "Great great" music of the seventies that you love so dear is only a small sampling of what was actually released. The good stuff (that you like) hung around, and the shit drowned, as shit is wont to do. You are looking back at primarily the stuff that stood the test of time, and yes, of course that will be the best of the best. That does not mean that shit wasn't released. That just means that it was shit, and no one likes to remember it.

There is still plenty of good music out there, Rufus Wainwright, Ryan Adams, Aimee Mann, Pete Yorn, etc etc etc are all very talented singer/songwriters, you're just stuck comparing them to all the shit that's currently around them. Yes, if you look at the top 40 charts you'll see a lot of ass that no one will remember 5 years from now, and you'll probably feel bad about the state of music in general. But in five years, when you're stuck looking at all the shit that's on the top 40 charts, you'll yearn for "five years ago, when there was still a bit of talent, remember Rufus? Or Pete? They were great..."

Nostalgia is a dangerous thing.

Two: The RIAA has currently established itself as pretty much the ONLY way into the current market. The big thing about the internet is that it offers other means of entry into the market, so a small label CAN bypass the RIAA. I'm not suggesting they all should, in fact I can see multiple sound advantages to an intelligently run label, which the RIAA clearly is not.
Basically, the internet is giving some power back to the artist, which will likely HELP the quality of music out there. I can hear from artists who can't afford the ass reaming that is trying to get on the radio nowadays, but who are very talented and I would enjoy listening to.

All I'm saying is that just making music doesn't make money anymore. As the Buggles said "Video killed the radio star". Because the consumers can so easiy just download or copy the music, artists have to resort to other means to make money. This is why we have Britney Spears on stage lip singing her entire performance. Or why we have two guys that can't even speak english passing off music as their own. You don't find too many ugly musicians anymore. It's like wrestling now. "It's not a sport, it's sports entertainment". That's the way I feel about music. It's not music, it's music entertainment.

Fine, you don't like the RIAA's methods. Well, neither do I. But to think that the music industry owes you something is wrong. No one can come up with a legitimate reason why we DESERVE to download mp3's. I'm not saying I've never done it before but I can't blame the industry for calling foul. Because you think it is too expensive, or that people don't put out quality CD's is not an excuse to get their music without compensation. We need a better solution. Why don't artists band together and put up a site where they offer out their music for free? If they don't need labels, then why do they continue to sign with them?

I don't care that people are downloading music, it is really none of my business. I just can't stand the sentiment that somehow an injustice is being done to them.

Corey wrote:All I'm saying is that just making music doesn't make money anymore. As the Buggles said "Video killed the radio star". Because the consumers can so easiy just download or copy the music, artists have to resort to other means to make money. This is why we have Britney Spears on stage lip singing her entire performance. Or why we have two guys that can't even speak english passing off music as their own. You don't find too many ugly musicians anymore. It's like wrestling now. "It's not a sport, it's sports entertainment". That's the way I feel about music. It's not music, it's music entertainment.

Back in the 50's, most of the big groups were assembled by labels, given songs written by other people, and put up on stage because they looked good on album covers. Seriously. Magazines, posters, etc etc still existed back in the day, and they still had an effect on sales and popularity. The Beatles, Elvis, Ricky Nelson all took advantage of this by being "cute boys" and making the ladies swoon. This is nothing new at all.
We have Britney lip-syncing on stage to someone elses music because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, same as nearly anything else that's horribly popular, and the milli vanilli thing was pulled off well enough it fooled the folks at the Grammy's, so I really don't think you can pin that on the common person.
Of course there is an element of entertainment in music. There always has been. KISS, if nothing else, should prove that to you, and they're from the 70's. Just because it's entertaining doesn't mean it's artistically void, and just because there's some people out there who do edge towards the "entertainment" side of things doesn't mean there's people out there who don't, including a lot of the ones I named above.

Fine, you don't like the RIAA's methods. Well, neither do I. But to think that the music industry owes you something is wrong. No one can come up with a legitimate reason why we DESERVE to download mp3's. I'm not saying I've never done it before but I can't blame the industry for calling foul. Because you think it is too expensive, or that people don't put out quality CD's is not an excuse to get their music without compensation. We need a better solution. Why don't artists band together and put up a site where they offer out their music for free? If they don't need labels, then why do they continue to sign with them?

I never said I had any kind of legal reasoning as to why I download mp3s. I did say that the RIAA is a bunch of fuckers, and like most fuckers, I am willing to go a little bit out of my way to piss in their Cheerios every morning. I also said that the real problem the RIAA has with the internet is that it lets the individual artist bypass them and their corrupt system completely, which of course does piss them off more.
Also, the business model isn't yet firmly in place for an artist to bypass the RIAA fully. Internet radio is still a bit of a fledgling, and ITunes, the only really successful online music store, is still mac-only.

I don't care that people are downloading music, it is really none of my business. I just can't stand the sentiment that somehow an injustice is being done to them.

Well, we are being gouged rather horrifically everytime we buy a cd for $18, and we are doing little to nothing to actually support the bands we like by purchasing said CD because of the one-sided contracts floating around out there, and the RIAA is a bunch of fuckers in general, so I'd say there is a bit of injustice floating around out there, yes.

points taken.

However, overpricing is not an injustice. If you don't like it, don't pay it BUT you can't also download it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.