the music scene nowadays is way different than it was, say, 5 years ago. Sales have gone down, and the market has tried its best to lure in customers with "special edition" CD's and DVD's. Artists have voiced their opinion on the matter, addressing the important question of the availability of music online, p2p networks, etc.
Tool (especially MJK) has been very vocal about wanting to get paid for the art they make. they're secretive about the whole album process, and dedicate a lot of time toward making attractive and artistic album packaging that definitely stands out.
On the other hand, other artists - especially emerging ones - are all for sharing music on the internet and see it as a part of the new culture to which we will all eventually come to terms with. My personal opinion lies here. I think Maynard (and any other artist who feels the same) is a moron for not embracing the power of the internet in this new era of the music business.
But what I really want to talk about in this thread is how the lyrics in this song fit more along the lines of the second opinion previously explained and therefore, coming into contradiction with tool's stand on the issue.
"All you read and
Wear or see and
Hear on tv
Is a product
Begging for your
Fatass dirty
Dollar"
So, even though the guys need to get their money's worth so they can eat and buy shit and live a decent life, why the contradicting message between the lyrics of this song and what they express in interviews on TV and magazines?
Another interesting point is Maynard's winery. I'll just throw that wild card in there...
the music scene nowadays is way different than it was, say, 5 years ago. Sales have gone down, and the market has tried its best to lure in customers with "special edition" CD's and DVD's. Artists have voiced their opinion on the matter, addressing the important question of the availability of music online, p2p networks, etc.
Tool (especially MJK) has been very vocal about wanting to get paid for the art they make. they're secretive about the whole album process, and dedicate a lot of time toward making attractive and artistic album packaging that definitely stands out.
On the other hand, other artists - especially emerging ones - are all for sharing music on the internet and see it as a part of the new culture to which we will all eventually come to terms with. My personal opinion lies here. I think Maynard (and any other artist who feels the same) is a moron for not embracing the power of the internet in this new era of the music business.
But what I really want to talk about in this thread is how the lyrics in this song fit more along the lines of the second opinion previously explained and therefore, coming into contradiction with tool's stand on the issue.
"All you read and
Wear or see and
Hear on tv
Is a product
Begging for your
Fatass dirty
Dollar"
So, even though the guys need to get their money's worth so they can eat and buy shit and live a decent life, why the contradicting message between the lyrics of this song and what they express in interviews on TV and magazines?
Another interesting point is Maynard's winery. I'll just throw that wild card in there...
what do you think?
i dont think its contradicting. Its just that, they are honest about money and how it matters. Like some bands would claim to be "real" or some people calling some artists as sell-outs. When monetary system is just everywhere and "anti-money" imago can be actually pretty efficient way of marketing.
I also agree that Internet is something to get excited about. MJK has done experiments with Puscifer, but I dont think having a MySpace, facebook or streaming flash player on a web page is nowhere near what can be done using Net.
I heard record companies are the ones holding back for the traditional business models. Hopefully, there are effort done - Spotify for instance for a change.
Spotify is da bomb, yo. im gonna totally miss it when i leave spain...
ok, so continuing this discussion: money matters, definitely. i just cant picture tool projecting an anti-money imago, shouting out shit like "buy my new record/All you read and
Wear or see and Hear on tv Is a product Begging for your Fatass dirty Dollar", and then saying to the fans: you have to PAY for our albums, or else you CANT listen to them. tool isnt on spotify, for example.
Last edited by crincled; 06-21-2009 at 08:04 AM..
Reason: da instead of the
Spotify is da bomb, yo. im gonna totally miss it when i leave spain...
ok, so continuing this discussion: money matters, definitely. i just cant picture tool projecting an anti-money imago, shouting out shit like "buy my new record/All you read and
Wear or see and Hear on tv Is a product Begging for your Fatass dirty Dollar", and then saying to the fans: you have to PAY for our albums, or else you CANT listen to them. tool isnt on spotify, for example.
I see it more like they see the game and the acknowledge they play the game :)
Who else would? The labels are the ones making the big bucks off the traditional way of doing things. Why would an artist push for a system that screws them? Why would the labels push for a new mode of business on which they make almost nothing?
Why you mean almost nothing? New business models are new business models.
This might be a weak analogy, but when the VCR came the copyright holders were all worried about losing money. Instead the shissle grew exponentially. Or take some public library example.
Labels make most of their money from control of distribution and ironclad deals that give them most of the retail profits. Artist-controlled distribution over the internet would pretty much put an end to that if practiced on a grand scale. Why would the labels push for such a thing? Why would artists push for the old model when they could make more and have more creative control with the new emerging paradigms?
About fitting the instance? Oh well, i think we are talking about different things here.
Oh you are dividing things into artist and label controlled thingie. I was thinking about network economy in general and I dont see it as simple as that - so to answer your question; i dont understand the concept.
The reasons why the labels would push for a system in which they retain control are exceedingly simple. If you're trying to make this whole thing more complicated than that, you're really doing yourself a disservice.
i did not say new business models has anything to do with decreasing control from the labels.
From what I understand, most artists barely make anything off of selling albums at all, they may break even after paying off everything else from record companies, manufacturing, packaging, distributing, etc. Where they really make anything is from the profits off of touring.
__________________ "WITHOUT A LITTLE EVIL, GOOD WOULD NEVER EXIST"
okay. You didn't have to say that at all, being that all the new paths opening up directly involve decreasing the part of the label in the process altogether.
Or did I miss something? Are you the arbiter of absolute truth on this issue? Is something incorrect unless you deem it to be fact?
ok thats great. I dont really understand your questions but its all right.
New business models and new methods of distribution would be taking a lot of that revenue out of the hands of labels and putting it back in the hands of the artist, where it belongs.
That's how it should be. Granted I feel that everyone else like record companies, manufacturing, distributing etc should all be paid for their work but for the artists not to make any good money off of their music is bullshit. They should be making the largest portion out of those sales. It's a shame that so many artists make so little when it was their creation that generated the fans and revenue to begin with.
__________________ "WITHOUT A LITTLE EVIL, GOOD WOULD NEVER EXIST"
