Don Henley Speaks out - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 02-18-2004, 07:29 AM

While I don't think that any star has any real political clout, I do think that they can look at their own industry and lend an eye and ear as to just what is happening around them.

Don Henley puts together some really interesting points about the current state of the music industry and how it has morphed from the small independents to the huge multinationals.

While I currently work for a conglomerate, I do see and understand exactly what he's talking about, not just from the inside here at MTV, but also from when I visited Salzburg and met an owner of a small Heavy Metal record boutique (odd combo of words bordering on oxymoron) where he said that the record labels no longer werbung (german for promotion/advertisement) and the music itself is dying because of it. The fans still crowd and go to clubs, but it's the direct connection that they have with the artist that makes the difference.
------

link

Quote:

Killing the Music

By Don Henley

Tuesday, February 17, 2004; Page A19

When I started in the music business, music was important and vital to our culture. Artists connected with their fans. Record labels signed cutting-edge artists, and FM radio offered an incredible variety of music. Music touched fans in a unique and personal way. Our culture was enriched and the music business was healthy and strong.

That's all changed.

Today the music business is in crisis. Sales have decreased between 20 and 30 percent over the past three years. Record labels are suing children for using unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems. Only a few artists ever hear their music on the radio, yet radio networks are battling Congress over ownership restrictions. Independent music stores are closing at an unprecedented pace. And the artists seem to be at odds with just about everyone -- even the fans.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the root problem is not the artists, the fans or even new Internet technology. The problem is the music industry itself. It's systemic. The industry, which was once composed of hundreds of big and small record labels, is now controlled by just a handful of unregulated, multinational corporations determined to continue their mad rush toward further consolidation and merger. Sony and BMG announced their agreement to merge in November, and EMI and Time Warner may not be far behind. The industry may soon be dominated by only three multinational corporations.

The executives who run these corporations believe that music is solely a commodity. Unlike their predecessors, they fail to recognize that music is as much a vital art form and social barometer as it is a way to make a profit. At one time artists actually developed meaningful, even if strained, relationships with their record labels. This was possible because labels were relatively small and accessible, and they had an incentive to join with the artists in marketing their music. Today such a relationship is practically impossible for most artists.

Labels no longer take risks by signing unique and important new artists, nor do they become partners with artists in the creation and promotion of the music. After the music is created, the artist's connection with it is minimized and in some instances is nonexistent. In their world, music is generic. A major record label president confirmed this recently when he referred to artists as "content providers." Would a major label sign Johnny Cash today? I doubt it.

Radio stations used to be local and diverse. Deejays programmed their own shows and developed close relationships with artists. Today radio stations are centrally programmed by their corporate owners, and airplay is essentially bought rather than earned. The floodgates have opened for corporations to buy an almost unlimited number of radio stations, as well as concert venues and agencies. The delicate balance between artists and radio networks has been dramatically altered; networks can now, and often do, exert unprecedented pressure on artists. Whatever connection the artists had with their music on the airwaves is almost totally gone.

Music stores used to be magical places offering wide variety. Today the three largest music retailers are Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Target. In those stores shelf space is limited, making it harder for new artists to emerge. Even established artists are troubled by stores using music as a loss leader. Smaller, more personalized record stores are closing all over the country -- some because of rampant P2P piracy but many others because of competition from department stores that traditionally have no connection whatsoever with artists.

Piracy is perhaps the most emotionally gut-wrenching problem facing artists. Artists like the idea of a new and better business model for the industry, but they cannot accept a business model that uses their music without authority or compensation. Suing kids is not what artists want, but many of them feel betrayed by fans who claim to love artists but still want their music free.

The music industry must also take a large amount of blame for this piracy. Not only did the industry not address the issue sooner, it provided the P2P users with a convenient scapegoat. Many kids rationalize their P2P habit by pointing out that only record labels are hurt -- that the labels don't pay the artists anyway. This is clearly wrong, because artists are at the bottom of the food chain. They are the ones hit hardest when sales take a nosedive and when the labels cut back on promotion, on signing new artists and on keeping artists with potential. Artists are clearly affected, yet because many perceive the music business as being dominated by rich multinational corporations, the pain felt by the artist has no public face.

Artists are finally realizing their predicament is no different from that of any other group with common economic and political interests. They can no longer just hope for change; they must fight for it. Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find answers.

So whether they are fighting against media and radio consolidation, fighting for fair recording contracts and corporate responsibility, or demanding that labels treat artists as partners and not as employees, the core message is the same: The artist must be allowed to join with the labels and must be treated in a fair and respectful manner. If the labels are not willing to voluntarily implement these changes, then the artists have no choice but to seek legislative and judicial solutions. Simply put, artists must regain control, as much as possible, over their music.

The writer is a singer and drummer with the Eagles and a founding member of the Recording Artists' Coalition.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

glasscutter43 · 02-18-2004, 07:51 AM

About 20 years ago, concert ticket prices averaged about $35.00 - $40.00. When the Eagles did a reunion tour around the same time, their ticket prices were a precedent setting $75.00 each.
I think I'll go to Kazaa and get me some free Eagles.

Redjake · 02-18-2004, 07:52 AM

That's some good stuff. I agree with most of everything Mr. Henley pointed out. But the fact is, mp3s are free, and you can't stop something that is free. "Nothing is free in this world." Well, mp3s are. He, along with many artists, are asking the impossible: to go against human nature. You can't fight the urge of something that is free. Pay 15 bucks, or get it free. Which one?

Kaos · 02-18-2004, 08:05 AM

Great article, and Henley makes some excellent points. Especially on the point of Radio Stations. DJ's rarely get to decide what is on the playing list. The lists are created in advance and even if it's a "request hour" show, I dare ya to try requesting something that isn't in the current top 20 or was a classic top hit (Zep, Sabbath, etc)

yournamehere · 02-18-2004, 08:33 AM

I agree with almost all that he has to say. But - "artists are at the bottom of the food chain"?
If one-hit wonders can live in mansions, drive sets of customized Escalades, and wear obnoxious, six-figure necklaces, then I guess that's one food chain in which I wouldn't mind being a bottom-feeder.

American businesses are past the point where they can ever return to valuing integrity and fairness over the bottom line. The record industry is no exception. No surprises here.

Cynthetiq · 02-18-2004, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yournamehere
I agree with almost all that he has to say. But - "artists are at the bottom of the food chain"?
If one-hit wonders can live in mansions, drive sets of customized Escalades, and wear obnoxious, six-figure necklaces, then I guess that's one food chain in which I wouldn't mind being a bottom-feeder.

American businesses are past the point where they can ever return to valuing integrity and fairness over the bottom line. The record industry is no exception. No surprises here.

actually I have been revuing budgets here at MTV and I can tell you that the amount of money spent on productions is miniscule (and that includes paying the talent) to the cost of the accountants, lawyers, advertising, etc.

I imagine it's about the same at the record companies.

flamingdog · 02-18-2004, 09:20 AM

i think it's time artists started self promoting and working the old fashioned way. live shows were always a band's bread and butter in the old days, not airplay and massive sales. ironically, mp3s surely make self-promotion easier than ever.

Cynthetiq · 02-18-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flamingdog
i think it's time artists started self promoting and working the old fashioned way. live shows were always a band's bread and butter in the old days, not airplay and massive sales. ironically, mp3s surely make self-promotion easier than ever.

problem with that is most artists from music to art is that they don't have any working knowledge of how to put together such productions. They also don't learn about business and how to mange themselves.

pan6467 · 02-18-2004, 09:59 AM

What Don Henley wrote, Ray and Dave Davies (The KINKS) have been saying for years. Ray did his wonderful and creative one-man, while Dave has been doing clubs and selling his own new music on his website. Every concert Dave performs draws more people. Every one of his records has sold more than the last.

Tom Petty in 2002 took great pride when he said his concert was unsponsored, unaffiliated and put on in privately locally owned venues ( saw him at the Scottenstein Center, Ohio State SOLD OUT ticks were cheap $35).

Alice Cooper has had a few concerts in Ohio lately, they too have been cheap. They are usually held in ampitheaters and contain some psychics, sideshow acts. He puts on one of the greatest shows I have ever seen and his tickets are always less than $40 a peice. Again he seel his new music on his website and that music is better today than what he wrote 20 years ago.

It is one thing to talk about how the companies are ruining things, such as Mr. Henley did. Yet, it is another when those people actually do something about it, such as Ray and Dave, Tom Petty and Alice Cooper.

If getting a relationship with the fans, and creating better music matters that much to Mr. Henley then I suggest he puts his money where his mouth is and take lessons from the above artists and have cheaper concerts.If he doesn't like the industry then he should sell his music on his own website, many artists are doing it and many artists are finding it works.

As for radio, trust me Clear Channel is the devil, yet there are several reasons FM is dying. Strong talk radio, people are more apt to play thier own cd's / tapes in thier car, XM (Satelite) radio, internet radio and the fact that radio is a bit on the cookie cutter mold.

I truly believe what we will see are bands followed by fans on the net and bars.

Charlatan · 02-18-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flamingdog
i think it's time artists started self promoting and working the old fashioned way. live shows were always a band's bread and butter in the old days, not airplay and massive sales. ironically, mp3s surely make self-promotion easier than ever.

I agree this would be a good thing, however, many of the concert venues in larger towns and cities are controlled by corporations like Clear Channel.

jujueye · 02-18-2004, 10:27 AM

This is the end of the innocence.

yournamehere · 02-18-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
actually I have been revuing budgets here at MTV and I can tell you that the amount of money spent on productions is miniscule (and that includes paying the talent) to the cost of the accountants, lawyers, advertising, etc.

I imagine it's about the same at the record companies.

Yes - I was agreeing with what he wrote (and what you said)
I'm just saying - it's not a bad food chain, wherever your position.

Quote:

Originally posted by flamingdog
i think it's time artists started self promoting and working the old fashioned way. live shows were always a band's bread and butter in the old days, not airplay and massive sales. ironically, mp3s surely make self-promotion easier than ever.

I don't agree - in the "old days", bands used to tour to promote their albums - and ticket prices were very reasonable (read: The bands made their money from record sales, not concerts). Nowadays, bands <u>need</u> to tour to make money, because they are getting such a smaller cut from the record sales. That's why ticket prices have gotten so outrageous.

So - used to be: Show support for your favorite band - shell out $10 for an album.
Now: Show support for your favorite band - shell out $100 for a concert ticket.

Seems like the fans are the ones who are <i>really</i> at the bottom of the food chain.

pan6467 · 02-18-2004, 01:49 PM

I disagree, it is the forums that are charging high prices. With Clear Channel controlling most major venues, then add ticketmaster and sponsors onto that they can charge whatever they want. The artists 99% of the time get a set fee to play, the venue, sponsor, promoter then figure out what they should charge.

Like I said, Tom Petty probably could have charged alot more and had just as many there BUT he didn't need to. If more artists stand up and say no to sponsorship, no to Clear Channel I think prices would be affordable. But too many artists have gotten caught up in trying to out make another group.

And then there are the stories that Clear Channel will hand out free tickets and "stack" an arena for a poor drawing show just so they get thier percentage of the door. I know in Columbus and Cleveland there are some venues wanting to drop Clear Channel concerts because of this and some other strong armed tactics they use against the venues.

What it comes down to is this if the artist truly is about his music and fans he'll find ways to keep prices down. If the artist is in it to get all he can, he'll take the sponsorships and not say a word.

rockogre · 02-20-2004, 07:16 AM

And I thought it was just me.

Don makes some really good points. I thought that maybe just age was making me cynical about some of the new music out there. There seems to be a lot more "music product" promoted than "artist creativity".

I have always been very thankful that I got to be in San Francisco for a while during the early 70's. The music was alive and part of life. Quality mattered. The artists mattered and many of them still matter today to generations other than mine. The Stones, Arrowsmith, of course the Eagles, and many, many others are still going strong.

How many of todays "corporately assembled" bands or musical acts will still be pertinent 30 years from now?

How many of them see income as their first priority? Do they have "fans", or "customers"? Are they artists, or technically correct musical technicians?

Some "musical art" is filtering through but sometime's it's hard to hear above the noise from the cash register.

Mehoni · 02-20-2004, 10:58 AM

I could never think that mp3s are bad for artists... mostly because I have found so many new artists and groups via mp3s than I would if I just listened to the radio.

If I like something enough, I want to own it.. so make good music and I might just buy your record.

brianna · 02-20-2004, 03:20 PM

yes, the record industry's greed is a threat to the music industry and it's a threat to artists and listeners a like and I hate the corporate behemoths that benefit from and perpetuate this problem. unfortunately, the fact that artists are at the bottom of the food chain means that the large largemajority of the money that I shell out for a cd goes to people I hate. I have no way to protest against the industry and still pay for music. (there used to be a website that let you send money directly to artists if you downloaded some of there songs.. anyone got a link?).

I feel lucky that almost all of the bands that i love put out music on independent labels who most of the time i'm pretty happy to give some money to. If artists are upset (as they should be) I don't think they should head off to washington, I think they should take matters into their own hands and step out of the cycle of corporate greed: join an indie label, start your own label (hello miss difranco!), resort to only playing live shows and playing them differently every time (see mr jerry garcia and his buddies on that one). and if listeners are upset we need to be active as well, make an effort to seek out music that isn't on the major labels and go out and pay for it-- do something, change the system, play the greed i garentee the labels will eventually follow the money

*edited cause i'm a dork who hasn't mastered the complexities of cut & paste.

Arsenic7 · 02-20-2004, 06:26 PM

Wow, some good points. I lean more towards the side of less recording, more live concerts. Are the few top 20 artists really the only ones worthy of the enormous amount of cash they rake in.

Soggybagel · 02-20-2004, 11:37 PM

Yournamehere, you realize that those with the Escalades and six figure necklaces often have no idea how to effectively balance their money and if their next record tanks its over. Many one hit wonders are often yes semi well off, but by no means can they afford to live the mansion life (I.E. MC Hammer) forever.

Pan6467, I agree with the Clear Channel issues and what not. But the statement that if the artist is truely about the music then they will find a way. Possible but not always. If you are trying to be a paid musician and music is your job, you can't always say no. If you want to be paid for what you love sometimes I think they would give in. IN the case of an established artist then yes they could stand up, but as far as up and comers I don't consider being able to live comfortably selling out.

james t kirk · 02-21-2004, 11:10 PM

Pete Townsend said it best, "Rock is dead"

And it is true now more than ever.

Now, it's all "Pop" music.

Assembly line boy bands, girl power, rap stars with band aids on their faces who have ZERO talent. Today's music seems to be a whole lotta of nothin.

Where's the new Bob Dylan, or Led Zeplin, or Jimi Hendrix.

They just aren't out there. Not even on the horizon in fact.

The only band I can think of that I anticipate their next album is U2. Well, REM also and maybe Dave Mathews, but that's about it.

There are no new decent bands that excite me any more. It's all mostly pop crap, the new disco I suppose.

I still have my Beatles, Stone, Who, Led Zeplin, Eagles, Genesis (with Peter Gabriel), Bob Dylan, Queen, U2, REM, Neil Young, the Band, the Clash, the Stone Roses, Depeche Mode, Police, and a whole lot of other new wave bands.

But I can not get into pop music at all. It's all crap and it seems to be the only thing getting made today.

brianna · 02-22-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Pete Townsend said it best, "Rock is dead"

And it is true now more than ever.

Now, it's all "Pop" music.

Assembly line boy bands, girl power, rap stars with band aids on their faces who have ZERO talent. Today's music seems to be a whole lotta of nothin.

ok, this is off topic -- but you started it dammit.

When i hear "rock is dead" "today's music seems to be a whole lot of nothing" i think of the old fortune cookie trick where you add "in bed" to the end of every cliched little pseudo prediction. I think your statements need the word "mainstream" added in somewhere. cause honestly rock ISN'T dead there is tons and tons of really great new music coming out on independent labels and not (for the most part) getting played on the radio (though internet radio is a different story). You can find some really innovative amazing artists if you make the effort to seek them out. Or you can live in the past and pretend that what gets played by clear channel is the true nothing music of our generation. Rock has always lived on the outskirts of society, it's follish to expect to find it without some effort.

animosity · 02-22-2004, 01:02 PM

i buy cds that i really like... but i am not about to drive my happy ass 15 min down the road & fight through the masses to pay 15-20$ for 3 or 4 songs that i can get for free off the internet.

if they really feel its an art and its all about the music than they shouldnt be so conserned about money.

people have been copying music way b4 the internet. it will never end.

Cynthetiq · 02-23-2004, 08:56 AM

people do have to also remember that the CORE buyers of music are those that drive the market, they happen to be right now.. those that don't listen to rock but listen to hip hop and rap.

perripken · 02-23-2004, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
people do have to also remember that the CORE buyers of music are those that drive the market, they happen to be right now.. those that don't listen to rock but listen to hip hop and rap.

unfortunately for the artists, their producers, lawyers. etc., many of these people are downloading their music, not buying it. Therefore, the money has to come from somewhere...ie; expensive cd's, concerts, tee shirts, etc.

perripken · 02-26-2004, 05:58 AM

I just heard on the radio this morning that Rolling Stone magazine put out a list of the richest musicians by tour, and The Eagles were on the list. I've always liked Don Henley as a songwriter, but now I'm starting to lose respect for him. If he's making so much money on tour, I hope he's giving alot back to the starving artists he speaks about! BTW- the Rolling Stone's were the top of the list. I think the number was 87 million or something like that.

02-18-2004, 07:51 AM	#2 (permalink)
glasscutter43 Insane Location: Vancouver Island BC	About 20 years ago, concert ticket prices averaged about $35.00 - $40.00. When the Eagles did a reunion tour around the same time, their ticket prices were a precedent setting $75.00 each. I think I'll go to Kazaa and get me some free Eagles. __________________ Book 'em Danno

02-18-2004, 07:52 AM	#3 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	That's some good stuff. I agree with most of everything Mr. Henley pointed out. But the fact is, mp3s are free, and you can't stop something that is free. "Nothing is free in this world." Well, mp3s are. He, along with many artists, are asking the impossible: to go against human nature. You can't fight the urge of something that is free. Pay 15 bucks, or get it free. Which one? __________________ Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

02-18-2004, 08:33 AM	#5 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	I agree with almost all that he has to say. But - "artists are at the bottom of the food chain"? If one-hit wonders can live in mansions, drive sets of customized Escalades, and wear obnoxious, six-figure necklaces, then I guess that's one food chain in which I wouldn't mind being a bottom-feeder. American businesses are past the point where they can ever return to valuing integrity and fairness over the bottom line. The record industry is no exception. No surprises here. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

02-18-2004, 09:59 AM	#9 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What Don Henley wrote, Ray and Dave Davies (The KINKS) have been saying for years. Ray did his wonderful and creative one-man, while Dave has been doing clubs and selling his own new music on his website. Every concert Dave performs draws more people. Every one of his records has sold more than the last. Tom Petty in 2002 took great pride when he said his concert was unsponsored, unaffiliated and put on in privately locally owned venues ( saw him at the Scottenstein Center, Ohio State SOLD OUT ticks were cheap $35). Alice Cooper has had a few concerts in Ohio lately, they too have been cheap. They are usually held in ampitheaters and contain some psychics, sideshow acts. He puts on one of the greatest shows I have ever seen and his tickets are always less than $40 a peice. Again he seel his new music on his website and that music is better today than what he wrote 20 years ago. It is one thing to talk about how the companies are ruining things, such as Mr. Henley did. Yet, it is another when those people actually do something about it, such as Ray and Dave, Tom Petty and Alice Cooper. If getting a relationship with the fans, and creating better music matters that much to Mr. Henley then I suggest he puts his money where his mouth is and take lessons from the above artists and have cheaper concerts.If he doesn't like the industry then he should sell his music on his own website, many artists are doing it and many artists are finding it works. As for radio, trust me Clear Channel is the devil, yet there are several reasons FM is dying. Strong talk radio, people are more apt to play thier own cd's / tapes in thier car, XM (Satelite) radio, internet radio and the fact that radio is a bit on the cookie cutter mold. I truly believe what we will see are bands followed by fans on the net and bars. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-18-2004, 01:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I disagree, it is the forums that are charging high prices. With Clear Channel controlling most major venues, then add ticketmaster and sponsors onto that they can charge whatever they want. The artists 99% of the time get a set fee to play, the venue, sponsor, promoter then figure out what they should charge. Like I said, Tom Petty probably could have charged alot more and had just as many there BUT he didn't need to. If more artists stand up and say no to sponsorship, no to Clear Channel I think prices would be affordable. But too many artists have gotten caught up in trying to out make another group. And then there are the stories that Clear Channel will hand out free tickets and "stack" an arena for a poor drawing show just so they get thier percentage of the door. I know in Columbus and Cleveland there are some venues wanting to drop Clear Channel concerts because of this and some other strong armed tactics they use against the venues. What it comes down to is this if the artist truly is about his music and fans he'll find ways to keep prices down. If the artist is in it to get all he can, he'll take the sponsorships and not say a word. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-18-2004, 08:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
Kaos Ssssssssss Location: Ontario	Great article, and Henley makes some excellent points. Especially on the point of Radio Stations. DJ's rarely get to decide what is on the playing list. The lists are created in advance and even if it's a "request hour" show, I dare ya to try requesting something that isn't in the current top 20 or was a classic top hit (Zep, Sabbath, etc)

02-18-2004, 09:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
flamingdog Still fighting it.	i think it's time artists started self promoting and working the old fashioned way. live shows were always a band's bread and butter in the old days, not airplay and massive sales. ironically, mp3s surely make self-promotion easier than ever.

02-18-2004, 10:27 AM	#11 (permalink)
jujueye alpaca lunch for the trip Location: in my computer	This is the end of the innocence.

02-20-2004, 07:16 AM	#14 (permalink)
rockogre I aim to misbehave! Location: SW Oklahoma	And I thought it was just me. Don makes some really good points. I thought that maybe just age was making me cynical about some of the new music out there. There seems to be a lot more "music product" promoted than "artist creativity". I have always been very thankful that I got to be in San Francisco for a while during the early 70's. The music was alive and part of life. Quality mattered. The artists mattered and many of them still matter today to generations other than mine. The Stones, Arrowsmith, of course the Eagles, and many, many others are still going strong. How many of todays "corporately assembled" bands or musical acts will still be pertinent 30 years from now? How many of them see income as their first priority? Do they have "fans", or "customers"? Are they artists, or technically correct musical technicians? Some "musical art" is filtering through but sometime's it's hard to hear above the noise from the cash register. __________________ Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

02-20-2004, 10:58 AM	#15 (permalink)
Mehoni Insane Location: Within the Woods	I could never think that mp3s are bad for artists... mostly because I have found so many new artists and groups via mp3s than I would if I just listened to the radio. If I like something enough, I want to own it.. so make good music and I might just buy your record. __________________ There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

02-20-2004, 03:20 PM	#16 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	yes, the record industry's greed is a threat to the music industry and it's a threat to artists and listeners a like and I hate the corporate behemoths that benefit from and perpetuate this problem. unfortunately, the fact that artists are at the bottom of the food chain means that the large largemajority of the money that I shell out for a cd goes to people I hate. I have no way to protest against the industry and still pay for music. (there used to be a website that let you send money directly to artists if you downloaded some of there songs.. anyone got a link?). I feel lucky that almost all of the bands that i love put out music on independent labels who most of the time i'm pretty happy to give some money to. If artists are upset (as they should be) I don't think they should head off to washington, I think they should take matters into their own hands and step out of the cycle of corporate greed: join an indie label, start your own label (hello miss difranco!), resort to only playing live shows and playing them differently every time (see mr jerry garcia and his buddies on that one). and if listeners are upset we need to be active as well, make an effort to seek out music that isn't on the major labels and go out and pay for it-- do something, change the system, play the greed i garentee the labels will eventually follow the money edited cause i'm a dork who hasn't mastered the complexities of cut & paste. Last edited by brianna; 02-20-2004 at 03:24 PM..*

02-20-2004, 06:26 PM	#17 (permalink)
Arsenic7 Insane Location: Corvallis, OR.	Wow, some good points. I lean more towards the side of less recording, more live concerts. Are the few top 20 artists really the only ones worthy of the enormous amount of cash they rake in. __________________ This is no sig.

02-20-2004, 11:37 PM	#18 (permalink)
Soggybagel Psycho Location: Lovely City #1	Yournamehere, you realize that those with the Escalades and six figure necklaces often have no idea how to effectively balance their money and if their next record tanks its over. Many one hit wonders are often yes semi well off, but by no means can they afford to live the mansion life (I.E. MC Hammer) forever. Pan6467, I agree with the Clear Channel issues and what not. But the statement that if the artist is truely about the music then they will find a way. Possible but not always. If you are trying to be a paid musician and music is your job, you can't always say no. If you want to be paid for what you love sometimes I think they would give in. IN the case of an established artist then yes they could stand up, but as far as up and comers I don't consider being able to live comfortably selling out.

02-21-2004, 11:10 PM	#19 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Pete Townsend said it best, "Rock is dead" And it is true now more than ever. Now, it's all "Pop" music. Assembly line boy bands, girl power, rap stars with band aids on their faces who have ZERO talent. Today's music seems to be a whole lotta of nothin. Where's the new Bob Dylan, or Led Zeplin, or Jimi Hendrix. They just aren't out there. Not even on the horizon in fact. The only band I can think of that I anticipate their next album is U2. Well, REM also and maybe Dave Mathews, but that's about it. There are no new decent bands that excite me any more. It's all mostly pop crap, the new disco I suppose. I still have my Beatles, Stone, Who, Led Zeplin, Eagles, Genesis (with Peter Gabriel), Bob Dylan, Queen, U2, REM, Neil Young, the Band, the Clash, the Stone Roses, Depeche Mode, Police, and a whole lot of other new wave bands. But I can not get into pop music at all. It's all crap and it seems to be the only thing getting made today. Last edited by james t kirk; 02-21-2004 at 11:13 PM..

02-22-2004, 01:02 PM	#21 (permalink)
animosity on fire Location: Atlanta, GA	i buy cds that i really like... but i am not about to drive my happy ass 15 min down the road & fight through the masses to pay 15-20$ for 3 or 4 songs that i can get for free off the internet. if they really feel its an art and its all about the music than they shouldnt be so conserned about money. people have been copying music way b4 the internet. it will never end.

02-23-2004, 08:56 AM	#22 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	people do have to also remember that the CORE buyers of music are those that drive the market, they happen to be right now.. those that don't listen to rock but listen to hip hop and rap. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

02-26-2004, 05:58 AM	#24 (permalink)
perripken Now a registered fossil Location: Home of the shrinking Kodak	I just heard on the radio this morning that Rolling Stone magazine put out a list of the richest musicians by tour, and The Eagles were on the list. I've always liked Don Henley as a songwriter, but now I'm starting to lose respect for him. If he's making so much money on tour, I hope he's giving alot back to the starving artists he speaks about! BTW- the Rolling Stone's were the top of the list. I think the number was 87 million or something like that. __________________ And in the end, it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in your years. Abraham Lincoln