So I'm talking to Clem Burke...
No, no, I'm not dropping names here. He barely gave me the time of day. Why should he. But my point is...these people are my heroes. I stood in front of the stage, they were on it. They were the people I believed could make my life work, if I could just meet them. I'd say I gave my soul to rock and roll, but really it reached out and grabbed me and saved me, made my life complete.
The only reason I went to this gig was to do a favor for Larry Solters. I thought it was a b.s. exhibition he was paid to promote, I'd show my face and then go to dinner with my usual Thursday night group. But from the moment I got there, I kept running into people I knew. Learning about this restaurant on Pico with an all meat meal, run by someone akin to the Soup Nazi, with an unlisted number and a $220 tab. And the hors d'oeuvres weren't bad, so I scarfed them up and wrote off my dinner and got into it with Rob Light. Who kept testifying about the movie, inside. I hadn't even seen the exhibit, that's not why I came.
But it was hard to hear Rob, because a really good Heart cover band was playing in the background. Finally, I turned my head, to check out these incredible impostors, and was stunned to find out it was the Wilson sisters themselves! Ann's still got the pipes! And after talking about "Rock Of Ages" and the television business and validated parking I went inside, for a run-through before I departed.
My mind was blown.
My favorite picture was the one of the Yardbirds. With Jimmy Page in a quasi-military jacket and Jeff Beck in sneakers. Once upon a time these people were not heroes, just wannabe musicians. So many of these pictures were snapped at this time.
And then there was the cover of "Dressed To Kill". Gene Simmons was wearing CLOGS! This was before the exotic boots, before they became the KISS we know today.
And there's the original cover of "Joshua Tree" and explanations of every photo but what made my night, what truly dropped my jaw, was the movie.
Henry Diltz talked about being a folk musician, buying a camera on a whim and ultimately finding his new career. There were outtakes of the "Desperado" cover.
Guy Webster told the story of capturing the iconic bathtub shot on the cover of the Mamas & the Papas' "If You Can Believe Your Eyes And Ears". They couldn't leave the house because they were all so stoned. Hell, Guy could barely set up his tripod.
Linda Eastman McCartney got started by accident. Being chosen to be the sole photographer from a group of shooters.
But the photographer who captured the essence was Norman Seeff. I could try and explain how he described his process, but I wouldn't nail it.
I realized that to be a rock and roll photographer, you had to be friends with people on the way up. You couldn't just decide to work with the famous. You had to ingratiate yourself. Opportunities came thereafter, one success led to another.
And I felt left out. Hell, whenever I'm around a famous musician I tingle. I held the album cover in my hands. I know all the credits. THAT'S YOU?
But they're just regular people. Albeit much cooler than me.
Now they validate parking, you've still got to pay a little, but it's not the $34 max. And I get no kickback. But I've really got to implore you to go to this exhibit. The photographers were hangers-on, but they were much closer to the musicians than us. They captured not only the visage, but the identity. They made the people in these photos three-dimensional.
You look and watch and you experience that penumbra which is never seen on TV. One great photo can be the essence of rock and roll.
And they've got tons of them at this exhibit.
"Who Shot Rock & Roll": http://bit.ly/JBsA2k
Wikipedia: http://bit.ly/L1vxsF
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Friday 22 June 2012
Rhinofy-Some Bee Gees
"Jive Talkin'"
Four years is an eternity in popular music.
But that's how long it was since the Bee Gees' last hit, "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart". In the interim Jethro Tull released an album containing only one track, FM trounced AM and "Free Bird" became an anthem. But in the sporting goods store I worked in on Hollywood Boulevard, they still broadcast AM, that's all they had.
And I lived to hear this.
It was my second sporting goods store gig. The first one was around the corner, on Highland, neither of these establishments exist anymore. And the clientele was always a trip. Talking to Jack Nicholson, H.R. Haldeman coming in for Tretorns. Never mind the delusional street people dropping in for the air conditioning.
I never had a soft spot for the Bee Gees. But when "Jive Talkin'" came out, suddenly I did. I guess we like things that connect us to the past that are not pure nostalgia. "Jive Talkin'" may be lumped into the disco camp, but really, it's not. It's just a hit record. With a groove and flourishes that make you wince and smile at the same time. The keyboard riff, the percussion breakdown...this is one track I've never burned out on, it's the link between what once was and was yet to be.
"Stayin' Alive"
Somehow, in the history of popular music, a taint has been placed upon this track, people dismiss it, look down their noses upon it.
That's what success will do for you. Bring out the haters, the history rewriters. Sometimes something's so great, you can't say a negative thing about it, and when it comes to "Stayin' Alive", that's the way it should be.
Forget the disco backlash, blowing up records in Comiskey Park, everybody loved "Stayin' Alive", not only the polyester-clad dancers but the dyed-in-the-wool rockers. Because it's so damn good!
You've got to understand, it snuck up on people. It wasn't like today, with endless movie hype. A film with John Travolta based on a Nik Cohn story in "New York", which years later turned out to be completely fabricated...there was no built-in desire.
And then you went to see it.
Travolta walking down the street with a swagger, putting one slice of pizza atop another, it was movie magic...and it wouldn't have been half as good without the soundtrack, "Stayin' Alive".
Movies were platformed, they didn't open in thousands of theatres, word took months to spread, "Saturday Night Fever" was an immediate hit, but unlike today's flicks, it played for six months, not six weeks.
And the more the movie played, the more people bought the soundtrack, the more these songs were on the radio. The Bee Gees ended up on a victory lap they still haven't recovered from.
That's the power of a hit song. Especially when matched with a hit movie.
And don't you love those drums at 3:44!
"If I Can't Have You"
My favorite non-Bee Gees song on the soundtrack was the Trammps' "Disco Inferno"... But that was not a movie original, that was another of those disco songs we rockers secretly admitted we loved. But my second favorite was a movie original, by Yvonne Elliman, "If I Can't Have You", written, of course, by the Bee Gees, not that many knew this at the time...
And this is one of the rare cases wherein the writers' version is inferior, still, listen, you might not have heard it...
And talk about a hook...
"If I can't have you
I don't want nobody baby"
We all know this feeling, it's the human condition.
"Holiday"
Despite the cheery title, this song has such a depressing feel.
Maybe that's why it appeals to me.
We live in an upbeat world where if you've got problems you're scuttled aside, unless you're a celebrity and go on "Oprah" and confess. But that's anything but personal. Depression is personal. As is so much of the greatest music, beamed directly from the speakers into your heart.
This was not the first Bee Gees track I heard, but it was the first one that clicked.
We had season tickets at Bromley. A ski area with a lot of character that faces south and is right upon the highway which I love with all my heart. And at the end of each ski day, the teenagers would congregate on the main floor, around the corner, where the jukebox was.
I'm gonna do a whole playlist on the tracks that emanated from that machine, that changed my life, that I had to buy. Stuff you wouldn't expect, like "Boogaloo Down Broadway", by the Fantastic Johnny C...and this.
You see that's what's great about a jukebox, about the AM radio of yore...you don't get to hear what you want to, but what others want to. And then you end up hearing these songs enough they become your favorites too.
I can still see the townies, with their Moriarty hats pushed up high. The tension between the locals and the weekenders, the way we connected as the winter months wore on, drinking our hot chocolate and eating our monster glaze donuts. That's what's great about life, the memories. When you're depressed, you think back and you smile.
"New York Mining Disaster 1941"
This was the first Bee Gees song I heard. But since it was not on the Bromley jukebox, I did not know it as well.
What I love is the endless repetition of "Mr. Jones"...you think he really exists.
"Massachusetts"
I was always flummoxed by this. How a band from the U.K. via Australia could pick out such a tiny state and write a song about it.
Massachusetts was just the next state over. The one we drove through to get to Vermont, the one that contained my grandparents.
You know how you feel a special connection with a song that mentions your name? That's how I feel about this song. Especially in the sixties, all the glamour, all the references, were based on California, the west coast. Sure, most of the people lived on the east coast, but popular culture seemed to be based out west, but not in this song.
"Lonely Days"
And I love all the aforementioned records. "Massachusetts" was the follow-up to "Holiday", they were on a roll. But then came "Words", "I've Gotta Get A Message To You" and the execrable "I Started A Joke". Who was this music made for? Sure, I could get depressed, but this music seemed to be made for hobbits who never left the house, who never saw the sun shine, people who were perpetually under the weather. You made fun of these songs. And if you say otherwise, you weren't there.
But then there was a last hurrah. Just when I'd written them off, the Bee Gees released my favorite song, "Lonely Days"...
The track started off like another dirge, and then...
"Good morning mister sunshine, you brighten up my day
Come sit beside me in your way"
The harmonies were exquisite, they made you feel all warm inside, the strings swirled underneath... And then there was the rhyme of "restaurant" and "nonchalant"...
And then the song changed completely, it became a rocker... Someone started banging on the piano, like you would at home, only with more talent, there were random horns, you felt like you were at a football game and wanted to get out on the field and march with the band.
Then the track devolved into dreaminess, something the Beatles were so good at, but the Bee Gees did well too. The track went back to the quiet verse... But when the chorus came back this time, it was truly vociferous.
LONELY DAYS
LONELY NIGHTS
WHERE WOULD I BE WITHOUT MY WOMAN!
The brass is squeezing out the notes, the boys are shouting and harmonizing, the strings are swirling...it's a tour de force.
And I'll bet what Barry Gibb is feeling right now is lonely. With three of his four brothers deceased. You don't want to survive, you want to go first, otherwise it's just too painful. You've got no one to share your memories with, no one to sing with...
But we the listeners are not burdened by the death of three of the brothers Gibb. For us, the songs still live. This was an act that hung in there, kept trying, for decades, experimenting, getting it right. Their only mistake was to become so successful that the public put them in a box and they became inhibited by their own legacy.
Spotify playlist: http://spoti.fi/p6HcZ8
Previous Rhinofy playlists: http://www.rhinofy.com/lefsetz
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Four years is an eternity in popular music.
But that's how long it was since the Bee Gees' last hit, "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart". In the interim Jethro Tull released an album containing only one track, FM trounced AM and "Free Bird" became an anthem. But in the sporting goods store I worked in on Hollywood Boulevard, they still broadcast AM, that's all they had.
And I lived to hear this.
It was my second sporting goods store gig. The first one was around the corner, on Highland, neither of these establishments exist anymore. And the clientele was always a trip. Talking to Jack Nicholson, H.R. Haldeman coming in for Tretorns. Never mind the delusional street people dropping in for the air conditioning.
I never had a soft spot for the Bee Gees. But when "Jive Talkin'" came out, suddenly I did. I guess we like things that connect us to the past that are not pure nostalgia. "Jive Talkin'" may be lumped into the disco camp, but really, it's not. It's just a hit record. With a groove and flourishes that make you wince and smile at the same time. The keyboard riff, the percussion breakdown...this is one track I've never burned out on, it's the link between what once was and was yet to be.
"Stayin' Alive"
Somehow, in the history of popular music, a taint has been placed upon this track, people dismiss it, look down their noses upon it.
That's what success will do for you. Bring out the haters, the history rewriters. Sometimes something's so great, you can't say a negative thing about it, and when it comes to "Stayin' Alive", that's the way it should be.
Forget the disco backlash, blowing up records in Comiskey Park, everybody loved "Stayin' Alive", not only the polyester-clad dancers but the dyed-in-the-wool rockers. Because it's so damn good!
You've got to understand, it snuck up on people. It wasn't like today, with endless movie hype. A film with John Travolta based on a Nik Cohn story in "New York", which years later turned out to be completely fabricated...there was no built-in desire.
And then you went to see it.
Travolta walking down the street with a swagger, putting one slice of pizza atop another, it was movie magic...and it wouldn't have been half as good without the soundtrack, "Stayin' Alive".
Movies were platformed, they didn't open in thousands of theatres, word took months to spread, "Saturday Night Fever" was an immediate hit, but unlike today's flicks, it played for six months, not six weeks.
And the more the movie played, the more people bought the soundtrack, the more these songs were on the radio. The Bee Gees ended up on a victory lap they still haven't recovered from.
That's the power of a hit song. Especially when matched with a hit movie.
And don't you love those drums at 3:44!
"If I Can't Have You"
My favorite non-Bee Gees song on the soundtrack was the Trammps' "Disco Inferno"... But that was not a movie original, that was another of those disco songs we rockers secretly admitted we loved. But my second favorite was a movie original, by Yvonne Elliman, "If I Can't Have You", written, of course, by the Bee Gees, not that many knew this at the time...
And this is one of the rare cases wherein the writers' version is inferior, still, listen, you might not have heard it...
And talk about a hook...
"If I can't have you
I don't want nobody baby"
We all know this feeling, it's the human condition.
"Holiday"
Despite the cheery title, this song has such a depressing feel.
Maybe that's why it appeals to me.
We live in an upbeat world where if you've got problems you're scuttled aside, unless you're a celebrity and go on "Oprah" and confess. But that's anything but personal. Depression is personal. As is so much of the greatest music, beamed directly from the speakers into your heart.
This was not the first Bee Gees track I heard, but it was the first one that clicked.
We had season tickets at Bromley. A ski area with a lot of character that faces south and is right upon the highway which I love with all my heart. And at the end of each ski day, the teenagers would congregate on the main floor, around the corner, where the jukebox was.
I'm gonna do a whole playlist on the tracks that emanated from that machine, that changed my life, that I had to buy. Stuff you wouldn't expect, like "Boogaloo Down Broadway", by the Fantastic Johnny C...and this.
You see that's what's great about a jukebox, about the AM radio of yore...you don't get to hear what you want to, but what others want to. And then you end up hearing these songs enough they become your favorites too.
I can still see the townies, with their Moriarty hats pushed up high. The tension between the locals and the weekenders, the way we connected as the winter months wore on, drinking our hot chocolate and eating our monster glaze donuts. That's what's great about life, the memories. When you're depressed, you think back and you smile.
"New York Mining Disaster 1941"
This was the first Bee Gees song I heard. But since it was not on the Bromley jukebox, I did not know it as well.
What I love is the endless repetition of "Mr. Jones"...you think he really exists.
"Massachusetts"
I was always flummoxed by this. How a band from the U.K. via Australia could pick out such a tiny state and write a song about it.
Massachusetts was just the next state over. The one we drove through to get to Vermont, the one that contained my grandparents.
You know how you feel a special connection with a song that mentions your name? That's how I feel about this song. Especially in the sixties, all the glamour, all the references, were based on California, the west coast. Sure, most of the people lived on the east coast, but popular culture seemed to be based out west, but not in this song.
"Lonely Days"
And I love all the aforementioned records. "Massachusetts" was the follow-up to "Holiday", they were on a roll. But then came "Words", "I've Gotta Get A Message To You" and the execrable "I Started A Joke". Who was this music made for? Sure, I could get depressed, but this music seemed to be made for hobbits who never left the house, who never saw the sun shine, people who were perpetually under the weather. You made fun of these songs. And if you say otherwise, you weren't there.
But then there was a last hurrah. Just when I'd written them off, the Bee Gees released my favorite song, "Lonely Days"...
The track started off like another dirge, and then...
"Good morning mister sunshine, you brighten up my day
Come sit beside me in your way"
The harmonies were exquisite, they made you feel all warm inside, the strings swirled underneath... And then there was the rhyme of "restaurant" and "nonchalant"...
And then the song changed completely, it became a rocker... Someone started banging on the piano, like you would at home, only with more talent, there were random horns, you felt like you were at a football game and wanted to get out on the field and march with the band.
Then the track devolved into dreaminess, something the Beatles were so good at, but the Bee Gees did well too. The track went back to the quiet verse... But when the chorus came back this time, it was truly vociferous.
LONELY DAYS
LONELY NIGHTS
WHERE WOULD I BE WITHOUT MY WOMAN!
The brass is squeezing out the notes, the boys are shouting and harmonizing, the strings are swirling...it's a tour de force.
And I'll bet what Barry Gibb is feeling right now is lonely. With three of his four brothers deceased. You don't want to survive, you want to go first, otherwise it's just too painful. You've got no one to share your memories with, no one to sing with...
But we the listeners are not burdened by the death of three of the brothers Gibb. For us, the songs still live. This was an act that hung in there, kept trying, for decades, experimenting, getting it right. Their only mistake was to become so successful that the public put them in a box and they became inhibited by their own legacy.
Spotify playlist: http://spoti.fi/p6HcZ8
Previous Rhinofy playlists: http://www.rhinofy.com/lefsetz
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Update
Re: Lowery
I'm not gonna fill your inbox with the protestations and ministrations of the minions. Everyone seems to have an opinion on this week's meme and I know most are not interested in the thoughts of anybody but themselves. And I maintain all this bloviating is not moving the needle, which was my original point.
But I'm going to direct you to this post by Jay Frank, because it contains some interesting statistics. I don't agree with everything Jay says, but the underlying point is we live in a crowded marketplace that is overwhelming the consumer and to a great degree when you think piracy is holding you back, the real issue is demand...there's just not enough of it. That's not to say major artists are not affected by piracy, but despite Lowery counseling Emily White, to a great degree this is not an emotional issue, facts are important. I've excerpted a couple of Jay's points, but I believe it behooves you to read his entire post here: http://bit.ly/KTVwCa
And while you're at it, you should also look at Jay's most recent post, about music industry trends. Most importantly, the point that "Albums Earn Less Songs Earn More" - "Adele "Rolling In The Deep" sold over 11 million units in 2011, the most of any single song in the Soundscan era" and "Singles Take Longer To Break" - "Carly Rae Jepsen - Released September '11, Peak June '12", "Gotye - Released July '11, Peak May '12", "Fun. - Released September '11, Peak March '12", "One Direction - Released August '11, Peak April '12", "Foster The People - Released February '10, Peak August '11".
http://bit.ly/PEbm6N
____
"I just don't think they're stealing the music of the majority of artists bitching about thievery's impact on their business. The statistics don't bear it out."
"...is the fact that there are too many artists competing for shrinking dollars, largely due to the shift from albums to singles. Despite the economic number that David Lowery quoted of the number of professional musicians falling by 25%, if you took "album releases" as an indicator, it seems like the number of pros has increased. In a decade, we've gone from about 30,000 albums being released to over 77,000 last year. And that's just albums going thru legit channels. The problem, as noted by Chris Muratore of Nielsen on the previously noted New Music Seminar panel, is that 94% of those releases sold less than 1,000 units. Indicators that I have examined showed those low sales aren't because of people stealing them. They come from too many releases causing most people to not even realize they are out."
http://bit.ly/KTVwCa
____________________________________
From: Joe Taylor
Subject: RE: The Senate Judiciary Hearing
small point but Merlin own a piece of Spotify and Cooking Vinyl are in Merlin
Joe Taylor
Record of the Day
____________________________________
From: Scott Sommer
Subject: the power of howard stern...
Smashing Pumpkins released a new album. According to the interview with Billy Corgan, he let Howard pick any song off the record to play in full. Howard chose "Violet Rays." Billy said that was not the single and was surprised Howard picked it because it was more "out there" than many other songs.
Here is in image of the popular track ratings from the album:
(Click this link: http://bit.ly/LAcbMb and then click "View in iTunes" to the right of "Oceania - iTunes LP", which is at the top of the list.)
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
I'm not gonna fill your inbox with the protestations and ministrations of the minions. Everyone seems to have an opinion on this week's meme and I know most are not interested in the thoughts of anybody but themselves. And I maintain all this bloviating is not moving the needle, which was my original point.
But I'm going to direct you to this post by Jay Frank, because it contains some interesting statistics. I don't agree with everything Jay says, but the underlying point is we live in a crowded marketplace that is overwhelming the consumer and to a great degree when you think piracy is holding you back, the real issue is demand...there's just not enough of it. That's not to say major artists are not affected by piracy, but despite Lowery counseling Emily White, to a great degree this is not an emotional issue, facts are important. I've excerpted a couple of Jay's points, but I believe it behooves you to read his entire post here: http://bit.ly/KTVwCa
And while you're at it, you should also look at Jay's most recent post, about music industry trends. Most importantly, the point that "Albums Earn Less Songs Earn More" - "Adele "Rolling In The Deep" sold over 11 million units in 2011, the most of any single song in the Soundscan era" and "Singles Take Longer To Break" - "Carly Rae Jepsen - Released September '11, Peak June '12", "Gotye - Released July '11, Peak May '12", "Fun. - Released September '11, Peak March '12", "One Direction - Released August '11, Peak April '12", "Foster The People - Released February '10, Peak August '11".
http://bit.ly/PEbm6N
____
"I just don't think they're stealing the music of the majority of artists bitching about thievery's impact on their business. The statistics don't bear it out."
"...is the fact that there are too many artists competing for shrinking dollars, largely due to the shift from albums to singles. Despite the economic number that David Lowery quoted of the number of professional musicians falling by 25%, if you took "album releases" as an indicator, it seems like the number of pros has increased. In a decade, we've gone from about 30,000 albums being released to over 77,000 last year. And that's just albums going thru legit channels. The problem, as noted by Chris Muratore of Nielsen on the previously noted New Music Seminar panel, is that 94% of those releases sold less than 1,000 units. Indicators that I have examined showed those low sales aren't because of people stealing them. They come from too many releases causing most people to not even realize they are out."
http://bit.ly/KTVwCa
____________________________________
From: Joe Taylor
Subject: RE: The Senate Judiciary Hearing
small point but Merlin own a piece of Spotify and Cooking Vinyl are in Merlin
Joe Taylor
Record of the Day
____________________________________
From: Scott Sommer
Subject: the power of howard stern...
Smashing Pumpkins released a new album. According to the interview with Billy Corgan, he let Howard pick any song off the record to play in full. Howard chose "Violet Rays." Billy said that was not the single and was surprised Howard picked it because it was more "out there" than many other songs.
Here is in image of the popular track ratings from the album:
(Click this link: http://bit.ly/LAcbMb and then click "View in iTunes" to the right of "Oceania - iTunes LP", which is at the top of the list.)
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Thursday 21 June 2012
The Senate Judiciary Hearing
Be afraid, be very afraid. Especially when Lucian Grainge makes Edgar Bronfman, Jr. look like a paragon of openness and reasonableness.
If you were watching this hearing, and you knew nothing about the law, were just deciding whether the Universal/EMI merger should go through on fairness, you'd say NO WAY!
Lucian Grainge was so evasive and duplicitous you'd be afraid to go to dinner with him for fear he'd steal your watch. It was so obvious that both the panel and the chairman/senator had to remark upon it, that he didn't answer a single damn question.
Roger Faxon was eloquent. But it was hard to figure out exactly whose side he was on. What I mean by that is isn't he up for a job at Warner? And isn't this sale from Citi to Universal guaranteed? And he said if the merger goes through he's gonna lose his job, but admitted with a send-off paycheck, ain't that the American way.
At least Irving Azoff was honest. He said that Warner was blocking this merger because they didn't want to overpay for EMI, but they still wanted to own it. Truth is always refreshing. Irving was the only one who really talked about the new music business. Still, the concept that recorded music income is going to drop off a cliff and be nonexistent in the future is just plain wrong. The majors may not control the music of all of his acts, but they can determine on which terms they engage with the public in the marketplace.
Martin Mills made you want to sign to his company. He wasn't sleazy, he was direct, and forceful.
As for Gigi Sohn... She didn't look the part, but she was the musicians' friend.
And the inquisitors were quite informed. Star of the panel was Al Franken, who even corrected Azoff, putting in the record that Universal was not first on Spotify, but third, after EMI and Sony. Franken had done his homework. He cornered Grainge. But like the weasel Lucian is, he refused to respond to the inquiry, again and again and again. Hell, Grainge wouldn't even answer Kohl's question as to why he bought EMI. Can you imagine that, someone spending $1.9 billion and not being able to articulate why?
This hearing is meaningless.
But the proposed merger is not.
Just today I got this e-mail:
"I need you to withhold publication of my name because I still rely on UMG for some licenses. However, I can personally vouch for the validity of Pakman's statement to the WSJ. David Ring and his jr lawyer, Aaron Harrison, pulled the same kind of shit on me when I had to cut new licenses for _______ to save the company from extinction. Word for word.
The problem is that the industry is already too concentrated. The only fair solution is to exchange extended copyright protection for mandatory statutory licensing of all known digital business models including downloads and on-demand services."
Meanwhile, you all know the name of the company this gentleman is speaking of.
You see these guys are assholes. Especially Lucian Grainge. They're bullies who want to succeed not so much for their artists, but for themselves. It's the American way.
As for the public.
SCREW YOU!
P.S. Bronfman made an excellent point, that the AT&T merger with T-Mobile was denied, even though the resulting entity would have equal or less market share than Universal/EMI.
P.P.S. Even indies need distribution. Did you see that Amanda Palmer made a deal with Cooking Vinyl today? (http://bit.ly/L7vVUE)
P.P.P.S. Cooking Vinyl does not own a piece of Spotify, MOG or Vevo. But Universal does. In other words, you can be independent but every time your music is streamed you're enriching your competitor. It's kind of like paying the Mafia to keep your restaurant open.
P.P.P.S. Irving screwed up. He talked about the major labels exercising "blocking rights"... Isn't this what this hearing is all about, the concept of blocking unapproved entrants into the marketplace, whether they be music services or acts, requiring them to play by majors' rules, if they allow them to play at all?
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
If you were watching this hearing, and you knew nothing about the law, were just deciding whether the Universal/EMI merger should go through on fairness, you'd say NO WAY!
Lucian Grainge was so evasive and duplicitous you'd be afraid to go to dinner with him for fear he'd steal your watch. It was so obvious that both the panel and the chairman/senator had to remark upon it, that he didn't answer a single damn question.
Roger Faxon was eloquent. But it was hard to figure out exactly whose side he was on. What I mean by that is isn't he up for a job at Warner? And isn't this sale from Citi to Universal guaranteed? And he said if the merger goes through he's gonna lose his job, but admitted with a send-off paycheck, ain't that the American way.
At least Irving Azoff was honest. He said that Warner was blocking this merger because they didn't want to overpay for EMI, but they still wanted to own it. Truth is always refreshing. Irving was the only one who really talked about the new music business. Still, the concept that recorded music income is going to drop off a cliff and be nonexistent in the future is just plain wrong. The majors may not control the music of all of his acts, but they can determine on which terms they engage with the public in the marketplace.
Martin Mills made you want to sign to his company. He wasn't sleazy, he was direct, and forceful.
As for Gigi Sohn... She didn't look the part, but she was the musicians' friend.
And the inquisitors were quite informed. Star of the panel was Al Franken, who even corrected Azoff, putting in the record that Universal was not first on Spotify, but third, after EMI and Sony. Franken had done his homework. He cornered Grainge. But like the weasel Lucian is, he refused to respond to the inquiry, again and again and again. Hell, Grainge wouldn't even answer Kohl's question as to why he bought EMI. Can you imagine that, someone spending $1.9 billion and not being able to articulate why?
This hearing is meaningless.
But the proposed merger is not.
Just today I got this e-mail:
"I need you to withhold publication of my name because I still rely on UMG for some licenses. However, I can personally vouch for the validity of Pakman's statement to the WSJ. David Ring and his jr lawyer, Aaron Harrison, pulled the same kind of shit on me when I had to cut new licenses for _______ to save the company from extinction. Word for word.
The problem is that the industry is already too concentrated. The only fair solution is to exchange extended copyright protection for mandatory statutory licensing of all known digital business models including downloads and on-demand services."
Meanwhile, you all know the name of the company this gentleman is speaking of.
You see these guys are assholes. Especially Lucian Grainge. They're bullies who want to succeed not so much for their artists, but for themselves. It's the American way.
As for the public.
SCREW YOU!
P.S. Bronfman made an excellent point, that the AT&T merger with T-Mobile was denied, even though the resulting entity would have equal or less market share than Universal/EMI.
P.P.S. Even indies need distribution. Did you see that Amanda Palmer made a deal with Cooking Vinyl today? (http://bit.ly/L7vVUE)
P.P.P.S. Cooking Vinyl does not own a piece of Spotify, MOG or Vevo. But Universal does. In other words, you can be independent but every time your music is streamed you're enriching your competitor. It's kind of like paying the Mafia to keep your restaurant open.
P.P.P.S. Irving screwed up. He talked about the major labels exercising "blocking rights"... Isn't this what this hearing is all about, the concept of blocking unapproved entrants into the marketplace, whether they be music services or acts, requiring them to play by majors' rules, if they allow them to play at all?
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Wednesday 20 June 2012
Universal/EMI
I think I'm switching sides. I think I'm against this merger.
On one hand I've been very influenced by Peter Paterno, who's convinced me market forces always triumph, that the government does not need to get involved. Hell, look at Microsoft... It squandered its dominance all by itself. As for Live Nation and Ticketmaster... There are more ticketing companies than ever before, Live Nation missed the EDM boat... One can argue strongly that Universal should just swallow EMI whole and let it be it.
But there's a problem. Especially in the U.S. You see in this country, copyrights are forever. Theoretically they expire, but whenever that's close to happening some fat cat leans upon his congressperson and the term is extended. Yup, Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain, you should be able to paint his picture on pre-school walls and sell t-shirts with his visage... But Michael Eisner and Disney just couldn't let that happen.
Even patents expire. Relatively quickly. That's why the generic drug industry is burgeoning. But musical copyrights? They just go on and on, and he who controls them has power, he can gum up the works.
Imagine if there was no copyright in music. Napster would still exist. Then again, it might already have been eclipsed by streaming services. But Napster died. Because it needed permission. Something the rights holders just would not grant.
You see I'm less worried about the forty percent of the new music marketplace Universal would own with its acquisition of EMI than its catalog. New music market share comes and goes. The barrier to entry is not incredibly high. But they're making no more Beatles records. If this merger goes through, Universal would own them and the hits of the Beach Boys, never mind the tracks it already controls. And if you want to go into any business requiring usage of copyrighted material, you're gonna have go through them, Universal...your company will be dependent upon their whims.
Which is why for so many years we got no new developments in legal online music distribution. The rights holders just wouldn't license. And they extracted ownership in Spotify in order to grant said license and as a result, we've got no idea how much they're getting paid or what artists are entitled to. It's a closed system. And it sucks.
Think about the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which enabled radio consolidation. It ruined music radio. There's not a listener who would not agree. And by tightening radio playlists, it negatively impacted music at large, it was hard to sell it if you couldn't hear it.
Of course now there's the Internet.
But the Internet was nascent in 1996. And that was over fifteen years ago. Terrestrial radio is still the best way to expose music, to everyone but the major labels' detriment.
The problem is, there's a limited number of stations. Just like there's a limited number of copyrights. He who owns the past unfortunately ends up controlling the future, for a very long time anyway.
Eventually so much of the classic rock era will be financially irrelevant. Just like you don't need the music of the 1940's to launch a service today. But that's going to be a very long time from now...
But let's say the merger doesn't happen. What's end game then?
I believe the major labels will lose their grip on new music production. Then again, he who controls distribution holds the trump card. But what I'm saying is what is end game if this merger is not allowed to go through? Are we gumming up the works by preventing inevitable consolidation? Does the company that buys EMI end up with an orphan entity down the road that is only worthwhile if merged with another?
That's an interesting question.
But anyone who doubts the power of Universal, the big kahuna, already, should read the story of eMusic in today's "Wall Street Journal". Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, so I'll quote the relevant provision:
"In some cases, Universal has already used its market power to extract favorable terms from online music services. In early 2008, David Pakman, then the CEO of eMusic.com Inc, was negotiating to add major-label releases to his company's catalog of independent music. David Ring, a senior digital executive at Universal Music, told him Universal's massive catalog entitled it to more favorable terms.
'He said, "We get more, because we're Universal. That's just the way we roll,"' Mr. Pakman recalls. That stance, Mr. Pakman adds, applied to 'every dimension of our contract: the rate you pay per unit sold; the promotion you agree to do.' The companies reached an agreement 2? years later, after Mr. Pakman had left and eMusic raised its prices sharply.
A Universal spokesman called Mr. Pakman's account of the conversation 'complete fiction.' In the same email, the spokesman wrote: 'UMG has licensed more digital music services than any other music company.'"
http://on.wsj.com/PnA3nM
Who do you believe? Hell, Universal's denial was not even complete. It sidestepped the issue... And we hear from the spokesman, not Mr. Ring himself?
Mm... My mind is not completely made up.
But I'm afraid, very afraid. Because he who controls the lion's share of copyrights has undue influence on the future of music. Not only in distribution. This is not tech, where Palm is trumped by RIM, which is trumped by Apple and Android. all within a decade. Those rights Universal holds last, like I said, essentially forever.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
On one hand I've been very influenced by Peter Paterno, who's convinced me market forces always triumph, that the government does not need to get involved. Hell, look at Microsoft... It squandered its dominance all by itself. As for Live Nation and Ticketmaster... There are more ticketing companies than ever before, Live Nation missed the EDM boat... One can argue strongly that Universal should just swallow EMI whole and let it be it.
But there's a problem. Especially in the U.S. You see in this country, copyrights are forever. Theoretically they expire, but whenever that's close to happening some fat cat leans upon his congressperson and the term is extended. Yup, Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain, you should be able to paint his picture on pre-school walls and sell t-shirts with his visage... But Michael Eisner and Disney just couldn't let that happen.
Even patents expire. Relatively quickly. That's why the generic drug industry is burgeoning. But musical copyrights? They just go on and on, and he who controls them has power, he can gum up the works.
Imagine if there was no copyright in music. Napster would still exist. Then again, it might already have been eclipsed by streaming services. But Napster died. Because it needed permission. Something the rights holders just would not grant.
You see I'm less worried about the forty percent of the new music marketplace Universal would own with its acquisition of EMI than its catalog. New music market share comes and goes. The barrier to entry is not incredibly high. But they're making no more Beatles records. If this merger goes through, Universal would own them and the hits of the Beach Boys, never mind the tracks it already controls. And if you want to go into any business requiring usage of copyrighted material, you're gonna have go through them, Universal...your company will be dependent upon their whims.
Which is why for so many years we got no new developments in legal online music distribution. The rights holders just wouldn't license. And they extracted ownership in Spotify in order to grant said license and as a result, we've got no idea how much they're getting paid or what artists are entitled to. It's a closed system. And it sucks.
Think about the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which enabled radio consolidation. It ruined music radio. There's not a listener who would not agree. And by tightening radio playlists, it negatively impacted music at large, it was hard to sell it if you couldn't hear it.
Of course now there's the Internet.
But the Internet was nascent in 1996. And that was over fifteen years ago. Terrestrial radio is still the best way to expose music, to everyone but the major labels' detriment.
The problem is, there's a limited number of stations. Just like there's a limited number of copyrights. He who owns the past unfortunately ends up controlling the future, for a very long time anyway.
Eventually so much of the classic rock era will be financially irrelevant. Just like you don't need the music of the 1940's to launch a service today. But that's going to be a very long time from now...
But let's say the merger doesn't happen. What's end game then?
I believe the major labels will lose their grip on new music production. Then again, he who controls distribution holds the trump card. But what I'm saying is what is end game if this merger is not allowed to go through? Are we gumming up the works by preventing inevitable consolidation? Does the company that buys EMI end up with an orphan entity down the road that is only worthwhile if merged with another?
That's an interesting question.
But anyone who doubts the power of Universal, the big kahuna, already, should read the story of eMusic in today's "Wall Street Journal". Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, so I'll quote the relevant provision:
"In some cases, Universal has already used its market power to extract favorable terms from online music services. In early 2008, David Pakman, then the CEO of eMusic.com Inc, was negotiating to add major-label releases to his company's catalog of independent music. David Ring, a senior digital executive at Universal Music, told him Universal's massive catalog entitled it to more favorable terms.
'He said, "We get more, because we're Universal. That's just the way we roll,"' Mr. Pakman recalls. That stance, Mr. Pakman adds, applied to 'every dimension of our contract: the rate you pay per unit sold; the promotion you agree to do.' The companies reached an agreement 2? years later, after Mr. Pakman had left and eMusic raised its prices sharply.
A Universal spokesman called Mr. Pakman's account of the conversation 'complete fiction.' In the same email, the spokesman wrote: 'UMG has licensed more digital music services than any other music company.'"
http://on.wsj.com/PnA3nM
Who do you believe? Hell, Universal's denial was not even complete. It sidestepped the issue... And we hear from the spokesman, not Mr. Ring himself?
Mm... My mind is not completely made up.
But I'm afraid, very afraid. Because he who controls the lion's share of copyrights has undue influence on the future of music. Not only in distribution. This is not tech, where Palm is trumped by RIM, which is trumped by Apple and Android. all within a decade. Those rights Universal holds last, like I said, essentially forever.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Tuesday 19 June 2012
Re-The David Lowery Screed
From: Kevin King
I just went and read all of the comments. I'm so bummed that these folks are wasting their breath on changing the habits of likely billions of people by making them feel guilty.
I recently discovered an artist called Friendly Fires via a YouTube link from a friend. I shared it with my wife, and we streamed it over and over, added to Rdio, created social conversations, and we're greeted with a YouTube/songkick call to action to buy tickets (YouTube knew I lived in NYC).....we did....and created 125 consumer dollars in the context of friendly fires. Had the "free" model not been in place, this would have never occurred. Ever. EVER!
Tickets and merch. I've said it for 8 years. Music is a loss leader, embrace it, and join ur fans. Give them what they want. participate!
______________________________________
Right on, Bob
Stand by for the haters.
Bottom line-- and I've been saying this to crybabies around me in the biz:
The very same technology that has "cost you a career", whether you actually had one or not, is the same technology that allows you to:
- have a killer studio on a $1000 laptop,
-make great sounding records by adding another $1000 in good Mics, preamps, interfaces etc.
- have access to new fans in Buenos Aires, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Lawrence KS, and Nairobi.....
IF your music is so damn good people tell others about it.
That last part is the big problem , as you keep trying to point out.
Gone are the days where you got "money for mediocre". Get it together, learn ALL the technology, and WRITE BETTER MUSIC, whatever your genre, and get it out there & play live.
And stop crying. It's no longer 1987.
Thank you
Andre Cholmondeley
______________________________________
I find it comical how he illustrates his point by saying we pay for broadband internet service, smart phones with data plans and laptops that cost $1,000, Iphones that cost $500 and we seem to have no problem paying for those.
Duh... If people could steal those they would too!
As for internet service - I have a friend who hasn't paid for broadband in years because his neighbor is too stupid to password protect his wifi router.
My nephew lives next to a coffee shop with an open wifi router and downloads his favorite Wii games from his bedroom, much to the chagrin of his mom.
It's not about the moral dilemma, it's about the ease of execution.
Cheers
danmillen
P.S. I gotta give it to Lowery though, every winter he dusts off the "Cracker Van Beethoven" tour and sells out a local 600 seater here in town and KILLS IT. People come back every single year and sometimes if he's got the avails they'll do two nights. The band is tight and he delivers.
______________________________________
Right on! Can't believe how many people hopped aboard this whining rant. Sounds like a grumpy old man. Team Emily all the way!
Robert Culos
______________________________________
"If only he'd make music as riveting as his writing, with as many people caring about what he has to sing."
Spoken like someone wholly unfamiliar w/ Camper Van Beethoven's songs. Listen to "Our Beloved Revolutionary Sweetheart" or "Key Lime Pie" (esp "All Her Favorite Fruit," inspired by the writing of Thomas Pynchon) and you'll find plenty of rivets.
Hippy Johnny
______________________________________
Bob
I agree with most of your view about the new paradigm, but not with you beating up on Lowery.
He was trying NOT to beat up on the girl and said so many times. He seems to be FOR a Spotify-like solution to artists getting paid.
His point appeared to me to be that there ARE solutions to artists getting paid. New solutions.
I agree not every musician deserves to get paid. If no one wants what you do, it is time to do it as a hobby.
But if thousands of people DO want what you do, they should be willing to pay for it.
If someone manufactures an ugly pair of shoes, no one buys them. But if someone makes a sneaker that everyone wants, they don't steal them (okay some do).
They pay for them. Or, if the price is to high╤they don't.
There is a moral point here, and it would be a shame if it got lost in the shuffle play.
Michael Ross
______________________________________
Bob,
I'm 24, just left a two year stint on Wall St. to start my own company and really find out if I'm worth a shit, if I can do it on my own. Here's what I've learned:
-Wall Street analysts, traders, brokers, et al believe that no one owes you shit. If you're fucked, it's bc you let yourself get fucked. Get up, make changes, do better, learn, and earn it.
-Work 15 hrs/day in the startup world? No one owes you shit. If your product is worth it, you'll make it. Otherwise, shut up.
I've played music, released music, gigged for 10+ years. No one owes me shit. I play bc it's what I do. It's what I love. I can't not do it. But, to expect money?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAâ•"
20 years laterâ•"
â•"AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAâ•"!
I'm crying (of laughter),
Jake
______________________________________
Nice one Bob.
Ted Schreiber
______________________________________
love it.
Hugo Burnham
______________________________________
Right the fuck on, Bob. You nailed it.
Brendan O'Connell
______________________________________
Great post Bob!
I'm a huge Cracker fan so it pains me to read David's rants. He just doesn't get it. I'm a big fan, so guess what? I BUY his music so he can get paid. I've bought every Cracker album cause I love their music and songwriting. It's not about it being popular or a hit, I just love their songs and songwriting, and that's all that matters to me. Do I buy all my music? No, I'll admit it, but if I'm a hardcore fan of your stuff, I will pay, because I value it and want to make sure you keep making more. If your hardcore fanbase isn't enough to support you, how is that everybody else's problem? If I'm a casual fan or your stuff to me feels more like background music and doesn't really move me, but I like it, well...
David basically complaining about how the "casual" listener will just steal his music so that's revenue he doesn't get so misses the point. Before file sharing, pretty sure that wasn't even revenue he had a chance of ever getting anyway! That's not your audience! Your fans that will pay, are! Your fans WILL pay as I do. Hell, when Cracker finally left Virgin and Virgin put out a Greatest Hits Compilation out that Cracker was none to happy about but could not do anything to stop it since Virgin owned the masters and the right to do and release whatever they wanted as they saw fit, Cracker went into the studio and RE-RECORDED most of those same Greatest Hits tracks, with some extra new songs thrown in(one called "It Ain't Gonna Suck Itself", a kiss off to Virgin of all things!!) and asked their fan to NOT buy the Virgin release and buy their release Greatest Hit Redux instead, which they released themselves. Well being a serious fan, guess which one I bought and which one I shunned?
Even though I am no fan of David's point of view, he can sleep at night knowing that I am a fan of his music and songwriting and I along with many other fans, will always buy the next Cracker release.
Michael Moniz
______________________________________
Honestly, do you have any idea how the majority of independent artists make their living? You write and write about artists afraid to let go of the past and embrace the future, but invariably your examples of successful artists are all on the mainstream level. Look beyond the Lady GaGas. I was at Folk Alliance this year when you gave your keynote address. Afterwards, you wrote about being impressed by all the artists playing real instruments (gosh!) and doing it for the love of music. That's exactly what Lowery and countless other very talented independent artists do. They're not looking to get "rich." They just want to make an honest living plying their trade, and their grassroots fan bases allow them to do that. Or did. That's the choir Lowery is preaching to. And hell yes, I applaud him for it.
Richard Skanse
______________________________________
This brief post provides a good young person's perspective. Money quote: "I honestly don't think my peers and I will ever pay for albums. I do think we will pay for convenience."
You're right, what comes next is anybody's guess.
http://n.pr/Mk2Nxy
Best, Michael Witthaus
P.S. Shit - I didn't realize this is the same chick Lowrey is screaming
about. He completely misses the point, doesn't he? Sorry for my d'oh moment, but reading her piece without knowing the Lawson context didn't make Emily White seem any different from most young music fans (including my 17-year old daughter). They will pay for convenience and ubiquity.
MW
______________________________________
Re: Lowery's screed, he took her so far out of context it's insane. She said she's only bought maybe 15 CDs, but that was to illustrate she's not into physical copies. She admitted MOST of her 11,000 songs were LEGALLY obtained. And his screed then shreds her for officially stealing all her music. Way to showcase our collective inability to actually read something in its actual context and then respond in kind. I found his letter to be condescending and a waste of words. If, as he says, he spends his time teaching "the current generation" about music and ethics, and he's not getting through, then perhaps it's his problem. A poor teacher is a poor teacher.
If you print this, feel free to keep my name on it ;) I own what I say, even if people may later take it out of context. And I give Emily a big thumbs-up for being willing to put her name on it, even if it means she's now the perfect scapegoat for guys like Lowrey and their agenda.
Jonathan Sanders
______________________________________
Lowery/Gregg Allman:
I'll say it again Bob..you are so on the money yet again. My new album is inching towards $1000 sales in less than a year but I'm still stoked. Why? Because I am on Spotify, iTunes, Noisehead et al. Under the old regime I would not even have got the album made never mind achieve global sales. Money, income? That's just icing on the cake when your life revolves around music. And then some guy stops me at a gig and tells me he even loves the CD insert book/liner notes, as well as the album. Wow! I'm still talking about it! Thanks for all the wisdom.
Billy The Mountain
______________________________________
Lowery's been in the game for 30 years. Doesn't he know what happens to promo CDs (and, back in the day, LPs) sent to college radio station?
College students are POOR!
Years ago, what wasn't taken or stolen was sold for beer money.
Has David Lowery ever been into a used record store near a college campus? Promo albums as far as the eye can see.
Did Lowery ever get a dime for any CVB or Cracker albums sold that way?
Hell no, he probably got dinged in his royalties!
Mark Rushton
______________________________________
ROCK!
Tristan Shields
______________________________________
I enjoyed this letter - my reaction was very, very similar. I've been sparring with various indie artists on Facebook all afternoon. I like Dave quite a bit, but I found his note to be mis-directed.
John Strohm
______________________________________
I'll be sure to file Lowry's response under "L" for long winded diatribes I could really give a fuck about
Kurt Heim
______________________________________
You've ignored the entire point of his screed, just so you can pontificate how you know better. Not to mention that the typewriter comparison is seriously stale.
Kevin Calabro
______________________________________
You remind me of that football coach (Texas A&M?) who said something to this effect: "if you know you're going to be raped, you might as well sit back and try to enjoy it".
David isn't advocating a return to vinyl for everyone, nor is he even suggesting that everyone buy CDs. He is saying that one can no longer blame the labels/artist for not giving people a modern, convenient, digital way to pay for music. It is here, right now, via iTunes, Spotiy, MOG, etc. If you still choose not to pay, it's because you are choosing to steal, plain and simple. You agree with this point, yet you also want to seem cool, so you complain about David Lowry. Don't be a dick- Lowry HAS made great music, and now he's sharing his first hand knowledge by being a teacher. What have you done lately other than try and take other people down and insist that only yourself and whichever cool new tech "friend" of yours has the answer?
Rich Costey
______________________________________
David Lowery is not talking about getting rich! He's talking about musicians, engineers, songwriters getting PAID. What does Smith-Carona have to do with getting paid for your work? Who is stealing typewriters? Jeez, that analogy you keep using doesn't fit the argument.
It has NOTHING to do with making what you consider GREAT music. If a song sells 10 copies, the writer should make a buck...that's all he's saying.
His take on the morality of taking music because you can is right on the money. If people could steal iphones, laptops, and get away with it, they would.
If your car gets stolen in LA Bob, you should be ok with it because it was possible. If the thief gets caught, let em go! Walk the walk.
So, getting paid for what you do is 'the way it was'?
Why are you trying so HARD to be hip???
...and Greg Allman saying money doesn't matter...that's an easy thing to say from your mansion. Being 19 and broke is different than being 60 and broke...
Again, this isn't about GETTING RICH. It's about getting paid. That's it.
thanks,
Doug Kahan
p.s.
Though you repeated it, I never felt like Mr. Lowery was 'beating up' that 'little girl'. In fact, he was courteous and respectful.
______________________________________
Bob, you are wrong on this. This is about getting their "fair share" it is about getting any "share." And Emily is not a "little girl" she is an adult who thinks she is entitled to free entertainment. Further, David wasn't saying you have to pay $14 for that one good track; you pay 99cents from iTunes for it. But those artists with one good track are the mega artists who get the $$. Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven put out great (at least to me) lps that were filled with great music...not a bunch of lame singles.
I like your site Bob, but you are very wrong on this.
Russell Sawyer
______________________________________
Hi Bob,
I can't believe how far off the mark you are with this one, Bob. Did you actually read all of David Lowery's piece? His tone was ultra respectful throughout, not "beating up on this little girl" or "fighting" her.
Nowhere is he hankering after days gone by .... unless you think that equates to him putting forward the argument that artists have rights and deserve to be paid ... IF you like their music! It's not about all the artists that nobody wants to hear. It's about the ones that people DO want to listen to.
You're dead right that "We live in a land of misinformation. Distributed by powerful people to keep you in your place." But those people aren't the ones liking David Lowery's comments ... I'd say they'd be delighted at your own take on it though.
I would've thought you'd actually agree with Lowery when he says:
"Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself?
Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself?
Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individualswho create andsell music?
This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it?s as if:
Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!
Hardware: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!
Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class. Screw you, you greedy bastards!
Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!"
Very well put, I thought. And funnily enough, it reminds me of many things you yourself have written.
Catherine Hol
______________________________________
I'd been using Spotify Premium for a little while now and we had the credit card attached to the account replaced for a fraud concern. I thought I could live without it and didn't re-up. This month we have been on the road and not having Spotify has been driving me nuts.
Last night I wanted to reference the sounds of Bruce Springsteen's Seeger Sessions and couldn't get the "premium content". Tonight we are covering Roy Orbison's running scared with our supporting act and I couldn't bring it up to cram on Spotify.
I am hooked and will be paying my money down right now. Thanks for the reminder.
Pat Cupples
______________________________________
you know what Bob? the world needs ditch diggers too..I am so sick of these artists complaining about their lost revenue I could give a crap less anymore if one does not adjust well to change they will be lost...seems to me many artists should just get lost. There are no gurantees on being an "artist" forever.
Lisa Lisa
______________________________________
Every time I talk with my "wannabe" musician friends, we laugh that you've drunk the kool-aid, you've been co-opted by the people you used to analyze, you've been on the guest list at the fiat of one too many power brokers. You've LOST CREDIBILITY.
I'm tired of your slamming the artist in pretty much every single fucking letter for what are systematic obstacles in our path. (Well, at least the emails that aren't touting the greatness of Vail or Apple, Inc.) I thought Lowery made some great points about the economics. But you didn't respond to ONE SINGLE POINT he argued at all, you just threw up yesterday's meal of bad syllogisms, all opinion and no evidence. I'm truly disappointed if this is what you've devolved into.
Most of my musician friends and colleagues do this for the love of the craft, even though we might have barely eked out a living in the old regime, we're still at it regardless of whomever is the treat of the week on terrestrial radio or Youtube. That's the recipe for poverty, if not insanity, but great work is its own reward. We don't expect to "go viral" any time soon without some gimmick that distracts from the music, or worse, by watering things down to please the current cadre of gatekeepers.
I know what I want to achieve: Greatness. Great and popular have seldom been neighbours in our culture, all your browbeating about the Beatles to the contrary. Many of my favourite artists you would consider marginal (except of course when there's a critical consensus, particularly the overhyped artists of the late sixties and early seventies.
If David Ackles or Laura Nyro were struggling artists on indie or DIY labels today, trust me, YOU WOULDN'T GIVE A SHIT. You'd be the first to diss them for their eccentricities, their desire to be left alone and not play some social media game, that they're not social-pimping their audiences like Jonathan Colton or Amanda Fucking Palmer (god bless her!)
Music shouldn't just be a career. Music is a CALLING. Something you have forgotten cob-nobbling at Coachella.
Fuck Gregg Allman, fuck the seventies (I was there, gas was expensive and people read Richard Bach), and this morning, fuck you too.
Now you can hit delete and read Luke's latest ass-kiss.
Love,
Dan Bryk
______________________________________
Fuck yes. I live in Richmond VA where Lowery is pretty much revered. Never was as cool nor talented as he thought, fails to address sound quality or lack thereof and how that alters consumer behavior. Its an achilles heel to my slice of consumers. Sorry, but convenient music that sounds bad is not worth the same as pretty convenient music that still sounds great. As a studio owner here for 20 years he should know this. I'm in my forties and went from vinyl to cassette to CD to SACD. I bought some albums 4 times. If he thinks I'm paying $10 for another, MP3, copy of Eat A Peach he's nuts. A reasonably priced model of comprehensive streaming is what I'll buy as long as it integrated with my rare and OOP ripped CDs and my live and studio ROIO's. When that happens, I'm in. That's convenience worth tinny AM radio sound.
Cracker should never have been signed... Mediocre from day 1. Should be thankful for every ounce of support from Virgin. Now just work a day job like the rest of us. LOL.
______________________________________
Well, Bob, if my facebook feed is any indication, you put your foot in it with this. Lowery's got the moral high ground but my sense is you are right; you can't guilt-trip people into paying for music. But people don't like to hear that the horse has left the barn.
Advocates for musicians should be careful what they ask for. The internet is fundamentally a huge copying machine. The only way to put the file-sharing genie back in the bottle is with a worldwide digital surveillance state, meaning total 24/7 policing and control of everyone's communications and internet usage, like China/Ethiopia/Indonesia but worse. And the media industry are trying, with ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/TPP and even worse treaties coming down the pike. Do we really want to go there? Will musicians get paid any better? The same people will be skimming most of the money off the top!
My opinion, anyway.
Jack Endino
______________________________________
Absolutely
I am not getting rich by any stretch of the word. I do music because I love when some words pop into my head and then string themselves together in a melody and then poof! I am engaged in a process that makes me be glad to be alive. If you are doing it for any other reason you need to stop. If money comes, short, long or otherwise, be glad and keep plugging. I have not written my best material and I probably never will but I will keep on until I at least come close. It truly is the journey and with all these "bitchers" and cry babies wasting time they are leaving some doors open somewhere.
Elam McKnight
______________________________________
Great one Bob!
John Hartmann
______________________________________
Bob,
I don't agree with all of David's points. Hell, I'm not even a big fan of his music, but you have to admit he makes a compelling argument. I must also say that some of your generalizations and your overall tone are off the mark. How can someone like yourself, who quite often writes about the old days when it was "all about the music", make a sarcastic statement like "why don't we bring back Smith Corona?". You consistently long for the old days when it comes to the music itself. I'm sure many of your readers have sent responses to your comments that mirror your criticism of David Lowery, i.e. "you're always ranting about the good old days, Bob". I'm a fan of yours, but quite often you seem to want to have it both ways. Respectful discourse is the way to go.
Lee Gamble
______________________________________
Mr Lefsetz,
Whether you agree or disagree with him David Lowery's article hardly qualifies as a screed. It was neither monotonous nor ranting. It was a well thought out informative piece which articulated his viewpoint. To suggest otherwise is to take an unfair shot at someone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
Thanks,
John Hewer
______________________________________
Bob,
Love Lowery, love CVB, love Cracker, love his writing here and his presentation at SF Music Tech Summit. However he is wrong. David's problem, in my humble opinion, is that he is still viewing the whole situation through old model glasses. Of course he wants things to be like they were, he is already an established artist that got paid (or not in some cases) the way they used to get paid. He doesn't have the same perspective on it as a new artist trying to find an audience. It is in his best interest for the old model to hold strong. As an unknown musician I much prefer to work with what I know is the new model. They are not going to by my music the way they bought his. I accept that is the way things are, I hope he can soon.
thanks,
Patrick Hayes
the Dead Volts
______________________________________
Screed is the right word for it. I also don't think too highly of the rhetorical skills that he used to promote his message to pay the artist for services rendered. The passive-aggressive tone of his sentences directed at Ms. White were utterly transparent in their equivocations to not think him to be a bully of any sort. They revealed the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of his convictions as an original 'artist' and defender of artists rights.
After reading his prose replete with his fuzzy-around-the-edges historical revisionism I believe that deep down he knows that the modicum of success he enjoys during his music career so far is less the result of an artist's vision so startlingly original in concept and execution that an audience clamored at every opportunity to patronize his performances and recordings and therefore any drop in residual income MUST be the result of piracy, and his success more the result of some measure of creativity and a mixed bag of serendipitous strategies culled from the milieu of game theory influenced business models that informed the music industry in the latter two decades of the twentieth century. As in:
the right record
at the right time
with the right tour
and the right representation
equals some measure of financial compensation with the salve that if any one of this combination of contingencies had been tweaked just a little more then the music would have broke wide open so lets do it again and hope all the stars align next time (I call this pattern the "The Gambler Agrees to Double Down" model)
This is the nutshell that his music career lives in and not the romantic scenario he paints of some free spirit who has been denied fair compensation nobly soldering on in the rock n roll mines so we can enjoy that rich vein of pure counterculture gold . It is the mentality of a Willie Loman-type salesman who wants one more kick at the can to justify all the weary times that came before so that the dream of a lifetime doesn't seem so small and derelict--all up on on concrete blocks by the side of the road as he looks peevishly into the rear view mirror.
And for that existential grief that he suffers from, he's willing to persecute Ms. White whose REAL crime is being young and not falling for the lies that he fell for. Well I'd like to tell him that regret and self doubt over choices made are not the exclusive fears of all of us aging rock n rollers, that she will likely fall to some degree for other shinier new lies. He can be consoled by that notion or he can be an even bigger man and realize it was a fantastic ride and it is over. Music is and always was worthwhile in the playing and listening alone. Everything else around it was/is gamesmanship and posturing.
Finally, I would like to suggest a clean slate for any of his future recordings. Any artist sure of his stature and creative idiosyncratic vision with a well known reputation of disdain for others who follow a pattern of retreading the previous generation of musical influences and using the result to keep the tour bus on the road, should use the internet to demand patronage for future works. Since such an uncompromising stylist could be assured of benefactors that would finance musical compositions by him alone which would, given his music's unique and proprietary qualities, be a sure fire winner and the 'artist' could comfortably count the cash before the public ever heard a note.
Maurice Boucher
______________________________________
I don't give a fuck about all this rationallzation. She stole 10900 songs of the 11000 she "loves".
Some love.
When i tripped out and smoked tons of weed in Hepburn and Gifford and on the lifts at the Bowl I never tried to bullshit anybody that I wasn't breaking the law. And I wasn't taking anybody's property, intellectual or otherwise.
The idea that intellectual property is not actual property is just bullshit.
After that it's a sophist's argument about how to make a socio-political case out of it, as if it were the sexual revolution or integration, or gay rights, or marijuana legalization.
It's still stolen.
Jamie Howarth
______________________________________
Gotta go with Lowery on this one, Bob.
You're way off the mark.
Best,
Nelson Leonard
______________________________________
I agree with the sentiment Bob .... except for the unnecessary and repeated digs at Lowry's music career and output. Camper Van Beethoven was indie cool before there was even a name for that type of music and Cracker has a solid track record scoring well selling albums, Major label releases, Gold Album, heavy rotation videos on MTV ("low" with Sandra Bernhardt was great). Now the band hosts their own curated camp out festivals, stays on the road, etc...
Sure Lowry is surly and opinionated on the file sharing issue .... but he's taking a stand. Something you usually promote and support. He's not staying silent and safe and even though you don't agree with the points he's making, he is epitomizing much of the advice you so repeatedly give.
Craig
______________________________________
Hi, Bob,
Ugh. I recall reading a lengthy article in the 90s about the mechanical royalty songwriters are supposed to recieve. In short, the labels take the mechanical royalty rate as a suggestion, not as a minimum, and often sign beginning songwriters and artists to contracts requiring them to accept rates lower than the mechanical royalty rate. When the artists and songwriters are successful enough, the contracts are renegotiated and they receive the mechanical royalty rate or more.
Does my recollection of that article fit with what you know about mechanical royalties?
So, I had to stop reading David Lowery's response when he spews the company line about mechanical royalties being the law, being predetermined and being compulsory. It's a half-truth, a technically true statement that avoids telling another truth. The old saying that "half-truths are whole lies" sums up how I feel about this. And if what Lowery said about that is only half true, why should I bother reading anything else that Lowery has to say? It's unreliable.
Ugh. I feel for intern Emily White.
Thanks for your newsletter about this.
Here's the Lowery paragraph where I had to stop reading:
"Secondly, by law the record label must pay songwriters (who may also be artists) something called a mechanical royalty for sales of CDs or downloads of the song. This is paid regardless of whether a record is recouped or not. The rate is predetermined, and the license is compulsory. Meaning that the file sharing sites could get the same license if they wanted to, at least for the songs. They don?t. They don?t wanna pay artists."
Charles Crossley, Jr.
______________________________________
Bob you know I love you dude cause you speak your mind.
BUT
you couldn't be MORE WRONG - and here's a little piece of mine.
You will never understand because you DON'T MAKE ANYTHING..
No matter what bullshit people want to tell themselves to feel better about not supporting artists it's STILL THEFT!
Bottomline is you have no clue what it takes to make music cause you can't...
AND I am not a wannabe Bob.. I am. I don't need to be famous / I don't need to be adored / I don't need to be rich.
But what I do need to be is supported if you like my shit!
Have some fuckin respect man
BK
www.briankahanek.com
______________________________________
Bob,
You are so completely and utterly full of shit. I am disappointed in you, but I can't say I'm surprised. You unload with both barrels blasting at David Lowery who is eloquently expressing an opinion, making snide insinuations, false accusations and replicating old arguments as to why this guy is wrong. What are you worried about? That there might be some meaningful dialogue on this subject that you're not somehow "in on"? Does it bug you that Lowery's article resonated with people in a way that yours don't always?
David Lowery isn't "beating up on this little girl", and shame on you for characterizing it that way. He presented a courteous, logical argument that obviously struck a chord with his readers.
Why do YOU constantly beat up on the artists you claim to love so much? Why is the artists' fault? Even those who make--to your exacting standards--GREAT music are barely getting paid. And that's wrong. It's simple, isn't it?
No one--not Lowery, not me--is suggesting we return to the olden days, so your snide mentions of Smith-Corona and printers' jobs are irrelevant. No one is suggesting we fight file sharing. What is being suggested is that creators of words and music get paid fairly when their work is enjoyed. Period. Given our technological reality, this is something NEW. Why wouldn't you applaud potential innovation that would reward artists and songwriters whose songs people WANT to hear/trade/use? What's so hard to understand about it??
Do you even KNOW any musicians who aren't (yet) successful? Why do you assume they are money-grubbing idiots? Isn't that just bigotry and stupidity? And nowhere in your arguments do you leave room for subjectivity in taste. You think the Eagles were the American Beatles? Holy fuck, that's some steaming pile of bullshit! The Eagles were just fine, but...come on, man. And there are lots of genres of music that people LOVE that I bet you don't listen to. So why are YOU the final arbiter of what is worth paying for?
I couldn't find any mention of Lowery's musicial aspirations in the article, no mention of a career except as a professor, so your accusations that he is yet another wannabe wanting money is just absurd. You presume he wants us to buy his records, and maybe he does. You presume his records, if they even exist, are shit. And maybe they are. But why would that discredit anything he says? And why would you unload so exuberantly on this guy? What's in it for you?
And invoking Carlin's name is almost sacrilegious in the context of your wholly-false argument about "The Man" controlling everything. "The Man", in this case, is The Market, in cahoots with Big Tech and the telecom sector, and you--typically--rush to their defense, blaming the victim, the artists...who, let's face it, really would be happy with a penny or two when people stream or share their music rather than a fraction of a fraction of a penny. And this makes them money-grubbing wannabes in your eyes? Stay classy, Bob.
David Lowery talks about consumers of music having a moral choice. Perhaps this is a concept you have trouble grasping.
Blair Packham
Toronto
______________________________________
I call bullshit.
Sure you can pick Lowery apart, but Smith-Corona is a nonsense example. I just paid $57.04 apiece for some Apple keyboards. People still pay to type.
No one suggests that typing be free.
The only logical reason that explains why music is stolen is that it can be.
If music were still in physical format it wouldn't be stolen.
You can say that we're in a better world. Or that this is the new era that musicians need to get used to. You can say Clive Davis is an asshole.
But you can't say that the product of musicians is not being stolen. And, in fact, you also have to acknowledge that Google, and Youtube before they acquired it, were very aware that the illegal distribution of copyrighted material could make them very rich. You can read through any of the papers related to the Viacom case and see that.
Phil Hood
Publisher, DRUM!
______________________________________
And all of his complaining for less than $3000 that she supposedly owes? How much do you think she's spent on "music" over the past 10 years? Concerts, merchandise. How much will she continue to spend as she gets older and has more money? Finally, how much has she influenced people to spend. Artists should be embracing music fans like her.
John Hamilton
______________________________________
Wow. This is an interesting conversation. David Lowrey presents such a clear and honest argument and here you are saying the guy is just out of touch with reality. With the way things are. Bring back back Smith-Corona, etc. Hello!
On Wall Street executives get paid millions in bonuses even if the company they are responsible for is losing hundreds of millions of dollars. Same with the Bio-Tech sphere. It's unbelievable what these people get away with, and they still get these financial packages that reward them for what? Ruining the company? But this is the accepted norm. Does this make it right?
Should I get with it and accept this behavior? It's what all the companies do, and it's what all the failed executives get as part of their pre-negotiated exit packages. Even after ruining the company and the thousand of people that invested in that company in good faith that they might have a Board of Directors that supposedly provides a level of integrity and oversight that protects the people that invest their hard earned money in the belief that this company is actually making a drug that may save a life?
And I know Bob, you've got to be controversial, and ruffle the feathers, and call a guy like David out of touch. After all bro, the more feathers you ruffle, the more speaking gigs you get, the more panels you are asked to be on as an expert in the coming trends of the music industry. It's your bread and butter.
The one thing I agree with you on is this: Make the music great!
But that's a relative thing too. Can you imagine an artist like Jimi Hendrix in this new paradigm?
Check it out.
Imagine for a moment if Jimi were still alive. Still making incredible music, but not quite reaching the kids. Maybe he doesn't care, maybe he does. Who can say. But according to the new rules, he's going to have to actively interact with his fans, offer special packages at gigs where for $100 more you can meet Jimi and hang out and shoot the shit for a bit. Oh yeah, Jimi, you gotta do it bro, this really puts you in touch with your fans on personal level. This is where it's at now bro. If you want to really connect, you've got to really be in touch with these folks personally. One on One bro. Plus they are paying $100 more than the other people in the audience for this special "Meet and Greet".
Give me a fucking break.
I play weekly at a club here in Seattle, and with all due respect, sometimes, especially the older fans, drive me out of my fucking mind!
"Wow! I didn't know you play here every week. I just watched Woodstock before I came down here. You were amazing bro!" And then they proceed to tell me about their life. Do I REALLY have to listen to this? Do I really have to care?
And I'm supposed to be the nice friendly artist and listen to this bullshit in the hope that I am "connecting" with my fans? Give me a fucking break!
You know, to me this new paradigm sounds like what country artists have been doing forever. Same shit. And now every musician is supposed to be some kind of fucking social animal or fail at his craft. Tweet, Facebook, etc. Don't get me wrong. I Tweet, and I have a very active Facebook profile and a good solid relationship with my many thousand of Facebook peeps. But I do it because I WANT TO, and when I enjoy sharing this or that.
Anybody here familiar with the guitar player Bill Frisell? He's a dear friend of mine and played on one of my records. He's a genius, singular voice on the guitar. No one would disagree with me. I had the honor and pleasure of connecting Bill with the great Jazz Drummer Elvin Jones and we made a record together. I co-produced it with Bill's brilliant manger Lee Townsend. But, just like Jimi Hendrix, Bill is basically shy, and introverted, as many great artists are. Fuck! These are people that don't fit in! And now, if they don't reach out and do things with their fans, they just don't get it?
What about young artist that are like Jimi and Bill? Do they really have to do all tis bullshit?
And should to really be OK that people don't pay for their music?
I love Spotify. Much to the chagrin of some of the very talented musicians in my band. But, hey, if you love music, it's all there. Plus all the bullshit. They really have to figure out a way to filter out all the bullshit when you search for someone and a hundred fakes come up.
But anyway, I'm all for Spotify, I'm up for subscription services. I love Netflix and I see music going the same way. Might as well face it and get creative about the way you present your music. But don't rationalize something that's not right just because everybody's doing it. The Music Business. Wall Street. Nazi Germany.
You're Jewish, right Bob? Just because all the neighbors were turning in Jewish folks didn't make it right, did it Bob?
Just because everybody does it, doesn't make it right.
Michael Shrieve
______________________________________
Hi Mr. Lefsetz,
My name is Zach, I'm 24 years old, I work in the New Media department of an independent record label here in LA, and I'm a huge fan of your blog. Normally I would never email someone like this (as a fan/reader), but I thought you might actually be interested in the below, so I figured I would at least forward it along.
To explain: today a co-worker, let's call her Sally (badass middle-aged mom from the mid-west who grew up listening to classic rock) forwarded along two links to everyone in the office. One was the article of a young blogger at NPR talking about how our generation will never pay for music. The other was David Lowery's (some
guitarist) response, politely telling her that by doing so, she?s an asshole. Personally, I couldn?t disagree more with this Lowery guy, and so I had what to say about it.
Warm Regards,
Zach
Me:
This is definitely a well-written article, and most assuredly speaks to our generation, but all she's really asking for is Spotify lol. And I guess some AirPlay-enabled devices so she can play Spotify around the house... The future is here already; everyone just needs to catch up. Once the masses are on board though, market pressure and competition will help drive up the price-per-play fees paid out to artist/labels.
I didn't have time to read that whole second article, but that professor is a pseudo-intellectual moron. You don't ask teenagers to take it upon themselves to make the moral decision and buy music that's readily available for free elsewhere. You make the music a marketing tool and use it to get kids to buy products (merchandise) and experiences (concerts) you can't duplicate with the copy/paste feature on your keyboard.
Plus this guy doesn't understand the convenience incentive at all. Say you're a woman and you're married, you don't stop adultery by trying to get your husband to wear blinders when he goes out, or asking him nicely to think about the moral implications of what he'd be doing, or threatening him that if anything happens he'll be in BIG trouble. No, if you want a faithful husband, have sex with him all the time, and whenever he wants. Similarly, if the music industry wants their milkshake to bring all the boys to the yard, they need to have the best milkshakes in town, and a truck that brings it right to your door...
Sally:
Read the whole article Zach
Me:
Fine... lol
Sally:
He's the founder of Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker
Me:
Not sure what either of those are...
This figure can't be right that the number of professional musicians has fallen 25% since 2000, or it's at least misleading. Everyone I know and their mother is trying to be a DJ right now...
Sally:
professional = making a living, as in filing taxes
not "giving it a whirl"
CRACKER "Low" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jywZEjSiCBM
Me:
okay fine, good point. the bottom line though, is that getting society to collectively evolve its morality is not a short-term solution for the woes of the music industry...
Me:
okay just finished the article, and this guy only goes on to further
prove my point...
"I'm sorry, but what is inconvenient about iTunes and, say, iTunes match (that let?s you stream all your music to all your devices) aside from having to pay?"
As I just said above, the price of admission is what makes it inconvenient. This is not a marketplace where everyone knows exactly which tracks/artists they like, they compiled a list of everything they wanted musically, and now they're on a rampage going through peer-to-peer services checking off items from that list. Most of what's going on in music on the net is music discovery. Most of the time, when someone downloads a track illegally, it's because they've never heard it before. So they download it illegally because it's the most convenient way to check it out (price is a factor of convenience), and then if they like it, what are they going to delete the song and then go buy the exact same thing for $1?
And finally, in response to your last email... yes you're right: labels aren't evil and the only ones bearing the burden of technological advances. But, they whine about the loss of a monopolistic business model that left most artists without an opportunity for people to hear their art, and most consumers without a proper medium to find all the music they might like (physical retail, i.e. stores can only carry a certain number of CDs/LPs + lack of information/connectivity). It's the labels? responsibility to figure out how to make their artists' money, not the people's. They're the ones with the capital to the change the landscape of the infrastructure. They could come up with their own streaming service that's better than Spotify (which is super easy to do because Spotify isn't that great) and pay their artists' fairly. But they don't. They'd rather complain about how you're not doing your job as a moral citizen, and how Napster/Kazaa/Limewire ruined it for everyone. This is business, not art. If you want people's money, figure out a way to get people to give it to you. If you don't even attempt to do that, don't complain. Labels are the hippies of the 21st century: they don?t like what?s going on and they don?t know how to fix it, but it sucks, it?s your fault and you need to make it right, so they?re not even going to try.
Me:
Hey Sally,
The main point is that, for better or worse, we grew up in a generation defined by "try before you buy". You get people in, you get them hooked, and then you present them with a bunch of ancillary services they can pay for if they want to (tickets, .wav files, vinyl pressings and deluxe D2C packages, merch, etc.). In music, the audience has become the new 'man'. "You want me to invest in your career as a musician? Well so do literally a 100,000 other people; convince me why you're any different from the masses." That's how people think these days, and they're right to do so because there are 100,000 other bands I can check out instead of yours (the hypothetical 'you'), and they're giving away their music for free hoping I want to become a fan and not just get duped into buying one album. It was initially an evolution of the marketplace (free streaming), not an evolution of consumer mentality. A way to stand out from the masses that's now become the standard, and I guess against some artists' wills (I thought you as an artist had allow your music to be put up on Spotify?) it's become a sort of forced standard. For the artists stuck in the past who only want their music sold as CDs for $15 each, yeah it sucks, but you gotta get with the times. That'd be like if solar power took over and independent gas stations started complaining that they can't still sell gas for $4/gallon. At some point you have to just get with it. And again, once everyone's on board, the streaming market will become much more regulated as it more deeply affects its constituents.
Think about Apple. When smart phones came along, they didn't complain about the drop in iPod sales. They made their own smart phone, they added an iPod to it, and they stopped making a huge percentage of the iPods they used to manufacture. Moreover, they created an app market, and have made billions from that. Then they licensed out the technology to connect with the iPhone/iPad (AirPlay) wirelessly and made money from that. They also are getting money from iPhone accessories that were never made/needed for iPods. You don't tell consumers to adapt to (and/or accept) the products that are currently available, you tell businesses (selling music-related content is a business regardless of the artistic process behind it) to adapt to the marketplace and the ever-changing demands of its consumers. And if they don't, you say "Well, good luck staying in business."
You also have to look at it from the perspective that getting fans to spend money on your products (at least as an independent act these days) is about them supporting you, the artist. If you can't support yourself off your fans then you're either selling the wrong products (or not enough of them), or people just don't want to support you, in which case you probably shouldn't be a career musician. And yes we'll lose some great art if we don't support musicians, but it's not the private sector's job to support "art for art's sake". If collectively as a society we all want to give an extra five cents in taxes and use that money to help nurture great (yet unpopular) art via grants and
foundations, I'm down! But don't put that on Spotify, or on me the consumer. Don't make me spend $10 on an album that I don't even know I want, just so you (in this case, the label) have enough breathing room to take a risk and sign some stupid indie rock band."
First, for the sticking it to the musicians: That's one perspective,
but there is another. The other is that fans never 'supported' musicians they liked by buying their albums. It was always about supply and demand. Record stores had a product that everyone wanted and no one could get anywhere else, so they went and bought the album. They got home and listened to it for the first time, and maybe they liked it, maybe they didn't, but they were paying for access to content. They used to pay record stores, because they had the exclusive access. But now with the Internet, there's no more exclusivity. Access is everywhere, and we now pay the people who give us the best, most convenient and cheapest access to that same content. That's all it's about, and that's all it's ever been about. When Dark Side of the Moon came out, did you buy it thinking "Ooo, Pink Floyd, I really want these guys to succeed and keep making music, so I'm going to buy this album!" Probably not. Most likely, you just wanted to hear it, so you went to a store and bought it. Now you
don't have to...
Second: as for asking fans to re-examine this, to question where their money's going and who's getting it, is a great idea. Teleportation, is also a great idea. But with rises gas costs, no one's asking the public to demand scientists work on teleportation, and not buy cars from companies who aren't investing in this technology. No, instead car companies are building hybrids. They're making cars more fuel efficient, and long term they're spending some of their money on R&D for fuel cell/solar/biofuels/etc. (short term/next step solutions). As I've said before, changing the hearts and minds of society isn't a business strategy; it's the hope of a great philosopher. And I applaud this guy for bringing it up. I write about this all the time actually, how we need to take the initiative and evolve as conscientious beings and not just wait on the government to set things straight. But, it doesn't change the fact that this guy's talking out of left field and his argument has nothing to do with practical alternatives for how to solve the woes of the recorded music business.
One last thing: I think he said something along the lines that professional musicians make on average about $35K a year. What's wrong with that? Who ever said musicians need to be rich and famous? In fact, isn't getting rich and famous what makes artists lose that spark - the one born from struggle and pain and loss and real life issues - which allows them to make great art? You think people would want to hear Biggie still rapping about growing up in the streets and selling crack if he were alive today? No chance. Wealth makes most artists irrelevant, because a huge part of great art is the ability to share a common emotion with its audience. If I write a song about how I'm rich and everyone wants to be my friend, but you can never find good housekeepers and designer clothing just isn't cool anymore, how many people are going to relate to that? Personally, I'd rather have thousands and thousands of people making great art and earning a modest living, than the 40 "Top 40" acts all getting the money "they deserve." You (the artist) play guitar, you write down variations on chord progressions that thousands of people before you have already put out there, you put vague (aka "deep" and "thought provoking") words on top of it all, and you get paid. Why don't you go cure cancer, then maybe I'll help you fight for your fair share. Plus, maybe if being an artist didn?t mean getting rich and famous anymore, people would actually make music because they had something to say, and it might actually be good for a changeâ•"
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
I just went and read all of the comments. I'm so bummed that these folks are wasting their breath on changing the habits of likely billions of people by making them feel guilty.
I recently discovered an artist called Friendly Fires via a YouTube link from a friend. I shared it with my wife, and we streamed it over and over, added to Rdio, created social conversations, and we're greeted with a YouTube/songkick call to action to buy tickets (YouTube knew I lived in NYC).....we did....and created 125 consumer dollars in the context of friendly fires. Had the "free" model not been in place, this would have never occurred. Ever. EVER!
Tickets and merch. I've said it for 8 years. Music is a loss leader, embrace it, and join ur fans. Give them what they want. participate!
______________________________________
Right on, Bob
Stand by for the haters.
Bottom line-- and I've been saying this to crybabies around me in the biz:
The very same technology that has "cost you a career", whether you actually had one or not, is the same technology that allows you to:
- have a killer studio on a $1000 laptop,
-make great sounding records by adding another $1000 in good Mics, preamps, interfaces etc.
- have access to new fans in Buenos Aires, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Lawrence KS, and Nairobi.....
IF your music is so damn good people tell others about it.
That last part is the big problem , as you keep trying to point out.
Gone are the days where you got "money for mediocre". Get it together, learn ALL the technology, and WRITE BETTER MUSIC, whatever your genre, and get it out there & play live.
And stop crying. It's no longer 1987.
Thank you
Andre Cholmondeley
______________________________________
I find it comical how he illustrates his point by saying we pay for broadband internet service, smart phones with data plans and laptops that cost $1,000, Iphones that cost $500 and we seem to have no problem paying for those.
Duh... If people could steal those they would too!
As for internet service - I have a friend who hasn't paid for broadband in years because his neighbor is too stupid to password protect his wifi router.
My nephew lives next to a coffee shop with an open wifi router and downloads his favorite Wii games from his bedroom, much to the chagrin of his mom.
It's not about the moral dilemma, it's about the ease of execution.
Cheers
danmillen
P.S. I gotta give it to Lowery though, every winter he dusts off the "Cracker Van Beethoven" tour and sells out a local 600 seater here in town and KILLS IT. People come back every single year and sometimes if he's got the avails they'll do two nights. The band is tight and he delivers.
______________________________________
Right on! Can't believe how many people hopped aboard this whining rant. Sounds like a grumpy old man. Team Emily all the way!
Robert Culos
______________________________________
"If only he'd make music as riveting as his writing, with as many people caring about what he has to sing."
Spoken like someone wholly unfamiliar w/ Camper Van Beethoven's songs. Listen to "Our Beloved Revolutionary Sweetheart" or "Key Lime Pie" (esp "All Her Favorite Fruit," inspired by the writing of Thomas Pynchon) and you'll find plenty of rivets.
Hippy Johnny
______________________________________
Bob
I agree with most of your view about the new paradigm, but not with you beating up on Lowery.
He was trying NOT to beat up on the girl and said so many times. He seems to be FOR a Spotify-like solution to artists getting paid.
His point appeared to me to be that there ARE solutions to artists getting paid. New solutions.
I agree not every musician deserves to get paid. If no one wants what you do, it is time to do it as a hobby.
But if thousands of people DO want what you do, they should be willing to pay for it.
If someone manufactures an ugly pair of shoes, no one buys them. But if someone makes a sneaker that everyone wants, they don't steal them (okay some do).
They pay for them. Or, if the price is to high╤they don't.
There is a moral point here, and it would be a shame if it got lost in the shuffle play.
Michael Ross
______________________________________
Bob,
I'm 24, just left a two year stint on Wall St. to start my own company and really find out if I'm worth a shit, if I can do it on my own. Here's what I've learned:
-Wall Street analysts, traders, brokers, et al believe that no one owes you shit. If you're fucked, it's bc you let yourself get fucked. Get up, make changes, do better, learn, and earn it.
-Work 15 hrs/day in the startup world? No one owes you shit. If your product is worth it, you'll make it. Otherwise, shut up.
I've played music, released music, gigged for 10+ years. No one owes me shit. I play bc it's what I do. It's what I love. I can't not do it. But, to expect money?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAâ•"
20 years laterâ•"
â•"AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAâ•"!
I'm crying (of laughter),
Jake
______________________________________
Nice one Bob.
Ted Schreiber
______________________________________
love it.
Hugo Burnham
______________________________________
Right the fuck on, Bob. You nailed it.
Brendan O'Connell
______________________________________
Great post Bob!
I'm a huge Cracker fan so it pains me to read David's rants. He just doesn't get it. I'm a big fan, so guess what? I BUY his music so he can get paid. I've bought every Cracker album cause I love their music and songwriting. It's not about it being popular or a hit, I just love their songs and songwriting, and that's all that matters to me. Do I buy all my music? No, I'll admit it, but if I'm a hardcore fan of your stuff, I will pay, because I value it and want to make sure you keep making more. If your hardcore fanbase isn't enough to support you, how is that everybody else's problem? If I'm a casual fan or your stuff to me feels more like background music and doesn't really move me, but I like it, well...
David basically complaining about how the "casual" listener will just steal his music so that's revenue he doesn't get so misses the point. Before file sharing, pretty sure that wasn't even revenue he had a chance of ever getting anyway! That's not your audience! Your fans that will pay, are! Your fans WILL pay as I do. Hell, when Cracker finally left Virgin and Virgin put out a Greatest Hits Compilation out that Cracker was none to happy about but could not do anything to stop it since Virgin owned the masters and the right to do and release whatever they wanted as they saw fit, Cracker went into the studio and RE-RECORDED most of those same Greatest Hits tracks, with some extra new songs thrown in(one called "It Ain't Gonna Suck Itself", a kiss off to Virgin of all things!!) and asked their fan to NOT buy the Virgin release and buy their release Greatest Hit Redux instead, which they released themselves. Well being a serious fan, guess which one I bought and which one I shunned?
Even though I am no fan of David's point of view, he can sleep at night knowing that I am a fan of his music and songwriting and I along with many other fans, will always buy the next Cracker release.
Michael Moniz
______________________________________
Honestly, do you have any idea how the majority of independent artists make their living? You write and write about artists afraid to let go of the past and embrace the future, but invariably your examples of successful artists are all on the mainstream level. Look beyond the Lady GaGas. I was at Folk Alliance this year when you gave your keynote address. Afterwards, you wrote about being impressed by all the artists playing real instruments (gosh!) and doing it for the love of music. That's exactly what Lowery and countless other very talented independent artists do. They're not looking to get "rich." They just want to make an honest living plying their trade, and their grassroots fan bases allow them to do that. Or did. That's the choir Lowery is preaching to. And hell yes, I applaud him for it.
Richard Skanse
______________________________________
This brief post provides a good young person's perspective. Money quote: "I honestly don't think my peers and I will ever pay for albums. I do think we will pay for convenience."
You're right, what comes next is anybody's guess.
http://n.pr/Mk2Nxy
Best, Michael Witthaus
P.S. Shit - I didn't realize this is the same chick Lowrey is screaming
about. He completely misses the point, doesn't he? Sorry for my d'oh moment, but reading her piece without knowing the Lawson context didn't make Emily White seem any different from most young music fans (including my 17-year old daughter). They will pay for convenience and ubiquity.
MW
______________________________________
Re: Lowery's screed, he took her so far out of context it's insane. She said she's only bought maybe 15 CDs, but that was to illustrate she's not into physical copies. She admitted MOST of her 11,000 songs were LEGALLY obtained. And his screed then shreds her for officially stealing all her music. Way to showcase our collective inability to actually read something in its actual context and then respond in kind. I found his letter to be condescending and a waste of words. If, as he says, he spends his time teaching "the current generation" about music and ethics, and he's not getting through, then perhaps it's his problem. A poor teacher is a poor teacher.
If you print this, feel free to keep my name on it ;) I own what I say, even if people may later take it out of context. And I give Emily a big thumbs-up for being willing to put her name on it, even if it means she's now the perfect scapegoat for guys like Lowrey and their agenda.
Jonathan Sanders
______________________________________
Lowery/Gregg Allman:
I'll say it again Bob..you are so on the money yet again. My new album is inching towards $1000 sales in less than a year but I'm still stoked. Why? Because I am on Spotify, iTunes, Noisehead et al. Under the old regime I would not even have got the album made never mind achieve global sales. Money, income? That's just icing on the cake when your life revolves around music. And then some guy stops me at a gig and tells me he even loves the CD insert book/liner notes, as well as the album. Wow! I'm still talking about it! Thanks for all the wisdom.
Billy The Mountain
______________________________________
Lowery's been in the game for 30 years. Doesn't he know what happens to promo CDs (and, back in the day, LPs) sent to college radio station?
College students are POOR!
Years ago, what wasn't taken or stolen was sold for beer money.
Has David Lowery ever been into a used record store near a college campus? Promo albums as far as the eye can see.
Did Lowery ever get a dime for any CVB or Cracker albums sold that way?
Hell no, he probably got dinged in his royalties!
Mark Rushton
______________________________________
ROCK!
Tristan Shields
______________________________________
I enjoyed this letter - my reaction was very, very similar. I've been sparring with various indie artists on Facebook all afternoon. I like Dave quite a bit, but I found his note to be mis-directed.
John Strohm
______________________________________
I'll be sure to file Lowry's response under "L" for long winded diatribes I could really give a fuck about
Kurt Heim
______________________________________
You've ignored the entire point of his screed, just so you can pontificate how you know better. Not to mention that the typewriter comparison is seriously stale.
Kevin Calabro
______________________________________
You remind me of that football coach (Texas A&M?) who said something to this effect: "if you know you're going to be raped, you might as well sit back and try to enjoy it".
David isn't advocating a return to vinyl for everyone, nor is he even suggesting that everyone buy CDs. He is saying that one can no longer blame the labels/artist for not giving people a modern, convenient, digital way to pay for music. It is here, right now, via iTunes, Spotiy, MOG, etc. If you still choose not to pay, it's because you are choosing to steal, plain and simple. You agree with this point, yet you also want to seem cool, so you complain about David Lowry. Don't be a dick- Lowry HAS made great music, and now he's sharing his first hand knowledge by being a teacher. What have you done lately other than try and take other people down and insist that only yourself and whichever cool new tech "friend" of yours has the answer?
Rich Costey
______________________________________
David Lowery is not talking about getting rich! He's talking about musicians, engineers, songwriters getting PAID. What does Smith-Carona have to do with getting paid for your work? Who is stealing typewriters? Jeez, that analogy you keep using doesn't fit the argument.
It has NOTHING to do with making what you consider GREAT music. If a song sells 10 copies, the writer should make a buck...that's all he's saying.
His take on the morality of taking music because you can is right on the money. If people could steal iphones, laptops, and get away with it, they would.
If your car gets stolen in LA Bob, you should be ok with it because it was possible. If the thief gets caught, let em go! Walk the walk.
So, getting paid for what you do is 'the way it was'?
Why are you trying so HARD to be hip???
...and Greg Allman saying money doesn't matter...that's an easy thing to say from your mansion. Being 19 and broke is different than being 60 and broke...
Again, this isn't about GETTING RICH. It's about getting paid. That's it.
thanks,
Doug Kahan
p.s.
Though you repeated it, I never felt like Mr. Lowery was 'beating up' that 'little girl'. In fact, he was courteous and respectful.
______________________________________
Bob, you are wrong on this. This is about getting their "fair share" it is about getting any "share." And Emily is not a "little girl" she is an adult who thinks she is entitled to free entertainment. Further, David wasn't saying you have to pay $14 for that one good track; you pay 99cents from iTunes for it. But those artists with one good track are the mega artists who get the $$. Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven put out great (at least to me) lps that were filled with great music...not a bunch of lame singles.
I like your site Bob, but you are very wrong on this.
Russell Sawyer
______________________________________
Hi Bob,
I can't believe how far off the mark you are with this one, Bob. Did you actually read all of David Lowery's piece? His tone was ultra respectful throughout, not "beating up on this little girl" or "fighting" her.
Nowhere is he hankering after days gone by .... unless you think that equates to him putting forward the argument that artists have rights and deserve to be paid ... IF you like their music! It's not about all the artists that nobody wants to hear. It's about the ones that people DO want to listen to.
You're dead right that "We live in a land of misinformation. Distributed by powerful people to keep you in your place." But those people aren't the ones liking David Lowery's comments ... I'd say they'd be delighted at your own take on it though.
I would've thought you'd actually agree with Lowery when he says:
"Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself?
Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself?
Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individualswho create andsell music?
This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it?s as if:
Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!
Hardware: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!
Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class. Screw you, you greedy bastards!
Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!"
Very well put, I thought. And funnily enough, it reminds me of many things you yourself have written.
Catherine Hol
______________________________________
I'd been using Spotify Premium for a little while now and we had the credit card attached to the account replaced for a fraud concern. I thought I could live without it and didn't re-up. This month we have been on the road and not having Spotify has been driving me nuts.
Last night I wanted to reference the sounds of Bruce Springsteen's Seeger Sessions and couldn't get the "premium content". Tonight we are covering Roy Orbison's running scared with our supporting act and I couldn't bring it up to cram on Spotify.
I am hooked and will be paying my money down right now. Thanks for the reminder.
Pat Cupples
______________________________________
you know what Bob? the world needs ditch diggers too..I am so sick of these artists complaining about their lost revenue I could give a crap less anymore if one does not adjust well to change they will be lost...seems to me many artists should just get lost. There are no gurantees on being an "artist" forever.
Lisa Lisa
______________________________________
Every time I talk with my "wannabe" musician friends, we laugh that you've drunk the kool-aid, you've been co-opted by the people you used to analyze, you've been on the guest list at the fiat of one too many power brokers. You've LOST CREDIBILITY.
I'm tired of your slamming the artist in pretty much every single fucking letter for what are systematic obstacles in our path. (Well, at least the emails that aren't touting the greatness of Vail or Apple, Inc.) I thought Lowery made some great points about the economics. But you didn't respond to ONE SINGLE POINT he argued at all, you just threw up yesterday's meal of bad syllogisms, all opinion and no evidence. I'm truly disappointed if this is what you've devolved into.
Most of my musician friends and colleagues do this for the love of the craft, even though we might have barely eked out a living in the old regime, we're still at it regardless of whomever is the treat of the week on terrestrial radio or Youtube. That's the recipe for poverty, if not insanity, but great work is its own reward. We don't expect to "go viral" any time soon without some gimmick that distracts from the music, or worse, by watering things down to please the current cadre of gatekeepers.
I know what I want to achieve: Greatness. Great and popular have seldom been neighbours in our culture, all your browbeating about the Beatles to the contrary. Many of my favourite artists you would consider marginal (except of course when there's a critical consensus, particularly the overhyped artists of the late sixties and early seventies.
If David Ackles or Laura Nyro were struggling artists on indie or DIY labels today, trust me, YOU WOULDN'T GIVE A SHIT. You'd be the first to diss them for their eccentricities, their desire to be left alone and not play some social media game, that they're not social-pimping their audiences like Jonathan Colton or Amanda Fucking Palmer (god bless her!)
Music shouldn't just be a career. Music is a CALLING. Something you have forgotten cob-nobbling at Coachella.
Fuck Gregg Allman, fuck the seventies (I was there, gas was expensive and people read Richard Bach), and this morning, fuck you too.
Now you can hit delete and read Luke's latest ass-kiss.
Love,
Dan Bryk
______________________________________
Fuck yes. I live in Richmond VA where Lowery is pretty much revered. Never was as cool nor talented as he thought, fails to address sound quality or lack thereof and how that alters consumer behavior. Its an achilles heel to my slice of consumers. Sorry, but convenient music that sounds bad is not worth the same as pretty convenient music that still sounds great. As a studio owner here for 20 years he should know this. I'm in my forties and went from vinyl to cassette to CD to SACD. I bought some albums 4 times. If he thinks I'm paying $10 for another, MP3, copy of Eat A Peach he's nuts. A reasonably priced model of comprehensive streaming is what I'll buy as long as it integrated with my rare and OOP ripped CDs and my live and studio ROIO's. When that happens, I'm in. That's convenience worth tinny AM radio sound.
Cracker should never have been signed... Mediocre from day 1. Should be thankful for every ounce of support from Virgin. Now just work a day job like the rest of us. LOL.
______________________________________
Well, Bob, if my facebook feed is any indication, you put your foot in it with this. Lowery's got the moral high ground but my sense is you are right; you can't guilt-trip people into paying for music. But people don't like to hear that the horse has left the barn.
Advocates for musicians should be careful what they ask for. The internet is fundamentally a huge copying machine. The only way to put the file-sharing genie back in the bottle is with a worldwide digital surveillance state, meaning total 24/7 policing and control of everyone's communications and internet usage, like China/Ethiopia/Indonesia but worse. And the media industry are trying, with ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/TPP and even worse treaties coming down the pike. Do we really want to go there? Will musicians get paid any better? The same people will be skimming most of the money off the top!
My opinion, anyway.
Jack Endino
______________________________________
Absolutely
I am not getting rich by any stretch of the word. I do music because I love when some words pop into my head and then string themselves together in a melody and then poof! I am engaged in a process that makes me be glad to be alive. If you are doing it for any other reason you need to stop. If money comes, short, long or otherwise, be glad and keep plugging. I have not written my best material and I probably never will but I will keep on until I at least come close. It truly is the journey and with all these "bitchers" and cry babies wasting time they are leaving some doors open somewhere.
Elam McKnight
______________________________________
Great one Bob!
John Hartmann
______________________________________
Bob,
I don't agree with all of David's points. Hell, I'm not even a big fan of his music, but you have to admit he makes a compelling argument. I must also say that some of your generalizations and your overall tone are off the mark. How can someone like yourself, who quite often writes about the old days when it was "all about the music", make a sarcastic statement like "why don't we bring back Smith Corona?". You consistently long for the old days when it comes to the music itself. I'm sure many of your readers have sent responses to your comments that mirror your criticism of David Lowery, i.e. "you're always ranting about the good old days, Bob". I'm a fan of yours, but quite often you seem to want to have it both ways. Respectful discourse is the way to go.
Lee Gamble
______________________________________
Mr Lefsetz,
Whether you agree or disagree with him David Lowery's article hardly qualifies as a screed. It was neither monotonous nor ranting. It was a well thought out informative piece which articulated his viewpoint. To suggest otherwise is to take an unfair shot at someone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
Thanks,
John Hewer
______________________________________
Bob,
Love Lowery, love CVB, love Cracker, love his writing here and his presentation at SF Music Tech Summit. However he is wrong. David's problem, in my humble opinion, is that he is still viewing the whole situation through old model glasses. Of course he wants things to be like they were, he is already an established artist that got paid (or not in some cases) the way they used to get paid. He doesn't have the same perspective on it as a new artist trying to find an audience. It is in his best interest for the old model to hold strong. As an unknown musician I much prefer to work with what I know is the new model. They are not going to by my music the way they bought his. I accept that is the way things are, I hope he can soon.
thanks,
Patrick Hayes
the Dead Volts
______________________________________
Screed is the right word for it. I also don't think too highly of the rhetorical skills that he used to promote his message to pay the artist for services rendered. The passive-aggressive tone of his sentences directed at Ms. White were utterly transparent in their equivocations to not think him to be a bully of any sort. They revealed the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of his convictions as an original 'artist' and defender of artists rights.
After reading his prose replete with his fuzzy-around-the-edges historical revisionism I believe that deep down he knows that the modicum of success he enjoys during his music career so far is less the result of an artist's vision so startlingly original in concept and execution that an audience clamored at every opportunity to patronize his performances and recordings and therefore any drop in residual income MUST be the result of piracy, and his success more the result of some measure of creativity and a mixed bag of serendipitous strategies culled from the milieu of game theory influenced business models that informed the music industry in the latter two decades of the twentieth century. As in:
the right record
at the right time
with the right tour
and the right representation
equals some measure of financial compensation with the salve that if any one of this combination of contingencies had been tweaked just a little more then the music would have broke wide open so lets do it again and hope all the stars align next time (I call this pattern the "The Gambler Agrees to Double Down" model)
This is the nutshell that his music career lives in and not the romantic scenario he paints of some free spirit who has been denied fair compensation nobly soldering on in the rock n roll mines so we can enjoy that rich vein of pure counterculture gold . It is the mentality of a Willie Loman-type salesman who wants one more kick at the can to justify all the weary times that came before so that the dream of a lifetime doesn't seem so small and derelict--all up on on concrete blocks by the side of the road as he looks peevishly into the rear view mirror.
And for that existential grief that he suffers from, he's willing to persecute Ms. White whose REAL crime is being young and not falling for the lies that he fell for. Well I'd like to tell him that regret and self doubt over choices made are not the exclusive fears of all of us aging rock n rollers, that she will likely fall to some degree for other shinier new lies. He can be consoled by that notion or he can be an even bigger man and realize it was a fantastic ride and it is over. Music is and always was worthwhile in the playing and listening alone. Everything else around it was/is gamesmanship and posturing.
Finally, I would like to suggest a clean slate for any of his future recordings. Any artist sure of his stature and creative idiosyncratic vision with a well known reputation of disdain for others who follow a pattern of retreading the previous generation of musical influences and using the result to keep the tour bus on the road, should use the internet to demand patronage for future works. Since such an uncompromising stylist could be assured of benefactors that would finance musical compositions by him alone which would, given his music's unique and proprietary qualities, be a sure fire winner and the 'artist' could comfortably count the cash before the public ever heard a note.
Maurice Boucher
______________________________________
I don't give a fuck about all this rationallzation. She stole 10900 songs of the 11000 she "loves".
Some love.
When i tripped out and smoked tons of weed in Hepburn and Gifford and on the lifts at the Bowl I never tried to bullshit anybody that I wasn't breaking the law. And I wasn't taking anybody's property, intellectual or otherwise.
The idea that intellectual property is not actual property is just bullshit.
After that it's a sophist's argument about how to make a socio-political case out of it, as if it were the sexual revolution or integration, or gay rights, or marijuana legalization.
It's still stolen.
Jamie Howarth
______________________________________
Gotta go with Lowery on this one, Bob.
You're way off the mark.
Best,
Nelson Leonard
______________________________________
I agree with the sentiment Bob .... except for the unnecessary and repeated digs at Lowry's music career and output. Camper Van Beethoven was indie cool before there was even a name for that type of music and Cracker has a solid track record scoring well selling albums, Major label releases, Gold Album, heavy rotation videos on MTV ("low" with Sandra Bernhardt was great). Now the band hosts their own curated camp out festivals, stays on the road, etc...
Sure Lowry is surly and opinionated on the file sharing issue .... but he's taking a stand. Something you usually promote and support. He's not staying silent and safe and even though you don't agree with the points he's making, he is epitomizing much of the advice you so repeatedly give.
Craig
______________________________________
Hi, Bob,
Ugh. I recall reading a lengthy article in the 90s about the mechanical royalty songwriters are supposed to recieve. In short, the labels take the mechanical royalty rate as a suggestion, not as a minimum, and often sign beginning songwriters and artists to contracts requiring them to accept rates lower than the mechanical royalty rate. When the artists and songwriters are successful enough, the contracts are renegotiated and they receive the mechanical royalty rate or more.
Does my recollection of that article fit with what you know about mechanical royalties?
So, I had to stop reading David Lowery's response when he spews the company line about mechanical royalties being the law, being predetermined and being compulsory. It's a half-truth, a technically true statement that avoids telling another truth. The old saying that "half-truths are whole lies" sums up how I feel about this. And if what Lowery said about that is only half true, why should I bother reading anything else that Lowery has to say? It's unreliable.
Ugh. I feel for intern Emily White.
Thanks for your newsletter about this.
Here's the Lowery paragraph where I had to stop reading:
"Secondly, by law the record label must pay songwriters (who may also be artists) something called a mechanical royalty for sales of CDs or downloads of the song. This is paid regardless of whether a record is recouped or not. The rate is predetermined, and the license is compulsory. Meaning that the file sharing sites could get the same license if they wanted to, at least for the songs. They don?t. They don?t wanna pay artists."
Charles Crossley, Jr.
______________________________________
Bob you know I love you dude cause you speak your mind.
BUT
you couldn't be MORE WRONG - and here's a little piece of mine.
You will never understand because you DON'T MAKE ANYTHING..
No matter what bullshit people want to tell themselves to feel better about not supporting artists it's STILL THEFT!
Bottomline is you have no clue what it takes to make music cause you can't...
AND I am not a wannabe Bob.. I am. I don't need to be famous / I don't need to be adored / I don't need to be rich.
But what I do need to be is supported if you like my shit!
Have some fuckin respect man
BK
www.briankahanek.com
______________________________________
Bob,
You are so completely and utterly full of shit. I am disappointed in you, but I can't say I'm surprised. You unload with both barrels blasting at David Lowery who is eloquently expressing an opinion, making snide insinuations, false accusations and replicating old arguments as to why this guy is wrong. What are you worried about? That there might be some meaningful dialogue on this subject that you're not somehow "in on"? Does it bug you that Lowery's article resonated with people in a way that yours don't always?
David Lowery isn't "beating up on this little girl", and shame on you for characterizing it that way. He presented a courteous, logical argument that obviously struck a chord with his readers.
Why do YOU constantly beat up on the artists you claim to love so much? Why is the artists' fault? Even those who make--to your exacting standards--GREAT music are barely getting paid. And that's wrong. It's simple, isn't it?
No one--not Lowery, not me--is suggesting we return to the olden days, so your snide mentions of Smith-Corona and printers' jobs are irrelevant. No one is suggesting we fight file sharing. What is being suggested is that creators of words and music get paid fairly when their work is enjoyed. Period. Given our technological reality, this is something NEW. Why wouldn't you applaud potential innovation that would reward artists and songwriters whose songs people WANT to hear/trade/use? What's so hard to understand about it??
Do you even KNOW any musicians who aren't (yet) successful? Why do you assume they are money-grubbing idiots? Isn't that just bigotry and stupidity? And nowhere in your arguments do you leave room for subjectivity in taste. You think the Eagles were the American Beatles? Holy fuck, that's some steaming pile of bullshit! The Eagles were just fine, but...come on, man. And there are lots of genres of music that people LOVE that I bet you don't listen to. So why are YOU the final arbiter of what is worth paying for?
I couldn't find any mention of Lowery's musicial aspirations in the article, no mention of a career except as a professor, so your accusations that he is yet another wannabe wanting money is just absurd. You presume he wants us to buy his records, and maybe he does. You presume his records, if they even exist, are shit. And maybe they are. But why would that discredit anything he says? And why would you unload so exuberantly on this guy? What's in it for you?
And invoking Carlin's name is almost sacrilegious in the context of your wholly-false argument about "The Man" controlling everything. "The Man", in this case, is The Market, in cahoots with Big Tech and the telecom sector, and you--typically--rush to their defense, blaming the victim, the artists...who, let's face it, really would be happy with a penny or two when people stream or share their music rather than a fraction of a fraction of a penny. And this makes them money-grubbing wannabes in your eyes? Stay classy, Bob.
David Lowery talks about consumers of music having a moral choice. Perhaps this is a concept you have trouble grasping.
Blair Packham
Toronto
______________________________________
I call bullshit.
Sure you can pick Lowery apart, but Smith-Corona is a nonsense example. I just paid $57.04 apiece for some Apple keyboards. People still pay to type.
No one suggests that typing be free.
The only logical reason that explains why music is stolen is that it can be.
If music were still in physical format it wouldn't be stolen.
You can say that we're in a better world. Or that this is the new era that musicians need to get used to. You can say Clive Davis is an asshole.
But you can't say that the product of musicians is not being stolen. And, in fact, you also have to acknowledge that Google, and Youtube before they acquired it, were very aware that the illegal distribution of copyrighted material could make them very rich. You can read through any of the papers related to the Viacom case and see that.
Phil Hood
Publisher, DRUM!
______________________________________
And all of his complaining for less than $3000 that she supposedly owes? How much do you think she's spent on "music" over the past 10 years? Concerts, merchandise. How much will she continue to spend as she gets older and has more money? Finally, how much has she influenced people to spend. Artists should be embracing music fans like her.
John Hamilton
______________________________________
Wow. This is an interesting conversation. David Lowrey presents such a clear and honest argument and here you are saying the guy is just out of touch with reality. With the way things are. Bring back back Smith-Corona, etc. Hello!
On Wall Street executives get paid millions in bonuses even if the company they are responsible for is losing hundreds of millions of dollars. Same with the Bio-Tech sphere. It's unbelievable what these people get away with, and they still get these financial packages that reward them for what? Ruining the company? But this is the accepted norm. Does this make it right?
Should I get with it and accept this behavior? It's what all the companies do, and it's what all the failed executives get as part of their pre-negotiated exit packages. Even after ruining the company and the thousand of people that invested in that company in good faith that they might have a Board of Directors that supposedly provides a level of integrity and oversight that protects the people that invest their hard earned money in the belief that this company is actually making a drug that may save a life?
And I know Bob, you've got to be controversial, and ruffle the feathers, and call a guy like David out of touch. After all bro, the more feathers you ruffle, the more speaking gigs you get, the more panels you are asked to be on as an expert in the coming trends of the music industry. It's your bread and butter.
The one thing I agree with you on is this: Make the music great!
But that's a relative thing too. Can you imagine an artist like Jimi Hendrix in this new paradigm?
Check it out.
Imagine for a moment if Jimi were still alive. Still making incredible music, but not quite reaching the kids. Maybe he doesn't care, maybe he does. Who can say. But according to the new rules, he's going to have to actively interact with his fans, offer special packages at gigs where for $100 more you can meet Jimi and hang out and shoot the shit for a bit. Oh yeah, Jimi, you gotta do it bro, this really puts you in touch with your fans on personal level. This is where it's at now bro. If you want to really connect, you've got to really be in touch with these folks personally. One on One bro. Plus they are paying $100 more than the other people in the audience for this special "Meet and Greet".
Give me a fucking break.
I play weekly at a club here in Seattle, and with all due respect, sometimes, especially the older fans, drive me out of my fucking mind!
"Wow! I didn't know you play here every week. I just watched Woodstock before I came down here. You were amazing bro!" And then they proceed to tell me about their life. Do I REALLY have to listen to this? Do I really have to care?
And I'm supposed to be the nice friendly artist and listen to this bullshit in the hope that I am "connecting" with my fans? Give me a fucking break!
You know, to me this new paradigm sounds like what country artists have been doing forever. Same shit. And now every musician is supposed to be some kind of fucking social animal or fail at his craft. Tweet, Facebook, etc. Don't get me wrong. I Tweet, and I have a very active Facebook profile and a good solid relationship with my many thousand of Facebook peeps. But I do it because I WANT TO, and when I enjoy sharing this or that.
Anybody here familiar with the guitar player Bill Frisell? He's a dear friend of mine and played on one of my records. He's a genius, singular voice on the guitar. No one would disagree with me. I had the honor and pleasure of connecting Bill with the great Jazz Drummer Elvin Jones and we made a record together. I co-produced it with Bill's brilliant manger Lee Townsend. But, just like Jimi Hendrix, Bill is basically shy, and introverted, as many great artists are. Fuck! These are people that don't fit in! And now, if they don't reach out and do things with their fans, they just don't get it?
What about young artist that are like Jimi and Bill? Do they really have to do all tis bullshit?
And should to really be OK that people don't pay for their music?
I love Spotify. Much to the chagrin of some of the very talented musicians in my band. But, hey, if you love music, it's all there. Plus all the bullshit. They really have to figure out a way to filter out all the bullshit when you search for someone and a hundred fakes come up.
But anyway, I'm all for Spotify, I'm up for subscription services. I love Netflix and I see music going the same way. Might as well face it and get creative about the way you present your music. But don't rationalize something that's not right just because everybody's doing it. The Music Business. Wall Street. Nazi Germany.
You're Jewish, right Bob? Just because all the neighbors were turning in Jewish folks didn't make it right, did it Bob?
Just because everybody does it, doesn't make it right.
Michael Shrieve
______________________________________
Hi Mr. Lefsetz,
My name is Zach, I'm 24 years old, I work in the New Media department of an independent record label here in LA, and I'm a huge fan of your blog. Normally I would never email someone like this (as a fan/reader), but I thought you might actually be interested in the below, so I figured I would at least forward it along.
To explain: today a co-worker, let's call her Sally (badass middle-aged mom from the mid-west who grew up listening to classic rock) forwarded along two links to everyone in the office. One was the article of a young blogger at NPR talking about how our generation will never pay for music. The other was David Lowery's (some
guitarist) response, politely telling her that by doing so, she?s an asshole. Personally, I couldn?t disagree more with this Lowery guy, and so I had what to say about it.
Warm Regards,
Zach
Me:
This is definitely a well-written article, and most assuredly speaks to our generation, but all she's really asking for is Spotify lol. And I guess some AirPlay-enabled devices so she can play Spotify around the house... The future is here already; everyone just needs to catch up. Once the masses are on board though, market pressure and competition will help drive up the price-per-play fees paid out to artist/labels.
I didn't have time to read that whole second article, but that professor is a pseudo-intellectual moron. You don't ask teenagers to take it upon themselves to make the moral decision and buy music that's readily available for free elsewhere. You make the music a marketing tool and use it to get kids to buy products (merchandise) and experiences (concerts) you can't duplicate with the copy/paste feature on your keyboard.
Plus this guy doesn't understand the convenience incentive at all. Say you're a woman and you're married, you don't stop adultery by trying to get your husband to wear blinders when he goes out, or asking him nicely to think about the moral implications of what he'd be doing, or threatening him that if anything happens he'll be in BIG trouble. No, if you want a faithful husband, have sex with him all the time, and whenever he wants. Similarly, if the music industry wants their milkshake to bring all the boys to the yard, they need to have the best milkshakes in town, and a truck that brings it right to your door...
Sally:
Read the whole article Zach
Me:
Fine... lol
Sally:
He's the founder of Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker
Me:
Not sure what either of those are...
This figure can't be right that the number of professional musicians has fallen 25% since 2000, or it's at least misleading. Everyone I know and their mother is trying to be a DJ right now...
Sally:
professional = making a living, as in filing taxes
not "giving it a whirl"
CRACKER "Low" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jywZEjSiCBM
Me:
okay fine, good point. the bottom line though, is that getting society to collectively evolve its morality is not a short-term solution for the woes of the music industry...
Me:
okay just finished the article, and this guy only goes on to further
prove my point...
"I'm sorry, but what is inconvenient about iTunes and, say, iTunes match (that let?s you stream all your music to all your devices) aside from having to pay?"
As I just said above, the price of admission is what makes it inconvenient. This is not a marketplace where everyone knows exactly which tracks/artists they like, they compiled a list of everything they wanted musically, and now they're on a rampage going through peer-to-peer services checking off items from that list. Most of what's going on in music on the net is music discovery. Most of the time, when someone downloads a track illegally, it's because they've never heard it before. So they download it illegally because it's the most convenient way to check it out (price is a factor of convenience), and then if they like it, what are they going to delete the song and then go buy the exact same thing for $1?
And finally, in response to your last email... yes you're right: labels aren't evil and the only ones bearing the burden of technological advances. But, they whine about the loss of a monopolistic business model that left most artists without an opportunity for people to hear their art, and most consumers without a proper medium to find all the music they might like (physical retail, i.e. stores can only carry a certain number of CDs/LPs + lack of information/connectivity). It's the labels? responsibility to figure out how to make their artists' money, not the people's. They're the ones with the capital to the change the landscape of the infrastructure. They could come up with their own streaming service that's better than Spotify (which is super easy to do because Spotify isn't that great) and pay their artists' fairly. But they don't. They'd rather complain about how you're not doing your job as a moral citizen, and how Napster/Kazaa/Limewire ruined it for everyone. This is business, not art. If you want people's money, figure out a way to get people to give it to you. If you don't even attempt to do that, don't complain. Labels are the hippies of the 21st century: they don?t like what?s going on and they don?t know how to fix it, but it sucks, it?s your fault and you need to make it right, so they?re not even going to try.
Me:
Hey Sally,
The main point is that, for better or worse, we grew up in a generation defined by "try before you buy". You get people in, you get them hooked, and then you present them with a bunch of ancillary services they can pay for if they want to (tickets, .wav files, vinyl pressings and deluxe D2C packages, merch, etc.). In music, the audience has become the new 'man'. "You want me to invest in your career as a musician? Well so do literally a 100,000 other people; convince me why you're any different from the masses." That's how people think these days, and they're right to do so because there are 100,000 other bands I can check out instead of yours (the hypothetical 'you'), and they're giving away their music for free hoping I want to become a fan and not just get duped into buying one album. It was initially an evolution of the marketplace (free streaming), not an evolution of consumer mentality. A way to stand out from the masses that's now become the standard, and I guess against some artists' wills (I thought you as an artist had allow your music to be put up on Spotify?) it's become a sort of forced standard. For the artists stuck in the past who only want their music sold as CDs for $15 each, yeah it sucks, but you gotta get with the times. That'd be like if solar power took over and independent gas stations started complaining that they can't still sell gas for $4/gallon. At some point you have to just get with it. And again, once everyone's on board, the streaming market will become much more regulated as it more deeply affects its constituents.
Think about Apple. When smart phones came along, they didn't complain about the drop in iPod sales. They made their own smart phone, they added an iPod to it, and they stopped making a huge percentage of the iPods they used to manufacture. Moreover, they created an app market, and have made billions from that. Then they licensed out the technology to connect with the iPhone/iPad (AirPlay) wirelessly and made money from that. They also are getting money from iPhone accessories that were never made/needed for iPods. You don't tell consumers to adapt to (and/or accept) the products that are currently available, you tell businesses (selling music-related content is a business regardless of the artistic process behind it) to adapt to the marketplace and the ever-changing demands of its consumers. And if they don't, you say "Well, good luck staying in business."
You also have to look at it from the perspective that getting fans to spend money on your products (at least as an independent act these days) is about them supporting you, the artist. If you can't support yourself off your fans then you're either selling the wrong products (or not enough of them), or people just don't want to support you, in which case you probably shouldn't be a career musician. And yes we'll lose some great art if we don't support musicians, but it's not the private sector's job to support "art for art's sake". If collectively as a society we all want to give an extra five cents in taxes and use that money to help nurture great (yet unpopular) art via grants and
foundations, I'm down! But don't put that on Spotify, or on me the consumer. Don't make me spend $10 on an album that I don't even know I want, just so you (in this case, the label) have enough breathing room to take a risk and sign some stupid indie rock band."
First, for the sticking it to the musicians: That's one perspective,
but there is another. The other is that fans never 'supported' musicians they liked by buying their albums. It was always about supply and demand. Record stores had a product that everyone wanted and no one could get anywhere else, so they went and bought the album. They got home and listened to it for the first time, and maybe they liked it, maybe they didn't, but they were paying for access to content. They used to pay record stores, because they had the exclusive access. But now with the Internet, there's no more exclusivity. Access is everywhere, and we now pay the people who give us the best, most convenient and cheapest access to that same content. That's all it's about, and that's all it's ever been about. When Dark Side of the Moon came out, did you buy it thinking "Ooo, Pink Floyd, I really want these guys to succeed and keep making music, so I'm going to buy this album!" Probably not. Most likely, you just wanted to hear it, so you went to a store and bought it. Now you
don't have to...
Second: as for asking fans to re-examine this, to question where their money's going and who's getting it, is a great idea. Teleportation, is also a great idea. But with rises gas costs, no one's asking the public to demand scientists work on teleportation, and not buy cars from companies who aren't investing in this technology. No, instead car companies are building hybrids. They're making cars more fuel efficient, and long term they're spending some of their money on R&D for fuel cell/solar/biofuels/etc. (short term/next step solutions). As I've said before, changing the hearts and minds of society isn't a business strategy; it's the hope of a great philosopher. And I applaud this guy for bringing it up. I write about this all the time actually, how we need to take the initiative and evolve as conscientious beings and not just wait on the government to set things straight. But, it doesn't change the fact that this guy's talking out of left field and his argument has nothing to do with practical alternatives for how to solve the woes of the recorded music business.
One last thing: I think he said something along the lines that professional musicians make on average about $35K a year. What's wrong with that? Who ever said musicians need to be rich and famous? In fact, isn't getting rich and famous what makes artists lose that spark - the one born from struggle and pain and loss and real life issues - which allows them to make great art? You think people would want to hear Biggie still rapping about growing up in the streets and selling crack if he were alive today? No chance. Wealth makes most artists irrelevant, because a huge part of great art is the ability to share a common emotion with its audience. If I write a song about how I'm rich and everyone wants to be my friend, but you can never find good housekeepers and designer clothing just isn't cool anymore, how many people are going to relate to that? Personally, I'd rather have thousands and thousands of people making great art and earning a modest living, than the 40 "Top 40" acts all getting the money "they deserve." You (the artist) play guitar, you write down variations on chord progressions that thousands of people before you have already put out there, you put vague (aka "deep" and "thought provoking") words on top of it all, and you get paid. Why don't you go cure cancer, then maybe I'll help you fight for your fair share. Plus, maybe if being an artist didn?t mean getting rich and famous anymore, people would actually make music because they had something to say, and it might actually be good for a changeâ•"
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Last Night
We're waiting for the older generation to die.
The most insightful thing I've heard this year emanated from the lips of Irving Azoff, he said Lucian Grainge thought his competition was Doug Morris.
Do you see what happened here?
Doug got eased out of Universal because he was too old. So he's on this vendetta to prove Vivendi wrong. And Lucian needs to win against Doug, so he does insane things, like overpay for EMI. Hell, even Sony didn't swallow EMI's publishing division whole, it brought in outside investors to help carry the weight. Meanwhile, stuck with a pig in a poke, he now owns EMI's recorded music division, he can't return it to Citi, Lucian's paying a fortune in legal fees in order to absorb said company as opposed to selling it.
Is this any way to run a business?
No.
Meanwhile, you've got other old farts married to radio, albums, all the relics of the seventies. It's as if Steve Jobs came back from the dead and tried to convince everybody to use an Apple II, saying life was simpler back then, we were all on the same page, there was less competition, things were good.
But Steve Jobs is dead.
And some day the old farts running the music business will be too.
Last night I went to a dinner at Cecconi's. You know, the hipster restaurant where Morton's used to be. One Direction was eating in the corner, or so I was told, but we were ensconced in the private room, fourteen people, half from music, half from tech.
I was the oldest one there.
Most people my age don't have the time. Somewhere in your fifties, it becomes all about lifestyle. Eating, playing golf, your kids have left the nest... Whereas those younger than that are hungry, they're still on the way up.
These people were hungry.
And I'd like to tell you the music people were ignorant, backward, out of touch... But they were not. Actually, they were more in touch than the tech people, who seemingly only wanted to build something, flip it and get rich.
That's the difference between music and tech. Music, when done right, is forever. I.e. the Beatles, the Stones, all the classic rock acts, not to mention Sinatra. Tech, no matter how well it's done, is destined for the scrapheap. Whether it be UNIVAC or Palm. Its time in the sun is very brief. And the tech people want to use our music to make their money, not worrying about hurting that which should last forever.
And the people in the room felt music should last forever. Ironically, it's the old farts who don't feel this way. Because they need to get paid.
There can't be long term thinking in the music business, because the old farts need to get paid. None of them own their companies. All of them have contracts, with bonus provisions, which they plan on getting, by hook or by crook. They don't care about what's good for the company, never mind the music, they only care about what's good for themselves. That's why there's so little progress.
And the tech guys say give us your music, we'll give you equity. One of these enterprises has to hit...
Huh?
And the label people say they can't give them the music even if they wanted to. Because oftentimes the artists say no. And some of the biggest artists aren't even about the money. It was remarked that Madonna is in a pissing match with Lady Gaga, she's got to prove that she's the progenitor, that she's still bigger, money is almost irrelevant.
And the television agent said despite being a music fan, he wanted no part of the business. Because there was no business. Same as it is in movies.
That was fascinating. I always like to explore someone's success. How did this TV agent like saying no?
That was no problem. Because when you say no in TV, there's always another opportunity, there's always another season, outlets that need more programming. Say no in movies and your career may be over.
And the lawyer in the room said her clients were all about giving away the music. And she represented household name acts. It was the labels who stood in the way.
And the end result was I see no movement.
But I foresee giant change within the decade.
Because the old farts are gonna die.
We're no longer gonna debate the merit of CDs. Or radio. The target demo will have grown up without CDs and they've never experienced great radio, to the degree they're even listening. And this generation will only be interested in hits. Why should there be an album? I just want the single.
Everything the old people take for granted, that's in their DNA... The younger generation doesn't believe in, they don't even care about. And they're here to replace us.
Castigating P2P is like trying to deny someone's summer camp experience. Yes, Napster burgeoned in 2000. If you were computer-savvy then, let's say you were nine, you're now twenty one. All you know is P2P and files.
Meanwhile, I know a famous manager who still doesn't use a computer, to this day!
We're in an era of gridlock. And what the last decade has taught us is to follow the audience. They're leading. While we're bickering about rights and the way it ought to be, they're utilizing the new platforms and programs to slice and dice and acquire just what they want to. We don't need to teach them, we need to follow them. Better yet, get in front of them.
But the old farts keep yelling for them to come back. It's kind of like herding cats. Impossible. But they keep trying.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
The most insightful thing I've heard this year emanated from the lips of Irving Azoff, he said Lucian Grainge thought his competition was Doug Morris.
Do you see what happened here?
Doug got eased out of Universal because he was too old. So he's on this vendetta to prove Vivendi wrong. And Lucian needs to win against Doug, so he does insane things, like overpay for EMI. Hell, even Sony didn't swallow EMI's publishing division whole, it brought in outside investors to help carry the weight. Meanwhile, stuck with a pig in a poke, he now owns EMI's recorded music division, he can't return it to Citi, Lucian's paying a fortune in legal fees in order to absorb said company as opposed to selling it.
Is this any way to run a business?
No.
Meanwhile, you've got other old farts married to radio, albums, all the relics of the seventies. It's as if Steve Jobs came back from the dead and tried to convince everybody to use an Apple II, saying life was simpler back then, we were all on the same page, there was less competition, things were good.
But Steve Jobs is dead.
And some day the old farts running the music business will be too.
Last night I went to a dinner at Cecconi's. You know, the hipster restaurant where Morton's used to be. One Direction was eating in the corner, or so I was told, but we were ensconced in the private room, fourteen people, half from music, half from tech.
I was the oldest one there.
Most people my age don't have the time. Somewhere in your fifties, it becomes all about lifestyle. Eating, playing golf, your kids have left the nest... Whereas those younger than that are hungry, they're still on the way up.
These people were hungry.
And I'd like to tell you the music people were ignorant, backward, out of touch... But they were not. Actually, they were more in touch than the tech people, who seemingly only wanted to build something, flip it and get rich.
That's the difference between music and tech. Music, when done right, is forever. I.e. the Beatles, the Stones, all the classic rock acts, not to mention Sinatra. Tech, no matter how well it's done, is destined for the scrapheap. Whether it be UNIVAC or Palm. Its time in the sun is very brief. And the tech people want to use our music to make their money, not worrying about hurting that which should last forever.
And the people in the room felt music should last forever. Ironically, it's the old farts who don't feel this way. Because they need to get paid.
There can't be long term thinking in the music business, because the old farts need to get paid. None of them own their companies. All of them have contracts, with bonus provisions, which they plan on getting, by hook or by crook. They don't care about what's good for the company, never mind the music, they only care about what's good for themselves. That's why there's so little progress.
And the tech guys say give us your music, we'll give you equity. One of these enterprises has to hit...
Huh?
And the label people say they can't give them the music even if they wanted to. Because oftentimes the artists say no. And some of the biggest artists aren't even about the money. It was remarked that Madonna is in a pissing match with Lady Gaga, she's got to prove that she's the progenitor, that she's still bigger, money is almost irrelevant.
And the television agent said despite being a music fan, he wanted no part of the business. Because there was no business. Same as it is in movies.
That was fascinating. I always like to explore someone's success. How did this TV agent like saying no?
That was no problem. Because when you say no in TV, there's always another opportunity, there's always another season, outlets that need more programming. Say no in movies and your career may be over.
And the lawyer in the room said her clients were all about giving away the music. And she represented household name acts. It was the labels who stood in the way.
And the end result was I see no movement.
But I foresee giant change within the decade.
Because the old farts are gonna die.
We're no longer gonna debate the merit of CDs. Or radio. The target demo will have grown up without CDs and they've never experienced great radio, to the degree they're even listening. And this generation will only be interested in hits. Why should there be an album? I just want the single.
Everything the old people take for granted, that's in their DNA... The younger generation doesn't believe in, they don't even care about. And they're here to replace us.
Castigating P2P is like trying to deny someone's summer camp experience. Yes, Napster burgeoned in 2000. If you were computer-savvy then, let's say you were nine, you're now twenty one. All you know is P2P and files.
Meanwhile, I know a famous manager who still doesn't use a computer, to this day!
We're in an era of gridlock. And what the last decade has taught us is to follow the audience. They're leading. While we're bickering about rights and the way it ought to be, they're utilizing the new platforms and programs to slice and dice and acquire just what they want to. We don't need to teach them, we need to follow them. Better yet, get in front of them.
But the old farts keep yelling for them to come back. It's kind of like herding cats. Impossible. But they keep trying.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Monday 18 June 2012
What I Learned At The One Direction Show
I'M OLD
Now you're laughing hysterically, chiding grandpa. But you're missing the point.
The twelve year old girls in attendance not only have no idea who the Four Seasons, Bobby Sherman, New Kids On The Block and the Backstreet Boys are, they didn't grow up buying CDs and they never knew a time when there was no Internet.
N'Sync might as well have happened in another century... Wait a second, mostly it did!
These kids are totally wired. All the music you listened to is irrelevant to them. They don't know why albums should contain sixty minutes of music and they never listened to an album straight through, again and again.
In other words, it's a whole new ball game. While the oldsters are trying to prop up the old institutions, think about that, the labels derive most of their income for recorded music via CDs, it's a foreign language to the kids. This business doesn't need evolution, it needs revolution!
SCREAMING
It was just like the Beatles. I don't think One Direction could hear themselves most of the time. It's mania. I've never ever heard louder screaming in my life. We call this passion.
But that does not mean it will last.
For time immemorial and for as long as human beings inhabit this earth little girls will go through puberty and have crushes.
PRODUCTION
Pretty spectacular. One Direction spent money. They had a whole story on the HD screens, of the seasons and their activities during them. Summer at the beach, fall at school, winter in the mountains...
The point is, this is what the audience is gonna expect.
Sure, you can go the other way. Wear your street clothes and have a naked stage. But then you must be leading with your music, it must be positively riveting.
The production made it a show. And I can't see anything wrong with that.
OLLY MURS
He was the opening act.
He just sold out twenty seven arenas in the U.K., and he didn't even win "X Factor", he came in second! In 2009!
Now, more than ever, there's less cross-pollination between territories. Just because it's big here doesn't mean it's gonna be big there, and vice versa. Not that it necessarily should be. Murs is more about fame than music. Then again, his song "Heart Skips A Beat" is a hit:
http://spoti.fi/JDW2St
Sure, it's not "Call Me Maybe", but it's hard to listen without nodding your head. It's got some traction at U.S. radio, but even if it ultimately doesn't click, you've got to know one thing about Top Forty music, they understand the game. You've got to create an earworm, something you can't forget.
OLLY MURS 2
He did a Stevie Wonder medley. He implored the audience to sing along, trade lines, they were completely clueless. I'm not saying they'll never discover Stevie Wonder, but right now his music is as foreign as a seventies television show.
TWITTER
Remember all those reports that said young kids don't embrace Twitter?
Just like they said no one texts in the U.S. And texting is now on the way out, which is why it's included free in the new Verizon plans, along with as much talking as you want.
The kids love Twitter. The fact that they came to it late just goes to show that you want acts to have time to develop but you won't give this same privilege to technology. Ha!
MORE THAN THIS
I'd love to tell you all the One Direction songs were memorable. But this is not the Backstreet Boys, who sang vapid platitudes to incredibly hooky music. Still, some of the cuts are just magic.
This is the one I found irresistible, that I could not stop singing in my head. Talk about earworms.
Listen through the chorus, which begins just before a minute in:
http://spoti.fi/Izp8Un
Live, they didn't have the same keyboard treatment under the chorus, which distracts a bit, but still the song, especially when you listen all the way through, is a hit.
Not that it's a single. But it should be.
Then again, when you listened to those albums way back when, there were similar cuts. Just because they weren't on the radio didn't mean they weren't as good as anything on it.
And, of course, One Direction did not write this, Jamie Scott did.
Check him out here:
http://bit.ly/5jzkto
All those brooding heroes you champion... These are the real heroes, people who can write these smash hooky hits.
TWITTER 2
One Direction responded to questions tweeted by the audience, flashed on the big screen. They were cheeky, they were salacious, they were having a good time amongst themselves. Sure, they're playing to their audience, their fans, but you know they're having fun...
And they're so young... Niall walked by me backstage and at first I thought he was somebody's kid.
Remember when you were a kid and wanted to be famous? One Direction is living your dream. And it won't last, but it wasn't meant to.
TWITTER 3
That's how I found out Judd Apatow was there, he was live-tweeting the event and somebody forwarded a pic of his, with him and Ray Liotta, to me.
Some things never change. Parents taking their kids to gigs. They don't want them to be denied. Then again, so many of these young girls seemed to be unchaperoned.
THE MERCH
It wasn't even inside the building. It was outside, under a huge tent, with barriers set up to control the crowd. There was a smorgasbord of stuff, kids are scarfing it up, breaking house records in every venue, in some cases by fifty percent...
And they say there's a recession.
There's no recession if you want something. Especially if your kid wants it. And it's relatively cheap.
That's what music used to be, a distraction, a salve of the masses. Before albums cost twenty bucks and ticket prices exceeded a hundred dollars.
There's plenty of money to be made even if you don't overcharge.
TWITTER 4
"Seeing @Lefsetz tweet from a One Direction show is a lot like watching an episode of To Catch A Predator"
Samuel Riddle (@SamuelRid)
Hell, you've got to laugh at yourself. But Mr. Riddle had it kind of right. I stuck out like a sore thumb.
Because it wasn't made for me.
My time is passing. Your time is passing. But for these little girls, their life is just beginning. Right now, One Direction is an integral part of it. They're never going to forget they were at this show.
Memories are made of this.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Now you're laughing hysterically, chiding grandpa. But you're missing the point.
The twelve year old girls in attendance not only have no idea who the Four Seasons, Bobby Sherman, New Kids On The Block and the Backstreet Boys are, they didn't grow up buying CDs and they never knew a time when there was no Internet.
N'Sync might as well have happened in another century... Wait a second, mostly it did!
These kids are totally wired. All the music you listened to is irrelevant to them. They don't know why albums should contain sixty minutes of music and they never listened to an album straight through, again and again.
In other words, it's a whole new ball game. While the oldsters are trying to prop up the old institutions, think about that, the labels derive most of their income for recorded music via CDs, it's a foreign language to the kids. This business doesn't need evolution, it needs revolution!
SCREAMING
It was just like the Beatles. I don't think One Direction could hear themselves most of the time. It's mania. I've never ever heard louder screaming in my life. We call this passion.
But that does not mean it will last.
For time immemorial and for as long as human beings inhabit this earth little girls will go through puberty and have crushes.
PRODUCTION
Pretty spectacular. One Direction spent money. They had a whole story on the HD screens, of the seasons and their activities during them. Summer at the beach, fall at school, winter in the mountains...
The point is, this is what the audience is gonna expect.
Sure, you can go the other way. Wear your street clothes and have a naked stage. But then you must be leading with your music, it must be positively riveting.
The production made it a show. And I can't see anything wrong with that.
OLLY MURS
He was the opening act.
He just sold out twenty seven arenas in the U.K., and he didn't even win "X Factor", he came in second! In 2009!
Now, more than ever, there's less cross-pollination between territories. Just because it's big here doesn't mean it's gonna be big there, and vice versa. Not that it necessarily should be. Murs is more about fame than music. Then again, his song "Heart Skips A Beat" is a hit:
http://spoti.fi/JDW2St
Sure, it's not "Call Me Maybe", but it's hard to listen without nodding your head. It's got some traction at U.S. radio, but even if it ultimately doesn't click, you've got to know one thing about Top Forty music, they understand the game. You've got to create an earworm, something you can't forget.
OLLY MURS 2
He did a Stevie Wonder medley. He implored the audience to sing along, trade lines, they were completely clueless. I'm not saying they'll never discover Stevie Wonder, but right now his music is as foreign as a seventies television show.
Remember all those reports that said young kids don't embrace Twitter?
Just like they said no one texts in the U.S. And texting is now on the way out, which is why it's included free in the new Verizon plans, along with as much talking as you want.
The kids love Twitter. The fact that they came to it late just goes to show that you want acts to have time to develop but you won't give this same privilege to technology. Ha!
MORE THAN THIS
I'd love to tell you all the One Direction songs were memorable. But this is not the Backstreet Boys, who sang vapid platitudes to incredibly hooky music. Still, some of the cuts are just magic.
This is the one I found irresistible, that I could not stop singing in my head. Talk about earworms.
Listen through the chorus, which begins just before a minute in:
http://spoti.fi/Izp8Un
Live, they didn't have the same keyboard treatment under the chorus, which distracts a bit, but still the song, especially when you listen all the way through, is a hit.
Not that it's a single. But it should be.
Then again, when you listened to those albums way back when, there were similar cuts. Just because they weren't on the radio didn't mean they weren't as good as anything on it.
And, of course, One Direction did not write this, Jamie Scott did.
Check him out here:
http://bit.ly/5jzkto
All those brooding heroes you champion... These are the real heroes, people who can write these smash hooky hits.
TWITTER 2
One Direction responded to questions tweeted by the audience, flashed on the big screen. They were cheeky, they were salacious, they were having a good time amongst themselves. Sure, they're playing to their audience, their fans, but you know they're having fun...
And they're so young... Niall walked by me backstage and at first I thought he was somebody's kid.
Remember when you were a kid and wanted to be famous? One Direction is living your dream. And it won't last, but it wasn't meant to.
TWITTER 3
That's how I found out Judd Apatow was there, he was live-tweeting the event and somebody forwarded a pic of his, with him and Ray Liotta, to me.
Some things never change. Parents taking their kids to gigs. They don't want them to be denied. Then again, so many of these young girls seemed to be unchaperoned.
THE MERCH
It wasn't even inside the building. It was outside, under a huge tent, with barriers set up to control the crowd. There was a smorgasbord of stuff, kids are scarfing it up, breaking house records in every venue, in some cases by fifty percent...
And they say there's a recession.
There's no recession if you want something. Especially if your kid wants it. And it's relatively cheap.
That's what music used to be, a distraction, a salve of the masses. Before albums cost twenty bucks and ticket prices exceeded a hundred dollars.
There's plenty of money to be made even if you don't overcharge.
TWITTER 4
"Seeing @Lefsetz tweet from a One Direction show is a lot like watching an episode of To Catch A Predator"
Samuel Riddle (@SamuelRid)
Hell, you've got to laugh at yourself. But Mr. Riddle had it kind of right. I stuck out like a sore thumb.
Because it wasn't made for me.
My time is passing. Your time is passing. But for these little girls, their life is just beginning. Right now, One Direction is an integral part of it. They're never going to forget they were at this show.
Memories are made of this.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)