84 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

Record labels own the radio airwaves and large record stores. When was the last time you turned on the radio and hear a new artist that wasn't signed on to a major label? If you want to become a mainstream artist you have to sign with a major label. Record labels make their money through record sales because artists usually only get 30 cents per record sold and the label gets the rest that's why they've put so much money behind stopping downloading music. It makes it harder for them to fuck over artists who get most of their money through touring and promotional contracts.

Not really. Radio and record labels are a two way dynamic. If your song is hot, the radio station buys the rights to play it to get more listeners. If your song isn't, the radio can sponsor it for profit. Radio stations have success in the basis of playing what people want to hear. That's why unsigned artists like Waka Flocka before Warner get radio play. It's just rare because independent artists usually don't have the means to get out there and get themselves noticed. It's record labels that find the talent and get that job done.

Your tours pay more and your sponsoring pays more when you're famous. If you don't have the means to make yourself famous and a record label offers you that service for a price, then it's probably in your best interests to pay it. I'd rather get 30 cents per CD and sell 10,000 copies than get 30 dollars per CD and sell three.

[Mishelle]

Trust me bro, I grew up in the music industry. The song doesn't get hot until the radio plays it. Many artists don't start selling albums until they get a radio hit. The record companies court the radio stations, not the other way around. 90% of media is controlled by 6 corporations. The record companies pay these radio stations to get the song on air to begin with. If you take a look you'll see that most people dislike the fact that the radio plays the same 20 songs over and over again but record companies are paying them to play those songs over and over so they're going to keep doing what makes them money.

Many artists do have the means to get themselves noticed. There are plenty of underground artists who have large fan bases thanks to the internet and they tour. Obviously not the same large scale tours as the artists on record labels and you're correct they can't get a promotional contract without becoming famous in the eyes of the mainstream media. The sad fact is the radio drives record sales and you're only going to get radio play if you have the money which most independent artists don't have. Of course people are going to take the route that gets them famous so they can make the money even if in the process they're overworked, exploited, andrecord companies force them into a generic look and sound (aka selling out) preventing consumers from gaining access to any kind of diverse sound. And I believe its inherently wrong that they pay them pennies for an album they probably spent 12 hours a day for a month in the studio to make. Yes they're making money, but the problem with this is they're not getting paid the money they should be getting thanks to wonderful, glorious, capitalism.

[gummis]

It's a blanket. Just a blanket. Now why do guys like you and me know what a duvet is? Is this essential to our survival, in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word? No. What are we then?

Consumers?

Right. We are consumers. We're the bi-products of a lifestyle obsession.

Sorry, Fight Club quotes sprung to mind, but Fight Club quotes cause more topic win

[8143FF763271]

Trust me bro, I grew up in the music industry. The song doesn't get hot until the radio plays it. Many artists don't start selling albums until they get a radio hit. The record companies court the radio stations, not the other way around. 90% of media is controlled by 6 corporations. The record companies pay these radio stations to get the song on air to begin with. If you take a look you'll see that most people dislike the fact that the radio plays the same 20 songs over and over again but record companies are paying them to play those songs over and over so they're going to keep doing what makes them money.

Many artists do have the means to get themselves noticed. There are plenty of underground artists who have large fan bases thanks to the internet and they tour. Obviously not the same large scale tours as the artists on record labels and you're correct they can't get a promotional contract without becoming famous in the eyes of the mainstream media. The sad fact is the radio drives record sales and you're only going to get radio play if you have the money which most independent artists don't have. Of course people are going to take the route that gets them famous so they can make the money even if in the process they're overworked, exploited, andrecord companies force them into a generic look and sound (aka selling out) preventing consumers from gaining access to any kind of diverse sound. And I believe its inherently wrong that they pay them pennies for an album they probably spent 12 hours a day for a month in the studio to make. Yes they're making money, but the problem with this is they're not getting paid the money they should be getting thanks to wonderful, glorious, capitalism.

Payolas are an illegal practice. Just saying. Hit songs are hit songs because people stop and listen to them when they're on the radio. Not because record labels are paying to have them played all day. Most people don't really dislike that fact... I enjoy a lot of hit songs. They're pretty fucking catchy. Record sales also betray that people tend to enjoy these songs. If hit songs annoyed people, they wouldn't buy the records they're in or go to the concerts where they get played.

I already went over the points of your adolescent tirade with the other guy and asked what alternative he suggested. I sure as hell don't want my taxes to be given to struggling artists that probably suck. That's an investment I'd rather have a company or the artist himself make. You don't like it? Great. I'm sure the artist appreciates that he has someone that will invest in him (he signs the contract) and I'm sure the rest of society appreciates that they don't have to feet the bill (no one wants their taxes going into some singer's struggling career). The record label system is the best option for all parties involved, and, yes, they are the ones providing the most valuable service (capital, advertisement, production, etc) so they deserve every penny they get. It's simple. If the artist needs the services of the record label to make money, then the record label is obviously offering valuable services that should be rewarded. I don't know why you're saying artists should get more money when it is obvious that talent alone, without investment and exposure, won't get you shit. You need someone else's work chipped in and that work is more valuable than yours.

Edited by kami12, 15 August 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[Mishelle]

A lot of illegal things go on in the music industry,fyi.

I didn't say people disliked hit songs I said people dislike the fact that the same 20 hits are played over and over with no diversity.

Why are you bringing up taxes? No one said anything about that.

Record Labels actually aren't the best option for everyone involved. Since the internet major labels have been losing money and many artists such as Radiohead have been going around major labels and releasing their albums online. They net more profits since they don't have to pay back advances, record labels, or manufacturing. There are many artists who may not have record labels paying to get the mainstream media behind them but they're certainly not starving or struggling because they're getting a higher percentage of profits from their work. This is why record labels go after younger and younger artists, because they don't know anything about the industry and it's easier to take advantage of them.

Edited by Mishelle, 16 August 2012 - 01:36 AM.

[8143FF763271]

A lot of illegal things go on in the music industry,fyi.

You want to argue that the US radio survives on an illegal payola system? That's cool, but if you had the evidence to back that up there'd be lawsuits in place to talk for you. There aren't any and, thus, you're just speculating.

I didn't say people disliked hit songs I said people dislike the fact that the same 20 hits are played over and over with no diversity.

Plenty of diversity. It's called changing the radio station.

Why are you bringing up taxes? No one said anything about that.

Learn to acknowledge the implications of your arguments. You and I have both acknowledged that most artists need capital to get considerably famous. If record labels don't foot the bill for that capital, who will? The artist can't do it himself. Society doesn't want to do it. Record labels do. Simple.

Record Labels actually aren't the best option for everyone involved. Since the internet major labels have been losing money and many artists such as Radiohead have been going around major labels and releasing their albums online. They net more profits since they don't have to pay back advances, record labels, or manufacturing.

That's an option for a band that's been made famous by its former record labels (Sony entertainment and EMI are there by the way). They have the capital to invest in themselves and, thus, they reap the profits of both being their own artists and being their own investors and managers. This is not true for the artist that doesn't have money (unless he's lucky).

There are many artists who may not have record labels paying to get the mainstream media behind them but they're certainly not starving or struggling because they're getting a higher percentage of profits from their work. This is why record labels go after younger and younger artists, because they don't know anything about the industry and it's easier to take advantage of them.

They go after young artists because young people sell more. There's a few artists that get noticed over the internet/social networks but these artist are few and, usually, they have to be amazingly avant garde and know how to take advantage of current social networks. An example is ASAP Rocky, where would that guy be if he didn't have the back up of the people in Black Scale making him a fashion icon among the tumblr community? Nowhere. He'd just be another shitty rapper without a career. If it was easy for artists to get famous and make money on their own: They wouldn't accept deals.

Ehhh, people are trying to argue with a guy who spends his time self loving, constantly takes pics of himself,
and describes himself as such:


Have a nice day

Ad hominem is a type of logical fallacy that tries to negate the truth of a statement by pointing out perceived flaws in the person that makes it. It is both an informal fallacy (the prepositions do not support the conclusion) and an irrelevance (it has nothing to do with the topic at hand).

Teaching neocodex how to argue properly since 2012.

[Mishelle]

You want to argue that the US radio survives on an illegal payola system? That's cool, but if you had the evidence to back that up there'd be lawsuits in place to talk for you. There aren't any and, thus, you're just speculating.

A major label (and that’s an important distinction) signs an artist, spends a bunch of money to make a record, and then must get that artist’s music on the radio in order to have any chance of success.
When you’re faced with a “must do” scenario, you do what you must. In this case, the labels first try to find some early supporters: program directors willing to “test” the song — give it limited play, and see if there’s a response from the stations’ listeners. If there is, great. If there isn’t…well, great. In either case, if the label decides they have to get the song on the radio, whether the “test” went well or not, they’re going to do what they have to do. And for what it’s worth, getting a “test” spin is no easy task in and of itself. Favors are given to those who have greased palms for years to provide the three and a half minutes of airtime at 2:30AM on a Thursday night to test a song.
Getting a song “added” to a station’s playlist to get a certain number of plays per week involves a rather byzantine process that brings in various parties, called independent promoters (“indies”). These “indies” are first paid by the label. It’s important to note that the money the indies receive isn’t necessarily compensation paid directly to them for getting Program Directors to get a song played. Rather, they work more like an intermediary to pass the label’s money to the radio station. These indies, with the money paid to them from the labels, pay the radio station money for various listener give-aways, bumper stickers and so on. To top it off, these very same indies are often also paid a second time by the stations themselves as a consultant to advise the stations on what songs they should play.
Top indie promoters make a lot of money.
Confused?
You’re meant to be.
Smell fishy?
That’s because it is.
It’s all obfuscation. It’s all a way for the labels to avoid being seen as engaging in direct payment to a radio station in exchange for the radio station playing the label’s song. In other words: Payola.
Payola emerged pretty much alongside radio. However, it wasn’t until the 1950s that anybody paid it much mind. At this point, payola was criminalized, and it’s been illegal to induce a station to play a song in exchange for money, without disclosing that money has changed hands, ever since.
The methods change; the labels always trying to stay one-step ahead of the government, and obfuscate just enough to keep the system churning along as it always has.
The reason the majors are willing to take these risks, and bear these costs — and the costs associated with breaking a record on Big Time radio can easily reach the seven figures — is because when a record breaks — even today — the returns are massive. One could argue, in fact, that due to the ineffectiveness of other means of promotion, Payola has become even more frenzied and high-stakes.
You may ask, at this point, “well, fine, I get it…the majors pay a bunch of money, and they get their records played, but why couldn’t some non-major (indie label or investor) do the same — pay a bunch of money and get a hit record?” The answer ties us back to Jeff’s article, and explains why Big Time radio is still the purview of the majors. Assuming you had a million bucks or so, you very well could hire yourself some of these indies to “work” your record to Big Time radio, and, believe me, they’d take your money. Your record even might get a few spins (though likely only during times when prisoners, insomniacs, and long-haul truckers are listening), but those spins would peter out pretty fast. The indies would come back and say something along the lines of, “We’ve got our toe in the door with station KCUF, and if you can just give it a bit more juice, they’ll move it from overnights to drive-time.” And you may give them that juice, and it may get a few spins during drive-time. And then you’ll be told that you need to “juice” some other stations. You can juice until your money runs out, but the chances of the record ever really breaking is almost zero.
Here’s why: You’ve come to these indies, and they’ve gone to the labels, and they’ve taken your money, and they know that you’re probably not coming back any time soon. On the other hand, the majors are coming every week with money and new artists. Who would you prioritize if you were in the indie/radio station’s shoes?
So, the majors have a lock on this. Every once in a blue moon a song will be so powerful that it can’t not be played, and it doesn’t matter if it’s on a major or not. But this is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The reality is the songs you hear on Big Time radio all got their the same way, and if you look at the label who released these songs, 99% of the time, they’ll be on a major.

http://blog.tunecore...cial-radio.html

Plenty of diversity. It's called changing the radio station.

Yep change to another station that has a 90% chance of being owned by one of the big 6. Thank you for missing the point entirely.

Learn to acknowledge the implications of your arguments. You and I have both acknowledged that most artists need capital to get considerably famous. If record labels don't foot the bill for that capital, who will? The artist can't do it himself. Society doesn't want to do it. Record labels do. Simple.

If an artist can't do it without a major label then explain the entire indie music industry...

That's an option for a band that's been made famous by its former record labels (Sony entertainment and EMI are there by the way). They have the capital to invest in themselves and, thus, they reap the profits of both being their own artists and being their own investors and managers. This is not true for the artist that doesn't have money (unless he's lucky).

Hmmm I wonder why. It can't be record companies courting the big 6 to keep their artists in the media and keep everyone else out. That's just crazy talk.

They go after young artists because young people sell more. There's a few artists that get noticed over the internet/social networks but these artist are few and, usually, they have to be amazingly avant garde and know how to take advantage of current social networks. An example is ASAP Rocky, where would that guy be if he didn't have the back up of the people in Black Scale making him a fashion icon among the tumblr community? Nowhere. He'd just be another shitty rapper without a career. If it was easy for artists to get famous and make money on their own: They wouldn't accept deals.

Yes they accept deals where they get taken advantage of because these people are usually young, poor and don't know anything about the music industry. Most artists are never as rich as they appear to be. They don't start making money until they've been in the music industry for years and learned how to negotiate a decent contract. Record labels use their money to make these artists appear rich. They give them cash advances to spend and the artists always has to pay them back. It's not your money if you have to pay it back. They're basically serving artists a flashy lifestyle on credit and the artist has to be lucky enough to snag a well paying tour, promo deal, or a hit record. And even when they get those things labels are notorious for not paying the money they owe. And if the artist doesn't make it big, they're stuck in debt to their record company. Just because record companies have a stronghold on music doesn't mean it's the best the music industry has to offer. I believe that once we get record companies out of the music industry it will be better for artists and musicians.

[8143FF763271]

http://blog.tunecore...cial-radio.html

Use of indies or third party promoters is counted as Payola under US law. Clear Channel Communication, one of your "big six" and the owner of most of the airwaves, along with many major stations refuse to have any contact with independent promoters due to its possible legal implications. That article is outdated since "sidestepping" payola laws already cost Universal a 12 million dollar lawsuit.

Yep change to another station that has a 90% chance of being owned by one of the big 6. Thank you for missing the point entirely.

Yes, because corporations want to make money and they make money off giving people what they want. Both Lana del Rey and 50 cent are signed by interscope. Do they represent the same content? No, they don't. Media being owned by the same executive does not mean that the media is homogenous. This is equivalent to saying that a playstation 3 and a viao laptop are the same because Sony owns them both. Derp.

If an artist can't do it without a major label then explain the entire indie music industry...

Indie artists are rarely successful. The internet allows plenty of them to market themselves and some are succesful doing it, which is good for them because those don't require the service of the labels. The ones that can't do that should take the deal. What's your point? If someone offers me a service I can do myself for a price, I won't take it. If someone offers me a service I can't do myself for a price, I'll probably take it. Not everyone can be a successful indie artist.

Hmmm I wonder why. It can't be record companies courting the big 6 to keep their artists in the media and keep everyone else out. That's just crazy talk.

Because exposure costs money? Because getting noticed costs money? Because that you make a youtube video with a nice song doesn't guarantee a million views? The record companies being on top of it don't matter. Most people won't go out of their way to find a promising new artist, record labels do and they present them to people.

Yes they accept deals where they get taken advantage of because these people are usually young, poor and don't know anything about the music industry. Most artists are never as rich as they appear to be. They don't start making money until they've been in the music industry for years and learned how to negotiate a decent contract. Record labels use their money to make these artists appear rich. They give them cash advances to spend and the artists always has to pay them back. It's not your money if you have to pay it back. They're basically serving artists a flashy lifestyle on credit and the artist has to be lucky enough to snag a well paying tour, promo deal, or a hit record. And even when they get those things labels are notorious for not paying the money they owe. And if the artist doesn't make it big, they're stuck in debt to their record company. Just because record companies have a stronghold on music doesn't mean it's the best the music industry has to offer. I believe that once we get record companies out of the music industry it will be better for artists and musicians.

Oh, artists are too dumb to read a contract? Apparently, labels are so rich because they prey on retarded artists that can't read.

Labels pay the money they owe. Either that, or they get a lawsuit 100 times bigger.

Once we get record labels out of the music industry... most artists will never get anywhere. Again, advertisement, production, and investments are valuable services that an artist can't necessarily provide for himself. Should the world miss out on someone's talent because they don't have capital, or because they don't know how to market themselves? No, someone can gladly provide that service to them for a part of the profit and there's nothing wrong with that. As long as there are people with talent for art but no talent for marketing- labels will exist. Get over it.

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[Mishelle]

Dude payola still happens. It has never stopped. Sony, Universial and Warner own the grand majority of songs played on the radio this isn't a coincidence. You can't track every single gift that gets sent through the music industry. Record companies will continue to find ways to sidestep payola laws and keep control of the radio airwaves.

Lana Del Ray and 50 Cent are both mainstream pop artists. Lana Del Ray does indie pop and 50 does mainstream rap. For an artist to be a pop artist they don't have to be the same genre they just have to subscribe to the trends in the most popular form of their genre. Who creates these trends? Record companies who employ the same popular producers over and over. Derp.

Most artists are rarely successful period, theres plenty of unsuccessful artists who have signed to major labels. But my point is there's plenty of indie artists who have been able to profit from their music, it's possible without a major label. There's actually plenty of people who go out of their way to find new artists, they're called hipsters.

Did I say artists were too dumb to read a contract? No I said negotiate. Although yes there are plenty of artists too dumb to read a contract. When you're a new artist you don't have any negotiating power against a big label who carries artists way more famous than you It makes it easier for them to railroad you into accepting $20 for every 1000 records sold. Labels are actually losing profits and not making as much money as they used to thanks to digital media, illegal downloading and social networking. Singles are favored over albums. Record stores like Amoeba Music and Woolworths are crumbling which obviously impacts record company profits. Record companies get around paying the money they owe by making sure you always owe them money with cash advances, production fees, marketing fees, management fees, etc etc.

Edited by Mishelle, 16 August 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[8143FF763271]

Dude payola still happens. It has never stopped. Sony, Universial and Warner own the grand majority of songs played on the radio this isn't a coincidence. You can't track every single gift that gets sent through the music industry. Record companies will continue to find ways to sidestep payola laws and keep control of the radio airwaves.

They also own the most bought songs on itunes. Is that a coincidence? Or are they paying people to buy their songs? Or maybe... maybe Sony, Universal, and Warner offer lucrative deals to artists that people will like and that have what it takes to be popular? You can't track every time a mcdonalds employee spits on your fries, that doesn't mean sanitary standards don't exist and aren't tightly enforced. Companies run a risk sidestepping payola restrictions, it's their job to know if that risk is worth or if it isn't. It isn't, seeing it has cost them plenty already.

Lana Del Ray and 50 Cent are both mainstream pop artists. Lana Del Ray does indie pop and 50 does mainstream rap. For an artist to be a pop artist they don't have to be the same genre they just have to subscribe to the trends in the most popular form of their genre. Who creates these trends? Record companies who employ the same popular producers over and over. Derp.

....................so, artists that have different music, different content, a different image, and different everything are the same because they're both popular? Great logic.

Most artists are rarely successful period, theres plenty of unsuccessful artists who have signed to major labels. But my point is there's plenty of indie artists who have been able to profit from their music, it's possible without a major label. There's actually plenty of people who go out of their way to find new artists, they're called hipsters.

Everyone listens to music but not everyone is a hipster. Please don't project your little cliques on the entirety of society.

When record labels sign someone, it's usually because he has the talent to be popular. When they get an unsuccessful artist, it's called a poor business decision. Who's more likely to popularize his music, a guitarist or a guitarist with a marketing team? The latter.

Did I say artists were too dumb to read a contract? No I said negotiate. Although yes there are plenty of artists too dumb to read a contract. When you're a new artist you don't have any negotiating power against a big label who carries artists way more famous than you It makes it easier for them to railroad you into accepting $20 for every 1000 records sold. Labels are actually losing profits and not making as much money as they used to thanks to digital media, illegal downloading and social networking. Singles are favored over albums. Record stores like Amoeba Music and Woolworths are crumbling which obviously impacts record company profits. Record companies get around paying the money they owe by making sure you always owe them money with cash advances, production fees, marketing fees, management fees, etc etc.

Blah, blah, blah. You're reiterating my point: The internet makes it easier for some artists to market themselves so the services of record labels aren't as valuable anymore. The fact that a new medium allowing artists to market themselves better leads to a decline in record label profit means one thing: They are/were providing a valuable service, it's simply a valuable service that artists are finding more easy to pull off themselves.

As for your "record labelz r just looking 4 dumb artists to exploit", yeah, sure, that's why Jay Z is a millionaire and still signs deals with record labels for his albums. Most artists are people that can read and know when a contract benefits them and when it doesn't. If they can't, they probably deserve what they get.

[Mishelle]

And the most bought songs on iTunes are also radio singles. See the correlation here? Yes they run the risk and there are consequences but record companies can easily afford a 12 million dollar lawsuit when they're getting 70% of the profits from millions of records sold amongst other profits. The consequences really aren't that servere if they manage to get caught.

Yes they're different artists compared to each other but within their genre they are still mainstream pop. There's many different forms of rap. Conscious rap, g-funk, crunk, gangsta rap. Then there's mainstream rap like 50 cent.

I didn't say everyone was a hipster. You said no one goes out actively looking for new artists, just because you don't doesn't mean there aren't other people who do. There are plenty of people who seek out new artists via concerts, social media, and word of mouth. Record labels make plenty of bad decisions, but it's easier for them to recoup their losses when they're taking the majority of the money if the artist manages to become successful and they just drop the flops.

When Jay Z first entered the music industry he was still selling drugs to make ends meet. He's been in the music industry for over 20 years. How many artists have come and gone in those 20 years who and didn't come out millionaires? Plus Jay Z is the CEO of a record label so he gets way more of a percentage of his record sales than a new artist would. Why are you comparing the uncomparable?

[8143FF763271]

And the most bought songs on iTunes are also radio singles. See the correlation here? Yes they run the risk and there are consequences but record companies can easily afford a 12 million dollar lawsuit when they're getting 70% of the profits from millions of records sold amongst other profits. The consequences really aren't that servere if they manage to get caught.

Yes, I see the correlation. The correlation is called people liking those songs.

And not really. The consequences are severe. Big record labels have a revenue of around 6 million dollars. A 12 million dollar lawsuit could easily result in bankruptcy. That you're handling a lot of money doesn't mean you're making a lot of money. You have a compromise to pay your company's expenses and what remains is what you get as profit. Once you don't have money to cover expenses, you're bankrupt.

Yes they're different artists compared to each other but within their genre they are still mainstream pop. There's many different forms of rap. Conscious rap, g-funk, crunk, gangsta rap. Then there's mainstream rap like 50 cent.

What's your point? Mainstream isn't a genre. Mainstream means it's popular. You're saying things are the same because they're popular and they aren't. Lana del Rey =/= 50 cent. Lana del Rey + 50 cent = Musical variety.

I didn't say everyone was a hipster. You said no one goes out actively looking for new artists, just because you don't doesn't mean there aren't other people who do. There are plenty of people who seek out new artists via concerts, social media, and word of mouth. Record labels make plenty of bad decisions, but it's easier for them to recoup their losses when they're taking the majority of the money if the artist manages to become successful and they just drop the flops.

I can say no one collects toilet paper rolls. Obvious some people do, they're just not a significant amount of people. Everyone listens to music but only few people bother digging for new artists themselves. Other people have such a tiring task as their job. For most of us, it's good to have those people since "hipsters" tend to have narrow tastes and probably won't present us their artists.

A company avoids risks and losses and tries to maximize profit. Whatever way you look at it, a bad artist is a bad business decision. It's an investment that doesn't pay. That they manage to make up for it or not is irrelevant.

When Jay Z first entered the music industry he was still selling drugs to make ends meet. He's been in the music industry for over 20 years. How many artists have come and gone in those 20 years who and didn't come out millionaires? Plus Jay Z is the CEO of a record label so he gets way more of a percentage of his record sales than a new artist would. Why are you comparing the uncomparable?

Jay Z had a 100,000 dollar net worth from selling cocaine but admitted he could make more than that from a song. He said this too, and then turned into a millionaire within 5 years from getting signed. Looks like he got a pretty good fucking deal. Jay Z's record company is a subsidiary of Universal. You're presenting this issue as if artists don't benefit from record companies. They obviously do, like record companies benefit from artists. It's a two way street. It's people following their interests.

[Mishelle]

Yes but they'd have to get caught for that to happen and for the most part these types of practices can go on for years until someone gets caught. What happens when they get caught? They find a new loophole.

Just because a person likes lana del ray doesn't mean they'd like 50 cent. Where I am theres only 3 radio stations to listen to rap music and 2 play the same songs the other one plays reggaeton. If the only genre i like is rap music then I'm fucked and the existence of Lana Del Ray has nothing to do with me. It's more important to have varieties within a genre.

I'm pretty sure if you go around walking up to people and ask them if they know of an artist that has never been played on the radio you'd be quite surprised as the answers you get. But this is all a matter of opinion so I don't see the point in continuing to argue over it.


No shit artists benefit from record companies if they didn't record companies wouldn't exist. But Jay Z is a VERY RARE case. Most artists aren't Jay Z. Most artists don't make the money to create their own labels. Most artists get taken advantage of and spit out by the industry. Again, why are you comparing the uncomparable?

Edited by Mishelle, 16 August 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[Bone]

Yes, I see the correlation. The correlation is called people liking those songs.

And not really. The consequences are severe. Big record labels have a revenue of around 6 million dollars. A 12 million dollar lawsuit could easily result in bankruptcy. That you're handling a lot of money doesn't mean you're making a lot of money. You have a compromise to pay your company's expenses and what remains is what you get as profit. Once you don't have money to cover expenses, you're bankrupt.


What's your point? Mainstream isn't a genre. Mainstream means it's popular. You're saying things are the same because they're popular and they aren't. Lana del Rey =/= 50 cent. Lana del Rey + 50 cent = Musical variety.


I can say no one collects toilet paper rolls. Obvious some people do, they're just not a significant amount of people. Everyone listens to music but only few people bother digging for new artists themselves. Other people have such a tiring task as their job. For most of us, it's good to have those people since "hipsters" tend to have narrow tastes and probably won't present us their artists.

A company avoids risks and losses and tries to maximize profit. Whatever way you look at it, a bad artist is a bad business decision. It's an investment that doesn't pay. That they manage to make up for it or not is irrelevant.


Jay Z had a 100,000 dollar net worth from selling cocaine but admitted he could make more than that from a song. He said this too, and then turned into a millionaire within 5 years from getting signed. Looks like he got a pretty good fucking deal. Jay Z's record company is a subsidiary of Universal. You're presenting this issue as if artists don't benefit from record companies. They obviously do, like record companies benefit from artists. It's a two way street. It's people following their interests.

Record companies don't reward talent, they reward the ability to write a sickeningly catchy song. The real victims of the music industry are the thousands of talented musicians who struggle to make a living because their talent is deemed 'unmarketable'. Even the few artists who do hit it big only receive an (almost negligible) fraction of the profit.

So record companies do good business, but ultimately leave talented artists behind. Not to mention the millions who would appreciate better than Carly Rae Jepsen but don't know where/how to find quality music.

Record companies are, for the most part, obsolete. Artists can record and distribute music through the internet, but government support of a dying industry (that is desperately trying to sue file-sharers) is prolonging the suffering. Once the music industry as it is today finally dies out, artists will be able to sell their music directly to the consumers. File-sharing will never end, but many argue that it helps musicians, since they make most of their money from live shows and merchandise anyways.

[8143FF763271]

Yes but they'd have to get caught for that to happen and for the most part these types of practices can go on for years until someone gets caught. What happens when they get caught? They find a new loophole.

Oh, them crafty evil geniuses finding legal loopholes. I wonder why they don't use their amazing loophole talent to do something more profitable like selling cocaine since they obviously just get away with heinous crimes every year.

Just because a person likes lana del ray doesn't mean they'd like 50 cent. Where I am theres only 3 radio stations to listen to rap music and 2 play the same songs the other one plays reggaeton. If the only genre i like is rap music then I'm fucked and the existence of Lana Del Ray has nothing to do with me. It's more important to have varieties within a genre.

Yo. People have different tastes. There's a variety in the radio. There's pop, there's rap, there's rock, there's shit that people tend to like. That's why the radios play it. To get listeners. If you listen to some variant of rap that only you and 10 other people in the country are into then the radio won't play it. Why? It could get a thousand more listeners playing Lil Wayne. Simple fucking logic.

No shit artists benefit from record companies if they didn't record companies wouldn't exist. But Jay Z is a VERY RARE case. Most artists aren't Jay Z. Again, why are you comparing the uncomparable?

Derp. Thank you for noting the whole point of this conversation in your first sentence.

Jay Z is the case of any artist that has managed to make music good enough to get his contracts renewed. I brought Jay Z up because he turned into a millionaire and an entrepreneur and still uses record labels to do his shit, even if they take a part of the profit. Meaning there are services that the record label can provide for the artist that the artist often can't provide for himself. Even plenty of independent artist who get famous on their own (ASAP rocky, azaelia banks, odd future, Drake) sign up with labels. Labels do a lot of shit for artists. Artist need that shit. They benefit form the contract. That's why they sign it.

Record companies don't reward talent, they reward the ability to write a sickeningly catchy song. The real victims of the music industry are the thousands of talented musicians who struggle to make a living because their talent is deemed 'unmarketable'. Even the few artists who do hit it big only receive an (almost negligible) fraction of the profit.

So record companies do good business, but ultimately leave talented artists behind. Not to mention the millions who would appreciate better than Carly Rae Jepsen but don't know where/how to find quality music.

Record companies are, for the most part, obsolete. Artists can record and distribute music through the internet, but government support of a dying industry (that is desperately trying to sue file-sharers) is prolonging the suffering. Once the music industry as it is today finally dies out, artists will be able to sell their music directly to the consumers. File-sharing will never end, but many argue that it helps musicians, since they make most of their money from live shows and merchandise anyways.

Sorry but file-sharing is theft and should be prosecuted. I already gave examples of successful artists that require the services of record labels even though they have the money to market themselves. That the internet exists does not change the fact that there is good marketing and an artist isn't always a good marketer.

Also, do not give us your TASTE as talent. If a song isn't catchy, it means one thing: Most people do not like it. Record labels admittedly do one thing, and it's find artists that people will like. They will find artists that write songs that will get popular. They're not leaving artists behind, they're leaving those who won't be able to make money behind. (Hint: They won't make money because people don't like them). What should we do about your so called talented artist if we don't like their music? Nothing. You should support them on your own.

If there were millions that wanted to listen to something else, record labels would have jumped on it. That's called demand and that's what they make supply for. Where there are millions of listeners, there's profit to be made. That's why record labels are always signing up hip new artists when it's music that people like or can like or want to listen to.

[Mishelle]

I don't understand why whenever you get proven wrong in an argument you go off on some asinine tirade that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Yes there is variety in radio, but there is a miniscule amount of variety in radio compared to how many different genres of music are out there. Record companies only focus on the mainstream sound of the moment instead of trying to find new sounds that people haven't heard a million times over. That's why profits are declining. That's why less albums are selling.

These practices actually goes AGAINST consumerism because the main perk of consumerism is supposed to be that consumers have a variety of choices. In our mainstream music industry people are not given a choice, they must either accept the pop music or use other avenues to find music they like. Artists are forced to change their look and sound to the mainstream sound or get dropped from their label and pay back all their advances. And like Bone said, music doesn't neccesarily have to be good, it just has to be profitable for the record company and they will change whatever they have to to make it profitable. There are plenty of artists who make good music who don't end up as rich as Jay Z. And again, most artists do not benefit from these contracts. There are plenty of artists signed to record labels who still don't get any promotion or exposure because the label doesn't give a shit about them. They're too busy catering to the more popular artists.

[Bone]

Sorry but file-sharing is theft and should be prosecuted. I already gave examples of successful artists that require the services of record labels even though they have the money to market themselves. That the internet exists does not change the fact that there is good marketing and an artist isn't always a good marketer.

File-sharing isn't theft. The legality is irrelevant, anyways, because it's unstoppable.

Also, do not give us your TASTE as talent. If a song isn't catchy, it means one thing: Most people do not like it. Record labels admittedly do one thing, and it's find artists that people will like. They will find artists that write songs that will get popular. They're not leaving artists behind, they're leaving those who won't be able to make money behind. (Hint: They won't make money because people don't like them). What should we do about your so called talented artist if we don't like their music? Nothing. You should support them on your own.

If a song isn't particularly catchy, people won't love it at first listen. But they also won't come to realize how shitty it is after hearing it more than five times. I'm not using my taste as a basis. Look on metacritic and you'll see that it isn't the "best" music that's being so heavily marketed. The record industry isn't picking out the best and marketing them, it's picking out the most marketable and marketing them. It's bad for music.

If there were millions that wanted to listen to something else, record labels would have jumped on it. That's called demand and that's what they make supply for. Where there are millions of listeners, there's profit to be made. That's why record labels are always signing up hip new artists when it's music that people like or can like or want to listen to.

Not really. It's far easier for the major record labels to stick with the status quo and keep churning out generic popstars, because that's what most of their target market is used to. They aren't signing up 'hip new artists', they're signing up the next Katy Perry or Nickelback.

[Turnip]

Sorry but file-sharing is theft and should be prosecuted.

No, file sharing is where you're receiving a copy, not full-on taking it :V If you were download, say, cool_song.mp3 from a file sharing site, for it to be theft the download would be deleted after you download it and the song would be permanently removed from the original uploader and song writer's possession.
Don't forget that there are some songs which you honestly cannot buy. At all. What if you want to get this limited edition cd from I dunno, the 60s and only 50 of them exist and none of the people who own them currently want to sell them, the artists are all dead so you can't contact them, but there's an upload of it up on Mediafire. The artists wouldn't be receiving your money in the first place, and that's the only place where you can get it, would you download it? Well yes obviously.
Also, I would absolutely love to support some of my favourite artists and give them every single penny to my name, but I can't because
1) they live in Japan, going to Japan is far too expensive for me
2) they produce the cds themselves and only sell a number of them for a very limited time, typically a few hours, for a single day. There are hardly ever re-releases
3) sure, I could use a middleman service, but those are extremely unreliable (they might get to the booth and it's sold out, they could just run with your money, etc etc) and they tend to make you pay $40 upwards for shipping.

Now I'm not saying not supporting the artist is good! If you like it, give them money. Especially if their music is their only source of income and they're a small band or whatever! But if your income can't handle it then I think it's best to save your money for rent/bills/food/whatnot. Besides, big artists are going to get money whether you buy the album or not, so there's nothing to worry about there. And with record labels, don't they get the majority of the money rather than the artist? Something silly like that.

[8143FF763271]

I don't understand why whenever you get proven wrong in an argument you go off on some asinine tirade that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Yes there is variety in radio, but there is a miniscule amount of variety in radio compared to how many different genres of music are out there. Record companies only focus on the mainstream sound of the moment instead of trying to find new sounds that people haven't heard a million times over. That's why profits are declining. That's why less albums are selling.

You said there wasn't variety in the radio because the same corporations own radio stations. That's false. If the radio doesn't play grindcore, it's because most people can't stand it so it won't get a lot of listeners. Of course what is on the radio isn't as varied as all the music "out there" (hint: Most of the music out there won't be liked by most people). Record companies don't focus on mainstream sound, actually. Lady Gaga was revolutionary for pop music, as Kanye West as for hip hop music. People get tired quick of music and what they listen to today isn't what they listened to a few years ago. Labels focus on two things: Giving people what they currently want and finding what people will want in the future. If people were content to listen to the same thing over and over, there wouldn't be new artists on the radio, but there are and there are more every year. Lil Wayne doesn't sound like 50 cent, Wiz Khalifa doesn't sound like Lil Wayne, T pain doesn't sound like Romeo. That's because people get tired and move on to new sounds that record labels try to provide. Also, labels care about pulling a profit. Do you honestly think that if playing the same shit meant they were going to lose money (as you claim) that they wouldn't try to play new shit? What, do they like to lose money now?

These practices actually goes AGAINST consumerism because the main perk of consumerism is supposed to be that consumers have a variety of choices. In our mainstream music industry people are not given a choice, they must either accept the pop music or use other avenues to find music they like. Artists are forced to change their look and sound to the mainstream sound or get dropped from their label and pay back all their advances. And like Bone said, music doesn't neccesarily have to be good, it just has to be profitable for the record company and they will change whatever they have to to make it profitable. There are plenty of artists who make good music who don't end up as rich as Jay Z. And again, most artists do not benefit from these contracts. There are plenty of artists signed to record labels who still don't get any promotion or exposure because the label doesn't give a shit about them. They're too busy catering to the more popular artists.

There's no criterion for good. People either like your music or they don't. If people don't like your music, they're not going to buy it, so a record label has no reason to invest in you. It would be a dumb investment.

Consumers have a variety of choices. When I go to the supermarket, I have a variety of drinks to choose from. However, the supermarket supplies those drinks expecting people to buy them. I don't expect the supermarket to hold sewage water as a soft drink because I don't expect the supermarket to pull off a profit from it. If you enjoy sewage water, you should accept that's a very narrow market and go find it on your own.

[Mishelle]

Lady Gaga was not revolutionary for pop music she copied Madonna. Kanye West and his sampling was not revolutionary to hip hop. Hip hop has been using samples since its inception. You're pretty much agreeing with me that radio stations go after what they know they can sell. Which is the same generic pop sound. Constantly going after a generic pop sound decreases variety. So what exactly are you trying to argue?

If a person wanted to try to market sewer water they could easily enter the market and manufacture their own sewer water. Other genres of music are being kept out of the mainstream whether their music is good or not because of the record labels stronghold on the radio. Maybe people would like conscious rap but you'll never know when the genre is being kept out of the mainstream in favor of the generic artists with more money behind them.

Edited by Mishelle, 16 August 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[8143FF763271]

File-sharing isn't theft. The legality is irrelevant, anyways, because it's unstoppable.

You're getting a service for free where it shouldn't be free. Theft. It would stop if people got their heads chopped for it. Just like any crime stops when there are incentives against it.

If a song isn't particularly catchy, people won't love it at first listen. But they also won't come to realize how shitty it is after hearing it more than five times. I'm not using my taste as a basis. Look on metacritic and you'll see that it isn't the "best" music that's being so heavily marketed. The record industry isn't picking out the best and marketing them, it's picking out the most marketable and marketing them. It's bad for music.

Who the fuck said that metacritic determines taste? Critics are people with a taste of their own. That they prefer Tom Yorke or some bullshit to Lady Gaga DOES NOT mean that Tom Yorke is better than Lady Gaga. It means that person likes him more for X reason. Yes, we get tired of music after a while. Just like we get tired of everything. That doesn't make the music bad.

Plus, you're ignoring the fact that a record label is a COMPANY. It's looking to pull a profit. Radio stations are also companies, they're looking to pull a profit. People are the consumers, they're the ones that give them that profit. If a song isn't "marketable" (it won't make money) all that means is that when people hear that song on the radio, they won't stop to play it. Why would they put shit on the radio that most people don't want to listen to? It's a senseless endeavor.

Not really. It's far easier for the major record labels to stick with the status quo and keep churning out generic popstars, because that's what most of their target market is used to. They aren't signing up 'hip new artists', they're signing up the next Katy Perry or Nickelback.

Oh yeah because Lady Gaga's post-modern referentiality and sacrilegious use of religious symbolism is TOTALLY the same as Britney Spears and because not everyone hates Nickelback these days. Nope. People think Nickelback is great.

Give me a break.

You just want to confer status from telling people you listen to independent music so you subscribe to all these silly notions that have no foundation whatsoever in contemporary reality.

Lady Gaga was not revolutionary for pop music she copied Madonna. Kanye West and his sampling was not revolutionary to hip hop. Hip hop has been using samples since its inception. You're pretty much agreeing with me that radio stations go after what sells. What sells is the same generic pop sound. Constantly going after a generic pop sound decreases variety. So what exactly are you trying to argue?

She didn't copy Madonna and that's just misunderstanding her art. Every pop artist after Madonna copied Madonna, mainly, Madonna's "sexy"/femme fatale persona. Lady Gaga didn't do that, she subverted sexy by clouding it in the robotic and the grotesque. She's a deconstructionist pop star. The only reason people compare her to Madonna is because both of them have used religious symbolism (albeit very differently).

Kanye West's sampling was revolutionary to hip hop. Do you recognize half of the things that he samples and the people he features in his projects? Kanye West is responsible for single handed destroying the low brow/high brow binary that existed in hip hop by featuring the work of relevant contemporary household names in the art world. It's the whole gestalt of his ongoing project as a musician. That's why he gets perfect score with the critical establishment and with mainstream radio.

Again, what sells isn't the same sound. What sells is finding things people like. Groups of people like different things, it's about finding a niche large enough to be profitable and keep refreshing the niche's interest by finding new music they'd like. It isn't that complicated. You may like rap music, we find things people like in rap music, we give them a song they like, let them get tired of it, give them another once they do. It's a process of tapping into what the audience wants and finding new things they want to keep the money coming. Of course it's about profit, but you yourself acknowledge that playing new things will lead to a decrease in profit. Do you honestly think that labels don't know that?

[Turnip]

You're getting a service for free where it shouldn't be free. Theft. It would stop if people got their heads chopped for it. Just like any crime stops when there are incentives against it.

lmao so if you get a free blowjob from some whore who normally charges x amount, that would be considered theft?

[Bone]

You're getting a service for free where it shouldn't be free. Theft. It would stop if people got their heads chopped for it. Just like any crime stops when there are incentives against it.

Ever heard of a library? File sharing is the same thing, simply on a larger scale.

Who the fuck said that metacritic determines taste? Critics are people with a taste of their own. That they prefer Tom Yorke or some bullshit to Lady Gaga DOES NOT mean that Tom Yorke is better than Lady Gaga. It means that person likes him more for X reason. Yes, we get tired of music after a while. Just like we get tired of everything. That doesn't make the music bad.

I'm not saying music can be objectively judged, but all signs seem to point to some music being utter shit. Most contemporary popular music is unoriginal and artists signed with major record labels are restricted from pushing musical boundaries. If you can trace nearly element of a song to previous works, with only superficial modulation, it's pretty safe to say it's not showing any talent.

Plus, you're ignoring the fact that a record label is a COMPANY. It's looking to pull a profit. Radio stations are also companies, they're looking to pull a profit. People are the consumers, they're the ones that give them that profit. If a song isn't "marketable" (it won't make money) all that means is that when people hear that song on the radio, they won't stop to play it. Why would they put shit on the radio that most people don't want to listen to? It's a senseless endeavor.

Exactly. The record industry used to be a necessary evil to distribute and record music. Now that artists can fully self-produce music, the record industry is falling apart and attempting to maintain its influence and profitability. As a form of art, music shouldn't be all about profit. You don't hear anything remarkable on FM radio because it's too risky to play anything that people aren't used to.

Oh yeah because Lady Gaga's post-modern referentiality and sacrilegious use of religious symbolism is TOTALLY the same as Britney Spears and because not everyone hates Nickelback these days. Nope. People think Nickelback is great.

Give me a break.

You just want to confer status from telling people you listen to independent music so you subscribe to all these silly notions that have no foundation whatsoever in contemporary reality.

I never said anything about Lady Gaga. Maybe you think Nickelback is great.

By the way, I would appreciate if it you would attempt to make your points without sounding like a pompous asshole.

lmao so if you get a free blowjob from some whore who normally charges x amount, that would be considered theft?

Interesting, you thought of blowjobs and I thought of libraries as a counterexample.

[8143FF763271]

lmao so if you get a free blowjob from some whore who normally charges x amount, that would be considered theft?

She agrees to give it to me for free. If it isn't implicit that I should have that service freely, it is theft.

Ever heard of a library? File sharing is the same thing, simply on a larger scale.

You do realize libraries buy their books and have to renew rights to lend them out? Libraries aren't the free for all mess of file sharing. They cost people money, brosef.

I'm not saying music can be objectively judged, but all signs seem to point to some music being utter shit. Most contemporary popular music is unoriginal and artists signed with major record labels are restricted from pushing musical boundaries. If you can trace nearly element of a song to previous works, with only superficial modulation, it's pretty safe to say it's not showing any talent.

"I'm not saying taste can be objective judged... BUT ALL MUSIC IS OBJECTIVELY SHIT IF I DONT LIKE IT!"

Refer to my taste thread if you want to discuss that. Someone explicitly says that everyone that doesn't submit to aesthetic relativism is an idiot. Quite frankly, I agree.

Exactly. The record industry used to be a necessary evil to distribute and record music. Now that artists can fully self-produce music, the record industry is falling apart and attempting to maintain its influence and profitability. As a form of art, music shouldn't be all about profit. You don't hear anything remarkable on FM radio because it's too risky to play anything that people aren't used to.

There's no such thing as risk, there's just not enough information. If you understand what people like and what they're into, you're going to be able to play different artists and you're going to be able to make a lot of money off it. The more perceived risk there is in an investment, the higher the potential profits if you do invest. Simple business. Music can be all about profit. Just like art can be all about profit. So long as people like the end product. Please don't use your moral judgments and personal aesthetic criterion to tell people what should and shouldn't be. Art can and should be anything.

I never said anything about Lady Gaga. Maybe you think Nickelback is great.

By the way, I would appreciate if it you would attempt to make your points without sounding like a pompous asshole.

Lady Gaga is mainstream and everyone hates Nickelback. Get with the times and update yourself with your little cliche myths about them evil record labelz yo.

[Turnip]

Interesting, you thought of blowjobs and I thought of libraries as a counterexample.

Heheheh, my mind has been down the gutter for years and years now, oopsie doodles~
But I prefer your library example!

Also Kami please try to remember that receiving a copy of something is... well, receiving a copy, not stealing. How am I stealing something which is still there? It would be like saying saving my signature image without my permission would be theft

Edited by Turnip, 16 August 2012 - 12:39 PM.