OT-ish: Excellent reading

filmy wrote on 2/24/2006, 7:20 AM

I wish I had seen this before because I would have linked it in every copyright thread we have had in the past. I know I have always said, more or less, the same thing as is being said in reguards to the cost of making a record verse what the artists actually gets, but here it is so well laid out. And I always maintain the artists should have way more hands on in the decisions. This transcript of a speech hits the nail directly on the head in soooooooo many ways.

Love her (no pun intended) or hate her I would call it required reading.

Piracy and your music - a keynote speech given by Courtney Love on May 16, 2000 for the Digital Hollywood Online Entertainment Conference.

How it relates to anything here is easy, IMO, to see. So many people want to use music and question why, some of us always tell how to go about it and how it breaks down and than we talk about why it wouldn't be a better thing "if..." and hey - here is almost everything we talk about in one place.

She makes an awesome analogy here about musicians being sort of like waiters who have to share tips and sometimes get stiffed by customer. She combines this with the way the system is, as far as getting money to the artitsts, and comes up with this, IMO, brillant comment:

Music is a service to its consumers, not a product. I live on tips. Giving music away for free is what artists have been doing naturally all their lives.

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/24/2006, 8:03 AM

Seems that I've read that before. It seemed very familiar to me, especially the part about the "math."

I understand what she's saying, and I'm sure their's a lot of truth to it. Still, after it's all said and done, she ain't hurting financially. So I don't really get what she's complaining about.

filmy wrote on 2/24/2006, 10:33 AM

>>>So I don't really get what she's complaining about.<<<

I think it is the way the system is set up. Hole never made is the big really - they did, but much like the Ramones, Moterhead or Blue Oyster Cult they never got that "mainstream" thing going long term. And that is part of the overall issue she is talking about. The last Hole album I loved because it had so many great pop rock type songs on it - but it was never really pushed that hard. Probably on a commercial level it could have been Holes biggest album but most people "mainstream" people have never heard of Hole, never heard the "hit" single from that album - Malibu. I really like Live Through This and probably because it came out right after Kurts suicide it became a big album, but song by song Celebrity Skin is just a much more "commercial" album...and it was never really pushed that much. However to most of us here selling 1,238,716 units would be awesome but sadly by industry standards that isn't all that great, considering they go off of your last record which in Holes case, sold a few hundred thousand more units.

As spot asked, in another context though, is it worth the 50 cents? And that is sort of the idea I think Courtney is getting across.

Coursedesign wrote on 2/24/2006, 10:53 AM

So I don't really get what she's complaining about.

So you're saying that as long as she makes some money, with the amount at the discretion of the music publishers, it's fair play?

Sure. I'm hoping most of the rotten music industry will be moot soon anyway. Courtney is right on, including the part about weasely characters inserting major law changes into unrelated bills under the cover of midnight darkness, with votes forced without time for our congress critters and senators to read the laws they approve.

Other than one upstanding and outstanding Republican Senator in Oklahoma, I haven't seen anyone seriously speak out against this evil practice.

Radio play is getting a bit more challenging now that Clear Channel owns most of the stations, so perhaps we'll have to hope that radio becomes moot also.

New artists should consider alternative distribution until they make enough to afford their own high-priced lawyers and then can just say no to unreasonable business terms.

When was the last time anybody put a CD in a CD-player to just listen to the music? Oh sure, the geriatric and the audio enthusiasts may do that. For me, I don't want the hassle of opening and closing [often cracked] jewel cases to shuffle disks every hour.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/24/2006, 11:30 AM

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but there is so much more involved, I think. And from her tone, it appears, to me anyway, that she has an axe (not the stringed kind) to grind. My point being, there are some artists that just never break through. They don't have a wide enough appeal, such as those you mentioned above. The breadth of the audience determines the depth of income.

Still, the "machine" is corrupt, there is no doubt about it. So if she feels the way she claims does, I can't help but wonder why she doesn't do something about it, instead of continuing to participate in all this abuse and corruption.

Well, we all know why. The money's too good!

fwtep wrote on 2/24/2006, 11:54 AM

First impression: I wonder who wrote this for Courtney? I just don't see her as the type to ever use words like, "this dialog is imperative."

Coursedesign wrote on 2/24/2006, 12:49 PM

I can't help but wonder why she doesn't do something about it, instead of continuing to participate in all this abuse and corruption.

I thought she had signed her life away to a record company and had no choice?

It occurred to me that she is quite a bit more contract savvy than most artists.

She realizes this, and that's why she is trying to help other artists who are just starving in silence.

The music publishers are archaic behemoths who are living in the Soviet era of Central Planning of everything. They like the status quo, because they understand it and they are making money.

From a practical standpoint, it is important for most artists to have a good producer to work with, and a competent recording studio.

Today it is easier than ever to find independent studios for rent, and good experienced producers are available to hire too (I have a friend who is an independent music producer).

Promotion is not trivial, but there are alternative ways to get the word out, some of which were covered by Courtney in her 2000 address.

filmy wrote on 2/24/2006, 1:22 PM

Jay: I can't help but wonder why she doesn't do something about it, instead of continuing to participate in all this abuse and corruption.

She has tried to and had/has the support of other artists as well. For example it has been fairly common pratice for bands to get out of their deal by "breaking up", and part of what she is saying is that the lables have caught on and now are trying to get/have gotten laws and wording more in their favor. I worked with a band who went through just that..with Geffen. They had the normal, "standard" del but after one album Geffen sort of lost faith in them and stopped proting them...however they refused to drop them. They tried a lot of things to get geffen to let them out of their deal but a second albuim did come out after which the band "borke up". It was the only way out of what they were saying was a lame deal. Part of it was money - they sort of asked the prowers that be that if the band was so worthy of 2 more albums why couldn't they get better promotion and more up front money. Geffen would never answer them, But back to Courtney - she sued UMG in 2001 (sort of a countter suit I think from Geffens lawusuit in 2000, the one she speaks about) for a few things. In a sense she won at least one of the complaints - the ruling gave Courtney back all rights to future recordings from Courtney Love. (It should be brought up here that the same lawer(s) also brought a lawusit against Harry Fox Agency on behalf of Delta Entertainment Corporation in reguards to licensing issues) The other "cross complaint" was actually kind of clever. The claim was that UMG was breaking California Labor Code Section 2855, which allows the termination of contracts between creative artists and entertainment companies after seven years. The judge tossed that out though.

Supposedly the numbers were that Geffen grossed $40 million from two Hole albums and paid them $2 million in royalties. In itself that is a lot of money but remember the money was also divided up between 4 people, minus whatever % went to mnagment and various crew members along the way. And we are talking about a period of maybe 8 years. I would be happy to gross 40 million over 8 years but when you are a label like Geffen obviously 40 million is like a months worth of pay for everyone and not really a lot of money...which is also part of the issue. I have said it before but the artists is th eone making money for everyone, so what should the artist get so little of the pie? Spot has posted some very good answers to that question and it boils down to being a trade off.

I am not living in California but shortly after all this Sen. Kevin Murray proposed SB1246, which would nullify the amendment to Section 2855 of the Labor Code that Courtney spoke of. I can't see that anything has been done really since it was introduced, and amended, in 2002 however. According to the Ca Senate pages the bill saw the last action "From Assembly without further action." on November 30, 2002. However - Murry inroduced a few other bills in 2003 - SB1033 - Recording industry accounting practices , SB1034 - Recording contracts: royalties and SB1035 - Private employment: personal service contracts...basicly the same as SB124.

So Courtney has done something.

Might be of intrest - Quicktime trailer for a documentary about the music biz: Won't Anybody Listen

busterkeaton wrote on 2/24/2006, 1:52 PM

Jay, she is also talking about a system where unless you sell 500,000 units, you make little money. Unless your next album sells that much, you're done.

It not only crowds out good music, it makes having a career as a band less likely. It's like a baseball player who would only succeed by hitting grand slams, doubles or triples wouldn't help.

busterkeaton wrote on 2/24/2006, 1:58 PM

Blue Oyster Cult was a much bigger band than the Ramones. The Ramones made their money through touring. I think it was only in the 90's that the Ramones starting making good money from album sales.

Rocket to Russia probably sold more copies in the last two years than it did in the 70's

p@mast3rs wrote on 2/24/2006, 2:21 PM

This was from a while ago. owever, just about everything she says is true. Scarier fact is that this falls exactly in line with us independent movie makers who hope to make th big time someday. We very well could find ourselves in this same position.

The truth is the RIAA and the labels are complete assholes (for lack of a better word.) I seriously dont understand why the artist gets stuck with the whole F'N bill for marketing, promotion, etc... Seems to me, the fair way would be to SPLIT the costs evenly between the band and label. But of course that cuts into labels profits for basically doing NOTHING but fronting money to the band.

The artists should be smarter than to get stuck in these messes but its understandable. Hell, someone wants to pay you to do what you love for a living, many would jump at the chance and would also end up broke like these artists.

What I really took from this article is the sad state of affairs we currently live in. Entertainment is OVERPRICED and the artists are UNDERPAID. Very few artists ever hit big time to name the terms of their own deals. VERY FEW. Theres no reason that someone who generates nearly $200M (TLC and Braxton) for a label should ever have to file bankruptcy. NEVER. How pathetic is that the RIAA cries about lost sales and piracy when they themselves are in fact stealing from the artists (albeit legally)?

Theft on any level is wrong even moreso when the company who is raking in MAJOR $$$ is stealing from those "work for hire." Guys like Ulrich get sucked into the media mess because the labels think the band can reach the fans. Sadly enough, Metallica, before they ever made it big, SURVIVED soley on their encouragement of fans to bootleg and share with their friends. Without it, I seriously doubt Metallica would have ever been a big name in music. That doesnt include all the pay for play crap that went on either. (I know this for a fact. I have sources.)

Now I am sure many will jump to say how much it all costs to produce, etc.... but the sad fact is, it DOESNT have to cost that much. The ONLY reason it costs that much is because the labels/studios have to JUSTIFY the cost they are charging to enjoy a product they claim they own. The labels and studios truly dont own anything. The artist owns it at the time of creation. But see, thats what happens when the labels/studios start lobbying policiticans. Thats for another time, another thread.

Someone please explain to me why actors and actresses arent charged the same kind of promotional/marketing costs? Its just outlandish to say the least.