Profile 

Comments

 -1Posted on Nov 21st, 2012 | re: Deconstructing: Pandora, Spotify, Piracy, And Getting Artists Paid (77 comments)

Don’t agree – doing a ‘Just say no’ No tolerance attitude to file-sharing won’t work, as it hasn’t with drugs – and just look at the mess over Megaupload for that – feel sorry for the legitimate users who have lost their files…and the trampling of international law that took place.

I think rather than victimising fans – after all study after study has shown that the biggest pirates are the biggest paid consumers of music, rather than less – maybe you should look at the existing legit download model. Paying more for a bunch of MP3s than CDs with no warehouse costs, no printing or duplication costs is ridiculous but again and again I have a choice whether to pay more for a digital download or wait a few days then get the physical CD *for less*. This isn’t some blackmarket CD seller, this is Tescos or Sainsburys or Play.com or Amazon. That’s the biggest problem – people know how much goes to iTunes or the store, people know how little goes to the artist. That’s why I try and support bandcamp releases and self-published releases if possible since I know the artist is getting more.

The problem isn’t that the users or ‘new media gurus’ devalued the music, it’s that the industry has gouged the consumer on every format change from vinyl to CD to MP3. Sort out a fair price, or bonuses for buying physical copies (see the return of vinyl for something that bucks this end of the world trend) or special deals – a classic is buy the physical album and get a download code – simple stuff but many don’t do it. Another is for record companies to release their back catalogues.

Again and again I’d happily pay for some rare 12″ mix or long deleted album as a nice fresh digital download which goes to the artist and estate rather than some Popsike/Discogs chancer with a dodgy scratched copy – but again and again I’m dismayed. Bootlegs (of the original sort) and the like should have been history YEARS ago….there is hardly any cost for a label to release it’s entire catalogue digitally. But it seems so many records still remain as scratchy vinyl rips unless you want to spend hundreds of pounds on ‘rare’ vinyl which I care little for. I want the contents, the format or special japanese pressing made of uranium and pubic hair interests me not.

So solve those and I think the record labels will eventually be in rude health. But keep this mindset of only releasing the newest thing and ‘deleting’ the old (some of the most expensive things I’ve come across recently were DVDs or CDs only released a few years ago and going for a pretty penny now – surely we should be past such things in this digital age? Nope…) then of course they’ll struggle because they’re not actually benefiting from any of this, nor even being able to measure demand on older or not-so-old catalogues because they are deleted.

I would make it so the copyright laws were changed that if you didn’t exploit that right within a certain period you lose it – i.e. after release date, you need to keep it on sale otherwise the right either reverts to the artist or goes public domain. This would stop record labels holding onto albums for aeons, and mean a new artist-friendly secondary market would prevail….or at least mean long-lost careers might be salvaged from the industry.

 -1Posted on Oct 4th, 2012 | re: Watch Morrissey Play Fallon (2 comments)

And no-one asked him about the Smiths reform rumours?

 +2Posted on Aug 12th, 2012 | re: Beastie Boys Sue Monster Energy Drink (19 comments)

I’d love to know how Monster a) is supposed to know about the content of MCA’s will a day after his death and b) why Beasties are going after a Z-Trip mixtape? Yes the Monster link is a bit damning, but this could have real knock on effects for those who’ve been remixing and using the Beasties tracks for years – they always release acapellas and instrumentals as it’s part of the hiphop culture. Now that sounds like the kings of sampling will be no-go areas if this ruling goes the wrong way (these things always have chilling or knock-on effects).

 +6Posted on Apr 24th, 2012 | re: Gotye Disses Glee (86 comments)

Ungrateful? Yeah it’s not like it had already topped the charts in many (17?) other countries before that or anything..

..oh.

Sorry to tell you Americans there’s this whole other world out there , in which it was a big hit before Glee covered it…you know those bits where Kangaroos, weird food, warm beer and coffee comes from? /sarcasm

I’m not a massive fan of the song; this Glee version sounds identical to my ears apart from the lack of Kimbra. But the OMG Glee MADE IT FAMOUS! is utter bullshit, this song has been floating around for nearly a year before it hit their radar.

But I’m sure that won’t be allowed to get in the way of a good story, or piercing the bubble. Even if wrong.

 +1Posted on Jun 21st, 2010 | re: Ed O'Brien Hints At 2010 Radiohead LP (10 comments)

bull will it have any tunes?