Michael

Comments from michaelc

How can Bernie Sanders win? My hypothetical depends on people voting for him instead of saying "he can't win" and making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which means he probably won't win. Because people are stupid.
0 |
February 2, 2016 on Ezra Koenig On Bernie Sanders: “He Can Win”
So what you appear to be saying is that he should have asked someone for permission before making the song. Who would that be exactly? Who is the gatekeeper for public racial self-reflection? Would he have to submit the entire lyrical content, or would just the idea suffice? Is there a form for that? Is there a certain percentage of revenues he must forego before it's considered "legit"? No wonder there aren't more songs about this subject - the red tape must be horrendous.
+6 |
January 23, 2016 on Iggy Azalea Responded To Macklemore’s “White Privilege II” And Talib Kweli’s Not Having It
Actually, if you actually pay attention to the lyrics, he's saying "you're (meaning he is) Iggy (as well as Miley and Elvis)," and then addressing exactly what the columnist above is crapping on, except that Macklemore is saying he understands why such a column would be written.
+1 |
January 23, 2016 on Iggy Azalea Responded To Macklemore’s “White Privilege II” And Talib Kweli’s Not Having It
If this isn't Comment of the Week, Spin Media is rigging the system.
0 |
January 23, 2016 on Iggy Azalea Responded To Macklemore’s “White Privilege II” And Talib Kweli’s Not Having It
That is one HUGE comment thread comment! Where's the story it goes to?
0 |
January 12, 2016 on Everyone Is Doomed (Except Adele): The Cold, Hard Truth About The Nielsen Music Report
If you read the actual discussion, you'd be a bit embarrassed to think you so inaccurately summed it up.
+1 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
You've just actually proven that Royals' claim is true - Spotify itself isn't grabbing songs off the Internet and streaming them. Someone claiming to be the legal rights holder (and even major labels have been unclear on their rights to sound recordings actually licensed by artists) is giving the music to Spotify. I can claim to own the bicycle I stole from you - if I fill out the requisite paperwork, the used bike shop can legally take it. If the owner comes in and finds it, the shop is out a bike but they don't have to go to court. Yet you believe that Spotify should be maintaining an office full of people somehow double-checking that the claimed rights holder is the actual rights holder, or they should be held legally liable?
0 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
And now seeing the nit that will be picked: "no one" means below the superstar/star artist level.
0 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
Also, regardless of how fastidious Lowery is, the multinational company (Nippon Columbia) that owns the label (429 Records) that released most of the named tracks is likely the party that bulk-loaded his stuff to Spotify along with their other artists. But I don't see him naming them in the lawsuit - and ironically that could be what sinks the lawsuit, should it ever get to court. And after reading the actual lawsuit, the real reason he's suing Spotify seems to be because he knows that if he were to simply go to them, ask for his owed royalties and tell them he refuses to license the sound recordings to them unless they give him a higher rate, Spotify would likely just pull the recordings and tell him to pound sand. I don't advocate for that, but it might be the reality. Meanwhile, he hasn't said a word about his music on other services - and "Berkeley to Bakersfield" is still on Apple Music, as of today, so he hasn't asked them to pull it - did they negotiate with him alone, or do they just pay him what he feels is a more acceptable royalty? From the label info on the iTunes Store, the copyright for the sound recordings named is held by "SLG LLC," or "Savoy Label Group," aka Nippon Columbia/429 Records, so I'm unsure whether Lowery is arguing that streaming is specifically not covered by his label deal (I can't find that in the lawsuit, but that would be grounds to sue the label too) or that since it's a "new frontier" it should bypass his label.
0 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
You've touched on a second timeless (well, since the late '70s) concept: that most independent artists somehow made a living on selling their music, like ever. Most indie albums were a vehicle to make extra merch sales at shows and get college radio play. Indie labels and artists were screwed by distributors, the record chains and ASCAP and BMI (still by the latter two). Lucky were those who had a hit with an indie album (CVB was in fact one of the very luckiest, and they certainly didn't become millionaires). I've been on both sides of the artist/industry fence, in those days and these days. While I'm hardly defending ANY of the label/media cartel, I'm merely reminding that holding up Spotify as some sort of special evil demon is kind of silly - they're just the low-hanging fruit. Lowery doesn't want to piss off the likes of ASCAP but feels fine taking on a smaller organization.
+1 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
Yep. Worst world ever. I pine for the good old days when you just listened to Frank Sinatra like the three radio networks told you to.
0 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
Clever - redirection from your incorrect "streaming is the 'sharing economy'" by picking a nit on the exact year that...something happened. You have a brilliant future as a politician. The humorlessness helps too.
0 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
The Belly Up? Wow, I guess I underestimated his fan base.
0 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
I'm not so sure you really understand what's going on here. No one is signing individual artist contracts, not for Spotify, not for terrestrial radio either. And very few get to do that for anything - the label owns their music. Spotify gets music in bulk from labels - we're talking millions of songs. It's not always well-organized and there's no organization in the world that can track it all immediately. I can tell just by doing searches on Spotify that all the metadata isn't clear. What you seem to be suggesting is that to stream, Spotify should go down a master song list, verify the individual rights holders for the recordings, and get their current addresses, then and only then putting that individual song up for streaming. Maybe by 2029 they'd have most of the catalog done.
0 |
January 1, 2016 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
At least he doesn't fall into the "indie artists used to make a living selling albums" trap that a lot of the anti-streaming crowd do. Irks me no end when people assume that. (The gardarmmed Beatles' original deal was one-quarter of one penny each for every single sold in England - half of that for US singles! I'd have hired Allen Klein myself!) But it's great that today someone can self-release (double entendre partly intended) and do anything from give away their experiments (half the artists above) to make millions (if you're Radiohead).
0 |
December 30, 2015 on Not On Spotify: 10 Great Off-The-Grid, Unofficial, Or Self-Released Albums Of 2015
You ARE aware that an artist's music doesn't have to be available on streaming sites? If the artist signed a label deal that hosed them on the rights and payment for their music, Spotify isn't to blame.
+3 |
December 30, 2015 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
This. 20 years ago, every musician complained about their label. "Behind The Music" was a broken record of bands who, after having a big hit album, discovered they weren't actually making any money. The greatest part of streaming for the record labels is not only do they make most of the money, but their artists now blame Spotify for the fact that their artist's share doesn't amount to much.
+5 |
December 30, 2015 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
By "Spotify *knows* it isn't paying out royalties to artists," you mean "Spotify keeps money in reserve in case unknown rights holders (from poorly labeled or mislabeled songs) come forward, so then they can pay them." And that difference means everything.
+3 |
December 30, 2015 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
Streaming isn't exactly the "sharing economy." Also, the "sharing economy" topped out in about 2005. We're already into the "gig economy." But no one will give David Lowery a gig, so he's got to do this to make money.
+1 |
December 30, 2015 on David Lowery Sues Spotify For $150 Million
Actually, turn off the sound and cut out the shots of the musicians and it's not bad. But this song is so bad, from songwriting to overproduction, it could turn people into climate deniers just from its badness.
0 |
December 19, 2015 on Paul McCartney, Natasha Bedingfield, & Sean Paul’s New Video Is Not Going To Save the Planet