Another Speech by Paul Mcguinness

[gvox]

they aren't having to pay a different industry because someone COULD commit insurance fraud.

No, they pay industries, plural...

 

[lazarus]

None of this debate about online downloading changes the fact that McGuinness was/is/always will be a capitalist pig and has only one goal in life--to make more money for himself and U2, regardless of how much they already have. To make it sound like he's out there fighting for the rights of small bands who need people to buy music is absolute bullshit. The level of integrity (wherever you place it) the band operates at is due to their limits only, not his.

I've never advocated U2 giving away their music for free, or playing concerts for free (though they certainly are in more of a position to do it than nearly anyone else), but they don't have to be slaves to the market. There's never been a justification for the ticket prices. If they wanted to charge $75 maximum in the U.S., they easily could. Unlike burned-out veteran acts who don't sell much new music and make most of their money from concert sales, U2 still have a steady income all around. When I can still see Radiohead for $50, even if they don't have as expensive of a stage show, it makes me even more suspect.

 

[BVS]

I saw U2, Pearl Jam, and Radiohead all on their last tours... Paid face value. Guess which concert was the cheapest?

U2 followed by Radiohead, then Pearl Jam.

 

[gvox]

I don't usually disagree with you on much Lazarus but comparing the $50 you spent on Radiohead to the $60 (ok, with fees $70) to see U2? That's apples to mangoes as far as I'm concerned..

 

[lazarus]

BVS, don't misrepresent. Just because YOU paid $50 to see U2 doesn't mean that was what most people paid. You had the CHEAPEST U2 tickets, versus what likely were the most expensive Radiohead and PJ seats.

You're more than welcome to list the various seat pricings for all those shows and prove me wrong.

Who should I compare it to, GVox? R.E.M. is charging $90, $70, and $40 for Madison Square Garden, which is where U2 plays. Both bands have been around 25+ years. Bruce Springsteen is charging $95 and $65 for his Giants Stadium show, and has, what, 5 extra musicians onstage to pay?

Keeping it under $100 shouldn't be a challenge.

 

[Iskra]

None of this debate about online downloading changes the fact that McGuinness was/is/always will be a capitalist pig and has only one goal in life--to make more money for himself and U2, regardless of how much they already have. To make it sound like he's out there fighting for the rights of small bands who need people to buy music is absolute bullshit. The level of integrity (wherever you place it) the band operates at is due to their limits only, not his.

I've never advocated U2 giving away their music for free, or playing concerts for free (though they certainly are in more of a position to do it than nearly anyone else), but they don't have to be slaves to the market. There's never been a justification for the ticket prices. If they wanted to charge $75 maximum in the U.S., they easily could. Unlike burned-out veteran acts who don't sell much new music and make most of their money from concert sales, U2 still have a steady income all around. When I can still see Radiohead for $50, even if they don't have as expensive of a stage show, it makes me even more suspect.

Just what makes him a Capitalist pig?
Do you have a job?
Do you make money?
Are YOU a Capitalist pig?
The money they make doesn't just go to Bono and the boys.
They have a lot of employees.
If you have ever run a company, you'd know that it takes a steady income to cover overhead, taxes, insurance etc.
I swear, the internet has enabled many of you to become totally out of touch with what happens out in the real world. Even worse, it has given many an outlet to mouth off, completely uninformed.

 

[popacrobat]

Just what makes him a Capitalist pig?
Do you have a job?
Do you make money?
Are YOU a Capitalist pig?
The money they make doesn't just go to Bono and the boys.
They have a lot of employees.
If you have ever run a company, you'd know that it takes a steady income to cover overhead, taxes, insurance etc.
I swear, the internet has enabled many of you to become totally out of touch with what happens out in the real world. Even worse, it has given many an outlet to mouth off, completely uninformed.

 

[Iskra]

BVS, don't misrepresent. Just because YOU paid $50 to see U2 doesn't mean that was what most people paid. You had the CHEAPEST U2 tickets, versus what likely were the most expensive Radiohead and PJ seats.

You're more than welcome to list the various seat pricings for all those shows and prove me wrong.

Who should I compare it to, GVox? R.E.M. is charging $90, $70, and $40 for Madison Square Garden, which is where U2 plays. Both bands have been around 25+ years. Bruce Springsteen is charging $95 and $65 for his Giants Stadium show, and has, what, 5 extra musicians onstage to pay?

Keeping it under $100 shouldn't be a challenge.

Again - uninformed and naive.
Have you ever worked with a traveling show?
Per diem, hotels, gas, trucking, shipping, unions, marketing and venue co-pays, I could go on.
Production costs are expensive for every band, small or large.
If it is too expensive, don't go.
BMWs are expensive and I'll probably never own one, but I'm not complaining about them or questioning why they cost so much.

 

[hiphop]

It's kind of ironic though that file sharing has worked in favour for new bands such as the Arctic Monkeys who wouldn't have become half as popular so quickly without it although now they're established and have a record deal they (generally) expect fans to pay to download their music.

It´s even more ironic that Arctic Monkeys only started to move numbers when they had label promotion budget to waste.

 

[lazarus]

Whatever, Iskra. So you're some kind of fucking insider expert? Just because you can rattle off a laundry list doesn't make your argument valid.

With all that you still failed to address why U2 needs to charge more than other big bands. The Rolling Stones or The Eagles charge twice as much as even U2 does--do they have even more overhead? No, they're just greedier.

Other big bands who charge LESS than U2 have a lot of employees as well. As I mentioned, Bruce Springsteen has twice as many people ON STAGE who I am sure are well-compensated. They still have to get from place to place, and get their shit from place to place, and get insurance, pay for hotels, the promoters, rent the SAME venues, blah blah blah.

Perhaps you'd like to claim that Radiohead and R.E.M. have to hitchhike across the country, crash on their friends' floors and eat McDonald's every day to give their fans a break on tickets.

Bottom line is that U2 has had BIGGER tours than Elevation and Vertigo, with even more employees and shipping costs to pay, and those tickets strangely cost half as much to attend. The inflation alone doesn't cover that gap.

 

[hiphop]

Again - uninformed and naive.
Have you ever worked with a traveling show?
Per diem, hotels, gas, trucking, shipping, unions, marketing and venue co-pays, I could go on.
Production costs are expensive for every band, small or large.
If it is too expensive, don't go.
BMWs are expensive and I'll probably never own one, but I'm not complaining about them or questioning why they cost so much.

I see your point Iskra but to be fair we have to admit ticket prices shot up like gasoline.

The ongoing discussion about 360 deals shows that bands make more money on tour than by selling records. What used to be a tour to generate new album sales, now is income source no.1 for many bands (and, if the 360 deals would be signed, for the labels).

And concert promoters can be greedy.

But I would like lazarus to focus on this: If the bands can´t make any money by selling their music, they will try to make the money on the road. Because a show is an experience you can´t have on your PC. It´s not the same: see a show on DVD (even 3D) or go to a live show. And still, fans want to see artists live. To interact. To feel their energy. This is an experience you can´t get elsewhere.

This is why "the industry" (or should I rather say, Live Nation vs. major label) raises the prices for tickets.

Most people I know at labels are overworked and get paid nothing - from intern to middle management.

Since the fan has decided music SHOULD be free, frankly, there isn´t much left. Yes, IFPI can sue etc. - ridiculous. (by the way check IFPIs member list? most indie labels can not afford to be a member).

When you get something for free easily, why bother buying it? Of course it´s stealing - just like stealing an easily accessible newspaper on Sunday morning. But that´s not the point. The point is that a couple of execs continue their giant fuckfest, revenues for recorded music are drying up (except online) and artists, managers and indie labels must look for new streams of income, if they want to be continue to finance album productions.

 

[hiphop]

oops double post

 

[lazarus]

But I would like lazarus to focus on this: If the bands can´t make any money by selling their music, they will try to make the money on the road. Because a show is an experience you can´t have on your PC. It´s not the same: see a show on DVD (even 3D) or go to a live show. And still, fans want to see artists live. To interact. To feel their energy. This is an experience you can´t get elsewhere.

This is why "the industry" (or should I rather say, Live Nation vs. major label) raises the prices for tickets.

Most people I know at labels are overworked and get paid nothing - from intern to middle management.

Since the fan has decided music SHOULD be free, frankly, there isn´t much left. Yes, IFPI can sue etc. - ridiculous. (by the way check IFPIs member list? most indie labels can not afford to be a member).

When you get something for free easily, why bother buying it? Of course it´s stealing - just like stealing an easily accessible newspaper on Sunday morning. But that´s not the point. The point is that a couple of execs continue their giant fuckfest, revenues for recorded music are drying up (except online) and artists, managers and indie labels must look for new streams of income, if they want to be continue to finance album productions.

Okay, but we're not talking about all bands. We're talking about a band that can do whatever the hell they want, and who makes money from many different interests.

R.E.M. and U2 both play some of the same venues. There isn't some guy saying "R.E.M., you WILL charge $40, $70 and $90" and "U2, you WILL charge $50, $90and $150". These bands have a say in how much they're going to take home. The promoter, the venue, whatever they take, the percentage or the fee is the same. The band sets the number, and the rest follows accordingly.

 

[BVS]

BVS, don't misrepresent. Just because YOU paid $50 to see U2 doesn't mean that was what most people paid. You had the CHEAPEST U2 tickets, versus what likely were the most expensive Radiohead and PJ seats.

Well don't misrepresent by making it sound like U2 is somehow gouging us comparitively. And no they weren't the highest of the other two bands.

 

[hiphop]

Okay, but we're not talking about all bands. We're talking about a band that can do whatever the hell they want, and who makes money from many different interests.

R.E.M. and U2 both play some of the same venues. There isn't some guy saying "R.E.M., you WILL charge $40, $70 and $90" and "U2, you WILL charge $50, $90and $150". These bands have a say in how much they're going to take home. The promoter, the venue, whatever they take, the percentage or the fee is the same. The band sets the number, and the rest follows accordingly.

Well if the band realizes that their shows are sold out even if they charge 100 $ per ticket, why shouldn´t they?

You´re wrong on percentages/ fees. In a dream world, the band says "ok we take 30$ per ticket" then the manager says "add my 20%", then the promoter say "ok add my 15%" etc. To calculate a tour is a little more complicated, and promoters/ bookers have to know about their expenses before they can plan the whole thing. Expenses will differ everytime, because it makes a difference if you play a hall of say, 5,000 people or a stadium of 50,000. Then there´s the risk of not selling enough tickets.

Like all the industry, it´s not one promoter/ booker rip-off per year.. imagine he has 50 shows a year, not only profits with U2 but also losses with Kylie..

I agree that ticket prices for superstars are insane (more people would go to see Kylie for $ 20 though!), but as long as the fans pay and feel good with it (hey I got my fucking VIP seat here for a grand) I don´t see any change on the horizon.

 

[Iskra]

Whatever, Iskra. So you're some kind of fucking insider expert? Just because you can rattle off a laundry list doesn't make your argument valid.

With all that you still failed to address why U2 needs to charge more than other big bands. The Rolling Stones or The Eagles charge twice as much as even U2 does--do they have even more overhead? No, they're just greedier.

Other big bands who charge LESS than U2 have a lot of employees as well. As I mentioned, Bruce Springsteen has twice as many people ON STAGE who I am sure are well-compensated. They still have to get from place to place, and get their shit from place to place, and get insurance, pay for hotels, the promoters, rent the SAME venues, blah blah blah.

Perhaps you'd like to claim that Radiohead and R.E.M. have to hitchhike across the country, crash on their friends' floors and eat McDonald's every day to give their fans a break on tickets.

Bottom line is that U2 has had BIGGER tours than Elevation and Vertigo, with even more employees and shipping costs to pay, and those tickets strangely cost half as much to attend. The inflation alone doesn't cover that gap.

Lol - I'm not going to start throwing my credentials around. I'm already embarrased enough to be arguing on a message board.

I suggest you take an economics class.
Maybe that will help you.

Unless you live on a commune I don't know where you get the idea that people can't charge more for things. Supply and demand.
When the stadiums are half empty, maybe ticket prices will come down.
Oil shot up $10.75 today.
You think Vertigo tickets were expensive?
Wait until March.

While you are at home waiting for U2 to give you free tickets out of the kindness of their hearts, I'll be in the Heart/Circle/Ellipse dancing my ass off.
I'll also be more than happy that U2has some of my cash in his wallet.
They earned it.

 

[Iskra]

Oh, and anytime someone starts out their retort with "Whatever" well....whatever.

 

[hiphop]

I'm already embarrased enough to be arguing on a message board.

Are you? How come?

 

[lazarus]

Are you? How come?

Because inskra's a snob who probably feels too educated to deal with us.

 

[Iskra]

I see your point Iskra but to be fair we have to admit ticket prices shot up like gasoline.

The ongoing discussion about 360 deals shows that bands make more money on tour than by selling records. What used to be a tour to generate new album sales, now is income source no.1 for many bands (and, if the 360 deals would be signed, for the labels).

And concert promoters can be greedy.

But I would like lazarus to focus on this: If the bands can´t make any money by selling their music, they will try to make the money on the road. Because a show is an experience you can´t have on your PC. It´s not the same: see a show on DVD (even 3D) or go to a live show. And still, fans want to see artists live. To interact. To feel their energy. This is an experience you can´t get elsewhere.

This is why "the industry" (or should I rather say, Live Nation vs. major label) raises the prices for tickets.

Most people I know at labels are overworked and get paid nothing - from intern to middle management.

Since the fan has decided music SHOULD be free, frankly, there isn´t much left. Yes, IFPI can sue etc. - ridiculous. (by the way check IFPIs member list? most indie labels can not afford to be a member).

When you get something for free easily, why bother buying it? Of course it´s stealing - just like stealing an easily accessible newspaper on Sunday morning. But that´s not the point. The point is that a couple of execs continue their giant fuckfest, revenues for recorded music are drying up (except online) and artists, managers and indie labels must look for new streams of income, if they want to be continue to finance album productions.

I agree HipHop. Prices did shoot up.
They were contingent on other factors like the ones you pointed out.
To cover other costs such as recording, they raised ticket prices.
And again, there are many other factors involved in live shows.

You are also correct about people being underpaid in the music biz. I've never seen a business abuse it's interns to such an extreme. Free records don't pay the rent. Were record companies greedy? Yep. In the 80's there was excess and the groundwork was laid for what turned out to be an inflexible business model. Because the indutsry was unwilling to adapt, it completely fell apart.

I also agree that it is ridiculous for ISPs to start suing people.
Downloading is a losing battle that record companies need to figure out. Unfortunately it is complicated and there is no silver bullet to solve their problems.
Illegal downloading is wrong any way you slice it.
That won't stop anyone and kids are going to grow up expecting their music to be free. Again, that still doesn't make it right.
I don't fully agree with Paul M's ideas. I do feel his frustration and don't blame him for some of his opinions.
It's embarrasing to see people calling him names and resorting to fat jokes.
Those same people are just worried that someone is going to turn off their free flow of music.
You know, from the well that they have absolutely no right to.

 

[Gluey]

Iskra....I think I'm in love with you


To the namecallers and whingers out there...
What's so wrong with McGuinness trying to make more money on top of the money they've already made? That's what people do, work to make money. And the rich keep working to make more money too. That's how they got rich in the first place.
They have a right to be paid for their work regardless of how rich they are already. How rich a person is, is totally beside the point and people complaining about it makes them sound like a 5yr old jealous of the fact their mate has more lollies than them. If I make a product to sell and it's really popular and makes me rich, then don't expect me to suddenly find it ok to give it away because you're pissed that I'm already 'rich enough'. Who determines when someone is 'rich enough'? Who has that right? Rich or poor there should be the same rules across the board for everyone....not a "oh sorry, you've made your millions, now it's a freeforall for all the stingy pissed off bastards out there". I am proud to pay for any music I like, just as I am with any product out there.

 

[Iskra]

Are you? How come?

I'm not embarrased to be ON the board.
I'm embarrased to be arguing with people on one. Bc it is pretty cliched to start flaming people and arguing on the internet and in the end, most people don't see each others points or listen to what the other is saying but just start shouting even louder to be heard.
Keep the insults coming Laz. I'm sure you can do better.

 

[lazarus]

Unless you live on a commune I don't know where you get the idea that people can't charge more for things. Supply and demand.
When the stadiums are half empty, maybe ticket prices will come down.

I didn't say they CAN'T charge more. All I did was call McGuinne$$ a capitalist pig. Your response boils down to "So what?".

While you are at home waiting for U2 to give you free tickets out of the kindness of their hearts

Hey, it's the ol' Strawman argument! Way to go! Which is even more pathetic as my original post even stated I didn't expect U2 to give away music or concerts for free!

I'll also be more than happy that U2has some of my cash in his wallet.
They earned it.

Apparently you have more of it than most of the target demographic. But hey, as long as YOU can afford to go to the show, then who gives a shit about everyone else? Congratulations. I know exactly who I'm talking to now.

My argument has been the same as it was the last two tours: if U2 wants to appeal to a younger crowd, bring in new fans, make themselves cross-generational, they should give a little more consideration to people who aren't drooling over their every move, and don't have the luxury of following them around the country. Because the way it is now, there's a bunch of very happy people who paid $50 for great general admission tickets (you'd probably refer to them as the "unwashed masses"), and a whole lot of others who can't go unless they have $100 to drop.

 

[Lila64]

Iskra, hiphop, gluey

And perhaps when McGuiness tries to ensure his clients are getting money they deserve/earned (or whatever), it would be setting a precedent for those that follow. Some small band starting out or early in their career won't have any pull vs. one of the biggest bands in the world. But ISP's suing people is not the answer. No idea how they can stop illegal downloading

 

[Iskra]

Iskra....I think I'm in love with you


To the namecallers and whingers out there...
What's so wrong with McGuinness trying to make more money on top of the money they've already made? That's what people do, work to make money. And the rich keep working to make more money too. That's how they got rich in the first place.
They have a right to be paid for their work regardless of how rich they are already. How rich a person is, is totally beside the point and people complaining about it makes them sound like a 5yr old jealous of the fact their mate has more lollies than them. If I make a product to sell and it's really popular and makes me rich, then don't expect me to suddenly find it ok to give it away because you're pissed that I'm already 'rich enough'. Who determines when someone is 'rich enough'? Who has that right? Rich or poor there should be the same rules across the board for everyone....not a "oh sorry, you've made your millions, now it's a freeforall for all the stingy pissed off bastards out there". I am proud to pay for any music I like, just as I am with any product out there.

Lol. Thanks, I love you too. I love all U2 fans even if they want to call me names or if they have a different opinion than I do.
I like to think that is what Bono's been singing about for 30 years but I could be wrong.

I totally agree with what you said.
Why is it after someone gets wealthy they should suddenly start giving stuff away for free?
I am the furthest thing from a Capitalist pig.
But I am also not a Communist or a Socialist.
It's not like U2 doesn't give back.
They earn all the money they make.
It seems like there has been a pretty abrupt change in the fans lately.
Every time the band releases something, they are money grubbing.
When they aren't releasing anything, the same people are whining.
I wish we got more b-sides on the last 3 albums worth of singles and I can go without another Greatest Hits but you know what?
They are in the music business.
If someone put you under a microscope, I am sure they would have some things to say with how you run your finances.
Is everything you buy a necessity?
Can your boss maybe lower your wages a little and get a little more work out of you?
Ok, I have to actually get back to work now.

 

[Visiongfx]

Well, their isn't much of a definte line with music buying. I mean after all you are just PAYING for something to listen to, which sounds silly to me.... like are we suppose to pay for the radio before we listen to anything? And i'm sure you all did this sometime or another in your life, your friend gets a new CD that you don't have, so he burns you a copy of it. Are they going to come to your house and arrest you? I'm going to admit it, i do the downloading, but i barely have any money as it is. I'm 16 without a job and i just wanna listen to some good tunes, but yeah i know i contribute to the other billion people doing that. But when i got into U2 i didn't want to waste money and buy their whole back catalogue (only to be remastered soon anyway...) I bought their Joshua Tree Remaster, and i will surely buy their new album!

Anyway, i think we should all go back to vinyl, where ripping them is harder and quality isn't as good from Vinyl --> mp3. I heard of a group that planned on releasing their cd only in Vinyl format but with a download code on the vinyl so you can download it from a site for free to put on your ipod. Now i really think U2 should do that but it might be hard to digress from CD formats.

But i think it is really the music industry's fault that they give out the Promo cd's in the first place, but then they have to give it out to reviewers too. I think they should burn a cd with their mp3s at a really low bitrate so pirates that do get a hold of the new cd can fully hear the album but for quality issues most likely go out and buy the CD. But thats not to say for anybody who bought it just to upload. :/

Anyway... i think its silly for everybody having to be paid for our ISP usage.

 

[Iskra]

I didn't say they CAN'T charge more. All I did was call McGuinne$$ a capitalist pig. Your response boils down to "So what?".



Hey, it's the ol' Strawman argument! Way to go! Which is even more pathetic as my original post even stated I didn't expect U2 to give away music or concerts for free!



Apparently you have more of it than most of the target demographic. But hey, as long as YOU can afford to go to the show, then who gives a shit about everyone else? Congratulations. I know exactly who I'm talking to now.

My argument has been the same as it was the last two tours: if U2 wants to appeal to a younger crowd, bring in new fans, make themselves cross-generational, they should give a little more consideration to people who aren't drooling over their every move, and don't have the luxury of following them around the country. Because the way it is now, there's a bunch of very happy people who paid $50 for great general admission tickets (you'd probably refer to them as the "unwashed masses"), and a whole lot of others who can't go unless they have $100 to drop.

Wow.
You've painted a completely different picture of me than who I really am.
(another great benefit of the internet) I can't wait to go home in my imaginary sportscar and yell at my imaginary butler.
You know what's funny?
There is a HUGE hole in my savings. Where there used to be money, there are ticket stubs from seeing U2 and other favorite bands.
I made that choice.
I slept out on concrete in the hot sun with my fellow fans. You can call them unwashed (we all were) but I don't.

So your argument is people without the money can't afford to go?
Ummm...ok.
I'm not sure what my argument would be.
I can't afford a lot of things. Should the makers of those things lower their prices?
If you can't afford to go to a U2 show, you can't afford to go to a U2 show.
Great observation there buddy.

 

[BVS]

Well, their isn't much of a definte line with music buying. I mean after all you are just PAYING for something to listen to, which sounds silly to me....

Wow...

Why pay for books, you just read them? Why pay for art, you just look at it?

Why pay for internet?


Hopefully when get out in the real world, you'll understand how naive that statement really is...

 

[veber]

It´s even more ironic that Arctic Monkeys only started to move numbers when they had label promotion budget to waste.

How can that be? I thought all you needed to do nowadays was put up a website, release some tracks onto Limewire or Pirate Bay, then watch the money from Tee-Shirt sales flow in?

Free music and merch sales is the future of music.

 

[BVS]