New album out by October??

[Iskra]

"Hey Guys" says Paul.
"Hey Paul." says the boys.
"Some people on the internet are calling me names."
"Oh no!" says Bono.
"So I called Interscope and rewrote all of our contracts so that we are giving away your music pretty much for free. We have tons of money saved, we'll just use that until it runs out. I couldn't bear to go on knowing that U2buddy and IwannahavesexwithBono think I'm a capitalist pig."
"Oh no problem, we'll get straight back to work then old friend." says the Edge.

 

[kingofsorrow]

eh?

 

[Popmartijn]

True, but there are still albums that go more than 3 or 4 times platinum in the US today.

You mean, like ATYCLB and HTDAAB (4 and 3 times platinum albums)?

 

[Chill Mike D]

Albums should be given away for free as a promotion to get people to come to their live shows. It shouldn't be the other way around. The pop music business should never have shifted its emphasis from performance to recording. Tours are where bands make most of their money anyway, and it's where talent is separated from the talentless.

Give people your album for free so they can listen to your music, and what do you know, they might want to pay to go see you play live.

 

[Salome]

Give people your album for free so they can listen to your music, and what do you know, they might want to pay to go see you play live.

or they might not

i have a shitload of albums
and I go to something like 3 or 4 concerts a year, on avarage

so yeah

 

[BVS]

Albums should be given away for free as a promotion to get people to come to their live shows. It shouldn't be the other way around. The pop music business should never have shifted its emphasis from performance to recording. Tours are where bands make most of their money anyway, and it's where talent is separated from the talentless.

It's never been this way. Recording has ALWAYS been a big emphasis.

Give people your album for free so they can listen to your music, and what do you know, they might want to pay to go see you play live.

And all those producers, engineers, studio musicians, bands that can't tour, etc all get screwed due to your entitlement complex.

 

[Chill Mike D]

Yeah, they might not. That's the risk part of business. Enough people will pay to go see good bands, and so they'll make their living. But for them to continue to pull in money, they have to tour consistently throughout their career. No more of this silliness where a person records one successful single and is able to live off of its royalties for the rest of their life.

 

[Chill Mike D]

It's never been this way. Recording has ALWAYS been a big emphasis.

It hasn't always taken precedence over live performance. Certainly not. People used to bang out albums in days that were essentially just live recordings in a studio. Early rock & rollers did it this way, and so did their pop predecessors.

And all those producers, engineers, studio musicians, bands that can't tour, etc all get screwed due to your entitlement complex.

So entitle them to part of the tour revenue since the album they produced helped to promote the tour. And if a band can't tour, what kind of band are they? Music is first and foremost a performing art.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, they might not. That's the risk part of business.

There's no 'might' about it, the majority of music listeners don't go to more than one concert per year...

 

[Salome]

it would be an excellent solution to my cd buying addiction
because within a couple of years only U2, Rolling Stones and Radiohead would be able to release albums anymore
and maybe Bon Jovi

 

[BVS]

It hasn't always taken precedence over live performance. Certainly not. People used to bang out albums in days that were essentially just live recordings in a studio. Early rock & rollers did it this way, and so did their pop predecessors.

You may want to re-examine your music history. Not all "early rock & rollers" could afford national or world tours, so they depended on radio. The Beatles didn't tour their whole career. Many songWRITERS never tour. So honestly a history lesson may be helpful for you.

And if a band can't tour, what kind of band are they? Music is first and foremost a performing art.

Wow, the ignorance of this statement is baffling...

 

[Chill Mike D]

The Beatles didn't tour their whole career. Many songWRITERS never tour.

Tell me again why this kind of behavior/business practice should be rewarded with money?

 

[popacrobat]

What? Seriously?

 

[AtomicBono]

Tell me again why this kind of behavior/business practice should be rewarded with money?

are you serious?

I steal albums a ton, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite, but the idea that every band should give out all their albums for free and not ever charge for them is ridiculous. I do think it's a good thing to put an emphasis on shows and encourage bands to tour, but that doesn't mean the album shouldn't be important. You don't think bands deserve money for the music they record? and BVS made a great point about the producers, engineers, etc. they worked on the album. it follows that they get paid for their work on the ALBUM.

you're acting like bands should be punished for not touring...that's ridiculous. i love shows as much as anyone but The Beatles not touring is why they were able to produce so many stellar albums in such a short period of time. you seem to be suggesting what they did is wrong and they shouldn't be "rewarded" for recording some of the greatest music of all time

 

[Chill Mike D]

Yes, seriously. Rock bands simply aren't rock bands if live performances aren't the foundation of their career.

 

[AtomicBono]

Yes, seriously. Rock bands simply aren't rock bands if live performances aren't the foundation of their career.

Um.

So The Beatles weren't a rock band?

What about after bands are broken up or dead? What's left to remember them by? oh yeah, ALBUMS

Most bands these days tour extensively AND get paid for their albums...how is that a bad thing?

 

[Chill Mike D]

are you serious?

I steal albums a ton, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite, but the idea that every band should give out all their albums for free and not ever charge for them is ridiculous. I do think it's a good thing to put an emphasis on shows and encourage bands to tour, but that doesn't mean the album shouldn't be important. You don't think bands deserve money for the music they record? and BVS made a great point about the producers, engineers, etc. they worked on the album. it follows that they get paid for their work on the ALBUM.

you're acting like bands should be punished for not touring...that's ridiculous. i love shows as much as anyone but The Beatles not touring is why they were able to produce so many stellar albums in such a short period of time. you seem to be suggesting what they did is wrong and they shouldn't be "rewarded" for recording some of the greatest music of all time

It's not "punishment" to not make money. Do more work, get more money. It's that simple. Isn't that how you and I make money? If a band wants to make more money, go play live music in front of people. The good bands will end up playing to more people and will make more money. Music is ultimately about performing in front of people. I'm not saying there isn't a place for sitting around in a studio and doing all kinds of recording experiments or whatever. But just don't expect to necessarily live forever off of the money you make from a piece that you spent 6 months recording.

Recording is incredibly simple these days. I do it myself at home and I can almost make my playing sound pretty good even though I am a terrible musician. But I know I'm not good enough to fool anyone with a live performance. That is ultimately where the pros are separated from the amateurs, and that is ultimately where they should be rewarded.

 

[Aardvark747]

Interesting.

 

[Chill Mike D]

Um.

So The Beatles weren't a rock band?

What about after bands are broken up or dead? What's left to remember them by? oh yeah, ALBUMS

Most bands these days tour extensively AND get paid for their albums...how is that a bad thing?

The Beatles were a great studio band that paved the way for all kinds of recording methods and set the bar for all kinds of recording standards. No one ever talks about them when talking about the "greatest live bands ever." The Stones, The Who, etc. That's who people talk about in terms of being great live bands, and those bands deserve to be called rock bands much more than the Beatles. And again, I'm not idealogically opposed to people making money off their albums. Free would be preferable. Really cheap would be acceptable.

But there are people out there that put out an album what, maybe once a decade? I hear people here mention Peter Gabriel. One album in ten years? Does he constantly tour for that decade to make money? No? Then what is he doing? Oh, that's right, he's collecting royalties checks from all the movie trailers his songs are in.

 

[Iskra]

I'm glad some of you aren't lawyers bc your arguments are paper thin and your clients would all get the chair.

Music shouldn't be free just because you think so.

 

[Iskra]

The Beatles were a great studio band that paved the way for all kinds of recording methods and set the bar for all kinds of recording standards. No one ever talks about them when talking about the "greatest live bands ever." The Stones, The Who, etc. That's who people talk about in terms of being great live bands, and those bands deserve to be called rock bands much more than the Beatles. And again, I'm not idealogically opposed to people making money off their albums. Free would be preferable. Really cheap would be acceptable.

But there are people out there that put out an album what, maybe once a decade? I hear people here mention Peter Gabriel. One album in ten years? Does he constantly tour for that decade to make money? No? Then what is he doing? Oh, that's right, he's collecting royalties checks from all the movie trailers his songs are in.

I can't even dignify this drivel with a responding argument.

 

[Chill Mike D]

Clearly, millions of people think it should either be free or incredibly cheap. Online music sharing is a great thing, and I don't think it should be discouraged just because it's hitting musicians in the wallet. iTunes is great because now you can pay a buck for that one song you want instead of $15 for a whole album you have no interest in.

Or would you prefer to not have these options available?

 

[BVS]

Tell me again why this kind of behavior/business practice should be rewarded with money?

Tell me again why you feel entitled to free art?

Your arguments are a joke...

 

[mobvok]

I steal albums a ton, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite, but the idea that every band should give out all their albums for free and not ever charge for them is ridiculous.

*pet peeve*

No, you don't steal albums. (Well, unless you shoplift them)

Downloading albums is not stealing. Period. Full stop. It's copyright infringement. If downloading music was theft, it would be a criminal issue and the US government would be suing individuals. But it's a civil issue, and it's the RIAA bringing suit.

If you call it stealing, I call it murder. You're a murderer! I think it's important to be accurate about this and keep it in proportion-of course, not at all excusing the act of downloading music.

 

[AtomicBono]

It's not "punishment" to not make money. Do more work, get more money. It's that simple. Isn't that how you and I make money? If a band wants to make more money, go play live music in front of people.

I agree.

But you originally said you think all albums should be free, implying that they shouldn't get paid at all for the original work of making the album, which is where our opinion differs greatly.

as for the whole "deserve to be called rock bands" argument...I don't even know what to say to that.

Peter Gabriel lives off one album every ten years? Good for him. If he can do that, then why not? If movie producers want to pay him for his songs (I have no idea if this is even true, I'm just going by what you said), how is that bad? How does he not deserve it? He wrote the songs. If they're willing to pay, then I don't see the problem.

 

[Chill Mike D]

Tell me again why you feel entitled to free art?

Your arguments are a joke...

This isn't about consumers being "entitled" to anything, it's simply about how the business model has started to change and how musicians might have to adapt to that. People enjoy paying very little to nothing for music, and have found ways to accomplish that, whether it's through pure file sharing or 99 cent songs on iTunes. The reality of the popularity of both of these methods is changing the amount people spend on music as well as the manner in which they spend it. This is not a bad thing. Consumers may not be entitled to free art, but artists also aren't entitled to free money. If an artist wants to continue to make lots of money in this environment, then they need to think of creative ways to do it. One thing that will never, ever be replaced or supplanted is live performances, and easily available albums are a great way to promote those.

 

[AtomicBono]

People enjoy paying very little to nothing for music, and have found ways to accomplish that, whether it's through pure file sharing or 99 cent songs on iTunes.

I don't think iTunes is comparable to file sharing. They're still paying for the music. It's more just a replacement for CD singles plus plenty of people still buy the full album on iTunes

your "free money" concept is what bugs me. its not free money. they made the music. they earned it

 

[Chill Mike D]

But you originally said you think all albums should be free

This was a jumping off point to start the discussion. That's the ideal. I think in the past 5 years I've paid for maybe 3 albums, one of which was on an actual CD. I don't mind paying 99 cents for individual songs I like.

Peter Gabriel lives off one album every ten years? Good for him. If he can do that, then why not? If movie producers want to pay him for his songs (I have no idea if this is even true, I'm just going by what you said), how is that bad? How does he not deserve it? He wrote the songs. If they're willing to pay, then I don't see the problem.

Oh I'm sure he lives mainly off of sales royalties from his albums as well as licensing royalties from his songs being in movies/ads/whatever. My point is, did he do more work for that additional money to roll in? He doesn't have to re-record the song every time it gets used in a movie. So there's payment with no corresponding work. This gets to the heart of my problem with intellectual property. Selling 10 songs is the same amount of work as selling a million. You don't have to print any actual discs or anything. They're just files. So the literal work, as in

, is completely divorced from the payment, which I find wrong. Otherwise, I could go to work on Tuesday and do a great job and expect to be paid for years, because hey, I did some great work on Tuesday.

 

[BVS]

I don't think iTunes is comparable to file sharing. They're still paying for the music. It's more just a replacement for CD singles plus plenty of people still buy the full album on iTunes

your "free money" concept is what bugs me. its not free money. they made the music. they earned it

Yeah, his arguments are becoming worse...

 

[Chill Mike D]

Clearly I'm the only nut out there who enjoys not spending $15-$17 on an album. All this Napster/Limewire/Kazaa/iTunes stuff was a big joke!