Another Speech by Paul Mcguinness

[Iskra]

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.

I started a tee shirt website in the early '00's and thought the same thing.
"Hey, I've got a website. Where is the money?"
That didn't work.

Look at all the "indie" bands that sign with a major.
They NEED a major to make them money.
Radiohead, NIN and U2 ccould go without a label bc they have brand recognition.
Who gave them that?
Major labels and thier ability to reach millions of people.

 

[Iskra]

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...

Double

 

[hiphop]

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.

I think T shirts should be free. The problem is you can´t share them

 

[Gluey]

I think T shirts should be free. The problem is you can´t share them

Well technically you can, it's just that my hubby bitches about how my boobs have ruined his shirts.

 

[Iskra]

I think T shirts should be free. The problem is you can´t share them

Yeah!
You want to talk expensive?
Let's talk T-shirts!

 

[Iskra]

Well technically you can, it's just that my hubby bitches about how my boobs have ruined his shirts.

Thanks Gluey.
First you say you love me and now you have a husband?
Just great.
I was looking forward to telling our kids how we met on a message board arguing about illegal downloading and that's why Uncle Laz won't talk to dad.

 

[hiphop]

Look at all the "indie" bands that sign with a major.
They NEED a major to make them money.
Radiohead, NIN and U2 ccould go without a label bc they have brand recognition.
Who gave them that?
Major labels and thier ability to reach millions of people.

Look at all the indie bands that sign with an indie..

I don´t share your view on major labels; first , the ability to reach millions of people was built on a system where majors had absolute distribution power. The distribution monopoly has fallen through the internet, and sice physical sales continue to decline, there are some indies (and bands like U2, btw) that value the endless free promotional possibilities. It´s a good thing that the ability of majors (to reach millions of people with recorded music) is not exclusive anymore. Like you said, this model was established in the 70s and 80s, that´s where the absolute power of arrogant record execs who had studied law (instead of music) came from, no?

Second, to say they (artists) need a major to make them money is wrong on many levels and we both know.. 95% never saw any money except of their advance (and intelligent artists and their managers knew it, therefore advances, esp. for superstars, were shooting up like gasoline in the 80s - one reason it was difficult for indies to compete)

Compare soundscan figures indie/ major releases of, say, 2006, you´ll be surprised to see what indies have moved with some new releases compared to majors.

 

[lazarus]

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.

...and I'm not living on a commune, or in squalor either. While I wouldn't describe myself as rich or wealthy, I have more than enough money to buy Gold Circle tickets, or whatever the fuck these scumbags call it to make you feel privileged when buying them. But as much as I love music and some of the artists that charge this kind of money, I won't play ball.

What you did admit to, though, is being a pretty die-hard fan. And that's fine. What I'm saying is how can you expect to draw in the NEW fans when they're forced to compete with die-hards for the cheap tickets, and only have the expensive stuff leftover? It's just not very inclusive. And aren't U2 supposed to be populists?

There are a lot of things that people want but can't have, choose to get over something else, or sacrifice in order to get. Live music shouldn't be the luxury that some bands are making it. ZooTV and PopMart tickets weren't exorbitant, even compared to what the average U2 fan may have been making back then. I was 20 years old in 1992, I remember getting tickets. Same with PopMart, though there was a noticeable increase. What was strange was that despite how stripped-down Elevation was, the ticket prices were hugely inflated in that 4 year interim.

The question is, why didn't U2 overcharge a long time ago? Are you telling me they couldn't have got away with more expensive tickets, at least on ZooTV? And what suddenly costs them so much more now, that didn't back then? While they still have a high production value, these tours can't be anywhere near what it cost to haul around the 90's materials. No way. I'm just wondering why, instead of passing along the savings to the consumer, they stuck the knife in even further? Everything they make at this point is gravy. They can take a smaller percentage and still retain some dignity and Best Band In The World status, you know.

It's the same thing as artists who use their songs to sell products. The question isn't "What's the big deal?", it's "What is the mindset of the artists who WON'T do this?" Other acts, like R.E.M., Radiohead, and Pearl Jam COULD charge more, but they don't. Why are they not as concerned with getting more money? The answer: because their managers aren't as greedy. And I recognize that U2 bears some of this responsibility as well, but what I always hear coming out of McGuinne$$'s mouth always sounds like business, and not much about the fans or the music.

Another question is, why do we even know who McGuinne$$ is? Why is he even being quoted on a website for fans? The guy's a fucking suit. What does that have to do with the art? You know who else is a well-known manager? Colonel Tom Parker. I don't know who the hell Radiohead's manager is, and that says a lot.

 

[Carek1230]

I'm talking about artist in general, not just U2.

When surgeons start making millions do they stop charging you for their services?

I love this statement! It is so true and brilliant! Well said!

 

[Lila64]

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....

BTW - do you watch TV? I'm sure that's not for free....

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...

Double

Triple

Thanks Gluey.
First you say you love me and now you have a husband?
Just great.
I was looking forward to telling our kids how we met on a message board arguing about illegal downloading and that's why Uncle Laz won't talk to dad.

 

[hiphop]

Other acts, like R.E.M., Radiohead, and Pearl Jam COULD charge more, but they don't. Why are they not as concerned with getting more money? The answer: because their managers aren't as greedy.

lol.

You must be a Radiohead fan.

I love street teams.

 

[sue4u2]

...
..And what suddenly costs them so much more now, that didn't back then? While they still have a high production value, these tours can't be anywhere near what it cost to haul around the 90's materials. No way. I'm just wondering why, instead of passing along the savings to the consumer, they stuck the knife in even further? Everything they make at this point is gravy. They can take a smaller percentage and still retain some dignity and Best Band In The World status, you know.

You don't pay morgages or rent? buy groceries, or have a car? You don't buy clothing - pay for insurance? You don't have friends or family who get married, have children or birthday parties, and God forbid die? Nothing you have to pay for on a regular basis that has increased since the 90's?
Try doing that on such a grand scale as U2.
How do I live in your world?
And if you didn't work for 4 years (and I'm not saying U2 haven't worked, but you know what I mean) could you keep up these expenses?
Not to mention that several of the other groups you mentioned are now using moving/trucking firms that have gone green trying to do something about the damage being done to the planet.
I just can't imagin what is costing them so much more now.

 

[Visiongfx]

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...

I'm saying this from a open minded standpoint. I mean do we pay for radio? No, but we listen to the songs. Do we pay to go to a museum to look at art? Yes. Do you pay to go to a bookstore to flip through the pages and read? No. I mean potentially with his logic, the media can take money out of the gas bill for you to travel places becuase you could potentially do something incriminating.

I'm just saying that theres no real definite one or the other on this. As technology changes with time, so should the media industries. Cameras ruin live shows + uploading services (youtube). File sharing corrupts the music industry and even applications. The internet all contributes to that so i think there should be something done about the media industry and how they work. But they shouldn't just automatically fine everybody as if they assume they are downloading it illegally, it just doesn't add up.

But w/e i just came in to give my 2cents and usually nobody cares but you had to pick out that one part.

--- Quadruple

 

[Iskra]

Look at all the indie bands that sign with an indie..

I don´t share your view on major labels; first , the ability to reach millions of people was built on a system where majors had absolute distribution power. The distribution monopoly has fallen through the internet, and sice physical sales continue to decline, there are some indies (and bands like U2, btw) that value the endless free promotional possibilities. It´s a good thing that the ability of majors (to reach millions of people with recorded music) is not exclusive anymore. Like you said, this model was established in the 70s and 80s, that´s where the absolute power of arrogant record execs who had studied law (instead of music) came from, no?

Second, to say they (artists) need a major to make them money is wrong on many levels and we both know.. 95% never saw any money except of their advance (and intelligent artists and their managers knew it, therefore advances, esp. for superstars, were shooting up like gasoline in the 80s - one reason it was difficult for indies to compete)

Compare soundscan figures indie/ major releases of, say, 2006, you´ll be surprised to see what indies have moved with some new releases compared to majors.

I concede to your point.
You are right, they don't NEED Majors. My point is that the Majors serve a purpose. It is EAIER for a band to sign with a major and make money.
Not every artist gets ripped off by Majors. they get ripped off when they don't perform.
An advance is a loan from the label and sometimes bands are wined and dined into thinking they can make it and sometimes they don't.
When they don't they find themselves in a lot of debt.

As for the indies moving big numbers. You are correct.
Some indie labels move some major units.
I think at that point, it becomes about scale.
Those "indie" labels have a marketing dept. albeit a smaller one than say, Interscope.
I think smaller labels make money in proprtion to the larger labels but in essence they are a smaller version of the same model.

Island was an Indie label.

 

[BVS]

I'm saying this from a open minded standpoint. I mean do we pay for radio? No, but we listen to the songs. Do we pay to go to a museum to look at art? Yes. Do you pay to go to a bookstore to flip through the pages and read? No. I mean potentially with his logic, the media can take money out of the gas bill for you to travel places becuase you could potentially do something incriminating.

You don't think radio is paid for? You've never wondered why so many advertisements? You don't think libraries are paid for? You are being ridiculous. By just conceding and saying why should we pay for anything we "just listen to" is completely ignoring the fact that many man hours, musicians, engineers, etc would be broke. I sure hope you aren't hoping to be a sound engineer or studio musician when you get older.

I'm just saying that theres no real definite one or the other on this. As technology changes with time, so should the media industries. Cameras ruin live shows + uploading services (youtube). File sharing corrupts the music industry and even applications. The internet all contributes to that so i think there should be something done about the media industry and how they work. But they shouldn't just automatically fine everybody as if they assume they are downloading it illegally, it just doesn't add up.

No one is saying fine everyone. But packaging the internet with different options like most are now and giving a portion of the high download speed packages sounds at least like an alley to explore.

 

[veber]

There are a lot of things that people want but can't have, choose to get over something else, or sacrifice in order to get. Live music shouldn't be the luxury that some bands are making it. ZooTV and PopMart tickets weren't exorbitant, even compared to what the average U2 fan may have been making back then. I was 20 years old in 1992, I remember getting tickets. Same with PopMart, though there was a noticeable increase. What was strange was that despite how stripped-down Elevation was, the ticket prices were hugely inflated in that 4 year interim.

The question is, why didn't U2 overcharge a long time ago? Are you telling me they couldn't have got away with more expensive tickets, at least on ZooTV? And what suddenly costs them so much more now, that didn't back then? While they still have a high production value, these tours can't be anywhere near what it cost to haul around the 90's materials. No way. I'm just wondering why, instead of passing along the savings to the consumer, they stuck the knife in even further? Everything they make at this point is gravy. They can take a smaller percentage and still retain some dignity and Best Band In The World status, you know.

You can't compare the price of ANYTHING in 1992 with 2005.

Inflation can account for most of the difference. That $30 in 1992, is $60 in 05. In REAL inflation. Screw the CPI. Real inflation is double what the Gubmnt says it is. Look at housing prices since 1992.

Better yet, go back in time and complain the $30 price for a Zoo TV ticket is insane compare to the $8 price you paid in 1982.

 

[ramblin rose]

I mean do we pay for radio? No, but we listen to the songs.

Adverstisers pay for radio. I hate listening to commercials on the radio, so I pay for XM Radio.

 

[Utoo]

I was 17 when PopMart came through Philly, and I remember thinking that the price of floor tickets was ridiculous. It's all about what's important to you. When a $1 bottle of water costs $4.50 at a baseball park every day of the season, $50-200 for a U2 concert that happens once every 3-4 years sure as hell seems like it packs in a lot more value for the money. The funny thing is that people know that $4.50 is well more than what a bottle of water is worth, but they'll buy it anyway. A U2 fan may grumble at the price of a concert ticket, but if you ask them at the end of the show whether it was worth the price, I bet the vast majority would have no doubt about it.

 

[diamond]

Service, art, it doesn't matter. Why are we expecting certain people to work for free now?

Bono said he would perform even if he made no money at his art.

Most artists work for free, and if they *demand* money for their "work" when it's art, these are people who hope their art is worth the most money and are oft times the most deluded and broke.



<>

 

[Visiongfx]

You don't think radio is paid for? You've never wondered why so many advertisements? You don't think libraries are paid for? You are being ridiculous. By just conceding and saying why should we pay for anything we "just listen to" is completely ignoring the fact that many man hours, musicians, engineers, etc would be broke. I sure hope you aren't hoping to be a sound engineer or studio musician when you get older.

I sure hope im not becoming one either... the industry is failing.

I'm guessing mostly everybody here on these forums has atleast 1 or a few U2 Bootlegs (maybe more)? But i bet you didn't pay for it. But why arn't paying for it? People paid ticket price to see the show but your listening to it for free! And don't tell me its becauase it wasn't made commercially available because people went and saw the show and bought the tickets, its not like they preformed it from a basement.

Anyhoo i'm done talking about this. Boys will be boys right? lol... nvm

 

[Iskra]

You can't compare the price of ANYTHING in 1992 with 2005.

Inflation can account for most of the difference. That $30 in 1992, is $60 in 05. In REAL inflation. Screw the CPI. Real inflation is double what the Gubmnt says it is. Look at housing prices since 1992.

Better yet, go back in time and complain the $30 price for a Zoo TV ticket is insane compare to the $8 price you paid in 1982.

Gas was 85 cents a gallon in 1992 when I drove to see ZOO TV in Philly.
The U2 ticket was 32.50 or so.
Gas is now 4.00+
U2 tickets are in line with that.
Not to mention I saw 11 Elevation shows and paid about 55 per ticket and had excellent view, in some cases front row in the heart.

 

[BVS]

Most artists work for free, and if they *demand* money for their "work" when it's art, these are people who hope their art is worth the most money and are oft times the most deluded and broke.

There is so much wrong with this statement.

 

[BVS]

I'm guessing mostly everybody here on these forums has atleast 1 or a few U2 Bootlegs (maybe more)? But i bet you didn't pay for it. But why arn't paying for it? People paid ticket price to see the show but your listening to it for free! And don't tell me its becauase it wasn't made commercially available because people went and saw the show and bought the tickets, its not like they preformed it from a basement.

You really are missing the point... by miles. Most artists don't care much about their live material being distributed. And yes it does make a difference if it wasn't commercially available.

 

[veber]

There is so much wrong with this statement.

yeah.

 

[Gluey]

Thanks Gluey.
First you say you love me and now you have a husband?
Just great.
I was looking forward to telling our kids how we met on a message board arguing about illegal downloading and that's why Uncle Laz won't talk to dad.

Awww

 

[Gluey]

If it makes any of you feel better, I paid $99 in November 1993 for my NZ ZooTV ticket. I had never bothered much with U2 before then, and I only got a ticket as I wanted to see this 'ZooTV' for myself. Thirteen years later I paid the SAME amount for my Vertigo tour ticket. So I feel good about that! For those of you worried about what it cost in the 90's compared to now, you would have been bitching about being ripped off if you lived in NZ then But I don't care, I realise the huge cost of bringing something like that to my corner of the world, and I'm just grateful I even got a chance to see it. Hell I paid more for my Foo Fighters ticket in May this year and that concert was a much smaller scale than U2, but did I complain about that? Nope, just happy to see it.
And I'm not made of money either....if I want to see/do something enough, I'll scrimp and save and find a way and just enjoy the fact I got to do it at all. Try living in NZ where we only get a few 'big' names a year or decade even.....it's a distant fantasy to have the access to the varieties and quantities of concerts you get in the USA....

 

[U2girl]

I think ticket prices U2 plays for shouldn't be compared to someone like REM, Radiohead or Springsteen or Pearl Jam. Less elaborate shows, and in most cases probably different venues and certainly not as big. And there were ticket price complaints back at Popmart.

What they should be compared to is Stones, and maybe Madonna or McCartney - and they still charge far less.

 

[yolland]

lazarus and Iskra--your interchanges here are really fascinating, but please leave the putdowns and mocking out of it. Thanks.

 

[lazarus]

You can't compare the price of ANYTHING in 1992 with 2005.

Inflation can account for most of the difference. That $30 in 1992, is $60 in 05. In REAL inflation. Screw the CPI. Real inflation is double what the Gubmnt says it is. Look at housing prices since 1992.

Better yet, go back in time and complain the $30 price for a Zoo TV ticket is insane compare to the $8 price you paid in 1982.

Is that so? All I know is that I was working at a video store in 1992, and making somewhere between $6 and $7 dollars an hour. The most expensive ZooTV tickets were maybe $40, if I'm not mistaken?

Flash forward to 2005, where the most expensive seats are $170. So I guess the videostore clerks are now making $30 an hour?

My point was that back then it didn't require some great financial sacrifice, at least in the U.S., to see this band, which was already huge by then, playing the same venues they're playing now.

For a similar comparison, look at Pearl Jam tickets from around '94 when they were already huge, to now. The markup isn't nearly as large. In fact, they're currently charging the same price for ALL tickets at many (if not all) of these arena shows, somewhere between $65 and $75 depending where it is.

How do you suppose they're able to make a living, considering the supposed exorbitant costs of touring?

 

[lazarus]

I think ticket prices U2 plays for shouldn't be compared to someone like REM, Radiohead or Springsteen or Pearl Jam. Less elaborate shows, and in most cases probably different venues and certainly not as big. And there were ticket price complaints back at Popmart.

What they should be compared to is Stones, and maybe Madonna or McCartney - and they still charge far less.

So we should be comparing U2 to dinosaur acts and prima donna divas?

That certainly isn't the image the band seems to want to project, especially when they take newer, less mainstream bands out on tour with them, and want to compete with them for the younger audience.

And what's the difference between Bruce Springsteen and the Stones or McCartney, except that you know he charges a hell of a lot less than those acts and doesn't help your argument? In the U.S., they are playing the same venues, same with R.E.M. and Pearl Jam.