Update 15.49 GMT. A few hours after this post went live, at 15.36 GMT, September 16 2009, I received an aggressive cease and desist letter, scanned and emailed to me, from what appears to be the legitimate legal representative of EMI. The letter demands that I remove this blog post immediately.
It could be fake. It could be real. It’s just a scan so anyone could have sent it.
Looks like someone may be trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Yesterday, as I browsed through a collection of news websites, something caught my eye. Yet another thinly veiled attack on the public, and this time on independent musicians also, by the music industry.
The attack was very subtle and, even I have to admit, very well played by the spin masters and agents of deceit at EMI as they moved their new misinformation puppet to the front line of their private war on anything that poses a threat to their dinosaur business model.
As you pick your way through this story I hope it becomes apparent just how duplicitous and calculating the music industry can be. And how they, and their puppet like employees, will stop at nothing to frustrate the efforts of genuine independent musicians and genuine music lovers.
In order to fully grasp the level of dishonest trickery at work here some recent history is required.
Lily Allen appeared, apparently out of nowhere, in 2005 when her record label, a small subsidiary of EMI, used Myspace to push her as a faux independent artist.
The majority of Myspace users immediately fell for the trick, thinking that Lily Allen was independent.
By appearing to be just an ordinary girl, writing songs and giving them away, talking about her poor background and deprived upbringing, and generally attempting to appear as non corporate as possible Lily Allen soon gained a substantial following.
Of course, in reality her songs were probably written and created by EMI and their banks of battery hen producers. Her apparent poor background was soon debunked when it was revealed that she was privately educated at some of the most prestigious schools in the country.
Those in the know could spot this a mile away. Lily’s father, television presenter and actor Keith Allen, could have used his ample media connections to arrange and orchestrate Lily’s fake background almost certainly with the willing help of EMI.
The plan was simple and very effective.
Attract an audience with Myspace by appearing to be a non corporate independent, sharing music to ingratiate herself with the typical Myspace user, and then, once a tipping point had been reached, slingshot the whole package through the traditional record label hype machine, which was of course already set up and ready to go.
Lily Allen was spun by the willing media, who were happy to be pulled along by the nose as always, as a Myspace success story and was, behind closed doors, the ultimate record label creation. A product that the Myspace generation would be happy to pay for because they felt, stupidly, that they had created her.
Unsurprisingly, given the publics ability to be conned into obedience by the music industry, the plan worked.
When you stop to consider who owns Myspace and start to make connections you will soon see how obvious this all is.
The EMI, Lily Allen, Keith Allen machine went on to release more albums and, with fake popular credibility achieved, it seemed nothing could stop her. Social networking connections were maintained. Allen and her team regularly post on her Myspace account, suckering in more and more uninformed fans. And, as you would expect, Twitter has also fallen victim to this unstoppable wave of carefully scripted faux reality.
Regular petulant outbursts and drunken appearances mask the lack of any discernible musical ability and ensure that the Lily Allen gravy train continues to roll forwards.
But now, in a move that will surely burst this bubble once and for all, in poacher turned game keeper style, Lily Allen, or one of her team, have released the following statement, taking a swing at file sharing and any established artists that dare to use it.
I haven’t written on here for a while but I’ve taken the time to write this as I think music piracy is having a dangerous effect on British music, but some really rich and successful artists like Nick Mason from Pink Floyd and Ed O’Brien from Radiohead don’t seem to think so. Last week in an article in the Times these guys from huge bands said file sharing music is fine. It probably is fine for them. They do sell-out arena tours and have the biggest Ferrari collections in the world. For new talent though, file sharing is a disaster as it’s making it harder and harder for new acts to emerge.
Mason, O’Brien and the Featured Artists Coalition say that file sharing’s “like a sampler, like taping your mate’s music”, but mix tapes and recording from the radio are actually very different to the file sharing that happens today. Mix tapes were rubbish quality – you bought the real music, because you liked the track and wanted to hear it without the DJ cutting off the end of each song. In digital land pirated tracks are as good quality as bought tracks, so there’s not a need to buy for better quality. The Featured Artist Coalition also says file sharing’s fine because it “means a new generation of fans for us”. This is great if you’re a big artist at the back end of your career with loads of albums to flog to a new audience, but emerging artists don’t have this luxury. Basically the FAC is saying ‘we’re alright, we’ve made it, so file sharing’s fine’, which is just so unfair to new acts trying to make it in the industry.
You don’t start out in music with the Ferraris. Instead you get a huge debt from your record company, which you spend years working your $%&* off to repay. When you manage to get a contract, all those pretty videos and posters advertising your album have to be paid for and as the artist, you have to pay for them. I’ve only just finished paying off all the money I owe my record company. I’m lucky that I’ve been successful and managed to pay it back, but not everyone’s so lucky. You might not care about this, but the more difficult it is for new artists to make it, the less new artists you’ll see and the more British music will be nothing but puppets paid for by Simon Cowell.
And it’s not like there aren’t alternatives to illegal downloads anyway. Sites like Spotify give us access to new music and different music without having to rip someone off – you can listen to tracks and see if you like them before you buy them. Then obviously there’s MySpace, that streams music and helps acts like me get enough fans to convince record companies to sign us up.
If this sounds like I’m siding with the record bosses, I’m not. They’ve been naive and complacent about new technology – and they’ve spent all the money they’ve earned on their own fat salaries not industry development. But as they start to lose big from piracy, they’re not slashing their salaries – they’re pulling what they invest in A&R. Lack of funds results in A&R people not being able to take risks and only signing acts they think will work, which again makes British music Cowell puppets.
Is this the way we want British music to go? Now, obviously I’m going to benefit from fighting piracy, but I think without fighting it, British music is going to suffer.
I don’t think what’s out there is perfect. It’s stupid that kids can’t buy anything on the internet without credit, forcing them to steal Mum’s credit card or download illegally. It’s this kind of thing that the record company bosses, artists, broadband providers and government should be sitting down and discussing. I’m off to South America on tour today, but i’m going to be writing British artists, saying just this.
File sharing’s not okay for British music. We need to find new ways to help consumers access and buy music legally, but saying file sharing’s fine is not helping anyone – and definitely not helping British music. I want to get people working together to use new digital opportunities to encourage new artists.
It’s unlikely that she wrote that herself but it effectively makes Lily Allen the very record label puppet that she claims to despise.
Notice how the language is very carefully constructed, in an attempt to turn the public against the established artists who have dared to step out of line, who are undeniably rich and an easy target, creating a new sub class of major label artist.
The major label artist that appears to not like the old order.
It’s a hat that Allen wears well, playing on her fake background and fake Myspace roots, trying to make the public associate file sharing and free music with the giants of the old industry order.
What EMI and Lily know and hate is that independent musicians depend on file sharing as one of the many ways of getting their music heard.
And the major labels hate that because they can’t control it. They can’t control blogs, they can’t control file sharing and they can’t control social media.
Actually that’s not 100% accurate. The labels can and do control Myspace, but that’s an argument for another day.
So the only option left to them is to try and turn their so called Myspace hero, Lily Allen, against the file sharing masses, in a desperate attempt to make them stop.
Of course, it won’t work. The record labels will rub their hands with glee as the traditional press reruns the story over and over again, slavishly agreeing with every word without daring to question the true motive. You can be sure that other industry puppets like Lily Allen will come out in support of her, again, no doubt, on their well controlled, industry owned, Myspace blogs.
In the meantime independent musicians can capitalize on this spectacular act of misdirection by challenging it via social media.
If you agree with what I have written, are an independent artist who is sick and tired of the rubbish spewed out by Allen and her owners, or if you just want to get some free traffic, take the following steps and be heard.
Tweet and Retweet this blog post being sure to insert @lilyroseallen in your message. Lily, or one of her handlers, will read your message. And, since there are people out there whose job it is to read everything with @lilyroseallen attached to it things will start to happen.
The record labels have a basic grasp social media but don’t completely understand it. In their attempts to back up their own credibility they will happily storm in and defend their position whenever they feel it is necessary. If your Tweet gets caught in the media crossfire the spotlight gets turned on you.
Want some extra publicity? It’s all there for the taking.
The funny thing is that Pink Floyd (re Nick Mason) built up their reputation by sheer hard work and innovation, something that (especially when you take in comparative ages) outshines Allen’s mediocre two albums so far and gigs where she has to read her lyrics off sheets. In fact a lot of the bands (ie the nasty old Ferrari owners, presumably) of that age gigged around like crazy, often playing multiple sets a day: think Beatles, Slade, Sabbath, you name it. And this was in an age-weirdly-before lazy old social networking sites.
So what exactly did Allen do to recoup that big record company debt? Some showcase gigs in large London-centric venues (fuck the fans that would have to travel down from far-flung places not to mention sorting out accomodation after the mindblowing experience of watching her verbally blog on stage while wandering back and forth)… or maybe some private PA?
When did she EVER do a pub tour and get down and dirty with the fans?
Bit above it methinks.
Filesharing is all about checking things out: if you like it, you buy it.
If it’s mediocre you delete it.
I think she is painfully aware of this last fact.
Great blog post. That message from Lily Allen is surely written by EMI’s PR bods. I don’t support the illegal file sharing of music – particularly for new artists who really need the dosh – but record labels need to wise up and change their sales strategy if they want to continue to sell music.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who can see through the Lily Allen hype machine. Keith Allen plus EMI (hidden as a tiny subsidiary as you correctly point out) plus Lily was always the dream ticket that would help the major labels find a way to tap into the Myspace generation.
I notice that Lily, or one of her handlers, has proved you right by Tweeting about this. She also Tweeted a reply which went to a page that has been suspended. Maybe she actually did something herself but it was deemed unsuitable by her owners and they took it down!
Just like you said. You got a response from the Allen machine that proved everything you’ve just written is true.
I don’t listen to Lily Allen because of her roots, whether legitimate or not, I listen because I like her music, and I don’t see why her background is such a big deal here.
@Jody actually, if you ask most budding artists, the problem is getting their music out there without having to pay a record company to bill them and profit off their advertising and distribution (just like an investment). These artists are mostly happy to see their music spread through socia media, as that gets them known.
Then just above you have the artists like Lily Allen, who did end up signing and making a mass produced disc. they still owe money to the labels, and they suddenly start saying ‘Oh nooo music sharing is bad, stop it now, gief dosh!’
and then above that, you have the artists who have been through the entire process, and have a real reflection about this – like Radiohead etc. They understand that hindering technology and development is not beneficial (to mankind?) and that you need to move with your times… so please Lily, do the same now that “you have paid off your debts”…
I’m in a band and I understand what she is saying! If all the big bands go and release the albums themselves and charge people what
They like or give it away , great for them!
But how does that money filter through for us new bands???
We managed to make a record and release it ourselves but with no money to fund anything it doesn’t reach far as we have to work as well to live! Eat! Pay rent! Get to gigs!
If any of you geniuses have a good way around it where you can all still have you music for free as well then let’s hear it!!
I think it’s more of a “music crime” that the goddaughter of JOE STRUMMER is making the kind of music she does and just being how she is. And props to Encyclopedia Dramatica for calling bullshit on her “struggling background”. I have both her albums (think that the sophmore was better but anyhoozle) and if I got babysat by Nellee Hooper I wouldn’t be doing stupid things like getting tattoos with Linsday Lohan. She says she writes the lyrics when she goes to record. British people are freaking weird.
Whichever way you slice it, and however much the Lily Allen fans want to defend her, you cannot get away from the facts.
1. She lied about her background to deliberately make herself appear working class when she was privately educated at great expense.
2. EMI signed her to one of their small labels before she hit Myspace.
3. Once the Myspace project had worked and the fans were successfully duped the major label machine sprang into action very quickly.
There is no escaping the fact that she lied and continues to lie about her background and that EMI are well known for their smoke and mirrors.
Lily herself has reacted angrily to this on Twitter, linking to a page that then got taken down. Probably as Zoe states above, by her management. She must have said something that was “off message”.
She has even stated that it is possible that EMI were doing all of this without her knowledge.
If that isn’t a thinly veiled admission then I don’t know what is.
Lily Allen fans. Wake up and smell the coffee. You’ve been had.
At last someone who can see though the crap and get the root of what is really going on.
what the hell do you know about it your just a blogger not even a musician like lily shes the best and anyone who dont like her is just a hater
@Lily Fan. Congratulations on proving Ashley’s point for him.
With all due respect it would appear that you are just the sort of person who is taken in by the Lily Allen / Keith Allen / EMI spin machine.
Ashley is a musician. A highly regarded independent musician who understands the difference between making money with music and making money because of music.
I meant this most sincerely. Please think about what you saying before you say it. As Marcus correctly points out, you’ve been had.
@tom. You need to understand the different between making money with music and making money because of music.
It’s all about disconnection.
Arctic Monkeys are a prime example of a band who used the Internet to distribute unreleased material in order to generate publicity. They were savvy about it and they don’t suffer as a result of their albums being leaked.
If you are obsessed about music you may download lots of stuff on a try before you buy basis, but if you like it you will buy it, and if, like me you are an obsessive Radiohead fan you will buy more than one copy – so I have the Box Set of In Rainbows, the album release, went to a concert, bought the T-Shirt etc etc
So if your music is good and liked get it out there, build a fanbase and the money will come. If you are no good you won’t get any money.
I think that most of you are missing the point.
If the publicity tools were available to The Beatles or Pink Floyd they would have used them too.
Lily has her music and a genuine fan base now, she was marketed in a modern manner and that’s about it.
All businesses need to look for the best ways to promote their products and the record companies are no different.
So many so called ’spit and sawdust’ bands that earned their ’spurs’ the hard way are nothing of the sort, it’s nothing new and i would imagine that Lily’s back story is probably closer to the truth than most.
I think Malcolm Mclaren and his Sex Pistols marketing technique is a case in point – they were perhaps the first manufactured boyband in marketing terms.
Oh, btw, who are YOU working for?:)
Again a lot of you musical snobs are missing the point!!
Many labels put out artists records under small subsidorys of a major then when and if things pick up the main label take it over! Ie. Editors first album on kitchenware.
And the point about music and disconection for the money aspect is lost as well
How does a band fund themselves beyond a small release without any help? Do you guys all buy new bands you like records so they can carry on? I think not!!!
Yeah the major label dinosaurs needed cullung so that’s a good thing but if no large level bands are helping the new acts we have a sad and quiet few years ahead I feel!
‘What EMI and Lily know and hate is that independent musicians depend on file sharing as one of the many ways of getting their music heard.’
Whats wrong with myspace or a host of other LEGAL sites?
Lilly Is totally correct , how dare established artists not take into consideration the views of new artists trying to make a living? these FAC artists(not the majority) have already made money from millions of record sales so obviously don’t care about filesharing because they have nothing to lose. bottom line is you shouldn’t steal music! simple!if you devalue music and let people have it for free you are encouraging a dangerous attitude to the value of your music , if people dont pay for music how will musicians/producers/anyone in the industy carry on making music???
yes free downloads can be good promotion , but there is no excuse for illegal filesharing , i am a musican who intends to be able to keep making a living!
I like this take on using a controversial topic to get traffic! I’m jumping in with @pippyandchamp
I just don’t get it, I’ve long suspected that Lily & others like her who spring from obscurity, to stardom overnight are not all they seem. I’ve kind of assumed they had a push along the way by the big lables.
This leads me to thinking; If the record labels are creative & intelligent enough to leverage social networks (when they were a new phenomena) how come they don’t have the smarts or alternatively hire intelligent enough minds to leverage p2p networks?
I’m no economist (ask my bank manager!) but if you have an available transport stream that can reach a mass audience, surely that is a great way to push your product? Someone more intelligent than I would need to monetise it however :)
PS: Re: your latest update. That’s just like the major labels – Cease and desist, your right to voice your opinion is moot. Well, it will be when they own the whole of the media including the web too ;)
Carry on the debate
Shop at tescos they have cheap cd’s
Don’t expect to get much choice though
Or don’t buy any, use the new spotify iphone app and you never need buy or even bother to download any music
Then in a year you can wonder why there isntmuch new music around
i would just like to chip in and say that in some parts of the world, where piracy is even more rampant than the us & the uk, it has proven to be a BOON to artists’ success rather than a problem. the difference is that their business model is not based around record or cd sales, but performances, touring, merchandise and downloadable ring tones. the way artists market themselves in places like asia and south america have been revolutionized by *embracing* new technology and accepting what trent reznor has been saying for years, that, no matter what you do, the music is out there for anyone who wants it. fighting it is pointless. labels need to address the massive failings in their ability to grasp the direction that media and marketing are going. they created this beast by buying out all the independent radio stations and taking choice away from their audience.
I agree with the taking away choice but who is suppsed to fund the band to go on tour and pay to make the merch they are going to sell??
When someone is ‘gagged’, it’s they’re usually telling the truth – the chap who said that the planets revolve around the sun, etc. Looks like this is anther example of that.
Replace the ‘Spotify’ and ‘MySpace’ with those of file sharing sites, and you have an equally true paragraph.
Watching this play out on Twitter. Hilarious. Dude, you nailed it. EMI are pulling the strings and the cease and desist letter proves you’re correct.
Stand your ground. Whatever you do, stand your ground.
You know you are right. We know you are right. Don’t let EMI and their ridiculous lawyers shake you.
File sharing and piracy are not the same thing.
Piracy is theft.
File sharing allows independent musicians to get their music heard.
And that is why the major labels hate it so much. It represents a massive threat to their dominant position in the industry.
The goal of the major label is to make sure only music they control is heard and purchased.
The goal of the independent musician is to be heard. Being heard is the key to everything.
Being heard can bring publicity. Publicity can bring attention. And attention, when used correctly, takes care of everything else.
I am amazed, and very disappointed, that so many musicians, independent and otherwise, seem so happy to nod obediently without questioning the motives of the major labels.
What many people seem to forget is that the moniker ‘record industry’ says it all, before there were records there was music. Much of the best music ever written appeared before anybody knew what a record player was. They found a way to tap that market too, but i digress. I run two record labels, and would like to point out that 95% of the artists i work with are all for file sharing. In fact most of our CDs are given away, or sold at almost symbolic prices. These artists, all of them, are mostly overjoyed with the simple fact that the music is being distributed, that the ears and hearts of others are listening and feeling certain emotions due to their creations.
The problem here as with so many industries affected by the advances in technology is that in the same manner that business models appear out of nowhere due to technology, they are also likely to dissappear due to technology. Typesetters, editorials, graphic designers, photographers, i could go on and on, all of these emerged due to technology, all made big bucks and now can barely afford to make a living from the very same industry.
Porgress cannot be stopped, jobs will be lost, industries will vanish, and as with all industries where jobs are lost, the dying fish will continue to shake their tails until they are well and truly dead, it is to be expected, not that i am unsympathetic toward them, i do however feel far more sympathy for those that never had a chance, the literally thousands of children dying every day, did any of these fat record company directors help them when they were top of the pile, NO, should we help them in their dying days, perhaps, but i would much rather feed a dying child.
New technology and business models are either embraced or not, if you are in the industry and do not embrace you are fighting a losing battle. What those that have succeeded in the past and face problems in the present do not realise, is that mostly life is all about luck, sure you can work toward something, but talent and hard work do not guarantee success, much less in the field of creativity.
Lastly, what any artist who deigns to call himself that must realise is that they are lucky to be making money from being creative. Many of the greatest artists, be they musicians, painters etc lived and died penniless. Music is creativity that has always been shared. Sure enough humanity found a way to charge people to listen to music, sure enough technology figured out a way to share music to the greatest number of people possible at no cost, so, you arent making money from music, tough cookie. Get a job like the rest of us, and do it because you love it, just like the millions of artists out there taking photographs, making music, drawing pretty pictures … for most of these, simply being able to share their creations with others is reward enough. So making money from music is now more difficult because people dont buy records, tough, find another way to make money or do it the old way, the way it was done before records existed. In the end anyone that is creative does it becuase of the passion, the desire, not the money, being able to share that with the world for free is a gift, not doing so because hey you arent making money out of it denigrates you and your art.
Talk to any true artist and this is their view. I am so glad the days of mass produced, formulaic crap called pop music is almost at an end, and admit to taking a perverse form of pleasure from watching it die. The beauty of this and the irony for record companies is that never before has so much music been produced by so many people.
The advent of the internet and with it the possibility to reach a massive audience at almost no cost is a boon not a problem. The fact that many of the big name players that HAVE made millions form the industry do embrace and utilise this boon is a kick in the face for the ones that have never actually make the music but have been making most of the money.
Free music … yes, its a pun.
The problem with your argument is that you assume everyone is going to pay for it if they like it.
An analogy might be radio and CDs. If you hear a song on the radio, and you like it, you will go out and buy the song. If, however, you get a CD for free, what incentive is there to go and buy it, as you already have it?
Streaming from sites such as MySpace is a useful ‘try before you buy’ but not everyone who downloads from a filesharing site will buy the song to allow the artist to make money.
Wombat, nicely put.
Independent musicians can either embrace the new reality or fail.
And those who choose to embrace it will be more successful, both musically and financially, than was ever possible under the old, and now very much defunct, major label model.
Aspiring musicians who fail to recognise that releasing their music on file sharing networks gives them a potential audience that you could previously only get with years and years of touring and playing in rubbish pubs to your 10 best mates and current girlfriend are obviously blind. And there are none so blind as those that don’t want to see.
James, do you really think that successful independent musicians only make money from selling music?
Underdogblogger, exactly. The delightful irony n all of this is that the musicians who don’t evolve are just making it easy for those who do by thinning out an overcrowded market.
Your blog has left me somewhat agog. I am amazed that you people who promote stealing, copyright thieves, think it is somehow ‘cool’ to take what is not yours and that struggling bands are cheering you on from the sidelines as you continue to kill the music business. I am a media lawyer. My wife is Sharon Corr from The Corrs. (Wombat, I am surprised at you!) I have seen the music business close up for fifteen years or so. The changes being wrought by the level of theft is truly devastating the industry, FACT. Yes, the record companies were good at spending our cash on themselves, but it goes deeper than that now. Leaving, as @lilyroseallen rightly points out, no real A&R or artist development funding available. That is a real shame. The labels are so risk adverse now that they are ‘zombie’ companies, not signing anyone. Potentially great bands out there are never going to be backed, developed, heard. FACT. That you think file sharing is good for artists, to get their music out there, demonstrates that you must have no idea how much it costs to record, promote, tour etc. AND that your mummy must not have told that stealing other people’s property is wrong. Maybe I’ll come over to your house and help myself?
Gavin. From time to time I have to deal with nasty little media lawyers like you. Thankfully you are easy to silence.
Notice the cease and desist letter. Didn’t work did it?
And in your little rant you’ve made it obvious why people like you are going down the tubes faster than you can say ‘manufactured irish pop band’.
Where did I advocate stealing?
Why do people like you, blinkered fools desperately hanging on to yesterday’s business models, think that file sharing is theft?
How on earth do you make a connection between an independent artist making their music available and burglary. You really must be very stupid if you think they are the same thing.
File sharing is simply a means of delivery. And independent artists use file sharing as a way of getting their music to be heard.
Potentially great bands don’t need to be backed anymore. That’s what dinosaurs like you just can’t get through your skulls.
Great musicians, real musicians, independent musicians don’t need you anymore.
I’ll spell it out for you Gavin. Before the internet the majors controlled what could be heard. Now the majors can’t control that and are terrified that the public will be able to see through their marketing, side step their control mechanisms and connect directly with the artists.
Because that is what this is all about. The major labels don’t want the public to connect directly with an artist because then the public will be able to choose who and what they support.
Your monopoly is over and the world is a much better place because of it.
And stomping around like a dinosaur with a toothache won’t change anything, no matter how hard you stomp.
@gavin_bonnar You sound like a complete idiot. The way you keep shouting FACT makes me think of David Brent, another ineffectual little man who found himself without a job.
Ashley is right. It’s the artist – public connection that you are terrified by.
Do you think people would have really bought your wife’s music if it wasn’t marketed by a major label spin machine? How well would your wife have fared had she tried to connect directly with an audience?
Major labels, media lawyers, newspaper editors, all coming to an unemployment line soon. The internet is here and floodgates are open, we can see through your lies now. Evolve or perish.
ditto everything that Ashley said. but obviously words don’t matter. thusly:
Exhibit A:
Trent Reznor spells out exactly what resources are available to an independent musician who seeks to avoid the major labels. He even describes why he thinks you may want to consider a major label depending on your genre and how you want to sell your music.
http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?30,767183,767183#msg-767183
See also: Digg Dialog with Trent Reznor, where he addresses the same ideas (among other things)
http://digg.com/d3oAMd
Exhibit B:
Amanda Fucking Palmer
She has effectively used Twitter and her blog to spontaneously fill concert halls and attract a huge amount of media attention that would otherwise never have known anything about a HIGH SCHOOL PLAY. by embracing technology and communicating directly with her fans, she has been able to completely sidestep major labels and simultaneously build a growing cult following.
http://blog.amandapalmer.net/
http://twitter.com/amandapalmer
in other parts of the world, artists are making it big through merchandise, custom ringtones, and concerts by accepting music sharing as a given and encouraging it. when will our models reflect what the rest of the world already knows?
From reading this, it seems things have got way out of hand. Yes, music file sharing may be wrong, it may be right. I don’t know enough about it to comment.
However, on the topic of Lily Allen creating a smoke screen, and the replies to Lilyfan’s post such as ‘You’ve been had’, I really do have something to say.
We are in the 21st Century. Technology has advanced, and therefore life has changed. Unfortunately this may mean that music has changed and we no longer have iconic bands such as The Beatles and Pink Floyd. Times have changed, and the music industry is a whole new business- things work differently now. It is a shame, I agree. Something that has not changed however, is passion for music and the enjoyment a person can gain from listening to an artist, any artist. Yes I like Lily Allen, no she may not be as good as the great bands from the 1960/70’s, but who cares?
She is an icon for many young women today. She speaks her mind, even though many people don’t like it. It is impossible to deny that she is now a very successful young woman, regardless of how this came about. Myspace/Twitter/Facebook are a part of everyday life now, in many industries. Whether we like it or not, this is how many bands are heard, and this is how she has become successful.
I resent the comments surrounding her ‘background’ and her ‘upbringing’. As a fan, it does not matter to me whether she comes from the back streets of Brixton, or a mansion in Eaton Terrace. It is the enjoyment I gain from listening to her music that encourages me to follow her. I also respect her for speaking her mind- but this is separate from the music. For example, I really enjoy listening to Lady GaGa’s songs. But, when I listen to her in interviews or I read articles on her I actually think she is a total tit. I cannot bear her! Can we please separate comments on Lily’s music, and her life? They do not need to be connected. There are many young women out there who like her music, they can relate to her songs (notice how many men there are commenting on here, no wonder you can’t relate to her!) and we have not ‘been had’. We simply like her.
I always thought she wrote her own songs but if she did not it makes little difference to me. Think of all the millions bands such as Girls Aloud and the Spice Girls have made. Honestly, did they write their own songs? No, and yet they also have many dedicated fans. Everyone needs to calm down and just accept the way that the music industry has developed alongside technology, whether they like it or not.
Policing the internet, prying into people’s downloads/traffic, cutting off offenders: this is the dream of a Big Brother internet as plotted by Big Business music (with the occasional help of oafs like Allen) and sadly, there is little-to-nothing in it for struggling and independent artists.
Like the the camera, the VHS recorder, the radio, the recordable cassette tape and countless of other technological advances before it, the internet is just another threat to corporate profits which they want stifled at the expense of the little man.
Locking up and censoring the internet is a horrible solution, but don’t be fooled that that goal doesn’t lurk behind the arguments from Allen and her ilk.
Ashley is spot on with this post.
There’s a key point missing here. Everyone likes to say the labels are fat cats extracting huge sums from artists and fans without adding any value. If in fact this article is true – that Lilly Allen is simply a creation of a big label – then isn’t it pretty much proof that a label *can* add value by bringing together the right talent to create music? You may disagree with the marketing tactics, but last I checked Lilly Allen sold a lot of music and concert tickets and she got some laudits from some very respected critics, so someone must have done a good job at creating this, no?
I don’t get the logic behind Lily’s supporters arguments (that is to say, there is no logic at all).
I mean, they say file sharing makes it harder for a new artist to make money. Nevertheless, even Lily, with all that corporate hyping going on, owed money to her own company. And she must’ve payed that debt off the cut she got after the company profited from her own albums. So tell me, please, since you’re all so enlightened, you industry whores: how is the industry the key for you to make money if you end up owing them?
Whether you like it or not, internet made possible for people to know a lot of new music, and not just the crap they play on the radio (payed by the companies -so, by the way, what options did new artists have with that business model?). And, whether you like it or not, CD format is doomed. So yeah, new artists should try to get attention allowing as much people as possible (and in internet times that means a LOT of people) to know their work for free, so they can build the biggest possible fanbase and then profit from gigs, merchandising and, if you like, “legal” downloads.
One last thought: if you don’t want people to listen to your stuff first and decide if they want to pay for it then, you’re not very confident about your own material, and that would be your #1 problem. My guess is in most cases that happens to people who know they are rip-offs or not talented at all. So no wonder this bothers them— according to historical standards applied by the industry, talent or freshness are not only unnecessary, but even a hindrance in getting mass success.
Bottom line, go fuck yourself Lily. After all, you already got fucked by EMI, and you condone them fucking all of us over and over.
Wow. When Ashley first told me about record companies trying to stop file sharing I didn’t have much of an opinion either way. I’m not particularly interested in Miss Allen’s pedigree as I do not care for her music and I believe that all truly popular music has a degree of manufacture in it to a greater or lesser degree.
However, what I am concerned about is that major corporations are trying to limit the public’s rights because it is financially inconvenient for them. It appears to me that EMI and the like are blaming file sharing for all of their financial ills. How much does file sharing actually cost them? Does anyone have a definitive answer to this?
I also believe that anyone has the inalienable right to do what they like with their own intellectual property, as long as they possess the rights, and that if a band wants to give away their music, the bully for them. Miss Allen’s argument that Raiohead and the like are spoiling other bands’ chances seems a little bit like whining. It’s their property to do what they like with. They would argue that it keeps people interested and I feel that this approach is one that record companies should take.
In addition, don’t major labels sign acts up and then prevent them from operating in a true capitalist market place by taking away the artist’s intellectual copyrights. Once an act signs to a major label or publishing company, the company OWNS the rights to the music, even after advances are paid back. This sounds like corporate piracy to me.
Sorry for the long rant.
Everything Graham said.
would you like it if i was to steal from you?
i didnt think so, seriously its like one big consipiracy theory around here, i listen because i like her music, i like the oldies like pink floyd ect aswell but if i was a new artist i wouldnt want people stealing my money, you say that if people like the music after stealing it illegaly they then buy it, but how many people actualy do that? like 1/100….if your lucky
amazing me, or whatever your real name is, wake up and smell the coffee. Listening to music is not the same thing as stealing it.
No one is stopping people from giving their music away, but no one is allowing musicians to hoose whether they give it away or not. Read this;
http://sonnyengineer.blogspot.com/2009/06/blessay-02-mastering.html
Yep, I stumbled on here looking for a sex pistols quote for an essay about the catholic church and I have to agree I think you guys are spot on.
Ms Allen apears to be manufactured, I remember her, months ago, on a tv interview telling the interviewed that she just turns up and doesn’t know what the musicians are talking about, “i don’t know what a bridge is, I mean I wish they would just use plain english”.
We should also have been wise to the fact that though she sounded different at the beginning, everything I have heard sounds pretty much like homogenised crap.
I would go out with her but I wouldn’t buy any of her albums.
people are free to like what they want to like regardless of whether or not it is audio vomit. what does it matter if she is legitimate or not, who cares?
the pistols were manifactured too but I listen to them from time to time, I am not a snob about it.