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.

http://sonnyengineer.blogspot.com/2009/06/blessay-02-mastering.html

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sites like Spotify give us access to new music and different music … 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.

Replace the ‘Spotify’ and ‘MySpace’ with those of file sharing sites, and you have an equally true paragraph.

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

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