SwingDJs

12bars wrote:in an interview today on npr, someone said, if you want to support the artists, instead of buying cds, help pay for an auditor for the record companies.

I heard that report too. A real eye opener.

Tina

Kyle wrote:(i forget the timeline, but i will guestimate at less than 1 year)
Jessica Simpson re-releases that SAME CD with 3 new songs. Is there a price reduction? can you trade in? HELL NO You have to buy the brand new CD at full price for 3 friggin songs. That, is a rip!

They were ripped off already if they purchased a Jessica Simpson CD.

12bars wrote:in an interview today on npr, someone said, if you want to support the artists, instead of buying cds, help pay for an auditor for the record companies.

Was that Morning Edition or All Things Considered or something else?

LindyChef wrote:

12bars wrote:in an interview today on npr, someone said, if you want to support the artists, instead of buying cds, help pay for an auditor for the record companies.

Was that Morning Edition or All Things Considered or something else?

all things considered

Here's the story:

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1909741

Although I certainly have little pity for the crocodile tears that many music industry execs cry, I have even less for the so-called "artists." Keep in mind that the "suits" and other elements of "the industry" do the boring but absolutely necessary work that nobody else wants to do, while the musicians (oh, sorry, "artists") get paid to do what they enjoy: play music and party. The suits go to work in an office, get the word out, schedule gigs, pay attention to channels of distribution so that Amoeba in L.A. and Jazz Record Mart in Chicago can both stock an incredible, unique variety of music, and otherwise do all the billions of mundane things necessary to bring music from the recording studio to people's homes. They also own and pay for all the equipment that records the music, in the first place.

Ultimately, I do agree that the industry needs to adjust to the market instead of trying to defend and milk old paradigms: not because of moral indignation over "right" and "wrong," but simply because of economic realities. The industry got a huge bump when CDs came out because not only are they cheaper to make than LPs, but also the boomers bought duplicate copies of all their favorite LPs, creating an artificial "blip" on the charts. The industry needs to focus on how to embrace the new technology, not fight it and irrelevantly whine about right and wrong.

...OOORRRR, they could just come out with another, ostensibly "better," non-backwards compatible format!

Hm, which way do YOU think they'll go?



BTW, I agree with you almost, except that the record company OWNS the music. I don't think they should OWN anything, they should have some kind of right to it for 20 years or whatever, but it's owned by the artist(s). That makes more sense to me, it's more like book publishing.

I was always under the impression that song artists owned their music because they stipulated that in the contract.

Kyle wrote:I was always under the impression that song artists owned their music because they stipulated that in the contract.

Only the artists who had the clout/smarts to get such contracts (usually veteran acts who demended such rights in a renegotiation). There are also different degrees of rights and ownership, so it can be somewhat complicated.

There are books written about this stuff. Some high profile, recent cases to read about (search the net if you want more info):

Prince (Prince vs Warner, the weird symbol era, Prince reemerges as the owner of his new stuff)
the Beatles catalog (Michael Jackson vs Paul McCartney)
John Fogerty, Creedence Clearwater Revival, and Fantasy Records

and just about any artist who recorded early rock & roll, jazz, r&b, etc... did now own their own recordings.

Yakov wrote:BTW, I agree with you almost, except that the record company OWNS the music. I don't think they should OWN anything, they should have some kind of right to it for 20 years or whatever, but it's owned by the artist(s). That makes more sense to me, it's more like book publishing.

As a consumer/music lover who wants to "own" as much music as possible while spending as little as possible, I completely agree. It would be GREAT if copyrights expired after 20 years... hell, because we don't lose anything and only gain, let's make it 5 years!

However, the concept that the person or entity who pays for something ends up owning it is not as novel as some people make it out to be in this debate. Whether the owner ends up being the one who created it or the one who paid for it is between those two to decide. It's really none of our business.

It is also very easy to dismiss the value that the record companies add because you don't listen to it every time you play a record or CD; it is a silent, unappreciated part of bringing the music to you. But keep in mind that there is absolutely no way that the music in any of your DJ books/libraries would have gotten there if it were not for the record companies.