You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Lily Allen quitting music
monkeychow--
people cant have it both ways. Even Lily wanted it both ways. Downloading Lily Allen albums=BAD. Downloading music from other artists on HER site= GOOD.
Its the same fucking thing, which is why she's running for cover and praying to avoid a backlash. She's already starting to get comparisons to Lars/Napster, which obviously isn't a good thing for her.
Yes, but Lars was also correct in my book 
I'll agree with you if she's been helping pirate stuff herself then that's true, you can't have it borh ways. So yeah, got me on that one.
I'll also grant you the stuff they've done with record stores in the usa that you've told me about is retarded. So it's a complex situation.
But I do think a lot of us end users want it both ways too. We're taking what used to be a comerical end product and consuming it for free, yet the costs of making that product still exist - even if they are less than they were. Then when artists give up because they don't make money we all them dinosaurs, and when the companies that fund recordings collapse we tell them it's their fault for not adapting to the fact we now take their output for free.
In extremes - What is the logical end game of this situation? All music becomes free to consume. Which means the only way artists can fund being able to produce it is by cranking their live ticket prices. As that show now has to pay for the costs of the tour, the album costs, the promo costs, and the income of everyone. Meanwhile - the big advertising and industry engines that exposed us all to the bands we like (and also tons of crap we hate) die - everyone is forced to self-promote on itunes and the net.
But how do you find your new talent that way? The talented people are going to be burried amongst 50 billion bands of hacks and kids. Some of them will cut through, but with so much choice and everyone on equal footing, it wont be easy to find new artists - unless u notice them at a tour - which is only good if u live in places where the tour goes. So it ends up shit for the consumer. It's ok now - cos we have artists we've always known but what happens in 40 years when there is no record companies, and only whatever myspace becomes to find your new music on.
At the end of the day to me - there were problems in the old industry - but there needs to be a model that allows for some people to become professional musicians - there needs to be a system to easily promote the best of the talent without requiring everyone to spend hours sorting it - and there needs to be a way for artists to get paid for more than just live shows.
/rant
Re: Lily Allen quitting music
But I do think a lot of us end users want it both ways too. We're taking what used to be a comerical end product and consuming it for free, yet the costs of making that product still exist - even if they are less than they were. Then when artists give up because they don't make money we all them dinosaurs, and when the companies that fund recordings collapse we tell them it's their fault for not adapting to the fact we now take their output for free.
Consumers have proven time and time again that they are willing to pay for downloads. It is the labels and certain artists unable to grasp this fact. If Joe Blow is willing to buy a song from Itunes, why isn't the label offering the same song for download in a superior format on their own websites? We are once again in a singles driven era which harks back to the 50s and 60s, but instead of people buying 45 LPs, they are buying files through Itunes.
Paper Planes has over 3 million PAID downloads since 2008. What's the difference in someone paying through Itunes and buying an LP/cassette/single cd? We both know that song has been downloaded for free by tons of people(including Evo members) and so has the full album. Still doesn't change the fact 3 million people and counting were willing to pay for something they could have got for free even quicker.
I thought nobody bought anything anymore? If so, why is her album headed towards platinum and that single headed towards 4 million copies sold?
People stopped buying shitty music, and rightfully so. People have adapted a "try before you buy" stance. If this was the 1990s, Paper Planes would have sold double that, but half would have probably liked it, which just so happens to be how much it sold. Nobody buys what they hate. Not anymore.
The labels have to evolve with what's going on. This singles driven era is a PERFECT situation for them, yet they snivel around about me not buying a song that sucks. I don't reward mediocrity. The days of consumers buying a full album for one song or buying an album because the chick on the cover is hot to trot are OVER.
Music is being reduced to its most simplest form. The cover no longer matters. The booklet doesn't matter. The liner notes don't matter. The lyrics don't matter either. What matters is that song for 99 cents that is featured on an album on sale for $7.99. This song isn't available at Wal Mart/Best Buy/insert big box store here but the album might be available for $16.99. Yay for the labels.
In extremes - What is the logical end game of this situation? All music becomes free to consume. Which means the only way artists can fund being able to produce it is by cranking their live ticket prices. As that show now has to pay for the costs of the tour, the album costs, the promo costs, and the income of everyone. Meanwhile - the big advertising and industry engines that exposed us all to the bands we like (and also tons of crap we hate) die - everyone is forced to self-promote on itunes and the net.
The "end game" is the album concept evolving into a series of singles. There will be no more Appetite for Destructions. Instead, you'll get Jungle, SCOM, and PC released over the span of several months-year, then the artist moves on to the next series. We'll eventually have subscription services where we pay monthly fees to hear whatever music we like.
Do artists suffer during this transition? Sure, if driving 20 Lamborghinis was a life goal. True artists will evolve as the concept evolves. Those interested in only money will fuck off, and thank God for that. Do labels suffer? Sure, since it wont be as easy to manufacture various pop stars because the public has so many choices.
The cream will rise to the top. If it doesn't, then the cream wasn't anything to write home about in the first place. Take Santigold for example. Amazingly talented......shitty image.....shitty communication with fans. She makes Axl look like Trent Reznor. Album is good, makes a few 'best of 2008' lists, yet drops off the charts immediately and got almost zero media attention during her recent tour.
This is a situation where her label should have stepped in. She needed an image makeover badly. Needed to stop dressing like Queen Latifah and brought a rocker image to the table. Needed to communicate with fans. Instead, the status quo remains and she only sold a handful of copies, and will repeat this cycle with her next album until someone in her camp grows a brain.
Labels are no longer doing their jobs, which means they have outgrown their usefulness. Not only are they using an outdated model in approaching the music side of things, they don't even develop artists properly.
Other than manufactured pop/rock acts, the road to success is through a grass roots movement which takes years to develop.
This can be achieved without a label, and in the coming years you are going to see artists not signed to major labels break through.
Re: Lily Allen quitting music
Lily Allen raked in the applause for being one of the first artists to go mainstream after being a success on MySpace, now she's griping that people didn't all go offline when it suited her and buy-buy-buy. Well tough luck, you can't just expect the internet to work for you and never against you.
I don't like her, I admit (though LDN was a catchy tune) - she's a fake cockney who was sent to one of the poshest school in the Uk, and I can't get behind any artists who tries to claim cred by being what they're not.
Re: Lily Allen quitting music
So Much For Lily Allen Retiring
by Music-News.com - September 29 2009
photo by Damien Loverso
A Big Day Out announcement and a UK tour has killed of Lily Allen`s retirement plans just days after she announced them.
Days after the 'Fear’ singer announced she was quitting the music industry, the 24-year-old star has revealed plans to tour with 'Bonkers’ rapper Dizzee Rascal next March.
Tickets for the shows, at Manchester’s MEN Arena on March 5, and at The 02 arena, in London, on March 7, go on sale Friday October 9, with further dates expected to be announced in the coming days.
In an entry on her new blog - called It's Not Alright, which aims to stop people file sharing music on the internet – Lily said last week she had no plans to tour or record again.
She wrote: "Just so you know, I have not renegotiated my record contract and have no plans to make another record. I do, however, remain a fan of new music, so this is not some selfish crusade.
"The days of me making money from recording music has been and gone as far as I'm concerned, so I don't stand to profit from legislation. Except future purchases of previously recorded material."
Lily – who deleted the blog shortly afterwards – claimed she is now focusing on her appearance in a London theatre production called 'Reasons to be Pretty', which follows a group of working-class people who are bored with their lives.
The singer’s spokesperson played down her claims, saying: "She is not quitting pop music and is still promoting her current album, which is why she said she is not thinking ahead to another record."
However, it is not the first time Lily has voiced her desire to give up her music career.
Earlier this month, she said: "I'm not going record and tour again for quite a while.'
Re: Lily Allen quitting music
who's Lily Allen?
James Lofton wrote:You must be joking.
I was. The world has everything to gain, by Allen's quitting.
I wasn't. I've seen the name on here, I think I heard the first song James posted, never the 2nd. Anyway, not a loss, it's probably a publicity stunt for her to try something new (socialite/paparazzi star a la Lindsay Lohan, Britney & the other British singing chick), but overall, this is hardly news. She has a sweet voice (similar to Frente), and a hit or two.... but in the big picture a one hit wonder. That years Macy Gray, Nelly Furtado, Norah Jones etc. Dime a dozen. Next.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Lily Allen quitting music
Consumers have proven time and time again that they are willing to pay for downloads. It is the labels and certain artists unable to grasp this fact. If Joe Blow is willing to buy a song from Itunes, why isn't the label offering the same song for download in a superior format on their own websites?
I hear you on that. Now that broadband is so common, I wish mp3 would die and use of lossless formats would dominate.
Itunes in particular frustrates me. it's nice and easy to find and purchase the songs. It's generally good, but 128kbps sounds like ass to me.
There's something very wrong when my options to purchase the music give me 128kbps audio and often only some of the artists work....yet 2 minutes on a torrent site and I can find the complete discography of the artist at 320kpbs or higher for free.
So i know what you mean. They need to make the legal downloads superior and more attractive to end users.
I thought nobody bought anything anymore? If so, why is her album headed towards platinum and that single headed towards 4 million copies sold?
People stopped buying shitty music, and rightfully so. People have adapted a "try before you buy" stance.
Yeah it isn't that noone buys anymore. But I'd sumbit its that almost everyone doesn't pay for everything they keep. If it were litterally try-before-you-buy - like if the files self destructed mission impossible style after 1 or 2 plays I'd be ok with that. I mean who of our age doesnt remember buying the an album unheard, forking out like $30, getting it home and that disapointing feeling when it's a different style, rushed or in some way otherwise all garbage. I can see the attraction in try before you buy.
But I also question the ethics of this whole, we test it then pay for it if we like it, idea. Like how many of us always follow through? I usually buy artist releases to try and support the bands I love, but i'm not holier than thou, there's times I've probably never got around to it. Then there's all the people who care less than me. It's not like some of them dont keep the album anyway and not pay even if they liked it.
Take MIA, say she releases a new album, i'm more into rock and metal music, and I have a limited budget for CDs and entertainment cos I've gone back to college. So like if i see an MIA disc at a store, i'm not going to fork out $30 for it because its quite likely it isn't my thing. Even though I know you like it.
But then say you're really into the MIA thing, and you decide to PM the album to everyone on the board just to see what we think. I might play that album and turn out to love it despite it not being what I thought I'd like in advance. Now thats a good try before you buy example. But what happens to my $30? In theory when I'm at my record store I pick up a legit copy now i've tested it out. But if i only have $30 to spend for a month, and I go to the store and there's a new album there from megadeth or AIC or a band I know I always tend to like. Do I spend my $30 to retroactively justify the download of an album i already have, and basicly walk out with nothing new and no cash for a month. Or do I pick up the album I don't have? I know what would happen. And that sucks for MIA. As her album could be great, but realisticly, if you give people stuff for free, some of them will choose to pay for it, but not everyone.
The "end game" is the album concept evolving into a series of singles. There will be no more Appetite for Destructions. Instead, you'll get Jungle, SCOM, and PC released over the span of several months-year, then the artist moves on to the next series. We'll eventually have subscription services where we pay monthly fees to hear whatever music we like.
Interesting. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a subscription model. I think here in oz they're looking at charging ISPs (who will pass it on to customers) a kind of blanket license fee - much like how live venues operate.
The singles thing I think is good and bad. Artisticly there was something cool about a whole album, when songs together make a journey from start to finish. Of course some albums are a hit or two and 7 songs of filler so it depends. But some artists did make albums like a full experience. Sad to loose that. Also what happens to back catalogue. For example when I get into a new band I often go find all their old records and listen to the past stuff i'd been missing. There's going to need to be some kind of backcataloge special cos i'm not going to want to pay singles prices for every track when some of the tracks are older. But it's an interesting model.
Do artists suffer during this transition? Sure, if driving 20 Lamborghinis was a life goal.
Lol. I'm not worried about that stuff. I'm worried about smaller time artists. The question is, can an artist get paid enough to survive working as a musician so as to have the time required to make their art. You see what I mean? Like you don't want Bucket putting down his guitar and getting a job packing shelves at wallmart.
And it seems like with this model the only way to get paid is to gig endlessly. So what happens when you want to have a family or soemthing. And what of artists who had great songs to share but didn't like life in a bus on a road? Just seems a bit limited to me.
The cream will rise to the top. If it doesn't, then the cream wasn't anything to write home about in the first place.
But how does the end consumer even find the new artists? We just rely on word of mouth or myspace? While record companies are evil in some ways - promoting and manafacturing bands that can't play etc - they're also the ones who made famous a bunch of people who can play that I wouldn't have heard of.
Say Lenny Kravitz. Not my favourtite artist of all time but he's a cool dude with some cool songs. I'm pretty sure I was exposed to him back in the day when his stuff was being pimped out by a big record company. Big posters of a dreadlocked dude around at my store. That kind of thing. If lenny came out in this new world, and had no record deal, I'd be left looking for his music amongst the thousands of retro bands filled with talentless teenagers on myspace...how many hours a day would I search to find that stuff.
In order for cream to rise to the top there has to be some kind of system. The old model was that talent scouts and A+R people would check out the live scene and find the next big thing, and then invest the record companies money to expose them to the rest of us. But if there is no record company. And all artists just pimp themselves on the net and live. It means the end consumer is going to have to do all the A+R work. Could be good - in that we arnt relying on someone elses opinion of whats good. But it could be bad - in that we may just never find a bunch of good stuff - and some of the good stuff artists will have to give up music in the time it takes for anyone to hear them.
This can be achieved without a label, and in the coming years you are going to see artists not signed to major labels break through.
Yeah it definately seems to be the new thing. And there are some benifits. I mean the big labels seem to take a lot of artist money and screw over a lot of people. So it's not like i'm against the self funded artist etc. I'm just worried that this new model doesn't fully make sense. as its sort of different things. Like changing from corporate control to artist control is good, but that's kind of different from the issue of all of the fans just getting the product for free and then paying if they feel like it.
