Thom Yorke, Radiohead Frontman, warns young musicians should avoid getting tied with record labels, as they remind him of sinking ships, and says the world won�t notice their loss. Thom Yorke is long known for criticizing the entertainment industry excesses, and now he comes with addressing to emerging musicians in his new textbook for GCSE Citizenship Studies students, where he shares advice not to get too entangled with collapsing music industry.

In fact, record studios have been sinking since music became digital and this form of it undermined the stranglehold on methods of distribution. So music labels turned out to be bad marketing companies that found themselves not corresponding to a modern digital world where the artists are allowed to both market and distribute themselves without record labels� participation and almost for free.

Radiohead has always been the pioneer among the new music industry trends, starting with shocking the public 3 years ago when the band released its new album �In Rainbows� in the Internet directly to their fans, allowing people to choose the price they are ready to pay for the CD. This of course made music labels nervous, alongside with some industry members holding the conservative position, like U2 band manager calling the plan �backfired,� and Kiss frontman saying Radiohead is �on crack.�

Fellow bandmate Ed O�Brien, the member of the Board of Directors of the Featured Artists Coalition, joins Tom Yorke, believing that it will be just a matter of time (and most likely months rather than years) for the music labels to sink like holey ships.

Featured Artists Coalition is dedicated to assisting artists take control of their future and works, and profit from the possibilities presented by digital world. In other words, they are trying to create a reality where musicians would finally get paid for their works, but they feel themselves disagreeing with the self-protecting interests of the entertainment industry.

What Yorke is trying to deliver to the artists is that record labels are a distinct entity of the industry with their own aims, which are most often profits. In these terms they only see a musician as a source for making revenue. That�s why Yorke is sure that the collapse of music labels won�t be a big concern for fans who rather care about the quality of music.

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Amen

Yep, labels are reaping what they have sown.

The problem becomes, though, if the sale and distribution of music becomes the sole responsibility of the artists themselves, where does the power to enforce legislation to prevent theft and copyright infringement come from? At the moment, the labels are the ONLY people with enough clout to try and pressure legislation and influence link sites to prevent wholesale theft of music (which is ALL digitally distributed and prone to theft, nowadays).

I fail to see how any of you buy into the 'big, bad label' theory. Let's face it, if a label COULD afford to pay the artist what they think they deserve, surely one of these musicians would have started one by now? It's a LOT more expensive to do than you all think. If it wasn't, there would be NO 'predatory' labels. No-one would sign with them...

It's called the Music 'Business' for a reason... it IS a business. And, if there's one thing that history has shown us time after time, musicians make TERRIBLE businessmen! Look at the Beatles and Apple...

I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but the labels aren't the monster we WANT to make them out to be. They are no more 'evil' than the boards of any large corporation, and we aren't espousing that the means of manufacture be placed in the hands of the worker, are we? Look how well that worked in the Soviet Union!

Capitalism allows any of us, if we think we can do a better job than current businesses, to start our own. And, if we do a better job than they, we succeed and they fail. This has been TRIED in the music industry. And the inevitable result is either failure, or turning into what we reviled in the first place (because the bottom line demands it). Look at A&M Records, or any other musician started label... Someone, somewhere, HATES them as much as Sony or any other big label!

But with the world addicted to free music, stolen from those who worked long and hard for it (whether by themselves or with a label), who is going to stand up for the artist?

Artists NEED labels, now more than ever...

Unless fame alone, with little monetary compensation, is all they should now expect. Seems to me that the general public is shafting musicians more than any label EVER did...

I think there may be some truth in that. I thought I read somewhere that most artists get most of their income from concert tours, so any 'fame' derived from the 'stolen' property would serve as advertisement for the concerts.......wouldn't it??? I mean, no one is going to come to your concert unless you're 'famous', right? Just a thought.

chas

Lets see... now artists make a few cents for every CD they sell...

Imagine Artists selling half the CD's they sell now because of more illegal copies and such, but making $7 a CD...

No way that artists need record companies...

Artists currently make 90% of their money from concerts, merchandise and addvertiements... and not from the CD's they sell.

This is good news and also proof that the record labels are greedy, totally disconnected from reality, their artists and listeners. They basically screw everyone over for a Profit.

How else can you have a product that everyone wants, yet you find yourself going out of business.

Music has always existed, and will continue to exist long after the fat cats and greedy labels are gone. We will simply have a far more personal industry that deals direct between the actual artists and studio's.

So this gets a big thumbs up from me.

James

I don't know if it is "good news" because anytime ANY company goes out of business people lose jobs ...

"How else can you have a product that everyone wants, yet you find yourself going out of business."

How many people buy an actually CD anymore vs. purchasing and downloading just the tunes you want from iTunes or where ever??? ...
And why is it that anytime people are in a business to make a profit they are "greedy" and "fat cats" ... are we not all trying to get the top dollar for what we do?
t.

[This message has been edited by tony mads usa (edited 06-16-2010).]

[This message has been edited by tony mads usa (edited 06-16-2010).]

once the record labels go out of business, then i gues its down to the artist to sort out the promotion design packageing , mamagement and distribution of their product.

After all that....they may even have time to write a song or two......

Google Pomplamoose. Great, talented kids, and they're "gettin over" without a label. Just got "Mr. Sandman", one of their recordings chosen for a Toyota commercial.


Things are changing...the jury is out, as far as I'm concerned on where things will end up and whether it will be better or worse.


Russ

Hi Tony.



The label gets paid either way for the sale so it makes no difference.



No that's painting everyone with the same brush here, I'm talking about the music industry and their behaviour.

I don't know if you are aware of all they do but new artists get very bad deals, and the record labels cream the profits. Even forgetting that..... across the entire world they have been working with governments to roll out laws that make it legal for them to charge a little sweet shop for having a radio on, or charging hotels per room fees for allowing you to listen to your own radio in your room.

I could write a book on the shameless greedy little things the music industry has done to destroy their own business.

Just to give you a figure on artists, a typical Radio station has to pay 35 euro per song they play on the radio. The artist gets 30 cent of that and the label gets the rest.

Ouch... !!!!

James.

James, you're right. In the mid-70's, I was asked to join a group that became big in the country field (decided not to do it, but am still good friends with all of the members, including the guy I recommended for the job they offered me). At first, they got a draw against future record royalties.Several years later, they had 2 top 10 hits, and were still living on the $175.00 a week they were guaranteed. There are STILL active lawsuits between the group and both labels they have been with, publishers and more. They NEVER could get an accurate accounting of what the charges were into their expense/promotion account.

And they tell me that things are no better today than they were almost 35 years ago.


What a shame!

Russ

The fact of the matter is, despite the iTunes store, the vast amount of music being listened to is being stolen. Rapidshare, torrents, Limewire... as soon as an artist gets famous enough that more than just a few local fans have heard about them, up goes their work for anyone to download. I work for a tiny, independent label. Our signed artists are hardly household names! And yet, we found CD's that we had produced, that had made virtually NO chart impact, were up on Rapidshare in their entirety...

Estimates put the loss in revenue to the music industry at over 60% compared to pre-Napster days. I don't know of ANY industry that can survive that. Imagine 6 out of 10 cars at a car dealership lost to theft (but the dealer still has to pay for them)... and not to professional thieves, but to people who would normally be their regular customers. Think anyone could survive that?

I'm sorry, but this crisis was not precipitated by a greedy and uncaring music label. People are JUST as willing to steal from unsigned and un-labeled artists as they are from those in the evil grip of a Warner Bros. or Sony It was precipitated by a greedy and uncaring public, and it shows NO sign of abating now the industry has been reduced to its' knees.

And for every story of label excess, there's a millionaire musician from the old pre-Napster days (most of whom you don't even think deserves their money!) that won't happen today. What do any of you think a label DOES, anyway? Do they do next to nothing, and garner 98% of the profits? You would ALL be running labels if that were so. Here's the sad fact. Most CD's released LOSE MONEY... Now, would you rather it be the label's money, or your own?

Willing to lose your own money (millions of it)? Start a label... and be prepared to be called a leech on the artist. MAYBE you'll be one of the tiny few that have a hit. And then maybe you'll be ecstatic that 60% of your product is being stolen (or more). I mean, you wouldn't WANT to be accused of being profitable, would you? Nor would you want enough money from one hit to be able to subsidize the next 99 flops until you get a hit again. One should be sufficient, shouldn't it..?

Look, ALL industries are 'evil'... they ALL pay the workers a pittance, they ALL reward the executives far above the people who actually MAKE the product. They ALL scratch and claw at a profit, engage in dodgy practices and shady deals.

But none of us are seriously saying the auto industry should dissolve, and we all make our own cars from now on (or buy them from bespoke tuners). None of us seriously think we should grow our own crops, raise our own livestock, weave our own clothes... But, apparently, some of us think that music will get BETTER with no profit motive, while at the same time, moan about the deplorable state modern pop music is in. It's that way FOR A REASON...

They are making 40% of what they used to ten years ago! And sadly, for all the rise in technology, making great sounding music (not just 'OK' sounding music) is just as hard, expensive and complicated as it used to be.

If any of you would be willing to have 60% of what you make stolen, and then pilloried and demonized for trying to stay afloat in this cesspool of greed and theft and at the same time, make some art (or at least a good dance tune!), have at it... It's easy to criticize, MUCH harder to put your OWN money on the line, isn't it?

Stop trying to hold the music industry to a higher standard than any other you are apparently content with... or go out and SHOW US how easy it is to run a label and still give the majority of the money to the artist (who didn't pay a THING to get his product made). I mean, you are ONLY going to have hits, aren't you?

Diki, it was not my intention to say that all labels are corrupt or that those involved are dishonest. And, sure you'll find dishonest people in all walks of life.

I'm just saying that the rip-off of hungry new artists by the big boys is all too common and has been going on for years.

You are right about the majority of the "theft" being people who illegally download.

And, there's no question, you and the people at your label are producing a good product.

I'm beginning to think that a "life of crime" is the way to go!


Russ (just kidding) L:ay

I think the more important question is whether or not the record Labels created this problem them selves.
They created a business model that they them selves admit was a poor one and did not afford them to make a just profit
They had to resort to questionable business practices, denigration of artist, manipulation of lawmakers, not allowing the public to here a real variety of music and on and on.


Maybe now the artist and public can both get what they want and not have to be at the mercy of the record Label.
The same way we who want a 76 key Yamaha arranger are at the mercy of Yamaha.

Both Yamaha and the record label are saying the same thing they are doing the market research and they don�t see the need for what the public really wants.


[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 06-16-2010).]

I think Diki has a point; the record labels weren't responsible for ushering in the 'digital age' which opened the door for EASY illegal downloading. I'm not saying that they're without sin, I'm just saying that the DIRECT reason for the state of the industry IS likely illegal copying of digital media. Let's face it, "what the public wants" (to quote To the Genesis) is cheap gas and free music. BUT, since nothing in life is 'free', somebody has to pay, and in this case it's both the artist and the record labels (who shell out the initial bucks).

"I have seen the enemy, and it is US".



chas

This is the modern reality. Labels suddenly have competition, albeit in an unorthodox and, to them, unfair, manner, where they previously had free rein to do as they liked, and did. So compete. Don't go whining and crying to government to effectively bail you out. Who said free enterprise had to be orthodox and fair anyway? It's not and never was. It's FREE enterprise, is it not?

Yes, it costs big $ to run a label, but it needn't. Small independents manage it, hence the proliferation of them, but the Sony's, the WB's, et al got fat on the backs of artists and have put themselves into the position in which they find themselves today. Well, fat cats, the times they are a-changing. Deal with it.

are you sure 124 ???? The same methods the general public are using to cheat the record labels and ultimately the artists wont change just because there are smaller independent lables out there. It just means there is even less profit around to be shared amongst even smaller companies. A record company has to be a certain critical mass just to generate sales or do you think promting CD's and selling the from the back of the Gig van will seriously sustain anyone ? who will pay up front all the promotion and marketing and developement costs to see the end product being stolen and then given away for free ?

i dont think ignoring the problem of theft is the answer ...do you ?

Spanish Judges Say P2P is the Same as Loaning Books

A Spanish court cleared the website of any guilt for containing links to copyrighted content, saying that there has always been some form of the sale or loan of books, films, music and so on, straight since ancient times. That�s what happens now with P2P services, with the only difference that all content is now digital.

Spain keeps holding the first place among countries that push back at excessive demands of the entertaining industry. Recently a Madrid provincial court ruled that a website is not responsible for copyright violation committed by just containing links to other websites hosting copyrighted content.

A three-judge panel said in their ruling that sale and loan of books, films and music have always existed in some form since the very ancient times. The only difference now is for the most part in the medium people switch to � earlier it was analog media or paper, while now all files are in a digital format allowing a more efficient and fast exchange of a better quality. Moreover, the great advantage of it is availability through the Internet on a global scale.

The court considered evidence that the website doesn�t host the actual copyrighted materials, but only links to places where they can be found, and decided there can�t be any profit earned from the content. The court didn�t consider the presence of advertisements on the webpages containing links to be an offense.

Carlos Sanchez Almeida, the lawyer of the office defending the case, said that the court found 8 final judicial decisions proving the legitimate existence of this website. He also added that the Spanish judges have taken up a position of freedom in the web.

It has been for years that a number of Spanish judges have come to a decision that file exchanging is considered legal as long as there�s no money or other compensation involved beyond the exchanging of content available among many users. In a similar vein, noncommercial peer-to-peer file-sharing is legal. That is perhaps the main reason for the US Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus pointing at Spain on its �Piracy Watch List� (a list of Top Priority Countries), which contains countries they claim to be lacking copyright law enforcement. It even resulted in complaints of Sony Pictures Entertainment that piracy in Spain is so widespread that Hollywood is thinking over discontinuing selling DVDs there.

(source unknown)

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 06-22-2010).]

WOW ... That's a sad viewpoint ... I'm certainly glad I worked for what must be the one company that didn't know that was the way to treat their employees ... In fact they were just voted the best large company to work for in RI - and one of the factors was employee responses to a comprehensive survey ...
Just for my info ... do people here who so often put down 'big business' as the most evil thing on earth have 401k plans???
Just asking ...
t.

hmmmmm ...
t.