Home / In depth / Show /
Implode.Exploit. Repeat
virtual-court.com, june 2004, 9:52am. London.
- Judge: Bring out the mp3s! Mister.pee-free, you are charged with the man slaughter of the music industry!
Compere: Let me hear a biiig ’Fuck yeah!
Judge: You are also charged with the murder of global culture and the creation of the terrorbucks empire, how do you plead…?
Fast forward to the present day…
….And the whole coke-addled music biz, right now, somewhere in west London and LA, is in total disarray, firing staff and hoping that television-made stars, for television-infatuated people, people who don’t actually care if things are good, bad, terrible, covers or even nazi anthems, just aslong as it has a good melody and someone they just maybe could fuck - if they lost 4 stone and got a facelift, a thirty quid hair cut and a life away from the goggle box, obviously.
But, yeee-haaaah, mp3s, lassoo 'em up and shoot 'em down, they are at the core of the end of the music industry and the entertainment business for that matter and probably all the creative industries too, probably. Let’s face it, we all go out and buy 10 albums a week, at £10+ each, regardless of what it is, just as long as we’re immersed in the advertising on every street corner and there’s some good hype by sun journalists and Jonafon Woss! We can do this because we all work jobs we hate, with people who oggle over Heat and think watching Channel 4 news makes you an auntie-christ. Pah.
There’s a problem, accepted, but I’ve got news for you: It’s not because of mp-fucken-threes! And it’s more than just the music bizness that is suffering! And who apart from the music industry cares about those poor suffering people able to get paid for working with something they love? NO FUCKERZ!!! That’s who.
Who are our cultural icons, our teenage role models, the people who wish we were nowadays? Where for art thou David Bowie of 2002 or Iggy Pops or Kurt Cobains, Blondies, Lydons, Princes, Stevie Wonders, Otis Reddings, Wacko Jackos.. See what I mean? Not the copies, the coca-cola endorsed real things! And not just that, people are taking idiots with high pitch voices seriously! Where is the proper public dissenters, the ones telling kidz to spit on the monarchy in page 4 of the daily mirror? Where are the outlandish trend setters? The people bigging up life-changing books, places and people? Shirley Manson and Roddy Woomble? Maybe for a brief half a second when they have an album out, when people are even giving half a shit. I guess the Massive Attack guys and Damon Albarn are saying something, but why would you or I wanna be them? Or follow their advice? What have they ever, really, given you? Free gigs? £25 japanese imports, that's what!
Let’s also bare in mind that in days gone by, our entertainment exports, were our countries biggest exports, right from the Beatles to Morecambe and Wise. Maybe it’s the covert American colonisation of the world that I want to rant about here, not that the music industry hasn't invested in developing genuine, back-catalogue-selling (which is where the real money is people!), life-changing, genre-breaking, timeless, classic, TALENT! Not winners of shopping-centre contests with nice guys, sweet gals and a good bodies! Brains? Who cares?
Also, I blame media hype. It's not the bands, the ones who barely get away with ripping off bands who were big once (see also: Nickleback, The Strokes, Datsuns, Cast…) selling records to people who aren't old or informed enough to realise it's all been done better before. Blame the A&R's who're trying to regain their yoof! Blame the journalists confused about what is new and what sounds like things they used to like, when they loved music...
And blame the bands who are wasting money, those tried and tested wrinklers, who haven’t been dropped and haven't released anything any good since their debut or that tricky second album at best (see also: Oasis, Reef, Supernaturals, Suede…) these are bands who’ve had their day, can’t cut it anymore and maybe if they keep churning out an album to the marketing departments rota, every 2years, at vast recording costs, living off the back of one hit single and a few thousand fans, they might, eventually, 9 albums down the line, do something interesting again. But who gives a fuck? And is that economical or exciting? Can we grow old with bands like that? I wanna be able to listen to the Cure and Jesus and Mary Chain and Fairport Convention, like the oldies do, and remember who, what, where I was then, when everything made sense amongst the angst and beer.
There’s also the fact loads of bands rush their first album because they have a single all over the airwaves. Take-away food! Rush-Rush-Zoom! What is value? What’s meaning? What’s respect? What’s being proud? Who, what, where am I?
And these rushed albums, these all filler albums, with nothing much for the fans (see also: The Hives, The Vines, My Vitriol), who could, in all honesty, just have done mini albums, or EPs (remember them?) and kept fans happy, people interested in music and the buzz going for the first album, proper, when the band had a chance to develop in a live context with people watching (rather than the bull’n’gate, etc) and let’s not forget, people actually buying singles, with good packaging, goodies and all that, instead of just getting the single and maybe 2 half-good tracks and 9 they write in the studio. Bollocks to this. Who gives a fuck, I’d rather just have b-sides on a 'product' that had some thought and love go into it. Hundred Reasons album having most of the ep tracks on their fans already got, what's the point?
Seek. Exploit. Market.
Repeat.
But who should we really be blaming? The Man, of course! Yes, him/her/it, with ones mansion and story about once upon a time finding a band that meant something. Actually, maybe they just employ all the best people and have decades of experience of how to sell records in shops, so yeah, that said, it's cus they can't sell music online, that's the problem, surely. Bollocks is it! Maybe point your speed-soaked pinkies to the people with the exciting bands, who’re afraid to sell out (don’t get me started!!!) and spread the amazing bands around, get them out there, market them and blimey, get people hearing great music if that’s such a crazy idea? (see also: Fat Cat, Southern, one-man-labels). This is all nearly as crazy as people embracing the internet and using free downloads to sell albums, like singles and radio play do. We need a paradigm shift, a transition, something pioneering and revolutionary to happen! But we need the acts to do it, to inspire first and to do that, they need acts to inspire people, and to do that, they need stars and do get them, they need to know what a star is, rather than what photographs well and can have their voice EQ’d well in a studio.
Walk.
Don't Walk!
In conclusion - if you’re a moron - I’m saying, stop blaming mp3s, stop being so fucken negative, stop being SO elitist, stop wasting SO very much money and killing cultures! I want history made now for all the good bits that are never forgotten! I want everyone out there to feel a part of the movement because they are, or at least could be. Give up on these constipated heroes/zeros! I want another renaissance! I don’t want to be forever in reality, we all need things to take us elsewhere, but should it be drugs? And most of all, I don’t want to live in a town which is just like any other town in America or Tibet or Bland-land: US State 20055. I want things around me to define me, to make me who I am, a stronger, more self-aware, more world-conscious, better person and most of all, I wanna find myself surrounded by people I actually want to whisper to ”Look at the stars, look how they shine for you” and I don’t mean cheesily to a lover, because I’ve found one of them, somehow. And I can grin and be happy, because I’ve got my Trail o’Dead, my Cooper Temple Clause, my Arab Strap, my Queens of the Stoneage, my Oceansize, my Kinesis, my iDLEWiLD, my Weezer, my Sigur Ros, my Burning Airlines, and my Elliot Smith back catalogue; to keep lil ol’ me happy, inspired, defined and thinkin’ about STUFF!
-
Implode.Exploit. Repeat
Here's some simple maths for any record label types who might be reading this:
The White Stripes, who many agree are an awesome band, spent little more than £7000 recording their new album.
Obviously haven't heard it so it *could* be shite. But let's assume they haven't lost their form in the space of a few months.
Divide what ailing record empire EMI Group gave to Robbie Williams (£80,000,000) by that figure and you've got enough for 11,430 such albums or there abouts.
So if EMI went to gigs by lots of good little bands and said "Here you go, record yourself an album without any of the shiny production waffle them braindead CD:UK viewers generally expect." and just 10% of those albums sold 1m copies at £12 a throw, EMI would make £13,713,000,000.
Of course, those are very random figures and it's all speculation. But if, instead of paying REM, U2, Mariah Carey, Robbie Williams and all these other previously successful acts so much money for albums which invariably turn out to be not very good, they spread the cash around to develop hundreds of smaller acts, they could potentially make a lot more money.
There's also this small matter of Internet music. Record companies dislike MP3s so much because they create wiser consumers.
Before, magazines would hype up albums and you'd shell out your cash. If you were disappointed, well, tough titty. Nowadays people avoid buying music they don't like by listening to it first.
On the flipside, how many people buy albums as a result of hearing tracks online first? As well as MP3s, there's also fantastic sites like www.launch.com -- if record companies embraced the Internet pro-actively they could target the right people for less money.
The recording industry has to get smart. Instead of pampering egos, it has to start nurturing fledgling acts, and it has think about the potential benefits of a connected world.
I don't hold my breath.-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
don't get me started on the fucking EMI/Robbie debate...surely they would have learnt their lessons from the Mariah Carey incident.
Are MP3s killing the music business? No, the music business can handle that all by itself. I think you are right, only some sort of revolution can change it.
The charts in are in a state. I've given up in believing that a chart position means anything anymore, nothing seems sacred. A number 1 means fuck all, there will only be some other crap the week after filling the same space. I hate the way some people only moan about this new generation of shite and yet also promote it every chance they get. take for example that fuckin' Dominic Whats-his-name, from the sun who sits wanking over his Oasis albums but only writes about the latest exploits of Gareth Gates and co.
Somethings going to have to change sooner or later. I'd love to feel like I could make a difference, but I'm not sure I can. Something or someone needs to take control.
I must get more sleep-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
just like to make one thing clear. EMI have not in any way, shape, or form given Robbie Williams £80 million.
That's the amount, albeit an exaggerated one, that if he hits every sales target for every record he releases he will get. But of course that will not happen. Alot of the figure bandied about is because he wants the record company to take profits from things they dont normally get, i.e. merch etc.
So please don't think EMI are writing Robbie a big fat cheque for £80 mill, cos they're not. They'll probably give him a fiver for fish and chips and ask for the change. And a new record.-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
A lot of that will go into recording and marketing. It's really weird how it all works, but basically i suspect bob got about £2mil put in his bank, then will get paid after the record sales have been recouped, after paying for song writers/publishing, for pr, for advertising, for touring, for buying onto mainstage at glasto, for manufacturing records, etc, etc... the list is endless. it all adds up.
this is why so many bands get dropped and why big advances for bands don't mean they get rich when they get a record deal, they just get a sort of loan. it's really quite evil, and the record label is taking a bit of a risk, but can't really loose. and its in their hands whether the band makes or breaks it a lot of the time. sign 100 acts and only have the time/resources to work on 10 of them, and if 15 albums all come out in a month, 5 of the smaller ones are gonna suffer. hence why a lot of acts don't break. and why major labels can suck sometimes. they have their uses tho. if only they knew what to do half the time.-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
Robbie's sold 22 million units so far, with 'Swing when your winning' netting 5 million alone.
I estimate a major label makes around £4 contribution on a £15 CD (ex marketing costs). US labels are currently bleating about 8% profits, so lets assume their counterparts in ‘rip-off Britain’ are making around 15%. That adds up to £2.25 profit per CD.
Therefore, to break even, EMI will need sales of almost 18 million units. Feasible, but unlikely. Crucially (and disastrously for EMI), the deal sparked a split with Robbie and his songwriter Guy Chambers. Since Guy wrote the majority of the hits (and 12 of the songs on the new album) it is difficult to see how Robbie Williams alone can maintain the same popularity.
And that's 18 million units to break even, I'd estimate it's closer to 25 million to generate a viable return over the six years (an estimate, since I'm not inclined to do the NPV calculations on a Sunday evening).
Obviously the deal also includes a share of tour and merchandising revenue. Yet touring is notoriously expensive (The Rolling Stones and U2 only manage to break even); and I'm not sure how many Robbie bedspreads they're planning to sell to an increasingly maturing fan base.
EMI evidently gambled on the share price taking a smaller hit if they stumped up the cash, rather than Robbie going to Sony. The city took a different view, with shares now trading at 1987 levels, and them being kicked out of the FTSE 100.
EMI seem to be developing an uncanny knack for picking artists just as their star is waning. They're still swallowing the $38 million they coughed up to get away from Maria Carey.
Sadly this is not just a cautionary tale of ineffective management. There's a wider cost. A quarter of the other artists on the roster will be culled, and 1,800 jobs will go (that's not including two former directors who were paid off with £6m and £1.7m respectively).
Ah well, when they pay Robbie off in a few years time, they can always put the blame on P2P file sharing. -
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
There are so many flaws in the points being made here (mainly numeric inaccuracies), but this one in particular needs fixing:
"the record label is taking a bit of a risk, but can't really loose"
Er, yes it can. If the act doesn't sell (m)any copies of the music that the label forked out cash to have made, they'll obviously not get their investment back let alone make a profit. So, actually, they will lose (money), and therefore have no choice but to drop the artist for future releases (because the risk of the same thing happening again is too great).
As for the case with Robbie, he probably did get a lump sum, but that will be because he's already made his forthcoming album and so on handing over the rights to publish it to EMI, they pay him for the privilege. And yes, as people have pointed out, part of that deal includes him giving a share of merchandise, touring and other revenue streams - EMI's Alain Levy and David Munns said to the LA Times: "Our goal is to transform EMI from a recording company into a music company that shares in all kinds of revenue generated by the artist. Dem boyz is gettin clever - they're already doing it with the Coldplay, Queen, Gorillaz and Kylie webstores (amongst others, no doubt).
Out of interest Sean, what single label actually has 100 acts all promoting their own releases at the same time? And when has a label ever been stoopid enough to put out 15 records all at the same time? There's no point exaggerating to prove a point if you ask me.
At the end of the day, the only way of measuring how good something is, is by looking at whether it's achieving what it set out to do. Surely the fact that record companies haven't gone bust may say something about that.
Major labels have many uses indeed. One of them is they sign both pop acts and more alternative acts, and are able to take money earnt from the successful pop acts and invest it in the less popular ones. For instance, The Cooper Temple Clause being on the same label as Will Young and Gareth Gates (BMG). Those karaoke stars have probably helped TCTC get where they are now and will probably continue to do so.-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
The charts in are in a state. I've given up in believing that a chart position means anything anymore, nothing seems sacred. A number 1 means fuck all, there will only be some other crap the week after filling the same space
So when did it actually 'mean anything'?! Perhaps you're just getting older and realising that all isn't (and has never been) so rosy.
MP3s aren't killing anything and nobody ever said they were. What the labels have been reported as blaming for sales being down is piracy and illegal Internet filesharing. MP3s - compressed music files - are already legally available from major/indie labels. See emusic.com - undoubtedly the best value you'll get for about £7 (actual price $9.99USD) a month for unlimited downloads from their huge archives. -
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
"So if EMI went to gigs by lots of good little bands and said "Here you go, record yourself an album without any of the shiny production waffle them braindead CD:UK viewers generally expect." and just 10% of those albums sold 1m copies at £12 a throw, EMI would make £silly-amount."
Erm, except that only about 10 albums a year sell over a million copies in the UK anyway, and those albums are by either pop, easy listening or gentle indie-style acts (last year, for instance, they were Dido, Robbie Williams, David Gray, Gabrielle, Steps and Eva Cassidy, with Stereophonics, Travis, Destiny's Child, Kylie Minogue, Shaggy, Westlife and Hear'Say coming close). And the mainstream public who are the people who are able to buy a million copies don't want something that sounds like it was recorded in a toilet.
Your flawed maths also completely forget that for EMI to make £13,713,000,000, the public would have to collectively buy 1,430,000,000 albums in a year, when at the moment the total is morelike 100,000,000. So you're basically saying people would have to spend 14 times as much money on music as they currently do. Yeah. Right.
Oh, and you also forget that EMI don't get 100% of the money for a CD handed over at the counter. The retailer takes a 30%ish cut, and then there's the distributors, and then a lot of stuff has to be paid for such as the manufacturing, the publishing (fees and royalty), the marketing, general overheads, and of course, the recording royalties for the bands, before getting down to profit left for them.
What I think you need to appreciate is that most people aren't really into music and only buy a handful of CDs a year, and that's it's far more cost-effective to release something that they, the masses, will want, instead of pandering to the needs of the minority music fans like us. Why invest in hundreds of smaller acts, and probably only have a tiny fraction actually make the money back that will be spent on them, when you can invest in a couple of big ones where success is pretty much guaranteed?!
"Record companies dislike MP3s so much because they create wiser consumers."
Nah. Record companies dislike people stealing their music (it's nothing to do with MP3 as a format) because then they don't get the profit they are entitled to (for investing in the music in the first place). The decreased sales figures that have just been published do demonstrate that something is wrong.
"Before, magazines would hype up albums and you'd shell out your cash. If you were disappointed, well, tough titty."
Since when? You've always been able to go into HMV, buy a CD, take it home and give it a listen, then if you don't like it, take it back next week to swap for something else. Stores have also had llistening posts for years, and now official artist sites offer the online equivalent.
"Nowadays people avoid buying music they don't like by listening to it first."
So are you saying that people didn't used to have the common sense to try before they buy?!?
"On the flipside, how many people buy albums as a result of hearing tracks online first?"
I do! I do! I hear them online via the streams offered by the labels themselves (often via 3rd parties like NME.COM/DiS/e-cards etc.), then I go out and buy them (or order them online for cheap 'cos then I don't need to help pay for pretty shop displays and checkout tills).
"As well as MP3s, there's also fantastic sites like www.launch.com -- if record companies embraced the Internet pro-actively they could target the right people for less money."
Erm, how do you think the music gets onto launch.com? They can't just make magic it up out of thin air - it all comes from the labels. Hence they are already doing what you suggest.
P.S. The White Stripes are shite no matter how much or how little they spend on their recording process.-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
Major Labels have their uses?
I guess so... but I'm not really sure that merging them all into multinational
cross-media conglomerates has in any way improved music, and in many ways made it worse.
I would liken it to a supertanker vs a speedboat. If a band has the speed of reaction and manoeverability of a speedboat,
the ability to spontaneously react to a situation, the ability to be nimble, sharp and agile in its thought processes, a modern media company/major label conglomerate is the supertanker,
hugely powerful, with massive resources, but slow to react and sluggish. I woud argue that the way to function best in the business of selling records is to be able to be sharp and decisive in your decisions
and able to sense the quick changes in directions of the music scene and react, to jump on any opportunity that pops up and maximise it. When Branson ran Virgin( when it was only Virgin records),he could do that, but in the main, there is so much weight of bureaucracy in a modern major, that they're quite shit at quickly seizing anything.
For instance, some friends of mine were in a band called Lowfinger. They released a single, which One Little Indian couldn't be bothered to promote much. The band did a video with their mate, and it got to MTV, who loved it so much they started playing it all the time, but freeing up money to jump on that opportunity and promote the single properly requirs lots of waffling meetings with lots of waffling bureacrats, and takes weeks, after which that killer business opportunity to break that little band has passed by. One little Indian's idea of how to break a band was the standard big/major label way...you decide at the start of the year that a particular band is what you believe the public want and you're going to push them.... then you set about pissing away an endless supply of money on promotion (see Gay Dad for a good example of this mechanism)and hopefully the theory is if you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick. The difference is , in the case of Lowfinger, the buzz got generated because people really DID start liking the band. In Gay Dad's case, the 'buzz' was artificially created because the record company believed that people theoretically should like the band if only they were made aware. The point is that the a&r's and staff of the big record companies don't sign bands or see bands or push bands or promote bands because they love them... they do it because they believe that other people will love them, or worse, in the case of the manufactured pop bands,various manager/record producer/a&r teams literally put together, say, 10 acts based on a collection of loose specs of what a teenager loves (believe me, there ARE nine you never got to hear about) and try out a single to see if radio are interested... so long as one breaks, then the company makes money...
I think that the real movers and shakers in the major record companies are about as well connected to the buzz on the streets as HM Government is connected to the feelings and priorities of the people in the UK. The people who run the companies are corporate executives hired for their track record in running large corporations who may have no personal interest in the products they promote. Their goal is to expand the value of whatever company they run.With an ever-increasing amount of people feeling disenfranchised (including dj's!) by the music they hear(or are directed to play) on the corporate-controlled airwaves, there is the desire out there for something more, and I'm with Sean all the way. People who love music need to make a whole lot more noise, instead of just resigning themselves to the inevitability of its death.
-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
"Erm, except that only about 10 albums a year sell over a million copies in the UK anyway, and those albums are by either pop, easy listening or gentle indie-style acts...."The figures are being used here to demonstrate a point about how the amount of money spent on an act and the amount that that act are liked and sell records are not directly related, but can often be quite independant. Arguing about the figures very definitely misses the point.
"What I think you need to appreciate is that most people aren't really into music and only buy a handful of CDs a year, and that's it's far more cost-effective to release something that they, the masses, will want, instead of pandering to the needs of the minority music fans like us."
When a record company promotes a band that really IS worth loving, people who 'aren't usually into music' buy it in their droves, copy the clothes, paint it all over all of the schoolbags, write it on the backs of all the toilet doors scratch it in all the dinner tables ... not just the stalwart fans who were their from the bands roots. Nirvana were a great example - neither easy listening or gentle indie .Modern labels seem to have less and less of the ability or inclination to develop artists, and DJ's aren't as free to play records from small labels they've picked up on.Can you imagine a song like 'Love Your Money' by Daisy Chainsaw, which jumped out of the radio as being radically different to anything else, appearing on Radio One today? If a major label band doesn't break into the charts on their first or second album, then they're probably fucked. Think of particularly un-pop bands like Korn (and , for that matter L**p B****t), who've got to the selling-millions of records/scene defining level over a long time, and think how unlikely that is to happen now. Take off the inverse-snobbery-tinted glasses of the alienated-and-alternative, and then realise that so-called 'ordinary people' ARE into music. What they're usually NOT into is the scene and lifestyle of hanging out watching ickle gigs in sweaty shanty town venues. The only way to discover bands when you're disconnected to our beloved stinky smelly moshpit is probably Radio One or Two or TOTP, who aren't inclined to play the songs FROM that underground.
"....when you can invest in a couple of big ones where success is pretty much guaranteed?!"
There is no guaranteed success. Michael Jackson is the biggest of the big, and his last album lost either $17 million or £30 million, I can't remember which. Mick Jagger recently released a solo album which sold something ludicrous like 500 or 5000. Releasing a record is always a gamble. Michael Jackson has a track record second to none when it comes to sales, and adhering to the doctrine that what sold once will always sell lost Sony a lot of dollars. The problem is that once acts have achieved a lot of success, they tend to be coveted and indulged like Royalty, and their stupendous budgets are often foolishly used as a way of aggrandising the company within the industry. This is just symptom of flabby big corporations. The public don't give a shit about any of that. If a record sucks, it doesn't sell as much as a good one, but it is likely that its inflated budget will be based on the sales of the last album.The record company loses and it's share price probably falls because it has fallen in to the commonest corporate disease of believing your own hype.
"Since when? You've always been able to go into HMV, buy a CD, take it home
and give it a listen, then if you don't like it, take it back next week to swap for
something else."I thought they didn't allow exchanges of 'unwanted' records, just exchanges of faulty products. They certainly didn't used to, 'cause what's to stop someone taking home a bunch of cd's,and making tape/cd copies of them all, but only paying for one?
PS I'm not a particular fan of the White Stripes. They sound ok, but it reminds me too much of the Pixies or Flaming Lips, but nowhere near in the same league. A single guitar, single voice and single drums is all very gimmicky, but sonically too samey for my tastes.Now...If they had two or three drummers....hmmm........
-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
ah stop being such a fucking tory voting yuppie, eh-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
ouch, that's gotta hurt.
some people think numbers proove everything. white stripes shell by the shedload, yes, but do they make people wanna go out and take a risk on buying more? if the records shit, it jades people, they stop taking risks.
you dont piss in the wind and get sprayed and then do it again and again, or do you?
some people can afford to buy shit, most people can't.-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
Yeah, it does hurt, because this has nothing to do with national politics.
You're right, people try not to keep making the same mistakes, but to be honest I'd say that mainstream music buyers are pretty happy with what they buy. They've heard the singles on the radio, day-in day-out, so they know what kind of thing they're getting.
-
-
-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
Arguing about the figures very definitely misses the point.
Not really, because the whole music business is about numbers, and so when they are grossly exagerated, it paints completely the wrong picture. And wasn't the original article that we're discussing inspired by the recent music industry sales figures reported in the press?
Think of particularly un-pop bands like Korn (and , for that matter L**p B****t), who've got to the selling-millions of records/scene defining level over a long time, and think how unlikely that is to happen now.
But it is! Foo Fighters are just hitting their popularity peak, as are Feeder. Then you've got Moby (who's now over the hill), Jimmy Eat World, Idlewild, David Gray and many more I'm sure. It generally just takes that one or two breakthrough singles, which can come at any point in an artist's career.
The only way to discover bands when you're disconnected to our beloved stinky smelly moshpit is probably Radio One or Two or TOTP, who aren't inclined to play the songs FROM that underground.
What about NME/Q etc., Xfm (to an extent), and the god-damn Internet? It's not just about going to shitty gigs. People do indeed like music, but it's nowhere near as important to them as it is to us (in that we will spend a lot more of our time persuing it).
There is no guaranteed success.
I did say 'pretty much' (i.e. mostly).
Michael Jackson is the biggest of the big, and his last album lost either $17 million or £30 million
But is/was he really that big? He hasn't toured for years and years, nor released anything new for that matter. As for what's been lost, how can that be said when copies are still in shops and still selling (even if in only small amounts)?
As for the Jagger thing, it was apparently 954 copies on the first day of release, although in Germany it entered the charts at No. 2 and it was placed at No. 9 in the Japanese album chart. Meanwhile in the US it sold a respectable 68,000. And it hardly had Jacko levels of investment/promotion/production costs.
These are freak examples.
I thought they didn't allow exchanges of 'unwanted' records, just exchanges of faulty products.
Not according to the back of HMV receipts - 'Guarantee of Satisfaction - We want you to be happy with everything you buy at HMV. We will exchange or refund your items provided you have a valid receipt. Your goods must be returned in perfect condition within 21 days of purchase. Refunds will be issued by the original method of payment and at the original selling price."
Any retailer that wants to compete in this day and age basically has no choice but to offer no quibble refund/exchange service.
what's to stop someone taking home a bunch of cd's,and making tape/cd copies of them all, but only paying for one?
The inconvenience of it, and perhaps the guilt? They know that most people will be happy enough to hang on to an album if they like it enough, because if they like it then they feel proud to own it etc.
And so what if people do that? From a commerical point of view, so long as you end up hanging on to one of the CDs you've borrowed, they get their income/profit and are happy. The CDs you've returned are still sellable.
It's funny really - everyone complains about CD prices etc. but everyone is perfectly happy to pay them (and also similar amounts to see the act live in concert) if they like(or at least love) the music. So music is king, and that's what matters.-
Re: Implode.Exploit. Repeat
My figures were exaggerated and didn't take into account all the niggly little bits and bobs because they don't factor into a layman's thinking. I was trying to keep it simple. Maybe a little too simple. :)
As Chris rightly points out, a lot of the old guard are *not* working the magic anymore so for EMI and the others to chuck big figures at them and expect big things is dangerous, resulting in these recent job losses and lack of funds for smaller bands.
However and whenever that £80m goes out of the bank, it's still money that could've been split between a larger number of small acts. Even if you're just rewarding these acts (Jimmy Eat World and a few others were mentioned) that are starting to break through with better deals to encourage their momentum.
You're right, Launch.com gets all its materials from labels but poll UK Internet users and they won't know of it's existance... or that of similar sites. If you're new to the Internet, or you don't have it, it's not easy to find one single place where you can preview new music.
The listening posts I've come across in stores have only been playing specific releases. Some have those barcode scan things but if you wave something remotely obscure under it, it'll rarely find a match. You're being exposed to a limited range there.
On the rare occasions I've bought CDs I dislike (I download MP3s on KaZaA to avoid that situation, wait a minute...) I have to make up an excuse for fear they won't let me take the CD back. The perception generally seems to be that returns policies are harsh, whatever the reality.
Last point I guess is that someone said about how we're all whining but we still pay over the odds for things. Well, no, I've been using Chaosmusic.com.au (God bless the £ to $AU exchange rate), CD-WOW.com and various others over the years to ensure I get CDs at decent prices. CD Wow imports from Hong Kong and still rarely charges more than £8.99 for a UK, single disc album.
If people know these places exist and have the means to use them, all well and good... but take Internet users out of the equasion and you're left with people whose only hope is high street retail.
This piece is generating a lot of interesting discussion, good to hear points I hadn't thought of. :)
-
-
-
Implode.Exploit. Repeat
I know you wrote this over a year ago, but: That's the best freaking editorial I've ever read. I'm in the states and you're 100% right on.
-
-
-
-
-
-

Comments
- Post a new comment on this article