digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

When Pigs Fly: A Brief History of Record Industry Suicide

demonbaby.com — For the major labels, it's over. It's ***** over. You're going to burn to the ***** ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire. And it's your own fault. Surely, somewhere deep inside, you had to know this day was coming, right?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • lateralus, on 11/09/2007, -3/+76Very good article. I still hope the Radiohead model (or derivatives of) sticks.
    • Urusai, on 10/29/2007, -15/+2Hell yeah, free music rocks. Their album sucks, BTW (easy listening = X^P), but I wouldn't have spent money on it anyway so no harm, no foul.
    • mcduckov, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2It would be nice to see new artists have the options available to new software programmers. There seems to be a lot of different options for a programmer to decide how their music will be used.

      Further, it would be really revolutionary to see something like OiNK for artists opting for something analogous to a GNU license. Then the labels can't touch it and "the internet" can nurture its own artists rather than letting the record companies do it and then steal their product. Problem is i see a lot of whining and not a lot of action to take this problem into our own hands.
    • misterjangles, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3Radiohead is probably a bad example of getting rid of labels. The only reason they are able to do what they are doing now is because they've had millions of dollars and label promotion behind them for the last decade.

      I don't think labels will really ever disappear completely any more than booking agents will disappear. A good booking agent will get you great shows. A great label should give a band opportunities that they could not get on their own, otherwise they offer no value. Labels do provide a service to bands, but bands usually sign away their rights for a relatively small up-front advance. I would like to see the power will shift away from the labels to the bands. Labels could function in more of a service-based role to the bands, which makes a lot more sense than the way it is now.
    • jaredvolkl, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Radiohead got it wrong. The digital release you heard so much about was actually low quality, not CD quality or even near-CD quality. So basically, they duped a bunch of their loyal fans who didn't enter 0 into that dollar field, into paying for their low quality digital files knowing full well they planned on releasing the album as a CD.
    • SaltySnack, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Wow. Yes, we’re in a sad state of affairs here. The above poster hit the nail on the head — the top 40 is the LAST place to look for quality these days. Too much modern-day Payola crap and the record industry won't learn until you hit 'em where it hurts: $$$

      We’ve got to take control of the medium and “digg up” artists with actual talent. For example, http://www.indieTitan.com is a start for true recognition of quality, not cookie-cutter crap.
  • bluesyme, on 11/15/2007, -0/+163"so THIS is why CDs cost $18..."

    This is worth the read! Well-written and informative.
    • iChainsaw, on 10/30/2007, -25/+1tl;dr'd it, anyone got a summarized version?
    • thepotatoman, on 10/31/2007, -1/+10Acording to the article the cds cost $18 because the entire record indestry lived in excess. The useless $2,000 business lunch type of excess. Then the internet came along, changed things distribution wise and the record label bigwigs were too technically disabled to be smart with how to use the change to their advantage, and instead used copy protection as if mp3s need it and cds don't.

      Apparently I am only a quarter of the way through and its nearing midnight, so I'll finish reading it tomorrow.
      • misterjangles, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3One thing to keep in mind is that distribution is probably one of the smallest expenses for a major label release. the biggest line item is going to be promotion. A lot of labels don't even do the distribution themselves anyway - they have partnerships with distribution companies.

        All the label does is supply the initial funding, and then oversee all the various parts (production, distribution, promotion). Any band can do this all themselves. All you need is about $100,000 and you can put out a record with the same level of quality and promotion as a small major label release.
    • 0o0Moylan0o0, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4Totally agree, Dugg and Dugg, Sending the article to everyone I know, and taking onboard all principles. Very Good Article
    • Klarth, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7$18 is a great deal compared to UK prices. HMV and Virgin sell CDs for £16 here ($32). Special editions of things will run for close to $40.
    • RexyRex, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Agreed... easily the most influential and well-written article about the RIAA I've ever read.
  • comradevik, on 11/14/2007, -1/+39finally someone unblocked demonbaby
    • JimDinger, on 10/29/2007, -0/+9Yeah no *****,I tried to submit it last nite and it was blocked.

      Seriously,READ this.
  • thevelvetsun, on 11/14/2007, -2/+140This is the most accurate, well thought out, and brilliant blog about the future of the music industry that I have ever read.

    "For the major labels, it's over. It's ***** over. You're going to burn to the ***** ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire. And it's your own fault. Surely, somewhere deep inside, you had to know this day was coming, right? Your very industry is founded on an unfair business model of owning art you didn't create in exchange for the services you provide. It's rigged so that you win every time - even if the artist does well, you do ten times better. It was able to exist because you controlled the distribution, but now that's back in the hands of the people, and you let the ball drop when you could have evolved."
    • lava, on 11/03/2007, -7/+8Except that it's not over, and I know we all hate the RIAA, but come on, let's stop predicting the future based on what we wish would happen. Radiohead's going to need label distribution and promotion when they release the physical CD and they've already mentioned they're looking. Trent's going to go with a label that gives him more freedom, but nonetheless it will be a label, not self-distribution.

      As long as bands want national recognition there will be labels. It takes a lot more than self promotion to be an a-list band. Big name bands will be able to dictate their own terms, but labels are predatory because many bands are willing to sacrifice their rights because they want to be famous.
      • DeathByStereo, on 11/03/2007, -2/+9Wrong, it is more than possible to get a distribution deal apart from a record company. Record companies were good (and I emphasize WERE) at marketing, that was it. Now you have so many avenues of marketing, including freelancers who were laid off after record companies started to fold, a deal with a recording company simply isn't necessary.
      • rkzda, on 10/28/2007, -2/+4Did you read the article? It was about distribution completely, and it stated distribution of cd's was the wrong way to go. RadioHead wouldn't need to distribute cd's if they got a real distributor willing to work with digital media. They could make a *****-load of money. The cd will not meet sales expectations, I can tell you that much.
        • fkr3, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9Except obviously while it is reduced, there is still demand for actual CDs.
      • masterofgrond, on 10/28/2007, -1/+3I think you may be wrong. I think the big bands won't just dictate their terms, I think they really will make a push towards ditching labels. Certainly if they have the clout to influence their labels, they possess the ability to distribute music themselves. The small acts will still try to sign with a label to get that national recognition, but most established, popular bands have the popularity to ditch labels and they'll start the trend.

        And about Trent. While it's possible that he might go back to a label, I find it unlikely. He's certainly had enough issues with labels over the years as well as the power, dedication, and popularity to go it alone, and I think he will.
    • davepk, on 10/28/2007, -3/+4CD's are as quaint as a horse and buggy and just as irrelevant.
      • bdbr, on 10/28/2007, -0/+190% of music sales is CDs! CDs are as irrelevant to music as automobiles are to transportation.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4I don't know... Courtney Love's digg last year was pretty good.
      http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Courtney_Love_does_t ...
  • rhinocero, on 11/04/2007, -47/+6This article is actually pretty good. Unfortunately, I buried it before reading it, simply because of the fact that it has one totally retarded paragraph - and the submitter chose to use that one paragraph as the description.

    There's a chance we can end this sort of thing, but it's far from definite, even now, and it doesn't help anyone to say that it is.
    • Bamont, on 10/29/2007, -1/+8You obviously weren't an Oink user. You obviously didn't read the entire article. Let me give you the rest of the paragraph:
      "Your very industry is founded on an unfair business model of owning art you didn't create in exchange for the services you provide. It's rigged so that you win every time - even if the artist does well, you do ten times better. It was able to exist because you controlled the distribution, but now that's back in the hands of the people, and you let the ball drop when you could have evolved."

      There is no 'chance' we can end this thing. We are ending it. Profits for every major record company are down over 50% as of 10 years ago. That means that instead of making 500 Million dollars a year on record sales, these big corporations are making 250 million. What do you think will happen in another 10 years when the 12-year old girls whose parents purchase their CD's have kids? "I'm not gettin you the CD, download it online."

      It's over. I'm glad it is. I haven't purchased a CD in years - and it's because I can't understand the justification for $20 ***** CD's. Now the record companies are feeling it - and it's about damn time.
  • Fortune7, on 11/06/2007, -2/+51This is a brilliant article, and a lot of what it says can be seen in other industries too.
    Many of the big industries are run by people who don't comprehend the vast potential of today's world. Fortunately, those people only have so long. A new generation is coming in that understands that potential, and will act on it.
    • solid12345, on 10/29/2007, -1/+0But why do you think this is necessarily a good future?

      For example, with the death of the newspaper people are leaving traditional, responsible journalism for sensationalistic blogs and entertainment news. The future is in people seeking out convenient biased lies that mirror their political beliefs in favor of non-biased fact-checked stories.
      • TheRecluse26, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0That's not what art is about. It's not about winning or losing, unlike politics. That's what the record industry has created. They have bastardized art, and turned it into a competition.

        Once the major labels are gone, I'm sure that musical standards will go up, resulting in motivation for bands to actually put time and effort into songwriting. This will result in a much better society.
  • UCFGavin, on 10/29/2007, -23/+3great article. it should have more than 33 diggs
    • greenlight2001, on 10/29/2007, -1/+18WTF? Give it TIME... diggs just don't magically appear.
    • supermanred, on 10/28/2007, -0/+9It's over 600. You do know that number is dynamic and changes, right?
  • supermanred, on 11/14/2007, -9/+37The music industry has indeed comitted suicide. Good riddens to another pile of rich white fat middle men. You are not wanted on the planet, so ***** off.
    • asskey, on 10/29/2007, -4/+22I know they are probably are white...but that comment just made it racist. It really did.
      Imagine the ***** you'd be hearing right now if they were black and you made that comment.
      Also this is the best blog on the music industry I've ever read!
      • jon30041, on 10/29/2007, -5/+3I'm as white as they come, and in my ethics class, when the professor asked " who runs the world" with the intent of getting an answer like "the rich and powerful and inhumane!" or something of the sort, I opted for rich, old, white men.

        Hey, it's true!
      • supermanred, on 10/29/2007, -9/+4It isn't racist. I've seen them. They are rich, fat and white. Why is it racist? It's fact.

        Get over it!
      • KingGorilla, on 10/29/2007, -0/+16Don't focus on the fact that they're white , instead focus on the fact that they're rich and greedy
      • proghead, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3good _riddance_
  • TainerSarkin, on 11/06/2007, -2/+19Let it be heard, my friends. Let the message ring around the world.
  • lohphat, on 11/06/2007, -0/+32Isn't Tower Records' demise a lesson in maladaptation to new technology? "Order music on computers? It'll never catch on."
  • Shambla, on 11/12/2007, -0/+58Dinosaurs will die.
    • Matt-lars, on 10/31/2007, -1/+11Nofx. Great song. Great band.
    • juicebag, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5daaa naa naaaa naa naaaaa
      dododododododododododadadadadadadadadedededededede
      • liquidjamm, on 10/30/2007, -3/+10101011100110101010100101010101010100101001010010101011010101
        1010110010100100101001010010010101010101001010010010100110010011
        01010010101010010110010101001010101010101010010101101010101010100100101001010010010010100101010010100100101100101001010100101010101001010101011111111111111010100101010100101010010110100101010010
    • squirrelza, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1I'm seeing them for the first time in 2 weeks in Cape Town, South Africa :)
  • SEANWOOKIE, on 11/06/2007, -2/+14Give Napoleon some wings and he will fly. Take them away and he will fall.
    Try to decode that one.
    • greenlight2001, on 10/28/2007, -4/+12You have too much time on your hands?
      • SEANWOOKIE, on 10/29/2007, -0/+10Took me a minute to make it up and yes I do have too much time on my hands.
        • greenlight2001, on 10/29/2007, -0/+8I like your honesty.
          • ninxmz, on 10/29/2007, -0/+9Hey, guys. What's going on here?
          • greenlight2001, on 10/29/2007, -0/+14A friendly exchange, deep within the bowels of digg's comment system. You want in?
          • jon30041, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4I'm getting the idea that it's about the coke addicted record label monstrosity.

            Amirite?! Good talkin to ya! We should do lunch!
    • iChainsaw, on 10/28/2007, -1/+3animal farm reference? you got me.
    • SEANWOOKIE, on 10/29/2007, -2/+7Napoleon = the pig from the title or the industry. Wings = Money. Flying = success. Stop paying them and they will fail.
  • BillPDigg, on 11/04/2007, -34/+1I just opened up a site where bands can advertise their music and websites for free. Check out http://www.Goozic.com. If you're an artist, feel free to add your listing. I believe the internet is going to be one of the better ways for artists to get their names out from now on.
    • greenlight2001, on 10/29/2007, -0/+9The talking ad *****.... that killed it for me. Well, that and the name... "goozic"? C'mon... that's lame.
    • haterrade, on 10/29/2007, -1/+11"I believe the internet is going to be one of the better ways for artists to get their names out from now on"
      WOW! You REALLY went out on a limb there didn't you?
    • DiscoLando, on 10/28/2007, -0/+7I highly suggest you kill the flash automaton.
      • iChainsaw, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7HELLO YOU HAVE JUST WON A FREE APPLE IPOD NANO CLICK ME TO CLAIM IT.
      • bjornski, on 10/29/2007, -3/+4Sites like that are the reason I use AdBlock EVERYWHERE now.

        There are ads on the internet?
        • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1A-*****-men. I allow ads for the few sites I know are non-obtrusive and deserve my money. It's one thing to have a single banner or some text ads, it's quite another to have a site who's page is 50+% ads. (Disclaimer: Not necessarily a reference explicitly to this site.)
  • sunyata76, on 10/28/2007, -1/+4Excellent, informative blog post!
  • ThinkIcouldburn, on 11/14/2007, -1/+23I'll point my finger over towards www.niggytardust.com . Saul Williams combining with Trent Reznor releasing the new cd for free or $5 in several different formats, including FLAC (a high quality lossless format). I really hope this is the direction that all music starts heading. Let the music fans do the advertising and have the artist profit for their music. Sounds like the way things should be.
  • bluenash, on 11/06/2007, -2/+34By the way, which one's Pink?
    • mal1964, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2Nice!
    • mal1964, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4The record companies gravy train has run out of track
    • sabach, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1He's driving in his Jag-U-Ar to go eat in a steak bar.
  • preachersparrow, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6Great article. One other point not emphasized is that the record "companies" also hold interest in the hardware industry, ie. CD burners, etc. These ventures are more profitable than putting artists out on promotional tours. Hmmm... Cd burner, Artist....CD burner, Artist....what will they choose?
    • bjornski, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4And more and more, they're investing and taking controlling shares in the promotion companies that put the shows on. And in the ticket sales. Ever try and buy a ticket outside of TicketMaster?

      And honestly, I can't afford to support the artists by going to shows anymore, because every time the tickets go on sale for $20, they're snapped up by scalpers and brokers who want me to pay $200 for them.

      I won't support that business structure either.
  • hobgobbler, on 11/14/2007, -3/+52Here's what will happen: We download all the Lossless non-DRM music we want for $10 a month. The End. No more discussion.

    So go to sleep RIAA, you worthless coke-heads, dream of yellow Lamborghinis and fake *****. Pray that we don't just decide to kill you.
    • bjornski, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6I'd subscribe. Without question or hesitation.
      • BTexas108, on 10/28/2007, -2/+4A flat rate doesn't seem very fair for someone who may download one or two songs a month compared to someone who downloads thousands. I think a tiered system might be a better way.... The first song costs dollar, the next one 75 cents.... eventually decreasing to five or ten cents after that. that way people are encouraged to discover music they wouldn't normally listen to after they pay for a song they really want. The bonus is that the people who download for the sake of downloading everything on the internet don't have to spend $30,000 for their legitimate music collection that they probably won't even listen to in its entirety after the wow factor has faded.
      • nosecohn, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3How about this... 25 cents a song, up to a maximum of 10 or 15 dollars per month. All downloads beyond that are free. Discounts or free tracks if you seed/share (i.e. offset the distribution costs).
        • bjornski, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Fine, you pay by the song, I'll buy the unlimited monthly subscription. Nothing says they can't do both.

          And if you let me set up playlists where I can stream any song I want without the need to download them? I'd be in heaven.
    • prisoner24601, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5A blanket license is the perfect solution. Just like a ticket to an all-you-can-eat buffet. Some will eat more, some less, but the relevant point is that everyone gets all they *want* and no one gets less than they want and the establishment makes money so that it can keep its door open. Adapt or die RIAA. Time for a blanket license.
      • reddikilowatt, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3Buffet is a good analogy for what the music industry sells: calorie laden, poorly prepared junk food that does not satisfy the palate, but forces one to gorge until unable to move. If one does find a nugget of nutrition, it has a tip jar on the side.
    • XdarkXanarchyX, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0But, that wouldn't be fair to the artists that everyone is listening to because they will get just as much money as the ones that the one person listens to. Unless, of course, you adopt Last.fm's way of doing it and pay the bands by how much people listen to them. But, that's a little tricky because it requires people to listen to them on their computers with certain software/plug-ins. There should be a way of donating money directly to the artists like Jamendo has. I would, however subscribe to this either way. I am an artist myself in two bands currently.
  • thailand1972, on 10/29/2007, -15/+11I wonder how many of you are fans of musicians who are not, and have never been, signed to a record label?

    Can anyone name musicians who got famous without a label? Any myspace bands? last.fm?

    The apathy toward non-label bands is telling, yet you're all so anti-label (yet you rely on the industry to tell you who to like). You'd do more by supporting unknown bands who are not, and likely never will, sign to a label. The internet is full of such bands who have been giving away their music, or asking voluntarily for money, for the last 10 years. Donate to these guys if you like their music, and tell others to listen to them.
    • hobgobbler, on 10/28/2007, -1/+6Of course, none of the local bands have record deals. They're the ones I pay to see. Better than the spam on the radio at least.
      • bjornski, on 10/28/2007, -1/+3Radio?

        I have an AM one. All I listen to is talk radio. I've hated everything played on the stations owned by the same 4 companies in this country for so long I just quit listening to music radio entirely.
    • techmaster, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3Mudvayne. They got famous by touring alone.
      • jon30041, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Booya for the Chicago area growlin' troupe.

        I'm going to venture to say Dropkick Murphy's. Though... they were on Hellcat... Same as Nekromantix and Tiger Army... Hmmm... Is Hellcat a subsidiary of a division of a sector of a partner of a sister of a major record label?...
    • thailand1972, on 10/28/2007, -0/+0techmaster/hobgobbler - good for you guys to support such bands (well you like 'em anyway!).

      I think more emphasis on unknown bands is better than the usual "***** the RIAA!" negativity which seems to be a righteous dig at "the man". Forget that and just support some unknown bands - donate a few dollars online, watch them live, buy their CD at the gig.
    • ninedesign, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Enter Shikari are one of the newer bands that are getting famous without a label. Good luck to them and every other band that understands the changing tide.
      • TheRecluse26, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0Enter Shikari is fantastic. I didn't know they weren't signed. That's awesome, more power to them.
    • irriadin, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Machinae Supremacy achieved a sizable following without any label to speak of. They released their music for free on their site and encouraged people to share it and spread it as much as possible.
    • goonsquad3, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Arcade Fire is done very well without a record label. They distribute through an indie, but aren't 'signed' to anybody and they own their own work. Their last album debuted at #2
    • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I know literally dozens from www.jamendo.com I found the site one day and decided to browse it, and I found in the first 20 minutes about 8 bands who I downloaded and liked. And the rest of the bands I listen to tend to be from the '70/'80's.
  • doti, on 11/06/2007, -4/+8for those of you looking for a more legal alternative, half.com is a great used cd source. used to be better before ebay bought it. but its still a good way to own the physical cd (for those of us who still prefer a collection), and not put your money directly into the pockets of the big labels.
  • Smaulz, on 11/14/2007, -0/+41Damn, I wish I could dig this article thirty times.... great writing and DEAD ON info.
  • ettin, on 11/06/2007, -1/+12Perhaps if someone took to compiling an encyclopedia of labelless bands by specific categorical descriptors (not "indie" or "rock" as they tell you nothing) that the notion of putting these dinosaurs down might actually be realized.
    • techmaster, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5I agree. I've always thought of "indie" being a terrible way to describe music. All that means is that the band isn't signed to a major label, but it does nothing to describe their sound. Also, too many bands try to defy categorization. I don't care if you don't want to be considered heavy metal. If you're heavy metal, and I like heavy metal, then just tell me that you're a heavy metal band so I can find your music easier. If you try to defy categorization, then for all I know, you might be a country band, and I'll never waste my time listening to your music. If you want to connect with the people who are most likely to enjoy your music, then you need to accurately categorize and describe your music, or you will be ignored by your largest possible fanbase.
      • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Too true. There's some "indie" bands I love, others I hate because they have such different styles. I like meticulous organization, not anal like by sub-sub-subgenre like some bands like to call themselves, but deeper than "indie" or "rock/pop".
    • jon30041, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3The article links to a site with a search engine to determine association with the RIAA.

      http://www.riaaradar.com/ is the site aforementioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_l ... also mentions that they list a few labels on their site that aren't truly a part of the RIAA, but only report album sales and the like to them (for the chances of getting Gold Record achievements I guess). I'm glad Epitaph isn't RIAA... I can still get my psychobilly and horrorpunk fix!
    • sensibledriver, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1pandora.com > create a station based on a style you like
  • bhny, on 10/29/2007, -14/+3People think that record companies could somehow have adapted to mp3s, but there's no business left when your product is free. All you can do is try to stop distribution, and that will only work for a short while.
    Telephone companies will try to do the same thing to skype and microsoft will try the same thing with linux. all of them will fail.
  • DatumPirate, on 11/06/2007, -1/+31Best article I've ever read. Perfect. Dugg, and if I could, dugg 100 times more.
  • elig, on 11/10/2007, -0/+68As the owner of a small-print music label that has sold about $100,000 of music to date (with every CD packaged and shipped with my own two hands), I think this is the best rant I have ever read on this subject.
  • madroneDorf, on 11/09/2007, -1/+14If record labels die then they will be replaced by a better model of distribution, capitalism at work.

    Personally, although I won't mourn them (if, and its a big if. I still only seen mega sucessfull industry veterans get anywhere post label), I wont dance on their grave either, they performed a vital and totally needed part of music for the better part of a century, without labels, nearly all the songs and bands that I like, would most likely have never made it anywhere past bars, clubs and other local scenes.
    • techmaster, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2I won't dance on their graves, but I will most certainly piss on them.
      • Mercedes383, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Can't dance? The pissing is well approved none the less.
      • Hobophobe306, on 10/29/2007, -1/+0Pooping however is not approved. That would be mean.
    • jon30041, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Labels were essential for their time for spreading music to places that bands wouldn't be able to get to. A new band from, let's say Madison Wisconsin wouldn't be able to make an impact in Miami radio, and thus not have the attention needed to actually make ticket sales once they passed through there for one of those long, two van tours. The labels paid for them to get noticed, and thus you have what influence music today. Granted, a lot of the crap like Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, and, hell, I don't know... Usher... is involved in a cycle of unchanging, regurgitating crap that all says the same thing and all sounds the same anyways.

      I guess, when it all comes down to it, the bands that get remembered for having good music are the ones that react to their times, while taking into account the prior influences with music. I'm absolutely positive that there will soon be a band with a style somewhat akin to Rage Against the Machine that take a different stance, and though a similar style will also have a totally different sound. The thing about music that lasts forever is that it's music that was made for a singular moment, but it strikes a heavy chord with you.

      Or something like that. At this point, I'm only really talking out of my ass. But kudos for recognizing the record label industry's essential contribution to music!
      • JigsawX, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2 These are also the same assholes that buried bands that did not fit there goals ie-Progressive Rock..Its ok tho with the internet progressive rock is doing very very well now.No thanks to the labels and really they don't need em now.
        • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I think prog rock was doing VERY well even before the internet (well, at least in the '70's ;)), just moreso now that there's more exposure. I've found a couple excellent prog bands on Jamendo, actually if you could recommend some it would be awesome! Always looking for new music!
    • zeous, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3It's also known as "creative destruction," the Luddite in this case is the RIAA.
  • bindasj, on 11/12/2007, -0/+44This article has made me shift from a person who didn't support the record industry to someone who is actively seeking it's demise.
  • windmillninja, on 11/06/2007, -0/+30Geez, this guy has a lot to say.
    • Flame15, on 10/29/2007, -0/+15True, but it's all worth reading.
    • iChainsaw, on 10/28/2007, -4/+3I tl'dr'd it...but i really do want to read it...just not now.
    • thedragon4453, on 10/28/2007, -0/+5Agreed. I usually don't read articles this long because I have the attention span of a goldfish, but that was definitely worth the read. I think he covered all the points well, and actually wrote it coherently.
  • Depthfunction, on 11/06/2007, -0/+25A great article. It's the kind of article I wish I could write. I loved this line:
    "The major labels are like Terry Schiavo right now - they're on life support, drooling in a coma, while white-haired guys in suits try and change the laws to keep them alive."
    Awesome analogy.
  • Intrepion, on 11/14/2007, -0/+87it makes me sad that I never got to experience this Oink
    • ashke, on 10/28/2007, -0/+9me too =(
    • eldust, on 11/14/2007, -0/+15yep, you guys missed a LOT of good *****
    • jon30041, on 10/28/2007, -2/+4It sounds like it was just the thing I would have loved... Now I'll NEVER be able to find an obscure band from the Czech Republic with a rockabilly style I adore!
      • ftcram, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Check out mp3sparks.com (used to be allofmp3). Been using them for years & love it. Full preview of entire album (low quality bitrate) and music i sold by the Mb. Numerious encoding options also.
    • diatonic1, on 11/14/2007, -0/+9If they ever get it back online, I have 10 invites I can give out.
    • deflective, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2don't worry, it's going to be like you never got to use napster =)
    • superdoofus, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3slsk works wonders.
      • Kujo, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Looks like I may have to start using slsk again. I haven't used it for about 3 years or so.
      • airstrike, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1their client -and-- protocol are lousy at best, but the users have quite a lot of good stuff.
        although one can have a hard time finding some quality VBR rips with decent speed, though.
    • Kyrgizion, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1I read something about ThePirateBay going to resurrect oink somehow, but don't quote me on it...
    • Phocas, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I am sad for you as well! No matter the words used to describe it, The Pink Palace was even better. I still can't believe it is gone. :`(
    • TheRecluse26, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0I was a member for a WEEK! I was so pissed when they shut it down.
  • tgunner, on 11/06/2007, -0/+12Excellent article. Read it if you haven't.
  • dansmeek, on 10/29/2007, -10/+2tl;dr
    sounded like a good article, and i agree with the topic
    i needed an executive summary though.
    • iChainsaw, on 10/28/2007, -3/+1exactly...tl;dr'd. i might actually read it and summarize for great justice.
    • ashke, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2If the music industry just followed the way newspapers have done (adapted to the Internet), they would not be fighting the futile fight against new distribution methods (which are obviously better and getting even better, in terms of quality, price and efficiency). These new distribution methods will stay because they are the way in which large, large numbers of us now prefer. Therein lies the futility of effort by the major labels. They had the opportunity to embrace it but they didn't and all these troubles and ridiculousness with piracy stem from their inability/unwillingness to change.

      The industry needs to go and you can help by:

      1) Stop buying from them. This will cut them off from their primary motivation for holding on - profit.
      2) Support artists directly. Buy merchandise they sell, not from their labels. Support open and independent bands by buying what they (and not any labels) are selling.
      3) Get your friends to do the same.
      4) Get political by addressing the outdated copyright laws (they no longer serve the purpose of it as efficiently as it was supposed to). Support politicians that are in the people's interest, not the label's interest. Write to your local politicians about these issues.

      That's basically it, I think.
      • DarrenRadford, on 10/28/2007, -1/+4If people are too lazy to read the article, they're probably too lazy to take those actions. "tl;dr" - pfft
      • dansmeek, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2that actually makes me want to read the article.
        i have a subscription to WSJ (online and offline) and NYTimes, and a few tech literature things that were from college....
        i would never have done this if paper stayed as paper and refused to use new mediums.
    • superdoofus, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6saying "TL;DR" on digg is like saying "i'm a spastic nitwit that's used to 12 second porn clips and lolcats. i don't really want to figure out things for myself so please let me learn things like when neo learned kung fu in the matrix because i wanna be like like some sort of human wiki."
      good luck with that.
      • pifko123, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Exactly, they're also so ***** lazy they have to resort to "TL;DR"

        FFS - read the articles you mongs.
      • TonyTheTerrible, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1maybe he mixed up the comments with the article lol..
  • NekstBestThing, on 11/09/2007, -0/+15Digg was blocking this URL's submission for the longest time.
    For who knows what..
    But-
    I wrote them, and many others wrote them...
    And here it is.
  • idefixxx, on 11/06/2007, -0/+9This is the ultimate article on the subject. Read it!
    Now we can just hope some of the labels execs read and understand it which unfortunately is doubtful.
  • xandifenn, on 10/29/2007, -9/+3my oink for now
    http://seeqpod.com/music
    • bugaloobob, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Not oink by a long shot but a great place to sample some random music.
  • sethosayher, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5Saw this on LUElinks...amazing article, really makes me feel good to pirate.
    • nastajus, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2damn, only someone i know has an LL. i am the jealous of the exclusivity i'm missing in the world around me.
  • AbyssV3, on 10/29/2007, -8/+0Very good article. Glad I read it, but yes, it needs to be summarized. I spent too much time on it, and I know a lot of other people won't want to spend the time on it.
    • nastajus, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2screw riaa. two words could do that job. but this is the heart of a good article. it should take some time to read, it's not instantaneous telepathic mind copying. you sir don't have time to read a good article, then, you remind me of the very kind of people being talked about in the article. the dinosaurs.
    • Mrlncognito, on 10/28/2007, -0/+0Stop watching TV and read more then moron...
      It was brilliantly written...
  • thewhits, on 11/09/2007, -0/+13I really felt this article as a musician, it articulated many of my long-felt thoughts on the music industry as a whole. I am going to send this to a lot of people. Digg this big time!
  • thecatcantalk, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6Fun article. But tangentially, regarding royalties and intellectual-property law, why is it that musicians, plywrights, novelists and poets are (reasonably and rightly so!) entitled to royalties from future sales/resales of their work...but painters and sculptors are not? Isn't that kinda weird? Why is this so?
    • cbgglass, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Well there are these things called 'prints', that are reproductions of paintings that can be sold en masse. The painter is obviously paid royalties for the sales of prints. As far as sculptures, they are one off items and can only be viewed by people in the vicinity of the object, or through photographs. If they could be easily and accurately reproduced rest assured they would, and someone would get rich from it.
  • pehpsi, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5Awesome article, thanks for writing. A pleasure to read...
  • michaelz92, on 11/09/2007, -7/+5good article, but you just stated the obvious. everyone knows about how great oink was, and everyone knows about the record labels. Bury me, but at the end of the day, people trading music is illegal. i wish it wasn't, and everyone always says "well if it was drm free i would buy it"... well it's DRM free now, whether its eMusic (independent) or iTMS plus (Major), its still not getting sold as much as music is getting traded. So please steal the music if you must, but stop trying to justify in some roundabout way. You're pirating music, get out of denial.
    • TheGreatTK, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4I feel the need to quote this again, downloading music = copyright infringement, not stealing. Theft deprives the owner of something, which you can't do digitally. And you also can't claim losses from non existent sales.

      But anyways, semantics. Please go re-read the article.
      • kindrobot, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Semantics? More like apples and oranges. As in, if I could copy your orange instead of steal it, would it still be stealing?
        • TheGreatTK, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Nope. Enjoy your free orange. :)
        • Feej, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Just playing devils advocate here, but what if I "created" the orange and it cost me a lot of time and money to do so?
          • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Then you have to adapt to a world where your orange can simply be copied at a whim, and think of new ideas to make money off your orange.
  • ninxmz, on 10/29/2007, -21/+6***** YOU DIGG MY SESSION HAS NOT ***** EXPIRE YOU ***** RIDICULOUS PIECE OF CRAP STOP SAYING THAT IT HAS EXPIRED AND IF IT REALLY HAS WHY DON'T YOU ACKNOWLEDGE MY REPEATED REFRESHING OF THE PAGE I HATE YOU :(
    • Hobophobe306, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0geeze digg come on :(
    • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I dugg you down but you have a point, this can be VERY annoying sometimes. Esp. since Digg doesn't take you back to the position in the comments you were when you refresh like most web pages do.
  • prisoner24601, on 11/06/2007, -3/+25"I would have gladly paid a large monthly fee for a legal service as good as Oink - but none existed, because the music industry could never set aside their own greed and corporate ***** to make it happen."

    What on earth will it take for these industry guys to understand this?! There are plenty of us who would INSTANTLY join a legal Oink. Just write up some terms like: "$X per month and you are legally covered under a blanket license for all RIAA content. We agree to NEVER change the price (except inflation adjustment) and you agree to NEVER terminate your membership." We're married for life, til death do us part, etc. If it was $20 per month a huge number of people would join. If it was $10 it would be a no-brainer. If it was $1 then the RIAA suits could pretty much guarantee themselves about $6.2 billions dollars a month in revenue since every man, woman, and child on earth would join. Instead they go tilting at windmills. Beyond stupid...
    • michaelz92, on 10/28/2007, -2/+4at $1 they would make little money, because entire families and groups of friends would share. same with unlimited anything. people would just share it.
    • prisoner24601, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2What I'm really thinking of as a "blanket license" is more like the RIAA saying: "sign up and commit to paying $x per month and you will be added to a 'do not sue' list we keep" of named individuals who are now authorized to have any RIAA covered song in any form, and from any source.

      In other words, it's an offer of legal *coverage* for actual specific individuals. A family of four would need to sign up all four people. But the cost would be so trivial that everyone on earth would sign up.
    • thedragon4453, on 10/30/2007, -1/+11Thats nice except for the "for life" part. 20 years ago, we'd have said that a physical format was the only way anyone will ever want to buy music. 20 years from now, who knows what what we'll want.
      • kindrobot, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I can imagine if people end up with a "Virtual Mandy Moore" every time they fire up her album on their
        iMPLANTS, Mandy gonna want her cut!
    • prisoner24601, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2In principle, the "format" of the music wouldn't matter. In fact, they should specifically write the blanket license to express that "the person entering into this agreement with us will have unrestricted usage rights of any RIAA song in whatever form they prefer to have it in and are permitted to obtain it from whatever source they choose."

      In other words, if you download a song from allofmp3.com and then make an 8-track tape of it, you are still covered. It doesn't matter where you got it. It doesn't matter what form you keep it in. As long as you've got an active subscription for a "blanket license" you're covered for anything that the RIAA would otherwise have the legal right to sue you for.
  • Subterfug, on 11/06/2007, -0/+10Really long, but great read.
  • objectivist, on 10/28/2007, -4/+1A no brainer, except for the CEO's who graduated from 'The Public School Prison System'....well as Marvin the Martian always said "Back to the ol' drawing board".
  • Seeker135, on 11/06/2007, -2/+7LOL! Frank Zappa referred to "Record Company P****ks on his "Live in NY disc. Know whatr he's referring to now.
    • sabach, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2FZ had a running battle with his labels (mainly Warner), they were refusing to release a lot of his material. He'd play the material in interviews at radio stations and tell all the listeners to record it. Once he started having some financial success he formed his own label, Zappa Records and later Barking Pumpkin Records, and never looked back. He was opposed to the trading of bootlegs of his concerts until he found out that nobody was making any $ from them. Once he heard how good they were, he even authorized several dozen of them to be released by Rykodisc.
  • stelth, on 11/09/2007, -2/+6A great article. I just wish there were more sources linked from a neutral source for some of the points he made. Doing that would've made some of the other claims much more valid.
    • steveo427, on 10/10/2008, -0/+0As they said in a favorite TV show of mine, which I find online. "Evolution ..." "...question[s] of good and evil reduced to one simple choice: survive, or perish."

      If the industries (music and movies) wants to survive, they MUST adapt, or perish.

      External source Googled:
      http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/heroes. ...
  • Mercedes383, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3When the labels have their backs to the wall they must change their models. I mean, some might go down, but not all in their right mind would allow their business sink just for their stubbornness?
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 10/30/2007, -6/+3http://www.batterseapowerstation.org.uk/press/pig_ ...
  • databoy, on 10/28/2007, -3/+0THE AUTHOR IS TOO BUSY BEATING THE MEAT TO KNOW BETTER. THE ARTICLE IS A LOAD OF CRAP.

    The author has no idea how a music business works or the costs involved. 10 years ago the mastering costs of a CD was $30,000 and the disk production costs were $0.50 each. On top of that was the studio production costs which varied from $30,000 to $100,000. Use your brain and a calculator, work out what the actual production costs are to the actual retail selling price. The record companies are not or will never go broke. Record companies make and break recording artists. The average working life of a recording artist is about 2 to 3 years. Even if the recording companies sell the remaining unsold CD copies at $2.50 each they will still break even.

    Google is your best friend; search the net and get all the details for yourself before you swallow *****.
    • thailand1972, on 10/28/2007, -0/+0Good points. I'm getting sick of the binary opinion that "all labels suck, anything to do with a label sucks" attitude. A lot of them are decent, and help promote artists without robbing them blind - a lot of labels are making artists rich.
    • fragile00, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Actually, the author do knows what he's talking about.

      He also happens to be the art director of Nine Inch Nails for the past 7 years, so trust me he knows his stuff.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.