You Send Its (YSI's)

[skvorecky]

I think the RIAA needs to spend money on becoming more relevant instead of going after housewives for downloading music.

I think the days of an artist making money (for the time being) on album sales alone are done. If you want to make cash, you need to tour your ass off just like it was in the old days basically. When vinyl was cheap as shit to make, you had people basically tour from all over go to just about every town in the country no matter the size. I think you are going to see the re-emergence of the "hayride" and things like that. I say good, too. I think the current situation is something that needed to shake up the music industry a long time ago. You basically have a lot of afraid people because you just don't need them and the strings that are attached to their money anymore. I think it's going to be nice. I also think you're going to get to hear a lot of bands that wouldn't even have had a chance 10 years ago.

[skvorecky]

And I download stuff that I have on vinyl, or if it's out of print, or it's something I had on cassette and I just don't want to digitize it myself. New releases I buy and I think that's fair.

[JACkory]

Carrie Underwood being the exception to that rule. She was smart. She knew how loyal country music fans are to their artists. She has a voice that's tailor-made for country music. Of all the America Idol winners, she is the only one who'll have any staying power, and that's just my opinion but 20 years down the road you will be able to look back and say, "Y'know, ole jac was right about that one."

The industry has plenty of "product" to work with...Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Pussycat Dolls, Justin Timberlake...the list goes on. They're making a killing off of this "product". But in the world of REAL MUSIC things are a little different. As they should be. I'm all for an artist making a living, but at the end of the day I would think that the most important thing is to reach an audience, to communicate, to share artistic expression. The industry doesn't care about any of that, and so they don't attract the better artists/bands...any decent band worth half a shit would consider signing to a major label to be selling out.

It's not like it used to be, and you can blame/thank Nirvana for that.

[JACkory]

Well, first I would point out that Sigur Ros is not signed to a major label. Their music is distributed by one of the bigger companies IN VARIOUS MARKETS, but for all intents and purposes the boys record for Krunk/XL, decidedly NOT a major.

Second, with the exception of Nirvana (who caught a lot of grief from fans when they signed with DGC), you can't really apply the "sell-out" tag to any of the other artists you mention. Different times, different mediums, different intents and different purposes. The Beatles, Springsteen, Jackson, they didn't sell out because major label success was their goal and they achieved it. It wasn't about "selling out" in those days. It was about becoming a star without sacrificing integrity.

What I said about decent bands considering major label signing to be selling out...it's just that there are so many other, better ways of getting your music to the people than being on a major. There are probably more negatives to being signed than there are positives, but I won't go into them unless you're interested.

[JACkory]

No, distribution deals don't count as "selling out". If you're to the point where you don't NEED major label support...there's a big difference between signing a contract with a label (owing them however many albums and getting paid to make those albums, usually on their terms) and striking a distribution deal, in which an album is already completed and simply needs to have a medium with which it can be shipped to wholesalers. When EMI distributes a record it has absolutely no control over the record itself, which belongs to the artist/artist label. Basically it has to do with this...if you sign with a major, you OWE the major, now and during the duration of the contract. Distribution deals can be made on a release-by-release basis. There's no "you have to produce X amount of records before you can get out from under it".

As for Nirvana....I don't even think it's a matter of a band not releasing very good music just because they signed to a major. It's just that most major labels could care less about the quality of the music or anything at all about the artist that doesn't make them lots of money. Nirvana would NEVER have been signed had it not been for the ENORMOUS response the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" received. And labels weren't lined up waiting for the chance to sign them. In fact, DGC took a chance on them, being a relatively new company at the time.

Who knows but that label expectations helped Cobain pull the trigger. He couldn't handle the kind of pressure that comes with such high expectations.

No doubt you think lady gaga is the shit. That's all I got to say about that.

[skvorecky]

There are actually good bands that are signed to major labels that have been allowed to grow and prosper, Wilco being an example of such a band.

There is a lot of product out there these days that is just as mainstream and poppy as Nsync all that by way of the Jonas Brothers, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, all of that just like JAC said.

Comparing the Beatles who were signed to a major label during different times can not be applied to the model that is available today. That is just ludicrous. The deal with "Selling Out" is when you will bend your will to the powers that be for whatever amount of fame that comes with it. Coldplay are a good example of that. Pompous technicolor jacketed fuckwads that have watered down their already pseudo Radio-dickhead-cum-REM-cum-U2 watered down emo for the chance of being in soda commercials and cultural "relevance". Fuck that shit. I'm glad we're evolving into actually have music just be about the music. You'll always have those people who want to do this whole Perez/Lady Gaga fame thing but that's really just for the clubs and ass-shaking, and frankly there is nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to do.

I disagree about Nirvana though. People were into them and DGC was into it and pushed it because of Sonic Youth's endorsement of the time. What killed Cobain was the fact that he was a narcissistic drug addict who needed to ditch his fucked up murder fame wife.

[JACkory]

They did have Sonic Youth's backing, didn't they?

As for why Cobain offed himself, I'm only going by what I remember about the suicide note, which was, if memory serves, a veritable treatise on how fame will fuck with a man.

I know...I said I wouldn't comment on lady gaga...but I would like to go on the record as saying that shock value is a hard act to sell over the long haul. Few have done it and still remained relevant (though, considering further, I have to wonder just what is relevant about gaga). Lady gaga is just childish, and that doesn't fly well when you consider that her lyrics are so calculated to offend. It seems to be worth very little more than a chance for MTV teens to say "Did she just say what I THINK she said? She DID? Oh, wow, how cool." Adulthood comes quickly and nonsense like hers is soon tossed to the side where it belongs.

[skvorecky]

She's really Marilyn Manson.