If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   If Universal and EMI merge, they will own 40% of the music industry, turning them into the Borg Collective of music   (theatlantic.com) divider line 70
    More: Scary, EMI, music industry, Borg collective, price-fixings, music streaming, B.B. King, Universal Music Group, mergers  
•       •       •

1177 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 May 2012 at 5:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-17 12:57:02 AM
Aren't there only like 4 bands in the world now anyway according to another huge conglomerate which owns 40% of all radio stations?

Meh. At this age I've got mostly all the music I ever want to own anyway. I would still prefer that this merger is not allowed to happen.
 
2012-05-17 05:16:53 AM
40% of the American music industry, or worldwide?

Most of my favorite bands are either foreign, and/or on small labels. So I don't hear any of them on local radio, ever.
 
2012-05-17 05:33:43 AM
I missed the bit where artists are forced to sign with this mega publisher.

Anyway - isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?
 
2012-05-17 05:38:36 AM
This merger is never going to happen. That's too big of a piece of the industry "pie." Guaranteed the government is going to stop this.
 
2012-05-17 05:46:12 AM
40 percent? think of the market domination and unfair adv.... wait, 40 percent is not anywhere near a monopoly.

How is this scary?
 
Skr
2012-05-17 05:48:53 AM

narkor: I missed the bit where artists are forced to sign with this mega publisher.


I get the feeling that it is a lot like Loans. In which the bank can sell off your loan or the bank can be bought out at anytime. With one umbrella controlling 40% of the music properties, it would be more likely that particular entity would buy out your producer/catalog. Or in the least, have the strong arm ability to ruin more musician's days.

And yeah, I see the future (current state) of music being more geared towards self published/small publisher through things like Spotify. Also leaning more towards single songs rather than albums with padding.
 
2012-05-17 05:54:00 AM
Piracy is killing the industry so it's no wonder they're considering this given how little money there is for them these days; they're basically charities. This is great news for consumers and fans of quality music alike, I'm sure.
 
2012-05-17 05:54:08 AM

narkor: I missed the bit where artists are forced to sign with this mega publisher.

Anyway - isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?


When was the last time you bought one of these albums?
 
2012-05-17 05:56:08 AM
The collective won't buy the shiat they peddle as music either.

SUCKS TO BE YOU big crappy music company.
 
2012-05-17 06:06:36 AM
collider.com

40%? That's like an arm and a leg.
 
2012-05-17 06:23:07 AM

Alphax: 40% of the American music industry, or worldwide?

Most of my favorite bands are either foreign, and/or on small labels. So I don't hear any of them on local radio, ever.


My favorite bands don't even have recording contracts.
 
2012-05-17 06:33:35 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Alphax: 40% of the American music industry, or worldwide?

Most of my favorite bands are either foreign, and/or on small labels. So I don't hear any of them on local radio, ever.

My favorite bands don't even have recording contracts.


Farking poser. I only listen to bands that haven't formed yet. It's great music to sit around not owning a TV to.
 
2012-05-17 06:35:50 AM
I was serious, and not trying to be hipster. Just illustrating the control the major labels have over US radio.
 
2012-05-17 06:38:00 AM
What's 40% of 0?
 
2012-05-17 06:49:22 AM

RDixon: What's 40% of 0?


$27.04 billion
 
2012-05-17 06:51:57 AM

narkor: I missed the bit where artists are forced to sign with this mega publisher.

Anyway - isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?


Kind like how bands arent forced to use ticketmaster?
 
2012-05-17 07:00:17 AM
$1.9 billion, that's cute. Apple spent that last week on a company that runs their on-campus shoe-shine business.
 
2012-05-17 07:05:56 AM
aka the Nickelborg.
 
2012-05-17 07:13:34 AM
I have never talked to anyone that worked at a record label, been to a recording studio or ever created anything in my life or know anything about how the industry actually works but I have a friend who is in a cover band and I am white male who went through college so that means I played guitar before I became a system admin so here's my opinion about a business paradigm that is dying because big fat cats smoke cigars in board rooms instead of giving music away free, which is a viable business model and the reason why Radiohead charged for their last album. Also, bands write albums full of filler. They purposefully write one hit song and then release filler because they love having one hit song and then watching their career tank.
 
2012-05-17 07:26:09 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I have never talked to anyone that worked at a record label, been to a recording studio or ever created anything in my life or know anything about how the industry actually works but I have a friend who is in a cover band and I am white male who went through college so that means I played guitar before I became a system admin so here's my opinion about a business paradigm that is dying because big fat cats smoke cigars in board rooms instead of giving music away free, which is a viable business model and the reason why Radiohead charged for their last album. Also, bands write albums full of filler. They purposefully write one hit song and then release filler because they love having one hit song and then watching their career tank.


You won't get credit for it, but I rate this above an average pocket ninja post.
 
2012-05-17 07:30:03 AM

narkor: isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?


Yes, it is.

Arcade Fire, as much as I seethingly hate them, are incredible representatives of that. As far as I know, they still don't belong to a label. They've won Grammy's I believe and Junos (Canadian version of a Grammy). They tour, sell out shows, sell merch, etc etc.
Remember that song by Aemon (sp) called "F*ck It, I don't want you back"? That was a #1 single or something, and it was recorded in a guy's bathroom. Songs are hits on YouTube before radio even plays it, IF they even do. Why do radio stations look at charts, they should be looking at youtube hits if they want to play what's popular. Rebecca Black made a fortune and was all over pop culture, despite not getting a single radio play.

Arcade Fire is the new business model, hence why the merger. If you talk to record reps, it's desperate out there. And they're trying to do the same thing they did to mp3's. Instead of embracing it, they reject and fight it. Ebb and flow, things change. The downsizing will be huge.

No, you absolutely do not need a label to make it anymore.
 
2012-05-17 07:40:19 AM

sure haven't: narkor: isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?

Yes, it is.

Arcade Fire, as much as I seethingly hate them, are incredible representatives of that. As far as I know, they still don't belong to a label. They've won Grammy's I believe and Junos (Canadian version of a Grammy). They tour, sell out shows, sell merch, etc etc.
Remember that song by Aemon (sp) called "F*ck It, I don't want you back"? That was a #1 single or something, and it was recorded in a guy's bathroom. Songs are hits on YouTube before radio even plays it, IF they even do. Why do radio stations look at charts, they should be looking at youtube hits if they want to play what's popular. Rebecca Black made a fortune and was all over pop culture, despite not getting a single radio play.

Arcade Fire is the new business model, hence why the merger. If you talk to record reps, it's desperate out there. And they're trying to do the same thing they did to mp3's. Instead of embracing it, they reject and fight it. Ebb and flow, things change. The downsizing will be huge.

No, you absolutely do not need a label to make it anymore.


Arcade Fire is distributed internationally by a Universal subsidiary.
 
2012-05-17 07:42:26 AM

bdub77: Aren't there only like 4 bands in the world now anyway according to another huge conglomerate which owns 40% of all radio stations?

Meh. At this age I've got mostly all the music I ever want to own anyway. I would still prefer that this merger is not allowed to happen.


And if you want to see those 4 bands in concert, there are complex and costly processing fees involved in getting tickets according to a ticket company that has rights to 90% of venues.:)
 
2012-05-17 07:44:37 AM

sure haven't: narkor: isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?

Yes, it is.

Arcade Fire, as much as I seethingly hate them, are incredible representatives of that. As far as I know, they still don't belong to a label. They've won Grammy's I believe and Junos (Canadian version of a Grammy). They tour, sell out shows, sell merch, etc etc.
Remember that song by Aemon (sp) called "F*ck It, I don't want you back"? That was a #1 single or something, and it was recorded in a guy's bathroom. Songs are hits on YouTube before radio even plays it, IF they even do. Why do radio stations look at charts, they should be looking at youtube hits if they want to play what's popular. Rebecca Black made a fortune and was all over pop culture, despite not getting a single radio play.

Arcade Fire is the new business model, hence why the merger. If you talk to record reps, it's desperate out there. And they're trying to do the same thing they did to mp3's. Instead of embracing it, they reject and fight it. Ebb and flow, things change. The downsizing will be huge.

No, you absolutely do not need a label to make it anymore.


arcadefirestealsfrommajorrecordlabels.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-17 07:49:07 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: SockMonkeyHolocaust: I have never talked to anyone that worked at a record label, been to a recording studio or ever created anything in my life or know anything about how the industry actually works but I have a friend who is in a cover band and I am white male who went through college so that means I played guitar before I became a system admin so here's my opinion about a business paradigm that is dying because big fat cats smoke cigars in board rooms instead of giving music away free, which is a viable business model and the reason why Radiohead charged for their last album. Also, bands write albums full of filler. They purposefully write one hit song and then release filler because they love having one hit song and then watching their career tank.

You won't get credit for it, but I rate this above an average pocket ninja post.


The run-on sentence structure adds gravitas too.
 
2012-05-17 07:51:36 AM

sure haven't: narkor: isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?

Yes, it is.

Arcade Fire, as much as I seethingly hate them, are incredible representatives of that. As far as I know, they still don't belong to a label. They've won Grammy's I believe and Junos (Canadian version of a Grammy). They tour, sell out shows, sell merch, etc etc.
Remember that song by Aemon (sp) called "F*ck It, I don't want you back"? That was a #1 single or something, and it was recorded in a guy's bathroom. Songs are hits on YouTube before radio even plays it, IF they even do. Why do radio stations look at charts, they should be looking at youtube hits if they want to play what's popular. Rebecca Black made a fortune and was all over pop culture, despite not getting a single radio play.

Arcade Fire is the new business model, hence why the merger. If you talk to record reps, it's desperate out there. And they're trying to do the same thing they did to mp3's. Instead of embracing it, they reject and fight it. Ebb and flow, things change. The downsizing will be huge.

No, you absolutely do not need a label to make it anymore.


Not a label, but distribution is important as is marketing and tour support. Labels used to supply those services, although they absolutely raped artists financially.
 
2012-05-17 08:08:42 AM
Are these the music companies that think people still buy CDs? And that any download without heavy DRM is a pirate activity?
 
2012-05-17 08:13:16 AM
Seeing as how artists are figuring services like kickstarter out, how long before the big conglomerates go after them?
 
2012-05-17 08:15:36 AM
I was browsing the used vinyl section yesterday and saw this. I had to LOL.

img100.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-17 08:17:07 AM

narkor: I missed the bit where artists are forced to sign with this mega publisher.

Anyway - isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?


The new contracts give the labels concert and t-shirt revenue as well.

The artists are farked.
 
2012-05-17 08:20:52 AM

stoli n coke: sure haven't: narkor: isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?

Yes, it is.

Arcade Fire, as much as I seethingly hate them, are incredible representatives of that. As far as I know, they still don't belong to a label. They've won Grammy's I believe and Junos (Canadian version of a Grammy). They tour, sell out shows, sell merch, etc etc.
Remember that song by Aemon (sp) called "F*ck It, I don't want you back"? That was a #1 single or something, and it was recorded in a guy's bathroom. Songs are hits on YouTube before radio even plays it, IF they even do. Why do radio stations look at charts, they should be looking at youtube hits if they want to play what's popular. Rebecca Black made a fortune and was all over pop culture, despite not getting a single radio play.

Arcade Fire is the new business model, hence why the merger. If you talk to record reps, it's desperate out there. And they're trying to do the same thing they did to mp3's. Instead of embracing it, they reject and fight it. Ebb and flow, things change. The downsizing will be huge.

No, you absolutely do not need a label to make it anymore.

Arcade Fire is distributed internationally by a Universal subsidiary.


Mercury in the UK and Merge in the US. Merge is indy. Mercury is not.
 
2012-05-17 08:22:43 AM

Alphax: I was serious, and not trying to be hipster. Just illustrating the control the major labels have over US radio.


I was going to post a snarky hipster picture, then I checked your profile. Looks like you already got that covered.
 
2012-05-17 08:52:52 AM
Andric

Re: I was browsing the used vinyl section yesterday and saw this. I had to LOL.

Yeah, I have several LPs with that "Home Taping Is Killing Music... And It's Illegal" thing on the sleeve.

Of course it didn't kill music, and it wasn't illegal, either.
 
2012-05-17 08:59:23 AM
Is this the thread where I mention K.Flay and McChris both just announced tour dates?
 
2012-05-17 09:05:53 AM

CarnySaur: aka the Nickelborg.


... now with more autotune.
 
2012-05-17 09:18:49 AM
No way the government will let that happen!

It's not like they've allowed the two biggest airlines to merge...

It's not like they allowed one of the biggest content owners to merge with one of the biggest content distributors...

It's not like they allowed the two biggest oil companies to merge...

It's not like they allowed the largest ticket seller to merge with the largest venue manager...
 
2012-05-17 09:35:18 AM
Not sure about you guys, but as a major lifelong rock/metal fan, I recall that in the 80's I knew what label every single band that I loved was on. It was part of, for some reason, the whole dynamic of the thing to me.

All my fave bands were on Elektra for some reason.

What happened to all these labels? Just absorbed? I mean, Island still exists. I know they had U2 back in the day but the next biggest band was... Anthrax. Thought they shiat the bed. Guess not. They have friggin' Justine Beaver!

Also, finding it SO strange that Rush has a distribution deal with... Roadrunner.
 
2012-05-17 09:36:58 AM
If you want to make music, do it for fun, not a living. The laws of supply and demand are not in your favor as an artist.
 
2012-05-17 09:40:14 AM
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net

/your music sucks
 
2012-05-17 09:47:10 AM

darch: Also, finding it SO strange that Rush has a distribution deal with... Roadrunner.


Roadrunner also distributed almost electronic acts
 
2012-05-17 09:47:18 AM
Apple controls the profit in the music industry.
 
2012-05-17 09:51:17 AM
Maybe they're faking
or all just money-making
 
kab
2012-05-17 09:57:08 AM

narkor:
Anyway - isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?


That's certainly the excuse of the week for pirating music.
 
kab
2012-05-17 10:06:27 AM

Shaggy_C: If you want to make music, do it for fun, not a living. The laws of supply and demand are not in your favor as an artist.


Not true, yo. Haven't you ever seen MTV cribs? It's like that for everyone. Besides, music costs absolutely nothing to make to begin with.
 
2012-05-17 10:22:18 AM

kab: narkor:
Anyway - isn't the new paradigm that that artists don't need labels, can be funded by Kickstarters when they need resources for a new Album, and that they are make all their music off touring and t-shirts?

That's certainly the excuse of the week for pirating music.


You must be really enjoying that fat check the RIAA gave you.
 
2012-05-17 11:01:59 AM

kab: Shaggy_C: If you want to make music, do it for fun, not a living. The laws of supply and demand are not in your favor as an artist.

Not true, yo. Haven't you ever seen MTV cribs? It's like that for everyone. Besides, music costs absolutely nothing to make to begin with.


So musical instruments are free?
 
2012-05-17 11:06:08 AM

charliebear: Apple controls the profit in the music industry.

lh4.googleusercontent.comblogs-images.forbes.com

/i wouldn't say they 'control' it
//but they get a cut of each track sold (from their site, before someone gets stupid)
/and the original producer gets 66¢, Apple takes 33¢
//on 99¢ songs
/of course the RIAA was greedy and forced teired pricing
//guess who went back to pirating
/all the good music's already been made, and I own it
 
2012-05-17 11:16:48 AM

Andric: I was browsing the used vinyl section yesterday and saw this. I had to LOL.

[img100.imageshack.us image 480x640]


Definitely LOL worthy. Reminds me of "Don't copy that floppy."

/Also, it's a great album.
 
2012-05-17 11:33:10 AM
I'm going to be honest, I love music piracy. It's easy, I can port it over to any device I want, and I get exposed to bands I usually wouldn't consider, as I'm not going to spend money on their cd without hearing most of it first (I've learned that lesson well). I've honestly never felt bad about it, even though a lot of people hate it. I'll still buy merch from the bands I love and still see them live, and I will buy their cd at a show if I want an autograph or something...maybe that's why I don't feel bad about it, I dunno.
 
2012-05-17 12:00:47 PM
What is this, "music industry" you speak of?
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report