What is Digg?137 Comments
- bioxeed, on 01/03/2008, -2/+227Title is a bit misleading. Should be something like "Radiohead: Artists often screwed by record labels for digital downloads"
- allaboutdatiki, on 01/03/2008, -4/+133' ... selling the new album, In Rainbows, directly to fans made the band more money from digital distribution than "all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever." '
- iceman0113, on 01/03/2008, -2/+96Weird Al: "It costs the label NOTHING for somebody to download an album (no manufacturing costs, shipping, or really any overhead of any kind) and yet the artist (me) winds up making less from it. Go figure." He says he makes more from cds, sad that a record label would screw over their own bread and butter.
- TStanNY, on 01/03/2008, -3/+64Thom Yorke is the ***** man
- tynansanger, on 01/03/2008, -0/+55This should serve as a model for why the WGA writers have every reason to strike.
- Aensland, on 01/03/2008, -1/+54Just goes to show how the real crooks and liars ripping the artistes off aren't fileswapping college kids, but the record companies themselves. Like 2-bit thieves versus organised crime.
- Dumbledorito, on 01/03/2008, -2/+36"...digital downloads for artists are a bad deal under most recording contracts."
Shouldn't the headline read "Artists Often Screwed by Recording Contracts," then? - drummerbrother, on 01/03/2008, -1/+34No kidding. I can't wait to see the fall of the major record companies, at least in their current form, who have pillaged from artists for far too long now.
- roguedragon, on 01/03/2008, -1/+31Bioxeed is correct. Title is misleading. Record labels are evil and will try to screw anyone they can, period, regardless of the medium used. If you were to point fingers at anybody for being malicious thieves, it should be at the studios first. They're the king pirates of the music world.
- roamzero, on 01/03/2008, -2/+22A band like Radiohead is already an established brand, so to speak. So it is no wonder that their direct-download album has been successful. The problem, though, is if relatively unknown bands can replicate such success? I see labels as sticking around, if only for the purpose of marketing lesser known bands. That is, until there comes a popular digital service or services that can accurately recommend bands (famous or not) relative to one's individual tastes.
- Kronos6948, on 01/03/2008, -3/+19You sign because you need distribution and advertising funds up front. Otherwise you'll just stay local.
- signal15, on 01/03/2008, -1/+16My friend's dad has something like 22 albums out. Not only is he COMPLETELY uncompensated for digital downloads, even on iTunes, he gets nearly nothing from CD sales. The only way he makes money is from live shows, which is why he loves it when people pirate his music.
- jameshighmore, on 01/03/2008, -3/+14What Thom meant was that their digital revenue from In Rainbows has far exceeded their DIGITAL revenue from their previous albums put together. And when you realise that is what he meant, the quote loses some weight. I mean, when Pablo Honey was released nobody had ever considered digital distribution, whereas In Rainbows was released EXCLUSIVELY online to begin with.
- maaaaark, on 01/03/2008, -2/+12And this youtube video confirms that fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfd6LgcuCsc - edicius, on 01/03/2008, -1/+10I don't think you understand any of this.
- thebassmaster, on 01/03/2008, -2/+10i couldnt have put it better myself
- sloonark, on 01/03/2008, -4/+11This quote is a bit misleading, IMO. If you read the original interview it's clear that he's only talking about downloads. In other words, profits from In Rainbows downloads > profits from older Radiohead downloads. It's not comparing In Rainbows to earlier Radiohead CD sales.
- robshoy, on 01/03/2008, -2/+9Did anyone notice that In Rainbows is on iTunes now, with some "exclusive" podcast thing? I thought they left iTunes. Am I missing something?
- CrimsonBlur, on 01/03/2008, -0/+7He could, but not the music he recorded while signed to the record label. At 22 albums, whatever signing deal he made has surely expired, so he can probably get out of the contract at any time. The problem is he most likely does not own any of his past work, the label holds the copyrights.
- inactive, on 01/03/2008, -0/+7And I quote, from paragraph two of the article in question... 'He went on to say that selling the new album, In Rainbows, directly to fans made the band more money from digital distribution than "all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever."'
- mooninite, on 01/03/2008, -1/+7What's needed then?
A website that *is* a record label. They only deal with digital downloads. Offer artists an 80/20 deal. Offer FLAC and Ogg/MP3 downloads. I'd think this would rocket off, causing sites like Amazon, eMusic, and iTunes to want a piece. Maybe Amazon can extend their services to become a record label themselves?
Of course I'm patenting this idea and any website that starts up after today will have to pay me royalties. ;) - acidbass, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6screwing over artists *IS* their bread and butter. It has always been this way since the mid 1970s.
- sodade, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6To top it off, there were people like me who gave them 20$ to make up for getting some of their CDs for free.
- sdellboy, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6The two things that will be dead by 2012 (if not earlier): record companies (to be replaced by touring companies instead) and crappy radio stations.
I for one welcome our record-company-less rock band overlords.... - stragee, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6I haven't purchased a CD for a long time. But this weekend I plan to purchase In Rainbows. Not only because the music kicks arse, but because I believe in what these guys stand for. Music should be set free! It's getting to the point where the RIAA doesn't even want people to rip their own CD's! Well I downloaded In Rainbows for free, so does that mean when I buy the CD I have to delete my downloaded copies. H*ell no!
Record labels have been screwing artists for years. It's time we put a stop this! Support the movement. - inactive, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5They were never on iTunes when they were with EMI. I guess they don't have a problem with putting In Rainbows on iTunes after signing with XL and ATO. (independent labels)
- pigfister, on 01/03/2008, -2/+7Call the cok suckers what they are:
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
sony, disney and fox are the MPAA they use piracy to scare monger ppl then make DRM secuROM, xcp and sell it to movie/game/cd makers and get paid from all sides and get fat while its the consumers that lose out as we are told we are pirates by sony for wanting to play our legally purchased cd's on our ipods because sony want 1 licence per device per user to quadruple their profits from each household, kinda like the military industrial complex.
Steal this film 2 a great FREE bittorrent documentary about the record/movie industry's demise and the gatekeepers of media are now being bypassed and they are scared as hell. http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/ - inactive, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5Major labels do not market lesser known bands unless they're pretty damn certain that they're going to be successful. Indie labels do, and they can stick around forever (and I hope they do.) It's the big four and affiliates that are the problem.
- jjremy, on 01/03/2008, -1/+6hail to the thief.
- dealseeker, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5But "Music labels screw everyone" isn't really news, now, is it?
- dealseeker, on 01/03/2008, -1/+6If someone put a bullet to your head, it would be quite unlikely that you'd end up signing anything.
"bullet to head" => 18,400 results
Did you mean "gun to head"? - njs1970, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5The big record companies and labels KNOW this is the beginning of the end of the monopoly they've been enjoying since the 50s and they're starting to crap themselves. Not only from piracy but also because artists are starting to wise up to the fact they can record, promote, build a fan-base and make the money they deserve - all without the "help" of a label or record company.
Lily Allen, Kate Nash, the Arctic Monkeys are just 3 in the last couple of years that did this and yes, they did eventually sign to a record company (hopefully for a ***** of money), I'm guessing partly because at the time the UK chart didn't include downloads so it would have been difficult to make the leap to national and worldwide success.
The UK Chart now include downloads, so you don't have to be signed anymore (Koopa wasn't and they charted twice last year) - you can use MySpace, iTunes and all the other websites and services out there to break the Top 40 and get the exposure. Sure, you might want to sign to get the financial backing of a record company but for the first time artists have a real choice.
That said, the charts aren't the be-all-and end-all of everything. :o) - stretta, on 01/03/2008, -1/+5Or better yet: Artists Are Always Screwed by Record Labels According to the Terms of the Agreement They Knowingly Signed
I know I'm going to get dugg down for this but, here goes: I dislike record companies as much as the next person. The whole suing the grandmother etc... thing is obviously a sign of an industry out of touch, but, let's be honest with ourselves. They're no more or less evil than any other corporation in existence. A corporation exists to make money for their shareholders. That is there primary reason for their existence. Plenty of corporations do really horrible things like poisoning the environment or exploiting child labor. This happens ALL THE TIME. But, you read about the RIAA 100x more.
Musicians are perfectly welcome not to sign that contact. No one pointed a gun at their heads. But, we get ourselves in a tizzy HURR! RECORD COMPANIES EVIL HURR!
Why is that? Think about it. - borez, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4Err mid 70's? It was happening way before that m8
- peestandingup, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4Or better yet: Artists Are ALWAYS Screwed by Record Labels
- CrimsonBlur, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4How would you know for certain there's no bullet in the gun?
- Sikarian, on 01/03/2008, -1/+5Pandora. Pandora learns what you like and introduces you to artists that are similar to your wants as a music listener. I personally have found many new bands I've never heard of before with pandora, and purchased albums accordingly. www.pandora.com for those interested.
- Kronos6948, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4You don't understand that most bands don't make money like that. Hell, I doubt Radiohead makes that much. It's probably more like $100,000 a year per band member. Then they have to pay the road crew, and rent the venues and such. All that stuff costs. Plus, they're paying for a worldwide release of the actual CD. That costs money too. A lot more goes into making music without a record label than some people think.
That being said, Weird Al had the best quote of the story. He got less money from digital downloads, and the record companies don't have hardly any overhead when it comes to DD, simply because they don't have to press the CDs, make the inserts, buy cases, ETC. - thailand1972, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3So signing to a label is necessary?
- AamirM, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4No one except Don Corleone.
- Aensland, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3It was a necessary evil. Times change, this should change too.
- sdellboy, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3I paid $6 for the Radiohead album. Didn't have to. Just did. Stupid? Or appreciative of worth?
- ozydingo, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3True, except no one said that the artists don't benefit at all from the contract with the label. If they didn't then the labels would lose all of their customers (artists, not consumers) pretty damn quickly. So the artists typically choose between "go nowhere" and "get ***** in the ass with digital sales, but get famous and make money touring, or maybe even a bit selling CDs."
What this assertion does do, however, is once again reveal as a lie the statement that digital piracy is like taking money out of the artists' pockets, even if it were possible to equate each digital download with a would-have-been-sale, which itself is obviously a gross exaggeration. - crapmatic, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3I can definitely tell the difference between 96 and 128, but not 128 and 196... or 320 for that matter. Then again I don't have more than $500 worth of equipment.
- Myztry, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3Never heard of either. But I'm all for it.
What's the difference between legacy labels and the the new world????? Familiarity and bankroll... Takes money to make money! - JohnFlux, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3Can he deal with iTunes directly or something to sell his music?
- thailand1972, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3lol - "just a service" - it also costs a LOT of money - that's the hard bit.
- pseudononymist, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4you should read his full interview--he didn't say don't sign with a label, he just says make sure you don't get screwed on the digital downloads when you do.
- smacksaw, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3I have friends who are/were in several commercially successful bands, as well as people who work for record labels and I can assure you that most of them don't make ***** for money. They get paid in freebies and goodies - yes. Expense accounts. But the people who make the money are the executives.
I know people who are/were in bands and sold hundreds of thousands of albums and left in debt to the label.
The way you make money is to fulfill your contract, be at the apex of your popularity and then renegotiate a new contract where you own your publishing or get back your publishing. But the ***** thing is that the label usually will tank the promotion of your last record with them so that you're in a weaker position to negotiate and then release a greatest hits record that they make a ton of money on. The artist usually loses creative control on the "best of" album, they can't tour to support them as there is no new material and they often have to give up the rights to the profit from the album to get their publishing back IF they can even get it.
It's absolutely horrible. I was very close to a career in the music industry and I praise God every day I didn't do it when I see articles like this. - thailand1972, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3Exactly. In fact, from the article:-
"Of course, if you're Radiohead, the built-in publicity makes a direct-to-fans model much easier than if you're, say, the "Free As In Beer" out of Dayton, Ohio."
It's kind of irrelevant what Thom Yorke thinks on this issue - his situation is 100% different to all new bands who aren't signed to a label in the first place. He's saying don't sign to a label? Problem with that is : nobody listens to music that isn't on a label (the great irony). So your chances of making it remotely big are greatly reduced if you don't sign to label. If you sign to a label, you might get screwed with record sales relatively speaking, but you'll make your money through other means by being a band signed to a label. I'd rather be rich, but screwed over with record sales, than poor and avoid being screwed over by a record company. -
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is