The downfall of the music industry is at the forefront of anyone's mind who enjoys music or would like a career in the biz. Formats are changing, physical sales are speedily declining, music download thieves are rife and online streaming programmes means there's less money circulating around the industry. That precise observation is something that industry bigwigs are going to have to come to terms with if they don't want to cock up what's left of the music culture.
I'm not writing this as a music fan, who is very happy that I can stream tunes from Spotify and easily download illegal songs, transfer them on to my mp3 player and shun any guilt that may befall me when I hear that great band's album before it's released.. because... despite that being the case now, this behaviour will make it impossible to sustain the music industry for much longer. Which is why I don't understand why music execs seem to be sitting on their arses and not cracking down (no pun intended) on this behaviour that resonates throughout the globe.
Firstly, why bother with three strikes when it comes to catching illegal downloaders? The judge in a local magistrates wouldn't apply this rule to someone who just mugged an old woman, so why use it for something that's equally illegal? Also, if anybody can let me know why Limewire hasn't been shut down yet, I'd love to know. Why doesn't Sony get the work experience guy to spend a day searching for such applications and forwarding the results to the person who can pull their plugs?
The mathematics is this: illegal downloads + less sales = less money for the artists. Pop fans (myself included) harp up and say, "Well this is fine, the money's in live music". Well I had a long think about this in the shower, I concluded that this is true for major pop stars, some of them could probably take a cut of money out their wages, it'll be a long time before they're seen down at the Jobcentre. For obscure or new bands, their journey to making enough money to sustain a career of music will be more troublesome but I completely disagree with the opinion it's all over for them. I think it might even be a good thing.
The perceived problem for smaller bands, new bands, obscure bands is that if people are illegally downloading their material, they're making no money out of sales, so they can't afford to tour and make more music and will eventually disband. Well the internet is a wonderful thing, it should be made easier for bands to set up their own "music shop" on their websites or a collective music shop for similar sounding artists.
I realise that these smaller bands will not have much by way of promotion, but even now, fans of this music don't just stumble across music on Smash Hits or Radio 1, they go looking for it. There are still plenty of platforms to promote music on the internet.. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook etc. If there were multiple genre music shops dotted about the internet, there could be a download chart on there too.
Even if it cost a bit of money, this would filter out all the amateurish, musical crap from people who just fancied being in a band for a day and whack up a track or two on Myspace. It'd leave the dedicated musicians to have a real shot at being successful. Yes it would be a longer process of raising the money to properly record songs, promote them, sell them and then go on tour and hope for the best, but it's still possible.
I also think that the concept of a weekly music magazine is old-fashioned. Why would you pay to view pages about music when you can the multi-media experience of the internet for free? Advertising revenues would increase and more money would be accumulated if professional blogs and music websites charged for their content (I'm speaking from a music biz viewpoint here, not a music fan). Then maybe a monthly magazine with a round up and physical gifts/cd/whatever would flourish alongside it. If this happened, I would have no qualms in paying a subscription for Popjustice.
We've got it good with Spotify too, all that free music for a couple of adverts every 20mins? Bargain! Warner have come out claiming it's had a damaging effect on sales and of course it would. It's an incredible discovery for music fans but record companies have been forced to sign up to it because it's a last ditch attempt at making money out of music. If I wanted to bleed every penny I could out of the music buying public, I'd allow the singles from bands/artists to be available on Spotify but then charge to listen/download the album.. like back in the old days when a single, on one level, was a promotional tool for the album.
We are living in the golden age of media freebies.. free films, free music, free tv programmes... it can't last much longer if top bosses want to maximise profit for their companies. Music industry chiefs need to accept that music is not the focal point of youth culture anymore, it is inevitable that there just cannot be as much money lining their pockets. Once this is firmly etched into their brains, they can begin to think of way to drain money out of a new era in music consumption. It is not the end.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Playing with N-Dubz & Mr H.
Slight more light hearted moaning today.. just had to comment on the latest music video offering from N-Dubz and Kanye's mate, Mr Hudson. If you haven't seen it already.. here it is...
A few things to note about this video:
A few things to note about this video:
- How uncomfortable Mr Hudson looks. It must be difficult working with worldwide stars such as Kanye West and Jay-Z, only to be dragged back to the heart of London to work with number one charva pop band N-Dubz. (Just to note.. I actually quite like N-Dubz music and I know that Dappy's a twat).
- Who goes to bed with black, glittery, leathery looking pants on?! Get down to Primark and buy some pj bottoms love.
- What the f**k is Dappy wearing on his head??? The usual elongated bobble hat has doubled into a cross between a pilot and a jester's hat.
- How much Mr Hudson sings out the side of his mouth.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Smear Tests
Today's moan is at the government. Prepare yourselves for a lot of these as I have become quite interested in politics and how tragic our future is going to be if there isn't some kind of change. i.e lying, pompous dickheads out... honest folk with common sense, in.
First on my agenda is the issue of smear tests. I recently joined a facebook group called 'Rosie's Cancer Story'.. it was set up by a girl from South Shields who has a type of cervical cancer and wants to update her friends/family at once about what's happening to her. She also hopes it'll raise awareness about the disease.
(If anyone wants to show their support or follow her journey -> http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=ts#/group.php?gid=247631468067)
She's such a brave girl and I think it's very selfless to publish what's happening to her at such a difficult time. If anything else, it'll also help people who have recently been diagnosed to see what may happen. I can't even begin to imagine what would go through your brain if you were diagnosed with cancer but at least some questions about what to expect will be answered through her diary.
The main focus of today's moan is that the government are refusing to lower the age that woman can have a smear test. Currently, you have to be 25 to qualify for this test yet I read somewhere (can't find the exact reference now) that cervical cancer is one of the biggest killers of women from the ages of 20 to 29. If that's the case then why on god's earth are women from the ages of 20 to 24 not even allowed to be tested???
Furthermore, the HPV vaccine is currently in a "catch-up stage" whereby girls aged between 16 and 18 from autumn 2009, and girls aged between 15 and 17 from autumn 2010 will be vaccinated... what about the rest of us who don't quality for a smear test and are too old to be vaccinated because "it would not be cost effective in preventing cervical cancer"????
Of course the health minister hit back with a plethora of reasons why the age limit should remain at 25 but surely it's worth the risks to get yourself checked out rather than dying of a completely preventable disease? Or if the risks are simply too high, how about researching into a new procedure that's relatively safe?
The reason that this has aggravated me so suddenly is because of a petition that I've been sent to sign. It's from a lady whose 23 year-old daughter passed away from the disease who was due to have her first smear test the year after. This is the message she has written on the petition:
Here's the link to her petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/smear20/
This is a slightly more serious moan than I orginally intended this blog to contain but there you are. It's an important issue that wound me up. I abhorrently disagree that a certain regime can dictate my life... deciding at what point I am able to test for cancer, raising tuition fees, cutting back on public spending etc. How about abolishing expenses and paying for your mortgage/commute/duck shelters/porn with your salary like everybody else? I have absolutely no faith in our political parties whatsoever which is a terrifying thought as one of them has to run this country.
Anyway ciao for now, thanks for reading :)
p.s remember to sign the petition!!
First on my agenda is the issue of smear tests. I recently joined a facebook group called 'Rosie's Cancer Story'.. it was set up by a girl from South Shields who has a type of cervical cancer and wants to update her friends/family at once about what's happening to her. She also hopes it'll raise awareness about the disease.
(If anyone wants to show their support or follow her journey -> http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=ts#/group.php?gid=247631468067)
She's such a brave girl and I think it's very selfless to publish what's happening to her at such a difficult time. If anything else, it'll also help people who have recently been diagnosed to see what may happen. I can't even begin to imagine what would go through your brain if you were diagnosed with cancer but at least some questions about what to expect will be answered through her diary.
The main focus of today's moan is that the government are refusing to lower the age that woman can have a smear test. Currently, you have to be 25 to qualify for this test yet I read somewhere (can't find the exact reference now) that cervical cancer is one of the biggest killers of women from the ages of 20 to 29. If that's the case then why on god's earth are women from the ages of 20 to 24 not even allowed to be tested???
Furthermore, the HPV vaccine is currently in a "catch-up stage" whereby girls aged between 16 and 18 from autumn 2009, and girls aged between 15 and 17 from autumn 2010 will be vaccinated... what about the rest of us who don't quality for a smear test and are too old to be vaccinated because "it would not be cost effective in preventing cervical cancer"????
Of course the health minister hit back with a plethora of reasons why the age limit should remain at 25 but surely it's worth the risks to get yourself checked out rather than dying of a completely preventable disease? Or if the risks are simply too high, how about researching into a new procedure that's relatively safe?
The reason that this has aggravated me so suddenly is because of a petition that I've been sent to sign. It's from a lady whose 23 year-old daughter passed away from the disease who was due to have her first smear test the year after. This is the message she has written on the petition:
my daughter sadly passed away on 17th august 2009 to cervical cancer aged just 23 years, leaving 2 little girls aged 5 and 18 months. if the age limit hadn't been changed from 20 to 25 in 2004, my daughter would have had her first smear in 2005 and would still be here today. too many young girls under the age of 25 are dying unnecessarily the age limit now needs to be lowered back to 20, please show your support by signing this petitionImagine if that was your mother, sister, daughter, cousin etc..?
Here's the link to her petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/smear20/
This is a slightly more serious moan than I orginally intended this blog to contain but there you are. It's an important issue that wound me up. I abhorrently disagree that a certain regime can dictate my life... deciding at what point I am able to test for cancer, raising tuition fees, cutting back on public spending etc. How about abolishing expenses and paying for your mortgage/commute/duck shelters/porn with your salary like everybody else? I have absolutely no faith in our political parties whatsoever which is a terrifying thought as one of them has to run this country.
Anyway ciao for now, thanks for reading :)
p.s remember to sign the petition!!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
McElderry vs RATM/Simon Cowell vs The People
It's probably a bit late to voice my opinion on the whole Christmas number one fiasco of 2009. If anyone was too busy living in a cave at the end of the year, metal band Rage Against the Machine grabbed the number one spot leaving poor Joe McEldreee of X Factor fame dwindling at number two with a horrendously bland cover of Miley Cyrus' The Climb.
As you may have gathered from my last post, I'm an X factor fanatic. However, this does not mean that I would prefer a regurgitated, predictably monotonous single to clinch the overly coveted Christmas 2009 number one slot. I like Joe McElderry, he's a sweet boy and he's got a good voice. I feel a bit sorry for Joe in that he now has the stigma of being 'the only X-factor winner not to have a Christmas number one'. But.... it shouldn't be like that in the first place.
What I got out of AAAALLLL the coverage/hooplah about this 'chart battle' is... the X factor winner should not automatically get a number one. It shouldn't be expected. Which is why I was very pleased that RATM fans (or anti-X factor peeps.. there are a lot of them!) bought the single and pushed it to the top of the charts. I also don't give a monkeys whose bank account the money cher-chinged in to or how the two record labels were somehow intertwined. What I found fascinating about it was how a social network site (Facebook) was the platform on which thousands of people joined together to fight the X factor and what it represents. Moreover, RATM pipped Joe to the post on downloads alone. Even with the added advantage of physical CD sales and discounted online single sales, Geordie Joe came up the rear (no alternative meaning intended).
It's a shame that the chart system is going down the pan, nobody seems to care anymore. A number one single isn't as cherished as it once was. RATM vs Joe McElderry made it interesting again, I wonder if that's the last time? Maybe this event also shows that the X Factor isn't such as huge media giant sucking up and shitting out all that's good in music. It just shows that if enough people care then something can be done. It's just a sad fact that music isn't the number one priority anymore. Xboxes and all that are getting in the way.
Just to clarify.. I do love X Factor, as an entertainment programme, not necessarily a music one. I enjoy watching bad auditions and then following the genuinely talented people because I enjoy watching good singers. As for John and Edward, they weren't the best singers but I was so happy they stayed in the competition as long as they did. They were the most entertaining out of the rest of them and didn't deserve half of the flack that people gave them (and still are). They were just two dillusional lads from Ireland who want to fulfil their aspirations of singing like the Backstreet Boys so they auditioned for this programme. It was the four judges who allowed them to progress through bootcamp, Louis Walsh put them through to the final twelve and the public kept them in until whichever week they were booted out. None of it was their fault and there was genuine hate circulating around the press, the internet, the streets! Poor lads.
Anyway, enough ranting about John and Edward. I think I've vented some steam on the X factor subject. Everything worked out in the end: Rage Against the Machine got Christmas number one, Joe managed to get a number one the next week and Jedward are releasing a single (with Vanilla Ice.... oh dear).
As you may have gathered from my last post, I'm an X factor fanatic. However, this does not mean that I would prefer a regurgitated, predictably monotonous single to clinch the overly coveted Christmas 2009 number one slot. I like Joe McElderry, he's a sweet boy and he's got a good voice. I feel a bit sorry for Joe in that he now has the stigma of being 'the only X-factor winner not to have a Christmas number one'. But.... it shouldn't be like that in the first place.
What I got out of AAAALLLL the coverage/hooplah about this 'chart battle' is... the X factor winner should not automatically get a number one. It shouldn't be expected. Which is why I was very pleased that RATM fans (or anti-X factor peeps.. there are a lot of them!) bought the single and pushed it to the top of the charts. I also don't give a monkeys whose bank account the money cher-chinged in to or how the two record labels were somehow intertwined. What I found fascinating about it was how a social network site (Facebook) was the platform on which thousands of people joined together to fight the X factor and what it represents. Moreover, RATM pipped Joe to the post on downloads alone. Even with the added advantage of physical CD sales and discounted online single sales, Geordie Joe came up the rear (no alternative meaning intended).
It's a shame that the chart system is going down the pan, nobody seems to care anymore. A number one single isn't as cherished as it once was. RATM vs Joe McElderry made it interesting again, I wonder if that's the last time? Maybe this event also shows that the X Factor isn't such as huge media giant sucking up and shitting out all that's good in music. It just shows that if enough people care then something can be done. It's just a sad fact that music isn't the number one priority anymore. Xboxes and all that are getting in the way.
Just to clarify.. I do love X Factor, as an entertainment programme, not necessarily a music one. I enjoy watching bad auditions and then following the genuinely talented people because I enjoy watching good singers. As for John and Edward, they weren't the best singers but I was so happy they stayed in the competition as long as they did. They were the most entertaining out of the rest of them and didn't deserve half of the flack that people gave them (and still are). They were just two dillusional lads from Ireland who want to fulfil their aspirations of singing like the Backstreet Boys so they auditioned for this programme. It was the four judges who allowed them to progress through bootcamp, Louis Walsh put them through to the final twelve and the public kept them in until whichever week they were booted out. None of it was their fault and there was genuine hate circulating around the press, the internet, the streets! Poor lads.
Anyway, enough ranting about John and Edward. I think I've vented some steam on the X factor subject. Everything worked out in the end: Rage Against the Machine got Christmas number one, Joe managed to get a number one the next week and Jedward are releasing a single (with Vanilla Ice.... oh dear).
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Jedward & The X Factor
John and Edward triumphed over Lucy this Sunday on the most shocking X factor result yet. I can't actually believe the furore and panic this has caused... clearly evident by just how many facebook statuses are dedicated to the show!
It is an ENTERTAINMENT television show people.
Just to clarify.. I don't intend on buying John & Edward's music, I'd rather they weren't the Christmas number one and I think Lucie can sing a hell of a lot better.
However, I love these wacky-haired Irish kids. They make me cry with laughter on a Saturday night and that's what I want from an entertainment programme. It isn't their fault that they are progressing through the programme each week, it's fools like me who are ringing up and voting for them.
If I was Lucie/Lucie's family/Dannii, then I'd be pissed off yes, but I'm not. I am an ITV viewer who craves cringey, cheesy teenagers singing Ghostbusters with an awesome production behind them.
If Lucie has got such an amazing voice, she'll get a record contract and do well for herself anyway. What will happen if the twins win it? They'll release a single or two then fade into oblivion.. so what? They are two young lads, having fun and entertaining the likes of me on a saturday night.
It is not the be all and end all of someone's music career if they don't win the x factor. The music industry has worked for decades without it and doesn't need people to win the programme to have a lasting career in it.
It is an ENTERTAINMENT television show people.
Just to clarify.. I don't intend on buying John & Edward's music, I'd rather they weren't the Christmas number one and I think Lucie can sing a hell of a lot better.
However, I love these wacky-haired Irish kids. They make me cry with laughter on a Saturday night and that's what I want from an entertainment programme. It isn't their fault that they are progressing through the programme each week, it's fools like me who are ringing up and voting for them.
If I was Lucie/Lucie's family/Dannii, then I'd be pissed off yes, but I'm not. I am an ITV viewer who craves cringey, cheesy teenagers singing Ghostbusters with an awesome production behind them.
If Lucie has got such an amazing voice, she'll get a record contract and do well for herself anyway. What will happen if the twins win it? They'll release a single or two then fade into oblivion.. so what? They are two young lads, having fun and entertaining the likes of me on a saturday night.
It is not the be all and end all of someone's music career if they don't win the x factor. The music industry has worked for decades without it and doesn't need people to win the programme to have a lasting career in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
