Its copying something, not taking anything. Still against the law, without a doubt.
Yes, yes. Anyway. While Pete's not entirely on the ball here, I doubt many of the slaggers have read the full transcript and in any case why so scathing and full of bile toward the man? As a working musician myself it's been an astonishing experience to not only have sales diminish massively due to piracy but to also be pilloried for daring to whisper a protest. Suddenly anyone with a record deal or an indi set up is some kind of rich whining arsehole according to the great washed masses and their squeaky clean consciences, and of course there's no hard work involved in any of it, we just automate a plug and you get your compressed mp3. Face it, the nerve is on fire because it gets hit every time one of the actual makers of what you steal makes a peep. If you want Katy perry and lady blah then that's what you'll get and the quality will just keep dropping. The real ones out there can't survive and frankly can't give a f@@k about the likes of you. One more disappointing result in from the social contract experiment.
Pete did very well under the old system. The rock bands, the big ones, of the '60s struck it rich because of the youth culture buying albums. It was nearly a religion for millions. For about ten years, the labels couldn't control the big acts. The Beatles left Capitol and founded their own label, and they and the big acts got very wealthy and independent. The labels were careful never to let that happen again. Apple is not a label, so they're not going to invest in artist's careers. Apple's a record shop. A big record shop. That's all. Now, Pete wants the labels of the '60s back. The agreements Jobs made didn't envision an Apple label. Should Apple, and Amazon and Google -- to name a few -- be the new labels? Well, maybe. But I don't think they want the hassle, putting together all the deals, forming new entities that nurture careers a publicize and market. Maybe Silicon Valley could just buy the labels and spin off labels for the 21st century.
Pete did very well under the old system. The rock bands, the big ones, of the '60s struck it rich because of the youth culture buying albums. It was nearly a religion for millions. For about ten years, the labels couldn't control the big acts. The Beatles left Capitol and founded their own label, and they and the big acts got very wealthy and independent. The labels were careful never to let that happen again. Apple is not a label, so they're not going to invest in artist's careers. Apple's a record shop. A big record shop. That's all. Now, Pete wants the labels of the '60s back. The agreements Jobs made didn't envision an Apple label. Should Apple, and Amazon and Google -- to name a few -- be the new labels? Well, maybe. But I don't think they want the hassle, putting together all the deals, forming new entities that nurture careers a publicize and market. Maybe Silicon Valley could just buy the labels and spin off labels for the 21st century.
Oh, he's absolutely off the mark to be talking about recreating the old system - that's never going to happen. And major labels since the late 90's have been nothing but whorehouses. Just not sure why average Joe seems to take his comments as personally offensive and a call to arms against the greedy, albeit, oddly, mostly poor musicians and songwriters, who threaten the decent hard working, reasonably recompensed non-musicians of the world. Two reasons perhaps - a slow cooked resentment for the mythical lassez faire existence of rock n roll Joe, and the fact that average Joe is downloading a shiteload of his product illegally and he doesn't want to be reminded, least of all by a 'dinosaur' who obviously didn't earn any of his money by being unique, visionary, passionate, bloody hard working, sacrificial of health, family and happiness (sound familiar Steve-ites?).
Costs more to record a song in a studio (studio kids, not Gband) than it does to make an ipod, but nobody's saying stealing millions of ipods would be hunky dory. This is by no means a criticism of Apple, a fabulous company, love the stuff, please fix Logic and the multicore fiasco. Anyway, no going back Pete, and by the way most people here hate you as well. They sure play a mean cracked version of pinball.
Oh, he's absolutely off the mark to be talking about recreating the old system - that's never going to happen. And major labels since the late 90's have been nothing but whorehouses. Just not sure why average Joe seems to take his comments as personally offensive and a call to arms against the greedy, albeit, oddly, mostly poor musicians and songwriters, who threaten the decent hard working, reasonably recompensed non-musicians of the world. Two reasons perhaps - a slow cooked resentment for the mythical lassez faire existence of rock n roll Joe, and the fact that average Joe is downloading a shiteload of his product illegally and he doesn't want to be reminded, least of all by a 'dinosaur' who obviously didn't earn any of his money by being unique, visionary, passionate, bloody hard working, sacrificial of health, family and happiness (sound familiar Steve-ites?).
That's the problem though, because he was talking about recreating parts of the old system, leading to the suggestion that maybe his input on this subject is cloudy.
Some of it might be a misinterpretation. The line where music fans should treat music like food, pay for every helping, at least was interpreted by myself and maybe others as a pay for every play. So that is probably a poor metaphor.
He mentioned that Apple takes 30% of every track sale, but the speech made no acknowledgement that retail margin is often 40% or more, and that Apple's music business isn't a high margin service. The real real vampire in this case is the label, they usually only give a single digit percentage of the sale price. They royally screwed over their acts long before iTunes. It seems to me that iTunes is the scapegoat in that case.
I don't recall anyone in this thread openly suggesting illegal downloads. It's likely several people were thinking it, but finding an individual's motivations can be fraught with error.
That's the problem though, because he was talking about recreating parts of the old system, leading to the suggestion that maybe his input on this subject is cloudy.
Some of it might be a misinterpretation. The line where music fans should treat music like food, pay for every helping, at least was interpreted by myself and maybe others as a pay for every play. So that is probably a poor metaphor.
He mentioned that Apple takes 30% of every track sale, but the speech made no acknowledgement that retail margin is often 40% or more, and that Apple's music business isn't a high margin service. The real real vampire in this case is the label, they usually only give a single digit percentage of the sale price. They royally screwed over their acts long before iTunes. It seems to me that iTunes is the scapegoat in that case.
I don't recall anyone in this thread openly suggesting illegal downloads. It's likely several people were thinking it, but finding an individual's motivations can be fraught with error.
Sorry to keep this going, these are all fair points and I acknowledged already that Pete's on a no winner there. As for dl's of course nobody's open about it but stats don't lie, it's not some Portuguese cabal hitting the same torrents over and over. I think my larger concern is with the entirely unreasonable hating on the guy. If it were merely a case of "shut up you rich old has been", then, well, even then he's got more right to speak on the issue than anyone on a Mac rumours site. But today it happens every time a muso, broadly known or local and niche, speaks up on any issue regarding the betterment of their situation - being that it's grossly out of line with all regular tenets of fair pay and work conditions - they are habitually shouted down and the line is generally " get a real job, cry me a river into your lace hanky" etc. And I include the many of us who are pro users of Apple ware on the engineering side who are getting royally screwed as well. Zero respect for what is a decimation of the most essential aspects of our industry, the creative and the constructive. I'm betting there's a lot of dudes in here who work in IT and still rake it on grannys who can't find their Ethernet receptacles. You think you're doing a real job?
Seems to me that an investor could go out, find talent, promote said talent, and distribute the music for far less than what is even charged on iTunes today, with the artists making more money than they do today, and with a smart investor making good returns.
Lady Gaga's latest album premiered on Amazon for $1. Amazon sells MP3's without copy protection and her album could have easily been distributed by friends after only 1 person bought it. But you know what? Amazon's huge data services couldn't handle the load of people wanting to buy the album, and many MANY people bought it.
There is a price out there people want to pay for an album or song, the music industry just doesn't want to go down to where it is. They had their day in the sun when distribution was hard - but now it is easy and they have failed to adjust to the times and technology.
Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.
Well said. Pete, I like your music, but get with it.
Comments
Taking something that doesn't belong to you qualifies as stealing in my book.
But agree about Pete Townsend... He is an idiot.
Its copying something, not taking anything. Still against the law, without a doubt.
Its copying something, not taking anything. Still against the law, without a doubt.
Yes, yes. Anyway. While Pete's not entirely on the ball here, I doubt many of the slaggers have read the full transcript and in any case why so scathing and full of bile toward the man? As a working musician myself it's been an astonishing experience to not only have sales diminish massively due to piracy but to also be pilloried for daring to whisper a protest. Suddenly anyone with a record deal or an indi set up is some kind of rich whining arsehole according to the great washed masses and their squeaky clean consciences, and of course there's no hard work involved in any of it, we just automate a plug and you get your compressed mp3. Face it, the nerve is on fire because it gets hit every time one of the actual makers of what you steal makes a peep. If you want Katy perry and lady blah then that's what you'll get and the quality will just keep dropping. The real ones out there can't survive and frankly can't give a f@@k about the likes of you. One more disappointing result in from the social contract experiment.
Pete did very well under the old system. The rock bands, the big ones, of the '60s struck it rich because of the youth culture buying albums. It was nearly a religion for millions. For about ten years, the labels couldn't control the big acts. The Beatles left Capitol and founded their own label, and they and the big acts got very wealthy and independent. The labels were careful never to let that happen again. Apple is not a label, so they're not going to invest in artist's careers. Apple's a record shop. A big record shop. That's all. Now, Pete wants the labels of the '60s back. The agreements Jobs made didn't envision an Apple label. Should Apple, and Amazon and Google -- to name a few -- be the new labels? Well, maybe. But I don't think they want the hassle, putting together all the deals, forming new entities that nurture careers a publicize and market. Maybe Silicon Valley could just buy the labels and spin off labels for the 21st century.
Oh, he's absolutely off the mark to be talking about recreating the old system - that's never going to happen. And major labels since the late 90's have been nothing but whorehouses. Just not sure why average Joe seems to take his comments as personally offensive and a call to arms against the greedy, albeit, oddly, mostly poor musicians and songwriters, who threaten the decent hard working, reasonably recompensed non-musicians of the world. Two reasons perhaps - a slow cooked resentment for the mythical lassez faire existence of rock n roll Joe, and the fact that average Joe is downloading a shiteload of his product illegally and he doesn't want to be reminded, least of all by a 'dinosaur' who obviously didn't earn any of his money by being unique, visionary, passionate, bloody hard working, sacrificial of health, family and happiness (sound familiar Steve-ites?).
Costs more to record a song in a studio (studio kids, not Gband) than it does to make an ipod, but nobody's saying stealing millions of ipods would be hunky dory. This is by no means a criticism of Apple, a fabulous company, love the stuff, please fix Logic and the multicore fiasco. Anyway, no going back Pete, and by the way most people here hate you as well. They sure play a mean cracked version of pinball.
Oh, he's absolutely off the mark to be talking about recreating the old system - that's never going to happen. And major labels since the late 90's have been nothing but whorehouses. Just not sure why average Joe seems to take his comments as personally offensive and a call to arms against the greedy, albeit, oddly, mostly poor musicians and songwriters, who threaten the decent hard working, reasonably recompensed non-musicians of the world. Two reasons perhaps - a slow cooked resentment for the mythical lassez faire existence of rock n roll Joe, and the fact that average Joe is downloading a shiteload of his product illegally and he doesn't want to be reminded, least of all by a 'dinosaur' who obviously didn't earn any of his money by being unique, visionary, passionate, bloody hard working, sacrificial of health, family and happiness (sound familiar Steve-ites?).
That's the problem though, because he was talking about recreating parts of the old system, leading to the suggestion that maybe his input on this subject is cloudy.
Some of it might be a misinterpretation. The line where music fans should treat music like food, pay for every helping, at least was interpreted by myself and maybe others as a pay for every play. So that is probably a poor metaphor.
He mentioned that Apple takes 30% of every track sale, but the speech made no acknowledgement that retail margin is often 40% or more, and that Apple's music business isn't a high margin service. The real real vampire in this case is the label, they usually only give a single digit percentage of the sale price. They royally screwed over their acts long before iTunes. It seems to me that iTunes is the scapegoat in that case.
I don't recall anyone in this thread openly suggesting illegal downloads. It's likely several people were thinking it, but finding an individual's motivations can be fraught with error.
That's the problem though, because he was talking about recreating parts of the old system, leading to the suggestion that maybe his input on this subject is cloudy.
Some of it might be a misinterpretation. The line where music fans should treat music like food, pay for every helping, at least was interpreted by myself and maybe others as a pay for every play. So that is probably a poor metaphor.
He mentioned that Apple takes 30% of every track sale, but the speech made no acknowledgement that retail margin is often 40% or more, and that Apple's music business isn't a high margin service. The real real vampire in this case is the label, they usually only give a single digit percentage of the sale price. They royally screwed over their acts long before iTunes. It seems to me that iTunes is the scapegoat in that case.
I don't recall anyone in this thread openly suggesting illegal downloads. It's likely several people were thinking it, but finding an individual's motivations can be fraught with error.
Sorry to keep this going, these are all fair points and I acknowledged already that Pete's on a no winner there. As for dl's of course nobody's open about it but stats don't lie, it's not some Portuguese cabal hitting the same torrents over and over. I think my larger concern is with the entirely unreasonable hating on the guy. If it were merely a case of "shut up you rich old has been", then, well, even then he's got more right to speak on the issue than anyone on a Mac rumours site. But today it happens every time a muso, broadly known or local and niche, speaks up on any issue regarding the betterment of their situation - being that it's grossly out of line with all regular tenets of fair pay and work conditions - they are habitually shouted down and the line is generally " get a real job, cry me a river into your lace hanky" etc. And I include the many of us who are pro users of Apple ware on the engineering side who are getting royally screwed as well. Zero respect for what is a decimation of the most essential aspects of our industry, the creative and the constructive. I'm betting there's a lot of dudes in here who work in IT and still rake it on grannys who can't find their Ethernet receptacles. You think you're doing a real job?
Seems to me that an investor could go out, find talent, promote said talent, and distribute the music for far less than what is even charged on iTunes today, with the artists making more money than they do today, and with a smart investor making good returns.
Lady Gaga's latest album premiered on Amazon for $1. Amazon sells MP3's without copy protection and her album could have easily been distributed by friends after only 1 person bought it. But you know what? Amazon's huge data services couldn't handle the load of people wanting to buy the album, and many MANY people bought it.
There is a price out there people want to pay for an album or song, the music industry just doesn't want to go down to where it is. They had their day in the sun when distribution was hard - but now it is easy and they have failed to adjust to the times and technology.
Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.
Well said. Pete, I like your music, but get with it.