I love super steve but, what the heck is super steve holding. lol that isn't the iphone 4.....with ugly weather widgets and eveything.

V10LETBLUES said:

This is about protecting commerce. Commerce is what drives all people of all nations, and as more and more commerce is being carried out on the internet, I think it is foolish to think that anyone is going to just let this type of activity impede commerce without anyone having a big say on the matter. Whether it be music online or any other commerce online, there will be a forceful concerted effort to protect it.

No there won't. That "effort" has been made already and it has failed. The entertainment giants thought they could control the net with lawyers and technology but they can't. They can turn to catching indivuals but that won't stop millions of others. The only thing left is cutting off parts of the internet like China does but that won't happen.

The problem with products of the mind such as music, film, books, pictures etc. is that, unlike tangible products, they are information and information can be passed on with just one click. It cannot be stopped and it should not be stopped either. Information is supposed to be free and will always find its way to freedom. It is that reality that still hasn't sunk down in the minds of Gene Simmosn and the like.

Tremolina said:

V10LETBLUES said:

This is about protecting commerce. ...Whether it be music online or any other commerce online, there will be a forceful concerted effort to protect it.

No there won't. That "effort" has been made already and it has failed. The entertainment giants thought they could control the net with lawyers and technology but they can't. They can turn to catching indivuals but that won't stop millions of others. The only thing left is cutting off parts of the internet like China does but that won't happen.

The problem with products of the mind such as music, film, books, pictures etc. is that, unlike tangible products, they are information and information can be passed on with just one click. It cannot be stopped and it should not be stopped either. Information is supposed to be free and will always find its way to freedom. It is that reality that still hasn't sunk down in the minds of Gene Simmosn and the like.

What Gene Simmons and like-minded others fail to realize is that the 50 year cruise that the industry has been on is coming to a titanic-level hault and its time to change the game again. People will always make music. People will always be willing to buy music. The way in which that works is changing and there's no going back. That Gordon Geko "Greed is good" shit is played out and the public has a weapon. In a country where the average CEO makes 500 times what their employees make, the change has to start from the top. The "business" of loan sharking artists is becoming less lucrative.

For a little while, its going to be about interpersonal relationships between an artist and the audience. The shift of power is changing and this is actually the best time ever for an artist. It may look like bad times but its really only bad times for the current structure of business that labels have operated under for the past few of decades. They don't hold all of the keys anymore. That's why they are playing the blame game when they are the cause of it all. Some people are foolish enough to buy into it. It still doesn't change the fact that these label heads aren't going to be buying yachts for doing nothing now. Those days are done. That's why 360 deals are starting. Its just another hustle.

20 years ago, if you asked an artist if they would pay their label a percentage for things like a guest appearance on a show that the label had nothing to do with getting them, they would laugh their asses off before yelling "HELL NO" at the top of their lungs. Labels are trying to get into the business of "selling fame" because they need something intangible to sell that they feel they can control. They are desperate. Its a business that has needed an overhaul for the longest and now its getting it.

[Edited 10/14/10 8:43am]

BlaqueKnight said:

Tremolina said:

No there won't. That "effort" has been made already and it has failed. The entertainment giants thought they could control the net with lawyers and technology but they can't. They can turn to catching indivuals but that won't stop millions of others. The only thing left is cutting off parts of the internet like China does but that won't happen.

The problem with products of the mind such as music, film, books, pictures etc. is that, unlike tangible products, they are information and information can be passed on with just one click. It cannot be stopped and it should not be stopped either. Information is supposed to be free and will always find its way to freedom. It is that reality that still hasn't sunk down in the minds of Gene Simmosn and the like.

What Gene Simmons and like-minded others fail to realize is that the 50 year cruise that the industry has been on is coming to a titanic-level hault and its time to change the game again. People will always make music. People will always be willing to buy music. The way in which that works is changing and there's no going back. That Gordon Geko "Greed is good" shit is played out and the public has a weapon. In a country where the average CEO makes 500 times what their employees make, the change has to start from the top. The "business" of loan sharking artists is becoming less lucrative.

For a little while, its going to be about interpersonal relationships between an artist and the audience. The shift of power is changing and this is actually the best time ever for an artist. It may look like bad times but its really only bad times for the current structure of business that labels have operated under for the past few of decades. They don't hold all of the keys anymore. That's why they are playing the blame game when they are the cause of it all. Some people are foolish enough to buy into it. It still doesn't change the fact that these label heads aren't going to be buying yachts for doing nothing now. Those days are done. That's why 360 deals are starting. Its just another hustle.

20 years ago, if you asked an artist if they would pay their label a percentage for things like a guest appearance on a show that the label had nothing to do with getting them, they would laugh their asses off before yelling "HELL NO" at the top of their lungs. Labels are trying to get into the business of "selling fame" because they need something intangible to sell that they feel they can control. They are desperate. Its a business that has needed an overhaul for the longest and now its getting it.

[Edited 10/14/10 8:43am]

"Sell my publishing? what a laugh! ha ha, I don't know Bo, but I do know Math"

KISS built their music on plagiarizing every other rock band from the late 60s-early 70s, and were just another Long Island bar band until they put the makeup on.

File sharing did some damage to the music industry, but the music industry itself, the same one that Prince was rebelling against, stupidly decided to sell full length CDs of singles artists by the end of the 90s.

Also, in the 90s, sales were unbelievably high because people had been buying CD versions of music they already had on vinyl and tape. People getting CD players in the car, portable players, etc. It's coincidence that sales figures dropped off in the 2000s, when people learned how to rip a CD to MP3. Then there was no need to replace from that point on. But from mid 80s to 2000? You might buy 3 copies of the same CD that kept getting scratched up in that timeframe. So from 2000 on, people had their brand new copy they could put away, and listen to the copy they burned, or ripped to MP3. Yet if they had the vinyl version, odds are it was still playable, unless they had a cheap record player.

And as I think Prince found out, and as Gene Simmons knows, handling the business end of your product and being able to function as an artist is near impossible, but both believe that playing live is the best way to promote yourself. KISS have always worked their butts off at putting on a show.

To me, the biggest concern for artists are when a new CD is out and winds up being leaked online before release date.

The recording industry would rather put money into copy protecting and reselling existing product than backing new artists.

The fact is like it or not.

Music is a Loss Leader,

The actual benefit of giving away your music for free, is more lucrative then actually trying to sell it these days. If you're good on any level, you'll develop a large following, especially in these days of social networking. Sell out some shows, get extremely intimate with your fans. And if they like you a lot, you can receive money from them music on a donation basis. And believe me, when the music is good, people always try to support the artist. Which is pretty admirable.

The fact that music could exist on this level alone, is pretty amazing.

Sure you have to work a little harder, but you retain your freedom, which is priceless.

It is impossible to suppress any type of knowledge or progressive movement.

So when all else fails, adapt.

These labels can adapt and just deal on a "distribution" basis.

But their percentage ratio significantly drops from 40 - 60% of an artists revenue, to 5 - 20%.

As Blaque stated, they still operate under the "Greed is Good" doctrine, and refuse to adapt.

So we'll watch them dance around like fools set on fire, flailing their arms in a room full of whores.

While the artist flourishes.

For me, the music industry officially died when record companies stopped marketing CD singles. I loved CD singles because most of the time I would only like one or two songs that a certain artist released after hearing radio singles and watching music videos (back when music videos were still played, that is) and didn't want to buy a whole album just to listen to one song that I liked. They got greedy; so, they got screwed by the onset of the digital era. Karma is quite the bitch ain't she?

If those morons want to blame anyone, all they have to do is look in a mirror and point. They didn't want to continue making CD singles because they felt that it was too costly; but, now they are losing more money than ever because of their initial greed and stupidity. Something is better than nothing as the old saying goes.

Now, they sell digital singles, which I find to be extremely dumb because they have Limewire and other websites that allow some form of free downloading. Why would I want to pay for a single of an artist that I really don't like just to get a song of theirs that happens to strike my fancy at that particular moment in time? Honestly, I don't want some of these people to have my money; sorry, but if they can be assholes about ripping off their fans with shitty, half-assed attempts at music, than I'm going to be an asshole and not help them pay for their $100,000 shopping sprees, lavish vacations, multiple car payments, designer clothes, and the mortgage(s) on their mansion(s). Trust me, if I could stop paying some politicians, I totally would because most of those assholes shouldn't be getting more than minimum wage for the terrible jobs they are doing anyway IMHO...mofos are lucky we have to pay taxes otherwise some of their asses would be sleeping outside in tents.

If you put nothing into your craft (ie your job) than you shouldn't be getting paid excessive amounts of money period. In the real world, if you suck at your job, your ass doesn't get that raise, promotion, or those bonuses. Why should their jobs any different? They are just people like everybody else and unfortuately for them, they got into a career that requires public acceptance in order for them to survive but they choose to continue in that career, so I don't feel sorry for any them at all for feeling the crunch of a bad economy. Join the club, guys.

Many of them make waay too much money anyway for the product they put out, so as much as I enjoy Gene Simmons (especially his views on marriage), I don't agree with him at all on this nonsense. If he feels the music industry should have sued the file-sharers, than he should also tell them to sue pubilc libraries. Usually, I just check all my music out for free from the library anyway, so I still don't have to pay to hear any artist if I don't want to, computer or not. If I like the album and the artist, I will go out and buy their album to support them. If I like the album but dislike the artist, than I will listen to the album and take only the morsels of goodness that appeal to me, which is really no different from taping songs off the radio back in the day and since libraries run on tax dollars and I pay my taxes, I technically put some money into buying that album so there you go. They'll be all right.

dalsh327 said:

KISS built their music on plagiarizing every other rock band from the late 60s-early 70s, and were just another Long Island bar band until they put the makeup on.

File sharing did some damage to the music industry, but the music industry itself, the same one that Prince was rebelling against, stupidly decided to sell full length CDs of singles artists by the end of the 90s.

Also, in the 90s, sales were unbelievably high because people had been buying CD versions of music they already had on vinyl and tape. People getting CD players in the car, portable players, etc. It's coincidence that sales figures dropped off in the 2000s, when people learned how to rip a CD to MP3. Then there was no need to replace from that point on. But from mid 80s to 2000? You might buy 3 copies of the same CD that kept getting scratched up in that timeframe. So from 2000 on, people had their brand new copy they could put away, and listen to the copy they burned, or ripped to MP3. Yet if they had the vinyl version, odds are it was still playable, unless they had a cheap record player.

And as I think Prince found out, and as Gene Simmons knows, handling the business end of your product and being able to function as an artist is near impossible, but both believe that playing live is the best way to promote yourself. KISS have always worked their butts off at putting on a show.

To me, the biggest concern for artists are when a new CD is out and winds up being leaked online before release date.

The recording industry would rather put money into copy protecting and reselling existing product than backing new artists.

Some very good points. Since the begining of the music industry, technology has actually spured sales as people switched to the newer better format. Difrent type record formats, then strereo, then hifidelity, then the 8 track, then the cassete, and they made a killing off the compact disk. They had a long run of having new technology land on their lap and take advantage of it by simply re-packaging and re-selling their most popular music. The digital age finally slammed the brakes on that business model so hard that that aspect alone gave them whiplash.

I find it completely amazing that the music industry which was so keen on exploiting new technology all this time had dropped the ball so badly when it came to the net. They still had the old mindset and were still thinking in terms of a shirk wrapped physical product. And couldn't see beyond that.

Some print publishers still cant see beyond that. Are still lukewarm to the ipad and to having decent digital versions. And those that do have digital versions are not taking it its full potential. Online versions are still just the same pale old fashioned digital version of their traditional version. They are still not moving fast enough or have the personnel in place to convince them to quickly accept and adapt to the fast changing technology.

It still amazes me that instead of big players like Amazon and i Tunes, That WB, CBS and Universal didn't take the lead. They should have been the ubiquitous pioneer players in the field. It was theirs to loose. They didn't take it so others did. And its still not too late. They have the goodies.

As far as artists are concerned, this has opened a lot of doors for them. Closed just as many too, but that's the same way with everything. Promotion is a lot easier, the hard part is coming up with good music. They are just as responsible for the music downturn as anyone else. I don't care what anyone says, there just simply isnt many good new artists out there. Artists that flip your wing and say you gotta go buy their stuff.

I turned on the radio in the car as I left the gym a little while ago and Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" was playing. Even after all these years music like that still flips my wig. The sheer artistry. NO ONE, absolutely no one is working on all cylinders like some artists once were. Its mostly cheese now, but for a few very talented hacks, Radiohead and Jack White.

There has just been a huge shift of where the music money gets spent when it comes to music and entertainment. It is bigger than ever. I have spent more money on music devices, storage devices, speakers, multi-media computers and home systems in the last ten years than ever before. And I am still drooling over the next device slated to appear.........so I can listen to my music collection........that the big bad music industry has dutifully created for me.

[Edited 10/16/10 11:25am]

Coming from a big Kiss fan... i have to agree with a lot of people, Gene is a very greedy money hungry man. He probably doesn't give a damn about the ''hundreds of thousands of jobs lost'' just money out of his pocket... Gene has always been a greedy guy and he cares about no one's wealth but his

V10LETBLUES said:

I find it completely amazing that the music industry which was so keen on exploiting new technology all this time had dropped the ball so badly when it came to the net. They still had the old mindset and were still thinking in terms of a shirk wrapped physical product. And couldn't see beyond that.

No it's more like they refuse to make a serious effort as long as there are illegal filesharing sites out there. They say it isn't feasable otherwise.

This argument is along the same side of the coin as worrying about leaked CD's before the release date. It is inevitable things like that will happen.

Because of this inevitability they have a choice. Either they do nothing or they get along with it and see where it brings them.

In the old days the music industry used to eventually adapt to technological revolutions to its own advantage, albeit always after resisting first. But these days they basically do nothing. Something like Itunes could have been their own, but they simply lack the will and vision to do something like that. Only when there is money to be made, they show up, tho'reluctantly because they are also jealous at Apple's succes and still greedy.

For the rest they resort to old business models of promoting crap on radio and MTV, losing out on just about everything, but scoring big with one or two one day flies and milk that product even further than ever before.

Down the drain is where it is going. And that's a good thing.

--

[Edited 10/17/10 7:45am]

Online Group Attacks Gene Simmons' Websites!

October 17, 2010

Kiss bassist Gene Simmons saw two of his official websites forced offline recently by online group Anonymous.

The long-tongued musician had made comments about how companies in the music industry should act tougher against individuals who illegally download music, seemingly inspiring the wrath of the group, which is linked to the 4chan.org forum.

Anonymous managed to crash Simmons' sites Simmonsrecords.com and Genesimmons.com for a period before they returned to the worldwide web, reports the Guardian.

Simmons had said: "The music industry was asleep at the wheel, and didn't have the balls to sue every fresh-faced, freckle-faced college kid who downloaded material. And so now we're left with hundreds of thousands of people without jobs. There's no industry."

http://www.nme.com/news/kiss/53432

EmbattledWarrior said:

The fact is like it or not.

Music is a Loss Leader,

The actual benefit of giving away your music for free, is more lucrative then actually trying to sell it these days. If you're good on any level, you'll develop a large following, especially in these days of social networking. Sell out some shows, get extremely intimate with your fans. And if they like you a lot, you can receive money from them music on a donation basis. And believe me, when the music is good, people always try to support the artist. Which is pretty admirable.

The fact that music could exist on this level alone, is pretty amazing.

Sure you have to work a little harder, but you retain your freedom, which is priceless.

It is impossible to suppress any type of knowledge or progressive movement.

So when all else fails, adapt.

These labels can adapt and just deal on a "distribution" basis.

But their percentage ratio significantly drops from 40 - 60% of an artists revenue, to 5 - 20%.

As Blaque stated, they still operate under the "Greed is Good" doctrine, and refuse to adapt.

So we'll watch them dance around like fools set on fire, flailing their arms in a room full of whores.

While the artist flourishes.

Goofy cartoon notions of good and greed and to "suppress knowledge and a progressive movement" only undermine your opinions.

There is no simpleton answer like that. If there was, everyone would have shrugged their shoulders and moved on already.

Whether we like it or not, some people believe that the internet left a big loop-hole that impedes on their ability to conduct business. The very same way that viruses have plagued everyone on the internet. And they will do whatever it takes to close it. This issue is not just going to disappear and remain the status quo forever. It simply will not happen.

estelle81 said:

For me, the music industry officially died when record companies stopped marketing CD singles. I loved CD singles because most of the time I would only like one or two songs that a certain artist released after hearing radio singles and watching music videos (back when music videos were still played, that is) and didn't want to buy a whole album just to listen to one song that I liked. They got greedy; so, they got screwed by the onset of the digital era. Karma is quite the bitch ain't she?

If those morons want to blame anyone, all they have to do is look in a mirror and point. They didn't want to continue making CD singles because they felt that it was too costly; but, now they are losing more money than ever because of their initial greed and stupidity. Something is better than nothing as the old saying goes.

Now, they sell digital singles, which I find to be extremely dumb because they have Limewire and other websites that allow some form of free downloading. Why would I want to pay for a single of an artist that I really don't like just to get a song of theirs that happens to strike my fancy at that particular moment in time? Honestly, I don't want some of these people to have my money; sorry, but if they can be assholes about ripping off their fans with shitty, half-assed attempts at music, than I'm going to be an asshole and not help them pay for their $100,000 shopping sprees, lavish vacations, multiple car payments, designer clothes, and the mortgage(s) on their mansion(s). Trust me, if I could stop paying some politicians, I totally would because most of those assholes shouldn't be getting more than minimum wage for the terrible jobs they are doing anyway IMHO...mofos are lucky we have to pay taxes otherwise some of their asses would be sleeping outside in tents.

If you put nothing into your craft (ie your job) than you shouldn't be getting paid excessive amounts of money period. In the real world, if you suck at your job, your ass doesn't get that raise, promotion, or those bonuses. Why should their jobs any different? They are just people like everybody else and unfortuately for them, they got into a career that requires public acceptance in order for them to survive but they choose to continue in that career, so I don't feel sorry for any them at all for feeling the crunch of a bad economy. Join the club, guys.

Many of them make waay too much money anyway for the product they put out, so as much as I enjoy Gene Simmons (especially his views on marriage), I don't agree with him at all on this nonsense. If he feels the music industry should have sued the file-sharers, than he should also tell them to sue pubilc libraries. Usually, I just check all my music out for free from the library anyway, so I still don't have to pay to hear any artist if I don't want to, computer or not. If I like the album and the artist, I will go out and buy their album to support them. If I like the album but dislike the artist, than I will listen to the album and take only the morsels of goodness that appeal to me, which is really no different from taping songs off the radio back in the day and since libraries run on tax dollars and I pay my taxes, I technically put some money into buying that album so there you go. They'll be all right.

Great points the CD single was basically phased out because they felt people should buy the whole thing, its kind of like now with iTunes, u can buy any song u want pretty much for 99-1.29, which some artists are fighting because they lose more money in that scheme. CD singles were not handled properly in this country, in the UK and basically everywhere else on earth, the cd single still has its purpose and for many of us, we still buy the imports. But Gene's point is off a bit, lets think about this for a moment, is he saying sue Joe Schmo who downloaded the new Kanye cd, or is he saying sue the website sharing it, like a Megaupload or Rapidshare? which basically is putting it up for millions to take? Now for me, i have downloaded stuff from these sites and im sure many others have, if i miss an interview on tv talk show, a day later i can find it on their links, most of the time for music its an artist i want anyway and they get it first, because whomever works at the label put the shit up, lets be real, labels need to police their own first, as do the artists themselves, you think there arent peeps in these hip hop camps that dont filter the shit out there for some tax free cash, shit, walk in NYC and check the dude on 34th street, hes already got the Niki Minaj cd, where do you think he got it? Someone in Niki's camp, and they are collecting. So im not really sure if Gene is saying so the kid at the computer who gets new shit, or he is saying sue the site that put it up? now i honestly, have to agree with him on that, the argument is that it gets music out there, but thats BS, im just completing a short film (45m) and we are just going to put it up free, youtube etc...because in that respect it gets you out there, im not really caring if people copy it because its not my "job" at the end of the day, to make my bread off the films/shows i do, if it was id be sueing every motherfucker alive that touched my work, sorry to say but i would, i would start at the source though.

But as for the points, the music business here didnt know how to work with things, everything was eliminated, lets get rid of this, lets get rid of that, lets get rid of the stores that have selection, shit, guess why you have the situation you have, well narrow everything down and thats what you get.

Gene can be a charismatic dolt, and is wrong about many things. Like the solutions to this mess. But he has a right to be angry about the looting in his industry. Some artists have grudgingly accepted it and others are still angry. But no artist is happy about it.

The ability to share your music and information and images freely around the world instantaneously is a great thing for all man kind. When people throw around phrases like "for all man kind" It is such a grandiose thing to say that it is difficult for it not to sound silly. But it is now the reality.

Now the problem is how do we protect the things we do not want to share to everyone in the world freely.

V10LETBLUES said:

dalsh327 said:

KISS built their music on plagiarizing every other rock band from the late 60s-early 70s, and were just another Long Island bar band until they put the makeup on.

File sharing did some damage to the music industry, but the music industry itself, the same one that Prince was rebelling against, stupidly decided to sell full length CDs of singles artists by the end of the 90s.

Also, in the 90s, sales were unbelievably high because people had been buying CD versions of music they already had on vinyl and tape. People getting CD players in the car, portable players, etc. It's coincidence that sales figures dropped off in the 2000s, when people learned how to rip a CD to MP3. Then there was no need to replace from that point on. But from mid 80s to 2000? You might buy 3 copies of the same CD that kept getting scratched up in that timeframe. So from 2000 on, people had their brand new copy they could put away, and listen to the copy they burned, or ripped to MP3. Yet if they had the vinyl version, odds are it was still playable, unless they had a cheap record player.

And as I think Prince found out, and as Gene Simmons knows, handling the business end of your product and being able to function as an artist is near impossible, but both believe that playing live is the best way to promote yourself. KISS have always worked their butts off at putting on a show.

To me, the biggest concern for artists are when a new CD is out and winds up being leaked online before release date.

The recording industry would rather put money into copy protecting and reselling existing product than backing new artists.

Some very good points. Since the begining of the music industry, technology has actually spured sales as people switched to the newer better format. Difrent type record formats, then strereo, then hifidelity, then the 8 track, then the cassete, and they made a killing off the compact disk. They had a long run of having new technology land on their lap and take advantage of it by simply re-packaging and re-selling their most popular music. The digital age finally slammed the brakes on that business model so hard that that aspect alone gave them whiplash.

I find it completely amazing that the music industry which was so keen on exploiting new technology all this time had dropped the ball so badly when it came to the net. They still had the old mindset and were still thinking in terms of a shirk wrapped physical product. And couldn't see beyond that.

Some print publishers still cant see beyond that. Are still lukewarm to the ipad and to having decent digital versions. And those that do have digital versions are not taking it its full potential. Online versions are still just the same pale old fashioned digital version of their traditional version. They are still not moving fast enough or have the personnel in place to convince them to quickly accept and adapt to the fast changing technology.

It still amazes me that instead of big players like Amazon and i Tunes, That WB, CBS and Universal didn't take the lead. They should have been the ubiquitous pioneer players in the field. It was theirs to loose. They didn't take it so others did. And its still not too late. They have the goodies.

As far as artists are concerned, this has opened a lot of doors for them. Closed just as many too, but that's the same way with everything. Promotion is a lot easier, the hard part is coming up with good music. They are just as responsible for the music downturn as anyone else. I don't care what anyone says, there just simply isnt many good new artists out there. Artists that flip your wing and say you gotta go buy their stuff.

I turned on the radio in the car as I left the gym a little while ago and Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" was playing. Even after all these years music like that still flips my wig. The sheer artistry. NO ONE, absolutely no one is working on all cylinders like some artists once were. Its mostly cheese now, but for a few very talented hacks, Radiohead and Jack White.

There has just been a huge shift of where the music money gets spent when it comes to music and entertainment. It is bigger than ever. I have spent more money on music devices, storage devices, speakers, multi-media computers and home systems in the last ten years than ever before. And I am still drooling over the next device slated to appear.........so I can listen to my music collection........that the big bad music industry has dutifully created for me.

[Edited 10/16/10 11:25am]

I know Prince looked at Ani DiFranco as a success as an indie artist, but she also tours constantly. He would have had to set up a portable Paisley Park in order for him to keep doing what he does as a recording artist.

I do think that recording artists need to be more vocal about discouraging fans from downloading music that hasn't hit the street yet. That's what artists have issues with.I'm on the fence about demos. I think over time, the artist should let them out, because that ties into the creation of a song. To me that's more for musicians and people who need to have everything, but I think people get discouraged when they hear a finished song that blows them away. But hearing a work in progress can give someone who creates music some hope when they hit a brick wall. Not everyone has finely tuned ears and picks up every litle nuance in a recording session or live.

Someone like Simmons relies on catalog sales, but KISS is also notorious for putting way too many hits packages out. The box set and the 3 DVD sets they put out is fine, because it ties into the history of the band with some unheard and unseen stuff, outside of bootleg circles.

V10LETBLUES said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

The fact is like it or not.

Music is a Loss Leader,

The actual benefit of giving away your music for free, is more lucrative then actually trying to sell it these days. If you're good on any level, you'll develop a large following, especially in these days of social networking. Sell out some shows, get extremely intimate with your fans. And if they like you a lot, you can receive money from them music on a donation basis. And believe me, when the music is good, people always try to support the artist. Which is pretty admirable.

The fact that music could exist on this level alone, is pretty amazing.

Sure you have to work a little harder, but you retain your freedom, which is priceless.

It is impossible to suppress any type of knowledge or progressive movement.

So when all else fails, adapt.

These labels can adapt and just deal on a "distribution" basis.

But their percentage ratio significantly drops from 40 - 60% of an artists revenue, to 5 - 20%.

As Blaque stated, they still operate under the "Greed is Good" doctrine, and refuse to adapt.

So we'll watch them dance around like fools set on fire, flailing their arms in a room full of whores.

While the artist flourishes.

Goofy cartoon notions of good and greed and to "suppress knowledge and a progressive movement" only undermine your opinions.

There is no simpleton answer like that. If there was, everyone would have shrugged their shoulders and moved on already.

Whether we like it or not, some people believe that the internet left a big loop-hole that impedes on their ability to conduct business. The very same way that viruses have plagued everyone on the internet. And they will do whatever it takes to close it. This issue is not just going to disappear and remain the status quo forever. It simply will not happen.

It's not an opinion, its a mathematical fact.

It is impossible to suppress any movement that is based on gathering information, you could delay it, but the inevitable always rears its head. Because information is viral, anytype of knowledge, be it positive or negative.

File sharing is a form of intel, like anything else. even if the industry would've of haphazardly thrown down the gauntlet during the beginning days of napster and created and iron curtain like regime. The hypothetical wall would be brought down sooner or later.

There is a government mandated information wall in china. You think that really stops anything? No it just creates extremely talented hackers who can override the system.

Anytype of control is illusory.

So even if RIAA develops a Foucauldian Panopticon mean of closing this loophole.

It would not matter.

Because you cannot suppress information

Gene can be a charismatic dolt, and is wrong about many things. Like the solutions to this mess. But he has a right to be angry about the looting in his industry. Some artists have grudgingly accepted it and others are still angry. But no artist is happy about it

Only artist who aren't happy are superstars.

These new Artist, myself included, who know how to maneuver in this new system, are pretty content with it.

The only people really unhappy with this new system is, artist who are being pressured by their labels to sign 360 deals.

The ability to share your music and information and images freely around the world instantaneously is a great thing for all man kind. When people throw around phrases like "for all man kind" It is such a grandiose thing to say that it is difficult for it not to sound silly. But it is now the reality.

Now the problem is how do we protect the things we do not want to share to everyone in the world freely.

"If you do not value rare treasures, you'll stop others from stealing" - Lao Tzu

Give it away.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Now the problem is how do we protect the things we do not want to share to everyone in the world freely.

"If you do not value rare treasures, you'll stop others from stealing" - Lao Tzu

Give it away.

There is a choice, yet no need to just "give it away".

There is a need to ADAPT.

Apple adapted to the new techonology with itunes and is succesful at it. Record companies should do the same.

As another alternative recording artists could sell their music on their own site.

These days it is easy with the payment systems that are now available to have your own mini store with downloads and/or cd's. The artists can communicate dirctly to their fans and create a community, promoting their work and concerts.

They need to be free do do that tho'.

Prince had that all, but he demands upfront payment even from his fans, plus total freedom to disregard any promise made. There is no new music otherwise. Old or rare music he is not interested in selling anymore, even tho' his fans are still willing to buy it.

But that's just not the way the "brave new world" of the internet works, so he failed.

Gene Simmons already failed from the beginning, because he only has a back catalogue to rely on and really doesn't get it. Sueing millions of file sharers, what a laugh. Hopeless.

--

[Edited 10/18/10 7:05am]

Tremolina said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

There is a choice, yet no need to just "give it away".

There is a need to ADAPT.

Apple adapted to the new techonology with itunes and is succesful at it. Record companies should do the same.

As another alternative recording artists could sell their music on their own site.

These days it is easy with the payment systems that are now available to have your own mini store with downloads and/or cd's. The artists can communicate dirctly to their fans and create a community, promoting their work and concerts.

They need to be free do do that tho'.

Prince had that all, but he demands upfront payment even from his fans, plus total freedom to disregard any promise made. There is no new music otherwise. Old or rare music he is not interested in selling anymore, even tho' his fans are still willing to buy it.

But that's just not the way the "brave new world" of the internet works, so he failed.

Gene Simmons already failed from the beginning, because he only has a back catalogue to rely on and really doesn't get it. Sueing millions of file sharers, what a laugh. Hopeless.

--

[Edited 10/18/10 7:05am]

Sure I have no beef with Itunes, nor CDBaby and the other various organizations that allow you to sell music.

But there are no ways for this music to be protected from filesharing.

DRM, was annoying and didn't really work,

The artist has to get innovative,

They can send fans, exclusive mixes and renditions of their songs for joining their mailing list and website.

Offer special LP's on Vinyl or Lossless

Record live versions of your songs.

the business hasn't changed that much, you just have to use these old techniques in a new an innovative way.

You have to work a little harder.

But if your an artist, you don't care, as long as your music is heard and touches people.

I'm just saying when I say give it away, is a true artist doesn't care about money.

if your in this business to get rich, get the hell out, those days are over.

You can make a very comfortable living, but your paying your own way.

Which is what I love about this era.

The time of spoiled rockstars is over

Man, there is a lot of ignorance being spouted in this thread. You can't comment on the "evils" of the industry when you haven't got any experience of dealing with it. You are all aware that "artists" have to pay rent and bills?

Mong said:

Man, there is a lot of ignorance being spouted in this thread. You can't comment on the "evils" of the industry when you haven't got any experience of dealing with it. You are all aware that "artists" have to pay rent and bills?

What do you know about anybody in here? Nothing. Here is news for ya: Everybody has to pay the bills and abide the laws, artists including. By the way, I have plenty of experience with the entertainment industry, including musicians.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Tremolina said:

There is a choice, yet no need to just "give it away".

There is a need to ADAPT.

Apple adapted to the new techonology with itunes and is succesful at it. Record companies should do the same.

As another alternative recording artists could sell their music on their own site.

These days it is easy with the payment systems that are now available to have your own mini store with downloads and/or cd's. The artists can communicate dirctly to their fans and create a community, promoting their work and concerts.

They need to be free do do that tho'.

Prince had that all, but he demands upfront payment even from his fans, plus total freedom to disregard any promise made. There is no new music otherwise. Old or rare music he is not interested in selling anymore, even tho' his fans are still willing to buy it.

But that's just not the way the "brave new world" of the internet works, so he failed.

Gene Simmons already failed from the beginning, because he only has a back catalogue to rely on and really doesn't get it. Sueing millions of file sharers, what a laugh. Hopeless.

--

[Edited 10/18/10 7:05am]

Sure I have no beef with Itunes, nor CDBaby and the other various organizations that allow you to sell music.

But there are no ways for this music to be protected from filesharing.

DRM, was annoying and didn't really work,

The artist has to get innovative,

They can send fans, exclusive mixes and renditions of their songs for joining their mailing list and website.

Offer special LP's on Vinyl or Lossless

Record live versions of your songs.

the business hasn't changed that much, you just have to use these old techniques in a new an innovative way.

You have to work a little harder.

But if your an artist, you don't care, as long as your music is heard and touches people.

No filesharing cannot be prevented. No energy should be put in that anymore because it only helps destroy even more. Everything should go to making all your stuff available yourself for a fair price and use sites like itunes, youtube etc. Create a name and a community, offer your fans easy acces to concerts, concert recordings, rare remixes, material etc.

I'm just saying when I say give it away, is a true artist doesn't care about money.

if your in this business to get rich, get the hell out, those days are over.

You can make a very comfortable living, but your paying your own way.

Which is what I love about this era.

The time of spoiled rockstars is over

You go and tell prince that.

Tremolina said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

No filesharing cannot be prevented. No energy should be put in that anymore because it only helps destroy even more. Everything should go to making all your stuff available yourself for a fair price and use sites like itunes, youtube etc. Create a name and a community, offer your fans easy acces to concerts, concert recordings, rare remixes, material etc.

I'm just saying when I say give it away, is a true artist doesn't care about money.

if your in this business to get rich, get the hell out, those days are over.

You can make a very comfortable living, but your paying your own way.

Which is what I love about this era.

The time of spoiled rockstars is over

You go and tell prince that.

As much as Prince was an innovator to this Brave New World, He has been living in "Prince World" for a little too long.

He has a whole bunch of issues. Ever since he got that Webby, he started losing his "artist" cred.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Tremolina said:

As much as Prince was an innovator to this Brave New World, He has been living in "Prince World" for a little too long.

He has a whole bunch of issues. Ever since he got that Webby, he started losing his "artist" cred.

It's such a shame. He really could been a pioneer proving that it can work. Just a digital record store ala itunes with anything there is a demand for and concert opportunities whenever they are there, would have worked out fine.

piracy is the best on the net!

Tremolina said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

As much as Prince was an innovator to this Brave New World, He has been living in "Prince World" for a little too long.

He has a whole bunch of issues. Ever since he got that Webby, he started losing his "artist" cred.

It's such a shame. He really could been a pioneer proving that it can work. Just a digital record store ala itunes with anything there is a demand for and concert opportunities whenever they are there, would have worked out fine.

Prince is pretty bitter, especially toward the fans,

when he released "F.U.N.K"

I knew he was starting to get out of touch with his fan base...

But then again, he's also the man who thinks Revelation will happen in his lifetime.

So I really don't pay him any mind these days, but the P from 93 - 05 will always be a new visionary.

Here is a clip from 1980 from television news program 20/20

I guess the music industry has been crying that it was on its deathbed for a while now.

The program focuses on how home taping is killing the music industry.

Early on, you see Joe Smith, the President of Elektra-Asylum records making a statement that might sound familiar:

"Records, you don't have to buy to hear music. There's sensational equipment out there. There's great FM radio. There's enormous amounts of music out there, without having to buy a record. Counterfeiting, home-taping, and the failure of major artists to deliver records on some kind of regular basis."

***part 2 was taken down by Universal Music Group, they didnt bother with this one.

[Edited 10/19/10 17:33pm]

[Edited 10/19/10 17:45pm]

V10LETBLUES said:

Here is a clip from 1980 from television news program 20/20

I guess the music industry has been crying that it was on its deathbed for a while now.

The program focuses on how home taping is killing the music industry.

Early on, you see Joe Smith, the President of Elektra-Asylum records making a statement that might sound familiar:

"Records, you don't have to buy to hear music. There's sensational equipment out there. There's great FM radio. There's enormous amounts of music out there, without having to buy a record. Counterfeiting, home-taping, and the failure of major artists to deliver records on some kind of regular basis."

[Edited 10/19/10 17:31pm]

Home taping was controlled my the 1992 DART bill that was passed through congress

DART meaning Digital Audio Recorders and Tapes, this enabled a bundled in royalty rate to be added into the purchase of that type of equipment,

IE the industry gets a fee for people purchasing that type of equipment

Where congress kinda F**ed up is that this bill didn't include the internet or personal computers.

So once computers and the internet became popular, it was already too late,

to this day companies like Apple are constantly battling congress so they don't have to pay DART monies to the industry.

EmbattledWarrior said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Here is a clip from 1980 from television news program 20/20

I guess the music industry has been crying that it was on its deathbed for a while now.

The program focuses on how home taping is killing the music industry.

Early on, you see Joe Smith, the President of Elektra-Asylum records making a statement that might sound familiar:

[Edited 10/19/10 17:31pm]

Home taping was controlled my the 1992 DART bill that was passed through congress

DART meaning Digital Audio Recorders and Tapes, this enabled a bundled in royalty rate to be added into the purchase of that type of equipment,

IE the industry gets a fee for people purchasing that type of equipment

Where congress kinda F**ed up is that this bill didn't include the internet or personal computers.

So once computers and the internet became popular, it was already too late,

to this day companies like Apple are constantly battling congress so they don't have to pay DART monies to the industry.

heres a wikipedia on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...Exceptions

I personally think involving mp3 players and computers involved in the DART legislature, would mend the wound.

but it would then make computers way too pricey and in the long run wouldn't solve the problem.

Apple claims that, by them creating the itunes music store, it makes the DART legislature inapplicable, in which they're probably right.

KISS make their money from Farewell Tours, not record sales

novabrkr said:

It was just inevitable that it would happen one day. I couldn't have myself predicted in the 90s that it would be due to filesharing, but it had to be something with the digital format becoming easier and easier to copy. The problem is that the "industry" was getting its revenue from selling the storage media and the package and not from the product that it claimed to be selling.

If you look at, say, the dairy industry then they're obviously operating on completely different grounds. When you buy a carton of milk or yogurt you pay for the edible content of the product itself and not the cardboard container around it. Packaging and the P&R campaigns for these type of products obviously contribute to the costs that the companies have as well, but...

... uhm, what the hell was this thread about anyway? Gene Simmons? Why did I end up writing about milk and yogurt?

http://www.nickburcher.co...ution.html

I was watching part one of this series last night

VERY interesting!!! Especially the file-sharing part.