In the last days i have discovered that not only Prince, but also another 'musical hero' of mine, Van Morrison, seemed to have give orders to remove all of his material from sites likes Youtube and Videogoogle.

About a year ago there was a tonload of great material from Van Morrison to be found on Youtube, especially several great live-performances i wouldn't otherwise have seen and enjoyed in my life. But next to that, also most of his 'regular' musicvideo's have dissapeared from those sites.

I REALLY don't get the point of such actions. I mean, as an artist, an musician, you should be proud that people put so much splendid material on the net, and let others share that joy with you. Isn't it?
Next to that sites like Youtube give younger people, who havent really got the opportunity to 'know' your music, possibilities to get in touch with your muse.

The sad thing is, the removal of all of those splendid material (especially the live performances) from two of my favourite musicians, kills the promotion of their music among younger people.
It only makes them think in plattitudes about those artists: Van as some grumpy old man, a fossil from the sixties who once sang 'Brown Eyed Girl', and Prince as some weird, half man-half female, singing with a high voice, some hitmaker from the eighties.

Luckily, the nr. 3 of my musical favourites, REM, seem to keep a very democratic and open view when it comes to their material being showed on sites like Youtube and Video-google.

Nonetheless, the way Prince and Van Morrison are dealing with copyright issues, and the availability of their material on te net, seems very contraproductive for me, careerkilling even.

MJ is the coolest because youtube is flooded with his stuff and nothing is taken down!

Props to him!

What about Morrisey on youtube? lol

MikeMatronik said:

Yep, yep. SHAMON!

Riverpoet31 said:

-----
It is about roylaties. If people are listening to music or viewing it for free. How is the artist going to make money.

i guess in a way it could be perceived as smart, what prince and others of his ilk are doing, because now that the music industry is slowly becoming more driven by artists than companies, things like the live clips and promo videos we see on youtube become more of a commodity than ever (i still fail to see how a baby dancing to a prince song is compromising his career, but whatever).

STILL AND ALL, the balancing act that artists have to walk now that the scales are slowly tipping back in their direction is that they have to temper their relationship with the consumers. we've been getting screwed by the major music labels and we look to the artist to show fans the same loyalty fans show artists. so when the artist regains more control over how they're marketed, it would only make sense that the fans are not punished.

i think in this big crazy transition in the music industry, there are artists who "get it" and there are artists who don't. i think there are artists who are still smarting from past compromises and there are artists who are looking to the future and taking risks. i also think the line between the old guard and the new guard is defining itself pretty clearly these days.

MikeMatronik said:

i love my "baby michael jackson"...

he's truly about the music and NOT about the money....

TotalAlisa said:

I'm sorry, I had to laugh at that one!!!

I think allowing music videos on Youtube should be totally up to the artist. The Rolling Stones don't allow their videos to be shown on Youtube, either. Are you gonna tell me that there's someone out there who's never heard of The Stones because they're not on Youtube???

Paris9748430 said:

UM what does that have to do with michael jackson being about his music.. and NOT about money

i love michael.. that is why he will be popular for FOREVER... even more then the rolling stones... and because they don't want their boring songs and videos on youtube... No one will care about them. .and people my age won't even KNOW about them...

TotalAlisa said:

If people your age don't care about the Rollling Stones because their music isn't on youtube, then they're morons!!! Especially since their music is heard everywhere else.

It's not like they're this up & coming band that depends on the Internet to build their fan base.

Artists like The Stones, Van Morrison, and Prince aren't gonna suddenly have people not show up to their concerts because they don't have a video up on Youtube!!!

Paris9748430 said:

-----
"Artists like The Stones, Van Morrison, and Prince aren't gonna suddenly have people not show up to their concerts because they don't have a video up on Youtube!!!"

They are icons they do not need YOUTUBE. At this time there is no proof that YOUTUBE is helping artist sell records or putting butts in concert seats.
[Edited 4/9/08 1:03am]

MikeMatronik said:

But also, Michael has a YouTube account.

Paris9748430 said:

As if MTV or BET are doing these artists any favors. Oops, I forgot! They not doing them any favors because those networks hardly show any videos anymore.

Don't get me wrong, you have a point and I agree with you. But are you in favor of artists suing their own fans (including yourself) as a way of keeping videos off the YouTube site? Because if YouTube fail to keep certain videos off the site, the fans will be the artists next target.

Paris9748430 said:

you are trying to indirectly call me a moron because the rolling stones are old and no one cares about their boring music... and they Have NOT made a big impact on pop culture..

"5. A frightened consumer is not a happy consumer.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but here goes: suing people is like going to war. If you’re going to go to war with tens of thousands of your customers every year, don’t be surprised if they start treating you like the enemy." Seth Godin

Read the entire post (very interesting)
http://sethgodin.typepad....ssons.html

I don't get these artists? If you are not gonna allow your stuff on youtube, why not profit from it and start a youtube-like site of your own??

I ca

Smart artists know that Youtube is the best way to promote your music.Youtube is actually doing what the record labels can't seem to do anymore.

TotalAlisa said:

-----
Have NOT made a big impact on pop culture WTF

SoulAlive said:

-----
Selling a lot of CD's because that is not happening right now. No proof what so ever that YOUTUBE helps CD sales.

Timmy84 said:

Thanks to youtube my little brother and sister fell in love witht he whole MJ image I did when I was a kid

Even among obscure, struggling artists, there is a lot of debate whether you help or hurt yourself by putting free/cheap content on the net. But the one that that seems beyond dispute: going after individual fans is going to cost you some loyalty.

The Stones, Prince and Vanno are all in the rare position of being able to say "fuck the fans - no freebies at any time." I think a lot of other artists would take that position if they felt they could get away with it.

Consider The Verve, whose one hit "Bittersweet Symphony" was based on a sample from a novelty record featuring a string quartet playing Stones songs. They supposedly cleared the sample, paid the fee and were ready to go; once the record became a hit, their manager sued saying they had used "too much" of the sample. A court ended up declaring Jagger & Richards the composers of "Bittersweet Symphony" and demanded all the money from record sales should go to them.

Doesn't that feel a tad EXCESSIVE? A few of the richest men in the world bankrupting another band that had honestly tried to do right by them?

But, think it hurt the Stones' image or ticket sales? No way. Especially since most Stones fans are old & have no respect for sampling/collage art as music. Stones fans will put up with anything. Crass commercialism (remember their guest spot on 90210?), $750 concert tickets, occasional lousy performances at those overpriced gigs... they're unstoppable.

All this because of the music they made 30 to 45 years ago. And it IS great stuff. The poster that said they had no effect on pop culture is sadly mistaken, probably because they were born into the world the Stones helped create. We take them for granted now. But there was NOTHING like them when they showed up on the scene, not even close.

laurarichardson said:

The video channels (MTV,VH-1,etc) rarely play music videos anymore.Those channels mainly show a bunch of stupid reality shows these days.I don't even watch those channels to see the latest music videos by my favorite artists.I go straight to YouTube,and there are millions of other fans who do the same.

Like I said,YouTube is the best,most efficient way to promote music.Everybody goes to Youtube.

SoulAlive said:

-----
I said that their is no proof that YOUTUBE is boosting CD sales. Sales are just as poor as they were before YouTube came along. For an unsigned band or new group it is fine but established artist do not need YOUTUBE.

Do you think if P's music was allowed on YOUTUBE he would suddenly start having Top Ten hits again? No because he is to old to appeal to most mainstream music fans. It is not going to make one difference for him or other established acts.

In addtion, Video channels paid a few to play those videos. The artist is not getting any funds from YOUTUBE therefore, an established artist is not selling anymore CD's via YOUTUBE and not receiving any royalty or fee from YOUTUBE.

bobzilla77 said:

-----

"But, think it hurt the Stones' image or ticket sales?


"No way. Especially since most Stones fans are old & have no respect for sampling/collage art as music. Stones fans will put up with anything. Crass commercialism (remember their guest spot on 90210?), $750 concert tickets, occasional lousy performances at those overpriced gigs... they're unstoppable. "

This is what most of the people on this board don't seem to understand.Established artist like P and the Rolling Stones are not going to be hurt by their actions. It called supply and demand.

laurarichardson said:

Record sales are suffering because of illegal downloading.There's nothing that Youtube can do about that,but it still provides alot of promotion and exposure for artists and their music.Who's to say that a young kid won't go out and buy a CD after seeing a video on YouTube?



That's not the point.Having his videos on YouTube would promote and expose his music,perhaps to younger fans who didn't get to see the videos when they were first released.It might interest them to go out and buy some of his old albums.

SoulAlive said:[quote]

laurarichardson said:

"It might interest them to go out and buy some of his old albums."

But it has not. P saw a boost in sales when he was out on the Musicology tour.
Young people today are not running out and buying CD. They are downloading illegally or listening to music on YOUTUBE or some of the other sites. It is not helping sales.

Timmy84 said:

laurarichardson said:

You cannot sit here and say that people don't go out and buy music that they saw on Youtube.You cannot say they don't go out and buy concert tickets after seeing live footage on Youtube.There is a reason why many artists (Madonna,Michael Jackson,etc) have their own official YouTube channels.They know that this is the best way to promote and expose their music.As usual,Prince is missing a golden opportunity.

thekidsgirl said:

Exactly.I think many of the older artists simply do not "get" the Internet.They don't know how to use it to their full advantage.This is certainly the case with Prince.