I cordially invite the RIAA to feast on my penis

[Cactus Drags]

Hey, rappers name-drop brands and stuff all the time, I just don't want it to start happening in less gay types of music.

[Gabriel]

Artists are consistently forced to decide between their beliefs and money. Combining advertising with inserts wouldn't give them a new battle.

Lots of people would say that Rise Against have already sold out their beliefs for a more commercial success. I'm not one of them, but I know lots.

The battles with the record companies would just end up being more about what kind of nefarious business Pepsi is into, than about what the music sounds like.

We're headed into a future where you'll be able to make a living by wearing clothes with a company's logo on them. Advances in technology have forced our corporations to find new ways to make money, and advertising is one way that will never be gotten rid of. Just like file sharing, advertising is something we're all going to have to learn to embrace at one point or another, otherwise we're just going to end up with a lot of shitty messes like this RIAA crap.

[noblefreakv2]

Sadly, I doubt Apple will fight them. Now, if you want your music on the Ipod, you have to buy it from Itunes.

Hey, rappers name-drop brands and stuff all the time, I just don't want it to start happening in less gay types of music.

Edited January 10, 2008 by noblefreakv2

[zero]

I don't see how an advertising insert in a CD will be so detrimental to an artist's integrity. Once a band signs with a label, it's just a matter of degree to the level of which you're no longer a band, you're a brand. It's just the idiot losers ranting about "OMG SELLOUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!" just because more people start listening to them that are going to kick up a shit storm because their favorite band isn't their little secret anymore.

Rise Against was the example used. The same Rise Against that is frequently on the Vans Warped Tour, with their merchandise sold in Hot Topic, and their songs played on radio stations owned by Clear Channel and Viacom, videos on networks owned by Viacom and tickets to their shows sold on Ticketmaster? No, you don't just slap the Pepsi logo on the booklet, but you sell advertising for products that tie into the band in question. Rise Against maybe ads for Vans or PETA, not just anybody willing to spend money.

Of course, that's just one band-aid on a much bigger issue, the RIAA and record labels in general becoming irrelevant. MP3s, digital distribution, faster internet connections, and things like myspace have made getting music out there much easier. The RIAA is going to need to embrace change if they want to stay around instead of making big deals out of people making a copy of a CD (which has been going on since the days of the fucking cassette).

[Cactus Drags]

I knew people would jump on me if I mentioned a specific example, they were just the first band that came to mind with a particularly strong beliefs and whatnot.

[zero]

Well I wouldn't say I'm jumping on you... I'm just saying that Gabe's idea would be a valid one if done properly.

[Gabriel]

This has actually been a surprisingly civil topic, given the subject matter at hand. I was expecting it to get out of control with people bashing each other.

I really do think that the only logical solution to the file sharing epidemic for all parties involved relies heavily on advertising.

For example... Mixed Martial Artists make most of their money by way of sponsors. They wear the sponsors logo on their gear, or wear their t-shirts, hats or whatever... and they get most of their income that way. They still get paid to fight, but unless you're Chuck Liddel, you probably can't live off of just your fight wage alone.

The music industry is probably headed in a similar direction, where albums are still available in physical format, but instead of slapping people on the wrist for file sharing, we'll all be enjoying the smooth taste of Garrison's Chocolate Milk, after learning about it in the online lyric booklet for the new Danzig album.

[Cactus Drags]

I don't like the way this is going, the whole "well the world of X is plastered with advertising, so it's ok." I don't like being force-fed shit loads of ads, and generally music is a safe haven. Sponsored tours and stuff are bound to happen, but when the ads are actually on the band's output, it's a little different. And how long before they get muscled out by the corporations and we end up with ads all over the artwork?

[noblefreakv2]

I don't see how an advertising insert in a CD will be so detrimental to an artist's integrity. Once a band signs with a label, it's just a matter of degree to the level of which you're no longer a band, you're a brand. It's just the idiot losers ranting about "OMG SELLOUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!" just because more people start listening to them that are going to kick up a shit storm because their favorite band isn't their little secret anymore.

Rise Against was the example used. The same Rise Against that is frequently on the Vans Warped Tour, with their merchandise sold in Hot Topic, and their songs played on radio stations owned by Clear Channel and Viacom, videos on networks owned by Viacom and tickets to their shows sold on Ticketmaster? No, you don't just slap the Pepsi logo on the booklet, but you sell advertising for products that tie into the band in question. Rise Against maybe ads for Vans or PETA, not just anybody willing to spend money.

Of course, that's just one band-aid on a much bigger issue, the RIAA and record labels in general becoming irrelevant. MP3s, digital distribution, faster internet connections, and things like myspace have made getting music out there much easier. The RIAA is going to need to embrace change if they want to stay around instead of making big deals out of people making a copy of a CD (which has been going on since the days of the fucking cassette).

[Gabriel]

I'm sorry... what?

Maybe it's that I just woke up... but that post was almost completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The only similarities were the use of the word sell-out, and that Metallica was the RIAA's bitch, before they embraced filesharing.

What? Metallica embraced filesharing? When?

I'm glad you asked.

You can download, for a small fee, any number of live Metallica concerts in mp3 format from their website. They haven't fully given in, but it's a huge step forward in an industry that seems too stubborn to do anything but live in the past.

[slain]

Is this the same for Canada, or no?

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Disregard.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Mr. Potato Head

[zero]

In fairness to Metallica, the whole issue with Napster was that their unfinished work was being shared on there, everything else was secondary. I love how people jump on them for the Napster debacle when what they were saying has pretty much become the accepted view on filesharing.

[Gabriel]

I have tons of respect for Metallica and their acceptance of growth in the industry. I still don't think they handled things well though with the Napster thing. I mean... yeah, it sucks that your unfinished music is being distributed. However, how much of that is to blame on anyone but the band? What, do they give out tapes of unfinished recordings at parties with their friends or something?

If you don't want something leaking, you have to keep it tightly sealed...which means the less hands that touch it, the better.

For instance, when Metallica's new album is ready, you'll be able to find it fairly easily a month or two before release because of the sheer amount of people who get copies (finished or not) before hand. Whereas with say a new album by Zombeast, you'd have a much harder time, because the band does most of the work themselves, and their independent label doesn't do much other than distribute it once it's done.

When things leak, you need to look at who had access and lay the blame there. You can't really blame people for wanting to hear it.

[zero]

Well, let's be honest, a lot more people are going to be looking for new Metallica rather than Zombeast. And I was talking about then moreso than now. Even though it was less than ten years ago, music leaking on the internet wasn't such a common occurrence as it is today. And while Zombeast has their indy label to work with, it's just not the same when you're a band as big as Metallica. Call it sellouts, call it whatever, but Metallica is the biggest hard rock act on the planet and they naturally have to do things a bit differently than bands on smaller labels. They're not just four guys recording in a closet anymore, their music is bound to get stolen and/or leaked.

Now with that said, I will agree that the band did not handle the situation as well as they could have when it all went down. Instead of expressing concern over what file sharing could do, they came across as greedy, aging rock stars unable to accept change.

[Gabriel]

They've definately changed though, which is great. The guys were going through tons of shit other than the Napster incident, so it's cool that they got things together.

I realize that it's harder to keep things out of greedy hands when you get big. I don't think they sold out at all, but they do need to be more careful about things. I think what they went through opened a lot of eyes in that regard. 10 years ago, a band wouldn't think twice about handing out cassettes of unreleased stuff to certain people. Now though, if it's not someone you can completely trust, you can't do it unless you want it on the internet.