DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: I Hate The RIAA!: Giving Credit Where It's Due...

Forums > Music Business: I Hate The RIAA!

Giving Credit Where It's Due...

Woof	Date: May 21, 2005 @ 4:22 AM After railing against the RIAA's heavy handed manipulation of artists and mismanagement of marketing technique for the last several years, I have to admit that I believe they've finally done something RIGHT, for a change... Recently, after hearing a lot of Martina McBride on the radio where I work, I've become quite the fan of this lady... the singing, arrangement and production, and quality of songwriting have been, IMHO, truly deserving of all of the recognition that's been surrounding her releases. So I did a web search for her, and found this page: http://www.cmt.com/artists/az/mcbride_martina/videos.jhtml# A dozen or so videos, full length, that could be streamed to my heart's content... absolutely free of charge, and without registration. After spending a couple of evenings playing the clips again and again, I decided that it would be worth it to purchase a CD or two of hers. Imagine my surprise, when I discovered that her latest one, "Martina", could be had for less than $10 US. A week later, I made another run, and got her "Greatest Hits" CD for under $14. I imagine Ms. McBride is the exception, rather than the rule, as to how to conduct oneself as a respectable creative force, as well as showing understanding toward her fans' appreciation of her work (not to mention often limited financial resources). Maybe others will follow suit, and more RIAA artists will offer web freebies, and market their work at prices that aren't overinflated to the point of ridicule... If that's the case, I may indeed consider purchasing the occasional commercial CD once again... As of now, the boycott is back on after this recent backsliding. Maybe the RIAA is waking up, and realizing that they will do better by understanding and accomodating their public, rather than perse... I mean, prosecuting them. If so, that's a promising sign. Maybe it'll take artists going out on a limb like this, to set the example. And it remains to be seen (or heard) how Ms. McBride feels the RIAA has treated her over the years... maybe that's another story. For now, though, in the interest of fairness, I felt it was equally as important to call attention to things that are done right, as it has been to carp about every way the RIAA has blown it over the years. Disclaimer: I'm not being compensated in any way by any of the concerns mentioned above, for writing this. Nor do I intend this to be an endorsement of the RIAA in general.
Intergalacti...	Date: May 22, 2005 @ 4:00 PM Well we'll just wait and see
Saliva	Date: May 23, 2005 @ 12:53 PM Where did you buy these cds?
Woof	Date: May 24, 2005 @ 2:30 AM The worst place possible, actually... Wal Mart. I just happened to be there for some errands...
Saliva	Date: May 24, 2005 @ 3:22 PM Perfect answer. It's my understanding that these lower prices at Walmart are NOT a result of the RIAA being kind to the consumer. I believe Walmart and Best Buy now account for a vast majority of cd sales in the U.S. In fact, I'm surprised places like Sam Goody are even in business anymore: "In the past decade, Wal-Mart has quietly emerged as the nation's biggest record store. Wal-Mart now sells an estimated one out of every five major-label albums. It has so much power, industry insiders say, that what it chooses to stock can basically determine what becomes a hit. 'If you don't have a Wal-Mart account, you probably won't have a major pop artist,' says one label executive." (From Rolling Stone) That said, Walmart has put pressure on record labels to give them better pricing so they can sell cds at much lower prices to the consumer. In my book, yea for Walmart! Screw those labels. Ya see? Walmart's not ALL bad.
imemine	Date: May 24, 2005 @ 4:37 PM We had to get started on the Wal Mart thing now did we. Wal Mart has for years been actually losing money on CD sales in an attempt to corner the market. That’s right losing money. Their not alone either, Best Buy and Target willingly lose money selling CDs for less than $10 that they actually purchase for around $12 in an attempt to lure customers into the store to hopefully buy something else while they are there. It’s the oldest trick in the book. Wal-Mart sells an estimated one out of every five major-label albums sold in the world today! But here’s the rub, Wal-Mart is tired of losing money---DUH! They want the record industry to lower the prices and guess what folks, what Wal Mart wants, Wal Mart gets friends. (Sam Walton is rolling in his grave) Wal Mart threatened to reduce the amount of floor space dedicated to CD sales by around 20% if they didn’t get what they wanted. As a result, all of the major labels agreed to supply some popular albums to Wal-Mart's $9.72. “Maybe the RIAA is waking up?” Nope, just a bigger bully in town to force their hand! Wal-Mart represents nearly twenty percent of major-label music sales yet music represents only about two percent of Wal-Mart's total sales. And in and of itself is not a profit center! Looks like Wal Mart has the RIAA by the balls! So, it’s all good right? We hate the RIAA. Well, Independence can’t sell things below cost and make it up in volume. That business model has been proven to not be effective. Tower Records had ninety-three stores and declared bankruptcy, it’s now up for sale. Musicland sold and closed a bunch of stores. Neither is doing well financially. Here’s the real tragedy IMHO, we can pretty much forget about those little local record stores that I used to buy all my albums from. You know, those people who used to have a passion for music and knew everything about anything ever recorded. Man I used to love going to the record store! You would be better off working at McDonalds (or Wal Mart) than to try to make a living in the retail record business these days. So this is all really sad but here is the real problem for us folks that really love and even play music. What about all those great artist that don’t sell enough albums to be on the shelves at Wal Mart? Guess what, they don’t get record deals anymore. All those fantastic little bands that I search out on the peripheral side of the market will disappear. Thank god for Dmusic! Long Live Dmusic! LeFlaw, you need to start a Record Label! According to the RIAA, this is why a CD COST $16. $0.17 Musicians' unions $0.80 Packaging/manufacturing $0.82 Publishing royalties $0.80 Retail profit $0.90 Distribution $1.60 Artists' royalties $1.70 Label profit $2.40 Marketing/promotion $2.91 Label overhead $3.89 Retail overhead
Woof	Date: May 25, 2005 @ 4:45 AM Thanks, to the both of you! Now we're getting somewhere. Ya see, I think folks see the lawsuits, and that's the beginning and end of what's wrong with the RIAA. And this discussion here proves that there's a heck of a lot more ground to cover, than just whether or not it's gonna be okay to download music. Is this corporate control of America's artistic output? Well... yes, of course it is. After all, "money is like a whore... it goes where it earns". And if there's buckets to be made over marketing commercially produced CD's, everybody'll want their hand in. I agree with Ime, that in a sense, the Wal Mart mischief is good for creating a balance of power. Divide and conquer, and apparently the RIAA is just as busy licking their wounds from this monkey business, as they are from the P2P "problem". Very insightful stuff. And of course the question then is, where does that leave the artists? Mass media has attempted to play a strong role in shaping our tastes, with shows like American Idol. Does that foster creativity, or simply reward good craftmanship? Anyway, so as not to be rambling too much, here's the thing. Is the RIAA doing all it can to preserve an environment where creativity and expression can be nurtured and distributed to the masses, or are they more invested in dressing up rehashed ideas of proven formulas with the finest production and engineering techniques they can muster, and shutting out promising artists with less resources in the process? Unfortunately, the nature of the pop phenom is such that it must be accessible to the masses. In order to succeed, it must be on television, the radio, in popular films, and to a lesser extent, on the web. To succeed, it must be a commonly known language. That is the nature of popular culture. And whether Wal Mart is holding the reins, or the RIAA labels, the fact is that corporations run our culture. I, too, used to love shopping for albums by artists on the fringe. I gave up looking for that kind of thing years ago, when I'd spent too much, and found too little that I wound up liking. Again, I agree with Ime, that most of the surprises these days seem to be right here on DMusic. Most of the commercial stuff strikes me as superficial, polished gloss. So how do we go about screaming from the streets, that we NEED something new and well thought out, or we aren't gonna be interested? Ahh... that's the challenge.
Svensta	Date: May 25, 2005 @ 8:34 AM I am sorry to check in here as a gloomy gus, but I cannot just yet think that the model is changing. it is being altered by the 800 pound gorilla that is WalMart, but essentially, WalMart has done this to tupperware manufacturers and pickle bottlers and nearly all other vendors it deals with. NiN released Halo 17 recently (With Teeth) Barnes and Nobles music website is retailing it for 9.78. Great step forward! Perhaps... This one smacks more of a change in retailing because B&N isn't the market force that WalMart is. But then, WalMart won't SELL the NiN disc. From what I have read in business journals, WalMart uses some corporate-mandated morality-based selection process, and will not sell the kind of music that it finds objectionable. But that is a different thread... I think WalMart is just forcing them to offer a reduced rate in order to be put in a high-profile slot in what has become the ABSOLUTELY LARGEST SINGLE RETAIL chain in the history of mankind. Which just moves the power of market price from one powerful conglomerate to another. STILL not the fair market value that we are looking for. But a good first step. When you can subscribe to a music house and download and play their music without limit, then you will have something. Until then, the boycott goes on.
Woof	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 11:59 PM For some odd reason, Sven, your reply brought "Freddy vs. Jason" to mind Two corrupt giants battling it out to the death... which, I guess, is better than one corrupt giant beating the crap out of all of us... Maybe the RIAA will get so involved with the entanglement, that they'll forget about the lawsuits... hehe... wasn't Bush pushing tort reform to prohibit frivolous lawsuits, just a couple of months ago? Now what's more frivolous... some kid being taken to court for sharing a couple of mp3's on the web, or a guy suing the pants off of some doctor who butchered his grandmother to death on the operating table, because he didn't know what he was doing? You tell me...
wet1	Date: June 19, 2005 @ 5:07 PM The sweetheart deals that the major music corps give mass retailers has bitten them on the butt. For the most part it is the reason that mom and pop have gone the way of the buggywhip makers. They can't compete at the price that Walmart and the likes have set. They can't even buy them that cheap. With typical distain for both customer and business the music majors have charged p2p with being the problem, while it really isn't. No where else can they get free advertisement. When an artist needs a boost for popularity, many of these newer artists are leaked to p2p just to get them a fan base. Now that they aren't raking in money hand over fist as they first did when the internet wasn't a mass popular, they are raising a stink storm. In that line, the digital offerings are far less than one would wish but the prices are right up there with the physical product. There is no justification for the price of digital downloans. While they still charge for the same things, where is the Packaging/manufacturing and Retail overhead expenses for on line downloans? You don't get a case with the digital file and there certainally isn't a store that has cashiers and stockboys to pay. The 128 bit offerings certainly don't get anywhere near the 1300 better bit rates of the cd. So why is the cost still the same? It's nothing but a scam as it is now, and you the potential customer are the mark.
Thaspian	Date: June 27, 2005 @ 5:29 PM "Only" $10. $14. Considering what it costs to make, I don't think so. I'd say more, but sven and wet covered it all pretty well.

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: