Lily Allen vs. Radiohead vs. Patrick Wolf vs. The Man

The only way Lily Allen can run this line without being a complete hypocrite is if she replaces the word "artist" in the above rant with the word "entrepreneur" and the word "career" with "business". Why does anyone owe anything at all to these "new acts trying to make it in the industry"? If you're trying to "make it in the industry" you're fucked to start with (because the industry has always done it's best to exploit the fuck out of acts new and old), and you're stupid to boot (because, as anyone, including Lily Allen herself, will insist, it's getting harder and harder to make any money in music).

Alternatively, if you're trying to make music that you like/enjoy (and hope others will like/enjoy too), then you've got it better than anyone in the past because you no longer need to fork out heaps of money to record your music and to make it available for people to discover/sek out.

In a nutshell: just because you've composed a few songs doesn't mean you're owed a fucking "career".

Frankly, Lily Allen's views are about as relevant as a heart transplant to someone with the common cold.

Policing the internet, prying into people's downloads/traffic, cutting off offenders: this is the dream of a Big Brother internet as plotted by Big Business music (with the occasional help of oafs like Allen) and sadly, there is little-to-nothing in it for independent artists.

Like the the camera, the VHS recorder, the radio, the recordable cassette tape and countless others, the internet is merely another threat to corporate profits, at the expense of the little man. That's word to your mother

But every time I read a story on them on NME they seem to be against measures and legal actions to stop file sharing; they may have good intentions at heart but essentially to the people who skim through their statements- the generation they want to educate- the message is that they support file sharers.

Until thy actually have measures or a plan, they should just keep quiet and let the labels deal with it their own way.

The lead singer of Snow Patrol recently came out in support of the Pirate Bay, and said he was pro downloading. All well and good, but would he have said that 7 years ago after being dumped by Jeepster following two unsuccessful albums?

This is definitely an issue worth considering from all angles. There's no doubt that music-sharing is linked to a downturn in the industry, but I would argue that it is also linked to a cultural upturn artistically in music itself. More exposure, more variety, more influence and procreation basically. That factor alongside a new availability for the technology that allows the financially 'average' to make music of widely consumable quality suggests artistic democratization, which on the whole sounds good to me. The world is a big place - there's got plenty of room for more musicians.

The idea that every track shared is a lossed sale is seriously preposterous. Research has pointed to an increase in Games sales and DVD sales in the period when music sales have decreased. Your average consumer has a finite amount of money. And they've started spending it on other things. In a situation like that, piracy actually increases exposure and introduces consumers to other forms of revenue like gigs. It's good news for music. It's bad news for an antiquated record industry which needs to change its ways - or which no longer has a place.

Lily is basically siding with a view of music that depends on a capitalistic value system. Social media and the internet is actually undoing the absolute preeminence of capitalism as regards the ability to deliver a message and deliver your music on a large social scale. When it comes down to it, I believe that great music doesn't originate from money. So why should you need a record contract to make it? If we can create a durable infrastructure for a socialized music industry, then I think this would be a great thing for the art of music. The jury is still out, but I'm optimistic about the power of this movement...

Until then, suing your consumers is NOT a business model!

She's slating these artists, but they gig harder than her, and have done for much longer, and it comes as a result of not constantly releasing shit records.

and a lot of factors that both sides gloss over but I think this ^^ is pretty much on the money.

If someone values a piece of music highly enough, they will pay money to listen to it. If they do not value the music, they will either

a) download it illegally because they judge it to be not worth a fiduciary investment or;

b) avoid it all together.

It's basic economic Darwinism.

As one poster mentioned, DVD and game sales are increasing, so it's hardly a case of a general decline in consumer spending. More to do with the fact that the general quality of music is declining, and the few new artists creating something of merit are being marginalized and/or ignored all together. Music critics are generally less trustworthy than ever, due to the pressures of pleasing advertisers and the vested interest many have in creating "scenes" and "movements". The only way for the discerning music consumer to discover quality new bands is through the internet, so it makes sense for them to try before they buy.

Next week, I solve the Middle East conflicts. The week after, the issue of third world debt. Stick around.

There's those who see file-sharing as a 'political act' (ie justifying copyright theft via 'fight the man'). There's those who see it as an opportunity to try before you buy (which is fair enough given the quality drop in mainstream album releases and the vast increase in potential choices).
Then there's those who see it as a direct threat to their investment in an outdated and frankly ridiculous business model (hi lily you twonk).
The internet (and associated technologies) has opened up opportunities for musical artists to move away from being effectively owned by some faceless uncaring corporation. Sony, for example, couldn't give a fuck about any singular artist as an individual or a human. They want sales targets met and stakeholders satisfied with exemplary increases in profits.
Unfortunately, their business practices and strangelhold on any alternative outlets for distribution have always meant that they could do whatever they wanted.
That's no longer the case and that's why they are shouting about having people cut off from the internet.

If any of the labels had accepted the recommendations to move towards a digital distribution and sales model they wouldn't be losing so much money. It's tough shit. They failed to move forward with technological and socialogical progress with regards to music and how it is produced, marketed and delivered.

People such as Lily Allen, Metallica, U2 and whoever else cannot see beyond their protectionist stance and luddite adherence to an old way of thinking have the ability and audience to be able to do it for themselves, but dont because they are;
a) lazy
b) stupid/ignorant
c) greedy as all fuck
d) all of the above.

Trent Reznor has been able to make a success of selling his work via the internet, rewarding fans with freebies. And will probably continue to do so. This is the way forward. This is the option available to all musicians and artists. And giving the public the option is what is needed here, not draconian measures. There's too much of the stick and not enough of the carrot to make it worth anyone's while to move away from filesharing at the moment.

This is a much the industry's fault as the enterprising black hats who designed the P2P systems.

Put it this way, if the record industry saw beyond trying to cripple their competition (ie tapes, CDR's, CD Burners, etc etc) they wouldnt be in the mess they are in now.

Radiohead proved that if you have a sufficiently large/frothing following you can allow people to download your music potentially for nothing and still be gazillionaires.

given that the genie is out of the lamp and staying there, surely the question is how do new acts build that following?

i'd have to agree with lily that filesharing has had a detrimental effect on the careers of new artists. just not for the reasons she thinks.

and she's still a tool.