planet_of_sound

AMAZING

I don't really know the band other than a few songs but I'm inclined to investigate more after that.

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?

it's not original to criticise bush, or talk about drugs, whatever, but what other Radio 1/2 friendly stars with a high profile have come out with songs with lyrics explicitly ("when will we tie of putting shit up our noses") about drugs/politics? James Morrison? Take That? Girls Aloud? Look at the top selling album artists last year and name one. You can talk about Radiohead or Kanye but the audience is different. It's not original to write about these subjects but at the same time it's not exactly safe for an artist of her level, and if 'Everyone's at it' was released first then there may have been a bit of controversy, so there is a risk in that aspect. But part of the appeal of Lily to the public I guess is that she doesn't hold back in interviews, and if anything the controversy works for her, but not in a calculated way. And I suppose that's what is refreshing about her; to have a mainstream british artist who is getting played a lot, with lyrics which aren't made up of bland generalities.

haven't heard the Bush song, but SYMM is atrocious.

although something doesn't quite sit right with me about this whole pre-ordering thing when the band haven't even entered the studio yet.

fact. no industry conspiracy.

as for the discovery argument: yes it does have positives, you discover new bands etc. but then what? do you buy the album at a later date? do you only buy albums you really love? what about 7 or 8 out of ten albums? do you see all the bands live? and with myspace and online streams there is more material around than ever to judge whether you will like an album or not. and CDs are cheaper than ever.

This article doesn't really say anything new- yes people will download your album if it's free. but then what? you're getting exposure no question, but of the people taking a punt on the album, i'm guessing most will be heavy downloaders anyway and taking a punt on quite a few others anyway- for that reason i don't see that musicians will make it back playing live and through merch, especially if gig prices continue to rise. and i think it's established that even if people really like an album they've downloaded, they still probably won't buy it.

the downloaders are potential new fans, but surely you would get many times the exposure by running a decent myspace, and offering a couple of tracks for download and having a few more streams. surely that is enough material for someone to make an informed decision to buy an album? you don't need the money by the sounds of it, but what about the bands who do?

I just don't see it as a sustainable model, but maybe it's the way its going anyway.

now im leaning towards an 8 or 7. for the record i don't mind that watch line either, in fact trojan horse is possibly the highlight for me so far. not sure if it's great. i was warming to mercury until i saw the reading performance.

As for WITC for me it has some great songs but as an album leaves me a bit cold, don't think i've listened to it all the way through. it gets a bit too serious and preachy for its own good around Uniform/Where is Home. i am listening to SRXT now however and it is very nice.