http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/artists_not_concerned_about_file_sharing/



I wonder if the RIAA will comment on this? I guess as the people that take most profit from music sales, the record labels will be more concerned about file sharing than the artists.

I wonder what the break down is between well know musicians vs. unknowns. Actually, I think I know what it is. I don't find it hard to believe that most musicians don't care, but most of those are probably people that the big record companies don't care about.

the big label people care because it makes people discover music on other smaller labels that's actually better!

I'm just hoping it will either force commercial artists to show what they've got (IE: if they have any real musical skill or talent) or to get the **** out because they suck too much.

If it puts an end to the manufactured music created by the music industry in the 90s and onwards, 'Pop Idol' and other derivatives, then celebration will commence. I'm so tired of generic boy bands with generic music.

It's never going to happen. Record labels control the industry and basically dictate what is popular. No rebel artist from the drudges of the P2P world will rise above without joining the industry that might be against them.

Less Than Jake.

I agree that it's never going to happen, but mainly because pre-teen girls (huuuuuge market) do generally want generic crap from pretty people. Pop Idol gives said pre-teen girls the chance to feel like they know the people making the music, which makes them even more obsessed.

Arianne Moffatt became one of Québec's most popular artists after putting her album for download on the net. She won "artist of the year" here in 2003. Smaller scale than Less than Jake, but it just goes to prove that you can become popular without joining Sony, RCA, et al.

Sort of.

Epitaph Records

Is

the downloaders don't care about the artists

also true?

Yeah... now try that in the american industry!

I don't really have a problem with 'record labels' as a concept. Certainly in America, you need lots of money to do stuff, and the record labels help sometimes help put up money for the artists that can't afford to pay it all themselves.

No, what I dislike is when a band/artist is specifically manufactured in order to make a profit. They take some people that can sing, give them clothes, tell them what to sing, how to move, and kick them on stage. Quite often they never do any original music ever, they just do covers.
Being able to sing doesn't make you an artist. Talented, yes - artistic, no. Singers today are no longer artists, they are businessmen with voices.
This is what I dislike.

I don't see why artists would care if their music is downloaded off the internet. Actually, I would think they want it. Artists get on average 6.8% of the money that comes in from record sells, while they get around 33% of the concert sales(mainly because record companies are not involved with those). Thus, if their music is free off the internet is will get more widely distributed and more people will come to their concerts.

It's their contracts with the record company that makes them care.

What you don't understand is rampant downloading hurts the smaller guys who have just gotten signed.

When an artist gets signed, it's not like "hey free money." It's like, "hey here is some money but, you better pay us back you sack of crap, even if you have to tour for three years straight and sell everything you own. Because we own you now."

Sure it might get more people out to the shows, but it's still taking food out of the little fish's mouth.

See my above post.

Sad as it is, the singles-selling market wants that crap.