In this Discussion
- agentnumone January 2010
- bathslash63 January 2010
- beckysioux January 2010
- bikesuit57 January 2010
- brianpage9 February 2010
- clocktooth4 January 2010
- cloud85soy January 2010
- DJRose January 2010
- flowergrass13 January 2010
- flygoal8 March 2010
- friendlydogs833 January 2010
- georgecost65 January 2010
- handpain9 January 2010
- jedi_grrlie January 2010
- knee4repair January 2010
- lathe6breath January 2010
- man82brick February 2010
- radargrey5 January 2010
- RBagley January 2010
- sand6hand January 2010
- sandra8peru January 2010
- starship8 January 2010
- Sunnyside January 2010
- swissfeast68 January 2010
- thomas61may January 2010
- touchtree90 January 2010
- violet8cheek January 2010
- week4pump January 2010
Comments
Next let me say most of the young people today have no memory or concept of the history of buying music, I have watched this charade from the late 60’s and I am here to tell you a song isn’t worth more than 25 cents (USA) and in that regard iTunes is charging to much.
This isn’t meant as disrespect to OKGO, but it’s the truth, and I can remember a time when CD’s first came out and how expensive they were, how you had to wade thru 9 crappy songs to get to the one you wanted.
They (the greedy old men that run the music biz) told us prices would come down, they never really did.
Not until they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) watched the Internet yank away their distribution control, slowly their old business model collapsed around them, and instead of adapting they spent millions on lobbying new laws, taking 12 year old girls to court, and bankrupting others in a vain attempt to create a climate of fear.
They failed, they will always fail because they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) are fools.
iTunes shows you how easy it is to adapt, distribution has never been easier and never cost less.
But instead they whined about all the “billions we are losing” well a quick google search “music industry profits for 2008 - 2009” will show you how they lie, in fact times are good for these greedy old men, but they can’t rest on that, they continue to lobby our rights away.
A quick review of copy right laws and the changes they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) have manage will show how corrupt they are.
IMO it’s always been about the music, if you went into the biz to make a million then F you, for those that are honest about their music keep going it will work out in your favor.
I like OKGO’s music, I enjoyed your article, and I hope you keep going for a long time, please take a snort off the Queen mum for me (I’m to old for snorting crap any more) and for the younger folks take a peek at history and how they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) have F’ed their way thru people’s lives, screwed over musicians and sold you complete crap (B. Spears anyone?) and never forget what they are.
Greedy Old Men.
So for EMI to say that there should be no embedding suggests one of a few things about the legal department (who actually are the ones ultimately driving the decisions behind the no embed rule)- they are terminally backward and stupid... or... there is a distinct lack of precedent about this stuff for them to make contracts... or... maybe a bit of both with a smidge of laziness tossed in. Whatever.
The point here is that we do need to evolve this distribution problem. Standards for presentation help this sort of thing. But there are, as I mentioned, a large number of tech advances that have been made regarding tracking stuff as it moves around the web. Maybe the if the techies and lawyers can stop yelling at each other for a while?
Best luck. Love the video- and the song! Nice orchestration.
Upon a nice walk in the rain I came to the realization that, in fact, a single point of distribution is about the ONLY way to ensure all parties get correct viewing statistics as well as any revenue generated. Again this is completely technically possible right now.
Not all musicians have the drive or determination of Ani. Still, in 2010, it's pretty hard to say that any artist or group that is serious about their music and their fans really needs to cow-tow to a major label.
More than ever, there are alternatives to the major label system to getting music out, connecting with fans, making a living etc. etc. and which will not result in anyone controlling how or where your videos can be embedded.
As I remember the story, Ani created Righteous Babe because she decided she ought to have a record deal, so she gave herself one. It wasn't that she was trying to be subversive, although that's a great story for today's climate. Ani is an incredibly talented musician who deserves everything that has come to her, but to hold everyone up to her standards is unreasonable.
That's all I'm going to say about this for the moment, because it's not like any of these people are reading any of these responses.
OK, except for this, because this pisses me off:
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! I mean really. Have you ever even listened to an OK Go song (other than the one playing when they dance on the treadmills)?! This band has been out connecting with fans since before that was the buzzword. When people write books on how to connect with fans, they call these guys. I went to the Future of Music's Policy Summit and they had this PR expert speak on how musicians should go about connecting with their fans and the FIRST THING SHE SAID was "Well, we should talk about OK Go right off the bat."
Again, other artists/bands may not have realized it in 1989, though, with some careful consideration, they well could.
In 2010 any musician who wants to serve their fans firstly, but is beholden to a major label, has to accept they can't have their cake and eat it too. It's high time to make changes.
When Ani refused to perform on the Letterman show 'cause they wanted to her to perform a less controversial song than was arranged, here's what she said:
"“That is the problem with our society right there — there’s no way I’m going to @#%$ participate in it. I’ve structured my whole life to not participate in it. Saying no to a record company when I was 20 years old and starving, looking forward to a whole lot of years of starving and working on my own — that’s difficult. Saying no to playing on this one TV show was really easy, but that gets a lot of notoriety because it’s @#%$ TV.”"
Too often we hear musicians rationalizing why they are in bed with big corporations. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect integrity. Again not everyone is as quick to realize the game as Ani DiFranco. But, once it's dead obvious, then, still playing the game is pretty much a self-serving gambit however it's rationalized.
p.s. I did not say OK Go don't connect with their fans. The point is that there are ways to connect with fans which will not result in anyone controlling how or where a band's videos can be embedded.
2nd, as someone from the other side of the pond, in a small country in EU, i dont even get a youtube vid from EMI or Sony!
All i get is a big fat warning saying "This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country." Meaning:
"we don't actually care bout you and we don't you to even get to know this band".
Same stuff happens with most of Australian Bands from the major labels.
Well, if i really like the band i might email the band and go bla bla, but.. with so many awesome artists out there and so little time, why should i care?
Anyway, thanks to your efforts from spreading the word (vid). Both song and video are great!
Best of luck
<3 Aok
PS: that "crap" bout the advertisers dont wanna reach out to the wrong crowd needs more logic.
More than ever, there are alternatives to the major label system to getting music out, connecting with fans, making a living etc. etc. and which will not result in anyone controlling how or where your videos can be embedded.
Of course there are. More now than ever. More than there were in 2001 when they signed to Capitol in the first place.
Yes, this is very true. You have to give up a certain amount of control and accept certain conditions when entering into a contract, that's obvious. Nobody's denying that.
However, I think Irene made an astute point when she noted that music videos have gone from a promotional tool - a way to get even more people to listen to a band and buy their record - to a source of controlled revenue. Rather than exposing it to the largest audience possible and thereby upping the number of potential album-buyers, they want to control distribution in order to up revenue that is being lost because of the dropping interest in purchasing records. I don't think it's unreasonable for a band on even a major label to turn around and say, "Hey, you know what? This is fucked up. You're taking one of our best promotional outlets and cutting it off from the world. This isn't only bad for us, this is bad for you, too." Part of Capitol's job, apart from signing the checks, is promoting the damn music that they now own precisely because they sign the checks. This is a really really bad way to go about doing that.
I do agree that as time goes on, there are more and more viable options for artists to get their music out there without the aid of a major. Maybe if all the artists revolted, things would change, but we're clearly not at the point yet. Perhaps, if we put OK Go circa shopping for a label in the early 2000s in 2010, they wouldn't make the same decision. Perhaps, if given the chance, they would take back that decision. But I don't think it's fair to make a band accountable for the label's inability to hold up part of their end of the deal by failing to promote the album in a reasonable manner, which is not only good for the band but good for the label itself.
And I agree with Rachel that you can't hold every band up to Ani. More than that, if OK Go had gone the start-your-own-label route, whether or not they would have or could have attained the success she did is debatable.
I'll say it again, I'm certainly not pro-major. At the same time, I think telling a band that would like to see their hard work go somewhere without having to jump through what I think we all agree are ridiculous hoops that it's their own damn fault because, after all, they signed to a major and could have just started their own label and that's just indicative of how much they aren't serious, is somewhat unfair.
Subject: The OK Go Fracas
What if I told you a stroke of genius, a relatively cheap video based on concept more than expensive special effects, could become an Internet phenomenon and you'd break an act. Would you like that?
Of course.
To the point you'd see the value of Internet video and make sure that it never happened again.
Every day people e-mail me video links. I'd say they go direct to YouTube maybe fifty percent of the time. Which makes me believe those passing on the clips didn't find them on YouTube, but at these other sites, where they've been embedded. Yes, the miracle of the Internet, you can find something and share it with everyone, right from your own damn site! Like allowing anyone to come see a TV program or hear a record in your home!
But not if someone won't pay for it.
That's how the Net works. You pay for it first, then you figure out how to spread the word.
No, that's not true at all. You spread the word, then you figure out how to pay for it. That was the genius of Napster. And when it was adjudged that the site was guilty of massive copyright infringement, the major labels made a deal and we've been trading files via Shawn Fanning's service ever since!
No, that's not what happened. The rights holders thought they could keep us in the past, but they were wrong. And have almost lost their business as a result.
So here we have OK Go, proprietors of the treadmill video, trying to have another hit. What are the odds? Miniscule. Especially if you broke on a novelty. Hell, just ask Shaggy. You'd think that EMI would do everything to help this act, which has already established a beachhead, be successful in its sophomore effort.
But no, like Scripps trying to teach Cablevision a lesson, EMI is disallowing embedding of the clip. They don't want to set a precedent. First they want to work out the money!
Tell that to a band. Which is hard to keep together even when everything's going right, when the money is flowing.
Yes, we signed you to a deal, we locked you up, and now you're caught up in our petty little wars. If your career is sacrificed, that's the breaks.
Huh?
Who's going to sign with a label then?
With distribution flattened, doesn't the label want to appeal to the act? Show how hip it is, how it can help them?
Read Damian Kulash's screed. Who'd sign with a major label after that?
And unlike the pre-Internet days, this will not be an insider story, told by OK Go members at a bar twenty years hence, which will be perceived to be sour grapes anyway. Rather, this is a real time response which already has traction. I know, because not only has this story been bubbling online for over a week, I've been e-mailed Damian's post ad infinitum today.
You see it's just like Leno and Conan. We feed off inequities. We've watched enough "Judge Judy", we make judgments ourselves, fuck a court of law, EMI is guilty!
Which is exactly what Guy Hands wants, as he continues to lose money trying to maintain control of this sinking ship.
What if EMI became home to the artist? What if EMI gave up fifty percent of all revenue to new acts? What if EMI staked its future on being the solution as opposed to the problem?
But EMI is just the leading edge. The three other majors are not far behind. Ill will has been brewing for twenty years. Unless they win in the court of public opinion, they're doomed.
If the labels want to maintain control, they have to first get the hearts and minds of the artists. But they're losing those.
I think Damian is a little mealy-mouthed at the end. That's what dealing with the man will do to you. You end up being nice, seeing the other guy's side, instead of being vitriolic. Isn't it funny that the Internet is full of anger, but the usual suspects are duplicitous, kissing butt in the old world?
We want acts to own the truth.
The truth is OK Go's fighting for its career with its hands tied behind its back.
Piss off EMI.
And never sign with a major label if you want control of your act.
Mmm... You grew up with your own Web page, you made YouTube videos, and now you want to sign with a main line company and sacrifice not only control, but your integrity?
Never gonna happen. The younger generation's gonna go it alone. They read horror stories like this and they say no way. So, the usual suspect labels will only be able to sign the lamest and the most compliant. That's not a business model for the future, wherein major label control of radio and TV means ever less.
People want to be Radiohead, not Rihanna.
And Radiohead's got no label.
http://okgo.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showtopic=4169
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
Mmm except that they didn't grow up with their own web page nor did they make YouTube videos until well after they'd signed up with a major. As I said, experience is one hell of a teacher.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Radiohead's first six records were released on Capitol / Parlophone, at which point their contract ended and they were big enough to go it alone. Regardless of whether there was label-band tension, vitriol, or amicable relations, they still released six records on a major before self-releasing In Rainbows.
Dude, we get it. The band is accountable in this; it's not just the Big Bad Label. I'm not sure what you're trying to gain in posting this on the band's fan forums where your specific issue seems to be with Damian, who may or may not respond.
Also, third release. Not sophomore effort. Just throwing that out there.
I'll bet 20 that the ho was just trying to get into Damian's pants
L. S. Miller calls Ok Go morons (and dumb) and then gets to interview Damian? What? : )
Ummmmmm. Okay.
You noticed that too huh? The corporations have taken over the internet. Google searches are all skewed for corporate mainstream results.
It is really a shame. Someone with good music like you or someone like me with information that could change society had a chance to reach people on the internet with our material a few years ago. If our material was good enough the hits would be there to take what we created to the top.
Now we can't. There is no way to get past the blockade of corporate websites, corporate search returns, and corporate censorship that is the internet today.
Your posts says you got "50 zillion hits" on your first video. I am guessing that is exaggeration but I bet you really did get a lot of hits on your first video. I got 1.3 million hits on one of my first videos. Youtube censored that video to the back of it's category because of corporate pressure. Now all my videos get are maybe 1000's of hits.
What can we do? The corporate mainstream world kills innovation and creativity so it can collect money. They don't care if we can change society for the better. They only care about how many zeros are on their bank statement.
If the record labels are receiving money per play then this is separate to advertising revenue. Advertising is possible on YouTube videos and can be placed on embedded videos, with the advertisers having some control over domains the ads will or will not appear on. However this pays out per click - if someone clicks on an ad within your music video you would get paid.
Getting paid per play of a music video is obviously a specific deal YouTube has with the labels and, by the sounds of it, doesn't involve any third party. This means that YouTube themselves are simply saying that *they* will only pay if you are bringing people to YouTube, and not if you embed elswhere.
Seeing as embedded YouTube videos are branded and include a link to YouTube it strikes me that this is possibly not the best deal that there is to be struck.
I'd love to know if you were given to understand from the labels that the issue revolved around third party advertisers, or if you were simply discussing two separate issues in the article. It sounds from the article as though you were told that it was third party advertisers were the barrier, whereas in fact it sounds more like YouTube themselves are the barrier to embeddable music videos, under the terms of the pay per play deal.
I always buy my music, I have book cases of CDs and Vinyl... I just get satisfaction of actually holding in my hands the copy of the album that I love... I like to idly spin it round my finger (making sure it doesn't get scratched though!) when I'm bored, and flip through the nicely design and laid out booklet, reading lyrics and the credits and the bands thanks and acknowledgements.
But I don't have an issue with embedding YouTube videos, if I'm sharing a youtube video, I just post the link. If I'm writing a blog and I want the video to stand out from the page, and I want to embed the video (but can't), I just get a snapshot of the video, add it to the blog and make it link to the youtube video in a new window.
Simple.
If watching the Youtube video on the YouTube site gets you a small trickle of money, I'll watch the video as much as i can everyday!