Ugh, these horrible record company execs. My heart goes out to all of these poor recording artists who have to deal with them.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Universal Music Group's View of the Digital World
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Our strategy is to have the people who create great music be paid properly," he says. "We need to protect the music. I know that."
By "the people who create great music" he means himself and his cronies. To them, Apple just demonstrated that digital distribution is possible and the reward for demonstrating it is to do whatever they can to kill them off. How would you like to sit in the same room with these tools?
Actually labels typically cover the costs associated to making an album (recording, marketing, distributing, music videos, touring, etc.,) and hope that they make their money back after the fact. Typically they don't, but the success of the relatively few "blockbuster" acts brings in enough cash to have the label turn a profit.
Lethal
Maybe its my idealism shining through for a moment, but one would think that by fixing the system, a short term profits drop would result in a long term gain. Nothing illegal about that.
Instead, the dog who needed kidney surgery is slowly dying in the front yard and one would hope that this causes UMG profit's to eventually drop even lower.
In the time I have used iTunes it has offered me so much for such a great price that keeps making me go back for more. The CD or some other form of online distribution that ties you neck and chain to their subscription is not for me, or for most of us now.
I don't know about "by law," but the stockholders certainly demand it.
The point is, those of you who are thinking up bad names to call Morris are missing the point. It's not about guys like him being greedy so-and-sos. He could be just as greedy as ever, but if he was selling you a product you wanted at a price you were willing to pay, you'd all be saying "thank you very much," and not thinking about greed at all.
The big point to be made here is that that guys like UMG's Morris are in the buggy whip industry, they just don't know it yet. It's a little sad, but I'm not planning on shedding any tears over them.
Spot on. These guys are absolute scum - it is well known that they not only contract to take, but then go further and steal every penny they can from the artists by hook or by crook. Scum, and their time in the sun is fortunately ending...
On one side we have a company with a great deal of vision that wants to combine the consumer's love of technology and entertainment into something better than what was there before.
On the other side, you have a bunch of pampered, overpaid executives fighting against the inevitable changes to their comfy empire like angry dogs trying to keep whatever scraps they have left.
Gee, who to side with...?
On the other side, you have a bunch of pampered, overpaid executives fighting against the inevitable changes to their comfy empire like angry dogs trying to keep whatever scraps they have left.
Gee, who to side with...?
I am shocked how many people don't get the dog surgery question. It's not what you do but how you do it. The obvious answer is to get a professional to do the surgery but how do you get the professional? By what means do you measure his skill? How do you know the surgeon knows what he's talking about? And how much is the surgery worth? By that I mean compensation to the doctor.
Morris even says, "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person anyone with a good ******** story would have gotten past me." This was then qualified as willful cluelessness by the writer. Do I completely believe Morris? No, but I don't think it's willful cluelessness. I think people are forgetting what it was like when Napster came around. What does one do when the revolution is happening under one's own feet?
I feel the article is biased against Morris from the get go. His direct quotes help me understand what he's trying to say.
You make it sound so easy. Either way here are some places you can support: CD Baby and Tunecore
With all that said, I don't want to subscribe to music. I will subscribe to movie rentals but not music.
Morris even says, "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person anyone with a good ******** story would have gotten past me." This was then qualified as willful cluelessness by the writer. Do I completely believe Morris? No, but I don't think it's willful cluelessness. I think people are forgetting what it was like when Napster came around. What does one do when the revolution is happening under one's own feet?
I feel the article is biased against Morris from the get go. His direct quotes help me understand what he's trying to say.
You make it sound so easy.
Either way here are some places you can support: CD Baby and TunecoreWith all that said, I don't want to subscribe to music. I will subscribe to movie rentals but not music.
Mr. Morris @ Universal's view of the digital world
Speaking as someone in the music biz, who is managing an artist that used to be signed to Universal, I have total disdain for Mr. Morris views. Were I on the board of directors of Universal, I would seek to have him replaced immediately. The insanity of suggesting that they are excused for not figuring out their own business because they aren't "technology" people is just totally revealing.
Distribution is what the majors are all about, and digital is all about distribution. It's for music distribution what Ford's Ford T was for cars. If they can't figure that out then they have no reason to exist - certainly the majors are not needed to produce great music.
Furthermore - he's not "protecting artists and their music". He's just in a totally futile way trying to protect their own control of artists and their music. How is allowing for people to access all music for a subscription fee going to help artists? No - Universal wants to sell advertising, for which they don't have to pay the artists, using artists and their music as the bait.
Here's a dinosaur going down in full view of everybody else. I feel sorrier for the Tyrannosaurus Rex than for Mr. Morris.
Speaking as someone in the music biz, who is managing an artist that used to be signed to Universal, I have total disdain for Mr. Morris views. Were I on the board of directors of Universal, I would seek to have him replaced immediately. The insanity of suggesting that they are excused for not figuring out their own business because they aren't "technology" people is just totally revealing.
Distribution is what the majors are all about, and digital is all about distribution. It's for music distribution what Ford's Ford T was for cars. If they can't figure that out then they have no reason to exist - certainly the majors are not needed to produce great music.
Furthermore - he's not "protecting artists and their music". He's just in a totally futile way trying to protect their own control of artists and their music. How is allowing for people to access all music for a subscription fee going to help artists? No - Universal wants to sell advertising, for which they don't have to pay the artists, using artists and their music as the bait.
Here's a dinosaur going down in full view of everybody else. I feel sorrier for the Tyrannosaurus Rex than for Mr. Morris.
You all pretty much have things covered. The record companies roles in the music industry are quickly becoming minor, if not all together obsolete.
Its almost like the real estate crisis going on right now. People got greedy and ignored the fact that things would soon change. Eventually the bubble burst and a lot of folks got burned. The mega-labels were so self-consumed with consuming that they neglected to see the needle approaching the balloon.
The record companies (in their hay-day) functioned like banks...lending money to clients in return for GROSS amounts of interest. They provided capital and connections to artists who had none of either. True, it was a gamble for the record companies as not every artist succeeded. As we all know however, billions were made, and not by the artists. The "failed" artists gave them something to write off at the end of the year.
I work with a UMG artist and its amazing sometimes to see how these folks think (although the same can be said about ANY mega-label). The lack of foresight and creativity even at the "imprint label" level is astounding. And more often than not I can see the motivation being in terms of $$$ instead of artist development or even basic marketing.
So as MacPhilosopher put it, the big labels hold value primarily as promotion contractors, and once again are trying to "hold on to yesterday", ignoring their impending demise instead of trying to accept evolution and move onward.
Of course we should all be sad about this because after all, guys like Mr. Morris are "only in it for the good of the artist".
Craig
OK, I'll jump on the pile too...
I know someone who was a secretary for a record company,
she quit because she couldn't live with what they were doing.
I remember years ago, steve miller had his company audited
to see if indeed they were losing money as they claimed. turns out they were lying. So he had them audited after each of his records came out. And EVERY TIME they tried to cheat him.
I think he was up to 14 albums by that time. Crooked and stoopid to boot.
hate to bring this up, but the "music business" has deep roots in organized crime dating back to the jukebox era when speakeasies had to pay protection money. There are several companies that were reputed to be fronts a few years ago, but
i don't know what the current situation is. I had freinds that were paid in bags of cash! I assume they have
done like the vegas folks and gone semi legit. The line today has blurred between criminal and legit business.
According to my friend, it's still common practice to keep fraudulent books and bribe media folks.
I could go on and on with the stories my music friends have told me over the years.
Hm.. maybe i'll write a book.
I know someone who was a secretary for a record company,
she quit because she couldn't live with what they were doing.
I remember years ago, steve miller had his company audited
to see if indeed they were losing money as they claimed. turns out they were lying. So he had them audited after each of his records came out. And EVERY TIME they tried to cheat him.
I think he was up to 14 albums by that time. Crooked and stoopid to boot.
hate to bring this up, but the "music business" has deep roots in organized crime dating back to the jukebox era when speakeasies had to pay protection money. There are several companies that were reputed to be fronts a few years ago, but
i don't know what the current situation is. I had freinds that were paid in bags of cash! I assume they have
done like the vegas folks and gone semi legit. The line today has blurred between criminal and legit business.
According to my friend, it's still common practice to keep fraudulent books and bribe media folks.
I could go on and on with the stories my music friends have told me over the years.
Hm.. maybe i'll write a book.
Its really annoying with everyone trying to line up against Apple, especially after all the money they have made for the industry.
I'm actually interested to see what Apple may do when pushed to the point of threatening.
Apple has a HUGE cash reserve. I really could imagine then saying screw it and actually starting a studio to reel in the major artists that already like Apple. And then pay them more money. And then get rid of the DRM. And then put the others out of business for good.
It's already happening with services like CD baby getting the little guys on iTunes, I can see them getting the big boys on board and really doing a number.
After all, I don't think Apple is THAT concerned with profit from the store itself, this is about keeping people in the library and buying Apple products.
I'm actually interested to see what Apple may do when pushed to the point of threatening.
Apple has a HUGE cash reserve. I really could imagine then saying screw it and actually starting a studio to reel in the major artists that already like Apple. And then pay them more money. And then get rid of the DRM. And then put the others out of business for good.
It's already happening with services like CD baby getting the little guys on iTunes, I can see them getting the big boys on board and really doing a number.
After all, I don't think Apple is THAT concerned with profit from the store itself, this is about keeping people in the library and buying Apple products.
" Last edited by WildCowboy : Today at 08:46 PM. Reason: post merge...please use multi-quote"
Good grief, why? Those two might not know each other and be very embarrassed to be put so close together!
Cordially,
BG
Good grief, why? Those two might not know each other and be very embarrassed to be put so close together!
Cordially,
BG
I suspect the person who posted that knows how to spell "moron" but is making a reference to a notorious pic that floated around the Internets* a while back.
* Yes, I know it's not plural, but I'm making a reference to George W. Bush's quote during the 2004 presidential debates. See how that works?
I understood the dog surgery analogy, and I sympathize with waking up one morning and being in the midst of a revolution. However, we're talking about one of the largest (if not THE largest) music corporation in the US/World. Surely they could've found qualified tech-folks to help them cope with things.
As mentioned in the article, the big labels were too addicted to the high margins of CD sales to entertain the idea of a "new digital world" with much lower profit margins. So instead of at least attempting to learn how to perform surgery on their dog, they simply ignored the illness and watched the dog kick the bucket.
Craig
Buggy whips
The paradigm shift in the movie and recording industry will happen (as it usually does) when the execs of his generation retire/die out and are replaced by the execs of the internet and digital age. Until then, we must be vigilant against these people trying to secure their power and ideology through legislation that will have an adverse effect on our culture.
The radio industry is the horse and buggy technology of today. Our generation will see its demise as it is replaced by internet access and services like podcasting, and on-demand, subscription based services.
Cable TV and the Motion picture industry are the horseless buggy of yesteryear for the same reasons. We, (generally speaking) want on-demand, virtually instant access to all television shows and movies no matter when they first aired or in what country they were produced. We want the ability to watch on any hardware device, unfettered by any restrictions, and when we want to watch it. We don't like being tied to a schedule so we TIVO or DVR or iTunes it. We don't like commercials and think that if you insert them into your program, then we shouldn't have to pay for your program.
Morris reminds me of some of my clients and relatives, of a certain age or generation, who seem genuinely proud of the fact that they have "resisted" computer technology. That somehow not knowing anything about using the internet is somehow a virtue. That being ignorant is bliss. They don't get it.
Here's to the next generation of CEO's and politicians that do!
The paradigm shift in the movie and recording industry will happen (as it usually does) when the execs of his generation retire/die out and are replaced by the execs of the internet and digital age. Until then, we must be vigilant against these people trying to secure their power and ideology through legislation that will have an adverse effect on our culture.
The radio industry is the horse and buggy technology of today. Our generation will see its demise as it is replaced by internet access and services like podcasting, and on-demand, subscription based services.
Cable TV and the Motion picture industry are the horseless buggy of yesteryear for the same reasons. We, (generally speaking) want on-demand, virtually instant access to all television shows and movies no matter when they first aired or in what country they were produced. We want the ability to watch on any hardware device, unfettered by any restrictions, and when we want to watch it. We don't like being tied to a schedule so we TIVO or DVR or iTunes it. We don't like commercials and think that if you insert them into your program, then we shouldn't have to pay for your program.
Morris reminds me of some of my clients and relatives, of a certain age or generation, who seem genuinely proud of the fact that they have "resisted" computer technology. That somehow not knowing anything about using the internet is somehow a virtue. That being ignorant is bliss. They don't get it.
Here's to the next generation of CEO's and politicians that do!
What makes you think they'll do anything? The corporate guys are dinosaurs and what they're doing now is ensuring that they will be left behind as technology and music move forward. They need Apple and iTunes more than Apple needs them. They aren't going to pull the indies out of iTunes anytime soon (and I suspect that's a larger chunk of iTunes sales than it may seem) nor are they going to stop the bleeding of big name bands like NIN and Radiohead who are exploring alternative distribution methods. The game is over. The music industry lost the hearts and minds of the consumer and the artists, and now their own distribution model is on the rocks. Apple needs only to continue doing what they do making music players and stores that the music biz needs very badly. Eventually, whatever is left of the music industry will figure that out.
We live in really exciting times. I remember a few years ago, when I was really passionate about Apple, it was at the very beginning of the shift we're seeing today. Now I'm really passionate about music, and I think the same things are going to be happening. I can't wait for good music to have a fair chance again.
I'd argue that it doesn't much matter who's in charge in this industry. The buggy whip industry didn't go under because their executive lacked vision, it went under because the world no longer needed buggy whips.
The question is, why do musicians, and the people who listen to them, need large record companies any longer? This industry was founded on the three-legged stool of radio, recording and promotion. With technology and the internet, all of these factors were altered fundamentally and irreversibly -- in favor of both the audience and the artist, and against the big labels.
If I were a young musician, I would not be looking for a recording contract so I could afford studio time with the hope that my record company pushed my music and got it played on the radio. I'd be recording in my home or in some small studio and putting the stuff on the 'net for people to hear, and develop my audience that way. A lot of artists do that now -- and I think a whole generation of musicians are growing up in this environment, not in the old one, where you don't get heard without a recording contract with a big label.
The old music industry model is virtually obsolete, they just don't know it yet. They probably couldn't do much about it even if they did, any more than the buggy whip makers could stop the automobile from making them obsolete.