NOTE- I am not endorsing, nor arguing with Mr. Henley's statement...just reporting it...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By Don Henley
Tuesday, February 17, 2004; Page A19


When I started in the music business, music was important and vital to our culture. Artists connected with their fans. Record labels signed cutting-edge artists, and FM radio offered an incredible variety of music. Music touched fans in a unique and personal way. Our culture was enriched and the music business was healthy and strong.

That's all changed.

Today the music business is in crisis. Sales have decreased between 20 and 30 percent over the past three years. Record labels are suing children for using unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems. Only a few artists ever hear their music on the radio, yet radio networks are battling Congress over ownership restrictions. Independent music stores are closing at an unprecedented pace. And the artists seem to be at odds with just about everyone -- even the fans.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the root problem is not the artists, the fans or even new Internet technology. The problem is the music industry itself. It's systemic. The industry, which was once composed of hundreds of big and small record labels, is now controlled by just a handful of unregulated, multinational corporations determined to continue their mad rush toward further consolidation and merger. Sony and BMG announced their agreement to merge in November, and EMI and Time Warner may not be far behind. The industry may soon be dominated by only three multinational corporations.

The executives who run these corporations believe that music is solely a commodity. Unlike their predecessors, they fail to recognize that music is as much a vital art form and social barometer as it is a way to make a profit. At one time artists actually developed meaningful, even if strained, relationships with their record labels. This was possible because labels were relatively small and accessible, and they had an incentive to join with the artists in marketing their music. Today such a relationship is practically impossible for most artists.

Labels no longer take risks by signing unique and important new artists, nor do they become partners with artists in the creation and promotion of the music. After the music is created, the artist's connection with it is minimized and in some instances is nonexistent. In their world, music is generic. A major record label president confirmed this recently when he referred to artists as "content providers." Would a major label sign Johnny Cash today? I doubt it.

Radio stations used to be local and diverse. Deejays programmed their own shows and developed close relationships with artists. Today radio stations are centrally programmed by their corporate owners, and airplay is essentially bought rather than earned. The floodgates have opened for corporations to buy an almost unlimited number of radio stations, as well as concert venues and agencies. The delicate balance between artists and radio networks has been dramatically altered; networks can now, and often do, exert unprecedented pressure on artists. Whatever connection the artists had with their music on the airwaves is almost totally gone.

Music stores used to be magical places offering wide variety. Today the three largest music retailers are Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Target. In those stores shelf space is limited, making it harder for new artists to emerge. Even established artists are troubled by stores using music as a loss leader. Smaller, more personalized record stores are closing all over the country -- some because of rampant P2P piracy but many others because of competition from department stores that traditionally have no connection whatsoever with artists.

Piracy is perhaps the most emotionally gut-wrenching problem facing artists. Artists like the idea of a new and better business model for the industry, but they cannot accept a business model that uses their music without authority or compensation. Suing kids is not what artists want, but many of them feel betrayed by fans who claim to love artists but still want their music free.

The music industry must also take a large amount of blame for this piracy. Not only did the industry not address the issue sooner, it provided the P2P users with a convenient scapegoat. Many kids rationalize their P2P habit by pointing out that only record labels are hurt -- that the labels don't pay the artists anyway. This is clearly wrong, because artists are at the bottom of the food chain. They are the ones hit hardest when sales take a nosedive and when the labels cut back on promotion, on signing new artists and on keeping artists with potential. Artists are clearly affected, yet because many perceive the music business as being dominated by rich multinational corporations, the pain felt by the artist has no public face.

Artists are finally realizing their predicament is no different from that of any other group with common economic and political interests. They can no longer just hope for change; they must fight for it. Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find answers."

Read the full article
-----------------Note, the Washington Post requires free registration to read their articles.----------------------

~Code

nice article. So now, Don Henley wants change.... but through Washington. I think that's not a good idea for us boycott-RiAA people. (unless you have a special interest group tooo)

Betrayed by the fans, my ass. What they have to understand is that the people who buy their music nowadays are mostly kids. And those kids alone cannot keep a steady flow of money coming in for the artists. That is up to the labels. Why else are they there? Here's an example of their average consumer:

I buy Eminem's albums every time they come out. Slim Shady LP comes out. I get a copy of the CD on cassette from a friend. I then go buy it when the money comes to me. Marshall Mathers LP comes out. Luckily, I still have money from my birthday. I buy it and the snippet tape the day it comes out. The Eminem Show comes out. I am one of the millions of people who downloaded it and the looped chorus bootleg long before the release date. Nevertheless, I didn't hesitate to buy it when it came out. Along with that last one, I also bought another copy of the first 2 major label releases. Did I have to? No. But I did. Is that what you'd call a loyal fan? I believe so.

All of the purchases, along with many other purchases, were made as soon as the money came to me. And I was an original Napster user, along with a couple other things (including a direct download site). I downloaded each and every piece of music that I then bought. I scraped together what I could, as well as borrowed just so that I could purchase the albums. I also bought his damn book shortly after it came out. I had only enough to buy a copy for 5 dollars from Amazon (a nice 20 dollar discount).

If Eminem's upcoming album was released today, I would not buy it. Not because I wouldn't want to, but because I don't have the money. I wouldn't download it either (I've long since stopped), but if I did, I would definitely buy it. Not because I'd feel bad that I got it for free, but because I buy what I like.

The fact of the matter is that if someone wants the music that bad, they are going to get it. Don't go after potential consumers because of the possibility that they will buy your music, but they're downloading it for free instead. Adapt to changing times or accept the fact that there are fans that grew out of your music and it's going to take a while for the younger crowd to move in on the CD shelves at their local record store.

I'm sure that if CD prices were lowered, then that would be an incentive for me to get a low paying job or cash in all my bottles and cans. Until then, I will be making minimal purchases, and I don't want to hear you complain. You may be new to these types of losses, but rest assured it will pick up. Ride it out and revel in your future successes.

And to Eminem (who has spoken out against P2P file sharing):
Please release your album as soon as possible so I can help you to move into the Neverland Ranch. I sure would hate to see you still living in that small but cozy mansion in the hills of Detroit...

"Piracy is perhaps the most emotionally gut-wrenching problem facing artists. "
ONLY IF YOU ARE ON THE HIGH SEAS AND ARE AFRAID OF BEING ROBBED AND/OR MURDERED BY PIRATES! (USC, TITLE 18, CHAPTER 81...SECTION 1652)

!Code

I should clear something up. That last comment sounded REALLY sarcastic, but I didn't mean to come off like a complete dick. Sure, a little sarcasm was used in the mansion part, but I really would like his album to come out as soon as possible so I can get it. Even though I'm in debt and living on scraps in a basement.

"artists are at the bottom of the food chain...Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find answers."

'ol Don is right about this, only the artists should be going to DC in order to fight *against* the RIAA, their slavery contracts, and the current copyright laws enforced by this multi-national conglomerate, using the good names of their artists, of course. Why go to Washington to fight their fans, when they have fought off enough of them with their silence alone?

- Manimal

PS - CodeWarrior, your "Open Letter to RIAA Artists" inspired me to join the site...and as I am reading through past topics trying to get a feel for this place, I must say that I am continually impressed by your contributions to it.

"Suing kids is not what artists want, but many of them feel betrayed by fans who claim to love artists but still want their music free."

WELL....IF THEY FEEL THAT WAY...THOSE ARTISTS DON'T HAVE A FRIGGIN' CLUE!

Manimal- Thank you very much fot the kind words, and for joining our effort~
WELCOME !
~Code

Anytime, Code...just keep 'em coming...

- Manimal

"Piracy is perhaps the most emotionally gut-wrenching problem facing artists. "

especially if you are putting out crap that no one wants to hear let alone buy. If I were to put out a cd full of shit that I recorded while drunk or stoned and I thought it was garbage, then yeah, I'd be a little worried that people might not be willing to pay for it. If I also thought that someone might be able to hear it before they spend money on it I might be really worried.

I gotta message for you Don and this should make you feel at ease. "I'm not downloading your music. I'm not buying it either. and just for spite's sake I'm not listening to it. There are other people who deserve a chance to get their stuff out. Don't ask me to buy your next greatest hits cd. Don't ask me to go to your concerts and don't ask me to feel sorry for you because your 7 figure a year income is being trimmed back by .001%. I'm out of sympathy."

you can quote me on that.

"Suing kids is not what artists want, but many of them feel betrayed by fans who claim to love artists but still want their music free. "

Oh yeah? Well many of us music fans feel betrayed by our Artists. Why??

First of all, your silence on the downloading issue is deafening. Clearly Henley doesn't understand what a downloaded file is. Nor does he understand what can be done with it. The internet is tomorrow's FM radio (maybe even today), yet he treats it like we shouldn't hear his music. Good, I won't listen to you Mr. Henley.

Second, it's the artists fault as much as the record label for allowing their own labels GREED to usurp what your fans want. Where were the artists when the labels reduced and stopped selling singles?? Did any complain?? I sure would have if I was an artist. Did any complain about the ridiculously high price of music CD's?? Not many. Not nearly enough. How many complained years ago when file sharing first appeared about the need to adopt the technology?? Very few I know did. And Mr. Henley, you were NOT one of them.

Finally, you may say that "Suing kids is not what artists want", but have you done ANYTHING to stop it? Very few have bothered to comment about it. Sure, artists do deserve compensation for their work. But making everyone buy an overpriced CD to get their one favorite song is NOT the model any artist should have backed. And as long as you signed to an RIAA label and didn't fight these practices, you are just a guilty as if you had done them yourself.

So, Mr. Henley, stop your whining and talk to us when you've really DONE something about these problems facing your industry. It sounds like the only thing YOU want to do is get more legislation passed to sue more downloaders.

Sadly for old Don, he hasn't had a passably good tune since "Taking You Home", and that one was too mellow even for my mother. Same with his adult contemporary compatriots like Sting, all the fire and passion has petered out, leaving only a weak and watered down sound. Maybe they should look to their own lack of talent to see why their sales are falling off.

I posted this because Henley makes a neither fish nor fowl statement...
He seems to want to condemn the big labels...but then also finds fault with fans, accusing them of "piracy" (apparently, he has never read Title 18, Chapter 81, Section 1652...)...and apparently old Don, though he wants to present himself as a well read, intelligent man, hasn't learned that what he calls "piracy" is alleged "copyright infringement"...come on Don..they aren't hard words to learn!

He says artists don't want to sue kids...well...make a public statement on behalf of artists..like this "Be it known, as artists, do not condone nor endorse the actions of the RIAA pf suing people for alleged copyright infringement..." But they want do that...so I guess that statement (about artists not wanting to sue kids...and it's not the artists suing anyway, it's the labels) should be viewed in context of empty words.

And, sorry Don...but this statement is just wrong...
"Record labels are suing children for using unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems."
I could find no lawsuits in which someone is being sued for use of an "unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing system." Using P2Ps is not a civil nor criminal wrong. People are sued for violation of copyright, specifically, copyright infringement. Please think before you speak Don!

"They can no longer just hope for change; they must fight for it. Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find answers."

I agree that change needs to happen, and legislative change is appropriate. I probably disagree stronly with Henley on the nature and extent of those changes. Some time ago, I wrote and proposed the Digital Consumers Rights Act
http://www.geocities.com/codewarrior_wins/digitalconsumers.htm
which aims at reforming the laws, but there are certainly other proposals out there.

The problem is that Mr. Henley ignores independent musicians and their rights...he ignores things like artists being able to stream their own music, he ignores the problem is artists having to give up their copyright rights when they sign with these labels, and on and on.

Henley acts as if the major labels are the only way...the only conduit to provide commercial music to fans...he makes note that it is flawed and probably wrongheaded at this point...but he stops short of addressing either the very real problems, and the people responsible for those problems at the labels and in the RIAA, he is careful not to castigate the labels too strongly, and is VERY careful, not to defend the fans strongly...nor to say that the provisions of the AHRA that cover analog media, should also now cover digital media, for the legal reproduction of songs and movies for personal, non-commercial usage.

The problem with Hensley's message is that he seems to want to drive down the middle of the road...and doing that...doesn't help either side.

sorry for typos...

Henley is confused and suffering from PMS. He's plowing over old ground in frustration. That's good news then: the RIAA is showing cracks in its solidarity and refusal to take a step over that bridge to licensing. Henley is cracking up. Why, you may ask, do I confuse the RIAA with Henley and the RAC? Because Henley is carrying the RIAA's water on the so-called piracy losses.

The Rich Artist Coalition, (consisting of such artists as Beck, Alannis, Sheryl Crow, Dixie Chicks, No Doubt), hosted three concerts before the Grammies last year. Fans turned out in droves in support of artists. What Henley didn't tell anyone is that he intended to fund legislation to criminalize computer users. The RAC gave $300,000 to Rep. Conyers and the result was the Author Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act H.R. 2751. (read this link http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=554)

I love how politicians name their initiatives like a Big Lie scheme to accomplish the exact opposite of what the unsuspecting public would buy into if truth were forthcoming. Sort of like a No Child Left Behind or Clean Air act for the music industry.

I have traveled three times to see congressional hearings in which Henley testified. Since we share session musicians and mutual friends, I have spoken to him each time.

Henley is an effective speaking force, and I applaud his successful efforts to repeal the California Work For Hire amendment. I cannot imagine how much worse this ol' world would be if we were fighting cooperate efforts to claim to be the authors of creative works. Thanks Don.

But it doesn't stop there. The RAC has hired a California lobbyist (the top aide to Grey Davis, and up to his neck in energy & Enron payments.) Henley is also on the search for a Washington D.C. lobbyist, reportedly to the tune of $1 million. May I respectfully suggest he take the temperature of Mitch Glazier or Bruce Lehman and see if they are available.

I would suggest that any boycott of artists start with the Eagles. They need to be called out for their treason.

After all the expense and aggravation for two years of the accounting hearings, review of seven year statues and Clear Channel payola, Henley cancelled Sen. Kevin Murray's legislation. The reason? "We must redouble our efforts to fight piracy." His manager Irv Azoff admitted as much in Billboard July 2003.

Conyers, Berman and Lamar Smith have cosponsored The Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act, H.R. 2752

Described as "Could make it a felony to upload copyrighted material on a peer-to-peer network. Making a single upload meet the legal threshold in the physical-goods world of felonious copyright infringement."

Here’s what Declan has to say about it.

"The fine print says huge categories of software--including Web browsers, instant messaging clients and e-mail utilities--that are offered for download must contain a warning that it "could create a security and privacy risk."

And the catch? If the companies or individuals that offer the software for download don't comply with the requirement, they will face criminal penalties such as fines or prison terms of up to six months. Even, that is, if the software is actually secure and poses no security risk.

Ouch."

Read Declan’s report of Henley’s masterpiece legislation here:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5093780.html

Henley needs to take a chill pill, or at least buy a computer and learn something about the Brave New World. Meanwhile, the boycott starts with him. Get your facts straight, Don, or shut up.

EXACTLY Code.

Don starts his rant off in the first few paragraphs in a good way, bashing the industry and all for their evils...

I just can't understand why he thinks we even need the industry anymore...

He of all people should lead the poor house slaves out of the plantation home that is swiftly burning to the ground.

Instead he says to the cotton pickers "...but we need master to survive..."

I just don't get it.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
"free your bonds!"
Support Local and Independent Music!

well he did make a lot of good points. however I heard how the industry, fans, and washington should be responsible but I haven't heard word one about how the artists should be responsible. Does he think that the artists are the only true innocent victims in this?

Yeh know I wish I owned a big enough business that I could cry losses and everyone would believe me despite proof to the contrary.

Poor Don. It's so tough being a major-label poster child isn't it? After dominating radio for 30 years, now it's time to complain.

Betrayed by the fans...??? How many fucking Eagles albums have you sold, Don? How many concert tickets? Who paid for them? Your lawyers?

If you can't handle a bunch of teenagers listening for free, then you've forgotten how you got to be a big shot in the first place. Did the Washington Post ask you for an opinion because you are well known for your writing and observations? No. It was because you've sold 12 gazillion copies of Hotel California.

As an Indie, I look at people like Henley and I see the betrayer. Things are the way they are today because people like him have kept their mouth shut for 50 years.

Don Henley,

I'm an Eagles fan, and of course, I'm not buying CD's, I have them all.

Occasionally, I buy DVD music/video releases. A much better value for the price.

BTW Don, it would be nice if all your DVD albums would have the 'subtitle' feature.

"Suing kids is not what artists want, but many of them feel betrayed by fans who claim to love artists but still want their music free. "

KMA dickhead. When was the last time you made an album that had more than 2 good songs? 1985 maybe? And for $18.99 no less. And you say it's the fans who betrayed you?

Please.

I'll make a deal with you Henley. You make an album where half the songs on it are worth listening too sell it at a reasonable price, and I'll go buy it. Until then stop betraying you once and former fans by trying to suck them dry everytime you release a single.

Don Henley is a notorious scumbag, but the dude can still write a tune. Download "Goodbye To A River". : )

I don't download RIAA tunes

We should write to Henley and remind him that MOST OF US (mroop excluded, apparently) have listened to his advice and stopped downloading his music.

Of course, since we listened to you about Clear Channel, too, we no longer will ever have any idea if you ever release a new album.

We're just following orders.

How about a better song..Goodbye to the RIAA....

"We should write to Henley and remind him that MOST OF US (mroop excluded, apparently) have listened to his advice and stopped downloading his music."

Apparently not. I bought a used copy of the cd. I also wonder about the source of your data for the "MOST OF US" comment, but that is neither here nor there. : )

mroop,
You have a DMusic Note waiting. I found one!

Ahh, the thrill of discovery. Thanks for the note!

i dont have a problem with what don henley says here, and quite frankly i think it adds some genuinity to his music.

Unfortunately we must destroy the walls that enclose he and his fellows in arms before he will be free of the industry menace. this means attacking their profit margins, and just like when you blow up a real wall, the people inside are at risk of serious injury.

what else do we do though? this is the only way we have to fight back.

I like the idea of wippit services, but they still pay the riaa corps rather than ol don himself.

He starts off right... the problem is 100% the record industry...

And the reason nobody buys cds anymore, is because they are to damn expensive! With $20 plus whatever your rate of sales tax is, I should not be able to buy just one cd, but in a range of 5-10. They cost mere cents to make, the RIAA shouldnt see a penny of it, the record companies should receive NO MORE than 50 cents per cd (make all the layoffs necessary to make that happen) and the artist the rest.

The US is really weak in its anti-trust laws, because the record companies are one huge monopoly of pure evil.

I pretty much agreed with what Don Henley said about FM radio and music stores. FM radio today sucks to high heavens. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area (the 3rd largest media market). Living here, you'd assume that we would have endless variety on the radio. Not true. Out of 30 stations, I'd say that there are no more than 5 or 6 formats. Thats why I like....no, LOVE listening to music on the Net. Even going to the 70's or 80's channels, usually within 5 songs, there's either a song that I haven't heard before or a song that I had forgotten about because I hadn't heard it in a long time.

I agree that the artists should be paid for their work, yet I want to hear the songs on an album before I hear it. That's why I use P2P. I enjoy a wide variety of music. I want to hear the songs on an album before I pay for it. If I like it, I'll be happy to pay for it.

The RIAA needs to make sure that the artists get paid. They are the bread and butter for the RIAA. An example: Say you have a business (RIAA) with employees (the artists). If you're paying peanuts to the employees, they'll jump ship and go find work somewhere else where the pay is better. Another example using the same scenerio: Now, say the business is goig through a hard time: Less orders, lower profits, more competition. Shoud the people at the top keep getting their full salary while the people at the bottom of the totem pole have to make do with less (or worse, work for nothing)? I don't think so

"unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems. " who authorizes p2p systems?

"If you're paying peanuts to the employees, they'll jump ship and go find work somewhere else where the pay is better."

But the beauty of the music monopoly is that there is no "somewhere else."

Instead of wasting your time here, tell Don Henley what you think.

I did.

racinfo@recordingartistscoalition.com

undeath, you write:

"I'm sure that if CD prices were lowered, then that would be an incentive for me to get a low paying job or cash in all my bottles and cans. Until then, I will be making minimal purchases, and I don't want to hear you complain. You may be new to these types of losses, but rest assured it will pick up. Ride it out and revel in your future successes."

spoken like a true modern-day entrepreneur of pop bottle and tin can recyling, from which great wisdom ensues, not to mention a complete grasp of economics

Alright Guys,
Let's stop attacking Mr. Henley for a second and hear what he has to say. He says that record companies have become these massive corporations run by sole greed and control and decide what they want us to hear. I agree with him. Doesn't anyone want to pay for music that they like here? Doesn't anyone beleive that an artist should be paid for thier work? The one thing I will say is that the artists need to go to Washington and start fighting these major record companies and force the labels to make deals with P2P Networks. The only way we are going to win this war against what they call rampant piracy is what Codewarrior called compulsive licensing. This is what RIAA memebers don't want. I really beleive that Henley and many of his musical colleages would love that idea, while the major record labels hate it becuase thier bread and butter that buys thier rich excess living would be gone. I propose that we write an open letter to Congress addressing this problem and hopefully a solution and I guarentee guys this will be an end for the RIAA. I actually like the idea of using Kazaa to take a music file, share it, Kazaa, makes a portion, the file-sharer makes a profit by sharing the file, the artist gets a cut of the mp3 music file, and so does the songwriter. The only one who get's shit is the record label becuase the song does not belong to them. But like it or not, WE NEED TO PAY THE ARTISTS FOR THIER MUSIC. SUPPORT THE MUSIC YOU LOVE. Don't steal it.

RRicci, you write:

"The RIAA needs to make sure that the artists get paid. They are the bread and butter for the RIAA."

Not just the bread and butter of the RIAA, they are the sole source of the music which we enjoy, unless you make your own music.

A bit too much bashing of Don Hedley, here. Hey, I don't much care for his music, but I do understand and agree with most of his observations, as both a musician and a producer.

If this boycott-RIAA business is just putting lipstick on the pig of demanding the right free music, take off the costume and make your own.

Date: February 17, 2004 @ 7:33 PM
Finally somebody who knows the math. People think that just because you can burn a copy for less than a buck,then that is the price they should pay. Not taking into account that our studio time, equipment(thousands of Dollars)studio engineers, and travel,hotels,telephone bills,meals cost a bundle.Keep in mind this all comes off the top. That is just for recording. Touring, first as an opening act for very little money so that you can get enough exposure to sell enough records to get to be a headliner if at all. We are already putting our asses on the line to play for you guys and then P2P downloading comes along and really throws things for a loop. I know dozens of great and famous musicians who got out of the business because they just couldn't support themselves.Signing a record contract is no more that borrowing money from a bank. They get paid first all their expenses, then you start to get paid. The advance you get barely covers the costs of producing the record and that money gets paid back first also.It takes a minimum of a million dollars to launch a new act, and that money gets paid back first as well. Plus if you don't sell at least a quarter of a million copies for a major label they drop you from the roster. Indies were and are happy to have sales of those numbers so that is why the independent record labels once thrived.Those numbers are gone and probably forever. Now that there has been 3 or 4 years of solid P2P downloading, even their sales have diminished by a factor of 10 to the point that over 600 indies have folded over the last two years and the rest are hanging on by their toenails. If it was so easy, then everybody would be doing it.As someone who was signed to several major labels over the years,and had several gold records,we were lucky to break even.What used to get us was the IRS picking our bones,creative accounting by record labels, and now fans downloading our work for free, where does it end?As for the major labels, I am not their fan and I have a lot of bones to pick with them over several issues, but one thing is for sure, if you think that you are only punishing the labels, think again, you are also hurting the artists you say that you love.They get dropped from the label, their capacity to promote and tour is damaged and their entire livelyhood is put into question. Its not a perfect world,but even in the world we live in today, its only right that you get paid for what you do. I don't hear anyone bitchin about what sports figures make and believe me they make a 100 thousand times more that your average musician, and after it all said and done,they are millionaires chasing a ball around a field.Our work is every bit as taxing, every bit as competitive and grueling and we do it all year not just a season.We make people happy, divert them from their problems and enrich the culture and civilization as much or more as they do, don't we deserve to get paid too? I play because I live and love my music and playing it for people, but how long a person can work, sweat and slave and not get paid is the major question that musicians ask themselves these days.As fans you have to ask yourself would you work for free?Also for the up and coming musicians of now and the future, and the ones unborn, are less likely to choose a profession that has so little in compensation to offer.Think about it.

I'd like to send the don some cheese to go along with that ____ !!! 10/4 flbgbt

schmoo says:

"I just can't understand why he thinks we even need the industry anymore..."

hmmm... come to think of it, let's live in silence, or at least outlaw music and dancing, the devil's temptation.

Lord have mercy, the promised land is in sight ! We can all make our own music, and share it with each other for free, just like we do our vacation photos and chat room comments. As we all know, those are all award-winning contributions, every one of them worth the bits and pixels they were printed on.

Of course we don't need the industry, since -- after we individually create our own original music and post it for free on the internet for all of our friends and fans in the global village -- we will compress and download all of the other tidbits by everyone else in our blog inbox and just hope to find time to enjoy it before surfing tomorrow's hot creations from the people of the world.

We won't need the music industry because we will have all transcended to a free society in which no one has to work, and food will all be shared equally, at least according to taste, and not overly salty, with low cholesterol, and half-a-decaf-nonfat-lattes handed out free in hot spot internet coffee shops just for the photo op advertising the live customers of the coffee shop on their internet cam in exchange for virtual marketing miles which subsidizes their connection to Big Bertha, the content switch to beat all content switches, feeding our subliminal desires for novelty with just-in images of the latest atavistic behavior from the utopian clearing house, that time-share-rental spectacle of the new world where anybody has a right to live in anyone else's pad as long as they sign up for it well-enough in advance and displays a Captain Krunch Decoder Whistle logo on their crebit card.

You're completely absurd. You do not need the record labels to make money on your music. It has been proven time and time again. Your obvious sarcasm is not needed.

Do you know how many independent musicians there are? They do fine without a label. You may not be able to see that because you're immersed in a world of Britney Spears and NSync...

"As we all know, those are all award-winning contributions, every one of them worth the bits and pixels they were printed on."

And the one-decent-song CDs that the RIAA puts out... they would be different because someone in a suit decided we would like them?

I think you're at the wrong fucking URL.

absurd? you got it.

you miss the entire point, though.

fair enough to complain about the overhead and inefficiency of major labels, and, yes, their greed, which has added unnecessary cost to the food chain of music distribution just to support their own lifestyles without sufficient contribution of value added.

after all, the big labels definitely helped create the problem by continuing to charge WAY too much for CDs when they were cheaper to make and distribute than vinyl. greed, clearly. and hubris.

but is that the music industry ? independent musicians need independent labels, or are their own labels de facto. production, marketing, distribution, promotion -- all those things which cost money are required to reach a larger audience, even if you launch the original work from the warmth of your own bedroom studio and server.

it takes many, many years of hard work and discipline to develop musical skills, even if supremely talented. How is an artist to be recognized or supported if their works are not played, are not promoted, are not paid for so that the artist can continue striving to make the best offering? By definition, if a system exists to compensate people for their work in society, be they artists or engineers or accountants, it is an industry. Regardless of the status of independent musicians, some form of industry is required in this society. To think otherwise is to live in...well, an absurd fantasy.

Your pot-shots of affinity with Britney and NSync could not be farther from the mark -- perhaps your music is composed entirely of sampled loops ?

I am an independent musician, and an independent label, and I am investing my time and money to record quality music from sources that are very alive and very rare. The artists have a right to be compensated, and, if there are people who like the music, I hope to be able to continue to offer the music up for the benefit of more than just a few people. But that requires supporting the whole process, my industry, my industriousness, if you will, by buying the music and not ripping it off.

The real obstacle as I see is more the limited amount of educational and promotional avenues for quality music, and, yes, the domination of those advertising and music video production budgets by big music companies. Us little independent musicians still have a big mountain to climb just to get media attention that communicates with the public, regardless of what the big labels do with their (dimished) funding.

So, try another tack ?

"the wrong fucking URL" ??

that is hilarious. Perhaps you would prefer a discussion of the topic in which everyone subscribed lock-step with a corporate line that YOU bless ? is that not committing the same mistake ?

you think I defend "suits" ? hardly. but it would appear that the problems and issues with the industry supposedly discussed here are in many cases rants against an amorphous and ill-defined fiery blob which somehow justifies a strategy of ripping off musicians as part of a crusade to slay the dragon which is so vilified ? Just sounds selfish and immature to me.

So tell me,cut to the friggin chase, do you approve of free digital downloading? Is that what you believe an effort to reform the music industry is all about ?

In Seattle we have C 89.5 on the radio. It's been around since the 1960s, operated by Nathan Hale High School. They webcast too. I have heard songs on that station that I have never heard before. Granted, they play some RIAA tunes, but it's mostly indie music. And the signal is pretty good after they put a new antenna up in the Cascade foothills.

Henley has problems, but he's not my problem.
:-:~ Phantom

I'm fairly new to this site, and have been reading and observing from the sidelines..now I feel I have to contribute, and respond to .."cut to the friggin chase, do you approve of free digital downloading?" I am not a musician,but a longtime music lover..and consumer. I've spent countless $$ over 25 years on vinyl, cassette and discs..often on the same album (or slightly repackaged releases) due to the changes in technologies, of which I had no say in as the TRUE ' lowest on the food chain'...the consumer. I don't ever remember getting a survey form in the mail saying " Dear Regularperson Moneybags, we here at the Record Company have decided to change the thing that we scratch the music onto. And of course, the companies that make the music playing machines will be making different machines, to read our newly scratched products. Please let us know how you feel about this..and your soon to be obsolete music collection". My point being that much of the discussions here, while interesting, thought provoking and well informed, miss what I FEEL is the real issue..the explosion of new, affordable technologies and the struggle over who has the power and who gets to make the rules. Let me give an example. Before any of us had computers..back in the good old 70's and 80's, most everyone I knew growing up would at some point make a copy of a cassette (on the dual cassette deck) to give to a friend..or tape an album to listen to in the car. Or record a show or concert from the radio. Were we bootlegging and filesharing and infringing on copyrights? Damn right we were..so why was'nt the RIAA or Jack Valenti or ANYONE dragging sullen, suburban teens wearing Van Halen concert tees from basements all over the country? Because we lacked the technology, and the ability to connect to other people with same technology, to pose any real threat to the marketplace or 'industry'. After decades of price gouging and fixing, sleazy business practices, and controlling the quality and content of FM radio, the pendulum has swung over a bit. Filesharing..infringing on copyrights, is just a part of what's going on. Corporations trying regulate and/or squash technologies such as TiVo, which let consumers selectively watch their favorite programs and delete the commercials. Companies like Dell and HP caught between pressure from the music and entertainment business to make computers that conform to their copyright protected products and on the other side an increasingly savvy public that wants the freedom the use their PC without restrictions. And maybe the biggest fight of all..the control,regulation and commercialization of the internet. Just as 'real space' is being fought over by corporations, so is cyberspace. SO, culebra, to answer your question...yes, no, and who the fuck cares! Filesharing IS STEALING, yes. Just like going to a speakeasy or buying bathtub booze was breaking the law in the 1920's. Are many artists being hurt by what's happening today? I'm sure some are...but all this is the very, EXTREMELY neccessary growing pains to hopefully arrive at what is a more fair system for all. It should not cost 20$ for a CD with a couple of good songs..nor should people be hoarding all their music free off the web. I would be happiest downloading an album directly off a musician's website, just as I have for years supported independent record labels. Eventually the system will HAVE to morph to the demands and realities of technology today and the public that accesses it. But let me ask you...would any of this be happening if not for the widespread, grassroots STEALING taking place? Would there be Music pay sites and artists (like ICE T) innovating how he chooses to do business, and discussion boards like THIS if some very well-heeled shoes were'nt being held to the fire?

"How is an artist to be recognized or supported if their works are not played, are not promoted, are not paid for so that the artist can continue striving to make the best offering?"

If you don't get played and promoted you'll never get paid for anything.

The majors give away billions a year in free physical product.

That's why more than 250,000 acts have put their music on the Internet. We choose to give our music away over the web. It's easy. It's cheap. It's how we approach those promotion and "get played" issues.

No, we do not need the recording "industry". No more copyrights exchanged for cocaine and hookers.

Which is why I remind once again that the goal of this site is not to promote copyright infringement, it's to remind people that there are more than a million different songs out there for your listening pleasure and no one will sue you for listening to them.

We also would like to remind everyone NOT to share major label music, not because it is "illegal" (this has not yet been tried in a court) but because the major labels artists -- and the especially the ones that lent their names to MusicUnited, a group which includes Henley -- do not deserve our respect, our interest or our dollars.

Agreeing with Gdziemann 100 %...
don't buy..don't upload....don't share...
if it's RIAA...don't even go there !

Henley wrote, "...That's all changed. "

I respond, what a beucolic and remonatic vision of the past. Artists spent quality tiem with fans. Labels were "cutting edge" and friendly to those creative geniuses.

What a load of fertilizer. Henley's romanticized vision aside, the theft from artists, by labels goes back to the very beginnings of the music industry. Henley either suffers from some kind of selective memory loss or just poor knowledge of the business he's spent most of his life. And like most sheltered popular artists, I think it's the latter.

It's reasonable to say that at times things were better but it's ignorant and alarmist, as well as inaccurate, to say "That's all changed." It hasn't. It's gotten worse. No question about it. But it's just a matter o degree.

Henley wrote, "The industry, which was once composed of hundreds of big and small record labels, is now controlled by just a handful of unregulated, multinational corporations determined to continue their mad rush toward further consolidation and merger. Sony and BMG announced their agreement to merge in November, and EMI and Time Warner may not be far behind. The industry may soon be dominated by only three multinational corporations."

I respond, this is fairly accurate but again, it's heavily romanticized and filtered. The business, at least in Henley's lifetime, wasn't *that* much more diverse than it was ten years ago. The real difference is the multi-nationals, which Henley correctly cites as a problem but before you go cheering Donnie, consider that it's xenophobically easy to go blaming "them damn furriners" on things. Don't forget that in every case, it's Americans at the helm of these companies making many, if not nearly all, of the important decisions. The difference lies in a new accountability to a foreign owner which, arguably, has made some of the labels slightly more responsible than when they didn't have to report to corporate bosses.

Henley wrote, "This was possible because labels were relatively small and accessible, and they had an incentive to join with the artists in marketing their music. Today such a relationship is practically impossible for most artists. "

I respond, gibberish. Complete and total nonsense. There are dozens of small independent or semi-independent labels. And the the idea, in the past, there was some cooperative effort between labels and the artists and this was made impossible because the labels is, once again, uninformed. It has nothing to do with the labels. It has to do with the media consolidation and changes.

Henley wrote, " A major record label president confirmed this recently when he referred to artists as "content providers." Would a major label sign Johnny Cash today? I doubt it."

I respond, that's why you'd never make it as an A&R guy Don. The labels really don't treat "the artist"* any worse than they ever did. Which is to say with contempt and as dishonestly as possible.

*I see this phrase "the artist" tossed around on this forum as well as others. It's wrong to assume that all artists are alike and have similar goals. Does anyone here think the unsigned, indie band in Tampa I like and Jay-Z have a lot, in business terms, as artists? Do they share common concerns? Hell no. And it's shallow to refer to all artists monolithically. One can make generalizations but it had better be with the some kind of disclaimer.

Henley wrote, "Radio stations used to be local and diverse. Deejays programmed their own shows and developed close relationships with artists. Today radio stations are centrally programmed by their corporate owners, and airplay is essentially bought rather than earned. The floodgates have opened for corporations to buy an almost unlimited number of radio stations, as well as concert venues and agencies. The delicate balance between artists and radio networks has been dramatically altered; networks can now, and often do, exert unprecedented pressure on artists. Whatever connection the artists had with their music on the airwaves is almost totally gone. "

I respond, this is the biggest pile of crap in Henley's entire piece. This imagined partnership, I wonder how coke his label blew up the noses of his radio "partners". It's unreal and fictional. Yes, as with many thing, radio is worse than it was in the past. But it's by no means "changed" completely. It's just worse. Henley's pretend relationships with radio stations aside, I wonder how many other artists, let's say artists who were never signed in the 70's, feel as though those "partner"ships were available to them.

Henley wrote, "Music stores used to be magical places offering wide variety. "

I respond, A simplistic view that while, in general true, has always been a lot more true for The Eagles than most struggling artists. Once again, Henley is, for some unknown reason, recalling some idyllic time in the past that never really existed. While there was, unquestionably, a plethora of retailers who did take an active part in supporting local and "indie" artists, there was also hundreds of local department store records shops who stocked the top 100 and nothing more. And this was a time when getting on that top 100 was simply a matter of spreading around a whole lot of money. Easy for the Eagles, not so easy for the struggling musician.

Henley wrote, "Even established artists are troubled by stores using music as a loss leader. "

I respond, I'd love to see a list of musicians who refused to have their music sold by these chains as a sign of that "belief". "Troubled", perhaps, but cashing those checks probably relieved most of that stress.

Henley wrote, "Smaller, more personalized record stores are closing all over the country -- some because of rampant P2P piracy but many others because of competition from department stores that traditionally have no connection whatsoever with artists. "

I respond, once again, Henley, not unlike many of his peers, reveals his basic lack of understanding on the market in which he makes his dough. Indie record stores are closing, due to two things, crashing used CD prices and rampant mismanagement. I could go into the details if anyone was interested but suffice to say that a good indie store could, before the music industry turned it's back on the consumer completely, make great money in the shadow of any major music retailer in the country. Why? Because indies can react fastr than majors. They can stock things that majors won't take time to research and stock and they could make money from used product. This statement of Henley's is just silly.

Henley wrote, "Piracy is perhaps the most emotionally gut-wrenching problem facing artists."

I respond, I think it was codewarrior above who said it best (whoever it was, thanks for the laugh). If piracy scares you, stay off the high seas. I would also add that historically (and with a great deal of evidence, today) most piracy comes from the major players themselves. It's the dirty little secret of the music industry (among hundreds of others). Just toss the phrase "free goods" into any conversation at NARM and see what reaction you get.

Henley wrote, "but they cannot accept a business model that uses their music without authority or compensation."

I respond, really Don, why? Isn't that the essence of the artist signing over their rights to a label in the first place?

Henley wrote, "They are the ones hit hardest when sales take a nosedive and when the labels cut back on promotion, on signing new artists and on keeping artists with potential. "

I respond, he's right in the short term. it is the smaller who get hurt (but he neglects to mention how his checks have suffered as well, poor don). But I think it's the natural consequence of clinging to an outmoded busines model that was, I hasten to point out, fundamentally flawed to begin with.

Henley wrote, " Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find answers."

I respond, poppycock. Where "the artists" must go is to themselves. They must take the time and effort to develop themselves, not just sell their rights and their proverbial souls to someone else for a quick buck (or the appearance of a quick buck).

It's time to let the old paradigm die off. The music industry killed itself and frankly, good riddance. It's better for the consumer and most artists (who weren't in The Eagles that is).

DIY! Take some responsibility. Make music your career not some chance to cash in a lucky lotto ticket. Work at it.

Finally, I've met Henley, very briefly, a few times, He's a nice guy if not a bit pompous. Though if I was as smart and well read a man as he was, I might be more pompous myself. I think he's a got a good heart, for what that's worth and it's beyond debate that he's championed some good causes. But I think in this case, he's half-informed (at best) and speaking more to his own self-interest than to any group of "artists" he purports to be part of.

Let the music industry die it's well deserved death. We, the music consumer and lover, will all be richer for it in the end.

Henleys remarks are as outdated as his music, culebra I appluad the fact that your running a small indie if thats what your doing but sorry mate times have changed and the dinosuar of the music industry is slowly dyeing, Wake up man the music industry like every industry has to change in order to survive coz now people don't need expensive studios or leeching record execs to get there stuff out to the world. If your doing good stuff that the kids want they'll support you if there hearing your stuff on P2P be thankful of the publicity, if it stale and outdated nobody will want to pay for it just like everything else in the world, why should the music biz be any different, the golden days are gone for good, long live music. bring on the indies.

I agree with Don on one major point. Johnny Cash probaly wouldn't have been signed to an RIAA label today. I think the same thing can be said for bands like Queen and The Who. I don't recall ever hearing this said about one of today's bands. "They sound like Queen or they sound like The Who" However I do hear oh she sounds like Britney or they sound like the BackStreet Boys. Hate having to mention those names.

Don Henley on MusicUnited ???

Damn, I feel betrayed after supporting the Eagles for all these years.

Decision final, I will no longer play or purchase any Eagles music.