Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Paul McCartney On Music In the Digital World

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jun 12, 2007 03:58 AM
from the all-you-need-is-MP3 dept.
Rachhpal writes "Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney will release his new album today — it's called 'Memory Almost Full.' In an interview with the L.A. Times, he talked about ending his long-time relationship with EMI and making the new album fully downloadable through his new relationship with Starbucks' Hear Music label. Some of his comments on the music industry: 'I was bored with the old record company's jaded view,' McCartney says... 'They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways — because they've been at it for so long — to what they call "market" it. And I find that all a bit disturbing.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Bug Me Not (Score:5, Informative)

    by Evets (629327) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:02AM (#19475365) Homepage Journal
    For those of you still in the dark out there...

    http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.latimes.com [bugmenot.com]

    It has a list of account logins and passwords that you can use for this article.
  • Please, no matter how interesting some piece of news is, unless it's posted on a site that everyone can access, don't link to it. It just annoys the hell out of most people, and gives the website in question undeserved registrations. If they don't want to show the information to everyone equally, I'm not interested.
    • by owlnation (858981) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @06:03AM (#19475893)

      Please, no matter how interesting some piece of news is, unless it's posted on a site that everyone can access, don't link to it. It just annoys the hell out of most people, and gives the website in question undeserved registrations. If they don't want to show the information to everyone equally, I'm not interested.
      I wholly second this motion.

      Oh the irony! While we are talking about one industry where the deadness goes up to eleven, this article is posted on the site of another industry that is beginning to pine for the fjords.

      This log-in business for newspaper sites is an example of how they do not understand their new customers, nor how their business has changed. If you listen really closely when you are on the LA Times site you can hear the slow heavy footfalls of the grim reaper approaching.

      Anyway, I vote we change the expression "deader than vaudeville" to "deader than the RIAA". You must, surely, realize your business is in trouble when an wholly unrelated one like Starbucks is wiping the floor with your tried and tested artists. Especially since Starbucks is also a big corporation and likely just as bureaucratic as any RIAA dinosaur, I woud guess the business processes to launch a new idea in Starbucks is comparable to that in any record company.
    • by antdude (79039) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:39AM (#19476941) Homepage Journal
      I don't mind the logins as long as BugMeNot has accounts for me to use. Anyways, I am surprised no one copied and pasted the article. Here it is:

      Paul McCartney is a man on the run
      He has a new album, a new record label, new living arrangements and even a new plan about putting the Beatles' music catalog online this year.
      By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer
      June 3, 2007

      What's in a name?
      What's in a name?
      click to enlarge
      Winchelsea, England -- HE noticed it when his cellphone, stuffed with too many text messages, voicemails and phone numbers, started flashing at him: "Memory almost full." It was remarkably like his own brain, weighted down with half-written songs, daughter Bea's schedule, the lyrics to old Beatles B-sides, the blurring faces of long-buried loves and friends.

      Delete? Re-record? Which parts go, and which -- the carpets of bluebells outside Liverpool in spring, sitting on twin beds in a hotel room with John Lennon writing "She Loves You" -- stay locked in the hard drive of time?

      "Your memory is always almost full these days. There's so much going on, so I thought it was a poetic way to sum up modern life. Just overload, information overload," Paul McCartney says of his 21st solo album, "Memory Almost Full," which explores the persistence of memory, preparing for the settling of scores and a life too full to hold it all.

      "It's been pointed out to me that since the album is heavy on retrospective stuff, there's a sort of finality about it. 'Memory almost full,' any second now it will be full, and, 'Goodbye cruel world.' It's not what I meant about it at all, but I can see that meaning, and I like, you know, people to have different interpretations. "Abbey Road" to us was a crossing outside the studio. I'm sure to some people, it meant Monastery Lane, and we liked that sort of quasi-religious feel of it too."

      The album (out Tuesday) marks the 64-year-old McCartney's plunge into another kind of digital age. Ending his relationship with Capitol Records/EMI that began in 1962, McCartney has hooked up with Starbucks' new Hear Music Label and unlocks the new album (along with the rest of his solo catalog) for online downloads. McCartney also says the Beatles catalog is on deck for online release near the end of the year, although EMI has not announced a date.

      The video for "Dance Tonight," the party-tune, mandolin-laced foot-tapper that opens the record, made its world premiere on YouTube, in a bid to charm a third generation with the kind of winsome songs their grandmother should know.

      "I was bored with the old record company's jaded view," McCartney says, plopped on a sofa in the large, comfortable farmhouse that doubles as a rehearsal studio here in the rolling, tree-studded hills of rural East Sussex. Outside, there is an old windmill, and in the near distance, the hazy blue carpet of the English Channel.

      "They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget ... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call 'market' it. And I find that all a bit disturbing.

      "I write it, I play it, I record it, and that's all fun. And you go to the record company, and it gets very boring. You sit around in rooms with people, and you're almost falling asleep" -- he rolls his head down midchest --"and they're almost falling asleep.

      "My record producer [David Kahne] said the major record labels these days are like dinosaurs sitting around discussing the asteroid. They know it's going to hit. They don't know when, they don't know where it's coming from. But it's sort of hit already. With iTunes, and all of that."

      McCartney heard that Starbucks' content development guy, Alan Mintz, loved his music; better, he was a bass player. They arranged to meet in New York, along with Howard Schultz, the chief executive who turned Starbucks from
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Hmm, it seems it requires that cookies for www.latimes.com are enabled. With the cookies enabled, the GP link works.
  • by svunt (916464) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:06AM (#19475399) Homepage Journal
    I can't believe it, here I am reading Paul McCartney's words and nodding in agreement. I feel a little dirty, but that's ok.
    • by tygerstripes (832644) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:47AM (#19475577)
      I felt pretty much the same way when I heard his single come on the radio the other night. I was humming along, tapping my feet and generally enjoying myself. Then the DJ decides to tell me AFTERWARDS that it's Paul McCartney's new release, and I come over all peculiar.

      It felt like that moment when the police tell you she was in fact 15...

      • by CmdrGravy (645153) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @05:25AM (#19475743) Homepage
        No ! No ! Luckily I had heard Sir Paul introducing his new song before they played it. I think he was saying something like this:

        Yes, it's a great song - fantastic in fact. Like all the brilliant songs I've written it was based on a moments inspiration. I had a few friends around and as I was telling them how bloody amazing I was just tapping this fabulous beat out on the kitchen table and this little kid was just loving it and dancing to it and we all danced around and sang and it was the beat I was doing, it was amazing - a stroke of pure genius. So I made the record, it'll certainly be number 1 and is an amazing record. Of course the whole album is just awe inspiringly brilliant, without doubt I'd say it's certainly my and greatest work and therefore definitely much better than anything else anyone else has done but it's because I have such a great life you know, so great and totally deserved. A lot of people say I'm smug but I'm not, I just know I'm greater than they will ever be.

        I thought the song was rubbish too.
    • Wake me up when he actually makes some good music again. Remember 'Freedom' his post-911 song, one of the worst songs I have ever heard. In fact has he done anything good since the Beatles? Other than that Simpsons episode.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The only credible reason to believe in al the "Paul is Dead" conspiracies is his poor music since the Beatles. However, the Backyard one was not too bad.
          • The Beatles' collective solo work proves that they were greater than the sum of their parts. Plastic Ono Band, All Things Must Pass and Band on the Run are fine examples of each artists capabilities when they still had something to prove. However, it didn't take long before the novelty of their solo careers waned and they lost their muse. No doubt, they needed a break from each other by 1970 (if not sooner, but it's hard to argue against an album like Abbey Road). They should have met up every 5 years or
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              oh man, i have to take you to task for this.

              how about:
              band on the run, ebony & ivory, my brave face, here today (ode to john lennon), junior's farm.

              nothing like presenting a lop-sided argument. while i love lennon's music, mccartney made a LOT of great music.

              he also made at least 4 classic albums: Ram, Band on the Run, Tug of War, and Flaming Pie. They're all albums of depth, quality, and craftsmanship.

              harrison is another one you short changed, but we'll leave it at that.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          "Hell, Mick fucking Jagger is a more relevant figure in pop music, and Mick's completely irrelevant.... If those old fucks weren't so pathetic, they would almost be funny!"

          Oh c'mon...you at least gotta be rooting for Keith Richards...I mean, just the mere fact that the 'human-riff' is still breathing, and inspiring pirate characters, and banging out open-G chords on a 5 string telecaster....

          Well...at least you gotta root for one of the last of the rock and rollers...I doubt we'll see the likes of that cr

  • by Timesprout (579035) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:06AM (#19475403)
    And the freedom to do as I please I would find lots of things boring and disturbing as well. Its funny how those who are no longer dependent upon anyone after reaping the rewards of the current systems are the ones telling us all how things should be.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yep. Someone who was able to understand and work within a system to become successful should always be ignored when they comment on that system. Particularly if they have anything bad to say. Brilliant.
          • I disagree (Score:4, Interesting)

            by JudgeFurious (455868) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:47AM (#19477029)
            I think he's probably reaped 1.5 billion in spite of said system not from it.

              If one took all the money that the Beatles made from their work (collectively and individually as solo artists) and stacked it in a nice neat pile I'm sure that pile would fit easily inside the shadow cast by the mountain of money that other people have made off of their work.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "He also started his career as a musician over 40 years ago when the current system worked well."

        More to the fact. He started his career BEFORE there was really a system. This was early in modern music, there had never been anything like the Beatles before...no one had seen that kind of fame and money on a worldwide basis before. No one had seen longevity like they had at the time. Not only that...at that time very few artists wrote their own music, and got the publishing $$'s off it.

        He started before th

  • by F34nor (321515) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:09AM (#19475415)
    We boycott the recoding indutry untill they are bankrupt. Once the companies are in liquidation we pool our resources, by up the IP, and sell it back to the artists who can then publish it in the format they want on the web. We make a profit, the artists get their art back, and a whole bunch of asshole have to look for new work.
  • by sien (35268) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:12AM (#19475431) Homepage
    What's next, Rupert Murdoch telling the Rolling Stones that they've been at it too long?

    Is Mr McCartney trying to be ironic?

  • by C A S S I E L (16009) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:15AM (#19475451) Homepage
    Sir Paul: I'm sick of this scene of corporate greed, market-driven business plans, aggressive practices and monopolistic behaviour, always pushing out the little guy and the independent ventures. That's why I've signed with Starbucks.
    • In the end, I suppose Starbucks isn't part of a megacorp that sells weapons, but the very fact that they're extending into the music business makes me feel itchy. Then again, I doubt that the new Mars Volta LP will be released by them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Starbucks isn't part of a megacorp that sells weapons

        Starbucks had a little get together called 'bowling for Israel', to raise funds for Israel.

        you'd never guess who the Israeli side of things was organised by, yes the very same person who organises fund raising for Israel's troops.

        maybe not a megacorp that sells weapons but certainly one that supports oppressive regimes.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                Well son of a bitch, I thought this was a troll, but when I read the requirements [doc.gov], it's spelled out pretty clearly:

                "The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy."

                If that isn't as interventionist as it gets, I don't know what is. That's
      • by zotz (3951) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @06:27AM (#19475979) Homepage Journal
        "In the end, I suppose Starbucks..."

        And in the end....
        The mug you take....
        Is equal to the mug.....
        You break.

        All I need is a grande a day...

        all the best,

        drew
    • by mykdavies (1369) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @05:36AM (#19475791)

      Sir Paul (continued): I'm really excited about the energy and commitment involved in making new music, and hate all these guys who try to hang onto the past. That's why I'm supporting the extension of copyright on music recordings in the UK.

      Paul McCartney supports a call for copyright on music recordings to be extended from 50 years to 95 or even 'life plus 70 years' [newstatesman.com]

  • Available on emusic (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:19AM (#19475475)
    This album is available DRM-free from emusic (I know, I was shocked too!)

    http://www.emusic.com/album/11044/11044254.html [emusic.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I have an old Linux version of the download manager, but you won't need it. Yesterday I discovered that you can use emusic without using their download manager.

        1. Sign in
        2. Click "Your account"
        3. Click "Change download manager" [emusic.com] on the left side
        4. Click "Disable eMusic Download Manager"
        5. ???
        6. Profit!
  • If there's anything that you want (to ear),
    if there's anything I can do (with music):
    just call your ISP
    and it'll send it along
    with love from me to you!
    (And your money from you to me)
  • by tkrotchko (124118) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @04:55AM (#19475613) Homepage
    I was listening to the Howard Stern show yesterday and they had Adam Levine, lead singer and songwriter from Maroon 5.

    Now Howard is one of those dinosaurs when it comes to distributing music; he constantly rails against YouTube, thinks file sharing is ruining the music business, etc etc.

    Anyway, Howard said to Levine (and I won't have these quotes quite right): "I feel really bad for you guys, it's tough to make it in the music business because people won't pay for music anymore, they want to get it for free"

    And Levine said something interesting "Don't feel bad for the musicians. The music industry is screwed up, but musicians have so many ways to make money from the internet. We couldn't have made it without the internet".

    Levine didn't stop there, he said what other musicians have confirmed... "Of all he ways we made money, despite selling 10 million records [might've heard this wrong], we made *no money from CD sales*. All of our money came from touring and merchandising"

    Unfortunately, Howard can be quite insightful on when to follow up, but he ignore this little exchange, probably because it doesn't fit his opinions, but maybe because he was bored with it. But to sell so many CD's and not make any money from it. I just wish somebody would take these quote from successful musicians and play them in front of Congress so that somebody will say "Well gee, who are we protecting with these draconian copyright and copyright extension laws? It doesn't appear to be the musicians at all!"
    • by Evets (629327) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @05:15AM (#19475691) Homepage Journal
      In my experience in the music industry (and granted it was a long time ago), musicians would get typically less than 10 percent of sales, usually 6 percent. If it was a group, that 6 percent was split with the group.

      The Producers and Labels would invest money in getting the album put together, but it was all contractually recouped if anything came of it. Very rarely do the labels actually lose money on an artist. They at least make enough to cover their investment, and they do a great deal of free/low cost research about how the music will be accepted. A lot of producers own radio stations or other music related businesses that gives them easy access to the target market.

      They also charge pretty huge for "studio time", which is almost all profit since the equipment has all long since been paid for and with the number of recording studios in LA the rental rates really should be next to nothing.

      Very rarely does an unknown band get to keep their own copyright. The studio will push for changes to the music and changes to the words in order to achieve at least "collaborative" standing in the unlikely event of a dispute.

      I've watched as guys got bullied into contracts. It's brutal to the extreme (mentally, not physically). I remember an incident where a mother got involved. She was pretty tough, but all she really got in negotiation was a guaranteed video production. They passed the video project off to a student with a minuscule budget - basically the lead singer on the roof with a brief scene coming out of a studio limo.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Well, seeing as their make no money from CD sales, perhaps the artists should openly distribute their music for free on the internet.
      It wont cost them much, they can use p2p so they have very little bandwidth costs. Each download will serve as an advert for their merchandise, live shows etc. Artists wouldnt lose out, because they make no money anyway. Not to mention all the new fans it would attract:
      A lot of people would never download pirated music, and wouldnt want to waste their money buying a CD from a
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        That makes sense but...

        1) Contracts - existing contracts prevent popular acts from doing it. All of the one-hit wonders are under contract for future albums. Those that have sustained success through the 3-6 album contracts end up with other issues. That's the reason why Prince is now "The artist formerly known as Prince" - he doesn't own his own name anymore.
        2) Marketing - small acts have a tough time getting their name out there. Even bands that enjoy extreme local popularity can't go national without
    • by CowboyBob500 (580695) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @05:23AM (#19475733) Homepage
      This essay [mercenary.com] by Steve Albini pretty much sums up the situation. It's quite old now but I'm sure it still applies - in fact it's probably worse now.

      Bob
      • by DuncanE (35734) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @05:46AM (#19475829) Homepage
        I've read that essay a number of times and they way I see it the band has 3 choices:

        - Get a good music lawyer before signing anything. If the record company refuses to deal with you once you've "lawyered up" then walk away
        - Try distributing and marketing your stuff yourself. Internet. Radio. CD's. Whatever. Do the hard yards yourself. If you are good enough it will be heard yeah?
        - Accept the deal. Make no money, but get famous/chicks/To tour.

        Seems like most bands/musicians prefer option 3.

        And worse it seems most listeners don't care which of the 3 options the muso chooses in the first place.

        And the saddest thing of all? There are so many bands and musicians out there that the marketing *IS* 99% of the costs. Why else is do we mainly download and P2P top 40 crap.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Levine didn't stop there, he said what other musicians have confirmed... "Of all he ways we made money, despite selling 10 million records [might've heard this wrong], we made *no money from CD sales*. All of our money came from touring and merchandising"

      But how much of that tour money was really generated from CD sales? You see, this band (not knowing them) would have probably ended up in the small club tour circuit had it not been for the label promoting and backing them. While they may have not made mo
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Counterexample: Ani DiFranco [wikipedia.org] and her own label, Righteous Babe Records [wikipedia.org]. She's been mentioned on Slashdot many times before in the context of labels exploiting artists.

        Labels try to dictate what artists can do, what their music should sound like--not to make the music "better" but to conform to what already sells. They keep about 90% of revenues. Artists receive royalties only AFTER paying the label for the costs of studio time, so break-even is about half a million units sold.

        Ani DiFranco is in th
  • by janrinok (846318) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @05:28AM (#19475765)
    Sir Paul has come in for a bit of criticism in this thread so far, but I think the fact that he is saying what he is, is actually a good thing. The music industry will not listen to most musicians but perhaps they _will_ listen to him. It matters not whether you like his music, whether you think he is past it and irrelevant to today's music scene, or whatever. He is actually saying what many of us have been saying for a long time. The way music and musicians are managed today is out-of-date. The public has changed, the medium has changed, and now the industry must change. Is that such a bad thing, no matter who says it?
    • Two words: associative bias. Just like how when people hear Microsoft say anything at all, they know it's actually to create more vendor lock-in and stifle competition. The words just feel dirty because you know what the person is thinking. I don't know the whole story about Paul, but if anyone is bitter towards him for whatever reasons, they'll be especially suspicious if he seems to agree with them. That's usually an enemy's best tactic, to seem like a friend and still serve their own interests. As soon a
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        I'm sorry, I didn't follow your argument at all.

        Sir Paul changed the company who market his music. He didn't like the way that EMI were too hide-bound and stuck in their traditional ways. He thinks that his new company is more forward looking and he is, for the time being, content with his choice. Where is the problem?

        If you expect all musicians to simply decide to do their own marketing then you are dreaming. Some will not have the first clue how to go about it. Others will not wish to do it - they

    • It's a very good thing, it's just that slashdotters are generally experts on attacks ad hominem.
  • McCartney says... "They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call "market" it. And I find that all a bit disturbing."

    ...what he said!
  • As much as I realize that the music industry needs to adapt, its much easier to state the problem and analyze it rather than come up with a solution. Competing with free can be done... but I haven't heard a viable solution that makes me realize the industry still has potential. Honestly, I could care less. If music was knocked back into the stone age and no name bands struggled to get any publicity at all... I think that would be the greatest thing that ever happened since Robert Johnson.
  • Last Tuesday. I got it off of emusic.com. And it was DRM-free LAME MP3, too. $14.99 for 50 downloads meant that it cost me just under $5.
  • by fruey (563914) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @06:19AM (#19475951) Homepage Journal

    Say what you like about McCartney's music (particularly his solo career). One thing that sets him apart from Elvis, Lennon, Cliff Richard or even Mick Jagger is his pure songwriting output. He's penned most material on his 21 albums, he was a key catalyst in getting the best out of Lennon/McCartney collaboration and some books even go so far as to make him the "number one" Beatle.

    His music has been commercially successful over four decades, so he spans a longer career than Elton John, Billy Joel or Jimmy Buffett. He's been with a major label - EMI - and been through vinyl, cassette, CD and now MP3/AAC digital formats. He is a songwriter as well as a musician, and he has a big catalogue.

    So, it's refreshing to hear him state that the music business is out of marketing ideas and out of tune with possibilities. Even if you don't like him...

  • by hey! (33014) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @07:48AM (#19476475) Homepage Journal
    Going in and out of style, but still guaranteed to raise a smile.