it's just too damn convenient that she takes down her blog because of "abuse". In reality the real reason was there were a lot of questions being posed that she couldn't answer, and statements that she couldn't defend in the face of her past. Most of the people here on TD see the "abuse" claim as a crappy excuse for her to run and hide from positions she herself has contradicted.
Michael, what you're talking about is a result of the LABELS insistence & focus on continued profits, growth, and market share, NOT file-sharing. They made a conscious decision not to prioritize artist development and instead sought to maximize profits. This is a fact. I myself work in the industry as management for a very successful rock band so don't think for a second that I don't know what I'm talking about. Everything else you mention can also be directly attributed to decisions made by the heads of the companies (radio stations, Mtv, big-box retailers) and they all go back to BEFORE file-sharing started.
I also love how she claims that "her job is done" because there is going to be a MEETING held today where artists will "discuss" piracy, as if that hadn't ever happened before. WOW, I'm sure that meeting will resolve everything and FINALLY we can move forward with a proper solution. Nicely done there Lily! Seriously, this whole thing was handled so poorly by her and her representatives, a true PR disaster. Those opposing her couldn't have dreamed of things playing out as badly as they have for her. Now with her closing the blog and not responding it truly looks like she knows she lost and is retreating into hiding to let things blow over.
haha! She just wrote to Lefsetz saying that she was going to "consult with her lawyers" because what he wrote today was "insulting". Good luck with that.
Seriously, is she anti-free speech or something? Next thing she'll be burning books.
This is really one of the most exciting things that I have ever seen unfold. A big part of that is I can almost feel this "celebrity" becoming undone. There will be a massive backlash from her actions and she might just be committing career-suicide.
stuart, cry me a fuckin' river. SHE (or whoever runs her site) decided to take it down, it wasn't hacked or taken down by force. That was her DECISION, probably because she didn't like what people were saying - boo hoo. And even a lot of the negative comments were at least backed-up by her own statements & actions. She opened up this can of worms herself, stoked the fire til it grew out of control, and at no point did she ever address the LEGITIMATE questions that people were asking of her.
Either you're a shill for her or for the industry. Smarten up.
Here's some additional info for you guys - when an artist that is on a major label has a website, it is usually administrated by the label. I'm almost certain that is the case with Ms. Allen. Now, the decisions about what go up on the site usually come from the artist themselves, or their representatives and handlers. Occasionally the label will submit things to the website but they usually need approval from the artist / management first. I'm not sure how things went down with her site but that is how it usually works.
In the case of the mix-cd's, it is possible that she got approval directly from the artists to use their material in her mixes. If that were the case though, I think they would have been quick to point that out.
fred, it seems quite obvious that you don't work in the music industry or know much about how it works. For my full disclosure, I work as the day-to-day manager for a successful multi-platinum rock band that tours arenas and still manages to sell some records on occasion.
Anyhow, let me address your comments -
1. it is very important to value artist development, but guess what? The labels are less about A&R and artist development than ANYONE. This dates back to before the file-sharing era really kicked-in to when the consolidation of the industry started happening en masse. As the diversity of the industry gave way to a few massive conglomerates owning all the labels (as well as radio stations & promoters) the artist development & in-depth A&R of past times went out the window and the only thing being focused on was market share, continued growth and quarterly profits. The way that manifested itself was by homogenizing the industry and thats how we got the whole boy / girl-band era. It's also when you started hearing the common critique "everything sounds the same". This is a major problem that continues to this day, but it is an industry-wide concern, and it started at the top with the labels. On this matter, point the finger at them because it is all their doing. It seems like some of the labels are coming full-circle and re-focusing on artist development now, but I don't know if it will really have an effect until the conglomerates sell-off their stakes in the music biz.
2. Seriously, this comment is really uninformed. Labels don't pay tour support anymore, sorry. It hasn't happened since the early 2000's. Just like most labels aren't financing music video's anymore, when profits began falling and the belt had to be tightened on expenses these were just a couple of the first things to get cut. The only artists that would get it now are the large established ones and the truth is that they don't need it. While you could make the claim that as a result of the decline in the industry the labels haven't been able to afford to give bands tour support, in turn the bands have showed that they don't NEED it, and they can pay for their touring themselves.
Your other idea is short-sighted. While the producers, designers, and PR / marketing people may not end up benefitting directly from merch and performance income, the band is the one ultimately paying for these services so the money flows from the artist to whoever they hire to produce & record their music, and to the designers that create the artwork and to the marketing people that help push the record. These services can exist independent of the label and the artist can pay for them directly. The bottom-line is that regardless of where the income comes to the artist from, those people get covered.
3. Yeah, the artists can choose to give their stuff away, or choose to just be OK with people sharing their stuff, or choose not to. They have that choice, but ultimately they cannot stop people from doing it. And typically what happens when they choose to be against it is that there is a public backlash or negative PR as a result. So, it's up to them to decide but it SEEMS like a very obvious choice on what the smart move is there.
4. Don't really know what you're point is. Mike's point is that there are successful business models out there that give away either a service (like Google) or content (like TV) for free. Both of those are able to generate income by making the content or service that people want free, so why can't music find a way to do this as well? It is starting to happen but there hasn't been a big successful solution adopted by everyone yet.
5. Ok, what did you just say here? You don't see anyone else being successful in distributing music? Distribution has been made extremely simple and FREE, everyone is now able to distribute music. As far as signing / developing artists, see my previous answer on that. The labels aren't interested in developing artists. The part of the industry that has been doing that has been the managers & management companies, which is why people like Lefsetz and others say things like "management are the new labels" or "management needs to service the artists like labels used to do". Anyway, this again shows that you don't really know much about the industry.
6. I won't comment on this one as I'm a US citizen, but I don't really see that idea gaining much traction.
All of this stuff is funny on a lot of levels, I feel like it's the year 2000 again and people are re-hashing all their old problems with Napster. Haven't we been through this already? And haven't we seen where that got us? I thought we were all moving on and figuring out where exactly the industry was going to go? I guess some people insist on living in the past.