Greetings!

It looks like Universal is finally going to lower their suggested retail price for CDs.

This is a good start, but isn't their new price is about the same as the pricing that started the whole price-fixing court case anyway?

Yeah, I know that inflation is a factor. I'd still like to see CDs at $10 though.

I actually wouldn't even have a problem at $12 or $14 if most of the money went to the artists instead of the labels.

Yeah, that would help. Especially for smaller artists.

On the other hand, Metalllica can go swivel on a pointed lollypop stick. They're never getting another penny out of me.

On the other hand, Metalllica can go swivel on a pointed lollypop stick. They're never getting another penny out of me.

Yeah, but while it's convenient (and fun!) to bash Metallica, I'm sure they are getting screwed in many of the same ways as smaller artiss are. They surely get more points than an act that's struggling to get by, but I'd be surprised if even mighty Metallica get more than $0.50 between them per album after all is said and done.

The way they whined is what won them the enemies they have.

But they never once complained about the labels screwing them. In addition, they are the definition of ``sellout''; they never made a video before ``One'', according to them because they couldn't find any artistic merit to it (or something along those lines). Now they're complaining about not getting paid enough (sure) and doing box-office-smash soundtracks.

I'm not saying you can't grow up and change your mind, but a 180 from your previous standpoint is a little severe and is bound to draw questions, not to mention the fact that sellout is about the biggest curse in the music industry anyway.

To sum up, no one would have cared if it were N*Sync complaining, even though they're ``bigger'', as no one ever had any notion they cared about anything other than money, and they have nothing to gain from complaining about the industry, as they were studio-created anyway.

Hey, I will be the last person to support Metallica or defend their anti-file-sharing crusade. I'm just trying to say they're subject to most of the same rules other artists are with respect to how much they earn for their work versus how much goes to the labels. My thoughts are that they didn't come out against their label because they already have legally binding contracts (probably signed a long time ago) which don't give them a legal leg to stand on (they signed the contract, so it's a little too late to complain about not getting enough of a cut.) I guess they figured it'd be easier to go after (in their mind) the second-biggest factor that was cutting into their bottom line, which was file sharing. Obviously they neglected the impact of public opinion. Of course, if they were smart, they'd realize that they could also help their bottom line by putting out better music...

My thoughts are that they didn't come out against their label because they already have legally binding contracts (probably signed a long time ago) which don't give them a legal leg to stand on (they signed the contract, so it's a little too late to complain about not getting enough of a cut.)

Well, I'd argue that it might be possible for artists to bring a collusion case against record labels charging that they conspired to pay artists very little for their music and not giving them any other feasible outlet. But I get your point nonetheless.

I guess they figured it'd be easier to go after (in their mind) the second-biggest factor that was cutting into their bottom line, which was file sharing.

When, in reality, it's bound to be unlicensed mass-produced CDs from China, etc.

Obviously they neglected the impact of public opinion. Of course, if they were smart, they'd realize that they could also help their bottom line by putting out better music...

I think that the majority of the public and, in particular, Billboard disagree.

Luckily for me, most of the music I like to listen to can be found on the $5 each or 3 for $10 rack , Like BTO or Dr. Hook, or Grand Funk, etc etc.

I have been buying music mostly from small labels and they usually sell directly for pretty cheap about 7 to 10 dollars.

Hm. I suspect we could swap empegs and do fine

Plus, if Metallica only made 50 cents per person per album, that would be over 27 million for their career. Then there's the Tshirts I can't go a day without seeing (even now). I agree, it sucks that they complain about Napster, but it just makes me angrier that they don't go after the labels, which hurt all artists equally, and aim at file sharing, which certainly isn't as bad.

I'm primarily buy CDs by small-time groups as well. I certainly hope the smaller labels don't take as much of the pie as the big ones. Plus, my favorite artists frequently start up their own labels for them and thier friends, leaving me more comfortable with where my money is going.