Why do record companies pull artist videos from YouTube?

mookeywrench

musicismylife78 wrote:

the music i like, mookey, isnt in accordance with the top selling albums of all time. Just because something is popular doesnt mean its good. And just because something sells a few thousand copies, doesnt make it bad.

By choosing to ignore those albums that sell only a few hundred thousand, the record company ignores good music as well

Music should never be reduced to money and cash and sales. When conversations, revolve around, money and status as opposed to art, in the music world, I would say we are pretty much doomed.

your response has nothing to do with my point, I'm saying the little guys survive or are taken on by record labels because of the successes that record labels have had with mainstream or superselling bands.

The reasons why you get to discover Fleet Foxes, Obits, Kelly Stoltz, Wolf Parade or Pissed Jeans through Sub Pop is because of the long running profits, and cash flows from Nirvana, Soundgarden, The Shins, and Iron and Wine.

The music that you enjoy is a mute point and i think anyone who is a fan of pearl jam understands that music doesnt have to be popular to be good.

Once those little bands are signed but don't end up generating any significant cashflows then it shouldn't be suprising that they get dropped.

and as far as your last point goes you're half correct. The creation of music shouldn't revolve around cash and sales, but the exposure of that music and hiring someone else to do all the dirty work to get your music to an audience should revolve around cash and sales.

When conversations revolve around no longer supporting access to good music because people want it for free, i'd say we are prety much doomed.

decides2dream

mookeywrench wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

the music i like, mookey, isnt in accordance with the top selling albums of all time. Just because something is popular doesnt mean its good. And just because something sells a few thousand copies, doesnt make it bad.

By choosing to ignore those albums that sell only a few hundred thousand, the record company ignores good music as well

Music should never be reduced to money and cash and sales. When conversations, revolve around, money and status as opposed to art, in the music world, I would say we are pretty much doomed.

your response has nothing to do with my point, I'm saying the little guys survive or are taken on by record labels because of the successes that record labels have had with mainstream or superselling bands.

The reasons why you get to discover Fleet Foxes, Obits, Kelly Stoltz, Wolf Parade or Pissed Jeans through Sub Pop is because of the long running profits, and cash flows from Nirvana, Soundgarden, The Shins, and Iron and Wine.

The music that you enjoy is a mute point and i think anyone who is a fan of pearl jam understands that music doesnt have to be popular to be good.

Once those little bands are signed but don't end up generating any significant cashflows then it shouldn't be suprising that they get dropped.

and as far as your last point goes you're half correct. The creation of music shouldn't revolve around cash and sales, but the exposure of that music and hiring someone else to do all the dirty work to get your music to an audience should revolve around cash and sales.

When conversations revolve around no longer supporting access to good music because people want it for free, i'd say we are prety much doomed.

excellent post.
yea, yea, yea....i get it, all record companies are evil, slimy bastards out to make $$$. they also lay out a ton of $$$, take a LOT of risk, in taking on new artists......thus why the industry has operated as it has. granted, of course there have been - and continue to be - truly slimy bastards who do try and take advantage, more than their fair share, fuck over artists, etc. however, this is also why lawyers are in business. the artist can and should absolutely go over contracts with a fine tooth comb with a lawyer. and hey, if all an artist wants is to creat music, he/she/they can do so in their basement, forever. they can even play local gigs, cheap, maybe put out their own small CD, put music online, etc....but sure.....they'd also need a 'real job' to support themselves. if they actually want to make enough $$$ to live on....yea......this is when making deals with record companies aka the devil is where they go. absolutely the industry IS changing, and will continue to do so...and record companies, and artists, have to adapt, and yes, protect, their work. it's still all about the artist's choices...and absolutely about their work.

FrankieG

musicismylife78 wrote:

As far as I know you cant download from YouTube, its just content you watch.

Thats what you think.... There are ways around it.

gabers

On the flip side though, it does seem that artists not signed to a label would reap the most benefit from this stance from the record companies and selected artists. Even if they post a cover of a popular song, or most likely because of it, Youtube can help market them - for free. Look at the project that guy from LA did with buskers and street musicians from all over the world. (Here's a link if you haven't seen it yet.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgc5CGnjrtQ

decides2dream

gabers wrote:

On the flip side though, it does seem that artists not signed to a label would reap the most benefit from this stance from the record companies and selected artists. Even if they post a cover of a popular song, or most likely because of it, Youtube can help market them - for free. Look at the project that guy from LA did with buskers and street musicians from all over the world. (Here's a link if you haven't seen it yet.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgc5CGnjrtQ

absolutely!
however, again....it should be up to THEM if they want that exposure, or not. that's really the bottomline...the artist maintaining control of who/what/where/when/how...their art is put *out there*....but definitely, youtube and whatever else.....excellent tools.......

redrock

musicismylife78 wrote:

how does music videos shown on vh1 and mtv figure into this? Although MTV and Vh1 dont play many, there still are a few music videos show. And those are available free to anyone with a cable subscription.

Umm... cable subscription... one PAYS for cable subscription therefore your music videos aren't free.

Every time a video is viewed via a 'legal' source, royalties are paid. TV channels will pay upfront for the right to broadcast them. Videos viewed on youtube do not generate any revenue. They may also be of very poor quality, not represent what the artist meant, etc. Videos recorded from the TV (and maybe one can argue of good quality) and uploaded on youtube are 'theft' as these videos 'belong' to a company, an artist, a TV channel, etc.

Back_Pedal

Bathgate66 wrote:

btw i believe there are programs out there that allow you to take stuff off of youtube and put it onto , lets say , a dvd.

The quality will be so bad it will be nearly unwatchable. Most people would go to torrents and get much higher quality versions first.

JaneNY

Record companies who pull artist videos are reactionary and live in the past. This is a connected world. Getting exposure is one of the goals of most artists and the old ways (uh radio?) don't necessarily work. If an artist is smart they keep the fans engaged - via video, free music, videos, contact. This keeps fans interested and seeing what is coming next, and talking with each other and and friends, and probably buying tickets to shows, and when there, merch. To think that you'd do something that reduces your exposure in a world where its pretty difficult to get exposure, seems very twentieth century. It really doesn't matter what used to happen or what old models were like or what people should or should not be doing. Keep fans interested, create good music, and I bet the artist will have a career.

Someone already mentioned Trent Reznor. He has pioneered new ways of getting music out and keeping people interested and constantly talking about NIN. I have listened to that band for quite a few years now and he is ALWAYS up to something, and does his best to tell us about it asap, or throws up a FREE album (he got a Webby award last Monday for how The Slip was handled).

Record companies who pull artist videos are feeling their livelihood threatened, simple as that, but what they can't recognize is that their livelihood is already shrinking and pulling videos is not going to help that - rather it would hasten it along IMO.

covered in bliss

if you want to see live Pearl Jam, pay for a ticket and see a fantastic live performance.

If you don't do that, your loss.

it's not that complicated.

rrivers

musicismylife78 wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

because people dont work for free

how does music videos shown on vh1 and mtv figure into this? Although MTV and Vh1 dont play many, there still are a few music videos show. And those are available free to anyone with a cable subscription.

Additionally, tv shows can be seen obviously on tv, and you can even tape them.

So I dont really understand your "people dont work for free" comment.

You honestly think the tv companies and record companies give a damn about either the customer, or the artist and actors or screenwriters or whatever we are talking about?

The record companies messed up, royally. They had a chance in 1999 to do something about Napster, possibly start a Comcast type company but for monthly downloads and music content. They didnt do it, and instead, pull videos from YouTube, fine and jail people who illegally download.

You would be hard pressed to find another group of people totally lost and utterly clueless as to how the world is run, when discussing and talking about the music industry.

How does being able to watch Death Cab's Cath video or another such video, harm the artist or the record label in the slightest?

You say they "fine and jail people who illegally download", um...maybe because it is illegal?

JaneNY

covered in bliss wrote:

if you want to see live Pearl Jam, pay for a ticket and see a fantastic live performance.

If you don't do that, your loss.

it's not that complicated.

Well you see (and I agree its annoying to be sitting near people who are filming in a dark theatre, such as with the Ed solos shows, and I never film, myself) its not quite that simple. Who watches videos taken of Pearl Jam? Pearl Jam fans who most likely already go to as many shows as they can. People who want MORE of what Pearl Jam offers. People who want to SHOW others how awesome Pearl Jam is live. People who want their friends to become fans. Current live footage makes all of the above easier.

covered in bliss

JaneNY wrote:

Well you see (and I agree its annoying to be sitting near people who are filming in a dark theatre, such as with the Ed solos shows, and I never film, myself) its not quite that simple. Who watches videos taken of Pearl Jam? Pearl Jam fans who most likely already go to as many shows as they can. People who want MORE of what Pearl Jam offers. People who want to SHOW others how awesome Pearl Jam is live. People who want their friends to become fans. Current live footage makes all of the above easier.

It's odd that you capitalized MORE. Like... watching PJ on youtube is a huge NEED. Must. Have. MORE! The studio albums, official bootlegs and the MANY official DVD releases available should be enough to get people interested in the band. You have a better chance with the IICornice DVD than a poor audience video recording, IMO.

reading all of the different ways that people try to justify youtube and illegal taping/downloading is interesting... it truly seems like some people would die without the internet. On the other hand, there are some excellent posts in this thread about the music industry overall and band exposure... throw in the moral opinions and this issue isn't going away. Ultimately, the decision should be made by the artist and everyone needs to have a little respect and not question every little thing.

JaneNY

covered in bliss wrote:

It's odd that you capitalized MORE. Like... watching PJ on youtube is a huge NEED. Must. Have. MORE! The studio albums, official bootlegs and the MANY official DVD releases available should be enough to get people interested in the band. You have a better chance with the IICornice DVD than a poor audience video recording, IMO.

People make quite good recordings - not always poor. Okay - its not a NEED, but one can get tired of watching the same pre-recorded DVD. I like to know what just happened with one of my favorite bands. If someone posts a clip of something Ed said a night or 2 before, it is fun to watch. Another band I like, NIN, puts basically no restrictions on what people record or post. Reznor set it up with this last tour that people could bring in SLR equipment, good mics, and record away. They even have sections on their official website for people to post their contributions in terms of audio/video/image. It contributes to the wealth of footage and documentation of what the band is doing, saying, interesting things that happened at a particular gig. Now full gigs filmed in HD are going up, and people love it. It keeps NIN out there for all to see and discover. I don't expect Pearl Jam change - they do what they want as always, and I'll always love their music. I follow the rules, not a taper personally. Maybe its just a different mindset, but I prefer the open mindset of NIN in terms of flexibility with exposure though.

An interesting guy on some of these ideas is Bob Lefsetz, who has a blog on the state of music.