It's Saturday, it must be...weekly music news!:
Bruce Springsteen tried out that whole "hey, let's only sell our album at Wal-Mart" routine, and he didn't like it one bit, according to this interview he gave to the BBC. Turns out his fans were none too pleased, and the more he thought about it, neither was he. The album in question is a greatest hits collection that is priced at an admittedly reasonable $10. Wal-Mart issued a statement saying something about being proud of the jobs they have created for Americans - eh, ok, and that has what to do with a budget Springsteen album? Also, I wonder if that number has been adjusted to reflect the number of jobs lost in the music industry when stores who sell music at a loss to bring customers in to buy their other, more expensive stuff become the main music retailers? I suspect not.
Seriously, I think all of these major chain, "I feel like driving out all of the locally owned record shops" exclusivity deals are not cool, but if it has to be done, don't do it at Wal-Mart. This is a company that has actively censored music and put labels and musicians in a position where they either have to make two versions of albums so as to make sure the album can be stocked in the store (in other words, one that is as the musician intended it to be and one that doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities of the powers that be at Wal-Mart) or they have to change the way they write the music itself/censor their cover art ideas. Surely that is utterly unacceptable. It's nice to see an artists say, hey, maybe this wasn't the way to go.
John Landis, the director of Michael Jackson's Thriller video is suing Jackson for unpaid royalties. He feels like Jackson has been capitalizing on the images he created in the video without ponying up the cash. The icing on the cake is Jackson's decision to sell the rights to the Thriller video images and concept as well as the music to a Broadway producer. Landis says those weren't Jackson's rights to sell, and you know, that makes sense to me. I feel like making a comment about the idea of producing Thriller on Broadway, but I'm sure it will be a big hit and I'll look dumb, so I'll keep my opinions to myself.
Music industry people, especially tech loving music industry people, simply adore talking about "The Long Tail." If you haven't had the pleasure, the Long Tail is the idea that thanks to the internet, businesses can sell small amounts of lots of different things to lots of different customers. I'm not good with business speak, so I don't say "Long Tail," but I do believe it to exist and think it has big implications for the music biz. Last year, a British study suggested that the Long Tail was a myth, but recently released data from eMusic shows otherwise. Check out the story on this Wired blog - which is aptly titled "The Long Tail."
The owner of an Italian online music store is looking at a three month jail sentence for failing to secure the right licenses to sell the music. Find out more.
A musician/artist/group, doesn’t have to make two differnt works. They do it because they want to sell more cd’s….pretty simple. It is not WalMart’s “powers that be”, it is their customers that were offended….that is called doing good business when you cater to your customers.
I have to disagree, nick. I work at Wal-mart, and just the other day I wanted to buy an album that I realized was edited, and ended up purchasing it somewhere else, so unless they want to lose a lot of business, Wal-mart should make it their problem.
There is a reason why that little ‘Parental Advisory’ sticker is on the album cover, and though it takes away from the look, I’d rather hear the artist’s original music than have pretty artwork. I understand Wal-mart is a ‘family friendly’ store, but the FCC did not come up with the PA tag for the whole concept to be ignored.
I’m sorry… mick**
Thanks for the comments.
I’ve got to go with veestone, Mick. Here’s how I see it: Wal-Mart’s policies put musicians in an awkward position, and it’s got nothing to do with good business. Wal-Mart has a long standing habit of selling music below cost. They don’t care if they lose a couple bucks on some CDs, because once they get you through the door, you’re likely to stock up on other items that will more than make up for the difference.
Local record stores – stores without content restriction policies – can’t compete with a company that is selling music at a loss. So, pretty soon, there aren’t many choice (an choices?) for musicians than to get their CDs to the market than to sell in Wal-Mart.
But – Wal-Mart has a list of things they won’t stock. So, the musician has to either decide to make two version of an album or choose to censor themselves so Wal-Mart will stock their product. The cost of two pressings, two masters, two sets of artwork, etc, is huge. It’s prohibitive in many instances. So, we’re left with writing songs and designing artwork with the approval of Wal-Mart in mind.
Selling below cost isn’t good business. On the international market, it’s called predatory dumping and it’s a violation of antitrust laws. We don’t allow, say, the UK, to come in and sell an item we produce domestically below cost, driving out our domestic firms. But we do allow our large firms to this to our small firms domestically. It’s a market distortion, not simply giving people what they want.
I worked at a record store for many years, and sure, we got complaints all the time about artwork, posters, and so on. I’m with veestone – that’s what the PA tags are for.
Also, Wal-Mart has a well documented history of political activism. I don’t think it’s out of line to suggest that the powers that be there have an agenda. That’s their prerogative, but it’s not their prerogative to use shady practices to further that agenda. If they play fair and then win, well, fair enough. But not now.
Anyone else have any thoughts?