You may remember that, some months ago, I attended the inaugural meeting of the FAC. While I was suspicious of some of their motives, I agreed with a number of their stances – they wanted standardised contracts that were more in favour of the artist than had been the case previously, for example. And, most importantly, they agreed that criminalising filesharers was Wrong and Dumb. At the end of the meeting, impressed with what I’d seen, merry on pop, and displaying my usual lack of careful consideration, I signed up with the group, and became A Member.

I was starting to question my decision by the next morning, and the group’s activities over the coming months caused me much concern. (Eagle-eared listeners might have noticed some of those voiced on Can’t Go For That, from The Omega Sanction) Thing is, I am a busy man, and hadn’t taken the time to properly look into the situation. Last week I got an email inviting me to a debate they were having on file sharing, but I coudn’t go as I was Actio.

Then I got back from New York yesterday, and found the following in my inbox:

On September 24th a very special meeting took place at Air Studios in London. It was an unprecedented gathering of artists who all met in the spirit of collaboration and with the aim of discussing the very challenging issue of file-sharing and how it affects the lives of so many artists and all the people that support them in creating the music that we all know and love.

The statement below is the result of that meeting…

The Air Statement:

We the undersigned wish to express our support for Lily Allen in her campaign to alert music lovers to the threat that illegal downloading presents to our industry and to condemn the vitriol that has been directed at her in recent days.

Our meeting also voted overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer’s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.


Tim Rice-Oxley (Keane)
Jamie Turner
Adriano Buffone (Raygun)
Allan Bradbury
Helienne Lindvall
Tony Crean
Andrew Laidlaw (Luck Soul)
Isard Haasakker
Tony Morrelli (The Fire Escapes)
Jean-Baptiste Pilon (The Fire Escapes)
Mark Headley (The Fire Escapes)
Hal Ritson (The Young Punx)
Billy Bragg
Ben Ward
Karl Harrison
Howard Jones
Tjinder Singh (Cornershop)
Phil Simpson
Steve Jones
John Reynolds
Sandie Shaw (via phone)
David Rowntree (Blur)
Ed O’Brien (Radiohead)
Alan Sharland (The Hoosiers)
Martin Skarendahl (The Hoosiers)
Steven Hogarth (Marillion)
Mark Kelly (Marillion)
Guy Chambers
Patrick Wolf
Sam Duckworth (Get Cape Wear Cape Fly)
Jamie Allen
Toby Sebastian
James Kelly
Beryl Marsden
George Jones
Ross Millard (The Futureheads)
Stax Dempsey
Rona Sentinar
Fran Healy (Travis)
Karl Addy
Nathan Taylor (The Young Punx)
Josh Allegro
Ali Howard (Lucky Soul)
David Arnold
Lucy Pullin (The Fire Escapes)
Annie Lennox (via phone)
Lily Allen (Not a Member of the FAC)
George Michael
Nick Mason (Pink Floyd)

Signed After the meeting;

The Music Producers Guild
John B
Claudia Brucken (Propaganda)
Rick Wilde

The Air Statement can be found on our website www.featuredartistscoalition.com

We also have two fantastic events coming up for artists. See the events section of our home page for more info.

So, there you have it. With that pretentiously titled “Air Statement” The FAC have announced that they are taking the Metallica route. They have revealed themselves to be greedy, backward, vindictive crybabies. So fuck them. Who wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with Adriano Buffone  from Raygun and Timothy Rice-Oxley from Keane anyway? Are they going to personally sign the “warning letters”? “Dear naughty filesharer, I want more port, no more broadband for you, yours Timothy Rice-Cuntly, Oxford.” Come friendly bombs and blow these sad fucks to smithereens!  I was not joking when I said that!

I mean. Really. “A three-strike sanction”? Who’d you pricks think you are, Rudy Gulliani? Rockefeller laws for file sharers? Are you fucking insane? Damn! You foolish, foolish people! These are not the seventies! Things are different now! Time has marched on and left you behind! You are dead meat! The wind changed, and you got stuck making a really stupid face! I feel sorry for you, but swear down, I will not have anything to do with you. (Goddamnit, there’s a photo of me looking celebratory on their homepage. I am embarrassed)

So goodbye FAC. Groucho was right, and I have learned my lesson.

— Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Share & Commen


  1. Speculator
    September 30, 2009
    2:13 pm

    I remember a time when the music "industry" were the bad guys. Now we're meant to sympathise with them because they're going out of business? Purrlease.

  2. art hooligan
    September 30, 2009
    2:36 pm

    bad one dude,get the f outa the fac.surprised to see the scroobius there.

    while on subject of filesharing any idea if anyone will share stunners vol 1 with me my life has a 80 minute void in it.ha.Cariad Bro Dean the Art Hooligan x

  3. daveisanidiot
    September 30, 2009
    3:21 pm

    here is an example of when file-sharing is GOOD for music. I notices that Patrick Wolf had signed this statement, were it not for file-sharing websites i would never have heard of him (well maybe i would have, but only his newer stuff which i don't particularly like). i admit that i downloaded Lycanthropy after a recommendation from a friend.

    since downloading that album i have seen him live multiple times, i think its 6 or 7, i own all of his albums and singles, the majority of them on both cd and vinyl and have bought merchandise with his name on. were it not for me downloading that album and breaking the law none of that money would have gone his way.

    thats just one example because i saw his name but i have downloaded other albums and got into other bands/artists the same way. i will admit i have downloaded albums and then not bought other stuff of the artist which i guess is bad, but its usually because i don't like them.

  4. Nathan
    September 30, 2009
    3:32 pm

    Treating everyone in the country like naughty children seems to becoming a favourite national past-time around here. Basically the control of image, hype and PR speak behind all these artists has been the status quo for decades. You were fed by the majors. You ate at their table on their terms believing for the most part the descriptions on the menu and most of the time you left hungry. Now the power has shifted to the consumer because all the image, pr speak and hype behind an artist has little to do with what their product actually is: the music. The rest is bullshit and now we're seeing that folks, given the ability to actually listen to the actual product 'the music' before they plonk down £10 aren't having it. Fair enough I say. No one guaranteed anyone a living at making music and if you can't make a living at it the old fashioned way, by performing and engaging an audience enough that they will come back or stop talking or stop throwing pint cups filled with piss and see you again, then perhaps you actually suck. Maybe you should do something else. The alternative seems to be the support of legislated punishment of private citizens whose respect you haven't earned. Insanity.

    It's only fitting that the signatories are either PR based bands trying to figure out how they're going to payback their massive advances, luxury tour bus costs and 'flower' bills, or too old and entrenched in the way that was for 60 years to understand what the hell is actually going on.

  5. BJ
    September 30, 2009
    3:43 pm

    The more I think about it, the more hilarious it becomes.

    I was at that first meeting (as an observer only) when there was the whole – No, no-one wants to criminalise anyone! What?! Of course not! The very thought!! No way! everyone nodding at each other amongst the general murmur of agreement – thing.

    Wow, assholes.

    Evidently by 'the threat that illegal downloading poses to OUR industry' they mean the FAC, no? They must. (shit on this, I think I liked the last lot better).

    Billy, you must… No? Oh, ok.

    ‘But the ideals you've opted out of,

    I still hold them to be true

    I guess they weren't so firmly held by you’

    (Billy Bragg)

    I hope I don’t get sued for unlawful reproduction of intellectual property – I might get my water cut off or something.

    Ah, the sin of property… or whatever, Bill, eh?

  6. joey2tits
    September 30, 2009
    7:57 pm

    i ruddy love you BJ.

  7. joey2tits
    September 30, 2009
    8:00 pm

    they way they're holding their fists up like Bragg fans do during live renditions of Power in an Union is a little, well, weird. Seems there is power in a union to try and take on the tyranny of the majority of downloaders.

    I drink water, i pay for it, it comes out my taps, sometimes I buy it in bottles. It also falls from the sky.

  8. silentbob69
    September 30, 2009
    9:36 pm

    Wasn't Billy (My principles won't come back!) Bragg a big part of that Red Wedge Commie fuckfest in the 80's with with all the other self important cockknockers?

    I find it funny that Lily Allen is now against file sharing when she arrived on the scene being trumpeted as 'The girl who has become a star as she gave her music away free on the internet'. Greedy fuckin' Harpie!

    Even more abusive is the fact the have abbreviated their name to sound like they are a Factory catalouge number…. Anthony H would be spinning in his grave.

    Maybe if some of these grasping, greedy swines sold cd's for a fiver like you do then they would sell them. If you can do it from a fucking flat then there's no excuse these tits can't do it from a fuckin' mansion.

    I'm with you…maybe that could be a new song for you…Fuck The Fac!

  9. BJ
    September 30, 2009
    10:56 pm

    I love you too Joey, but that doesn’t make our love right.

    Yes – taps, bottles, sky – as you so rightly say below. If you (YOU, Joey) were the water board and you did cut everyone’s water off, people might buy bottles for a while, but they’d very quickly end up collecting their own water someplace else, or just drink wine instead, and bathe in wine. Hmm.

    But actually, come to think of it – you pay water rates, you pay for broadband, it’s like The Evian Company emptying a few thousand liters of Evian into the reservoirs and then calling for everyone’s water to be cut off for illegally obtaining their product.

    Artists who don’t want their music to be shared shouldn’t be allowed to use the internet, or indeed any digital recording format. How’s that for a solution?

    What kind of person sells data anyway, I refuse to pay for something that can be un-made with magnets.

  10. Akira The Don
    October 1, 2009
    4:00 pm

    I agree with all of you on everything, apart from BJ's comment about magnets. Although that did make me laugh.

  11. Adam W
    October 2, 2009
    7:29 am

    This kind of punitive measure is absolutely unenforceable anyway.

    If they [ISP’s, the ‘authorities’] do it by IP address, there will be one hell of a holy shitstorm of writs flying around from people unfairly denied access [or given limited access] to the internet on shared IP addresses.


    Those writs would be unlikely because people sharing internet access aren’t going to be able to afford lawyers.

    Little men and little women getting stamped on by The Man again. How quickly the FAC is starting to look like what they set out to be the alternative to. What a shame.

  12. Tim
    October 2, 2009
    12:48 pm

    " I refuse to pay for something that can be un-made with magnets."

    There aren't enough 'hahas' in the world for that statement

  13. edward
    October 5, 2009
    1:36 pm

    99% of these arguements are just plain wrong. There is not a single complainer when it comes to slagging off fac or lily allen who ever acknowledges the fact that it is they,the recipients of the music, are the greedy bastards.They want someones work for free.they think that someone elses labour and talent should be given to them for nothing,just because they want it .
    I want free beer……and food. So I will steal it.
    Dont punish me though…..after all, the people who provide beer and food have more money than me
    unbelievable hypocrisy.

  14. Mat
    October 5, 2009
    2:11 pm

    So a list of artists that include some of the most socially conscious and most forward thinking in terms of business models (and yes, I do mean Marillion) basically say that file sharing is damaging to the industry and they'd like to see it protected and what, they're all idiots? Whether or not the measures are right (and I don't believe they are) people have to understand that recorded music is not free. Maybe they don't pay for it, but someone has to. You should know this. If you choose to share it to build profile and get more fans that's your choice, it's a clever move. If you choose to partner with a brand. If you choose blow your inheritance. Any of these options is fine, but it has to remain the choice of the rights owners, it's what is fair. What is unacceptable is that there are swathes of people who don't care as long as it's 'free to me' and artists big and small have a right to protect themselves from these people and this attitude.

    How they protect themselves, well this is the real debate. As I say, I don't agree with the 3 strikes ruling but thus far all I've heard from the frequently misinformed, often spiteful critics of Lily is that she, and 3 strikes are wrong, I've yet to hear an alternative from them apart from 'I want music and I want it free and anyone that doesn't agree is horrible and mean and past it'.

    If no-one pays for music ever, how's music ever going to get made? How are we going to get to hear new music (because let's face it, most music is rubbish). That's without going into all of the jobs that have already been lost, and the many more that will follow. We need to shift the debate away from hateful slaggings of people who want to protect their interests to an actual debate that shows empathy to both sides, it's the only way to get a solution.

  15. Parkaboi
    October 5, 2009
    2:31 pm

    Oh Billy, how you've changed. Remember when we used to respect you?

    The majority of these people are a joke. How much money have Marillion lost over file-sharing? If it's more than a tenner between them I'll eat a vinyl copy of Kayleigh.

    Travis? Keane? Raygun? You should be grateful anyone's listening at all, regardless of how they've come by your music.

    Nick Mason? Did you have nothing to do that day? No Ferraris to polish?

    Howard Jones? Just checked on a BT search engine. There are currently 34 people worldwide sharing Howard Jones' greatest hits. Most of them are being ironic. The rest are going to be disappointed when they realise they really wanted Nik Kershaw.

  16. edward
    October 5, 2009
    2:39 pm

    what kind of person pays for data ? everyone.

    I can rub out the formula for Coka Cola if its written on paper…..doesnt make that formula worthless.

    Ming vases are only made of clay and I can smash one of them with a hammer.Cant be worth much surely.

    Picasso ?? paint on a canvas ???? Only about £50 worth of paint by the looks of it.How can that be worth anything??

  17. Speculator
    October 5, 2009
    2:45 pm

    Here’s what I would like to see happen: Every record label goes bust as a result of downloading. Even the cool independent ones. Nobody ever gets financing to start a business based on distributing recorded music ever again. Only the artists with the wherewithall to operate independently, or of such great talent that fans self organise, are heard of again. If musicians don’t want to make music because there’s no chance of getting rich, we’re better off without them.

    Of course, this is not in the least bit plausible, or fair for that matter. But at least it would be a cause I could get behind, more so than “don’t download, because Keane have got mortgage payments to make.”

  18. Mat
    October 5, 2009
    2:52 pm

    Great debating skills there. I feel more informed, like a perspective on the argument has been shown to me that I hadn’t previously understood. Well done, no seriously, well done. You’re awesome.

    One thing however, Marillion invented an entirely new way of doing business with their fans which enabled them to function outside of the label system and as such, should be paid respect as people who are coming up with and actioning alternative models. The rest of the artists you so insightfully cut down to size have mostly shifted millions of records and toured the world. Now, if we’re judging people on whether or not they have the right to an opinion based on their current success as music artists, what metric shall we use to measure whether they are still successful? airplay? record sales? ticket sales? online buzz?

    Also, once we’ve decided which metric to use we’ll need to set a benchmark where anyone that doesn’t meet it doesn’t have the right to an opinion but anyone that does can. So, by which metric Parkaboi shall we measure because I’ve a suspicion you won’t meet any of them,

    By the way, I’d like to caveat my opinion by pointing out that all successful artists are mega-rich and therefore don’t have the right to express an opinion anyway, and they steal from grannies OBVIOUSLY

  19. wererogue
    October 5, 2009
    7:15 pm

    Billy Bragg? :(

    I expect better of the guy.

  20. Luke Cairns
    October 5, 2009
    8:46 pm

    Good piece, guys and gals.. its over.

    Stop criminalizing ordinary folks and realize that you were part of a conspiracy to rip the public off over many many years, its like they think people will never make music again if they dont make a stand..

    my word the idiocy.

    Man alive!..

    maybe if they spent a few years filling they're brains with something other than Beatles records they might have found an intelligible, intellectual argument somewhere.. or they might have learnt and understood how 'things' pass, how 'stuff' is superseded

    simply idiotic.

  21. Mark
    October 5, 2009
    9:06 pm

  22. edward
    October 5, 2009
    9:07 pm

    dont call it file sharing.stealing isnt sharing.

    and you could have listened to music on any number of streaming sites for free to hear music,you dont need to download it.

    youre friend could have recommended that record to you, why did download the whole thing,why not stream it on a service that is legal ??? you still get to hear the music before you buy and the artist gets paid something for providing a service with the content it needs to exist.

  23. daveisanidiot
    October 6, 2009
    11:07 am

    the comment i made was regarding a time in 2005. as far as i am aware there were no music streaming sites like spotify, i guess last.fm was around? Patrick Wolf didn’t have a myspace back then either, that i am aware of.
    so there was no way to listen to the album without actually buying it, so i downloaded it. if it makes you feel better i now have that album in three different formats?
    i realise that file-stealing doesn’t always lead to people buying cds but as i mentioned it was an example of when it can be good for the artist.

  24. lois
    October 6, 2009
    12:25 pm

    I still think that Home Taping is Killing Music.

  25. Parkaboi
    October 6, 2009
    1:19 pm

    Thank you for your praise. I'm touched.

    I'll try to give you a more serious response this time.

    People have been making a living from music since millennia before we had a music biz with profits, cocaine and groupies. The current business model is now redundant as it's been circumvented. For years we've had to put up with middlemen between the audience and the artists; vile creatures who add nothing to either sides' experience while screwing both ends to make a profit. I'm glad their reign has finished, they've been ripping us off for years. I have no sympathy.

    Intelligent artists and groups – Radiohead, for example – have cottoned onto this fact and are using other pricing methods to generate revenue. I'm not as clued-up on Marillion's latest works and business ventures as you appear to be, but if they have done similar then they are to be applauded.

    File-sharing is here to stay. Work with it. There's a great post from naxos.com here – http://www.naxos.com/Contest/Hillis_William.htm – it includes the great recommendation ' Rather than use live performances to promote CDs, freely distribute digital audio files to promote performances.' Personally, I go to a live music show about once a month. I have discovered some of these artists through file-sharing. Without it I would not have listened to them and would not go their shows and they would receive zero revenue from me, instead of the £20-£30 I might spend on a ticket. Is this preferable for them? If file-sharing means more bands playing more live shows, then I'm all for it.

    And what about music that I already own on vinyl? Am I allowed to download digital copies? When I buy a vinyl LP am I buying a license for the IP? Or just the object?

    You've extrapolated from my argument a lot more than I intended to be in there. I was not saying that certain artists are not entitled to express an opinion. Rather my point was; if these people aren't being affected, why are they so concerned about it? Publicity perhaps?

  26. Tim
    October 6, 2009
    1:58 pm

    Ha. You've just turned this board in to any other internet forum. Making fun of people's responses? Sarcasm? Don't do that.

    I might not agree with everything Parkaboi said but I'll fight for his right to make me laugh by saying it. He was trying to be funny and lighthearted, as you knew, which IS a very valuable tool in 'debates' and helps us all not take things to personally and to heart. If you don't like it then go have a go at Mark Thomas, Bill Hicks, George Carlin or any other comdiens who use comedy to make a valid point.

    This isn't the Youtube comments section.

    Shit, now you've got me doing it

  27. BJ
    October 6, 2009
    2:14 pm

    Well edward, I was being slightly facetious about the magnet, but I’d argue that the formula of Coca-Cola is completely worthless* – and that it might just be the brand that’s responsible for all the dough. No? If you want to believe – good luck! Steal that formula and see if you can become a squillionaire, I’ll let you know Coke’s ‘Dasani’ formula for free. (see Joe’s post about taps, etc.)

    Clay isn’t data though, by any stretch, neither is paint or canvas, in the way you describe, they are elements of an actual tangible artefact that there is only one of – if you’d said dots of ink on a possibly questionable resolution reproduction of a painting, I would have seen some sort of analogy. Still, I personally wouldn’t pay much for one (but then you can’t delete it with a magnet, so it depends).

    *C12H22011 😉

  28. zenp
    October 6, 2009
    2:41 pm

    …here's a FAC'in answer for y'all:

    ….all music is held in a virtual cloud 'somewhere' (unimportant?). Access to the cloud is by subscription. Cloud guarantees top quality downloads, full format .flac/.ape/.whatever streamed at mega speeds, making it super easy to use. Why? Because spacemonkeys like us are by nature lazy, and like bright shiny things, and will go for the convenience of a live streaming feed over the inconvenience of searching the web/ mate's hard drives, and getting crap flat bitrates. If the subscription's low enough (and i don't mean astronomical 'build your own mega media murdoch style empire out of it' £50/ month bollocks, more like an affordable £5/10 or summint, 'cos den all da youf will pay up) then (virtually)everyone will be signed up.

    Let those poor media whores get to work on marketing it, they're gonna need the work, but as a business model, it requires two precedent.

    All the music must be available instantly, from any artist, at top quality, for a single monthly (say) rate. This the ONLY effective way to 'stamp out piracy'. Or rather the practice of downloading media without contributing in any meaningful way to the revenue stream. Any attempt to compromise on this position from the distribution companies would allow the formation of a two tier (paying vs non paying) system to reemerge.

    The revenue generated is then split proportionally between the artists, (ATD was responsible for 0.0001% of global distribution this month, ATD gets 0.0001% of revenue stream less distribution costs etc). No more 'cheap bargain bins' for artists music to rot in. No more will the latest album cost more than the (usually better) first one. Instead a whole body of work will be responsible for the artists career. Appropriate weighting could perhaps be used for those whose sheer volume of material produced on an annual level (aphex twin?) might allow them to out gross those who spend a lot more time on things, and therefore don't have as many viable downloadable revenue points (tracks) for their music (Axl Rose?)(haha).

    The artists material is all held by (effectively) ONE cloudbased server. Different distribution companies would compete within a predefined pricing structure, to ensure content is accessible by all, whist being able to maintain some health commercial competition amongst themselves for who gets the lions share of the subscribers. Different companies would offer different tiers of performance based on the usual customer service vs ease of use of product vs price that basically defines most commercial enterprises. But effectively it's 'all free', you just pay for how bright and shiny you want the packaging, cos' that's what spacemonkey's want, remember?

    Funnily enough, this is the same model used by electricity generation/distribution now in practise in the uk/usa/ and any other Friedman based economy. Course music is much easier to generate than electricity, and much more fun, and there is literally an infinite supply, so I can't see the massive Enron style problems rearing their corporate heads here. If they do, we'll all be back to the auld P2P, and everyone suffers.


    hello. my name is zenp. i look for questions…

  29. Akira The Don
    October 6, 2009
    2:48 pm

    Word. I was saying this back in NINETEEN NINETY NINE!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know people who've been trying to make it reality since 2002. But the majors weren't having it. I weep for what could have been. Drop. Drip. Splash.

    Then I sing for what shall be. Laaaaaa! Laaaaaaaaa! Smash.

  30. zenp
    October 6, 2009
    5:00 pm

    …all four majors are back on u tube, now Warner Music have at last resolved their dummy spitting antics, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/warner_mu… , so there's the thin end of the wedge, weepnot/ sing/ etc.

    Still a looooooong, long way to go, a lot of entrenched unenlightened self interest to be overcome. As long as the freetards and pirates and all the rest of us that choke reflexively on the idea of shelling out such astounding sums of money for each version of something that is, in essence, mutable phenomena, continue driving a stake deep into the putrid heart of a system that sucks the life blood from artists and fans alike, this issue will remain in the public eye Though it needs a few heroes…

  31. TBK
    October 6, 2009
    9:34 pm

    I'd just like to throw it out there, that every single album I have ever purchased has been done so AFTER hearing music I like from a friend, via them sending me the .mp3 file, them telling me about it and then I go torrent it, OR from unique marketing techniques.

    ATD was a genius by working with Wonchop and such and moving his music into other types of media.

    It's called intelligent marketing, you give the public a taste of the product, and if they like it, they will buy it. A few bands have been intelligent and started selling stuff by donation, and it's great marketing. Shit like viral campaigns work well, I'm just sick and tired of label owned whores complaining because they're not thinking outside the box and want a fucking private jet for just making the music, when there are billions of independent artists flying out the stratosphere with cool new marketing ideas.

    Fuck the middlemen.

  32. Mat
    October 7, 2009
    12:58 am

    Are you a middle man in anything at all? In your job do you make anything? Are you the creator? Would you like to lose your job? Where do these ‘cool new marketing ideas’ come from? Where are these billions of artists?

  33. Mat
    October 7, 2009
    1:06 am

    I’m not sure if I can respond. Firstly. the most ‘internet forum’ behaviour there is, is to take pot shots at artists knowing they can’t respond. Do you think Parkaboi would say the same thing to Howard New in the pub? I’d certainly make the same statement if faced with the same double standards.

    Also, going away from the debate (which incidentally Parkaboi gave a reasoned response to once the hyperbole had gone) how can you possibly say that sarcasm is wrong whilst naming comedians within your argument? I may not be as funny, but you’re essentially stating that you’re the arbiter of when sarcasm is acceptable and when it isn’t. Unless of course Hicks, Carlin and the dreadful Mark Thomas have never used sarcasm?

  34. Mat
    October 7, 2009
    1:52 am

    So artists have to be good at business and good at music?

  35. Mat
    October 7, 2009
    1:53 am

    So how will recordings be funded?

  36. Mat
    October 7, 2009
    1:56 am

    Indeed it does, an awful musician bringing his sub-standard vocals to the attention of the public via a gimmick, if there is anything more 'old school industry' than Dan Bull's grab at fame I've yet to see it.

  37. Mel
    October 7, 2009
    7:33 am

    Well, it would help them make more money if they were.

    (You’d also see a lot fewer of them signed to major labels, I suspect.)

  38. TBK
    October 7, 2009
    11:59 am

    The definition of a middle man is somebody who sits and sells the services of one to another while skimming a share off the top for himself, often jumbling up the image of the transaction with paperwork.


    An employee employer relationship is a direct buyer/seller contract.

    An employee is selling time directly to the employer.

    A middle man would be the person sitting there taking the money from the employer, and giving the employee his share, minus a piece.

    In criminal terms, it’s also found, called protection money.

    I do not create for money. I don’t think I’d want to. It’s my hobby, to write, to play, to create, both as a wordsmith, a new musician, and anything else I do in life, and as such, I do it for free in my spare time.

    What I WILL give you this: Billions is an overstatement.

    But the people who plan on making something they love their main financial means, should also expect to put effort into it. If an artist wants to do something they love, just like any other job, they must do whatever it takes to push product. But you must understand that people are people. Not everybody can afford art, music, literature. People will do what it takes to make life easier for themselves. Such is fact.

    Working to condemn the consumer because it’s not EASY enough to push product means that your product is either not worth it, and people are taking it for free because they don’t feel it’s worth the money, or that you’re not trying hard enough to come up with ways to assist the spread and consumption of the said product. Hence my comment on ATD’s success. I’m from North America, and simply through his flash videos, word of mouth, his openness of opinion, he has gathered fans.

    Just because a musician becomes famous for one or two hit songs or albums does NOT mean they can sit back, pump out more of the same, and reap in cash.

    If you don’t take ATD’s great marketing, from free streaming, downloads, flash movies, and the like, as a point…

    What did Madonna’s mashup performance with Gorillaz a few years back do for her? It increased her fame, of course, but it also garnered support from Gorillaz fans, and vice versa, because it showed they were capable of experimenting and working with new things.

    You ask me questions to defer me.

    Where are YOUR answers?

  39. Tim
    October 7, 2009
    1:31 pm

    “You ask me questions to defer me. Where are YOUR answers?”

    I might get this tattooed on my heart

  40. Tim
    October 7, 2009
    1:33 pm

    Practical solutions rock my world

  41. BJ
    October 7, 2009
    1:58 pm


    Recording doesn’t have be expensive, it doesn’t have to cost anything – there’s an established industry way of doing things, but there’s also collaboration.

    Even as things stand nowadays, a lot of producers (even the top producers in the world) are willing to give their time and expertise to projects with unsigned acts for free – ask Adam, he’ll give you proof. Producers are essentially no different to any other musician – saying that recording music can’t be afforded is like saying that playing music can’t be afforded.

    Added to that, people are increasingly able to produce their own stuff to a professional level – necessary equipment is increasingly simple, affordable and better quality. Software is cheaper, cheaper software is getting better, freeware is getting better. There are more producers than ever.

    Not being able to spend £600 a day on a professional studio isn’t going to stop anyone except for those with no imagination.

  42. 2tits
    October 7, 2009
    3:40 pm


    Now that free and readily available, isn’t the ‘discovery people through downloading illegally’ a thing of the past?

    I heard Mika say that on Radio 4 last week. Yep. Mika. Yep. Radio 4.
    do one.

  43. 2tits
    October 7, 2009
    3:43 pm

    ah, me and my shit proof reading: what I meant to say was…
    Now that free and readily available streaming facilities like Spotify are emerging…isn’t the ‘discovery people through downloading illegally’ get out clause defunct?

  44. 2tits
    October 7, 2009
    3:43 pm

    oh fuck it.

  45. Akira The Don
    October 7, 2009
    4:15 pm

    Hahahaha. Thread killer.

  46. zenp
    October 7, 2009
    4:32 pm

    …indeed, it’s not the cost of producing a master tape that’s prevented any artist from becoming a global mega star so far, but the unfortunate fact that bonding the information to the latest physical media, and then distributing said solid stuff costs mucho wonga. And no astute businessman’s gonna put their wallet on the line for a spotty little twerp cutting their first album, unless they can make sure that people are gonna know all about it (marketing) which bumps the price up further, so they’ve even more reason to ensure next that the product (for such has the creative output now devolved into) appeals to as wide a ‘niche’ as possible, and the music inevitably suffers. And assuming it works, and ‘spotty little twerp’ becomes the next Madonna, they’re now utterly indebted to the industry, they have in fact, become a product themselves. which encourages the next generation to be good little products as well, even if they never make it!

    So currently the funding is by lottery, and your soul the price of a ticket.

    Surly any sensible alternative’s gotta be worth it…?

  47. zenp
    October 7, 2009
    6:48 pm

    …you didn’t like it? No probs, matey, but you did get the message, eh? I mean, personal tastes aside, he does have a point. Lilly Allen blatantly ‘lied’ to everyone by pretending to be some awesome emergent internet phenomenon, cashing in on the meme of internet=freemusic via MurdochSpace. The whole philosophy of ‘you can listen to music for free on the net’ would never have been mooted if we hadn’t all been pluggin’ in to napster, and all the rest, way back when Miss Allen was just a wee little thing on her media savvy celebrity Dad’s knee. Many accuse HER of bringing her sub-standard vocals to the attention of the public via a gimmick, so were you being ironic? Or did you really not get it?

    Been listening to Dan Bull’s album whilst tapping the plastic, and I’m gonna vote with a big thumbs up for the guy. He’s more of a spoken word guy, kinda like Mr Pip. Oh, and it’s a free download. The whole album. Here, have a listen: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HMMBYOTZ If you like, donate here: http://www.freshnut.co.uk/index.php?p=shop or if you feel you actually need to slag him off to his face, his site is here: http://www.myspace.com/danbull Nice not to have to pay through the nose first, before being able to make an informed decision. Whichever way it goes.

    Last plug, promise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuqsxnHlhTc and the money shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2o81Yzsmng&feature=related

  48. Parkaboi
    October 7, 2009
    7:52 pm


    I don’t think you can have a pop at me for slagging off someone from the safe anonymity of an internet forum and then write this.

    And to reply to your point above (which doesn’t have a ‘Reply’ option for me to do it there), I would be very happy to repeat my above statements to Howard Jones’ (New?) face. I reckon I can take him if things get nasty; he looks well weedy, innit?

    I will be downloading Dan Bull’s album and donating if i like it. I’m not a thief.

  49. bloodred
    October 9, 2009
    11:57 pm

    would you buy a beer for 15 bucks if you only enjoyed a few sips? And if the whole can sucked, wouldnt you want your money back? I buy music that doesnt suck, Unfortunately most music sucks anymore…

  50. M-RES
    October 14, 2009
    5:49 pm

    Good one Dave. This is a point many people made to Lily Allen, which is one of the cases of ‘abuse’ she claimed to have received aimed at her. Truth is, she couldn’t hack it when all of the arguments in favour of file sharing were just more convincing than all the arguments against it.

    And yes Edward you c*nt it IS sharing, nobody is taking the original copy and denying the rights holder the opportunity of profiting from it, so no theft is taking place. One download does NOT equal one lost sale, and as Dave points out, it often leads to MORE sales for an artist.

    Spotify are 40% owned by the major labels, who take a nice big cut of advertising revenue, but pass none of it on to the artists who are being exploited to SELL that advertising space. So it seems to me that streaming services really ARE stealing from the artists where P2P sharing is working as a free distribution and marketing service.

    After the Lily Allen “mwaaaah, they’re all more cleverer than me (and they found my illegal copyright infringing mixtapes on my website) so I’m going to have a tantrum and shut down my blog” incident, I went and found some of the music from the artists who were completely opposed to her (and the FAC’s) position and downloaded their stuff, paying where it seemed appropriate. I’ve recommended some of these bands on to others and given them copies (as is encouraged by some of the bands out there) and I know they’re all hoping to go and see these artists live soon.

    As Dan Bull said on his ‘Open Letter to Lily Allen’ tune on YouTube: “perhaps we should have a BAN CDs appeal, then people would have to go and see bands play for real!”.

    Big up Akira… you the geezer and a genuine ‘sir’.

  51. M-RES
    October 14, 2009
    6:49 pm

    Good one Dave. This is a point many people made to Lily Allen, which is one of the cases of 'abuse' she claimed to have received aimed at her. Truth is, she couldn't hack it when all of the arguments in favour of file sharing were just more convincing than all the arguments against it.

    And yes Edward you c*nt it IS sharing, nobody is taking the original copy and denying the rights holder the opportunity of profiting from it, so no theft is taking place. One download does NOT equal one lost sale, and as Dave points out, it often leads to MORE sales for an artist.

    Spotify are 40% owned by the major labels, who take a nice big cut of advertising revenue, but pass none of it on to the artists who are being exploited to SELL that advertising space. So it seems to me that streaming services really ARE stealing from the artists where P2P sharing is working as a free distribution and marketing service.

    After the Lily Allen "mwaaaah, they're all more cleverer than me (and they found my illegal copyright infringing mixtapes on my website) so I'm going to have a tantrum and shut down my blog" incident, I went and found some of the music from the artists who were completely opposed to her (and the FAC's) position and downloaded their stuff, paying where it seemed appropriate. I've recommended some of these bands on to others and given them copies (as is encouraged by some of the bands out there) and I know they're all hoping to go and see these artists live soon.

    As Dan Bull said on his 'Open Letter to Lily Allen' tune on YouTube: "perhaps we should have a BAN CDs appeal, then people would have to go and see bands play for real!".

    Big up Akira… you the geezer and a genuine 'sir'.

Leave a comment


  1. Of Pirates and Parasites. « Velvet Coalmine

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL