Headlines

June 01, 2008

Santogold on selling out: 'now it’s how we make our money'

New York Magazine | Read Full Story >

New York Magazine:

It’s been a long while since a local up-and-comer generated the kind of buzz that White is enjoying—and though it’s very possible you might not even know her name, you may be familiar with her work. She’s written tracks for Ashlee Simpson; had her music piped over scenes in Grey’s Anatomy; and done commercials for Bud Light Lime and Converse (that one was with Julian Casablancas of the Strokes). And when she spoke to me, she said she might do a project with Ford (a deal her publicist later said never materialized). It’s the kind of market-savvy, Me-generation career trajectory that would likely make anyone who still frequents record stores recoil in disgust—and White couldn’t care less.

“It’s a little weird, but at the same time, let’s say I make a deal with Target—knowing how many people shop at Target? It’s not like I’m writing a song about Target. It’s more like—Target’s onboard to help me sell records? That’s great.”

And as she points out, it’s just the way the industry works these days. “Everybody wants you to sell a lot of records, but it’s not considered a failure if you don’t. The record labels know that most of the money nowadays is made in licensing. On MTV, their whole approach is to put your songs in their programming now—they’re even [looking into] some new technology, like TiVo, that will record the music played on a show and then give you the option to purchase it. So where before it might have been, ‘Oh, you’re gonna sell out?,’ now it’s how we make our money.”

Guardian:

There was a time when the most exciting musical projects arose from sheer spontaneity – two or three artists meet at a party, fall in together, and before long we have the Traveling Wilburys or, er, Jackson and McCartney’s Say Say Say.

These days the model is different. In 2008, a company, let’s say a shoe company, hires a big advertising firm. Executives at the ad firm call their teenage nieces in New York and London, and ask them what’s cool. And then the shoe company throws money at people.

That is how we imagine Santogold, the Strokes’ Julian Casablancas and Pharrell Williams from the Neptunes came to be working together on a song for Converse trainers. And Santogold – the scattershot American electro-punk who is currently one of the most talked-about artists – is fine with it. “It’s like one of the main ways to get our music heard now and so it’s stupid for artists to shy away from that,” she said to Gigwise.


Post a comment


41 Comments

#2 RWMS says:

I see major platinum in the future for SANTOGOLD...

Missing Persons meets The Specials, meets Brazillian Girls with a speck of early Go Go's!

BRILLIANT

Truly good stuff happening here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9JI0G...

DMGTH

-Ron Wiles

#3 CO says:

Since no one of any merit has commented yet, I think it's fair to point out that just because you don't wish to call something a "sell-out" doesn't mean it actually isn't one.

Nice point by the Guardian as well about the lack of spontaneity in modern corporate music. The industry would like to blame supposed downloading, but that's more to blame for the trouble they're in.

#4 Not Buying says:

"Me-generation", perhaps inadvertently, puts it quite succinctly. And besides, I'm more of a fan of people who make music for themselves rather than, say, Target.
-simonjk

#5 zzzzzzzzz says:

RWMS: Always at hand to point out the obvious and call it journalism.

#6 Steven Patrick Morrissey says:

the record is great. i would expect santi to have this outlook being that she used to run a+r. i understand what she's saying and unfortunately it's the harsh reality we live in. there is no more artist development so there is no artist build-up. you've got to come hard or find yourself in the cut-out bin.

selling out, as we knew it, is now the new artist promotion machine. that's real.

#7 snoring loudly says:

RWMS: please bless us with more of your brilliant insights. And please, Please, PLEASE continue to sign off with a plug in the form of a link.

#8 not really convinced says:

Yes the business model has changed and most recording artists can't expect to make a lot of income from record sales. But does that mean an artist like Santogold should license to any and every company that walks through the door? The thing is, I really like that "LES Artistes" song. It resonates because, in my opinion, it seems to talk about making choices and hoping that your integrity remains intact. So the question then is, can you license your expressions to a product like Bud Lite and still claim that integrity is important? Maybe I'm old fashioned. I realize it doesn't have to be a categorical one way or the other. But that song really struck a chord in me, and I was disappointed when I read about Ashlee Simpson and the Bud Lite promo.

#9 snoring loudly...I LOVE YOU says:

snoring loudly says:

RWMS: please bless us with more of your brilliant insights. And please, Please, PLEASE continue to sign off with a plug in the form of a link.

Hahahahaha. It's pretty funny to see him still plugging his site on this still non-mainstream site. Oh it's that Ron Wiles character! I wonder what he has to say THIS time!

#10 the dude says:

Frankly, people in the know will know who Santi White is. Background music for a commercial may not sell more albums, but that is the backend for all indie artists who are taking the corporate way. Be realistic, and develop your art, don't rely on corporate America to care about you for long. If Ford picks her up, the deal will not do a thing for Ford, in all honesty. But she will make some cash, as the Ford people have no idea how to quantify art or trash at this point. They will look at it as if they got a deal because they did not have to pay Madonna prices, but little ole Santogold prices. She needs to balance the checks with the development, and not get sucked into fast cash and burn out, and burn her little real group of fans out.

#11 DukeMushroom says:

Agree with the Dude's last comments.

"Selling Out" is a strange connotation these days, however, when you've got electronic trend-setters like MOBY being proud of the fact that albums like "PLAY" got every track licensed to commercials -BEFORE the release of the record. If that's cool, and he's credible, why's it not the same for Santogold.?.?

Ultimately I think artists need to make a decision about the long term association of their songs, as coupling them with images can create a more lasting impression.

THE WHO licensed their track, "We won't get fooled again" for a car commercial in the middle of a war for oil, when the original intent was a response to the Vietnam War and anti-corporate wars, so either it was grand ironic humor, or just a really bad decision.

And Carly Simon's "Anticipation" may now be forever associated with Ketchup, rather than her original lover's vibe of waiting to go on a date with Cat Stevens.

Ultimately Time will judge these decisions.

#12 DW says:

The thing is, Duke, not everyone thinks Moby is "credible".

I agree with your statement about artists needing to consider the long-term associations, though.

And to "the dude": pretty intelligent post.

#13 RWMS says:

Says GET A FUCKIN' CLUE!
I am not a journalist. I'm a music fan and consumer.
(Yes, I actually pay for music - perhaps you should try it.)

I'm not paid to write what I post here or anywhere else...
I have no agenda, and my allegiance is to the music and the art form.

If the music is good, no matter what genre, I will have something to say. Get used to it, and grow the fuck up!

If you want spin, do not look to me!

-Ron Wiles
http://www.myspace.com/ronwilesmusicshow

#14 DW says:

RWMS, you most certainly DO have an agenda, as evidenced by your spamming everything you comment on with your lame URL.

And we already know you're not journalist, because your inane commentary makes that obvious. Don't worry, nobody here "looks to you" for anything but a laugh. "GET A FUCKIN' CLUE": you're the joke of this website. So "Get used to it, and grow the fuck up!"

#15 RWMS says:

DW

Please try not to be such a failed person. And try to honestly focus on the music. That really is the point if this site. Okay, you got that? Do you? Really?

Oh, and hiding behind just initials speaks volumes.

678.384.4335
Ron Wiles

#16 Apologist says:

No one is buying albums anymore and artists still have to make money, so this seems like a fair solution. How annoyingly entitled to insist that artists shouldn't license their music when 75% of the public is going to acquire it illegally. Good for Santi!

#17 DW says:

@RMWS: Is that another example of your "do more good than harm" bullshit? Calling someone a "failed person"?

As expected, your usual attempts to introduce irrelvancies into the discussion fall flat - what do someone's initials have to do with the fact that you do indeed have an agenda, contrary to what you stated earlier?

And you certainly didn't need to add to the stench of your acute hypocritical behavior (which is already overpowering) - Why don't YOU "focus on the music", which you certainly were NOT doing there on post #13. "Okay, you got that? Do you? Really?"

@Apologist: You're aptly named, but you might be taken more seriously if you don't make up statistics (75% of the public acquires music "illegally") or make claims that are flat-out lies (No one buys albums) - ESPECIALLY when they contradict each other!

#18 RWMS says:

My last comment on this "DW".

DMGTH

Also, try not to attack everyone with an opinion here... It makes you appear to be a bitter person.

FYI - "DMGTH" also has teeth, and is not meant to be a docile phrase!

#19 snoring loudly says:

RWMS: I'm sure you're a passionate music fan, but I think what some of the readers are trying to tell you -including myself- is that when you sign off with a title ("music host") and links to your own project, be it a commercial project or not, it just kinda comes across as self-serving. No disrespect, but it's just kinda corny. What's cool about TDS is that people voice their 2 cents without trying to up their credibility with professional titles, and without pushing their own projects. That keeps the commentary pure in a way; as an indie music fan, you must be able to understand that. Nobody's telling to stop posting opinions (although, on that subject, when you offer the readers one of your "101" lessons, you come across like a total douche), just chill with the links, the titles etc. Trust me, nobody cares.

#20 DW says:

@RMWS: I DON'T "attack everyone with an opinion here" - witness post #12 above.

And I've heard that "last word" BS from you before, too. Next you'll be threatening me with one of your "talent flags" I'm sure.

Instead, why not make yourself useful here, and actually indulge in some intelligent discussion for a change?

For example, do YOU agree that 75% of the public acquires music "illegally" AND that no one buys albums?

#21 RWMS says:

Dear "DW" (aka Swarm Editor...)

NO, I don't believe that 75% of the us public gets their music "illegally".

However, I believe that more than 75% have "illegal" music in thier collections, by way of a disc copied by friends or shared as gift mixes, etc.

The solution: Make music more affordable to the avergae Joe. (This change is already starting to take place)

Full length albums should not cost more than $6 dollars digital download (US) and $8 physical CD. Singles at .99 cents is still okay (the incentive is to buy the album).

If you make the market more affordable, you kill the need for a "Black" market.

Think about it.

-Ron Wiles

#22 DW says:

@RWMS: I give you a chance to use your brain and instead you do the same dumb pulling-statistics-from-your-ass that your alter-ego "Apologist" did.

And like "Apologist", you contradict yourself. If it was even close to true that "gift mixes" from friends are "illegal", making music "more affordable" would have absolutely no effect on that practice!

News flash to RWMS: "gift mixes" are NOT a "black market".

#23 Apologist says:

DW, while nitpicking through the finer details of my post you missed the point altogether. Artists and record labels are being hurt by the significant loss in album sales. Of course they're going to turn to alternate sources of revenue. Why should the public get up in arms about these new ways for artists to monetize their music when they're (at least) partially responsible for the current situation?

#24 snoring loudly says:

DW, RWMD:

As much I'm surprised to say this, RW is on to something here. If we want to stem music piracy, we have to make purchased music a better value proposition. That can take shape in different forms, price being obviously one of them. Blaming consumers for the piracy that's going on (even partially) is pointless. Technology enables piracy. Years of overpriced CDs with few quality tracks provided the incentive. So, to get back to the Santogold story, the question becomes whether corporate endorsement is a legit way for artists to get paid now that little money is made from music sales. I agree with the Dude's posting; go for it but don't get too carried away. Credibility will suffer if a core fan-base realizes that its artist is whoring him/herself out. Jonas Brothers fans will be more tolerant than Santogold fans.

#25 The JJ says:

Its the commercial thats so wack. A floating bottle?... like the worst screen saver desktop photo imaginable.

I've read to the bottom-
Moby=Phil Collins

#26 DW says:

@apologist: sorry, but the problem isn't my missing your supposed "point" because of nitpicking, because the point you are attempting to pass-off rests precisely on your false numbers and inconsistencies.

Wack music not worth listening to in any format is a bigger problem than supposed downloading. As is the rise of other forms of entertainment.

You say "nobody buys albums anymore", which is a lie anyway. But look at the sales for things like "Rock Band" & the new "GTA" games. And those aren't cheap. Plus DVDs sell plenty. So the real problem is the product.

@snoringloudly: that last paragraph is for you, too. RMWS really isn't on to anything, because he doesn't even recognize what you do in your last post: the product itself is to blame.

He thinks the music needs to be cheaper, but the truth is it really needs to be BETTER.

#27 snoring loudly says:

DW: I agree partially; better music will increase sales of music, but, even so, illegal downloads will continue. So artists that make very good music - especially those that cater to a niche audience - are still facing the dilemma discussed in the Santogold article: endorsements or strictly sales & touring?

Also, in terms of falling music sales, I don't think better music is the exclusive solution. RM might have a point in saying that the album prices of $15 (give or take) in a store or $10 online is just not considered a fair price to a new generation of music buyers - even if the album is really good start-to-finish.

#28 Apologist says:

DW, could you explain what you mean by "better music"? Examples might help.

Also, could you explain how "better music" would result in significantly better sales? I thought the last LCD Soundsystem album was top-notch, but the disc seemed to hit a ceiling at around 100k sold. Maybe you're saying that artists should strive to write more commercially viable "hit" material? If so, it seems like even the biggest mainstream releases thus far in 2008 (Usher, Mariah, etc) will struggle to go multi-platinum.

People choose to illegally download music of varying degrees of quality everyday. Whether it's this year's critical darlings or the Baha Men's Greatest Hits, they will inevitably end up on rapidshare. Making great music is the most important element of a musician's career, but it won't necessarily mean that everyone will pay for it.

#29 DW says:

@snoring: again, buyers don't have problems with $60+ games and some didn't have problems with $300 4-album NIN sets, even when offered 1 of those albums for free. Nor did led zeppelin have problems selling a 2-disc set of completely previously re(and re)-released songs. People pay whatever they think the music is worth - so if RWMS's point is that modern music needs to be cheaper, then for his point to be valid it means that modern music isn't worth as much, by definition. Which actually validates MY point: the problem is the product!

@apologist: Shame on you for continuing to use the dishonest term "illegal downloading". Downloading ISN'T illegal, so-called _unauthorized distribution_ is the area in legal question. I think the rest of the things you bring up I addressed above.

#30 DW says:

@snoring: oh yeah, shame on you too for using the term "illegal downloading"!

#31 Apologist says:

DW, there's a reason why pricing should be different in the post-downloading (legal or otherwise) age. The average consumer's habits of musical consumption have changed drastically. We have ipods that hold over 10,000 songs and we want to fill them. $12.99 for 10 songs is too expensive to support that kind of consumption (filling the average ipod legally through itunes would cost about the same amount as a buying a new Hyundai).

As for "illegal downloading", call it what you want. Fine. But it still doesn't change the fact that no matter how great an album is, a large number of people will find ways to acquire it for free. Every band wants to be as good as NIN or Led Zep, and I'm sure every label would love to have a roster that was filled with top caliber acts, but that's not the answer. When even top tier artists can barely sell enough to recoup their marketing expenses, changes have to be made. Which brings us back to the point of the article: if licensing songs helps good artists to pay their bills in lieu of lower album sales, I'm totally fine with it.

And no, you didn't answer my question. What do you mean by "better music"? I'm betting that you're unable to define your own term, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

#32 snoring loudly says:

DW: It's matter of necessary vs sufficient. Is it necessary to make "better" music to increase sales? Probably. Is making "better" music sufficient to compensate for illegal downloads? Definitely not. (Yes, illegal downloads. You use your terminology; I'll use mine)

Your argument in absolute form ("better" music = higher sales) presupposes that when music sales reached their peak, consumers were inundated with tidal waves of "better" music. But that's a load of crap. Great music was, is and always will be the exception to mostly mediocre music. Are you really arguing that the nearly simultaneous occurrences of declining music sales and the advent of filesharing is just some cosmic coincidence? And if artists had only continued to make "better" music Napster would be a mere footnote in digital history? If so, I'd like the # of your dealer.

#33 Apologist says:

Snoring Loudly,
To add to that, I think we're experiencing a moment in recording history where more "better music" is being released than ever before. Cheaper recording techniques, online distribution, internet word of mouth, and an increasingly level playing field for independent artists means that a greater volume of music is reaching a greater number of listeners than ever before, often completely outside of the label system (which is usually the straw man in arguments about the quality of "today's" music).

10 years ago one could have made the argument that "better music" was being kept off the radio or MTV, or that labels simply weren't signing good bands. Today, those arguments are silly. If you want to hear good music, it's out there, it's relatively easy to find, and it's available for purchase. In fact, the overwhelming number of new releases every month is another one of the reasons that the current pricing system doesn't work, although that's a whole different topic.

I'm starting to wonder if the "better music" debate is really just a way for DW to rationalize his feelings about illegal downloading (his semantic finger-wagging over the term seems to indicate as much). After all, if the current system were holding back good music, wouldn't the ultimate act of noble disobedience be to undermine the system through "unauthorized distribution"? If the good music is being hurt just as much as the bad, you might start to feel like less of a Guy Fawkes and more of a thieving jerk.

#34 DW says:

@apologist+snoring: If we're going to have an honest discussion you both will have to accept some facts. You may not want to recognize "illegal downloading" as a dishonest term but that's exactly what it is. You may feel the act itself is immoral, and it may surprise you that I would probably agree to that. But the truth is "immoral" does not equal "illegal".

That's just ONE area where you two are being completely disingenuous, if not downright hypocritical. What difference does it make how much it would cost to fill an ipod with iTMS purchases? Talk about a strawman! My ipod is nearly filled with rips from my own collection of CDs, cassettes and LPs.

You might also want to explain how there can be an "increasingly level playing field" when the artists "barely sell enough to recoup their marketing expenses".

And since were talking contradictions here, if supposed downloading really hurts the good music as well as the bad, then why is there so much more good music than ever before, as you are claiming?

Also, it just is not true that "declining music sales directly coincided with the advent of filesharing"

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/File...

I stand by my original statement: The problem is NOT downloading, it's the product itself.

#35 Apologist says:

If it's explanations that you want, it's explanations that you'll get.

"You may feel the act itself is immoral, and it may surprise you that I would probably agree to that. But the truth is "immoral" does not equal "illegal"."

Fine. Illegal or legal. Immoral or moral. Quibbling over it is only distracting from the main issue. So, for the sake of the discussion we'll just call it filesharing from now on.

"What difference does it make how much it would cost to fill an ipod with iTMS purchases? Talk about a strawman! My ipod is nearly filled with rips from my own collection of CDs, cassettes and LPs."

This is why it matters: Most people don't already have enough cds, tapes, and LPs in their collection to fill an ipod. 10,000 songs is a lot of albums and I'd wager that you are an exception to the average consumer in that respect. The size of an ipod encourages consumers to expand their music collections. After all, buying an ipod that holds 10,000 songs is a bit like buying a shelving unit that holds 10,000 LP's- it doesn't make much sense to do this unless you're assuming that your collection will expand to fill it over time.
This, in conjunction with the convenience and ease of owning music in the form of mp3s has changed the way that consumers view music. They like it in bulk. Check the personal computer of any ordinary teenager if you need proof.

"You might also want to explain how there can be an "increasingly level playing field" when the artists "barely sell enough to recoup their marketing expenses"."

Since the advent of the internet, smaller bands have been able to partially bridge the gap that once separated them from their major label peers. It's not completely even, but it's a lot better than 10 or 15 years ago when the majors owned the only two avenues that broke bands through to the mainstream (mtv and radio). Thanks to youtube, myspace, thousands of music blogs, and online music communities, any band with a good sound can get exposed to millions of people. Music videos that never would have gotten the push on mtv can become viral hits on youtube. Bands that would have flopped on top 40 radio can rack up millions of plays on myspace. Obviously, there's still a gap between bands who have millions of promotional dollars to spend and bands who are doing this as a cottage industry out of their garages, but the point is that a level of exposure is available to artists in a way that wasn't possible before.

However, all of this exposure doesn't help the label if it doesn't increase album sales. That's all that I meant when I said that some artists can't recoup marketing expenses. It doesn't matter if you're on a major or an indie.

#36 Apologist says:

"And since were talking contradictions here, if supposed downloading really hurts the good music as well as the bad, then why is there so much more good music than ever before, as you are claiming?"

Like I said before, good music and bad music are both being "fileshared". However, that doesn't change the fact that more music is being released now then ever before (on majors, independents, and without a label). How anyone could come to the conclusion that music is "worse" now that at any other specific time is confusing to me. Are you talking about music that is played on the radio? MTV? Rock music? Hip-hop? American pop music? Classical? Jazz? All music in general? That's a hugely broad generalization. What would account for ALL music being better or worse right now? Furthermore, you still haven't enlightened us- what is YOUR definition of "better music?"

"Also, it just is not true that "declining music sales directly coincided with the advent of filesharing"
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/File...
I stand by my original statement: The problem is NOT downloading, it's the product itself."

I wholeheartedly agree that downloading isn't the only cause for the industries woes. However, I don't think it's the fault of the product either. Good albums have flopped in the past and they'll flop in the future. Bad albums have been massively successful and that probably won't change either. According to your theory (people will forego file-sharing and still purchase an album if it's good), the best "product" of last year was Josh Groban's christmas album. Is that what you mean by "better music"? There are numerous reasons for the decline in music sales, but I seriously doubt that a sudden drop-off in the world's total musical talent is to blame.

#37 RWMS says:

OMG
OMFG!
Did someone actually say "Better Music"?
R U Kidding me with this?
I suggest you rent the "Mozart" DVD and pay close attention to the part where Emperor Joseph II says "there are simply too many notes" referring to a work from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Music, like beauty, like any true art form, is in the eye of the beholder. It's an opinion of expression at best.

Their is really no such thing as good music, it is always based on popular opinion. And it can change at a moments notice. Remember "Ice,Ice" baby?

At the time it was selling like hot cakes, few people would dare to treat it like the bastard song that it is now viewed. The song went platinum, and yes, to those that ponied up their hard earned bucks for the tune, that was "Better Music".

At best, music is music.

Opinion is the factor here.

Sure, I lay claim to featuring some of the best bands and good music on the planet via my show - The Ron Wiles Music Show. But I'm not confused for one instance, it's just my opinion. It may mean shit to others, but it is what it is.

I have a small select group of followers who appreciate my knack for finding musical talent and unique artists.
That's good enough for me...

"Better Music" is the problem? Good luck with that!

I and many other musicians await with baited breath at the invention of the "Better Music" machine. I'm sure the record companies would love to get their hands on this little device.

DMGTH!

-Ron Wiles

#38 DW says:

@RWMS: Interesting. I'D say at best music is ART. And at it's worst it's noise. AND that some people think noise is art.

Funny you use "Ice Ice Baby" as your example of "bad" music, since you were probably were one of the biggest defenders of that song, just like you defend usher's "love in the club". WACK!

@apologist: Way to go, stickin to the strawman: there is no law that says one NEEDS to FILL their ipod! And no one wins a prize for doing so. Totally irrelevant.

And all the avenues you mention that are available to unknown artists are also available to the mainstream artists, so the playing field really is not any more leveled than it was before.

I also don't recall ever saying people FOREGO filesharing and still purchase an album if it's good, or that popular = good (Groban's "Noel"). RWMS is actually the guy that believes that ("it is always based on popular opinion").

Nice try. But you've been attempting to introduce false statistics and statements into this discussion from the beginning, so I guess I'm not surprised you continue to do so.

I agree, though, that "a sudden drop-off in the world's total musical talent" is to not to blame. It's the corporate mentality that is at fault. Which brings us back to santogold, and the dangers of the sell-out.

#39 Apologist says:

Here we go again...

"Way to go, stickin to the strawman: there is no law that says one NEEDS to FILL their ipod! And no one wins a prize for doing so. Totally irrelevant."

Yes, there is no law. Thanks for pointing this out and ignoring the fact that ipods have drastically altered the mentality behind the public's consumption of music. It's that same blindness to the facts that's put the major labels in their current predicament.

"And all the avenues you mention that are available to unknown artists are also available to the mainstream artists, so the playing field really is not any more leveled than it was before."

Yes, those method's are available to mainstream artists as well. Before, only mainstream artists had access to ANY avenues. Now both mainstream and unknown artists share those avenues. U2 can set up a myspace page and open a youtube account. So can any unknown band from Hoboken. They can also get their music on itunes, get promotion from music blogs, and set up online merch stores. So yes, the playing field is far more level than it was before.

"I also don't recall ever saying people FOREGO filesharing and still purchase an album if it's good, or that popular = good (Groban's "Noel"). RWMS is actually the guy that believes that ("it is always based on popular opinion")."

You were trying to say that sales are down because music isn't as good. According to that theory, if music is good, sales will go up. Therefore, Josh Groban's x-mas album was the best album of last year. You can see the silliness of your logic. Unless you're a huge Groban fan, which may be the case.

"Nice try. But you've been attempting to introduce false statistics and statements into this discussion from the beginning, so I guess I'm not surprised you continue to do so."

I don't see where I've introduced false statistics unless you're referring to my first post, which was an exaggeration. So yes, that would be a false statistic.

"I agree, though, that "a sudden drop-off in the world's total musical talent" is to not to blame. It's the corporate mentality that is at fault. Which brings us back to santogold, and the dangers of the sell-out."

Unfortunately, you'll have to define "corporate mentality" in order for your argument to mean anything. Are you referring to major labels? Large corporations that seek to use artist's music in commercials? Licensing companies? Capitalism in general? Seeing as how we never got a definition of "better music" out of you, I'm not holding my breath.

#40 snoring loudly says:

RWMS
"Sure, I lay claim to featuring some of the best bands and good music on the planet via my show - The Ron Wiles Music Show."

Dude, you're a hopeless douchebag. If you don't understand why, there's no hope for you and you should intern for Ryan Seacrest.

DW:
If by now you still believe that "better" music will increase sales SUFFICIENTLY to counter the loss of illegal downloads, I'll make my final point using one of YOUR examples of "better" music: NIN.

Like you said, consumers "didn't have problems with $300 4-album NIN sets." What you neglected to mention is that NIN also made it available for free downloading! And the reason why NIN offered this new release in various formats and price points came precisely from the realization that a large chunk of his listeners would get it from filesharing - from which NIN would make no money. So, like I suggested in #24, Trent made "purchased music a better value proposition" by offering deluxe packages for increased price points while ALSO offering it for free. Now, YOU cited NIN as "better" music. But if the problem is solely with the product as you claim, then why would NIN offer their "better" music for free? By your own argument, NIN should have conventionally released their last album at current price points. It's "better" music so, according to you, it would have generated sufficient sales to offset illegal downloads. But that's not what happened. Trent basically said "if you don't want to pay, cool. But if you're willing to pay, you're gonna get your hands on some cool shit, not normally offered in a usual transaction (vinyl, artwork, CD + UBS port)." Again, by your own argument, there should have been no need for such a bargain. But NIN, wisely, made purchased music a better value proposition to offset illegal downloads.

The problem doesn't lie solely with the product. You'd be disingenuous to argue otherwise.

#41 RWMS says:

Here's my final comment on this...

"Do you hear me, do you care"?

http://www.last.fm/music/Missing+Pers...

Enjoy!

DMGTH

-Ron Wiles


Click Here