Apparently somebody’s been bending the ear of the sole remaining Beatle anybody cares about. As recently as last November, he used to say things like this:
“It’s weird for me (the concept of downloading). I’m not from that. I’m from going into a shop and buying a 45. We’ve come through vinyl, tapes and CDs – it’s all the same, except people don’t pay for it (now). I don’t mind. It works out.”
But now he says things like this:
“If you get on a bus you’ve got to pay. And I think it’s fair, you should pay your ticket. The problem is you get a lot of young bands coming up and some of them aren’t going to last forever. So if they have a massive hit that’s going to pay their mortgage forever, they’re going to feed the children on that and if they don’t get that money, if they don’t see that money, I think it’s a bit of a pity.”
I wonder what changed his mind? Did Hopalong Heather’s big cash-grab remind him of the value of money? Did his accountant point out that if the Beatles were formed today, they probably wouldn’t make a dime?
Or maybe he learned a lesson from the guy who beat him in Round 1 of Deceiver Madness: Rich guys should pretend to care about the poor.
Related posts:
- Mike Huckabee Says Media Suffers From ‘Acute Dishonesty’ Former governor of Arkansas and Fox News Channel commentator Mike...
- And Speaking of British Vegans… A Stella McCartney Tribute You just know Heather Mills’s blood would boil if she...
It sounds to me like he doesn’t care if people pay for HIS songs, but he wants new bands to be able to make a living. Makes sense to me!
It makes sense if you think people are going to check a band’s bank account before deciding whether to illegally download their songs.
“Did his accountant point out that if the Beatles were formed today, they probably wouldn’t make a dime?”
I just can’t agree with that – and it’s the main reason I despise how record companies present their case against piracy. When compared to other revenue streams, the money artists make off ‘record’ sales is pittance. The real money comes from concerts and all the related fare – t-shirts, concessions, ect. In fact, if the artists aren’t making anything from the sale of their albums, they should be angry at the record companies themselves.
The physical production cost of producing a CD is like ten cents, and they charge $18-20. With all of that outrageous markup, the artists make a few pennies from each sale, which begs the question, where do people think the rest of that money is going?
The reason music sales will continue to drop is the same reason that American car sales keep dropping – you’re producing a mediocre product that’s insanely overpriced for what you get. I can buy a DVD of a movie that cost $150 million to make for the same price that I can buy an album that cost $5 million to make. In most industries, when sales start slumping, they’ll try to lower their prices to rebound. When was the last time you saw the cost of a CDs go DOWN? Hell, even gasoline is like half what it was last year.
But instead of lowering the cost of their base product, they tried to branch out to selling songs online. Brilliant logic there – lets draw everyone to the internet for their music, because there’s no way that they’ll eventually figure out they can get it for free two sites over.
So…he is at least endorsing capitalism, then. Good to know. This will be a useful reference for when he inevitably flipflops in a week or so.
I have a younger brother who, until January of last year, was touring with a C-list musician who fancied himself the next Dylan. If the recording industry wants everyone to be honest, they might want to start with their own artists, producers, etc. My brother got royally screwed out of just about everything by that walking papsmear and his reps. The problem is much less likely to be consumers than the industry itself.
Now Beige, McCartney would NEVER flip flop on something as serious as this, would he?
What I like most is that Paul feels SORRY for bands nowadays. “Poor little fellas,” he says, “You’re all going to be one hit wonders. None of you have my– I mean, the Beatles’ staying power.”
You just wait and see. Eventually he’s going to found a charity for bands that only have one good song: The Not As Good As I Was At Their Age Foundation.
Happiness IS a warm gun. Or it will be if I hafta sit through another Beatles song.
And he must be talking about the bands you hear on your local “The Mix” radio station. They only really have a one or two year life expectancy anyway. Even shorter on the B96 types.
Take that Paolo Nutini!
The recording industry has a record of screwing their artists out of money. It started in the 60’s and continues today. Many artists in the 60’s were charged for everything out of their royalty money, including travel for concerts, meals, costumes, makeup, cost of production of the record or tape – you name it.
Scott F. — I couldn’t agree with you more about the price of CD’s. When they first came on the market, we were told that they were expensive (running on average about $16.99), but, once they became more popular, the price would drop to something similar to cassettes ($9.99). Guess what never happened? Because they knew they were making giant profits. Hate the music companies.
“Poor little fellas,” he says, “You’re all going to be one hit wonders. None of you have my– I mean, the Beatles’ staying power.”
He’s kinda got a point there though, don’t you think? I mean, name one recently formed and still existing band that isn’t complete and total s**t. The 00’s was the worst decade for music ever. I can’t think of one decent musician/band associated with the damn decade. And the music industry is to blame for that, the “musicians” these days don’t sign to the labels, they are manufactured by them.
Simon’s right. It’s not solid to depend on people paying for music if they think the artist is broke, and even that depends on the contract and the means by which the person pays for it. A person who likes one, er, Tad Dreis song and buys it for .99 on iTunes probably won’t feel any good about keeping him from raging poverty, right?
No one I know checks anyway. The people who are the most concerned with local music and starving artists go to the shows and contribute financially that way.
When most of the money is going to the stupid RIAA, I’ll agree with Paul number 1.
I also agree that it’s ridiculous that we’re still paying the same (over)price of $20 for a disk, but I might be a little more willing to do it if the disks were even good. Most of the time I’ve thought about buying a CD in the last 10 years I was ticked to find out that the single was great and the rest of it sucked/sounded exactly the same. So they’re on the right track selling the good single individually, but like Scott said… well… it’s just so much easier the other way.
You guys are just mean and rude! I mean, someone probably told him that $18.99 is like 1/2 a penny (or pence) in the money of his time, and it’s nowhere near the cost of taking a bus to town, going to the movies, having dinner, buying a soda, and the bus ride home–25 cents. FOR TWO!!
Also, he probably still has problems with the VCR timer.
(I like my ageism/racism/sexism like I like my clothes; Casual.)
OMG! Beatles are coming to iTunes-oh wait, wrong forum.
OMG! Beatles are coming to iTunes-oh, wait, oops, wrong site.
Nati, I couldn’t agree with you more. I am waiting for the next musical revolution because so little stands out anymore. I may be biased because my parents always talked up the music coming out in the 60’s and 70’s as though nothing could ever possibly top it. And you know what? They were partially correct. We laugh at the 80’s, but there was a lot of good stuff going on in music then. The 90’s were full of good music until the last couple years of the decade. So, yeah, there are bands from those decades that have staying power and have become someone’s influence. But, when have we ever had such a selection of great music after Motown went to crap and The Beatles split up, and before the Stones started to just do “Start Me Up” over again on every album? I love The Beatles, and I was born in ‘73. I have everything they’ve done. My sister, born in ‘81, same thing. Their original fan base have grandchildren that enjoy them. And even if someone doesn’t like The Beatles or want to acknowledge that they are “bigger than Jesus”, you’re still aware of enough of their music to have that opinion.
Wow. Rambling. OK. Anyway, I liked Paul better when he was just a kid from Liverpool and “the cute one”. He seriously needs to shut up and have some veal or better explain himself.
My vegeterian girlfriend never believes me when I tell her that Linda McCartney sausages are made of real Linda McCartney.
Rocko: Seriously? I figured if Michael Jackson got desperate enough, we’d see that happen. I figured he’d sell one of his freakishly-garbed children first, though.
Paul was never my favorite Beatle, anyway. George Harrison ruled.
Hey Beige, George was always my favorite too! Sisters!
It’s kind of fun watching the music industry react to (or try to suppress) all the new listening and distribution channels out there.
I’m sure, however, that all the iTunes and myspace in the world won’t keep people in the music business from screwing over others in the business. By now it’s a time-honored tradition.
Listening to the recording industry yowl about getting robbed is like trying to gin up sympathy for a 750-lb. man whose bulk won’t let him reach that one. Last. CUPCAKE.
Chronic, exactly, right now there is no existing band/musician that’s on the level of the bands from the previous decades. In the 60’s we had the Beatles, the Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Pink Floyd, in the 70’s there were Led Zeppelin, Bob Marley, Eric Clapton (actually, those two were around since the 60’s) Queen, the Clash, Sex Pistols, Ramones, and many many others…and in the 90’s…I mean, who wasn’t there in the 90’s?! the 90’s was one of the best decades for music hands on. There were a lot of good bands in the 80’s, too, the 80’s weren’t as bad as the 00’s. Just like you said, not everyone likes all those bands and musicians I’ve mentioned, but at least everyone knows who those musicians are. Of course, there was a lot of garbage music during that time, too, but the rock and the alternative music were generally good. Now there’s nothing but garbage and I don’t know if such thing as “alternative music” even exists anymore. Everything is so commercialized and artificial, all the new bands sound bad, but what’s even worse is that they all sound the same.
You should all think of it like this. In 20 years you’re gonna actually hear someone say…
“Man how come their aren’t any more bands like Panic At the Disco?!”
For real.
Spot on, Nati. I can’t even add to that.
Dude, Pasta, that’s scary. I hope that they still know The Beatles, or Clapton… at least a bit of Zep, or all is lost.