The Grammys
The ClubHouse: Archives: The Grammys
Oregonfire | Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:39 pm     Is anyone watching this? Some guy just gave a speech about illegally downloading MP3s of the net. Yeah, like I feel bad. Those guys have been ripping off consumers for years with their overpriced CDs. Those poor three students who were given the task of downloading 6000 songs in three days to prove a point. They looked so embarrassed. Way to bring everybody down, Mr. Corporate Rock. |
Mssilhouette | Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 11:57 pm     Yeah I saw that....they probably didn't even tell them what they were using them for. Those 3 kids did look very embarrassed, considering they WANTED them to download as much as they could in the three days. What I'm wondering is why he never didn't say if the downloading MP3's really affected record sales like they keep claiming it will. Talk to me when the downloading of songs vastly affects record sales. |
Whowhere | Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 05:41 am     No kidding. None of those people looked to me like they were starving. Musicians of the future ought to rely on their concert ticket sales, t-shirts, memorabilia, clothing lines, commercials and whatever else they charge us for to support their posh lifestyles. The days of charging $20 for 1 or 2 good songs on a CD are over. Not only that, some musicians endorse pirating on the internet. They, in my opinion, are true artists. Ones that play because they love to play, not just because they want to get paid. A lot of artists/musicians were never famous/rich until after they died. I thought it was great when someone from the balcony booed him. It's pretty ridiculous that they had to rush the winners acceptance speeches that went longer than 30 seconds, but they managed to reserve plenty of time for that speech. |
Labmouse | Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 10:58 am     The Internet and file swapping serve a research and archival role. I can only find certain music recordings through "file swapping". An Mp3 is almost always inferior in quality and portability to a CD. Yet, in many cases it is the only option available for hearing music that is no longer current enough to be released on CDs. At least people in his own industry booed him. It reminded me of the time Metallica got booed for initiating the lawsuit to shut down Napster. I guess obscene profits are not enough for the happiness of some musicians and corporations. |
Kizz | Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 02:34 pm     Not to sound shallow or anything, but I must change the subject. WHO dressed the Dixie Chicks and Sheryl Crow!? The one chick, I think her name is Natalie, was wearing a caftan!! She looked like Omar the Tentmaker! I understand feeling puffy and all, but jeez! Its the Grammys for god sake! Surely she can afford to have someone design her something comfortable and FLATTERING that doesn't look like it came from a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat!! Even if she was pregnant, there had to be something better! Sheryl did look smoking hot in her outfit but it was a little young (its bad when Britney Spears looks classier than you do). Ok, I'm done now. |
Guinevere | Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:44 pm     Re Napster, etc., let me offer a different perspective. I think it's great if an artist wants to put his/her work out there free for fans to enjoy. I don't have much of an opinion individuals downloading mp3s. I love music, I understand loving music and wanting it. I think the industry is going to have to change to keep up with technology. But I have no problem with an artist who DOESN'T want his/her stuff put out there for free. It's THEIRS. It belongs to THEM. They've created it. They have the (moral) right to say what should be done with it. Whether cds are overpriced or not has nothing to do with it. Re the idea that these people are rich enough, etc.: How would you like it if I saw that you had, say three cars, while I had none, and so decided to take one of your cars? You're rich enough. You can afford it. Right? Stealing is stealing, IMO. |
Oregonfire | Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:51 pm     That's okay Kizz--I just wanted to start a thread about The Grammys in general. I wish that Nelly Furtado had won more, but at least she got one (Best Pop Vocal Performance). I felt sorry for India.Arie, who won nothing. My favorite part of the night was when the Soggy Bottom Boys performed "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow" from "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" It's one of the few moments of the night that didn't feel overprocessed and overproduced. I like U2 okay, but all I can say is that they are so overrated. For some reason, the whole tone of the Grammys seemed very cynical to me--the winners speeches cut short, the amazing Dave Matthews performing his most overplayed and overproduced song (and not looking too happy about it either), everyone looking so Hollywood thin and beautiful, and finally, that corporate stooge coming on with his evil MP3 downloading speech. These guys are working with an oudated business model, and need to work with downloading sites, not dis MP3 downloaders and further antagonize an already skeptical listening audience. |
Spygirl | Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 06:06 pm     <<I like U2 okay, but all I can say is that they are so overrated. >> I SOOOOOOOOO AGREE |
Angelnikki | Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 10:46 pm     me too |
Jville | Friday, March 01, 2002 - 05:57 am     All I have to say is, let them try to stop it. Right or wrong, it'll never happen. If they ever implement something that's supposed to prevent it from happening, that will only give these people the simple challenge of figuring out how to break it again. They NEED those people to help to stop it and those people in no big hurry to start. How can you stop a 14 yr. old kid in Japan from copying Black Hawk Down directly from his local movie theatre and uploading on the internet? You can't, it's virtually impossible. That's exactly what's going on. You're right Guinevere, not all artists condone file-sharing on the internet. Instead of sitting around crying about it and losing fans over it, they need to jump on the bandwagon and embrace it. The internet has changed our world and some have a real hard time accepting change. |
Yuhuru | Friday, March 01, 2002 - 05:57 pm     Stealing is stealing...So I'm a thief. However, in all honesty, I wouldn't buy the CDs if they weren't available on the internet. These days, most songs are just catchy, nothing that I'd love forever. I'm not spending $15 for a Pink CD, but my hubby made me a CD with a Pink song on it. We usually have CDs with differnt songs on it. For me it takes the place of radio(no commercials, no talking) If by some miracle of the universe it' ever stopped, it wouldn't chnage by music buying habits at all. I'll just back to listening toi the radio in my car. |
Guinevere | Friday, March 01, 2002 - 08:44 pm     Yuhuru, I don't have real strong feelings about people burning their own cds (though I think it's probably better to do it within reason, like it sounds like you do). I have a problem with the justification that "artist x is rich enough" and the feeling some people seem to have that they are ENTITLED to take what an artist doesn't want to give. Even if some people see it as "greedy", I am of the opinion that artists have the right to control over what they create. |
Mssilhouette | Saturday, March 02, 2002 - 12:19 am     Guinevere, What *I* do have a problem when a record exec. goes into a 5 minute harangue during an awards show and uses 3 seemingly unknowing kids to prove a point. I also have a problem when it seems as if this exec is shaking his finger at the viewers who's purchases of his company's records pay for his salary. You wanna make a statement about illegal downloading fine. But don't waste my viewing time with it and DON'T embarrass three kids just to make some kinda point. I'm not saying that an artist is rich enough. But I do think that it's a record company's profit margin. I would like to see how the illegal downloading is truly affecting a record company’s profit line. Overall artist's don't control what they create, record company's do. Most artist just sign on the dotted line and their songs are owned by that company. To get to the heart of the matter, its not so much about the artist and their control of the music. It's about the company's control of their profit line. There are also new forms of CD's coming out that no one will be able to copy so the point is going to be moot very soon. Record company's have to take the a hint from the software manufacturers. Some activites cannot be stopped only slowed. |
|