Lars Ulrich, Chuck D And Charlie Rose On Napster In 2000
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich and rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy debate the legal war over free music downloaded on the Internet.
Iron Maiden uses piracy numbers to plan 'massive sellout' concert tours
rt.com/news/iro...
An App Called Napster
| System Shock is an original series focused on the stories behind the technology that disrupted industries forever.
See the full series here: ruclips.net/video/OHVRItc38-c/видео.html
Both of them are right and wrong. But they're both talking about two different points of the Napster subject.
Lars is talking about: When an artist creates a form of media/art, they should be able to get paid for it. If you create an album, just because it's on the Internet, doesn't mean you can take it. It is an income for those people.
Chuck is talking about: The freedom that Napster provides to let the little guy get into the industry. There are no barriers for entry.
They're both talking about two different topic of the overall subject.
mariotaz So basically Spotify and Apple Music.
@@prometheustv6558 Yeah
Accepting validity in nuance doesn't make for great ratings compared to framing it as a dichotomous binary issue.
@@JokersAce0 yeah and unfortunately, that isn't shown here
Think Lars was talking less about himself and more about the bands coming behind them
The reason why file sharing succeeded was due to company greed.
CDs were sold for $19 in the 90's (movies used to be about $80 in the 80's)
The industry were arrogant in their ripping off kids -- and they got crushed.
Had CDs been priced around $4.99, the indutry would have survived longer.
***** Smaller artists need all the revenue they can get and they don't make as much as Dave does for their live shows, so what works for dave doesn't work for the little guys and because you have a hate on for the big guys you also are saying fuck you to new bands.
Also you seem to imply that Elton is the bad guy because he has money. Seriously? So he's the good guy for MAKING the music over the years but only to a certain financial ceiling. At that point they should be okay with giving away their stuff for free.
You hate them because they have an issue with you being a thief. Most criminals feel that way..
But who's making money at $4.99 retail? The average musician only makes like 20 cents per copy sold, and that's only after the production costs are covered by that rate. The label needs to make money too, as do the retailers.
You’re absolutely right.
More or less. It was the industry refusal to adapt to changing technology. They could have easily partnered with Sean Parker and created a pay download system. In other words, nipped free file sharing before it got too out of the hand. They resisted it becuase more profit was to be made by album sales as opppsed to mp3 downloads even in a system like iTunes. It would have been big cut but the long run would have saved even more millions. Music are like cells too; adapt or die.
lars was right, musicians don't make much now and labels take from all their streams of income in 360 deals. simple as that. Also money isn't spent with good studios or promoting anymore, less rock bands are supported and most money goes to shit pop stars
Best thing that Napster did was that it made bands tour more and Australia finally started to get decent live music.
Fuck Oz! When it was there everything tried to fucking kill me!!!! I get bit by a Sydney Funnel Web spider and spent a 5 day vacation....with 23 in the hospital.....
But there is a lot of artists who can't tour down under, because it needs to be a great offer for them come to Australia, because it costs alot of money to travel there and within the country & it's big financial risk to do it, because travelling from Glasgow to London by road is nothing compared to Sydney to Melbourne
@@GoodGuyChucky-666 What about Northern America? Bigger and they manage it. Australia is a shithole, just look at the COVID period.
Both guys made valid points:
- Lars Ulrich pointed out the fact of securing artists’ rights through fair use and distribution of their copyrights.
- Chuck D envisioned that sooner or later online music platforms would become available worldwide.
Lars was proven correct, look at the state of the music industry. a generation of kids grew up thinking music was free
Absolutely correct. But still, it's not the consumer's fault that bands signed horrible deals. Only earning money from album sales and not receiving royalties for radio/streaming can't be blamed on so called "pirates".
You're just old
Stop putting a god damn dollar sign on every fucking thing in this universe
@@joeheaton5883 you’re like a cultural pack rat, you cannot fathom a world without something IN EXCHANGE for something else
Chuck was ahead of his time on this issue. Digital downloading was the start of artist having more control of money for there are in the form of legitimate places like Apple music, Google, Spotify etc. It also allowed artist to earn more profit from tours etc. There has also been a shift in how new artist music can potentially reach the world with corporate greedy record labels through mediums like youtube, SoundCloud etc. The music industry may have gone through a short period of profit loss in the early days of mp3s, but make no mistake they have survived, and are marking just as much if not more now than ever.
In the end, the music industry started to control those fields also. Those services can't exist without getting Labels permission.
Say what you will but Lars was right on the money with this.
+Garrett Too true, I thought he held his side of this debate amazingly well, and looking at the last 15 years, I feel he was right to be worried.
Whether I agree or disagree with him, he held his own in this argument for sure.
Couldn't agree more. Lars is on point. It's not about the downloading, it's about control of their music. It was the leaking of an unmixed, unmastered version of "I Disappear"...
hell yea lars had the money to buy a badass computer from that time and download Napster and probably downloaded Metallica songs haha and other artists and said shit this isn't good
16:00 Lars was completely right. What a legend to have that foresight, and how he remained consistent with it once Spotify came along and offered both monetization and control to artists (granted, not lots of money, bot not free either).
Lars face when Chuck is talking 😂 😂
Lmao I showed a screenshot of that shit to my friend before I even read the comments. He lost that battle. 100%
Didn't Metallica rise to fame in the early 80's based on underground cassette trading? Where is the "control" in that?
taping bootleg is a complete difference from downloading master quality recordings.
The control was that Metallica allowed it to happen. As Lars essentially stated, "if other bands want to use Napster, or any other free means of music distribution, let them. But it should be the choice of the artist to do that, not the user." Metallica did that in the 80's. But the difference is, it was demo tapes. This means they didn't record them, fans did and then copied them to other people. But the quality was shit. Kirk Hammett said about the Kill em All for one tour that they got so drunk, they didn't remember most of their shows, and they listened to a recording and said "We sounded like THAT?!" Lars also said he listened to a tape that had been copied so much, you could hardly hear anything. Thats because a cassette recording from a live show in 1981 is crap and loses quality when copied. But still, Metallica allowed that to get more followers. But when Lars sued Napster, they didn't need that anymore.
But thats ignoring the big issue. Lars was suing about the studio recordings. That is, somebody bought a Master of Puppets CD, ripped the tracks and then uploaded them to be shared. Metallica paid to get Master of Puppets written and recorded to that quality; and its their recording, therefore their choice about how its distributed. People like to forget the cost of recording a studio album, including the time the musician spend recording it and not making money from other means. Metallica wasn't doing it for themselves, as Lars said, the money involved was pocket change to him. But it was the principal of music. They would not be where they are if Napster existed in 1980, so why should up and coming bands suffer?
Goabnb94 AGREE!!!! Why should bands allow their hard work to be just given away?
Daniel M beasuse they wanted it to happen
actually it came from them playing shows relentlessly night after night after night.
Lars' ability to construct a coherent sentence without saying the word FUCK every second word here is actually impressive. It must have been absolute torture for him lol :D
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I'm the same way 😂 which is why I hardly make RUclips videos 🤣 I cuss way too much 😂😊
Lars made some great points actually. If the labels aren't making the 'greedy' money, the owners of napster will.
Charlie Rose has been playing devil's advocate for years. Haha this was great.
So true. Almost the most non-biased talking head.
No one wants to acknowledge that this all started over a leaked version of I disappear, I'm sure disney would be ecstatic if someone leaked an early version of Rogue One.
11:21 Napster clearly blew the chance of being the ultimate platform from the early 2000s, when Spotify wasn't even born yet
Lars is right. If you WANT your music to be free on the internet then go ahead. After all this time, I think Lars has been proven right. Record stores barely exist and the music industry is almost completely gone. The only ones who survived are the majors.
Record stores are gone for the same reason photo studios are mostly gone, better and more personalized technology
people were stupid in 2000 they hate Lars but all along he was right
I see valid points on both sides. But I want all of you who are complaining about file sharing and downloading things for free to realize you're commenting on a website filled with millions of videos comprised of copyrighted music, tv shows, and movies. And if you're on here commenting, you've listened to music you haven't paid for, you've watched movies you haven't paid for etc. So this is hardly the place to make your argument. Maybe you went on to buy some of those products...in which case you're proving Chuck D's point, not Lars.
+Wayne King Very good points. Some have argued spotify is vastly underpaying the artists featured on it, though. And youtube uploads not endorsed by the original artist are frequently taken down only to pop up again, disclaimer or not. Do these (not endorsed uploads) monetarily benefit the artist? Not directly, but I imagine lots of people will go see a band after hearing them on here. Movie trailers are an effective example, however. Definitely a complex and interesting issue. Metallica's solution is to openly stream. Prince doesn't agree with streaming and regularly tries to have his music taken down etc. etc.
It's pretty obvious that Lars won. If only people actually listened to him, and understand his points instead of going straight to the point of "it's all about money", and make a dumb ass script called NapstallicA He had the most realistic points. He had the better points, and more valuable points. Lars might not be a professional at drums(which i love his drumming) but he dam sure is the most intelligent and smartest musician that i know of.
***** the only ones complaining, oh let me tell you who's complaining; artist, music industries and distributors, up-and-coming- artist and especially those who are barely making a living out of music, who is eventually going to be me. the only ones not complaining is most of us who don't make a living out of it because it's FREE. everyone loves FREE. and don't you think I'm just doing because I'm currently doing a project on Music Piracy, and I've got all the info to prove to you how dangerous it is, and how music sales are going downhill . As for this gen., we're growing to believe that music is, has, and should be free when it shouldn't be hard to forget that being a Musician is a CAREER. and I meant that he won this argument, but people started hating Lars because people made it about money.
***** wow, you're obviously an ignorant fuck, #1 because I'm not white #2 because THAT was you're counter-argument (which was pretty stupid and you showed me that you don't know much, and #3 you insulted me, I didn't even insult you in any way. it was pretty cheesy too.
***** I never claimed to download Metallica music because I never have done that before. I always go here on RUclips or buy on Itunes, or buy a physical copy. Seeing that you're drifitng further from the music piracy argument, I can say that you obviously don't know what to say, or you never knew what to say. You just like to run you're mouth hoping wise words will come out.
***** i wish i didn't have to, but i do. but hey, i never said i was part of the solution. as Paul McGuinness (manager of U2) said in one of his articles......"One minute we have fought it like a monster, the next we have embraced it like a friend. As consumers, we have come to love FREE" and also, we have band channels, and VEVO that artist make money out of...so don't give me that crap. i buy more music than stream, which is RUclips.
***** and yeah...what of it. i love Metallica, just like I love Iron maiden, just like i love Dio, just like i love Pantera, just like i love Black Sabbath, just like i love Motorhead........you get the idea. might as well call you a fan boy for a band that you're a FAN of.
Honestly, Chuck D ruled over Lars... Concert tickets to see Metallica are no less than 75 bucks on their current tour. They are all millionaires... Get with the times Lars. CD sales are down because most of people buy iTunes now. I still buy CD's. I HATE the digital format. I like having a physical copy. Amazon Music, iTunes and Spotify pay the artists very well. I'm an artist myself. Napster revolutionized the music industry. PERIOD.
''get with the times'' this was in... 2000? 2001? you stupid moron.
Holy shit..
Chuck D is absolutely right. I don't think Lars is as an asshole as people claim him to be here, he's just old-fashioned.
As a musician, I totally agreed with Metallica on this topic...love it or hate it.
And how many people listen to you?
Ask any great artist today what makes money, it's not the album sales or single sales, its the touring. Case and point, Chance the Rapper, now he may be an anomaly but in one year of releasing his free mixtape, he's garnered enough success through touring he doesn't have to worry about the album, just about releasing new music. Pandora, Spotify, RUclips... Every single thing is free, it's not hard to find music. The music business isnt about the Corporations (as much) anymore, the exposure is now on the web, and the money is now in the touring. Pearl Jam even said in the 90's that they weren't making a lot of money from Ten or Vs. they made it on the road. I see Lars and Chuck D's points of views, but I'm leaning more towards Chuck D.
Tell that to Diamond Head. Tatler and Harris literally made their living from Metallica covering their songs. It's a small amount per unit sold, but so many units were sold that they can live fairly well off it.
lars was right, musicians don't make much now and labels take from all their streams of income in 360 deals. simple as that. Also money isn't spent with good studios or promoting anymore, less rock bands are supported and most money goes to shit pop stars
Lars point was about an Artist having control and Management of their work and how they want to Distribute it. In your case, Chance the Rapper At least has ownership and Control of his Mixtapes and can Distribute them, be it for free or $10 or whatever; he can decide how he wants to release his music, not some dude who took the sources and publish them themselves.
Both had some very good arguments and looking at the scene today, I think they both got what they wanted.
lars was right, musicians don't make much now and labels take from all their streams of income in 360 deals. simple as that. Also money isn't spent with good studios or promoting anymore, less rock bands are supported and most money goes to shit pop stars
the artists have always been the ones doing most of the actual work. They have a right to protect what's theirs. It's that simple.
most of the time it's not artists but corporate record labels or irrelevant musical dinosaurs who try to stay relevant.
TheTestingGrounds but they don't have the right to control what you do. If Metallica went on their roof and played live, would they have the right to tell you to not listen?
The record labels are to blame for all this. They could have banded together, bought out Napster, and at least bought some time.
I was one of the users banned for sharing Metallica files on master back in 2000.Downloaded a workaround and was back on within 15 minutes.Screw these dinosaurs.
morons
Power to the people. Love Chuck D and never listened to his music.
Fight the power!
Start with the Fear of a Black Planet album. It's an album very much of its time.
The people don’t create music- artists do.
That’s like saying power to the people while they steal food from a super market. It’s evil
Lars was right. This video is scary to watch again. A foreshadowing piece. Now music artists wish for CONTROL over their hard work and content.
"Give me a solution to this .."
Lars:"Im not sure we have one yet..."
Steve Jobs: "Hold my beer...."
Lars is being logical ..... and I cant see how people aren't agreeing with what he said ..... metallica has a youtube account that allows you to see their videos and listen to their music for free .... but its under their control ... so they aren't dinosaurs who are against technology ..... and that stupid guy talking about the people vs the music industry ..... I am part of the people and I respect the time and the money these people put in their work and I pay for .... the same way I pay for rent or pay for food.
abdelrahman khaled Well said. A band or duo or solo musician is still a legitimate business/company just like any other in the world and just as entitled to earn money from as well as protect their product from being exploited, in this case the product being distributed for free instead of purchased. How do you think McDonalds would react if they found out their burgers were being handed out, or even just offered for free out the front of every McDonalds restaurant to every potential customer who was more than likely going to walk in to the store and purchase one of their burgers? They would legally have the unethical operation responsible shut down immediately and sue the ass of whoever was responsible in any way for this happening. McDonalds then would obviously easily win the lawsuit with adequate compensation for lost revenue, and the guilty party would be laughed out of court if they used the defence that they were entitled to distribute McDonalds' product for free because McDonalds are wealthy, or even that McDonalds are only successful because of the customers that have previously bought their burgers so therefore the customers are now entitled to McDonalds burgers for free, and very few people, previous customers or otherwise would neither expect free food nor criticise McDonald for taking the legal action as this is what any business large or small would be entitled to do if a similar thing was happening to them. It helps if you try to listen to what is being said, and not the arrogant outspoken loudmouth saying it.
octzano exactly... I dont think there is an ethical way to explain stealing and there will never be one ... I am not claiming to be a saint who never downloaded music illegally but at least I have the decency to say I was wrong and I am buying all the records I downloaded before.
this chucky guy just wanted some exposure on TV and he got what he wanted, the thing is metallica were right, things like spotify nowadays are the product of what metallica did.
abdelrahman khaled yea i like the the youtube channel idea as even though people aren't directly paying for the music, the band can still make money as they will most likely have a partnered channel. A channel with millions of views will make allot of money. But an issue with that is there are allot of people who use adblock on youtube :( what i don't get is that some people who download music for free don't believe they are steeling but these same people would never ever go in to a shop and not pay for a CD and walk out :( :)
m4h51 exactly .... Its the same thing .... When you pay 20$ for a CD you arent paying for the cost of printing it for fuck sakes. They arent making the same amount of money when viewing it on youtube but its a compromise .... Metallica also have free content on their website too and I check it out every now and then and its usually pretty cool.
abdelrahman khaled Look up Al Di Meola's take on DLC. He's not happy either.
I saw this debate as a high school student. It opened my eyes to the dynamics between labor and capital. In a way, Chuck D predicted that the internet would lead to rise of individual artist/influencers outside label gatekeeping.
“Influencer” is a word created by marketers to describe someone who makes a good, reliable product sponsor and I hate it
I prefer the old fashioned term, “movers”, because they move products and they move people along
Lars = Money
Chuch D = Art
LSweet2007+= assclown
I can't remember finding any "perfect digital master tapes" on napster.
Napster was the glitch in the matrix. It was a good and bad thing. It distroyed the record labels hold on the artist work as far as physical sales(CD).. It took away from the experience of having a physical CD with all the extra stuff inside the packaging. It gave the artist a new way to reach their audience at the expense of physical records sales via file sharing. It cut out the middle man!
From CD's to Mp3's
What most people don't see is that Illegal Downloading is one of the main reason why mainstream music has SUCKED so bad for the past 10 years and it will continue to suck in the future. The reason is New Bands can't survive because NOBODY buys ALBUMS anymore. So we get very SAFE COMMERCIAL sounding music from the record labels. Bands who are going to sell Singles on Itunes to preteen and teenage girls.
That was happening prior to Napster. Backstreet Boys, N Sync and other one hit wonders were more popular on Napster than Metallica. Fans preferred to download the one good track from their CD than spend $20,00 buying the filler. New bands only survive by doing something original, new and exciting - and that has always been the case.
Milli Vanilli existed before Napster! session writers creating bubble-gum pop with session musicians who performed the songs in the studio and two additional guys to dance and lip-synch in the videos and pose in the photos! They were put on MTV and sold millions of albums and then were rewarded with a Grammy! The whole charade was exposed after their backing tape screwed up on stage in front of cameras and an audience. PS - new bands didn't always survive when people WERE buying albums! One hit wonders have always been part of the record business!
Illegal downloading killed music. If you disagree you are idiot
I bet Chuck D is regreatting siding with napster now
in the end, despite all the heat they took, metallica was right, you can't take someone's product without their permission and give it for free. chuck d, talks about technology, the industry, and many other things but he never addresses that issue directly, and that is the core of the debate. now in 2019, it's good to ask again some of the other questions that came up. who is making more money? the artist? the music industry? the service providers? the radio? spotify? youtube? do the people have more power?
And after all these years Lars is sitting in a corner smiling and saying.. “I told you so”.
The next album Metallica was to put out was "St. Anger". Sorry, but no one wants to steal that album!
in your opinion..
LSweet2007 i actually stole it in 2003
I agree 100 percent with Lars here. Im a 17 year old musician, and getting your foot in the door for a solid music career is almost impossible. People wont come to shows. If you put your music online, theyll post "You guys kick ass!" on your wall, download all your shit, then they're gone! You never hear them say "Oh, i say you at so and so place last summer!". Downloading has spoiled people into thinking music is a "gift" for them. Well its not. Music is a gift to the artist that needs it to survive. Its the artists INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
put on a better show and maybe they'll come see you
4l4ddin77 Then it's not about the music. You prefer a music industry where how big of a show is put on is more important than the songs. You should see Beyonce. She has quite the show.
I say anything about a big show? Backup dancers, lights, any of that crap? I'm talking about blood sweat and muscle. Some of the most enigmatic performances of all time took place in small clubs. Ray Charles. The Clash. Artists used to earn their stripes playing less than 100 people. & to the OP, don't give me crap about today's fans being spoiled because the artists are too. You have the luxury of home recording and 100 different ways to promote your music through the internet. A good live performance used to be one of the only ways to get people talking
4l4ddin77 Just because someone puts on a show doesn't mean everyone who's a fan will be able to go. Due to conflicting issues I couldn't go to a concert for two bands that I love. I'l try going to more concerts in the future, but it is not always easy for some people compared to others to go.
Maybe your music just isn't that great hence why they don't return to your gigs.
Both Lars and Chuck D are right in their in own right in their own way, it's amazing Chuck D has seen a opportunity in napster as he said he see it as the new form of radio, like in the modern day artists now have the tools & platforms to release their music directly to the world, bypassing the gatekeepers, but the disadvantage is it has lead to over saturation, as their is millions of things competing for peoples attention, I do have to say that when MTV used to be a music channel, their was quality over quantity, even though played the same videos by the same major record label artists
I think an element of their arguments come from the music they make. You cannot complain about lifting music when you come from the 70s and 80s streets of New York music making. Whereas if youre in a band and writing music in a garage you would be more protective I'd imagine. I think theyre both right, you cannot push back the tide but the musicians deserve ownership of their creation.
Chuck D was very mistaken 'exposed to the product will encourage people to keep picking up the product' wrong. People just steal music now. Lars saw it and he said it.
thelolguy007 who cares
People are still buying music! I still buy CD's, DVD's and vinyl! Lars and Chuck made some good points, but it was only a matter of time until digital audio compression got into the hands of music consumers. Napster was something they should have saw coming as soon as they commercialized digital audio with the CD back in the mid-80's. By 1990, a CD track could be compressed to MP3...surely someone saw the potential!
Dude, many people still buy music... maybe the product is crap that's why no one buys it anymore. back in the 90's only major labels were exposing music, file sharing exposed more music to the people and many unknown artist grew, thats why radio music sells less. peace.
Lars was right. Album sales never recovered. Rock is nearly dead because there is no money in it. Labels don't sign a band and allow them to mature. Now we get mostly bad American idol sounding garbage because it's easiest to fart out and market to idiots and teenagers. Lars was right , and you people who complain are buffoons
Digital distribution was convenient for the music industry, but they naturally couldn't control it, ultimately the major labels no longer control the field. The model had to change, and it will change, it will come back into balance at some point.
Chuck D was wrong. Chuck D calls it the new radio and says it will INCREASE artist revenue just like the radio did. No... it did not. He says exposure to the music will make people get inspired and pick up the product. They DO NOT. It just isn't true.
Music is in the shitter. Musicians make less profit than ever. No profit means less way to fund your band and your records.
You do realize that this interview was from 14 years ago right? Napster and other sites like Kazaa only lasted about 2 years (1999 to early 2002) when copyright laws banned these file sharing sites. In that span of time record sales were steady as ever. I fail to see your point. Music is in the shitter now BECAUSE of what Chuck D said, its all these years later and the handful of record companies control the music we listen to..... I.E. Bieber, Minaj, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry Lil Wayne Drake etc or any of the crap shoved down our throats. Chuck Ds point was to have an open market for music and we to this day DO NOT AND NEVER WILL.
.
What? It is an open market right now. Napster is dead but illegal downloading is the norm today through other means. Download uTorrent and you can get any album you'd like in 30 minutes or less... super easy...the IDEA behind Napster won out in the end. What Lars was combatting was the IDEA that Napster propagated that music is worth nothing. And that idea is realized today. Record sales are a pale shadow of what they once were as evidence.
vergilkilla1 Except most artists never made much off record sales anyway so there's that.....
Pretty sure Chuck D is still pro peer-to-peer sharing. He kind of has a point. A lot of the people who are downloading things aren't doing it instead of buying it, because even if they didn't download music they wouldn't have bought a physical copy anyway. For instance, I have downloaded a couple albums now and then when I am short on cash, but I always try to actually buy a copy whenever I get enough spending money to do so.
I see both points of view. Props to Lars for his foresight and vision as a businessman and entrepreneur. Chuck D makes a compelling argument against Lars also, as the Internet has allowed artists to bypass the bureaucracy of the music industry establishment. Overrall I see the advent of the Internet as beneficial to artists seeking to get their music heard by masses, regardless of what a record label says. Amazing the changes the art of creating and marketing music has undergone in the space of a quarter-century...
Chuck D is amazing, a true man of music.
When i buy a CD it's my property and i can share it with whoever i want to
Legally, you own the physical album and can share that. The songs on it are intellectual property that are licensed to only one person, the person who owns the physical copy. You cannot legally divide the music from the physical copy for public use without the permission of the artist.
Your average music fan actually doesn't realize that it costs boatloads of money to be a musician. Between studio time/recording, equipment, touring/renting venues, promotion, releasing your material etc etc, all you do is basically lose money and make very little back when it comes time for everybody who was involved in the process to get paid. If you're a DIY band don't even dream of making ANY money, you don't. You do it because you truly love it, but you pay hard for loving it.
What most people don't see is that Illegal Downloading is one of the main reason why mainstream music has SUCKED so bad for the past 10 years and it will continue to suck in the future. The reason is New Bands can't survive because NOBODY buys ALBUMS anymore. So we get very SAFE COMMERCIAL sounding music from the record labels. Bands who are going to sell Singles on Itunes to preteen and teenage girls.
Gotta love how condescending Lars and Charlie are in this interview, even considering the fact that they got OWNED
Notice how Lars says ‘you’ not ‘Chuck’ and calls him ignorant. Chuck is respectful and uses his name. No comparison
2013 and I feel like Chuck D's argument is still correct. They still can't stop piracy. But, I can say that because of piracy I have been exposed to SO MUCH talent that I NEVER would have known about without it.
10 years from your comment and it is still correct HAHA ! :D
And I’m sure that exposure has continued to feed these talented artists and allowed them to continue their craft.
Chuck D is making a point a lot of artist having been getting ripped off and never see what they are truly owed by the labels so they can cut the labels out and build their career on their own.
two things, 1: Charlie Rose is fantastic. #2 ( I hate to say it ) Lars was right.
Chuck D basically nails this about as well as one could.
Lars was right all along, thirteen years later every statement Lars made in this interview has come to pass as truth. The new gatekeepers of the internet profit from the illegal distribution of artists’ work while paying the artists nothing.
Chuck d meant well but unfortunately totally overestimated people’s capacity to treat the artists they claim to love fairly. He was right about there being a lot more start up labels. The ones that have survived in the last decade are barely scraping by.
I see a bigger problem having come from Clear Channel's "acquisition" of almost every radio station and music venue in the US. The death of music and the anal rape of the artist began when as soon as the first record labels came into existence. The switch of radio stations to the AOR format in the 70's began the degenerative, downward spiral that we are seeing in full fruition today. Music downloading had little to do with it, because the labels were already moving toward models like
Bands cannot survive off of record sales. That used to be, and some people were of the opinion that that is something good - not just record companies - some musicians liked it, ones who didn't have the means to tour. The internet has swallowed that whole - I'm not mad... it just is what it is. It's like Chuck is saying; artists just have to adapt. They MUST tour or find new ways.
This was a great discussion all around. I've been a vocal supporter of Lars on this subject since back then, and I still think he was right. It's unfortunate that more artists that agreed with Metallica didn't take a more public stance.
I used Napster back in the day. Didn't take me long to give it up though, partly out of guilt and partly because the files were often low quality mp3. I've always felt weird not buying the albums I really enjoy.
Chuck D said it 12 years a go. Fight the power
Two of my favourite musical figures in the same room. Wonderful.
@Xxsucram89xX I dunno, I really miss going to a store and browsing the metal sections and the t-shirts, mags etc.. not to mention the euphoric feeling of instant gratification, instead of waiting 3-12 days for the delivery guy who tries to deliver your cd while you're at work...
Without the need for physical product. theres no CD costs, no delivery costs, no paper cost, no shop floor staff cost, no store security cost......do these savings get passed to the consumer...NO! so fuck it people pirate it. Concert tickets are unaffordable now. cinema is unaffordable now. so fuck it, pirate that shit. Ive been to see bands live only because I heard their music for free.
The internet ruined the music industry, among everything else. I admired both of these guys. I have Public Enemy and Metallica CDs. What came from these arguments was wrong on both sides. 1: Good artists fell by the wayside. Top 40 artists suck by the standards of yester-year. 2: Artists that make any money, make it on touring. They don’t make it on album sales. 3: There could be a flash in the pan/talent hack, that makes a million on a crap song.
As much as I hated buying an album that only had one good song, I hate that a talentless 12 year old can plop out a pop hit about her privilege, and making $10 Million.
Something has to get recognized as talent. Something needs to get produced. Something needs to get regulated. If not, we are going to fall into the idiocracy.
The internet is packed to the gills with music of all varieties and periods of time since recording media was invented, you just need to go out of your way to look for it, if you
I agree that most modern music is trash today but that’s not because of the death of the music industry, it’s the music industry invading the internet, picking up the most mass market appeal bull crap from it and spitting it back into the system to be recycled and made even worse
It isn’t 12 year olds ruining music, it’s your unwilling to find what’s good on your own and elevate it
This tv show was shot in 2000, it might as well have been 1984, man the year 2000 really was a long time ago.
What gives you that impression?
Lars was right all along. And it's funny watching this again a decade plus later and listening to Chuck D talk about the constraints of the music industry and how so many people can't get signed to record labels and how file sharing will help people get recognized. He was right about that but the industry has turned into a pile of dog shit. There is very little good music nowadays. I can't turn on the radio because all I will hear is bubble butt bubble butt bubble butt.
That has nothing to do with Napster and everything with Clear Channel owning most radio stations
I'm not getting where your taste in music fits in to justifying how Lars was 'right all along'.
Both had valid arguments and points. Illegal downloading and the rise of digital availability did change the music industry. Companys like Tower Records and small music retailers went down under.
Finally someone with some sense....
This an't about Lars.....and he isn't listening to everyones slurs. he's sipping cocktails because he made it in the music business in the old days when its was very hard to get your stuff stolen.
A Spotify Premium membership costs $9.99 per month in 2019; student memberships cost $4.99.
that's like buying one CD a month. some people like the actual CD because of the packaging etc.
I prefer a monthly subscription instead. music anytime anywhere.
Actually, that's wrong... the bands that don't make money from iTunes, albums, merch, etc fall into two categories: Either they owe their record label money because the record label loaned them money (to record an album, make a music vid. etc) OR they have a shitty contract with their label. Clearly there are some problems with the major label model.
The rest of us do make money off of iTunes, albums, merch, etc.
Also, music reviews are not the same as non-compensated music downloading
Yet everything Lars said has come to pass and the utopian vision of a great music industry with millions of thriving labels that Chuck envisioned...has not.
Listen everyone. Since this whole downloading craze, concert ticket sales have shot through the roof. When true artists start to complain today about sharing files, THEN i'll rethink my ways.
Drink every time Lars says "control" and Chuck says "paradigm"
Lars is 37 here and Chuck D is 40 years old.
I love how ulrich starts by saying that metallica owns their songs which is simply not true. Record labels own those, most bands do not.
Metallica owns their masters, they negotiated that in the mid 90's.
@@sdsmt99 that is a rarity. Most artists get the majority of their money from touring
@@sdsmt99 And Lars is a wildly dishonest piece of shit throughout this whole affair, because he KNOWS that their ownership of their music is not the norm, which they only managed because they achieved mega-stardom. Thus he knows that taking the side in this debate that reinforces the power of record labels is damaging to most artists.
As a musician, and an artist, I agreed with Chuck D. The only people who benefit from the current system are the record companies, and already established artists. Those trying hard to release their music are subject to record label constraints on artistic licence, if they ever manage to get their music heard at all.
Downloads may reduce an artists pay from $1,000,000s, to mere $100,000s... but is that not already enough?
everything metalica was built on what came before. the instruments, the style, the blazing guitar riffs. i am a musicologist, i study this stuff. so when lars says "original work" that really needs clarifying.
The thing that gets left out of the intellectual property/file sharing debate most often. How intellectual property is fundamentally at odds with how culture and creativity work, and how knowledge and culture both increase in value to humanity the more they are shared, even if they decrease in monetary value as products at the same time. That's what the advent of internet and file sharing was all about at its core: humanity getting to choose which of these two directions it wanted to go in. Sad we chose the latter. Commercialization of culture is a tragedy that humanity has only lived with for like 100 years, and few acknowledge this.
Chuck D. is a prophet he had an insight on the future..because what he conveyed is happening..
I love how Chuck D says " Blockbuster is still a big industry, Downloading doesn't effect them" Blockbuster is now knee deep in shit. I personally am all up for Downloading although I on the other hand will go out and buy the album the second I have enough money. I believe if you don't respect the artist enough to pay for the material they have worked on and spent hours perfecting, Then you aren't a fan at all and you don't deserve the music at all.
Remember they made music before they were rich, you know when lars was a drummer from a middle class background, when billy joe of green day was a surburban kid, some do it to become rich sure, but most artists do it to put their music out there for people becoming rich is what changes them, so materialism has nothing to do with creativity, your argument is void. I also doubt any artist goes hmmm i have 50 million hmm i should go play drums in metallica and you should also remember that most artists are paid beforehand, what you're paying is going to the record company executives. I myself happen to be in a band, while the rest of the band and myself work (i work in IT by the way) we still do love to be at a venue, guitars strapped on drumsticks in hand playing our hearts out...why because we love it, sure we make around what 10-12 dollars playing in clubs but we love doing it. It's why we do it.
I happened to see this when it first aired. I always loved P.E. and Brother Chuck preached truth to poor Lars that day. Metallica were once the kings until Cliff Burton tragically passed. Their antiquated views on emerging technologies and protecting copyrights were taken to school by a Public Enemy right here!
Lars was right.
@@sdsmt99 I disagree. They fought having their music sold on iTunes until the economics of mp3s (and now streaming rights) demanded they cave in. Metallica had already become more of a company than a band by this point. The Metallica corporation gave in to the changing tides once they couldn't fight it anymore.
Metallica made two of the best albums in its genre after cliff died shut up man
Lars was proven right.
It turns out what Lars said about how Napster should have "come to the artists first and tell them about this service, blah blah", that exactly DID happen and they got told to fuck off, several times.
Metallica in the 1980s and Kiss in the 1970s were good bands and they PROBABLY would have sold well even if faced with the massive competition like there is today. But we'll never know, will we. They were at the top at that time, but they were also what the record lables chose to let us listen to. It was up to record label executives, from maybe 4 or 5 big companies, to decide what reached your ears and what would never, EVER, by any means possible, reach your ears.
History has proven Chuck D right on this one.
When did make any mention of rich kids? The point I'm trying to convey is that music as an art form existed long before physical media made it a sell-able commodity. People still created music without expecting monetary return. Just as technology MADE music sell-able, it is now making it less financially viable as a "business". Genuine musicians won't quit when they find there is less money in it. No sense fighting social and technological change for the sake of maintaining the current norm.
Piracy is what lead the way for DJs, music is not about art or the actual music, its about the show you can bring, DJs are lousy musicians but they have big performances with fireworks and tons of people dancing and shit, they do not bring music, they bring entertainment, its why some people claim that music is dead when in actuality it just brings the entertainers to the top and the artiststs to the bottom
don't put all dj's in same box, or you dont know what is dj
+jeppep95 All music artists are only as good as their last production or performance. These guys (Lars Ulrich minded individuals) are pissed because they can't figure out a way to get a royalty from you if you even do so much as to think of their song, let alone begin whistling it while walking down the street or sing it in your shower!
In popular culture, you're probably right. But there are still millions of people out there that prefer the music as an art form over how well you can put on a show, including myself.
You're a fucking idiot . Lars ulrich doesn't want metsllica music to be given away for free without permission. It's not even about money. It's about control. How do u not understand.!?? Fuckers like you complain about rich rock stars, but would you be ok with someone stealing YOUR shit because you have enough so u can take the loss?? THINK YOU FUCKING IDIOT
Alan Lloyd of course it's about money. Control is just an excuse. Lars and Metallica at this stage were not artists. They were corporate guys who profited from the Metallica corporation. And that's ok, nobody is forced to buy their music or go to their shows. Just dont come out and say it is not about money.
That's exactly what I'm doing for them, like I just said. But free downloads are actually supported by many newer bands I know, since they allow their music to gain much more popularity since listeners don't have to pay for it to listen to it, until they realize they really like the music and pay for a full album or the single.
A deeply interesting debate all round, and great that they were so respectful to each other's points while disagreeing HOWEVER....
When Chuck mentions the outfield, is he talking about dropping M&Ms or Eminems?
Because technically speaking both metaphors would be applicable in that situation....
Lars was right in my opinion, by the way, the music industry is now far more accessible (as per Chuck D's point) however this has meant the market is flooded and people consume music in the same way that they consume fast food, they don't even notice the taste most of the time, just get it in, move on, they digest the hard work of thousands of artists to the point now that noone is really listening anymore, and musicians who could be considered to have 'made it' in old skool talk still have to work a day job to support themselves.
Lars had the greater foresight, and I respect that, Chuck D saw the potential in the technology and although that ended up being to the detriment of the industry, I totally get his point and respect him hugely for making it so eloquently.
A good debate should always leave you questioning why, not siding with one or the other, that just means there was no strong argument on one of the sides to begin with.
The majority of money from record sales doesn't go to artists though, it goes to labels. Most major artists make their profit off touring, merchandise, etc.. not record sales. The internet has made it possible for indie artists to profit without a label. Over 16 billion songs have been sold on iTunes. Don't believe the record industry propaganda. Even Lars has softened his stance on file sharing:
"At this point, if kids can get their hands on the music.. it's a great thing."
- Lars Ulrich
Look at the music now? The whole SOPA PIPA thing? Everyone remember that, the industry is falling, Lars knows whats going on, the industry is falling, and everyone seems to forget that Napster is gone now, so he did do something right, and people were actually with him on it. No one has ever mentioned the bands sadly, but the Napster site is gone. You can have your opinion , i dig it, I respect it.
“Theft of property” well technically no because Lars/Metallica/A musician is not being permanently deprived of anything. That goes for all intellectual property.
Chuck D has always been ahead of the curve when it comes to the internet
The problem here is that Napster was using popular, established bands like Metallica to draw people to their website. This business about other, smaller, less established bands using the service to get their music out to the public was really just an ancillary issue. Unless you are a record label, you have to function as you own marketing and publicity department, and there are tons of bands out there on the internet waiting to be discovered.
And regarding all bands I mentioned that you never head about ... I know you never heard about them. That's why you think music is going downhill. Stop being lazy and visit some REAL websites and forums dedicated to music (I recommend metalstorm) and you'll see that there are DOZENS of wonderful NEW bands that are doing just fine with this new "model" of people downloading everything. And they're not broke, or poor. They're just not "big" as Kiss ... but who says they need to be?
How did his argument fall apart? It's clear he was way ahead of the curve on this issue, while Lars was still stuck in the 80's. Lars has even come around and admitted he was wrong about file sharing.
What exactly has spun out of control? The only thing spinning out of control are the record companies trying desperately to cling to their old profit format while the internet swallows them whole.